Annie
Not So Junior Member
Actually with the above posts, certainly.
Young FREELY Choosing Not to Buy Health Insurance
- Thread starter TheDanold
- Start date
Actually with the above posts, certainly.
Annie
Not So Junior Member
See here's what 'cute.' I posted my opinion, using myself as an example. Two of you follow with basically, 'That is SO stupid, har, har, har.' On the other hand, using a news based story, is so unrepresentative.
Seriously, you have issues. Just keep in mind the next time one of you brilliant folks add a comment about conservatives always making their arguments 'personal.'
Annie
Not So Junior Member
Ah, but they are the family chosen by the Democrats to illustrate the 'poor' that can't afford insurance. It was the party that chose them, which is why the article was there.
You used yourself as an example of someone who worked 65-90 hours a week to get health insurance. That's great. I think that Republicans should use your story in campaign commercials.
I can find 300 new stories with one google about someone who died because they had no health insurance, so your story doesn't prove anything. It's representative of nothing. You need to take a wider view to find out if Americans have reliable health care, and stable health insurance.
It ends up that according to all major polls of the people themselves, they don't feel that they do.
So if you are gung-ho about them taking personal responsibility and working 90 hour weeks to get those things, then I say good for you, run with it. And again, I add, please.
It's typical Republican subterfuge. You CANNOT talk about the issue - you have to talk about the person delivering the message, and find some sort of "gotcha", to distract, distract & distract a little more while nothing gets done.
The FACTS are that there are more & more WORKING families each year who simply cannot afford health insurance, and who are one illness away from bankruptcy.
GREAT point about the kid, though. Really incisive; you really showed 'em...
Annie
Not So Junior Member
Obviously you missed the point I was making. While substituting, for my future career, no insurance. Also working part time as insurance producer, for the $$$, no insurance.
I chose to provide insurance by working part time in grocery, which provided very good insurance. If I hadn't had kids, been right out of school, I probably wouldn't have. I still wouldn't expect you to pay for mine. I could have chose to work full time in insurance or the grocery, keeping my hours more reasonable, and still have insurance.
Annie
Not So Junior Member
Once again, personal. Guess you have nothing else?
What's personal? What are you talking about?
I appreciate how embarassed you must be to have tried to make a point with such an irrelevant article, but c'mon...
Obviously you missed the point I was making. While substituting, for my future career, no insurance. Also working part time as insurance producer, for the $$$, no insurance.
No I didn't miss it Runyon. I'll be honest, I don't care what your "point" is. 18,000 americans die every year because they have no health insurance.
That is 6 9/11's every year. For one 9/11, you wanted to break the bank in order to kill a lot of people who had nothing to do with it.
Your "points" are not points, they're distractions. Distractions which, fully funded by the insurance lobby, have kept Americans from enjoying the same access to health care that other westernized nations have, and allowed 18,000 deaths a year to continue unabated.
But that's ending because enough Americans, in this brave new economy, have lost their jobs since the last attempt at changing our corporate owned system. Those 47 million are not the same 47 million. In fact, over 80 million americans at some point over the past year did not have health insurance.
What polls are reflecting is, they haven't forgotten how easy it is to have it taken away, and they're not confident that it won't be taken away again. They might lose this job too.
And they want change. And in some form or other, they are going to get it. I happen to advocate single payer, but I will not allow the perfect to become the enemy of the better, or of the good.
Change is coming.
The insurance thing is more due to job movement than choice not to carry insurance.
That interim insurance is simply cost ineffective. It is hugely expensive and most people will wait until their job will cover them before picking up insurance.
This is a bad thing. Insurance shouldn't be so difficult to carry when you are changing jobs. This can be fixed without centralizing all insurance for the rich and poor alike.
That interim insurance is simply cost ineffective. It is hugely expensive and most people will wait until their job will cover them before picking up insurance.
This is a bad thing. Insurance shouldn't be so difficult to carry when you are changing jobs. This can be fixed without centralizing all insurance for the rich and poor alike.
"The insurance thing is more due to job movement than choice not to carry insurance. "
What are you basing that on?
More companies drop insurance every year because of escalating costs. Many of the ones that don't drop it altogether have raised employee contributions to a level that is often not affordable for many employees.
What are you basing that on?
More companies drop insurance every year because of escalating costs. Many of the ones that don't drop it altogether have raised employee contributions to a level that is often not affordable for many employees.
Immanuel
Junior Member
Obviously you missed the point I was making. While substituting, for my future career, no insurance. Also working part time as insurance producer, for the $$$, no insurance.
The way that I see it though, is that you were smart enough to see the risks involved and chose to have insurance. Many Kids don't see it in the way you did. They look at the things they want and buy them (on credit) and insurance is not something they want to spend their money on. They would not carry auto insurance either if they were not required to. Hell, all of them are expert drivers and will never need it.
But the real crisis of health insurance is that those who need it, can't afford it if their employers can't or won't cover it.
Immie
I'm basing it on the transitory nature of those without insurance. As Darla said earlier, those 47 million without insurance today are not the same 47 million that were without insurance earlier.
So, I look for the cause of that. I know that when I changed jobs before I had to wait three months or longer before insurance kicked in and I couldn't afford the interim insurance. I always gambled and waited until I had insurance again, although I hated doing so.
No doubt, that is true. But the facts are the many companies are either dropping insurance altogether, removing key benefits or raising employee contributions to high levels. The skyrocketing cost of insurance is a major issue, and it doesn't stop being a major issue because a family who can afford private school also wants health insurance.
Immanuel
Junior Member
One nice thing (perhaps the only good thing) about the COBRA law is that you have 60 days to decide whether or not you will take coverage. So, if you take a job and have 90 days until the new employer will cover you, you can wait those 60 days. If nothing happens you have only got to gamble 30 more days of not having coverage. If something did happen in those 60 then you simply accept the coverage.
I had that kind of situation once. The night of the 89th day, I walked into my house, told my 3 children to sit on the couch and not move. I was not going to let them get hurt on that last day.
Immie
Yeah, that's definitely some of it.
But also, more and more companies are dropping it all together, even more companies are raising employee contributions, because they can't afford it and remain competitive. A lot of really large companies, like the one I work for, are hiring more and more, what they call "contract employees", which is to say, they are not getting benefits. They're called outside contractors. That's a problem.
Why are we the only westernized nation that has a largely employer based health care system? It's crazy. There are all kinds of problems associated with it. That system no longer works. Maybe it worked back in the day when people went to work for one company for their entire lives, and when globalization was not forcing American companies to get their prices rock bottom low. But maybe it really didn't work then either, and there is just an impression that it did. I don't know.
But I do know that it's not working now.
When did I say anything at all about a family with kids in private school? You are attempting to white-wash my post with an answer to another's post.
I think that we can work on the cost of health care in general, and make it much easier to carry insurance, without centralizing insurance and simply giving a huge government giveaway to insurance companies without working on the cost at all and just ensuring that the US will continue to pay too much for health care in comparison to other nations.
uscitizen
Villified User
Hmm the prime child bearing ages ans no insurance. What about the little children that suffer the results of their parents decisions ?