#326
Posted: 11/13/13 at 12:06pm
Maternity care is not just for women. It takes two to make a baby. And if a gay man has a baby by a surrogate then the baby can be taken care of under his insurance.
The Healthcare.gov website is horrible! — Page 14
#327
Posted: 11/13/13 at 12:08pm
If I am a single man who never plans to have a child, I should not mandated to pay for maternity care. And yes, some of the new policies under the ACA do mandate that. But please, keep spinning this to try and defend a poorly executed plan.
#328
Posted: 11/13/13 at 12:11pm
Then other people should not be mandated to pay for services that they don't plan on using either. And should people be able to exempt themselves from paying for AIDS coverage because they don't have any of the risk factors ? Yes or no ?
#329
Posted: 11/13/13 at 12:16pm
I thought your husband was a doctor.
My recollection was that you were claiming the ACA compromised his ability to profit sufficiently from healthcare.
Regardless, in a civilized society, there are costs we all share and benefits that we use when needed. Sometimes, we will never, ever use those benefits. (i.e., property taxes, which support schools, though I have no children). Nevertheless, the benefits to the community of such shared costs are worth it (in my opinion).
And again, didn't you claim to have a husband? I may be confused, but I could swear that you were railing about how the ACA was going to kill his standard of living.
My recollection was that you were claiming the ACA compromised his ability to profit sufficiently from healthcare.
Regardless, in a civilized society, there are costs we all share and benefits that we use when needed. Sometimes, we will never, ever use those benefits. (i.e., property taxes, which support schools, though I have no children). Nevertheless, the benefits to the community of such shared costs are worth it (in my opinion).
And again, didn't you claim to have a husband? I may be confused, but I could swear that you were railing about how the ACA was going to kill his standard of living.
Updated On: 11/13/13 at 12:16 PM
#330
Posted: 11/13/13 at 12:17pm
"Then other people should not be mandated to pay for services that they don't plan on using either."
Yes, I would agree with that statement to an extent.
"And should people be able to exempt themselves from paying for AIDS coverage because they don't have any of the risk factors ? Yes or no ?"
No. AIDS does not discriminate; any one person could be susceptible to it through a multitude of ways. I would support mandated coverage for AIDS as that is also a public health issue. Mandated maternity and spousal coverage to single men (yes, it has happened) is unacceptable, though. That's just one small example and it's all I have to say. Again, you are more than welcome to keep on spinning and spinning but I feel like I'm just beating a dead horse while talking to a brick wall.
Yes, I would agree with that statement to an extent.
"And should people be able to exempt themselves from paying for AIDS coverage because they don't have any of the risk factors ? Yes or no ?"
No. AIDS does not discriminate; any one person could be susceptible to it through a multitude of ways. I would support mandated coverage for AIDS as that is also a public health issue. Mandated maternity and spousal coverage to single men (yes, it has happened) is unacceptable, though. That's just one small example and it's all I have to say. Again, you are more than welcome to keep on spinning and spinning but I feel like I'm just beating a dead horse while talking to a brick wall.
#331
Posted: 11/13/13 at 12:24pm
I do have a husband, but he is not a doctor (he is a retired tech exec.). His father, two of his brothers, and a cousin are doctors. I never stated he was. I guess I should clarify that the example I am using is not a personal one. I am homosexual but not single. I'm just speaking in generalities.
"Regardless, in a civilized society, there are costs we all share and benefits that we use when needed. Sometimes, we will never, ever use those benefits. (i.e., property taxes, which support schools, though I have no children). Nevertheless, the benefits to the community of such shared costs are worth it (in my opinion)."
And to each his own. I will gladly pay our property taxes, which I do, because it does benefit the city/town and its infrastructure; including the schools. But a person's health insurance is not a public tax, nor should it ever be. It is a personal matter; taxes are not. That is a public matter. I simply have a problem with the fact that this kind of coverage (maternity, spousal, etc.) has suddenly become mandated, in particular scenarios, because of the ACA.
