Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you tried to get house insurance to cover against fire and flood, and your house was already on fire, do you think you would get coverage???
Come to think of it, you probably not only think you would, but should - that is how twisted liberalism is.
You know... I'll take this bait, because this one hits close to home. Your example... ... I'll bet you're proud of it. So we accept that a pre-existing condition is valid grounds for refusing a person insurance coverage. Let's take someone who has paid insurance premiums for 25 years. Like a relative of mine. A close relative. After 25 years of being healthy as a horse s/he is diagnosed with a serious medical condition. Immediately his/her insurance company drops their coverange insisting that the illness had to be a pre-existing condition. All those years of premiums gone and medical providers baying for blood. Thousands of dollars a minute and facing death and having to fight with an insurance company gone to ground to protect what remains of your credit rating and life savings.
Decades ago auto insurance companies refused to insure inexperienced drivers. This wasn't a deal-breaker people simply did without insurance until they got the necessary skill to impress a carrier. Kind of a catch-22. If you are that good a driver why do you need to pay hundreds of dollars a year into some racketters slush fund. Then insurance became mandatory. Medical payouts could easily be in the 100,000s of thousands of dollars and that wasn't going to be in anyone's ability to pay off in a cash sum. The government stepped in and forced carriers to pick uninsured from an assigned risk pool. They could charge them higher premiums but they had to provide them with insurance and no waffling out when a claim came hurtling through the window.
You can claim that its ok for insurance companies to refuse coverage to the unwell or the less healthy among us but unless you are advocating euthanasia (are you?) there must be the provision of some kind of assigned risk pool for these people in light of the fact that medical costs are in a completely different stratosphere of reality in the present day. Anything else is barbaric. Are you? A barbarian? I don't have much to go on from a two line post. I'm asking. Not suggesting.
You know... I'll take this bait, because this one hits close to home. Your example... ... I'll bet you're proud of it. So we accept that a pre-existing condition is valid grounds for refusing a person insurance coverage. Let's take someone who has paid insurance premiums for 25 years. Like a relative of mine. A close relative. After 25 years of being healthy as a horse s/he is diagnosed with a serious medical condition. Immediately his/her insurance company drops their coverange insisting that the illness had to be a pre-existing condition. All those years of premiums gone and medical providers baying for blood. Thousands of dollars a minute and facing death and having to fight with an insurance company gone to ground to protect what remains of your credit rating and life savings.
Decades ago auto insurance companies refused to insure inexperienced drivers. This wasn't a deal-breaker people simply did without insurance until they got the necessary skill to impress a carrier. Kind of a catch-22. If you are that good a driver why do you need to pay hundreds of dollars a year into some racketters slush fund. Then insurance became mandatory. Medical payouts could easily be in the 100,000s of thousands of dollars and that wasn't going to be in anyone's ability to pay off in a cash sum. The government stepped in and forced carriers to pick uninsured from an assigned risk pool. They could charge them higher premiums but they had to provide them with insurance and no waffling out when a claim came hurtling through the window.
You can claim that its ok for insurance companies to refuse coverage to the unwell or the less healthy among us but unless you are advocating euthanasia (are you?) there must be the provision of some kind of assigned risk pool for these people in light of the fact that medical costs are in a completely different stratosphere of reality in the present day. Anything else is barbaric. Are you? A barbarian? I don't have much to go on from a two line post. I'm asking. Not suggesting.
H
Insurance is not a proper vehicle for paying for routine needs. For example, do file a claim when you need to change your oil, or buy new tires? No, of course, not. Insurance is reserved for accidents,at least in the auto world.
It is inescapable that when somebody else's money is used, price controls go out the window This means of financing is, IMHO, is responsible for the high cost of medical care.
It seems to me that Health Maintenance Organizations HMO's are better, or a cash-and-carry arrangement for routine care and insurance for only emergency situations that have the potential to bankrupt.
A far as being a barbarian in concerned, I would say not, I am NOT a barbarian, but I do enjoy a nice roasted long-pig from time-to-time!!!!
Romney, after emerging victorious in one of histories most-massive landslide-elections, WILL make a great president - for 8 years. By then, we'll be back on our feet, scraping the Obama-dung off of our shoes, and moving forward again. I can't wait for America to be, well, America Again!!!!!!!!!!
You were probably one of those who really believed the Beatles were going to get back together.
And if you want to talk experience Obama has 3 years experience being President of the United States. Romney none. If the experience thing didn't work the last time what the heck makes you think it's gonna work now
President Romney will be a president that has had success in the financial community, working in the private sector for 25 years. He ran the Olympics and has had experience being a Governor. Obama's experience of being a community organizer, professor and one term senator before being president is pathetic compared to Romney's real world experience.
I've never understood why executive experience doesn't play a bigger role in picking a president. We know what Senator ABC or Representative XYZ believes in but how does that make them capable of running a country effectively and efficiently? They don't implement a single thing they've voted for. They don't have to deal with problems as a result of their voting decisions or legislation. There isn't a single one of them who would know what to do in a disaster, national or man made. Unless voting, schmoozing lobbyists, writing legislation, and yammerin' with constituents are activities of a President, I want my President to have been a governor, a mayor, a CEO, a general, etc.. We don't need no stinkin' former lawyers and doctors and professors thinking that the White House should be their first big managerial job.
And if you want to talk experience Obama has 3 years experience being President of the United States. Romney none. If the experience thing didn't work the last time what the heck makes you think it's gonna work now
Three years of failure, three years of ineptitude, ignorance and demostrating how NOT to be President.
Yes, we have the negative role model down pat. Now it is time for a positive role model and office holder to take the reins before we go over the cliff forever.
I believe the appropriate and accurate term is "rescued". Your ingratitude is typical of democrats and other liberals.
No, that is not the word. You don't "rescue" somebody by insulting them.
And I mean insulting in the literal sense
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
