Who you gonna believe - Obama or Webster ??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ilovecats

Exactly my point,People in your shoes shouldn't have to struggle.Why can't everyone have the healthcare that they need?I don't get to pick where my tax money goes.If I did,You would def. get some of mine.If it were possible to pick where our tax dollars go I would put mine in healthcare for everyone that needs it.Despite what everyone seems to think of me,I am not a greedy person at all.I just wish everyone needing coverage actually got it.
I know it has been said before but how sad that the people who despise abortion always expect people to be responsible for their own.
Unless you want to help the whole village keep your opinion to yourself(not directed to you Jolie,just things I am thinking of).

---

"People who despise abortion"....:hmmmm:....I don't think killing your own fetus/baby is an admirable event......therefore, I don't look down upon people 'who despise' abortion. They give a 'voice' to those who have none.

"always expect people to be responsible for their own"....:hmmmm: well, if they are not responsible and shouldn't be held accountable for their actions...who should be? :shrug

"Helping the whole village" - perhaps 'helping the whole village' means that the subject's best interest (and also the whole villages) is not necessarily easy or pleasant for them but benefit the 'entire village'...

'keep your opinion to yourself'....well, if I have to pay for it or be inconvenienced by it because another cannot handle their 'responsibility' and I may or have to be inconvenienced or pick up the 'slack'....damn wrong, I will not keep my opinion to myself.

If someone wants me to keep my opinion to myself, then don't make your problems or issues mine.....otherwise, I am entitled to an opinion and to voice it loudly.

Reminds me of growing up.....until one is of age and is out on their own being responsible for themselves and supporting themselves and their responsibilities....if they live at home and someone else is paying their bills and 'carrying them'...they should show some respect for the person who is paying their bills and "keep their complaints to themselves".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ilovecats

ETA:What if someone with no money,no insurance had a child who needed an expensive operation to live?Would you want them to get it?Would you fight it because it is YOUR money?Does it matter if you know the child?What if it is YOUR child?Do you gracefully not accept help?Or do you hope real,caring people will do whatever it takes to help your child?

---

Okay, children were not asked to be conceived, they were and deserve care.

that's a 'no brainer'...give them whatever procedure(s) they require/need.

Now, accountability.....why do the parents have 'no money' and 'no insurance'? This example needs a bit more info for an adequate response.....

If they were in this situation of 'poverty', what did they do to prevent conceiving? Did they take any actions as to not give themselves more responsibilities than they could handle?

Okay, so now they are pregnant.....

Why wouldn't they want to cover the expenses for their child? Even if it took them 50+ years at $5.oo per month? I have more respect for them attempting to pay for their debt than just saying..."hey, pay my bill, my kid's sick and shut your mouth while you're at it".

I'm more than willing to help that person paying off their debt.....they are trying......

Unfortunately, bad things happen to good people. It is the ones who feel they are entitled and not responsible for themselves that make it 'bad' for those who truly have tried to prepare and yet are blindsided by a catastrophic event.

what is the message and damage done if we continuously be responsible for ourselves and are forced to additionally be responsible for those who refuse to take any measures to be responsible for themselves and their own? What is the message being sent? Someone else will cover 'your' ass, go do whatever 'you' want.....:shrug really....

Ok, so basically for some of you the country is divided into 2 groups. There are people who will pay off their own medical expenses even if it means living in a shack and dumpster diving for food and they are good. Then there are people who are lazy SOBs who want everyone else to pay their way while they sit home and do nothing.

I happen to live in a world with a VERY broad area in between. The engineer who lost his job and lives in a house that is too nice to qualify him for aid (and his kids don't get SChIP because he made too much this year to qualify. SCHIP doesn't kick in the day you lose your insurance.) He tries to sell his house but depending on the market that may be impossible. Or he may owe more than his house is worth. My old neighbor in MI told me our old house there was back up for sale a few months ago. We sold it 3 years ago this month. It's back on the market again for $60,000 less than they paid. It's actually $25,000 less than we paid when we bought it 10 years ago. There were pictures online. They put in all stainless appliances, granite counters, new landscaping, redid the bathrooms, etc. I'd guess they spent $50,000 in upgrades. By selling they essentially lost $110,000 and that's only if they got their asking price.

In the case of our old house the owner was transferred out of state by his company. But if he had been like thousands, even tens of thousands, of others and just gotten laid off how is he supposed to be able to afford to sell his house? It's easy to say "Sell your house and move if there are no jobs." We did exactly that when DH came home from Iraq. I posted a bit of that story on here not too long ago and was scolded for it as irresponsible. So really which is it? Is it irresponsible to stay in a house that is too expensive to qualify you for aid or is it irresponsible to move and take a loss on the house? Because if both are irresponsible, as some have essentially said, then what other option does someone have? People want to throw "solutions" out there but when someone actually does something they get pounced on for it. Especially if it doesn't work out as well as it does in the Utopian scenario the solution givers imagine it should.

You know what they want Bahet, they want people to disappear and keep their mouth shut.
Ignore the "problem" and it will go away. There is no solution to those people because its not happening to them so they dont give a rats behind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bahet

Ok, so basically for some of you the country is divided into 2 groups. There are people who will pay off their own medical expenses even if it means living in a shack and dumpster diving for food and they are good. Then there are people who are lazy SOBs who want everyone else to pay their way while they sit home and do nothing.

---

Nope, it's not all black & white. And I don't recall ever saying they should pay their $5.00 per month toward their medical bill instead of eating a meal. However, I will say, don't order(buy) the porter house steak, order(make) the meatloaf so you'll have the $5.00 to pay your medical bill. Big difference. :agree

You yourself know, you can find little ways in your budget to find $5.00 per month and probably more to cover your responsibility.

Quote:

---

I happen to live in a world with a VERY broad area in between. The engineer who lost his job and lives in a house that is too nice to qualify him for aid (and his kids don't get SChIP because he made too much this year to qualify. SCHIP doesn't kick in the day you lose your insurance.) He tries to sell his house but depending on the market that may be impossible. Or he may owe more than his house is worth. My old neighbor in MI told me our old house there was back up for sale a few months ago. We sold it 3 years ago this month. It's back on the market again for $60,000 less than they paid. It's actually $25,000 less than we paid when we bought it 10 years ago. There were pictures online. They put in all stainless appliances, granite counters, new landscaping, redid the bathrooms, etc. I'd guess they spent $50,000 in upgrades. By selling they essentially lost $110,000 and that's only if they got their asking price.

---

Bahet, you know your home is an investment...it goes up, it goes down. There is no guarantee that the house you bought yesterday will be worth more today. It is unfortunate, but sometimes one must have to take a loss when selling their investment. It happens in even a 'good economy'...sometimes the neighborhood changes and now their home is worth less. :shrug Some would say that at least they have a home to sell.....some don't.

People get divorced and are forced to sell their home irregardless of what the market is.........

Quote:

---

In the case of our old house the owner was transferred out of state by his company. But if he had been like thousands, even tens of thousands, of others and just gotten laid off how is he supposed to be able to afford to sell his house? It's easy to say "Sell your house and move if there are no jobs." We did exactly that when DH came home from Iraq. I posted a bit of that story on here not too long ago and was scolded for it as irresponsible. So really which is it? Is it irresponsible to stay in a house that is too expensive to qualify you for aid or is it irresponsible to move and take a loss on the house? Because if both are irresponsible, as some have essentially said, then what other option does someone have? People want to throw "solutions" out there but when someone actually does something they get pounced on for it. Especially if it doesn't work out as well as it does in the Utopian scenario the solution givers imagine it should.

---

Yes, it's easy to say "sell and move to a job", it's even easier to say, "stay exactly where you are, make no effort to change with the times"...but really....who has the 'better' chance of survival? Yes, sometimes people get caught where their best plan of action is their least desired. :shrug

As for being irresponsible.....there's lots of factors. Just like when you do a budget for someone, there are some general tips and then once you know their whole spending/lifestyle in detail, you can make a more detailed plan. So one just can't 'blanket' it for every situation, sometimes depending on that person's particular circumstances in a scenario, it can be different. So one "solution" may not work for all, but may work for the majority. There will always be an exception to the 'rule'.

That's why there are those guidelines set in place for example, where a person's assets (such as their home value) will determine whether they qualify for a particular 'program'. They apply to the majority.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pepperpot

Nope, it's not all black & white. And I don't recall ever saying they should pay their $5.00 per month toward their medical bill instead of eating a meal. However, I will say, don't order(buy) the porter house steak, order(make) the meatloaf so you'll have the $5.00 to pay your medical bill. Big difference. :agree

You yourself know, you can find little ways in your budget to find $5.00 per month and probably more to cover your responsibility.



Bahet, you know your home is an investment...it goes up, it goes down. There is no guarantee that the house you bought yesterday will be worth more today. It is unfortunate, but sometimes one must have to take a loss when selling their investment. It happens in even a 'good economy'...sometimes the neighborhood changes and now their home is worth less. :shrug Some would say that at least they have a home to sell.....some don't.

People get divorced and are forced to sell their home irregardless of what the market is.........



Yes, it's easy to say "sell and move to a job", it's even easier to say, "stay exactly where you are, make no effort to change with the times"...but really....who has the 'better' chance of survival? Yes, sometimes people get caught where their best plan of action is their least desired. :shrug

As for being irresponsible.....there's lots of factors. Just like when you do a budget for someone, there are some general tips and then once you know their whole spending/lifestyle in detail, you can make a more detailed plan. So one just can't 'blanket' it for every situation, sometimes depending on that person's particular circumstances in a scenario, it can be different. So one "solution" may not work for all, but may work for the majority. There will always be an exception to the 'rule'.

That's why there are those guidelines set in place for example, where a person's assets (such as their home value) will determine whether they qualify for a particular 'program'. They apply to the majority.

---

Especially when it isn't your home. Its always easier to tell someone how to do something then it is for them to actually do it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YankeeMary

Especially when it isn't your home. Its always easier to tell someone how to do something then it is for them to actually do it.

---

Absolutely.....There is no argument there...no one ever said the 'solution' is an easy one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bahet

What part isn't true? You got accepted. Ok, and that $400 premium was how often exactly? Did it cover both of you or just your DH? How long ago?

We pay more than that with DH's health insurance which is with a multi billion dollar company. Whe DH got home from Iraq we had no insurance. I sought out private insurance before he got home because I knew we'd be screwed. I knew America wasn't going to do more than provide lip service with regards to taking care of the troops. Our youngest was on a nebulizer he used whenever he got sick as he'd get wheezy. The absolute cheapest plan I could find to cover our family of 4 was $1150. For our $1150 we got no optical or dental and had to pay the 1st $5000 of medical expenses in the year.

I just did a quick online quote. For our family of 4, non smokers for at least a year, no maternity coverage, no health problems including being overweight, and a $10,000 deductible we could get for $265. In fact, not one of the quotes given covered maternity care. You can add it. But it will cost you and it won't kick in until the deductible is met. One person's obesity alone will at least double the premium. Smoking will typically triple it if not more. Our quote when DH was coming home from Iraq was high because he smoked a few times over there and we were both technically over weight.

So please, give me more details about this insurance company you have. We have no major health issues and (no offense) but I believe we're younger than you as well. I'd love to be able to cover our family with good insurance for such a low amount should the need ever arise. I have a few clients who could really use that information right now as they have no insurance due to being laid off.

---

The part you said that people with those symptoms would NOT get accepted in PRIVATE health ins. without paying tons of money. It was act. going to be under $400 PER month. And I was on a couple of high dollar meds then along with generics. It was this may. But we did not end up doing this because of the hassle in tax stuff with his employer. My point being just because people have health issues does NOT mean they will pay , nec. , thru the nose or not get PRIVATE ins. at all. Every case is different. And NO matter what insurance you get you can't expect a "FREE" ride when you have a surgery or a accident or even go to the doctor office. Meaning you are going to have to pay out of pocket expenses. I think (generalilzing) people feel they should not have to pay hardly anything these days for anything. Healthcare is NOT cheap. And I'm not talking about Ins.
While i think alot of the times hospitals "screw" people for charges on stupid things like a $20 asprin theres not a lot we can do about it.

And as for your wanting info on cheap ins. I know it costs alot for kids. My dh's coworkers ins. premuims are alot higher WITH kids. I'm not sure why and the more you have its worse. I know he has three kids and he's in his early 40's and he pays $550 per month for them, him and his wife. And I do know one child has MANY health issues. Even with private insurance I think it was going to be something like that..... I don't have the info for you his boss did all the stuff he just sent home books for us to choose which plan we wanted.
sorry I could not help you with more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jolie Rouge

I will be paying off those medical bills for years ... but it is MY situation.
My solution is to have cheapie dial up internet on a 386 computer running Win 95, no cell, no cable, eating day old bread and discount meat, wearing thrift store shoes and hand me down clothes because I don't see why anyone is responsible for my bills but me & mine....

By your assessment everyone at BBS should send me $50 to go towards that medical debt ... wether they want to or not; if they can afford to or not... so ... anyone who wants to donate ... er mandate ... send me a PM.
I'll be holding my breath ... :blue:

---

I commend you!!! See its for this I believe in MEDICAL bankruptcy. I do NOT believe in bankruptcy for CC's or mortgages when people spend more than they could afford UNLESS it was because OF a MEDICAL reason that caused them to go bankrupt! JMHO

also may I ask why abortion keeps getting thrown into this thread??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ilovecats

ETA:What if someone with no money,no insurance had a child who needed an expensive operation to live?Would you want them to get it?Would you fight it because it is YOUR money?Does it matter if you know the child?What if it is YOUR child?Do you gracefully not accept help?Or do you hope real,caring people will do whatever it takes to help your child?

---

They already have insurance programs for the ones who need emergency help. It's called welfare. If a family has no income with a child they are eligible for medical and other benifits. I have no problem giving a helping hand to anyone. I am just tired of the ones who use and abuse these programs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jeanea33

They already have insurance programs for the ones who need emergency help. It's called welfare. If a family has no income with a child they are eligible for medical and other benifits. I have no problem giving a helping hand to anyone. I am just tired of the ones who use and abuse these programs.

---

Not necessarily. When DH came home from Iraq we weren't eligible for any sort of government programs even though he was a war veteran with no income. We lived in MI at the time and the economy there was dying. So we moved to AZ where we knew the prospects would be much better. It still took a few months to find a job but we managed. We also couldn't sell our MI house so we had 2 houses and no income for nearly 6 months. But we didn't get any assistance because we were new to AZ so we weren't eligible. We had left MI so we weren't eligible there. I posted that before and a few people chose to criticize our decision to move. Apparently they would have approved of our staying in MI and going on welfare and medicaid. Except we weren't eligible for those until our income was nothing for several months. No one gets laid off on Monday and gets food stamps and medicaid on Tuesday.

There's a reason so many of our troops and reservists are reenlisting. It's the only job they can find. They can be completely mentally and physically messed up from their 1st tour and the military will still take them back as long as they can walk.

Welfare isn't emergency help. Emergency help comes quickly. Welfare takes a long time to be approved for. One person in MI even tried to tell us we weren't eligible since DH hadn't physically resided in MI in the past year. That was about the clincher in deciding to move.