Forum for discussing local and world politics and issues. All views are welcomed. Let your opinions be heard on current news and politics.
All standard guidelines apply to this board, No Flaming, No Taunting, No Foul Language,No sexual innuendos,etc..
As politics can be a volatile subject, please consider how you would feel if your comment were directed toward yourself.
Any post deemed to be in violation of guidelines will be deleted or edited without warning or notification. Any continued misbehavior will result in a ban or hidden status, so please play nice!!!
*"Moderators are here for a reason. If a moderator (or Global Moderator or Fencer) requests that a discussion on a certain subject to cease - for whatever reason - please respect these wishes. Failure to do so may result in being hidden, or banned."
Bernice: There are many horror stories from Britain and Canada where people who needed urgent care were ignored (due to the waiting period and determinations that their problems weren't "urgent") and died.
If I'm selling a product (insurance) don't I have the right to offer this, this, and this as covered but not that? Why must the government determine what a company is to carry? If someone on my policy needs hearing aids, there is NO COVERAGE for the 4500$ cost. Why no coverage? Because it's not cost effective to offer the coverage. I'd pay a few hundred dollars a year and some devices are in excess of 5 thousand dollars. It adds up when one considers that it's normal for older people to lose certain portions of their hearing. Most old farts could use hearing aids.
As for death panels, I think they will exist. There is a determination of what procedure is worth the cost and what isn't. Watch and see. If this health care bill survives, we will see some procedure where some "wanted" procedures will be denied (such as a heart transplant for people over 70). Mike Wallace just died at 93. A heart transplant extends one's life for up to 15 more years. Yeah, I want that!!!