Who do you support for U.S. Senate in...
Living Wage

Ponchatoula, LA

#2128 Apr 2, 2014
Some obese people have bad genes too, right?
Living Wage

Ponchatoula, LA

#2130 Apr 2, 2014
I understand, a claim is a claim.

With Insurance cos., it was about HUGE salaries, perks and profits. You do know they wanted to be able to deny coverage to people diagnosed with asthma in childhood that carried into adulthood (isn't this what you were talking about?). Fear of lung transplant costs. ACA put an end to that! This is the best argument for expanding Medicare - one pot you contribute to/draw from your whole life with no execs figuring out how to screw you over, right?

If Insurance Cos. could have, they would have done genetic testing to deny coverage to people who could possibly file HUGE claims in the future. You know they would have if they could have, right?

Regarding the obese, most doctors would say it is not what they are eating, but what is eating them - fixable in most cases with affordable healthcare.

Compassion is what allows us to care about each other.
Living Wage

Ponchatoula, LA

#2131 Apr 2, 2014
It is NOT about premiums, it is about benefits.

It is about quality of life.

It is about accountability for oneself.

It is about consistent (annual checkups) healthcare from cradle to grave.

Annual blood tests and the scale will tell the story.

It is about affordable healthcare to begin with.

Why do you suppose the Koch Bros. are spending so much money on those lame commercials? Why is the GOP so against ACA; spending so much valuable time voting to repeal it? Think.

Why do you suppose the GOP, instead of wasting time cutting programs that help the working poor, disabled and elderly, they work on the solution; GOOD JOBS? More tax revenue and less welfare costs.

Create lots of good jobs and then there is no reason for all those people on welfare programs, right?
Dying wage

Natchitoches, LA

#2132 Apr 2, 2014
Living Wage wrote:
OK, if you have a MAJOR CLAIM, where will the money come from to pay the bills? From the increased premiums others pay? Aren't you against "welfare"?
That is why premiums should be the same for all and limit expensive treatment to those that DO NOT FOLLOW medical advice from their annual wellness (100% covered) doctor visits- "ACCOUNTABILITY". If a person doesn't care enough to take care of themselves, why should other policyholders? This is America, basic healthcare should be affordable.
Your "healthy lifestyle" may not save you from diabetes, heart disease, cancer down the road and may not stop you from accidents. I don't know anyone that would sign a waiver for coverage of these diseases, would you?
I hear a lot against ACA from current policyholders who have taken more out than what they paid in premiums. Really? The funny thing is that they don't realize they are criticizing themselves, morons.
Premiums going up in the past has come from overcharging in the medical field, greedy Insurance Industry and policyholders' claims; not from the uninsured.
Again, ACA stops Insurance Cos. from cancelling your policy when you need it the most and denying coverage after you have paid into the pot for years.
Can you even imagine what some people went through, not being able to file a claim after paying premiums for years and years because, through no fault of their own, they lost their job/coverage?
Premiums will NOT go down until medical costs are reigned in. If they cannot guarantee their work/products, why are they charging so much?
Expand Medicare! Take control of your healthcare for your whole life; just like other industrialized nations - America is falling behind!!!
ACA stops insurance companies from canceling your policy when you need it most (except when necessary to get 6.2 million of the 7.1 million "new Obamacare enrollees" by the open enrollment deadline). Right? Right? Right????????

Expand Medicare, is this the same Medicare that Obamacare stole >$700 million from?
Dying wage

Natchitoches, LA

#2135 Apr 3, 2014
7 Million Success wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it's about premiums and risk and benefits and accountability and lifestyle and annual/periodic check ups.
You still did not answer the question as to why the healthy lifestyle person should not pay lower premiums than the unhealthy lifestyle person.
AHA ... I certainly benefitted from it, no doubt. And, yes, it is good that the insurance company's admin expenses are capped. And, yes, making everyone purchase health insurance is a good thing ... No free lunch in the emergency room ... That is making people take personal responsibility for covering their share of their healthcare costs.
A big part of the problem is that insurance companies could pass through premium increases instead of negotiating hard on the reimbursement (ie: cost) side of the equation. Tort reform is still sorely needed.
Finally, physicians (and insurers) are going to need to be more diligent at providing fewer unnecessary tests and healthcare procedures. Example: a doc did a hand surgery on my 95 year old grandmother, which was ridiculous. She died 3 months later from a blood clot.
90% of healthcare expenditures occur during the final year of life. Again, many unnecessary procedures. Dying is part of living.
Medicare ... It will have to be means tested to remain solvent.
Now again, explain to me why you think two people with the same genetic predispositions, but one has a healthy lifestyle and one an unhealthy lifestyle should pay the same premiums?
REALLY? 90% of healthcare expenditures occur during the final year of life? Please give references on this information.

