Shall we try this again: health care Bill

[Catherine]

It's meant to spare the expense to the rest of the world that pays for their care. Ethically, people cannot be turned away from hospitals if they are sick. But tax dollars pay for the care of the uninsured. What is wrong about forcing people to contribute to that expense? If a person's income is very low, they are not financing their care through paying taxes. Why shouldn't insurance be considered an expense of life?

[monk17]

An actual well-formed debate might've been nice to see on this important issue.

 

A couple of points on your stats: we're not comparing apples-to-apples here. For instance, the infant mortality rate for the US is based on actual births including the earliest of the preemies (26-27 weeks old) vs. full-term live births reported for most countries. When you adjust for those stats, the US stats are much more in line with developed nations.

 

In addition, when you take into consideration that the US medical community is much more likely to deliver preemies in the first place, then bring those babies to full health and development within their first year, it puts those statistics in a vastly different light.

 

I have come to be very skeptical of statistics such as those that portray the US health care as being significantly less than many other developed countries.

 

Medicare turns down a higher percentage of cases than any of the private insurers which causes doctors to adjust their reimbursements. It also causes doctors to limit the number of M. patients they'll see.

 

Also, I'm not sure that I would hold up the VA and Indian health care systems as being models of socialized medicine that most Americans would be content with. In the past year, about 100 men had the wrong operation performed and in another case, dozens were exposed when contaminated needles were used for vaccinations. I wish this were not the case, our vets deserve better. Much better.

 

Good to have a healthy discussion on these issues.

 

The devil is always in the detail, thanks for your information on infant mortality rates and the second set of facts that need to be considered.

 

The rejection rate of Medicare claims I will predict will also succumb to some variables that make it a meaningless number. My bases for that statement is purely anecdotal evidence from doctors themselves and also limited geographically to N Florida. What pool of claims was this pulled out of and the fact that the AMA did the study. I'm not one to reject all studies because I disagree with the outcome but the AMA has a huge vested interest in the outcome of this process and has fought National Health Insurance since 1947. Also looking at the actual report Medicare is on par with etna;'s rejection rate.

 

I also watched my wife at the VA hospital when drug companies did studies, if the studies started going south they simply stopped the study and started again.

 

Besides the WHO study ranking us 37th there are numerous studies from JACO that show us trailing badly in specific medical procedure's and opera tins. You can goggle those and get a feel for us not being the full spectrum leader.

 

Our proposed system is more like the German Bismark model. In Germany insurance companies are not allowed to make a profit on health insurance, but use it as a vehicle to sell you other insurance products. The Doctors don't work for the government, it's just tightly regulated. France's system is the same way. One of the benefits is there all digital medical records, a technology that an American company developed, not having that here almost cost my Father his life.

 

England is based on the Beveridge System, but GP's are not government employees, they earn between 125K and 250K a year, more then there American counterparts. Specialist work for the government as employees.

 

Calling something socialist is very difficult, there's also Taiwan, Japan, Switzerland etc.

[cdrumm4448]

This makes no sense. I have one friend who was near death and suffered permanent damage due to negligence of her doctor. Her doctor had her medical license removed. Lawyers said that there was no chance of a malpractice suit. I have another whose daughter was near death due to the ER. She wasn't able to sue either. It is nearly impossible to sue for malpractice.

 

I know two doctors personally and they both say the same thing. How would it be impossible to sue for malpractice?

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

A primary reason that poor people use the ER for non-emergent illness is that ERs are generally required to treat any/all patients who are emergent, to the extent that they are stabilized.

 

So, if you have little/no $$ and/or no insurance, the only way to get medical care is typically to show up at an ER where there are ethical and legal obligations for the ER to treat you. Of course, you must WAIT until you are sick enough to be "emergent". So, a mild UTI might be self-treated at home for a few days. . . until it had kicked up to a bladder infection. . . then maybe a kidney infection by the time the poor, sick, person was sick enough to face the unpleasantness of an ER visit. So, the person is both sicker and more expensive to treat than he would have been a few days earlier if affordable routine health care were available. Expand this thought process to vaccine-preventable illness, etc, etc and you can get one picture of how and why ER case loads are so out of control. I don't have the ##s but I'd imagine that a UTI could be treated out-patient at a family dr for under 200, including meds. A kidney infection at an ER -- gosh, I am sure it'd be at least $1000 if treating out-patient and ofcourse thousands a day if hospitalized. Yikes.

 

On the other hand, normal private doctors do not have any obligation to give anyone an appointment, or to treat them . . . An ethical obligation might kick in ONCE THE PATIENT IS EXAMINED. . . But, good luck getting an appointment or past the front desk without insurance and an ability to pay. Doctors could not stay out of bankruptcy for long if they did not have a staff to effectively screen non-payers from making it to their exam tables.

 

Personally, I've always had insurance. . . But many folks we have employed had no insurance prior to getting on our insurance. None of them saw doctors routinely and they all went to Urgent Care and/or ER more than I would have. They would all put off treating things much too long, and end up with complicated illnesses by the time they bit the bullet and paid for Urgent Care. Observing that was one of the things that helped us prioritize making health insurance an affordable benefit for all our staff.

 

I believe that this bill will make it easier for us to both continue to offer insurance in general, and especially will help us in the event any of our staff gets sick. As it is, I know for a fact that if we employed any one over 50 or anyone sick at all (or with a sick family member), we would have had to drop our group coverage completely under the old rules. I am hopeful this reform will help us keep coverage.

 

Personally, I am ecstatic that this bill passed. I know it is not ideal, but it is a huge step in the right direction, IMHO.

 

:iagree: One needs to remember too that since ER's are only obliged to stabilize you, then they do not offer chemotherapy or radiation therapy or pay for necessary prescription drugs which can cost up to thousands of dollars a month:( My mother was told during chemo that if she could not pay for each visit in full, then she could not get chemo:001_huh: The anti-nausea pills which saved her life and brought her back from the brink of death were $42 a pill:001_huh:. And yes, she did try all of the other anti-nausea pills first:(

 

In regards to small business owners and those desiring to start a small business will now have an easier time:) My dh has been involved with a start -up for the past 6 years which could not afford to offer health insurance:( Now people will not feel trapped in a job for health insurance and will feel more free to start new businesses:)

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

I know two doctors personally and they both say the same thing. How would it be impossible to sue for malpractice?

 

Many states already require medical certification for a law suit which requires another doctor to certify that malpractice or neglect occurred. This dramatically cuts down on frivolous law suits according to a lawyer friend.

[MeanestMomInMidwest]

I do not have the time to read all the post but would like to point out a few things.

 

My father has diabetes and a heart condition that required a quintuple bypass. He was able to find insurance with these pre existing conditions.

 

A young man that I tutor was born with a kidney disease that will require a kidney transplant by the time he is 30. He was able to find insurance.

 

My father in law has a heart condition and bone condition that required 3 hip replacements (no he isn't a freak one hip has been replaced twice). He was able to find insurance.

 

The difference in all of these cases is that they pay premium prices. My father in law was a wall paper hanger, my dad works a menial job and the young man I tutor is a college student.

 

It is not the governments right to force me to pay for them.

 

I have read the bill. I was apart of a group who over 6 weeks read the entire 2000+ page bill. Between doctors, lawyers and politicians we figured it out.

 

Mrs. Mugo while this does not immediately effect Tricare, you can guarantee it will be impacted. Military personal and veterans are covered in Section 17. Guess who was left out...survivors. Those people who elected for survivor benefits and have been paying into the system all along will be forced to buy the government insurance because that plan does not qualify.

 

America will continue to teeter down this dangerous path as long as people think the government owes them something. It is not the governments responsibility to take care of my family members.

 

If someone would like to respond to me directly please send it a private message.

 

Thank you.

 

Lucky for them they were able to afford the insurance.

 

How old were your father & Father-in-law when they had their medical procedures? If they were above 65, they had government subsidized insurance (Medicare).

 

If the young man you know with kidney failure is on dialysis, he is also covered by government subsidized insurance, which is automatic regardless of income once a person is on dialysis.

[Haiku]

Now people will not feel trapped in a job for health insurance and will feel more free to start new businesses:)

 

I hope so. My husband has wanted to start his own business for several years. He finally did, but he has to work at his regular full-time job, too, because we don't qualify for independent insurance due to pre-existing conditions. Having to work a full-time job severely limits his ability to develop his own business, which is relegated to being a "side job."

 

Tara

[keptwoman]

I read the whole thread, it's an interesting debate, sitting from the outside looking in. I have no opinion on your health care bill, but I'd like to addess this

An actual well-formed debate might've been nice to see on this important issue.

 

A couple of points on your stats: we're not comparing apples-to-apples here. For instance, the infant mortality rate for the US is based on actual births including the earliest of the preemies (26-27 weeks old) vs. full-term live births reported for most countries. When you adjust for those stats, the US stats are much more in line with developed nations.

 

I see this argument again and again on this board, and it gets refuted again and again, but still it keeps being repeated as a nice way to explain away the infant mortality rate in the USA.

 

Here are 4 countries with better infant mortality rates, who all count the death in the same way you do

Australia

Canada

Britain

New Zealand.

 

That's 4 of many, there are many more. I am happy to provide links, it will take some digging as none are done nicely in list form. Can you provide links for which countries count it differently?

 

eta: Ok, I did a bit of quick Googling. I looked at a few articles which certainly link the premature birth rate to the mortality rate, but the link was that the US has more premature births as a whole. So even though they have a lower death rate for prem babies than many countries, due to good quality care for prems, the difference is still such that the deaths of prem babies impacts the infant mortality rate due to sheer numbers.

 

Your CDC website (not linking in case I'm not allowed) examines the rate and gives two charts, one without taking into account the way countries calculate the deaths, and one where they only look at babies born after 22 weeks, to make the comparison more accurate. The USA is still way behind. It also explains exactly what criteria various countries use to call a birth a birth (as opposed to a miscarriage I guess) The report was done in Nov 2009, so it's very recent.

 

I don't know what the reason for your infant mortality rate is, I'm sure it's multi faceted, and I am not nearly educated on it enough to even suggest reasons. However, the suggestion that it just looks bad because other countries don't count the deaths like the USA is just a red herring.

 

Now it's past midnight and I must to bed :)

Edited March 23, 2010 by keptwoman

[lionfamily1999]

It's meant to spare the expense to the rest of the world that pays for their care. Ethically, people cannot be turned away from hospitals if they are sick. But tax dollars pay for the care of the uninsured. What is wrong about forcing people to contribute to that expense? If a person's income is very low, they are not financing their care through paying taxes. Why shouldn't insurance be considered an expense of life?

What about people who can't afford (and therefore don't get) medical care being forced to foot the bill as well. From what I've found you have to make less than 30 thou a year to get a "pass" from purchasing insurance. So, for us (living paycheck to paycheck) we're being forced to take on a monthly bill we cannot hope to afford. For how many people will this bill be the one that breaks their backs?

 

Not to mention the whole idea that the government knows better than I do what's good for myself and my family.

 

Or the fact that this would be the first "right" that is mandated.

 

Or that it trounces right over the rights of people that do not believe in conventional medicine.

 

Or that it forces people to pay into a system (ie ins.) they may not wish to contribute to.

 

Or that it forces people to fund medical treatments they may find abhorrent.

[Carrie12345]

 

Not to mention the whole idea that the government knows better than I do what's good for myself and my family.

 

Or the fact that this would be the first "right" that is mandated.

 

Or that it trounces right over the rights of people that do not believe in conventional medicine.

 

Or that it forces people to pay into a system (ie ins.) they may not wish to contribute to.

 

Or that it forces people to fund medical treatments they may find abhorrent.

 

Education

 

Education

 

Education

 

Education

 

and education

 

I really don't see how any of the above is any different from government education. I do find it interesting that, while there are many who disagree with the WAY government education is run, very, very few feel the entire system should be done away with.

 

I wonder what people's opinions on health care will be down the line... if this will be seen as being as "normal" as public education.

 

For the record, I personally see health care as a greater need/right than I do school.

[justamouse]

Contrary to what Susan Sarandon and others believe, Jesus was not a social reformer or community organizer.

 

I 100% disagree. And I also believe that if you saw the first 'churches' Christians today would accuse them of being socialist. They lived in community, they shared all things, they took up money to help other 'church' communities in need. I'll go out on a limb and say that I'd bet they'd help non believers, too. Smells like that dirty word Socialism to me. :001_smile:

 

But I don't think this country had the unemployment problem yesterday that we do today!!!! I see plenty of work go to those who will work for A LOT LESS (and under the table, and not legally here) because they live 12 to a house and so they get the job over the person who can't afford to work for so little.

 

I have a few small business' (and we offer healthcare to all). I'll be the first to tell you I WISH I could hire illegal immigrants. They are some of the most conscientious workers out there. Our immigrant (legal) workers are our best, most productive workers, worth their weight in gold. Don't slag the immigrants because they have a better work ethic.

