Obama Care Could Be Deadly

[quote name='depascal22']I wasn't trying to insult your intelligence, dmaul. I'm just explaining the process to some of the other people that will come in here and start blowing things up because we're not talking about keeping taxes low and guvmint out of our wallets.
[/quote]

Oh I didn't take it as an insult at all. I was just clarifying what I meant.


The pharmaceutical industry isn't nearly as bad as the insurance industry though. At least the profits go towards the next drug in the pipeline. So many drugs fail that you need to have a high reward system set up for companies. If you set limits on drug prices, it will stifle innovation in the field.
Click to expand...

I agree on the one hand--it does probably help promote innovation due to the pressure to develop the next break through drug before the competing company. But prices get driven up by the high salaries paid to executives etc. in the drug companies as well, which sucks away some of the money that could go into future R&D.

Vs. a purely academic setting where profs are getting research grants mainly to get publications to earn tenure and promotion and prestige with in the field rather than put money in our pockets. We're pretty limited in how much income we can pay ourselves by grant. Most places it's just paying summer salary (we're 9 month employees) which is usually capped at 30% of your 9 month salary. Then the rest that could be used on yourself would be going to the university in the form of course releases--paying them back for your time so the hire someone else to cover your course so you can devote more time to the research. The rest of the grant goes to supplies, travel (if needed), hiring research assistants etc.

Long-winded point being that money isn't as much of an incentive driving academic research as it is for private research. The main goals are producing knowledge and earning prestige.

The question is which system drives more innovation and puts more resources in to research and developing new drugs (or knowledge in other fields). Private corporations motivated 100% by profit? Or a university setting where research isn't as much driven by profit, and more by the discipline requiring the production of knowledge (and publications of it) for tenure, promotion and prestige?

I don't have the answer, and my opinion is obviously biased. But it's an interesting question in any case.
 
[quote name='depascal22']Quit acting like that. I've asked what everyone's problem is with illegal immigration and the only answer I got was that it's illegal and that illegals drain our services.

I've countered with the argument that there are so many illegal activities that "normal" Americans partake in that it's not really a good argument. [/quote]

So what exactly are you saying? From as often and as extreme as you rail against anyone that thinks immigration laws should be enforced, it can only be concluded that you believe in totally open borders. I want to hear you admit that's what you want. And if that's not what you want I want a clear explanation for WHY totally open borders is not a good idea.

I want to hear you detail exactly why we shouldn't just totally erase DHS, ICE, and every other federal program. Explain to us why we should never again require a single paper be filled out for immigration.

We also know that it's a decent thing to educate illegals and they work as hard or even harder than "citizens".
Click to expand...
You continue to totally and completely miss the point behind the illegal immigration debate. You seem totally blinded by your blind desire for a utopian open border world to get reality.

I can also tell you that illegals don't use our healthcare system as much as uninsured "citizens". I'd say the bigger drain on the system are under or un employed "citizens" that expect everything to be done for them but hey I don't have any experience with the real world so I'll just go back to the other forums.
Click to expand...
Again, totally missing the point. Say your statement is true. So what? People here illegally using services they shouldn't have a right to is a pretty quick and easy thing to address in the health care debate, isn't it? Sure there are uninsured civilians, and there are different solutions to address them.

Your argument seems to be that upwards of 20 million people here illegally can't possibly be affecting the system as much as lazy Americans so we should ignore that problem entirely. That logic is amazingly obtuse.

Faux News is like Jesus, Rush Limbaugh, and Ed Murrow all rolled into one tasty treat.
Click to expand...
Your broken record anti-fox news anti immigration reform one-two punch got stale months ago yet it still drums on. Do you really honestly believe those that might disagree with you have views that can be distilled down to fox news and illiegal immigration every time? Are your views really that narrow and myopic?

[quote name='depascal22']Funny how much they screech about health care reform but they willfully and gleefully allowed billions to go to the "War on Terror."[/quote]
I agree to an extent. The difference is the war on terror can and will have an end. Commitment to letting government attempt to run 1/6 of our GDP is permanant, therefore automatically more expensive.

I think conservatives are just gonna have to take whatever happens at this point. They've been nothing but obstructive to any reform that would truly help anyone.
Click to expand...
That's somewhat true. The main problem is, like always, politicians fall into their ranks and almost always tow their party line. Just because you almost totally agree with one party line doesn't make it a problem across both parties.

