well paul, it must be nice to have an extra 200-300 a month just sitting around you can throw at a service you may or may not use...most dont have that luxury, and for families the cost would be even higher...

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, mirror in the sky
What is love?
Can the child within my heart rise above?
Can I sail through the changing ocean tides?
Can I handle the seasons of my life?

And one of the provisions in the Healthcare Bill is a reduction in the Health Savings Accounts contributions to only $2,500, rather than the $6000 or more they were previously. This is tax-free money that can be used for out-of-pocket healthcare expenses.

HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNTS LIMITED UNDER OBAMACARE

[centexunfilterednews.blogspot.com]

Health Savings Accounts destroyed by “Obamacare”

[theohiolaborlawyers.wordpress.com]



And from an article I just read --

"According to Americans for Tax Reform, the healthcare law has more than $500 Billion in Tax Increases, which pay for other reforms."

So for all those who thought they'd be getting "Free Healthcare", it's much more expensive than what we had.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/03/2011 12:42AM by KidRaw.

In a historic vote in the Senate, the Administration Side voted to keep Obamacare after it was Ruled to be Unconstitutional.

All of "The Other Side" voted to Repeal it.

Senate Rejects Healthcare Repeal

[thehill.com]

Curator Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> well paul, it must be nice to have an extra
> 200-300 a month just sitting around you can throw
> at a service you may or may not use..

How much the poor pay depends on the risk pool and the government subsidy. If you already have insurance, fine. Don't have to buy extra. If you don't and are one of the 47 million Americans without it, then we need you in the risk pool healthy or sick to make it work. Elective health insurance is infeasible. Only the sick would join. And you can't distribute risk over a basically sick population. That isn't the way insurance works.

.most dont
> have that luxury, and for families the cost would
> be even higher...

Not a luxury. The cost is lower than it will be if we have to continue to rely on emergency room treatment where the taxpayer picks up the bill where the cost per service is outrageously high. How do you suppose the Canadians maintain a national health service?, the British, the French, the Russians, the Chinese? Basically everyone but us? Again, if you drive a car, you have to have auto insurance. Why is this any different? It's not. Just more important. If someone doesn't want to buy health insurance and is willing to foot his own emergency room bill or sign a waiver ensuring the emergency room can deny him treatment, I have no problem with that. I just think if you are going to be using emergency services for routine care, you should pay your way.

Also, I don't buy the slippery slope argument about the government can do anything it wants. The 10th amendment and Article 1 of the Constitution already serve as real limits. The only question is where is the line? The Federal Government is constrained by Commerce Clause limits and exclusively state areas.

Paul

dude, there is no country in the world that maintains a national health service, they all hemorrhage money, refer to my above post on this topic, its about the only way a system like this can be payed for.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, mirror in the sky
What is love?
Can the child within my heart rise above?
Can I sail through the changing ocean tides?
Can I handle the seasons of my life?

Since we are usually on the same side of most issues, we can agree to disagree on this one. Even conservative British value their National Health Service the way we value our Social Security, as do the Canadians and others.

Canadians are mostly very happy with their health care and also happy to pay for it via taxes. Of course we complain too but we would not give it up! It's not hemorrhaging money, it is not very efficient in some areas but it has been working for decades and always improving. It's a good system.

I don't personally love the idea of having so much money funneled into a system that allows people to take crap care of themselves, eat and drink and smoke themselves to death... But this is what supporting your community is all about. Mommies on welfare, little kids who need glasses and dental care, poor people, addicts and those with psychiatric issues... these are the people who need help from their community. If we were looking at a system of tax increases to allow people to go to university and college free of charge (like Denmark) I would be all for it. What benefits one benefits all.

coco Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> What benefits one
> benefits all.

That's easy to say when you're one of those glomming off the system, but when you're one of those who are working hard and FORCED to pay 60% of your hard-earned money so the lazy-among-us can sit on their laurels, it's an assault on your liberty and freedom.

I live on my savings not off the system and I am still happy to pay via taxes etc to have healthy people in a healthy community. Don't assume that you know what motivates others, in this case you are very wrong. Also, people in need are very rarely "lazy", this is a culturally held mis-belief. Get out there and work with people in your community and you will see how hard a lot of them work and how they struggle to keep their families afloat while the rest of us sit on our lazy asses watching our big screen tvs. Sheesh. Your thoughts are sometimes so incredibly ugly.

There are 'those in need', and then those who are gaming the system and are able to go out and get a job but choose not to because they are 'lazy'. That is who I am referring to. Of course, everybody wants to help those in need, but most people resent paying for those who could work but choose not to.

Bringing it back to Healthcare, I also don't want to pay for other's healthcare if they are at a high risk for getting sick because they have an unhealthy lifestyle - like they smoke, drink, eat junk food, fat because they eat all the time, take drugs and medicines. Ideally there would be a risk pool for raw foodists or at least for those who are into healthy eating and alternative health therapies.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/03/2011 05:05PM by KidRaw.

What if they obese because of thyroid or addicted to food? What if it's obese children? Where do you draw the line? The stereotype of the obese person being lazy and undermotivated is has been pretty much disproven. Most people are at high risk have little choice about it. Should we not cover the uninsured elderly because they are high risk?

I guess I don't have a problem with higher premiums for higher risk as I said above. As a middle aged man, I already pay higher life insurance premiums than I did when I was younger. So, I don't have a problem with higher rates for higher risk people. But not covering them because they are higher risk kind of defeats the purpose to me. I would like to see a discount for healthy hearts that many vegan have, e.g. low cho but other do as well.

Paul

Im one of the people who is living off the system, and I dont particularly like it, I could go get a job, but I dont so I can stay home and take care of my mom,I only stand to gain from any of these sort of programs, but we need to fix the system to make it worth while, If you are remodeling a house and adding a second story, you will fix the broken foundation first be4 working on any other structural issues and building the second story, right? because if you dont, its wasted effort, the whole house could come toppling down (amongst other issues) if the foundation is not right.

Paul, we are on the same side on this one as well, we want the same thing, only disagree on the average persons ability to pay for it, when it COULD be set up to where that wouldn't be a concern, for some people the money just does NOT exist, they spend every dime they have to make ends meet every month, and get into debt on top of that, and they are expected to spend hundreds more a month under this plan for medical insurance because they make just barely over the limit for receiving benefits for free/discount... Why should that even be a concern when we have the ability to make a more efficient system?

Coco
[www.debtclock.ca]
[www.visualeconomics.com]
canadian debt is still climbing, A lot... this is slightly out of date, as U.S> debt is much much higher now, but thats what happens in a system that pays for all of this socialized stuff without changing the system so they can pay for it.

And here is a really awesome article on canada's health care system and spending by CBC news, a bit out of date, as the spending has raised considerably since then, but many of the points they make are the same regardless.
[www.cbc.ca]

especially this part
"If you look internationally, and you look at what you're getting for health-care spending, beyond about $600 or $700 US per person per year, there is literally no correlation between life expectancy, infant mortality, and how much you're spending," the University of Saskatchewan's Janice McKinnon said. "So countries that spend $800 to $1,000 Cdn have pretty much the same health care indicators as we do. And we're spending four times as much."

Since the spending has raised considerably since then... and makes up a HUUGE chunk of your countries budget/debt, and your debt is growing, that by definition means that it is hemorrhaging money... If such a system was implemented in the U.S., we would be screwed, just this band-aid on the system increased our debt by over 50%, with very little chance to increase the average health of any american citizen, if the system can be more efficient, why not fight for that, instead of just throwing more band-aids on an open wound, treat and close the wound... no other course of action makes any sense to me...

But maybe there is something im missing, that I haven't seen anyone point out yet... and who knows, maybe im just tilting at windmills, but something a friend told me yesterday, makes me believe, we should ALL be tilting at windmills, especially those of us on boards like this who have already been practicing!

She told me, that I was like the reincarnation of mother Theresa, I told her no way, I WISH I was that good of a person, and she said to me something so simple yet so profound... "That's good enough." and ya know what, that IS good enough! If we aim for the best, want the best, and dont aim for "better than nothing" then if we fall short, its still good enough, aim for the stars, and even if you cant get there, you may still make it to the moon.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, mirror in the sky
What is love?
Can the child within my heart rise above?
Can I sail through the changing ocean tides?
Can I handle the seasons of my life?

pborst Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What if they obese because of thyroid or addicted
> to food? What if it's obese children? Where do
> you draw the line? The stereotype of the obese
> person being lazy and undermotivated is has been
> pretty much disproven.

Of course, I'm referring to people who are obese because they want to eat yummy food. And so they do eat anything they want whenever they want it. And so they're obese. I don't see why I should pay for them, when I'm a responsible eater.

It's called Individual Responsibility.

pborst also wrote:
----------------------
>"Should we not cover the uninsured elderly because they are high risk?"


Of course, we should. You're comparing apples to oranges. Smoking, drinking, eating yourself silly, and doing drugs is totally different than aging.

Curator, of course it's your responsibility to stay home and take care of your mother.

I'm referring to those who make a lifestyle of collecting welfare and those who intentionally have babies so they don't have to work and can collect more of other people's money, those who collect disability under false pretenses, all that lot. There are generations of welfare families. If we stopped paying for them, there would be plenty for those who really need it.

Kidraw, once a woman is on welfare, any children she has after that, does not gain her any extra benefits, just thought id point that out, I also know this from personal experience, as one of my close friends was on welfare since her third child, and could not gain any extra benefits for the two she had after that.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, mirror in the sky
What is love?
Can the child within my heart rise above?
Can I sail through the changing ocean tides?
Can I handle the seasons of my life?

Curator, I will look at your links. However, the government in the prairies (Saskatchewan etc) is conservative and they have an agenda to privatize health care so take what you read from them with a large grain of sea salt .

I agree with your house analogy but have to say, sometimes it's best to start some of the aspects of construction now and catch up the rest of it at the same time rather than kicking everyone out in the cold while you argue about how to fix things. Problems can be worked out as you go. Doing something is always better than doing nothing.

KidRaw, the way you talk about obesity and families on welfare reveals such a level of ignorant assumption. I will not come to this thread again, this discussion with you is futile.

Since I am obviously not nearly as familiar with the political structure of your country as you are, I will defer to your judgment on that one, but as far as the house concept goes, you can cause irreparable damage, or damage that makes you end up having to rebuild the entire house from the ground up, if you make any additions without fixing the foundation first... patching a leaky roof and fixing broken windows is one thing, that wouldnt be dangerous, putting on a whole new roof, or adding a second story, with out fixing the foundation, would be disastrous...

Under the current system even here, people are not left out in the cold, anyone can receive treatment at any time for anything that is needed, anywhere in this country... nobody is left out in the cold that doesn't want to be... we even have laws in place that make it to where the hospitals can't garnish wages, can;t put liens on your house, or anything like that, as long as your making at least SOME payment, my dad had $38,000+ in debt to the local hospital (after what his insurance covered) payed them $20 a month so they couldnt take action against him, eventually they just forgave him all the debt and used it as a tax write off...(yup, hospitals get taxed) so nobody loses their home or anything over debt to a hospital here unless they aren't aware of the laws protecting them from that.

Im all for patching the roof, and putting in some new windows, while working on the foundation, and other structural issues... but this recent bill goes way to far beyond that...

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, mirror in the sky
What is love?
Can the child within my heart rise above?
Can I sail through the changing ocean tides?
Can I handle the seasons of my life?

pborst,

do you work for the govt., lol / JK

Personally, I am against the Government forcing people to do anything. It's like the cat calling the kettle black.

It seems it is just fine & dandy for them to break all the rules and hold us little guys accountable to every last jot & tittle of the letter...

Here's a thought; how 'bout we all purchase our own health ins., just like we do auto/fire/homeowners/ etc.

BTW Paul...since driving is a privilege, you actually do not have to purchase auto insurance - if you choose not to drive...

The govt. is making it so we do not have a choice here...

I know, I know...in the end, many would not do that & it would become a burden on the taxpayer once again. But, we live in an imperfect society...and I certainly do not feel that he govt. has any business handing down a mandate on this...

BTW, dontcha' all know about the special "waivers" that are being handed out to all the pres.' buddies that don't want to participate in this O-care?

Or did y'all miss that report? Or maybe it is just some made up thing I just heard it on some horrible right-wing talk radio show, lol...


