Parenting Club - Parenting Advice, Parenting Message Boards, Baby Message Boards, Pregnancy Message Boards, TTC Messge Boards
Shop for Baby Items | Parenting & Family Blogs

discussion for health care poll


PrairieMom wrote: KAREN! you closed the poll, and I'm sure we all have a lot to say about it. rolling_smile.gif

I wanted to say I voted that I am FOR the plan, but really , I am just for some sort of reform, not necessarily his plan, since I don't have a firm grasp on what his plan actually is.

coasterqueen replied: Ohhhhhh I closed it because I know I'll get fired up. happy.gif blush.gif blush.gif I am completely against his program. I am all for reform of insurance companies to lower their astronomical costs and same for prescription drugs, but I'm not for a government health care program. I'll tell you this much, that 8% fine he's going to charge businesses if they don't offer health care to their employees........many businesses are going to find out it's cheaper to pay that fine than it is to offer insurance. I know a few businesses in our area that feel that way. sad.gif

moped replied: Karen,
I jsut did a quick read of the program he is proposing, can I ask why you don't like this idea? I am canadian, so I don't know the FULL story but fill me in, I am always curious about US health care

Kentuckychick replied:
I suspect this will be like fines on other things... I know here in Kentucky when they passed the smoke free ban that required no smoking in any public building, a lot of bars just decided it would be easier to pay the fine... well after the first year they upped the fine tremendously wink.gif

coasterqueen replied:
I will say foremost that I don't know ALL the details of his plan, so my opinion is only based on what I know so far.

1st off he's going to penalize businesses a fine if they do not offer health insurance to their employees. The fine, I believe is 8% of an employee's yearly salary. A lot of times this is less to pay than it is to make the business offer insurance so my personal assumption is and talking with some businesses in this area that they will dump insurance and just pay the fines. So for those of us who have private health insurance and Obama says we'll be able to keep it, even with his new system...no we won't, we'll be hung out to dry to either pay for private insurance ourselves or go with the government plan.

Second is the cost. We are in debt enough. I don't think a government run health care program is a great idea when we have so much debt and quite frankly I don't trust our government with a penny. ANY GOVERNMENT be it republican or democratic. They'll screw this up just like other programs, IMO.

Third, I think they are rushing into this way too fast. I believe finding reform to lower insurance costs and prescription drugs is the way to go. I by no means believe one iota that this government health care program is going to do this, like it has been said.

Fourth, once again as a hard working citizen who has busted her bum to do everything possible for her family and her life, is going to be helping LOTS more people out --taking more money away from my family. Sorry, not the type of social responsibility I am there for. Sounds cold, but being that I'm saying it in a short paragraph here, I'm sure it does. Don't expect anyone to understand my point of view. happy.gif

Fifth, I know that Canadians have said how great their health care system is, but I've also talked to just as many Canadians who believe it sucks and end up having to go to the US to have procedures done, as well as have been told by their Canadian docs that "well, your surgery is scheduled in 4 months, but I believe you may die before that........I'd suggest going to the US" - so they take their life savings out, go to the US and get healthy.

Sixth, I am actually pro-choice when it comes to abortion, but I do NOT believe the government should fund abortions WHATSOEVER. I think it's despicable and that is what this program will be doing. I am seriously and utterly appalled this program will cover abortions.

Seventh, the elderly are going to be left to die with restricted care. Sickening - that's all I'll say about this and I pray that when I get elderly things change or I'll pay 25 cents for a bullet myself.

ugh, I could go on and on.......only time will tell and prove to us if this will work. I, for the lives of my children, pray it does, because I am in nothing but constant fear for their future with the way this country is going. It has made me happy that I've decided not to bring any more children into this world, because our children don't deserve it. Sounds dramatic, but it's how DH and I feel.

coasterqueen replied:
Not in all states that hasn't happened - upping the fine. Even if the government does this....businesses will either a) pay the fine or offer insurance and then not give you a pay raise.....the little guy ALWAYS pays wink.gif or b..........go out of business and or businesses just move to foreign countries. happy.gif

PrairieMom replied:
Seriously, as Canadian, you should know what is wrong with his program. They are telling us down here all about how y'all hate your health care, and how you guys just let your sick and elderly die way up there in Canada. rolleyes.gif I have been listening to Fred Thompson and Glen Beck all day every day for about a year now, and am about ready to drop kick my radio out the window. growl.gif

They are saying that people are going to be "forced" to listen to their end of life options every 5 years and state what they want done. ohmy.gif HOW HORRIBLE! to be INFORMED on what options you have and what the consequences of those decisions are, and to have it on record so your wishes can be met! can you imagine? rolleyes.gif

Like I said, I don't really know what exactly the plan is, I suppose I should go read up.

coasterqueen replied:
Yeah, I'm trying not to listen to any talk shows on this subject as it just sends me into a frizzy, even the repub stations. I did notice how a LOT of Canadians are coming forward and saying what is really going on with health care in Canada, how they've had to come over to the US for procedures, etc. I dunno. My husband's company a few years back was aggressively trying to get Canadian citizens to come to the US and work for their company and their "dangling carrot" was health insurance and that "campaign" worked well for them. He worked along side a few Canadians who came over here to work for the company and take advantage of our health care system.

coasterqueen replied: And honestly, even if it works well for Canada......I just don't have faith enough in our system for it to work here. blush.gif

moped replied: I don't have any problem with the Canadian system, but I don't have health issues with the members in my family at this time.

The ONLY problem and I think that is just in my city is the fact that the LONG waits in ER etc......I don't like that but again I hav enot really had to deal with it either........

I thought we had a good system, and nothing out of pocket for me

My company insurance covers prescriptions etc,

PrairieMom replied:
what is a LONG wait in the ER for you? Just our of curiosity? In my hospital, ( and I know it is different everywhere) you can plan on hanging out in our ER for at least 6-8 hours or so.

moped replied:
Well i have heard in the 4-6 hour wait, but like I said I live in a very populated area and there are only 3 hospitals for 1.3 million, they are building 2 more that should open this year I believe! Pretty sure that in other parts of the country it isn't that bad!

DVFlyer replied: I don't know all the details either, but I voted no.

I have not seen any current evidence of the government being able to run itself profitably and efficiently so I would not expect any difference if they controlled health care.

Any business run the way the government is currently being run would find itself on the BK block faster than you can say government stimulus.

cameragirl21 replied: Idk all the details of the program but I voted yes because I think something has to be done, whether it's Obama's program to the letter or if govt forces insurance companies to lower their prices or whatever but something sure as heck has to be done. No one should have to choose between healthcare and food.
As for the Canadian system, my understanding is (and Idk much about that either so I could be wrong) that docs in Canada don't make nearly as much money as docs in the US so many of the best docs are getting trained in Canada and then moving to the US. Of course, if the US becomes another Canada, as far as healthcare goes, then docs won't have anywhere to go to get more money so they'll have to settle for what they'll make here and in Canada.
I don't deny docs the right to make lots of money because God knows they have a hard job but I don't think medicine should ever be a business...not for docs, not for insurance companies, and certainly not for pharmaceutical companies. Everyone has the right to make money but not at people's expense.
I have asthma and if my meds weren't covered it would cost me hundreds of dollars a month just to get meds...that is unacceptable imo. I also think insurance companies should have no right to refuse to insure autistic kids, cancer patients or existing conditions of any kind. And of course I have more to say on the subject but I'll just leave it at that...for now. laugh.gif

coasterqueen replied:
You know, I agree with a lot of this Jennifer, but I have to ask, so we go with Obama's health care program, what if it doesn't decrease the costs insurance companies and others charge? That's why I think we should take our time and do the right program from the beginning, not just vote for something because something/ANYTHING needs to be done? That's the problem I believe is with our country -- we want something done and done now and we don't think of the consequences it may have. If we take our time and devise the right plan, we may actually have a success for once.

luvmykids replied:
I absolutely agree with this, and with much of what Karen said.

I'm all for reform. But I'm also a business owner and paying the fine is still at least HALF of what it would cost us to provide insurance.

And, throw tomatoes at me, but I don't necessarily think health care is a "right"....as someone currently uninsured, I would love to have it but don't expect anyone to provide it for me. The kids have it and that's better than none of us but honestly, rates are so high that it's almost ridiculous to pay for traditional insurance.....I could pay $250/mo for me and DH and NEVER meet the deductible, or I could pay $500/mo and maybe in a bad year where we're sick A LOT meet it, but otherwise I'm paying the premiums AND paying out of pocket for everything. The only thing I'm looking into for us is major medical.

I don't want our government digging us any deeper financially, and I really resent one more area where the government is going to tell me what I MUST do.

DVFlyer replied: Anyone know how medicare and/or mediCal are doing?

/sarcasm

Our Lil' Family replied: I don't understand the thought of "well it's better than nothing so I'm all for it"......why go into something knowing it's just not going to work, but we need it now? We'll be right where we are now in 5 years or less, a health care system that does not work because it was not thought out.

As far as I understand, physicians will definitely be limited in what the government will approve, as far as procedures and the like. I know that my DH is completely against that! It goes against everything they are taught in school. He should be able to treat a patient the way he sees medically fit, not what the gvm't allows! And sorry but I don't want to be the patient that really needs an MRI but Congress says I only get a CT scan! No thanks!

As for everyone having health insurance.....it's called CHARITY HOSPITAL, or any hospital for that matter. I can't even tell you how many people DH treats daily who don't have insurance, and for things that really don't need to be in the ER. He treats them the same obviously, doesn't really even look to see what their insurance is but they cannot turn anyone away......so tell me, what's going to be different?

julesmom replied: For someone with a chronic illness, this new plan is terrible. I know many Canadians with chronic illness with major probs with their health plan.

I do not want to deal with what they deal with.

moped replied: I can honestly say that IF i had or knew anyone with a super serious/terminal illness that they would be well cared for in Canada. The reason people go to the US and other countries is because perhaps a doctor in the US specializes in that illness or something like that, anyone that was dying would not be left to die, they would be cared for as well as an American - that is a promise!

Again, I think we have a pretty good system here. I don't pay a dime and get hte same care that people pay thousands for.

I don't know what you guys pay for your insurance or how it works, but it seems that you pay a huge amount of money for things I pay nothing for.

coasterqueen replied:
Well there are a LOT of Canadians going on the news networks (I know they are on Fox news) touting about how your system is terrible and they would have been left to die. I hear it's great from a lot and it's not from a lot --- and the ones I personally know IRL says it's not. So I can only base my opinion on what I hear from those I talk to. I do think it's sad that if the Canadian system is so great, why are those people crossing the border into the US to get treatment, whether it be for serious illness or not? Why would you go through the trouble of doing so if the system is so great? That one confuses me.

And yes, you say you are paying NOTHING for your insurance, but where does the government get the money to pay for your health care system, then if YOU aren't paying for it SOMEHOW??? The only people that benefit from a government run health care program as far as not paying one penny is those who aren't paying taxes at all. The rest of us, who work pay. So I guaranty you are more than likely paying your insurance somehow - you probably just don't know exactly. I, for one, would like to know where my money is going to. So if I want insurance, I pay for insurance, etc. Not just let the government take care of it and trust (that will never happen for me, lol) that they are spending my money wisely.

moped replied: Yes you are right Karen, I guess I do pay through taxes etc, I should have re thought that before I typed it. I guess I don't feel it coming out of my pocket every month is what I meant.

Also, as stated before, I would think that the reason people would go elsewhere for treatment of a serious illness is not because they aren't getting the care they require, because they would but that they would need a doctor that might specialize in that illness or a procedure that is not performed here (just guessing)..........nobody would be left to die here or anywhere - that is a extreme, I would like to talk to the person on fox news that claimed that. My only experience with hospitalization is with the kids and I recieved top notch care with them and have nothing but wonderful things to say. I know people that have had problems and have been called for appointments immediately and care for 100%.

Like I said, the only problem I have is the waits and the lack of doctors for the amount of people in my city, I am sure that is not a national problem but a problem in this city alone. I can hoenstly say I have never been to the ER and only heard about the long waits. I did have to make an appt for a yearly physical months ago, but if I had a problem in the meantime I would wait at a walk in clinic for care.

Another problem I have with our system is the people here that go to the ER with a cold or a hang nail, seriously, this is not acceptable IMO, this is the reason that there are such huge waits.

coasterqueen replied:
Why wouldn't there be doctors in your country specializing in certain areas that would force people to go to the US? Just curious.

ETA: We also have huge waits in our ER's and people that go there for anything and everything. Which makes me wonder how worse off it's going to get with this new system Obama is planning. Will waits be worse not just at hospitals but at doctor's offices as well. I think the wait is terrible enough at the doc office. rolleyes.gif

moped replied: Good questions, I don't know and maybe there are. But US is a much larger country than Cda, you have more people, more doctors etc etc, I have heard of people going to the Johns Hopkins for special treatment, and at time the Canadian Health Care does cover these costs as well.

mummy2girls replied:
we do pay into alberta health care. we pay a certain amount every few month depending on how many people in the family etc. But we also can walk into emergency and see a doc and walk out not paying for anything. we take our kids to the peds etc and not pay, jenna sees an speech therapist, occupational therapist, physical therapist and i pay nothing. Jordan was in teh NICU, ped ward and PICU and i didnt pay a cent. so we are and arent paying into the health care system we have...

coasterqueen replied:
No you ARE paying into the health care system and what you don't pay someone else is. Money doesn't fall off trees. SOMEONE is paying for all your treatment, whether it be all you or someone else helping foot the bill. Unfortunately, I think this is the mentality that makes people feel they have such a great system -- because you feel you are getting more out of the system than you are paying into, but where is the fairness in that because SOMEONE has to pay for that, right? And even if it's the government, the government has to get their money from somewhere, right? And it's not from a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow.....like I wish it was for all of us. laugh.gif

mummy2girls replied:
no i mean we are paying into by taxes and the every 3 months we pay a certain amount depending on family size into the health care system but we dont pay when we leave a hospital. so that money i pay every few motnhs is to cover those er visits, doc app's, etc etc etc. so im not havuing people foot my bill i am paying into teh health system I am getting or needing. Prescriptions, dental, physio, etc etc is not covered so that we need to pay ourselves...

coasterqueen replied:
Right, but I'm saying does the taxes and your premiums add up to what you are costing when going to hospital, etc? Obviously that's the way it is in private health care as well, but the government isn't running our system. I do pay out-of-pocket for prescriptions, but besides my monthly premium (which can be set up for every 3,6,9 or 12 months, not just monthly) and my yearly deductible I rarely ever pay anything over that and *I* have more say about what health care plan I want and the government isn't telling me how long I have to wait, etc. KWIM?

moped replied:
Shelly, we have not paid AB Health care premiums since January 2009, so basically you got a $60 plus raise a month then............

moped replied: Karen, for sure we are paying through taxes no question we are! But we aren't paying out of pocket so to speak............

