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.
janelle
There is enough things in this bill to be opposed to legitimately.
C/Ping such as you have has a tendency to diminish the genuine concerns since it some of the way it is presented is misleading in order to scare.
Just one for instance........"doctors will be restricted in what they own."
Only ownership of medically related business/facilities.
Although I may not or may not agree with this, it does have sound reasoning.
The "government will mandate how your life ends" isn't even worth the time it takes to dispute that one.
You are not the standard or the norm. We can play with numbers and claim "quite a few" and use it to institute policy, but then we would just be deviously manipulating the position to our bias.
You have no idea what "the norm" is. And while his (or her) particular disease may not afflict a high number of individuals, there are hundreds of thousands of illnesses and injuries that occur to people every day, that are, or can be, just as serious and costly to care for.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander
My point in the original post was that everyone thinks they are due something, that society should take care of their problems.
Utter and complete nonsense. What every single one of us is arguing is that everyone is entitled to health care coverage, which they are willing to pay into a system for, be it private insurance or a public option. But as of today, there is no public option, and private insurance excludes millions of people because it hurts their profitability. That's what needs to be remedied.
And since the "conservatives" hate government "regulation" of private industry so much, I'd think your side would be thrilled with the prospect of private insurers being told that if they won't change their exclusionary practices, the citizens of this country will be provided with an alternative that will. Then let's see how fast they electively choose to fall in line or go out of business. Capitalism at its finest!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander
You were born with a genetic disorder, this is not the fault of anyone else nor would I even say it is your fault. It is what it is. You can accept the handicap of your position and work a way to overcome it yourself, or you can insist others pay for your problems.
No. He can insist that he not have to rely on his continued employment in order to continue to be allowed to buy coverage for himself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander
Your life will likely not be as normal and with as many opportunities as others, but it will be a life you control, you decide, and one you are responsible for.
How magnanimous of you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by old_cold
Jill61
If I haven't mixed up posters and if you are on Levothyroxine I got curious.
The proposed public plan is not necessarily going to be run like Medicare and perhaps different Prescription coverage companies would offer different drugs but we chose the one we have because of two drugs that have no generic equivilents so.......with that preface.....
I checked Levothyroxine and only the generic would be approved.
No reason for this post other than to caution that some of you may fare no better with a government run program than you do now.
I'm not concerned about my prescription coverage, but I do appreciate you for looking out for me.
and private insurance excludes millions of people because it hurts their profitability. That's what needs to be remedied.
Jill - in both the GOP legislation and the Democratic legislation, there are provisions that would REQUIRE insurance companies to eliminate the pre-existing condition exclusion. So, regardless of the bill that passes (assuming one of them does), no more pre-existing exclusions.
Now, both bills do allow insurance companies to "surcharge" for preexisting conditions - but there will be a cap and insurance companies will only be able to apply this surcharge for a limited period of time - I believe both provide for 1 year.
You have no idea what "the norm" is. And while his (or her) particular disease may not afflict a high number of individuals, there are hundreds of thousands of illnesses and injuries that occur to people every day, that are, or can be, just as serious and costly to care for. Utter and complete nonsense. What every single one of us is arguing is that everyone is entitled to health care coverage, which they are willing to pay into a system for, be it private insurance or a public option. But as of today, there is no public option, and private insurance excludes millions of people because it hurts their profitability. That's what needs to be remedied.
So you are saying that your claim is "the norm"? Pick one, can't sit on the fence here. Commit to your position. I think it is a very safe claim to make that these genetic diseases are not the "status quo", the normal occurrence or the standard.
As for your vague generalized claim of "just as serious thingy like stuff, bad things", by all means outline your case. What are all these serious things that take the abnormal occurrence and make this an huge issue? You have to do better than simply "feeling" your way through here. You are making big claims, please... back them up. I only stated that I do not think them to be the norm occurrence, its a reasonable position as if it were the majority or even close then we would likely hear about all of these "normal" occurrences. So please, enlighten me on the numbers. How much of the population suffers from these specific illness? Care to put some numbers in your mouth rather than assumptive generalizations and vague claims to problems you refuse to quantify or even identify? I really "feel" you can do this.
first off, you are not "entitled" to anything. Second, a public option takes my money (if you think taxes are not going to be raised for this, then you have no clue about what you are talking about). So, what you are saying is you are "entitled" to my money to use as you like. That again, is false. You are entitled to what you can provide for yourself. This is the responsibility of freedom. YOU must make efforts, you have no "right" to anything of mine or that of the populace. If you don't like that, then go start up your own country and you can put in your constitution all of your favorite "entitlements" and tax your people into the ground with it.
You have no right to demand anything. You are welcome to physically fight for it, I will be there to defend my freedom as our founders did. Don't be late.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jill61
And since the "conservatives" hate government "regulation" of private industry so much, I'd think your side would be thrilled with the prospect of private insurers being told that if they won't change their exclusionary practices, the citizens of this country will be provided with an alternative that will. Then let's see how fast they electively choose to fall in line or go out of business. Capitalism at its finest! No. He can insist that he not have to rely on his continued employment in order to continue to be allowed to buy coverage for himself. How magnanimous of you.
