Healthcare reform bill

[Orthodox6]

My experience in the workforce always has been that the employee does not have a choice about which insurance provider to use for group coverage. He or she has only -- and that's a maybe, depending upon the employer -- choice among (or between, if only two choices) packages available through the insurance provider which was selected by the employing company. When the employing company changes providers, the workers have no choice but to be dragged along.

 

We never have been able to pick an insurance company. We only pray that dh's employer will pick some company with decent coverage, and that coverage will not continue to worsen from year-to-year as now is the rule.

[sheryl]

Thanks Soph for the info!

 

Here is the actual bill:

http://www.cchconline.org/pdf/HR%20-%201018%20page%20bill%20July%2014.pdf

 

It is 1,018 pages and I plan to read all of it. I am on pg.169 and I've just read that if you choose not to have health insurance, for whatever reason (think young healthy adult who thinks they're invincible)...you will be taxed by the federal government 2.5% of your gross income.

This is an outrage. Oh, and if you have private insurance, great, it can get "grandfathered in" (pg. 16) but don't try to change it or apply for private insurance once healthcare goes national...you won't be able to do it.

Call your Representatives! Call your Senators! Read the bill because they won't be and they need to know how bad it is.

It will cost 1.5 trillion dollars and create a mound of spaghetti of government bureaucracy...

[elw_miller]

As a society we cannot turn our backs on those in need and leave them to fend for themselves or to just die. I realize that there are abusers, but do we need to punish the non-abusers as well:confused: I also know that every human on earth is not exempt from making mistakes.

 

Just my 2 cents:)

 

I don't want truly needy people to fall through the cracks either. But can something be done without forcing people using the power of the government to pay for or participate in a system they disagree with? I would be more than happy to contribute to merit-based "health scholarships". Are there such things? If there are, let me know!

 

A friend of mine was diagnosed with cancer right after learning she was pregnant. Consequently, her care required far more specialists than "normal" cancer care, and therefore far more specialist-sized co-pays that were becoming very hard to swallow. Friends got together and raised money to help her. (BTW, she and her baby boy are doing well.)

 

I think this is the best way to do things--voluntarily as a community (free market with private assistance). I think this kind of support would increase a sense of generosity and gratitude versus resentment and entitlement. Maybe my head's in the clouds that such a thing could work...:001_smile:

[Sara R]

Medicaid will not cover you if you make anything over poverty level or have more than $3K in the bank.

 

If you have over $3K in the bank, then you have to spend down, right? You pay Medicaid the amount that you have over $3K. At least that's how it worked for us. They don't out-and-out deny you. I didn't see that as inappropriate.

[Mommyof4ks]

They chose the plan for us to begin with. I wasn't given a choice. Sure I can go change it but the differences are minor making changing it worthless. I was also assigned a dr again no choice. And of course the dr is a newbie. I had to go change it. How many people will really go change it before the deadline? I'm still "assigned" a dr and plan with the option to change it before the 90 days. I'm sure a lot of people never do. That's a different turn then being allowed to pick first or have choices up front. Many of the more experienced better qualified drs are either not listed online or not in the handbook. None of mine are. I had to call and check with them and then get their number and then call and change it with SCHIP before we could continue to use our drs. I doubt many in my area would have access to them thru SHCIP if they were not all ready patients to begin with. the provider directory they send out had mostly newbie drs and newbie practices actively seeking patients. Not established medical professionals who have been around the block a few times. Neccessary in the illness that nearly killed my child and took a team of 3 specialist to dx.

 

Here's the link to the policies

http://www.scchoices.com/SCSelfService/en_US/5%20plans.html

 

The differences are minor with the only real major changes under extra benefits. Our ped admits that having to use this insurance severely limits the quality of care we are used to receiving. Her hands are tied very tightly in how she can practice medicine under this plan. You are not receiving the same level of care you would with the same dr under private or self pay. I can testify directly to that because I have had all three options with the same dr. This type of insurance is truly a stop gap for families and kids that have fallen on rough times (like losing half their income and a job) It is not designed for long term care of people. Sure I am getting medical care for NOTHING. I'm also getting what I paid for.

 

I am so sorry to hear about your child, but it is good that he got a diagnosis.

 

We totally understand what you mean! We have had the same ped for 9 years with our private insurance. He is fantastic! We took our foster kids to him, and they were on medicaid. The ped was unable to give them the same level of care because of what the state allowed and did not allow him to do. My kids would get a simple shot for something and be better the next day while the other kids had to have 14 days of meds to feel any better because those meds were cheaper. It was sad and the doc agreed it was ridiculous, but it is what it is. Once we had to await approval for an xray for possible pneumonia, that was scary. Of course I don't want my taxes to go up for the higher med costs either *sigh*.

