Anoyone wonder?

[Metalject]

For the sake of argument, let's say the new health care reform bill is the morally right thing to do, it's what's fair. Now ask this question, There's a starving man out in the street, I have no food and not quite enough money to feed my family. So should I buy the starving man a sandwich or should I feed my family?

And to the guy who said it's no coincidence most civilized western nations have socialized healthcare, is it also no coincidence that these countries are going broke and the EU economic system is on the verge of collapse because of entitlements?

As for the right to life, yes, we all have the right to live, but the system in the U.S. that was put in place does not go beyond that. The right to life means the government has no right to take this right away, but it does not mean the government has the responsibility of keeping you alive. That's what's great about the U.S. or what's supposed to be and what's made it unique, we are all responsible for ourselves, which in turn allows us to be responsible and decide what actions we take in life. This doesn't mean we will all end up on equal ground, equal ground is impossible.

Personally, I would rather live free, truly free beholden to no man or government and if I die I die but during what life I had my decisions and choices were mine to make so as long as they do not hinder anyone else from that same right.

This is not a right or left or liberal or conservative argument. That's the first thing we need to realize. It's an argument of liberty and nothing more. If you're guying into this being a left/right argument, regardless of the side you're taking, you're missing what this is. It's about control, you having control or the government having control over you. The more responsibilities we give to the government, the more power we take away from ourselves. And in the U.S. the government was NEVER meant to have any power over the people; it was put in place in an effort to make sure the individual's right to hold power over his own life was never taken away. That's all it is and nothing more.

[Lunk1]

i think health care should be a right, hell owning an object "a gun" is a right but not to stay healthy
everyone is paying for the poor now. When the poor goto the ER and get taken care of for free, we still pay, thats why everything at a hospital cost a redicoulus amount, because they have to pass off the cost for all the free shit, But if some more of those people had health insurance then that would lower that,
Also am i worried about the governemnt running and making choices on whats covered for healthcare. Have you ever dealt with an insurance company? They deny shit, find reasons not to cover crap, no matter what someone else is still making the decision. So its the government or some company trying to save money. Your screwed either way

And you all know i know alot of european girls. Most of them all go back to their country if they need something major, or think they have a big health issue. Why cause its easier there then in the US and its worth sometimes a $1500 plane ticket.

Make your argument buddy but o compare the "right" to health care to your "right" to own a firearm is ridiculous. It's your right to own a firearm but I sure as fuk am not responsible for buying it for you! You have a right to health care...but why should I buy it for you?

[gixxerboy1]

Make your argument buddy but o compare the "right" to health care to your "right" to own a firearm is ridiculous. It's your right to own a firearm but I sure as fuk am not responsible for buying it for you! You have a right to health care...but why should I buy it for you?

But we dont have the right ir some of us the option of health care. Lets face it you need insurance to get health care, im a daibetic, nothing i can do about it. Even if i was willing to pay $2000 a month nobody will give me insurance. So how do i get health care in this system?

[Euroholic]

Why do americans have so much hate for healthcare?

[austinite]

Why do americans have so much hate for healthcare?

Why are you a drug dealer that targets children?

[Euroholic]

Why are you a drug dealer that targets children?

Im not. We've been threw this I'm good at business.

[Lunk1]

But we dont have the right ir some of us the option of health care. Lets face it you need insurance to get health care, im a daibetic, nothing i can do about it. Even if i was willing to pay $2000 a month nobody will give me insurance. So how do i get health care in this system?

But you do have a right to seek employment that offers health care or that pays enough to allow you to afford health care.

[crazy mike]

Why are you a drug dealer that targets children?

Quote:
We've been threw this I'm good at business.
Quote

Maybe not but he hates kids and women. Just things to kick around, ya know like bang them and hang them. Just keep your hits going and feed you ego, and or your D**K ya know the other head. Sounds like bussiness

[Jayprice]

Its a government looking after its citizens providing them with healthcare. would you not like anything back for paying taxes?in aus everyone pays a levy that helps fund our healthcare i think its 1.7% of your wage.