So, every person should have genetic testing prior to being insured? Is it possible (or feasible) to test for "genetic predisposition" for every possible condition? And if so, would that be "preferential treatment" for those with genetic problems and "discrimination" against those not afflicted with any condition? Will we also be able to test people falsely claiming "disability" and drawing a check to the exclusion of those actually disabled and denied? Or would that violate their "civil rights"? Are you saying a porker that is simply over eating as compared to one who is "genetically predisposed" is more likely to have complications related to the porkiness? Is it possible to determine that with genetic testing?
Dying wage

Natchitoches, LA

#2138 Apr 3, 2014
7 Million Success wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, if someone is simply overheating, that can be distinguished from someone who is gaining weight due to an uncontrollable medical condition. One is self-inflicted and controllable through lifestyle, the other is not.
Why? Are you a porker too?
My point being that these things will have to be determined some way. You mentioned "genetic predisposition". We have all heard people say "I've always been big, it's hereditary", or something similar. What we don't know (in most cases) is: Is that really true? How will it be determined if it's true or not? By genetic testing? I don't know, I just asked the question, wondering how and if it would be reasonable/feasible.

This is a slippery slope you're embarking on.
Dying wage

Natchitoches, LA

#2140 Apr 3, 2014
7 Million Success wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, if someone is simply overheating, that can be distinguished from someone who is gaining weight due to an uncontrollable medical condition. One is self-inflicted and controllable through lifestyle, the other is not.
Why? Are you a porker too?
And no, I'm not a porker. I think it's hilarious how all of these "workout all the time" fitness nuts think they are superior. They sit behind a desk 8 hours, stop at the gym for an hour before or after work, and think they are more healthy than someone who works 8-10 hours a day outside sweating doing manual labor. Get 'em outside, they can't do squat!

Are you a desk jockey?
Dying wage

Natchitoches, LA

#2141 Apr 3, 2014
7 Million Success wrote:
<quoted text>
But now that you mention it, genetic testing can be very useful in helping someone learn early on in life if they are predisposed to some condition so they may engage in lifestyle activities to mitigate that predisposition. But, genetic testing should be available only to the physician and patient and should not be used for setting insurance premiums. We all have genetic predispositions to something.
Genetic predisposition should be private, protected information to be used exclusively by the physician and patient because as you point out that information could easily be used to discriminate.
It COULD provide information for the patient, but also could provide information to government-run healthcare to decide you are an "unviable" healthcare risk that should be "allowed to die", as mentioned in one of your previous posts.
Living Wage

Lafayette, LA

#2142 Apr 3, 2014
7 Million Success wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it's about premiums and risk and benefits and accountability and lifestyle and annual/periodic check ups.
You still did not answer the question as to why the healthy lifestyle person should not pay lower premiums than the unhealthy lifestyle person.
AHA ... I certainly benefitted from it, no doubt. And, yes, it is good that the insurance company's admin expenses are capped. And, yes, making everyone purchase health insurance is a good thing ... No free lunch in the emergency room ... That is making people take personal responsibility for covering their share of their healthcare costs.
A big part of the problem is that insurance companies could pass through premium increases instead of negotiating hard on the reimbursement (ie: cost) side of the equation. Tort reform is still sorely needed.
Finally, physicians (and insurers) are going to need to be more diligent at providing fewer unnecessary tests and healthcare procedures. Example: a doc did a hand surgery on my 95 year old grandmother, which was ridiculous. She died 3 months later from a blood clot.
90% of healthcare expenditures occur during the final year of life. Again, many unnecessary procedures. Dying is part of living.
Medicare ... It will have to be means tested to remain solvent.
Now again, explain to me why you think two people with the same genetic predispositions, but one has a healthy lifestyle and one an unhealthy lifestyle should pay the same premiums?
Health insurance covers ALL medical conditions.