"Regardless, in a civilized society, there are costs we all share and benefits that we use when needed. Sometimes, we will never, ever use those benefits. (i.e., property taxes, which support schools, though I have no children). Nevertheless, the benefits to the community of such shared costs are worth it (in my opinion)."
And to each his own. I will gladly pay our property taxes, which I do, because it does benefit the city/town and its infrastructure; including the schools. But a person's health insurance is not a public tax, nor should it ever be. It is a personal matter; taxes are not. That is a public matter. I simply have a problem with the fact that this kind of coverage (maternity, spousal, etc.) has suddenly become mandated, in particular scenarios, because of the ACA.
#332
Posted: 11/13/13 at 12:24pm
it always makes me laugh how people who want to take your hard earned money out of your wallet, cry and say its greed, when we want to keep our own hard earned money and not give it to them
FINDINGNAMO, SNAFU, THEATERDIVE, JORDANCATALONO, LIZASHEADBAND, PALJOEY: You all claim to "IGNORE ME" I wish you would and stop constantly commenting on my posts. Thanks ......................................................................................................................................
The MOST POPULAR and DANGEROUS Poster on BWW! Banned by the PTA, PTC and the MEANGIRLS of BWW.....................................................................................................................
...Ukraine Girls really knock me out, they leave the west behind..........................
#333
Posted: 11/13/13 at 12:26pm
AIDS is a public health issue, but maternity care is not ? I would think that having healthy babies is definitely in the society's interests. They will grow up to pay YOUR Social Security and Medicare costs.
And chances that you'll get AIDS from blood transfusion with today's technology are practically nil, so everyone is a committed monogamous relationship should be able to opt out of AIDS coverage. According to your logic of course.
And chances that you'll get AIDS from blood transfusion with today's technology are practically nil, so everyone is a committed monogamous relationship should be able to opt out of AIDS coverage. According to your logic of course.
#334
Posted: 11/13/13 at 12:30pm
So you are not single. You are married without children.
Hospitals are obligated by federal law to treat those who walk into the Emergency Rooms. The cost of paying for such care, has in a way, become a de facto public tax - because we all pay for the costs of those uninsured, whether through losses written off as a tax loss or increased costs to patients to cover the expenses.
If the ACA did not do it, the insurance rates would. Either way, you would pay.
We Are Already Paying
Hospitals are obligated by federal law to treat those who walk into the Emergency Rooms. The cost of paying for such care, has in a way, become a de facto public tax - because we all pay for the costs of those uninsured, whether through losses written off as a tax loss or increased costs to patients to cover the expenses.
If the ACA did not do it, the insurance rates would. Either way, you would pay.
We Are Already Paying
Updated On: 11/13/13 at 12:30 PM
#335
Posted: 11/14/13 at 2:35am
What about life style as it relates to the health of the individual? If a person is grossly overweight and smokes should they pay the same premium as someone with a healthier lifestyle?
Everyone seems to be on the same page that people with preexisting conditions should not be excluded from getting medical coverage, yet a very unhealthy lifestyle is the very thing which causes a large percentage of those preexisting conditions.
Is it not reasonable to have a system where there is an incentive to live healthier? Shouldn't people who use most of the resources pay more? I do not believe that a single man should have to subsidize a family that decides to have five children.
You can say that a bare bones major medical policy for a healthy young person which doesn't cover things like maternity care leaves them open to many expenses, and it does, but there is also an incentive to stay healthy.
Is it reasonable to ask the people least likely to need the care to subsidize the people who will put the greatest demand on the system?
Our tax system asks the wealthiest 20% to pay the lion's share of federal tax. This healthcare system asks the reverse of the healthy and young.
Everyone seems to be on the same page that people with preexisting conditions should not be excluded from getting medical coverage, yet a very unhealthy lifestyle is the very thing which causes a large percentage of those preexisting conditions.
