Barack Obama threatens to withdraw support from wavering Democrats

So what is your answer to people who have pre-existing conditions? What do you tell someone who beat cancer when they were 14 and now must try to find insurance as a young adult?

I dont think you get it...I am all for eliminating pre-exisitng condition clauses.

I just dont think it is possible without creating a government plan OR making a mandate for all people to buy insurance at birth......

ANd I can not see such a mandate making it past the very first appeal.

If you have large enough insurance pools, people with pre-existing conditions could get coverage. Yes, I think people should be covered from birth. I think you should be able to carry a policy for life if you choose. You have a policy with an insurer, not requiring your employer to sponser you. Right now, kids get kicked out when they are 24. Pre-existing condition or not.
Someone with a pre-existing condition is not cheating and should not be treated like a criminal or an outcast

I agree as it pertains to PE COnditions. But I do not agree with the mandate. It is not constitutional and it is unprecedented....and more importantly...it will set a precedent that can and will open the doors to bigger issues for us down the road.

But we must be careful RW...if that mandate is passed as a solution to the PE condition extermination that will increase risk to the insurer....what will we do if andf when the mandate is repealed...likely by the SCOTUS....

AT that point, rates will skyrocket as people will bow out of iunsurance and only sign up when they find out they need it.

So we must have a solution that is valid....or we will not be able to afford to sustain the system.
 
I dont think you get it...I am all for eliminating pre-exisitng condition clauses.

I just dont think it is possible without creating a government plan OR making a mandate for all people to buy insurance at birth......

ANd I can not see such a mandate making it past the very first appeal.

If you have large enough insurance pools, people with pre-existing conditions could get coverage. Yes, I think people should be covered from birth. I think you should be able to carry a policy for life if you choose. You have a policy with an insurer, not requiring your employer to sponser you. Right now, kids get kicked out when they are 24. Pre-existing condition or not.
Someone with a pre-existing condition is not cheating and should not be treated like a criminal or an outcast

I agree as it pertains to PE COnditions. But I do not agree with the mandate. It is not constitutional and it is unprecedented....and more importantly...it will set a precedent that can and will open the doors to bigger issues for us down the road.

But we must be careful RW...if that mandate is passed as a solution to the PE condition extermination that will increase risk to the insurer....what will we do if andf when the mandate is repealed...likely by the SCOTUS....

AT that point, rates will skyrocket as people will bow out of iunsurance and only sign up when they find out they need it.

So we must have a solution that is valid....or we will not be able to afford to sustain the system.

I agree ....it is like having a tiger by the tail
You can't have a pre-existing condition clause without a corresponding mandate.

Pass the bill and let the SCOTUS take it away if it does not pass muster. I have a feeling that it will. There is a mandate for Social Security and Medicare and that has yet to topple
 
If you have large enough insurance pools, people with pre-existing conditions could get coverage. Yes, I think people should be covered from birth. I think you should be able to carry a policy for life if you choose. You have a policy with an insurer, not requiring your employer to sponser you. Right now, kids get kicked out when they are 24. Pre-existing condition or not.
Someone with a pre-existing condition is not cheating and should not be treated like a criminal or an outcast

I agree as it pertains to PE COnditions. But I do not agree with the mandate. It is not constitutional and it is unprecedented....and more importantly...it will set a precedent that can and will open the doors to bigger issues for us down the road.

But we must be careful RW...if that mandate is passed as a solution to the PE condition extermination that will increase risk to the insurer....what will we do if andf when the mandate is repealed...likely by the SCOTUS....

AT that point, rates will skyrocket as people will bow out of iunsurance and only sign up when they find out they need it.

So we must have a solution that is valid....or we will not be able to afford to sustain the system.

I agree ....it is like having a tiger by the tail
You can't have a pre-existing condition clause without a corresponding mandate.

