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.
IF you don't understand why just not discriminating against pre-existing conditions without pairing it with a mandate doesn't work I can't help you. I gave you a great analogy and its pretty much common sense.
It took 2,000 pages because our problem with the healthcare industry is far more than just one thing.. and in order to effect change that would, over the long term, slow the costs from rising you have to address them all... THAT is why the bill is so large.
Fixing only 1 leak when there are many doesn't mean that the water still won't leak out.. hence the problems with our healthcare system prior to the ACA.
See, here is your problem.....you think they really care....you know all those dems that passed this....
Let me ask another question, do you know, over the past 60 years, who has had control of congress....
When and if you wil research, you will see that this cuold have been completed MANY times by either side with NO problem....yet now, you really think they care...
See, here is your problem.....you think they really care....you know all those dems that passed this....
Let me ask another question, do you know, over the past 60 years, who has had control of congress....
When and if you wil research, you will see that this cuold have been completed MANY times by either side with NO problem....yet now, you really think they care...
LOL.....
Umm.. I only have to look as far back as the Clinton administration.... She was villified and squashed almost like reform was this time.. but this time around the problem has become far worse than it was a decade ago.
And..after that no one dared touch it.. after all we had a Republican president in office for two terms who had no interest in it.. he was too busy going to war over supposed weapons of mass destruction that didn't exist.
IF you don't understand why just not discriminating against pre-existing conditions without pairing it with a mandate doesn't work I can't help you. I gave you a great analogy and its pretty much common sense.
It took 2,000 pages because our problem with the healthcare industry is far more than just one thing.. and in order to effect change that would, over the long term, slow the costs from rising you have to address them all... THAT is why the bill is so large.
Fixing only 1 leak when there are many doesn't mean that the water still won't leak out.. hence the problems with our healthcare system prior to the ACA.
I don't mean to be offensive, but the stuff you say makes no sense.
I have read the legislation; most of it is not even about healthcare.
I never said I was not in favor of eliminating pre-exisiting conditions.
Umm.. I only have to look as far back as the Clinton administration.... She was villified and squashed almost like reform was this time.. but this time around the problem has become far worse than it was a decade ago.
And..after that no one dared touch it.. after all we had a Republican president in office for two terms who had no interest in it.. he was too busy going to war over supposed weapons of mass destruction that didn't exist.
I do know what I'm talking about.. I have been following the issues of the healthcare system and reform since the Clinton administration.
I've spent probably WAY too much time looking at the number, the stats, etc.
But if you're only comeback is that I "don't know what I'm talking about".. then I'll turn it around to you and say.. no, you don't know what you're talking about..
IT is when someone brings the history of healthcare reform into the conversation.. and by trying to indicate that something could have been done for quite some time but wasn't.. I merely pointed out about what did occur or was attempted during the Clinton administration...
I don't mean to be offensive, but the stuff you say makes no sense.
I have read the legislation; most of it is not even about healthcare.
I never said I was not in favor of eliminating pre-exisiting conditions.
right.. it is about ACCESS to healthcare.. which I pretty much equate as being one and the same, considering that without the insurance..there pretty much isn't really much "healthcare" going on .. at least not for the 98% of us that aren't wealthy....
And, indeed you made reference to how the states on the state level could have done away with pre-existing conditions .. etc.. unless that wasn't your post I initially responded to and was someone else.. in which case I apologize for getting you confused with someone ekes.
Location: Just transplanted to FL from the N GA mountains
3,997 posts, read 4,145,823 times
Reputation: 2677
Quote:
Originally Posted by Proud2beAMom
right.. it is about ACCESS to healthcare.. which I pretty much equate as being one and the same, considering that without the insurance..there pretty much isn't really much "healthcare" going on .. at least not for the 98% of us that aren't wealthy....
And that right there is where you are wrong. Healthcare and insurance are two totally different things, no matter how much YOU equate them as being the same.
IT is when someone brings the history of healthcare reform into the conversation.. and by trying to indicate that something could have been done for quite some time but wasn't.. I merely pointed out about what did occur or was attempted during the Clinton administration...
This is not about the history of healthcare reform in this country.
You are off topic.
We are talking about the present situation: ACA.
I am sure there are other threads out there you can go to and pontificate about these other issues that interest you.
And that right there is where you are wrong. Healthcare and insurance are two totally different things, no matter how much YOU equate them as being the same.
I wish that were true.. but the reality of it is you don't get healthcare without insurance.
sure, you get patched up in an ER and sent home with a bill that you can't pay.
BUT.. you also get diagnosed and told to call a specialist about whatever ails you.
So, if you are diagnosed with cancer because you walked into the ER with pain (which, by that point would be too late anyway.. and if you had access to affordable care you would have had it discovered long before it became life threatening). .. you are told to go see an oncologist.
And, any doctors office I have seen has a sign that reads "payment expected at time of visit" . In other words, they dont' treat you and send you home with a bill that they know you'll never be able to pay.
So , indeed, in the U.S healthcare and health insurance are synonymous..
It isn't in the rest of the world.
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.
