[QUOTE=Guest]You will post and spin anything that you see as anti-republican.

RE: pre-existing conditions
A valid reply would take a book but very abridged. First of all I HAVE A PRE-EXISTING CONDITION and have had it since the age of 13. When, we were PAYING for private healthcare insurance, OBAMACARE HAD BEEN PASSED, we were not allowed to purchase the far less costly catastrophic insurance-THEY SIMPLY REFUSED TO SELL IT TO US. [QUOTE=Guest]

AHA did not have "catastrophic" insurance. AHA disallowed the health care companies to put a cap on coverage, so, there was no further need for catastrophic coverage.


[QUOTE=Guest]We find it reasonable and acceptable that people who have had auto insurance claims or home insurance claims, or have a high risk profession etc PAY MORE FOR INSURANCE, why do YOU not see this as reasonable for healthcare insurance.[QUOTE=Guest]

If you have not noticed, health insurance is SIGNIFICANTLY more complex and costly than either home or auto insurance. The "high risk" premiums are significantly lower than the possible "high risk" pool premiums, and the $8Billion over 10 years spread out to all 50 states, is a laughably low amount to help those in need.


[QUOTE=Guest]We refuse to see the FACT that people must be forced to be responsible.[QUOTE=Guest]

Tell that to the parents of a child born with defects, or cancer.

[QUOTE=Guest]As to medical-care, we refuse to deny care to anyone. BEFORE YOU START SCREAMING- A young healthy person decides they would rather spend their money on a car, a vacation, a house or.......... so they DECIDE not to BUY insurance. They are crossing the street and are hit by a car. To make it simple assume the car driver is innocent. ARE WE PREPARED ONCE WE DISCOVER THEY DO NOT HAVE INSURANCE TO TAKE THEM TO THE DUMP DEAD OR ALIVE? They get care and others pay for that THEFT OF SERVICE.[QUOTE=Guest]

A very simplistic example, and a microcosm of the need.


[QUOTE=Guest]RE: CONGRESS KEEPING THEIR MEDICAL COVERAGE
PROGRESSIVE, SOCIALIST, LOGIC.
People have medial coverage due to military service (VA), people have medical coverage due to their job-teachers, government, union etc.[QUOTE=Guest]

The congress enacted the AHA with the stipulation that all members of congress and their staffs were REQUIRED to participate in AHA. The current bill that the House passed kept that same coverage only for the members of congress and their staffs. If the "new" healthcare law is good for the population of Americans in their congressional districts, it should be good enough for the members of congress and their staffs. The AHA did not effect the current group health programs for corporations with 50 or more employees, just revised the rules so that ALL recipients of health care could NOT be discriminated against because of pre-existing conditions, could not have a cap on their coverage, could not be cancelled after a claim, and could keep their children on their policy until that child was 26 years old and still living at home, or have become emancipated.

[QUOTE=Guest]THERE IS NOTHING SIMPLE ABOUT MEDICAL CARE.
Typical of American thought we thing everyone should get equal care WHETHER THEY ARE PAYING FOR IT OR NOT.
Medical care is one of the few things that you cannot shop for. However crude it is, your doctor is SELLING YOU a service. Here in the Villages, the snow flakes are going home. It is not a coincidence that you are NOW getting e-mails etc from your doctor-HAVE NOT SEEN YOU IN A WHILE [QUOTE=Guest]

A good reason for getting second opinions.....

[QUOTE=Guest]Eighty percent of all medical care is paid for by either insurance or the government. WE thus have to allow the people who pay to tell you AND YOUR DOCTOR what care you can get. I spent 4 days in the villages hospital when I was covered by private health care insurance under AETNA. The bill was 50,000 AETNA paid the bill in full for 30,000. IF WE DID NOT HAVE INSURANCE FOR WHICH WE PAID 12,000 THEY WOULD HAVE DEMANDED AN ADDITIONAL 20,000 FOR EXACTLY THE SAME SERVICE.[QUOTE=Guest]

You can anticipate your health care costs to increase dramatically if the House bill is enacted. Increased premiums then, if unaffordable to many, will DECREASE their availability of proper care.


Other than the doctor's fees for examination, and surgery, the multiple costs are not usually known by that particular doctor. Hospital costs, drug costs, equipment costs, and the many other fees and costs are known only by the accounting departments of those hospitals and the insurance companies who have negotiated those costs and fees with those providers. Since the average health costs per person in the USA are TWICE that in most other countries, (Per Capita Healthcare Costs — International Comparison) just where is the extra money going? The answer is to the insurance companies.

If you can imagine paying $6000 per year for a single-payor system (Medicare is a perfect example) rather than $12000 per year per person, for the SAME care, wouldn't you consider it? If you don't like that system, or there are deductibles and co-pays that you must pay out of pocket (much like Medicare, again) there would be "private" health insurance available for that as well as for those who would want their own "high-end" medical protection.

One should not "label" things with outmoded terms like "socialism" because that only stirs up emotions that we, as a free country have demonized. We should look at the practicality and economics of a health care system that allows ALL the American citizens health care, not just the people who can afford it.