Wage is the key word. Why should I have to pay for some that's to lazy to get a job? Or supposed can't find one.

I was laid off at one time in my life. I was on unemployment (something I paid into) for about a month and a half. I took a job making less than I was drawing because it didn't feel right getting money that I wasn't working for.

Do away with income tax and go to a flat tax. That way under the table workers will pay just like me.

[Euroholic]

Wage is the key word. Why should I have to pay for some that's to lazy to get a job? Or supposed can't find one.

I was laid off at one time in my life. I was on unemployment (something I paid into) for about a month and a half. I took a job making less than I was drawing because it didn't feel right getting money that I wasn't working for.

Do away with income tax and go to a flat tax. That way under the table workers will pay just like me.

Why pay taxes at all with that additude then? Look at it this way your taxes provide for your healthcare. My dr visits are free my blood tests are free my ct scan is free etc etc


There was a guy in new Zealand that made a book about how to run a econamy with no income tax it was very interesting ill tru to find the name. In a nut shell you just have a high sales tax on everything. You earn more you spend more kind of thing.

[Jayprice]

Let me add that I know ppl that buy other ppls food stamps (we I think call them wic cards in NC) and that person goes and buys drugs with the cash.

Give someone an inch and they'll take a mile.

We also have a hospital here, that I donate to, that helps families with children that have major illnesses. It free for them! Everything is paid by ppls donations.

[Jayprice]

Why pay taxes at all with that additude then? Look at it this way your taxes provide for your healthcare. My dr visits are free my blood tests are free my ct scan is free etc etc


There was a guy in new Zealand that made a book about how to run a econamy with no income tax it was very interesting ill tru to find the name. In a nut shell you just have a high sales tax on everything. You earn more you spend more kind of thing.

If you have a job in the US you have to pay taxes or you go to jail. Oh yeah, in our prison system all your medical is free, too.

The higher sales tax thing you spoke of is what we call a flat tax here. I wish we would go to that type of system but then our government would lose a lot of power because we wouldn't need the IRS.

[Metalject]

Yeah, I don't care for the firearm vs. healthcare argument. You have the right to firearms to protect your life and what's yours from others. Like Lunk said, it's up to you to buy a gun, no one buys it for you and if you want one for the reason that right exists, it's up to you to earn the money to buy the gun. Healthcare is hardly the same thing.

And again, Lunk is right, anyone can search for a job that offers healthcare benefits. However, it bothers me tremendously that many assume healthcare provided by your employer is something that should be mandatory. The employment/employer relationship is simple: you take a job based on an agreement. The employer offers you X amount of money and can choose to add other things if he chooses to or not. No one is forcing you to take that job. The easy solution would be to deregulate healthcare, which would lower the cost and then people can choose to pay for whatever they want with the money they earn.

On the topic of healthcare cost, yes, to a degree having to pay for people in the ER that have no insurance does affect the cost of healthcare, but this is a minuscule amount compared to regulation burdens. Malpractice lawsuits and the insurance doctors have to have to protect against this drives the cost up more than almost anything. Then there's the cost of medications, and what drives this up is that we've allowed the FDA and big pharma to become one in the same. These guys continually switch jobs like a warped game of musical chairs.

[Metalject]

Why do americans have so much hate for healthcare?

Americans don't hate healthcare, many simply hate the way it's run.

America has always been unique in that it was setup in a way that's extremely different than pretty much any other place on earth. It's always been fondly referred to by most Americans as the American Experiment. There are plenty of other places on earth that do things differently but the U.S. has always chosen to take a different path and it's hard to say its been an unsuccessful one.

And just in case someone says America isn't different because there are many countries that are a democracy, being a democracy doesn't make it the same. The idea behind the United States is and has always been self-rule, whereas the vast majority of the rest of the world isn't setup on self-rule. There are many here who want us to be like the rest of the world but most Americans just want to be left alone to fend for themselves and to be beholden to no government or no man.

