What is your personal stand on health care?
This is an unscientific poll.
I am curious to know the answers to four very simple questions:
1. Do you have health insurance now?
2. Who pays the premium (main monthly cost) of your health insurance?
e.g., employer, government program, you, other
3. If you didn't have insurance through a group (employer, government program, other) would you be able to purchase it for yourself?
e.g., do you or your family have any preexisting medical conditions such as acne; would you be unable to afford possibly $1000+ month premium payment for individual coverage?
4. Do you approve or disapprove of the Affordable Care Act?
Thanks for participating. I'm curious to read people's personal experience and how it might influence their views of "Obamacare."1. Do you have health insurance now?
Yes. It is provided by the Health Connector Network which was the network created after Mass passed the Law requirement/mandate every citizen was to have it. I was forced to take part regardless of whether or not I needed it.
2. Who pays the premium (main monthly cost) of your health insurance?
e.g., employer, government program, you, other
Described above.
3. If you didn't have insurance through a group (employer, government program, other) would you be able to purchase it for yourself?
e.g., do you or your family have any preexisting medical conditions such as acne; would you be unable to afford possibly $1000+ month premium payment for individual coverage?
Nope. But then again, I'm rarely sick. I rarely need medical assistance.
4. Do you approve or disapprove of the Affordable Care Act?
No I don't approve of it. It does more damage than it helps.1. Do you have health insurance now?
Yes.
2. Who pays the premium (main monthly cost) of your health insurance?
My parents, as a preexisting condition meant I could not afford the exorbitantly high premiums.
3. If you didn't have insurance through a group (employer, government program, other) would you be able to purchase it for yourself?
No... well, see above.
4. Do you approve or disapprove of the Affordable Care Act?
Approve. I am hopeful that possibly my exorbitant premiums will come down to the point that I'll no longer have to sponge off my family. Also, there's many people less fortunate than me who are not able to afford medical care.
I spent many years trying to avoid going to a doctor for any reason so that I wouldn't have to check any "saw a doctor for so-and-so" boxes and risk getting denied yet again. I'd been denied health insurance twice for being born with arthritis. My health worsened because I was avoiding all medical treatment and preventative medicine. Finally, after years of trying, I got an extremely expensive plan that fails to cover a lot of things. Ironically, the condition for which I'd been turned down -- arthritis -- I have always self-managed and didn't NEED insurance for, but something else came up. If I'd treated it early (i.e. if I'd been able to get insurance), the final costs to my family AND the insurance company would've been much, much less... not to mention my quality of life would've been better.1. Yes, myself and my family is covered in a group health plan through my employment.
2. Premiums are jointly paid by my employer and myself. The employer covers approx. 75% of the premium costs. I pay approx. 25% plus cover the upfront deductibles.
3. That would totally depend on the price tag. My employer estimates that value based on the premiums to be in the $7000 to $8000 range annually.
4. I disapprove of the Affordable Healthcare Act first and foremost because it puts government at the forefront of the healthcare industry...bad choice on the basis of any track record to date. Secondly, it gives the government the power through taxation to pass on the burden of healthcare cost for the entire population to the wage earners...a burden to be carried primarily by the middle-class. It potentially reduces the level and quality of care offered witnessed by other programs in place throughout the world. It removes free-market competition. It demotivates talented people to aspire to the healthcare industry and ultimately, because this is technically a tax, the funds received in the name of it will simply go into the general fund and be lost in the out of control social spending of the federal government. In that sense, it will never be "debt neutral" and will most certainly contribute to the ever growing national debt. WBWell you are lucky to have a job that provides this valuable benefit.
What if you didn't?
What if your company laid everyone off? YOu'd be paying the $7-$8K yourself on COBRA.
But what about other people who don't have such generous employers?
Without knowing who you work for and how many employees they have (thus how much group plan leverage they command), what insurance carrier/model you have, or the specifics of your coverage I can state with 99% certainty that your would pay a heckuva lot more than that for family coverage on the open market.
That is, IF you and your family could even qualify for health insurance on their own. Those pesky pre-existing conditions might very well result in a "DENIED" for your application.
And I will say this again and no one ever responds. How can any pro-capitalist American defend saddling our employers with the burden of health care coverage in the first place? Why is it THEIR responsibility to cover their employees?
Health care is the individuals responsibility, not the employer. The only reason an employer should offer health care benefits is to compete on the free market for the best employees possible.
1. Do you have health insurance now?
Nope
2. Who pays the premium (main monthly cost) of your health insurance?
e.g., employer, government program, you, other
No one
3. If you didn't have insurance through a group (employer, government program, other) would you be able to purchase it for yourself?
e.g., do you or your family have any preexisting medical conditions such as acne; would you be unable to afford possibly $1000+ month premium payment for individual coverage?
Nope
4. Do you approve or disapprove of the Affordable Care Act?
Not at all- PrettyPantherposted 12 years ago
0Yes, I have insurance.
I am covered through my employer, and I pay 25% of the premium.
If I didn't have insurance through my employer, I could purchase it, but it would be a hardship.
I approve of the ACA such as it is. It has many flaws. I wish we had enacted single payer instead, but at least some progress has been made and it can be refined over time. I have insurance through work and pay 25%.
I feel everyone should have access to healthcare without going bankrupt. Thus every person should be either covered by a government scheme or insurance. I have no problem with mandating this.no, no and no.
NO one will make me pay for something I don't need and don't want, NOR tell me what to do with my healthcare.
apparently I am one of few who takes care of myself, raised four healthy children and taught them to take care of themselves. When conventional health care was needed, charitable organizations of a free market system, that could be better, provided for us, and I also paid according to my ability and had the option to make payments when necessary. We had no handouts, most of health expense was self earned money used to paid for services. We received genuine person to person care and maintained self supporting ideals working within small, natural healthcare systems.
But I paid out of pocket for the natural things we needed to maintain our healthcare, and prefer to use my own money to pay for what i need.
A system like Obama care does nothing but usurp my freedoms and choices...maybe some people don't mind that, but I do, and I will never sign-up since they have little or nothing to offer me of worth.If a hospital paid for your care like you previously stated, then you have leeched off the system that others are paying for.
I have read all of your posts and I am not changing my position. You are gambling that you will not get catastrophically ill, and you are gambling that someone else will pick up the tab if you do.
Are there unicorns and fairies in your little world?
So it is hos responsibility to participate?
Regardless of his personal wishes?
Regardless of his personal health care needs?
Please bear with me I am just trying to get a perspective here.Sure just like you have to pay to repair a road you might not use.
Many cranks would opt out of fire coverage if they could (even if their uninsured burning house set fire to a whole city). Similarly many would refuse to educate their children (condemning them to ignorance and poverty).
Then there is the police service, the armed forces and all those other irritations that cost money...Well, that really didn't answer my concerns did it? Cranky people? I am not cranky.
I am sure you are not. But it really is the case that private insurance never worked with fire cover. And it does not work with health coverage either.
Too many people die.So why not cover the uncovered...which I would have been more than gracious to help do...rather than get in everybody's business.
There is a large difference there.Beause it's not just about the uncovered, many people with health insurance are also being mistreated, for example any plans offer only a few thousand dollars of care a year, many cancer patients run out of insurance coverage, the law will prevent that from happening.
Furthermore, how much we care about people????????
If this had been about caring about people it would have been about providing for those actually uninsured, which was only about 30 million, versus a sweeping reform which is sociological in nature. All you have to do to get proof of that is look at the various forums here concerning it and see the reactions from the progressive among us. Oh my how the brow beating has already begun about "sponges".
Thank you for your honesty, Sparkling Jewel.
All I can say to you is God forbid you or any of your healthy children ever gets in a car accident, needs an emergency operation or gets a terminal disease.
You would be in for a rude, rude awakening.
Oh, and that charity care you are so proud of getting?
Who, exactly, do you think paid for it?
It wasn't free.
And if everyone thought and acted like you, those health care providers and hospitals would go out of business in short order.
Nonprofit does not mean non cost.I have needed my own health insurance since I became 18, as soon as I graduated HS, they kicked you off your parent's policy at that age in the 1970's. I have chronic scoliosis, which caused me to have 2 surgeries, and wear body casts and braces until I was about 14. It was considered "a preexisting condition". While pregnant with my only child, my back hurt so much I couldn't drive and was doubled over. I had to fight to go on disability for the last 4 months of the pregnancy. But I had paid into the system for 15 years by then. So many people are just lucky, and never had health issues or problems. Both my husband and I paid and had some employer contribution for health insurance, this was before HMO's, so it was never a free ride. Now we are covered by his job, but the cost is going higher and higher, and so is our "contribution." There is no way I could have paid for all of the medical issues I've had during my life myself, my first surgery was experimental and thru a clinic, though it is now the esteemed Kessler Institute, so I got the best care. I feel I paid my share, as I have worked P/T whenever I could. Sparkling Jewel, I'm happy you've led a charmed life, but I also take great care of myself, you have to play the hand you're dealt, and you drew a good one so far. When you or a child gets ill, I doubt you will be prepared for the realities of dealing with severe illness. I paid out of pocket too when the costs were too high. I agree with the Affordable Care Act, and think if everyone pays into the pool, everyone may not need it. I pray they don't. But you can take the best care of yourself, and that doesn't mean some day when you cross the street you won't get hit by a car, and lose a leg or arm. The Republicans fighting Pres Obama have the best care affordable, and WE pay for it. I'm glad the court made this decision, and am sick of Republicans who care only about money, that's their God that they always preach about.
+1... heck +2
We have taken care of our health naturally for years, naturally, and will continue to do so, and we have cured our daughter form epilepsy when the professionals could not.
Mandatory healthcare does not work, in the long run, for the patients, and having lived in Europe, I can assure you that is fact.
The system gets overrun by folk who would not be there if they were educated in natural (preventative) healthcare.
Better to put fixed limits on doctors legal liability and cut out the outrageous insurance costs that US doctors need to cover.It works pretty damn well in the Scandinavian countries, Australia and Japan to name just a few countries which don't make their poor people rely on charity to stay alive.
I have no opinion on whether Obamacare is a good thing or not, because I don't understand how it's set up. But the principal of universal health care is (or should be) a fundamental element of any civilized society. The idea that any human being should be refused treatment and allowed to suffer because they have no money, should be abhorrent to any sane person.Very well said. My feelings exactly. Thank you
Precisely, according to the Harvard research on the matter Obama care will save 45 000 American lives yearly, but all conservatives can talk about is the slight tax increase, I will be paying it happily, it's the ethical and moral option.
Oh I am glad you find that eye roll worthy, I wonder if you still would if it was a family member of yours amongst those 45 000 yearly some of us still have a sense of right and wrong and remember what compassion means.
9/11 killed 3000 Americans and we went on a multi trillion dollar war which still rages to avenge them and prevent it from happening again, 45 000 die every year and many could care less.Hey Josak, get over yourself would you please. I said please. You make the claim of knowing the "noble" thing to do, but you fail to realize that that nobility is misplaced as per usual and similar to the already willful ignorant in America and around the globe presently.
You applying this is just sad.
I would prefer if 100,000 were saved per year, would you give everything you own and your rights to live your life to ensure it? Probably not.