[MomLovesClassics]

Most insurance companies are in business to make a profit. The insurance companies have contracts with doctors, pharmacies, and health care facilities as to what treatments and medications are allowed, and contract the prices. If there are people in insurance pools who are using insurance more than what they consider usual, they figure out how to get that person out of the pool, as they are eating up profits. That is business.

Some companies hire people part time to keep from providing health benefits, other's will not hire those who have preexisting conditions, they can't afford to. Yet we wonder why people do not have health insurance. More and more health insurance policies are excluding pregnancy. Health insurance companies are middle men between you and your doctor. The more profit they want the higher health care cost yet everyone wants health insurance and is critical of those who do not have health insurance. Receptionist turn their nose up as soon as they hear you do not have insurance.

I do not trust the government to provide quality health care.

[Georgiana Daniels]

Very interesting thread. I am not firmly on one side or the other.

 

On one hand, I believe that everyone has a right to health care. Some people just aren't in a position to provide health ins for themselves, or have pre-existing conditions. The current administration makes it sound like pie and kittens, and it might be, except:

 

If gov't mandates that everyone pay into the system or pay the fine, then it's the young and healthy who are supporting the elderly and/or infirm. Fine and dandy....until the young/healthy BECOME the older/infirm and by then the system will have collapsed. Kinda like social security--by the time my children have paid and paid, it won't be there for them.

 

Is that an unreasonable thought?

[astrid]

YES YES YES YES YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THANK YOU FOR POSTING THAT!!!!

 

Quite a lot of my family are Swedish citizens and no, they're not all dropping like flies because they don't have access to the American Health Care System. In fact, they are MUCH healthier, and have much more choice than their American cousins (ME!) about their medical care.

 

AND, their incidences of stress-related disease is practically non-existant.

 

 

Astrid

[elizabeth]

Ah, but is also sounds like those who disagree with BHO liked GWB... NOPE!

Ok I stand corrected on that point.

[Colleen in NS]

Are they going to deny you treatment because you should have been vaccinated and/or seen your doctor every year?

 

I don't think so. I had a friend with breast cancer who got immediate diagnosis and immediate and extensive treatment, even though she waited awhile to seek help when she suspected cancer. She even had a family history of it that was most likely known to her doctor. She was not denied anything.

 

But my main point in posting was to say that generalizations about Canada's health care system being disastrous, and making it sound like no one here in Canada gets early cancer diagnosis and treatment, are incorrect.

 

It is frustrating for me to read these kinds of statements, when I'm living in the situation being described and experience it so differently. It's just not the big, bad, scary dictatorship that so many Americans seem to be afraid of. It's freeing to not have to worry about going to the hospital or visit my doctor when I need to.

Edited July 18, 2009 by Colleen in NS

[elw_miller]

Concerning rights...

 

"A “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life. Life is a process of self- sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action-which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. (Such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.)

 

 

The concept of a “right” pertains only to action—specifically, to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men.

 

 

Thus, for every individual, a right is the moral sanction of a positive—of his freedom to act on his own judgment, for his own goals, by his own voluntary, uncoerced choice. As to his neighbors, his rights impose no obligations on them except of a negative kind: to abstain from violating his rights.

 

 

The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave."

 

 

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=arc_ayn_rand_man_rights

 

 

Perhaps I need to reread John Locke's and Thomas Paine's writings on natural rights and the rights of man from the original sources, but I think this is a pretty good distillation of what they wrote and meant. If nothing else it makes for important discussion material regarding the right (or not) to health care (as paid for by taxpayers), etc. :)

Edited July 18, 2009 by elw_miller
forgot something...time for me to go to bed! :)

[camibami]

don't want truly needy people to fall through the cracks either. But can something be done without forcing people using the power of the government to pay for or participate in a system they disagree with? I would be more than happy to contribute to merit-based "health scholarships". Are there such things? If there are, let me know!

 

Hmmm...I have a feeling defining the "worthy", those who have the "merit" to receive good health care or help with costs, is going to be pretty tough. Are you really saying some are NOT worthy to receive health care? What is the difference in saying "He is not worthy because he drank for 20 years as an alcoholic" or "He is not worthy, he's 83 and will die soon anyway"?

 

 

 

A friend of mine was diagnosed with cancer right after learning she was pregnant. Consequently, her care required far more specialists than "normal" cancer care, and therefore far more specialist-sized co-pays that were becoming very hard to swallow. Friends got together and raised money to help her. (BTW, she and her baby boy are doing well.)

 

Thats wonderful. I suspect there a lot of people with no friends out there, though. The Least of These do not normally have big support systems, in my experience.

 

I think this is the best way to do things--voluntarily as a community (free market with private assistance). I think this kind of support would increase a sense of generosity and gratitude versus resentment and entitlement. Maybe my head's in the clouds that such a thing could work...:001_smile:

 

Sure, that would be great. Only, the health insurance companies don't seem so inclined to get on the "lets help one another" bandwagon. Hence, the current bill.