[basketballfan22]

For the sake of argument, let's say the new health care reform bill is the morally right thing to do, it's what's fair. Now ask this question, There's a starving man out in the street, I have no food and not quite enough money to feed my family. So should I buy the starving man a sandwich or should I feed my family?

And to the guy who said it's no coincidence most civilized western nations have socialized healthcare, is it also no coincidence that these countries are going broke and the EU economic system is on the verge of collapse because of entitlements?

As for the right to life, yes, we all have the right to live, but the system in the U.S. that was put in place does not go beyond that. The right to life means the government has no right to take this right away, but it does not mean the government has the responsibility of keeping you alive. That's what's great about the U.S. or what's supposed to be and what's made it unique, we are all responsible for ourselves, which in turn allows us to be responsible and decide what actions we take in life. This doesn't mean we will all end up on equal ground, equal ground is impossible.

Personally, I would rather live free, truly free beholden to no man or government and if I die I die but during what life I had my decisions and choices were mine to make so as long as they do not hinder anyone else from that same right.

This is not a right or left or liberal or conservative argument. That's the first thing we need to realize. It's an argument of liberty and nothing more. If you're guying into this being a left/right argument, regardless of the side you're taking, you're missing what this is. It's about control, you having control or the government having control over you. The more responsibilities we give to the government, the more power we take away from ourselves. And in the U.S. the government was NEVER meant to have any power over the people; it was put in place in an effort to make sure the individual's right to hold power over his own life was never taken away. That's all it is and nothing more.

I think that is a ridiculous question. Saving a stranger's life over one of your own family members is completely different than socialized healthcare. You are taxed based on income; so if you don't have much, you won't give much.

The EU economy is going downhill? Have you not watched the economy of the US? Many countries are experiencing economic hardships, including the good ole US of A.

You have a problem with a too powerful of a government which is understandable, but your argument can be used to make a case that there should be absolutely no taxes too. If you are fine paying some taxes, then you are contradicting your own argument against socialized healthcare. On the other hand, if you believe we shouldn't pay any taxes at all; then I think you are sorely mistaken.

[Metalject]

I think that is a ridiculous question. Saving a stranger's life over one of your own family members is completely different than socialized healthcare. You are taxed based on income; so if you don't have much, you won't give much.

The EU economy is going downhill? Have you not watched the economy of the US? Many countries are experiencing economic hardships, including the good ole US of A.

You have a problem with a too powerful of a government which is understandable, but your argument can be used to make a case that there should be absolutely no taxes too. If you are fine paying some taxes, then you are contradicting your own argument against socialized healthcare. On the other hand, if you believe we shouldn't pay any taxes at all; then I think you are sorely mistaken.

The example I used about saving a strangers life was because many who support the new healthcare legislation do so because they believe it is a moral obligation. Maybe it wasn't the best example to use, but currently it's what comes to mind. If you're going to make an argument based on morality, you can only compare it to other moral situations.

And you're absolutely right, both the EU and U.S. economies are hurting and largely for the same reasons, spending more than they have because of entitlement programs that have continually added up more and more as the years go by. The EU is simply further along this disastrous hole because they've been playing that game longer and are working on a smaller scale, but if it continues, both the EU and U.S. end up with the same disastrous end.

And I am not saying I have a problem paying taxes. Yes, I have a problem with giving 30% of my income to the federal government, plus all the other taxes we pay. That is injustice by any definition, but it's also a separate argument. But in this case, I do have a problem being forced to buy any good or service. Sure, you can call it a tax and that's what the supreme court decided to call it, but the court is not God, and they've made bad calls before and such bad calls have often been reversed in time. The court's decision is not the end all be all set in stone for eternity decision. But yes, I do have a problem paying for a tax that forces me to buy any good or service I do not want and that I did not choose to buy myself. If I wanted to be forced to buy healthcare I would move to one of the other 100 countries in the world that force this.
The bottom line, Obama Care is not a tax no more than owning a slave is a right or prohibiting alcohol is a right the court can enforce. The court once said both were legal but that did not make either right.

