View Full Version : Obama fastracking Obamacare to the US Supreme Court
iris lily
9-30-11, 11:15am
The Obama team wants the US Supreme Court to take on, immediately, the health care law popularly known as Obamacare.
Until now lower courts have been divided in their rulings.
Since the ruling will come down sometime in the midst of Presidential campaign 2012, that's kinda risky for the Pres, I'd say.
And really, I have to hand it to him--I think it's bold. I think it might make his lagging fans respect him more.
I liked this move - much better than just having drag on and on.
That said, I sadly expect the court will turn down picking it up. I think conservatives will want this ball to stay in play through the election.
I liked this move - much better than just having drag on and on.
That said, I sadly expect the court will turn down picking it up. I think conservatives will want this ball to stay in play through the election.
I disagree. Let's get the un-constitutional parts of it taken out and move on, the sooner the better.
I disagree. Let's get the un-constitutional parts of it taken out and move on, the sooner the better.
I don't see how the contested part of the law (insurance mandate) can get pulled without yanking the rest of the law as well. This mandate is key to offsetting the cost of many of the other mandates (extending dependent coverage to 26, removing preexisting conditions, etc.) in the law. Health insurance costs will explode or the health insurance industry will go under with just this provision removed.
I don't see how the contested part of the law (insurance mandate) can get pulled without yanking the rest of the law as well. This mandate is key to offsetting the cost of many of the other mandates (extending dependent coverage to 26, removing preexisting conditions, etc.) in the law. Health insurance costs will explode or the health insurance industry will go under with just this provision removed.
Sometimes moving on means starting over.
Also, it's pretty apparent we were sold a bill of goods regarding the cost of this monstrosity. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/09/new-study-underlines-unfulfilled-promises-of-health-care-bill/ , better to kill it now and hope we get it right next time.
Sometimes moving on means starting over.
Also, it's pretty apparent we were sold a bill of goods regarding the cost of this monstrosity. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/09/new-study-underlines-unfulfilled-promises-of-health-care-bill/ , better to kill it now and hope we get it right next time.
How did you come to this conclusion? Most of the features of the law are not even in play yet. And health care and insurance costs and employees being saddled with paying more for their coverage have been big issues prior to law being passed. I assume there was a big cost of 2 million under 26 years olds going under their parent's coverage, but I haven't heard much against this part of the law.
I would have preferred going to single payer - but so far in MA Romneycare (which is similar) has actually been going ok.
How did you come to this conclusion? Most of the features of the law are not even in play yet. And health care and insurance costs and employees being saddled with paying more for their coverage have been big issues prior to law being passed. I assume there was a big cost of 2 million under 26 years olds going under their parent's coverage, but I haven't heard much against this part of the law.
I would have preferred going to single payer - but so far in MA Romneycare (which is similar) has actually been going ok.
We were told that the average family's annual health care insurance cost would decrease by $2500 under Obamacare. Since then, the average annual costs have increased close to that amount and the administration now says that we won't see savings until around 2019, and only about $2000 at that time.
The average cost of a family medical plan is around $15,000 a year right now, after increasing an average of 12% since the bill's passage. There is no indication that costs will significantly decrease as we force more and more people to purchase, since we are also forcing everyone to purchase more coverage than they may want or need. We were sold a bill of goods and at the same time, we opened the door to the government being able to force us to purchase any goods or services that they want us to, completely at the discretion of whoever is in charge at the time.
Once precedent has been established, the door is open for even more encroachment.
We were told that the average family's annual health care insurance cost would decrease by $2500 under Obamacare. Since then, the average annual costs have increased close to that amount and the administration now says that we won't see savings until around 2019, and only about $2000 at that time.
The average cost of a family medical plan is around $15,000 a year right now, after increasing an average of 12% since the bill's passage. There is no indication that costs will significantly decrease as we force more and more people to purchase, since we are also forcing everyone to purchase more coverage than they may want or need. We were sold a bill of goods and at the same time, we opened the door to the government being able to force us to purchase any goods or services that they want us to, completely at the discretion of whoever is in charge at the time.
Once precedent has been established, the door is open for even more encroachment.
One would hope expanding insurance pools would help drive down or at least slow rising insurance costs, given that shrinking pools are used as justification for raising rates. Although I expect insurance companies will play this for all they can get out of it (like I said, I think single payer would have been the better solution). I think the cost will be moderated for some just because there will be such an increase in costs for others (those not currently buying insurance).
As far as precedence, I think the 2nd Militia act of 1792 would qualify, I don't think there's been much encroachment since then. Although the only reason the current system works at all now is that hospitals are mandated to provide emergency care (thank you President Reagan) regardless of a person's ability or intention to pay - basically the government forcing them to provide goods and services.
Although the only reason the current system works at all now is that hospitals are mandated to provide emergency care (thank you President Reagan) regardless of a person's ability or intention to pay - basically the government forcing them to provide goods and services.
That's true only if the hospital receives monies from the government in the form or medicare/medicaid payments or if they have a tax exempt status. Which virtually every hospital does.
That's the problem with an overly intrusive government. Once they get their claws in you, you're at their service forever.
On an individual basis, just wait untli the next time Government Motors needs a bailout. Once precedent has been set, we can all just be forced to buy a car and *poof* problem solved.
Alan I agree with you and the crowd at the GOP debates, just let them die!!!!
And GM has paid back it's loans and is on the way to health...so..what's your point? I know it is better for the negative republican talking points if GM went belly up in a flaming ball, but that didn't happen. And thanks to this President and the American people, thousands of jobs were saved, and more will be created. Oh, wait, I'm sorry. This interferes with JOB 1. Too bad huh?
Are you really going to hold this up as an example of Obama failure? Really? Or government failure? It would seem that every man for himself wouldn't have been the choice action here. Once again, despite some really mean people with their myopic view of things, Our President had the courage to stand behind the UNITED in the United States of America.
Alan I agree with you and the crowd at the GOP debates, just let them die!!!!
And if they just happen to be a gay soldier on death row in Texas, it's a trifecta!;)
Alan I agree with you and the crowd at the GOP debates, just let them die!!!!
Ya See Free, that's why discussions never go anywhere. Somebody has to go out on the fringe and completely mis-represent whoever they deem their opposition to be. Good job!
And if they just happen to be a gay soldier on death row in Texas, it's a trifecta!;)
And once someone gets the ball rolling, the others come out en masse.
Political discussion at it's finest!!
And GM has paid back it's loans and is on the way to health...so..what's your point? I know it is better for the negative republican talking points if GM went belly up in a flaming ball, but that didn't happen. And thanks to this President and the American people, thousands of jobs were saved, and more will be created. Oh, wait, I'm sorry. This interferes with JOB 1. Too bad huh?
Are you really going to hold this up as an example of Obama failure? Really? Or government failure? It would seem that every man for himself wouldn't have been the choice action here. Once again, despite some really mean people with their myopic view of things, Our President had the courage to stand behind the UNITED in the United States of America.
I made my point, you apparently missed it. The last time, government took our money to bail out a private business (or rather a union). Once precedent has been established, the next time we can eliminate the middle man (government) and simply force people to purchase the company's product, all in the name of the public good of course.
Health insurance, Chevy Volt's, Premium cable, same-same.
I am glad that the Affordable Health Care Act is going to the Supreme Court. It will be nice to have it settled one way or the other. Personally, I hope it goes down in flames so that the insurance companies can continue to refuse coverage to children with pre-existing conditions and parents can see their young adult children not insured and we can continue having 1 in 4 Texans with no insurance at all. Health care should be only for those who can afford it. Not.
poetry_writer
9-30-11, 6:11pm
Having a genuine discussion on this forum on politics is impossible. It always dissolves into stupidity.
Yea, the truth of the republican agenda against these things that actually help us, We the People, is pretty stupid!
flowerseverywhere
10-1-11, 12:04pm
I made my point, you apparently missed it. The last time, government took our money to bail out a private business (or rather a union). Once precedent has been established, the next time we can eliminate the middle man (government) and simply force people to purchase the company's product, all in the name of the public good of course.
Health insurance, Chevy Volt's, Premium cable, same-same.
so I have questions for you Alan:
What is the solution to pre-existing conditions? If everyone is required to pay in, sick and well, there is a large pool of money to pay for the sick. If you decide not to pay a monthly premium because you are well, and get diagnosed with cancer even though you were trying to take care of yourself, should you be able to purchase insurance then? Or maybe you should have known better and you are out of luck?
Our current system is not working, what can improve it so more people can afford insurance, for instance if you are laid off?
I don't think everything about the affordable health care act is perfect or even desirable, but what solution do you have to improve it?
What about the poor getting medicaid while low paying working people have to pay for their insurance?
And Medicare. Should it be abolished? expanded to cover everyone? because it is an 80/20 plan, does not pay for everything and you pay premiums for portions of it that also is not a perfect solution for the poorer masses.
A very complicated subject with no easy solutions.
Health care for profit makes for quite a mess. It's time to pull basic needs out of the commodities markets. Housing, food, education, & health care all need to be created and sold in a much different way. Cpitalism is a good system for amassing wealth, and for motivating some forms of innovation. When it comes to providing for our collective basic needs, it's illogical and highly inefficient.
gimmethesimplelife
10-2-11, 1:24am
Sorry, folks, got a little carried away with my post I just deleted - thought it might be inflammatory and such is not my intent so I thought it was best to delete it. Rob
Health care for profit makes for quite a mess. It's time to pull basic needs out of the commodities markets. Housing, food, education, & health care all need to be created and sold in a much different way. Cpitalism is a good system for amassing wealth, and for motivating some forms of innovation. When it comes to providing for our collective basic needs, it's illogical and highly inefficient.
But are there really any reasonable alternative systems to free markets? You have the "hard" form of collectivism, which failed spectacularly in the Soviet Union; and you have the "soft" form, which seems to be faltering in Europe. How would you go about eliminating the free exchange of goods and services (more than it already has been in the US) without trampling on individual rights? Price controls? Rationing? Confiscation and redistribution?
I made my point, you apparently missed it. The last time, government took our money to bail out a private business (or rather a union). Once precedent has been established, the next time we can eliminate the middle man (government) and simply force people to purchase the company's product, all in the name of the public good of course.
Health insurance, Chevy Volt's, Premium cable, same-same.
so Alan, when a family member has a bit of financial difficulties, do you offer to help out? If your family member gets sick and can't wash his car, say for instance, would you wash it for him? How is this different? This is the UNITED States of America, one big family. Where does this disconnect come from?
The irony of these tea party types jumping up and smacking their hands over their hearts and fairly screaming the national anthem/pledge, but refusing to help their neighbor is pretty thick. These folks seem to be all about god and country, except, of course, where their god (his teachings) and country (their neighbors) come in. I really don't understand why these people aren't solidly democrats who really try to live the 'United We Stand' ideals.
And I'm thrilled to be able to keep my young adult daughter on our family plan until she is 26. This gives her the breathing space to settle into a good job with benefits, and doesn't cost you a dime.
Boiled down, the health care reform is simply everyone who can pay will pay so we can all get the benefit of health care and lower costs for everyone. Like they did in Mass under a republican Governor. People there don't want to do away with it, and everyone is covered. It's called responsibility. That thing republicans were for, before they were against it.
so Alan, when a family member has a bit of financial difficulties, do you offer to help out? If your family member gets sick and can't wash his car, say for instance, would you wash it for him? How is this different?
Choice.
The irony of these tea party types jumping up and smacking their hands over their hearts and fairly screaming the national anthem/pledge, but refusing to help their neighbor is pretty thick. These folks seem to be all about god and country, except, of course, where their god (his teachings) and country (their neighbors) come in. I really don't understand why these people aren't solidly democrats who really try to live the 'United We Stand' ideals.
I think there's a very good chance that you don't understand the concept of doing good things without being forced to do so. Since the "tea party types" are typically conservative and conservatives have been proven to be the most generous demographic in America, I think your statement that they are "refusing to help their neighbor" is goofy. While I do understand a statists view that only the state can do good, that viewpoint is not shared by individualists.
And I'm thrilled to be able to keep my young adult daughter on our family plan until she is 26. This gives her the breathing space to settle into a good job with benefits, and doesn't cost you a dime.
Sure it does. The collective expense of caring for more people who haven't taken the responsibility to care for themselves is simply added to the tab of those of us who do. Who do you think pays for your grown daughter's health insurance if she's not?
Boiled down, the health care reform is simply everyone who can pay will pay so we can all get the benefit of health care and lower costs for everyone. Like they did in Mass under a republican Governor. People there don't want to do away with it, and everyone is covered. It's called responsibility. That thing republicans were for, before they were against it.
Republicans, Independants and just about every thinking person knows that forcing people to do something doesn't translate to those people being responsible. It is just the opposite, it is government exerting force against the citizens in order to achieve a social goal. Most also understand that this is a very dangerous precedent. One with potential ramifications for every aspect of our lives. Others choose to overlook it in favor of an immediate social remedy. I think that's short sighted.
We have the most costly healthcare system in the World with some of the worst results. The healthcare reform act does not do much to fix it. We need a total overhaul. Competition which many people push has done nothing to fix it. It has been and is basically a free market system now. It needs to be totally overhauled. Starting at the education level. Medical school should be free so a doctor does not finish school owing 100s of thousands of dollars. Remember non-profit hospitals are as expensive as for profit. So it is not the profit causing the problems.
