Health Care (McCain, house of representatives, employment, interviews)

[evilnewbie]

Originally Posted by TristansMommy

I like the whole idea of sliding scale based on a percentage of income.. just as you figure your housing should be a % of your income.. so should medical costs.

I mean I pay over about $800/month in premiums to cover me and my son. If my husband were covered it would be over $1000 adn that's because I have a "small business" that has "employees". I really DON'T have employees.. but a lie.. otherwise I would have to pay over $1000 for me and my son.. which is just absolutely BEYOND what I can afford.

If you do the math that is over 20% of a middle income families take home pay .. That is an awful lot.. and again.. if I didn't lie to get that small business coverage it would be much higher than I'm paying. Now I make more than $40K.. however I live ina high cost area so if I were living someplace else the salary I make would be equivelant to that $40K or so.

I think sliding scale is appropriate and fair. Yes.. those who make more would pay more.. however it would still be a proportionate percentage of their income as mine...

Let me get this right... the Conneticut program premiums are $250 per person at 300% FTI (which does NOT include you because your income is too high)... thats $750 for three people... you pay $800 for two people and your income is much higher than 300% FTI and you are complaining? Evidently, living in an expensive place is not an excuse to steal from someone else. Perhaps I should move to Malibu and demand they pay my mortgage, health insurance, car loan, and a small stipend of $4000 a month because I live in Malibu and can't afford it... But then you didn't say how much YOU would pay per month on the premiums... considering someone at 300% FTI pays $250... just how much where you figuring to pay with a $40k salary? Less than $250? How much does your husband make? Your salary is higher than the average household salary and you can't afford it? Something is seriously wrong here...

Housing is not a percentage of income... I don't pay more for a house that someone else can pay less. Medical costs cost the same for you or I, I don't pay more so that I can pay YOUR share. Most middle class families pay ZERO in taxes, they get all of it and sometimes more back in their tax refund... those that OPT into the program do NOT pay more, those who go into the program pay LESS... keyword "OPT" as in those who don't have health insurance choose to get one... keyword "less" with those that are poor paying less while those not poor paying the same amount (i.e. NOT more)...

[paullySC]

Originally Posted by TristansMommy

I like the whole idea of sliding scale based on a percentage of income.. just as you figure your housing should be a % of your income.. so should medical costs.

I mean I pay over about $800/month in premiums to cover me and my son. If my husband were covered it would be over $1000 adn that's because I have a "small business" that has "employees". I really DON'T have employees.. but a lie.. otherwise I would have to pay over $1000 for me and my son.. which is just absolutely BEYOND what I can afford.

If you do the math that is over 20% of a middle income families take home pay .. That is an awful lot.. and again.. if I didn't lie to get that small business coverage it would be much higher than I'm paying. Now I make more than $40K.. however I live ina high cost area so if I were living someplace else the salary I make would be equivelant to that $40K or so.

I think sliding scale is appropriate and fair. Yes.. those who make more would pay more.. however it would still be a proportionate percentage of their income as mine...

Make more money or manage your money better. Oh wait it's easier to hope for something universal so no effort has to be put forth. God forbid people do what they have to do instead of waiting for a hand out. Liberals, good grief.

[TristansMommy]

Originally Posted by One Thousand

What makes you think things are going to change? Why are you willing to bet your healthcare on them changing?




AGAIN! If 60% of the culture feels that way in one area but 60% don't feel that way in the other, why would you burden either with the system made for the other?

Of course culture is not based on where you live. It's based on the people there. If the majority of people don't want something, who are you to command them to take it? That's what this boils down to. Some states want one system, another state wants a different system.

What part of my statements do you not get?? You don't know that your state feels 60% one way or the other.. and you ahve no stats to back that up. You want to know the truth of the matter...it's the midwest has the hardest problem with affordability.. the coastal states have plenty of wealthy people who can handle the costs. I'm sorry..unless you have states to prove taht 60% of your state doesn't go to the Dr often or does..then stop using that argument.. because it's irrlevent.

When the federal government does it, what you do is ignore the wishes of a group of states and force them to follow your orders.

