House passed the Health Bill

[darthtang aw]

That isn't an "insurance company"; it's what's known as a "Christian charity."
What Democrats are insinuating when they denounce exclusions of "pre-existing conditions" is an insurance company using the "pre-existing condition" ruse to deny coverage to a current policy holder -- someone who's been paying into the plan, year after year.
Any insurance company operating in the free market that pulled that trick wouldn't stay in business long.
If hotels were as heavily regulated as health insurance is, right now I'd be explaining to you why the government doesn't need to mandate that hotels offer rooms with beds. If they didn't, they'd go out of business.
I'm sure people who lived in the old Soviet Union thought it was crazy to leave groceries to the free market. ("But what if they don't stock the food we want?")
The market is a more powerful enforcement mechanism than indolent government bureaucrats. If you don't believe me, ask Toyota about six months from now.
Right now, insurance companies are protected by government regulations from having to honor their contracts. Violating contracts isn't so easy when competitors are lurking, ready to steal your customers.
In addition to saving taxpayer money and providing better health insurance, my plan also saves trees by being 2,199 pages shorter than the Democrats' plan.

 

[fishtaco]

Darth, I can agree with most of what you are saying, but tell me again how it is not going to be more profitable for insurance companies just to drop you if you get sick? Then of course you can't afford or get insurance because of a pre-existing condition, but by then it won't matter because you will be broke and not a potential client anyway. Both myself and my wife had both had to deal with auto insurance claims and both times it took "the next time you will be talking to an attorney" threat, so basically again you are paying for a service and the company you are paying is doing everything in it's power to work against you. If healthy competition has done little to solve this problem with other forms of insurance, why do you think it will work here. I wish big insurance was moral and honest like the people that give them so much money every month trying to do the right thing, but it is just not the case.
Fishtaco

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by Fishtaco
http:///forum/post/3253068
Darth, I can agree with most of what you are saying, but tell me again how it is not going to be more profitable for insurance companies just to drop you if you get sick? Then of course you can't afford or get insurance because of a pre-existing condition, but by then it won't matter because you will be broke and not a potential client anyway. Both myself and my wife had both had to deal with auto insurance claims and both times it took "the next time you will be talking to an attorney" threat, so basically again you are paying for a service and the company you are paying is doing everything in it's power to work against you. If healthy competition has done little to solve this problem with other forms of insurance, why do you think it will work here. I wish big insurance was moral and honest like the people that give them so much money every month trying to do the right thing, but it is just not the case.
Fishtaco
I have never had an issue with other insurance forms. Totalled 2 cars and been in a couple extra accidents. Non ever labelled my fault. Each time, car insurance cut me a check to cover the damage. Each time, the check was a bit more than my damages.
Home insurance. The roof on the house started falling apart after a couple years. Called up insurance, cut me a check (based off their estimator) for the repairs. Got the entire roof redone for half the cost of the check given to me. I have never switched insurance companies in these two fields, why? because their practices and track record have shown them to be upstanding. You threatened with a lawsuit...got what you needed....but did you as a consumer switch to a different provider? If not, then you are not employing the free market as it should be employed. My insurance company wants to keep my business...so each time they have taken care of me. maybe you should look at a different company.
Oh, and I didn't write that...just thought it was well written....like the author usually is.

 

[reefraff]

You see where that little weasel Waxman has declared the companies that reported their costs related to this bill, as required by law, are to gather up all their records and appear before congress? If this isn't a blatant case of attempted intimidation by the left wing extremists running the show I don't know what is.
Another interesting development. Has anyone seen the lame stream media report on the fact that not only was Eric Cantor's office shot at but they caught the guy who did it? On the other hand we see all these reports of Tea Party people yelling all this vile crap at congressmen yet not one of the many cameras, cell phones or reporters on scene heard any of it but it is getting plenty of coverage.

 

[bionicarm]

Darth, you are under this impression that if insurance companies could work under a total "free market" system, and compete with one another across state lines, that premiums would magically go down. Unfortuantely, you put too much faith into one of the most corrupt businesses in this country. If this would occur, what you'd end up finding is all these small independent insurance providers would get squeezed out by the major conglomerates. Soon, all you'd have is United Healthcare, Humana, and a couple other nationally-known medical insurance providers buying each other off and creating one hugh monopoly. Once that occurs, you can kiss your economical health insurance goodbye. You'd essentially have a form of 'government run' healthcare, because there'd only be two or three insurance providers left after the massacres occurred.
Who in their right mind would buy 'a la carte' insurance? Take for instance your little Natoma example. You say she could've afforded her 'cancer' insurance if she didn't also have to pay for "infertility treatments and unlimited ob/gyn visits, among other things." So if she had

