Will the new healthcare policy personally help you,and just exactly are the drawbacks of the healthcare bill?
No it won't, but that doesn't bother me. The consequences of higher taxes is a pittance. Right now we have the second lowest taxes among developed nations, I think those that have can spare a little extra for those that have not during a recession like this.
As a person who is a position to pay higher taxes,I do not complain,but through inheretence tax,paying taxes on money that's allready been taxed is dis-orderly.
"I think those that have can spare a little extra for those that have not during a recession like this."
From each according to his ability to each according to his need, huh?
No. In fact I'm already feeling the sting. We still don't know all the repercussions but we do know small businesses are hoarding cash and delaying hiring until Pelosi can tell us what's in the bill!
Why didn't the people we elected read it? Why didn't Obama read it? Why don't you ask John Conyers why he didn't read it? Why has Obama granted over 700 waivers to his union buddies so that they don't have to comply with the law that they spent millions on supporting? How does a constitutional law professor (Obama) pass an unconstitutional law? Would you argue that he didn't know or that he just chose to ignore the constitution? What does this say about a man that swore to uphold and protect the constitution? Is he ignorant or just a liar?
I'll bet I read more of it than Obama or congress! Did you?
Actually, I did, and I re-read certain parts more than once. It did take awhile, but I was concerned enough with the impact of the legislation to make sure that I knew what was in it. There were several parts of the bill that I questioned, but there were other parts that I was in full agreement with. I believe the legislation needs to be improved, but not repealed.
You can still finish reading it on line, that way you will be sure that you are speaking from a place of fact.
I'm glad you read it. Now I suggest you read the constitution.
I suggested that you read the health care bill because you commented that small business was waiting for Nancy Pelosi to tell them what was in the bill and as you stated, you had not read the bill.
Why is it that you assume that I have not read the Constitution? It was required reading in every U.S. History class I have ever taken. Do you think that you are the only one that has ever read the Constitution or that anyone who does not share your opinions has not read the document or further, that anyone who disagrees with your opinions does not believe in the Constitution? Sorry, but every comment that you have ever written (that I have read) makes it sound like you believe that anyone who disagrees with your interpretation is wrong, un-American, or worse.
Even judges have different interpretations of our Constitution. If I have opinions that differ from yours, it makes me no less of an American or no less of a Patriot than you. I do not think for a minute that you are less of an American than I am. I may disagree with many of your opinions, but you have the right to be respected and to have your opinions heard. I expect the same courtesy from you.
By the way, I have several copies of the Constitution and I am willing to send you one if you would like. They are pocket-sized and you can carry one of them in your purse. I get one every year when I pay my dues to the ACLU...
"By the way, I have several copies of the Constitution and I am willing to send you one if you would like. They are pocket-sized and you can carry one of them in your purse. I get one every year when I pay my dues to the ACLU..."
Well said, Jill.
Did you read the 10th amendment?
Did you read Article 1 section 1 and section 8?
It's not part of the Constitution, but did you read Federalist #41?
All of these, together, show clearly that the health care bill is unconstitutional.
In fact, if you spice it up with A1 Section 8-10, you'll see clearly that the money you've been using all your life is unconstitutional.
Have I ever expressed a sentiment indicating that you aren't entitled to your opinion? I don't think so! However I reserve the right to express my view that your wrong, socialist, and unamerican and as a member of th ACLU you should support that!
Now if you read the constitution there is simply NO WAY you can conclude that a mandate by the federal government to buy a product is constitutional. We can argue about general wefare and the commerce clause and whether or not, not doing an activity constitutes "commerce" but its pretty safe to say this law is an unprecedented attack on individual liberty. In fact I believe this law was passed knowingly in violation of the constitution and as such constitutes a violation of the oath of office of the president and all of congress that voted for it essentially it is perjury an impeachable offense and I would hope the ACLU would seek redress in this matter.
Oh I don't need a copy of the constitution I carry a digital copy on my phone.
Everytime you make a statement like, "I may do that if I can't purge the liberals from our country!" or "We have to do something to get the cancer of oppression out of America... of course i'm hoping it can be done through education and the ballot box, but you can't rule anything out!", you are expressing a sentiment indicating that I am not entitled to my opinion, if it is different than yours. Everytime you tell people to move to Cuba when they disagree with you, you are expressing a sentiment that I am not entitled to my opinion. The liberals must be purged from our country? There are not too many ways that can be taken. By purging, do you mean killing, expulsion from the country, or are you aiming for cleansing like they do in other countries?
You are an extremist, plain and simple. You have no tolerance for anyone that expresses a different political opinion and because of your lack of tolerance, even though you read the Constitution, you do not follow it or believe in it. Call me unamerican because I have a different opinion. That is fine. But try to purge me from this country? I do stand up for your right to speak your mind; I will not stand up for your desire to purge people who disagree with you, because that is not your right.
Thanks, William! Guess you take exception to the idea of purging, too! When I read it, I was floored! It might be funny if she was joking, but she wasn't. It is really difficult to get involved in the forums unless you are willing to be called names and threatened with being purged (on both sides, sometimes). It would be so great if we could all just give our ideas with the goal of solving problems, but I guess that is a purgeable offense, too. Thanks, again!
Stop whining! LOL You're entitled to your opinion... but I draw the line on tolerance when your opinion translates into regulation that oppresses MY freedom! If you and your liberal friends want to build a better society buy a farm and go do it like the Quakers... stop trying to impose your views on the rest of America by force through government.
Lady_love, are you a pharmaceutical rep? Not a loaded question - just curious....
Don't be silly! If I was I would support the law thanks to a back room deal with Obama insuring profits by proventing the sale of cheaper drugs from outside the country!
This is why I think libs are such fools... they rail against industry corrupting government with money but then support the very laws that do precisely that!
Or I could have a family farm like Michele Bachmann and collect over a quarter of a million in federal subsidies? We obviously disagree on the merits of the health care bill, but it sounds as if you would be against any health care bill.
Be that as it may, and this may throw you completely off topic(just curious), how do you make the argument against health care for all in light of your 'pro-life' philosophy or does that philosophy only extend to the unborn? Maybe I am wrong, but if you are truly 'pro-life', you would want everyone to have access to care that could save their lives? Thousands die every year because they have no access to affordable health care. That doesn't seem so pro-life to me. And please do not tell me about the emergency room. Chemo is not given in the emergency room, life-saving transplants are not given in the emergency room and hospitals that do give charitable care are not required to give people all of the care they require. There are several hospitals that turn people down for 'life-saving' treatment because they can not afford it. How do I know that? Because I have personally seen children turned down for transplants because of no funds available. Is that pro-life? Just want to know how you justify this in your mind...
So many 'pro-lifers' suggest that they believe in life. Is it only a few lives or is it all? I realize that pro-lifers want every baby to be born, but are you willing to pay for their support, such as health care, food stamps, education, etc.?
Death is a part of life. No matter what the government provides, you and I will die. I certainly am NOT opposed to helping the sick, on the contrary I think we should do all we can to help those in need, but that is not the role of government. Indeed using the government as an agent for the less fortunate diverts valuable resources that could be used for just that purpose and wastes it on breaucrats, administration, and corruption. In addition, the more we rely on government to provide for our needs the greater our expectations for them to do more the bigger government grows the greater the fraud waste abuse and corruption which in turn leads to more calls for government involvement and more reliance on what eventually becomes our benefactor, our enslaved. All the great civilizations of the past Greece, Rome, and Spain followed this path to destruction. We all know we are headed to a socialist society and we all know how that turns out. Conservatives are the only force that will save the liberals from themselves and save America from the inevitable doom of progressivism.
Well at least you know how to pray... you're going to need them once the democrats are through with you, or maybe you'll be so stoned on your medical marijuana you wont care! LOL
I don't use medical marijuana. I find you to be insulting to others however and intolerant of people who disagree with you. What makes you so certain you are correct in your opinions are we are incorrect in ours? I was not raised to turn a blind eye to those in need. I don't need healthcare, I already pay over $1,200 PER MONTH for my husband and I and this does not include the additional $414 for our child. I don't know a great many people that can afford that, do you? And I get a letter every damn year telling me it is going up, the government said it's okay for them to increase it by this percent or that percent. Most people who do not have jobs, do not have healthcare. We pay that much because we are self-employed. Yes, a small business. We pay in more taxes each year than anyone I know MAKES.
