Would appreciate knowing which insurance company provides health care to our politicians.
They receive the best care, no doubt.
So, is it one health insurance company for all politicians or do they make an independent decision as to which insurance company they desire as their health care provider that we, the taxpayer's, afford them.
Are they denied health insurance due to pre-existing conditions?
Last edited by BlueAngel : 03-26-2010 at 03:18 AM.
Instead of all this bantering back and forth for a century about health care reform, how 'bout JUST passing legislation that disallows health insurance companies from denying coverage to those persons who have pre-existing conditions?
Who doesn't have a pre-existing condition?
It's almost impossible.
Since the government regulates most every other corporation, how 'bout regulating the health insurance industry; the cost of premiums and the ability for health insurance companies to deny one coverage due to a pre-existing condition or dropping an insured after they've been diagnosed with a catastrophic illness?
Why is a total overhaul of the health insurance industry required before legislation to this degree can be passed?
Because, in this way, the CONGRESS and the President make it appear that these goals are not achievable unless total reform is accomplished and this is the reason why total reform has been struck down every time it has been proposed.
The health insurance industry is about as corrupt as the pharmaceutical companies and every other industry/corporation that generates billions of dollars for Wall Street.
Congress protects these industries.
Do you suppose that if one of our Congress people had a pre-existing condition they would be denied health care?
Do you suppose if one of our Congress people had a catastrophic illness, their insurance company would drop them?
Last edited by BlueAngel : 09-12-2009 at 09:22 PM.
I thought that ONE of the reasons for HEALTH REFORM was to provide coverage for the poorest of the poor; those who can't afford it, but instead, I'm hearing that under this reform, people who do not secure health insurance coverage will be fined.
How does this make any sense?
If you're stupid it does and that is exactly what our government officials think we are.
Since the poorest of the poor are not being provided for in this bill and they can't afford health insurance, I assume they will be the major targets of this government imposed fine.
How does this make any sense?
If they can't afford health insurance coverage, they certainly can't afford to pay a fine.
A one time fine?
A monthly fine?
Who will be the benefactors of these fines?
The health insurance industry?
Will people be locked up in prison if they don't pay their fines?
I mean, seriously.
Our government passes health reform legislation, and, in the process, strips away another freedom.
The freedom of choice.
Those who can't afford health insurance, should be provided for by the government and not fined for not securing health insurance that they cannot afford.
Those who can afford health insurance coverage and chose to opt out, should not be fined due to exercising their freedom of choice.
It's their life.
It's their health.
As per usual, the government giveth, but taketh away in the process.
Same 'ole, same 'ole.
I'm not saying that I haven't heard anything GOOD within this bill, but, come on, a fine.
Last edited by BlueAngel : 03-28-2010 at 10:24 PM.
Well, it certainly wasn't a total reform unless someone can inform me that the poor people in our country who cannot afford health insurance have been provided for in this bill.
Here are a few of the highlights.
(1) It provides immediate access to insurance coverage for people who are considered "high risks" due to pre-existing conditions.
Wonder what those premiums might be?
Was a cap imposed?
(2) Would bar insurers from denying people coverage when they get sick and from denying children coverage with pre-existing conditions.
So, it's NOT okay for health insurance companies to deny coverage to children with pre-existing conditions, but it's okay to do so for adults because, clearly, this is whom they are referring to in number (1) above as they use the word "people" and in number (2) above, they use the word "children."
Therefore, the reason for the separate language.
Last edited by BlueAngel : 03-26-2010 at 03:54 AM.
The media here are praising obama for his BOLD reform. We've all seen the SICKO film. Thanks for the heads up on the details of this bill.
We have great healthcare cover here. 6 hour wait for emergency service is better than go home, or go to jail. Private insurance is also subsidised.
Yes, yes, we have compulsary third party car insurance too. Mind you, we are perhaps the highest taxed country in the world. Oh, wait a minute. We are not actually officially a country.