So please. When you open your eyes to BS you're spewing on behalf of the morons in Congress, then we'll talk.
Saving 45,000 per year...what exactly is that going to do to the economy? There's already NO growth. So what exactly are these people going to do? Drain resources.
You seem to think that saving 45,000 per year is somehow going to benefit the rest of society? And you know this how? Just living isn't going to cut it. Them living in poverty isn't helping them. Them being homeless but have insurance isn't fixing the problem.
WOW!Sorry maybe you don't believe that human life has it's own value regardless of poverty, I do, it's as simple as that, I can give you economic reasons why I think it's a good idea, I am an economist after all, I can point to successful implementation around the world and I could tell you about the sacrifices I have made for others gladly before ( a lot greater than a slight tax increase) but none of that changes the fundamental moral right or wrong, maybe it seems preachy or falsely noble to you, fine, I just value human life, you can believe what you want.
Really? Seriously...all one sentence? *facepalm*
I know the value of the human life. I place it higher than you do apparently. You have no problem supplying people with something you think they need, while forcing those who think they have a right to choose without you getting involved.
It is NOT the government's job. It shouldn't ever BE the government's job.Sorry I did not realize this was a grammar contest, my apologies
Providing services is precisely the governments job, I am sure there are people who believe we don't need a police force or a military, the elected representatives think we do so it is done, just as we provide fee education and people don't get to opt out of their school tax, this is the same I think the people of this country need a service, some don't. There is nothing radical about this idea, your argument is totally baseless.
I don't believe you value human life at all if you are willing to let tens of thousands die to save some money.
'Saving 45,000 per year...what exactly is that going to do to the economy? There's already NO growth. So what exactly are these people going to do? Drain resources.'
Scary stuff.
If the US can't afford these kind of numbers that is frightening in itself...
Makes me think the country needs some genuine Christians. The kind that put life above material considerations.
These are the latest CDC stats for infant mortality, coincidentally:
1. Singapore 2.0
2. Hong Kong 2.5
3. Japan 2.8
4. Sweden 3.1
5. Norway 3.2
6. Finland 3.3
7. Spain 3.5
8. Czech Republic 3.7
9. France 3.9
10. Portugal 4.0
11. Germany 4.1
11. Greece 4.1
11. Italy 4.1
11. Netherlands 4.1
15. Switzerland 4.2
16. Belgium 4.3
17. Denmark 4.4
18. Austria 4.5
18. Israel 4.5
20. Australia 4.7
21. Ireland 4.9
21. Scotland 4.9
23. England and Wales 5.0
24. Canada 5.3
25. Northern Ireland 5.5
26. New Zealand 5.7
27. Cuba 5.8
28. Hungary 6.6
29. Poland 6.9
29. Slovakia 6.9
29. United States 6.9
Infant mortality rates are the best single measure of health care because they eliminate horrifying diet choices, crime and genetics as far as that is possible.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_04.pdfSpeak volumes about a lot of people being irresponsible about their own life.
How does anything anyone else does change that? It cannot be done by force.How exactly does infant mortality have anything to do with people being irresponsible with their own lives?
If the infant dies, then why needs to be assessed? After which, the parents are likely the ones who were irresponsible. To negate a parents obligation to their child(ren)/kids is wrong.
They brought the child into the world and with that comes a responsibility.
I'm not exactly sure what you're driving at. The poverty and homeless issues have not been properly addressed, because people refuse to accept why it happens to begin with. If you're talking about those infant deaths because they didn't have coverage? That's BS. They could walk into any hospital before the law and get treated. It is the moral and ethical thing for the hospital to do. To do otherwise is inhumane.
This would be ONE cause for the rise in health care costs over the last 20+ years. But, it's NOT the only cause of it.Infant mortality is cause by poor healthcare not the parents, so if my wife has a child and he dies because of inadequate health care it's our fault? You are so far off the mark it's not even worth addressing you anymore.
Now Josak, Cagsil and I have had arguments before but he is telling the stone truth.
Take the child to an emergency room and he W I L L be treated. Or at least until now he would have. The same for other situations.
Treat your child and worry about the rest later. I know I would.
How is a new born infant supposed to be responsible for his or her life?
How did it become the case that the right to a life is predicated on a person's productivity (even when newborn)?
And how can the US be so poor at preserving children?
Many countries make decisions on moral and ethical grounds without any need for force.So I guess it was my own fault when I got cancer? I guess it was my brother's fault that he was born with MD? I guess it was some kid's parent's fault because they were born with a permanent condition that needs medical treatment?
I have no problem at all paying taxes to prevent someone else from dying and their family being bankrupted. After all, I pay school taxes and I don't have a child, I pay road taxes and I have never driven, etc. I just see it as the price you pay to live in a society.Obviously your fault, what were you thinking? *sigh*
Really.
What does this have to do with what I said in the post you responded to?
Why should taxes be used in this manner? When it would be better used in another capacity for which would result in the same goal and would be more effective.
You do that because you understand that people need an education and willingly provide for the general public system in place.
So you've benefited from the taxes you've paid regardless of whether or not you physically drove a vehicle.
Yes it is a price. Most are willing to pay it, but when government uses it's corrupt ways to influence the masses into believing something which isn't true because it can be done in another manner, is just that...distortion and misinformation.What is this other manner? I believe that people need healthcare just as much if not more as they need education.
I definitely concur with this! Health care is extremely necessary. There are people who are uninsured who cannot afford to pay exorbitant health care costs. They should not be cast aside. Every human needs health care. Remember the importance of human dignity!
Actually, you would need to have education more than you need anything else in this life, to think you don't is absurd.
