Health Care reform bill reactions

[IDrinkaRum]

I have a cousin and his wife who own a smal local garage in Missouri (I think that's where they live).

Anyway, they have no health insurance. And they have none by choice. They see the doc every 2 years, pay cash for everything, and the last time they needed extensive work done, a couple of customers paid for his & hers expensive dental work.

They are not happy with the bill. At all. They don't like the fact they are being forced to buy health insurance for their employees thereby probably making them have to cut a few of them to keep making a profit at the end of the day. They are also livid about having to buy insurance, and really think it's stupid that they will have to pay a fine if they don't buy it.

But then again, if you don't buy insurance, don't you have to pay a fine and end up in jail? If that happens, where's the incentive for buying insurance? You're in "the system". You get your 3 squares a day and an on-call medical person at the prison. You're taken care of by the state. They even provide you with lovely new clothing! (/sarcasm)

[Boozy]

Anyway, they have no health insurance. And they have none by choice. They see the doc every 2 years, pay cash for everything, and the last time they needed extensive work done, a couple of customers paid for his & hers expensive dental work.

The idea that someone would choose not to have health insurance, even when they can afford it, makes no sense to me. One catastrophic accident or illness could bankrupt them.

I feel for those who have to choose between feeding the children and getting insurance. In such a situation, it makes more sense to risk future poverty than to guarantee it now.

But in this situation, where it sounds like they have some money, why not do the smart thing and insure themselves?

I suppose if you had a million or so in cash reserves, you may not buy health insurance. But a millionaire bitching about being forced to pay a fine of less than $700? Cry me a river.

[AdminAssistant]

But in this situation, where it sounds like they have some money, why not do the smart thing and insure themselves?

Because some of their hard-earned money will go into a system where it may help someone else beside themselves. So, basically, greed.

[IDrinkaRum]

What money they have goes into their business. They're in the middle of nowhere and have a garage with mechanics. They can't afford a lot of employees so not only does my cousin work at the garage, the wife works as front counter person, and their daughter and son both help out.

As for not getting insurance? Maybe it's because they don't want to be told which doctors they can or cannot see, what tests they can or cannot have, and which hospitals, surgeries, etc., a little man behind the desk says they can or cannot see or have?

I might have a PPO (Preferred Provider Option), but it's still a pain in the butt as some of the specialists we need to take Child Rum to as they aren't listed in the insurance listings of whom we're "allowed" to see. Then we have to wrangle for payments, appointments, etc. I hate it.

It has nothing to do about greed and all about our politicians decreeing that we "have to have insurance". Especially when they don't want or need it. And I'm sure there are other people out there who decide not to have insurance for whatever reason. It's not greed.

And I'm all for insurance for everyone. However, there is Medicaid and Medicare. Fix that. Don't drag me into it.

Just because some people can't afford insurance, don't turn the whole insurance industry on its ear and screw over the people who already have it.

It's like saying 15% of the population can't afford a house so everyone in the United States is being put into Section 8 housing. Does that make sense?

[AdminAssistant]

I might have a PPO (Preferred Provider Option), but it's still a pain in the butt as some of the specialists we need to take Child Rum to as they aren't listed in the insurance listings of whom we're "allowed" to see. Then we have to wrangle for payments, appointments, etc. I hate it.

I hate only being able to go to the Health Clinic on campus, because that's the only 'health insurance' I can afford. And as a financially independent woman with no kids in her mid-20's...yeah. It doesn't matter that I'm still in school and therefore technically below the poverty line. Access to better health insurance means that I can afford a hospital when/if necessary. That I can start getting my mammograms at the age of 30 (recommended for those with strong family history).

I hate that because my mother is working as a temp that she can't afford to see her oncologist or get annual mammograms to make sure her cancer hasn't come back. I hate that my boyfriend had to suffer with prostatitis for months before his employee benefits kicked in and he could finally see a specialist.

In order to make health care affordable for everyone, everyone has to pitch in. This is the exact same philosophy that allows for roads, utilities, police departments, fire departments, and public schools. If your kid is in public school then someone else has paid property taxes to provide for it.

[Rapscallion]

This is the exact same philosophy that allows for roads, utilities, police departments, fire departments, and public schools.

It's also the philosophy behind the NHS in the UK. On a basic week's pay, I pay a little over £30 per week. I have a decent wage, so I don't miss it, and I pay far more than many other people do.

If I become unemployed, I get income support (subsistance money), jobseeker's allowance for part of a year (money to help find work), help with rent if I need it, medical care, dentist, and optician. They'd even pay my national insurance for me! I certainly wouldn't live the high life, nor would I want to - it would keep me going. I'd certainly eat far more rice etc. However, I could survive.

That's for £30 a week. Not bad. As I said, many pay far less. Some pay far more, but they're earning far more.

Do it right and you can average down the payments for everyone.

Rapscallion

[IDrinkaRum]

I cannot believe this actually passed as there are a lot of people who didn't want it passed. (And I was very surprised, knowing my cousin & his wife didn't have any health insurance, when I found out they didn't want it).

However ...

Let's use the numbers that Congress has been throwing out now:

45 Million people with no inruance.

10 Million are illegal aliens. Throw them out of the equation.

That leaves 35 Million.

10 Million are Stay-at-Home Moms/Dads/spouses that are on their better half's insurance policy. Did you know that SAHM/Ds/spouses who don't work or do work but don't take their company's insurance are considered uninsured? Even though they're on their spouses's insurance? (So a husband who is working, but is on his wife's policy because her insurance is better than his is considered uninsured because he's not buying insurance). Throw them out because they are insured, just not paying for it.

That leaves roughly 25 Million people.

Then there are the children of the parent with insurance. So, subtract another 5 Million people.

That leaves what? About 20 Million people?

These are the people who need help.

Not the illegal aliens. Not the spouses that are on their better half's insurance. Not the children who are on their parent's insurance. Not those who are already insured.

Those people do. not. need. insurance.

Leave them out of the equation.

You want to help the 20 Milliion not insured? Do something other than forcing everyone to get the insurance the government wants you to get. Re-do Medicaid and Medicare (who reject claims more than any of the private insurance companies around - that's why a lot of places around where I live have signs reading "We no longer deal with Medicare").

Again I say:

If 20 Million people couldn't afford housing some kind, does that mean everyone in the United States have to be in Section 8 housing?

Really.

Throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

And I also find it interesting the government thinks I'm intelligent enough to know what I want to do with my body (the abortion issue), yet I'm not intelligent enough to pick out the insurance I want? (Which is Blue Cross/Blue Shield).

AND ...

If this healthcare reform is so wonderful, why aren't the President, Vice President, members of Congress, their families, and their staff (and their families) not required to get it? Wouldn't they be the first ones running to get this healthcare they crafted? Or is it because they really know what the bill says and the ramifications and don't want to deal with it?

[AdminAssistant]

People who already have insurance will keep it. Let me say that again: People. Who are already insured. Will keep their coverage.

Wouldn't it be better for the uninsured to have access to preventive care (guaranteed under these reforms) and be able to make appointments with doctors instead of clogging emergency rooms?

Besides...Medicare and Medicaid aren't available to a lot of people. Being a state employee, Kansas makes sure I get paid juuuuust enough to not qualify.

[Fashion Lad!]

Because some of their hard-earned money will go into a system where it may help someone else beside themselves. So, basically, greed.

I don't think they were seeing it that way and it's pretty presumptions to think that. They may have thought they were keeping the big, evil health care corporations at bay by not giving them what they felt was "free money".

[HYHYBT]

That's for £30 a week. Not bad. As I said, many pay far less. Some pay far more, but they're earning far more.

Do it right and you can average down the payments for everyone.

Of course, your country has a pretty big advantage with health care: population density. Everything here is much more spread out, and the western 2/3 or so of the US is moreso. I'm not sure how much, if any, the new law will really help our small rural hospitals, but I do know a lot of them are in trouble, and even if they're not as good as the big city hospitals, they're a whole lot better than dying before you can get to one. Anyway even aside from the waste involved in supporting the insurance companies, one reason I'd much have preferred a single-payer system is that, as it is now, hospitals (and, to an extent, doctors) are required to *treat* people who have no intention of ever paying a dime, and as things are now, they simply do it for free. But because our geography requires more and smaller facilities, and more transportation, even a direct copy of the British system would cost more here.

Sorry, rambling again. If none of that made sense, feel free to ignore it.

[muses_nightmare]

I realize that the Canadian system is far far (far) from perfect, but I don't see why something similar wouldn't work in the US. (with adjustments and improvements for the US of course.)

Though saying that I fully admit that I'm not into politics, and I wouldn't ever claim to know all of the ins and outs of even my own country's system. I don't really understand the notion of not wanting government-run healthcare, and I really can't imagine not going to the doctor because I can't afford it. My boyfriend, for example, has to get an IV for his Colitis ever 6 weeks, each IV is $5000 (no that's not a typo), if it weren't for our system he wouldn't be able to have those IV's or we would have been utterly broke months ago (he's had 4 injections so far, that's $20 000 worth of meds).

