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.
************************************************** ********
Well done, jojajn...that list will be sent to every woman I know.
Yes I'll be distributing it to all working women I know, that repubs. put corporate rights over those of a woman in the workplace.....and lol at the man above who mentions civil suits....u have no clue how long and imposible and costly a civil suit is (burden of proof Is on plaintiff/victim)...so if your mother or daughter worked at Home Depot and was raped by a manager there you wouldn't want the right to hold the company responsible? You are clueless...as are all angry old white male republicans
Oh I get it, you're indirectly insinuating that people who oppose the current democRAT healthcare bill are pro-rape
I don't know what the OP is insinuating (probably nothing), all I know is that I was majorly PO'd to read that a health insurance agent in Tampa, FL who was drugged and raped while on a business trip could not get health insurance for two years from a private insurance company. I watched this segment on You Tube: YouTube - Woman's Rape Case Called "Pre-Existing Condition".
She knew how the insurance industry worked so she called around various insurance companies posing a hypothetical question of whether or not a person who was raped could get health insurance; every insurance company she called said, "No", as apparently, "RAPE" is a pre-existing condition. The reason she called asking a hypothetical question is because she knows that if she were rejected every rejection counts against you when re-applying with a different company. She finally got health insurance again when her husband got a new job several years later.
So, if your baby's too fat, you can't get insurance, if your child's too thin, you can't get insurance, it used to be that if you got beat by your husband (domestic violence - that was a pre-existing condition), you couldn't get insurance, if you're raped, you can't get insurance. Seriously, I don't know how anyone could not support health care reform in this country. Why would we leave our lives in the hands of private insurance companies who have no other motive than profit for themselves at the expense of ALL of us.
I suspect you'd be singing an entirely different tune if this were your story. But then, you guys find it completely impossible to put yourselves in others shoes....ever, don't you?
That pretty much sums up the repubs.
They also belong to the "Worship the Wealthy as Our New God" Church.....they HATE the idea of anything that may aid average Americans because then some CEO may make only half a billion in bonuses rather than the whole billion.....it doesn't make sense but did they ever???
Why would we leave our lives in the hands of private insurance companies who have no other motive than profit for themselves?
Yeah really that is the bottom line. They most certainly do not have their clients health and welfare at heart. People are never going to understand the present state of health care until they or their loved ones have a catastrophic illness. They just don't want to hear it. I also don't hear a united voice in those opposing reforms coming up with a viable alternative, it's just the same rhetoric ad infinitum taxes, blah, blah, illegals, blah, blah, responsibility, blah, blah, employment...... Those are just distractions, and separate issues.
Yeah really that is the bottom line. They most certainly do not have their clients health and welfare at heart. People are never going to understand the present state of health care until they or their loved ones have a catastrophic illness. They just don't want to hear it. I also don't hear a united voice in those opposing reforms coming up with a viable alternative, it's just the same rhetoric ad infinitum taxes, blah, blah, illegals, blah, blah, responsibility, blah, blah, employment...... Those are just distractions, and separate issues.
Actually, reforms have been suggested, and they simply get rejected. Here's one that is quite commonly sugggested. Remove the restriction on purchasing health care insurance from insurers in other states. Right now you can only buy heath insurance from an insurer in yrou state. That's a silly rule, and all it does is restrict competition. The administration and Congress say one of their chief reasons for wanting a "government option" is to create competition for the insurance companies. Remove this silly restriction, and watch the competition start.
Yeah really that is the bottom line. They most certainly do not have their clients health and welfare at heart. People are never going to understand the present state of health care until they or their loved ones have a catastrophic illness. They just don't want to hear it. I also don't hear a united voice in those opposing reforms coming up with a viable alternative, it's just the same rhetoric ad infinitum taxes, blah, blah, illegals, blah, blah, responsibility, blah, blah, employment...... Those are just distractions, and separate issues.
Actually, reforms have been suggested, and they simply get rejected. Here's one that is quite commonly sugggested. Remove the restriction on purchasing health care insurance from insurers in other states. Right now you can only buy heath insurance from an insurer in yrou state. That's a silly rule, and all it does is restrict competition. The administration and Congress say one of their chief reasons for wanting a "government option" is to create competition for the insurance companies. Remove this silly restriction, and watch the competition start.
That's an excellent point. There are little things we can do that can help the situation without a major overhaul. But it needs to be pointed out that sometimes common-sense approaches like this don't work. For instance, there is always a lot of discussion about capping lawsuit awards, with the idea that if you cap the amounts juries can award, then you minimize the financial risks that insurance companies take when offering insurance. But such measures have been passed in various states and locales, and the result hasn't been lower insurance premiums. Insurance companies love the caps, but they see no reason to reduce their profits. Competition can often be illusory in terms of insurance, for a variety of reasons. Smaller insurance companies are sometimes nothing more than empty shells owned by larger insurance companies. And the agent system makes competition much more complex, because many agents don't work for the insurance company, technically they are self-employed, but contractually obligated to dedicate themselves to the products of a single company. And independent agents that can represent multiple companies are often excluded from the best policies of certain insurance companies. The myriad laws and rules in each state deter insurance companies from serving all fifty states, and removing every law and rule from federal lawbooks, from state lawbooks, and even from local laws, rules and so on, is an extensive project where the lower premium goal is not assured in any way.
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.
