LuciferSam
Banned
The finished product was even rougher as some of us recall. That's why she hires ghost writers. If she ever decides to run for office, I hope somebody tells her where she stands on the issues, because right now she hasn't a clue!
-
Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
Palin on healthcare bill
- Thread starter idlewind
- Start date
The finished product was even rougher as some of us recall. That's why she hires ghost writers. If she ever decides to run for office, I hope somebody tells her where she stands on the issues, because right now she hasn't a clue!
They should be able to purchase insurance. The law should be changed so that insuracne companies cannot exclude or discriminate against an individual because of a pre-existing condition but they should be able to charge rates that are adequate. Nothing is free.
Alicia Leonard
SoWal Insider
I'm not asking for free, I'm asking for fair. Big difference.:roll: and then when they accept me and I pay, I expect them to pay. Not pay an army of underwriters to try and figure out how to make me pay some more. What's the use of insurance if they don't pay up after you have paid in. Not to mention, I want fair treatment because I'm a woman and my cost for insurance are almost double a males at 40. Need much oversight over what actually is pre-existing since women are now getting pinged for c-sections and rape as pre-existing. I mean it's only fair that if I got raped, that I should pay more, right.............since nothings free:roll:
Last edited:
30ashopper
SoWal Insider
I have a few issues with the current senate draft circulating -
- Progressive subsidies that top out for families that make 90K a year.
- The effects of implicit marginal tax rates - subsidies act as a disincentive to achieve higher wealth.
- mandated coverage w/ subsidies - one very big wealth transfer system for the healthcare industry as all the subsidies will be going directly to private providers and insurance companies.
- coverage creep - there's nothing in the bill that defines or limits basic coverage. It's all TBD by a political office at the DHHS.
- The public option opt-out option currently being considered, which amounts to a wealth transfer from poor rural areas to affluent urban areas on the east and west coast. (Shouldn't any funding be distributed equally based on population?)
- The cost - 100 billion a year or more in added deficit spending. I'm really amazed by this, democrats in the past raised taxes to pay for their programs. But it seems this has become pass?, now they just borrow from china to pay for them.
- The lack of evidence that this whole thing will bring down health care costs. Most of this has been tried at the state level in some form or another, in no case has it been shown to lower people's premiums.
Any healthcare reform advocates care to give me good reason not to be concerned on any of these points? The overall discussion seems to have been drowned out by the whole public option debate, yet the flaws in the negotiated bills go much deaper.
- Progressive subsidies that top out for families that make 90K a year.
- The effects of implicit marginal tax rates - subsidies act as a disincentive to achieve higher wealth.
- mandated coverage w/ subsidies - one very big wealth transfer system for the healthcare industry as all the subsidies will be going directly to private providers and insurance companies.
- coverage creep - there's nothing in the bill that defines or limits basic coverage. It's all TBD by a political office at the DHHS.
- The public option opt-out option currently being considered, which amounts to a wealth transfer from poor rural areas to affluent urban areas on the east and west coast. (Shouldn't any funding be distributed equally based on population?)
- The cost - 100 billion a year or more in added deficit spending. I'm really amazed by this, democrats in the past raised taxes to pay for their programs. But it seems this has become pass?, now they just borrow from china to pay for them.
- The lack of evidence that this whole thing will bring down health care costs. Most of this has been tried at the state level in some form or another, in no case has it been shown to lower people's premiums.
Any healthcare reform advocates care to give me good reason not to be concerned on any of these points? The overall discussion seems to have been drowned out by the whole public option debate, yet the flaws in the negotiated bills go much deaper.
Is it fair that an 18 year old male is charged far more for auto insurance than an 18 year old female? Or that someone with three tickets is charged more than someone with none?
Health Insurance is provided at a fee based on probabilities. Females under 50 generally have higher health costs than males. Males over 50 cost more. If everyone does not pay their true cost, then someone must subsidize the difference. If the government option passes, that would be the taxpayers. Now it would be other policy holders. Is that fair?
30ashopper
SoWal Insider
It won't drive the insurance companies out of business, it will drive premiums for those that do have coverage up. Another flaw in the current plan.
Come to think of it, aside from mandating that insurance companies can't drop coverage and assured coverage for people with pre-existing conditions, I can't think of a single thing in this reform that doesn't stink to high heaven.
I predict ObamaCare will be a fiscal disaster of epic proportions.
Alicia Leonard
SoWal Insider
I can live without a car and so can anyone else. My health and the ability to to continue to live should I be struck with a disease or accident is a hail of a lot more important than car insurance. That the two are considered to be in the same category is a huge issue.
The taxpayers already pay for others insurance, the elected officials who believe they are the only ones who have a right to gov. funded insurance. I pay every week for others to be insured and retired, yet my life is not deemed important enough to insure. Is that fair?
To put heath in the same category as life, home or auto is unfathomable to me. If I have my health, I can work and be a productive member of society. Auto and health are not even in the same universe.
In fact, if you consider yourself pro-life, you should wonder why you are not pro-insurance for all Americans, or does the pro-life agenda stop after we exit the womb? And to those who want to say it's because the unborn are helpless, well, tons of Americans are helpless against big insurance.
Last edited:
30A Skunkape
Skunky
This is what drives me crazy. We don't expect auto insurance to cover car maintenance, it is for emergencies. Nor do we expect a homeowner's policy to pay for house maintenance. Somehow, somewhere in history, this concept was lost regarding health insurance. It is too late to change this perception as Pandora's box has already been opened, but if there was some way to have health insurance that was insurance with a mix of tax credits and market priced medical services for routine needs, we would be so, so far better off.
Last edited:
Alicia Leonard
SoWal Insider
I agree, Skunky, but saying that one's ability to continue to live, by having adequate care and comparing that to car insurance befuddles me. I can pay for a Dr.'s visit, but right now, if he needed to order, say an MRI, guess what? He's going to have to treat my symptoms, instead of being able to do his job and get to the source of the issue. And if that pain in my side is a cancerous mass, well guess what, if goes untreated until I have to sell everything to be considered eligible for health care and then the treatment might be too late. Not to mention that now I am no longer able to be a productive taxpaying member of society and am now a drain on society.
Not to mention that I could buy a new car for what it would cost me to spend three days in the hospital.
Comparing insurance over inanimate objects that one can live without, IMHO, cannot and should not be compared to being able to receive life saving services.
Last edited:
