# Healthcare- What happens next?



## Melissa (Apr 15, 2002)

Not to argue about this at all, but now that the supreme court has upheld the healthcare law, what happens next? In as purely a factual way as possible please!!!


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Look at Massachusetts and the Romneycare. Obamacare is pretty much duplicate only national. There are some benefits. Kids allowed to stay on parents policies through mid 20s. Pre-existing conditions doesnt prevent getting insurance. That sort of thing. Alas lowering or stabilizing health care costs is not one of them. You get momentary stabilization since you are bring lot new premium dollars into the system. But prices have continued to zoom in Massechusetts and they will continue to zoom nationwide. 

The only answer is to get greed out of the system, but politically that just isnt going to happen. Too many lobbyists. Too many rich getting richer off the current privatized system. Wealthy gotta lap the cream off the top before anybody else gets any milk. Probably a miracle the changes that did get passed... All that happened is more people are forced into the current broken privatized system.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

Melissa... there are so many provisions in the law, but here are some of the major points upcoming:

The provisions already implemented will stand. Those include keeping children on parents' health insurance plans until age 26 and coverage for all minor children. It also closes the doughnut hole for prescription drug coverage for seniors. Those provisions are no longer at risk.

No co-pays for preventive care.

If you participate in a Health Flexible Spending Account (NOT the same thing as a Health Savings Account), you will be limited to an annual election of $2,500.

In 2014, health insurance companies are required to cover all adult Americans as well as children without regard to preexisting conditions. There will no longer be insurance "caps" imposed by health insurance companies where coverage stops after a certain monetary limit has been exceeded. Health insurance companies will be held to 20% profit/administrative costs of premiums charged (I personally think this is a biggie).

For individuals, it means you can be penalized for not carrying health care coverage. It does not mandate that individuals carry coverage, only that you can be penalized for not carrying that coverage. You cannot be jailed and it is not a criminal act if you don't comply. If you cannot afford coverage, you may be eligible for subsidies to offset your costs.

Each state will create community standards for coverage and implementation.

Companies with more than 50 full-time employees will be required to offer health insurance or face fines.

It's a huge overhaul and there will be many bumps and changes along the way. We'll have to see how it all unfolds.


----------



## Guest (Jun 28, 2012)

National health care was a big mess BEFORE Obamacare.

And it will remain a big mess AFTER as well.

Help or do not help if the government is involved they will screw it up.


----------



## Melissa (Apr 15, 2002)

I think the government is already deeply involved in healthcare- whether this was passed or not...


----------



## Karen (Apr 17, 2002)

In our case, it means we will be able to FINALLY get health insurance for our minor son. He can't qualify under the FAMIS program in our state. We're on medicare so we can't cover him under our policy, and no insurance company in our state has insurance policies for a minor child without their parents also being insured on the policy with them for under $1,500 a month.


----------



## Guest (Jun 28, 2012)

As I said, it was a big mess before as well.

The government continues to try to be all things to all people and that is patently impossible.


----------



## Melissa (Apr 15, 2002)

Will you have to wait until 2014 Karen for that coverage?


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

When the healthcare laws changed in Canada (introduction of Universal Healthcare) there was the same sort of upheaval and fear. Doctors swore they would be put out of business and many said they would leave. Patients were terrified that everything would skyrocket in cost, their taxes would go up and that they would lose their doctor. The reality was that no one went out of business, left the country, lost their doctor or paid anything more for healthcare through their taxes - in fact with everyone kicking in the cost went down. No one noticed much of a change and in a couple years the new system was ticking along - not perfectly but then again it sure wasn't perfect before when 40% of the population had no healthcare.


----------



## Common Tator (Feb 19, 2008)

Obama just gave a speech and told us not to revisit the past. he knows how unpopular this is. He doesn't want us talking about it. I actually think that this will determine the outcome of the upcoming election.


----------



## Melissa (Apr 15, 2002)

Well my question is about the future- so I think we are in the clear to talk about that. For now... lol


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

It also means a LOT of my self-employed (ie, farmers and ranchers) friends will be able to afford health coverage! 
For the last few years, it's been a luxury reserved for only the well-to-do and the employed-with-benefits.


----------



## Guest (Jun 28, 2012)

I read that if your income is less than $88,000 a year for a family of 4 you will be mandated to enroll for medicaid????


----------



## Common Tator (Feb 19, 2008)

emdeengee said:


> When the healthcare laws changed in Canada (introduction of Universal Healthcare) there was the same sort of upheaval and fear. Doctors swore they would be put out of business and many said they would leave. Patients were terrified that everything would skyrocket in cost, their taxes would go up and that they would lose their doctor. The reality was that no one went out of business, left the country, lost their doctor or paid anything more for healthcare through their taxes - in fact with everyone kicking in the cost went down. No one noticed much of a change and in a couple years the new system was ticking along - not perfectly but then again it sure wasn't perfect before when 40% of the population had no healthcare.


Canadians are poorly served by their disastrous healthcare system, and there are hospitals in the US that are set up along the northern border to cater to Canadians who can't get healthcare in Canada.


----------



## Melissa (Apr 15, 2002)

I am hopeful for the self-employed Erin. I hope the prices are fair and affordable and provide decent coverage. I don't think anyone should have completely free care, but I wish everyone had some coverage and it would not be so expensive. 

I know Cale would just love to be self-employed and do construction work for people. It is really needed around here, but you just can't charge enough to pay the bills, the taxes, and buy tools etc... along with a huge amount for health insurance. I am very frugal and have run the numbers every which way and it just doesn't work. So he is working for a big company just to have health insurance. He does it without complaint, but I know he would rather be building something!


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

mythreesons said:


> I read that if your income is less than $88,000 a year for a family of 4 you will be mandated to enroll for medicaid????



WHERE did you read that?? 
(BTW, this is what drives me bananas about this whole discussion. So many people don't really understand what is actually IN the new law. The administration and the Democrats have allowed fear-mongering and ignorance to take control of this discussion and facts have taken a definitive back seat...)



Melissa said:


> I don't think anyone should have completely free care


Ironically, despite the histrionic talking points that have been put out there, there will be no more people who get "free care" than there currently are. Medicaid/Medicare will stay basically the same as they've always been. 
It closes the gap between people who can afford their own premiums (and don't have pre-existings to preclude them _entirely_ from coverage) and people who can't, but are still earning entirely too much to qualify for Medicaid/Medicare. (Which is a lot of people, btw). The "piddle class," as a friend of mine has always called it. Not well-off enough to be middle class, but earning enough not to be poor, either. 
Premiums will be subsidized on a sliding scale, making them more affordable for everyone. And frankly, if we can subsidize everything from the American farmer to corporate tax breaks, to municipal transportation, I don't see where healthcare for working Americans should be any more "socialism" than any of the rest...


----------



## Melissa (Apr 15, 2002)

I am on a facebook board for people with apl- leukemia and there are many people from Cananada and England who post. They love their healthcare system, said it was great not to have to worry about the money/insurance part. Their treatment was actually the more advanced over what I received. I would have rather had what they had, but at the time it was not the standard of care here, it was a trial there. My doctor said it is really hard to get a trial here in the United States, so most of the new research comes from European countries...


----------



## Zilli (Apr 1, 2012)

Common Tator said:


> Canadians are poorly served by their disastrous healthcare system, and there are hospitals in the US that are set up along the northern border to cater to Canadians who can't get healthcare in Canada.


Funny......the only comments I've ever heard or read that say the Canadian health care system is "disastrous" come from people who don't even live in Canada.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

Melissa said:


> I am on a facebook board for people with apl- leukemia and there are many people from Cananada and England who post. They love their healthcare system, said it was great not to have to worry about the money/insurance part. Their treatment was actually the more advanced over what I received. I would have rather had what they had, but at the time it was not the standard of care here, it was a trial there. My doctor said it is really hard to get a trial here in the United States, so most of the new research comes from European countries...


You find the exact same opinions and experiences on Crohn's and celiac disease boards. 
We Americans tend to be pitied... Even those fortunate enough to have insurance coverage.


----------



## SFM in KY (May 11, 2002)

Melissa said:


> I am on a facebook board for people with apl- leukemia and there are many people from Cananada and England who post. They love their healthcare system, said it was great not to have to worry about the money/insurance part. Their treatment was actually the more advanced over what I received. [/QUOTE
> 
> Living in MT for many years I did have a number of friends who had Canadian family or friends and with very few exceptions, all of them were happy with the Canadian system. One person was unhappy at having to wait a year for a hip joint replacement ... a friend of mine in the U.S., on a limited income, working only part time and not yet eligible for Medicare, had to wait four years before she could get a knee replacement ... almost unable to walk without a cane.
> 
> ...


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

I am self-employed and I cried with relief this morning when I heard the ruling. 

I lost my excellent group health care coverage when my husband died -- or more accurately, 3 years after he died. The main reason he went to work for Home Depot was because of the health care benefits. He was from New Zealand/Australia, and he was utterly perplexed at our health care system. The idea that you had to pay shocking amounts out of your own pocket for health care if you were unemployed/self-employed just floored him. When he passed away, I was left with COBRA and I kept up with it, even though it was expensive. 

After I lost COBRA coverage, I tried to stay in the regular system. When my premium payments exceeded $700 a month for coverage I almost never use, I threw in the towel. I now carry catastrophic coverage only (deductible of $10,000) and contract with a local physicians' group on a month-to-month basis for local, non-emergency care.

People talk about how they don't want "The Government" mandating what care they can or cannot receive. They don't seem to understand that health insurance companies have been doing that for years -- and for no reason other than to make a profit. Any time a health insurance company told you something was not covered, you got told what care you could not receive.

I have quite a few friends in different single payer health care countries. I have spoken to them all extensively on this issue. Not one -- NOT A SINGLE ONE! -- considers the health care system in the USA to be superior to theirs. In fact, they think we're nuts.

I'll take my chances with Government, thanks.

Melissa, I hope this helps Cale (don't know if he's a husband, son or what, but he's obviously someone you care deeply about) to do what he dreams of doing.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Melissa said:


> I am on a facebook board for people with apl- leukemia and there are many people from Cananada and England who post. They love their healthcare system, said it was great not to have to worry about the money/insurance part. Their treatment was actually the more advanced over what I received. I would have rather had what they had, but at the time it was not the standard of care here, it was a trial there. My doctor said it is really hard to get a trial here in the United States, so most of the new research comes from European countries...


The ones that do complain have not lived here in the states and have had to pay the costs. They have no concept of what it costs here. A fellow employee had an outpatient operation yesterday. 4 hours at the hospital and a $25,000.00 bill.


----------



## Melissa (Apr 15, 2002)

Husband actually. He has been self-employed often over the years and we would have not insurance. He would work through the union when he could and we would then have insurance. It has been interesting to say the least!!!!


----------



## Common Tator (Feb 19, 2008)

ErinP said:


> It also means a LOT of my self-employed (ie, farmers and ranchers) friends will be able to afford health coverage!
> For the last few years, it's been a luxury reserved for only the well-to-do and the employed-with-benefits.


Actually, you can afford it now. You choose to spend your money on other things. Obama care changes all that by forcing you to spend your money on their desires rather than your needs, and they are hiring thousands of new IRS agents to enforce that. 

Party on!

IRS wants 4,000 new agents, $300 million budget to enforce Obamacare


----------



## Melissa (Apr 15, 2002)

lol, we would literally have to spend all we make (if self-employed) to pay for health insurance. When one has leukemia the price tends to be a little high... When we could get cobra it was going to be 1200 a month. In the winter months doing construction you are lucky to make 500-600 a month. In the summer you can maybe make a few thousand if everything goes really good, but you have to save a lot of that for winter because guraranteed you will make literally nothing in December (no one wants work done around Christmas) or January through March if the weather is bad. I have lived this life for 25 years, that is just the way it is in the construction field. I have often thought that all construction workers, farmers, and other self-employed seasonal workers should just quit and go work at Walmart to get insurance. Wonder if they would be more valued if they were all extinct???


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

Melissa said:


> I know Cale would just love to be self-employed and do construction work for people. It is really needed around here, but you just can't charge enough to pay the bills, the taxes, and buy tools etc... along with a huge amount for health insurance. I am very frugal and have run the numbers every which way and it just doesn't work. So he is working for a big company just to have health insurance. He does it without complaint, but I know he would rather be building something!


Melissa - I think you'll see many leaving the corp world if it works out. But he will still have to purchase insurance or pay the fine, and I'm not clear if you get health care coverage for that fine/penalty that will be paid or collected by the IRS.


----------



## Melissa (Apr 15, 2002)

If the exchanges work out the price is supposed to be affordable according to your income. By then he may be able to retire from the union and have insurance, we will have to see how that goes too.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

> by 2014 everyone will have to buy health insurance-or pay at least 1 percent of their income in a tax penalty, rising to 2.5 percent in 2016.


So its a 1% fine and say you make $50K a year - that means you'll pay $500 fine for a year with no health care - rising to $1250 in 2016.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Common Tator said:


> Canadians are poorly served by their disastrous healthcare system, and there are hospitals in the US that are set up along the northern border to cater to Canadians who can't get healthcare in Canada.


Americans are saying that - Canadians overwhelmingly like their healthcare.


----------



## Melissa (Apr 15, 2002)

I found this timeline:

Timeline of the Affordable Care Act | HealthCare.gov


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

Common Tator said:


> Actually, you can afford it now.


Well yes, _I_ can. My husband works in the oilfield in ND and that was one of the first things we splurged on; getting health insurance again! lol

But when you're looking at a ballpark of $800 a month for family coverage (which has fairly high deductibles and co-pays, btw), that's 1/3 of the monthly income for a family making $2400 month. Take out a bit here and there for other frivolous expenses like rent/mortgage, car payment, fuel to the job, food, etc. and health coverage quickly becomes a luxury...

So yeah, you're right. It's _all_ about choices. 
Should we feed the kids this month or should we buy insurance?


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Zilli said:


> Funny......the only comments I've ever heard or read that say the Canadian health care system is "disastrous" come from people who don't even live in Canada.


All I know is that when I lived in New Hampshire there were many of our Canadian neighbors coming to the states for medical care. If their system is so great, why do you suppose so many come to the states for care?


----------



## grandma12703 (Jan 13, 2011)

Common Tator said:


> Actually, you can afford it now. You choose to spend your money on other things. Obama care changes all that by forcing you to spend your money on their desires rather than your needs, and they are hiring thousands of new IRS agents to enforce that.
> 
> Party on!
> 
> IRS wants 4,000 new agents, $300 million budget to enforce Obamacare


That is pretty presumptuous I'd say. Maybe they need to eat and gas to get to work. 

I don't pretend to know a lot about Obamacare but I think if they subsidize and make it reasonable there would be a lot of folks benefit from it. Right now to cover a family is over $1,000.00 a month and that is with a pretty hefty deductible. In middle American that is a lot of people's paycheck or pretty close to it.


----------



## Melissa (Apr 15, 2002)

Exactly Erin.

Most people who have insurance through their job do not realize how expensive insurance can be.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

Melissa said:


> I have often thought that all construction workers, farmers, and other self-employed seasonal workers should just quit and go work at Walmart to get insurance. Wonder if they would be more valued if they were all extinct???


I've asked that same question many times during this on-going discussion... (However, I've never known a WalMart that offered benefits to anyone below management!)


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Melissa said:


> If the exchanges work out the price is supposed to be affordable according to your income. By then he may be able to retire from the union and have insurance, we will have to see how that goes too.


The key words are "supposed to be". It wasn't supposed to be a tax increase for the middle class, but we all know now that the supposed to be is vastly different from the reality.


----------



## Zilli (Apr 1, 2012)

Sonshine said:


> All I know is that when I lived in New Hampshire there were many of our Canadian neighbors coming to the states for medical care. If their system is so great, why do you suppose so many come to the states for care?


How many is "many?"

And were these people you knew personally and talked to? Or were they just random people you heard about from so-and-so who heard about them from so-and-so......and so on?

Honestly, I think if you took a poll of our Canadian members on this forum, while I am sure a few might express some unhappiness or have personal stories of dissatisfaction with their system, I believe the poll would show overwhelmingly that they are very happy with the quality of the health care.


----------



## Common Tator (Feb 19, 2008)

mnn2501 said:


> Americans are saying that - Canadians overwhelmingly like their healthcare.


Except for the Canadians who are put on waiting lists,for basic treatment, or dying while waiting.
_
"According to a new study by Canada's Fraser Institute, surgical waitlists are costing the nation about $1 billion each year in lost productivity. The average Canadian can now expect to wait 9.5 weeks for treatment with a medical specialist, this number up from 9.3 weeks last year."_How Long Do Canadians Wait for Healthcare? - The Daily Beast


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

Common Tator said:


> Canadians are poorly served by their disastrous healthcare system, and there are hospitals in the US that are set up along the northern border to cater to Canadians who can't get healthcare in Canada.


Nonsense. You are another who believes the propaganda. We have a great healthcare system. Canadians live longer and have better health than Americans. In fact when I was being treated for my cancer there were American patients on the same treatment. They had to come to Canada because their insurance company would not pay for an "experimental" treatment - that had been in use in Canada, Europe AND the USA - but not available through their insurance plan. They could pay cash in the US but at twice the cost of treatment in Canada. And that is a simple fact - healthcare in the US costs twice as much as in Canada because private means profit.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

Zilli said:


> Honestly, I think if you took a poll of our Canadian members on this forum, while I am sure a few might express some unhappiness or have personal stories of dissatisfaction with their system, I believe the poll would show overwhelmingly that they are very happy with the quality of the health care.


Actually, that's been done several times. 
I'm not sure there's _ever_ been a single member from the UK/Canada/Australia etc. who wanted to trade their system's for the US's... :shrug:


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Sonshine said:


> All I know is that when I lived in New Hampshire there were many of our Canadian neighbors coming to the states for medical care. If their system is so great, why do you suppose so many come to the states for care?


In any system you will have those people who think money should talk. They should get it better, faster and at be able to be first in line because they have the money to do so.

I personally have never agreed that just because you have more money you should be ahead of the line in regards to someones health.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Common Tator said:


> Except for the Canadians who are put on waiting lists,for basic treatment, or dying while waiting.
> _
> "According to a new study by Canada's Fraser Institute, surgical waitlists are costing the nation about $1 billion each year in lost productivity. The average Canadian can now expect to wait 9.5 weeks for treatment with a medical specialist, this number up from 9.3 weeks last year."_How Long Do Canadians Wait for Healthcare? - The Daily Beast


Anyone with a life threatening ailment gets immediate treatment. Just ask any of my relatives who have had cancer.


----------



## Melissa (Apr 15, 2002)

That is what my oncologists said also emdeengee. I am sure the system is not perfect, people are people and they might make mistakes, you might have to wait etc... but when you have no insurance at all, trust me, you wait or do without or put care off until you are really, really sick. It is a reality. I live in a county that has about 40% of all adults with no insurance. It is a big problem here. 

I read a survey that 91% of all Canadians are happy with their healthcare system. I doubt that half of Americans are...


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

Common Tator said:


> Except for the Canadians who are put on waiting lists,for basic treatment, or dying while waiting.
> _
> "According to a new study by Canada's Fraser Institute, surgical waitlists are costing the nation about $1 billion each year in lost productivity. The average Canadian can now expect to wait 9.5 weeks for treatment with a medical specialist, this number up from 9.3 weeks last year."_How Long Do Canadians Wait for Healthcare? - The Daily Beast


That is for elective surgery. Emergency and catastrophic illness are always treated right away and even with elective there is a triage system in place. If your condition is not serious why should you go ahead of someone who is serious? No one I know has ever had to wait more than a couple of days for a doctor's appointment and maximum a month for a specialist appointment. If you can't or don't want to wait you go to emergency at the hospital or to one of the clinics in your city - most of which are open late at night.


----------



## SFM in KY (May 11, 2002)

Sonshine said:


> All I know is that when I lived in New Hampshire there were many of our Canadian neighbors coming to the states for medical care. If their system is so great, why do you suppose so many come to the states for care?


I suspect you may have been seeing Canadians coming to the U.S. for procedures that were considered elective rather than necessary or were possibly available, but after a long wait.

I also suspect the majority of Canadians you were seeing were those that were in the higher income levels and had the ability to pay for American medical care for treatments.

I know Americans that do not have insurance and can not get ongoing maintenance medical care because they don't have health insurance and can't afford a private doctor so are unable to get the care they need.

I've never heard a Canadian resident say they were unable to get in to see a doctor and be treated for a chronic but non-life-threatening illness or condition.


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

Zilli said:


> How many is "many?"
> 
> And were these people you knew personally and talked to? Or were they just random people you heard about from so-and-so who heard about them from so-and-so......and so on?
> 
> Honestly, I think if you took a poll of our Canadian members on this forum, while I am sure a few might express some unhappiness or have personal stories of dissatisfaction with their system, I believe the poll would show overwhelmingly that they are very happy with the quality of the health care.


The truth is that Canadians are very happy with their Healthcare system. Proof? When a competition was held to vote for the greatest Canadian of all time Tommy Douglas, the politician who brought about Universal Healthcare, won hands down with a large majority. Greatest Canadian of all time. He beat out the Father of Confederation Sir John A. Macdonald. Further proof - it is always the top priority during an election.


----------



## Zilli (Apr 1, 2012)

emdeengee said:


> The truth is that Canadians are very happy with their Healthcare system. Proof? When a competition was held to vote for the greatest Canadian of all time Tommy Douglas, the politician who brought about Universal Healthcare, won hands down with a large majority. Greatest Canadian of all time. He beat out the Father of Confederation Sir John A. Macdonald. Further proof - it is always the top priority during an election.


I believe you.

I just find it odd that those who don't even live in your country keep insisting that your system is "disastrous" - when all of you who actually live with it love it.

Maybe they know something you don't? (Just kidding.)

I've always been quite envious of my neighbors to the north because they have been so far ahead of this country on a number of issues, and not just health care.


----------



## Ramblin Wreck (Jun 10, 2005)

First, I have health care, at least for now, and it doesn't appear to be threatened in the near term as far as I can tell. Second, I understand that government oftentimes does a poor job of running things, but I don't trust most corporations any more than I trust the government. But I have travelled in Europe and as far east as New Zealand, and their government run health care seems to work OK...and people don't do broke buying it. 

Sometimes its expectatations. My brother and I were near Sussex, New Brunswick a few years ago staying in a hunting lodge. One of the owners (the wife) had recently had gall bladder surgery. She explained the process/procedure she had to go through, and it infuriated my brother. Although diagnosed in Sussex, she had to que up for the surgery in a larger city (don't remember which one). It all went well, and although she had a little discomfort waiting her turn, she felt it was no biggie. My brother felt she should have had the surgery near home and immediately, but I tried to explain that it costs a lot of money to provide that level of service/care with that immediacy. I could not convince him.

Anyway, our underserved ole' Canadian neighbors have somehow figured out how to live over two years longer than us with that cut rate health care system of theirs. We're 38th in life span now, and practically every nation (maybe all of them) ahead of us has a national health care system. I think state based (or maybe even smaller regions) plans would be better than a national plan. The further away or bigger the governement, the harder it is to manage and keep tabs on.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

> One of the owners (the wife) had recently had gall bladder surgery. She explained the process/procedure she had to go through, and it infuriated my brother. Although diagnosed in Sussex, she had to que up for the surgery in a larger city (don't remember which one)


That's the way it works in the rural parts of the US. 
Friend of mine recently drove nearly 200 miles in order to have back surgery because that was the nearest city where she could have it done. :shrug:
When I had my gall bladder out, I had to drive 50 miles...


----------



## giraffe_baby (Oct 15, 2005)

OK, Ive been reading , and trying to calm my hubby who is irate!! (which I understand) but I need to know "HOW" this will work for my family!!

We are a family of 4 (one on SSI, due to disablity) I JUST recently got a job that FINALLY allows me to have insurance (again after 7 yrs with out) but its a LOW PAID STATE job (IE SCHOOL!!) and I cant afford to add my husband to my insurance ($350 extra a month, more than I make!). He is self employed carpenter that is laid off for 2 yrs now, and ran outta unemployment last year.... so basically we are living (barley) on my wages of $7 g! (and daughters SSI). HOW in the world does this effect us!? How can they charge us money for him to get insurance ( do i think its great he can get it, being he is VERY HIGH RISK blood pressure and insurance for him sky rockets... yes... ) I cant afford a $20 increase in a tv bill, so cancled that... we grow most our food/hunt and cut corners where ever we can!! 
I know its a bad thing due to gov't diggin in our pocket again.. but I also wish Someone could explain CALMLY to me how my lil (struggling) family will be effected.....

1. will Daughters (both on medicade, one thru SSI) not get care now? cuz Ky's medicade changed in Nov.. and now you cant get a dr already!! THEY WONT TAKE IT ANYMORE...so now will it even be worse!?
2. Will my insurance on myself ... rates go up?? as is its 1/4 of my pay!
3. Yes hubby could get insurance (if we can afford it) but how would we pay it or the tax!?
4. Is there a breakdown of income ratio for them taxes?? We make too much to get him on medicade (cuz they count daughters SSI!!) we cant get food stamps for same reason... How does that work.. make us poorer???


( yes he is looking for work, no there is NO construction in ky ... really!!! and what jobs are open are soooo competitive.. they even ask about blood pressure ect!!!)


----------



## Deacon Mike (May 23, 2007)

giraffe_baby said:


> OK, Ive been reading , and trying to calm my hubby who is irate!! (which I understand) but I need to know "HOW" this will work for my family!!
> 
> We are a family of 4 (one on SSI, due to disablity) I JUST recently got a job that FINALLY allows me to have insurance (again after 7 yrs with out) but its a LOW PAID STATE job (IE SCHOOL!!) and I cant afford to add my husband to my insurance ($350 extra a month, more than I make!). He is self employed carpenter that is laid off for 2 yrs now, and ran outta unemployment last year.... so basically we are living (barley) on my wages of $7 g! (and daughters SSI). HOW in the world does this effect us!? How can they charge us money for him to get insurance ( do i think its great he can get it, being he is VERY HIGH RISK blood pressure and insurance for him sky rockets... yes... ) I cant afford a $20 increase in a tv bill, so cancled that... we grow most our food/hunt and cut corners where ever we can!!
> I know its a bad thing due to gov't diggin in our pocket again.. but I also wish Someone could explain CALMLY to me how my lil (struggling) family will be effected.....
> ...


You'd likely be exempt from the mandate




> Require U.S. citizens and legal residents to have qualifying health coverage. Those without coverage pay a tax penalty of the greater of $695 per year up to a maximum of three times that amount ($2,085) per family or 2.5% of household income. The penalty will be phased-in according to the following schedule: $95 in 2014, $325 in 2015, and $695 in 2016 for the flat fee or 1.0% of taxable income in 2014, 2.0% of taxable income in 2015, and 2.5% of taxable income in 2016. Beginning after 2016, the penalty will be increased annually by the cost-of-living adjustment. *Exemptions will be granted for financial hardship, religious objections, American Indians, those without coverage for less than three months, undocumented immigrants, incarcerated individuals, those for whom the lowest cost plan option exceeds 8% of an individualâs income, and those with incomes below the tax filing threshold (in 2009 the threshold for taxpayers under age 65 was $9,350 for singles and $18,700 for couples).*


----------



## vicki in NW OH (May 10, 2002)

Anyone know what the penalty is for not having insurance and does it apply if one is in a medical "share" program. Do folks have to pay into an insurance company that covers objectionable procedures? What about those of us who use alternative treatments primarily because mainstream medical care failed us? Will we be forced into mainstream medicine even though it proved worthless in the past?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Try this calculator to figure out what it will cost you.

What does the Supreme Court's health-care ruling mean for me? - The Washington Post


----------



## Melissa (Apr 15, 2002)

The medical share programs are considered as insurance in this instance. 

giraffe_baby, I would say your entire family would be eligible for medicaid under the expanded program. Read the timeline I posted on the last page. It explains a lot.


----------



## Common Tator (Feb 19, 2008)

emdeengee said:


> Nonsense. You are another who believes the propaganda. We have a great healthcare system. Canadians live longer and have better health than Americans. In fact when I was being treated for my cancer there were American patients on the same treatment. They had to come to Canada because their insurance company would not pay for an "experimental" treatment - that had been in use in Canada, Europe AND the USA - but not available through their insurance plan. They could pay cash in the US but at twice the cost of treatment in Canada. And that is a simple fact - healthcare in the US costs twice as much as in Canada because private means profit.


You haven't seen fit to put your location in your profile. Are you in Canada? You say that Americans had to go to Canada for healthcare because their insurance wouldn't pay for it. I'm a little shocked. I thought you had to be a Canadian to benefit from the Canadian Healthcare system and pay into their system.

Melissa, you could have gone to Canada to be treated for your leukemia!

In fact, this piece of knowledge could have spared Americans from this whole painlful debate. We could simply have sent out uninsured to Canada for treatment, and sent a thank you card to the Canadian people for their generosity! Yipeeeeeee!

As for the Canadians who can't get treated at home, they flee to other paces where entire hospitals are set up to cater to them.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Karen said:


> In our case, it means we will be able to FINALLY get health insurance for our minor son. He can't qualify under the FAMIS program in our state. We're on medicare so we can't cover him under our policy, and no insurance company in our state has insurance policies for a minor child without their parents also being insured on the policy with them for under $1,500 a month.


As I understand it with Obamacare you will be facing criminal charges now unless you cough up the 1500 a month and buy insurance for your son. Nice deal!


----------



## giraffe_baby (Oct 15, 2005)

Yeah I read it... but my hubby's worry is our daughter who is disabled *Neurofibromatosis* ( gets tumors at any time, ANYWHERE in her body, rest of her life with no cure) and has to have CT scans/MRI's periodically) will she have to wait longer and cause issues... 
I know there is so much involved politically just worried about our family and health wise... 
Cuz recently Ky changed medicaid and i fought for 6 months to get my oldest daughter in for a IMPACTED eye tooth.. no one would accept the new medicaid.... 

And youngest with oral issues ( due to 8 surgeries in past) on her jaw now no longer is allowed to get the needed braces due to " standards" that they (medicaid) mandated... that doesnt take in effect that she has had many surgery on her jaw or that her jaw was cut in half ect.... this is what worries us the most....


----------



## Melissa (Apr 15, 2002)

Common Tator- You know, that was really exceptionally mean. 

I am happy that I was treated, but the system is not perfect by any means. Even my doctor who is a very kind and good man acknowledged that and I am sure felt bad about what I had to go through. I am not 100% convinced that this new plan is going to work, I am however open to people being able to have access. I believe that the loving and kind thing is to help people have health care in an affordable and reasonable manner that doesn't cause them to go bankrupt or have a huge amount of stress when they are extremely ill or hurting. There are ways to improve what we have, there always is. I am trying to learn here and work with what we have and what may come.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Common Tator said:


> You haven't seen fit to put your location in your profile. Are you in Canada? You say that Americans had to go to Canada for healthcare because their insurance wouldn't pay for it. I'm a little shocked. I thought you had to be a Canadian to benefit from the Canadian Healthcare system and pay into their system.
> 
> Melissa, you could have gone to Canada to be treated for your leukemia!
> 
> ...


Anyone can get Medical care in Canada. You just have to pay. There are Canadians that do not pay for health insurance. They would pay the same price.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> As I understand it with Obamacare you will be facing criminal charges now unless you cough up the 1500 a month and buy insurance for your son. Nice deal!


Criminal charges? $1500 a month? 


Do you understand what's actually IN the ACA?


----------



## Melissa (Apr 15, 2002)

I punched in that calculator and it said for 2 people making 20K a year it would cost about $600-800 ANNUALLY...


----------



## Tracy Rimmer (May 9, 2002)

Common Tator said:


> As for the Canadians who can't get treated at home, they flee to other paces where entire hospitals are set up to cater to them.


Can you name one? I'd like to see the proof of hospitals set up to service Canadians along the border. I live 30 miles north of the border, and have never heard of such a thing. I've also lived in six different provinces, and have experienced FIRST HAND the health care in each of those provinces. How many have you experienced FIRST HAND?

I have no skin in the game when it comes to US health care. I honestly DO NOT CARE what you folks do, but when you criticize my country based on what you think you know, and say things which are PATENTLY UNTRUE in order to shore up your opinion on what YOUR country ought to do, it does bother me.

Facts, please; as in the names of these hospitals which have been set up to cater to Canadian needs along your border. Until I see that, I'll dismiss your opinion on my country's health care as nothing more than propaganda.


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

Ramblin Wreck said:


> First, I have health care, at least for now, and it doesn't appear to be threatened in the near term as far as I can tell. Second, I understand that government oftentimes does a poor job of running things, but I don't trust most corporations any more than I trust the government. But I have travelled in Europe and as far east as New Zealand, and their government run health care seems to work OK...and people don't do broke buying it.
> 
> Sometimes its expectatations. My brother and I were near Sussex, New Brunswick a few years ago staying in a hunting lodge. One of the owners (the wife) had recently had gall bladder surgery. She explained the process/procedure she had to go through, and it infuriated my brother. Although diagnosed in Sussex, she had to que up for the surgery in a larger city (don't remember which one). It all went well, and although she had a little discomfort waiting her turn, she felt it was no biggie. My brother felt she should have had the surgery near home and immediately, but I tried to explain that it costs a lot of money to provide that level of service/care with that immediacy. I could not convince him.
> 
> Anyway, our underserved ole' Canadian neighbors have somehow figured out how to live over two years longer than us with that cut rate health care system of theirs. We're 38th in life span now, and practically every nation (maybe all of them) ahead of us has a national health care system. I think state based (or maybe even smaller regions) plans would be better than a national plan. The further away or bigger the governement, the harder it is to manage and keep tabs on.


I had to go to a large city 2000 km away from where I live in the North for my cancer treatment - I have had two rounds. We have a great hospital in our small city but specialist care is external. The advantage to this is that I ended up in the primary cancer center of Canada. If the treatment I needed had not been available in that province then I would have been sent to another. And there is even a whole department that arranges for patients to go to other countries IF there is not the treatment they need available in Canada. 

I did not pay for the flights down or the medivac plane. My husband came with me when I underwent treatment and stayed at the Cancer Lodge. He received a stipend to offset any expenses and in fact it was more than we needed for his room and board and transportation so we donated the extra money back to the Cancer Lodge. I ended up in ICU for 18 days and hospital for 2 months more. I have had 5 more years of life than anyone ever expected. 

My treatments and after cost care have reached $500,000 which is more than all the taxes that I have paid working over the past 40 years so I am quite happy paying my taxes. Healthcare costs 10% of the income tax I pay. It cost me $1600 last year. And everyone gets the same.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Common Tator said:


> Obama just gave a speech and told us not to revisit the past. he knows how unpopular this is. He doesn't want us talking about it. I actually think that this will determine the outcome of the upcoming election.


Pretty much insured Romney will be elected.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

One thing that I think is underappreciated about having greater access is the extent to which this should help reduce costs. 

For many years, the goal of government has been to shift rising health care costs from employers to employees and individuals. We saw more and more procedures not being covered by insurance, as well as higher-percentage co-pays and such. Health Savings Accounts were introduced (in about 2002, if I recall correctly) as a means of making people more aware of health care costs and were even touted as "consumer driven health care." 

The idea was that if people were made to spend their own money for their health care choices, they would be more prudent about what choices they made. Instead, studies showed that people simply avoided getting care altogether -- well, until something became either an emergency or a very serious condition.

One of the reasons that preventive care is cost-free under the Affordable Care Act is that it costs a whole lot less to PREVENT a disease than it does to TREAT a disease. Putting someone on high blood pressure medication is far less expensive than treating a stroke patient for years. Giving someone antibiotics for a slight infection is cheaper than performing an amputation for gangrene. Easier, less traumatic and less expensive to find and remove a small mass from a breast than to endure radical mastectomy, chemotherapy and radiation. 

Access to preventive care alone will save millions on health care costs.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

emdeengee said:


> I had to go to a large city 2000 km away from where I live in the North for my cancer treatment - I have had two rounds. We have a great hospital in our small city but specialist care is external. The advantage to this is that I ended up in the primary cancer center of Canada. If the treatment I needed had not been available in that province then I would have been sent to another. And there is even a whole department that arranges for patients to go to other countries IF there is not the treatment they need available in Canada.
> 
> I did not pay for the flights down or the medivac plane. My husband came with me when I underwent treatment and stayed at the Cancer Lodge. He received a stipend to offset any expenses and in fact it was more than we needed for his room and board and transportation so we donated the extra money back to the Cancer Lodge. I ended up in ICU for 18 days and hospital for 2 months more. I have had 5 more years of life than anyone ever expected.
> 
> My treatments and after cost care have reached $500,000 which is more than all the taxes that I have paid working over the past 40 years so I am quite happy paying my taxes. Healthcare costs 10% of the income tax I pay. It cost me $1600 last year. And everyone gets the same.



And you never worry about having to change companies and be denied insurance or reaching your maximum or losing coverage when you are too sick to work.


----------



## Zilli (Apr 1, 2012)

Tricky Grama said:


> Pretty much insured Romney will be elected.


Or not......

LOL


----------



## Deacon Mike (May 23, 2007)

Tricky Grama said:


> Pretty much insured Romney will be elected.


Hardly. The people that didn't like this law enough for it to influence their vote aren't voting for Obama anyhow. There's a lot of good stuff in this law. You'll hear about that between now and November.


----------



## Classof66 (Jul 9, 2011)

People screamed and wrung their hands over Medicare too, but it turned out to be a good thing.


----------



## mekasmom (Jan 19, 2010)

HermitJohn said:


> All that happened is more people are forced into the current broken privatized system.


What should have happened was that national health care should have been forced through when the dems had the votes to do it. Instead the President tried to "reason" with the greedy GOP, and look what we ended up with. I am very disappointed that he let the right push him around and shaft the American people.


----------



## nebula5 (Feb 4, 2003)

Tricky Grama said:


> Pretty much insured Romney will be elected.


I disagree- this is a success for President Obama. Those who weren't really sure about the health care law will be affected by the Supreme Court decision.

Anyone who was against it wasn't voting for him anyways--


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

mekasmom said:


> What should have happened was that national health care should have been forced through when the dems had the votes to do it. Instead the President tried to "reason" with the greedy GOP, and look what we ended up with. I am very disappointed that he let the right push him around and shaft the American people.


I'm sorry, but when was the greedy GOP consulted? 
The democrats could have passed anything. Absolutely anything. Any 'reasoning' was done w/democrats who did not want this bill. Did not. They had to be bribed...as in NE, for instance. And the congressman in Mi, for another. There were NO GOP votes ever needed.
Now, it passed b/c it IS a TAX. Something the democrats denied over&over&over.


----------



## Molly Mckee (Jul 8, 2006)

Spokane, WA sees large numbers of Canadian patients. It depends on the exchange rate at any given time. When the Canadian dollar fell in comparison to the US dollar we saw a lot of layoffs of nurses and other medical people. I have read in the newspapers that a large number of babies in NICU are Canadian. I believe this is paid for by there care system as they do not have enough NICU beds. I don't intend to argue about it--The Spokesman-Review is the paper that prints these things.

I don't think anyone really knows how this bill is going to effect things. The bill is several thousand pages, even most of the senators have said they don't know what all is in it.

Someone is going to have to pay for all the expanded programs. I know it's great to be able to keep your kids on your insurance until 26 but it is going to cost someone. I think one serious result of Obama care is going to be a loss of jobs, smaller business is not going to able to pay for the increased costs. They will either lay people off or close. Industries having lots of part time employees are going to face problems as well. Because no one seems to know exactly how this will affect business, it may well make companies take a wait and see attitude toward hiring employees.

I can't see any positive effect on the economy. Sooner of later we are going to have to pay our bills.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Classof66 said:


> People screamed and wrung their hands over Medicare too, but it turned out to be a good thing.


Did it really? have you looked at the numbers?


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

mekasmom said:


> What should have happened was that national health care should have been forced through when the dems had the votes to do it. Instead the President tried to "reason" with the greedy GOP, and look what we ended up with. I am very disappointed that he let the right push him around and shaft the American people.


GOP is never happy, they got clone of Romneycare now and still arent happy. This was what they were clamoring for back when Hillarycare was on the table back in the 90s. Hillarycare was a single payer plan for those with short memories. I got real kick out of the tea party guy clamoring for HIS free publically funded healthcare as new congressman during orientation day after last election.... As long as he has HIS piece of pie, nobody else really needs it!


----------



## Melissa (Apr 15, 2002)

Molly Mckee said:


> Spokane, WA sees large numbers of Canadian patients. It depends on the exchange rate at any given time. When the Canadian dollar fell in comparison to the US dollar we saw a lot of layoffs of nurses and other medical people. I have read in the newspapers that a large number of babies in NICU are Canadian. I believe this is paid for by there care system as they do not have enough NICU beds. I don't intend to argue about it--The Spokesman-Review is the paper that prints these things.
> 
> I don't think anyone really knows how this bill is going to effect things. The bill is several thousand pages, even most of the senators have said they don't know what all is in it.
> 
> ...


There could be a surge in self-employment. Many people stay in jobs just for health insurance. It could be good for those homesteaders who want to earn money off the homestead. They could start small businesses and still have health insurance. I am just optimistic and try to look on the bright side~


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

> I have read in the newspapers that a large number of babies in NICU are Canadian. I believe this is paid for by there care system as they do not have enough NICU beds.


Which has nothing whatsoever to do with being unhappy with level of care, correct? It's overflow, pure and simple...


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Tracy Rimmer said:


> Can you name one? I'd like to see the proof of hospitals set up to service Canadians along the border. I live 30 miles north of the border, and have never heard of such a thing. I've also lived in six different provinces, and have experienced FIRST HAND the health care in each of those provinces. How many have you experienced FIRST HAND?
> 
> I have no skin in the game when it comes to US health care. I honestly DO NOT CARE what you folks do, but when you criticize my country based on what you think you know, and say things which are PATENTLY UNTRUE in order to shore up your opinion on what YOUR country ought to do, it does bother me.
> 
> Facts, please; as in the names of these hospitals which have been set up to cater to Canadian needs along your border. Until I see that, I'll dismiss your opinion on my country's health care as nothing more than propaganda.


Hey how about Canada and USA set up a prisoner (oops, I mean citizen) exchange program. Those Canadians unhappy with healthcare there can trade places with those unhappy with healthcare here. WIN-WIN. Must be some Canadians wanting to move here and pay through the nose for private insurance and then have the private insurance company death panel sit in judgement on whether they live or die. Or be forced into bankruptcy even if they do have private insurance. I volunteer to be first from this side in the exchange program! Not that Canada wants a health compromised foreigner burdening their system.... but hey I sure want to give the freedom to some poor beleagered Canadian to live free and die over on this side of the border.

Actually given a choice, the French health care system is probably pick of the litter, but its also the priciest for the taxpayers.


----------



## davel745 (Feb 2, 2009)

You are going to pay and then pay some more and when you turn 62 you will be denied health care.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

It is so complex, and so much misinformation is out there about it, I can't seem to get a good grasp on it and "take a side". Still straddling the fence about it here. 

There is a chance health insurance premiums will stabilize or even go down, at least in the short term. Lots of people who are not insured now, who will be coming into the system, are young and healthy. Those 19 to 26 year olds who fell out of their parent's plan but don't have a job that provides insurance and can't afford it on their own. Other younger people right on into their 30's who don't have insurance thru their employers and didn't buy it on their own. So, if millions more people start paying premiums, yet a low percentage of them are having cancer treatment and liver transplants and other expensive treatment (because they are young and healthy), it should put more money into the system. Plus, once people have coverage they will hopefully seek out ongoing and preventative medical care instead of showing up at the emergency room when something gets to the crisis stage.

One thing I particularly don't like about it was mandating that the insurance companies can only have 20% administrative costs. That is totally against the concept of free enterprise. And what happens at, say, Humana when the accounting department informs the CEO that due to increased costs, their administration costs might go over the 20% limit? Well in that case you raise your rates in order to raise the income enough to get the admin cost within 20% again. So, this part of it seems ill-conceived and short sighted, but we'll see. 

As far as the "death panels" and alll the fear mongering, well we already have that now. Unless you have very deep pockets to pay for it yourself, your insurance company or Medicare/Medicaid already determines what treatments you can have.


----------



## Molly Mckee (Jul 8, 2006)

When an overflow situation lasts years it is a problem. 

Melissa, I think it may be good for some homesteader's. However they are in the minority. We had a small business and we did pay for health insurance for our employees. We simply could not afford to pay for their families, we probably should not have been paying for them. At least in this area there are many small businesses who have been hanging on by a thread. I'm afraid this will put them under, or cause them to eliminate jobs. Washington is not business friendly, the costs of doing business here are high to begin with. It may be very different in other states.

It is hard to find a DR here if you are on Medicare, even if you have good supplemental insurance. If you are new to the area or just want to change Dr's you have a real problem. The same is true of medicaid.

My understanding is that there is no tort reform in this bill. Protecting themselves from lawsuits is one of the largest costs of a medical office. Anything that does not address this is not going to work for the good of the people. Medical care has to be paid for somehow, I don't think the medical system can loose much more reimbursement and continue to function. Where is the money going to come from? Last time I looked the government was about broke so cost is going to have to come from the people.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

Molly Mckee said:


> When an overflow situation lasts years it is a problem.


But obviously it's not. They're getting the care needed and it still is under Canada's health care plan. For that matter, the US hospital is seeing the extra business ($$). 
I'm guessing the cost of building more NICU beds is probably higher than just paying the US hospital. Apparently this is _working_. :shrug:



> cost is going to have to come from the people.


Well of course it is. 
With the mandated coverage, more people (that is, nearly everyone) will be paying into the pool. Or, paying the tax, as the case may be. Either way, there is going to be increased money in the kitty...


----------



## ArkansasLady (Jan 1, 2003)

never mind my question was answered in another post...


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

Its hard to wade through this ruling but it looks to me like nothing will really change and the SCOTUS took the teeth out of this so who exactly is going to pay for it? Its a tax with no penalty or interest charges for not paying and you cant be arrested or jailed for blowing it off nor can they attach you bank accounts etc. Next, the states won by striking out the provision that they had to bring on all these new Medicaid patients or risk losing current Medicaid reimbursements...thats all tossed out.

So again who is going to be paying? 48% of US citizens dont pay a net federal income tax now and POTUS stated today they would issue tax credits to people so they could afford the insurance...tax credits for poor people who already dont pay taxes?

I think all the euphoria is premature. I dont see where this will help tackle the root of the problem at all and I cant see much to be happy about whether your for or against Obamacare.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

Poor people _don't_ pay taxes. Nor do they pay for healthcare. 
They're already on Medicaid. :shrug:


----------



## fellini123 (Feb 2, 2003)

I have read all kinds of things, and truthfully I still dont understand!! LOL
DH and I are both retired military, we ONLY use the VA for medical care. We pay for no insurance. Medical care is part of our retirement package, or at least it was....

How are we affected? Will we have to get some type of medical insurance that we wont use? Will the VA require some type of insurance to pay to use? Will medical care no longer be part of military retirement? Will we have to pay some sort of tax? And if we are paying a tax for medical care that was part of our militsary retirement package....that doesnt make sense, why pay twice??

Any one know??
Alice Confused in Virginia


----------



## Belfrybat (Feb 21, 2003)

vicki in NW OH said:


> Anyone know what the penalty is for not having insurance and does it apply if one is in a medical "share" program. Do folks have to pay into an insurance company that covers objectionable procedures? What about those of us who use alternative treatments primarily because mainstream medical care failed us? Will we be forced into mainstream medicine even though it proved worthless in the past?


The penalty is 1% gradually increasing to 2.5% of family income. But anyone making below a certain amount will be exempt (or subsidized) as will those where the cheapest insurance plan available to them is 8% or more of their income. 
If by medical "share" programs, you mean something like Christian Medi-Share, those members are exempt.


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

ErinP said:


> Poor people _don't_ pay taxes. Nor do they pay for healthcare.
> They're already on Medicaid. :shrug:


 There are vast numbers of people Erin that are not on Medicaid that the OBAMACARE bill was going to collect up and place into MEDICAID but SCOTUS ruled that the states can opt out of that and not be penalized and most red states will do so.

You hit the nail on the head, poor people are already on Medicaid so the OBAMACARE bill was supposed to catch those who work and just cant afford health insurance (my daughter was one of them until just recently) or those ineligible currently for Medicaid and a key provision was to expand Medicaid to cover those folks. 

So I ask again, how is this ruling a victory for anyone? Its a tax with no enforcement capability, its a tax on people who overwhelmingly dont pay taxes (they are calling the mandate a tax; i.e., if an individual doesnt get insurance they would be penalized with a tax themselves....in no way does this transfer the "tax" to the wealthy. The "pool" to pay for everyone got a lot smaller with this ruling.

I am halfway through the ruling...the next few days will see a change of tune I think from some people who thought this was great. Now our dysfunctional Congress can try to figure out how to pay for it and I am sure they will work in a bi-partisan spirit of cooperation......


----------



## Oggie (May 29, 2003)

The most immediate effect of this ruling will not be on health care or even one political party or the other, but on the Supreme Court itself.

Absolutely no one predicted the outcome of this case. The usual voting patterns of some key judges were not followed and Chief Justice Roberts, who many predicted would side with the GOP's approach, ended up writing the majority decisions.

I think that, ultimately, the American public is going to demand a system more in line with that used to decide the nation's most pressing issues.

I don't know why the United States uses such and archaic and outdated system for determining ultimate judicial decisions.

The Supreme Court needs to come out from behind its walls of secrecy and install live television cameras in its chambers.

Then, each justice should sing or dance his or her way through a series of challenges.

The American citizenry could call into a switchboard and vote a justice off the panel each week.

The one judge remaining would then decide all of the cases heard by the court during that session.

Of course I'm hoping that Antonin Scalia has at least three left feet and can't carry a tune in a bucket.

Those in charge will probably install a skeet-shooting or golf segment so that he'll have some small chance at winning the game.

I guess that I could live with that.


----------



## Haven (Aug 16, 2010)

Melissa said:


> I am on a facebook board for people with apl- leukemia and there are many people from Cananada and England who post. They love their healthcare system, said it was great not to have to worry about the money/insurance part. Their treatment was actually the more advanced over what I received. I would have rather had what they had, but at the time it was not the standard of care here, it was a trial there. My doctor said it is really hard to get a trial here in the United States, so most of the new research comes from European countries...


This is true. My friend in Canada receives medical care and dental visits frequently because of their system. He really likes it.

A lot of seniors from the northern states take bus trips into Canada to buy affordable drugs.


----------



## Belfrybat (Feb 21, 2003)

fellini123 said:


> I have read all kinds of things, and truthfully I still dont understand!! LOL
> DH and I are both retired military, we ONLY use the VA for medical care. We pay for no insurance. Medical care is part of our retirement package, or at least it was....
> 
> How are we affected? Will we have to get some type of medical insurance that we wont use? Will the VA require some type of insurance to pay to use? Will medical care no longer be part of military retirement? Will we have to pay some sort of tax? And if we are paying a tax for medical care that was part of our militsary retirement package....that doesnt make sense, why pay twice??
> ...


Why on earth would you think you'd had to pay a penalty since you are covered under the VA? Or why do you think you'd have to pay twice? It's amazing to me that normally intelligent people go all dumb when talking about the ACA. If you already have insurance _*from any source*_, then you are covered by insurance. Period. No, you won't have to buy insurance -- you already have it. Count your blessings.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Haven said:


> This is true. My friend in Canada receives medical care and dental visits frequently because of their system. He really likes it.
> 
> A lot of seniors from the northern states take bus trips into Canada to buy affordable drugs.


Dental is not part of the Canadian health system.


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

Belfrybat said:


> Why on earth would you think you'd had to pay a penalty since you are covered under the VA? Or why do you think you'd have to pay twice? It's amazing to me that normally intelligent people go all dumb when talking about the ACA. If you already have insurance _*from any source*_, then you are covered by insurance. Period. No, you won't have to buy insurance -- you already have it. Count your blessings.


 When they first were putting together Obamacare there was a provision that declared military medical "Tricare" or through the VA was not adequate and military retirees would have to pay in. It was mostly a mistake that was corrected early on but lots of folks got scared by it.


----------



## Haven (Aug 16, 2010)

painterswife said:


> Dental is not part of the Canadian health system.


I assumed it was, we have an inside joke about his sexy dentist...that must be the real reason he goes all the time


----------



## Belfrybat (Feb 21, 2003)

ErinP said:


> Poor people _don't_ pay taxes. Nor do they pay for healthcare.
> *They're already on Medicaid*. :shrug:


That is not true in most states except for children. One provision of the ACA was to extend Medicaid to anyone making below a certain amount (140% of poverty level, I think), even adults. That is the part that SCOTUS gutted. It is still a provision, but there will be no penalties for those States that choose not to follow it. 

The area where I hope the ACA will help is those folks who make too much to qualify for Medicaid (or are adults without minor children) but not enough to currently be able to afford private insurance. Also, for those who have pre-existing conditions. I have diabetes and I can't find health insurance for any price with the major insurers. I'm not sure the ACA will really help the latter as I imagine I'll still be priced out of the game. But at least some with prior conditions will be able to get coverage.


----------



## big rockpile (Feb 24, 2003)

What really burns my behind is the fact they took it behind closed doors,passed it,then say we will read it and deal with it after passed.

You don't do this!

big rockpile


----------



## Common Tator (Feb 19, 2008)

Melissa said:


> Common Tator- You know, that was really exceptionally mean.
> 
> I am happy that I was treated, but the system is not perfect by any means. Even my doctor who is a very kind and good man acknowledged that and I am sure felt bad about what I had to go through. I am not 100% convinced that this new plan is going to work, I am however open to people being able to have access. I believe that the loving and kind thing is to help people have health care in an affordable and reasonable manner that doesn't cause them to go bankrupt or have a huge amount of stress when they are extremely ill or hurting. There are ways to improve what we have, there always is. I am trying to learn here and work with what we have and what may come.


Melissa, Could you please tell me what I said that was mean? I was responding to a poster who has alluded to being a Canadian, telling us that Americans are fleeing to Canada to take advantage of their healthcare system.

And YOU seem to be celebrating the passage of the biggest tax increase in American history, because you don't have insurance. Passage of Obamacare actually HURTS most of us. The only people celebrating it are the ones who will benefit from it. I know you talked about your Hubby's job being on and off and how hard it is to get insurance with your leukemia, but have you ever asked yourself if perhaps the choices that you and hubby made contributed to your lack of insurance? Yes, you get to live in a place that you love, in the country. While others live in the city and toil away so that they can provide healthcare for their families. 

Hubby and I made employment decisions that included health insurance. I carried it through my employment for years, and then when I left that job, Hubby picked it up. Because we weren't willing make the decision (going without insurance) that you and your hubby did. That was never an acceptable risk for us. 

That is not mean. We both made decisions based on what we thought was best for our families.

And we both reaped benefits and paid the consequences for our decisions. You didn't have insurance when you received your diagnosis. If I recall correctly your hubby has been ill for extended periods. And that was an acceptable risk for you. But all those years that you didn't pay premiums, you had those funds to spend however you saw fit.

And my hubby and I have paid hundreds of dollars per month for our insurance for the past 29 years. And we have had to do without in other areas of our spending because of it. I drive a 14 year old car with nearly 200,000 miles on it. If we didn't pay so much for healthcare, I could have replaced that car several times over. I scrimp and save in as many areas as possible.

I sold health insurance at one time. I tried to sell it to people who said "I can't afford it". I was driving the same car back then. It was still old, but not as old. The people telling me they couldn't afford it lived in nicer houses than mine. The sales calls were made at their home, so I did get to see how they lived. They drover nicer, newer cars. They had cable or satellite TV, and cell phones. Nice computers all over the house. Kids in private schools. This was the choices they made. So of course they could afford insurance. Their priority wasn't health care. That is the truth of the matter.

With this tax, it means that those of us who have been responsible all along and carried insurance, will now be paying the brunt of the cost for those who made the choice not to get it. The tiny amount that the currently uninsured will pay toward their care is a small fraction of the actual cost, which will have to be paid by the rest of us.

What did the rest of us do to deserve the largest tax increase in America's history? Why should we be punished by having our money confiscated to pay for this? I think it is exceptionally mean to make the choice to go uninsured and make the rest of us pay for it.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Common Tator said:


> What did the rest of us do to deserve the largest tax increase in America's history?


The 'fine' or as the SC stated the 'tax on those who do not purchase health care' is 1% - please stop being dramatic in calling it "the largest tax increase in America's history" 
Its not even close.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

Common Tator said:


> I know you talked about your Hubby's job being on and off and how hard it is to get insurance with your leukemia, but have you ever asked yourself if perhaps the choices that you and hubby made contributed to your lack of insurance?


Wow.
Apparently Melissa is correct. 
Farmers, ranchers, construction workers, etc. _should_ all get jobs at WalMart so they can have insurance. (Well, in the places where WalMart actually HAS insurance for their employees lol) 
Obviously we just don't need these occupations... Though I'm curious who's going to FEED us or build our houses and roads.



Belfrybat said:


> Why on earth would you think you'd had to pay a penalty since you are covered under the VA? Or why do you think you'd have to pay twice? It's amazing to me that normally intelligent people go all dumb when talking about the ACA. If you already have insurance _*from any source*_, then you are covered by insurance. Period. No, you won't have to buy insurance -- you already have it. Count your blessings.


To be fair, belfry, you can't be surprised that there's all this confusion. 
When the right-wing talking heads roll out all of these horror stories about what we're in for, we need a LOT more information from the Administration and other legislative supporters of this. _Loud_ information, obviously.


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

painterswife said:


> Dental is not part of the Canadian health system.


It is (or some parts are) covered by the provinces and territories - Quebec having the best giving full dental coverage to children 10 and under and covering most dental surgeries for everyone. Also First Nations have full dental under their Universal Healthcare.

Since dental care is so important to general health I would like to see it covered for all children to the age of 18 to give them a real chance.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Common Tator said:


> Except for the Canadians who are put on waiting lists,for basic treatment, or dying while waiting.
> _
> "According to a new study by Canada's Fraser Institute, surgical waitlists are costing the nation about $1 billion each year in lost productivity. The average Canadian can now expect to wait 9.5 weeks for treatment with a medical specialist, this number up from 9.3 weeks last year."_How Long Do Canadians Wait for Healthcare? - The Daily Beast


From YOUR Article



> Based on a 2011 Statistics Canada finding, *the study makes the assumption* that 11% of patients "were adversely affected by *their wait for non-emergency surgery*.


It ass-u-me's that 11% of the patients were adversely affected by their wait for NON-EMERGENCY surgery.


Do you even read the full article you post? or do you just look at the headlines?


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> As I understand it with Obamacare you will be facing criminal charges now unless you cough up the 1500 a month and buy insurance for your son. Nice deal!


If you don't know what you're talking about (and the above post shows you don't), you probably shouldn't be posting.


----------



## Melissa (Apr 15, 2002)

We actually do have insurance currently, we did not have insurance for about a six month period when I was diagnosed with leukemia. we had full insurance from October of 1991 until November of 2009 and sometimes there were entire years that we did not use it once!

I am not celebrating the decision because I am not sure how it will work out yet. I am sure there will be many changes to come.

As to Cale's health, he had one bout with dizziness a few years back that did not affect his employment as he worked through it. He is actually very strong and healthy and in exceptional shape. He works a hard construction job laying asphalt, pouring concrete and pipelaying about 12 hours a day. I don't know many people who can keep up with him. When there is work, he works. I have had my own tax business, currently raise market lambs (really nice ones!) sell eggs, and produce, do landscaping for elderly people around our town, and do what I can to help out financially. We aren't freeloaders!

And yes, maybe I could have married an accountant and lived in the city. Although I hear white collar workers were pretty affected by the recent recession too~ There just aren't any guarantees- anyone can lose their job and their insurance at any time. There really isn't that much security in the system. 

I think the insurance industry is most of the problem. I would like to see a non-profit insurance company that charged a reasonable amount. I don't believe anyone should get completely free care or insurance. When we did not have insurance we paid the bills. Most of the time the price was actually very reasonable. When I was diagnosed with leukemia the hosptial social worker actually sent the paperwork in to Social Security and I found I was eligible for social security disability a few months after I was home. I told Cale that I did not feel I was disabled enough to receive it so I called them and turned it down. I am not looking for a free ride from anyone and most working people aren't. They just want a fair shot... 

Since Cale has been back to work we paid all of the doctor bills I had from the hospital stay. We have also paid the discounted rate the hospital offered to us for the hospital stay. It was a Catholic hospital that had a fund and would pay part of the costs based on income. We have paid the rest. Now that all of that is paid and we are insured I am planning to send a donation to that fund, probably for the rest of my life~ In retrospect it would have been cheaper to pay the Cobra of $1200 a month- so we learned that lesson the hard way. But we did not skip out on the bill, we did not file bankruptcy, I did not go on disability. We tried to do the right thing... We drive old vehicles too, my car is nine years old and Cale's truck is 20 years old. We built the house ourselves, we grow our own food, we have one computer that was a gift from my kids for Christmas, we live frugally. And I promise we will do whatever we have can to maintain insurance in the future...


----------



## my3boys (Jan 18, 2011)

Well, I already know how it will effect us. I saw my family dr. about a month ago. She told me if Obamacare was not ruled unconstitutional and Obama was re-elected, they would be closing the practice (6 physicians). It will be phased out over about a year to give people a chance to find other providers. She said a couple of them are thinking about setting up a private practice with no ties to insurance or the government, it would be one of those deals where you pay the dr a yearly fee that would include as many visits as you needed.

She also told me she knows of at least 2 other area practices, with several physicians in each, that are saying they will do the same thing.

By the way, all of those who are looking forward to being subsidized and the like, please remember somebody else will have to make up for it somewhere. There is no such thing as "free" healthcare.

It's getting to the point where, with the government providing everything under the sun, it's not worth it to work anymore, at least full time. Why should I have to work when somebody else doesn't and still has all the same things I have?


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

Common Tator said:


> Hubby and I made employment decisions that included health insurance. I carried it through my employment for years, and then when I left that job, Hubby picked it up. Because we weren't willing make the decision (going without insurance) that you and your hubby did. That was never an acceptable risk for us.
> 
> That is not mean. We both made decisions based on what we thought was best for our families.


For your sake, I hope Hubby doesn't die. Else you could find yourself in the identical situation in which I find myself -- because that's exactly what we did, too.

Not being mean. Just stating the facts of what can happen under our current system.


----------



## giraffe_baby (Oct 15, 2005)

ErinP said:


> Poor people _don't_ pay taxes. Nor do they pay for healthcare.
> They're already on Medicaid. :shrug:


I hate to say not all "poor" people are on medicaid. We "technically" are poor and yet too rich to get help. BUT we've also been on the other end where we had awesome insurance for many many a year... and now when we need help (not a hand out) we arent "poor enuff". So that is a broad statement.


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

Common Tator said:


> You haven't seen fit to put your location in your profile. Are you in Canada? You say that Americans had to go to Canada for healthcare because their insurance wouldn't pay for it. I'm a little shocked. I thought you had to be a Canadian to benefit from the Canadian Healthcare system and pay into their system.
> 
> Melissa, you could have gone to Canada to be treated for your leukemia!
> 
> ...


No my location is not in my profile but since I used the pronoun âweâ and âIâ and refered to the fact that âwhen I was being treated for my cancer there were American patients on the same treatmentâ I think I made it clear that I was Canadian. 

