Why Should

[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?

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

Well.. It has to be one or the other..

 

[California Girl]

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.

You sound like an asshole. That's because you are.

 

[Dante]

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.

You sound like an asshole. That's because you are.

 

[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'.

Well.. It has to be one or the other..

No, it doesn't. It is, like education, a good thing but not a right or a privilege.

 

[Dante]

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

Well.. It has to be one or the other..

No, it doesn't. It is, like education, a good thing but not a right or a privilege.

opinion masquerading as fact.

The question of legal rights versus moral rights is one that needs ignoring if people like you are to win an argument.

 

[Dante]

The Swiss have the right idea.

question: .. So if you ask the people of Switzerland, is everyone entitled to decent health care, the Swiss would say?

answer: Everybody has a right to health care.

question: You would say, yes, they have a right, and you provide it.

answer: Yes, and high quality. Naturally, you can have a better quality. To be in a room with only one bed, you have to pay something supplementary. But even that, I see in my own canton, which is not a rich canton -- and hospitals belong to the cities or to the canton now; they belong to the canton -- they intend to improve the system so that the people can be alone in a room when they are in hospital, rich or poor.

FRONTLINE: sick around the world: interviews: pascal couchepin | PBS

 

[MajikMyst]

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.

Of course I do.. I read their posts everyday.. I do see this as an issue.. I don't see it as a left or right thing.. I see this as an issue of life and death.. And it is.. I agree.. We need to solve it.. And how do you know this bill won't solve anything and why? How is it a power grab??

Ok.. Answer this question then?? What is the fundemental purpose of government? I mean.. Why do we have one and why do we need one?

My answer is to keep the people it governs safe from death.. It is why we have a military.. It protects us and keeps us safe.. It does more than that I know.. The government enforces the laws that keep us safe.. Everything from speed limits on the road to wearing a bycicle helmet to presecuting someone who comits murder..

I am curious as to why the government wouldn't also be charged with keeping us safe from sickness?? Lack of insurance kills 45,000 people each year.. That is more deadly than the war in Iraq and Afghanistan combined..

The bill is what it is because, right or wrong, Obama tried to get some republicans on board and so he tailored the bill for them in hopes of getting them to vote for it.. Not to mention some selfish selfcentered blue dog dems also went after some hand outs in attempt to sell their votes..

The bottom line is this.. We need health reform.. We need to start somewhere.. Bad or not we should pass what we have and fix it later.. Canning it now will show the insurance companies that they have won and allow them to continue on their marry way..

 

[MajikMyst]

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

Well.. It has to be one or the other..

No, it doesn't. It is, like education, a good thing but not a right or a privilege.

Education is a right and we have public schools don't we.. There isn't a single child in this nation that is not able to go to school..

Education is a right and we provide it.. In fact if I am not mistaken, it is a law that all children must attend school.. Be it home schooling or a regular school..

 

[Dante]

Well.. It has to be one or the other..

No, it doesn't. It is, like education, a good thing but not a right or a privilege.

Education is a right and we have public schools don't we.. There isn't a single child in this nation that is not able to go to school..

Education is a right and we provide it.. In fact if I am not mistaken, it is a law that all children must attend school.. Be it home schooling or a regular school..

 

[Old Rocks]

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 ? ......

Personal problem?

 

[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 ? ......

Personal problem?

Your hero Grayson's problem, he likes calling women whores ...........

 

[JakeStarkey]

My party had six years to fix the problem: the Senate, the House, and the Presidency. We failed to do so, lost two elections, and now are posting that the American people need more time. Screw that. I am Republican and I support action.

To you reactionary conloons and libertarians. You don't count today. And if you can't frame your arguments in a more consensu-oriented process, you will remain irrelevant.

 

[driveby]

My party had six years to fix the problem: the Senate, the House, and the Presidency. We failed to do so, lost two elections, and now are posting that the American people need more time. Screw that. I am Republican and I support action.

To you reactionary conloons and libertarians. You don't count today. And if you can't frame your arguments in a more consensu-oriented process, you will remain irrelevant.

Your little game is gay, just like you ........

 

[Rohrer 714]

I agree that it is a moral imperative to provide some sort of coverage for those who cannot get any.

 

[JakeStarkey]

My party had six years to fix the problem: the Senate, the House, and the Presidency. We failed to do so, lost two elections, and now are posting that the American people need more time. Screw that. I am Republican and I support action.

To you reactionary conloons and libertarians. You don't count today. And if you can't frame your arguments in a more consensu-oriented process, you will remain irrelevant.

Your little game is gay, just like you ........

Oh, the sting of your remark, driveby!

 

[driveby]

My party had six years to fix the problem: the Senate, the House, and the Presidency. We failed to do so, lost two elections, and now are posting that the American people need more time. Screw that. I am Republican and I support action.

To you reactionary conloons and libertarians. You don't count today. And if you can't frame your arguments in a more consensu-oriented process, you will remain irrelevant.

Your little game is gay, just like you ........

Oh, the sting of your remark, driveby!

The teflon troll are you ? oh neat ....

 

[Harry Dresden]

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 think that this is an important issue....because it can happen to anyone....but i feel if they would have told the Ins Companies that this will soon be a law,so you need to address this....the Ins. industry would have come up with a plan themselves....and fixed it......also the same with dropping someone.....it can happen to anyone....its their Industry let them fix it.....if those 2 issues become federal law....they would have to fix them....and then the govt could have focused on helping those who are without Ins. but need or want it now....

 

[Harry Dresden]

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.

says the "Undercover Republican"....

 

[Harry Dresden]

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?

she is asking because she wants a debate on the topic ....she is not stating it like this is what she believes,even though she might....maybe you should think before you post....

 

[JakeStarkey]

Right, Harry, that the insurance industry would "fix" it when it is making incredible profit margins. Not only are you a conloon, you are not a very bright one. Please go tell it elsewhere.