# Health Care Reform



## Magenta (Jun 6, 2009)

I am very sorry I started this thread.  

I was just happy about this country finally doing something about Health Care.

The misinformation filling this thread scares me.

I wish you all health and happiness and PLEASE read credible sources to get your information.

The following is an email I received from subscribing to The White House information email service.  I hope you will find this information enlightening and seek out other sources.

Peace ...

----------------------------------

Good afternoon,

Since the House of Representatives voted to pass health reform legislation on Sunday night, the legislative process and its political impact have been the focus of all the newspapers and cable TV pundits.

Outside of DC, however, many Americans are trying to cut through the chatter and get to the substance of reform with a simple question: "What does health insurance reform actually mean for me?" To help, we've put together some of the key benefits from health insurance reform.

Let's start with how health insurance reform will expand and strengthen coverage:

    * This year, children with pre-existing conditions can no longer be denied health insurance coverage. Once the new health insurance exchanges begin in the coming years, pre-existing condition discrimination will become a thing of the past for everyone.
    * This year, health care plans will allow young people to remain on their parents' insurance policy up until their 26th birthday.
    * This year, insurance companies will be banned from dropping people from coverage when they get sick, and they will be banned from implementing lifetime caps on coverage. This year, restrictive annual limits on coverage will be banned for certain plans. Under health insurance reform, Americans will be ensured access to the care they need.
    * This year, adults who are uninsured because of pre-existing conditions will have access to affordable insurance through a temporary subsidized high-risk pool.
    * In the next fiscal year, the bill increases funding for community health centers, so they can treat nearly double the number of patients over the next five years.
    * This year, we'll also establish an independent commission to advise on how best to build the health care workforce and increase the number of nurses, doctors and other professionals to meet our country's needs.  Going forward, we will provide $1.5 billion in funding to support the next generation of doctors, nurses and other primary care practitioners -- on top of a $500 million investment from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

Health insurance reform will also curb some of the worst insurance industry practices and strengthen consumer protections:

    * This year, this bill creates a new, independent appeals process that ensures consumers in new private plans have access to an effective process to appeal decisions made by their insurer.
    * This year, discrimination based on salary will be outlawed. New group health plans will be prohibited from establishing any eligibility rules for health care coverage that discriminate in favor of higher-wage employees.
    * Beginning this fiscal year, this bill provides funding to states to help establish offices of health insurance consumer assistance in order to help individuals in the process of filing complaints or appeals against insurance companies.
    * Starting January 1, 2011, insurers in the individual and small group market will be required to spend 80 percent of their premium dollars on medical services. Insurers in the large group market will be required to spend 85 percent of their premium dollars on medical services. Any insurers who don't meet those thresholds will be required to provide rebates to their policyholders.
    * Starting in 2011, this bill helps states require insurance companies to submit justification for requested premium increases. Any company with excessive or unjustified premium increases may not be able to participate in the new health insurance exchanges.

Reform immediately begins to lower health care costs for American families and small businesses:

    * This year, small businesses that choose to offer coverage will begin to receive tax credits of up to 35 percent of premiums to help make employee coverage more affordable.
    * This year, new private plans will be required to provide free preventive care: no co-payments and no deductibles for preventive services. And beginning January 1, 2011, Medicare will do the same.
    * This year, this bill will provide help for early retirees by creating a temporary re-insurance program to help offset the costs of expensive premiums for employers and retirees age 55-64.
    * This year, this bill starts to close the Medicare Part D 'donut hole' by providing a $250 rebate to Medicare beneficiaries who hit the gap in prescription drug coverage. And beginning in 2011, the bill institutes a 50% discount on prescription drugs in the 'donut hole.'

Thank you,

Nancy-Ann DeParle
Director, White House Office of Health Reform


----------



## Laurie (Jan 9, 2009)

Magenta said:


> No matter what your party affiliation..... Health Care Reform will make a positive impact to your life and future.
> 
> Imagine not being denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition!
> 
> ...


I respectfully - but strongly - disagree. I have a child with a serious medical condition, and the government takeover of her medical care is NOT something I view as positive.


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

Some of the things in this bill I'm quite happy with.  Some need work.  In all though, I'm glad there is finally going to be a vote.  I know this has been a very contentious issue, and I'm not really sure I understand why there is such a vocal opposition.  But once it's in place, we can work on ironing out the kinks.

For example, we need to push the Public Option Act (H.R. 4789) to allow the opportunity for individuals to buy into Medicare ....


----------



## crebel (Jan 15, 2009)

I think this is one of those strongly differing points-of-opinion political topics that we usually try to avoid on Kindleboards so I will not offer mine other than to say that no matter the outcome of the vote, many will be happy and many will not.


----------



## corkyb (Apr 25, 2009)

It amazes me that we are one of the only developed countries without access to health care for all it's citizens.  This great country.  Let's get it done tonight!
(and come back and do the public option too)
Paula ny


----------



## Scheherazade (Apr 11, 2009)

Laurie said:


> I respectfully - but strongly - disagree. I have a child with a serious medical condition, and the government takeover of her medical care is NOT something I view as positive.


What she said. Though there is a positive to it in terms of what'll happen when elections roll around again


----------



## 4Katie (Jun 27, 2009)

I'm a big fan of Obama's, and for years I've been yelling about the need for universal health care. But I don't like the way this is being rushed. DH says it's better than nothing, cuz if they wait for it to be perfect we'll never get it. I understand that, but I wish this wasn't being forced through.

