Republicans Just Granted Themselves Special Status In Their Latest Healthcare Bill

[wjboyer1]

By Rika Christensen on April 26, 2017 10:38 am ·
If you have a pre-existing condition, Obamacare currently protects you from being turned down for insurance on the basis of that condition. Republicans want to take that away because insuring sick people just eats too much profit, and healthcare is a privilege, not a right anyway. The latest iteration of their ridiculous healthcare plan will allow states to decide whether insurers have to cover people with pre-existing conditions, because of course it does, but it also contains a brand-new amendment that’s patently disgusting.

It carves an exemption out for members of Congress and their staffs. Insurers would still be required to provide coverage for them regardless of pre-existing conditions. Vox confirmed it last night:

“A spokesperson for Rep. Tom MacArthur (R-N.J.) who authored this amendment confirmed this was the case: members of Congress and their staff would get the guarantee of keeping these Obamacare regulations.”

But don’t Republicans hate Obamacare? Well, their relationship with Obamacare is actually considerably more complex than we tend to give it credit for. Contrary to popular belief, we taxpayers don’t subsidize Congress’ health insurance the way many people think. In fact, we never did. Until 2013, they were covered under the Federal Employee Health Benefits program, which is a health insurance marketplace where they (and every other federal employee) purchase health insurance with all the same bull**** as everyone else, and have their premiums taken out of their paychecks.

The Office of Personnel Management contributes to each employee’s premium, but where private sector employers cover an average of 83 percent of their employees’ premiums (or 72 percent for family plans), OPM covers 72 to 75 percent, whichever is less depending on a variety of factors, across the board.

In 2013, all of Congress was kicked off of FEHB thanks to Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA). He proposed an amendment to the ACA that would require all members of Congress to purchase health insurance through the exchanges, and for their staffs under the small business provision.

So that’s what they’ve been doing for health insurance for the last four years. Where their own lives are concerned, Obamacare’s popular provisions are good things. Where the rest of the country is concerned, though, well, we all know how they feel about the rest of us. The prohibition on denying insurance due to pre-existing conditions is one of the most popular provisions and they want to gut it.

For everyone but themselves.

Can they get any more obvious about where their true priorities lie?

[Don Baldwin]

"If you have a pre-existing condition, Obamacare currently protects you from being turned down for insurance on the basis of that condition. Republicans want to take that away because insuring sick people just eats too much profit, and healthcare is a privilege, not a right anyway."

You CANNOT cover people with $ multi-thousand a month in healthcare costs for LESS than what they cost. You SHOULDN'T force a company to insure ANYONE at a loss.

Let me explain it in a way you may understand and relate to...

You're at Publix shopping...you fill up your cart and get in line to pay. By coincidence...there's a lady in front of you with the SAME stuff in her cart! She gets rung up...She pays $53. It's your turn...your bill comes to $106. You're livid! WHY is your bill so much higher? The cashier informs you that the first lady was "poor" and that is all she could afford for food...you're rich and you must subsidize her by paying your share and hers.

THAT is what insurance for preexisting conditions does too...they "use" $5,000 a month in services, only pay $1,000 in insurance premiums, and WE get to cover the rest with higher premiums. ALL those raises to insurance premiums you've been hearing about...that is to cover the poor who cost more than they pay.

[MDLNB]

"If you have a pre-existing condition, Obamacare currently protects you from being turned down for insurance on the basis of that condition. Republicans want to take that away because insuring sick people just eats too much profit, and healthcare is a privilege, not a right anyway."

You CANNOT cover people with $ multi-thousand a month in healthcare costs for LESS than what they cost. You SHOULDN'T force a company to insure ANYONE at a loss.

Let me explain it in a way you may understand and relate to...

You're at Publix shopping...you fill up your cart and get in line to pay. By coincidence...there's a lady in front of you with the SAME stuff in her cart! She gets rung up...She pays $53. It's your turn...your bill comes to $106. You're livid! WHY is your bill so much higher? The cashier informs you that the first lady was "poor" and that is all she could afford for food...you're rich and you must subsidize her by paying your share and hers.

THAT is what insurance for preexisting conditions does too...they "use" $5,000 a month in services, only pay $1,000 in insurance premiums, and WE get to cover the rest with higher premiums. ALL those raises to insurance premiums you've been hearing about...that is to cover the poor who cost more than they pay.

That's a good way of explaining it. :thumbup:

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

First of all, Speaker Ryan, Sen Leader McConnell and President Trump have all stated that they wanted to keep the pre-existing conditions in their plan. Whatever Rika Christensen is talking about is not that plan.

Secondly, no one has been granted anything. Even if any of this is true, this is one amendment to a bill written by one congressman. The bill still has to be marked up, voted on and sent to the Senate. A lot can happen in the process.

Thirdly, Rika Christensen is an ultra liberal actress who writes (or makes stuff up) about republicans and conservatives, she feels that problems can be solved by groups of people that don't think alike, (as long as none of them have conservative ideas).

[Sandtrap328]

You and your old friends will be SOL when it comes to pre-existing conditions and lifetime cap if the Republican health care gets passed. Of course, your children and grandchildren will also be big time losers, too.

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

You and your old friends will be SOL when it comes to pre-existing conditions and lifetime cap if the Republican health care gets passed. Of course, your children and grandchildren will also be big time losers, too.

I don't know how you can make a statement like that when no one has seen the bill.

I assume that you're just assuming what it will be.

[cologal]

"If you have a pre-existing condition, Obamacare currently protects you from being turned down for insurance on the basis of that condition. Republicans want to take that away because insuring sick people just eats too much profit, and healthcare is a privilege, not a right anyway."

You CANNOT cover people with $ multi-thousand a month in healthcare costs for LESS than what they cost. You SHOULDN'T force a company to insure ANYONE at a loss.

Let me explain it in a way you may understand and relate to...

You're at Publix shopping...you fill up your cart and get in line to pay. By coincidence...there's a lady in front of you with the SAME stuff in her cart! She gets rung up...She pays $53. It's your turn...your bill comes to $106. You're livid! WHY is your bill so much higher? The cashier informs you that the first lady was "poor" and that is all she could afford for food...you're rich and you must subsidize her by paying your share and hers.

THAT is what insurance for preexisting conditions does too...they "use" $5,000 a month in services, only pay $1,000 in insurance premiums, and WE get to cover the rest with higher premiums. ALL those raises to insurance premiums you've been hearing about...that is to cover the poor who cost more than they pay.

I would disagree on this comparison..... its the standard us against them argument from the Repubs. Any of us on Medicare are NOT subject to preexisting conditions as long as we pick a plan and stay with it!

Before Medicare many of us were covered by plans provided by an employer and those plans did not have preexisting conditions clauses.
However, in the PRIVATE insurance market preexisting conditions started out as reasonable like you couldn't buy insurance one month and get a knee replacement the next. However, preexisting conditions became a way for insurance company to improve their profit margins by refusing coverage for a whole host of conditions. They only wanted to insure the healthy.... reduce their risk exposure.

It got to the point of being ridiculous when this case hit the news

Newborn with Birth Defect Denied Coverage - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/newborn-with-birth-defect-denied-coverage/)

A newborn baby was denied coverage.....

Some insurance coverages have a lifetime maximum of say 1 million dollars which seems plenty except if you contract a life threatening condition which could wipe this sum out quickly.

[dillywho]

First of all, Speaker Ryan, Sen Leader McConnell and President Trump have all stated that they wanted to keep the pre-existing conditions in their plan. Whatever Rika Christensen is talking about is not that plan.

Secondly, no one has been granted anything. Even if any of this is true, this is one amendment to a bill written by one congressman. The bill still has to be marked up, voted on and sent to the Senate. A lot can happen in the process.

Thirdly, Rika Christensen is an ultra liberal actress who writes (or makes stuff up) about republicans and conservatives, she feels that problems can be solved by groups of people that don't think alike, (as long as none of them have conservative ideas).

Hide and watch, though. If the bill gets rejected, guess who will get the blame? President Trump, even though he wants to keep that part.

[dillywho]

I would disagree on this comparison..... its the standard us against them argument from the Repubs. Any of us on Medicare are NOT subject to preexisting conditions as long as we pick a plan and stay with it!

Before Medicare many of us were covered by plans provided by an employer and those plans did not have preexisting conditions clauses.
However, in the PRIVATE insurance market preexisting conditions started out as reasonable like you couldn't buy insurance one month and get a knee replacement the next. However, preexisting conditions became a way for insurance company to improve their profit margins by refusing coverage for a whole host of conditions. They only wanted to insure the healthy.... reduce their risk exposure.

It got to the point of being ridiculous when this case hit the news

Newborn with Birth Defect Denied Coverage - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/newborn-with-birth-defect-denied-coverage/)

A newborn baby was denied coverage.....

Some insurance coverages have a lifetime maximum of say 1 million dollars which seems plenty except if you contract a life threatening condition which could wipe this sum out quickly.

When my husband had his stroke after surgery (to prevent a stroke), while still working, his long term disability insurance comapny used the pre-existing excuse for denial. Reading the policy, I cannot see where ANYONE would be covered, either. It said, "If you had been seen by a doctor and had any diagnostic tests run, then you have a pre-existing condition." It did not say diagnostic tests for anything specific, just diagnostic tests. Go figure. Don't we all have diagnostic testing every time we see a doctor, even if it is just the blood work? The insurance company was UNUM and has had many lawsuits associated with their insurances. Trust me, he did not have surgery and a stroke just so he could collect one-year of LTD. That was all it would have paid because he could not return to his work, even for one day, and was terminated per company policy. If you could return for just one day, then you would not be automatically terminated.

If I could have him back the way he was before this happened to him, believe me, I would have paid THEM.

[Sandtrap328]

When my husband had his stroke after surgery (to prevent a stroke), while still working, his long term disability insurance comapny used the pre-existing excuse for denial. Reading the policy, I cannot see where ANYONE would be covered, either. It said, "If you had been seen by a doctor and had any diagnostic tests run, then you have a pre-existing condition." It did not say diagnostic tests for anything specific, just diagnostic tests. Go figure. Don't we all have diagnostic testing every time we see a doctor, even if it is just the blood work? The insurance company was UNUM and has had many lawsuits associated with their insurances. Trust me, he did not have surgery and a stroke just so he could collect one-year of LTD. That was all it would have paid because he could not return to his work, even for one day, and was terminated per company policy. If you could return for just one day, then you would not be automatically terminated.

If I could have him back the way he was before this happened to him, believe me, I would have paid THEM.

...and did YOU vote for :jester:Trump or :crap2:Clinton? Hmmm?

[Don Baldwin]

You and your old friends will be SOL when it comes to pre-existing conditions and lifetime cap if the Republican health care gets passed. Of course, your children and grandchildren will also be big time losers, too.

Yes we will...we'll have to be...or the country will be racking up $2 trillion a year in medical costs. Death panels ARE coming...they MUST come...we spend $1 trillion a year paying for people's healthcare. We can't keep doing it.

I don't know how you can make a statement like that when no one has seen the bill.

I assume that you're just assuming what it will be.