You mean state's politicians don't you!! LOL Please.. if the PEOPLE of this country.. the MAJORITY of the PEOPLE want it ..then it should be done PERIOD. And I've admitted to the fact that a majority of people we do not yet have..but as the problems grow and grow.. the numbers of those calling for a change to the system will grow and grow.

This is what you've been saying the whole time: I know what everyone wants, therefore, they must take it. That's the arrogance of liberalism/socialism/progressism(?)/Democrats. Just explain to me why the fed should do this instead of the states? Why advantage does adding a layer of beauracracy have?

First of all.. I didn't say that everyone wants.. whatever .. I didn't say that.. I did say that we will get to a point where the majority WILL want affordable health coverage. .. one that sticks with them as they move from a different job or different state... etc. If the public is given an INFORMED choice.. not one that is laced with "FEAR MONGERING" as a lot of people against a UHI spew.. I trust they will make the wise choice. Right now.. we don't have the majority numbers.. but those numbers are growing everyday.. as people are finding out the "truth" about the industry. And it's not even really found out until they go to use their health insurance only to get denied coverage they THOUGHT they had from some bogus loophole the insurance company comes up with NOT to cover them. that family then ends up in bankruptcy to care for themselves.


Are you saying we shouldn't consider the government's history of handling entitlements in judging if the government has the ability to handle another one?

I'm saying that we should take history and learn from it!! For one..money paid into a Universal Coverage system should be used ofr only that.. healthcare. Not have politicians allowed to dip into that to pay for other things.. such as wars we shouldn't be in etc. You also meake it seem that control of healthcare will be entirely in the governments hands.. and that is NOT true. The Government... in a system that I envision... would be the payee.. a one payer system. Medical decisions woudl and should be lft n the hands of the Drs treating the patients.. not a pencil pusher behind a desk!!

Yes.. this is all a fantasy at the moment.. it won't happen.. why? because the health insurance industry spends BILLIONS of dollars buying politicians to make decisions in THEIR best interest so that they can keep raking in the profits.. paying their CEO's million dollar salaries and ludicrous bonuses.

Here's an analogy that might help me understand your position. If your brother-in-law borrows your car and crashes it because he was drinking, would you lend him another car in the future when he continues to be an active alcoholic?

The government is NOT a complete and total screw up.. if ti were we simply wouldnt' be a functioning country. However.. I do believe that politics in this country DOES need to change in order to get what we really need going in this country. I think the whole lobbying idea was a good one.. but has been changed to something other than it's true intentions. The only things that EVER get done in goverment these days only get done with lots of money in the lobbying of congress to get it done.

We have become a corporate welfare governement. Everything seems to be done that benefits big businesses and their bottom lines.. and the wealthy.. and is breaking the backs of it's hard working middle class. What is unfortunate is that the people that actually run this country are themselves also rich.. not one of them can truly relate, IMO, to a hard working middle class family. Not that they are not hard working by any means.. but I think you get my point.

Atleast one party seems to be on the side of the hard working middle class..they aren't perfect by any means.. but atleast they are slightly more in touch than the other party.. that only seems to care about tax breaks for the wealthy..etc.


That's what I hear... However, I'm not informed enough to make a decision for the country about healthcare. What I do hear is that states like CT, MA, NY and CA are fixing it. My state, CO, is working on it.

NY is working on the problem. really.. because I dont' see it. We have healthy NY.. but the guidlines for it are along the national income level of middle class.. or the rest of the staet. I am above the "middle income" line..however I very much struggle to BE middle class here because of the cost of living.. I make too much to qualify for their "healthy NY " plan. They do have coverage for childeren and that is great.. but the parents need affordable coverage too.

If you know how health insurance plans work and WHY cost is lower per person for large groups... or should I say companies.. it's because the more people paying in, the lower the cost.. because each offsets the other.

Now.. I'm certainly not opposed to the idea of each state individually developing it's own Universal Coverage type plan..i think that can work.. we'd have to see. But if you pool the entire country into one group .. the offsets are much better thereby lowering hte costs. It also gives the ability to "buy in bulk" .. why do you think Canadians pay 50% less than American's do for the same name brand drug. Because they buy those drugs in bulk as an entire nation!

