Romney: Uninsured with preexisting conditions should be denied coverage

Quote from smegalicious : So you admit many of the places were unidentifiable, yet you claim it's a "fact" that none of them were govt agencies?

no I did not...read my sentence again...hint: the words 'looked like'..and I even asked you to share any pictures you had that support your view...you did not..you instead chose to just mock and ridicule.

Quote : Question: does the fed or state govt ever give grant money to churches & other charitable organizations to help deliver (secular) aid to those in need?

Did they back then? maybe, I don't know. I doubt it though, because at the time we did not have a the so-called New Deal and the concept of the government doing almost everything for people was a foreign one....all that only came with FDR and later. (eg there was hardly any federal involvement, if any, with the San Francisco earthquake and the Galveston Hurricane that pretty much leveled those two cities, but they recovered and re-built pretty much on their own, without the billions in proven waste and fraud that the feds now do with things like Hurricane Katrina)

Quote from smegalicious : Not even close. First, a question is just that - a question, not a positive claim. That's why we have those two different words to refer to two different concepts. Plus, my question never referred to "death by starvation" but merely about those who "went hungry". Second, you posted your claims about how food stamps detract from charity before I ever even posted in this thread. "If there were no food stamps, people would donate more to food banks." (paraphrased since I'm mobile w/no copy & paste ability) That is most certainly a positive claim... And one for which you have provided no evidence.

My first claim, I will personalize. I do not donate to the foodbank because of foodstamps. That is sufficient evidence for me. I would donate if I felt there were people in danger of going hungry. Instead of feeling happy for donating and providing a healthy meal for needy families, I get upset at watching people use tax money to check out at the supermarket with foodstamps to buy frozen pizzas and 2 liters of Minute Maid Fruit Punch. There you go.

Quote : If what you suggest is true, then why did we ever need to implement food stamps to begin with? Wouldn't there have been enough voluntary charitable donations to ensure no one went hungry?

You are positively claiming foodstamps needed to be started. I welcome you to prove your claim that there weren't sufficient charitable donations, and that the result of foodstamps is fewer people dying from malnutrition (I claim this is a much better measure than your bizarre and even more difficult to prove productivity due to better health, especially given the level of obesity of those on foodstamps).

A question without a claim would be along the lines of "Are foodstamps necessary?" This makes no claim. The question "Why did you beat your wife?" claims you did beat your wife.

To be totally clear, your first question makes the claim, "We needed to implement foodstamps. Why?" The second can be rephrased "If sufficient voluntary donations existed, there would have been no need for food stamps. Correct?" That is, you implicitly invoke the claim of your first question in your second question. Anyone with a modicum of reading comprehension understands your points, which really mean: We needed to start food stamps because there were insufficient donations. Prove me wrong.

Quote from Xygonn : My first claim, I will personalize. I do not donate to the foodbank because of foodstamps. That is sufficient evidence for me.

Sufficient evidence for what?

Quote : I would donate if I felt there were people in danger of going hungry. Instead of feeling happy for donating and providing a healthy meal for needy families, I get upset at watching people use tax money to check out at the supermarket with foodstamps to buy frozen pizzas and 2 liters of Minute Maid Fruit Punch. There you go.

I get upset at watching people make sweeping generalizations about others based on a single grocery store transaction.

I've donated to food banks before - even while on food stamps myself.

Quote : You are positively claiming foodstamps needed to be started.

Repeating it doesn't make it true.

You claimed that foodstamps lowered charitable donations. I asked why food stamps were ever started, since according to your logic, a lack of food stamps should coincide with a plethora of charitable donations.

Quote : I welcome you to prove your claim that there weren't sufficient charitable donations, and that the result of foodstamps is fewer people dying from malnutrition (I claim this is a much better measure than your bizarre and even more difficult to prove productivity due to better health, especially given the level of obesity of those on foodstamps).

I welcome you to show where I actually made such a positive claim as opposed to a question that you found too difficult to answer.

