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 think the question was legitimate. What about people who do their best to live healthy and still have health problems?
You say you have issue with footing the bill for people who have played free and easy with their health (so to speak), but you don't have any clue how to really figure this out.
I'd rather help subsidize everyone than potentially block out people who have tried to take care of themselves, but through no real fault of their own, cannot get insurance due to pre-existing conditions.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
Last edited by SunnyKayak; 10-02-2013 at 12:30 PM..
Reason: orphan:
Location: The place where the road & the sky collide
23,814 posts, read 34,684,299 times
Reputation: 10256
Quote:
Originally Posted by meh_whatever
If you see me posting in red, I'm posting as a moderator.
I think the question was legitimate. What about people who do their best to live healthy and still have health problems?
You say you have issue with footing the bill for people who have played free and easy with their health (so to speak), but you don't have any clue how to really figure this out.
I'd rather help subsidize everyone than potentially block out people who have tried to take care of themselves, but through no real fault of their own, cannot get insurance due to pre-existing conditions.
Thank you.
I've been uninsurable since a bout with gynecological cancer. Most of those cancers are roll-of-the-dice cancers. A friend is in the same boat because a drug that she took sent her into diabetes. (There's a lawsuit going on concerning that drug.)
Last edited by SunnyKayak; 10-02-2013 at 12:31 PM..
Reason: quote edited: orphan
If you see me posting in red, I'm posting as a moderator.
My post was not in red, so it was my opinion.
I get sick of people getting so damned snarky over a moderator having an opinion.
I think the question was legitimate. What about people who do their best to live healthy and still have health problems?
You say you have issue with footing the bill for people who have played free and easy with their health (so to speak), but you don't have any clue how to really figure this out.
I'd rather help subsidize everyone than potentially block out people who have tried to take care of themselves, but through no real fault of their own, cannot get insurance due to pre-existing conditions.
Was it necessary for me to come up with a clue to figure it out? How do you know that I don't have a clue? I would rather not subsidize people that did not take care of their health. That is my feeling/opinion. I don't think it is up to me to find or develop clues to figure this mess out. I was posting my opinion as apparently you have to chosen to do so. While I am all for the common good, I think there should also be consequences for bad decisions (again, my opinion). I completely understand that bad things can happen to good people (simply put) but I believe insurance tables likely have accounted for that in the past. As a disclosure, I am a registered Democrat from the Northeast, work in human services, don't have a gun and voted for Obama (just to rule out any preconceived notions based upon my opinion/feeling regarding the ACA).
Obamacare is mostly based on Romneycare, which comes to us thanks to the Heritage Foundation. This is right-wing policy, people. Don't like it? Blame yourselves.
The Dems wanted a single payer system similar to Medicare. The Republicans touted Romneycare in the 2008 election. The Romneycare model was adopted in a bipartisan attempt.
I'm not a fan of Obamacare, but it's better than nothing. States that set up their own healthcare exchanges have more, better, & cheaper options. NC increases are absolutely driven by the legislature's actions.
Romneycare is voluntary and no one is forced into it. Romneycare also ended up increasing costs, wait times, etc. Republicans may have touted Romneycare but Conservatives did not. A voluntary state plan is much different than a mandatory federal one. And your remark about state exchanges is simply not true based on yesterday's rollout, especially in California.
please tell me why I should be partly responsible for someone who shuns their own responsibility to refrain from things that is proven to provide health problems?
Location: The place where the road & the sky collide
23,814 posts, read 34,684,299 times
Reputation: 10256
Quote:
Originally Posted by netbrad
Romneycare is voluntary and no one is forced into it. Romneycare also ended up increasing costs, wait times, etc. Republicans may have touted Romneycare but Conservatives did not. A voluntary state plan is much different than a mandatory federal one. And your remark about state exchanges is simply not true based on yesterday's rollout, especially in California.
Romneycare has the penalty. That came out of the Heritage Foundation, Ace. You keep trying, though.
Romneycare has the penalty. That came out of the Heritage Foundation, Ace. You keep trying, though.
I'll admit to being confused about the waiver. However,:
Health care costs per capita were 27 percent higher in Massachusetts than in the rest of the country in 2004, two years before the state plan was signed, Holtz-Eakin says. By 2009, it was 30 percent higher than the national average.
And just because it allegedly came from the Heritage Foundation doesn't mean I agree with it, Ace. It is wrong to force people to buy health insurance. Also:
It’s getting harder for Massachusetts residents to see a doctor, too. A report released last month by the Massachusetts Medical Society found that only half of the state’s primary-care providers are accepting new patients, down from 70 percent in 2007. And the average wait time to see a doctor in family medicine is 45 days — up from 34 days in 2007.
So if Romneycare was the model for the ACA, and what I've listed above is happening under a state level program, what do you think is going to happen under a federal program of similar nature?
Location: The place where the road & the sky collide
23,814 posts, read 34,684,299 times
Reputation: 10256
Quote:
Originally Posted by netbrad
I'll admit to being confused about the waiver. However,:
Health care costs per capita were 27 percent higher in Massachusetts than in the rest of the country in 2004, two years before the state plan was signed, Holtz-Eakin says. By 2009, it was 30 percent higher than the national average.
And just because it allegedly came from the Heritage Foundation doesn't mean I agree with it, Ace. It is wrong to force people to buy health insurance.
We needed something. Single payer would have been better, but the Dems went this way to appease Republicans.
Romney repeatedly praised the mandate in Massachusetts. If you never bothered to listen, not my problem.
It doesn't allegedly come from the Heritage Foundation, it does come from them.
I've been uninsurable since a bout with gynecological cancer. Most of those cancers are roll-of-the-dice cancers. A friend is in the same boat because a drug that she took sent her into diabetes. (There's a lawsuit going on concerning that drug.)
I'm glad you can get reasonable coverage now.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
Was it necessary for me to come up with a clue to figure it out? How do you know that I don't have a clue? I would rather not subsidize people that did not take care of their health. That is my feeling/opinion. I don't think it is up to me to find or develop clues to figure this mess out. I was posting my opinion as apparently you have to chosen to do so. While I am all for the common good, I think there should also be consequences for bad decisions (again, my opinion). I completely understand that bad things can happen to good people (simply put) but I believe insurance tables likely have accounted for that in the past. As a disclosure, I am a registered Democrat from the Northeast, work in human services, don't have a gun and voted for Obama (just to rule out any preconceived notions based upon my opinion/feeling regarding the ACA).
How could anyone? Who would pick and choose who got coverage and who did not?
How do we know that everyone having access to insurance won't improve health overall?
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
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.
