Published
THIS IS BIG STUFF!
What are your thoughts?
I hope you graduate and are working with benefits before 2014. (If that is what you want)Uhm, no.I'm a student, I dont work.
My point was is that they are going to make people fork out more money we don't have.
And the government is going to fork out millions they don't have either.
You can't qualify in Alabama for any type of assistance, unless you have a ton of children or some other type of bull crap.
If the legislature and governor of your state doesn't refuse help for low income people to buy health insurance then people who don't qualify now will be able to be insured.
I asked because I do volunteer to help working people with no health or dental insurance and who don't make enough to pay for it.
Just getting an infected tooth taken care of can save a persons life.
Remote Area Medical Volunteer Corps - Oklahoma : Remote Area Medical Oklahoma
I hope you graduate and are working with benefits before 2014. (If that is what you want)If the legislature and governor of your state doesn't refuse help for low income people to buy health insurance then people who don't qualify now will be able to be insured.
I asked because I do volunteer to help working people with no health or dental insurance and who don't make enough to pay for it.
Just getting an infected tooth taken care of can save a persons life.
Remote Area Medical Volunteer Corps - Oklahoma : Remote Area Medical Oklahoma
I should graduate by may of 2014!!
So I hope I can get good benefits. Lol.
Given that 20000+ people die in the US each year because they do not have access to health insurance and therefore adequate care, it is hard for me to imagine that it will cause problems worse than that.
If you want to talk about numbers of people who die, we would get way more bang for the buck doing other things. How far would those billions of $$$ go in doing things to prevent medical errors in hospitals? Many more deaths come from that then going without health insurance. How far would that money go in health education?
If your into making new laws that infringe on our liberty, how about passing a law that people must have flu vax? That would save more people and be much less expensive.
This law is much less about saving peoples' lives then it is about making us more and more dependent on government.
Given that 20000+ people die in the US each year because they do not have access to health insurance and therefore adequate care, it is hard for me to imagine that it will cause problems worse than that.
Received word yesterday that a member of another Internet site one belongs to recently passed away of colon cancer. Thoughthe man has worked all his life, and darn hard from what one understands he did not have health insurance nor was he able to obtain same. The last bit stands to reason especially since his now "pre-existing" disease would have probably untouchable by insurance companies.
Fifty some odd years old is too young to die, especially of a disease that if caught early has a good cure rate. Instead this fine gentleman spent the last years of his life suffering and the final weeks in pain.
In this the most richest nation on earth scores if not hundreds of persons die weekly from preventable and or chronic diseases. If you looked at the statistics you would almost think this is the 1940's or 1930's.
If you want to talk about numbers of people who die, we would get way more bang for the buck doing other things. How far would those billions of $$$ go in doing things to prevent medical errors in hospitals? Many more deaths come from that then going without health insurance. How far would that money go in health education?
If your into making new laws that infringe on our liberty, how about passing a law that people must have flu vax? That would save more people and be much less expensive.
This law is much less about saving peoples' lives then it is about making us more and more dependent on government.
100% agree.
The government is obtaining more and more control over us.
See your post #87. I cant copy and paste formsome reason, but you posted that 80 year are not "entitled" yada,myada, yada. And i question what entitlement has to do with it, if they are healthy and if their insurance will help pay. I personally dont feel that any of us are "entitled" to any of it, but if our plan covers it, so be it. And there should always be s co-pay.
So there's the problem...#87 is not my post.
Correct you are, and I apologize. I spent more than 12 hours traveling 1500 miles yesterday, and was posting as I had internet access along the way. But the poster at #87 DID say that 80 year olds were not "entitled" to joint placements and heart caths. (if I remember correctly.) And my position is that if they are healthy, if they have insurance that covers those procedures and if they can pay the copay, if there is one, why not?
I do take issue with birth control and abortion being "preventative" however. Yes, it prevents one from having a child to support later, but in almost all cases, pregnancy is NOT a disease. So I do not believe those services should get lumped into the preventative pot, nor do I believe they should be free on demand.
Given that 20000+ people die in the US each year because they do not have access to health insurance and therefore adequate care, it is hard for me to imagine that it will cause problems worse than that.
Do you think that just because people have health care that death number will go down? "It is about prevention" that is all I hear lately and I agree, but seriously, how much money can we spend to educate people not to eat too much so they aren't 50 pounds overweight? How many times do we have to tell people not to smoke? How many times do we need to tell children not to have more children?
A universal health care system is not going to save more lives in this country because our biggest problem is ourselves. We want it now, we want it fast, and we want it cheap, and with little effort on our part. I am not saying that a 50-year old should be dying of cancer, but don't think that on this new plan that the 90-year old will get what they do now. The buck has to stop somewhere and when we, in this country, use more than we give, we have to ration somewhere. We are very close to having more takers than makers and we need to be realistic about where the money is going to come from and how we will ration it. To think there will be no rationing is to be very naive. Give me one system where there is less rationing than we have here, less wait times, and doctors and nurses who are paid as well and work the same. In addition, find that in a healthcare system (or country for that matter) that isn't going bankrupt like France, Greece, or Italy.
Should health insurance companies be required to pay more for benefits - absolutely. But where is the personal responsibility in this new bill?
this comment illustrates why a discussion can be so challenging...you go from thousands buy insurance and cant get health care, to thousands go into hospitals to get put out-so you pretty much covered it all, those who buy insurance cant get health care, those who don't buy cant get health care...then you jump to women losing the right to an abortion...im sure you did it for hyperbole's sake...but who knows anymore
Heya pnlu007.... a little OT, but please clear out your private messages... I tried to respond to your message but couldn't because your box is full! ;-)
kayruhh
148 Posts
Uhm, no.
I'm a student, I dont work.
My point was is that they are going to make people fork out more money we don't have.
And the government is going to fork out millions they don't have either.
You can't qualify in Alabama for any type of assistance, unless you have a ton of children or some other type of bull crap.