Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
With all the talk of being mandated to carry insurance and premiums going up and the failure of third party payment, I'm curious how many of you do and don't have insurance right now. And for those of you who are insured, if you want to post who your insurer is that would be interesting, too.
I'll start. I'm insured through my employer in the small group market. I don't have a choice of insurers so I have Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield.
I have insurance through my employer.
Cigna is the carrier.
When I didn't have insurance I purchased my own.
This should reveal that the whining about mandating coverage is ridiculous because everyone who wants insurance should be able to get it. And why would you not want it?
This should reveal that the whining about mandating coverage is ridiculous because everyone who wants insurance should be able to get it. And why would you not want it?
So, if "everybody who wants insurance should be able to get it" then why do we need this health care bill? I thought that there were MILLIONS of Americans who wanted health care but couldn't get it, even with all of the County Hospitals which are required to treat people with no insurance, and the free clinics spread throughout the country?
Rick
Any healthy American between the ages of 20-40 for starters. I would bet my bottom dollar they would spend far more in premiums that what they actually use.
Catastrophic coverage is available to those under 30 who are buying in exchanges.
And the only think cheaper than catastrophic insurance would be no insurance. It may not be the choice you would make, but it ought to be the choice you have. I know they can purchase that kind of coverage. It still begs the question why we need to make people purchase insurance.
If you don't have insurance and get hit with a catastrophic injury or illness. You will be taken to the hospital and at the very least stabilized. Who do you think picks up the cost of the care you just received? Does the hospital eat the cost? No, those costs are filtered down to us through increased premiums and rates. So, you can whine all you want about the mandate but it has a definite purpose even if the complaints about it being "unconstitutional" are just a smokescreen.
The smokescreen is complaining about something that most people are going to purchase regardless of a mandate or not. Would you go without insurance if given the option?If you don't have insurance and get hit with a catastrophic injury or illness. You will be taken to the hospital and at the very least stabilized. Who do you think picks up the cost of the care you just received? Does the hospital eat the cost? No, those costs are filtered down to us through increased premiums and rates. So, you can whine all you want about the mandate but it has a definite purpose even if the complaints about it being "unconstitutional" are just a smokescreen.
It's no smokescreen. When you can find me the part of the consitutions that grants the federal government the authority to make people buy things from private companies, I'm more than willing to listen.
The higher costs come from the hospital having to absorb the costs of people without insurance, this causes them to lose money obviously. In turn to recoup these loses they raise what the charge for their services which gets passed on to everyone else including those who use insurance. The insurance companies now have to pay these higher costs to the hospitals which in turn lowers their profits. To recoup those lost earning, those costs are then passed on to the only people putting money in to the system......the people who have and pay for insurance. People like you (presumably) and me.As far as the cost filtering going to higher premums I guess I don't get that. Why would the insurance companies raise their rates on people who have their product because someone got treated who didn't have their product? If it results in higher anything to everyone else it would be higher taxes. Then we simply have to address how to keep that from happening. As always liberals can't solve simple problems for shit. Instead of penalzing the freedom of everyone else for the sake of those who don't pay for health care, how about we make those people pay for their health care? Crazy idea, huh?
That's the new law we ought to have. One that says you have to pay for services rendered. Do you expect to get away with not paying for your car being repaired if you don't have insurance? Of course not. If you don't have the money, you work out a payment plan of some type with the provider. We all inherently know the risk of not carrying insurance. You could get ill and it could cost you lot of money. Knowing that risk you, and only you, should incur the responsibility/cost of the consequences.
This should reveal that the whining about mandating coverage is ridiculous because everyone who wants insurance should be able to get it. And why would you not want it?
How would this be "another social program"? People would be buying private insurance under this mandate. If anything, this reform is giving MORE power to private insurance, which I actually don't like. But calling this legislation a social program is just incorrect.This should reveal that the whining about mandating coverage is ridiculous because everyone who wants insurance should be able to get it. And why would you not want it?
I want insurance. I do not have it as I am currently unemployed and COBRA is only for the rich or the desperately ill when they leave employment.
