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 am at a loss of words. There is no hope for you, there is no understanding, there is only suffering. You simply have no capacity or desire to see things past your blinders.
Good luck in life, for it will not be favorable to you unless you have those who will subjugate others on your behalf.
Is that the best answer you can give, a personal attack? One uses their insurance when they have a claim!
Last edited by Katarina Witt; 12-21-2016 at 04:11 PM..
When all is said and done we simply need to get to a reasonable version of universal healthcare. It is simply stupid to perform so badly at such a high cost.
That's pretty interesting. That's also not due to Medicare.
How do you know? If you have medicare, you have to use it for hospitalization once you reach age 65. These extra years of life are all added on to the end.
That's pretty interesting. That's also not due to Medicare.
It is due to advances in medicine applied to our seniors on Medicare. Yes it might have happened without Medicare, but I just don't know how otherwise the bulk of seniors could have afforded that care.
That's right. The other poster said she used $500,000 worth of medical care. As I said to her, I could say $3 million and she'd be all for it. So why leave that up to people to just say "yeah, keep going!!"? You say "well, who should say 'no' then?" Well, if you're going to make it like we do now ....I guess it would be a death panel. I mean, look, you're spending "society's" money, I guess then we need a government agency to tell you that's the end of that.
And by the way, I'm against death panels (since I'm against spending society's money), but if we're going to accept that we ALL pay for people's healthcare, then I'm totally for death panels. And guess who gets the death? All these people who are on this thread, saying that they should get huge sums of care. It doesn't matter which way you go -- at some point, reality hits and sick people die. If you want to die while crippling society, I guess that's fine, too.
This thread has lost focus - which should be SUGGESTIONS to address the high medical cost of covering preexisting conditions (and, by default, medical care in general). Going away to die early probably isn't going to cut it here. And if you think it can - tell me how you'd legislate for it.
Charolastra00 was insured by an employer-based plan at the time she developed then was cured of cancer incurring about $500,000 in medical bills that would have been covered by her insurance company. Why is this a problem for you? Do you really expect anyone to believe that you'd behave differently in her position. Or perhaps you now are elderly. If it were your 23-yo daughter who became ill would you advocate for her to stop care once bills started to mount? While high medical costs and usage do impact insurance premiums, this WAS a private transaction between Charolastra00 and her health care providers and the insurance company. For those (not necessarily you) who complain about government interference and loss of personal liberty, I'm not quite sure why you feel free to dictate to Charolastra00 about how she should behave in this situation.
More, terms like "spoiled brats" and "selfishness" are applied (though not by you) to attempts to discuss a heck of a conundrum - namely, that the last few decades have seen unprecedented medical advances that raise all sorts of economic, personal financial, moral and legal issues in how we now provide health care.
And guess what folks - there AREN'T easy answers. Attempts to address one aspect of this situation on this thread (pre-existing conditions) are met with what strike me as self-centered monologues that focus only on complaints. It really IS too bad now that others are able to also see doctors that someone else has to wait a bit longer or have a little less time. And so WHO is selfish or acting like a spoiled brat? Wow. Too much of that kind approach in this country - and look at the mess we're in.
I forgot - NJquestions would not "legislate" but instead turn healthcare rationing over to the "free market."
Fine. But the ACA (which does cover preexisting conditions) attempts - in part - to create a free market with the exchanges. Object to the subsidies? Early-retired relative (no disability, no government pension, just his savings) tells me that the ACA subsidy he receives is about equal to the additional taxes he would owe had not the employer share of the health insurance policy he had while working been tax free. More that there is nothing particularly unusual about his numbers or point-to-point comparison.
So tell me why is it acceptable when you are covered by employer-based insurance to receive your "goodie" from the government (the tax break) but not for lower-earning workers to have their costs offset using a different mechanism (the subsidy)? And then lecture some more about hypocrisy.
Last edited by EveryLady; 12-21-2016 at 05:45 PM..
I forgot - NJquestions would not "legislate" but instead turn healthcare rationing over to the "free market."
Fine. But the ACA (which does cover preexisting conditions) attempts - in part - to create a free market with the exchanges. Object to the subsidies? Early-retired relative (no disability, no government pension, just his savings) tells me that the ACA subsidy he receives is about equal to the additional taxes he would owe had not the employer share of the health insurance policy he had while working been tax free. More that there is nothing particularly unusual about his numbers or point-to-point comparison.
So tell me why is it acceptable when you are covered by employer-based insurance to receive your "goodie" from the government but not for lower-earning workers to have their costs offset using a different mechanism (the subsidy)? And then lecture some more about hypocrisy.
Because. Those low wage workers just do not deserve it.
Especially if they are a minority of any kind.
Only people who look like me deserve health insurance, SSI, Medicare or Medicaid.
Actually, our system encourages people to be disabled. There's a majority of people on disability who aren't actually disabled, they're "just disabled enough not to have to work," but they apparently have no problem going about the rest of their lives with no cares. You can be disabled with back pain or anxiety or ADHD or pretty much anything. Also, does that mean if people can't be productive that we can axe them, like people with severe heart failure or kidney failure or liver failure?
This is totally true when I was younger I used to deliver to HUD apartment buildings. A lot of the people that lived there were just lazy bums that did not want to work. They just figured out all of the loopholes and how to work the system. Fast forward to now these people are now getting free healthcare via Medicaid.
How do you know? If you have medicare, you have to use it for hospitalization once you reach age 65. These extra years of life are all added on to the end.
Because life expectancy numbers are mostly impacted by improvements earlier in life before you hit senior age.
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.
