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.
that's because INSURANE is a bussiness...a RISK business
why do you think people who smoke pay higher premiums n life INSURANCE
why do you think poor drivers (accidents and tickets) pay higher premiums on auto INSURANCE
why do you think people in bad weather areas pay more on homeowners INSURANCE
insurance is not care, never was.
A risk business has NO BUSINESS in health care.
It's immoral. It never wanted to pay for it.
If you consider life on par with your car and home....
I'm just shaking my head.
Fine. Then support taxes to care for those who are deemed undesirable by health insurance that way insuance can insure the healthy and make their profit and those undesirable will get care.
The "Your health ills isn't my problem, go deal with your own problems, don't involve me" mentality isn't a acceptable solution
Liberal mentality.. Support taxes.. Thats their only solution....
If I lose my job, I will NEVER be able to get health insurance. I am currently battling Hodgkin's lymphoma. In a year, I will most likely be cured. However, for the rest of my life, I will be uninsurable or have incredibly high ($1000+ a month) premiums.
Are you really willing to tell a 23 year old who happens to get ill through no fault of her own that she should just "figure it out" how to pay for insurance that, at least right now, is more than half of my monthly income BEFORE taxes?
People like me, who one day would like to start a small business but will NEVER be able to because of health care costs?
This is the reality for many people out there. I'm just one case. My best friend, also 23, was quoted at $600 a month for health insurance once he was booted off of his parents' insurance due to a previously existing condition. I guess he should "choose" to be homeless and not eat in order to pay for health insurance.
Some would tell you get a career that makes $200k a year and you will be able to pay for your treatment. Some would say that it isn't their problem about your situation and that is life is unfair oh well. Some would say it isn't their responsibilty to chip in to make sure people in your situation don't live a life of bill collections and credit denied or that you may not be able to get a job because of your history.
But what they won't consider is people who are strapped in a bad situation like that ultimately effects their prosperity and the nations also.
Pretty much the best argument that I've read FOR Obamacare. Yes, the Obamacare legislation is not perfect, but repeal is not the answer. "Health insurance should remain a choice" is just a fallacy of an argument, because for millions of Americans, it is not currently an option. Unless you have a job that offers you health insurance, it is very difficult to buy it as an individual.
It is wrong to assume that the millions of uninsured Americans are uninsured because they don't want health insurance.
I'd say it is very biased. There is no mention of how government has RUINED the health insurance industry in the northeastern states by legislators interfering in the industry and telling what health insurers what they can and can't do.
In fact is it safe to say that no article has yet been written that is truly objective on the issue of health insurance or and health care in the United States for that matter.
As an independent insurance agent specializing in health insurance for over 20 years I have witnessed it first hand and not just from the standpoint of the changing nature of health insurance sales but also from a government relations compliance standpoint as a resident agent of Rhode Island who was also licensed in Massachusetts.
Northeastern states with the exception of New Hampshire have notoriously been "bad" states for health insurance because the state legislatures managed to get their foot in the door of health insurance carriers to the point where they started lording over them and requiring them to "cover" rediculous things such as hair transplants for men as was done in Massachusetts not to mention more and more preventative things rather than medically necessary things like it used to cover. (Think about it: does your auto insurance cover any maintanence on your car? Of course not. You take that responsibility as you should for your health.)
Additionally the legislators of these stubborn states refused to establish a high risk health insurance pool like the majority of the rest of the states have done. Having a high risk pool catches those that fall between the cracks so that those with serious health problems can get insurance from the high risk pool and those who are healthier can qualify for more affordable or even fantastic rates in the private sector.
Perhaps needless to say, New York where the New York Times is located is one of these BAD states where due to rediculous state insurance mandates, health insurance is rediculously expensive as high or higher than a mortgage payment BECAUSE in NY, carriers are forced to cover everyone. Furthermore, the insurance companies aren't even allowed to do what every insurance company does and that is "rate based on risk" (ask health questions and determine rates based on answers). The end result is that since the insurance companies aren't allowed to figure out what type of risk they might be dealing with, EVERY APPLICANT gets charged really high rates (as if they had late stages of cancer).
So if you don't like the rates you pay for health insurance, chances are the reason the rates are so high is due to your state legislators who know nothing about health insurance forcing insurers to jump through hoops and cover this and that just to meet the state regulations. As a result, in the BAD states, many of the insurers that used to offer great rates and plans have left those states as the regulatory environment got wo bad it became intolerable.