Every province is a bit different, but in Alberta we no longer pay health care premiums as shelly said we did, we don't anymore. Manitoba has never paid the premiums, I am not sure about the others. But yes we do pay through taxes no doubt..........

coasterqueen replied:
So for me the basic difference is that I don't want the government telling me what I can and can't do in regards to health care. I don't want to wait months even for simple procedures, or be told the morning I'm supposed to come in for an induction that I can't because of some reason, etc....I want to choose my health care options, freely, as the freedom of our country (US) is supposed to be about....or it was. dry.gif

ETA: AND I'm paying taxes so the whole country can have healthcare, yet those who don't work don't have to pay a thing since they aren't paying taxes. I'm selfish, I'm tired of paying for everyone else for everything. I'm about ready to quit my job, and let the government and the rest of the US working class pay for ME! tongue.gif

moped replied: Yeah I totally haer ya Karen! Understood. But really for a necessary procedure there aren't wait times.

Now can you tell me if you pay a lot monthly for your coverage? I assume it is part of your company insurance right?

Do you pay for prescriptions? Dental? eyglasses etc? Company coverage as well?

My2Beauties replied:
Well....it's sorta already like that.....the way it is now the people who don't work are on medicaid or some other state mandated health plan and the people who do work pay via their tax money.... rolling_smile.gif Never thought we'd agree on something huh? LOL! Well we just agree on the fact that it works that way, our opinions toward it might differ...but hey a common ground....moment of silence everyone..this goes down in history! Of course I'm joking...all in fun Karen wink.gif thumb.gif

coasterqueen replied:
Yeah, it's the same, but like I said right now the government isn't in control of my health care -- I'm not totally in control, but I have more control than if the government was in charge. happy.gif

My2Beauties replied:
Right I agree with that statement too...we're on a roll! laugh.gif

coasterqueen replied:
I would honestly have to ask my husband what he pays for our health insurance because his work offers it. My work insurance is just too much, IMO, to pay for at this time. Although my work pays 80% of our insurance, we would only pay 20%, but since I work for an office with three people in it, insurance is much higher than if I worked for a company with hundreds of employees, like Dh --that's why we went with his. His work self-funds their insurance, so we get a much better insurance program than a lot of places out there. When he first started there we didn't pay a dime for ours and we had PPO, which means we don't have to see particular docs or go to certain hospitals nor do we have to have referrals to see anyone. We still have PPO, but now we have to pay for our insurance so the company keeps it's costs down being self-funded. I don't envy those that have HMO insurance as they have to go through a lot more red tape. I want to keep my PPO! happy.gif His work also offers dental and eye insurance and we pay for that as well. Prescriptions are mainly $5 to $10. Some I've had to pay upwards of $40 for one, but my doctor usually tries not to prescribe ones that cost that much. Usually ones that cost that much are if you want a prescription drug, that can also be given over the counter. For instance I can get zyrtec (allergy med) OTC and I wanted to try zyxol which is prescription. It cost me $40 for that one, because they know zyrtec is OTC and the only difference between the two is that zyxol doesn't make you as sleepy as zyrtec does. Otherwise they work the same. For all OTC meds (cough syrup, allergy meds, anything med wise) we have a "Benny plan" where each year at the beginning of the year we determine how much we'll spend on OTC meds, insurance deductibles, over-cost dental stuff, etc and say that's $1,000 - then we have that deducted from his paycheck (a little bit each month over 12 months) TAX-FREE -- so that's a savings. The good thing with that is we get a credit card from the Benny program with that $1,000 on it at the beginning of the year to use -- so it saves from having to come up with money for deductibles and stuff through out the year and saves us on taxes. Make sense? happy.gif

I'll ask him what our premiums are each month and let you know.

moped replied: I get ya, and there are places here that I can go to and pay privatley (sp) and get whatever whenever, but I think they are pretty pricey, like $2000/year just to walk in, but I am not sure.

coasterqueen replied:
YAY! We're getting some where Lea Ann. thumb.gif

moped replied: I have one last question.

So with medicaid, can you explain it a bit. Is it a subsidized health care? Does it just provide the minimum health care required, nothing extra?


Once you answer this then I will have one last question laugh.gif

coasterqueen replied: Ok, I asked my sweet hubby and here's what he says he pays monthly for our health insurance for a family of 4:

Medical: 242.23 Monthly
Dental: 46.26 Monthly
Audo/Visual: 11.59 Monthly


Oh and I don't know how medicaid works, but I do know our good state is so backed up in paying it it's terrible!!!!!!!!!

cameragirl21 replied: Karen, Idk what kind of insurance you have but you're kidding yourself if you really think you're in control of your healthcare once you're insured. To an insurance company this is all a business and some people can't even get coverage--case in point, I know someone whose son is autistic and no one will insure him just because of that. It's madness, imo, and totally unacceptable and if that is to be allowed then I'd rather the govt just take over and make sure that everyone has coverage.
Another thing--my godson's mom has petit mal epilepsy and when she had a seizure at work, they called an amublance and took her to the doc who treats her. The insurance company didn't cover her ambulance ride and she got sued by the doc's office (or whoever it is that provides the ambulance...maybe a company) and had to pay nearly a thousand dollars when it was all over (this was partly her fault because she didn't show up for court but that's another story)...all this because she has the nerve to have epilepsy, as if she asked to have it and to have seizures.
I think Obama would be wiser to force insurance companies to seriously change their ways but tbh, if his plan puts them right out of business I'll say that they richly deserved it.
ETA--another thing, even my doc doesn't have insurance. She and her dh are both doctors, she's an internist, he's an ophthalmologist and they have 3 kids and she says it would cost her 1k per month for insurance so she just pays out of pocket. She says she just has insurance for catastrophic events. I think it's insane that even docs can't get reasonable insurance. She's lucky that as a doc she can cover a lot of the issues but when they go to get vaxed, she has to pay for that out of pocket because it's cheaper than 1k per month. 1k for a family of 3 to get medical insurance...what if she and her dh weren't docs...how much more would she have to pay for medical issues? I think it's pure insanity and there has to be a better solution than what we have now.

coasterqueen replied: Jennifer, I never said I had complete control of my insurance coverage, but at least I can go out there and shop for the plan I want and KNOW what is in my plan and pick and choose what I want. *I* want that control -- that's what I pay for. That's why I have PPO coverage.

Maybe the people you are referring to have HMO, that sounds more like it. I, personally, with PPO have not had much trouble whatsoever getting anything I wanted. The only thing I had trouble with was when there was an issue with Megan being covered for occupational therapy. It took a long time w/the insurance company to get them to cover that -- all coding issues, but it was resolved and while we don't get as many visits as I'd like to be covered it's more than some insurance plans.

I agree something needs to be done about insurance companies, but not the way Obama is going with it now.

ETA: What people need to understand when they are telling stories of others insurance nightmares is you have to compare apples to apples -- there are a ton of different insurance plans out there and some you get the gold standard and some you don't, but the thing is YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE WHAT YOU WANT AND PAY FOR IT....you won't with a government plan.

cameragirl21 replied: But Karen, you have lovely insurance which is relatively inexpensive for what it is because you have an employer that offers what appear to be great benefits. Your insurance does not come cheap, your employer is paying for the lion's share of it, that is a benefit to you of working there.
Those of us who are self employed don't get that luxury and if I had to support a child like Megan (with her gi problems and whatnot) as a self employed person then I'd either spend all my profits on insurance or on doctor visits. So does it mean if I have a child with a chronic issue (like my asthma for instance) then I have to go work for someone who offers great benefits, shut down my business and uproot my life in order to accomodate that child's problems?
Idk, I'd rather have what they have in Canada than the mess we have here. I'm all for capitalism, completely and entirely BUT medicine should never EVER be considered a business. Insurance companies make money off of people's health and lives and imo, that should be considered a crime in itself, punishable by serious prison time. Something has to be done and if no one can come up with a reasonable alternative to Obama's plan then I see nothing wrong with it, we need to do something and there don't seem to be many good options.

moped replied: $242.00/month is a lot to pay out, that is nearly $3000 a year - OUCH!!! That is a lot IMO. And I am assuming that is low compared to what other families in the US pay.

I have never had an issue with getting anything required. Luckily I don't have any health concerns, but if I did it would be no problem.

I am not trying to chang eyour mind, but don't completely knock it until you try it so to speak, you would have a lot more $$ in your jeans I would think.

I can't remember exactly how much my freind in North Dakota said she paid for a quick visit to the hospital to have a baby, but what insurance didn't cover was soemthing liek $2000 - INSANITY!

I was in the hospital 3 days with each kid and walked out, they gave me a private room and the best care anyone could ask for. Just as an example

Anyways, I hope whatever solution they come to is the right one because it seems that something needs to addressed.

coasterqueen replied:
Believe me, I've been in a situation where I didn't have an employer that offered insurance and I had serious medical issues myself and I paid out the nose (almost every dime I made) to pay for my own health insurance (excluding all previous health problems I had to pay out of pocket for). So I haven't always had the "luxury" I have now. But I was also brought up to believe that you make choices in life -- if you want to be self-employed you know what you are getting and what you are not -- YOU make that choice. My dad always said "Karen, get a job that gives you this, this, and this or else you are going to be in the situation I've always been in"........ so what did I do? I found a job that does that. There are many other things in life I'd rather be doing -- being self-employed -- but that doesn't work for what I want in life, so you make choices and take sacrifices.

Again, I know my words come off as selfish and such -- it's hard to explain things in writing a short paragraph, etc. I didn't grow up rich and privileged -- I came from the bottom of the barrel and luckily I had parents that made me strive to get out of the bottom and go towards the top (not that I'm at the top at all).

cameragirl21 replied: Karen, I'm not saying you were brought up rich and overprivileged or that you are now, that is not what I mean at all.
And if everyone chose to work for someone instead of opening a business just for the health benefits then there'd be a lot fewer businesses in the US and that would have its effect on the economy too. Small businesses are a huge part of the economy and no one should have to give that up just to get health benefits.
Personally, I think our health care coverage in the US actually puts us behind some third world countries where everyone is guaranteed healthcare, even if it's not the greatest level of healthcare. Not comparing us with a third world country but the bottom line is that not everyone can get a job with great benefits and that should not be the be all and end all either because like I said, we get a lot of benefit from having small businesses.
Something needs to be done now and if no one has a better plan than Obama's then yes, I'll embrace his plan with arms wide open.

luvmykids replied:
I would kill to pay that!!!! I'm paying that right now for JUST the kids, with a $2000/yr deductible, meaning we pay that monthly PLUS out of pocket for visits, etc until we hit $2000. So, really, since we come close but don't reach it, I'm paying $5K a year. To add DH and me would be another $200/mo dry.gif Granted, we're self employed and it would be much cheaper through a group plan.

Medicaid has different levels according to income, Jenn. The lowest incomes get 100% coverage.....no copays, no prescriptions, nothing. For the middle incomes who qualify, it is more like subsidization where they have small copays for visits and prescriptions and have to get approval for some coverages like vision or dental.

redchief replied: I didn't get a chance to vote... But I would have voted no.

I DO believe that we have an obligation to provide a minimum of health care for everyone. That being said, I also believe that we have that financially we have to be responsible about what a minimum standard of care is. That debate is going to take time.

I don't know how anyone could do a "quick read" of this health care reform package. It's huge, cumbersome, sometimes confusing, and worst of all, no one knows how much it's going to cost. We NEED to know how much it's going to cost.

I agree that many small businesses will simply cough up the 8% levy finding it cheaper than paying into the insurance pool. I worry more that instead of coughing up an additional 8% or more in taxes, they'll simply downsize and lay off those employees. That would be a shame with what appears to be a recovery beginning.

Finally, why is our government SO scared of taking on the real reasons for spiraling health care costs? They are, in no particular order:
- Medical malpractice claims and the scumbags that have twisted reasonable care into what it is today
- Health insurance companies who torture the insured with walls of paperwork and treatment "rules."
- The GREEDY medical care industry... No where in the world do medical professionals make what they do here, and no where in the world is drug manufacturing and marketing what it is here. That's fact, not speculation.

We've got pills for everything. We've got a medical professional who specializes in any little itch or bug we've got... and let's face it, specialize should be spelled "$pe$hali$e." Medicine is big business and big government's scared to death of it. Big business is big money is election.

DV's right... Our current government is incapable of creating a lean, efficient health care system. When the congressional representatives won't even listen to the concerns of their constituents, we are lost. They are so bent on doing something/anything, that they're willing to sell us all down a road we might just not want to walk.

We DO need health care reform, but creating another layer of bureaucracy won't reform anything. Do we all feel safer with the new Dept. of Homeland Security? I don't, and I work within its framework. Is the revamped FEMA better able to respond to natural disaster? I know the answer... It isn't what you might think.

TLCDad replied: As a self paying to private insurance with a HUGE and I mean HUGE deductable, I am 100% for goverment run co-op plus private run health insurance. To top it off my insurance premiums went up 30% in two years. This is unacceptable.

I find it quite odd that there are so many people out there who are not very educated on the plan and only listen to Fix News. This WILL NOT be a Canada 100% government run plan. It will be a co-op. A government run co-op will bring in competition to private insurance forcing them to lower rates and this is good for everyone. Not to mention all the reform to private insurance including not allowing them to not accept or refuse to pay for pre-existing conditions.

And please do not listen to Glen Beck. He is probably one of the largest liars I have ever heard. Especially on the latest cars.gov thing. He completely misled about what part of the site he was visting. Really ticked me off as a web developer not only did he insult us developers, he completely lied. Grrr. Not to mention the guy is a not quite stable to say the least... for example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YA7-BvVDV10

Sorry to be in such a mood. But I take this Health care debate very serious as small business owners and self employed are really hit hard with the insurance costs more than any other blue collar worker... probably in range of 3-4x as much.

To be honest if this reform does not pass or does not include the co-op, I will highly consider moving to Canada. I am very serious about that. I'd probably make more anyhow.

coasterqueen replied:
And are you talking about people on here? Because I do not listen to just Fox News. happy.gif

Also, there are MORE reasons that you are speaking of that I think this plan is a bad idea. Being that you are a religious person, or at least I gathered that from Dee Dee, I think you would be appalled about a government-run plan allowing abortions to be paid for. Do you know how many more abortions will be done? I find it completely sickening to say the least, and I'm a pro-choice advocate.

TLCDad replied: I am talking about everyone not just on here.

Do I agree with everything in the "current" proposed bill, no. But I rarely agree with everything in any bill. But the good definitely outways anything I disagree with.

Yes, I am a Christian and against causual abortions. But I also do not want government outlawing all abortions because that would stop abortions that are done due to the risk of the mother or disease.

But you are completely wrong about the government ran co-op plan paying for abortions. The Hyde admendment prohibits this for all plans including private insurance. So no insurance, government ran or private ran will be allowed to cover casual abortions.

Again it appears you are falling for what the Neocons say as fact when most of the time is very misleading or completely false. They use scare tactics which are completely untrue.

boyohboyohboy replied: so may I ask, where is it that I can read the bill as it is presented? where can I see the pros and cons debated in a true way?
Googling it on line just about gives you any view you imagine to click on..
and right now I have been watching the news hit AARP for their stance on it, and frankly it sounds scary. I am a huge elder care supporter, and right now I dont know what to believe. I also have kids who have serious pre exhisting conditions..I feel like I cant get enough info on this.

redchief replied:
Wellll... it's not quite that simple, but I can give you a start. What a lot of people don't understand is that most "bills" out of Congress aren't one bill at all, but a compilation of several acts (mini-bills for lack of a better word), and in some cases, many acts. The acts all go through whatever committees the speakers decide they need to before being presented on the floor for a full vote compiled as a full bill. Sometimes they die in committee, others they are reworked into bills that can garner the support they would need to pass (this is where a lot of pork barrel spending comes from).

Worse, even the simplest bill starts as two different versions - one from the Senate and one from the House. So one house can pass a bill and it will still never see a presidential signature if the other refuses. Then the president himself can veto a bill that has passed, thereby making the houses decide if they want to override the veto or rework the bill into something the president will agree with. What's really and truly amazing is that they can get anything done.

Here's a good start: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/ge...f:h15ih.txt.pdf
That's the House of Representative version of the act that would create National Health Insurance, called the National Health Insurance Act. It's about one hundred pages long and is only a small piece of the Health Care Reform Bill. If you really want, you can wade through all of the acts currently being considered by this Congress at: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/Bi...ml&billtype=all

jcc64 replied:

That is, if you can afford it......

Ita with Rod and Ed. Why should a hard working, personally responsible guy like Rod be forced to flee his homeland in pursuit of accessible, affordable health care?? I am consistently confounded by the ubiquitous statement that "I don't want the gov't interfering with medical decisions." Under our current system, that role is instead played by insurance companies---not known for their let's-do-right-by-the-patient impulses. Is that a better option for the consumer--to be at the mercy of an industry whose business model is predicated on denying care as much as it possibly can?? Has that worked out well for us, the wealthiest nation on the planet, with a health care system currently ranked around 37% internationally? We pay more (20% of our GDP, I believe) and receive far, far less. From an economic standpoint alone, how is this system serving our needs as a nation in total?
For those lucky people enjoying the "gold standard of care" mentioned somewhere up thread, I only pray that you or a family member don't wind up with some catastrophic illness somewhere down the line that unexpectedly devours your lifetime cap that you may not even be aware exists, leaving you uninsurable with a pre-existing condition. Most policies have a max that is easily exceeded with the cost of drugs and high tech treatments used to treat cancer, diabetes, cardiac issues, etc... I saw it happen to my dad, a lifetime government employee with the best insurance on the planet, who had the misfortune of suffering two different cancers and heart problems from the age of 50. Unlike most of the speculative drivel and fear mongering being peddled by the usual suspects, the dire scenarios of which I speak are real and occurring with great regularity every day. Why people are willing to run that risk when they have the possibility of obtaining some measure of protection or security against the worst-case scenarios of which I spoke continues to eludes me.

TLCDad replied: Could not of said it better myself. Also for a good read (and view): http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/08/o...o_n_254563.html

I know it is a Huffington post article as they usually are too liberal for me, but I was more interested in the video and transcript so a very good read and view.

A&A'smommy replied: I'm so far past against this it isn't funny and I pretty much agree with everything Karen is saying. I have AWESOME insurance that my husband has worked VERY VERY VERY hard for and if this goes through we are going to have worse insurance and why would anyone agree with the elder part of it, AND the abortion part of it. There are a LOT more cons than pros and they definitely out weigh the positive little parts of it. Did you KNOW that when someone is considered terminal that they will not even be given the chance to try and fight it that they will be assigned a death counselor?? how fair is that, and I KNOW people who were considered terminal and are now almost completely recovered!!!

boyohboyohboy replied:
Jeanne, please correct me if I am wrong but right now if a health insurance is in charge of seeing who can and cant receive care, they are only saying they refuse to pay for it..but you still have the option of going and getting the care you need if you can pay for it yourself....
but what I am hearing (I havent finished the pages given here in my reading) is that if the government is to decide who gets care, thats it, you are deemed not worth the money and you are not given the option to be healed or helped just handed an end of life sentence.
and from what I have seen that end of life sentence can start with people who are only in their 50's

I am very interested in what this health care does limit us to as a mom of kids with preexhisting health conditions.
I worry about what happens when the money runs out for this system..it might work out fine at first, but then what?
I also think that people who wouldnt normally run to the er (at first) but now do have government provided care, are going to go for things that they dont need too, and are going to spend the money way faster then they think..

I again just dont see the rush to make a decision..that is my biggest problem with this right now. Why not make it more accessable for us all to see, and make sure that the congressmen and congress woman are reading and discussing with us what is being presented..my understanding is that once this is done, there is no going back..so wouldnt it make sense to get it right the first time? I also keep hearing that the people making this decision for us are not going to be using the same system the rest of us do anyway, how is that right?

coasterqueen replied:
You are right. I scare so easily and listen only to Neocons so what would I know?

boyohboyohboy replied: can you describe what a neocon believes?

jcc64 replied:

Ok, you asked me to correct you, so here goes:
There's a huge gap in your logic. You are correctly asserting that under the present system, "you still have the option of going and getting the care you need if you can pay for it yourself..." If I am understanding your statement, you believe that under the new proposal, some evil government official could prevent you from accessing care even if you are again willing and able to pay for it. That's completely false and doesn't even make a whole lot of sense. You can buy ANYTHING in this country if you have the means. Do you honestly believe that if someone needed and wanted an expensive medical procedure and was standing there in the doctor's office, cash in hand, that she would be turned away?
As far as Sarah Palin's infamous "death squads" waiting in the wings to off all the sick and elderly, this is salacious propaganda being propagated by the insurance companies and amplified by political opponents of Obama who have little interest in our health and well being but a whole lot invested in seeing his agenda go down in a ball of flames. What he actually said was that end of life care consumes a disproportionately large portion of health care expenditures, and he wanted to begin a dialogue about the way health care money is allocated, in conjunction to some of our behaviors and attitudes surrounding the inevitability of death. In any good business model, when trying to reform a broken, dysfunctional system (and like it or not, that IS the state of our health care system), the biggest expenses need to be examined closely to figure out if the money is always being utilized wisely. For instance, my father had terminal kidney cancer a few years back. After he exhausted all of the available treatment options, he decided to pursue hospice care at home. He could have instead checked into a hospital ICU for the last few months of his life, undergone invasive, expensive procedures that had no curative potential whatsoever, been miserable and uncomfortable and alone in a hospital bed day and night. For this, thousands and thousands of dollars would have been spent on a person whose lungs were no longer capable of draining on their own, whose bones were literally breaking apart b/c of tumors, etc...Is this money well spent when his death was imminent either way? Instead, he died at home, with his dogs on the bed with him, surrounded by family, and as in control of his body as he possibly could be. It was a beautiful, peaceful death, and I thank god for it. He decided how much pain medication he needed, how conscious he wanted to be at the end, etc...Decisions were left up to him and him alone, which is not the case in the hospital, where medical decisions are mainly based on fear of litigation.

We are phobic about death in this country, and even Obama's suggestion that we simply open up a dialogue about people in situations like my father is enough to send us into irrational hysterics. If we are sincere about wanting a better system, then we have to be willing to look at our own culpability in creating the problems with the one we already have. Sometimes, we simply don't need to have EVERY test, EVERY procedure, just to bury our own fears about our mortality. We are ALL going to die, and after a certain point, no amount of money will ever change that. To use a crude analogy, it's kind of like buying new rims or a fancy stereo system for a car with a seized engine. A lot of end of life procedures are pointless and prohibitively expensive--the doctors know it, the hospitals know it, and on some level the patient probably knows it too, but everyone keeps playing the game just so the profits keep rolling in and the patient can pretend that he isn't going to die. I do think it's ok to talk about a better way to spend our limited resources, and that's all that Obama actually said. If you listen to him directly, (click on Rod's link above) rather than all the distorted commentary ABOUT him, you'd get a clearer picture of what's actually on the table.

coasterqueen replied: QUOTE: If you listen to him directly, (click on Rod's link above) rather than all the distorted commentary ABOUT him, you'd get a clearer picture of what's actually on the table. " QUOTE

And since he is "the one" politician that would NEVER lie about anything you believe every word he says? laugh.gif Yeah, he'll be the ONLY politician ever to do that. rolling_smile.gif I seem to recall living through the IL All for Kids care that Blagojevich put together and how Obama is modeling a lot of what he's doing after that.......our state can't even pay for the system so it can't give it to "all kids". rolling_smile.gif But you are exactly right, it's ONLY the distorted commentary giving people their views. rolling_smile.gif

boyohboyohboy replied:
But part of the problem is that there are a lot fewer dr's and hospitals then there were at least where I am, due to increased malpractice and also the hosps couldnt sustain their spending..so I dont think if you have enough money to pay for health bennefits its always going to be available to you, I guess you could go else where to get it, but right now for example with the insurance we have thru DH work, we can get what we need right here.. I dont think that is me, having a loss of logic..
I also think that manymany people are afraid of end of life issues, and yes there are times when care or money is spent on people that really dont have very much chance of surviving..but shouldnt it still be their decision? Right now people have access to hospice and living wills and many dont chose that option. Some people want to fight the fight until their last breath, that isnt a wrong choice, it shouldnt be right or wrong and it shouldnt be about money, it should be about life..and know one should be able to tell you whos life is worth more..If I have cancer and all my organs are shutting down, my chances are about 1% of surviving, but I want to do the treatments, why stop me? Because the hosp. doesnt want to pay any of the costs? because the insurance company will not pay?
and older persons life shouldnt be worth less just because they have lived a life and had experiences and a baby hasnt..a new college grad. who is about to enter the business world isnt worth more then an 75 yr old who is battling cancer. and is retired..
I think that its not just that they are saying that the government might be making the choice of who gets what test or care, but its that once the money is gone, there is going to be a ration on care and dr's, and hospitals and labs..and skilled workers in those places to complete them..someone will have to decide like a traige in a hospital who goes first.. also I have seen it written where if you have your own health insurance and you like that, ok keep it, but if you change jobs, lose your job, or in anyway, add or delete someone from your current policy then you have to switch to the governement run plan. How is that chosing my own plan?
dr's and other medical professionals have been leaving their professions for a few years now, many are saying that they are going to cont. to do so.
nursing staff has been dangerously low for many years now, and as the population grows is only going to get worse.
I am a former hospice nurse myself, I do work in geriatrics currently, I do believe in helping people pass in the most loving and with the most dignity possible, but I also wouldnt want to be assisting someone who wants to fight..

and the main issue I have is that no matter what channel or web site I go to, with the thought alway on my mind, that it might not be true what I am reading..its always so contridicting and confusing..I feel the law makers owe it to use\ to go slower...not pass anything right now, its not ok to pass bills and deal with the fall outs later, not when it comes to something like this..and it just sickens me to see these town hall meetings with people who are yelling and then people calling them mobs and out of control freaks, or plants, when its people just venting how they feel, frustrated and scared. I cant imagine being in my 70's right now wondering what is going to happen to me if I get sick. not knowing where to get info, having my law makers walk out of meetings where I am trying to get info, and hearing all these scary stories on the news.. I watch CNN , FOX, headline news, CBS. I think I get a variety of news. I listen to talk radio, I hear the conflicts. I am registered independant, I dont consider myself stupid, but I am not as educated on politics as I wish I was. I do know that I am a citizen, a mom , a wife, and a nurse who wonders if I even want to live in the USA anymore.

I dont look at government as big old bad and creepy, I look at it cautiously, suspiciously, just like I do most things in my life, I dont see the point of calling people who want answers names, and labels that are just mean and hateful and then spir emotion that is again used against them.
I see more of that then anything else..even here.

I also wonder sometimes what are we leaving our children. I wonder if they are going to suffer in a world so different from ours.

coasterqueen replied:
ITA. hug.gif hug.gif I think it's great that you want to look for answers. Just be aware that if you don't listen to a particular news station or website, that you more than likely will be called names....that's how people are. People don't seem to understand that a person can have views based on personal beliefs, views of their own, PLUS a mass variety of news media, even business experience. Oh well....just remember you, yourself know why you have the beliefs you do so if someone calls you a name (won't mention any that i've been called happy.gif ) you know whether you are or not, etc. hug.gif

BTW, I know in our state our state is so far behind (months and months and months) of paying bills, especially medicare and medicaid that hospitals and docs are having to take the brunt of the state not paying. The state says "sorry, can't pay now, we'll pay you in 90 days or so, if we can" and then the docs and hospitals are left with debt after debt trying to survive without going under. Why is this? Because it's a "government run" program that our lovely government (state and federal, imo) like to say "oops, sorry, you'll get your money when we say you get it" and leave people high and dry. I see this less with insurance companies.......at least from what I deal with in the insurance arena I am in. I see this happening on a much larger scale with this new health care system proposed and the states, at least from what I've read, a lot of them are scared this is going to fall back on them to pay and they can't afford it. Many states are going bankrupt as it is.

Think about it....we see this being the case with other things as well. How many of us say we will never count on social security when it comes our turn to collect, because it won't be there the way the government is handling it now.........do we really expect insurance programs to be any different? Well, sorry, but I personally don't expect it to be any different.

jcc64 replied:

But if this is your fear, this is the way it ALREADY is, under the current system. You also brought up the fear of losing insurance that you like if you lose your job. That, too, is the way things currently are. It seems to me that those are 2 solid reasons to be open to reform. The things you fear are already here with the insurance companies at the wheel. The gov't issued insurance may not be the perfect solution with all things for all people, but imo, it's gotta be better than what we already have.
And finally, with regard to people being entitled to fight until their dying breath, we have to keep in mind that everything, everything, comes with a price tag. And if that's the system that the American people want, then they have to be willing to pay for it. Everybody wants everything under the sun, but nobody wants his taxes raised. You can't have it both ways. One way or another, we all pay. Like it or not, we already pay for the uninsured who use the ER as primary care b/c that's their only access to medicine, in the form of higher premiums with our private insurance. With a gov't plan, those costs can be controlled b/c people will receive a level of care more appropriate to their illnesses, not in top of the line hospital settings.
Lots to think about, and I do agree that we need to proceed judiciously and with caution, but something's gotta give.

TLCDad replied: Please help me understand why you guys think your going to lose the insurance you have? Your not going to be forced into any government plan unless YOU WANT to. Many who have very high costs or not good coverage will switch, but if you like what you have you will not have to. The only thing you will see is benefits of lower costs (due to competition) and no longer have to worry about your insurance not covering something such as existing conditions. Do you know RIGHT NOW if you were to get a chronic illness and you switch jobs you will no longer have insurance. And the insurance you do have will try to find every reason it can to not cover you. Trust me, I am talking from experience. I had to argue over something similar not to long ago with an insurance assumed pre-condition issue. It took over a year to settle the issue during which time I had to practically beg hospitals and doctors not send bills to collections and hurt our credit. This bill will completely eliminate this.

This will be much better for everyone. The more insured the less chance disease spreading. Sit back and think about it for a moment... if there is a government offered co-op plan which makes it affordable for all the people who can not afford private insurance but want it (in fact will be manditory if you have children). They will now be able to the doctor and get treated for viral and bactaria infections which means now they can not spread it to you or your family. So this means less chance of you getting sick.

Now think about the economy. I know I am a computer programmer so I look at logic in just everything, but think about it... If we all get lower costs in our insurance due to competition, then everyone will have more money to spend into our economy which means more revenue for large business which in turn means more revenue to the goverment to pay for the co-ops. So its all good.

By the way, the terminal illness for eldery scare is completely false. This just now means the government will now pay 100% for a living will. Which it has not fully done before. Does not mean you will not be treated unless you specifically said not too. For example if I am over 90 and I am diagnosed with cancer I would have in my living will not to treat me and let me go to Hospice where my family can visit and be with me during my last days. Treament for the cancer would more than likely only do worse at that age and I would not want my family seeing me in "that" condition. And a hospital usually would not tell you that as not all but many would only be in it for the money. So the only "issue" is that this now encourages living wills. Which not a bad thing as this makes it up to them for the decisions of their health care in such a condition.

TLCDad replied:
One word "Power" -- over the people especially when it comes to military. They use scare tactics as a way to push people on their side. For example the Bush Doctrine. We were told Iraq was involved in 9/11. We were told they had Weapons of Mass Destruction. Which as we all know, both were untrue.

A Neoconservative believes that power comes from the people and that no-one deserves any handouts or welfare. They feel everyone should be able to do well on themselves and that the goverment of the USA is to be only for POWER towards other countries. But as you will find out most Neocons were born into money and did not earn it themselves and do not know how rough the world can be on the poor.

I know this sounds harsh but feel free to search for the definition and you will see most lean towards what I just mentioned.

Do not get me wrong, I am basically a 1930s liberal when liberalism flurished which is were Neoconversativism originally came from and meant. But over the years they felt Liberalism has failed and in my opinion on most parts it has but they went way to far off to the right. I am now what we call a Moderate which in my opinion is what the 1930s liberal was.

coasterqueen replied: Yep, I know I'm a neocon. I had a silver spoon in my mouth from day one. Then I married into an even wealthy family. My parents must have lost all their money, though, as I have a parent who hasn't had a steady job for 2+ years now, both parents without health insurance and major pre-existing conditions/health issues. My IL's also lost all their money too as well.....4th marriage and all.......otherwise I came from a neocon background. happy.gif

And it only sounds harsh when you say people must be listening to neocons and have the neocon belief just because their beliefs different from yours and happen to be the other belief.

boyohboyohboy replied: I for one would be very greatful to anyone posting info on sites that show all sides of this debate and things that are done with video straight from the presidents mouth.

coasterqueen replied:
Like the common cold that we shouldn't be going to doctors for anyways??? So the flu will spread less??? Maybe we should teach people to wash their hands, etc....that isn't a reason to have a national healthcare system. Sure, maybe other diseases, but most common diseases just take common sense and not rushing to the doctor all the time.

And helping the economy....sure, it could and that would be great, if I had any faith that is exactly what is going to happen. How do you know for sure it will?

coasterqueen replied:
That would be great Stacy, but in politics you will find out that you can't just listen to it straight from the president's mouth. He isn't the end all of this. There are legislators drafting the bill(s) and what he tells you is the icing on the cake, not the ingredients inside.....that is what I'd really watch out for -- whether it be true or not. This should be the case with EVERY piece of legislation you care about, not just this.

TLCDad replied:
First I never said you were a Neocon but you say you are? So are you? Second I only said MOST of today's Neocons were born into money. That is a fact. I respect many conservatives who have earned where they are today. In fact being a moderate (or Conservative Democrat) I am one of those. But I also believe some people need our help. Especially when you look at the big picture those people helped get everyone where they are today. Think of the population as one big building where the rich (and most likely born into) are at the top. You knock off the lower supports the whole building will fall.

Third I only mentioned Neocon scare tactics because you specifically mentioned talking points spread by them and I had to point out it was false or at the very least misleading. And yes, I find it a bad decisions to even watch Glen Beck as he is the top absolutle lying Neocon on the list. I only briefly listen to him so I would know what I am talking about. Although I am finding that even hard to do now because I do not think that guy is stable at all.

coasterqueen replied:
You are right, you didn't call me one here but you said this that I quoted saying I'm "falling" for their beliefs and well if they are Neocon for their beliefs....well if mine are them then I guess I must be a Neocon, simple logic right?

I just think it could have been said in a kinder fashion, or simply not said at all, because personally I'm not "falling" for any of their beliefs. I believe my beliefs because I choose to and not just because of Glen Beck or any other Fox news host. I get enough material on this very subject across my desk on a daily basis for work both democratic and republican views that I don't need to "fall" for their views.

Now I'm not offended, that's why I joked about it and about being a Neocon. I think you'd be quite surprised at the number of "neocons" who didn't have a silver spoon in their mouth from birth wink.gif

TLCDad replied:
You quoted something they state as fact when it is not, so yes I stand by my statement of "falling for what they say". Does that mean you believe as a Neocon, I do not know, that is something you would have to tell me. From your posts you say your not, so I will take your word on that. My simple logic then, would only be then you are misinformed by who you are watching or taking "fact" from. But I will not sit here and allow false statements being posted without having to respond to them. Sorry if you expect me to do so.

coasterqueen replied:
Can you please tell me what things I quoted that are from the Neocons? Also, how is YOUR information fact? Just because the President said so? I am all for being called out when I am telling "false statements" for sure. Honestly, in the end everything we say, both sides, isn't set in stone until the ink is on the paper....it's all speculation of what MAY happen wink.gif

coasterqueen replied: Yeah, the only thing I mentioned about Fox News was Canadians coming on talking about their healthcare system...I don't know how that's giving false statements -- that is them telling their truth -- unless they are lying -- but are the lying just because they are on Fox News???????

Otherwise, mainly everything else I said was OPINION of what I believe the system will be like and what I based my opinions on are NOT solely from Fox News. I may watch Fox news for 1/2 hour a week these days. rolleyes.gif If you heard it on Fox News and it so happens to be my opinion as well....doesn't mean my opinions are false statements.

But if you find anything that I said to be false statements (my opinions) then please let me know and I will retract them. Because I think in my first post right off the bat I stated my opinions and why i thought they were the case. And honestly I based my opinions on the Canadian healthcare system (as I mentioned elsewhere in this post) by the ones my Dh has worked with and dealt with the system as well as what I've read (and only read) on here.

TLCDad replied:
You mentioned several times in your posts their scare tactic talking points. One of them being you keep mentioning or adhering to that you will be forced into a government plan. That is completely false.

I get my facts from fact check websites as well as reading the actual issues. Do I take everything Obama says as absolute fact, of course not, I know he is a politician, but I also know he has personal reasons for this reform, just like I do. His mother was denied care. So he does have a bit of experience with the problem we face and has no reason to lie. If he lies, it hurts him 1000 x more than a Neocon talk show host. So are you asking would I believe the president more than some one like Shawn Hannity or Glen Beck then yes I would. That is common sense to be honest although I was punk'd by George Bush as I did believe things he said about Iraq at first.







coasterqueen replied:
It is common sense to be honest....most politicians I know don't use it though. Fact, at least for the ones I know.

AND just because I mention what seems like "scare tactics" to you and all the other Democrats out there doesn't mean they are false, it's an opinion of what I and many others believe will happen. laugh.gif Not sure how that makes it false, because any Democrat says it's not? You won't know if it's FALSE until it happens - I said I FEEL MY OPINION IS that it will. I'm using MY common sense when making the decisions to have the opinions I have and not using scare tactics. And I'm not certainly going to believe that every democratic view is TRUE....just as I don't believe every republican view is true.

And I had a HORRIBLE time with care and still do when it comes to a pre-existing condition and will face that if I ever not have insurance -- doesn't sway my view on I want to decide my healthcare and I want the government out of my business.

Sorry, I don't see how my views -- because they may sound like scare tactics to you -- make them any less false than yours. I really don't. I'm not getting the connection here on how yours are true making mine false. Mine are opinions on what might happen based on my beliefs. So are yours.

TLCDad replied:
Karen, please do not insult my intelligence. You know exactly that I was referring to more serious infections such as strepp, staph infections, etc.

MommyToAshley replied: I tend to lean more to the right on most issues (yes that makes for some pretty interesting discussions in our house, especially around election time), but I have to agree with Rod on one thing... I do believe and have always believed that everyone should have equal access to education (including higher education) and health care. I believe those are two rights that people are entitled to regardless of race, ages, sex, or income.

But, I don't know exactly where I stand right now on the health care issue. The two political parties are doing their normal twisting of the facts and slinging dirt at one another that you really don't know what to believe. There really isn't one bill that you can look at and get all the facts, because there's so many different ideas and bills being thrown around that I have no idea what to believe. You even have people from the same political party disagreeing with one another. So, for now, I will just say that I agree that there needs to be reform, but until I see something concrete I can't really sign off and say that I support or stand against any particular plan or bill. And, I don't think putting a deadline on passing a health care bill just to count it as a political win is a good idea... I think we all agree that this needs to be entered into with caution.

TLCDad replied:
Its only when you base your views off of supposed facts, that are not true if you research what is actually planned. You listen to pundits that spread false information. I am basing my "opinions" on facts on what is proposed. Not everyone takes the time to read or invest into the issue and take what someone "on their political side" as true. I like to hear both sides and then invest the time to research. So yes, I can comfortably say my opinions are based on fact.

Do I know if everything I say will turn out to be true... absolutely not as I can not see the future, but I know absolutely that if nothing is done it will get worse. My insurance premiums which is not the best by any means has increased 1/3 just in the 2 years I had it. So if I take that as a trend it will quadruple or more within the next 5-10 years. This is what "my side" has been telling me for years and guess what they were correct.

Like I said I also base my opionion on logic. And I take the car insurance we have in Ohio as an example. Before it became manditory car insurance was pretty expensive. Now it is much less based on the rate of inflation due to competition. Now health care obviously is much more involved and no where as simple as car insurance but the underlying logic is still valid.

Now I will concede to one thing and that is yes, at least at first, there probably will be more wait times as more people will be insured. But you know what I will gladly take the extra time sitting in a waiting room knowing that my waiting is also allowing a previously uninsured child to NOW get proper health care.

jcc64 replied:

Check out the Huffington Post link Rod provided up thread. On it, you will find a link to video of Obama's weekly radio address where he addresses pretty much every concern you've voiced here.

mummy2girls replied: I have to say I dont think the canadian health care sucks. And im not saying it because im canadian. Yes i have called to book a physical and it took 2 motnhs to get in, yes jenna needed surgery and was put on teh waiting list BUT that because her surgery was not life threating and if it was you bet she would of been put through first. It took her a long time because more severe cases came through taht needed surgery more. here are what i experienced...

I had the bleeding and passing of HUGE clots 1 week after Breanna was born and i went straight to the er. they bumped me in first because of why i was there and i was given an ultrasound blood work and such within 15 minutes. When they discovered the placenta the ob on call was contacted and she rushed me in for surgery. I was admitted and in for 2 days and had the best care.

Marcus had the fast heart rate and he walked into the er for that because it was dangerously high. and they rushed him in and he was seen and such within minutes.

Jordan was sick and throwing up bile and i rushed him in and there was 10 people ahead of him, they saw what he looked like and bumped him in front of all the people and he was seen, assessed and admitted within 30 minutes.

