I mean, the entire point is to get coverage prior to conditions manifesting. I get that there are situations where one loses coverage and then later can't get it back, and maybe there should be some way to account for that. If you are just now seeking insurance following a diagnosis, however, it's hard to be sympathetic.
Challenged by President Obama during Wednesday’s debate in Denver over how he would find insurance for the sick after repealing the Affordable Care Act, Mitt Romney asserted that he had a plan for those with pre-existing conditions. “Pre-existing conditions are covered under my plan,” he said. “Young people are able to stay on their family plan. That is already offered in the private marketplace. You do not need the government to mandate that.” Romney: I’ll Cover Pre-Existing Conditions, Obama: No, You Won’t | TPM2012
Until he says something more than "don't worry about it," color me skeptical. I could have sworn jay already shared the joys of being diagnosed with something that doesn't go away, even when insured.
And this is the biggest reason I'm still not voting for Romney, despite him presenting himself very well on Wednesday night. I was thinking more along the lines of "where is the money coming from to do all these things?" (you want to stimulate the economy? Awesome. If it works, good for you. But the economy depends on a lot of factors outside your control, so give me something better), but it's the same idea.
Went to a meeting after school yesterday about insurance. Last year I payed $413.96 a month, beginning Jan. 1, 2013 I will pay $510.96 a month. Thats $97 a month more. I am on a "state wide" plan. I thought my insurance would not go up? BTW, it went up $75 a month last year.
The way the state you live in handles it. Romney stated he is pushing it down to the states. In TN we have Tenncare for the purpose. Have poor family members on it now. Works well. There are still some folks not covered that are not making good faith attempts to qualify for it or any other plan. Not that hard to get on Tenncare.
Been going on for 2 years rising med insurance costs due to Obamacare and will get worse along with a reducing number of providers for Medicare patients. Providers are not forced to accept Medicare patients. Cut to the chase folks. What does more cash in the pockets of businesses that hire people mean? More US jobs due to lower tax rates that will still be higher than most industrialized nations on earth. The money and jobs start coming back to the US. Transportation costs are already rising along with raw materials. With every Middle East skirmish they go higher. Increases the costs to have products made overseas and imported to the US market, which is still the highest per capita consumer market in the world. Bernanke will be gone at some point early in Romney's presidency. They will cut inflation loose in a step up method to devalue the dollar to reduce the deficits. Cheaper dollars to pay down on the national debt and balance future budgets. All goods and services will go up in cost rapidly. Wages will rise at much faster rates. All of the above increases tax collections. Add in new energy from North American sources with less volatility. This is a new source of added tax revenue as are the millions of new jobs created from it over time. That is what Romney meant by broadening the base. He and Ryan have explained it before; but people haven't been paying attention. Most would rather buy into failed policies that go back to FDR that we have now. Not saying the Repubs haven't screwed it up royally as well. They have. But the best chance to fixing this mess is by going the Romney/Ryan route with the economy.
Haven't been on much today: yes, no, yes, no, yes, no. Keep in mind with internet and cable, she is paying 1/4th of the bill, split evenly between her, me, and our 2 other roommates. Also, you absolutely can't get or hold a job without a phone, and a cell phone plan is not more expensive than a land line anymore.
Leaving it to the states is just a way for irresponsible states to push their burden onto other states by motivating the poor to move. Michigan did it to Tennessee in the 90's. Look at a map of government dependents sometime. The highest amounts live in red (southern) states.
Wait. Are you implying that red states do a much better job of taking care of their poor? I just woke up and my brain is fuzzy
The opposite. They rely more on federal funds. They draw more federal funds. States like New York and Massachusetts net pay in, southern "Big Government SUCKS" states net draw.
To throw a curve ball in the discussion, I remember the great amount of snide remarks from the right about Gore in 2000 being unable to win his own home state. However, Romney, in the state of his only political office, will be destroyed by Obama. Is it at all relevant that he was governor of Massachusetts and his own people can't stand him? He was hovering at a 30% approval rating at the end of his first term, chose not to run for a second term (as he would've lost) and was rated the 48th out of 50 governors. Not to mention the dude raised taxes like crazy, forced a higher tax burden on local communities due to budget cuts and flipped on several positions, like abortion (which he has now flipped again).
So when you said "government-dependent," you were talking about the federal government. I thought we were still in the context of state governments, hence the confusion.
That's true. Mine doubled two years in a row. Care to take a guess as to when it became less affordable?