You also said there is oppression in America, made it sound stifling even. Have you any idea what real oppression is? First you Republicans go on about how this country is THE BEST ever anywhere and then you bitch about the government oppressing you. Make up your mind. You guys are starting to believe your own spin and propoganda, thats when things get dangerous.
Dissagreement doest equal intolerance...well... unless you're a liberal! LOL Libs hate free speech, they hate when their foolish ideas are discredited and they are prevented from imposing their will on the rest of us. You want to see intolerance... look at Obama who shoved the health care bill down the throats of Americans against overwhelming opposition.... or at the democrat congress that avoided town hall meetings so they wouldnt have to answer to their constituents on the issue, or the Obama justice department that refused to go after the black panthers for voter intimidation, or their refusal to obey a federal judges order to issue drilling permits and to continue implementing the health care law in spite of the finding that its unconstitutional... now tell me what makes libs sooo tolerant?
Lady Love has already stated in another thread that she supports social injustice, why be surprised at anything she says?
Yeah show me that post... its just mire of your halucinations. LOL
I believe it is un-American to think that Liberals because they think differently do not have the rights of a citizen of the United States and need to be purged.
Isn't it funny that the individual mandate was originally a conservative idea? And yet conservatives get so worked up about it.
You have to wonder.... do Conservatives like what ever fair weather conservative leaders put out there even if its a flip flop or do they think for themselves?
Which part of the Constitution makes it unconstitutional LLove?
Just wondering if you can answer this since you read this.
I am wondering if it was liberal Dems that trounced Hillary Clintons version of Universal Health Care, which was quite similar as I understand it, to Obamacare. You would seem to infer that some years ago that Conservatives were all over HIllarys Health care bill, and truly I had no idea this was fact.
Also, I have to wonder at this stance, as it was Dems who were bribed and coerced to vote for Obamacare . . . without knowing just what was in the bill. Puling Pelosi was really on her game, you have to wonder how much dirt she has at hand to use, no other explanation for her influence or late position.
Article I section 8. Consider this, if government can FORCE you to buy a health insurance product that they claim is for you own good, then they have unlimited power to make you buy anything! How would you feel if they passed a law requiring you to buy a gun or a bible? How about an electric car?
What is section 8 or are you regurgitating what others say.
Here is an exerpt from section 8.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;
Making sure people do not die because of lack of health care would fall under power to provide for general welfare of the US. All citizens count.
Not having a bible doesn't kill you.
Here is a quote today from Reagan's Solicitor General:
I am quite sure that the health care mandate is constitutional. ... My authorities are not recent. They go back to John Marshall, who sat in the Virginia legislature at the time they ratified the Constitution, and who, in 1824, in Gibbons v. Ogden, said, regarding Congress' Commerce power, "what is this power? It is the power to regulate. That is--to proscribe the rule by which commerce is governed." To my mind, that is the end of the story of the constitutional basis for the mandate.
The mandate is a rule--more accurately, "part of a system of rules by which commerce is to be governed," to quote Chief Justice Marshall. And if that weren't enough for you--though it is enough for me--you go back to Marshall in 1819, in McCulloch v. Maryland, where he said "the powers given to the government imply the ordinary means of execution. The government which has the right to do an act"--surely, to regulate health insurance--"and has imposed on it the duty of performing that act, must, according to the dictates of reason, be allowed to select the means." And that is the Necessary and Proper Clause. [...]
I think that one thing about Judge Vinson's opinion, where he said that if we strike down the mandate everything else goes, shows as well as anything could that the mandate is necessary to the accomplishment of the regulation of health insurance.
You can watch him on CSPAN
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/Cons … /stop/1865
No, it is only going to make my life harder. The entire concept of National Healthcare is just political distortion, to detract away from fixing the underlying problems with the Economy to begin with.
The Economy cannot withstand a National Healthcare ideology and any politician making claims that it would reduce costs is just blowing smoke up everyone's a$$.
Last, but not least- I certainly wish people, in general, would STOP comparing what happens here with the rest of the world.
No, it will not. We, my husband and I, self employed, reverted to a bare bones extremely high deductible catastrophic type policy as the premium increase with BCBS over the past two years, directly resulting from Obamacare, left our premium equivalent to a nice salary for an American worker quite well above the poverty level, so high as to be stupid to keep, and left us deciding to gamble on the out of pocket should we get sick.
They just passed Obamacare so how exactly is it that it increased your premium the last 2 years?
How bout this K?
2009 /BISMARCK, N.D. -- Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Dakota used premium payments to fund $15 million in employee bonuses, cover $35,000 for a retirement party and pay for other questionable expenses, according to a state audit released Tuesday.
Here is one example of what BCBS needs premium increases for the last 2 years.
How about since it was clear that either Hillary or Obama would be elected that any health care business of any acumen saw the writing on the wall, foresaw that even out right and public bribes would see some kind of rushed through and screwed up health care bill passed........ yeah, that is about the essence of those corporate decisions.
If you had no idea, and those that passed a 2000 plus page bill had no idea, what was really to come, you would probably keep your business profitable as long as you could. Funny thing is, even if you were a guvment business, you would still try to do the same without good knowledge of libs in control for some years ahead to for sure hand out money to keep you solvent.
Then why spend such a ridiculous amount on silly things and exorbitant bonuses? I am not completely resolving the health care reform bill but give credence where it is due with the insurers as well. Let us not pretend your premium increase doesn't have to do with greed at the top.
Not that I completely agree with the bill, but it seems, if the writing was on the wall and their concern was for future then why spend on such things that will have no positive impact on the company future security.
Could it be rather, that while the law isn't great, insurers jumped on an opportunity to raise premiums using the economy and possible reform as justification to continue to deepen their pockets without regard to future company solvency?
I agree we should get rid of the insurers.
Well, darn, I guess we should just shut all private insurers down, greedy SOBs, and I do think they are, shame on them for being capitalists, shame on them for growing a business, and shame on the guvment for stopping national health care competition across state lines, shame and shame and shame on the fed, and shame again, and lets let the guvment control health care costs as they so liberally desire.......just how much do you pay for a stamp these days from a financially effed postal service??
Thank you for your information,KFlippin.
The BCBS increase was not due to Obamacare - here's a link from Forbes (hardly the liberal media):
Link here, but you might need to have a subscription to read it:
http://blogs.forbes.com/rickungar/2011/ … -premiums/
The whole point of the law was to lower cost, obviously it hasn't done so and has in fact increased the cost of insurance more than it would have without the law even if only by a couple percent. So the president LIED! Now what other benefits did he lie about?
Only one of the points of the new law was to lower costs or at least to retard the rate of cost increases. The main point was to make it possible for the 30+ million people who don't have health care insurance to become insured. The reform law does have cost saving features, but probably they aren't sufficient.
"Obviously it hasn't done so" (lowered costs). Well it's a little early to make that judgment. Most of the law hasn't taken effect yet.
I guess you didn't read the Forbes article. You really need to read something other than the New York Slimes.
30% of those uninsured make over 50k a year but CHOSE not to buy insurance! This bill is a take over of the whole system and a wind fall fir insurance, and prescription companies as well as the unions!
Okay, 70% of 30 million leaves 21 million without coverage for a variety of reasons--laid off, preexisitng condition, hit the lifetime cap due to chronic condition, dropped by their insurance company after they incur bills because they omitted mentioning a tonsillectomy when they were six years old from their insurance application and so forth.
The mandate, the evil socialists, constiution-hating, God-hating mandate is based on spreading the risk across a larger pool of insureds. I work in the industry and this is insurance 101 This is business 101. Because you have a automobile liability insurance mandate (all people carry liability insurance) you aren't paying $5k a year for auto insuranc unless you have numerous DUI's under your belt.. And because the 18-34 year old crowd typically doesn't purchase health insurance, there is a huge "hole" in the insurance pool of healthy, low-risk insureds who aren't paying into the system. The mandate lowers the overall cost because more people are paying into the system - pretty GD basic - it's been working that way since the first "entrepreneur" signed below an item of ship cargo or "underwrote the risk." I am not going to argue whether it's constitutional because unlike most of you on the forums, I am not a constitutional lawyer. But I will argue that it makes 100% good business sense (on the insurance side of business) if you are trying to control or even lower costs. In fact, the only way to lower costs using your god-like market forces is through a mandate.