 

How will they afford to meet the new standards and requirements for what business owners will be required to pay?

 

I'm afraid if my assessment is correct, the small business owner (and all of his employees) who depend on work from the larger business owners will be out of business, as the larger business owners will take thier business over seas to get around spending more money than they have allotted for healthcare (which means all of the large business owners will be out of work, too). Resulting in a whole lot more people out of work.

 

And, if we make over $280k, we will be taxed wickedly. So, where is the challenge to earn more than $75K in the first place?

 

As a small business owner-do you realize how much healthcare is NOW? It's crippling. Did you know that Starbucks paid as much in healthcare for it's employees as it did for coffee? How, exatly, is that right?

 

The paperwork right now for a small business owner is a nightmare. The cost is a large chunk of our business expense. And we're a manufacturer, and no, we won't have to buy insurance from larger business owners.

 

You're getting a bit far out there, I think.

 

otherwise young and healthy people who have unplanned medical disasters. It happens: serious car accidents, cancer or other major, costly illnesses-a child born with a major, unanticipated medical need. As a physician, I know that it's an outrage that people who get sick are considered by some to be to blame for that. And tax dollars pay for a huge amount of this care. As a taxpayer I think it's perfectly legitimate to force people to buy insurance.

 

:iagree: We all have car insurance, right?

 

I don't know about anyone else, but my 19 yo is a walking disaster who loves sports. He's not a student, he's uninsured because the health insurance won't insure him under his current status. IF he got hurt, it could cost US (becuase the government still sees me as his financial provider). It could possibly bankrupt us.

 

If he hurt someone else-even by accident? We could lose everything. The business-eveything. I would have nothing left for my other children. I shudder to think of the problems that could arise.

 

No, your employer will not be covering you. In fact, many of you will be losing your coverage. That is because the fine for companies have over 50 employees for not having insurance is 2000 per employee. The cost of insurance is more that 2K per employee. It will pay for them to drop employee's coverage, add pay to management, keep pay at the same rate for regular workers, and what will happen is the employees will have to get their own insurance or pay up to 2.5% of their income as a fine. Oh, and if you had high medical expenses and were taking deductions for that from your income tax, well now those high medical expenses have to be over 10% of your income versus 7.5% before this bill. This is not simply my analysis tht employees will lose coverage. This is the analysis of the Congressional Budget Office.

 

Oh, and as I said, as a person with pre-existing conditions and having three kids all with pre-existing conditions, our coverage does cost more than a healthy persons. SO by having everyone pay the same, you have the healthy pay for people like me. That will raise premiums.

 

Now another thing about this bill is that while the bill expects to add 30 million people to the health care system, it adds no funding for training more doctors, nurses, etc. or building more facilities. Yet it does add 17,000 new IRS agents. That seems to me that they are interested in money, not in health care.

 

Do you think it's in the best interest of the business to drop coverage? Do you know what small business owners go through to GET coverage, Keep it and treat our workers well? Do you realize how small 50 people is and how it is almost an extended family?

 

IF we were faced with the choices of closing our doors or paying insurance, we would drop coverage, but coverage is the last thing to go-not the first. It's also the first thing small business owners try and get for their workers.

Edited March 23, 2010 by justamouse

[lionfamily1999]

Education

 

Education

 

Education

 

Education

 

and education

 

I really don't see how any of the above is any different from government education. I do find it interesting that, while there are many who disagree with the WAY government education is run, very, very few feel the entire system should be done away with.

 

I wonder what people's opinions on health care will be down the line... if this will be seen as being as "normal" as public education.

 

For the record, I personally see health care as a greater need/right than I do school.

Hmm, but crazy enough I teach my children at home, because I have the option to do so... some might even say it's my RIGHT to opt out without having to pay any fees.

[KnitWit]

The words IRS are not listed anywhere in he billl.

 

It has been being reported in various places that the IRS is INDEED going to be involved in this. The conservative news sources are reporting it as a warning that the IRS will now be in your personal $$ affairs. The liberal news sources are rejoicing in the number of jobs that will be created by hiring people to facilitate this.

 

Those words may not be in this bill...and I have not read it...but it appears that the IRS will be the ones holding Americans accountable to comply...or at the very least VERIFYING that we comply.

[FaithManor]

Yes, you are right that these countries do report infant mortality in the same way that we do. But, there is still discrepancy because in most of these countries, the number of couples who can get infertility treatments, IVF for instance, is very low. IVF places the pregnancy at higher risk for premature labor because there is a greater change of the embryo attaching low in the uterus and pushing on the cervix too early in the pregnancy. IVF is much more available in this country than in others so we then have a higher risk of premature labor and therefore, infant death.

 

There are also other infertility treatments that contribute to this. Clomid and other ovulation drugs greatly increase multiple births and with multiple births, there is a huge increase in risk. My obgyn told me that the use of ovulation drugs is much, much lower in other industrialized nations than here. He doesn't know if that is a cultural thing, a restriction within socialized medicine, ie. the state doesn't want to pay for it, etc. Therefore, these countries do not have near the number of twins, triplets, quads, etc. This of course then causes their infant mortality rates to look better.

 

Additionally, I am not certain what percentage would include our high population of Amish, who receive pretty much no prenatal care and rarely use the hospital for birth services, or Old Church Mennonite who again, almost never send their women to an OB or an ER when the pregnancy/delivery is complicated. We also have a Christian Scientists (not all, but many of whom do not get prenatal care) and Scientologists (again, this varies but many do not believe in prenatal care) so with that religious freedom, comes the cost in infant mortality. Since we have religious freedom in this country and it does extend to making medical choices, our numbers will be affected by these groups. By the way, I am not looking to offend anyone of these faiths. Not at all......I celebrate our religious freedoms! But, it still doesn't change the statistics.

 

I know that here in Detroit, our infant mortality rate - despite having some amazing hospitals and plenty of community programs for free prenatal care, isn't great. But, part of that is because there is a large religious group within the city that is very fearful of the medical profession. They do not allow their women to be touched by male practitioners, not even paramedics just for ambulance transport. So, that makes things very, very difficult. I know of a couple who work at a community center there trying to help this people group. Women have died because their husbands would not allow them to have the needed c-section because the surgeon on call was male. By the time a female OB or general surgeon was found and brought into the hospital, it was too late.

 

I do think that many of the European countries take a firmer control of this and do not allow so much religious freedom concerning medical care. I am not saying I would be for adopting that....but I do think they expect religious groups to me more assimilated into the cultural norms as concerns education and healthcare.

