Jump to content



Recent headlines from The Baltimore Sun

Photo
- - - - -

A couple of questions about Obamacare


  • Please log in to reply
17 replies to this topic

#1 In_The_Ville

In_The_Ville

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,805 posts

Posted 09 January 2010 - 05:49 PM

Question 1: Many news sources are today reporting that the government health insurance option appears doomed. However, I believe that there is still a provision requiring all US citizens to have adequate health insurance. Since there is no public option, isn't this putting an unnecessary burden on the currently uninsured?

Question 2: How does this proposal affect Christian Scientists, who feel "The use of medicine by a member implies a lack of "trust" or "faith", thus leading to spiritual guilt which would provide significant informal pressure."? If you don't believe in the use of medicine, why would you need health insurance?


Thoughts?

Edited by In_The_Ville, 09 January 2010 - 06:21 PM.

Government is not the solution. Government is the problem.

Anyone But O'Malley 2010

#2 BWomble

BWomble

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9,547 posts

Posted 09 January 2010 - 05:55 PM

Question 1: Many news sources are today reporting that the government health insurance option appears doomed. However, I believe that there is still a provision requiring all US citizens to have adequate health insurance. Since there is no public option, isn't this putting an unnecessary burden on the currently uninsured?

Question 2: How does this proposal affect Christian Scientists, who fell "The use of medicine by a member implies a lack of "trust" or "faith", thus leading to spiritual guilt which would provide significant informal pressure."? If you don't believe in the use of medicine, why would you need health insurance?


Thoughts?


Question 3: Does anybody actually know what is in the proposed Bill.
Hello, My name is Zoe. That's Gumbo up top, my dad I fear is is becoming a Houndaholic.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

#3 golgo

golgo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,675 posts

Posted 09 January 2010 - 06:03 PM

Question 1: Many news sources are today reporting that the government health insurance option appears doomed. However, I believe that there is still a provision requiring all US citizens to have adequate health insurance. Since there is no public option, isn't this putting an unnecessary burden on the currently uninsured.


Sounds like it to me, especially considering the insane cost of non-subsidized health insurance. However, I think that the provision may get stripped out. I don't think it was in the house version.
"Meditation is terrific and all, but I've never heard of it saving anyone from a gang rape type situation."


"Lance Stephenson is like a supermodel with herpes"

#4 baltbob21206

baltbob21206

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 34,143 posts

Posted 09 January 2010 - 06:16 PM

Good questions, ones which you would have the answers to long ago if Obama had held to his transparency promises, posting of bills 72 hours prior to voting, C-span...............
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

It isn't about ETHNIC, its about ETHIC.
DEMS ON TAXES: You make it, we take it, everybody wins!:eek:

The ball is now squarely in the Democrats court. Show me.
No-one will rip the "S" off the O's shirt.
http://obamaclock.org/

US National Debt- http://zfacts.com/p/461.html Can we ever balance that? When The Bamster said "I Do" it was 10,676,763,787,462. 6 months in, $11,800,735,234,339. Golly, look at them numbers soar!!! (TRILLIONS)

There is nothing like the love of an Afghan Hound

#5 Gigi

Gigi

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 19,099 posts

Posted 09 January 2010 - 06:24 PM

Question 1: Many news sources are today reporting that the government health insurance option appears doomed. However, I believe that there is still a provision requiring all US citizens to have adequate health insurance. Since there is no public option, isn't this putting an unnecessary burden on the currently uninsured?

Question 2: How does this proposal affect Christian Scientists, who fell "The use of medicine by a member implies a lack of "trust" or "faith", thus leading to spiritual guilt which would provide significant informal pressure."? If you don't believe in the use of medicine, why would you need health insurance?


Thoughts?


In order to get insurance companies to eliminate pre-existing condition clauses, to not drop (or cost-prohibitively raise the premiums of) people who get sick or expand coverage to more people, the risk pool has to include all the younger, well people. Private health insurance is unsustainable if only the people who were sick bought it. It would be akin to people only buying car insurance AFTER the were in an accident-there would be no money to pay out claims if the only people who paid in were also making claims. Except, that people don't have to drive or own cars, but if someone needs emergency health care, they will receive it, despite ability to pay. Why should some people, who don't think they are going to need health care not have to pay something for coverage when they are guaranteed care? In general, the bigger the risk pool, the smaller the premiums for everyone.

