US Health Care Reform

[Ping]

I can honestly say I've gotten to the point where I don't really care what's in the bill as long as it reforms something. The U.S. is one of the most developed nations out there, yet it doesn't have a proper healthcare system. Therefore, reforms should be made.

[Totenkopf]

The only people that are going to get forced to pay for it are those that can afford it now and choose not too. You'll still have indigent people after this bill passes that will have to be payed for by the rest of us. On top of which, there's supposedly still about 12-20 million people that the legislation was supposedly originally intended to cover (if you believe anything anyone is DC actually says)that still aren't going to be covered and will thus be picked up by the rest of us. This bill is a load that has more to do with the lib-dems and progressives being able to say that after almost 100 +/- years they've finally managed to foist some kind of public payer system on the country at large. On top of which, it will still be cheaper to pay the fine than actually buy the insurance. How much you wanna bet a lot of people will go that route....

 

@Ping--reform or transform?

[mimartin]

The only people that are going to get forced to pay for it are those that can afford it now and choose not too.[/Quote] That is the entire point.

 

Yes, people still will not be covered, but who is to blame for that? Perhaps if we would have gone with Universal Health Care like every other modern nation everyone would be covered. Instead the conservatives tear all reform apart and then grip that it does not cover everyone.

 

Web Rider, I do not have to buy renters insurance, I can live under a bridge, it is my choice to purchase renters insurance or auto insurance because I can walk and live on the street otherwise. Next thing the government is going to tell me that I have to wear a helmet riding a motorcycle or that I cannot drink and drive. Oh wait.

[Ping]

@Ping--reform or transform?

Either/Or is fine with me, as long as healthcare is on par with other developed countries.

[Darth InSidious]

Next thing the government is going to tell me that I have to wear a helmet riding a motorcycle or that I cannot drink and try. Oh wait.

 

How dare this communist government of yours obstruct my God-given right to shoot you in the face.

[Tommycat]

Try living in Texas without access to a motor vehicle then tell me that auto/motorcycle insurance is not mandatory.

 

What is ridiculous is the current system where the uninsured get medical care free, while those that are insured and/or tax payers foot the bill.

 

Um, I grew up in Texas. San Antonio to be exact. I remember taking the Via bus to and from work. Plus you have carpools, dial a ride etc.

 

And we'll still be footing the bill. plus the bill for the new agency set up to administer this debacle.

 

Also, as for renters insurance, it's all handled by each state. NOWHERE in the Constitution is this kind of power ennumerated to the federal government.

 

 

@totenkopf: You may have missed the part where the fine is 750 OR 2% of your annual income whichever is more.

[mimartin]

Um, I grew up in Texas. San Antonio to be exact. I remember taking the Via bus to and from work. Plus you have carpools, dial a ride etc.

We have no buses where I live, neither do we have taxis. And would carpools still require insurance? As an insurance agent I will answer that question....yes. So do cabs and buses for that matter, just the cost is built into the fair, so the citizens that use those services are still paying for the required insurance coverage. Only way around it is to walk or ride a bicycle, any other means will require paying for the coverage or breaking the law.

[Tommycat]

We have no buses where I live, neither do we have taxis. And would carpool still require insurance? As an insurance agent I will answer that question....yes. So do cabs and buses for that matter, just the cost is built into the fair, so the citizens that use those services are still paying for the required insurance coverage. Only way around it is to walk or ride a bicycle, any other means will require paying for the coverage or breaking the law.

 

You even said it, there IS still a way around the required insurance. Don't get me wrong, I lived in a VERY rural area for a good bit of time. Even lived in a few areas it was more likely to see a horse than a car(Parker Colorado when I was a kid). I also remember walking a whole lot more. Heck I was used to my driveway being a half mile long when I lived in CO. And I walked it every day to catch the bus to school.

 

As to the bus and carpool. Sure the owners of those have to have insurance. HOWEVER the individual doesn't have to pay it just to exist. Just to somehow LIVE.

 

And I've never lived in any place where the government required insurance to rent. I have rented from a few places that required insurance. I'm sure they are there. But it isn't a federal requirement.

[mimartin]

No matter how you slice it you are paying for motor vehicle insurance. There is no way around it. If you walk or ride a horse everywhere you went you are still paying for it. You think that truck that delivered the bread to the store within walking distance did not have insurance on it? The cost of doing business is built into the cost of the bread.

 

Yes, both renters insurance and auto insurance is required by the state government. Does that somehow make the money coming out of the tax payer pocket any less intrusive?

[Tommycat]

The individual can avoid paying insurance. That loaf of bread doesn't cost less for the person who pays auto insurance. The oats you feed a horse might cost less if you haul it yourself. Of course if you happen to grow your own alfalfa, and make your own hay bails etc, you could avoid a lot of costs. But regardless, the truth is that there IS still a way around the individual being required to pay insurance.

 

As to the second part, I feel more connected to my state government and the closer to home it is the better. Federal requirements are much further removed from my control. I don't care if NY decides that everyone in NY should pay 50% of their pay to some form of insurance. That's on the people of NY to decide for themselves. The federal level is so far removed from my daily life that they have no connection to my needs.

[mimartin]

And I fell more comfortable with the Federal Government making decisions than my local government. A bunch of good ol’ boy cronies that can’t even distinguish what a proper text book is are not the people I want making decisions that affect my life.

 

As a veteran are you not already provided medical benefits? Wouldn’t that exempt you from any fine?

[Tommycat]

And I fell more comfortable with the Federal Government making decisions than my local government. A bunch of good ol’ boy cronies that can’t even distinguish what a proper text book is are not the people I want making decisions that affect my life.

 

As a veteran are you not already provided medical benefits? Wouldn’t that exempt you from any fine?

 

As to the first, Guess we tend to disagree on that one. I feel the Federal is far worse than state and local.

 

As to the second part, Regardless of whether I would be fined or not I dislike the requirement. And actually I get insurance through work, so in reality it would not effect me at all. HOWEVER, that I am not directly affected does not mean that I cannot be outraged that my friends who are on 1099 or independant contractors, or otherwise soon to be facing fines, will be affected by this.

[Jae Onasi]

Having had experience with family having Medicare and Medicaid, and dealing with Medicaid and Medicare from a provider point of view, I far prefer the federal Medicare to Medicaid. Medicare pays their bills on time. States, however, apparently don't feel compelled to pay in a timely manner, and certainly not at a reasonable rate. In IL and WI, we actually lose money seeing Medicaid patients because the reimbursement rate for exams is less than what it costs to see the patients. In IL, then-Gov. Blagojevich dealt with the fiscal crisis by simply not paying its Medicaid bills. Facilities that see primarily Medicaid patients (Stroger Hospital, clinics for the poor, nursing homes) were so far behind in getting paid (the state was overdue by 9 months at one point) that they literally had to close their doors. I don't want to see a situation where one person (the governor) can wield that much power over what I get paid and how long they can delay paying me.

[Totenkopf]

That is the entire point.

Yes, people still will not be covered, but who is to blame for that? Perhaps if we would have gone with Universal Health Care like every other modern nation everyone would be covered. Instead the conservatives tear all reform apart and then grip that it does not cover everyone.

 

What is ridiculous is the current system where the uninsured get medical care free, while those that are insured and/or tax payers foot the bill.

 

My point was only that even the proposed legislation doesn't cover everyone getting "free care" b/c they are uninsured. You didn't differentiate and merely made a broad statement. So we will still be paying for the uninsured either way.

 

 

@TC--if $750 or 2% is < cost of insurance......

[Tommycat]

@TC--if $750 or 2% is < cost of insurance......

Problem comes in that the person may also face jail time. It doesn't take long before the 750 or 2% becomes harder to afford. Course some might even just consider it an additional 2% income tax.

[Jae Onasi]

Problem comes in that the person may also face jail time. It doesn't take long before the 750 or 2% becomes harder to afford. Course some might even just consider it an additional 2% income tax.