The bill is already $1 trillion a year in government healthcare costs.

I would disagree on this comparison..... its the standard us against them argument from the Repubs. Any of us on Medicare are NOT subject to preexisting conditions as long as we pick a plan and stay with it!

Before Medicare many of us were covered by plans provided by an employer and those plans did not have preexisting conditions clauses.
However, in the PRIVATE insurance market preexisting conditions started out as reasonable like you couldn't buy insurance one month and get a knee replacement the next. However, preexisting conditions became a way for insurance company to improve their profit margins by refusing coverage for a whole host of conditions. They only wanted to insure the healthy.... reduce their risk exposure.

It got to the point of being ridiculous when this case hit the news

Newborn with Birth Defect Denied Coverage - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/newborn-with-birth-defect-denied-coverage/)

A newborn baby was denied coverage.....

Some insurance coverages have a lifetime maximum of say 1 million dollars which seems plenty except if you contract a life threatening condition which could wipe this sum out quickly.

That's 960 monthly payments of over $1,000 a month. Monthly $1,000 payments from birth to 80 years old.

Healthcare is TOO EXPENSIVE to give to everyone at it's current costs.

[wjboyer1]

Yes we will...we'll have to be...or the country will be racking up $2 trillion a year in medical costs. Death panels ARE coming...they MUST come...we spend $1 trillion a year paying for people's healthcare. We can't keep doing it.



The bill is already $1 trillion a year in government healthcare costs.



That's 960 monthly payments of over $1,000 a month. Monthly $1,000 payments from birth to 80 years old.

Healthcare is TOO EXPENSIVE to give to everyone at it's current costs.
YEAH, life is too expensive........

[dillywho]

...and did YOU vote for :jester:Trump or :crap2:Clinton? Hmmm?

You can bet the farm and all the chickens on it that I damned sure didn't vote for Clinton. But since it seems so important to you, I did vote for Trump. Do I agree with him on everything? No. But a vote for anyone else, would have just been a vote for her and no way was I going to be a party to getting her elected.

It would be much easier for all of us, though, if BOTH sides would work as hard at doing what they are SUPPOSED to be doing as they are fighting every idea he puts out there. This government is designed to be a government of and for the people, not just certain people like those in Congress that put themselves above the rest of the country. Apparently, they never got the concept of teamwork.

[MDLNB]

You can bet the farm and all the chickens on it that I damned sure didn't vote for Clinton. But since it seems so important to you, I did vote for Trump. Do I agree with him on everything? No. But a vote for anyone else, would have just been a vote for her and no way was I going to be a party to getting her elected.

It would be much easier for all of us, though, if BOTH sides would work as hard at doing what they are SUPPOSED to be doing as they are fighting every idea he puts out there. This government is designed to be a government of and for the people, not just certain people like those in Congress that put themselves above the rest of the country. Apparently, they never got the concept of teamwork.

:agree:

[rubicon]

Progressives just like making stuff up when it comes to Trump and the Republican Party. Unlike Nancy Pelosi , Republicans are reading what's in the bill and deciding how best to proceed.

In my view the debate is termed "health care"but it is really "insurance coverage" and is placing the carriage in front of the horse.

I say this because if you study the arguments it always returns to what is affordable and not what is the most effective and efficient manner to deliver health care. Focusing on the efficacy of health care pays dividends in reducing costs in the long run

Keep in mind only 2% of the population get their health care through Obama exchanges. Most have employer insurance coverage and/or medicare and medicaid.

Once again we are reminded of Reagan's "the scariest 9 words are "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help"

The elimination of a pre-existing condition as a basis to deny insurance coverage is problematic. No one would buy a new car already damaged or a house already set afire. Eliminating sound underwriting criteria is the how and why of the housing bubble and the long and deep recession that followed . However we are not speaking of property but human beings and thus there is a manner in subsidizing those in NEED BUT IN NEED TRULY.

Personal Best Regards:

[Nucky]

Paul Ryan and Chuck Schumer are both N.F.G. they don't give a rats ass about anybody but themselves. They should be required to have the same rules on their health care as they are trying to put together for the rest of us. Very disrespectful men. High level in charge of so much and just low lifes. When I see either one of these guys speak on the news it gives me chills. Schumer was a level headed get thing done type of guy until he got a job with a little power. He did common sense things to help people before he was elevated. Guess he aspires to bigger things. Who knows. Paul Ryan, just no good, a lying sack of ****. Just a sad situation.

[Don Baldwin]

Progressives just like making stuff up when it comes to Trump and the Republican Party. Unlike Nancy Pelosi , Republicans are reading what's in the bill and deciding how best to proceed.

In my view the debate is termed "health care"but it is really "insurance coverage" and is placing the carriage in front of the horse.

I say this because if you study the arguments it always returns to what is affordable and not what is the most effective and efficient manner to deliver health care. Focusing on the efficacy of health care pays dividends in reducing costs in the long run

Keep in mind only 2% of the population get their health care through Obama exchanges. Most have employer insurance coverage and/or medicare and medicaid.

Once again we are reminded of Reagan's "the scariest 9 words are "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help"

The elimination of a pre-existing condition as a basis to deny insurance coverage is problematic. No one would buy a new car already damaged or a house already set afire. Eliminating sound underwriting criteria is the how and why of the housing bubble and the long and deep recession that followed . However we are not speaking of property but human beings and thus there is a manner in subsidizing those in NEED BUT IN NEED TRULY.

Personal Best Regards:

Yes they DO like making stuff up...and twisting things too to mach what they want.

Yes it is...it's about how much healthcare actually costs and how much it needs to be subsidized. A $million in lifetime healthcare costs...costs over $1,000 a month for 80 years.

Healthcare is simply too expensive...EVERYONE in the healthcare industry MUST take a cut. Doctors...what EVERY parent wants their daughter to marry...make too much money. We can't afford their services. They MUST take a cut.

Almost half the population get their healthcare provided/subsidized by the government through medicare/medicaid. Half the population gets a government benefit...and healthcare is a big one. Only 1/3 the population HAS a job and 1/4 of those...only work part time.

His words SHOULD have been: "I'm from the government, and I'm here to steal"

We can't keep doing it...the number in "need" keeps rising and the cost keeps rising too...it's unsustainable...it's ANOTHER bubble that WILL come crashing down. By WANTING too much...by GETTING too much...we are destroying the system.

[dillywho]

Yes they DO like making stuff up...and twisting things too to mach what they want.

Yes it is...it's about how much healthcare actually costs and how much it needs to be subsidized. A $million in lifetime healthcare costs...costs over $1,000 a month for 80 years.

Healthcare is simply too expensive...EVERYONE in the healthcare industry MUST take a cut. Doctors...what EVERY parent wants their daughter to marry...make too much money. We can't afford their services. They MUST take a cut.

Almost half the population get their healthcare provided/subsidized by the government through medicare/medicaid. Half the population gets a government benefit...and healthcare is a big one. Only 1/3 the population HAS a job and 1/4 of those...only work part time.

His words SHOULD have been: "I'm from the government, and I'm here to steal"

We can't keep doing it...the number in "need" keeps rising and the cost keeps rising too...it's unsustainable...it's ANOTHER bubble that WILL come crashing down. By WANTING too much...by GETTING too much...we are destroying the system.

Are you a picture of health or do you actually get healthcare? If so, then you are in one of the ones in "need" of which you speak. Yes, the number in need keeps rising. What would you have the government do about that? People get sick most of the time through no fault of their own. Sickness is a side-effect of life. Maybe just like the younger ones here dictate about not driving after such and such age, maybe people should just not live after such and such age. Or any age, for that matter, if they have the misfortune to get sick.

As for the doctors making too much money, I guess you think that they should go back to doing everything themselves...no hospitals, no nurses, primitive drugs where if you lived then you lived...otherwise, too bad, and took chickens in return for their services. Who do you think pays the nurses salaries, rents/leases/owns the office, buys the equipment, buys the supplies, pays for the janitorial services? And last, but not least, who pays their outrageous malpractice insurance premiums in order to protect them from the many frivolous lawsuits and the few that are legitimate? Remember, Medicare et. al, only pays what they approve which is far lower than what is billed. What do you think doctors would come out with if they billed what you think they should? Not even enough to pay the bills, much less have any take home pay, that's what. Have you also considered that they do not get 'overtime' pay, yet often have to work outlandish hours just to take care of those ever expensive needy people? Do they get to enjoy every evening at home with their families without work interruption?Did/do you take bottom dollar for whatever your job was? Please show me someone who willing works for less than the job normally pays just so they can avoid being considered greedy by others. I could go on, but if you fail to get the picture.........

We all paid into Medicare all our working lives and continue to pay premiums, so we most certainly are not getting something for nothing. We also have deductibles and co-pays, so once again, we are not getting our care for free. All insurance is 'subsidized' in some form. In private pay, it is by you.

[autumnspring]

By Rika Christensen on April 26, 2017 10:38 am ·
If you have a pre-existing condition, Obamacare currently protects you from being turned down for insurance on the basis of that condition. Republicans want to take that away because insuring sick people just eats too much profit, and healthcare is a privilege, not a right anyway. The latest iteration of their ridiculous healthcare plan will allow states to decide whether insurers have to cover people with pre-existing conditions, because of course it does, but it also contains a brand-new amendment that’s patently disgusting.

It carves an exemption out for members of Congress and their staffs. Insurers would still be required to provide coverage for them regardless of pre-existing conditions. Vox confirmed it last night:

“A spokesperson for Rep. Tom MacArthur (R-N.J.) who authored this amendment confirmed this was the case: members of Congress and their staff would get the guarantee of keeping these Obamacare regulations.”

But don’t Republicans hate Obamacare? Well, their relationship with Obamacare is actually considerably more complex than we tend to give it credit for. Contrary to popular belief, we taxpayers don’t subsidize Congress’ health insurance the way many people think. In fact, we never did. Until 2013, they were covered under the Federal Employee Health Benefits program, which is a health insurance marketplace where they (and every other federal employee) purchase health insurance with all the same bull**** as everyone else, and have their premiums taken out of their paychecks.

The Office of Personnel Management contributes to each employee’s premium, but where private sector employers cover an average of 83 percent of their employees’ premiums (or 72 percent for family plans), OPM covers 72 to 75 percent, whichever is less depending on a variety of factors, across the board.

In 2013, all of Congress was kicked off of FEHB thanks to Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA). He proposed an amendment to the ACA that would require all members of Congress to purchase health insurance through the exchanges, and for their staffs under the small business provision.

So that’s what they’ve been doing for health insurance for the last four years. Where their own lives are concerned, Obamacare’s popular provisions are good things. Where the rest of the country is concerned, though, well, we all know how they feel about the rest of us. The prohibition on denying insurance due to pre-existing conditions is one of the most popular provisions and they want to gut it.

For everyone but themselves.

Can they get any more obvious about where their true priorities lie?

IN THE REAL WORLD, the US does not deny healthcare to anybody.

People who have nothing to loose-no property, no savings are in fact immune from suits attempting to collect unpaid medical bills. Their bills are a loss to the medical profession
and like any other THEFT, needs to be added to the bills of others. Simple explanation of why you are billed $20 or so for an aspirin.

In the US 80% of all medical care is paid for by either insurance or the government. The system is simply crazy.
There is no reason to ask the price or to ask about whether the ....... is necessary. IF, I SOUND NUTS try it
ask your doctor is it necessary-ask your doctor about less expensive options.

I spent 4 days at the villages hospital. The bill was 50,000. AETNA paid 30,000 COVERING THE BILL IN FULL.
If, I had decided not to pay for insurance, I would have been billed, I would have had to pay TWICE WHAT THE INSURANCE COMPANY PAYS FOR THE SAME EXACT SERVICE-simple explanation of why you cannot self insure your medical care.

We insist upon the same care for all. Whether they pay for it or not-THIS IS CRAZY.

Under what came to be called OBAMACARE, the US felt a need to invent the wheel. THIS IS CRAZY-they only needed to see how the rest of the industrialized world does it FOR HALF THE COST and the results, while they too bitch about it, the results are about the same as ours, far as life expectancy.

I've read that lawsuits and fear of lawsuits add 30% to our medical costs. Perhaps, a great place to look for cost savings. Only trouble is most of our politicians are attys.

Many of our people-including the OP-think the medical people make too much money so in a lawsuit the reward will be huge. Not necessary because of fault but just due to the concept of take from the rich. YUP, that cost too
will be in your medical bill due the cost of INSURANCE.

THERE ARE NO EASY SOLUTIONS. PEOPLE ARE MORE THAN WILLING TO ARGUE WITH THEIR HEART INSTEAD OF THEIR HEAD. FOR THAT MATTER PEOPLE ARGUE WITH THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS AND SOME DO NOT EVEN REALIZE THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE DOING.

[RedBaron]

You can bet the farm and all the chickens on it that I damned sure didn't vote for Clinton. But since it seems so important to you, I did vote for Trump. Do I agree with him on everything? No. But a vote for anyone else, would have just been a vote for her and no way was I going to be a party to getting her elected.

It would be much easier for all of us, though, if BOTH sides would work as hard at doing what they are SUPPOSED to be doing as they are fighting every idea he puts out there. This government is designed to be a government of and for the people, not just certain people like those in Congress that put themselves above the rest of the country. Apparently, they never got the concept of teamwork.

--Amen to working together! Congress is totally ineffective and too self absorbed in getting their jobs extended. :cus:

[Don Baldwin]

Are you a picture of health or do you actually get healthcare? If so, then you are in one of the ones in "need" of which you speak. Yes, the number in need keeps rising. What would you have the government do about that? People get sick most of the time through no fault of their own. Sickness is a side-effect of life. Maybe just like the younger ones here dictate about not driving after such and such age, maybe people should just not live after such and such age. Or any age, for that matter, if they have the misfortune to get sick.

As for the doctors making too much money, I guess you think that they should go back to doing everything themselves...no hospitals, no nurses, primitive drugs where if you lived then you lived...otherwise, too bad, and took chickens in return for their services. Who do you think pays the nurses salaries, rents/leases/owns the office, buys the equipment, buys the supplies, pays for the janitorial services? And last, but not least, who pays their outrageous malpractice insurance premiums in order to protect them from the many frivolous lawsuits and the few that are legitimate? Remember, Medicare et. al, only pays what they approve which is far lower than what is billed. What do you think doctors would come out with if they billed what you think they should? Not even enough to pay the bills, much less have any take home pay, that's what. Have you also considered that they do not get 'overtime' pay, yet often have to work outlandish hours just to take care of those ever expensive needy people? Do they get to enjoy every evening at home with their families without work interruption?Did/do you take bottom dollar for whatever your job was? Please show me someone who willing works for less than the job normally pays just so they can avoid being considered greedy by others. I could go on, but if you fail to get the picture.........

We all paid into Medicare all our working lives and continue to pay premiums, so we most certainly are not getting something for nothing. We also have deductibles and co-pays, so once again, we are not getting our care for free. All insurance is 'subsidized' in some form. In private pay, it is by you.

You DIDN'T pay enough. Many people use $1million worth of healthcare in their life. That comes out to 960 over $1,000 payments...$1,000 a month for 80 straight years...did you pay that much? You certainly ARE getting a LOT for free...if you didn't pay in full, you got part of it for free.

No it not...it's not subsidized...it's spread risk...some pay more, some pay less than what they end up costing in the end. Healthcare is subsidized by the government to the tune of a $ trillion a year.

IN THE REAL WORLD, the US does not deny healthcare to anybody.

People who have nothing to loose-no property, no savings are in fact immune from suits attempting to collect unpaid medical bills. Their bills are a loss to the medical profession
and like any other THEFT, needs to be added to the bills of others. Simple explanation of why you are billed $20 or so for an aspirin.

In the US 80% of all medical care is paid for by either insurance or the government. The system is simply crazy.
There is no reason to ask the price or to ask about whether the ....... is necessary. IF, I SOUND NUTS try it
ask your doctor is it necessary-ask your doctor about less expensive options.

I spent 4 days at the villages hospital. The bill was 50,000. AETNA paid 30,000 COVERING THE BILL IN FULL.
If, I had decided not to pay for insurance, I would have been billed, I would have had to pay TWICE WHAT THE INSURANCE COMPANY PAYS FOR THE SAME EXACT SERVICE-simple explanation of why you cannot self insure your medical care.

We insist upon the same care for all. Whether they pay for it or not-THIS IS CRAZY.

Under what came to be called OBAMACARE, the US felt a need to invent the wheel. THIS IS CRAZY-they only needed to see how the rest of the industrialized world does it FOR HALF THE COST and the results, while they too bitch about it, the results are about the same as ours, far as life expectancy.

I've read that lawsuits and fear of lawsuits add 30% to our medical costs. Perhaps, a great place to look for cost savings. Only trouble is most of our politicians are attys.

Many of our people-including the OP-think the medical people make too much money so in a lawsuit the reward will be huge. Not necessary because of fault but just due to the concept of take from the rich. YUP, that cost too
will be in your medical bill due the cost of INSURANCE.

THERE ARE NO EASY SOLUTIONS. PEOPLE ARE MORE THAN WILLING TO ARGUE WITH THEIR HEART INSTEAD OF THEIR HEAD. FOR THAT MATTER PEOPLE ARGUE WITH THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS AND SOME DO NOT EVEN REALIZE THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE DOING.

Sure there are...government gets out of the health insurance business. You either have insurance or you pay for it or you die. Since when is it governments job to support you from cradle to grave and keep you healthy in the meantime? "Provide for the General Welfare" doesn't mean a replacement for mommy and daddy.

[MDLNB]

Are you a picture of health or do you actually get healthcare? If so, then you are in one of the ones in "need" of which you speak. Yes, the number in need keeps rising. What would you have the government do about that? People get sick most of the time through no fault of their own. Sickness is a side-effect of life. Maybe just like the younger ones here dictate about not driving after such and such age, maybe people should just not live after such and such age. Or any age, for that matter, if they have the misfortune to get sick.

As for the doctors making too much money, I guess you think that they should go back to doing everything themselves...no hospitals, no nurses, primitive drugs where if you lived then you lived...otherwise, too bad, and took chickens in return for their services. Who do you think pays the nurses salaries, rents/leases/owns the office, buys the equipment, buys the supplies, pays for the janitorial services? And last, but not least, who pays their outrageous malpractice insurance premiums in order to protect them from the many frivolous lawsuits and the few that are legitimate? Remember, Medicare et. al, only pays what they approve which is far lower than what is billed. What do you think doctors would come out with if they billed what you think they should? Not even enough to pay the bills, much less have any take home pay, that's what. Have you also considered that they do not get 'overtime' pay, yet often have to work outlandish hours just to take care of those ever expensive needy people? Do they get to enjoy every evening at home with their families without work interruption?Did/do you take bottom dollar for whatever your job was? Please show me someone who willing works for less than the job normally pays just so they can avoid being considered greedy by others. I could go on, but if you fail to get the picture.........

We all paid into Medicare all our working lives and continue to pay premiums, so we most certainly are not getting something for nothing. We also have deductibles and co-pays, so once again, we are not getting our care for free. All insurance is 'subsidized' in some form. In private pay, it is by you.

Yep, we paid all our lives into Medicare, but I DO NOT pay any more Medicare premiums. I declined Medicare B because I am not going to pay for something I do not need. I do NOT use Medicare A, even though I paid for it all my working life. I have full coverage private insurance that pays for my health care. Medicare is another FAILED government experiment. All you get for all those years that you put into Medicare is hospitalization. Nothing more. If you want more, you have to continue tp pay more. I consider it a rip off. Medicaid for those that pay NOTHING is better. Medicaid for the lazy is better than Medicare that you worked hard for.

And the ironic part is that Obamacare STOLE almost a trillion bucks to subsidize Medicaid for new enrollees. Or whatever the money was used for. But, we do know it was to subsidize Obamacare, and we do know that WE worked for the money and it is being given away.

[RickeyD]

You DIDN'T pay enough. Many people use $1million worth of healthcare in their life. That comes out to 960 over $1,000 payments...$1,000 a month for 80 straight years...did you pay that much? You certainly ARE getting a LOT for free...if you didn't pay in full, you got part of it for free.

No it not...it's not subsidized...it's spread risk...some pay more, some pay less than what they end up costing in the end. Healthcare is subsidized by the government to the tune of a $ trillion a year.



Sure there are...government gets out of the health insurance business. You either have insurance or you pay for it or you die. Since when is it governments job to support you from cradle to grave and keep you healthy in the meantime? "Provide for the General Welfare" doesn't mean a replacement for mommy and daddy.



Sounds to me like your daddy was a little to hard on you. Didn't your mommy try to protect you ?

[dillywho]

Yep, we paid all our lives into Medicare, but I DO NOT pay any more Medicare premiums. I declined Medicare B because I am not going to pay for something I do not need. I do NOT use Medicare A, even though I paid for it all my working life. I have full coverage private insurance that pays for my health care. Medicare is another FAILED government experiment. All you get for all those years that you put into Medicare is hospitalization. Nothing more. If you want more, you have to continue tp pay more. I consider it a rip off. Medicaid for those that pay NOTHING is better. Medicaid for the lazy is better than Medicare that you worked hard for.

And the ironic part is that Obamacare STOLE almost a trillion bucks to subsidize Medicaid for new enrollees. Or whatever the money was used for. But, we do know it was to subsidize Obamacare, and we do know that WE worked for the money and it is being given away.

Bully for you, Mr. Holier-Than-Thou, that you don't partake of the insurance (yes, it is insurance) you paid for all those years. By the way, Medicare A has a huge deductible every time you are hospitalized, so unless you have a no-deductible supplement, you will still be paying one way or the other. Like the private insurance you describe as being spread out, so is Medicare. Some use more, some use less, or not at all. My brother and his wife both died before they could use any of it of which they had paid. She was not yet 65 and he had just turned 65. Just like your private insurance that you are so proud of, their portion is being spread to those fortunate enough to still live. People die on a daily basis without ever collecting a penny of what they paid. That's why it is INSURANCE, just as your private one is. Hopefully, you will never lose that private insurance that you have, because if you do, you will have to prove insurability to get another or get a supplement to go with your original Medicare (that is surmising that you can even get any of the Medicare you so nobly rejected).

