Yay Government health care:(

[tyflier]

LOL KJUN, yes government gives out millions in research grants a year, but the bulk of pharmaceutical companies and labs still rely on their own monies for research in whole. With government giving millions health care we can say goodbye to those grants and hello to medical standstills

My issue isn't about giving people anything or how much they do/don't deserve it though- it's about basic math. If we can't fund Medicare and Medicaid how do we fund a bigger plan? I worry about the amount of resources we are going to expend and how many other resources will be lost. I worry about the quality of care we will receive and rationing, wait times, and shortages of medical personnel.

There are a lot of really good points coming forward, and you guys are really making me think. Wade, thank your bank for that information.

Like I said, I am not lbind enough to think that this HCR will be some massive blessing that will magically cure anyone's worries and troubles. I personally feel that the regulations being put in place, coupled with the new competition in the market is likely to stir further changes.

I don't think this legislation is perfect by any stretch, and I certainly am not pretending to know how any of it is going to work in practice. I can't believe that most of this "stuff" wasn't considered and accounted for long before the final bill was passed.

It seems to me that the entire thing needs to somehow be better controlled and restructured or it's all going to collapse, regardless of government insurance or private. It doesn't seem like there is a whole lot of chance, with or without the bill, unless there is some major changes made to the entire system.

Hopefully, this is the first step...?? :shrugs:

 

[Austin M]

a couple of weeks ago. They interviewed the head of our local group of hospitals (Lee Memorial system) for part of it. He said that in our area (SW Florida), Medicare and Medicaid accounts for something like 65% of the funds they receive. But he said that they actually lose money on every one of those patients. So they have to hike up the rates for insured and private pay patients to make up the difference. And that is PART of the reason that insurance is so expensive, according to what I remember of what he said.

Just something to think about.

Ok, I thought about that for a minute, 65% of the hospitals money comes from the government, and that is without big bad Obama reform? That 65% is at a loss so they pass the cost on to 35% of us who are insured, and that's part of the reason insurance is so expensive?

My question is for those who want government out of our health care. What if the government stopped Medicare and Medicaid today and the hospital now lost 65% of its income. How much would insurance cost for the 35% then? Call me crazy, but 65% of a hospitals income has to cover more of the hospitals losses than 0%? How many more health care professionals get employed because of the 65% and how much more health care equipment does a hospital get because of that 65%?

A hospital is nothing but a business. If 65% of a businesses income is at a loss that business needs to cut cost enough for that 65% to be profitable. When 65% of your business comes from the government it probably makes it easier not to become more efficient?

Sure seems like a catch 22? Is this problem so black and white? Insurance will have to fail without the government kicking in 65%, or am I missing something?

 

[kathylove]

According to what I remember in the article...

He was saying that since 65% of their patients are a loss to the hospital, and must be paid by the private sector, the price of insurance from private companies must keep going up to make up for the shortfall. And as the price goes up, more employers and individuals drop coverage. So the price goes up some more to cover Medicare / Medicaid shortfalls, AND the rising number of uninsured. And as the price goes up because of that, more drop insurance...and so on...unsustainable.

I think the point was made earlier...if the government can't afford to cover the full costs of Medicare now, what happens as even more are added to Medicare and whatever other programs are implemented?

 

[tsst]

I have a simple question for those that really want this gov take over of the health system. Honestly what in their past gives hope that they can manage this, budget for it correctly and control cost while still providing the standard of care we have now all while adding 25 million more people?

Most people would not maintain confidence in any business that had multiple examples of inability to do the job correctly and efficiently. I just don't understand the logic of 'I know the gov has 6 or 8 huge examples of how they can't run large programs with efficiency and sustainability but I will ignore that and turn my very health over to them because insurance companies are bad'. There has to be better ways to improve healthcare, but now it seems we have given up the right to a choice.

If the fed gov had 6 or 8 huge examples of selling bad animals would anyone here really still want to buy snakes from them? Would anyone here want them deciding how your snakes are cared for? Would anyone here want them to decide whether and when you can take your snakes to a vet? Would anyone here want them deciding if your snake's illness was too expensive to treat?

