This forum post is hidden because you have chosen to ignore wmiddleton. Show Details
This forum post is hidden because you have submitted an abuse report against it. Show Details
I don't know what everyone is going through. Are you not getting health insurance because you have a pre-exisitng condition? Did you have Health Insurance and switched? Did you not have it and wanted it after you got ill? Or is it that your condition allowed you to get insurance but at a much higher rate?
I have asthma and insurance always cost me about $100-$150/month more in premiums. I have never been in for an asthma episode ever in over 20 years. Only to test and get a prescription(s). This is what I don't see addressed in the Health Care Bill. If it is, I can't find it. This not right. Of course, if you have no insurance and you get sick, you cannot expect an insurance company to take you on and pay for it. No different than if you get in an auto accident and then call to get insurance and expect it to be covered.
What is the situation Obama is talking about?
Oh and by the way, AARP doesn't support insurance premium increases for the elderly, then why are they supporting Aetna. Mine just went up again another $25/month, never mind I pay more than the normal rate already.
Please, tell me what I am missing here.
Regarding Pre-Existing Conditions and Insurance:
Each of us must understand what insurance is and what an insurance company's motivations are. Insurance is a contract in which an individual is desiring to avoid a catastrophic financial problem by paying an insurance premium to a company who is willing to take those premiums from this individual and make a promise to pay with the knowledge from statiscal tables that only a few of the insured will actually experience the problem being insured against and the company will retain the balance of premiums paid .
Insurance works the same whether for auto insurance, home fire insurance, liability insurance, medical practice insurance, flood insurance, etc.
Who would expect to walk into a car insurance agency after having been involved in a car crash, pay a premium to the insurance company, and then file a claim on which the insurance company would happily pay for the car repair? How about after a storm floods your house or it burns down?
For those who are already in trouble, be it health, fire, flood or etc., don't expect an insurance company to pay. There is no "right" to coverage and payment for your problems. Certainly not from the government or their taxpayers.
In those cases, where the individual is indigent, poor, or whatever, charity is often sought. However, our Constitution does not provide for the government to provide healthcare to anyone. We obviously are on a ship that has already left the dock on this subject due to medicare, medicaid, etc.
So, let's call this desire by some for everyone to have taxpayer funded healtcare "free for life" what it really is. It's a desire for government control by those who think one way. It's quite obvious that the country is nearly evenly divided on the issue.
It's not "insurance reform!"
Whether it's a "right" for all the have healthcare and whether the government has the constiturional authority to mandate it are different arguments entirely.
And, if this round of "reform" passes, as we progress quickly towards total insanity, we can count on dealing with the next "right" expressed by some for which they think the government should pay. How about a right to hurricane and tornado coverage which will replace anything that is damaged. How about a right to a flat screen TV and a fuel efficient vehicle that will not damage the environment. Am I making the point? How about a right to get car wrecks fixed.
When does it end? Are we not already broke? Where does the money come from?