RE: AMA & AARP endorse House health care bills (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

tazzygirl -> RE: AMA & AARP endorse House health care bills (11/11/2009 5:34:10 PM)

I make no case for the bill other than health care should never have been allowed to become for profit. The greedier got greedier, the sick get sicker, and no one, as evidenced by the many posts on numerous threads, gives a damn because they "got" theirs.

So while you settle back and whine for you fellow scrooges, the rest of us will shuffle along till we are allowed to bask in the lime light of what might have been, while we mourn the loss of those dying beneath the mighty weight of corporate america.

Its a pendulum. And its swinging back again. We dealt with the tax cuts for the rich and the war effort that wasnt a war. And the gas gouging at the pumps. ect ect ect.

The rich got tax cuts. the poor got more benefits. and in the middle... are the rest of us... who people thought would just roll over and play dead, or beg to be fucked some more. We waited for improvement... ever since Clinton. Gotta tell ya, they aint coming from corporate america.

So, we are hoping to push through the changes ourselves.

and if you get fucked in the process?

...welcome to the reality we were forced to live with for years.



Mercnbeth -> RE: AMA & AARP endorse House health care bills (11/11/2009 5:45:48 PM)

quote:

So while you settle back and whine for you fellow scrooges, the rest of us will shuffle along till we are allowed to bask in the lime light of what might have been, while we mourn the loss of those dying beneath the mighty weight of corporate America.
My "whine" is directed to benefiting the exact people you clam to detest "Corporate America". Specifically those in the heath care business will be getting paid from some source for 45 Million new customers many who don't want or pay for health care currently but will have to pay or perhaps go to jail under this Bill. Whether you like it or not - that's what you're celebrating.

I'm trying to find out exactly how many people are in those circumstances advertised by those advocating the Bill; specially the 'uninsurable'. However I see that if the focus was really put on them it pains people to realize how small a percentage of people that represents and how many other better ways there would be to eliminate that issue without requiring a new bureaucracy or this Bill.

How do you manage to convince yourself this is improvement?

quote:

and if you get fucked in the process?
Me? I get a net benefit from this. I won't have to pay ever increasing costs for my employees. I'm giving them in pay raise what I pay now - and I'm done with the process. That's a fucking I enjoy! Thanks for the thought though.



tazzygirl -> RE: AMA & AARP endorse House health care bills (11/11/2009 6:09:40 PM)

quote:

perhaps go to jail under this Bill


There is no jail sentence.

quote:

I'm trying to find out exactly how many people are in those circumstances advertised by those advocating the Bill; specially the 'uninsurable'.


I answered that.

quote:

Me? I get a net benefit from this. I won't have to pay ever increasing costs for my employees. I'm giving them in pay raise what I pay now - and I'm done with the process. That's a fucking I enjoy! Thanks for the thought though.


Depending on how many employees you have and the amount of your payroll, you may have a wait till you get that enjoyable fucking. Grab some lube though.



Mercnbeth -> RE: AMA & AARP endorse House health care bills (11/11/2009 6:16:00 PM)

There is no jail sentence. No kidding? That's why I used "perhaps". I only bring it up because the President didn't exclude it from consideration per:

During an exclusive interview with ABC News Jake Tapper today, President Obama said that penalties are appropriate for people who try to 'free ride' the health care system but stopped short of endorsing the threat of jail time for those who refuse to pay a fine for not having insurance.

quote:

. Grab some lube though.
I'll make sure to bring enough for all the fools celebrating this as a 'victory for the common man'!



tazzygirl -> RE: AMA & AARP endorse House health care bills (11/11/2009 6:18:26 PM)

LOL... guess my numbers didnt match what you expected. typical



LadyPact -> RE: AMA & AARP endorse House health care bills (11/11/2009 6:43:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

I make no case for the bill other than health care should never have been allowed to become for profit. The greedier got greedier, the sick get sicker, and no one, as evidenced by the many posts on numerous threads, gives a damn because they "got" theirs.

So while you settle back and whine for you fellow scrooges, the rest of us will shuffle along till we are allowed to bask in the lime light of what might have been, while we mourn the loss of those dying beneath the mighty weight of corporate america.