The mandate was the Republicans idea first, which is the funny part.
First of all I don't believe that's true. The mandate was born out of a back room deal between Obama and the insurance companies. Why do you think insurance companies like AARP supported the law? Because they were guaranteed 30 million new customers! Don't believe everything you read.
It is true.
Everyone knows at least that fact.
The idea was first consider by Nixon in 1970 who consider mandating employers and then talked about again by the Heritage Foundation in the 90's as an individual mandate and then again when Republicans were considering health care reform under Clinton the mandate was one of the things they said they would need.
Here this is from a source I know you will actual read and not call lies:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03 … e-mandate/
So thank the republicans for that idea, even though they pretend they have nothing to do with it. The truth is Obama, who I don't even really care for, was against the individual mandate but it was the only way it would pass.
And the truth of it and the truth of our whole government process is that if the Democrats are for it, the Republicans must must be against it (even if it was their idea) because that is all they care about- arguing and division.
(Disclaimer: I do not get my information from fox news)
P.S I live in MA we have a mandate here which was instituted by a Republican Gov. Although if you research our health care you will see a fine example for why a public option is needed.
Maybe you should read your source... the democrats took the republican idea minus cost controlling measures!
Besides not all republicans are good guys Nixon was a progressive as is Romney. What we need is real conservatives in power not these RINOs who only care about their caresses.
I do read my sources. I put that source there for you.
What Fox is talking about is the bills they included the mandate in.
I do my research and the bills in the early 90s are practically the same as Obama's except for some bad parts. I read all about it- I don't just take Fox's simple statement.
Just like Obamacare, it included a mandate and tax credits- but it actually went further into regulating and rationing care- for example it would only allow pap smears for women every 3 years.
HSA was primarily sponsered by Sen. Don Nickles (R-Okla.) and Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.).
No, the Health Care Bill will not help me, and my family earns below the poverty level.
We already had health care... but... more important to me than finances is my liberty. I would rather be without health care and have liberty than be given free health care and not have liberty.
I want to be able to choose whether I buy something or not. I want to be able to choose the policy I get: if I want a $10,000 deductible where only high cost procedures are covered (and not routine checkups), I should be able to get it. I want to be able to choose which doctor I go to. My kids' and husband's doctors dropped them after the health care bill was passed. I don't even know who my kids are supposed to go to any more; I do know that I really liked their doctor and I've had to take them to doctors that I hated before.
If it comes down to having to buy something and maintaining my US citizenship, I guess the government will just have to revoke my citizenship then. I'm sure that is not in the bill, but I refuse to buy something that I don't want.
I'm not aware of anything in the health reform law that would prohibit you from buying a high deductible policy or choosing your doctor. I could be wrong. You never know when you might get a chronic disease that would put you past your policy's lifetime maximum or when an insurance company might try to cancel your policy to avoid paying some high medical bills.
I am just wondering what kind of health care you have at below poverty level?
I have been unable to get health insurance for my husband (he is self-employed) for years.
I had trouble getting insurance for my son (almost 19) as well.
Every American deserves health care.
Other nations are way, way ahead of us.
Time to do the right thing by our citizens.
"Other nations are way, way ahead of us."
Why don't you move to one of those nations?
Why force what you want down my throat?
Oh, I forgot you're a progressive.
Progressives have enslaved men and murdered the indigenous peoples of this country.
They don't care about freedom...my bad
I noticed how easily you interchange "health insurance" with "health care". It seems that many do this to divorce themselves from the "COST OF CARE".
Universal, single payer health care would have been cheaper.
Yes and you're free to move to Cuba where you can get it.
Just as you're free to move to Somalia where you won't have any government burden placed on you.
I may do that if I can't purge the liberals from our country!
We have to do something to get the cancer of oppression out of America... of course i'm hoping it can be done through education and the ballot box, but you can't rule anything out!
They're Stalin-esque in an Ironic fashion:
Stalin promised a utopia to the people through socialism...
... then when he got power, he used the powers granted to him - the powers that were supposed to be used for good -- to starve his people into submission.
So, her arguments ARE Stalinesque - she wants to get rid of people who disagree with her - but she wants to get rid of the people who are trying to promise us a governmental utopia.
So she's using Stalin to get rid of Stalin.
Have conservatives, when they were in power, ever made any significant attempt to make the government smaller? Who are the candidates we can trust to take control of the federal government and then weaken its power in both fiscal and social matters? So far, every politician favoring smaller government seems to live by the mantra "I want smaller government, except when I don't".
Now there is a pearl of wisdom....Government grows under the stuardship of both parties. The "war on drugs" comes to mind. If that didn't grow government, I'm the next King of Egypt!
i know of only one man in DC who actually is trying to limit government.
Ron Paul - a man of principle who hasn't sold out.
He has my support - at least, until he sells out (which he won't, he's just too trustworthy).
A universial program that covered catastrophic health issues would have made more sense. Broken bones, the flu, etc are routine life events. The cost of these have increased BECAUSE of insurance.
I would rather see all entitlements be abolished. I would rather see a mandate of "health savings accounts". In other words the government would require working adults above the poverty level to contribute to a PRIVATE health savings account.
However, I'm a reasonable guy. I understand that others, maybe most others disagree with my point of view. Because many see some value in entitlement programs such as medicare I would support an expansion. IF the graft and waste were cleaned up first. What I see today is a lower birth rate, longer life expectancy and a wastefull bureaucracy.
CJ, there don't seem to be enough reasonable folks like you.
Reasonable, I try. Make no mistake though, I firmly believe that the quest to ensure social justice is a trap that leads to a false sense of entitlement. Social justice has to be rooted in the realities of human nature. We can encourage people to do the right thing. We can't force them at every turn. The reality of healthcare reform in it's current form is this: Those that have NOT taken care themselves will benefit most from health care reform. How do you prevent this and ensure "social justice"? Rationing, means testing, etc. In the end this program will be paid for by many and benefit few. In short this will simply evolve into a Medicare redux. Why not just address the problms with Medicare?
I'll be eligible in three years, so whatever happens, it won't affect me for long.
However, I do believe that health care is an obligation our nation should bear. Obviously stupid people need incentives to take better care of themselves, but that doesn't change the fact that lives are needlessly ruined by uncovered illness.
The present law is not good, but it improves upon doing nothing.
People who don't have health insurance don't get good health care unless they are rich.
So forcing people to buy something they can't afford to begin with accomplishes what? It's a circular argument.....
Many people who CAN afford insurance are denied coverage for various reasons. Tell them my argument is circular! We've already established that you don't believe in insurance. Good luck. I hope you never need it.
So forcing insurance companies to cover high risk patients will reduce cost? Typical reply is: "Only if everyone has to buy insurance, that way the cost is distributed". But if you force everyone to buy insurance, you artificially increase demand, therefore increasing the cost. See the circle yet?
Automatically increase demand? You mean improve health care for millions.
Leading cause of illness/death in America? Heart Disease.....Cause? Poor diet and smoking....Yep, insurance is going to fix that.
With the proper approach insurance can help "fix" or improve that by encouraging providers to deal with the issue more effectively. See Atul Gawande's latest article, "The Hot Spotters."
How did insurance help that? What I see is a good hearted, community minded physician taking his job seriously. Spending a lot of time with a person and helping them bring about change. In fact this person had to get several other people involved to help this guy. He got the guy on government aid. I'm assuming it's SSI. No mention of the guy being able to work. In fact the story supports my argument. Insurance will NOT change the problems with health in America. Insurance has only put up another barrier between health care seekers and health care providers.
Ralph, do you think poor people have greater access to a healthier diet than rich people? I think it's clear that diet is the closely linked to the leading top ten health care cost in America. How does having insurance lower that cost? It doesn't. In fact the people described in the New Yorker's article would all be considered "HIGH RISK". Their insurance rates would be well beyond what they can afford. I mean if they can't afford a healthy meal..... Your answer seems to have someone else pay for something thats not going to help them at all. It's a waste Ralph. Give it some thought. Guess who wrote the health care bill? An Insurance executive turned lobbyist...... Funny with that fact, so many accuse the GOP of being bought and paid for by big business.
Insurance companies, hospitals, doctors and healthcare providers could help with this issue. Incredible amounts of money is being wasted under the current for-profit health care system. Hospitals, doctors, testing labs, medical device makers, drug companies and tort lawyers are all looking after their own financial interests primarily and the patients' interests secondarily, especially in the case of poor patients, alcoholics, drug addicts, obese people, smokers, et al who are the biggest users of health care. The current system doesn't deal effectively with them.
