Universal Health Care anyone?!?!!?!?!.....I can barely take care of myself, let alone the whole country!!

I can't think of a single thing that the government does that is efficient or cost effective. Something as straight forward as the Postal System even looses money every year. They even try to compete with UPS & Fedex. Every program the Postal Service gets involved with is a loser. Of course the simple fix is to just keep raising the cost of postage.
Health Care will be no different. It will be slower and cost you more money.

I'm fine with it. I have great health insurance but if a job was lost and subsequently the health insurance, it would throw me into a world of stress to quickly find insurance (much more than the loss of a salary). Knowing that there would be an affordable public option would be a weight off not just my shoulders but the shoulders of millions of Americans. It is not government provided health care... it's health insurance.

But god, I know this is a hot button topic and I don't want to get into any online arguments about it.

This was a pretty good listing on NPR this morning on the way to the airport... in re: those Canadian stories (excuse the 30 second ad at first):

From what I have been told - by real live Canadians, they're cool with their nationalized system...really. I guess it was a mess at first, but once the knuckleheads with a sniffle or a minor cut stopped rushing the clinics, things settled into a plausible system. I'm no Obama fan, but I absolutely believe that we are all entitled to health care. I find it disturbing that we choose our employer based on the availability and quality of health insurance offered. WTF does that have to do with my skill set for doing a job?

As a small business owner who has insured all full time employees for as long as group insurance has been available I very much want to see Obama succeed. I would be richer, no doubt, if I hadn't offerd health care benefits, but I always thought it was the right thing to do. The last 7 or 8 years have been dreadful with the rise in the cost of health care premiums. But I still paid it. I know none of my employees could buy private insurance, either because of the economics or because they had a pre-existing condition that kept them out of the market. I am proud to have offered it to my employees. But, it will very likely come to and end in the next year or two as the premiums have gotton so bad. I want Obama to succeed with single payer. It's the only way. Each of us has a responsibility to be insured and not be a burden if disaster strikes and you can't afford to pay your health care bills. The system is bloated partially with the bills of the uninsured getting built into the premiums of those who are.

I get incensed when I hear people complain, falsely, that if Obama succeeds the government will pick your doctor. Oh please. If you have insurance through your employer you have to choose a doctor in the plan your employer picks. If your employer changes plans you may have to change doctors. Anybody with insurance knows that the insurance company tells your doctor what medicine he can prescribe and what tests he can order. Bean counters are already making choices for you. What's the big deal?

In Obama's plan you are more likely to keep your doctor. Your insurance will be "portable". If you change jobs you can take your health care plan with you if you want. Cut the crap talk and get behind universal health care because if we don't get it the current system will cause even greater hardships to individuals and families and be the reason that our economy never recovers.

Holland, I think the problem will be, if we have a national health care plan, employers who are now offering their employees health care will stop doing so.
If that happens people will be forced into the government system.
So when 0bama claims people can keep their current plan if they like it, he's technically telling the truth, but it might as well be a straight up lie.

As someone here said.."Knowing that there would be an affordable public option"

We do not yet know how much the premium will cost us, nor what buisness will pay into the system (oh yeah, in time they will be paying)
I do know that the yearly out of pocket will be $5,000 for single and $10,000 for family, far more than my current plan.

And your employer plan will have to meet government standards. How much of the rules that apply to the plans in the exchange will be force apply to the employer plan? Thats another thing they're not telling us.

got2bfit said: <b><i>But I also hope that it does not come in the form of additional tax dollars to me, my friends, family, etc.</i></b>

Well, what about the tax dollars you already pay for all this emergency care and other uninsured care for the indigent, the unemployed, and the young? Google up "ohio carenet".

Worth a listen.

http://tiny.cc/pCeBc

This link, http://www.das.state.ne.us/personnel/benefits/2009/cobra/enrollment_guide_costs_for_coverage.pdf, gives info on the cost of keeping health insurance (with some government involvement). Perhaps the best thing we can do for the economy (and families in general) is to remove all such things from the marketplace. This country might have 100 million extra bodies that it doesn't really need. Eliminate Medicare first, and let those who can afford the above premiums pay them to live. The remainder can pay higher premiums, or cut back on services we now take for granted. In the end we could be a leaner, meaner nation. Those who are really necessary to businesses would be allowed to continue to receive health care, and enough consumers would survive to keep businesses going. Under such a scenario we might find we would lose our standing as a nation to those countries that provide universal health care. Those of us unfortunate enough to be without healthcare could help fertilize the countryside.

Here is an interesting link talking about costs under the current system, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/22/business/economy/22leonhardt.html . Add to that the insurance companies ability to "weasel out" of coverage for "preexisting conditions", and it seems that medical coverage for costly cases might only be "advertising" to get members. Anyone out there know of people denied coverage or services because of condition or costs to the insurance companies?

I heard on the radio the other day that Universal Health Care would cover the cost of abortions. I am strongly against abortion and would not want 1 cent of my tax dollars funding it.

JeepMaker - Employers are about to dump health care benefits anyway. At the current rate of increases it is unsustainable. More and more employers, large and small will just throw in the towel. Those that do offer benefits will offer much reduced coverage and the employee will be shouldering higher and higher co-pays. For those of you who get health care insurance from your employer you just don't realize the full extent of what the employer's financial burden has become and that the price increases are relentless.

oldsendbrdy - My daughter had a serious medical event two years ago. Her insurance company - Assurant Health - denied coverage and demanded all doctors' and pharmacy records for the previous two years looking for any treatment or diagnosis that she might have omitted from her application when she first got the plan. Anything at all. It didn't matter if it was related to her current problem or not. Eventually they were forced to pay, but not after many of the bills had been turned over to collection agencies. She still has problems with bill collectors and had to hire an attorney. This is the status quoe. This is what the Republicans want to preserve.

Worried about rationed care? It already is. Many expensive cancer treatments are not covered by insurance. You pay out of pocket or you die sooner. My neighbor had breast cancer, Seven years after the inital treatment and diagnosis it came back and had spread. Treatments to save or at least prolong her life, were $7,000 each - weekly - for a course of 10 treatments. Her insurance would cover the first $300 of each treatment. They did not have the means to pay for the drug themselves so she went home with Hospice to die. She lasted just three months. She was 68 yrs old. Her coverage was Medicare and Paramount Advantage. She said she would not burden her family with huge bills. Care is rationed and some folks have to make some hard choices.

Fact - 62% of bankruptcies are due to medical bills and 80% of the them had insurance.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/health-care-reform/2009/06/new_study_shows_medical_bills.html

Even if you have coverage today - it's not likley to pay your bills. Is the system you want to preserve? Get real and face the facts. Or do you need to have the crisis touch you personally before you wake up?

got2bfit - Most of what you wrote is utter garbage.

If we (the federal government royal 'we') want to provide health care for everyone, including the illegal immigrants who are already getting free health care from the United States, here is how such a system could operate.

A person receives health care, including dental, optical or mental. The provider sends the bill to the United States government, and after some amount of time that provider receives payment. The provider is responsible for submitting all the forms necessary and navigating the monolithic bureaucracy that will be the federal medical billing system.

Insurance companies will go bankrupt, which will be nice for everyone (think about the last time you had to deal with an insurance company about a claim).

In the case of the working class poor, short term and long term disability will be covered by the government.

Note that because a system like this will help the uninsured and under-insured the most, it will never be put into production. Instead, health care costs will rise, taxes misused to pay for the new free health care system endorsed by The Anointed One and rammed down our throats by the moonbats will rise, US congressional salaries will rise, and unemployment will rise.

Next year I'm going to see just how much food I can grow in the back forty. I think I'll need it.

Thank you once again, holland, a sane voice in an insane world.

got2befit, do you have a link to the article you quoted? Interested to see who wrote it.

@HOLLAND.....

I agree with you on many things. I agree with you that it is not right for those who need the care to go without it. I agree that it is reprehensible to standby and watch those close to you perish while there is an amazing network of healthcare options virtually at our beckon call. But what I do not agree with you on is the way that the government is taking it upon themselves to be the next line of defense in a capitalistic endeavor. It is not up to the government to be the service providers. It is up to the government to be the protectors, regulators, arbitrators, and legislators. Once the systems are in place or being put in place, our elected officials are supposed to provide oversight and knowledge on topics and issues that we do not freely have, bc of lack of experience in those overwhelming fields. I put my trust, as do many people, in the government to have faith in me that I will take care of myself, and do what is necessary to seek the services in the market that I need. I do not expect, which some do, the government to provide for me. I work 2-3 jobs when I can, I pay for all of my own services, and I invest properly to prepare for my future. Like I had said, I was at the point where I was making very little money, being in college and all, but I had to prioritize and choose what was more important, certain luxuries, even sometimes food, or knowing that I am prone to getting sick, health care. Are there people in the world who, by no fault of their own, are unable to provide for themselves, YES! But there are also those who under any circumstance, beside sheer laziness and lack of prioritization, should be able to provide for themselves the same care that we all seek and deserve.

Do we all deserve medical care for a fair price; totally. I absolutely agree. I do no think that a fair world would exist where one person decidedly has the option to stay healthy over another because the cost ratios exceed their means. That is why I said that I believe in regulatory procedures that will provide strict, and punishment backed, oversight to enforce the rules and expansions of insurance coverage.

I myself have had many personal encounters with the health care system that were, like yours, not enjoyable. I have watched my parents painstakingly fight for the right for my grandparents to stay in the assisted homes they were in even when the bills were paid through social security, and then the insurance companies constantly fighting to pay their end of the bargains. I have experienced it myself after shoulder surgery and then being stuck in a sling for 6 weeks without moving my arm bc the insurance company said I was not covered for the therapy. Wait, I can have surgery for an orthopedic injury, but I can't get therapy to repair the injury!?!?!....makes no sense. I am currently watching my niece and nephew live without their mother, my sister, bc she is so wrought with post partum depression and bipolar disorder that she has now left her kids with their father and she has moved. She has no insurance and because she does not work, she can not receive the assistance that she previously was getting to get the medications and counseling she needs. I could go on with many more stories, even ones as sad as the one that you have posted.

I think that we all see the point of the detriment that is accomplished when there is a breakdown of service because the monetary goals of a few corporations have come to outweigh the needs of the very many. But I also think, that there needs to be accountability on those who seek the services who are able to provide for themselves. @HOLLAND.....we are not that so very far apart in our thinking. I like you do not want to have to pay anymore for services. I do not want to see small businesses, like yours, who are doing the right thing, have to take another hit in the pocket because our current leadership needs to charge the new bill to someone. I do not want to see the numbers of unemployed jump because employers are losing capital for investment in having to pay higher taxes, surcharges, and fees for a new plan that mandates all individuals must carry insurance, even those who are unemployed.

Yes the addition of competition in the form of another option of health care choices will be welcome. But I will not wait by with open arms to hug the government medical bill. I will wait, though to see if there is enough people out there to tell the government enough is enough, and we do not need you to do all of our bidding for us, as we are a strong capable people, and we will fend for ourselves. I hope that we are all able to do that, even when we are faced with situations, like the onset of devastation such as cancers & health abnormalities, that seem to test every ounce of our fortitude.

I will find the link Nana......

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/steve_chapman/2009/06/whats-wrong-with-obamas-health-care-plan.html

Fending for yourself!? That's where we are today (under my breath you numbskull). Will a government plan be absolutely perfect? Of course not. But Federal employees, the military and medicare/medicade muddle through. Other countrys muddle through. I believe we can muddle through with a single payer plan with a government option. How cruel you are to want to subject an ever growing population to more of the same, especially in light of what your family has endured.

You can nitpick a government run plan to death before it's in place. You can nitpick single payor to death before it's in place. The real truth is most of you who don't want health care reform don't really give a crap about any of the details or mechanics. You just want the status quo for yourselves either because it's working for you now and you don't see the drain on the economy, or you can't understand the hardships other people face, or you don't realize that you're one diagnosis away from losing everything you have. I call that selfish and stupid.

GOT2BFIT SAID--->"I have experienced it myself after shoulder surgery and then being stuck in a sling for 6 weeks without moving my arm bc the insurance company said I was not covered for the therapy."

um, sorry to tell you but everyone is stuck in a sling for 6 weeks after shoulder surgery, except bathing and doing gentle pendulum exercises for 5 mins a couple times a day. I code medical records for a living and I see it all the time, 6 weeks is the minimum time needed for healing before you move it. Your doctor could have written a letter to the ins co, they do that all the time, too. If they denied you for PT after joint surgery, you could have appealed, asked for a human review, screamed and yelled until they saw the error of their ways. That's some shitty insurance you have there, why are you defending it? Even Medicare allows PT after joint surgery, so that example is one for the other side. You would have gotten PT under socialized medicine.

Ya know, I heard an article on NPR last winter, an interview with people in the UK, who have socmed, and the one guy had lived 15 years more after he was diagnosed with lung cancer and treated under the guidelines they have for treating his particular cancer. He said something I never forgot: "You take the treatment they prescribe and you live till you die, however long that gives you. Only Americans want to live forever." Some of us need to spend more time living now. Tomorrow is not promised.

I mentioned this discussion to my sister-in-law today. She does not favor universal health care until the government outlaws suits against doctors. It is her opinion that the cost of medical insurance to doctors is a large factor in the cost of medical care. Such suits for pain and negligence are not allowed under universal health care in other countries. She believes since most of our legislators are from the legal profession such a reform is very unlikely to happen. So we will end up with a system that continues to try to protect itself against lawsuits rather than providing the best care for the patient.

I take an older woman to MUO every couple of weeks for a "fingerstick" that indicates if the coumadin she is taking is "thinning" her blood is too much or too little. She has a pacemaker that required this be monitored carefully. She also has been going to the doctor for other issues related to her heart. Rather than do a "universal" test that would look at all the factors in an elderly person's blood the doctors may order only certain things be looked at. So she may often have to go to the hospital twice a week for different workups. Now this is the quality of care I see in a "teaching" hospital. She thinks they are wonderful, while I wonder if it's just a money machine soaking Medicare for all they can get.

It has nothing to do with being a 'teaching' hospital and everything to do with going to more than one doctor. Is she seeing more than one doctor out there?

Brdy ,

Many states including Ohio has tort reform that places extreme limits on malpractice damages.

This has been in place for better part of 5 years in Ohio. I know I haven't seen the cost of medical insurance go down.

I haven't seen a huge influx of doctors coming to Ohio providing more competition and lower prices. It was just another big gift to big business that screws Ohioans.

So basically Brdy, you’re sister-in-laws argument doesn’t hold water…

I mentioned this discussion to my sister-in-law today. She does not favor universal health care until the government outlaws suits against doctors.

Oh, well, we'll get right on that. I'll call The Anointed One this afternoon and He'll fix everything.

Meantime, why don't you find a nice highway and play dodge 'em for a while?

Thanks SensorG for that info -- I'm glad to know there are limits on malpractice damages.

Having said that, I can't believe we'd want to totally "outlaw" suits against doctors and/or their places of practice. I mean, really? What if some surgeon screws up and leaves you permanently disabled? How are you going to support your family? What if some nurse fills your IV incorrectly and it kills you, and your children don't have any other means of support?

There must always be some recourse available for catastrophic mistakes.

From SensorG: I know I haven't seen the cost of medical insurance go down.

That might be because the cost hasn't fallen. Ever.

The biggest scam in the entire world today is perpetrated by the insurance companies. This is something that makes Bernie Madoff look like a piker. Consider that insurance is mandatory or effectively mandatory for everyone who can't afford it, and that insurance companies make money by collecting money from victims, not by paying claims. In fact, insurance companies save so much money by failing to pay claims and by paying slowly that the company has entire departments dedicated to denial of benefits, and those departments include the highest priced lawyers in the nation.

The vast majority of malpractice suites never see trial because of the cost of the trial. The real award for a successful suite might be 5 - 10 thousand, but the cost of trying the case will run over $100,000 very easily.

"Supposedly government health programs have lower administrative overhead."

Uh, yeah, got2. They do.

Ever been to Fifth Third Field? Next time you're there, count the number of signs you see advertising health care services. There's the Promedica pavilion, and countless other signs around the place for other services. You don't think that advertising is free, do you?

Hell, no, it's not! That's 30% of the money you pay to your insurance company at work right there.

Another inefficiency: administrative salaries. You think some government wonk working in a health care bureaucracy is going to be pulling down a cool half-million? A local CEO of an insurance company does. And that's just salary, not total compensation.

Finally, next time you're at the doc's check out all the office personnel. What do they do? Quite a few people are employed simply to do insurance paperwork.

Frankly, I'd rather see all that money go directly to health care. But with the present system, it just ain't gonna happen.

