Romney: Uninsured with preexisting conditions should be denied coverage

Quote from Gotchaforce : The point is military spending is 10x as big of a cause to the deficit than spending on FOOD to go to our own citizens. Many of which do have jobs but cant afford food, rent, and utilities for their family. Whatever money they spend on food goes back into our own economy. Money spent on fuel in middle east, or maintaining forces in middle east, or extremely overpriced and purposefully delayed weapon systems, does not go back into our economy. I guess it employs a bunch of people but theyre losing their lives and being paid pretty crappy wages to occupy nations for no reason. Military personnel expenditure makes up at most 20%. Just pathetic. Lets really break this down... In 2012 $64 billion went to feed our own citizens http://www.statehealthfacts.org/c...at=1&sub=7 In 2010 $550 billion was spent on military crap BESIDES personnel salaries http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mili...ted_States In 2010 $150 billion went to education http://www.usgovernmentspending.c...010_2.html Basically it would be like you have venom running through your veins and your biggest worry seems to be a tooth ache.

I realized my italic I looks like a slash. We're in a agreement. I think we shouldn't be fighting so many wars (none is a good number). I also think we shouldn't have food stamps (at the federal level at the very least). I also think SS and Medicare should be phased out.

Quote from Rebound : They "survive" this way just fine; they call it "Group Insurance." Health insurance you obtain through an employer insures all employees as a group, and thus, pre-existing conditions are covered. If you start a new job and a family member has cancer or cerebral palsy or whatever, they're covered.

Not necessarily. Pre-existing conditions still could be denied coverage even under group policies (at least prior to recent changes and in my state anyway). My wife who has had some major medical problems was denied coverage for such conditions even under group policies. Also what tended to happen (again, at least in the past anyway) was that rates for that pool would be raised substantially based on conditions once they become known which then were factored into risk calculations for that group.

Quote : But the model fails for individual, non-group policies. By covering everyone, the model again works. And since anyone can have a major health problem at any time, we avoid the problem of the government and the hospitals holding the bag for the uninsured.

The "model" doesn't work because of cost avoidance related to the uninsured. That's really a side issue. The "model" only works when you have large numbers of low-risk persons who don't result in costs forced to buy coverage, either directly or through supplemental government funding, to cover the costs for those who do. The costs don't really change any for the better, you simply increase the size of the pool of payers to cover the costs. Which is why you didn't hear much complaining from the insurance companies during all of the debate.

The way I see it is that deciding to help another person is a charitable and personal decision. I don't think the government has any right to take any portion of my earnings to help another person. That's not to say I dont agree with helping other people, but I think it should be done without the government. The sad truth is, is that there are so many people who would literally die in the streets if other people werent working for them. But there are no penalties for using our system, and if youre dependent on it, and have another child, theyre taken care of too. Theres really no way to end what we've started as far as entitlements go.

Quote from Xygonn : I realized my italic I looks like a slash. We're in a agreement. I think we shouldn't be fighting so many wars (none is a good number). I also think we shouldn't have food stamps (at the federal level at the very least). I also think SS and Medicare should be phased out.

So people who retire in ten years shouldn't get any medical care unless they were able to save millions of dollars. nice.

Quote from Rebound : So people who retire in ten years shouldn't get any medical care unless they were able to save millions of dollars. nice.

If they are actually retiring in ten years, yeah. That makes sense. Where do you get the idea that people ought to be able to retire in ten years?

This really is a great microcosm of liberal thought.

Quote from Rebound : So people who retire in ten years shouldn't get any medical care unless they were able to save millions of dollars. nice.

i would really appreciate an answer to my question above as it gets to the core of why the health care bill is a failure.

Quote from Xygonn : If they are actually retiring in ten years, yeah. That makes sense. Where do you get the idea that people ought to be able to retire in ten years? This really is a great microcosm of liberal thought.

His statement was vague, why do you think its such a great microcosm of "liberal thought"? It is much more easily read as people who retire 10 years from now, not "people who worked 10 years then retire"

Not sure why youre so quick to jump to stereotyping liberal thought. Your career is built on an industry that only existed because the government wanted weapons grade uranium, nuclear power has probably had more than a trillion dollars dumped into it by the government since the end of WW2 to build up our nuclear arms. It didnt stand the test of the free market at all.

Quote from Gotchaforce : His statement was vague, why do you think its such a great microcosm of "liberal thought"? It is much more easily read as people who retire 10 years from now, not "people who worked 10 years then retire" Not sure why youre so quick to jump to stereotyping liberal thought. Your career is built on an industry that only existed because the government wanted weapons grade uranium, nuclear power has probably had more than a trillion dollars dumped into it by the government since the end of WW2 to build up our nuclear arms. It didnt stand the test of the free market at all.

Cool story bro tell it again. Actually, my industry is based on making plutonium for weapons. No need for a reactor to enrich uranium.

The reason I say what I said is because it sounds like he's talking about 40 quarters, and I put no horizon on phasing it out. Or is that not obvious to you?

Quote from MintJulep : Xygonn has now said about 4.2 percent of federal income tax goes to food programs (SNAP+WIC. Go ask your significant other if 4.2 inches is huge.

You do realize things can be relative, right?

2%- 3% of $100 going to McDonalds may not be huge, but 2% - 3% of his income going to food stamps could in fact be huge, especially if he could donate privately in such a way that he would only spend .5% of his income. Again, you're upset about his quantifier, not his claim.

Quote from catluver : Yes, rather than have us actually pay for our insurance, we should just be denied coverage and put our medical expenses on the taxpayer instead. Or should we just suffer and die a slow painful death?

Would it still be a slow death if assisted suicide were legal?

Quote from smegalicious : I've donated to food banks before - even while on food stamps myself.

How does that work? I mean you're on food stamps. Yet still have money to buy unneeded food to then donate.
1) Do you have food stamp money at the end of the month and dont need anything so if you dont use it you lose it?
2) You have stockpiled food from food stamps( or before FS)...you know one can only keep sooooooooo much peanut butter.
3) Or stuff you got for free from some kinda cvs\walgreen\couponing?

Quote from MintJulep : Go ask your significant other if 4.2 inches is huge.

Q bloodhound gang music: If I crashed into Uranus...

Quote from ashcampbell : Would it still be a slow death is assisted suicide were legal?

What about illnesses that have no cure and are painful and life altering but not necessarily life threatening?

Quote from catluver : What about illnesses that have no cure and are painful and life altering but not necessarily life threatening?

Are these people still able to work?

Quote from ashcampbell : How does that work? I mean you're on food stamps. Yet still have money to buy unneeded food to then donate.

You don't have to "buy" free stuff.

Quote : 1) Do you have food stamp money at the end of the month and dont need anything so if you dont use it you lose it?

Just for the purposes of clarification, you don't lose unspent funds. They simply "rollover" to the next month.

Quote : 2) You have stockpiled food from food stamps( or before FS)...you know one can only keep sooooooooo much peanut butter. 3) Or stuff you got for free from some kinda cvs\walgreen\couponing?

Well, the site *is* called "slickdeals".

Quote from smegalicious : You don't have to "buy" free stuff. Just for the purposes of clarification, you don't lose unspent funds. They simply "rollover" to the next month. Well, the site *is* called "slickdeals".

I've never been on food stamps as an adult. So I dont know the ins and outs.

As to the free stuff and FS...it could have been way back when before you got super awesome at the freebie rollovering.