If I remember correctly, you have medical issues of your own, which makes your stance even less sensible. What happens when your insurance drops you because you're too much of a risk?

 

Yes, quite a few, which is why RM's post is so funny. That isn't/shouldn't be an issue. We've talked extensively with my carrier and everything is good since I've been continuously covered my entire life.

Yes, quite a few, which is why RM's post is so funny. That isn't/shouldn't be an issue. We've talked extensively with my carrier and everything is good since I've been continuously covered my entire life.

 

Didn't know about your medical issues, so I apologize for making an assumption.

 

Your situation is unique, to say the least, if your coverage is somehow guaranteed for the REST of your life.

That's a pretty weak dodge to his questions, unless you're planning to elaborate.

 

No comment here?

 

Doing my best to answer everything while I'm working.....

Yes, quite a few, which is why RM's post is so funny. That isn't/shouldn't be an issue. We've talked extensively with my carrier and everything is good since I've been continuously covered my entire life.

 

If an insurance carrier will deny paying for a test they have already pre-approved for payment (as in RM's case), how secure can you really feel? I'd be horrified if my existence was that tenuous that I had to depend on the kindness of a greedy insurance company.

I have found no problems with my health care nor has anyone in my family that are employed in a variety of different ways.

 

Now the members of my family that don't want to work, they are unhappy with their situation but don't want to do anything about it.

 

I will say that there was a situation about 30 years ago and I hope it has changed. I had a cousin that gave birth to a son that was mentally disabled. She wanted to keep him on government health care to pay for his medicine but return to her job as salad bar manager at Shoney's. Government told her no as she would be working and could not get her son's medicine covered.

 

She has never returned to the work force since that point and has remained on government aid as far as I know.

 

I did have a situation in which my health insurance company and I disagreed on coverage. I sent in a letter with my arguments on the matter and they agreed with me and provided coverage. They were very courteous about it.

 

Of course, they may just know about my arguing ability from BGP and gave up very quickly.

I have found no problems with my health care nor has anyone in my family that are employed in a variety of different ways.

 

Now the members of my family that don't want to work, they are unhappy with their situation but don't want to do anything about it.

 

I will say that there was a situation about 30 years ago and I hope it has changed. I had a cousin that gave birth to a son that was mentally disabled. She wanted to keep him on government health care to pay for his medicine but return to her job as salad bar manager at Shoney's. Government told her no as she would be working and could not get her son's medicine covered.

 

She has never returned to the work force since that point and has remained on government aid as far as I know.

 

I did have a situation in which my health insurance company and I disagreed on coverage. I sent in a letter with my arguments on the matter and they agreed with me and provided coverage. They were very courteous about it.

 

Of course, they may just know about my arguing ability from BGP and gave up very quickly.

 

Your cousin's situation is EXACTLY the example of why social aid administration needs to be overhauled. I would have no problem if a parent worked, but drew medical aid for a child with problems too big for them to handle within their means. I would have NO problem if a person working a low paying job were able to get food and/or medical assistance. The issue I have is that the system, as it is currently administered, makes it more rewarding NOT to work than to get in and work your way up.

 

When I first got divorced, I had no job, no home and two kids to support. I went to the aid offices and they told me I could get X$ for going to school, day care paid, housing paid and medical and food assistance. But I didn't WANT all that. All I wanted was assistance with food and medical for my kids. I had been looking for a job. In the process of all the interviews, I did find a job. Then, my amounts were drastically reduced. And because there was a child support order, reduced even further. Once I got a raise of .$25, my financial situation was such that I could quit and make more money, or stay at my job and get nothing. I elected to get nothing and work. Sometimes I think it's the stupidest decision I ever made, because of the hardships that it caused. Had I sucked up my pride for 4 years, I'd have a degree, and I think things would have been much easier on my kids.

 

But that's not the way it should be.

Your cousin's situation is EXACTLY the example of why social aid administration needs to be overhauled. I would have no problem if a parent worked, but drew medical aid for a child with problems too big for them to handle within their means. I would have NO problem if a person working a low paying job were able to get food and/or medical assistance. The issue I have is that the system, as it is currently administered, makes it more rewarding NOT to work than to get in and work your way up.

 

When I first got divorced, I had no job, no home and two kids to support. I went to the aid offices and they told me I could get X$ for going to school, day care paid, housing paid and medical and food assistance. But I didn't WANT all that. All I wanted was assistance with food and medical for my kids. I had been looking for a job. In the process of all the interviews, I did find a job. Then, my amounts were drastically reduced. And because there was a child support order, reduced even further. Once I got a raise of .$25, my financial situation was such that I could quit and make more money, or stay at my job and get nothing. I elected to get nothing and work. Sometimes I think it's the stupidest decision I ever made, because of the hardships that it caused. Had I sucked up my pride for 4 years, I'd have a degree, and I think things would have been much easier on my kids.

 

But that's not the way it should be.

I agree 100%. The government SHOULD HAVE BEEN THERE to help with her child who was taking medicine that was in the $1,000 range PER DAY in the 80's but allowed her to work to support herself and everything but his medicine.

 

Any system that would not allow it, is messed up and should be changed.

The situations that RM and I have mentioned, (while I AM NOT speaking for RM) does not give me ANY confidence that government can run a health care system. I have not seen many to any government ran group that uses common sense or efficient methods to do things.

 

With the nature that they are, government agencies are setup to MAKE sure they spend every penny they are budgeted while asking for more money the next year.

With the nature that they are, businesses are setup to MAKE sure they do things cost efficient and make a profit, keeping costs/prices low. You raise prices and demand goes down which very easily can lead to profits going down which is NOT good business.

 

I have more confidence but not complete confidence in business running a health care system better than government.

 

When businesses get in trouble they look for ways out.

When government gets in trouble, they look to go to citizens and raise taxes or simply spend their way out by borrowing money they don't have.

The fundraiser idea would work if I were involved...

 

They don't have the fortune of knowing you. They have no money.

 

What do you say should happen to the child who needs doctor's care to live?

They don't have the fortune of knowing you. They have no money.

 

What do you say should happen to the child who needs doctor's care to live?

 

I personally would not have a problem with the government covering all children with a parent's right to add to the coverage and covering all adults with TRUE disabilities that might lead them to not be able to provide for themselves. I am thinking of adults with severe mental or physical issues.

 

I would not have problem with government covering adults for a period of time while they are between jobs.

 

I am not for the government providing health care on a permanent basis for a abled body adult who could provide for themselves.

They don't have the fortune of knowing you. They have no money.

 

What do you say should happen to the child who needs doctor's care to live?

 

If they don't know me, then why would I be involved in any way?

If they don't know me, then why would I be involved in any way?

 

Its obvious you see the path you're walking down and are avoiding answering what has to be the obvious human answer.

Its obvious you see the path you're walking down and are avoiding answering what has to be the obvious human answer.

 

Nope, if I don't know the person, why would I be involved in the decision making process? I thought we were talking specifics here.

 

If we're talking in generalities, then it would be extremely tragic, but I wouldn't want the government taking any of my money and giving it to others.

If we're talking in generalities, then it would be extremely tragic, but I wouldn't want the government taking any of my money and giving it to others.

 

So that I don't put words in your mouth...

 

Are you saying that if the family cannot afford the required care for their child you would advocate no healthcare be given and , instead, let the child suffer and ultimately die?

So that I don't put words in your mouth...

 

Are you saying that if the family cannot afford the required care for their child you would advocate no healthcare be given and , instead, let the child suffer and ultimately die?

 

I'm saying I don't believe tax dollars should be used to pay for health care under any circumstance.