In Rhode Island I lived though having to try to switch hundreds of clients off a plan to something else after the carrier announced it was not only leaving but also was having to cancel everyone's coverage because the state regulations became so intolerable. Now Rhode Island has only two health insurers doing business in the state and only one for individuals who are not business owners.
In Massachusetts after the so called "reform" (and predecessor to Obamacare) went through, some of my clients were informed by the state of Massachusetts that they could no longer keep their plan because their deductibles were too high. They were forced to buy something more expensive. Inevitably the Massachusetts health care reform will make insurance so expensive that many that could pay for it before, can't afford it now.
If you look at the government website, you'll see that the projected rates for Obamacare are outrageous. You think health insurance is expensive now, just WAIT!
Lastly and this is NEVER discussed. Why would anyone want to pay so much for something that only pays for conventional medical care anyway , when conventional medical care conservatively based on only 20% of reported incidents, kills 250 times the number of people that died on 9/11 EVERY YEAR! ?! In fact modern medicine, when followed as prescribed by doctors kills more than any one disease. You can read the details for yourself by going to the Life Extension Foundation website and searching for the "Death by Medicine" Report that happened to be compiled by M.Ds and PhDs; is 30 or so pages long and contains all the footnotes and references of medical journals where the statistics came from.
If it were left up to me, there would at least be an option, a much less expensive one, where you could get health insurance that would just cover acute illness and accidents since natural medicine is FAR MORE effective for chronic and degenerative diseases. After all if this was not the case, the human race would not have survived and thrived as it did before modern medicine and allopathic drugs came on the scene only a handful of decades ago.
(All you naysayers who are in love with your diseases and your prescription drugs that want to force them down everyone elses throats, save your responses. Note that all I said was that people should have a choice. If you are content with living with your disease by covering up the symptoms all your life with prescriptions, go for it. Let those who want to actually get RID of their disease and get their health back be allowed to do so. In Europe and Asia, natural medicine is on a LEVEL PLAYING FIELD with western medicine. Maybe THAT explains why people in those countries spend less on medical care than we do here and why they are healthier than we are. More of them are no doubt using natural medicine and going to see Naturopathic Doctors and getting rid of their diseases-- not just covering up the symptoms like we are told to do by medical doctors (who are untrained in natural medicine) here for the rest of their lives. Do I need to mention that obviously it is much more lucrative for the medical establishment to keep you on drugs all your life rather than be honest and refer you to a Naturopath who could help you get well enough so you don't need your prescriptions anymore????)
If I lose my job, I will NEVER be able to get health insurance. I am currently battling Hodgkin's lymphoma. In a year, I will most likely be cured. However, for the rest of my life, I will be uninsurable or have incredibly high ($1000+ a month) premiums.
wrong.. you can
A) Find another job, which its illegal to discriminate against your condition
B) Get on some of the numerous governmental programs already in existance
Quote:
Originally Posted by lionking
Some would tell you get a career that makes $200k a year and you will be able to pay for your treatment. Some would say that it isn't their problem about your situation and that is life is unfair oh well. Some would say it isn't their responsibilty to chip in to make sure people in your situation don't live a life of bill collections and credit denied or that you may not be able to get a job because of your history.
But what they won't consider is people who are strapped in a bad situation like that ultimately effects their prosperity and the nations also.
Bull.. There is a HUGE difference between a governmental safetynet for those who CANT get insurance, and REQUIRING those who can, get it.. Until you learn the difference and understand THIS is the disagreement, your postings will be discredited as just more whining and moaning of bs..
Your objection was failed and ridiculous, unless the government is going to FORCE you to put the money in the bank.. I dont give a rats patute what you do with the money you save.. I buy properties with mine.. Expecting people to SAVE up must be difficult for you to think about..
And the notion gets even more ridiculous because you think putting money in the bank is a bailout.. Talk about the subject like an adult and if you cant dispute the facts posted, then dont reply.
No, I think it's ridiculous to think the solution to health care costs is everyone put something aside in the bank to cover health care expenses. You do realize that most folks don't go to the doctor every day. We are not all sick at the same time. One payer, one pool is the only answer.
It would even provide for employers not to have to pay for health insurance for their employees. Do you know auto makers pay more for health insurance coverage for their employees than they do for the steel they put in their cars.
