(Please don't flame me) Question on the health ins

[Kettlecorn]

I am going to have to respectfully disagree with the poster who said that charities are best for taking care of the sick and the poor.
Charities are not an efficient or effective answer for uninsured individuals.
Did you know that hospitals that are non profits are required to provide care to a certain amount of individuals in turn for their non profit status? Did you know that many of these hospitals are happy to take the benefits of non profit status (not paying taxes on earned revenue) but do not provide nearly as much charity care as required by law. The health care reform bill actually attempts to address this issue.
Do you know that many of the wealthiest charity donors give to "charities" that actually benefit them: these include prestigious universities, foundations that promote their particular economic views, and museums, etc. I am not saying that higher education or museums are not a worthy of donations, but really does someone making a million dollars a year need a tax break for donating to a "struggling" Harvard university (perhaps with the hope that they will look kindly on their child applying for admittance to Harvard.) Foundations are a murkier issue. Some may be truly working for change, but some are thinly veiled shills for corporations-- they may present themselves as non partisan policy experts, but have more mercantile interests. For example, "experts" who promote continuing war in Afghanistan that are receiving funding from all sorts of defense contractors. This is a national disgrace!
Finally, charities have often not shown themselves to be better stewards of public monies. I am sure we have all read the stories of some United Way director in a medium sized city paying themselves 700,000 dollars a year plus a generous pension plan and other benefits. Hospital CEOs have some pretty hefty salaries too. I don't begrudge someone for making a lot in such a difficult job with a lot of responsibility, but come on-- if you are not paying taxes on your profits there needs to be more accountability.

 

[Kettlecorn]

Oh-- and I wanted to say, for the case of the Shriner hospital. Yes, the care was good-- but if charities are the way to go why just one Shriner hospital? Why isn't this model used for all hospitals? Do you think this is feasible?

 

[mspina]

Your auto insurance protects other people from your driving mistakes. Health insurance only covers you and you can choose whether or not you want that protection. If you want to die horribly because you don't have health insurance to cover medical treatment, that's your choice. You don't get to choose whether someone else dies horribly because you plow into them with your car and you don't have auto insurance to pay for their medical treatment.

We have a winner. That's the big, big, big difference. Liability insurance is all you really need for car insurance - to pay for damage you might do to others.

 

[BuffyR]

For anyone who thinks that lack of health care insurance only effects them, I would ask this question. If someone is injured, has to go to the ER and has no health insurance or money to pay, who should pay?

 

[Lisa7691]

For anyone who thinks that lack of health care insurance only effects them, I would ask this question. If someone is injured, has to go to the ER and has no health insurance or money to pay, who should pay?

It depends on how the person was injured. If they were injured in a car accident there should be auto insurance to cover the injuries. If they were injured on someone's property there should be property/homeowner's insurance to cover the injuries. If they are injured on the job then workers comp insurance should cover it.

If the person has a heart attack or a stroke or some other life threatening illness the hospital will provide treatment and then the hospital writes it off as a bad debt and the Government provides them a tax break for that. So in effect, the taxpayers are already picking up this tab at a much lower cost then the new legislation. I am not saying that this is a perfect system, only that it works more cost effectively than the new proposal.

Another poster asked why there is only 1 Shriners hospital - there are actually 22 Shriners facilities. I would also like to point out that most hospitals were started and some still run by charity organizations - most often religious groups. 100 years ago there were no government supported hospitals and all medical care was paid out of pocket or through donations from generous individuals. Again - I am not advocating a return to a charity only system, only pointing out that frequently charities provide much more compassionate care than does the government.

It would be great if there could be an honest debate instead of both parties in Washington lining up with the agendas and dividing the country. I think at heart we all want the same thing - for people to have access to care. Each approach to that goal has different consequences. It'd be great if we could look at those without being accused of being socialist or racist or uncaring. I care a great deal about those less fortunate than myself because I grew up that way and I give generously to charities that aid those populations. Side note, not accusing anyone on this thread of this behavior - just the country as a whole. Typically if you start talking about this topic you are quickly labeled and marginalized.

