Why Should

[driveby]

Hey guys and gals, the next step after we pass the present health care bill.

The Grayson Medicare-For-All Bill | Questions and Observations

How many whores will it cover ? ......

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Yea, I agree. But a lot of people are desperate.... the unemployed, those with pre-existing conditions, etc. I can understand their enthusiasm to get some help. The problem is that they are prepared to sacrifice everyone else for their needs. That is not right. But we cannot continue to allow this thing to go un-dealt with.

This should have been sorted out decades ago. Administration after administration ignored it... There has to be a sensible, straightforward way forward that does not result in everyone losing for the sake of the few.... but we really need to help those few.

your alarm is typical of right wing lunacy: unwarranted and silly.

other nations cover such things and they have equal to better health care delivery, and cost burdens than the US does.FRONTLINE: sick around the world: five capitalist democracies & how they do it | PBS


try educating yourself on this before posting inane alarms.

I'm not alarmed. You're an asshole. Just sayin'.

you're not alarmed that I'm an asshole?

don't be.

[youtube]gl2NKZtl07c[/youtube]

 

[American Horse]

an insurance company be forced to give coverage for a pre existing condition?

Because it's an insurance company of course. It's objective is to make money and it can't make money if it has to cover all comers. If that happens then the risk equation goes belly up in the favour of those all comers and the company itself will go broke.

This is not true if "all comers" includes the whole demographic; healthy as well unhealthy, and all age groups. Then actuarily the rates could be at their lowest, the companies earn income in a competitive marketplace, and the public be insured against the risk of major medical expenses, or minor ones as long as the policies can be formulated for the needs and desires of the customer base with premiums adjusted to meet those needs.

 

[saveliberty]

an insurance company be forced to give coverage for a pre existing condition?

I'm on the fence over pre-existing conditions. While I agree that private companies have the right to turn people down. On the other hand, it is morally reprehensible to leave people without protection through no fault of their own. I happen to think we need to think creatively about how we solve this one. It may be that companies could be required to cover a certain percentage of those people and that their premiums are subsidized in some way - that may mean that everybody picks up a portion. I would be comfortable with that. I would not be comfortable with paying for those who choose not to have insurance. And I do believe that people should not be forced to have insurance.

We have to balance freedom with humanity.

High risk is just that. It is a risk that is rated to the potential claims. Insurance exists for these people. THe premiums are just very high. If government wants to regulate for abuse by insurance companies against high risk fine. Forcing charity from the public is not American.

 

[JakeStarkey]

A lot of bellyaching and no evidence that covering everyone is going to break the bank, the wallet, the government, or far right lunacy. I told you guys this day was coming, you said, "no, it can't possibly happen", and now it is here.

So start organizing for November's election. The people will want to hear how there is a better way to cover all Americans in a reasonable manner. I do see any evidence that gives anyone reason to think the great majority give a flying leap about libertarian economics.

In November, the party that gives the clearest plan and option will win. I hope the GOP comes up with something relevant for the time. We are beyond the days of privatization and deregulation. They are gone for a long, long time.

The dems just love "useful idiots" like you ......

Snappy comeback but no real answer to today's little problem: tsk tsk.

 

[Cuyo]

an insurance company be forced to give coverage for a pre existing condition?

I'm on the fence over pre-existing conditions. While I agree that private companies have the right to turn people down. On the other hand, it is morally reprehensible to leave people without protection through no fault of their own. I happen to think we need to think creatively about how we solve this one. It may be that companies could be required to cover a certain percentage of those people and that their premiums are subsidized in some way - that may mean that everybody picks up a portion. I would be comfortable with that. I would not be comfortable with paying for those who choose not to have insurance. And I do believe that people should not be forced to have insurance.

We have to balance freedom with humanity.

I'm on the fence too but for these assholes to say they want reform for that reason is a lie. Even if insurance companies covered this, Obama and the kooks would still jam this kind of legislation down our throats ........

When will you ppl get it? The reform these "Kooks" are pushing for isn't for them, it's for you, ya big dummy.

 

[Cuyo]

A lot of bellyaching and no evidence that covering everyone is going to break the bank, the wallet, the government, or far right lunacy. I told you guys this day was coming, you said, "no, it can't possibly happen", and now it is here.