I'm sure the health care bill is far from perfect and I agree that the insurance and drug companies had more influence on it than they should have had. Nevertheless, on balance, the bill will benefit the people affected by it, in my opinion. The GOP is making a mistake in trying to repeal or sabotage it. They are not acting in the public interest.
Read Gawande's article.
"especially in the case of poor patients, alcoholics, drug addicts, obese people, smokers, et al who are the biggest users of health care. The current system doesn't deal effectively with them."
Health insurance is NOT going to fix those problems Ralph. Although the symptoms of those problems are more than capable of bankrupting the entire system. Those are behavorial problems. What in the new Health care law will create the change that we read about in the New Yorker article? NOTHING. What the new health care law does is what government always does. See a problem and throw money at it.
I suspect that your going to support this law no matter how bad it is simply because your convinced the GOP will do nothing. True?
No, but preventative care has been shown to make a big difference.
Which is why the public option would be a good idea.
The public "option" isn't an option at all its a surrender of total control to the government which this law is designed yo eventually bring about.
Where is the facts to back up that statement?
Obama campagined on that premise and many in his administration have been quoted saying that is their goal... eventually. Look at the bill the government controls what insurance companies must cover and how much they must pay out in benefits. It doesn't take a genius to see that the insurance business isn't going to be profitable or worth the trouble.
Yes. A better approach would have simply phased in an extension of Medicare over a period of years starting with the people in greatest need--prenatal and postnatal care, the unemployed, the marginally employed without health care and so forth until coverage was universal.
Medicaid and Medicare are both regulated/subsidized by government but the plans are run by private insurances companies who are contractors. They work somewhat well but are inefficient, bureaucratic and bloated.
I'm open to other ideas as I believe most are, but it would have to be something different then regular insurance plans since the inefficiency, bureaucracy, and sketchiness of the insurance companies contribute to driving up cost. You would have to examine costs at all levels though money to doctors and hospitals, cost of equipment, costs of drugs. A lot of those cosst are exaggerated and always have been. Even some way to have a direct pay system would be fine.
You know Megs, I always thought that the Medicaid/Medicare system would work best - I mean having private insurance companies act as contractors to administer a single payer system seems the most workable to me.
Well I think you are partially correct, but you are not factoring in the economy of scale and not taking into consideration that, due the poor and uninsured, few hospitals ever get their "retail price" for services; all unpaid service goes as either a right-off or gets passed along to those with insurance via higher fees for service. So the uninsured are actually a good portion of the reason costs continue to rise.
you realy dont believe insurance is the answer either do you?
No actually I don't believe insurance is the answer. Insurance works if you are applying it in a catastrophic loss scenario - much like homeowners insurance. Homeowners insurance is not a maintenance contract - it only covers very predictable sets of damage on a per occurence basis. And it is really only affordable for the cosumer and profitable for the carrier if it is used sparingly. And that's really all you have to say if you think about it - it's the exact opposite of what you do if you attempt to maintain your health throughout a lifetime.
And that is exactly why traditional insurance is horrible at covering health expenses - by definition, maintaining health involves preventative "maintenance" -- regular trips to the doctor, periodic testing, etc. etc. This is all in an effort to prevent a catastrophic "loss" or illness down the road. But again, the insurance business model is based on utility in a catastrophic loss situation. Insurance was perfect 40 years ago when people went to the doctor 3-4 times every ten years and promptly died at 64. Now we treat chronic minor illnesses like hypertension, high cholesterol, etc. over decades. And this just absolutely throws the insurance business model into a tail-spin - the system falls apart and only remains profitable to the insurance carrier if rates are continually jacked to meet increasing service provider fees. And service providers jack their fees because, well, insurance will pay it - all the insurance carriers have to do is pass on the increased costs to the consumer in the way or premiums. It's a vicious cycle. So no, insurance, in its current form, is really bad for controlling costs.
Truth is this: if you ever want to control costs, you have to make contribution mandatory to an insurance pool (taxes - whatever) and you have to put some kind of price controls into effect. The HMO's probably come or came the closest in developing real solutions to the problem.
But we are talking a lot of money here. And with the money comes a lot of power to affect public policy and public opinion. It doesn't matter to ANYONE really if you can set down and show them mathematically how it doesn't work - we have spun this into everthing but what it truly is - a national crisis.
See what your describing is what we used to have. Health clinics. There also used to be wide spread "State Run" hospitals. Those with the exceptions of a few states are a thing of the past. I seems to me that several states have tried "insurance pools". Massachusettes and Virginia have health insurance pools. They haven't worked, at least not like they were supposed to. It seems like what they need is community hospitals and clinics.
My only concern is that if we federalize this the cost will increase and care will not improve.
Prices are out of controll for two reasons. One is what you described. The other is because of insurance companies. They are a wastefull middle man. This new law will make them not only wastefull but now insolvent.
The insurance companies are out of control parasites. The drug companies are just as bad. For profit medicine by doctors, clinics and hospitals leads to unnecessary and sometimes harmful tests, procedures and drugs, not to mention staph infections. A small number of "high user" patients account for a disproportionate share of health costs due to bad habits leading to repeated emergency room visits, hospitalizations without any focused effort by the providers to get to the bottom of their problems whether it be obesity, alcoholism, drug abuse, poor diet, lack of exercise or whatever. Atul Gawande describes several experimental efforts to deal more effectively with these people in a recent New Yorker article entitled "The Hot Spotters."
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011 … ct_gawande
Of course they're denied coverage! Insurance companies are in business to make money not give it away. Should you be able to buy fire insurance on your home after it burned down? Its not healtcare you. want, its WELFARE. That's fine now why does government have to take over the whole system to do that?
"Should you be able to buy fire insurance on your home after it burned down?"
Answer: Obviously not. That's why universal coverage is essential--to avoid adverse selection.
"why does government have to take over the whole system to do that?"
Answer: The government isn't "taking over the whole system." You will still be able to choose your own doctor and health insurance plan.
Oh so what's next, mandate home ownership to end homelessness? There is no end to the liberal list of rights to be provided by government, which is why I recognize the movement as evil. Obama and progressives always talk about moving the country "forward", but they never talk about the destination, which is undoubtedly a socialist society ruled ruthlessly by breautratic elites for their own benefit and enrichment. You must be so proud of your role in promoting our destruction.
I'd like to ask if you are comfortable with people living on the streets? Sometimes people catch tough breaks and end up homeless, without food,etc. Sometimes they even need healthcare when they don't have health insurance. I don't see helping people have nessessities as "evil" like you do.
There are plenty of reasons, er excuses, as to why ins. companies, medical services and prescriptions are in the mess they are in - mostly greed. Not only profit margins, but frivolous malpractice, and a lack of compassion.
Mayo CEO made a strong case for providing healthcare with cost containing in mind. I will have to look for those links again.
People need health care. Cancer is not a republican or a democrat. Just my thoughts.
Im am so sick and tired of libs claiming we don't care about people when that isn't the case at all and you KNOW it!! Health care is not a right, home ownership is not a right, a full belly is not a right and its not the role of government to make them rights and provide them.
A full belly might not be a right but it is a good way of keeping the deprived quiet, hence the welfare benefits supported by the right.
Are you flippin serious? You do not believe ALL people have a right to basic needs of even food and water? What is the matter with you?
Pretty soon only a few will be able to afford health insurance or healthcare. SO the rest should just die because they can't access it? Then what?
Let me be clear.
I believe that when the risk is spread across a wider pool of people -- e.g.,all Americans -- the cost of care will actually come down. As it is now, there are too many people receiving care for free with the cost of their care being shifted onto those who pay for their health insurance.
There is a huge chunk of people caught in the middle.
Not covered by health insurance.
Not eligible for government run programs like Medical (or too young for Medicare).
These people, like my husband, live in absolute fear of getting sick. If my husband were to get sick and have to be hospitalized, it would bankrupt us.
Why should we have to live in this fear because health insurers refuse to cover him?
CJ Wright -- trust me, I am equally, if not more concerned about the cost of care. I am lucky to be grandfathered in on my health insurance. I am well, well aware of the COST of care. Ouch!