I don't know enough about Christian Scientists to know if they eschew all medical care or not. I wonder how they handle situations like accidents where the medical care may be rendered to an unconscious person who cannot refuse care? If a CS breaks a bone, do they not go to the ER?
There once was a girl with a curl in the middle of her forehead. When she was good, she was very good; but when she was bad, she was horrid!

#6 golgo

golgo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,675 posts

Posted 09 January 2010 - 06:43 PM

In order to get insurance companies to eliminate pre-existing condition clauses, to not drop (or cost-prohibitively raise the premiums of) people who get sick or expand coverage to more people, the risk pool has to include all the younger, well people. Private health insurance is unsustainable if only the people who were sick bought it. It would be akin to people only buying car insurance AFTER the were in an accident-there would be no money to pay out claims if the only people who paid in were also making claims. Except, that people don't have to drive or own cars, but if someone needs emergency health care, they will receive it, despite ability to pay. Why should some people, who don't think they are going to need health care not have to pay something for coverage when they are guaranteed care? In general, the bigger the risk pool, the smaller the premiums for everyone.

I don't know enough about Christian Scientists to know if they eschew all medical care or not. I wonder how they handle situations like accidents where the medical care may be rendered to an unconscious person who cannot refuse care? If a CS breaks a bone, do they not go to the ER?


My grandmother is a Christian Scientist (and my mom & aunts/uncles were raised as such) & she goes to the doctor regularly. She is probably a bit leery of trusting most doctors, but she definitely trusts her cardiologist (who has saved her life on multiple occasions).

I think it's similar to Mormons and polygamy: it used to be very pervasive while it is now only practiced on the fringes.
"Meditation is terrific and all, but I've never heard of it saving anyone from a gang rape type situation."


"Lance Stephenson is like a supermodel with herpes"

#7 redleg

redleg

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 36,419 posts

Posted 09 January 2010 - 07:06 PM

In order to get insurance companies to eliminate pre-existing condition clauses, to not drop (or cost-prohibitively raise the premiums of) people who get sick or expand coverage to more people, the risk pool has to include all the younger, well people. Private health insurance is unsustainable if only the people who were sick bought it. It would be akin to people only buying car insurance AFTER the were in an accident-there would be no money to pay out claims if the only people who paid in were also making claims. Except, that people don't have to drive or own cars, but if someone needs emergency health care, they will receive it, despite ability to pay. Why should some people, who don't think they are going to need health care not have to pay something for coverage when they are guaranteed care? In general, the bigger the risk pool, the smaller the premiums for everyone.

I don't know enough about Christian Scientists to know if they eschew all medical care or not. I wonder how they handle situations like accidents where the medical care may be rendered to an unconscious person who cannot refuse care? If a CS breaks a bone, do they not go to the ER?

One of the primary reasons health insurance has become so expensive is the requirement from government for insurance companies to cover everything from hangnails to sex change operations. Will those requirements be removed?
War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
John Stuart Mill (1806 - 1873)

#8 Gigi

Gigi

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 19,099 posts

Posted 09 January 2010 - 07:11 PM

One of the primary reasons health insurance has become so expensive is the requirement from government for insurance companies to cover everything from hangnails to sex change operations. Will those requirements be removed?


I don't know. IMO, mandatory coverage should cover the basics and if people want to buy policies to cover more extensive care, they should be able to do so.
There once was a girl with a curl in the middle of her forehead. When she was good, she was very good; but when she was bad, she was horrid!

#9 Ranger John

Ranger John

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 18,761 posts

Posted 09 January 2010 - 07:15 PM

Question 3: Does anybody actually know what is in the proposed Bill.


Question 4: Assuming someone DOES know what is in the proposed bill right now, and we all know it will be different tomorrow, does what is in it now really matter?
You just think I'm heartless because mine doesn't bleed like a George Romero slasher movie.

#10 Ranger John

Ranger John

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 18,761 posts

Posted 09 January 2010 - 07:17 PM

I don't know. IMO, mandatory coverage should cover the basics and if people want to buy policies to cover more extensive care, they should be able to do so.


What are the 'basics'? Should a man be required to purchase health care that covers pregnancies? Should a woman? If the answers to those questions are different, could that run afoul of the equal protection clause?
You just think I'm heartless because mine doesn't bleed like a George Romero slasher movie.

#11 In_The_Ville

In_The_Ville

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,805 posts

Posted 09 January 2010 - 07:31 PM

What are the 'basics'? Should a man be required to purchase health care that covers pregnancies? Should a woman? If the answers to those questions are different, could that run afoul of the equal protection clause?


