Healthcare reform bill

[Dirtroad]

SELL THE HOUSE AMD GET BETTER! Great day in the morning. Now why haven't all those clueless, lazy, horribly ill people ever figured out it was just that simple. I'm sorry, but that remark has to be one of the most insensitive sentences I've seen on these boards. Perhaps you should write it up as a self help pamphlet and personally visit some major hospital waiting rooms, I'd love to see the reception.

 

You have not read this entire thread or conversations. Someone wanted FREE gov't health care & they have issues with medical insurance & paying bills... yet they own 2 houses.

 

Others mention losing EVERYTHING... a house is a treasure, but it is just a building... to have your loved one alive & in your arms... that is way more important than a stupid brick & mortar building.

 

Not that anyone WISH (or want) such hardships... come on... but I would rather have OPTIONS in my health care (including unloading the house if needed) than to be locked into a gov't health care plan that will tell me what I can get & that I have no choices ... can't pay on my own or get it from elsewhere. And God forbid I be older & they decide I do not deserve my opportunity to live 5-10 more years (out of BHO mouth).

 

You missed too much of the conversation to be so cruel in your assessment. I have been in this conversation with several people who are in awful situations or have experience them (as have many of us), but I do not feel it is the role of gov't to mandate health coverage & stealing from the public to finance a few horrible situations..... many other options have ben mentioned also. There are 36 pages here.

 

I do not understand someone with ASSETS (be it a house or vacation lodge) expecting me to pay for their medical bills. (unless I voluntarily give - which I have done many times)

Edited July 20, 2009 by Dirtroad

[Dirtroad]

I am actually for some kind of health care reform. However, I am not sure that what we are getting is going to really help much. I am concerened, especially, when I listen to president Obama. He does not say, "Everyone will be covered." What he says instead is this: "Everyone will have more affordable options available to choose from." Huhhh?

 

I just don't think we are getting, not with this bill, what we think we are getting.

 

Susie

 

I honestly do not feel this is about HEALTH CARE REFORM... but is really about HEALTH CARE TAKEOVER!

[Dirtroad]

There seems to be this rumor out there that the government is going to force you onto their plan. That's just not true. If you don't have health care coverage you will be required to get coverage. However, if you can find a plan you like better than the government's plan you can buy that coverage. If you already have private insurance that you're happy with you can keep it. Listen to Obama's speeches/ press conferences/ town hall meetings on the subject he says these main points over and over again. So if you already have health insurance through your employer and you have a baby that baby can be put on your health insurance. No, you do not have to have the baby on the government insurance. Yes, you will be required to insure the baby somehow.

 

If you are convinced that the government can't do anything right then you shouldn't be worried that the government plan is going to push all these other private insurers out of business. All they are doing is joining the market. Did the US Postal Service push Fed Ex out of business? No! What do you know? They happily exist side by side and my mail arrives at the same time everyday.

 

If you haven't bought that plan by the date law changes, you MUST take govt' plan. If you don't have plan at work, individual plans won't be allowed. If you a can afford your own care, too bad.... everyone must be enrolled.

 

When your coverage changes due to increased rates, etc... you lose it & go into gov't plan. How long has nay medical plan ever remained static?

 

Postal system is not a good example to use in supporting a gov't success;) story or take over of such a huge chunk of our economy. Scary to think they will handle medical as efficiently as they handle mail.

[Dirtroad]

I think that sums up the differences quite plainly. Some people are OK with the gov't acting as the parent, enforcing choices upon the 'children'. Others of us prefer to act as adults and make our own choices.

 

:iagree:

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

By peek a Boo Cuz if something goes wrong w/ one of those health insurance companies, those CEOs are going down. yet you want them to also give up their salaries.

yeah.....

 

and while we're at it, let's have all those people that work at power plants, banks, and water companies pay for bills that unemployed/ lower employed people can't pay. Where are you going to draw the line? At complete communism??

__________________

 

 

First of all, I am not a communist. I come from a long line of entrepeneurs and believe in capitalism;)

 

I do think that excess profit and greed needs to be taken out of the healthcare insurance equation though since people's lives hang in the balance. I also think that 14.9 billion paid to 23 individuals over a 5 year period is an outrage. It is not only unfair to the health insurance recipients but also to the employees and stockholders as well.