[cologal]

Paul Ryan and Chuck Schumer are both N.F.G. they don't give a rats ass about anybody but themselves. They should be required to have the same rules on their health care as they are trying to put together for the rest of us. Very disrespectful men. High level in charge of so much and just low lifes. When I see either one of these guys speak on the news it gives me chills. Schumer was a level headed get thing done type of guy until he got a job with a little power. He did common sense things to help people before he was elevated. Guess he aspires to bigger things. Who knows. Paul Ryan, just no good, a lying sack of ****. Just a sad situation.

:BigApplause:

[dirtbanker]

Bully for you, Mr. Holier-Than-Thou, that you don't partake of the insurance (yes, it is insurance) you paid for all those years. By the way, Medicare A has a huge deductible every time you are hospitalized, so unless you have a no-deductible supplement, you will still be paying one way or the other. Like the private insurance you describe as being spread out, so is Medicare. Some use more, some use less, or not at all. My brother and his wife both died before they could use any of it of which they had paid. She was not yet 65 and he had just turned 65. Just like your private insurance that you are so proud of, their portion is being spread to those fortunate enough to still live. People die on a daily basis without ever collecting a penny of what they paid. That's why it is INSURANCE, just as your private one is. Hopefully, you will never lose that private insurance that you have, because if you do, you will have to prove insurability to get another or get a supplement to go with your original Medicare (that is surmising that you can even get any of the Medicare you so nobly rejected).

Did your brother and wife smoke?
Were they fat ass people?
Did they put on sunblock or tanning oil?
Did they take care of themselves?

That is the part that makes no sense. People live carelessly and then want somebody else to help them.

I am healthy, age 53 male, that is not on any prescriptions, have no health issues, do preventive medical testing (PSA, cholesterol, Colonoscopy, etc) at recommend times.

But my health insurance premiums have increased about 50% over the last 3 years. I am currently at $1350 a month.

That is ridiculous that I have to pay that much so the insurance companies can provide care for some fat ass that smoked way after it was guarenteed to cause health problems. Obammacare sucks! I am sick of giving lazy people money that I worked hard for!!

And to the people worried about pre existing conditions being included...I am sure the insurance company is fine with that, as they can make the premiums so high it would be better for your family if you drove off a cliff.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

[Sandtrap328]

You can bet the farm and all the chickens on it that I damned sure didn't vote for Clinton. But since it seems so important to you, I did vote for Trump. Do I agree with him on everything? No. But a vote for anyone else, would have just been a vote for her and no way was I going to be a party to getting her elected.

It would be much easier for all of us, though, if BOTH sides would work as hard at doing what they are SUPPOSED to be doing as they are fighting every idea he puts out there. This government is designed to be a government of and for the people, not just certain people like those in Congress that put themselves above the rest of the country. Apparently, they never got the concept of teamwork.

Well, you voted for Trump. Too bad, truly, about your husband.

However, remember how you voted when the pre-existing conditions clause makes it impossible to get the needed insurance.

[Don Baldwin]

Yep, we paid all our lives into Medicare, but I DO NOT pay any more Medicare premiums. I declined Medicare B because I am not going to pay for something I do not need. I do NOT use Medicare A, even though I paid for it all my working life. I have full coverage private insurance that pays for my health care. Medicare is another FAILED government experiment. All you get for all those years that you put into Medicare is hospitalization. Nothing more. If you want more, you have to continue tp pay more. I consider it a rip off. Medicaid for those that pay NOTHING is better. Medicaid for the lazy is better than Medicare that you worked hard for.

And the ironic part is that Obamacare STOLE almost a trillion bucks to subsidize Medicaid for new enrollees. Or whatever the money was used for. But, we do know it was to subsidize Obamacare, and we do know that WE worked for the money and it is being given away.

Of course it is...white people aren't having kids because children are expensive...UNLESS you're a minority on welfare...then it's an extra few $ hundred a month.

We spent a $ trillion a year already and they're not done yet. $1,000 a month worth of "insurance" as a minimum for everyone is unsustainable.

yes it IS being given away...it's going to the half the population that used to be called the minorities...to be used to buy stuff from the people who own the corporations who buy off the politicians who vote to give the poor money.

[dillywho]

Did your brother and wife smoke?
Were they fat ass people?
Did they put on sunblock or tanning oil?
Did they take care of themselves?

That is the part that makes no sense. People live carelessly and then want somebody else to help them.

I am healthy, age 53 male, that is not on any prescriptions, have no health issues, do preventive medical testing (PSA, cholesterol, Colonoscopy, etc) at recommend times.

But my health insurance premiums have increased about 50% over the last 3 years. I am currently at $1350 a month.

That is ridiculous that I have to pay that much so the insurance companies can provide care for some fat ass that smoked way after it was guarenteed to cause health problems. Obammacare sucks! I am sick of giving lazy people money that I worked hard for!!

And to the people worried about pre existing conditions being included...I am sure the insurance company is fine with that, as they can make the premiums so high it would be better for your family if you drove off a cliff.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

Yes, they did take care of themselves, and no they were not fat nor did their lifestyle have anything to do with their deaths. What makes you so righteous that surely it was their fault they became ill and died? My brother was still employed when he died and caring for his sick wife who worked as long as she was able. So now you don't have to worry that any of your precious money was being wasted on them. They didn't have the privilege of using it, anyway.

Do you think that doing all the "right" things you claim you do is going to make you immortal? Boy, are you in for a very rude awakening! Proud and boastful, along with making judgements of people you know absolutely nothing about, only broadcasts your total ignorance and arrogance.

[Don Baldwin]

Yes, they did take care of themselves, and no they were not fat nor did their lifestyle have anything to do with their deaths. What makes you so righteous that surely it was their fault they became ill and died? My brother was still employed when he died and caring for his sick wife who worked as long as she was able. So now you don't have to worry that any of your precious money was being wasted on them. They didn't have the privilege of using it, anyway.

Do you think that doing all the "right" things you claim you do is going to make you immortal? Boy, are you in for a very rude awakening! Proud and boastful, along with making judgements of people you know absolutely nothing about, only broadcasts your total ignorance and arrogance.

We CANNOT afford to give EVERYONE healthcare equaling $1,000+ a month. We already borrow a $1 trillion a year...can we afford to borrow $2 trillion a year to pay for it? The total costs only go up as the population grows and ages.

The first thing we MUST do is stop trying to save EVERY baby born. Some should be let go. Allowed to naturally die. The ones who will cost many $ millions in their short difficult lives.

Growth in America has stopped with the changing demographics...as seen by the negligent GDP growth the last what....17 years? We haven't had really good growth since 2000. The impetus for growth...white people...are becoming the minority.

[wjboyer1]

We CANNOT afford to give EVERYONE healthcare equaling $1,000+ a month. We already borrow a $1 trillion a year...can we afford to borrow $2 trillion a year to pay for it? The total costs only go up as the population grows and ages.

The first thing we MUST do is stop trying to save EVERY baby born. Some should be let go. Allowed to naturally die. The ones who will cost many $ millions in their short difficult lives.

Growth in America has stopped with the changing demographics...as seen by the negligent GDP growth the last what....17 years? We haven't had really good growth since 2000. The impetus for growth...white people...are becoming the minority.

funny, they actually save and heal more people per capita at a lower cost in every other country with "socialized" medicine....I guess American lives cost more, but are worth less....

Why the U.S. pays more for health care than the rest of the world | PBS NewsHour (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/u-s-pays-health-care-rest-world/)

[MDLNB]

Bully for you, Mr. Holier-Than-Thou, that you don't partake of the insurance (yes, it is insurance) you paid for all those years. By the way, Medicare A has a huge deductible every time you are hospitalized, so unless you have a no-deductible supplement, you will still be paying one way or the other. Like the private insurance you describe as being spread out, so is Medicare. Some use more, some use less, or not at all. My brother and his wife both died before they could use any of it of which they had paid. She was not yet 65 and he had just turned 65. Just like your private insurance that you are so proud of, their portion is being spread to those fortunate enough to still live. People die on a daily basis without ever collecting a penny of what they paid. That's why it is INSURANCE, just as your private one is. Hopefully, you will never lose that private insurance that you have, because if you do, you will have to prove insurability to get another or get a supplement to go with your original Medicare (that is surmising that you can even get any of the Medicare you so nobly rejected).

I think you are misunderstanding the comment.
I am simply stating that Medicare is a defective gov business venture. I did NOT "nobly" reject Medicare "B" and supplements. I did not need them. Why pay for something that is redundant. And NO I do not pay deductible. I pay a co-payment via my private insurance. Anyone that thinks that there is something wrong with a person making his own way instead of relying on someone else, has something inherently wrong with them.
You folks can try to convince yourselves (ignorantly) that socialized, gov run health care is great, but there is no proof of that. If you have never lived overseas in socialist countries, you will never understand how bad gov run medicine is. Besides, our country is way too large to sustain the cost of gov run health care. It is hardly functional in small countries. And anyone that tells you how great it is, is lying to you. The only folks that make out in socialist countries are the wealthy that can afford private insurance supplements. Canada, the UK, Germany, etc. all have private insurance supplements available to get the wealthy priority health care.

[Don Baldwin]

funny, they actually save and heal more people per capita at a lower cost in every other country with "socialized" medicine....I guess American lives cost more, but are worth less....

Why the U.S. pays more for health care than the rest of the world | PBS NewsHour (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/u-s-pays-health-care-rest-world/)

Funny, EVERY successful country with socialized medicine...is a white country.

America isn't a white country any more...we are half and half...half white, half minority. There is not ONE successful black/brown majority country. We are on the cusp...the direction we move from here WILL determine the future of this country. Will we do what it takes to save America and make it great again? Or will we stand by and let it continue to become a minority majority? And eventually fail...becoming Mexico II.

[dirtbanker]

Yes, they did take care of themselves, and no they were not fat nor did their lifestyle have anything to do with their deaths. What makes you so righteous that surely it was their fault they became ill and died? My brother was still employed when he died and caring for his sick wife who worked as long as she was able. So now you don't have to worry that any of your precious money was being wasted on them. They didn't have the privilege of using it, anyway.

Do you think that doing all the "right" things you claim you do is going to make you immortal? Boy, are you in for a very rude awakening! Proud and boastful, along with making judgements of people you know absolutely nothing about, only broadcasts your total ignorance and arrogance.

I did not intend to insult, but see how my words could lead you to believe I was trying to insult. Sorry for not being more clear.

I am not sure how my assumption of why 2 relatively young people (age 65) dying makes me "so righteous"?

The average age for demise is 78 in the US. When 2 people die at age 65, and it was not an fatal accident, then it is usually poor health. I listed the issues that are prevalent contributors to poor health.

