Ceramic Tile Advice Forums - John Bridge Ceramic Tile

Ceramic Tile Advice Forums - John Bridge Ceramic Tile (https://www.johnbridge.com/vbulletin/index.php)
-   The Mud Box (https://www.johnbridge.com/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=5)
-   -   The health care debate (https://www.johnbridge.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=74637)

jwmezzanotte 03-14-2014 09:24 PM

I think if having health insurance is going to be optional (if its true that the population in general feels this way) that there needs to be mandatory acceptance of those willing to participate.

Is this not the case? As it is right now (i'm confused) can you be declined to even get health insurance because they don't care for your "risk factors"?



I get having the right to choose. But if they don't accept you, your choice is taken away. What kind of rights are those?

MDtile 03-14-2014 09:58 PM

The elimination of the pre-existing condition clause is probably the single most important aspect of the new law John.

Now, you apply for insurance and you are insured. That used to not be the case. They had a fall back for people forced to lose insurance (loss of job providing health care probably the #1 cause) called "COBRA" which was a total joke. For a couple thousand a month you could continue your previous coverage. So if you were in the middle of a procedure, you could see it through to the end. Being pregnant was a good example of someone not wanting to lose coverage.

And then there was the person who had some type of chronic problem. If you lost coverage, you became an instant un-insurance pariah. If you could not also be declared permanently disabled, you were screwed. With permanent disability Medicare kicks in. Otherwise, every insurance company in existence would turn you down. That was just plain wrong. It is not always possible for people to keep their policy in effect. The loss of a job was undoubtably the biggest cause for that. And paying some rediculous exorbitant amount per month for continuing coverage isn't right either, but at least it was better than paying 100% out of pocket.


And Leon....never mind :(

Tiger Mountain Tile Inc 03-14-2014 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MDtile
If you want to opt out, you must sign an agreement to forgo all medical treatment, or pay 100% of the bill if you do use it, or go to jail and be placed at hard labor until the bill is paid.

This is the point that got me to rethink my position on healthcare. We don't turn people away that need medical attention. If they don't pay in they still get treated.

I don't know what the solution is but I have to ask the question: Does Obamacare fix this problem?

Another question: Why couldn't the govt simply mandate that no one could be denied coverage? Why do people have to get forced into programs that they don't want?

Tiger Mountain Tile Inc 03-14-2014 10:38 PM

By the way, John, from your comments I gather that you are not watching enough Canadian porn. I'm going to forward this link to the Canadian government so they can form a panel and look into your choices. This would be tax money well spent. :)

You do trust that your government knows what's best for you, don't you. :shades:

:D

jwmezzanotte 03-14-2014 11:13 PM

Jim
Go ahead, I think they might be preoccupied, or distracted in some way.. :whip:

LGB 03-15-2014 01:22 AM

Marty, I feel the same way. This is basic stuff that should have been taught to you in middle school. The education system has failed... It's really not a hard thing to grasp if you can just let go of your ego for a moment.

mullet 03-15-2014 07:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim

This is the point that got me to rethink my position on healthcare. We don't turn people away that need medical attention. If they don't pay in they still get treated.

I don't know what the solution is but I have to ask the question: Does Obamacare fix this problem?
Yeah obamacare has a fix alright, people go to the exchange get pushed into medicaid. There have been cases that people didn't want medicaid but due to their income level had no choice. This is only going to get worse.

Maniac979 03-15-2014 07:46 AM

Jim "Another question: Why couldn't the govt simply mandate that no one could be denied coverage? Why do people have to get forced into programs that they don't want?"

They could have but that doesn't follow the liberal progressive socialist agenda for a single payer system.

MDtile 03-15-2014 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tiger Mountain Tile Inc (Post 1332618)

I don't know what the solution is but I have to ask the question: Does Obamacare fix this problem?

Another question: Why couldn't the govt simply mandate that no one could be denied coverage? Why do people have to get forced into programs that they don't want?

The answer to your first question is very unfortunately "no", or at least not directly. The funds collected as the un-insured penalty will probably be used for this in an off-hand way, because I think the penalties will probably go to a general fund. As always, medical providers being stiffed can write-off unpaid invoices as bad debt. I'm sure the taxpayer will continue to be the bottom line for who pays for the deadbeat.

One thing I am not pleased about is that their is no mandate for illegal aliens to buy this insurance. We REALLY need a guest worker program, and have provision in it that guest workers are fully insured in that way, as well as being 100% regulated into complying with law while they are here. But that is a different issue :(


As far as your second question...that is exactly what the ACA is doing. It is a law. It isn't a "program" if you mean like SS and Medicare are programs. If you notice, it is all being handled by private insurers. The reason you will eventually have to change your previous insurance policy is because it probably doesn't follow the new guidelines limiting maximum out-of-pocket, or your old policy has a maximum cap (the point at which your insurance stops paying because you have hit the limit). The new law has no cap.

MDtile 03-15-2014 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maniac979 (Post 1332638)
Jim "Another question: Why couldn't the govt simply mandate that no one could be denied coverage? Why do people have to get forced into programs that they don't want?"

They could have but that doesn't follow the liberal progressive socialist agenda for a single payer system.

Don't know where you get your miss-information, but the ACA is not a single payer system.

_________________________________

The following is not directed at anyone in particular:

I'm not a socialist. I'm not even a liberal. I am a registered republican. I on occasion vote across party lines. I have my own mind, and can make decisions for myself based on the merit or lack of. I don't follow either party agenda, or endorse any politician from either party.

I'm my own man.

For the people that decide what they are supposed to think based on what their party of affiliation tells them to think, all I can say is listen to both sides, remove the "spin", diagnose why the "angle" is being pushed, find reality in the middle, and then vote. If you can't do this, you are nothing more than a puppet. My generation got it right:

Question Authority.

;)

Maniac979 03-15-2014 11:25 AM

"but the ACA is not a single payer system."

Obamacare is the first step to single payer.

LGB 03-15-2014 11:38 AM

Marty, do you mean this misinformation? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpAyan1fXCE :suspect:

mullet 03-15-2014 04:22 PM

WOW, I never saw that before. That video pretty much says it all.

LGB 03-15-2014 04:45 PM

Chuck, it is the plan. Complete government control. http://www.politico.com/story/2013/1...are-99102.html

Maniac979 03-15-2014 05:56 PM

Chuck
Both Reid and Pelosi have also expressed similar sentiments.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:04 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2018 John Bridge & Associates, LLC