Health Care (salaries, stats, illegals, how much)

[harborlady]

tristans ty. I got sick of looking at coin cans with a cancer kids picture at the deli's in setauket and port jefferson. i'm so glad people don't have to go begging to pay for treatments for their kids, but it won't spare them from bankruptsy when insurance plans are too narrow. hopefully new plans ahead will cover whole families affordably, and govt can start cracking down administrative costs overburdening medicine itself.

it is beyond unethical to charge obscene profits for life saving medications. perhaps if the drug companies would quit spending money peddling pills on TV ads and dr office bagel parties for the staff, they could simply charge a healthy 25% profit margin instead of 1,000% markup to pay for nonsense.

[skytrekker]

Originally Posted by evilnewbie

For everyone's information, the Connecticut program is based on a sliding-scale payment system based on your annual wage and compared to the poverty level. The amount is $250 per person at poverty level and scales upward with higher wages. The problem I see is that, those in poverty will continue NOT to buy the insurance "until something happens". Unless Connecticut is making it mandatory that everyone gets insured and PROVE it, people won't do it. It is similar to car insurance, people choose not to pay for it and there is no "Prove it" system in place other than getting caught. Once they are caught, they buy it and show up to court and get a lower fine... then they let it lapse again. Connecticut's program is not a socialized program so I approve of it. State's should be managing their own health care system for their own residents. California should not be knocking on the doors of the residents of Alabama and ask for more money to pay for their illegal immigrants. It doesn't solve their illegal immigration problem or their continued problem with providing them with health care (as illegal immigrants will keep coming to California - you can thank the Federal government for that).

As for Social Security it was PROMISED that only 2% would go to social security... they broke that promise and now its 15%... it was NEVER a retirement plan and people are in denial still that it is... It is still NOT a retirement plan and there are NO plans in making it into a retirement plan.. why? Cause the government can't dip into it and use it for their own purposes... Those who support Social Security are more afraid of losing what they put in there as well as those depending on it in the future... they are an irrational group of people who don't realize that if you are 40+ you can STILL depend on it, that's why attempts to abolish isn't as easy, their irrational fear that it won't be there when it easily CAN be...The young people paying into it can easily set up their own retirement plan... an actual REAL retirement plan but can't when 15% of their income is siphoned off for insurance instead of a retirement plan... that's a scam but the government doesn't want to lose its piggy bank and their fearmongering stops any attempt of fix for it... even Obama is suggesting INCREASING the 15% and increasing its effect by stealing more money from other people... fearmongering instead of fixing it by getting rid of it and replacing it with a REAL retirement plan and not insurance... Democrats love it because it increases the money they can use for SOMETHING else (their private piggy bank) instead of retirement... thanks... no thanks.... people need to brighten up a bit about the truth of social security... you want retirement income? Get a retirement plan... I don't know ANY company that sells retirement insurance except the federal government and making it mandatory that you pay for it... but then its nice to have automatic deposits into your piggy bank isn't it...

Actually you are wrong- the maximum that can be charged is $250 month if you are 300% above the poverty level - this will be for incomes according to number in the family. If you are one person making $12,000 a year gross, the amount you pay per month will be about $100.00 or less. $250 is the maximum that can be charged at 30% of the poverty level. Nobody at the poverty level could afford $250 a month. The amounts charged will start at $75 a month and up.

[evilnewbie]

Originally Posted by TristansMommy

Thats just an assumption.. have you actually ASKED someone uninsured what they can pay.. NO.. you are just assuming that someone wants a free ride!! Give me a break. If you asked ANY of those that don't have insurance or have inadequate insurance what they could afford theyd tell you a realistic number.. but the reason they don't have it is because they can't afford it period.

And before anyone gives me the BS about they can and just choose not to.. it's BS.. becasue the only people that are choosng NOT to have insurance are the young and foolish who think they are immune and nothing bad could happen to them!

This whole argument is pointless really.. we've argued it to nauseum on other posts.. and quite frankly we get nowhere. .


The bottom line is this..thos eafraid ofa Universal Plan don't want anything to change.. but their "way" of healthcare just isnt' working folks!! PERIOD!! They staunchly defend a flawed system.

Okay TM... how much are you willing to pay knowing how expensive medical care is... how much are you willing to pay per month per person?

[evilnewbie]

Originally Posted by geeoro

In return you get a health service for everybody, that includes your whole family ( Granny too ) without pre conditions and you can also afford private health care if you so wish for much less than you are paying now. Simple economics if you like to put it that way. To say the private sector is better than the govt in funding and running companies. Is that why so many private hospitals are having huge problems, A&E going bankrupt and people dying unnecesarily when their ambulances are being redirected because of FULL A&E depts.

My family already pays for their medical care... granny automatically gets Medicare, the truly poor gets Medicaid...I pay for my families medical insurance without having to pay for someone else's as well...

[evilnewbie]

Originally Posted by skytrekker

Actually you are wrong- the maximum that can be charged is $250 month if you are 300% above the poverty level - this will be for incomes according to number in the family. If you make are one person making $12,000 a year gross, the amount you pay per month will be about $100.00.

Sorry, you are correct $250 is the maxed that is charge, I was reading the deductibles... its a really good plan for those who can't afford health insurance... I like it... I don't even know if it has even gone into effect since they need a private company willing to accept those terms.. I think its a good step forward... it doesn't steal from anyone and those that use it pay into it.. now if only they can make it mandatory for everyone with 300% FPI and under who have no medical insurance pay into it... then I can say it works...