Jenna had her first surgery and the next day she was not eating, throwing up and in severe pain. we took her in to the er and even though there was like 20 kids waiting to be seen in the peds er they bumped her in and she was rushed in and assessed by a ped.

Breanna was having issues with her formula, her poop not normal, bleeding with the poop , i called her doctor and he booked for her to come in on his lunch hour.

So yes things like a cold, flu, physical, etc yes you may have a waiting time but more severe things you get seen right there. so yes in a way it sucks because of the wait time BUT when your health depends on it they will see you.

coasterqueen replied:
Well, I honestly wasn't trying to insult your intelligence, not sure why you are getting up in arms about it. I honestly thought you were talking about the "common viral and bacterial diseases" and well, I think of the cold and flu - so I guess it's my intelligence that is insulted.

Again, you can consider what I say to be false, whatever, that is your choice. If you want to ASSUME I only listen to a certain station or whatever to get my information, that is your choice. I guess the rest who are against the insurance issue must listen only to those stations as well and must not be intelligent enough to make an educated decision. This thread started out as everyone giving their opinion. One thing I thought this board was good for is letting people give their opinions, not bashing people and telling them they are lying because of their opinions. Wasn't the rule supposed to be about giving your opinion without directing it towards members of this board???? Isn't that what you did to me? Why did you single out me when others on the thread expressed the same views as me, just not in as detail as me?

Again, I gave my opinions, they are mine, not Fox News or any other, there are others who have the same opinion as me. I respect your opinion, it's yours and it's yours to believe. Thank you so much for respecting mine.

jcc64 replied:

Amen to that.

Thank you to both Shelley and Jen for giving us the Canadian perspective. As far as I know, they have no political stakes in the US healthcare debate, which imo makes their opinions a whole lot more credible than what has been represented on Fox. From what I can ascertain from Shelley's post in particular, the access doesn't sound much different than ours'--we have long waits for well visits here--I have to book my ob/gyn well visit 6-8 months in advance. Is that not a wait time??
Not one person has responded to my questions/comments about the practices of private insurance, and why so many opposed to health care reform see them as more trustworthy than those of the gov't. Have they proven themselves to be honest, compassionate, patient-friendly stewards of our wellness, or have they in fact consistently denied care to those most in need (and no, i'm not speaking about poor people, I'm referring to people with acute, chronic illnesses, whose suffering is a result of bad luck, not a lack of personal responsibility). Every single one of us is a diagnosis away from being one of these unlucky people. Why do you want to take that chance, when there is a proposal on the table to GUARANTEE access to you, regardless of a pre-existing condition, regardless of ability to pay, regardless of whether you are temporarily out of work. Instead, you will have the peace of mind to know that you can get sick, be taken care, and not bankrupt yourself or your loved ones in the process of fighting for your life.
And finally, if we can come up with the astronomical amount of money it is taking to wage a pointless war initiated under false pretenses, then I think we can come up with the money to properly take care of not only our soldiers who are fighting it, but the rest of us back here as well.

jcc64 replied: This article directly addresses the current practices of private insurances I mentioned above, with some compelling case histories:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/08/...m=/news/feature

DVFlyer replied: Another related article:

http://www.buffalonews.com/367/story/758795.html?imw=Y

TLCDad replied:
When I posted to this thread, I absolutely was not singling you out. You decided to have a civil debate with me which I am happy to do. But, if you expect me not to respond to what I know is false rumors or information you are very mistaken.

I have much more personal reasons for this reform, so obviously I am going to be very serious about it.

BTW, just some interesting facts for you to think about. Although I am not for 100% universal government run care, here is some really interesting facts about Canada:

84% of Canadians are satisfied with their health care. To me that is no surprise. Also the life expectancy of Canada is 80.4 where as in the USA it is only 78.1. Only the Netherlands have a higher age than Canada and they have Universal care as well.

Now a more surprising fact that I did not even know was true is that USA's highest income tax rate is 35% where Canada is only 29%. So even though Canada has a good universal care where every citizen is insured they still pay less income taxes. Now mind you I assume this does not count sales taxes which Canada has. But as many of you know I am for a national sales tax over federal income tax.


cameragirl21 replied:
me too.

moped replied:
Goes to show you can't believe everything you read....... wink.gif

mummy2girls replied:
true. Jenna has Asthma aand is not turned down by the alberta health care. she gets her treatments, and meds ( as a single mom i didnt have to pay for her meds but now that im married that childrens medical coverage runs out for me and i have to pay out of pocket BUT marcus has coverage for meds and such so at least i wont have to pay 100%) But her treatments, appointments etc is covered. She will not be turned away because she has asthma.

moped replied: Interestingly enough, or sadly enough I just ran into a freind I used to work with at lunch and she informed me that she has breast cancer and had a biopsy yesterday and will be back in on Friday for the results and to talk to a surgeon about her options. She said in a matter of days her whole life has changed and she cannot belive how quickly they are working for her. She doesn't know what stage of cancer yet but that she has breast cancer and will be making numerous trips to the doctor, whom she said has been wonderful to her through this and her underlying issues with MS that she has dealth with most of her adult life.

Just thought I would let you guys know how quickly things do happen here....nobody gets put aside to "die".

My2Beauties replied: I haven't really chimed in on this subject yet and will not do so about my personal opinion, but I do want to add that a very very good friend of mine that used to work with me at a private insurance company (before I came here, one of the largest ones) was from Canada and she said the system in Canada is awesome. She said that is the one thing she misses the MOST about living there and she loved the care she received. She has several health issues and said she was treated with the best of care. I'm not sure what province she was from, I can ask her. Of course with her working in the healthcare industry here when she came over, she was absolutely appalled at the way we do things here. I worked for one of these industries, yes they do deny claims, yes they do everything possible they can to make sure claims are not paid, yes they are backwards, yes they make an obscene astronomical profit every single year, it's absolutey absurd what they make off of healthcare, sad really. The company would hold these quarterly meetings about how they were basically trying to do away with HMO's and PPO's and only go with these High Deductible Health Plans, which if you don't know what one is, you pay the entire deductible up front before insurance pays a dime, the deductibles are high just like the plan says, upwards of $2000-6000 and the premiums are just as bad. Absurd you're basically paying completely out of pocket anyways. It only benefits extremely sick people who have FSA's to cover the cost up front and then meet the deductible quickly. Normal everyday families that only go to the doc for well check-ups and afew sick ones here and there pay out the wazoo for this type of coverage. It was so awful watching how they treated people and the things they discussed taking out of plans, not covering, etc...and I only knew little information since I just did payroll, but I was close to a couple people in the Benefit Design Group and in the Billing Dept and it was so sad the stories I heard. The private insurance companies are money hungry jerks. They need a gov't health plan in order to drive costs down so they'll have no other choice but to lower premiums and they need to be mandated to cover pre-existing conditions. I have a girlfriend who has a pacemaker, every 8 years she has to have heart surgery in order to change the pacemaker out and she has to see a cardiologist at least once every 3-4 months, it is so sad how often she has been denied coverage and when she finally did get insurance, they started denying everything under the sun. She isn't even 30 years old and is in a sea of debt because of a condition she was born with...makes me sick to my stomach! bawling.gif

DVFlyer replied:
So is that article incorrect?

coasterqueen replied: Ok, for those who believe this system is going to be great....do you agree or disagree that those who have private insurance are going to be able to keep it if they want? Remember, Obama PROMISED that those who have private insurance would not be affected and would be able to keep it, if I'm not mistaken and spewing false statements. I only get my information from Fox News, so another interpretation would be great.

If you agree that you'd be able to keep your private insurance, please tell me what these two paras below quote means:

"Prohibits an institution from participating unless it is a public or nonprofit institution. Allows nonprofit health maintenance organizations (HMOs) that deliver care in their own facilities to participate. Private insurance would be replaced via the Medicare expansion."

and

"Prohibits a private health insurer from selling health insurance coverage that duplicates the benefits provided under this Act. Allows such insurers to sell benefits that are not medically necessary, such as cosmetic surgery benefits."

I'm just curious to what your interpretation is.

Also those who already pay private insurance premiums and WANT TO, do you know you will also have to pay a payroll tax for the federal system? How does that not affect us who want and have private insurance? How are companies not going to be forced to give up their insurance benefit and force people into the government program?

TLCDad replied:
It is very sad situation we are in! I have one of those "high deductable plans". Our deductable is $6000! It is really only what us self employeed can get without paying more than our home mortgage.

Canada is so much better!

TLCDad replied: Here is a funny but serious read:
http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2009...e-this-one-out/

This is just another example about how NeoCons lie so much.

My funniest and a prime example of these untruths they spit out of their mouth as posted in the article is this:

"But my favorite part of the editorial deals with the British health-care system, which if you believe IBD is basically condemning the old and disabled to die.

“People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn’t have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless,” the editorial claims.

Of course, that same Stephen Hawking who wouldn’t have a chance in the United Kingdom was in fact born in the United Kingdom, has lived his entire life in the United Kingdom and lives there still today, at the ripe old age of 67. (He was in fact hospitalized earlier this month.) Hawking is, you might say, living, breathing proof that these people are first-class fools."

moped replied:
I don't think it paints a very good picture on the Canadian system.

Karen, I guess my only question to you would be.......why would you want to pay all that money every month for healthcare when you can have health care for much less or nothing (yes, taxes, but those are inevitable)?? I am not toally understanding.

Currently, the care you recieve is nodifferent than that care me and my family recieve excpet that I don't pay monthly for anything.

I guess that is my confusion.

Oh and on our local news last night Obama was saying that the Canadian Healthcare system would not be suitable for the US, but something will be done.

coasterqueen replied:
Well, if my personal health care isn't going to change as promised then I will get the quality of care *I* want, see my doctor, etc when I want -- not on the government's terms -- or at least that is how it should be if I'm promised no change in the current structure. I have seen first hand the state government run All kids care program and I don't want that for my kids so I don't think I'd want a federal government one either.

If I recall reading somewhere (oh.....one of those non-fox news sites) that Obama doesn't want this to be a single-payer system like Canada's system -- he thinks having private insurance is ok. But I don't see how people won't be forced into giving up personal health care insurance and going with the government plan because they don't want to pay insurance premiums AND the payroll tax. Same goes for the employer.

moped replied: Do you currently pay for eye glasses, prescriptions etc??? Braces, etc? Are you 100% covered for doctor/clinic visits? Just trying to get more info on your plan.

coasterqueen replied:
No, I do not pay for eye glasses. My eye insurance covers me for a new pay of eye glasses every other year (whether I really need a pair or not, I can get one anyways). All but like $40 is paid every year for my contacts (a year supply) and I pay nothing for my eye exams. Braces.......dental I'm not as sure about as I pay nothing now for Kylie to see the orthodontist, but she's not having work done, we are doing preventative care with him right now. I pay a $300 per person deductible a year out-of-pocket for health insurance so all other stuff is paid for in our insurance -- or what we've had to deal with yet.

moped replied: So this deductible.....you have to pay out that much before your insurance kicks in???? Is that right?

And TLC Dad you pay $6000 a year???????????????? ohmy.gif

Ok, so Karen, earlier you said that you pay $246/month, plus you pay $300 deductible per person in your family for your insurance. So you are paying out $4152.00/year to get your insurance coverage?? Am I calculating this right?

TLCDad replied:
Hi Karen,

The parts you quoted are from one proposed bill by "John Conyers Jr." who is for universal health care exactly like Canada. To the best of my knowledge and from what I read, none of those provision are currently in any form of the the current bills working on the House or Senate as Obama wants a plan that DOES NOT set a single payer system. So nothing to be concerned about. There on many proposals from many congressman including republicans. You specifically singled out one that is not going to be part of the actual voted on bill.

Again it looks like you were provided with misleading information.

coasterqueen replied:
I guess you can put it that way, but that $300 (times 4) is pre-taxed, so I pay less taxes on the money I make....not explaining it right, but it's a benefit as well.

BTW, not all self-employed people pay high prices. My SIL and BIL have been self-employed before -- most of their career so far (SIL now works for a company) and they never paid that much. May be the case for pre-existing conditions, for sure, but not ALL self-employed pay that much.

We pay $300.08 a month for a family of 4 for premiums. So for 12 months we pay $3,600.96 PLUS we pay a $300 per person (for 4) = $1,200. So we dish out $4,800.96 a year for our insurance........not far from the $6,000 mentioned. Is that expensive, yes? Would I rather not pay it? Yes. But I'm gonna pay it to the government, then, and I just have NO FAITH that I will get the "gold standard" I have now. From what I'm reading on "non-Fox" sites, I will have to pay for supplemental insurance anyways (if I went with the government insurance) for some things that would be considered "cosmetic" that the government plan would not cover that MY insurance DOES cover. Of course I could be posting a false statement. Jury is still out.

I completely agree that something needs to be done. I don't think his health care plan is it. I'm all for digging in the trenches and figuring it out, but not for the fast quick plan he's wanting to do.

TLCDad replied:
Yep we do. Our insurance does not kick in until we spend $6000 a year total for the whole family. Even if we do not spend the full deductable by the end of the year it resets back to $6000. The only benefit we get is that our insurance has a set rate for medical treatements so the bills comes down from what the original price. But that just shows you how much hospitals and doctors try to charge especially for self payers. We also get free checkups... but yeah that is about it and like I said our deductable is extremely high but to get any less it would cost us way too much in premiums. But even with this high deductable our premiums are still expensive and have raised in price 1/3 over the past 2 years.

We have an HSA (Health Savings Account) which up to $5900 of contributions is tax deductable though... so at least that part is good. Only problem is interest rates are very low so not really getting much in the way of dividends... in fact most of them go right back because there is a monthly fee for an HSA (go figure).

moped replied: HOLY OUCH you guys! I seriously did not know this. That is truly painful!

Karen, the "gold standard" that you recieve now sounds great, so I guess I also am recieving the "gold standard"......after reading all this I really want you guys to have something done, you guys are getting really screwed over.

Sunflower04 replied: I know I don't post much at all but I do think that everyone should get coverage. Last yr my son went to the ER and we shared a room with a child who had no insurance. And because he has no coverage he goes to the ER for all illness. The little boy waited ALL day to have stitches remove and in the end their bill went to charity care. I think we need to fix the system so people don't need charity care because in the end someone is paying that bill and it is not the uninsured.

