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.
I never said she should be barred from insurance for any condition, just the pre-existing condition. Specifically, the melanoma to which you referred. If she was diagnosed with melanoma at age 14 (I have to ask why she was not treated when it was diagnosed?), then any insurance coverage she obtains at age 26 should not include treatment for the pre-existing melanoma. That does not bar her from obtaining insurance. It only bars her from having her new insurance carrier pay for treatment relating to her pre-existing melanoma.
Well, we just decided to wait and see what happened! It was treated, my friend. I was talking about recurrence in my post. Yikes!
Your absolutely right. In fact so much so, that its ridiculous that people are allowed to receive employer sponsored health coverage even if they have a preexisting condition. I say you write to your local congressman and explain the unfairness that health insurance companies have to deal with due to the fact that they cant discriminate against individuals who have employer sponsored coverage.
The world is not black and white my friend. Maybe its about time that we see health coverage not so much as a financial product and more along the lines of a necessity. But that's just me
It is ridiculous, and it explains why insurance premiums have skyrocketed. Every business has to make up for theft somehow, and it typically involves raising the prices for everyone else.
Well, we just decided to wait and see what happened! It was treated, my friend. I was talking about recurrence in my post. Yikes!
BTW, there are some cancers that are "watched" rather than treated, for example many prostate cancers. At some point, the cancer may need to be treated. My husband had a tumor for which there is no chemotherapy. The doc will do scans forever to watch for recurrence.
You mean like when Obama met with Congressional republicans and told them "elections have consequences, and I won"? Is that how the administration sought input from the GOP
There is another old rule about you break it, you own it.
Actually, a better description was that the GOP was going to oppose it from the get go and had zero intention of cooperating. Obama pretty much told them you can be part of the solution or part of the problem. Guess McConnell and company chose the latter option to the bitter end. And in the long term, when history looks back, it's not going to be pretty for the Republicans who stood on their hands and threw everything to oppose expanding health care to more people.
Actually, a better description was that the GOP was going to oppose it from the get go and had zero intention of cooperating. Obama pretty much told them you can be part of the solution or part of the problem. Guess McConnell and company chose the latter option to the bitter end. And in the long term, when history looks back, it's not going to be pretty for the Republicans who stood on their hands and threw everything to oppose expanding health care to more people.
Is history going to be saying that when the US is trying to figure out how to fix OASDI since its trust fund will be gone at the same time when the public debt is 100% of GDP and everything is 30 - 50% more expensive?
What, you're going to just tax more to fix all your problems? That will go over well to people who at receiving the smallest benefits in 60 years while paying the largest share in 60 yard from their government.
I have a wild and crazy idea. Why don't you folks explain how you plan to pay for the vote gathering schemes you already enacted before you go and create new ones.
Actually, a better description was that the GOP was going to oppose it from the get go and had zero intention of cooperating. Obama pretty much told them you can be part of the solution or part of the problem. Guess McConnell and company chose the latter option to the bitter end. And in the long term, when history looks back, it's not going to be pretty for the Republicans who stood on their hands and threw everything to oppose expanding health care to more people.
Really:I seem to have seen a lot of input;all rejected. The democrats decided they wanted to stop all debate to pass it before they actually had to allow in put from mid term election results. They even reject a lot of democratic amendments such as across state selling; employees allowed to seek best price thru exchanges over company coverage offered; allowing two worker families to buy from cheapest source etc. I the end they push thru a set plan most democrats had read and now have to live with the consequences of not getting other than democratic support. Its the old need consent of governed to govern effectively.When bush passed Medicare drug bill he allowed in put because he knew to have it accept meant making sure democrats had skin in the game of producing the bill. reason politics is called the art of compromise. Reagan knew that in deals with Tip O Neal and Clinton knew that in deals with Gringrich on budgets etc. Democrats own ACA pure and simple. Obama started out making enemies list and his famous elections have consequences speech; now has to deal with the results of failures .
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.
It was treated, my friend. I was talking about recurrence in my post. Yikes! 
