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.
You certainly have a point. However, this is the reason we have representatives in our government to make the decisions about how tax money is spent. They can't please everyone. However, money spent on protecting the U.S. as a whole and our interests is a much more equitable use of taxpayer money. Of course, we can argue about whether spending money in Iraq is protecting the U.S. and/or our interests but either way this is how it is being perceived by the President and Congress. Now, taking money from one class of individuals to give to another is only benefitting a portion of the citizens and hurting another portion, not an equitable use of taxpayer money.
When you speak about insurance companies not covering those with pre-existing conditions, this would be similar to demanding an auto insurance company to cover a car that already has body damage, expecting them to pay for the damage. Does this seem reasonable? Insurance companies are not social organizations, in business to make sure everyone has insurance. They have a responsibility to their stockholders to make a profit. Covering an individual with pre-existing health problems can be a poor business decision, costing the stockholders money.
This is exactly why privitization needs to be dnoe away with. Because all they care about is profit!!!!
Sorry.. I can't equate a human life to the same thing as a car.. and it's just silly.. We're talking abou human beings here and their life NOT some stupid car which can be bought and sold or traded for a better car! The comparison you make just makes me ill!
When you speak about insurance companies not covering those with pre-existing conditions, this would be similar to demanding an auto insurance company to cover a car that already has body damage, expecting them to pay for the damage. Does this seem reasonable? Insurance companies are not social organizations, in business to make sure everyone has insurance. They have a responsibility to their stockholders to make a profit. Covering an individual with pre-existing health problems can be a poor business decision, costing the stockholders money.
AJ - I have to take some exception here to your comments above.
Pre-Existing conditions are an important part of this debate on Health Care. IMO, one of the changes that needs to be done is to provide that Heath Insurance carriers MUST allow for pre-existing conditions. To balance this though, I would allow them to charge a "Sur-Charge" of say, a maximum of, 25% of the "normal" premium for such coverage. AND, if there were no claims made related to that pre-existing condition for a period of time, say 6 to 12 months, that surcharge would be dropped.
AJ - I have to take some exception here to your comments above.
Pre-Existing conditions are an important part of this debate on Health Care. IMO, one of the changes that needs to be done is to provide that Heath Insurance carriers MUST allow for pre-existing conditions. To balance this though, I would allow them to charge a "Sur-Charge" of say, a maximum of, 25% of the "normal" premium for such coverage. AND, if there were no claims made related to that pre-existing condition for a period of time, say 6 to 12 months, that surcharge would be dropped.
What do you think?
First.. adding a 25% surcharge will NOT help the affordability for many..so what you are going to do is put health insurance out of reach for so many.. then they'll go UNINSURED with health problems and well.. die.
Diabetes is somethign that has lots of claims on it. I can't live without my insulin. AND.. I go to my endocronologist every 3 months to keep it in check.. so.. if I need to keep my chronic condition in check to keep me healthy by going to visit my Dr. I'm going to get penalized for it. The end results will be a lot of people skipping their appointments to get the premium down to something they could afford but then will be putting their overall health at risk.
You can't and shouldn't penalize someone for something they have NO CONTROL over contracting..
How about the cancer patient who suddently gets cancer.. NOW thye have to deal with CANCER , missing work because of treatments.. possibly loosing their job because of missing work and illnesss and then have toworry about paying an additional 25% for the premium becuase they now have cancer.
You're creating many holes their for people to fall through and still end up making it both unaffordable to them AND forcing them to cut back because they couldn't afford it..
First.. adding a 25% surcharge will NOT help the affordability for many..so what you are going to do is put health insurance out of reach for so many.. then they'll go UNINSURED with health problems and well.. die.
Diabetes is somethign that has lots of claims on it. I can't live without my insulin. AND.. I go to my endocronologist every 3 months to keep it in check.. so.. if I need to keep my chronic condition in check to keep me healthy by going to visit my Dr. I'm going to get penalized for it. The end results will be a lot of people skipping their appointments to get the premium down to something they could afford but then will be putting their overall health at risk.
You can't and shouldn't penalize someone for something they have NO CONTROL over contracting..
How about the cancer patient who suddently gets cancer.. NOW thye have to deal with CANCER , missing work because of treatments.. possibly loosing their job because of missing work and illnesss and then have toworry about paying an additional 25% for the premium becuase they now have cancer.
You're creating many holes their for people to fall through and still end up making it both unaffordable to them AND forcing them to cut back because they couldn't afford it..
Sorry TM but, you forget - I'm a Diabetic. And a cancer survivor.
Sorry TM but, you forget - I'm a Diabetic. And a cancer survivor.
Yeah.. I know you're a diabetic.. but you're also someone who doesn't have a problem affording what you need! By your admission you make $200,000 a year!! Middle income families average middle income is around the $35K mark!! Put youself in a position where you wouldn't be able to afford the 25% more when even the regular price of issurance WITHOUT the 25% increase is barely if at all affordable.
I happen to live ina state that isn't allowed to bill more for pre-existing conditions. My premium is almost $800.. not if your "plan" will end up decreasing premiums becaus it's shoppable across state lines.. by whta percenatage would it decrease ti.. THEN add that 25% back in.. and I'd be paying MORE than what I'm paying now or at best the same.. which still makes my insurance UNAFFORDABLE!!!!
Hell.. I make slightly more than the national average middle class (because of where I live) and my insurance is already takign up 16% of my income.. without adding in out of pocket costs!!
Yeah.. I know you're a diabetic.. but you're also someone who doesn't have a problem affording what you need! By your admission you make $200,000 a year!! Middle income families average middle income is around the $35K mark!! Put youself in a position where you wouldn't be able to afford the 25% more when even the regular price of issurance WITHOUT the 25% increase is barely if at all affordable.
I happen to live ina state that isn't allowed to bill more for pre-existing conditions. My premium is almost $800.. not if your "plan" will end up decreasing premiums becaus it's shoppable across state lines.. by whta percenatage would it decrease ti.. THEN add that 25% back in.. and I'd be paying MORE than what I'm paying now or at best the same.. which still makes my insurance UNAFFORDABLE!!!!
Hell.. I make slightly more than the national average middle class (because of where I live) and my insurance is already takign up 16% of my income.. without adding in out of pocket costs!!
Yes, Yes TM - we know your story. We know. And I, for one, can really appreciate your dilemna as I have been there. No insurance. Children and so on. I know what it is like to pay the entire medical bills including a surgery and hospitalization. Try having Cancer with no insurance TM -
So while I appreciate your situation, there still are, IMO, ways to help others get the coverages they need.
But, it comes down to this: Some want everything for "free" (so called). They don't want to pay for any medical expense whatsoever. I'm not in that group.
Yes, Yes TM - we know your story. We know. And I, for one, can really appreciate your dilemna as I have been there. No insurance. Children and so on. I know what it is like to pay the entire medical bills including a surgery and hospitalization. Try having Cancer with no insurance TM -
So while I appreciate your situation, there still are, IMO, ways to help others get the coverages they need.
But, it comes down to this: Some want everything for "free" (so called). They don't want to pay for any medical expense whatsoever. I'm not in that group.
NOr am I .. I never asked for "free" medical.. I did ask to pay more taxes for a UHI system.... and if that doesn't happen then I ask to pay a "fair" premium.. NOT one that puts such a strain on my finances or penalizes me for somethign I do not have any control over..
UHI is Not FREE!! That is a misconception.
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.