Are there any good conservative plans out there that cover a significant amount of Americans that aren't under the current system? Anything? I'm tired of hearing how this way isn't going to work when they don't have anything to contribute.
Click to expand...
There is plenty of contribution but it likely isn't covered in your news sources of choice.

I think the so-called "conservative" view is simply this:

Several much less expensive, almost "free", reform options haven't even been tried and aren't being considered (such as letting health care systems cross state lines). On top of that, they agree health care needs reform - but they don't see it as the genocidal level of urgency that requires the nuclear option the democratic plan is. They see it more like a field fire that should be addressed as such, and don't believe the only way to put out the field fire is to drop a nuclear device on it (the democratic plan).

It mostly comes down to vastly differing views on the magnitude of the problem, I think. Conservatives view the health care problem much like Liberals viewed the terrorist threat/Iraq problem 5 years ago. It's an issue that needs to be addressed without putting the nail in our economic coffin.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']
Several much less expensive, almost "free", reform options haven't even been tried and aren't being considered (such as letting health care systems cross state lines). On top of that, they agree health care needs reform - but they don't see it as the genocidal level of urgency that requires the nuclear option the democratic plan is. They see it more like a field fire that should be addressed as such, not necessarily needing the 30 train loads of water and fire repelant the other side of the aisle has ordered for it.

It mostly comes down to vastly differing views on the magnitude of the problem, I think. Conservatives view the health care problem much like Liberals viewed the terrorist threat/Iraq problem 5 years ago.[/QUOTE]

Because:

1. Fiscal conservatives tend to be well off, or at least have no issues having affordable insurance, and thus are unaffected by the current health care situation.

2. Social conservatives, even those without much money nor good benefits, will oppose expansion of goverment power screaming "Socialism!!!!" till their six feet underground dying earlier than they had to because of lack of access to affordable health care they could have benefited from with a public option or nationalized health care system.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Because:

1. Fiscal conservatives tend to be well off, or at least have no issues having affordable insurance, and thus are unaffected by the current health care situation.[/quote]
I knew that was coming from someone after I typed it. I think you are dead wrong. Think hard about all the rich people (six figures or more) you know (or know of). How many of them are conservative in their political views?
That's what I thought.

2. Social conservatives, even those without much money nor good benefits, will oppose expansion of goverment power screaming "Socialism!!!!" till their six feet underground dying earlier than they had to because of lack of access to affordable health care they could have benefited from with a public option or nationalized health care system.
Click to expand...

I guess the old saying "Live free or die" kinda goes over your head? ;)

I'm guessing you'd have made a shitty ancient Hebrew, and would have given moses the finger? "fuck you and your wilderness, I'm staying in Egypt, at least here I have a toilet and a bed even if I am a slave".
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I knew that was coming from someone after I typed it. I think you are dead wrong. Think hard about all the rich people (six figures or more) you know (or know of). How many of them are conservative in their political views?
That's what I thought. [/quote]

Studies show consistently that higher income groups skew to the republicans (and libertarians, and independents who tend to be relatively conservative on fiscal issues). You know the old saying of most people being liberal as young men/women and conservatives as they hit middle age (when they're main concerns become supporting their family, retiring, leaving an inheritance for their children etc.).

But of course it varies by more than just income. The 6 figure people I know are all academics (don't have many friends/acquaintances outside of academia anymore just due to spending most all my time the past decade+ in academic settings--especially currently) where views skew more liberal. So there are of course exceptions to the rule.


I guess the old saying "Live free or die" kinda goes over your head? ;)
Click to expand...

Hey, if people are dumb enough to think cheaper, government run health care that can improve their access to doctors, improve their health and extend their lives as a result is some great reduction of their freedom (much less likened to slavery :roll:), then it's a good thing if they die younger. Social Darwinism at its finest. :D
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sure. Ok. Just remember it was people with that same mindset that came over here and created this country. If all they cared about was a better chance at long life, staying in Europe was clearly the better option.

Oh and taxation is always inverse to freedom. If you have to work for me, I take care of you well, but you get paid so little you could never not work for me - what's that called? I guess you believe if one thinks they are happy it doesn't really matter.... I like to believe my cats are happy never being allowed outside when they stare longingly out the windows....

