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

Winners And Losers Under The House GOP Health Bill : Shots - Health News : NPR

In Trump’s America, Rape Is a Preexisting Condition
Under New Health-Care Bill, Rape Is a Preexisting Condition

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

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

American Medical Association Releases The Deadly Consequences Of Trumpcare
https://www.forbes.com/sites/bruceja.../#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-...aV61s.facebook

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

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

Originally Posted by Guest

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.

[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.

Originally Posted by 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) 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.

[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.

Originally Posted by Guest

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




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

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

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

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?

[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.....

Originally Posted by 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

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.

Healthcare is TOO expensive to GIVE to everyone.

Let that sink in...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danmunro...-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.

Originally Posted by Guest

Healthcare is TOO expensive to GIVE to everyone.

Let that sink in...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danmunro...-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

[QUOTE=Guest][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

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by Guest

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.

House GOP health bill changes exempt members of Congress | TheHill

Fact Check: Is Congress Exempt From the G.O.P. Health Bill?https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/04/u...alth-bill.html

House GOP health bill changes exempt members of Congress House GOP health bill changes exempt members of Congress | TheHill

Is Congress Exempt from GOP Health Bill? Is Congress Exempt from GOP Health Bill? - FactCheck.org

CONGRESS AGAIN EXEMPT FROM SOME REPUBLICAN HEALTH PLAN CUTS Congress Again Exempt From Some Republican Health Plan Cuts

Originally Posted by Guest

House GOP health bill changes exempt members of Congress | TheHill

Fact Check: Is Congress Exempt From the G.O.P. Health Bill?https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/04/u...alth-bill.html

House GOP health bill changes exempt members of Congress House GOP health bill changes exempt members of Congress | TheHill

Is Congress Exempt from GOP Health Bill? Is Congress Exempt from GOP Health Bill? - FactCheck.org

CONGRESS AGAIN EXEMPT FROM SOME REPUBLICAN HEALTH PLAN CUTS Congress Again Exempt From Some Republican Health Plan Cuts

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.