 

I have seen many on this thread express shock that people are not up in arms about this. I hate to break it you, but did you ever consider its because many people are FOR it? Not ignorant, not being tricked by The Big Bad Govt, but honestly feel like the country needs to go in this direction.

[Peek a Boo]

Only, the health insurance companies don't seem so inclined to get on the "lets help one another" bandwagon. Hence, the current bill.[/b]

 

 

actually, the health insurance companies DO quite a bit to "help one another." Their charitable participation is pretty good for an industry that has gotten screwed by the gvt.

 

screwed by the gvt = hence, the current bill.

 

 

theresatwist makes an excellent point:

If the government-run program is so awful, why would people choose it?

 

which requires the exact opposite question be asked:

If the government-run program is so great, why would people need to be forced onto it?

 

I think one should be free to completely opt out of the nat'l program w/ no penalty.

 

eta:

the penalties and fines should come if you come crying to the gvt after opting out: THEN you should have to remain on the Nat'l system for X number of years [or whatever it takes to "pay back" the costs you brought to the system].

Edited July 18, 2009 by Peek a Boo

[Sara R]

I have seen many on this thread express shock that people are not up in arms about this. I hate to break it you, but did you ever consider its because many people are FOR it? Not ignorant, not being tricked by The Big Bad Govt, but honestly feel like the country needs to go in this direction.

 

What level of care, and with what money?

[Peek a Boo]

I feel that I have more choice than many of my American friends who cannot see doctors out of network.

 

Freedom is not about the number of choices.

 

It is really funny to see all the disrespectful comments about this administration after having accused those of us who disagreed with policies of the Bush Administration of being unAmerican or not patriotic for simply disagreeing with policy decisions.

 

I'm an equal-opportunity commentator. :D

I think it's pretty sad that both administrations have shredded the Constitution even further than it was when they first arrived at the White House. Obama is just making better time in his chance to do so.

 

It's a myth that we will suddenly be paying a fortune for some other person's medical care--believe me, every time you pay taxes (state and federal) every time you buy private insurance, every time you go to a store and buy something, you are paying money for another person's health care.

 

Any system of universal coverage shifts costs that already exist. Our current system incentivizes the wrong things. We docs get paid to hospitalize people, to do surgeries and procedures. What happens when you pay for sickness? More people are sick. It's capitalism 101.

 

except that it's not capitalism 101:

there's too many gvt mandates and regulations involved.

I think the current system needs to be scrapped/overhauled [including tort reform] and this bill needs to be trashed completely.

[Peek a Boo]

Where is my freedom in that?

 

.... Their medical concerns are well cared for. There is FREEDOM in that. I don't have to worry about their healthcare.

 

freedom isn't about "not worrying" or "not struggling."

 

freedom is not about having your money forcibly taken from you and given to someone else --it's about being able to give your own money to causes if you so desire.

 

but i do understand that like the terms socialism and communism, many people use the term "freedom" when they really mean "cared for/ taken care of."

 

i think i'm finally caught up reading this thread now. ;)

[elw_miller]

every time you buy private insurance, you are paying money for another person's health care.

 

This, at least, is voluntary. If I do not pay what portion of the taxes that are to go to the proposed health reform plan then the federal government will come to take it from me. I can freely choose to leave the insurance company. Yes, fines and penalties will hurt but no one is going to put me in jail if I decide not to participate.

 

What happens when you pay for sickness? More people are sick. It's capitalism 101.

 

??? That's not how my kids get the flu. :) Besides, the doctor can tell you to go get X test done, but you don't have to go. If you choose not to no one will arrest you.

[Julie in Austin]

Just wanted to point out that the House version of the bill has a religious exemption, so those of you who object to being "forced" to participate . . . wouldn't actually have to.

[Dirtroad]

Obviously, you - nor anyone in you family has a pre-existing condition. After my very generous severance package ran out in 2007, I tried to obtain health insurance for my dh. I called agents, filled out things online, everything. Tried everywhere. Denied for high cholesterol and sleep apnea. Denied. No matter what I tried. Denied. He is a mechanic. At the time, he worked for a shop with 4 employees. They did not offer health insurance. We made $35000 a year, but had $10,000 in the bank. We did not qualify for medicaid. So, where, exactly would we get insurance for him? If you are uninsurable, work for a living and have a savings account - you are pretty much out of luck. Sure it is our responsibility. As with anything else in our 20 years of marriage - we did our best to figure it out. In the end, he went without insurance for over a year until we moved and he found a small shop with insurance. That small shop laid him off in May. He has Cobra until November. Then he will most likely be back in the same place as before. Working for a small shop with no insurance.

