U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
 
Old 09-07-2008, 03:44 PM
 
Location: Bay Area
3,966 posts, read 8,182,184 times
Reputation: 4631

Advertisements

Yes, my family was in a similar situation several years ago. Me.. pregnant with third child. Husband working for a small start-up in the tech field and not offered any health coverage. My husband made too much money to be on any state sponsored health care program and we didn't make enough for the same reason. We couldn't afford private insurance, nor would my "condition" be covered anyway due to its pre-existing status! Stressful times indeed. I haven't heard anything about McCain's plan yet. Have I missed something?

I lived in Ireland where there was a public health care system. It was reassuring that you wouldn't lose your house or go bankrupt over being sick. It was by no means perfect, and lab work might take weeks but nobody was turned away if they needed help. If you wanted better care in a private hospital, then that was a choice also. You'd pay more, but even that wasn't outrageous.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-07-2008, 06:37 PM
 
4,089 posts, read 4,913,029 times
Reputation: 1256
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludachris View Post
I just want my premiums to go down a little and have the quality of the coverage go up. I don't want it to be free. I don't care if I have to pay a little bit more taxes, as long as my overall costs are lower. I pay over $6500 per year on crappy health insurance for my family. If I could save half of that and see my taxes go up a grand a year in return, it would be worth it.
Of course you wouldn't. But how about the guy that is going to pay the difference on your behalf...do you think he would think it is worth it? Do liberals think that UHC is going to lower the cost of healthcare? The cost will be the same, if not more. All you are doing is shifting costs from one program to the other, and increasing the burden on those who already pay a disproportionate share of the tax bill.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-07-2008, 07:04 PM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,661 posts, read 78,550,415 times
Reputation: 36332
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewMexicanRepublican View Post
Of course you wouldn't. But how about the guy that is going to pay the difference on your behalf...do you think he would think it is worth it? Do liberals think that UHC is going to lower the cost of healthcare? The cost will be the same, if not more. All you are doing is shifting costs from one program to the other, and increasing the burden on those who already pay a disproportionate share of the tax bill.
You keep forgetting the main point. The reduction in the cost of health care, so there isn't anybody paying the difference on my behalf. Nobody will need to pay for the TV ads pitching one health service provide over another, nobody will have to pay the multi-million dollar annual bonuses to the CEOs of the big insurance companies, or the sailboat payments of their junior execs, nobody will have to pay the armies of clerical staff in insurance offices all sending out bewilderingly different forms for doctors and hospitals to pay another army to fill out, nobody paying the 6-figure salaries of lawyers and claims adjustors, whose only purpose in life is to find a semi-legal way to deny coverage, or deny it anyway until it is appealed in court years later, nobody will have to pay the commissions of insurance agents who lowball a policy and then double the premiums in a few year, when you have pre-existing conditions so you cannot switch.

How can UHC cost as much as the present system? Easy . For the same price, it will cover none of the above, but 45,000,000 more people.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-07-2008, 07:55 PM
 
4,089 posts, read 4,913,029 times
Reputation: 1256
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
You keep forgetting the main point. The reduction in the cost of health care, so there isn't anybody paying the difference on my behalf. Nobody will need to pay for the TV ads pitching one health service provide over another, nobody will have to pay the multi-million dollar annual bonuses to the CEOs of the big insurance companies, or the sailboat payments of their junior execs, nobody will have to pay the armies of clerical staff in insurance offices all sending out bewilderingly different forms for doctors and hospitals to pay another army to fill out, nobody paying the 6-figure salaries of lawyers and claims adjustors, whose only purpose in life is to find a semi-legal way to deny coverage, or deny it anyway until it is appealed in court years later, nobody will have to pay the commissions of insurance agents who lowball a policy and then double the premiums in a few year, when you have pre-existing conditions so you cannot switch.

How can UHC cost as much as the present system? Easy . For the same price, it will cover none of the above, but 45,000,000 more people.
So you admit you are a Socialist at last.