No I don't believe taking care of yourself makes you immortal, but not taking care of yourself does increase the chance of health issues significantly. I truly believe "when its your day, its your day"...take that Chinese woman that survived a plane crash only to be run over by a firetruck responding to the crash...

None of your post addresses my health insurance costs and how it is unfair that I should have to pay such a high rate (when I am taking care of myself), just so some lazy POS can get theirs for free and smoke themselves to heart and cancer illness which end up costing us to provide more care...

Possibly a rule that would be a start at addressing it: If they want free health care they can't smoke, can't eat themselves fat, can't do illegal drugs???

[Don Baldwin]

I did not intend to insult, but see how my words could lead you to believe I was trying to insult. Sorry for not being more clear.

I am not sure how my assumption of why 2 relatively young people (age 65) dying makes me "so righteous"?

The average age for demise is 78 in the US. When 2 people die at age 65, and it was not an fatal accident, then it is usually poor health. I listed the issues that are prevalent contributors to poor health.

No I don't believe taking care of yourself makes you immortal, but not taking care of yourself does increase the chance of health issues significantly. I truly believe "when its your day, its your day"...take that Chinese woman that survived a plane crash only to be run over by a firetruck responding to the crash...

None of your post addresses my health insurance costs and how it is unfair that I should have to pay such a high rate (when I am taking care of myself), just so some lazy POS can get theirs for free and smoke themselves to heart and cancer illness which end up costing us to provide more care...

Possibly a rule that would be a start at addressing it: If they want free health care they can't smoke, can't eat themselves fat, can't do illegal drugs???

Are you kidding? Morbid Obesity is a protected class now...under the ADA. Yes...stuffing your face until you're helpless is a disability entitling you to special perks not given to those with self control.

Before you liberals reply with your...they can't help it...it's glandular...there were NO morbidly obese liberated from the German camps...those RUNNING it maybe...but none of the inmates. You MUST eat a certain amount each day to keep weight on. Fat people lie...they cheat.

[dillywho]

Are you kidding? Morbid Obesity is a protected class now...under the ADA. Yes...stuffing your face until you're helpless is a disability entitling you to special perks not given to those with self control.

Before you liberals reply with your...they can't help it...it's glandular...there were NO morbidly obese liberated from the German camps...those RUNNING it maybe...but none of the inmates. You MUST eat a certain amount each day to keep weight on. Fat people lie...they cheat.

Not exactly true! There are people that eat anything and as much as they want and still can't put on weight. Genetics plays a great role. That is a fact. Some meds to treat other illnesses, such as cancer and arthritis cause weight gain no matter what.

There are those which you describe. I will give you that. But you cannot put everyone in the same basket.

There are people who get cancer and never smoked a day in their life. I worked with a guy that died at the ripe old age of 29 who never smoked. He served his country in Vietnam and that may have been his factor. There are babies/children who are stricken with cancer.

And, just so you know, I am not a liberal so don't even go there.

[dirtbanker]

Well the people that do not take care of themselves are needing more health care...and the people that do take care of themselves have to pay for those that smoke and eat themselves sick. Fvck that!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

[dillywho]

I did not intend to insult, but see how my words could lead you to believe I was trying to insult. Sorry for not being more clear.

I am not sure how my assumption of why 2 relatively young people (age 65) dying makes me "so righteous"?

The average age for demise is 78 in the US. When 2 people die at age 65, and it was not an fatal accident, then it is usually poor health. I listed the issues that are prevalent contributors to poor health.

No I don't believe taking care of yourself makes you immortal, but not taking care of yourself does increase the chance of health issues significantly. I truly believe "when its your day, its your day"...take that Chinese woman that survived a plane crash only to be run over by a firetruck responding to the crash...

None of your post addresses my health insurance costs and how it is unfair that I should have to pay such a high rate (when I am taking care of myself), just so some lazy POS can get theirs for free and smoke themselves to heart and cancer illness which end up costing us to provide more care...

Possibly a rule that would be a start at addressing it: If they want free health care they can't smoke, can't eat themselves fat, can't do illegal drugs???

I do agree with portions of your post but you left out some: tattoos from head to toe, piercings all over, high-dollar sneakers, etc. There are those who do not do any preventive care, either.

As I have said, many people get cancer that has nothing to do with lifestyle or smoking. Many illnesses stem from genetics, including cancer and heart disease. Not all maladies are avoidable. Some people have poor health in spite of all they do. It's called life and luck of the draw.

My sister-in-law had lymphoma at a very young age. That was just the start of her battle with cancer. She and a group of others got together to get some of the laws changed, specifically not being discriminated against for employment because of previous cancer. Remember, people are encouraged to "catch it early so it can be cured and you can go on to lead a normal life". As they fought for, "What is 'normal' about not being able to get a job because you have had cancer?" That has been changed and employers can no longer ask.

My brother died because of complications from surgery. He was attempting to be proactive. So was my husband when he had his stroke following surgery that would give him a chance of avoiding a stroke. They were both attempting to be proactive. Bad things just happen to good people.

As you say, it is not fair that you have to pay such a high rate for those who are not proactive or have none. It has always worked that way and always will. That's exactly what Obamacare does. That just added more to the already strained rolls and punishes those who do buy insurance instead of the other stuff.

By the way, I do apologize for going off on you. That was not fair or nice.

[dillywho]

I think you are misunderstanding the comment.
I am simply stating that Medicare is a defective gov business venture. I did NOT "nobly" reject Medicare "B" and supplements. I did not need them. Why pay for something that is redundant. And NO I do not pay deductible. I pay a co-payment via my private insurance. Anyone that thinks that there is something wrong with a person making his own way instead of relying on someone else, has something inherently wrong with them.
You folks can try to convince yourselves (ignorantly) that socialized, gov run health care is great, but there is no proof of that. If you have never lived overseas in socialist countries, you will never understand how bad gov run medicine is. Besides, our country is way too large to sustain the cost of gov run health care. It is hardly functional in small countries. And anyone that tells you how great it is, is lying to you. The only folks that make out in socialist countries are the wealthy that can afford private insurance supplements. Canada, the UK, Germany, etc. all have private insurance supplements available to get the wealthy priority health care.

Yes, Medicare does have many problems that are caused by the fact that the government runs it. The concept was excellent until they decided to use it for everything but that for which it was intended. Until then, the interest it generated would have sustained it above and beyond. How would you feel if your private insurance used your monies for everything but insurance and then told you "sorry, we're just about out of money so we need to increase your premiums and cut your benefits"? We often hear about the waste and fraud in Medicare, but the Medicare program itself is the worst offender.

As long as you remain in excellent health, you can change insurance companies. See what happens if you don't remain so and want to change.

The doctors get the blame for having you return time after time for something that could be taken care of at one visit. Nope, not so with Medicare. Medicare will not pay for more than one procedure at a time. Example: If you have two skin cancers that need to be removed, that cannot be done at one time because they will only pay for one. Their explanation: "This procedure was performed at the same time as procedure A." Tell me that this is not wasteful to say nothing of being harder on the patient! Grrr! Not only does it waste Medicare dollars, but also supplemental insurance dollars, which in turn will make supplement premiums rise. Why not just do like private insurance and have a set payment for each procedure which includes one for routine and one for complicated (such as requiring grafting)? There again, doctors cannot just charge you what Medicare will pay because whatever they charge, Medicare will only approve a percentage and then pay 80% of that approval. That's the same thing as your employer saying that he will pay you a salary of say $500 a week, but then will only approve $350 a week and then pay you 80% of that and you could either get the other 20% from some other source or pay him the difference. If you told him that you would take $280 a week then he would only approve 80% of that. Would you go for that? Then why expect doctors to do it? That's why they are able in some instances to charge you less for no insurance or Medicare or procedures not covered by either. (My math may be a little off, but you get the picture.)

One of the points I was trying to make is: You have private insurance, but do you collect on that private insurance or do you just simply say, "Nope, I think I won't. I'll pay for it, but I won't use it." Not everyone has the means to be so selective. We could not afford private insurance even if we wanted it, so we continue to pay our Medicare premiums, deductibles, and co-pays. BTW, go to Mayo. I did and they do not accept Medicare or insurance. They will file for you, and you receive the checks from your Medicare and insurance, and then pay them. Whatever the difference is, you pay that out of your pocket....they do not write-off like those who accept Medicare/Insurance do. Costly, but great care.

[Don Baldwin]

Not exactly true! There are people that eat anything and as much as they want and still can't put on weight. Genetics plays a great role. That is a fact. Some meds to treat other illnesses, such as cancer and arthritis cause weight gain no matter what.

There are those which you describe. I will give you that. But you cannot put everyone in the same basket.

There are people who get cancer and never smoked a day in their life. I worked with a guy that died at the ripe old age of 29 who never smoked. He served his country in Vietnam and that may have been his factor. There are babies/children who are stricken with cancer.

And, just so you know, I am not a liberal so don't even go there.

Did I mention skinny people who can eat anything and NOT get fat? Did I?

No...I made a FACTUAL statement that ALL people need a certain minimum calorie intake to keep weight on. That NOBODY on a starvation diet...meaning REDUCED caloric intake...STAYS FAT...nobody.

I CAN put EVERYBODY in that basket. Eat 100 calories a day without cheating and tell me how long you stay your current weight.

You're an idiot...I WILL go there.

[dillywho]

Did I mention skinny people who can eat anything and NOT get fat? Did I?

No...I made a FACTUAL statement that ALL people need a certain minimum calorie intake to keep weight on. That NOBODY on a starvation diet...meaning REDUCED caloric intake...STAYS FAT...nobody.

I CAN put EVERYBODY in that basket. Eat 100 calories a day without cheating and tell me how long you stay your current weight.

You're an idiot...I WILL go there.

Typical.

Anyone who disagrees with you, offers another fact, or you run out of anything else to say, is an idiot. BTW, you go on that daily 100 calorie diet, lose weight, and see what damage that will do to your body; but yes, you will lose weight and most likely your life in the process or be severely damaged for what's left of it.

But, I am the one who is an idiot. :1rotfl:

[Don Baldwin]

Typical.

Anyone who disagrees with you, offers another fact, or you run out of anything else to say, is an idiot. BTW, you go on that daily 100 calorie diet, lose weight, and see what damage that will do to your body; but yes, you will lose weight and most likely your life in the process or be severely damaged for what's left of it.

But, I am the one who is an idiot. :1rotfl:

Sorry dilly...not worth my trouble. You offered nothing. You agree and don't even realize it.

[autumnspring]

"If you have a pre-existing condition, Obamacare currently protects you from being turned down for insurance on the basis of that condition. Republicans want to take that away because insuring sick people just eats too much profit, and healthcare is a privilege, not a right anyway."

You CANNOT cover people with $ multi-thousand a month in healthcare costs for LESS than what they cost. You SHOULDN'T force a company to insure ANYONE at a loss.

Let me explain it in a way you may understand and relate to...

