information only - Lets not fight

PrairieMom wrote: A friend of mine posted this link on his FB page that has non partisan information on the new health care bill. I thought it would be some good information to have, I am not trying to start any fights.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1914020220100319

jcc64 replied: Oh come on, let's fight!
Seriously, I appreciate the link. It's one of the clearest, most succinct articles I've seen on the new bill--how refreshing to see it w/o all the hysteria.
My personal favorite part:


Are you listening, Walmart????? I don't want to pay for your worker's health care anymore.

Calimama replied: Thank you!! Reading it now..

My2Beauties replied: Very good article. Thanks for sharing

DVFlyer replied:

No comment. (Other than to say "no comment". )

PrairieMom replied:


Some times its just nice to know what you are fighting about. The " i heard this or that" arguments where no one really has a clue are exhausting me.

moped replied: I didn't read it but are you guys happy with it?

PrairieMom replied:
its a really really touchy subject around here.
I am not unhappy about it. I guess I would say I am in the middle of the road. I am 100% angry with the system we currently have, so IMO, this is better.

coasterqueen replied: Honestly you can't post something like that and then say "i'm just posting it, not wanting a discussion".

I'm gonna stay out of it, though. I am not going to place an opinion on an article that highlights what is in the bill. Coming from working with legislation on a daily basis, I know those highlights don't mean jack you-know-what. I do enough white papers to know they only highlight what they want you to see/know I will not and have not gone into this with the wool pulled over my eyes. Those things are in the bill, but what is in the bill that you DON'T KNOW ABOUT?

PrairieMom replied:
Don't know, but if you can provide that info, it would be appreciated.


I just wanted to post the info I had, I wasn't trying to instigate anything is all. I would LOVE a discussion, I don't want a fight.

coasterqueen replied:
Read the bill is the information I can provide you

I have emails after emails/ conference calls after conference calls on the subject/bill, but nothing I can share to the public. All has been documented from the bill, so again I'd say read the bill. Then you will know what is in there that is not in the highlighted section. What I was trying to get at is you can't believe ANY article (for or against) and think that's what the bill is going to do for you. Why? Because like I said if what is in that article are the only things this bill was going to do for you, it wouldn't take 2000+ pages to explain it Granted there is a lot of bullcrap jargon that goes into the process of legislative writing, I know I get sick and tired of typing it , but I know enough that white papers (or article in this case) can't reduce a 2000 page bill into a 1 or 2 page article telling you what the bill is about.

Let me ask you this? The House wouldn't rewrite the bill NUMEROUS times to include language regarding the gov't not paying for abortions so that many Dems (not even speaking about Repubs) would vote for it. So instead of changing the wording in the bill so the Dems would vote for it they had the president give an executive order stating the bill would not pay for abortions. That is the WEIRDEST thing I have ever seen in my years of politics. Why wouldn't the Dems just reword the legislation to make everyone comfortable about it. Why did they refuse to do it and instead got an EO from the president? Strange.....

coasterqueen replied: I'm done.

coasterqueen replied: Tara,

Here I got one for you that came across my desk this morning and it has to do with what the artlcle you posted said - so it's stated it's in the bill.

" WHAT HAPPENS IN 2018

*An excise tax on high cost employer-provided plans is imposed. The first $27,500 of a family plan and $10,200 for individual coverage is exempt from the tax. Higher levels are set for plans covering retirees and people in high risk professions. (Reporting by Donna Smith; Editing by David Alexander and Eric Beech)"

And from another source:

New tax on expensive health insurance

They used to call this the “Cadillac tax,”

The health care bill would impose an excise tax on insurers of employer-sponsored health plans that cost more than $10,200 annually for individual coverage, or $27,500 annually for family coverage. The tax in question would be 40 percent of the cost of the plan that exceeds those dollar thresholds.

