Healthcare reform

[GoSox05]

And here we go.

 

 

The count down to the Maoist Stalinist hellhole is upon us.

[bmags]

Yeah its not like were in a recession and every dollar counts or something. What's a few hundred bucks a year.

 

Yeah. I'm going to give you two options.

 

You can pay me $750 for nothing.

 

or

 

You can pay me $1200 for health care coverage.

[bmags]

I'm not sure that I share your optimism, but who knows? I do know that young and healthy people tend to feel invincible. So, there needs to be an incentive there for them to buy into it. Considering other costs they have to pay, like for their education, insurance may go on the chopping block.

 

Well, for one the push to 26 helps this.

 

BUT, also there are many things you need to pay for constantly now. Eyes for one. I have contacts, and having to pay about $150 for a years subscription with an eye exam *WITH INSURANCE. If it was out of pocket i have no idea how expensive that would be per year. And with health insurance then Lasik becomes much more affordable.

 

Could I have lived three to four years without health insurance? Yeah, and for the most part I would've been fine. BUt it's always in the back of your mind. And again, to be paying 750 for NOTHING is a big deal.

[bmags]

You and I have completely different views on the role of health care. You assume that whatever hospitals/doctors/drug ads tell you, that you have a problem that can be easily fixed with treatment.

 

No I don't. Take bulls*** statements to the republican thread please, where they belong.

[BigSqwert]

I'm sure Jon Stewart won't make fun of the 300 pens he used to sign the bill.

[HuskyCaucasian]

I really hate the multi-pen signing thing. So dumb.

[BigSqwert]

I really hate the multi-pen signing thing. So dumb.

I had never seen it before. My first thought was that Boehner laid out a bunch of non-functioning pens.

[HuskyCaucasian]

I had never seen it before. My first thought was that Boehner laid out a bunch of non-functioning pens.

LMAO!

It's been done for a long time. 20 seems like a lot. but i've seen 5-10 before. 2 seems completely fine: one for the Library, one to give away.

[ChiSox_Sonix]

Well, for one the push to 26 helps this.

 

BUT, also there are many things you need to pay for constantly now. Eyes for one. I have contacts, and having to pay about $150 for a years subscription with an eye exam *WITH INSURANCE. If it was out of pocket i have no idea how expensive that would be per year. And with health insurance then Lasik becomes much more affordable.

 

Could I have lived three to four years without health insurance? Yeah, and for the most part I would've been fine. BUt it's always in the back of your mind. And again, to be paying 750 for NOTHING is a big deal.

 

Just a FWIW comment - LASIK is not covered well by most health plans. I have a good one and if I choose LASIK they only cover something like 15%. It's considered elective so most plans (that I know of) don't or won't cover it.

 

[BigSqwert]

I'm still confused how things like Lasik are not covered by all plans.

[HuskyCaucasian]

I'm still confused how things like Lasik are not covered by all plans.

You could make an argument that it is an elective surgery. You dont NEED it to have good health.

[BigSqwert]

You could make an argument that it is an elective surgery. You dont NEED it to have good health.

Being able to see is pretty important in my book. Why cover only certain things for better vision and not all options?

[bmags]

Um, it pays for itself in like 5 years.

 

My uncle's had his on insurance...i assumed it was more widespread. That said, once i have $1000 to spend i'm going to take a lazer to both my eyes and then fly planes to save peoples lives. wolverines.

 

edit: to clarify to ahb, my response would be that they would be saving money after 5 years by not shelling out for contacts/glasses/eye exams.

Edited March 23, 2010 by bmags

[HuskyCaucasian]

Being able to see is pretty important in my book. Why cover only certain things for better vision and not all options?

Obviously seeing is important. but I choose to wear glasses. I dont need to have a surgery to fix my vision.

I am just playing devils advocate here.

[NorthSideSox72]

Um, it pays for itself in like 5 years.

 

My uncle's had his on insurance...i assumed it was more widespread. That said, once i have $1000 to spend i'm going to take a lazer to both my eyes and then fly planes to save peoples lives. wolverines.