You're at Publix shopping...you fill up your cart and get in line to pay. By coincidence...there's a lady in front of you with the SAME stuff in her cart! She gets rung up...She pays $53. It's your turn...your bill comes to $106. You're livid! WHY is your bill so much higher? The cashier informs you that the first lady was "poor" and that is all she could afford for food...you're rich and you must subsidize her by paying your share and hers.

THAT is what insurance for preexisting conditions does too...they "use" $5,000 a month in services, only pay $1,000 in insurance premiums, and WE get to cover the rest with higher premiums. ALL those raises to insurance premiums you've been hearing about...that is to cover the poor who cost more than they pay.

1. As far as your example. We do not deny healthcare to anyone. It is far too simplistic to think. Hey they don't pay for it so we should not provide it.
You go out to eat, hire a gardener etc-they have Tuberculosis-good chance you will catch it.
2. Healthcare is expensive. So YOUR KID-just to make it personal-he is healthy why pay for insurance. He is walking across the street and gets hit by a car. Would you want someone who thinks like you, and I sometimes do as well, to say, I see he does not have any insurance OR PROOF THAT HE CAN PAY. so take him to the garbage dump alive or dead.
3. RE: preexisting condition.
You as you live in the villages are over 55. You do not heal as well as you did at one time. PREEXISTING CONDITION YOU ARE OVER 55.
Back to reality-there are genetic tests that will predict what you will get in your life-IS THAT NOT A PREEXISTING CONDITION?
4. RE: OUR MEDICAL SYSTEM
It is a mess for many reasons but simply, it is tied to attorneys some deserve the title of ambulance chasers.
I've read that American Healthcare costs twice what other industrialized nations pay. I've read that lawsuits and fear of lawsuits adds 30-40% to our medical costs.
Cost of drugs. We all complain but we expect, we demand no consequences of drug use. The doctor that prevented the LEGAL use of thalidomide in the US, just recently passed away. Yes, ther were some severely deformed babies in the US due to the use of Thalidomide but in every case the mother got the drug illegally.

I've read that 80% of all medical care is paid for by either the government or by insurance. As it is there is no incentive for the patient to even think about the cost.

We demand equal care for all whether they pay for it or not.
We tell the doctor what he can charge so there is no financial motivation to be better-to take more time to do a better job.

On religious grounds we have outlawed euthanasia. Argue if you wish but it is based on religious grounds. We will euthanize an animal but not a human Step back and THINK. Today, a terminally ill person is taken off food and water and allowed to slowly pass to death. Or, often, the doctor orders enough,PAIN KILLERS, to kill the patient.

NO SHORTAGE OF TOUGH QUESTIONS-NO EASY ANSWERS ESPECIALLY IF YOU NEED OR WANT TO HAVE LAW APPLY TO ALL.

[autumnspring]

I did not intend to insult, but see how my words could lead you to believe I was trying to insult. Sorry for not being more clear.

I am not sure how my assumption of why 2 relatively young people (age 65) dying makes me "so righteous"?

The average age for demise is 78 in the US. When 2 people die at age 65, and it was not an fatal accident, then it is usually poor health. I listed the issues that are prevalent contributors to poor health.

No I don't believe taking care of yourself makes you immortal, but not taking care of yourself does increase the chance of health issues significantly. I truly believe "when its your day, its your day"...take that Chinese woman that survived a plane crash only to be run over by a firetruck responding to the crash...

None of your post addresses my health insurance costs and how it is unfair that I should have to pay such a high rate (when I am taking care of myself), just so some lazy POS can get theirs for free and smoke themselves to heart and cancer illness which end up costing us to provide more care...

Possibly a rule that would be a start at addressing it: If they want free health care they can't smoke, can't eat themselves fat, can't do illegal drugs???

First you are mixing up AVERAGES with specific people-Chinese person hit by a rescue vehicle.

RE: your health insurance cost.
If, you are paying private health isnsurance it is because you CHOSE to quit working before age 65 when you could, would, be covered by medicare. Medicare is, even for you,
subsidized by others.

RE: Your view about paying for others.
You list smoking, you list fat. I assume you do not smoke and are not fat. HUM you do not mention drinking-you must do that and think it is not evil. AND THEN THE OBVIOUS-YOUR HATE TOWARD OTHERS IS KILLING YOU.

[dillywho]

Sorry dilly...not worth my trouble. You offered nothing. You agree and don't even realize it.

I neither agreed with you nor did I not offer anything. I will try again.

IF someone goes on your 100 calorie a day diet, you are right they WILL lose weight. They also risk losing their LIFE (which in all probability would make you happy). IF they survive such a diet, they WILL have severe damage to their bodies. That, medically, is a FACT. This in turn, WILL require extensive care for what is left of their lives. This somewhat mimics the Texaco slogan, "Pay me now, or pay me later" in terms of YOU having to pick up the tab. You are either going to get stuck because people are fat or you are going to get stuck if they follow your advice and drop that weight by going to your extremes and doing far greater damage than just excess weight.

[dillywho]

First you are mixing up AVERAGES with specific people-Chinese person hit by a rescue vehicle.

RE: your health insurance cost.
If, you are paying private health isnsurance it is because you CHOSE to quit working before age 65 when you could, would, be covered by medicare. Medicare is, even for you,
subsidized by others.

RE: Your view about paying for others.
You list smoking, you list fat. I assume you do not smoke and are not fat. HUM you do not mention drinking-you must do that and think it is not evil. AND THEN THE OBVIOUS-YOUR HATE TOWARD OTHERS IS KILLING YOU.

Spot on! And the poster did not take into account genetics, only lifestyle issues. You can change lifestyles; you cannot change genetics. You are born who you are and cannot change that. You can accomplish not passing along your genetics by not procreating, but you are still stuck with who you are.

[Joe De Vito]

"If you have a pre-existing condition, Obamacare currently protects you from being turned down for insurance on the basis of that condition. Republicans want to take that away because insuring sick people just eats too much profit, and healthcare is a privilege, not a right anyway."

You CANNOT cover people with $ multi-thousand a month in healthcare costs for LESS than what they cost. You SHOULDN'T force a company to insure ANYONE at a loss.

Let me explain it in a way you may understand and relate to...

You're at Publix shopping...you fill up your cart and get in line to pay. By coincidence...there's a lady in front of you with the SAME stuff in her cart! She gets rung up...She pays $53. It's your turn...your bill comes to $106. You're livid! WHY is your bill so much higher? The cashier informs you that the first lady was "poor" and that is all she could afford for food...you're rich and you must subsidize her by paying your share and hers.

THAT is what insurance for preexisting conditions does too...they "use" $5,000 a month in services, only pay $1,000 in insurance premiums, and WE get to cover the rest with higher premiums. ALL those raises to insurance premiums you've been hearing about...that is to cover the poor who cost more than they pay.

Insurance companies should only insurance healthy people. As soon as you need their services. they don't want you. What about all the money that you or the company you worked for paid in premiums before you got sick? That doesn't account for anything. Insurance companies only want to collect premiums, and never want to pay out anything in services. What a surprise!

What were the poor doing before ACA? The emergency room was their primary care physician. Who do you think paid for that? Higher fees at the hospital equaled higher cost to insurance companies, which was past along to the healthy.

What the hell is the difference now? The poor do have healh insurance, and are paying for it less credits depending on their income.

As for your Publix example, the person on front of you handed the cashier $53. in food stamps. Who is paying for the food stamps?

When the minimum wage isn't a living wage, who is benefitting from that? The government has provided the means to keep these people alive. In essence, companies are receive a back door handout from the country by not paying their people a living wage.

That clown that he have for president stated, "Obamacare was a gift to the health insurance companies as pay back for the donations that the Democrats received from the health insurance companies." The man is operating without a clue. Obamacare was modeled after a plan put forward by the Heritage Foundation, a right wing organization. The Democrats want a single payer plan that would eliminate health insurance companies.

[dillywho]

Insurance companies should only insurance healthy people. As soon as you need their services. they don't want you. What about all the money that you or the company you worked for paid in premiums before you got sick? That doesn't account for anything. Insurance companies only want to collect premiums, and never want to pay out anything in services. What a surprise!

What were the poor doing before ACA? The emergency room was their primary care physician. Who do you think paid for that? Higher fees at the hospital equaled higher cost to insurance companies, which was past along to the healthy.

What the hell is the difference now? The poor do have healh insurance, and are paying for it less credits depending on their income.

As for your Publix example, the person on front of you handed the cashier $53. in food stamps. Who is paying for the food stamps?

When the minimum wage isn't a living wage, who is benefitting from that? The government has provided the means to keep these people alive. In essence, companies are receive a back door handout from the country by not paying their people a living wage.

That clown that he have for president stated, "Obamacare was a gift to the health insurance companies as pay back for the donations that the Democrats received from the health insurance companies." The man is operating without a clue. Obamacare was modeled after a plan put forward by the Heritage Foundation, a right wing organization. The Democrats want a single payer plan that would eliminate health insurance companies.

And in case you failed to watch the news earlier today, there was a segment on people using the ER for everything besides emergency care....ear cleanings and hangnails, for instance. Supposed to be more to come on the evening news. My point is: Since so many were supposedly afforded healthcare insurance that didn't have it before Obamacare, it seems nothing has really changed except for those who responsibly purchased health insurance in the past can no longer afford theirs.

[Joe De Vito]

And in case you failed to watch the news earlier today, there was a segment on people using the ER for everything besides emergency care....ear cleanings and hangnails, for instance. Supposed to be more to come on the evening news. My point is: Since so many were supposedly afforded healthcare insurance that didn't have it before Obamacare, it seems nothing has really changed except for those who responsibly purchased health insurance in the past can no longer afford theirs.

Did the piece mention what states these people came from? Almost all of Republican controlled states didn't take the Medicaid expansion. So, the people that they are highlighting may not have insurance.

I am not sure what station you watch, but my guess is Fox News. It is typical. Show the few that are taking advantage of the system, and project that this behavior is common place. While it may not be fake news, it certainly is misleading news. That is as bad as fake news.

[Don Baldwin]

I neither agreed with you nor did I not offer anything. I will try again.

IF someone goes on your 100 calorie a day diet, you are right they WILL lose weight. They also risk losing their LIFE (which in all probability would make you happy). IF they survive such a diet, they WILL have severe damage to their bodies. That, medically, is a FACT. This in turn, WILL require extensive care for what is left of their lives. This somewhat mimics the Texaco slogan, "Pay me now, or pay me later" in terms of YOU having to pick up the tab. You are either going to get stuck because people are fat or you are going to get stuck if they follow your advice and drop that weight by going to your extremes and doing far greater damage than just excess weight.

I was talking about fat people who SAY they can't lose weight...are lying and cheating...that IF they were really dieting, they WOULD lose weight and then I made an example of people in the German work camps on limited diets and NONE were obese.

YOU went off about how a 100 calorie diet is unsafe...it was just an EXTREME example to make a point. I wasn't telling fat people to go on a 100 calorie diet...I just said when they're "dieting" and still gaining weight...they're cheating.

[dillywho]

Did the piece mention what states these people came from? Almost all of Republican controlled states didn't take the Medicaid expansion. So, the people that they are highlighting may not have insurance.