So start organizing for November's election. The people will want to hear how there is a better way to cover all Americans in a reasonable manner. I do see any evidence that gives anyone reason to think the great majority give a flying leap about libertarian economics.

In November, the party that gives the clearest plan and option will win. I hope the GOP comes up with something relevant for the time. We are beyond the days of privatization and deregulation. They are gone for a long, long time.

Wait, wait... I know this one!

Tort reform! And sell across state lines!

puh-leeze.................

 

[driveby]

A lot of bellyaching and no evidence that covering everyone is going to break the bank, the wallet, the government, or far right lunacy. I told you guys this day was coming, you said, "no, it can't possibly happen", and now it is here.

So start organizing for November's election. The people will want to hear how there is a better way to cover all Americans in a reasonable manner. I do see any evidence that gives anyone reason to think the great majority give a flying leap about libertarian economics.

In November, the party that gives the clearest plan and option will win. I hope the GOP comes up with something relevant for the time. We are beyond the days of privatization and deregulation. They are gone for a long, long time.

The dems just love "useful idiots" like you ......

Snappy comeback but no real answer to today's little problem: tsk tsk.

The answer is to not pass that piece of shit legislation, but your party is hellbent on passing it .........

 

[xsited1]

an insurance company be forced to give coverage for a pre existing condition?

I'm on the fence over pre-existing conditions. While I agree that private companies have the right to turn people down. On the other hand, it is morally reprehensible to leave people without protection through no fault of their own. I happen to think we need to think creatively about how we solve this one. It may be that companies could be required to cover a certain percentage of those people and that their premiums are subsidized in some way - that may mean that everybody picks up a portion. I would be comfortable with that. I would not be comfortable with paying for those who choose not to have insurance. And I do believe that people should not be forced to have insurance.

We have to balance freedom with humanity.

Let's balance freedom and security and see how far we get. We don't need the government forcing companies to subsidize anything. There is a private solution, but the government keeps getting in the way. Now we have a structure in place that has government so integrated with private industry that you can't do anything without Big Brother's blessing. And, of course, once you reach that point, in short order the government will run something as big as health care.

 

[California Girl]

A lot of bellyaching and no evidence that covering everyone is going to break the bank, the wallet, the government, or far right lunacy. I told you guys this day was coming, you said, "no, it can't possibly happen", and now it is here.

So start organizing for November's election. The people will want to hear how there is a better way to cover all Americans in a reasonable manner. I do see any evidence that gives anyone reason to think the great majority give a flying leap about libertarian economics.

In November, the party that gives the clearest plan and option will win. I hope the GOP comes up with something relevant for the time. We are beyond the days of privatization and deregulation. They are gone for a long, long time.

The dems just love "useful idiots" like you ......

Poor Joke still thinks it an 'us vs them' scenario. I have never seen it that way. I see it as an issue to be solved. It is the the so called solution I have a problem with. I don't think the partisans are capable of seeing anything but this stupid 'team' thing.

 

[MajikMyst]

an insurance company be forced to give coverage for a pre existing condition?

Why shouldn't they?? Are you by asking this implying that a newborn baby born with some defect isn't entitlted to coverage or medical care??

You might want to think before you ask such dumb questions.. Most if not all pre-existing conditions are a result of some birth defect..

Are you truely claiming that a baby isn't entitled to care and coverage?

Is medical care a right or a pirvilege?

 

[MajikMyst]

They can deny coverage to anyone they want and that's the way it should be. Banks deny loans, resturants deny service, any single individual can deny anything they want and we are going to isolate insurance companies this right? If so, what's next? Oh..... That's right, individuals will be denied the right to not have health care coverage.

In that case we as a people have a right to seek healthcare coverage else where.. It is called a public option..

 

[California Girl]

an insurance company be forced to give coverage for a pre existing condition?

I'm on the fence over pre-existing conditions. While I agree that private companies have the right to turn people down. On the other hand, it is morally reprehensible to leave people without protection through no fault of their own. I happen to think we need to think creatively about how we solve this one. It may be that companies could be required to cover a certain percentage of those people and that their premiums are subsidized in some way - that may mean that everybody picks up a portion. I would be comfortable with that. I would not be comfortable with paying for those who choose not to have insurance. And I do believe that people should not be forced to have insurance.

We have to balance freedom with humanity.