Again, you could easily have a larger claim than the "obese" person you used in your example. Not all obese people will have huge claims. Just like, not all "healthy lifestyle" people will NOT have huge claims. You still have "bad genes" and accidents to contend with; which you have to admit are out of your control. No one pays premiums with the intent of covering someone else's claims, right?

Premiums should be the same and difference comes in the form of less benefits if you chose not to follow medical advice. Why throw good money after bad.

Insurance cos. would just love you; sign up for a HUGE deductible/out of pocket because you will NEVER have a HUGE CLAIM because you are so healthy. Do you NOT see the error of your thinking? You do realize this is what the insurance industry had been doing; why their profits were so high, right? How was that working for you? Basically kept people from going to the doctor until the medical condition required expensive treatment. Then they kick them off the plan because they lost their job because they couldn't go to work and could pay the premiums.

Expand Medicare and IT WILL BE SAVED. It is high time we quit spending unlimited money to keep people alive without a quality of life, right? Everyone paying into the same pot WITHOUT a chance of losing the money you paid in for years just because you lost your job, is the way to go. Better to have the taxpayers supplement Healthcare than WAR in other countries and HUGE successful corporations, right?

@ Dying Wage: POTUS allowed those "high profit" policies to continue for one more year because YOU PEOPLE TOLD HIM YOU WANTED THEM BACK (POTUS did not want to do it because there is NO REAL COVERAGE)! See POTUS, unlike the GOP in Congress, actually listens to the people. Aren't you glad? Imagine if the GOP in Congress would listen to the people, instead of the NRA, we would have a Universal Background Check program in place (90% of the people wanted this remember).

Charles Koch is upset because people are calling him "Un-American". Simple solution, stop being "Un-American" and GREEDY!
Dying wage

Natchitoches, LA

#2143 Apr 3, 2014
7 Million Success wrote:
<quoted text>
But now that you mention it, genetic testing can be very useful in helping someone learn early on in life if they are predisposed to some condition so they may engage in lifestyle activities to mitigate that predisposition. But, genetic testing should be available only to the physician and patient and should not be used for setting insurance premiums. We all have genetic predispositions to something.
Genetic predisposition should be private, protected information to be used exclusively by the physician and patient because as you point out that information could easily be used to discriminate.
The government has already overridden this "patient and doctor only" idea with electronic medical records being provided to government under federal law, at great expense to doctors and stiff penalties if not done promptly/correctly.

If you have a genetic heart condition, cancer or ED (and taking Viagra), believe me, the government already knows it (or has access to it).
Dying wage

Natchitoches, LA

#2144 Apr 3, 2014
7 Million Success wrote:
<quoted text>
But now that you mention it, genetic testing can be very useful in helping someone learn early on in life if they are predisposed to some condition so they may engage in lifestyle activities to mitigate that predisposition. But, genetic testing should be available only to the physician and patient and should not be used for setting insurance premiums. We all have genetic predispositions to something.
Genetic predisposition should be private, protected information to be used exclusively by the physician and patient because as you point out that information could easily be used to discriminate.
How about your new name? Do you really consider this so-called "7 million" a success?
Living Wage

Lafayette, LA

#2145 Apr 3, 2014
7 Million Success wrote:
<quoted text>
But now that you mention it, genetic testing can be very useful in helping someone learn early on in life if they are predisposed to some condition so they may engage in lifestyle activities to mitigate that predisposition. But, genetic testing should be available only to the physician and patient and should not be used for setting insurance premiums. We all have genetic predispositions to something.
Genetic predisposition should be private, protected information to be used exclusively by the physician and patient because as you point out that information could easily be used to discriminate.
It would work because medical tests are 100%, right? REALLY?
Dog Whistle Politics

Houston, TX

#2146 Apr 3, 2014
Dying wage wrote:
<quoted text>
My point being that these things will have to be determined some way. You mentioned "genetic predisposition". We have all heard people say "I've always been big, it's hereditary", or something similar. What we don't know (in most cases) is: Is that really true? How will it be determined if it's true or not? By genetic testing? I don't know, I just asked the question, wondering how and if it would be reasonable/feasible.
This is a slippery slope you're embarking on.
I'm not embarking on the slippery slope. I clearly state that information needs to be physician/patient confidential info.