Its a pendulum. And its swinging back again. We dealt with the tax cuts for the rich and the war effort that wasnt a war. And the gas gouging at the pumps. ect ect ect.

The rich got tax cuts. the poor got more benefits. and in the middle... are the rest of us... who people thought would just roll over and play dead, or beg to be fucked some more. We waited for improvement... ever since Clinton. Gotta tell ya, they aint coming from corporate america.

So, we are hoping to push through the changes ourselves.

and if you get fucked in the process?

...welcome to the reality we were forced to live with for years.



So, basically what you are saying here is, because some of us did our part, and took care of our own responsibilities, too bad if we get fucked now?  If so, what makes you any better than we supposed Scrooge's that your post describes as whining now?







tazzygirl -> RE: AMA & AARP endorse House health care bills (11/11/2009 6:50:00 PM)

LP, i have no clue what your situation is, what you have done, or what you havent. I do know people are turned down daily, have had their policies cancelled, told they dont qualify, or had their employer based policies changed. These are also people who have struggled and tried to do what was right... and are getting fucked by those they trusted to be there when they needed them. And i took care of my responsibilities. I pay my bills. And i pay the added increase in those bills because others do not pay their bills, just like you pay the added increase, just like everyone who has insurance.

But thats just peachy because you are paying the hospital, and its not a "free ride". And those without can be looked down upon because they have, of course, shirked their responsibilities.

Starting to sound like Dr Seus.



Mercnbeth -> RE: AMA & AARP endorse House health care bills (11/11/2009 7:30:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

LOL... guess my numbers didnt match what you expected. typical

What I expected? What the hell has that got to do with anything?

The point is use of resources and this Bill being the only method of correcting a problem for, even with your numbers, a very small portion of the US population. Your hysterics notwithstanding, your numbers prove my point.



tazzygirl -> RE: AMA & AARP endorse House health care bills (11/11/2009 7:31:41 PM)

If its such a small number... and, to be honest, that number is growing as more people find themselves on the unemployment line... and growing even more as the insurance companies keep denying benefits...why are you so worried?



Mercnbeth -> RE: AMA & AARP endorse House health care bills (11/11/2009 7:35:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

If its such a small number... and, to be honest, that number is growing as more people find themselves on the unemployment line... and growing even more as the insurance companies keep denying benefits...why are you so worried?


Where did you pick up "worry"? You mistake me for someone having an agenda earmarked by party affiliation. Mine is a pragmatic position. Why create an entire new bureaucracy for one issue better solved by eliminating one provision from an already nationally regulated industry. Think the Politburo members of both parties may have a different agenda like personal power and gain?

I wonder why you think the Bill proposed as a solution to any number or even the growing problem, benefits anyone?

Your point about denying benefits is the larger point. Change one law and the problem is eliminated without requiring 45 million new insurance policies to be written and paid for by someone. Why aren't you worried about that?



tazzygirl -> RE: AMA & AARP endorse House health care bills (11/11/2009 7:46:34 PM)

I dont think its sufficient. I think its at least a start. Not only am i interested on a personal level, but also a professional one.

Happen to notice the SC Supreme Court decision recently, awarding 10 million dollars for revoking insurance? People are plain tired of being treated this way. Whats really funny, in a bizzare way, is that many who have insurance think they are immune to this treatment.

I dont feel the bill goes far enough. Its only a matter of time. Might as well get used to the idea.



Mercnbeth -> RE: AMA & AARP endorse House health care bills (11/11/2009 8:08:09 PM)

quote:

Not only am i interested on a personal level, but also a professional one.
There you go - like many, you have an agenda, appreciate the disclosure. At least now it makes sense.
quote:

Happen to notice the SC Supreme Court decision recently, awarding 10 million dollars for revoking insurance?
Great! So? Another company will just pass on the claim to it's customers or close laying off more employees. Not surprised to see that as a cause of you celebrating. We're fundamentally different in that way.
quote:

Might as well get used to the idea.
That people and politicians have agendas motivated by personal gain? No need to get used to that - it's status quo.



tazzygirl -> RE: AMA & AARP endorse House health care bills (11/11/2009 8:13:28 PM)

Im hardly celebrating. A person had his insurance denied because of his health condition, a policy that was paid for in good faith, and a condition he never knew he had until he went to give blood. Some cold hearted bastard in an insurance company decided it was "good business" to pass out bonuses to those who could find reasons to deny care.... and you think im celebrating????