Who is going to replace all of these greedy corporate slobs? My guess is an army of GS-12's of course. Is the paperwork going to go away? The claims administration? Fraud unit? Have you looked at the IRS lately? The Social Security Administration? You guys amaze me.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-07-2008, 08:03 PM
 
Location: Center of the universe
24,661 posts, read 35,593,442 times
Reputation: 11780
Quote:
Originally Posted by small arms View Post
Ask anyone from Canada how well there program is working.

It's not.

It's a helluva lot better than ours.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-07-2008, 08:06 PM
 
Location: Center of the universe
24,661 posts, read 35,593,442 times
Reputation: 11780
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewMexicanRepublican View Post
Of course you wouldn't. But how about the guy that is going to pay the difference on your behalf...do you think he would think it is worth it? Do liberals think that UHC is going to lower the cost of healthcare? The cost will be the same, if not more. All you are doing is shifting costs from one program to the other, and increasing the burden on those who already pay a disproportionate share of the tax bill.
What is your solution to this problem, then?
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-07-2008, 09:30 PM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,661 posts, read 78,550,415 times
Reputation: 36332
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewMexicanRepublican View Post
So you admit you are a Socialist at last.

Who is going to replace all of these greedy corporate slobs? My guess is an army of GS-12's of course. Is the paperwork going to go away? The claims administration? Fraud unit? Have you looked at the IRS lately? The Social Security Administration? You guys amaze me.
The same corporate slobs will still find a greedy way to grab peoples' money, but the lame and the ill and the desperate and the crushed and the broken and the comatose will no longer be easy pickings for them.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2008, 09:48 AM
 
Location: CO
1,603 posts, read 3,212,824 times
Reputation: 498
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewMexicanRepublican View Post
Of course you wouldn't. But how about the guy that is going to pay the difference on your behalf...do you think he would think it is worth it? Do liberals think that UHC is going to lower the cost of healthcare? The cost will be the same, if not more. All you are doing is shifting costs from one program to the other, and increasing the burden on those who already pay a disproportionate share of the tax bill.
What is your solution then? And how is this a liberal issue? I'm not advocating government health care, I just want a better system that doesn't take advantage of small business owners.

My biggest gripe is the fact that the insurance companies are allowed to turn people down for coverage due to preexisting conditions, no matter how minor they may be - and they aren't allowed to do that for employees of larger companies. 99% of them will not cover prenatal anymore. Where does that leave us? Using your logic, we should sit by and allow people to lose their homes and their savings because they cannot afford (or get qualified for) health insurance? Is that really the answer? Does it really come down to those who are happy with the system not seeing any need to change it for those who the system does no work for?

It's the irony that is so frustrating - we boast about our small business owners and innovators, yet we allow them to get pissed on like this while the big corporations get preferential treatment.

I'm not asking for someone else to pay the difference for me, I'm asking for the government to level the playing field for us small business owners so that we (and our families) are not put at so much risk.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-10-2008, 08:06 PM
 
4,089 posts, read 4,913,029 times
Reputation: 1256
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunil's Dad View Post
What is your solution to this problem, then?
Meaningful healthcare reform cannot take place until we have meaningful tort reform.

Step 1. Tort reform

Step 2. Incentives to the Dr. to work for himself.

I'll think of some more, but this would be a great start.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-10-2008, 10:04 PM
 
Location: Charleston, SC
5,615 posts, read 13,496,656 times
Reputation: 2540
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewMexicanRepublican View Post
Meaningful healthcare reform cannot take place until we have meaningful tort reform.

Step 1. Tort reform

Step 2. Incentives to the Dr. to work for himself.

I'll think of some more, but this would be a great start.
I'd rep, but the site says I have to click around on a few other people first.

I agree completely - it's not like the costs will go away if you change the source of who pays it. That's what really keeps me from leaning towards UHC, it's the fact that it ignores the underlying reason behind why people can't afford coverage.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
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 update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top