 

Oh, and I would also like to say that we shouldn't blame all the ER congestion on the uninsured. My daughter is in paramedic school and you would not believe the abuse of the system by medicare/medicaid patients because federal/state insurance pays for ambulance transport and the ER. If you can think of a ridiculous reason to transport a person to the ER, then my daughter has seen it! Stubbed toes, out of bandaids, wanting a hot meal, diaper rash (you would not believe how much the teen mothers on welfare do this), etc. Basically, people wanting attention. State law does not allow the paramedics to refuse transport if they can't talk the person out of it. Tooo much liability. So, Mr. Stubbed Toe and Mrs. 15 year old with a diaper rash infant, get a free ride and the ER staff has to deal with them. Sometimes she and the paramedics she sees practice with, can convince the elderly who are just lonely and wanting attention, to let them cook a quick meal or rub their feet or something and this will give them enough TLC that they will back down on wanting to be transported. Sunday night is a huge TLC run night. All of this abuse is paid for by tax dollars.

 

Oh, and last week, a woman at Burger King called 911 claiming chest pain.....furious run to B.K. only to find a woman who lied about the chest pain and just wanted someone in uniform to show up and chew out the B.K. crew because they took too long to cook her burger! There may be a fine for her....but I doubt there is any methodology for collecting it.

 

Faith

[keptwoman]

Faith, that's exactly what I said. You have more prem births, by quite a staggering amount, therefore more prem deaths. And many reasons for your infant mortality rates.

 

But it is disingenious to suggest that the figures are not accurate because other countries don't count prem deaths in the same way, because many do, and even taking into consideration those that don't count it the same, your rate is still worse.

 

I'm not remotely interested in judging you as a country on that, every country has it's strengths and weaknesses. I just like to see accuracy in statistic quoting.

Edited March 23, 2010 by keptwoman

[keptwoman]

Hmm, but crazy enough I teach my children at home, because I have the option to do so... some might even say it's my RIGHT to opt out without having to pay any fees.

I thought people in the US paid for education through property taxes. So therefore if you pay property taxes, you are paying the fees regardless of if you use the education system. Is that only in some areas?

Sorry, I know it's heading a bit OT.

[KnitWit]

I used to facilitate the insurance program for a company I worked for.

 

Out of the goodness of her heart, the owner worked with the agent to provide a plan for our employees that paid 100% for any claims that involved the ER. Her heart in this was that noone would be forced into financial hardship due to an unforeseen life or death situation.

 

After several years, we had to do away with that blessing because we had a handful of employees who saw this as a golden ticket and they and their families went to the ER for anything and everything.

 

What made this even MORE abusive was that the company already paid a HUGE portion of the premiums.

[Carrie12345]

Hmm, but crazy enough I teach my children at home, because I have the option to do so... some might even say it's my RIGHT to opt out without having to pay any fees.

 

You have the right to educate them privately (in your home). You have the right to acquire private health care. It is mandated that every child be educated. It will be mandated that every person be insured.

 

You do not have the right to opt out of paying toward others' education unless you're willing to be homeless and completely refrain from paying taxes.

 

I'm not saying that I agree or disagree with this bill. I'm just saying I find it interesting that so many people (certainly not all, and certainly not without specific concerns) accept their "civic duty" to support education, but not health care. I happen to think that dumb living people are much more valuable to society than smart dead people. :tongue_smilie:

[mommaduck]

I have pretty good insurance through my husband's employer. I am satisfied with it.

 

I could not afford my medical bills if I had to pay them nor could I pay my son's. Insurance is the only thing that prevented us from going bankrupt when I had a high risk pregnancy followed by a NICU stay. The FIRST bill we received for my son when he was a newborn was over $50,000

 

We are not low income and we both work.

 

Yippee for you! We also have insurance through my husband's company. It's cr@p. We pay everything out of pocket.

 

I do not have the time to read all the post but would like to point out a few things.

 

My father has diabetes and a heart condition that required a quintuple bypass. He was able to find insurance with these pre existing conditions.

 

A young man that I tutor was born with a kidney disease that will require a kidney transplant by the time he is 30. He was able to find insurance.

 

My father in law has a heart condition and bone condition that required 3 hip replacements (no he isn't a freak one hip has been replaced twice). He was able to find insurance.

 

The difference in all of these cases is that they pay premium prices. My father in law was a wall paper hanger, my dad works a menial job and the young man I tutor is a college student.

 

It is not the governments right to force me to pay for them.

 

I have read the bill. I was apart of a group who over 6 weeks read the entire 2000+ page bill. Between doctors, lawyers and politicians we figured it out.

 

Mrs. Mugo while this does not immediately effect Tricare, you can guarantee it will be impacted. Military personal and veterans are covered in Section 17. Guess who was left out...survivors. Those people who elected for survivor benefits and have been paying into the system all along will be forced to buy the government insurance because that plan does not qualify.

 

America will continue to teeter down this dangerous path as long as people think the government owes them something. It is not the governments responsibility to take care of my family members.

 

If someone would like to respond to me directly please send it a private message.

 

Thank you.

 

Nope, if I respond to you in this conversation, it will be here...out in the open ;)

 

Yippee for those that were able to find insurance. I happen to know a family whose daughter has a rare liver disease, whose medicine and treatment costs outrageous amounts compared to what you listed, and NO insurance company will take them. According to this bill, she would just be "counseled" for end of life. Whoohoo...yay, the bill helps her! :glare: *beyond snark* But hey, you won't have to pay for her having a sick kid anymore.

 

It's meant to spare the expense to the rest of the world that pays for their care. Ethically, people cannot be turned away from hospitals if they are sick. But tax dollars pay for the care of the uninsured. What is wrong about forcing people to contribute to that expense? If a person's income is very low, they are not financing their care through paying taxes. Why shouldn't insurance be considered an expense of life?

 

Because it's unethical. Do you suggest that we "put down" all those that can't afford the expense? What about those that DO pay in cash, why are we forcing them greater expense? THEY help keep cost DOWN by paying cash and NOT spending more on insurance.

 

What about people who can't afford (and therefore don't get) medical care being forced to foot the bill as well. From what I've found you have to make less than 30 thou a year to get a "pass" from purchasing insurance. So, for us (living paycheck to paycheck) we're being forced to take on a monthly bill we cannot hope to afford. For how many people will this bill be the one that breaks their backs?

 

Not to mention the whole idea that the government knows better than I do what's good for myself and my family.

 

Or the fact that this would be the first "right" that is mandated.

 

Or that it trounces right over the rights of people that do not believe in conventional medicine.

 

Or that it forces people to pay into a system (ie ins.) they may not wish to contribute to.

 

Or that it forces people to fund medical treatments they may find abhorrent.

 

Thank you!

 

Hmm, but crazy enough I teach my children at home, because I have the option to do so... some might even say it's my RIGHT to opt out without having to pay any fees.

 

And thank you! At least with education we have the option of opting out in various ways.

[FaithManor]

Off topic but pertaining to the mention of education and civic duty:

 

I don't know about the civic duty to support education. In our area, a huge number of people rent. Their kids use the P.S. system but they don't pay any property taxes to support it. The owner of the rental pays and at a much higher rate than the private home owner because the rental is considered a business. So, I believe this is unconsitutional. Its a punishment for owning property. If the property owner has to pay into the school system because it is a civic duty, then those who rent should have to pay an equal share of the civic responsibility or not be allowed to use the public schools without paying tuition.

 

Business property taxes in most states, is more than double private home property tax and a huge portion of it goes to the schools. I'm not sure how constitutional that is given that for all that investment in the system, many businesses can't get properly educated citizens to employ.

 

I am not arguing about whether or not we have a civic duty to support public education, I am just arguing that if we do, it should be applied equally. By in large, our entire tax system is not constitutional because of such vast inequality.

 

Faith

[NicksMama-Zack's Mama Too]

You have the right to educate them privately (in your home). You have the right to acquire private health care. It is mandated that every child be educated. It will be mandated that every person be insured.

 

You do not have the right to opt out of paying toward others' education unless you're willing to be homeless and completely refrain from paying taxes.

 

I'm not saying that I agree or disagree with this bill. I'm just saying I find it interesting that so many people (certainly not all, and certainly not without specific concerns) accept their "civic duty" to support education, but not health care. I happen to think that dumb living people are much more valuable to society than smart dead people. :tongue_smilie:

 

Why must the govt mandate insurance? Why not just subsidize doctors and hospitals for taking care of the uninsured and leave the insurance companies out of it? If the insurance co's are so greedy and evil (as many want you to believe), why do we want tax dollars going to them? How much of every tax dollar collected is going to go to a government administrative job (very well paying now days) or an insurance executive? How much is actually going to pay for medical care?

 

BTW, I agree with supporting BASIC education. Not astro-turf fields, math coaches, professional development seminars at resorts, or cars and life-time health benefits for fat-cat school superintendents ...

[Haiku]

In our area, a huge number of people rent. Their kids use the P.S. system but they don't pay any property taxes to support it. The owner of the rental pays and at a much higher rate than the private home owner because the rental is considered a business. So, I believe this is unconsitutional. Its a punishment for owning property.

 

Who do you think ultimately pays the expense of the property taxes? The renters, of course. The landlord doesn't set the rent without factoring in the property taxes.

 

Everyone who says that they can opt out of the public school system is right. They don't have to send their kids to school. But they still pay for the schools whether they use them or not.

 

If you don't want insurance or don't plan to use Western medicine, you can opt out of doing so. But you still have to pay the fee. It's no different than public school.

 

Tara

[LauraGB]

 

 

As a small business owner-do you realize how much healthcare is NOW? It's crippling. Did you know that Starbucks paid as much in healthcare for it's employees as it did for coffee? How, exatly, is that right?

 

The paperwork right now for a small business owner is a nightmare. The cost is a large chunk of our business expense. And we're a manufacturer, and no, we won't have to buy insurance from larger business owners.

 

You're getting a bit far out there, I think.

 

 

 

 

We own 2 small businesses. Both of which we could seriously use help with. However, we can't afford to hire help, due in part to everything we would have to pay in addition to an employee's salary. So, I do understand the paperwork and red tape :).

 

However, the reason for my post about this comes from a discussion dh had yesterday with another small business owner whose primary account happens to be a very large business. Business X (we'll call the large business that, although I don't know why - you could just google the business's name and find all the info I am about to share, anyway, because it's that big) has been in business in the USA for about a century. It employs over 93,000 people. Business X will need to spend an additional $100 million just the first year of the healthcare overhaul in tax liability not only because it will change the who/how much/when of the employee health benefits but also because they will no longer recieve a tax break from offering the insurance, and will, in fact have to pay taxes on the benefits offered (as I'm understanding things). Now, because of the 20% annual increase in Business X's spending, they are considering that they might have to take their mfg overseas just to stay alive. So, the 90K + employees, and all the small business owners like the one dh talked to, who depend on the Business X's business to stay afloat themselves will be forced to close thier doors, too.

 

Far reaching? No, I really don't think so. This bill is not as simple as getting coverage for a sick kid or grandma's hip surgery. It's not as simple as "how can it help me?". If it were, well, that would be kind of nice. It's way farther reaching than that. And right behind this healthcare reform "succcess" is education and all the other things they are working on that they will push through in much the same way on the wings of this bill.

Edited March 23, 2010 by LauraGB

[Carrie12345]

Why must the govt mandate insurance? Why not just subsidize doctors and hospitals for taking care of the uninsured and leave the insurance companies out of it? If the insurance co's are so greedy and evil (as many want you to believe)' date=' why do we want tax dollars going to them? How much of every tax dollar collected is going to go to a government administrative job (very well paying now days) or an insurance executive? How much is actually going to pay for medical care?

 

BTW, I agree with supporting BASIC education. Not astro-turf fields, math coaches, professional development seminars at resorts, or cars and life-time health benefits for fat-cat school superintendents ...[/quote']

 

I definitely do not disagree with you on the definition of BASIC education. :)

I live in a district with not one, but two fancy-shmancy football stadiums!

 

Just to be clear, *I* have not said that health care should be mandated. I haven't even fully formed my opinion yet on what is being done or what SHOULD be done. I'm simply stuck on the idea that government mandates are a new fangled thing.

 

Incidentally, I've been working on scanning the actual bill. I did find an interesting tidbit about the ability to opt out on RELIGIOUS grounds. As an atheist, I find that fascinating.

[HappyGrace]

This bill doesn't end up being about health care reform. Health care reform is needed, but there were a million other ways they could have gone about this if it were about health care. (Without a hatchet, but with a scalpel, in Obama's own words.) This bill ends up being about government being in more control of our lives; what they think is "best" for us. Which is in complete opposition to what this country was founded on.

 

And eventually you can kiss your right to homeschool goodbye too. Probably directly affected by this "Universal" health care. Because what will they eventually "discover" is the best way to disseminate (or monitor) "Universal" health care to kids? SCHOOLS.

 

Even if it's not directly affected by the health care, education is next, now that they know how to shove things through!

[lionfamily1999]

I thought people in the US paid for education through property taxes. So therefore if you pay property taxes, you are paying the fees regardless of if you use the education system. Is that only in some areas?

Sorry, I know it's heading a bit OT.

But we're not paying TUITION. I see a huge difference here. I don't have to pay some fancy shmancy private school as a cover to hs. I can (should I choose) use a religious exemption and get completely removed from the accountability loop. Yes, I have to pay taxes for roads and hospitals etc. I also pay for Medicaid and Medicare. What we're being told now is that we have to purchase a service in our own names. We HAVE to purchase a service. Paying taxes is one thing. I have few qualms with Medicaid/Medicare. In VA, we also support county clinics and state hospitals, I have no problem with that. See, I don't have to open an account at these places in my family's name. Whereas now, I would have to... unless Carrie is right about the religious exemption, in which case, maybe not ;)

You have the right to educate them privately (in your home). You have the right to acquire private health care. It is mandated that every child be educated. It will be mandated that every person be insured.

 

You do not have the right to opt out of paying toward others' education unless you're willing to be homeless and completely refrain from paying taxes.

Actually there are ways, or at least there used to be. I'll see if I can find anything online (but I doubt it). I knew a number of "Freemen" growing up. They did not pay taxes, did not have ss#s, among other interesting bits. They were exceptionally well versed in their own rights. Of course, I don't know any of them any more (the group seemed to've moved to NC)...

I'm not saying that I agree or disagree with this bill. I'm just saying I find it interesting that so many people (certainly not all, and certainly not without specific concerns) accept their "civic duty" to support education, but not health care. I happen to think that dumb living people are much more valuable to society than smart dead people. :tongue_smilie:

====================================================

I definitely do not disagree with you on the definition of BASIC education. :)

I live in a district with not one, but two fancy-shmancy football stadiums!

 

Just to be clear, *I* have not said that health care should be mandated. I haven't even fully formed my opinion yet on what is being done or what SHOULD be done. I'm simply stuck on the idea that government mandates are a new fangled thing.

 

Incidentally, I've been working on scanning the actual bill. I did find an interesting tidbit about the ability to opt out on RELIGIOUS grounds. As an atheist, I find that fascinating.

I joined your comments, because one led me to another point (ie Religious exemption), which would've been answered in your next post.

 

Now, I have a question, what are the grounds for a religious exemption?

[HappyGrace]

I have a question too-what are the chances that this thing could be overturned or modified?

 

ETA: Never mind-I will just go look at the "Constitutional" thread! :)

[TXMary2]

This bill doesn't end up being about health care reform. Health care reform is needed, but there were a million other ways they could have gone about this if it were about health care. (Without a hatchet, but with a scalpel, in Obama's own words.) This bill ends up being about government being in more control of our lives; what they think is "best" for us. Which is in complete opposition to what this country was founded on.

 

And eventually you can kiss your right to homeschool goodbye too. Probably directly affected by this "Universal" health care. Because what will they eventually "discover" is the best way to disseminate (or monitor) "Universal" health care to kids? SCHOOLS.

 

Even if it's not directly affected by the health care, education is next, now that they know how to shove things through!

 

And WHY on earth is there a section of the bill regarding student loans? Someone who supports this bill should explain that one.:confused:

[Carrie12345]

 

Now, I have a question, what are the grounds for a religious exemption?

 

‘(5) RELIGIOUS CONSCIENCE EXEMPTION-CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

 

 

‘(A) IN GENERAL- Subsection (a) shall not apply to any individual (and any qualifying child residing with such individual) for any period if such individual has in effect an exemption which certifies that such individual is a member of a recognized religious sect or division thereof described in section 1402(g)(1) and an adherent of established tenets or teachings of such sect or division as described in such section.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

 

 

‘(B) EXEMPTION- An application for the exemption described in subparagraph (A) shall be filed with the Secretary at such time and in such form and manner as the Secretary may prescribe. Any such exemption granted by the Secretary shall be effective for such period as the Secretary determines appropriate.

 

This is under part VIII, section 59b

[Lovedtodeath]

Yeah, if I was a member of a sect, I would be all over informing the government of that. There is nothing like being thrown in jail for your non-mainstream religious beliefs.

[mommaduck]

Yeah, if I was a member of a sect, I would be all over informing the government of that. There is nothing like being thrown in jail for your non-mainstream religious beliefs.

 

Yeah, really. Looks like only the Amish and Mennonites get a pass at this one.

[HappyGrace]

And WHY on earth is there a section of the bill regarding student loans?

 

Exactly my point! There are so many implications as to how this bill may eventually affect our rights that it isn't even funny.

 

Oh, Mrs. Smith, I see you have diabetes. And you're 30 lbs overweight. You are mandated to lose that weight because it is affecting your health care. Otherwise you will have to pay the fines we have in place..."

 

And on and on....

[OnTheBrink]

Actually, I beg to differ. INSURANCE drives up costs. Insurance doesn't always pay or pay in a timely manner and there is overhead in both insurance companies as well as places having to deal with insurance companies. I've lived in an area where insurance was a huge thing. It was more difficult to afford a doctor out of pocket because the prices were through the roof and a lot of waste. I currently live in an area where a lot of people do not use insurance, some because they cannot afford it and others because they have a religious and/or social objection to it, and pay out of pocket. Some of us have insurance, but in our case the insurance is cr@p. It literally does not pay for anything. Everything still comes out of our pocket. But the costs to see a doctor are lower, you are offered discounts for paying out of pocket, and payments are workable.

 

Add in the fact that doctors themselves hold up the money due hospitals by not completing charts so that the medical coding people can bill for those services. I work in medical records at a large hospital. I hear the medical records analysts call doctors every day to ask them to complete dictations, sign forms, etc. There is an approximate daily balance of $1M due the hospital from the insurance companies that isn't being paid because the doctors aren't completing the charting paperwork. You can't code for ambiguous services. Then you run into insurance fraud. I've heard this woman tell doctors, "You have a dictation that's 180 days old that needs to be finished so we can bill." THAT'S ridiculous.

[creekland]

Yeah, really. Looks like only the Amish and Mennonites get a pass at this one.

 

Not really. Our Christian health sharing program qualifies. I'm very thankful for that exemption! I've never been pro insurance or pro gov't health. I prefer to belong to a group that takes care of its own needs. We're neither Amish nor Mennonite.