 

"In 1980s, the CEOs of Fortune companies earned about 42 times as much as the average worker. By 2000, CEOs were making over 500 times what the average worker earned. In 2004, the average CEO of a major corporation received over$9.8 million in total compensation."

 

I do not think that average CEO is worth that much period. I also do not think that they are doing a much better job compared to the 1980's to account for making that much more money. I think it simply greed run amok.

 

Hey, I hope my dh husband earns a lot of money too in his start up company, but we will never need that much money. I think CEO's can be paid reasonably instead.

 

[theresatwist]

I think that sums up the differences quite plainly. Some people are OK with the gov't acting as the parent, enforcing choices upon the 'children'. Others of us prefer to act as adults and make our own choices.

 

 

I guess the best way to phrase my argument might be like this: Can you find me a physician who believes that NOT having health insurance is the smarter option? When you follow the doctor's orders you act like an adult. To wait until there's a problem (in other words, not plan ahead) and then try to deal with it is something a myopic teenager would do.

[Kari C in SC]

You have not read this entire thread or conversations. Someone wanted FREE gov't health care & they have issues with medical insurance & paying bills... yet they own 2 houses.

 

 

I *think* you may be referring to me. I own two houses. Not by choice. We tried for over a year to sell our house in Florida in a terrible real estate market. You can't sell a house if nobody is buying. So, we did the responsible thing and rented it. We could have been like so many and walked away from it since we already had another in another state. I even had a realtor tell me that would be the best thing to do. By renting our house, we pay both house payments and generate income. If I sold the house for a loss, I would not be able to pay those bills and would lose income - thus making our need for affordable healthcare even more serious. Owning the house actually produces money - not the opposite. Mine is not a problem with affording realistic insurance rates. Mine is a problem of my dh being denied because he is not all that healthy from no fault of his own - just bad genetics. If he could get health insurance for $300 a month even, we would gladly pay it. He can't, so we are stuck.

 

I think you are confused. I do not want FREE healthcare. I want access to affordable healthcare regardless of pre-existing conditions. I want to have access to healthcare regardless of my family's income. I want people that work hard, pay their bills, do the right thing to not have to lose everything over something as simple as a broken bone that needs surgery.

[MomLovesClassics]

I am on a live teleconfrence with my congressman. Being able to keep your current insurance is a lie! There will be no insurance that is not approved by the federal government. Just to clarify the misconception that people will be able to keep their current health care plan. It will not be the same once the government changes it. This is quoted from congress NOT ME!

[bairnmama]

There seems to be this rumor out there that the government is going to force you onto their plan. That's just not true. If you don't have health care coverage you will be required to get coverage. However, if you can find a plan you like better than the government's plan you can buy that coverage. If you already have private insurance that you're happy with you can keep it. Listen to Obama's speeches/ press conferences/ town hall meetings on the subject he says these main points over and over again. So if you already have health insurance through your employer and you have a baby that baby can be put on your health insurance. No, you do not have to have the baby on the government insurance. Yes, you will be required to insure the baby somehow.

 

 

So... let's look at the wording in this bill that states that you can keep your private insurance:

 

Secton 102.a does allow individual plans to be grandfathered in so long as they do not ever change their benefits, cost shares, terms & conditions (except as required by law), or enroll any new people except dependants after the date this plan goes into effect. But how realistic is that? How long can the plan remain competitve without enrolling new members or changing something? This means that they can't reduce the cost shares the enrollee has to pay without it being "required by law" or they lose their grandfathered status, right? They can't increase their benefits without it being "required by law" to better serve their enrollees without losing their grandfathered status. Yes, this will prevent them from reducing benefits and cost shares, but it also prevents the reverse.

 

Section 102.c states that any individual plan that is not grandfathered (meaning static and not allowed to change to reflect new technologies and procedures that are not "required by law") "may only be offered as an Exchange-participating health benefits plan."

 

Section 201 describes what this Health Insurance Exchange is... It states it's mission

to facilitate access of individuals and employers... to a variety of choices of affordable, quality health insurance coverage, including a public health insurance option. (emphasis mine)

 

However, Section 203.b.1 states that if an entity that offers Qualified Health Benefit Plans wants to contract to offer an Exchange-participating plan (which they have to in order to enroll new members according to Section 102), they can only offer one basic plan for any service area. The entity can then choose to offer one enhanced, then one premium plan (in that order). These all offer the same basic benefits (decided upon by the Commissioner of the Health Insurance Exchange), but at different cost-sharing levels. Only after these plans are offered, can some with more benefits, called Premium-Plus, be offered... for a higher premium that is billed separately.