What makes you think you're informed enough to make a national decision or to say that these states are incapable of fixing their own problems?

Becaues I've informed myself. Because I understand what is going on in the industry because I've read the articles and arguments on both sides of the issue.. AND i have first hand knowledge from my own experiences and that of people around me.




Are you lost? Covering life-threatening issues is catastrophic coverage. You said that was insufficient. So, let's get the first part cleared up, your ideal is coverage for everything up to sniffles.




So, a person who works forty hours a week deserves the same coverage as a person working eighty hours a week?

I get your point.. but let's face facts here.. .someone is a teacher and has set hours.. is it their fault that their profession requires less hours than say a job that someone else makes. Not all people are cut out to be lawyers, Dr's , CEO's etc. Some peoples lot in life is to be that grocery store clerk that punches a clock. Doesn't mean they don't work hard for the money they earn. But if we all did jobs that brought in big incomes and made boatloads of money doing it we'd have no one manning the stores.. no one there to check you out when you buy something, or to teach your children in schools..or to be the secretary for that CEO.. or work in the HR department. Yes.. I don't think someone's worth is based on their income.. And don't forget that the middle class.. a majority ARE working 3 jobs between
both parents JUST to BE middle class! I see it everyday.. And STILL they can not afford an insurance premium.


What is good healthcare? Because I guarantee that you will never, ever get comparable healthcare.

Lets differentiate here between GOOD healthcare and AFFORDABLE healtchare. yes.. the rich will ALWAYS get better... because they can simply BUY themselves better. Everyone should be able to pay an affordable premium and then go to the Dr. when they are sick and GET COVERED for that treatmetn that they need. We have GOOD health care in this country. BUT HAVE A TERRIBLE system of administration of that great healthcare.

I also find it disgusting the practices that insurance companies put into place that leave many familes turned down for treatmetns to protect their 'bottom line" in the name of profit. They actually PAY Dr's to REJECT patients for needed treatments because they don't want to pay.. They had NO PROBLEM collecting the premium..but have a problem paying for treatment when it's needed. Testimony like this has been brought before Congress on several occassions. All the insurance companies care about is making the money...

And.. factored into the cost of health insurance is the cost the company pays to lobby congress to keep policies that protect them and screw the rest of us.

When you understand the consequences of socialism, you don't fear people getting something they don't deserve; You fear the personal hardship that socialism is going to cause all of us.

Again.. fear fear fear.. you "fear" personal hardship!!! Please.. I just don't get it. I hear those in higher tax brackets complain that they pay more in taxes..yet thier paying their taxes doesn't eat not one iota from their lifestyles.. yet a middle income family must make hard choices in order to meet certain obligations..

Take the price of gas.. the rich may have to cut down on taken their boats out this summer.. whereas a middle income family may have to start buying Spam to feed their family because the cost of food has gotten so high and to fuel their homes that they can't afford basics....

Rich always whine about their "hardships" .. most of them wouldn't have a CLUE if they had to live with the budget that working families had to live with and are force to make the choices we have to make to meet our basic neccesities..



Although that's a misleading statement. I don't understand the relevance.




You think it's bad today, wait until it's socialized. The difference between today and then will be that you'll not be able to borrow money to pay for a procedure... You'll have to wait in line because the homeless drunk who needs a liver transplant is equally deserving as your child.

That is not true..look at the Britis model... they STILL have a socialized and privatized model. The thing is EVERYONE is covered..a nd those that want even more or better can go ahead and buy what they want ABOVE what is already provided.. but the point is.. NO ONE GOES WITHOUT TREATMENT !! That is the point.


Let me tell you a real shocker here. Socializing medicine is going to make companies less competitive in the global market. They're still going to pay for it... but their choice isn't going to be to pay through AIG or Aetna... Their choice is going to be pay the U.S. government or move to a coury where they don't have to pay it at all.
Not true at all.. with a centralized system you can lower costs .. and lower costs leave companies capital for other things and benefits. We're having problems competing in a global market because of the cost of stuff LIKE HEALTHCARE per employee in this country.



I didn't think you were serious. You said that your system wouldn't insure everyone. So, there's still going to be that problem to solve. It's not relevant to the conversation.

