Wednesday December 18, 2013
Jump to content
Ron, I often wonder how we got to the point where the ultra conservatives and the ultra liberals believe that it is better to argue rather than negotiate and reach a common ground. The recent government shut down is a good case in point, and came out of an attitude of my point of view is so important that I will inflict hardship on everyone. Now please realize that I attribute this attitude to liberals as well as conservatives.
The open debate or discussion of opposing views is simply not done on the national level nor on the local level.
The question of whether to take children "away from parents" or not is always a difficult one. CPS is often severely criticized for a bad outcome when CPS has left a child with his "parents. I think one has to carefully assess all the information, pray and hope the correct decision is made.
Tom, going back to your original question -- should the health care act be amended.... I really don't know. There are so many people (Congressmen, Lobbyists, etc.) out there with their own private agenda that I don't think we are anywhere getting the whole truth and nothing but the truth about the Act. The President saying, "You can keep your health insurance" and then having so many cancellations because the policies don't meet the minimum requirements. What was he thinking when he made that statement. And then the mess with the on line market place. There is no excuse for all of the glitches with the website. They had several years and spent mega bucks and they ended up with a mess. Absolutely no excuse?}!!!! Can't the USA get anything right? Sorry I am just "down" this morning.
Ron, do you think an "open mind" should be added to your list of traits? We have been at the water wars longer than we have been in Afghanistan. However, I think you will agree that the two conflicts have some commonality. :-)
Amen! Especially to civility!!!
Tom, I just found out something about the "Act." The act mandates preventive care for cancer, i.e. mamograms, colonospities (I know the spelling is awful) but it does not necessary mandate cancer care. So if your mamogram shows you have cancer, treatment of the cancer might not be covered. The paper I received says, "While cancer screening is considered an essential part to the Affordable Care Act, cancer treatment is not. This means that insurers are not required to have cancer treatment as a covered benefit. Be sure you ask if this is included in covered benefits prior to purchasing a plan if you are, or will be, undergoing and kind of cancer treatment." Let me be clear -- this applies to people going to the Healthcare Exchange Marketplace to purchase health insurance. People on Medicare are still covered as I have been told by more than one person (Medicare reps and high government official) that there are no changes to Medicare in 2014. So you young guys and gals should be careful about the coverage you purchase. Cancer can happen to anyone at any time and many people will tell you that the treatment is very expensive. You need coverage for cancer treatment. Of course, that probably puts you in a higher premium class.
I am afraid that this situation is getting out of control. I sincerely hope that people don't allow the community to become embroiled in emotional demagoguery. I plead that we carefully examine the facts, ask questions in a civil manner and get answers in a civil manner.
There is a written record at pswid.org and there are recordings at waterforpinestrawberry.com. Review the record.
I think Ric has made some very good points. I hope people will read his comments with an open mind. While it is too late now, I wish people had attended PSWID Board meetings to see for themselves. However, you can still read PSWID minutes at pswid.org or listen to the recordings or view of the videos of PSWID meetings at waterforpinestrawberry.com. After you have done the listening, viewing and reading, carefully consider the actions taken by the PSWID Board. All of this takes time, but should be done before reaching conclusions in this matter.
And please let us not make personal attacks about one another.
Let us remember we want a water system run by people in an open manner in a way that will benefit all of us in the best way possible while not forcing us to take on huge amounts of debt.
I meant to point out that the changes to the Affordable Health Care Act just might eliminate any possibility of a successful Act.
Tom, I believe the policies are being cancelled because they do not offer the minimum coverage required by the Affordable Health Care Act. Should the Health Care Act be amended to allow these policies? Many of these policies have high out-of-pocket. i.e. Nothing covered until insured pays $5,000 or $10,000 or whatever in health expenses. Others might not cover maternity care, etc. There is a good argument for the nothing covered until you spend a certain amount, and I believe people should be allowed to elect out of maternity care. However, I believe it should be made clear that maternity care is not covered. Back when I was working, a fellow worker became pregnant. She had elected to not be covered by her employer's insurance but her husband's insurance because the premiums were lower. It was not until after she gave notice that she was quitting that they found out maternity was not covered under her husband's insurance. Needless to say, she continued to work until the very last day.
Basically, I feel that a person should be allowed to pick the type of coverage they want. In other words, I believe the minimum coverage should be changed. This is a change that could be made to the Act.
I have told you previously why I believe pre-existing conditions should be covered. By the way they are covered when you change jobs and go into a different plan, or when your employer changes plans.
I believe something should be done about the way health care is administered. I give the following example. An acquaintance fell and broke an ankle. The individual went to urgent care. Urgent care confirmed that the ankle was broken, wrapped the ankle gave the patient a boot, and said a specialist should be seen. The individual had to go to the PCP in order to get a referral. The PCP sent the patient to a specialist. The specialist did nothing except say continue what you are doing and see me in 6 weeks. Couldn't all the stuff after the urgent care been eliminated and thereby cut the cost of the broken ankle?
Could it be that everyone is afraid of being sued.
Last login: Saturday, December 14, 2013