06-29-2012, 03:46 PM
06-29-2012, 05:06 PM
Ok Ill admit it was one of the ones who was against "Obamacare" but after reading many articles and publications on the subject I think im slowly changing my mind.
One of the things I really like about Obmama care is the annexing of denial of service due to pre-existing conditions. In my mind pre-existing conditions were things like hereditary conditions eg; cancers, diseases ect ect but from what Ive been reading is insurance companies can take any condition that happen prior to coverage as a pre-existing condition.
So for example you get in to a car accident and injure your knee, a year down the road your knee starts hurting again If had insurance at the time of the accident and you have obtained a new insurance after the accident or obtained insurance any time after the accident the insurance company can claim it as a pre-existing condition and deny you coverage.
This is absurd you been paying for coverage and continue paying for coverage but the insurance co will deny every claim. Crappy part is the denials usually come after the service so... your stuck with paying the medical bill out of pocket.
But there are allot of questions that I cant seem to find answers so I remain skeptical but there was a need to reform health care and stop Insurance companies and Hospitals from charging ridiculous rates.
[signature]
One of the things I really like about Obmama care is the annexing of denial of service due to pre-existing conditions. In my mind pre-existing conditions were things like hereditary conditions eg; cancers, diseases ect ect but from what Ive been reading is insurance companies can take any condition that happen prior to coverage as a pre-existing condition.
So for example you get in to a car accident and injure your knee, a year down the road your knee starts hurting again If had insurance at the time of the accident and you have obtained a new insurance after the accident or obtained insurance any time after the accident the insurance company can claim it as a pre-existing condition and deny you coverage.
This is absurd you been paying for coverage and continue paying for coverage but the insurance co will deny every claim. Crappy part is the denials usually come after the service so... your stuck with paying the medical bill out of pocket.
But there are allot of questions that I cant seem to find answers so I remain skeptical but there was a need to reform health care and stop Insurance companies and Hospitals from charging ridiculous rates.
[signature]
06-29-2012, 06:04 PM
I'm an architect, not a politician so I don't understand a lot of what goes on in Washington. My biggest beef is any time our government tries to compel me to do something. Case in point, I don't currently have insurance. This law says to me, buy insurance or we'll fine (tax) you. It is not the federal government's business to tell me I have to have insurance, I am an adult and will decide that for myself! They have no right to say I MUST have insurance!
I agree, the rest sounds like it may (time will tell) be a decent bit of legislation, but if we let Washington tell us how to run our lives in this manner, what's next? They have no right to mandate how I choose to live my life, so long as it doesn't harm or limit anyone else. The framers of the constitution gave us the right to the PURSUIT of happiness, not the guarantee of it. What socialists (which is a mild form of communism) want is equality for everyone. Equal men are not free and free men are not equal.
[signature]
I agree, the rest sounds like it may (time will tell) be a decent bit of legislation, but if we let Washington tell us how to run our lives in this manner, what's next? They have no right to mandate how I choose to live my life, so long as it doesn't harm or limit anyone else. The framers of the constitution gave us the right to the PURSUIT of happiness, not the guarantee of it. What socialists (which is a mild form of communism) want is equality for everyone. Equal men are not free and free men are not equal.
[signature]
06-29-2012, 06:04 PM
How is it different than Romneycare in Massachusetts?
[signature]
[signature]
06-29-2012, 06:21 PM
Sorry, not familiar with that, can you explain it?
I'm not romney's biggest fan, but I do think he'd be better than the incumbent
[signature]
I'm not romney's biggest fan, but I do think he'd be better than the incumbent
[signature]
06-29-2012, 06:26 PM
[quote fish_or_die]I'm an architect, not a politician so I don't understand a lot of what goes on in Washington. My biggest beef is any time our government tries to compel me to do something. Case in point, I don't currently have insurance. This law says to me, buy insurance or we'll fine (tax) you. It is not the federal government's business to tell me I have to have insurance, I am an adult and will decide that for myself! They have no right to say I MUST have insurance!
I agree, the rest sounds like it may (time will tell) be a decent bit of legislation, but if we let Washington tell us how to run our lives in this manner, what's next? They have no right to mandate how I choose to live my life, so long as it doesn't harm or limit anyone else. The framers of the constitution gave us the right to the PURSUIT of happiness, not the guarantee of it. What socialists (which is a mild form of communism) want is equality for everyone. Equal men are not free and free men are not equal.[/quote]
The reasoning behind them saying that you must have insurance is that if you get into a horrible accident, the hospital has to take you in and provide coverage if you have insurance or not! So if you have a million dollars worth of injuries and surgeries, and then are in no position to go back to work to pay off your bills who get's stuck with the bill? The hospital, or the state? Either way everyone else pays either higher insurance premiums or higher taxes because you chose not to get insurance.
[signature]
I agree, the rest sounds like it may (time will tell) be a decent bit of legislation, but if we let Washington tell us how to run our lives in this manner, what's next? They have no right to mandate how I choose to live my life, so long as it doesn't harm or limit anyone else. The framers of the constitution gave us the right to the PURSUIT of happiness, not the guarantee of it. What socialists (which is a mild form of communism) want is equality for everyone. Equal men are not free and free men are not equal.[/quote]
The reasoning behind them saying that you must have insurance is that if you get into a horrible accident, the hospital has to take you in and provide coverage if you have insurance or not! So if you have a million dollars worth of injuries and surgeries, and then are in no position to go back to work to pay off your bills who get's stuck with the bill? The hospital, or the state? Either way everyone else pays either higher insurance premiums or higher taxes because you chose not to get insurance.
[signature]
06-29-2012, 06:33 PM
That's assuming I get the medical care I can't afford and didn't have coverage for. I should have the right to say I don't want to pay 150 bucks every month in case I get into a horrible accident. If I do get in an accident and can't afford the medical care then I die. That's my choice to make, not congress'.
[signature]
[signature]
06-29-2012, 06:40 PM
If you get into a serious accident and are in shock, or unconscious you would not be in any position to tell someone to just let you die because you don't want to pay for the coverage. The coverage will be provided and someone will have to pay for it.
[signature]
[signature]
06-29-2012, 06:49 PM
you're missing my point. Either I have the coverage and receive the care, or I don't and I die. There's no option for me to get free care at the expense of the hospital or the state. I'm responsible for myself instead of the state being responsible for me which is what is known as liberty.
Funny thing, Obama said in his state of the union address:
I’m a Democrat. But I believe what Republican Abraham Lincoln believed: That government should do for people only what they cannot do better by themselves, and no more.
Boy, he must have a pretty low estimate of what people can do for themselves if they can't even trust us to manage risk in our own lives.
[signature]
Funny thing, Obama said in his state of the union address:
I’m a Democrat. But I believe what Republican Abraham Lincoln believed: That government should do for people only what they cannot do better by themselves, and no more.
Boy, he must have a pretty low estimate of what people can do for themselves if they can't even trust us to manage risk in our own lives.
[signature]
06-29-2012, 07:08 PM
I can see your point, but how would you regulate something like that? Sometimes in an emergency it is a matter of seconds between life and death. What if you or someone else is rock climbing and falls, and doesn't have identification with them, or maybe even more likely what if you are robbed and your wallet is stolen and you are shot? You are unconscious without any ID. You will die if they do not get you into surgery immediately there is no time to check try to figure out who you are and if you have insurance or not. Now for you, that's fine because you didn't get coverage, but what about the other vast majority of people who do have coverage? It would not be fair for them that the operation isn't performed because the hospital didn't know who they were.
There is just no feasible way to not provide coverage to everyone who doesn't have insurance while providing coverage for everyone who does.
[signature]
There is just no feasible way to not provide coverage to everyone who doesn't have insurance while providing coverage for everyone who does.
[signature]
06-29-2012, 07:21 PM
I get what your saying I feel the same way in 2009 I was laid off my job I could only spend what money I had to make it day to day. If the Gov forced me to pay for cobra or insurance I would have been up a creek with no $$$.
But I do see that there are circumstances were making insurance coverage mandatory is invaluable. Theres a story in National Geographic were a man blew himself up while making Meth, he was unconscience and required skin graphs for 90% of his body. Total cost for him to recover is going to be over a million dollars, Obviously he did not have insurance, Part of the cost will be covered by the hospitals charity but the most will be covered by the states low income financial assistance programs, which in turn come out of our Tax dollars.
Its not my choice to pay for some dbag meth head to recover but the way the system is now we as tax payers dont have a choice.
There also people who use our Emergencies as regular hospitals. Utah has law that states Emergencies cannot refuse service due to no insurance. So im sure those costs in one way or another get pushed to paying patients.
I too am not a politician, but I do know something need to change. And in some shape or form these costs are going to be pushed to tax payers obama care or not.
[signature]
But I do see that there are circumstances were making insurance coverage mandatory is invaluable. Theres a story in National Geographic were a man blew himself up while making Meth, he was unconscience and required skin graphs for 90% of his body. Total cost for him to recover is going to be over a million dollars, Obviously he did not have insurance, Part of the cost will be covered by the hospitals charity but the most will be covered by the states low income financial assistance programs, which in turn come out of our Tax dollars.
Its not my choice to pay for some dbag meth head to recover but the way the system is now we as tax payers dont have a choice.
There also people who use our Emergencies as regular hospitals. Utah has law that states Emergencies cannot refuse service due to no insurance. So im sure those costs in one way or another get pushed to paying patients.
I too am not a politician, but I do know something need to change. And in some shape or form these costs are going to be pushed to tax payers obama care or not.
[signature]
06-29-2012, 07:29 PM
well how is that handled now? If you have no ID or proof of insurance does the hospital just send you in for emergency brain surgery without knowing they will be paid?
In a world where the people who just don't want to work can get a paycheck from the rest of us as well as free world class health care, they are incentivized to put in the minimum amount of effort, where the rest of us who are struggling to get ahead are penalized with the care of our lazy brothers and sisters of whom there are an increasing amount.
I pulled this off a blog somewhere a few months ago, a little bit different topic but it carries the same principal of self reliance and personal liberty to succeed or fail, I feel.