 

Section 205.b.3.A states that for non-Medicaid eligible individuals (which includes a lot of people on this board from several posts I've been reading),

The Commissioner shall provide for a process under which individuals who are Exchange-elligible... are automatically enrolled under an appropriate Exchange-participating health benefits plan. Such process may involve a random assignment or some other form of assignment that takes into account the health care providers used by the individual involved or such other relevant factors as the Commissioner may specify. (emphasis mine)

Tell me... how is this a choice? This specific section pertains to those individuals that apply for the affordability credits.... so I gather that if you cannot afford to pay for your own insurance, but are not elligible for Medicaid, you get assigned to a plan of the Commissioner's choosing. The Commissioner has almost total control over who gets to become an approved health benefit plan provider as well. This is not even under the public option section... that starts in Subtitle B Section 221. But Section 221.b.1 states that

The public health insurance option shall only be made available through the Health Insurance Exchange.

Looking closely at the wording, I see nothing different between the public option and the so-called private option above except that it is the Secretary of Health and Human Services that offers the plan and contracts with insurance providers. In fact, Section 222.a.1.A states that any premiums the Secretary establishes must comply with the rules established by the Commissioner of the private Health Insurance Exchange. This leads me to believe that there will be no truly private health insurance. The govt will decide what are basic and necessary benefits, what are affordable premiums, and who can provide those benefit plans for everyone, whether they chose the "public option" or not!

[MomLovesClassics]

Be on the look out for Obama's plan to take over the banking industry, and energy industry.

[Audrey]

I am on a live teleconfrence with my congressman. Being able to keep your current insurance is a lie! There will be no insurance that is not approved by the federal government. Just to clarify the misconception that people will be able to keep their current health care plan. It will not be the same once the government changes it. This is quoted from congress NOT ME!

 

 

No, that is quoted from your particular congressperson, who does not speak for all of Congress, and who may or may not have vested interests on his/her agenda.

[MomLovesClassics]

No, that is quoted from your particular congressperson, who does not speak for all of Congress, and who may or may not have vested interests on his/her agenda.

Well I had the nerve to ask, and that was the answer I got. Once the government takes over health care, insurance plans will have to be approved by the government, and will no longer be the same as they once were. This health care plan is full of deception, yet it is being rushed. I am not for the government making my health care decisions for me.

[Peek a Boo]

First of all, I am not a communist. I come from a long line of entrepeneurs and believe in capitalism;)

 

I didn't say YOU were a communist-- i said the concept was communistic. And it is.

 

I do think that excess profit and greed needs to be taken out of the healthcare insurance equation though since people's lives hang in the balance.

 

:001_huh:

why not have the uber-rich pitch in so more people can afford great healthcare? If people's lives are indeed hanging in the balance, why should it matter WHERE the extra money comes from? why pick on one industry?

 

I also think that 14.9 billion paid to 23 individuals over a 5 year period is an outrage.

ok --then you'll be supporting capping those people on the Forbes list, right?

is anyone exempt from raking in millions per year?? just how far does your outrage extend?

 

 

It is not only unfair to the health insurance recipients but also to the employees and stockholders as well.

I think the stockholders who are earning a profit off the CEOs efforts would disagree. now if they AREN't earning a profit, then they may agree with you.

If that company goes under, those employees are WITHOUT A JOB.

If that company goes under, those employees are not going to carry as much responsibility or blame as the CEO.

We probably have a big difference in concludng what's "fair."

 

 

I do not think that average CEO is worth that much period. I also do not think that they are doing a much better job compared to the 1980's to account for making that much more money. I think it simply greed run amok.

Then don't hire them to run your health insurance company.

 

Hey, I hope my dh husband earns a lot of money too in his start up company, but we will never need that much money. I think CEO's can be paid reasonably instead.

 

 

I truly hope he earns enough for you to find out first hand. :D

[BabyBre]

I would not call a requirement that folks have health insurance bullying, just as I don't think a mother is bullying her child when she insists that he wears a lifejacket when he goes canoeing.

 

 

Wow. I think that sums it up right there. I'm a grown-up now in what is supposed to be a free country. I don't want or need a nanny to take care of me and tell me what to do.

 

This country was valliantly won and carefully constructed by a very competent people. Do you, by that arguement, contend that we have devolved? That this current generation of Americans couldn't possibly pick themselves up by their bootstrings and put the country back together? That we now NEED an oppressive government to force us to take care of ourselves as they see fit? That's not taking care of ourselves, nor is it independent or free. That's a nanny state, not a free state.

 

You know, I actually think you could argue that the American population is not of the caliber of our founders' generation. But why do you suppose that could be? OK, I'll tell you. ;) Because of massively increasing government programs over the last century that have been "taking care" of us, bailing us out when we screw up, creating a sense in the American people that they're entitled to things that they haven't earned.

 

But when people are faced with incredible adversity (or tyranny), they become capable of amazing things. The odds against the ragamuffin American colonists, facing the greatest army in the world in the Revolutionary War, were astronomical, yet those with the character and fortitude to effect change stepped up, sacrificed their lives and their fortunes, and lead us to one of the most miraculous victories in history. They didn't need or want a government to take care of them. They established a government to protect their rights, not take them away, or limit them, or make sure that everyone's "equal", or end suffering with the wave of a billion dollar bill.

 

There are the scourge of the earth in every generation of people and, likewise, there are always those with the potential to do God's work. Don't you know those people in your life? The ones who would go down in history for the unselfish actions they took based on their content of character? I do. I know exactly who those people in my little sphere would be. They are out there, among the heathens in the American population, and if the Federal government would just butt the h*ll out of our private lives, there would be countless millions more.

 

:rant:

 

I know I blew a little off topic, but it's about an indoctrinated attitude. Health care is broken and needs reform, no doubt about it, but government-run health care is not American.

 

Great video on the various forms of government: http://www.flixxy.com/political-systems.htm

Edited July 21, 2009 by BabyBre

[Lovedtodeath]

I would not call a requirement that folks have health insurance bullying, just as I don't think a mother is bullying her child when she insists that he wears a lifejacket when he goes canoeing.

The problem is that the currrent healthcare system is not a lifejacket. I have several friends who have recovered from cancer without any Medical intervention. They used alternative therapies and they lived a good life while on them. You can't say that about Chemo. I have another who cured (yes cured) MS with alternative therapies. These people all went to a Natural Doctor who is not covered on an insurance plan and neither are the treatments she prescribes. (All of the above mentioned people were diagnosed before and after the illness by a Medical Doctor with traditional means, one had ovarian cancer and breast cancer and was told to plan her funeral.)

 

I have an autoimmune disease (Ulcerative Colitis). I was on a prescription that costs $450-$500 per month and has side effects and safety warnings. I switched from that to $200 a month of Fish Oil a natural anti-inflammatory for the bowel. Is fish oil covered under an insurance plan? The Natural Doctor was able to test my babies for food allergies effectively eliminating their severe reflux and cure my heart problem. I gave Medical Doctors a chance for those too. Their solution is ineffective drugs that cause side effects.

 

So I could pay for insurance every month and still have to pay for my health care. That is not something that I look forward to.

Edited July 21, 2009 by Lovedtodeath

[Sara R]

The problem is that the currrent healthcare system is not a lifejacket. I have several friends who have recovered from cancer without any Medical intervention. They used alternative therapies and they lived a good life while on them. You can't say that about Chemo.

 

(Risking a threadjack): Chemo isn't as bad as it used to be, I think. I was afraid I'd be bedridden for months, but it was only bad for the first 3-4 days after treatment. I still walked 3 miles per day on most days.

 

I'm glad the alternative treatments worked for you. I wish the scientific community were motivated to compare alternative and mainstream treatments. I value science, but there are a lot of promising alternative treatments out there. Unfortunately there's a lot of snake oil out there too.

[Perry]

I'm glad the alternative treatments worked for you. I wish the scientific community were motivated to compare alternative and mainstream treatments. I value science, but there are a lot of promising alternative treatments out there. Unfortunately there's a lot of snake oil out there too.

 

Article excerpt

 

$2.5 billion spent, no alternative cures found

 

Big, government-funded studies show most work no better than placebos

 

 

updated 11:15 a.m. CT, Wed., June 10, 2009

 

BETHESDA, Md. - Ten years ago the government set out to test herbal and other alternative health remedies to find the ones that work. After spending $2.5 billion, the disappointing answer seems to be that almost none of them do.