[usetoschool]

Just one little thing that keeps coming up that I think is comparing apples and oranges - I have the right to educate my children, therefore I have the right to hire someone, in conjunction with my neighbors, to do it for me. I do not have the right to make my neighbor pay my medical bills, therefore I do not have the right to delegate that responsibility to the government to do for me. That is why not all government programs and taxes are acceptable - only the ones that are a right that already exists that I am hiring someone else to do for me.

[FaithManor]

About the religious exemption, I've looked this up on a couple of legal websites. Apparently, more than just the Amish and Mennonites will be able to claim this.

 

Christian Scientists were actually behind the lobby for this exemption. Within their belief system, it is apparently okay to alleviate suffering, i.e. treat wounds, burns, etc. But, they take a very limiting approach to medicine because they believe that many illnesses are a result of something spiritual. Don't quote me....I am not familiar enough with their beliefs to know exactly what is allowed and what isn't. Also, Scientologists also have some strong beliefs about forcing people into certain kinds of healt care. So, they can exercise the exemption as well.

 

There may be other groups. Some small denominations preach that medical bills should be paid for within the community of believers through love offerings, donations, church monies, etc. They believe that insurance is "gambling", i.e. a game of chance. As long as the religious exemption holds, they will be able to opt out. Some lawyers say it will be very broad and others say it will be a very narrow scope. So again, this is going to be quite the scuttle as the legal community gets involved.

 

A lawyer from New York says the religious exemption itself is unconsitutional because by allowing this, the government is unfairly "promoting" one religion over another or showing preference to one religion or another.

 

Plus, if a specific religious group has a statement of faith or belief system that can be verified that abortion or some other procedure is morally wrong in all instances, then it is conceivable that a religious exemption could be filed on their behalf if an insurance plan can not be found that they can afford which does not pay for that procedure in all circumstances. Its all a legal mess. A real Pandora's Box. But, what is the alternative...rounding up Amish people or Christian Scientists and throwing them in jail, bankrupting them defending themselves? No easy answers.

 

(I think some sentence above had a double negative. Ds wants help with a math problem, so I'm not going to edit this. Sorry!)

Faith

[Supertechmom]

 

My father has diabetes and a heart condition that required a quintuple bypass. He was able to find insurance with these pre existing conditions.

 

A young man that I tutor was born with a kidney disease that will require a kidney transplant by the time he is 30. He was able to find insurance.

 

My father in law has a heart condition and bone condition that required 3 hip replacements (no he isn't a freak one hip has been replaced twice). He was able to find insurance.

 

The difference in all of these cases is that they pay premium prices.

 

Just wanted to point out that while I agree I shouldn't have to pay , those examples I think are lucky. My 10 yr old and 3 yr old have been refused their own private policy due to Celiac disease and food allergies. I do not even have the choice of paying higher premiums. If we could afford the policy at work, law dictates they would be covered under us BUt everyone's premiums would have skyrocketed. At $1,000 per employee how much more could anyone pay?? Some of those employees don't even make 30,000 a year. High pay is 60,000.

 

But I really think some of this is because of what state you are in. Denial is higher I bet in states that allow it. I know just living in a nothern state with the same insurance company our rate would be around 500 instead of 1,000. That issue isn't addressed in this bill.

 

But real people are really being denied private policies.

[mommaduck]

About the religious exemption, I've looked this up on a couple of legal websites. Apparently, more than just the Amish and Mennonites will be able to claim this.

 

Christian Scientists were actually behind the lobby for this exemption. Within their belief system, it is apparently okay to alleviate suffering, i.e. treat wounds, burns, etc. But, they take a very limiting approach to medicine because they believe that many illnesses are a result of something spiritual. Don't quote me....I am not familiar enough with their beliefs to know exactly what is allowed and what isn't. Also, Scientologists also have some strong beliefs about forcing people into certain kinds of healt care. So, they can exercise the exemption as well.

 

There may be other groups. Some small denominations preach that medical bills should be paid for within the community of believers through love offerings, donations, church monies, etc. They believe that insurance is "gambling", i.e. a game of chance. As long as the religious exemption holds, they will be able to opt out. Some lawyers say it will be very broad and others say it will be a very narrow scope. So again, this is going to be quite the scuttle as the legal community gets involved.

 

A lawyer from New York says the religious exemption itself is unconsitutional because by allowing this, the government is unfairly "promoting" one religion over another or showing preference to one religion or another.

 

Plus, if a specific religious group has a statement of faith or belief system that can be verified that abortion or some other procedure is morally wrong in all instances, then it is conceivable that a religious exemption could be filed on their behalf if an insurance plan can not be found that they can afford which does not pay for that procedure in all circumstances. Its all a legal mess. A real Pandora's Box. But, what is the alternative...rounding up Amish people or Christian Scientists and throwing them in jail, bankrupting them defending themselves? No easy answers.

 

(I think some sentence above had a double negative. Ds wants help with a math problem, so I'm not going to edit this. Sorry!)

Faith

 

I'm Orthodox. We're not against the concept of insurance as a whole. I hold conscientious objections.

[MomLovesClassics]

I was reading pages 25-26 of this bill that talk about the temporary "high risk pool" It states $5,000,000,000 will be appropiated to pay expenses in a fiscal year. Please correct me if I am wrong but those using a high risk pool would most likely be those who need medical care more than the average person. Let's say those on daily medication, or those who go to the dr. frequently etc. Five billion may sound like a lot of money but not when it is spread over EVERY state.

In order to prevent a deficit it states:

"Secretary shall make such adjustments as are necessaryto eliminate such a deficit, including reducing benefits, increasing premiums, or establishing waiting lists."

 

I have not read this whole bill, not sure if I can find the time. The more I read the more I am concerned. Also premiums can be increased it clearly states insurance companies can increase their premiums.

 

I do not want to see anyone die while they are on a waiting list or die because benefits have been reduced.

[Haiku]

 

But I really think some of this is because of what state you are in.

 

Some states have high-risk pools for people who are denied coverage. Our state doesn't.

 

But real people are really being denied private policies.

 

We were. They wouldn't cover my son because of asthma (which is not some weird, wacky, far-out diagnosis) or my daughter because of multiple health issues.

 

Tara

[mommyrooch]

Education

 

Education

 

Education

 

Education

 

and education

 

I really don't see how any of the above is any different from government education. I do find it interesting that, while there are many who disagree with the WAY government education is run, very, very few feel the entire system should be done away with.

 

I wonder what people's opinions on health care will be down the line... if this will be seen as being as "normal" as public education.