Despite that fact, I do not want health insurance to be mandated. I do believe that those who want it should be assisted in getting it (yes, I know my liberal tendencies are speaking there) and I for one am not opposed to providing insurance (or better yet medical necessities) for those who want it and can't afford it. What I am opposed to is forcing everyone to have it so that the socialists in our government can claim another social victory for a program that will eventually drain our economy dry.
As for increased taxes in order to provide those benefits, well, I am not opposed to increasing taxes to cover those expenses just as I am not (and was not when I was employed) opposed to helping out the needy. There are things that we as a nation should be happy to do for our brothers and sisters... keeping them alive and fed are two of those things. Providing a bridge to no where is not and neither is a museum in Minnesota or any of the other pork programs that have been shoved down our throats, two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is something else we can do without as well. But our brothers and sisters here in America are our responsibility or should be.
Immie
PS I know I will hear it about that last paragraph.
The smokescreen is complaining about something that most people are going to purchase regardless of a mandate or not. Would you go without insurance if given the option?
That's part of the problem we have. People are expected to pay, but unfortunately the costs are just too much for millions of people who are then forced to declare bankruptcy which is a major problem in this country. The number of bankruptcy due to medical bills is a REAL problem in this country. The scary part of that.....over half the people who have to declare bankruptcy due to medical costs actually DO have insurance. Now if that isn't proof that the health care system is severely broken, I don't know what is.
This should reveal that the whining about mandating coverage is ridiculous because everyone who wants insurance should be able to get it. And why would you not want it?
So, if "everybody who wants insurance should be able to get it" then why do we need this health care bill? I thought that there were MILLIONS of Americans who wanted health care but couldn't get it, even with all of the County Hospitals which are required to treat people with no insurance, and the free clinics spread throughout the country?
Rick
I said they should be, doesn't mean they could. That's one portion of what this reform aimed to address. Those county hospitals and free hospitals are never "free", those costs get passed on to.....wait for it.......everyone else who does pay insurance, thus raising our rates.
How would this be "another social program"? People would be buying private insurance under this mandate. If anything, this reform is giving MORE power to private insurance, which I actually don't like. But calling this legislation a social program is just incorrect.This should reveal that the whining about mandating coverage is ridiculous because everyone who wants insurance should be able to get it. And why would you not want it?
I want insurance. I do not have it as I am currently unemployed and COBRA is only for the rich or the desperately ill when they leave employment.
Despite that fact, I do not want health insurance to be mandated. I do believe that those who want it should be assisted in getting it (yes, I know my liberal tendencies are speaking there) and I for one am not opposed to providing insurance (or better yet medical necessities) for those who want it and can't afford it. What I am opposed to is forcing everyone to have it so that the socialists in our government can claim another social victory for a program that will eventually drain our economy dry.
As for increased taxes in order to provide those benefits, well, I am not opposed to increasing taxes to cover those expenses just as I am not (and was not when I was employed) opposed to helping out the needy. There are things that we as a nation should be happy to do for our brothers and sisters... keeping them alive and fed are two of those things. Providing a bridge to no where is not and neither is a museum in Minnesota or any of the other pork programs that have been shoved down our throats, two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is something else we can do without as well. But our brothers and sisters here in America are our responsibility or should be.
Immie
PS I know I will hear it about that last paragraph.
Couldn't agree more with this.
The smokescreen is complaining about something that most people are going to purchase regardless of a mandate or not. Would you go without insurance if given the option?
Personally? No. If I were my 26 year old brother who is healthy as an ox and hasn't needed to see a doctor in years, I might consider it. There is an age group which I think is probably 20-35 or so who just don't need it. I still don't find the fact that most people would do it anyway a compelling reason to mandate it. I know it's cliche in this cynical day and age but in terms of the precedent this would set I think it is important to stand on principle in this case.
That's part of the problem we have. People are expected to pay, but unfortunately the costs are just too much for millions of people who are then forced to declare bankruptcy which is a major problem in this country. The number of bankruptcy due to medical bills is a REAL problem in this country. The scary part of that.....over half the people who have to declare bankruptcy due to medical costs actually DO have insurance. Now if that isn't proof that the health care system is severely broken, I don't know what is.
