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.
Anger and Opposition are coming from a righteous rebellion against
Government Instrusion between us and our Physicians.
*NO* government "panel" should be allowed to exist that dictates to our health insurance companies.
I see your status "just thankful all needs met" - that means hubby's job, or Medicare, pays for your medical insurance. I see. That's the pattern. Another one who has this "taken caren of." Your relationship with your doctor/insurance company is unlikely to change if reform comes about.
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.
So why should it be subsidized by forcing those who dont need it to buy it.? Why not charge the person who can afford it and wants to buy it retail cost?
He died and she is now on welfare, SS and food stamps and still cannot make ends meet.
You're talking about a senior, no? She most likely has Medicare, and if not, then she would be on Medicaid, and even possibly on Medicare/Medicaid. This isn't about a family budget. It's about a cost that can take real wide swings for people. People plan for food and housing in their budgets, and there is assistance for those who can't.
I see your status "just thankful all needs met" - that means hubby's job, or Medicare, pays for your medical insurance. I see. That's the pattern. Another one who has this "taken caren of." Your relationship with your doctor/insurance company is unlikely to change if reform comes about.
I didn't waste my money and am now in my fifties. Did you notice how I said MY money?!
No govt. assistance has ever gotten near me. I hope to eat dirt, first. I do help others and if need be will humble myself and allow them to help me. Not the govt...if I can help it.
It is not government's role, and worse...most governments help like a controlling, wytchy mama, and those that mama helps, she
So why should it be subsidized by forcing those who dont need it to buy it.? Why not charge the person who can afford it and wants to buy it retail cost?
Because the retail cost would be exorbitant to some. They have "high risk" auto insurance because those people oftentimes chose to drive irresponsibly...sometimes, they were unlucky. But most people, short of bad habits, do not choose bad health. Because spread across so many people and companies, it won't be such a horrendous hit. Currently, our tax rates are much lower than they've ever been (even Obama didn't make many changes there). The US has lived under a higher tax burden, even in times of prosperity.
I didn't waste my money and am now in my fifties. Did you notice how I said MY money?!
No govt. assistance has ever gotten near me. I hope to eat dirt, first. I do help others and if need be will humble myself and allow them to help me. Not the govt...if I can help it.
It is not government's role, and worse...most governments help like a controlling, wytchy mama, and those that mama helps, she
I didn't waste my money and am now in my fifties. Did you notice how I said MY money?!
No govt. assistance has ever gotten near me. I hope to eat dirt, first. I do help others and if need be will humble myself and allow them to help me. Not the govt...if I can help it.
It is not government's role, and worse...most governments help like a controlling, wytchy mama, and those that mama helps, she
helps herself to.
Get it?
It's convenient to skirt the issue. No one is accusing you of wasting money. If you're in your 50s, then you either work... or your husband's work gets you the health insurance. I don't know your situation. If you don't get insurance, wouldn't you plan on carving out $450 a month for medical insurance at your age, assuming they'd even sell it to you? The reality is that the 86% of the population (see post #1) doesn't care of the fate of the other 14% - they've got that "tough shyte" mentality. If you've got an employer-sponsored plan, count your blessings. No one accused you of taking anything. They generally provide one, anyway. That's why government stepped in. That's why some states are planning their own program or already have one. I'm sure that families out there who have run out their 18 month COBRA benefits (not free) post hard work are sweating a little bit, don't you think?
Two trillion over ten years PLUS the $500 billion in saving is $250 billion a year to cover 40,000,000 people who presumably are the most expensive to cover?
Does not compute. If the goal was access the government would have simply outlawed pre-existing clauses and allowed for commerce across state lines. It was not about access - it was about free coverage for those people "not in the chips" paid with the compliments of the "rich".
Health care is not like car insurance. The cost to treat cancer is the same for a participant who earns $10,000 a year as it is for one who earns $1 million. If I drive a Rolls Royce my collision premium will be higher than a kid driving a ten year old Chevy. The liability portion of the premium might be the opposite.
If a clerk gets cancer he might never pay enough into the system to cover his costs. To work the system has to be progressive otherwise there won't be enough dollars to cover the costs. The shortfall is left to the taxpayers.
The "great" systems of Europe and Canada wouldn't work here because the democrats will never propose the 10 to 15 percent employee payroll tax needed to fund the program. It's not about access. It was never about access. It was just more welfare. And Americans have said "you can't force us to "buy" a product so you can give more welfare away.
If Americans want national healthcare, which i think we should have, the democrats need to present an honest and transparent plan that offers care as part of the basic tax rate. It should be funded with a special payroll tax and everyone would have to pay.
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.
