Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 57
  1. #41  
    Sin City Moderator RobJohnson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    17,132
    Quote Originally Posted by Lanie View Post
    Hmmmm. I guess I'll need to read more about who came up with what. In any case, it would have been nearly impossible to pass without Bush's signing it.




    Some type of reform was needed for an insurance plan that did not include prescription medication. Quit playing dumb. You are playing right?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #42  
    Sin City Moderator RobJohnson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    17,132
    Quote Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
    I'll bet I'm covering your prostate exam and, potentially, your Viagra. At least in California. My state taxes are certainly covering Viagra for convicted felons.

    Please understand, I'm with you on this. Males should not have to pay for prenatal care; that's ludicrous. But females should not have to cover prostate exams or Viagra, and NO ONE should have to cover whores, gay "fertility" treatments, or transgender sex reassignments.

    Somewhere, the architects of this plan are laughing at all of us.
    Men and women used to have separate policies before the ACA. So I paid for coverage on male exams, women paid for coverage they needed, if they choose they needed such coverage. Now the law dictates what is needed.

    I promise you there are many more services covered at 100% with no deductible for women then there are men, and I get to pay premiums for them. A great way to buy votes from women.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #43  
    Senior Member txradioguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Bavaria
    Posts
    7,910
    Quote Originally Posted by Lanie View Post
    I thought all the preventive care for men was covered, but if not, then we're going to have to fix that.

    There is no fixing this law. The only fix is to go back to letting people choose their own plans and policies and what they want covered.

    Why do you think the Federal Government knows better than I do what I do and don't need/want for my insurance coverage?

    Why should they get to take that freedom of choice away from me?

    Sent from my Z10 using Tapatalk 2
    In Memory Of My Friend 1st Sgt. Tim Millsap A Co, 70th Eng. Bn. 3rd Bde 1st AD...K.I.A. 25 April 2005

    Liberalism Is The Philosophy Of The Stupid

    To Achieve Ordered Liberty You Must Have Moral Order As Well

    The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #44  
    I'm hyper. Lanie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,770
    Quote Originally Posted by RobJohnson View Post
    Some type of reform was needed for an insurance plan that did not include prescription medication. Quit playing dumb. You are playing right?

    I agree with that logic. I just question why Republicans don't generally think the same way about insurance plans that don't include pre-existing conditions, often don't include medication in some cases (like pre-existing conditions or before a deductible is met), and a healthcare system that doesn't include everybody in general.

    I agree that medication coverage should have been part of Medicare all along. I just don't think it's typically Republican politicians who are for extending federal programs in any way. It's usually them who find a reason not to. I know you don't want to hear that and you think I'm being mean. I'm sorry about that. What Bush proposed was unusual for his party IMO. There's a reason he called himself a "compassionate conservative." I realize that statement was made fun of by liberals like crazy, but I think that there was a meaning behind that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #45  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    9,940
    Quote Originally Posted by RobJohnson View Post
    Men and women used to have separate policies before the ACA. So I paid for coverage on male exams, women paid for coverage they needed, if they choose they needed such coverage. Now the law dictates what is needed.
    Of course. Each person paid according to his or her own risk factors. That worked well for most. What was needed was a decent high risk pool (for cancer survivors and the like).


    I promise you there are many more services covered at 100% with no deductible for women then there are men, and I get to pay premiums for them. A great way to buy votes from women.
    I don't disbelieve you. I am just trying to find out what these services are. That's what the previous links are all about. I am also trying to point out to you that people like me, who live carefully, now have to pay for all those with incredibly high risk (prostitutes) and for problems that are not health related at all (gay "fertility").
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #46  
    I'm hyper. Lanie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,770
    And Rob, to answer your question, I do understand certain points. It's not that I'm trying to play dumb. It's that there are points that I honestly think are not considered. You say Bush wanted seniors to have access to medication. I agree with that. My main point is that Obama and other Democrats also want people to have more medical access (medications, doctors, etc). Both of them got demonized for approachying reform their way, but they meant well. The Affordable Healthcare Act is not perfect. I do think congress people will continue to make reforms throughout the years. But honestly, I see this being like Medicare. Medicare was once demonized as socialist medicine. Now, people don't want it gone. I think the AHA will be the same way.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #47  
    Sin City Moderator RobJohnson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    17,132
    Quote Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
    Just FYI, I am trying to get as much information as possible about what is actually covered. Here are some links that I am reading at the moment:

    Covered California: Website for Obamacare in CA
    Keep those crazy California policies on your side of the mountain. I can see CA from my house.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #48  
    Sin City Moderator RobJohnson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    17,132
    Quote Originally Posted by Lanie View Post
    I agree with that logic. I just question why Republicans don't generally think the same way about insurance plans that don't include pre-existing conditions, often don't include medication in some cases (like pre-existing conditions or before a deductible is met), and a healthcare system that doesn't include everybody in general.
    Previously pre existing conditions were eliminated as long as you did not allow any gaps between your old coverage and new coverage greater then 60 days. (That is why COBRA is offered) Even if you did have a gap in coverage then you simply have to wait a six months or a year for coverage on the pre existing items, I have been in that situation before with privately funded plans. It was my choice to take the risk.

    Do you really think Obamacare programs cover preexisting conditions without a waiting period? With children yes, adults, no.

    I have never heard of a medical plan that made a denial of a claim for Rx medication due to a pre existing condition, if you have please enlighten us.

    We should eliminate pre existing conditions for automobile insurance. You simply will not need to purchase insurance until after you actually have an accident. I'm sure that sounds like a great idea to liberals. I've paid into health insurance plans for years, even when I was healthy. Why should I have to help cover the risk pool with higher premiums for those that did not?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #49  
    Sin City Moderator RobJohnson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    17,132
    Quote Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
    I don't disbelieve you. I am just trying to find out what these services are. That's what the previous links are all about. I am also trying to point out to you that people like me, who live carefully, now have to pay for all those with incredibly high risk (prostitutes) and for problems that are not health related at all (gay "fertility").
    The law, like most social programs, rewards the free loaders and social outcasts. The rest of us work our asses off to pay higher premiums and income tax.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #50  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    9,940
    Quote Originally Posted by RobJohnson View Post
    The law, like most social programs, rewards the free loaders and social outcasts. The rest of us work our asses off to pay higher premiums and income tax.
    At the moment, we're carrying 47% of the population. I'm really getting tired of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •