Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I know a woman who doesn't have health insurance because the only policy she could purchase would cost her $9000/year with a high deductible and copays and not cover her preexisting conditions which she would continue to have to pay for out of pocket. Her auto insurance costs her $2500/year and it's that high because for her business she needs a special rider. She can afford to pay $2500 a year for her auto insurance for the auto she uses to make her living. She cannot afford $9000 in addition to all her other living expense.
I think Obama's plan will be cheaper for her than $9000 a year -- so what's the problem?
I'm sure if Obama has her pay $2000 or $3000, it will be fine since she has that kind of money for automobile insurance.
Or does she want a plan at all?
If the uninsured really expect to pay nothing, that's another topic, or if they decide they're okay without having insurance, they need to let Obama know that.
Then what's been with all these past months? The uninsured have been demanding Obama get them something. The "uninsured" have been almost the whole topic for months and months.
It really is difficult to respond to you because you seem to not grasp the situation. Do you really think that all the people who are calling for public option or, better yet, one-payer or national health care are all -- even mostly -- uninsured? Don't you get that many of these people do have insurance but hate the insurance run system of medical care we are forced into?
Quote:
They already had health care options, they could pay cash to see a doctor or even put it on their credit cards.
Yes, and many people do that if they can find a doctor who will take patients who don't have insurance.
Quote:
Yes the uninsured want to save their money for the luxuries like iPhones with unlimited text messaging instead of on health care insurance which they feel they don't need (yet for some reason have been demanding the politicians come up with some kind of plan for them anyway).
Do you suffer from electronics envy or something? What is it with that?
Quote:
They already get unlimited health care when they do encounter problems -- unlimited health care that the rest of us must pay for them.
So if Obama talks about responsibility and having everyone pay something, what's so terrible about that? My health care costs are very high and I don't use health care.
So why aren't you will to pay a tax, which would probably be cheaper to you (and your employer if there is an employer involved), for health care for everyone? Why do you worship at the Church of Insurance Corporations? Think outside the insurance box.
I think Obama's plan will be cheaper for her than $9000 a year -- so what's the problem?
I'm sure if Obama has her pay $2000 or $3000, it will be fine since she has that kind of money for automobile insurance.
Or does she want a plan at all?
If the uninsured really expect to pay nothing, that's another topic, or if they decide they're okay without having insurance, they need to let Obama know that.
You think that government is going to do something cheaper than the private sector?
I think Obama's plan will be cheaper for her than $9000 a year -- so what's the problem?
I'm sure if Obama has her pay $2000 or $3000, it will be fine since she has that kind of money for automobile insurance.
Or does she want a plan at all?
If the uninsured really expect to pay nothing, that's another topic, or if they decide they're okay without having insurance, they need to let Obama know that.
1. Yes, she wants insurance.
2. The plan presented requires insurance but does nothing to control the costs of those plans. That's left to the free market.
3. Where did you pull that $2000 - $3000 figure for insurance coverage from? Thin air?
Now explain to me how requiring the insurance industry to cover the people they reject because the insurance company had determined it isn't cost effective to cover them is going to bring down the price of insurance? How does that work, again????
You think that government is going to do something cheaper than the private sector?
Hell yeah. Did you miss my post on what you are paying for when you pay for medial insurance? You're paying for a lot of things that have nothing to do with health care.
Edited: Here is is from post #42
Quote:
2. A one payer system supported by tax dollars which eliminates insurance company profits, the cost of lobbying and political donations, the cost of sales and marketing insurance, the cost of duplication of administration of insurance companies, the cost of policy compliance (those people whose job it is to deny coverage), etc would be cheaper for everyone. We pay more taxes but everyone gets health care.
it is a tax, just like cap and trade will be a tax.
how ridiculous is it to demonize health care insurance companies and then demand that everyone pay for health care insurance????
Huh?
I know a woman who doesn't have health insurance because the only policy she could purchase would cost her $9000/year with a high deductible and copays and not cover her preexisting conditions which she would continue to have to pay for out of pocket. Her auto insurance costs her $2500/year and it's that high because for her business she needs a special rider. She can afford to pay $2500 a year for her auto insurance for the auto she uses to make her living. She cannot afford $9000 in addition to all her other living expense.
Great.. you know someone... this is one of the WORST ways to defend an argument... telling people you "know" a person... for every example, there is a counter-example... in debates, you don't use "I know a person"..
Quote:
I really am having trouble understanding the point you are trying to make.
1. Coverage depends on the policy you buy. Many, many people learn too late that they have been paying thousands of dollars for years for policies that provide much less coverage than they expected.
2. You are absolutely delusional if you believe that insurance assures you can get better. It assures you that the insurance company will pay to the extent the policy indicates. That's it. It has nothing to do with whether or not you get better.
1) I am sorry if people don't read their contract coverage... Its so dang simple, I don't why people don't understand it... its not anybody's fault but their own but that's besides the point isn't it? I mean we are talking about whether its a tax or not but you are going off tangent...
2) You are delusional if you don't understand the word "CAN"... it doesn't meant that it "WILL"... If you don't have insurance, you don't get treated most of the time which means you have almost no chance of getting better... but again this is OFF TOPIC... it is NOT a tax... Tax doesn't vary depending what coverage you get... just like car insurance isn't a tax because it varies depending on what coverage you get...
Actually any fee imposed by the government is technically a tax. They can call it whatever they like but it does not change reality. Similar to the way we have "business" tax, which is just a indirect tax on the consumer. You know, like when the droolers scream to tax the evil rich and then are forced to pay for those taxes when they are shifted back onto them through the market...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
