What's your reason to vote AGAINST Obama?

[Hear Again]

This solved my problem! Love ya, Obama!

Thank you Foxtrac for inform me that, it gain my support for Obama
(I am glad that I voted for him last month)

And Hear_Again, never mind about my post, I was misunderstood Obama's plan.

No problem, Puyo!

 

[faire_jour]

No reason at all!

 

[Aleser]

Maybe those 40 millions of people who don't have the health insurance are those people who are too lazy to pick out the Medicare, or those who don't want to pay the health insurance and rather to pay something else, or those who are students who are working to earn the health benefit when they got their career, or anyone. I remember when I got my job as janitor, I got the health insurance from it. We just can't jump out and judge them in the first place.

I just think we need to show the civil's choices a little more respect, that's all.

What about the countless chronically ill people who TRY to get insurance but cannot afford it because the premiums are sky-high when you're already ill? The ones who get insurance through school or the small business they're working at and find out there's no coverage for their pre-existing condition? What about parents who cannot afford to insure their children and work at a job that doesn't offer insurance, or work at a company that gives them just so few hours that they wont offer benefits including insurance? What about the countless unemployed people who have too much in savings to qualify for state health care, but know that paying sky-high monthly premiums will deplete their remaining money faster than they can possibly find a new job?

You may lead a life where you've either been insured or never found yourself needing insurance, but that means you live in a vastly different world than me. You want healthcare?

My state wouldn't insure me unless I'd gone without the private insurance I can't afford to pay for a YEAR- racking up hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical expenses. So I'm stuck with the insurance I've got, even though it means I have 26,000$ a year in uncovered expenses, simply because I can't afford to do anything about it- the alternative is just Way too expensive.

That's life. You may have never taken a trot in my shoes, and g-d knows I can't judge you for that, but please don't assume that I'm under-insured because I'm LAZY. And certainly, don't speak for me in saying that I don't want the government to step in and do it's part with healthcare- because that's something I'd gladly pay more taxes for. There may be a choice in healthcare for healthy and well employed people, but for the rest of us, it doesn't exist.

 

[Hwy99]

Ehh I just end my debate with Foxrac and Hear Again...

But I would just go on reply back..

What about the countless chronically ill people who TRY to get insurance but cannot afford it because the premiums are sky-high when you're already ill? The ones who get insurance through school or the small business they're working at and find out there's no coverage for their pre-existing condition? What about parents who cannot afford to insure their children and work at a job that doesn't offer insurance, or work at a company that gives them just so few hours that they wont offer benefits including insurance? What about the countless unemployed people who have too much in savings to qualify for state health care, but know that paying sky-high monthly premiums will deplete their remaining money faster than they can possibly find a new job?

I don't know if you live in America, but today the children can get the insurance if parents can't afford them, which are called the medicare. I am only deaf and get the medicare, I am pretty sure those people who had chronically ill which are far worse than me does get the medicare too. My cousin who are singled mother and have daughter, they have the medicare. So I don't know what are you trying to say who those people who don't have the insurance while the low income people could get the medicare?

My opinion, Foxrac was right, mainly those people who don't have the insurance are those middle income people, in some way they can afford, but in other way, they can't and are not egilible with the medicare, which the medicare was supposely be available for them anyway.

You may lead a life where you've either been insured or never found yourself needing insurance, but that means you live in a vastly different world than me. You want healthcare?

LOL I think you misunderstand what I was saying, I am not against the insurance itself, but those governments who force us to have the insurance which I don't support. I was just prefer to protect the civil's choices to have the health insurance or not, that's all, really.

My state wouldn't insure me unless I'd gone without the private insurance I can't afford to pay for a YEAR- racking up hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical expenses. So I'm stuck with the insurance I've got, even though it means I have 26,000$ a year in uncovered expenses, simply because I can't afford to do anything about it- the alternative is just Way too expensive.

And that has to change, once you lose the private insurance, you can get the medicare till you can get your private insurance back. That is what my point is.

That's life. You may have never taken a trot in my shoes, and g-d knows I can't judge you for that, but please don't assume that I'm under-insured because I'm LAZY. And certainly, don't speak for me in saying that I don't want the government to step in and do it's part with healthcare- because that's something I'd gladly pay more taxes for. There may be a choice in healthcare for healthy and well employed people, but for the rest of us, it doesn't exist.

Did I say that they are lazy? No, re-read my post, I say maybe because I personally knew someone who careless about the medicare and doesn't want it at all just because it just kept sending him the unnecessary mails.

Anyway, bottom line, I am not against the health insurance at all, only against the government's choice over the civil's choice, that's all.

 

[Foxrac]

Ehh I just end my debate with Foxrac and Hear Again...

But I would just go on reply back..



I don't know if you live in America, but today the children can get the insurance if parents can't afford them, which are called the medicare. I am only deaf and get the medicare, I am pretty sure those people who had chronically ill which are far worse than me does get the medicare too. My cousin who are singled mother and have daughter, they have the medicare. So I don't know what are you trying to say who those people who don't have the insurance while the low income people could get the medicare?

My opinion, Foxrac was right, mainly those people who don't have the insurance are those middle income people, in some way they can afford, but in other way, they can't and are not egilible with the medicare, which the medicare was supposely be available for them anyway.



LOL I think you misunderstand what I was saying, I am not against the insurance itself, but those governments who force us to have the insurance which I don't support. I was just prefer to protect the civil's choices to have the health insurance or not, that's all, really.



And that has to change, once you lose the private insurance, you can get the medicare till you can get your private insurance back. That is what my point is.



Did I say that they are lazy? No, re-read my post, I say maybe because I personally knew someone who careless about the medicare and doesn't want it at all just because it just kept sending him the unnecessary mails.

Anyway, bottom line, I am not against the health insurance at all, only against the government's choice over the civil's choice, that's all.

Same with many hearing people who work full time at retail or fast food (known as low income) is not quality for medicaid or medicare.

Not really, many middle class children aren't quality for medicaid or medicare either.

 

[Hear Again]

Not really, many middle class children aren't quality for medicaid or medicare either.

Exactly. The only exception are children with disabilities. Since I was born totally blind, my parents received Medicaid and Medicare for me when I was a child even though my father had a job that paid extremely well. (My mother was a "stay at home mom" at the time.)

 

[PowerON]

Fat lady singing is over!

 

[Hear Again]

Fat lady singing is over!

And your comment is in regards to what, exactly?

 

[Hwy99]

Same with many hearing people who work full time at retail or fast food (known as low income) is not quality for medicaid or medicare.

Not really, many middle class children aren't quality for medicaid or medicare either.

Did you read whole of my post?

My opinion, Foxrac was right, mainly those people who don't have the insurance are those middle income people, in some way they can afford, but in other way, they can't and are not egilible with the medicare, which the medicare was supposely be available for them anyway.

I already stated that the middle class are the ones who are struggling to have the health insurance, and also I stated that my opinion, the medicare should be available for them anyway.

And that has to change, once you lose the private insurance, you can get the medicare till you can get your private insurance back. That is what my point is.

That is what I was trying to say.

 

[Foxrac]

Did you read whole of my post?



I already stated that the middle class are the ones who are struggling to have the health insurance, and also I stated that my opinion, the medicare should be available for them anyway.



That is what I was trying to say.

If I'm hearing guy and work at McDonald's then I will NOT quality for medicaid or medicare.

Low income people who have full time job at retail, fast food or low paying job are suffered as middle class people.

Not true, I have good friend that lost his good job and tried apply for medicaid/medicare and status said he's not quality for that due income, he has no insurance, either.

Health regulation in USA need alot of work and really corrupted.

Your post does confused me. :shrug:

 

[Hwy99]

If I'm hearing guy and work at McDonald's then I will NOT quality for medicaid or medicare.

Low income people who have full time job at retail, fast food or low paying job are suffered as middle class people.

Not true, I have good friend that lost his good job and tried apply for medicaid/medicare and status said he's not quality for that due income, he has no insurance, either.

Health regulation in USA need alot of work and really corrupted.

Your post does confused me. :shrug:

I don't know how does my post confuse you, but I say that situation that you just say now has to be changed, the medicare should be available for them anyway.

I thought Obama love the word, change?

 

[Hear Again]

I already stated that the middle class are the ones who are struggling to have the health insurance, and also I stated that my opinion, the medicare should be available for them anyway.

I disagree. If Medicare were available for the middle class, the system would be bankrupt in no time. I think the qualifications for Medicare should remain the way they are so that people aged 65 and over as well as the disabled who *need* it (i.e. have no other means of paying co-pays) have access to healthcare.

