pyccku
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,817
Jun 27, 2014 23:12:07 GMT
|
Post by pyccku on Oct 20, 2018 13:46:30 GMT
I often wonder what they are thinking when they make these decisions. So many people have pre-existing health conditions, or will in the future. Do they just think they are invincible or what? They are thinking that THEY are safe. Because THEY do not smoke, or have a bad diet, or get depressed. And because THEY have been saving up and are hard workers who will never be without a job - and therefore, without health insurance. They simply can't imagine that someday THEY might find out that you don't have to smoke to get lung cancer, you don't have to be overweight to have a heart attack, and that even if you're the bestest, hardest worker in the world you can still be laid off or fired, your company can go under, or you can be bought out. Bad things only happen to good people, and THEY are good people (by their own definition), so why should they have to pay for all of the bad people who made bad choices to receive medical care? Not. Their. Problem.
|
|
|
Post by pierkiss on Oct 20, 2018 14:20:26 GMT
Call me a heartless bitch, but I wish every person who thinks that pre-existing health conditions don't have to be covered by insurance, to get some illness or condition that was through no fault of their own. No one should go bankrupt because of a health condition. My daughter was diagnosed with MS when she was 15 so to anyone who thinks she should have to pay outrageous premiums to be covered, my response if fuck you! I often wonder what they are thinking when they make these decisions. So many people have pre-existing health conditions, or will in the future. Do they just think they are invincible or what? They are thinking about how to line the pockets of the insurance company lobbyists who are funding their campaigns. They do not care about anything else until it smacks them right in the face (and by them I mean the politician him or herself, their spouse, or one of their children).
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 25, 2024 3:46:40 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2018 21:08:55 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 25, 2024 3:46:40 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2018 2:05:08 GMT
"Blumberg said that if you got rid of insurance regulations like those in the ACA and then tried to require insurers to cover all comers -- a policy known as "guaranteed issue" -- then "insurers would respond by setting their premiums so high" that they’d be out of reach for most customers, and/or "offer extremely high deductibles and other types of out-of-pocket requirements."...
Scott says he’s in favor of preserving pre-existing condition protections, but he’s a longtime supporter of repealing the law that enshrines them, which means he’s pursuing a policy that endangers those protections." --- Politifact
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 25, 2024 3:46:40 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2018 2:13:19 GMT
Off topic a bit:
Today I was listening to npr and the speaker explained that some insurance companies consider acne a pre existing conditions. Acne.
I knew insurers wer horrible about pre existing conditions but this is really the bottom of the low.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 25, 2024 3:46:40 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2018 3:56:46 GMT
|
|
|
Post by mikklynn on Oct 24, 2018 19:08:50 GMT
These jackasses, like Jeff Johnson who is running for governor in Minnesota, say those with pre-existing conditions will still be covered under "state" insurance pools, but there is NO funding for those pools.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 25, 2024 3:46:40 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2018 2:50:55 GMT
These jackasses, like Jeff Johnson who is running for governor in Minnesota, say those with pre-existing conditions will still be covered under "state" insurance pools, but there is NO funding for those pools. Yeah, they get to slime and weasel away on this by saying "Of course we support coverage for pre-existings!" Yeah, just like before Obamacare when pre-existing coverage existed - but was prohibitively expensive. Yeah, let's go back to two pools - one for more or less healthy people w/lower rates, and one for people w/pre-existings at such high rates no one can afford it. I mean, I don't want to pay more for MY insurance just cuz other people have problems. You know?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 25, 2024 3:46:40 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2018 13:05:19 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 25, 2024 3:46:40 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2018 23:33:43 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 25, 2024 3:46:40 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2018 13:19:51 GMT
And here they come again. They will never rest until insurers get to charge people w/chronic conditions more for their healthcare. We most definitely are NOT our brothers' keepers when it comes to for-profit health insurance. " First, here’s the baseline under the law. Waivers can be approved as long as they provide coverage that, compared with the original program, is at least as comprehensive in covered benefits, at least as affordable (counting premiums and co-pays), covers a “comparable” number of state residents, and doesn’t increase the federal deficit. These are known as “guiderails,” and under the Obama administration they were applied rigorously. The Trump guidance would redefine “coverage” to include short-term health plans and other plans endorsed by the administration that don’t comply with ACA rules. These plans can impose lifetime benefit caps or fail to provide all 10 essential health benefits required of qualifying ACA plans — including hospitalization, maternity care, prescription drugs, and mental health and substance abuse services. " www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-pre-existing-20181211-story.html
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Dec 12, 2018 15:53:09 GMT
Rep Tom MacArthur(R-NJ) was voted out at mid-terms. This video by a brave citizen, husband, father, helped.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 25, 2024 3:46:40 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2019 5:38:45 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 25, 2024 3:46:40 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2019 12:38:15 GMT
Here they come again.