I did not say they got the treatment without paying. If you are not a Canadian citizen or a landed immigrant or guest worker then you are not eligible for Universal Healthcare - which is not free to anyone including Canadians. We pay for it through our taxes. If you come to Canada for treatment or even on a visit and have to use our medical system you will pay. Either by yourself or through your Medical Insurance. There are many tourists visiting Canada who get the best care when they are taken ill or involved in an accident but they pay. Just to see a doctor at our hospital emergency center costs $600. Signs are posted all over the hospital. 

As for "fleeing" for care. No fleeing. People have the full freedom to go anywhere they choose for treatment but if it is available in Canada they will have to pay for it themselves. If the treatment is not available in Canada the healthcare system will send you to where it is available and pay for it. But most treatments are available and of top quality. There is an example of the Premier of Newfoundland who went to Florida for heart surgery because he did not want to wait (he was not an emergency) and the American newsmedia said it was because there was no treatment in Canada. Funny since he was scheduled to go to an Ontario hospital for the surgery by the surgeon who actually invented the procedure he needed. He just did not want to wait and being a multi millionaire he chose to go to the US and he chose Florida because he owns a house there and wanted to recover in the sun. Nothing wrong with that.

Melissa - I am very glad that you got such good care for your leukemia but rest assured that leukemia patients here do as well. I hope you are doing well.


----------



## mekasmom (Jan 19, 2010)

davel745 said:


> You are going to pay and then pay some more and when you turn 62 you will be denied health care.


That is not true about the plan at all.


----------



## Melissa (Apr 15, 2002)

I am doing well and the staff and hospital were amazing. My doctor had frustrations with the system not allowing them to do some of the more experimental (at the time) treatments which would have been easier on me. So I had the traditional chemo rather than the newer treatment which had actually been the standard of care in China and France since 2003 (and no I do not want to go to those countries, I would not have surrived the trip~) However since then the new treatment has been approved so if I ever relapse I can have it- thankfully. And it works very well. I hope you are doing well too.


----------



## Melissa (Apr 15, 2002)

giraffe_baby said:


> I hate to say not all "poor" people are on medicaid. We "technically" are poor and yet too rich to get help. BUT we've also been on the other end where we had awesome insurance for many many a year... and now when we need help (not a hand out) we arent "poor enuff". So that is a broad statement.


True, in Ohio if you have minor children and are under the income limits you can get on medicaid, if you have no children you are pretty much on your own.


----------



## Molly Mckee (Jul 8, 2006)

"Universal Healthcare - which is not free to anyone including Canadians. We pay for it through our taxes."

And that is what we are going to be doing. And most of the news services are saying that this is the largest tax increase in the history of our country.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

giraffe_baby said:


> I hate to say not all "poor" people are on medicaid. We "technically" are poor and yet too rich to get help.


See my previous comment about "piddle class."


----------



## giraffe_baby (Oct 15, 2005)

Yep were in the PIDDLE class for sure!! LOL


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Zilli said:


> How many is "many?"
> 
> And were these people you knew personally and talked to? Or were they just random people you heard about from so-and-so who heard about them from so-and-so......and so on?
> 
> Honestly, I think if you took a poll of our Canadian members on this forum, while I am sure a few might express some unhappiness or have personal stories of dissatisfaction with their system, I believe the poll would show overwhelmingly that they are very happy with the quality of the health care.


Can't tell you how many, just know that there were many Canadian license plates in the parking lots of the hospitals and doctors offices. Guess they could have all been coming to visit others in the hospitals, but doesn't seem very likely.


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

Molly Mckee said:


> "Universal Healthcare - which is not free to anyone including Canadians. We pay for it through our taxes."
> 
> And that is what we are going to be doing. And most of the news services are saying that this is the largest tax increase in the history of our country.


Hyperbole. Your taxes pay for medicare (federally funded for seniors) and medicaid (jointly funded by the state and federal government for low income and disablities) but you will have to pay for your own insurance as will everyon e else. The penalty for not having insurance has now been declared a tax but if you have insurance you won't be paying a penalty.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

giraffe_baby said:


> Yeah I read it... but my hubby's worry is our daughter who is disabled *Neurofibromatosis* ( gets tumors at any time, ANYWHERE in her body, rest of her life with no cure) and has to have CT scans/MRI's periodically) will she have to wait longer and cause issues...
> I know there is so much involved politically just worried about our family and health wise...
> Cuz recently Ky changed medicaid and i fought for 6 months to get my oldest daughter in for a IMPACTED eye tooth.. no one would accept the new medicaid....
> 
> And youngest with oral issues ( due to 8 surgeries in past) on her jaw now no longer is allowed to get the needed braces due to " standards" that they (medicaid) mandated... that doesnt take in effect that she has had many surgery on her jaw or that her jaw was cut in half ect.... this is what worries us the most....


No problems, just go to Canada for medical care. After all, their system is so great that they have Americans swarming across their borders to get treated.


----------



## wwubben (Oct 13, 2004)

This new law will be enacted bits at a time like it reads.Things will be improved a bit at a time and things will work out just fine.Don't believe all of these wild stories you hear.This bill will be well liked by most in five years.This bill will not be repealed.It takes more votes than the opposition can muster in the senate.People were talking like this about the gi bill,medicare,and civil rights bills and they are well accepted overall now.A lot of smoke and no fire.


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

Melissa said:


> I am doing well and the staff and hospital were amazing. My doctor had frustrations with the system not allowing them to do some of the more experimental (at the time) treatments which would have been easier on me. So I had the traditional chemo rather than the newer treatment which had actually been the standard of care in China and France since 2003 (and no I do not want to go to those countries, I would not have surrived the trip~) However since then the new treatment has been approved so if I ever relapse I can have it- thankfully. And it works very well. I hope you are doing well too.


Thank you, I am. That is also often the situation when a treatment is not available here. It is simply not approved yet by the department of health according to their standards even though it has been used elsewhere successfully for years. The new treatment for MS was such a case with our patients heading to Italy for treatment but public opinion still rules the world and it has since been fast tracked into an experimental program available here. I am in touch about all blood cancers since that is what I have and know that the work is advancing very quickly. Yippee for both of us!


----------



## Oggie (May 29, 2003)

I get most of my news from programs on the Mime Network.

Today, I had the misfortune of watching one of my favorite newscasters nearly beat himself to death, trying to explain the political divisions amplified by the Supreme Court's decision.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Melissa said:


> Common Tator- You know, that was really exceptionally mean.
> 
> I am happy that I was treated, but the system is not perfect by any means. Even my doctor who is a very kind and good man acknowledged that and I am sure felt bad about what I had to go through. I am not 100% convinced that this new plan is going to work, I am however open to people being able to have access. I believe that the loving and kind thing is to help people have health care in an affordable and reasonable manner that doesn't cause them to go bankrupt or have a huge amount of stress when they are extremely ill or hurting. There are ways to improve what we have, there always is. I am trying to learn here and work with what we have and what may come.


I think what a lot of us, myself included, are so upset about this is because it has set a precedence that the government can now force us to buy anything they want us to buy or face a monetary penalty. They can now force every American to buy an electric car, or pay the penalty. They can now tell us what foods we can buy, or pay a penalty. This goes far beyond the health care, this is saying that as American's we now how to purchase something or the IRS will levy a tax on us for not purchasing it.


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

Sonshine said:


> No problems, just go to Canada for medical care. After all, their system is so great that they have Americans swarming across their borders to get treated.


Untrue. But some do come just as some Canadians go to the US.


----------



## Melissa (Apr 15, 2002)

As others have said Americans would still have to pay if they go to Canada. I have no experience with the Canadian system other than from those who have said that they received decent and adequate care for their leukemia and those on this board who have stated they are generally satisfied. I think most Canadians are just trying to show that they don't have an inferior system to others just because it is a national system. 

This country has great health care workers and providers, it is the money part that gets messy!


----------



## Melissa (Apr 15, 2002)

Sonshine said:


> I think what a lot of us, myself included, are so upset about this is because it has set a precedence that the government can now force us to buy anything they want us to buy or face a monetary penalty. They can now force every American to buy an electric car, or pay the penalty. They can now tell us what foods we can buy, or pay a penalty. This goes far beyond the health care, this is saying that as American's we now how to purchase something or the IRS will levy a tax on us for not purchasing it.


 I imagine we already pay enough money to do what needs done, just a lot of it is wasted. I have a soft heart for people so I want them to be taken care of when they are sick. I wish there was a good and fair way to accomplish this where people would agree that it is a decent system. I think Americans are a kind and compassionate people and I believe that somehow we will work this out for the good of everyone. At least I hope so... 

We need both- the people who have the soft heart and compassion and the hard-nosed numbers people in this country- because the best answer is probably a compromise between them~


----------



## Common Tator (Feb 19, 2008)

Tracy Rimmer said:


> Can you name one? I'd like to see the proof of hospitals set up to service Canadians along the border. I live 30 miles north of the border, and have never heard of such a thing. I've also lived in six different provinces, and have experienced FIRST HAND the health care in each of those provinces. How many have you experienced FIRST HAND?
> 
> I have no skin in the game when it comes to US health care. I honestly DO NOT CARE what you folks do, but when you criticize my country based on what you think you know, and say things which are PATENTLY UNTRUE in order to shore up your opinion on what YOUR country ought to do, it does bother me.
> 
> Facts, please; as in the names of these hospitals which have been set up to cater to Canadian needs along your border. Until I see that, I'll dismiss your opinion on my country's health care as nothing more than propaganda.


As you wish: International Patients, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, MI and another: Information for Canadian Patients & Visitors - Fletcher Allen - Hospital Near Montreal, QC, Canada

To be honest, there is another that I posted about several years ago, and I haven't been successful in looking for it, but if and when I find it, I'll post it.

And here is a piece about Canadians seeking health care in the US: Canadians Seeking Health Care Come to the United States

Here is a piece about the Canadian health care system paying for Canadians to be treated in U. S hospitals. Canadians visit U.S. to get health care | Detroit Free Press | freep.com

And here's an interesting article which discueese a hospital in Florida that opened a special wing just for Canadian snow birds. Hospitals Cater to International Patients - NurseZone
_
"Hollywood Medical Center, Florida, has taken as different approach to its international program. Rather than enticing foreigners to come to the hospital for treatment, the Tenet hospital caters to Canadians who become ill while wintering in the Sunshine State.

Last year, it opened a 16-bed Canadian wing, complete with Canadian television and newspapers, bilingual menus with north-of-the-border favorites, and bilingual physicians and nurses, such as Canadian Stacey Choinski, RN, director of clinical quality at the hospital.

Although there are fewer cultural differences between Canada and the United States than some countries. They do exist. Choinski said patients worry about hospital costs, since they have a national system at home and tend to perceive U.S. care as expensive. Most have travel insurance that requires stabilizing and transferring the patient back to Canada. The unit provides a homey atmosphere."_


----------



## Deacon Mike (May 23, 2007)

Sonshine said:


> I think what a lot of us, myself included, are so upset about this is because it has set a precedence that the government can now force us to buy anything they want us to buy or face a monetary penalty. They can now force every American to buy an electric car, or pay the penalty. They can now tell us what foods we can buy, or pay a penalty. This goes far beyond the health care, this is saying that as American's we now how to purchase something or the IRS will levy a tax on us for not purchasing it.


You're being totally unreasonable


----------



## countrysunshine (Jul 3, 2008)

ErinP said:


> You find the exact same opinions and experiences on Crohn's and celiac disease boards.
> We Americans tend to be pitied... Even those fortunate enough to have insurance coverage.


That is interesting because I am on boards for people with the rare form of cancer I had (50% recurrence rate) and migraines. On both the people from Canada and Great Britain think we in the US with insurance have it better.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Common Tator said:


> As you wish: International Patients, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, MI and another: Information for Canadian Patients & Visitors - Fletcher Allen - Hospital Near Montreal, QC, Canada
> 
> To be honest, there is another that I posted about several years ago, and I haven't been successful in looking for it, but if and when I find it, I'll post it.
> 
> ...


You do realize that the Canadian health system is paying for those operations. They are using all available avenues to take care of their patients, even if that includes hospital outside the country because they have open beds. I live in the States and I am always hearing Americans complaining about closing hospitals. Here the Canadians and the Americans are working together to meet their patients needs. Should you say no to them because it is a US hospital? Should they stop allowing Americans to cross the border to get cheaper drugs?


----------



## Common Tator (Feb 19, 2008)

mnn2501 said:


> The 'fine' or as the SC stated the 'tax on those who do not purchase health care' is 1% - please stop being dramatic in calling it "the largest tax increase in America's history"
> Its not even close.


You're kidding, right? You seriously think that 1% is going to cover the actual cost of providing care for them? Taxes are being raised dramatically, and still this will more than double our national debt.

You can read some facts about the tax increases here: Obamacare becomes Obamatax | The Daily Caller


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

International patients and catering to tourist healthcare is not new or unusual. They go to the private hospitals and are welcomed with open arms. All good $ even if it is Canadian. We have many friends who are snowbirds who spend every winter in the different warm states of the US and they all get great treatment in the US when ill or injured. They buy extra insurance from Blue Cross and other companies when they cross the border but most of their bills are still paid for by their provincial healthcare plan. They are a great business investment for any hospital because they never default because they are the responsibility of the Canadian government. Stabilizing and shipping home does happen but most spend their full recovery time in a US hospital. If on the other hand you go for non-emergency treatment (illness or accident) then you mostly pay the full cost.


----------



## Deacon Mike (May 23, 2007)

Common Tator said:


> You're kidding, right? You seriously think that 1% is going to cover the actual cost of providing care for them? Taxes are being raised dramatically, and still this will more than double our national debt.
> 
> You can read some facts about the tax increases here: Obamacare becomes Obamatax | The Daily Caller


You should really vary your news sources. The fact that the court approved this under Congress authority to tax changes nothing about how this bill is paid for.

And this bill reduces the National Debt. It more than pays for itself.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

countrysunshine said:


> That is interesting because I am on boards for people with the rare form of cancer I had (50% recurrence rate) and migraines. On both the people from Canada and Great Britain think we in the US with insurance have it better.


So its only those without who are pitited.


----------



## Oggie (May 29, 2003)

If Canada is such a place, why do I see so many of those darned geese around here?


----------



## countrysunshine (Jul 3, 2008)

ErinP said:


> So its only those without who are pitited.


I was actually referring to the quality of care and treatment options available here as opposed to other countries.

I am married to a farmer. We farm with his parents and before he died, his uncle and aunt. We did not have insurance when we had our first child and several other times through out our marriage. We strive to keep one of us working at a job with insurance to maintain that coverage even if all the job does is pay for the insurance.

So....I fall on both sides of that argument. I am not going to pity anyone.


----------



## Lizza (Nov 30, 2005)

I remember marrying my husband (at 18 years old) and not realizing what it means to be without insurance, it was shocking. My mother was an RN and had always worked for large hospitals with good insurance (although even her insurance has gone way downhill). Like Melissa, we have been on and off insurance over our entire married lives (22 years this year) and I am just hoping I might be able to buy some insurance! We had to drop it when the economy went south. We kept first the kids on, then started dropping the healthy kids until we were down to just the one kid that needs daily medications. It's rough out there for self employed people! We are in that horrible vast expanse of not being able to pay for insurance but making too much for medicaid. Crossing my fingers there might be something for us to buy under $1200 a month (I pay less in mortgage by the way then in insurance premiums). 

I was just talking with a young couple at the annual Small Farmer Conference, who had went to school in Canada, they were trying to decide what to do since they were starting their life, they were leaning towards staying in Canada (they could because they both got degrees at Canadian Universities), there number 1 reason was Universal Healthcare in Canada. It was too scary to live in the USA and be small farmers. They said in all their years living in Canada they had never met anyone that was unhappy with their system to the point of wanting something like the USA has to offer.


----------



## Work horse (Apr 7, 2012)

Count me in as a Canadian who is glad to have our healthcare system. If you have an urgent need for a surgery or treatment, you will get it. Other surgeries, you may need to wait a bit for. Some choose to go to the US if they don't want to wait.


----------



## Common Tator (Feb 19, 2008)

my3boys said:


> Well, I already know how it will effect us. I saw my family dr. about a month ago. She told me if Obamacare was not ruled unconstitutional and Obama was re-elected, they would be closing the practice (6 physicians). It will be phased out over about a year to give people a chance to find other providers. She said a couple of them are thinking about setting up a private practice with no ties to insurance or the government, it would be one of those deals where you pay the dr a yearly fee that would include as many visits as you needed.
> 
> She also told me she knows of at least 2 other area practices, with several physicians in each, that are saying they will do the same thing.
> 
> ...


A lot of the doctors in our area are retirement age, and have said they will retire if Obama Care goes into effect. This includes my doctor.

Obama promised that people could keep their doctor. He can't possibly be truthful when he was making decisions that would make it harder on doctors to practice, thus causing a great many of them to leave practice.

Fewer people will choose to become doctors because it won't be a profitable career.

And now we will have huge amounts of new people seeking healthcare from fewer doctors. Long wait times are headed our way.


----------



## Zilli (Apr 1, 2012)

davel745 said:


> You are going to pay and then pay some more and when you turn 62 you will be denied health care.


Link, please?


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

Each and every poster here as a common thread.....the bill is confusing and a bureaucratic mess.

I watched the PBS NewsHour tonight which I usually dont do but they had a pretty good run down of the pros and cons of Obamacare and they pretty much said it comes down to how they are going to fund this. They seem to be betting that universal health care will generate more jobs and the revved up economy will cover costs. Its also clear that if the 26 states who sued decide to opt out of the medicaid expansion which SCOTUS allows it would be a disaster for the program.

There are lots of things to like for me in the bill like consumer protections etc. but at the end of the day no one can answer the simple question of how will this huge new program be paid for. Even Sen Hoyer stumbled on that one tonight.


----------



## Zilli (Apr 1, 2012)

Sonshine said:


> Can't tell you how many, just know that there were many Canadian license plates in the parking lots of the hospitals and doctors offices. Guess they could have all been coming to visit others in the hospitals, but doesn't seem very likely.


So, because you saw "many" cars with Canadian license plates in the parking lots of hospitals and doctors' offices, you made the assumption that that must indicate "many" Canadians are unhappy with their health care?

That's quite a leap, don't you think?

After all, I saw a car with a British Columbia license plate pull into the parking lot of my little local hardware store a week or so ago; does that mean that I should assume the owner of that car is unhappy with the quality of the hardware stores in British Columbia?

And what about all the posters on this thread who are from Canada and who say that their health care is wonderful? Why would you rather believe that, just because you saw "many" Canadian cars in a parking lot, that must mean the Canadian health system is terrible flawed when we have people right here, and who have actual experience with it, saying otherwise? Are they lying?


----------



## Melissa (Apr 15, 2002)

morningstar said:


> I remember marrying my husband (at 18 years old) and not realizing what it means to be without insurance, it was shocking. My mother was an RN and had always worked for large hospitals with good insurance (although even her insurance has gone way downhill). Like Melissa, we have been on and off insurance over our entire married lives (22 years this year) and I am just hoping I might be able to buy some insurance! We had to drop it when the economy went south. We kept first the kids on, then started dropping the healthy kids until we were down to just the one kid that needs daily medications. It's rough out there for self employed people! We are in that horrible vast expanse of not being able to pay for insurance but making too much for medicaid. Crossing my fingers there might be something for us to buy under $1200 a month (I pay less in mortgage by the way then in insurance premiums).
> 
> I was just talking with a young couple at the annual Small Farmer Conference, who had went to school in Canada, they were trying to decide what to do since they were starting their life, they were leaning towards staying in Canada (they could because they both got degrees at Canadian Universities), there number 1 reason was Universal Healthcare in Canada. It was too scary to live in the USA and be small farmers. They said in all their years living in Canada they had never met anyone that was unhappy with their system to the point of wanting something like the USA has to offer.


There were many times that Cale would not have enough hours, but the Cobra was not that much, it depended on the number of hours short and you paid so much per hour. We might have paid a few hundred dollars a month to keep the insurance. It was just in those last few years that the cost went up to the point where we just could not pay it- at least not for 15 months. We are very hopeful now with the shale gas industry moving into the area that there will be a lot of work for forseeable future. Once things get going there is supposed to be work for years.

I just wanted to say that it isn't selfish reasons that I want people to have access to affordable coverage, but I really feel bad for people who are suddenly very ill or facing long-term illnesses. It often is not possible to prepare for every evetuality. There is so much suffering in the world, we can only try to help people cope when tragedy does strike...


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Will bashing Canadian health care improve US health care??


----------



## Oggie (May 29, 2003)

I'm beginning to see the logic behind this whole thing.

It all started to come together in my mind when I remembered that this is the same court that also ruled that corporations are people.

So, if we're going to give them the same rights as people (such as giving money to political campaigns, freedom to marry each other, etc.), I guess that's OK if we ask them to take up some adult responsibilities such as buying insurance or taking care of their children.

Personally, I think that it would be kind of nice if a corporation would give me my own special diaper cake that I could eat in the shower.


----------



## countrygurl (Dec 23, 2002)

so if you dont quailfiy under the expanded medicaid, are you covered for health care by paying the 1% fine/tax


----------



## Melissa (Apr 15, 2002)

Not that I can see. But expanded medicaid is not the only option for procuring insurance. There are supposed to be various companies that will offer insurance in each state (health care pools) and a website that helps a person choose a company. People would receive subsidies depending on their income that would help pay for the coverage. It is on that timeline I posted a link to a few pages back. The income guidelines seemed very high. Let me see if I can find it.

http://www.treasury.gov/press-center/Documents/36BFactSheet.PDF


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

countrygurl said:


> so if you dont quailfiy under the expanded medicaid, are you covered for health care by paying the 1% fine/tax


The poorest of the poor may just be left out because of the Medicaid expansion does NOT have to be made by the States. And this is because of what the SC did not do. They left that part to the States.


----------



## How Do I (Feb 11, 2008)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> As I understand it with Obamacare you will be facing criminal charges now unless you cough up the 1500 a month and buy insurance for your son. Nice deal!


You know that isn't true YH. Or maybe you don't.



> SEC. 5000A. REQUIREMENT TO MAINTAIN MINIMUM ESSENTIAL COVERAGE.
> 
> (g) Administration and Procedure-
> 
> ...


This was noted again in the syllabus released by the Supreme Court this morning.



> *Â§5000A(g)(1). The Act, however, bars the IRS from using several of its normal enforcement tools, such as criminal prosecutions and levies.*


----------



## Classof66 (Jul 9, 2011)

A lot of the hospitals, including mine, are going to hospitalists. My own doctor of 35 years said it was the office hours, plus the hospital rounds that wore him out. He does have patients in several nursing homes he sees, and I think he also does a few home visits. If he drops his time at the hospital, he should have more time for office patients.

I am very satisfied with him and my hospital. I was satisfied with the hospitalists too. My worry is that he will retire, he's a year older than me, and I am weary. He has to be exhausted sometimes too.


----------



## Melissa (Apr 15, 2002)

The hospital I go to has hospitalists. One of my good friends is a doctor and she loves them, says it makes her life so much easier, she actually has free weekends now. 

All of the doctors I see now are employees of the hospital. They added an entire new tower and they are growing fast. It is a non-profit charitable hospital. When I was in there for 30 days and had lots of tests, chemo, etc... my total bill was less than my stepfathers was for five days at another hospital and they did not even do much for him. Non-profits are much cheaper and the employees all seem very happy. It is actually a very spirit-minded hospital and it shows in the care and contentment of those who work there. You can really sense a difference as soon as you walk in the door. With everything they are doing, I think they intend to be in it for the long-haul~


----------



## Kevingr (Mar 10, 2006)

MO_cows said:


> One thing I particularly don't like about it was mandating that the insurance companies can only have 20% administrative costs. That is totally against the concept of free enterprise. And what happens at, say, Humana when the accounting department informs the CEO that due to increased costs, their administration costs might go over the 20% limit? Well in that case you raise your rates in order to raise the income enough to get the admin cost within 20% again. So, this part of it seems ill-conceived and short sighted, but we'll see.
> .


This is a huge issue. This part of the law went into effect this year. We're already seeing insurers cutting back on some spending that will actually improve things in the long run (I know first hand but am not at liberty to discuss here). Obama's goal on this mandate is that there won't be huge bonuses to CEO's or other investors on wall street, but that's just not going to be the case. These insurers are still publicly traded companies and must make a profit in order to attract investors. They'll lay people off or cut back on programs before they cut back on a Return On Investment. Price controls or profit controls imposed by a governement never work the way they think they will, it usually has just the opposite affect. The REO for insurance companies is already pretty low, between 5-9%, it will be lower with this mandate.

The other part of this is that small insurers will go out of business. Just as the small family farm can't compete against a large corporate farm because of the economies of scale, the little guys will not be able to compete against the likes of WellPoint, Humana and UnitedHealthGroup. But, that should have a positive effect on pricing, but limit choices.

One of the problems with the current system is that of Choice, and this law still does not change some of that. For instance, in MN a for profit insurance company cannot sell insurance to a person in MN. So, they need to go through the non-profit insurance company thats here in MN, thats Medica. So, the MN government has on purpose created another level of management just in the servicing of insurance. Any for profit company that is part of the Obamacare Insurance Exchange will need to go through Medica to provide insurance to anyone in MN, making that insurance more expensive to a Minnesotan as opposed to someone in Wisconsin. Eliminate that kind of government intrusion and let us buy insurance from anyone around the country and you have an automatic drop in insurance costs.

Also, insurance companies can still raise rates, they just need to explain why they need the increase. Electric companies also need to get permission to raise rates, and justify the rate increase. How many times do you see a rate increase rejected? Not very often.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

As Obama Pushes National Health Care, Most Americans Already Happy With Coverage | Fox News

This link has some very interesting comparisons between how much the Canadian's like their health care versus American's.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Another link comparing healthcare between Canada and the US.

Comparing the U.S. and Canadian Health Care Systems


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

Sonshine said:


> This link has some very interesting comparisons between how much the Canadian's like their health care versus American's.


And yet isn't it interesting that that's NEVER what we observe here on the board? :hrm:
Or maybe it's the fact that this article is three years old... I wonder if the results would be the same now.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

How Does Canadian Health Care Compare?

A recent report describes how Canada&#8217;s healthcare system performs compared to 13 other countries. 

Canada ranked at the bottom in access to care and use of electronic health records, and in the middle regarding costs and health outcomes.

Thirty-eight percent of Canadians felt the system works well, 51% thought it needs fundamental change, and 10% believed it needs to be completely rebuilt.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

Sonshine said:


> How Does Canadian Health Care Compare?
> 
> Canada ranked at the bottom in access to care and use of electronic health records, and in the middle regarding costs and health outcomes.


I see you missed this part of that article: "Canadaâs proximity to the United States means that we often compare our health care system with our neighbour to the south. However, as mentioned above,* the United States spent by far the most on health care of any country, and its measures of quality were frequently among the worst and rarely among the best* (except for access to specialists and surgeries)."


----------



## HOTW (Jul 3, 2007)

Common Tator said:


> Canadians are poorly served by their disastrous healthcare system, and there are hospitals in the US that are set up along the northern border to cater to Canadians who can't get healthcare in Canada.


I grew up in the Canadian system til I was 14. As an adult I have spent over half my adult years unable to afford the high fees for Insurance. My mum is returning to Canada because the system IS better. My brother has lived his whole life in Canada and would not trade his health care for anything. I am planning to retunr to Canada for the benefits of health care under the system. y mum has doen considerable research to weigh her decision and everytime the scale says Canada will serve her needs better.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Melissa said:


> *I imagine we already pay enough money to do what needs done*, just a lot of it is wasted. I have a soft heart for people so I want them to be taken care of when they are sick. I wish there was a good and fair way to accomplish this where people would agree that it is a decent system. I think Americans are a kind and compassionate people and I believe that somehow we will work this out for the good of everyone. At least I hope so...
> 
> We need both- the people who have the soft heart and compassion and the hard-nosed numbers people in this country- because the best answer is probably a compromise between them~


I wish this were true, but unfortunately I have been watching the national deficit and watched as we were downgraded.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Zilli said:


> So, because you saw "many" cars with Canadian license plates in the parking lots of hospitals and doctors' offices, you made the assumption that that must indicate "many" Canadians are unhappy with their health care?
> 
> That's quite a leap, don't you think?
> 
> ...


Do some research. Just because the handful of Canadians on this forum claim to love their insurance doesn't mean all Canadians are as in love with it.


----------



## Zilli (Apr 1, 2012)

HOTW said:


> I grew up in the Canadian system til I was 14. As an adult I have spent over half my adult years unable to afford the high fees for Insurance. My mum is returning to Canada because the system IS better. My brother has lived his whole life in Canada and would not trade his health care for anything. I am planning to retunr to Canada for the benefits of health care under the system. y mum has doen considerable research to weigh her decision and everytime the scale says Canada will serve her needs better.


But....but......what do _you_ know? Or your brother? Or your mum?

After all, you have only first hand experience to go on; all the naysayers here, who don't even live in Canada and never have, have links to websites and cars in parking lots and that means so much more. :doh:


----------



## Common Tator (Feb 19, 2008)

Deacon Mike said:


> You should really vary your news sources. The fact that the court approved this under Congress authority to tax changes nothing about how this bill is paid for.
> 
> And this bill reduces the National Debt. It more than pays for itself.


Try this one. From 2010, it lists at least 12 new taxes on people earning less than $250,000.00 buried in Obama Care. 12 Taxes in Health Care Law Violate Obama


----------



## fellini123 (Feb 2, 2003)

Belfrybat said:


> Why on earth would you think you'd had to pay a penalty since you are covered under the VA? Or why do you think you'd have to pay twice? * It's amazing to me that normally intelligent people go all dumb when talking about the ACA. If you already have insurance from any source, then you are covered by insurance*. Period. No, you won't have to buy insurance -- you already have it. Count your blessings.


I dont know what the ACA is but no I dont have insurance. If you asked me what insurance company I was with the answer would be none. And when I do the yearly update with the VA they ask me if I had any insurance,and I say no, and they write that down. That is why I am asking the question.

Alice in Virginia


----------



## Zilli (Apr 1, 2012)

Sonshine said:


> Do some research. Just because the handful of Canadians on this forum claim to love their insurance doesn't mean all Canadians are as in love with it.


I'm pretty sure that you are right - that not ALL Canadians are in love with it. No system is perfect and I'll bet there are some Canadians who have legitimate complaints about theirs.

But why are you discounting what the "handful" of Canadians on this forum have to say about it? Why is their opinion any less valid than, say _yours_, when you have no personal experience with it?

And when you say the "handful" of Canadians on this forum "claim" to love their insurance, that sounds like you think they are lying.


----------



## Common Tator (Feb 19, 2008)

HOTW said:


> I grew up in the Canadian system til I was 14. As an adult I have spent over half my adult years unable to afford the high fees for Insurance. My mum is returning to Canada because the system IS better. My brother has lived his whole life in Canada and would not trade his health care for anything. I am planning to retunr to Canada for the benefits of health care under the system. y mum has doen considerable research to weigh her decision and everytime the scale says Canada will serve her needs better.


You can have your socialist ideal of health care here if you are willing to pay a LOT more in taxes.

12 Taxes in Health Care Law Violate Obama


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

ErinP said:


> I see you missed this part of that article: "Canadaâs proximity to the United States means that we often compare our health care system with our neighbour to the south. However, as mentioned above,* the United States spent by far the most on health care of any country, and its measures of quality were frequently among the worst and rarely among the best* (except for access to specialists and surgeries)."


I have never said our healthcare system was perfect. It does need some work, but it does not need to be socialized. Since Canada is the country everyone here is using as a comparison I am using it as an example of why I don't think it's really going to do what everyone seems to think it is. You and others have talked about how much Canadians love their universal healthcare, yet statistics that I have posted claim otherwise.


----------



## whiskeylivewire (May 27, 2009)

I'm like Melissa; I want to know how this will affect me. Dh has insurance, the kids are on Medicaid and I have no insurance. If I went on DH's insurance through is work then it would take half his paycheck. I was on Medicaid when we were just living together and not married but once we married I was kicked off (and I was okay with that).

Anyway, I am the only one uninsured. That is the most confusing thing to me...if I can't afford insurance how can I afford to pay a fine, a tax or whatever they want to call it? 

So confused about all of this!


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Since this is not GC I will stop posting to this thread.


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

Sonshine said:


> Do some research. Just because the handful of Canadians on this forum claim to love their insurance doesn't mean all Canadians are as in love with it.


Every survey taken in Canada clearly shows that Canadians love their healthcare system. It isn't perfect but it is excellent. For every election the maintenance of the healthcare system is the number one concern and politicians who have other ideas do not last. The country voted for the Greatest Canadian of all time and it was the politician who brought in Universal Healthcare.

I have lived in five provinces and two territories and have had excellent healthcare in all for myself and my family. We all go to the doctor for yearly physicals and once past age 50 this includes mammograms as well as full dermal body examination for skin cancer and testing for prostate cancer. I have never had to wait more than a couple of days for an appointment or more than 4 weeks to see a specialist. Whenever any of us have had to go to the hospital on an emergency basis the care was fast and efficient and if surgery or admittance was needed it happened right then. 

Tomorrow morning I go to the hospital for my IV treatment for cancer and the full blood work panel that is done every 4 weeks. The only thing that I ever have to worry about is not getting there in time to snag my favourite recliner by the window. My cancer is incurable but I get the best care and monitoring and I never have to worry about this being taken away from me or leaving my family with huge medical bills that will bankrupt them. 

Every member of my family has received all the care they have needed from cradle (for those born here) to grave (for those who have died).

The Canadian system may not work for Americans but then it does not have to as long as it works for us.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

Sonshine said:


> Since Canada is the country everyone here is using as a comparison I am using it as an example of why I don't think it's really going to do what everyone seems to think it is.


Umm...Quick point of order, it was a CANADIAN who brought Canada into the discussion with the point that it was an upheaval in her country, too, when they first did it. And then proceeded to say why they were better off having it. 



> You and others have talked about how much Canadians love their universal healthcare, yet statistics that I have posted claim otherwise.


No, I've said every Canadian _I've ever talked to_ has loved their healthcare. For me, that says far more than "statistics." :shrug:


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

whiskeylivewire said:


> That is the most confusing thing to me...if I can't afford insurance how can I afford to pay a fine, a tax or whatever they want to call it?


More likely than not, you'll qualify for the subsidized state-sponsored insurance plan. Run the Washington Post calculator that was posted (page 2 maybe? 3?)


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

Common Tator said:


> You can have your socialist ideal of health care here if you are willing to pay a LOT more in taxes.
> 
> 12 Taxes in Health Care Law Violate Obama


This isn't true. We pay more but not a lot more. Just compare the US tax rates to the Canadian tax rates and here corporate tax is only 15% . I paid a total of $16,000 federal and provincial income tax on an $82,000 taxable income which is 19.5%. Of that $ 16,000 ten percent is applied to healthcare which means it cost me $1600.


----------



## Zilli (Apr 1, 2012)

emdeengee said:


> My cancer is incurable but I get the best care and monitoring and I never have to worry about this being taken away from me or leaving my family with huge medical bills that will bankrupt them.



My brother was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer a little over a year and a half ago.

While the doctors didn't give him any hope for a cure, his life could have at least been extended with treatment; however, he chose to forgo treatment because of the cost and the potential financial crisis that could have left his wife in.

As far as I am concerned, NO ONE should ever have to make that choice - between life and death and financial concerns.

He died less than three months after his diagnosis.


----------



## stickinthemud (Sep 10, 2003)

The Washington Post calculator to figure is at post #53 on page 2.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Zilli said:


> My brother was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer a little over a year and a half ago.
> 
> While the doctors didn't give him any hope for a cure, his life could have at least been extended with treatment; however, he chose to forgo treatment because of the cost and the potential financial crisis that could have left his wife in.
> 
> ...


I'm so sorry. That is awful and I agree with you. No one should have to make that choice.


----------



## Zilli (Apr 1, 2012)

LisaInN.Idaho said:


> I'm so sorry.


Thank you.



> That is awful and I agree with you. No one should have to make that choice.


Unfortunately, people in this country have to make that same choice every single day. And for many of those, there IS hope and they either have to forgo treatment because of financial concerns, or they are denied treatment by their insurance providers.

Hopefully this new bill will help some people actually LIVE.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

Zilli said:


> My brother was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer a little over a year and a half ago.
> 
> While the doctors didn't give him any hope for a cure, his life could have at least been extended with treatment; however, he chose to forgo treatment because of the cost and the potential financial crisis that could have left his wife in.
> 
> ...


My Mom had the same thing with insurance it just prolonged the misery and the end result was the same . Sometimes there is just no good outcome .After staying with her i'll take O's blue pill or was it the red one .


----------



## mifarmguy (Jun 1, 2012)

Just want to say thx to melissa and all the posters for a lively discussion, like everyone i imagine i've been trying to figure out how this will affect my wife and I. I just started a new job that offers good insurance for about $80 a week. after being without ins. for 2 years I was pretty happy. if I understand it right, in 2014 i might be able to get ins. through some kind of "pool". I think it might be cheaper(not sure). the thing about a "pool" i thought would be good was it wouldn't be tied to your job in case something happens.
I would like to add, I just don't understand why people are comparing this to canada's system, seems like apples and oranges to me. IMO even crappy health care is better than no health care.


----------



## Zilli (Apr 1, 2012)

Sawmill Jim said:


> My Mom had the same thing with insurance it just prolonged the misery and the end result was the same . Sometimes there is just no good outcome .After staying with her i'll take O's blue pill or was it the red one .


My brother had insurance, too - Medicare.

But Medicare doesn't pay for everything and his wife would have still been left with an enormous amount of expense to take care of.

I'm not going to lie - in my brother's case, the financial aspects were only a part of why he chose to forgo treatment - but they were a big part of it.

And they shouldn't have had to be part of the equation at all.

But there are plenty of others out there who _do_ want treatment, who do want to fight and who may have the odds on their side, but who CAN'T because they can't afford it.

And I think it is very sad that a country as great and as wealthy as ours will let people die in the street before reaching out to help those who need it by making sure that everyone has access to medical care.

The lack of compassion expressed by some of our citizens for others is appalling.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

I met a man from New Zealand a couple of years ago and he was just so thrilled about the possibility of national healthcare here. He talked about the system in New Zealand. I tried to tell him the system we are going to get is going to be like that. There was no way to begin with the system we now have and come up with a system as they have in most nations.

There is no way healthcare corporations or insurance companies are going to see a reduction in their income. If any of them thought this was even a remote possibility, we would not have it.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Jackson Hole Daily | Ruling could benefit hospital

Ruling could benefit hospital

print page | email editor

By Benjamin Graham, Jackson Hole, Wyo.
June 29, 2012

Given the preponderance of uninsured residents in Teton County, St. Johnâs Medical Center could benefit from the health care law upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday.

In theory, the number of uninsured people will decrease because the lawâs individual mandate requires nearly all Americans to have health insurance or pay a fine, the hospitalâs CEO Lou Hochheiser said.

Somewhere around 20 to 25 percent of people living in Teton County are uninsured, he said.


----------



## gilberte (Sep 25, 2004)

Let's see, a little while ago The Supremes ruled that sources political contributions didn't have to be revealed to the public. Now they say it's okay for the gooberment to mandate the purchase of health insurance or face consequences. How long before the gooberment starts to mandate the purchase of broccoli?

_Soylent Green_ here we come!


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

davel745 said:


> You are going to pay and then pay some more and when you turn 62 you will be denied health care.


I'm pretty sure its age 75...that's in the bill. Many of the procedures will not be available to 75 & older...which isn't that old, many here are approaching that age & will live a decade or 2 longer.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

big rockpile said:


> What really burns my behind is the fact they took it behind closed doors,passed it,then say we will read it and deal with it after passed.
> 
> You don't do this!
> 
> big rockpile


That's really not even the worst...doesn't everyone remember ALL of 'em saying "Its not a tax!". POTUS on dozens of vids saying NO TAX! "Not a tax. Its constitutional under the commerce clause." Then whoops! The solititor general goes to the SCOTUS & says, uh...its a tax. FRAUD!
Never wouldv'e passed if they'd said it's a tax. SCOTUS said its NOT legasl under the commerce clause!


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Common Tator said:


> Melissa, Could you please tell me what I said that was mean? I was responding to a poster who has alluded to being a Canadian, telling us that Americans are fleeing to Canada to take advantage of their healthcare system.
> 
> And YOU seem to be celebrating the passage of the biggest tax increase in American history, because you don't have insurance. Passage of Obamacare actually HURTS most of us. The only people celebrating it are the ones who will benefit from it. I know you talked about your Hubby's job being on and off and how hard it is to get insurance with your leukemia, but have you ever asked yourself if perhaps the choices that you and hubby made contributed to your lack of insurance? Yes, you get to live in a place that you love, in the country. While others live in the city and toil away so that they can provide healthcare for their families.
> 
> ...


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Deacon Mike said:


> You should really vary your news sources. The fact that the court approved this under Congress authority to tax changes nothing about how this bill is paid for.
> 
> And this bill reduces the National Debt. It more than pays for itself.


Then how come the US budget officials say its twice as expensive as they led us to believe at 1st?


----------



## Belfrybat (Feb 21, 2003)

countrygurl said:


> so if you dont quailfiy under the expanded medicaid, are you covered for health care by paying the 1% fine/tax


NO, the 1-2.5% (phased in gradually) fine will not purchase insurance. Where on earth did you get that idea? The fine is for those who *can afford *health insurance but CHOOSE not to purchase it. They remain uncovered by insurance but will pay a fine for doing so. The expanded Medicaid is ONLY for those (living in States that will approve it), *who make up to 133% *o f the Federal Poverty level. If someone makes more than that they they will need to purchase insurance as long as it doesn't cost more than 8% of their income or pay a fine. If that person can't find a policy less than 8% of their income, then they are exempt from the provision of purchasing insurance (NO FINE) or might be eligible for a subsidy. 

To put this in perspective. A person making $25,000. a year ($2080. a month) will not pay more than $167.00 a month for health insurance. Either that person will receive a subsidy to make up the difference or will be exempt from getting insurance.


----------



## Belfrybat (Feb 21, 2003)

fellini123 said:


> I dont know what the ACA is but no I dont have insurance. If you asked me what insurance company I was with the answer would be none. And when I do the yearly update with the VA they ask me if I had any insurance,and I say no, and they write that down. That is why I am asking the question.
> 
> Alice in Virginia


ACA = Affordable Care Act --* the subject of this thread *-- sometimes derogatively called "Obamacare". Sorry but you are not making sense. You state that healthcare is part of your military retirement. Therefore you have healthcare already -- an insurance substitute if you want to call it that. YOU ARE ALREADY COVERED so would not buy another healthcare (insurance) policy. The reason you are asked if you have insurance is that the VA healthcare comes second to other insurance. So, for example, if you worked at a job that had healthcare (ie. insurance) as a benefit, that policy would pay first then the VA would pick up the remainder.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

[/url][/IMG]


----------



## Belfrybat (Feb 21, 2003)

Sonshine said:


> Another link comparing healthcare between Canada and the US.
> 
> Comparing the U.S. and Canadian Health Care Systems


I'm confused -- the ACA is not a clone of the Canadian system, so why are you harping on their healthcare system so much? Frankly, I wish the ACA was a clone of either the Canadian or UK systems as they are ten times better as the broken system we have in this country. Yes, non-emergency care is sometime delayed in single-payer systems, *but the same is true here unless you can afford it*.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Belfrybat said:


> I'm confused -- the ACA is not a clone of the Canadian system, so why are you harping on their healthcare system so much? Frankly, I wish the ACA was a clone of either the Canadian or UK systems as they are ten times better as the broken system we have in this country. Yes, non-emergency care is sometime delayed in single-payer systems, *but the same is true here unless you can afford it*.


I agree. They are two vastly different systems and can not be compared. US insurance companies and their paperwork are something I would not wish on anyone. The stress of having to deal with the insurance companies and their ability to deny payment for services is a burden that not ill person should ever have to deal with.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

How Do I said:


> You know that isn't true YH. Or maybe you don't.
> 
> 
> 
> This was noted again in the syllabus released by the Supreme Court this morning.


Thanks for the info.... and no I was not aware that there was to be no penalty for failure to provide oneself with insurance. That in itself pretty much renders the individual mandate a moot point. Apparently the mandate just says "You must provide yourself with insurance" but they have no provisions to enforce said mandate. I wonder if they can enforce the provision that says insurance companies must insure you with pre-existing conditions? Why would ANYONE insure themselves???? You just wait until you are hit with a medical problem.... and trot down to the insurance company and demand they pay for your care! Oh yeah... this is a wonderful bill!


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Belfrybat said:


> NO, the 1-2.5% (phased in gradually) fine will not purchase insurance. Where on earth did you get that idea? The fine is for those who *can afford *health insurance but CHOOSE not to purchase it. They remain uncovered by insurance but will pay a fine for doing so. The expanded Medicaid is ONLY for those (living in States that will approve it), *who make up to 140% *o f the Federal Poverty level. If someone makes more than that they they will need to purchase insurance as long as it doesn't cost more than 8% of their income or pay a fine. If that person can't find a policy less than 8% of their income, then they are exempt from the provision of purchasing insurance (NO FINE) or might be eligible for a subsidy.
> 
> To put this in perspective. A person making $25,000. a year ($2080. a month) will not pay more than $167.00 a month for health insurance. Either that person will receive a subsidy to make up the difference or will be exempt from getting insurance.



so in otherwords, someone else has to pay for coverage for others and my HC will be controled by the Goverment.


----------



## Common Tator (Feb 19, 2008)

wr said:


> Will bashing Canadian health care improve US health care??


No. It shows us what we can expect.

Or we can look at the NHS in Great Britain, where they are killing off the elderly, so they don't have to care for them.

Top doctor's chilling claim: The NHS kills off 130,000 elderly patients every year | Mail Online

No matter how you look at socialized medicine, it is deadly.


----------



## thequeensblessing (Mar 30, 2003)

mnn2501 said:


> So its a 1% fine and say you make $50K a year - that means you'll pay $500 fine for a year with no health care - rising to $1250 in 2016.


And this 1% "fine/penalty/tax is going to pay to add all those uninsured to the roles of the federal government's plan? You really believe that? I believe there are a lot more hidden taxes in this plan that most Americans are completely unaware of.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

7thswan said:


> so in otherwords, someone else has to pay for coverage for others and my HC will be controled by the Goverment.



You already pay for coverage for other people. You pay higher costs across the board for everything from medical supplies to hospital costs and even insurance.


----------



## thequeensblessing (Mar 30, 2003)

Melissa said:


> I punched in that calculator and it said for 2 people making 20K a year it would cost about $600-800 ANNUALLY...


And the health care for those individuals is going to be well over that, often times 10 times that, or more. Who's going to pay for that? Where is all that money going to come from?


----------



## Classof66 (Jul 9, 2011)

I had mentioned the hospitalists earlier, I also feel the nurse practitioners can help lessen the load on our doctors. There are many everyday health issues that really don't require a doctor, but do require a professional. I have no problem going to a practitioner for a kids physical, a sore throat or a UTI. Walgreens or my health department is fine for a vaccine or something simple. I love my family doctor, I've always been worked in when I needed him. My job went away in 2009 tho, and I lost my insurance. I was almost retirement age, our area jobless rate was high. I am a cancer survivor a cobra would have taken most of my unemployment. I was able to get on disability and am now on Medicare, but there were a few iffy months.


----------



## Common Tator (Feb 19, 2008)

emdeengee said:


> This isn't true. We pay more but not a lot more. Just compare the US tax rates to the Canadian tax rates and here corporate tax is only 15% . I paid a total of $16,000 federal and provincial income tax on an $82,000 taxable income which is 19.5%. Of that $ 16,000 ten percent is applied to healthcare which means it cost me $1600.


I wasn't talking to you. Remember, you are a Canadian. This discussion is really about the horrible underhanded extremely expensive legislation that was designed to buy votes for democrats tight here in the good old United States of America. I was addressing Hotw, who was thinking of going back to his/her childhood home in Canada. Read what I actually said.


Common Tator said:


> You can have your socialist ideal of health care *here* if you are willing to pay a LOT more in taxes.
> 
> 12 Taxes in Health Care Law Violate Obama


I bolded the word *here* for you, to emphasise that I am talking about the US. *Our* taxes are going up dramatically to pay for this.

And as an added bonus for Americans, taxes are going up anyway, because the Bush tax cuts are set to expire.


----------



## thequeensblessing (Mar 30, 2003)

Raeven said:


> One thing that I think is underappreciated about having greater access is the extent to which this should help reduce costs.
> 
> For many years, the goal of government has been to shift rising health care costs from employers to employees and individuals. We saw more and more procedures not being covered by insurance, as well as higher-percentage co-pays and such. Health Savings Accounts were introduced (in about 2002, if I recall correctly) as a means of making people more aware of health care costs and were even touted as "consumer driven health care."
> 
> ...


Sounds good in theory, however, it never works in practice. Knowing you'll have to pay your own insurance isn't going to cause folks to eat less, or drink less, or stop smoking. Someone is going to have to pay for their continued care due to their bad choices, or will these choices be mandated, or taxed too eventually to "cut health care costs"?
I don't want some government bureaucrat deciding for me what type of cancer surgery I'm going to have. I had breast cancer. I opted for mastectomy as it reduced my personal rate of recurrence to less than 5%, and I didn't need chemo or radiation. If I'd opted for the lumpectomy, I'd have to have had at least radiation. I had a simple reconstruction that I'm perfectly happy with and I don't have to worry about a recurrence like I might have with lumpectomy, and I certainly don't want to be exposed to radiation and all the pitfalls involved with that if I can help it. But I made the choice, not some Washington DC insider who thinks I need to "preserve my breast at all costs" for financial or any other reasons. It's my body. I get to choose.


----------



## Melissa (Apr 15, 2002)

thequeensblessing said:


> And the health care for those individuals is going to be well over that, often times 10 times that, or more. Who's going to pay for that? Where is all that money going to come from?


I agree, the numbers do not add up. I don't think that is nearly enough to pay...


----------



## Belfrybat (Feb 21, 2003)

thequeensblessing said:


> *I don't want some government bureaucrat deciding for me what type of cancer surgery I'm going to have.* I had breast cancer. I opted for mastectomy as it reduced my personal rate of recurrence to less than 5%, and I didn't need chemo or radiation.... But I made the choice, not some Washington DC insider who thinks I need to "preserve my breast at all costs" for financial or any other reasons. It's my body. I get to choose.


Actually, unless you paid for the entire procedure out of pocket, your insurance company made that choice, or allowed you to make the choice. I have a friend with breast cancer and her insurance company would only cover a lumpectomy. She opted for a mastectomy but had to pay the difference out of pocket. So healthcare is already regulated but by big business. Like you, I'd like to have infinite choices, and if I were a billionaire, I could do just that. But reality is healthcare is already rationed in this country (and every other that I know of). In a perfect world that wouldn't be true, but we don't live in a perfect world.


----------



## thequeensblessing (Mar 30, 2003)

Belfrybat said:


> Actually, unless you paid for the entire procedure out of pocket, your insurance company made that choice, or allowed you to make the choice. I have a friend with breast cancer and her insurance company would only cover a lumpectomy. She opted for a mastectomy but had to pay the difference out of pocket. So healthcare is already regulated but by big business. Like you, I'd like to have infinite choices, and if I were a billionaire, I could do just that. But reality is healthcare is already rationed in this country (and every other that I know of). In a perfect world that wouldn't be true, but we don't live in a perfect world.


I agree with you...and I don't. 

I'm sure insurance companies make that choice all the time. I don't agree with that either. 2 wrongs don't make a right. However, I payed out of pocket for my treatment. No, it wasn't cheap, and no, we weren't rich. We sold EVERYTHING to come up with the money to get what we considered was the best treatment option available for me. And when I say we sold EVERYTHING, I mean EVERYTHING! It was all just stuff. I've replaced that "stuff" 10 times over in the 16 years since my cancer treatment. I don't want my insurance company, or especially some bureaucrat in Washington, telling me what my choices are. I want that to reside with me, with input from my doctor.


----------



## Belfrybat (Feb 21, 2003)

> Originally Posted by thequeensblessing
> And the health care for those individuals is going to be well over that, often times 10 times that, or more. Who's going to pay for that? Where is all that money going to come from?





Melissa said:


> I agree, the numbers do not add up. I don't think that is nearly enough to pay...


I agree with Melissa, but when you input more reasonable income amount, it does add up. I've posted an example earler of someone making $35,000.00. What folks don't seem to grasp is those people unable to find a policy that is 8% or less of their income will be exempt from the fine/ penalty. The additional cost of the healthcare policy above 8% can possibly be met by a subsidy -- given as a tax credit. Since so many people on this forum are against taxes, that should be good news as a tax credit mean less taxes to pay.


----------



## Melissa (Apr 15, 2002)

I have learned that doctors will fight with insurance companies if they really believe in something. My family doctor is pretty amazing that way. She has a small office and you often walk in to find her on the phone going head-to-head with the insurance companies. She can get downright disgruntled with them!!!

My oncologists would do the same thing. He said there was nothing worse than someone having advanced degrees, years of experience ,and rated as one of the best doctors in the country having to try to persuade an insurance company about treatment that he KNOWS works. It seemed humiliating to him. He wanted to practice medicine in the best way he knew how and not worry about whether it was approved or not...


----------



## fetch33 (Jan 15, 2010)

Raeven said:


> I am self-employed and I cried with relief this morning when I heard the ruling.
> 
> I lost my excellent group health care coverage when my husband died -- or more accurately, 3 years after he died. The main reason he went to work for Home Depot was because of the health care benefits. He was from New Zealand/Australia, and he was utterly perplexed at our health care system. The idea that you had to pay shocking amounts out of your own pocket for health care if you were unemployed/self-employed just floored him. When he passed away, I was left with COBRA and I kept up with it, even though it was expensive.
> 
> ...



I know a man from New Zealand who married an American woman. He is up there in age, about 80. He had heart surgery a few years ago. Said he would have died if he lived in New Zealand. He has friends and relatives over there that died while waiting for cardiac care. SOP...delay until the patient is dead. Happens in Canada too. And as a nurse, I have read many medical boards and forums where people have shared experiences. It all isn't sunshine and roses. I predict many insurance companies will go out of business due to the lack of profit. I also believe that is the progressives/liberals ultimate goal....run all of the private insurance companies out of business and have even more government control over our lives.


----------



## thequeensblessing (Mar 30, 2003)

Belfrybat said:


> I agree with Melissa, but when you input more reasonable income amount, it does add up. I've posted an example earler of someone making $35,000.00. What folks don't seem to grasp is those people unable to find a policy that is 8% or less of their income will be exempt from the fine/ penalty. The additional cost of the healthcare policy above 8% can be met by a subsidy -- given as a tax credit. Since so many people on this forum are against taxes, that should be good news as a tax credit mean less taxes to pay.


But SOMEONE has to pay. The numbers just don't add up. Here we have a small tax penalty to pay, lots more people insured, many under the government plan, lots of state exemptions, business waivers, and personal exemptions, and, supposedly, lower insurance premiums. So, please tell me...Where is all the money going to come from to pay for all this free stuff, waivers, and exemptions for all these people?


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

whiskeylivewire said:


> I'm like Melissa; I want to know how this will affect me. Dh has insurance, the kids are on Medicaid and I have no insurance. If I went on DH's insurance through is work then it would take half his paycheck. I was on Medicaid when we were just living together and not married but once we married I was kicked off (and I was okay with that).
> 
> Anyway, I am the only one uninsured. That is the most confusing thing to me...if I can't afford insurance how can I afford to pay a fine, a tax or whatever they want to call it?
> 
> So confused about all of this!


 In theory you would be able to purchase subsidized health insurance from the pool they will generate or you would be added to the expanded Medicaid pool which was a key piece of Obamacare that the SCOTUS struck down. You live in a Red state that has said they wont participate in the expanded Medicaid pool due to the cost (Missouri has a balanced budget amendment and cant pony up the cash) so it remains to be seen if this will do anything for you in 2014 or not.

I keep seeing people talk about how the feds will pay 100% of the costs for the expanded Medicaid pool for a few years then 90% thereafter so why wouldnt states buy into it? What they dont see is that there are a lot of hidden costs that would cost states hundreds of millions; i.e., they estimate 25 - 30% of people in Missouri who are Medicaid eligible now have not signed up for some reason but under Obamacare they probably would to avoid the fine and those costs are not reimbursable by the feds at the 100% or 90% rate.

Its a devilish predicament; either most states get in line and comply with Obamacare and find the money to do so or the whole concept crumbles. SCOTUS stripping penalty and enforcement provisions leaves everything hanging which is why I caution against planning on this helping you anytime soon. Neither the states or feds have a realistic plan to pay for this other than a nebulous and dubious claim that fewer uninsured will bring costs down which will ramp up the economy....hmmm.

As for Canadian health care, its not really relevant. Most Canadians I know like what they have just like surveys in the US show most people are satisfied now with their health care in this country. We in the US have somehow bought into the theme that Canadian Health Care is substandard and Canadians dont like it and Canadians have bought the argument that most people in the US dont have access to health care due to coast and our health care is substandard; neither theme is true. Most people in the US according to virtually every survey are happy with the care they receive and poor people do get health care.....the real argument that is lost on both side apparently is how do we pay for it all. What we have now is incredibly expensive and we all pay for it but Obamacare goes against the very fabric of our national identity. How to reconcile those two issues is the problem.


----------



## stickinthemud (Sep 10, 2003)

Melissa said:


> I agree, the numbers do not add up. I don't think that is nearly enough to pay...


Agreed. When ACA was debated I read all I could find on it. Somewhere in that mass of paper (electrons) there is a provision that limits how fast/much insurance companies can increase premiums. Somewhere else there are provisions that mandate coverage of previously existing conditions and eliminate limits on how much insurance will have to pay. Things don't add up for insurance companies either. 
In my opinion, ACA is just a (deliberate) step on the way to single-payer via a health care bubble/collapse scenario echoing the housing crash.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

salmonslayer - one of the best posts I've seen explaining this mess.


----------



## Melissa (Apr 15, 2002)

I wonder if the average person took the total amount they spend on healthcare each year- insurance paid by themselves or on their behalf, co-pays, deductibles, cash payments etc... and that was paid into a single-pay system if the amount paid would moderate over time. I have a good friend who believes that insurance companies have single-handedly driven the huge increase in costs and that they should be completely elimininated. I have not believed that could happen. I am starting to think it might be cheaper if it did...


----------



## thequeensblessing (Mar 30, 2003)

Melissa said:


> I wonder if the average person took the total amount they spend on healthcare each year- insurance paid by themselves or on their behalf, co-pays, deductibles, cash payments etc... and that was paid into a single-pay system if the amount paid would moderate over time. I have a good friend who believes that insurance companies have single-handedly driven the huge increase in costs and that they should be completely elimininated. I have not believed that could happen. I am starting to think it might be cheaper if it did...


I think this is why people bring up the Canadian system when discussing Obamacare. The statements made, vilifying the insurance companies, and the promises made in regards to lower overall health care, haven't exactly added up that way with our neighbor to the north, as you can see here:

Are You Winning the Canadian Health Care Lottery? | thepatientfactor.com

Or here:

User fees could fix Canada&#8217;s healthcare deficit: OECD | Benefits Canada

In the above article, they are advocating going back to a more privately-funded program, or a "hybrid" of private and public. The whole thing revolves around funding. Sounds so familiar...


----------



## gilberte (Sep 25, 2004)

Stop thinking for yourself! yer gonna gum up the whole works. Best you subscribe to GREED and let the gooberment take care of ya.


----------



## Melissa (Apr 15, 2002)

lol, maybe you're right,think I'll just go to the garden. I understand that a lot better...


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

fetch33 said:


> I know a man from New Zealand who married an American woman. He is up there in age, about 80. He had heart surgery a few years ago. Said he would have died if he lived in New Zealand. He has friends and relatives over there that died while waiting for cardiac care. SOP...delay until the patient is dead. Happens in Canada too. And as a nurse, I have read many medical boards and forums where people have shared experiences. It all isn't sunshine and roses. I predict many insurance companies will go out of business due to the lack of profit. I also believe that is the progressives/liberals ultimate goal....run all of the private insurance companies out of business and have even more government control over our lives.


Yes, and I have a friend whose parents were visiting from Britain and whose father suffered a bout of pancreatitis while here and ended up dying in the hospital in Florida. The family and my friend will NEVER be persuaded that the care he received in Florida was not substandard and rushed, that they were not well informed as to his condition -- and that the lack of care provided is what killed his father.

My mother-in-law is a resident of New Zealand. She is 85 years old. Still going strong and receives all the medical attention she needs whenever she needs it.

We can go back and forth and trade these stories all day long.


----------



## thequeensblessing (Mar 30, 2003)

Raeven said:


> Yes, and I have a friend whose parents were visiting from Britain and whose father suffered a bout of pancreatitis while here and ended up dying in the hospital in Florida. The family and my friend will NEVER be persuaded that the care he received in Florida was not substandard and rushed, that they were not well informed as to his condition -- and that the lack of care provided is what killed his father.
> 
> My mother-in-law is a resident of New Zealand. She is 85 years old. Still going strong and receives all the medical attention she needs whenever she needs it.
> 
> We can go back and forth and trade these stories all day long.


True, which is why I try to focus on the funding issues rather than the merits of one flavor of health care verses another. I want to be responsible for my own health care. I don't want to be responsible for higher taxes and pay other folks health care, except in rare cases of emergency. I don't want anyone else paying my health care costs. I don't want to give up my freedom of choice enough for that. It's not worth the money. I don't want to pay for someone's health care who smoked their entire life, etc. What has happened to personal responsibility? And as of yet no one has answered for me, Who is going to pay for all this and how? Is it that nobody really knows?


----------



## Melissa (Apr 15, 2002)

It simply has to be paid with higher taxes on someone,there is no other way...


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

Melissa said:


> It simply has to be paid with higher taxes on someone,there is no other way...


And there is the rub....


----------



## Deacon Mike (May 23, 2007)

thequeensblessing said:


> But SOMEONE has to pay. The numbers just don't add up. Here we have a small tax penalty to pay, lots more people insured, many under the government plan, lots of state exemptions, business waivers, and personal exemptions, and, supposedly, lower insurance premiums. So, please tell me...Where is all the money going to come from to pay for all this free stuff, waivers, and exemptions for all these people?


Google's your friend

Broaden Medicare tax base for high-income taxpayers: $210.2 billion
Annual fee on health insurance providers: $60 billion
40% excise tax on health coverage in excess of $10,200/$27,500: $32 billion
Impose annual fee on manufacturers and importers of branded drugs: $27 billion
Impose 2.3% excise tax on manufacturers and importers of certain medical devices: $20 billion
Raise 7.5% Adjusted Gross Income floor on medical expenses deduction to 10%: $15.2 billion
Limit contributions to flexible spending arrangements in cafeteria plans to $2,500: $13 billion
All other revenue sources: $14.9 billion


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

The simply truth is you are already paying for those costs. You just pay for them in hidden ways.

Instead of providing preventative health care for everyone and reducing expensive operations that end up costing more, we put the costs off. Then when that person can not afford it, we all pay either in taxes , higher premium costs or insurance costs.

Those bills will costs you whether they are yours or for someone else.


----------



## Deacon Mike (May 23, 2007)

thequeensblessing said:


> I don't want to give up my freedom of choice enough for that. It's not worth the money.


Why would you give up your freedom of choice?




thequeensblessing said:


> [ I don't want to pay for someone's health care who smoked their entire life, etc. What has happened to personal responsibility???



You already are paying for other people's health care. How come people don't seem to get that? As far as personal responsibilty, this law mandates it.



thequeensblessing said:


> And as of yet no one has answered for me, Who is going to pay for all this and how? Is it that nobody really knows?


See my previous post.


----------



## thequeensblessing (Mar 30, 2003)

Deacon Mike said:


> Google's your friend
> 
> Broaden Medicare tax base for high-income taxpayers: $210.2 billion
> Annual fee on health insurance providers: $60 billion
> ...


Yes, I know all this, and I appreciate you posting it here for us. So, I repeat...who is ultimately going to pay for this? The answer? We are, via all these hidden taxes and "rate hikes" which will simply be passed along to us, the consumer, thereby raising our health care costs even more. If Melissa thinks her chemo pills were expensive before...if the govt. agreed to pay them, they'd be even more expensive due to the annual fees imposed on those manufacturers that would be undoubtedly shared with us. If the govt. didn't pay for it, and if she could pay cash for it, it would cost her even more than it did a year or so ago. How does this help bring down the cost of healthcare?


----------



## thequeensblessing (Mar 30, 2003)

Deacon Mike said:


> Why would you give up your freedom of choice?


 As has been stated in this thread...somewhere...costs will be kept down by limiting "unnecessary" testing/treatment. Who is going to be determining what is "unnecessary"? Some bureaucrat in Washington? I don't believe they will do any different than the insurance companies do in refusing certain procedures, such as my mastectomy. But unlike with private insurance, I will lose the ability to elect to pay for it myself, with cash, without being "taxed" for opting to pay in American currency for my health care. Yes, that is giving up my freedom to choose. 






Deacon Mike said:


> You already are paying for other people's health care. How come people don't seem to get that? As far as personal responsibilty, this law mandates it.


 I don't like paying for other people's health care NOW. Why would I want to add even more people to those rolls and pay for even more people's health care? Just because we're doing it already doesn't mean its ok to heap more and more on. As I said earlier, two wrongs don't make a right.


----------



## Deacon Mike (May 23, 2007)

thequeensblessing said:


> I don't like paying for other people's health care NOW. Why would I want to add even more people to those rolls and pay for even more people's health care? Just because we're doing it already doesn't mean its ok to heap more and more on. As I said earlier, two wrongs don't make a right.



People without insurance use the ER like a doctor's office, and we pay for that. ER visits are expensive and it's Federal law that ER's are required to treat people. If people had insurance and used preventative care, there overall health expenses would drop, regardless of who's paying.


----------



## thequeensblessing (Mar 30, 2003)

Deacon Mike said:


> People without insurance use the ER like a doctor's office, and we pay for that. ER visits are expensive and it's Federal law that ER's are required to treat people. If people had insurance and used preventative care, there overall health expenses would drop, regardless of who's paying.


Sure, I agree. It gets back to personal responsibility, but treating a lack of personal responsibility by taking it away from a larger and ever growing sector of society is counter intuitive, don't you think? I've never denied our health care system (actually our insurance system) needs to be reworked, but here, we're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. 
Adding more and more taxes and hidden fees, and trying to sell it to the people as not being a tax increase, that it will substantially lower health care costs, that people won't lose freedom of choice is all simply untrue. Even if people stop going to the ER for a runny nose, we're still going to be taxed and fined and penalized.


----------



## jlrbhjmnc (May 2, 2010)

The Canadian and UK models do work for them as I understand from online friends in Canada and England (our Canadian HT'ers seem to generally agree).

When we argue the Canadian health care model versus the US health care model we are talking apples to ground beef, even WITH the "Affordable Care Act" in force.

The Canadian and UK political system is vastly different from the United States. The entire society works on a different understanding of the relationship of government to the governed than we have in the US.

The US political and social contract is just different and not cut out to manage a program like the health care of a huge population. If you think there is waste and abuse now, wait and see. The populations of Canada and the UK will likely be able to fund their entire health care systems on what we will throw away in this even more elaborate and entitled system.

This is why the current broken system in the US and the coming even more broken and labyrinthine system under this new law will only make things worse.

In the US, Medicare (the forerunner to the ACA) pays for doing things to bodies, not for good outcomes - despite lip service to that end. No procedure, no payment. Actually spending time with a physician or other professional is a no-no - in and out, move the bodies along. Ask any health care professional who runs a practice and has to meet payroll how it works. They know.


----------



## Lizza (Nov 30, 2005)

Melissa said:


> I wonder if the average person took the total amount they spend on healthcare each year- insurance paid by themselves or on their behalf, co-pays, deductibles, cash payments etc... and that was paid into a single-pay system if the amount paid would moderate over time. I have a good friend who believes that insurance companies have single-handedly driven the huge increase in costs and that they should be completely elimininated. I have not believed that could happen. I am starting to think it might be cheaper if it did...


I think so Melissa (single payer system). Here is a link: What is Single Payer? | Physicians for a National Health Program

That is the worst thing about the new health care as far as I'm concerned, it didn't go far enough, instead we just have the same for profit cobbled together system of coverage but only with the addition that everyone must have it, even though it sucks already, does nothing to fix our costs or the fact that we have no continuity. I read an article a few weeks ago that said if this would have failed it almost would have been better because it might have set us up for something better (single payer system) but alas we are stuck with this. Like I said, I'm just hoping to buy some insurance! Getting insurance for a small business or an individual is near impossible and I'm hoping this at least does something about access to insurance. 

We are already paying, we pay an insane amount per person in this country, more then what, like double anyone else pays? But yet we have a huge population of both uninsured and/or under-insured. Wish it would address that problem. I don't understand how people can say we only pay that much because our health care is just so awesome, it's not, we kind of suck actually on ever measurable test.


----------



## Zilli (Apr 1, 2012)

morningstar said:


> I think so Melissa (single payer system). Here is a link: What is Single Payer? | Physicians for a National Health Program
> 
> *That is the worst thing about the new health care as far as I'm concerned, it didn't go far enough,* instead we just have the same for profit cobbled together system of coverage but only with the addition that everyone must have it, even though it sucks already, does nothing to fix our costs or the fact that we have no continuity. I read an article a few weeks ago that said if this would have failed it almost would have been better because it might have set us up for something better (single payer system) but alas we are stuck with this.


I agree that it didn't go far enough; single payer would have been so much better.

But there are some wonderful things in this new bill that we didn't have before - pre-existing conditions is a huge one - and I hope that the bill can eventually evolve into something closer to the single payer system.

I don't think that it would have been better if it had failed (although I understand the reasoning behind that statement) because there would have been no guarantee we would have ever gotten anything better than what we've already had.

And this bill IS better, even if it isn't perfect.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

thequeensblessing said:


> But SOMEONE has to pay. The numbers just don't add up. Here we have a small tax penalty to pay, lots more people insured, many under the government plan, lots of state exemptions, business waivers, and personal exemptions, and, supposedly, lower insurance premiums. So, please tell me...Where is all the money going to come from to pay for all this free stuff, waivers, and exemptions for all these people?


I can't understand why this is so hard for people to grasp. 

The whole point of the mandate, the part that was really at the crux of the SC decision, was to make EVERYONE buy into the health care system in one way or another. Either by buying insurance or paying a tax. No matter what, they're going to be contributing. 
_Currently_ something like 40% of medical bills _are never paid_. 
The only way that can happen is from people being un/under-insured. Consequently, those costs are passed along to those of us who can pay (either via health insurance or personal fortune) in the form of higher medical bills, insurance rates, prescription costs etc, etc. 
And, when you consider something like 15-20% of Americans are currently completely uninsured, by getting them coverage they're not only benefited so far as their own healthcare goes, but it's also increasing the money in the pool. 


If we get everyone paying into the pool, either via premiums or non-insured tax, costs will go down. That's the way insurance _works_, afterall. At any given time, the people dipping in will be _vastly_ outweighed by those kicking in. :shrug: Even with subsidies, exemptions and so on.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

ErinP said:


> I can't understand why this is so hard for people to grasp.
> 
> The whole point of the mandate, the part that was really at the crux of the SC decision, was to make EVERYONE buy into the health care system in one way or another. Either by buying insurance or paying a tax. No matter what, they're going to be contributing.
> _Currently_ something like 40% of medical bills _are never paid_.
> ...


I would give up if I were you. We can keep repeating this truth but they keep ignoring it. It does not fit into their argument about what they believe so they just shove it to the side and refuse to even discuss it.


----------



## Ambereyes (Sep 6, 2004)

Maybe because the numbers just don't corroborate it.. The cost estimate's keep going up, fact is nobody really knows or aren't telling what it's going to cost.. CBO is predicting the cost at 2 trillion dollars, it keeps increasing.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

Common Tator said:


> You seem to be doing the Goody Goody gumdrops dance over the passage of this monstrosity. Finally, the taxpayers will have to pay your healthcare costs (goody goody gumdrops!). You have been an outspoken cheerleader *for* socialism for years.
> 
> And yet, I have seen you viciously tear into another poster for going on Social Security disability. Why? Because he didn't share your political views. That gave you the right to tell him that he couldn't go on disability. That gave you the right to call him a hypocrite.
> 
> ...


Are you reading what people are posting?? 

I told you after your _first_ nasty comments on the first page, _I_ have insurance. It's at the top of page 2, reply #31. 
(BTW, this board isn't General Chat. People don't talk like that here.) 
*My family is paying our own health insurance, the same as we have for the past 18 years*, (except for last year when we had to be uninsured because we couldn't afford it). 

So far as Social Security disability, I really can't say as I remember what on earth you're talking about, nor can I see where it has any bearing on this conversation. For that matter, I don't have a problem with it. I think for most people, that's a perfect example of how socialism can be a _good_ thing... I'm actually surprised to hear YOU support it. But again, that's a topic for another converation. 


And no, you didn't say anyone should work at WalMart. Melissa did. 
I just agreed with her because apparently that's your solution to the insurance crisis; all self-employed people, like farmers and ranchers, as well as those who work trades that usually don't include full benefits should just find jobs that include it. 

I'm also getting the distinct impression *you're NOT READING WHAT PEOPLE HAVE BEEN TELLING YOU SO FAR AS COSTS OF SELF-INSURANCE PREMIUMS, either. *
Or you would have seen numbers like $800, 1000, 1200, etc. to insure a family of four... Which takes a _huge_ chunk out of a $2-3000 a month paycheck.


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

Melissa said:


> Not to argue about this at all, but now that the supreme court has upheld the healthcare law, what happens next? In as purely a factual way as possible please!!!


The answer to this is simple enough.

The tightening sensation around the neck will be increased to a level beyond discomfort and well into pain.....for the pseudo freedom-loving US citizen.

Those who have fought for more controls and defended the actions of government in light of warnings offered by the less institutionalized now have the opportunity to feel the pain that they swore did not exist.

I say tighten the screws fast and hard.

Maybe somebody will wake up.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Ambereyes said:


> Maybe because the numbers just don't corroborate it.. The cost estimate's keep going up, fact is nobody really knows or aren't telling what it's going to cost.. CBO is predicting the cost at 2 trillion dollars, it keeps increasing.


Costs spiraling out of control is the classic symptom of a broken healthcare system. It's going to continue until we get single-payer healthcare. I suspect that the system will need to collapse and create a medical resource crisis before we get single-payer.


----------



## thequeensblessing (Mar 30, 2003)

ErinP said:


> I can't understand why this is so hard for people to grasp.
> 
> The whole point of the mandate, the part that was really at the crux of the SC decision, was to make EVERYONE buy into the health care system in one way or another. Either by buying insurance or paying a tax. No matter what, they're going to be contributing.


 I fully understand the theory of this. The fact of it is something entirely different. Many small businesses will be dropping their insurance plans and we'll have a lot more unemployed who have to get insurance from the "pools" or the public option. How are all those folks on the public option going to be paid for? And I've yet to see anyone give us an accounting of what insurance premiums for those "pools" are actually going to be. Will it be cheaper for me? I have excellent insurance (despite my pre-existing condition) where we only pay just under $50.00 a week for hubby and myself. If his company finds it cheaper to pay the tax/penalty/fine to the govt rather than pay out the hundreds of thousands of dollars they do for employee health insurance each year, will I be able to buy insurance for less than that per week? This is what I was promised, that if I liked my insurance plan I could keep it (there's was no mention of businesses electing to drop insurance coverage in favor of a cheaper penalty like there is now). I was told we would not be taxed for this. We are being taxed for it. I was told health care costs would go down. How can they when taxes/fees are being imposed on drug and medical device manufacturers? That's all just going to be shared with joe consumer. I can't understand why this is so hard for you to grasp. 


ErinP said:


> _Currently_ something like 40% of medical bills _are never paid_.
> The only way that can happen is from people being un/under-insured. Consequently, those costs are passed along to those of us who can pay (either via health insurance or personal fortune) in the form of higher medical bills, insurance rates, prescription costs etc, etc.
> And, when you consider something like 15-20% of Americans are currently completely uninsured, by getting them coverage they're not only benefited so far as their own healthcare goes, but it's also increasing the money in the pool.


 Who is going to pay for these folks? If they couldn't afford insurance then, how do you know they'll be able to afford it under Obamacare, just because they are mandated to buy it? Because Obama says so?? He also said this wasn't a tax. I've yet to see numbers about how much this "low cost" private insurance is going to cost. The government can't dictate this to the private insurance companies, so how will it be cheaper? when the government is raising fees/taxes imposed on manufacturers and the insurance companies have to pay those because they are all passed on down the food chain, don't you think the insurance companies will raise premiums/deductibles/copays? It won't increase the money in the pool when the people who are uninsured can't afford to put money into the pool and opt for the public option. That's taxpayer funded, one way or the other. Also, when more and more money is being taken out of the public pool for increased manufacturing costs, that pool will not go any further than it does today!



ErinP said:


> If we get everyone paying into the pool, either via premiums or non-insured tax, costs will go down. That's the way insurance _works_, afterall. At any given time, the people dipping in will be _vastly_ outweighed by those kicking in. :shrug: Even with subsidies, exemptions and so on.


 If this is so, and more people are taking out than putting in, how is this any more sustainable than what we currently have? The "non-insured" tax isn't going to be enough to pay for the health care of those uninsured, so how will this benefit the pool? However, especially in light of the states' right to opt out of their part now, I just don't see how this funding is going to work.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

You might be right Nevada. _Hopefully_ we can just stumble our way into the 20th century with cobbled together systems like this one, but it might indeed be utter collapse first and then we'll get dragged into the 21st...


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

I saw LA Governor on TV last night - Louisiana is opting out and not increasing or taking the G'vmt's funding for this increase.

I'm watching the other states.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Common Tator said:


> They have bread lines in Greece now. Socialism has brought that country to it's knees.


So the vast corruption and massive debt in their society had nothing to do with it? They, like Ireland and Portugal and Spain and Italy, got hard currancy at low interest rates, and well they went crazy with spending spree creating CAPITALIST bubbles up their collective wazoo. Just like Republicans did in USA at the turn of this century. Took a balanced budget and went crazy spending. you know BIG TAX CREDITS for the wealthy while at same time starting two very expensive and stupid wars on money borrowed from China?? And keeping interest on mortgages unrealistically low to try and keep economy revved up. Why drive an old jalopy, buy a new Mercedes..... and start a war or two to benefit your buddies. Thats just old fashion greed combined with short term thinking. Humans are good at short term thinking for maximum short term benefits.... Not so good at thinking things out long term cause that isnt any fun and poops on their party.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Ambereyes said:


> Maybe because the numbers just don't corroborate it.. The cost estimate's keep going up, fact is nobody really knows or aren't telling what it's going to cost.. CBO is predicting the cost at 2 trillion dollars, it keeps increasing.


I just listened on TV, 1.7 Trillion over 10 years.So Far.


----------



## Ambereyes (Sep 6, 2004)

Nevada said:


> Costs spiraling out of control is the classic symptom of a broken healthcare system. It's going to continue until we get single-payer healthcare. I suspect that the system will need to collapse and create a medical resource crisis before we get single-payer.


No argument the system is broken, but this new attempt is not going to fix anything. But IMHO there is a distinct possibility it will collapse the system. There is going to be a shortage of doctors, it is already very difficult to find docs to see my in-laws who are in their 80's. We help them with their expenses as much as possible but with the possibility of DH losing his insurance and his costs for glaucoma meds it can get very tight.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Common Tator said:


> Yeah, socialism is great, blah, blah, blah. :hohum:


Privatizing profit and socializing loss is better?


----------



## Lizza (Nov 30, 2005)

thequeensblessing said:


> Many small businesses will be dropping their insurance plans and we'll have a lot more unemployed who have to get insurance from the "pools" or the public option.


Posts like this make me realize that many people have no idea what goes on behind the curtains at any small and medium size business. Small businesses _HAVE_ been dropping insurance because we can't afford it! For years! This hopefully will make it better, not worse, call around today and ask for quotes for what it would be to cover you and a few employees, it's staggering, for even catastrophic insurance. Having a "pool" will at least bring insurance within the grasps of small businesses. 

Although I much would have preferred a single-payer system and maybe it will come our way, I don't know, I'm not holding my breath. The reason the article said we might have been better off if it failed was because forcing people to buy insurance might be unconstitutional BUT taxing is not and they have the authority to order a tax for a single payer system. I'd have to search for that article, not that it matters one way or the other at this point.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

inP said:


> I'm confused Tator, you _don't_ believe in insurance?
> So why are you suggesting people should trade everything in order to have it?


I shouldn't have to pay for others and now my Insurance is going to change. It did already when the bill was first signed,more requirements from the Government increased my costs. It could have all been solved if the Gov. set up a separate Group policy for the poor.How about if they could buy into Medicare,that could have worked. But no, you all wanted to control my HC too.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

> It could have all been solved if the Gov. set up a separate Group policy for the poor.How about if they could buy into Medicare,that could have worked.


Unfortunately the "public option" was one of the first compromises. It was pitched to make conservatives happy... :shrug:


----------



## Melissa (Apr 15, 2002)

I have always thought that anyone should be able to buy into the medicaid program. I actually don't think it should be free to anyone, no matter how little you make. If you make $200 a week you can pay at least a few dollars into it. That which is free is generally not valued as much as that which you pay for~ If you make more and need insurance you can pay more on a sliding scale. That would be more fair and equitable than the system we have now that rewards those who do don't work. That is what people should be up in arms about, not the actual working person who is not offered insurance through their job and truly can't afford a regular insurance plan.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

morningstar said:


> Posts like this make me realize that many people have no idea what goes on behind the curtains at any small and medium size business. Small businesses _HAVE_ been dropping insurance because we can't afford it! For years! This hopefully will make it better, not worse, call around today and ask for quotes for what it would be to cover you and a few employees, it's staggering, for even catastrophic insurance. Having a "pool" will at least bring insurance within the grasps of small businesses.
> 
> Although I much would have preferred a single-payer system and maybe it will come our way, I don't know, I'm not holding my breath. The reason the article said we might have been better off if it failed was because forcing people to buy insurance might be unconstitutional BUT taxing is not and they have the authority to order a tax for a single payer system. I'd have to search for that article, not that it matters one way or the other at this point.


I agree. I work in the corporate offices for 5 different small businesses. All but one have moved all costs to the employee. Those companies have not shelled out for health insurance for over 4 years. Before Obama. The other one eats 25% per year increases. they are paying an average of another 25% of the employees wages to insure them. Most small companies can not afford this. I actually don't know how most big companies do it either.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

7thswan said:


> I shouldn't have to pay for others and now my Insurance is going to change. It did already when the bill was first signed,more requirements from the Government increased my costs. It could have all been solved if the Gov. set up a separate Group policy for the poor.How about if they could buy into Medicare,that could have worked. But no, you all wanted to control my HC too.


You are not really saying that your health care costs only went up because of this bill are you?

I can track the health care costs in our company for the last 12 years. It has gone up almost the same percent every year for the last 8 years.


----------



## Ambereyes (Sep 6, 2004)

Well DH's went up 26% last year, mine 15%.. Those are big jumps.. DH also now has a 7500 dollar deductible after that is reached ins will pay 75%, and 2 doc visits are covered by co-pay, the rest are full price.


----------



## thequeensblessing (Mar 30, 2003)

morningstar said:


> Posts like this make me realize that many people have no idea what goes on behind the curtains at any small and medium size business. Small businesses _HAVE_ been dropping insurance because we can't afford it! For years! This hopefully will make it better, not worse, call around today and ask for quotes for what it would be to cover you and a few employees, it's staggering, for even catastrophic insurance. Having a "pool" will at least bring insurance within the grasps of small businesses.


 I beg your pardon...I HAVE a small business. This is why hubby works off the farm, because we can't afford insurance any other way even for ourselves, nevermind employees. My point is that you have no proof, other than Obama's word, and despite evidence from other countries to the contrary, that this will actually decrease anything when it comes to cost, especially when the public option is so attractive. Besides, with increasing manufacturing costs, as this law brings with it, how is any of it going to decrease? The penalty for non payment is still going to be less for a small business than will be carrying insurance, especially when, if you don't carry insurance on your employees, they will simply be "taxed" or mandated into going out and buying it on their own. Where's the incentive for businesses to continue to, or to begin to, carry insurance on employees??


morningstar said:


> Although I much would have preferred a single-payer system and maybe it will come our way, I don't know, I'm not holding my breath. The reason the article said we might have been better off if it failed was because forcing people to buy insurance might be unconstitutional BUT taxing is not and they have the authority to order a tax for a single payer system. I'd have to search for that article, not that it matters one way or the other at this point.


 Forgive me for repeating myself, but single payer systems haven't proven to be the panacea in other countries that try it either. Nearly every one of those nations are experiencing health care budget deficits because of the amount that comes out compared to the amount that goes in.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Nevada said:


> Costs spiraling out of control is the classic symptom of a broken healthcare system. It's going to continue until we get single-payer healthcare. I suspect that the system will need to collapse and create a medical resource crisis before we get single-payer.


You have to take greed out of the system. People wanting to work in health care need to be paid a reasonable wage, they dont get to make their own little high profit buisiness out of it. Healthcare is something everybody needs sooner or later, it shouldnt be FOR PROFIT. Thats why traditionally there were religion based charity hospitals. The idea was to serve the poor and sick, not make it into a high profit buisiness and try to grab the assets of the sick.

We have a choice we can either BAN ALL INSURANCE. Those wanting to sell health care are then forced to compete on price and bring pricing of their services back to what the average citizen in their community can afford out of pocket. Or go out of buisiness due to lack of super deep pocket payers.

Or we can have single payer where doctors and everybody works on salary from the govt, no for profit anything. No middlemen sucking off all the cream before anybody gets any milk. Everybody is paid fairly, but no maximizing profit type agendas.

The wealthy of course are free to go to some money extraction clinic out of the country and spend freely for any kind of care they desire. 

I personally dont care to subsidize the wealthy in their desire to live forever with $6M-man type extreme care. Rather see everybody get basic medical care when they need it at reasonable cost, without being forced to seek charity and become destitute to do it.


----------



## sidepasser (May 10, 2002)

Is anyone considering that doctors DO NOT have to accept patients under Medicaid or under this new ACA scheme?

Many doctors do not accept Medicaid patients and my doctor has told me that that she will not accept patients under the new "managed" health care ACA scheme. Have any of you asked your doctors if they are going to participate in this program or the "expanded" Medicaid program?

All those "taxes" and "fees" that are going to be imposed on drug manufacturers, etc. will end up being passed on to those consumers who are part of the system. No drug manufacturer is going to stay in business losing money or absorbing new "fees". Those fees will be calculated into the prices of drugs that are sold to us consumers.

I doubt seriously that the "no enforcement" of the fines will last long when Congress finally wakes up and realizes that without enforcement there is no way to make people buy this insurance. I believe that the IRS will soon be authorized to collect once they inform Congress that they fined X number of people and not a single one of them paid up. (and we all know how nice the IRS can be when collecting what's owed them).

Another point people seem to have forgotten (well some people any way)..
The government passed a bill last year that requires a reduction in spending referred to as the* Budget Control Act*. There are several key items contained within the bill such as it raised the federal debt ceiling and required mandatory cuts in federal spending.

Debt Ceiling &#8211; Congress Passes a Bill Raising the Debt Limit and Cutting Federal Spending

*Cutting Federal Spending:* Cuts the operating budgets of the 15 Cabinet agencies by $900 billion over the next 10 years and caps the total budget for the Cabinet agencies at $1.043 trillion in 2012, a reduction of more than $7 billion from amount budgeted in 2011.

One of the targeted cabinet agencies is none other than 
*Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)*
Secretary of Health and Human Services: Kathleen Sebelius
Brief Summary of Department's Role
Web Address: United States Department of Health and Human Services


The President's Cabinet - Agencies and Department Secretaries


If you do not know what this agency does: here is their definition:


*Definition: *HHS is the acronym for the Department of Health and Human Services. *The department is responsible for the regulation of and control of funding for health care, public health, medical research, and related services across the U.S. Its responsibilities include the FDA, the National Institutes of Health, and the CDC, as well as Medicaid, Medicare, and numerous other programs. *


HHS - What Is HHS or The Department of Health and Human Services


Now that the ACA has been passed, going back to who is supposed to administer this program and take care of all the provisions in it's 2500 pages or so of rules and regulations will be a department that must cut it's budget to stay within the Budget Control Act's mandatory limit, which is less in 2012 than in 2011. 



The Department of the Treasury is also mandated as one of the agencies that must cut it's budget. The Dept. of Treasury contains the Internal Revenue Service which is supposed to hire more people to go after the folks that don't pay for their health care. I believe the last number I saw was 4,000 IRS agents will be required to , administer this program.


How will these two agencies be capable of running this HUGE health care program when both are under budget constraints and must cut their spending per the Budget Control Act?


It is all well and good to say that the taxpayers will pay for this, but I still question the capability of HHS and Dept. of Treasury to be able to manage this enormous program with the current staff and budget restraints they are under.


I did read the bill, and there are appeals processes in place; however in order to have an appeals process, there must be a denial of coverage/service. It is not going to be the "buffet of healthcare" that everyone thinks it will be. 



Read the bill for yourself, if you don't want to read the entire bill, use the search function and go the parts that you are most concerned about.


http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

ErinP said:


> Unfortunately the "public option" was one of the first compromises. It was pitched to make conservatives happy... :shrug:


Ummmm which "conservatives" would that have been? I wasnt aware there were any conservative democrats in DC. As a matter of fact a lot of republicans are pretty much liberal minded.


----------



## Melissa (Apr 15, 2002)

As far as the medication I needed, it was actually available from Canada for about 10% of the price it was in the United States. When I did research on it, doctors around the world praised it for being an extremely low cost drug compared to most drugs that treated leukemia. The only place it was expensive was here! I could have bought all I needed from Canada for about $600 which included a rather high shipping cost. It was made by the same manufacturer.


----------



## Lizza (Nov 30, 2005)

thequeensblessing said:


> I beg your pardon...I HAVE a small business. This is why hubby works off the farm, because we can't afford insurance any other way even for ourselves, nevermind employees. My point is that you have no proof, other than Obama's word, and despite evidence from other countries to the contrary, that this will actually decrease anything when it comes to cost, especially when the public option is so attractive. Besides, with increasing manufacturing costs, as this law brings with it, how is any of it going to decrease? The penalty for non payment is still going to be less for a small business than will be carrying insurance, especially when, if you don't carry insurance on your employees, they will simply be "taxed" or mandated into going out and buying it on their own. Where's the incentive for businesses to continue to, or to begin to, carry insurance on employees??
> Forgive me for repeating myself, but single payer systems haven't proven to be the panacea in other countries that try it either. Nearly every one of those nations are experiencing health care budget deficits because of the amount that comes out compared to the amount that goes in.


You have exactly proven my point.....someone ELSE provides insurance to you. Why don't you call your DH's work and ask to talk to the people that run the numbers and write the budget for the year and ask THEM how they feel about providing insurance to employees for the last like 10 years or so? Ask THEM if they hope the "pool" will help, not hurt them. Don't talk for the business that provides your insurance! I seriously doubt you have made that call. 

Nothing is a panacea, nothing, but we ALREADY pay around DOUBLE for "health coverage" in this country what all other industrialized countries pay. Now we certainly agree about this bill not solving the costs problem, that is actually my point, this bill didn't go far enough but apparently it was the only thing that could even remotely be passed.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Ambereyes said:


> No argument the system is broken, but this new attempt is not going to fix anything. But IMHO there is a distinct possibility it will collapse the system. There is going to be a shortage of doctors, it is already very difficult to find docs to see my in-laws who are in their 80's. We help them with their expenses as much as possible but with the possibility of DH losing his insurance and his costs for glaucoma meds it can get very tight.


The system is broken, and it will stay broken until we take profit out of healthcare. Since HMO's introduced greed into the system in the early 1970's the problem has been building. The people making the real money in the healthcare industry aren't healthcare professionals (doctors, nurses, technicians, etc.), it's the business profiteers. And they aren't going to stop on their own, since they have no reason to stop. They will keep taking more & more until the system finally collapses.

Trust me on this; medical business profiteers don't care if they collapse the system. On the surface that doesn't seem to make sense, but it also didn't make sense for mortgage business profiteers to collapse the real estate industry. Believe me -- they don't care.

I don't know how long it will take. It it could even take another generation, since Obamacare might keep it going longer. But costs can't keep spiraling upward indefinitely without an abrupt correction. You won't like living through a medical resource shortage crisis.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Health Insurance costs around the world.
REVEALED: The Cost Of Health Insurance Around The World - Business Insider

Bit of an eye opener.

Another one

http://www.creditloan.com/blog/2010/03/01/healthcare-costs-around-the-world/


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

painterswife said:


> You are not really saying that your health care costs only went up because of this bill are you?
> 
> I can track the health care costs in our company for the last 12 years. It has gone up almost the same percent every year for the last 8 years.


Yes it did,and they sent me a letter telling us why. One that I remember of the top, we used to be allowed 2 visits to any Drug/alcohol rehabilitation centers before we had to pay. The Gov. required them to offer Us unlimited stays.We switched over from BC/BS to Hap, now Hap has gone up and we will be going back to BC/BC until my DH's company drops our Ins. coverage. My Dh works for a Unionized Gov. Job. He is a Union Stewart. I can tell you, the Gov. will drop us like a hot rock asap, and the Union can't do anything about it. You do realize how many people work for the Gov.
What Roberts did should never have happened,this isn't just about HC-it was ruled unconstitutional to force a mandate upon us. Roberts played bad politics here, he should have made his ruling, only based on the Constitution. He set a very bad president to allow the Government to do whatever they want to us under the guise of a Tax. Think about it. They can can cohurse (sp)you into doing/not doing anything by Taxing you.


----------



## Common Tator (Feb 19, 2008)

ErinP said:


> Unfortunately the "public option" was one of the first compromises. It was pitched to make conservatives happy... :shrug:


Nothing was pitched to make conservatives happy. Not one Republican in either the house or the senate voted for this. Democrats own it.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Deacon Mike said:


> Google's your friend
> 
> Broaden Medicare tax base for high-income taxpayers: $210.2 billion
> Annual fee on health insurance providers: $60 billion
> ...


Of course none of this will be costly. I'm sure health care providers are loving it.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Melissa said:


> As far as the medication I needed, it was actually available from Canada for about 10% of the price it was in the United States. When I did research on it, doctors around the world praised it for being an extremely low cost drug compared to most drugs that treated leukemia. The only place it was expensive was here! I could have bought all I needed from Canada for about $600 which included a rather high shipping cost. It was made by the same manufacturer.


Because the cost of reasurching/testing a drug is put on the the backs of the American people. We are made to pay for it-that is wrong. Other countrys do not have to pay a share of the testing/reasurch-only us.


----------



## thequeensblessing (Mar 30, 2003)

Melissa said:


> As far as the medication I needed, it was actually available from Canada for about 10% of the price it was in the United States. When I did research on it, doctors around the world praised it for being an extremely low cost drug compared to most drugs that treated leukemia. The only place it was expensive was here! I could have bought all I needed from Canada for about $600 which included a rather high shipping cost. It was made by the same manufacturer.


My point...how much MORE will that same drug cost under Obama care when there's a tax levied on the manufacturer of it? It certainly won't be less. Only under a single payer system can the government dictate or "negotiate" prices, fees, etc. In a private payer system like we have, and like Obamacare barely is, the govt. CANNOT dictate to the drug companies/insurance providers/manufacturers/hospitals/doctors what they can charge for anything. But single payer systems bring their own host of issues, financial and other.


----------



## sidepasser (May 10, 2002)

For those concerned about what the ACA will cost and how it will affect the Federal Deficit, here is the Congressional Budget Office's report which describes in detail how much this will cost the US Government (i.e. taxpayers).

_The ACA&#8217;s provisions related to insurance coverage are now projected to have a net cost of $1,252 billion over the 2012&#8211;2022 period (see Table 2, following the text); that amount represents a gross cost to the federal government of $1,762 billion, offset in part by $510 billion in receipts and other budgetary effects (primarily revenues from penalties and other sources). The addition of 2022 to the projection period has the effect of increasing the costs of the coverage provisions of the ACA relative to those projected in March 2011 for the 2012&#8211;2021 period because that change adds a year in which the expansion of eligibility for Medicaid and subsidies for health insurance purchased through the exchanges will be in effect. CBO and JCT have not estimated the budgetary effects in 2022 of the other provisions of the ACA; over the 2012&#8211;2021 period, those other provisions were previously estimated to reduce budget deficits.
CBO and JCT&#8217;s projections of health insurance coverage have also changed since last March. Fewer people are now expected to obtain health insurance coverage from their employer or in insurance exchanges; more are now expected to obtain coverage from Medicaid or CHIP or from nongroup or other sources. More are expected to be uninsured. The extent of the changes varies from year to year, but in 2016, for example, the ACA is now estimated to reduce the number of people receiving health insurance coverage through an employer by an additional 4 million enrollees relative to the March 2011 projections. In that year, CBO and JCT now estimate that there will be 2 million fewer enrollees in insurance exchanges. In the other direction, CBO and JCT now estimate that, in 2016, the ACA will increase enrollment in Medicaid and CHIP slightly more than previously estimated (but considerably more in 2014 and 2015), and it will reduce the number of people with nongroup or other coverage by 3 million less and the number of uninsured people by 2 million less than previously estimated.
_
In Table 2, the report lists in billions of dollars how much the ACA will cost. Note that at the bottom of the table is the notations to the references in the table.

Note A states: Does not include federal administrative costs that are subject to appropriation
Note B: Positive numbers indicate increases in the deficit, and negative numbers indicate reductions in the deficit.
Note C: Under current law, states have the flexibility to make programmatic and other budgetary changes to Medicaid and CHIP. *CBO estimates that state spending on Medicaid and CHIP in the 2012-2022 period would increase by about $73 billion as a result of the coverage provisions.*

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/03-13-Coverage Estimates.pdf


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

thequeensblessing said:


> As has been stated in this thread...somewhere...costs will be kept down by limiting "unnecessary" testing/treatment. Who is going to be determining what is "unnecessary"? Some bureaucrat in Washington? I don't believe they will do any different than the insurance companies do in refusing certain procedures, such as my mastectomy. But unlike with private insurance, I will lose the ability to elect to pay for it myself, with cash, without being "taxed" for opting to pay in American currency for my health care. Yes, that is giving up my freedom to choose.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I was given a # & page in the bill where it states over 75 yrs old will be evaluated for certain procedures...we cannot call this a 'death panel', of course...just that older folks will be 'evaluated'.
Rationing WILL happen.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Nevada said:


> The system is broken, and it will stay broken until we take profit out of healthcare. Since HMO's introduced greed into the system in the early 1970's the problem has been building. The people making the real money in the healthcare industry aren't healthcare professionals (doctors, nurses, technicians, etc.), it's the business profiteers. And they aren't going to stop on their own, since they have no reason to stop. They will keep taking more & more until the system finally collapses.
> 
> Trust me on this; medical business profiteers don't care if they collapse the system. On the surface that doesn't seem to make sense, but it also didn't make sense for mortgage business profiteers to collapse the real estate industry. Believe me -- they don't care.
> 
> I don't know how long it will take. It it could even take another generation, since Obamacare might keep it going longer. But costs can't keep spiraling upward indefinitely without an abrupt correction. You won't like living through a medical resource shortage crisis.


I got a call from my Dr. office yesterday. Because I refused 2 tests totaly unrelated to my Cymbalta,he will not fill my script. Talk about a waste of $. I feel like I'm being Blackmailed.


----------



## Common Tator (Feb 19, 2008)

sidepasser said:


> Is anyone considering that doctors DO NOT have to accept patients under Medicaid or under this new ACA scheme?
> 
> Many doctors do not accept Medicaid patients and my doctor has told me that that she will not accept patients under the new "managed" health care ACA scheme. Have any of you asked your doctors if they are going to participate in this program or the "expanded" Medicaid program?


Correct you are. 50% of doctors don't accept medicaid.

And many doctors will be leaving the medical field if this is enacted. Mine has said he will. 
[/QUOTE]


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

thequeensblessing said:


> But single payer systems bring their own host of issues, financial and other.


No doubt all systems have problems, but the thing single payer systems DON'T DO is force a sick person to make incredibly difficult fiscal decisions at the very time they are least able to do so. And the single payer systems dont make the sick person worry about his family losing their home. Sick people have had to get divorced just to try and protect half their family assets due to this system so the family wouldnt end up in homeless shelter. The mega greed system we have now is the worst of all possible systems. Anything would be better.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

Common Tator said:


> Correct you are. 50% of doctors don't accept medicaid.
> 
> And many doctors will be leaving the medical field if this is enacted. Mine has said he will.


[/QUOTE]

My older family is finding this also.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

ErinP said:


> Unfortunately the "public option" was one of the first compromises. It was pitched to make conservatives happy... :shrug:


I'm begging you guys who say this, PLEASE provide a link, something that backs up this statement! I have heard it only from the far left...or from those who do not understand the 1st 2 yrs of this administration.

There were democrats who DID NOT want this law! DID NOT want it! I can provide links for that but anyone who listened to any news knows that. 

This admin did not need ONE vote from the other side. NOT ONE. They could've passed anything they wanted But some MODERATE dems would not tolerate the total socialistic approach & refused to ok it til it became what it is. 

I'll venture to say if it had been called a TAX we STILL would not have this obamination.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Common Tator said:


> Correct you are. 50% of doctors don't accept medicaid.
> 
> And many doctors will be leaving the medical field if this is enacted. Mine has said he will.


[/QUOTE]

Doctors that need mega buck earnings need to be taken out of the system. They arent in it to be doctors, they are in it for greed. Good riddance! Hope they stockpiled their massive earnings to live off of, I hear the lawyer field and stockbroker field are rather over populated. Wages at McD probably wouldnt match their income desires.

Course they can always move to Canada to find a job! I hear they are looking for more doctors! Guaranteed income!


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

7thswan said:


> I got a call from my Dr. office yesterday. Because I refused 2 tests totaly unrelated to my Cymbalta,he will not fill my script. Talk about a waste of $. I feel like I'm being Blackmailed.


Sorry about that. Unfortunately the source that I got Alma's Cymbalta from required a prescription. They were the least expensive of all overseas pharmacies at ~$15/month for 30 mg. Tell me which strength you take and I'll see if I can find a good price at a place that doesn't require a prescription.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

painterswife said:


> You are not really saying that your health care costs only went up because of this bill are you?
> 
> I can track the health care costs in our company for the last 12 years. It has gone up almost the same percent every year for the last 8 years.


Perhaps. I remember them continuing upward as well.
However, as soon as this bill passed, ins costs awesomely did NOT plummet 3000% like Obama said but SPIKED over 25%!
Hmmmm.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

> Rationing WILL happen.


Of _course_ it will. It already does. 
It's just that at the moment, the insurance company is the only one to do the rationing...



> CBO estimates that state spending on Medicaid and CHIP in the 2012-2022 period would increase by about $73 billion as a result of the coverage provisions.


I don't think anyone is arguing that it will be expensive. I think the argument is whether it will be able to fund itself or not.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

> I'm begging you guys who say this, PLEASE provide a link, something that backs up this statement! I have heard it only from the far left...or from those who do not understand the 1st 2 yrs of this administration.
> 
> There were democrats who DID NOT want this law! DID NOT want it! I can provide links for that but anyone who listened to any news knows that.


I said "_conservatives_", not "Republicans." 
And the public option _was_ part of the original proposal, but it was dumped. 

Are you saying it shouldn't have been? Because if you're _not_, you're one of the conservatives they were trying to appease...


----------



## wanda1950 (Jan 18, 2009)

Common Tator said:


> Actually, you can afford it now. You choose to spend your money on other things. Obama care changes all that by forcing you to spend your money on their desires rather than your needs, and they are hiring thousands of new IRS agents to enforce that.
> 
> Party on!
> 
> IRS wants 4,000 new agents, $300 million budget to enforce Obamacare


Do you know this person & his/her friends well enough to know this?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Common Tator said:


> Nothing was pitched to make conservatives happy. Not one Republican in either the house or the senate voted for this. Democrats own it.


It was a 'Partisan' bill alright, "Rs" AND "Ds" both voted AGAINST it.


----------



## Common Tator (Feb 19, 2008)

HermitJohn said:


> Doctors that need mega buck earnings need to be taken out of the system. They arent in it to be doctors, they are in it for greed. Good riddance! Hope they stockpiled their massive earnings to live off of, I hear the lawyer field and stockbroker field are rather over populated. Wages at McD probably wouldnt match their income desires.
> 
> Course they can always move to Canada to find a job! I hear they are looking for more doctors! Guaranteed income!


Granted, I've never been to your doctors office, but I've been to mine. They have more staff dealing with paperwork, insurance billing, medicare and medicaid paperwork etc, than they have staff actually taking care of patients. They need mega bucks to pay all those people.

That is the reality of being a doctor in America today.


----------



## thequeensblessing (Mar 30, 2003)

HermitJohn said:


> No doubt all systems have problems, but the thing single payer systems DON'T DO is force a sick person to make incredibly difficult fiscal decisions at the very time they are least able to do so.


 But you cannot separate the fiscal decisions from the medical ones. I want control of my medical decisions and therefore, my fiscal ones. I don't want the government to make the determinations for me. There is no free lunch. 


HermitJohn said:


> And the single payer systems dont make the sick person worry about his family losing their home. Sick people have had to get divorced just to try and protect half their family assets due to this system so the family wouldnt end up in homeless shelter. The mega greed system we have now is the worst of all possible systems. Anything would be better.


 As I said, I went through breast cancer treatment, including bilateral mastectomies. I paid for it in cash. We sold everything, including my husband's business, our extra vehicle, and numerous antiques and valuables. I hated selling family heirlooms, but we did what we had to do. We were only thankful that we had the items to sell. We weren't opposed to selling our home to pay for the care I wanted. Yes, this was a bleak time for us, but we weren't forced into a divorce or a homeless shelter. We worked together to make it work. We were willing to do whatever it took to pay for this treatment. Today, looking back, despite the bleakness of it all at the time, it was a learning, growing time where I learned the value of true self-sufficiency and not just giving it lip service. We were young and supposedly bulletproof. After this wake up call, we did what we needed to do to have health insurance. We bought a new home, better than the last one. We replaced our vehicles, and hubby went to work for another company to get that health care instead of going back into business himself. 
The system we have now is flawed, greatly, but why does it have to be Obama care or our current system? We're Americans! Surely we can find our own system that works better than what we have without resorting to the things our European friends have tried and failed at. You even acknowledge that all systems are flawed. People die, needlessly, under each system. Both systems are expensive to someone (either the govt. budget deficit, or the taxpayer, or the individual). The only thing I can see is that health care under Obamacare or single payer is promised to be "free" or "low cost". Do a little research into the budget deficits of single payer countries. Tell me why I'm to believe Obama's promises when he's lied left and right about this health care reform??


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Tricky Grama said:


> I'm begging you guys who say this, PLEASE provide a link, something that backs up this statement! I have heard it only from the far left...or from those who do not understand the 1st 2 yrs of this administration.
> 
> There were democrats who DID NOT want this law! DID NOT want it! I can provide links for that but anyone who listened to any news knows that.
> 
> ...


You mean "Romneyation", Obamacare is just a clone of a Republican plan! Its what the Republicans wanted back when Hillarycare was under consideration in the 90s!!!!! Hillarycare was a better program. The Republicans wanted Romneycare cause they didnt want their private healthcare buddies to lose their cash cow.

It is pretty obvious that the only way the obama folk could get insurance industry to go along was to kill the public option. The private insurance people didnt want to get shown up on how greedy they are. They had resigned themselves the current system would collapse and Obamacare minus the public option would give them more years of profits. And they have armies of lobbyists and donate to loads of politicians of both parties. It was sort of joke the massive legion of lobbyists floating around DC when this was under consideration.

The insurance industry killed Hillarycare back in the 90s, the public option in Obamacare was killed to prevent a rerun. They also really wanted a Republican or two signing on, though they didnt get it.


----------



## doozie (May 21, 2005)

I would like to know how someone that couldn't afford insurance in the first place, (I do know people that just barely cover their rent and food, no extras, entertainment, etc) and now must get coverage, eventually uses it and incurs a deductible, or co pay after a treatment, test, hospitilization. How are they going to pay? What if they dont understand what co pays or deductibles are? What is the maximum or cap on out of pocket expenses? Will it be lifetime, or a yearly deductible. So many unanswered questions. Cost of living (rent, gas, food) varies in price everywhere. How can this be fair when determining the premium cost by what a person makes?


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Common Tator said:


> Doctors that need mega buck earnings need to be taken out of the system. They arent in it to be doctors, they are in it for greed. Good riddance! Hope they stockpiled their massive earnings to live off of, I hear the lawyer field and stockbroker field are rather over populated. Wages at McD probably wouldnt match their income desires.
> 
> Course they can always move to Canada to find a job! I hear they are looking for more doctors! Guaranteed income!


Granted, I've never been to your doctors office, but I've been to mine. They have more staff dealing with paperwork, insurance billing, medicare and medicaid paperwork etc, than they have staff actually taking care of patients. They need mega bucks to pay all those people.

That is the reality of being a doctor in America today.[/QUOTE]

Due to the high cost of malpractice insurance, and doing all the paperwork required by the government it's no wonder medical costs have risen. I don't put the blame on the doctors, but on the fact that the government is already too involved in the system and it will only get worse now that this boondoggle has passed.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

ErinP said:


> Are you reading what people are posting??
> 
> I told you after your _first_ nasty comments on the first page, _I_ have insurance. It's at the top of page 2, reply #31.
> (BTW, this board isn't General Chat. People don't talk like that here.)
> ...


Since this post was quoting a deleted post, why is it still standing????


----------



## thequeensblessing (Mar 30, 2003)

Sonshine said:


> Due to the high cost of malpractice insurance, and doing all the paperwork required by the government it's no wonder medical costs have risen. I don't put the blame on the doctors, but on the fact that the government is already too involved in the system and it will only get worse now that this boondoggle has passed.


I agree. I know the government regulation on us and the paperwork that goes with it with our small business is mind boggling and the penalties for doing it wrong can be stiff. I can't imagine the bureaucracy involved in govt. health care regulations/paperwork.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

thequeensblessing said:


> I fully understand the theory of this. The fact of it is something entirely different. Many small businesses will be dropping their insurance plans and we'll have a lot more unemployed who have to get insurance from the "pools" or the public option. How are all those folks on the public option going to be paid for? And I've yet to see anyone give us an accounting of what insurance premiums for those "pools" are actually going to be. Will it be cheaper for me? I have excellent insurance (despite my pre-existing condition) where we only pay just under $50.00 a week for hubby and myself. If his company finds it cheaper to pay the tax/penalty/fine to the govt rather than pay out the hundreds of thousands of dollars they do for employee health insurance each year, will I be able to buy insurance for less than that per week? This is what I was promised, that if I liked my insurance plan I could keep it (there's was no mention of businesses electing to drop insurance coverage in favor of a cheaper penalty like there is now). I was told we would not be taxed for this. We are being taxed for it. I was told health care costs would go down. How can they when taxes/fees are being imposed on drug and medical device manufacturers? That's all just going to be shared with joe consumer. I can't understand why this is so hard for you to grasp.
> Who is going to pay for these folks? If they couldn't afford insurance then, how do you know they'll be able to afford it under Obamacare, just because they are mandated to buy it? Because Obama says so?? He also said this wasn't a tax. I've yet to see numbers about how much this "low cost" private insurance is going to cost. The government can't dictate this to the private insurance companies, so how will it be cheaper? when the government is raising fees/taxes imposed on manufacturers and the insurance companies have to pay those because they are all passed on down the food chain, don't you think the insurance companies will raise premiums/deductibles/copays? It won't increase the money in the pool when the people who are uninsured can't afford to put money into the pool and opt for the public option. That's taxpayer funded, one way or the other. Also, when more and more money is being taken out of the public pool for increased manufacturing costs, that pool will not go any further than it does today!
> 
> If this is so, and more people are taking out than putting in, how is this any more sustainable than what we currently have? The "non-insured" tax isn't going to be enough to pay for the health care of those uninsured, so how will this benefit the pool? However, especially in light of the states' right to opt out of their part now, I just don't see how this funding is going to work.


As those on the other side have stated, you may as well give up. They aren't willing to listen to reason.


----------



## Melissa (Apr 15, 2002)

7thswan said:


> Because the cost of reasurching/testing a drug is put on the the backs of the American people. We are made to pay for it-that is wrong. Other countrys do not have to pay a share of the testing/reasurch-only us.


It was actually created/discovered in China and used there successfully for many years before being used in France, then the rest of the world. At some point one of the American drug companies bought the patent.


----------



## nandmsmom (Mar 3, 2006)

I'm in Massachusetts, so we've been living with this for a while. I don't know the specifics of the national bill, but it does seem to be based on ours. What I've seen and experienced is:

-It's very frustrating when you are healthy and would like to start a business. Taking the gamble to go without coverage for a bit is impossible. Hubby is a firefighter, but we also have our own business. He would love to just have the business, but we can't afford it with the high price of the health coverage that we now need to carry.

-They have made it much easier to get on state coverage. This is good for quite a few people, who didn't qualify before. It's also good for the doctors and hospitals who are now guaranteed to get at least some money in return for services.

-The price of coverage has gone through the roof. When hubby first started at the department 10 years ago, we paid 7.30 per week for family coverage. The copays were tiny and the coverage was fantastic. After a huge debacle, the new contract has us paying $185 per week for a plan that also has a $3000 deductible, outrageous copays and minimal coverage. It amounts to a huge cut in pay. I'm sure this is happening to some extent everywhere, but it seems to be magnified here.

The fact that Romney is now saying that he is so against Obamacare is the most ridiculous thing in the world. Some might forget that the national law is based on his law, but those of us living with it do not. Like many of you, I'm so frustrated with the choices we have for leadership I could scream.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

HermitJohn said:


> So the vast corruption and massive debt in their society had nothing to do with it? They, like Ireland and Portugal and Spain and Italy, got hard currancy at low interest rates, and well they went crazy with spending spree creating CAPITALIST bubbles up their collective wazoo. Just like Republicans did in USA at the turn of this century. Took a balanced budget and went crazy spending. you know BIG TAX CREDITS for the wealthy while at same time starting two very expensive and stupid wars on money borrowed from China?? And keeping interest on mortgages unrealistically low to try and keep economy revved up. Why drive an old jalopy, buy a new Mercedes..... and start a war or two to benefit your buddies. Thats just old fashion greed combined with short term thinking. Humans are good at short term thinking for maximum short term benefits.... Not so good at thinking things out long term cause that isnt any fun and poops on their party.


Um, have you looked at our massive debt and corruption. Our government is following their examples and we will fall just like they did.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

ErinP said:


> Of _course_ it will. It already does.
> It's just that at the moment, the insurance company is the only one to do the rationing...
> 
> 
> I don't think anyone is arguing that it will be expensive. I think the argument is whether it will be able to fund itself or not.


So you think it's better that a government appointed panel makes the decisions on who can get what treatment? I still haven't been given any logical explanations on how it will fund itself. It won't. It'll be funded by those who have worked hard all their lives, it will be funded on the backs of the middle class.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

nandmsmom said:


> I'm in Massachusetts, so we've been living with this for a while. I don't know the specifics of the national bill, but it does seem to be based on ours. What I've seen and experienced is:
> 
> -It's very frustrating when you are healthy and would like to start a business. Taking the gamble to go without coverage for a bit is impossible. Hubby is a firefighter, but we also have our own business. He would love to just have the business, but we can't afford it with the high price of the health coverage that we now need to carry.
> 
> ...


My husband's from Massachusett and still has family there. My BIL has diabetes and got layed off of his job. They had to come up with the money for the penalty, which meant they did without things the family needed. I agree that Romney care stinks, but that was a state level decision and legally those decisions are suppose to remain at state level. To have it on the national level, without the majority of the citizen's consent is a slap in the face to the citizens. Romney was not my first choice for President, nor was he my second or third, but I will vote for him because I've seen what Obama will do to the nation and want him out. I don't know if Romney will run the country like he did MA, time will tell.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

> So you think it's better that a government appointed panel makes the decisions on who can get what treatment? I still haven't been given any logical explanations on how it will fund itself. It won't. It'll be funded by those who have worked hard all their lives, it will be funded on the backs of the middle class.


Of course it will. As well as the backs of the wealthy and anyone else we ever fund ANYthing from. That's the way any civilization has always functioned. 
So far as "logical explanations," several people have explained this to you. You don't _like_ the answers. Now, that's your choice of course, but it's certainly not because people haven't explained it to you.
Nor did I say a government appointed panel was better. I just said we already HAVE that type of a system. I don't think that'll make any difference, really. :shrug:


----------



## cindy-e (Feb 14, 2008)

well, just got word that a local college which had been offering the option of purchasing a policy for kids attending the school has dropped the policy because they cannot afford the higher costs produced by the mandated higher coverages in health care based on this bill. They just can't make it affordable for the kids with the new rules. 

Dh (a manager) informs me that since people expect healthcare as a benefit, and will be penalized for not having it, and companies have to provide it now at such a high level, they are looking at MANY more layoffs than they previously thought. MANY more. And since everybody in the office works on salary, not hourly, in order to keep their insurance, and keep their jobs, they will be working MUCH longer hours to stay afloat after they lose all the people to the costs of mandated healthcare. 

Just 2 things happening already here locally, only 1 day after the ruling.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Sonshine said:


> I agree that Romney care stinks, but that was a state level decision and legally those decisions are suppose to remain at state level.


That ignores the Supreme Court decision that was just handed down. According to that decision, it is indeed legal for healthcare to be administrated on the federal level.


----------



## thequeensblessing (Mar 30, 2003)

You know...I really don't get it. I was just watching CNN and the two girls who were discussing this great new health care law were commenting on some of the wonderful features of the law, like "free preventative health screenings". One girl said "free is good, we all like free!" Then they went on to enumerate all the "free screenings" such as mammograms, colonoscopy, blood screenings, and even birth control. These women were giddy at the thought of this free stuff, and I'm not exaggerating! 
Why can't they see that someone, somewhere along the line, has to pay for these screenings?? The hospitals aren't going to do them for free, the manufacturers of the equipment will be charging even more for the equipment, thanks to Obama's fees/taxes, and the technicians and doctors performing these tests aren't going to do it for free. None of this is free!


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

So for those against this, what is the alternative? 

Surely no one is saying we should continue as we have been...


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

7thswan said:


> I got a call from my Dr. office yesterday. Because I refused 2 tests totaly unrelated to my Cymbalta,he will not fill my script. Talk about a waste of $. I feel like I'm being Blackmailed.


It is funny you mention this because I just watched an interview with several doctors and they used a term I had never heard of before. Defensive Medicine. They were answering the interviewer's question about why so many tests are being run by doctors and why so many doctors have the most expensive imagining equipment in their offices instead of sending patients to the hospitals or imaging centers. The answer - the tests are not being run for the benefit of the patient and often aren't necessary at all but Doctors have to practice defensive medicine all the time because they can and do get sued so can't afford to leave any possible test undone. They particularly want the imaging under their control. This is simple PYA (protect your azz) and it is driving up medical costs because the insurance companies are paying for unnecessary tests.


----------



## thequeensblessing (Mar 30, 2003)

Nevada said:


> That ignores the Supreme Court decision that was just handed down. According to that decision, it is indeed legal for healthcare to be administrated on the federal level.


Administered, but not mandated under the commerce clause. Sure, it can be taxed as can anything else the government wants to do. What a precedent! What does unfettered taxation do to a country? Care for a history lesson?


----------



## Melissa (Apr 15, 2002)

Nevada-Is that what it really means? Or just that you can be penalized for not carrying it, not that it has to be administered at the federal level. It doesn't really matter where you get the insurance, you just have to get it. 

Which actually seems like it would make most people happy that those who have not had insurance must get it. I mean it is easy enough right? Just get a job that provides it and you are all set... Everyone can do that.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

thequeensblessing said:


> But you cannot separate the fiscal decisions from the medical ones. I want control of my medical decisions and therefore, my fiscal ones. I don't want the government to make the determinations for me. There is no free lunch.
> As I said, I went through breast cancer treatment, including bilateral mastectomies. I paid for it in cash. We sold everything, including my husband's business, our extra vehicle, and numerous antiques and valuables. I hated selling family heirlooms, but we did what we had to do. We were only thankful that we had the items to sell. We weren't opposed to selling our home to pay for the care I wanted. Yes, this was a bleak time for us, but we weren't forced into a divorce or a homeless shelter. We worked together to make it work. We were willing to do whatever it took to pay for this treatment. Today, looking back, despite the bleakness of it all at the time, it was a learning, growing time where I learned the value of true self-sufficiency and not just giving it lip service. We were young and supposedly bulletproof. After this wake up call, we did what we needed to do to have health insurance. We bought a new home, better than the last one. We replaced our vehicles, and hubby went to work for another company to get that health care instead of going back into business himself.
> The system we have now is flawed, greatly, but why does it have to be Obama care or our current system? We're Americans! Surely we can find our own system that works better than what we have without resorting to the things our European friends have tried and failed at. You even acknowledge that all systems are flawed. People die, needlessly, under each system. Both systems are expensive to someone (either the govt. budget deficit, or the taxpayer, or the individual). The only thing I can see is that health care under Obamacare or single payer is promised to be "free" or "low cost". Do a little research into the budget deficits of single payer countries. Tell me why I'm to believe Obama's promises when he's lied left and right about this health care reform??



Not everybody has your "family heirlooms" and buisiness to sell off. Nor has a family support system. Lucky you.... Its fun trying to drive oneself to doc when you are light headed and dizzy. And no a $1000 ambulance ride there and back again is not a realistic option. and taxis dont come out here. My family consists of an uncle and aunt in their 90s in another state.

The system as set up tends to favor either those that are wealthy with lots assets or the destitute poor who can go to emergency room for their medical care without worry since there are no assets to come after. The "cant squeeze blood out of a turnip' theory of life.

Some of us have worked hard physical labor for land or other assets, that let us live without charity. Asking us to give it all up on a gamble that some overpriced doc will make us 100% better and 25 year old again so I can earn it all back, is asking a lot. I cant even get a diagnosis of my problem. All GP tests and usual suspects ruled out. So now its lengthy specialist type thing which isnt practical financially. I am not going to earn it back no matter if the doc is a bloody genius. Too late to be physically robust again and physical labor is not now considered very valuable, they just open the borders and take their pick up young desperate people.

Even you admit everybody should have insurance. So if EVERYBODY NEEDS IT, then its a cost to society! Society should pay for it communally without anybody making obscene profit out of it. Think of a single payer system as a huge group policy. Minus the middlemen leaches. Germany figured this out that the health of their workforce was a societal cost BACK DURING KAISER WILHELM'S time. BEFORE WWI. So I guess you are saying Germany has a weak pathetic economy with a huge deficit???? Germans at least figured out they are a social unit and look out for each other. Instead of preying on each other like we tend to do in modern times here in good ole USA! Here its "I got mine!" now I can climb on top of the bodies of others to get even more. Cause its all about ME, ME, ME!

How about Switzerland? Belgium? Netherlands? Sweden? Norway? Finland? Denmark? If you do your research you will find most of northern Euro countries have socialized medicine and dont have huge deficits. Japan has socialized medicine, so does South Korea, so does Taiwan. Weak pathetic economies, all of them, right?


----------



## thequeensblessing (Mar 30, 2003)

emdeengee said:


> It is funny you mention this because I just watched an interview with several doctors and they used a term I had never heard of before. Defensive Medicine. They were answering the interviewer's question about why so many tests are being run by doctors and why so many doctors have the most expensive imagining equipment in their offices instead of sending patients to the hospitals or imaging centers. The answer - the tests are not being run for the benefit of the patient and often aren't necessary at all but Doctors have to practice defensive medicine all the time because they can and do get sued so can't afford to leave any possible test undone. They particularly want the imaging under their control. This is simple PYA (protect your azz) and it is driving up medical costs because the insurance companies are paying for unnecessary tests.


We're a litigious society. Limits on court awards would solve much of this. My GYN doc, a man only about 50 years old, ended his private practice because of the cost of malpractice insurance. He said he could get a job teaching and bring home only slightly less than he made in his private practice, without all the stress and worry.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

ErinP said:


> So for those against this, what is the alternative?
> 
> Surely no one is saying we should continue as we have been...


Dont you get it, the right wing has theirs, they want all the "losers" to just crawl off into a corner and die. Eliminate the surplus population without costing them a thing except maybe a plot in potters field and they will tax the other poor to pay for that. Then they just open the borders and let in a new crop of victims for their economic engine.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Sonshine said:


> So you think it's better that a government appointed panel makes the decisions on who can get what treatment?


So you rather some for-profit private corporation make this decision for YOU? We wont pay for your asprin, cause we consider it experimental!!!! They make more profit if they deny you treatment and you just die. And if you are really bad off, you wont live to challenge them in court. Nice generous system that you support! At least with govt you supposedly have some representation, though with the armies of lobbyists out there, thats probably pretty unrealistic expectation.


----------



## thequeensblessing (Mar 30, 2003)

HermitJohn said:


> Not everybody has your "family heirlooms" and buisiness to sell off. Nor has a family support system. Lucky you.... Its fun trying to drive oneself to doc when you are light headed and dizzy. And no a $1000 ambulance ride there and back again is not a realistic option. and taxis dont come out here. My family consists of an uncle and aunt in their 90s in another state.


 Very few people don't have the means by which they could at least help with their own health care costs. Most people don't want to make the sacrifices necessary to do so. And I've repeatedly said that we have our medicare and medicaid systems in place to take care of those who are truly in need and destitute. I also think too many of us don't think about health insurance until it's too late, and then, because it's us, we want someone else, anyone else, especially the government, via those "greedy rich people" to pay it for us. We justify it to ourselves and others that we need it and we deserve it and it's a basic human right to be given free health care.


HermitJohn said:


> The system as set up tends to favor either those that are wealthy with lots assets or the destitute poor who can go to emergency room for their medical care without worry since there are no assets to come after. The "cant squeeze blood out of a turnip' theory of life.
> 
> Some of us have worked hard physical labor for land or other assets, that let us live without charity. Asking us to give it all up on a gamble that some overpriced doc will make us 100% better and 25 year old again so I can earn it all back, is asking a lot. I cant even get a diagnosis of my problem. All GP tests and usual suspects ruled out. So now its lengthy specialist type thing which isnt practical financially. I am not going to earn it back no matter if the doc is a bloody genius. Too late to be physically robust again and physical labor is not now considered very valuable, they just open the borders and take their pick up young desperate people.


 Wow...you sound very bitter. I'm sorry you're going through such things right now, but it's not some "greedy rich" persons fault you're going through this. My mother is 87. She lives on her own still. She couldn't afford to pay her living expenses and care for the property too. She could have qualified for all sorts of "entitlements" and she did NOT want to sell the family home and move into a senior apartment, but she took our advice and did so anyway. Today, she understands that her life is different than it would have been living in the family home, but it's still good, in some ways, better. It's different. I find that most people don't want to make the sacrifices needed to truly change their situation. Why should they give up what they've worked for all their lives, just to pay for health care. Let's guilt the greedy rich guys into paying it for us. 


HermitJohn said:


> Even you admit everybody should have insurance. So if EVERYBODY NEEDS IT, then its a cost to society! Society should pay for it communally without anybody making obscene profit out of it. Think of a single payer system as a huge group policy. Minus the middlemen leaches. Germany figured this out that the health of their workforce was a societal cost BACK DURING KAISER WILHELM'S time. BEFORE WWI. So I guess you are saying Germany has a weak pathetic economy with a huge deficit???? Germans at least figured out they are a social unit and look out for each other. Instead of preying on each other like we tend to do in modern times here in good ole USA! Here its "I got mine!" now I can climb on top of the bodies of others to get even more. Cause its all about ME, ME, ME!


 I said everyone should have insurance who wants it. I never said everyone should be forced to have it. Sure, premiums need to come down. Costs need to be lowered. But adding taxes on top of taxes isn't going to do it. 
Germany doesn't have a single payer system to their health care. Germany has a multipayer system with both private and public options. It too, isn't perfect. It has it's own issues, especially when it comes to cost and a shortage of nurses, etc. 
You say it's all about Me! Me! Me! But to some of us, it looks the same way with regards the other side of the debate. "As long as I get mine for free, I don't care about the rich slob who has to pay for mine. me! me! me!"


HermitJohn said:


> How about Switzerland? Belgium? Netherlands? Sweden? Norway? Finland? Denmark? If you do your research you will find most of northern Euro countries have socialized medicine and dont have huge deficits. Japan has socialized medicine, so does South Korea, so does Taiwan. Weak pathetic economies, all of them, right?


 I think you need to do YOUR homework. Norway has a complex system that is fraught with problems, and involved patient out of pocket expenses, something you don't seem to want to pay. Sweden doesn't have a single payer system, rather, they have multipayer system that is actually regulated by the counties (equivalent to our states). I could go on and on with your list...but why bother?


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

emdeengee said:


> It is funny you mention this because I just watched an interview with several doctors and they used a term I had never heard of before. Defensive Medicine. They were answering the interviewer's question about why so many tests are being run by doctors and why so many doctors have the most expensive imagining equipment in their offices instead of sending patients to the hospitals or imaging centers. The answer - the tests are not being run for the benefit of the patient and often aren't necessary at all but Doctors have to practice defensive medicine all the time because they can and do get sued so can't afford to leave any possible test undone. They particularly want the imaging under their control. This is simple PYA (protect your azz) and it is driving up medical costs because the insurance companies are paying for unnecessary tests.


You are right. The Dr. I had before this(1 visit) wanted me to sign Waivers because I refused tests. But who is going to pay when I have to have surgery again from having my Breasts squeezed(hematomas) ? I'm sorry but Dr.s don't always know best/listen.. Point is, I don't like the loss of being in control of my own life,and feel sick about the Gov taking that away from me,my Freedom.


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

Zilli said:


> My brother was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer a little over a year and a half ago.
> 
> While the doctors didn't give him any hope for a cure, his life could have at least been extended with treatment; however, he chose to forgo treatment because of the cost and the potential financial crisis that could have left his wife in.
> 
> ...


I am so very sorry Zilli. No one should have to make that kind of decision. 

Without the treatment I received I only had a few months to live. I know that I would have made the same decision as your brother if I did not have the medical protection I have. I absolutely would NOT have left my family in a financial crisis. Destroyed their future security in exchange for my future? And that would have meant that I would have missed out on these last 5 years with them. 

I know that if I had had to make that decision (not to take treatment because of the cost) it would have destroyed my husband with guilt and regret. Again I am so sorry that your brother had to make this choice.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

thequeensblessing said:


> Very few people don't have the means by which they could at least help with their own health care costs. Most people don't want to make the sacrifices necessary to do so.


A penfriend's father died couple years ago of a fungal infection he got in Korean War. So the VA paid. $400k is what it cost VA. How many people have $400k lieing around? Oh I know you do, but I mean average joe and jane lunchbox. Yea, lets sell that spare Rolls Royce Bob. Lets sell your ruby broach Jane.... Yea right, people just dont want to part with their trivial possessions.....





thequeensblessing said:


> And I've repeatedly said that we have our medicare and medicaid systems in place to take care of those who are truly in need and destitute.


Medicaid has traditionally been only for those legal caretakers of minor children. If you were under 65 and childless, YOU DIDNT QUALIFY FOR MEDICAID!!! This has been repeatedly stated and you have ignored it. 

Supposedly Romneybama care changes this, but the red states have avowed not to allow it to happen.

It takes on average 3 years to get SS disability. And you need an official diagnosis to qualify, also usually an attourney or two. But say I wanted SS disability, I dont have a diagnosis and can afford the specialists to get one. Amazing how handy that is. I am officially healthy until I get a diagnosis, but cant afford to get a diagnosis. Catch 22.






thequeensblessing said:


> I also think too many of us don't think about health insurance until it's too late, and then, because it's us, we want someone else, anyone else, especially the government, via those "greedy rich people" to pay it for us. We justify it to ourselves and others that we need it and we deserve it and it's a basic human right to be given free health care.


All the more reason to just have a single payer "group policy" in place. You dont have choice to be stupid. Its there when you need it. Amazing how that works, huh?




thequeensblessing said:


> Wow...you sound very bitter. I'm sorry you're going through such things right now, but it's not some "greedy rich" persons fault you're going through this.


Yes it is, single payer for everybody has been proposed and rejected by the rich since FDR days. Getting close to eighty years ago. Wow, time flies.





thequeensblessing said:


> My mother is 87. She lives on her own still. She couldn't afford to pay her living expenses and care for the property too. She could have qualified for all sorts of "entitlements" and she did NOT want to sell the family home and move into a senior apartment, but she took our advice and did so anyway. Today, she understands that her life is different than it would have been living in the family home, but it's still good, in some ways, better. It's different. I find that most people don't want to make the sacrifices needed to truly change their situation. Why should they give up what they've worked for all their lives, just to pay for health care. Let's guilt the greedy rich guys into paying it for us.



So you are saying she had medical problems she couldnt afford? Otherwise apples and oranges. Sorry, please stay on topic, thank you.




thequeensblessing said:


> I said everyone should have insurance who wants it. I never said everyone should be forced to have it. Sure, premiums need to come down. Costs need to be lowered. But adding taxes on top of taxes isn't going to do it.


single payer would eliminate the need for private insurance. You dont pay twice, you pay higher taxes, but arent paying huge premiums to a private insurance corporation. Not too hard to understand, is it? Course I think many places that have single payer also allow the wealthy who desire special coverage with high end private doctors to do so. They still have to pay taxes to support the single payer system, but if they want their own high dollar system on top of that, its allowed.




thequeensblessing said:


> Germany doesn't have a single payer system to their health care. Germany has a multipayer system with both private and public options. It too, isn't perfect. It has it's own issues, especially when it comes to cost and a shortage of nurses, etc.


Indeed Germany still has a private multipayer system, but its so highly regulated that it functions as a single payer system. Other "single payer" countries also do this. But the difference is meaningless. In Germany, you lose your job, you are covered. You arent made destitute and kicked while you are down.




thequeensblessing said:


> You say it's all about Me! Me! Me! But to some of us, it looks the same way with regards the other side of the debate. "As long as I get mine for free, I don't care about the rich slob who has to pay for mine. me! me! me!"


The thing is you made your money off this society. You didnt earn it weaving baskets from seaweed while living on an independent island out in middle of ocean and selling it on internet to be delivered by roaming seagulls. You earn your money from a society, hiring labor from that society, selling to others in that society, you owe support to that society. Exceptions probably should be made for any who grew up in the society and truly object, give them a couple years to make alternative arrangements when they reach 18, if they should prefer living elsewhere.



thequeensblessing said:


> How about Switzerland? Belgium? Netherlands? Sweden? Norway? Finland? Denmark? If you do your research you will find most of northern Euro countries have socialized medicine and dont have huge deficits. Japan has socialized medicine, so does South Korea, so does Taiwan. Weak pathetic economies, all of them, right?


Well you ignored these countries I guess. They feel so left out....


----------



## Nancy (May 14, 2002)

We are in a medical sharing group called Samaritan Ministries International. As a couple we only pay a $300. share each month. We have had several needs submitted, all have been covered 100% in 3 months by the people who are subscribed to share our needs. It is not insurance but a faith based group. We absolutely love it. As self employed people, DH is in the remodeling business, we have always paid our own insurance. We have gotten as high as $1000. a month with a high deductible. We dropped insurance for awhile until we found Samaritan. We are praying that these sharing groups will be accepted if this nasty Obamacare is implemented.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Sonshine said:


> Um, have you looked at our massive debt and corruption. Our government is following their examples and we will fall just like they did.



I personally think all debt is evil and shortsighted. But rationally, our govt debt is still a ...grrrr... reasonable percentage of GDP. We are not in the Greek type situation. Yet. Just remember Prez Bill left the country with a balanced budget. It was next administration that decided mega debt was way to go.

But hey think of all that money wasted on two unnecessary and very expensive wars funded by Chinese loans. And huge tax cuts and subsidies for the wealthy. If we can waste money and lives like that, we sure can provide universal health care. Even a two tiered system where basic care if free and six million dollar man type care requires insurance or large bank account. I dont find it fair to get charged up the wazoo for sprained ankle to subsidize some rich guy's artificial heart transplant. Though I understand rich guys tend not to have very undeveloped natural hearts, so need either artificial or a transplant from a cadaver or heck maybe a pig heart, yea that would be about right.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

> We are praying that these sharing groups will be accepted if this nasty Obamacare is implemented.


We already know they are...


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Melissa said:


> Nevada-Is that what it really means? Or just that you can be penalized for not carrying it, not that it has to be administered at the federal level. It doesn't really matter where you get the insurance, you just have to get it.
> 
> Which actually seems like it would make most people happy that those who have not had insurance must get it. I mean it is easy enough right? Just get a job that provides it and you are all set... Everyone can do that.


I believe that the federal government can legally administrate a general healthcare insurance plan if they want to. They do it with Medicare, VA, & Tricare. Moreover, we don't even get a choice with Medicare. You are required to contribute and everyone over a certain age is enrolled.

The interesting thing about that is that virtually everyone on Medicare seems to like it. I suspect that if Medicare were to be extended to people of all ages that we would all love it.


----------



## Melissa (Apr 15, 2002)

Instead of medicaid and medicare, a single program might work. Less administration and all government workers, congress etc... could be in it also. I suspect it will come to that. We'll just have to see.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Melissa said:


> Instead of medicaid and medicare, a single program might work. Less administration and all government workers, congress etc... could be in it also. I suspect it will come to that. We'll just have to see.


We might have to wait a generation to see it, but I believe you are correct.


----------



## Mid Tn Mama (May 11, 2002)

You asked for an explanation: Here is a very good one based on facts:
"Obamacare" explained very well. via reddit.com


----------



## Belfrybat (Feb 21, 2003)

doozie said:


> I would like to know how someone that couldn't afford insurance in the first place, (I do know people that just barely cover their rent and food, no extras, entertainment, etc) and now must get coverage, eventually uses it and incurs a deductible, or co pay after a treatment, test, hospitilization. How are they going to pay? What if they dont understand what co pays or deductibles are? *What is the maximum or cap on out of pocket expenses? Will it be lifetime, or a yearly deductible. So many unanswered questions. *Cost of living (rent, gas, food) varies in price everywhere. How can this be fair when determining the premium cost by what a person makes?


Look at the link in Melissa's post on page 2 -- post 83, I think. Put in the numbers and it will bring up a possible scenario for that person/ family. If insurance is going to cost 8% of more of a person (family)'s adjusted gross income then they are exempt from the requirement of getting insurance. That link also gives the maximum a person/family of each income bracket can spend out of pocket -- the percentage varies according to income/ family size.


----------



## Belfrybat (Feb 21, 2003)

Nancy said:


> We are in a medical sharing group called Samaritan Ministries International. As a couple we only pay a $300. share each month. We have had several needs submitted, all have been covered 100% in 3 months by the people who are subscribed to share our needs. It is not insurance but a faith based group. We absolutely love it. As self employed people, DH is in the remodeling business, we have always paid our own insurance. We have gotten as high as $1000. a month with a high deductible. We dropped insurance for awhile until we found Samaritan. We are praying that these sharing groups will be accepted if this nasty Obamacare is implemented.


I'm with Christian Medi-Share, and yes, members of sharing medical organizations like these are considered to be covered and therefore exempt from any penalties. I'm surprised that Samaritan ministries didn't send you a letter to that effect since the various organizations banded together to lobby for exemption.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Belfrybat said:


> Look at the link in Melissa's post on page 2 -- post 83, I think. Put in the numbers and it will bring up a possible scenario for that person/ family. If insurance is going to cost 8% of more of a person (family)'s adjusted gross income then they are exempt from the requirement of getting insurance. That link also gives the maximum a person/family of each income bracket can spend out of pocket -- the percentage varies according to income/ family size.


Interesting. I'll still be 1.5 years away from Medicare eligibility on 1/1/14. Now that I know exactly what my pension + Social Security will be, according to the 8% rule I'll need to find insurance for under $106/month. What are the chances that a 64 year-old man can find qualifying healthcare insurance for under $106/month? I think I'm pretty safe from the penalty.

If I can find healthcare insurance for under $106/month I'll buy it.


----------



## highlands (Jul 18, 2004)

painterswife said:


> They have no concept of what it costs here. A fellow employee had an outpatient operation yesterday. 4 hours at the hospital and a $25,000.00 bill.


How? I had an appendectomy. General anesthesia and in the hospital over night. Total real cost of $1,300. Is this a difference between hospitals, regions? I also pay for my own dental and eye care. It isn't as expensive as I see people quote. This is not subsidized, no insurance. Why the difference?


----------



## highlands (Jul 18, 2004)

Melissa said:


> Most people who have insurance through their job do not realize how expensive insurance can be.


Very true. And that is why insurance costs so much. When people buy things without seeing the price tag they over pay. With no insurance you question the price and necessity of tests. My doctor once wanted to run a full battery of lab tests when I only needed one. He said, "I don't know how much they cost. Don't worry, insurance will cover it." I explained I had no insurance and that I pay the cost 100%. He went and found out the costs and we agreed on what actually needed doing rather than everything.

This issue is something I see that can go very wrong with the free healthcare.

Another issue is that society is not willing to make the needed hard decisions about who gets it and who doesn't.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

highlands said:


> How? I had an appendectomy. General anesthesia and in the hospital over night. Total real cost of $1,300. Is this a difference between hospitals, regions? I also pay for my own dental and eye care. It isn't as expensive as I see people quote. This is not subsidized, no insurance. Why the difference?


I have no idea. He has no insurance. He was able to get financial assistance and that brought it down to 17000.00. This was an operation for urinary stones.

Another fellow employee had a child ( no maternity insurance.) In and out of the hospital in the same day. Less than 8 hours, no complications. Around 10,000.00
No matter how many times he asked up front they could not give him a good estimate of costs. Somewhere between 5000.00 and 15000.00 was all they would say.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

highlands said:


> Very true. And that is why insurance costs so much. When people buy things without seeing the price tag they over pay. With no insurance you question the price and necessity of tests. My doctor once wanted to run a full battery of lab tests when I only needed one. He said, "I don't know how much they cost. Don't worry, insurance will cover it." I explained I had no insurance and that I pay the cost 100%. He went and found out the costs and we agreed on what actually needed doing rather than everything.
> 
> This issue is something I see that can go very wrong with the free healthcare.
> 
> Another issue is that society is not willing to make the needed hard decisions about who gets it and who doesn't.


NOT free healthcare, you still pay.


----------



## Common Tator (Feb 19, 2008)

wanda1950 said:


> Do you know this person & his/her friends well enough to know this?


She confirmed earlier in this thread that she currently has insurance.


----------



## highlands (Jul 18, 2004)

painterswife said:


> I have no idea. He has no insurance. He was able to get financial assistance and that brought it down to 17000.00. This was an operation for urinary stones. Another fellow employee had a child ( no maternity insurance.) In and out of the hospital in the same day. Less than 8 hours, no complications. Around 10,000.00
> No matter how many times he asked up front they could not give him a good estimate of costs. Somewhere between 5000.00 and 15000.00 was all they would say.


Wow. That is very different. We paid for the cost of having our kids, also just in and out of the hospital long enough to pop out the kids, and it was $1,800 (first one) to $2,400 (third one). The $10,000 your fellow employee had is a staggering difference. Again, I wonder if this is a regional issue or what? One thing I wonder is if this is a city vs country difference. We're very rural. I know a lot of things cost a lot more in the city areas.



painterswife said:


> NOT free healthcare, you still pay.


When people don't see the cost they think of it as free and that drives inflation - that was what I said. With employer based healthcare people don't see their policy's cost so they think of it as a free benefit and they want to maximize their use of it rather than rationing it. If they had to pay at the checkout counter they would use it more carefully. That is 'free'.


----------



## GammyAnnie (Jun 2, 2011)

7thswan said:


> You are right. The Dr. I had before this(1 visit) wanted me to sign Waivers because I refused tests. But who is going to pay when I have to have surgery again from having my Breasts squeezed (hematomas) ? I'm sorry but Dr.s don't always know best/listen.. Point is, I don't like the loss of being in control of my own life,and feel sick about the Gov taking that away from me,my Freedom.


My goodness, how horrible, how in the world did your breasts get squeezed so hard your had to have surgery?

Annie


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> The interesting thing about that is that virtually everyone on Medicare seems to like it. I suspect that if Medicare were to be extended to people of all ages that we would all love it.


I have been on Mediocre for a while now.... thus far... I am not impressed. I am referring to the basic functionality of the program compared to the insurance that I used to have. Another major problem I have with Mediocre is the fact that its busting the nations bank account.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I have been on Mediocre for a while now.... thus far... I am not impressed. I am referring to the basic functionality of the program compared to the insurance that I used to have.


You'll need to be more specific.



Yvonne's hubby said:


> Another major problem I have with Mediocre is the fact that its busting the nations bank account.


I don't recall anyone complaining about that the past 25 years as the government was borrowing an average of $100 billion per year from the fund. This was the first year that SS & Medicare ran at a deficit, about a $25 billion deficit, and suddenly it's breaking the nation's bank account. I've got no sympathy for that at all.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

highlands said:


> How? I had an appendectomy. General anesthesia and in the hospital over night. Total real cost of $1,300. Is this a difference between hospitals, regions?


:shocked:
I think your hospital just operates in a time-warp on 1955's dollars... 

My husband had an appendectomy in 1996. No insurance (in fact, that event is what made us GET insurance). It cost us nearly $10K. This was in a small 8-bed rural hospital.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

ErinP said:


> :shocked:
> I think your hospital just operates in a time-warp on 1955's dollars...
> 
> My husband had an appendectomy in 1996. No insurance (in fact, that event is what made us GET insurance). It cost us nearly $10K. This was in a small 8-bed rural hospital.


I agree! Can we get the name and location of your Doctor. It would be way cheaper to travel to your location.


----------



## Nancy (May 14, 2002)

They said they go state by state. Not all states are exempted as far as I understand it.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I have been on Mediocre for a while now.... thus far... I am not impressed. I am referring to the basic functionality of the program compared to the insurance that I used to have. Another major problem I have with Mediocre is the fact that its busting the nations bank account.


I have been on it for quite some time now went through 3 different Supplemental companies, but all I have gnu through with my severe RA and such i have been very very happy with Medicare. I have been waited on in a timely manner, the nurses and doctors are very personable. many have which even seen my horses in the house pictures, they are so friendly.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

thequeensblessing said:


> But you cannot separate the fiscal decisions from the medical ones. I want control of my medical decisions and therefore, my fiscal ones. I don't want the government to make the determinations for me. There is no free lunch.
> As I said, I went through breast cancer treatment, including bilateral mastectomies. I paid for it in cash. We sold everything, including my husband's business, our extra vehicle, and numerous antiques and valuables. I hated selling family heirlooms, but we did what we had to do. We were only thankful that we had the items to sell. We weren't opposed to selling our home to pay for the care I wanted. Yes, this was a bleak time for us, but we weren't forced into a divorce or a homeless shelter. We worked together to make it work. We were willing to do whatever it took to pay for this treatment. Today, looking back, despite the bleakness of it all at the time, it was a learning, growing time where I learned the value of true self-sufficiency and not just giving it lip service. We were young and supposedly bulletproof. After this wake up call, we did what we needed to do to have health insurance. We bought a new home, better than the last one. We replaced our vehicles, and hubby went to work for another company to get that health care instead of going back into business himself.
> The system we have now is flawed, greatly, but why does it have to be Obama care or our current system? We're Americans! Surely we can find our own system that works better than what we have without resorting to the things our European friends have tried and failed at. You even acknowledge that all systems are flawed. People die, needlessly, under each system. Both systems are expensive to someone (either the govt. budget deficit, or the taxpayer, or the individual). The only thing I can see is that health care under Obamacare or single payer is promised to be "free" or "low cost". Do a little research into the budget deficits of single payer countries. Tell me why I'm to believe Obama's promises when he's lied left and right about this health care reform??


Prayers & good thoughts for your continued good health.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

HermitJohn said:


> You mean "Romneyation", Obamacare is just a clone of a Republican plan! Its what the Republicans wanted back when Hillarycare was under consideration in the 90s!!!!! Hillarycare was a better program. The Republicans wanted Romneycare cause they didnt want their private healthcare buddies to lose their cash cow.
> 
> It is pretty obvious that the only way the obama folk could get insurance industry to go along was to kill the public option. The private insurance people didnt want to get shown up on how greedy they are. They had resigned themselves the current system would collapse and Obamacare minus the public option would give them more years of profits. And they have armies of lobbyists and donate to loads of politicians of both parties. It was sort of joke the massive legion of lobbyists floating around DC when this was under consideration.
> 
> The insurance industry killed Hillarycare back in the 90s, the public option in Obamacare was killed to prevent a rerun. They also really wanted a Republican or two signing on, though they didnt get it.


Specifically I was speaking of the current HC bill we're discussing in this thread.
NO conservatives or republicans were consulted or catered to. If y'all will remember, this admin locked the other side OUT of meetings. Pelosi appointed NO "R" on any committee, etc. Input was shunned.
I couldn't care less what MA residents want now or what they wanted 10 yrs ago. I don't care about Hillary's plan back then. But I'll tell you this: We the People DID NOT want it then nor do we now. 
My question had nothing to do with their state or what they chose, that's all up to their constitution.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

nandmsmom said:


> I'm in Massachusetts, so we've been living with this for a while. I don't know the specifics of the national bill, but it does seem to be based on ours. What I've seen and experienced is:
> 
> -It's very frustrating when you are healthy and would like to start a business. Taking the gamble to go without coverage for a bit is impossible. Hubby is a firefighter, but we also have our own business. He would love to just have the business, but we can't afford it with the high price of the health coverage that we now need to carry.
> 
> ...


This is exactly what will happen w/ObamaTax.
I'm sorry you're in that predicament. But its my understanding MA-the majority-wanted that bill.


----------



## Zilli (Apr 1, 2012)

Tricky Grama said:


> But I'll tell you this: We the People DID NOT want it then nor do we now.


So, "We the People" are only those (mostly on the right) who were opposed to this?

What about those of us who were and are FOR it? Are we not part of "We the People" as well?

Or are only those who agree with you considered "We the People?"


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

ErinP said:


> So for those against this, what is the alternative?
> 
> Surely no one is saying we should continue as we have been...


Absolutely not. Something should be done. 
For the am't of $$ that this entails, this country could set up a pool for 'pre-existing condition' people. 
And fine w/me if you want to coddle your 25 y/o but don't make MY HC costs higher b/c of it!


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

emdeengee said:


> It is funny you mention this because I just watched an interview with several doctors and they used a term I had never heard of before. Defensive Medicine. They were answering the interviewer's question about why so many tests are being run by doctors and why so many doctors have the most expensive imagining equipment in their offices instead of sending patients to the hospitals or imaging centers. The answer - the tests are not being run for the benefit of the patient and often aren't necessary at all but Doctors have to practice defensive medicine all the time because they can and do get sued so can't afford to leave any possible test undone. They particularly want the imaging under their control. This is simple PYA (protect your azz) and it is driving up medical costs because the insurance companies are paying for unnecessary tests.


We'd just call it "CYA". Well, in GC we would. :ashamed:


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Melissa said:


> Nevada-Is that what it really means? Or just that you can be penalized for not carrying it, not that it has to be administered at the federal level. It doesn't really matter where you get the insurance, you just have to get it.
> 
> Which actually seems like it would make most people happy that those who have not had insurance must get it. I mean it is easy enough right? Just get a job that provides it and you are all set... Everyone can do that.


Those jobs are becoming far & few b/w. Companies are hiring 35 hrs/wk, or whatever 'part-time' would be so as not to give benefits.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

HermitJohn said:


> Dont you get it, the right wing has theirs, they want all the "losers" to just crawl off into a corner and die. Eliminate the surplus population without costing them a thing except maybe a plot in potters field and they will tax the other poor to pay for that. Then they just open the borders and let in a new crop of victims for their economic engine.


Speaking of 'mean' posts...

I supposed you think I'm 'right wing' & "have mine".

DH has a kidney full of stones. Not due to anything eaten , just a mal-functioning kidney. Also has 2 ruptured discs. 

He passes kidney stones more often than most women have menses. I'm A RN & when I did hospital work & took care of such a pt. they got shot up w/more morphine that normal pt.s in pain. My DH sucks it up, has a couple pain pills. So don't tell me how bad others have it.

If he has to have lithotripsy again, to the tune of 20K, I know where we can go to get it cheaper, b/c they'll take our CASH instead of ins. B/c he hasn't had insurance since 1/06.

Prayers for your health.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I believe that the federal government can legally administrate a general healthcare insurance plan if they want to. They do it with Medicare, VA, & Tricare. Moreover, we don't even get a choice with Medicare. You are required to contribute and everyone over a certain age is enrolled.
> 
> The interesting thing about that is that virtually everyone on Medicare seems to like it. I suspect that if Medicare were to be extended to people of all ages that we would all love it.


I'm sorry but I hear folks fighting medicare decisions all the time. I also seem to remember someone here not happy w/a MC supplemental...


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

highlands said:


> Very true. And that is why insurance costs so much. When people buy things without seeing the price tag they over pay. With no insurance you question the price and necessity of tests. My doctor once wanted to run a full battery of lab tests when I only needed one. He said, "I don't know how much they cost. Don't worry, insurance will cover it." I explained I had no insurance and that I pay the cost 100%. He went and found out the costs and we agreed on what actually needed doing rather than everything.
> 
> This issue is something I see that can go very wrong with the free healthcare.
> 
> Another issue is that society is not willing to make the needed hard decisions about who gets it and who doesn't.












Same thing happened to DH. Urologist wanted an MRI to see where the kidnew stone was...$1600. Uh, no, how 'bout we try a plain-o X-ray & if we can't find out, then look at having an MRI.
Yup: x-ray showed the stone. $50 please.

And I can't wait to hear folks yell about gov "panels" -yes it IS in the bill-who are NOT even docs telling 75 y/o they cannot have life saving procedures.


----------



## Oggie (May 29, 2003)

Phew!

Well, I for one am glad that this controversy is going to die down.

It's not as though anything has really been settled, but this whole thing is going to move out of the news because America has more pressing issues with which to concern itself.

Word is that Katie Holmes has left Tom Cruise slack-jawed and beardless.

I'm sure that this little health care kerfuffle is destined for the back pages.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Tricky Grama said:


> This is exactly what will happen w/ObamaTax.
> I'm sorry you're in that predicament. But its my understanding MA-the majority-wanted that bill.


This is a tax so LESS then 1% of the population can get healthcare. WHAT? Lees then 1% in this country have no health insurance and it those squeaky wheels that have yelled the loudest and gets this tax passed even though the rest of the country over 70% doesn't want it.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

painterswife said:


> I have no idea. He has no insurance. He was able to get financial assistance and that brought it down to 17000.00. This was an operation for urinary stones.
> 
> Another fellow employee had a child ( no maternity insurance.) In and out of the hospital in the same day. Less than 8 hours, no complications. Around 10,000.00
> No matter how many times he asked up front they could not give him a good estimate of costs. Somewhere between 5000.00 and 15000.00 was all they would say.


This can be financed. Cars cost more, they're financed. Health is more important but folks don't want to pay for it.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Zilli said:


> So, "We the People" are only those (mostly on the right) who were opposed to this?
> 
> What about those of us who were and are FOR it? Are we not part of "We the People" as well?
> 
> Or are only those who agree with you considered "We the People?"


I'm sorry but nearly 70% of this country doesn't want this bill. That's a bigger majority than most anything. 
I'm "We the People" & DID NOT want Obama elected-how about that?


----------



## Zilli (Apr 1, 2012)

Tricky Grama said:


> I'm sorry but nearly 70% of this country doesn't want this bill. That's a bigger majority than most anything.
> I'm "We the People" & DID NOT want Obama elected-how about that?


And many of us felt that George W. got handed the presidency by the Supreme Court......and we were told to "get over it."

How about _that_?

Again, how are YOU "We the People" but those who disagree with you aren't?


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

arabian knight said:


> This is a tax so LESS then 1% of the population can get healthcare. WHAT? Lees then 1% in this country have no health insurance and it those squeaky wheels that have yelled the loudest and gets this tax passed even though the rest of the country over 70% doesn't want it.


So you have health coverage? I think from prior posts that you have indicated that you do? YOu would thus owe ZERO extra tax since the tax is for those with higher income and no current insurance. how is ZERO extra tax a large burden for you? Poor beleagered man that you are being forced to now pay ZERO extra tax. Poor, poor thing, we all feel sorry for you.


----------



## Common Tator (Feb 19, 2008)

Nevada said:


> I don't recall anyone complaining about that the past 25 years as the government was borrowing an average of $100 billion per year from the fund. This was the first year that SS & Medicare ran at a deficit, about a $25 billion deficit, and suddenly it's breaking the nation's bank account. I've got no sympathy for that at all.


You do know that as part of Owe-bama Care, they took $500,000,000.00 from Medicare don't you?


----------



## How Do I (Feb 11, 2008)

Common Tator said:


> You do know that as part of Owe-bama Care, they took $500,000,000.00 from Medicare don't you?


As a conservative, I would imagine you would be happy with that cut.



> Still, where does the $500 billion in future savings come from?
> 
> Nearly $220 billion comes from reducing annual increases in payments that health care providers would otherwise receive from Medicare. Other savings include $36 billion from increases in premiums for higher-income beneficiaries and $12 billion from administrative changes. A new national board -- the Independent Payment Advisory Board -- will be tasked to identify $15.5 billion in savings, but the board is prohibited from proposing anything that would ration care or reduce or modify benefits. Then there's another $136 billion in projected savings that would come from changes to the Medicare Advantage program, an alternative to traditional Medicare that has turned out to be much more costly than expected. About 25 percent of Medicare beneficiaries are enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan.
> 
> If you disregard the incendiary word "stole," it is true that savings from Medicare help pay for other parts of the health care law. That's because Democrats wanted to make sure they did not increase the federal deficit with the new health law. The savings from Medicare offset new spending resulting from the health care bill.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Zilli said:


> And many of us felt that George W. got handed the presidency by the Supreme Court......and we were told to "get over it."
> 
> How about _that_?
> 
> Again, how are YOU "We the People" but those who disagree with you aren't?


"We the People" are the majority who do not want this bill. FAR more than the ones who do.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Tricky Grama said:


> Specifically I was speaking of the current HC bill we're discussing in this thread.
> NO conservatives or republicans were consulted or catered to. If y'all will remember, this admin locked the other side OUT of meetings. Pelosi appointed NO "R" on any committee, etc. Input was shunned.
> I couldn't care less what MA residents want now or what they wanted 10 yrs ago. I don't care about Hillary's plan back then. But I'll tell you this: We the People DID NOT want it then nor do we now.
> My question had nothing to do with their state or what they chose, that's all up to their constitution.


Oddly never did hear any Republican comments on dealing with health care beyond "less taxes for the rich" during the Obamacare legislation. That seems kinda their answer to everything anymore. Oddly when lower taxes for the rich happened under Bush the only result was two unpaid for wars and economic collapse. I guess those poor Republicans were just a bit over stimulated..... We sure dont want to over stimulate them again.

And deny it all you want but back in Hilliarycare days, the Republicans wanted what became Romneycare FOR THE NATIONAL SYSTEM. Deny it all you want, but they wanted to force ALL people to buy private health insurance. That was their answer back at that time to Hillary's single payer plan. When that was offered under Obama, they changed their minds and decided it was evil.

Now they just want more and more unconditional tax cuts for the rich as the answer to everything. Oh and make it impossible to sue doctors. Incompetent doc cuts off your right leg when he was supposed to do a heart transplant, well tough luck I guess. At least I dont hear any other alternatives.

If I am wrong pleas do correct me and specify exactly what plan the Republicans have in mind besides making the wealthy wealthier and protecting the wealthy from lawsuits.


----------



## Zilli (Apr 1, 2012)

HermitJohn said:


> So you have health coverage? I think from prior posts that you have indicated that you do? YOu would thus owe ZERO extra tax since the tax is for those with higher income and no current insurance. how is ZERO extra tax a large burden for you? Poor beleagered man that you are being forced to now pay ZERO extra tax. Poor, poor thing, we all feel sorry for you.


I believe that poster has said that he is on disability and receives Medicare - which means he does have health coverage and also that he pays NO taxes anyway.

And, yes, "he has his" - and everyone else not as "fortunate" can die in the street.

And, for full disclosure, I, too, am on disability and Medicare. The difference between myself and the other poster, though, is that I CARE about others, who may not even be able to see a doctor because they are uninsured - for whatever reasons, and not necessarily through any fault of their own.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

thequeensblessing said:


> I agree. I know the government regulation on us and the paperwork that goes with it with our small business is mind boggling and the penalties for doing it wrong can be stiff. I can't imagine the bureaucracy involved in govt. health care regulations/paperwork.


Since I was Medical admin in the USAF I have a general idea.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Tricky Grama said:


> "We the People" are the majority who do not want this bill. FAR more than the ones who do.


Actually most people are more concerned about jobs at this point in time. They arent happy with Obama, BUT they arent that too optimistic about more unconditional tax cuts and subsitdies for the rich doing anything either. Guess we find out how the non-partisans vote this fall. Face it, neither the right nor left has anything close to a majority. If we had parlimentary system with an actual range of opinions instead of this artificial tweedledee or tweedledum choice made for us, I doubt either right or left would control anything.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

cindy-e said:


> well, just got word that a local college which had been offering the option of purchasing a policy for kids attending the school has dropped the policy because they cannot afford the higher costs produced by the mandated higher coverages in health care based on this bill. They just can't make it affordable for the kids with the new rules.
> 
> Dh (a manager) informs me that since people expect healthcare as a benefit, and will be penalized for not having it, and companies have to provide it now at such a high level, they are looking at MANY more layoffs than they previously thought. MANY more. And since everybody in the office works on salary, not hourly, in order to keep their insurance, and keep their jobs, they will be working MUCH longer hours to stay afloat after they lose all the people to the costs of mandated healthcare.
> 
> Just 2 things happening already here locally, only 1 day after the ruling.


That can't be true, after all, everyone is saying it will make it easier for people to be insured.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Nevada said:


> That ignores the Supreme Court decision that was just handed down. According to that decision, it is indeed legal for healthcare to be administrated on the federal level.


Actually, that's not what they decided. They decided that we can be taxed if we don't purchase what the government tells us to. They said the mandate was not constitutional.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

thequeensblessing said:


> You know...I really don't get it. I was just watching CNN and the two girls who were discussing this great new health care law were commenting on some of the wonderful features of the law, like "free preventative health screenings". One girl said "free is good, we all like free!" Then they went on to enumerate all the "free screenings" such as mammograms, colonoscopy, blood screenings, and even birth control. These women were giddy at the thought of this free stuff, and I'm not exaggerating!
> Why can't they see that someone, somewhere along the line, has to pay for these screenings?? The hospitals aren't going to do them for free, the manufacturers of the equipment will be charging even more for the equipment, thanks to Obama's fees/taxes, and the technicians and doctors performing these tests aren't going to do it for free. None of this is free!


It's free to those who aren't paying for it, but is increasing the cost for those that do work.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

emdeengee said:


> It is funny you mention this because I just watched an interview with several doctors and they used a term I had never heard of before. Defensive Medicine. They were answering the interviewer's question about why so many tests are being run by doctors and why so many doctors have the most expensive imagining equipment in their offices instead of sending patients to the hospitals or imaging centers. The answer - the tests are not being run for the benefit of the patient and often aren't necessary at all but Doctors have to practice defensive medicine all the time because they can and do get sued so can't afford to leave any possible test undone. They particularly want the imaging under their control. This is simple PYA (protect your azz) and it is driving up medical costs because the insurance companies are paying for unnecessary tests.


When it comes to my health or my family's I would prefer to have every test available to ensure continued good health and to find any areas that problems could arise.


----------



## Zilli (Apr 1, 2012)

Tricky Grama said:


> "We the People" are the majority who do not want this bill. FAR more than the ones who do.


Yes, and President Obama was elected with a majority of the votes, by "We the People."

Every presidency leaves their mark on their time in office. For President Obama, it will be for the Affordable Care Act, as well as for giving the orders to take out someone responsible for the murder of over 3,000 of our citizens.

For Bush, it will be for things like the Bush Tax Cuts for the rich.

"We the People" don't get to be just those who vote the way YOU think they should vote.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Melissa said:


> Nevada-Is that what it really means? Or just that you can be penalized for not carrying it, not that it has to be administered at the federal level. It doesn't really matter where you get the insurance, you just have to get it.
> 
> Which actually seems like it would make most people happy that those who have not had insurance must get it. I mean it is easy enough right? Just get a job that provides it and you are all set... Everyone can do that.


Not really. There are many who can't work to get insurance and if it's as many have stated, like Romney care in MA, if a person gets layed off and loses insurance they will have to pay the penalty, as my BIL found out first hand.


----------



## How Do I (Feb 11, 2008)

HermitJohn said:


> If I am wrong pleas do correct me and specify exactly what plan the Republicans have in mind besides making the wealthy wealthier and protecting the wealthy from lawsuits.


Minus the mandate that isn't really a mandate it looks a lot like Obamacare. (PDF)


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

HermitJohn said:


> So you rather some for-profit private corporation make this decision for YOU? We wont pay for your asprin, cause we consider it experimental!!!! They make more profit if they deny you treatment and you just die. And if you are really bad off, you wont live to challenge them in court. Nice generous system that you support! At least with govt you supposedly have some representation, though with the armies of lobbyists out there, thats probably pretty unrealistic expectation.


I'd rather put the power on what treatments are given put back in the doctor's hands. I've seen government health care through the military. In fact, it was because of the wonderful government health care that I lost my chances of ever giving birth to a baby because when I was pregnant with my last child it was an ectopic pregnancy. They were told that I was high risk for an ectopic pregnancy, and even though I was bleeding when they first discovered I was pregnant they sent me home. In fact, they sent me home three times. The last time I went to the ER because the symptoms kept getting worse my tube had ruptured destroying my chance of every getting pregnant again. I sure don't want them in charge of what treatment my loved ones can or cannot have.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Tricky Grama said:


> "We the People" are the majority who do not want this bill. FAR more than the ones who do.


Seems to be pretty much split down the middle according to today's new Gallop Poll on the issue.

44% against
37% for
19% other 

Poll: Americans split on health care decision

.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Nancy said:


> We are in a medical sharing group called Samaritan Ministries International. As a couple we only pay a $300. share each month. We have had several needs submitted, all have been covered 100% in 3 months by the people who are subscribed to share our needs. It is not insurance but a faith based group. We absolutely love it. As self employed people, DH is in the remodeling business, we have always paid our own insurance. We have gotten as high as $1000. a month with a high deductible. We dropped insurance for awhile until we found Samaritan. We are praying that these sharing groups will be accepted if this nasty Obamacare is implemented.


DH and I looked into getting that a while back. Looked like a wonderful program. I think there's also one called the Timothy plan.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

HermitJohn said:


> I personally think all debt is evil and shortsighted. But rationally, our govt debt is still a ...grrrr... reasonable percentage of GDP. We are not in the Greek type situation. Yet. Just remember Prez Bill left the country with a balanced budget. It was next administration that decided mega debt was way to go.
> 
> But hey think of all that money wasted on two unnecessary and very expensive wars funded by Chinese loans. And huge tax cuts and subsidies for the wealthy. If we can waste money and lives like that, we sure can provide universal health care. Even a two tiered system where basic care if free and six million dollar man type care requires insurance or large bank account. I dont find it fair to get charged up the wazoo for sprained ankle to subsidize some rich guy's artificial heart transplant. Though I understand rich guys tend not to have very undeveloped natural hearts, so need either artificial or a transplant from a cadaver or heck maybe a pig heart, yea that would be about right.


It sure seems you take issue with successful people.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

Tricky Grama said:


> Those jobs are becoming far & few b/w. Companies are hiring 35 hrs/wk, or whatever 'part-time' would be so as not to give benefits.



But Common Tator keeps saying that's what people need to do; give up whatever it is that they're doing and get one of these multitude of jobs that provides health insurance...



Tricky Grama said:


> Absolutely not. Something should be done.


I might have missed it. This has been a crisis for at least 15 years... What were the other options that were pushed?


----------



## Dutchie (Mar 14, 2003)

Common Tator said:


> Actually, you can afford it now. You choose to spend your money on other things. Obama care changes all that by forcing you to spend your money on their desires rather than your needs, and they are hiring thousands of new IRS agents to enforce that.
> 
> Party on!
> 
> IRS wants 4,000 new agents, $300 million budget to enforce Obamacare



Seriously?? IF I can find any insurance because of pre-existing conditions, it would cost me around $3K a month. Yes, I am spending that on other things, such as my mortgage on my modest house, food, a vehicle with which I make my living, etc.

Give me a break.


----------



## Oggie (May 29, 2003)

Dutchie said:


> Seriously?? IF I can find any insurance because of pre-existing conditions, it would cost me around $3K a month. Yes, I am spending that on other things, such as my mortgage on my modest house, food, a vehicle with which I make my living, etc.
> 
> Give me a break.


Shouldn't you be able to go Dutch and get it for half that?


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I have been on Mediocre for a while now.... thus far... I am not impressed. I am referring to the basic functionality of the program compared to the insurance that I used to have. Another major problem I have with Mediocre is the fact that its busting the nations bank account.


And I'm seeing more and more doctors who are not accepting it.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Zilli said:


> So, "We the People" are only those (mostly on the right) who were opposed to this?
> 
> What about those of us who were and are FOR it? Are we not part of "We the People" as well?
> 
> Or are only those who agree with you considered "We the People?"


The majority of Americans did not want it, which is why the administration made behind door deals and told us they would have to pass it for us to see it and that it would not raise our taxes.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

What are you talking about?
The mandate was _always_ there (ie, "taxes"). It's not a surprise. It's part of what people didn't like from the get-go. Nor was what passed any different than what was available for viewing _before_ it passed...


----------



## Zilli (Apr 1, 2012)

naturelover said:


> Seems to be pretty much split down the middle according to today's new Gallop Poll on the issue.
> 
> 44% against
> 37% for
> ...


And I suspect that after the dust settles, and all but the most hardcore stop being so angry and realize that there are a lot of benefits to this bill, that that gap may become even less of a spread.


----------



## Dutchie (Mar 14, 2003)

Oggie said:


> Shouldn't you be able to go Dutch and get it for half that?


One would think!


----------



## Belfrybat (Feb 21, 2003)

This discussion has reminded me of something. A couple in a neighbouring town has a grown son with leukemia (or some blood disease). They asked our prayers. I ran in to the mother a few weeks ago and asked her how "J" was doing. She said he was doing fine, and they had really good news from their insurance company. He was close to his 21st birthday and last year they were told he would be dropped from their policy. A policy on just him, due to his illness, was going to be prohibitively expensive. They found out just before his 21st birthday that the insurance company would allow him to stay on their family policy until he was 26 for a reasonable increase in premium. The mother was estatic and was praising God for the change in heart of the insurance company. 

I had received some right-wing e-mail "forwards" over the past year from her so I knew she was not in favour of the present administration. I said something like, "Praise God for Obamacare, huh?" She looked like I'd punched her in the stomach and said the insurance changing their minds had nothing to do with that Beast. I pointed out that her son being able to stay on the family policy was a direct result of the ACA, and suggested she do an internet search about it.

My point? Although it appears many people are against the ACA due to the individual mandate, the majority of folks are in favour of the changes in coverage it will provide. And I think as time goes by more and more folks will realise that this isn't the death and doom some people want us to believe. I'm 63 and have seen a lot in my life, and very little of the predictions of the doom and gloomers has actually come true.


----------



## Common Tator (Feb 19, 2008)

HermitJohn said:


> So you have health coverage? I think from prior posts that you have indicated that you do? YOu would thus owe ZERO extra tax since the tax is for those with higher income and no current insurance. how is ZERO extra tax a large burden for you? Poor beleagered man that you are being forced to now pay ZERO extra tax. Poor, poor thing, we all feel sorry for you.


Actually, the part where no one who earns under $250,000.00 would be taxed, was a lie. There will be at least 12 new taxes on people who earn less than $250,000.

12 Taxes in Health Care Law Violate Obama


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

I am kind of hoping my medicinal Bourbon will be covered now since it went up almost a dollar a bottle.

So far I see two main sides; one side who keeps chanting about how this is the end all even though the guts were ripped out of it by SCOTUS and the other side who thinks poor people should just suck it up and sell their "Big Screen TVs" and "Escalades" to pay for treatment.

The SCOTUS decision ensured ACA will fail by taking any enforcement provisions out of it and I dont know of any law that cannot be enforced that is effective. Our system currently is broken and we are already paying for poor people or the uninsured so we need to either fix this bill or come up with an alternative that actually could be successful. The constant drum beat of the party of "No" (which I belong to) with no alternative being put forth is not going to work any longer and is starting to alienate the vast majority of us who are somewhere in the middle.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Tricky Grama said:


> I'm sorry but I hear folks fighting medicare decisions all the time. I also seem to remember someone here not happy w/a MC supplemental...


I never had a problem with a Medicare supplemental program. I never worked with one so I wouldn't have any first-hand knowledge to base an opinion on. But even if I did, Medicare supplemental programs aren't Medicare and they aren't run by the government. Medicare supplemental is private insurance.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Zilli said:


> For Bush, it will be for things like the Bush Tax Cuts for the rich.


I don;t know why pole keep calling the Bush Tax cuts. Cuts for the rich.
When I was working I Myself enjoyed MORE in MY paycheck because of the bush tax cuts.
And now lets set the record straight. It was not a Tax Cut.
It was however a good thing for people to KEEP more of what THEY earned.~!
It was Never the Governments money in the first place it was YOURS.
And YOU got to keep MORE of it all thankless to President Bush.
And Obama now not only wants to TAKE more away from you but it will be the largest Take Away in History, now that this healthcare debacle made it through the SC.
Its YOUR money not the governments.
The MORE you have the better YOU are off, the better the economy will be because YOU then have more money to SPEND, making companies more profitable, and having them HIRE more workers.


----------



## vicki in NW OH (May 10, 2002)

salmonslayer said:


> I am kind of hoping my medicinal Bourbon will be covered now since it went up almost a dollar a bottle.


My great grandpa lived to 103 with the use of a daily shot of medicinal bourbon. He had no chronic medical conditions, no other medications. Didn't believe in doctors. Still gardened and fished and played euchre every day. The use of bourbon is clearly efficacious.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Zilli said:


> I believe that poster has said that he is on disability and receives Medicare - which means he does have health coverage and also that he pays NO taxes anyway.
> 
> And, yes, "he has his" - and everyone else not as "fortunate" can die in the street.
> 
> And, for full disclosure, I, too, am on disability and Medicare. The difference between myself and the other poster, though, is that I CARE about others, who may not even be able to see a doctor because they are uninsured - for whatever reasons, and not necessarily through any fault of their own.


Talk about a mean post!

Really? YOU care & AK doesn't. Such a pompous, mean thing to say.
IMHO, the people who CARE are conservatives who GIVE far more $$$, TIME, & BLOOD to charities than do liberals. Studies to prove that.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

HermitJohn said:


> Actually most people are more concerned about jobs at this point in time. They arent happy with Obama, BUT they arent that too optimistic about more unconditional tax cuts and subsitdies for the rich doing anything either. Guess we find out how the non-partisans vote this fall. Face it, neither the right nor left has anything close to a majority. If we had parlimentary system with an actual range of opinions instead of this artificial tweedledee or tweedledum choice made for us, I doubt either right or left would control anything.


I don't have polls to show what you are saying is true. 
I DO believe, however, that folks can be concerned about more than 1 thing. Especially the way this inept administration has handled everything from this bill to Dodd-Frank to deciding which laws to enforce...impeachable offences, BTW.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Zilli said:


> Yes, and President Obama was elected with a majority of the votes, by "We the People."
> 
> Every presidency leaves their mark on their time in office. For President Obama, it will be for the Affordable Care Act, as well as for giving the orders to take out someone responsible for the murder of over 3,000 of our citizens.
> 
> ...


Yup, "We the People" spoke in that election as well as '10. 
Did you vote in that one also? Biggest turnover in 70 yrs. Why? B/c "We the People" who voted in '08 realized the lies that were told & what was happening...the socialism that was being put in place, the ineptitude, the bribes.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

ErinP said:


> But Common Tator keeps saying that's what people need to do; give up whatever it is that they're doing and get one of these multitude of jobs that provides health insurance...
> 
> 
> I might have missed it. This has been a crisis for at least 15 years... What were the other options that were pushed?


You can twist all you want but this is a job killer. That is why companies are going to use part-timers. B/c of this bill. 
This has been a crisis far longer than 15 yrs.
BTW, I'm NOT trying to defend the "Rs". They haven't helped.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

ErinP said:


> What are you talking about?
> The mandate was _always_ there (ie, "taxes"). It's not a surprise. It's part of what people didn't like from the get-go. Nor was what passed any different than what was available for viewing _before_ it passed...


Are you saying they told us that the bill is a TAX??? You can't be serious. There's dozens of tapes showing Obama, many hi up "Ds" saying this is NOT a TAX! Did you not see that? 
Do you not know that they lied to the budget office & gave figures over the next 10 yrs, 4 of which the bill would not even be in effect, so the budgt office said -oh, ok, it will only cost 'X' am't. Now that they know the real costs, it will be nearly 2 trillion, twice what they 1st said. But you who want stuff free don't care.

Know what happened? The Solicitor General went to SCOTUS & said: well, this is really a tax.
IF it had been presented to congress as a tax, it would NEVER have PASSED! NEVER!
Actually in order for a TAX to be passed this bill wuld have to originate in the senate not the house like it did. (I could have that backwards...  )


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Belfrybat said:


> This discussion has reminded me of something. A couple in a neighbouring town has a grown son with leukemia (or some blood disease). They asked our prayers. I ran in to the mother a few weeks ago and asked her how "J" was doing. She said he was doing fine, and they had really good news from their insurance company. He was close to his 21st birthday and last year they were told he would be dropped from their policy. A policy on just him, due to his illness, was going to be prohibitively expensive. They found out just before his 21st birthday that the insurance company would allow him to stay on their family policy until he was 26 for a reasonable increase in premium. The mother was estatic and was praising God for the change in heart of the insurance company.
> 
> I had received some right-wing e-mail "forwards" over the past year from her so I knew she was not in favour of the present administration. I said something like, "Praise God for Obamacare, huh?" She looked like I'd punched her in the stomach and said the insurance changing their minds had nothing to do with that Beast. I pointed out that her son being able to stay on the family policy was a direct result of the ACA, and suggested she do an internet search about it.
> 
> My point? Although it appears many people are against the ACA due to the individual mandate, the majority of folks are in favour of the changes in coverage it will provide. And I think as time goes by more and more folks will realise that this isn't the death and doom some people want us to believe. I'm 63 and have seen a lot in my life, and very little of the predictions of the doom and gloomers has actually come true.


The only thing folks like is the 'pre-existing' part & the 'kids on til 26' part. Really. The rest of the bill is garbage. If you guys really delved into it w/o blinders, you'd see that. You'd see that this is the largest tax increase in the history of our country. But you don't care.
HC can be improved & those 2 things left in w/o bankrupting the country.


----------



## Work horse (Apr 7, 2012)

Zilli said:


> My brother was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer a little over a year and a half ago.
> 
> While the doctors didn't give him any hope for a cure, his life could have at least been extended with treatment; however, he chose to forgo treatment because of the cost and the potential financial crisis that could have left his wife in.
> 
> ...


That is absolutely heartbreaking. I don't understand how Americans can stand by and allow this to happen to their fellow citizens.


----------



## Work horse (Apr 7, 2012)

I have a few more questions (as a reminder, I'm a Canadian with no dog in this fight).

If universal health care works in so many other developed countries around the world, why wouldn't it work in the US?

Those who are so opposed: don't you care what happens to your neighbours? Your family? Your friends? It boggles my mind that anyone would have to turn down cancer treatment because they don't want their family to have to pay the bill. To me, that's an outrage. 

I don't know, I can't help but think that health is really all you have...

Also, there are definitely parts of our health care system that Canadians aren't happy with, but that doesn't mean we would rather have a different system. 

Other than that, I can say: if I get hurt, I can go to the emergency room. If I need to speak with a doctor, I can go to a walk-in clinic (some are open after hours and on SAturdays). If I found out today I had cancer, I could be in surgery tomorrow, if needed, and all myself and my family would need to worry about is my recovery (and who's feeding the horses while I'm gone). No wasting time working out the money. 

In general, I'm a pretty self-centered person but even I don't begrudge the health care $$ I pay in taxes.


----------



## Common Tator (Feb 19, 2008)

Work horse said:


> That is absolutely heartbreaking. I don't understand how Americans can stand by and allow this to happen to their fellow citizens.


I have news for you. Even people who do have health insurance get cancer, and many of them die of cancer. Health insurance is not a cure for cancer. Many people with cancer get treatment and get better, many get treatment and die anyway. Many people get cancer and fight hard as long as they can but finally say "I won't take any more treatment, I'm done fighting". And some choose to not fight, like the man in the post you were responding to. 

The American people didn't give him cancer. They didn't deny him treatment. He had the choice not to fight it.


----------



## Ambereyes (Sep 6, 2004)

I don't think anyone would not want the ability to get good healthcare at a reasonable price. But this bill has so much in it that does not support that concept, it is confusing, and it does not get to the root of the problem which IMHO is the insurance companies and big pharma. They are going to make big money with this captive audience and really they still hold all the cards on what treatments can be used. Very little is really in place to control price, bottom line is it is a huge bureaucratic mess that will in all likelihood bring the medical community to a standstill. 

As an little more problems yesterday my FIL needed to see his urologist, he has many problems. Called she has left not in business anymore. We can't find one within 150 miles that will accept Medicare.. This is a very scary time.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

> Oddly never did hear any Republican comments on dealing with health care beyond "less taxes for the rich" during the Obamacare legislation. That seems kinda their answer to everything anymore. Oddly when lower taxes for the rich happened under Bush the only result was two unpaid for wars and economic collapse. I guess those poor Republicans were just a bit over stimulated..... We sure dont want to over stimulate them again.


Those that have ears, let them hear.

There were several Republican counter-proposals during the debate. I supported Vitter's proposals, because I thought they made the most common sense.

Now, even with the help of Google, can you explain to me what Vitter's proposal was?


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

Work horse said:


> That is absolutely heartbreaking. I don't understand how Americans can stand by and allow this to happen to their fellow citizens.


Why is the whole country responsible for the bad or no decisions in a free economy system that i or others make . I have watched as some lay and suffer in a hospital with no hope of them ever leaving and knowing they are still alive ,then the gathered family cheer when the doctors save them for 36 more hours of misery .

There are a million shames in every country, take our homeless that are cold ,hot,hungry or sick . Do your part take a few home with you .:shrug:


----------



## nandmsmom (Mar 3, 2006)

I feel that all of this could be a moot point if we just got to the root of the health crisis in our country. 
- How about we stop paying farmers to grow nutritionally bankrupt crops?
- How about we stop encouraging treating animals inhumanely, while attacking those who are trying to do it right?
- How about we stop giving money to the companies making the food that is making Americans sick?
- How about instead we promote small farms, fruits and veggies, whole foods and encouraging the nation to get involved with their food? 

Our nation is sick. It can all be traced back to our diet and the disconnect from our food supply. I know that most people are on this forum because they care deeply about food and how it gets to our plates. That is, after all, the basis of homesteading. We don't agree on everything, but I think most of us can agree that having that direct connection with the earth and our food is incredibly important. Less junk and more real food would solve the majority of the health issues in our nation. So, instead of bickering about health care, lets contact the powers that be and address the heart of the problem. 

These big companies are getting us coming and going. They get paid to grow crap. Paid to make crap. Paid when we get sick. Paid when we die. They need to be told to get out of our bodies.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

arabian knight said:


> I don;t know why pole keep calling the Bush Tax cuts. Cuts for the rich.
> When I was working I Myself enjoyed MORE in MY paycheck because of the bush tax cuts.
> And now lets set the record straight. It was not a Tax Cut.
> It was however a good thing for people to KEEP more of what THEY earned.~!
> ...


Careful people don't want facts :shrug: And they don't want a free market either where each is responsible for their self :shrug:


----------



## fordy (Sep 13, 2003)

.................The old system of 'for profit' health insurance was almost completely structured around ........Their Subjective System of Rules.......they cherry picked their 'Insured' as much as possible too minimize their actual paidouts for coverage , they denied coverage , and finally , when all else failed they simply dropped the individual from their roles ! The "REST" of the insured folks didn't say much cause they still had.....THEIR....coverage !! The insurance carriers just kept bribing the senators and rep's at both federal and state levels and nothing much changed ! And , additionally , when most longterm customers reached age 55 they were blessed with a large premium increase which effectively caused them to simply drop their coverage......Is that efficiency , or what !
..................Now comes a federaly mandated health insurance program that puts a stop too all the above insurance abuses , and , forces carriers too , insure all who apply , no cherry picking , use 85% of revenue for treatment and preventative medicine , stop arbitratry(sp) dismissal of patient coverage(s) !
..................Is it a perfectly crafted program , NO......does it need revision and fine tuning-Yes , does it force healthy folks to pay a share of the cost of those....not so healthy-Yes , Did the old system force the healthy policy holders too subsidize the UNhealthy-Yes , In the long run will it improve the overall health of the Citizens of America-without a doubt so it makes no difference which political party was responsible for it's passage and implementation , it's still a worthwhile effort , and , overtime , will benefit all who seek it's services . , fordyeep:


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Sonshine said:


> It sure seems you take issue with successful people.


Not problem with successful people, just with the MINE, MINE, MINE attitude when they didnt earn that money in a vacuum, they were able to earn that money BECAUSE they live in a SOCIETY. To just take and not give back is pure selfish greed. If you want to keep everything, take you yacht out in middle of ocean and figure out how to earn your wealth without being supported by that society.

Maybe make those baskets out of seaweed you harvest yourself and weave WITH YOUR OWN HANDS, and drop ship them via passing seagulls. See how rich you get. No man is an island. Sorry so many think its ok to leach off society without any obligation to support that society. The Germans got this idea well over a century ago. Yea they missed some other things, but... Anyway they got the idea that they were all in it together and the health of German workers was part of the health of their society. Here we seem to just consider laborers disposable. Somehow here success is only for a few individuals that manage to manipulate and use others.

Same way I suggest those that moved factories overseas to make that extra profit should then live overseas and sell in the country of manufacture. Want to sell here, then pay the difference of what you saved with the slave labor and lax pollution regulations to the USA treasury. You want to sell here, you should contribute to the support of this society.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

HermitJohn said:


> Not problem with successful people, just with the MINE, MINE, MINE attitude when they didnt earn that money in a vacuum, they were able to earn that money BECAUSE they live in a SOCIETY. To just take and not give back is pure selfish greed. If you want to keep everything, take you yacht out in middle of ocean and figure out how to earn your wealth without being supported by that society.
> 
> Maybe make those baskets out of seaweed you harvest yourself and weave WITH YOUR OWN HANDS, and drop ship them via passing seagulls. See how rich you get. No man is an island. Sorry so many think its ok to leach off society without any obligation to support that society. The Germans got this idea well over a century ago. Yea they missed some other things, but... Anyway they got the idea that they were all in it together and the health of German workers was part of the health of their society. Here we seem to just consider laborers disposable. Somehow here success is only for a few individuals that manage to manipulate and use others.
> 
> Same way I suggest those that moved factories overseas to make that extra profit should then live overseas and sell in the country of manufacture. Want to sell here, then pay the difference of what you saved with the slave labor and lax pollution regulations to the USA treasury. You want to sell here, you should contribute to the support of this society.


No man is an island, but cream rises to the top.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

I am not thrilled with Romneycare/Obamacare. It uses power of "taxation" to force people to contribute to the profit of private corporations. But it is slight improvement over mess we had before as it decreases cherry picking of insurance customers. Still does nothing to attack the cost of medical care. Thats only going to happen by taking greed out of medical care. Stop the piecework payment system, put all physicians on a salary. High enough salary that makes it worth being a doctor, but eliminates doctors investing in testing labs and then steer patients to use that lab where they have financial interest. Or grouping with other doctors to fix prices. Not an easy thing since the current system is well entrenched and may not fall until whole medical care system implodes.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Jolly said:


> No man is an island, but cream rises to the top.


And the wealthy lap it all up before allowing anybody else to have access to any milk.


----------



## Common Tator (Feb 19, 2008)

HermitJohn said:


> Not problem with successful people, just with the MINE, MINE, MINE attitude when they didnt earn that money in a vacuum, they were able to earn that money BECAUSE they live in a SOCIETY. To just take and not give back is pure selfish greed. If you want to keep everything, take you yacht out in middle of ocean and figure out how to earn your wealth without being supported by that society.
> 
> Maybe make those baskets out of seaweed you harvest yourself and weave WITH YOUR OWN HANDS, and drop ship them via passing seagulls. See how rich you get. No man is an island. Sorry so many think its ok to leach off society without any obligation to support that society. The Germans got this idea well over a century ago. Yea they missed some other things, but... Anyway they got the idea that they were all in it together and the health of German workers was part of the health of their society. Here we seem to just consider laborers disposable. Somehow here success is only for a few individuals that manage to manipulate and use others.
> 
> Same way I suggest those that moved factories overseas to make that extra profit should then live overseas and sell in the country of manufacture. Want to sell here, then pay the difference of what you saved with the slave labor and lax pollution regulations to the USA treasury. You want to sell here, you should contribute to the support of this society.


I read the whole thing, and could only surmise that you really DO have a problem with successful people.

So let me ask what you have done to solve the problem. I mean, other than ranting and berating others on the internet. Do you keep your paycheck, pay your bills, buy groceries etc, like the rest of us, or do you live under a bridge so you can use your wages to pay medical bills for the uninsured?

Because if you are keeping your earnings to pay for your own needs, you are part of the "MINE, MINE, MINE" mentality that you rail against.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

And now with this, our government OURS not some 3rd country but the USA.
Our government will now CONTROL 1/6 of the nations economy. We are indeed running head long into a Socialistic country and now it is 1/6th closer.
Can't see why some either can't see that or think that is bad. Just don't make any sense to me whatsoever.


----------



## Common Tator (Feb 19, 2008)

ErinP said:


> What are you talking about?
> The mandate was _always_ there (ie, "taxes"). It's not a surprise. It's part of what people didn't like from the get-go. Nor was what passed any different than what was available for viewing _before_ it passed...


What are you talking about? We weren't allowed to read it before it passed. Nancy Pelosi said, "We have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it". We now know. It is loaded with taxes. It steals $500 billion from Medicare, and denies much care to people over the age of 75.

Of course, they lied, and said that there were no taxes, "not one dime" for people making under $250,000.00 per year, but that was a lie.

And the Supreme Court passed this, because the "penalties" were actually taxes.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

arabian knight said:


> And now with this, our government OURS not some 3rd country but the USA.
> Our government will now CONTROL 1/6 of the nations economy. We are indeed running head long into a Socialistic country and now it is 1/6th closer.
> Can't see why some either can't see that or think that is bad. Just don't make any sense to me whatsoever.


Yep once it starts there is no stopping ,from housing the homeless ,feeding the poor ,fanning the hot ,warming the cold to doctoring the sick . Wait thay are already doing this .

Mandatory car's maybe next whether you drive or not everyone needs a way for Dr appointments :sing:


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Common Tator said:


> I read the whole thing, and could only surmise that you really DO have a problem with successful people.
> 
> So let me ask what you have done to solve the problem. I mean, other than ranting and berating others on the internet. Do you keep your paycheck, pay your bills, buy groceries etc, like the rest of us, or do you live under a bridge so you can use your wages to pay medical bills for the uninsured?
> 
> Because if you are keeping your earnings to pay for your own needs, you are part of the "MINE, MINE, MINE" mentality that you rail against.


If your buisness makes so little profit that you have to live under a bridge to buy groceries.... well suggest its not a particularly good buisiness and that you might do better getting a part time job at McD......

I was referring to MEGA CORPORATIONS dealing in $BILLIONS$. If you dont know the difference between a laborers wage and $BILLIONS$ mega corporation, then suggest thats why you are confused about your marginal buisiness and have to live under that bridge. 

REally you should apply for charity if you are living under a bridge. Course darn, maybe you are out of luck for Medicaid since you probably dont have underage children or you live in a red state that doesnt want to make Medicaid available to those without underage children.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> Our government will now CONTROL 1/6 of the nations economy. We are indeed running head long into a Socialistic country and now it is 1/6th closer.


Come-on. This is watered-own healthcare reform. It's not a single-payer system, and it doesn't even include a public option. While there is some additional insurance regulation involved it's a far cry from controlling the entire medical industry.

I can only point-out that republicans had 16 years to propose healthcare reform between Clintoncare and Obamacare, yet did nothing. If they wanted it fixed the republican way then why didn't they fix it? Clearly, they either didn't want it fixed or didn't think it's broken.


----------



## Common Tator (Feb 19, 2008)

HermitJohn said:


> If your buisness makes so little profit that you have to live under a bridge to buy groceries.... well suggest its not a particularly good buisiness and that you might do better getting a part time job at McD......
> 
> I was referring to MEGA CORPORATIONS dealing in $BILLIONS$. If you dont know the difference between a laborers wage and $BILLIONS$ mega corporation, then suggest thats why you are confused about your marginal buisiness and have to live under that bridge.
> 
> REally you should apply for charity if you are living under a bridge. Course darn, maybe you are out of luck for Medicaid since you probably dont have underage children or you live in a red state that doesnt want to make Medicaid available to those without underage children.


Wow! You twisted yourself into a pretzel to avoid answering my question.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Common Tator said:


> What are you talking about? We weren't allowed to read it before it passed. Nancy Pelosi said, "We have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it". We now know. It is loaded with taxes. It steals $500 billion from Medicare, and denies much care to people over the age of 75.
> 
> Of course, they lied, and said that there were no taxes, "not one dime" for people making under $250,000.00 per year, but that was a lie.
> 
> And the Supreme Court passed this, because the "penalties" were actually taxes.


You owe NO NEW tax penalty if you currently have medical insurance. You also owe NO NEW tax penalty if cheapest policy available is more than 10% of your income. So where are all these NEW taxes you keep talking about???? They seem to only be on more affluent people who currently dont have insurance coverage. If you have insurance, no new tax, pretending otherwise is prevaricating to the extreme. If you are poor, NO NEW tax. 

As to taking money from Medicare, I think thats cause the new bill covers those things in different way so Medicare no longer needs that money. Perhaps instead of just chanting that this takes money from Medicare, you could specify what funding for Medicare is being taken away, in other words what function of Medicare is being defunded in your opinion. By way thought the righties wanted to destroy social security, medicare, and medicaid. So whats your problem? 

Yep been better if Medicare was extended to everybody and this silly workaround law wasnt necessary. But the private insurance companies have lot lobbyists and very deep pockets and dont want to give up their gravey/cream. I wish legislators could make most rational practical decisions, but when up against a big stone wall, guess you do the best you can with what you have.


----------



## jlrbhjmnc (May 2, 2010)

Work horse said:


> I have a few more questions (as a reminder, I'm a Canadian with no dog in this fight).
> 
> If universal health care works in so many other developed countries around the world, why wouldn't it work in the US?


The Canadian system will not work in the US at this time for reasons that posters like HermitJohn and Nevada have pointed out: our system is broken in that it is based on profit - and not a reasonable return to doctors, nurses and hospital systems, but on profit to insurers. It's a vote-buying system where contributions lead to legislation leading to a particular distribution of the profits back to contributions to politicians and so on.

The problem is not Obama, or Congress or whether the rich don't care about the poor. The problem is a system of political patronage that as Nevada pointed out REALLY DOES NOT CARE. It just grinds on.

I prefer localized health care wherein I pay my doctor and hospital a fee based on actual costs plus a reasonable return on their investments in their careers, facilities and providing jobs and other benefits in the community.

It's NOT rocket science and it can be done, but we are all, doctors and patients alike being smothered by the insurer-government collusion. Political contributions, legislation that steers dollars and bodies through the insurers, rinse and repeat.

That's why AT THIS TIME a Canadian system for health care would not work in the US.

And, Workhorse, your question about whether we care for our neighbors, families and friends was out of line.

We help each other just as you help your neighbors, families and friends, despite a system working against us. We raised a few thousand US dollars two weekends ago for a friend at church who died last week after a 6-year battle with cancer. She wasn't the first to need such assistance and she won't be the last. We do what we have to do.

THINK before you post, folks! We are not statistics, we are all real human beings with real lives.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Common Tator said:


> Wow! You twisted yourself into a pretzel to avoid answering my question.


What question? You were just making a rhetorical personal attack. Maybe you can be more original next time. But if its the best you can do, well.....


----------



## Common Tator (Feb 19, 2008)

HermitJohn said:


> You owe NO NEW tax penalty if you currently have medical insurance. You also owe NO NEW tax penalty if cheapest policy available is more than 10% of your income. So where are all these NEW taxes you keep talking about???? They seem to only be on more affluent people who currently dont have insurance coverage. If you have insurance, no new tax, pretending otherwise is prevaricating to the extreme. If you are poor, NO NEW tax.
> 
> As to taking money from Medicare, I think thats cause the new bill covers those things in different way so Medicare no longer needs that money. Perhaps instead of just chanting that this takes money from Medicare, you could specify what funding for Medicare is being taken away, in other words what function of Medicare is being defunded in your opinion. By way thought the righties wanted to destroy social security, medicare, and medicaid. So whats your problem?
> 
> Yep been better if Medicare was extended to everybody and this silly workaround law wasnt necessary. But the private insurance companies have lot lobbyists and very deep pockets and dont want to give up their gravey/cream. I wish legislators could make most rational practical decisions, but when up against a big stone wall, guess you do the best you can with what you have.


I've already posted a link to the new taxes. You chose not to read the link. If you choose not to do your homework, I can't educate you. Enjoy your new taxes.


----------



## Ambereyes (Sep 6, 2004)

jlrbhjmnc said:


> The Canadian system will not work in the US at this time for reasons that posters like HermitJohn and Nevada have pointed out: our system is broken in that it is based on profit - and not a reasonable return to doctors, nurses and hospital systems, but on profit to insurers. It's a vote-buying system where contributions lead to legislation leading to a particular distribution of the profits back to contributions to politicians and so on.
> 
> The problem is not Obama, or Congress or whether the rich don't care about the poor. The problem is a system of political patronage that as Nevada pointed out REALLY DOES NOT CARE. It just grinds on.
> 
> ...


Pay attention folks we have a voice of reason here!! This is the real thing and bears repeating over and over..

Thanks for that post.


----------



## Common Tator (Feb 19, 2008)

HermitJohn said:


> What question? You were just making a rhetorical personal attack. Maybe you can be more original next time. But if its the best you can do, well.....


No sir! No attack. I asked you an honest question. Do you keep your earnings for your own needs, or do you do what you are demanding that others do. I was responding to an especially ugly attack of yours on people you don't approve of, those who keep their earnings for their own needs rather than spending them so that the uninsured can have coverage.

It is fair to ask if you put your money where your mouth is.

And the answer is that you don't.


----------



## badlander (Jun 7, 2009)

This whole health care reform is BAD.

We are medical professionals, trust me, this is going to really hit the sole proprietors HARD. Look for them to quit or be absorbed by big city medical centers. Rural medical care will become a thing of the past. If you live rural or in a small town, look to travel many miles for care whether it is medical, dental or vision.

I've had patients ask me if the health care reform is going to help our business and I honestly tell them NO it won't. Many small practices are barely surviving because of skyrocketing costs just to stay in business, malpractice insurance, licensing and hits by insurance companies. They try to treat their employees fairly but being forced to purchase health insurance for employees or be taxed to death will push many over the edge financially. Maybe big city medicine is the answer but with that you loose the personal and personalized care you receive by a small practice doctor. 

It makes me physically ill to think about it...no wait, can't let that happen. My family physician is planning to retire by 2014. He's in a small rural town and is fed up with what is happening to health care.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Common Tator said:


> I've already posted a link to the new taxes. You chose not to read the link. If you choose not to do your homework, I can't educate you. Enjoy your new taxes.



Maybe if you actually gave a link to a reputable mainstream news source? Your sources self of description of 'righty tighty news righty now' doesnt inspire confidence in its impartiality.

Or better yet since you've read the whole law, you could give references to the actual bill. First source references are always preferable to political hearsay and inuendo.


----------



## Ambereyes (Sep 6, 2004)

People need to understand that now you are not a customer to be served by the insurance companies. They don't have to answer to the people anymore, your payments are now taxes that will be paid with the IRS to enforce said payment.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

badlander said:


> He's in a small rural town and is fed up with what is happening to health care.


This reform may slow down collapse of whole USA medical care system, but writing was already on wall that it was going to collapse. The big boys were already well into consolidation and forcing the little guy to join bigger clinic or get crushed. Just like the small farmer, and most non-service industry small buisiness people. 

Maybe when it does all collapse some folk with clearer heads can legislate a single payer system that puts doctors on salary that includes malpractice and lets doctors doctor rather than play buisinessman and worry about the financial end. They then just show up and do their job and get a paycheck like most workers. No billing, no malpractice, no hiring/firing. No piecemeal work. And no trying to get employees insurance coverage cause everybody in USA is already covered.


----------



## katlupe (Nov 15, 2004)

whiskeylivewire said:


> That is the most confusing thing to me...if I can't afford insurance how can I afford to pay a fine, a tax or whatever they want to call it?


That is what I want to know too!


----------



## Lizza (Nov 30, 2005)

highlands said:


> How? I had an appendectomy. General anesthesia and in the hospital over night. Total real cost of $1,300. Is this a difference between hospitals, regions? I also pay for my own dental and eye care. It isn't as expensive as I see people quote. This is not subsidized, no insurance. Why the difference?


Either you forgot a zero or I want to know where this hospital is, if you can get a total appendectomy with overnight hospital stay for $1300, why in the world would you want insurance for $1200 a month, that would be stupid. Seriously if you live in such a vortex plane tickets would be cheaper. Now there are "bridge assistance" programs which I'm just going to assume you received, basically the hospital wrote off that other zero. Everyone should talk to their hospital about such a program but the people here need to realize we are already paying for such "programs", through sky high insurance premiums and inflated prices.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

katlupe said:


> whiskeylivewire said:
> 
> 
> > That is the most confusing thing to me...if I can't afford insurance how can I afford to pay a fine, a tax or whatever they want to call it?
> ...


If the least expensive healthcare insurance costs 8% of your income then you don't have to get it, and there will be no penalty.

I'll be retired on 1/1/2014, drawing both a pension and Social Security, but still 1.5 years away from Medicare. I won't be rich, but I'll be doing at least as well as most. 8% of my income will be about $105/month. At 64 years-old what kind of healthcare insurance do you think I'll find for $105? Honestly, if I can find it I'll gladly buy it. But I don't think that's going to happen.

I won't be required to buy healthcare insurance in 2014, and there will be no penalty. I suggest that you look into your own situation more closely.


----------



## Common Tator (Feb 19, 2008)

badlander said:


> This whole health care reform is BAD.
> 
> We are medical professionals, trust me, this is going to really hit the sole proprietors HARD. Look for them to quit or be absorbed by big city medical centers. Rural medical care will become a thing of the past. If you live rural or in a small town, look to travel many miles for care whether it is medical, dental or vision.
> 
> ...


Thank you for this. Perspective from someone who is working in the field and understands the impact of the bad, bad law.


----------



## Lizza (Nov 30, 2005)

There are many "calculators" out there right now on the web but this one was posted somewhere earlier in this thread and seems to be the most comprehensive (of the ones I tried). 
What does the Supreme Court's health-care ruling mean for me? - The Washington Post


----------



## Guest (Jun 30, 2012)

HermitJohn said:


> You owe NO NEW tax penalty if you currently have medical insurance. You also owe NO NEW tax penalty if cheapest policy available is more than 10% of your income. So where are all these NEW taxes you keep talking about???? They seem to only be on more affluent people who currently dont have insurance coverage. If you have insurance, no new tax, pretending otherwise is prevaricating to the extreme. If you are poor, NO NEW tax.
> 
> As to taking money from Medicare, I think thats cause the new bill covers those things in different way so Medicare no longer needs that money. Perhaps instead of just chanting that this takes money from Medicare, you could specify what funding for Medicare is being taken away, in other words what function of Medicare is being defunded in your opinion. By way thought the righties wanted to destroy social security, medicare, and medicaid. So whats your problem?
> 
> Yep been better if Medicare was extended to everybody and this silly workaround law wasnt necessary. But the private insurance companies have lot lobbyists and very deep pockets and dont want to give up their gravey/cream. I wish legislators could make most rational practical decisions, but when up against a big stone wall, guess you do the best you can with what you have.


The other 21 new taxes listed in the bill.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

Here are some facts:

Here in the USA, we pay an average of *$8,000*/year per person for our health care. In other developed countries, the average is *$3,000*/year. 

Despite this enormous disparity, we are *50th* in lifespan. Not a great outcome for our money.

The percentage of persons in bankruptcy because of health care expenses? *63%*.

I'm a single payer advocate and I wish the ACA had gone much further. However, I accept that one does what is politically possible, and Obama did the best he could with the Congress he had. And of course the health care industry is a powerful entity to have working actively against your interests.

Just follow the money:

Ads attacking the law, *$235 million*. Ads supporting the law, *$69 million*. Lobbying costs against the law, *$102.4 million*. Number of lobbyists in Washington DC working against the law, *3,300*.

This is a multi-pronged problem and must be overhauled in many other ways to bring down costs. Absolutely, we as individuals must look after ourselves better. This is part of Obama's plan. We need to accept there is a point of diminishing returns in the extension of a life and die with grace and dignity when our time has come. Fixing that point in time is challenging, to say the least: If it's YOUR mother that needs a bunch of extra tests and treatment, it's wasteful spending. If it's MY mother that needs the same, it's prudent and reasonable care. But this, too, is part of Obama's plan.

We need to refresh ourselves at the Compassion Trough and try to walk a mile in someone else's shoes before passing judgment.

There must be reasonable limits placed on end-of-life care, based on objective standards, compassion and *not a profit motive*.

Ready access to preventive care will go far in addressing expensive treatments. It's much cheaper to treat with antibiotics than amputation, with mammograms than mastectomies, radiation and chemotherapy, with blood pressure medication than stroke care. This is central to Obama's plan.

I wanted a public option in Obama's plan because I believe the government is the only entity with teeth large enough to provide competition, forcing the health insurance companies to get real about costs and lowering their profits. Medicare is over 40 years old and works well â far better than the private insurance company model we've had for 90 years. It is, for all practical purposes, a single payer system. Donât let the perfect become the enemy of the good. The ACA can continue to be reformed, and single payer is not dead in the water because of it.

One thing I do not think is considered much in this debate: While I advocate single payer and elimination of the health care industry "middle men," there are a lot of people employed in making this ineffective, expensive behemoth run. They are my neighbors and my friends. They are me. I make my living because of the tangled maze of health care we have now. I have always said I would gladly give up my livelihood if it means a fair, accessible health care system for all. But consider that it will take some time to transition to single payer without disrupting many lives.

With respect to the need for this legislation, the âreasoningâ promulgated many times on this thread that if the government can compel us to buy health insurance, then they can compel us to do all sorts of elective things, fails on the following fact: Health care is NOT an elective choice. At some point or another we ALL will need access to health care. When that time comes, it isnât a choice. Call it a tax, a hidden cost or a funny hat â the fact is, it must be â *and is* â paid for by us all. So letâs stop allowing some to make a lot of money on it and instead focus on whatâs really important: Taking care of everyone in a way that means you donât have to potentially lose everything you worked a lifetime for if you happen to get sick.

One last point: Single payer systems in other countries donât preclude those who choose to from purchasing private health insurance that gives them an advantage in the system. Why would it? Health insurance companies and preferential treatment donât go away.

Oh, and I live very rural. I don't mind traveling a hundred miles or so to get care. At least I will finally have some access to it.


----------



## Haven (Aug 16, 2010)

Health care reform doesn't mean much until they reform the fraud.

Stop charging 200.00 dollars for a band aide, stop requiring patients to reschedule 5 appointments to milk insurance $, when 1 appointment is adequate, stop prescription abuse by doctors who have been bought out by Big Pharma....it never ends.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

morningstar said:


> There are many "calculators" out there right now on the web but this one was posted somewhere earlier in this thread and seems to be the most comprehensive (of the ones I tried).
> What does the Supreme Court's health-care ruling mean for me? - The Washington Post


That's really interesting. 

_"You will have the option of buying a health plan through your state's exchange with federal assistance. Based on your income, your annual premiums for that plan would be *no more than $480 to $640*. Your maximum out-of-pocket costs for *deductibles and co-payments would be capped at 6 percent* of the total cost."_

If I'm reading that correctly, in 2014 I'll be eligible for federal assistance that will help me get comprehensive healthcare insurance for around $50/month.

I'll buy it! :banana:

Looks like I'll do pretty well under Obamacare.


----------



## Lizza (Nov 30, 2005)

badlander said:


> This whole health care reform is BAD.
> 
> We are medical professionals, trust me, this is going to really hit the sole proprietors HARD. Look for them to quit or be absorbed by big city medical centers. Rural medical care will become a thing of the past. If you live rural or in a small town, look to travel many miles for care whether it is medical, dental or vision.
> 
> ...


The doctors are fed up because of the insurance companies, they now have entire departments that just try and deal with insurance companies. Most doctors want to provide good care not based on what insurance you have and fighting tooth and nail to get anything covered. 

So you would be supporting a single payer system? Since the problem lies in our cobbled together mess of a system? I wish that was politically possible.


----------



## Lizza (Nov 30, 2005)

I thought some might like to read an article about a local clinic offering monthly plans with no insurance or government programs accepted at all. It's an interesting business model and actually I really like the employee program. These work with a catastrophic insurance plan. I really don't know anything about the program besides these few links. 

SUBSCRIBED CARE | Main News | The Register-Guard | Eugene, Oregon

Dr. Steven J. Butdorf | Exceptional Health Care | Membership-Based Primary Care Clinic | Serving Eugene & Springfield, Oregon


----------



## Belfrybat (Feb 21, 2003)

Nevada said:


> That's really interesting.
> 
> _"You will have the option of buying a health plan through your state's exchange with federal assistance. Based on your income, your annual premiums for that plan would be *no more than $480 to $640*. Your maximum out-of-pocket costs for *deductibles and co-payments would be capped at 6 percent* of the total cost."_
> 
> ...


You might want to run your figures again. Figuring the highest due to your age -- $640.00 then adding in a total of 6% more in deductibles/ co-pays and such will be higher than $50.00 a month depending on what your usage is. But yes, I agree, you are probably one of the ones who will benefit from it. 

Although I am generally in favour of the ACA, it does bother me that their projected insurance premiums are so low -- too low compared with current rates. And the fact that they are waiving co-pays on wellness exams and supplies. I'm glad the insurance companies will have to provide wellness services, but I am against any procedure being completely free. Even a co-pay of $5.-10. would, IMO, been better and encouraged more responsibility.


----------



## Guest (Jun 30, 2012)

A single person over 26 is not eligable for assitance even if they are making only $5000 a year? If they don't get insurance they will be fined $348.

The adjusted income is that for a month or a year?
because right now DH and i are living on about $600 a month.


----------



## Classof66 (Jul 9, 2011)

Gotta little drift here. A question. How do you all feel about requiring companies be forced to protect people's pensions? Should the government get involved in this or should we trust those big boys to safeguard them? What if they sell out? Or go bankrupt?

And if a retiree does lose his pension due to mismanagement, I suppose he doesn't deserve Medicare. Maybe he should have worked someplace else?

How bout this...a local company employs 400 people, who thru pride and loyalty help build the company up into a real nice place. Nice buildings, equipment, pride in the community. Then they are bought out by an out if state company. Local company closes, everybody loses job, insurance, possibly their homes, schools in trouble, etc. The buildings are sold by the out of state company. A guy buys the building cheap, and sells the equipment for scrap. All that money leaves the town. 
Maybe all these folks should have seen this back in 1960 and worked someplace else.


----------



## Cabin Fever (May 10, 2002)

Nevada said:


> That's really interesting.
> 
> _"You will have the option of buying a health plan through your state's exchange with federal assistance. Based on your income, your annual premiums for that plan would be *no more than $480 to $640*. Your maximum out-of-pocket costs for *deductibles and co-payments would be capped at 6 percent* of the total cost."_
> 
> ...


I wonder if this gov't health insurance will be like the state dental insurance in Minnesota. Most dental providers won't accept you as a patient because the low cost gov't insurance pays about 30Â¢ on the dollar for most procedures and nothing on others. Only the "cut-rate patient mill" dental clinics accept the patients with govt insurance.


----------



## Guest (Jun 30, 2012)

Cabin Fever said:


> I wonder if this gov't health insurance will be like the state dental insurance in Minnesota. Most dental providers won't accept you as a patient because the low cost gov't insurance pays about 30Â¢ on the dollar for most procedures and nothing on others. Only the "cut-rate patient mill" dental clinics accept the patients with govt insurance.


That is my concern, people will be forced to buy some thing no one will provide.


----------



## Classof66 (Jul 9, 2011)

What if people are able to go to a cut rate clinic for basic maintenance, cleanings, school exams, etc. Won't that help cut down on the more expensive procedures required when people don't take care of their teeth? Maybe something simple like a program teaching children how to brush and why. Maybe some photos of decay and possibly "meth teeth."

When I was a kid back in the 50's we would have a dentist come to school and talk to us and give us each a small brush and a little tube of Colgate. Any kid would love something like that.

And, it seems there is so much more cosmetic dentistry now. Especially with teenage girls. Is this necessary?


----------



## soulsurvivor (Jul 4, 2004)

Classof66 said:


> What if people are able to go to a cut rate clinic for basic maintenance, cleanings, school exams, etc. Won't that help cut down on the more expensive procedures required when people don't take care of their teeth? Maybe something simple like a program teaching children how to brush and why. Maybe some photos of decay and possibly "meth teeth."
> 
> When I was a kid back in the 50's we would have a dentist come to school and talk to us and give us each a small brush and a little tube of Colgate. Any kid would love something like that.
> 
> And, it seems there is so much more cosmetic dentistry now. Especially with teenage girls. Is this necessary?


The Colgate company used to provide free dental education materials to any school that asked for them. I always took advantage of this when I was a teacher. They gave us enough toothbrushes and toothpaste for entire schools in our district, and their teaching materials were wonderful.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> If they wanted it fixed the republican way then why didn't they fix it? Clearly, they either didn't want it fixed or didn't think it's broken.


Or possibly they didnt have the kind of control in congress required to overcome the dems? (even in those two years when they "technically" had the majority in congress and the presidency) I seem to remember an awful lot of gridlock during that time period. This fall we may see them gain enough seats in the house, the senate and the white house to actually be able to do some good. (Like repealing this obamacare)


----------



## Work horse (Apr 7, 2012)

Common Tator said:


> I have news for you. Even people who do have health insurance get cancer, and many of them die of cancer. Health insurance is not a cure for cancer. Many people with cancer get treatment and get better, many get treatment and die anyway. Many people get cancer and fight hard as long as they can but finally say "I won't take any more treatment, I'm done fighting". And some choose to not fight, like the man in the post you were responding to.
> 
> The American people didn't give him cancer. They didn't deny him treatment. He had the choice not to fight it.


Geez, thanks for clearing that up for me! I totally thought insurance cured cancer.


----------



## Work horse (Apr 7, 2012)

Sawmill Jim said:


> Why is the whole country responsible for the bad or no decisions in a free economy system that i or others make . I have watched as some lay and suffer in a hospital with no hope of them ever leaving and knowing they are still alive ,then the gathered family cheer when the doctors save them for 36 more hours of misery .
> 
> There are a million shames in every country, take our homeless that are cold ,hot,hungry or sick . Do your part take a few home with you .:shrug:


I don't really get the point in your post... Is everyone who gets ill/injured and goes bankrupt, at fault? 

Your second sentence doesn't seem relevant to our discussion. The closest I can gather, is that you don't want people using universal health care funding to have to suffer longer than necessary? 

There are shames in every country. Do you point this out because you feel health care is a shame in yours? There are also lots of other countries with "shames" and yet they still have a universal health care. 

File:Universal health care.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Classof66 said:


> Gotta little drift here. A question. How do you all feel about requiring companies be forced to protect people's pensions? Should the government get involved in this or should we trust those big boys to safeguard them? What if they sell out? Or go bankrupt?
> 
> And if a retiree does lose his pension due to mismanagement, I suppose he doesn't deserve Medicare. Maybe he should have worked someplace else?
> 
> ...


I would say those employees should have set aside money for their own retirement that they could keep an eye on rather than trust the company or the government with it. Of course that would require a bit of actual effort on their own behalf.... not a popular concept in a socialists world.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Common Tator said:


> What are you talking about? We weren't allowed to read it before it passed. Nancy Pelosi said, "We have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it". We now know. It is loaded with taxes. It steals $500 billion from Medicare, and denies much care to people over the age of 75.
> 
> Of course, they lied, and said that there were no taxes, "not one dime" for people making under $250,000.00 per year, but that was a lie.
> 
> And the Supreme Court passed this, because the "penalties" were actually taxes.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Nevada said:


> That's really interesting.
> 
> _"You will have the option of buying a health plan through your state's exchange with federal assistance. Based on your income, your annual premiums for that plan would be *no more than $480 to $640*. Your maximum out-of-pocket costs for *deductibles and co-payments would be capped at 6 percent* of the total cost."_
> 
> ...


You'll probably do ok, so never mind those who won't.

I'm older than you so perhaps the 500 billion-yes, that's IN THE BILL-cut to medicare won't hurt me when it gets down to denying care to those over 75-maybe I'll already be dead. But it will hit you. Remember this, then.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Classof66 said:


> Gotta little drift here. A question. How do you all feel about requiring companies be forced to protect people's pensions? Should the government get involved in this or should we trust those big boys to safeguard them? What if they sell out? Or go bankrupt?
> 
> And if a retiree does lose his pension due to mismanagement, I suppose he doesn't deserve Medicare. Maybe he should have worked someplace else?
> 
> ...


This is a concern, you should start a new thread.

:hijacked:


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Classof66 said:


> What if people are able to go to a cut rate clinic for basic maintenance, cleanings, school exams, etc. Won't that help cut down on the more expensive procedures required when people don't take care of their teeth? Maybe something simple like a program teaching children how to brush and why. Maybe some photos of decay and possibly "meth teeth."
> 
> When I was a kid back in the 50's we would have a dentist come to school and talk to us and give us each a small brush and a little tube of Colgate. Any kid would love something like that.
> 
> And, it seems there is so much more cosmetic dentistry now. Especially with teenage girls. Is this necessary?


Are you kidding? If it doesn't have buttons & light up no kid would want it.
:hohum:


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

Work horse said:


> I don't really get the point in your post... Is everyone who gets ill/injured and goes bankrupt, at fault?
> 
> Your second sentence doesn't seem relevant to our discussion. The closest I can gather, is that you don't want people using universal health care funding to have to suffer longer than necessary?
> 
> ...


That is where this mess started lots don't get the point that they are responsible for their self . Next with certain disease you going to die no matter the amount of doctoring . The united States was never set up as a socialist system but as a country where one was responsible to float or sink their own boat ,a concept non Americans will never grasp .:shrug:


----------



## Common Tator (Feb 19, 2008)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I would say those employees should have set aside money for their own retirement that they could keep an eye on rather than trust the company or the government with it. Of course that would require a bit of actual effort on their own behalf.... not a popular concept in a socialists world.


A lot of companies switched from normal pensions to 401k's. The employees have more power over how and where they are invested.

Pension reform is a huge topic in it's own right, ans should be the topic of another thread. :hijacked:


----------



## Work horse (Apr 7, 2012)

Sawmill Jim said:


> The united States was never set up as a socialist system but as a country where one was responsible to float or sink their own boat ,a concept non Americans will never grasp .:shrug:


Well, I will accept that as an honest answer, and hope that you and yours never have to accept help from others for anything. :huh:


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Sawmill Jim said:


> That is where this mess started lots don't get the point that they are responsible for their self . Next with certain disease you going to die no matter the amount of doctoring . The united States was never set up as a socialist system but as a country where one was responsible to float or sink their own boat ,a concept non Americans will never grasp .:shrug:


True like the good words are written.
"You Have The Right To Pursue Happiness"
Not have that happiness provided to you by your Government.
"Ask Not What Your Country Can Do For You, Ask What YOU Can Do For Your Country"
Some more great words that have been washed under the rug never to be seen again.


----------



## Common Tator (Feb 19, 2008)

Work horse said:


> Well, I will accept that as an honest answer, and hope that you and yours never have to accept help from others for anything. :huh:


You have taken what Sawmill Jim said completely out of context.

Charity is freely given. If someone needs help, you are free to give it. I'm sure Sawmill Jim has helped others in need, I know I have, as I'm sure we all have. This thread is about a terrible piece of legislation that is the largest tax increase in American history. It is about the government using all of their force, including a newly created Internal Revenue Service SWAT Team and thousands of new IRS agents to take from the producers of this country and create a massive bureaucracy that will consume most of those taxes before a penny goes to patient care.

This was crammed down out throats by the most corrupt politicians ever elected in this country. The American people don't want it. We told them this. A few do, but every poll shows that Americans are overwhelmingly against it.

As a Canadian who is thrilled with your system, it must seem strange to see people fighting against socialism, but we Americans are, and it is our fight. Not yours.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Common Tator said:


> This was crammed down out throats by the most corrupt politicians ever elected in this country. The American people don't want it.


I'll be getting Obamacare insurance for $50/month. I want it.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

50 bucks a month in your dreams. LOL that is such a pipe dream at that amount.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Don't forget you have yet to have the Mandatory 100 bucks yet taken directly out of your SS check. So even at 50 bucks it is STILL costing you 150 bucks a month LOL


----------



## Cabin Fever (May 10, 2002)

Nevada said:


> I'll be getting Obamacare insurance for $50/month. I want it.


If you REALLY believe a $50/mo policy is going to get you the IDENTICAL health care as a $800/mo policy, well you're kidding yourself. You'll find the only providers who will accept this insurace is the "Red Door" clinic and the run down and over-stressed county hospital.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> I'll be getting Obamacare insurance for $50/month. I want it.


You and a lot of other folks who dont like to pay their own way, which is why Obama and the dems want to bust our economy completely.... socialism is a much easier sell to people who are broke and destitute. There were a lot of slaves who stayed on the plantation for the same reasons.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Work horse said:


> There are also lots of other countries with "shames" and yet they still have a universal health care.
> 
> File:Universal health care.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I think there are many things need to be taken into consideration as to where and how a universal system will work. One of those considerations is population and another one is capitalism. 

The picture you linked to shows that the 2 countries that have the largest populations are China and India (both have over 1.2 billion in population). China does not have universal healthcare, and India is attempting to work out some kind of universal healthcare system but they don't have it yet. 

USA has the 3rd largest population in the world. All of the other countries that do have universal healthcare all have much smaller populations. And not all of them are capitalist countries like USA and don't have the profiteering insurance companies and the most highly paid medical professionals in the world the way USA does. If USA goes universal it would mean many health insurance companies would be put out of business. It would mean that American doctors and other health professionals, although having much less paperwork hassle to deal with as a consequence, would also have to accept payscales for themselves that are more on a universal par with what medical professionals in other countries get paid now. The insurance companies and the medical professionals in USA don't want that.

Just conjecture on my part, but I think the insurance companies and medical professionals will have to readjust their attitudes about capitalism and profit before something like universal healthcare will work for all the other people in USA. I don't foresee that happening in the immediate future, but what might happen now with this ACA is that, as others have already mentioned here, many doctors might take down their shingles and stop practising medicine altogether rather than accept the alternative. That might seem a bit like going on strike or cutting off their own noses to spite their faces (that is to say the government and the people will suffer for it) but the doctors can afford to quit and it doesn't have to be a bad thing for the people. That will open up the doors for new graduate American doctors and new immigrant medical professionals from other countries who are willing to work for less pay than what present-day doctors are getting paid.

It's all an experiment in progress and a lot more growing pains for Americans but I think eventually USA will have no choice but to go universal in their own way and own fashion that fits in with their high population. Maybe if India is successful at creating a system that works for their 4 X higher population that will also give USA a basis for a new system. Or perhaps they will be able to work out a universal system similar to what Brazil has already done (the world's 5th largest population). I think the rest of the world will just have to sit back and observe how they work it out but I don't think they can do it the way other smaller populated and less capitalistic countries have done it.

.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I would say those employees should have set aside money for their own retirement that they could keep an eye on rather than trust the company or the government with it. Of course that would require a bit of actual effort on their own behalf.... not a popular concept in a socialists world.


And you are volunteering to teach investing classes at your local high school?

The teachers dont know how to invest, neither do the parents. They are inundated with messages in media to borrow in order to get their ice cream cone today. That they really deserve it. That only fools save for a rainy day. Exactly how are these little darlings supposed to pick up all this investment knowledge plus learn to ignore the siren call of the money lenders and come up with the idea at 25 that they arent immortal with all time in world to accumulate retirement savings? Dont people have to be taught to fish in order to eat the rest of their life? Or do you think angels whisper all this information in the childrens delicate shell like ears while they sleep? Just like God sends manna from heaven each night for the hungry.....

Plus get actual long term full time employment so they have money to invest?

If you dont like Social Security then you start your own private investments outside SS and just pretend SS doesnt exist, that its just a tax on eating donuts or something and you will never see it again. Being a financial whiz, you should be so ahead of the game that the little dab you donated in donut tax wont matter to you. Meanwhile those that arent so wise wont be living on the street, but maybe have a little dignity left in their later years.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> You and a lot of other folks who dont like to pay their own way, which is why Obama and the dems want to bust our economy completely.... socialism is a much easier sell to people who are broke and destitute. There were a lot of slaves who stayed on the plantation for the same reasons.


Lot of indentured slaves owned by modern PRIVATE CORPORATIONS. "We owe, we owe, so off to work we go...." Siren song of the capitalists, come right down and sign up for easy weekly payments..... you know you deserve your ice cream cone NOW!


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> Don't forget you have yet to have the Mandatory 100 bucks yet taken directly out of your SS check. So even at 50 bucks it is STILL costing you 150 bucks a month LOL


$50/month before I'm old enough for Medicare, then $100/month when I go on Medicare in 3 years.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Or possibly they didnt have the kind of control in congress required to overcome the dems? (even in those two years when they "technically" had the majority in congress and the presidency) I seem to remember an awful lot of gridlock during that time period. This fall we may see them gain enough seats in the house, the senate and the white house to actually be able to do some good. (Like repealing this obamacare)


They had enough votes to get the Bush tax cuts for the super wealthy passed. I would say they had the votes, just not the interest.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> You and a lot of other folks who dont like to pay their own way, which is why Obama and the dems want to bust our economy completely.... socialism is a much easier sell to people who are broke and destitute. There were a lot of slaves who stayed on the plantation for the same reasons.


I've done my part all my life. I finished college, worked an oil career, raised a family, and still found time to volunteer as a firefighter and CPR instructor. Now I'm 62 and ready to enjoy the good life. I'm living mortgage-free, I've got enough coming to pay the bills, and I've got enough left over for senior discount buffets. I'm good to go, and I don't feel a bit guilty for being on the dole from here on out. Why should I?


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

Common Tator said:


> You have taken what Sawmill Jim said completely out of context.
> 
> Charity is freely given. If someone needs help, you are free to give it. I'm sure Sawmill Jim has helped others in need, I know I have, as I'm sure we all have. This thread is about a terrible piece of legislation that is the largest tax increase in American history. It is about the government using all of their force, including a newly created Internal Revenue Service SWAT Team and thousands of new IRS agents to take from the producers of this country and create a massive bureaucracy that will consume most of those taxes before a penny goes to patient care.
> 
> ...


Thanks :bow: Yes charity is for another thread . I did put a homeless man in my spare house once .Almost free rent just help out now and then ,free water and electric . Big mistake but for another thread .:sing:


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

veggiecanner said:


> The other 21 new taxes listed in the bill.


And the link to a reputable news source or to the passages in the bill???


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Nevada said:


> $50/month before I'm old enough for Medicare, then $100/month when I go on Medicare in 3 years.


Then plus the other 100 bucks when Medicare kicks in that won't change that will sat ill be a mandatory deduction from your SS check.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Common Tator said:


> I have news for you. Even people who do have health insurance get cancer, and many of them die of cancer. Health insurance is not a cure for cancer. Many people with cancer get treatment and get better, many get treatment and die anyway. Many people get cancer and fight hard as long as they can but finally say "I won't take any more treatment, I'm done fighting". And some choose to not fight, like the man in the post you were responding to.
> 
> The American people didn't give him cancer. They didn't deny him treatment. He had the choice not to fight it.


I have news for you, if you get cancer, then 99.999999% chance you are DEFINITELY GOING TO DIE WITHOUT TREATMENT!

You may die with cancer if you have insurance, you for sure are going to die of cancer without any treatment. And cancer isnt one of those emergency room stabilization treatments. Its long term and very involved. Any time you go to emergency room with cancer, you will be considered stable and discharged. At best you will get bit of palliative care when somebody dumps you off the last hours of your life.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

> Are you saying they told us that the bill is a TAX???


of course not. We were told it was a penalty. But if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, a penalty looks an awful lot like a tax. lol



> We weren't allowed to read it before it passed


Yes we were. It was online, for heaven's sake. 
Now, I understand there were many people who didn't want to bother to read it, but it WAS available. 



> Only the "cut-rate patient mill" dental clinics accept the patients with govt insurance.


Really, the only people who would complain about "cut-rate patient mills" are those who HAVE a choice. Those who _don't_, on the other hand, are happy they're there...


----------



## Belfrybat (Feb 21, 2003)

veggiecanner said:


> A single person over 26 is not eligable for assitance even if they are making only $5000 a year? If they don't get insurance they will be fined $348.
> 
> The adjusted income is that for a month or a year?
> because right now DH and i are living on about $600 a month.


According to this site: Health Reform Subsidy Calculator - Kaiser Health Reform

Someone making that little would be on Medicaid. But only in those States who are going to offer it to adults. Otherwise, there would be NO FINE since a person making that little would not be able to find a policy to cover them for 8% of their income.


----------



## Common Tator (Feb 19, 2008)

HermitJohn said:


> I have news for you, if you get cancer, then 99.999999% chance you are DEFINITELY GOING TO DIE WITHOUT TREATMENT!


Possibly true, if you choose not to get treatment. Still, it is a choice. Treatment is available. The best doctors in the world are right here in the United States. The best medical innovation in the world is right here in the United States. Why? because this is the place where they have the funding for R&D. Why? Because of our current system. Whether you admit it or not, that is the truth.

Plenty of uninsured people are treated for cancer and survive, right here int he united States. At the risk of being called "exceptionally mean" again, look at Melissa. She was uninsured, was diagnosed, treated and by the grace Of God, (for which I am thankful) is healthy and cancer free today.


----------



## Common Tator (Feb 19, 2008)

arabian knight said:


> 50 bucks a month in your dreams. LOL that is such a pipe dream at that amount.


If he is intellectually honest, he will come back at some point in the future and tell us the truth The real costs that he pays outright, and all of the hidden costs he pays, and the truth wil be telling. It will be many times what he thinks he will pay today.

If he isn't intellectually honest, we won't hear a word, or he will continue to beat the democrat drum and sing the praises of this terrible plan.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Common Tator said:


> If he is intellectually honest, he will come back at some point in the future and tell us the truth The real costs that he pays outright, and all of the hidden costs he pays, and the truth wil be telling. It will be many times what he thinks he will pay today.
> 
> If he isn't intellectually honest, we won't hear a word, or he will continue to beat the democrat drum and sing the praises of this terrible plan.


If my coverage sucks you'll hear about it. You can bet the farm on that.


----------



## nancylee (Mar 8, 2011)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I would say those employees should have set aside money for their own retirement that they could keep an eye on rather than trust the company or the government with it. Of course that would require a bit of actual effort on their own behalf.... not a popular concept in a socialists world.


They did save their money. It was in the pension the bankers stole.


----------



## nancylee (Mar 8, 2011)

Tricky Grama said:


>


I don't know where you get your information, probably fox news, because I am stunned that you posted these lies as truth. All of them. The hatred of Obama is palpable here - because he wanted all Americans to have health care? What kind of people cheer when their fellow countrymen, even the children, lose their access to healthcare? I am sickened because my "Christian" cousin spouts this sort of hatred. Hypocrisy defined.


----------



## Zilli (Apr 1, 2012)

nancylee said:


> I don't know where you get your information, probably fox news, because I am stunned that you posted these lies as truth. All of them. The hatred of Obama is palpable here - because he wanted all Americans to have health care? What kind of people cheer when their fellow countrymen, even the children, lose their access to healthcare? I am sickened because my "Christian" cousin spouts this sort of hatred. Hypocrisy defined.


There is a total lack of compassion and empathy evident on this thread.

So many here are terrified they might have to pay a few pennies (or even dollars) that will benefit those less fortunate that they absolutely HATE those potential recipients, even if those recipients are babies and kids.

They would rather let those innocent kids die from starvation and lack of medical care.


----------



## Common Tator (Feb 19, 2008)

HermitJohn said:


> And the link to a reputable news source or to the passages in the bill???


If you don't like the links we've provided, find your own.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

This is going to be my last post here. For those who are stating that the ones against Obamacare lack compassion or hate the possible recipients is uncalled for and unjust. Especially since you know nothing about what we do on a daily basis for those less fortunate than ourselves. I prefer to have a choice on where my money goes. I give freely to those in need, I don't need the government to give my money to others. You have no clue how much money or time we give to help others. One of the things that made America a great country was that the people were charitable, and given the chance would continue to be. Those that live in our areas that have a need are those we respond to. We know where the money is going and who needs it. There is no way the government can do as good of a job as the people who live near those in need can do. Those that live near by understands the needs and knows who actually does need help and who is just trying to take advantage of a broken system. So get off your high horses.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Sonshine said:


> This is going to be my last post here. For those who are stating that the ones against Obamacare lack compassion or hate the possible recipients is uncalled for and unjust. Especially since you know nothing about what we do on a daily basis for those less fortunate than ourselves. I prefer to have a choice on where my money goes. I give freely to those in need, I don't need the government to give my money to others. You have no clue how much money or time we give to help others. One of the things that made America a great country was that the people were charitable, and given the chance would continue to be. Those that live in our areas that have a need are those we respond to. We know where the money is going and who needs it. There is no way the government can do as good of a job as the people who live near those in need can do. Those that live near by understands the needs and knows who actually does need help and who is just trying to take advantage of a broken system. So get off your high horses.


Now seriously, what charity is going to kick-in enough for me to get healthcare insurance for $50/month? If you can find that we'll talk.


----------



## nancylee (Mar 8, 2011)

Sonshine said:


> This is going to be my last post here. For those who are stating that the ones against Obamacare lack compassion or hate the possible recipients is uncalled for and unjust. Especially since you know nothing about what we do on a daily basis for those less fortunate than ourselves. I prefer to have a choice on where my money goes. I give freely to those in need, I don't need the government to give my money to others. You have no clue how much money or time we give to help others. One of the things that made America a great country was that the people were charitable, and given the chance would continue to be. Those that live in our areas that have a need are those we respond to. We know where the money is going and who needs it. There is no way the government can do as good of a job as the people who live near those in need can do. Those that live near by understands the needs and knows who actually does need help and who is just trying to take advantage of a broken system. So get off your high horses.


It is easy to give to people you know personally and care about but the Jesus I know didn't say "only do unto others that you know as you would have them do unto you and screw the rest" He wanted us to do unto all others, and be our brother's keepers. And that my "Christian" cousin, who is fiercely against abortion, and is fine with starving babies if their mothers fail a drug test, believes that some bake sales will pay for cancer treatment is the reason most of the civilized world laugh at us. And they do laugh at us, and they are thankful they don't go bankrupt if their child is ill. 

There is no way you could give enough charity to pay for someone's longterm cancer treatment. And if you know in your heart that you are a generous and giving person, why are you so defensive? If you called me uncompassionate, I would not care, because all of my acts and deeds show that I am. I give to those I know and gladly would pay more taxes to make sure everyone in our country has access to healthcare, I believe it is what Jesus would have done. And what do I really need to be happy? Am I going to miss that extra money? No, I am not. I don't make a lot, but I would rather give and do for others than buy myself more crap made in China.


----------



## Common Tator (Feb 19, 2008)

Sonshine said:


> This is going to be my last post here. For those who are stating that the ones against Obamacare lack compassion or hate the possible recipients is uncalled for and unjust. Especially since you know nothing about what we do on a daily basis for those less fortunate than ourselves. I prefer to have a choice on where my money goes. I give freely to those in need, I don't need the government to give my money to others. You have no clue how much money or time we give to help others. One of the things that made America a great country was that the people were charitable, and given the chance would continue to be. Those that live in our areas that have a need are those we respond to. We know where the money is going and who needs it. There is no way the government can do as good of a job as the people who live near those in need can do. Those that live near by understands the needs and knows who actually does need help and who is just trying to take advantage of a broken system. So get off your high horses.


Bravo! Well said! Thank you!:bow::clap::clap::clap:


----------



## Common Tator (Feb 19, 2008)

Nevada said:


> Now seriously, what charity is going to kick-in enough for me to get healthcare insurance for $50/month? If you can find that we'll talk.


You sure aren't getting Obama care for only $50.00 per month either.


----------



## Common Tator (Feb 19, 2008)

Zilli said:


> There is a total lack of compassion and empathy evident on this thread.
> 
> So many here are terrified they might have to pay a few pennies (or even dollars) that will benefit those less fortunate that they absolutely HATE those potential recipients, even if those recipients are babies and kids.
> 
> They would rather let those innocent kids die from starvation and lack of medical care.


*WOW!*

What an ignorant and spiteful thing to say.

My post, where I quoted the SC decision and explained it's meaning to another poster who totally misstated what it meant was deleted for being "mean", but this gets to stand. Unbelevable!

We will be paying hundreds or thousands more, and neither Obama or the democrats that passed this monstrosity bothered to see if we could afford it. They never asked if we could still pay our mortgages or put food on the table if they took another few hundred or thousand dollars per family. They don't care about the unemployment that is so rampant now, or the jobs that will be lost when businesses have to close because of this law. What about the children who's parents lose their jobs? Don't they matter too? What good is healthcare, when their parents can't even buy groceries?

Most of these new taxes will go to support a massive new bureaucracy but out of those extra hundreds or thousands of dollars that we have to pay. maybe "few pennies (or even dollars)" will go to pay for inadequate health care for those less fortunate.

I won't be posting in this thread anymore either. The double standard being applied here is appalling!


----------



## Zilli (Apr 1, 2012)

nancylee said:


> It is easy to give to people you know personally and care about but the Jesus I know didn't say "only do unto others that you know as you would have them do unto you and screw the rest" He wanted us to do unto all others, and be our brother's keepers. And that my "Christian" cousin, who is fiercely against abortion, and is fine with starving babies if their mothers fail a drug test, believes that some bake sales will pay for cancer treatment is the reason most of the civilized world laugh at us. And they do laugh at us, and they are thankful they don't go bankrupt if their child is ill.
> 
> There is no way you could give enough charity to pay for someone's longterm cancer treatment. *And if you know in your heart that you are a generous and giving person, why are you so defensive? *If you called me uncompassionate, I would not care, because all of my acts and deeds show that I am. I give to those I know and gladly would pay more taxes to make sure everyone in our country has access to healthcare, I believe it is what Jesus would have done. And what do I really need to be happy? Am I going to miss that extra money? No, I am not. I don't make a lot, but I would rather give and do for others than buy myself more crap made in China.


Awesome and heartfelt post. Thank you.


----------



## nancylee (Mar 8, 2011)

Common Tator said:


> *WOW!*
> 
> What an ignorant and spiteful thing to say.
> 
> ...


You say so many things, but show no proof for any of them. This law will NOT lead to unemployment, just more limbaugh fox news propaganda! Do you ever wonder why limbaugh and hannity want you to vote republican? So the millionaires such as themselves get to keep more and more of their money while you get less and less! Nice gig if you can get it! And how is a drug addict who has been married 4 times the hero of family values conservatives? I just can't figure that out!!!


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Common Tator said:


> *WOW!*
> 
> What an ignorant and spiteful thing to say.
> 
> ...


Gee I guess some won't be satisfied about those added TAX coming without going to Google themselves. 
Well here is the TRUTH without some trying to look it up or just calling others liars. 

And YES there are MANY taxes coming those that can not see the truth in the HC bill. And NO this is NOT from FOX, of Rush, or Hannity, OR any of those.

Lies? No way, THIS is what you have to look forward to, and they are NOT LIES either.
Now MAYBE some will listen at least.


> *Obamacare's Hidden Taxes.
> let's not forget the 20 other new taxes that are embedded in the law.*





> The new taxes, which cost some $675 billion over the next decade, include:
> 
> â¢ A 2.3% excise tax on U.S. sales of medical devices that's already devastating the medical supply industry and its workforce. The levy is a $20 billion blow to an industry that employs roughly 400,000.
> 
> Several major manufacturers have been roiled, including:* Michigan-based Stryker Corp., which blames the tax for 1,000 layoffs;* Indiana-based Zimmer Corp., which* cites the tax in laying off 450 *and taking a $50 million charge against earnings; Indiana-based Cook Medical Inc., which has scrubbed plans to open a U.S. factory; Minnesota-based Medtronic Inc., which expects an annual charge against earnings of $175 million, and Boston Scientific Corp., which has opted to open plants in tax-friendlier Ireland and China to help offset a $100 million charge against earnings.


So if some say it will not cause layoffs?????
IT already HAS and more to follow now that it passed.

ObamaCare's 21 New Taxes Are 21 More Reasons To Repeal The Onerous Law - Investors.com


----------



## Zilli (Apr 1, 2012)

nancylee said:


> And how is a drug addict who has been married 4 times the hero of family values conservatives? I just can't figure that out!!!


Me either. LOL


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

nancylee said:


> You say so many things, but show no proof for any of them. This law will NOT lead to unemployment, just more limbaugh fox news propaganda! Do you ever wonder why limbaugh and hannity want you to vote republican? So the millionaires such as themselves get to keep more and more of their money while you get less and less! Nice gig if you can get it! And how is a drug addict who has been married 4 times the hero of family values conservatives? I just can't figure that out!!!


ANd how is it that the one sitting in the WH right now spent the last 2 years in school so wasted from smoking pot and drinking that he has admitted the last two years are just a blur?
Nice guy eh? 
Somebody that this country can REALLY look up to also.
And even admits he inhaled unlike what Clinton said. LOL.


----------



## Zilli (Apr 1, 2012)

arabian knight said:


> ANd how is it that the one sitting in the WH right now spent the last 2 years in school so wasted from smoking pot and drinking that he has admitted the last two years are just a blur?
> Nice guy eh?
> Somebody that this country can REALLY look up to also.
> And even admits he inhaled unlike what Clinton said. LOL.


Huh???


----------



## Sanza (Sep 8, 2008)

Zilli said:


> There is a total lack of compassion and empathy evident on this thread.
> 
> So many here are terrified they might have to pay a few pennies (or even dollars) that will benefit those less fortunate that they absolutely HATE those potential recipients, even if those recipients are babies and kids.
> 
> They would rather let those innocent kids die from starvation and lack of medical care.


Tonight was the first night I was able to read the thread and I was floored by some of the comments because of peoples' misconceptions.
Wow!.... just Wow! 

Of course me being Canadian, I was another one amazed by the people feeling they needed to run down our healthcare system, even though it has nothing to do with the american system at all, but it seems to work just fine for us. But oh well, if it makes them feel better.....

And to these specific posters - I am another Canadian very happy with the cost of our healthcare and the level of health care I receive and have received in the past. I'm also a cancer survivor, and cost out of pocket for over a dozen surgeries, 30 radiation treatments and uncountable dr visits.....0. At one time I was subsidized because of low income, but when Alberta Healthcare cut out the payments for the premiums I was paying $44 a month. Fourty - four dollars a month with no co pays or deductables, and no worries about an illness bankrupting me. 

I have a hard time understanding why some people posting here would rather continue paying a price gouging middle man (your health insurance companies) $1000 per month or more, rather then getting rid of these private companies and paying a tax of $100 or even $200 per month to the government. 
HermitJohn, Nevada, Zilli, ErinP and a few others have posts that make a lot of sense and they truely deserve to share the POST OF THE DAY AWARD


----------



## Zilli (Apr 1, 2012)

Sanza said:


> I have a hard time understanding why some people posting here would rather continue paying a price gouging middle man (your health insurance companies) $1000 per month or more, rather then getting rid of these private companies and paying a tax of $100 or even $200 per month to the government.


Mind boggling, isn't it?



> And to these specific posters - I am another Canadian very happy with the cost of our healthcare and the level of health care I receive and have received in the past. I'm also a cancer survivor, and cost out of pocket for over a dozen surgeries, 30 radiation treatments and uncountable dr visits.....0. At one time I was subsidized because of low income, but when Alberta Healthcare cut out the payments for the premiums I was paying $44 a month. Fourty - four dollars a month with no co pays or deductables, and no worries about an illness bankrupting me.


I am so impressed with the care you got and the fact that, on top of having to deal with your illness, you didn't have to worry about being wiped out financially. I hope you are doing well now.

People in this country DIE because they can't afford health care. In fact, I almost did myself seven years ago when my appendix burst and I didn't go to the hospital for three days because I had just moved and was unemployed and I didn't have insurance (I didn't know what was wrong with me and I was here all by myself for those three days). By the time I finally did go to the hospital, I was in really bad shape and ended up spending eight days in the hospital. The hospital social worker set me up with DSHS and Medicaid ended up paying for it.

Access to health care should be a RIGHT, not a privilege.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Common Tator said:


> If you don't like the links we've provided, find your own.


I'm not your google daddy! Your point just becomes invalid if you only have unreliable media sources as your only proof.


----------



## Zilli (Apr 1, 2012)

HermitJohn said:


> I'm not your google daddy! Your point just becomes invalid if you only have unreliable media sources as your only proof.


"Google daddy?" LOL


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Common Tator said:


> Possibly true, if you choose not to get treatment. Still, it is a choice. Treatment is available. The best doctors in the world are right here in the United States. The best medical innovation in the world is right here in the United States. Why? because this is the place where they have the funding for R&D. Why? Because of our current system. Whether you admit it or not, that is the truth.
> 
> Plenty of uninsured people are treated for cancer and survive, right here int he united States. At the risk of being called "exceptionally mean" again, look at Melissa. She was uninsured, was diagnosed, treated and by the grace Of God, (for which I am thankful) is healthy and cancer free today.


You may find charity of some doc/hospital OR YOU MAY NOT. You dont have a right to treatment for your cancer!!!!!! UNLESS you live in one of those states expanding MEDICAID early under Obamacare before 2014. After 2014, if you live in a pinko red state that refuses to expand MEDICAID, you are screwed and tatooed. 

Without expanded MEDICAID, you only have a right to immediate stabilization in an emergency room. Stabilization is not treatment for cancer. Hospitals and doctors ARE NOT required to provide charity care for stabilized patients. You may just as easily be told to go die under a bridge someplace and try not to stink the place up too bad with your corpse.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

HermitJohn said:


> I'm not your google daddy! Your point just becomes invalid if you only have unreliable media sources as your only proof.


Well I provided a nice link with a quotes that yes it is true there are plenty of added taxes in that healthcare bill. And there are plenty of people that are already paying 55% of their wages in taxes and THEY area FED UP.
ax this tax that tax that thing over their. And what about those people that do NOT want insurance for any number of reasons. WHY should THEY now have to pay a tax?This country is broke and this will add to the debt in ways many can't even comprehend.
This country is not a Socialistic one, the Government does NOT tell the people of the USA to want to do.
In Fact the PEOPLE TELL the Government what they can and can not do.
Unlike some "other" countries.
The PEOPLE are the government, not those sitting in Washington DC., UNlike some "other" countries.
WE THE PEOPLE do NOT want this Healthcare bill.
And no 1% of the population should tell the rest of the country what they can and can not have.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

arabian knight said:


> Nice guy eh?
> .


About as nice as the coke addict and booze hound that came before him, you know the one that masterbates while lying in a coffin in order to join a secret skull and crossbones society...... Or his sidekick that shoots people in the back with a shotgun.

Or the current nominee who ties his dog to roof of his car. And who cut the hair of any of his schoolchums that he considered potentially gay. 

Makes one long for the days of Jerry Ford just having bit of brain injury from his football days. Or Jimmy Carter lusting in his heart. Or H. W. not knowing price of milk and trying to get tough with Dan Rather. Or H.W. sidekick that couldnt spell potato. Those were the kinder, gentler days.


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

Common Tator said:


> No. It shows us what we can expect.
> 
> Or we can look at the NHS in Great Britain, where they are killing off the elderly, so they don't have to care for them.
> 
> ...


Yeah? IF you think this doesnt happen here, you are fooling yourself.


----------



## nancylee (Mar 8, 2011)

_In Fact the PEOPLE TELL the Government what they can and can not do.
Unlike some "other" countries.
The PEOPLE are the government, not those sitting in Washington DC., UNlike some "other" countries.
WE THE PEOPLE do NOT want this Healthcare bill.
And no 1% of the population should tell the rest of the country what they can and can not have._

Now approximately 1/2 of Americans are not opposed to this law, and as they learn about it, more and more people will like it. Half of Americans are "we the people" too!!!


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

Sonshine said:


> Since this post was quoting a deleted post, why is it still standing????


Probably the same reason you are still posting after saying you weren't going to in this thread any more? :shrug:

Im glad it was left standing.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Work horse said:


> Well, I will accept that as an honest answer, and hope that you and yours never have to accept help from others for anything. :huh:


See, that's the point. Conservatives here in the U.S. HELP OTHERS. Not the govt's job! Not in our constitution to go all socialist!


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

arabian knight said:


> ObamaCare's 21 New Taxes Are 21 More Reasons To Repeal The Onerous Law - Investors.com


Ok, whats "news.investors.com". Doesnt sound like CNN or CBS or New York Times or Wall Street Journal to me??? 

So, not exactly mainstream media. Matter of fact this is labelled "IBD Editorials" This isnt a news story, its an editorial, an opinion page. No more impartiality or factuality than somebody posting their opinion on this thread. Why didnt you just quote Tater's post, had about as much meaning. Editorials arent a good proof of anything. They are an opinion! This is some anti-Obama guy with an ax to grind. Pretty much rerun of the "righty tighty" people that Tator gave link to.

So nice try, but I want to see a NEWS story from a reputable MAINSTREAM impartial publication or website. WALL STREET JOURNAL would be fine and should be conservative enough for you, right? Owned by the righty tighty Rupert Murdock that runs FAUX NEWS. Remember NEWS story from a respected mainstream news source, not OPINION PAGE drivel. OPINION PAGE DRIVEL plus a $1 will get you a cup of coffee.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Common Tator said:


> You have taken what Sawmill Jim said completely out of context.
> 
> Charity is freely given. If someone needs help, you are free to give it. I'm sure Sawmill Jim has helped others in need, I know I have, as I'm sure we all have. This thread is about a terrible piece of legislation that is the largest tax increase in American history. It is about the government using all of their force, including a newly created Internal Revenue Service SWAT Team and thousands of new IRS agents to take from the producers of this country and create a massive bureaucracy that will consume most of those taxes before a penny goes to patient care.
> 
> ...


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

GammyAnnie said:


> My goodness, how horrible, how in the world did your breasts get squeezed so hard your had to have surgery?
> 
> Annie


I dont know about her, but I got a hematoma from having my breast squished flat in a plate while they did a needle biopsy on it. I nearly had to have surgery to drain it as well.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

HermitJohn said:


> They had enough votes to get the Bush tax cuts for the super wealthy passed. I would say they had the votes, just not the interest.


Why do you leave out the FACT that tax cuts were for everyone? Do you just hate Bush that much? Or just people who've earned $$$? Or you aren't fair? or you want to punish those who work hard?

When I worked I earned a very good living. There were years that we paid more income tax than 1/2 the country's population made per yr. Are you aware of the tax rates?

I take offense to your scorn of people who EARN $$$.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

arabian knight said:


> Then plus the other 100 bucks when Medicare kicks in that won't change that will sat ill be a mandatory deduction from your SS check.


Yes it will change. Set to go up every year.
I'm worried about us olk folks b/c this hardhearted administration has cut 500 billion from medicare in this atrocious bill.


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

Well I made it to page 17. And I figured this thread would go the way it did, especially after the same two GC crew showed up and started throwing around the typical GC insults. It was an actual discussion before then. Makes me glad I am banned from GC. :grump:

I learned some from the thread until that happened :shrug:


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Tricky Grama said:


> Conservatives here in the U.S. HELP OTHERS.


Conservative promises of future help plus $1 will get you a cup of coffee.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

nancylee said:


> I don't know where you get your information, probably fox news, because I am stunned that you posted these lies as truth. All of them. The hatred of Obama is palpable here - because he wanted all Americans to have health care? What kind of people cheer when their fellow countrymen, even the children, lose their access to healthcare? I am sickened because my "Christian" cousin spouts this sort of hatred. Hypocrisy defined.


I'm sorry you are so ill informed. Please supply proof that I and Common Tator (I guess thats who you're speaking of) are lying. I resent that. We've read exerpts of the nearly 3000 pg bill. 
And please show us who is cheering the loss of healthcare? I could put this back on you & ask what kind of person you are who would go along w/the largest tax increase in our country's history! A truly selfish person? Someone who cares not who pays for this? Someone who cares not for freedom?

No one said they hate Obama. Anyone who is POTUS & pushes something like this down our throats will be criticized. This is a total pwoer play, the bill is so full of extra taxes, extra controls on everyone's life!


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Tricky Grama said:


> b/c this hardhearted administration has cut 500 billion from medicare in this atrocious bill.


Show me exactly what benefits you will no longer get due to this cut???? In other words, what part of medicare benefits were cut that wont now be covered elsewhere????


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

arabian knight said:


> Gee I guess some won't be satisfied about those added TAX coming without going to Google themselves.
> Well here is the TRUTH without some trying to look it up or just calling others liars.
> 
> And YES there are MANY taxes coming those that can not see the truth in the HC bill. And NO this is NOT from FOX, of Rush, or Hannity, OR any of those.
> ...












Mostly I thought I'd quote you so some of those who will not see MIGHT read it.
I'm sorry 'Tator & Sonshine have left the thread...but only so much can be said over & over & only so much hate can be thrown our way. Its best we wait to see how We the People vote in Nov.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

HermitJohn said:


> Ok, whats "news.investors.com". Doesnt sound like CNN or CBS or New York Times or Wall Street Journal to me???
> 
> So, not exactly mainstream media. Matter of fact this is labelled "IBD Editorials" This isnt a news story, its an editorial, an opinion page. No more impartiality or factuality than somebody posting their opinion on this thread. Why didnt you just quote Tater's post, had about as much meaning. Editorials arent a good proof of anything. They are an opinion! This is some anti-Obama guy with an ax to grind. Pretty much rerun of the "righty tighty" people that Tator gave link to.
> 
> So nice try, but I want to see a NEWS story from a reputable MAINSTREAM impartial publication or website. WALL STREET JOURNAL would be fine and should be conservative enough for you, right? Owned by the righty tighty Rupert Murdock that runs FAUX NEWS. Remember NEWS story from a respected mainstream news source, not OPINION PAGE drivel. OPINION PAGE DRIVEL plus a $1 will get you a cup of coffee.


You can complain about reliable news sources but its already been proven that the media is BIASED! Over & over they favor liberals. So guess what they're gonna report. But I'll never convince those who are so blind they will not see. Surveys have shown more people watch FOX & judge them to be more honest than ANY OTHER NEWS source.
Do you not know about the LIES & 1/2 truths of NBC/MSNBC??? Where have you been! They edited tapes & aired them to try to make it look like Zimmerman was a racist, they edited other news as well. I realize it was long ago but Dan "I'd rather not tell the truth" Rather tried to lie about Bush as well.
So PLUUEEZE don't give me that tired worn out lie about FOX!


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Tricky Grama said:


> This is a total pwoer play, the bill is so full of extra taxes, extra controls on everyone's life!


You are still free to buy any private medical insurance policy you want. I still dont have a public option. Would seem like your side won! Taxes come and go. Use all those Bush tax cut savings you accumulated over the past decade to make up the difference. 

Tax rates have changed and continue to change yearly. Top rates were 90% in WWII and some years afterward. Whine when some pet deduction gets limited a bit and I will cry for your great sorrow.... NOT! Some doors close, some open.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Shygal said:


> Well I made it to page 17. And I figured this thread would go the way it did, especially after the same two GC crew showed up and started throwing around the typical GC insults. It was an actual discussion before then. Makes me glad I am banned from GC. :grump:
> 
> I learned some from the thread until that happened :shrug:


Could you quote the insults? 
( can we trust a banned person!? LOL)


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Tricky Grama said:


> You can complain about reliable news sources but its already been proven that the media is BIASED! Over & over they favor liberals. So guess what they're gonna report. But I'll never convince those who are so blind they will not see. Surveys have shown more people watch FOX & judge them to be more honest than ANY OTHER NEWS source.
> Do you not know about the LIES & 1/2 truths of NBC/MSNBC??? Where have you been! They edited tapes & aired them to try to make it look like Zimmerman was a racist, they edited other news as well. I realize it was long ago but Dan "I'd rather not tell the truth" Rather tried to lie about Bush as well.
> So PLUUEEZE don't give me that tired worn out lie about FOX!


Quoting editorials and opinion pieces as proof of anything just doesnt cut it. Sorry.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

HermitJohn said:


> Show me exactly what benefits you will no longer get due to this cut???? In other words, what part of medicare benefits were cut that wont now be covered elsewhere????


You may not know that medicare is in deep trouble now. What will 500 billion in cuts do? The bill says Dr.s pay will be cut. I'm sure that is fine w/you. Anyone w/sense will see that thousands of docs will NOT accept medicare if they are paid LESS than the very low rates they're paid now. We already have a shortage of docs who'll do medicare as it is.
So what will happen? Hmmm...guess that's where the 75 yr olds come in. 

No soup for you!!


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

HermitJohn said:


> Quoting editorials and opinion pieces as proof of anything just doesnt cut it. Sorry.


Seems to me I'd rather look at scientific studies than YOUR opinions.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Tricky Grama said:


> Why do you leave out the FACT that tax cuts were for everyone? Do you just hate Bush that much? Or just people who've earned $$$? Or you aren't fair? or you want to punish those who work hard?
> 
> When I worked I earned a very good living. There were years that we paid more income tax than 1/2 the country's population made per yr. Are you aware of the tax rates?
> 
> I take offense to your scorn of people who EARN $$$.


Odd the Bush cuts were for everybody, yet wage earners paid 35% and the wealthy paid 15% capital gains. And yep long term capital gain rate available to all. Problem is only the wealthy had much capital gain income. Yep really fair. And thats just top side. You know money can be manipulated and laundered to make it appear any which way. Course the more manipulation, the more risk if somebody snitches or gets careless. Got the cahonies and enough legal/accountant backup and you can work wonders. Mega multinational corporations pretty much set their own tax rates. They can move and hide money all sorts of places.

I am no spring chicken, I have seen a lot of smoke and mirrors in my life. And a lot of "whole cloth"..... trying to tell me those with beaucoup bucks are pure as the driven snow and got their wealth by the honest sweat of their brow is just going to make me laugh. Oh, maybe some did, miracles happen I guess, but for the majority its just laughable.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Tricky Grama said:


> Seems to me I'd rather look at scientific studies than YOUR opinions.


You might then try quoting "scientific studies" rather than editorial page and opinion pieces. With footnotes and references of course.... Ones that can be checked.


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

Tricky Grama said:


> I'm sorry you are so ill informed. Please supply proof that I and Common Tator (I guess thats who you're speaking of) are lying. I resent that. We've read exerpts of the nearly 3000 pg bill.
> And please show us who is cheering the loss of healthcare? I could put this back on you & ask what kind of person you are who would go along w/the largest tax increase in our country's history! A truly selfish person? Someone who cares not who pays for this? Someone who cares not for freedom?
> 
> No one said they hate Obama. Anyone who is POTUS & pushes something like this down our throats will be criticized. This is a total pwoer play, the bill is so full of extra taxes, extra controls on everyone's life!


Who provided the "excerpts"? Unfortunately this isnt the largest tax increase in our country's history and it has been shown that it isnt the largest tax increase in our country's history, but you are ignoring that. Also ignoring the fact that you dont have to pay any kind of fine or tax if you get health insurance, that people will get a tax credit for the health insurance, etc. 
If I have to pay 3600 a year for health insurance, which is what my family contribution would be according to the chart, its STILL LESS than what they take out of my pay for a health plan NOT of my choosing.

So I too am happy with it. Show me where I am paying a tax and what Im paying it on, please.


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

Tricky Grama said:


> Mostly I thought I'd quote you so some of those who will not see MIGHT read it.
> I'm sorry 'Tator & Sonshine have left the thread...but only so much can be said over & over & only so much hate can be thrown our way. Its best we wait to see how We the People vote in Nov.


You seem to forget this is not general chat, your clique doesn't work here. And sonshine came back once after leaving the thread, I'm sure they are both reading it as well. 

I haven't seen anyone throwing any hate your way, on the contrary, you and tator have been saying some pretty nasty things to people, including the owner of this board.


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

Tricky Grama said:


> Could you quote the insults?
> ( can we trust a banned person!? LOL)


No, they are in this thread for you and everyone else to read. I know you are capable of going back and looking at them, as is anyone else. 

And please don't come back with the "if you can't quote them then they don't exist" , or the "i thought as much". They're here, they've been seen :shrug:


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Tricky Grama said:


> You may not know that medicare is in deep trouble now. What will 500 billion in cuts do? The bill says Dr.s pay will be cut. I'm sure that is fine w/you. Anyone w/sense will see that thousands of docs will NOT accept medicare if they are paid LESS than the very low rates they're paid now. We already have a shortage of docs who'll do medicare as it is.
> So what will happen? Hmmm...guess that's where the 75 yr olds come in.
> 
> No soup for you!!



So what PART of Medicare was cut? What service does Medicare now not provide? They didnt just skim off $500B in incoming Medicare taxes willynilly. 

The Dr. pay thing has been goofy for long time. Its ridiculously small, then Congress every year does a special bill to add pay back. No idea why they do it that way. But even with the special bill, doctors dont get top dollar for medicare patients. 

Course after my experience with hospital when I had sprained ankle, who knows what actual costs or charges are. Hospital couldnt give me a bill when I checked out. Seems its not done that way anymore. Over the next month I got 8 or 10 different bills for 10 buisinesses or individuals, surprised I didnt get one from the janitor and one from the groundskeeper. Anyway I got a bill from every individual that set eyes on me in hospital and they all said if bill paid in full within 30 days, I only had to pay 50%. Bills totalled $1600. I paid $800 cash. Whats the real charge, whats actual cost, whats the real value of any of it. I still think I got about $200 worth of service so its all bunch of meaningless malarkey and game playing and I still felt ripped off. Obviously the idea is to not have the customer know and understand the charges. And to not have one responsible billing party. Am I supposed to chase down and argue with 10 different buisinesses that somehow had some minor connection to my hospital visit?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

HermitJohn said:


> Show me exactly what benefits you will no longer get due to this cut???? In other words, what part of medicare benefits were cut that wont now be covered elsewhere????


There has been places already stopping from taking any new Medicare patients.
This will happen more and more from now on. Cuts? They already only pay 80% of the bill, that will slowly grow wider and the secondary coverage that a person HAS to have will be taking on more and more and those premiums will go up and up. Some have already.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Zilli said:


> There is a total lack of compassion and empathy evident on this thread.
> 
> So many here are terrified they might have to pay a few pennies (or even dollars) that will benefit those less fortunate that they absolutely HATE those potential recipients, even if those recipients are babies and kids.
> 
> They would rather let those innocent kids die from starvation and lack of medical care.


Ok, who would YOU let die?

In this debate, that is a pertinent question. Given that healthcare in a socialized system (which is where we are headed, Obamacare is merely a whistlestop on the road to single payer) is a finite commodity, at some point people must be denied care.

No matter what you _feel_ is right, that is a cold, hard, absolute.

Who would you deny care? And why?

Secondly, does that make you a heartless, non-caring person?


----------



## nancylee (Mar 8, 2011)

Tricky Grama said:


> See, that's the point. Conservatives here in the U.S. HELP OTHERS. Not the govt's job! Not in our constitution to go all socialist!


I would like to know how you define "all socialist"? Do you get social security and Medicare. You evil socialist!!! LOL!!!


----------



## nancylee (Mar 8, 2011)

Tricky Grama said:


> You can complain about reliable news sources but its already been proven that the media is BIASED! Over & over they favor liberals. So guess what they're gonna report. But I'll never convince those who are so blind they will not see. Surveys have shown more people watch FOX & judge them to be more honest than ANY OTHER NEWS source.
> Do you not know about the LIES & 1/2 truths of NBC/MSNBC??? Where have you been! They edited tapes & aired them to try to make it look like Zimmerman was a racist, they edited other news as well. I realize it was long ago but Dan "I'd rather not tell the truth" Rather tried to lie about Bush as well.
> So PLUUEEZE don't give me that tired worn out lie about FOX!


Obviously, you do not want to learn. Fairleigh Dickinson university did the study on fox news. Yes, I know. A liberal bastion of lies, those universities. But facts are facts, and while you are entitled to your own opinions, the right wing thinks they are entitled to their own facts. No, you are not. Sorry. Go look at the link.

And the lie about the ACA being more taxes is how limbaugh et al are brainwashing you so they get to keep more of their millions. If you choose to not buy insurance or accept it for free if you are very poor, why shouldn't you pay a fee, because we all need the ER at some point in our lives. Most of us don't even have anything to do with the bill. And as a good Christian, if my taxes go up to help another, I will gladly pay the hike.

One other question: why does the right wing revere limbaugh, a man caught with Viagra in his doctor's name, on his way to the Dominican Republic, a place known for its prostitution? What do you all tell yourselves he was going to do with that Viagra down there? The cognitive dissonance of the republicans today makes my head spin!


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

Jolly said:


> Ok, who would YOU let die?
> 
> In this debate, that is a pertinent question. Given that healthcare in a socialized system (which is where we are headed, Obamacare is merely a whistlestop on the road to single payer) is a finite commodity, at some point people must be denied care.
> 
> ...


How do you figure that is an absolute? Please show me where you have learned this.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Shygal said:


> How do you figure that is an absolute? Please show me where you have learned this.


I've learned this from working 31 years in healthcare.

I think the lesson was driven home best, when responding to a Code Blue at a university hospital (which is probably the closest thing to socialized medicine in the U.S.), and the Chief of Staff looked at the senior medicine resident and asked him, "Which patient do you want to die? We've got two crash carts and two Burdicks, and three coding patients. Call the ball, and let's be on with it."


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

Shygal said:


> Well I made it to page 17. And I figured this thread would go the way it did, especially after the same two GC crew showed up and started throwing around the typical GC insults. It was an actual discussion before then.


What I find interesting is that those posting in favor of it have a large variety of people who are hitting the "like" button for their posts. 
Those posting opposed have the same four people, over and over and over again. 


I think that's very telling of the mood in the country in general...



nancylee said:


> I would like to know how you define "all socialist"? Do you get social security and Medicare. You evil socialist!!! LOL!!!


This is interesting too. 
Several of those who are posting as opposed to this law ARE on Medicare/Medicaid and/or Social Security (whether it be retirement or disability). Those are very much socialist programs. 
Even if one wants to try to convince people that "I paid into SS/Medicare my whole life!!" understanding basic principles of the programs, like cost-of-living increases, would show that one is collecting more than one ever pitched in.

The interesting part is the disconnect between socialist programs being OK for the nay-sayer, but not for others... :shrug:


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

Jolly said:


> I've learned this from working 31 years in healthcare.
> 
> I think the lesson was driven home best, when responding to a Code Blue at a university hospital (which is probably the closest thing to socialized medicine in the U.S.), and the Chief of Staff looked at the senior medicine resident and asked him, "Which patient do you want to die? We've got two crash carts and two Burdicks, and three coding patients. Call the ball, and let's be on with it."


Um....that is nothing like choosing who dies because of a finite time on healthcare. Nothing. That is a cold fact that they had 3 coding patients, and two crash carts, that can happen anywhere, it has nothing to do with socialized medicine at all. It has nothing to do with choosing who gets care or not due to the health care system. It has nothing to do with this health care bill or obamacare or anyonecare. It has to do with them having two carts on the floor and 3 patients coding.

I'm sure the third patient got CPR until they could use another cart from another floor, being a university hospital I am sure they have more than two......our little country hospital has plenty.....and having a code cart does not guarantee survival. Your example is pretty ridiculous, honestly.

Please tell me how you know of how socialized medicine is run in hospitals, so I can see why you say University hospitals are the closest to socialized medicine in the US.

I work in healthcare. I have for five years now.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

And now we know for sure that those so called "death Panels" that were so poo poop are true, and will take place.


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

ErinP said:


> What I find interesting is that those posting in favor of it have a large variety of people who are hitting the "like" button for their posts.
> Those posting opposed have the same four people, over and over and over again.
> 
> 
> I think that's very telling of the mood in the country in general...


I was reading something that said more people are for the bill now that the supreme court approved it, but still the majority don't like it. If all the scare tactics were ignored, people would see they are not going to be taxed to death, taken to jail (I can't believe someone actually said that here), forced to choose who is going to die, etc etc


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

nancylee said:


> Obviously, you do not want to learn. Fairleigh Dickinson university did the study on fox news. Yes, I know. A liberal bastion of lies, those universities. But facts are facts, and while you are entitled to your own opinions, the right wing thinks they are entitled to their own facts. No, you are not. Sorry. Go look at the link.
> 
> And the lie about the ACA being more taxes is how limbaugh et al are brainwashing you so they get to keep more of their millions. If you choose to not buy insurance or accept it for free if you are very poor, why shouldn't you pay a fee, because we all need the ER at some point in our lives. Most of us don't even have anything to do with the bill. And as a good Christian, if my taxes go up to help another, I will gladly pay the hike.
> 
> One other question: why does the right wing revere limbaugh, a man caught with Viagra in his doctor's name, on his way to the Dominican Republic, a place known for its prostitution? What do you all tell yourselves he was going to do with that Viagra down there? The cognitive dissonance of the republicans today makes my head spin!


CBS news flat lied about GWB and got caught.

NBC news lied about Ford Motor Company and got caught.

You seem to be more worried about what a conservative commentator does than what a supposedly hard news organization reports.

The ACA is a massive tax increase, by most accounts somewhere in the neighborhood of a trillion dollars....and yes, Justice Roberts said it IS a tax. If not, he would have voted it down and we would not be having this discussion.

Lastly, the most Christian thing to do, would be to sell all you have, and pay for my healthcare...


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

arabian knight said:


> And now we know for sure that those so called "death Panels" that were so poo poop are true, and will take place.


Oh? How do "we" know that? Because I sure don't and I think a lot of others don't either. 
I know you are a smart guy, don't fall for that stuff, please.


----------



## fordy (Sep 13, 2003)

................Simply amazing to me that so many who hate the Loss of freedoms would fight so hard too kill this legislation and simply accept the REAL KILLER of Freedom(s) in this country.......The Partiot Act...........! , fordyeep:


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

HermitJohn said:


> Odd the Bush cuts were for everybody, yet wage earners paid 35% and the wealthy paid 15% capital gains. And yep long term capital gain rate available to all. Problem is only the wealthy had much capital gain income. Yep really fair. And thats just top side. You know money can be manipulated and laundered to make it appear any which way. Course the more manipulation, the more risk if somebody snitches or gets careless. Got the cahonies and enough legal/accountant backup and you can work wonders. Mega multinational corporations pretty much set their own tax rates. They can move and hide money all sorts of places.
> 
> I am no spring chicken, I have seen a lot of smoke and mirrors in my life. And a lot of "whole cloth"..... trying to tell me those with beaucoup bucks are pure as the driven snow and got their wealth by the honest sweat of their brow is just going to make me laugh. Oh, maybe some did, miracles happen I guess, but for the majority its just laughable.


We pay 15% on capital gains too. And the wealthy paid faaar more than you & I getting to the point where they can live on capital gains. Who takes the risk to invest? Who gives to hospitals & charities? MILLIONS? Not you! 

Do you want to pay more for investment dividends? Well, there's 3.5% MORE tax on those in the bill for you to be happy about. HC bill my rearend. Largest TAX increase in the history of the land.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

arabian knight said:


> And now we know for sure that those so called "death Panels" that were so poo poop are true, and will take place.


You're already dealing with "death panels." They're called insurance companies, and they make determinations every single day about what they will and will not cover -- based on whether they can make money or not.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

> IPAB is a panel of 15 unelected and unaccountable government bureaucrats that would essentially allocate Medicare funds, deciding on which specific care and medical proceedure to approve or reject. In order for the decision that the 15 bureaucrats that sit on the IPAB board make to be overturned, Congress would have to have a supermajority vote. Something that isnât likely to happen very often.
> 
> Further prog deconstruction. If âDeath Panelsâ do not exist then why would a bi-partisan congressional committee be voting recently to eliminate them?


Sarah Palin VS Bob Beckel &#8211; On Independent Payment Advisory Board (Death Panels) | The Last Refuge


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

ErinP said:


> What I find interesting is that those posting in favor of it have a large variety of people who are hitting the "like" button for their posts.
> Those posting opposed have the same four people, over and over and over again.
> 
> 
> ...


I like your study of 6 or whatever. 
I'd rather take the word of experts, like our own budget committee.

Yes, we paid into SS & medicare all our working lives. Now there's a 500 billion cut in medicare. Now there's a provision to limit care for those 75 & older. 
SS was instituted when folks died b/4 age 65. Something has to be done- to raise the age like they've done, have to be 66 now-and to withdraw $ from everyone's pay, even when you reach 100K/yr...deductions stop at about 100K.
Yes, medicare & SS ARE sorta socialism, but when you pay for something-even if its to the gov't-you expect to get it back, as promised. Like an annuity. Not the true definition of socialism.

ETA: I honestly wish-in fact I'm begging-those who think this is wonderful PLEASE delve into ALL opinions, not just what those who instituted this atrocity are saying. Recognize that we were ALL lied to-those in congress & president told us OVER&OVER&OVER this was not a tax
Oh, sorry. you really don't care.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Shygal said:


> Oh? How do "we" know that? Because I sure don't and I think a lot of others don't either.
> I know you are a smart guy, don't fall for that stuff, please.


I wish you would read the bill-I used to have the clause about 75 y/o & older but deleted it. The panel will NOT be health professionals either. That's a comfort, huh. Not.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Raeven said:


> You're already dealing with "death panels." They're called insurance companies, and they make determinations every single day about what they will and will not cover -- based on whether they can make money or not.


I'm not fond of ins co. would rather we paid for stuff w/tax credits, etc, but ins. co. at LEAST have docs who are deciding care, not gov't appointed officails.

I wish everyone would read "The Complete Lives System" that this admin has based a lot of the bill on. 
And John Holgren's writings. 
Then come back & tell us what you think.
I'll give ya a hint: "forced abortions". "Birth control in the drinking water...but they don't know how to adjust the doseage". "HC for only those who are 'productive members of society'."

Ya'll evidently don't care what will happen down the road b/c you'll be dead. But think of your g'children & theirs!!


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Tricky Grama said:


> I like your study of 6 or whatever.
> I'd rather take the word of experts, like our own budget committee.
> 
> Yes, we paid into SS & medicare all our working lives. Now there's a 500 billion cut in medicare. Now there's a provision to limit care for those 75 & older.
> ...


So why would health care be any different than SS or medicare?


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Shygal said:


> Um....that is nothing like choosing who dies because of a finite time on healthcare. Nothing. That is a cold fact that they had 3 coding patients, and two crash carts, that can happen anywhere, it has nothing to do with socialized medicine at all. It has nothing to do with choosing who gets care or not due to the health care system. It has nothing to do with this health care bill or obamacare or anyonecare. It has to do with them having two carts on the floor and 3 patients coding.
> 
> I'm sure the third patient got CPR until they could use another cart from another floor, being a university hospital I am sure they have more than two......our little country hospital has plenty.....and having a code cart does not guarantee survival. Your example is pretty ridiculous, honestly.
> 
> ...


The third patient died. And no, sometimes there are a finite amount of crashcarts, or staff or whatever. And if you work in healthcare, you know the mortality rate of CPR only, especially in a code situation.

University systems are more geared towards indigent care and are funded so by the government...you do know that I can charge Medicare or Medicaid more for a procedure than you can, don't you? But even with charging more, the two M&M's don't pay well enough to keep the doors open and university hospitals must be subsidized by tax dollars.

Why do I say university hospitals are more akin to socialized medicine? Let me count the ways for you:

1. They are paid for by the government, either through direct funding, indigent funding, training hospital funding or indirectly through billing CMMS. Private pay makes up very little of their funding.
2. Patients are billied on sliding scales (each according to their need...where have I heard that before?), with many receiving free care.
3. Patients rarely have a choice in physicians or continuum of care.
4. Patients are routinely denied care if said care is not available within system.
5. Patients have little or no control over when procedures are performed. If you are scheduled for a hernia repair Tuesday morning, either do your procedure Tuesday morning or to the back of the que you go.
6. Higher tech care may be rationed. Referrals are limited.
7. Wait times can be horrible. Show up at the ED with a non-life threatening illness and you may cool your heels for fiteen hours or more. You may be referred to a clinic, such as internal medicine and if your condition doesn't meet criteria, you may wait six months to see a medicine physician.

That's just a few things off the top of my head, I can generate more, if you wish.

Lastly, as we slouch towards single payer, enjoy your little county hospital. Chances are, it will not be economically feasible under the single payer system.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Tricky Grama said:


> I wish you would read the bill-I used to have the clause about 75 y/o & older but deleted it. The panel will NOT be health professionals either. That's a comfort, huh. Not.


The death panels we have now are not health professionals, they are number pushers looking for more profit.


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

Tricky Grama said:


> I wish you would read the bill-I used to have the clause about 75 y/o & older but deleted it. The panel will NOT be health professionals either. That's a comfort, huh. Not.


Sort of like Medicare and Medicaid already decide how long someone can stay in the hospital, and like insurance companies already decide what they are going to pay for and how long a hospital stay is?

Its the same thing. It is just more of the scare tactics to get people afraid of the health care bill by using the name "death panel". Its nothing that isnt being done right this very moment, yet no one is calling them death panels, why is that?


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

Jolly said:


> The third patient died. And no, sometimes there are a finite amount of crashcarts, or staff or whatever. And if you work in healthcare, you know the mortality rate of CPR only, especially in a code situation.


Yes I do. And I still don't see where your example had anything to do about the health care bill or socialized medicine or choosing who gets care based on insurance, etc.


Jolly said:


> University systems are more geared towards indigent care and are funded so by the government...you do know that I can charge Medicare or Medicaid more for a procedure than you can, don't you? But even with charging more, the two M&M's don't pay well enough to keep the doors open and university hospitals must be subsidized by tax dollars.


No, you can't because the hospital I work at is a public hospital and is funded the same way.



Jolly said:


> Why do I say university hospitals are more akin to socialized medicine? Let me count the ways for you:
> 
> 1. They are paid for by the government, either through direct funding, indigent funding, training hospital funding or indirectly through billing CMMS. Private pay makes up very little of their funding.
> 2. Patients are billied on sliding scales (each according to their need...where have I heard that before?), with many receiving free care.
> ...


My little county hospital does everything you say university hospitals do. Except for denying care, and I don't believe that to be true of university hospitals, considering we work with Dartmouth and the University of VT. 
I don't know any one ANYWHERE that can schedule a hernia operation at THEIR convenience. You do it when the surgeon schedules it, just like everything else. 

And we will be better off , trust me. We eat so much of the cost of uninsured patients, you have no idea. 

Also if you show up at the ED without a non life threatening illness, you shouldn't BE in the ED. Thats another reason we will be better off. We pay for people to come in at 2 am with a cold, or nausea, that have no insurance, and we have to treat them because we can't turn anyone away.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Shygal said:


> Sort of like Medicare and Medicaid already decide how long someone can stay in the hospital, and like insurance companies already decide what they are going to pay for and how long a hospital stay is?
> 
> Its the same thing. It is just more of the scare tactics to get people afraid of the health care bill by using the name "death panel". Its nothing that isnt being done right this very moment, yet no one is calling them death panels, why is that?


Disingenuous.

No insurance company, Medicare or Medicaid decides how long you stay in the hospital. They may only pay a certain fee for a certain ICD-10 code, but that cat can be whipped a dozen different ways with appropriate coding.

No, the attending physician makes the call on who goes and who stays.

That is very different from a panel which can, and will, deny you treatment.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

I'm still waiting for answers to my questions:


This has been a crisis for AT LEAST 15 years. Why is this, the first real thing we've seen that might change that, being fought against so hard?

Where were the options? If this isn't the solution, what IS? 
And why wasn't it being pushed years ago??


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Shygal said:


> Yes I do. And I still don't see where your example had anything to do about the health care bill or socialized medicine or choosing who gets care based on insurance, etc.
> 
> 
> No, you can't because the hospital I work at is a public hospital and is funded the same way.
> ...


Vermont has a population of 625,000. The folks I worked for saw 1.5 million outpatients/year.

Hernia operation? I could pick up the phone in the morning and I could let you call what day you wanted it. Yes, I might have to restrict you to two or three days a week, and I probably couldn't let you say what time you wanted to show up (although I think I can fudge that one way or the other a couple of hours)...I dunno...Thursday morning at 0800 good for you?

Want to repeal EMTALA?


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

ErinP said:


> I'm still waiting for answers to my questions:
> 
> 
> This has been a crisis for AT LEAST 15 years. Why is this, the first real thing we've seen that might change that, being fought against so hard?
> ...


1. I already referred someone in this thread to the options proposed by Senator Vitter, which I thought superior to this mish-mash we have.

2. Obama is a socialist. Presidents tend to address those things near and dear to their hearts. Socialized healthcare, specifically single-payer, is close to his. Didn't hurt that medical cost has outpaced general inflation or that we have a greatly greyed society as compared to thirty years ago.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

I don't care about proposals. Shoot, *I* can come up with proposals. 

I mean someone who genuinely fought to get this through. Who cared enough to realize that it was vital to the nation. Fifteen years!...Surely there's another example. 
What were the other options? Because really, the only one I can remember was Hillarycare during the early Clinton years and the Republicans shot THAT down, too. :shrug:

Because I gotta say, those who are talking about heartless conservatives are only vocalizing what it seems like they see, over and over again... People who say "mine, mine, mine." 
You're losing the farm that's been in your family for nearly a century because your insurance dropped you when you got your cancer? Too bad. Maybe you should have made better choices and gotten a REAL job that included better insurance. I'll pitch in a $50 at your benefit spaghetti feed.


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

Jolly said:


> Disingenuous.
> 
> No insurance company, Medicare or Medicaid decides how long you stay in the hospital. They may only pay a certain fee for a certain ICD-10 code, but that cat can be whipped a dozen different ways with appropriate coding.
> 
> ...


I'm sorry but you are mistaken there. 
They also decide who can go into what nursing home, or IF they can go in a nursing home.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

> No, you can't because the hospital I work at is a public hospital and is funded the same way.


What percentage of your budget is DISPRO money?


----------



## Dutchie (Mar 14, 2003)

Belfrybat said:


> The mother was estatic and was praising God for the change in heart of the insurance company.
> 
> .


Seems to me the mother ought to be praising the Obama Administration and all the people who fought for universal healthcare. Although this is not fully implemented yet you can bet your boopie that the insurance company didn't do this out of the goodness of their hearts.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Shygal said:


> I'm sorry but you are mistaken there.
> They also decide who can go into what nursing home, or IF they can go in a nursing home.


You're wrong.

Show me the legal papers where Medicare removed a patient from a hospital against the wishes of the physician.


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

Jolly said:


> Vermont has a population of 625,000. The folks I worked for saw 1.5 million outpatients/year.


Um....so what? We still run under the same rules :stars: If you saw outpatients then you were not working in a hospital.



Jolly said:


> Hernia operation? I could pick up the phone in the morning and I could let you call what day you wanted it. Yes, I might have to restrict you to two or three days a week, and I probably couldn't let you say what time you wanted to show up (although I think I can fudge that one way or the other a couple of hours)...I dunno...Thursday morning at 0800 good for you?
> 
> Want to repeal EMTALA?


Again, if you are the doctor, its scheduled to YOUR convenience, not the patient. I can't call and tell you I want this operation on this date, at this time. 
You say things and contradict yourself in your responses.


----------



## Dutchie (Mar 14, 2003)

Jolly said:


> I've learned this from working 31 years in healthcare.
> 
> I think the lesson was driven home best, when responding to a Code Blue at a university hospital (which is probably the closest thing to socialized medicine in the U.S.), and the Chief of Staff looked at the senior medicine resident and asked him, "Which patient do you want to die? We've got two crash carts and two Burdicks, and three coding patients. Call the ball, and let's be on with it."


Which has more to do with lack of equipment than with "Obama care" and the so caled death panels. This lack of equipment existed before. A pre-existing condition, so to speak.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

Dutchie said:


> Seems to me the mother ought to be praising the Obama Administration and all the people who fought for universal healthcare. Although this is not fully implemented yet you can bet your boopie that the insurance company didn't do this out of the goodness of their hearts.


Of course not. I think that was the point. 

Much like when I got my family on insurance again last month and the company rep was telling me that even the basic coverage I got still came with annual mammograms and no lifetime maximums! They were such a good company!


And I said, "Praise God the Affordable Care Act passed." 
She sputtered a little on that one. lol


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Dutchie said:


> Which has more to do with lack of equipment than with "Obama care" and the so caled death panels. This lack of equipment existed before. A pre-existing condition, so to speak.


It's an example of finite care.

And while it has little to do with the wording of Obamacare, it does have to do with being an example of what can happen when resources are limited...which was what was being discussed at the time.


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

Jolly said:


> What percentage of your budget is DISPRO money?


You tell me. I don't have a copy of the budget for this year, that is done on July 11.

http://www.rrmc.org/pdf/hospital%20report%20card/HRC%20Finance%202012.pdf


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

Jolly said:


> It's an example of finite care.
> 
> And while it has little to do with the wording of Obamacare, it does have to do with being an example of what can happen when resources are limited...which was what was being discussed at the time.


NO it was not what was being discussed at the time. You used it as an example of what happens in socialized medicine and people after a certain age are denied care, etc. and how someone was going to choose who lives and who dies, because that is what is going to happen with obamacare, etc.

I am still waiting for how you know what socialized medicine is like?


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Shygal said:


> Um....so what? We still run under the same rules :stars: If you saw outpatients then you were not working in a hospital.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


1. Private pay patients have a huge say in when things are done and when they are not. I did say one may be limited by a doc's OR days, but the point remains there is a large amount of flexibility. Flexibility that will not exist in socialized medicine.

2.


> If you saw outpatients then you were not working in a hospital


*BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!* ound:ound:ound:


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

Jolly said:


> You're wrong.
> 
> Show me the legal papers where Medicare removed a patient from a hospital against the wishes of the physician.


No, they just stop paying for it. I said they decide how long people stay in the hospital. You have now turned it into me saying medicare removes patients from hospitals.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Shygal said:


> You tell me. I don't have a copy of the budget for this year, that is done on July 11.
> 
> http://www.rrmc.org/pdf/hospital%20report%20card/HRC%20Finance%202012.pdf


Your budget contains none.

Now, tell me agin how much your hospital is like mine...


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Shygal said:


> No, they just stop paying for it. I said they decide how long people stay in the hospital. You have now turned it into me saying medicare removes patients from hospitals.


Thank you for admitting you were wrong.


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

Jolly said:


> 1. Private pay patients have a huge say in when things are done and when they are not. I did say one may be limited by a doc's OR days, but the point remains there is a large amount of flexibility. Flexibility that will not exist in socialized medicine.
> 
> 2.
> 
> *BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!* ound:ound:ound:


Again, what is your experience with socialized medicine?

And your bwahahaha tells me that you don't have a clue what I am talking about, which pretty much proves my point :shrug:


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

Jolly said:


> Thank you for admitting you were wrong.


oh but I didn't. You changed what I said to fit your "Fact". Thanks for playing though.


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

Jolly said:


> Your budget contains none.
> 
> Now, tell me agin how much your hospital is like mine...


Because thats NOT THE BUDGET. I said that. I don't have the budget for the upcoming year and I won't have it until July 11. For goodness sake, I didn't say it was like "yours".  Which you can't even name. I said we are paid the same way, because we are a public hospital, not for profit. Good Lord.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Shygal said:


> oh but I didn't. You changed what I said to fit your "Fact". Thanks for playing though.


Don't start making things up.

You were busy telling me how third party payers could take people out of the hospital. I was kind enough to point out to you, just how wrong you were.


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

Jolly said:


> Don't start making things up.
> 
> You were busy telling me how third party payers could take people out of the hospital. I was kind enough to point out to you, just how wrong you were.





> Sort of like Medicare and Medicaid already decide how long someone can stay in the hospital,


Funny enough, I didn't say a word about them taking people out of the hospital. Guess you were mistaken, eh? Because deciding how long someone can stay in the hospital does not say "taking them out of the hospital" now, does it?


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Shygal said:


> Because thats NOT THE BUDGET. I said that. I don't have the budget for the upcoming year and I won't have it until July 11. For goodness sake, I didn't say it was like "yours".  Which you can't even name. I said we are paid the same way, because we are a public hospital, not for profit. Good Lord.


I haven't named the hospital, nor the system. I think it bad to do so on a general chat board. I have left enough bread crumbs, however, that anybody familiar with national healthcare could get a pretty good idea whom I have worked for.

Right now, I would hazard you don't have a clue what DISPRO money is, or who qualifies for it. The financial statemen you furnished would have had it listed, had you received such government funds.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Shygal said:


> Funny enough, I didn't say a word about them taking people out of the hospital. Guess you were mistaken, eh? Because deciding how long someone can stay in the hospital does not say "taking them out of the hospital" now, does it?


Keep dancing. You are still saying that Medicare defines the stay. They legally cannot. They can define the monies they pay for whatever codes are submitted, but Medicare does not have the power to dictate the length of stay. The hospital may WISH to treat and street patients in even less time than Medicare wishes, but they cannot turn a patient out of a bed without risking physician malpractice litigation and subsequent naming in said lawsuit under the legal definition of _respondeatnt superior_ if the doctor works for the hospital (example: hospitalist).

stay1 &#8194; &#8194;/ste&#618;/ Show Spelled [stey] Show IPA ,verb, stayed or staid, stayÂ·ing, noun 
verb (used without object) 

1. to spend some time in a place, in a situation, with a person or group, etc.: He stayed in the army for ten years.


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

Jolly said:


> I haven't named the hospital, nor the system. I think it bad to do so on a general chat board. I have left enough bread crumbs, however, that anybody familiar with national healthcare could get a pretty good idea whom I have worked for.
> 
> Right now, I would hazard you don't have a clue what DISPRO money is, or who qualifies for it. The financial statemen you furnished would have had it listed, had you received such government funds.


That is a statement done by a report card board, not the hospital. It does not break down the budget or income , as you can well see. I also expect you can see the exact heading that it does fall under. The word "medicaid" is in there, you know. 

And youve lost all credibility with me, you will not answer what your experience with socialized medicine is, you won't name the hospital you work for. That means I am done with the game, you can keep on all you like.

And you would hazard wrong.


----------



## Lizza (Nov 30, 2005)

I did attempt to keep up with the thread but have completely lost track. 

The fact is that our health care can _not_ remain the same, it is not working on any level, we need to try and fix it as best we can. A single payer system would have been better but was politically impossible. We have to move to a better system, our system is completely broken, I am very confused how people can dispute this fact when our numbers are horrific on every count (amount of money spent per person, access to basic health care, mortality rates, bankruptcy rates for families, the amount having to be written off by health care professionals, clinics, and hospitals). 

So what do we do accept at least try and make sure the insurance companies have to provide some basic care and make it accessible to everyone? It doesn't work unless everyone has it. I am curious what the people that are vehemently against it would like to do to make our system better? Although I suppose that might take another 20 pages. Maybe I missed some helpful suggestions to make our current system better in the first 20 pages?


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Shygal said:


> Again, what is your experience with socialized medicine?
> 
> And your bwahahaha tells me that you don't have a clue what I am talking about, which pretty much proves my point :shrug:


No, I'm laughing at you because YOU don't have a clue.

As for my experience with socialized medicine, wht do you know about Huey P. Long and the second largest public health hospital inthe U.S. (3000 beds at one time)?


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Shygal said:


> That is a statement done by a report card board, not the hospital. It does not break down the budget or income , as you can well see. I also expect you can see the exact heading that it does fall under. The word "medicaid" is in there, you know.
> 
> And youve lost all credibility with me, you will not answer what your experience with socialized medicine is, you won't name the hospital you work for. That means I am done with the game, you can keep on all you like.
> 
> And you would hazard wrong.


DISPRO money is NOT Medicaid money.

As for credibility, I've been amused by you for pages. You truly do not have a clue. You've never worked with or for a major government entity and you have no clue how those wheels turn. You have no clue about indigent funding and why it differs between classes of hospitals. You do not budget (AFAIK), you do not hire or fire, you do not network with other hospitals at a management level, and I don't think you have a concrete knowledge of charge masters, billing codes or what is normal and customary for your area or how CMMS arrives at those figures.

In the realm of a medical discussion, you know more than the average bear. But in the realm of Obamacare, its impact upon patient care and its clear mission of being the forerunner of single-payer, I do believe you being quite pollyannish, with no concrete evidence to back your assertions.


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

Jolly said:


> DISPRO money is NOT Medicaid money.
> 
> As for credibility, I've been amused by you for pages. You truly do not have a clue. You've never worked with or for a major government entity and you have no clue how those wheels turn. You have no clue about indigent funding and why it differs between classes of hospitals. You do not budget (AFAIK), you do not hire or fire, you do not network with other hospitals at a management level, and I don't think you have a concrete knowledge of charge masters, billing codes or what is normal and customary for your area or how CMMS arrives at those figures.
> 
> In the realm of a medical discussion, you know more than the average bear. But in the realm of Obamacare, its impact upon patient care and its clear mission of being the forerunner of single-payer, I do believe you being quite pollyannish, with no concrete evidence to back your assertions.


Going to respond to this and thats it for you, since you have no credibility in this discussion any longer. You can claim you worked for a major government entity, and the university hospitals somewhere all you want. I can claim to work for NASA and the government of Argentina.
As for laughing at me for pages, Ive only posted on a couple so theres another falsehood. But I don't care.
Never said it was medicaid money, now did I? But it certainly has to do with medicaid.
And as far as you know, you would be wrong as well. I hire, I fire. I work on the budget. BTW its CMS not CMMS. As for me not doing things on a management level, you would be wrong also. 

I look forward to single payer as does any forward thinking individual. Now I'm done.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Shygal said:


> Going to respond to this and thats it for you, since you have no credibility in this discussion any longer. You can claim you worked for a major government entity, and the university hospitals somewhere all you want. I can claim to work for NASA and the government of Argentina.
> As for laughing at me for pages, Ive only posted on a couple so theres another falsehood. But I don't care.
> Never said it was medicaid money, now did I? But it certainly has to do with medicaid.
> And as far as you know, you would be wrong as well. I hire, I fire. I work on the budget. BTW its CMS not CMMS. As for me not doing things on a management level, you would be wrong also.
> ...


Lady,

I just looked your hospital up. It is a Not For Profit, ran by a board. That is not a public hospital, yet you kept insisting that it was.

Right now, I wouldn't believe you if you told me you were the lowest janitor that worked a the place. Just as I don't believe you are done with this thread.

And yes'm, it is CMS. But those of us who work with some of the healthcare vendors with the same initials sometimes refer to it as CMMS, although most often I just refer to it as the M&M guys.

Lastly, I don't put out front who I work for, because my position can be mistaken for a position taken by the organization. My thoughts are my own and I would caution you to remove your link, before somebody prints up everything you have to say at HT and dumps it on you at the worst possible moment.


----------



## Belfrybat (Feb 21, 2003)

Dutchie said:


> Seems to me the mother ought to be praising the Obama Administration and all the people who fought for universal healthcare. Although this is not fully implemented yet you can bet your boopie that the insurance company didn't do this out of the goodness of their hearts.


That was my point -- didn't you read the whole post? The reason the ill but adult son could stay on his parent's policy was due to the ACA, not the benevolence of the insurance company. And you can bet your bottom dollar that if the ACA had been struck down, the insurance company would have had a "change of heart".


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

Jolly said:


> Lady,
> 
> I just looked your hospital up. It is a Not For Profit, ran by a board. That is not a public hospital, yet you kept insisting that it was.
> 
> Right now, I wouldn't believe you if you told me you were the lowest janitor that worked a the place. Just as I don't believe you are done with this thread.


No, done with you, not the thread. Again with the changing of my words to try to fit your "facts". Just wanted to clarify that and show that you continue to change the wording of everything to suit your convenience.

It bothers me not what you believe or think you know. The more you say, the more you show that you do not.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Shygal said:


> No, done with you, not the thread. Again with the changing of my words to try to fit your "facts". Just wanted to clarify that and show that you continue to change the wording of everything to suit your convenience.
> 
> It bothers me not what you believe or think you know. The more you say, the more you show that you do not.


I'm sorry, but I think you are becoming a wee bit pathological.

You may have the thread, if you wish...


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Common Tator said:


> You sure aren't getting Obama care for only $50.00 per month either.


OK, I'm using this Obamacare calculator.

What does the Supreme Court's health-care ruling mean for me? - The Washington Post

Here is the result for my particulars.

_"You will have the option of buying a health plan through your state's exchange with federal assistance. Based on your income, your annual premiums for that plan would be *no more than $480 to $640*."_

$480 to $640 per year is $40 to $53 per month. Where am I going wrong?


----------



## Zilli (Apr 1, 2012)

Nevada said:


> Where am I going wrong?


You're not.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Nevada said:


> OK, I'm using this Obamacare calculator.
> 
> What does the Supreme Court's health-care ruling mean for me? - The Washington Post
> 
> ...


What makes you THINK you can Opt Out of Medicare, and get this Obamacare policy?


----------



## Belfrybat (Feb 21, 2003)

Nevada said:


> OK, I'm using this Obamacare calculator.
> 
> What does the Supreme Court's health-care ruling mean for me? - The Washington Post
> 
> ...


Not that you are going "wrong" but you won't be able to find insurance for that amount, so will be exempt from the fine, but you won't have insurance. A more comprehensive calculator can be found here as it takes age into consideration: Health Reform Subsidy Calculator - Kaiser Health Reform.

The "problem" in your calculations is that the subsidy is given as a tax credit, and you probably won't be paying as much in taxes as the tax credit would be, so you won't get the entire amount. I put in $17000, 60 years old and came up with: 

Unsubsidized policy premium: $10,172
Maximum premium for that income/age: $658
Amount of tax credit: $9514.00 to make up the difference (I doubt you pay that much in taxes)

Then this clause about total amount of co-pays, deductibles and such:

_The maximum out-of-pocket costs the person/family will be responsible for in 2014 (not including the premium) is $2,083. Whether a person or family reaches this maximum level will depend on the amount of health care services they use._

Probably what will happen is you won't find a policy that with the tax credit is less than 8% of your income, so you won't be charged a penalty and won't have insurance.


----------



## Zilli (Apr 1, 2012)

Shygal said:


> I was reading something that said more people are for the bill now that the supreme court approved it, but still the majority don't like it. If all the scare tactics were ignored, people would see they are not going to be taxed to death, taken to jail (I can't believe someone actually said that here), forced to choose who is going to die, etc etc


I agree. I think more and more, as people get past their anger and start taking a good look at this and start reaping the benefits themselves, those percentages of who is for it and who is against it are going to change drastically.

In fact, early in this thread, I was thinking that there were some people posting here who were cautiously optimistic about this bill who I would not think of as Obama supporters (not that I know that for sure - just a hunch).

But people need to quit listening to the mouth breathers (Limbaugh, etc.) because they are not getting the FACTS.


----------



## Zilli (Apr 1, 2012)

Shygal said:


> Makes me glad I am banned from GC. :grump:


Makes me glad I'm not allowed to post there yet. LOL

Although I think it was a cheap shot by the poster who quoted what I said HERE over THERE, knowing that I can't respond.

But that's typical of cowards, I guess.


----------



## Zilli (Apr 1, 2012)

Jolly said:


> Ok, who would YOU let die?
> 
> In this debate, that is a pertinent question.
> 
> No matter what you _feel_ is right, that is a cold, hard, absolute.


NO ONE should die due to lack of medical care.


> Obamacare is merely a whistlestop on the road to single payer


We can only hope.......



> Given that healthcare in a socialized system is a finite commodity, at some point people must be denied care.


I am not getting the impression from our neighbors to the north that people are being denied care. Quite the opposite, in fact.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> What makes you THINK you can Opt Out of Medicare, and get this Obamacare policy?


I don't know how you are missing what I'm saying so completely. I'm becoming concerned.

I'm not eligible for Medicare yet. I won't be eligible for Medicare until mid-2015. I'll need an Obamacare policy to meet the mandate from January 1, 2014 until the summer of 2015, when I become Medicare eligible. During that 1.5 years, I'll get Obamacare for $50/month.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Zilli said:


> I agree. I think more and more, as people get past their anger and start taking a good look at this and start reaping the benefits themselves, those percentages of who is for it and who is against it are going to change drastically.


That is for sure, as more and more of this "stuff' comes out the madder and madder the American people will be and the numbers will change to show that more and more don't want this over hyped healthcare debacle.

And the poorest of the poor even get left out in the cold. 
And BTW that was reported on Both NBC and CBS too. LOL

And more and more people find out the true facts the more people will turn away from this healthcare as a good thing, find out the is the worst thing ever to be put into law.

Having the Government CONTROL over 1/6th of the nations economy is pure unconstitutional as it comes.


----------



## Zilli (Apr 1, 2012)

Nevada said:


> During that 1.5 years, I'll get Obamacare for $50/month.


Which is cheaper than the $110.00 a month it costs me for my Medicare.


----------



## Belfrybat (Feb 21, 2003)

Deleted -- someone else responded


----------



## Belfrybat (Feb 21, 2003)

Nevada said:


> I don't know how you are missing what I'm saying so completely. I'm becoming concerned.
> 
> I'm not eligible for Medicare yet. I won't be eligible for Medicare until mid-2015. I'll need an Obamacare policy to meet the mandate from January 1, 2014 until the summer of 2015, when I become Medicare eligible. During that 1.5 years, I'll get Obamacare for $50/month.


Nevada -- did you put the stats through the other calculator I linked to? How do you come up on that one?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

painterswife said:


> So why would health care be any different than SS or medicare?


Maybe it won't. 
But if you overload the system it cannot be good. If you cut dr.s pay so far that they cannot afford to treat medicare/medicaid/obamatax patients, we'll not get any care. 
Surely you can see that. Surely you can see that the gov't cannot do anything correctly. Look at AMTRAK. Postal system. The military is as close as we can get to something run right. And we KNOW how fraught w/corruption, etc, even that is. Hammers for $200 or whatever.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

painterswife said:


> The death panels we have now are not health professionals, they are number pushers looking for more profit.


Do you work for ins. co? I did. Decisions about care are not always what 'I' wouldv'e made but doctors are on those boards, not gov't appointred people.

If you can prove otherwise, have at it.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Shygal said:


> Sort of like Medicare and Medicaid already decide how long someone can stay in the hospital, and like insurance companies already decide what they are going to pay for and how long a hospital stay is?
> 
> Its the same thing. It is just more of the scare tactics to get people afraid of the health care bill by using the name "death panel". Its nothing that isnt being done right this very moment, yet no one is calling them death panels, why is that?


Why? b/c now care is not denied. How long you stay in the hosp is usually a case by case decision, based on outcomes & averages. NOT a DENIAL of procedures. Long ago folks got to gig their ins. & stay a couple days longer if they wanted. That wasn't abuse BY the ins. co.
But you knew that.

ETA: what makes you think if one works in the outpt clinic they're NOT working for a hosp?? ALL our major hospitals around here have outpt clinics in them.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

ErinP said:


> I don't care about proposals. Shoot, *I* can come up with proposals.
> 
> I mean someone who genuinely fought to get this through. Who cared enough to realize that it was vital to the nation. Fifteen years!...Surely there's another example.
> What were the other options? Because really, the only one I can remember was Hillarycare during the early Clinton years and the Republicans shot THAT down, too. :shrug:
> ...


Maybe its just that the "Ds" don't know how to do it. & "Rs" have never had a bully pulpit long enuf to do it? Not that they'd come up w/anything better. I was around during Hillarycare too & I remember the NATION DID NOT want it.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Zilli said:


> Makes me glad I'm not allowed to post there yet. LOL
> 
> Although I think it was a cheap shot by the poster who quoted what I said HERE over THERE, knowing that I can't respond.
> 
> But that's typical of cowards, I guess.


Wow! Namecalling again.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Shygal said:


> If you saw outpatients then you were not working in a hospital.


Ok... I am missing something here. I was tested and treated by/in numerous hospitals for my throat cancer..... always as an "outpatient".


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Belfrybat said:


> Nevada -- did you put the stats through the other calculator I linked to? How do you come up on that one?


No. Just that one. What's the link to the other one?


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

HermitJohn said:


> Ok, whats "news.investors.com". Doesnt sound like CNN or CBS or New York Times or Wall Street Journal to me???
> 
> So, not exactly mainstream media. Matter of fact this is labelled "IBD Editorials" This isnt a news story, its an editorial, an opinion page. No more impartiality or factuality than somebody posting their opinion on this thread. Why didnt you just quote Tater's post, had about as much meaning. Editorials arent a good proof of anything. They are an opinion! This is some anti-Obama guy with an ax to grind. Pretty much rerun of the "righty tighty" people that Tator gave link to.
> 
> So nice try, but I want to see a NEWS story from a reputable MAINSTREAM impartial publication or website. WALL STREET JOURNAL would be fine and should be conservative enough for you, right? Owned by the righty tighty Rupert Murdock that runs FAUX NEWS. Remember NEWS story from a respected mainstream news source, not OPINION PAGE drivel. OPINION PAGE DRIVEL plus a $1 will get you a cup of coffee.


 How about from the US Treasury Inspector Generals Office dated 14 June 2012 John?

http://www.treasury.gov/tigta/auditreports/2012reports/201243064fr.pdf

This thread was going along fine til some of the same old "Youre a heartless Limbaugh loving selfish R" or "Your a bleeding heart socialist give me a handout freeloader D" started to get slung around.

There are indeed over 21 tax provisions and it doesnt take much to find them (I provided a link from the presumably not MSM Federal Treasury Department Inpsector General, appendix IV if you care for a table that gives you exact locations in the bill) so the so called heartless bunch are correct in that.....but if you look at the taxes themselves most will not directly impact Joe and Sally Smith's individual tax bill so the so called socialists are correct there.

At the end of the day not one of you have addressed the fact that the SCOTUS gutted this bill by taking out enforcement provisions which even the Obama administration is concerned about. The level of confusion over what this bill means to the consumer and the huge expense that seems to be getting glossed over is amazing to me and should give everyone pause.

Personally there are some provisions of this bill that I like a lot and there are some provisions that are just not going to work as promised and I am very concerned about how everything is going to get paid for with the economy the way it is. If you arent just as skeptical over the pie in the sky its "all paid for so no worries because the government says so" crowd as you are the "it will never work, we are all going to become a third world economy worse than Uganda if this isnt repealed" group you are incredibly naive in my opinion. Between those two extremes, like most other issues lies the truth.

I think the Republican push for repeal without offering any alternative or modification to the ACA is a huge mistake since its apparent even on this board people want something done even if they dont know the hows or whats. 

But keep bashing each other if you have differing views....calling people Limbaugh lovers or socialists is very helpful in showing you have valid points of view.

Oh and some of those new tax increases included in the bill? How about such nuggets as "Elimination of unintended application of cellulosic bio fuel producer credit" , or Excise tax on high cost employer sponsored health care coverage, or Increase in additional tax on distributions from health care savings accounts, or Annual fees on branded prescription drug manufacturers or importers.....lots of obscure tax increases included in this monster.


----------



## texican (Oct 4, 2003)

I went to the WAPO calculator, and I'd be 'eligible' for a 1200/year policy or a 700/year tax. Kicker is, it doesn't say what kind of policy. Would all policies be cadillac policies covering toenail to bald head and everything in between? or a worthless policy (for poor people) now that costs little, and provides little?

Until they fine tune it, and with little information available, I'd go with the tax, and only get insurance on the way to the doctor, since pre-existing conditions aren't a curse anymore.

edited to add... If I made the same amount in 2014, as I did last year, I'd not get any policy at all, and no tax (Tx won't go for more medicaid)...


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

HermitJohn said:


> Conservative promises of future help plus $1 will get you a cup of coffee.


And liberal policies with or without the coffee will destroy a great nation.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

Tricky Grama said:


> Maybe its just that the "Ds" don't know how to do it. & "Rs" have never had a bully pulpit long enuf to do it? Not that they'd come up w/anything better.


No, they haven't. That was my entire point. 
And considering this was passed in year two of the Obama/Democratic Congress, the Republicans have had that bully pulpit too.



They just didn't care.
So when something was finally done about this problem, they unleashed the wailing and gnashing of teeth because their plan really WAS to just keep things as they were.
And that is beyond shameful.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

salmonslayer said:


> How about from the US Treasury Inspector Generals Office dated 14 June 2012 John?
> 
> http://www.treasury.gov/tigta/auditreports/2012reports/201243064fr.pdf
> 
> ...


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

ErinP said:


> No, they haven't. That was my entire point.
> And considering this was passed in year two of the Obama/Democratic Congress, the Republicans have had that bully pulpit too.
> 
> 
> ...


The "Ds" pushed it thru when they shouldve been concentrating on the economy, so we're all royally skewered b/c that will take a long time to fix.

Don't want to defend the "Rs", I'm not one, but they only had the bully pulpit 2 yrs & if their constituents didn't prioritize HC as #1, they didn't do anything. & IF it was right after sept 11th, there was too much on the plate for it then...I'd have to look at the yrs & give you a better answer.


----------



## Belfrybat (Feb 21, 2003)

Nevada said:


> No. Just that one. What's the link to the other one?


Post #570 -- 

_Not that you are going "wrong" but you won't be able to find insurance for that amount, so will be exempt from the fine, but you won't have insurance. A more comprehensive calculator can be found here as it takes age into consideration: Health Reform Subsidy Calculator - Kaiser Health Reform

The "problem" in your calculations is that the subsidy is given as a tax credit, and you probably won't be paying as much in taxes as the tax credit would be, so you won't get the entire amount. I put in $17000, 60 years old and came up with: 

Unsubsidized policy premium: $10,172
Maximum premium for that income/age: $658
Amount of tax credit: $9514.00 to make up the difference (I doubt you pay that much in taxes)

Then this clause about total amount of co-pays, deductibles and such:

The maximum out-of-pocket costs the person/family will be responsible for in 2014 (not including the premium) is $2,083. Whether a person or family reaches this maximum level will depend on the amount of health care services they use.

Probably what will happen is you won't find a policy that with the tax credit is less than 8% of your income, so you won't be charged a penalty and won't have insurance. _


----------



## Belfrybat (Feb 21, 2003)

texican said:


> I went to the WAPO calculator, and I'd be 'eligible' for a 1200/year policy or a 700/year tax. Kicker is, it doesn't say what kind of policy. Would all policies be cadillac policies covering toenail to bald head and everything in between? or a worthless policy (for poor people) now that costs little, and provides little?
> 
> Until they fine tune it, and with little information available, I'd go with the tax, and only get insurance on the way to the doctor, since pre-existing conditions aren't a curse anymore.
> 
> edited to add... If I made the same amount in 2014, as I did last year, I'd not get any policy at all, and no tax (Tx won't go for more medicaid)...


There are at least three levels of policies, bronze, silver, and gold, and perhaps more. All have to meet certain minimum coverage requirement. The calculators I've found are using the silver as an example as it is the middle policy. Look at this calculator for more details: Health Reform Subsidy Calculator - Kaiser Health Reform


----------



## Classof66 (Jul 9, 2011)

Our state budget was signed yesterday, and we as a state are in bad shape. A mental health facility near us is closing. Herein lies my question. Suppose that happened in your area, and a family member happened to be lodged there. Possibly mentally challenged or maybe mentally ill, insane, etc. Some people are in and out of these facilities, they are even employed. Some have insurance, some don't.

Most of these patients are on some kind of assistance. How do you all feel about this? Suppose the soon to be displaced patient wasn't your child or mom or dad....say it was a sibling, or maybe a half sibling or maybe a cousin. Or a step parent. Suppose there was nothing available for them. Are you going to welcome them into your home? Are you going to give up your life for them? Are you going to pay for them to be in another care center? Do you even go to visit them now? What would you do? WWJD?

Suppose it's Grandma, how much are you willing to give up? What if Grandma is an old hellion? Can she come and live with you, or do you "have" to work, or are you "too busy?". How much can you donate to Grandma's hospital bill?

We used to have a state facility near us for the developmentally disabled. In the old days some wealthy families, when they gave birth to a child who "wasn't right". Would just drive up, leave the baby on the step and drive off. The child spent it's whole life there, and no one even knew who he was.

So, why not take responsibility for our own problems. Who needs the government....grandma or second cousin can come to your house! Maybe they can outlive you. But, who needs the government getting in your face, you'll save some bucks, and when you have your nervous breakdown, you can even choose your own shrink.


----------



## am1too (Dec 30, 2009)

A.T. Hagan said:


> As I said, it was a big mess before as well.
> 
> The government continues to try to be all things to all people and that is patently impossible.


Yes the people cry to the government to save us from our torubles. And the only thing that will happen is the enslavement of all.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Belfrybat said:


> Post #570 --
> 
> _Not that you are going "wrong" but you won't be able to find insurance for that amount, so will be exempt from the fine, but you won't have insurance. A more comprehensive calculator can be found here as it takes age into consideration: Health Reform Subsidy Calculator - Kaiser Health Reform
> _


That one says I'll pay $537/year, which is $44.75/month. That's pretty good agreement.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

It was never explained how a system cited as being too expensive was going to fund a new federal bureaucracy, start covering more people with the same number of facilities and personnel at a lower cost, while saving the nation trillions of dollars.


----------



## nancylee (Mar 8, 2011)

arabian knight said:


> It was never explained how a system cited as being too expensive was going to fund a new federal bureaucracy, start covering more people with the same number of facilities and personnel at a lower cost, while saving the nation trillions of dollars.


Yes, it was, over and over. Insuring healthy young people would allow insurance pirates, I mean companies, to make enough to insure the sick and those with pre existing conditions.


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

nancylee said:


> Yes, it was, over and over. Insuring healthy young people would allow insurance pirates, I mean companies, to make enough to insure the sick and those with pre existing conditions.


 Not trying to bash you just asking a question since I see this a lot. I do not understand how the government giving vouchers to people who cannot afford health insurance now makes it affordable after ACA comes into effect. These are mostly people who do not pay net federal income tax and will be getting insurance subsidized by the federal government and to a lesser degree the states if they participate. Are you saying that the Federal government subsidizing the insurance companies will placate their profit motives and reduce costs overall? I do agree that preventive medicine is a good thing and ultimately reduces medical expenses overall but that is a far reaching concept decades in the future before it pays off...still worthy of pursuing but it doesnt answer the contemporary problem of how do we pay for all this.

I think your saying these costs will be shifted from individuals to the government which I agree is the premise of ACA but again as many have asked; where does the funding come from? Something somewhere has to be cut because it doesnt pencil out.


----------



## Guest (Jul 1, 2012)

They are going to have to pass a law that every one has to work before this will program will work.
people have to be rewarded before they have incentive to work. And a peoce of paper saying you can go to the doctor, when you don't even need to go, is no reward.


----------



## luvzmybabz (Sep 8, 2008)

Based on your income, your annual premiums for that plan would be no more than $1,400 to $2,205. Your maximum out-of-pocket costs for deductibles and co-payments would be capped at 15 percent of the total cost.

This is what I got out of the Page that Pinterswife link to on page 2 Here is the truth

35000 AGI
4 People in family
Premiums in 2011 6000
Deductible was low 1000
Then they paid a portion depending on network out of network
Until my Maximum Out of pocket met I met it paying 20% of in network I paid 3000. That does not include the 100 a month for scripts for husband and I.
So not counting out of network out of pocket ( not sure on that $ I think we are at about 1500 or so for our insurance year.)11200 I did have 2 surgeries that insurance year. But one was after all deductibles and out of pockets had been met.
So if I only go to in network doctors and anything else happens with back or breast issues we are lookiing at bankruptcy. All while waiting on another branch of the goverment to creep along ( judicial for lawsuit on injury to back).
If no other serious then we are still looking at 7-9000 with an income of 35000 to stay covered and have prescriptions and my monthly-every 2 months appointments with Pain MAnagement DR no extras.