You need an education(education is defined by knowledge(including experience)) to improve your life. This includes health education.
Health care is a service provided by another person for payment. To deny what "health care" is is to be completely ignorant. How that person gets paid for service, whether or not, through individual insurance companies or government is what matters most. Why? So as to keep it affordable.
Improper regulation of the industries of the U.S., government restrictions(some good and some bad) always ADDS to the cost of those industries. It increases the pricing structure when government gets involved. It's not about increasing competition, but is about increasing the profits of the industries via guaranteed funds through taxpayer funding. It's ripping off the people.
The individual responsibility. You are responsible for the earnings you create and how you spend them. You are the responsible for feeding yourself, you are responsible for ensuring that you survive, which also means you are to be responsible for your health.
To bring affordable health care to America is to provide an equal(equality) playing field from an Economic standpoint. If equality is not established within the Economic base, then it will not allow for growth to happen, which is people going into business for themselves and not being fearful to do so because the playing field would be level.
Secondly, equal rights must be established. So long as equal rights remains true, then people will find that they can do more, increase their own individual power and achieve the quality of life they choose.
Everything begins with choice and it's an individual basis.
It is my impression that people are not refused care under our current system. They may not be able or willing to shoulder the costs of healthcare coverage but they can get medical attention when and if they need it. Obamacare will not do anything to lower the costs of medical coverage other than to make it affordable (like food stamps) to those who claim to have to method to pay. The cost of that burden, like that of other social programs, will be carried by the working middle class wage earners and that burden will continually grow with time and with the inefficiency of government intevention into the medical process. Frivilous lawsuits, class actions, and various forms of litigation threats drive a significant portion of the costs to physicians and hospitals to cover them against any liabilities. That aspect is left as is for now which is a significant indicator that there will be no viable attempts at cost control or reduction unless you consider treatment panels who will rule thumbs up or down on your necessary procedures based on your value to humanity and the projected remaining span of your lifetime. Making healthcare afford has value and makes sense but putting the government in charge of that process at the front-end does not. WB
I have been reading up on this. You end up paying more money for people who do not have insurance right now than you will under this plan. You don't have to put it all on the middle class...make sure the super rich pay more income tax...after all, a healthier work force can work harder for them and help them earn more money.
Unfortunately your analysis assumes that one dollar coming into the treasury is applied to a specific purpose. it just does not work that way. You can raise taxes on any and everyone time and again and nothing happens except that level of spending goes up leaving us right where we have been for decades and decades and only growing and getting worse in the process. All the companies that I know of any significant size are concerned about the health and welfare of their employees but they cannot do much about that when the government is in control of the decision-making. With regard to the government being in charge...how much say do you think the citizens of the USA have had to date in the formulation, vetting, or details of this law? Suffice to say it is very little and nothing that would even approach a democratic review of it. We have a situation here in which the government is moving into a market driven process, removing all competition and then stating that it can lower the cost of implementing and sustaining that program....not happening. WB
When you say putting the government in charge it makes it sound as if citizens have no say in government or influence on legislatures. Is that really the case? Is there no democracy?
And can healthcare insurers who are only responsible to their shareholders offer you any kind of control in how services operate? I imagine you will say you have a choice in insurers but how much choice is there in reality?
And is there any choice at all for someone caught in the wrong place at the wrong time in an economic downturn?
Private insurance would work pretty well in an economy that always provided well paid jobs for everyone capable of work. But that is a situation that comes and goes, at best.
And, of course, there is that existing condition provision. No way back in once that happens...There are ways to cover pre-existing without turning control of our healthcare system over to the government. the insurance industry is regulated on a daily basis. There are methods out there to require those industries to cover pre-existing conditions. As for the services and how the operate, you might want to check the reputation of some of our VA Hospitals around the country...its not too good relative to rest of the industry. The government becomes the single source for determining the quality and reliablity of the healthcare we receive. Excuse me but I'll take a competitive marketplace result any day over that alternative. WB
Wayne, actually there are several of your impressions that are not factually correct.
You may have the impression that if you walk into any emergency room, you will get care, but that is not the case. Legally, an emergency room is required to provide emergency treatment. If you are in stable condition, they are under no obligation to treat you further. If you're not in stable condition, they are required to stabilize you - and at that point, you can be discharged. And if you happened to go into the emergency room of a private hospital, you may very well be kicked to the curb. Even a patient in critical condition can be forced to accept transport to a public hospital for any additional treatment. Emergency rooms cannot & do not provide routine or preventive healthcare (which is far more cost effective than the alternative, which is going without until it IS an emergency), and they cannot & do not provide ongoing care for either chronic or acute medical conditions.
The so-called 'frivolous lawsuit' meme sounds good, but is nothing more than a smokescreen. Aside from the fact that the majority of malpractice suits filed are anything but frivolous (suits without merit tend not to be filed in the first place, because few attorneys are willing to take on the work & expense of a suit without a reasonable expectation of success; and of course, judges can dismiss frivolous suits), lawsuits actually only contribute approximately 1-2% of health care costs. That's ALL lawsuits, including the suits with merit.
Are there people that could afford health insurance that choose not to buy it? Yes, there are - which is exactly the reason for the mandate. It doesn't matter what kind of insurance you're talking about, insurance only works if you have a large enough risk pool. It's the reason why auto insurance companies that offer insurance to high risk customers are so much more expensive - it's not just that the customers are high risk, but that if ALL of your customers are high risk, you have to take in more premium to be able to cover potential claims. If healthy young adults refuse to buy health insurance, then the risk is pooled only among those in poor health or with known health risks (assuming they can get coverage), middle aged or older adults, or families with children - groups that are statistically more likely to have higher medical bills.