Quote : A question without a claim would be along the lines of "Are foodstamps necessary?" This makes no claim. The question "Why did you beat your wife?" claims you did beat your wife.

What about "Why did you have to 'personalize' your previous positive claim?"

Quote from HEATBaller : If you are all right financially then you are all right, part of this country wants to do away with all social programs. Its becoming dog eat dog. With a too bad for you attitude too bad if you are poor and get sick. No safety nets, that is except for rich corporations and wall street.

are you using his statements above about insurance to some how prove he wants to do away with medicaid? Because that is not what he is saying at all.

related question. What do yyou suppose would happen if you could leave and join medical insurance programs without any reprocussions? IMHO, nobody would bother to join one until they got sick.... and every single insurance carrier would go out of business. How would medicare and medcaid work if you only paid these taxes when you got sick? they would not work at all.... it makes no sense.... if you disagree with him then you must be OK with people only paying medicaid taxes once they actually need medicaid and not a second sooner.

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?

I'm sensing an entitlement mentality here. You suggest that you're entitled to the services of a private company (in this case we're talking about a health insurance company).

If the insurance company denies you coverage then you should pay for your health-related expenses - not the taxpayer. Why is your default the government rather than yourself?

There is a difference between denying someone health insurance and denying someone health-related services.

Quote from Xygonn : A lot of the dog eat dog nature is because the government is instituting safety nets. Why should I donate to a food bank when I pay a huge percentage of my money to the government to pay for food stamps? Now I have less interaction with my neighbors and cannot really feel the impact I make. If there were no food stamps, donating to the food bank would be more common. The local community would be able to interact more, and the feelings of goodwill towards others would increase. Instead we are stuck with a system of coercion where the possibility of fomenting both anger at the system (stealing my money to give it to others), and remorse (those on the system that feel guilty using the money taken by force from others).

You say you pay a huge percentage of your money to the government for food stamps? Tell us what that huge percentage is.

at least post the statement..

Quote : “People with preexisting conditions — as long as they’ve been insured before, they’re going to continue to have insurance,” Romney explained. “Suppose they were never insured?” Leno asked. "Well, if they’re 45 years old, and they show up, and they say, I want insurance, because I’ve got a heart disease, it’s like, `Hey guys, we can’t play the game like that. You’ve got to get insurance when you’re well, and if you get ill, then you’re going to be covered,’”

with all the news going on about the constitutionality of ObamaCare you'd think everyone would be up to speed on this. I avoid having insurance my whole life.. I'm pretty healthy, a decade or two passes. Then I got chronically ill.. to the point where my surgeries would cost say $1M. So I guy get healthcare for a couple grand.

The alternate scenario. I buy a Lamborghini. I don't buy full coverage because I barely drive it. But I decide to enter a demolition car derby. So I buy full coverage the day before knowing the car will be trashed and I'll be paying a could grand for them to reimburse me a million.

insurance is meant to protect you vs. the inevitable. not vs. what you know is going to occur. Both scenarios you know you're going to essentially be ripping off a private company (i.e. they'll be paying 100x out more than you put in).

Quote from HEATBaller : If you are all right financially then you are all right, part of this country wants to do away with all social programs. Its becoming dog eat dog. With a too bad for you attitude too bad if you are poor and get sick. No safety nets, that is except for rich corporations and wall street.

I disagree with your premise of those who want to do away with social programs have a "too bad for you" and "too bad if you are poor and get sick" attitude. I think someone can believe in ending social programs while at the same time caring very much for people - even caring far more for helping people than those who believe in and want social programs. I think someone can believe in ending social programs while at the same time believing in having safety nets for those in need. How? Simple. Private sector vs. government sector.

Quote from XReflection : That's exactly the mindset that is causing healthcare costs to spiral. People who aren't insured, can't pay. Hospital takes the hit, but increases prices for procedures to make up the losses. Insured individuals have their insurance companies pay for the procedure that is now more expensive. Insurance companies increase premiums to help cover increased costs. More people become uninsured because they can't afford it. It's a vicious cycle and its not sustainable.