The idea that everyone having health insurance drives the cost down...I don't see it. People buy health insurance because they believe they will pay less for health care if they do, right? So that means that everyone is paying less than owed? Will hospitals and doctors be forced to accept assignment? Will they be able to bill you directly even after your insurance is filed and the claim settled? I'm just not sold on how adding a huge beauracracy is going to lower cost. By the way the healthcare plan doesn't cover ALL American's. Why did the list of waivers grow by 66% last week? Why is it that 40% of those waivers were granted to unions? I just can't help but be suspicious.
Jim, I honestly do not see how this remark pertains to the subject at hand. It's kinda random, actually.
I didn't want our country to go to war with Iraq. I didn't want said war to be unfunded, coupled with massive tax cuts the country could not afford. I did not want to be labeled "unAmerican" if I dared to criticize the government's phony ploy to look for WMDs that weren't there. How dare I not "Support Our Troops"?
I did not want the policies of the Bush years to make America the laughingstock of the world or to bring us to our financial knees.
But all of that was forced down my throat.
These policies killed people and ruined people.
The policy I'm supporting will heal people and keep them alive.
Swallow hard, Jim.
That's called "TIT FOR TAT" game theory. It's a dangerous premise for government policy. Openly admitting that our economy is "on it's knees" you support further spending. Doing so, out of spite, by your own words.....
Most people don't "buy" health insurance. Their employer "buys" it and offers it as a benefit to employees.
Those of us who don't have health insurance through an employer buy it because we live in fear that one broken leg, one heart attack scare, is all it would take to force us to declare bankruptcy.
The concept of health insurance is just like other insurance. Insurance companies collect premiums every month. They set the premiums based on the predicted risk -- what is the likelihood of this person actually "consuming" health services?
Some people consume less than they pay in.
Some people consume more than they pay in.
Obviously the insurance companies have it figured out pretty well, as they are raking in obscene profits.
Adding more insuranced to the ranks means the insurance companies actually take in MORE premiums. Yes, some of the new insureds will consume care. Others will not.
Isn't that the way it is now?
What huge beauracracy? The public option got nixed.
Good point. I can't help but be suspicious, either. I wonder who "got" to those unions? Hmmm. Could it be the health insurance companies like BC/BS with their scare tactics? The unions don't want to lose what they've got.
I can only imagine that if the companies these unions and other employers are dealing with are anything like Kaiser (my insurance company) they are getting seriously strong armed. I wish now I had kept the ridiculous gloom and doom letter I got from Kaiser.
So those who don't "CONSUME" are forced to buy something they don't need? Most people DO "BUY" insurance. There are co-pays for both premiums and actual care. Further your trading "WORK" for a portion of the cost. Under this plan there is no requirement to work?
What's differnent? Nothing, except that your going to allow non contributors to get bennefits in hopes that the majority of contributors WONT use the care. That sounds like social security and we see how that has worked out. The birthrate alone could destroy this program......This arugument could be used in auto insurance. Shouldn't everyone have auto insurance since everyone uses roads at one time or another? That way the extra premiums from all those NYer's who hardly ever drive would help cover the cost of auto accidents and further drive down premiums of frequent drivers and car owners....After all doctors don't make housecalls anymore. Unless that's going to change in the new law?
If we live our lives in a fiscally irresponsible manner we are always one "life event" away from insolvency.....I know it sounds cruel. How many have cable, cell phones, SUV's, multiple cars, kids in college(living in their own appartments) who "CAN'T AFFORD HEALTH CARE" uh...I mean insurance....
What beauracracy? 16000 more IRS agents to start with....
no, of course not, it's going to raise prices.
If you increase demand, but don't increase supply, then prices have to go up.
People who are covered by employer insurances are generally not aware of how vulnerable they are. A cancer diagnosis can quickly bring you to the coverage limits. Until you reach that limit you may have $12-18,000 a YEAR to pay in copays,etc. If you can't afford that - you may not get the care or you may have to face bankruptcy just do to that. Once your finances are gone, you face forclosure, your career damaged (if it survived) because you couldn't work, you now are labelled as "uninsurable". Now what do you do?
Healthcare is not as open a choice as some think. I know plenty of folks with no cable, cells or "luxuries" who cannot afford healthcare or insurance. They are not deadbeats or ignorant, just financially challenged. Those who simply choose not to purchase health insurance think they are smart in only buying what they feel they will need. When these two groups are hit with a medical need they will seek out healthcare without health insurance. And now they face exorbitant costs trying to get insured IF they can get it.
The current health care/health insurance system is not working for the majority, some are painfully aware and some just haven't faced a dire medical need yet. Something has to change, exactly what is the big fix - I don't know.
I hope the changes will make it possible for me to get both health care and insurance coverage. I hope it helps many others too.
Here is a list of states that have high risk health insurance pools. These pools are supported by state funds in order to bring the cost down.
Additionally some states now have coverage based on "Obamacare" guidelines which are partially funded with federal funds. These plans require that you be uninsured for six months. The plans are being hugely underutilized because they are not cheap and the people who they are meant for cannot afford the coverage. They continue to use medical care already provided for poor people.
Health and Human Services has launched a massive marketing campaign to get people enrolled and the numbers are picking up. About 10,000 people nation wide use these pools last I heard.
Where are the hoards of uninsured who NEED health care??
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/01 … z1CjTHjwyt
I've said it before. Healthcare WAS NOT a big Presidential Election Issue according to polls. The economy and security were. That being said it makes perfect sense to me that the "programs" are woefully under utilized.
Ann Cee - do you read what you write?
"and the people who they are meant for cannot afford the coverage. They continue to use medical care already provided for poor people..."
"Where are the hoards of uninsured who NEED health care??"
You answered your own question. They are waiting for Obamacare to kick in because it IS affordable and they won't have to use ERs when they are on death's doorstep.
What on earth makes you think Obamacare will be any more affordable than the pre-Obamacare that is being offered now? You think Obama is going to open up his magic stash and pay for it???
Can't believe you people still believe in magic.
The new Obamacare does not INCREASE the supply of health care...
... but it DOES increase the demand for health care....
Sounds to me like the only thing that could possibly happen is increased prices.
Obamacare does increasing the workforce of medical professionals.
"Require U.S. citizens and legal residents to have qualifying health coverage. Those without coverage pay a tax penalty of the greater of $695 per year up to a maximum of three times that amount ($2,085) per family or 2.5% of household income."
How bout that! You will HAVE to have insurance. But not just ANY insurance: QUALIFYING insurance! I wish I were a healthcare lobbyist who got to define "qualifying"!!!
"States that have already expanded eligibility to adults with incomes up to 100% FPL will receive a phased-in increase in the federal medical assistance percentage (FMAP) for non-pregnant childless adults so that by 2019 they receive the same federal financing as other states"
"Increase the Medicare Part A (hospital insurance) tax rate on wages by 0.9% (from 1.45% to 2.35%) on earnings over $200,000 for individual taxpayers and $250,000 for married couples filing jointly and impose a 3.8% tax on unearned income for higher-income taxpayers (thresholds are not indexed)."
"Impose new annual fees on the pharmaceutical manufacturing sector, according to the following schedule:
– $2.8 billion in 2012-2013;
– $3.0 billion in 2014-2016;
– $4.0 billion in 2017;
– $4.1 billion in 2018; and
– $2.8 billion in 2019 and later.
• Impose an annual fee on the health insurance sector, according to the following schedule:
– $8 billion in 2014;
– $11.3 billion in 2015-2016;
– $13.9 billion in 2017;
– $14.3 billion in 2018
– For subsequent years, the fee shall be the amount from the previous year increased by the rate of premium growth.
For non-profit insurers, only 50% of net premiums are taken into account in calculating the fee."
Wow! They're increasing the cost of doing business!! EVEN FOR NON-PROFITS!!
"Impose a tax of 10% on the amount paid for indoor tanning services."
"Impose an excise tax of 2.3% on the sale of any taxable medical device"
"Create state-based American Health Benefit Exchanges and Small Business Health Options Program (SHOP) Exchanges, administered by a governmental agency or non-profit organization, through which individuals and small businesses with up to 100 employees can purchase qualified coverage."
Yay! More bureaucracy! I can feel the efficiency!
Also, who's going to be the ones appointing the members of these "SHOP"s? I bet it WON'T be people who have a clear stake in the results of their decisions!