1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!
5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.
I guess what I'm trying to say is I don't feel the government's responsibility is to create a safely net for me, and I don't want to pay for anyone else's safety net.
By the way, I appreciate you people keeping a civil tone in discussions like this, I need to get different opinions so I can understand what I think
[signature]
In a world where the people who just don't want to work can get a paycheck from the rest of us as well as free world class health care, they are incentivized to put in the minimum amount of effort, where the rest of us who are struggling to get ahead are penalized with the care of our lazy brothers and sisters of whom there are an increasing amount.
I pulled this off a blog somewhere a few months ago, a little bit different topic but it carries the same principal of self reliance and personal liberty to succeed or fail, I feel.
1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!
5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.
I guess what I'm trying to say is I don't feel the government's responsibility is to create a safely net for me, and I don't want to pay for anyone else's safety net.
By the way, I appreciate you people keeping a civil tone in discussions like this, I need to get different opinions so I can understand what I think
[signature]
06-29-2012, 07:42 PM
From my understanding Rommey Care was the foundation that Obama Care was drafted upon.
[signature]
[signature]
06-30-2012, 06:54 AM
[quote fish_or_die] If I do get in an accident and can't afford the medical care then I die.......[/quote]
Now I know that you do not read my posts (something tells me you are reading this one tho)...but I for one agree MOSTLY with Obama Care's doing away with pre-existing conditions and the introduction of universal health care.
I blew out my ACL last year and thankfully had my parents insurance to pay the staggering $36,000 surgery (and that total does not include the 9 months of weekly physical therapy). I would be in debt for the next 40 years without that coverage. I am moving to a new insurance company that my work offers soon, and now that new insurance company can not deny me coverage of my knee thanks to Obama Care. I am definitely gonna have to pay more for this new insurance, but that is a price I am willing to pay!
I am gonna sound like a socialist here....but.....personally it took a surgery and a 9 month recovery at TOSH for me to understand the value of health insurance for everyone. I hope you do not have to go through a similar experience to understand what I am talking about.
You may preach Fish or Die that you would rather die on the table....but if you were in the hospital, facing life or death, and the possibility of $30,000+ dollars in surgery (not including physical therapy bills) .....you might just change your tune here.
What I suggest is that you rent the movie "Sicko". Perahps that could offer some insite?
This is just how I feel about the issue, by no means do I believe that eveyone else should agree.....let alone you Fish or Die
[signature]
Now I know that you do not read my posts (something tells me you are reading this one tho)...but I for one agree MOSTLY with Obama Care's doing away with pre-existing conditions and the introduction of universal health care.
I blew out my ACL last year and thankfully had my parents insurance to pay the staggering $36,000 surgery (and that total does not include the 9 months of weekly physical therapy). I would be in debt for the next 40 years without that coverage. I am moving to a new insurance company that my work offers soon, and now that new insurance company can not deny me coverage of my knee thanks to Obama Care. I am definitely gonna have to pay more for this new insurance, but that is a price I am willing to pay!
I am gonna sound like a socialist here....but.....personally it took a surgery and a 9 month recovery at TOSH for me to understand the value of health insurance for everyone. I hope you do not have to go through a similar experience to understand what I am talking about.
You may preach Fish or Die that you would rather die on the table....but if you were in the hospital, facing life or death, and the possibility of $30,000+ dollars in surgery (not including physical therapy bills) .....you might just change your tune here.
What I suggest is that you rent the movie "Sicko". Perahps that could offer some insite?
This is just how I feel about the issue, by no means do I believe that eveyone else should agree.....let alone you Fish or Die
[signature]
07-03-2012, 02:26 PM
Thanks for your insights, I'm not arguing that one should not have insurance, as soon as I can afford it I will for sure, but what I will never agree with is my government taking away my liberty to choose whether I want it or not. That's what is wrong with obamacare and that's what I will speak out and vote against every chance I get.
[signature]
[signature]
07-03-2012, 04:48 PM
Were forced have to insure y our car and some, there homes whithout a choice...
[signature]
[signature]
07-03-2012, 05:12 PM
You're right. But we're not forced to drive or buy a home. With obamacare if you want to live in the country (legally anyway) you have to have insurance.
[signature]
[signature]
07-03-2012, 06:52 PM
No... not really there are stipulations to who has to have the mandate, if you meet a certain criteria then no you dont.
You are correct nobody is forced in to buying a car or home but we forced to pay for medical care for people who don't have coverage.
The way the law is written now I don't think its fair we have to pay for some meth head or some gang banger who gets shot in a drug deal.
This is the current state of medical care, Tax paying Americans who do or... dont even have medical coverage are paying a portion of there incomes to cover those who dont. [mad]
[signature]
You are correct nobody is forced in to buying a car or home but we forced to pay for medical care for people who don't have coverage.
The way the law is written now I don't think its fair we have to pay for some meth head or some gang banger who gets shot in a drug deal.
This is the current state of medical care, Tax paying Americans who do or... dont even have medical coverage are paying a portion of there incomes to cover those who dont. [mad]
[signature]