One other thought on this...how many of you think Social Security benefits will be around when you retire? Most of the people I talk to my age (30 - 35) don't expect to ever recieve benefits because of the dire financial situation of the program. If the Government can't manage that massive program how can we have confidence that they can better manage health care? Food for thought

 

[Kettlecorn]

Social Security-- actually in better shape than a lot of other programs, and would be solvent for much longer than predicted (I think the projections now are that it is solvent for only about ten years into future) if Reagan had not started raiding the social security funds to plug other holes in the budget.
I certainly would worry much more about switching to private accounts-- of course Wall Street wants to get their hands on this money! Hey, who feels comfortable with your retirement being totally in Wall Streets hands? Could you imagine if we had privatized Social Security as Bush wanted to do? You know, thanks to our captains of finance this country saw something like a trillion dollars of wealth evaporate overnight. Sorry, I trust government more-- that doesn't mean I think there should be some fixes, but we should go about working on these fixes, not scrapping a program that has been very successful in eradicating poverty among the elderly and providing security for retired people. This does help the economy.

 

[dorothyrd]

Health care should be a basic right, just like our schools are. We had a great school stucture until big business took over the books, testing, lunches and administrations. Health care companies have been raking everyone over for years, profits before people, worse than our government and Wall Street combined.

My DH works for a small business and our premiums are $1100 a month with big deductable and co-pays. He has been locked into this job because of our sons pre-existing condtion. We would never be able to get him insured if he left his current job to open his own business, I'm sure this is the same scenario across the country. My favorite part about this bill is HC companies can no longer deny sick children.

Our public schools are a state government entity, and in fact, since our state is bankrupt, our schools have not gotten their state money for about 2 years. Massive cuts, and layoffs in every school district is happening. A proposal to shorten the school week to 4 days has gone through one house, to save money. Our main public college is probably going to hike tuition 20% next year as I am sure other colleges will follow suit. Don't tell me business is running our schools, business would do a far better job of this than our government. Our government has a lousy track record for running things.

 

[Kettlecorn]

business would do a far better job of this than our government. Our government has a lousy track record for running things.

What business would you like to run things? General Motors? Chrysler/Dodge? Goldman Sachs? Enron? Halliburton?
Yes, businesses are so much more efficient and don't waste money (and never take government money)

 

[Lisa7691]

I am not saying that higher education or museums are not a worthy of donations, but really does someone making a million dollars a year need a tax break for donating to a "struggling" Harvard university (perhaps with the hope that they will look kindly on their child applying for admittance to Harvard.) .

I would say that anyone earning a million dollars a year has EARNED that money and deserves to keep as much of it as possible. It is their money that they earned. I don't make a million a year but I want millionaires rights protected as much as I want my own protected. We are already overtaxed at every level in this country. I don't understand the attitude that it is ok to take more from someone just because they achieved more.

My husband and I have reached a point in our careers that unless we can jump to making substantially more annually ($50k/yr+) then raises hurt us more than they help because they increase our taxes more than the raise itself. We are not rich by any means but we are taxed so heavily. We don't make enough money to shelter any of it so we bear the full burden of taxes.

I came from nothing and I worked for everything I have. I am generous to charities and I believe that some taxation is necessary for basic governmental functions. I don't think anyone has the right to take more (as a percentage, obviously if I make more my share is higher) from me because I chose to work harder to achieve. THAT is not an American value.

It's funny because if you posed this situation to a kid - they'd have no problem telling you it's unfair. If you told Johnny who went out and mowed 5 yards to earn $100 that he would now have to give Ben $30 because Ben lives in an area where he can't mow yards and doesn't have equal oppotunity, Johnny would tell you no way! Johnny would tell you that Ben needs to move somewhere that had some opportunity to mow yards or to find a different way to earn money than mowing yards. Obviously this is oversimplified but it makes the point clearly.