----------



## luvzmybabz (Sep 8, 2008)

Deacon Mike 
Yuppie Scum Join Date: May 2007
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 1,346 


You'd likely be exempt from the mandate


Quote:
Require U.S. citizens and legal residents to have qualifying health coverage. Those without coverage pay a tax penalty of the greater of $695 per year up to a maximum of three times that amount ($2,085) per family or 2.5% of household income. The penalty will be phased-in according to the following schedule: $95 in 2014, $325 in 2015, and $695 in 2016 for the flat fee or 1.0% of taxable income in 2014, 2.0% of taxable income in 2015, and 2.5% of taxable income in 2016. Beginning after 2016, the penalty will be increased annually by the cost-of-living adjustment. Exemptions will be granted for financial hardship, religious objections, American Indians, those without coverage for less than three months, undocumented immigrants, incarcerated individuals, those for whom the lowest cost plan option exceeds 8% of an individualâs income, and those with incomes below the tax filing threshold (in 2009 the threshold for taxpayers under age 65 was $9,350 for singles and $18,700 for couples). 

Does this mean that illegal immigrants could go to the hospital and get non emergency care? and the taxpayers would still be paying for it in one way or another. Here in OK many of them use an ER rather then a DOCTOR. I have seen it lots of times. And yes they were illegals. While a manager in a tax service office, I actually had one hand me medical bills in his name not that he had paid them yet, but wanted to use them as deductions, but he was illegal and had used another SS# to work and do business with. He said that is how everyone he knew did it. I tried to explain he needed to see an immigration lawyer and refused to have his taxes done by our service, he got mad and started to yell at me in broken english. I told him he could end up going to jail for identity fraud and would end up being deported then he listened.

I know of some illegals making more $ then my husband and their wife and kids get state and federal benefits.


----------



## luvzmybabz (Sep 8, 2008)

Deacon Mike said:


> You'd likely be exempt from the mandate
> 
> http://www.kff.org/healthreform/upload/8061.pdf





Tricky Grama said:


> Wow! Namecalling again.


Where is GC? over there?


----------



## luvzmybabz (Sep 8, 2008)

The Kaiser calculator states employeer offered insurance the employeer pays a significant amount. Nope our insurance is offered through my husbands employeer but is not subsidised through the employer. We pay 100% now with that said it is an insurance through SISCO Self insured blah blah blah....through first health. I think I may be calling HR Monday to see if the company will be making anymore changes. 
Part of ObamaCare already in place previosly our policy included Mental Health Drug but not Mental Health Drs. ObamaCare said if you are going to pay for one you have to pay for the other so our policy no longer covers either. And sleep aids Ambien, Lunesta etc are considered mental health drugs. Do I pay over 100$ a month for the Lunesta to sleep? not covered by my insurance due to obama care? Nope I get 3 to 4 hours of sleep if I am lucky and ones of these days will either end up in hospital due to medical issues possibly caused from this, or end up having an accident while driving due to falling asleep at the wheel? Thanks Obama now I drive even less then before.


----------



## luvzmybabz (Sep 8, 2008)

Jolly said:


> You're wrong.
> 
> Show me the legal papers where Medicare removed a patient from a hospital against the wishes of the physician.


The wishes of DR./Hospital can change quickly if they think they will not get paid. 

Other places (rehabs paid through medicade etc.) will keep you longer if you have medicade rather then a client that needs services more but does not have health insurance medicade etc to cover what the state does not. I have seen it first hand!!!


----------



## Belfrybat (Feb 21, 2003)

salmonslayer said:


> Not trying to bash you just asking a question since I see this a lot. I do not understand how the government *giving vouchers *to people who cannot afford health insurance now makes it affordable after ACA comes into effect. *These are mostly people who do not pay net federal income tax and will be getting insurance subsidized by the federal government *and to a lesser degree the states if they participate. Are you saying that the Federal government subsidizing the insurance companies will placate their profit motives and reduce costs overall? I do agree that preventive medicine is a good thing and ultimately reduces medical expenses overall but that is a far reaching concept decades in the future before it pays off...still worthy of pursuing but it doesnt answer the contemporary problem of how do we pay for all this.
> 
> I think your saying these costs will be shifted from individuals to the government which I agree is the premise of ACA but again as many have asked; where does the funding come from? Something somewhere has to be cut because it doesnt pencil out.


A tax rebate is not a voucher, but an amount taken off income taxes owed. If a person does not pay any net taxes as you cite above, then that person cannot get a tax rebate. Only those making less than 133% of the Federal povery level will qualify for Medicaid, and then only in States who will expand their coverage. 

Taking Nevada's information since he's shared it. He will need to get tax rebates in the amount of over $9,000.00 to make his insurance premium low enough that he will be required to purchase it. Since his income doesn't generate that much in taxes, he won't get the full rebate and therefore the insurance policy will cost more than 8% of his income, so he won't be "forced" to get insurance and also won't be penalized. 

If you don't pay taxes, you can't get a tax rebate. Or if your income is low enough that the taxes you owe is less than the projected rebate, you won't be required to get insurance and neither will you be fined.

One way to look at all this is it will be one of the biggest personal and small business tax cuts in history for the middle and low-middle classes.


----------



## Minelson (Oct 16, 2007)

Belfrybat said:


> One way to look at all this is it will be one of the biggest personal and small business tax cuts in history for the middle and low-middle classes.


Wow...really?


----------



## Belfrybat (Feb 21, 2003)

luvzmybabz said:


> Based on your income, your annual premiums for that plan would be no more than $1,400 to $2,205. Your maximum out-of-pocket costs for deductibles and co-payments would be capped at 15 percent of the total cost.
> 
> This is what I got out of the Page that Pinterswife link to on page 2 Here is the truth
> 
> ...


The calculater I've been recommending shows a much different picture: 

35,000 income (4 person family)
unsubsidized annual premium: $16,858.00
tax rebate: $ 15470.00
Actual (net) premium: $1388.00
Maximum out of pocket: $4167.00

Health Reform Subsidy Calculator - Kaiser Health Reform

So if you need extensive medical treatment (and that won't happen every year) the maximum your family will pay will be around 5500.00 a year. I agree that is a lot, but from what you say above, it is less than what you currently are paying. 

One of the issues that trouble me is insurance plans that existed before June(?) 2010 were grandfathered in, so don't have to meet many of the new requirements. That is probably how yours was able to make the change that changed your med benefits.

BTW, are you aware that Ambien is now very cheap in the generic form? Less than $20.00 a month.


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

Zilli said:


> Makes me glad I'm not allowed to post there yet. LOL
> 
> Although I think it was a cheap shot by the poster who quoted what I said HERE over THERE, knowing that I can't respond.
> 
> But that's typical of cowards, I guess.


Trust me, don't go there. Its this thread multiplied by a thousand. But yeah, that is completely cheap.


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ok... I am missing something here. I was tested and treated by/in numerous hospitals for my throat cancer..... always as an "outpatient".


Yes, I know that. He missed the point of what I was saying, as did you and TG. I'm not going through it again.


----------



## Zilli (Apr 1, 2012)

Shygal said:


> Trust me, don't go there. Its this thread multiplied by a thousand. But yeah, that is completely cheap.


I can read but I can't post.

Probably just as well, really.


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

Classof66 said:


> Our state budget was signed yesterday, and we as a state are in bad shape. A mental health facility near us is closing. Herein lies my question. Suppose that happened in your area, and a family member happened to be lodged there. Possibly mentally challenged or maybe mentally ill, insane, etc. Some people are in and out of these facilities, they are even employed. Some have insurance, some don't.
> 
> Most of these patients are on some kind of assistance. How do you all feel about this? Suppose the soon to be displaced patient wasn't your child or mom or dad....say it was a sibling, or maybe a half sibling or maybe a cousin. Or a step parent. Suppose there was nothing available for them. Are you going to welcome them into your home? Are you going to give up your life for them? Are you going to pay for them to be in another care center? Do you even go to visit them now? What would you do? WWJD?
> 
> ...


Sounds like you live in Vermont.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

luvzmybabz said:


> The wishes of DR./Hospital can change quickly if they think they will not get paid.
> 
> Other places (rehabs paid through medicade etc.) will keep you longer if you have medicade rather then a client that needs services more but does not have health insurance medicade etc to cover what the state does not. I have seen it first hand!!!


That's your opinion and you are of course welcome to it. And yes, I've seen patients go before they should have. I've also seen a doctor put his foot down and say "No".

But let me ask you, who in healthcare has the ultimate power to admit, treat and discharge the patient?


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Shygal said:


> Yes, I know that. He missed the point of what I was saying, as did you and TG. I'm not going through it again.


I didn't miss it.

You're just too stubborn to admit any error on your part.

That's a dangerous character flaw to have, if you are treating patients.


----------



## Haven (Aug 16, 2010)

Classof66 said:


> Our state budget was signed yesterday, and we as a state are in bad shape. A mental health facility near us is closing. Herein lies my question. Suppose that happened in your area, and a family member happened to be lodged there. Possibly mentally challenged or maybe mentally ill, insane, etc. Some people are in and out of these facilities, they are even employed. Some have insurance, some don't.
> 
> Most of these patients are on some kind of assistance. How do you all feel about this? Suppose the soon to be displaced patient wasn't your child or mom or dad....say it was a sibling, or maybe a half sibling or maybe a cousin. Or a step parent. Suppose there was nothing available for them. Are you going to welcome them into your home? Are you going to give up your life for them? Are you going to pay for them to be in another care center? Do you even go to visit them now? What would you do? WWJD?
> 
> ...


We already saw the results of this during the 70s and 80s when funding to mental health care facilities was cut. The homeless/mentally ill population skyrocketed and the amount of hard drug addicts/homeless in US cities became epidemic. I can safely guess that the answer to your question would be "No, people will not take in and care for their brother Johnny who likes to play with guns and is afflicted by bouts of paranoid schitzophrenia"...


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

Haven said:


> We already saw the results of this during the 70s and 80s when funding to mental health care facilities was cut. The homeless/mentally ill population skyrocketed and the amount of hard drug addicts/homeless in US cities became epidemic. I can safely guess that the answer to your question would be "No, people will not take in and care for their brother Johnny who likes to play with guns and is afflicted by bouts of paranoid schitzophrenia"...


We have that problem with the alzheimers patients, the families get overwhelmed and drop them at the ED and say "We cant take care of them anymore" , and they end up living at the hospital because we can't find placement for them.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

You may even see more and ore places turing down new Medicare patients. As the cuts come hard and fast these places will just have to cut back. Some have already done so.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Since SCOTUS has ruled that Obamacare does pay for itself through taxation, a few things to consider...

http://www.heritage.org/research/re...ports/2010/b2402_table1_1/b2402_table1_2.ashx

Supposedly, this gap has been made up by cuts to Medicare. But I have my doubts....


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

ErinP said:


> No, they haven't. That was my entire point.
> And considering this was passed in year two of the Obama/Democratic Congress, the Republicans have had that bully pulpit too.
> 
> 
> ...


When did they have the bully pulpit?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

I wonder how much it was that it took for Roberts to change his vote At The Last Moment?
Must have been something mighty big for a Chief Justice to at the last possible moment change his vote.
I wonder how much he got, or what he got in return.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Belfrybat said:


> Taking Nevada's information since he's shared it. He will need to get tax rebates in the amount of over $9,000.00 to make his insurance premium low enough that he will be required to purchase it.


OK, here is the breakdown for my situation.

1) *Will I be required to buy insurance in 2012?*

_I am making more than the IRS minimum filing threshold and I can find coverage for under 8% (coverage will be ~$600/year, while 8% of my projected income is ~$1300/year), so it appears that I will be required to carry healthcare insurance._

2) *How much will healthcare insurance cost me?*

_It appears that I will have the opportunity to buy healthcare insurance for ~$50/month._

3) *What will be my penalty be if I don't get the required healthcare insurance?*

_2014 -- The penalty will be the greater of $95 or 1% of income. For me, 1% of my projected income will be $160, so my penalty for not carrying insurance will be $160.
2015 -- The penalty will be the greater of $325 or 2% of income. For me, 2% of my projected income will be $320, so my penalty for not carrying insurance will be $325.
2016-- The penalty will be the greater of $695 or 2.5% of income. For me 2.5% of my projected income will be $400, so my penalty for not carrying insurance will be $695. However, I'll be covered by Medicare during all of 2016 so Obamacare doesn't really apply._

4) *Would it cost less for me to pay the penalty rather than carry insurance? *

_Yes. Insurance will be costing me in the range of $500 to $600 per year with the Obamacare subsidy. My penalty in 2014 would only be $160, so the penalty would cost less than the insurance. Likewise, in 2015 my penalty would be only $325, which is still about half the cost of insurance. If I wasn't going on Medicare for the year 2016, my penalty would be $695, which is $95 more than an insurance cost of $600.
_


----------



## Megabeth (Aug 7, 2008)

My health insurance co., Kaiser Permanente, put out this 10-question quiz: Health Reform Quiz - Kaiser Health Reform

I was surprised that I got 10/10 correct, but more surprised that that result means I did better than 99.6% of Americans. There's a LOT of misinformation and fear attached to this; hopefully when more people understand more, that will change.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Somebody earlier had asked about the WSJ.

Here's some thoughts by their chief economics writer:

WSJ Chief Economist: 75% of Obamacare Costs Will Fall on Backs of Those Making $120K or Less - YouTube


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Jolly said:


> Somebody earlier had asked about the WSJ.
> 
> Here's some thoughts by their chief economics writer:
> 
> WSJ Chief Economist: 75% of Obamacare Costs Will Fall on Backs of Those Making $120K or Less - YouTube


And those that do not care to Watch something on Youtube here is the written word about the same.

WSJ Chief Economist: 75% of Obamacare Costs Will Fall on Backs of Those Making Less Than $120K a Year | Conservative News, Views & Books


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

I got 10/10 as well. Megabeth... must be something in our abundant Oregon water.


----------



## Megabeth (Aug 7, 2008)

A little TOO abundant lately :bash:


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Megabeth said:


> My health insurance co., Kaiser Permanente, put out this 10-question quiz: Health Reform Quiz - Kaiser Health Reform
> 
> I was surprised that I got 10/10 correct, but more surprised that that result means I did better than 99.6% of Americans. There's a LOT of misinformation and fear attached to this; hopefully when more people understand more, that will change.


I went 10/10. But what I see lacking, is what most of us have concerns about...namely, how are we going to pay for this?

Because the dollar amount we are being told now is not accurate. Few initial cost estimates from the government are.

From a U.S. Senate (2009)report:

_Medicare (hospital insurance). In 1965, as Congress considered legislation to establish a national Medicare program, the House Ways and Means Committee estimated that the hospital insurance portion of the program, Part A, would cost about $9 billion annually by 1990.v Actual Part A spending in 1990 was $67 billion. The actuary who provided the original cost estimates acknowledged in 1994 that, even after conservatively discounting for the unexpectedly high inflation rates of the early â70s and other factors, âthe actual [Part A] experience was 165% higher than the estimate.â

Medicare (entire program). In 1967, the House Ways and Means Committee predicted that the new Medicare program, launched the previous year, would cost about $12 billion in 1990. Actual Medicare spending in 1990 was $110 billionâoff by nearly a factor of 10.

Medicaid DSH program. In 1987, Congress estimated that Medicaidâs disproportionate share hospital (DSH) paymentsâwhich states use to provide relief to hospitals that serve especially large numbers of Medicaid and uninsured patientsâwould cost less than $1 billion in 1992. The actual cost that year was a staggering $17 billion. Among other things, federal lawmakers had failed to detect loopholes in the legislation that enabled states to draw significantly more money from the federal treasury than they would otherwise have been entitled to claim under the programâs traditional 50-50 funding scheme.

Medicare home care benefit. When Congress debated changes to Medicareâs home care benefit in 1988, the projected 1993 cost of the benefit was $4 billion. The actual 1993 cost was more than twice that amount, $10 billion.

Medicare catastrophic coverage benefit. In 1988, Congress added a catastrophic coverage benefit to Medicare, to take effect in 1990. In July 1989, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) doubled its cost estimate for the program, for the four-year period 1990-1993, from $5.7 billion to $11.8 billion. CBO explained that it had received newer data showing it had significantly under-estimated prescription drug cost growth, and it warned Congress that even this revised estimate might be too low. This was a principal reason Congress repealed the program before it could take effect.

SCHIP. In 1997, Congress established the State Childrenâs Health Insurance Program as a capped grant program to states, and appropriated $40 billion to be doled out to states over 10 years at a rate of roughly $5 billion per year, once implemented. In each year, some states exceeded their allotments, requiring shifts of funds from other states that had not done so. By 2006, unspent reserves from prior years were nearly exhausted. To avert mass disenrollments, Congress decided to appropriate an additional $283 million in FY 2006 and an additional $650 million in FY 2007._


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

arabian knight said:


> I wonder how much it was that it took for Roberts to change his vote At The Last Moment?
> Must have been something mighty big for a Chief Justice to at the last possible moment change his vote.
> I wonder how much he got, or what he got in return.


OR perhaps he just realized it was a good thing. How do you know he changed his vote? Maybe he was going to vote that way all along?

We will never know because the supreme court gets to do everything in secret, which I don't like. 
Someone in this thread said we should change the way these rulings are done, get rid of the supreme court, I agree. At least have them be public. The SC has too much power, and to be in for life is too long.


----------



## Classof66 (Jul 9, 2011)

I'm in Illinois. Singer Zone Center is Rockford, il is closing. I like our governor, he inherited a mess.


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

Megabeth said:


> My health insurance co., Kaiser Permanente, put out this 10-question quiz: Health Reform Quiz - Kaiser Health Reform
> 
> I was surprised that I got 10/10 correct, but more surprised that that result means I did better than 99.6% of Americans. There's a LOT of misinformation and fear attached to this; hopefully when more people understand more, that will change.


I got 10/10 too


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

*Roberts switched views to uphold health care law*


> (CBS News)* Chief Justice John Roberts initially sided with the Supreme Court's four conservative justices to strike down the heart of President Obama's health care reform law, the Affordable Care Act, but later changed his position and formed an alliance with liberals to uphold the bulk of the law, *according to two sources with specific knowledge of the deliberations.
> 
> Roberts then withstood a month-long, desperate campaign to bring him back to his original position, the sources said. Ironically, Justice Anthony Kennedy - believed by many conservatives to be the justice most likely to defect and vote for the law - led the effort to try to bring Roberts back to the fold.
> 
> ...


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57464549/roberts-switched-views-to-uphold-health-care-law/


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

Classof66 said:


> I'm in Illinois. Singer Zone Center is Rockford, il is closing. I like our governor, he inherited a mess.


The Vermont State Hospital is closing , mostly due to hurricane Irene but the plan was in the works for a while. The hospitals in the state have had to take patients from there and its been difficult.

We also used to have a mental health facility in Brandon VT where people would take their children and leave them there , too. It closed some years ago because people felt they would be better off, being integrated into the communities. It didnt work so well for a lot of them, they lost the only home they knew.


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

arabian knight said:


> *Roberts switched views to uphold health care law*
> 
> Roberts switched views to uphold health care law - CBS News


So why should people know what the supreme court is going to vote on, a month before they vote? And why should they be allowed to try to sway a vote for a month?

Just more proof that that system needs to be changed.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Also being stopped is any NEW Private Hospitals and clinics.
We have one that is building a Larger facility , but is Grandfathered in, before the Obama healthcare law took place. so they are OK, but no NEW ONES will be able to built. And THIS is the clinic I had my knee replaced so I have first hand knowledge of what is going on, also my friends have the coffee in the place and we get to talk to many of the insiders at the place, because of the new one going up this summer, and will get coffee of course in that one when it gets built.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Shygal said:


> So why should people know what the supreme court is going to vote on, a month before they vote? And why should they be allowed to try to sway a vote for a month?


I guess you missed the TV spot where Obama was talking about threatening the SC????
I guess Roberts was the only person that took it to heart.
Obama had NO Business doing something like that. But likes always it was just swept under the rug as if nothing is wrong with doing such a thing.


----------



## Zilli (Apr 1, 2012)

arabian knight said:


> I guess you missed the TV spot where Obama was talking about threatening the SC????


Link?


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

arabian knight said:


> Also being stopped is any NEW Private Hospitals and clinics.
> We have one that is building a Larger facility , but is Grandfathered in, before the Obama healthcare law took place. so they are OK, but no NEW ONES will be able to built. And THIS is the clinic I had my knee replaced so I have first hand knowledge of what is going on, also my friends have the coffee in the place and we get to talk to many of the insiders at the place, because of the new one going up this summer, and will get coffee of course in that one when it gets built.


I don't believe that to be the case.


----------



## samm (Dec 6, 2008)

megabeth the quiz was helpful

but I think people like to spread the scary stuff and hope
they can scare you as well. it's easier to spout gloom and 
doom than be quite and listen to the whole story and how
it effects everyone

thanks for the link

samm


----------



## How Do I (Feb 11, 2008)

_What happen next?_

Health insurance rebates will be issued no later than August 1.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Shygal said:


> I don't believe that to be the case.


Gee Google can be your friend at times.

Why is it that Obama is held in such a high pedestal? He can do no wrong, and everything he does is the best? Well the truth is finally getting out to the main population Hope Some At Least pay heed. 
* 60 New Hospitals Cancel Construction Because of Health Care Bill*


> Some of the best hospitals in America are privately owned by doctors. At the present time, there are 260 doctor owned hospital in the United States in 38 states provide over 50,000 jobs with over $2,000,000,000 in payroll and pay over $500 million in federal taxes each year.





> These hospitals provide some of the best care for specific ailments and diseases. These hospitals include many in Oklahoma which offer cancer care and back surgeries. But there will be no more expansion of these hospitals and at this time, 60 new private hospitals that were to begin construction, have now announced they will no longer proceed with their plans to build.


60 New Hospitals Cancel Construction Because of Health Care Bill - GleeStreet.com | GleeStreet.com


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Zilli said:


> Link?


Gee and Google can be so easy to use at times.

Do you want to read it? Here is what he said.

President Obama Issues Stern Warning to Supreme Court to Avoid &#8216;Judicial Activism&#8217; and Uphold Obamacare | Video | TheBlaze.com

Or do you want to hear it from his own mouth.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYbkBTC6dDo]Michael Savage - Barack Obama Threatens Supreme Court - (4/2/12) - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## highlands (Jul 18, 2004)

What is interesting is that headlines say, "very few people will be affected by the penalty" but then goes on to say that 7.3 million people will be affected. These are the people who earn too much to qualify for help but too little to make it on their own.

Then the really interesting part is that the article in the newspaper said that this represents a mere 2% of the citizens. Huh? Well, if that is so then why do we need to force a mandate on this tiny percentage (their words) of the people when forcing them to buy insurance or be penalized isn't going to make any difference. Logically the mandate part of the law should be dumped.

Roberts justification of, "It's okay because it is a tax" is a jump over the edge of a very slippery slope. This is going to get messy.


----------



## Zilli (Apr 1, 2012)

arabian knight said:


> Gee and Google can be so easy to use at times.
> 
> Do you want to read it? Here is what he said.
> 
> ...



I'm confused. Where's the threat? 

From your link:



> âUltimately, I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.â[...]
> 
> âAnd Iâd just remind conservative commentators that, for years, what we have heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism, or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law,â Obama said.
> 
> âWell, this is a good example, and Iâm pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step,â he said.


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

arabian knight said:


> Gee Google can be your friend at times.
> 
> Why is it that Obama is held in such a high pedestal? He can do no wrong, and everything he does is the best? Well the truth is finally getting out to the main population Hope Some At Least pay heed.
> * 60 New Hospitals Cancel Construction Because of Health Care Bill*
> 60 New Hospitals Cancel Construction Because of Health Care Bill - GleeStreet.com | GleeStreet.com


Who said anything about Obama?
And google can be your friend as well, because you said this 


> " *Also being stopped is any NEW Private Hospitals and clinics.*"
> We have one that is building a Larger facility , but is Grandfathered in, before the Obama healthcare law took place. so they are OK, but no NEW ONES *will be able to built*.


Unfortunately your link "proving" it, doesnt say that. It says they are stopping construction on them. Of THEIR CHOICE. There is nothing in the bill that forbids the construction of new private hospitals or clinics, as you first stated.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> 60 New Hospitals Cancel Construction Because of Health Care Bill


Is it possible that the recession had something to do with those projects being suspended?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Because few know what is Truly in the bill Many of these things are taking people be surprise auntie they are in force. And Just because the mainstream Media has been protecting Obama since before the election you HAVE toy go and search other sources. How many really believe that 60 new Private Doctor owned Clinics have been stopped JUST BY THEIR OWN CHOICE???
You BET they have searched and found out that no New ONes can be built under the Obama Health care plan.
I sure wish a few would start listening and not keeping Obama o suh a high pedestal that he can't do anything wrong.. Many things are not want most Americans want.
Thes ewere pushed through and shoved down the throats of the American People Behind Closed Doors. And those Closed doors have also been reported.
Why do you think Nancy P. said Pass the Bill Then we will see whats in it????
She and the rest of her clan ddid not want the rest of America see whats inside or they wouldn't have been able to pass it.

Why do think Obama has always called this bill a Mandate NOT a TAX???
He KNEW from the start that if called it a tax which the SC now has confirmed it must be called OR it Would be unconstitutional.
If it was called a tax from the git go it also would not have passed. 

A lot of secrecy and closed door sessions have taken place with this administration to move this country toward a more government controlled way of operating. Call it Socialism, fascism, or any of the other ism's it still boils down to More Government controlling the people. Not good in a democratic Republic..
We sure do not want a Democracy either as that is mob rule..


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Is it possible that the recession had something to do with those projects being suspended?


And why can't you just take the word of people for once instead of injected speculations instead of searching out the truth?



> All of this leads to the question &#8211; Why was ObamaCare so tough on physician-owned hospitals? As I noted above, physicians have a 2% ownership interest in these hospitals, so one might suspect that their ownership is intended to provide money-paying patients, not significant ownership equity. And the NY Times article confirms this:
> 
> &#8220;Numerous studies have found that when doctors have a financial stake in a hospital, they tend to order more tests and procedures, raising costs for Medicare and other insurers.&#8221;
> &#8220;The Congressional Budget Office said allowing the spread and expansion of these types of facilities would increase federal spending by $300 million over 10 years.&#8221;


Article after article after article say the same thing not ONE has mentioned a thing about sessions. Why is that? Could it be that America is getting older and needs for hospitals like this is REAL. 

http://mkueber001.wordpress.com/2011/12/15/doctor-owned-hospitals-under-obamacare/

And I have it FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE also from that clinic that did my knee, and how they are ABLE to continue their expansion and building a new facility, doubling its size. LOL


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

arabian knight said:


> You BET they have searched and found out that no New ONes can be built under the Obama Health care plan.
> I sure wish a few would start listening and not keeping Obama o suh a high pedestal that he can't do anything wrong.. Many things are not want most Americans want.


Please show me the part in the bill that says no new private hospitals or clinics may be built in this country.

No one is talking about Obama except you. No one has put him on a pedestal here, so I am not sure why you keep going on about him.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Shygal said:


> Please show me the part in the bill that says no new private hospitals or clinics may be built in this country.
> 
> No one is talking about Obama except you. No one has put him on a pedestal here, so I am not sure why you keep going on about him.


 You know Google is so easy to use. 
*
Physician-Owned Hospitals Fire Back at Obamacare Restrictions*



> *Section 6001 of the health care law* effectively bans new physician-owned hospitals (POHs) from starting up, and it keeps existing ones from expanding. It has already halted the development of 24 new physician-owned hospitals and forced an additional 47 to struggle to meet the deadline to complete construction, according to the Physician Hospitals of America (PHA).


Physician-Owned Hospitals Fire Back at Obamacare Restrictions | Heartlander Magazine


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Actually I am starting to smile over this, due to all the ways this is making it less likely that Obama will get a second term. LOTS of people angry at the Supreme Court about passing Obamacare and Romney got 4 MILLION dollars in contributions within 24 hours after the decision. 

Obama can't have it both ways. He has been preaching and preaching that it is NOT a tax. Guess what, as he said himself, the highest court in the land has made a decision and it IS a tax. Yes direct from the SC has pretty much handed the WH over to Romney.


----------



## Belfrybat (Feb 21, 2003)

Nevada said:


> OK, here is the breakdown for my situation.
> 
> 1) *Will I be required to buy insurance in 2012?*
> 
> _I am making more than the IRS minimum filing threshold and I can find coverage for under 8% (coverage will be ~$600/year, while 8% of my projected income is ~$1300/year), so it appears that I will be required to carry healthcare insurance._


Nevada -- I think you are missing a primary consideration here. If you can't find a policy for less than 8% of your income, you will not have to pay a penalty. And unfortunately in both your and my cases (I think we make about the same amount), we won't get a tax rebate high enough to offset the cost. I don't know about you, but I pay around $1000.00 each year in taxes since the majority of my income is from early SS, so that is the maximum rebate I could get. With the full price of a policy being in the neighbourhood of $10,000.00, the tax rebate won't be enough to offset the price to get it below 8% of income. 

There is no guarantee in ACA in finding a policy as cheap as 8% or less of a person's income, just that those who cannot afford one will not be penalized.


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

arabian knight said:


> Actually I am starting to smile over this, due to all the ways this is making it less likely that Obama will get a second term. LOTS of people angry at the Supreme Court about passing Obamacare and Romney got 4 MILLION dollars in contributions within 24 hours after the decision.
> 
> Obama can't have it both ways. He has been preaching and preaching that it is NOT a tax. Guess what, as he said himself, the highest court in the land has made a decision and it IS a tax. Yes direct from the SC has pretty much handed the WH over to Romney.


Smile all the way to the polls, there is no way Romney is getting elected


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

arabian knight said:


> You know Google is so easy to use.
> *
> Physician-Owned Hospitals Fire Back at Obamacare Restrictions*
> 
> ...


Im not looking up things to back claims you make. You make the claim, you provide the proof. But guess it doesn't say it bans them after all, does it. :shrug:



> Sec. 6001. Limitation on Medicare exception to the prohibition on certain physician referrals for hospitals. Prohibits physician-owned hospitals that do not have a provider agreement prior to February 1, 2010, to participate in Medicare. Such hospitals that have a provider agreement prior to February 1, 2010, could continue to participate in Medicare under certain requirements addressing conflict of interest, bona fide investments, and patient safety issues, and expansion limitations.


----------



## tlrnnp67 (Nov 5, 2006)

Not making any comment about the new law, but even as a health care professional, I have always felt there was a conflict of interest with physician-owned hospitals. Heck - most of the parking garages in the medical center of Houston are owned by physician groups, and it is patients and staff who pay $8 or more a day (that was 14 years ago when I was there, so I'm sure it is more now). And there are no other parking options for most people.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

I have a couple of questions about those physician-owned private hospitals.

Do they get any state or federal funding, or any funding from insurance corporations? Does the government and/or American Medical Association have input or control on standards, medical practices and procedures that happen in physician-owned hospitals?

.


----------



## notasnowballs (Dec 28, 2010)

What I want to know is... say for instance as a family I am paying $2080 in a fine on my IRS taxes at the end of the year because I didn't get the mandatory health insurance. Now if my income was 12k or so (typical for us) and I just couldn't afford it, that would likely happen. It is also likely that for one child, I would get Earned Income Credit for about $1200, I think. Approximately. So that leaves me in the red for my taxes, OWING, because of this stupid fine. So if I consistently keep "owing" taxes every year due to not enough income to purchase this mandatory insurance, will my assets be seized by the IRS? What will the recourse be? 

Also, the state here decides who gets assistance in paying medical costs. My income is... you guessed it- above the amount for adults to get assistance in medical. My kid gets it, but not adults. I previously qualified for assistance in paying Medicare premiums from the state welfare, but I gave this up on purpose. 

Why, do you ask? Because I had it before, and it takes the state and the feds 3 months to catch up to each other in communicating. So, the scenario went like this: I started making a little money on top of my disability check. Not enough to live on. NOT enough to pay premiums. It put me just over the amount for income and the state stopped paying my premiums. I found out three months after the fact, about the time the feds found out. This resulted in my next disability check being cut down by two thirds to apy THREE MONTHS worth of Medicare premiums!!! I couldn't pay my rent, or my power, I just barely put food in the fridge, because I didnt' qualify for foodstamps at that time either. I will NEVER let the government put me at risk like that again. 

So when I went back on disability for the same condition, I deliberatly dropped the medical. I only carry Medicare Part A. So if I get seriously ill, I can go the the hospital, but for everything else, I'm screwed. But I know that I won't end up homeless because of bureaucratic bull!

Well guess what? Thanks to Obamacare, I'm wrapped up in the same system that I opted out of, whether I like it or not! 

I choose to check out of this system. I choose to make my own healthcare decisions. I choose diet and exercise as treatment options or natural methods, rather than government funded drug addiction. Now the government won't let me choose! 

So, needless to say, I DO NOT LIKE Obamacare, and I foresee that small businesses will be dropping like flies, adding more problems to our already taxed economies. Businesses will have to put out more expenses for medical insurance, resulting in lower wages for employees or layoff of employees to facilitate this mandatory insurance requirement. Many will just dump off their employees on the group of insurance companies out there and pay the fine on each employee, like McDonalds has already said they plan to do. 

Think about it... the day after Obamacare passed, hundreds were investing on Wall St. in insurance companies. That CANT be because it's going to be a non-money making venture! Insurance companies are going to make a mint and it's going to be the "piddle" class mentioned above, that is going to pay for it- whether they have the money to or not. We will lose our assets and live in government subsidized "projects". We will lose our livelihoods. We will lose the right to stay on our own land and work for ourselves, because if we don't work at a higher wage to pay the fines or the insurance, we will LOSE our land. 

I DO NOT LIKE Obamacare. I choose to opt out and that choice, and my Constitutional rights have been taken away by this new healthcare system set of laws!


----------



## notasnowballs (Dec 28, 2010)

Common Tator said:


> Obama just gave a speech and told us not to revisit the past. he knows how unpopular this is. He doesn't want us talking about it. I actually think that this will determine the outcome of the upcoming election.


He doesn't want us talking about it, because we are supposed to just swallow it like good little Americans, do our patriotic duty and man up to being cornholed. Sorry, not doing it.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

arabian knight said:


> Gee and Google can be so easy to use at times.
> 
> Do you want to read it? Here is what he said.
> 
> ...


Save your time AK. They don't care anyway. Just think they'll get something for near nothing at the expense of our country.
Some do not even know about this POTUS past, which he told us himself in his books. "I spent the last 2 years of H.S. in a haze" from drugs & booze.
Well, many know but they do not care that he was not raised as an American as most of us were, that his parents & g'parents were communists. They think this is just fine b/c that type of POTUS wil get us free stuff.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Shygal said:


> Smile all the way to the polls, there is no way Romney is getting elected


I'll save your post. :grin:


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

notasnowballs said:


> It is also likely that for one child, I would get Earned Income Credit for about $1200, I think.
> 
> My kid gets it, but not adults.
> 
> ...


It certainly seems you don't mind the government giving you money for having a child, giving your child medical care, and your disability check. :shrug:

If it weren't for the government, I would say you would be in a WHOLE lot of risk.

This is what I don't get. People taking from the government then complaining when they might have to pay for something from the government. :stars:


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

Tricky Grama said:


> I'll save your post. :grin:


Be my guest :shrug:


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

Tricky Grama said:


> Save your time AK. They don't care anyway. Just think they'll get something for near nothing at the expense of our country.
> Some do not even know about this POTUS past, which he told us himself in his books. "I spent the last 2 years of H.S. in a haze" from drugs & booze.
> Well, many know but they do not care that he was not raised as an American as most of us were, that his parents & g'parents were communists. They think this is just fine b/c that type of POTUS wil get us free stuff.


Wow, deja vu. Haven't you posted this exact same post a couple years ago in GC? Multiple times? What does what Obama said, have to do with this health care discussion? And whether his parents or grandparents were communist or not, has nothing to do with a health care discussion. Do you have any more red herrings to use? 

Who is this "they"? Those dirty liberals? Can you please have a discussion without the "they" and "we" stuff? We are all Americans that have to deal with this bill, no one needs the divisive stuff. that is why this country is the way it is NOW. The "us vs them" garbage.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Tricky Grama said:


> I'll save your post. :grin:



And just think, if Romney gets elected, you get Romneycare instead of Obamacare. Clones of one another, but hey you dont have to speak that nasty "O" word. You can let the "R"s roll off your tongue and finally smile.

About like arguing Chevy vs. Ford (the car, not Jerry), either way you get same product, just your favorite partisan commercial goes around in your head when you look out at driveway.... See the USA in your .... cause here at .... quality is job one.... LOL


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> âAnd Iâd just remind conservative commentators that, for years, what we have heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism, or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law,â Obama said.


Oh my! Now that is funny. Talk about being hoisted with one's own petard! ound:


----------



## sidepasser (May 10, 2002)

In regards to Section 6001 of the ACA, if one reads the actual bill and then goes through the lawsuits that are accumulating regarding that section, it does appear that Section 6001 limits the building of or expansion of new physician owned hospitals. 

_As a result of Section 6001, The Physician Hospitals of America (PHA) estimates that as many as 84 physician-owned hospitals were required to halt ongoing construction projects. In response to the amendments and the ambiguities contained in Section 6001, The Physician Hospitals of America (PHA) and The Texas Spine & Joint Hospital (TSJH) brought a suit challenging the constitutionality of the ACA based on due process, equal protection, and unconstitutional taking claims_
http://www.law.uh.edu/healthlaw/perspectives/2011/GreenStark.pdf

_TSJH History

The Texas Spine and Joint Hospital is a 20 bed physician-owned hospital located in Tyler, Texas that first opened its doors in a converted Montgomery Ward building in 2002. The Hospital, as with many physician&#8211;owned specialty hospitals, has been recognized as a leader in its field. For instance, TSJH was ranked as the number one hospital in Texas for Spine Surgery for 2009 and has consistently ranked in the top 5 percent of hospitals in the nation for spine surgery.
8

To meet increased demands, TSJH initiated plans in 2008 to undertake a $37 million expansion of its main facility. TSJH spent $2.1 million to purchase land for the purpose of expansion and spent $426,252 in professional fees throughout the zoning process. TSJH then terminated commercial leases on the purchased land in anticipation of construction. These leases, prior to termination, yielded the hospital $533,236 a year in rents. TSJH acquired all requisite state permits for construction, prepared its architectural 
plans and secured financing for the expansion. On March 23, 2010, with the passage of Section 6001, TSJH halted the project.
9_

The PHA estimates that approximately 84 hospitals were in similar circumstances as TSJH and halted ongoing construction projects after the passage of the ACA.

_Section 6001 is in essence a death sentence for physician owned hospitals in that it prevents the establishment of new hospitals and attacks the physician owned hospital&#8217;s ability to expand. It does not allow any exception for hospitals that were in the process of expansion or construction at the time of enactment causing such hospitals to essentially forfeit millions of dollars of investments. 

In addition it places competitive restraints on physician owned hospitals. As previously stated, Section 6001 prohibits expansion of existing facilities and the expansion of physician investment impeding the ability of facilities to meet increased demand and recruit new physicians. (The provision limiting a facility&#8217;s percentage of physician ownership post enactment to levels equal to percentage at the time of enactment has, in the year following the enactment of the ACA also caused a number of interesting restraints in the world of mergers and acquisitions.) _

Ultimately the courts ruled against PHA andTSJH 

An interesting note to the case is the Court's closing opinion:

_Although the Court appeared to be empathetic with PHA&#8217;s and TSJH&#8217;s position as they recognized the hardships they faced as a result of the amendment, as with many courts before, the Court refused to venture too deeply into the realm of Congressional rationale. 

The closing of the opinion is particularly insightful as to the thinking of the Court as it granted summary judgment for HHS. It almost sounds of lamentation that it could not intervene further: _

_*"In a case like this, Plaintiffs have a particularly heavy burden to show that 
the justifications for enacting Section 6001 could not reasonably be 
conceived to be true. Short of that, the Court does not have the authority to 
judge the wisdom or fairness of Congress's decision. Rather, as the 
Supreme Court has said, &#8220;[t]he Constitution presumes that ... even 
improvident decisions will eventually be rectified by the democratic 
process and that judicial intervention is generally unwarranted no matter 
how unwisely ... a political branch has acted.&#8221;*_
35
http://www.law.uh.edu/healthlaw/perspectives/2011/GreenStark.pdf

Here is the actual Motion to Dismiss filed by HHS:
http://www.justice.gov/healthcare/docs/physician-hospital-v-sebelius-motion-dismiss-support.pdf

The American Hospital Association (AHA) also supports Section 6001 as a way to limit physician owned hospitals:
The AHA supports restrictions on physician-owned hospitals and has advocated against physician-owned hospitals for years, claiming that these for-profit hospitals take expensive specialty services out of the traditional hospitals, leaving important but money-losing services, such as emergency departments and burn units, to community hospitals. In 2003, the AHA lobbied Congress to impose an 18-month ban on the construction of physician hospitals, which was then extended until August 2006. The AHA fully supported the provisions in the ACA that limit physician ownership of hospitals and has denounced recent attempts by Republicans to loosen these restrictions. The payroll tax cut proposed at the end of 2011 included a repeal of certain restrictions, and would have allowed doctor-owned hospitals to open if they were under construction at the end of 2010, and to expand if they were already in existence. AHA President and CEO Richard Umbdenstock reiterated the AHA&#8217;s staunch opposition to physician-owned hospitals, saying that, &#8220;When a doctor self-refers a patient to a hospital in which he or she is invested, that is fundamentally the wrong incentive and leads to the wrong behavior; it leads to the incentive for volume, to do more than is necessary; and it leads to the incentive to be very selective on your payer mix, taking only those patients with better payment or better prospects for a better outcome. It leaves the hospital then with all of the remaining problems, which is the second reason that we&#8217;re against it. It doesn&#8217;t further integrate the system of care; it further pulls it apart.&#8221;

American Hospital Association's Position on | Medicare News Group

At the same time, the AHA opposes the Independent Payment Advisory Board and seeks to have that portion of the health care bill amended:

_The Affordable Care Act (ACA) establishes an Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), composed of 15 members appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, whose job will be to recommend savings in the Medicare program with fast-track congressional approval procedures. The IPAB&#8217;s recommendations with be binding&#8212;meaning that recommendations will quickly move to Congress for consideration; if Congress does not act in the required timeframe, the secretary is required to implement IPAB&#8217;s recommendations on a fast-track basis. This is one of the most contested creations of the ACA, as physicians and hospitals worry that it puts important payment and policy decisions in the hands of an independent and unelected body&#8212;essentially giving the IPAB too much authority. AHA President and CEO Richard Umbdenstock explained that the AHA opposes the IPAB because hospitals have already agreed to have $155 billion of future payments cut and redeployed to pay for coverage of more Americans. Therefore, it does not want to be subjected to an additional annual rate-cutting process by the IPAB. Thus, the AHA hopes to see a repeal of the IPAB in 2012, and is particularly concerned with the impact it will have on critical access hospitals.
_
American Hospital Association's Position on | Medicare News Group


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Shygal said:


> Wow, deja vu. Haven't you posted this exact same post a couple years ago in GC? Multiple times? What does what Obama said, have to do with this health care discussion? And whether his parents or grandparents were communist or not, has nothing to do with a health care discussion. Do you have any more red herrings to use?
> 
> Who is this "they"? Those dirty liberals? Can you please have a discussion without the "they" and "we" stuff? We are all Americans that have to deal with this bill, no one needs the divisive stuff. that is why this country is the way it is NOW. The "us vs them" garbage.


Seems people here think these are lies, that this admin wouldn't do anything that would toss us the 'communist' way...prolly don't even believe Obama's own words. Or ya'll don't care. Like it makes no difference that we ave a POTUS who leans that way-at the very least? Guess not.
The point was, why do ya'll want our country to go the way of socialist countries in Europe?


----------



## Belfrybat (Feb 21, 2003)

notasnowballs said:


> What I want to know is... say for instance as a family I am paying $2080 in a fine on my IRS taxes at the end of the year because I didn't get the mandatory health insurance. Now if my income was 12k or so (typical for us) and I just couldn't afford it, that would likely happen. It is also likely that for one child, I would get Earned Income Credit for about $1200, I think. Approximately. So that leaves me in the red for my taxes, OWING, because of this stupid fine. So if I consistently keep "owing" taxes every year due to not enough income to purchase this mandatory insurance, will my assets be seized by the IRS? What will the recourse be?


You post makes absolutely no sense at all. The fine (penalty) you quote ($2080.00) would apply to someone making between $90,000.00 - $150,000. a year. But then you go on and say you make $12,000.00. Which would mean you wouldn't be fined for not getting a policy. But then you go on and say you get disability and medicare and the child earned income credit, and your child is covered under CHIP. 

So which one is it? Are you making $100,000 +/- a year and therefore subject to the penalty if you don't buy insurance (which would be affordable in that income range) or $12,000.00 along with the other benefits you meantioned, which would mean you would not be subject to buying insurance? Either way, your complaints are moot -- if you are in the higher income bracket, just buy the insurance to protect you and your family. If in the lower income bracket, then you are already receiving a lot of public assistance so do not need to worry about the ACA.

If you really want to know the facts, put your income into the form on this link: http://healthreform.kff.org/Subsidycalculator.aspx. Hopefully that will settle your fears.


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

Tricky Grama said:


> Seems people here think these are lies, that this admin wouldn't do anything that would toss us the 'communist' way...prolly don't even believe Obama's own words. Or ya'll don't care. Like it makes no difference that we ave a POTUS who leans that way-at the very least? Guess not.
> The point was, why do ya'll want our country to go the way of socialist countries in Europe?


Again, what does this have to do with the healthcare bill, which we are discussing? No one is discussing Obama's heritage, or socialist Europe or communism.


----------



## Belfrybat (Feb 21, 2003)

I have a question about physician owned hospitals. I know the ones who accept Medicare cannot be built or expanded. That makes sense to me as it is due to the fact that historically those kinds of hospitals have overcharged and/or run many more tests than other hospitals.

My question is if a group of physicians wanted to build a hospital and not accept Medicare funds, are they also under the building/ expansion ban? If so, then I would not be for that part of the ACA. My personal take is if a group wants to do something that does not accept government funding then they should be able to do so.


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

sidepasser said:


> In regards to Section 6001 of the ACA, if one reads the actual bill and then goes through the lawsuits that are accumulating regarding that section, it does appear that Section 6001 limits the building of or expansion of new physician owned hospitals.


No, it does not. I posted section 6001 right here. All it says is that they may not accept medicare if they are built after some date in 2010.

And as far as physician owned hospitals, a lot of people think they are just fine, even though the physicians send them to the hospitals they own, not where the patient wants to be sent, you don't call that conflict of interest, or reeking of socialism? 

TG liked the post, how would you like to be sent to a hospital that is owned by your physician , and is the only place you are allowed to go?


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

Belfrybat said:


> I have a question about physician owned hospitals. I know the ones who accept Medicare cannot be built or expanded. That makes sense to me as it is due to the fact that historically those kinds of hospitals have overcharged and/or run many more tests than other hospitals.
> 
> My question is if a group of physicians wanted to build a hospital and not accept Medicare funds, are they also under the building/ expansion ban? If so, then I would not be for that part of the ACA. My personal take is if a group wants to do something that does not accept government funding then they should be able to do so.


They can. The only thing the bill says is that they cannot take Medicare. They are allowed to build anything they want, regardless of what other people have said here.


----------



## Cliff (Jun 30, 2007)

arabian knight said:


> I wonder how much it was that it took for Roberts to change his vote At The Last Moment?
> Must have been something mighty big for a Chief Justice to at the last possible moment change his vote.
> I wonder how much he got, or what he got in return.


Or what threats were made. My first thought when I heard the verdict.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Shygal said:


> Again, what does this have to do with the healthcare bill, which we are discussing? No one is discussing Obama's heritage, or socialist Europe or communism.


You would not be saying that if this was Bush we were talking about.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Belfrybat said:


> Nevada -- I think you are missing a primary consideration here. If you can't find a policy for less than 8% of your income, you will not have to pay a penalty. And unfortunately in both your and my cases (I think we make about the same amount), we won't get a tax rebate high enough to offset the cost. I don't know about you, but I pay around $1000.00 each year in taxes since the majority of my income is from early SS, so that is the maximum rebate I could get. With the full price of a policy being in the neighbourhood of $10,000.00, the tax rebate won't be enough to offset the price to get it below 8% of income.
> 
> There is no guarantee in ACA in finding a policy as cheap as 8% or less of a person's income, just that those who cannot afford one will not be penalized.


As is turns out, I may be getting free healthcare insurance. For those taking early Social Security between the ages of 62 and 65, income from Social Security is not counted as qualification for Medicaid. While that loophole might be plugged before January 1, 2014, as it stands today I'll qualify for free Medicaid coverage.

Obama Health Care Law Glitch Opens Medicaid To Millions Of Middle-Class Americans

This is getting better all the time. I want my Obamacare!


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

Interesting:

Scott Rasmussen of Rasmussen Reports says if it were not for the SCOTUS ruling Hail Mary, ObamaCare would be dead.

Rasmussen writes that ObamaCare is on life support, barely &#8220;alive for now&#8221;.

If Obama should win the re-elect? Rasmussen continues: &#8220;the law has a better chance of surviving, but it would still face an uphill struggle&#8221;. It would face a steady stream of legislative attacks through a second term, Rasmussen thinks. (Not to mention challenges of all sorts coming from the 57 states.)

Rasmussen reminds us:

Seventy-six percent think they should have the right to choose between expensive insurance plans with low deductibles and low-cost plans with higher deductibles. A similar majority believes everyone should be allowed to choose between expensive plans that cover just about every imaginable medical procedure and lower-cost plans that cover a smaller number of procedures. All such choices would be banned under the current health care law.

Americans want to be empowered as health care consumers. They don&#8217;t want the government telling them what to do.

http://rbo2.com/2012/06/29/lying-li...o-well-and-they-said-americans-would-love-it/


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Shygal said:


> TG liked the post, how would you like to be* sent to a hospital that is owned by your physician* , and is the only place you are allowed to go?


 I guess you may not know just what Doctor Owned Hospitals are all about.
They ARE the Best things to come along in a long long time for the health community.

That WAS the reasons I choose that type of place to get my knee replaced. I had the choice to go to a big name hospital to get it done.
When you see things like THIS that is why I went to a Doctor Owned Hospital.


> The Oakleaf Surgical Hospital of Eau Claire, Wisconsin, population 61,700, had its beginning in the 1990s when a group of independent surgeons reacted to the arrival at Eau Claire&#8217;s Sacred Heart Hospital of the Marshfield Clinic, a huge multi-specialty clinic with 52 locations in Wisconsin.How does a 15 bed physician-owned surgical hospital in fly-over country beat out every other hospital in the United States&#8212;3,414 of them&#8212;to be ranked number one in patient satisfaction?





> Why a physician-owned hospital? Drawbert, who is also board chairman, says, &#8220;If I were a physician contemplating this I would ask, &#8216;What is the advantage?&#8217; The answer is that you can control the quality of care, you can control the quality of staff. You can control your environment&#8212;the way things flow. Any one of us who has worked in a big hospital knows that there you are thrown in with some staff members who care and with some who do not. Things can run incredibly slowly. The environment may not be great but you have no chance to improve it. Here [in your own hospital] you can completely change the environment to your liking. That to me is the best thing that a place like this has to offer.&#8221;


[General Spine:] Best Orthopedic Hospital in U.S.?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Shygal said:


> Again, what does this have to do with the healthcare bill, which we are discussing? No one is discussing Obama's heritage, or socialist Europe or communism.


Most folks are concerned w/direction the coutry goes in. Most folks do not want socialist and/or communist infuence in our government, influencing laws. If you cannot figure that out, I'm sorry. Most of the country sees what is happening in europe b/c of their socialistic gov'ts.

Some here seem to think Romney cannot spend his own money w/o non-conservatives having a fit. For instance, someone posted -in another section-that we probably had no idea Romney has so much $$$ & he deducted 77K from his income tax for horseback riding.

This was not illegal BTW, just want to point that out. Since many things this admin has done are not legal.

So, I'm wondering why thie concern w/what Romney does w/his $$$ yet no concern about what this admin does w/OUR MONEY? I.e., this atrocious largest tax in our history. Like all the billions down the drain on so called 'green' co. that belong to "D" contributors, that went bankrupt, losing many jobs.

No one in favor of the huge tax seems to care. 
Anyone know the whole story of the horseback riding? Its a known form of therapy for MS. But some on the left-AND the biased left-leaning media-want folks to believe this is just horseplay or something, I guess. 
Some make fun of Ann Romney for spening her own $$ on a $1000 blouse but its ok for our 1st lady to spend 10 million on lavish vacatons.

There is a double standard that many who want this huge tax seem to adhere to.

Romney made his own $$. All the $$ he inherited from his father he GAVE AWAY to charity.

Never ceases to amaze me that the Kenedys are noble b/c w.their $$$, Kerry, Pelosi, etc but when a "R" makes it himself its a horror.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

Zilli said:


> I can read but I can't post.
> 
> Probably just as well, really.


Shygal is right. GC isn't good for the soul. Snide, snarky comments in the guise of "honesty." 

I would venture to guess the VAST majority of HT members don't post there.


----------



## Witterbound (Sep 4, 2007)

What will happen next, that we will all be able to see, is that in about 12 months health insurance exchanges will start to be rolled out. There will be news releases, etc., telling folks about them. If you have health insurance through medicare or your employer, you can just igore all of this. If you're curouis or you want to look at your options, you'll be able to log onto these exchanges through your computer. You'll enter your personal information, and out will pop the various insurance options you qualify for. You can enroll online, or in many states you can go to an insurance agent to enroll if you want to.


----------



## sidepasser (May 10, 2002)

I went to a physician owned hospital when I was thrown from my horse and badly hurt. I could have gone to a non-profit hospital, a public hospital or an othropedic hospital that was owned by my physician. I CHOSE to go to the orthropedic hospital because the quality of care was superb and because it was an orthopedic hospital, they specialized in my type of injury.

I guess folks will be glad for all the jobs that are lost due to the privately held physician owned hospitals that will not expand or be built. Just think how many people will not be hired to fill those new positions.

Here's a report done in 2010 by two senators who happen to be doctors:

http://barrasso.senate.gov/public/_files/FinalGrim.pdf

Of course none of that will likely happen, will it?


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

arabian knight said:


> You would not be saying that if this was Bush we were talking about.


If you think I give one whoop or the other about George Bush, you would be sadly mistaken. I don't care about George Bush, I don't care about Obamas heritage, I don't care about what Bush did or didn't do, I don't care if he started the recession or didn't start it, I dont care about George Bush.....yeesh. You really do need to get out of General Chat, seriously.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

> Why do think Obama has always called this bill a Mandate NOT a TAX???


Guys, it doesn't matter WHAT Obama called it. It's money that people are going to have to pay in order to support some sort of a program. 
To me, that's a tax. 

Everyone is up in arms with "Well that's not what he said...!" Well _duh_. He's a politician. He's going to put everything in the best light possible. 
But like I said about 37 pages ago, if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it's probably a TAX. 

C'mon people... 
You're frustrated because folks aren't digging for the stuff hidden in plain sight (ie, what's "wrong" with this law), but then you're mad because you don't want to dig for the stuff that's hidden in plain sight. (ie, that a mandate is, and always has been, a tax) :stars:


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

arabian knight said:


> I guess you may not know just what Doctor Owned Hospitals are all about.
> They ARE the Best things to come along in a long long time for the health community.
> 
> That WAS the reasons I choose that type of place to get my knee replaced. I had the choice to go to a big name hospital to get it done.
> When you see things like THIS that is why I went to a Doctor Owned Hospital.


Well I'm glad I helped pay for that for you.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Witterbound said:


> If you're curouis or you want to look at your options, you'll be able to log onto these exchanges through your computer.


Not much there yet.

Welcome to Silver State Health Insurance Exchange


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

Tricky Grama said:


> When did they have the bully pulpit?


Seriously??? :shocked:


*'01-07*!! Six years!!
Republicans had control of the House, the Senate AND the presidency and didn't do diddley squat about the health care crisis.

The Democrats had it for TWO and got more done in that time that the Republicans did with _three times_ that much...


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

Tricky Grama said:


> socialist...... communist......... europe........... socialistic gov'ts.
> 
> 
> non-conservatives having a fit.
> ...


Good job, you managed to hit all the buzzwords in one post.

Did you seriously bring up the Kennedys and Kerry? I mean, really? 

Again, this is a discussion about the health care bill, as much as you are continuing to try to turn it into something else, this is not GC and your cronies have deserted you. 
Seriously, you need to get out of GC too. You are still saying the same things you said two years ago, over and over.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Witterbound said:


> *What will happen next, that we will all be able to see, is that in about 12 months health insurance exchanges will start to be rolled out*. There will be news releases, etc., telling folks about them. If you have health insurance through medicare or your employer, you can just igore all of this. If you're curouis or you want to look at your options, you'll be able to log onto these exchanges through your computer. You'll enter your personal information, and out will pop the various insurance options you qualify for. You can enroll online, or in many states you can go to an insurance agent to enroll if you want to.


And how many know that to be 100% rolled out won;t take place until 2020~!!!
Many things can take place, many things. Between now and then. ANd many hidden things that nobody knows, or even Wants to know about. Over that length of time.
All those nice hidden TAX raises will be coming to the light of day, then some will be crying in their beer over that.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> And how many know that to be 100% rolled out won;t take place until 2020~!!!
> Many things can take place, many things. Between now and then.


I don't think there is a lot that can be done about the healthcare law, even if Romney wins the presidency. To repeal the healthcare law republicans need a majority in both the house and senate, and also a president who won't veto the repeal. A republican majority in the senate for 2013 is not a political reality.


----------



## Zilli (Apr 1, 2012)

Tricky Grama said:


> Anyone know the whole story of the horseback riding? Its a known form of therapy for MS. But some on the left-AND the biased left-leaning media-want folks to believe this is just horseplay or something, I guess.


LOLOL

And how is preparing a horse for the Olympics (trainers, groomers, the one who actually _rides_ the horse, vets, travel, etc.) "therapeutic" for Mrs. Romney's MS?

How gullible can people be?

It's not like Mrs. Romney is riding the horse herself in the Olympics! They have a PAID rider.

$77,000 a year to keep a horse for Mrs. Romney to supposedly "ride" because it's "therapeutic?" And then writing it off? Sure, it may be legal (just like keeping your money hidden in offshore accounts is) but does it make it right?

I suspect there are people on this board who want to eliminate things like the child care credits for lower income families but see nothing wrong with the Romneys writing off $77,000 for a horse I'll bet is strictly for competition and status and that she probably never even rides herself.

"Therapeutic," my patootie.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Shygal said:


> Well I'm glad I helped pay for that for you.


I beg your pardon. I have Humana which is a Private insurance company and my knee replacement was NOT billed to Medicare.~!!


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Zilli said:


> $77,000 a year to keep a horse for Mrs. Romney to supposedly "ride" because it's "therapeutic?" And then writing it off? Sure, it may be legal (just like keeping your money hidden in offshore accounts is) but does it make it right?


Actually, the investment that Romney has made into dressage is more like $500,000. Personally I think that's great. I'm happy that his wife is getting the therapy she needs, and even happier if it's effective. But I don't think this is going to make any political points for Romney. Dressage horse investment projects the wrong image for a depression-era candidate.


----------



## Zilli (Apr 1, 2012)

Nevada said:


> Actually, the investment that Romney has made into dressage is more like $500,000. Personally I think that's great. I'm happy that his wife is getting the therapy she needs, and even happier if it's effective. But I don't think this is going to make any political points for Romney. Dressage horse investment projects the wrong image for a depression-era candidate.


And I have no problems with Mrs. Romney having a "therapy" horse, either. Seriously, good for her. If it helps her, more power to her. Too bad that having a $500,000 "therapy" horse isn't an option for everyone with MS.

What I do have problems with are people who are so gullible as to believe that that is ALL this horse is. And the hypocrisy of, "well, if Romney does it, it's A-ok," but if Joe Blow down the street gets a tax refund for having kids that he is working to support, then he's a piece of pooh.

I wonder how often Mrs. Romney actually rides that particular horse. Seems to me that if something is going to be used for "therapy," that would mean a regular and consistent program of use. Which might be kind of hard to do when the horse is being trained for Olympics competition.


----------



## Belfrybat (Feb 21, 2003)

I thought this was a pretty good, unbiased (as much as is possible) view of the current health care "discussion":

The Associated Press: FACT CHECK: On keeping your current health plan

FACT CHECK: On keeping your current health plan
_By CALVIN WOODWARD, Associated Press â 51 minutes ago 
WASHINGTON (AP) â In promoting the health care law, President Barack Obama is repeating his persistent and unsubstantiated assurance that Americans who like their health insurance can simply keep it. Republican rival Mitt Romney says quite the opposite, but his doomsday scenario is a stretch.

After the Supreme Court upheld the law last week, Obama stepped forward to tell Americans what good will come from it. Romney was quick to lay out the harm. But some of the evidence they gave to the court of public opinion was suspect.

A look at their claims and how they compare with the facts:_

Click on the link above if you are interested in reading both sides of the story.


----------



## Classof66 (Jul 9, 2011)

Aren't the Cataract Clinics doctor owned? They receive Medicaid and Medicare and some have gorgeous facilities. And they advertise and compete like crazy.

My s/o had both eyes done at an outpatient surgical center, I would assume is privately owned. Medicare paid for it.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Zilli said:


> I wonder how often Mrs. Romney actually rides that particular horse. Seems to me that if something is going to be used for "therapy," that would mean a regular and consistent program of use. Which might be kind of hard to do when the horse is being trained for Olympics competition.


I don't believe that this is intended to be that kind of therapy. As I understand it, she has a great deal of interest in dressage, so administrating the effort is something she enjoys doing. That gives her a purpose for getting up in the morning.

While purpose-in-life is critical to a patent's well-bring, I don't think this qualifies as anything of the level of physical therapy. I don't know if a hobby like that is deductible as a medical expense.


----------



## Zilli (Apr 1, 2012)

Nevada said:


> I don't believe that this is intended to be that kind of therapy. As I understand it, she has a great deal of interest in dressage, so administrating the effort is something she enjoys doing. That gives her a purpose for getting up in the morning.
> 
> While purpose-in-life is critical to a patent's well-bring, I don't think this qualifies as anything of the level of physical therapy. I don't know if a hobby like that is deductible as a medical expense.


I was under the impression that it _is_ the riding part of it that is therapeutic and that it's the movements of the dressage horse in particular that helps her.

I'll have to see if I can find out some more about it later.


----------



## fordy (Sep 13, 2003)

gapeach said:


> Interesting:
> 
> Scott Rasmussen of Rasmussen Reports says if it were not for the SCOTUS ruling Hail Mary, ObamaCare would be dead.
> 
> ...



.................57 States............??:bash:


----------



## Classof66 (Jul 9, 2011)

A few minutes ago, they were discussing on the radio about the misuse and high cost of ambulances. ( This is a Chicago station). An ambulance representative said they are not allowed to refuse a transport. They put their lives on the line many times. People call them for very mundane things, like needing a bandaid, and also make up a story when they just need a "ride."

I'm in a rural area, and can remember before we had local ambulance service, ours is thru our fire department. My dad needed and used it many times. I'm sure they saved his life several times.