 

For the record, I personally see health care as a greater need/right than I do school.

 

As do I.

[mommaduck]

Goodness. It's fairly basic knowledge that rental owners automatically include amounts for their own taxes into the rent prices. That's an old argument that does not hold water--ask any apartment owner or rental-house owner. If they weren't making enough profit, they'd get out of the business. I believe there are also tax breaks for these instances.

 

As a tenant, even I agree with this. All of that is included in the cost of our rent. So we do pay those same taxes, just indirectly. Also, in some places there is a head tax for the school district...we've paid that as a direct tax as well.

[mommyrooch]

I thought people in the US paid for education through property taxes. So therefore if you pay property taxes, you are paying the fees regardless of if you use the education system. Is that only in some areas?

Sorry, I know it's heading a bit OT.

 

You got it 100% right. We are "forced" to pay an educations tax. It comes out of our annual property taxes.I have "opted out" of using the system but irregardless I am still "forced" to pay that tax.

 

How is this any less socialistic than being "forced" to pay a health care tax regardless of whether we "opt out" of having the service or not?

 

Seems a bit like the pot calling the kettle black to me.

[Slartibartfast]

Yippee for you! We also have insurance through my husband's company. It's cr@p. We pay everything out of pocket.

 

Yippie?? For having decent ins or my son's staggering medical bills? I don't see what is so "Yippie" He is a toddler.

 

 

 

 

 

Yippee for those that were able to find insurance. I happen to know a family whose daughter has a rare liver disease, whose medicine and treatment costs outrageous amounts compared to what you listed, and NO insurance company will take them. According to this bill, she would just be "counseled" for end of life. Whoohoo...yay, the bill helps her! :glare: *beyond snark* But hey, you won't have to pay for her having a sick kid anymore.

Where is that stated in the bill? Edited March 23, 2010 by Sis

[mommyrooch]

And thank you! At least with education we have the option of opting out in various ways.

 

Yes, but even if you do you are still required by law (yes, forced) to pay an education tax whether you use the system or not.

 

You can also opt out of carrying healthcare however if you do you will be charged a penalty. This is absolutely no different that the eduation tax you are already "forced" to pay.

[Carrie12345]

You got it 100% right. We are "forced" to pay an educations tax. It comes out of our annual property taxes.I have "opted out" of using the system but irregardless I am still "forced" to pay that tax.

 

How is this any less socialistic than being "forced" to pay a health care tax regardless of whether we "opt out" of having the service or not?

 

Seems a bit like the pot calling the kettle black to me.

 

For me, it goes even further (farther? I'm not looking it up!) than that. We, as homeschoolers, are not legally "opting out" of mandated education. We're simply taking a private route.

 

Even in the states where there are no homeschool regulations, we are mandated to prove (or defend against allegations, depending on interpretation) that we have provided an education, should our claims be challenged.

 

You are not legally allowed to opt out of educating your children. We could ask who in their right mind would want children to be denied an education, but we also have to ask who in their right mind would want children to be denied accessible, appropriate, affordable medical care.

[mommyrooch]

For me, it goes even further (farther? I'm not looking it up!) than that. We, as homeschoolers, are not legally "opting out" of mandated education. We're simply taking a private route.

 

Even in the states where there are no homeschool regulations, we are mandated to prove (or defend against allegations, depending on interpretation) that we have provided an education, should our claims be challenged.

 

You are not legally allowed to opt out of educating your children. We could ask who in their right mind would want children to be denied an education, but we also have to ask who in their right mind would want children to be denied accessible, appropriate, affordable medical care.

 

AMEN! AMEN! and AMEN! :hurray:

[mommaduck]

Yippie?? For having decent ins or my son's staggering medical bills? I don't see what is so "Yippie" He is a toddler.

 

 

Where is that stated in the bill?

 

Well, you were the one bragging how you have good health insurance through your husband's work as though everyone has that option or should be able to get it. Nope, sorry, we have it but it's cr@p. Obviously, given the second part that you quoted, I was not "yippee" about your son's condition. It was a snark to your brag...meaning, please remember that not everyone is as fortunate as you in that regard.

 

With so many bills having gone around, I did read it in one of them, but cannot tell you the page number. I will however, read this one and if I were a betting woman, I'd bet that it's still in there.

[Slartibartfast]

Well, you were the one bragging how you have good health insurance through your husband's work as though everyone has that option or should be able to get it. Nope, sorry, we have it but it's cr@p. Obviously, given the second part that you quoted, I was not "yippee" about your son's condition. It was a snark to your brag...meaning, please remember that not everyone is as fortunate as you in that regard.

 

 

 

I didn't "brag" about anything.

 

I certainly could NOT pay our medical bills out of pocket. Should I then snark "Yippie" because you can? As I stated, our FIRST bill we ever saw for my son as a newborn was over $50,000.

 

How exactly am I fortunate?

 

If we didn't have insurance we wouldn't just be paying out of pocket, we would be bankrupt.

 

Even with GOOD insurance we are paying quite a bit. I am talking about pediatric specialists not a cold. If he ever needs a heart transplant I will be sure to give them my egg money though. I am sure that will put quite a dent in my bill when my child hits his lifetime max.

 

I did NOT accuse you of "bragging" for paying things out of pocket but it simply isn't realistic for my family's situation nor is it realistic for thousands of other families with children with such issues.

 

With so many bills having gone around, I did read it in one of them, but cannot tell you the page number. I will however, read this one and if I were a betting woman, I'd bet that it's still in there.

Maybe someone else can quote the passage then? Edited March 23, 2010 by Sis

[mommaduck]

I didn't "brag" about anything.

 

I certainly could NOT pay our medical bills out of pocket. Should I then snark "Yippie" because you can? As I stated, our FIRST bill we ever saw for my son as a newborn was over $50,000.

 

How exactly am I fortunate?

 

If we didn't have insurance we wouldn't just be paying out of pocket, we would be bankrupt.

 

Even with GOOD insurance we are paying quite a bit. I am talking about pediatric specialists not a cold. If he ever needs a heart transplant I will be sure to give them my egg money though. I am sure that will put quite a dent in my bill.

 

I did NOT accuse you of "bragging" for paying things out of pocket but it simply isn't realistic for my family's situation nor is it realistic for thousands of other families with children with such issues.

 

Maybe someone else can quote the passage then?

We have paid SOME things out of pocket. But we DO have medical debt! If I have medical debt and hubby's insurance isn't paying, then would someone please tell me how I'm supposed to pay for government approved insurance? THAT is my point.