Health Care

[Cleo's Mom 257]

I am not on the side of the HI companies. I'm not on the side of the government either. Both are evil and out to ruin us.

Really? You are not on the side of the insurance companies? Your posts here certainly tell a different story.

-You defend their obscene profits and premium increases.

-You support their right to only cover healthy people and deny those with pre-existing conditions.

-You say that the money we pay them is theirs to do as they please and it is none of our business.

-You claim that they pay for your illnesses and don't drop you when you get sick - both are not true.

Over and over again you have sided with the insurance companies in this debate but I have never heard you say one word of support for our government.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

No one invests in social security. While you work your contributions are paying for the current senior citizens collecting SS. Then when you are eligible for SS, the current workers are paying for you.

That is investing. You pay now and when you retire, you get something back.

The problem is that when SS started there were 13 workers for every recipient. Now there are about 3 workers for every recipient. The other problem is that only the first $106,000 is taxed for SS purposes. Why should someone like Bill Gates have only the first $106,000 of his billions taxed for SS? I say tax 100% of everyone's wages. It won't affect 95% of the working people because they already make less than $106,000.

See how the government screws things up???!!! And you want to entrust them with yet another plan.

Actually the SS program is very well run. Millions of americans get their checks every month on time. People love SS. Just ask anyone who gets it. And you DON'T invest into SS since your checks come from current workers. The SS program keeps track of what you have paid in, however. But the money comes from the current workers. Plus there are people who never pay into SS who receive benefits - like minor children of widows or widowers. Medicare is also very well run and popular. Again, ask anyone who gets it if they would rather have private, for profit insurance.

[pattygreen 5]

I am not gullible at all. I am a very well educated person who does her homework about things. The CBO is a non-partisan goverment agency that congress always uses to score the cost of bills.

As I have said time and time again, if the facts don't support your wrong opinion then you reject them.

If the CBO report had said the healthcare bill would increase the deficit then you would be all over it like flies on ___ well, you get the picture.

The CBO is run by the government. I don't trust them as a sound source.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Ins. companies don't drop people who get sick. They must pay for your care as long as you continue to make your premium payments on time and in full. If you lapse at all, then they don't have to cover you.

On another note, Ins. companies try to invest in people who are healthy. That makes sense for them in the business. This is why they don't want to cover people with pre-existing conditions.

Blue Cross praised employees who dropped sick policyholders, lawmaker says

Workers received high marks on performance reviews after policies were rescinded, documents show. The health insurer denies the practice is a factor in evaluations.

June 17, 2009|Lisa Girion

Executives of three of the nation's largest health insurers told federal lawmakers in Washington on Tuesday that they would continue canceling medical coverage for some sick policyholders, despite withering criticism from Republican and Democratic members of Congress who decried the practice as unfair and abusive.

The hearing on the controversial action known as rescission, which has left thousands of Americans burdened with costly medical bills despite paying insurance premiums, began a day after President Obama outlined his proposals for revamping the nation's healthcare system.

I never agree with anything you say, but when you make statements like the ones above you just appear woefully uninformed or just stubborn in your views or both.

[pattygreen 5]

The numbers aren't yet out on the current bill. But it's been estimated that they wont change much.

But the last bill they had out, they were planning to collect taxes for ten years starting in 2010, but the program benefits wouldn't start until 2015. (5 years later) So, you pay for 5 years into it, and you get coverage the last 5 years. The surplus they were talking about was because they were collecting taxes for 10 years but only providing benefits for 5 of those years. That's why there was a surplus.

What would have happened after those 10 years were over in 2020? That is when we would have had a deficit of 2 trillion EVERY year after that.

If you really think that you are going to cover 30 million extra people and keep the same coverage and save money, you are dillusional.

[pattygreen 5]

News flash! The news just released the same (pretty close) numbers as last plan. Kiss that bill goodbye.

[BJean 16]

"...you are dillusional." sez patty.

Nice, real nice.

[Devana 0]

My lack of support for government HC is because I don't feel it is right to expect others to pay for someone elses HC bills. It's your health, and you need to pay for it.

I don't get the logic here. You're not paying health care bills, you're paying insurance premiums. That means that the money goes into a pot to be used for those that need it. Just by having insurance, you're contributing to the payment of other's health care needs.

So now, just imagine if the health care insurance program is not making obscene profits. You still pay premiums, but way smaller ones ($15,000 still almost makes me throw up) and it's affordable for all. Same thing, take the profit out.

Just by paying those (bloody awful outrageously high) premiums you're ALREADY paying for someone else's care. And guess what? If you ever get ill someone else will be paying for yours.

It appears to me that the insurance companies, with their profits, are able to afford very good and clever PR and lobbying...........their victims are defending them.

Be smarter than this!!

[Devana 0]

In our country, the government plan would not be making any profits, and therefore would be the lowest and best ins. for anyone.

Hmmm, "the lowest and best ins for anyone" How is this a bad thing?

Because at first fewer would be on it, it would cover your needs and be a great price, and even free for some. But, over time, many companies will choose to put their employees on it because it will be less costly for them. Every time one company switches to the gov. plan, the less people there are on private plans, and therefore, they will have to raise their premiums even more to cover their losses. Eventually, the cost of private ins will cause everyone to turn to the gov. run plan. Now the gov. run plan has everyone on it and there is no more private ins. companies out there.

Then let the insurance companies get creative. We have private health insurance companies here and they do a good business. and make profits. They provide eyeglasses, dental care, orthotics, naturopath, chiropractor, massage etc.

How is that getting a choice? Now that the gov. has everyone on their plan and the nation is socialized medically, they will be the ones controlling your medical decisions instead. What's the difference who makes those decisions? The private ins. companies or the government?

The difference is that with the government being your only option, there is no discussion or other place to turn.

The biggest difference is one has to make massive profits to keep shareholders happy, and the other has to provide the best possible health care for all.

[Devana 0]

Devana, my DH's father would probably be dead by now if we hadn't moved his mother to an assisted living home. She's had several strokes. She does have all her mental faculties, but does have some memory loss. She also lost the use of her left arm and leg and consequently is wheelchair bound and she has some difficulty eating as well.

She wanted to stay at home with her husband, which we tried for a couple of years. But she had 3 different falls, which resulted in broken bones, when she tried to do things without asking for help.

We were told by people who work with aging people that since he's so frail, if he continued to try to take care of her at night (they had help during the day) that he would die long before she did.

We all tried to push that out of our minds, but then we began to see it happen. He got very sick, had several small heart attacks and other digestive issues. We took him to the ER relatively frequently. So the kids made the very hard decision that she needed to go to an assisted living home.

Once he was out from under the stress of her waking him up several times a night, with him trying to assist her physically when he wasn't really capable, his health has improved dramatically.

She is very unhappy and complains about not being able to be in her own home, but she needs someone to help her who is schooled in taking care of someone who can't help lift herself in and out of chairs, beds, bathroom, etc.

It is very sad that after over 50 years of being married and thinking that you're always going to be there for each other, to realize that you must not only accept outside help but that you may have to live in an unfamiliar environment not only without your spouse, but also without the physical furnishings that you've accumulated and loved.

But the family caregiver for someone with serious health limitations or illness is often the one who suffers the most. People need to keep that in mind when making the hard decisions that surround aging, declining loved ones.

BJean, I see a lot of people every day and there are a couple of things I've noticed about aging and care.

For the most part, women seem to age better than men. Occasionally I'll see a husband who has to care for an ailing wife but more often than not it's the other way around.

As the husband deteriorates, the wife works harder and harder often to the detriment of her own health. Eventually he'll have to go into care and she feels awful and guilty and goes through a personal crisis. Then after awhile, she'll start to live her own life a little bit and enjoy going out with girlfriends and being able to make or not make meals whenever she wants. Giddy freedom accompanied by more guilt.

Eventually they'll get to the point where they say that they can't believe they lived that way for so many years. So many of these guys from that generation were very dominating and we all know how cranky chronic pain can make even the sweetest natured person, so they often would get worse as their health failed.

I'm saying this is a generalization. I certainly know a few couples where it was the other way around.

[LeighaMason 19]

If you really think that you are going to cover 30 million extra people and keep the same coverage and save money, you are dillusional.

I was going to ignore this statement because I know logic will not change your mind, but I am afraid someone who is undecided on health care will read this overly simplistic statement and draw the wrong conclusion.

As an example of how you can provide the same service to more people look at the following scenario. If you and your husband were eating out at a restaurant every meal, you could stop doing this and go to the grocery store and cook your meals from scratch, by making this change you could feed a whole family on the same amount of money that it takes for 2 people to eat out. By eliminating the restaurants (insurance company) need to make a profit you can feed (provide health care) to more people and save money.

[katklaws 0]

HAhahahahaha. That's what I mean. These right wingers latch onto anything that feeds their paranoia, fear and hidden predjudices.

I do this stuff for a living, and this guy is just WRONG!!! I can point to a whole slew of economics experts who will say the very same thing.

The Fiscal Agency just yesterday said the health care bill would bring down the budget. But you can't tell a Tea Party fool that.

I assume you mean the article written by Walter Williams (economics Professor at George Mason University), in his own words, He is also occasional substitute host for the "Rush Limbaugh" show.

[loserbob 11]

The Tea-baggers are showing their true colors today! Supposedly theyre chanting the N-word at 2 black senators at the capital today during protests. What makes me feel even worse about it is, there are busloads of baggers from Pittsburgh there, which is where Im from.

[loserbob 11]

I was going to ignore this statement because I know logic will not change your mind, but I am afraid someone who is undecided on health care will read this overly simplistic statement and draw the wrong conclusion.

As an example of how you can provide the same service to more people look at the following scenario. If you and your husband were eating out at a restaurant every meal, you could stop doing this and go to the grocery store and cook your meals from scratch, by making this change you could feed a whole family on the same amount of money that it takes for 2 people to eat out. By eliminating the restaurants (insurance company) need to make a profit you can feed (provide health care) to more people and save money.

Another example: Me being a plumber, I do jobs where some of the small towns are switching from septic tanks to city sewage. I go to these towns and can bid lower than usual because Im going to get majority of jobs, therefore I do the jobs at lower(substantially)prices because I know I have the guaranteed work.(Normal sewer install might cost around $5-7000.00, If I have 10 in 1 area I could do them for about $3-5000.00 and still make good money.

[loserbob 11]

This is it today, Lets get it done once and for all. If this gets passed I will gain so much more respect(already respect him a great deal either way)for Obama and the dems who passed it. I will respect them so much more for careing about me and my familys well being over payoffs from insurance companies. Im also getting the names of the dems(who caved to rep pol pressure)did not vote for it and will vote against them even if it means voteing a rep in their place!!!