created by: CitizenTopix | Oct 11, 2010

Oklahoma

1,314 votes

OK Health Care Freedom Amendment, State Question 756

Click on an option to vote

  • Yes
  • No
  • Other (explain below)

Comments (Page 1,686)

Showing posts 33,701 - 33,720 of62,559
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
TAMARA

Edmond, OK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34470
Nov 27, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

OkieAbroad wrote:
<quoted text>
Tamara,
I thought I was replying to Dana, I see here I did reply to Lady instead. So the person I replied to was my mistake.
The post I was trying to make NOT TO YOU but to Dana was about her post 34364, where she mentions you by name, you replied to her thanking her for her help in post 34354.
I think if you read my post you will see I was not speaking to you.
No you were speaking of me. My thanking her was she jumped someone on here for the way they posted to me. That was it!

Since: Sep 12

Groningen, Netherlands

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34471
Nov 27, 2012
 
TAMARA wrote:
<quoted text>How would a company be doubling insuring their employees? The employee would get their health insurance thru who they work for or opt and go out on their own and get their own health insurance. Its an either or thing.
Because I'm going on the bases of the legal responsibility everyone has for themselves and their children for them to be insured. I see a big paperwork mess and confusion ahead if for example: Stan, as legally required, gets his Health Insurance (HI), and then next year he goes to work for a company who pays his HI for him. IF the company must provide HI for Stan, as their employee, then he is at that moment double insured. So what happens then? He either stops his current HI which he himself has chosen, and accepts the HI his company has chosen for him? Or, remains double insured through two different companies? Imagine if he change jobs more often in that same year? It seems like a big complexity that isn't necessary and will be in the end more costly. That's why I'm saying it doesn't make any sense to me. But this is based on your statement that Obamacare would force companies of a certain size to provide HI for their employee's. It seems to me it would be better to just leave the legal responsibly of HI solely on the individual.

Since: Sep 12

Groningen, Netherlands

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34472
Nov 27, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

TAMARA wrote:
<quoted text>No you were speaking of me. My thanking her was she jumped someone on here for the way they posted to me. That was it!
Oh good Lord, ok, I'm NOT going to waste time arguing with you. If you WANT to believe I was talking to you, then go right ahead!

Since: Apr 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34473
Nov 27, 2012
 
OkieAbroad wrote:
<quoted text>
Because I'm going on the bases of the legal responsibility everyone has for themselves and their children for them to be insured. I see a big paperwork mess and confusion ahead if for example: Stan, as legally required, gets his Health Insurance (HI), and then next year he goes to work for a company who pays his HI for him. IF the company must provide HI for Stan, as their employee, then he is at that moment double insured. So what happens then? He either stops his current HI which he himself has chosen, and accepts the HI his company has chosen for him? Or, remains double insured through two different companies? Imagine if he change jobs more often in that same year? It seems like a big complexity that isn't necessary and will be in the end more costly. That's why I'm saying it doesn't make any sense to me. But this is based on your statement that Obamacare would force companies of a certain size to provide HI for their employee's. It seems to me it would be better to just leave the legal responsibly of HI solely on the individual.
Yeah Obamacare is going to be a mess. That's why we need true socialized medicine. Single payer.

Since: Sep 12

Groningen, Netherlands

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34474
Nov 27, 2012
 
WMCOL wrote:
Healthy person,$65 a month penalty or $300-$500 a month for coverage. Which do you choose when you know you can sign up for coverage when you get sick, since it would be a pre-existing condition and you can't be turned down because of it.
It's like buying insurance after the house burns down that covers the house after it burns down.
You know, I'm all for a Healthcare system. But I see things like those you have mentioned, and the companies paying HI,.. well, I am not sure it's going to work. I'm no professional, but I see it work here and it's much more simple. And to me, the more simple the system the less it will cost.

Since: Sep 12

Groningen, Netherlands

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34475
Nov 27, 2012
 
TAMARA wrote:
<quoted text>Where is Obamacare getting the Health insurance for people they will be helping? What is government funded by taxpayers is the premiums that the government will be paying to help these people out!
Tamara,

Who pays for the HI for people of low or welfare level incomes BEFORE the ObamaCare system was ever even thought of?? The Government! Through the TAX PAYER! YOU! It was always that way in the past, and Obamacare will not change that. There is no way to change that. So if you are saying Obamacare will make the tax payer pay something they've been paying all along.. I don't get your point in that Obamacare is a negative change. It changes nothing at that economic level.

Since: Sep 12

Groningen, Netherlands

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34476
Nov 27, 2012
 
TAMARA wrote:
<quoted text>No that was not her point. Go back and read her first post on the subject about taken the burden of the employers and my post of asking how and her answer was the the government would be supplying the health ins. and in her country no employer supplies their employees with health ins. that everyone is covered by the government health plan and everyone provides for their own healthcare government ins.
No Tamara, that's not what I said at all. I said each individual is pays their own healthcare cost unless they are on welfare level in which case then for the first time the government steps in and pays all or part of their insurance payments. And yes, that would mean that in that system it HELPS companies immensely when you compare the costs that American companies have to that of no costs for Dutch companies for their employee's HI.
TAMARA

Edmond, OK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34477
Nov 27, 2012
 
OkieAbroad wrote:
<quoted text>
Because I'm going on the bases of the legal responsibility everyone has for themselves and their children for them to be insured. I see a big paperwork mess and confusion ahead if for example: Stan, as legally required, gets his Health Insurance (HI), and then next year he goes to work for a company who pays his HI for him. IF the company must provide HI for Stan, as their employee, then he is at that moment double insured. So what happens then? He either stops his current HI which he himself has chosen, and accepts the HI his company has chosen for him? Or, remains double insured through two different companies? Imagine if he change jobs more often in that same year? It seems like a big complexity that isn't necessary and will be in the end more costly. That's why I'm saying it doesn't make any sense to me. But this is based on your statement that Obamacare would force companies of a certain size to provide HI for their employee's. It seems to me it would be better to just leave the legal responsibly of HI solely on the individual.
It would be the same as it is now. You either decide to go out and buy your own insurance or you decide to accept your company's health insurance plan. Some do have what is called the primary health insurance and the supplyment health insurance. This happen when both the husband works for a company offering a health insurance plan and the wife works for a company offering a health insurance plan. One picks up the other doesnot pay towards medical bills. Usually the health insurance has a contracts with medical people and place and these have to take and accept the contracted amount of what will be paid by the health insurance co. Usually for example the health insuance pay out is usually 80% and either the patient or the supplyment ins. picks up the rest of 20%. No one now or I believe under Obamacare will be double insured. This is my concept.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34478
Nov 27, 2012
 
OkieAbroad wrote:
<quoted text>
Because I'm going on the bases of the legal responsibility everyone has for themselves and their children for them to be insured. I see a big paperwork mess and confusion ahead if for example: Stan, as legally required, gets his Health Insurance (HI), and then next year he goes to work for a company who pays his HI for him. IF the company must provide HI for Stan, as their employee, then he is at that moment double insured. So what happens then? He either stops his current HI which he himself has chosen, and accepts the HI his company has chosen for him? Or, remains double insured through two different companies? Imagine if he change jobs more often in that same year? It seems like a big complexity that isn't necessary and will be in the end more costly. That's why I'm saying it doesn't make any sense to me. But this is based on your statement that Obamacare would force companies of a certain size to provide HI for their employee's. It seems to me it would be better to just leave the legal responsibly of HI solely on the individual.
==========
If it works as it does now, the federal insurance is secondary to employer provided coverage. Kinda like credit card insurance when you rent a car, it provides secondary coverage to your primary car insurance.

Some people qualify to receive medicare pay a premium each month for it, but work or, are retired with company insurance benefits, and must use insurance provided by their employer as primary and medicare as a secondary payer. However, Obamacare can be the primary insurance if individual wants it to be. It's a choice.

Right now, employer provided insurance is usually cheaper for an individual. I think an individual who has insurance from Obamacare or from some company through a job will be able to transport the insurance to any job or status they move into. If one has company insurance and transfers to another company, they have choices, keep the old insurance and pay regular price for it, switch to insurance provided by new company and pay their rate, or choose coverage through Obamacare. I don't see double coverage. Just options.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34479
Nov 27, 2012
 
Well, whatdayaknow Tamara, I agree with you about double coverage not being likely.
TAMARA

Edmond, OK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34480
Nov 27, 2012
 
OkieAbroad wrote:
<quoted text>
Tamara,
Who pays for the HI for people of low or welfare level incomes BEFORE the ObamaCare system was ever even thought of?? The Government! Through the TAX PAYER! YOU! It was always that way in the past, and Obamacare will not change that. There is no way to change that. So if you are saying Obamacare will make the tax payer pay something they've been paying all along.. I don't get your point in that Obamacare is a negative change. It changes nothing at that economic level.
People that qualify for Medicaid which is funed by the taxpayers. Others don't have health insurance. And they do get medical help then medical places charge according to people health care companies.

Many companies that have good health plans for their employees helps kept people working for them. Many of these people are waiting to see how Obamacare affect what they have now.
Jesse

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34481
Nov 27, 2012
 
OkieAbroad wrote:
<quoted text>
Tamara,
Who pays for the HI for people of low or welfare level incomes BEFORE the ObamaCare system was ever even thought of?? The Government! Through the TAX PAYER! YOU! It was always that way in the past, and Obamacare will not change that. There is no way to change that. So if you are saying Obamacare will make the tax payer pay something they've been paying all along.. I don't get your point in that Obamacare is a negative change. It changes nothing at that economic level.
Whata joke woman! If you insure MILLIONS that weren't insured before so YES ObamaCare is making us pay something we didn't have to pay for before. It also requires migrant workers/families to be covered which is people working here that may or may not be legal in this country but the LAW DOES NOT ALLOW FOR MEDICAL STAFF TO ASK LEGAL STATUS OF INDIVIDUAL IN FACT ITS AGAINST THE LAW FOR THEM TO ASK!