:shrugs::noevil:

 

[mike17l]

Hopefully, this is the first step...?? :shrugs:

Problem is Chris, the .gov has not figured out how to walk (spend and care for monies) yet. Usually, when learning to walk, one would take baby steps, so that if they fall, it will not be hard. If a baby tried to make a huge leap (say over the Grand Canyon), how hard would the fall be?

 

[wstphal]

It seems to me that the entire thing needs to somehow be better controlled and restructured or it's all going to collapse, regardless of government insurance or private. It doesn't seem like there is a whole lot of chance, with or without the bill, unless there is some major changes made to the entire system.

YOU GOT IT! This is what I am passionate about and why I keep posting on this thread.

Now, take the next step. How can YOU have input into "better controlled and restructured"?

 

[wade]

Very interesting thread. I think I have learned a few things here. I hate when that happens.

 

[kathylove]

Quote:
Originally Posted by tyflier View Post
It seems to me that the entire thing needs to somehow be better controlled and restructured or it's all going to collapse, regardless of government insurance or private. It doesn't seem like there is a whole lot of chance, with or without the bill, unless there is some major changes made to the entire system.

YOU GOT IT! This is what I am passionate about and why I keep posting on this thread.

Now, take the next step. How can YOU have input into "better controlled and restructured"?
______________

EXACTLY! That is why I am so worried! When the gov has taken on such a HUGE commitment of OUR money and OUR health without addressing the questions and concerns mentioned earlier, what happens if they fail? If they had taken "baby steps" with less money and involvement, with the idea of continually shaping it by trial and error, a LITTLE at a time, then I would be much happier. Unfortunately, government programs have a history of growing to be MUCH bigger than planned, and are pretty much impossible to eradicate once started. It is much easier to keep them contained before they start than afterwards.

 

[Daenerys]

Heheheheh

 

[tyflier]

I have a simple question for those that really want this gov take over of the health system. Honestly what in their past gives hope that they can manage this, budget for it correctly and control cost while still providing the standard of care we have now all while adding 25 million more people?

For me, personally, it is, as I said, not so much faith in the government as it is distrust of insurance corporations. I've been personally screwed visciously by insurance companies. My "confidence" in the government plan comes as a direct resuilt of my distrust for insurance companies.

When I voted in the last election, I didn't vote for Obama...I voted against McCain. Do you see what I mean? I don't love heavy government programs...I hate private insurance.(I am using the words love and hate very loosely...). Does that make sense? These are my only two choices. I choose what I percieve to be the lesser of two evils.

That's very different than being in full support and confidence of the government, wouldn't you agree?

Most people would not maintain confidence in any business that had multiple examples of inability to do the job correctly and efficiently. I just don't understand the logic of 'I know the gov has 6 or 8 huge examples of how they can't run large programs with efficiency and sustainability but I will ignore that and turn my very health over to them because insurance companies are bad'. There has to be better ways to improve healthcare, but now it seems we have given up the right to a choice.

Insurance companies have a track record that is just as guilty and spotty as the government in even the most conservative of perspectives. In my personal opinion, it is worse, but that is a personal opinion based on personal experience.

There never has been any "choice". What have the choices been in the past? Quit your job, move to a different place and find work that offers benefits or don't have insurance. I do not see how those options are better or less limited than what is being put in place by the legislation. At the very least, the new system will allow for me to buy my own insurance without spending my entire salary on it...

If the fed gov had 6 or 8 huge examples of selling bad animals would anyone here really still want to buy snakes from them? Would anyone here want them deciding how your snakes are cared for? Would anyone here want them to decide whether and when you can take your snakes to a vet? Would anyone here want them deciding if your snake's illness was too expensive to treat?

:shrugs::noevil:

Here is another point...The government has 6 or 8 examples of bad husbandry, but they have been in the breeding and husbandry business for 230 years, and have bred and faithfully sold countless healthy animals. Why do the 6 or 8 "bad seeds" cause you to discount the government entirely?

I don't have faith in the government. I don't have faith in insurance companies. And I know my neighbor isn't gonna help me pay my bills. I accept the reform because at it's very base, it gives me something to hold on to. For those that alread have that something to hold on to, this won't make any sense. But for those of us without it...it is huge.

