No Provision for Pre-Existing Condition in Republican Plan

About Us

Tour

FAQ

Signup

Login

Welcome to our New Political Community - Take a Quick Tour of our Features including our Discussion Forums custom designed for U.S. politics. SIGN UP today to join in the discussion.

Forums > All Posts > No Provision for Pre-Existing Condition in Republican Plan

Displaying all 8 Forum Posts

You must be logged in to reply to a post.

2010-02-27 06:03 PM

Schmidt
Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 1058

In watching the almost 8 hours of the health care summit on Thursday, the one discussion item that has received little attention in the media is the fact that the Republican Plan only covers 3 million more people out of the 30 million without coverage. Although Obama asked if they had a plan to cover the additional 27 million, the Republicans didn't answer the question. Okay that's expected, but why isn't the media hammering them on that point. I've seen the clip between Obama and McCain several times, but no mention of the missing 27 million that would not be covered under the Republican Plan.

Opinion polls show Americans support not denying coverage for pre-existing conditions, a large part of that 27 million, yet this issue seems to not rank high in the media coverage of the summit.

And as I saw clips of Fox News on the Summit, as usual they live in a different world. Of course they play to their audience and objectivity is not in their vocabulary.

2010-03-27 12:39 AM

Listening
Lenexa, KS
Posts: 49

Schmidt Wrote: In watching the almost 8 hours of the health care summit on Thursday, the one discussion item that has received little attention in the media is the fact that the Republican Plan only covers 3 million more people out of the 30 million without coverage. Although Obama asked if they had a plan to cover the additional 27 million, the Republicans didn't answer the question. Okay that's expected, but why isn't the media hammering them on that point. I've seen the clip between Obama and McCain several times, but no mention of the missing 27 million that would not be covered under the Republican Plan.

Opinion polls show Americans support not denying coverage for pre-existing conditions, a large part of that 27 million, yet this issue seems to not rank high in the media coverage of the summit.

And as I saw clips of Fox News on the Summit, as usual they live in a different world. Of course they play to their audience and objectivity is not in their vocabulary.

Can you talk about anything that does not include Fox or Glenn Beck ?

2010-03-27 12:43 AM

Listening
Lenexa, KS
Posts: 49

In the first place, do we know how many of those 30 million want coverage ?

I have never seen a definitive discussion on that topic. I know lots of young people who are not interested in paying for health care.

In other words...they don't want it.

The statistic about how much people make and how many of them don't have heatlh care has been cited about a million times.

Many people with good incomes simply buy off the open market when they get sick and are gambling against something catstrophic (or know they can go on medicare for which they already pay taxes).

The real number of people looking for medical insurance who can't afford it (and lets not ever get any kind of classification as to what that means....heaven forbid we really look at someone's lifestyle and determine that the cable could go so they can pay Blue Cross/Blue Shield) is probably closer to 10 million people.

2010-03-28 12:31 PM

Schmidt
Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 1058

I haven't seen any data on how many of those 30 million really want coverage. Certainly it includes a lot of very wealthy people, but they only represent a small percentage of the population. According to Wikipedia, Obama's magical household income of $250,000 represents 1.93 percent of all households. At that income level I think I would still buy the high deductible catastrophic insurance as its much cheaper than traditional insurance.

Given a choice, certainly many people, both rich and middle income, and especially the young and healthy might opt out of heath care insurance and take the risk. They would do likewise for Social Security and Medicare. And if they had a choice many would opt out of paying liability insurance for their car. I would hate to be run into by a guy not carrying liability insurance but it happens, and my insurance company then has to pay. In fact if everyone indeed carried liability insurance I wouldn't have to pay extra for an uninsured motorist clause.

The point is that when costs are shared over a much larger population base, costs are kept down. When some people don't pay, everyone else's costs go up in monthly premiums, but also when an uninsured person with low income goes to an emergency room that he/she cannot afford. I've had to use an emergency room once, and I'll tell you the costs are astounding compared to just regular visits to your doctor. My high deductible was chewed up in minutes.

Once people understand the full impact of the new legislation on their lives, I expect that many will be on-board with it. Certainly the under 26's that can stay on their parent's policies should like it. I don't know about the over 26's but would be interested in seeing any recent polling data available.

