Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Forget Repeal and Replace. Time for National Healthcare

Based on the proposals that are put forth by Trump and Congress after promising us FULL REPEAL for years, it's pretty obvious the GOP isn't going to stop anything. We can't do it because we don't have the House. We have the House now but we can't do it because we don't have the Senate. We have the House and the Senate, but we can't do it because Obama's still in the White House. We have Congress and the White House but we can't do it because the GOP can't agree on it... This is all a bunch of smoke and mirrors guys.

I don't know ANYBODY that has been denied health insurance for high blood pressure or diabetes to name just two. Higher premiums maybe, but then again what do you expect? Just like when I bought life insurance at age 24 it was a lot cheaper than trying to buy it now at 62. Statistically, those really and pre-existing conditions like cancer, severe heart disease (as in multiple heart attacks, etc) are the issue. My wife for example has hypothyroidism and we have TWO insurances (one being Tricare which we have had for over 30 years) but the other through the company I work with is Florida Blue Cross/Shield and my premiums were not affected by ANY of her pre-existing. I have a lot of employees that when we changed contracts and new insurance, a whole bunch of them came with a host of pre-existing conditions by your definition, diabetes, high BP, heart disease, glaucoma, just about everything you mentions and the premiums for ALL out employees IS THE SAME. So yes, you can call just about anything a pre-existing, but does it affect your premiums? the answer is no unless you are REALLY sick (enter the 4%) and that is more than covered by the 138 BILLION in the new healthcare system only it isn't insurance it's welfare.

Got your own bidnez now. Congrats!

Jorge is basically right about the 4%. Remember that people with group insurance (which is the vast majority of people) are not subject to pre-existing condition exclusions. That's been illegal since the ERISA law was passed in the 1970's. That leaves the 9% who have individual coverage. Only a minority of these folks would have a preexisting condition significant enough to get an exclusion from an insurance company. So we're talking about a relatively small number of people. Also, most states have laws that prevent insurance companies from dropping you unless you fail to pay your premium or lied on your application form. There are lots of horror stories out there about insurance companies dropping people but most are bogus if you actually know all the details.

That's one of the dumbest things I've ever read.

You know that is because it is currently ILLEGAL to differentiate due to pre-existing conditions, right?

I was involved in insuring employees BEFORE that rule was in effect, and for our 20 employee pool, EACH one was rated differently.

So if you like what you have now, better quit railing against "pre-existing conditions". Without the current rule (which I happen to think is too lax), you are going to start evaluating prospective employees based on their potential healthcare cost.

For me, will simply have to sell the business and go work for the government, as the redhead and I are simply uninsurable. without a continuing insurance provision for pre existing conditions.

Jorge, I do not have disdain for the military. PERIOD. Stop that.

I do think it's funny when someone who was career public-sector employee gets preachy about an issue like this. And here's a hint. My parents both worked public-sector. I'm not putting it down; it's a good gig. But if you think you have a clue about the stresses this type of stuff puts on Joe Sixpack, I'm skeptical.

Free market guys, and I am one, kinda, love to say that people losing jobs or careers to market forces can just retrain and/or relocate. Guess what happens nine times out of ten in that situation? You lose your insurance. Guess wat happens when you go to get insurance? Your PEC's are denied. Guess what you are most likely to need heath care for? Is this.... clicking?

C'mon. You were career public sector. So was Pat. IIRC, TRH comes from money and has dabbled in teaching. You guys gonna lecture the rest of us on this?! Based on what experience, exactly?

Aren't you tired of the same bullshit Charlie? When I was in the Navy I had a LOT (at one time over 1200) who "worked for me" and that doesn't mean I "owned" the Navy you idiot. EVERYBODY (except the retard section, namely, you) know exactly what I do now. Then again idiocy runs deep with you.

What part of the fact I also have commercial insurance did you not get or are you into your dope again? As for the military, I'll let other folks that have been here refute all the crap you spewed during the Bush years.

I don't know. I worked for a small town in Texas. I'm paying $12,000 a year with a $8000 deductible. Is yours a lot worse than that?

The purpose of insurance is to spread big risks to a few out over the population. Not many people need their fire policy on their house, but if you NEED it, boy, howdy, do you need it.

Not many people with young families NEED their life insurance, but if you DO, by George, you NEED it.

Not many people ever use their CCW weapon, but if you need it...... you need if very badly.

See where I am going?

Same with health insurance. The vast majority don't need it, but if you DO, you need it, oh, boy, do you NEED it. Again, that is the PURPOSE of insurance, to spread big risks to a shared pool. Excluding that high risk segment of the population defeats the entire purpose of insurance to begin with.

The purpose of insurance is not to cover your annual physical or your colonoscopy. It's to keep you from going bankrupt due to a blood clot, heart attack or cancer event.

To a degree, insuring for pre-existing at the same rate or even less than those without, is a form of welfare, if one takes into account treatment noncompliance in those with some diseases. Diabetes, for instance, gets pretty expensive over time, if the person is totally noncompliant with treatment, and doesn't make lifestyle changes. If he had to pay out of pocket for all the sequelae of not following diabetes treatment, he might become more motivated to take better care of himself. I know, its probably heresy.
But it makes sense to live the consequences of one's behavior. Being dropped by an insurer for not following treatment for a chronic disease, would then make too much sense.

heresy in it's many various forms is running rampant across the countryside, and the inner cities as well.

consequences of one's behavior? surely you jest. we have the federal gov't and it's taxing power & rule-making ability to bail us out.

How conveniently you guys leave out the part about the government mandating that people who don't need, or want extreme "insurance pay" for those who use it.

A couple of more points, I pay 586 bucks/month for my two children (3K deductible) and before obama I was paying about 150 each and a 500 dollar deductible. Lastly the fact you call military or LE service "a gig" speaks volumes and goes to my point about your disdain for us.

I agree that people should have insurance. But it was a choice until Obamacare came around. And for those in the individual market, it was much more affordable before Obamacare. If you chose not to buy insurance and then suddenly needed a lot of medical services then that was on you. It sounds like you're saying that people shouldn't have a choice as to whether they buy insurance.

For the very poor there is Medicaid. And if you really need care and go to a hospital they are required by law to provide services. If you have no insurance and are really poor there are generally ways that longer term care can be provided. My wife was a nurse/discharge planner in a hospital and this is the sort of thing that she did: working with various agencies to make sure that everyone got the care they needed, regardless of ability to pay.

I guess your basic argument is that since it's a good thing for people to have health insurance, the government should provide it. I think, with the exception of the very poor and elderly, the government should stay out providing healthcare, because once that happens, quality and freedom both diminish.

His "point" is socialism, like about half of these so-called "conservatives" here at the 'fire want. It's a natural course for stupid people to take.

Since my point is that I think it should at least be in the conversation that we go full-retard on either free-market based or single payer, I see lots of merit there.

And as a person who eats very well, avoids sugar, exercises a lot, drinks in moderation (usually), and so on I'm also fully on board with the notion of one's choices having consequences, namely because I feel that the crappy choices many Americans are making are a big reason we are in this mess to begin with, and are costing me money, and are GOING TO bankrupt this country in the coming decades as their lifestyle choices come home to roost. And that in turn is gonna screw up my old fartitude....... I think we are all grumpy old farts here, right? Old being over 50? Guys and gals... the kids aren't what we were. Nor are the 20-somethings. Maybe it even extends into the 30-somethings. They've gone to shït. Sugar has destroyed America. There's not a chance in hell that these people will be willing, or able, to face the consequences of their actions. And their vote counts as much as any of ours.

Very compelling.