| American Health Care, | for everyone |
American Health CareThis is the situation as I see it.
There are a whole lot of Americans who do not have access to health care. There are some proposals put forward by the present administration which are aimed at reforming the American health care system in order to give ALL Americans access to health care.
Support for these proposals is widely divided. People seem to either love them and consider them the salvation of Americas soul, OR; people seem to hate them and consider them an evil intrusion into the American way of life orchestrated by the devil himself.
Being a Brit; I’m not sure exactly what these proposals are, actually, I’m not exactly sure how the American health care system works (or doesn’t work).
This is what I would like.
- 1. I would like to know what changes are proposed.
- 2. I would like to know why you either support these changes or are against these changes
- 3. If you are against these changes, I would like to know what alternative strategies you would implement in order ensure that Health care is available to all Americans.
- 4. If you don’t believe that all Americans have a RIGHT to Health care, I respectfully ask you not to contribute.
This last requirement may seem a little odd and I apologise if you feel excluded by this. The reason I say this is because if this is truly your belief; that people living in a wealthy industrialised country have no basic right to health care, our ideologies are so far apart that we share no common ground on which to begin. Also because if you don't believe health care is a right you obviously have no argument or debate about how best to provide health care for every one.
PLEASE, be polite, be courteous and don’t let this get nasty.
Thanks, I am looking forward to understanding the issues here.
114 Comments
Add a Comment
|
skeezicks1957 wrote on Aug 30, '09
Lets
think positive. Perhaps our congress will get creative and write a law
that meets the criteria originally mandated by Obama, addresses the
concerns of the people, and is in keeping with the economic system.
We always think we can do better at things. Let them show us their
stuff.
|
forgetmenot525 wrote on Aug 30, '09
thank
you ladies.................i'm still not at all sure exactly what it is
that Obama wants or proposes but I do feel very sorry for him. It seems
as if he has already been prevented from doing what he knows he should
and any thing he does manage to get made into law will be watered down,
approved by the insurance companies and unworkable. Then when it
fails.................fails because he hasn't been allowed to to the job
properly, he will be blamed and all those smug hysterical birthers etc
will sit back and sanctimoniously tut tut and say ''told you so''
Poor man you have to feel sorry for him. |
forgetmenot525 wrote on Aug 30, '09, edited on Aug 30, '09
skeezicks1957 said
 nd the role of the insurance company, who had taken the premiums all along, is to pay the bill 
absolutely,
and no other role, it should be a doctor who decides which treatment to
prescribe and for how long. Let the doctors make medical decisions
based on medical need..............that's what they are trained for, and
insurance companies collect the payments fro its millions of customers
and hen pay up when the doctor say so.
|
forgetmenot525 wrote on Aug 30, '09
skeezicks1957 said
So
one of the questions that must be answered is "what is necessary health
care" along with who it is that makes the health care decisions. In
my professional opinion, such care choices should be a joint decision
between patient, doctor, and family.
this
is tricky.............but it should include all treatment that is vital
to sustain life, for as long as it is necessary to sustain life OR
until the recipient (or advocate of recipient) wishes to discontinue
treatment. This should be the base line..............the absolute.
Obviously this will be expensive because it is going to include organ
transplants and after care, heart surgery and all medical treatments for
life long and/ or potentially lifer threatening conditions. After that I
guess its a matter of political negotiation. And this sort of
negotiation isn't unique to America, it happens every where.
|
forgetmenot525 wrote on Aug 30, '09
all
systems of health care are rationed, those without access to health
care right now are most severely rationed along with those whose claims
are rejected and those whose treatment is discontinued because cover has
run out. Sometimes this is terrible, as in the case of the 17 year old
who was allowed to die while the insurance company argued about weather
or not to pay for her treatment. sometimes rationing is the sensible way
forward, for example a man who visits the A&E dept with a broken
toe at the same time as the casualties of a multiple vehicle RTA are
taken there. The man with the broken toe will not be a priority..... why
should he?..........If I were him I would be very grateful that I
wasn't in the RTA and even more grateful that every one would get
treatment and that they would get it in order of the severity of their
injuries. If we want to take this ''rationing'' argument to its logical
conclusion, every one is rationed on just about every thing, all of the
time, this is what happens in a world of finite resources and infinite
demand.
|
forgetmenot525 wrote on Aug 30, '09
In
reality every economy in the world is, ( to some extent), a mixed
economy. In this country the consultants have private patients as well
as NHS patients. For the NHS patients the receive a salary from the
health authority, and for the private patients they are paid directly
either by the patients or by the insurance companies. I'm not sure
exactly how the system works and I don't even think the care the private
patients get is very different to that oF the NHS patients. The
difference in care is mostly stuff like private rooms, own TV own
telephone in the room and maybe a better menu. Some procedures are are
dealt with a lot faster than they would be with the NHS. Private
patients is the way for bigger profits for our consultants.
|
forgetmenot525 wrote on Aug 30, '09
thanks
and yes it did work, tried to embed it here but it failed so thanks for
the link, some of the stuff on this video is awful
|
skeezicks1957 wrote on Aug 29, '09
And
the role of the insurance company, who had taken the premiums all
along, is to pay the bill. If there is a provider taking advantage
and not following regulations put into place to prevent abuse then there
could be a third entity to review the provider - after the care was
given and paid for. Fines or reprimands could occur if needed
afterwards.
|
skeezicks1957 wrote on Aug 29, '09
So
one of the questions that must be answered is "what is necessary health
care" along with who it is that makes the health care decisions. In
my professional opinion, such care choices should be a joint decision
between patient, doctor, and family.
|
skeezicks1957 wrote on Aug 29, '09
I
agree that often my opinion of what might be unnecessary and a mere
fund raiser may be someone else's opinion that it is a death panel
decision. Just because my own philosophy is comfort care at end of
life. I think hospice is a great organization.
|
Exactly.
