Some insurers: No coverage for kids

[Bob Alkire]

You've made my point. Obama is forcing the companies to do something that essentially guarantees failure. Why? He wants them to fail. That allows him to set up the "single-payer system" to "rescue" us.

You are correct, brother. If they can't get it through the front door they bring it around back.

 

[Robert Snow]

You are correct, brother. If they can't get it through the front door they bring it around back.

That is what I am hoping for.

 

[Bob Alkire]

That is what I am hoping for.

I'm not!!!!

 

[rbell]

That is what I am hoping for.

Get back to us when you realize you've traded a flawed but decent system for a train wreck.

Remember the headache of the local DMV? Let that be translated to your doctor, surgeon, and staff that attends to your needs...

 

[Robert Snow]

Get back to us when you realize you've traded a flawed but decent system for a train wreck.

Remember the headache of the local DMV? Let that be translated to your doctor, surgeon, and staff that attends to your needs...

I don't have any trouble with the DMV. They always get my license information correct.

I look forward to when the uninsured have access to the same care those more fortunate, like yourself, have access to.

 

[targus]

That is what I am hoping for.

Are you also hoping for all that will come with it like...

Higher insurance premiums
Higher taxes
Higher unemployment
Waiting for care
Denial of care
Ect...

 

[Robert Snow]

Are you also hoping for all that will come with it like...

Higher insurance premiums
Higher taxes
Higher unemployment
Waiting for care
Denial of care
Ect...

I don't agree with you assessment.

 

[targus]

I don't agree with you assessment.

Which do you not agree with and why?

 

[Revmitchell]

Which do you not agree with and why?

Anything that shows the reality of the failed European socialist system.

 

[rbell]

I don't have any trouble with the DMV. They always get my license information correct.

I look forward to when the uninsured have access to the same care those more fortunate, like yourself, have access to.

So, would you disagree that on a very general basis...you are more or less likely to encounter good customer service from a government entity, or a private one? Be honest.

And let's address the "less fortunate" comment: There are many out there who really are unfortunate when it comes to medical care. I feel especially bad for those who, because of their physical problems, are in a no-win situation with regards to healthcare. I also feel for folks who have lost their healthcare due to job losses, or other financial hardships that are truly out of their control.


However, the "more fortunate, like yourself" comment bothers me on several levels:

• First of all, you don't know me or my story, so it's presumptuous and arrogant to assume that I have healthcare because I'm somehow "lucky." I've worked my tail off to get healthcare and keep it. Several thousand dollars of my money every year allow me to have it. And quite frankly, because I had the foresight several years ago as a very young adult to take care of my insurance needs, I've not fallen under the "pre-existing" condition issue that I could have. So to be blunt, I've been more wise than fortunate. Sorry if that makes your argument fall apart...although I suspect that you will still assert that I'm where I am due to "luck."
• Secondly, many people (and by "many" I mean thousands and thousands) end up in a mess because they aren't wise in handling their healthcare affairs. One of my former youth came to me for pre-marital (with her fiance'). They didn't have health insurance...and I told them to get it yesterday. My words were, "you never know when something like a baby will come along!" Their response was, "We will...but you know, we don't plan on having kids for a while." Well, you know where this is going. Oops. And it ended up being a high-risk pregnancy, and now they're in a mess financially. This is replayed over and over again. I gave you above the examples of folks I sympathize with. I sympathize much less with folks that, despite receiving good advice, sacrifice long-term for the short-term, and end up in a big hole.
• Third...Not everyone who is without health insurance is "less fortunate." I just gave you an example of folks who chose to do without. Illegals, for instance, should not get healthcare provided for them at taxpayer expense (except for life-saving measures). I pay a premium for my healthcare. Should others get the same healthcare, without paying for it?
• Finally...your wording continues to add to the myth that there are millions out there who simply can't get any healthcare at all. That's not true. Your local ER would disprove that in a hurry.

I don't agree with you assessment.

Disagree all you want. Your disagreement isn't even in the same area code as the facts. Do you honestly think that we can snap our fingers, offer healthcare for everybody (one out of four of them paying little or nothing for it)...and it won't cost anyone anything? That shows a stunning disgregard for the most elementary of economic principles.

 

[rbell]

A quick solution that would greatly improve things:

1. Repeal Obamacare.
2. Ending the discrimination against people who buy their health care privately (instead of through employers). It is unconscionable to give employers tax breaks for buying folks' insurance...then refusing to give individuals who can't buy through their employers the same treatment. All or nothing.
3. Replace all these stupid mandates with one common-sense plan: Stimulate competition among insurers by lifting laws that prevent competition across state lines.

But, of course...Marxists don't want our system to work. Then, we won't need Granddaddy Government to rescue us.

 

[windcatcher]

A quick solution that would greatly improve things:

1. Repeal Obamacare.
2. Ending the discrimination against people who buy their health care privately (instead of through employers). It is unconscionable to give employers tax breaks for buying folks' insurance...then refusing to give individuals who can't buy through their employers the same treatment. All or nothing.
3. Replace all these stupid mandates with one common-sense plan: Stimulate competition among insurers by lifting laws that prevent competition across state lines.

But, of course...Marxists don't want our system to work. Then, we won't need Granddaddy Government to rescue us.

Good points.
Hilighted..... the main reason many people who start out with their own insurance must abandon a policy when they get a job offer at a company which offers its own insurance benefit package.... an accept or reject offer which does not change the material compensation for labor. These policies used to end with employment.... then COBRA laws required an extension offered for about 18 months... provided the employee could pay the premium. The downside... the incentive to keep a private policy is removed by the triple whammy..... one doesn't get additional compensation in wages for refusing company policy; one can't reduce taxable income for the cost of insurance..... and must have itemizable deductions in excess of the standard before getting a tax break; many policies provided by employers consider a privately owned insurance is your primary.... and will not pay until your first insurance has paid: This means that any 'life time' caps applies to the owners policy..... and seldom does it reach or challenge the employer's policy.

Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagnosis-related_group briefly explains, in sterile terms, the DRGs which were part of tranforming Medicare payments into a uniform method of fee schedules. The real purpose was to create a predictability of cost .... low and high limits.... according to diagnosis... and to restrain cost within these limits. The effect was... a proportionate reward given to those hospitals which could reduce treatment days to the lower limits.... and less compensation in proportion to longer stays required as the result of ranges in patient response to treatment. Quite naturally, it may be deduced.. those hospitals serving a broad range of ages in population were ideally positioned... but those hospitals operating in an area with an aged population (where many retirees tend to reside) might see a dis-proportionate increase in days of treatment without a matching allowance for expense. Futhermore.... once a patient was admitted under one diagnosis, should further exams reveal a concurrent and possibly more significant health problem (but not an accepted complication under the former diagnosis)....the payments and resolution of the original diagnosis was expected before consideration of the concurrent condition. Wiki doesn't disclose the underlying principle of this was an attempt to project cost and control so-called 'unnecessary' expenses to Medcare: iow, it was an attempt to limit care and expense..... a type of rationing, which wasn't publically recognized or understood. Wiki recognizes the date as 1983.



The people who think that under Obama care they will get 'free health care' have a rude awakening coming. Free health care is not what's guaranteed.... and if it is what you get..... what do you get when the government is out of money and the doctors have left doctoring? Free may sound good... until you find you're paying taxes for something that is no longer available.

Hey, you who believe in Obama care..........
You eat also........?
Well here's one for you:

FREE MILK.
I guarantee you..... I'll give you free milk!
No strings...... no funny business.....
Line up and wait your turn.

It's yours for free......











When I have some.:thumbs: