Meanwhile, at the Capital...

93EXCivic wrote:

Datsun1500 wrote: Everyone says it's great because they can't deny a pre-existing condition. Does that even make sense? When did it become acceptable to not look out for yourself? Want health insurance? Buy it. Decide to take the risk of not having it, deal with the consequences.

Um, if you are born with a pre-existing condition like say a heart murmur how is that your fault?

My cousin was born with a heart defect. It has been like jumping across stepping stones for her to stay continually insured for her life, as there was no way she'd ever get health insurance again if she lost it for any reason. She's spent a fortune on COBRA and self insurance premiums. Doesn't drink, doesn't smoke, works as a surgical tech. Next time I see her I'll ask why she didn't take better care of herself.

Just found this: CLICK ME BECAUSE BAD FILTERS

Link no worky'

I am curious if there might be a glimmer of hope in this situation. It seems like the R's have backed off the seemingly "all about ACA" stance and are willing to move over to budget related topics (far more relevant to the situation at hand). The pres seems to be in a No Negotiation stance, but I am hoping that is just for ACA (which he really should have said from the beginning).

These are the situation you get into when you look at things black and white (no pun intended, in that case I would have said black and orange ) and take Give No Ground stances.

When you tell someone you WILL! do this, or you WON'T! do something, it simply encourages them not to do what you want them to do (or not do), for pride alone if nothing else.

The president has said he is willing to negoitate anything, just not under the threat of default. I feel the Republicans are trying to move the topic away from ACA becuase they are slowly realizing they won't get any concessions there so they will try and get concessions with other topics. But the problem is still that it is being done under the threat of government shutdown and default. If the president agrees to Republican demands it legitimizes holding the debt ceiling hostage as a form of negotiation, which is not okay. That leads the way for extremists to create similar crisises more and more often and would be very bad for the country and global economy.

But it looks like there may be a short term bill to increase the debt ceiling and allow a time for negotiation on ACA and other budget items. And if it passes, the negotiations would not be under threat of default, sorta. So better than nothing. If negotiations fail then we are back to another threat of default soon. The government shutdown would largely continue even with the raised debt ceiling

I don't think it is right to deny health care to someone becasue they cant afford it. Denying insurance based on pre-existing conditions does just that.

So, who's maintaining the grounds of national parks during the shutdown?

This guy...

In for more "Guilt trips" about preexisting conditions. It sucks that you're born with the issues, but that's the hand you were dealt in life. I'm not saying that you shouldn't be able to get coverage or that it shouldn't be reasonable, but I don't understand why the rest of us pick up that burden instead of just simply regulating the industry. FWIW, I think that I will have finally slipped under the poverty line after paying insurance and taxes, so much for being in the lower middle class.....thanks.

Datsun1500 wrote: If I am born with a birth defect I should expect someone else to pick up the cost of that issue? Why? Serious question, why is it up to someone else to have that burden?....

From a purely practical perspective, you are of course entirely reasonable in your view and "nature" tends to agree with you. (unfortunately so do people who support eugenics)

It's just that some people (and many religions of course) feel we should look out for our fellow man. You can kind of look at it like infants / children. They have no real ability to survive, and yet we tend to help them. (trying not to create a "do it for the children" argument)

aircooled wrote:

Datsun1500 wrote: If I am born with a birth defect I should expect someone else to pick up the cost of that issue? Why? Serious question, why is it up to someone else to have that burden?....

From a purely practical perspective, you are of course entirely reasonable in your view and "nature" tends to agree with you. (unfortunately so do people who support eugenics) It's just that some people feel we should look out for our fellow man. You can kind of look at it like infants / children. They have no real ability to survive, and yet we tend to help them. (trying not to create a "do it for the children" argument)

I totally agree with this. I just don't think the government should force us to do it.

in reply to Datsun and yamaha - I dont expect anyone to pick up anything in my name...I expect that I should be able to be insured however. I should still have copays and out of pocket min/max and the like - perhaps theyre not as comfy as you "normal" people. I could even understand my premiums being higher than a "healthy" person (though, like I said, my conditions have no bearing on/have not been affected by my lifestyle or how "healthy" I keep myself). I fully plan to pay my bills. I dont want anyone to bear my burden. Thats not the point here tho...

To be denied altogether for something that I had no hand in is bull-excrement. Now, if your pre-existing condition is emphysema from being a pack a day-er for a a few decades, then yeah, theres some merit to deniablity standards. The fact that there is little to no regulation over the current insurance industry, and ACA basically says "OK ins peeps, you greedy dicks ruined the game, so we are taking over" is crap. We need to fix the current landscape and move on. The ACA is like saying "Some cars get crappy MPGs, so now the only option for anybody is to take the bus". Why not fix the MPG situation?

bravenrace wrote: I totally agree with this. I just don't think the government should force us to do it.

About 95% of first world nations disagree with this sentiment. I'm about as conservative as someone gets in Canada, but if there is one thing I DO support my taxes going towards, it's allowing people to live. And if at the end of the day that means the rules must also help some of the parasites so it can help the people who deserve it, I can live with that.

Honestly, that is a pretty cold and heartless attitude to have

Datsun1500 wrote: If I am born with a birth defect I should expect someone else to pick up the cost of that issue? Why? Serious question, why is it up to someone else to have that burden? It sucks, but sometimes life sucks. I think you should be able to to get insurance that will cover everything except the pre existing condition, but expecting someone else to cover the cost of the pre existing condition seems unreasonable. Where will that money come from? I understand some people are born with issues that are not any fault of theirs, but those issues are not the fault of the insurance companies either, why should they pay for them?

Your heart-warming attitude inspires me.

It is how insurance works. You may have never had a car crash, yet your insurance pays for other accidents. It is a risk pool, this is how it works. It seems crappy on the face of it until a drunk driver slams into you and you lose a leg. Or your expensive car you saved for years to buy gets totaled.

4cylndrfury wrote: in reply to Datsun and yamaha - I dont expect anyone to pick up anything in my name...I expect that I should be able to be insured however. I should still have copays and out of pocket min/max and the like - perhaps theyre not as comfy as you "normal" people. I could even understand my premiums being higher than a "healthy" person (though, like I said, my conditions have no bearing on/have not been affected by my lifestyle or how "healthy" I keep myself). I fully plan to pay my bills. I dont want anyone to bear my burden. Thats not the point here tho... To be denied altogether for something that I had no hand in is bull-excrement. Now, if your pre-existing condition is emphysema from being a pack a day-er for a a few decades, then yeah, theres some merit to deniablity standards. The fact that there is little to no regulation over the current insurance industry, and ACA basically says "OK ins peeps, you greedy dicks ruined the game, so we are taking over" is crap. We need to fix the current landscape and move on. The ACA is like saying "Some cars get crappy MPGs, so now the only option for anybody is to take the bus". Why not fix the MPG situation?

Eegads.

That fact is not.

We could always do away with insurance like a normal 1st world country...

Swank Force One wrote:

4cylndrfury wrote: in reply to Datsun and yamaha - I dont expect anyone to pick up anything in my name...I expect that I should be able to be insured however. I should still have copays and out of pocket min/max and the like - perhaps theyre not as comfy as you "normal" people. I could even understand my premiums being higher than a "healthy" person (though, like I said, my conditions have no bearing on/have not been affected by my lifestyle or how "healthy" I keep myself). I fully plan to pay my bills. I dont want anyone to bear my burden. Thats not the point here tho... To be denied altogether for something that I had no hand in is bull-excrement. Now, if your pre-existing condition is emphysema from being a pack a day-er for a a few decades, then yeah, theres some merit to deniablity standards. The fact that there is little to no regulation over the current insurance industry, and ACA basically says "OK ins peeps, you greedy dicks ruined the game, so we are taking over" is crap. We need to fix the current landscape and move on. The ACA is like saying "Some cars get crappy MPGs, so now the only option for anybody is to take the bus". Why not fix the MPG situation?

Eegads. That fact is not.

Perhaps I should have said "Consumer protection regulation"...youre right, they are regulated, just not in many ways that protect those they insure...

Protect them from what, for example?

<---------Like that?

fritzsch wrote: It seems crappy on the face of it until a drunk driver slams into you and you lose a leg.

After dealing with my car insurance company, my health insurance company, and various doctors I got to see first hand just how insane our medical system is.

The worst was the collection-style phone calls from my own health insurance company. I legally didn't owe a dime to them but they sent countless "statement of benefits" forms with prepaid envelopes detailing how I can make a payment. Then they would call and berate me for not paying them because "someone has to pay" (their words). Not once did they ever send a proper bill with a due date nor state that I legally owed them money, just intimidating phone calls and letters. Who knows how many people fall for this scummy tactic. I finally told someone on the phone that I was forwarding all their "bills" to our state insurance commissioner. I never heard from them again!

The medical industry in general needs an overhaul, but no politician will ever have the stones to try it.

fritzsch wrote: We could always do away with insurance like a normal 1st world country...

I will just throw this in, and maybe Swank can comment on the possibility...

...many 1st world countries (e.g. Germany, Japan) DO have insurance, but there is one very critical difference, the insurance companies are non profit (!). They are also, in general, setup like the ACA, compulsory and the poor / elderly are subsidized.

An interesting possibility, I am just wondering if there is ANY way the US would be able to convert the insurance industry into a non-profit industry. (can you say lobbyist sh$tstorm!)

There is a very interesting Frontline program (I am told it is on Netflix) on various countries healthcare systems call Sick Around the World, that looks at various systems that are somewhat close to the US system (he does look at England which is fully government run). They are not as different as you might think. The insurance companies though, that's a big difference. Anyway, check it out, it's pretty objective about it (looks at problems etc.)

Edit: Apparently you can watch it online:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/view/

I can honestly say, I am a bit embarrassed that I really did not know how other countries HC systems worked. I just assumed they were all single payer, fully government run systems (England, Canada?). I think there are a lot of people who might normally object, would look at these systems and say "hey, that's not that bad".

yamaha wrote: In for more "Guilt trips" about preexisting conditions. It sucks that you're born with the issues, but that's the hand you were dealt in life. I'm not saying that you shouldn't be able to get coverage or that it shouldn't be reasonable, but I don't understand why the rest of us pick up that burden instead of just simply regulating the industry.FWIW, I think that I will have finally slipped under the poverty line after paying insurance and taxes, so much for being in the lower middle class.....thanks.

These two statements seem to be contradictory. How do you think insurance works? In its simplest form the healthy people's premiums make up for the excess cost that the sick people use, ie "the rest of us" carry the burden.

In reply to bgkast:

My apologies, what was meant by that is that they should have put caps/limits on those with pre-existing conditions instead of NOT doing that and making it even worse for the rest of us.

HiTempguy wrote:

bravenrace wrote: I totally agree with this. I just don't think the government should force us to do it.

About 95% of first world nations disagree with this sentiment. I'm about as conservative as someone gets in Canada, but if there is one thing I DO support my taxes going towards, it's allowing people to live. And if at the end of the day that means the rules must also help some of the parasites so it can help the people who deserve it, I can live with that. Honestly, that is a pretty cold and heartless attitude to have

Not at all. You just misunderstood what I said.

slefain wrote: <---------Like that?

fritzsch wrote: It seems crappy on the face of it until a drunk driver slams into you and you lose a leg.

After dealing with my car insurance company, my health insurance company, and various doctors I got to see first hand just how insane our medical system is. The worst was the collection-style phone calls from my own health insurance company. I legally didn't owe a dime to them but they sent countless "statement of benefits" forms with prepaid envelopes detailing how I can make a payment. Then they would call and berate me for not paying them because "someone has to pay" (their words). Not once did they ever send a proper bill with a due date nor state that I legally owed them money, just intimidating phone calls and letters. Who knows how many people fall for this scummy tactic. I finally told someone on the phone that I was forwarding all their "bills" to our state insurance commissioner. I never heard from them again! The medical industry in general needs an overhaul, but no politician will ever have the stones to try it.

What exactly was your health insurance company trying to bill you for? All an insurance company will bill you for is premiums.... No insurance company in the US sends bills for medical services.

Simply put, that sounds like a scam by someone who got your information sometime during the events after the accident and was trying to scam you. A low-level form of insurance fraud.

bravenrace wrote:

HiTempguy wrote:

bravenrace wrote: I totally agree with this. I just don't think the government should force us to do it.

About 95% of first world nations disagree with this sentiment. I'm about as conservative as someone gets in Canada, but if there is one thing I DO support my taxes going towards, it's allowing people to live. And if at the end of the day that means the rules must also help some of the parasites so it can help the people who deserve it, I can live with that. Honestly, that is a pretty cold and heartless attitude to have

Not at all. You just misunderstood what I said.

I don't want to have to call Kia of Mexico to get my parts for half the price they are here because we have now decided to nail everyone with 17% sales tax, on top of even more income tax, duties and fees.