 

It must have something to do with your state & which companies they allow or what they allow insurance to do.

 

My Dad has congestive heart failure and my Mom has diabetes.... both were able to find insurance a few years back. They are also small business owners. There are options, but your state GOVT may be your issue. Maybe it would help to look into it.

 

Also, if the FEDs would allow catastrophic insurance... you could manage your basic care needs & some meds.... but have catastrophic for bad acccidents or cancer, etc. Some people can already get this.

 

Some companies also offer temporary catastrophic insurance. It comes in handy when cobra is too expensive or is ending & bridges the gap.

 

If a diabetic or congestive person can get insurance, sleep apnea can.... I just bet it involved gov't regulations.

 

And it won't be any better with this gov't program.... never, ever is.

[Dirtroad]

Sure, if I had enough assets to cover it. When my dd broke her ankle the two surgeries and office visits topped $50,000. At the time, we probably had $6000 in the bank. Where would I get the other $44000?

 

When my dh had a kidney stone - the bill topped $28000. At that time we probably had less that $3000 in the bank, but we made about $35000 a year. We didn't qualify for medicaid because we made too much.

 

Currently, my dh is laid off. He gets unemployment equal to half of his salary. We knew a lay of was possible and put savings away. We have more in savings than medicaid allows. We are using that savings to pay our bills and eat. Of course, we will have to use that money to pay for meds if he can't find employment with insurance. His meds run about $500 a month.

 

Medicaid will not cover you if you make anything over poverty level or have more than $3K in the bank. If you are uninsurable, you just have to go without insurance. If you need care, you may not be able to get it unless you go to the ER.

 

why is your daughter uninsurable?

[Dirtroad]

This question of CHOICE that Dirtroad mentions confuses me. I don't understand how you can simultaneously believe that the government-run insurance option will be awful and that people will be denied the treatments they want/need under such a program, and at the same time believe that this government-run program is going to drive your private options out of business. If the government-run program is so awful, why would people choose it? I would just like to understand how you reconcile what I see as a serious contradiction here.

 

FREEEEEEEE! Lack of information. Complete faith in government (womb to the tomb mentality). Desperation in current health situation. Easier to be compliant. Easier to look to goverment for "saving you" than to develop a new business to fill the need of those in the middle. On and on....

 

Driving private out of business b/c it is in the wording. If you policy changes, you are forced into gov't program. How long can DH insurance remain static (no deductible or rate change, no care issue change). It won't take long to slowly move everyone to gov't care. Also, some companies like WalMart are lobbying hard for a gov't care plan... WHY? So they can drop insurance like a hot rock & stop paying for it. More profit for them. (they are looking for loopholes, you bet on that)

 

Treatment denials... pattern of behavior. Countless cases in other socialized medicine countries. Death rates higher from treatable illnesses in EU (see previous post).

 

Obama even told that poor person that their ~96 year old Mother would not get a pace maker.... maybe a pain pill.... the doctor would not be able to judge her "spirit" (zeal, love of life, etc) to make decision about care... she would be denied (paraphrasing him but this shocked many). He was rather blunt. Too old.... not useful.... burden to society... your days WILL be numbered. IT happens everywhere and we can't be so naive to assume that our government will be any different.

 

People really need to remember, you get what you pay for! And if they pay, they make all the decisions.

[Dirtroad]

On one hand, I believe that everyone has a right to health care.

 

Do you really believe that is a RIGHT that was mentioned by our founding fathers? Thomas Paine?

 

A RIGHT?

 

You have the opportunity for healthcare. Many chose not do pay for it. Many are illegal immigrants milking the system or taking advantage of it & driving up costs. A few have problems in an imperfect system. But to invite an entire gov't to take over it all?

 

Really, it is not a RIGHT..... unless you are redefining the meaning of right to something we wish everyone could have or enjoy.... .I want a right to the Caribbean each Winter (how far can it go?) Not being mean, trying to show this can keep going & growing.

 

NOTE: elw miller (a few pages back on this thread) did better than I at this! Worth the read.

[cdrumm4448]

it's called a job.

 

Yes, there will always be people who can't work and there should be provisions for those people to be cared for. But I have worked my butt off since I was 15 years old. I have never and would never take a job that didn't offer health insurance. Yes, I have made good decisions in my life that didn't prevent me from getting an education, but I also have done and will do whatever I have to do to remain competitive and get those better-paying jobs with great benefits, good healthcare being one of them.

 

This country was founded on the premise of work to get ahead, not government care. I have contacted my representatives to tell them I reject this legislation and I urge you to do the same.

 

I love this country because it is a capitalist system. The aggressive hard-worker is usually rewarded. But, the impending socialist reforms will do nothing but destroy it.

