Obama Gives Himself "A solid B+"

#51
#51
rjd970 said:
It is not a free ride, it is a benefit of economies of scale that I pay into. Just like with anything else, my insurance benefits factored into what job I took. And you're last two points are BS.

It is a pipe dream to think insurance companies won't drop coverage on a whim once the medical costs get too high, and on a personal plan, how is the individual supposed to fight it? Insurance companies are losing a single premium payment. Put 10,000 people on the same plan paying the same premium and they won't risk it. This happens everyday, and I don't trust corporations to do what's best for me anymore than I trust the government to. There will inevitably be complex loopholes and fine print the average non-lawyer person can't spot on any contract they sign for coverage.

And the employer isn't paying out all the healthcare costs...I have my own plan to choose from the ones they offer....everybody pays their own premium and myself and the company benefit from that more than anything else.

I still think using this as a national model would work. I don't want Universal Healthcare....I want Universal Access. Getting everybody insured at reasonable, guaranteed prices will lower costs across the board.
Click to expand...

My last 2 points are spot on. As is my first.

I bet your employer is paying more of your healthcare costs than you are.

You have way too much faith in the govt. But you keep trusting the govt and I will trust individual health ins. policies are the best way.
 
#52
#52
volfanjustin said:
My last 2 points are spot on. As is my first.

I bet your employer is paying more of your healthcare costs than you are.

You have way too much faith in the govt. But you keep trusting the govt and I will trust individual health ins. policies are the best way.
Click to expand...

Your last statement show either you didn't bother to read what I posted, or you didn't understand it.
 
#53
#53
droski said:
the problem is hte govt says if they feel the pricing isn't fair that the public option is still on the table. what is the chance they will think the pricing is fair?
Click to expand...

I understand, and I feel the same way. However, a public pool to choose from still lets market forces drive costs down. Moreso than a government option or individual plans.

I agree the government should take the public option off the table regardless of circumstances.
 
#54
#54
rjd970 said:
Your last statement show either you didn't bother to read what I posted, or you didn't understand it.
Click to expand...

You are saying you want a national model, who will oversee that? You want everyone insured, that is a pipedream. Where does it say we have the right to have health insurance? I want to pay for my own coverage. Everyone should be responsible for their own healthcare needs.
 
#55
#55
volfanjustin said:
You are saying you want a national model, who will oversee that? You want everyone insured, that is a pipedream. Where does it say we have the right to have health insurance? I want to pay for my own coverage. Everyone should be responsible for their own healthcare needs.
Click to expand...

I don't care if everyone is covered. I want the coverage that is out there to force competition among insurance providers, docs and other types of providers. Taking all artificialities out of the system will let the consumer dictate where the market goes. The government needs to be ttally removed from that process.
 
#56
#56
I've mentioned it elsewhere and somebody else mentioned it earlier here I think but tort reform should be tacked on to anything involving a discussion of healthcare reform.
 
#57
#57
volfanjustin said:
You are saying you want a national model, who will oversee that? You want everyone insured, that is a pipedream. Where does it say we have the right to have health insurance? I want to pay for my own coverage. Everyone should be responsible for their own healthcare needs.
Click to expand...

Again, you are not reading what I say. I never said I wanted universal coverage....I did say I wanted universal access. Whether everybody is covered is up to themselves...but pricing and conditions for coverage need to be at levels where anybody can get it.
 
#58
#58
hndog609 said:
I've mentioned it elsewhere and somebody else mentioned it earlier here I think but tort reform should be tacked on to anything involving a discussion of healthcare reform.
Click to expand...

Impossible, especially with the left heading up everything.

Without the public option, the healthcare fight needs to be had. A congress bent on helping the less fortunate, but taking out the free money option is a good thing. We have some small prayer of leaving this process with a more consumer driven solution.
 
#59
#59
BigPapaVol said:
I don't care if everyone is covered. I want the coverage that is out there to force competition among insurance providers, docs and other types of providers. Taking all artificialities out of the system will let the consumer dictate where the market goes. The government needs to be ttally removed from that process.
Click to expand...

Agreed...but I'm not against some government TORT regulation and some ground rules protecting against things like pre-existing conditions. There also should be some recourse available so the consumer can have have his/her case reviewed before coverage is dropped for medical reasons.
 
#60
#60
BigPapaVol said:
I don't care if everyone is covered. I want the coverage that is out there to force competition among insurance providers, docs and other types of providers. Taking all artificialities out of the system will let the consumer dictate where the market goes. The government needs to be ttally removed from that process.
Click to expand...

