I doubt that is good enough for the liberals. I bet they believe it would be better if they could provide everyone with free health care and eliminate all taxes...oops, I mean just tax the hard working people!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Guest

If it's due to lifestyle choices then it shouldn't be covered.

Lung cancer from a smoker no...diabetes from too much sugar no...heart disease in someone who does no exercise no...anything from obesity no. You get the drift...

We also CAN'T afford to keep people alive who need multiple $ thousands a month in healthcare. People/family needs to be realistic.

.

RE: Can't AFFORD to keep people alive.
1. I find it interesting how people like YOU change their tune when it effects someone they care about.
2. From your second paragraph your medical knowledge is NON-EXISTENT. With a study of your genes, it can be determined your life expectancy and what will kill you.
The accuracy is within a year or two unless you get hit by a car sort pf thing that cannot be anticipated by your genes
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////
A TRUE STORY
You may recall that Hillary spoke about government healthcare when Billy was president. At the time my dad-not at all a fool-was rah rah the Clintons. I said until they say how they will pay for it-IT WILL NOT HAPPEN.
I had a friend and a customer who had family in Germany which already had nationalized healthcare. I asked him how it worked. His reply was that people who could afford it bought private healthcare insurance and received much better care. Under OBAMACARE, we give the same care to all no matter who pays for it or how much they pay.
At the time they had discovered drugs that could keep a patient with aids alive for years and the cost was like 150,000 a year. I asked him how they handle this in Germany. Is there a cap. His reply was that I know German history. They will not euthanize anyone. According to him there are wards of people in Germany that are brain dead and they are kept alive as long as possible AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE.

In my view there is nothing as precious as life. WE HAVE GIVEN THE POWER OF OUR LIFE TO OUR GOVERNMENT.
Euthanasia is not legal except for a pet you call it humane
for a parent a spouse etc IT IS NOT LEGAL. The reason is while we SAY, separation of church and state the belief is you are damned if you take your own life.

A DNR again it is YOUR LIFE. You do not belong to the state. YET, if you sign a DNR anyone in your family can go against your WRITTEN REQUEST.

Originally Posted by Boogie Jr.

Premiums of healthy people will be higher in order to subsidize people with pre-existing conditions.

Originally Posted by DirtBag

I doubt that is good enough for the liberals. I bet they believe it would be better if they could provide everyone with free health care and eliminate all taxes...oops, I mean just tax the hard working people!

My heartfelt thanks to both of you, for proving me correct...AGAIN.

https://www.talkofthevillages.com/fo...58-post18.html

Originally Posted by ColdNoMore

As I have stated many times and has been born out consistently by posts here on the subject...it really boils down to two very different philosophies.

1. Those who believe that like every other developed nation on this rock, the health of its citizens...should be a a prime concern/responsibility of a country's government.

2. Those who believe that..."I have mine, tough $hit for you."

I'm looking forward to the inevitable plethora of posts...that continually prove me correct.

Deepest Sincere Wishes:

Originally Posted by (unt

My heartfelt thanks to both of you, for proving me correct...AGAIN.

https://www.talkofthevillages.com/fo...58-post18.html

So dumbfvck, which one of those groups do you believe my posts fall in.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by DirtBag

So dumbfvck, which one of those groups do you believe my posts fall in.

Like anyone, of even average intelligence...can't tell by your posts?



Deepest Sincere Wishes:

This says it all.

Just put yourselves in the place of parents whose child has a chronic condition at birth. The child will live but at a cost of $100,000 per year. The parents cannot get health insurance to cover the illness. In one year, they have no money, no assets, and still have a sick child.

Let's say it is your grandchild. Do you pay the $100,000 per year? You will be broke in a few years, too.

Or after 6 months of the child's life and realizing the potential cost, do you say to your children, "Tell the doctor to let him die, you can try for a healthy one."

Or would you rather have wished the Republican health care covered pre-existing conditions?

Let's have some honest answers here and not things from the simpleton.

Originally Posted by Guest

Just put yourselves in the place of parents whose child has a chronic condition at birth. The child will live but at a cost of $100,000 per year. The parents cannot get health insurance to cover the illness. In one year, they have no money, no assets, and still have a sick child.

Let's say it is your grandchild. Do you pay the $100,000 per year? You will be broke in a few years, too.

Or after 6 months of the child's life and realizing the potential cost, do you say to your children, "Tell the doctor to let him die, you can try for a healthy one."

Or would you rather have wished the Republican health care covered pre-existing conditions?

Let's have some honest answers here and not things from the simpleton.

If it's that severe...should have been let go at birth. Many that we save...shouldn't be.

To be HONEST that cartoon should have had a preemie with tubes and wires stuck in it and all kinds of machines all around...keeping it alive.

Originally Posted by Sandtrap328

Just put yourselves in the place of parents whose child has a chronic condition at birth. The child will live but at a cost of $100,000 per year. The parents cannot get health insurance to cover the illness. In one year, they have no money, no assets, and still have a sick child.

Let's say it is your grandchild. Do you pay the $100,000 per year? You will be broke in a few years, too.

Or after 6 months of the child's life and realizing the potential cost, do you say to your children, "Tell the doctor to let him die, you can try for a healthy one."

Let's have some honest answers here and not things from the simpleton.

Well Sandy, That would be terrible...but if they are as you said "broke in one year", then they can count on MEDICAID!!

Your example makes me wonder why a couple would not have healthcare before they decided to start a family? I have had healthcare since age 18. I never worked anywhere that provided healthcare, so I paid for it myself.





Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Guest

Well Sandy, That would be terrible...but if they are as you said "broke in one year", then they can count on MEDICAID!!

Your example makes me wonder why a couple would not have healthcare before they decided to start a family? I have had healthcare since age 18. I never worked anywhere that provided healthcare, so I paid for it myself.





Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

Evidently you don't understand how one can qualify for Medicaid. First, you have to demonstrate that you are destitute, so if you earn more than $12,000 per year, you will NOT qualify. If you do qualify, you have to spend all of your assets to no more value than $2,000. Now, if you qualify you are put on a waiting list that could last up to 9 months. So, your safety net is really hard to use.

Not all couples have health insurance, even though the AHA has made it more available than ever before. Pregnancies are also not always planned (of course you know that but your remarks show a certain ignorance of reality) and last of all, the remark was targeted at the Trumpcare proposal that would preclude most pre existing medical conditions from being covered.

You really come across as being a quite heartless person

Originally Posted by The Boy

Evidently you don't understand how one can qualify for Medicaid. First, you have to demonstrate that you are destitute, so if you earn more than $12,000 per year, you will NOT qualify. If you do qualify, you have to spend all of your assets to no more value than $2,000. Now, if you qualify you are put on a waiting list that could last up to 9 months. So, your safety net is really hard to use.

Not all couples have health insurance, even though the AHA has made it more available than ever before. Pregnancies are also not always planned (of course you know that but your remarks show a certain ignorance of reality) and last of all, the remark was targeted at the Trumpcare proposal that would preclude most pre existing medical conditions from being covered.

You really come across as being a quite heartless person

Well you seem to know a lot about Medicaid process...speaking from the heart as they say?

Sandy claimed they were broke. I would consider that only possible if they had spent (or lost) all their assets and no source of income (is your definition of broke something less?). Of course at that point it would not be difficult to demonstrate they are destitute.

I agree that not all couples have healthcare. Some would rather spend that money on entertainment, vehicles, cigarettes, booze, drugs, or maybe a fancy apartment on the miracle mile...But I do not agree that that the Obammacare has made it more available, as it was always available, just some chose to spend their money on something else. Medicaid has always been their for those who could not truly afford it.

No, pregnancies are not always planned, but that is not the same as "pregnancies should not be planned".

I know my wife and I decided when we would start a family, and it was not until we could afford one (we got together when I was 18 and she was 16, we moved in together when I was 19 and she was 17, lived together for 3 years (she was in senior year of high school), we got married, we had our first child 7 years after the honeymoon, we have been married for 32 years, our youngest graduates this Friday from UM !) Truth was; we were still nervous then, because you never know if you are going to get a child with special needs...but we had health insurance the whole time and we paid for it out of our wages.

Pre existing conditions are COVERED by Trumpcare. The states would have to opt out. Stop whining about Trump, and start looking at your state legislators if you don't think they can be trusted!

I am a business MAN. I don't think my wife, kids, or friends (many I have had for over 40 years and still get together often) would consider me as heartless.

Originally Posted by Guest

Evidently you don't understand how one can qualify for Medicaid. First, you have to demonstrate that you are destitute, so if you earn more than $12,000 per year, you will NOT qualify. If you do qualify, you have to spend all of your assets to no more value than $2,000. Now, if you qualify you are put on a waiting list that could last up to 9 months. So, your safety net is really hard to use.

Not all couples have health insurance, even though the AHA has made it more available than ever before. Pregnancies are also not always planned (of course you know that but your remarks show a certain ignorance of reality) and last of all, the remark was targeted at the Trumpcare proposal that would preclude most pre existing medical conditions from being covered.

You really come across as being a quite heartless person

Neither do you...

"Eligibility

Medicaid is a joint federal and state program that, together with the Children’s Health Insurance Program, provides health coverage to over 72.5 million Americans, including children, pregnant women, parents, seniors and individuals with disabilities. Medicaid is the single largest source of health coverage in the United States.

In order to participate in Medicaid, federal law requires states to cover certain groups of individuals. Low income families, qualified pregnant women and children, and individuals receiving Supplemental Security Income (SSI) are examples of mandatory eligibility groups. States have additional options for coverage and may choose to cover other groups, such as individuals receiving home and community based services and children in foster care who are not otherwise eligible."

"Effective Date of Coverage

Once an individual is determined eligible for Medicaid, coverage is effective either on the date of application or the first day of the month of application. Benefits may also be covered retroactively for up to 3 months prior to the month of application, if the individual would have been eligible during that period had he or she applied. Coverage generally stops at the end of the month in which a person no longer meets the requirements for eligibility."

"Spousal Impoverishment: Protects the spouse of a Medicaid applicant or beneficiary who needs coverage for long-term services and supports (LTSS), in either an institution or a home or other community-based setting, from becoming impoverished in order for the spouse in need of LTSS to attain Medicaid coverage for such services."

Almost 1/3 the countries population is on Medicaid! MOSTLY minorities. Tell me again how beneficial they are...

The myth about the loss of pre-existing conditions was perpetrated by the leftist party, as well as fake news. If you are a Democrat or liberal Independent, you should contact your representative that is passing on lies about it. All they are doing is desperately trying to get you to come back to their losing base and vote for them again. Looks that losers, singing in congress and shouting about people dying. If that is not enough to have you turn your back on them, then you are just as bad. A loser. Try reading the bill, before running amok with lies.