I am not sure what station you watch, but my guess is Fox News. It is typical. Show the few that are taking advantage of the system, and project that this behavior is common place. While it may not be fake news, it certainly is misleading news. That is as bad as fake news.

Actually, I believe it was WESH, local NBC channel. I watch all three starting at 4:00 every day that I can and national on one of them starting at 6:30. Didn't mean to burst your bubble regarding Fox. I do watch it, as well, just not when the local news is on or NCIS, etc.

[MDLNB]

Actually, I believe it was WESH, local NBC channel. I watch all three starting at 4:00 every day that I can and national on one of them starting at 6:30. Didn't mean to burst your bubble regarding Fox. I do watch it, as well, just not when the local news is on or NCIS, etc.

Ditto....:thumbup:

[dirtbanker]

First you are mixing up AVERAGES with specific people-Chinese person hit by a rescue vehicle..No doubt you are a women...it appears you allow your emotions to change the words you read...Please consider the woman's only forum!
Go back and read my post again, maybe several times for you. I did not mix averages with Chinese person being hit. I was responding with the story about the Chinese gal being hit to a comment about immortality. "when it's your day, its your day".


RE: your health insurance cost.
If, you are paying private health isnsurance it is because you CHOSE to quit working before age 65 when you could, would, be covered by medicare. Medicare is, even for you,subsidized by others.. Are you suggesting that a person that CHOSES to retire earlier than 65 should pay extra for healthcare insurance?? Well, I am still working! I am 53, my healthcare insurance premiums went from $750 a month to $1300 a month in the last 3 years, and I am healthy. That still does not make it fair to me, does it?


RE: Your view about paying for others.
You list smoking, you list fat. I assume you do not smoke and are not fat. HUM you do not mention drinking-you must do that and think it is not evil. AND THEN THE OBVIOUS-YOUR HATE TOWARD OTHERS IS KILLING YOU.
I am struggling to understand your silly logic on this comment...No I do not smoke, no I am not fat. I did not mention suicide, do you think I am guilty of that?

Again your silly logic, no I don't hate people, I don't think it is fair that I have to pay more for my health insurance so some other lazy POS who eats too much or smokes cigarettes can get healthcare (heart disease is the number 1 killer in the country, and cancer is the number 2 killer). If I did hate people, which I don't, obviously me being healthy discounts your above statement.

The top 10 leading causes of death in the United States - Medical News Today (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/282929.php)

PS: Suicide is the number 10 killer in the country...

[dirtbanker]

Spot on! And the poster did not take into account genetics, only lifestyle issues. You can change lifestyles; you cannot change genetics. You are born who you are and cannot change that. You can accomplish not passing along your genetics by not procreating, but you are still stuck with who you are.
Well I hate to break up your high fiving session, but I just want to make sure I understand you correctly.

So...Your family has a history of heart disease and you eat yourself to 350 pounds, you have to ride in the electric cart at the grocery store...and you believe it is genetics to blame? You don't think you should have been watching what you ate, knowing that your family is prone to heart disease??

Or...Your family has a history of cancer and you decide to take up smoking, you have an oxygen bottle on your rascal...and you believe it is genetics to blame? You thought the warning on the side of cigarettes was just a scare tactic and people with a history of cancer are going to get it no matter what??

I believe genetics and the knowledge of your family health history; reduce the EXCUSE to be fat or to smoke. Do you agree?

[ColdNoMore]

Did the piece mention what states these people came from? Almost all of Republican controlled states didn't take the Medicaid expansion. So, the people that they are highlighting may not have insurance.

I am not sure what station you watch, but my guess is Fox News. It is typical. Show the few that are taking advantage of the system, and project that this behavior is common place. While it may not be fake news, it certainly is misleading news. That is as bad as fake news.


NAILED IT!! :thumbup:


What you stated is, in a nutshell...how so many on the right justify their hate, racism & bigotry. :ohdear:

[dirtbanker]

NAILED IT!! :thumbup:


What you stated is, in a nutshell...how so many on the right justify their hate, racism & bigotry. :ohdear:

Like when you were being hateful, racist, and a bigot by inferring that people that do not speak good English were undocumented?

[dillywho]

Well I hate to break up your high fiving session, but I just want to make sure I understand you correctly.

So...Your family has a history of heart disease and you eat yourself to 350 pounds, you have to ride in the electric cart at the grocery store...and you believe it is genetics to blame? You don't think you should have been watching what you ate, knowing that your family is prone to heart disease??

Or...Your family has a history of cancer and you decide to take up smoking, you have an oxygen bottle on your rascal...and you believe it is genetics to blame? You thought the warning on the side of cigarettes was just a scare tactic and people with a history of cancer are going to get it no matter what??

I believe genetics and the knowledge of your family health history; reduce the EXCUSE to be fat or to smoke. Do you agree?

I do agree with your assessment of both lifestyle and genetics combined. I'm not stupid nor illiterate.

That being said, people who do all the right things (eating healthy, not smoking, not drinking, not doing drugs, etc.) still cannot escape their genetics and do have heart disease, cancer, diabetes, etc., in spite of all their efforts to avoid them.

As to your "fat" argument, many drugs to treat cancer and rheumatoid arthritis just to name a couple, do lead to what appears to people like you as fat and worthy of judgment, but is actually fluid retention. There is a major difference. One can be helped, as you have repeatedly stated; the other cannot without stopping life-saving treatment. What would be your choice? Would you rather look good so others won't think you overeat, or live?

[Don Baldwin]

No doubt you are a women...it appears you allow your emotions to change the words you read...Please consider the woman's only forum!
Go back and read my post again, maybe several times for you. I did not mix averages with Chinese person being hit. I was responding with the story about the Chinese gal being hit to a comment about immortality. "when it's your day, its your day".

Are you suggesting that a person that CHOSES to retire earlier than 65 should pay extra for healthcare insurance?? Well, I am still working! I am 53, my healthcare insurance premiums went from $750 a month to $1300 a month in the last 3 years, and I am healthy. That still does not make it fair to me, does it?


I am struggling to understand your silly logic on this comment...No I do not smoke, no I am not fat. I did not mention suicide, do you think I am guilty of that?

Again your silly logic, no I don't hate people, I don't think it is fair that I have to pay more for my health insurance so some other lazy POS who eats too much or smokes cigarettes can get healthcare (heart disease is the number 1 killer in the country, and cancer is the number 2 killer). If I did hate people, which I don't, obviously me being healthy discounts your above statement.

The top 10 leading causes of death in the United States - Medical News Today (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/282929.php)

PS: Suicide is the number 10 killer in the country...

The "medical industry" is the #3 killer...

I do agree with your assessment of both lifestyle and genetics combined. I'm not stupid nor illiterate.

That being said, people who do all the right things (eating healthy, not smoking, not drinking, not doing drugs, etc.) still cannot escape their genetics and do have heart disease, cancer, diabetes, etc., in spite of all their efforts to avoid them.

As to your "fat" argument, many drugs to treat cancer and rheumatoid arthritis just to name a couple, do lead to what appears to people like you as fat and worthy of judgment, but is actually fluid retention. There is a major difference. One can be helped, as you have repeatedly stated; the other cannot without stopping life-saving treatment. What would be your choice? Would you rather look good so others won't think you overeat, or live?

Bullsh!t...nobody "retains" 400lbs of water. It's FAT...nasty, wrinkly FAT. From eating too much! Too much sh!t.

[dillywho]

The "medical industry" is the #3 killer...



Bullsh!t...nobody "retains" 400lbs of water. It's FAT...nasty, wrinkly FAT. From eating too much! Too much sh!t.

Did I say ANYTHING about someone retaining 400#s of water? You have implied that ANYONE who is even so much as slightly overweight (by your standards) eats too much. I GET IT! YOU hate fat people. Because they are so abominable to you, you go on and on and on. You must be a totally miserable human being for it to be such a bother for you.

Just so you know, I am not fat....not even overweight, so don't even go there. I did gain weight when I got pregnant, but I don't think that counts, does it?

[Don Baldwin]

Did I say ANYTHING about someone retaining 400#s of water? You have implied that ANYONE who is even so much as slightly overweight (by your standards) eats too much. I GET IT! YOU hate fat people. Because they are so abominable to you, you go on and on and on. You must be a totally miserable human being for it to be such a bother for you.

Just so you know, I am not fat....not even overweight, so don't even go there. I did gain weight when I got pregnant, but I don't think that counts, does it?

Why don't you quit being an emotional girl and stick to the facts?

So WHY are YOU arguing FOR fat people dilly? Can't fat people defend themselves?

Someone who weighs 400 lbs eats too much...period. They should be denied subsidized healthcare. When they lose weight and go below morbidly obese...they can be covered again. It's simple.

Smokers...quit smoking or no coverage.

Diabetics, control your sugar or no healthcare.

You can't IGNORE them and expect to keep getting care.

Same with old people...after certain age we MUST limit the subsidized care offered. Same with extreme preemies, we shouldn't be trying to save everyone. I know...they learn from them...but it's too costly.

The cold, hard, accountants, will have to prevail on this one.

[wjboyer1]

Those chefs who don't eat their own cooking.....don't eat there....

[wjboyer1]

Winners And Losers Under The House GOP Health Bill : Shots - Health News : NPR (http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/05/04/526925764/winners-and-losers-under-the-house-gop-health-bill?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20170504)

In Trump’s America, Rape Is a Preexisting Condition
Under New Health-Care Bill, Rape Is a Preexisting Condition (http://nymag.com/thecut/2017/05/under-new-healthcare-bill-rape-is-a-pre-existing-condition.html)

The 11 states most likely to be affected by pre-existing conditions all voted for Trump
11 Trump states to be affected by pre-existing conditions - CNNPolitics.com (http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/04/politics/obamacare-pre-existing-conditions/index.html?sr=fbpol050417obamacare-pre-existing-conditions0502PMVODtopLink&linkId=37193375)

Here Is What's In The House-Approved Health Care Bill
Here's What's In The House Republicans' Health Care Bill : Shots - Health News : NPR (http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/05/04/526887531/heres-whats-in-the-house-approved-health-care-bill?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20170504)

American Medical Association Releases The Deadly Consequences Of Trumpcare
https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucejapsen/2017/05/03/doctors-say-trumpcares-latest-version-gives-patients-second-class-coverage/#18e1bab07eff

Ohio senator, Sherrod Brown lists the pre-existing conditions that will be lost under Trumpcare (VIDEO)
http://www.salon.com/2017/05/04/sen-sherrod-brown-lists-the-preexisting-conditions-that-will-be-lost-under-trumpcare/#.WQyZMCaV61s.facebook

Analysis: 5 issues that could derail the GOP health care bill in the Senate
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/analysis-5-issues-derail-gop-health-care-bill-senate/

‪Just so we're clear: People with pre existing mental health conditions have access to firearms and not healthcare. ‬

[autumnspring]

By Rika Christensen on April 26, 2017 10:38 am ·
If you have a pre-existing condition, Obamacare currently protects you from being turned down for insurance on the basis of that condition. Republicans want to take that away because insuring sick people just eats too much profit, and healthcare is a privilege, not a right anyway. The latest iteration of their ridiculous healthcare plan will allow states to decide whether insurers have to cover people with pre-existing conditions, because of course it does, but it also contains a brand-new amendment that’s patently disgusting.