I also want to add is that I have a friend without a job and she is paying $900.00 a month for coverage for her family. And we live in NJ.

moped replied:
That is complete INSANITY..........my family would be living int he streets with monthly amounts like that. A well off family would hurt with payments like that!

TLCDad replied:
That $6000 is only my deductable (does not count my monthly premiums of around $270) So if you include deductable (like you did) my total cost untill insurance kicks in is well into $9200 a year, so yes your total cost is much less than mine... almost half less to be exact.

I have a high deductable HSA. This is to avoid over $900 premiums for a traditional plan. A total rip-off to the self employed.

coasterqueen replied:
What is your deal with me? I don't need you to tell me where I got my information from. I actually got it from Wikipedia (which yes, quoted from Conyers bill) that you got YOUR facts that you quoted above about mortality rates and such. Again, I was asking for interpretation -- not for you to tell me what I'm reading is wrong information. Again, until there is ONE bill on the table and ONE bill signed....nothing is misleading. I deal in the legislative process of bills on a daily basis, I know a little bit about how they get voted on and signed. I don't need you to educate me on that.

moped replied:
Still shocked at all this!!!!! ohmy.gif ohmy.gif

coasterqueen replied:
How am I getting screwed over? Because you don't pay monthly premiums.....you pay taxes for it instead?

moped replied:
YOu pay taxes also. We all do. I have no idea where exactly my tax money goes, but we all pay it no matter where we live. I think Rod mentioned earlier that we actually pay less taxes here in canada as well........maybe that is a whole new thread. wink.gif

coasterqueen replied:
Sorry, I stand corrected. You said you paid $6,000 so I took that as what you paid.

coasterqueen replied:
federal, maybe we do. I don't know, but then you have to figure it on a state by state basis. I don't know if that is the case in Canada or not.

coasterqueen replied:
And again, I'm not stranger to both sides of the coin. I went a few years without insurance, I went a few years underinsured and paying out the wazoo for premiums and I wasn't even 21 yet, so it's not like I had a great paying job. I've had mediocre insurance that didn't cover pre-existing conditions, which I had and had to deal with when I was not insured and underinsured. Now I have much much better care and am thankful for that. So I haven't been handed gold from day one. My parents aren't even insured now, haven't been for several years now. Do they feel that the government should give them insurance, no? Oh, and they don't listen to Fox News laugh.gif

cameragirl21 replied: Idk...after reading through this thread, I am starting to think the Canadians have the right idea. I know I have to wait a while to see a doc unless it's an emergency and anyone paying 900 monthly for healthcare is pure insanity, seriously, insanity...what is the likelihood you will actually spend that much on medical bills if you had no insurance? No one wants to take that chance because there is always the possibility that something horrible will happen.
We need to do something and if Obama's plan is the only option then I say take it. I'm a bit disillusioned with Obama (and I did vote for him) but if he can fix this mess he may just get my vote again.

coasterqueen replied:
No, it's more a month, if you add in my eye/dental coverage.

cameragirl21 replied: The bottom line for me is that I know there are people out there who need medical care but don't get it because they can't afford it. If we're going to call ourselves the world's only superpower we should be better than that.
I do think the gov't owes it to every person here to get at least primary and emergency care covered. And shoot me but yes, I say that includes illegals too because they are here whether we like it or not and if they get sick with swine flu they can spread it just as easily as any US citizen. And the ones who don't get good care are the ones most likely to spread infectious diseases.
The only problem I foresee with this is that I am opposed to the regular vax schedule for kids...I would fully vaccinate but not the 4 in one all at once. I don't think kids should get too many vaxes at a time and I wouldn't stand for it. As I understand it, in Canada you don't have a choice. I imagine if the gov't covers us then the gov't makes those decisions for us. I still think if you have a really good ped with whom you have a good relationship then maybe you can work something out. Wonder if this would have repercussions for those who don't want to vax at all...?

TLCDad replied:
I have "no deal" against you other than I am not going to allow misleading information posted without creditable rebuttal. You tried to mislead with a proposal by one person that is not mentioned in any other proposal and is not included in the bill that congress will be voting on. If you want to go that route, I could post quotes from all kinds of republican proposals that never see light of the day even during the last administration.

I believe my president who said he (as well as a large majority of congress) will not accept a bill with a single payer only system so how can you even try to start an argument with that kind of "wiki" information?

Now with that said, I am not totally against a single payer system over what we have now and what many people tell me who live in Canada as well as the facts. So if you want my answer to Mr. Conyers proposal. I am not totally against it. I think the route Obama is leading is a smarter and more logical choice however.

TLCDad replied:
I do not have any eye or dental coverage... that is 100% self pay. Costs too much to have it included.

coasterqueen replied:
Maybe if you would stop seeing me in a negative/only republican light you'd see that I was really curious as to what they meant by those quotes I asked about. I emailed several people I know IRL asking the same thing. I wasn't trying to mislead anyone by quoting that stuff. I'm truly asking. Try not having such a negative view about people and you may see they are genuinely asking for information.

I'm just rolling here because I don't see how I was trying to start an argument about wiki information. rolling_smile.gif rolling_smile.gif rolling_smile.gif

ETA wiki link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States...Health_Care_Act

coasterqueen replied: I also think it's hilarious because I know there are more people who agree with me about not wanting this health care system. I'm just not afraid to say it here -- hence the reason why I am continually getting attacked for trying to start arguments and mislead people......which I'm not. happy.gif

TLCDad replied:
Either you think we have no common sense or something, because it is obvious what was mean't by those quotes --- a single payer system which I know you are completely against. So yes, it appears you were using an argument on your side over them. I found that misleading to people who may not be as educated as some on the subject and might think that was part of the current planned bill that congress is currently going over because it is not. So yes, to me that was very misleading.

And to top it off I answered you... I am not against a single payer system. And as I justed posted, I think a smarter and more logical approach is a government offered co-op plan as well as private continuing private insurance and let you choose which is best for you. Which again is what Obama and most of the congress wants. I see this lowering costs for private insurance due to competition. Why do you think insurance companies or people funded by them are against it?

coasterqueen replied:
Tell me, if this was a different discussion and other members were acting this way would you tolerate this? I seem to recall when I was a moderator, that calling people out and attacking them (when my intentions were true) was not tolerated, but it seems to be ok now?

I'm sure this will be deleted and I will be banned. That is fine. I'm not the only one that feels (there are numerous) who think that it's ok for some but not others.

moped replied: I think this conversation has gone quite well actually...I have learned so much from it! thumb.gif

coasterqueen replied: So did I, until I was told my O P I N I O N S are misleading every one and that I'm not touting just fact. I thought they were called opinions. I did learn something, you aren't allowed to give your opinions on this board as a republican because they they would be considered false information. thumb.gif

TLCDad replied:
Simple, because I am not personally attacking you. When we stepped in on heated debates was when someone proved to me that it was a personal attack. Outright calling someone a name would be a personal attack for example which I have not and would not do. But if I see you post someting misleading I will point it out as I expect others to do the same to either side.

I am providing a creditable rebuttal to your position in a debate that is all. And I am making sure everyone knows that what something you quoted is not accurate. Feel free to state any fact I have mentioned is not accurate. The only thing you can come up with is "only if you *believe* your president". But you would rather believe a pundit then your president who if caught in such a bad lie would have to absolutely know he would not win a second term.

Btw, if your going to post wiki links you need to post this one to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America%27s_A...ces_Act_of_2009

moped replied: That is a good link Rod!
thumb.gif

TLCDad replied:
Now do not bring the whole board into it. That is really coming close to crossing the line. So do not try to bring to front that just because I own this website, means what I say or what my views on a subject has top priority or anything. And to assume I would delete an account just because I disagree politically with them especially on a subject like this is nonesense.

As you know my own wife leans right on many subjects where I lean left but I am far from liberal.

jcc64 replied:

Fwiw, this article is an editorial, listed on the "OPINION" page.

TLCDad replied:
Thanks. It is a good read. thumb.gif And unlike the other wiki link, this is included in the what will be voted on. Albeit changes can still and probably will be made but more than likely just earmarks to make some congressmen and their district happy.

Now with that said, I do not trust 100% wiki documents since that can be edited by anyone. But this does look legit based on other facts.

jcc64 replied: To expand upon the Canadian conversation...
Back in the middle of Bush's second term, it came to light that a lot of un/under insured people, primarily senior citizens with modest incomes, were crossing into Canada specifically in pursuit of more affordable medication. Still others were mail ordering Canadian drug companies in a desperate effort to obtain the IDENTICAL medications that cost exponentially more here in the US. Someone actually brought it up during one of the presidential town hall debates when he ran against Kerry. Bush gave some half-baked, incoherent response about the "unreliability" of Canadian meds, as if Canada was some third world country turning out meds concocted in a backyard meth lab. Kerry, being the lame weenie that he was, didn't even bother to challenge the absurdity of Bush's response. I also vaguely recall some sort of legislation designed to prevent these cheaper Canadian imports from cutting into the already obscene profits of US pharmaceutical companies. I was absolutely flabbergasted that NO ONE called Bush out on this response, b/c to me, at that moment, it became crystal clear that THE ONLY constituents protected by the government at that moment in time were the insurance and pharmaceutical companies.
All these sick old people were trying to do was survive, both economically and literally, and the US government's response was to shut them down. To me, that says everything about both the state of our health care system and our government's role in it. Any move away from that mentality is an improvement, regardless of any unforeseen complications or compromises.

jcc64 replied: Let's look at this solely as a sound business decision, something that's important for our country's businesses as they struggle (and sometimes fail) to survive cheaper foreign competition. This is something I'm sensitive to, having lost my job of 20 yrs for this very reason.

Our current "solution" of linking health care to your employment status, apart from being an inhumane way of distributing life-critical services, is an unfair burden on employers. With premiums skyrocketing and employees dependent on those benefits, we've created a situation where an employer who offers no benefits enjoys a competitive advantage over an employee who does offer benefits. When you expand this internationally, it gets worse, since employers in other developed countries pay for no health care for their employees.

What the health care opponents don't seem to get, amidst all their cries about "socialism," is that the deal we're currently getting on health care, as a nation, is a complete rip off. (We pay more for less care than every other developed country on earth.) Add in the fact that we've saddled businesses for paying for this rip off. It harms business to keep this scenario going.

luvmykids replied:
We have no pre-existing conditions and have only found rates comparable to what Rod has mentioned. I don't know how your BIL and SIL managed to do it, and my hats off to them because I am ALWAYS getting insurance quotes, I mean I've been doing it for YEARS because I just can't believe we can't afford "regular" coverage. Our only coverage right now is for the kids. DH and I are getting ready to get a plan similar to Rod's in case of something catastrophic but it still sucks to think of paying all that and basically not having coverage for anything less than catastrophic. It's a terrible catch 22....can't afford insurance, can't afford to pay out of pocket for dr. visits/lab work/xrays, etc. DH has a cyst or something of some kind on his side, I'm sure it's nothing life threatening but his dr wanted to do a biopsy. Guess what? Can't afford it. And I hate the argument that if we chose not to be self-employed we'd have better coverage, so it's our fault....if nothing else, why can't self-employed have access to reasonable rates? It's almost like being punished. We pay our taxes just like everyone else, work for a living like everyone else, support ourselves AND others who we employ, but somehow we've just got to suck it up because we made that choice? Ridiculous!!!

At this point, all I can say I'm in favor of is SOME kind of reform but not necessarily a gov't run health plan. I'd rather see better regulation in the health care industry.

luvmykids replied: FWIW, a friend of mine who holds a political office just sent me this link when I asked him for an un-biased, non-partisan link to read about this topic. This is what he sent, and according to their "about" page, they do not affiliate with any political party. Don't know how true that is since I haven't researched them, but here it is anyway:

Kaiser Foundation

TLCDad replied: Here is also a good website that is non-partisan. In fact they are a 2009 Pulitzer Prize Winner. So I do trust these guys. They mention all the false rumours and such and of course stated them as "pants on fire" which means way past false on their website.

Website: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/

A good example of a pants on fire lie was made by Sarah Palin: "Seniors and the disabled "will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/

A really good site to visit.

coasterqueen replied: Well if I read the rules of this board one of this is:

"Any post that belittles a person or persons instead of taking on the topic at hand – it is possible to take an opposite position without having to paint yourself in a superior light"

I constantly gave MY view, my opinion on a topic, as if it were any other topic. My opinions aren't false just because they happen to be the same opinion as a neocon and do not happen to be false just because YOU think I am quoting from neocons. I believe my beliefs because that is how I grew up and how I live my life -- not because you continually think I sit and watch Fox news all day listening to every word they say and "falling" for it. So yes, you are belittling me. You could have easily gave your point of view that you do not think this is what the government plan was going to be like, your links to back up your view and be done with it JUST AS THE MODS ASK OF EVERY MEMBER OF THIS BOARD.....but no, you continually accuse me of purposefully quoting neocons and false statements because I choose to belief things based on my upbringing....a republican conservative view.

If you choose not to think that, that is your problem, not mine. Others in this thread said they thought this about hospitals, or this about businesses, being against the government plan, but you only choose to attack me because my view is similar to a neocon. I'm not attacking your view because it's democratic, am I?

In any other topic, in any other situation a mod would have done something about this, yes, I recall when I was a mod. Because you are bringing your beliefs and how you personally think I'm quoting neocons and my views are false, nothing has been done. I'm still for the life of me trying to figure out how my conservative views is "misleading", but hey? What do I know?

And if you think I'm crossing the line, fine. But I will not stand here and and let you tell me my conservative views are misleading or leading people down a false path.