Case in point about our care system. A friend of ours had major surgery (cancer) after one or two days in the hospital he was sent home so his wife could take care of him. She has no medical training. She is suppose to manage drain tubes coming out of his body. Change dressings etc. All this is put on a wife who is stressed out because her husband will probably still die of the cancer. THERE HAS TO REAL CHANGE IN OUR MEDICAL CARE SYSTEM!!
... All this is put on a wife who is stressed out because her husband will probably still die of the cancer. THERE HAS TO REAL CHANGE IN OUR MEDICAL CARE SYSTEM!!
All this was put upon the fancy schmancy most-expensive-in-the-world health care system and he's going to die anyway? And we wonder why costs are out of control.
People. This just doesn't make sense.
Choice.
I think there's a very good chance that you don't understand the concept of doing good things without being forced to do so. Since the "tea party types" are typically conservative and conservatives have been proven to be the most generous demographic in America, I think your statement that they are "refusing to help their neighbor" is goofy. While I do understand a statists view that only the state can do good, that viewpoint is not shared by individualists.
I'm not buying this idea of your that conservatives are the most generous. That sounds like a made up statistic. And not really supported by the whoops and cheers when Ron Paul said, essentially, let them die at the debate.
Sure it does. The collective expense of caring for more people who haven't taken the responsibility to care for themselves is simply added to the tab of those of us who do. Who do you think pays for your grown daughter's health insurance if she's not?
ME DUDE! Who do you think pays for these kids who are on their PARENTS health plans? Us, the parents. :doh: Are you assuming every kid who goes on their parents plan between 21 and 26 are on welfare?
Republicans, Independants and just about every thinking person knows that forcing people to do something doesn't translate to those people being responsible. It is just the opposite, it is government exerting force against the citizens in order to achieve a social goal. Most also understand that this is a very dangerous precedent. One with potential ramifications for every aspect of our lives. Others choose to overlook it in favor of an immediate social remedy. I think that's short sighted.
Yea, but I'm just betting you are pretty glad the state requires people to have insurance when you get into a car accident.. well, it's the same for hospitals. Don't you think they would be glad if the state required individuals to get insurance when they get into an accident, or have a heart attack, or an appendix, or cancer or... well , you get the picture. And these things cost way more than a car accident. Do you think they shouldn't require car insurance? Sure, driving is something everyone doesn't do, and is a choice. But life isn't a choice for those of us alive, is it. And every one of us will, at some point, require health care, some quite a bit. EVERY. SINGLE. PERSON. Even you. Or your wife, or your children or your grandchildren.
OK, well, this didn't work as I expected it to. You need to read the excerpted bit to see my answers. I guess i don't know how to do this.
OK, well, I need to clarify this. All in the excerpted bit isn't what Alan said. some of it is mine, just so no one gets confused. I am soo not a computer person.
Alan assumed, inexplicably, that just because my daughter is on our family plan until she is 26 that someone else, him I presume, is somehow paying for it. Is this really the problem republicans have with this? Really? Why would you believe that MY daughter being on MY health care plan is somehow coming out of YOUR pocket? Boy, Rush Beck is really doing a good job if this is what the majority of republicans think. How are they being mislead in other areas of the plan?
Well, let me clear this up for you right now. Me being able to keep MY young adult daughter on MY plan until she is 26 is ME paying for it. Me, not you.
Wow! The misinformation is unbelievable! Is critical thinking really beyond our capabilities?
I'm sorry Alan, I really think of you as a fairly smart thinking individual,... but damn! Is this really what you think? No wonder you think this is the end of civilization!
poetry_writer
10-2-11, 11:31pm
so Alan, when a family member has a bit of financial difficulties, do you offer to help out? If your family member gets sick and can't wash his car, say for instance, would you wash it for him? How is this different? This is the UNITED States of America, one big family. Where does this disconnect come from?
The irony of these tea party types jumping up and smacking their hands over their hearts and fairly screaming the national anthem/pledge, but refusing to help their neighbor is pretty thick. These folks seem to be all about god and country, except, of course, where their god (his teachings) and country (their neighbors) come in. I really don't understand why these people aren't solidly democrats who really try to live the 'United We Stand' ideals.
And I'm thrilled to be able to keep my young adult daughter on our family plan until she is 26. This gives her the breathing space to settle into a good job with benefits, and doesn't cost you a dime.
Boiled down, the health care reform is simply everyone who can pay will pay so we can all get the benefit of health care and lower costs for everyone. Like they did in Mass under a republican Governor. People there don't want to do away with it, and everyone is covered. It's called responsibility. That thing republicans were for, before they were against it.
Only one problem with your plan. That job with benefits may never happen for your daughter (I hope it does). Millions are unemployed and that is going to get worse.
How are people without jobs going to pay for a plan?
OK, well, I need to clarify this. All in the excerpted bit isn't what Alan said. some of it is mine, just so no one gets confused. I am soo not a computer person.
Alan assumed, inexplicably, that just because my daughter is on our family plan until she is 26 that someone else, him I presume, is somehow paying for it. Is this really the problem republicans have with this? Really? Why would you believe that MY daughter being on MY health care plan is somehow coming out of YOUR pocket? Boy, Rush Beck is really doing a good job if this is what the majority of republicans think. How are they being mislead in other areas of the plan?
Well, let me clear this up for you right now. Me being able to keep MY young adult daughter on MY plan until she is 26 is ME paying for it. Me, not you.
Wow! The misinformation is unbelievable! Is critical thinking really beyond our capabilities?
I'm sorry Alan, I really think of you as a fairly smart thinking individual,... but damn! Is this really what you think? No wonder you think this is the end of civilization!
Nearly a third of the overall increase in health insurance rates between 2010 and 2011 are due to the provision that allows adult children to stay on their parents policies.
My only child is 33 and not eligible, therefore a portion of my increased expense is going to other people's children, including yours. That's not necessarily a complaint, just a response to your mis-guided belief that you and only you are paying for your adult child's coverage.
Facts are never inexplicable, just mis-understood.
Nearly a third of the overall increase in health insurance rates between 2010 and 2011 are due to the provision that allows adult children to stay on their parents policies.
My only child is 33 and not eligible, therefore a portion of my increased expense is going to other people's children, including yours. That's not necessarily a complaint, just a response to your mis-guided belief that you and only you are paying for your adult child's coverage.
Facts are never inexplicable, just mis-understood.
Are you really laboring under the belief that your insurance rates would' somehow stay the same or go down if we didn't have health care reform? Rates are going up. All rates, regardless. Greedy insurance companies use any excuse to raise your rates. Adding healthy 20 somethings for a few years more, for which i pay, is not increasing your health care coverage. And if you think you don't pay already in increased health care cost for those who aren't insured, then you are in for a surprise. Here's a hint. Aspirin doesn't really cost $10 a pill!
This healthy demographic isn't changing the bottom line for the insurance companies.
This is why we need a single payer system. No greedy insurance company who only care about the bottom line. No middle man searching for ways to NOT pay. Most of this plan hasn't even gone into effect, so the increase in rates is just business as usual.
I suppose we could just use the Ron Paul plan. Let 'em die!
I'm not buying this idea of your that conservatives are the most generous. That sounds like a made up statistic. And not really supported by the whoops and cheers when Ron Paul said, essentially, let them die at the debate.
It's not made up. Conservatives, as a group, have consistently given approximately 30% more than non-conservatives to charitable causes.
Interestingly, that also applies to blood donations. If you ever need a transfusion, chances are you'll get a conservatives blood, a fact which I find mildly amusing. >8)
flowerseverywhere
10-3-11, 9:58am
Nearly a third of the overall increase in health insurance rates between 2010 and 2011 are due to the provision that allows adult children to stay on their parents policies.
My only child is 33 and not eligible, therefore a portion of my increased expense is going to other people's children, including yours. That's not necessarily a complaint, just a response to your mis-guided belief that you and only you are paying for your adult child's coverage.
Facts are never inexplicable, just mis-understood.
Since you did not answer my last questions I don't expect you to answer this one, but where did you get this information?
http://www.factcheck.org/2010/11/the-truth-about-health-insurance-premiums/
this notes some of the things that have been claimed and disputes many of them. Actually although some of the increase is due to the adult children issue, it is a small portion of it from what I can see.
In my 35 years of working as a nurse I can tell you people that don't have insurance and therefore don't go to the doctor in the long run cost all of us way more. If you have mental illness or diabetes for example, and don't seek medical care and don't take the right medication you are headed down a road of complications, lost productivity, and much higher costs to deal with the consequences. The early 20's age group largely does not go to the Doctor. They may have an accident, and a few are diabetics, but the issue that Iris Lilly pointed out, such as cancer victims that have extensive surgery without hope are the costly group. Of course, who decides? I have a pretty explicit health care directive, and my family is pretty clear on these issues, but not many people do.
Another interesting thing was I was at the cardiologist, (routine screening due to a congenital defect paid for by my insurance company so I don't end up on in the surgical suite- so far so good) and as I was sitting in the waiting room and a patient came in. They explained that there was a new tier system for medication and they wanted to switch their meds to generics or they would be paying a percentage rather than a small co-pay. The secretary said "we do this all the time, we'll take care of it." I wanted to shout "why didn't you just do that in the first place?" Why not try the least expensive rather than the Cadillac, and if they are not adequate or there is no generic then go to the expensive. It is attitudes we have to change more than anything.
Of course my years of being on the front line have given me numerous stories because there is nothing quite like being there and talking to actual people.
Only one problem with your plan. That job with benefits may never happen for your daughter (I hope it does). Millions are unemployed and that is going to get worse.
How are people without jobs going to pay for a plan?
How do people without jobs get health care now? I don't understand what your point is. We all pay for it now, already. At least with health care reform, those who CAN pay and refuse to, knowing that someone else will pay for them, will pay. There are plenty of irresponsible people out there who know if they have a heart attack the hospital won't turn them away. And guess who pays for them now? You and I, unless you are one of those irresponsible people.
I wonder at people who push back at this and think that maybe they just want to continue their free ride.
We require people to carry insurance when they drive. Not so they can get another car if they crash, but for the other guy who might lose his car, and/or a leg, or weeks in a hospital. We require the driver to be responsible for the other guy. Well, this is the same. We are requiring the living to be responsible for his own inevitable 'crash' so the rest of us don't have to pick up the entire tab. If you eat french fries and ho ho's and never exercise, I don't want to pay for your 'crash', but I will if you truly can't pay for it. But if you are just a slouch who would rather buy a new car than pay insurance, sorry. That train has left the station.
Since you did not answer my last questions I don't expect you to answer this one, but where did you get this information?
I didn't answer your last question because my previous interaction with you caused you to threaten to abandon the forums. Since I get enough grief as a devils advocate, I'd hate to give anyone more ammunition. :~)
So, while my intention is to limit our interaction in hopes of keeping you around, your direct questioning makes that increasingly difficult, so here ya go: http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/52653266-82/insurance-care-health-aca.html.csp
Parsing the annual report on employer-provided health care costs from the non-partisan experts at the Kaiser Family Foundation reveals that, out of the 9 percent rise in annual premium costs, 1 or 2 percentage points are attributable to provisions of the ACA.
Those provisions include the rule that insurance plans cover the children of policy-holders up to age 26 and requirements that more preventive care be made available at no cost to the patient
I've read the overall 9% figure in multiple places, and seemed to recall the percentage attributable to the ACA as being closer to 3%.
iris lily
10-3-11, 10:58am
...I suppose we could just use the Ron Paul plan. Let 'em die!
That's overstated, but I also agree that Mr. Paul doesn't exactly have a plan for Nanny G to cover all needed health care. I'm glad that question was asked of him in the debates because I wanted to see how he would answer it. Sometimes the truth is hard to hear.
I thought about him in the discussions about the 2 politicians who don't lie. I think there are 3 and he's one of them, more or less. You don't stay in Congress as long as he has without doing a leeeetle prevaricating.
poetry_writer
10-3-11, 11:27am
How do people without jobs get health care now? I don't understand what your point is. We all pay for it now, already. At least with health care reform, those who CAN pay and refuse to, knowing that someone else will pay for them, will pay. There are plenty of irresponsible people out there who know if they have a heart attack the hospital won't turn them away. And guess who pays for them now? You and I, unless you are one of those irresponsible people.
I wonder at people who push back at this and think that maybe they just want to continue their free ride.
We require people to carry insurance when they drive. Not so they can get another car if they crash, but for the other guy who might lose his car, and/or a leg, or weeks in a hospital. We require the driver to be responsible for the other guy. Well, this is the same. We are requiring the living to be responsible for his own inevitable 'crash' so the rest of us don't have to pick up the entire tab. If you eat french fries and ho ho's and never exercise, I don't want to pay for your 'crash', but I will if you truly can't pay for it. But if you are just a slouch who would rather buy a new car than pay insurance, sorry. That train has left the station.
Are you serious? How do people without jobs get healthcare now? THEY DONT. Do you really think that people just dont have insurance and dont care and are stuffing ho ho's into their mouths with glee at having cheated the system? What an arrogant response. We will all get sick if we live long enough. That is just life. And back to the question, how will people without jobs pay for insurance?
That's overstated, but I also agree that Mr. Paul doesn't exactly have a plan for Nanny G to cover all needed health care. I'm glad that question was asked of him in the debates because I wanted to see how he would answer it. Sometimes the truth is hard to hear.
I thought about him in the discussions about the 2 politicians who don't lie. I think there are 3 and he's one of them, more or less. You don't stay in Congress as long as he has without doing a leeeetle prevaricating.