If your cheaper (and somehow) improved healthcare can come with a guarantee of NEVER raising taxes to pay for it, then I'm all for it. Socialize the shit out of it in that case.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Sure. Ok. Just remember it was people with that same mindset that came over here and created this country. If all they cared about was a better chance at long life, staying in Europe was clearly the better option.
[/QUOTE]

Most were fleeing religious persecution that in many cases was a threat to their life expectancies. But still, a semi-fair, if some what distorted, point I guess.

Seems more of you projecting your "wah wah, I hate work, my life sucks, I hope I don't live to be old" world view you let out on here before to me though.


[quote name='thrustbucket']Oh and taxation is always inverse to freedom. If your cheaper (and somehow) improved healthcare can come with a guarantee of NEVER raising taxes to pay for it, then I'm all for it. Socialize the shit out of it in that case.[/QUOTE]

Depends what you get out of taxes right?

If you have no taxes at all--seems like you'd say you have total freedom right? But then you have no military (or a volunteer or private military which would be a disaster) and thus have no safety so the freedom isn't worth much.

It's not a 100% inverse relationship. Freedom is not infringed on if taxes are being used for worthwhile things that improve safety and quality of life for the vast majority of tax payers.

I'll concede that there's way too much waste in government for sure though. I just can't agree with the "it's always inverse" statement. People in many countries with higher taxes don't complain about it as they're happy with free health care, free access to a four-year college degree and other stuff that we pay an arm and a leg for over here. They don't feel it's inverse to their freedom.

And public health care could probably definitely be ran without raising taxes if premiums are still charged, and cuts are made in other areas (defense, waging stupid wars, pork in bills etc.) to pay for the subsidies for the working poor who can't afford the freedoms. If any taxes are raised, do things that have been suggested like taxing cosmetic surgery and other totally elective procedures with all the revenue going into the public health system.

Quality of care should be relatively unaffected beyond longer waits for elective care due to higher demand for services from people staying home when very ill before as they couldn't afford a doctors trip unless it was a dire emergency.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']If all they cared about was a better chance at long life, staying in Europe was clearly the better option.[/QUOTE]
Really? Overcrowded, disease-ridden Europe? I mean, okay, I don't have any numbers to back up my surprise, and the life expectancy on a Hab was approximately half a winter, but still. I'd be interested to see more on this... theory.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']

Just a personal bias on my part, of not having much respect for people who's main concern is money. I think the quality of care would be much better if the majority of doctors where in it to make a difference rather than to make a fat paycheck, but there aren't enough of those types to go around. [/QUOTE]

To be fair, most people that go into medicine do so because they want to help people. If money were the only motivation, there are far easier ways to make lots of money (trust me) and people smart enough to get into medical school can easily also get into other more lucrative fields. However, the financial reality quickly sets in once you realize that you're sacrificing the prime years of your life getting into hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt with four years of medical school and basically a minimum 3 years on top of that in grueling residency training in which you are paid less than minimum hourly wage.
 
I want open borders but I'm not foolish to think that border agents don't help national security. There's a big difference between letting everyone across the border and letting guys in that just want to work their ass off to support their family.

Do you truly support the American Dream? Hard work over decades = more opportunities for your family to come up. Illegals are doing this every day but you'd rather spit in their face and bitch about the few dollars it takes to buy their kid a math book.

I'm saying the 20 million illegals here contribute more to our society than the countless millions on welfare and all the other types of government assistance. You'd think you'd spend more of your energy bitching about that since it takes more out of your pocket. We all know that's the only thing you give a damn about.

As for medical residencies, dopa. Any good hospital requires five year minimum but also pays a meager salary for that time. I'd also say a large percentage don't get in to help people. Some of the young docs just get in seeing dollar signs at the end of the tunnel. They stumble through residency and become the large group of doctors that I would never allow anyone I know to see. Even conservatives.

------

P.S.

Conservatives would rather watch illegals families starve than throw them the scraps from their feast.

Faux News is like getting a live satellite feed from Heaven.
 
[quote name='dopa345']To be fair, most people that go into medicine do so because they want to help people. If money were the only motivation, there are far easier ways to make lots of money (trust me) and people smart enough to get into medical school can easily also get into other more lucrative fields.

However, the financial reality quickly sets in once you realize that you're sacrificing the prime years of your life getting into hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt with four years of medical school and basically a minimum 3 years on top of that in grueling residency training in which you are paid less than minimum hourly wage.[/QUOTE]

That's fair. The second part of it is what I was talking about. Even those who aren't in it for the money, usually change their mind by the time their done and saddled with all that debt. Thus they end up eschewing primary care--which is more needed and helps more people--for the better hours and higher pay of less needed specialist positions.

Thus I think offering more widespread loan forgiveness programs for working in primary care could be a way around it. Or change the structure of med schools to fund students through their studies like most people getting Ph Ds are to avoid having to go into so much debt in the first place.

Again, it's ridiculous that I could get paid plus free tuition 6 of my 7 years of grad school getting a Master's and Ph D in Criminology and Criminal Justice, but people going to med school have to go hundreds of thousands in debt. I mean I think my work is important, but I have no delusions of having more of an impact than a good doctor can--especially sorely needed primary care physicians.

Again, this is far from the only problem with the health care system. But it is a major one, and one that will be compounded when primary care physicians are further overwhelmed when health care coverage is expanded.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']I liked this video.[/QUOTE]

There are no other options.
Vote Democrat.
This isn't the Health Care Reform you're looking for.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/nov2009/db2009114_700374.htm

Does an article about private companies swindling Medicare belong here, the capitalism thread or both?[/QUOTE]

I like the part of the article that talks about driving up the costs of health care for the government and private insurers both.

Now, let's link this to all the visits from the Pharmaceutical lobby that the White House and top Democrats have been entertaining.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/13/internal-memo-confirms-bi_n_258285.html
 
This Newsweek piece is a good read on the Cleveland Clinic and how they are more efficient by having a salaried system for doctors (rather than paid by procedure etc.), how electronic records and working as a team makes care better and more efficient in the hospital etc. Also talks about how the complex system of multiple insurance carriers with very different policies on what is covered, how much they'll reimburse etc. drives up costs in overhead etc.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/224585
 
Insurance companies are going to have a field day.

The final health bill (or it's defeat) is going to result in big bonuses for the CEOs and their executive teams. A whole generation of parasites is going to retire on this, and when the shit finally hits the fan it will be someone else's problem.
 
[quote name='camoor']A whole generation of parasites is going to retire on this, and when the shit finally hits the fan it will be someone else's problem.[/QUOTE]

Glad to see I'm not the only one concerned by our level of national debt.

That is what you were talking about, right?
 
[quote name='camoor']Insurance companies are going to have a field day.

The final health bill (or it's defeat) is going to result in big bonuses for the CEOs and their executive teams. A whole generation of parasites is going to retire on this, and when the shit finally hits the fan it will be someone else's problem.[/QUOTE]

I am still hoping for rescission to be used... who the fuck am I kidding?
 
Here's another good illustration of the hypocrisy of republicans trying to stone wall this health care bill.

Do As We Say, Not As We Do
The Republican Party's health-care hypocrisy.

By Jacob Weisberg | NEWSWEEK


Charles Grassley, the top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, has emerged as one of the harshest critics of what the right likes to call "Obamacare." After spending the first half of the year working with Democrats to find a bipartisan compromise, Grassley has spent the second half trying to prevent one. He attacks the bill now being debated on the Senate floor as an indefensible new entitlement. He complains that it expands the deficit, threatens Medicare, and does too little to restrain health-care inflation. At a town-hall meeting in August, the 76-year-old Iowan warned, "There is some fear because in the House bill, there is counseling for end of life."

One might credit the sincerity if not the validity of such concerns were it not for an inconvenient bit of history. Not so long ago, when Republicans controlled the Senate, Grassley was the chief architect of a bill that actually did most of the bad things he now accuses the Democrats of wanting to do. As chairman of the Finance Committee, Grassley championed the legislation that created a prescription-drug benefit under Medicare. The comparison of what he and his colleagues said during that debate in 2003 to what they're saying in 2009 exposes the disingenuousness of their current complaints.

Today the Medicare prescription-drug debate is remembered mainly for the shenanigans Republicans pulled to get the bill through. Bush officials threatened to fire Medicare's chief actuary if he shared honest cost estimates with Congress. House Republicans cut off C-Span and kept the roll call open for three hours to cajole the last few votes they needed for passage. Majority Leader Tom DeLay was admonished by the House ethics committee for threatening to vaporize the son of one Michigan Republican in an upcoming election.