But the forces against change are calling these decisions "rationing".
As though we don't have rationing right now. I have some great
examples of people getting more health care than made sense (and it
being paid for) but I can't use them out of respect for privacy of
family.
|
skeezicks1957 wrote on Aug 29, '09
forgetmenot525 said
One
thing I find interesting is this ''sliding scale of payment'' I'd like
to know if those on the lowest wage who pay the smallest contribution
will be covered to the same degree as those who have good jobs and pay s
lot for their health insurance.
I
am sure that part of the debate going on is what constitutes "necessary
health care". For example comparing it to clothing. We all need
clothes but we do not need designer labels.
|
skeezicks1957 wrote on Aug 29, '09, edited on Aug 29, '09
One
odd thing about my position, which is on the liberal side of the fence
with most of the issues surrounding this, is that I am not opposed to
profit making in health care under two conditions. One is that the
service charged for is provided and two is that there are regulations in
place to prevent those on the money making end from taking advantage. I
know that profit making is at the core of quite a bit of the debating
but I think it is one we can compromise on if it is handled right and
there is a public option for those that want it.
|
skeezicks1957 wrote on Aug 29, '09, edited on Aug 29, '09
In
my opinion the person that receives the fun raiser procedure or test -
as indicated by an MRI in the example above - is just as being taken
advantage of along with the person who needed the test but is denied.
|
skeezicks1957 wrote on Aug 29, '09
Not sure if this link will work but hope so.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/17/potter.health.insurance/#cnnSTCVideo |
forgetmenot525 wrote on Aug 29, '09
I
feel for you..................this is going to long, hard, difficult
and possibly even bloody................but the system will be
dismantled, it just won't work any other way.
|
Loretta
I have cried over this, I have raged over this. It is so horrible.
When my husband had his first heart attack he was in a very expensive
part of the hospital with his own nurse and private room. I asked how
long they would keep him there. "How long until he is well enough to be
moved out of Cardiac Intensive Care" they answered "what is your
insurance?"
It makes plenty of sense for the doctors to own the equipment id the doc wants to make money. And that is precisely what ppl are afraid of, the dismantling of the system. |
forgetmenot525 wrote on Aug 29, '09
why
can't the hospital boards buy their own equipment?? makes no sense for
the doctors to own the equipment................from this
answer..........yes it really does seem as if the whole system is
corrupt but it is institutional corruption, not corruption by an
individual or by a group of individuals but corruption built into the
system.................if what you have told me is true the only way
your health care system will work for evey one is to dismantle it and
start again.
|
forgetmenot525 wrote on Aug 29, '09
THE WHOLE SYSTEM IS CORRUPT
|
forgetmenot525 wrote on Aug 29, '09
bennett1 said
It is paid out in profit to the mammo clinic which is often owned by doctors who recommend mammograms.
don't
they take the Hippocratic oath over there, and if its only paid out in
profits to people who are already rich, whats the problem if Obama stops
it, means your insurance SHOULD go down cos the insurance company will
be paying out less
|
A
doctor owns a MRI machine. He makes a deal with Acme Insurance to
charge $1200 for an MRI scan. But Smith Insurance will only pay him
$900 for an MRI scan. An uninsured patient could probably not afford a
scan, but for them the full price is $1500. But they will only pay in
installments and maybe not at all. So he is most likely to decide you
need an MRI scan if you have plush Acme insurance. Ppl with Smith
insurance are less likely to be referred. Ppl with no insurance will
only be referred for an MRI scan if they can assure the doctor they can
pay.
The patients are not aware of the fact that the doctor own the MRI clinic and collects the profits. |
forgetmenot525 said
is
this some sort of slush fund to pay for the treatment of poor people or
is it paid out in bonuses for the hospital administrators??
It
is not to pay for mammo's for poor women. It is paid out in profit to
the mammo clinic which is often owned by doctors who recommend
mammograms.
|
forgetmenot525 wrote on Aug 29, '09
bennett1 said
So
they might charge me $200 for a mammogram, but agree with my ins co to
accept $150 as payment in full. Their fear is that the government will
cut into the hospital/providers' profits. The government might say it
will only pay $125 for a mammogram. This is the fear of the providers.
now
that really IS interesting. what is this profit used for ?? is this
some sort of slush fund to pay for the treatment of poor people or is
it paid out in bonuses for the hospital administrators??
|
We're back to the spawn of the devil.
Hospitals make deals with insurance companies right now. So they might charge me $200 for a mammogram, but agree with my ins co to accept $150 as payment in full. Their fear is that the government will cut into the hospital/providers' profits. The government might say it will only pay $125 for a mammogram. This is the fear of the providers. |
forgetmenot525 wrote on Aug 29, '09
this
makes it even more crazy because the insurance companies who are the
ones who take the money, deny the claims and make lots of
profit.............will continue to do exactly that, the only difference
is that they will make more profit because those with better jobs have
to contribute more to their profit margins, presumably for the same
benefits (providing they are not denied).