[Mommyof4ks]

actually, the health insurance companies DO quite a bit to "help one another." Their charitable participation is pretty good for an industry that has gotten screwed by the gvt.

 

screwed by the gvt = hence, the current bill.

 

 

theresatwist makes an excellent point:

If the government-run program is so awful, why would people choose it?

 

which requires the exact opposite question be asked:

If the government-run program is so great, why would people need to be forced onto it?

 

I think one should be free to completely opt out of the nat'l program w/ no penalty.

 

eta:

the penalties and fines should come if you come crying to the gvt after opting out: THEN you should have to remain on the Nat'l system for X number of years [or whatever it takes to "pay back" the costs you brought to the system].

 

Exactly. No one would have a choice. Once the private ins. is phased out then we have no choice but to take this ins or pay a penalty. I am not choosing it. I like my private ins., but when my dh's employer gets some incentive to drop private ins. or the gov't imposes some crazy high tax on businesses that offer private ins. then I too will have to take the gov't ins. Our private ins. pays for some 'alternative' things and chemo side effect managing drugs that medicaid/medicare do not pay for, so I will have to begin paying for these out of pocket for these if the system does not allow them and they are not cheap.

 

Universal health care may work great in other countries, but our gov't does not seem to handle anything well at all. I can really see this becoming a 'how little care can we give' kind of plan. I pay X dollars a year for our healthcare, but if I have to start paying 2 or 3 times that just to get the same quality that we get now we will go broke.

[Holly IN]

BUT.... I have a CHOICE with insurance companies. DH can change jobs... we can buy supplemental insurance, etc. I will have NO CHOICE in this goverment chaos. Today, I can even do without insurance & pay my own way (as other person mentioned on this thread).

 

 

Capitalism works & gives me choices. Gov't tells me what to do and I had better be quiet or just deal with it. Big difference.

 

AMEN AMEN AMEN AMEN!!!!!!

 

You said it!!

 

Holly

[cdrumm4448]

Universal health care may work great in other countries, but our gov't does not seem to handle anything well at all.

 

Show me a country where it works wonderfully. I can't find one. All of these proposed tax increases are going to force a revolution in this country. We are sick to death of working to get ahead and have the government tax the daylights out of us to give our money to someone else to spend. And we aren't rich, don't own toys, don't have a vacation home. We own our home, have two paid-for (10- and 11-year-old) cars, and would be happy going out to dinner once a month. There will always be people in need who are a draw on the system, but why put EVERYONE on the system, to be dependent on the government?

 

I don't want it, won't have it, and will fight it with every breath in my body.

[Dirtroad]

it's called a job.

 

Yes, there will always be people who can't work and there should be provisions for those people to be cared for. But I have worked my butt off since I was 15 years old. I have never and would never take a job that didn't offer health insurance. Yes, I have made good decisions in my life that didn't prevent me from getting an education, but I also have done and will do whatever I have to do to remain competitive and get those better-paying jobs with great benefits, good healthcare being one of them.

 

This country was founded on the premise of work to get ahead, not government care. I have contacted my representatives to tell them I reject this legislation and I urge you to do the same.

 

I love this country because it is a capitalist system. The aggressive hard-worker is usually rewarded. But, the impending socialist reforms will do nothing but destroy it.

 

Standing at my computer and shouting.. YES! Like at a ball game. What a beautiful post!:iagree:

[HappyGrace]

I am sick over this whole thing. I agree with all the posters here that had great arguments AGAINST socialized medical care so I won't reiterate what they have said already.

 

My comment is with regard to the posters from other countries WITH socialized care that are happy with it: even if we go with the premise that those countries have been able to come up with gov't run care that is in some ways acceptable, THIS country has proven over and over that it CANNOT run health care efficiently in the areas it has tried (VA, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.) These have been a disaster and what they're proposing now will be far beyond a disaster because not only will it not work, our freedoms will be gone.

 

And even more pertinent to this board, how much longer do you think they'll allow homeschooling once they get a hold of our health care? They will be using the schools as a prime way to disseminate and control health tracking (see swine flu vaccinations posts in this thread) and every child will need to be in the system so they can be monitored.

 

The ramifications of this plan going through are mind-boggling and terrifying.

[cdrumm4448]

Standing at my computer and shouting.. YES! Like at a ball game. What a beautiful post!:iagree:

 

 

Well, thank you. I promised myself I wouldn't get involved in political discussions anymore, as they usually go nowhere, but I just can't take it anymore. Everything you see or hear being proposed will crush us eventually. Where did our spunk go? The drive to be the leader? We had the best standard of living in the world, but now we're starting to look like Europe with excessive taxation and lower levels of care in everything. The people who can should get off their butts and work like the dickens to get ahead. We get our money the old-fashioned way: we earn it.

[Dirtroad]

Another thing to remember... Congress & President will not use this system. They get to keep their current plans (one of best in the world). If it is sooooo wonderful, they should be the first in line.

 

I swear.... I see the ARISTOCRATS of old England. Woe to us peasants....

 

Guess we had all better run for office in Washington....

 

Wonder what old Ted Kennedy would do in his current health situation if he were in this proposed system..... hmmm, can't judge persons spirit & money isn't always there (per Obama)... guess Old Ted would get kicked to the curb & his family can begin those difficult end of life decisions (BO mentioned).

[Sara R]

Obama even told that poor person that their ~96 year old Mother would not get a pace maker.... maybe a pain pill.... the doctor would not be able to judge her "spirit" (zeal, love of life, etc) to make decision about care... she would be denied (paraphrasing him but this shocked many). He was rather blunt. Too old.... not useful.... burden to society... your days WILL be numbered. IT happens everywhere and we can't be so naive to assume that our government will be any different.

 

The thing is that we do have to start making those decisions. Ideally there wouldn't be any socialized medicine and individuals would make that decision. If that 96 year old grandmother had the money, or her children did, then she would get the pacemaker. If not, or if they decided that wasn't a good use of money, then she wouldn't.

 

The problem is that right now, no one is making the tough decisions like that. I don't think government should either. But heroic medical care--pacemakers for 100 year olds and quintuple bypasses for 85 year olds, and so on (I'm sure everyone has seen examples in their own families) on Medicare is a big part of what is bankrupting this country. (That and taking on all that toxic bank debt onto our own country's balance sheet.)

 

Everyone needs to say together: "Our country can't afford it. Our government doesn't have the money." America used to be the richest country in the world--past tense. We all need a collective paradigm shift.

 

What should happen is that those 100 year olds who have saved money over their lifetime by working hard and eating cracked wheat for breakfast would have money for an extra private health policy that covers pacemakers. Or they could pay for the pacemaker out of pocket. Right now Medicaare is paying for all that, and that's why Medicare costs go up each year at many times the rate of inflation.

[Perry]

Another thing to remember... Congress & President will not use this system. They get to keep their current plans (one of best in the world). If it is sooooo wonderful, they should be the first in line.

 

I swear.... I see the ARISTOCRATS of old England. Woe to us peasants....

 

Guess we had all better run for office in Washington....

 

Wonder what old Ted Kennedy would do in his current health situation if he were in this proposed system..... hmmm, can't judge persons spirit & money isn't always there (per Obama)... guess Old Ted would get kicked to the curb & his family can begin those difficult end of life decisions (BO mentioned).

 

Where are you getting this information? This is just not what I'm hearing at all.

 

Regarding the assertion that a Democratic health care bill would mean Americans couldn’t choose their own doctor or coverage, Obama was blunt.

 

“Michelle and I don’t want anyone telling us who our family’s doctor should be – and no one should decide that for you either,” he said. “Under our proposals, if you like your doctor, you keep your doctor. If you like your current insurance, you keep that insurance. Period, end of story.”

 

And as for the general notion that Obama’s plans include “socialized medicine,” he said: “I don’t believe that government can or should run health care. But I also don’t think insurance companies should have free reign to do as they please.”

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 18, 2009 by Perry

[PineFarmMom]

:)

Edited July 23, 2009 by Texas T

[OHGrandma]

I am very opposed to this bill, and am not going to go into the many reasons why. My family does not have health insurance, because we can not afford it. We have found it much cheaper to pay when we go to the doctor, even though we are charged more than 3 times the amount of those who do have health insurance. Health insurance for us would be more than 50-75% of our income, not to mention the $5,000 deductible, and the fact that nothing diabetes would be covered for more than 5 years.. It is either be homeless with health insurance or have a home without it.

This bill will benefit special interest groups, not hose without health insurance or those with health insurance. It is communism. Access to quality health care will decline. I don't trust it.

 

This is the outrageous injustice I wish was corrected! For years, we purchased our own individual coverage. $5,000 deductible, no maternity benefits. Then I took a job off the farm, and purchased subsidized group health insurance. We just got a bill from a doctor for lab work, $376, after adjustments for allowable charges the total is $34! That is all that is owed after adjustments; insurance is NOT paying the difference between $376 and $34! Folks like MomLovesClassics would be responsible for the whole $376! This is an outrage! How can doctors be allowed to bill and collect $34 from us, but $376 from someone without insurance?

[cdrumm4448]

And as for the general notion that Obama’s plans include “socialized medicine,†he said: “I don’t believe that government can or should run health care. But I also don’t think insurance companies should have free reign to do as they please.â€

 

 

Actions speak louder than words. Read the legislation. He also doesn't think ANY company should have free reign. That's called socialism. Obama is the biggest liberal since JFK, and look what happened to him.