Odd trivia about laser surgery... for federal jobs that have vision requirements (i.e. USSS and other law enforcement agencies), havign had laser eye surgery is an automatic disqualification.

 

[HuskyCaucasian]

Odd trivia about laser surgery... for federal jobs that have vision requirements (i.e. USSS and other law enforcement agencies), havign had laser eye surgery is an automatic disqualification.

I had a friend who wanted to fly planes for the air force, but couldnt because of his glasses... and laser surgery also disqualified him. So, he went into Air Force IT.

[HuskyCaucasian]

edit: to clarify to ahb, my response would be that they would be saving money after 5 years by not shelling out for contacts/glasses/eye exams.

No doubt there. I will say this though: Personally, there are 3 body organs I dont want a doctor to poke around in unless my life is on the line... my heart, brain, and eyes. Everything else is negotiable.

[bmags]

your dick, huh.

[HuskyCaucasian]

your dick, huh.

as odd as it sounds, yes. My baby making days are over. 2 is enough.

[Jenksismyhero]

No I don't. Take bulls*** statements to the republican thread please, where they belong.

 

Didn't think my statement warranted this, but whatever. Your posts seem to indicate that you believe any slight health ailment deserves/warrants a trip to the doctor, lest it become something serious. I think there is a philosophical difference there from my own, which I pointed out.

 

Good to be reminded that only Republicans can be dicks though, thanks. It’s such a shocker too that the Filibuster portion of this site only has about 10-12 active members (mainly conservative hating folk). Anyone else can't get a word in without a crap response.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

No I don't. Take bulls*** statements to the republican thread please, where they belong.

 

 

Didn't think my statement warranted this, but whatever. Your posts seem to indicate that you believe any slight health ailment deserves/warrants a trip to the doctor, lest it become something serious. I think there is a philosophical difference there from my own, which I pointed out.

 

Good to be reminded that only Republicans can be dicks though, thanks. It’s such a shocker too that the Filibuster portion of this site only has about 10-12 active members (mainly conservative hating folk). Anyone else can't get a word in without a crap response.

 

Maybe you can both take a deep breath and let it go. No need to be nasty.

 

[HuskyCaucasian]

I'm talking about the fact that not only does the bill prohibit it... federal law already prohibits it as well... AND the Prez signed a needless XO to affirm said law, just to make it very clear. And yet, people STILL think this is some sort of baby killing initiative. This means that they either spouted off knowing absolutely nothing, or knew something and are being intentionally false. Either way... ignorant.

The official statement from the organization I work with:

One area of particular concern for The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod regarding this legislation centers on the sanctity of life. To allay the concerns of pro-life advocates, President Obama has promised to issue an executive order ensuring that no federal monies will go toward the provision of abortions. Some groups, however, including the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and the National Right to Life Committee, have expressed strong doubts that an executive order truly will accomplish this. For its part, The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, a staunchly pro-life church body supporting the protection of human life from conception through death, cannot support or endorse any portion of the new law that allows government funding, even indirectly, for abortions.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Best comment of the day....

Pro-life doesn't end at birth. This bill will save untold thousands of lives.

[bmags]

Didn't think my statement warranted this, but whatever. Your posts seem to indicate that you believe any slight health ailment deserves/warrants a trip to the doctor, lest it become something serious.

 

No, it didn't. But going back 2 pages you would've seen how incorrect that statement was. Sorry you feel so intimidated here, but here's a pro-tip, don't jump into something you haven't been following closely than make a B.S. statement like "you believe all of the doctors/pharmaceutical commercials" because it makes your argument easier.

 

Does a group of people go to the doctor too much? yes. Does a whole bunch of people not go to the doctor at all because of intimidation/money? Yes, a huge portion. Specifically a portion called "men." It's one of the reasons we die earlier.

[StrangeSox]

I'm still confused how things like Lasik are not covered by all plans.

 

I don't have vision coverage period.

 

also fyi for anyone considering laser: there's concerns about being able to test for glaucoma after the surgery. So, if you have a family history of it, you might want to talk to your eye doctor before deciding. I think the issue was not having any data to baseline measurements against, but that it is improving and probably won't be a concern in the future.

Edited March 23, 2010 by StrangeSox