If, on the other hand, those people that would otherwise skip insurance are paying in from the beginning, then the risk pool is larger, and costs are more easily contained. And, of course, those people that refuse to buy insurance AREN'T immune to accidents or illness - and when they go to the emergency room, or become disabled due to undiagnosed or untreated ailments, or any of the dozens of other things that can happen, then everyone else ends up seeing *their* costs go up.
Some people love to believe that they're totally self-sufficient, they don't need anything from anyone, and even that they *aren't* getting anything from anyone. Except society doesn't work that way. There's a reason for the phrase 'No man is an island' (aside from just being a good quote). A modern society is more aptly described by the notion of chaos theory - anything that anyone does has the potential of affecting heaven only knows how many people.Sure, you can require insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions without also having the individual mandate. Problem is, what you see then is companies withdrawing from the market, because it's not cost effective or profitable. Without the promise of new customers that aren't likely to have expensive medical conditions (young, healthy, single adults are the group that are most likely to be uninsured by choice), it's unreasonable to expect that a for-profit business is going to stick around to provide coverage for people that they *know* are going to file claims.
Oh, and despite the VA horror stories that make the news, the VA system consistently gets about a 75% 'satisfied' grading from its users, compared to about 50% for the general for-the-public system.
Incidentally, the ACA does not establish socialized medicine or a government run system.
You really should get acquainted with the facts.
National health systems are the norm in advanced countries and the US is a stand out- both for the exorbitant amount of money the country spends on the issue and the poor overall health stats that accrue.Trying looking at it with different words in mind...maybe drop that word "advanced" and insert "socialized". There are far too many countries in the world today on the brink of bankruptcy driven by over burdening social programs. When things reach that point, it is too late to look back and say, "oh gee, we probably could afford to do that." You are also not comparing apples to apples in that other countries have far different approaches to litigation which helps greatly in reducing the liabilities of those working in the industry. In the USA, we are doing about that because we have a federal government filled with lawyers who refuse to police themselves and kill the golden goose. WB
- Onusonusposted 12 years ago0
Socialized medicine means the costs goes up and the quality goes down. Freedom in America, 1776-2012, R.I.P.
Even if that were true, the ACA is not socialized medicine. Quite the opposite, it hands more customers to private insurance.
Please don't introduce facts into the discussion.
It hands customers to private insurers, who now have less incentive to provide a good service at a good price, because the customers have less freedom to choose, and no freedom to not have insurance. Insurers should love Obamacare, it means they don't have to try as hard.
As I suspected.
So people for ACA have health care already.
People against ACA do not have health care already.
I must be the only hubber out here who is for ACA because people I love and care about do NOT have health care and I am tired of paying rack rate for the few services they do consume and living in fear that they may need hospitalization.
My son (20) went to the emergency room recently. He pretty much refused all tests and care. How much do you think it cost him?I think you missed that point MM...there are a few here who are staunchly against ACA who currently are covered under a healthcare plan. For me, that is not a consideration in my position as I outlined previously. I think there are a few here who are saying that they do not desire to pay for any healthcare coverage at any price nor do they desire to have the government or anyone else telling them that they must have it. I believe you will find more of those folks that you might guess. They will buy a big screen television and an iPad with their paychecks and let the taxpayers pick up the tab. This is the fly in the oinment with ACA for me...another welfare state in the making guaranteed to exceed any costs which the taxpayers of this country can afford. There has to be a line in the sand here somewhere that says no matter how much we care or would like to provide for everything, the reality of life, income, and revenue does not make that possible. If ignoring that choice and proceeding full steam ahead only amounts to greater and greater piles of debt, eventually the choice will be made for us and no one will have anything with which to provide for others that we might care about. Our house (i.e. our country) is living far beyond its means and additional taxation will not resolve that problem for the equation in Washington is TAX = SPEND. Unless the mindset changes, the taxpayers of America have about all they can shoulder without the threats from Washington. This also speaks to the other side of the equation as well...the job providers....this approach to healthcare has the private sector confused and in fear with regard to growth or investment in needed employees. That atmosphere will continue long into the future with this approach and more and more people will face a loss of employment and the lack of alternative jobs. I have a son with Type I Diabetes who is reaching the age at which he comes off my plan. That comes with difficulties no doubt but I don't see the government running healthcare as the answer to that problem...not by any means. WB
- Arlene V. Pomaposted 12 years ago0
My husband and I get health care through my former work. Today, I received a memo saying for us not to worry--our health care will remain the same. When people say they won't need health care because they are so healthy and never been sick in the past, they'd better think again. You can't predict when you will need health care. None of us have that luxury of a crystal ball when it comes to our health. I don't know what people do without health care. That is not peace of mind to me. If I didn't have health care, I would probably be dead by now because I need the medication and the testing. I am damn lucky for what I have in terms of coverage. But at the same time, I've met a lot of patients who do without. Because of what I have and appreciate, I would not turn down anyone who needed health care to live. It is bad enough when the nurses have to temporarily put a bracelet on me whenever I receive care. They explain it's because families will switch ID's and use their health care to cover their relatives who don't have any. If you're sick and need medical attention, I think it's a damn shame when money is more important and put before your life. I don't think it comes down to pride, either. Until you are in the situation yourself, you won't really know what you will do. I don't see wanting life and accepting health care as charity. You're going to do what you have to do.
4. Do you approve or disapprove of the Affordable Care Act?
From what I understand Obama’s health care plan is simply a means for increasing the tax burden on the hard working middle class americans.
If the Dems had been honest with the folks from the beginning, I believe we would be having a different conversation.