 

[Stephie]

You're still going to be paying through the nose for health insurance. But it won't just be yours anymore and it will come out of your taxes. I have a friend who is diabetic and still drinks a 6 pack of regular Mountain Dew, every day, and smokes like a chimney. He wouldn't even consider exercising. Meanwhile, I'm trying to stay healthy by exercising, not smoking etc. but I'm going to be paying for my friend's health insurance, so what's the point? Why should I keep exercising and try to stay healthy just to save him money on my health expenses?

 

[double t]

It's funny that 75% of the people in this country are happy with their coverage yet they still saw reason to ramrod this thing through. Instead of concentrating on the uninsured, they thought it best to overhaul the entire system. This tells me that it's not entirely about healthcare. I believe it's a government powergrab disguised as a feel good program.
Regardless of what you believe, it's unsustainable and I believe it's going to cost us dearly.
There are serious constitutional issues with the process as well as the program. I wish we had politicans, the very people who swear to uphold and abide by the constitution, that actually knew what was in it....or cared what was in it.

 

[BuffyR]

You're still going to be paying through the nose for health insurance. But it won't just be yours anymore and it will come out of your taxes. I have a friend who is diabetic and still drinks a 6 pack of regular Mountain Dew, every day, and smokes like a chimney. He wouldn't even consider exercising. Meanwhile, I'm trying to stay healthy by exercising, not smoking etc. but I'm going to be paying for my friend's health insurance, so what's the point? Why should I keep exercising and try to stay healthy just to save him money on my health expenses?

How will this bill force you to pay for your friend's health insurance? The OP started this out by talking about an individual mandate. Won't the new bill require your friend to buy a policy?

 

[jacmar]

I would say that anyone earning a million dollars a year has EARNED that money and deserves to keep as much of it as possible. It is their money that they earned. I don't make a million a year but I want millionaires rights protected as much as I want my own protected. We are already overtaxed at every level in this country. I don't understand the attitude that it is ok to take more from someone just because they achieved more.

My husband and I have reached a point in our careers that unless we can jump to making substantially more annually ($50k/yr+) then raises hurt us more than they help because they increase our taxes more than the raise itself. We are not rich by any means but we are taxed so heavily. We don't make enough money to shelter any of it so we bear the full burden of taxes.

I came from nothing and I worked for everything I have. I am generous to charities and I believe that some taxation is necessary for basic governmental functions. I don't think anyone has the right to take more (as a percentage, obviously if I make more my share is higher) from me because I chose to work harder to achieve. THAT is not an American value.

It's funny because if you posed this situation to a kid - they'd have no problem telling you it's unfair. If you told Johnny who went out and mowed 5 yards to earn $100 that he would now have to give Ben $30 because Ben lives in an area where he can't mow yards and doesn't have equal oppotunity, Johnny would tell you no way! Johnny would tell you that Ben needs to move somewhere that had some opportunity to mow yards or to find a different way to earn money than mowing yards. Obviously this is oversimplified but it makes the point clearly.

EXCELLENT post. I could not agree more. There is no longer an incentive to work harder.

 

[BuffyR]

It's funny that 75% of the people in this country are happy with their coverage yet they still saw reason to ramrod this thing through. Instead of concentrating on the uninsured, they thought it best to overhaul the entire system. This tells me that it's not entirely about healthcare. I believe it's a government powergrab disguised as a feel good program.
Regardless of what you believe, it's unsustainable and I believe it's going to cost us dearly.

Most people are happy with their plan because employers bear most of the cost as my employer does. Without reforms this will be unsustainable.

How do you figure that the bill was ramroded through when it was voted on by both chambers of Congress? Isn't that how the American system of government works?

 

[dr.mel_PT]

I see the point in giving insurance to all Americans, so IMO the bill takes a step in the right direction by doing that. I also agree with lifting the caps on payments by insurance companies and not being allowed to use pre-existing conditions to deny someone coverage. If I have to pay a little more to make this happen, then so be it; those I'm helping could be my family member, my friend, or even myself somewhere down the road.

BUT what I DO have a major problem with is that this bill grants even more power to the entities which put us in such a terrible health situation in the 1st place: greedy insurance companies!! Now that everyone has to be insured, it just lines their pockets even more. They WILL raise premiums, copays, etc, because they need to make up the cost somehow, so we will all be paying more anyway. And while having insurance is better than not, it doesn't guarantee that your procedures will be paid for entirely if they fall out of the black & white outline of what your insurance guarantees to cover during the course of a year. The problem with the American system is everything is ridiculously jacked-up price wise; from prescriptions to procedures needed, it all has a ginormous markup attached. You can still have insurance and go broke trying to pay for a medical procedure you need because your insurance company pays a marginal percentage of that cost. This is what scares me about this bill because who actually wants these people to have even more power over us?!

 

[BuffyR]

I see the point in giving insurance to all Americans, so IMO the bill takes a step in the right direction by doing that. I also agree with lifting the caps on payments by insurance companies and not being allowed to use pre-existing conditions to deny someone coverage. If I have to pay a little more to make this happen, then so be it; those I'm helping could be my family member, my friend, or even myself somewhere down the road.

BUT what I DO have a major problem with is that this bill grants even more power to the entities which put us in such a terrible health situation in the 1st place: greedy insurance companies!! Now that everyone has to be insured, it just lines their pockets even more. They WILL raise premiums, copays, etc, because they need to make up the cost somehow, so we will all be paying more anyway. And while having insurance is better than not, it doesn't guarantee that your procedures will be paid for entirely if they fall out of the black & white outline of what your insurance guarantees to cover during the course of a year. The problem with the American system is everything is ridiculously jacked-up price wise; from prescriptions to procedures needed, it all has a ginormous markup attached. You can still have insurance and go broke trying to pay for a medical procedure you need because your insurance company pays a marginal percentage of that cost. This is what scares me about this bill because who actually wants these people to have even more power over us?!

Precisely why a public option is a good idea but, unfortunately, that idea was demonized to the point where is was not longer politically viable.

 

[Stephie]

How will this bill force you to pay for your friend's health insurance? The OP started this out by talking about an individual mandate. Won't the new bill require your friend to buy a policy?

For my friend in particular I guess it won't affect me because he can afford to buy the new mandated health insurance. The problem is that people who cannot afford it will now be covered under a new government program. How does the government pay for new programs?

While it's true that people who's employer covers their health insurance are happy with the status quo, many small businesses cannot afford to purchase health insurance for their employees (as the new bill now mandates) and many will be forced out of business. Our economy actually works because of small businesses, it's not the mammoth corporations that keep us going. So, when we kill off small business, put all of their employees on unemployment and have to provide them with government mandated health insurance we're going to have a whopping big tax bill that has to be paid for by someone.

 

[BuffyR]

For my friend in particular I guess it won't affect me because he can afford to buy the new mandated health insurance. The problem is that people who cannot afford it will now be covered under a new government program. How does the government pay for new programs?

While it's true that people who's employer covers their health insurance are happy with the status quo, many small businesses cannot afford to purchase health insurance for their employees (as the new bill now mandates) and many will be forced out of business. Our economy actually works because of small businesses, it's not the mammoth corporations that keep us going. So, when we kill off small business, put all of their employees on unemployment and have to provide them with government mandated health insurance we're going to have a whopping big tax bill that has to be paid for by someone.

Actually, the HCR bill gives rather substantial tax credits to small business who provide health insurance to their employees. That is one of the benefits that goes into effect right away.

 

[Kettlecorn]

I would say that anyone earning a million dollars a year has EARNED that money and deserves to keep as much of it as possible. It is their money that they earned. I don't make a million a year but I want millionaires rights protected as much as I want my own protected. We are already overtaxed at every level in this country. I don't understand the attitude that it is ok to take more from someone just because they achieved more.

My husband and I have reached a point in our careers that unless we can jump to making substantially more annually ($50k/yr+) then raises hurt us more than they help because they increase our taxes more than the raise itself. We are not rich by any means but we are taxed so heavily. We don't make enough money to shelter any of it so we bear the full burden of taxes.

I came from nothing and I worked for everything I have. I am generous to charities and I believe that some taxation is necessary for basic governmental functions. I don't think anyone has the right to take more (as a percentage, obviously if I make more my share is higher) from me because I chose to work harder to achieve. THAT is not an American value.