This tax would not kick in until 2018. The JCT figures it would bring in around $32 billion in its first two years. "


Ok, I don't know if anyone else who reads this has a "cadillac" health insurance plan. I do through my husband's employer. My employer has a step below that kind of plan, but we are trying to figure out if it will be considered a cadillac plan. If so we have been told we will downgrade it if in fact it truly means we will be taxed as we just can't afford that. As it is now our employers are very generous with the amount they do pay and we scrape by just to pay what we as the employee have to pay. And then it's possible they are going to TAX the insurer (aka the employer) UM........employers are either going to downgrade their plans or pass on that expense to the employee. I guess that is acceptable to everyone else, especially if you don't have this type of plan. One of my husband's and my goal when we got out of college was to find not only a good paying job, but one that had this type of insurance. We passed up better jobs for this benefit. Now we may be penalized for that?

jcc64 replied:

You apparently have had the good fortune to avoid this reality up until now, making you just about the only person I know to have done so. This has been going on for as long as I've had insurance, with our premiums going up 30% in just the last year. Dh's company is constantly switching/downgrading plans in addition to raising employee contributions in order to balance its own financial solvency with the needs of its employees. Even the teachers around here are losing their lovely benefits, with every district in the area laying off teachers to offset the costs of rising health care costs. You've been very lucky, Karen. But the insurance nirvana you've apparently enjoyed hasn't been the reality for most of us for some time now. And that's with the almighty insurance industry driving the market, not the gov't.
They've had their shot, and most of us can't make it under their terms. The gov't plan may not be perfect, but I'll take a shot in the dark over what we have now, b/c for us, it can't get much worse.

coasterqueen replied:
No Jeanne, you are WRONG. Please don't assume something about me, please. I have experienced this. I've experienced this for 11 years now. When my husband first started his job he wasn't paying ANY PREMIUM. His insurance was covered completely, but yes he was being payed less than he should in his field in this area. BUT we thought the benefit outweighed the money he would earn if we did pay a premium. In 11 years we've gone from paying nothing to paying A LOT a month for our premiums. Not much as what employees do in our office. We are an office of 3. I am the only one who won't use our insurance because my husband's is still cheaper FOR NOW. So yes, over the years we've taken less pay to have lower premiums. So no, I'm not oblivious to this or stupid in any way. My mother didn't get a raise for 10 years at her last job because her premiums went up every year and that is what they considered a raise. My husband didn't get a raise for 2 years and premiums went up and what we had to pay out-of-pocket doubled. He got a raise this past year, but still not enough to cover what extra we pay in the raised insurance premiums and our out-of-pocket doubled again just this year. So I'm not oblivious to anything. I might be luckier than others, but not oblivious to what's going on.

I must be the only pessimist on the planet because I can see it getting much worse.

Oh and I experienced NO insurance before my husband got the job he did giving us the insurance we have now. I didn't have insurance for years. I was on my own since 16/17 with no insurance. I had insurance for a short time, but couldn't afford the premium even with no car, no luxuries, except an apartment I was co-renting with someone else, so I dropped it. I didn't have insurance for 7 years and had some serious serious health issues during that time. My parents have NO insurance whatsoever.

coasterqueen replied: Now I'm reminded of why I didn't come here often. I don't want to get into these debates and just like with junk food I haven't learned to stay away from them yet.

PrairieMom replied:
I like them. Its the only adult conversation I get during the day, until Dh gets home, then we tend to agree on everything. I enjoy being able to have a conversation with some one where I can learn something about how the other side sees it. Otherwise I would have to just listen to Glenn Beck, and he makes me want to stab myself in the ear with a spoon. LOL

coasterqueen replied:
See I'm the opposite. I think I'd rather be completely clueless. Not know what's going on, just live in my own little bubble. I think that wishful thinking comes from working in politics and wishing I didn't know what really goes on and what the public actually knows, lol. I've become too much of a cynic. My co-worker and I talk about this often. We just can't see the brighter side of politics because we see too much that is just plain ugly.

PrairieMom replied:
I can't imagine, because I am under no impression that anything that goes on in government or with our politicians in general is good and pure. I am sure its way worse than I ever thought it was.
The good thing about threads and conversations like these is that it has really helped me to open my eyes on many subjects, and has changed the way I will approach elections in the future.

jcc64 replied:

Ok, so this is exactly what I'm talking about. This is how things go with the insurance companies behind the wheel. Gov't is far from perfect, but I'll take my chances on the unknown vs. the evil I already have. You've said you believe things are going to get much worse. I guess I don't know on what you're basing this, but the way I see it, let's give it a shot and find out for sure. If people are unhappy about how things are going, they'll speak during the midterm elections, and we'll go from there.
Oh, and one more thing. I can't remember if you said it here or in your pm, but you said once we have a gov't benefit, it's here for life. Bill Clinton did more than any republican ever did with reducing the welfare state. So, it can and has been done before.

jcc64 replied: Oh and ita about these threads. I think they're one of the best things about this site. How else can we hear real people debating the issues, as opposed to pundits and talking heads interpreting how we feel. Sure it gets heated, but it's really not personal. At least for me it isn't.

luvmykids replied: I'm not happy about it for a whole lot of reasons that I won't bore everyone with other than to say as a small business owner who at one time had 85 employees, this plan would have put us under.

We have zero insurance now, so you'd think we'd be desperate enough to see this as an improvement, but we don't

coasterqueen replied:
I think, what despite others think, that it will put a lot of people under. Not just businesses, but people who were/are just scraping to get by now.

I thought it was interesting last night on our local news, a Health Alliance CEO was interviewed and said that with this new health care bill it will hurt a lot of people because all they are going to do is pass the buck making premiums higher for those who are already paying premiums. He said to expect premiums to go up FIFTY PERCENT in the next few years. If ours goes up that much, well, our income has hurt so much over the past few years as it is, we've cut so much out, we'll have to keep cutting I guess. Guess it's good for those who don't have anything and for those who do, well they will be the ones who will have nothing. (ETA: See now if the gov't would have done something about the insurance companies and premiums, we'd have been better off than this bill we have now). I seem to recall the president saying this bill would not hurt those who already have insurance. Well time will tell if he's a liar or not about it.

Then to make things better one of our state legislators got on tv this morning and was stating how our state is already in the worst shape it's ever been. We are like second to California it's that bad, and with this new plan, they have no clue what we are going to do as a state.

So for those who tell me it's going to be so great, please tell my legislators that (even my dem ones who thinks this is going to hurt our state more) because everywhere I turn the tv on, even locally, it's all doom and gloom.

MommyToAshley replied: I don't see how anyone thinks this will hurt the insurance companies, they are in heaven right now. A law was just passed that required every American to purchase their service. Their customer base just doubled.

There are actually some aspects of the bill I like but others I don't. I like the pre-existing condition clause (but we are going to have to cover that expense too); I like the ideas for changing the way they do medical records to make it more efficient, etc. There are some really good parts of the bill. But, I think there are some things we could have tried first like opening up competition across state lines and tort reform. Nothing brings down prices more than competition. And, I don't see how taxing the health insurance that your employer provides is going to make it cheaper for anyone? It's just adding another cost to help pay for the portion that the gov't is going to have to pay for those less priveledged. So, the better our insurance, the more you are going to pay. Does anyone not see the wrong in that, or is the way of our future?

I am with Monica, being self-employed is the worst possible position to be in when it comes to insurance. I am not one of those that have excellent health insurance paid for by a company. I was thrilled when health insurance was put on the table for debate, but I almost wish it hadn't been now. It's like we took one step forward and two steps back. I almost wonder if it would have been better to not even move.

Danalana replied: Am I just making this sup, or did I read that a lot of states are "suing" the federal government over this? Does that mean that states can win the right NOT to carry the health care plan? I know nothing, obviously.

coasterqueen replied:
I'm not sure if I said that or not. Of course, as with any legislation that is passed by any state or federal legislature, the insurance companies pass on whatever the legislature is forcing them to do - they pass it on to the consumer. If the legislature passes a bill that insurance companies have to put such and such on a renewal notice, insurance companies will fight it saying it will cost the insurers more money, then the legislature will say who cares, and then the insurance company charges a higher premium to offset this new law they must abide by. This health care reform bill will be the same. Since insurance companies must provide insurance for ALL no matter what preexisting condition you have, that means they have to fund those people somehow, right? If those with major preexisting conditions are costing more money than those who rarely have anything wrong, then your premium is going to go up to cover those people. If you put in a TON of people with preexisting conditions, YOU ARE GOING TO PAY A HIGH HIGH PREMIUM. The insurance company is just going to pass it on down to the consumer in every situation. The government doesn't care about this. If they did they would have dealt with this issue in a much better way. (ETA it's obviously more complicated and detailed than this. I'm just explaining it in the simplest terms)

Now I think smaller insurance companies that don't have a lot of capital, etc to deal with a lot of people who have major expensive preexisting conditions - I think they could go under.

And while an insurance co. customer base just doubled, their expenses are DOUBLED if not TRIPLED because of having to pay for preexisting conditions. I'm not saying this to say "ahhh, poor insurance companies will have to pay more". I'm saying that because those of us who already have insurance who are covered and pay premiums, well OURS will be doubled if not tripled - the insurance company isn't going to take a hit for this.

coasterqueen replied:
True they can sue. I wish our state would and maybe they will, maybe they won't being Obama came from this state, but ours couldn't even afford to sue if we wanted to. It won't matter, the federal government is so massive and keeps growing, states won't win.

DVFlyer replied: Last I heard, 32 Attorneys General were ready to sue over this.

Pretty standard procedure.

I wish I had gone to Law School. The world is decided in courts these days.... although nothing is ever really decided so job security is fantastic.

msoulz replied:

I completely agree with this! You all have taught me a lot over the years - if nothing else, how other people view things. I love that!

mummy2girls replied: Im asking this to all that do not like this... not to start a fight but just as a curiosity. What about this do you not like? Is it your taxes will rise? your coverage you have will disappear? the long waiting times? Having to pay for the ones on welfare to get coverage, etc?

i live in canada as you all know and i like the universal healthcare. Yes there are down sides and they are the looong wait times for surgeries, specialist appointemnts, etc. But there are good sides to it.... Not being turned down at all for any pre exsisting conditions such as asthma. If you get diagnosed with cancer we can not be turned away from getting medical help. Yes Jenna was on a list for both her surgeries and took 7 months to get it done but thats because her situation wasnt dire and when other kids came that needed the procedure she was put down the waiting list. When jordan was in the NICU and stuff i didnt have to pay anything. I did have to pay a couple hundred every few months for the universal health care. People who are low income or on welfare or can not afford to pay that got subsidized. And then yes everyone else payed into it so these less fortunate could get health care. The universal does not cover dental, eye , prescriptions, therapy etc that you have to get private insurance for that.. and we get that under marcus's work coverage he gets.. he pays a little over 100 a month for us to get 80- 90 percent coverage in these things. So yes its has the down siudes but if you are struck down with some catastrophic illenss you will not be turned away for anything you will get the help.

jcc64 replied:

Your system sounds utterly reasonable to me, Shelley. I can't speak for why so many people are against health care reform--it boggles my mind, really.

I think, as is so often the case with our politics, A TON of fear mongering, distortions, and outright lies muddy the process until people have no clue what they're even fighting for or against past a certain point.
Thanks for sharing

MommyToAshley replied:
When we went to Niagra Falls, my MIL asked every Canadian she ran into what they thought of the Canadian Health care system... lol. And, we found just as many people that hated the system as those that loved the system. Some said that they even came down to the US to get procedures that they were on waiting lists for in Canada.... things like knee replacements. While a kneee replacement may not be life threatening, I felt just awful for this elderly woman that was on the waiting list for over a year. It seems like Canadians have different views on their health care system depending on who you talk to, and I think the same holds true for Americans. No one system is going to fit all, and it's a tough job trying to find a system that will be fair for the majority.

coasterqueen replied:
There are so many reasons and fear has nothing to do with it like some want to believe. For one your government is not our government. Our government can't run anything correctly therefore why would I trust it with my health? I can't speak for yours. So I can't tell you why you may not be able to see that side of it when it comes to ours. You can't compare our health care with yours unless you are going to compare how the governments are run.

I won't even go into all my other reasons as it usually falls on deaf ears and again, they are my reasons, not anyone else's.

coasterqueen replied:
Yep, I know several people IRL who went to US from Canada to get procedures done. One was for BREAST CANCER. Another was for a minor surgery on his nasal passage so he could breath better. My husband's company, at one time, actually recruited people from Canada to work for them BASED on our healthcare coverage and many Canadians gladly left Canada to come to the US just for our care. Several that Dh has worked with on numerous occasions (they are now in other offices throughout US).

