Health care

[87e30]

I belong on this list.

Me too. :)

I'm 19, I'm in school, so that I can go on to support MYSELF when I'm older.

Now lets just say my entire life outlook falls apart, and I somehow have two children, am single, and can't afford health insurance.

Now a majority of the people that I graduated with are doing very well and can easily support themselves and family.

Is it my right to walk around to all of them and TAKE away some of what they have so that I can support myself?

I think not. Good for them, shame on me.

[rwh11385]

The second point here is that it is her responsibility. She had three kids and has no husband. Did she really not learn her lesson after the first one? Or, did her husband die? What kind of good father and husband has no life insurance for that contingency? It comes down to a personal responsibility issue. If she was stupid enough to have three kids with no way of supporting them, then I have a lot of sympathy for the kids, but none for her. I am not about to willingly pay for her mistakes. Having the government force me to pay for her mistakes is even more evil. It is nothing more than theft.

There are ways of dealing with that kind of thing that doesn't directly involve the government and allows those of us who want to help to do so. You'll get a lot more people helping if the government wasn't already bleeding us dry.

Dude, it's 2009 under the Obama regime... personal responsibility is dead. The plebs have voted themselves more bread and circuses.

[Hallen]

i'm in two minds about it.. on the one hand, i do believe that as the most advanced democracy in the world, everyone should have access to affordable healthcare

But affordable health care is NOT what this bill is about. This bill is about the government controlling health INSURANCE. That is a very different thing than controlling health care costs.

and that the health care insurance industry needs to be regulated to ensure that as they won't do that out of their own accord. On the other, i am against increasing taxes and penalties to pay for it.

The health care is heavily regulated already. That's where a lot of the costs come from. Some of the regulations are good in that it greatly reduces the ability of charlatans and snake oil salesmen from entering the market, but mostly they just unnecessarily raise costs without raising the level of care.

And again, you are referring to health care costs when this bill addresses health insurance. In fact, what it does is tax the snot out of people who don't have health insurance. Which is a wicked weird way of doing things. Also, this bill relies heavily on those fines to fund itself. So if everybody complies, then the government option will fail because it doesn't have funding. What kind of sense does that make?

My feeling is that the timing is off on this.

More than that. The timing will never be right for this. It is a poorly crafted bill that has hugely negative economic, freedom, and bad health issues associated with it.

i'm not endorsing the republican view of lets just sit on our asses and do nothing but yell at the other side either.

They have their own bills drafted but they can't make it to the floor because they don't control any of the committees. For every Democrat bill proposed, there have been an equal number of Republican bills proposed. They say that the Republicans have not offered any alternatives. That's simply not true. The Democrats blow them off because those Republican bills don't include public options and don't force huge and unworkable regulation down the throats of insurance providers and employers.

Jesus. You don't have any conscious at all, do you?

'I'm sorry Ms. hard Working Single Mother of 3, you don't have enough income from your minimum wage job to pay $10K a year in healthcare costs you you deserve to die.' - Restoman

Someone has obviously never gone without healthcare in their lives :loco:

While pity and a desire to help in a reasonable way may exist in all of us, we would differ on the "how" part. First, I guarantee that woman and her kids already have access to health care. And I bet they can all get it for free. There are already massive government programs for that kind of thing. What she doesn't have is health insurance. It is understandable since all insurance plans are required by the government to cover massive amounts of stuff that this woman doesn't need so are very expensive.

The second point here is that it is her responsibility. She had three kids and has no husband. Did she really not learn her lesson after the first one? Or, did her husband die? What kind of good father and husband has no life insurance for that contingency? It comes down to a personal responsibility issue. If she was stupid enough to have three kids with no way of supporting them, then I have a lot of sympathy for the kids, but none for her. I am not about to willingly pay for her mistakes. Having the government force me to pay for her mistakes is even more evil. It is nothing more than theft.

There are ways of dealing with that kind of thing that doesn't directly involve the government and allows those of us who want to help to do so. You'll get a lot more people helping if the government wasn't already bleeding us dry.

[stegosaurus]

i'm starting a list of names of those of you who are excessively vocally against this stuff.

I belong on this list.

[asubimmer]

Jesus. You don't have any conscious at all, do you?

'I'm sorry Ms. hard Working Single Mother of 3, you don't have enough income from your minimum wage job to pay $10K a year in healthcare costs you you deserve to die.' - Restoman

Someone has obviously never gone without healthcare in their lives :loco:

ok so you want to force ME to pay for her since she has 3 kids and no father? There are have and have nots, natural selection ;) You don't get anywhere in life sitting on your ass. You have to go out there and make something of yourself. And socialistic policies like this heathcare program only hurt people that are doing something with their life.