Pass the bill and let the SCOTUS take it away if it does not pass muster. I have a feeling that it will. There is a mandate for Social Security and Medicare and that has yet to topple

SS and Med have not been repealed as they were labeld and collected as taxes.

No comparison to the government mandating that we buy something from private industry that will make a profit onus being forced to buy it.

It will be easily repealed...and leave the PE Condition thing in tact....and then we are really going to be in over our heads.

We need to find a different solution.
 
Like I said......I see the solutions and yes, they will do what needs to be done....ensure all are covered and ensure no one is denied due to pre-existing conditions.

What you seem to be avoiding is the topic of the ramifications of those solutions...they can be devastating....and I have no doubt the dems know this....but why are they not addressing them? Why are you not interested in addressing them?

You're coming from the premise that insurance companies have been charging a fair operating price and have raised premiums only because costs are high for them. That is not the case, healthcare costs too much but only for the consumer. Insurance companies have been living high off the hog.

They are gouging the public because the public has no other recourse than to do business with them.

The answer is to force them to do the right thing and to not assume that they will be fair. Don't ask me to join you in your sympathetic reaction to them. They need to rethink their fuzzy math.

So, in other words, all you have are talking points. You know for sure that insurance companies are way overcharging? Interesting, because if such were the case, Obama would have presented the actual numbers...as I am sure they exst.

The nmumber I am referring to is "profit per capita per year per insured"

Any company involved in a service that rewquires risk management has that number and is constantly monitoring that number....and yes, congress has access tot hese numbers threough the lobbyists...

So why hasn't Obama released that number if, in fact, it is damning? Afterall, it would shut up the opposition...yet all he does is talk about profits in DOLLARS...which in itself is disingenuous as it does not reflect the actual profit per monay laid out.

To profit 10 doillars when it cost you 9 dollars is not the same as a profit of 10 dollars when it cost you 5 dollars to earn it.

Why is the profit in dollars the only number he refers to?

I said no talking points sarah....giver me your own personla thoughts on this based on facts.......or maybe you cant?

:lol: Same old shit over and over with you... You're assuming that anyone but you thinks you're debating anything. This is just more of your unresponsive blather.
 
'Money' won't help a vote of yes for an unpopular bill.

Dems had 'a lot of money' in Jersey, Virginia and Mass and still lost after Barry showed up.

Saying he raises a lot of 'money' smells of trying to buy an election for someone who doesn't deserve it.

That is real desperation.
New campaign slogan: Desperation and bullying we can believe in! :lol:
 
I agree as it pertains to PE COnditions. But I do not agree with the mandate. It is not constitutional and it is unprecedented....and more importantly...it will set a precedent that can and will open the doors to bigger issues for us down the road.

But we must be careful RW...if that mandate is passed as a solution to the PE condition extermination that will increase risk to the insurer....what will we do if andf when the mandate is repealed...likely by the SCOTUS....

AT that point, rates will skyrocket as people will bow out of iunsurance and only sign up when they find out they need it.

So we must have a solution that is valid....or we will not be able to afford to sustain the system.

I agree ....it is like having a tiger by the tail
You can't have a pre-existing condition clause without a corresponding mandate.

Pass the bill and let the SCOTUS take it away if it does not pass muster. I have a feeling that it will. There is a mandate for Social Security and Medicare and that has yet to topple

SS and Med have not been repealed as they were labeld and collected as taxes.

No comparison to the government mandating that we buy something from private industry that will make a profit onus being forced to buy it.

It will be easily repealed...and leave the PE Condition thing in tact....and then we are really going to be in over our heads.

We need to find a different solution.

All the more reason for a public option.

I still think it will pass muster. We will see
 
You're coming from the premise that insurance companies have been charging a fair operating price and have raised premiums only because costs are high for them. That is not the case, healthcare costs too much but only for the consumer. Insurance companies have been living high off the hog.

They are gouging the public because the public has no other recourse than to do business with them.

