# Scary Health Bill proposal



## snowman56 (Jul 28, 2009)

I don't know if any of you have been keeping up with the proposed health care bill, but this is what is supposedly on it right now. It seems pretty extreme and scary to me. What do you think?
This person has been reading the 1000 page house bill and posting it at
Twitter. You decide.     http://healthcarehorserace.com/activism/07282009/rep-conyers-sees-no-need-to-read-health-care-bill/

 Pg 22 of the HC Bill MANDATES the Govt will audit books of ALL EMPLOYERS
that self insure!!

Pg 30 Sec 123 of HC bill -  THERE WILL BE A GOVT COMMITTEE that decides what
treatments and benefits you get

Pg 29 lines 4-16 in the HC bill -  YOUR HEALTHCARE IS RATIONED!!!

Pg 42 of HC Bill -  The Health Choices Commissioner will choose your HC
benefits for you.  You have no choice!

PG 50 Section 152 in HC bill -  HC will be provided to ALL non US citizens,
illegal or otherwise

Pg 58HC Bill -  Govt will have real-time access to individuals' finances
and a National ID Healthcard will be issued!

Pg 59 HC Bill lines 21-24  Govt will have direct access to your banks'
accounts for election funds transfer

PG 65 Sec 164 is a payoff subsidized plan for retirees and their families in
unions & community orgs (ACORN).

Pg 72 Lines 8-14  Govt is creating a HC Exchange to bring private HC plans
under Govt control.

PG 84 Sec 203 HC bill -  Govt mandates ALL benefit pkgs for private HC plans
in the Exchange

PG 85 Line 7 HC Bill - Specs for Benefit Levels for Plans = The Govt will
ration your Healthcare!

PG 91 Lines 4-7 HC Bill - Govt mandates linguistic-appropriate services.
Example: Translation for illegal aliens

Pg 95 HC Bill Lines 8-18 The Govt will use groups (i.e., ACORN & Americorps)
to sign up individuals for Govt HC plan

PG 85 Line 7 HC Bill - Specs of Ben Levels for Plans.  #AARP members - your
health care will be rationed.

PG 102 Lines 12-18 HC Bill - Medicaid-eligible individuals will be
automatically enrolled in Medicaid. No choice.

pg 124 lines 24-25 HC  No company can sue GOVT on price fixing. No
"judicial review" against Govt Monopoly.

pg 127 Lines 1-16 HC Bill -  Doctors/ #AMA - The Govt will tell YOU what you
can make.

Pg 145 Line 15-17  An Employer MUST automatically enroll employees into pub
opt plan. NO CHOICE

Pg 126 Lines 22-25  Employers MUST pay for health care for part-time
employees AND their families.

Pg 149 Lines 16-24  ANY employer with a payroll of $400k and above who does
not provide pub opt. pays 8% tax on all payroll

pg 150 Lines 9-13  Businesses with payroll between $251k & 400k who don't
provide pub. opt pays 2-6% tax on all payroll

Pg 167 Lines 18-23  ANY individual who doesn't have acceptable HC according
to Govt will be taxed 2.5% of income

 Pg 170 Lines 1-3 HC Bill  Any NONRESIDENT Alien is exempt from individual
taxes. (Americans will pay)

Pg 195 HC Bill -  Officers and employees of HC Admin (GOVT) will have
access to ALL Americans'  financial and personal records.

PG 203 Line 14-15 HC -  "The tax imposed under this section shall not be
treated as tax" Yes, it says that.

Pg 239 Line 14-24 HC Bill    Govt will reduce physician services for
Medicaid. Seniors, low income, poor affected

Pg 241 Line 6-8 HC Bill -  Doctors will all be paid the same, regardless of
what specialty you have.

PG 253 Line 10-18  Govt sets value of doctor's time, professional judgment,
etc.  Literally value of humans.

PG 265 Sec 1131  Govt mandates and controls productivity for private HC
industries

PG 268 Sec 1141  Fed Govt regulates rental and purchase of power driven
wheelchairs

PG 272 SEC. 1145.  Treatment of certain cancer hospitals.  Cancer patients:
welcome to rationing!

Page 280 Sec 1151  The Govt will penalize hospitals for what it deems
preventable readmissions.

Pg 298 Lines 9-11  Doctors who treat a patient during initial admission
that results in a readmission will be penalized by the Govt.

Pg 317 L 13-20  PROHIBITION on ownership/investment.  Govt tells doctors
what/how much they can own.

Pg 317-318 lines 21-25,1-3    PROHIBITION on expansion- Govt is mandating
hospitals cannot expand

pg 321 2-13  Hospitals have opportunity to apply for exception BUT
community input required. Can you say ACORN?!!

Pg335  16-25 Pg 336-339 -  Govt mandates establishment of outcome-based
measures. HC the way they want. Rationing

Pg 341 Lines 3-9  Govt has authority to disqualify Medicare Adv Plans,
HMOs, etc. Forcing peeps into Govt plan

Pg 354 Sec 1177 -  Govt will RESTRICT enrollment of special needs people.!
WTF. My sis has down syndrome!!

Pg 379 Sec 1191  Govt creates more bureaucracy - Telehealth Advisory
Committee.  Can you say HC by phone?

PG 425 Lines 4-12    Govt mandates Advance Care Planning Consult. Think
Senior Citizens end of life

Pg 425 Lines 17-19  Govt will instruct and consult regarding living wills,
durable powers of atty. Mandatory!

PG 425 Lines 22-25, 426 Lines 1-3  Govt provides approved list of end of
life resources, guiding you in death.  Excuse me???!?!?!?

PG 427 Lines 15-24  Govt mandates program for orders for end of life. The
Govt has a say in how your life ends

Pg 429 Lines 1-9  An "advance care planning consult" will be used
frequently as patient's health deteriorates

PG 429 Lines 10-12    "Advance care consultation" may include an ORDER for
end of life plans. AN ORDER from GOV

Pg 429 Lines 13-25 -  The govt will specify which Doctors can write an end
of life order.

PG 430 Lines 11-15  The Govt will decide what level of treatment you will
have at end of life

Pg 469 -  Community Based Home Medical Services=Non profit orgs. Hello,
ACORN Medical Svcs here!!?

Page 472 Lines 14-17  PAYMENT TO COMMUNITY-BASED ORG. One monthly payment
to a community-based org. Like ACORN?

PG 489 Sec 1308  The Govt will cover Marriage & Family therapy. Which means
they will insert Govt into your marriage

Pg 494-498  Govt will cover Mental Health Services including defining,
creating, rationing those same services.

WELCOME TO THE NEW AMERICA!!!!!


----------



## USAFVET98 (Jul 28, 2009)

Sounds like the start of a communist nation to me????!!!!!!


----------



## dfurlano (Jul 28, 2009)

> This person has been reading the 1000 page house bill and posting it at
> Twitter. You decide. http://healthcarehorserace.com/activ...lth-care-bill/



That's great a guy that twitters. Then you say you decide and put up a right wing web site.  You know people should take the time to get informed make there own decisions.  But somehow that just does not happen.


----------



## Wheaties (Jul 28, 2009)

Can't imagine this thread will last real long, but what are people thinking?!?!?!?! If you want that crap, go to Europe! Ask them how it's working out (just a hint: BAD!). I'm not saying our system is perfect, but it's the best in the WORLD! 

Welcome the the USSA!


----------



## Texatdurango (Jul 28, 2009)

Wheaties said:


> *Can't imagine this thread will last real long,* but what are people thinking?!?!?!?! If you want that crap, go to Europe! Ask them how it's working out (just a hint: BAD!). I'm not saying our system is perfect, but it's the best in the WORLD!
> 
> Welcome the the USSA!


*Actually it should stay!* This is a *VERY SERIOUS* issue that everyone needs to know about since everyone here will be affected by it. I realize that politics is a "No-No" on the forum but if the discussion can be kept on the topic itself and the childish quips, cute comments (Welcome the the USSA), and political rhetoric kept out, this might be an informative thread.


----------



## rjwolfe3 (Jul 28, 2009)

> That's great a guy that twitters. Then you say you decide and put up a right wing web site. You know people should take the time to get informed make there own decisions. But somehow that just does not happen.



So rather then comment on what the actual quotes are from the Health Care bill, you would rather slander right wingers? For the record I am an independent but even I can see that this is not something that I want in my future. But unfortunately it is coming and I am not sure we can stop it.


----------



## jleiwig (Jul 28, 2009)

rjwolfe3 said:


> So rather then comment on what the actual quotes are from the Health Care bill, you would rather slander right wingers? For the record I am an independent but even I can see that this is not something that I want in my future. But unfortunately it is coming and I am not sure we can stop it.


 
I think that the point is that there has not been any official bill available to anyone, so the above quoted references are from someone who either leaked the information from one of the sub commitees working on their version of the bill, or could just be made up crap as I'm certain that some of those things posted will not be passed in any form what so ever.

The house still has to agree on a final version of the bill, which will be different than any other including the senate version, so DFurlano is correct in what he states. Once the house agrees on their version they will go into commitee with the senate to come up with a general bill that they both can agree on, which only then can be passed onto the president to sign into law if he so chooses. Something that someone receives in email is not the word of law, just blathering crap until the president signs the bill into law.

So as he states...You need to research for yourself what is going on and what is at stake before believing something from a website be it right wing conservative or mr. lefty liberal.  Anyone who takes the word of a website without actually reading the actual document does themselves and their country a disservice.  Which as he points out is the American way.


----------



## igran7 (Jul 28, 2009)

I'm not saying this is the absolute solution, but what we currently have is clearly not working!  There are millions of (Citizens) who currently do not have insurance because they simply can't afford it.  I am a single father with a 16 year old son and I pay close to $500 a month for our insurance through my employer, plus a $750.00 deductable for each of us, plus a $30.00 co-pay for each doctor visit (the co-pay doesn't count toward the deductable) and then the insurance covers 80% of the bill.  So even if I never visit the doctor in a one year period I am $6000.00 out of pocket.

There are millions of Americans who can't afford to do this, at least this proposed bill has folks thinking about healthcare...something we should have done long before it got this bad.


----------



## jleiwig (Jul 28, 2009)

Wheaties said:


> If you want that crap, go to Europe! Ask them how it's working out (just a hint: BAD!). I'm not saying our system is perfect, but it's the best in the WORLD!
> 
> Welcome the the USSA!


 
Actual we rank first in healthcare spending and 37th in actual health of people out of all developed nations according to the World Health Organization.  Care to rephrase the Europe comment? 

1         France
2         Italy
3         San Marino
4         Andorra
5         Malta
6         Singapore
7         Spain
8         Oman
9         Austria
10        Japan
11        Norway
12        Portugal
13        Monaco
14        Greece
15        Iceland
16        Luxembourg
17        Netherlands
18        United  Kingdom
19        Ireland
20        Switzerland
21        Belgium
22        Colombia
23        Sweden
24        Cyprus
25        Germany
26        Saudi Arabia
27        United  Arab  Emirates
28        Israel
29        Morocco
30        Canada
31        Finland
32        Australia
33        Chile
34        Denmark
35        Dominica
36        Costa Rica
37        United States of America


----------



## mickr (Jul 28, 2009)

Wheaties said:


> Can't imagine this thread will last real long, but what are people thinking?!?!?!?! If you want that crap, go to Europe! Ask them how it's working out (just a hint: BAD!). I'm not saying our system is perfect, but it's the best in the WORLD!
> 
> Welcome the the USSA!


  Where did you get the info that our system is the best in the world? By what criteria?  Most $ spent?  Highest cost per person?  Lowest death rate? (not even close)  Best child health & least mortality?  Not even close again....maybe more research is needed?


----------



## Wheaties (Jul 28, 2009)

jleiwig said:


> Anyone who takes the word of a website without actually reading the actual document does themselves and their country a disservice. Which as he points out is the American way.


 
Exactly. Although it's not evening reading to go through a 1000 page bill that's not available. Can you imagine the number of voters we could weed out if you had to pass a very simple three question "test" to vote. I'd say it would cut the people able to vote in HALF. That's just how uneducated (no matter what view you hold) this country is (or is getting).


----------



## Wheaties (Jul 28, 2009)

jleiwig said:


> Actual we rank first in healthcare spending and 37th in actual health of people out of all developed nations according to the World Health Organization. Care to rephrase the Europe comment?
> 
> 1 France
> 2 Italy
> ...