I dont disagree with any of that. I think, just as you probably that people ought to be able to afford such an important service. I simply disagree that a government solution is the best solution, especially one that takes teh UNprecedented step of requiring all citizens to buy something.
So, if "everybody who wants insurance should be able to get it" then why do we need this health care bill? I thought that there were MILLIONS of Americans who wanted health care but couldn't get it, even with all of the County Hospitals which are required to treat people with no insurance, and the free clinics spread throughout the country?
Rick
I said they should be, doesn't mean they could. That's one portion of what this reform aimed to address. Those county hospitals and free hospitals are never "free", those costs get passed on to.....wait for it.......everyone else who does pay insurance, thus raising our rates.
So, instead of making them able to get it IF THEY WANT IT. This bill FORCES them to get it WHETHER THEY WANT IT OR NOT. What happened to freedom to choose? I should be able to choose to not have insurance if I don't want insurance without having to pay a "fine" or "tax" for that privilege. Shouldn't I?
Rick
The smokescreen is complaining about something that most people are going to purchase regardless of a mandate or not. Would you go without insurance if given the option?
Personally? No. If I were my 26 year old brother who is healthy as an ox and hasn't needed to see a doctor in years, I might consider it. There is an age group which I think is probably 20-35 or so who just don't need it. I still don't find the fact that most people would do it anyway a compelling reason to mandate it. I know it's cliche in this cynical day and age but in terms of the precedent this would set I think it is important to stand on principle in this case.
That's part of the problem we have. People are expected to pay, but unfortunately the costs are just too much for millions of people who are then forced to declare bankruptcy which is a major problem in this country. The number of bankruptcy due to medical bills is a REAL problem in this country. The scary part of that.....over half the people who have to declare bankruptcy due to medical costs actually DO have insurance. Now if that isn't proof that the health care system is severely broken, I don't know what is.
I dont disagree with any of that. I think, just as you probably that people ought to be able to afford such an important service. I simply disagree that a government solution is the best solution, especially one that takes teh UNprecedented step of requiring all citizens to buy something.
Well there is no 'perfect' solution. This healthcare reform is certainly not even remotely a "government solution". It is giving increased amount of customers to private companies, so it's exactly the opposite of a government solution. I still think that a public option would have been the best choice as it would have implemented a way for people to keep their insurance if they were truly happy, but provided an alternate option for those that wanted to find something cheaper and to fit their needs. It also would have been an excellent way of increasing competition in the marketplace which in turn would result in lowering of prices to stay competitive.
How would this be "another social program"? People would be buying private insurance under this mandate. If anything, this reform is giving MORE power to private insurance, which I actually don't like. But calling this legislation a social program is just incorrect.I want insurance. I do not have it as I am currently unemployed and COBRA is only for the rich or the desperately ill when they leave employment.
Despite that fact, I do not want health insurance to be mandated. I do believe that those who want it should be assisted in getting it (yes, I know my liberal tendencies are speaking there) and I for one am not opposed to providing insurance (or better yet medical necessities) for those who want it and can't afford it. What I am opposed to is forcing everyone to have it so that the socialists in our government can claim another social victory for a program that will eventually drain our economy dry.
As for increased taxes in order to provide those benefits, well, I am not opposed to increasing taxes to cover those expenses just as I am not (and was not when I was employed) opposed to helping out the needy. There are things that we as a nation should be happy to do for our brothers and sisters... keeping them alive and fed are two of those things. Providing a bridge to no where is not and neither is a museum in Minnesota or any of the other pork programs that have been shoved down our throats, two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is something else we can do without as well. But our brothers and sisters here in America are our responsibility or should be.
Immie
PS I know I will hear it about that last paragraph.
Couldn't agree more with this.
Another social program would be if this had gone as far as Nancy Pelosi wanted it to go and Candidate Obama stated in the campaign that he wanted... if they had pulled off the "single payer health care plan" they asked for initially this would just be another social "victory" for the socialists.
The initial plan would have driven private insurers out of business. Now, maybe, that was a ruse by the Democrats and those of you liberals (maybe you have not claimed this but there are some liberals who have) who are claiming that Obama is in the back pocket of the corporations (making him just another politician by the way) and what he really wanted was what he got, a victory for the corporations, but I think the real goal was another Social Security type program that would have had us paying taxes into the General Fund and receiving IOU's in regards to our health care. That would have made it another social program.