They won't be happy until people have no help whatsoever.
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Mar 26, 2019 16:43:53 GMT
Here they come again. They won't be happy until people have no help whatsoever. ugh. They are so endlessly awful.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 25, 2024 3:46:40 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2019 1:34:12 GMT
Here they come again. They won't be happy until people have no help whatsoever. ugh. They are so endlessly awful. Because Americans let them be by voting them in or not bothering to vote them out. If we do nothing else, we have to register and gotv to those most affected by these f'ing heartless, soulless, "pull yourself up by your bootstraps, when you don't have any boots" assholes!
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 25, 2024 3:46:40 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2019 4:54:13 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 25, 2024 3:46:40 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2019 13:12:39 GMT
|
|
pyccku
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,817
Jun 27, 2014 23:12:07 GMT
|
Post by pyccku on Mar 27, 2019 13:19:27 GMT
Want to stop them from gutting the ACA, Medicare and Medicaid?
Get ACO to start pushing the cuts as part of the fight against climate change. Have her say something like:
"The Republicans are correct, there are too many people on the planet, we simply can't support the high population. Mother Earth is telling us that it's time to cull the herd. I fully support the cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and the ACA as part of a plan to reduce the US population in order to support our global effort to reverse climate change. By getting rid of the weakest among us - those who contribute little but consume much of our medical resources - we will not only Make America Great Again, but we will make the planet great again!"
Within 24 hours, the plan to cut these programs will be killed.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Mar 27, 2019 13:43:22 GMT
Get ACO to start pushing the cuts as part of the fight against climate change. Have her say something like: I hate to agree, but it is so very true.. But I can't even wish that on her.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Mar 27, 2019 13:48:06 GMT
heartless, soulless, "pull yourself up by your bootstraps, when you don't have any boots" assholes! Although some may have boots for working in a coal mines, who need medical care .... Called 'black lung'
|
|
|
Post by freecharlie on Mar 27, 2019 13:57:43 GMT
I hate them all.
How can people be so callous when it comes to other human beings?
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Mar 27, 2019 18:15:08 GMT
Yet another example of “all politicians are the same.” NOT.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 25, 2024 3:46:40 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2019 12:39:38 GMT
"All of this would cost money, probably several hundred billion dollars over the next decade. What should Democrats do if Republicans ask how they plan to pay for it? The answer is, laugh in their faces. The G.O.P. recently rammed through a tax cut, disproportionately benefiting the wealthy, that will probably cost $2 trillion over the next decade — with no offsetting savings. Enhanced health care could easily be paid for by rescinding just part of this big giveaway. If Republicans won’t do that, it’s not Democrats’ problem." www.nytimes.com/2019/03/28/opinion/trump-obamacare.html?smid=tw-nytopinion&smtyp=curFunny how we only have to worry about "paying for things" if the "things" help the average citizen vs. the billionaire/millionaire class.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Mar 29, 2019 14:32:50 GMT
Funny how we only have to worry about "paying for things" if the "things" help the average citizen vs. the billionaire/millionaire class. The trouble is they want to cut from the elderly, infirm, children and the poor and of course the unentitled, the people who do the work so they make more $$.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 25, 2024 3:46:40 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2019 13:19:51 GMT
When they try to scare you about the "enormous taxes" involved in Medicare for All, just remember your premiums. "Ultimately, this is a long exercise in pointing out the obvious: American workers already pay more than enough money to provide good health care to everyone in the country. It’s just that they pay it into a private insurance system that wastes large portions of it on rents and administrative redundancy. As the Mercatus Center noted last year, by implementing a Medicare for All system, the US could insure 30 million more people, provide dental, vision, and hearing coverage to everyone, and virtually eliminate out-of-pocket expenses, all while saving $2 trillion over the first decade of implementation." www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2019/04/08/us-workers-are-highly-taxed-when-you-count-health-premiums/" But this is more of an accounting thing than anything else: rather than paying premiums, deductibles, and copays for health care, people will instead pay a tax that is, on average, a bit less than they currently pay into the healthcare system and, for those on lower incomes, a lot less."