I used to listen to the police scanner and I remember a city emergency call for a stuck earring. Maybe everyone should be charged a flat fee in advance for ambulance service and be able to draw against it. When it's gone, it's gone. Take the guys TV and tow his car to the firehouse.

Another bit of drivel here, when I was in college English we had to write our version of A Modest Purposal. I suggested vending machine medical care. That was in 1965. It was satire then, but with home blood pressure monitors, home pregnancy tests, OTC Monistat, home oxygen and diabetic testing, a lot of this has has come true. 

I like my doctor and my hospital. I like my president too, and also both of my senators. I think we should work together on this.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Shygal said:


> No, it does not. I posted section 6001 right here. All it says is that they may not accept medicare if they are built after some date in 2010.
> 
> And as far as physician owned hospitals, a lot of people think they are just fine, even though the physicians send them to the hospitals they own, not where the patient wants to be sent, you don't call that conflict of interest, or reeking of socialism?
> 
> TG liked the post, how would you like to be sent to a hospital that is owned by your physician , and is the only place you are allowed to go?


A few things...

1. You work in a non-profit, not a public hospital. As such, I suspect your hospital has a high percentage of patients with Medicare. Just doing some calculations off the top of my head, I suspect your patient load is about 30% Medicare. Of that 30%, do they generate about 40 or 50% of your cash flow?

Could your hospital survive in its current form without Medicare? Could your hospital survive at all?

I assume you know the cost centers and the profit centers within your own hospital. Of one of those profit centers, Medicare will make a huge difference in the bottom line...by your reasoning, people can and possible should build hospitals, even as the government changes the rules and takes away major sources of revenue.

I don't live in Bizarro World. In my world, people will not build hospitals if the hospital cannot pay for itself. I would submit that by cutting off the Medicare reimbursement to any new physician-owned hospitals, the government has placed an effective moratorium upon their construction.

2. As with any hospital, take a look at the quality statistics and what a hospital does well. I find many physician-owned hospitals deliver outstanding quality, as evidenced by their patient satisfaction surveys and their mortality rates as compared to other hospitals.

Of course, there can be abuse. But in a physician-owned hospital, the physicians have the most to win or lose. And since the physician is the driving impetus of quality treatment, I think they have the most to gain by doing a good job.

In trems of efficiency and patient satisfaction, the best hospital around here is physician-owned.

3. Patients are usually given a choice in hospitals. If they wish to go to a certain facility, they have that option, as long as their physician has privledges.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Zilli said:


> And I have no problems with Mrs. Romney having a "therapy" horse, either. Seriously, good for her. If it helps her, more power to her. Too bad that having a $500,000 "therapy" horse isn't an option for everyone with MS.
> 
> What I do have problems with are people who are so gullible as to believe that that is ALL this horse is. And the hypocrisy of, "well, if Romney does it, it's A-ok," but if Joe Blow down the street gets a tax refund for having kids that he is working to support, then he's a piece of pooh.
> 
> I wonder how often Mrs. Romney actually rides that particular horse. Seems to me that if something is going to be used for "therapy," that would mean a regular and consistent program of use. Which might be kind of hard to do when the horse is being trained for Olympics competition.


Be careful, your envy is showing.

As someone who scrabbled up the hard way and now makes six figures (not that that's what it used to be), I really resent cheap shots like the above.

If something is legal in the tax code, I make every effort to use it to my advantage. You may not like the way Romney made his money, but he did it legally and I applaud him for it, just as I applaud Obama for his financial success. I believe either man should have the same opportunities to make and conserve wealth as long as they adhere to the laws and rules in place.

As for health care, the rich among us are going to receive better care, and I don't care if you examine that social class within the old Soviet Union or in Communist China. To wish or think otherwise is an exercise in mental folly and futility.


----------



## Zilli (Apr 1, 2012)

Jolly said:


> Be careful, your envy is showing.


Like clockwork........LOL


----------



## Witterbound (Sep 4, 2007)

Physician owned hospitals are profitable because they don't have to accept indigent care -- nonpaying folks without health insurance or the ability to pay. We, as a society, have decided that we will not let people die if the go to the Emergency Room without the ability to pay. If they can't pay, the rest of us have to pay their bill because the Hospital has to increase the fees it charges its paying customers. If all we had were physician owned hospitals, folks without health insurance or the ability to pay would die because they couldn't get treatment.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Jolly said:


> Be careful, your envy is showing.


Well, you must have known that Romney was going to have political problems with his wealth when he decides to run. This is a terrible recession and a lot of Americans are hurting right now. Romney needs to convince Americans that he understands & emphasizes with our problems. Spending $500,000 on European dressage isn't the way to do that.


----------



## Zilli (Apr 1, 2012)

Nevada said:


> Well, you must have known that Romney was going to have political problems with his wealth when he decides to run. This is a terrible recession and a lot of Americans are hurting right now. Romney needs to convince Americans that he understands & emphasizes with our problems. Spending $500,000 on European dressage isn't the way to do that.


I always find it amusing that any criticism of Romney automatically translates into "envy." LOL


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Witterbound said:


> Physician owned hospitals are profitable because they don't have to accept indigent care -- nonpaying folks without health insurance or the ability to pay. We, as a society, have decided that we will not let people die if the go to the Emergency Room without the ability to pay. If they can't pay, the rest of us have to pay their bill because the Hospital has to increase the fees it charges its paying customers. If all we had were physician owned hospitals, folks without health insurance or the ability to pay would die because they couldn't get treatment.


A very good post!

No emergency room, no medicaid. Therefore is you want to build a specialized hospital don't build it unless it can pay the bills just doing the operations it was built for. You would think that with no emergency room the costs of the specialized surgery would go down.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

ErinP said:


> Seriously??? :shocked:
> 
> 
> *'01-07*!! Six years!!
> ...


If you think something a sluggish as congress could do anythiong but take care of the country after sept 11th I have KS oceanfront land to sell ya.
Really. All that could happen was damage control over 9/11. 

The "Ds" could do nothing in 2 yrs except lie & bribe their own party members to accept this TAX. They shoulda been working on the economy if they gave a rats behind for the country.

As far as what the "Ds" just did, all this huge TAX was totally against what the majority in the country wanted. You & some others here may love it 'cause you're socialist leaning. But did you know only 20% of the country is LIBERAL? Those in their own little lib world don't realize that. I'm not being snarky, just realistic.
This was a huge LIE perpetrated on MANY of the "Ds" who voted for it! It did not even originate in the proper spot in congress!! 
I know, I know, you guys who want this care NOTHING about the rule of law.

This TAX will not stand. It was wrong from the beginning. Like Justice Roberts said: "Not constitutional under the Commerce Clause". 
Tell me ya'll care.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Zilli said:


> I always find it amusing that any criticism of Romney automatically translates into "envy." LOL


It's just a political reality.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I don't think there is a lot that can be done about the healthcare law, even if Romney wins the presidency. To repeal the healthcare law republicans need a majority in both the house and senate, and also a president who won't veto the repeal. A republican majority in the senate for 2013 is not a political reality.


It certainly is & this TAX will be either repealed or rendered useless. Only need 51 votes in the senate & there's some "Ds" who are NOT for this TAX!


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Zilli said:


> LOLOL
> 
> And how is preparing a horse for the Olympics (trainers, groomers, the one who actually _rides_ the horse, vets, travel, etc.) "therapeutic" for Mrs. Romney's MS?
> 
> ...


I'm sorry, tried to educate about MS. Do you honestly believe its not therapeutic? Educate yourself on it, please.
Do you honestly believe that Rommy doesn't pay his share of income tax?

You also should find out about Romney & the olympics. And other yrs he's spent w/o pay for the good of the country.

Who's lying about what conservatives feel aobut child care credits? Do you enjoy insults?


----------



## fordy (Sep 13, 2003)

.................The more I try and digest all the info being postulated throughout this thread I realize that the process and procedure and gnashing of our political teeth , WITHOUT Killing each other is what makes America , Great ! Not many countries in today's world where so many strongly held opinions can be exchanged without a civil war being initiated and pursued with great loss of life . , fordy:cowboy:


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I don't believe that this is intended to be that kind of therapy. As I understand it, she has a great deal of interest in dressage, so administrating the effort is something she enjoys doing. That gives her a purpose for getting up in the morning.
> 
> While purpose-in-life is critical to a patent's well-bring, I don't think this qualifies as anything of the level of physical therapy. I don't know if a hobby like that is deductible as a medical expense.


It isn't PT. It is a form of therapy for MS. Something about the movement of the horse while riding. Found this out maybe...15- 20 yrs ago.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Well, you must have known that Romney was going to have political problems with his wealth when he decides to run. This is a terrible recession and a lot of Americans are hurting right now. Romney needs to convince Americans that he understands & emphasizes with our problems. Spending $500,000 on European dressage isn't the way to do that.


That's all ya got. Someone who made their money vs Kennedys or Kerry. He'll win. He's an American & loves the country. Ann has always been proud of our country. He's accomplished, this will not be OJT.


----------



## Zilli (Apr 1, 2012)

Tricky Grama said:


> It isn't PT. It is a form of therapy for MS. Something about the movement of the horse while riding. Found this out maybe...15- 20 yrs ago.


So that means Mrs. Romney will be the one riding the horse in the Olympics?

Kewl! :rock:


----------



## solidwoods (Dec 23, 2005)

The ACA was never about making health care more affordable. It is another piece of Progressives plan for America. The plan is described in the book Rules for radicals. Basically load a country with debt and when it financially collapses the government declares a national emergency and seizes assets and power to redistribute the wealth. That's why Obama has spent like a madman, to bankrupt America.
This is the dream of Progressives. It's a power grab concept.
Obama, Pelosi, Clinton and some Congressmen are Progressives.
The ACA will bankrupt America.
Progressives are Socialists with a paint job.
jim


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Nevada said:


> Well, you must have known that Romney was going to have political problems with his wealth when he decides to run. This is a terrible recession and a lot of Americans are hurting right now. Romney needs to convince Americans that he understands & emphasizes with our problems. Spending $500,000 on European dressage isn't the way to do that.


Some people have problems with wealth, I don't. Not as long as the money was made honestly and above-board.

I understand the political implications you refer to, but I'm hoping Romney's business experience can trump those politics in the swing voters. I don't much worry about the Far Left, as there is nothing any in the political Middle or Right of Center can do to make them happy.

I do find they are the most fascist of the citizenry, even as we used to apply that tag to the Far Right.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Tricky Grama said:


> It certainly is & this TAX will be either repealed or rendered useless. Only need 51 votes in the senate & there's some "Ds" who are NOT for this TAX!


Get serious. Even if republicans are able to win a majority this fall, democrats will undoubtedly filibuster any healthcare repeal bill. It will never make it through the senate.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Jolly said:


> Some people have problems with wealth, I don't. Not as long as the money was made honestly and above-board.


That's not the question. The question is whether a man worth $250 million can understand and empathize with the problems of the working class. They wonder if he even cares.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Interesting:

World Hospitals' ranking on the Web: World Ranking


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Nevada said:


> That's not the question. The question is whether a man worth $250 million can understand and empathize with the problems of the working class. They wonder if he even cares.


Ask if any national politician isnt a billionaire or a multimillionaire right now, or at least a paultry mere millionaire. I dont think anybody worth over million dollars can represent me adequately. But there arent any low buck politicians. If they are worth less than million when elected, they sure dont remain that way for long...... And they have to sell their soul to get elected since it takes millions to get elected dog catcher anymore.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Nevada said:


> Get serious. Even if republicans are able to win a majority this fall, democrats will undoubtedly filibuster any healthcare repeal bill. It will never make it through the senate.


Since the ACA mandate has been ruled a taxing issue, I don't think it can be successfully filibustered due to the cloture rules.


----------



## Lizza (Nov 30, 2005)

Jolly said:


> Interesting:
> 
> World Hospitals' ranking on the Web: World Ranking


Ok, I have totally lost track of this thread but this is funny. Did you not read what you were posting......they were ranking access to publications! NOT ranking the hospital 

<<The original aim of the Ranking was to promote Web publication, not to rank institutions. Supporting Open Access initiatives, electronic access to scientific publications and to other academic material are our primary targets.>>

http://hospitals.webometrics.info/about_rank.html


----------



## Ambereyes (Sep 6, 2004)

Nevada said:


> Well, you must have known that Romney was going to have political problems with his wealth when he decides to run. This is a terrible recession and a lot of Americans are hurting right now. Romney needs to convince Americans that he understands & emphasizes with our problems. Spending $500,000 on European dressage isn't the way to do that.


That may be a perception problem with some people, but there are comparisons to the amount the Obama's spend on their vacations. The thing is both are not poor, the election as usual will depend on the propaganda from both sides.


----------



## notasnowballs (Dec 28, 2010)

Shygal said:


> It certainly seems you don't mind the government giving you money for having a child, giving your child medical care, and your disability check. :shrug:
> 
> If it weren't for the government, I would say you would be in a WHOLE lot of risk.
> 
> This is what I don't get. People taking from the government then complaining when they might have to pay for something from the government. :stars:


If there were any other way, I would gladly take it. As it sits now, I am working on a solution to get off that system now and have been for years. Not everyone is able to work a job that pays the bills, or to do so consisently. Do I MIND getting disability? Heck, ya! I hate it! It takes away my independence and sense of self worth. But I also mind that my daughter would go without because of my pride. Things will be a whole heckuva a lot different as soon as she is out of the house. 

I don't mind going without for what I believe in, but I would never ask a child to do that. But hey, go ahead and judge me before you walk a mile in my shoes. It makes you feel good, doesn't it? 

Sigh... someone asked for an opinion, we all gave it. Now it's started a judging free for all. I'm out. There are more important things to do than have people sit behind a computer screen and throw stones at me. 

Obamacare still SUCKS. Because I am not given the CHOICE to NOT TAKE IT. And by the way, my family DOES pay taxes. So don't make it sound like we're a bunch of freeloaders off the government. Again, a mile in my shoes. 

Real mature to have personal attacks on an issue that is brought up as a nonpersonal discussion.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

painterswife said:


> A very good post!
> 
> No emergency room, *no medicaid.* Therefore is you want to build a specialized hospital don't build it unless it can pay the bills just doing the operations it was built for. You would think that with no emergency room the costs of the specialized surgery would go down.


I wouldn't be so Quick to say something like that if I was you.
Yes they DO accept Medicaid As a Supplemental Insurance coverage. So that the Primary one takes most of the bill and Medicaid takes care of the Co-Pay that is left.
No they won't take Exclusively Medicaid folks but that is what a regular hospital is for. These are NOT to do away with any Primary hospitals it is to be used as a Choice, A Second Place a ALternative to a "Hospital"
Now when the one I posted about gets into their new expanded place they will have a doctor on the premises 24/7 for emergency use.
NOT A ER PLACE. That is for Other places.


----------



## Lizza (Nov 30, 2005)

Ambereyes said:


> That may be a perception problem with some people, but there are comparisons to the amount the Obama's spend on their vacations. The thing is both are not poor, the election as usual will depend on the propaganda from both sides.


I'm not sure how any of us can stomach voting anymore for the two main candidates. It's too bad they don't have "none of the above" on the voting card (a case can be made that this is Ron Paul or whoever is on the Green Party). I have always fallen into the crowd that feels like I must pick from the two main but usually have to have a drink before I vote and have to shower afterwards. I was one that rushed out at 18 to turn in my voter registration, every year I get less and less inclined to vote at all.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

morningstar said:


> Ok, I have totally lost track of this thread but this is funny. Did you not read what you were posting......they were ranking access to publications! NOT ranking the hospital
> 
> <<The original aim of the Ranking was to promote Web publication, not to rank institutions. Supporting Open Access initiatives, electronic access to scientific publications and to other academic material are our primary targets.>>
> 
> World Hospitals' ranking on the Web: About the Ranking


Read deeper and understand. An aspect of quality is scientific publication. Publication that is subject to peer review. These rankings try to include as much of the publishing process as possible.

Now, are you saying that generated scientific data, subject to peer review, is not an indicator of quality?


----------



## Lizza (Nov 30, 2005)

_deleted_


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Jolly said:


> Interesting:
> 
> World Hospitals' ranking on the Web: World Ranking


That ranking doesn't rate according to patient care, it only takes into account the number technical papers published by hospitals.


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

notasnowballs said:


> If there were any other way, I would gladly take it. As it sits now, I am working on a solution to get off that system now and have been for years. Not everyone is able to work a job that pays the bills, or to do so consisently. Do I MIND getting disability? Heck, ya! I hate it! It takes away my independence and sense of self worth. But I also mind that my daughter would go without because of my pride. Things will be a whole heckuva a lot different as soon as she is out of the house.
> 
> I don't mind going without for what I believe in, but I would never ask a child to do that. But hey, go ahead and judge me before you walk a mile in my shoes. It makes you feel good, doesn't it?
> 
> ...


 Dont be discouraged and please dont stop posting. Some posters just get frustrated or dont realize how nasty they come across; I doubt they are like that in real life.

In looking at the various posts I find myself agreeing with some points from both sides but my impression is that in general (not all) it seems like financially or professionally successful people are less in favor of ACA than those who are less successful. I dont just mean that from the comment on this board either as it seems that the folks without are the most vocal proponents and those who already have good insurance or pay their own costs are the most vocally opposed. 

Also we all take something from the government but so much that used to be private domain now belongs to or is intruded in by the government that I think some of the opposition to Obamacare isnt really about the components of the bill, its more a visceral opposition to and fear of ever more federal expansion into our lives.

Thoughts?


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

Tricky Grama said:


> Really. All that could happen was damage control over 9/11.


For SIX YEARS? You're right. That's pretty sluggish. 



> I know, I know, you guys who want this care NOTHING about the rule of law.


Ummm....Unless you know something the Supreme Court doesn't, I'm thinkin' the "rule of law" has been decided. :shrug:


----------



## TNnative (May 23, 2004)

morningstar said:


> I'm not sure how any of us can stomach voting anymore for the two main candidates. It's too bad they don't have "none of the above" on the voting card (a case can be made that this is Ron Paul or whoever is on the Green Party). I have always fallen into the crowd that feels like I must pick from the two main but usually have to have a drink before I vote and have to shower afterwards. I was one that rushed out at 18 to turn in my voter registration, every year I get less and less inclined to vote at all.


Me too!


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

notasnowballs said:


> If there were any other way, I would gladly take it. As it sits now, I am working on a solution to get off that system now and have been for years. Not everyone is able to work a job that pays the bills, or to do so consisently. Do I MIND getting disability? Heck, ya! I hate it! It takes away my independence and sense of self worth. But I also mind that my daughter would go without because of my pride. Things will be a whole heckuva a lot different as soon as she is out of the house.
> 
> I don't mind going without for what I believe in, but I would never ask a child to do that. But hey, go ahead and judge me before you walk a mile in my shoes. It makes you feel good, doesn't it?
> 
> ...


I think you're misunderstanding Shygal's point. 

The way I'm reading it, she was simply pointing out that the government is what kept/keeps you from being in a world of hurt. But that it's odd that instead of being appreciative that such a safety net exists when people need it, you instead seem to be saying it's OK for you, but not for others. 

That's not only unfair, but it DOES seem like a bit of a double standard...


----------



## Classof66 (Jul 9, 2011)

The last I heard, Roseanne Barr was the Green Party candidate. No kidding.


----------



## belladulcinea (Jun 21, 2006)

For me it's the expansion of government into our lives. In the 40 years dh and I've been married it seems like the stranglehold of the government has expanded to the point that just walking out of our home we can be breaking laws we've never heard of. Local, state and federal governments are way too intrusive, the regulations have been choking the life out of businesses and now there are EPA rulings shutting down and killing the livelyhoods of so many hard working people.

As for the differences between Romney and Obama, I look back to the depression and see that one of the richest men in America was elected 4 times to the presidency. Other's wealth doesn't bother me, it's those who wish to take what we have in order to make themselves more comfortable that bother me. 45% pay no taxes yet receive more money in their tax returns than we pay. We can't afford this type of system. 

I want the government out my personal life! I have no problem paying taxes to "promote the general welfare" like roads, the military, infrastructure and those types of things. Things that everyone benefits from, not taking from those who work and contribute to give to others. The CCC and the WPA worked because men and women wanted to work to contribute to their families, not just take a handout. And will note the difference between the disabled and the able bodied, but I know a lot of disabled people receiving benefits that are stretching the limits of their credibility. I also have personal knowledge of families whose sole provider would definitely qualify for disability but refuse it.


----------



## Belfrybat (Feb 21, 2003)

OK, I'm going to try this again in light you have made some responses, but not to my post: 



> Originally Posted by notasnowballs
> What I want to know is... say for instance as a family I am paying $2080 in a fine on my IRS taxes at the end of the year because I didn't get the mandatory health insurance. Now if my income was 12k or so (typical for us) and I just couldn't afford it, that would likely happen. It is also likely that for one child, I would get Earned Income Credit for about $1200, I think. Approximately. So that leaves me in the red for my taxes, OWING, because of this stupid fine. So if I consistently keep "owing" taxes every year due to not enough income to purchase this mandatory insurance, will my assets be seized by the IRS? What will the recourse be?


Your post makes absolutely no sense at all. The fine (penalty) you quote ($2080.00) would apply to someone making between $90,000.00 - $150,000. a year. But then you go on and say you make $12,000.00. Which would mean you wouldn't be fined for not getting a policy. But then you go on and say you get disability and medicare and the child earned income credit, and your child is covered under CHIP. 

So which one is it? Are you making $100,000 +/- a year and therefore subject to the penalty if you don't buy insurance (which would be affordable in that income range) or $12,000.00 along with the other state and federal benefits you meantioned, which would mean you would not be subject to buying insurance? Either way, your complaints are moot -- if you are in the higher income bracket, just buy the insurance to protect you and your family. If in the lower income bracket, then you are already receiving a lot of public assistance so do not need to worry about the ACA.

If you really want to know the facts, put your income into the form on this link: Health Reform Subsidy Calculator - Kaiser Health Reform. Hopefully that will settle your fears.


----------



## Belfrybat (Feb 21, 2003)

notasnowballs said:


> Sigh... someone asked for an opinion, we all gave it. Now it's started a judging free for all. I'm out. There are more important things to do than have people sit behind a computer screen and throw stones at me.
> 
> *Obamacare still SUCKS. Because I am not given the CHOICE to NOT TAKE IT*. And by the way, my family DOES pay taxes. So don't make it sound like we're a bunch of freeloaders off the government. Again, a mile in my shoes.
> 
> Real mature to have personal attacks on an issue that is brought up as a nonpersonal discussion.


Nobody is throwing stones as far a I can see. You are receiving federal and state help because you need it. So why all the hostility towards the very entity that is helping you? Plus your statement about having to pay $2000+ in a fine because you don't buy insurance is ludicrious if you only make $12,000. Do some homework before you start posting -- and doesn't apply to just you, but everyone who is posting half-truths or downright lies without checking the facts.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

morningstar said:


> Are you trying to be funny or serious? I swear I can not tell!
> 
> This ranking is on WEB presence! Not on publications they wrote! I hope you aren't serious because it makes every single thing you have said irrelevant since you can't read a basic informational page. Sorry to be so blunt but read the page.


Read deeper. I am serious. It's a brave new world out there.

If I do not misunderstand, the rankings are about web presence, but also include other published articles in ejournals and repositories.

For example, here's what I have electronic access to, under the letter N:


Nahrung (continues as Molecular Nutrition & Food Research), 1996 to June 2004 

NanoBiotechnology, March 2005 to December 2009 

Nanoethics, March 2007 to present 

NASN Newsletter (continues as NASN School Nurse), January 2001 to July 2008 

NASN School Nurse (continues NASN Newsletter), September 2008 to present 

Nation's Health, January 1992 to present 

National Health Statistics Reports, June 2008 to present (continues Advance Data from Vital & Health Statistics)

National Strength and Conditioning Association Journal (continues National Strength Coaches Association Journal and continues as Strength and Conditioning ), February 1983 to December 1993 

National Strength Coaches Association Journal (continues as National Strength and Conditioning Association Journal ), February 1979 to December 1982 

National Vital Statistics Reports, January 1998 to present 

Natural Computing, March 2002 to present 

Natural Hazards, January 1997 to present 

Natural Resource Modeling, 1999 to present 

Nature, January 1987 to present 

Nature Biotechnology (continues Bio/Technology ), March 1996 to present 

Nature Cell Biology, May 1999 to present 

Nature Chemistry, April 2009 to present 

Nature Clinical Practice Cardiovascular Medicine (continues as Nature Reviews Cardiology ), November 2004 to March 2009 

Nature Clinical Practice Endocrinology & Metabolism (continues as Nature Reviews Endocrinology ), November 2005 to March 2009 

Nature Clinical Practice Gastroenterology & Hepatology (continues as Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology ), November 2004 to March 2009 

Nature Clinical Practice Nephrology (continues as Nature Reviews Nephrology ), November 2005 to March 2009 

Nature Clinical Practice Neurology (continues as Nature Reviews Neurology ), November 2005 to March 2009 

Nature Clinical Practice Oncology (continues as Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology ), November 2004 to March 2009 

Nature Clinical Practice Rheumatology (continues as Nature Reviews Rheumatology ), November 2005 to March 2009 

Nature Clinical Practice Urology (continues as Nature Reviews Urology ), November 2004 to March 2009 

Nature Genetics, April 1992 to present 

Nature Immunology, July 2000 to present 

Nature Materials, September 2002 to present 

Nature Medicine, January 1995 to present 

Nature Methods, January 2007 to present 

Nature Neuroscience, May 1998 to present 

Nature Reviews Cancer, October 2001 to present 

Nature Reviews Cardiology (continues Nature Clinical Practice Cardiovascular Medicine ), April 2009 to present 

Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology (continues Nature Clinical Practice Oncology ), April 2009 to present 

Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, January 2002 to present 

Nature Reviews Endocrinology (continues Nature Clinical Practice Endocrinology & Metabolism ), April 2009 to present 

Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology (continues Nature Clinical Practice Gastroenterology & Hepatology ), April 2009 to present 

Nature Reviews Genetics, October 2000 to present 

Nature Reviews Immunology, October 2001 to present 

Nature Reviews Microbiology, October 2003 to present 

Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology, October 2000 to present 

Nature Reviews Nephrology (continues Nature Clinical Practice Nephrology ), April 2009 to present 

Nature Reviews Neurology (continues Nature Clinical Practice Neurology ), April 2009 to present 

Nature Reviews Neuroscience, October 2000 to present 

Nature Reviews Rheumatology (continues Nature Clinical Practice Rheumatology ), April 2009 to present 

Nature Reviews Urology (continues Nature Clinical Practice Urology ), April 2009 to present 

Nature Structural and Molecular Biology, January 2004 to present (continues Nature Structural Biology)

Nature Structural Biology, January 1994 to December 2003 (continues as Nature Structural and Molecular Biology)

Naturwissenschaften, January 1997 to present 

Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's Archives of Pharmacology, December 1996 to present 

Naval Research Logistics, 1996 to present 

Navy Medicine, January/February 2006 to present 

NBME Examiner, Fall/Winter 2009 to present (only two issues available)

NCADD Washington Report, July 1998 to present (continues Alcoholism Report)

NCAHF Newsletter, January 1998 to May 2003 

NCBI News, February 1994 to present 

NCHS Data Briefs, November 2007 to present 

Neonatology, January 2007 to present (continues Biology of the Neonate )

Neoplasia, April 1999 to present 

Neoreviews, January 2000 to present 

Nephrologe, March 2006 to present 

Nephrology, April 1997 to present 

Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation, January 1996 to present (with 12 month delay for full text) 

Nephrology Nursing Journal (continues ANNA Journal), February 2000 to present 

Nephrology Times, January 2008 to present 

Nephron Clinical Practice, January 2003 to present 

Nephron Experimental Nephrology, January 2003 to present 

Nephron Physiology, January 2003 to present 

Nervenarzt, January 1997 to present 

Netherlands Journal of Medicine, March 2002 to present 

Networks, 1996 to present 

Neural Computation, January 1997 to present (with 12 month delay for full text) 

Neural Development, October 2006 to present 

Neural Plasticity, 1998 to present 

Neural Systems and Circuits, January 2011 to present 

Neuro-Opthalmology, August 1998 to present (with 12-month delay for full text) 

Neurobiology of Aging, January - February 1995 to present 

Neurobiology of Disease, February 1995 to present 

Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, January 1995 to present 

Neurochemical Journal, March 2007 to present 

Neurochemical Research, January 1997 to present 

Neurochemistry International, January 1995 to present 

Neurocritical Care, March 2004 to present 

Neurodegeneration, March 1995 to December 1996 

Neuroethics, March 2008 to present 

Neurogastroenterology and Motility, March 1997 to present 

Neurogenetics, May 1997 to present 

The Neurohospitalist, January 2011 to present 

NeuroImage, September 1993 to present 

Neuroinformatics, March 2003 to present 

Neurologic Clinics, February 1996 to present 

Neurological Research, January 2001 to present 

Neurological Sciences (continues Italian Journal of Neurological Sciences ), April 2000 to present 

The Neurologist, January 1997 to November 1999, July 2001 to present 

Neurology, January 1995 to present 

Neurology Clinical Practice, December 2011 to present 

Neurology Now, Spring 2005 to present 

Neurology Report (continues as Journal of Neurologic Physical Therapy ), 1992 to 2003 

Neurology Today, May 2001 to present 

Neuromodulation, January 1998 to present 

NeuroMolecular Medicine, February 2002 to present 

Neuromuscular Disorders, January 1995 to present 

Neuron, January 1995 to present 

Neuropathology, March 1997 to present 

Neuropathology and Applied Neurobiology, February 1997 to present 

Neuropeptides, January 1993 to present 

Neuropharmacology, January 1995 to present 

Neurophysiology, January 1997 to present 

Neuropsychiatry, Neuropsychology, and Behavioral Neurology, 1988; 1990 to 2002 (continues as Cognitive and Behavioral Neurology)

Neuropsychologia, January 1995 to present 

Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, January 1996 to present (with 12 month delay for full text) 

Neuropsychology Review, March 1997 to present 

Neuropsychopharmacology, November 1994 to present 

Neuroradiology, January 1997 to present 

NeuroRehabilitation, February 1999 to present (with 12 month delay for full text) 

Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair, March 1999 to present 

NeuroReport, September 1990 to present 

Neuroscience, January 1995 to present 

Neuroscience and Behavioral Physiology, January 1997 to present 

Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, Winter 1994 to present 

Neuroscience Bulletin, January 2007 to present 

Neuroscience Letters, January 1995 to present 

Neuroscience Research, January 1995 to present 

The Neuroscientist, January 1999 to present 

Neurosurgery, July 1977 to present 

Neurosurgery Quarterly, March 1992 to December 1998, March 2001 to present 

Neurosurgical Focus, July 1996 to present 

Neurosurgical Review, March 1997 to present 

Neurotoxicity Research, March 1999 to present 

NeuroToxicology, February 2001 to present 

Neurotoxicology and Teratology, January/February 1995 to present 

Neurourology and Urodynamics, 1982 to present 

Nevada RNformation, February 2003 to present 

The New England Journal of Medicine, January 1990 to present 


Sorry, had to scale a third of the list back (too many characters).


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

belladulcinea said:


> For me it's the expansion of government into our lives. In the 40 years dh and I've been married it seems like the stranglehold of the government has expanded to the point that just walking out of our home we can be breaking laws we've never heard of.


While that's true, your blame is misplaced. Most of the government intrusion is the result of technological advances. When you are in charge of huge administrative tasks it's only logical to turn to technology. In today's world that means computers.

Do you blame banks for using computers? How about advertisers, credit rating services, and even department stores. I'm concerned with my privacy in casinos, but I can't get comps without gambling with a players club card, and I'm constantly under video surveillance.


----------



## Lizza (Nov 30, 2005)

Nice copying and pasting Jolly but it very clearly states what their perimeters were, they clearly state their primary objective was only "WIF-Web Impact Factor": 

Claiming that we are number 1 in Web presence I'm not sure is an effective argument that our "health care" in this Country is number 1.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Jolly said:


> morningstar said:
> 
> 
> > Are you trying to be funny or serious? I swear I can not tell!
> ...


At any rate, the rankings certainly aren't by patient appreciation or survival rates, which most of us care about most when we're considering a hospital.

But morningstar, this is not GC. CF is a different kind of place than GC, where Melissa expects us to play nice with each other. I promise you that if outbreaks like this continue, this thread will be closed. She's done it before and she'll do it again.


----------



## belladulcinea (Jun 21, 2006)

Actually I am NOT talking about technology, my dh and I work with technology which is neither good or evil depending upon it's usuage, the issue is those using it. I'm talking about the laws that are designed to protect us from ourselves but really don't work, the regulations of unelected overblown entities that are strangling businesses. Besides all of that, the lawyers are still not done with this monstrocity of a bill. Just as they screwed over the intent of the CPSIA, HIPAA and several others there will be a flurry of opinions on this bill that will create even more problems. 

We got caught up in the IRS's fraud watch which was passed under the radar last year I believe. It's been so successful it's trapped 2% of all fraudulent claims and the rest have been legitimate deductions, tax credits etc. Had I taken as long to pay or file as they did getting back to me, not had to answer or give out any information about my claim and basically stonewalled our taxes, I would have been pounded into the sand and "fined". True incompetence on the part of the IRS to do their jobs according to the law that was passed and yet they are being tasked with making sure all of us comply with this law. No thank you.


----------



## Lizza (Nov 30, 2005)

Nevada said:


> At any rate, the rankings certainly aren't by patient appreciation or survival rates, which most of us care about most when we're considering a hospital.
> 
> But morningstar, this is not GC. CF is a different kind of place than GC, where Melissa expects us to play nice with each other. I promise you that if outbreaks like this continue, this thread will be closed. She's done it before and she'll do it again.


That was catty of me! I edited my post


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2012)

Has every one seen where Nevada state get a waver from establishing the buying pools.


----------



## Ambereyes (Sep 6, 2004)

veggiecanner said:


> Has every one seen where Nevada state get a waver from establishing the buying pools.


Any other states getting waivers?

Google is my friend found it, other states are Florida, New Jersey, Ohio and Tennessee.


----------



## TNnative (May 23, 2004)

veggiecanner said:


> Has every one seen where Nevada state get a waver from establishing the buying pools.


Is this saying that Harry Reid's state, Nevada, is exempt from having to provide insurance?

I don't understand why the Democrats passed this law we have to live under, but then give unions (and apparently certain states) exemptions from it. If some of us have to live under it, then all of us ought to have to live under it, including the unions and the congress.


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2012)

Maine and New Hampshire seem to be getting waivers also.


----------



## TheMartianChick (May 26, 2009)

Tricky Grama said:


> It isn't PT. It is a form of therapy for MS. Something about the movement of the horse while riding. Found this out maybe...15- 20 yrs ago.


But does Mrs. Romney actually ride this horse? It doesn't appear to be the case. Especially under the present circumstances of her husband running for office. The horse is being trained by someone else. I believe in the value of horse back riding for MS patients. I'm just not sure that Mrs. Romney's horses are really used for this purpose.

Someone once asked Mrs. Romney about how many dressage horses she has. I can't remember her exact response, but she indicated that she had an awful lot of them. If you have MS and need to have a horse for therapy, you can't possibly provide all of their (the horse's) exercise and training needs. If you have many dressage horses, they are not all in your stable for horse therapy. Some may be pets or investments. They should not all be considered as a medical tax write off...Maybe a business write off...

Mrs. Romney is a co-owner of the horse, which (to me) indicates that this is a business venture and not a medical treatment. I do have a problem if this is indeed a business venture that is being misrepresented to the American public as a viable medical treatment. There are far too many people who do rely on horse therapy to manage MS and other health issues.

I don't have anything against dressage. I rode horses as a kid at the stable across the street and dressage was taught there. I always thought that it looked pretty cool, though I was never interested in it enough to ask my parents to pay for an extra lesson each week.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

Belfrybat said:


> Your post makes absolutely no sense at all. The fine (penalty) you quote ($2080.00) would apply to someone making between $90,000.00 - $150,000. a year. But then you go on and say you make $12,000.00. Which would mean you wouldn't be fined for not getting a policy. But then you go on and say you get disability and medicare and the child earned income credit, and your child is covered under CHIP.


I don't know about the Kaiser one, but I DO know the WSJ one is thrown off by decimals. Ie, if she's entering $12000.00 instead of $12000, for example, the calculator will read it as $120,000! (Found this out during a discussion earlier this week)


----------



## TheMartianChick (May 26, 2009)

Nevada said:


> At any rate, the rankings certainly aren't by patient appreciation or survival rates, which most of us care about most when we're considering a hospital.


One other thing to consider when selecting a hospital to perform a procedure is that even the survival rates may not tell the entire story.

In my area, there are 2 hospitals that have excellent survival rates for open heart surgery. The Catholic hospital's survival rate is slightly higher than the University hospital, but if I needed to have that surgery, I'd choose the University hospital (in a heartbeat - all puns intended).

The Catholic hospital has better stats because they only perform the surgery on patients that are more likely to survive. The University hospital has a slightly lower rate, but they are actually better at creating a successful outcome even when the patients have a lesser chance of survival.


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2012)

TheMartianChick said:


> But does Mrs. Romney actually ride this horse? It doesn't appear to be the case. Especially under the present circumstances of her husband running for office. The horse is being trained by someone else. I believe in the value of horse back riding for MS patients. I'm just not sure that Mrs. Romney's horses are really used for this purpose.
> 
> Someone once asked Mrs. Romney about how many dressage horses she has. I can't remember her exact response, but she indicated that she had an awful lot of them. If you have MS and need to have a horse for therapy, you can't possibly provide all of their (the horse's) exercise and training needs. If you have many dressage horses, they are not all in your stable for horse therapy. Some may be pets or investments. They should not all be considered as a medical tax write off...Maybe a business write off...
> 
> ...


Why is this any of our business?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

veggiecanner said:


> Why is this any of our business?


It isn't, but just to those that dislike Romney so much they must look for "Something" to whine about.


----------



## TheMartianChick (May 26, 2009)

veggiecanner said:


> Why is this any of our business?


It is my issue if the Romney's are choosing to give us a line of bull about creative book keeping. If someone is receiving a tax break on a single horse used for personal therapeutic purposes, then that is plausible. If someone is receiving a tax credit for 25 therapeutic horses (as an example) for personal therapeutic purposes, then it doesn't sound so believable...especially if the horses don't all reside on their own property. If this is a business, then call it a business. If this is a hobby, then term it correctly. 

I may enjoy collecting antique and vintage opera glasses, but I don't write my purchases off on my taxes as a vision care expense!


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

I am sure that with ALL the iRS investigations that Romney's have gone through everything is on the up and up especially as he is running for POTUS. All tax returns have been reeled and nothing has been investigated as out of the ordinary. If the IRS has no problem with what and how things are being handled by the Romney's then nobody else should either.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

TNnative said:


> Is this saying that Harry Reid's state, Nevada, is exempt from having to provide insurance?


Here's the only waiver deal I'm aware of in a nutshell:

The healthcare law says that health insurance companies have to spend at least 80% of what they take in on healthcare, then refund any excess profit to subscribers. That gives them up to 20%, which seems more than fair for their trouble. The insurance companies asked the government to let them keep 28% of the money, but the government finally set it at 25%. This is for the first year only, and that year is about up because I believe the waiver was granted sometime in 2011.

The federal appeal was was done by the Nevada Division of Insurance speaking in behalf of the insurance companies. Don't be too surprised at that -- this is an extremely corporate friendly state.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

arabian knight said:


> I am sure that with ALL the iRS investigations that Romney's have gone through everything is on the up and up especially as he is running for POTUS. All tax returns have been reeled and nothing has been investigated as out of the ordinary. If the IRS has no problem with what and how things are being handled by the Romney's then nobody else should either.


Oddly even though the state of Hawaii released Obama's birth certificate, there are those still insisting that he is a Kenyan. Hint: Want credibility, probably giving up on that rant would be good first start. Anybody still harping on that just get considered a raving nut case with an ax to grind, much like Donald Trump.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

HermitJohn said:


> Oddly even though the state of Hawaii released Obama's birth certificate, there are those still insisting that he is a Kenyan. Hint: Want credibility, probably giving up on that rant would be good first start. Anybody still harping on that just get considered a raving nut case with an ax to grind, much like Donald Trump.


I'll say. If we had given the 9/11 conspiracy theories half the attention that Obama's birth certificate received we would have 9/11 solved by now.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

You have not heard the last of it either as Sheriff Joe still has stuff coming out.
And we are not talking about BC here anyways. Romney's Tax return and business dealings have been under the microscope now well over a year. And there are so many liberals out there just wanting to "find" something on Mitt, and yet all that is talked about is a horse or horses that is used or horses being used for Therapeutic reasons????
That isn't much of a witch hunt now is it? 
Just because a few hate the rich is the only reason.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Tricky Grama said:


> It isn't PT. It is a form of therapy for MS. Something about the movement of the horse while riding. Found this out maybe...15- 20 yrs ago.


There is no therapeutic value to doing dressage other than the fitness level required to do it and the psychological benefits of pursuing a passion. I schooled and competed in dressage and my daughter does as well. There isn't any movement involved by the horse in upper level dressage that would help MS or any other physical problem. But it is a lot of hard work and requires a lot of dedication.

Most upper level dressage riders take many, many years to get to the Grand Prix level but Mrs. Romney has had the benefit of being able to buy very expensive "schoolmaster" horses. I don't blame her for that...I'd love to be able to afford a several hundred thousand dollar schoolmaster.

There is a form of therapy called hippotherapy but it has nothing to do with dressage beyond the fact that they both happen to involve horses.


----------



## Oggie (May 29, 2003)

I have to admit that I have some prejudices against dressage, mainly because my sister did a lot of training in the sport when we were young.

Unfortunately, my parents couldn't afford to get her a fancy horse. Well, actually, they couldn't afford to get her a horse at all.

So, we older brothers had to stand in for the steed. And she wasn't one to spare the quirt, even though we tried to explain that those sort of movements were a complete contradiction of what the goals of dressage are supposed to be.

She'd just smack us and yell, "Behave! Horses don't talk!"

Needless to say she never went very far in competition and she quickly moved on to other things.

Sadly, the adventure left a few indelible marks on her former rides and, when anyone squeezes me with her thighs in a certain sort of way, I still rear up and whinny. I'm afraid that's complicated more than its fair share of relationships.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> You have not heard the last of it either as Sheriff Joe still has stuff coming out.
> And we are not talking about BC here anyways. Romney's Tax return and business dealings have been under the microscope now well over a year. And there are so many liberals out there just wanting to "find" something on Mitt, and yet all that is talked about is a horse or horses that is used or horses being used for Therapeutic reasons????
> That isn't much of a witch hunt now is it?
> Just because a few hate the rich is the only reason.


You certainly don't have to be rich to have horses or do dressage but you do need a certain amount of discretionary income.
I love therapeutic riding and have volunteered at therapeutic riding academies myself. Our chapter of the United States Pony Clubs does a fund raiser every year by giving horse and pony rides for $5 a pop. One year I put a little (severely autistic boy) named Patrick on my daughter's pony, TippyCanoe. I wound his fingers into Tippy's wooly mane and watched as the boy's face broke into a huge grin and his mother started to cry. She told us it was the first time he had smiled in many months. We helped her find a therapeutic riding program and raised money for him to participate. Horses most certainly can be very therapeutic. But it doesn't take investing hundreds of thousands in Grand Prix horses to get that therapy.
Also, the physical part of therapy on horses comes from the horses own natural rocking gaits. Upper level dressage focuses mainly on gaits only attained through long and specialized training. They are not particularly soothing or therapeutic at all. It takes a lot of work to sit an engaged and collected trot. It can practically jar your spine loose.


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

Tricky Grama said:


> I'm sorry, tried to educate about MS. Do you honestly believe its not therapeutic? Educate yourself on it, please.
> Do you honestly believe that Rommy doesn't pay his share of income tax?
> 
> You also should find out about Romney & the olympics. And other yrs he's spent w/o pay for the good of the country.
> ...


Sure, riding a horse is theraputic. No one is disagreeing with you.

But.......there are plenty of dressage horses that do NOT cost 500,000. 
Could probably get a very good horse for 5000 dollars. But then, it wouldnt be able to participate in the olympics, would it.

And Ive been in GC, I know what conservatives think of people that get the child credit. Not child CARE credit. You all go on about how terrible it is for people to get money just for having kids, and how they can get refunds and not pay tax, etc.
Don't play coy.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

morningstar said:


> Nice copying and pasting Jolly but it very clearly states what their perimeters were, they clearly state their primary objective was only "WIF-Web Impact Factor":
> 
> Claiming that we are number 1 in Web presence I'm not sure is an effective argument that our "health care" in this Country is number 1.


Wasn't a very good job cutting and pasting, as I left a third or better of the "N" journals off, due to space restrictions. 

What I'm trying to show you, is what is available electronically via the web. There is not a single major medical publication that I know of, that either doesn't have a web edition or an e-copy is available through a repository. Most of my trade magazines (and I get eight or ten of them) ask whether I want print or e-editions. It's how business, not just medical business, is done nowadays.

Now, I could be wrong, but scientific articles and peer reviewed papers - even though accessed through the web - are an indicator of quality. Not the only indicator, but certainly one with long standing in academe and medicine.

Lastly, if you said I claimed we were number one based the website we are discussing, you are either mistaken or lying, for I never made such a claim and I defy you to show me where I did.

I do believe my initial comment was "interesting".


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

arabian knight said:


> It isn't, but just to those that dislike Romney so much they must look for "Something" to whine about.


Sort of like the Obama haters.


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

arabian knight said:


> You have not heard the last of it either as Sheriff Joe still has stuff coming out.
> And we are not talking about BC here anyways. Romney's Tax return and business dealings have been under the microscope now well over a year. And there are so many liberals out there just wanting to "find" something on Mitt, and yet all that is talked about is a horse or horses that is used or horses being used for Therapeutic reasons????
> That isn't much of a witch hunt now is it?
> Just because a few hate the rich is the only reason.


Or........because some of us have lived under him as governor and know what a disaster as president he would be. I don't care how much money anyone has, he is not a good choice for president. Ive lived in MA when he was governor and seen how he is, have you?


----------



## soulsurvivor (Jul 4, 2004)

I'm old and unhealthy and grateful to have healthcare. That said, there are a lot of things about national healthcare provided via government that I don't like. I don't like that this is a tax and as such is paid to insurance companies that front for big global banks. I don't like that the IRS has access to all of my healthcare files/info and can make me/any pay for this healthcare. I don't like that I don't have a choice in participating or not. Not isn't an option that's allowed. 

I don't see any difference between Republicans/Democrats on this. I don't feel that I'm represented by either party. I don't think my electronic vote is counted. 

The way I see it is that I need to be busy in healing myself. I don't trust government run healthcare to give me what I need in a timely manner. The controls are tightening and taxes will continue to be levied on more foods. The human body requires at least 60 basic nutrients found naturally in the earth environment. We're lucky if we get a third of those in the food/water supplies allowed today. We are shortening our lifespans by not taking care of ourselves and failing to protect our food/water from taxed controls.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Shygal said:


> Sure, riding a horse is theraputic. No one is disagreeing with you.
> 
> But.......there are plenty of dressage horses that do NOT cost 500,000.
> Could probably get a very good horse for 5000 dollars. But then, it wouldnt be able to participate in the olympics, would it.
> ...


1. As Nevada has pointed out, this isn't GC.

2. If I'm not mistaken, you had to go back to school as an adult to obtain your nursing degree. I'm guessing you desired the degree - in part - because you wanted the financial rewards and security it brings. I'm also going to assume you used some of the money you have obtained through overtime or promotions to purchase items that you enjoy or that your family could enjoy.

In short, I hazard if you became wealthy through your own efforts, you would still buy things that made you happy, or were useful for you or your family.

So...A) Why the snark about Mrs. Romney's horse from you and others? If the woman can afford a half-million dollar horse, more power to her...shucks, I'd like to be able to afford a half-million dollar horse. And...B) Does this really have very much to do with healthcare, other than some of the cost of the horse being written off as therapy? I assure you, Mr. Romney's tax returns have received just as much scrutiny as Mr. Obama's. If there was something amiss in those documents, I'm sure somebody would have noticed.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Shygal said:


> Sort of like the Obama haters.


The difference in the Obama whiners and the Romney whiners is that those who whine about Obama have good reasons to whine. He broke many of the promises he made to the American people. Whereas it seems those whining about the Romneys are whining about how he spends his money. I'm whining about how Obama is spending MY money, and could care less what he does with his.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Jolly said:


> In short, I hazard if you became wealthy through your own efforts, you would still buy things that made you happy, or were useful for you or your family.
> 
> So...A) Why the snark about Mrs. Romney's horse from you and others?


I'm not the least but snarky about Romney supporting his wife's dressage hobby. As someone who has lost a spouse to cancer, if I could do the same for a spouse I positively would have done it. 



Jolly said:


> And...B) Does this really have very much to do with healthcare


This topic was the result of thread drift, where we were discussing how healthcare might effect Romney's chances of being elected. The thread drifted to whether the American people might be wondering if Romney was out of touch with the working class.


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

Sonshine said:


> The difference in the Obama whiners and the Romney whiners is that those who whine about Obama have good reasons to whine. He broke many of the promises he made to the American people. Whereas it seems those whining about the Romneys are whining about how he spends his money. I'm whining about how Obama is spending MY money, and could care less what he does with his.


I thought you were done with the thread twice now? I lived under Romney as governor, I have good experience with how he runs things. Have you? I don't care if he has 10 dollars or 10 billion, the man is a disaster as a state leader. I know what its like and I will NEVER vote for him.


----------



## gunnar wordon (Jun 13, 2012)

The misconception is that its public healthcare. Its NOT. Mark my word. Its private companies running the healthcare, but the federal government forcing us to buy it. Freedom? me thinks not.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

Shygal said:


> I thought you were done with the thread twice now? I lived under Romney as governor, I have good experience with how he runs things. Have you? I don't care if he has 10 dollars or 10 billion, the man is a disaster as a state leader. I know what its like and I will NEVER vote for him.


Do you think, after living under O, that you'd choose him instead?
Just curious since you are one of the few that have lived under both as a government force.


----------



## nancylee (Mar 8, 2011)

veggiecanner said:


> Why is this any of our business?


Because Romney wrote off this horse on his taxes to the tune of 77,000 dollars!!


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

nancylee said:


> Because Romney wrote off this horse on his taxes to the tune of 77,000 dollars!!


So? The IRS rules and such are written so he COULD, Many do the same dern thing because of how the Tax Code is written.
I am sure that if there were ANY misrepresentations on his tax returns the IRS would be on him like bees to honey Plus the left as well.
Well Nothing is, so want change vote for something that will change the Tax Code, like The Fairtax.
I remember going to many Arabian Horse auctions and when you could BUY a million dollar horse and DEDUCT as a depreciation over many years that Horse could Make you a bundle of money. That is just the way it is.


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

AngieM2 said:


> Do you think, after living under O, that you'd choose him instead?
> Just curious since you are one of the few that have lived under both as a government force.


Over Romney? Yes I would


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

shygal - thank you for answering.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

gunnar wordon said:


> The misconception is that its public healthcare. Its NOT. Mark my word. Its private companies running the healthcare, but the federal government forcing us to buy it.


To a large extent, yes. But Medicaid expansion is a big part of the program also, and that's public healthcare by any standard.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Nevada said:


> To a large extent, yes. But Medicaid expansion is a big part of the program also, and that's public healthcare by any standard.


You are forgetting one thing. The SC put in place it is up to the States IF THEY want to expand Medicaid, and because of that being left to that States. Reports have come out that the Poorest of the poor maybe the ones left out of this healthcare bill. They left it so the States can Pot out, as many just may do that for one reason or another.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

> NEW YORK (CNNMoney) - The Supreme Court may have upheld health care reform, *but the ruling has left many of the poorest Americans at risk of remaining uninsured.
> *
> The justices' decision Thursday kept in place nearly all of the Affordable Care Act's provisions, including the mandate that all consumers buy health insurance by 2014 or pay a tax.





> The states can opt out of the Medicaid expansion program, since the court said the federal government can't penalize them by withholding all Medicaid funding. Instead, these states wouldn't get the additional Medicaid money to cover newly eligible enrollees.



Medicaid expansion: Many could be left out | Money - WCVB Home


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> You are forgetting one thing. The SC put in place it is up to the States IF THEY want to expand Medicaid, and because of that being left to that States. Reports have come out that the Poorest of the poor maybe the ones left out of this healthcare bill. They left it so the States can Pot out, as many just may do that for one reason or another.


States have the right not to do it, but they will.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

The 26 states that have opposed Obamacare will be looking at this very hard. Including my state of WI. Nothing really has to be done till next summer.

Ruling Puts Pressure On States To Act - Kaiser Health News


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> The 26 states that have opposed Obamacare will be looking at this very hard. Including my state of WI. Nothing really has to be done till next summer.
> 
> Ruling Puts Pressure On States To Act - Kaiser Health News


But that doesn't mean that any of them will actually opt-out of the Medicaid expansion.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Zilli said:


> I always find it amusing that any criticism of Romney automatically translates into "envy." LOL


Perhaps you can explain why its ok to be filthy rich & "D"-even inheriting $$ but if you're "R" & make it legally, give ALL your inheritence to charity as well as over 10% yearly, as well as donate time to causes, you're bad.

If your wife spend 1K of her own mnoey it out of touch but the 1st lady can spend 10 million on lavish vacations like NO OTHER has taken & no peep. 

'Course, I think she's proud of our country at last.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Zilli said:


> So that means Mrs. Romney will be the one riding the horse in the Olympics?
> 
> Kewl! :rock:


Ok. I'm sorry. I can see what some of you believe, what some are about. That some have no desire to find out facts. I've tried. I really thought this forum was not about sarcasm, snark, illinformed. 
I'm glad when I was a "D" I was willing to look at facts, even when I didn't believe the things that I read. I delved into it, read stuff other than the small am't that is put out by Lamestream media. 

I pray that none of you mocking a person w/MS gets any horrific disease like that. I hope that some of the facts presented will be looked into, that someone will be persuaded to at least think about consequences.

Pretty sure there's no hope for those who want 'free' stuff, for those who think this TAX is wonderful & have no idea how it was passed...no idea how the constitution works or what candidates stand for, believe in, or will do to the country.


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

Tricky Grama said:


> I really thought this forum was not about sarcasm, snark, illinformed.
> Lamestream media.





Tricky Grama said:


> Perhaps you can explain why its ok to be filthy rich & "D"-even inheriting $$ but if you're "R" & make it legally, give ALL your inheritence to charity as well as over 10% yearly, as well as donate time to causes, you're bad.
> 
> If your wife spend 1K of her own mnoey it out of touch but the 1st lady can spend 10 million on lavish vacations like NO OTHER has taken & no peep.


Um.....youve been filling this forum with snark since you got on, and sarcasm too.

No one is TALKING about Michelle Obamas vacations or defending any democrat with money yet you keep trying to get the discussion onto that. 
Its about healthcare. Not about money or a horse.

I figured out the reason this thread is still going, Melissa must be out of power from the storms a few days ago. :bash:

Do you want to talk about the healthcare bill, or continue to bash democrats and talk about how wonderful Romney is, and bring up the Kennedys? If so, Im sure GC has a few hundred threads about those very things.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

notasnowballs said:


> If there were any other way, I would gladly take it. As it sits now, I am working on a solution to get off that system now and have been for years. Not everyone is able to work a job that pays the bills, or to do so consisently. Do I MIND getting disability? Heck, ya! I hate it! It takes away my independence and sense of self worth. But I also mind that my daughter would go without because of my pride. Things will be a whole heckuva a lot different as soon as she is out of the house.
> 
> I don't mind going without for what I believe in, but I would never ask a child to do that. But hey, go ahead and judge me before you walk a mile in my shoes. It makes you feel good, doesn't it?
> 
> ...


Snowballs-
I certainly hope you come back to read more...I want you to know that all conservatives I know, and all (that I know) on HT, are never speaking of folks like you if/when welfare, etc is tossed about as needing reform. I'm sure you know there are many abuses. No one that I know would deny that you are doing the right thing! 
Prayers & good thoughts for you & your daughter.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

ErinP said:


> For SIX YEARS? You're right. That's pretty sluggish.
> 
> 
> Ummm....Unless you know something the Supreme Court doesn't, I'm thinkin' the "rule of law" has been decided. :shrug:


Sure 6 yrs. I'm NOT a "R", don't think much of a lot of polititians. They're unable to do anything smartly (most), IMHO. 

Did you read Roberts decision? He said it was UNConstitutional as the administration wrote it, passed it. UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 
BUT-if its a TAX, then it can stand. AND he said the SCOTUS should not overturn legislation but the PEOPLE should chose more carefully to avoid such stuff. 
Believe me, we will.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Classof66 said:


> The last I heard, Roseanne Barr was the Green Party candidate. No kidding.


I'm waiting for her to say she'll mandate riding vacuum cleaners for all!!


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Ambereyes said:


> Any other states getting waivers?
> 
> Google is my friend found it, other states are Florida, New Jersey, Ohio and Tennessee.


Are the unions still getting waivers? 
How about the most company waivers in any city: San Francisco! Who's territory is that, I wonder...


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

TheMartianChick said:


> But does Mrs. Romney actually ride this horse? It doesn't appear to be the case. Especially under the present circumstances of her husband running for office. The horse is being trained by someone else. I believe in the value of horse back riding for MS patients. I'm just not sure that Mrs. Romney's horses are really used for this purpose.
> 
> Someone once asked Mrs. Romney about how many dressage horses she has. I can't remember her exact response, but she indicated that she had an awful lot of them. If you have MS and need to have a horse for therapy, you can't possibly provide all of their (the horse's) exercise and training needs. If you have many dressage horses, they are not all in your stable for horse therapy. Some may be pets or investments. They should not all be considered as a medical tax write off...Maybe a business write off...
> 
> ...


Yes, Mrs R rides the horse. I'll try to find for you how often. I volunteered at a stable near me that did horse therapy for lots of conditions. Sometimes for very disabled kids. 

Again I'll ask why it is such a concern as how someone who's made their own $$ legally. spends it? 
Not many in this forum seem to care how this admin spends OUR money.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

HermitJohn said:


> Oddly even though the state of Hawaii released Obama's birth certificate, there are those still insisting that he is a Kenyan. Hint: Want credibility, probably giving up on that rant would be good first start. Anybody still harping on that just get considered a raving nut case with an ax to grind, much like Donald Trump.


And this is about HC...how?
If you'll google, there's not that many who think that, there's lots who are curious. With all that was not brought out in the last election, things that are being looked out now, there's probably more 'birthers' than there should be.

And as far as checking out 9/11, NV, that's been done to death for over a decade.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Shygal said:


> Sure, riding a horse is theraputic. No one is disagreeing with you.
> 
> But.......there are plenty of dressage horses that do NOT cost 500,000.
> Could probably get a very good horse for 5000 dollars. But then, it wouldnt be able to participate in the olympics, would it.
> ...


Again, I'll ask, why is it a concern how the Romney's spend thier $$$? Why is it not a concern how this admin has wasted BILLIONS of OUR $$$? 

I'm glad you think you know the hearts of those who post in GC. I'm assuming those who've been banned are all speaking well of it.

However, I'll say, at the risk of being flamed, that those who get $$ just for having kids are not very responsible. How many here get $$ just b/c you're had another baby? Bet not many. 
Non-conservatives are all about 'spreading the wealth'. All about 'paying your fair share'. Yet nearly 1/2 of this nation pays no income tax & the top 10% pay nearly all.
Fair? Probably not, in the eyes of many it will not be fair till everyone has the same am't of $$$, whether it is earned or given.


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

Tricky Grama said:


> Again, I'll ask, why is it a concern how the Romney's spend thier $$$? Why is it not a concern how this admin has wasted BILLIONS of OUR $$$?
> 
> I'm glad you think you know the hearts of those who post in GC. I'm assuming those who've been banned are all speaking well of it.


Oh please. I had been in GC for 7-8 years, I know who is on what side, who continually repeats the same things, what those people think, its been shown in this thread that you are saying the same things since Ive been banned, along with Tator and AK. Yeah I know the hearts of those in GC.

I don't care what he spends on a horse or how much he can take off his taxes. You keep bringing it up over and over again. I wouldn't spend 500,000 on a horse if it could dance the macarena and sing yankee doodle dandy.


----------



## Ambereyes (Sep 6, 2004)

Shygal said:


> Oh please. I had been in GC for 7-8 years, I know who is on what side, who continually repeats the same things, what those people think, its been shown in this thread that you are saying the same things since Ive been banned, along with Tator and AK. Yeah I know the hearts of those in GC.
> 
> I don't care what he spends on a horse or how much he can take off his taxes. You keep bringing it up over and over again. I wouldn't spend 500,000 on a horse if it could dance the macarena and sing yankee doodle dandy.



Geez, an oracle, do you know my heart? :hysterical::hysterical:


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Nevada said:


> But that doesn't mean that any of them will actually opt-out of the Medicaid expansion.


Louisiana is opting out.

Like a lot of other states, we've had our share of budget problems. Unlike a lot of other states, we've experienced some decent growth the last few years.

While the Feds will pick up 100% of the tab for Medicaid expansion the first two years, their monies taper off after that. Depending upon the size of that expansion, Medicaid could be a budget killer down the road.

If a state wants to grow economically, it must engage in beneficial tax policy for businesses and individuals, it must invest in infrastructure and it must compete in a global economy. If a state becomes too saddled with providing health care for unproductive citizens - which compromises a goodly portion of Medicaid in this state - it can't do the things it needs to prosper.

George Washington told us not to be like Europe. I agree.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Shygal said:


> Oh please. I had been in GC for 7-8 years, I know who is on what side, who continually repeats the same things, what those people think, its been shown in this thread that you are saying the same things since Ive been banned, along with Tator and AK. Yeah I know the hearts of those in GC.
> 
> I don't care what he spends on a horse or how much he can take off his taxes. You keep bringing it up over and over again. I wouldn't spend 500,000 on a horse if it could dance the macarena and sing yankee doodle dandy.


Sounds like you've ran out of cogent arguments...


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

After perusing the thread, I notice nobody is talking about all of the Obamacare waivers.


Anybody wish to explain why Obama is granting waivers, if Obamacare is so wonderful?


----------



## Melissa (Apr 15, 2002)

Tricky Grama said:


> Those jobs are becoming far & few b/w. Companies are hiring 35 hrs/wk, or whatever 'part-time' would be so as not to give benefits.


That was my point!!! It isn't easy to find a job with benefits these days.


----------



## Ambereyes (Sep 6, 2004)

Melissa said:


> That was my point!!! It isn't easy to find a job with benefits these days.


My DH 's company is debating right now whether they will just drop all insurance for employees and take the penalty/tax/fine or bump around 95% to part time.. Either way he is losing his insurance, gonna be a pain in the butt to find him some. He is 61, has glaucoma that has cost him 50% of sight in one eye and 10% in the other, it is mainly the top half of the worst eye.. He still passes his license test.. Trying to get him on my insurance but not sure if that is going to work either.. Need to find something as his scripts cost around $280 and month and he is probably going to need surgery very soon.


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

Ambereyes said:


> Geez, an oracle, do you know my heart? :hysterical::hysterical:


No but if it looks like a duck........

You guys aren't really that hard to figure out


----------



## Melissa (Apr 15, 2002)

This went way off track. I don't think it is possible to get it back on track so I am not going to try! But the information is here to peruse at your leisure~


----------