As an added bonus my famlie health care insurance costs has increased 35%, deductigbles and co-pays have doubled after the law passed.
Thanks for asking, be well good health is important to us all.As a Vietnam Veteran and retired Naval Officer I have health care for the rest of my life but I know many people who don't. I think it's sad that we live in a country that will spend billions of dollars on foreign wars but it won't pay for senior citizens and children's medicine. A middle aged woman who is out of work in this country has very little chance of having health care. I really believe that every American citizen should be guaranteed health care. We also should insure at the same time that their are no hungry people or homeless people here in America. Not one dime should be spent outside this country until all of America's problems are fixed. Especially healthcare, hunger, and the homeless issue. I see plenty of late night TV commercials for hungry children over seas but none for the hungry children here.
I don't understand why we have foreign aid at all as long as we have the problems we have here in America. We need to worry about America's problems first and health care for all should be the first thing we push for. Read the bills out there before you argue one way or the other. The Romney Bill and Obama's Bill are very nearly the same. I say throw all of them out of office and start over with out lobbyists and add in strict term limits. That would be a much better America. The average Republican or Democrat politician is only after one thing and that is another dollar. They don't care about the average American so we should vote them all out.
But bottom line every American should have health care. As a Native American and a War Veteran I am sadly disappointed in both of our fine political parties. I say health care for all and yes the rich of our country should help pay for it. The more you make the more taxes you should pay. It's only fair.1. I don't have health care
2. If I did, I would have to pay for it as I am self-employed
Do I approve of the new legislation?
Yes, it is something that America has needed for years. Insurance companies can no longer deny you because of pre-existing conditions. You get a rebate for any unused portion of your coverage.
You do have a choice actually. There are going to be many different companies that you can choose from. If you want different coverage, you can still pay for it. All this provides is a minimum level of coverage for everyone in the country.
You no longer have to stay at a job you hate just for the benefits. You no longer have to worry about insurance companies imposing limits on how much coverage you get in a year or in your lifetime.
The reason why this isn't popular is because conservatives are good at saying the same sound bytes over and over again until people just believe them because they have heard them so many times. Death panels come to mind. I think more progressives need to keep shouting the points I made until people realize they are getting a good deal here.
Oh, one more thing. Can we please stop saying America is dead just because one decision doesn't go your way? It sort of loses its meaning after awhile.I'm from the UK with the NHS, national health service, which provides care for anyone free of charge when they are in this country. Entirely funded by tax and requires no individual payments beyond that, even for those not resident in the country. In Scotland specifically you even get free prescriptions. There is, slightly unrelated, also free dental care until 16 or 18 yers of age if still in full time eduction. I for one would say that our country would be lost without the NHS. That it is a feature which many rely on and I am glad it is there for everyone, preventing serious ill health and even unnecessary death. I'd encourage America to adopt a system of a more just health system to support those who cannot afford it for themselves, maybe not a full blown free health service as it does not seem such a popular idea at the moment but anything to improve the unncessary illnesses of the poor from escalating can surely only be a kind and just thing to approve of. Sorry, I realise I dont have nearly as much right to the opinion as an American but I just thought i'd add my view anyway.
We cannot save everyone from everything.
If you were approached by a beggar on a street corner, would you give him a dollar? Most of us would.
If you are approached by 5 beggars on a street corner, would you give them a dollar? Most of us would.
If you are approached on a street corner by 100 beggars would you give them each a dollar?
Most would not. Why not? Because then it is too draining on our resources and shouldn't our lives have first claim on our resources?
When you attempt to save a drowning person, if they struggle so much that your life is endangered, would you let them pull you under as well or would you let them go?
We have come to a point in this country, that we are trying to save so many that are not trying very hard to save themselves.
Whether you believe in a god or not, they saying that the lord helps those that help themselves is an apt statement.
If you are not willing or not trying all venues to help yourself, why should others be coerced by the government thru taxes, to help you?
I believe that families should help one another out. I do not believe I should be deprived of my hard earned income to help strangers who are not making a sincere effort to help themselves. If my treasure is going to be confiscated by the government and redistributed in a manner that does not benefit me, why should I continue to struggle to make a living when I can give up and let others take care of me thru government handouts?I would give the 100 beggars 5 cents, therefore equaling out the cost.
America has some of the best providers, unfortunately, most of us can't not afford access to this care. It should be universal. Health is a right in our modern civilizations. No we can't save everyone but we must stick together. We are all in this together. I spent time in Europe and took advantage of their healthcare services in England. At no cost to me. They genuinely believe in humanity and practicing politics with ethics and morality. Contrarily, Americans have become self centered, selfish and a self preserving society. We lack the comradery necessary to instill these values the ACA are based upon. Healthcare isn't about what we as individuals lose out on. It's about what we can do for others. "Ask not what you're country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country." We need another JFK
- DigbyAdamsposted 12 years ago0
My husband and I are self-employed and pay our own premiums. We've just moved from Maine to Massachusetts, because we can lower our combined monthly premiums from $2,150 a month to $1,175 a month because of the Massachusetts Health Care System.
We are not subsidized by Massachusetts in any way. We are just using the fact that they have about 24 private insurance plans that can't reject you. We have the option of paying between $325 to about $1,200 per person. The coverage is better than we could ever hope for in Maine. Healthcare and insurance are worlds apart. Insurance companies treat their role as a business. They cut losses and maximize profits. Instead of providing a means to healthcare, these insurance companies have turned healthcare into a free market system when it should in fact be universal. Capitalism and commerce have no place in healthcare. There's a lot of people outside of the medical industry who want to comment on it like they know. You know what you're told about it and obviously that information is misleading in order to product specific thought processes in your mind. Try providing healthcare for patients and being met with opposition at every front from their insurance provider. It's very frustrating being unable to provide healthcare to patients that need it because of insurance stipulations. This bill inhibits insurance companies from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions and rids policies of lifetime caps. If you can't see the good in things, you may be a fatalist, but you're selfish.