"Require the Office of Personnel Management to contract with insurers to offer at least two multi-state plans in each Exchange. At least one plan must be offered by a non-profit entity and at least one plan must not provide coverage for abortions beyond those permitted by federal law."
This one was interesting. It's mandating that there be new multi-state insurance companies that HAVE to provide insurance to the populace.
Here's a doozy:
"Authorize the Food and Drug Administration to approve generic versions of biologic drugs and grant biologics manufacturers 12 years of exclusive use before generics can be developed."
...Speaking of mothers:
"Establish the National Prevention, Health Promotion and Public Health Council to coordinate federal prevention, wellness, and public health activities. Develop a national strategy to improve the nation’s health.... Appropriate $7 billion in funding for fiscal years 2010 through 2015 and $2 billion for each fiscal year after 2015"
Nanny state, indeed! The government has decided that you shouldn't be responsible for your own health! God Bless Progressives! (oh, by the way, it'll cost you well over $20 billion in your life time)
"Provide grants for up to five years to small employers that establish wellness programs"
Nice! Start a business, tell your employers to get some exercise... BOOM! MONAY! .... oh wait... I forgot to include the part about "filling out the crippling paper work that will cost you the aid of a lawyer" part.
Basically this means that you have to have enough money to a) start a business, b) also know what all this legal jargon actually MEANS, c) hire a lawyer, and d) know enough about physical fitness in order to start a business.
And, finally, on the last page, a huge slew of "let's create incentives for people to become doctors" (under the "workforce" heading).
SO! It probably will increase supply and it DEFINITELY will increase demand.
But it's going to cost us Billions upon billions of dollars.
it will hurt. its our money. not the goverment.
Anyone Ever hear recovery summer/ what about the jobs website?
anyone ever go back check that Recovery job site they had?
If you work and want to buy it fine:)
If you dont fine you should not be forced to buy it.
Theres ton people getting by on all the people working.
I do think the fees charged are too high. Id try get the insurance cos to lower cost and kick the freeloaders off.
Just existing is a purgeable offense if you are a liberal.
Most definitely! Sad, isn't it? Especially when there is no self-recognition...just self-righteousness...
Will the new Healthcare Plan help me?
Let's see. I have a damn good BCBS plan. That wasn't my only option as I had the option of selecting from a dozen or so offerings from my employer. Kind of like the Health Care Exchange the New Healthcare Plan will provide.
I was covered for pre-existing conditions from day one, and the insurance companies can't kick me off the plan if I get sick. That's a part of Obamacare, I think everyone deserves that. Insurance companies fought to be part of my exchange even accepting the same conditions they fought tooth and nail in Obamacare.
Kinda makes you wonder why a fair deal is easy to provide for me and impossible when the same deal is going to be offered to YOU. BTW, I'm a federal employee, a mailman, and much of the Healthcare plan was modeled after the deal for federal employees, including members of Congress.
"The health care reform law will definitely benefit many people with chronic diseases who have or will bump up against the lifetime maximums included in many health insurance policies.
"The legislation put an end to lifetime limits on coverage for the first time, erasing the financial burdens, including personal bankruptcy, that had affected many ailing Americans.
"For example, Hillary St. Pierre, a 28-year-old former registered nurse who has Hodgkin’s lymphoma, had expected to reach her insurance plan’s $2 million limit this year. Under the new law, the cap was eliminated when the policy she gets through her husband’s employer was renewed this year.
"Ms. St. Pierre, who has already come close once before to losing her coverage because she had reached the plan’s maximum, says she does not know what she will do if the cap is reinstated. “I will be forced to stop treatment or to alter my treatment,” Ms. St. Pierre, who lives in Charlestown, N.H., with her husband and son, said in an e-mail. “I will find a way to continue and survive, but who is going to pay?”"
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/02/busin … ref=health
If it helps those forty odd million that had no health insurance prior to the bill then thats good not only to them but to America generally
The author of the Forbes piece is a contributor piece, the dude lives in Southern California, and he has made good use of statements from authorities that support his argument. The fact is, we are now at what? over 700 businesses that now have effing waivers from being forced to be part of Obamacare????
Rick Ungar Bio below from his author profile, clearly this article is written to promote his own best interests.........
I am an attorney in Southern California, and a frequent writer, speaker and consultant on health care policy and politics. To that end, I am active member of the Association of Health Care Journalists. Based in beautiful Santa Monica, California, I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to be a contributor to Forbes. I've recently finished a book designed to make the health care debate understandable to the average reader, and expect it to be out in the next five months or earlier.
No, why? Does he write about health care? I've read about him if your're talking about the novelist. He sells a lot of books. I don't read many books, more magazines and newspapers.
Now what about Gawande. If you're an expert on health care Gawande is a must read. He's arguably the foremost healthcare analyst in the country. He's written two superb articles in the New Yorker in the past year.
Here's the most recent one.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011 … ct_gawande
And here's the first one that created a sensation when it was published.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009 … ct_gawande
No, why make everyone buy insurance? Get rid of the insurance companies and go straight to the doctors,how much would that save? 60%.When was the last time you saw a poor insurance person?
Already has, as our boys can stay on our existing health insurance plan, resulting in savings of cash and hassle both.
Why do we obsess over the mandate to be insured for health catastrophes, but not for traffic catastrophes? It's an imperfect parallel, sure, since there's little or no liability coverage in most health policies, AFAIK, but the lack of insurance does adversely impact the whole system when an uninsured person must become a 'patient.'
Ralph, you got the scope of the problem right when you talked about forgetting to mention on your health insurance application a tonsillectomy you had when you were 6. There are screeners whose job it is to find reasons not to insure you.
That statistice of people making $50K+ who "choose" not to have insurance doesn't break out those who were denied coverage. Knowing the financial stakes of having no insurance, what sane person would deliberately reject it, unless
a) they applied and were denied
b) they changed jobs and are unable to get a new job with health benefits
c) they were offered coverage at such an exorbitant rate as to create a conundrum. Hmmm. What should I choose? Food, shelter and clothing... or paying a health insurance company 80% of my income???
I also want to comment that health education is, or should be a component of health care delivery. I am a Kaiser member and Kaiser offers classes on every conceivable wellness topic. They are trying to help members stop smoking, eat healthier, lower their b/p, exercise more, manage stress, etc. All positive steps that in the long run lower the cost of health care delivery...
I still have mixed feelings about the new law. Some parts I like, some I don't. One thing I REALLY hate is all the waivers that have been granted. That just doesn't seem fair to me.
""The waivers are about ensuring and protecting the coverage that people have until there are better options available to them in 2014," when the health law is fully implemented, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters. "We want to ensure that in the time that it takes to implement the law and to give people better options, that they don't find themselves at the mercy of an insurance company jacking up their rates. And that's why those waivers were granted."
..". complications arise because of the decision by lawmakers and the White House to trigger certain protections in the legislation before the bulk of the law takes effect. After the contentious debate around the health care bill, policymakers didn't want the public to wait until 2014 to see any benefit."
from http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington … =obnetwork
I am not sure how I feel about the waivers, either. However they are temporary, not permanent, until the full law is implemented in 2014.
So, will they try again? Or get the message and try to make the existing law stronger, fairer, better, and more cost-effective?
Don't bother answering. Rhetorical question.
Aw, poor babies!!!!
Breaking News Alert: GOP repeal of health-care overhaul fails in the Senate
February 2, 2011 6:28:10 PM
On a vote of 47 to 51, the Senate defeated a GOP effort to repeal President Obama's health-care overhaul. While the outcome was expected, not a single Democrat voted to proceed with repeal, underscoring the great hurdle that Republican efforts to revise the health-care law face in the Senate.
http://link.email.washingtonpost.com/r/ … K6UJV/ID/h
Temporary like the Bush tax cuts temporary?
Or temporary temporary?
Mighty Mom, Do you know why china man no longer exist on hubpages?
Never mind, I see it was the exceptional America question about an hour ago. I'm disappointed he quit.
So let me understand your position. If one of your children should fall and break a leg, you will say to him/her, "It's better to have our liberty than to get your leg x-rayed and set."
Or if your husband develops cancer, you and he can sit around praying for it to go away, feeling grateful for your liberty, but will not see a doctor?
If you do see a doctor for either of those scenarios but choose your "liberty" over carrying health insurance, who do you think foots the bill for your child's/husband's care??