Is it not reasonable to have a system where there is an incentive to live healthier? Shouldn't people who use most of the resources pay more? I do not believe that a single man should have to subsidize a family that decides to have five children.
You can say that a bare bones major medical policy for a healthy young person which doesn't cover things like maternity care leaves them open to many expenses, and it does, but there is also an incentive to stay healthy.
Is it reasonable to ask the people least likely to need the care to subsidize the people who will put the greatest demand on the system?
Our tax system asks the wealthiest 20% to pay the lion's share of federal tax. This healthcare system asks the reverse of the healthy and young.
#336
Posted: 11/14/13 at 3:03am
dented,
you are showing the linear thinking that is problematic of the right's viewpoint on the matter, by saying that if you do x, you will not develop y. as i made pains to point out, that is untrue. if you do x, you simply decrease the chances of developing y, because you can never ablate the fact that you are human.
you can look this up, but only a minority of smokers go on to develop lung cancer or COPD. since smoking, however, increases your risk for developing any number of conditions, it is worth encouraging people to quit, and probably very fair to ask such individuals to pay higher premiums. conversely, your mode of thinking unfairly punishes those individuals who get lung cancer WITHOUT smoking.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/30/health/sequist-lung-cancer-stigma/
being overweight is also a very reasonable thing to consider a higher premium for. but what is overweight? the average BMI of americans is 29, while anything above 24.9 is considered overweight.
this also even doesn't begin to factor in how corporations really did their darndest to make both smoking and eating junk food as addictive as possible.
it is reasonable to ask people to subsidize people who put the greatest demand for the reason that i previously outlined: we cannot, at this time, entirely predict medical illness, and one can never know when one could suddenly change from the former category to the latter. a person who appears young and healthy could wake up tomorrow and find out they have lupus. or rheumatoid arthritis. or sarcoidosis. or find out they have an aggressive malignancy. or bipolar disorder. you cannot "prevent" these things by being a "good person," only decrease the odds. this mode of thinking also prevents us from having an honest discussion about health. what is being a "good person?" no alcohol? probably the occasional glass of wine or beer is good for you and is healthy. what about sex? increasing evidence seems to suggest that sex is healthy, but you wouldn't know it from the way the right talks about it. safe sex between consenting adults probably has enormous benefits, but the right wing has left such a gigantic stick up our asses about it that we cannot have an honest discussion about it. and i have met more than a few people who claim that since they abstain from sex (minus one bad thing), they get to smoke instead.
also, if you live in the US, things like hypertension and diabetes are almost inevitable no matter what you do. and as i said, we need not even speak of medical illness; one only needs to be run over by some jerk in a car, something that happens every day.
you are showing the linear thinking that is problematic of the right's viewpoint on the matter, by saying that if you do x, you will not develop y. as i made pains to point out, that is untrue. if you do x, you simply decrease the chances of developing y, because you can never ablate the fact that you are human.
you can look this up, but only a minority of smokers go on to develop lung cancer or COPD. since smoking, however, increases your risk for developing any number of conditions, it is worth encouraging people to quit, and probably very fair to ask such individuals to pay higher premiums. conversely, your mode of thinking unfairly punishes those individuals who get lung cancer WITHOUT smoking.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/30/health/sequist-lung-cancer-stigma/
being overweight is also a very reasonable thing to consider a higher premium for. but what is overweight? the average BMI of americans is 29, while anything above 24.9 is considered overweight.
this also even doesn't begin to factor in how corporations really did their darndest to make both smoking and eating junk food as addictive as possible.