High risk is just that. It is a risk that is rated to the potential claims. Insurance exists for these people. THe premiums are just very high. If government wants to regulate for abuse by insurance companies against high risk fine. Forcing charity from the public is not American.

I don't disagree. I am, however, prepared to give some ground on it, because it is important to ensure that those with pre-existing conditions get descent coverage. I'm also not a believer in 'forced charity', but I think if we had a group of non political individuals who could work through the issues and find solutions that don't involve +2000 pages of crap then we might actually find a solution that suits the majority and helps those with pre-existing conditions.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I'm on the fence over pre-existing conditions. While I agree that private companies have the right to turn people down. On the other hand, it is morally reprehensible to leave people without protection through no fault of their own. I happen to think we need to think creatively about how we solve this one. It may be that companies could be required to cover a certain percentage of those people and that their premiums are subsidized in some way - that may mean that everybody picks up a portion. I would be comfortable with that. I would not be comfortable with paying for those who choose not to have insurance. And I do believe that people should not be forced to have insurance.

We have to balance freedom with humanity.

High risk is just that. It is a risk that is rated to the potential claims. Insurance exists for these people. THe premiums are just very high. If government wants to regulate for abuse by insurance companies against high risk fine. Forcing charity from the public is not American.

I don't disagree. I am, however, prepared to give some ground on it, because it is important to ensure that those with pre-existing conditions get descent coverage. I'm also not a believer in 'forced charity', but I think if we had a group of non political individuals who could work through the issues and find solutions that don't involve +2000 pages of crap then we might actually find a solution that suits the majority and helps those with pre-existing conditions.

stripped of the semantic gymnastics in your arguments --- you sound like a liberal or even worse, an Obama supporter.

 

[MajikMyst]

an insurance company be forced to give coverage for a pre existing condition?

I'm on the fence over pre-existing conditions. While I agree that private companies have the right to turn people down. On the other hand, it is morally reprehensible to leave people without protection through no fault of their own. I happen to think we need to think creatively about how we solve this one. It may be that companies could be required to cover a certain percentage of those people and that their premiums are subsidized in some way - that may mean that everybody picks up a portion. I would be comfortable with that. I would not be comfortable with paying for those who choose not to have insurance. And I do believe that people should not be forced to have insurance.

We have to balance freedom with humanity.

That is a good post.. But I think you are missing the point here.. Are you on the fence on whether a newborn baby with a heart problem should recieve coverage and healthcare?? My guess is your not.. In which case the point is made.. Age should not determine coverage.. If a baby should be covered then we all should be..

There is no creative way to solve this issue.. They either cover everyone or they don't cover everyone.. Covering some and not the rest would show descrimination.. Which is against what our founding fathers would have wanted for this nation..

People don't choose not to have insurance.. But, when you are 20 something, making minimum wage, which hasn't had a raise in how long?? Medical insurance can eat up to a quarter of your income on premiums alone.. Who can afford that? Not to mention the coverage you get is full of doughnut holes and only gives you a set amount of coverage per year.. Why would you pay for that??

That is what most conservatives don't realize.. The 20 somethings aren't going without insurance by choice.. It is to damned expensive and isn't worth the money in the first place.. If one insurance company put out a policy that cost say $50 dollars a month in premiums.. Small co-pays for perscriptions.. This plan would cover everything except expiremental care, unless it was an only option deemed by a doctor.. Trust me.. Every 20 something with a job would sign up..

Is health care a privilege or a right?

 

[California Girl]

an insurance company be forced to give coverage for a pre existing condition?

Why shouldn't they?? Are you by asking this implying that a newborn baby born with some defect isn't entitlted to coverage or medical care??

You might want to think before you ask such dumb questions.. Most if not all pre-existing conditions are a result of some birth defect..

Are you truely claiming that a baby isn't entitled to care and coverage?

Is medical care a right or a pirvilege?

Actually, no. medical care is not a 'right', nor is it a 'privilege'.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

an insurance company be forced to give coverage for a pre existing condition?

Why shouldn't they?? Are you by asking this implying that a newborn baby born with some defect isn't entitlted to coverage or medical care??

You might want to think before you ask such dumb questions.. Most if not all pre-existing conditions are a result of some birth defect..

Are you truely claiming that a baby isn't entitled to care and coverage?

