It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by uspatriot109
You didn't answer my question so I would be led to beleive that you do not have a job and are already bleeding the system. If Im wrong then forgive me.
I love seeing so many people ready to jump into somthing my brother, father and grandfather faught so hard to end. Before you jump and say that social security is the same and if I dont want the government health care then i shouldn't have SS eather, so be it I will gladly die without somone else picking up the tab and will never see what I have paid in anyway due to the fact that I have to be 75 to draw, be gone before then!
Originally posted by Iseekthetruth!!!!!!!!
The public option is Not the only thing wrong with these bills.
I would encourage you ALL to go look at the origional bill and it's amendments. There are Much better answers out there than the Government takeover, or control of our health care.
Claim: Page 167: Any individual who doesn’t have acceptable health care (according to the government) will be taxed 2.5% of income.
True. This is the mechanism in the bill to enforce the individual mandate requiring everyone to have insurance. A person who doesn’t have insurance that meets minimum benefit standards (or other acceptable coverage, such as a plan that was grandfathered in) would pay a penalty of 2.5 percent of modified adjusted gross income for the year. The total penalty can’t exceed a national average premium for individual coverage, or family coverage if applicable.
Improving the Individual Market.
Policymakers, as well as members of our community, are concerned that individuals with pre-existing conditions often have difficulty obtaining coverage. The flip side of this problem, however, is that many people put off getting insurance until after a medical problem has developed, thereby driving up coverage costs for everyone else. We propose to address this dual challenge head-on by making coverage broadly and fairly available:
• Combine guarantee-issue coverage with no pre-existing condition exclusions with an enforceable individual mandate: For guarantee-issue to work, it is necessary for everyone to be brought into the system and participate in obtaining coverage. Achieving this objective will require
specific attention to the mechanisms for making the mandate enforceable and may require coordinated action at multiple levels of government.
Indeed, the importance of combining guarantee issue with an enforceable individual mandate is borne out by research and experience from the states. For example, a report by Milliman, Inc. found that states that enacted guarantee-issue laws in the absence of an individual coverage requirement saw a rise in insurance premiums, a reduction of individual insurance enrollment, and no significant decrease in the number of uninsured.
Originally posted by sisgood
reply to post by December_Rain
I believe that I stated in my first post that I thought that the letter was a little "alarmist" and that I didn't believe everything in the letter.
I just thought it was interesting and wanted to know what others thought of it.
Originally posted by Brad Watson
We all have our different perspectives on the Federal Healthcare issue. My girlfriend and I are uninsured. Were both musicians and are considered self-employed. At the moment, neither of us can afford health insurance. I have gall stones and might like to have my gall bladder removed, but it would cost $5,000-$10,000. Because I have a pre-existing condition, I can't get insurance to cover it.