My2Beauties replied: I also wanted to add that in April we lost our insurance due to DH being laid off, we had excellent, wonderful insurance, but now that we're not insured it's really hard. For Hanna's school physical it was going to cost $95 just to be seen by a ped. Absoutely ridiculous, they would have spent 15 minutes withe her dry.gif We ended up taking her to a Baptist Church that was giving free physical, dental and vision exams for Kindergartners for one day only because I couldn't fathom taking her to th doc and paying $95 for them to check her out really quickly and fill out a paper for school. I also want to say that I am extremely petrified that something catastrophic is going to happen while we're not insured. DH does side jobs working construction/roofing and that is a hard pill to swallow when he goes to do a job knowing if something happens he isn't covered. Heck when he got his kidney stone last year (while we were insured) the bill was $4000 just for a 5 hour ER visit. Prior to that, his first kidney stone, he wasn't insured (before we were married) it cost us $3500 out of pocket, we had to put it on a credit card and pay it off that way. My mom has really crappy insurance through her employer, she had to have her gallbladder removed last year and caught pneumonia 3 times as well as a kidney infection several times within like a 6 month period after her surgery. Right when this started happening she had just received some of her inheritance from my grandparent's death in early 2008 and she spent neary half of her inheritance paying her doctor bills off and she is insured....tell me how sad that is. Her premiums are like $250 + per month (don't know exact amount) for just herself....that is insane. Now I must say DH's insurance was awesome at the railroad, we paid $175 per month for us and 3 kids, no deductible whatsoever, we just had copays and prescription co-pays. They also had free dental and vision insurance to all railroad employees so yes we were some of the lucky ones while he was employed, now that's he's laid off and we're not insured it absolutely sucks. I had to get a Rx about two months ago and it cost me $74 for 10 pills....absurd! Absolutely absurd! Dh and I are doing fine financially now (we've had some help and thank goodness for that) but we're at a point where we can live on just his unemployment and the side money until he gets called back (which hopefully will be soon *fingers crossed*) but not having insurance is absolutely horrible ans scary to say the least and if something awful were to happen we wouldn't have the money to fork out thousands and thousand of dollars for medical. sleep.gif

Edited for some typos

mummy2girls replied:
And this is one big reason I like the health care where I am... we would not be turned down for anything. I needed surgery and i didnt have to pay for it. And if i did where we are right now financially we would be screwed. You get diagnosed with cancer and you get admitted and start treatments and not have to worry about the financial part of it. That would be a kick in the butt if something catastrophic like Cancer or anything happens and we cant get the treatments because our insurance doesn't cover it or they choose to turn around and say the cancer was caused by this so we cant cover it... If i tried getting coverage for jenna I probably wouldnt get it being she has asthma. It makes me be very grateful where I am.

Karen... Im sorry you have every right to feel the way you do about the health care and what it may turn into. Just like i have every right to fee what i have been saying. Im sorry if i came off in a bad way and such.

Everyone has the right to say and feel what they do so lets all please just agree to disagree and move on. we can all sit here and repeat over and over the same thing but its not going to change what people strongly believe in.

cameragirl21 replied: I think it's a bit frightening and unfortunate that healthcare is considered a luxury here in the US and that is something we've all pretty much come to accept and have become used to.
From a financial standpoint, here in the US (remember, I come from another country, a backward, third world country) you are far better off dying than becoming seriously ill and that too is an unfortunate reality that we've all come to accept.
Something definitely has to change, what the exact solution is, Idk, but I feel the status quo has got to go.

coasterqueen replied:
Shelly, no you have NO reason to be sorry. You do have the right to feel the way you do and you were just explaining the way you see your health care system and the experiences you have with it. I think we both realize for every good story, there is a bad one. For every bad one, there is a good one. That can be the case for every experience, not just health care. I am glad you have had such a great experience with your care, just as I have had (for the most part) with mine. That is what makes people want to continue to keep the care they have.

hug.gif Thank you for apologizing, but there is no need from you. hug.gif

coasterqueen replied: I completely agree with you Jennifer, something needs to be done. We just don't agree on how it should be done. But that's ok, too. biggrin.gif

My2Beauties replied: Here is another link about this

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/200...12/2027776.aspx

TLCDad replied: Actually Karen, if you want to get technical, you went after me on my very first post to the thread.

And You actually had the nerve to question my Christianity, when you asked how can I be for this as a Christian knowing it will pay for abortions. Which is 100% false. Not only were you posting a false scare tactic, you knew that would be an emotional post to me. But I let that slide and answered appropriately without attacking you and stated what you posted was completely false that no the government WILL NOT pay for abortions. Not only is that no where in the current proposals, it is completely prohibited by the Hyde amendment.

And quit with the "my opinion" excuse. I went back into this thread and just about every one of your posts were posted as if they were fact. Not opinions, even when you quoted me you changed my words. In fact most of your posts to people is how can you be for this when... , etc as if that was fact.

If you have a disagreement to how I run things here, then leave. Actually I had enough complaints about you in the past, I really do not care. But again if you think I am going to delete an account just because they disagree with me politically that is plain nonsense.

Like I said, I am not attacking you for disagreeing with me, but again I am not going to allow you to post false rumours without a fact filled rebuttal. To me it just sounds like you are upset you were caught.

You know this is a VERY important issue to me. And even with that I never attacked you even though you tried but failed to attack my Christianity.

coasterqueen replied:
I didn't realize that I offended you by questioning the fact that you are a Christian and will allow the payment of abortions. I simply, from past conversations on Christianity and abortion did not see how one's faith would allow this. Plain and simple. It's not an attack, it was a question of how your faith would allow that. And when I questioned that, that was an issue I had read that was part of the bill. Not one that I read from Fox News.

Again, I asked before for you to quote where I did not give my opinion and gave fact. If you can provide me with that, then maybe I can see where I wasn't giving my opinion.

Thank you for letting me know of the complaints on me, as well. There are a few mods not present, for that very same reason-- complaints about the fairness on this board.

I am not upset I got caught. Not at all. I'm very calm about the situation and don't feel I got caught for anything. I simply stated my opinions.

Can you provide me with the bill that is in the House and Senate to be voted on that you are getting your facts from? Not news website, but the actual bill you are referring to as the only fact out there.

And again, I wasn't trying to attack your faith, simply asking how with your faith you could allow that if it was in the bill (which at that time......as I simply watched the House and Senate talks on tv (not on fox, but the House/Senate channel) that talked about this very same thing -- I assume the actual legislators talking about this very thing in committees/hearings is fact -- or maybe it just was and is not now. I got a lot of "my fact" from those hearings, not a democrat or republican news station or website. I'm quite sure if anyone else asked how your faith would allow that, this would not be an issue.

Again, if you provide me with the factual bill that is in congress now that states all your facts, I would appreciate it.

my2girls replied: Here is a link about the abortion part of the bill.
Last week the House committee approved that part, it will get around the Hyde Amend. but it is with federal dollars ( because private, federal and subsidies money are all being funding together).

http://asia.news.yahoo.com/ap/20090805/twl...on-ef375f8.html

So really in a way Karen is right, this bill funds abortion with federal money, it will all be pooled together so the feds can say that " No this is with private money" but they really wouldn't know for sure.

TLCDad replied:
Actually that is not correct, even the article corrects itself as you read at the bottom of the article here:

(This version CORRECTS that federal funds for abortions are now restricted to cases involving rape, incest or danger to the life of the mother instead of danger to the health of the mother.))

So federal funds are only allowed for those reasons. Although I only really 100% agree with the health of the mother or child part.

But that was from an Asian news article even though they corrected themselves.

If you really want facts, this is the best site:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/

As you will see most of these rumours were proven false or most even "pants on fire" which is basically flat out lies.

They are completely non-partison and won the 2009 Pulitzer, so I do have trust in them.

TLCDad replied: Karen,

If you think singling out and questioning someone's Christianity like that is not offensive, then I have nothing else to say to you on that matter. You feel that my rebuttals are attacking you but can't see how that was offensive.... makes no sense at all.

If you need me to do so I will go through all your past posts and make an entire web page where you stated facts. But anyone can easily go back into this thread and see that. Again just about every one of your posts was if you are for this then explain or how can you be because of... etc.

You say it was only your "opinions" ok then I will say your opinions unfortuantly are based on misleading facts. Is that better for you?

I did not quite understand your mod complaint sentence, but are you saying there are mods complaining about how I run things? This website is not free to run you know. It costs money so I think I do a pretty good job of it thank you. I could do better though, if I had the time.

As for links, I've posted links including the actual HR3200 full text. But I do recommend politifact.com (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/).


** edit ** sory thought I posted this in the other post... but here is the link to the HR3200 text: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/text

Its long so I still recommend politfact as they really go deep into the bill, etc.

TLCDad replied: Just to start a new post for everyone:

Here is the current HR3200:
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/text

And for fact checking:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/

TLCDad replied: What really bothers me is that so many people are against this bill without even completely reading it and only listen to all the false rumours. And before Karen thinks I am singling her out on here for some reason, I am talking about in the entire country. I talk to people and all they know are the false rumours. It really saddens me. sad.gif

People even go to that website and vote and do not even read I am sure of it.

Though I think next month things will change. If I were Obama I would do a primetime speech to the nation, just like he did during the election.

BAC'sMom replied: Thanks for the links Rod. I'll be sure and read them.

coasterqueen replied: I don't believe you are singling me out. It's part of my job to read bills, state ones, but the federal one came into our office to be read and interpreted by lawyers in our office for various reasons -- a bipartisan approach, I may add. Most of that language would have to be interpreted it's such legal jargon. Again, I could hand you 100 different BIPARTISAN views on the matter -- there are some who say it's good and some who say it isn't and the whole legal aspect of "loopholes", yada yada yada. (disclaimer that I'm only stating the opinion here.)

TLCDad replied:
Thanks Jimmie. I just want everyone to be informed. There are things in the bill I do not agree with, but are too far left. So I want everyone to even read those.

I just feel there is much more good in the bill that it needs to pass.
I really can not afford this cost of insurance of right now. And I can't go back to having none. I had a really bad break down during the scare Dee Dee had when we did not have insurance... something I will never be able to forget or want to ever feel again.

BAC'sMom replied:
I don't have insurance on myself because we can’t afford it. I also am the sole caretaker of elderly parents. My Mom was all up in arms the other day when she heard about the euthanasia of the elderly. So I need to read more to reassure her of the facts.

moped replied: I thought of another health care story that i wanted to share with you.

Some of you might remember a few years back my dad was NOT doing well at all, he had seen a number of doctors and specialists but hey jsut couldn't pin down what was wrong with him. They did come up with a thyroid problem but that didn't help all his problems. He was then sent to a cardiologist and they put him on the treadmill, he had one of his "attacks" right there on the treadmill at the appointment. They took him to admitting in seconds and he stayed at the hospital and had numerous tests and had a quadruple by pass performed within days of being there. It was amazing how quickly all of it happened after all the tests they performed etc, when they knew what they had to do it was done and he is now very healthy and happy to be alive!

TLCDad replied:
Here is a good read, just on that very subject:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/st...ma-death-panel/

Quick Summary: "We've looked at the inflammatory claims that the health care bill encourages euthanasia. It doesn't. There's certainly no "death board" that determines the worthiness of individuals to receive care."

Again, this is from politifact.com which no-one will disgree is a very fair and trustworthy organization. They really know their stuff.

People see these false rumours on TV and no wonder they are against the bill. I am all for free speech but all these pundits spreading lies like this really makes me sick (no pun intended) especially over such an important subject like this.

TLCDad replied:
Thank you and everyone for sharing these stories. Alot of people only see the bad side of Canada's Health System which in my opinion is not much or hardly any at all. Its not perfect but sure is 100 times better than here for most.

boyohboyohboy replied:
I have a sincere question..
if they are saying that they are not suggesting euthenasia for the elderly then what do they mean by their comments today..I saw on CNN.
They said that Pres.Obama said that when his grandmother was batteling cancer I believe, and she was in the end stages, she fell and broke her hip, and that he was willing to pay her bills out of pocket, but there was a decision to be made and he felt he was to close to the situation to be a part of it, so he stayed out it..
and he feels that is what we need, someone outside the situations to make a decision that when an elderly person who is not healthy needs more medical care but might not live long even after the procedure should the procedure be done..
I think the only person making that decision should be the sick person...
I dont understand how come they keep saying they are not going to ration care, and then make contridiction statements.

I understand that some are saying this isnt a government panel who will say who should and shouldnt get care, but they are saying that the government insurance wont cover it, and right now there are alot of people who are elderly who do currrently get hip replacements in their 90's and other care...I have taken care of hospice patients that ended up with UTI's or URI's that were treated with antibiotics just for the comfort measure it provides alone...in these situations those types of things might be withheld..

insurance companies dont do that now..not in all cases..

so I am just asking, todays news was confusing to me.

I am also concerned that the news lables people who are asking questions, no matter how loudly, because they are scared, with good right to be, anti government militia's.
putting lables on people is only going to make matters worse.

I am eagerly reading all the links posted here, for and against..but it seems for each and every sentence there is a contridictin sentence to be found.

jcc64 replied:

Many of these people aren't asking legitimate questions--they're threatening and grandstanding and spreading blatant lies, misinformation, and otherwise preventing a MEANINGFUL exchange from occurring. They scream, they shout people down, carrying on about "wanting their country back" (from whom, anyway?), some come with posters of Obama as Hitler, one guy even showed up with a gun strapped to his leg (where was the Secret Service in this case??). All of this would be more palatable if these people were regular citizens instead of "plants" working for the insurance industry. Is this how we find common ground, is this how big, complex, life and death legislation gets figured out?
The government is not planning to euthanize your grandma, I assure you. But as I've said more than once in this thread, the rationing you fear is ALREADY HERE, courtesy of your friendly insurance company. I'm thinking what might be going on is that a lot of people may not even be aware of the limitations of the insurance they currently have, and all of these discussions are now bringing it to light. I know for me personally, as a young, relatively healthy person, I had the luxury of not being familiar with the nuts and bolts of my own policies. It was only when my dad got sick and I became acquainted with the limitations of his insurance that I started to scrutinize my own. The insurance company has been allowed to play with our lives, and the government is trying to step in on our behalf. That can't be a bad thing, imo.

luvmykids replied:
ITA that insurance companies are behind a large amount of the propaganda...them and the pharmaceuticals who stand to lose a nice chunk of change if someone were to pay more attention to their industry. I think they're a worse combo than either political party, tbh.