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
Aug 29, 2015 2:39:19 GMT
|
Post by lizacreates on Apr 9, 2019 15:48:37 GMT
I’m currently watching Bill Barr’s testimony before Congress. He was asked clearly that given DOJ’s support of lawsuits seeking to strike down the ACA, if he was willing to state he’s OK with millions of people losing insurance without a viable replacement. Especially since it was reported that he and Azar had originally tried to dissuade the Trump administration. Barr did not really answer the question, and as usual said he won’t comment on the conversation that occurred in the Oval Office. My opinion: They really don’t care. They don’t care if people with pre-existing conditions lose their coverage. They don’t care that millions would be left uninsured. They simply just do not care.
|
|
sassyangel
Drama Llama
Posts: 7,456
Jun 26, 2014 23:58:32 GMT
|
Post by sassyangel on Apr 9, 2019 16:38:04 GMT
When they try to scare you about the "enormous taxes" involved in Medicare for All, just remember your premiums. "Ultimately, this is a long exercise in pointing out the obvious: American workers already pay more than enough money to provide good health care to everyone in the country. It’s just that they pay it into a private insurance system that wastes large portions of it on rents and administrative redundancy. As the Mercatus Center noted last year, by implementing a Medicare for All system, the US could insure 30 million more people, provide dental, vision, and hearing coverage to everyone, and virtually eliminate out-of-pocket expenses, all while saving $2 trillion over the first decade of implementation." www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2019/04/08/us-workers-are-highly-taxed-when-you-count-health-premiums/" But this is more of an accounting thing than anything else: rather than paying premiums, deductibles, and copays for health care, people will instead pay a tax that is, on average, a bit less than they currently pay into the healthcare system and, for those on lower incomes, a lot less." . This absolutely is true. Every year my compensation review includes benefits, as in what my employer contributes to my medical, dental and vision (401k and life insurance are separate) as part of my total salary package. Last year it was $12,333. And that’s just a single only plan (my husband is covered by his employer) and tallies ONLY what they contribute - not what I contribute, as part of my cost sharing. And that’s for a not particularly great High Dedectible plan. Oh, and I work for the health insurance company that insures me, so that’s going straight back in their pockets. 😏 Combine that with what I pay in taxes on top of that and there is NO WAY I paid that much in income taxes and Medicare levy combined, in Australia. No way.
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Aug 1, 2019 19:54:07 GMT
Isn’t that old news? ETA 2018?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 25, 2024 3:46:40 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2020 13:46:57 GMT
Not so stealthy now. Obamacare Must 'Fall,' Trump Administration Tells Supreme Courtwww.npr.org/2020/06/26/883819835/obamacare-must-fall-trump-administration-tells-supreme-court"Eliminating the ACA would end medical insurance for more than 20 million Americans. It would also end widely popular provisions of the law, such as extending parents' coverage to children up to the age of 26 and prohibiting insurance companies from denying coverage based on preexisting conditions." Get ready to pay A LOT more if you have preexistings OR not be able to be covered AT ALL in some plans.
|
|