[texdav]

Originally Posted by harborlady

tristans ty. I got sick of looking at coin cans with a cancer kids picture at the deli's in setauket and port jefferson. i'm so glad people don't have to go begging to pay for treatments for their kids, but it won't spare them from bankruptsy when insurance plans are too narrow. hopefully new plans ahead will cover whole families affordably, and govt can start cracking down administrative costs overburdening medicine itself.

it is beyond unethical to charge obscene profits for life saving medications. perhaps if the drug companies would quit spending money peddling pills on TV ads and dr office bagel parties for the staff, they could simply charge a healthy 25% profit margin instead of 1,000% markup to pay for nonsense.

Governemnt withmedicare and medicaid are the mojor paperwork burden in the medical industry.If you have ever done anything for governament you know what a mess they make of things especailly the federal government. Why if t is obcense to make a profit;I don't see drug companies making more of a profit than any other industry;especailly considering the risk.That is why their stocks go up and down so much.What company is make 1000% ;I want to invest in it.But we may want to stop alot of the money going to the trial lawyers;that is a very large expense added to drug cost like so many us companies.

[paullySC]

Originally Posted by TristansMommy

Thats just an assumption.. have you actually ASKED someone uninsured what they can pay.. NO.. you are just assuming that someone wants a free ride!! Give me a break. If you asked ANY of those that don't have insurance or have inadequate insurance what they could afford theyd tell you a realistic number.. but the reason they don't have it is because they can't afford it period.

And before anyone gives me the BS about they can and just choose not to.. it's BS.. becasue the only people that are choosng NOT to have insurance are the young and foolish who think they are immune and nothing bad could happen to them!

This whole argument is pointless really.. we've argued it to nauseum on other posts.. and quite frankly we get nowhere. .


The bottom line is this..thos eafraid ofa Universal Plan don't want anything to change.. but their "way" of healthcare just isnt' working folks!! PERIOD!! They staunchly defend a flawed system.

If they don't have insurance then they should go buy insurance. Evidentally they have some new system where you can buy insurance yourself. It's all the rage.

[NewToCA]

Originally Posted by harborlady

newto I think this is more equitable than what's currently happening though. This is upfront, and allows people of lesser means to afford healthcare. Whats been going on is all or nothing situations, where a cold becomes pneumonia, requiring hospitalization they can't pay, which in turn gets passed off onto the state or higher rates for all people who do have insurance walking into the ER.
Healthcare is still an insurance policy. It's not carte blanche. The tax liabilities you've currently been paying through passed along costs back to the state might mean the overall tax burden goes down. Something for you to take up with the individual state I think.

Assuming for a moment that the rates were built upon a certain % paying the higher premiums, what if this ends up not happening? If the lower end payers load into the system without higher end premium payers, won't you end up with another underfunded health program?

[One Thousand]

Originally Posted by TM

The problem with SS is that the government doesn't just earmark that money for SS and rather uses to spend on other things. Of coruse if health care should become Universal then it needs to be that the money is spent ONLY on the peoples healthcare PERIOD.

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

Again.. I am not saying THAT is not cultural.. BUT it is not cultural based on what region of the U.S you live in.. Becasue here in NY and in other states I'm sure you'd find people who feel that way and I'm sure you'l l find people who DO go to the Dr. a lot in Oregan. It has NOTHING to do with where you live in hte U.S!! There are plent of people here in NY that feel the same way as you do about going to the Dr. and they don't live or come from Oregon. That was my point.

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.

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.

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?

Originally Posted by TristansMommy

First of all..let's stick to ONE subject.... healthcare.. because i"m not talking about suddenly having EVERY thing we do determined by a central government and eliminate states individual governing.. You are assuming that is what Iwant.. and you couldn't be more wrong.

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?

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?

But let's face it here.. the healthcare system in the U.S is atrocious.

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.

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?

And if being a socialist means that I am compassionate enough to feel that everyone deserves to have their health covered so that they can continue to live..

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.

and simply because they are a secretary or a store clerk makes them less deserving of good healthcare than a CEO...

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

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

then I guess I am a socialist and proud of it. Most people who cant see or understand the argument are either rich and can already afford everything they ever need and are blessed that way... or are middle class and THINK they are NOT and are upper middle or rich.. alot of the arguments against it are all based on fear.. fear that someone is going to get something they don't deserve..

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.

adn by that i mean that the schlump on the couch that doesn't work will get healthcare while the rest of us work to pay for it.. but I will say it again.. THEY ALREADY ARE!!

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

The wealthy can pay for anything they want by themselves.. the poor get everything for free.. and the middle class work their proverbial butts off and will never be able to afford what they need to afford.. healthcare as it costs today.

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.

As the cost keeps rising astronomically many employers, in order to compete in a global market, will start to cut benefits..and cutting what is covered and isn't.. and then more and more peoples eyes will be opened to how broken and disfunctional the system is.

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 country where they don't have to pay it at all.

Well.. you conveniently left out the rest of that statement that talks a bout WHO pays for someone else's "decision" to be underinsured.....WE the rest of the people do when treatments go unpaid for and the cost gets passed on to the rest of us.

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.


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.

[TristansMommy]

Originally Posted by evilnewbie

Okay TM... how much are you willing to pay knowing how expensive medical care is... how much are you willing to pay per month per person?

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...