 

[wade]

For me, personally, it is, as I said, not so much faith in the government as it is distrust of insurance corporations. I've been personally screwed visciously by insurance companies. My "confidence" in the government plan comes as a direct resuilt of my distrust for insurance companies.

Insurance companies have a track record that is just as guilty and spotty as the government in even the most conservative of perspectives. In my personal opinion, it is worse, but that is a personal opinion based on personal experience.

There never has been any "choice". What have the choices been in the past? Quit your job, move to a different place and find work that offers benefits or don't have insurance. I do not see how those options are better or less limited than what is being put in place by the legislation. At the very least, the new system will allow for me to buy my own insurance without spending my entire salary on it...

Chris, you have said that you have been cheated by Insurance companies in the past. Could you elaborate on that? How have the cheated you?

You do have choices now. You can either do what is necessary to get yourself insured or don’t. That is the same choice everyone has. If a Cadillac is important to you, you can do what it takes to get one or learn to live without one. It’s still you choice.

My son was born with a congenital heart disease. He has had open heart surgery 3 times. He will require more surgery in the future. That is what you can call the mother of preexisting conditions. It is not easy to keep him insured, but he has never been uninsured. He was insured under my policy when he was young and at home. But when he got married and was going to college he no longer could be on my policy. He simply made sure that where ever he went to work they offered insurance. He had jobs that were within reach of anyone. He worked in a lumber yard for several years while he was in college. That is an entry level job that almost anyone could qualify for.

I know that you have said that your job does not offer insurance. It may not be your first choice but there are other jobs. There are ways open to you to get insured if that is a priority for you.

There are certainly going to be people who have special needs and unusual circumstances. Those are the people I would be happy to help and contribute taxes toward.

 

[Shiari]

What happens if you son loses his job and gets sick before he can find another one?

 

[tyflier]

Chris, you have said that you have been cheated by Insurance companies in the past. Could you elaborate on that? How have the cheated you?

I could, but I won't. I really don't want to turn this into a personal story of my life. I'm not the only American that stands to benefit from the new system, and I'm quite certain that my situation is not overly "special", in that it is uncommon.

You do have choices now. You can either do what is necessary to get yourself insured or don’t. That is the same choice everyone has. If a Cadillac is important to you, you can do what it takes to get one or learn to live without one. It’s still you choice.

Again, without turning this into my personal histry and life-story, there are reasons why I cannot change my location. There are reasons why I cannot change my job. It's easy enough for you and others to say, "Quit your job and find one that offers benefits", but you and I both know that this is not a very realistic option for anyone trying to keep their head above water and provide for their families.

Currently, my daughter is insured because her mother and I work very hard together to ensure that she is covered for whatever she needs. Aside from her necessary medical care, which can be quite costly, given her severe asthma, and chronic illnesses, I work full time to support my daughter as a single father. MY medical needs will ALWAYS take a back seat to ALL of her needs. Quitting my job to find another that offers benefits leaves me unable to proivde for her. And given my local economy, that situation isn't likely to change anytime soon. This means my only option is to quit my job altogether, and go on welfare, in order to meet our life requirements. This, too, is NOT an option. Despite what some might think, there is a level of pride I am dealing with, and handouts are not something I am interested in.

And again...I am not foolish enough to think I am the only American that finds themselves in such a conundrum. Do you think I am the only one?

My son was born with a congenital heart disease. He has had open heart surgery 3 times. He will require more surgery in the future. That is what you can call the mother of preexisting conditions. It is not easy to keep him insured, but he has never been uninsured. He was insured under my policy when he was young and at home. But when he got married and was going to college he no longer could be on my policy. He simply made sure that where ever he went to work they offered insurance. He had jobs that were within reach of anyone. He worked in a lumber yard for several years while he was in college. That is an entry level job that almost anyone could qualify for.

Again, I don't want to make this personal, but suffice it to say that those jobs are NOT within everyone's reach, because they simply don't exist in every area. I am also fairly certain that the economic situation was different than then it is today. I've had fantastic jobs that paid well AND provided benefits, that for one reason or another I was no longer able to perform. Not because of bad choices, but mostly because of physical limitations due to injuries.

And again...for very personal reasons, I simply do not have the option of leaving the area I am in currently. Please don't ask me to elaborate. I won't. Just take my word for it.

I know that you have said that your job does not offer insurance. It may not be your first choice but there are other jobs. There are ways open to you to get insured if that is a priority for you.

But again...you don't know the area I live in. There are no jobs. The very fact that I have a job at all makes me incredibly lucky.

There are certainly going to be people who have special needs and unusual circumstances. Those are the people I would be happy to help and contribute taxes toward.

Part of the reason these topics can be frustrating to me is because you and others have no idea what, why, or how people are in the situations that find themselves. Not everyone is lazy, or simply unwilling to make changes. And not every "extenuating circumstance" is going to be one you personally approve of. That doesn't mean these people don't deserve a little help, in my opinion.

And remember that not everyone looking for a little help is looking for a giant handout. I'm not going to discuss my personal situation any further, not even for the sake of argument. I can assure you that I do everything within my power to ensure that my daughter is taken care of to the absolute best of my ability, and that every need she has is taken care of. Everything else takes a back seat. EVERYTHING else takes a back seat...including myself. The decisions I make are not based on selfishness or poor choices. They are based on the physical and emotional needs of my daughter. And they are very real "extenuating circumstances", despite what anyone might choose to think of me for making them.

This is why I find it so personally insulting when you and KJUN and Mike insinuate that anyone in support of reform is lazy and looking for a handout. It simply is not the case...and I KNOW I am not the only one doing the absolute best I can, and still coming up short.

 

[wade]

Chris, I don’t mean to pry into your personal life. That is not necessary and I don’t expect it.

As I said there are people with special needs or unusual circumstances that for one reason or other cannot get themselves or their families insured. I’m not cold hearted or ungiving. In fact quite the opposite is true.

I did not mean to put this on a personal level and make it about you and your particular set of needs. I understand that there are a lot of individuals that require individual attention. There are many people who really need help, who can’t work any harder than they already are. I’m am sure they are hoping that this new legislation will be the solution. I don’t think it will. I think it may be a short term fix that will lead to a deficit we cannot support.


Don't lump me with KJ and Mike. They have their own opinions that I agree with sometimes but not always.

 

[wstphal]

Again, without turning this into my personal histry and life-story, there are reasons why I cannot change my location. There are reasons why I cannot change my job. It's easy enough for you and others to say, "Quit your job and find one that offers benefits", but you and I both know that this is not a very realistic option for anyone trying to keep their head above water and provide for their families.

Part of the reason these topics can be frustrating to me is because you and others have no idea what, why, or how people are in the situations that find themselves. Not everyone is lazy, or simply unwilling to make changes. And not every "extenuating circumstance" is going to be one you personally approve of. That doesn't mean these people don't deserve a little help, in my opinion.

These are good general points. What if you live in an area where jobs with private.enterprise.healthinsurance are scarce? Well, some would say MOVE! But what if you provide necessary care to an aged loved one in that area? What if part of keeping your head above water is being able to share childcare duties with family in that area? What if your mortgage is under water so you can't sell your house to move? What if you have pre-existing health conditions & so would not get private.enterprise.healthinsurance if you changed jobs? What if you are divorced (Chris, I am not saying this about you in particular!) and your ex & child live in that area? If you move, you lose contact with your child.

One of the things that private.enterprise has done very poorly is this tight coupling of health insurance to your employer, tying people to the job they have. This came about mostly by accident during WWII. Blame Roosevelt, it was NOT one of his better ideas.

One of the things we need to do, whether we use the taxes.gov toolkit, or the private.enterprise toolkit, is make health insurance more portable, so people are not locked in!

 

[tsst]

For me, personally, it is, as I said, not so much faith in the government as it is distrust of insurance corporations. I've been personally screwed visciously by insurance companies. My "confidence" in the government plan comes as a direct resuilt of my distrust for insurance companies. ...

See that is what I can't grasp. How does distrust of one entity equate to confidence in an equally distrustful entity? That seems illogical to me. JMO

When I voted in the last election, I didn't vote for Obama...I voted against McCain. Do you see what I mean? I don't love heavy government programs...I hate private insurance.(I am using the words love and hate very loosely...). Does that make sense? These are my only two choices. I choose what I percieve to be the lesser of two evils.

