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.
Hypothetical scenario, middle aged man with wife and 2 kids gets healthcare insurance from his employer, Middle aged man loses job for whatever reason and along with it his employer paid healthcare insurance. In looking for another insurance plan his diabetes and high blood pressure are viewed as pre existing conditions and disqualify him from getting another insurance plan or the ones he could get have premiums so high as to be unaffordable.
With 30 to 40 million people out of work i'd say this hypothetical scenario is happening often.what is the Republican solution to this problem?
Yes I would like an answer to this question as well. I was born with a heart condition, and would have been disqualified from some insurance coverage if my mother didn't get a good job that provided health insurance (at the time) that didn't care about pre-existing condition (it wasn't that much of a concern in the 70's).
Do you believe these are the only two options that people face? Some people cannot even afford to pay the rent and HC, let alone a mortgage payment.
A lot of renters would actually have an easier time making a mortgage payment than a rent payment. Heck, I've paid more to rent a ROOM than many homeowners pay on their mortgage.
A lot of renters would actually have an easier time making a mortgage payment than a rent payment. Heck, I've paid more to rent a ROOM than many homeowners pay on their mortgage.
I knew someone would come up with that argument. Unfortunately, it costs much more to even begin to make mortgage payments - down payment, various fees for the loan and home inspection.
Except for exceptional circumstances, like being 70 and having 3 types of cancer, health insurance is available and affordable. I have shopped around for the hell of it using several different states for comparison and all of the plans were quite affordable. (ie. $80-250 month). Is it the best insurance on the planet? Not neccessarily, but with out of pocket maximums, it's much better than nothing.
Are there exceptions? Of course. But I don't buy the whole "its not affordable" argument. It's all about priorities. If insurance costs $250 per month, and you really need health insurance, then you prioritize your spending accordingly.
Millions of American's don't even know how to budget. That they also don't understand their priorities is of no concern to me.
Here in Canada...I can get the same quality of medical treatment that an American president gets..our sytem sucks up half our tax dollars..but it is worth it.......dentistry is very expensive and not included;;;you can tell who is poor and who is not by their teeth....dentistry should be included in health care..why should rich people have all their teeth and the poor don't....teeth are about good presentation...bad teeth create a sub-social class.
1 out of every 2 men in the US will get cancer in their lifetime. You clearly have had the fortune of never being seriously sick.......yet. cancer patients often have a bell of a time with insurance and insurance companies get to dictate the procedures they receive, not the doctors, because treatment is so expensive. Even if you do have insurance it doesn't mean you get treatment. Ceos of insurance companies need to retain their huge multimillion dollar salaries don't forget.
1 out of every 2 men in the US will get cancer in their lifetime. You clearly have had the fortune of never being seriously sick.......yet. cancer patients often have a bell of a time with insurance and insurance companies get to dictate the procedures they receive, not the doctors, because treatment is so expensive. Even if you do have insurance it doesn't mean you get treatment. Ceos of insurance companies need to retain their huge multimillion dollar salaries don't forget.
I just looked that up. WOW! Astounding statistic.
No question, many are ineligible for HI and life insurance, and it stains the record on other normal things in life as well. Treatments are, in fact, different depending on what card you carry.
I was forced by my insurance company to use a less effective chemo regime (ABVD) versus the one my doctor actually wanted to give me due to the extent of my illness (eBEACOPP). eBEACOPP is standard in every other country and standard in most hospitals for advanced disease. However, it is more expensive and involves more time at the doctor's office, so the insurance company wouldn't cover it.
Again, if I lose my job, I'm now 24 with a serious medical condition. Who is going to insure someone with a cancer history? Furthermore, what 24 year old could afford the sort of premiums that that plan would cost?
I happened to get cancer in my 20s. If you're in your 50s or 60s, flip a coin. If it hasn't happened to you or your spouse and you are decrying those lousy poor people and their healthcare, just wait. 1 in 2. Which one of you will it be? Which of your children? Your grandchildren?
I agree. Some people feel it's more important to have the latest smartphone, DVR's in every room of their home, and $200 Nike's than to spend a couple hundred per month on health insurance.
Couple of hundred bucks per month will get a extremely restricted cover with high co pays........... if good health care was a couple of hundred bucks a month we woudn't be having this discussion!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
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.