If the two sate systems were extended to cover every one al money ploughed into those systems would go directly to buy health care with out having to slice off the profits first.......... opps sorry.................now that really IS socialism |
forgetmenot525 wrote on Aug 29, '09
well now we know why its so unpopular
|
forgetmenot525 said
I'd
like to know if those on the lowest wage who pay the smallest
contribution will be covered to the same degree as those who have good
jobs and pay s lot for their health insurance.
Yes, that is my understanding of Obama's original vision. Richer people could pay for additional insurance as they do now.
|
forgetmenot525 wrote on Aug 29, '09
skeezicks1957 said
That is my current understanding of the situation and I would like to hear other people's understanding.
Thank
you................it does seem very confusing. I knew one of the
tenants of this new legislation is for every one to be
covered.........but that's about all I knew. It seems to me he has
backed down an awful lot due to the pressure, I'm sure what ever it is
that finally becomes law will fall far short of his original vision
while he was campaigning. One thing I find interesting is this
''sliding scale of payment'' I'd like to know if those on the lowest
wage who pay the smallest contribution will be covered to the same
degree as those who have good jobs and pay s lot for their health
insurance.
|
skeezicks1957 wrote on Aug 29, '09
Hello
again, I keep coming back and do not see a comment that directly
addresses your first bullet point which is "what changes are proposed".
I do see links provided to info and have not followed up on them so I
hope that I am not too far out of line with my comment. I also admit
to not having read the couple of rough drafts that are available online.
They are not, in my understanding, a finished product plus are very
hard to read I have been told. But from what I have read, and I have
followed this, here is my understanding of what changes are proposed.
The executive branch of branch of our govt - that would be Obama and
cabinet - directed the legislative branch - that would be the senate
and the house - to write a law to address health care reform. The
direction had certain things that had to be included to avoid a veto
when it was presented back to the executive branch for signature.
These items included that every one had to have health care coverage,
that there would be regulation to prevent the insurance companies from
continuing to do some of their current unfair practices, and the reform
had to be economically self contained in that paying for it could not
be based on raising taxes. Congress worked on it a bit in July and
came up with a couple of rough drafts of which none of them were happy
with and then went on a six week vacation. But the basic idea is that
every one will be required to have health insurance and assistance for
premiums will be based on a sliding scale according to income. The
choice of what insurance a person ends up with will be based on a menu
of plans and companies but whether or not one of these will be a public
option is one current question. And insurance companies will not be
allowed to collect premiums and then drop the person as soon as they get
sick and it is time to pay out. Also the current practice of insurance
not covering preventative medicine will not be allowed. That is my
current understanding of the situation and I would like to hear other
people's understanding.
|
forgetmenot525 wrote on Aug 29, '09
Thanks
for all this info.................you are right, it's very confusing,
but then i suspect if i attempted to dismantle the NHS and explain it I
would find it just as confusing. You have really contributed, thanks
|
forgetmenot525 wrote on Aug 29, '09
hi Bennett.... thanks, will check it out as soon as i've worked my way to the top of this ...:-))
|
One link to the proposal:
http://waysandmeans.house.gov/media/pdf/111/AAHCA09001xml.pdf And another viewpoint: http://politicalsouls.multiply.com/notes/item/30?mark_read=politicalsouls:notes:30&replies_read=12 |
forgetmenot525 wrote on Aug 29, '09
skeezicks1957 said
Just
as it is the responsibility for a society to provide its members with
schools and police protection it should also be required to provide
health care.
Hi
Skeezicks, thanks for joining in. this is a good point, what about the
fire service or the army............they are also provided by the
state.I don't think you need worry about the insurance companies, I'm
sure they have already diversified out into other areas in preparation
of the imminent changes.
|
forgetmenot525 said
Thanks
for all the comments and sorry I couldn't get back yesterday. I
followed a link (thanks Bennett ) and found this, I find this video so
very, very scary. If this is what America believes is ''living the
dream'', or ''freedom of choice'', or what ever it is''.........God help
America.
Yes, we have needed God's help for some time.
|
forgetmenot525 said
Oh..... you and me also Mitchy................and looks like we are still no wiser!!
Ok,
there is a link to a blog by water2juice. It is an excellent analysis
of one proposal. The first comment (you've been to the site) is the
entire bill. It's very long. I am so glad you joined political Soul.
|
forgetmenot525 wrote on Aug 29, '09
starfishred said
terrible propoganda-my frend doug put up a good video on this phenomenon here is the link
Thank
you Heidi and thanks to your Friend too. This guy knows his stuff, he
hit the nail on the head by talking about the insurance companies. I
know the aim of insurance companies is to make a profit and in order to
do that they need sell as many policies as possible while at the same
time denying as many claims as possible. Insurance companies and not
indulgent benefactors who want to preserve your health are just
businesses, and the overall aim of any business in a free economy it
plain and simple...THEY WANT PROFIT.
I just wish i was clever enough to say it all as clearly as this man does. |
forgetmenot525 wrote on Aug 29, '09
tulipsinspring said
all people have a right to health care. Of course they do. I'm stunned anybody would disagree, and yet they do.
Hi
tulips it's nice to see you here. as for the above.....You and me
also..................I don't think America understands how awful this
makes her sound to the rest of the world. I have been trying to think of
another country that holds that belief. All countries in the western
world deem health care a right and have some sort of system in place.
There are countries who just can't afford health care but I can't think
of one who doesn't WANT health care for every one. I thought the
Canadian system is supposed to be good, guess nothing is perfect.
|
forgetmenot525 wrote on Aug 29, '09
Oh..... you and me also Mitchy................and looks like we are still no wiser!!
|
forgetmenot525 wrote on Aug 29, '09
veryfrank said
I'll pass on going into detail on this for now. I'm really not up to the stress level
LOL.....yeah..............well
I did think it could be kinda stressful doing this ............but,
despite reading every thing I come across, I have no idea what the
proposed plans actually are??
And at the moment, it looks as if I will be no wiser after posting this Does ANYONE actually KNOW what these plans are?? |
forgetmenot525 wrote on Aug 29, '09
kathyinozarks said
I
totally oppose the way this administration is trying to take over
everything-including health care. I don't want the government
interfering with my health and well being-they have no right.I think there should be some kind of solution, perhaps co ops of sorts that are still free enterprise-that would get the prices down so everyone can afford health care. socialism is one stop beneath Communism-I totally oppose this kind of government take over in the USA
Kathy
I can see how scared you are of the changes that are happening in your
country and it must be very difficult for you. Every one finds change
very difficult, its like a walk into the unknown, I honestly don't think
things are going to be as bad for you as you believe. You have already
said your insurance company is withdrawing their benefits once you are
65 AND they are trying to get more money out of you. If you are being
forced onto the Government scheme by your insurance company you may even
benefit from the changes, the ''reforms'' may increase the amount of
cover you get from the government scheme. I hope things work out for you
and larry.
|
forgetmenot525 wrote on Aug 29, '09
Thanks
for all the comments and sorry I couldn't get back yesterday. I
followed a link (thanks Bennett ) and found this, I find this video so
very, very scary. If this is what America believes is ''living the
dream'', or ''freedom of choice'', or what ever it is''.........God help
America.
|
kathyinozarks said
I
don't know now, but my current insurance which is with blue cross blue
shield, will become my secondary insurance as medicare becomes the
primary.Larry turns 65 next year and I am already getting all kinds of mail asking me to purchase their secondary insurance behind medicare-so that tells me thats the way it is for most
forgive me, as I obviously do not know
but there seems a clue in those words i.e. "and I am already getting all kinds of mail asking me to purchase their secondary insurance behind medicare-so that tells me thats the way it is for most.." surely it's not the best way to get your information...from them...as they are a business..of course they want you to buy more |
bennett1 said
When
my parents turned 65, their primary insurance was the insurance they
had worked for, same for Tom's folks. Medicare was the secondary
insurance. It did not interfere with Blue Cross/Blue Shield or another
insurance they had. They kept their same doctors, etc. I cannot speak
for another's plan, but my understanding is that Medicare is a secondary
insurance and supplements any insurance a person may have.
that makes sense
what I see the gov is trying to do is give more choices surely things can be combined? i.e. here in England my 79 year old mom has a government pension, but it is topped up with a smallish works pension that my dad organised when he was at work [he is passed on now, so it goes to my mom] and the healthcare is just there for her...no discrimination because she is older...infact many extra things are provided free for elderly people on the N.H.S. |
forgetmenot525 said
Thanks
Brenda but it seems as if no4 is the stumbling block, the lack of
people talking seriously shows how many think health care is not a
right.
I have read some Americans saying that those who are not covered by health care insurance, well it is their own fault
but then I read more detailed stuff from others 'in the know' - and that is not always the case... many just cannot afford it, or aren't covered, for many reasons either because of being unemployed, or stay home moms or carers for others, or other things it's the lack of compassion that really scares me...I have read such hard comments I know this, that if me and my husband lived in America, that because of his health situation, from when he was 40, and me deciding that I wanted to be home for the kids [I had worked and paid national insurance for 14 years prior to having my first child], we would be now having to take out loans for meds, and not able to access the kind of disablement benefit that we have here [as what came from our N.I. ran out ages ago, so we're on the equivilent of Medicare/Medicaid, I suppose] our health, and my decision to be there for the children, were not wrong decisions... many rich women, with working husbands, can do that - why shouldn't I? it just makes me think there must be other families who are in similar situations to ourselves, who are in the States, and people are blaming them for not being insured |
brendainmad wrote on Aug 28, '09
Morning, Loretta. You're probably already at work. Here's another interesting post on the topic:
http://1mariea.multiply.com/journal/item/132/Health_Care |
forgetmenot525 wrote on Aug 28, '09
good morning, sorry folks it got late and i had to go to bed. Will check out all of your replies once I get back from work.
|
skeezicks1957 wrote on Aug 28, '09
One
last comment and I will stop as I do not mean to take over your post.
