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.
Sebelius pointed to a new analysis – done by her own department -- showing that without the Affordable Care Act, up to 129 million non-elderly Americans who have some type of pre-existing health condition would be at risk of losing health insurance or being denied coverage altogether.
...
The HHS analysis found that “anywhere from 50 to 129 million (19 to 50 percent) of Americans under age 65 have some type of pre-existing condition. “Examples of what may be considered a pre-existing condition” (emphasis added) include heart disease, cancer, asthma, high blood pressure, and arthritis, HHS said.
According to HHS, older Americans ages 55-64 are at particular risk because 48 to 86 percent of them live with a pre-existing condition.
The news release also noted that up to 30 percent of people under age 65 who are in good health today “are likely to develop a pre-existing condition over the next eight years.”
Just for reference, 2009 estimates say there are 264 million people who are under 65. So anywhere from 20% to almost 50% of Americans have a pre-existing condition.
To me, the pre-existing condition clause is the aspect of ObamaCare that breaks the insurance companies, because they can't service health care for everyone. Ultimately, someone has to pay for all of this.
It sounds noble and charitable, but nothing is free - or if it is free, it won't be free for long OR the service will be extremely substandard. People need to realize this.
I have a question - what is more damaging? Emotional provocative speech or lies?
To me, the pre-existing condition clause is the aspect of ObamaCare that breaks the insurance companies, because they can't service health care for everyone. Ultimately, someone has to pay for all of this.
People don't want to pay for it (hint: they hate the mandate). They want everybody else to. That is the reality.
Having said that, where did you get the idea that it is the insurance companies that provide health care?
Quote:
I have a question - what is more damaging? Emotional provocative speech or lies?
There is no difference between lies and emotional speech to instill fear. Both use, and abuse, the right side of the brain and make people less rational.
Logic, however, can also bring fear. So, how did you deduce this idea of Sebelius' claim being emotion based as opposed to rational? To be credible, you will have to either provide number of Americans with pre-existing condition of some form that will get them rejected if they were to buy their own insurance (and not in some for of socialist/employer based system that covers it all up until that time when they do need to be on their own), or prove that 129 million is not the correct number.
It's available now only the premiums are so high they are going without.
Obamacare was never about reducing costs..it was about availability and subsidizing that availability.
People don't want to pay for it (hint: they hate the mandate). They want everybody else to. That is the reality.
Having said that, where did you get the idea that it is the insurance companies that provide health care?
They don't - they service the claims.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
There is no difference between lies and emotional speech to instill fear. Both use, and abuse, the right side of the brain and make people less rational.
Logic, however, can also bring fear. So, how did you deduce this idea of Sebelius' claim being emotion based as opposed to rational? To be credible, you will have to either provide number of Americans with pre-existing condition of some form that will get them rejected if they were to buy their own insurance (and not in some for of socialist/employer based system that covers it all up until that time when they do need to be on their own), or prove that 129 million is not the correct number.
Sebellius was not emotional - but to me, using those stats were lies. I was tying the connect the current hate speech bickering to lying - and asking which is worse?
To me, the pre-existing condition clause is the aspect of ObamaCare that breaks the insurance companies, because they can't service health care for everyone. Ultimately, someone has to pay for all of this.
It sounds noble and charitable, but nothing is free - or if it is free, it won't be free for long OR the service will be extremely substandard. People need to realize this.
I think some of your underlying assumptions require reexamination.
I'm not trying to be snarky, the fact is every other first world country provide full service to everyone, regardless of pre-exising conditions. Most with better standards of service and outcomes, and all do it far cheaper.
Several do it through insurance.
Your statement therefore appears to be the direct opposite of what actually happens. Normally when there is such as severe dislocation between expectations and what actually happens, the basic assumptions are faulty.
Of course I am speaking in general, and not in the specific setting of this round of health care reforms.
Sebelius pointed to a new analysis – done by her own department -- showing that without the Affordable Care Act, up to 129 million non-elderly Americans who have some type of pre-existing health condition would be at risk of losing health insurance or being denied coverage altogether.
...
The HHS analysis found that “anywhere from 50 to 129 million (19 to 50 percent) of Americans under age 65 have some type of pre-existing condition. “Examples of what may be considered a pre-existing condition” (emphasis added) include heart disease, cancer, asthma, high blood pressure, and arthritis, HHS said.
According to HHS, older Americans ages 55-64 are at particular risk because 48 to 86 percent of them live with a pre-existing condition.
The news release also noted that up to 30 percent of people under age 65 who are in good health today “are likely to develop a pre-existing condition over the next eight years.”
Just for reference, 2009 estimates say there are 264 million people who are under 65. So anywhere from 20% to almost 50% of Americans have a pre-existing condition.
To me, the pre-existing condition clause is the aspect of ObamaCare that breaks the insurance companies, because they can't service health care for everyone. Ultimately, someone has to pay for all of this.
It sounds noble and charitable, but nothing is free - or if it is free, it won't be free for long OR the service will be extremely substandard. People need to realize this.
I have a question - what is more damaging? Emotional provocative speech or lies?
First they used the figure of 50 million uninsured to get Obamacare passed and now they dredge up this 129 million figure with pre-existing conditions to save Obamacare from repeal. Both numbers are plain phoney.
Half of all healthcare dollars are spent by the government either in Medicare or Medicaid. Pre-existing conditions are not an issue for that coverage. So you can knock down that 129 million figure by half (probably more than half because it stands to reason that older people have more pre-existing conditions). Of the remaining people with pre-existing conditions most are covered through employment-related insurance. Indeed the number of people who don't qualify for either Medicare or Medicaid or are not covered by some form of insurance is actually miniscule. And the Republicans have a plan to cover them--high risk pools. It works for auto insurance so why wouldn't it work for health insurance?
The Dems are creating a mountain out of a mole hill. If that's all they've got to support this monstrosity called Obamacare they'll have real trouble selling it to the American people.
I believe proper health care is a fundamental right that can be most efficiently supplied by a private sector system paid for by a government insurance system. There is no need to exclude pre existing conditions as care would be provided for everyone. The savings would be made by eliminating private sector insurance company excessive managment salaries, corporate perks and profits as well as limiting the provide profits. The remaining costs would be covered by an income tax on the 90th percentile and above.
This is a far better plan than Obanacare or any of the nonsense suggested by the Republicans.
Why weren't the 129 million denied coverage BEFORE Obamacare passed?
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.
