Comments on: Healthcare update — before the Summit

By: MH

MH — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 18:59:55 +0000

They already control the farms. They subsidize them to death to grow what the government wants them to grow…. Have you not seen how much corn has hurt the whole world food supply to supply ethanol…. Where have you been?

That is okay I still try and change things that are sooo screwed up in Utah by contacting my state reps and writing to the editor of the paper. They do print my ops on occasion. (Only allowed one every 3 months) There is NOTHING I can do to effect Congress as a whole and can only try and change where I live. Utah is pretty screwed up with it being 80 percent controlled by the LDS Republicans and that isn’t going to change. Good Luck to you in your state. Our state legislature just told 3000 people sorry on covering your cancer and prenatal care. you are on our medicaid chop list.

By: ecthompson

ecthompson — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 00:09:16 +0000

I’m sorry, I don’t see the parallel.

By: MH

MH — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 23:41:29 +0000

I don’t agree the states are one more person involved between you and the doctor. Only this time it is based on what is in the state coiffers. Who determines who gets covered? Nope the states shouldn’t decide it should be the same for the whole country. The standards need to be the same. Why should a person be punished for not being able to being treated or for being vaccinated for living in the wrong state.

By: Joe White

Joe White — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 23:08:32 +0000

MH,

You just read my comment that the states should regulate insurance.

Did you not understand it?

By: Joe White

Joe White — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 23:07:20 +0000

Should a widow be allowed to take out a life insurance policy on the departed spouse so that she can collect?

By: Joe White

Joe White — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 23:06:02 +0000

If health care is a ‘right’, should the government take control of the farms to insure we all have nutritious food?

Food is more vital to health than insurance, is it not?

By: MH

MH — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 22:48:01 +0000

I understand you want the private sector to handle this and let it be as it is. So only the lucky ones are able to be healthy. So be it for the unlucky. But when you live among others that don’t have coverage and you then risk your own health for the diseases they might have. If the governement didn;t require kids to be immunized before school we would be losing kids to all sorts of diseases. The private sector won’t cover do things if their elite board members and stock holders don;t reap in the money. The funny thing is the stock holders of all these companies are probably not even US citizens and they are the ones determining who has coverage

By: MH

MH — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 22:36:08 +0000

The news the other day was mentioning how a good section of the states had not been paying into the pension funds they were suppose too. That they had been shifting the money to pay current costs and worrying about it later. Borrowing against it. Now how is that any better than what we have now.

By: ecthompson

ecthompson — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 21:47:16 +0000

Homes and people aren’t the same thing.

Nice try.

By: ecthompson

ecthompson — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 21:46:06 +0000

Nice comment!

By: ecthompson

ecthompson — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 21:45:09 +0000

I have talked about many of the issues that you have pointed out in the links. I appreciate your thoughts. You are 100% correct but it will be extremely difficult to start a new party. Dems and R’s have some states completely locked up.

Thanks again.

By: ecthompson

ecthompson — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 21:41:08 +0000

Joe -

I appreciate you providing this document. I have quickly scanned it and haven’t found the information that you pointed to. I will read it more detail later on this evening.

Thanks again.

By: ecthompson

ecthompson — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 21:33:30 +0000

we can start with Max Baucus and Kent Conrad. 2 huge problems. They are weighing us down.

Thanks for your comments.

By: ShelbW

ShelbW — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 21:15:42 +0000

I can simplify it for you, Joe, since you seem to be having a problem here:

Health care is a right. Home ownership is not.

The physical status of an inanimate object, such as a house, is in no way comparable to the health and well-being of a living human being. Period

By: Joe White

Joe White — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 20:56:12 +0000

If I was uninsured and had a major accident such as this, I would have no problem paying back the hospital and doctor for the rest of my life after they put me back together.

Why would I?

Should I expect them to work for free?

Why would you stiff someone who saves your life or restores your health?

By: sharonsj

sharonsj — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 20:35:35 +0000

The outrage is on our parts, not with the Republican minority. At least some Dems are concerned about the problem.

I could not afford health insurance for seven years. I just prayed each time I got into a car. I also could not afford home owners insurance; if the house burned down, I’d be in the same place if I had an accident: totally screwed.

By: Joe White

Joe White — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 20:18:46 +0000

MH,

I have no problem with the states regulating insurance.

The feds need to butt out. Simple.

I don’t want the same clowns who (for decades) have spent all the Social Security and Medicare money (that was supposed to be set aside for beneficiaries) to get access to a whole new pile of money.

By: MH

MH — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 20:14:03 +0000

Select Med Insurance in Utah refuses to cover pre existing conditions. Period… If the insurance companies really wanted more people covered then they would adopt the rules allowing people to enroll their kids no matter the age. It would lower healthcare costs all around. But then they wouldn’t be able to charge 350 for a healthy 25 year old. It has to forced upon the insurance companies or another option has to be available.

The government needs to at least pass segments of this bill or the whole thing and then fix what doesn’t work properly in the future. Utah passes laws all the time and then has to fix it later. I am sure the states do too.

It would enable more people to have coverage at a decent fee and help reduce costs. But they won’t do it on their own.

By: Joe White

Joe White — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 19:48:54 +0000

Lets first understand what happens with a ‘pre-existing condition’

“the exclusion period is limited to 12 months (18 months if you enrolled late in the health plan) and only applies to health conditions for which you sought treatment in the 6 months before you enrolled in the health plan.”

http://healthinsurance.about.com/od/healthinsurancebasics/a/preexisting_conditions_overview.htm

It doesn’t equate with ‘not being able to get insurance in the future’.

By: MH

MH — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 19:24:05 +0000

The punishment would be pre existing condition and would not be able to get insurance in the future. Also ruining his credit for the rest of his life unless he wins a lottery somewhere. The bankruptcy plan would be it and that is not how it should be.
If the government had a plan that would allow single people to stay on their parents plan longer then they would be covered prices would be lower. Why does the republicans fight even this proposal. I would be happy to charge my son his share if i could cover him on my insurance until he got on his feet.