TexasCHLforum.com

cb1000rider wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:e one...

Then lets take all the money from everybody worth more than, say, $100 million, and distribute it to everybody else. That would be a good thing in your philosophy?

Trick question.
If I say that the good of the many outweigh what is good for me or you or some other individual, then I'm Socialist.
If I say that "I'm good" - doesn't affect me, then I really only care about myself.

How would you answer that?

cb1000rider wrote:

VMI77 wrote: So then, if you're good, tough luck for everyone else?

*Laugh*

No, although I leave it to you to assume that such is my immediate attitude.

Remember that I said if I'm able to figure out that it's doing more harm than good, I'll stand beside those trying to get it shut down.

I'm interested in the impact as a whole. Isolated examples of people that it hurts are not pleasant - and I have compassion for those people, especially for those on this forum who are losing homes and employer insurance over it. However, we can find examples of people that it helps too. I'm mainly interested how it will affect the "majority" of Americans and if, as a whole, it's a win or lose. You'd think, just based on the math that if they can bring enough low-risk uninsured into the market.. Well, let's call it what it is - force low-risk uninsured into the market, that this will help subsidize premiums as a whole... The interest in "what does it do to my rates" is anecdotal, but I'll publish it just to be fair.

bizarrenormality wrote:

Jaguar wrote:I don't think the intent is to make our lives “better” at all. I believe the intent of the power hungry people is more power over other people.

It's often said that gun control is not about guns as much as it is about control. I think this law has a similar relation to health care.

IOW,

cb1000rider wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote: Simply not true. The Texas Health Insurance Pool is (was) available for those that couldn't otherwise qualify due to preexisting conditions. My wife had cancer, and was covered under the pool until she turned 65 and medicare took over. Expensive? Yes. High Deductibles? Yes. But it was insurance and was available.

I stand corrected on this... And a few other things that my fellow members have helped to educate me with.
However, a Texas Health Insurance pool that candidates coverage of pre-existing conditions, but doesn't limit premiums is essentially the same as not insuring them. Have a history of cancer? That'll be $10k/month in premiums. Apparently Obamacare makes it so that you can't exclude the condition and you can't charge more for it.. Which is why they're pushing young (healthy) people to get in the pools and balance out.

Again, I'll wait and see.. It's the statistical cost/coverage data that I want across the board. If it's worse, I'll work beside you to get rid of it...

cb1000rider wrote: Obamacare or not, something had to change or eventually most of us would end up not being able to afford medical coverage. And getting coverage after having a health condition like Cancer? Forget about it... It wasn't going to happen. Basically, I'd support a "better idea". Haven't seen one. Until I see one, I'm solidly wait-and-see... I want the statistical data that won't be out for a few months.