Right now family history is a useful indicator. Genetic testing is currently feasible for some things, breast cancer for instance. I would expect that at some future point in time, we will all get some panel of genetic tests as routine healthcare, but the results will be patient confidential.
Dog Whistle Politics

Houston, TX

#2147 Apr 3, 2014
Dying wage wrote:
<quoted text>
And no, I'm not a porker. I think it's hilarious how all of these "workout all the time" fitness nuts think they are superior. They sit behind a desk 8 hours, stop at the gym for an hour before or after work, and think they are more healthy than someone who works 8-10 hours a day outside sweating doing manual labor. Get 'em outside, they can't do squat!
Are you a desk jockey?
Hey, we all gotta earn a living. Give them credit for getting to gym, they're doing what they can. I am a semi-desk jockey, nature of my work. But, I am very active.
Circle Jerk

Houston, TX

#2148 Apr 3, 2014
Dying wage wrote:
<quoted text>
The government has already overridden this "patient and doctor only" idea with electronic medical records being provided to government under federal law, at great expense to doctors and stiff penalties if not done promptly/correctly.
If you have a genetic heart condition, cancer or ED (and taking Viagra), believe me, the government already knows it (or has access to it).
Ultimately, electronic medical records are beneficial. If healthcare practitioners have access to EMR, it can eliminate a lot of unnecessary testing and uncertainty, particularly if you have an accident and are unconscience. This will over time reduce costs and improve efficiency.

More information is a double-edged sword.
Circle Jerk

Houston, TX

#2149 Apr 3, 2014
Living Wage wrote:
<quoted text>
Health insurance covers ALL medical conditions.
Again, you could easily have a larger claim than the "obese" person you used in your example. Not all obese people will have huge claims. Just like, not all "healthy lifestyle" people will NOT have huge claims. You still have "bad genes" and accidents to contend with; which you have to admit are out of your control. No one pays premiums with the intent of covering someone else's claims, right?
Premiums should be the same and difference comes in the form of less benefits if you chose not to follow medical advice. Why throw good money after bad.
Insurance cos. would just love you; sign up for a HUGE deductible/out of pocket because you will NEVER have a HUGE CLAIM because you are so healthy. Do you NOT see the error of your thinking? You do realize this is what the insurance industry had been doing; why their profits were so high, right? How was that working for you? Basically kept people from going to the doctor until the medical condition required expensive treatment. Then they kick them off the plan because they lost their job because they couldn't go to work and could pay the premiums.
Expand Medicare and IT WILL BE SAVED. It is high time we quit spending unlimited money to keep people alive without a quality of life, right? Everyone paying into the same pot WITHOUT a chance of losing the money you paid in for years just because you lost your job, is the way to go. Better to have the taxpayers supplement Healthcare than WAR in other countries and HUGE successful corporations, right?
@ Dying Wage: POTUS allowed those "high profit" policies to continue for one more year because YOU PEOPLE TOLD HIM YOU WANTED THEM BACK (POTUS did not want to do it because there is NO REAL COVERAGE)! See POTUS, unlike the GOP in Congress, actually listens to the people. Aren't you glad? Imagine if the GOP in Congress would listen to the people, instead of the NRA, we would have a Universal Background Check program in place (90% of the people wanted this remember).
Charles Koch is upset because people are calling him "Un-American". Simple solution, stop being "Un-American" and GREEDY!
It's all about probability. The chances are lower that I will consume more healthcare dollars because of a healthy lifestyle. And, the chance are higher that someone with an unhealthy lifestyle will consume more healthcare dollars.

I mean, this is not under dispute by anyone except you.

I go to the doctor whenever I need to and for annual checkups. Never had a problem with that.