Yea, that answer from him kind of surprised me too. But what really bothered me was the whoops and hollers from the audience. You know, life isn't fair, and I think we all understand that, but I certainly don't jeer the losers in the game. That was unbelievable, and exceedingly mean.
flowerseverywhere
10-3-11, 1:01pm
I didn't answer your last question because my previous interaction with you caused you to threaten to abandon the forums. Since I get enough grief as a devils advocate, I'd hate to give anyone more ammunition. :~)
So, while my intention is to limit our interaction in hopes of keeping you around, your direct questioning makes that increasingly difficult, so here ya go: http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/52653266-82/insurance-care-health-aca.html.csp
I've read the overall 9% figure in multiple places, and seemed to recall the percentage attributable to the ACA as being closer to 3%.
actually I considered leaving the forum, however after avoiding it for a while I decided being ignorant is worse than being annoyed or attacked so I decided to continue to ask questions. I truly want to understand why people have come to the conclusions that they do. There are so many questions about things that don't make sense to me that I am hearing in political ads and debates, but for the most part these are educated people making these statements so it is not like a bunch of people who have lived in a cave suddenly coming out and saying what the heck? The statements in particular on healthcare and immigration are two that I am struggling to understand. I learned quite a few things by asking about immigration here, as I don't live in an area where it is a problem so have little background or personal experience.
By the way, after being so annoyed I decided to do something about it. I have tried to read everything about the republican candidates, all the information and books I could find about the tea party and I have come to the conclusion that I am going to volunteer for my local democrat congressman elect. He was defeated by a tea party candidate to everyone's surprise last election who from what I can see has done nothing but be antagonistic to the constituency.
So I am trying to have an open mind, and realize that on an anonymous internet forum some people are going to be argumentative and antagonistic and the choice is to ignore or try to understand. The biggest problem I still have though is what will fix our current health care system. If the ACA does not then what will.
You don't have to answer me, but I still will ask questions because it is really important to attempt to understand whether or not I agree with what is being said. I will say though, that the decisions that are being made right now will have a gigantic impact on all of our futures and our ability to retire, be financially solvent and make a good life for our children. You can do the right thing, work your whole life, live below your means and have no debt and save for retirement but if you are laid off right now in your 50's and can't find a job with benefits which happens all the time, you could be really out of luck with our current healthcare system.
thank you for the link. That cost increase includes not only up to age 26 children, but also preventative care at no cost and I believe elimination of the lifetime cap on medical costs. So that is a little different than it being all due to more young adults being on their parents policy. I liked the last line of the article you referred to:
"Bottom line: The health insurance companies want one more big squeeze of the turnip before the ACA limits their ability to take more than they give."
incidentally I spent the other night at the emergency room with a neighbor after an accident at home. I asked if I could see the bill when it came and they agreed. I am interested to see how much they were charged for the treatment they got.
"You don't have to answer me, but I still will ask questions because it is really important to attempt to understand whether or not I agree with what is being said. I will say though, that the decisions that are being made right now will have a gigantic impact on all of our futures and our ability to retire, be financially solvent and make a good life for our children. You can do the right thing, work your whole life, live below your means and have no debt and save for retirement but if you are laid off right now in your 50's and can't find a job with benefits which happens all the time, you could be really out of luck with"
Yep, that's me. although I wasn't laid off, I quit about 1/2 year before my very small business employer retired and I would have been out of a job. I quit so I could be closer to my elderly mom and help with her care. Different state, so couldn't take my insurance. Now I have a 5k deductible with 5 riders.
I am soooo sick of the republicans acting like I am somehow less of a person. Not really worthy of decent affordable health care. I worked almost 40 years, I have paid taxes, I lived below my means, have no debt and basically no health insurance. In almost all other civialized countries I would have health care. But not in the good old USA. Go Oama! Go Obama care!!
Are you serious? How do people without jobs get healthcare now? THEY DONT. Do you really think that people just dont have insurance and dont care and are stuffing ho ho's into their mouths with glee at having cheated the system? What an arrogant response. We will all get sick if we live long enough. That is just life. And back to the question, how will people without jobs pay for insurance?
You know, I'm not really sure which side of the argument you fall on? You are against Health care reform, right? And yet, you give all the reasons why we need it.
Your responses and questions are somewhat confusing but, OK, well I'll try again.
People without insurance DO get health care, but it's the very expensive, waited-too-late kind you get in the emergency room, then ICU simply because hospitals can not, by law, turn you away if you show up in their emergency room. Who pays for it? We do, in higher insurance rates, higher medical costs, and higher taxes when the government steps in to help. We pay, right now, today. Nothing to do with Obama's reform. Everything to do with a compassionate country who refuses to see someone with a heart attack turned back at the door. People who don't have jobs today may not have jobs tomorrow, but with health care reform, they will be able to get basic care and hopefully preventative care which costs way less than the final trip through the emergency room/ICU.
Of course, we are hoping those people will become employed, eventually, and then will have health care coverage. Unfortunately, there are many (republicans apparently) who think health care coverage should be optional, and many opt out. These are people who do have jobs and can afford at least something. Of course, these same folks expect to be treated when they or a loved one shows up in the emergency room. So who pays for that? Again, we do. They don't ask you if you have a job or if you could have afforded health care when they treat you. They also don't ask for party affiliation (health care reform is for everyone)
All they ask is, do you have insurance, and if you don't, they assign you someone to help you jump through whatever hoops you need to jump through to get the money. Usually my money. Mine, and so many millions of your closest neighbors thanks to the governments insistence that the hospital doesn't , in fact, dump you on the curb.
Somebody has to pay for the care you receive. Hospitals are not free, and just because they have to treat you doesn't make it free either. Maybe it's free to you, but the rest of us who are responsible enough to have insurance, pay for it in increased insurance cost, increased health care costs, and increased taxes...it's a cycle.
So, Health care reform says, anyone who can pay will pay, at least something. Keeping in mind that some will not be able to get a job, no matter what, they still need help when they get sick and yes, as you said, everyone will need health care eventually. some more than others.
If everyone who can pay, pays, then the costs are spread out among a larger pool so even though we may pay the same rate, I may never use my coverage where as you may be (god forbid) stricken with cancer or some other very expensive illness and you will be covered. Further more, health care reform states that when you are stricken with cancer, the insurance company, who was quite happy to take both our payments when we were healthy, can't then kick you off your coverage for obscure little reasons like you didn't tell them you had acne as a kid. (it's happened)
This is why I made the analogy to car insurance. You are required to carry car insurance not for you, but for the other guy you broadsided when you ran the red light. Health insurance is as much for you (remember, you get treated whether you are covered or not) as for the rest of society you 'broadsided' with your very expensive health issue.
OK french fries and ho ho's wasn't the best example. Plenty of people get very expensive (isn't all of it expensive) health issues through no fault of their own.
Yes, there are people who will not get coverage even though they can afford something. Young, healthy people come to mind. And the beauty of keeping young adults on the family coverage until 26 realizes there is usually a job gap between college and the work force. This gets them covered, which isn't free despite some assumptions, and helps them get settled into a job with benefits. But when they do get into that job, they need to get covered. Even though insurance companies are soul sucking entities, and yes the costs are ridiculous, it's the only system we have, except of course not getting covered and expecting the rest of us to foot the bill when things go wrong. Of course we, many of us, wanted to change the system with a single payer plan, but that didn't happen.
I hope this helps explain my position. It seems like some on the right either thinks only republicans will be required to carry coverage, or democrats LIKE paying insurance. Nothing could be further from the truth. We just refuse to live in Ron Paul country where you just "let 'em die'!
I agree with what Ed Morrisey had to say about the Health Insurance Mandate/Auto Insurance analogy:
"This is such a bad argument that it staggers the imagination why the administration would still be making it. Drivers carry required insurance to cover damage done to others, not themselves, for one thing. It’s not applicable at all. Furthermore, states impose the insurance requirement, not the federal government, because states license drivers and vehicles. Driving is, after all, a voluntary activity conducted on public property (roads); there is no requirement for licensing or insurance for those who drive only on their private property. People who don’t drive on public roads aren’t required to buy a license or the insurance.
There are other problems with this analogy as well. Those who do have auto insurance only file claims when significant damage occurs. Auto insurance doesn’t pay for routine maintenance, like oil changes, lube jobs, and tire rotation. That’s why auto insurance is relatively affordable.
Also, auto insurance is priced to risk. If a driver lives in a high-crime area, then the premiums will rise to cover the risks associated with theft. If they drive badly (get moving violations and accidents), premiums will go up, or in some cases, the insurer will drop the driver. Policies are priced for risk according to age as well; the youngest and oldest drivers pay more due to their propensity for causing losses. Those who drive well and present a lower risk get rewarded with lower premiums. Right now, the federal government is preventing insurers in some instances from risk-pricing health insurance to impose government-approved fairness. That means we all pay more, removing the incentive to lower risk."
http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/showthread.php?t=71045
poetry_writer
10-3-11, 7:39pm
You know, I'm not really sure which side of the argument you fall on? You are against Health care reform, right? And yet, you give all the reasons why we need it.
Your responses and questions are somewhat confusing but, OK, well I'll try again.
People without insurance DO get health care, but it's the very expensive, waited-too-late kind you get in the emergency room, then ICU simply because hospitals can not, by law, turn you away if you show up in their emergency room. Who pays for it? We do, in higher insurance rates, higher medical costs, and higher taxes when the government steps in to help. We pay, right now, today. Nothing to do with Obama's reform. Everything to do with a compassionate country who refuses to see someone with a heart attack turned back at the door. People who don't have jobs today may not have jobs tomorrow, but with health care reform, they will be able to get basic care and hopefully preventative care which costs way less than the final trip through the emergency room/ICU.
Of course, we are hoping those people will become employed, eventually, and then will have health care coverage. Unfortunately, there are many (republicans apparently) who think health care coverage should be optional, and many opt out. These are people who do have jobs and can afford at least something. Of course, these same folks expect to be treated when they or a loved one shows up in the emergency room. So who pays for that? Again, we do. They don't ask you if you have a job or if you could have afforded health care when they treat you. They also don't ask for party affiliation (health care reform is for everyone)
All they ask is, do you have insurance, and if you don't, they assign you someone to help you jump through whatever hoops you need to jump through to get the money. Usually my money. Mine, and so many millions of your closest neighbors thanks to the governments insistence that the hospital doesn't , in fact, dump you on the curb.
Somebody has to pay for the care you receive. Hospitals are not free, and just because they have to treat you doesn't make it free either. Maybe it's free to you, but the rest of us who are responsible enough to have insurance, pay for it in increased insurance cost, increased health care costs, and increased taxes...it's a cycle.
So, Health care reform says, anyone who can pay will pay, at least something. Keeping in mind that some will not be able to get a job, no matter what, they still need help when they get sick and yes, as you said, everyone will need health care eventually. some more than others.
If everyone who can pay, pays, then the costs are spread out among a larger pool so even though we may pay the same rate, I may never use my coverage where as you may be (god forbid) stricken with cancer or some other very expensive illness and you will be covered. Further more, health care reform states that when you are stricken with cancer, the insurance company, who was quite happy to take both our payments when we were healthy, can't then kick you off your coverage for obscure little reasons like you didn't tell them you had acne as a kid. (it's happened)
This is why I made the analogy to car insurance. You are required to carry car insurance not for you, but for the other guy you broadsided when you ran the red light. Health insurance is as much for you (remember, you get treated whether you are covered or not) as for the rest of society you 'broadsided' with your very expensive health issue.
OK french fries and ho ho's wasn't the best example. Plenty of people get very expensive (isn't all of it expensive) health issues through no fault of their own.
Yes, there are people who will not get coverage even though they can afford something. Young, healthy people come to mind. And the beauty of keeping young adults on the family coverage until 26 realizes there is usually a job gap between college and the work force. This gets them covered, which isn't free despite some assumptions, and helps them get settled into a job with benefits. But when they do get into that job, they need to get covered. Even though insurance companies are soul sucking entities, and yes the costs are ridiculous, it's the only system we have, except of course not getting covered and expecting the rest of us to foot the bill when things go wrong. Of course we, many of us, wanted to change the system with a single payer plan, but that didn't happen.
I hope this helps explain my position. It seems like some on the right either thinks only republicans will be required to carry coverage, or democrats LIKE paying insurance. Nothing could be further from the truth. We just refuse to live in Ron Paul country where you just "let 'em die'!
You said, and I am quoting "Maybe it's free to you, but the rest of us who are responsible enough to have insurance, pay for it in increased insurance cost, increased health care costs, and increased taxes...it's a cycle." Obviously you think anyone or most people who dont have insurance are irresponsible. At least that is what you said. Maybe you'd care to rephrase or are you really that arrogant? You just dont seem to get that your college educated kid is not going to have a lot of job opportunities. And those without jobs will have a hard time paying. Which side am I on? Neither. Its a broken system beyond repair in my 2 cents worth. It will have to crash and totally burn before anything changes. Sadly I dont think we are too far away. If you think someone gets good care showing up at the ER for basic health care, try doing it. Jobs are fading away rapidly. without a job, you will not be able to pay for a plan. That is so simple but it seems to escape many. Mostly those who still have jobs and are insured.
Mangano's Gold
10-3-11, 10:18pm
Isn't opposition to the Individual Mandate just opposition to Universal Care? I mean, if Universal Care was financed through taxes wouldn't it still be opposed by the exact same people?
Our current system is designed for a 1950's world where there was job security and plenty of well-paying jobs. Today, there is some of the latter and almost none of the former. We should adapt.
Mangano's Gold
10-3-11, 10:29pm
Only one problem with your plan. That job with benefits may never happen for your daughter (I hope it does). Millions are unemployed and that is going to get worse.
How are people without jobs going to pay for a plan?
Poetry, in the case of people with very low incomes, Medicaid would be open to them. From there, it is a sliding scale.
I agree with what Ed Morrisey had to say about the Health Insurance Mandate/Auto Insurance analogy:
"This is such a bad argument that it staggers the imagination why the administration would still be making it. Drivers carry required insurance to cover damage done to others, not themselves, for one thing. It’s not applicable at all. Furthermore, states impose the insurance requirement, not the federal government, because states license drivers and vehicles. Driving is, after all, a voluntary activity conducted on public property (roads); there is no requirement for licensing or insurance for those who drive only on their private property. People who don’t drive on public roads aren’t required to buy a license or the insurance.
There are other problems with this analogy as well. Those who do have auto insurance only file claims when significant damage occurs. Auto insurance doesn’t pay for routine maintenance, like oil changes, lube jobs, and tire rotation. That’s why auto insurance is relatively affordable.
Also, auto insurance is priced to risk. If a driver lives in a high-crime area, then the premiums will rise to cover the risks associated with theft. If they drive badly (get moving violations and accidents), premiums will go up, or in some cases, the insurer will drop the driver. Policies are priced for risk according to age as well; the youngest and oldest drivers pay more due to their propensity for causing losses. Those who drive well and present a lower risk get rewarded with lower premiums. Right now, the federal government is preventing insurers in some instances from risk-pricing health insurance to impose government-approved fairness. That means we all pay more, removing the incentive to lower risk."
http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/showthread.php?t=71045
Well, first of all, the auto insurance and health care insurance analogy is PERFECTLY REASONABLE. Let's break it down. As i stated earlier, you will get treated if you wind up in the emergency room from, say, and auto accident, whether you are covered or not. You will not be turned, bleeding and broken, away from the emergency room. But every bit of that costs. It's not free once you hit those doors. Your insurance helps to keep society,( the guy you hit with your car), from paying for your medical treatment. Therefore, you are carrying health insurance to protect us, We the people, from footing your bill. That's exactly like auto insurance. And state government is government. Just like federal government is government. Just because they call it state doesn't make it not government. Making it a federal government issue is just there to protect you. It's a standard you know. So if you are traveling to another state and have your accident, everyone knows you, and the guy you broadsided, are protected.
Yes, driving is a voluntary activity, but living isn't. We are all alive, apparently, and will all need health care eventually. Some more than others. Every. One. And the bit about only those who drive on public roads, yada yada yada..is about the dumbest argument yet. I guess we can all PLAN on not growing old, or ever having any illness, ever ever ever, but life just doesn't work that way. And yea, while you're having that heart attack at 60 just see if your kids or wife doesn't call an ambulance to take you to the hospital cause, you know, we take care of our own problems....yea, right.
Health insurance also takes into account risk. Do you smoke? You pay a high premium. Are you older? You pay a higher premium. do you have a preexisting condition? Sorry, no insurance company will even consider writing you a policy. In that case We The people will gladly pick up the tab. Ron Paul ISN'T the President after all!
So this ridiculous opinion piece trying to distance the correlation between the requirement for auto insurance and the soon to be requirement for health care insurance is the only really bad argument i see that staggers the mind. Sorry, nice try, but doesn't really stand up to critical thinking.
poetry_writer
10-3-11, 10:47pm
Poetry, in the case of people with very low incomes, Medicaid would be open to them. From there, it is a sliding scale.
Then why doesnt every low income unemployed person get on Medicaid. Or go to these sliding scale docs? Because it does not work like that. If it did, people wouldnt be without healthcare. There is a lot of misinformation out there.
You said, and I am quoting "Maybe it's free to you, but the rest of us who are responsible enough to have insurance, pay for it in increased insurance cost, increased health care costs, and increased taxes...it's a cycle." Obviously you think anyone or most people who don't have insurance are irresponsible. At least that is what you said. Maybe you'd care to rephrase or are you really that arrogant? You just dont seem to get that your college educated kid is not going to have a lot of job opportunities. And those without jobs will have a hard time paying. Which side am I on? Neither. Its a broken system beyond repair in my 2 cents worth. It will have to crash and totally burn before anything changes. Sadly I dont think we are too far away. If you think someone gets good care showing up at the ER for basic health care, try doing it. Jobs are fading away rapidly. without a job, you will not be able to pay for a plan. That is so simple but it seems to escape many. Mostly those who still have jobs and are insured.
Chill out! What are you arguing about? Health care reform will BENIFIT those who can't find work, or who can find only low paying jobs. I wonder if you actually bothered to find out what was in the reform. Or read my reply. You seem to be arguing against yourself.
I never said those who couldn't afford insurance were bums. I said, thank goodness for HEALTH CARE REFORM, those people will now get at least basic health care, and NOT just through the emergency room. The ones who are slackers are the ones who can afford health care insurance but refuse to get it knowing someone else will pick up the tab when their time comes. You are out of work, I know. Please take the time to find out what exactly is in the reform bill and don't just rely on republican talking points and fox news. This bill is tailor made for folks like you and your kids. All the bill says is, if you can afford to pay, something, anything, you will pay, so people who CAN'T afford will still get good basic health care. No one is going to make you sell your grandmother to pay for a plan.
***when i say you, I mean the collective you, not you personally***
Yes, the system we have is broken, but this health care reform act is the first step to fixing it. Don't be so eager to throw out the baby with the bath water. And certainly don't believe every republican talking point you hear. Just keep reminding yourself what the GOP leader said. "Job 1 is getting Obama out of office." These people are NOT working in your best interest.
Please, read the act and do the research necessary to know what is really in the bill. It is your job, and in your self interest, either way, to find out what is truthfully in the health care reform act.
Mangano's Gold
10-3-11, 11:41pm
Then why doesnt every low income unemployed person get on Medicaid. Or go to these sliding scale docs? Because it does not work like that. If it did, people wouldnt be without healthcare. There is a lot of misinformation out there.
Poetry, the main elements of Obamacare don't kick in until 2014. It is all about 2014. That is critical to understand. If the Act doesn't get repealed, Medicaid eligibility will be significantly expanded (to include single people) and premiums in the Individual Market will be on a sliding scale. You can use the subsidy calculator to see where you would fall.
http://healthreform.kff.org/Subsidycalculator.aspx
poetry_writer
10-3-11, 11:44pm
Chill out! What are you arguing about? Health care reform will BENIFIT those who can't find work, or who can find only low paying jobs. I wonder if you actually bothered to find out what was in the reform. Or read my reply. You seem to be arguing against yourself.
I never said those who couldn't afford insurance were bums. I said, thank goodness for HEALTH CARE REFORM, those people will now get at least basic health care, and NOT just through the emergency room. The ones who are slackers are the ones who can afford health care insurance but refuse to get it knowing someone else will pick up the tab when their time comes. You are out of work, I know. Please take the time to find out what exactly is in the reform bill and don't just rely on republican talking points and fox news. This bill is tailor made for folks like you and your kids. All the bill says is, if you can afford to pay, something, anything, you will pay, so people who CAN'T afford will still get good basic health care. No one is going to make you sell your grandmother to pay for a plan.
***when i say you, I mean the collective you, not you personally***
Yes, the system we have is broken, but this health care reform act is the first step to fixing it. Don't be so eager to throw out the baby with the bath water. And certainly don't believe every republican talking point you hear. Just keep reminding yourself what the GOP leader said. "Job 1 is getting Obama out of office." These people are NOT working in your best interest.
Please, read the act and do the research necessary to know what is really in the bill. It is your job, and in your self interest, either way, to find out what is truthfully in the health care reform act.
"dont believe every republican you hear". sorry, your bias is showing.
loosechickens
10-4-11, 4:56am
but poetry_writer, it's mostly the Republicans who are spreading all this misinformation about the health reform bill. And in many cases, honestly, I think it's just because if President Obama and/or the Democrats were for it, then they'll be against it, even if it was something they liked themselves before Obama did it. (Such as the Romney plan in Massachusetts which was the inspiration for much that is in the Obama plan).
When the full effects of the bill take place in 2014, the eligibility for Medicaid will be greatly expanded, so as a jobless person, you might well be eligible for fully paid by government health insurance. All people will be required to carry insurance, either Medicaid or Medicare if they are eligible for those, employer sponsored health care or an individual policy. If you are a person with too much money to be eligible for Medicaid, but not able to afford a private policy, the government will subsidize your premium payments depending on your income.
The point that Peggy is making is that this new reform is DESIGNED for people like yourself, so to see you somehow railing against it as though it's some liberal plot to cost you money is hard to read. Honestly, educate yourself as to what is really IN the bill, because there is a lot there that will be very helpful to you. Far more helpful than the system as it it. This new bill is not perfect, because it builds on an already terrible system, but it does do a lot to ensure that everyone will have basic access to health care, and removes many of the most egregious excesses of the insurance industry, such as dropping you as soon as you get sick, making it where your access to insurance is not dependent on being employed, helps people with pre-existing conditions be able to get an affordable policy, etc.
flowerseverywhere
10-4-11, 8:10am
If the supreme court does decide the act is unconstitutional, then I hope they change the emergency room mandate. Now they have to treat everyone who shows up. They could have a guard at the door to check insurance cards or make sure you have a wad of cash, and if you don't then you can't come in. They could also ride with ambulance crews so when they go to get someone with chest pain or an old person who fell on the ice and probably has a broken hip they can verify they can pay. If not then Oh well, too bad so sad. You should have known better. Also, they have to make it so you can't sue the hospital or EMT's for not treating you. No more free ride. That would be interesting, wouldn't it?
actually I am kidding. without more affordable care the ER situation is only going to get worse. More people will ignore early cancer signs, fewer people will get routine blood pressure/cancer screenings/ekg's etc.
What a horrible state of affairs we are in for the richest country in the world.
Well, first of all, the auto insurance and health care insurance analogy is PERFECTLY REASONABLE. Let's break it down. As i stated earlier, you will get treated if you wind up in the emergency room from, say, and auto accident, whether you are covered or not. You will not be turned, bleeding and broken, away from the emergency room. But every bit of that costs. It's not free once you hit those doors. Your insurance helps to keep society,( the guy you hit with your car), from paying for your medical treatment. Therefore, you are carrying health insurance to protect us, We the people, from footing your bill. That's exactly like auto insurance. And state government is government. Just like federal government is government. Just because they call it state doesn't make it not government. Making it a federal government issue is just there to protect you. It's a standard you know. So if you are traveling to another state and have your accident, everyone knows you, and the guy you broadsided, are protected.
Yes, driving is a voluntary activity, but living isn't. We are all alive, apparently, and will all need health care eventually. Some more than others. Every. One. And the bit about only those who drive on public roads, yada yada yada..is about the dumbest argument yet. I guess we can all PLAN on not growing old, or ever having any illness, ever ever ever, but life just doesn't work that way. And yea, while you're having that heart attack at 60 just see if your kids or wife doesn't call an ambulance to take you to the hospital cause, you know, we take care of our own problems....yea, right.
Health insurance also takes into account risk. Do you smoke? You pay a high premium. Are you older? You pay a higher premium. do you have a preexisting condition? Sorry, no insurance company will even consider writing you a policy. In that case We The people will gladly pick up the tab. Ron Paul ISN'T the President after all!
So this ridiculous opinion piece trying to distance the correlation between the requirement for auto insurance and the soon to be requirement for health care insurance is the only really bad argument i see that staggers the mind. Sorry, nice try, but doesn't really stand up to critical thinking.
So you don’t see the difference between States requiring insurance to drive on public roads and the President’s health insurance mandate? Between a voluntary activity and what is essentially a tax on living? Between risk-priced insurance and a one-size-fits all entitlement established by government fiat? I hope the Supreme Court will be more perspicacious.
Aqua Blue
10-4-11, 11:13am
The other thing that is going to happen in more rural areas, is the hospitals will simply close. Then even the people with insurance aren't going to get care.
If the supreme court does decide the act is unconstitutional, then I hope they change the emergency room mandate. Now they have to treat everyone who shows up. They could have a guard at the door to check insurance cards or make sure you have a wad of cash, and if you don't then you can't come in. They could also ride with ambulance crews so when they go to get someone with chest pain or an old person who fell on the ice and probably has a broken hip they can verify they can pay. If not then Oh well, too bad so sad. You should have known better. Also, they have to make it so you can't sue the hospital or EMT's for not treating you. No more free ride. That would be interesting, wouldn't it?
actually I am kidding. without more affordable care the ER situation is only going to get worse. More people will ignore early cancer signs, fewer people will get routine blood pressure/cancer screenings/ekg's etc.
What a horrible state of affairs we are in for the richest country in the world.
I'm listening to a show about current chronic shortages of generic drugs (drugs they are using to save lives). Mostly just because the profit motive is not there. Which is leaving hospitals to buy much more expensive drugs or the generics at a much higher price on the gray market.
Another by-product of a for-profit healthcare system.
So you don’t see the difference between States requiring insurance to drive on public roads and the President’s health insurance mandate? Between a voluntary activity and what is essentially a tax on living? Between risk-priced insurance and a one-size-fits all entitlement established by government fiat? I hope the Supreme Court will be more perspicacious.
No there isn't a difference between the state mandate for insurance to 'risk' driving and a federal mandate for insurance for the 'risk' of living. Not everyone will crash their car, but EVERYONE will need health care at some point in their lives. Everyone. Them and their wife/husband/children/aunts/uncles/ on and on and on.
A tax on living? Nice try..it's an expectation that everyone...EVERYONE will need this service at some point, and everyone who can pay, should, because, you know, they will need it. You must be a 20 or 30 something. Strong as an ox, totally invincible, yada yada yada.
Health insurance is risk priced, and there isn't a one size fits all entitlement from the government.
Why don't you rail against the requirement to carry auto insurance? Are you a safe driver? Do you expect to get into an accident? Maybe you don't, but if you do, I'm betting you'll be glad the government required the other guy to carry insurance. Well, if/when you get into that accident, society, we the people, the government, will sure be glad we required you to carry health insurance. For the exact same reason.
The complete irony of you and poetry writer both arguing kind of for the same position is unbelievable. Do you think she knows it's you who doesn't want her to get basic health care? Do you think she realizes it's you and your republican friends who want to deny her the dignity of even basic health care?
The complete irony of you and poetry writer both arguing kind of for the same position is unbelievable. Do you think she knows it's you who doesn't want her to get basic health care? Do you think she realizes it's you and your republican friends who want to deny her the dignity of even basic health care?
You know, I can put up with most of the goofiness espoused here as examples of very simplistic and emotional thinking, but some of this crap goes well beyond simple-mindedness into the territory of mean spirited lies and character assassination.
You can do better Peggy, and I wish you'd try.
So you don’t see the difference between States requiring insurance to drive on public roads and the President’s health insurance mandate? Between a voluntary activity and what is essentially a tax on living? Between risk-priced insurance and a one-size-fits all entitlement established by government fiat? I hope the Supreme Court will be more perspicacious.
See you just gave it up..."tax on living."
We need health care to LIVE.
The bottom line is this: Our system of health care was broken. How do we know it was broken? Thousands of folks dying and suffering for lack of access to secure, steady health care. Thousand of folks dying and suffering because of the private health care insurance industry's abuses.
The Obama Administration stepped in to fix it using REPUBLICAN ideas. He was actually more in favor of a single payor system (Medicare for all), but thought that the REPUBLICANS wouldn't pass that, so he decided to push and support a plan that had been espoused by REPUBLICANS. If a REPUBLICAN had been president, the plan would have passed with little fuss and bother since it preserves the private insurance industry. And maybe people would grumble about having to buy health insurance (especially progressives who hate the idea of profit in the health care system and hate health care insurance companies generally, but ultimately it would be deemed a civic duty to have health insurance, not a "government takeover" blah blah blah. Like you have a civic duty to keep your house presentable, feed, clothe and educate your children, pay your taxes, drive on the correct side of the road.
If YOU are fortunate enough to already have health insurance, good for you. YOU can keep it. I don't understand how that abridges your freedom in any way. So a lot of the folks fulminating about the erosion of freedom are full of it. They'll just continue in the same way they did. The folks who don't have health insurance and are upset because now they have to buy it, well, tough crap. You are the folks who drain our systems with unpaid emergency bills. Those of us with health insurance pay more because of you folks because hospitals charge us more due to those absorbed costs.
As much as you may want to extol American exceptionalism, we can learn from the way other countries operate systems. And no other country of our wealth has such a shoddy health care system.
I have had insurance brokers try to sell me coverage that costs slightly less, but covers far, far less. It's not like going to the store and comparing which apple is fresher than the other. It's complicated and if the government can force insurance companies to delineate coverage more clearly, and help us shop for it more effectively, what in the hell is wrong with that? IT HELPS PEOPLE. Government really can help people you know. It's not just about preserving property rights.
poetry_writer
10-4-11, 12:36pm
but poetry_writer, it's mostly the Republicans who are spreading all this misinformation about the health reform bill. And in many cases, honestly, I think it's just because if President Obama and/or the Democrats were for it, then they'll be against it, even if it was something they liked themselves before Obama did it. (Such as the Romney plan in Massachusetts which was the inspiration for much that is in the Obama plan).
When the full effects of the bill take place in 2014, the eligibility for Medicaid will be greatly expanded, so as a jobless person, you might well be eligible for fully paid by government health insurance. All people will be required to carry insurance, either Medicaid or Medicare if they are eligible for those, employer sponsored health care or an individual policy. If you are a person with too much money to be eligible for Medicaid, but not able to afford a private policy, the government will subsidize your premium payments depending on your income.
The point that Peggy is making is that this new reform is DESIGNED for people like yourself, so to see you somehow railing against it as though it's some liberal plot to cost you money is hard to read. Honestly, educate yourself as to what is really IN the bill, because there is a lot there that will be very helpful to you. Far more helpful than the system as it it. This new bill is not perfect, because it builds on an already terrible system, but it does do a lot to ensure that everyone will have basic access to health care, and removes many of the most egregious excesses of the insurance industry, such as dropping you as soon as you get sick, making it where your access to insurance is not dependent on being employed, helps people with pre-existing conditions be able to get an affordable policy, etc.
I am as educated as you on what it says, which might not be saying much. How is building on an ALREADY terrible system going to benefit us in the long run? that is absurd. No one wants to address the issue of how people with no jobs will pay for their insurance under this plan. Because the answer is obvious I suppose. Republican...Democrat...frankly I think the average uninsured (and unemployed) American doesnt give a damn which one of the two could help and doesnt believe either one of the two can help. Its a system set up to fail. I know there are no good answers at this point. Dont think many can respond on this forum without falling into the "you think this is a liberal plot..you want obama out..." chant. Which, of course, i did not say.
poetry_writer
10-4-11, 12:40pm
No there isn't a difference between the state mandate for insurance to 'risk' driving and a federal mandate for insurance for the 'risk' of living. Not everyone will crash their car, but EVERYONE will need health care at some point in their lives. Everyone. Them and their wife/husband/children/aunts/uncles/ on and on and on.
A tax on living? Nice try..it's an expectation that everyone...EVERYONE will need this service at some point, and everyone who can pay, should, because, you know, they will need it. You must be a 20 or 30 something. Strong as an ox, totally invincible, yada yada yada.
Health insurance is risk priced, and there isn't a one size fits all entitlement from the government.
Why don't you rail against the requirement to carry auto insurance? Are you a safe driver? Do you expect to get into an accident? Maybe you don't, but if you do, I'm betting you'll be glad the government required the other guy to carry insurance. Well, if/when you get into that accident, society, we the people, the government, will sure be glad we required you to carry health insurance. For the exact same reason.
The complete irony of you and poetry writer both arguing kind of for the same position is unbelievable. Do you think she knows it's you who doesn't want her to get basic health care? Do you think she realizes it's you and your republican friends who want to deny her the dignity of even basic health care?
Thats too silly to respond to. Comparing it to car insurance is beyond ridiculous. I dont even try to argue that point. Are you insured? Do you have a job? Have you ever been without either? Its easy to toss out simplistic answers until you are in that position.
I am as educated as you on what it says, which might not be saying much. How is building on an ALREADY terrible system going to benefit us in the long run? that is absurd. No one wants to address the issue of how people with no jobs will pay for their insurance under this plan. Because the answer is obvious I suppose. Republican...Democrat...frankly I think the average uninsured (and unemployed) American doesnt give a damn which one of the two could help and doesnt believe either one of the two can help. Its a system set up to fail. I know there are no good answers at this point. Dont think many can respond on this forum without falling into the "you think this is a liberal plot..you want obama out..." chant. Which, of course, i did not say.
If it's anything like the system already in place in MA, the government picks up the cost while you are unemployed. Not sure if you can stay with the same insurance, but if you're unemployed you qualify for MassHealth.
You know, I can put up with most of the goofiness espoused here as examples of very simplistic and emotional thinking, but some of this crap goes well beyond simple-mindedness into the territory of mean spirited lies and character assassination.
You can do better Peggy, and I wish you'd try.
Please have no worries on my behalf, Alan. Free speech is all about revealing the quality of various modes of thinking.
Mangano's Gold
10-4-11, 3:05pm
No one wants to address the issue of how people with no jobs will pay for their insurance under this plan. Because the answer is obvious I suppose.
This is my last stab at this. If your income falls below a certain threshold (~$15K per year for a single person), you will qualify for Medicaid. So you will be covered with no premiums. The idea here is that a person with such an income can't afford premiums, so they now fall under the Medicaid umbrella. This change begins in 2014.
If your income is above the threshold, and you do not have access to an employer plan, then your premiums are effectively on a sliding scale. Those premiums start very low (a few hundred bucks a year for just above the Medicaid income threshold) and rise to full market cost as one's income rises. See the calculator I linked to earlier for specifics on your own income.
2014 2014 2014 2014.
I have no idea what is so hard to understand about this.
loosechickens
10-4-11, 3:49pm
poetry_writer, if you can't or won't understand what Mangano's Gold is trying to tell you, then nothing I can say will convince you.
President Obama HAD to build on our unwieldy, for profit health care system, because it would have been impossible for him to get a truly universal care, single payer system passed. He had to do the best he could with what he had to work with, and the entrenched, profit hungry corporations that provide much of our health insurance in this country were just too powerful to do anything else.
That said, as Mangano's Gold so clearly pointed out, people like yourself, unemployed and with little to no income will be covered under Medicaid and the government would pay for your care. If you have an income that is too high for the expanded Medicaid program, but it is too low to allow you to afford a private policy and you are unemployed or your employment does not provide health insurance, you pay for health insurance on a sliding scale, depending on your income, an amount you CAN afford, with the government picking up the difference on the premium.
What WILL happen with this is that virtually no one will be without insurance, at least basic insurance, over time, our costs should actually go down because so many of the uninsured people who presently present for care at emergency rooms when their chronic illnesses have gone out of control because of not having regular medical care, will have been getting care all along, to manage their conditions. i.e., it costs a LOT less for a diabetic to have regular health care, monitoring of blood sugar issues, proper medication, etc., than it does when that same diabetic, with their blood sugar out of control, unmedicated because of lack of access to health care, presents at the emergency room with a gangrenous foot from that diabetes, which will require surgery, amputation and ongoing care.
Let's put it this way. regardless of what you think, or have been told, if you are in the kind of condition you are in now when the full benefits of the Obama plan kick in in 2014, you will be in a lot better shape for access to health care and ability to have medical care when you need it, without having to show up at an emergency room in terrible condition in order to be treated. And will be able to afford the health insurance, because if you can't, the government will help you.
poetry_writer
10-4-11, 4:23pm
poetry_writer, if you can't or won't understand what Mangano's Gold is trying to tell you, then nothing I can say will convince you.
President Obama HAD to build on our unwieldy, for profit health care system, because it would have been impossible for him to get a truly universal care, single payer system passed. He had to do the best he could with what he had to work with, and the entrenched, profit hungry corporations that provide much of our health insurance in this country were just too powerful to do anything else.
That said, as Mangano's Gold so clearly pointed out, people like yourself, unemployed and with little to no income will be covered under Medicaid and the government would pay for your care. If you have an income that is too high for the expanded Medicaid program, but it is too low to allow you to afford a private policy and you are unemployed or your employment does not provide health insurance, you pay for health insurance on a sliding scale, depending on your income, an amount you CAN afford, with the government picking up the difference on the premium.
What WILL happen with this is that virtually no one will be without insurance, at least basic insurance, over time, our costs should actually go down because so many of the uninsured people who presently present for care at emergency rooms when their chronic illnesses have gone out of control because of not having regular medical care, will have been getting care all along, to manage their conditions. i.e., it costs a LOT less for a diabetic to have regular health care, monitoring of blood sugar issues, proper medication, etc., than it does when that same diabetic, with their blood sugar out of control, unmedicated because of lack of access to health care, presents at the emergency room with a gangrenous foot from that diabetes, which will require surgery, amputation and ongoing care.
Let's put it this way. regardless of what you think, or have been told, if you are in the kind of condition you are in now when the full benefits of the Obama plan kick in in 2014, you will be in a lot better shape for access to health care and ability to have medical care when you need it, without having to show up at an emergency room in terrible condition in order to be treated. And will be able to afford the health insurance, because if you can't, the government will help you.
You really dont know what I think or have been told nor do you know anything about my current situation. There is a lot of mininformation in your post, and a lot of issues not addressed. but as you are hostile and cackling like.....well, a chicken. i will leave it at that.
You know, I can put up with most of the goofiness espoused here as examples of very simplistic and emotional thinking, but some of this crap goes well beyond simple-mindedness into the territory of mean spirited lies and character assassination.
You can do better Peggy, and I wish you'd try.
Oh please...If I'm wrong and the republicans really want everyone to have basic health care, even out of work poetry writer, then please tell us all how they will do this? Don't keep us in suspense, give us their plan. Don't just try to change the subject with some phony outrage over the truth.
Sanctimonious umbrage is unbecoming of you, Alan. You can do better than this.
sometimes a cigar is just a cigar...and a brick is just a brick.
loosechickens
10-4-11, 4:58pm
"You really dont know what I think or have been told nor do you know anything about my current situation. There is a lot of mininformation in your post, and a lot of issues not addressed. but as you are hostile and cackling like.....well, a chicken. i will leave it at that." (poetry_writer)
----------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know about the "cackling", poetry_writer, but I'm certainly not hostile. You keep saying, "what will this do for people like me with no job and no money?" and several of us are TRYING to tell you just what the program WILL do for people in just your position. You seem to be against this health care reform bill, and seem to think that there is nothing in it that will help you, yet nothing is further from the truth.
Let me put it this way, if the bill goes through as planned and the full benefits take place in 2014 you WILL have health insurance, you will be able to afford it because if you can't afford it, the government will pay the premiums for you, and you WILL be in a lot better position as regards to access to care than you are today. End of story. It doesn't really matter if you THINK it isn't going to help you, what matters is that people like yourself without insurance and without money or a job will have access to care and will be insured. That's a good thing, whether you realize it or not.
Unless, of course, the Republicans manage to succeed in stopping it, as they are trying to do. Lots of luck throwing in your lot with them and thinking they are going to care if you have health care.
And if you consider that hostile, so be it. I consider it being that people like myself care whether others have access to care, even people who call us hostile and someone who is "cackling".
the best to you.........seriously.
poetry_writer
10-4-11, 6:58pm
Oh please...If I'm wrong and the republicans really want everyone to have basic health care, even out of work poetry writer, then please tell us all how they will do this? Don't keep us in suspense, give us their plan. Don't just try to change the subject with some phony outrage over the truth.
Sanctimonious umbrage is unbecoming of you, Alan. You can do better than this.
even "out of work poetry writer"?.....:o)......Temper temper
The left and the right continue to talk past each other. Why don't you aim your arguments at independents like me? I'm the only one capable of hearing.
After reading this thread two things are clear:
1. Liberals who support Obamacare believe that any of us who do not, need to be educated. Our stubborn refusal to be enlightened (agree with them) must mean we are thick-headed. Its oil and water, the two viewpoints can never come together.
2. Obamacare is going to be repealed in its full unconstitutional current form...so staunch supporters of it need to be looking in another direction for their healthcare.
flowerseverywhere
10-5-11, 8:59am
You know what strikes me? A group of diverse people from all over the country, all walks of life, all levels of economic status who aren't trying to be re-elected or have any financial gain from the process are so far apart on this issue some even resort to name calling. And everyone is convinced their view is the correct one. Stir in some money and Pacs, and you get our current political system. No wonder our lawmakers can't get anywhere.
You know what strikes me? A group of diverse people from all over the country, all walks of life, all levels of economic status who aren't trying to be re-elected or have any financial gain from the process are so far apart on this issue some even resort to name calling. And everyone is convinced their view is the correct one. Stir in some money and Pacs, and you get our current political system. No wonder our lawmakers can't get anywhere.
I'm sure they don't have problems like that in North Korea.
poetry_writer
10-5-11, 11:53am
After reading this thread two things are clear:
1. Liberals who support Obamacare believe that any of us who do not, need to be educated. Our stubborn refusal to be enlightened (agree with them) must mean we are thick-headed. Its oil and water, the two viewpoints can never come together.
2. Obamacare is going to be repealed in its full unconstitutional current form...so staunch supporters of it need to be looking in another direction for their healthcare.
I agree on both points.
You know what? I'm outta here.
I'm sure you will get the health care you deserve.
poetry_writer
10-5-11, 2:04pm
You know what? I'm outta here.
I'm sure you will get the health care you deserve.
Who are you refering to? I hope EVERYONE gets the healthcare they need. Your sarcastic barb is nothing more than rage that not everyone agrees with your point of view. You obviously care little for people who dont happen to agree with you.
Okay. Fine. You win. Obamacare is out.
So, how do you propose to fix it? Do you propose just to leave it as is?
I address this to the folks most vehemently opposed to "Obamacare."
Do you even accept the premise that our system is quite flawed in that it does not cover millions of people adequately, thus leading them to suffer and die prematurely?
Do you accept the premise that medical costs are too high and the cost of insurance premiums are growing more unaffordable by the day?
Do you accept the premise that private health insurers have been known to employ policies to maximize profit at the expense of the folks they insure?
Do you accept that there are other countries in the world that have addressed health care with better results than the United States?
Okay. Fine. You win. Obamacare is out.
So, how do you propose to fix it? Do you propose just to leave it as is?
I address this to the folks most vehemently opposed to "Obamacare."
Do you even accept the premise that our system is quite flawed in that it does not cover millions of people adequately, thus leading them to suffer and die prematurely?
Do you accept the premise that medical costs are too high and the cost of insurance premiums are growing more unaffordable by the day?
Do you accept the premise that private health insurers have been known to employ policies to maximize profit at the expense of the folks they insure?
Do you accept that there are other countries in the world that have addressed health care with better results than the United States?
I too would be interested in some replies. I felt I did everything "right". I worked from the time I was 16. I unfortunately picked the wrong body. How should I have done this differently?
I too would be interested in some replies. I felt I did everything "right". I worked from the time I was 16. I unfortunately picked the wrong body. How should I have done this differently?
Well, according to some of the answers I have received from folks to the right of me, stripped down to their essence, their overarching assumption being that our health care system, before Obamacare, worked just fine. (Now of course it's JUST AWFUL because of OBAMACARE!)
1. You should have taken better care of yourself.
2. You should have chosen a job that provided super duper health insurance coverage or worked hard enough to amass a small fortune in order to pay private insurance or direct out of pocket health care.
3. If you were lucky enough to amass a small fortune to cover the costs of your own care out of pocket, you should shop around for the best rates on procedures and doctor visits and hospitals. Free markets rule!
4. If you couldn't achieve the first two, you should just impovrish yourself in order to qualify for Medicaid.
5. If you qualify for Medicaid, you're a useless parasite.
6. If you're a useless parasite, (or even if you're not), why should I pay for your health care? The government is not a philanthropic institution. Go get a job. Go to the emergency room. Go ask your friends and neighbors to take up a collection. Go beg some charity or other to help you out.
That is about it in a nutshell. I have debated this issue ad nauseum with rightish libertarian leaning folks to the more establishment GOP folks to the more religiously inclined right leaning folks.. This is pretty much the response I've received, though the establishment GOP types tend to render their arguments in a more sympathetic fashion, and honestly, I do believe that the more religiously inclined folks would bake a cake for me if I had to have a bake sale to raise enough funds for a liver transplant.
Well, hey so long Peggy, where are ya off to? Cuba? Hugo Chavez evidently prefers their health care.
I don't have all the answers but start with tort reform...Doctors wouldn't have to run so many needless tests etc, etc. if they didn't have to do the cya thing constantly. Yeah, taking better care of yourself is a winner of an idea. I'm sorry people have bad luck, we have had our share and we do what needs to be done. Churches take care of people, charities take care of people. But oh yeah, Christian charity if probably considered prejudiced by many on this board. Medicaid is there for the most needy...Is it fine like it is? No, but the answer is not taking from the haves and giving to the have nots and the won't works...The answer is not one size fits all and forcing people to unconstitutionally buy a product they don't want. I think Peggy has the answer - don't like it here...leave...go somewhere the the weather suits your clothes....
Well, according to some of the answers I have received from folks to the right of me, stripped down to their essence, their overarching assumption being that our health care system, before Obamacare, worked just fine. (Now of course it's JUST AWFUL because of OBAMACARE!)
1. You should have taken better care of yourself.
2. You should have chosen a job that provided super duper health insurance coverage or worked hard enough to amass a small fortune in order to pay private insurance or direct out of pocket health care.
3. If you were lucky enough to amass a small fortune to cover the costs of your own care out of pocket, you should shop around for the best rates on procedures and doctor visits and hospitals. Free markets rule!
4. If you couldn't achieve the first two, you should just impovrish yourself in order to qualify for Medicaid.
5. If you qualify for Medicaid, you're a useless parasite.
6. If you're a useless parasite, (or even if you're not), why should I pay for your health care? The government is not a philanthropic institution. Go get a job. Go to the emergency room. Go ask your friends and neighbors to take up a collection. Go beg some charity or other to help you out.
That is about it in a nutshell. I have debated this issue ad nauseum with rightish libertarian leaning folks to the more establishment GOP folks to the more religiously inclined right leaning folks.. This is pretty much the response I've received, though the establishment GOP types tend to render their arguments in a more sympathetic fashion, and honestly, I do believe that the more religiously inclined folks would bake a cake for me if I had to have a bake sale to raise enough funds for a liver transplant.
Yep. that is pretty much my take too. That is why I am a Democrat switched from Republican. Totally unable to see a problem unless it is their problem.
loosechickens
10-5-11, 9:40pm
"I don't have all the answers but start with tort reform...Doctors wouldn't have to run so many needless tests etc, etc. if they didn't have to do the cya thing constantly. Yeah, taking better care of yourself is a winner of an idea. I'm sorry people have bad luck, we have had our share and we do what needs to be done. Churches take care of people, charities take care of people. But oh yeah, Christian charity if probably considered prejudiced by many on this board. Medicaid is there for the most needy...Is it fine like it is? No, but the answer is not taking from the haves and giving to the have nots and the won't works...The answer is not one size fits all and forcing people to unconstitutionally buy a product they don't want. I think Peggy has the answer - don't like it here...leave...go somewhere the the weather suits your clothes.... " (catwoman)
------------------------------------------------------------------
yep, I guess ole Peggy could just pretty much go to every other developed Western democracy in the world, because we're the only ones with the kind of mess we have, of dozens of millions of people with no coverage at all, and nearly three quarters of a million families in the U.S. going bankrupt from medical bills every year.
so nice when you're one of the "haves", isn't it? But, boy, you'd better find someplace other than Texas to live if life hands you some real reverses and you become a "have not", because you'll have some surprises coming.
Honestly, I think the ideal put forth by Christ (you know, that guy you're supposed to be following) was a lot closer to the "haves" making sure that the "have nots" had care than the dog eat dog world you seem to prefer. Fine when you're one of the dogs on the top of the pile, not so good when you are buried down somewhere near the bottom.
I'm not even a Christian, but have a far greater Christian attitude toward others than I have seen displayed by some here. I am truly amazed at the callousness sometimes. Thank God, other democratic nations have turned away from any desire to imitate us. The U.S. begins to stand alone, and not in such great company, on this and other issues. Very sad.
Are you still a mod chickens? I think that might need some examining....
but...just because I do not want to be forced to pay for something that will support people who sit on their a$$es and do nothing does not make me a bad person. You don't have any idea of my charitable giving and activity. The trouble with sanctimonious lefty libs is they think they always have the moral high ground and can pontificate from on high.
I have not always been a have...I scrimp and save and work hard and follow simple practices to stretch every dollar. I give where I decide to give and it does benefit ill people or less fortunate people many times. Sorry - your premises are not going to hold water in the hard light of day which is coming around in 13 months or so Thank God!!!!!!!!!!!!
Are you still a mod chickens? I think that might need some examining....
but...just because I do not want to be forced to pay for something that will support people who sit on their a$$es and do nothing does not make me a bad person. You don't have any idea of my charitable giving and activity. The trouble with sanctimonious lefty libs is they think they always have the moral high ground and can pontificate from on high.
I have not always been a have...I scrimp and save and work hard and follow simple practices to stretch every dollar. I give where I decide to give and it does benefit ill people or less fortunate people many times. Sorry - your premises are not going to hold water in the hard light of day which is coming around in 13 months or so Thank God!!!!!!!!!!!!
People who sit on their asses and do nothing?...like poetry writer?..yea, I'm with you on that...and lucky for your candidates, so is she, apparently!
As far as poor 'ol Peggy, don't worry. Poor 'ol Peggy actually enjoys the benefits of her husband serving 30 years in the US military, so she, ironically enough, is taken care of until she dies. You know, that horrible government run health care.
Absolutely no reason to want to see change in the US health care system except for that nagging little notion about being a part of something greater than yourself. That desire to have my friends and neighbors, and yea, even you all, enjoy the peace of mind I have with knowing I will have quality care till the end. I just can't get away from the UNITED in the United States. (Sorry, it must be that whole 'serving the country for 30 years' thing.)
The same peace of mind of quality government run health care each and every Republican congress person has. Every Republican congressperson. Every republican Senator. Every one. E V E R Y O N E. (has your republican congress person turned it down? Have you asked why not?)
So It would seem, ironically, like LC, I hold higher Christian values than, say, many Christians.
Funny, really, since I don't believe in god. Yet i seem to be trying to promote, and defend his teachings to...Christians.
So It would seem, ironically, like LC, I hold higher Christian values than, say, many Christians.
Funny, really, since I don't believe in god. Yet i seem to be trying to promote, and defend his teachings to...Christians.
You guys just confuse socialism with Christianity. That's ok, one of it's goals is to replace religion, so it's obviously working. Let's just not confuse what it really is.
iris lily
10-6-11, 12:28am
Well, according to some of the answers I have received from folks to the right of me, stripped down to their essence, their overarching assumption being that our health care system, before Obamacare, worked just fine. (Now of course it's JUST AWFUL because of OBAMACARE!)
1. You should have taken better care of yourself.
2. You should have chosen a job that provided super duper health insurance coverage or worked hard enough to amass a small fortune in order to pay private insurance or direct out of pocket health care.
3. If you were lucky enough to amass a small fortune to cover the costs of your own care out of pocket, you should shop around for the best rates on procedures and doctor visits and hospitals. Free markets rule!
4. If you couldn't achieve the first two, you should just impovrish yourself in order to qualify for Medicaid.
5. If you qualify for Medicaid, you're a useless parasite.
6. If you're a useless parasite, (or even if you're not), why should I pay for your health care? The government is not a philanthropic institution. Go get a job. Go to the emergency room. Go ask your friends and neighbors to take up a collection. Go beg some charity or other to help you out.
That is about it in a nutshell. I have debated this issue ad nauseum with rightish libertarian leaning folks to the more establishment GOP folks to the more religiously inclined right leaning folks.. This is pretty much the response I've received, though the establishment GOP types tend to render their arguments in a more sympathetic fashion, and honestly, I do believe that the more religiously inclined folks would bake a cake for me if I had to have a bake sale to raise enough funds for a liver transplant.
I don't think Obama in office, or ObamaCare, has changed much drastically in the health care field although certainly there have been changes and ones I don't like.
I don't ever think argument is effective when someone represents what they think is my POV, as you are doing. You aren't setting out to have a reasonable conversation and so, no, I won't respond to your premises other than to say: I don't accept any of them 100%, that is true.
And finally, about your liver transplant: I think that you may not get a transplant in the health care world I envision. Organ transplants are the filet Mignon of health care treatment and I no more wish to pay for that than I wish to pay for everyone to have the filet.
poetry_writer
10-6-11, 12:38am
People who sit on their asses and do nothing?...like poetry writer?..yea, I'm with you on that...and lucky for your candidates, so is she, apparently!
As far as poor 'ol Peggy, don't worry. Poor 'ol Peggy actually enjoys the benefits of her husband serving 30 years in the US military, so she, ironically enough, is taken care of until she dies. You know, that horrible government run health care.
Absolutely no reason to want to see change in the US health care system except for that nagging little notion about being a part of something greater than yourself. That desire to have my friends and neighbors, and yea, even you all, enjoy the peace of mind I have with knowing I will have quality care till the end. I just can't get away from the UNITED in the United States. (Sorry, it must be that whole 'serving the country for 30 years' thing.)
The same peace of mind of quality government run health care each and every Republican congress person has. Every Republican congressperson. Every republican Senator. Every one. E V E R Y O N E. (has your republican congress person turned it down? Have you asked why not?)
So It would seem, ironically, like LC, I hold higher Christian values than, say, many Christians.
Funny, really, since I don't believe in god. Yet i seem to be trying to promote, and defend his teachings to...Christians.
Fairly certain that you have no idea what I do with my ass on a daily basis.
poetry_writer
10-6-11, 12:42am
Now I"m confused. Who is mad at who and for what?....:o).....Honestly, some get enraged when disagreed with. Why not just discuss it instead of telling those who dont agree with you that they are morons and of course bad Christians and nasty Republicans?....
loosechickens
10-6-11, 1:05am
HAH! Hey, Catwoman....you obviously haven't been reading the forums carefully, or you would know that in an effort to re-simplify our lives, to try to get back to a life with "pools of time" for leisurely pursuits, my sweetie and I have decided to axe wholesale a bunch of committments in our lives. SO..........(drumroll, as this news you obviously missed will warm your heart, I'm sure)......I gave my notice to the administrators of the Simple Living board effective October 31, to resign my position as moderator, some several weeks ago, and announced that on another thread . http://www.simplelivingforum.net/showthread.php?2842-Where-are-they-now
I love the Simple Living boards, but I DON'T love the feeling that I MUST be here several times a day, reading threads on which I have little interest to check for spammers, etc., doing new registrations, answering messages, etc. when I COULD be reading books, swimming laps, or taking a nap. I'll love getting back to the feeling that I can come here when I WANT to, not feeling that has to be every day, and honestly, I'll just LOVE being able to express myself as an ordinary member without having that bullseye on my back for folks like you and Alan to erupt with faux outrage at stuff I say, as though a moderator (who is, after all, just an ordinary member here who takes on a lot of work for nothing to try to make this forum a better place) has no right to disagree with you, and must be extra careful with "tone" or you'll be offended. I took on this assignment as a community service, but have served now for several years and feel as though I've done my share, and it's time for others to step forward to volunteer to moderate.
The last I knew Texas HAD tort reform on medical malpractice, with very low limits on the amounts that courts can award, yet that hasn't made a whole lot of difference in health care costs or insurance premiums in Texas, has it? Why? Because records show that malpractice awards represent only the tinest percentage of why health care costs have skyrocketed. But, don't let facts get in your way.
Honestly, insofar as the Christian stuff goes, my opinion is that were Jesus to return, he would cringe at much that is put forth in his name, and would be ashamed of many of his followers for having missed so completely his message. There isn't much doubt in my mind that he would never countenance the "I've got mine, now you others just go scratch sand", where the health of his brothers and sisters would be concerned. But, that's just me, thinking. After all, YOU'RE the ones that think that you are going to have to meet him in the big by and by and defend your actions and callousness. Not me.
This health reform law is NOT the best we could have done. But it probably IS the best that was capable of getting past, given the hundreds of millions of dollars thrown at it, as sand in the gears, by the folks anxious to maintain profits at all costs, even if it meant the deaths of tens of thousands of American unnecessarily.
Sometimes I hope there really IS a Judgement Day, I really do.
I think that prior to a de facto nationalization of the health care system, we should consider allowing health insurance to be purchased accross state lines.
poetry_writer
10-6-11, 11:33am
Some comments I've received simply because I disagree with some of you: "People who sit on their asses and do nothing?...like poetry writer?.."...."out of work poetry writer", told I was a terrible Christian, hope you get get the healthcare you deserve". etc etc etc. Loosechickens you are the worse, i've seen you do this over and over, pointing out that someone is a terrrrible Christian if they just happen to disagree with you. Peggys mocking rants are also pitiful. This is an example of whats wrong with our country. Disagree with me? I'll mock your faith and the fact that you dont have job or insurance and imply that you are too stupid to read. Both of you need to take a long hard look at yourselves. You should both be ashamed. I never put you down, I simply dared to DISAGREE with you. Nuff said.
Well back to the subject. I think it is a good idea to have the Supreme Court decide if the health care law is constitutional. Get that part over with which ever side wins will be happy. But the decision will probably not put to rest the controversy. We need health care change. The cost of health care has been increasing at almost double the consumer price index for years. It won't be long before large business will not be able to afford health insurance.
treehugger
10-6-11, 12:57pm
And finally, about your liver transplant: I think that you may not get a transplant in the health care world I envision. Organ transplants are the filet Mignon of health care treatment and I no more wish to pay for that than I wish to pay for everyone to have the filet.
I've stayed out of this debate here because I have nothing constructive to add, but I can give a little perspective on the topic of organ transplants. When my husband was on dialysis, it was costing our HMO (Kaiser) $30,000 a month. Yes, a month. Clearly it was in their monetary best interest to pay for his kidney transplant, which was a one-time cost of about $100,000 (covering 2 surgeries).
So, whether or not people agree with health insurance covering transplants, they are at least a whole heck of a lot cheaper than dialysis. Now, then some may think dialysis and other life-sustaining treatments are too expensive to pay for, but that's a whole other topic.
And of course, I am only talking about kidneys. If someone needs a liver, lung, or heart, there is no good, albeit expensive, alternative like dialysis. Those in need of those organs just suffer (usually with extended, expensive hospital stays) and then die without them. My husband and I joked from the beginning of his diagnosis of end stage renal disease (at age 31. no known cause) that if you're gonna have organ failure, kidneys are the way to go.
Oh, and the only reason we have good insurance is because I have a good job with good benefits. If I were to be laid off, we would lose our house and my husband would lose his kidney (due to not being able to afford the anti-rejection meds) and have to go on Medicare-funding dialysis. Period.
Kara
You guys just confuse socialism with Christianity. That's ok, one of it's goals is to replace religion, so it's obviously working. Let's just not confuse what it really is.
Are you saying socialism and Christianity are mutually exclusive?
Are you saying socialism and Christianity are mutually exclusive?
No, I'm saying that the atheists who boast of their superior Christian attitudes are confused.
No, I'm saying that the atheists who boast of their superior Christian attitudes are confused.
That would depend on the atheist - and who they are being compared to.
That would depend on the atheist - and who they are being compared to.
Follow the discussion and come to your own conclusion.
loosechickens
10-6-11, 3:37pm
"Some comments I've received simply because I disagree with some of you: "People who sit on their asses and do nothing?...like poetry writer?.."...."out of work poetry writer", told I was a terrible Christian, hope you get get the healthcare you deserve". etc etc etc. Loosechickens you are the worse, i've seen you do this over and over, pointing out that someone is a terrrrible Christian if they just happen to disagree with you. Peggys mocking rants are also pitiful. This is an example of whats wrong with our country. Disagree with me? I'll mock your faith and the fact that you dont have job or insurance and imply that you are too stupid to read. Both of you need to take a long hard look at yourselves. You should both be ashamed. I never put you down, I simply dared to DISAGREE with you. Nuff said." (poetry_writer)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
O.K., now just one MINUTE, poetry_writer. Let's read for comprehension for a change.
First, you missed completely the meaning of Peggy's post where she mentioned you as "out of work poetry_writer", if that is how she put it. Did you even NOTICE that she was replying to Catwoman's post that those who didn't have a job or couldn't afford or get private insurance, well "too bad"? She talked about such folks as though they were layabouts who just didn't want to work because they were lazy and do-less, and Peggy was pointing out that the great group of people (about fifty million in the U.S.) without health insurance included a lot of folks like YOU, who is certainly not a layabout, nor do-less. Peggy was actually DEFENDING you against Catwoman, who was implying that anyone who didn't go scratch for their own insurance and needed help was nothing but a parasite.
Then, I have NEVER castigated anyone, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist or anything else for their faith. Jesus spoke approximately 3,000 times in the New Testament about caring for the poor, about our needs to be our brother's keeper, about caring for our neighbors as for ourselves. Yet, many who profess loudly about how Christian they are are willing to push folks right under the bus, see them die without access to health care, to protect their profits and their own pile of shekels. Quite the opposite of nearly every lesson that Jesus taught. I am castigating them for professing faith loudly, yet not following the message of the Messiah they are supposedly following.
I don't care whether people agree with me. But I do care when people, most of who probably consider themselves "good Christians", literally applaud and cheer as Republicans did at that Republican debate, that someone without insurance should just be left to die.
Look, I'm not the one scrambling to get an eight dollar an hour job. I'm not the one out of work (well, I am "out" of work, I guess because I'm retired, but not unwillingly, for sure). We have a very comfortable brokerage account that even with the vagaries of the market and the 2008 financial problems will ensure that we can be comfortable into advanced old age, probably on just the income those investments provide. And yes, like Catwoman, we scrimped and saved, lived extremely frugally, saved and invested wisely, AND were very lucky in that we never met prolonged joblessness, poor health, serious accident, etc.
That said, because I KNOW how easily those things can happen to even people who make the best decisions in the world, I am willing to vote against my own self interest and for the benefit of the society as a whole, to try to get good health care access for all, a solid safety net for people when circumstances turn their lives upside down. Just because I've "got mine" doesn't mean that I don't care about the people who never managed to do that, or saw it disappear out from under them.
I know plenty of Christians that live their religion in a way that Jesus would understand and approve. My favorite relative in all the world is a Lutheran pastor, and we know many others who live the precepts set forth by Jesus, well. But, please remember, those who often talk the loudest about how Christian they are, show by their works that they are anything but. It's that hypocrisy I rebel against, not the religion or the belief itself.
Not that I expect this will get through to you, but.....I'll give it a shot. I truly CARE that you have scrambled trying to find work, have only been able to locate very low paid jobs, and have had health issues and no good health insurance. I'd like to see you, and all the others like you have good health care and decent jobs. And if I have to pay higher taxes to support that, I'm willing, just as I am always willing to fund schools although I haven't had a child in the school system for thirty years or more.
We really ARE the United States, you know. With a basic idea that we watch out for and care for each other. Not be willing to throw anyone who hasn't been as lucky as us under the bus to protect our bank accounts. If you want to see that as somehow me "mocking" you, or your situation, or your joblessness, or your religious beliefs, I can't help that, other than to say that it simply isn't true.
LDAHL, you know that if they allow insurance companies to sell insurance across state lines, all that will happen is that every insurance company will headquarter itself in the state that allows it to be the most unregulated, has the fewest consumer protection laws and will tax them the lowest, so that any states that DO attempt to protect their citizens from unscrupulous companies by regulating them, will be powerless. That, after all, is why the profit making insurance industry has spent many millions lobbying for this change. It's a change that will increase stockholder profits (yay, that's ME), but will ensure that the lowest common denominator is the status quo.
Hey, I've got Medicare, a good supplement and enough money to weather even a major uninsured illness or two. Knock yourselves out trying to get that stuff. I'm not the one who will be hurt. That's kind of the attitude that many of you have, right?
poetry_writer
10-6-11, 4:46pm
Loosechickens, your post:
"O.K., now just one MINUTE, poetry_writer. Let's read for comprehension for a change.
First, you missed completely the meaning of Peggy's post where she mentioned you as "out of work poetry_writer", if that is how she put it. Did you even NOTICE that she was replying to Catwoman's post that those who didn't have a job or couldn't afford or get private insurance, well "too bad"? She talked about such folks as though they were layabouts who just didn't want to work because they were lazy and do-less, and Peggy was pointing out that the great group of people (about fifty million in the U.S.) without health insurance included a lot of folks like YOU, who is certainly not a layabout, nor do-less. Peggy was actually DEFENDING you against Catwoman, who was implying that anyone who didn't go scratch for their own insurance and needed help was nothing but a parasite.