The system would insure ever AMERICAN CITIZEN.. yes we would STILL HAVE THE IMMIGRATION PROBLEM.... but my point is that problem shouldn't stand in our way of changing what needs to be changed.. because that problem already exists.. however.. now we are paying in higher costs not ONLY for the immigrants here illegally BUT for our OWN CITIZENS that can't afford coverage. You want to know the truth.. there are MORE AMERICAN CITIZENS THAT VISIT ER'S THAT HAVE NO COVERAGE, than there are Immigratns who do. I had the stats back in another posts months ago that showed that it was AMERICAN CITIZENS and NOT illegal immigrants that were showing up in ER's uninsured etc. Proportionately there are more illegals without coverage.. but overall the number of Americans far outweight the number of illegal immigrants without coverage that put a strain on the system.

Let me ask you something. You have opinions about how the system is going to work. However, your say in the government is made by three people: one Representative and two Senators. You live in NY, so your Senators represents 20million people and your Representative represents about 1million.

What makes you think that your opinion is what they're going to do? Why do you believe that 20million others aren't going to have different plans to follow?

Now, lets take that a step further. Your three Congresspeople (that's where your Sens and Reps are) work with 432 other Congresspeople. Those Congresspeople represent about 280million people.

With that in mind, what makes you think that your lone voice in over 300 million people is going to stand out? What makes you think that all those politicians aren't going to be doing all kinds of expensive favors for people they know?... That's what they do. That's what they've always done.

So my last question is, why would you want to throw your money in a ring of 300 million people with different ideas when you could do it just fine in your state? Please explain that to me.

First.. I already explained to you that I do not believe ANYTHING is going to get fixed or done about it now. because I do not have the numbers YET. But as the numbers grow of those uninsured or underinsured and the problem continues to grow.. more and more people will truly realize that what we have now doesn't work and that there is a better way to ..

I also said that I think it's a good idea for each state to adopt their own. I think what CT is doing is great.. and that it would be great to watch and see how it works.. because it COULD be a model for working it on a national level.

Bottom line is there needs to be a Universal System.. wether done on a state or national level. I think that one on a national level will be much more powerful and effective in lowering costs others have already recognized this by proposing that Insurance Companies be able to cross over state lines (cause currently each insurance company is allowed to operate only within that state.. in otherewords there's different Empire plans for different states. etc). While I believe that is a great first step.. I don't feel that alone will be enough to drive down costs (allowing insurance to compete across state lines, that is)

[TristansMommy]

Originally Posted by paullySC

Make more money or manage your money better. Oh wait it's easier to hope for something universal so no effort has to be put forth. God forbid people do what they have to do instead of waiting for a hand out. Liberals, good grief.

I'm sorry ..that is an ignorant statement.. managing my money is NOT going to change the fact that a middle income family must pay 20+ % of their income for health care coverage!! There is not much room in a middle income budget for discretionary spending. We can use ALL themoney we have just to cover the basics.. and then NOT have anything saved for retirement or college etc.

Get over yourself PLEASe.. this is NOT an argument about managing money better or not better.. this is about having to choose which neccesity to get rid of in order to cover another.

Hmm... lets make more horus in the day so that I can make more money.. whatever.. Perhaps I should just take the 6 hours a night I need to sleep and NEVER sleep again so I can WORK instead of getting sleep so that I can make more money..

[TristansMommy]

Originally Posted by evilnewbie

Let me get this right... the Conneticut program premiums are $250 per person at 300% FTI (which does NOT include you because your income is too high)... thats $750 for three people... you pay $800 for two people and your income is much higher than 300% FTI and you are complaining? Evidently, living in an expensive place is not an excuse to steal from someone else. Perhaps I should move to Malibu and demand they pay my mortgage, health insurance, car loan, and a small stipend of $4000 a month because I live in Malibu and can't afford it... But then you didn't say how much YOU would pay per month on the premiums... considering someone at 300% FTI pays $250... just how much where you figuring to pay with a $40k salary? Less than $250? How much does your husband make? Your salary is higher than the average household salary and you can't afford it? Something is seriously wrong here...