It's funny because if you posed this situation to a kid - they'd have no problem telling you it's unfair. If you told Johnny who went out and mowed 5 yards to earn $100 that he would now have to give Ben $30 because Ben lives in an area where he can't mow yards and doesn't have equal opportunity, Johnny would tell you no way! Johnny would tell you that Ben needs to move somewhere that had some opportunity to mow yards or to find a different way to earn money than mowing yards. Obviously this is oversimplified but it makes the point clearly.

I'm sorry you feel that way. My take is a little different. We owe taxes every year despite the fact that we claim no exemptions and make hefty contributions to retirement accounts. Our house does not provide much tax relief as we refinanced to a low interest 15 year mortgage about five years ago. We have no children.
But, the way I see it is we are beneficiaries of what taxes provide. For instance, my husband was the first in his family to go to college. There is no way his family would have been able to afford if he were going now. At the time, the state university was funded at a much higher rate by taxes. Now, students have to pick up a much bigger share of tuition. And, things such as Pell grants have been curtailed. Now, he is a taxpayer making over 75k a year. Good for him? Yes, but good for the economy too!
I work part time-- I'm a nurse and this is possible and I work d--- hard when I am at work. I would rather have more free time than more money. I went to the state university to get my BSN. I worked my butt off in school, but mostly was happy that I was able to go to the state university which was more competitive than the private schools but much less expensive-- I was able to finance my schooling with savings.
We are pretty frugal. We definitely bought much less house than we could afford. We hold on to our cars for at least ten years. We don't carry any credit card debt.
I don't feel like I am deprived. I don't want for anything. Our health insurance plan is fine for us.
But, I know that I enjoy the fruits of what is provided in the public sphere-- clean water (probably the single most important health advance in the last couple of centuries), public schools, roads, police and emergency services, parks. Well, I could go on.
I don't have kids, but I always vote for school levies. I received the benefits of an education, why shouldn't others?
We are all helped somewhere along the way. Nobody is an island. We are all in this together. Yeah, there are freeloaders--always have had them, but they come in all stripes. I would classify some government contractors as welfare recipients too (on a much grander scale). And there are people that have grown up in horrible circumstances. And there are many that have been born in to advantage. Some recognize this and some say they are "self made".
Unemployment is at highs not seen in decades. Is it really sustainable to have a model in which health insurance is tied to a job? Not to mention, how competitive does this make us globally when other companies around the world (such as Japan) do not have to provide health insurance? What about companies here. Some companies provide benefits, others don't. Yes, that cost savings may be passed on to you, but you'll pay for it eventually when their workers end up on medicaid.
As far as there not being an income tax 200 years ago-- so what? We are living in a different society. The constitution is a flexible document and was designed to be so in our forefathers' infinite wisdom.
Please don't assume if we want health insurance for all or that if we don't balk at paying taxes we are people that don't work hard for a living.
And, remember-- money is not the only indicator of how hard someone works. There are plenty of people who work in low wage jobs that work hard too. Should we just tell them-- you get sick buddy? fine! You're on your own.
That is not the world I want to live in.

 

[dorothyrd]

The bill actually regulates how much premiums are, how much coverage must be offered, and how much percentage of cash the insurance companies need to have on hand to pay out claims. It will have the opposite affect of lining insurance pockets, it will probably drive quite a few out of business, and our choices will be less and less.

I do not understand the anti-business sentiment. People work hard, create a business, because there was a demand for something, make some money at it, and people seem to think they are demons. I realize that we have had some demons within the business world, all businesses should not be penalized for the bad practices of some businesses.

Quite a bit of this bill needs to be supported by the states. The states handle the medicaid portion, which is where your people that truly cannot afford medical insurance will be. As I said before, our state is bankrupt, and cannot afford the services it has. While there is federal money for this, I believe they have underestimated the costs.

BTW, I had a family member get services from a hospital stay denied. The insurance.....Medicare. The service, oxygen and pain killers for a potential heart attack. Medicare no longer will pay for it.