2010-03-28 04:14 PM

Listening
Lenexa, KS
Posts: 49

Schmidt Wrote:
Given a choice, certainly many people, both rich and middle income, and especially the young and healthy might opt out of heath care insurance and take the risk. They would do likewise for Social Security and Medicare. And if they had a choice many would opt out of paying liability insurance for their car. I would hate to be run into by a guy not carrying liability insurance but it happens, and my insurance company then has to pay. In fact if everyone indeed carried liability insurance I wouldn't have to pay extra for an uninsured motorist clause.

It is interesting that you use the term "given a choice".

That is what America is all about.

If they opt out of medicare and social security, they don't get the benefits. Conservatives understand that with choice comes risk. The real question is whether or not, we can stand to watch people grow old in squalor because they chose not to save.

The problem is that social security does this, in part, now. It has been called the largest reason for depressed savings in the history of this country. But that is for another thread.

Finally, you can opt out of car insurance by opting out of your car. If you put a car on the road, you have to be willing to at least pay for the potential damage to others. If you don't want carry insurance, you should should at least be able to show assets that are worth what you would cover. You do get to opt out of types of insurance....all you are really required to cover is liability (damage to the other guy).

The car insurance argument has never carried much weight in this discussion.

The real question in my mind comes back to accountability and what you are willing to put on people.

Young people don't buy insurance and then go to the ER's.

The first thing we should do is put little shelters next to the ER's and stop requiring them to treat people. That would get fixed fast. But to allow it to continue is stupid.

2010-03-28 04:16 PM

Listening
Lenexa, KS
Posts: 49

Schmidt Wrote:
I haven't seen any data on how many of those 30 million really want coverage.

I would think that you would want to know that before you use the statistic.

It isn't 30 million and it isn't 2 million. Different estimates have it at different levels.

I might also point out that it used to be 46 million...until President Obama realized that was bogus. That does not stop charlitans like Barbara "BS" Boxer from using 46 million every time she shows her face on TV. That kind of lie, just like the garbage on the right is the reason we have no trust in these people anymore.

I get tired of the right and their "takeover" yacking.

2010-03-28 10:45 PM

Zach F
Denton, TX
Posts: 941

Listening Wrote: In the first place, do we know how many of those 30 million want coverage ?

I have never seen a definitive discussion on that topic. I know lots of young people who are not interested in paying for health care.

In other words...they don't want it.

Being 26, and without health insurance, I thoght I would comment on this. I just missed the age cutoff for being able to be covered by my parents and I currently can't afford to pay for health insurance. Having a cheaper coverage option is an oppurtunity that I would like to take advantage of. There are a few fun, high risk, things that I no longer do, such as playing sandlot football at the high school

I understand that this might not be the same choices that most people my age may make, but saying that young people don't want health care is just as wrong as saying that all young people want health care.

2010-03-29 12:38 PM

Listening
Lenexa, KS
Posts: 49

Zach F Wrote:
Listening Wrote: In the first place, do we know how many of those 30 million want coverage ?

I have never seen a definitive discussion on that topic. I know lots of young people who are not interested in paying for health care.

In other words...they don't want it.

Being 26, and without health insurance, I thoght I would comment on this. I just missed the age cutoff for being able to be covered by my parents and I currently can't afford to pay for health insurance. Having a cheaper coverage option is an oppurtunity that I would like to take advantage of. There are a few fun, high risk, things that I no longer do, such as playing sandlot football at the high school

I understand that this might not be the same choices that most people my age may make, but saying that young people don't want health care is just as wrong as saying that all young people want health care.

I think I qualified that statement in an appropriate way.

I have a 25 year old daughter who can get access to a program through her work, but won't.

As I said, I don't know the statistics, but I believe it has been shown that many of them are unwilling to pay for it. That does not mean my daughter does not get health care. When she gets sick, she goes to a clinic and pays a fee. She sees it as more cost effective that way.

Yes, I do worry about the big one...but we are talking about young people.

So what is your point ?

I didn't say all did not want it, I said many.

In reading my original statement, I said "health care". I fell into the same trap I get after others about. I should have said they don't want to pay for health insurance. Again, not all.

If you go back on your parents plan, who pays for that (if you get sick....) ?

You must be logged in to reply to a post.

About Us

FAQ

Advertise

Links

Login

Sign Up

Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy

OBAMA ACCOMPLISHMENTS - REPUBLICAN DIVORCES - REPUBLICAN INFIDELITY & AFFAIRS - REPUBLICAN SCANDALS & CONTROVERSIES