Support your assertion please. I've been paying insurance for 30 plus years and so I know what I said is fact. Now the question is what is your point in asking your question? Do I gather statistics? Not recently for this conversation but I've paid the rate increases over the years so I believe that makes me competent to speak as a voter. Real life experience trumps impersonal stats every time. What does other administrations have to do with this one anyway?Quote by: Maryjane
Put simply, I'm a type one diabetic. Sans insurance, my diabetes costs me about three hundred dollars per month. I couldn't afford that - not while going to college and trying to make rent and bills and food. However, since those with pre-existing conditions can no longer be turned away, it's a wee bit easier.
A man said to the universe:
"Sir, I exist!"
"However," replied the universe,
"The fact has not created in me
A sense of obligation."
-- Stephen Crane
One of the promises Obama made during his campaign was to bring an increase in transparency to the government. He has not only failed to follow through on this promise but he has failed spectacularly. He has increased the classification of documents to prevent their release to the public and stepped up the prosecution of whistle-blowers. This is perhaps my biggest disappointment with his first term.
Still, when looking at the current crop of Republican candidates, Obama should be given a second term to increase jobs, decrease the national debt and follow up on his other initiatives. Since I'm not among the top 1% of the wealthy I don't see any plans put forth by the Republicans that will benefit me and those like me. Both parties are major disappointments. But right now the Democrats are disappointing the majority of Americans less than the Republicans will.
The Forum Rules
Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.
[John F. Kennedy]
The principal value of debate lies in the development of logical thought processes, and the ability to articulate your positions publicly.
[Senator Dick Clark of Iowa]
The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to the presence of those who think they've found it.
[Terry Pratchett]
I would fully agree. The left must bide its time till 2016. Then we can participate in the primary selection process, which will hopefully contain a bona fide liberal.
A man said to the universe:
"Sir, I exist!"
"However," replied the universe,
"The fact has not created in me
A sense of obligation."
-- Stephen Crane
The fact being that Obamacare will cause a $20 procedure to cost $3,000? How does that work.
"The day we stop exploring is the day we commit ourselves to live in a stagnant world, devoid of curiosity, empty of dreams."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FMNFvKEy4c
Sure, I'll be interested to see what his second term looks like. If he gets one. He's much better than the current Republican field. Although, I've heard similar theories that Mitt Romney is a stealth liberal.
For a void without a question is just perverse.
Do you think you're the only one that's paid for health insurance? I too paid health insurance, in fact I was office manager of a business for six years where I was responsible for shopping for insurance for the employees. A 12-30% increase annually was not unheard of under the Bush administration. If there was any type of consumer protection program when it came to health insurance costs, I wasn't aware of it. Our company was forced to drop dental insurance because the costs were so exorbitant.
My point is, for 30 plus years when you were paying for insurance, how did you miss the gargantuan rate increases under previous administrations? My point is, they aren't just something that happened in the three years of the Obama administration.
Hopefully you're aware of the 80-20 rule that the Obama administration has implemented in an effort to combat high rate increases? Are you aware that Obama has tried to get more transparency? The insurance companies say that doing so will reveal their trade secrets? Insurance companies use the pretense that a layman wouldn't understand their figures, only an actuary would. They are fighting tooth and nail not to disclose this information to the public.
Are you aware what the CEO's of insurance companies make and how much their pay has increased over the years? Are you aware how much insurance companies spend lobbying? If you want to blame someone, put the blame where it belongs...companies that without regulation would just as soon see you in the poor house. They know there are enough rich people who can afford insurance.
Cracking Down on Insurance Companies, Protecting Consumers | The White House
Because it seems too far fetched to believe, I too would like you to support your assertion that a certain procedure which used to cost $20 a year ago now costs $3000. What procedure would this be and where will it be performed? Facts instead of assertions would help asses the reasons (if any) behind this amazing figure instead of just blaming the Obama administration.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
If I'm the only witness to your madness offer me some words to balance out what I see and what I hear.
10,000 Maniacs
Of course not. As I said, it isn't rate increases I'm talking about. It's a revamping of what I'm getting in return. I actually agree with you on the ridiculous increases but now even with those I'm paying more for itemized options of treatment. I'll explain later in this post.
