Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The anger basically is all about who pays. 500 billion over ten years cut from Medicare to start with. The 50% of those without insurance to be placed on Medicaid with states picking up half the tab in 2017;which Nelsen(D) addressed for his yes vote because he said it will bankrupt his state with additonal funding need form states.Even then CBO now says in 2020 still 15 million willl not have . Then CBO says the cost was under estmated by 33% in the original bill.Looking at funding in committee the democratic interest like unions refused to pay any of the cost by counting their benefits as income to be taxed. Its always about who pays and who gets advantages. Many now are seeing their employer change terms to lower cost of mandates that adopted the mandates last October.Its a new entitlement at a time when present entitlements are looking at cuts/ increased taxes and fees to fund.
Most "fake" emergencies and recurring emergency room use is by those who are on Medicaid. Of course there are valid emergencies affecting everyone, but have you ever sat in an ER? There are "regulars," from what it seems, and they are generally poorer and on some type of assistance.
Good afternoon,
Let's say you're right, it's irrelevant for the solution. Those with fake emergencies need to be turned away and sent to a cheaper clinic. Either way it may take care of itself with my "shop for the best deal" approach, people may go to a cheaper clinic automatically to get their "Christmas bonus" at the end of the year.
Is that your only point? You asked for solutions, I listed some. Now do you support getting rid of the mandate and implementing my plan instead?
And why do they go there? Because they can. When one is not paying they bill they dont care how much it cost.
And that phenomenon is not going to change, either before or after health care reform. Having worked in a hospital during college, this phenomenon is a "given." That's not what the health care system is trying to overhaul. Again, those people are on Medicaid...always have been and probably always will be.
Why 40,s ? Why dont you want to talk about those in their 20,s and 30,s who are being forced to buy it. After all , they make up more then 1/2 of the 1 in 7.
Ok, what about the 27 year old who is hiking and attacked by a mountain lion or is swimming in the Florida Keys and is attacked by a shark? They were really planning on it. They probably wished they had died, if the extent of the injuries will severely reduce their quality of life. But, I forgot, you're (1) covered via your wife, and (2) did not encounter any serious medical expenses prior to that. Count your blessings.
Why don't you price a heart attack or a stroke for me instead? You know, the kind that unexpectedly hit people in their 40s, for example.
That cost would probably be equal to about what one would pay for HI over 10 yrs. Lets not forget what HI is. Its assumed risk as in you are paying someone to take the risk for you. Not everyone has a heart attack.
Forcing 20 yr olds to buy a product they dont want or need so the 40 yr can buy a product he may need cheaper isnt right. Granted its a great deal for the 40 yr old, but the 25 yr old is getting boned. Boned at a time in his life when he is probably not making a boatload of money to begin with.
So this is basicly the poor subsidizing those with more money. I thought the left was against that?
Any national reform in the US is NOT meant to be modeled after health care availability in Canada or Europe or other places that provide free health care.
The way I understand it is like this: 60% of the population is covered under an employer's plan of an employer that is large and decent enough to offer health care coverage 13% of the population is covered under Medicare (and can buy wraparound plans to bring their costs even lower) 13% of the population is covered by Medicaid, state programs for the indigent who plain out don't have a lot of money.
That leaves 1 out of 7 (14%) Americans without a sponsored health plan - self-employed people, people who work in small businesses, and people who aren't poor enough to be on Medicaid. Some of these people CAN AND DO buy it. Others can't, because (1) they can't afford to, or (2) have a pre-existing condition. With item (2) the insurance companies will deny people coverage if they have a less than optimal health record - for controllable things like hypertension or if they've used sleeping pills for insomnia!
As I understand it, health care reform is aimed at getting access for that 1 in 7 that can't get it - your hairdresser, your bookkeeper, your plumber or electrician, a free-lance appraiser...and they won't get it for free. If they make normal money, they'll pay a market rate that doesn't penalize them for a pre-existing condition. If they're not "in the chips," they'll pay some indexed discounted rate.
Story: I was driving down a major boulevard in a conservative section of a state capital where, whether it's same-sex marriage or health reform, the WASPy faces of those who either work for a large company or the government are out there holding signs against health care reform. I guess since it's a "given" for them, they're against it. Talk about inequity.
So, then, if it's to assist that minority (14%) of the US population that won't be sold insurance or can't qualify for Medicaid, why are people so rabidly against this?
Ok, what about the 27 year old who is hiking and attacked by a mountain lion or is swimming in the Florida Keys and is attacked by a shark? They were really planning on it. They probably wished they had died, if the extent of the injuries will severely reduce their quality of life.
And what about the 99.9% of hikers and and swimmers who will not get attacked.
you also forgot to mention the 27 yr old who got hit by a falling plane.
Its crazy to force people to buy a product they dont want because they may get attacked by a mountain lion, especialy when fish and game in my state says they were eradicated 100 yrs ago from our state. But god forbid we should all still have mt lion coverage.
And what about the 99.9% of hikers and and swimmers who will not get attacked.
you also forgot to mention the 27 yr old who got hit by a falling plane.
Its crazy to force people to buy a product they dont want because they may get attacked by a mountain lion, especialy when fish and game in my state says they were eradicated 100 yrs ago from our state. But god forbid we should all still have mt lion coverage.
A lot of things can happen between 20 and 40. How about breaking an arm, or a hand, requiring you to go to hand physical therapy? You know, injuries from sports, or skiing, or whatever. I had a friend, a real "jock," who screwed up his knee skiing when he was in his mid-30s.
You've got "yours," what do you care? Basically, what you're saying is that mid-career self-employed adults should not be allowed to buy health insurance, even if they want to and are willing to pay, because they have a less than spotless medical record. That's what I hear.
Ok, what about the 27 year old who is hiking and attacked by a mountain lion or is swimming in the Florida Keys and is attacked by a shark? They were really planning on it. They probably wished they had died, if the extent of the injuries will severely reduce their quality of life. But, I forgot, you're (1) covered via your wife, and (2) did not encounter any serious medical expenses prior to that. Count your blessings.
If they make the choice to go at it without insurance, who's responsible?
If a man fails to get Life Insurance and passes away, who's responsibility is his family?
When did we, as a nation, start to fall under the mandate that your lack of personal responsibility becomes someone else's responsibility?
My uncle retired with a good pension.
Unfortunately, he decided to NOT pay for insurance out of his pension (he would have had $300 less per month) so that my aunt would still receive his pension upon his death.
He died and she is now on welfare, SS and food stamps and still cannot make ends meet.
Who is responsible?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