On the topic of the EU and U.S. and the economy, I do think we will definitely see a period of time much like pre-WWII where the economy of nearly every country in the world goes into collapse. Possibly worse but it will at least be similar. Neither the EU or U.S. is on the road to recovery by any stretch of the word. But what will be interesting is how both sides react this time. Last time you had very different reactions, the U.S. handled themselves much differently than most of Europe and I wonder if that will repeat.

[Honkey_Kong]

Play that game and then talk to me. Funny how people think it easy - meanwhile nfl players are ending up terminally I'll and develop all sorts of head problems

^^^ This.

If a top level rugby team got on the field and played American football against an NFL team or even a CFL team, it wouldn't end well for the rugby team. I mean forget the fact that they'd lose big on the field, every single one of them would end up on a stretcher heading for the ER.

@Euroholic, if a 300lb lineman who can run a 40 yard dash with a track-star's time hits you while in a full sprint, you're going to end up waking up from a coma a week later, if you're lucky. That "armour" you say they wear keeps them alive. There is no rugby team that can physically hold up against an NFL team. If they were playing rugby, the rugby guys would win as it uses a different skill set than gridiron football.

[basketballfan22]

The example I used about saving a strangers life was because many who support the new healthcare legislation do so because they believe it is a moral obligation. Maybe it wasn't the best example to use, but currently it's what comes to mind. If you're going to make an argument based on morality, you can only compare it to other moral situations.

And you're absolutely right, both the EU and U.S. economies are hurting and largely for the same reasons, spending more than they have because of entitlement programs that have continually added up more and more as the years go by. The EU is simply further along this disastrous hole because they've been playing that game longer and are working on a smaller scale, but if it continues, both the EU and U.S. end up with the same disastrous end.

And I am not saying I have a problem paying taxes. Yes, I have a problem with giving 30% of my income to the federal government, plus all the other taxes we pay. That is injustice by any definition, but it's also a separate argument. But in this case, I do have a problem being forced to buy any good or service. Sure, you can call it a tax and that's what the supreme court decided to call it, but the court is not God, and they've made bad calls before and such bad calls have often been reversed in time. The court's decision is not the end all be all set in stone for eternity decision. But yes, I do have a problem paying for a tax that forces me to buy any good or service I do not want and that I did not choose to buy myself. If I wanted to be forced to buy healthcare I would move to one of the other 100 countries in the world that force this.
The bottom line, Obama Care is not a tax no more than owning a slave is a right or prohibiting alcohol is a right the court can enforce. The court once said both were legal but that did not make either right.

On the topic of the EU and U.S. and the economy, I do think we will definitely see a period of time much like pre-WWII where the economy of nearly every country in the world goes into collapse. Possibly worse but it will at least be similar. Neither the EU or U.S. is on the road to recovery by any stretch of the word. But what will be interesting is how both sides react this time. Last time you had very different reactions, the U.S. handled themselves much differently than most of Europe and I wonder if that will repeat.

I understand anyone's frustration for paying for goods and services they don't want, but it is impossible for each citizen to pay taxes and allocate exactly where that money goes. We pay taxes, and the government uses everyone's tax dollars the same. There are people who don't have children and genuinely don't like taxes that help the education system since they don't have a child that will benefit. Does this mean we should eliminate taxes that fund our country's education system just because some people don't want their tax dollars going there? There will always be areas that are funded that a person doesn't necessarily support. Polls have shown that less than half of the American people think "Obamacare" is a bad idea; therefore it is not as universally hated as many try and paint it.

[basketballfan22]

^^^ This.