[mrsleeve]

Corvallis

Hey thats why the S-Chip program passed. So that those that are making shit can support govt care for children of some one who is makeing 150k a year or more with their tax dollars and sin tax dollars. S-chip took off all income restrictions for free govt health care for kids.

Oh and as it sits now she falls under the medicaid programs, SO your argument is moot.

As to go with out heath care, I have and it was not a good time. I will halk, scrounge, sell, do what ever I have to, to make that premium payment when I am off for too long and run outta escrow hours.

[Schnitzer318is]

Someone has obviously never gone without healthcare in their lives :loco:

^Exactly...


I'm all for healthcare reform, we'll have to wait and see how it performs. Every party in power gets its chance... if it's fucked up Obama and every other Dem will be voted out who voted for this.

The insurance companies are corrupt and something needs to be done about it... not sure if this is it, but time will tell.

[CorvallisBMW]

If you can't afford healthcare then you can't afford to live. As you can see I'm no bleeding heart.

Jesus. You don't have any conscious at all, do you?

'I'm sorry Ms. hard Working Single Mother of 3, you don't have enough income from your minimum wage job to pay $10K a year in healthcare costs you you deserve to die.' - Restoman

Someone has obviously never gone without healthcare in their lives :loco:

[rwh11385]

http://www.indystar.com/article/20091108/NEWS05/911080401/House%20makes%20history%20on%20health%20care

A triumphant Speaker Nancy Pelosi likened the legislation to the passage of Social Security in 1935 and Medicare 30 years later.

That should send up warning bells... but no, idiots think that's a positive thing. How messed up are both of those programs?

[Erik]

Affordable and healthcare do not go in the same sentence. Sorry, it just doesn't go well. How can you ask for the best and brightest when your arm gets chopped off and then want to pay "Shade Tree Mechanic" rates? You have to pay to play this game of life. If you can't afford healthcare then you can't afford to live. As you can see I'm no bleeding heart.

Wow, you have no soul.

[gwb72tii]

i'm starting a list of names of those of you who are excessively vocally against this stuff.

you can put me down as #1

fuck pelosi
fuck reid
fuck obama

[Restoman]

Affordable and healthcare do not go in the same sentence. Sorry, it just doesn't go well. How can you ask for the best and brightest when your arm gets chopped off and then want to pay "Shade Tree Mechanic" rates? You have to pay to play this game of life. If you can't afford healthcare then you can't afford to live. As you can see I'm no bleeding heart.

[mrsleeve]

VDUB thats very telling. I have not read anything on this because I just dont think I can take it.

GOD I HOPE THIS CAN BE STOPPED IN THE SENATE. All the letters and calls against to my senators will do no good, One of the them is guy behind all this, good OL Bacuas

[Vedubin01]

What the Pelosi Health-Care Bill Really Says

Here are some important passages in the 2,000 page legislation.

By BETSY MCCAUGHEY

The health bill that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is bringing to a vote (H.R. 3962) is 1,990 pages. Here are some of the details you need to know.

What the government will require you to do:

• Sec. 202 (p. 91-92) of the bill requires you to enroll in a "qualified plan." If you get your insurance at work, your employer will have a "grace period" to switch you to a "qualified plan," meaning a plan designed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. If you buy your own insurance, there's no grace period. You'll have to enroll in a qualified plan as soon as any term in your contract changes, such as the co-pay, deductible or benefit.

• Sec. 224 (p. 118) provides that 18 months after the bill becomes law, the Secretary of Health and Human Services will decide what a "qualified plan" covers and how much you'll be legally required to pay for it. That's like a banker telling you to sign the loan agreement now, then filling in the interest rate and repayment terms 18 months later.


On Nov. 2, the Congressional Budget Office estimated what the plans will likely cost. An individual earning $44,000 before taxes who purchases his own insurance will have to pay a $5,300 premium and an estimated $2,000 in out-of-pocket expenses, for a total of $7,300 a year, which is 17% of his pre-tax income. A family earning $102,100 a year before taxes will have to pay a $15,000 premium plus an estimated $5,300 out-of-pocket, for a $20,300 total, or 20% of its pre-tax income. Individuals and families earning less than these amounts will be eligible for subsidies paid directly to their insurer.

• Sec. 303 (pp. 167-168) makes it clear that, although the "qualified plan" is not yet designed, it will be of the "one size fits all" variety. The bill claims to offer choice—basic, enhanced and premium levels—but the benefits are the same. Only the co-pays and deductibles differ. You will have to enroll in the same plan, whether the government is paying for it or you and your employer are footing the bill.

• Sec. 59b (pp. 297-299) says that when you file your taxes, you must include proof that you are in a qualified plan. If not, you will be fined thousands of dollars. Illegal immigrants are exempt from this requirement.

• Sec. 412 (p. 272) says that employers must provide a "qualified plan" for their employees and pay 72.5% of the cost, and a smaller share of family coverage, or incur an 8% payroll tax. Small businesses, with payrolls from $500,000 to $750,000, are fined less.