Still... everyone needs health care. EVERYONE.


----------



## Laurie (Jan 9, 2009)

4Katie said:


> I'm a big fan of Obama's, and for years I've been yelling about the need for universal health care. But I don't like the way this is being rushed. DH says it's better than nothing, cuz if they wait for it to be perfect we'll never get it. I understand that, but I wish this wasn't being forced through.
> 
> Still... everyone needs health care. EVERYONE.


I agree that everyone needs healthcare. Just wish there was a better way of doing this. I am against the way it's being done right now and I think it spells big trouble for Obama and for our country.


----------



## luvmy4brats (Nov 9, 2008)

crebel said:


> I think this is one of those strongly differing points-of-opinion political topics that we usually try to avoid on Kindleboards so I will not offer mine other than to say that no matter the outcome of the vote, many will be happy and many will not.


^^ What she said ^^


----------



## The Hooded Claw (Oct 12, 2009)

It's been debated for over a year, Herculean efforts were made to reach consensus, but the opponents staked everything on stopping it cold rather than trying to improve the bill and agree on something. Hardly rushed. And reconciliation is being used to make only minor changes in the bill that are deemed to have to do with finance, the main bill was passed in a completely normal way. Reconciliation is something that has been done many times before by Republicans and Democrats--And whichever party loses is always bitterly critical of it as is happening now. Reconciliation has been used many times by both parties to pass major bills, see a list here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconciliation_%28United_States_Congress%29#Historical_use

Note that the list includes Welfare Reform, one of the major planks of the Contract With America. Except that was the entire bill, not minor changes (which are all that are being made to health care reform under reconciliation).

David Frum, a noted conservative commentator, thinks the opposition to Health Insurance Reform has been based on a flawed strategy, and I think he is right on target:

http://www.frumforum.com/waterloo

I'll leave any further comments by me for my (mythical) thread I'm going to start that will discuss gun control and abortion!


----------



## Rasputina (May 6, 2009)

I hate government mandates. Period.


----------



## Rasputina (May 6, 2009)

Scheherazade said:


> What she said. Though there is a positive to it in terms of what'll happen when elections roll around again


oh yea, you can bet on that.


----------



## Bren S. (May 10, 2009)

Scheherazade said:


> What she said. Though there is a positive to it in terms of what'll happen when elections roll around again


Agreed!


----------



## Rasputina (May 6, 2009)

Oh great it passed so far. 

I guess I can go tell my daughter she better get a job or face a fine so that her healthy self can support someone elses health care. lovely.


----------



## Rasputina (May 6, 2009)

The Hooded Claw said:


> I'll leave any further comments by me for my (mythical) thread I'm going to start that will discuss gun control and abortion!


I'll just go on record now as being opposed to both of those.


----------



## Pushka (Oct 30, 2009)

As an Australian, we have a totally different health care system to the US.  We hear horror stories about the Hospital system in the US.  Ours is not great, but everyone can be treated, for free, at Government Hospitals.  Or choose private treatment if they prefer and most likely have insured with a private health insurer to do that.  No-one can be refused treatment with a pre existing condition for private health insurance, although a delay of 12 months may be required.  The Government play no part in individual treatment plans.  Of course, we need to improve our services in Australia, but by and large it works.

From an outsider, I have to see this as a positive.


----------



## mlewis78 (Apr 19, 2009)

Being a woman will not longer be a pre-existing condition!


----------



## Pawz4me (Feb 14, 2009)

Very happy today.  I wish the bill had gone farther.  Hopefully it's just the beginning of true health care reform.


----------



## dpinmd (Dec 30, 2009)

Pawz4me said:


> Very happy today. I wish the bill had gone farther. Hopefully it's just the beginning of true health care reform.


My thoughts exactly! And as someone who really wants SINGLE PAYER (even the "public option" was a compromise IMO), I have to admit that I am truly confused as to how the bill that passed could be considered a "government takeover." I honestly don't want to start a debate, but could anyone who feels that way possibly educate me as to what's in the bill that you view as "government takeover"?

I can certainly understand why people don't like the idea of a mandate, but it's a necessary "evil" in order to get some of the other reforms. It just wouldn't be possible to prohibit insurers from discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions (or dropping people when they get really sick) without such a mandate. If it wasn't mandatory, everyone would just opt out of coverage while they're healthy, and would only sign up when they got sick, and that just doesn't work with an insurance model that relies on the allocation of risk.


----------



## cheerio (May 16, 2009)

Im staying away from the subject also, do not want to offend anyone


----------



## austenfiend (Nov 17, 2009)

Pushka-

What do you mean when you say that you need to "improve the services" in Australia?


----------



## Pushka (Oct 30, 2009)

Austenfiend, we still need to train more doctors and nurses - we have the technology and beds but are woefully short on manpower.  But at least everyone here can get free medical treatment if treated as a public patient.