Hillbilly Housewife replied: Just a side note to this... our healthcare system is mandated provincially, not federally. The same procedures are not all covered the same way depending on the province you live in... but that's just

Our government wouldn't be able to run it federally either.

coasterqueen replied:
I didn't realize that. Thanks for the info.

MommyToAshley replied:
I think I remember you saying this before. Thanks for the reminder.

moped replied:
True Rocky!

For example, Rocky would get different benefits and coverage in ON than I do in AB!

TANNER'S MOM replied: I feel like I am being punished for being having a great plan! My husband works for our insurance. It's not free but yet I am punished because someone else isn't offered the exact same thing. I feel like we are in kindergarten and someone said my piece of cake is smaller than his piece of cake.

I am against this!! But I am against the goverment having more control over me!

coasterqueen replied:
You definitely will be, especially if you have a cadillac plan. You are going to be charged an excise tax of up to 40%! I guess they think if you have a "cadillac" plan you must be rich too! Boy if they just look at my assets they'd see NOT!

TANNER'S MOM replied: Yes and we don't have a cadillac plan because we have alot of money. We have the plan because my husband works for a large corporation that can afford to offer that plan based on the number of employee's they have. It has nothing to do with my pocket book, it has to do it with theirs. But, I will be punished with a tax I can't afford. Simply because we are working class, and a responsible American with a family. We work to support ourselves and family and will now be taxed for it.

coasterqueen replied:
It is also important to say that most businesses that DO offer "cadillac" plans, may give less benefits in other ways in order to offer these types of plans. Such as not as high salaries as what would normally be given if the plan was not given, or other benefits
I know for us a lower salary was worth the insurance plan we got from my Dh's company. ETA: So I guess for US we'll get DOUBLE SCREWED! We took the lower salary to get the better insurance and now we'll either lose the better insurance or we'll get the excise tax for having it. It's almost hilarious at this point.

mummy2girls replied:
yes Dee Dee I agree with you there. alot of canadains dont like it either... And the big thing why is the LOOOOOng waiting times. Yes its horrible for some to have to wait and i feel for them all. I guess I just wanted an idea on what is the worst part you guys dont like...

mummy2girls replied:
I understand Karen:) I guess I just wanted to see what everyone hated about it.. and if its the majority here. there are parts to how our gov runs that I hate and dont agree with but all in all i am happy for the most part. When I was a single mom I got alot of help in the areas I needed such as daycare subsidy, healthcare, Child credit tax, Universal childcare tax, 100 coverage for Jenna for dental and anything that the universal coverage does not cover... BUT now that im married its not there that much... I guess I should go single again...LOL.

jcc64 replied:

I know you and I will continue to go round and round on this, Karen, but I guess I don't understand why you're willing to accept this as a good solution. Why SHOULD you have to take a lower salary just so you can have adequate health coverage?

And after watching the final hours of the health care debate in Congress on Sun. night, and seeing how atrociously they all behaved, (on BOTH sides--a bunch of whiny brats I felt like kicking in the teeth) I can certainly understand the cynicism and disgust at the dysfunction that is our gov't.
Having said that, however, I do need to say that "gov't sucks, can do no right" mantra is completely overblown, imo. It is far from perfect, I agree, but we still live in a place where help is a 9-1-1 call away, your children are guaranteed an education, you can drive on roads that are superior to just about anywhere else in the world, you have the right to free speech, a free attorney if you can't afford one, etc...
I think if you stepped outside of our borders for any length of time, you'd see that we have it a whole lot better than most people.
And with regards to the Canadian system, it seems that there's a net for people who want the "Cadillac plan." They can buy supplemental private insurance, which would mitigate some of the complaints about the wait times. But at least EVERYONE, regardless of their income, is entitled to a minimum level of coverage, which to me, is a basic civil right. After all, free speech, good roads, and a free education don't mean much if you're too sick to use them.

coasterqueen replied:
We didn't take a lower salary to have "adequate" health care. We took a little lower salary to have GREAT health care.

