Question for TitanTiger and/or TigerMike

[pensacola tiger 0]

You guys seem to be up on the candidates and what they have said. Or at the least you seem to know where to look to find quotes. Do either of you know if any of the candidates have addressed the health care issue that is close to my heart: A plan for either providing for ot requiring private insurers to provide insurance coverage for those with pre-existing conditions that preclude being able to buy insurance on the open market at an affordable price? This is something that I haven't heard mentioned by a candidate ever. Here is why I ask...my 27 year old daughter had thyroid cancer over 6 years ago. Her thyroid was removed and she received the radiation treatment that pretty much assures that it will never recur. And yet the only way she can get insurance is to get it through her job. Since her husband works for a company that doesn't provide insurance for its employees she will always have to remain employed so that she can have insurance. THerefore, if and when they decide to have children she won't have the option of staying home with them. If this is a problem for them, I'm sure that it is a problem for thousands of others across the country. Thanks for any info you might have.

[TexasTiger 13,028]

You guys seem to be up on the candidates and what they have said. Or at the least you seem to know where to look to find quotes. Do either of you know if any of the candidates have addressed the health care issue that is close to my heart: A plan for either providing for ot requiring private insurers to provide insurance coverage for those with pre-existing conditions that preclude being able to buy insurance on the open market at an affordable price? This is something that I haven't heard mentioned by a candidate ever. Here is why I ask...my 27 year old daughter had thyroid cancer over 6 years ago. Her thyroid was removed and she received the radiation treatment that pretty much assures that it will never recur. And yet the only way she can get insurance is to get it through her job. Since her husband works for a company that doesn't provide insurance for its employees she will always have to remain employed so that she can have insurance. THerefore, if and when they decide to have children she won't have the option of staying home with them. If this is a problem for them, I'm sure that it is a problem for thousands of others across the country. Thanks for any info you might have.

Here's your guy.

“We now face an opportunity — and an obligation — to turn the page on the failed politics of yesterday's health care debates… My plan begins by covering every American. If you already have health insurance, the only thing that will change for you under this plan is the amount of money you will spend on premiums. That will be less. If you are one of the 45 million Americans who don't have health insurance, you will have it after this plan becomes law. No one will be turned away because of a preexisting condition or illness.”

— Barack Obama, Speech in Iowa City, IA, May 29, 2007

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/

[CCTAU 3,346]

Oh yeah, 45 million people. Of which almost 10 million are NOT Americans. And almost 20 million make more 50K a year and CHOOSE to buy something other than insurance. That leave us with about 7% of the population of the US without health insurance. BUT ALL HAVE HEALTH CARE.....AT THE HOSPITAL.

AS for the answer to the more intelligent poster's question. I thought the medical portability act of 1996 would allow for her husband to find a job with health insurance and be able to add her without a pre-existing since she was already fully covered. That part of insurance coverage is always a little iffy. I would consult someone who works with it every day. Maybe the human resources department at her job.

[TexasTiger 13,028]

AS for the answer to the more intelligent poster's question.

Who gave you permission to talk to more intelligent people?

[Tiger Al 0]

Pensacola tiger, although my name is neither TitanTiger nor Tigermike, Clinton's plan also covers pre-existing conditions.

LINK

Also, have your daughter contact her states insurance department for HIPAA related questions.

LINK

BUT ALL HAVE HEALTH CARE.....AT THE HOSPITAL.

See, the problem is that the hospital usually wants to get paid for their services. In other words, just because there's a Ferrari dealer in my town, unless I can pay them for it, they don't usually give them away.

[TexasTiger 13,028]

Pensacols tiger, although my name is neither TitanTiger nor Tigermike, Clinton's plan also covers pre-existing conditions.

LINK

BUT ALL HAVE HEALTH CARE.....AT THE HOSPITAL.

See, the problem is that the hospital usually wants to get paid for their services. In other words, just because there's a Ferrari dealer in my town, unless I can pay them for it, they don't usually give them away.

If this was a political campaign, CCTAU would say, "My opponent thinks the gubment should take your tax money and give away Ferrari's to folks who don't work!"

[Ranger12 46]

Any candidate can promise anything they want too. When it comes to the health care issue, it is going to be Congress who pushes any type of legislature either forcing insurance companies to do certain things or socializing health care. Not a single presidential candidate is going to get the done by themselves and if they suggest otherwise, then they are doing what politicians do best...they are lying.

If a democrat wins the White House and we still have a democratically controlled Congress, I am willing to bet that they still will not live up to all they promises they make about proving health care.

I am a conservative, but when any conservative or liberal candidate says "I promise.." or "I will make sure..", nowadays I usually just roll my eyes. DC politicians are there for one thing...themselves. It is about power and their careers. 99% couldn't care less about our needs folks. Most of them have been corrupted. The sooner you realize that, the sooner you will stop swearing up and down your candidate will be the savior of the country and realize he or she is just a selfish, manipulative liar like the rest of them.

[Tiger Al 0]

Any candidate can promise anything they want too. When it comes to the health care issue, it is going to be Congress who pushes any type of legislature either forcing insurance companies to do certain things or socializing health care. Not a single presidential candidate is going to get the done by themselves and if they suggest otherwise, then they are doing what politicians do best...they are lying.

If a democrat wins the White House and we still have a democratically controlled Congress, I am willing to bet that they still will not live up to all they promises they make about proving health care.

I am a conservative, but when any conservative or liberal candidate says "I promise.." or "I will make sure..", nowadays I usually just roll my eyes. DC politicians are there for one thing...themselves. It is about power and their careers. 99% couldn't care less about our needs folks. Most of them have been corrupted. The sooner you realize that, the sooner you will stop swearing up and down your candidate will be the savior of the country and realize he or she is just a selfish, manipulative liar like the rest of them.

I agree with you which is why they call it a plan. The best they can do is lay it out there and if it's good enough it'll be made into law. If not, we'll call it Bush's Social Security Plan.

[Ranger12 46]

Of course that all they can do is lay out a plan, which is why I said Congress is the responsible party. A president can't do crap without their support. You hardly ever hear a candidate say "I will try...". It is usually something like "If you vote for me, I promise too (popular topic)...". So, when these candidates make these "promises", right then and there they are full of bs. I can take every candidate and not have to dig deep to find something they have flat out lied about during their campaign. NOT ONE SINGLE CANDIDATE IS HONEST, SO TRYING TO MAKE YOURS (republican or democrat) SEEM AS SUCH IS RIDICULOUS.

I guess I am just more disillusioned then I have ever been and I just kind of laugh now when I see people so passionate about a certain candidate, acting like that candidate will save the country, knowing full well that candidate is full of crap just like the rest of them.

Presidential and congressional elections have gotten to all you are doing is voting for the lesser of two evils. I was okay with Bush's first term, but I am so freakin' unhappy with him in the second term. If he had one more term he could run for, I would not vote for him. Yet, again, during this election, the democrats offer nobody that I could vote for either.

My first and only choice I felt like I could halfway trust, Duncan Hunter, is out of the race. Huckabee, Romney, and Obama, I think, are alll good guys, but would make a poor CIC. I think Hilary could do a better job then Obama, but I don't think she is a very good person and even more selfish then the typical DC politician. McCain being a vet, and a former POW at that, earns some points for me and I think he would make an okay CIC, but he seems to be on the fence too much politically.

So, as you can see, there is not a single one of these remaining front runners that I could get totally behind and support without question. Anybody want to start a write-in campaign? Al or Tex? Conservative and liberal running on one ticket. Heck, I don't even care if I am running for President or Vice-prez.

[Auburn85 432]

What would it hurt to try and pass universal healthcare ( what's the difference between this and socialized med?) now instead of waiting? Obama and Clinton are both in the Senate. That's 2 votes right there. Then, you have Senator Dodd and senator Kennedy. Wow, that's 4. Why do they feel they have to play this carrot and stick game to get elected?

I'll tell you why. They currently don't have the votes. So assume very few seats change hands in the congressional elections and we have a democratic president, what are the chances of them getting their healthcare plan passed or withdrawing ALL of the troops?

Why can't they just say " if i am elected president, along with 10-15 more democrats in congressional elections, we'll pass healthcare, get out of iraq, ect".?

[pensacola tiger 0]

To all who have tried to answer the question that I actually asked:

1. I realize that congress does the actual law making and presidents just make suggestions. I wanted to know if anyone had even acknowledged that this particular problem exists.

2. I should have clarified by stating that I was not interested in socialized medicine paid for by the government. I am interested in private companies being required to provide coverage at a resonable rate. Now, a government subsudy to the companies to cover the difference in what they charge the people for the plan and what they might need to charge might be a good idea.

3. For the person (sorry can't remember who) who suggested that her husband get a job that offers health care for the employees, that's not undoable but it's not a decision that he should make based only on that criteria. The business he works for is family owned and provides a very good living. THey will own it one day. But it is a small business that can't afford to provide insurance for employees and doesn't pay enough for the outrageous premiums that they would have to pay.

I was afraid that when I poested this there would be people who blasted my daughter for some reason. Thank you all for not assuming that she and my son-in-law (and others in this situation) are deadbeats wanting a handout. They aren't. They are just in a situation that any of us could find ourselves in at some time.

[Ranger12 46]

To all who have tried to answer the question that I actually asked:

1. I realize that congress does the actual law making and presidents just make suggestions. I wanted to know if anyone had even acknowledged that this particular problem exists.

2. I should have clarified by stating that I was not interested in socialized medicine paid for by the government. I am interested in private companies being required to provide coverage at a resonable rate. Now, a government subsudy to the companies to cover the difference in what they charge the people for the plan and what they might need to charge might be a good idea.

3. For the person (sorry can't remember who) who suggested that her husband get a job that offers health care for the employees, that's not undoable but it's not a decision that he should make based only on that criteria. The business he works for is family owned and provides a very good living. THey will own it one day. But it is a small business that can't afford to provide insurance for employees and doesn't pay enough for the outrageous premiums that they would have to pay.

I was afraid that when I poested this there would be people who blasted my daughter for some reason. Thank you all for not assuming that she and my son-in-law (and others in this situation) are deadbeats wanting a handout. They aren't. They are just in a situation that any of us could find ourselves in at some time.

Well you know the saying about assumptions.

Trust me bud, I know how a medical problem can keep somebody from being able to work, thus hindering their ability to get proper medical coverage. Thank God my wife worked and had private insurance when I had to stop working because of all the medical problems that hit me out of the blue.

I don't know if Congress will ever have the guts to force health insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions like that. I do know that some state legislatures have taken upon themselves to require insurance companies to cover certain things that the do not in other states. My sister is diabetic and her ex-husband had his own trucking business, thus she could not get coverage because of her pre-existing condition. When she remarried and her new husband went to cover her on his insurance, she could be covered, but had to wait a year, which is better then nothing, but even them, going without coverage for that year is dangerous for a diabetic.

[MDM4AU 336]

You have to be careful when you start poo-pooing ALL pre-existing conditions.

I know most insurance companies in Alabama consider a pre-existing condition as something you have been diagnosed with and/or treated for in the last 6-12 months. Someone having cancer 5 years ago and has had a clean slate since would not have the cancer treated as a pre-ex.

The problem with doing away with Pre-Ex clauses is, for insurance companies, you have a guy who goes years without insurance then realizes he wants gastric bypass or that he needs some sort of major surgery. He goes and picks up single coverage for a month or two paying anywhere from $450 - $700 for those two months but has $40K - $60K in claims. Then once he is treated and recovered he drops the coverage and doesn't pay another dime of premium.

In Alabama, there are a number of individual products but they have a mandatory 365 day waiting period on pre-ex for the reason stated above. There are options. It would be tough though for say...someone with diabetes who has to purchase insulin, test strips, etc.

Who ever is paying, there has to be some safeguards. If the government is paying (we will pay through taxes) then we all take a hit. If a 3rd party provider is paying, they take the hit and have to compensate by raising premium.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

Perhaps what they should do instead of making people wait for treatment and coverage of pre-existing conditions is, allow the treatment and pay for it under the terms of the plan, but require them to sign up for a 12 month or 24 month contract for premiums to do so. That way people don't put off needed treatments due to lack of money/insurance and the insurance company doesn't get hosed like in the situation you described above.

[AURainman 6]

3. For the person (sorry can't remember who) who suggested that her husband get a job that offers health care for the employees, that's not undoable but it's not a decision that he should make based only on that criteria. The business he works for is family owned and provides a very good living. THey will own it one day. But it is a small business that can't afford to provide insurance for employees and doesn't pay enough for the outrageous premiums that they would have to pay.

I'm not trying to flame or pick on your daughter/son-in-law, but an employee's benefits should ALWAYS be considered as pay. Given the information you listed, I'd say they are NOT providing a very good living. If I make $65k but get no insurance from my employer, I can always buy private health insurance for $__. (I wouldn't venture a guess.) Even if $65k is a nice salary, I immediately lose quite a bit for private insurance. Therefore, I'd gladly take a pay cut in exchange for insurance. If the family can't afford that pay cut, they may be stretched too thin for a single-income household anyways.

The non-government-fix solution is (potentially) still on the table.