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 08-13-2009, 04:23 AM
 
1,718 posts, read 2,153,784 times
Reputation: 613

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greatday View Post
None of the health insurance will be free. I'm not sure where you got that idea.
You nailed it, friend! It will most assuredly not be free and for those who cannot produce enough to pay for it, it will be me who does so.

- Reel
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-13-2009, 05:28 AM
 
Location: Phoenix, AZ
3,088 posts, read 4,990,985 times
Reputation: 1614
I certainly agree wholeheartedly with the OP. My sister on Medicare, gets much better treatment, much less expensively, than I do. To expand this type of program to cover all would be the best option, but I do understand why it may be necessary for private insurance companies to be given the chance to compete, with a semi- UHC plan. If they can and do compete successfully, fine, more choices for everyone. If they cannot or do not, all will still have access to care. My own "employer chosen" plan gets dramatically more expensive for both me and my employer every year, causing my employer to make the choice to cut services provided while still increasing the out of pocket cost to the employee. I believe those who say that in X # of years, the health care costs will double, to the point where only the wealthy will be able to afford what we now consider to be normal and necessary preventitive health care. I have already experienced a situation where the co-pay for a Dr. recommended screening test was beyond my financial ability, and so had to refuse the test. . . I suspect many others are in the same position!
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-13-2009, 05:37 AM
 
Location: Phoenix, AZ
3,088 posts, read 4,990,985 times
Reputation: 1614
Quote:
Originally Posted by texdav View Post
Sure alot will be free that is one reason the subsidtiy by governamnt will be so high. Look at the CBO saying that 30% of people withput insurance are offered insurnce by their employer but refuse it along. What makes you think that people that now don't pay their medical bills are suddenly going to start paying their share of the cost. It isn't just medical bills people don't pay afterall.The reason so many want universal is to get someone else to pay their medcial bills. It isn't like the governamnt is going to look to see if people are buying new cars;cellphone and other non-necessities rather than paying their bills as they do now. Even Obama said in the campign for the nomination that its impossible to mandate everyone buy insurance; no matter if there were a government plan. He estimated 15 million will not. What are they going to do throw them in jail if they don't?Refuse them healthcare at emergency rooms?There is no reason that there can not be a pool of people and changes that offer heatlh care insurnace without a government plan which is what many advocate ;not having the government provide funding which will be very costly and hurt the economy has empoyers dump their insurance over time.Then you will see real change in the quialty of medciane offered ;research in medicines and treatment,Its like anything when you cut cost; you basically endup with rationing like so many countries have now.Why do you think they want a board to decide treatment options. Because much of what you get now will be rationed as to who gets it. Of course those that can play will get what they want.If they think its so good ;why do the senators and congressman excempt themselves from the government plan? Why because they want more options.
Your post points to a greater, system problem in our largely uncontrolled capatilistic system. Those who are offered employer sponsored health insurance, and do not take it, are motiviated the unfortuante fact that providing housing, food, clothing and transportation for themselves and or their families, takes every single bit of the paycheck. There is simply nothing left with which to pay the 80 to 100 dollar a month "employee contribution". I have worked with a number of people in such circumstances, and they are hard working, dependable, dilligent employees, struggleing to "get by" with minimum wage or low paying jobs. Can you imagine how it might be to have to "live on" 10 dollars an hour, for instance? After taxes, that will be less than 400 per month take home pay, out of which must come the rent or mortgage, utilities, food, clothing, transportation and insurance. Even for a frugal single person, this is really a BIG CHALLENGE, how much more difficult it must be for the single mother, or others who are attempting to care for more than just themselves!
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-13-2009, 05:52 AM
 
Location: Sango, TN
24,874 posts, read 22,741,517 times
Reputation: 8659
Quote:
Originally Posted by donalduckmoore View Post
Is it good or bad is open for others to debate. Having lived in Hong Kong for many years, and I can tell that the healthcare reform that this administration is proposing is offering an option for many people to choose in terms of medical care. In Hong Kong and other commonwealth countries or regions, such as England and Canada, universal health care has been existed for many years. One has to emphasize that this is another option to choose from, but not the only option in health care. Obviously, the good things about this plan are that you do not need to pay a monthly premium like medical insurance and the overall cost of medical treatment is a lot cheaper. The bad thing is one may have to wait a long line for service especially for chronic illnesses that may not have an immediate health impact. If one has money but not patience, he/she can still choose the more expensive insurance option, but for those who are young and healthy, and those who are low- to middle-income families, universal health care is a bless. I fully support the health care reform. What is your thought.
I don't agree with a UHC model. I want to be able to keep my private insurance, which I feel will be better than the public option that will be offered. Thats why we are looking at the hybrid system.

Public option for those who can't afford it, and for those that refuse to pay for their own, private choice for those who can afford insurance and want it.

I think this is the better idea. It makes sure that everyone is covered, and it still allows for private insurance to exist. Only those who can't afford it will have to deal with the long lines, if there are any (I really don't think there will be).

Its estimated that only another 10 million people will be covered by this plan, most of those are folks that can't afford healthcare. I don't think an additional 10 million people is going to swamp our healthcare facilities.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-13-2009, 08:32 AM
 
1,718 posts, read 2,153,784 times
Reputation: 613
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979 View Post
I don't agree with a UHC model. I want to be able to keep my private insurance, which I feel will be better than the public option that will be offered. Thats why we are looking at the hybrid system.

Public option for those who can't afford it, and for those that refuse to pay for their own, private choice for those who can afford insurance and want it.

I think this is the better idea. It makes sure that everyone is covered, and it still allows for private insurance to exist. Only those who can't afford it will have to deal with the long lines, if there are any (I really don't think there will be).