It's everyone's responsibility. Nobody want to provide for the poor but these are the people that clean your offices, serve your food, who serve a purpose in our society. But rather than share your well being with them, people choose to take a self serving stance. That's not the basis of humanity.
- Angie497posted 12 years ago0
This is an unscientific poll.
I am curious to know the answers to four very simple questions:
1. Do you have health insurance now?
Yes, at least for the moment.
2. Who pays the premium (main monthly cost) of your health insurance?
e.g., employer, government program, you, other
My employer picks up a portion of the cost (not sure whether it's 50% or 75%, but I'm pretty sure it's one of those). I pay the remainder. Since it's a high deductible plan, I'm responsible for the first $1250 before any coverage of any sort kicks in.
3. If you didn't have insurance through a group (employer, government program, other) would you be able to purchase it for yourself?
e.g., do you or your family have any preexisting medical conditions such as acne; would you be unable to afford possibly $1000+ month premium payment for individual coverage?
I have fibromyalgia - there's no way I'd be able to purchase coverage short of winning the lottery.
4. Do you approve or disapprove of the Affordable Care Act?
Somewhere in between, actually. In my view, it doesn't go far enough - I'm in favor of single-payer universal coverage (the so-called 'medicare for all').
Lack of health insurance is a huge problem. I don't understand how people can just wave it aside like it's nothing. And if I hear the BS about 'socialized medicine' applied to the ACA one more time, I will not be responsible for my actions LOL. There is absolutely NOTHING about the ACA that bears any resemblance to socialized medicine, and to insist differently means that for me personally, your opinion is not valid, because you aren't educated enough on the issue to even understand the concept. (Incidentally, there is exactly ONE 'socialized medicine' system in the US. That is the VA medical system.)
"Speak volumes about a lot of people being irresponsible about their own life." Really? You think everyone that ever gets hurt or sick is at fault because they were irresponsible?
Or PersonalJewel's attitude - Other people don't need access to health care/insurance because I did it all myself with no help from anyone. Well, except for the charities that helped pay our bills when we actually needed medical care (and don't get me wrong, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with accepting help when you need it - only with asking for charity when you need it while looking down your nose at other people who need it).
Or worse: "Saving 45,000 per year...what exactly is that going to do to the economy? There's already NO growth. So what exactly are these people going to do? Drain resources." Wow. We should just let people die because they might be a resource drain? Are you also in favor of requiring abortions if we don't feel the parents will be able to support the child, or if the child will be born with a birth defect of some sort? Maybe you support euthanizing the elderly when they've outlived their usefulness? 1. Yes.
2. By my spouse and his employer.
3. Emphatically not. I have a pre-existing condition and am female (women pay a LOT more for individual plans than men).
4. Yes and no.
I question the constitutionality of forcing people to buy something from a private entity being called a 'tax' and worry about the precedent.
I agree with parts of the law, but not the individual mandate. I DO agree with stopping insurance companies from charging such high premiums to anyone who's ever had a hangnail that they have no chance of getting coverage. I DO agree with preventing excessive gender variation in premiums.
I'm iffy on the contraceptive stuff, as I am a firm believer in religious freedom even for those I don't agree with.
I think the law is a nice start, but it really isn't the best it could be and has constitutional and freedom issues with it. Single payer, incidentally, has problems too.
What I think we should have focused on more:
1. Dealing with the doctor and nurse shortages. Did you know there are only 100,000 medical residency positions available at a time. For the entire US. MDs are waiting tables while they wait for one to open up. And the shortage is at its worst with primary care physicians.
2. Doing something about the insane liability premiums many doctors are forced to pay. That cost gets put on patients and is a HUGE component of why we pay more per unit for healthcare here than in, say, Sweden.
3. Taking the fardling profit out of 'health care'. I don't begrudge doctors, nurses and other health care workers a living and doctors, given how much school they do and how highly skilled they are and how many hours many of them work deserve a damn good living. Shareholders in health insurance company X do NOT deserve to make a living from it...and could easily invest in something else if health insurance company X was not an option. One of the things that might really, actually help is the health insurance equivalent of a credit union, but who's going to set that up?In more cases than not, the same elected officials who crafted this law are the ones who have done nothing to take the profits out of healthcare nor have they invested in any methodology to control litigation or regulate providers in terms of cost caps on pre-existing situations. In that respect, one can only conclude that someone has them firmly in their pocket. The profit aspect is a very difficult one to address because no company can continue to exists if it takes in less money that it pays out. There has to be some method by reach the company reaches solvency and remains there...but I do not see that being something that is realistic in the private sector. Investment can be curtailed but with it goes the options for a lot of the research and development and possibly even some of the existing schools which train our future medical professionals. The obvious conclusion is that by taking the profit out of it one also takes it out of the hands of the private sector and makes it a government function which simply passes the potential losses and costs increases on to the taxpayers thus is the consumer/taxpayer any better off as a result...the money comes out of their pocket either way. The point that gets missed here is the government does not have its own supply of money to act as a provider nor does the government make a profit. Given that, all the costs of anything which a governemnt does must be shouldered by those who pay taxes. If that sounds like a viable alternative in terms of healthcare, the we must ask ourselves how much does the government have to take away from me in taxes to support these programs before I stop working as a productive wage earning person and join the ranks of those who aspire to get things for free from the government? That is a reality we already see in other areas of social programs. That is not to say that we throw our babies in the ocean or push grandma off the train since she is old but it is to say that if we are to provide for those who desperately need it and have no means or physical ability to provide it, we have to be more guarded in our approach as to how generously and easily we hand it out in mass on a "free basis". As time goes on, the working population in America shrinks...employers are already seeing that effect in terms skills and talents. Age places a larger population of "baby boomer" generation on the "potential healthcare need" list. That puts us squarely in the position we see with Social Security...too few producers ratioed against too many receipents backdropped by a program ravaged by the misdeeds of elected officials. WB
The misinformation about ACA and what it does/doesn't do is stunning.