Small Business and Health Care Benefits:

Fact: 61% offered benefits in 1993
Fact: 38% offer benefits today
Fact: 19% considering stopping benefits in 3-5 yrs.

Are your benefits next?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124329442612051953.html

I would much rather see my current health care -- with all it's inefficiencies, administrative waste, premiums paid by my employer, premiums passed on to me, copays, denials, labrynthine referral systems, and all the rest -- go away. Instead of worrying about all this crap, let's just pay one tax, cover everybody from womb to tomb, and be done with it.

Fer chrissakes, let's catch up with the rest of the world.

Some general facts or propaganda about malpractice and costs:

http://makethemaccountable.com/myth/RisingCostOfMedicalMalpracticeInsurance.htm

Specifically:

The effect of malpractice "paid losses" upon the entire costs of our health-care system: http://www.insurance-reform.org/pr/AIRhealthcosts.pdf

Malpractice "paid losses" have remained about 0.4% ... $1 of every $250 spent. At least, according to the Center for Justice and Democracy.

Contest for a Slogan for Obama's Socialized Healthcare =

"From Birth To The Grave, You're in Greedy hands with ALLSTATE"

"All StateCare - FROM THE STATE FOR THE STATE AND BY THE STATE (obey the State or you will wait)

Ahuvia - It would be nice if you had some real facts to add to the debate. Only people whose arguments are devoid of real subtance resort to slogans and mischaracterizations. Do you have a fact or a researchable question? If not crawl back in your hole.

Lighten up and get a sense of humor. Sheesh

Der!

Amazing, so Conyers thinks lawmakers shouldn't bother reading what they are supposed to vote into law?
If that's the case, why pray tell, do we need them? Just rubber stamp everything.

////(walks away shaking head).

2 things:

Nana - I realize that some people may have to wait 6 weeks for therapy to start, but in this instance it was a lathroscopic surgery that wasn't major, and my therapy was supposed to start 4 days after the surgery, not the six weeks I had to wait. Because of waiting I was entrenched with frozen shoulder and was unable to move my arm properly for 2 weeks after the sling came off. (Just to clarify).

And #2 - Holland. I am not here to sling mud with anyone, including you. I am here to debate the topics and points of the world that make up our daily lives. Do I agree with everything you say, of course not. Do you agree with everything that I say, obviously not. I spew my truths from my experiences and facts. I am not just saying things of the top of my head, as is the same with you. But I will never agree with the government offering me services such as health care. I will take the accountability onto myself and make sure that I am properly provided for. When I have a family, I will do the same as well, just as my family did for me when I was growing up. I am just of the opinion that we all need to take a little responsibility for ourselves and make sure that we have the priorities in life we need before we make sure we have the luxuries. do some people in the world need assistance, YES!. But are there those who abuse the system who I will ALWAYS refuse to support, YES!. I guess when it comes down to it, we will agree to disagree. You may want to pay for all the services in the world for everyone else, and that is very selfless and righteous, but I prefer to donate my time, services, and goods to others rather than my taxes.

But Got2, the title of your post says you can barely take care of yourself. How does that jibe with everything else you've been saying?

You know, I was thinking about this, this very a.m. I don't go to the zoo all that much. I take my kids probably once a year, if that. On the other hand, I'm very glad we have a world-class zoo here in Toledo, and I'm happy (yes, happy) that my tax dollars support this public institution. I know that it is something our community can be proud of, and it draws visitors from other communities, bringing money into Toledo from elsewhere.

It is an example of all of us coming together to support something that we may not use every day, but it is there for us when we need and want it, and makes our community stronger.

Got2, most of us have our health insurance through our employers, and it is putting many businesses at great risk. Most cannot afford to offer a cadillac-style health plan anymore, which means that more employees are shouldering higher co-pays, premiums, or are having to go without health insurance altogether.

You say, "I will take the accountability onto myself and make sure I am properly provided for." If you are receiving benefits through your employer, how is that "taking accountability" for yourself? If your employer could not afford your benefits anymore, are you in a position to simply up and find another job? Do you think everyone is in that position?

You also say, "We all need to take a little responsibility for ourselves and make sure that we have the priorities in life we need before we make sure we have the luxuries."

Are you saying that the millions of people who have declared bankruptcy due to medical bills could have just avoided it if they'd brewed their own coffee instead of going to Starbucks?

I think it's pretty facile to suggest that people who are going through hard times are simply weak or not willing to take responsibility for themselves.

I also think it is downright sinful that, in the United States in 2009, we are reduced to holding spaghetti dinners to help parents pay for their healthcare.

And by your post, it looks like you feel this is quite all right.

Back in the day, people used to uproot themselves and move away to greener pastures (they followed the good jobs) and they took their entire family with them (including grandma & grandpa if necessary).

Back in the day, when our elders got old or sick, we moved them into our homes with us when they needed us to care for them in their old age. We didn't EXPECT someone else to do it. We managed somehow.

Back in the day, people used to put their money in a jar or in the bank and used it for hard times, sick parents, sick kids, grandparents. They did this instead of buying unnecessary crap like High Def TVs, iPods, gizmos, boats, wave-runners, cottages, toys, toys and more toys.

The problem today (IMHO) doesn't necessarily fall completely on our healthcare insurance industry - it falls on us as a selfish society. We just want more and more 'stuff' to fill our houses/garages/lives and we've lost touch with what's important and decided somehow that there are better things to do (or have) than planning ahead or putting our families' futures first.

I don't want the government involved in my healthcare one bit. It unconstitutional! They are too big already! WAY too big!

I have one question for the folks that may have been a protestor back in the 60's (you know...the ones that said to never trust "The Establishment/The Man/The Government"), - What happened to you? Where are you now? I thought you were a liberal if you were one those protestors? Now that you've become "The Man", how does it sit with you knowing that the current President wants to control your life to the point of how and where and when you get healthcare or treatment?

I'm freaked out enough by the presence of frickin cctv cameras on top of just about every stop light and intersections. I mean GEEZ! What the H is that all about!? When did we turn over our tax money to spy on us in our cars? Oh yeah, BUSH and the frickin Patriot Act. Let's get that one repealed before we go handing over more power! Ok?

Back in the day, you died in your 60s...

Back in the day you didn't have drugs that cost $500 per month.

Back in the day, a single day in the hospital didn't cost thousands of dollars...

Back in the day...I could go on forever...

Back in the day there was no interweb to bitch on

I'll pay taxes for schools, infrastructure, and military protection. Little Susie can fend for herself when she needs a kidney. Not my problem.

Whether or not you have health insurance is your own problem. Insurance is a priveledge, not a right. Just like car and life insurance. You want it, you pay for it. You don't want it, you don't pay. Simple enough.

Madjack, I concur with your vilification of insurance company scams. They are taking advantage of all of us because as long as there is no nationalized health care, they will be reaping gravy.

Do any of you get frequent junk mail from Mutual of Omaha? We never had a policy with M of O and still receive monthly offers. How they got our name and address is a mystery.

Finally, how grandiose it is for our elected legislators on Capitol Hill to get free medical care for any health problem that may develop- including alcoholism. Your tax dollars at work.

muddyriverduck - What about those folks who can't buy insurance because of pre-existing condition not their fault - like diabetes for instance and they make $12 an hr? How are they supposed to get medical care? I guess they should just die huh.

Nana, her family doctor is at MUO, and her cardiac doctor is in Perrysburg, but has privileges at MUO. She also has a podiatrist at MUO from whom she gets her toenails cut.

i do my own pedicures... so (assuming) she's handicapped, then?

Must be considered so by Medicare. Has arthritis but can still work in her small garden.

From Holland: I guess they should just die huh.

Don't be so flippant with this kind of thing. Some people will come right out and say it but many more think it than you might imagine. I've heard otherwise perfectly reasonable people advocate an incredibly cold system for health care; If you can afford it, it's yours. Otherwise it's just your hard luck.

I think that part of the problem is that we're overtaxed right now, and with the national debt as large as it is we'll continue to be overtaxed for the rest of our lives. People with a larger income tend to be bright enough to realize this, so they aren't too thrilled about having to pay even more in taxes to cover medical care for a mentally ill, drug addicted indigent who is afflicted with a difficult pregnancy. Want more? If the fetus is carried to term, the child is guaranteed to be mentally challenged and will require special schooling, which the taxpayer will have to pony up for.

Combine this with commercial news media, who are guaranteed to find the one case like this out of the several hundred boring cases. 60 minutes will run it as some kind of human interest feel-good story, Lew Rockwell will hammer it harder than a Baptist preacher can pound a pulpit, and the real beneficiaries will be ignored. The taxpayer will quietly switch voting alliance to someone who opposes the new health care fiasco, and we can go back where we started from. Only we'll be broker than before.

Another part of the problem is that the US is a nation of individuals. My welfare is my own responsibility. If I starve, then let me find a job and go to work. If I'm sick and can't afford medical treatment, that's my hard luck. The individual wants to be left to his or her own efforts and rewards for their efforts. Your plan changes all that, which the individual does not like.

So Madjack, you plan on turning down Medicare when you older? Are your parents on Medicare? You and your patents (if still around) will take more out of Medicare than you ever put in, particularly if you spend any time in a nursing home.

If you look at nursing home care, it costs on average $70,000 per year, I guess all the old people should get off the public dime and take some responsibility.

The funny thing is, I keep hearing the radio right wing nuts talking about how Obama is going to kill old people.

When you go to the blogs the only one telling kids that need kidneys, pregnant woman and old people that they are too expensive and should be on there own, are other conservative wing nuts. No progressive is advocating this…

Of course not, Sensor G. That's because the right wing has FAMILY VALUES.

They value their own families. Nobody else's.

Sorry the death narrative made you uncomfortable madjack. It should. The truth of the conservative narrative is that people suffer. Many suffer not from anthing they did or didn't do to take care of themselves but from the current configuration of the health care system. Some die.

SensorG, I think you're way under for nursing home care (at least in this area). Medicare paid 80% of the two months my father's care at the beginning of the last year of his life. If I had to pay for this nursing home, it would have been $15,000 a month, $180,000 a year. We could not afford such a place, I retired, and we brought him home to live with us until he fell, went back in for a month, died after he aspirated food at breakfast (the one time I overslept, and was not there to make sure he did not do such a thing). We talk about medical care, but neglect to mention the huge expense of that last year of life in a nursing home. It is a very profitable business model. Perhaps we should employ the "Eskimo model", and put them on the breaking ice of the Maumee River in the spring of each year. Certainly, if we got rid of Medicare we would have a different economy. The shortage of workers in the medical area might magically disappear. We are a country where freedom is valued above all else; the ideas of health and longevity run counter to that. If what we need to succeed as a nation is an intelligent, industrious people then we may need to rethink where our taxes go.

Brdy,

I just googled the number, but many nursing homes do take medicare payments in full.

Sadly I know more about this then I plan on getting into.

Soylent Green is PEOPLE!!!!!!

;p

sorry, had to do it.

Someone had to. This thread has turned into depression-town.

Toledolen's right. Can't make this a "happy" topic, no matter what.

I work in a place where people tended to stay for 20, 30, or 40 years before they retired. Right now, our health care costs are way up because we're not hiring, so therefore, our employee population's average age is in the mid-40s.

We have had people who have a great pension coming to them, and would take early retirement, but buying health insurance on the open market is cost prohibitive, and they can't afford what they have here without the employer contribution. (That's if they could get it on the open market -- a history of any serious illness pretty much makes them ineligible.)

How many jobs would open up if we had health care for all? Quite a few, I'm thinking.

I agree Annieski I work at a very similar place. If they even lowered Medicare to cover everyone over 50, we'd have a bunch of people retiring. Also, there are a lot of 50+ people who are currently unemployed who are seeking employment as much for benefits as for a pay check.

Anniecski, there is no "open market" for health insurance. Every medical association known has already bribed your state legislature to make sure that any freely-made health-insurance policy written in Ohio covers their particular specialty. Don't want a policy what covers mental health? TOO BAD! It must be there. And that just drives up premiums.

The only way around that is to be a BIG COMPANY and then self-insure. That gets around the public mandates. Totally fair to the individual, eh? THAT'S WHY I KNOW FOR CERTAIN THAT OUR GOVERNMENT IS WAAAAAAY TOO BIG.

GuestZero - Wasn't it the Bush administration that signed into law Federally mandated mental health care coverage?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-10-03-domenici-mental-health_N.htm

Also, companies that self insure can't dodge Federal mandates.

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba237

Replacing current health care instead of fixing whats broken is like throwing he baby out with the bathwater. Why are they in such a hurry to pass it? why has no one read it? Maybe they are afraid of what people will think if they read all the crap attached to it. I say throw it out and make them write something shorter that ONLY deals with reforming health care. Wonder how many of the Americans they are counting are transitionally uninsured or illegal aliens?

continuing nana's notion...

Holland, I was talking about state mandates, which is where my knowledge is.

You did mention "mental health" guestzero, which is a Bush Administration Federal mandate.

So, Guest, are you complaining that insurance is supposed to cover something? Isn't that what it's for?

Annie, I'm complaining that you cannot choose to right-size your insurance policy for YOUR needs. You must accept a policy that suits LOBBYIST needs, which invariably involves you paying more.

I posted this also at Glass City Jungle, but I would like to open up the inquiry to a wider audience, since I'm having trouble understanding a certain section of the "health care bill".

All ~1000 pages of the House version of the "health care bill" are located here:

http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/AAHCA-BillText-071409_2.pdf

After some determined reading of the House version, I found this on pages 167-8 (with line numbers removed for clarity):

TITLE IV—AMENDMENTS TO INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1986
Subtitle A—Shared Responsibility
PART 1—INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY
SEC. 401. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new part:
‘‘PART VIII—HEALTH CARE RELATED TAXES
‘‘SUBPART A. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.
‘‘Subpart A—Tax on Individuals Without Acceptable Health Care Coverage
‘‘Sec. 59B. Tax on individuals without acceptable health care coverage.
‘‘SEC. 59B. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.
‘‘(a) TAX IMPOSED.—In the case of any individual who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of—
‘‘(1) the taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross income for the taxable year, over
‘‘(2) the amount of gross income specified in section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer.

So now I have to look up the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, Chapter 1, Subchapter A, subsection (d), to find out what these "requirements" are that if people fail to meet them, they have to pay an additional 2.5% income tax.

If Toledo has a median household income $32546 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Ohio#Demographics), and the AGI ends up around about the same, then the average person falling into this category would be hit with a yearly tax hike of $813.65.

Note well that is just a tax; you don't actually get any health care for it, since after all, you don't have "ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE" to begin with.

Of course, I don't understand what those last two lines of gobbledygook are. Is it using AGI? Is it using the difference in AGI compared to some other number? How does "modified" AGI compare to normal AGI?

David Brooks, in his column today in the NYT, pointed out some interesting facts that I knew about but had kind of forgotten because they have been in place so long that I took them for granted. A lot of folks who have health care through their empolyer, and who had a prexisting condition when hired, owe their insurability to government intervention. The Federal government will not allow insurers to exclude a prexisting condition from coverage of a hew hire. So, if your a diabetic or have high blood pressure for example, the insurance company can't exclude those conditions from coverage. The Federal governmet will also not allow executives to have better coverage than the hourly folks. Everyboody gets the same insurance coverage,

What I also know from bitter personal experience is how insurance companies respond to the addition of an employee with a serious health condition to the company group policy. The next group policy anniversary date they raise the group premium rates for everybody and they raise them a lot. One year I found our business grappling with a 22% increase in premiums because we added one employee with a pre-cancerous condition and another with diabetes. These employees stayed with us a long, long time in part because they had coverage. We shopped other insurance companies and couldn't get a better deal any where because of the employee health issues.

If you look at some businesses and see a preponderance of young male employees it might be due in part because they are the very cheapest to insure. Women are always a higher premium. And of course age is huge. Before my husband went on Medicare, when he hit age 64, his monthly premium rose to $1,200. Now remember that's a small group business rate - not in the individual market. Even though he is one of the luckiest seniors I know in that he has no health conditions and takes no medications, his age precluded him from purchasing any health coverage in the private insurance market. There was just none out there.

The health insurance industry, in its current configuration, is punatitive and irretrieveably disfunctional.

My understanding is that the tax will be about equal to the cost of the public-option health insurance.

In other words, if you're going to try to bet that nothing will ever happen to you -- no car accidents, no slipping on ice in winter, no anaphylactic shock from a bee sting, no diagnosis of cancer -- and go without insurance, the government will tax you.

That way, when something does happen (as it inevitably will), and your sorry ass ends up in the ER, the taxpayers won't be on the hook for your health care.

Well said Anniescki:

In effect - what those "individual responsibility" folks that don't want to buy health care coverage do is gamble with someone eles money. If they lose the bet someone else pays.