Have you ever heard of the Hypocratic Oath?
Circle Jerk

Houston, TX

#2150 Apr 3, 2014
Bobby Jindal proposed an alternative to ACA today.
Dying wage

Natchitoches, LA

#2151 Apr 3, 2014
Living Wage wrote:
<quoted text>
Health insurance covers ALL medical conditions.
Again, you could easily have a larger claim than the "obese" person you used in your example. Not all obese people will have huge claims. Just like, not all "healthy lifestyle" people will NOT have huge claims. You still have "bad genes" and accidents to contend with; which you have to admit are out of your control. No one pays premiums with the intent of covering someone else's claims, right?
Premiums should be the same and difference comes in the form of less benefits if you chose not to follow medical advice. Why throw good money after bad.
Insurance cos. would just love you; sign up for a HUGE deductible/out of pocket because you will NEVER have a HUGE CLAIM because you are so healthy. Do you NOT see the error of your thinking? You do realize this is what the insurance industry had been doing; why their profits were so high, right? How was that working for you? Basically kept people from going to the doctor until the medical condition required expensive treatment. Then they kick them off the plan because they lost their job because they couldn't go to work and could pay the premiums.
Expand Medicare and IT WILL BE SAVED. It is high time we quit spending unlimited money to keep people alive without a quality of life, right? Everyone paying into the same pot WITHOUT a chance of losing the money you paid in for years just because you lost your job, is the way to go. Better to have the taxpayers supplement Healthcare than WAR in other countries and HUGE successful corporations, right?
@ Dying Wage: POTUS allowed those "high profit" policies to continue for one more year because YOU PEOPLE TOLD HIM YOU WANTED THEM BACK (POTUS did not want to do it because there is NO REAL COVERAGE)! See POTUS, unlike the GOP in Congress, actually listens to the people. Aren't you glad? Imagine if the GOP in Congress would listen to the people, instead of the NRA, we would have a Universal Background Check program in place (90% of the people wanted this remember).
Charles Koch is upset because people are calling him "Un-American". Simple solution, stop being "Un-American" and GREEDY!
What is it that you don't understand about the concept of "freedom of choice"? Is that reserved only for freedom of abortion? It is not a decision for "POTUS" to make, any element of MY FRICKIN HEALTHCARE DECISIONS, whether they be good or bad. I may like MY policy, that's MY DAMNED BUSINESS. Should I be required to also check in with the "great and mighty O" prior to an automobile purchase to get his approval there, too? I have a large family, and will buy any SUV. Will "O" show up to count heads and tell me I can get by with a smaller vehicle?

Keep on with the "Koch Brothers" blather. You do know that they are Libertarian, right? They agree more with Libs than Conservatives, right? Right? Right???

This is a Koch-uh, uh, how do we want to say that? Uh, Koch-ster, uh Koch-st, uh, Koch-steria, uh, Koch (Coke), uh, K-O-C-H, uh yeah, I think it's Kochsteria we wanted to say, uh (duh), yeah that's it (yeah, that's the ticket!).

You need to stop listening to old, demented Liberal thieves like Harry Reid.
Living Wage

Opelousas, LA

#2153 Apr 4, 2014
Dog Whistle Politics wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not embarking on the slippery slope. I clearly state that information needs to be physician/patient confidential info.
Right now family history is a useful indicator. Genetic testing is currently feasible for some things, breast cancer for instance. I would expect that at some future point in time, we will all get some panel of genetic tests as routine healthcare, but the results will be patient confidential.
I agree, genetic testing is good for doctor/patient; but don't let the Insurance Industry get their hands on it, right?
Living Wage

Opelousas, LA

#2154 Apr 4, 2014
Dying wage wrote:
<quoted text>
It COULD provide information for the patient, but also could provide information to government-run healthcare to decide you are an "unviable" healthcare risk that should be "allowed to die", as mentioned in one of your previous posts.
Dude, what would the Gov't want with your medical info?

The Insurance Industry has more to gain w/it at this point.

Are you sitting at home with tin foil on your head?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form 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.

Citizen Sound-Off Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Election Who do you support for U.S. Senate in West Virg... (Oct '10) 1 hr bacon hater 102,250
Election OK Health Care Freedom Amendment, State Questio... (Oct '10) 4 hr Side Show 84,228
Election Who do you support for U.S. Senate in Georgia i... (Oct '10) 4 hr pointing out the ... 112,533
Election Who's got your vote in the Pennsylvania Attorne... (Oct '14) Sat Native Landlord 9
Election Who's got your vote for Congress in Virginia's ... Fri Johnny Cristian 1
Election Tennessee Hunting Rights Amendment (Oct '10) Fri Huh 8,717
Election The "English is the Official Language of Oklaho... (Oct '10) Oct 18 Traveler 11,309
More from around the web