Actually, it's not.

The problem causing the high healthcare costs is this: Anytime the person/group receiving a good or service is not the same person/group paying for the good or service, the natural market forces that keep prices in check with supply and demand become perverted.

Another example is college expenses.

Far too many Americans do not shop around for and pay for their health-related expenses the same way they shop around for and pay for their food, clothing, cable TV, electronics, furniture, etc.. Far too many Americans do not even shop around for and pay for their own health insurance.

The hospital's customer is the insurance company.

The insurance company's customer is the employer (in most cases).

Where does that leave the individual - the end user?

The solution? We, as a country, need to move away from employer-provided health insurance and move back towards individually chosen and owned health insurance policies as well as individually covered health-related costs that aren't covered by the health insurance company.

This puts the individual - the end user - back in the position it needs to be in which is the customer. When this happens, the individual all of the sudden becomes conscious of how much certain products and services costs and makes decisions based on that just as they would with their food and clothing purchases.

Market forces come back into play, supply and demand play a much larger role, and prices come down.

Quote from Xygonn : I don't see why. Just because you think the government shouldn't take care of the sick and poor doesn't mean you think they shouldn't be taken care of.

Indeed. Too many can't mentally separate what one feels should be done versus what the government's role (if any) is. Often the Jesus card is played "how can you call yourself a good Christian" etc etc. Christ said nothing about taking from one individual forcefully and redistributing to others but instead stressed that voluntary charity was virtuous. There is no charity in the government taking something by force to give to someone else, regardless of what God you believe in.

The federal government is bound by the U.S. Constitution. Every new program has to (at least is should have to) pass the constitutionality test. If it is found that this new program is unconstitutional, it doesn't matter how much someone "needs" it, it doesn't matter how much a certain group of people jump up and down and kick and scream, it doesn't even matter how many people die of a particular thing . . . if it's not constitutional, it's not constitutional and that's where it begins and ends.

I say that to say, some are fighting the wrong battle. The issue isn't whether or not people need health-related services or not. The issue isn't whether or not some people can't/don't want to pay for health-related expenses. The issue (in this thread at least) is whether or not it is the role of the federal government of the United States to force a private company to provide it's services to an individual that they don't want to provide their services to for business reasons.

That's the beginning of it and that's the end of it. All of the other emotion-driven points/stories are introduced to simply cloud the issue.

Quote from MintJulep : You say you pay a huge percentage of your money to the government for food stamps? Tell us what that huge percentage is.

Isn't that the problem with taxes? Aside from SS and medicare, which I know takes about 14% of my earnings (you really should count the employer contribution), I pay one in five dollars to the federal government for all their programs (though most of it does pay for defense). I pay ~10% sales tax on most things I buy. I pay ~4k per year in property taxes.

So in total I pay over 40% tax. That is a huge sum, part of which pays for food stamps. Sorry if that wasn't clear to you.

Quote from Xygonn : Isn't that the problem with taxes? Aside from SS and medicare, which I know takes about 14% of my earnings (you really should count the employer contribution), I pay one in five dollars to the federal government for all their programs (though most of it does pay for defense). I pay ~10% sales tax on most things I buy. I pay ~4k per year in property taxes. So in total I pay over 40% tax. That is a huge sum, part of which pays for food stamps. Sorry if that wasn't clear to you.

But that is not what you claimed. You said you pay a huge percentage of your income for the food stamp program. When I asked the percentage you paid for the food stamp program you respond with your property taxes, sales tax, Social Security tax, etc. none of which has anything to do with the question I asked you.

When people exaggerate or lie about one thing it makes me question their honesty in their other statements.

Quote from MintJulep : When people exaggerate or lie about one thing it makes me question their honesty in their other statements.

Considering "huge" is subjective, he didn't necessarily lie or exaggerate about anything, you just disagree with his quantitative term used.