Again, rates aren't the single important issue, it's all the out of pocket expenses associated with health care. I didn't "miss" the increases but when the premiums were paid I was fully covered. Now I'm not, and guess what? Rates still climb. Thanks Obama.
[/QUOTE]
My company hasn't raised our portion of the premiums we pay (about 1200 per year) since 2008. But since then they have absorbed "huge" rate increases and to help off set that they began freezing raises since then as well. Indeed, my last raise was 2008. "Huge" in parentheses because that is what we are told. So I couldn't tell you where our individual premiums stand on your chart but the reason we're giving is they told us that Kaiser Permanente is increasing rates as it receives notices from the government of impending tax hikes, registration fees, and fees to be imposed on health care providers to pay for offices to oversee compliance of government mandates concerning health care. Are you beginning to see the problem yet?
Yes, insurance companies can be just as vindictive as government only they don't have the budget or the power of directly reaching into our pockets like government does. No love loss there. What about transparency of government though? Remember that campaign promise?
That may be true but they are trying to protect wealth they accumulated from the government that only takes. What the Obama administration has done is make ME very much the poorer. Going after the rich always sticks it to us, the worker bees. When will you ever see that fact?
I don't believe a thing that page says. Besides Obama didn't enable us to shop around if our rates were raise too much at once, we had that ability anyway.
Keep in mind what I've told you about our premiums. Several years ago my wife had a surgical procedure done. We payed a 20 dollar copay and that was it. She stayed in the hospital 3 nights. Because Kaiser is bracing for the Obama money grab against the industry that has already been partially levied against them they in turn are taking measure to try and survive as a viable company. Now my wife needs another operation. Premiums haven't gone down, indeed they have gone up though our company hasn't passed it on to us, yet. But as I said before, where the premiums covered all the expenses of surgery a year ago, now they only cover 80% and we get to pay the balance. Not to mention a newly instituted 1000 dollar deductible that wasn't there before. This all came about on Obama's watch. Because of his policies.
Last edited by finder; 8th March 2012 at 07:11 PM.
Two people I know have diabetes. One was diagnosed in 2008, the other since birth. Both have been under our company's insurance program for the last decade. Neither was turned down upon signing up or charge more in premium rates. Perhaps you didn't shop around enough? BTW, your drive is admirable, seriously.
This is so incredibly stupid for so many reasons.
- Obama still has not taken a position on "gay marriage"
- He originally did not want to pursue DADT
- His attempt at "universal health care" was a complete give-away to the pharmaceutical industry
- "Saving" the automobile industry was a bad thing, not a good thing
- His response to the "Arab Spring" was one in support of nationalist assholes
This is why I hate this forum. This is the last post I will ever make on this forum. I have abandoned all forms of liberalism and shitty bourgeois politics. Please do not respond to this post expecting a response from me.
Ohhhkay.
1) The political realities are that gay marriage is a states issue. Sucks, but whatever.
2) Yes he did. It was a campaign promise, and he fulfilled it in his normal style of trying to appease everyone.
3) By all means nationalize the industry, but I fail to see how this is a "give-away". No country has a nationalized pharm industry at this point, AFAIK. Even the Scandinavians gave it up.
4) No it wasn't.
5) No it wasn't.
Toodles Dan.
A man said to the universe:
"Sir, I exist!"
"However," replied the universe,
"The fact has not created in me
A sense of obligation."
-- Stephen Crane
Not necessarily. The equal protection clause could be considered relevant, and has been by some.
Personally, I'd do away with marriage as a legal phenomenon altogether.
The simple reality is, none of this truly has to be the state's business.
Same here:
"Proponents of (concealed carry) laws claim that concealed weapons will
provide individuals with an unparalleled means of self-defense while offering society an
effective method of decreasing crime. Experts, scientific evidence,
experience, and common sense contradict these claims."
The View From North Central Idaho - I love listening to them whine
As I've argued before -- gun control, or the lack thereof, can exist with or without the state. A solution or a failure is just that. I see no reason why almost everything must be voted on by representatives beforehand. Marriage issues are no different.
Grandpa h.
Post by post, building his arguments by smashing a couple of theirs -- for America.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks