View Full Version : Avoiding the media like a plague today.....
gimmethesimplelife
6-28-12, 9:13am
I have been reading that it is very possible that the Supreme Court's decision about ObamaCare will be released today.....This is such a huge issue for me personally that I am thinking it best if I avoid the media for the day.....Soon enough I will discover the outcome, I don't need to focus all my energy on scanning the media for a decision. Anyone else care to join me in avoiding the media today? Rob
I'm another person that has a huge personal investment in this decision. I too am trying to avoid any "news" today. I am going to my weekly coffee with girlfriends, all who have lots of money and health insurance and Iam sure it will come up there:|(
Oh shoot. Is that today? See I could of totally stayed with my head buried in the sand except I opened up this thread.
I've been very worried about it - we had health insurance but it cost more than it provided. We've lost 70% of our income over the last three years - I just can't squeeze the penny any tighter.
sweetana3
6-28-12, 10:20am
I am going to hold off until the PBS News Hour tonight when I am sure it will be completely discussed.
Looks like it has been upheld, if first reports can be believed.
I'm listening - it's all been upheld, the mandate being upheld being considered as a tax, except for the federal option of withholding Medicaid funding for the states that may not comply with Medicaid portions of the law.
loosechickens
6-28-12, 3:04pm
au contraire....instead of avoiding the media, I'VE been having fun watching the rightwing websites as their anthills explode and the little ants run distractedly everywhere, screaming "the sky is falling".......sorry. ;-)
Obamacare is certainly not perfect, but it is the first real step forward in trying to contain and fix the health care mess in this country. While there has been a huge propaganda effort to destroy it, when individual elements of the bill are formed as questions in polling, huge majorities of people agree with the things that are in it. It's just that most people really don't KNOW exactly what is in it, as many of the things have yet to take effect, so are vulnerable to the "sky is falling" folks.
Who wouldn't want to be able to have your kids on your insurance until they are well launched and can have insurance on their own? Who would WANT to allow insurance companies to dump you as soon as you get sick? Who would WANT the insurance companies to put a cap on the maximum they would cover, so when you got a serious illness, just when you realy needed that insurance, it pooped out on you? Who really WANTS to have to pay for the emergency care of people who could afford insurance, but don't bother to get it? Who doesn't have someone in their family or themselves who can't get insurance because of a pre-existing condition and would like to have a system in place to allow them to be insured?
Yep.....a great day all around. Great that the law was upheld, and an immense amount of fun watching the right run around with their hair on fire. Sorry.....feeling a bit partisan here, hahahaha.
awakenedsoul
6-28-12, 5:18pm
I pay $125.00 a month for catastrophic insurance. (It just went up from 110.00) Got a letter from Anthem saying that it now includes all kinds of things: permanent sterilization, birth control, mamograms, HIV screening, etc...I think this could help solve a lot of problems if people take advantage of it. I used to struggle to pay my health insurance, but since I've cut my spending in half through simple living, it's not a strain anymore.
I would love to be able to buy catastrophic insurance, but the state of Massachusetts does not allow me to do that. They dictate exactly what type of coverage I have to have, and I have no say in the matter. My only choice is the balance between premiums and copays (I can get a plan with lower premiums, but higher copays, or one with lower copays but a higher premium). I have to pay for all sorts of coverage that I don't want, and will likely never use, in order to subsidize others (which is what insurance does, pools everyone). There really is no financial incentive to staying healthy, because I don't get any breaks for doing so. When there's no disincentive for unhealthy habits, and people are removed from the true cost of things ("why should I shop around? Insurance will cover it") why wouldn't you expect the costs to go up up and up like they've done in Massachusetts.
I'll be happy when for-profit insurance is out of the picture entirely, but this is a step in the right direction. Health care is reliably cheaper in countries where it's not for profit. The down side of "no financial incentive for staying healthy" in this country is financial ruin for getting sick. Getting sick is punishment enough, IMO.
Absence of ailments is a temporary condition, unless you're the picture of robust wellness until the moment you keel over dead. As far as I'm concerned, good health is a gift, not a merit badge.
So will all this mean the insurance companies would go bankrupt?
I'm glad it passed too, but I'm not sure where it will lead us.
So will all this mean the insurance companies would go bankrupt?
I'm glad it passed too, but I'm not sure where it will lead us.
The mandate was the trade-off - getting a huge pool of paying customers in exchange for them paying for the customers they didn't want. The insurance co's lobbied very heavily back then so I doubt the deal is a bad thing for them. I haven't heard of any insurance co's in trouble here in MA.
So will all this mean the insurance companies would go bankrupt?
I'm glad it passed too, but I'm not sure where it will lead us.
Hardly--they just got a guaranteed influx of customers. They don't like the part that most of their income will actually go toward providing services, as opposed to, I guess, lighting their figurative cigars with thousand-dollar bills, but they'll continue to prosper.
From Healthcare.gov:
Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, consumers will receive more value for their premium dollar because insurance companies will be required to spend 80 to 85 percent of premium dollars on medical care and health care quality improvement, rather than on administrative costs, starting in 2011. If they don’t, the insurance companies will be required to provide a rebate to their customers starting in 2012.
ApatheticNoMore
6-28-12, 6:32pm
Perhaps the insurance companies would have gone out of business without it. More and more people were becoming un-insured afterall, at a certain point that system would have collapsed in on itself (I mean you can have a niche market that caters just to the 1% but I'm not sure that health insurance could prosper that way - and they were losing customers every year - due to customers not being able to afford their prices).
The one percent doesn't need insurance; they can pay cash. They likely invest in insurance equities, though.
rosarugosa
6-28-12, 8:34pm
Well put Jane, that sickness is its own disincentive. I am perplexed because it seems like so many of the people upset about this are people who need healthcare reform the most. Has the opposition really done such a masterful job frightening people? I'll admit that I'm not as knowledgeable as I should be because I ALWAYS avoid the media. I have excellent health insurance though my employer, and it would be easy for me to be supportive of the status quo, but there are too many people without insurance in this country and I just cannot feel OK about that.
I live in MA like Herbgeek where we presumably have healthcare for all (enacted under Mitt Romney, no less). But I checked prices once, and for a family of two to get high-quality coverage, and if income was over $44,000 per year, the premium was about $1200. a month, which is about 1/3 of a $44,000 income - so that seems crazy too.
SteveinMN
6-28-12, 10:35pm
Absence of ailments is a temporary condition, unless you're the picture of robust wellness until the moment you keel over dead. As far as I'm concerned, good health is a gift, not a merit badge.
Well said, Jane. One person commenting on a news article about this on-line was absolutely positive that sick people were sick of their own doing -- usually because of too much ice cream and soda pop. What a maroon -- probably has never heard of congenital birth defects, family dispositions to certain ailments, and disfiguring accidents. Even if you live the most healthful lifestyle imaginable, there still are other people out there -- including one's own ancestors.
I'm pleased to see especially Justice Roberts interpret the law and not act upon some fantasy ideology.
I'm pleased to see especially Justice Roberts interpret the law and not act upon some fantasy ideology.
That's the confusing thing to me. He didn't actually interpret the law, other than invalidating the Commerce Clause as rationale to punish inactivity, as much as he provided an alternate means to allow the legislation to stand by interpreting the individual mandate as a tax. In his majority opinion, he implied that it wasn't the court's desire to determine the properness of the legislation, but rather that it was up to the citizens to do so through the ballot box. To me, that indicates more of a lack of interpretation of the law, probably because of the extremely high profile of the case.
Alan must have cheated and read through the actual text. What fun is that?
Well said, Jane. One person commenting on a news article about this on-line was absolutely positive that sick people were sick of their own doing -- usually because of too much ice cream and soda pop. What a maroon -- probably has never heard of congenital birth defects, family dispositions to certain ailments, and disfiguring accidents. E
Of course there are accidents, and diseases over which one has no control. However, 70% of all deaths and 60% of all medical costs are due to chronic diseases (diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure) which are highly preventable/controllable through lifestyle factors. This is a big factor in why overall medical costs are increasing for everyone. So it often IS the soda pop and ice cream.
My source: http://www.ph.ucla.edu/umso/english/chron_dis.PDF
Chronic diseases and death come with old age, which is by far the most expensive medical condition. There are hundreds of reasons why people see doctors (and "drive up health care costs"). I've listed some of them here repeatedly. I don't think finger-pointing and scapegoating is helpful, but if it makes people feel better about themselves, i guess it could be listed under mental health self-care. ;)
SteveinMN
6-29-12, 11:37am
Of course there are accidents, and diseases over which one has no control. However, 70% of all deaths and 60% of all medical costs are due to chronic diseases (diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure) which are highly preventable/controllable through lifestyle factors. This is a big factor in why overall medical costs are increasing for everyone. So it often IS the soda pop and ice cream.
Patient arrives at the ER in the middle of a heart attack. Patient is treated and survives, recovering almost fully over time. Do we now have to fund an inquiry to determine why the patient had a heart attack? Blood vessels too small? Running for exercise while out of shape? Family history? Job-related stress? Fondness for Fritos? And, once the cause is determined (if the cause can ever be determined), then what? Is the patient charged full price for his/her treatment because the cause was determined to be soda pop and ice cream?
I don't disagree that obesity and being sedentary is a huge risk factor for some major diseases. But we all know of otherwise-healthy people who die early of some ailment they didn't know they had. We all seem to understand there are genetic links to increased risk factors for diseases like cancer and heart diseases which can be made better or worse by diet or activity. I'm not convinced so much of it is controllable.
Then there are the efforts which could be made to mitigate health risks. We could spend some money maintaining walkways and bicycle paths and mass transit so people can use them in preference to opening the door to the garage and climbing into the car to get anywhere. We could make it more attractive for people to buy and cook vegetables rather than reheat highly-processed foods (typically the cheapest ones available, especially in food deserts). We could quit defending workplace behavior that effectively punishes people for being away at their desk at a wholesome lunch or taking a walking break around the office. We can quit marketing food with low nutritional value to kids. But apparently there's too much money in that.
And of course you can be obese and sedentary and live a perfectly normal lifespan (I always like to cite the Roseto effect), as many in my family have. I've outlived a number of my peers who looked a lot better than I do "on paper," being thin and relatively fit and thus immune to the playground bullying that so often characterizes discussions of healthcare costs.
awakenedsoul
6-29-12, 5:55pm
I would love to be able to buy catastrophic insurance, but the state of Massachusetts does not allow me to do that. They dictate exactly what type of coverage I have to have, and I have no say in the matter. My only choice is the balance between premiums and copays (I can get a plan with lower premiums, but higher copays, or one with lower copays but a higher premium). I have to pay for all sorts of coverage that I don't want, and will likely never use, in order to subsidize others (which is what insurance does, pools everyone). There really is no financial incentive to staying healthy, because I don't get any breaks for doing so. When there's no disincentive for unhealthy habits, and people are removed from the true cost of things ("why should I shop around? Insurance will cover it") why wouldn't you expect the costs to go up up and up like they've done in Massachusetts.
I didn't realize there were states where you couldn't buy catastrophic health insurance. I found the best deal on EHealthinsurance.com. (I used to pay $175.00 a month for catastrophic.) It would be interesting if they offerred health insurance to people who haven't made any claims in the last 25 years at a reduced rate. People who are in good health and practice self care. I don't use traditional medicine. I'm glad I have this in case of an accident or emergency. It must be frustrating for you to have to pay so much. I get what you're saying. I think I would move! I didn't interpret your post the way some of the other people responding did. Lifestyle, (for me,) has made a huge difference. I have enjoyed excellent health my whole life, and feel very fortunate. I spend a lot of time and energy on self care, growing my own organic food, exercising, studying alternative methods, etc...Not everyone thinks this way.
Its easier to sit on the couch, than take a walk. Its often easier to go through a drive through for fast food than to cook a nutritious meal. It takes time for self care, or to meditate or do yoga to reduce stress. Taking time for yourself is the harder choice. My point was- if there are no incentives to make the harder choice, and no disincentives to take the easier (and less healthy) choice, why would anyone do the "right" thing? Yes, of course, you can't prevent all diseases by eating right, exercising, reducing stress, and eliminating alcohol and tobacco. Or you could get hit by a bus. But many diseases such as high blood pressure, diabetes, stroke etc /are/ largely preventable. The obesity of Americans has skyrocketed in my lifetime, and so has the incidence of Type II diabetes. Coincidence only? Lifestyle diseases are responsible for a majority of health care costs. Its not just the elderly. Kids are getting diabetes in record number too, which sets them up for a lifetime of health issues.
But you have to incent people to make changes or they won't. I'd prefer positive incentives, and public money spent on things to get people to be more active or eat better, as opposed to punishing people.
Positive incentives are fantastic, and I would've killed to see some inkling of that in a national healthcare bill.
I would also love to see health insurance premiums that could be controlled by proof of healthy lifestyle (not that that insures health, but if I'm busting my butt to help keep from being obese, I'd like to see some reward for it :) ) I'd like some tangible way to differentiate between people who need healthcare services because they consciously neglect their bodies, and those who simply need it because they're getting old/carry a genetic curse/suffered an accident -- but such a thing does not, cannot exist.
Not to mention the problem of insuring those who simply can't afford anything, who can barely afford to feed themselves. I do not assume just because someone is poor that they are also lazy, therefore worthy of being turned away at the emergency room door.
I want to live in a country whose politicians are smart enough and compassionate enough to figure this out, not just spout all-or-nothing rhetoric. And I certainly have no use for a party that lives and breathes (and spends oodles of money) to shoot down the only effort that's ever been made in this direction, without ever having offered a rational plan of their own, and with no suggestions on how to fix the one in play so it's fair and efficient.
No easy answers, unless one's an idiot. And I don't think anyone here is.
For me, I do all I can not to need my health insurance -- but I'm damned grateful I can afford it. Ask me when I'm 60 if the latter part's still true.
"I want to live in a country whose politicians are smart enough and compassionate enough to figure this out, not just spout all-or-nothing rhetoric. And I certainly have no use for a party that lives and breathes (and spends oodles of money) to shoot down the only effort that's ever been made in this direction, without ever having offered a rational plan of their own, and with no suggestions on how to fix the one in play so it's fair and efficient. "
This is so true. Give us a better plan instead of just shouting. Remember the Replicans have been trying to end Social Security for the last 70+ years.
P.S. to Rob,
I did join you -- I often do a media fast when everybody starts hyperventilating about some big political to-do, because I could do without the media-fired slobbering, barking, crowing, chest-beating, whining, complaining, bragging, threatening that always surrounds this stuff.......and I'm speaking of both the Right and the Left. If there was something I could do to influence the event, I've likely already done it. If not, I'll wait to see how it affects my life and adjust/protest/resist accordingly. The media frenzy is just nauseating to me.
gimmethesimplelife
6-29-12, 9:45pm
P.S. to Rob,
I did join you -- I often do a media fast when everybody starts hyperventilating about some big political to-do, because I could do without the media-fired slobbering, barking, crowing, chest-beating, whining, complaining, bragging, threatening that always surrounds this stuff.......and I'm speaking of both the Right and the Left. If there was something I could do to influence the event, I've likely already done it. If not, I'll wait to see how it affects my life and adjust/protest/resist accordingly. The media frenzy is just nauseating to me.Good for you! I held out to even getting online until late afternoon yesterday when I logged in here and checked this thread and found that it had passed. I then went over to www.azcentral.com, the Phoenix paper's website, and caught myself and said, no way not yet. I have checked a few headlines today in the papers and will listern to the PBS news tonight to hear the latest about it. Just can totally do without the frenzy!!!! Rob
awakenedsoul
6-29-12, 10:22pm
Its easier to sit on the couch, than take a walk. Its often easier to go through a drive through for fast food than to cook a nutritious meal. It takes time for self care, or to meditate or do yoga to reduce stress. Taking time for yourself is the harder choice. My point was- if there are no incentives to make the harder choice, and no disincentives to take the easier (and less healthy) choice, why would anyone do the "right" thing? Yes, of course, you can't prevent all diseases by eating right, exercising, reducing stress, and eliminating alcohol and tobacco. Or you could get hit by a bus. But many diseases such as high blood pressure, diabetes, stroke etc /are/ largely preventable. The obesity of Americans has skyrocketed in my lifetime, and so has the incidence of Type II diabetes. Coincidence only? Lifestyle diseases are responsible for a majority of health care costs. Its not just the elderly. Kids are getting diabetes in record number too, which sets them up for a lifetime of health issues.
But you have to incent people to make changes or they won't. I'd prefer positive incentives, and public money spent on things to get people to be more active or eat better, as opposed to punishing people.
I do these things because they make me feel better and I can build a spiritual connection that way. But, I've always been very self disciplined and enjoyed the benefits. The greatest and most valuable result has been excellent health! I totally understand what you are saying. Many people have self destructive lifestyle habits now. The whole corporate mentality and pressure to be a workaholic has made many people very sick. The children seem neglected.
Here in LA, I see so many poor people feeding their children single servings of coke, candy, chips, etc...The lousy eating habits, spending the little money they have on one small bag of junk food, and the need to make themselves feel better perpetuates the cycle.
I just read Michelle Obama's book on the White House Garden. She is doing a lot in the schools and with promoting exercise and teaching children how to garden. She's very fit and seems very committed. Gardening takes a lot of patience and care. I don't know how many people have those qualities anymore. As my dad used to tell me, "Virtue is its own reward." But, I'm hopeful. Nowhere to go but up, I say.
awakenedsoul
6-29-12, 10:25pm
I like your post Puglogic. I agree. I've been poor, and it's awful. You're always behind, and things break and go wrong. Living simply would help a lot of people to build up an emergency fund. As I've simplified my life and gotten out of debt, most of my problems have resolved themselves. Our habits can really protect us or hurt us.
gimmethesimplelife
6-29-12, 10:46pm
I didn't realize there were states where you couldn't buy catastrophic health insurance. I found the best deal on EHealthinsurance.com. (I used to pay $175.00 a month for catastrophic.) It would be interesting if they offerred health insurance to people who haven't made any claims in the last 25 years at a reduced rate. People who are in good health and practice self care. I don't use traditional medicine. I'm glad I have this in case of an accident or emergency. It must be frustrating for you to have to pay so much. I get what you're saying. I think I would move! I didn't interpret your post the way some of the other people responding did. Lifestyle, (for me,) has made a huge difference. I have enjoyed excellent health my whole life, and feel very fortunate. I spend a lot of time and energy on self care, growing my own organic food, exercising, studying alternative methods, etc...Not everyone thinks this way.I like your take on this and your willingness to put in the time required for self care! Something I can say is that I was recently in Mexico where pharmaceuticals are available over the counter much like candy is in a candy store here - and yes I did stock up on some. But I also visited the health food store in town where I felt much more comfortable and at home and bought a few big bags of herbal teas - some boldo for my liver and some passionflower for my nerves and my insomnia - I sure can say the passionflower works and feels so much better in the morning than any pharma "solution". I think more and more people are interested in taking the time to take care of themselves in theory, the problem lies in finding the time to do so. Good reason right there to get out of debt!!!!! Rob
But many diseases such as high blood pressure, diabetes, stroke etc /are/ largely preventable. The obesity of Americans has skyrocketed in my lifetime, and so has the incidence of Type II diabetes. Coincidence only? Lifestyle diseases are responsible for a majority of health care costs. Its not just the elderly. Kids are getting diabetes in record number too, which sets them up for a lifetime of health issues.
But you have to incent people to make changes or they won't. I'd prefer positive incentives, and public money spent on things to get people to be more active or eat better, as opposed to punishing people.
I have Type 2 Diabetes. I lead, and have always led, a healthy lifestyle. I am the first person in my family to have been diagnosed with Type 2 Diabetes. I eat a very balanced and nutritious diet, avoid HFCS, processed flour and full fat dairy products and do not use alcohol or tobacco. I exercise an average of 90 min per day, doing a combination of aerobic exercise (elliptical, treadmill and stationary bike) and strength training (free weights, Nautilus and resistance bands).
Many people with so-called "lifestyle diseases" lead very healthy lives, as I do. I think we would do well to lose the term "lifestyle diseases", as it indicates people who have illnesses categorized by people as such, must have done something bad to "deserve" it. People develop diseases for a myriad of reasons. Blaming doesn't help anyone. Education does.
Rob, have you read this book? http://www.amazon.com/Information-Diet-Case-Conscious-Consumption/dp/1449304680
I just did, and actually wished it was much longer.
I would love to be able to buy catastrophic insurance, but the state of Massachusetts does not allow me to do that. They dictate exactly what type of coverage I have to have, and I have no say in the matter. My only choice is the balance between premiums and copays (I can get a plan with lower premiums, but higher copays, or one with lower copays but a higher premium). I have to pay for all sorts of coverage that I don't want, and will likely never use, in order to subsidize others (which is what insurance does, pools everyone). There really is no financial incentive to staying healthy, because I don't get any breaks for doing so. When there's no disincentive for unhealthy habits, and people are removed from the true cost of things ("why should I shop around? Insurance will cover it") why wouldn't you expect the costs to go up up and up like they've done in Massachusetts.
herbgeek, I watch with interest your posts from Health Insurance Mecca, the state of Mass. I really do like the idea of having one state testing out mandating insurance so that the rest of us can observe that laboratory. I think that there are many foolish things about Obamacare, but I wonder if it had started out with covering catastrophic events, it would have been better received. Of course "catastrophic" varies from person to person. For me it may be defined as $30,000 but to someone else, $5,000.
This Massachusetts model was supposed to reduce cost, but my costs have more than doubled in the last couple of years. Of course, costs could have significantly increased without universal insurance as well. However, I'm a little cynical when I hear a government agency telling me any change is going to save me money.
I am still grateful I have access to insurance that I can get even when unemployed, despite the high costs. And even more grateful not to need it.
Herb, I have been listening to the talking heads and they are moderating their statements about reduced costs.
Anyway, how can government continue to add categories of mandatory coverage, reduce or remove coverage limits and ..... and then tell us costs will be reduced? $1200 a month for family coverage when employer and employee costs are included.
awakenedsoul
6-30-12, 4:06pm
I like your take on this and your willingness to put in the time required for self care! Something I can say is that I was recently in Mexico where pharmaceuticals are available over the counter much like candy is in a candy store here - and yes I did stock up on some. But I also visited the health food store in town where I felt much more comfortable and at home and bought a few big bags of herbal teas - some boldo for my liver and some passionflower for my nerves and my insomnia - I sure can say the passionflower works and feels so much better in the morning than any pharma "solution". I think more and more people are interested in taking the time to take care of themselves in theory, the problem lies in finding the time to do so. Good reason right there to get out of debt!!!!! Rob
Thanks Rob. You're right, it does take a lot of time. I was able to retire early, (at least for now, in this economy,) but even when I was working I did the same. I just didn't grow my own food then. (I also belong to an organic co op.) I know what you mean about herbs. I had some homegrown organic lemon balm tea last night while I took a bath in essential oils and epsom salts. I felt very relaxed and tingly this morning from the energetic healing. It really is a lifetstyle. And you're right, that debt was so stressful! Once it was paid off, everything became much easier. I just had to stay very disciplined with my spending. I used the DR techniques to get there. It worked in just two years.
RCWRTR,
I know other people like you who live very healthy lifestyles and have gotten sick. It's sad and unfair. It must be frustrating to feel lumped in with people who don't have the discipline that you do. Mary Tyler Moore has diabetes, and she was a remarkable dancer. Juliet Prowse did yoga every day, ate well, took Pilates classes, hiked, and gardened. She died of liver cancer in her early 60's. So, I know what you mean. We all commented on it. (The dancers who worked with her.) She had the best body in the show!
Thanks, awakenedsoul. It is sad and unfair. I didn't know that about Juliet Prowse, but she always looked lean and muscular, now that I think about it. As for Mary Tyler Moore, she has had Diabetes for a very long time. I saw her being interviewed last year. She admitted to being a 3 pack per day smoker for many years earlier in her life. These days, her eyesight is failing, but she seemed to be in good spirits and has led a good and interesting life.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.