I too have voted for the lessor of two evils most of my adult life. Though in my opinion there were an infinite number of ways to try and fix healthcare. It did not need to be a choice of only insurance or gov. I think we have been sold a bill of crappy goods in the form of 'the only way healthcare can be fixed is if the gov runs it'.

That's very different than being in full support and confidence of the government, wouldn't you agree?

I understand the point you are trying to make. But support for this bill does at least seem like trusting a different known distrustful entity rather than just trying to fix the first distrustful entity. That to me seems counter productive if we indeed hope to fix our healthcare. :shrugs:

Insurance companies have a track record that is just as guilty and spotty as the government in even the most conservative of perspectives. In my personal opinion, it is worse, but that is a personal opinion based on personal experience.

I don't want to dwell but I still don't get 'I chose gov because they are slightly less guilty and spotty than an insurance company' (this could be a whole new debate). It simply did not have to be ins vs gov. It could have been any number of checks and balances to slowly correct the insurance industry. Now as Kathy pointed out we will have another huge gov bureaucracy. It will be mis-manged and mis-appropriate like many of the others we have. And like the others will never go away even when it doesn't work.

There never has been any "choice". What have the choices been in the past? Quit your job, move to a different place and find work that offers benefits or don't have insurance. I do not see how those options are better or less limited than what is being put in place by the legislation. At the very least, the new system will allow for me to buy my own insurance without spending my entire salary on it...

There was a choice even if it was limited. You could opt out of insurance by employer and buy another or not buy any or buy supplemental. Do you really believe that because the gov is running it that costs will come down? I can't think of a single example of the gov being cost efficient. The only way I see cost coming down under the gov is if the product you are buying is greatly diminished (ie year long wait lists like Canada, or denied benefits). And stunted advancement in medicines and technology.

Here is another point...The government has 6 or 8 examples of bad husbandry, but they have been in the breeding and husbandry business for 230 years, and have bred and faithfully sold countless healthy animals. Why do the 6 or 8 "bad seeds" cause you to discount the government entirely?

Good analogy. But there are not countless healthy animals. In 230 years they have attempted a dozen or less 'animals' of this caliber and failed at most of them. They were never intended to micro manage lives but rather provide high level guidelines. They do an ok job of say making a law stating it is illegal to discriminate but a terrible job of running massive micro-managed programs.

I don't have faith in the government. I don't have faith in insurance companies.

Then why choose one faithless entity over another instead of trying to fix the first?

And I know my neighbor isn't gonna help me pay my bills. I accept the reform because at it's very base, it gives me something to hold on to. For those that alread have that something to hold on to, this won't make any sense. But for those of us without it...it is huge.

I feel for anyone that did not have coverage. I really do. I just don't think creating a massive bureaucracy that by all past indications will not be operated correctly, funded correctly, or be sustainable was the answer. Tweaking guidelines (something they are at least a little better at than micro-managing) would have been a far better decision IMO. And even this I feel should have been done at state level as amendment 10 directs.

 

[tyflier]

For the most part, I don't disagree with you. But You asked so I'd like to try and be more clear...

See that is what I can't grasp. How does distrust of one entity equate to confidence in an equally distrustful entity? That seems illogical to me. JMO

It's one or the other. I dustrust both entities. It's not really a matter of choosing the one I trust more as it is a matter of choosing the one that will be the most immediately beneficial to me and my family as individuals.

The government health insurance may turn out to be a HUGE flop. But at the very least, it will help me through some immediate needs, where fixing corporate insurance isn't likely to benefit me, personally, very much in the near future, or even my lifetime. I know that's selfish, but that is the nature of self-preservation.

I too have voted for the lessor of two evils most of my adult life. Though in my opinion there were an infinite number of ways to try and fix healthcare. It did not need to be a choice of only insurance or gov. I think we have been sold a bill of crappy goods in the form of 'the only way healthcare can be fixed is if the gov runs it'.

I agree with you. I said early on in these discussions on this forum that I thought there were legitimate issues with the HCR bill that needed to be addressed and deserved to be picked apart and debated.

Instead, most people chose to debate whether it was socialist, or being shoved down our throats, or if Obama was pure evil. Rather than debate the issues of cost control, pricing, and regulation change and enforcement, we sat here debating whether people that supported HCR were lazy, selfish slobs that wanted handouts, or just people looking for another option or a little help.

