Individual Health Insurance New York Question & Answers
Which is the best health insurance company (policy) to cover all expenses in India ?
Best insurance company for Health insurance policy: An individual, 55 years old to cover all expenses (Eg. Hospitalization, Consulting fee, Medicine expenses, Room rent, Surgery, Post hospitalization and related expenses).
Sarah Fields answers:
I think Max new york life insurance is best
Will the increased availability of psychiatric care under the Affordable Care Act shrink the GOP?
The far right wing of the GOP is composed primarily of people who suffer from borderline paranoid psychosis, a condition which is believed to affect as much as 10% of the general population. Under Obama-care, these individuals will have unprecedented access to psychiatric treatment and anti-depressants.
Is the GOPs opposition to Obama-care based on the fact that increased access to psychiatric care will decimate the most loyal part of the GOP base?
Andy g – thank you for the perfect example of the mind-set of someone suffering from borderline paranoid psychosis.
Sarah Fields answers:
No, although it probably runs a close second. The answer to your question comes from J.D. Kleinke’s article entitled “The Consevative Case for Obamacare,” published today in the New York Times.
“Clear away all the demagogy and scare tactics, and Obamacare is, at its core Romneycare across state lines. But today’s Republicans dare not own anything built on principles of economic conservatism, if it also protects one of the four horseman of the social conservatives’ apocalypse: coverage for the full spectrum of women’s reproductive health, from birth control to abortion.
Social conservatives’ hostility to the health care act is a natural corollary to their broader agenda of controlling women’s bodies. These are not the objections of traditional “conservatives,” but of agitators for prying, invasive government – the very things they project, erroneously, onto the workings of the President’s plan. Decrying the legislation for interfering in the doctor-patient relationship, while seeking to pass grossly intrusive laws involving the OB-GYN-patient relationship, is one of the more bizarre disconnects in American politics.
Obamacare draws fire from this segment of “conservatives” because it fortifies the other side in their holy war. Coverage for birth control and abortion has not been introduced by the law; but it has been neutralized economically across all health plans, as part of the plan’s systemic effort to streamline fragmented health insurance markets and coverage.
The real problem with the health care plan – for Mr. Romney and the Republicans in general- is that political credit for it goes to Mr. Obama. Now, Mr. Romney is in a terrible fix trying to spin his way out of this paradox and tear down something he knows is right – something for which he ought to be taking great political credit of his own.”
That’s the answer in a nutshell, pun intended.
Now that the state of New York is legislating to recognize gay marriage, is federal recognition not far behind
>>>>>>>>New York Gov. David Paterson instructed state agencies — including those governing insurance and health care — to immediately change policies and regulations to recognize gay marriages.
For years, gay rights advocates have sought recognition for same-sex marriages so couples could share family health care plans, receive tax breaks by filing jointly, enjoy stronger adoption rights and inherit property.<<<<<<<<
Sarah Fields answers:
No. It is very clear that just because one State passes laws recognising marriages contracted within that State, Congress is not going to change the Federal laws. Although marriages, and the form they take, can be contracted within a given State, it is Federal legisalation which allows those marriages to be recognised federally, and in every state of the Union.
The Federal Govrenment, – the Administraltion in Washington – and Congress has bipartisanly dcelared that marriage is between a man and a woman and that the Deferal Govt is NOT going to change its Marriage Act to recognise gay marriages, so they are accepted nationally throughout the Union.
The only option is for all 50 states to individually legislate…and considering SOME of the states and their political and social climates, this is not something that is going to happen soon.
How does someone from Australia know what’s happening with a Federal system? We have one ourselves…and both major political parties dupported a change to our 1961 Marriage Axct (Federal) to change the deginition of marriage to a ‘union between a man and a woman’ back in 2004, instead of the previous ‘union between two persons’ which would have led to recognition, not only of gay marriages if State or Territory legislatures passed such laws, but barred recognition of gay marriages contracted overseas.
This is the same reason the US Administration will not change its laws. It’s not just individual States it is concerned about, but people wanting their marriages recognised, that were contracted in other countries…like Canada.
Here, our Federal capital, canberra, is in a self-governing territory, the Australian Capital Territory, with its own Parliament. Howvere, the Federal Government can veto or annul any laws made by territorial parliaments (not State ones…in the State-Federal relationship though if there is a conflict between State and Federal law, Gederal takes precedence. This means States cannot enact gay marriage legislation…but civil unions are another thing. The ACT tried for a gay marriages, and had it quashed. They tried for civil unions…and it has been quashed too.
Meanwhile, our Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission identified 57 Federal laws which discriminate against gays and gay couples. On closer inspection, to implement the recommendations of their report, it was found 98 laws were discriminatory, and are being removed.
Marriage is not one of them, though.
And things will not change in the foreseeable future, for either of our countries.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers