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.
My thoughts? Any type of Health Insurance the government comes up with, is not about people's health nor insurance. More over the requirement that every one must carry health insurance is unconstitutional in that it takes a person's choice away. In comparison to the mandate that every one who owns a car, must carry car insurance, a person doesn't have to buy a car. A person can make some lifestyle changes in that they may live and take a job that is on a mass transit route. A person can opt out of owning a car, but a person can not opt out of owning their body.
The only way a person can opt out of buying Health Insurance is through poverty. That, tells me, not about people's health. Some one will benefit, but I don't believe that someone is us.
Before the enactment of the welfare, safety net programs, the U.S. citizen didn't look to the government for assistance. They looked to each other for assistance. It wasn't until (rough estimate) 13 million people became unemployed, homeless and impoverished, not to mention the Bonus Army having needs, did that all change.
These programs may help an old person get health care, they may help the low income buy food, they may help the unemployed and retired buy goods and services, however, guess what else they do. They prop up the markets with funds that wouldn't be there if the programs where not there to put money back into the supply and demand. (the government is manipulating the market)
So what were you asking about the double (Obamacare) in insurance costs? Follow the money and find its real benefactors. SS and medicare are broke, we know this as its common knowledge, however, we need a Snowden of a different kind to confirm that which we believe (have believed) the government robs peter to pay paul and has rendered those two programs useless.
The story of the family (that I read 40 years ago) is a sad tale in that they lost everything they owned due to health costs. The stories coming up out of the Great Depression are equally sad, in that people lost everything they owned. Thousands lived in card board boxes.
However, before the government got involved we still had more choices on how to spend the money we earn.
Government health insurance is military style health care and I know that well. A person can not choose the hospital they go to for treatment or the clinic for regular check ups or the doctor they trust to see them. The government insurance chooses those for you. (I don't know much about standard health insurance, just cash)
When was the last time any one was able to make a choice in those areas; that the insurance plans did not marginalize the choice? Could it be the conditions were being set up, so as people would be comfortable with an idea?
Taxes will increase regardless of a socialized medicine program, that much a person can be sure.
Then maybe you should realize that there is no "one size fits all" solution (which is what the other poster was trying to point out to you, but you refused to acknowledge it) and understand there will be winners and losers no matter what the plan is. You, like others, are going to look out for the best interest of your family. But the one thing I can do without are posters in this thread trying to villanize others for doing that. I think many of us have had it up to here with that. Just because one plan helps someone's family doesn't mean it's OK to turn a blind eye to those it hurt.
Conservatives seem to be clueless about how insurance works.
Try getting long term care without it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nanny Goat
Another poster wrote about "charity" care at hospitals. It doesn't exist. Even w/ Medicaid, there are strict requirements and lots of physicians don't take it. And, Medicare is for those over 65 and only covers 80%.
Then maybe you should realize that there is no "one size fits all" solution (which is what the other poster was trying to point out to you, but you refused to acknowledge it) and understand there will be winners and losers no matter what the plan is. You, like others, are going to look out for the best interest of your family. But the one thing I can do without are posters in this thread trying to villanize others for doing that. I think many of us have had it up to here with that. Just because one plan helps someone's family doesn't mean it's OK to turn a blind eye to those it hurt.
To those it hurts ...
With my income I am not penalized for not having health insurance. Part of the perks for being poor? At the same time I am an adult without insurance.
Interesting I had a need for a different physician, not trusting the one that I had, I began to make a few phone calls. I found a PA and I see them now, that the first visit was $160.00 that first time visit; elsewhere ran upwards to $450.00. The difference? The clinic I go to does not except any form of insurance.
I have only enough knowledge about all of this to be dangerous, but I do know one thing I don't want other people's money paying for my healthcare. I also know that if I had the 25% they take out of my paycheck I'd have more money to work with ... with that said.
Socialized programs hurt everyone as they steel from everyone's table and what they give back is, no choice. Not to mention it keeps us all fighting one another over money and that can't be good for any self governing country.
Some one said that the ACA law effected the commerce clause. I never looked into it, but here's the thing. If the government can federally mandate every one to buy health insurance, what is to stop them from mandating every one to buy a cell phone, because they may need to use the 9-1-1 services at some point. Or buy a life insurance so to reduce the state expenses in the burial of the poor. Where do they stop and what is in place to stop them?
We're just looking at the first domino, not the rest of them as they have been placed in line, or how they might fall.
Imagine waking up to having ...
A job that the government allowed you to have
Transportation the government allowed you to have
and a home the government allowed you to have
But that average cost was 33k with no insurance. All passed on to the patient unless it's waived, taken care of by charity funds, etc. How many people can afford an extra few hundreds a month? What if you end up needing more than one expensive medical procedure?
Your insurance would be more than a few hundred a month regardless of where you got it, unless you are dirt poor and qualify for the entire thing to be subsidized. You can offer 5 bucks a month on medical bills and they have to accept it because you are attempting to pay. So if nobody has a couple hundred a month, they can't afford insurance either.
Except when you get there they ask how you are going to pay before they treat you. Those of us that are poor cannot afford to pay for the visit.
If you can't afford a 40-60 dollar office visit, how are you going to afford insurance? You just want it free without doing anything for it? Besides if you are THAT poor you would qualify for welfare which comes with Medicaid.
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.
(the government is manipulating the market)
it only took a second or two ...
