Thread: why insure those with pre-existin' conditions?

Originally Posted by Rahmota

Ahh actually no problem. That is between the patient, their family and their deity. Not some insurance company exec.

Not any more. Now it will be determined by the government. The patient and the family's wishes will not be considered and the government no longer recognizes a deity of any sort.

tashi deleks,

M

Originally Posted by CowboyTed

As soon as you put a price on some mans daughters life then we can talk economics?
As we stated before the ideology that health-care is just another market is found-less...

This is the sad thing about the free marketeers on this issue they don't place any value on the price of life and have no clue how much it costs financially never mind anything else...

:rolleyes: There is no price that can be placed upon a human's life. Yet still there are scarce resources and a cost for "things" and a cost for time spent. You can shift "prices" around and engage in Enron accounting, but still there will be costs and they do not go away. Universal healthcare has costs that are paid in longer wait times for MRIs and CT scans and surgery and treatment and lower rates of survivability of cancer patients and less funds going into drug development and innovation, along with higher unemployment and higher costs due to higher taxes.

Are system was not perfect (their is no such thing anywhere), but Obamacare will make our imperfect system much much worse. Thank you Obama.

tashi deleks,

M

Originally Posted by Mahasattva

Obamacare will not help slow down the raising costs of medical care and insurance premimums, and will cause healthcare standards in America to go down. Taxes will go up, costs will go up, American health care will down. Thank you Obama.

tashi deleks,

M

I agree Obamacare (or perhaps more appropriately Obamasure as it deals primarily with health insurance) will likely expedite the raising costs of medical care while compounding premiums.

However, I doubt the level and quality of care available will decrease. More likely the percentage of Americans able to afford that level of care will decrease due to the rapid increases in cost.

Why a rise in premiums? With the elimination of the lifetime maximum and the prevention of client drops, insurance companies will dolling out limitless amounts of cash for individuals with multimillion dollar terminal medical problems. It will be very easy for them to charge significantly higher for insurance and still balance their books at less than 15% profit.

If I can't afford kids, I don't have kids. People who have kids they cannot afford are irresponsible and bring suffering upon themselves and their kids.

You know you really show how heartless uncaring and cold a person you really are each and everytime we talk. It stuns me that there are people like you that are so negative and dead inside that you want to treat people like that.

And yes Matt if the person's family thought that way then no amount of money would or should be used to prevent that. However it has been my personal experience in dealign with hospice and terminal stage diseases including 5 members of my family that a truely enlightened person knows that their time to cross the veil is comign and will choose to go quietly with minimal fuss or concern. I know that I have a living directive for myself that if I am ever brain dead to the point where there is no hope of coming back that they are to pull it. No feeding tubes etc... A life that is ending is not a time for selfish concerns.

No, it does not try to address these issues. Its a power grab. The effects of Obamacare will harm Americans economically and health care standards wil go down.

It addresses the lack of access that many americans have. And no it does nto go as far as it should when healthcare should be nationalized but it is a step in that right direction.Healthcare standards will not go down unless the cold heartless accountants running things decide to do so. True healthcare professionals will still do their duty to the best of their ability in accordance with their oaths. By getting access to better preventative healthcare the need for serious medical issues later will be reduced. And in the long run americans will be better off economically than they would be. Still not as well off if they would just nationalize halethcare adn get rid of insurance companies all together but still this has been a step in the right direction for this country.

Originally Posted by MeadHallPirate

mateys,

i have a question fer ye all. this been a question that has bedeviled me ever since the health care debate started, and i can't make no sense 'o it.

lets say yer a lass and ye have a lump in yer breast thats been troublin' ye.

ye lose yer job and with it goes yer insurance, aye?

so ye come into me insurance store and tries to get insurance. i go into me back office and talk to me good friend, Dr. Stephen Edge...

Women Struggle With Breast Cancer Expenses - ABC News

i then go back into me office and just turn ye down flat...its a grim thing, but i don't see what else can be done.

if ye come to me insurance store with a history 'o heart problems...well, open heart surgury costs average $100,000. yarrr! i'd have to turn ye down also.

me question be this, me hearties;

unless i charge ye financially backbreakin' rates, what on earth be the economic model that makes it worth insurin' folks who have pre-existin' conditions?

wouldn't it make more sense, from a business perspective, to not take on these risky folk and make the taxpayers pay for it instead (via medicaid)? the white house be makin' a big to do 'bout insurin' folks with pre-existin' conditions, but i can't see how it be profitable to cover them folks, unless you obliterate them with fearsome premiums.

*waits for an informed answer*

- MeadHallPirate

america decided the other day that health care is not an economic model, but rather a social model.

in twenty years, you will get the picture.

Originally Posted by htperr6565

america decided the other day that health care is not an economic model, but rather a social model.

in twenty years, you will get the picture.

So what next? Housing? Food? Work in general?

Originally Posted by Rahmota

You know you really show how heartless uncaring and cold a person you really are each and everytime we talk. It stuns me that there are people like you that are so negative and dead inside that you want to treat people like that.

I care about the basic facts of life. Getting stuff you cannot afford is irresponsible, especially when it causes suffering.