I also agree completely that many concerns people have already exist under their current policies, they just don't know it. Sure, an average policy will protect an average person for the average claim, but let something bigger happen and they're as good as non insured.

And for me, it's not even about dems/repubs/neocons, whatever. My concerns lie more with the lack of confidence that the gov't can actually succesfully manage any kind of large program....I don't want to pay more taxes and create another SSA where people pay in and don't get their benefits which is a huge irony in my mind.

I'm torn, I think insurance companies and the healthcare industry in general do nothing less than rape us daily. BUT I don't necessarily want the government involved. It's a no win for me, I think. Maybe once I do more research (like wade through the links posted here) I'll feel differently.

boyohboyohboy replied:
no offense but this didnt not answer my question.. I am specifically asking, what did Obama mean when he said he thought there needed to be "people" who are able to be removed from the situation to discuss when the elderly are in certain poor health circumstances and want to have more medical procedures.
Right now the "people" who should have these talks are the husbands, children, wives, loved ones of the person who is sick...thats who should be discussing, living wills, termination of care, hospice, not a group of people outside the family.

I know currently as you say that there are caps on insurance for medical spending as well as caps on what kinds of tests will be paid for....
but this specific statement, that I wish I could find a link too, almost did directly sound like he was saying that elderly people needed to not have more tests or treatment done.

I do not have fears of dying, I also am a supporter of hospice and end of life care...I dont think that is the issue, I dont think people are afraid to die, they just dont want to be told when its going to happen.
I again, dont have specifics on the bill, or bills that are out there..but I think everyone is in agreement that the health care reform is going to run out of money at some point, and probably not that far into the future.so some type of back of plan has to be in the works..many of the drs are not agreeing with the plans as they are written so far, and before any of this started to happen, there were already a shortage of dr's nurses, and health care facilities..the baby boomers are not even into the nursing homes yet..that is going to over tax the system.
I know everyone wants a new system, a new plan, but so far I havent heard what that plan is.

I also think its so sad that there always has to be people who are bad eggs and do the things you described in these town hall meetings, to drowned out the info we need to hear. I think maybe somehow that should be addressed too.
maybe a phone number people can call to get answers and ask questions..or websites, or mailers sent out with lots of info for us from the government..
for heavens sake I can remember when Obama was running for election we had a tv channel that went on and on about him for days...why not start some sort of thing like that..
I dont think the government is doing enough right now to calm the people down and be as open and honest as they said they would be from the start.

BAC'sMom replied:
I think that is what is scaring the hell out of people! Especially the elderly!!

TLCDad replied:
Without looking at the video you are referring to, I can only use from past statements by him. As in "people" he was probably referring to the insurance company and hospitals. Get them out of the loop and the decision should be based on the patient, their Doctor and family and what is in their living wills. Right now hospitals have a interest to keep treating as that is more money for them even though it might not be what the patient really wants. So right now insurance companies might not cover those types of treatments as well as might not cover hospice. So Obama wants to make it so they are required to cover those treatments or hospice -- whatever the patient wants. He mentions that hospice or what is in their living wills will be covered... people simply take that and reword it as false statements such as someone of a certain age must use hospice, etc but that is not what he is saying at all nor what is in the proposed bill.

Also below is a direct quote by him on the subject:
"So, let me explain what reform will mean for you. And let me start by dispelling the outlandish rumors that reform will promote euthanasia, cut Medicaid, or bring about a government takeover of health care. That's simply not true. This isn't about putting government in charge of your health insurance; it's about putting you in charge of your health insurance. Under the reforms we seek, if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan.

And while reform is obviously essential for the 46 million Americans who don't have health insurance, it will also provide more stability and security to the hundreds of millions who do. Right now, we have a system that works well for the insurance industry, but that doesn't always work well for you. What we need, and what we will have when we pass health insurance reform, are consumer protections to make sure that those who have insurance are treated fairly and that insurance companies are held accountable.

We will require insurance companies to cover routine checkups and preventive care, like mammograms, colonoscopies, or eye and foot exams for diabetics, so we can avoid chronic illnesses that cost too many lives and too much money.

We will stop insurance companies from denying coverage because of a person's medical history. I will never forget watching my own mother, as she fought cancer in her final days, worrying about whether her insurer would claim her illness was a preexisting condition. I have met so many Americans who worry about the same thing. That's why, under these reforms, insurance companies will no longer be able to deny coverage because of a previous illness or injury. And insurance companies will no longer be allowed to drop or water down coverage for someone who has become seriously ill. Your health insurance ought to be there for you when it counts - and reform will make sure it is.

With reform, insurance companies will also have to limit how much you can be charged for out-of-pocket expenses. And we will stop insurance companies from placing arbitrary caps on the amount of coverage you can receive in a given year or a lifetime because no one in America should go broke because of illness."

TLCDad replied:
I agree... he really needs to make a primetime speech to the nation.

coasterqueen replied: I also feel, and this is just my opinion, I have no fact to back this up, that some of these town hall meetings are staged and so the questions being answered aren't ones that should be. I do agree what is going on at these town meetings is ridiculous.

I know insurance companies are lobbying congress -- at least one of the top huge ones (that is fact, I personally know this) and I'm sure you do too. Our federal lobbyist is telling me that although they are lobbying, they are looking at other avenues to keep their companies "afloat" such as my understanding is they are working with the government so they will be able to administer these government plans. So they don't stand to lose that much money, I guaranty you that. wink.gif So for them, honestly -- the big health insurance companies aren't really that scared of a loss -- such as BCBS. I have been told that every little health insurance company out there will go completely under though, if this reform is passed. I guess at least for them hopefully the government gives them jobs to help in this area, or you are going to have a lot more people without jobs. At least they'll have free insurance, though. happy.gif

jcc64 replied:

Can you please link me to the exact quote that you're asking about?

my2monkeyboys replied: I will say this -- I don't care how great the plan may or may not be, our govt hasn't been able to successfully run ANY program they got their paws on, and I have no doubt they would ruin this, too. Also, I don't think health insurance is a right. I know, I know, I'm cruel and heartless... but we have programs for almost every person who can't afford insurance already. Children are covered, elderly are covered, disabled are covered. For all of us who fall in the middle, we are able-bodied people who can work and buy our own. We may not can afford ins that covers every doctor visit or dental work, but we can have hospital ins that covers really big stuff, which is what we really need anyway. We can pay our own dr. visits, ya know?
And yes, my family has to buy our own. And yes, in order to have it we do without other things. We only have 1 vehicle, we don't go on vacations very often, and we buy our clothes when they are on sale.
Plus, there isn't an ER here that can turn you away for lack of insurance.
As I said, I don't believe insurance is a right. I think like everything else, it's something you make a priority and take care of it yourself.
Having said that, I think there are some problems with our insurance companies, but I am still very wary of our govt being over any of it... they just have a pi$$-poor record concerning everything else. I truly can not name one area in which they have been successful. And they want us to hand over the keys to our health??? I don't think so. blink.gif ohmy.gif dry.gif

PrairieMom replied:
I don't necessarily agree. Dh and I are both able bodied, we both work. We have some $ saved up. More than average. I would say way more than average. , and we are out of debt. BUT our situation, which is minor compared to most was this...

we were paying nearly $1200 a MONTH for private health insurance. that is with a $1000 deductible. Because I have asthma, it was a pre-existing condition. They would not pay for any Dr visit, hospital stay or medications related to my asthma. So on top of that $1200 a month, I had to shell our nearly $200 a month for my meds, plus, the annual Dr visit, and then I was left in a constant state of fear that I would get get the flu or something, that would go to my lungs where I was already weak, and end up in the hospital. If that were to happen it would have drained us of every last penny I had. Thousands and thousands of dollars. If I went in there with a diagnosis of "asthma exacerbation" and "flu" they wouldn't have to pay for any of my care. At all. Then, after they took all our $ they could raise our rates without telling us. When we had the private insurance, they raised our rates 3 times in 4 months without notification.



An on the subject of the ER, ERs are great if you are bleeding or need EMERGENCY care, but they are no place to take care of chronic conditions. People complain about long waits in the ER, well, its because people with no health care go there because of little things, that the rest of us would go see our family Dr for, like getting antibiotics for a bronchitis for example. That takes up the Drs and nurses time, leaving less for those who truly need to be there.

ETA, I don't know what the answer is, but something definitely needs to change. I DO believe that health care is a right that everyone should have. I wonder how many of you ( those who are against reform) would still be against it if you were in a situation like many people are, Having cancer, being dropped from your insurance because you have met the max, or for some other reason, needing hospitalization and drugs to prolong your life, but being told that you need to pay out of pocket for that. Now you have lost your life savings, your home, and everything else you have. Now is it a "right"? or do you just say, "well, I payed everything I can. Everything I have worked my entire life for. I guess I am just out of luck. "

I believe that this is a big deal and needs to be done right.

mummy2girls replied:
im not putting anyone down when i ask this but its an honest question... Why wouild anyone of you that like the system now want to keep to this way? that sounds like a crappy deal. Yes canada has long waits and such and alot of you are probably going to ask me the same thing... I like it because you dont get turned down at all for coverage or care if you have asthma and any chronic condition. YOu are treated with the best care here when youd o need the care. The fast response i got from the er and docs for my surgery and such was awesome!!!! Yes its a pain to have to wait 3 -6 months to get in for a physical or being referred to a specialist. But if its something severe the wait you dont wait you get in way sooner. But again i wouldnt give it up for anything because i know no matter what me and my kids will get the best care if some catastrophic should happen to us... and we wont be turned away from any alberta health.

PrairieMom replied:
personally, the way things are working out NOW for us its not so bad, its the problems that other people have that make me want a change. My situation could change at the drop of a hat.

Its not uncommon to have to wait months an dmonths to see a Dr here too. It took me 6 months to get my yearly OBGYN. but that is just because my Dr is really good, and has a lot of Patients.




Out of curiosity, do y-all up there in CA get to choose what Dr you see or do you just get stuck with the next one in line?

mummy2girls replied: [QUOTE=PrairieMom,Aug 14 2009, 09:45 AM] [QUOTE=JennasMommy,Aug 14 2009, 09:32 AM]

I believe that this is a big deal and needs to be done right. [/QUOTE]
im not putting anyone down when i ask this but its an honest question... Why wouild anyone of you that like the system now want to keep to this way? that sounds like a crappy deal. Yes canada has long waits and such and alot of you are probably going to ask me the same thing... I like it because you dont get turned down at all for coverage or care if you have asthma and any chronic condition. YOu are treated with the best care here when youd o need the care. The fast response i got from the er and docs for my surgery and such was awesome!!!! Yes its a pain to have to wait 3 -6 months to get in for a physical or being referred to a specialist. But if its something severe the wait you dont wait you get in way sooner. But again i wouldnt give it up for anything because i know no matter what me and my kids will get the best care if some catastrophic should happen to us... and we wont be turned away from any alberta health. [/QUOTE]
personally, the way things are working out NOW for us its not so bad, its the problems that other people have that make me want a change. My situation could change at the drop of a hat.

Its not uncommon to have to wait months an dmonths to see a Dr here too. It took me 6 months to get my yearly OBGYN. but that is just because my Dr is really good, and has a lot of Patients.




Out of curiosity, do y-all up there in CA get to choose what Dr you see or do you just get stuck with the next one in line? [/QUOTE]
here you can pick what doctor you get. Some unfortunetly have to get a refrral to get in. When i found out i was pregnant with Jordan and jenna my friend told me that her OB/GYN is awesome so i called and he took me on with no problems. When i found out i was pregnant with Breanna I tried calling diff OB/GYN's and some you needed a referal from your family doctor. I called the low risk clinic and they said yes we take on new patients with no referals. So it depends on the doctor if you need a referal or not. I was able to pick Brennas doctor as well as jenna's ped. If someone came to alberta and didnt have a family doc all you would do is call the health links they have and they give you a huge list of family doctors taking on new patients and you get to choose who you want to see. you can pick your ped for the children, dentists, etc etc etc

My2Beauties replied:
Not to be rude, but I hope you or your loved ones never ever get cancer or heart disease or some other catastrophic illness and they cancel you guys after you've been paying out of pocket for premiums and you meet your max for your lifetime then you have to drain your life savings and put a lien on your home, etc.....it happened to my grandparents and it was the saddest thing ever. They thought like that too...they sure didn't after it happened to them, changed their minds real quick! sleep.gif

my2monkeyboys replied: This is why I think the answers lie with our insurance companies, not with the govt taking over. I think our insurance rules/regulations need work and changes made to different laws governing the insurance companies; I don't want our elected officials presiding over all of it. It wouldn't make me nearly as nervous if all of those Senators, Congressmen, etc were going to be subject to the same health care as we are. Somehow though they won't be -- they make it a point to make sure their health care is top-notch all the way. I truly do not believe the health reform bill they are trying to pass has our best interest at heart. If it did, they themselves would be subject to it, too. And until they show us that they can run anything successfully, I want them as far away from everything that we the public are affected by.

I don't know all the answers, but I think one thing would be to open the market between states. I know that we have good coverage for my whole family. It runs us $365 a month, and that includes dr. visits at a $30 copay, hospitalization with a $5000 ded, and a lifetime max of $10M per member. Now, if we can get that coverage, everyone in America should be allowed to also. If the ins companies could compete with each other across state lines that would make the market much more competitive which would lower premiums and raise coverage. As for pre-existing conditions, I don't know the answer to that... if you force companies to cover those things then of course it will cost them more money, which they'd have to make up for by raising premiums, which then someone may not be able to afford.... I just don't know the answer to that problem.
I'm not totally against the govt offering coverage for people who can't get coverage through an ins company, or that can't get it at a decent rate, but I don't want it to turn out where I HAVE to sign up for their coverage. Plus, no matter who says it's not, if our govt pays for our health ins, our taxed WILL go up... there is no such thing as a free lunch. If I can pay more taxes for that, then I'd rather keep my tax money and pay for my own coverage.
Again I don't know all the answers... I just know that what we have isn't great, and what they are proposing isn't good, either. sad.gif


CommunityNewsResources | Entertainment | Link To Us |Terms of Use | Privacy PolicyAdvertising
©2024 Parenting Club.com All Rights Reserved