Eviscerating Medicare:

In addition to reducing future Medicare funding by an estimated $500 billion, the bill fundamentally changes how Medicare pays doctors and hospitals, permitting the government to dictate treatment decisions.

• Sec. 1302 (pp. 672-692) moves Medicare from a fee-for-service payment system, in which patients choose which doctors to see and doctors are paid for each service they provide, toward what's called a "medical home."

The medical home is this decade's version of HMO-restrictions on care. A primary-care provider manages access to costly specialists and diagnostic tests for a flat monthly fee. The bill specifies that patients may have to settle for a nurse practitioner rather than a physician as the primary-care provider. Medical homes begin with demonstration projects, but the HHS secretary is authorized to "disseminate this approach rapidly on a national basis."

A December 2008 Congressional Budget Office report noted that "medical homes" were likely to resemble the unpopular gatekeepers of 20 years ago if cost control was a priority.

• Sec. 1114 (pp. 391-393) replaces physicians with physician assistants in overseeing care for hospice patients.

• Secs. 1158-1160 (pp. 499-520) initiates programs to reduce payments for patient care to what it costs in the lowest cost regions of the country. This will reduce payments for care (and by implication the standard of care) for hospital patients in higher cost areas such as New York and Florida.

• Sec. 1161 (pp. 520-545) cuts payments to Medicare Advantage plans (used by 20% of seniors). Advantage plans have warned this will result in reductions in optional benefits such as vision and dental care.

• Sec. 1402 (p. 756) says that the results of comparative effectiveness research conducted by the government will be delivered to doctors electronically to guide their use of "medical items and services."

Questionable Priorities:

While the bill will slash Medicare funding, it will also direct billions of dollars to numerous inner-city social work and diversity programs with vague standards of accountability.

• Sec. 399V (p. 1422) provides for grants to community "entities" with no required qualifications except having "documented community activity and experience with community health care workers" to "educate, guide, and provide experiential learning opportunities" aimed at drug abuse, poor nutrition, smoking and obesity. "Each community health worker program receiving funds under the grant will provide services in the cultural context most appropriate for the individual served by the program."

These programs will "enhance the capacity of individuals to utilize health services and health related social services under Federal, State and local programs by assisting individuals in establishing eligibility . . . and in receiving services and other benefits" including transportation and translation services.

• Sec. 222 (p. 617) provides reimbursement for culturally and linguistically appropriate services. This program will train health-care workers to inform Medicare beneficiaries of their "right" to have an interpreter at all times and with no co-pays for language services.

• Secs. 2521 and 2533 (pp. 1379 and 1437) establishes racial and ethnic preferences in awarding grants for training nurses and creating secondary-school health science programs. For example, grants for nursing schools should "give preference to programs that provide for improving the diversity of new nurse graduates to reflect changes in the demographics of the patient population." And secondary-school grants should go to schools "graduating students from disadvantaged backgrounds including racial and ethnic minorities."

• Sec. 305 (p. 189) Provides for automatic Medicaid enrollment of newborns who do not otherwise have insurance.

For the text of the bill with page numbers, see www.defendyourhealthcare.us.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704795604574519671055918380.html#printMode

[mrsleeve]

I cant believe it but I actually agree with nearly all of what you said. Yes something needs to be done to rein in the costs, BUT WHAT HAS JUST BEEN PASSED IS NOT IT.


I say let the FREE MARKET fix the issue. End the anti trust law exemption, and allow full and free competition across all markets, rather than the current system of letting a 1 or 2 companies have control over entire states and charge what the will. That and you have to remember that the govt, is more responsible for the current skyrocketing cost of care than anything else. That to get govt grants and funds the medical facility has to take Medicare/Medicaid and both of those programs in many instances, payment for services is less than the cost to provide it. So those net losses need to made up else where, thus they charge the Insurance companies and Retail customers more so they can keep the lights on, attract better talent and invest in the best, latest and great technology to better serve the us. With the boomers getting older and getting to the point where they are going to be in the system thats gonna drive up the
cost of heath care for all of us that have traditional insurance and retail.

i'm in two minds about it.. on the one hand, i do believe that as the most advanced democracy in the world, everyone should have access to affordable healthcare and that the health care insurance industry needs to be regulated to ensure that as they won't do that out of their own accord. On the other, i am against increasing taxes and penalties to pay for it.

My feeling is that the timing is off on this. If the economy were stronger and we were out of the two ridiculous wars we're fighting, this could be done without higher taxes. those supposed cuts to medicare will never happen. we know that. as for higher taxes on high earners, I think the entire convoluted tax code needs to be revamped and made simpler, the current system doesn't work.

i'm not endorsing the republican view of lets just sit on our asses and do nothing but yell at the other side either.