If a person knows they have cancer or something else....they should not be allowed to get coverage

But if a person has some type of genetic condition they have no idea about,insurance companies should not be allowed to deny them converage

Also,if someone has insurance already,they should not be allowed to kick people off if it is discovered they have a genetic/pre-existing condition

The government/congress was completely justified in what they did to fix this situation.

You sound like a Republican because you side with them on almost every single issue...that's why

No one ever said they should be able to kicked off of insurance if they get a condition, that is the whole point of having insurance! How does knowing or not knowing effect coverage of someone. So someone has a genetic condition, that will cost the insurance company money, yet the insurance company should have to cover them? That makes no sense. And why did my last post, which hasn't shown up say it needed moderated first?

If they are on the policy...the insurance company has to cover them...it's that simple

iclfan2;567211 wrote:No one ever said they should be able to kicked off of insurance if they get a condition, that is the whole point of having insurance! How does knowing or not knowing effect coverage of someone. So someone has a genetic condition, that will cost the insurance company money, yet the insurance company should have to cover them? That makes no sense. And why did my last post, which hasn't shown up say it needed moderated first?

Dunno, I'll approve it.

No one has argued that. They are arguing not being allowed coverage when not having coverage before. If you have insurance, and a genetic condition is found, I don't think they should be kicked off of it. My argument is with people trying to get insurance, but have a condition already.

iclfan2;567216 wrote:No one has argued that. They are arguing not being allowed coverage when not having coverage before. If you have insurance, and a genetic condition is found, I don't think they should be kicked off of it. My argument is with people trying to get insurance, but have a condition already.

If they knowingly have a condition...maybe/maybe not

If they just finding out about it...yes they should be covered

If the condition gets found out in say a physical before an insurance, then they should absolutely be denied if the insurance company sees fit. That would be like forcing banks to take lenders with horrible credit. You are almost guaranteeing the company to lose money.

So you want to punish someone who has a condition they had no idea about?

Ty Webb;567231 wrote:So you want to punish someone who has a condition they had no idea about?

What does knowing matter? An insurance company's role is to provide a safety net should a condition arise. If a condition is present before you get insurance, the company has the right to admit or deny you for coverage. Knowing or not knowing has no relevance to the situation at all. A company should never be forced to take on a liability when they know there is a condition present that will cost them thousands.

You sound like a Republican because you side with them on almost every single issue...that's why

Well, where do I begin? I honestly don't know. I've tried to explain this to you a couple of times, I don't know if you're forgetting or didn't understand from the beginning.

I'm a conservative democrat. To me, that translates that I'm fiscally conservative, socially liberal, and am for anything that makes sense - even if it doesn't necessarily make me happy. I'm also against certain things just because they might be pretty, spoken prettily, feels pretty, but totally irresponsible.
I also refuse to be "with" an issue, simply because it's a democratic pushed issue. So, if that makes me sound like a republican to you, you're allowed your opinion, even if it's wrong.

For the most part, I wish that "MY" democratic party would get their heads out of the clouds and start doing the right thing, instead of the nice thing to a certain level. Today's generation of democratic politician's can't seem to understand that concept. They have forgotten that our country isn't always about feeling good, instant gratification, and credit cards (private or governmental). I'm old enough to remember democrats who used to be like that, and there lies the rub for me. It's hard to deal with folks like Charlie Wilson: won't face or deal with the decisions/votes he has made (voted for him), Ted Strickland who effectively had his hands tied behind his back because he was worried about pissing some of his supporters off (voted for him), Nancy Pelosi: I don't even need to justify my thoughts on her (didn't vote for her), and Obama: who won't even stand up for his country and fellow Americans when the likes of Cheron deride them, as he swore an oath to do in front of the whole nation (didn't vote for him).
Say what you will about people like Wayne L. Hayes, because some of his shenanigans deserve criticism, but I remember that he would take a personal and business phone calls from the people he represented. He actually was interested in what they had to say, imagine that, and his actions reflected those voices. In fact, I remember when I was very young one night my dad calling Hayes and not only had his questions answered (about some roads and the mall in Belmont Co.), but they talked on the phone shooting the breeze for about 45 minutes.
Today's dems... not so much. They blatantly and repeatedly ignore their constituents, effectively kicking them to the curb, in order to follow somebody else's political vision. They are scared to death to be the odd one out, at the end of the day.

So, if I seem a little harsh on the democratic politicians, it's because it's well deserved. They are NOT what they used to be and alot of their crap doesn't carry water. They have forgotten where they came from. Let's hope that this past election got them to remember some things. If we, people like you and me, aren't critical of them and their actions, do you think that they will self-govern? Really?
And when they refused to listen to any of their political "enemies" concerning healthcare insurance, that said alot to me. I'm sorry if it didn't bother you. Truly, I am. Because when there's enough people like you that don't look our party with a critical eye, that's the point where we just don't matter.
Instead of criticizing me and wondering what my democrat "credentials" are, you really need to stop and examine who you've put your faith and zealousness into. It's not a promising thing to look forward to, believe me, I know. Like it/admit to it or not, those people are part of the problem we're having right now.
/end of sermon

LJ;567159 wrote:It depends on the condition. If someone with Diabetes loses coverage due to a job loss or such, yes, I think they should be afforded normal covereage. If someone develops cancer and has never had health insurance, there should be options available to them, but insurance companies should not be forced to provide the same coverage as a healthy person.

That's decent.

Just a hypothetical question here: do the people opposed to making some sort of health insurance mandatory also oppose mandatory car insurance?


Ty Webb, Center is not a right wing nutjob or anything like that. He is someone who simply disagrees with you on many points, with me sometimes too. He is not irrational or anything like that though. Disagreeing with you does not = crazy or malintented.

I Wear Pants;567924 wrote:Ty Webb, Center is not a right wing nutjob or anything like that. She is someone who simply disagrees with you on many points, with me sometimes too. She is not irrational or anything like that though. Disagreeing with you does not = crazy or malintented.

fixed! you're welcome

I'm dumb. Sorry.

I Wear Pants;567924 wrote:Just a hypothetical question here: do the people opposed to making some sort of health insurance mandatory also oppose mandatory car insurance?

Totally different. Apples to Oranges. One is protecting the person they wreck into (liability insurance) while the other just hurts themselves. This has been brought up numerous times.

lol, trust me, I don't think you're dumb. And, you're not the first person who assumed that - it IS a male dominated site.

iclfan2;568011 wrote:Totally different. Apples to Oranges. One is protecting the person they wreck into (liability insurance) while the other just hurts themselves. This has been brought up numerous times.

But one doesn't just hurt themselves when they cannot afford medical proceedures. Many times the cost is transferred to others. I know it isn't exactly the same scenario but there are some similarities.

CenterBHSFan;567979 wrote:fixed! you're welcome

You should post the bathing suit pic again. Problem solved.

I Wear Pants;567924 wrote:That's decent.

Just a hypothetical question here: do the people opposed to making some sort of health insurance mandatory also oppose mandatory car insurance?

Difference is:

I do not have to get car insurance unless I choose to own a car. I can use public transportation and never buy car insurance.

Also, mandatory car insurance is only liability. As in if I hit someone else, their rights are not violated and my insurance covers them. I am not forced, by law, to ever have insurance to cover my car.

Also, in nearly all states, even liability is not mandated. If I can show that I have enough financial stability to cover my own liability (aka I have enough money) I do not have to have car insurance.

So, again, car insurance is not mandatory, and even the part that we believe to be mandatory is not to cover ourselves.

Health insurance will not be mandatory, period, to cover yourself.

Its apples and oranges, so don't act like it is a good comparison.

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2010/11/23/most_want_to_keep_or_expand_health_care_law.html

A new McClatchy-Marist poll finds a majority of Americans want Congress to keep the new health care law or even expand it, despite Republican claims that they have a mandate from the people to kill it.

Key findings: 51% of registered voters want to keep the law or change it to do more, while 44% want to change it to do less or repeal it altogether.

Said pollster Lee Miringoff: "On health care, there is a wide gap between public opinion and the political community."

Mr. 300;561664 wrote:We all know that this is one of the worst if not THE worst piece of legislation to ever come down the pike. When the speaker o the house says "we have to pass the law to ind out what's in it"....you know we're screwed. Obama promised us the cost of healthcare would go down, but so far that's not the case. Our companies provider has already told us they are getting out of the healthcare business in the next 2 years...along with a 20% increase or the coming contract year. Yeah, so much or lower cost.

Obama is a joke!!

3rd worst behind the P.A.T.R.I.O.T Act and the Social Security Act.

Ty Webb;561948 wrote:I am able to be on my parents insurance until the day before my 27th birthday

I was paying 120 a month beforeq

120 a month is fairly cheap.

Ty Webb;567212 wrote:If they are on the policy...the insurance company has to cover them...it's that simple

Which, in turn, will cost others more. Do you honestly think the insurance providers will just incur the cost? No, they will pass it on to the consumer.

dwccrew;580250 wrote:Which, in turn, will cost others more. Do you honestly think the insurance providers will just incur the cost? No, they will pass it on to the consumer.

Which is precisely why we've already had socialized medicine in this country. ObamaKare has merely put a public face on it.

Ty Webb;572820 wrote:http://politicalwire.com/archives/2010/11/23/most_want_to_keep_or_expand_health_care_law.html

A new McClatchy-Marist poll finds a majority of Americans want Congress to keep the new health care law or even expand it, despite Republican claims that they have a mandate from the people to kill it.

Key findings: 51% of registered voters want to keep the law or change it to do more, while 44% want to change it to do less or repeal it altogether.

Said pollster Lee Miringoff: "On health care, there is a wide gap between public opinion and the political community."

Total BS.

I'd venture this poll is so weighted toward liberals it's ridiculous. Why do I say that? Because EVERY OTHER POLL TAKEN UP TO THE ELECTION clearly showed at least a 10 point gap (typically more) where Americans wanted the bill repealed, all or in-part.

McClatchy is one of the worst (and most biased) of the newspaper chains. So the fact they would have this poll doesn't surprise me.

Writerbuckeye;580566 wrote:Total BS.

I'd venture this poll is so weighted toward liberals it's ridiculous. Why do I say that? Because EVERY OTHER POLL TAKEN UP TO THE ELECTION clearly showed at least a 10 point gap (typically more) where Americans wanted the bill repealed, all or in-part.

McClatchy is one of the worst (and most biased) of the newspaper chains. So the fact they would have this poll doesn't surprise me.

Gibster loves polls...especially ones that lean waaaaaaayyy left.

Or go to the best pollster in the pollster business, Scott Rasmussen:

Health Care Law
47% Say Health Care Repeal Is Likely, 39% Disagree
Monday, November 29, 2010
Email a Friend Email to a Friend ShareThis
Advertisement

Nearly half of Likely U.S. Voters (47%) continue to believe that repeal of the health care law passed earlier this year is at least somewhat likely.

Here's the link to the whole thing - http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/health_care_law

Now whom are you going to believe...a "Kaiser Family Foundation" poll or one done by the guy that has won the election prediction game since 2006? I'll report, you decide. HAHAHahahahahaha