For the record, one thing I take President Obama's word for is that he knows that the Single Payer Health Care Plan would not have passed at this point. It had to be taken one step at a time. I do not think this battle is over yet. As for the private insurers? I don't really care about them, however, I am very concerned with the idea that if single payer becomes reality there will be hundreds of thousands of people who work for those insurers in the unemployment lines and I am not talking about the CEO's. I am talking about people like me who will be my future competitors.
Immie
Personally? No. If I were my 26 year old brother who is healthy as an ox and hasn't needed to see a doctor in years, I might consider it. There is an age group which I think is probably 20-35 or so who just don't need it. I still don't find the fact that most people would do it anyway a compelling reason to mandate it. I know it's cliche in this cynical day and age but in terms of the precedent this would set I think it is important to stand on principle in this case.
I dont disagree with any of that. I think, just as you probably that people ought to be able to afford such an important service. I simply disagree that a government solution is the best solution, especially one that takes teh UNprecedented step of requiring all citizens to buy something.
Well there is no 'perfect' solution. This healthcare reform is certainly not even remotely a "government solution". It is giving increased amount of customers to private companies, so it's exactly the opposite of a government solution. I still think that a public option would have been the best choice as it would have implemented a way for people to keep their insurance if they were truly happy, but provided an alternate option for those that wanted to find something cheaper and to fit their needs. It also would have been an excellent way of increasing competition in the marketplace which in turn would result in lowering of prices to stay competitive.
I would agree with you, except that the way the "public option" was designed was that it essentially either drove the private insurer out of business or it made them a puppet of the federal government. They were severely limited in their abilities to compete i.e. pricing, deductibles, coverages etc. and on top of all of that the public option had the backing of the government which meant that they could operate at a loss basically indefinitely and drive private insurers into bankruptcy. Competition would have been strangled.
Immie
How would this be "another social program"? People would be buying private insurance under this mandate. If anything, this reform is giving MORE power to private insurance, which I actually don't like. But calling this legislation a social program is just incorrect.
Couldn't agree more with this.
Another social program would be if this had gone as far as Nancy Pelosi wanted it to go and Candidate Obama stated in the campaign that he wanted... if they had pulled off the "single payer health care plan" they asked for initially this would just be another social "victory" for the socialists.
The initial plan would have driven private insurers out of business. Now, maybe, that was a ruse by the Democrats and those of you liberals (maybe you have not claimed this but there are some liberals who have) who are claiming that Obama is in the back pocket of the corporations (making him just another politician by the way) and what he really wanted was what he got, a victory for the corporations, but I think the real goal was another Social Security type program that would have had us paying taxes into the General Fund and receiving IOU's in regards to our health care. That would have made it another social program.
For the record, one thing I take President Obama's word for is that he knows that the Single Payer Health Care Plan would not have passed at this point. It had to be taken one step at a time. I do not think this battle is over yet. As for the private insurers? I don't really care about them, however, I am very concerned with the idea that if single payer becomes reality there will be hundreds of thousands of people who work for those insurers in the unemployment lines and I am not talking about the CEO's. I am talking about people like me who will be my future competitors.
Immie
The Single payer idea really never had a chance and was killed off rather earlier. It was the public option that I was hoping to see implemented. That would have allowed private insurance to exist but given people a lower cost option that they could afford. But what we ended up with is the exact opposite of a government takeover or social program. We have private insurance companies still fully in control of the system, with millions more customers. For those against socialized medicine, you would think you'd be happy with what we got. Complaining about the mandate is trivial at this point.
Well there is no 'perfect' solution. This healthcare reform is certainly not even remotely a "government solution". It is giving increased amount of customers to private companies, so it's exactly the opposite of a government solution. I still think that a public option would have been the best choice as it would have implemented a way for people to keep their insurance if they were truly happy, but provided an alternate option for those that wanted to find something cheaper and to fit their needs. It also would have been an excellent way of increasing competition in the marketplace which in turn would result in lowering of prices to stay competitive.
