Go Back   CityProfile.com Forum - Local City and State Discussion Forums > General Discussion > National Politics / Debate
Click Here to Login

Reply
Old 02-05-2011, 03:14 AM  
Junior Member

dallas, texas
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 2 | Kudos: +10
I think the issue that's under heat debate right now is the CLASS Act

This is part of the health care bill that opens a program that will help working Americans avail long term care services. This is not mandatory. The payment will be deducted from the members' paychecks. The amount of premiums and benefits are yet to be determined.
__________________

__________________
A good friend is cheaper than therapy.
Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2011, 10:34 AM  
Traveler

Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,452 | Kudos: +43
Well, in reading all this, it becomes quite clear who has health insurance and who doesn't! I DO NOT. And until my wife just turned 65 and got her medicare, neither did she! This whole health debate thing has affected this family personally, and I'm totally for the elemination of the insurance companies, and for the single payer system. Countries even as evil as Cuba, care for ALL their people. But in this country, it's all about the wealthy getting the good stuff and the middle class, being cut out and deprived. Couple things strike me as funny, as I just start to warm up on this subject. The whole idea of mandated purchasing of healthcare, was originally a republican born idea! Believe it or not. I also think it's really funny how the republicans were so annoyed that Obama was so fixated on the healthcare issue, in light of the stagnant economy, and what's the very first thing the republicans take up on their first day on the job? Too funny! Redjeepxj, without thumbing through 8 pages of trascripts, because I have lots of things going right now, just curious whether you have health insurance or not?
__________________

Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2011, 01:02 PM  
Senior Member

Bristol, Tennessee
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,062 | Kudos: +48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Musicinabottle View Post
Well, in reading all this, it becomes quite clear who has health insurance and who doesn't! I DO NOT. And until my wife just turned 65 and got her medicare, neither did she! This whole health debate thing has affected this family personally, and I'm totally for the elemination of the insurance companies, and for the single payer system. Countries even as evil as Cuba, care for ALL their people. But in this country, it's all about the wealthy getting the good stuff and the middle class, being cut out and deprived. Couple things strike me as funny, as I just start to warm up on this subject. The whole idea of mandated purchasing of healthcare, was originally a republican born idea! Believe it or not. I also think it's really funny how the republicans were so annoyed that Obama was so fixated on the healthcare issue, in light of the stagnant economy, and what's the very first thing the republicans take up on their first day on the job? Too funny! Redjeepxj, without thumbing through 8 pages of trascripts, because I have lots of things going right now, just curious whether you have health insurance or not?
I have had health insurance in many different forms, currently I have it through my employer but in the past I have had group based (while in college) and then individual after that during the job search. The amount of wiggle room for an insurer to get out of a plan is just amazing, there is no way anyone can be 100% correct on those applications unless they have obtained all of their medical records since birth and have a medical billing expert sign up with them as they do use some vague terms for us non medical people (what exactly constitutes "abnormal" test results for example. They also wanted to know the exact date(to the day) I had ever had acne. pretty crazy stuff. fafter signing up they would then send a letter explaining everything they are refusing to cover and some are quite excessive, one event of a diagnosis of a kidney stone (even though it dissolved/passed with no treatment/pain on it's own) = complete refusal to pay for anything urological, period.

It's amazing how many people don't realize how easily they can lose their insurance and dealing with all the issues of that especially if they get sick.

On the republican idea it's one of those things I could easily see the republicans pushing hard for if a real bill did come up to give us a real single payer system, although the only chance at that seems to be if this health care law gets repealed and we wait another decade or two as more people get shoved out of the healthcare system. I fault Obama and the democrats for this, had he pushed really hard for single payer and the democrats didn't act like squabbling children they could have forced the republicans to compromise with the current system easy.

I see it fair to compare individual insurance to a a homeowner's insurance policy the insurer could cancel as soon as the smoke detector alarm sounded, as insurers will drop people once they become sick regardless of how long ago they bought the insurance. What really amazes me is that in a recent poll people were ok with that? people seriously just want insurance to be a discount card it seems as it is quickly getting watered down to that.
Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2011, 07:25 PM  
Traveler

Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,452 | Kudos: +43
RJJ, I was referring to the mandated buying of health insurance. In the days of Clinton, it was the republicans who actually came up with the concept, and yes, I do agree that the quibbling democrates and the president came in week on the single payer concept, that has worked so well in just about every single industrialed nation. If the democrates had called it "Healthcare for all", that might have had a better sticking factor.
Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2011, 12:11 PM  
Senior Member

Greenville, SC
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,141 | Kudos: +188
I'm just going to throw this out there.... I heard the homeowners ins. comparison so let's do this (only b/c lenders require homeowners....)..