----------



## ElLector (Feb 13, 2009)

I know this is a sensitive topic, and I don't want to offend anybody here, so I'll try to be as respectful as possible.  Although the HCR isn't perfect, I'm glad that more people will have a better chance at getting health care.  With that said, as many of you well know, I live in Korea.  It's AMAZING how cheap it is to see a doctor here without insurance.  Now, luckily I do have insurance with the school, but if I didn't, I wouldn't worry too much about it.  Back home, I went to see a doctor before flying out here, and a few months later I got hit with a bill that left me    Thankfully, I managed to pay it off.  

I got sick last week, and decided to see a doctor.  The doctor found that I had a very bad throat infection, and prescribed me medicine.  Everything, including the follow-up appointments, cost me a whopping $50 (and that is without the use of insurance)!  That one measly appointment in the states cost me many, no, MANY times as much.  (Oh, and they're pretty advanced.)

I get so many students, teachers, and friends asking me why, the USA, being the richest country in the world can't afford to provide everybody health care.  The best answer I'm able to give is, "I don't know." 

Anyway, am I glad the bill passed?  Yes.  Am I still a little worried about it?  Yes.  In all fairness, I respect everyone's opinions, here, on Kindleboards.com, and I hope all of you and your family are in the best of health.  annyeonghi gaseyo!


----------



## Addie (Jun 10, 2009)

ElLector said:


> I know this is a sensitive topic, and I don't want to offend anybody here, so I'll try to be as respectful as possible. Although the HCR isn't perfect, I'm glad that more people will have a better chance at getting health care. With that said, as many of you well know, I live in Korea. It's AMAZING how cheap it is to see a doctor here without insurance. Now, luckily I do have insurance with the school, but if I didn't, I wouldn't worry too much about it. Back home, I went to see a doctor before flying out here, and a few months later I got hit with a bill that left me  Thankfully, I managed to pay it off.
> 
> I got sick last week, and decided to see a doctor. The doctor found that I had a very bad throat infection, and prescribed me medicine. Everything, including the follow-up appointments, cost me a whopping $50 (and that is without the use of insurance)! That one measly appointment in the states cost me many, no, MANY times as much. (Oh, and they're pretty advanced.)
> 
> ...


I agree. I became horribly sick when I was visiting South Korea last year. There was no wait, and it was very cheap compared to how much it would cost in the U.S. I don't have health insurance, but my mom does. And even she tries to wait until she's visiting Korea before she goes to the doctor or dentist or whatever.


----------



## corkyb (Apr 25, 2009)

What a testament to the sad state of affairs this Country's health care system is in.


----------



## Pushka (Oct 30, 2009)

I did hear on our radio today that the US is the only Westernised country that does not (did not!) offer universal health care for everyone.  Perhaps the process of getting there was flawed, but surely health care is a staple need for everyone?  

Just looking on as an observer who has absolutely no political inclinations to either of the parties - I still dont know which is which!


----------



## sjc (Oct 29, 2008)

My lips are sealed.  If I comment; I'm guaranteed to no longer be a member of these boards.
I stay away from such touchy subjects.


----------



## Laurie (Jan 9, 2009)

Pushka said:


> I did hear on our radio today that the US is the only Westernised country that does not (did not!) offer universal health care for everyone. Perhaps the process of getting there was flawed, but surely health care is a staple need for everyone?
> 
> Just looking on as an observer who has absolutely no political inclinations to either of the parties - I still dont know which is which!


We're also the country with the most advanced medical care. People don't rush to Canada or Europe for healthcare when there's a serious condition and they want the best care available. I'm all for healthcare reform - I just don't think government is the answer. Everything they do, they do wrong. And they tax us to death in the process.


----------



## pidgeon92 (Oct 27, 2008)

Actually, there is quite an industry starting up for healthcare tourism. I remember a few years back watching Dateline or something, and they profiled some fine hospitals in India and Thailand. People were traveling there particularly for hip and knee replacements.

Were I to need an expensive procedure or extensive care for an illness, I would not rule out going overseas to seek treatment. Particularly if it would mean that I would not bankrupt my husband.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

We met people in San Diego who travel to Mexico for their dental care.

Betsy


----------



## mlewis78 (Apr 19, 2009)

Some Americans order prescription drugs from Canada because the prices are usually higher in the US.


----------



## pidgeon92 (Oct 27, 2008)

In particular, for a few years I followed a blog (I don't recall how I came across it) written by a young woman who contracted Lyme disease, which she had treated here in the US and in India. It was fascinating to read about her experiences in India with receiving embryonic stem cell treatments. The healthcare system in India certainly is different than it is in the US.

If anyone is interested in her story, her blog is here:

http://healthcarehacks.com/the-india-story


----------



## Pushka (Oct 30, 2009)

Laurie said:


> We're also the country with the most advanced medical care. People don't rush to Canada or Europe for healthcare when there's a serious condition and they want the best care available. I'm all for healthcare reform - I just don't think government is the answer. Everything they do, they do wrong. And they tax us to death in the process.


I think given the intractable nature of the health care issue in the US, it has to be a Government approach. And Europe has some mighty fine health establishments, as does Australia, especially for cranio-facial issues, organ transplants, Burns injuries and the like. We dont have the same drug trials here, but sometimes that is a good thing. And the first of any radical procedure, eg like the first heart transplant, which was conducted in South Africa, are usually not done in the US.


----------



## Gertie Kindle (Nov 6, 2008)

Florida is putting is placing a constitutional amendment on the November ballot allowing residents to opt out of the requirement to carry health insurance.