The senators and representatives that were against the bill in it's infancy spent very little time dissecting the actual problems with the current system and how to fix those. What they did was start a slander campaign against the idea of HCR to ANY extent.

That didn't accomplish anything but polarize our society, and firmly pit us either for or against each other in tightly drawn, and completely irrational, sides.
I understand the point you are trying to make. But support for this bill does at least seem like trusting a different known distrustful entity rather than just trying to fix the first distrustful entity. That to me seems counter productive if we indeed hope to fix our healthcare. :shrugs:

I don't want to dwell but I still don't get 'I chose gov because they are slightly less guilty and spotty than an insurance company' (this could be a whole new debate). It simply did not have to be ins vs gov. It could have been any number of checks and balances to slowly correct the insurance industry. Now as Kathy pointed out we will have another huge gov bureaucracy. It will be mis-manged and mis-appropriate like many of the others we have. And like the others will never go away even when it doesn't work.

I think the biggest problem you are having is in not understanding where I am coming from. This is purely a personal opinion based on personal experiences that I won't go into any deeper, but like I said above...choosing the government plan doesn't attest to my confidence in the government nearly as much as it attests to my lack of trust in private insurance. I don't trust government more...I trust private insurance less. Regardless of what "could'a, should'a, would'a" been done with reformation...this is what we got. I have to stand up for one or the other, and therein lies the conundrum for both of us.

Like I said...I am looking for something to hold onto. I don't expect you to understand, because you already have something to hold onto(presumably). Your fear of losing what you have is no greater than anxiety over trying to get hold of the same thing. We are polar opposites, in this situation, and thus our choices are proportional to our experiences.

There was a choice even if it was limited. You could opt out of insurance by employer and buy another or not buy any or buy supplemental. Do you really believe that because the gov is running it that costs will come down? I can't think of a single example of the gov being cost efficient. The only way I see cost coming down under the gov is if the product you are buying is greatly diminished (ie year long wait lists like Canada, or denied benefits). And stunted advancement in medicines and technology.

Paying $500 a month to cover major catastrophic injury, death and dismemberment doesn't do me any good. I still can't get a co-pay for office visits and regular checkups. I still get no shared prescription costs. I still have a HUGE deductible that becomes debt. The ONLY thing that accomplishes is taking $500 out of my pocket every month in the event that I lose a limb or die. Paying $1200 a month so I can have a reasonable co-pay for office and specialist visits, shared prescription costs, and emergency treatment is not possible, for me, and millions of Americans like me.

As for waiting lists, and limited care...that isn't going to change for me, and many people like me. We already wait out injuries and illnesses because it is better than trying to go to the doctor and creating debt. Checkups and physicals are not even a realistic option at over $100 for an office visit. And that's if the doctor looks at me and walks out. God forbid I need a test or actually have something that needs deeper testing.

I know those seem like realistic options to you. Believe me, in many instances they simply are not.

Good analogy. But there are not countless healthy animals. In 230 years they have attempted a dozen or less 'animals' of this caliber and failed at most of them. They were never intended to micro manage lives but rather provide high level guidelines. They do an ok job of say making a law stating it is illegal to discriminate but a terrible job of running massive micro-managed programs.

Social welfare programs have been instrumental in pulling this country out of one depression already. People need help. I don't pretend that every poor person is trying as hard as they can, and I don't pretend that every person recieving aid deserves aid. Fraud and abuse of the system needs tighter controls. People accepting aid from the govern,ent should be earning that aid from the government.

I don't have hard facts and numbers, but I would wager that a majority of the debt absorbed by the government through these programs is due to fraudulent abuse of the systems in place rather than complete incompetance on the government's part.

Then why choose one faithless entity over another instead of trying to fix the first?

Because I am not the President nor a Congressman. I can't "fix" anything. I'm just a person. This bill is what they gave us. These are now my options. One more option is always a good thing, in my opinion. Ok...maybe not always. But I still think that providing one more option in this situation will open the path for many people in situations like mine, and possibly to further changes in the private sector.

I feel for anyone that did not have coverage. I really do. I just don't think creating a massive bureaucracy that by all past indications will not be operated correctly, funded correctly, or be sustainable was the answer. Tweaking guidelines (something they are at least a little better at than micro-managing) would have been a far better decision IMO. And even this I feel should have been done at state level as amendment 10 directs.

I can't disagree with you. But just because I don't completely agree with what "they" have chosen to do does NOT mean I think the whole thing should be scrapped so we can continue the same way we have been.

I know it's selfish, but me and millions like me are looking for an immediate solution to our own problems. This gives us that, to a small extent. At least for me and mine...we'll take it.

 

[tyflier]

In my last post, I accidentally left part of tsst's question out of the quote--

That didn't accomplish anything but polarize our society, and firmly pit us either for or against each other in tightly drawn, and completely irrational, sides. I understand the point you are trying to make. But support for this bill does at least seem like trusting a different known distrustful entity rather than just trying to fix the first distrustful entity. That to me seems counter productive if we indeed hope to fix our healthcare.

The part in bold is actually part of tsst's post prior to my response. That's why it gets confusing...

 

[wstphal]

Paying $500 a month to cover major catastrophic injury, death and dismemberment doesn't do me any good. I still can't get a co-pay for office visits and regular checkups. I still get no shared prescription costs. I still have a HUGE deductible that becomes debt. The ONLY thing that accomplishes is taking $500 out of my pocket every month in the event that I lose a limb or die. Paying $1200 a month so I can have a reasonable co-pay for office and specialist visits, shared prescription costs, and emergency treatment is not possible, for me, and millions of Americans like me.

Your points are really good! ~But~ here's the kicker -- at the current cost of HEALTHCARE (not health insurance) -- that $1200 a month + everybody else's $1200 a month ends up almost all being spent on a few sick people. How is taxes.gov going to get around that?

I hope that HCR offers some respite to people like you, I really do. And I wouldn't mind paying taxes for that, because I do tend to think that an awful lot of the uninsured are either young-and-stupid or stuck-in-a-bad-situation. As I see it, the lazy go on public assistance & get Medicaid. They may have bad health insurance but they are not currently uninsured. It's the hard-working but not high earning that are currently uninsured, and those are exactly the kind of people I am OK with paying for.

What I am worried about is what happens with the cost issues going forward, and I do think that along with taking care of yourself and your daughter, you CAN contribute in a small way to addressing the cost issues, by thinking, choosing & talking to your friends & family.

 

[tyflier]

Your points are really good! ~But~ here's the kicker -- at the current cost of HEALTHCARE (not health insurance) -- that $1200 a month + everybody else's $1200 a month ends up almost all being spent on a few sick people. How is taxes.gov going to get around that?

I have no idea how it's going to be covered. I understand what you're saying, and I agree with you. But like I said, just because I don't think the new legislation is perfect, does not mean I want it to be repealed without even trying...

I hope that HCR offers some respite to people like you, I really do. And I wouldn't mind paying taxes for that, because I do tend to think that an awful lot of the uninsured are either young-and-stupid or stuck-in-a-bad-situation. As I see it, the lazy go on public assistance & get Medicaid. They may have bad health insurance but they are not currently uninsured. It's the hard-working but not high earning that are currently uninsured, and those are exactly the kind of people I am OK with paying for.

This has always been my contention. The people that stand to benefit the most from the HCR bill are those hard-working American Citizens that bust their nuts every day, and still come up short. The lazy slobs and illegals are already getting their "free ride", and that's not what "we" are looking for. This is why those implications get me sooooo angry.

What I am worried about is what happens with the cost issues going forward, and I do think that along with taking care of yourself and your daughter, you CAN contribute in a small way to addressing the cost issues, by thinking, choosing & talking to your friends & family.

I can always control my own costs, and those of my family. That's my responsibility. Just because I have insurance doesn't mean I'm going to run to the doctor or hospital for every sniffle and bruise. Much of my life will remain unchanged. I will still only go to the hospital when it's absolutely necessary.

The biggest thing this will offer me is the ability to participate in routine health maintenance, such as regular checkups and physicals. As a 37 year old man, it is quickly becoming time in my life where annual physicals and checkups are no longer a luxury. If anything, that will lower my future medical requirements and expenses...