Comments on: Healthcare Reform post-passage http://www.conservative-democrat.com/2010/04/04/healthcare-reform-post-passage/ Political Issues and discussions Mon, 04 Jul 2011 01:21:58 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1 By: bigbrotherbooter@comcast.net http://www.conservative-democrat.com/2010/04/04/healthcare-reform-post-passage/comment-page-1/#comment-4 bigbrotherbooter@comcast.net Mon, 30 May 2011 04:42:32 +0000 http://www.conservative-democrat.com/?p=94#comment-4 This is were I respectfully disagree. If everybody pays into the system and everybody is insured that would control cost, if premiums are getting paid, and less cost killing unfunded ER visits or at least a lot less of them. Getting rid of pre-exisisting conditions was the right thing to do. Pre-exsisting conditions was the American version of natural selection and outdated. With the new online genetic testing that is going to be on the market in the not to distant future the pre-exsisting condition was going to kill American healthcare system. If you mail your urine sample to a lab for the profile and find the you genetically have the predisposition for high blood pressure or heart illnesses you have a pre-exsisting condition. It is now harder to get health insurance. In general since these tests would be considered to be cheap when available and expecting to attract a large number of consumers, who are interested in preventing health issues, that would put a big financial burden on those who can pay health insurance premiums, large enough to forecast a downfall of the industry in the short term. The provision in the bill that insures annual checkups are 100% paid for also insures that preventative healthcare is a part of the solution. Finding potential issues early is a good thing and a money saver in the long run, and is less of a future burden on our Medicare system. Small companies with less than 50 people are not effected. Poor families are exempt. People in health co-ops are exempt. There are other benefits also. Now the wacko right was against this because they want to make sure they continue getting campaign funds from this industry. The are bought and paid for by them. If they offered to remove the anti-trust exemption that health insurance companies have in exchange of repealing the health care law then I would propably say OK. Health insurance companies where getting away with too much. With unfunded ER visits, torts issues ( I agree with you on this one), uninsured, and so many other things this was the best deal for everybody. The right should have been happy with it since major funding is still in the private market, and they presented an almost identical plan to President Clinton. The left should have been happy with alot more coverage, no pre-exsisting conditions, no policy drop outs, extended coverage, and a place for co-ops in the market. In the end people really should give this a chance before repealing it. That is my opinion with full respect for yours. This is were I respectfully disagree. If everybody pays into the system and everybody is insured that would control cost, if premiums are getting paid, and less cost killing unfunded ER visits or at least a lot less of them. Getting rid of pre-exisisting conditions was the right thing to do. Pre-exsisting conditions was the American version of natural selection and outdated. With the new online genetic testing that is going to be on the market in the not to distant future the pre-exsisting condition was going to kill American healthcare system. If you mail your urine sample to a lab for the profile and find the you genetically have the predisposition for high blood pressure or heart illnesses you have a pre-exsisting condition. It is now harder to get health insurance. In general since these tests would be considered to be cheap when available and expecting to attract a large number of consumers, who are interested in preventing health issues, that would put a big financial burden on those who can pay health insurance premiums, large enough to forecast a downfall of the industry in the short term.

The provision in the bill that insures annual checkups are 100% paid for also insures that preventative healthcare is a part of the solution. Finding potential issues early is a good thing and a money saver in the long run, and is less of a future burden on our Medicare system.

Small companies with less than 50 people are not effected. Poor families are exempt. People in health co-ops are exempt.

There are other benefits also. Now the wacko right was against this because they want to make sure they continue getting campaign funds from this industry. The are bought and paid for by them. If they offered to remove the anti-trust exemption that health insurance companies have in exchange of repealing the health care law then I would propably say OK. Health insurance companies where getting away with too much. With unfunded ER visits, torts issues ( I agree with you on this one), uninsured, and so many other things this was the best deal for everybody. The right should have been happy with it since major funding is still in the private market, and they presented an almost identical plan to President Clinton. The left should have been happy with alot more coverage, no pre-exsisting conditions, no policy drop outs, extended coverage, and a place for co-ops in the market. In the end people really should give this a chance before repealing it. That is my opinion with full respect for yours.

]]>