 
I never said "health of people". Because yeah, we suck at that. We are the fattest nation on the planet. But we do have the best (not perfect) system. 

Did you see the article that came out a couple days ago about 10% of all health care spending stems from obesity. That's $147 billion


----------



## Wheaties (Jul 28, 2009)

mickr said:


> Where did you get the info that our system is the best in the world? By what criteria? Most $ spent? Highest cost per person? Lowest death rate? (not even close) Best child health & least mortality? Not even close again....maybe more research is needed?


 
Then why do people from all across the world come here for medical reasons?


----------



## Wheaties (Jul 28, 2009)

Texatdurango said:


> *Actually it should stay!* This is a *VERY SERIOUS* issue that everyone needs to know about since everyone here will be affected by it. I realize that politics is a "No-No" on the forum but if the discussion can be kept on the topic itself and the childish quips, cute comments (Welcome the the USSA), and political rhetoric kept out, this might be an informative thread.


 
Yeah, sorry. I can get carried away at times. Especially we I feel so strongly about something (as most of us would).


----------



## jleiwig (Jul 28, 2009)

Wheaties said:


> I never said "health of people". Because yeah, we suck at that. We are the fattest nation on the planet. But we do have the best (not perfect) system.
> 
> Did you see the article that came out a couple days ago about 10% of all health care spending stems from obesity. That's $147 billion


 
We don't have the best system or we would have the best health.  The two are not mutually exclusive.  You can't be the best at something without having the best outcomes, it's just not possible bro.  

Obesity doesn't even register on the radar of insurance companies.  Otherwise they would spend more on it, but it's an afterthought because of the stigmas attached to obesity.  If obesity was treated as any other disease, then we would have a chance against it.  

However as long as we ingest processed food stuffed with fillers, extenders, modifiers, and other unhealthy things that you cannot even pronounce on the label, things will not change.  No one wants to pay the price for high quality food free of junk, using all natural ingredients.


----------



## Gary Max (Jul 28, 2009)

Why do Americans cross the border north every day to get thier meds---drugs that keep them alive. I know a person who's life depends on over $5k per mnonth in drugs---just to stay alive----how does that make any sense????
I think someone needs to jump in and take control.


----------



## Wheaties (Jul 28, 2009)

Alright, I done with this.  I just get too fired up. Especially having to type everything. I guess we'll just see how it plays out, and when things go south in 10 years, then we'll know.


----------



## ed4copies (Jul 28, 2009)

AS I UNDERSTAND IT!!!

There are currently two bills in the House and one bill being developed in the Senate.

They are 1000 pages long and our 'representatives" rarely read what they vote on (their staffs do--well, should)

Interestingly this is being referred to as the "Obama" plan, yet he is allowing the congress to write whatever THEY want, in hopes of getting  SOMETHING passed.

So, don't panic yet.  Yes the "paying" part of healthcare needs reform.  And since we are paying for everything under the sun, what's a few trillion more over the next decade?

Perhaps there IS a better way, somewhere between what we have now and socialized medicine.  They MAY find it ---- or not.


----------



## Russianwolf (Jul 28, 2009)

I've sat here and wrote a dozen responses and deleted them all. Several members of the site have met me and my wife. They know how much I love her and know about her health. This is a topic that is very close to my heart.

Will this legislation be flaw? Yes, we have a bunch of guys in Washington that couldn't agree on the color of a sheet of paper, much less anything else. I hate Washington politics. But something needs to be done on this issue.

My wife is dying. I don't know exactly how long she has left, the doctors don't either. It could be 10 years, or it could be 6 months. But her condition will eventually kill her. She didn't choose to be ill, It happened as a result of a surgery to fix another problem. What we know is that at this point there is no way to fix the damage, and that she will be in constant pain for the rest of her life.

A couple years ago, I was laid off. At the time, we couldn't afford to pay the bills and go on Cobra, so we wound up without insurance. we didn't qualify for medicare/medicaid because I had already made too much money that year, and we owned two cars outright even though one wasn't drivable. I worried every night about my wife. It took me over  six months to find work that offered insurance again, and then, since my wife had a preexisting condition we weren't allowed to make a claim on her for another 6 months. I had to pay all her medications out of cash and we had to forgo appointments that she should have had. After a year and a half I was laid off again. This time, I insisted we get Cobra for her (I declined for myself) so that we could at least keep up with things until our savings ran out. I was lucky and found work quicker this time. And even though we are still struggling today, we are okay.

For those that are so against a mandatory health insurance plan, Don't think about yourselves, think about the one you love the most needing insurance and not having it for whatever reason. That's why we need this. If we are "All In" then each person pays a smaller amount than if only the people who need it are in the group. And when you or one you love needs it, it's there.


----------



## oldsmokey (Jul 28, 2009)

The original post is accurate.  The bill has been public for a few weeks.  
The House Commerce and Finance Committee is debating the bill today and it could be sent to the house floor today.  The bill could be changed by the committee.
I have one question.  How many people travel from here to Canada or Europe for health care.  I am always hearing about someone from Canada coming here for health care because of the very slow and regulated health care in Canada.
For those of you that feel you can't do anything about pending bills, think again.  
CALL YOU REPERSENATIVES AND SENATORS.  Tell them what you think about any bills they are voting on.  If enough people call on one side of the issue they will change thier vote.  
White house comment line  202 456-1111
Congress swithboard line   202 224-3121


----------



## hewunch (Jul 28, 2009)

The insurance companies cooked their own goose. I have said it for a while. GWB proposed that people should be able to form groups outside of work. Like civic organizations, churches etc. To purchase group insurance and make pools. But they lobbied against it and now we are over correcting the other way. I am personally doubtful the government will help our already screwy system.

Now as far as the health of our nation, lets look at life span. Lets look at access. My mom has a friend in Australia, he had to wait months for a heart stint. Something we can get here in a matter of hours. Frequently with nationalized health care there is rationing. They will only do x# of bypasses a year, x# of cancer treatments, etc.

oh and BTW my insurance tab $1333 a month for a family of 4 because I am a cancer survivor and can't get group health insurance because in the government's eyes I am self employed. My families insurance is an HSA with a 3K deductible, mine is $500 then 80/20 so I feel the pain of high insurance.


----------



## rjwolfe3 (Jul 28, 2009)

Mike, I do feel for your situation and I am sorry that you wife has to go through this illness but you do realize that with a nationlized health care there is a very good chance that your wife would have to be put on a waiting list before she would even be treated. At this current point in time you can choose the doctor of your choice with the treatment plan of your choice. You may have to pay more out of your own pocket but your wife does not have to wait to get treatment. Do I think that our current health care professionals charge too much, hell yes but I also feel the same about lawyers and other professionals.

As far as the health of our nation - that is our own fault not the health care people. Most of us do not take care of own bodies myself included. We shove whatever food we want into our mouths, we don't excercise, we don't get proper sleep, and we tend to indulge in things that we shouldn't. Is that the health care systems fault and should we then turn to the government and expect them to fix the mess that we created?

It's the same with debt problems in our society. Most of us buy on credit and try to live above our means and when the money is due we want to turn to the government for help. And we all know where that leads.

I believe that there is a problem with our health care system but I don't think we should leave it in the governments hands to fix it. And no I don't have an alternative solution. I wish I did but I'm not that smart. I just want to be able to have a choice of insurance and a choice about where I take my family for health care rather then the government tell me where to go.


----------



## Russianwolf (Jul 28, 2009)

oldsmokey said:


> I have one question.  How many people travel from here to Canada or Europe for health care.  I am always hearing about someone from Canada coming here for health care because of the very slow and regulated health care in Canada.



Don't know, but there are quite a few that go to Cananda in order to fly to Cuba for healthcare since it's MUCH cheaper than here (free for Cuban citizens/ex-pats).


----------



## Russianwolf (Jul 28, 2009)

rjwolfe3 said:


> Mike, I do feel for your situation and I am sorry that you wife has to go through this illness but you do realize that with a nationlized health care there is a very good chance that your wife would have to be put on a waiting list before she would even be treated. At this current point in time you can choose the doctor of your choice with the treatment plan of your choice. You may have to pay more out of your own pocket but your wife does not have to wait to get treatment. .


Only if you can afford to pay. When you are without insurance, and can't afford to pay the fees, you are on the ultimate wait list. I've been there and done it. 

Heck, call any insurance company that you like right now. Tell them you have a preexisting heart condition and are willing to pay ANY amount for coverage to be able to get treatment for that condition right away. See what they tell you. You have to wait six months without a claim for the condition in order for them to pick it up. A six month waiting list even if you can AFFORD insurance.

Unfortunately, in my wife's case, there is no viable treatment at present. Some experimental things, but they provide only temporary relief, and we are avoiding narcotics for the obvious reasons.


----------



## igran7 (Jul 28, 2009)

rjwolfe3 said:


> I believe that there is a problem with our health care system but I don't think we should leave it in the governments hands to fix it. And no I don't have an alternative solution. I wish I did but I'm not that smart. I just want to be able to have a choice of insurance and a choice about where I take my family for health care rather then the government tell me where to go.



From what I understand the proposed health care plan states that an individual can keep their current employer based or private health care plan if they so choose.  The government option is just that, an option.  I don't know about any of you folks, but I don't think competition is a bad thing when it comes to this.  

The insurance execs are part of the top 2% that will have to pay higher taxes if this bill is passed.  For that matter so are the media personnel reporting the story.  It is in their best interest to want this bill to fail and the only way it can is if they convice enough of us that it is a bad bill for the country.  The bottom line is the proposed plan will not be mandatory except for business owners with over 13 employees who do not offer another option.  If anyone of us doesn't like the plan then we can always stick with our current plan or shop for a better deal.  Whats wrong with that?


----------



## jleiwig (Jul 28, 2009)

igran7 said:


> From what I understand the proposed health care plan states that an individual can keep their current employer based or private health care plan if they so choose. The government option is just that, an option. I don't know about any of you folks, but I don't think competition is a bad thing when it comes to this.
> 
> The bottom line is the proposed plan will not be mandatory except for business owners with over 13 employees who do not offer another option. If anyone of us doesn't like the plan then we can always stick with our current plan or shop for a better deal. Whats wrong with that?


 
Refreshing to see someone post something well thought out, and not just repeated blather from another source (with editing).  Kudos to you sire! :biggrin:

My only question is will they finally allow the government to negotiate with drug manufacturers to lower prices to what other countries are paying for the same drugs?  Or will they keep them artificially high like they are trying in spite of the best efforts of Wal-Mart and other discount chains who have lowered the price of some generics ridiculously low.


----------



## jdoug5170 (Jul 28, 2009)

This list does a great job of showing what one person finds to be negative about the proposed plan. I don't agree with many of the issues to be offensive or negative.

Being a person without medical coverage for over 15 years and needing medical care that I cannot afford, I will welcome a plan that allows me to regain some health and live in less day to day pain.


----------



## Russianwolf (Jul 28, 2009)

snowman56 said:


> PG 50 Section 152 in HC bill -  HC will be provided to ALL non US citizens,
> illegal or otherwise



Well, decided to take a look and see what I could. It's hard to follow since the Author uses sections on only a couple of the references and pages (which are dependent on your computer, etc.) for the others, but I was able to find this one easily.

Copy of the legislation From the Library of Congress http://thomas.loc.gov/


> SEC. 152. PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION IN HEALTH CARE.
> 
> (a) In General- Except as otherwise explicitly permitted by this Act and by subsequent regulations consistent with this Act, all health care and related services (including insurance coverage and public health activities) covered by this Act shall be provided without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services.
> (b) Implementation- To implement the requirement set forth in subsection (a), the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall, not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, promulgate such regulations as are necessary or appropriate to insure that all health care and related services (including insurance coverage and public health activities) covered by this Act are provided (whether directly or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements) without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services.



That's a rather long stretch of a non-discrimination clause.


----------



## ed4copies (Jul 28, 2009)

igran7 said:


> From what I understand the proposed health care plan states that an individual can keep their current employer based or private health care plan if they so choose.  The government option is just that, an option.  I don't know about any of you folks, but I don't think competition is a bad thing when it comes to this.
> 
> The insurance execs are part of the top 2% that will have to pay higher taxes if this bill is passed.  For that matter so are the media personnel reporting the story.  It is in their best interest to want this bill to fail and the only way it can is if they convice enough of us that it is a bad bill for the country.  The bottom line is the proposed plan will not be mandatory except for business owners with over 13 employees who do not offer another option.  If anyone of us doesn't like the plan then we can always stick with our current plan or shop for a better deal.  Whats wrong with that?



Joe,

The difficulty is, if the government offers you insurance, only if your employer does NOT, WHY would employers continue to offer insurance??

Do you realize this is a cost of employment that raises the employers' overhead and makes their products LESS COMPETITIVE on the world market?  So, if they shift this burden to the government, their products become less costly.  

Now, this MAY have the effect of raising employment (reducing the record unemployment rate) or employers may automate, further reducing costs (robots never call in sick and they don't NEED health insurance).  

We live in a changing world.  Be flexible-don't FEAR change, or you will be permanently unemployed.  

Now, if I just had more confidence in the guys making these policies.........


----------



## rjwolfe3 (Jul 28, 2009)

> From what I understand the proposed health care plan states that an individual can keep their current employer based or private health care plan if they so choose. The government option is just that, an option. I don't know about any of you folks, but I don't think competition is a bad thing when it comes to this.



Joe,
Do you honestly think the government will stop at that? If this passes, I can promise you that in my lifetime all health care will be government run. If you have no problem with that and you think our government (either political side) does a great job of running things then I feel for you.

I don't understand why they even need this. If you are poor then health insurance is provided for you. If you work for a living then health insurance is available for a fee. If you are self employed then health insurance is available for a little more money. If you are rich you have no need for health insurance.

The truth of the matter is we need to be more reliant on ourselves and less on the damn government. Having said that, I am in no ways near that goal. But that is my fault not the government, not my family and certainly not the rich guy who busted his butt to get where he is at. I am lazy as I know that a lot of Americans are. We want things handed to us and we want things now. Our health care problems are the same as our debt problems and the government should have no say in either one.


----------



## wudnhed (Jul 28, 2009)

We live in CA next to our southern border, Baja California which is Mexico.  The town of Algodones is about 45 miles east of us across the border but before you get to Yuma AZ.  Our Imperial Valley and Yuma valley become swelled with winter visitors during Oct thru April.  A good majority of them come from Canada.  The little town of Algodones goes from about 5000 permanent residents to 35,000 - 50,000 visitors walking across the border everyday.  They are coming to get their drugs, dental, optical and anything else you can think of because of the prices they have to pay in their own country.  You can get most of the drugs across the counter with no prescription.  If you go at the right time the line is short coming back to the states, if not the line can be 3 to 5 blocks long.  I am not exaggerating, this goes on day in and day out for about 6 months out of the year.  I go down there to get my own teeth worked on and pick up medicine that I wouldn't be able to afford here.  Customs will only let you bring back a 3 month supply so the snowbirds (winter visitors) are making several trips during their stay to stock up for the summer months or get their medical visits out of the way before they return to their homes.


----------



## rjwolfe3 (Jul 28, 2009)

> Refreshing to see someone post something well thought out, and not just repeated blather from another source (with editing). Kudos to you sire!



You are saying this because you agree with him. I do believe that many of the other posts are equally well though out and not repeated blather.


----------



## rjwolfe3 (Jul 28, 2009)

> A good majority of them come from Canada.



So do I assume then that the government run health care in Canada doesn't work? What regulations are there on the drugs and medical care available in Mexico? I am asking this because I really want to know.


----------



## Russianwolf (Jul 28, 2009)

ed4copies said:


> Joe,
> 
> The difficulty is, if the government offers you insurance, only if your employer does NOT, WHY would employers continue to offer insurance??
> 
> ...



Insurance plans under employers may or may not cost the employer anything as is.

The thing is the employers establish a pool with the employees/families. From there its the companies decision as to subsidizing the cost entirely, partially, or just offering the discounted (pooled) rates to the employees themselves (or a combination, some cover the premium for the employee but the employee pays the premium for the family). So they could be in for 0%, 50%, or 100% or anything in between.

What I'm reading now, is that if the company doesn't offer some insurance plan, then they will receive an additional tax. I can tell you that where I am now, the insurance plan costs the company less than 3% of our gross revenue per year, and we fund the insurance 100%. So the tax may be more than the cost of an equivalent plan.


----------



## tbroye (Jul 28, 2009)

Remember one thing. What ever bill is passed, the Legislative, Exective and Judical brances of Government will not have to participate. They have their own FREE for life Health Plan. There are a couple of exempt group, but can't remember who they are.

I do believe there need to be a safety net for people in Mike's situation and others. But the Government to come in a take the whole system over is scary.

Part of the plan would affect me as Senior Citizen who was forced to go on Medicare at age 65 although I had a perfectly good plan for the last 40 years. As of right now my benifits and copay for medical care and drugs has change to much. But from what I have been able to find out, my benifits will change dramaticly and I will be forced to undergo end of life counciling and the Government or who ever will decide what treatment I will receive if any. Not a very pleasant thing to think about.

There need to be change but fix what is broken not the whole thing.

Living in California it does no good to contact your Congress person of Senator as they are the ones who are writing the bills and could care less what you think.

Better stop now before I really go politically insane.


----------



## jleiwig (Jul 28, 2009)

rjwolfe3 said:


> Joe,
> Do you honestly think the government will stop at that? If this passes, I can promise you that in my lifetime all health care will be government run. If you have no problem with that and you think our government (either political side) does a great job of running things then I feel for you.
> 
> I don't understand why they even need this. If you are poor then health insurance is provided for you. If you work for a living then health insurance is available for a fee. If you are self employed then health insurance is available for a little more money. If you are rich you have no need for health insurance.
> ...


 
Rob,

I know I'm not going to change your mind as your posts have proven your mind is set and closed to listening to anything else.  

But the fact is that if you are poor, you can currently only get medicaid if you fall between the ages of 1-20 or have a child under 18 under Covered families/covered children medicaid (CFCM Medicaid).  You can only get medicaid above and beyond that if you are Aged (65 or older), Blind, or Disabled (ABD Medicaid).  

Other than that if your employer doesn't offer decent health coverage you are screwed.  It does not matter what your income level is, but if you are in poor health, no insurance company will cover you regardless of what kind of income you have.  You will have to pay out of pocket, and sometimes they won't even let you do that depending on the procedure. 

Every day I deal with people who have lost their jobs coming in looking for medical insurance only to turn them away because they are in ok health right now and don't meet the age requirements.  People who have worked all their lives only to see their jobs disappear and are now left with nothing.  If you are 40 or 50 years old and in decent health, you really get screwed in this country, and that is wrong as this country was built upon the backs of people in that age bracket.


----------



## jleiwig (Jul 28, 2009)

Russianwolf said:


> Well, decided to take a look and see what I could. It's hard to follow since the Author uses sections on only a couple of the references and pages (which are dependent on your computer, etc.) for the others, but I was able to find this one easily.
> 
> Copy of the legislation From the Library of Congress http://thomas.loc.gov/
> 
> That's a rather long stretch of a non-discrimination clause.


 
Thanks for proving that the original bit posted was a bust.  I love how someone can distort a non-discrimination clause and make it say that we will treat illegal aliens, and whatever else that crosses the border.  That's why as I said it's in everyone's best interest to research for themselves what is going on.


----------



## rjwolfe3 (Jul 28, 2009)

At my job I pay $78.91 every two weeks for my health insurance. My employer pays $413.44. I have a choice of several different companies or not having insurance at all. I also have the choice of having a Health Savings Account of which I have not partaken yet. To be honest my insurance sucks but it is better then nothing. I think the problem lies in what the health care professionals charge for their services. 

I have a copay of $20 and then the insurance pays 80% to my 20%. I have actually canceled appointments that I needed because I couldn't afford the copay. But, here's my key point, this is my fault and no one elses. I can't afford the copayment or the 20% because of bad choices that I have made. I can not and will not expect the government to step in and fix my mistakes. I do not want and will not ask for handouts from the government. 

I am not saying that everyone is in the same boat as me. People cannot control certain things that happen to them but they can control how they respond to those thing. For the record I have several health problems that are not going to kill me right away but they are going to significantly shorten the life that I live. And there are a few things that may show up as I get older thanks to genes passed on to me. I do not have a good plan in place to deal with this but I know that I do not want to rely on the government for it.


----------



## ed4copies (Jul 28, 2009)

Russianwolf said:


> Insurance plans under employers may or may not cost the employer anything as is.
> 
> The thing is the employers establish a pool with the employees/families. From there its the companies decision as to subsidizing the cost entirely, partially, or just offering the discounted (pooled) rates to the employees themselves (or a combination, some cover the premium for the employee but the employee pays the premium for the family). So they could be in for 0%, 50%, or 100% or anything in between.
> 
> What I'm reading now, is that if the company doesn't offer some insurance plan, then they will receive an additional tax. I can tell you that where I am now, the insurance plan costs the company less than 3% of our gross revenue per year, and we fund the insurance 100%. So the tax may be more than the cost of an equivalent plan.




I'm guessing you work for a very large company.  

I'm also guessing the govt plan will be based on number of employees and cost per employee, not gross revenue.

BUT these are both guesses and COULD BE WRONG!!!!  I suspect we will all find out more during the congressional recess, after which the debate will become VERY heated.  Then, if nothing happens before the 2010 elections, very probably nothing WILL happen.

Political prognostication ----- subject to LARGE percentage of error.


----------



## rjwolfe3 (Jul 28, 2009)

> But the fact is that if you are poor, you can currently only get medicaid if you fall between the ages of 1-20 or have a child under 18 under Covered families/covered children medicaid (CFCM Medicaid). You can only get medicaid above and beyond that if you are Aged (65 or older), Blind, or Disabled (ABD Medicaid).
> 
> Other than that if your employer doesn't offer decent health coverage you are screwed. It does not matter what your income level is, but if you are in poor health, no insurance company will cover you regardless of what kind of income you have. You will have to pay out of pocket, and sometimes they won't even let you do that depending on the procedure.
> 
> Every day I deal with people who have lost their jobs coming in looking for medical insurance only to turn them away because they are in ok health right now and don't meet the age requirements. People who have worked all their lives only to see their jobs disappear and are now left with nothing. If you are 40 or 50 years old and in decent health, you really get screwed in this country, and that is wrong as this country was built upon the backs of people in that age bracket.



Justin,
Things must have changed recently then because I know for fact that awhile ago my entire family recieved heath insurance from the government. My sisters and their families did as well. 

When I personally woke up and realized that working a minimum paying job was much better then getting free handouts I got a job at a retail auto parts store part time. It came with very limited benefits. I then applied myself and became full time with better benefits. I stayed at this job and applied for other jobs until I got one that paid much better with slightly better benefits. I am a college graduate and have been on the bottom and I don't like it. There are many jobs out there that people can work that the insurance companies do not ask about preexisting conditions. They may not pay very much but isn't anything better then free handouts from a bankrupt government. The job situation is tragic right now but please don't tell me that there aren't good jobs out there. I see help wanted signs at many fast food places, shops, and other places. Even where I work they are constantly hiring. The minimum wage in Ohio is currently $7.30. Many people can live comfortably on that amount of money.


----------



## ed4copies (Jul 28, 2009)

Rob,

 I greatly admire your attitude and wish you luck.

BUT, nobody lives COMFORTABLY on $15,184 per year.  

You can LIVE, but not very comfortably.


----------



## Russianwolf (Jul 28, 2009)

ed4copies said:


> I'm guessing you work for a very large company.


 Nope, very small one that takes care of it's staff. 12 employees all together. They understand that taking the stress of something like this off the employees back benefits them in the long run (higher moral, higher performance, less distraction due to health worries, etc.)

Premiums aren't based on the Gross Rev, but I compared the cost to that since the tax penalty will be based on income or revenue. A better idea, would be that the penalty be a fixed dollar amount per employee in the company, but since when is the Gov. logical?


----------



## ed4copies (Jul 28, 2009)

Then 12 people are creating 7.2 million dollars of revenue.  You are very productive people.

THAT IS using technology WELL!!!   And you deserve to be rewarded.  And you, apparently, ARE.

ALL good things!!!


----------



## rjwolfe3 (Jul 28, 2009)

> I greatly admire your attitude and wish you luck.
> 
> BUT, nobody lives COMFORTABLY on $15,184 per year.
> 
> You can LIVE, but not very comfortably.



But that's my point, you can live on it. You don't have to have all the fancy things that everyone wants. You need shelter, clothes, and food. Everything else is optional. There are so many people that want to live above their means. Instead of saving up to buy something they just whip out the old plastic and charge it. Then when they lose there jobs, and let's face it it could happen to anyone, then they can't pay all of that credit back. I am one of those people and I have just recently began to realize that. My wife refuses to work. She uses the excuse that there are no good jobs out there. But that minimum wage would come in handy when I am robbing Peter to pay Paul. I make a lot of dumb choices and I will be making more in the future but I am trying to learn from them and not run to the government expecting a handout. And for the record I have received government help and it was one of the lowest points in my life. When a man can't provide for his family it should slap him in the face and make him wake up and realize that things have to change.


----------



## jimbob91577 (Jul 28, 2009)

rjwolfe3 said:


> At my job I pay $78.91 every two weeks for my health insurance. My employer pays $413.44. I have a choice of several different companies or not having insurance at all. I also have the choice of having a Health Savings Account of which I have not partaken yet. To be honest my insurance sucks but it is better then nothing...


 
Amazing isn't it - between you and your employer, your cost of health insurance for the year is $12,800.  Consider that for a moment - and then consider: do you get $12,800 worth of services a year from your health insurance company?

In my case that number is $13,250 - but I also have a $500/2000 deductible on health, with 80/20 coverage afterwards, and $50 deductibles on Vision, Dental, and Prescription afterwards - on my family so before the insurance kicks in I have to pay at least $500 per person up to $2000 for the family each year. Thus my total cost of insurance is anywhere from $13,250 if I don't go to the doctor, dentist, eye doctor, or have prescriptions - but typically runs $15,000-$15,500 a year after taking the kids to the dentist, mine and my wife's eye appointments, my prescriptions, and doctor visits and such.

I have an FSA that we use to cover most of the deductible amounts, but it still comes out of my pocket every year...

In my opinion the problems with the health care industry stem from government involvement, malpractice and malpractice claims/awards, and abuse of the system by people that shouldn't be entitled to it.  I'm sorry if your country doesn't have good health care, I'd recommend that you work to change it, but please don't come to my country and expect to get free health coverage at the expense of me, my neighbor, and my children.


----------



## Russianwolf (Jul 28, 2009)

ed4copies said:


> Then 12 people are creating 7.2 million dollars of revenue.  You are very productive people.
> 
> THAT IS using technology WELL!!!   And you deserve to be rewarded.  And you, apparently, ARE.
> 
> ALL good things!!!


how did you get to 7.2 mil? didn't think I said anything other than the insurance cost was 3% of Gross Rev. Don't think I mentioned any other numbers in relation?

But we do do well with what we have.


----------



## rjwolfe3 (Jul 28, 2009)

Yep, forgot about the deductible and vision/dental insurance. My vision and dental come out of my union dues which are about $18 every two weeks. I have thought about canceling it all and putting the money in something that I could invest but knowing my history I would just waste that money. And I know that my health problems could get worse at any moment.


----------



## DCBluesman (Jul 28, 2009)

Don't let others interpret for you, educate yourself.  The most current text of HR 3200 can be found here.


----------



## rjwolfe3 (Jul 28, 2009)

I have a relative that worked for GM for many many years and just retired. He did not do well with his money and therefore is having a hard time with his retirement. With GM's problems they decided not to pay for his dental and vision during his retirement. He is still too young to get other health benefits so he is stuck. However here is the kicker, he is in this predicament because of choices he made. Good or bad. Should he then expect the government to step in and cover for his bad money decisions? He has nothing to show for working all of those years except for a pile of bills and a house full of stuff that he still owes money on.


----------



## ed4copies (Jul 28, 2009)

DCBluesman said:


> Don't let others interpret for you, educate yourself.  The most current text of HR 3200 can be found here.




GOOD idea!!!!!

The table of contents is 12 letter-size pages, but the twelfth is just a few sentences.  Shouldn't take long to peruse.


----------



## Russianwolf (Jul 28, 2009)

Rob, don't get me wrong. I don't like taking handouts either. I gave up all my credit cards more than a decade ago because I realized how much trouble they can be. If I can't pay cash for something, then I don't really need it.

I myself, for myself, would never go asking for anything. When I was without insurance but had Cobra for my wife, I didn't even think about going to a doctor when I was sick. I gritted my teeth and went back to doing what I had to to get us back on our feet, working any job I could find. But when it comes to those you love the most, you ask for whatever help you can. I won't let my wife suffer because I'm too proud to ask for help.

The thing is, the original idea (which may not be what makes it through in the bill) was a rather simple Gov. organized health insurance plan that everyone would qualify for. This isn't a handout, but a mandatory pooling of people that aren't otherwise covered by employer plans. The reason it's mandatory is to so 1)everyone has coverage in case something comes up, and 2) the healthy keep the cost down for the sick. 


Would you rather pay $100 a month when you are health, have a job, and don't need it so that you can continue to pay $100 a month when you get sick AND lose your job. Or would you rather gamble by paying nothing now, and when you get sick have to pay $500 per month, job or not?


----------



## Rojo22 (Jul 28, 2009)

ed4copies said:


> The difficulty is, if the government offers you insurance, only if your employer does NOT, WHY would employers continue to offer insurance??
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> ...


----------



## rjwolfe3 (Jul 28, 2009)

Mike, pm sent!


----------



## igran7 (Jul 28, 2009)

rjwolfe3 said:


> Joe,
> Do you honestly think the government will stop at that? If this passes, I can promise you that in my lifetime all health care will be government run. If you have no problem with that and you think our government (either political side) does a great job of running things then I feel for you..



No sympathy needed Rob.  
Obviously if the government plan comes to fruition then it will not be the plan for you.  Your current plan may actually cost less, because generally speaking, competition breeds better prices for the consumer.  

Nobody is suggesting that a government health plan is something everyone must partake in or else...It is merely an alternative to the existing health plans offered.  If the government plan saves the consumer X amount of dollars then the big insurance companies will have to compete within the same general amount or go out of business.  I suspect they will choose to compete which will be better for all of us.  

I was in the military for 8 years, worked as a law enforcement officer for the government and as a police officer for local government for 12 years.  During that time I basically had government run health care and it was fantastic.  I now work in the private sector and have medical coverage through one of the large HMO's.  The difference between the two is staggering.  If I had my CHOICE between the two I would choose the government plan.  Choice is a good thing.  

Excuse my ignorance, I'm paraphrasing but you said the medical issues you have are your own fault and the government shouldn't bail you out.  Rob, this is not welfare we are talking about, the government is not bailing anyone out.  The proposed plan is only an option that you and I will have to pay for just like any other plan if we choose it.  Those that can't afford private insurance will have the coverage they need for little or no cost.


----------



## rjwolfe3 (Jul 28, 2009)

> 'm paraphrasing but you said the medical issues you have are your own fault and the government shouldn't bail you out. Rob, this is not welfare we are talking about, the government is not bailing anyone out. The proposed plan is only an option that you and I will have to pay for just like any other plan if we choose it. Those that can't afford private insurance will have the coverage they need for little or no cost.



Actually was referring to the financial things being my fault. Although I am sure that if I ate better and exercised my health problems would not be as intense. However most of my health problems just happened.

But how is this not welfare? Free insurance is the same thing as free money. If you don't work for it then it is welfare. A government handout is just that - a handout. If you pay for it, then it is just another insurance plan.

Do you really think that once the government gets this passed that they will not then seek to control all of the health insurance business. They already have controlling interests in so many businesses as it is.

I currently work for the state government and I was in the military for 6 years. Neither of which had/have "government insurance". I paid for insurance for both and I had a choice over which company I went with. In both instances I asked around and read all of the info and then went with the best choice available in my eyes. It was better then nothing but I often wonder if I taken all of that money and invested it then where would I be now.

I have been trying to read over this Health Care bill that Lou linked and am finding it difficult to wade through all of the government speak. But it looks like in the future if this passes, you have to have insurance no matter what, whether it be through your employer or the government.


----------



## snowman56 (Jul 28, 2009)

Here is another site:   Page 425 of Health Care Bill - Listen to this interview Fred Thompson's Radio Show interviewing Betsy McCaughey (pronounced Mc Coy).  Or look it up on www.fredthompsonshow.com, under interviews. They say they will let you keep your own healthcare ins. but that is not true. It will all be government issue.


----------



## Russianwolf (Jul 28, 2009)

snowman56 said:


> Here is another site:   Page 425 of Health Care Bill - Listen to this interview Fred Thompson's Radio Show interviewing Betsy McCaughey (pronounced Mc Coy).  Or look it up on www.fredthompsonshow.com, under interviews. They say they will let you keep your own healthcare ins. but that is not true. It will all be government issue.



Bob, show us the section number that says that you can't keep your own insurance. Page numbers don't work.


----------



## Paul in OKC (Jul 28, 2009)

A government mandated anything is not a good thing. You can not have government invovled and still have a competitive market in anything, let alone health care. Granted, I would not want to be without it, but where does it say it is a right that I should have it at others expense? Things here are not perfect, but the government is deffinately not the fix. Just more debt.  Should it happen, what do you do when the hospital runs out of its allotted funds for the month? Wait? At least that is the way some say it will happen.
No thanks.  How many of the uninsured are that way by choice. Maybe healthy and wealthy and wise =8^). What I hear is that out of the 52 million uninsured, this will only cover less than 20 million of those, so......


----------



## igran7 (Jul 28, 2009)

please be careful when reading or watching an interview on TV unless both sides are represented.  I am not generally the paranoid type but I do know that it is not in the best interest for the top wealthy 2% to have this bill passed.  Every nationally syndicated news personality makes over $250,000 year, insurance execs make 50 times that much, heck even most senators and congressmen make that much.  So please take the comments with a grain of salt and inform yourself by reading from realiable sources.  

If I were the only person in the world that sold pens I could charge any amount for the pen...and I would get whatever amount I deemed the pen was worth.  If a hundred others sold pens I would obviously have to compete with what others were charging to stay in business.  If 10,000 others sold pens then not only would I have to compete, but I would have to come up with something unique to draw in customers.  Same thing holds true for every commodity, why is the issue of health care any different?  If the government can do it for less then the private companies will have to compete or go out of business, and if the government can do it for less, then why can't the private companies?  I for one am tired of being gouged by the high prices while the insurance companies continue to make astonomical amounts of money.


----------



## wudnhed (Jul 28, 2009)

rjwolfe3 said:


> So do I assume then that the government run health care in Canada doesn't work? What regulations are there on the drugs and medical care available in Mexico? I am asking this because I really want to know.



I can't tell you what the regulations are but do know when you pass back thru customs they check all your bags pretty thoroughly.  No you can't bring back stuff like Valium and such unless you have a valid prescription  but others you can get is Prednizone, Volteran, Pennicilian, Zithromiacine just to name a few.  I get 120 antibiotics for about $5.  I get Volteran in pill and cream form, (for my arthritis), for about $5.  When we sit waiting in the dental office, snowbirds always strike up conversations.  Most of the Canadians dislike their healthcare system but then, most of us USAns dislike our healthcare system too..


----------



## jkeithrussell (Jul 28, 2009)

igran7 said:


> If the government can do it for less then the private companies will have to compete or go out of business, and if the government can do it for less, then why can't the private companies?


 
Because the government doesn't have to make money to stay in business, but insurance companies do.  The government takes money from taxpayers and/or prints money -- it doesn't have any incentive to make a profit.  That, in a nutshell, is why it can be viewed as folly to say that the insurance companies will simply be in competition with the government.  No business can compete with the government.  How would you like to be in competition with the government selling pens when it can take your money to buy its kits and blanks, sell the pens for a loss (it's only fair that everyone should have a really nice pen), and tax you to make up the difference?


----------



## Douglas Feehan (Jul 28, 2009)

Just wondering what everyone thinks a fair cost for health coverage should be.  yearly?


----------



## snowman56 (Jul 28, 2009)

Look under "Audios" and then interviews for Betsy McCaughey interview to hear what she has to say about the bill. This is in the site: www.fredthompsonshow.com


----------



## igran7 (Jul 28, 2009)

jkeithrussell said:


> Because the government doesn't have to make money to stay in business, but insurance companies do.  The government takes money from taxpayers and/or prints money -- it doesn't have any incentive to make a profit.  That, in a nutshell, is why it can be viewed as folly to say that the insurance companies will simply be in competition with the government.  No business can compete with the government.  How would you like to be in competition with the government selling pens when it can take your money to buy its kits and blanks, sell the pens for a loss (it's only fair that everyone should have a really nice pen), and tax you to make up the difference?