Echinacea for colds. Ginkgo biloba for memory. Glucosamine and chondroitin for arthritis. Black cohosh for menopausal hot flashes. Saw palmetto for prostate problems. Shark cartilage for cancer. All proved no better than dummy pills in big studies funded by the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine. The lone exception: ginger capsules may help chemotherapy nausea.

 

I haven't looked at the actual studies so I can't comment on how well done they were.

[Lovedtodeath]

Article excerpt

 

I haven't looked at the actual studies so I can't comment on how well done they were.

 

I can. They were going about it all wrong. Natural Medicine treats the person, not the diagnosis. Each person gets what they specifically need, you don't give all colon cancer patients the same treatment. You don't give all asthma patients the same treatment. If you treat the person as a whole then it is completely different than what these researchers tried to do.

 

In China it is well established to use accupuncture as anesthesia. I wanted it instead of an epidural and they will not allow it in a hospital here.

Edited July 21, 2009 by Lovedtodeath

[Perry]

I can. They were going about it all wrong. Natural Medicine treats the person, not the diagnosis. Each person gets what they specifically need, you don't give all colon cancer patients the same treatment. You don't give all asthma patients the same treatment. If you treat the person as a whole then it is completely different than what these researchers tried to do.

 

In China it is well established to use accupuncture as anesthesia. I wanted it instead of an epidural and they will not allow it in a hospital here.

 

Many of these studies were looking at OTC preparations, not treatments they would receive from a practitioner. These OTC "remedies" are supposed to treat medical problems. The evidence shows that the claims are untrue.

[Lovedtodeath]

 

Many of these studies were looking at OTC preparations, not treatments they would receive from a practitioner. These OTC "remedies" are supposed to treat medical problems. The evidence shows that the claims are untrue.

We agree then!

[MomLovesClassics]

Big drug companies have the support of the government. It is impressive how they switch jobs back and forth from government to drug company. There is much conflict of interest where drug companies are concerned. Drug companies market their medicine to physicians, AMA, to the public, and other ways. Drug companies make lots of money and are agressive. Now drug companies can get drugs approved in less time with less studies. Alternative medicine does not stand much chance in this country.

[8circles]

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.

 

HR 3200

pg 426+ end of life counseling

pg 16 regarding granfathering of private ins.

[theresatwist]

Wow. I think that sums it up right there. I'm a grown-up now in what is supposed to be a free country. I don't want or need a nanny to take care of me and tell me what to do.

 

This country was valliantly won and carefully constructed by a very competent people. Do you, by that arguement, contend that we have devolved? That this current generation of Americans couldn't possibly pick themselves up by their bootstrings and put the country back together? That we now NEED an oppressive government to force us to take care of ourselves as they see fit? That's not taking care of ourselves, nor is it independent or free. That's a nanny state, not a free state.

 

You know, I actually think you could argue that the American population is not of the caliber of our founders' generation. But why do you suppose that could be? OK, I'll tell you. ;) Because of massively increasing government programs over the last century that have been "taking care" of us, bailing us out when we screw up, creating a sense in the American people that they're entitled to things that they haven't earned.

 

But when people are faced with incredible adversity (or tyranny), they become capable of amazing things. The odds against the ragamuffin American colonists, facing the greatest army in the world in the Revolutionary War, were astronomical, yet those with the character and fortitude to effect change stepped up, sacrificed their lives and their fortunes, and lead us to one of the most miraculous victories in history. They didn't need or want a government to take care of them. They established a government to protect their rights, not take them away, or limit them, or make sure that everyone's "equal", or end suffering with the wave of a billion dollar bill.

 

There are the scourge of the earth in every generation of people and, likewise, there are always those with the potential to do God's work. Don't you know those people in your life? The ones who would go down in history for the unselfish actions they took based on their content of character? I do. I know exactly who those people in my little sphere would be. They are out there, among the heathens in the American population, and if the Federal government would just butt the h*ll out of our private lives, there would be countless millions more.

 

:rant:

 

I know I blew a little off topic, but it's about an indoctrinated attitude. Health care is broken and needs reform, no doubt about it, but government-run health care is not American.