it is reasonable to ask people to subsidize people who put the greatest demand for the reason that i previously outlined: we cannot, at this time, entirely predict medical illness, and one can never know when one could suddenly change from the former category to the latter. a person who appears young and healthy could wake up tomorrow and find out they have lupus. or rheumatoid arthritis. or sarcoidosis. or find out they have an aggressive malignancy. or bipolar disorder. you cannot "prevent" these things by being a "good person," only decrease the odds. this mode of thinking also prevents us from having an honest discussion about health. what is being a "good person?" no alcohol? probably the occasional glass of wine or beer is good for you and is healthy. what about sex? increasing evidence seems to suggest that sex is healthy, but you wouldn't know it from the way the right talks about it. safe sex between consenting adults probably has enormous benefits, but the right wing has left such a gigantic stick up our asses about it that we cannot have an honest discussion about it. and i have met more than a few people who claim that since they abstain from sex (minus one bad thing), they get to smoke instead.
also, if you live in the US, things like hypertension and diabetes are almost inevitable no matter what you do. and as i said, we need not even speak of medical illness; one only needs to be run over by some jerk in a car, something that happens every day.
Updated On: 11/14/13 at 03:03 AM
#337
Posted: 11/14/13 at 8:47am
"It is a personal matter; taxes are not. That is a public matter. I simply have a problem with the fact that this kind of coverage (maternity, spousal, etc.) has suddenly become mandated, in particular scenarios, because of the ACA."
Liza...haven't you said you're for single payer, universal health care coverage?
"a very unhealthy lifestyle is the very thing which causes a large percentage of those preexisting conditions."
Is that even true? I've never seen any kind of statistic that would back that statement up.
Liza...haven't you said you're for single payer, universal health care coverage?
"a very unhealthy lifestyle is the very thing which causes a large percentage of those preexisting conditions."
Is that even true? I've never seen any kind of statistic that would back that statement up.
#338
Posted: 11/14/13 at 9:55am
One of the best posters on this board lived a healthy lifestyle and died of cancer. She helped save lots of lives as a transplant nurse. She's dead now and deeply missed by all whose life she touched.
This is why libertarians are so hilarious. They have an answer for everything. They are the Sisters Mary Ignatius of politics. But with less practicality.
This is why libertarians are so hilarious. They have an answer for everything. They are the Sisters Mary Ignatius of politics. But with less practicality.
Twitter @NamoInExile
Instagram none
#339
Is it the political identity of Young White Guys Who've Found The Truth.
I've had so many friends depressingly go Libertarian in the past 10 years. All of them used to be compassionate, humanitarian types.
Posted: 11/14/13 at 10:07am
Is it the political identity of Young White Guys Who've Found The Truth.
I've had so many friends depressingly go Libertarian in the past 10 years. All of them used to be compassionate, humanitarian types.
CHURCH DOOR TOUCAN GAY MARKETING PUPPIES MUSICAL THEATER STAPLES PERIOD OIL BITCHY SNARK HOLES
#340
Posted: 11/14/13 at 10:12am
Right wing potheads, to stereotype. Why not? They do it all the time. The only people who get sick are people who CHOOSE to be unhealthy, because the world is one giant if/then proposition.
Twitter @NamoInExile
Instagram none
#341
It would be as perfectly sensible as Socialism if it all people were born equal in every way.
As they are here in America, you know.
Posted: 11/14/13 at 10:14am
It would be as perfectly sensible as Socialism if it all people were born equal in every way.
As they are here in America, you know.
CHURCH DOOR TOUCAN GAY MARKETING PUPPIES MUSICAL THEATER STAPLES PERIOD OIL BITCHY SNARK HOLES
#342
Posted: 11/14/13 at 10:42am
"I've had so many friends depressingly go Libertarian in the past 10 years. All of them used to be compassionate, humanitarian types."
They'll be back to compassionate, humanitarian types the minute THEY need help.
They'll be back to compassionate, humanitarian types the minute THEY need help.
#343
I know, I know. But in the meantime, they're voting. (Or not voting, but not enough of them are doing that.) And preaching on Facebook.
Posted: 11/14/13 at 10:47am
I know, I know. But in the meantime, they're voting. (Or not voting, but not enough of them are doing that.) And preaching on Facebook.