There are certain things that can be private in this
Corporate society we live. A Health Care system is not
one of them.
Chances are, statistically, when you or I will need the most expensive health care in our life - it will be within 6 months of our death. And we will be on a government program - It's called Medicare
The original NYTimes article's final opinion I could not agree with more, let Congress have to buy individual policies and be covered under the same rules. Then we will see the "necessary" change we need.
If you look at the government website, you'll see that the projected rates for Obamacare are outrageous. You think health insurance is expensive now, just WAIT!
natural medicine is FAR MORE effective for chronic and degenerative diseases. After all if this was not the case, the human race would not have survived and thrived as it did before modern medicine and allopathic drugs came on the scene only a handful of decades ago.
(All you naysayers who are in love with your diseases and your prescription drugs that want to force them down everyone elses throats, save your responses. Note that all I said was that people should have a choice. If you are content with living with your disease by covering up the symptoms all your life with prescriptions, go for it. Let those who want to actually get RID of their disease and get their health back be allowed to do so. In Europe and Asia, natural medicine is on a LEVEL PLAYING FIELD with western medicine. Maybe THAT explains why people in those countries spend less on medical care than we do here and why they are healthier than we are. More of them are no doubt using natural medicine and going to see Naturopathic Doctors and getting rid of their diseases-- not just covering up the symptoms like we are told to do by medical doctors (who are untrained in natural medicine) here for the rest of their lives. Do I need to mention that obviously it is much more lucrative for the medical establishment to keep you on drugs all your life rather than be honest and refer you to a Naturopath who could help you get well enough so you don't need your prescriptions anymore????)
^^^^^^^^^^^
So agree with that. But those countries do have universal
health care as well. If we had both - think of the savings
we could have They are addicted to Big Pharm in this
country and Big Pharm loves them to DEATH for it.
Wow! How funny. I had written a long post and thought I had uploaded it only to now discover that about 50 other posters had been uploading at the same time. So when I want to check to see if it had indeed been uploaded, I couldn't find it on any of the last few pages and thought I must not have hit the "post reply" button. Only NOW that I am looking back at all the pages, I see that it had been uploaded after all 4 pages of posts back. Sheesh! Next time I will take the time to look farther back and not waste time writing a whole new post . Sorry you guys.
An increase in the Medicare payroll tax will be the only change that most Americans will notice. For a patient getting health care that tax will seem small. In fact, it will be small compared to the elimination of a long list of “out-of-pocket” costs that we will no longer pay, such as these examples: co-pays, deductibles, coinsurance when we go to the hospital, and premiums to health insurance companies.
The percentage from payroll will be determined during the establishment of the legislation. If the tax increased by around 3 percent, the total tax would be around 5 percent.
The Cost. That expected (estimated) cost would be a total of about $42 per month for every $10,000 per year of earned (payroll) income. That will be small for many Americans compared to health insurance company plans with co-pays, deductibles, coinsurance, yearly limits, lifetime limits, and the costs for uncovered services and out-of-network providers and facilities. The specific percentage increase in the Medicare tax is to be determined, but it means a relatively small cost compared to the large drop in costs that will occur, such as the many out-of-pocket costs that will be eliminated or reduced.
and here you are believing some PROPAGANDA site
do you really think the cost would be so low...$42/10000 can be alot to begin with...but is just a tiny part of the cost
fact there are 320 million people in the usa
fact last years budget had 500 billion for medciare...to cover 38 million seniors..at 80%....and yes we all agree the elderly are the most costly demographic
fact... last year mediciad was 320 billion to cover about 32 million people below the poverty line....that is an average of about 10k per person
fact... statistics say the usa spends about 8k per capita on healthcare (that is not counting private insurance)
fact europe spends about 4.5k per capita..(some countries are low around 3 others are closer to 5)
fact even at 4.5k per person ... that would be 4k x 320 million ...that's 1.5 trillion dollars
fact there were 115 million 1040s filed...that's filed, not paid taxes...nearly half get everything back and more
fact of those 115 million taxpayer (I'll give you the whole 115m) to divide that 1.5 trillion it would come out to 13k each taxpaying household in additional taxes.
fact 98% of taxpaying households could not afford that
the ONLY people who would advocate for a tax are people that dont pay taxes
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.