And yes Matt if the person's family thought that way then no amount of money would or should be used to prevent that. However it has been my personal experience in dealign with hospice and terminal stage diseases including 5 members of my family that a truely enlightened person knows that their time to cross the veil is comign and will choose to go quietly with minimal fuss or concern. I know that I have a living directive for myself that if I am ever brain dead to the point where there is no hope of coming back that they are to pull it. No feeding tubes etc... A life that is ending is not a time for selfish concerns.

Once again, not everyone will make the efficient, realistic decision. Just look at all the idiots in America that have kids they cannot afford.

People who have kids they cannot afford are irresponsible and bring suffering upon themselves and their kids.

So what would you do Slon? Mandatorily and forcibly sterilize all the poor people so they cannot have kids? Institute outageously expensive breeding permits so that only the rich can have children? Why are you so against families and poor people that you wish to see them hurt evey time anythign comes along to help them?

Just because you have no love in your heart or soul does not mean that other people do not or should not.

And there is a thin line thanks to the megacorps between being able to afford a decent lifestyle and not. But you cannot compare children, the precious gift of life, with somethign as pathetically shallow as material goods like tvs and cars and other crap like that.

So what next? Housing? Food? Work in general?

One can only hope for the best that these problems ill soon be addressed.

Originally Posted by Rahmota

Originally Posted by Constitutionist

So what next? Housing? Food? Work in general?

One can only hope for the best that these problems ill soon be addressed.

Yes, one can only hope we will soon live in Soviet America. :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by Rahmota

It addresses the lack of access that many americans have.

No it does not. All Americans already have access to health care. This monster was supposed to fix problems of insurance coverage. What it has done is insure that the insurance industry will collapse.

And no it does nto go as far as it should when healthcare should be nationalized but it is a step in that right direction.

I have posted links (on this and other threads) to studies of universal healthcare systems that show that all of them have longer wait times for MRIs, CT scans, surgery, and lower survivability levels for cancer patients, when compared to the pre-Obamacare American system. The study on cancer survivability rates included all Americans, the insured and the uninsured, and in spite of that still Americans faired better than the universal "nationalized" healthcare system. How is it "a step in the right direction" when more Americans will have to deal with higher insurance premimums, higher healthcare costs, longer waiting periods for treatment and eventually a lowering of healthcare standards over all.

Healthcare standards will not go down unless the cold heartless accountants running things decide to do so.

Bullshit. They will go down because of the cold heartless government officials who will be determining if you are worthy of the medical care that they will control.

True healthcare professionals will still do their duty to the best of their ability in accordance with their oaths.

And as the best and most intelligent decided to go into other fields rather than become doctors, those healthcare professionals will be less than the best. England has to import doctors from other countries due to their doctor shortages, caused by 50 years of nationalized healthcare. Many of those doctors are from Third World countries which do not have the high level standards of training that we expect here in America or in England. Sure, those less than the best healthcare professionals will do all they all they can to fulfill their oaths, but sadly that will not be the best the best could provide.

By getting access to better preventative healthcare the need for serious medical issues later will be reduced.

This is a myth of those who promote universal healthcare. As I have already posted:

Early Diagnosis. It is often claimed that people have better access to preventive screenings in universal health care systems. But despite the large number of uninsured, cancer patients in the United States are most likely to be screened regularly, and once diagnosed, have the fastest access to treatment. For example, a Commonwealth Fund report showed that women in the United States were more likely to get a PAP test for cervical cancer every two years than women in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Great Britain, where health insurance is guaranteed by the government.

•In the United States, 85 percent of women aged 25 to 64 years have regular PAP smears, compared with 58 percent in Great Britain.
•The same is true for mammograms; in the United States, 84 percent of women aged 50 to 64 years get them regularly — a higher percentage than in Australia, Canada or New Zealand, and far higher than the 63 percent of British women. U.S. Cancer Care Is Number One | Publications | National Center for Policy Analysis | NCPA

And in the long run americans will be better off economically than they would be. Still not as well off if they would just nationalize halethcare adn get rid of insurance companies all together but still this has been a step in the right direction for this country.

Garbage and bullshit as every real study that begins from the facts, rather than an ideologically driven agenda shows. I know you are full of good intentions, but without skillful means and wisdom those good intentions will lead us down a road to worse healthcare and a greater economic burden for all Americans.

tashi deleks,

M

Originally Posted by Constitutionist

However, I doubt the level and quality of care available will decrease.

I agree with the substance of your post except what I quoted above. The decrease in the level of quality will be due to doctors leaving the healthcare industry, the lower number of those with high ability and talent going into the field, the loss of new drug development and research, and longer waiting periods for screening and treatment. These will be the effects of Obamacare.

tashi deleks,

M

Originally Posted by htperr6565

america decided the other day that health care is not an economic model, but rather a social model.

in twenty years, you will get the picture.

We'll be bankrupt before twenty years.

Originally Posted by Constitutionist

So what next? Housing? Food? Work in general?

Yes, yes, yes, comrade! (sarcasm off)

They won't stop until they are forcibly stopped.