Obviously Koch Brothers, Fox news and other right-wing sources have done a great job of owning Obamacare.
It distresses me no end that Obama and those who crafted the law are not doing a better job communicating it.
They are sitting back and letting the detractors own it.
Instead of pointing out the tremendous GOOD the reforms do for millions of Americans it's being touted now as a "tax."
It's only a tax if you refuse to be insured.
Maybe there will be NO TAX collected because all of those who want and have been wanting to get insurance will now, finally, be able to get it.
For the record, ER is the most expensive care out there. ERs are NOT set up to provide rank and file preventive or even treatment health care that should be provided at the clinic level. They are set up to deal with gunshot wounds, heart attacks and accident victims.
Those who advocate "just go to the ER" are advocating huge INCREASES in the cost of care.
Who does that help??
And those who suggest that the uninsured go to the ER because they can get free care -- true, hospitals cannot refuse to see you. But free care? Not true. You will be billed. A hefty sum. And they will hound and hound and hound you to collect.
For those who truly cannot pay the bill, and yes, there are those, their cost will be added into someone else's bill. Either someone who has employer-paid insurance in the form of higher premiums or to the cost of Medi-Cal.
So that ploy actually backs up to the taxpayer also.
If you can prove you have no ability to pay, you may or may not be granted charity care. But if you are a middle class person who just has no health insurance, you will pay through the nose.
Widespread access to preventive care helps ALL OF US.To Mighty Mom, you are so correct. Last summer, I suffered from an extreme bout with sciatica. I was in so much pain that I went to Harlem Hospital's emergency room. The doctor did a preliminary examination and prescribed some medication. I was billed $400.00 which was quickly reimbursed. Yes, ER care is one of the most expensive. However, I was in so much pain that I wanted immediate and instant relief. I could afford to pay but I pity those who cannot afford to do this-yes, I believe that there should be national health care and Obamacare is it!
It appears mostly the people against ACA never had a serious health issue, never watched anyone they love suffer with one, and are too cheap and heartless to pay into the pool. No emergency room will refuse treatment to someone. But as MM points out, they will be harrassed for money, and made to feel like the scum of the earth, just because they don't have good insurance. It works in well in other countries, there's no reason it can't work in the U.S. I also agree Obama should be doing a much better job getting the facts out, because the right wingers are "explaining" the facts of this plan, which are not true. It's so hard to listen to these people who attack and get their info from FOX or Rush or other prejudiced sources. If everyone pays into the pool, it's a large pool. And the gentleman up above who listed the infant mortality rates in the U.S. puts this country to shame.
- DigbyAdamsposted 12 years ago0
But how does an individual access the market, when many insurers won't write affordable individual plans. In some states there is only one insurance company that will write a plan and it's thousands of dollars a month and you have to be healthy. The market system is broken for individuals and is geared toward groups and employers.
Yes, that is part of the problem.
No, it is geared toward business owners to get tax credits for each employee on insurance offered through their business.
It's not directly geared toward groups of specific people, but has been skewed to appear that way.
The marketplace isn't equal. It never has been.
- DigbyAdamsposted 12 years ago0
So it's impossible in many ways with the current system to be independent and personally responsible. Unless you're willing to be sick and die. Not all illnesses are caused by peoples' bad behavior. You shouldn't have to rely on churches and charity. That's not a reliable system.
It should make insurance more competitive, and in that way, I don't think they like it. It actually has the reverse effect, in that if you don't like one company's deal you can go elsewhere and, being that most people who don't have it now, simply couldn't afford it, it could make it more affordable.
Related Discussions
- 92
If You Have Pre-existing Conditions & Support Trump - Do You Still??
by Scott Belford 5 years ago
The Trump administration just came out in full-throated support of Killing ACA and allowing insurance companies to deny you insurance because you are sick.https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/26/politics … index.html
- 69
If No health care for all, then what?
by Peeples 12 years ago
Curious as to what people who are against everyone having healthcare think should be done for those who really can't afford healthcare. What are the other options? Continue down the same road we are on now?
- 59
How many people complaining about the healthcare bill actually know what's in it
by Christin Sander 12 years ago
How many people complaining about the healthcare bill actually know what's in it?I see a lot of people complaining and crying about how it will destroy America etc. What I don't see are logical arguments against it or any evidence that said people are making educated and informed opinions - and not...
- 152
Obamacare increase the avability of healthcare in what ways?
by Judy Specht 8 years ago
I have been listening to how the government has a billion dollars for getting people to sign up for the Affordable Healthcare Act. Would that money have been better spent training more doctors and building new hospitals? New Jersey has closed how many community hospitals in the last few...
- 50
Do you believe that the nuisance known as Obamacare will finally be repealed? W
by Grace Marguerite Williams 6 years ago
Do you believe that the nuisance known as Obamacare will finally be repealed? Why? Why not?I believe that the government SHOULD NOT be in private affairs such as health care. I believe that health care is the sole responsibility of the individual. If individuals want health care,...
- 21
Can anyone explain the Affordable Care Act to me?
by Eric Seidel 7 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...