But if a person loses their job and health care and can't get help
there is one thing they can do. They can commit a crime making sure
they get caught. Then they go to prison, get three hots and a cot,
and healthcare. Prisoners have a right to healthcare here. Just not
honest hardworking folks.
|
skeezicks1957 wrote on Aug 28, '09
The
people who fall through the cracks are those that do not have employer
based insurance programs. Even those that pay for their own policy that
is not a group one related to a job cannot afford a policy that covers
enough to keep them from spending large amounts of their own money on
health care. Often employer based insurances do not cover things that
are considered preventative care like pap smears and mammograms. So if
a person does not have insurance they have to pay out of pocket or do
without. Once it is determined they cannot work, after a year or two
of applying, they may get disability which includes medicare. If they
work part time in the interim they are disqualified. In the meantime
some places have clinics for people who do not have the money to go to
the doctor where the staff volunteers and the drugs are donated.
|
skeezicks1957 wrote on Aug 28, '09
So
when you talk about our health care we have the private sector, the
federal programs, and the state programs. Most counties have programs
on that level also. Unfortunately we still have large numbers of
people falling through the cracks. For example, at the state level
medicaid program if your spouse is sick and you need help with medical
care in some states the house has to be sold and that money spent on
your health care first. You have to be down to less than five hundred
dollars some places.
|
skeezicks1957 wrote on Aug 28, '09
One
area that gets confusing to people here, let alone those that live in
other countries, is that our Medicaid programs are state run programs.
While the individual state may get some monies from the federal govt to
help the bottom line is how good the medicaid program is depends on the
state it is in. Medicare on the other hand is a federal program and a
good program that people who have it are happy with - except the
prescription drug area that got bushwhacked.
|
 |
starfishred wrote on Aug 28, '09
skeezicks1957 said
Just
as it is the responsibility for a society to provide its members with
schools and police protection it should also be required to provide
health care. Hello?! What about infectious diseases? Not seeing that
people have health care will come back and bite us in the butt in that
area. I think the change has to take place slowly to prevent
disruption of care but I very much want to see us move in that
direction. If insurance companies go out of business with a government
competition it will be because they are not competitive. But I do not
worry about insurance companies. They will find another avenue to take
advantage of people and make money in a different way. And as long as
the change occurs slowly they will have plenty of time to find their new
path. Health care reform is way over due in this country.
amen to that my friend
|
skeezicks1957 wrote on Aug 27, '09
Just
as it is the responsibility for a society to provide its members with
schools and police protection it should also be required to provide
health care. Hello?! What about infectious diseases? Not seeing that
people have health care will come back and bite us in the butt in that
area. I think the change has to take place slowly to prevent
disruption of care but I very much want to see us move in that
direction. If insurance companies go out of business with a government
competition it will be because they are not competitive. But I do not
worry about insurance companies. They will find another avenue to take
advantage of people and make money in a different way. And as long as
the change occurs slowly they will have plenty of time to find their new
path. Health care reform is way over due in this country.
|
|
starfishred wrote on Aug 27, '09
tulipsinspring said
An
interesting discussion. I'm going to have to come back to read all the
comments. I am in an odd position, because I'm an American living in
Canada, so I have lived under both systems. From what I've seen, they
are both disasters. I'm told, though, that health care in most of
Canada, outside of my Province, is quite good. There are two layers of issues, which get muddled. The first is whether all people have a right to health care. Of course they do. I'm stunned anybody would disagree, and yet they do. They tend to disagree because they confuse this question with the specifics of how such a program would be run. And that is the key issue. From what I see, universal health care systems vary widely in terms of quality. I live in Quebec, which runs its own system, and runs it badly. Ontario, the Province over, has a great system. I think there is no question that the U.S. needs universal health care. I wish people would realize that is a separate issue from how such a program would be run, another important issue. But all the fear-mongers confuse the two issues, and make people fear the entire system. Most countries these days have universal health care. It's odd that the U.S. doesn't, and it's time to change that. A lot of work needs to be done, I think, on the details of how it will work, but I believe strongly it must happen.
thanks
tulip for your words but I am afraid the people that are complaining
are either very rich or have no brain power-you know how I have been
trying to explain but it falls on death ears and all I get back is Obama
is trying to turn our country nto a communist strong hold-
and through all this the Insurance Companies have won the day they can keep charging more denying more -making more money- doug put up a good video on the semantics of the problem http://dnoakes.multiply.com/video/item/146/How_Democrats_Are_Failing_to_Sell_Health_Care_Reform_-_George_Lakoff |
|
starfishred wrote on Aug 27, '09
Like
I said people talk in riddles-hope I didn't rant to much above-but
people need to look at a few problems with the so called free enterprise
system they espouse lol-
|
|
starfishred wrote on Aug 27, '09
kathyinozarks said
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.3200:
This link will take you to the actual bill-its 1000 pages long as it
sits now, however the house and senate are both working on changes-so
who knows what the final bill will look like.there are still many town hall meetings going on all over america too right now, to discuss this bill. I believe everyone should have the right to have affordable health care-but I also believe it is unconstitutional for the government to take complete control over health care or anything else for that matter. I believe this is the land of the free, everyone here has choices to better themselves with a good job or not to, this is a free enterprise system here. I totally oppose the way this administration is trying to take over everything-including health care. I don't want the government interfering with my health and well being-they have no right. I think there should be some kind of solution, perhaps co ops of sorts that are still free enterprise-that would get the prices down so everyone can afford health care. socialism is one stop beneath Communism-I totally oppose this kind of government take over in the USA
your
opinion Kath but do you or your hubby plan on using Medicare?No one is
trying to take over anything but they are tryng to help and nothing is
ever cast in stone-they all said eons ago SS wouldn't work well?Or
medicare and withouth these to things a whole lot of people would be
dead period.If you are against cheaper insurance and feel the gov. os at
fault you also need to reject SS and Medicare-
|
|
starfishred wrote on Aug 27, '09
forgetmenot525 said
thanks
for joining in Kathy...........Is this how you percieve the health care
changes..as the government taking complete control over health care??
And do you think these changes, if they become law, will lead to the gov
interfering with your health??
like
I said above ask Kath if she will use Medicare in a few years or her
hubby then let us talk about if that to is a communist plot to take over
the government -
|
|
starfishred wrote on Aug 27, '09
Yes that is what it was intended to do -and Medicare is for 65+
people have been so propogandized on this subject most can't see the forest for the tree's- I have had Military Medicine for 30 yrs. and havee had great care no not always perfect but it is there and I get treatment and people that is your so called 'socialized medicine' to some extend I don't understand what people want really they speak in riddles and especially so many people that would benefit from a good basic gov. plan but they are the one who are most susecptible to the terrible propoganda- my frend doug put up a good video on this phenomenon here is the link http://dnoakes.multiply.com/video/item/146/How_Democrats_Are_Failing_to_Sell_Health_Care_Reform_-_George_Lakoff |
tulipsinspring wrote on Aug 27, '09
An
interesting discussion. I'm going to have to come back to read all the
comments. I am in an odd position, because I'm an American living in
Canada, so I have lived under both systems. From what I've seen, they
are both disasters. I'm told, though, that health care in most of
Canada, outside of my Province, is quite good.
There are two layers of issues, which get muddled. The first is whether all people have a right to health care. Of course they do. I'm stunned anybody would disagree, and yet they do. They tend to disagree because they confuse this question with the specifics of how such a program would be run. And that is the key issue. From what I see, universal health care systems vary widely in terms of quality. I live in Quebec, which runs its own system, and runs it badly. Ontario, the Province over, has a great system. I think there is no question that the U.S. needs universal health care. I wish people would realize that is a separate issue from how such a program would be run, another important issue. But all the fear-mongers confuse the two issues, and make people fear the entire system. Most countries these days have universal health care. It's odd that the U.S. doesn't, and it's time to change that. A lot of work needs to be done, I think, on the details of how it will work, but I believe strongly it must happen. |
Having
dealt with both Medicare (gov't) and Michigan State pension (gov't
underwritten by insurance companies) and private insurers (Long-term
care insurance), I would say I have had the worst experience with
private insurers. I had great experiences with Medicare with MIL's
medical expenses. But I am just one person.
But your remark does sum it up - who does one trust with health insurance. |
forgetmenot525 wrote on Aug 27, '09
a flippant remark................can't think who I would least trust............insurance companies or the government
|
forgetmenot525 wrote on Aug 27, '09
oh my what a terrible choice
|
1
- Yes, they should have. Maybe they did. When we signed up for our
insurance, we got a thick booklet with gobbledy-guck language that made
my head hurt.
2 - Insurance companies change the rules all the time and if you are already signed up - too bad. |
forgetmenot525 wrote on Aug 27, '09
they
should have explained this properly to you before you joined,
especially as you say you stuck out the jop to get the health benefits.
it sounds as if your insurers are going to withdraw their cover
regardless of health care reforms so I guess the reforms won't actually
make a lot of differene to you cos you will be with medicare anyway.
|
kathyinozarks said
This
must be determined by the insurance you have, as mine has told me I
must sign up for medicare, as they will no longer pay the total bill
like they are doing now-they also told me they would become my secondary
insurance-so mine is set up with no choice in the matter
After
talking with others, I believe it is an individual insurance company
matter. You are correct, apparently you have no choice, your insurance
company is written in such a way that you must sign up for Medicare and
accept it as your primary insurer. I think that is too bad, I
understand your discomfort with being forced into something you would
not have chosen. I would guess it is determined by your carrier as you
have said.
|
kathyinozarks wrote on Aug 27, '09
Btw,
Medicaid is for our welfare program (the dole) and Medicare is for
seniors and the disabled. No one is forced to accept coverage at age 65.
People need to file applications to request coverage under either
program.
This must be determined by the insurance you have, as mine has told me I must sign up for medicare, as they will no longer pay the total bill like they are doing now-they also told me they would become my secondary insurance-so mine is set up with no choice in the matter |
forgetmenot525 wrote on Aug 27, '09
ok
thanks Frank, I'm begining to see what a mess the whole thing
is................I just hope that what ever happens to these reforms,
soon the day will come when ALL Americans have access to health care. It
seems incredible that the richest country on earth can't find a way to
provide all of its people with good health care
|
veryfrank said
No one is forced to accept coverage at age 65. People need to file applications to request coverage under either program.
I
did not know this but I believe it. Frank is quite knowledgeable and
has worked in a field where he would be particularly knowledgeable about
health care and employee benefits.
|
Loretta,
I'll pass on going into detail on this for now. I'm really not up to
the stress level. Just within these comments, it's clear that people
don't understand the programs already in place, because they listen to
word of mouth instead of going to the source for correct information.
The issues here in the US are no longer about health care, they have
turned political. On one hand, the current administration is trying to
implement some form of acceptable universal health care for the country.
On the other hand, the insurance companies and the conservative
politicians, who they support financially, want to see health care
reform fail, hoping that will in turn label Obama and the Democrats as
failures. There is so much misinformation out there that I don't
believe that anyone can answer question 1. with any degree of accuracy,
therefore question 2. is really 'do you support reform or not support
it?'.
Btw, Medicaid is for our welfare program (the dole) and Medicare is for seniors and the disabled. No one is forced to accept coverage at age 65. People need to file applications to request coverage under either program. |
forgetmenot525 wrote on Aug 27, '09
kathyinozarks said
think
there should be some kind of solution, perhaps co ops of sorts that are
still free enterprise-that would get the prices down so everyone can
afford health care.
Sorry
kathy I didn't see this, co-operatives (or co-ops) seem to have a
different meaning over there, here a co-operative is a non-profit making
organisation that provides its members with goods or services and any
profits made by the co-operative are either ploughed back into the
organisation or divided up amongst the members at the end of the
financial year. The co-op shops have a long history and started during
early industrialisation. I never think of co-ops as being part of the
free market because they are non profit organisations.
|
kathyinozarks wrote on Aug 27, '09
I
don't know now, but my current insurance which is with blue cross blue
shield, will become my secondary insurance as medicare becomes the
primary.
Larry turns 65 next year and I am already getting all kinds of mail asking me to purchase their secondary insurance behind medicare-so that tells me thats the way it is for most |
It
is really scary to think that the government Medicare insurance would
take over my medical care - I like my current doctor, and plan (although
it is expensive). I am reassured by the experiences of all 4 of our
parents. It may be different for other people and in no way do I mean
to speak for another. Yes, you are automatically enrolled in Medicare,
but in our parents' cases, it was as a secondary insurance.
|
forgetmenot525 wrote on Aug 27, '09
kathyinozarks said
o we have no choice in the matter-at 65 have to use the government plan-which I don't wa
is
this just a clause in your own insurance policy, that benefits finish
when you are 65 and you have to go to medicare, or is it normal policy
for All americans to stop being covered by their insurers and go to
medicare.............from what Bennett says it seems this is not always
the case
|
When
my parents turned 65, their primary insurance was the insurance they
had worked for, same for Tom's folks. Medicare was the secondary
insurance. It did not interfere with Blue Cross/Blue Shield or another
insurance they had. They kept their same doctors, etc. I cannot speak
for another's plan, but my understanding is that Medicare is a secondary
insurance and supplements any insurance a person may have.
|
kathyinozarks wrote on Aug 27, '09
no we have no choice in the matter-at 65 have to use the government plan-which I don't want
|
kathyinozarks wrote on Aug 27, '09
forgetmenot525 said
Personally I can't see how health care can be part of the ''free
market'' because it is a commodity unlike any other. If any one here is
interested I found a blog written by an American who seems to explain
why he thinks health care can't be dealt with within the free markethttp://blog.badtux.net/2009/07/why-does-free-market-not-work-for.html
thank you for this-I will check it out
|
kathyinozarks wrote on Aug 27, '09
yes, I have done alot of reading about this bill
|
forgetmenot525 wrote on Aug 27, '09
Kathy...............I
know you are really worried about how this is going to affect you and
larry personally and that's understandable, If I worked 25 years for
something and then thought someone was trying to take it away I would be
upset too. Are you sure these proposals will be as bad for you as you
think??
|
forgetmenot525 wrote on Aug 27, '09
kathyinozarks said
once Larry and I turn 65 we will be forced to use the government program in place already for "seniors"
I
find that very suprising, here is a person can chose to continue to pay
for their private health insurance for as long as they like and
continue to recieve health care from the insureres
|
forgetmenot525 wrote on Aug 27, '09
It
does seem to scare an awful lot of people as it is, which is a shame
because with so many Americans finding themselves with out health care
something has obviously got to be done. It's just a case of finding a
way to ensure no one is left with out health care which most people are
willing to accept. Personally I can't see how health care can be part of
the ''free market'' because it is a commodity unlike any other. If any
one here is interested I found a blog written by an American who seems
to explain why he thinks health care can't be dealt with within the free
market
http://blog.badtux.net/2009/07/why-does-free-market-not-work-for.html |
kathyinozarks wrote on Aug 27, '09
I
chose my work career based on excellent health care for me and Larry. I
worked 25 years in a job I disliked for the wages and health care
benefits-this will all be in jeopardy if this bill goes thru as it sits
now.
I do not like the medicare system, once Larry and I turn 65 we will be forced to use the government program in place already for "seniors" I have no choice in that, my present health care will be my secondary insurance. I already fear worse care and more expensive for having to be forced on medicare-which I do not want-I have better health care with the insurance I worked for. |
kathyinozarks wrote on Aug 27, '09
yes-absultely
unless some major changes are written in this bill as presented, or a
brand new bill introduced based on the free enterprise system
|
forgetmenot525 wrote on Aug 27, '09
thanks
for joining in Kathy...........Is this how you percieve the health care
changes..as the government taking complete control over health care??
And do you think these changes, if they become law, will lead to the gov
interfering with your health??
|
forgetmenot525 wrote on Aug 27, '09
brendainmad said
I really like your number 4 and I'm sure this will turn out to be an interesting post.
