HR 3962 Passes!

[Guy with preexisting cond]

One Republican actually had the testicular fortitude to vote for this. I'll have to send him a donation. Although, I'm sure it will pale in comparison to the campaign money (bribes) he'll loose from the insurance industry.

[are you kiding]

Get ready. you don't comply fine and 5 years in jail. Welcome to Marxism.

[Guy with preexisting cond]

That is really the unfortunate part. If we want to get rid of coverage denial b/c of pre-existing conditions, the govt. has to mandate health insurance because there will always be the irresponsible ones out there who will try and buck the system by not buying health insurance until they get sick. And b/c of it, I am consistently denied payment for treatment of my nagging back injury.

Let's face it; those of you out there who don't buy health insurance are basically free-loaders. If you get in a car accident and rack up a bunch of uninsured medical bills, guess who's gonna pay the hundred grand or so if the uninsured can't afford to and subsequently declares bankruptcy??? You guessed it! The U.S taxpayer.

You guys out there can throw around inflammatory words like Marxism all you want, but if it means people are gonna start getting treatment for the injuries they have and stop being denied coverage, you have an uphill battle on your hands, trying to convince people that they should live with their injuries in order to preserve some wing-nuts perception of what the correct political view is.

[Guy with preexisting cond]

Weather you guys agree with me or not, here is a pretty bad a$$ link with a map detailing how all the Illinois congressmen(and every other state's for that matter) voted on health care..........http://politics. nytimes.com/congress/votes/111 /house/1/887

[5yr Midlo Resident]

Guy with preexisting cond I feel for you. I really do. But have you noticed that the bills in question address pre-existing conditions differently? Pelosi wants 6 months before than can get the coverage. How does that help?

I don't understand why people try to play the odds and not buy insurance. I understand lack of money, but if they are truly that poor there is medicaid. Illinois also has coverage for all kids. I think you're right that they hope to save money and only get insurance if something arises, and I think you're dead on that the tax payers suffer in the end when costs go up because hospitals and doctors have uncollectable bills. I agree. But I don't think the government needs another big plan they can't manage properly. Why can't insurers sell across state lines? That right there would be a good way to start lowering costs. And I'm not sure if it's constitutional to force people to buy insurance, but why then can't they be denied treatment (beyond life threatening..obviously don't let anyone die or suffer perm damage) if they don't have it? Why can't they be forced to pay their bill? Let the doctor/hospital garnish their wages. Haul them off to jail if they quit jobs so it can't be collected. Oh I know why. Because they can't even do that right for deadbeat dads/moms.

Ok must stop now. Getting fiesty.

[Why do you care]

5yr Midlo Resident wrote:

I don't understand why people try to play the odds and not buy insurance. I understand lack of money, but if they are truly that poor there is medicaid. Illinois also has coverage for all kids. I think you're right that they hope to save money and only get insurance if something arises, and I think you're dead on that the tax payers suffer in the end when costs go up because hospitals and doctors have uncollectable bills. I agree. And I'm not sure if it's constitutional to force people to buy insurance, but why then can't they be denied treatment (beyond life threatening..obviously don't let anyone die or suffer perm damage) if they don't have it?
Ok must stop now. Getting fiesty.

I see where you're coming from. However, just treating the "life threatening" injuries are where the major costs are incurred form Emergency rooms. This may sound extreme, but I don't think many people care about "constitutional" issues if it means the next time they need medical insurance coverage they won't be denied because of a back injury from ten years ago. Trust me, I know. Wasn't there a constitutional challenge to medicare? I know, I know. The constitution doesn't specifacaly give the legislative bracnch the authority to mandate health insurance. I'm sorry, but I don't care. All the research I've done(along with three different M.Ds) I've done tells me the operation I need will profoundly improve my life. That's all I care about. I know it's selfish.

[5yr Midlo Resident]

Why do you care that is not selfish to want to feel good physically, and I surely hope you get your surgery. You are a perfect example of the people that suffer because of pre-existing conditions, high costs and ridiculous red tape.

[-Really-]

WW1, if you're out there, this is one of the things I can't shut up about. I gotta say though, thanks to 5yrMR and the pre-exist guy, this discussion has stayed very classy (comment number 2 excluded)so far. Hard to find that on both sides of the debate in this particular issue.