Good point!  But when is enough enough?  Obviously there is a huge problem or this would be a non-issue. 
I think everyone should be intitled to make a profit and prosper, but when that profit is so huge most of us can't even imagine it...where do you draw the line?


----------



## bitshird (Jul 28, 2009)

I've been watching this thread since this morning, I tend to agree with Paul, our Government mandating most any thing is a bad idea. I shouldn't Bit*h about insurance though, I'm on Medicare and have supplemental insurance. It cost's me 126.00 a month, my prescriptions cost me a total of 38.00 a month, with out it the costs would be close to 1800.00 per month, I worked for 45 years or there about and figure I've paid enough into Social Security Disability and Medicare that I really don't mind getting that care, nor does it make me feel like I'm freeloading or getting something for nothing.
If you need something to raise up against try the Pharmaceutical Industry, when you've finished giving them their justly deserved tongue lashing, then start on the Lawyers have you watched much TV lately, every 3rd commercial is for suing some drug company or doctor. When I cut my fingers off last year my wife drove me to the hospital, what a treat to sit in an Emergency Room waiting area with a Methhead that had rode a stolen 4 wheeler over a drainage  ditch and cut his forehead on the handlebars, Oh and the Idiot that was there to get a splinter out of his hand he got loading lumber and not wearing gloves.
I sat and watched these two get waited on for an hour before I got in was I mad, Oh He## yes!! even the Methhead (yes I know for a fact he is, he lives about a mile away and has 3 cases pending) told the nurse to get me in cause I was leaking quite a bit.
THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM IS BROKEN !! but I don't think our Government is capable of fixing it, I love my Dr. she is a great person, She had to come to the hospital and tell the ER Dr. to quit screwing around and get me to a real hospital, She isn't even on staff there. Granted the two area hospitals are not much more than bandage stations, but this fool kept me in his ER for 8 freaking Hours Bleeding A LOT (but he did keep me well stoked on Morphine) and other than that didn't do much other than hook me to a monitor and ask how I was doing, For this great service this hospital charged my insurance a bit over 7,000.00 The hospital in Jackson that actually did something like get me a real DR. who operated and did the best he could with what was left their bill was only 11,000.00 an change.
so my question for the lets fix it crowd is what about this crap, If we do get some type of rationing lets see I have Diabetes, Heart Trouble, Asthma, and a few other minor annoyances, So this I'm assuming would put me WAAAAAAAy back at the end of the line, so I guess if all this rationing stuff were true, I would have been dead from that stupid Rocky Mountain Spotted Tick Fever a while back, That would really bum me out or not.
This End of life counseling does any one remember the movie Soylent Green??


----------



## jeff (Jul 28, 2009)

Curtis will probably be ticked off that I didn't squash this thread. (Shhhh! don't tell him...) However this is an important topic and the discussion is reasonably civil, so carry on.  Don't be nasty or inject blatant partisan politics.


----------



## jkeithrussell (Jul 28, 2009)

igran7 said:


> Good point! But when is enough enough? Obviously there is a huge problem or this would be a non-issue.
> I think everyone should be intitled to make a profit and prosper, but when that profit is so huge most of us can't even imagine it...where do you draw the line?


 
Well, I don't think the problem is how much the insurance companies make.  To me, that's just a flash-button issue that the politicians exploit to stir up populism.  The elderly are already covered by medicare.  A lot of the uninsured (no, I don't know how many) choose to be uninsured.  Younger people, single adults w/o children to support, perhaps some people who self-insure, etc.  So we're talking about the government solving a problem of perhaps 10% (at most) of the total population being uninsured by taking over the entire industry.  To me, that just seems a little disproportionate.  I know there are people who are suffering hardships as a result of not being able to get quality health insurance, but surely we can fix that for a lot cheaper than the currently estimated 1.75 Trillion (in debt spending) in only 10 years, plus having the government running 1/6th of the economy.  It's not an easy issue, and I don't pretend to have the answers, but I am very suspicious of this administration's rush to get this enormous program shoved through before it has been fully analyzed and considered by the public.  Even the congressional budget office has said (twice) that the program is going to cost more and produce fewer savings than the current estimates (already 1.75T).  The government is already closing in on 10Trillion in debt.  I wonder where we draw the line on that.


----------



## jkeithrussell (Jul 28, 2009)

bitshird said:


> If you need something to raise up against try the Pharmaceutical Industry, when you've finished giving them their justly deserved tongue lashing, then start on the Lawyers have you watched much TV lately, every 3rd commercial is for suing some drug company or doctor.


 
Ok, last one for me. 

First, almost every state plus the federal courts already have caps on punitive damages for medical malpractice cases. It is a myth that we still have "jackpot justice," as the president said last week. If you doubt me, go try to find a lawyer to handle a medical malpractice case for you next time your surgeon leaves a sponge in your abdomen. I have friends in the business and they can only afford to take the most egregious cases. 

Second, pharmaceutical companies are big, strong, wealthy, and powerful. They sometimes do very nasty things, and they sometimes produce wonderful products that improve people's lives. If your loved one was the recipient of one of their nasty deeds, I can promise you that you would need help getting any recourse out of the pharmaceutical companies--even if you were only seeking a modest amount. I guess you could hire your lawn crew to do it, but a good lawyer would be a better bet. The kind of lawyers who can go up against the pharmaceutical companies and win do not work for free, nor should they. A hard case against one of these companies can take years to produce any money and the 1/3 fee that everyone cries about is not unreasonable when you consider that the lawyer has been fronting all of the costs, taking all of the risks, and making nothing for possibly years on the case. 

I can handle almost all of the differences of opinion about nearly every issue. But I do not like to see people falling for the "rich insurance execs" or "greedy trial lawyers" BS. Folks, that is just political populism. The politicians whip people up by making the average working stiffs think that some fat cat is out there living it up on your dime. You can look hard enough to find examples of it, but it is not the norm. That is why it bothered me to see our president perpetuate at least 2 of these harmful myths: first, that we have "jackpot justice," and second that doctors would give a child surgery because they make more money that way. Shameful, in my opinion. Pass your legislation on its merits, not with scare tactics and class warfare.


----------



## hewunch (Jul 28, 2009)

igran7 said:


> please be careful when reading or watching an interview on TV unless both sides are represented.  I am not generally the paranoid type but I do know that it is not in the best interest for the top wealthy 2% to have this bill passed.  Every nationally syndicated news personality makes over $250,000 year, insurance execs make 50 times that much, heck even most senators and congressmen make that much.  So please take the comments with a grain of salt and inform yourself by reading from realiable sources.
> 
> If I were the only person in the world that sold pens I could charge any amount for the pen...and I would get whatever amount I deemed the pen was worth.  If a hundred others sold pens I would obviously have to compete with what others were charging to stay in business.  If 10,000 others sold pens then not only would I have to compete, but I would have to come up with something unique to draw in customers.  Same thing holds true for every commodity, why is the issue of health care any different?  If the government can do it for less then the private companies will have to compete or go out of business, and if the government can do it for less, then why can't the private companies?  I for one am tired of being gouged by the high prices while the insurance companies continue to make astonomical amounts of money.



The bigger question is what is the purpose of government? And I think that would change with our founding fathers to our current slate of politicians. See here is the deal with government spending. Basically when you purchase something you are concerned mostly with 2 things. Product and Price. And those things are affected by a host of other factors. For example, it would not matter if beer was on sale for $.25 a can, I would not buy it because I can't stand the stuff. But if Diet Caffeine-free Pepsi was $2 for a 2 liter and I was out and wanted some, I would buy it.
There are basically three types of transactions. 
1. A personal transaction. IN this transaction you are concerned with both product and price. Hence my illustration about the Diet Pepsi. I would think most of us want to purchase pen kits of a certain quality or brand for the lowest price possible because that maximizes our profits.
2. Next you have a second hand or second party transaction. This is a transaction where you care about price, but not product. Say your office workers put in $5 a week into a hat, then at the end of the month you have $100, and your boss says, go get something with the $100 to give away to the person who we draw a name out of a hat. So you go to the mall and get a $100 stuffed Frog. In this transaction, you were not concerned about product only price.
3. Lastly you have a third party transaction. This is a transaction that is not for you or anyone you know (unlike the first 2). You are buying it and you don't really care how much it costs or what the quality is. By and large this is what the government does. Hence we have the government spending 2x what it should have on ham in California. And the $300 toilet seats etc. The government is fraught with waste. And if they take over more of health care (I say more because it already has a bunch with the soon to be bankrupt Medicare and Medicaid) it will have more waste not less.

So back to the original question, what is the role of government? Most of us could come up with a common set of roles (laws, police, military, etc.) but lawyers in the medical system are what got us to this place in the first place. And guess what our government is made up mostly of? Lawyers. WHO by the way, made the law that said that groups could only be formed within companies and people could not purchase insurance across state lines. Had that law not been written, we would have a COMPLETELY different type of health insurance system.

Oh and for those of us here over 50. Do you remember when Social Security was a fund that was off limits to the congress? DO you really think that these same people who couldn't keep their hands off Social Security will spend the money set aside for health wisely and on health? I am sorry, but I fear too many are giving those inside the beltway too much credit. Some might would, but as a group, well, not so much.


----------



## Texatdurango (Jul 28, 2009)

I just read a few more posts including Jeffs where he is leaving this open, THANKS Jeff, I hope everyone can keep it civil and focus on the issue and not try to convince others to their way of thinking.

I have a few thoughts but I am being summoned to dinner, actually have already gotten the "last call" threat to start the grill so will be back later. 

Please be decent so this will still be open when I get back.


----------



## workinforwood (Jul 28, 2009)

I did not read all this thread.  I just saw it now.  I am originally Canadian.  I know all about social medicine and how it works. I've read quite a bit about the USA plan, which would become my new plan from what it sounds like to me.  It is the scariest most draconian plan I ever heard.  It's way worse than Canada.  I'm scared to death of it!!!  The system is not broke.  Leave it alone.  The un-insured..most of them are that way by choice.


----------



## workinforwood (Jul 28, 2009)

igran7 said:


> No sympathy needed Rob.
> Obviously if the government plan comes to fruition then it will not be the plan for you.  Your current plan may actually cost less, because generally speaking, competition breeds better prices for the consumer.
> 
> Nobody is suggesting that a government health plan is something everyone must partake in or else...It is merely an alternative to the existing health plans offered.  If the government plan saves the consumer X amount of dollars then the big insurance companies will have to compete within the same general amount or go out of business.  I suspect they will choose to compete which will be better for all of us.
> ...



Oh, actually, I'm sorry Ian but that is completely false information.  Pretty sure page 331 in the bill is what you need to read.  If your company wishes to maintain it's current health plan, that is acceptable.  All companies that wish to maintain their current health plan WILL BE AUDITED.  Says so right there.  Any new employee can not be added to the existing health plan.  If you leave your company and join a new company that has private insurance, you can not join their private plan.  You must join the government plan.  Therefore, eventually, all citizens must be on the government plan.  This is because over time, with job switches, there will not be enough private plans in existance for the insurance companies to stay afloat.  There will come a breaking point where they will fold.   I know the President said that if you have a plan, you can keep the plan.  Maybe he meant it or maybe he means you can keep it for now as to help the transition to 100% social medicine take place.  If he meant it, he hasn't read the bill, which is 1000's of pages of very strange things.  The most disturbing being the mandatory death counciling of senior citizens. Every 5 yrs the government will come to your house and tell you how you should kill yourself for the good of the country...how patriotic.    I think that part is around page 1002.
   I wish I was making this up.


----------



## jimbob91577 (Jul 28, 2009)

hewunch said:


> The bigger question is what is the purpose of government?
> 
> 
> > According to the constitution, our Federal Government has only two responsibilities:  Infrastructure and National Defence.  All other responsibilities fall to the states and/or to the people.  The problem is we've relinquished our rights here and there and have allowed our federal government to grow and create new responsibilities that it should never have been allowed to have.  We've allowed the federal government to create laws that erode key facets of the constitution and allowed our state governments to do much of the same.  Compile that with the general lack of dealing with government coming from the general populous and you have the perfect storm for what has taken place and what will continue to take place in the future.
> ...


----------



## seawolf (Jul 28, 2009)

Several years ago the government stepped into the medical arena and ordered that all items and services be amortized. As a result an aspirin costs 5.00 a band aid 35.00 and so on. The reasoning behind it was that not all patients could pay and Medicare and Medicaid would pay at a reduced rate. 
As for end of life counseling I think Dr. Jack Kevorkian may be placed in charge of that department.
The government can currently decide if you live or die. Remember the lady in Florida not long ago who was denied food and water to the point of death.
If they pass this health care bill ( and they will ) I feel there needs to be another rider in it to the effect that if you show up at the ER for treatment of a non emergency then the full bill will be collected out of your own pocket. That way it will help to stop the fellow who got a splinter in his hand and the people who come in for a sniffle. ( self rationing? )
I may be a little cold hearted but I have always felt if a person wants to suicide it is their choice. 
I am 55 years old and I may not live to draw social security or receive medical aid from any source other than the insurance I buy. If it gets rationed the oldies and the infirm will be the first to go. Other services will be cut back for premies, downes children, ect. 
I don't have the answers but when it is my time I think I have lived right and will go to a better place.
Mark


----------



## mdburn_em (Jul 28, 2009)

Many things of interest in this thread, not least of which is the civility.  

I've got a friend that spends quite a bit of time in Thailand.  He simply loves it there.  Very low cost of living.  He was telling me about the medical care there.  First rate according to him.  The doctors are trained in the U.S. and then go back there to practice.  One thing, there is absolutely no lawsuits permitted for malpractice.  No insurance either.  You pay for what you get.  I wish I could remember some of the figures he told me.  Less than $1000 for major surgery.  (If the swiss cheese I use for a brain is able to recall correctly.)

He said he would love to live there permanently, but the wife thought it was too far to see the grand kids.


----------



## OKLAHOMAN (Jul 28, 2009)

No mI have not read all 1000 pages and in truth only have read what Snowman posted, but here's a thought and if my reasoning is wrong I'll take the flack for it. It seems to me this guy that TWITTERED this has taken some privliage with the writen word.
Below in red telss me that 90% of what he said was taken out of contex




snowman56 said:


> I don't know if any of you have been keeping up with the proposed health care bill, but this is what is supposedly on it right now. It seems pretty extreme and scary to me. What do you think?
> This person has been reading the 1000 page house bill and posting it at
> Twitter. You decide. http://healthcarehorserace.com/activism/07282009/rep-conyers-sees-no-need-to-read-health-care-bill/
> 
> ...


----------



## bitshird (Jul 28, 2009)

seawolf said:


> Several years ago the government stepped into the medical arena and ordered that all items and services be amortized. As a result an aspirin costs 5.00 a band aid 35.00 and so on. The reasoning behind it was that not all patients could pay and Medicare and Medicaid would pay at a reduced rate.
> As for end of life counseling I think Dr. Jack Kevorkian may be placed in charge of that department.
> The government can currently decide if you live or die. Remember the lady in Florida not long ago who was denied food and water to the point of death.
> If they pass this health care bill ( and they will ) I feel there needs to be another rider in it to the effect that if you show up at the ER for treatment of a non emergency then the full bill will be collected out of your own pocket. That way it will help to stop the fellow who got a splinter in his hand and the people who come in for a sniffle. ( self rationing? )
> ...



Mark,
The thing about the lady in Florida Mrs. Terry Schaivo, was actually a right to die thing that her husband wanted her to be allowed to die and her parents wanted her to be kept alive, she had been brain dead (supposedly for several years 7 I think it was) My wife and I both have living wills with declarations stating under what conditions and for how long of a time we can be kept on life support, we did this right after I had heart surgery, just to avoid something like this.
 But that is just about what the Government is proposing, I honestly don't see how any  physician can allow that, I thought there was something in the Hippocratic Oath that forbid them to allow a person to suffer, by the same token they shall do no harm, so how do they justify lethal injections. 
The Government needs to stay out of health care, when it comes down to my health, I really don't want some accountant looking at numbers to have the final vote on whether I get help or not.
I do know that there are way too many frauds going on with Medicare and worse in Medicaid, this is where most of the lowlife pill dealers get their prescription meds from to sell, we have a huge problem with that here in our part of Tennessee.
I think rather than force this down our throats, quite a bit of the Medicare costs could be off set by cutting down on the fraud.
 I'm really not ready to get put in a box yet, but I'm afraid that if the health plan does and as you said will go through, I'll be near the top of the deny service list, just due to the expense of never ending blood work and twice yearly Cardiologist checkup  usually one stint a year, year before last it was two.


----------



## GaryMGg (Jul 28, 2009)

igran7 said:


> Good point! But when is enough enough? Obviously there is a huge problem or this would be a non-issue.
> I think everyone should be intitled to make a profit and prosper, but when that profit is so huge most of us can't even imagine it...where do you draw the line?


 
*Who is John Galt?*

So long as you make your profit legally, ethically, and honestly -- e.g.: by doing what you say you'll do; by telling your employees, investors and partners a priori what you expect from them and what they can expect in return -- there should be no limit to what someone can earn.
So long as a producer meets those criteria, who has the right to tell them they're making too much?

Regards,
G


----------



## bitshird (Jul 28, 2009)

GaryMGg said:


> *Who is John Galt?*
> 
> 
> So long as a producer meets those criteria, who has the right to tell them they're making too much?
> ...



Gary, perhaps a Constitutionally limited Government I didn't think we had one of those but I guess we are about to find out.

"The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to." --Thomas Jefferson


----------



## NewLondon88 (Jul 28, 2009)

bitshird said:


> The Government needs to stay out of health care, when it comes down to my health, I really don't want some accountant looking at numbers to have the final vote on whether I get help or not.



I think they call that an HMO.



bitshird said:


> I think rather than force this down our throats, quite a bit of the Medicare costs could be off set by cutting down on the fraud.



I think the problem with our health care system is the SYSTEM.

Insurance is supposed to be a pool of everyone's money to help defray
the cost of care for those who need it. Simple math tells you that most
people will pay in more than they take out.. otherwise the system would
collapse.

But health insurance SHOULD NEVER be a profit center. Everyone should
pay premiums into the pool, and those monies should be used to provide
reasonable care. Monies left over this year should be used to reduce the
premiums for next year. (monies set aside for unexpected circumstances
is reasonable, but it shouldn't be a profit)

Now .. getting into things like 'define reasonable' is where the lobbyists
come in. The drug companies alone sent over 50 lobbying firms to
Washington this week. Not 50 lobbyists ..  50 firms! That's just the drug
companies. That's just this week.

They're not there out of the goodness of their hearts.. and they're not
there for the benefit of you and I. 

They're there because there is big money to be made with this new bill.
They're there because they want to make sure that the health care
system stays as profitable, confusing and screwed up as it is now.

ok, I'll shut up.


----------



## Russianwolf (Jul 28, 2009)

workinforwood said:


> Pretty sure page 331 in the bill is what you need to read.  If your company wishes to maintain it's current health plan, that is acceptable.  All companies that wish to maintain their current health plan WILL BE AUDITED.



Section number please?

When they say audited, do you know what they mean? I'm the CFO and CAO (Chief Administrative Officer) of my company. Every year Travelers does and audit of our personnel records for the workman's comp insurance policy. Takes about 30 minutes to fill out the form and get the tax documents together so they can make sure that my policy premiums are right for the number of people in the company and the wages I pay. I have a feeling that the "audit" they are talking about in the legislation is this type and not the ever feared "financial audit" that any public companies would have done anyway (SEC regs you know)


----------



## arjudy (Jul 28, 2009)

Everyone should remember that millions of people that can afford to purchase healthcare choose not to do so for whatever reason. The current system is not perfect but everyone has access to healthcare. Everybody that currently pays for their healthcare through payroll deduction or out of pocket is covering everyone who cannot pay. That is why premiums are so high. Think about this, what happens when too many people become a burden to a public benefits system? Can anyone say Social Security? Think about it. I pay into Social Security and will probably never see a dime of it because I'm in my early 40's. I don't see this as fair. I wish the government would let me manage my own contributions.


----------



## igran7 (Jul 28, 2009)

I keep hearing about the millions of people who do not have health care by choice.  Mostly young folks that choose not to be insured.  Could it possibly be that these people can't afford it!  How in the world is someone supposed to pay $500.00 to $700.00 a month for insurance if they make $10.00 an hour or worse minimum wage.  So I guess by definition they are choosing not to be insured, but is it really a choice or a matter of survival?


----------



## rjwolfe3 (Jul 28, 2009)

> I keep hearing about the millions of people who do not have health care by choice. Mostly young folks that choose not to be insured. Could it possibly be that these people can't afford it! How in the world is someone supposed to pay $500.00 to $700.00 a month for insurance if they make $10.00 an hour or worse minimum wage. So I guess by definition they are choosing not to be insured, but is it really a choice or a matter of survival?



They can afford to pay it. Ever job I have had since I was 16 I have had health insurance by choice. It was available and I took it. Most of those jobs were minimum wage and back then I was lucky to get $4 something an hour. Was I forced to have that insurance, nope. I could have opted out. So yes everyone has a choice. Not everyone pays for it but they still have a choice.


----------



## Russianwolf (Jul 28, 2009)

workinforwood said:


> Oh, actually, I'm sorry Ian but that is completely false information.  Pretty sure page 331 in the bill is what you need to read.  If your company wishes to maintain it's current health plan, that is acceptable.  All companies that wish to maintain their current health plan WILL BE AUDITED.  Says so right there.  Any new employee can not be added to the existing health plan.  If you leave your company and join a new company that has private insurance, you can not join their private plan.  You must join the government plan.  Therefore, eventually, all citizens must be on the government plan.  This is because over time, with job switches, there will not be enough private plans in existance for the insurance companies to stay afloat.  There will come a breaking point where they will fold.   I know the President said that if you have a plan, you can keep the plan.  Maybe he meant it or maybe he means you can keep it for now as to help the transition to 100% social medicine take place.  If he meant it, he hasn't read the bill, which is 1000's of pages of very strange things.  The most disturbing being the mandatory death counciling of senior citizens. Every 5 yrs the government will come to your house and tell you how you should kill yourself for the good of the country...how patriotic.    I think that part is around page 1002.
> I wish I was making this up.



Okay, I did some digging, here is the section of the ACTUAL LEGISLATION that disputes this. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c111:1:./temp/~c1110snZej:e176424:

What it says in short is that the employer can do one of two things. Offer insurance or not. and that if they do they MUST automatically enroll any new employee unless they Opt-out of the plan. If they Opt out for any reason other than coverage under another persons plan as a dependent, then the employer pays to the government fund. And the Audit everyone is speaking of is a compliance audit, as I mentioned in my earlier post.

Please Guys, read the legislation for yourselves and stop depending on the fearmongering and bad translations of others (including mine ).


----------



## Paul in OKC (Jul 28, 2009)

The politicians should be in the same health plan, and the same retirement as the rest of us.................you think it might be a bit different?


----------



## igran7 (Jul 28, 2009)

rjwolfe3 said:


> They can afford to pay it. Ever job I have had since I was 16 I have had health insurance by choice. It was available and I took it. Most of those jobs were minimum wage and back then I was lucky to get $4 something an hour. Was I forced to have that insurance, nope. I could have opted out. So yes everyone has a choice. Not everyone pays for it but they still have a choice.



Rob times have changed a bit since you & I were 16.  Premiums have gone up quite a bit since then.  I personally know of at least three young family members who earn between $10.00 & $12.00 an hour with insurance premiums ranging between $300.00 to $600.00 a month plus deductable.  If someone earns $1600.00 a month before taxes with $300.00 taken off the top for insurance and another 30% to 35% paid in taxes.  His/her bring home pay is roughly $900.00 a month.  I'm sorry but in my area you can get a two bedroom apt. for roughly $800.00 a month if your lucky.  The person still needs to eat, have car insurance, elec.  etc...etc...etc.  Granted even without the $300.00 insurance premium he is struggling and he has a roommate.  Unfortunately not everything fits neatly in a box, i suspect the majority of the un-insured are not un-insured by choice, they simply can't afford it.

Luckily I have insurance and I'm very grateful for it.  If given the option I would probably maintain my current insurance, but there are some not as fortunate as I.  

I don't have the answer, nor do I pretend to.  I am thankful for open dialoge like this so I may better understand all points of view.  Maybe a govt. run health care plan is not the answer, there have been some very good points made here.  I just feel something needs to be done and not necessarily for me, but for my son and his generation.


----------



## jasonbowman (Jul 28, 2009)

I would suggest the real issue here is whether we the people wish to keep the America our forefathers created or if we wish to turn socialist (we've been heading down this road as fast as we can for the past 60-70 years).  Is healthcare a "RIGHT" as one of my state's elected officials took the microphone and indicated (John Lewis in Atlanta)?  If so, WHERE is that right.  Last I checked our government is constrained by its creation document(s).  Nowhere in the constitution is a "RIGHT" to healthcare.  Many will bastardize, distort and otherwise make stuff up to find it but it ain't there.  And for those who feel the government will not be taking over the health insurance industry, name me one major government program that has stayed the same size or decreased.

Mike, I do not know your wife's story but am sorry for your plight.  However, if you think letting the government run this will help, you are sadly mistaken.  One of my partners at work (who is also my second family) is a retired regional inspector general for HHS.  He has followed every single porion of this bill in total fright.  If this passes, it will be the beginning of the end of our country as we know it.  The leviathon will continue to feed.

Everyone wants to blame insurance companies executive pay or med mal lawyers for the high cost of medical services but the simple truth is medicare sets its rates based on the private market by taking the private market and paying a percentage thereof.  Private insurance then takes medicare's rates to negotiate the "in network" "reasonable" fees.  The $11,000 billed surgery to insurance is actually written down substantially in the private insurance realm. Therefore, to make any money, the straight non-insured non-medicare rates have to be astronomical or the docs will end up making $15 an hour.  There are those who believe they aren't better than anyone else and shouldn't make more than $15 an hour but I rarely see 10 years of post high school education and $100k+ student loans being compensated as such.  We are a capitalist society.  We encourage by rewarding.  I would not go to college, med school and residency incurring $100k+ in student loans and pulling 18-20 hour days to make $15/hr.

So the question is do we stick to our country or create a new one?


----------



## rjwolfe3 (Jul 28, 2009)

> insurance premiums ranging between $300.00 to $600.00 a month plus deductable



If I had to pay that much for health insurance I would start looking for a new job. I have worked for many different companies and I can't ever remembering paying more then $100 a paycheck and that was for a family plan with dependents. Maybe I am just lucky or I live in a state where that is not allowed, I don't know. I could understand people not wanting to pay $600 a paycheck for insurance but the basic truth is they still have a choice to pay or not. If the government steps in, I personally believe that eventually we will lose that choice.


----------



## leehljp (Jul 28, 2009)

I live in Japan (as if you didn't know) and have some experiences that may and may not be relevant. 

First thing I want to note is - in this long thread there are *two themes* going on at times. 
1. Medicine 
2. Doctor health care.
To me: National health plans tend to favor Medicine, But Personal health plans tend favor the Treatment Experience.

*One major disadvantage of current medical state in the US: Medicine costs.*
This medicinal cost in the US should NOT be equated with Health care as in Doctor care. There is an advantage to cheaper but quality medicines under socialized medicines, but there are distinct disadvantages to the (socialized) medical (doctor) care.


First of all, I am not on Japan's national health insurance plan. I pay and get re-imbursed. Doctors here will basically treat me better than many nationals (Japanese) get treated. I get far more choice than nationals because I pay. Japanese that "pay" get the choice also. Those that use the full national plan do not get as much choice. From my experience in talking with middle and lower middle class Japanese, these people do NOT get to challenge the doctor on an issue, ask for a second opinion or get a choice in doctors.


*Major disadvantage of Socialized Medical service* (in Japan):
Many many dental plans here do not cover (or the dentists do not provide) for pain killers for tooth fillings - and often even during root canals. If the complaints are too much the doctors will stop and leave the hole unfilled. I have personally seen this happen - which in the US would have resulted in a law suit for sure. You don't challenge a doctor here. In talking with Internationals from socialized medicine countries (Germany, France, specifically) the same is basically true there also.

Two of my co-workers broke their arms and had to have metal screws and braces holding the bones in place during healing. Adjustments and removal of said screws were done without pain killing medicines of any kind. This was their doctor's way. Tears and LOUD moans are common! You don't challenge the doctor's choice! (But My wife and I do,  or we go to another doctor, which most nationals can't!)

Numerous newspaper articles over the years report how "Doctor choice" and "hospital choice" is much better for the patient than the national plan provides. If your local hospital is famous for internal medicine and you need heart surgery, you will be treated by internal medicine 9 times out of 10. It the hospital is famous for its heart surgery staff and you need a medicinal treatments for your heart, you will probably get surgery. 

I can't tell you the number of times per year that we read of a person dying as they are picked up by an ambulance and refused by hospital after hospital here. This happens in the US on occasion, but the outrage is enough that changes come about. But the outrage by people here does not change the system.

Under national health plans, law suits are all but gone when the doctor doesn't use pain killers, does the wrong thing, or refuses to take you in emergencies. There are lots of "outs" for not treating even in emergency situations. On paper and in national laws, these exclusions don't exist, but in reality, they do. Suing for malpractice is very difficult under national health plans because the system is built to protect the plan - and doctors are part of the plan. 

Here, if you pay, you get choice. If you don't pay, the results is often worse than not going at all - becoming a crapshoot at best, as we used to say in the south.

My opinion: 
For Medicines - it is MUCH cheaper outside the US.
For medical Treatment, if affordable, the overall Experience is MUCH better in the US - as it is now.

Socialized medicine here almost killed my wife 14 years ago even though we were paying. We had to fly back to the States (Emory Medical, Atlanta) for emergency surgery when LOML was well enough to be moved by wheel chair to the plane. One young doctor at the hospital here - who graduated from a respected California medical school - told us the system does not favor the individual but the promotion and protection of the health system. Go to the US for the correct medical care he told us.
Socialized dental here had the dentist remove a filling (that he thought the tooth was abscessed) in my 6 year old daughter without medicine. Then the dentist said he was mistaken, it was not abscessed. Since she would loose the tooth when she became 9 or 10, so there was no need to put a filling back in. We traveled to a US dentist in Tokyo (from Osaka) for correction. For me, I could stand the pain, but not for my family.


----------



## MarkHix (Jul 28, 2009)

The Twitter post said:  "Pg 30 Sec 123 of HC bill - THERE WILL BE A GOVT COMMITTEE that decides what treatments and benefits you get"

The bill actually says in Section 123 that an exchange plan has to meet certain minimum requirements and they will be on several levels.  

The exchange plan is what you would have instead of the plan thru your job or other private insurance.  It was already said a couple of times, you need to read it for yourself to see what it really says.  

When I finish reading it, it will be time to write my congressmen.  They haven't heard from me in a while.


----------



## bitshird (Jul 28, 2009)

My wife and my daughter both work for the same restaurant chain, My wife is a manager at one store and  daughter is just an employee at another location, My wife gets 48 to 50 hrs a week, and has insurance through her company, my daughter is supposed to get 40 hrs but has been getting 28 to 35 hrs since it's summer time and both of these places rely on schools and colleges for a majority of their business, she will be eligible for insurance after 90 days, she's been there two months, But my wife's insurance costs 166.00 a month and is a pretty standard Bluecross Blueshield thing. My daughter makes Minimum wage, How in the world will my daughter be able to afford insurance? her car insurance will go to 60.00 a month she's only 20, her rent will be 150.00 a month her soon to be live in boy friend (wimp) no job, no prospect either. He may qualify for food stamps, their utilities will cost them average of 120.00 a month, her fuel for her car will be about 30 or so a week, (she drives 28 miles each way)  so basics we are looking at 450 a month not counting what lover boy can pitch in. I haven't even thought about her food or clothing, add another 150 a month for that so we are up to 600.00 a month then add the 166.00 for her insurance if it's the same as her mothers, and she's going to need a second job just to survive.
So I can see why young people are not getting health insurance, same reason old people that have little or no retirement or Social Security eat cat food so they can afford medicines.
I hate to ever say anything nice about Wal-Mart but they have at least offered 4.00 prescriptions for many medicines and even ones that medicare doesn't cover they have a better price on, my alprazolam costs 34.00 at the pharmacy, Wal-Mart or Krogers I get it for 15.00.
 A very good friend and my wife's former business partner has had to sell his greenhouse, and a lot of their things to prepare for his wife's deteriorating Alzheimer's disease, the man is 74 years old, worked hard all his life and has had to give up his income, his Greenhouse to comply with some stupid part of getting long term care for his wife of 50 years. 
Fortunately I had well paying jobs and although not getting rich off my Social Security, I get considerably more than he does, mainly because I worked in California, Boston, and Texas, until I moved here, all were good paying areas, this poor guy was making 1.25 an hour as recently as the mid 1970s If this is going to be mandated as it's supposed to be I pray to (insert deity's name here) I hope there is some degree of equality,


----------



## Douglas Feehan (Jul 28, 2009)

If this bill is so great why are the politicians exempt from this health plan?


----------



## erbymcbrayer (Jul 28, 2009)

This is only the tip of the ice burg. Get ready for disaster.


----------



## BigShed (Jul 28, 2009)

As a "foreigner" I hope I may allowed to add a different perspective to this debate.

This debate reminds me very much of what we went through here in Australia in the 70's when a Labor government introduced universal health care/insurance, up to that point we had to have private health insurance.

The Medicare scheme (or Medibank as it was known at the time) introduced a levy on your salary, currently 1.5% of your taxable income, and through this every citizen was covered for health care in a public hospital. 

So if you don't pay tax, as a lot of pensioners and low income earners don't, you don'y pay the levy but are still covered.

You could still still take out, or keep your existing, private health insurance over and above the basic government provided services which would cover your private hospital, dental and other ancilliary medical services (eg physiotherapy).

Over the years, more and more people dropped out of private health insurance, putting more pressure on public hospitals. To alleviate this, the government (a Liberal government, or what you guys would call Republican), introduced a 30% subsidy if you chose to have private health insurance in the form of a reduction of you tax. This was followed with a Medicare surcharge for high income earners, to force them to take out private health insurance, in general the surcharge would cost them as much or more than the private health insurance.

In general the whole thing works reasonably well and most of the early detractors have had to admit that most people, particularly middle and low income earners, are better off.

I am not of a left leaning disposition, never have been and never will be, but I do believe that certain services should be there to cover everyone. Health is one of those services, education is another.

Just relate this new health initiative to schools, would all the people that oppose universal health cover want all education to be private? I am not sure how all your schools are funded, but I'm sure that most funding would come either directly or indirectly from one level of government or another.

No one would seriously suggest that education should be left entirely to private initiatives, nor should health services.


----------



## jkeithrussell (Jul 28, 2009)

jimbob91577 said:


> hewunch said:
> 
> 
> > The bigger question is what is the purpose of government?
> ...


----------



## dfurlano (Jul 28, 2009)

Didn't read all the posts so this may be redundant.  

The health care system in the US is not very good and in fact we rank number one in spending but mostly it is average to less then average to the rest of the first world countries.  

I wasn't slandering anyone right wing I was making the point if you really want people to make their own decisions then give them information and not ideology.

Health care is important but I do not believe that finding the best solution is either in the politicians, media or industries interest.  Their interest is purely self interest and not public interest.

I encourage people to be interested in health care and I can only hope it does get better.  But I also encourage people to search out infomration and do not let it get pushed to you.

I believe this to be an interesting source of information but it is only one source and other sources should be considered. 

http://www.consumerreports.org/health/home.htm

http://blogs.consumerreports.org/he...omic-cooperation-and-development-data-he.html

Dan


----------



## maxwell_smart007 (Jul 28, 2009)

Well, since Jeff gave it the OK, I'll toss my two cents in here too...

Each person in a given society will likely have a different opinion based on his or her experience.  I, personally, have had excellent medical care thus far.  

As one of the Canadians on this board, I come from a country that has already socialized medicine.  I don't see the need for fear toward the idea of socialized medicine, as long as it's done right.  As Hank showed, there is certainly a flip side to the coin - some systems definitely do not do it right! 