The answer is to force them to do the right thing and to not assume that they will be fair. Don't ask me to join you in your sympathetic reaction to them. They need to rethink their fuzzy math.

So, in other words, all you have are talking points. You know for sure that insurance companies are way overcharging? Interesting, because if such were the case, Obama would have presented the actual numbers...as I am sure they exst.

The nmumber I am referring to is "profit per capita per year per insured"

Any company involved in a service that rewquires risk management has that number and is constantly monitoring that number....and yes, congress has access tot hese numbers threough the lobbyists...

So why hasn't Obama released that number if, in fact, it is damning? Afterall, it would shut up the opposition...yet all he does is talk about profits in DOLLARS...which in itself is disingenuous as it does not reflect the actual profit per monay laid out.

To profit 10 doillars when it cost you 9 dollars is not the same as a profit of 10 dollars when it cost you 5 dollars to earn it.

Why is the profit in dollars the only number he refers to?

I said no talking points sarah....giver me your own personla thoughts on this based on facts.......or maybe you cant?

:lol: Same old shit over and over with you... You're assuming that anyone but you thinks you're debating anything. This is just more of your unresponsive blather.

Wow....are you serious with this?

So in other words, you just can not debate. You simply offer up talking points.

Interwestingly, RW and I do not see eye to eye at all on things...but he was able to have a fair debate about this with me.

Why was he able to answer me with non talking points and get from me a non talking point response....yet all you have are talking poiints.,...and then blame ME!!!!!!

You are way too immature for this type of debate. Go back to your cubby hole Sarah. I am disappointed.....but not surprised.
 
I agree ....it is like having a tiger by the tail
You can't have a pre-existing condition clause without a corresponding mandate.

Pass the bill and let the SCOTUS take it away if it does not pass muster. I have a feeling that it will. There is a mandate for Social Security and Medicare and that has yet to topple

SS and Med have not been repealed as they were labeld and collected as taxes.

No comparison to the government mandating that we buy something from private industry that will make a profit onus being forced to buy it.

It will be easily repealed...and leave the PE Condition thing in tact....and then we are really going to be in over our heads.

We need to find a different solution.

All the more reason for a public option.

I still think it will pass muster. We will see

Exactly how I see it. The PO is the only solution.

That being said, it will cost us much...and I am OK with it...but why cant the congress be straight forward with it? Tell us the dilemma as I just laid out, show us the solutions as you and I did...and then ask what other option is the other than the public option.

No one will have another option and we will have a majority vote.

Enough of the fucking games congress...call a spade a spade...and explain it...but dont sugar coat it....yes, it will cost us more...all of us...but it is all we can do to rectify the problem!

Whats wrong with saying that?
 
Last edited:
I agree as it pertains to PE COnditions. But I do not agree with the mandate. It is not constitutional and it is unprecedented....and more importantly...it will set a precedent that can and will open the doors to bigger issues for us down the road.

But we must be careful RW...if that mandate is passed as a solution to the PE condition extermination that will increase risk to the insurer....what will we do if andf when the mandate is repealed...likely by the SCOTUS....

AT that point, rates will skyrocket as people will bow out of iunsurance and only sign up when they find out they need it.

So we must have a solution that is valid....or we will not be able to afford to sustain the system.

I agree ....it is like having a tiger by the tail
You can't have a pre-existing condition clause without a corresponding mandate.

Pass the bill and let the SCOTUS take it away if it does not pass muster. I have a feeling that it will. There is a mandate for Social Security and Medicare and that has yet to topple

SS and Med have not been repealed as they were labeld and collected as taxes.

No comparison to the government mandating that we buy something from private industry that will make a profit onus being forced to buy it.

It will be easily repealed...and leave the PE Condition thing in tact....and then we are really going to be in over our heads.

We need to find a different solution.

If this is the case won't they then go with trying to put in a public option? Wasn't that part of the point of the public option?

eta, never mind. I was too slow in posting, just saw your response to RW.
 