Thanks
Brenda but it seems as if no4 is the stumbling block, the lack of
people talking seriously shows how many think health care is not a
right.
|
brendainmad wrote on Aug 27, '09
Thanks,
Loretta. I'm hoping that someone in the US will explain this to me. I
really like your number 4 and I'm sure this will turn out to be an
interesting post.
|
forgetmenot525 wrote on Aug 27, '09
I
have been to some, to many, I have recently deleted a contact because
he stated that health care is not a right. This man was very right wing
but he enjoyed art and was never impolite.In the end I deleted him just
because of the huge political divide between up, which is a bit sad
really but knowing that he honestly believes health care is not a right
made me see him in a completely different light.
|
kathyinozarks wrote on Aug 27, '09
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.3200:
This link will take you to the actual bill-its 1000 pages long as it
sits now, however the house and senate are both working on changes-so
who knows what the final bill will look like.
there are still many town hall meetings going on all over america too right now, to discuss this bill. I believe everyone should have the right to have affordable health care-but I also believe it is unconstitutional for the government to take complete control over health care or anything else for that matter. I believe this is the land of the free, everyone here has choices to better themselves with a good job or not to, this is a free enterprise system here. I totally oppose the way this administration is trying to take over everything-including health care. I don't want the government interfering with my health and well being-they have no right. I think there should be some kind of solution, perhaps co ops of sorts that are still free enterprise-that would get the prices down so everyone can afford health care. socialism is one stop beneath Communism-I totally oppose this kind of government take over in the USA |
http://politicalsouls.multiply.com/journal/item/78/A_Basic_Misdiagnosis_On_Health_Care?replies_read=13
The comment section is good too. |
forgetmenot525 wrote on Aug 27, '09
oh
dear............is this really what is at the bottom of all this
debate?? debate elsewhere I mean cos its not happening here, are you
seriously telling me that many American people don't think Health care
is a right??
|
forgetmenot525 wrote on Aug 27, '09
seriously...........(joking
aside), if medicad is designed for people who can't afford insurance,
why isn't every one already covered??, I knew about the system for older
people but i didn't know about this one.
|
forgetmenot525 said
so many people seem to have so much to say about this elsewhere, but no one is saying any thing here. Not sure why.
See
#4 above. People who agree with you that healthcare is a right are
referring to W2J's excellent analysis. Many people do not feel health
care is a right.
|
forgetmenot525 wrote on Aug 27, '09
sarcasm I assume :-))
|
forgetmenot525 said
this
could be a very simplistic thing to say but..................if
Medicaid (for lower income ppl) and Medicare (for golden agers 65+)
works, why don't the gov just amalgamate the two and then extend it to
cover all those with out access to medical care??
Because that would be socialism. And socialism is the spawn of the devil.
|
forgetmenot525 wrote on Aug 27, '09
this
could be a very simplistic thing to say but..................if
Medicaid (for lower income ppl) and Medicare (for golden agers 65+)
works, why don't the gov just amalgamate the two and then extend it to
cover all those with out access to medical care??
|
forgetmenot525 wrote on Aug 27, '09, edited on Aug 27, '09
Thanks
for the reply Bennett, I have to say I'm surprised, so many people seem
to have so much to say about this elsewhere, but no one is saying any
thing here. Not sure why.
The one thing I will agree with you is that many American people don't seem to have the same understanding of political science or political philosophy as many Europeans have. And I don't mean this to be offensive, it's just how it seems to me, like you said, socialism seems to be the greatest insult of all and the easiest way to discredit something. I am checking out the links on the other sites. |
1. What changes are proposed? This depends to whom you speak. In this I would refer you to Water2juice's blog, linked to by artimisia. There are many proposals. Water2juices's explanation of the changes is the best I've seen. As I understand it it would provide for the US government to provide an option (the public option) for uninsured or uncovered ppl. Many people say "the public option" would put insurance companies out of business. I do not believe this to be the case. The government would also do what insurance companies do NOW, which is to look at a treatment and decide if they will cover it. For example, my current insurance will cover mammograms once a year because someone decided it was cost-effective. There are also studies that say that mammos are just as effective in cutting rates/deaths from breast cancer if done every other year. So, this is what is meant by cost-effectiveness. People who are worried about the government deciding which procedures are cost-effective might be forgetting that insurance companies do that now as does socialized medicine for seniors, aka Medicare. 2. I would support any change that would make sure that every person in the US gets health care, maybe not free (nothing's free anyway) but at a reasonably affordable price. 3. Am I against any changes? The problem is there are so many different proposals and interpretation of the proposals. Taxing people on the bargained health care benefits they receive would be something I would oppose, but I would not oppose it if it were the only way to make things work. Our Union (when I worked) made wage concessions to get good insurance. I would be willing to see workers pay some taxes on bargained insurance, but the whole burden should not fall on their shoulders. In 1963 (or so) when Medicaid (for lower income ppl) and Medicare (for golden agers 65+) were being proposed, I was in jr. high. I remember quite well that ppl were all jumping around saying this was "socialized" medicine and if we adopted these plans, the US would go to hell in a basket quickly. These plans were adopted and so far they have worked well, particularly Medicare. Unlike in Europe, ppl here are not taught the difference between political systems and economic systems. They believe Socialism to be the same as totalitarianistci Communism. Anything that gets tarred with the brush of "Socialism" is greatly feared by many. A quick way to douse a program is to call it "socialism". |
kathyinozarks wrote on Aug 27, '09
great post Loretta-I will be back later to contribute, will post a link to the actual bill as well
|
http://water2juice.multiply.com/journal/item/346/Health_Care_Bill_and_facts...?replies_read=2
this guy has been covering it for the last month or so....he's a great guy |
|
starfishred wrote on Aug 27, '09
good question loretta and I am thinking and will come back later okay
|
No comments:
Post a Comment