There are also many countries in the world that have healthcare systems that work quite well, I don't know what was looked at when this bill was made, but I mean, would it be such a bad idea to look at some of those systems and adapt one or a few? It doesn't seem like they've done that.

From what I read and see on the news and online and such the US system is broken, and the focus is on money rather than patients.

[Rapscallion]

Of course, your country has a pretty big advantage with health care: population density. Everything here is much more spread out, and the western 2/3 or so of the US is moreso.

I have to admit that this is a very fair point and something I'd not considered. However, you cut your cloth to suit your pocket. It may be a lesser service for some people, but at least it would be available. That said, I suspect that several metropolitan areas in the US are denser than many places in the UK, thus leading to savings.

Would have to look into this.

Rapscallion

[IDrinkaRum]

I don't really understand the notion of not wanting government-run healthcare,

A lot of people in America don't want government-run anything. Remember, Social Security, Medicare, and other government-sponsored things were mainly started in the 1930's to help get us out of the Depression and give us things to temporarily help us. Before that, it was the norm to have at least 3 generations (grandparents, parents, kids) living in the same house, helping those who couldn't help themselves. You had to pull yourself up by the bootstraps and work hard from morning to night to accomplish anything. That is the American spirit.

People complain the Government doesn't know what it's doing and we're letting them tell us what healthcare we can and cannot have? They're dictating to the health insurance companies they have to insure people with pre-conditions (like my daughter who has Autism). Basically this means, you can go along without health care, get sick, and then buy it at the last minute. (Unlike car insurance where you have to have it to drive a car - not just get it when you have an accident). This will lead to the ruination of the health insurance industry, paving the way to allow the American government to take them over like they did the banks and the car companies.

Fidel Castro applauds new American healthcare reform

Does this make anyone comfortable with this "reform"? A communist leader is applauding this? My Great-Grandfather moved his family from Russia after the Bolshevik Revolution so they wouldn't live under a government who dictated to them what they could and couldn't do.

That's why the United States was formed the way it was. The majority of people came from a country (England) that was set up in a way that the people had no freedoms. They had no freedom of speech (they'd be beheaded, hung, whatever). They had no freedom of religion (you had to be Anglican or you'd be killed/persecuted/etc. - that's why there is separation of Church & State - the government cannot tell us the "official" religion is X).

And can anyone explain to me, if this is so wondeful, why the President and Vice-President, their cabinet(s), and Congress are exempt from this?

If it's good enough for the American people, then it should be good enough for the people who drafted the darn thing.

Also, please remember the words of the late President, John F. Kennedy:

"Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country."

I think we've forgotten that. And that's a little sad.

[muses_nightmare]

But obviously the current system doesn't work. I'm not saying I agree with this particular bill, just that, government run healthcare isn't necessarily a bad thing. It's not like the insurance companies give a shit about anything but profit, which is not a good thing any way you look at it, why defend the current system?

I still don't get why it would be a bad thing for the government to run healthcare, when so many other countries governments do. From the outside looking in it seems like Americans are against it for the sake of being contrary. Not saying this is true, but that's what it looks like. I do think your gov't would need to take advice from other countries with working healthcare systems though, just saying.

Also, the whole Castro thing, who cares? It is kind of ridiculous that the US hasn't had universal healthcare ever. I don't necessarily think this bill is the way to go, but maybe it's a start.

[IDrinkaRum]

But obviously the current system doesn't work. I'm not saying I agree with this particular bill, just that, government run healthcare isn't necessarily a bad thing. It's not like the insurance companies give a shit about anything but profit, which is not a good thing any way you look at it, why defend the current system?

I still don't get why it would be a bad thing for the government to run healthcare, when so many other countries governments do. From the outside looking in it seems like Americans are against it for the sake of being contrary. Not saying this is true, but that's what it looks like. I do think your gov't would need to take advice from other countries with working healthcare systems though, just saying.

Also, the whole Castro thing, who cares? It is kind of ridiculous that the US hasn't had universal healthcare ever. I don't necessarily think this bill is the way to go, but maybe it's a start.

Why do we need universal healthcare? Why "fix" something that ain't broken?

The health insurance companies are not evil. For a company to thrive (any company), they have to make a profit. That's how it works in a capitalist society.

We have Government run healthcare. It's called Medicaid and Medicare. Overhaul that. Give it to people like AdminAssistant who need it but can't afford private healthcare. Medicare denies claims, tests, etc., more than private healthcare.

Why have something else in place, putting a drain on the economy, when we. already. have. something. in. place?