Last edited:
I agree ....it is like having a tiger by the tail
You can't have a pre-existing condition clause without a corresponding mandate.

Pass the bill and let the SCOTUS take it away if it does not pass muster. I have a feeling that it will. There is a mandate for Social Security and Medicare and that has yet to topple

SS and Med have not been repealed as they were labeld and collected as taxes.

No comparison to the government mandating that we buy something from private industry that will make a profit onus being forced to buy it.

It will be easily repealed...and leave the PE Condition thing in tact....and then we are really going to be in over our heads.

We need to find a different solution.

If this is the case won't they then go with trying to put in a public option? Wasn't that part of the point of the public option?

eta, never mind. I was too slow in post, just saw your response to RW.

Yes....and the time has come for them to present it that way.

Coming from a conservative...

The right has been claiming the PO is nothing but a control grab for the dems.

Truth is, it is the only solution if we are to elimninate pre existing coindition clauses.

And it will cost us lots of money.

Call a spade a spade...explain why the PO is needed ; admit to the increase in costs it will create for us.....and explain why it must be done.....so a 24 year old who had survived lukemia as a child can still get insuracne once he is 24 years old and knocked off his parents policy.

It is a valid reason for reform...and the PO as we just debated, is a valid and ONLY solution to the drastic increase in insurance costs....but it will cost us more and only those with no heart would argue against it in favor of the almighty dollar

Im just sick of the spinning of the right and the dodging of the left......call a spade a fucking spade and move on already.
 
Last edited:
I wonder whether they are:

a. Shocked.
b. Surprised.
c. Relieved.
d. All of the above.

Lucky Dems!

I am glad they own this clown. Reminds me of a kid having a tantrum when they don't get their way. Unfortunantly this 'kid' can do a lot of damage on the way. Lack of experience breeds disaster, regardless how 'brilliant' one is.
 
And sarah G...you may use a sweet innocent avatar to give a a false impression of your demeanor...but you wouldnt know a fair debate if it hit you in the face.
You are one of nothing but talking points and rhetoric and had nothing of consequence to add to the debate.
I suggest you learn to learn. It will do you wonders.
Funny thing....you were correct with your final sentiments...but have no idea why you are for what you are for.It is pathetic.
 
Last edited:
SS and Med have not been repealed as they were labeld and collected as taxes.

No comparison to the government mandating that we buy something from private industry that will make a profit onus being forced to buy it.

It will be easily repealed...and leave the PE Condition thing in tact....and then we are really going to be in over our heads.

We need to find a different solution.

All the more reason for a public option.

I still think it will pass muster. We will see

Exactly how I see it. The PO is the only solution.

That being said, it will cost us much...and I am OK with it...but why cant the congress be straight forward with it? Tell us the dilemma as I just laid out, show us the solutions as you and I did...and then ask what other option is the other than the public option.

No one will have another option and we will have a majority vote.

Enough of the fucking games congress...call a spade a spade...and explain it...but dont sugar coat it....yes, it will cost us more...all of us...but it is all we can do to rectify the problem!

Whats wrong with saying that?

For me, I would just as soon go with a National Health Care plan

I met a guy from England last year and got around to talking about healthcare. He said, from his perspective, he loved it. He received a Healthcare number when he was born and has never seen a doctors bill in his life. He said he had heart surgery last year and just gave them his number and never saw a bill.

I would take a National plan just for that. My wife had a heart procedure done last year and I had bills and insurance claims 3/4 inch thick. I had to fight with the doctors, the insurers, the hospital...all who said "just pay the bill and work it out later". I am still fighting who pays some of the claims.

I would love to just be able to go to a doctor, have him fix whats wrong and be done with the process
 
All the more reason for a public option.

I still think it will pass muster. We will see

Exactly how I see it. The PO is the only solution.