[Melinda in VT]

I'm curious how you got from this:

 

Dh was telling me last night that part of this bill will have people having to have "end of life" counseling every five years in their later years of life,

 

To this:

 

i.e., the govt. run healthcare won't assist you in getting your healthcare needs met if you could potentially die soon anyway.

 

Do you have a source for what they mean by "end of life counseling"? Why do you think this means the elderly won't get their health care needs met?

 

Obviously, what I think of when I see "end of life counseling" is not what you are thinking. So I'd like to see what the writers of that provision were thinking.

[HappyGrace]

“Michelle and I don’t want anyone telling us who our family’s doctor should be – and no one should decide that for you either,†he said. “Under our proposals, if you like your doctor, you keep your doctor. If you like your current insurance, you keep that insurance. Period, end of story.â€

 

Perry, check back because earlier in the thread (every early on) someone linked to the actual bill where it said yes, you can keep your current care, it is grandfathered in-UNTIL THERE IS A CHANGE of any kind (I forgot the exact wording but this was the gist of it)-THEN you'll be under this system.

 

Also, as Dirtroad pointed out-"Michelle and I" WON"T ever be told who their family's dr. will be-they will NOT be under this system!

[OHGrandma]

Another thing to remember... Congress & President will not use this system. They get to keep their current plans (one of best in the world). If it is sooooo wonderful, they should be the first in line.

 

I swear.... I see the ARISTOCRATS of old England. Woe to us peasants....

 

Guess we had all better run for office in Washington....

 

Wonder what old Ted Kennedy would do in his current health situation if he were in this proposed system..... hmmm, can't judge persons spirit & money isn't always there (per Obama)... guess Old Ted would get kicked to the curb & his family can begin those difficult end of life decisions (BO mentioned).

:iagree:

[cdrumm4448]

How can doctors be allowed to bill and collect $34 from us, but $376 from someone without insurance?

 

Because so many people without insurance don't actually PAY their bill. So, the providers have to get what they can from the people who actually pay. It wouldn't matter if the bill was $376 or $34, because it doesn't get paid anyway. It only matters, a lot, to the people who do pay. They do get scr*wed, but instead of the government controlling what a doctor charges, why not control the people who aren't paying? They consume the provider's services, then blow off the bill. Where is the government's responsibility in that?

 

But, I come from a long line of proud people who have never used public services, even when they needed and qualified for them. We put our noses to the grindstone and work, work, work to get all the bills paid. My grandparents paid off two houses in seven years each, working in a FACTORY. Neither graduated from high school, but they were big savers. So, when people tell me it can't be done, I have a problem with that. I've seen it done.

[admin]

Please remember that posting links to outside news sources is not permitted under board rules.

 

Keep it nonpartisan and the thread stays open.

 

Moderator

[Perry]

Perry, check back because earlier in the thread (every early on) someone linked to the actual bill where it said yes, you can keep your current care, it is grandfathered in-UNTIL THERE IS A CHANGE of any kind (I forgot the exact wording but this was the gist of it)-THEN you'll be under this system.

 

And then SFP posted a link (that I will not repost) that showed that this isn't true.

[cdrumm4448]

my husband told me last night that under the new legislation Flexible Healthcare Spending Accounts will be eliminated. The government is attempting to make it more attractive financially to choose the gov-sponsored plan by eliminating any tax breaks for other sources of healthcare. So, they are rigging the system in their favor. That is not freedom.

[Supertechmom]

How can doctors be allowed to bill and collect $34 from us, but $376 from someone without insurance?

 

 

 

Because Federal law mandates that medical charge everyone the same rate. Insurance companies have contracts and thus get a contracted price. Self pays do not have contracts and thus pay full price. My sis works in a gi office and writes off 685 dollars for every insurance covered procedure. She can't write off the money for self pay. Once it begins to go into "collections" she can negotiate payment and accept lesser upon some kind of pay back agreement. But she has to charge the full procedure price. Interesting thing is the procedure cost what it does so they can get the amount they want under the insurance plan. They charge a great rate so they can haggle and negotiate to get the amount they want.

[SFP]

Might I suggest that everyone pull up the actual bill from the Library of Congress website and do an actual search for the info that various people here and in the media have claimed is contained within the bill? I find no mention of any "end of life" counseling, no mention that everyone will be switched over to the government plan within x-number of years instead of allowing them to have private insurance or to change their private insurance.

[cdrumm4448]

Might I suggest that everyone pull up the actual bill from the Library of Congress website and do an actual search for the info that various people here and in the media have claimed is contained within the bill? I find no mention of any "end of life" counseling, no mention that everyone will be switched over to the government plan within x-number of years instead of allowing them to have private insurance or to change their private insurance.

 

If anyone reads the entire thing, kudos to you!

