Health Care Debate - Orlando, FL

Judged:

1

Jim Trebowski wrote:

No one should be denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition.

Judged:

2

1

1

Pandora wrote:

As a small businessman, I sat down and did some math. The insurance companies have done too much cherry picking and taken advantage of us. Not fond of Obamacare, but it will save me money.

Judged:

1

1

Pandora wrote:

As a small businessman, I sat down and did some math. The insurance companies have done too much cherry picking and taken advantage of us. Not fond of Obamacare, but it will save me money.

Jim Trebowski wrote:

No one should be denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition.

Judged:

1

Jim Trebowski wrote:

No one should be denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition.

Judged:

1

Crash wrote:

<quoted text>
Ethically, you are correct. But ethics are not what is up for debate. Here is a comparison for you. If you were to manage a company or own a company. You get an applicant that you know is not going last longer than 6 months or possibly longer for one reason or another. Are you going ot hire that person and put in the money to invest in the abilities of the individual that you know you are going to loose anywyays? Absolutely not. Now, with a big pre-exsisting problem, should an insurance company take them as a customer when they know the output in money is going to be greater than their input? Not going to happen. Is it wrong ethically? Yes, but, a company does not provide a service or goods without a profit margin. If you want to avoid the profit, look for a non-profit that can cover the individual. Your health insurance requirement is a personal responsibility to obtain. The government is not required to give it to you.
Now in 1948 the government passed an amendment to the constitution that quality healthcare is a right. And that is correct. But, insurance for that healthcare is a personal responsibility.

Judged:

1

Amos Brown wrote:

<quoted text>
No amendments to the Constitution were made between 1933 and 1951 nor does any amendment make any mention of quality health care much less its being a right.

Judged:

1

Joe wrote:

<quoted text>
Dream on. You'll pay higher premiums for worse care and higher taxes too.

Judged:

1

1

Diogenes wrote:

It's socialism no matter how you look at it. And socialism is the fist step to the public losing control of their government.

bdc0765 wrote:

The Government cannot run a car rebate program how are they going to run universal health care. Medicare Bankrupt, SSA, Bankrupt Post Office Bankrupt. Do you see a pattern?

Judged:

1

Unbelievable wrote:

Even though I do agree that reform needs to happen I DO NOT agree that a public option is the answer. It needs to stay in the private sector with government regulations. Opening up availability across state lines would be a great start.

Danny_Livewire wrote:

<quoted text>
You idiots are branwashed into beliving VERY BAD ideas are good for you.... STOP AND THINK!!!
If you "open up availability" (just listen to that marketing language there) across state lines..... You are essentially REMOVING the Sovereignty of States to regulate business in their own state!
That would be awful for the US Consumer, and would be a horrible step in the completely opposite direction....
But your "Conservative Radio Host" tell you that it is good for you because it would allow for more competition....... WRONG. It would squash all competition creating monopolies out of the few and the powerful who are lobbing for such laws to be DE-REGULATED.
When has De-Regulation or the Private Sector actually done ANYTHING good??????
Please name something.
I bet I can point out how the Fed Government was involved.
You idiots are so naive and brainwashed by international bankers who don't care about our country!!!
Most of them who are on these radio programs and fund them, don't even live in the USA!!!!