CHURCH DOOR TOUCAN GAY MARKETING PUPPIES MUSICAL THEATER STAPLES PERIOD OIL BITCHY SNARK HOLES
#344
Posted: 11/14/13 at 12:33pm
"President Obama is set to announce Thursday that his administration will let health insurers extend existing health plans on the individual and small-group markets into 2014, CBS News has confirmed. The administrative policy change will let insurers reach out to the millions of Americans being dropped from their plans so that they can renew their insurance for another year while the market adjusts to new Obamacare regulations.
"Insurers that extend existing plans must also notify consumers of what protections these renewed plans do not include. They must also notify customers that there are more options available on the new Obamacare marketplaces that offer better coverage, and that tax credits are available for many consumers."
Obama to let people keep canceled health plans for another year
"Insurers that extend existing plans must also notify consumers of what protections these renewed plans do not include. They must also notify customers that there are more options available on the new Obamacare marketplaces that offer better coverage, and that tax credits are available for many consumers."
Obama to let people keep canceled health plans for another year
#345
Posted: 11/14/13 at 12:40pm
OH NO IT'S A CHANGE IN THE LAW SO IT HAS TO BE STRUCK DOWN WHICH IS SUCH A SHAME BECAUSE EVERYBODY REALLY WANTED THE PLAN TO SUCCEED BUT NOW IT MUST BE STRUCK DOWN
I'm very concerned about it being struck down because it might have helped poor people. Join me in my concern, won't you?
I'm very concerned about it being struck down because it might have helped poor people. Join me in my concern, won't you?
Twitter @NamoInExile
Instagram none
#346
Posted: 11/14/13 at 1:32pm
Lets give the Prez major credit for fixing what was clearly broken at least temporarily.
Lets also give those "crazy" tea party people credit for saying this would happen all along
Lets also give those "crazy" tea party people credit for saying this would happen all along
FINDINGNAMO, SNAFU, THEATERDIVE, JORDANCATALONO, LIZASHEADBAND, PALJOEY: You all claim to "IGNORE ME" I wish you would and stop constantly commenting on my posts. Thanks ......................................................................................................................................
The MOST POPULAR and DANGEROUS Poster on BWW! Banned by the PTA, PTC and the MEANGIRLS of BWW.....................................................................................................................
...Ukraine Girls really knock me out, they leave the west behind..........................
Updated On: 11/14/13 at 01:32 PM
#347
Posted: 11/14/13 at 1:52pm
After a year we are in the same boat again.
Mr Obama is just trying to save his rear and those in his party who are ****ting bricks right now.
Mr Obama is just trying to save his rear and those in his party who are ****ting bricks right now.
Poster Emeritus
#348
Posted: 11/14/13 at 1:56pm
What same boat are we in?
It's a transition period going through major, much-needed adjustments.
That's far from the "same boat."
It's a transition period going through major, much-needed adjustments.
That's far from the "same boat."
"Jaws is the Citizen Kane of movies."
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
#349
Posted: 11/14/13 at 1:58pm
I wonder if it's the same boat people were in when Social Security was first implemented.
#350
Posted: 11/14/13 at 2:15pm
"The defense rests
To the claim the GOP was not involved. Obama did not want their input. All of their ideas were shot down. So much for bipartisanship"
Well...if all the defense has to offer is a blatant lie, then I would suggest that the defense has lost, before the jury ever starts deliberation.
To the claim the GOP was not involved. Obama did not want their input. All of their ideas were shot down. So much for bipartisanship"
Well...if all the defense has to offer is a blatant lie, then I would suggest that the defense has lost, before the jury ever starts deliberation.
"Just a Guy. Your feelings are touching. I am gladdened by the thought that you will one day wind up 6 feet under as we all do." - MrRoxy ------
"I do not suggest you walk out the door onto a New York street with your vulnerable child part exposed and not protected..." - Jason Bennett
Updated On: 11/14/13 at 02:15 PM
.jpg?format=auto&width=365)
Tickets From $58
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $71