Canadians, for the most part, are very proud of our system.  Now one must always remember that not everyone will be pleased 100 percent of the time.  There are certainly disadvantages - I cannot jump the line, so having extra money does not help me jump ahead of someone less fortunate than me who needs the same treatment...not sure this is a bad thing...

Consequently, some Canadians tend to go South and pay for treatment if they want faster service.  Those are the few cases that you hear about.  I have never had to wait to see a specialist, and I can get in to see my family doctor the same day if I call early enough in the morning.  

Every Canadian, regardless of income, job, or lack thereof, has the right to treatment at any hospital.  You cannot be denied care because you don't have an insurance card...the only insurance you need is for services like chiropractic, pharmacy, or other tertiary services. 

So the advantages are: 
1. universal coverage - every person has the right and ability to see a doctor whenever it's needed
2. quality service - Canadians are at least as healthy as our neighbours to the south
3. competent doctors
4. no need to pay high insurance premiums
5. no payment for most hospital procedures (things like liposuction, etc. are not covered, I don't think, unless medically necessary)

disadvantages:
1. cost - we pay much higher taxes
2. wait times are higher - significantly higher in some cases

Now in Canada, if you're not happy with a doctor's opinion, you can go get another one...but you cannot really tell him what to do.  If you want a knee operation, he or she will probably give you one if it's a legitimate complaint/need, but you cannot just tell him to give you one because you're paying for it...not the case!  

In short, our system has it's flaws and advantages.  I personally think that the advantages outweigh the flaws tremendously.  I don't mind paying higher taxes if it means that it'll keep more people alive and healthy.  

Each country is different, however, so the US will have to decide on its own.  I certainly don't think socialized medicine is something to fear, however...


----------



## leehljp (Jul 29, 2009)

maxwell_smart007 said:


> 1. universal coverage - every person has the right and ability to see a doctor whenever it's needed
> 
> disadvantages:
> 2. wait times are higher - significantly higher in some cases



Andrew, 
Your post is appreciated. I would like some clarification on the two statements above, if you have time. I have heard that before from several people and even saw it mentioned on TV news, but it was never explained clearly and I hate trying to read between the lines for the meaning.
What is the "wait time" concerning - if you get to see a doctor whenever it is  needed?
See a specialist? Get surgery? Medical testing? 


On my post, Paying and changing doctors or hospitals doesn't mean that they will do what we ask, it means that they consult us and offer us options that is often the doctor's decision under the national plan - as in Dental: Do you want a local spray/wipe anesthetic or a shot, or none? Orthopedic: Do you want cortisone shots, injections or surgery? Options are explained.


----------



## John M (Jul 29, 2009)

I just dont like the fact that it sais everyone is covered, legal or not.  That bothers me on so many levels.  It is one thing that I have to pay for dead beats and what not, but to pay for illegals is just down right stupid.  Now I know my solution for this will never happen, that is the thing that bothers me most.  Alot of that stuff is over my head, but I get that part and think it sucks.


----------



## oops99 (Jul 29, 2009)

To me, this should be a message as to where our leaders are taking us.

"Pg 170 Lines 1-3 HC Bill Any NONRESIDENT Alien is exempt from individual
taxes. (Americans will pay)"

How much do we have to go in debt before the government realizes that we need help here first, instead of making sure the rest of the world is comfortable?
When I heard the other day that we were giving Palestine $200 million to fix their economy, it made me want to throw up.

Tom/oops99


----------



## ed4copies (Jul 29, 2009)

At 1 AM, I am not going to opine.

EXCEPT to say "THANKS IAP members!!!"

Your level of discourse is exemplary!!!


----------



## Gary Max (Jul 29, 2009)

John the folks that are not "illegals and deadbeats" are already covered---it's the small guy/gal who is working that has to do without.
Those folks are on every hand out line in the country and most wouldn't work if you gave them a good job-----why should they----?????
But this becomes a whole new tread and we don't want to go there.


----------



## igran7 (Jul 29, 2009)

I want to thank snowman56 for bringing up this topic.  It is a very important issue with long lasting consequences regardless of the final bill or non-bill thats passed.  These are issues that will effect all of us at some time in our lives.  It is great to be able to obtain info/others viewpoints in a positive safe environment.  Well done IAP, thank you.


----------



## John M (Jul 29, 2009)

I know they are covered now, but just wish that if they are going to redo the whole system, they should make it fair to the tax payer, and then.........man, for a second there I was dreaming, must be time to go to bed.


----------



## OKLAHOMAN (Jul 29, 2009)

Same reason that their exempt from SS, they've got much better coverage the greedy SOB's. Why would they want Social Security or universal health for them selfs when they have their own plan that WE pay for that pays them their salary plus cost of living adjustments and their health and meds are free.
You want to fix Social Security and health care ? If congress had to rely on SS and the same health care we do both would be fixed in one session of congress. 



Douglas Feehan said:


> If this bill is so great why are the politicians exempt from this health plan?


----------



## bitshird (Jul 29, 2009)

OKLAHOMAN said:


> Same reason that their exempt from SS, they've got much better coverage the greedy SOB's. Why would they want Social Security or universal health for them selfs when they have their own plan that WE pay for that pays them their salary plus cost of living adjustments and their health and meds are free.
> You want to fix Social Security and health care ? If congress had to rely on SS and the same health care we do both would be fixed in one session of congress.



Roy, it's too bad we would never get a chance to vote on a proposal like that


----------



## jleiwig (Jul 29, 2009)

Ok...I'm going to provide facts for you all, since some have been diving into non-factual speak again

Fact #1.

Illegals cannot get Medicare or Medicaid period...end of sentence. Immigrants can get medicare or medicaid after showing they have worked for 40 quarters and paid taxes and social security on those 40 quarters, however these people are not "illegals" since they have a SSN and pay taxes, so that's a moot point. I can provide links to the specific laws if you still don't believe me.  If I were to offer medicaid to an alien I would be committing fraud.

Fact #2. 
This is not socialized medicine! This is an *OPTION* that people will have.  Seems some people cannot tell the difference between the two. 

Fact #3.
Again..I reiterate that this is just a version of the bill submitted to the house for a vote.  It is not the senates plan, it is not the final combined subcommittee version that will be submitted to the president for his signature. 


Here is an interesting little aside that you may want to consider as well.  Currently in Ohio, Anyone receiving Medicaid is placed in an HMO.  Caresources is the primary HMO here, but lately there have been other new comers to the game.  Every time the state Medicaid benefit has been cut, the HMO has not cut services simply because they do a better job of managing Medicaid than the government ever could.  Their costs are about 36X lower than what it costs the state to administer Medicaid.

The difference between this HMO and a regular HMO?  They are Non-Profit.


----------



## ironman (Jul 29, 2009)

*gov*

i just think the price of health care needs to go down i also dont think the government should keep putting there hands in everyones pockets and trying to run everything just look how stupid they are already they jack up anything they try to do except for taking my money


----------



## wudnhed (Jul 29, 2009)

OKLAHOMAN said:


> Same reason that their exempt from SS, they've got much better coverage the greedy SOB's. Why would they want Social Security or universal health for themselves when they have their own plan that WE pay for that pays them their salary plus cost of living adjustments and their health and meds are free.
> You want to fix Social Security and health care ? If congress had to rely on SS and the same health care we do both would be fixed in one session of congress.



That would be a dream come true..........

Maybe a group as big as ours should designate a day and time and all of us email our Reps and complain.  All across the country we could have an electronic revolution.  The older I get, the more I dislike politicians, sorry, JMHO!


----------



## jkeithrussell (Jul 29, 2009)

oops99 said:


> To me, this should be a message as to where our leaders are taking us.
> 
> "Pg 170 Lines 1-3 HC Bill Any NONRESIDENT Alien is exempt from individual
> taxes. (Americans will pay)"
> ...


 
$200 million wouldn't pay for a single day of the proposed health care program. 1.75 Trillion over 10 years is roughly 14.5 Billion per month, which is roughly 400 Million per day, which is roughly 15 million per hour. And all of that assumes that the program actually costs what it is planned to cost, which has never happened with any government program. It certainly does not count the cost of adding to the coverage all of those who choose to take the government freebie when their insurance company and/or employer go out of business. So, is it worth covering the 30-50 million uninsured at such a cost? Just to put it in a different perspective, that's more than twice the cost of the Iraq War (recent reports show Iraq war has cost about 700 Billion to date). And it is 100% debt spending -- on top of the other 1 trillion per year in debt spending which is going up each year, at least until our taxes are substantially increased. 

Again, it's not so much an issue of "do we want to insure everyone." It's an issue of whether the federal government needs to undertake such a massive, costly program and take over an entire industry to provide insurance to the less than 10% of our population who aren't already insured. According to the congressional budget office (two separate reports), the program is not going to do a single thing to reduce existing costs. So how is the price tag of this program in any way sensible or responsible?


----------



## Russianwolf (Jul 29, 2009)

oops99 said:


> To me, this should be a message as to where our leaders are taking us.
> 
> "Pg 170 Lines 1-3 HC Bill Any NONRESIDENT Alien is exempt from individual
> taxes. (Americans will pay)"
> ...


The line you are wuoting is angain being completely taken out of context, which seems to be par for the course for this author.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c111:1:./temp/~c111oyCjOD:e176486:

About 2/3rds of the way down the page. This tax they are speaking of is the 2.5% tax on people who do not have insurance acceptable under this legislation. NOT federal income taxes. Non-resident aliens are still required to pay income tax on all earns made in the US and certain other income.

The healthcare card they are planning to issue to people on this would likely point out to hospitals that this person needs to pay for services directly,  or have other insurance, since a non-resident alien wouldn't have one of these cards. (My guess)


----------



## maxwell_smart007 (Jul 29, 2009)

leehljp said:


> Andrew,
> Your post is appreciated. I would like some clarification on the two statements above, if you have time. I have heard that before from several people and even saw it mentioned on TV news, but it was never explained clearly and I hate trying to read between the lines for the meaning.
> What is the "wait time" concerning - if you get to see a doctor whenever it is  needed?
> See a specialist? Get surgery? Medical testing?



I honestly don't know, Hank, because Iv'e never had to deal with it.  If I want to see a specialist, I can usually get in within a month...if I want to see a doctor, I can get in the same day...

If my local hospital can handle the surgery, they can schedule it very quickly.  If, however, I have to go in for a heart operation, it can take up to a month (my dad was on the wait list for a month for a non-critical heart stint operation)...after seeing a cardiologist the next day after the doctor referred him 

The doctors and specialists do a TRIAGE system, in which they see the most critical cases first - you won't get denied care, but they see those more pressing cases first.  If that means that one out of a million dies later on because they weren't seen fast enough, I think that's just the result of everyone having access to care, and the most pressing cases being seen first).  

So in all honesty, I think the 'wait time' debate is just the naysayers who don't like the system...it works wonderfully for me and I don't know a single person personally who's ever been adversely affected by 'wait time'...like I said, it's a Triage system, so it's all based on urgency of need...


----------



## jnelson (Jul 29, 2009)

*My thoughts*

Having worked in healthcare for the last 22 years, here are my suggestions on what needs to happen.  I know that no system will ever be perfect in this world, but here are some thoughts from the trenches:



Tort reform - we desperately need to get a grip in America on frivolous lawsuits that drive up costs for both physicians and hospitals.  Think in terms of pen making/selling in our current economic condition:  If we can decrease overhead for the "production team" (think doctors and hospitals), then we can decrease the prices for the consumer.  I know that there will be cases of "lower overhead increase profits", but it will be a start.
Restructure the FDA - companies can get drugs and technology to market quicker in other countries.  Why does the FDA delay life-saving measures for us?  I know that we need to make sure that the drugs an technology are safe, but we needs FDA reform.
SIGs/PACs/Lobbyists - embedded shock collars for ALL of them that can be controlled by the voters.  Either this or run them all out of Washington.
Congressional term limits - this does not just apply to healthcare, but all government aspects.  As we have seen, Congress rarely reads all of the bills presented, but rely on others to let them know what is going on.
Line-item veto - this one scare me, due to abuse potential, but we need to do something about the pork barrel that drives up the cost for all taxpayers.  Again, not just about the current healthcare bill, but there will be much pork involved.
Again, these are just my thoughts, but this is how I see it.

Brad


----------



## jeff (Jul 29, 2009)

OK, now we've gone off track. Lobbyists, Congressional term limits, Line-item veto, while related to health care have pushed us into a clearly political discussion.


----------