The real significance of that episode, however, is not their bad manners but the policy Republicans produced the last time health care was on the menu. Their bill, which stands as the biggest expansion of government's role in health care since the passage of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965, created an entitlement for seniors to purchase low-cost drug coverage. Simply stated, the law is complicated as hell, costs a fortune, still isn't paid for, and doesn't do all that much—though it does include coverage for end-of-life counseling, or what Grassley now calls "pulling the plug on Grandma."

In their 2009 report to Congress, the Medicare trustees estimate that the 10-year cost of Medicare Part D is as high as $1.2 trillion. That figure—just for prescription-drug coverage that people over 65 still have to pay a lot of money for—dwarfs the $848 billion cost of the Senate bill. The price of prescription coverage continues to escalate because the law explicitly bars the government from using its market power to negotiate drug prices with manufacturers or establishing a formulary with approved medications. And unlike the Democratic bills, which the Congressional Budget Office says won't add to the deficit, the bill George W. Bush signed was financed entirely through deficit spending. Former comptroller general David M. Walker has called it "probably the most fiscally irresponsible piece of legislation since the 1960s."

Of the 28 remaining Republicans who were in the Senate back in 2003, 24 voted for the Medicare prescription-drug benefit. Of 122 Republicans still in the House, 108 voted for it. This hall of shame includes Alexander of Tennessee, Enzi of Wyoming, Brownback of Kansas, and Hatch of Utah. Here, for example, is John Kyl of Arizona in 2003: "As a member of the bipartisan team that crafted the Part D legislation, I am committed to ensuring its successful implementation. I will fight attempts to erode Part D coverage." Six years later, Kyl calls Harry Reid's Democratic health-care legislation "a trillion-dollar bill that raises premiums, increases taxes, and raids Medicare."

The explanation for this vast collective flip-flop is—can you guess?—politics. Medicare recipients are much more likely to vote Republican than the uninsured, who would benefit most from the Democratic bills. In 2003 Karl Rove was pushing the traditional liberal tactic of solidifying senior support with a big new federal benefit, don't worry about how to pay for it. Today, GOP incumbents are more worried about primary challenges from the right, like the one Grassley may face in 2010, or being called traitors by Rush Limbaugh. But what happened the last time they were in charge gives the lie to the claim that they object to expanding government. What they object to is expanding government in a way that doesn't help them get reelected.

Jacob Weisberg is Chairman of The Slate Group and author of The Bush Tragedy. You can follow him on Twitter .

Find this article at http://www.newsweek.com/id/226481
Click to expand...
 
Looks like the only thing that will happen is that health care providers get screwed. As of Jan 1st, all Medicare payments will be cut by 21%. In the past, rather than fixing the loophole leading to this, every year, the Senate had to pass a last minute bill to forestall this. Since all the legislators have been spinning their wheels trying to pass health care reform, this has gotten overlooked.

Why is this important? Medicare as it is, barely covers the costs of care for the majority of patients. If each Medicare patient is now a money loser, who will want to treat them? We already get screwed by Medicaid but at least revenues from Medicare and private insurance can cover for this. Hospitals and physician practices cannot remain viable if Medicare as well becomes another financial black hole. Unfortunately, the AMA is a joke and has no political clout at all so our destinies are controlled by those that understand the issues the least.
 
Medicare supplemental premiums will likely double as a result.

IMO they should just drop the whole thing, polls are showing most people don't want the reform as it has been framed over the past 6mos anyway. Its just going to make the system worse than it is...
 
[quote name='Msut77']Obama should just write a signing statement creating a single payer system.[/QUOTE]

I agree. The single payer system is not perfect as you can see in the UK and EU but at least everyone is able to get covered by preventative health insurance. The problem why health care is only available to Americans is that you have powerful health care providers which want to keep the status quo although health care costs are 5 percent of the GDP which is dangerous for something that should not keep increasing in cost. Besides the Health bill is only going to a help a tiny minority of Americans while the rest without insurance will have to suffer. Good country for health care.
 
Oh well, the Senate passed the bill 60-40, as was expected. Who is this bill for anymore? The progressives hate it because it doesn't do enough, and the conservatives hate it because it costs too much. Now the bill goes back to the House where they negotiate with the Senate for the final version which will likely cause it to be neutered even further in order to ensure they get enough votes. Obama will sign it and call it a victory even though it does none of the things he promised it would. 2010 and 2012 can't come soon enough.
 