That being said, it will cost us much...and I am OK with it...but why cant the congress be straight forward with it? Tell us the dilemma as I just laid out, show us the solutions as you and I did...and then ask what other option is the other than the public option.

No one will have another option and we will have a majority vote.

Enough of the fucking games congress...call a spade a spade...and explain it...but dont sugar coat it....yes, it will cost us more...all of us...but it is all we can do to rectify the problem!

Whats wrong with saying that?

For me, I would just as soon go with a National Health Care plan

I met a guy from England last year and got around to talking about healthcare. He said, from his perspective, he loved it. He received a Healthcare number when he was born and has never seen a doctors bill in his life. He said he had heart surgery last year and just gave them his number and never saw a bill.

I would take a National plan just for that. My wife had a heart procedure done last year and I had bills and insurance claims 3/4 inch thick. I had to fight with the doctors, the insurers, the hospital...all who said "just pay the bill and work it out later". I am still fighting who pays some of the claims.

I would love to just be able to go to a doctor, have him fix whats wrong and be done with the process

And your wife? Up and about? How is she doing?
 
Exactly how I see it. The PO is the only solution.

That being said, it will cost us much...and I am OK with it...but why cant the congress be straight forward with it? Tell us the dilemma as I just laid out, show us the solutions as you and I did...and then ask what other option is the other than the public option.

No one will have another option and we will have a majority vote.

Enough of the fucking games congress...call a spade a spade...and explain it...but dont sugar coat it....yes, it will cost us more...all of us...but it is all we can do to rectify the problem!

Whats wrong with saying that?

For me, I would just as soon go with a National Health Care plan

I met a guy from England last year and got around to talking about healthcare. He said, from his perspective, he loved it. He received a Healthcare number when he was born and has never seen a doctors bill in his life. He said he had heart surgery last year and just gave them his number and never saw a bill.

I would take a National plan just for that. My wife had a heart procedure done last year and I had bills and insurance claims 3/4 inch thick. I had to fight with the doctors, the insurers, the hospital...all who said "just pay the bill and work it out later". I am still fighting who pays some of the claims.

I would love to just be able to go to a doctor, have him fix whats wrong and be done with the process

And your wife? Up and about? How is she doing?

Thanks for asking. Her heart is much better than before.

It just amazes me how complicated and frustrating dealing with the insurance companies and Doctors can be. The Doctors just say "Your insurance didn't pay, so you make up the difference"

They really wear you down to the point you say "Screw it, I'll just pay"
 
Last edited:
For me, I would just as soon go with a National Health Care plan

I met a guy from England last year and got around to talking about healthcare. He said, from his perspective, he loved it. He received a Healthcare number when he was born and has never seen a doctors bill in his life. He said he had heart surgery last year and just gave them his number and never saw a bill.

I would take a National plan just for that. My wife had a heart procedure done last year and I had bills and insurance claims 3/4 inch thick. I had to fight with the doctors, the insurers, the hospital...all who said "just pay the bill and work it out later". I am still fighting who pays some of the claims.

I would love to just be able to go to a doctor, have him fix whats wrong and be done with the process

And your wife? Up and about? How is she doing?

Thanks for asking. Her heart is much better than before.

It just amazes me how complicated and frustrating dealing with the insurance companies and Doctors can be. The Doctors just say "Your insurance didn't pay, so you make up the difference"

They really wears you down to the point you say "Screw it, I'll just pay"

Sadly, it is that way with everything we do.
And they all assume you will say "screw it, my credit is too important to me"...

Glad she is doing better. Too bad for her she has to live with you!:eusa_whistle:
 
All the more reason for a public option.

I still think it will pass muster. We will see

Exactly how I see it. The PO is the only solution.

That being said, it will cost us much...and I am OK with it...but why cant the congress be straight forward with it? Tell us the dilemma as I just laid out, show us the solutions as you and I did...and then ask what other option is the other than the public option.