It is very important to be free to die on your own terms without health insurance passing the buck off to the taxpayers. Although with out the health care law if you try to get insurance and you have cancer it will be too late, and if you do have insurance they will probably kick you off for the acne you never listed on your application.
Although I believe that is indignancy not liberty. I could be wrong.
Speaking as someone who has lost every single elder in her family over the past 20 years, I have never enountered any family member, or for that matter aquaintances, who were stricken with cancer and subsequently died, who were EVER dropped from their insurance because they were subsequently diagnosed with cancer and died.
Now, if someone uninsured finds they have Cancer and then lies to garner coverage, then that is a very different scenario, and I absolutely do not feel that I should pay for them as well as myself.
I think there should be a high risk pool program, like for flood or windstorm insurance, for these sorts of coverage. If I have paid more to insurance over my lifetime than I have paid in to my retirement, why should I have to pay out the nose for the other who never bothered for the 30 years more and or less to even have health insurance..........I Should Not have to bear their burden, unless they are a child.
Here are examples of people who got cancer or other illness and then their insurance company tried to screw them.
http://www.walletpop.com/2011/01/31/can … t-mistake/
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/10/1/m … ance_giant
http://pagingdrgupta.blogs.cnn.com/2010 … ical-care/
http://news.change.org/stories/rescissi … be-illegal
BTW, K- Your Argument is the same argument For the Mandate. Just sayin.
"I think there should be a high risk pool program, like for flood or windstorm insurance, for these sorts of coverage. If I have paid more to insurance over my lifetime than I have paid in to my retirement, why should I have to pay out the nose for the other who never bothered for the 30 years more and or less to even have health insurance..........I Should Not have to bear their burden, unless they are a child."
So this exact reason is why there is a mandate so everyone is paying for health coverage because everyone will need it at some point unless they die young from a freak accident.
Without a mandate you will continue to pay for everyone who wants medical help when they need it- that is a drag on the economy.
Such a mandate should NOT require 2000 plus pages in an obscure piece of legislation!
Such a mandate should not create chaos and unrest in the USA in this obscure piece of legislation.
Coverage in a High Risk Pool for Windstorm or Flood for home owners certainly did not create a national conversation because of its onerous financial ramifications to all American home owners.........not comparable at all.
Well a lot of the national conversation is distortion and rhetoric in order to score votes, upset people because our government is heavily influenced by business lobbyists who spend billions a year lobbying them to do such things.
And actual in some cases a national conversation is good.
But I do agree that 1990 pages is onerous but it is far from obscure, if you mean it in the true meaning of the word.
Here you can read it.
I agree is should be simplified, health care is complicated since it covers a lot of different things, businesses, people, states, etc.
Thanks for the interpretation, megs. Although I can pretty much tell this is not your position personally.
This "they're taking away my LIBERTY" argument is one I am truly struggling to understand.
Does the government take away your LIBERTY by requiring you to have vehicle insurance to drive a car?
Does the government take away your LIBERTY by requiring you to have a driver's license?
Does the government take away your LIBERTY by requiring you to pay into the Social Security system?
I really don't know what is so liberating about walking around unprotected. I mean, let's be real here. If one of these people balking about being "force to buy insurance against their will" were to get into a car accident, you can be sure they wouldn't say to the EMTs, "Oh, no thank you. Just drop me at home. I'd rather retain my liberty than check for internal bleeding."
The thing is, even if you never leave your house, you are still at risk. Accidents do happen. People cut themselves. Fall off ladders. Drop heavy objects on their toes.
And when they do, the consume health care services.
And unless they have health insurance, it's extremely doubtful that the average person can easily cough up the money (no medical pun intended there, really) to pay for even one visit to the ER.
If you think the cost is outrageous with insurance, try private paying for a hospital stay. Yeah. Good luck with that.
I am kind of skeptical of this whole healthcare for everyone deal.
I am most against the mandatory aspect of it. Mainly because I had top of the line health care insurance, which I paid big bucks for, only to have the insurance company try to deny paying almost every single claim that was sent to them.
I received several bills from various hospitals I went to when I was dealing with bad shoulder pain and Acid reflux. My hospital bills ended up being in the thousands from all the tests they put me through, MRI's, scans, xrays, and physical therapy. The insurance company denied them one after another, until my doctor called them and bitched them up a new one.
So, unless this new mandatory bill, tells insurance companies that they can't deny any claim for any reason. Then I should have the right to deny paying any hospital bills that I get until the GOV gets it shit together and figures out which group of people they are going to support. And, hospitals are not the problem, it's the insurance companies who are willing to have a huge new tap of customers that they can play games with, while they rack up the mandatory dough.
You watch, when this bill passes, car insurance will double to make up for the amount of money companies will have to dish out for health care. Car insurance is one of the biggest rip offs this country will ever see. Totally ridiculous.
Making insurers pay what they owe is what I do for a living. You would be shocked if you knew that just my work going after them brings in payments of several millions of dollars a month! Multiply that by the number of people who work in my field and you are looking at a substantial amount of money that these companies deny on a regular basis! The reasons for the denials are sometimes legitimate, but are more often ridiculous. They are not in business to pay claims. They only make money when they deny payment. I love capitalism, except when it has to do with health care because it is so directly related to life and death. It is life and death! Serious regulation, which is what the Obama administration wanted, did not fly with the GOP or many of the Blue Dog Democrats, all who are supported by the health insurance industry, so there you have it. No serious regulation.
As long as health care is profit motivated, there will be issues with claims payment. Next time you need some help getting those dastardly insurance companies to pay, let me know. I volunteer my services to help you!
But you already do. We all do.
And paying exorbitant rates for our own health coverage is bearing the burden for the ininsured who are consuming care but not paying for it!
Much better (IMO) to have everyone covered legitimately rather than a "have vs. have not" system!
When the risk is spread across a wider pool everyone wins.
small business can deduct 35% of health care cost in 2010 then it will go up to 50% in 2014. Coventry health care had 115,000 new small business enrollments because of the cost savings.
they have to prove fraud before they cancel your coverage
they will allow a hardship exemption from the mandate if the lowest costing available plan premium is more than 8% of your income
Middle class families will receive premium credits to assist in paying for coverage
and today they removed the 1099 provision
Allrighty then...........all you have described is somehow why several hundred businesses have asked for and recieved exits from the burden of Obamacare.........how does that fit with your scenarios??????????????????????????????????? Were they just good Democratic contributors and supporters and so got a very nice very long term break from higher costs................do share.
I don't understand your question but if you pose it with some more clarity I will be happy to try and answer.
What businesses asked for what exits?
I gave an example of how the tax deduction for small businesses has allowed more small businesses to provide health care for their employees. I don't believe that I could say that 115,000 who signed up with Coventry or the 75,000 who signed with United etc were democratic contributors.
I really am not sure what your saying.
You have it right! The increases in current premiums have nothing to do with the Healthcare Reform Act. It is the greed of the the health insurance companies.
The lies about what the legislation would do was what caused all the furor- death panels, 16,000 new IRS workers, federally funded abortion, coverage for illegals, etc., so many lies bought hook, line and sinker because no one wanted to read the bill and the legislators who told the lies knew that no one would take the time to read it. It was too long and it did not come out perfect, but it can be improved.
I have come to the conclusion that people just do not want to pay for things. They don't want to pay for wars that they were all in favor of, they don't want to pay for education and still demand their children be educated, they don't want to pay for law enforcement or fire protection and still expect to be protected, they do not want to pay for roads, bridges, but want the infrastructure there, the list could go on and on. The same is true of health insurance.
BTW, Megs, you have definitely done your homework on this issue! Thank you! It is really refreshing to have someone speak from a factual basis rather than talking points, for a change! Bravo!
This is so obviously correct. Why doesn't anyone SEE THIS??? Well, obviously you do.
I also see it and so do many others. You are obviously teaching your child by your example. Most of us pay our taxes quietly, without too many complaints (even though we do not support everything they are used for)and we work hard for our money just like many in the Republican party. Unlike some current members of the GOP, we see the misery of our fellow citizens and say, "How can we help?" instead of, "Too bad. I've got mine and I don't give a crap if you can't make it!" The best example we can give to our children is to take care of and help each other. Maybe I was stupid and still am, but I always told my kids growing up that if we had a loaf of bread and someone else didn't, we had to share. Treating others with kindness, tolerance and respect was just the way people live. If we lived that way, we would be successful. The philosophy has never failed me.