You motivation is money. Mine is people. Im glad we both have that exceedingly clear.



Mercnbeth -> RE: AMA & AARP endorse House health care bills (11/11/2009 10:18:10 PM)

quote:

an insurance company decided it was "good business" to pass out bonuses to those who could find reasons to deny care
Both the past two administrations made sure that happened by bailing out failures. It was never represented by me as being good business under either party.
quote:

You motivation is money. Mine is people. Im glad we both have that exceedingly clear.
What people? Those that share your agenda perhaps but no others. The solution to handle your issue is simple - eliminate the ability to cancel, not universal health care.

Yours is money motivated, you want someone else to pay. You represent your support for this as advancing your "profession". In that respect you're agenda is no different than any of the bailed out companies or their bonus rewarded leaders - money. It just happens to help some minority number of people at the expense of a much larger majority. Is that how you can rationalize your support?



NeedToUseYou -> RE: AMA & AARP endorse House health care bills (11/12/2009 1:47:32 AM)

You know this whole debate is ridiculous.

I've worked in Insurance.
I currently don't carry health insurance.
I currently make enough money that I would be forced to get a plan under the Obama rules.

The problem, with Insurance is almost wholly the concept of pre-existing conditions. It's a rather simple problem to solve, in that you don't allow pre-existing conditions to effect the purchase price, instead charge entirely based on Age, Sex, and or occupation. That eliminates most of what people complain about. You also make policies non-cancellable as long as the premiums are paid, and the premiums are entirely adjusted by group classifications when they do adjust, as in they can't just change an individuals rate.

Now, why don't I have insurance right now, well, I'm 33, the odds are pretty low I'd need it at present, or if I did get injured, the cost wouldn't be that significant. I however, have been pricing plans, and I plan next year to get an ultra high deductible plan (5000)

Here's one of the possible plans, this one is 82.00 a month. The price is not that bad, if you go with a high deductible plan, which is fine with me, as the only value in insurance for me is for catastrophic disease, like cancer. Couple that with a disability plan (to insure could pay the premiums if/when they go up if got ill), and I'm good to go. It won't be more than a couple hundred a month.

  • Plan Type
  • PPO
  • Office Visit for Primary Doctor
  • No Charge after deductible
  • Office Visit for Specialist
  • No Charge after deductible
  • Coinsurance
  • No Charge after deductible
  • Annual Deductible
  • Individual:$5,000
  • Separate Prescription Drugs Deductible
  • Medical Plan Deductible Applies
  • Prescription Drugs
  • Generic: No Charge after deductible

  • Brand: No Charge after deductible

  • Non-Formulary: No Charge after deductible
  • Annual Out-of-Pocket Limit
  • Individual:$5,000
    Includes deductible
  • Lifetime Maximum
  • $5 Million per person
  • Health Savings Account (HSA) Eligible
  • Yes (See HSA Administrators)
  • Out-of-Network Coverage
  • Yes  (Details in plan brochure below)
  • Out of Country Coverage
  • Yes. Paid as out-of-network benefits  [image]http://static.ehealthinsurance.com/ehealthinsurance/images_new/compare_newui/MagGlass.gif[/image]Find Doctors  (Search to see if your doctors are part of this plan's network.) The problem with insurance is people for some reason expect insurance to pay for every little thing, I've no desire for that, I just want it to protect for big events, you pay much less in those circumstances.




    • NeedToUseYou -> RE: AMA & AARP endorse House health care bills (11/12/2009 1:58:10 AM)

    adding another reply because editing was acting funky.

    for your standard low deductible 80/20 plan most people get, it would be 194.00 a month for me. Over twice as expensive, for essentially a low deductible.

    I don't want that, I'd rather save the 5000.00 dollars to cover the deductible and invest it in prosper.com or something.



    eyesopened -> RE: AMA & AARP endorse House health care bills (11/12/2009 3:58:50 AM)

    I don't see any easy answers.  But let me give two real-life examples.  I would be interested to see what solutions are offered.

    1).  A man carried health insurance for he and his wife through his employer.  His wife gets a rare cancer.  The treatment for the cancer and the life-sustaining (not symptom releive... LIFE sustaining) medications maxed out his insurance's $2mil life-time maximum.  He and his wife were without coverage with no hope to ever be covered again.  Fortunately, after 24 months of SSDI, the wife qualified for Medicare and got some releif.  However, the life-sustaining medication is thalidomide.  Liscensed for manufacture by only one drug company and carries a strict protocol of System for Thalidomide Education and Prescribing Safety (S.T.E.P.S) oversight program.  The durg company charges over $3,000 for a 30-day supply.  The man's retirement savings in nearly gone to pay for this medication and the on-going treatment of his wife.  He is uninsurable.  They both are in their late 40s.

    2).  My employer went out of business.  I was eligible for unemployemnt benefits of $225 per week.  I had two kids under the age of 13.  COBRA payments for my family were $440 per month.  Do the math.  My rent was only $425 and I was able to get $60 per month for food stamps but everything else was on my own dime.  Would it have been more responsibile to try to live without electricity, until I found a job while feeding 3 people of $95 a month, or was it more responsible to not pay for health care? 

    And furthermore, I found a lump in my breast.  If I found the money for a mammogram and it was cancer, I could not pay for treatment and then when I found a job, it would be pre-exisiting and I could not get coverage anyway.  If I did not get a mammogram and waited until I got a job and insurance, could I be shortening my life by not having an early diagnosis?  My doctor told me he would order a screening mammogram, I got gifted the money for it and thankfully it was nothing to worry about.  But these are real, everyday examples why something has to change.

    Ordering insurance companies to allow pre-existing conditions and to do away with lifetime maximums isn't the answer.  Insurance companies have to have enough cash reserves to cover ptotential claims and they would all go bankrupt in a hurry and we'd be bailing them out like AIG.

    The only think I can think of is to somehow get prices in line with reality.  Heathcare providers and hospitals have several charges for the same procedures depending on who you are or what insurance you have.  Pharmacutical companies sell a drug for less money in foreign countries than in the US.  "whatever the market will bear" should not apply to heath care.

    We have laws that prohibit usurious charges on loans.  I know this is capitalism but would it be so awful to prohibit usurious profits?  Let everyone make a profit of course but does any company have the right to make 500% profit on someone's life? 

    Greed has become the god most widely worshipped and adored.



    servantforuse -> RE: AMA & AARP endorse House health care bills (11/12/2009 6:06:57 AM)

    You are right Eyes, except for one thing. The government will not bail out the failed private insurance companies. They want them to fail. They want to control health payments for us all. The government option wil not be an option. It will be a way of life..



    tazzygirl -> RE: AMA & AARP endorse House health care bills (11/12/2009 6:34:27 AM)


    quote:

    ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

    quote:

    an insurance company decided it was "good business" to pass out bonuses to those who could find reasons to deny care
    Both the past two administrations made sure that happened by bailing out failures. It was never represented by me as being good business under either party.
    quote:

    You motivation is money. Mine is people. Im glad we both have that exceedingly clear.
    What people? Those that share your agenda perhaps but no others. The solution to handle your issue is simple - eliminate the ability to cancel, not universal health care.

    Yours is money motivated, you want someone else to pay. You represent your support for this as advancing your "profession". In that respect you're agenda is no different than any of the bailed out companies or their bonus rewarded leaders - money. It just happens to help some minority number of people at the expense of a much larger majority. Is that how you can rationalize your support?



    My profession is nursing. Money is hardly a driving force in that profession. Try again.



    willbeurdaddy -> RE: AMA & AARP endorse House health care bills (11/12/2009 6:54:49 AM)


    quote:

    ORIGINAL: philosophy


    quote:

    ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


    It could be argued that even the military could be provided more efficiently than the government does. However, since everyone benefits from the protection of the military, people can't be allowed to decide whether they will pay for it or not. similar for public schools, etc



    ...and following your own logic, it can equally be argued that universal health care also benefits the whole of society. Why exclude health from the same model you apparently apply to education, military, roads.....oh, and from one of your earlier posts, disease prevention?


    I already explained why.



    Page: <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>

    Valid CSS!




    Collarchat.com © 2025
    Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
    0.0625