Don't take 30% + more of my income to pay for slackers...illegal immigrants...

I'm already sending enough hard earned dough to D.C. that gets wasted + lining the pockets of all the lairs...

Doesn't it just bug you all to give free stuff to lazy people? You may have a different take on it if you weren't about to lay off employees...


Oh well...I guess I'm out of this one too...no sense in butting heads any longer...

Kidraw,

Your prior comment was related to "high risk" as I remember. Perhaps, I should reread. So, it's more gala apples to red delicious than apples to oranges. In any case, smokers, heavy eaters may be addicted rather than "being lazy". I'm not saying there aren't fraudulent cases of people getting assistance. I'm saying that most people who are high risk don't want to be or have no choice. I think the whole "lazy welfare" stereotype is just that. What about unemployment benefits? In this economy, with structural unemployment, how many of these people would prefer to stay on unemployment benefits (which are temporary as is general assistance after the Welfare Reform Act under Clinton) as opposed to getting a paying job. Not many. The stigma alone is a significant deterrent.

JK,

Yup, am a proud 20 year+ EPA employee. Driving is a privilege for some, a necessity for others. But I think paying into a system you are getting benefits from is a fairness issue, not a liberty issue. As I said above, if someone wants to sign a waiver agreeing not to use emergency room services unless he has health insurance, I'd say fine. But it's not fair for someone uninsured to use emergency room services for routine care or problems that could have been treated with routine car and pawn the bill off on the taxpayer. Just my 2 cents.

Paul

pborst Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Kidraw,

> What about unemployment
> benefits? In this economy, with structural
> unemployment, how many of these people would
> prefer to stay on unemployment benefits (which are
> temporary as is general assistance after the
> Welfare Reform Act under Clinton) as opposed to
> getting a paying job. Not many. The stigma alone
> is a significant deterrent.

I think Unemployment Benefits (Like Social Security and Medicare) are different because we pay into that, so we get our own money back. Collecting unemployment is fine, except like you said if someone is just abusing the system. Whereas with Welfare and Medicaid, you get it for free for doing nothing, and it's paid for with other people's money (the people who work).

And I agree with you about the Emergency Room situation. We taxpayers should not have to pay for those who use the Emergency Room for free. But I don't think FORCING everybody to buy Health Insurance is the answer. How do they say it - it's like cutting off your finger because you have a sliver.

I'm sure there's a better way - like having a totally free market in health insurance like we have in auto insurance without all the rules and regulations and government interference that bog down the doctors and hospitals and make so much extra bureaucracy and paperwork and waste of time, and make it rife with fraud and abuse.

KidRaw Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>>
> I'm sure there's a better way - like having a
> totally free market in health insurance like we
> have in auto insurance without all the rules and
> regulations and government interference that bog
> down the doctors and hospitals and make so much
> extra bureaucracy and paperwork and waste of time,
> and make it rife with fraud and abuse.

like in auto insurance where the government forces everyone who owns an auto to have insurance. That's not entirely free market. And if we didn't compel, we probably couldn't have a free market in insurance because the risk would be too high for insurers to write policies. That's my point, without a risk pool where you can spread risk, it's not workable. Why do you think the health insurance companies favor mandatory coverage? If healthy people don't enter the risk pool, there is no health insurance for the currently uninsured.

Paul

pborst Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> KidRaw Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >>
> > I'm sure there's a better way - like having a
> > totally free market in health insurance like we
> > have in auto insurance without all the rules
> and
> > regulations and government interference that
> bog
> > down the doctors and hospitals and make so much
> > extra bureaucracy and paperwork and waste of
> time,
> > and make it rife with fraud and abuse.
>
> like in auto insurance where the government forces
> everyone who owns an auto to have insurance.
> That's not entirely free market. And if we didn't
> compel, we probably couldn't have a free market in
> insurance because the risk would be too high for
> insurers to write policies. That's my point,
> without a risk pool where you can spread risk,
> it's not workable. Why do you think the health
> insurance companies favor mandatory coverage? If
> healthy people don't enter the risk pool, there is
> no health insurance for the currently uninsured.
>
> Paul


Paul,

The auto insurance analogy is a bit different, & I do not think it really applies the way you are stating it. We are required to have the auto insurance because we are a liability as were interact with other drivers on the road.

The health insurance debate - the liability is not the same. I understand the thinking behind "coverage for all", but again...I really can't get on board with the corrupt government being the one making the rules...

We have already seen, as I mentioned before, that there are waivers being made avail. to the elite that don't want to participate in this O-care...that is not avail. to us little guys out here in the real world.

Oops...I forgot, I wasn't posting in this thread anymore...I'll try to stick to that now!

Kidraw, you are not getting back the money you payed into the system, do the math, add up how much you paid for social security and unemployment insurance for your entire life, to make it easy just use the amount taken out of your most recent check (not ALL of the taxes, just the stuff taken out for the unemployment and social security, that sort of stuff...) then multiply that by 12 if you have a monthly check, 24 if you get it twice a month, then multiply that amount by 100 (as if you had worked for 100 years) and you will not be anywhere NEAR the amount of money you are able to receive from either program... when my dad was giving me crap for being on food stamps and "leeching off society" I pointed out to him that if getting food stamps when I need them is leeching off society, so is his social security... He received more money from it in his first year on it than if he had worked and payed the same amount into the system for 100 years, based on the amount payed him from his most recent job, also his highest paying he has ever had...

@ paul, the health insurance companies favor mandatory coverage because it will make them even richer,lol... it forces everyone to purchase their service, they vehemently opposed the government sticking their foot into the ring, on the ground they would be put out of business (which they probably would have) so that option was taken off the table... this whole thing in the form it is in, reeks of big business using bleeding hearts to push through something that benefits them far more than it does anyone else... im just so surprised that there are people here who are normally so distrustful of the government, now being like "yay, government is doing this right cause it loves us and theres nothing at all wrong with this situation, I <3 uncle sam!" it greatly confuses me.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, mirror in the sky
What is love?
Can the child within my heart rise above?
Can I sail through the changing ocean tides?
Can I handle the seasons of my life?

I favor a single payer system administered by the federal government that would allow economies of scale (lower overhead) and would privatize those elements which could be delivered by the private sector (e.g. bidding and competition for prescription drugs).

A large part of the difficulty and inefficiency of the current system in the US is the complexity and fragmented health care products and providers.

That said, if we do go with a "free market" approach for health care, it has to be truly free and competitive meaning that drug companies in the US should have to compete with foreign drug manufacturers, and service providers should have to compete across state lines.

I also favor limited tort reform and malpractice reform that would replace the current tort system with a worker's comp type of system. You get your medical expenses and lost wages right away (no court, no lawyers) but no punitive damages and no or capped pain and suffering.

Paul

pborst Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> That said, if we do go with a "free market"
> approach for health care, it has to be truly free
> and competitive meaning that drug companies in the
> US should have to compete with foreign drug
> manufacturers, and service providers should have
> to compete across state lines.
>
> I also favor limited tort reform and malpractice
> reform that would replace the current tort system
> with a worker's comp type of system. You get your
> medical expenses and lost wages right away (no
> court, no lawyers) but no punitive damages and no
> or capped pain and suffering.


That sounds good to me, too. Also the Flex Accounts and Health Savings Accounts are a good featuare.

Defending the flex spending accounts

[www.politico.com]

well, hey, the 3 of us mostly agree on something finally, I dont think that would be the perfect system, but I think it would definitely be at least a much better step towards that then the current system, or what this bill offers...

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, mirror in the sky
What is love?
Can the child within my heart rise above?
Can I sail through the changing ocean tides?
Can I handle the seasons of my life?

@Kidraw: You mentioned that we pay into unemployment (as well as Social Security). But that is not entirely true. Yes, we pay into those things but we get back far more than we give--that is Socialism, by the way! Paying into a pot and those who need take from it while others give until THEY need it. I always say that those of *ahem* a certain party who rail against "government programs" might fail to get the humor in "Government: get your filthy hands off my Medicare!"

yeah, I pointed that out already,lol... Ive had similar discussions with my dad many times...he was appalled to find out social security and medicare was this socialism he is so afraid of...lol

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, mirror in the sky
What is love?
Can the child within my heart rise above?
Can I sail through the changing ocean tides?
Can I handle the seasons of my life?