 

Great video on the various forms of government: http://www.flixxy.com/political-systems.htm

 

 

Okay, we just have about a million philosophical differences. :001_smile: I don't see the government playing a role in healthcare is an infringement on my freedom. My ideal political system would be a socialist democratic system similar to those in Northern Europe. I want government to play a role in my life. I don't know if I'm in the majority, but I'm far from alone on that.

 

As I see it, lack of government regulation in our economy got us into this financial mess. Those folks on Wall Street, they're adults. Should they be free to drive the entire nation into a recession or even a depression based on their greed? Sure, eventually the market if left alone would probably eventually recover. But who knows how long that would take and in the interim everyone suffers.

 

I didn't say anything about the caliber of the American people declining--that was your suggestion. Yes, I know many selfless people who would do anything for their country. You seem to suggest that all of those folks must be of one political ideology (yours). There were philosophical differences (politically speaking) among the views of the founders too. We tend to group them together in our thinking. The truth is they were a very diverse group.

 

As for the argument about alternative medicine such as acupuncture made by one of the other posters, if that's what you want to do I think you should have the right to choose that route. I believe that eastern medicine has huge potential for minor illnesses (the flu, etc) where it's just a matter of time before you are going to get better. When I have the flu I often don't take any medicine, sleep and plenty of water do the trick, it just takes a bit longer. However, if I were to be diagnosed with cancer or some other life-threatening illness I would want the option of chemo or other (almost invariably) more expensive western treatments. I don't think I should have to have to go into bankruptcy to be able to have that option. There are HMOs making huge profits. The treatment does not cost nearly as much as we pay for it. $500 dollars per pill as part of the treatment of a cancer patient? No pill costs $500 to produce and nobody in the healthcare industry works so hard that they deserve to be making such outrageous profits.

 

My views are not the result of indoctrination anymore than yours are. I think heartfelt would be the more accurate term and I bet yours are too. Furthermore, I'm an American--born and bred. My views are just as American as yours. No political party has a monopoly on American values.

Edited July 23, 2009 by theresatwist

[Lovedtodeath]

My friend's cancer treatment from the Natural Doctor was about $800 a month. Did I mention that she was diagnosed by a Medical Doctor and he told her to plan her funeral? That was six years ago. She recovered in less than a year and the doctor who originally diagnosed her confirmed it.

 

I had a heart problem that the MDs couldn't figure out. The ND took care of it.

 

I want the right to choose alternative care without penalty.

 

You can still go for Western methods if you so choose.

Edited July 23, 2009 by Lovedtodeath

[theresatwist]

I just wanted to add that I think all doctor's would agree that the best way to deal with sickness is to not get sick in the first place! Not getting sick means having access to preventative care. My insurance does not cover ordinary doctor's visits (check-ups). It is far cheaper for me to wait until I get sick to go to the doctor. Yet my doing that costs the whole nation more than if my insurance policy allowed me to go for regular check-ups. (Sure, I can still go if I want to pay a few hundred dollars out of pocket. Not everybody has that few hundred dollars to spare.)

[Tina]

Hey' date=' I'll go for it if Congress opts out of its cushy congressional health plan and puts itself at the mercy of the system they are creating. Of course, this will never happen - with a few exceptions, they can't even be bothered to read the thing.[/quote']

 

Bingo! :iagree:

 

And those who don't pay taxes now won't be helping pay for the new system either. I can't remember how big a number this portion of the population is...

[Lovedtodeath]

 

And those who don't pay taxes now won't be helping pay for the new system either. I can't remember how big a number this portion of the population is...

those people already have govt paid health care.

[TeenagerMom]

those people already have govt paid health care.

 

 

Not necessarily. There are a lot of people out there who work, but do not make enough to pay taxes, but don't have government paid health care. Myself included, when I was employed.

[cdrumm4448]

No pill costs $500 to produce and nobody in the healthcare industry works so hard that they deserve to be making such outrageous profits.

 

 

 

That $500 pill is helping to recoup millions of dollars spent in treatment research. Without research we wouldn't have the treatment options we have today. Pharmaceutical companies are in business to make money; shareholders provide the capital necessary to conduct research and expansion. They also expect a return on their investment. The system has its problems, but we do have the best medical care in the world, as well as the best standard of living.

 

Capping salaries and profits is not part of a free market, of capitalism.

[Renee in NC]

those people already have govt paid health care.