My three grown children are all honest, kind, work hard, and treat others with respect; and they share. And I don't think that makes them socialists...Instead, I believe it makes them socially responsible...
I agree we must help those in need! That is precisely what I am advocating... making the government in charge of that effort is a cop out its turning a blind eye to those in need esentially saying YOU can't be bothered.so here mr government handle this for me so I don't have to see it!
What can I say? I agree with you completely. I still don't understand how anyone can not think this is the right way to live ones life. My dad used to say if I had (2) cookies as a little girl, I would always give one away. I think most people are the same as children but something happens to them as they get older, maybe its fear. Fear seems to rule our emotions and choices in a major way. I don't care what people think, I will continue to share MY cookies.
I got the best health care. VA. Single payer.
Course I'm a cheap date never been ill.
Well, to answer the original question, I can say the bill has helped me so far, and may hurt me in the future. I can now get coverage despite a pre existing condition. However, affording it is still the problem. I have more options to choose from now. Before I would have had to go through a state program b/c of my preexisting condition, and that was ridiculously expensive. Now I don't have to make the choice between ridiculously expensive vs. nothing. My choice now is simply, too expensive for my income vs. nothing.
Once the mandate kicks in, we'll have to see how things go.
Almost every country in the world has government single payer socialist health care guaranteed for everyone, but not the US. Seems only in the US is government so
bad that it cannot administer a universal
health care system.
Not true. It's not that the government in the US is so bad that it can't administer a universal health care system.
It's that we have had decades of private insurance companies in control. They have gotten used to making huge profits.
They (understandably) do not want to give up their business, nor do they want the government controlling their business.
The sad fact is, the current system does not equate to better care.
"Not true. It's not that the government in the US is so bad that it can't administer a universal health care system." I agree. I have VA health and it is great. Guess what I mean is that these huge private interests control the government to their own interest and to the detriment of the general welfare.
RINOs only care about their caresses?
That's a low blow, even for you, LaLo
But your accusation was only leveled against the RINOS. It was the second part of the sentence above.
Now you are saying that MOST politicians.
Are we to assume "real conservatives" are the exception to your rule and are, in fact, admirable, virtuous and productive?
If that is what you are saying, double
My in-laws have something called "Tricare" which is like the Cadillac of health care. It is based on my FIL's being a veteran of WWII and (I believe) also the Air Force reserves, plus working for the County for many years.Their Medicare may also be rolled into it as well.
All I know is, they never pay a co-pay for ANYTHING. They never see a bill for lab tests, chemo treatments, x-rays, MRIs or hospitals stays. It's ALL covered.
If it can work for them, why couldn't it work for ALL AMERICANS?
Well guess what? The cost of TRICARE is going up. It's part of the 100 million in savings the DOD is planning in addition to their 78 million in defense budge cuts. Your right though, they pay very low premiums and low deductibles.
Maybe if the insurance companies had not been so greedy, raking in OBSCENE profits and basically "playing God" with Americans' lives all these years there would be no need for reform.
Maybe they will not be as profitable in the future.
Maybe it's time to get rid of insurance companies entirely.
It would not be the first industry to have to adapt or die, would it?
Really? Obscene? I wonder how you characterise obscene? The average profit for the big insurance companies is 4%... Apple made a 24% profit... are you suggesting the government should decide what profits are acceptable for various corporations?
Yes but CEO pay isn't included in profit, it's an expense. And CEO pay is obscene so maybe they should pay their CEO's less to have more profit.
Stephen J. Hemsley
2008 Compensation (Forbes)
Former Managing Partner and CFO of Arthur Andersen (BusinessWeek)
Total Value of Unexercised Stock Options (Forbes)
2009 Options Exercise
Value of Wayzata, Minnesota Home (Hennepin County Assessor)
Hemsley returns $190 million in stock options acquired as a result of practices found to be fraudulent by the SEC
Five-Year Compensation, as of April 30, 2008 (Forbes)
Total Value of Unexercised Stock Options (Forbes)
Value of New Jersey Beach Home (Cape May County Assessor)
The family of a 17-year-old girl who died hours after CIGNA reversed a decision and said it would pay for a liver transplant plans to sue the company, their attorney said Friday. (Oakland Tribune)
2008 Compensation (Forbes)
Five-Year Compensation Total (Forbes)
Total Value of Unexercised Stock Options (Forbes)
2006 Options Exercise (SECForm4)
Value of Park City, Utah Home (County Assessor)
Humana abandons senior citizens in Florida, returns after Republicans pass new Medicare law, upping HMO payments by ~ 25% (NY Times)
For Example- I have more though...
Oh so now you want government to set pay for various jobs? Is Obama making 5 million dollars obscene?
I tend to agree with you. However, what about PUBLICLY TRADED COMPANIES? Do you see room for regulation there?
When did I make any such statement as that?
What I am saying is it is ridiculous to paint the Ins Co's profit as paltry since reported profit isn't the whole picture.
But I personally believe that those salaries are obscene and what justification is there for a company to pay that much? And at what cost, really.
The cost of your daughter's life? Any life?
Share holders vote on executive salaries if they think those guys are worth it then so be it. That's what freedom is, individuals making decisions. Sometimes you or I wont agree and we can express that by not doing business with companies that pay their executives excessively and we can write letters to the board. Funny but I don't see anyone complaining about Pelosi claiming her vineyard in naps valley is only worth between 5 and 25 million or that she used military jets to fly over 100000 miles requesting all kinds of extravagant treats to be served on those flights.
I would complain but we are talking about health insurance companies.
The point is you rail against obscene pay by private companies but its perfectly ok for our public officials to enrich themselves by taking advantage of their public positions. Why should they collect any money for speaking or writing books? Who would buy them except for their positions?
Ill say it again health care is NOT a "right".
You cannot possibly be talking about the half-governor, V.P candidate, one of your heroes, Sarah Palin, can you? Tell me you haven't bought her books, have you? She used her position to sell books, yes?
She's not a politician is she? But yes I don't think its right to hold a public office and then profit from it. I realize there are problems with that position and I wish politicians would donate their profits back to the public but I know that many of them need the money to fund campagins.
I think if she runs and more importantly gets the knod from the party, the Koch boys will take care of her campaign funding - in spades!
I love you too, Moonchild!
Good to see you here on the forums again!
You have made your point very clear. Nor is a full belly, nor is owning a house. Am I missing anything?
Under the Constitution Americans are guaranteed the right to
Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
By denying that basic LIFE needs like food, shelter, medical care are RIGHTS you are actually going against the Constitution. Hmmm.
Nice try! The constitution doesn't guarantee you life the declaration of independence mentions it as among the rights granted by your creator. Keep in mind the right to life is very different than a right to LIVE. No one has a right to live and certainly no government can grant or insure such a right... for that you need to go to the top!
by SparklingJewel 11 years ago
I truly want to know if these are valid reasons...or are they perspective on what "could" happen, or just totally absurd possibilities. If you have proof to validate or deny these reasonings, I genuinely would like to hear them?Here are just some of them, from a conservatives view: ...
by Scott Belford 4 years ago
As the GOP told us many, many times that hundreds, if not thousands of counties in America will have no insurers providing coverage in 2018. Well, so long as they, and Trump, keep saying Obamacare will fail, it probably WILL become a self-fulling prophecy as insurers get despondent and leave...
by Susan Reid 8 years ago
If you are insured through your employer, the answer is no. If you are an individual or small business owner, please share your thoughts.Did you know there will be online health care insurance marketplaces (exchanges) in every state?Is your state running its own exchange ... ...or is it...
by Eric Seidel 4 years ago
Can anyone explain the Affordable Care Act to me?I was honestly going to make a Hub about this, asking this very question, and I had written 800 something words on the subject. Ok actually it's more like a mild rant, but I think this would be better as a Hubpages question rather than a Hub that no...
by theirishobserver. 11 years ago
Good morning,Democrats and Republicans agree -- the health care status quo isn't working for the American people.Health insurance is growing more and more expensive by the day. Too many of us can't afford it -- not middle class families, not businesses, not the Federal Government. Insurance...
by trish1048 12 years ago
For or against?Personally, I hate the idea. The government needs to stay out of my personal life. I like my freedom of choice.
Copyright © 2022 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|