If a top level rugby team got on the field and played American football against an NFL team or even a CFL team, it wouldn't end well for the rugby team. I mean forget the fact that they'd lose big on the field, every single one of them would end up on a stretcher heading for the ER.

@Euroholic, if a 300lb lineman who can run a 40 yard dash with a track-star's time hits you while in a full sprint, you're going to end up waking up from a coma a week later, if you're lucky. That "armour" you say they wear keeps them alive. There is no rugby team that can physically hold up against an NFL team. If they were playing rugby, the rugby guys would win as it uses a different skill set than gridiron football.

Agreed times 1000. The level of athlete in the NFL is insane. I am making this point in another thread, lol.

[Euroholic]

Americans don't hate healthcare, many simply hate the way it's run.

America has always been unique in that it was setup in a way that's extremely different than pretty much any other place on earth. It's always been fondly referred to by most Americans as the American Experiment. There are plenty of other places on earth that do things differently but the U.S. has always chosen to take a different path and it's hard to say its been an unsuccessful one.

And just in case someone says America isn't different because there are many countries that are a democracy, being a democracy doesn't make it the same. The idea behind the United States is and has always been self-rule, whereas the vast majority of the rest of the world isn't setup on self-rule. There are many here who want us to be like the rest of the world but most Americans just want to be left alone to fend for themselves and to be beholden to no government or no man.

Well written!!! So basically what your saying is americans like to be left alone do there own thing and only rely on them selfs? I like the additude thats how i like to live my life.

[Euroholic]

^^^ This.

If a top level rugby team got on the field and played American football against an NFL team or even a CFL team, it wouldn't end well for the rugby team. I mean forget the fact that they'd lose big on the field, every single one of them would end up on a stretcher heading for the ER.

@Euroholic, if a 300lb lineman who can run a 40 yard dash with a track-star's time hits you while in a full sprint, you're going to end up waking up from a coma a week later, if you're lucky. That "armour" you say they wear keeps them alive. There is no rugby team that can physically hold up against an NFL team. If they were playing rugby, the rugby guys would win as it uses a different skill set than gridiron football.

Of course they would loose there two diffrent games one is slow one is fast paced. Can you explain to me why you need two sub teams in one team? Why can oneteam tackle and attack?

[Metalject]

I understand anyone's frustration for paying for goods and services they don't want, but it is impossible for each citizen to pay taxes and allocate exactly where that money goes. We pay taxes, and the government uses everyone's tax dollars the same. There are people who don't have children and genuinely don't like taxes that help the education system since they don't have a child that will benefit. Does this mean we should eliminate taxes that fund our country's education system just because some people don't want their tax dollars going there? There will always be areas that are funded that a person doesn't necessarily support. Polls have shown that less than half of the American people think "Obamacare" is a bad idea; therefore it is not as universally hated as many try and paint it.

CNN Poll May 27 2013: 54% oppose the law, 47% supporthttp://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/27/poll-do-you-support-or-oppose-the-health-care-law/

MSNBC Poll May 28 2013: 54% oppose, 43% approve
Americans still don’t like Obamacare, but Dems do — MSNBC

Rasmussen Poll July 1 2013: 48% oppose, 41% approve, 11% undecided
Health Care Law - Rasmussen Reportsâ„¢

The polls show more oppose than approve. Is it a massive difference percentage wise? No, but it's enough percentage wise to put millions more opposing than approving, so we can't say it's supported by more than unsupported.

You're right, the government will never be able to spend every dime it collects in taxes just as every single person would like them to. This doesn't mean we cannot force our government to allocate money where we want them to. This is something many Americans have forgotten, we are not beholden to our government, our government is beholden to us. We were never intended to be ruled by rulers, we were intended to place people in government who were charged with protecting our right to rule ourselves.

And while it's a different topic, yes, I would support taking away all federal tax dollars being spent on education, every last dime. Why? Because we have to look at the track record. The Federal government has done nothing to improve education. For more than 50yrs they've tried and they have failed miserably. Money spent on education should be left up to the individual states and the citizens of that state. If someone doesn't like how their state is spending money on education, they can move to another state. There are 50 states and their bound to find one they like more in this regard and for that matter all regards.