I am completely thankful for the things I have, the freedoms I have, but that's just it the larger our government is, the more the government wants to take over, the less freedoms I have. People like my MIL who does not and does not want insurance, her freedom has been taken away from her with this bill - if she wants to continue to not have insurance she has to pay a penalty. This is coming from someone who hardly EVER goes to the doctor - I mean, she might go 2 times in the last 10 years now, and when she has she's paid her bill outright with cash, no complaints.

I'm....just going to leave it there.

jcc64 replied:

She's been a very lucky woman so far. But is she in a financial position to deal out-of-pocket with an unforeseen catastrophe or illness? My dad maxxed out his "cadillac plan" after a relatively short but ultimately fatal bout of kidney cancer. What are your m-i-l's plans in such an event?

Nobody has a problem with mandatory car insurance, or I should say, we all accept the reasoning behind it.

DVFlyer replied:
Mandatory "Liability" car insurance.

Only the finance companies care if you insure the car itself.

jcc64 replied:

Yeah, I get that, DV. I know how auto insurance works. But the reason we have to carry liability insurance is that in the event of our involvement in some driving catastrophe involving someone else, we will have the means to take care of it, financially.
If someone doesn't have health insurance, then their lack of coverage becomes the taxpayers' problem in the event of an expensive health crisis. That's the way it is right now, no? Is that not why a single Tylenol pill costs upwards of $10 when administered in a hospital--they are shifting the shortfall onto the insured.
Everyone with insurance--you're ALREADY paying for the uninsured, but doing it in the most expensive way possible--in ER's. Why not just acknowledge the fact that poor people are going to seek out care, and we can pay now, or we can pay later.
Or I guess we can let them just rot in the streets.

PrairieMom replied: I kinda feel like I opened a can of worms and then slowly backed away... I have been lurking all over this thread tho.
Yeah us for staying civil!
Gotta say, once again, ITA with you Jeanne. There is really no point in me typing out a post when I know that you will come along eventually and say what I wanted to say way better than I ever could.

coasterqueen replied:
Her and my step-FIL have done fine for a VERY LONG time now without any insurance. I don't know if they have saved money up, but her plans would be the same no matter what the circumstance. They live a very green, earthy type of life and do all natural remedies as possible to keep healthy. I believe, my husband would have to verify, that my FIL is in his early 70's and very healthy. They just always say when God is ready for me to go, I will go. So I really can't tell you what their plans are, to be as comfortable as possible until they go.

I'm not even going to go down the mandatory car insurance road with you. I address that one here at work enough.

coasterqueen replied:
Yeah, that's what we should do. Really.

Boo&BugsMom replied:
My car insurance only costs us $50 a month (for 2 cars). Our health care each month, when Troy was employed, was almost $450 a month. HUGE difference, IMO. If mandatory health care coverage will only cost me the amount that my car insurance does, then sign me up!

I'm not sure how I feel about this whole thing. As a faith driven person, I'm trying to just trust that God will provide for our family.

In Wisconsin, we have what is called Badgercare. We are only a handful of states that offer something like it (I think). It is heath care coverage for those either on welfare, or who can not afford healthcare otherwise due to some other circumstance. Due to Troy losing his job in Sept. and because we have 2 kids as dependants, we are eligible (even though we own our own home). Our cost each month is only $20. Yes, $20, for our whole family. I should also add, the coverage is amazingly better than any other plan I've ever had. I got meds yesterday for my sinus infection and I only paid $1, yes $1, out of my pocket. Doctor visits are free. Nearly everything is paid for. It's ridiculous that when we paid $450 a month, we had high deductibles and always a high bill at the end of each situation that occured. With this coverage we are on through the state, we are well taken care of (and pre-exsisting conditions do not apply either). I should also add, the doctor's we were all seeing are doctor's who accept the gov. plan that we have...so, no switching of doctor's were required for us either...and we see GREAT doctors (something I'm very picky about due to being in healthcare myself). There are some that take advantage of the system, and keep themselves on welfare just to stay on Badgercare. Then there are people like us, who need it temporarily until Troy finds a job with good insurance benefits. If it were not for this system, we would be without health insurance...and that scares me, being that we have two children...two very accident prone children.

So, with that said. I am on the fence. Will this healthcare bill jeapordize my coverage that I have now? Or will this healthcare bill enable other people like us to have good and less expensive coverage like we have now and not affect the state of WI's current Badgercare system? I will admit I do not know enough facts to form an opinion, and like most people, change freaks me out. I am most concerned about our financial well-being, like others are. We already scrape by...there is no way we'd be able to scrape by with less.

jcc64 replied:

You just made a very nice argument for gov't run health care.

I think you should share your story with everyone who believes that the gov't is incapable of delivering what you've just described.

jcc64 replied:

So are my in-laws, who also never carried health insurance of any kind. And yet, in his early 70's, my f-i-l unexpectedly had a stoke and a massive heart attack that required a quadruple bypass and additional surgeries to install a pacemaker. His cardiac maintenance meds run well into the thousands. No amount of herbal remedies or saving along the way could have prepared them for this disaster. They lost their home, filed bankruptcy, moved into a tiny apt. so run down that they are too embarrassed for us to see it, and are now on food stamps and Medicaid. Affordable preventative care along the way could have prevented taxpayers from being left holding the most expensive bag possible, and my in-laws from descending into inescapable poverty as a result of a single illness.

PrairieMom replied:
Thats the think that I don't think that most of the people I talk with about this understand. Unless you are independently wealthy, and VERY wealthy, you just can't save enough $ to pay cash for a MAJOR medical expense, and really we are all just a car accident away from that. You can live as clean and healthy as possible, but one drunk driver , and its all over. In our hospital it is $10,000 A DAY just for the use of one of our life support machines, not counting the care, room, meds, all the other machines you use. It really wouldn't take much to loose every thing you have. Medical expense is the #1 cause of bankruptcy here, and it is just ridiculous.
Then , while you are in the hospital, struggling just to survive, your insurance can up and decide that you are getting to expensive and drop you.

Danalana replied: "When all government shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will become as oppressive as the government from which we separated." -Thomas Jefferson

MommyToAshley replied:
You are overlooking one important fact. This insurance is only available to low-income and not available to everyone. I am sure if you talk to anyone on Medicade, they will tell you what great insurance they have -- no premiums (or extremely low premiums), no deductible, etc, etc etc. I will be the first to say it's something we need in place for families, just like Troy's, who temporarily lost their jobs and I am not opposed to it one bit. I would love this kind of coverage as well, but this is not the same insurance we are going to get for every American under the new health care plan.

Boo&BugsMom replied:
Low-income depending on your situation. The income level is actually pretty high. Even when Troy HAD a job, we would have qualified at the income level. WI's cost of living is a bit lower than other states though. In other states, this plan wouldn't work because even when we were at our "wealthiest" (I have to chuckle at that because we have never been WELL off) we would be considered almost homeless in other states.

I guess I can see both sides. I love having this option to us right now. Although, if EVERYONE had it, would it still be as nice? I don't care about waiting for a healthcare procedure. I'd rather wait a year for a hip replacement than have a $500,000 bill at the end. However, if I had a life threatening illness, would I be taken care of? I also wonder what number of doctor's we have in the US versus Canada is. In Canada there may be a long wait, but do they have the amount of doctor's that the US has? Just our one hospital system alone (the one I work for) in 'Podunk' WI is HUGE. Thousands of doctor's to choose from in our county alone.

My main concern, as like a lot of other people, is cost. Being a lower income level family we struggle enough. Will I have to struggle more on this new plan??? I really do think healthcare is a right for everyone, not a 'priviledge'. Nobody should have to suffer. However, with the way our economy is right now, I can't help but worry about where we will be after this takes place. I have no problem helping others to obtain healthcare (I think we should take care of each other)...but not at the cost of my family.

MommyToAshley replied:
I agree with you 100%. I think everyone should be entitled to healthcare, but I am not so sure this new plan is the way to go. I pray that my fears are unfounded and everything will work out -- I guess we are about to find out.

coasterqueen replied:
It's been my point all along.

jcc64 replied:

I guess I'm a little confused by your position, Jenny. How do you think YOUR FAMILY has been able to access the great state-run health care you just described upthread? So it's ok for others to sacrifice a little bit in order to provide for your family, but you're not willing to do it for others? Am I understanding that right?