 

[Hwy99]

I disagree. If Medicare were available for the middle class, the system would be bankrupt in no time. I think the qualifications for Medicare should remain the way they are so that people aged 65 and over as well as the disabled who *need* it (i.e. have no other means of paying co-pays) have access to healthcare.

But is it ok for them to pay the medicare and doesn't get anything from it?

 

[Foxrac]

I disagree. If Medicare were available for the middle class, the system would be bankrupt in no time. I think the qualifications for Medicare should remain the way they are so that people aged 65 and over as well as the disabled who *need* it (i.e. have no other means of paying co-pays) have access to healthcare.

Yup, funds on medicare and medicaid is limited, if goes over the limited then would hurt our GDP.

 

[Hwy99]

Yup, funds on medicare and medicaid is limited, if goes over the limited then would hurt our GDP.

If you think that way, then the universal healthcare will be extremely bankrupt quickly than the medicare due to the numbers accessing in the universe healthcare. I don't understand the point is?

 

[Foxrac]

If you think that way, then the universal healthcare will be extremely bankrupt quickly than the medicare due to the numbers accessing in the universe healthcare. I don't understand the point is?

Again, you don't understand.

Go check this link.
FRONTLINE: sick around the world: five capitalist democracies & how they do it | PBS

Universal health care is government's control on medical cost to keep GDP down, it means government has power to control over medical cost and make affordable to citizens.

USA is capitalism, medicaid and medicare are only accepted by limited doctor office that you could see when doctor willing agree with medical cost under medicare and medicaid, not very many doctor would accept very cheaper, unlike in other countries to make our GDP goes up.

Social insurance is citizens that pays affordable insurance and government's neogitable with medical service for cost, if they doesn't accept then government would have adopt own medical center. Only problem, many doctors, specialist and others are just greedy.

UK and Canada has universal health care BUT... their GDP is much lower than USA due government control on medical service.

 

[Hear Again]

But is it ok for them to pay the medicare and doesn't get anything from it?

Your question is moot since people paying into the system *do* qualify for Medicare when they become disabled or are aged 65 or over. If they decide not to apply for Medicare at the time they qualify, then that's their problem -- not the government's.

 

[Hear Again]

Again, you don't understand.

Go check this link.
FRONTLINE: sick around the world: five capitalist democracies & how they do it | PBS

Universal health care is government's control on medical cost to keep GDP down, it means government has power to control over medical cost and make affordable to citizens.

USA is capitalism, medicaid and medicare are only accepted by limited doctor office that you could see when doctor willing agree with medical cost under medicare and medicaid, not very many doctor would accept very cheaper, unlike in other countries to make our GDP goes up.

Social insurance is citizens that pays affordable insurance and government's neogitable with medical service for cost, if they doesn't accept then government would have adopt own medical center. Only problem, many doctors, specialist and others are just greedy.

UK and Canada has universal health care BUT... their GDP is much lower than USA due government control on medical service.

Exactly, Foxrac.

 

[Hwy99]

Again, you don't understand.

Go check this link.
FRONTLINE: sick around the world: five capitalist democracies & how they do it | PBS

Universal health care is government's control on medical cost to keep GDP down, it means government has power to control over medical cost and make affordable to citizens.

USA is capitalism, medicaid and medicare are only accepted by limited doctor office that you could see when doctor willing agree with medical cost under medicare and medicaid, not very many doctor would accept very cheaper, unlike in other countries to make our GDP goes up.

Social insurance is citizens that pays affordable insurance and government's neogitable with medical service for cost, if they doesn't accept then government would have adopt own medical center. Only problem, many doctors, specialist and others are just greedy.

UK and Canada has universal health care BUT... their GDP is much lower than USA due government control on medical service.

Your question is moot since people paying into the system *do* qualify for Medicare when they become disabled or are aged 65 or over. If they decide not to apply for Medicare at the time they qualify, then that's their problem -- not the government's.

And how many times I have to say that, my opinion, the medicare system have to be change? I never say that we have to stay stick with the medicare as it is today because I already know there is something wrong with the medicare and it need to repair, I just feel like why should we change WHOLE of the thing while we already have the stuff that can be fixed?

 

[Hear Again]

And how many times I have to say that, my opinion, the medicare system have to be change? I never say that we have to stay stick with the medicare as it is today because I already know there is something wrong with the medicare and it need to repair, I just feel like why should we change WHOLE of the thing while we already have the stuff that can be fixed?

If we already have the tools to fix Medicare, why haven't we used those tools to improve the system?