Does anyone on here think it would be fair to require ALL renters to have renters insurance regardless of circumstance? Those that could not afford it would get it for free. Oh, and the ones who chose not to have it would be fined. I just wanted to start this thing back up and this is a simplified comparison I know, but still valid.
Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2011, 12:17 PM  
Traveler

Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,452 | Kudos: +43
Homeowners veres renters is not the same animal! I don't agree with the mandated buying of insurance period, by the way. But I do understand why it was put into play. The fact of the matter is, that people didn't get their underwear all bunched up when states began manditory auto insurance. Principles is principles. Get pissed about the mandatory auto insurance too America!
Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2011, 12:38 PM  
Senior Member

Greenville, SC
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,141 | Kudos: +188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Musicinabottle View Post
Homeowners veres renters is not the same animal!
I am quite aware of that. Which is why I chose renters ins.

Quote:
The fact of the matter is, that people didn't get their underwear all bunched up when states began manditory auto insurance. Principles is principles. Get pissed about the mandatory auto insurance too America!
Now liability auto insurance is COMPLETELY different than health, renters or homeowners insurance. What is mandated is liability which covers others in the event you damage person/property. Collision and comprehensive is not required.

I am perfectly fine with a person driving around being required to be able to compensate me should they crash into me or my car. The only way to be sure is if they are insured with liability. So that is why people didn't "get their underwear all bunched up" when liability was mandated.
Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2011, 12:51 PM  
Senior Member

Bristol, Tennessee
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,062 | Kudos: +48
Quote:
Originally Posted by YelloJeep View Post
I'm just going to throw this out there.... I heard the homeowners ins. comparison so let's do this (only b/c lenders require homeowners....)..

Does anyone on here think it would be fair to require ALL renters to have renters insurance regardless of circumstance? Those that could not afford it would get it for free. Oh, and the ones who chose not to have it would be fined. I just wanted to start this thing back up and this is a simplified comparison I know, but still valid.
it's not a fair comparison at all to health insurance. We already have the condition that hospitals MUST treat everyone, so it comes down to who really pays for that

if someone's apartment gets robbed or catches on fire the renter is the only one who suffers the loss of their belongings, no one else has to pay by law

so yes if we changed our system to let those that can't pay just die on the street outside the hospital you would have a fair comparison, but we as a society are better then that (or at least we were, if we were talking about adding that requirement now I think republicans would be quite against it).
Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2011, 01:04 PM  
Traveler

Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,452 | Kudos: +43
Quote:
Originally Posted by YelloJeep View Post
I am quite aware of that. Which is why I chose renters ins.



Now liability auto insurance is COMPLETELY different than health, renters or homeowners insurance. What is mandated is liability which covers others in the event you damage person/property. Collision and comprehensive is not required.

I am perfectly fine with a person driving around being required to be able to compensate me should they crash into me or my car. The only way to be sure is if they are insured with liability. So that is why people didn't "get their underwear all bunched up" when liability was mandated.
Not so fast. The basic premise of being required to have ato insurance is to protect the other people. The same logic applies to Mandated health insurance. Example. My sister had a health issue, that cost well over half a million. Yup! No insurance. We all picked up the tab and paid for it. THAT'S the reasoning behind the mandate. Cars......? Same thing. Someone hits you and puts you up in the hospital, and the other guy has no insurance..... The system just became unfair! Why should someone else buck the bill? Same for healthcare. Though I will admit, that there are plenty of flaws, and so hence, I don't support it. Also, the republicans proposed this very same idea during the Clinton years and amazingly, the republicans didn't oppose it then? Why not?
Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2011, 01:07 PM  
Traveler

Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,452 | Kudos: +43
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedJeepXJ View Post
it's not a fair comparison at all to health insurance. We already have the condition that hospitals MUST treat everyone, so it comes down to who really pays for that

if someone's apartment gets robbed or catches on fire the renter is the only one who suffers the loss of their belongings, no one else has to pay by law

so yes if we changed our system to let those that can't pay just die on the street outside the hospital you would have a fair comparison, but we as a society are better then that (or at least we were, if we were talking about adding that requirement now I think republicans would be quite against it).
Exactly! Besides, we're comparing apples to oranges. In the healthcare situation....Everyones driving a car, and putting others at risk of paying for their accident! Mortgage and renters insurance is not the same.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Go Back   CityProfile.com Forum - Local City and State Discussion Forums > General Discussion > National Politics / Debate
Bookmark this Page!

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes


Suggested Threads

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.