Fleeing from Health Care

usaloyal2theend said:
My healthcare carrier, in preparing itself for the Obama healthcare reform debacle, hiked my monthly premiums 56%.

When you have open enrollment make sure you look real closely at your new rate and get the hankies.
Click to expand...

Look at it this way. The goal is to ensure everyone is covered. Certain people have said that private insurers can do it better than government so this is what you're seeing. When you and others get fed up from paying those high premiums a government run, universal plan will be welcomed.

It could have been so much simpler but too many people believed the lies and distortions when all they had to do was a little research. Countries with universal plans pay less per capita and not one country has reverted to a "pay or suffer" system.

The evidence, the proof, was available but some folks insisted on taking the long, torturous route.

Coverage for pre-existing conditions and young adults has already taken effect. Nobody is going to want to give up those programs and as time passes and more coverage is added....well, the bad, old days are coming to an end.
 
apple0154 said:
Look at it this way. The goal is to ensure everyone is covered. Certain people have said that private insurers can do it better than government so this is what you're seeing. When you and others get fed up from paying those high premiums a government run, universal plan will be welcomed.

It could have been so much simpler but too many people believed the lies and distortions when all they had to do was a little research. Countries with universal plans pay less per capita and not one country has reverted to a "pay or suffer" system.

The evidence, the proof, was available but some folks insisted on taking the long, torturous route.

Coverage for pre-existing conditions and young adults has already taken effect. Nobody is going to want to give up those programs and as time passes and more coverage is added....well, the bad, old days are coming to an end.
Click to expand...
The insurers are also reportedly asking for further rate increases they are not tying to the health care overhaul that they say are needed to cover rising medical costs. Some customers could see their premiums increase by more than 20 percent.

Nancy-Ann DeParle, the director of the White House Office of Health Reform, told the Journal that insurers were using the new health reforms as an excuse to raise rates.

"I would have real deep concerns that the kinds of rate increases that you're quoting... are justified," she said. "We believe consumers will see through this."

Health Care for America Now, a coalition group in support of the health care overhaul, slammed the insurance industry and pointed to insurers' history as evidence that its latest claims were misleading. For instance, WellPoint's Anthem subsidiary had to reduce its proposed rate hike in California earlier this year after it tried to justify increases as high as 39 percent with erroneous numbers.

"The health insurance industry is doing the same thing it has always done, raising premiums to achieve excessive profits and outrageous salaries for their CEOs," HCAN executive director Ethan Rome said in a statement...
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20015859-503544.html
 
apple0154 said:
Awww, come on, Yankee. Dig in that pocket. When was the last time your wallet saw the light of day? :)
Click to expand...
Last Sunday in church. Why don't you trust Americans to give to charity voluntarily? It must be because you fucking liberals don't like to give to charity yourselves, so you assume that everyone must be as selfish as you.
 
Damn Yankee said:
Last Sunday in church. Why don't you trust Americans to give to charity voluntarily? It must be because you fucking liberals don't like to give to charity yourselves, so you assume that everyone must be as selfish as you.
Click to expand...


He wants everyone to be in the same medical nightmare as he. He has lots of opinions about how Candianised America should be.
 
usaloyal2theend said:
He wants everyone to be in the same medical nightmare as he. He has lots of opinions about how Candianised America should be.
Click to expand...
So he should move up there and see how he likes it. Or Massachusetts, or California.

Why is everything the responsibility of the federal government with these retards?
 
Rana said:
She doesn't make enough money for the government to take.

I am of the opinion that it is big insurance, pharma and medicine for profit that has gotten us into a lot of problems in health care. The government stepped in to help people like me, those who would not be insurable because of prior conditions. Now, if you don't like a forced tax to help cover emergency room visit flakes who don't pay their bill or the ones who simply can't, then that is another thing. but if you object to the bill on the grounds that it gives protection to me, children and seniors, this is where I object. There are some things in the bill that need fine tuning, but you can't throw the baby out with the bath water!
Click to expand...

I sympothize, but I truely think that the problems that you face will not get better but worse with this legislation. I know it will hurt me and my family. My reps know who I am and know that I want it repealed.

In the long run, your dollar will be worth less, the govt will take your money, or decrease your subsidies to help pay for it, and then tell you that you can't have what you, and your doctor think you need. They'll tell you what they think is best. A more cheaper option.
 
usaloyal2theend said:
He wants everyone to be in the same medical nightmare as he. He has lots of opinions about how Candianised America should be.
Click to expand...

Not strictly Canadianized. How about Belgiumized? Or Germanyized? Or Spainized? Or Luxembourgized? Or Israelized? Or Franceized? Or Swedenized? Or, hey, how about just civilized when it comes to health care? :)
 
Damn Yankee said:
Why is everything the responsibility of the federal government with these retards?
Click to expand...

Not everything. But it's obvious health should be because that's the way the Preamble to the Constitution was written, "...promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty..."

(Excerpt) An example of the way courts utilize the Preamble is Ellis v. City of Grand Rapids.[19] Substantively, the case was about eminent domain. The City of Grand Rapids wanted to use eminent domain to force landowners to sell property in the city identified as "blighted", and convey the property to owners that would develop it in ostensibly beneficial ways: in this case, to St. Mary's Hospital, a Catholic organization. This area of substantive constitutional law is governed by the Fifth Amendment, which is understood to require that property acquired via eminent domain must be put to a "public use". In interpreting whether the proposed project constituted a "public use", the court pointed to the Preamble's reference to "promot[ing] the general Welfare" as evidence that "[t]he health of the people was in the minds of our forefathers".[20] "[T]he concerted effort for renewal and expansion of hospital and medical care centers, as a part of our nation's system of hospitals, is as a public service and use within the highest meaning of such terms. Surely this is in accord with an objective of the United States Constitution: '* * * promote the general Welfare (End) (Emphasis added)
Preamble to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:US-GreatSeal-Obverse.svg" class="image" title="Great Seal of the United States"><img alt="Great Seal of the United States" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/be/US-GreatSeal-Obverse.svg/125px-US-GreatSeal-Obverse.svg.png"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/b/be/US-GreatSeal-Obverse.svg/125px-US-GreatSeal-Obverse.svg.png

How can one talk about welfare and enjoying liberty while omitting health? It's just silly.
 
apple0154 said:
Not everything. But it's obvious health should be because that's the way the Preamble to the Constitution was written, "...promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty..."

(Excerpt) An example of the way courts utilize the Preamble is Ellis v. City of Grand Rapids.[19] Substantively, the case was about eminent domain. The City of Grand Rapids wanted to use eminent domain to force landowners to sell property in the city identified as "blighted", and convey the property to owners that would develop it in ostensibly beneficial ways: in this case, to St. Mary's Hospital, a Catholic organization. This area of substantive constitutional law is governed by the Fifth Amendment, which is understood to require that property acquired via eminent domain must be put to a "public use". In interpreting whether the proposed project constituted a "public use", the court pointed to the Preamble's reference to "promot[ing] the general Welfare" as evidence that "[t]he health of the people was in the minds of our forefathers".[20] "[T]he concerted effort for renewal and expansion of hospital and medical care centers, as a part of our nation's system of hospitals, is as a public service and use within the highest meaning of such terms. Surely this is in accord with an objective of the United States Constitution: '* * * promote the general Welfare (End) (Emphasis added)
Preamble to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How can one talk about welfare and enjoying liberty while omitting health? It's just silly.
Click to expand...

Why do you stop at health? To promote true welfare of the people shouldn't food be free? Nourishment is the most basic human need. I would throw warmth in there ad well. Should the government provide a basic level of clothing to each person? And then there is housing. Should a wralthy and civilized society like the U.S. have any homeless? Should a basic level of housing be provided to each person?
 
Liberty said:
I sympothize, but I truely think that the problems that you face will not get better but worse with this legislation. I know it will hurt me and my family. My reps know who I am and know that I want it repealed.

In the long run, your dollar will be worth less, the govt will take your money, or decrease your subsidies to help pay for it, and then tell you that you can't have what you, and your doctor think you need. They'll tell you what they think is best. A more cheaper option.
Click to expand...

Universal plans do not work like that. At least not the Canadian one. Whatever is covered by the plan is covered for everyone and the doctor and patient make the decision. The government does not make decisions involving individuals like private health care plans do.
 
apple0154 said:
Not everything. But it's obvious health should be because that's the way the Preamble to the Constitution was written, "...promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty..."

(Excerpt) An example of the way courts utilize the Preamble is Ellis v. City of Grand Rapids.[19] Substantively, the case was about eminent domain. The City of Grand Rapids wanted to use eminent domain to force landowners to sell property in the city identified as "blighted", and convey the property to owners that would develop it in ostensibly beneficial ways: in this case, to St. Mary's Hospital, a Catholic organization. This area of substantive constitutional law is governed by the Fifth Amendment, which is understood to require that property acquired via eminent domain must be put to a "public use". In interpreting whether the proposed project constituted a "public use", the court pointed to the Preamble's reference to "promot[ing] the general Welfare" as evidence that "[t]he health of the people was in the minds of our forefathers".[20] "[T]he concerted effort for renewal and expansion of hospital and medical care centers, as a part of our nation's system of hospitals, is as a public service and use within the highest meaning of such terms. Surely this is in accord with an objective of the United States Constitution: '* * * promote the general Welfare (End) (Emphasis added)
Preamble to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How can one talk about welfare and enjoying liberty while omitting health? It's just silly.
Click to expand...

Are the courts always right?
 
cawacko said:
Why do you stop at health? To promote true welfare of the people shouldn't food be free? Nourishment is the most basic human need. I would throw warmth in there ad well. Should the government provide a basic level of clothing to each person? And then there is housing. Should a wealthy and civilized society like the U.S. have any homeless? Should a basic level of housing be provided to each person?
Click to expand...

Well, that is taken care of, to a degree, by welfare. Granted, it certainly falls short but a person can find a room and food to survive on.

Yes, the government should ensure individuals have the basics. As I have mentioned in the past one medication to treat high blood pressure costs approximately $15/mth. That's two hours at minimum wage. If the Founding Fathers were aware of a drug that prolonged a person's life by 20 or more years (prevented stroke/heartache) that cost the equivalent of two hours labor per month do you not think they would have wanted those in need to have access to it?

What would be the cost to society to provide that drug free of charge to those in need compared to the cost to society to have a citizen unable to work and, in some cases, requiring assistance in day-to-day living?

How many people have medical conditions which prevent or interfere with them obtaining gainful employment? How can anyone possibly conclude denying someone necessary medication promotes the general welfare of the United States?
 
apple0154 said:
Not always but how can anyone talk about welfare and not consider health?

What priority do you put on health for yourself and your family?
Click to expand...
The preamble says "promote the general Welfare" and Article I Section 8 says "general Welfare of the United States", so duh, maybe they are talking about the general welfare of the States.

The health of me and my family is solely my responsibility, not yours. Certainly not some government's.
 
apple0154 said:
Universal plans do not work like that. At least not the Canadian one. Whatever is covered by the plan is covered for everyone and the doctor and patient make the decision. The government does not make decisions involving individuals like private health care plans do.
Click to expand...

We see things very differently on this one apple0154.

And why would you trust the democrat party on this legislation?
 
Damn Yankee said:
The preamble says "promote the general Welfare" and Article I Section 8 says "general Welfare of the United States", so duh, maybe they are talking about the general welfare of the States.

The health of me and my family is solely my responsibility, not yours. Certainly not some government's.
Click to expand...

A healthy population is a benefit to each and every State. It's absurd to believe the health of the population has no bearing on the welfare of the State or country.

Why have the government check the quality of food and inspect food processing plants if health is of no importance? Why run trials on new drugs?

The health of the general population is a primary concern to any government and things such as a yearly check-up and certain medications should be completely free.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top