Conservatives hate it because of who proposed it.

I hate it because it's toothless as fuck. No public option = no fucking point.

In ten years, we'll slap our heads when we realize people still don't have good coverage, health care is still expensive as all fuck, and the fat cats in the health care and insurance industries are laughing all the way to the bank.

And I'll blame Republicans who put party ahead of country, and the Democrats who are too weak-willed to do anything on their own. They'll bend over backwards for Republican bills in the name of bipartisanship, and never learn that they simply will never get the same thing in return.

Piece of shit bill. Thanks, assholes on the right and wimps on the left.

EDIT: Oh, it looks like they just voted to end the Republican filibuster. The actual bill hasn't been voted on yet. Not that it changes any of the above as gospel truth. They'll vote on the bill on Christmas Eve. How fucking quaint.
 
Forgot to say last week, i was turned down by Humana. I should start framing these rejection letters, i've lost count of how many this is.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']Forgot to say last week, i was turned down by Humana. I should start framing these rejection letters, i've lost count of how many this is.[/QUOTE]

:-({|=
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Glad that some of the people who supported Obama are finally realizing what they got.[/QUOTE]

You don't know shit, so don't take my displeasure as a "win" for you or your side.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Glad that some of the people who supported Obama are finally realizing what they got.[/QUOTE]
A president who tried to bring together both parties for a measure that would provide people with health care, that bastard. His only mistake was thinking he could convince the reoublicans to go along with this.
 
Joilet,

I dont get it. What state are you in? I mean a lot of states have guaranteed plans in a group plan. With a group being any form of business, LLC, etc. Even one man operations.

We also have guaranteed issue policies, i.e. Blue Cross that do not look at medical conditions at all. Could you still have an 18 month Pre x rider if you had not had previous coverage for the last 62 days, sure. Would you have insurance for any future issues, yes.

I will say I am not an expert in every state. I am licensed in 3. But have you checked with the Blues, etc?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes, yes, the Democrats have majority control in the House, Senate and the Executive Branch... and it's the evil Republican's fault that they still managed to do virtually nothing.

I swear, the Democrats could have 100% of Congress and the Presidency, still not get anything done and it'd still be Bush's fault.
 
Does Boob know what the filibuster is?

Like I said before, the fucking sucks but it is probably the best that we can get with our fucked up system (although the Democrats did suck).

P.s. Maybe Troy isn't so much a troll as he is the CAG version of that kid who ate his boogers in front of others in the first grade just to see their reactions.
 
[quote name='Msut77']P.s. Maybe Troy isn't so much a troll as he is the CAG version of that kid who ate his boogers in front of others in the first grade just to see their reactions.[/QUOTE]

Well now we know he is both.

Myke:

There is some ... decent stuff in the bill if they actually ever getting around to improving it down the line it can work.
 
I'm really dumb with this stuff. So what exactly was signed today?
What happens when this bill passes? Are we getting "free" healthcare? What happens to the people who already have health insurance from their job--what happens to us?

I don't want ANY hateful posts just because you disagree with what's going on. I'm just not understanding what's going on, really.. LOL
 
lilboo,

Don't feel dumb, most of the Senate and Congress are in the same boat you are.

At this stage, all but maybe 5 or so are just voting party line and have no idea what they are voting for or voting against. Very few will change their vote based on any content of the bill.

In a nutshell, all you need to know is this: By the time it get signed into law the bill will so so diluted it shouldn't really even exist and will only server to pay out the pork put in it to win votes from specific lawmakers.
 
[quote name='Snake2715']Joilet,

I dont get it. What state are you in? I mean a lot of states have guaranteed plans in a group plan. With a group being any form of business, LLC, etc. Even one man operations.

We also have guaranteed issue policies, i.e. Blue Cross that do not look at medical conditions at all. Could you still have an 18 month Pre x rider if you had not had previous coverage for the last 62 days, sure. Would you have insurance for any future issues, yes.

I will say I am not an expert in every state. I am licensed in 3. But have you checked with the Blues, etc?[/QUOTE]I live in Tennessee, and i have been turned down by Blue Cross.

Btw, for anyone who is paranoid about people having info on you, these insurance companies have about as much dirt on you as the police/government. When i applied to Humana, the woman was able to see my medical history all the way back to 1999, shit that i couldn't even remember. The info they can get from whatever medical info service they use is amazing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top