 

Food for thought: this piece of legislation regarding healthcare is over 1,000 pages. (I wonder how many senators or congressmen have or will read the entire thing?) To contrast, the entire US Constitution is 6 pages, and it founded a country.

[SFP]

You don't have to read the entire bill. Just do a word search.

[AnotherE]

Obviously, you - nor anyone in you family has a pre-existing condition. After my very generous severance package ran out in 2007, I tried to obtain health insurance for my dh. I called agents, filled out things online, everything. Tried everywhere. Denied for high cholesterol and sleep apnea. Denied. No matter what I tried. Denied. He is a mechanic. At the time, he worked for a shop with 4 employees. They did not offer health insurance. We made $35000 a year, but had $10,000 in the bank. We did not qualify for medicaid. So, where, exactly would we get insurance for him? If you are uninsurable, work for a living and have a savings account - you are pretty much out of luck. Sure it is our responsibility. As with anything else in our 20 years of marriage - we did our best to figure it out. In the end, he went without insurance for over a year until we moved and he found a small shop with insurance. That small shop laid him off in May. He has Cobra until November. Then he will most likely be back in the same place as before. Working for a small shop with no insurance.

 

:grouphug: I'm trying to stay away from this thread now, but I wanted to let you know it is situations like yours that put on my heart that we need some sort of universal health care.

 

This could be anybody that did everything right, made sure they had insurance, tried to continue insurance when they lost it. And I'm surprised that medicaid is suggested, but universal healthcare is rejected. Isn't that what medicaid is? The only issue with medicaid is a person has to lose just about everything to pay for medical situations whereas a health care program open to all would allow people to pay for insurance and not be driven into poverty.

 

Eh, I'm tired and this probably isn't coming out right. I hope your husband is able to find work quickly, and you will be insured.

[cdrumm4448]

I do have a pre-existing condition and I cured it with natural cures, since all the antibiotics in the world didn't help, and actually made it worse.

 

The point is we now have a situation where everyone needs insurance due to the terribly high costs of medical care. When my European immigrant grandparents were young, you didn't go to the dr unless you had an appendage hanging by a thread. They paid cash when they did go. We didn't have health insurance when I was a kid, and my father needed to have a boil removed from his back. He had it cut out without any painkillers to save on the cost of the procedure. We also paid cash. I really don't recommend that (going without insurance or foregoing painkiller during surgery), but there has to be a better way to solve the current crisis without forcing everyone to participate in government-funded healthcare.

[cdrumm4448]

:grouphug: I'm trying to stay away from this thread now, but I wanted to let you know it is situations like yours that put on my heart that we need some sort of universal health care.

 

This could be anybody that did everything right, made sure they had insurance, tried to continue insurance when they lost it. And I'm surprised that medicaid is suggested, but universal healthcare is rejected. Isn't that what medicaid is? The only issue with medicaid is a person has to lose just about everything to pay for medical situations whereas a health care program open to all would allow people to pay for insurance and not be driven into poverty.

 

Eh, I'm tired and this probably isn't coming out right. I hope your husband is able to find work quickly, and you will be insured.

 

I think the point is that Medicaid is already in place. You try taking away an entitlement program and see what happens. People never want to give up what they have already been receiving, and are now counting on. I just don't want to add to the already terrible tax problem in this country by adding a program that most don't want, don't see as beneficial, and will end up costing them more money in the end.

[BabyBre]

I could give you so many examples of people who need coverage and have no means to get it. That is my argument for reform. For the people who can't get coverage even if they are trying to do the right thing.

 

I don't think anyone can argue against reform of the current system. But turning over your right to make the choices in this very private and personal issue to the Federal government is contrary to the common sense of a free people. It's one rescue operation after another in which we're doing this and we will very soon cease to be even as free as we are, let alone truely free.

 

I am sort of resigned to the fact that we are going to have a federalized health care program and our country is at a place where that has become pretty necessary.

 

The people want the government taking care them.

 

And these are the sentiments that are taking us there. We've been very well indoctrinated for generations to be passive and silent.

 

I'm involved in trying to enact a different type of reform' date=' currently at the local level, and am receiving quite an education on the depth of corruption within this level of government. It becomes glaringly clear how easily it must occur at every level of government. People in power are acting on behalf of their own interests rather than of those they're meant to be serving. That sounds really cliche, but that's what I'm seeing at the lowest level, directly affecting people I know. And I'm not nearly naive enough to believe that this is an anomoly.

 

My point is that my limited involvement in dealing this way with a government entity is opening my eyes wide because I, too, believed that I shouldn't speak out or make waves, unquestioningly believing that they're the experts and must know what's best for [i']us[/i]. The truth is that they work for us. We established the different factions of government, we pay them, and we do have the power, if we use it, to reform or abolish them. We've just, as a whole, been taught to be sheep. (Thank God our founders were not sheep.)