Well, most countries take it out of taxes. I had no illusions that this would be free, after all. It may cost me 2% more in income, but it'll cost me less in the long run if it lowers premium costs because the costs are spread out over more insurees. I have to pay now through state taxes for those who are younger than the age for normal Medicare eligibility, but get terribly sick or injured and are put on Medicaid retroactively.

[mimartin]

My point was only that even the proposed legislation doesn't cover everyone getting "free care" b/c they are uninsured. You didn't differentiate and merely made a broad statement. So we will still be paying for the uninsured either way.

And writing something completely irrelevant and out of context sarcastically does not suddenly make the content of those remarks meaningful.

 

Those that can afford coverage, yet choice to not purchase coverage are held accountable. This was my entire point.

[Totenkopf]

Actually, it wasn't sarcastic, nor irrelevant. Fact is, just b/c someone doesn't buy health insurance doesn't mean that they'll ultimately be "paid for" by the rest of us. They may never have to use any in the end. Your being unduly presumptuous and that doesn't give your point any weight either. Since you think helath insurance ought to be mandatory, maybe you should just force everyone to have to pay a direct tax to the govt, ban the insurance industry and hope our dear leaders don't squander the money in the end in a plethora of grab bags to their constituents in yet unending gambits to buy votes for their continuous reelections. (ps, now I'm being sarcastic.....slightly)

[mimartin]

lol "unduly presumptuous" who?

[Q]

And I fell more comfortable with the Federal Government making decisions than my local government.

I wouldn't trust either one to pour pee out of a boot, but at least we have (slightly) more say in what the state governments do.

 

You know, it looks like all this bill is going to accomplish is to establish yet another bloated, expensive, inefficient federal bureaucracy whose only purpose is to absorb more taxes, exert more control over the population and provide more excuses to fine people and throw them in jail. It's almost as if that was its purpose from the beginning, rather than actually helping people.

 

Oh, wait...

[Totenkopf]

lol "unduly presumptuous" who?

 

You, naturally.

[Tommycat]

Well, most countries take it out of taxes. I had no illusions that this would be free, after all. It may cost me 2% more in income, but it'll cost me less in the long run if it lowers premium costs because the costs are spread out over more insurees. I have to pay now through state taxes for those who are younger than the age for normal Medicare eligibility, but get terribly sick or injured and are put on Medicaid retroactively.

 

That would be far more understandable IF this actually covered the uninsured. It doesn't. It's HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS to essentially make people who MAY or MAY NOT be able to get insurance. I mean we're talking some real money here. Then again, what does the government care. They have deep pockets because they are reaching into ours.

 

This bill is pure rubbish. It's more like half a bill.

 

I also prefer paying state governments for services. While there may be corruption at the state level, at least it's less likely to go to something that I will never need nor see. Funny how funding tends to get sent to states that $PARTY needs votes from. Diverted from say adding a hospital to making a nose hair monument or something equally useless...

[jrrtoken]

I find it... funni that those who complain that some government-funded social program is "overfunded"; "waste of money"; etc, usually seem to be very complacent - if not outright anticipative - of some military ad hoc 'KEEP AMERICA SAFE' machination. Apparently economic conservatism doesn't apply to military affairs, or perhaps I'm just perceiving it in the wrong light...

[Tommycat]

"... provide for the common defense..."

And while I DO in general like to see our military funded and properly equipped, I also see that our military is EXTREMELY wasteful with the money it receives. I mean come on, it is a universal joke about the $800 hammer. Of course, that also tends to color my perspective on how well the Fed will be able to handle the hundreds of billions we're throwing at this boondoggle.

[Totenkopf]

I find it... funni that those who complain that some government-funded social program is "overfunded"; "waste of money"; etc, usually seem to be very complacent - if not outright anticipative - of some military ad hoc 'KEEP AMERICA SAFE' machination. Apparently economic conservatism doesn't apply to military affairs, or perhaps I'm just perceiving it in the wrong light...

 

Well, no more funny than believing that a govt that can't seem to avoid wasting defense dollars will somehow be responsible with healthcare dollars.