No one will have another option and we will have a majority vote.

Enough of the fucking games congress...call a spade a spade...and explain it...but dont sugar coat it....yes, it will cost us more...all of us...but it is all we can do to rectify the problem!

Whats wrong with saying that?

For me, I would just as soon go with a National Health Care plan

I met a guy from England last year and got around to talking about healthcare. He said, from his perspective, he loved it. He received a Healthcare number when he was born and has never seen a doctors bill in his life. He said he had heart surgery last year and just gave them his number and never saw a bill.

I would take a National plan just for that. My wife had a heart procedure done last year and I had bills and insurance claims 3/4 inch thick. I had to fight with the doctors, the insurers, the hospital...all who said "just pay the bill and work it out later". I am still fighting who pays some of the claims.

I would love to just be able to go to a doctor, have him fix whats wrong and be done with the process

That's actually funny. Most Brits would also love to just be able to go see a doctor. They can't. It takes days in some areas. They call it the 'post code lottery' - the service you get depends where you live. Some areas are ok, some are dire. People die waiting for standard operations. You think their system is so wonderful, try experiencing it. The Brits know nothing else so they like it. But I pay towards their NHS system = I sure as hell wouldn't use it though. I pay private insurance and use that. I see a doctor when I want to and get seen quickly and efficiently. Their beloved NHS is the 4th largest employer in the WORLD.... for a country the size of Britain!!! Can you imagine what that would be in the US?

Honestly, you have no idea what you're talking about.
 
Exactly how I see it. The PO is the only solution.

That being said, it will cost us much...and I am OK with it...but why cant the congress be straight forward with it? Tell us the dilemma as I just laid out, show us the solutions as you and I did...and then ask what other option is the other than the public option.

No one will have another option and we will have a majority vote.

Enough of the fucking games congress...call a spade a spade...and explain it...but dont sugar coat it....yes, it will cost us more...all of us...but it is all we can do to rectify the problem!

Whats wrong with saying that?

For me, I would just as soon go with a National Health Care plan

I met a guy from England last year and got around to talking about healthcare. He said, from his perspective, he loved it. He received a Healthcare number when he was born and has never seen a doctors bill in his life. He said he had heart surgery last year and just gave them his number and never saw a bill.

I would take a National plan just for that. My wife had a heart procedure done last year and I had bills and insurance claims 3/4 inch thick. I had to fight with the doctors, the insurers, the hospital...all who said "just pay the bill and work it out later". I am still fighting who pays some of the claims.

I would love to just be able to go to a doctor, have him fix whats wrong and be done with the process

That's actually funny. Most Brits would also love to just be able to go see a doctor. They can't. It takes days in some areas. They call it the 'post code lottery' - the service you get depends where you live. Some areas are ok, some are dire. People die waiting for standard operations. You think their system is so wonderful, try experiencing it. The Brits know nothing else so they like it. But I pay towards their NHS system = I sure as hell wouldn't use it though. I pay private insurance and use that. I see a doctor when I want to and get seen quickly and efficiently. Their beloved NHS is the 4th largest employer in the WORLD.... for a country the size of Britain!!! Can you imagine what that would be in the US?

Honestly, you have no idea what you're talking about.

A national plan is not an answer...AT ALL!
A public option may be the only direction if we are to isnure those with pre-existing conditions. I can not see any other alternative.
 
And your wife? Up and about? How is she doing?

Thanks for asking. Her heart is much better than before.

It just amazes me how complicated and frustrating dealing with the insurance companies and Doctors can be. The Doctors just say "Your insurance didn't pay, so you make up the difference"

They really wears you down to the point you say "Screw it, I'll just pay"

Sadly, it is that way with everything we do.
And they all assume you will say "screw it, my credit is too important to me"...

Glad she is doing better. Too bad for her she has to live with you!:eusa_whistle:

I have to agree with you. I really don't deserve her
 

Forum List

Back
Top