 

No, they don't. My dc receive Medicaid, but my dh and I do not because we make more than $700 a month.

[MomLovesClassics]

I do not support this health care plan, as I have said many times. Obama supports live birth abortions. I have a hard time comprehending how a healthcare plan made by someone who has such little regard for human life would benefit citizens of this country. I have a difficult time comprehending cost effective measures of denying treatment to terminally ill patients. I do not believe this bill is a simple as making sure all citizens have health insurance. This bill is about the type of health care citizens will and will not receive, more like dictating if you will or will not get adequate treatment. This bill provides free health care for illegal aliens, and free translation services instead of deporting them. Has anyone ever stopped to think about his timing? Many people are under undue stress because of the economy, and are easily influenced. This bill is presented as an easy way out, it will ensure that everyone has health insurance and access to health care. Many people are frustrated and tired enough to believe it and support it without questioning it. This bill opens the door for your health care to be dictated by government bureaucrats. It will not stop with healthcare, it will expand to your car, your house, your job, and every area of your life. The wolf in sheep's clothing that is what I compare this healthcare plan to. If Obama wants to do this with our health care what will he want to do next??

[Kari C in SC]

those people already have govt paid health care.

 

 

Not necessarily. There are many families that do not owe any income tax at the end of the year because they made less than say $42000. With deductions, many end up with a 0 tax bill. They also make too much money to qualify for medicaid. They cannot have more than $3000 in the bank to qualify for medicaid.

 

Then there is the instance of my mom. When she was 59, she made $1000 a month on my dad's social security. She worked part time at the library for an additional $400 a month. She did not owe any income tax. She did not qualify for any medicaid because of her owning a mobile home and having 3k in the bank. So, she spent her entire $400 salary on a catastrophic policy for several years. She finally couldn't afford it anymore at when uninsured until she qualified for medicare.

 

Then there is my aunt. Breast cancer survivor, disabled with rheumatoid arthritis. On SS Disablity, no medicare. She owns her home and has a car. She does not pay taxes on her SSDI, but does not qualify for medicaid. Should she sell her house that puts a roof over her daughter's and grandchildren's head after a nasty divorce. Then they would just have to pay higher rent than the house payment was.

 

Anyway off track - just because somebody doesn't pay any income taxes does not mean they qualify for medicaid or medicare. There are millions that fall into that crack.

[Melinda in VT]

HR 3200

pg 426+ end of life counseling

pg 16 regarding granfathering of private ins.

 

Thanks.

 

Now, can someone explain to me why end-of-life counseling is a bad thing?

 

Because I've skimmed the section and I don't see anything alarming.

[Susie in CA]

I honestly do not feel this is about HEALTH CARE REFORM... but is really about HEALTH CARE TAKEOVER!

 

Totally agree! The objective is to take over not reform. That is my concern with this bill.

 

Susie

[MomLovesClassics]

The elderly will be required to have end of life counseling sessions every 5 years to inform them to how to end their life sooner. These sessions tell you how to decline nutrition, hydration, hospice care, how to do what is right for society by cutting your life short. If you get sick you have to repeat that counseling session again. These counseling sessions for the elderly are mandatory.

Sorry but this is inhumane, this bill is inhumane.

[Melinda in VT]

The elderly will be required to have end of life counseling sessions every 5 years to inform them to how to end their life sooner. These sessions tell you how to decline nutrition, hydration, hospice care, how to do what is right for society by cutting your life short. If you get sick you have to repeat that counseling session again. These counseling sessions for the elderly are mandatory.

Sorry but this is inhumane, this bill is inhumane.

 

Have you read the section of the bill in question?

 

It includes language like the following: ‘‘(B) The level of treatment indicated under subpara12

graph (A)(ii) may range from an indication for full treat13

ment to an indication to limit some or all or specified

14 interventions."

 

How is "full treatment" informing them how to end their lives?

[KidsHappen]

an indication to limit some or all or specified

14 interventions."

 

 

I think that she is talking about this portion.

[Melinda in VT]

I think that she is talking about this portion.

 

I guess I just have a very different attitude towards this. I see discussing end-of-life issues with the elderly to be a good thing, and a task that family members often put off. I think it is good for elderly patients to have their wishes in writing.

[KidsHappen]

I guess I just have a very different attitude towards this. I see discussing end-of-life issues with the elderly to be a good thing, and a task that family members often put off. I think it is good for elderly patients to have their wishes in writing.