[Metalject]

Well written!!! So basically what your saying is americans like to be left alone do there own thing and only rely on them selfs? I like the additude thats how i like to live my life.

I would say the majority of Americans fit this bill, not all but most. Unfortunately, those who don't feel this way are the loudest. While most Americans simply want to live their lives, earn their own money and fend for themselves, there are those who feel they deserve what others have simply because they exist. And unfortunately, most Americans are too busy living their lives to combat this smaller number of complainers and the small number of progressives who have poisoned our government. And yes, Progressive ideology is poison as its foundation stems from only the government can provide for you, and those in power know better than you.

[Honkey_Kong]

Of course they would loose there two diffrent games one is slow one is fast paced. Can you explain to me why you need two sub teams in one team? Why can oneteam tackle and attack?

Well, each position on the field utilizes a different skill set. Somebody who is good at tackling isn't necessarily good at running with the ball, blocking or protecting the quarterback. Plus they wouldn't typically be good for receiving the ball.

[Matt]

No bruce springsteen born in the usa

Thought that was a great song...

[Matt]

So what was this thread all about?? Healthcare??

Your forefathers did the right thing by kicking us out, now would you like to adopt our royal sponging bastard family??

[Matt]

How we see our American cousins, god bless you...

[Sgt. Hartman]

Lmfao if Kate's up for grabs I'll take her....

[Hazard]

Lmfao if Kate's up for grabs I'll take her....

Lmfao me too haha

[gixxerboy1]

CNN Poll May 27 2013: 54% oppose the law, 47% supporthttp://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/27/poll-do-you-support-or-oppose-the-health-care-law/

MSNBC Poll May 28 2013: 54% oppose, 43% approve
Americans still don’t like Obamacare, but Dems do — MSNBC

Rasmussen Poll July 1 2013: 48% oppose, 41% approve, 11% undecided
Health Care Law - Rasmussen Reportsâ„¢

The polls show more oppose than approve. Is it a massive difference percentage wise? No, but it's enough percentage wise to put millions more opposing than approving, so we can't say it's supported by more than unsupported.

You're right, the government will never be able to spend every dime it collects in taxes just as every single person would like them to. This doesn't mean we cannot force our government to allocate money where we want them to. This is something many Americans have forgotten, we are not beholden to our government, our government is beholden to us. We were never intended to be ruled by rulers, we were intended to place people in government who were charged with protecting our right to rule ourselves.

And while it's a different topic, yes, I would support taking away all federal tax dollars being spent on education, every last dime. Why? Because we have to look at the track record. The Federal government has done nothing to improve education. For more than 50yrs they've tried and they have failed miserably. Money spent on education should be left up to the individual states and the citizens of that state. If someone doesn't like how their state is spending money on education, they can move to another state. There are 50 states and their bound to find one they like more in this regard and for that matter all regards.

and if you look at those people deeper that asked a follow up question, some people oppose it because it didnt do enough. They want more done

[Metalject]

and if you look at those people deeper that asked a follow up question, some people oppose it because it didnt do enough. They want more done

While I do enjoy talking about these types of things I also understand this is one of those things that just going to have to run its course for people to change their mind one way or another. Once this deal is fully implemented, if it improves healthcare and does not damage the economy, small business and the every day man's pocket book, people like me we'll just have to say we were wrong. However, if it does cause these negative things to occur, I would hope all the people who have supported it will be willing to say they were wrong and accept that we need to do away with it. But my concern is even if it fails and causes all these negative things people like me believe it will, those who currently support it will only say it didn't work and caused problems because it wasn't enough. Either way, regardless of what happens, people who support it win the argument in their mind regardless of what happens.