Housing is not a percentage of income... I don't pay more for a house that someone else can pay less. Medical costs cost the same for you or I, I don't pay more so that I can pay YOUR share. Most middle class families pay ZERO in taxes, they get all of it and sometimes more back in their tax refund... those that OPT into the program do NOT pay more, those who go into the program pay LESS... keyword "OPT" as in those who don't have health insurance choose to get one... keyword "less" with those that are poor paying less while those not poor paying the same amount (i.e. NOT more)...

You dont' know WHAT you are talking abotu. I live on LI.. I was born and raised here.. . I'm here NOT by choice.. I just didn't wake up one day and say I want to live in malibu and then move there !! I'm here because this is where my family was and I was raised.

I'm not neccesarily talking about ME here.. or maybe you can't get that concept. .because I actually CARE about otheres that AREN'T fortunate enough to be able to Pay for coverage. I AM affording it at $800/month.. and yes.. I'm struggling to do so.. BUT I CAN"T afford my hsuband to be covered becasue it is cost prohibitive.

Sorry.. middle class Do pay a lot in taxes.. and they dont have loopholes to hide behind or tax shelters either.

Here .. the property taxes are disproportionate too.. you can have a house worth a millino dollars plus paying $5K a year in property taxes and house that is $400K a year paying 7K a year in taxes.

I never told you howmuch I make or don't make adn I won't share that. it's irrelevant to the converstaion because Im not only talking about myself here.

[geeoro]

What a stupid statement--- "make more money or manage your money better" That is the typical response of the "out of touch" brigade. TristansMommy is like many hard working Americans that DO NOT have surplus money at the end of each month that can be put into anything like what she needs. In fact for her to juggle her finances and even get some health cover is the decision between what food she gets, what bills she pays and also having to leave her husband without health care so that her son and herself can get health cover. If her husband becomes sick, her whole family suffers. This stupid remark is one of the reasons that good hard working Americans are being treated like second class citizens. The "elitist" view that a UHC is going to ruin their priveliged position in health care.

[paullySC]

Originally Posted by geeoro

What a stupid statement--- "make more money or manage your money better" That is the typical response of the "out of touch" brigade. TristansMommy is like many hard working Americans that DO NOT have surplus money at the end of each month that can be put into anything like what she needs. In fact for her to juggle her finances and even get some health cover is the decision between what food she gets, what bills she pays and also having to leave her husband without health care so that her son and herself can get health cover. If her husband becomes sick, her whole family suffers. This stupid remark is one of the reasons that good hard working Americans are being treated like second class citizens. The "elitist" view that a UHC is going to ruin their priveliged position in health care.

The truth hurts sometimes doesn't it? I mean, expecting people to do what they got to do to get ahead? Maybe her or her husband can get a better job? Maybe get a better education to get a better job? Why are liberals so against people doing things to improve there lives? It's really sad. I'm not saying healthcare is perfect.

[geeoro]

Maybe the head of Citibank will fly down and make her CEO. Maybe she should become the President. What a load of Rubbish. She and her Husband work hard and not Everyone gets incredible salaries. The housing problem is a prime example of how people put themselves into trouble when they live beyond their means, which is what you seem to think TristansMommy should do. It's quite nice to see some of the people with money who bought above their means getting it in the butt. They also had the attitude that they can afford it so they will get more. There is a cut off point to what normal people can spend and they all can't go get a CEO position. TristansMommy and many more hard working Americans cannot go get top jobs, they live within their ability to pay. To say they should get better jobs shows a real lack of understanding reality.

[k350]

Well, unless someone can guarentee that there are job enough job positions open for everyone to make enough for health insurance, then the arugument of "they should make more money" is null and void.

There is not and never will be enough high paying jobs in an economy due to the fact an economy will not work like that.

So in the end, some matters such as health care must be addressed so those that do not make enough can afford it, if you or anyone else does not like it then by all emans, go start a company and pay everyone of your employees a salary high enough for them to afford health insurance.

[evilnewbie]

Well we have Medicaid, Medicare, and what Conn. and Mass. has for everyone in between... I can't help irresponsibility nor should I pay for it...