We are on the same page.
 
#61
#61
rjd970 said:
Agreed...but I'm not against some government TORT regulation and some ground rules protecting against things like pre-existing conditions. There also should be some recourse available so the consumer can have have his/her case reviewed before coverage is dropped for medical reasons.
Click to expand...
We're talking about a solve for the preexisting condition, but it's likely to be a state pool solution. That works. To me, what might come here is tha we break up the BCBS monopoly and link providers and consumers back together.
 
#62
#62
Obama's approval ratings are so low, they are talking about replacing him with Jay Leno.
 
#63
#63
BigPapaVol said:
Impossible, especially with the left heading up everything.

Without the public option, the healthcare fight needs to be had. A congress bent on helping the less fortunate, but taking out the free money option is a good thing. We have some small prayer of leaving this process with a more consumer driven solution.
Click to expand...

Actually I agree with you, on both points, but the complete disinterest in Washington to even give a cursory glace at tort reform is, to me anyway, a glaring reminder that the actual cost of healthcare for the masses is hardly the sole priority of those in power.
 
#64
#64
rjd970 said:
Agreed...but I'm not against some government TORT regulation and some ground rules protecting against things like pre-existing conditions. There also should be some recourse available so the consumer can have have his/her case reviewed before coverage is dropped for medical reasons.
Click to expand...

the problem with including people with preexisting conditions is that any person under the age of 40 is going to say "why get health insurance while i'm healthy?" i've probably paid tens of thousands of health premiums in the past years and probably gotten back in the mid hundreds. i've been subsidizing the sick in my pool. i only have health insurance for emergencies. if you allow someone with preexisting conditions to enroll you are basically ensuring the only peopel that will enroll are those with preexisting conditions.
 
#66
#66
droski said:
the problem with including people with preexisting conditions is that any person under the age of 40 is going to say "why get health insurance while i'm healthy?" i've probably paid tens of thousands of health premiums in the past years and probably gotten back in the mid hundreds. i've been subsidizing the sick in my pool. i only have health insurance for emergencies. if you allow someone with preexisting conditions to enroll you are basically ensuring the only peopel that will enroll are those with preexisting conditions.
Click to expand...

So let them suffer and die if they can't afford the medical care?
 
#68
#68
rjd970 said:
So let them suffer and die if they can't afford the medical care?
Click to expand...

that's what medicaid is for and already provides to millions of poor americans for FREE. those who can afford it and chose not to pay for it can go bankrupt as far as I care.
 
#69
#69
MG1968 said:
you're way too smart to have to resort to such a tactic. Leave the histrionics to people like Lawgator.
Click to expand...

No, there is no tactic here, it's an honest question. If pre-existing conditions are not allowed, how do such people get covered? If insurance isn't available for them and they can't afford medical care, what other alternative is there?
 
#70
#70
droski said:
that's what medicaid is for and already provides to millions of poor americans for FREE. those who can afford it and chose not to pay for it can go bankrupt as far as I care.
Click to expand...

I get it, so you're saying a free government run public option is their only hope.

....and depending on what the market could dictate as far as prices, I could easily envision somebody with a pre-existing condition making too much to qualify for medicaid yet having to decide between food and paying his/her premium every month....to say nothing of the deductible when something really does go wrong.

It's just like car insurance. You only have to pay higher premiums if you have a bad driving record or you have chosen to drive an expensive car. Likewise, with health insurance, you should have to pay higher premiums if you smoke, or are overweight due to poor eating habits....but you shouldn't have to pay higher premiums because you were born with an ailment.
 
Last edited:
#71
#71
why not? they cost more. they have to pay more for life insurance too. is that ridiculous as well?
 
#72
#72
rjd970 said:
No, there is no tactic here, it's an honest question. If pre-existing conditions are not allowed, how do such people get covered? If insurance isn't available for them and they can't afford medical care, what other alternative is there?
Click to expand...

how are they covered now? the last time I checked, people aren't "dying in the streets by the thousands" because they can't get medical care.

If a person can afford a cell phone, cable tv, a couple cartons of cigarettes a month, etc. he or she can afford a basic level of health care.
 
#73
#73
I wonder what this country will do if it has to go back to the living standards of our grandparents?
 
#75
#75
I remember going to see the houses my parents grew up in in Charleston, WV. My mom grew up in a house that would fit into my master bedroom and her father was middle class working for Union Carbide. My dad was considered rich and his house was only a quarter the size of the one I have now.

Eventually the size of homes are going to have to reduce and its probably starting already. I pity anyone who would want to be president over the next couple of decades.
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top