[hr]
cancer, you think she's now immune from getting cervical cancer, kidney stones, ovarian cancer, lung or heart disease? If she in complete remission, you don't think she can't get pregnant and have a baby? You have this impression that people in this country have this ability to pick and choose what diseases and illnesses they can contract. I suppose you also think that insurance companies would be more than willing to update your policy as you get older, when you are more susceptible to life-threatening diseases like kidney, liver, heart, and even bone-mass deterioration. That's why you buy insurance that covers everything. Unless you have some crystal ball that's telling you when you're going to get sick, or possibly have a near-fatal accident, buying 'a la carte' health insurance is only for suckers.
If you allowed a turly 'free market' system, then I assume you wouldn't want any government regulation to go along with this. Trust me, if you think these insurance companies drop people due to 'pre-existing' coverage now, wait until you let them run wild unregualted. It'll be just like this story I read the other day where this health insurance provider is denying coverage for a NEWBORN baby that is having a heart or other life-threatening illness. They say they won't cover the procedure due to a PRE-EXISTING CONDITION. Exactly how does newborn baby right out of the womb have a pre-existing condition?

If I'm not mistaken, doesn't home insurance work under this free market system you want for health insurance? Can't you buy a homeowners policy from literally any national insurance provider? Look how great that industry runs. Ask all these people who live in Louisiana and Texas how their homeowners insurance worked for them after Katrina and Ivan.

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3253083
I have never had an issue with other insurance forms. Totalled 2 cars and been in a couple extra accidents. Non ever labelled my fault. Each time, car insurance cut me a check to cover the damage. Each time, the check was a bit more than my damages.
Home insurance. The roof on the house started falling apart after a couple years. Called up insurance, cut me a check (based off their estimator) for the repairs. Got the entire roof redone for half the cost of the check given to me. I have never switched insurance companies in these two fields, why? because their practices and track record have shown them to be upstanding. You threatened with a lawsuit...got what you needed....but did you as a consumer switch to a different provider? If not, then you are not employing the free market as it should be employed. My insurance company wants to keep my business...so each time they have taken care of me. maybe you should look at a different company.
Oh, and I didn't write that...just thought it was well written....like the author usually is.
A house and a car can be replaced. A human body can't.
Turn those two accidents around where it was your fault, and see how long you'd stay with that insurance company. If they didn't drop you, your premiums would've doubled or tripled. When you went looking for another insurance company, you'd been labeled 'high risk' and thrown into one of these county mutual pools where you'd pay three times more than a safe driver. Don't get a speeding ticket or other moving violation. My auto insurance went up 15% after one ticket. And no matter who I went to for insurance, that ticket stuck with my record for 3 years, so the rates were about the same no matter who I went to.
I'm needing to replace my roof YET AGAIN, after replacing it only 8 years ago from a major hail storm (the roofing company that put that roof on is no longer in business). Went out and got 4 quotes from different roofers. Estimates ranged from $7,500 - $10,500. Contacted my insurance company, and they brought an estimator out. After depreciation on my existing roof, they cut me a check for $5,200.

Ironically, I just got my insurance renewal the other day. My rates conveniently went up 16%. I decided to do a little independent study on insurance quotes. I called four other insurance companies the last couple of days, and one of the first questions they ask is, "Have you filed any claims with your current insurance provider in the last 5 years?" I told two of them I haven't filed any claims, and I told the other two about my recent roof claim. The two I didn't tell quoted me a policy with higher coverages for about 10% - 15% more than what my current provider is quoting me. With the two I did tell, one wouldn't quote me at all, the other quoted me 20% higher than the guy that gave me the 10% higher quote with better coverage.
Yeaa, this 'free market' health insurance of yours sounds great.