Its estimated that only another 10 million people will be covered by this plan, most of those are folks that can't afford healthcare. I don't think an additional 10 million people is going to swamp our healthcare facilities.
What would stop employers from eliminating their health insurance offerings since there is a government option? How do you prevent the demise of insurance companies that cannot compete with a non-profit option?

Perhaps the public option should be only for those who do not have insurance and cannot afford it. They would have to prove they couldn't afford it just as food stamps and other welfare programs. Right now their planning on paying for this by reducing benefits for the rest of us, taxing good plans, etc. They will reduce my plan so that we can get the non-producers of society covered. I think I'm paying enough to support these folks. I'm not really interested in increasing their standard of living to anything close to mine. I'm not interested in socialism.

- Reel
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-13-2009, 05:39 PM
 
814 posts, read 1,898,362 times
Reputation: 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reelist in Atlanta View Post
You are correct. There is an achievement gap in this country caused largely by low intelligence, ability and initiative. There are 25% of us with IQ's below 90 for whom life is at best an uphill battle. There are 5% of us with IQ's below 75 who are at extremely high risk for poor life outcomes. Our economy is never going to be able to employ all of these folks. These folks are never going to be able to produce even what they need to survive.

What is it that is produced by those with the ability to do so. It's food, housing and transportation among many other things including medical insurance. In this country we don't just let these people perish. We have programs paid for by the producers in the form of taxes to provide such things as food and clothing for those who cannot produce for themselves. This, of course, lowers the standard of living of the producers and raises the standard of living of the non-producers.

For humanitarian reasons, this is something that most of us do not object to. The only question is to what degree are we willing to raise the standard of living of the non-producers at the expense of our standard of living? How much redistribution of wealth are we for in this country?
None, if it is forced. I am not against helping those who need help but I want to do it personally, not anonymously through government middlemen. That way 100% of it goes where it needs to go, not spending the lion's share of it paying the salaries of a bureaucrats. Local control of welfare programs is the only way a welfare program can exist without bankrupting those who fund it. My guess is that 80% of people receiving these benefits could make their own way if they had to. If they had to look another person, whom they know, in the eye and ask for money instead of just going to the mailbox and collecting a check, I would bet my last dollar that welfare payments would be nearly wiped out.

Quote:
Medical insurance and access to health care is now considered a basic human right in the US not unlike access to food and housing.
Quote:
Medical insurance and health care are becoming part of the welfare programs being made available to the non-producers at little or no cost. This absolutely has to further lower the standard of living for the producers. The quality of health care for the producers will indeed be lower.

There could be some racial politics involved in this redistribution. Among those who benefit most from these redistributive programs (the non-producers), blacks, hispanics and immigrants are over represented. Obama has said that his version of reparations would take the form of such things as universal healthcare and universal education.

- Reel
When did access to food and housing, as fundamental as they may be, become a right? Medical insurance is a right? All I recall as "rights" are life, liberty and a pursuit of happiness. (And the first ten amendments) Food and housing don't seem to fit either of the first two, so eating and living indoors must fall under the pursuit of happiness. Notice 'pursuit' does not guarantee that it will happen, try as you may.

Reparations implies that one segment of society owes a debt to another. What might that be? I might (and do) feel that I have an obligation to help those who truly need help but the government doesn't owe anybody anything. When politicians hand out other people's money, they expect something in return--votes, to remain in power and continue to fleece the public till as long as they can.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-13-2009, 06:04 PM
 
Location: S.E. US
13,169 posts, read 547,587 times
Reputation: 5117
I would agree that reform is needed - but selective reform, not an entire overhaul. I'm glad to see that the process has been slowed to give people an opportunity to voice their opinions and question the plan. However, I am concerned that the plan will be so watered down, influenced by Pharma and other lobbyists, as to make it more detrimental than beneficial to the population. The Democrats are determined to get something passed - anything - just to support Obama and to be able to point to having done it. I don't think that's the best way to go about it. We are all bound to end up with the short end of the stick.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-13-2009, 06:21 PM
 
Location: Sango, TN
24,874 posts, read 22,741,517 times
Reputation: 8659
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reelist in Atlanta View Post
What would stop employers from eliminating their health insurance offerings since there is a government option? How do you prevent the demise of insurance companies that cannot compete with a non-profit option?

Perhaps the public option should be only for those who do not have insurance and cannot afford it. They would have to prove they couldn't afford it just as food stamps and other welfare programs. Right now their planning on paying for this by reducing benefits for the rest of us, taxing good plans, etc. They will reduce my plan so that we can get the non-producers of society covered. I think I'm paying enough to support these folks. I'm not really interested in increasing their standard of living to anything close to mine. I'm not interested in socialism.

- Reel
Because they want to keep the best talent. If a company drops health insurance for its employees, then their best talent will leave their company, and go to the competition.

Also, they'd have to pay an 8 percent tax, which often costs more than their original insurance costs.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-13-2009, 07:36 PM
 
Location: "The Sunshine State"
4,334 posts, read 12,924,466 times
Reputation: 3044
I am all for it too!

Example of our rip off system:
I had a friend suffer with Ovarian cancer for over two years and die!
Everytime she went for chemo she said her ins. co. was charged $13,000 and that was for one session. Where she was going for chemo she said there were three rooms. One room held 30 people another held about 50-60 and the big room held over 100 people. She said those rooms were filled all day every day of the week. No wonder why health insurance is so high and why doctors are now driving around in Ferraris! Is this necessary?
I smell greed as always! Just my 2¢.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-13-2009, 07:44 PM
 
29,480 posts, read 32,498,348 times
Reputation: 31233
Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleDolphin View Post
My parents have been pretty happy with Medicare, that's a govt.-run program.
People like your parents are happy with it because they don't know the true cost of Medicare. The continual cost increases in Medicare are simply not sustainable and we Americans are in denial about it.
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