Page 33 of 71 FirstFirst ... 23282930313233343536373843 ... LastLast
Results 641 to 660 of 1405
  1. #641  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post

    The bill leaves out a number of the key features of the Democrats' 1,990-page legislation, such as new requirements for employers to insure their employees and for nearly all Americans to purchase insurance. It also doesn't block insurers from denying coverage to people with pre-existing health conditions, as Democrats would do.


    Sadly, that's the most important reform being bandied about. This proposal is a give-away to the Health Insurance Industry.
  2. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #642  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post


    Sadly, that's the most important reform being bandied about. This proposal is a give-away to the Health Insurance Industry.
    Really? What does it give away to them? I haven't read this bill or much of anything about it, but apparently you have. Can you tell me what they are giving away to insurance companies?

    KAM
  3. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #643  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post


    Sadly, that's the most important reform being bandied about.
    Some points:

    1) It doesn't try to fix everything at once.
    2) It's one bill, others can and will be written, as needed.
    3) Even though it's smaller, it addresses issues your bill overlooks, like tort.
    4) The Dem's bill was never about healthcare. It's about shifting this country to socialism, and at a huge expense.
    This proposal is a give-away to the Health Insurance Industry.
    If you want to call it that.... They get to survive.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  4. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #644  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    Really? What does it give away to them? I haven't read this bill or much of anything about it, but apparently you have. Can you tell me what they are giving away to insurance companies?

    KAM
    I think he's talking about the pre-existing conditions. I agree with him. I personally would like to see that in the bill. It's my belief that they're holding stuff like that back for negotiation. It's just the preliminary "unveiling". You don't give away the whole enchilada on the first looksee.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  5. #645  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Some points:

    1) It doesn't try to fix everything at once.
    Or anything at all.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  6. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #646  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    I think he's talking about the pre-existing conditions. I agree with him. I personally would like to see that in the bill. It's my belief that they're holding stuff like that back for negotiation. It's just the preliminary "unveiling". You don't give away the whole enchilada on the first looksee.
    Just saying "Cover all Pre-existing conditions" is simply not viable. Why would anyone ever bother to pay for insurance until they get some major illness?

    I think a compromise where Coverage is not denied, and premiums are either capped to +x% (has to be reasonable) or better yet, a additional co-pay for services related directly to the Preexisting condition (would have to be plainly spelled out). The idea is to not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

    But why bother with that crazy talk about potential solutions. No one seems interested in actually solving problems, just USING problems to further some other goal.

    KAM
  7. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #647  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    Or anything at all.
    That would be a better option than making things much worse by delving deeper into systems that are already economically non-viable and and just Hoping that it all works out.

    OF course, your statement is not true. Even if you took one element--allowing insurance companies to offer policies across state lines that would do what all the Democrats are touting as a good thing--increasing competition. Do you want to increase competition (which this inherently would do, or is that just something that you say?

    KAM
  8. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #648  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    Just saying "Cover all Pre-existing conditions" is simply not viable. Why would anyone ever bother to pay for insurance until they get some major illness?
    I agree in principle, but too often circumstances cause a lapse between coverage, e.g., one was covered for a condition, lost that coverage because of loss of job, and now they're screwed.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  9. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #649  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    Or anything at all.
    Your unwillingness to even consider their bill is very surpising!
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  10. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #650  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    I agree in principle, but too often circumstances cause a lapse between coverage, e.g., one was covered for a condition, lost that coverage because of loss of job, and now they're screwed.
    Certainly, and that's why I think dealing with this issue is necessary. Dealing with it in a fantasy fashion is on the other hand nonsensical.

    I'm sure you understand this, but insurance is of course all about risk, and someone (statistically) is at a greater risk for heart problems if they've had a heart attack for example. I don't know what the odds are, but that's not the point--its an example.

    However, people don't live their lives according to statistics. An individual is individual, so it is very possible that someone who had a heart attack could change their habits and live a healthy life, and shouldn't be penalized for what doesn't happen, or for things not related to that.

    Why should a person pay more for health insurance to cover things like a broken arm, which has nothing to do with a heart attack? That's why I suggest an additional conditional co-pay, which "penalizes" the insured only if that pre-existing condition turns out to be relevant. It lowers the continuing costs, and doesn't punish them at all if they don't have a recurring problem.

    KAM
  11. #651  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Not that I really care, but [...]

    do you feel that taxing cigarettes at a high level to help pay for tobacco-related diseases is a bad thing? [...]
    I don't think it's a bad thing per se, but I'm not so sure it's an effective thing 'to help pay for tobacco-related diseases'. Sin taxes generally serve better at either a) reducing usage since the hardest hit are those who generally can't afford more than they already pay for, or b) creating a grey/black market.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  12. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #652  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    I don't think it's a bad thing per se, but I'm not so sure it's an effective thing 'to help pay for tobacco-related diseases'. Sin taxes generally serve better at either a) reducing usage since the hardest hit are those who generally can't afford more than they already pay for, or b) creating a grey/black market.
    Which essentially means that the argument for tobacco taxes is a false dilemma at best, a non-sequitur at worst.
  13. #653  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    Which essentially means that the argument for tobacco taxes is a false dilemma at best, a non-sequitur at worst.
    Depends on what you consider best and worst. I'd consider a non sequitur 'better' in that it can generally be considered less intentional. A false dichotomy is often a more intentionally misleading argument (my way or the highway, with us or against us, this or nothing, etc.). Sin taxes generally fall more into the former category. The proponents may intentionally have the best interests (or at least what they view as the best interests) of the targets at heart, but simply overlook the law of unintended consequences. To me, it seems that many proponents of 'reform' wind up in this camp. They honestly want to help people, but have an overly optimistic view of the situation. They think that if they provide care for all, that people will willingly comply with what is in their best interest. They don't consider (or may not care) that the only way to achieve what they want is through 1) overly controlling behaviors, 2) under-compensating providers, 3) rationing care in unpopular ways, or 4) some combination of the above. The current hodge-podge system is far from perfect, but I'm not sure that their perceived utopian system is any better.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  14. #654  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    No. I think we should tax everyone and use that money to provide care for everyone, but that's no surprise.