It carves an exemption out for members of Congress and their staffs. Insurers would still be required to provide coverage for them regardless of pre-existing conditions. Vox confirmed it last night:

“A spokesperson for Rep. Tom MacArthur (R-N.J.) who authored this amendment confirmed this was the case: members of Congress and their staff would get the guarantee of keeping these Obamacare regulations.”

But don’t Republicans hate Obamacare? Well, their relationship with Obamacare is actually considerably more complex than we tend to give it credit for. Contrary to popular belief, we taxpayers don’t subsidize Congress’ health insurance the way many people think. In fact, we never did. Until 2013, they were covered under the Federal Employee Health Benefits program, which is a health insurance marketplace where they (and every other federal employee) purchase health insurance with all the same bull**** as everyone else, and have their premiums taken out of their paychecks.

The Office of Personnel Management contributes to each employee’s premium, but where private sector employers cover an average of 83 percent of their employees’ premiums (or 72 percent for family plans), OPM covers 72 to 75 percent, whichever is less depending on a variety of factors, across the board.

In 2013, all of Congress was kicked off of FEHB thanks to Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA). He proposed an amendment to the ACA that would require all members of Congress to purchase health insurance through the exchanges, and for their staffs under the small business provision.

So that’s what they’ve been doing for health insurance for the last four years. Where their own lives are concerned, Obamacare’s popular provisions are good things. Where the rest of the country is concerned, though, well, we all know how they feel about the rest of us. The prohibition on denying insurance due to pre-existing conditions is one of the most popular provisions and they want to gut it.

For everyone but themselves.

Can they get any more obvious about where their true priorities lie?

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.
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.
We refuse to see the FACT that people must be forced to be responsible. 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.
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.

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

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.

Ask your doctor about COST. Ask your doctor about less expensive options. Your doctor's reaction will tell you a lot about your doctor that you had never thought to ask.
IS WHAT TYPE OF INSURANCE YOU HAVE A MAJOR PART OF YOUR MEDICAL CARE? OF COURSE IT IS. YOU NEVER THOUGHT TO ASK. IT IS AT THE TOP OF YOUR MEDICAL FILE-THEY HAVE ASKED.

[wjboyer1]

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.


[QUOTE=Guest]Ask your doctor about COST. Ask your doctor about less expensive options. Your doctor's reaction will tell you a lot about your doctor that you had never thought to ask.
IS WHAT TYPE OF INSURANCE YOU HAVE A MAJOR PART OF YOUR MEDICAL CARE? OF COURSE IT IS. YOU NEVER THOUGHT TO ASK. IT IS AT THE TOP OF YOUR MEDICAL FILE-THEY HAVE ASKED.

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 (http://www.pgpf.org/chart-archive/0006_health-care-oecd)) 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.

[MDLNB]

[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 (http://www.pgpf.org/chart-archive/0006_health-care-oecd)) 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.


WHY???

If other countries that are smaller than ours can't sustain it, even by taxing everyone Aprox.55% of their salary, how would America, a much larger country afford it? Sorry, but why should we foot the bill for millions that either refuse to pay for it or can't pay for it?

[wjboyer1]

[QUOTE=Guest][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.


WHY???

If other countries that are smaller than ours can't sustain it, even by taxing everyone Aprox.55% of their salary, how would America, a much larger country afford it? Sorry, but why should we foot the bill for millions that either refuse to pay for it or can't pay for it?


Why Not? Many other countries have SUCCESSFUL medial coverage and have sustained their economies. Your rants are just that: empty rants of an uniformed, yet willfully ignorant stooge

[dillywho]

There is lots of screaming and hair-pulling going on about how insurance costs are going to rise if a new plan is eventually enacted. Isn't that already happening? Aren't people already being denied AFFORDABLE insurance? In some instances, those on Obamacare are losing coverage period because the insurance companies are choosing to no longer participate.

Something has to change. Will it be overnight? No, so why expect it. Even the ones working on a new plan have said right up front that it is going to take time. At the very least, in the meantime, people are no longer going to incur a penalty for not being able to pay even their PRIVATE insurance premiums. Many on the Obamacare plans can't, either, because of the rise in premiums.

[Don Baldwin]

Healthcare is TOO expensive to GIVE to everyone.

Let that sink in...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danmunro/2014/02/02/annual-u-s-healthcare-spending-hits-3-8-trillion/

Yes...we spend $3.8 trillion a year in healthcare costs.

That comes out to MORE than $10,000 PER man, woman, and child...each year.

Now...tell me...HOW are we supposed to pay for that?

I kept telling you, a $ million in total lifetime medical costs...NOT an unreasonable number...takes 960...over $1,000 a month...80 years of paying each month...payments to equal out to $1 million.

We CAN'T afford healthcare for everyone at these prices. There WILL be death panels for the very young and the very old. We can't afford to do whatever it takes to try to save everyone. The very young preemies cost over a $ million before they even leave the hospital. Many more millions their entire short and difficult lives. They SHOULD be allowed to die naturally...what the natural roll of the dice intended. The very old shouldn't "waste" $ millions just to get a few months of misery.

Almost 80 million people are on Medicaid! That's coming in on 1/3 the population...so poor they're on Medicaid. We have 50 million, around 1/6th the population on food stamps.

The poor are going to eat us alive...they'll destroy America...as their numbers rise...quality of life WILL go down. It's what ALWAYS happens...look it up. The French Revolution...too many poor people...starving.

[wjboyer1]

Healthcare is TOO expensive to GIVE to everyone.

Let that sink in...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danmunro/2014/02/02/annual-u-s-healthcare-spending-hits-3-8-trillion/

Yes...we spend $3.8 trillion a year in healthcare costs.

That comes out to MORE than $10,000 PER man, woman, and child...each year.

Now...tell me...HOW are we supposed to pay for that?

I kept telling you, a $ million in total lifetime medical costs...NOT an unreasonable number...takes 960...over $1,000 a month...80 years of paying each month...payments to equal out to $1 million.

We CAN'T afford healthcare for everyone at these prices. There WILL be death panels for the very young and the very old. We can't afford to do whatever it takes to try to save everyone. The very young preemies cost over a $ million before they even leave the hospital. Many more millions their entire short and difficult lives. They SHOULD be allowed to die naturally...what the natural roll of the dice intended. The very old shouldn't "waste" $ millions just to get a few months of misery.

Almost 80 million people are on Medicaid! That's coming in on 1/3 the population...so poor they're on Medicaid. We have 50 million, around 1/6th the population on food stamps.

The poor are going to eat us alive...they'll destroy America...as their numbers rise...quality of life WILL go down. It's what ALWAYS happens...look it up. The French Revolution...too many poor people...starving.

Since at least 1/2 of the $3.8 trillion goes to insurance companies, and most other countries only spend $4-5,000 per person on health care, it is our bloated insurance and prescription companies that are to blame. Single payor has been shown to work. Digging your heals into "we can't afford" it is nonsense. We can afford $trillions on war, and military, but we cannot afford to keep our citizens healthy? educate our citizens? .....
Your heart is hardened, your mind is soft

[MDLNB]

[QUOTE=Guest][QUOTE=Guest][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.....



Why Not? Many other countries have SUCCESSFUL medial coverage and have sustained their economies. Your rants are just that: empty rants of an uniformed, yet willfully ignorant stooge

It's obvious that you are speaking from ignorance. Try living overseas in those countries and then talking about it. "Successful" my @ss. They are either going bankrupt or moving back to private insurance. Canada, Germany, etc. This is a large country and the lazy that are working low paying jobs, the lower middle class that are not paying taxes, the ones that fill in the half of our country that do not pay Federal Income taxes, will not like suddenly moving down in lifestyle so that they can suddenly have to pay for EVERYONE to have health care. Believe me when I say that if you are making $50K per year and have to pay half of it in taxes, you won't be happy with health care. On top of that, to get quality health care, you will have to pay more to supplement private insurance coverage.
The grass isn't always greener on the other side, and spoiled and pampered Americans will be crying the blues with they get what they are begging for.

[Don Baldwin]

Since at least 1/2 of the $3.8 trillion goes to insurance companies, and most other countries only spend $4-5,000 per person on health care, it is our bloated insurance and prescription companies that are to blame. Single payor has been shown to work. Digging your heals into "we can't afford" it is nonsense. We can afford $trillions on war, and military, but we cannot afford to keep our citizens healthy? educate our citizens? .....
Your heart is hardened, your mind is soft

The insurers pay the medical bills. They are also heavily regulated.

I've said that the for profit medical industry makes too much money...many times.

I don't support the wars either...I'm against empire.

We agree on these... What we disagree on is the 100 million poor people who are mostly minorities...what to do with/about them.

My heart IS hardened after 60 years of watching America sink lower and lower...but my mind is sharp.

[wjboyer1]

House GOP health bill changes exempt members of Congress | TheHill (http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/330592-house-gop-health-bill-changes-exempt-members-of-congress)

Fact Check: Is Congress Exempt From the G.O.P. Health Bill?https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/04/us/politics/fact-check-congress-exemption-republican-health-bill.html

House GOP health bill changes exempt members of Congress House GOP health bill changes exempt members of Congress | TheHill (http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/330592-house-gop-health-bill-changes-exempt-members-of-congress)

Is Congress Exempt from GOP Health Bill? Is Congress Exempt from GOP Health Bill? - FactCheck.org (http://www.factcheck.org/2017/05/congress-exempt-gop-health-bill/)

CONGRESS AGAIN EXEMPT FROM SOME REPUBLICAN HEALTH PLAN CUTS Congress Again Exempt From Some Republican Health Plan Cuts (http://www.newsweek.com/american-care-act-congress-staff-exempt-594564)

[MDLNB]

House GOP health bill changes exempt members of Congress | TheHill (http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/330592-house-gop-health-bill-changes-exempt-members-of-congress)

Fact Check: Is Congress Exempt From the G.O.P. Health Bill?https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/04/us/politics/fact-check-congress-exemption-republican-health-bill.html

House GOP health bill changes exempt members of Congress House GOP health bill changes exempt members of Congress | TheHill (http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/330592-house-gop-health-bill-changes-exempt-members-of-congress)

Is Congress Exempt from GOP Health Bill? Is Congress Exempt from GOP Health Bill? - FactCheck.org (http://www.factcheck.org/2017/05/congress-exempt-gop-health-bill/)

CONGRESS AGAIN EXEMPT FROM SOME REPUBLICAN HEALTH PLAN CUTS Congress Again Exempt From Some Republican Health Plan Cuts (http://www.newsweek.com/american-care-act-congress-staff-exempt-594564)

Typical left wing rhetoric. When Obama exempted the unions from Obamacare, the left was silent. When Obama/congress exempted congress from Obamacare, the left was silent.

Advice: Get over it. It's blown out of proportion. AGAIN.