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3253053
Violating contracts isn't so easy when competitors are lurking, ready to steal your customers.
Up until that point, I mostly agree w/ your plan.
Herein lies a large part of the trouble. There are businesses which also seek and have received protection from the federal government for explicitly and knowingly making Americans sick with the products they produce. Their industries are larger and employ more people than the health care industry does at this point. Their interests are, as such, specifically at odds w/ those of the health care industry, yet the Fed sees fit to protect them both. Against whom? At whose expense?
We the People's, perhaps?
The second part of the trouble is that Laissez-faire government ignores business altogether. Let the market rule. The cream will rise to the top, so to speak.
However, if business were entirely unregulated by government, do you honestly believe the states of food, health, employment rights, the environment, education, information distribution and market investments would be better than they are now?
Check in with George Pullman, John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, John F. Queeny, John Jacob Astor, Joshua Ward, Stephen Duncan, J. Burneside, William Randolph Hearst, Joseph Pulitzer, etc. ad nauseum before you answer.
A huge part of the ongoing (since the mid 1800's) problem is that Corporations have recently been granted rights as persons. As a result, the legal loser will invariably be the individual and the winner will always the corporation. It's simply a matter of following the money.
The Constitution was specifically and precisely designed to protect We the People from, and to limit the power of, both Government and those who would deliberately harm us.
What we live under now, however, is: He who has the gold, makes the rules.
That's Plutarchy, not a Republic.
If the purpose of Government is not to protect my individual rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, or to promote the general welfare - not of the Nation itself, but of the individuals who comprise it - over enemies both foreign and domestic, then I have no use for Government whatsoever.

 

[reefraff]

A lot of the attraction to buying across state lines is it give states the incentive not to require so much garbage be included in your insurance.
I am talking crap like reproductive therapy and family counseling. Give me a policy with MEDICAL CARE covered and let the octomoms of the world pay for their own herd.

 

[veni vidi vici]

Hell in a Hand Basket I SAY!!!!!! Thats what we have here .......
Heath Care should be and could be PROVIDED BY THE INDIVIDUAL STATES,NOT THE FLUCKING US FEDERAL GOVERNMENT!
Case Soon to be closed!Its Unconstitutional and will be overturned ,as a matter of fact there is enough support right now for the people to repeal it and most of the States are preparing lawsuits if not already filing them.
Marxist A**Holes in the White House and Congress Shall soon be unemployed like so many of those they are neglecting now.

 

[zman1]

It’s been a while – thought I would stop by and see what’s up. The rhetoric is still the same. The folks on SOCIAL Security Disability and Medicare still bashing the Government intrusion in their lives… Overall - not implying you VVV , yours just happened to be the last post in the thread.

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by Veni Vidi Vici
http:///forum/post/3253158
Hell in a Hand Basket I SAY!!!!!! Thats what we have here .......
Heath Care should be and could be PROVIDED BY THE INDIVIDUAL STATES,NOT THE FLUCKING US FEDERAL GOVERNMENT!
Case Soon to be closed!Its Unconstitutional and will be overturned ,as a matter of fact there is enough support right now for the people to repeal it and most of the States are preparing lawsuits if not already filing them.
Marxist A**Holes in the White House and Congress Shall soon be unemployed like so many of those they are neglecting now.
There's always one extremist in every argument. Hate to tell you Veni, but a state-run health care system would be no better than one run by the Feds. Seriously, if California were running their health care system, would you want to live there? I guess if you want to see what a full blown government-controlled health care system is like, look at Massachusetts. They're already running some form of a subsidized health care system that is more controlled by the state than the Fed plan will. Anyone on this board live in Mass that can provide a opinion on how that state-run health plan is working?

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by zman1
http:///forum/post/3253197
It’s been a while – thought I would stop by and see what’s up. The rhetoric is still the same. The folks on SOCIAL Security Disability and Medicare still bashing the Government intrusion in their lives… Overall - not implying you VVV , yours just happened to be the last post in the thread.
I'll assume that moronic jab was directed at me. ABout par for the couse for you.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3253204
There's always one extremist in every argument. Hate to tell you Veni, but a state-run health care system would be no better than one run by the Feds. Seriously, if California were running their health care system, would you want to live there? I guess if you want to see what a full blown government-controlled health care system is like, look at Massachusetts. They're already running some form of a subsidized health care system that is more controlled by the state than the Fed plan will. Anyone on this board live in Mass that can provide a opinion on how that state-run health plan is working?
I think if you took a mega program like Medicare and ran it at the state level you would cut out some of the fraud and abuse.

 

[zman1]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3253244
I'll assume that moronic jab was directed at me. ABout par for the couse for you.
I didn't call you by Forum ID, you just volunteered!!!!!!!!! However, now will the other Big Brother Hater, volunteer? I just don’t get it, never have, never will, as moronic as it is and the avatar is…..

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by zman1
http:///forum/post/3253259
I didn't call you by Forum ID, you just volunteered!!!!!!!!! However, now will the other Big Brother Hater, volunteer? I just don’t get it, never have, never will, as moronic as it is and the avatar is…..
I make no secret of my situation in these threads and mention it quite often.
I had premiums for disability insurance removed from my paycheck for over 20 years, now the insurance company is paying off on the policy. I realize that might be a complicated concept for you to grasp as would the reason I don't want big brother fouling up the health care industry so I won't waste my time.