    It must sound very easy to you to look someone in the eye and say "I'm sorry. You chose to smoke, so you're not going to get any care that costs more than $X dollars, because that's all you have. You can go home with your family and die. You are responsible for your own choices. Don't call us, we'll call you."

    Clueless.
    No....people who smoke are "clueless". Why would anyone with an ounce of sense use a product that says on said product: SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: Smoking Causes Lung Cancer, Heart Disease, Emphysema, And May Complicate Pregnancy.

    People make choices in their life and should be responsible for their actions. I'm not for limiting peoples rights to such stupid habits, but if they want to do such things don't lay the responsibility on me. Want to eat 2 burgers at lunch each day that has 3 pieces of meet on each one? Knock yourself out. But when you weight 250 lbs because of such behavior, again, don't lay the responsibility on me.

    Before you ask me to care about these people, how about ask them to care about themselves first? Talk about clueless. We've become a society where it is wrong to blame the person in the mirror....gotta be someone else's fault.

    Clueless.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  15. #655  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    No....people who smoke are "clueless". Why would anyone with an ounce of sense use a product that says on said product: SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: Smoking Causes Lung Cancer, Heart Disease, Emphysema, And May Complicate Pregnancy.

    People make choices in their life and should be responsible for their actions. I'm not for limiting peoples rights to such stupid habits, but if they want to do such things don't lay the responsibility on me. Want to eat 2 burgers at lunch each day that has 3 pieces of meet on each one? Knock yourself out. But when you weight 250 lbs because of such behavior, again, don't lay the responsibility on me.

    Before you ask me to care about these people, how about ask them to care about themselves first? Talk about clueless. We've become a society where it is wrong to blame the person in the mirror....gotta be someone else's fault.

    Clueless.
    ..and you live in South Carolina where the sun burns skin and causes cancer all the time. If you get skin cancer, don't ask me to pay for your bill! Me me me...

    I thought you gave up on this thread Clem?
    My Phone & My Wife's Phone Two Unlocked GSM Treo Pro's

  16.    #656  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    I agree in principle, but too often circumstances cause a lapse between coverage, e.g., one was covered for a condition, lost that coverage because of loss of job, and now they're screwed.
    That's why insurance should be completely portable. If you change jobs you keep your insurance. If employers want to pay for your insurance, let them give you a dollar amount. You shop for insurance and pay for it with what they give and if you want a better plan you pay the difference. But, it is your policy to take with you anywhere.
  17. #657  
    Quote Originally Posted by Technologic 2 View Post
    That's why insurance should be completely portable. If you change jobs you keep your insurance. If employers want to pay for your insurance, let them give you a dollar amount. You shop for insurance and pay for it with what they give and if you want a better plan you pay the difference. But, it is your policy to take with you anywhere.
    If I develop a "pre-existing" condition how can I shop on your open market for a different insurer if they can refuse me coverage based on that?
  18. #658  
    Quote Originally Posted by palandri View Post
    ..and you live in South Carolina where the sun burns skin and causes cancer all the time. If you get skin cancer, don't ask me to pay for your bill! Me me me...

    I thought you gave up on this thread Clem?
    Well....us folks down here in the sun use this stuff called sunscreen....you oughta check it out. I can't tell you the last time I went to the beach here (and I'm 5 minutes from it) and I don't lay around the pool and absorb the sun. Just because one lives in the South doesn't mean you keep yourself tan.

    I do stay away but when I saw such a ridiculous statement I had no choice but to comment on it. Let me guess, you smoke? Why would anyone smoke? What the $#%@ are people thinking? The sad thing is some of the people who can't afford to pay for any healthcare seem to find $80 or more a month to buy cigarettes. Somewhat ironic, huh?
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  19. #659  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    Well....us folks down here in the sun use this stuff called sunscreen....you oughta check it out. I can't tell you the last time I went to the beach here (and I'm 5 minutes from it) and I don't lay around the pool and absorb the sun. Just because one lives in the South doesn't mean you keep yourself tan.

    I do stay away but when I saw such a ridiculous statement I had no choice but to comment on it. Let me guess, you smoke? Why would anyone smoke? What the $#%@ are people thinking? The sad thing is some of the people who can't afford to pay for any healthcare seem to find $80 or more a month to buy cigarettes. Somewhat ironic, huh?
    Somewhat ironic that you come from a state that gets its greatest crop profit per acre from tobacco.

    On a serious note, I agree. I think smoking is terrible.
    My Phone & My Wife's Phone Two Unlocked GSM Treo Pro's

  20. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #660  
    Quote Originally Posted by palandri View Post
    ..and you live in South Carolina where the sun burns skin and causes cancer all the time. If you get skin cancer, don't ask me to pay for your bill! Me me me...

    I thought you gave up on this thread Clem?
    Good point...until you think about it a bit. Is it really accurate to compare someone who goes out, buys a product with labels that basically say "this is likely to kill you" and smokes them up to someone who steps outside? Just not comparable.

    KAM

Posting Permissions