Here's a kicker: How about pregnancy is only covered under a FAMILY plan.
Government is not the solution. Government is the problem.

Anyone But O'Malley 2010

#12 golgo

golgo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,675 posts

Posted 09 January 2010 - 07:32 PM

Here's a kicker: How about pregnancy is only covered under a FAMILY plan.


Hell no. My wife and I are on separate plans. It would cost more than double to add her to my plan or vice/versa.
"Meditation is terrific and all, but I've never heard of it saving anyone from a gang rape type situation."


"Lance Stephenson is like a supermodel with herpes"

#13 In_The_Ville

In_The_Ville

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,805 posts

Posted 09 January 2010 - 07:34 PM

Hell no. My wife and I are on separate plans. It would cost more than double to add her to my plan or vice/versa.


Then you have a crappy plan.
Government is not the solution. Government is the problem.

Anyone But O'Malley 2010

#14 Ranger John

Ranger John

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 18,761 posts

Posted 09 January 2010 - 07:38 PM

Here's a kicker: How about pregnancy is only covered under a FAMILY plan.


*shrugs* Isn't the only real answer to let people pick and choose what coverage they want or don't rather than letting the government decide?

I'm glad the government option is probably dead. If there are two things that don't go together it's medicine and sovereign immunity.
You just think I'm heartless because mine doesn't bleed like a George Romero slasher movie.

#15 Gigi

Gigi

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 19,099 posts

Posted 09 January 2010 - 08:37 PM

What are the 'basics'? Should a man be required to purchase health care that covers pregnancies? Should a woman? If the answers to those questions are different, could that run afoul of the equal protection clause?


Somewhere there is data to answer your question. I just don't happen to have it.

As for your other question, there are many physical differences that each gender could want to be excluded from paying for (I'm never going to get prostate cancer, for example).
There once was a girl with a curl in the middle of her forehead. When she was good, she was very good; but when she was bad, she was horrid!

#16 baltbob21206

baltbob21206

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 34,143 posts

Posted 09 January 2010 - 09:47 PM

A note, I am on a very mediocre plan with United Health Care, high deductible, an ever changing prescription plan and My wife is totally, uncovered as I can not afford to add her.

I have never complained nor will I about my families coverage, long as the gooberment stays out of my life.

I will though question as to why, after having my ID stolen by what my lawyers think stemmed from a health care place, Homeland Security (as claimed by United Health in a letter) is demanding I furnish my SS number to United.

I was under a different provider when my ID was ripped and was advised, not to use my SS number for patient ID, (even says on the SS card, not to be used for ID) didn't for years and now, Homeland Security says I must provide that to United to be covered.

Will Homeland Security fix the issue if my ID is stolen again? Will they do one, just one damn thing? Provide me the 8,000+ it took to make a reasonable repair?
And why, is Homeland Security even involved with health care?
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

It isn't about ETHNIC, its about ETHIC.
DEMS ON TAXES: You make it, we take it, everybody wins!:eek:

The ball is now squarely in the Democrats court. Show me.
No-one will rip the "S" off the O's shirt.
http://obamaclock.org/

US National Debt- http://zfacts.com/p/461.html Can we ever balance that? When The Bamster said "I Do" it was 10,676,763,787,462. 6 months in, $11,800,735,234,339. Golly, look at them numbers soar!!! (TRILLIONS)

There is nothing like the love of an Afghan Hound

#17 golgo

golgo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,675 posts

Posted 09 January 2010 - 10:35 PM

Then you have a crappy plan.


Neither my wife or I have ever had medical plans where it made financial sense for us to be on the same plan.
"Meditation is terrific and all, but I've never heard of it saving anyone from a gang rape type situation."


"Lance Stephenson is like a supermodel with herpes"

#18 Ranger John

Ranger John

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 18,761 posts

Posted 10 January 2010 - 11:04 AM

Somewhere there is data to answer your question. I just don't happen to have it.

As for your other question, there are many physical differences that each gender could want to be excluded from paying for (I'm never going to get prostate cancer, for example).


Isn't that something of a cop out? I mean, don't you have your own opinion as to what the 'basics' are? And isn't pregnancy usually a medical condition that is the result of a choice?

And isn't the comparison to cancer a bit apples-to-oranges? Health insurance covers "Cancer" and doesn't break it down to types. Why? Because while you're not going to get prostate cancer, I'm not going to get cervical cancer.
You just think I'm heartless because mine doesn't bleed like a George Romero slasher movie.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users