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3253247
I think if you took a mega program like Medicare and ran it at the state level you would cut out some of the fraud and abuse.
I'd be afraid that any state-run healthcare would get dictated based on the majority party affiliation of that state. Look at Texas. If we would've had state-run health care a couple years ago, my daughter's would've been forced to take that Gardasil HPV vaccination that I vehemently opposed. The Republican's were all for it (party that runs Texas right now), and it was the 'ignorant liberals' who convinced Rick Perry he was wrong. Whether you agree with it or not, a women that wanted an abortion would most likely be forced to move to one of the states that still allowed it.
What happens when one state offers better options and more affordable insurance than another state? Is that how states will 'lure' people to move to their state to infuse their respective economies? Texas says, "Nope, we won't allow pre-existing conditions", but Illinois will. Do I have to pack up my family, move out of my house, and try and find another job because I had a arterial blockage that was cleaned completely, but then had a minor heart attack, so my Texas insurance won't cover the new heart procedure? What guarantees would be put in place to insure if I bought a health care policy in Arkansas, that the doctors in Virginia would honor that policy? What if the Arkansas policy provides coverages that aren't available in Minnesota? I could get a great rate from a health insurance company in Ohio, but since I live in Texas, the doctor's here could consider me 'Out Of Network' and I'd pay more for medical procedures simply because I didn't get them done in Ohio. Since you don't want any Federal involvement with this form of healthcare, who would regulate it? All you'll do is end up with 50 Socialist healthcare programs instead of one.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3253286
I'd be afraid that any state-run healthcare would get dictated based on the majority party affiliation of that state. Look at Texas. If we would've had state-run health care a couple years ago, my daughter's would've been forced to take that Gardasil HPV vaccination that I vehemently opposed. The Republican's were all for it (party that runs Texas right now), and it was the 'ignorant liberals' who convinced Rick Perry he was wrong. Whether you agree with it or not, a women that wanted an abortion would most likely be forced to move to one of the states that still allowed it.
What happens when one state offers better options and more affordable insurance than another state? Is that how states will 'lure' people to move to their state to infuse their respective economies? Texas says, "Nope, we won't allow pre-existing conditions", but Illinois will. Do I have to pack up my family, move out of my house, and try and find another job because I had a arterial blockage that was cleaned completely, but then had a minor heart attack, so my Texas insurance won't cover the new heart procedure? What guarantees would be put in place to insure if I bought a health care policy in Arkansas, that the doctors in Virginia would honor that policy? What if the Arkansas policy provides coverages that aren't available in Minnesota? I could get a great rate from a health insurance company in Ohio, but since I live in Texas, the doctor's here could consider me 'Out Of Network' and I'd pay more for medical procedures simply because I didn't get them done in Ohio. Since you don't want any Federal involvement with this form of healthcare, who would regulate it? All you'll do is end up with 50 Socialist healthcare programs instead of one.
The forced vaccination deal is the peril of letting government get too involved. Not saying I prefer a government system, just that if it came to that doing a state by state system would be better. If you don't like what Texas does you could move. Don't have that option if our uncle in DC runs the show.

 

[zman1]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3253283
I make no secret of my situation in these threads and mention it quite often.
I had premiums for disability insurance removed from my paycheck for over 20 years, now the "insurance company" is paying off on the policy. I realize that might be a complicated concept for you to grasp as would the reason I don't want big brother fouling up the health care industry so I won't waste my time.
Thank goodness Big Brother "insurance company " had the foresight and socialist wherewithal in mandating Social Security and Medicare (insurance) Premiums from everyone. The only thing I wish the government would now do is end the Advantage Medicare corporate welfare program (or was that done in the fix?). The only bad news with the health care mandate is the private insurance sector will cash in again, perhaps some day we will be single payer.

 

[vinnyraptor]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3252935
lol, so the system is corrupt and we need to fix it, but the answer is giving control of the system to the most corrupt organization (minus the UN) that we have in the united states...
The simple fact is, I still believe that you are incharge of your own destiny, and you make or break yourself. I still believe in the American dream. If you on the other hand think it is life's lottery that makes or breaks you. Then it is over...
your not in charge of your destiny when you can pay your premiums your whole life and then when you get sick your insurance company drops you or raises your rates beyond your means. how hard is that to understand? if anything this law allows you to live your dreams by regulating a corrupt and greedy industry. we are promised life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. its kinda hard to aquire those things if you go bankrupt just becuase you got sick!

 

[bionicarm]

Here you go Darth and Reef. Looks like the evil Dictator Obama is heeding your advise:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/...tml?eref=ib_us