Then, I have NEVER castigated anyone, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist or anything else for their faith. Jesus spoke approximately 3,000 times in the New Testament about caring for the poor, about our needs to be our brother's keeper, about caring for our neighbors as for ourselves. Yet, many who profess loudly about how Christian they are are willing to push folks right under the bus, see them die without access to health care, to protect their profits and their own pile of shekels. Quite the opposite of nearly every lesson that Jesus taught. I am castigating them for professing faith loudly, yet not following the message of the Messiah they are supposedly following.
I don't care whether people agree with me. But I do care when people, most of who probably consider themselves "good Christians", literally applaud and cheer as Republicans did at that Republican debate, that someone without insurance should just be left to die.
Look, I'm not the one scrambling to get an eight dollar an hour job. I'm not the one out of work (well, I am "out" of work, I guess because I'm retired, but not unwillingly, for sure). We have a very comfortable brokerage account that even with the vagaries of the market and the 2008 financial problems will ensure that we can be comfortable into advanced old age, probably on just the income those investments provide. And yes, like Catwoman, we scrimped and saved, lived extremely frugally, saved and invested wisely, AND were very lucky in that we never met prolonged joblessness, poor health, serious accident, etc.
That said, because I KNOW how easily those things can happen to even people who make the best decisions in the world, I am willing to vote against my own self interest and for the benefit of the society as a whole, to try to get good health care access for all, a solid safety net for people when circumstances turn their lives upside down. Just because I've "got mine" doesn't mean that I don't care about the people who never managed to do that, or saw it disappear out from under them.
I know plenty of Christians that live their religion in a way that Jesus would understand and approve. My favorite relative in all the world is a Lutheran pastor, and we know many others who live the precepts set forth by Jesus, well. But, please remember, those who often talk the loudest about how Christian they are, show by their works that they are anything but. It's that hypocrisy I rebel against, not the religion or the belief itself.
Not that I expect this will get through to you, but.....I'll give it a shot. I truly CARE that you have scrambled trying to find work, have only been able to locate very low paid jobs, and have had health issues and no good health insurance. I'd like to see you, and all the others like you have good health care and decent jobs. And if I have to pay higher taxes to support that, I'm willing, just as I am always willing to fund schools although I haven't had a child in the school system for thirty years or more. " end of quote
You need to examine yourself, why you feel the need to say such things to someone who did nothing but disagree with your point of view on the healthcare issue. You are off base and perhaps you dont know it. I suspect that you do. I wish you, and everyone, good health and a good life.
Well, hey so long Peggy, where are ya off to? Cuba? Hugo Chavez evidently prefers their health care.
I don't have all the answers but start with tort reform...Doctors wouldn't have to run so many needless tests etc, etc. if they didn't have to do the cya thing constantly. Yeah, taking better care of yourself is a winner of an idea. I'm sorry people have bad luck, we have had our share and we do what needs to be done. Churches take care of people, charities take care of people. But oh yeah, Christian charity if probably considered prejudiced by many on this board. Medicaid is there for the most needy...Is it fine like it is? No, but the answer is not taking from the haves and giving to the have nots and the won't works...The answer is not one size fits all and forcing people to unconstitutionally buy a product they don't want. I think Peggy has the answer - don't like it here...leave...go somewhere the the weather suits your clothes....
Oh, yeah, forgot the "tort reform" canard. Text Book Case: Texas. Texas has the most stringent med mal legislation in the country, but 25% of the state's population lacks health insurance. So that med mal argument is looking pretty shaky. Time to give it a rest b/c it lacks any empirical support.
But other than that: I rest my case. Do I know my right wing talking points or what!
No real solutions. No empathy for anyone who lacks health insurance. No acknowledgment that other modern industrial capitalist countries like Germany, Japan, Switzerland, The Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, France, Great Britain, Canada all have systems that at least cover everyone, and in some cases offer better care at lower cost. Always the same response. Totally unconstructive.
I've stayed out of this debate here because I have nothing constructive to add, but I can give a little perspective on the topic of organ transplants. When my husband was on dialysis, it was costing our HMO (Kaiser) $30,000 a month. Yes, a month. Clearly it was in their monetary best interest to pay for his kidney transplant, which was a one-time cost of about $100,000 (covering 2 surgeries).
So, whether or not people agree with health insurance covering transplants, they are at least a whole heck of a lot cheaper than dialysis. Now, then some may think dialysis and other life-sustaining treatments are too expensive to pay for, but that's a whole other topic.
And of course, I am only talking about kidneys. If someone needs a liver, lung, or heart, there is no good, albeit expensive, alternative like dialysis. Those in need of those organs just suffer (usually with extended, expensive hospital stays) and then die without them. My husband and I joked from the beginning of his diagnosis of end stage renal disease (at age 31. no known cause) that if you're gonna have organ failure, kidneys are the way to go.
Oh, and the only reason we have good insurance is because I have a good job with good benefits. If I were to be laid off, we would lose our house and my husband would lose his kidney (due to not being able to afford the anti-rejection meds) and have to go on Medicare-funding dialysis. Period.
Kara
I am glad you have coverage. Best of luck to you and your husband.
flowerseverywhere
10-10-11, 12:17am
I don't think Obama in office, or ObamaCare, has changed much drastically in the health care field although certainly there have been changes and ones I don't like.
I don't ever think argument is effective when someone represents what they think is my POV, as you are doing. You aren't setting out to have a reasonable conversation and so, no, I won't respond to your premises other than to say: I don't accept any of them 100%, that is true.
And finally, about your liver transplant: I think that you may not get a transplant in the health care world I envision. Organ transplants are the filet Mignon of health care treatment and I no more wish to pay for that than I wish to pay for everyone to have the filet.
This thread has been beat to death, however I was thinking about your responses. I hope you can elaborate a bit on your point of view. Why do we need insurance if we do away with the most expensive options? Why not just pay for a medical visit if you need one. If you need surgery then you need to decide if the surgery is worth it. Broken leg, hip replacement, stroke therapy, blood pressure medication- What is your view of what is necessary in medical care?
Should Chiropractic, massage, acupuncture or other wholistic approaches be covered? What about preemies? Drug and Alcohol dependence? What about cardiac care, such as stents, bypasses etc? Cancers? Experimental drugs?
I will be the first one to admit that I have no idea how to solve this problem but you seem to be the only one who is speaking up and bringing up the philosophy that maybe we are trying to pay for too much. The really funny thing is when the whole obamacare issue came up "death panel" was one of the negative boo hiss hiss reactions. But your points bring up the argument that we need to look at what we are paying for, what is the outcome of all of this treatment.
iris lily
10-10-11, 12:20am
This thread has been beat to death, however I was thinking about your responses. I hope you can elaborate a bit on your point of view. Why do we need insurance if we do away with the most expensive options? Why not just pay for a medical visit if you need one. If you need surgery then you need to decide if the surgery is worth it. Broken leg, hip replacement, stroke therapy, blood pressure medication- What is your view of what is necessary in medical care?
Should Chiropractic, massage, acupuncture or other wholistic approaches be covered? What about preemies? Drug and Alcohol dependence? What about cardiac care, such as stents, bypasses etc? Cancers? Experimental drugs?
I will be the first one to admit that I have no idea how to solve this problem but you seem to be the only one who is speaking up and bringing up the philosophy that maybe we are trying to pay for too much. The really funny thing is when the whole obamacare issue came up "death panel" was one of the negative boo hiss hiss reactions. But your points bring up the argument that we need to look at what we are paying for, what is the outcome of all of this treatment.
time and time and time again, I've said if this monstrosity goes through, I will be angry if there are NOT death panels because baby, we can't afford it otherwise.
Ummm, just to pick one of the things your mentioned, preemies--no. Smaller and smaller babies are being saved at enormous costs. Just stop it. I don't want to pay for it either through an insurance pool or in a goobermnet run program. Drug and alchohol treatments--are you kidding? Yes to most cardiac treatments for those under 80. Cancer--yes to many depending on the circumstances. IF survival rates are less than 50% perhaps not. Experimental drugs, not so much.
Really, do I even have to answer about massage? Chiro? and some of the other niceties? No, can't afford those.
People should have major medical coverage and pay for the smaller things themselves. What is 'major" and what is "smaller" can be debated, but when patients have little to no skin in the game, they don't care if their dr orders test after test, they don't care of the colonoscipy costs $8,000, etc.
loosechickens
10-10-11, 12:39am
I found myself today contemplating how many people are adamantly against policies, sometimes even when they themselves are taking advantage of them, which seems to be a human condition, and our ability to compartmentalize in our minds, not to mention rationalize things, allows that.
Which made me think about your daughter, Catwoman....not meaning to be picking on you, but you are a person who seems to be very much against the new health reform law, and so I'm wondering how that translates in your own life. Just as an example, since you've been discussing this.
If I remember correctly, your daughter has now graduated college and been unable to find employment in her chosen field, and, commendably, has taken a low paying job, in order to be productive, and is also volunteering, another commendable pursuit.
So:
Does the low paid job that your daughter has taken come complete with employer supplied health care insurance? If so, no need to read on.
If the new, low paid job does not have health benefits, is your daughter free of any kind of pre-existing condition that would preclude her from purchasing private health insurance? If so, has she purchased such a policy? If so, no need to read further. If a pre-existing condition makes it difficult or impossible for her to obain insurance, of course, she will have to wait until such provisions become effective in the Obama plan. Just hang on.
If she does not have employer supplied health insurance, and has not chosen to purchase her own private policy with her salary from this low paid job, if she has no pre-existing conditions that would prevent a profit making insurance company from covering her (until the full benefits of the Obama plan go into effect), is she just going "nekkid" of insurance, thereby putting the responsibility for a severe accident, catastrophic illness or other horrendous disaster either on the taxpayers or on you and your husband's retirement savings?
Or, is she continuing to be covered under the family plan for either yours or your husband's insurance under the provisions of Obamacare that now require insurance companies to allow families to keep their adult children on the family policy until age 26, thereby hopefully getting them through that period of college, graduation yet not yet having snagged a "proper" job in their field that comes with full benefits?
If she has employer covered health insurance or has purchased her own private policy, then feel free to continue bashing the provisions of the Obama plan.
If she is going without insurance, thereby becoming a time bomb of possible expense to the taxpayers, or is taking advantage of the Obama plan provision for adult children, then there may be a certain degree of hypocrisy in your adamant position against the reform.
Sometimes, the folks picketing outside abortion clinics can be found bringing their own teenaged daughters in for a legal abortion, and sometimes, even themselves may be found utilizing their services. I suspect it is the same with many who oppose this health care reform. Adamantly against it, except for when provisions in it can be utilized for benefit to themselves.
Please don't take this as a personal attack, as I am more interested in understanding how such things work out in real life, and if your daughter is benefiting from the "up to 26 years old" provision in the Obama plan, just trying to illustrate a very human response that I've seen over and over. In this particular case, you have both a daughter in the demographic that has been discussed, and are adamantly opposed to the Obama plan. So input from you would be valuable.
A member of our family is in that demographic as well, and despite having graduated, has the same problem as your daughter with finding a good job in her field, so is working as a nanny at this time, while she tries for a more permanent professional job in her field. In her early twenties, she is able to take advantage of remaining on her mother's family policy as her mother is a teacher with full insurance coverage. It's been a godsend for them, this new provision in the Obama plan, although they have been for the health reform plan all along. It's been nice to see some provisions of it actually now in practice and helping families like hers, and perhaps yours and others.
On such things do I ruminate while swimming laps in the pool.....sorry.
Catwoman
10-10-11, 10:34pm
Just read your remarks Chickens, yes, she will be able to purchase health ins. after being employed for 90 days. It is less expensive for her to buy ins. through her employer than to stay on her dad's ins.
Just read your remarks Chickens, yes, she will be able to purchase health ins. after being employed for 90 days. It is less expensive for her to buy ins. through her employer than to stay on her dad's ins.
Well that's good. But really we need to uncouple health insurance from employment. It's really goofy that an unemployed person has to pay more for insurance than an employed person just because the employed person is 'in the pool' so to speak.
iris lily
10-11-11, 7:30pm
Well that's good. But really we need to uncouple health insurance from employment. It's really goofy that an unemployed person has to pay more for insurance than an employed person just because the employed person is 'in the pool' so to speak.
I can't think of a theoretical reason why health insurance SHOULD be coupled with employment. It is weird, I agree.
But the overarching practical reason to keep it that way is because entire systems support that given the history of this issues. That employers wanted to offer additional benefits seems like a good thing. Uncoupling and tearing down the fabric of those systems will have unintended consequences, I'm sure.
But I realize that doesn't mean anything for most who support uncoupling, so carry on.
I can't think of a theoretical reason why health insurance SHOULD be coupled with employment. It is weird, I agree.
But the overarching practical reason to keep it that way is because entire systems support that given the history of this issues. That employers wanted to offer additional benefits seems like a good thing. Uncoupling and tearing down the fabric of those systems will have unintended consequences, I'm sure.
But I realize that doesn't mean anything for most who support uncoupling, so carry on.
I think the reason was WWII wage controls, employers had to have something besides more money to attract employees. After that it took off.
I expect it will be decoupled, much like pensions have been.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.