Tallahassee will also be filing a lawsuit, claiming that the bill is unconstitutional. I'm guessing other states will follow.


----------



## Rasputina (May 6, 2009)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100322/ap_on_re_us/us_health_care_last_stand

lawmakers in at least 30 states are working to prevent what they say is an unconstitutional mandate forcing Americans to have health insurance.

By Monday, at least nine state attorneys general had promised to file suit against the federal government as soon as Obama signs the bill. The states were Alabama, Florida, South Carolina, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, Michigan, Nebraska, Washington. Officials in North Dakota were weighing whether to join the case.


----------



## Pushka (Oct 30, 2009)

I dont want to start a conflict at all, but I would like to know the reasons why people are either for or against this initiative, (other than the fact it may have been rushed through).  I have heard various reasons, like the Government always mucks things up, loss of control etc etc, but from the experience here in Australia, while there are problems, our public Medicare by and large, works fine.  Well, at least here people dont get hit with half a million dollar bills if they have a heart attack for instance, and nor do they delay getting health care because they cant afford it.

So, please educate me - what are the concerns, other than political?


----------



## mlewis78 (Apr 19, 2009)

Pushka, it's fear.  I would say what it's a fear of, but, well, I'm rather surprised this thread hasn't been locked already.  They don't like political discussions here.  A lot of fears are being stirred up.  I'm not among the fearful, however.  This bill could have gone much further, in my opinion.  This bill is not universal healthcare.  

There are a number of people who have the privilege of insurance through their employers or through their own wealth.  A small minority of these people do not want others to have the same privileges they have.


----------



## Scheherazade (Apr 11, 2009)

Pushka said:


> I dont want to start a conflict at all, but I would like to know the reasons why people are either for or against this initiative, (other than the fact it may have been rushed through). I have heard various reasons, like the Government always mucks things up, loss of control etc etc, but from the experience here in Australia, while there are problems, our public Medicare by and large, works fine. Well, at least here people dont get hit with half a million dollar bills if they have a heart attack for instance, and nor do they delay getting health care because they cant afford it.
> 
> So, please educate me - what are the concerns, other than political?


I'd go into it, but I am more than willing to let people keep lauding over how great it is in order to keep the thread civil. There are lots of reasons this wasn't a good thing, I'm sure any news site or a Google search would help you pick up on quite a few. I think one of the big things is that it wasn't just "rushed" through, it was much more than that. At any rate, it's gotten people to donate nearly a million dollars in the last 30 hours to help Republicans campaign to knock Pelosi out of her seat, so it's not just a minority speaking out or an uneducated few who don't know what they're talking about like folks seem to want everyone to think.

I'll quote "1776" and leave it at that...

Hopkins: "Well, in all my years I ain't never heard, seen nor smelled an issue that was so dangerous it couldn't be talked about. Hell yeah! I'm for debating anything. Rhode Island says yea!"

Without people willing to debate where would our country be?


----------



## mlewis78 (Apr 19, 2009)

I'm sorry that there is such a big political backlash.  The House just voted on it Sunday night and now this.  The bill is not perfect and doesn't do enough, no public option, no single payer, and the reaction is way over the top.


----------



## Pushka (Oct 30, 2009)

The problem with googling is that being in a different country you have no way of knowing the credibility or political bias of the writer which is why I asked the question. Kind of like assuming Fox and Friends is the font of knowledge. So it seems to have been rushed through but given that every other western nation has a scheme somewhat like this then really I am not understanding. 

I guess there is too much angst to get an understanding then.


----------



## Scheherazade (Apr 11, 2009)

This is true, and I know I said I'd say my bit and leave it at that but one more thing.  I just don't want to get into a whole debate here and I know rolling out a laundry list of good vs. bad would do just that.  The quote was referencing the fact that they somehow managed to get the bill through without allowing it to be debated which is unprecedented.  Then there's Obama saying he wants Democrats and Republicans to work together then the bill passes without a single Republican vote which has also never happened.  This is the most sweeping change that has been passed in the House for the last 40 years and not one single Republican voted yes?  I wouldn't call that a victory if I was the president no matter what side I was on, especially if I were a president who made such a big deal about there being no sides.  There's something wrong there.

Now there's talk that he wants to try to get it through without it going through the Senate.  I can't say how true that bit is, because like you said there's a lot being said about it out there and I try to take the things I read with a whole heaping load of salt, but those are some of my concerns with just how the bill was passed without even really going into what it's going to do.  It's difficult knowing what to believe even if you weren't in another country


----------



## mlewis78 (Apr 19, 2009)

Health care reform was first proposed in the '40s (or earlier, depending on how you look at it), so I don't understand the argument that it was rushed.  They've been debating it for a year, but there have been so many weak talking points.  The President bent over backwards to be bi-partisan, but the other side wanted no part of it.  The bill itself is a big compromise to bring in conservatives, but even conservative, blue-dog Democrats voted against it.

That's all I'm going to say.  I won't even be tempted to open this thread when it's bumped up again.


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

Pushka said:


> I dont want to start a conflict at all, but I would like to know the reasons why people are either for or against this initiative, (other than the fact it may have been rushed through). I have heard various reasons, like the Government always mucks things up, loss of control etc etc, but from the experience here in Australia, while there are problems, our public Medicare by and large, works fine. Well, at least here people dont get hit with half a million dollar bills if they have a heart attack for instance, and nor do they delay getting health care because they cant afford it.
> 
> So, please educate me - what are the concerns, other than political?


Unfortunately, politics is probably the main reason for most of the uproar. The US 2-party national political system has become very polarized for a number of reasons, including the primary voting system which tends to favor candidates at the extremes of opposing viewpoints, leaving the majority of us who are more or less in the middle at a loss as to whom to vote for (and thus an important factor in our embarrassingly low voter turn-out for national elections). In the meantime, the extremists on both sides who make it into office refuse to work with those on the opposite side, and are more concerned with getting re-elected and increasing their party's influence, as opposed to finding the best possible (or least mutually egregious) compromise to make things work decently for as many citizens as possible.



Pushka said:


> The problem with googling is that bring in a different country you have no way of knowing the credibility or political bias of the writer which is why I asked the question. Kind of like assuming Fox and Friends is the font of knowledge. So it seems to have been rushed through but given that every other western nation has a scheme somewhat like this then really I am not understanding. 1776 -American War of Independence? Not getting that at all in this situation.


As if everyone responding here is unbiased? 

As far as "rushing" through, I'm not sure about that: it's been in the works for over a year. The main "rushing" part was all of the parliamentary maneuvering used to worm its way past other parliamentary maneuvering amongst the rather arcane and confusing rules of our two separate-but-equal legislatures, which do not even share the same set of parliamentary rules.

PS: This article in the Christian Science Monitor does a pretty decent job of describing the bill without getting into a lot of emotional opinions about it: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0322/Health-care-reform-bill-101-what-the-bill-means-to-you.


----------



## Pushka (Oct 30, 2009)

Sure nogdog, people would be biassed here but at least I would 'know' them. Those links were excellent by the way. 

So, in Australia tax payers pay 1.3% of their taxable income into Medicare which provides free public health care for everyone. Additionally people earning over $50k also pay an additional tax, say $600 unless they also have private hospital insurance and the minimum cost of a single hospital cover is around that amount. Most people have private hospital insurance but they can still be treated for free in our public hospitals but have no choice of doctor. Employers have no involvement whatsoever. 

Hmm, I am still not seeing why this is a bad thing unless it is more to do with whichever side introduced it. It still sounds ok with me and is what we have had in Aust for decades.

It sounds like your political parties are polarizing. At the moment we have the opposite - they seem to be coming closer together and have no point of difference although that may change soon.


----------



## Laurie (Jan 9, 2009)

mlewis78 said:


> There are a number of people who have the privilege of insurance through their employers or through their own wealth. A small minority of these people do not want others to have the same privileges they have.


Those are the kind of comments that will get this thread shut down. I don't think anybody doesn't want other people to have privileges. No need for insults, and it isn't a true statement.


----------



## dnagirl (Oct 21, 2009)

I don't want to say a lot because I'll get in trouble.  It's a subject I am very passionate about.

What I will say is that there are a lot of misconceptions about what is actually in the bill that passed (not the reconciliation, which has NOT passed) and the effect this will have on our system/society.

It will be interesting to see what the Senate does, considering they have zero motivation or need to pass the House's reconciliation bill now that what they wanted has passed.  Those who were bribed with deals or additions to the bill in the House may find themselves coming out of this with absolutely nothing.

Let me also add that a lot of the problem is the fact that the government is mandating that everyone purchase health insurance.  If you do not, you are fined.  There are some people out there who plain and simple don't want health insurance for different reasons.  The IRS will the the organization that will be checking each person every year to make sure that you have purchased insurance for 12 months of every year, and if you don't they will add extra to your taxes.


----------



## Laurie (Jan 9, 2009)

Pushka said:


> It sounds like your political parties are polarizing.


Yeah, maybe just a little bit 

Neither side likes what the other side offers. There's not usually too much in the middle.


----------



## Addie (Jun 10, 2009)

dnagirl said:


> It will be interesting to see what the Senate does, considering they have zero motivation or need to pass the House's reconciliation bill now that what they wanted has passed. Those who were bribed with deals or additions to the bill in the House may find themselves coming out of this with absolutely nothing.


In a lot of ways, the House has the Senate tied up. Sure, the Senate could decide to go back on its word, but then the Senate has to worry about burning that bridge. And the Senate better be prepared to deal with the consequences and punishment the House could deliver. And let's not forget that the House Way and Means Committee is one of the most powerful committees in the legislature, so you don't really want to make them angry.

ETA: Although, I'm sure there will still be some maneuvering and speeches, which will be interesting to see and hear.


----------



## mwvickers (Jan 26, 2009)

Gertie Kindle 'a/k/a Margaret Lake' said:


> Florida is putting is placing a constitutional amendment on the November ballot allowing residents to opt out of the requirement to carry health insurance.
> 
> Tallahassee will also be filing a lawsuit, claiming that the bill is unconstitutional. I'm guessing other states will follow.


I live in Florida, so that will be a fine thing for me.

I don't know what I think completely ofthe issues going on (as there is so much confusion coming from both sides), but one thing I do know: I should NOT be required to buy health insurance or else face a penalty by fine. If I don't want it, that's my business.


----------



## Chad Winters (Oct 28, 2008)

mwvickers said:


> I live in Florida, so that will be a fine thing for me.
> 
> I don't know what I think completely ofthe issues going on (as there is so much confusion coming from both sides), but one thing I do know: I should NOT be required to buy health insurance or else face a penalty by fine. If I don't want it, that's my business.


I'm pretty much against this bill, but I disagree with that argument. We require all drivers to have car insurance and no one gets upset. You can choose not to have insurance, but the ER has to treat you when you show up with x disease and the hospital has to treat you when you get admitted for 2 weeks due to H1N1 pneumonia. You can't pay the bill and the Hospital has to suck it up. Its not just your business.


----------



## tbsteph (May 3, 2009)

corkyb said:


> It amazes me that we are one of the only developed countries without access to health care for all it's citizens. This great country. Let's get it done tonight!
> (and come back and do the public option too)
> Paula ny


All citizens do have access to healthcare. Not everyone has health insurance - either by choice or pre-existing condition (The latter does not apply to group health insurance.). I am amazed by the number of people who want a "public option" such as found in Canada, Great Britain etc. All of these "public options" end up rationing care due to the cost and the relative inefficiency of anything ran by a government entity. I have no disagreement with the idea that the US health insurance system needs to be improved. I disagree with the idea that a federal government takeover is the answer.


----------



## Pushka (Oct 30, 2009)

dnagirl said:


> Let me also add that a lot of the problem is the fact that the government is mandating that everyone purchase health insurance. If you do not, you are fined. There are some people out there who plain and simple don't want health insurance for different reasons.


But that system of Health Insure/pay fine works perfectly well here in Australia. Everyone has full access to public health care, everyone. There are many things I dont want to do in life but have to - that is part of living in a society. And surely health is one of the most fundamental principles of life?



tbsteph said:


> I am amazed by the number of people who want a "public option" such as found in Canada, Great Britain etc. All of these "public options" end up rationing care due to the cost and the relative inefficiency of anything ran by a government entity.


I am sorry, but that is wrong. Our system is not perfect by a long stretch, but everyone knows that if they get sick, and have no private health care, then they can attend our local Public Hospital and get world class care. There are queues for minor matters, but attend with a life threatening situation and you will get the most urgent and best attention. And no bill to send you broke at the end.

So, are any of these options too simplistic to explain the angst:


Republican versus Democrat
Have Insurance from employer versus dont have Insurance from employer so the rest take care of their own issues at any cost
Dont want to be compelled to take insurance versus Universal Insurance means access for all

Now, based on similarities on your Political Parties with ours in Australia, I would be voting for the Republican, except, well, can I say that I would never have voted for Bush so might have voted for, well, do you have a Green Party (Environmentalist) because I would not vote Democrat (although Obama was very persuasive)

But even though an Aussie "Republican", I can still see the merits of what this law is trying to do.


----------



## Chad Winters (Oct 28, 2008)

I was more disturbed by the unethical dealings and the illegal moves. I'm not a goverment scholar or anything, but I am fairly sure the president cannot abrogate a law passed by Congress and signed by himself into law by executive order. That part really bothered me. And the whole pass it and change it afterward thing was disturbing as well.


----------



## Scheherazade (Apr 11, 2009)

Chad Winters (#102) said:


> I'm pretty much against this bill, but I disagree with that argument. We require all drivers to have car insurance and no one gets upset. You can choose not to have insurance, but the ER has to treat you when you show up with x disease and the hospital has to treat you when you get admitted for 2 weeks due to H1N1 pneumonia. You can't pay the bill and the Hospital has to suck it up. Its not just your business.


But you can also decide not to drive a car so that car insurance is an -option-. The only way to make required health insurance an option is suicide. There are a lot of students who don't carry health insurance because they're struggling to get through school on little to no money, but they're young and healthy so they can get away with it. Sure something can happen, but for the most part they're not going to use it. I haven't had to go in for anything medical in probably over a decade, I can't remember the last time I -had- to. The "free" healthcare isn't free at all. And isn't there still something in there about people above a certain age not being eligible for certain operations? I don't want the government putting a price tag on my life.


----------



## Scheherazade (Apr 11, 2009)

Chad Winters (#102) said:


> I was more disturbed by the unethical dealings and the illegal moves. I'm not a goverment scholar or anything, but I am fairly sure the president cannot abrogate a law passed by Congress and signed by himself into law by executive order. That part really bothered me. And the whole pass it and change it afterward thing was disturbing as well.


Ditto. I also like the bit where the President, Congress and the House are all exempt from the whole health care scheme. If it's such a great thing, why aren't they getting the same deal?


----------



## Gertie Kindle (Nov 6, 2008)

Pushka said:


> But that system of Health Insure/pay fine works perfectly well here in Australia. Everyone has full access to public health care, everyone. There are many things I dont want to do in life but have to - that is part of living in a society. And surely health is one of the most fundamental principles of life?


Try going to a County hospital sometime. It is jammed with people who don't have health insurance and are treated anyway. Everything from a baby with a runny nose to a heart attack. There's no lack of health care.



> I am sorry, but that is wrong. Our system is not perfect by a long stretch, but everyone knows that if they get sick, and have no private health care, then they can attend our local Public Hospital and get world class care. There are queues for minor matters, but attend with a life threatening situation and you will get the most urgent and best attention. And no bill to send you broke at the end.


Same already applies here. In fact, more people have access to health insurance through medicaid. Example. 40 year old man, in good health, employed, good job, no dependents and his employer offers health insurance. He goes to HRS, says he can't afford the insurance and he gets covered under medicaid. I'm not making up this scenario.

This bill is all smoke and mirrors. Many people opt out of health care coverage because they are either basically healthy and don't want to pay for coverage or can't afford the tremendous cost of a family policy. These people will now be forced to purchase insurance.

Group insurance is no guarantee of a low rate anymore. If you have a family member with a chronic condition, a visit to the ER can cost $500. This bill does not address these issues. All they are saying is "universal health care." They are not saying "good universal health care" or "affordable universal health care." Universal health care is a buzz word designed to make a big political splash.

In Florida, you can't be denied coverage under a group policy if you have a pre-existing condition. Easy to get around that. Start up some kind of at-home business and you can get a group of one. Expensive, but doable.

Doctors and hospitals have already started laying off professional staff because if this bill passes, the elderly and chronically ill will receive minimal care.

Disagree with me if you want and I won't argue. I've stated my piece and I'm "opting out" of this thread.


----------



## Chad Winters (Oct 28, 2008)

Gertie Kindle 'a/k/a Margaret Lake' said:


> Doctors and hospitals have already started laying off professional staff because if this bill passes, the elderly and chronically ill will receive minimal care.


I don't think that's true (for one thing changes won't occur for like 6 years) and being a primary physician myself, we are more worried about having to lay off staff because reimbursement is lowered so much to "balance the bill" that we can't stay open. My clinic operates in the red every year and is only still open because the local hospital makes up the difference. If they lower reimbursement its all over and my student loans are still not paid off and I graduated in 2000.


----------



## Addie (Jun 10, 2009)

Scheherazade said:


> But you can also decide not to drive a car so that car insurance is an -option-. The only way to make required health insurance an option is suicide. There are a lot of students who don't carry health insurance because they're struggling to get through school on little to no money, but they're young and healthy so they can get away with it. Sure something can happen, but for the most part they're not going to use it. I haven't had to go in for anything medical in probably over a decade, I can't remember the last time I -had- to. The "free" healthcare isn't free at all. And isn't there still something in there about people above a certain age not being eligible for certain operations? I don't want the government putting a price tag on my life.


Actually, people can option out by killing themselves or paying a yearly fine. If we're using this analogy, the most accurate scenario is to say you don't have car insurance and you're still driving. Sure it's flawed because you can't actually remove yourself from your body and into another or just free float (if you believe in souls), but you get the idea.
It's absolutely not right for someone to not pay health insurance, have an accident, and then place the burden of pay on someone else. It's also not right for the uninsured to be bankrupted for necessary, unavoidable care. Health insurance for everyone is the obvious solution, in my opinion. Yeah, it's a burden to have to pay, but it's better to be safe than sorry.
In Korea, every citizen gets a free complete checkup every two years, and I think that is fantastic. Preventative care is key in lowering costs and emotional distress for everyone. But when someone doesn't have insurance, they're more likely to avoid doctors. For example, I was watching The Suze Orman Show this last week, and there was a caller who didn't have insurance and had found a lump in her breast two years ago. She still didn't have insurance and was asking Suze if she should still wait because she still didn't have insurance and didn't want to be a financial burden to her family.

I don't like everything about this bill, but I don't dislike everything either. It's a step.


----------



## Rasputina (May 6, 2009)

Scheherazade said:


> But you can also decide not to drive a car so that car insurance is an -option-. The only way to make required health insurance an option is suicide. There are a lot of students who don't carry health insurance because they're struggling to get through school on little to no money, but they're young and healthy so they can get away with it. Sure something can happen, but for the most part they're not going to use it. I haven't had to go in for anything medical in probably over a decade, I can't remember the last time I -had- to. The "free" healthcare isn't free at all. And isn't there still something in there about people above a certain age not being eligible for certain operations? I don't want the government putting a price tag on my life.


You said what I was going to post. Thanks for saving me the time LOL

The auto insurance comparison is not applicable.


----------



## Chad Winters (Oct 28, 2008)

I agree with Addie, the car insurance comparison is accurate. Those who don't have insurance, don't get preventative care, then get a stroke, heart attack, accident etc., will still need care. They are still "driving" just without insurance because they can't afford it or "it won't happen to them"


----------



## mlewis78 (Apr 19, 2009)

This thread is becoming ridiculous.  So many lies.  I think it should be locked.  OK, get on my case about this, but I don't want to comment on this any more, yet I see so much misinformation about what is illegal and other things that have been fed to people by the blogosphere and partisan TV.


----------



## Pushka (Oct 30, 2009)

Scheherazade said:


> There are a lot of students who don't carry health insurance because they're struggling to get through school on little to no money, but they're young and healthy so they can get away with it.


Ah, my husband was diagnosed with cancer the year after he left University, at 22. It was a big learning curve.


----------



## mlewis78 (Apr 19, 2009)

The new bill allows parents to continue to cover their kids on their plans up to age 26.  Currently, private health insurers don't.  I don't know if the cut-off point is 18 or 21, or upon graduation (??)


----------



## Pushka (Oct 30, 2009)

Yes, we have that plan too, up to the age of 25. Older son is about to find he needs to put health care into his budget!


