General Discussion

jeff47

(26,549 posts)

24. No, if you have a lump and don't have a hefty income

Mon Oct 28, 2013, 03:54 PM

Oct 2013

you get to sit around worrying about it, and hoping it isn't cancer. Then when it turns out to be cancer, we all get to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to treat you for it.

Or we could have insurance cover preventative care, and cut that lump out when it will cost us less than one thousand.

And that's one disease. There's a nearly infinite supply of diseases that are nice and cheap when caught early, but doing that requires people to actually get preventative care.

You were proposing that we don't do that. That is a dumb proposal. Then you proposed that preventative care should be covered. Now you're back to your first, dumb proposal.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

52 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

I had cheap health insurance years ago that would not be allowed under Obamacare in 2014 [View all] CreekDog Oct 2013 OP

Recommended. (nt) NYC_SKP Oct 2013 #1

They're not losing coverage, they're losing the illusion of coverage, I would say. geek tragedy Oct 2013 #2

Why do think so many people went bankrupt when a major illnes struck...their coverage sucked. nt kelliekat44 Oct 2013 #46

It reminds me of The Rainmaker. People pay premiums and hope it will help if they get really sick Pirate Smile Oct 2013 #51

k&r... spanone Oct 2013 #3

Years ago costs weren't so high leftstreet Oct 2013 #4

yes, it was unreasonable then, it was a bad thing then CreekDog Oct 2013 #6

You were right not to use it. Being nailed with a preexisting condition pnwmom Oct 2013 #33

A cousin of mine had to "find out" she was pregnant at 5 months, in order to get on her ScreamingMeemie Oct 2013 #44

A lot of people would be happier with actual insurance, rather than prepaid routine medical care FarCenter Oct 2013 #5

that's perverse, do you feed your kid or take them to the doctor? CreekDog Oct 2013 #7

Don't Know For sure, but this one geek tragedy Oct 2013 #9

in this thread they want men getting vasectomies to be charged less for insurance CreekDog Oct 2013 #32

That's a convincing mountain of proof of your assertion. The last one was particularly Squinch Oct 2013 #36

They said in this thread they don't want poor people getting regular health care geek tragedy Oct 2013 #37

We fed our kids and took them to the doctor. FarCenter Oct 2013 #10

you're saying that it worked for everyone? CreekDog Oct 2013 #16

Hello! Have you ever heard of a copay & deductible? NoOneMan Oct 2013 #13

Fuck Ron Paul. nt geek tragedy Oct 2013 #8

That's a fantastic way to make health care and insurance more expensive. jeff47 Oct 2013 #11

Who would have thought that someone with a history of racist comments, teleprompter geek tragedy Oct 2013 #12

If people want to buy a plan that includes pre-paid preventive care, they should have that option. FarCenter Oct 2013 #14

Not what you were just proposing. jeff47 Oct 2013 #17

If you have lump, go to the doctor. FarCenter Oct 2013 #23

No, if you have a lump and don't have a hefty income jeff47 Oct 2013 #24

Heh, doubling down on the Republican ideology with fat-bashing. geek tragedy Oct 2013 #18

Well, there's also the problem where those people with a 30 BMI are living longer jeff47 Oct 2013 #20

People who use the 'teleprompters' line against Obama geek tragedy Oct 2013 #21

It is part of preventive care in Medicare FarCenter Oct 2013 #26

Which is why we need to not have cancer screenings. jeff47 Oct 2013 #27

Right, because doing so would hurt corporate profit$!! AgingAmerican Oct 2013 #25

Making medical services prepaid, with less per usage cost to patients, increases corporate profits FarCenter Oct 2013 #29

Yes, you are afraid poor people will start receiving medical care like everyone else does. geek tragedy Oct 2013 #35

you make a false assertion and without data to back it up CreekDog Oct 2013 #39

That isn't what 'prepaid' is AgingAmerican Oct 2013 #49

Considering poor people can't afford paying in full for preventative care that doesn't seem smart. cui bono Oct 2013 #34

what? fizzgig Oct 2013 #47

By "actual insurance" I mean buying a policy that covers losses larger than what you can cover. FarCenter Oct 2013 #48

We'd be happier with Healthcare Puzzledtraveller Oct 2013 #52

what you describe sounds exactly like catastrophic coverage under Obamacare grantcart Oct 2013 #15

So you're saying Obamacare allows charging women more than men? CreekDog Oct 2013 #19

I think they're just saying that junk insurance is still geek tragedy Oct 2013 #22

They're actually the opposite ProSense Oct 2013 #31

there's a big difference between high deductible plans under Obamacare and what I had CreekDog Oct 2013 #41

Good points. I stand corrected. nt geek tragedy Oct 2013 #42

thanks for listening CreekDog Oct 2013 #43

lol let me edit for clairty: what you describe sounds similar to catastrophic coverage under grantcart Oct 2013 #30

the whole context is different CreekDog Oct 2013 #38

I was just watching CNBC CrawlingChaos Oct 2013 #28

My son, a completely healthy 15 year old, had a catastrophic temporary policy that was $500/quarter. ScreamingMeemie Oct 2013 #45

I don't see what the fuss is all about......... Swede Atlanta Oct 2013 #40

Boom! CFLDem Oct 2013 #50