Is medical care a right or a pirvilege?

Actually, no. medical care is not a 'right', nor is it a 'privilege'.

opinion masquerading as fact?

many people consider medical care a moral right. I'd say most people do.

 

[California Girl]

an insurance company be forced to give coverage for a pre existing condition?

I'm on the fence over pre-existing conditions. While I agree that private companies have the right to turn people down. On the other hand, it is morally reprehensible to leave people without protection through no fault of their own. I happen to think we need to think creatively about how we solve this one. It may be that companies could be required to cover a certain percentage of those people and that their premiums are subsidized in some way - that may mean that everybody picks up a portion. I would be comfortable with that. I would not be comfortable with paying for those who choose not to have insurance. And I do believe that people should not be forced to have insurance.

We have to balance freedom with humanity.

That is a good post.. But I think you are missing the point here.. Are you on the fence on whether a newborn baby with a heart problem should recieve coverage and healthcare?? My guess is your not.. In which case the point is made.. Age should not determine coverage.. If a baby should be covered then we all should be..

There is no creative way to solve this issue.. They either cover everyone or they don't cover everyone.. Covering some and not the rest would show descrimination.. Which is against what our founding fathers would have wanted for this nation..

People don't choose not to have insurance.. But, when you are 20 something, making minimum wage, which hasn't had a raise in how long?? Medical insurance can eat up to a quarter of your income on premiums alone.. Who can afford that? Not to mention the coverage you get is full of doughnut holes and only gives you a set amount of coverage per year.. Why would you pay for that??

That is what most conservatives don't realize.. The 20 somethings aren't going without insurance by choice.. It is to damned expensive and isn't worth the money in the first place.. If one insurance company put out a policy that cost say $50 dollars a month in premiums.. Small co-pays for perscriptions.. This plan would cover everything except expiremental care, unless it was an only option deemed by a doctor.. Trust me.. Every 20 something with a job would sign up..

Is health care a privilege or a right?

Damn, you are a dumbass, Maj. You have absolutely no idea what 'most conservatives don't realize'. Because you're not capable of seeing this as an issue, you prefer to think it is a 'left' or 'right' thing. I don't see it that way. I see it as an issue that we need to solve. I just happen to know that this bill is not about solving those issues, it is a power grab by a power obsessed bunch of corrupt assholes. And, by that, I do not mean the Democrats, I mean the Government.... both sides.

 

[California Girl]

Why shouldn't they?? Are you by asking this implying that a newborn baby born with some defect isn't entitlted to coverage or medical care??

You might want to think before you ask such dumb questions.. Most if not all pre-existing conditions are a result of some birth defect..

Are you truely claiming that a baby isn't entitled to care and coverage?

Is medical care a right or a pirvilege?

Actually, no. medical care is not a 'right', nor is it a 'privilege'.

opinion masquerading as fact?

many people consider medical care a moral right. I'd say most people do.

Don't know why you bother trying to debate with me. You're an asshole and I don't discuss with assholes. Got that?

 

[MajikMyst]

High risk is just that. It is a risk that is rated to the potential claims. Insurance exists for these people. THe premiums are just very high. If government wants to regulate for abuse by insurance companies against high risk fine. Forcing charity from the public is not American.

I don't disagree. I am, however, prepared to give some ground on it, because it is important to ensure that those with pre-existing conditions get descent coverage. I'm also not a believer in 'forced charity', but I think if we had a group of non political individuals who could work through the issues and find solutions that don't involve +2000 pages of crap then we might actually find a solution that suits the majority and helps those with pre-existing conditions.

stripped of the semantic gymnastics in your arguments --- you sound like a liberal or even worse, an Obama supporter.

Is health care a right or a privilege, and are you prepared to tell an baby with a heart problem that it must die because the insurance doesn't have to cover pre-existing condtions??

There is no argument.. You are either a baby killer, which isn't very pro-life if you ask me.. Or you are pro-reform and insurance must cover pre-existing conditions.. There isn't an in between..

The only other option is to provide a public option, let the insurance companies do what they must.. I am sure competeing with a non-profit company isn't all that bad.. UPS, FedEx, and many others do it all the time and manage to make a healthy profit.. I am sure you didn't forget that the United States Postal Service is a shipping company and government run..