----------



## Addie (Jun 10, 2009)

mlewis78 said:


> The new bill allows parents to continue to cover their kids on their plans up to age 26. Currently, private health insurers don't. I don't know if the cut-off point is 18 or 21, or upon graduation (??)


It depended on the plan, but from what I understand the majority of plans before this bill would drop kids when they turned 19 or after they finished college.


----------



## Scheherazade (Apr 11, 2009)

Chad Winters (#102) said:


> I agree with Addie, the car insurance comparison is accurate. Those who don't have insurance, don't get preventative care, then get a stroke, heart attack, accident etc., will still need care. They are still "driving" just without insurance because they can't afford it or "it won't happen to them"


But you can choose not to drive, you don't really have a similar option with your health. It would be like requiring licenses to live too. If you don't want to pay car insurance and still drive then you either pay the uninsured fine (or tax or whatever you want to call it) or you're breaking the law. That's fine because it's a choice. You chose to drive without insurance so you deserve the fine. Being fined because you don't have health insurance? Where is the choice there?

The following is unrelated to the member quoted above or really any one person posting here or anywhere else, I just feel it needs saying...

That's going to be the last I say on the subject too. I have seen too many people hating others just because of their differing opinions on health insurance and nothing else. I really don't want anyone on the boards despising me because of my political stance. The whole lies and misinformation thing is something I keep seeing over and over and it dismays me. It seems like if we don't agree then we're either stupid or liars.

I am my own person and I am not defined by my stance on health care. There is someone at the keyboard behind this screen with problems and dreams and everything else just like I believe there is with all of you. If you want to believe I must be a certain way just because of my political leanings then this will do little to dissuade you, but it is unfortunate. I walk away from this judging nobody who has posted here based on their personal beliefs on the subject and I hope everyone else can do the same.


----------



## Addie (Jun 10, 2009)

Scheherazade said:


> But you can choose not to drive, you don't really have a similar option with your health. It would be like requiring licenses to live too. If you don't want to pay car insurance and still drive then you either pay the uninsured fine (or tax or whatever you want to call it) or you're breaking the law. That's fine because it's a choice. You chose to drive without insurance so you deserve the fine. Being fined because you don't have health insurance? Where is the choice there?
> 
> That's going to be the last I say on the subject too. I have seen too many people hating others just because of their differing opinions on health insurance and nothing else. I really don't want anyone on the boards despising me because of my political stance. Since I seem to be the main dissenter here I will assume it's me being accused of the lies and being gullible enough to fall for misinformation, and this seems to be the stance many have taken. If we don't agree then we're either stupid or liars.
> 
> I am my own person and I am not defined by my stance on health care. There is someone at the keyboard behind this screen with problems and dreams and everything else just like I believe there is with all of you. If you want to believe I must be a certain way just because of my political leanings then this will do little to dissuade you, but it is unfortunate. I walk away from this judging nobody who has posted here based on their personal beliefs on the subject and I hope everyone else can do the same.


If we made this analogy completely parallel, then I think there would have to be a clause in the bill that said you could opt out from paying health insurance, but if you do, then you can't go to a doctor when you're sick or injured. (Here's my reasoning: No car insurance is to no car driving as no health insurance is to no health care) I doubt many would be thrilled with that one. The problem is that some people don't want to pay, but they still want a doctor to take care of them when they're sick or get into an accident.
And with these health care tax credits, everyone should be able to afford it.

I do understand people's concerns about this health care mandate (it definitely gave me pause), but I hope allowing this bill to take action for a bit of time will help assuage any concerns. I think we can all agree that no one _wants_ bad things to take place because of this bill. It will take time to see what happens. Although, there are things in the bill I see that I already like, e.g.,uninsured adults with a pre-existing condition will be able to obtain health care coverage, the medicare doughnut hole will be eliminated, insurers will be barred from denying coverage to children because of pre-existing conditions, insurance companies will be barred from dropping people from coverage when they are sick, young adults will be able to stay under their parents' plan until 26.

I absolutely don't think you're stupid or a liar, and I don't think any less of you. And I don't feel that way about anyone who disagrees with me intelligently. In fact, I appreciate your ability to discuss this topic without any cruel words. I appreciate anyone who is able to do that. We all have different beliefs, and there's nothing that says we can't get along just because of that. In fact, I have several friends that are strong conservatives, and we get into colourful debates all the time. For the record, I'm an Independent (and yes, I take all kinds of crap for being that from my conservative friends  and yes, I know Independents don't like the government--I was against the bailout--but I guess you can call me a swaying Independent ... did I just confuse everyone?). It's all in good fun, and we don't hold grudges. I see it all as a good learning experience, and I hope everyone can take something away from this debate that perhaps they didn't know before.


----------



## KBoards Admin (Nov 27, 2007)

Hello all you good people, 

 We have been watching this thread pretty closely, as it's the kind of topic that can get political very easily, which experience has shown us tends to lead to unresolvable disputes and hard feelings. (Something about the good old forum rule of no controversial discussions about religion, politics, or operating systems!)

 Anyway, I want to thank you all for your considerate, and considered, comments in this thread. I'm going to discuss this more with the other mods in the morning, but I'm going to go ahead and lock the thread as in my opinion it has "run its course". Thanks for understanding. And thanks again for your good and thoughtful comments!

 Kindle on!

-Harvey


----------