 

Oh, I absolutely agree that it is a good thing and that people should have their wishes in writing but I think that this is between that person and their family and/or doctor but definitely not the governement's business.

[MomLovesClassics]

"Community transformation grants" this bill will allow the government to transform your community. Think about it for a moment, it will require people do what the government dictates in order to have what the government considers a "healthy community."

[BabyBre]

Thanks.

 

Now, can someone explain to me why end-of-life counseling is a bad thing?

 

Because I've skimmed the section and I don't see anything alarming.

 

 

I haven't read that section yet, but one arguement I heard against end-of-life counseling is that those "counselors" would, of course, be government employees and could easily try to persuade the elderly or infirmed that they've lived a good life and should let go and/or not seek further treatment. They'll be serving the government's interests, not those of the old and sick who are costly to support.

 

I guess it comes down to whether you trust the government to counsel grandma on the end of her long life. Trust is a lot of what this bill comes down to.

[Melinda in VT]

I haven't read that section yet, but one arguement I heard against end-of-life counseling is that those "counselors" would, of course, be government employees and could easily try to persuade the elderly or infirmed that they've lived a good life and should let go and/or not seek further treatment. They'll be serving the government's interests, not those of the old and sick who are costly to support.

 

I guess it comes down to whether you trust the government to counsel grandma on the end of her long life. Trust is a lot of what this bill comes down to.

 

Hmm. I thought the people doing the counseling would be the doctors. Would you consider doctors to be government employees if this bill passes?

[BabyBre]

Hmm. I thought the people doing the counseling would be the doctors. Would you consider doctors to be government employees if this bill passes?

 

I didn't think they would be doctors, but I guess I need to read the section and I'll get back to you!

 

But, yes, I would consider them as working for the government. Whoever they are, they'll be paid by the government and, therefore, at the mercy of the government, whatever their intentions are.

[Peek a Boo]

I guess I just have a very different attitude towards this. I see discussing end-of-life issues with the elderly to be a good thing, and a task that family members often put off. I think it is good for elderly patients to have their wishes in writing.

 

discussing is fine.

requiring is NOT.

 

 

Okay, we just have about a million philosophical differences. :001_smile: I don't see the government playing a role in healthcare is an infringement on my freedom. My ideal political system would be a socialist democratic system similar to those in Northern Europe. I want government to play a role in my life. I don't know if I'm in the majority, but I'm far from alone on that.

 

I think there should always be an option for people that want that --even i recognize the "strength in numbers" of a group of people cooperating to reach an established goal. But it should be a voluntary thing, not something forced on EVERYone. :)

[Melinda in VT]

discussing is fine.

requiring is NOT.

 

I believe the only thing required is the discussion.

 

It's possible I missed something. Legalese is so much fun to read.

[MomLovesClassics]

My dad said he would not go to the end of life counseling! He said that he had plenty of ammunition, and they may kill him, but not in the way they think.

[6packofun]

Same experience here. Nada from Home Depot, Starbucks, Target, Walmart, Blockbuster, Best Buy...

[MomLovesClassics]

Now this will be voted on in the fall. I say write as many letters as it takes to keep this bill from passing.

[LizzyBee]

Have you read the section of the bill in question?

 

It includes language like the following: ‘‘(B) The level of treatment indicated under subpara12

graph (A)(ii) may range from an indication for full treat13

ment to an indication to limit some or all or specified

14 interventions."

 

How is "full treatment" informing them how to end their lives?

 

Under what conditions would there be an indication to limit some or all or specified interventions? And who will decide?

 

Disclaimer, I haven't read the context. I've read a little bit of the bill, but I want to read more. At least the Senate isn't going to vote before the recess, so I have a little more time.

[Melinda in VT]

Under what conditions would there be an indication to limit some or all or specified interventions? And who will decide?

 

Disclaimer, I haven't read the context. I've read a little bit of the bill, but I want to read more. At least the Senate isn't going to vote before the recess, so I have a little more time.

 

From what I've read, the requirement is simply for doctors or PAs to discuss end of life care with elderly patients once every five years or more often if their condition changes significantly. The idea being that the elderly patient creates a living will/medical directive outlining their wishes. So it's the patient who decides what interventions they want.

 

There is also some provision in the bill for encouraging states to standardize the forms.