By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Healthcare isn't a business, it's peoples lives

akuma587 on 24 April 2009

You are overestimating how much flexibility people have with their health insurance. Many people cannot even qualify for health insurance. Its easy to get coverage when you are under 30. Just about any health insurance company will take you.

And its not like America is resisting the change. They are ASKING for it. This isn't just a coincidence. People were strongly against Clinton's attempt to change the healthcare system. Now they are all for the federal government stepping in. Do you really think that many people simply changed their mind for no good reason? Or is it more plausible that they were unsatisfied with what insurance companies were providing (or not providing)?

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/03/05/poll-do-americans-want-government-health-care-reform/

Seventy-two percent of those questioned in recent CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey say they favor increasing the federal government's influence over the country's health care system in an attempt to lower costs and provide health care coverage to more Americans, with 27 percent opposing such a move. Other recent polls show six in 10 think the government should provide health insurance or take responsibility for providing health care to all Americans.



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

Around the Network
Kasz216 on 24 April 2009
akuma587 said:
You are overestimating how much flexibility people have with their health insurance. Many people cannot even qualify for health insurance. Its easy to get coverage when you are under 30. Just about any health insurance company will take you.

And its not like America is resisting the change. They are ASKING for it. This isn't just a coincidence. People were strongly against Clinton's attempt to change the healthcare system. Now they are all for the federal government stepping in. Do you really think that many people simply changed their mind for no good reason? Or is it more plausible that they were unsatisfied with what insurance companies were providing (or not providing)?

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/03/05/poll-do-americans-want-government-health-care-reform/

Seventy-two percent of those questioned in recent CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey say they favor increasing the federal government's influence over the country's health care system in an attempt to lower costs and provide health care coverage to more Americans, with 27 percent opposing such a move. Other recent polls show six in 10 think the government should provide health insurance or take responsibility for providing health care to all Americans.

You keep saying this stuff.  Yet... I actually want sources that most people can't qualify for heatlh insurance.

Afterall you said health insurance companys drop you if you develop conditions....

which is illegal.

Also... that isn't really a swing in opinion.  Most people would be for the government giving out healthcare to everbody.

I know I do.

It's just most people hate the way the government plans to do it.

 



akuma587 on 24 April 2009

I never said that most people couldn't qualify for coverage.  I said that many people can't, and many others are only able to get unaffordable coverage.  Its state laws that allow this to happen.  There should be federal laws passed (and likely will be) that give insurance companies much less room to discriminate.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26664727/

But it's those who must purchase their own coverage, typically because they are self-employed or work for a company that doesn't provide benefits, who are in a uniquely precarious position. More than 27 percent of people who are self-employed have no insurance, compared with 13 percent for those who work for large companies. If you're buying your own health insurance, not only will you pay higher premiums than those who get a bulk rate as part of a group policy, but insurers in most states have much greater leeway to turn you down if they think their odds of losing money on you are too high. When confronted with an applicant who has any kind of medical history (including routine issues such as allergies, a past cesarean section delivery or acid reflux), insurers are usually perfectly free to charge much higher rates or to deny coverage altogether — leading to an entire category of women who are essentially uninsurable.



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

Kasz216 on 24 April 2009
akuma587 said:

I never said that most people couldn't qualify for coverage.  I said that many people can't, and many others are only able to get unaffordable coverage.  Its state laws that allow this to happen.  There should be federal laws passed (and likely will be) that give insurance companies much less room to discriminate.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26664727/

But it's those who must purchase their own coverage, typically because they are self-employed or work for a company that doesn't provide benefits, who are in a uniquely precarious position. More than 27 percent of people who are self-employed have no insurance, compared with 13 percent for those who work for large companies. If you're buying your own health insurance, not only will you pay higher premiums than those who get a bulk rate as part of a group policy, but insurers in most states have much greater leeway to turn you down if they think their odds of losing money on you are too high. When confronted with an applicant who has any kind of medical history (including routine issues such as allergies, a past cesarean section delivery or acid reflux), insurers are usually perfectly free to charge much higher rates or to deny coverage altogether — leading to an entire category of women who are essentially uninsurable.

Define... "many".

It seems more like "some/few".

Additionally as your article stated... a lot of what they are doing are illegal.  It says it's legal in the start.  Yet mentions the lawsuits in the end.

what your suggesting would be even more catostrophic.

There needs to be a lot of regulations taken off some parts of healthcare and others put in... however government run healthcare just isn't going to work as seen by the problems with Medicaid.



akuma587 on 24 April 2009

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/many

–adjective
1. constituting or forming a large number; numerous: many people.

Its legal in some places and not legal in others. It should be illegal everywhere.

It still remains to be seen what option the government actually chooses to try and fix this problem, so it is kind of self-defeating to debate about this before we see what approach Congress actually chooses to take this on.



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

Around the Network
Kasz216 on 24 April 2009
akuma587 said:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/many

–adjective
1. constituting or forming a large number; numerous: many people.

Its legal in some places and not legal in others. It should be illegal everywhere.

It still remains to be seen what option the government actually chooses to try and fix this problem, so it is kind of self-defeating to debate about this before we see what approach Congress actually chooses to take this on.

Definition for large

"above average in size or number or quantity or magnitude or extent".

Many people in the US would have to be above average in quanitity.

 

So no.  Many is not applicable in the way you used it.



akuma587 on 24 April 2009

Many =/ most. Above average would mean most.

You are mixing numerical quantities and percentages as well. You could say something is true for a large number of people (1 million) even though that is only a fraction of a percent of the entire world's population.



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

Kasz216 on 24 April 2009
akuma587 said:
Many =/ most. Above average would mean most.

You are mixing numerical quantities and percentages as well. You could say something is true for a large number of people (1 million) even though that is only a fraction of a percent of the entire world's population.

What was your definition for many again?

1. constituting or forming a large number; numerous: many people.

 

We are refrencing the USA.  Therefore it would have to be a large number of Americans.

Of which this doesn't appear to be.

It is "Some" americans.



vlad321 on 24 April 2009
Kasz216 said:
akuma587 said:
Many =/ most. Above average would mean most.

You are mixing numerical quantities and percentages as well. You could say something is true for a large number of people (1 million) even though that is only a fraction of a percent of the entire world's population.

What was your definition for many again?

1. constituting or forming a large number; numerous: many people.

 

We are refrencing the USA.  Therefore it would have to be a large number of Americans.

Of which this doesn't appear to be.

It is "Some" americans.

Guys, semantics? Really?

 



Tag(thx fkusumot) - "Yet again I completely fail to see your point..."

HD vs Wii, PC vs HD: http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=93374

Why Regenerating Health is a crap game mechanic: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3986420

gamrReview's broken review scores: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4170835

 

Kasz216 on 24 April 2009
vlad321 said:
Kasz216 said:
akuma587 said:
Many =/ most. Above average would mean most.

You are mixing numerical quantities and percentages as well. You could say something is true for a large number of people (1 million) even though that is only a fraction of a percent of the entire world's population.

What was your definition for many again?

1. constituting or forming a large number; numerous: many people.

 

We are refrencing the USA.  Therefore it would have to be a large number of Americans.

Of which this doesn't appear to be.

It is "Some" americans.

Guys, semantics? Really?

 

I don't think so.  Many makes it seem like a more prevelant problem then it is.  It's a loophole that should be closed.  But it is just that.  A minor loophole.