[Metalject]

and if you look at those people deeper that asked a follow up question, some people oppose it because it didnt do enough. They want more done

Your comment has stuck in my mind all afternoon, especially "They want more done." I think the correct phrase is "They want more" which is one of the primary reasons people like myself do not support it.

[Hazard]

It's a tough subject to debate really......

#1 it's already decided upon so nothing will change.

#2 it's hard to tell someone who will benefit from the bill that it's not a beneficial move. It's human nature to look out for yourself. Same goes for the small business owners..... It's not a beneficial move for them so they'll never agree either.

[gixxerboy1]

Yeah, I don't care for the firearm vs. healthcare argument. You have the right to firearms to protect your life and what's yours from others. Like Lunk said, it's up to you to buy a gun, no one buys it for you and if you want one for the reason that right exists, it's up to you to earn the money to buy the gun. Healthcare is hardly the same thing.

And again, Lunk is right, anyone can search for a job that offers healthcare benefits. However, it bothers me tremendously that many assume healthcare provided by your employer is something that should be mandatory. The employment/employer relationship is simple: you take a job based on an agreement. The employer offers you X amount of money and can choose to add other things if he chooses to or not. No one is forcing you to take that job. The easy solution would be to deregulate healthcare, which would lower the cost and then people can choose to pay for whatever they want with the money they earn.

On the topic of healthcare cost, yes, to a degree having to pay for people in the ER that have no insurance does affect the cost of healthcare, but this is a minuscule amount compared to regulation burdens. Malpractice lawsuits and the insurance doctors have to have to protect against this drives the cost up more than almost anything. Then there's the cost of medications, and what drives this up is that we've allowed the FDA and big pharma to become one in the same. These guys continually switch jobs like a warped game of musical chairs.

you are correct about the gun argument. But my point which i guess i didnt make clear. Was people with preexisting conditions cant even buy insurance now. Its an automatic denial.

[Metalject]

you are correct about the gun argument. But my point which i guess i didnt make clear. Was people with preexisting conditions cant even buy insurance now. Its an automatic denial.

I agree, the preexisting condition deal is not a good thing. However, things like that can so easily be fixed without having to create a socialized system.

Insurance companies have to deal with the same healthcare prices across the board, which are ridiculously high because of frivolous lawsuits, ambulance chasers and government's already heavy handed involvement in healthcare. Insurance companies are also not allowed to fully and openly compete in the free market place like a normal business due to already severe regulation. Do away with these things and rates go down. Create an atmosphere that is business friendly to insurance companies, it's not even close now and this will open the door.

[Hazard]

you are correct about the gun argument. But my point which i guess i didnt make clear. Was people with preexisting conditions cant even buy insurance now. Its an automatic denial.

And that's fvcked up..... It really is shitty. If you look at it from their point of view tho..... Why would they take someone who's going to cost them more $$ right off the bat than they'll receive.

It's a business..... In order for them to stay in business they need to make more $$ than they put out.

Now back to the citizens point of view..... It's shitty that they can't get coverage when more than likely their "pre-existing condition" is no fault of their own.

I wish they could have found a way to help those people without having to go the route they did.

~Haz~

[gixxerboy1]

And that's fvcked up..... It really is shitty. If you look at it from their point of view tho..... Why would they take someone who's going to cost them more $$ right off the bat than they'll receive.

It's a business..... In order for them to stay in business they need to make more $$ than they put out.

Now back to the citizens point of view..... It's shitty that they can't get coverage when more than likely their "pre-existing condition" is no fault of their own.

I wish they could have found a way to help those people without having to go the route they did.

~Haz~

I get why they wouldn't want to, but its even farther then that Blue Cross/ Blue Shield denies my wife because of breast implants.

[lovbyts]

Back on Topic due to reading it all 10x before and my opinion on healthcare has not changed since this mess all started (I agree with Hazard).

If we had not left Great Britian eventually we would have still migrated this way and not much would be different than it is now because. When you get that far away from home you tend to make up your own rules as you go such as we did then.