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34482
Nov 27, 2012
 
TAMARA wrote:
<quoted text>People that qualify for Medicaid which is funed by the taxpayers. Others don't have health insurance. And they do get medical help then medical places charge according to people health care companies.
Many companies that have good health plans for their employees helps kept people working for them. Many of these people are waiting to see how Obamacare affect what they have now.
==========
>>> Many of these people are waiting to see how Obamacare affect what they have now.<<<

Yep, and they will likely choose the coverage that offers the best care and is most affordable for them.
Jesse

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34483
Nov 27, 2012
 
Some estimates claim we have over 20+ million illegals in the U.S.A. Think that will change the quality of our healthcare for those of us who pay?

Get ready to stand in line and take a number!

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34484
Nov 27, 2012
 
Thank goodness Obama is giving individuals and families more options in healthcare prices and coverage. Something to sing joyously about Tamara.

Since: Sep 12

Groningen, Netherlands

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34485
Nov 27, 2012
 
WMCOL wrote:
<quoted text>
==========
If it works as it does now, the federal insurance is secondary to employer provided coverage. Kinda like credit card insurance when you rent a car, it provides secondary coverage to your primary car insurance.
Some people qualify to receive medicare pay a premium each month for it, but work or, are retired with company insurance benefits, and must use insurance provided by their employer as primary and medicare as a secondary payer. However, Obamacare can be the primary insurance if individual wants it to be. It's a choice.
Right now, employer provided insurance is usually cheaper for an individual. I think an individual who has insurance from Obamacare or from some company through a job will be able to transport the insurance to any job or status they move into. If one has company insurance and transfers to another company, they have choices, keep the old insurance and pay regular price for it, switch to insurance provided by new company and pay their rate, or choose coverage through Obamacare. I don't see double coverage. Just options.
Ok, if it works that way, then we are talking about a government subsidized HI that is secondary to a government subsidized primary insurance through the employer? Both would be paid to one extent or the other by the government. Correct? My thoughts here are, is this a viable solution? The point of National Healthcare would be to keep costs as low as possible for the individual, employer, and government. Otherwise it won't work. Also, if everyone isn't paying into the system... it will not last long.

Since: Sep 12

Groningen, Netherlands

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34486
Nov 27, 2012
 
Jesse wrote:
<quoted text>
Whata joke woman! If you insure MILLIONS that weren't insured before so YES ObamaCare is making us pay something we didn't have to pay for before. It also requires migrant workers/families to be covered which is people working here that may or may not be legal in this country but the LAW DOES NOT ALLOW FOR MEDICAL STAFF TO ASK LEGAL STATUS OF INDIVIDUAL IN FACT ITS AGAINST THE LAW FOR THEM TO ASK!
Jesse, now... you are telling me that people that were on welfare during Bush II's reign of power didn't have their healthcare paid for by the government and therefore the tax payer? Because it was welfare level as I plainly stated in my post that I was talking about there.

Since: Sep 12

Groningen, Netherlands

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34487
Nov 27, 2012
 
Jesse wrote:
Some estimates claim we have over 20+ million illegals in the U.S.A. Think that will change the quality of our healthcare for those of us who pay?
Get ready to stand in line and take a number!
Here, the healthcare system is one of the many checks in the system which keeps illegals out of the country. Illegals here cannot get insurance, therefore cannot get healthcare. A healthcare system COULD be used to correct the problems.. but first laws are going to have to changed in the area of illegals at it's basic structure.
TAMARA

Edmond, OK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34488
Nov 27, 2012
 

Judged:

1

WMCOL wrote:
<quoted text>
==========
>>> Many of these people are waiting to see how Obamacare affect what they have now.<<<
Yep, and they will likely choose the coverage that offers the best care and is most affordable for them.
I am sure they will.
I know of another group of people that is worried about how Obamacare will affect them. People that have serious illness that are not cureable and ones that have been managed by the healthcare they have received up to date. Like I said I hope the promise that Pres. Obama and obamacare has made to the American people is actual!
TAMARA

Edmond, OK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34489
Nov 27, 2012
 

Judged:

1

WMCOL wrote:
Thank goodness Obama is giving individuals and families more options in healthcare prices and coverage. Something to sing joyously about Tamara.
Like I said I am hoping it all works out for everyone and quality of health gets better and not get worse. But time will be the true test!

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 33,701 - 33,720 of62,559
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Other Recent Durant Discussions

Search the Durant Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
OK Who do you support for Governor in Oklahoma in ... (Oct '10) 2 hr Jessup 2,370
OK The "English is the Official Language of Oklaho... (Oct '10) 2 hr Brote 11,268
What happened to Franky Halbrooks (May '12) Apr 17 layne 9
harassing, un professional, stalker Apr 14 Thomas Marcum 1
New Apr 6 Anonymous 1
hi Apr 6 jen 1
The Lawsuit against members of the Pentecostal ... (May '09) Mar 31 great 34
•••
•••
•••
•••

Durant Jobs

•••
•••
•••

Durant People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••