I'm not concerned about my prescription coverage, but I do appreciate you for looking out for me.
At the cost of dipping into the pockets of everyone to do so. Yes, so freedom based, so concerned about individual freedoms. Complete garbage and nothing short of self centered egotistical oppressive action using "the good of the people" to fund its corrupt system. What do you care about freedoms though right? As long as you get your way, right? Typical of a position that spits on everything this country stands for.
Look, maybe you are young or never grew up. I honestly don't know, but there is a little thing called "responsibility" get some before you push to far and it will no longer be possible to avoid it.
Can I ask to those that advocate that one should take responsibilty for themselves for a illness and pay for it themselves.What do they do when they can't no longer work to make money to pay for that illness?
What do they do when the bills each year for the illness cost more than 5 years worth of wages?
What do they do when no insurance will touch them?
What do they do when they try to get a loan to pay and the loan is denied because the loaners know the person would never be able to pay it back anyway?
Taking personal responsibilty,dealing with the cards that were dealt you.In many aspects it is the correct attitude,however medical wise I cannot agree with you on this.There is a way to help these people,there is a way to possibly make them productive citizens again.Charity may help,but realistically the only current way is government help.
Those that advocate that somebody not ask for help from government,why won't you admit that maybe there is something wrong with the current free market system in health care?When a person worked 30 years,played by the rules,then develops a illness that pillages their life savings,possibly looses their home,and is now in poverty forever,and in the paper the headline says "health insurance boasts record profit for the year" AND it was that insurance industry that denied that person insurance leading them into poverty you don't see anything wrong with that?You will side completely with corporate profit even though there is a way to prevent these people from suffering such a fate?You can't see that there is unbalance between profit and people in this case?
Okay, I read what was outlined here and there and I see nothing that refers to euthanasia, doctor-assisted suicide or anything else highlighted in that outline. Feel free to point it out, but I'm not seeing it.
I tell ya, those crazed anti-Obama idiots really **** me off with this kind of thing. I want accurate, reliable info, not this nonsense from losers who claim to love their country, passing along false information to fellow Americans. I got enough of this garbage during the election.
No offense to the original poster as it looks like something copied from an email, but if I am right, I hope he/she is not that gullible.
Can I ask to those that advocate that one should take responsibilty for themselves for a illness and pay for it themselves.What do they do when they can't no longer work to make money to pay for that illness?
What do they do when the bills each year for the illness cost more than 5 years worth of wages?
What do they do when no insurance will touch them?
What do they do when they try to get a loan to pay and the loan is denied because the loaners know the person would never be able to pay it back anyway?
Taking personal responsibilty,dealing with the cards that were dealt you.In many aspects it is the correct attitude,however medical wise I cannot agree with you on this.There is a way to help these people,there is a way to possibly make them productive citizens again.Charity may help,but realistically the only current way is government help.
Those that advocate that somebody not ask for help from government,why won't you admit that maybe there is something wrong with the current free market system in health care?When a person worked 30 years,played by the rules,then develops a illness that pillages their life savings,possibly looses their home,and is now in poverty forever,and in the paper the headline says "health insurance boasts record profit for the year" you don't see anything wrong with that?You will side completely with corporate profit even though there is a way to prevent these people from suffering such a fate?You can't see that there is unbalance between profit and people in this case?
I've been there, so I can relay my story to you.
What did I do when I lost my insurance? I suffered. I may need to have a liver transplant in the next 10-15 years because of damage caused by not getting my medication in a timely manner. I had to get two pins put in my knees because the sugars that the medication was supposed to keep at bay ate my bones. I will also eventually need a hip replacement by the time I'm 50, if I'm lucky.
That is what happened to me. If my insurance hadn't dropped me (which I ended up getting reinstated, because they dropped me for a bs reason) I would not have all of these problems.
I am a productive member of society as long as I get my meds. If I don't, I become a very non-productive member of society. So by denying my medication, they are causing me to get closer and closer to SSI disability. Funny how that works, eh?
Since graduating high school 24 years ago I have had employment.Even in high school I worked a night job.I have never filed for unemployment,I have never asked or taken any free government handout including FEMA after a hurricane.
I have always paid my bills first,before using money for "things".The only time I have ever asked or taken help was from my dad when times were tough and I needed a root canal and a fridgerator.And even then I offered my dad to pay it back but he said it was a gift.
I don't want to depend on someone,I don't want to impose on others.However if the day came and something happened medical wise that overwhelmed me the only altnernative might be is to ask for help,for the generosity of others because that was the last alternative.
I believe in responsibility,but there are times when we can't do it alone,and in times like that I don't mind there being a public safety net.
Last edited by lionking; 08-06-2009 at 02:18 PM..
Reason: spelling .....duh!
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.
