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

[BuffyR]

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.

Very well said. I feel the same way.

 

[Stephanie0523]

Well said, Kettlecorn!!

 

[BuffyR]

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.



Are you suggesting that insurance companies are being demonized without cause? As an attorney, I call tell you stories about health insurance companies that would make you cringe. For example, I had a case where the insured was injured, hospitalized and eventually died. The insurance company sent him a partial refund of his premium and then refused to pay the medical bills claiming that the policy was cancelled retroatively because he had failed to pay the premium. We tried for 3 years to get a response from the insurance company, writing countless letters, making telephone calls and we couldn't even get a response. I finally had to sue them. They eventually paid the bills and some of my fees after 3 more years of litigation. Don't feel sorry for the insurance companies, it is their job to make money and they do, primarily by denying coverage for valid claims and hoping that the insured cannot afford to hire a lawyer to sue them.

 

[Stephie]

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.

Enough to offset the cost? I'm not sure about that. And what about the 40 million "uninsured" that will now be covered. You can't add 40 million people to a government paid for program without someone paying for it. It will be paid for by income redistribution, i.e. taxes, which is why people are calling it socialism.

 

[neverendingcircle]

In answer to Lastchance09.....

No socialism is OK. This country was founded on individual freedom. That's why so many people have come here from around the world. They can be who they want to be, start their own business if they choose. All without the government on their backs and in their wallets. That has all changed over the last few years. Soon we will be like any other third world country. So sad, I feel so sorry for my children and grandchildren. Someday they will be slaves to the government of this country. Having to give up 80-90% of their income to pay off this monstrous debt this country now has. Who is going to pay for all this health care? We have NO MONEY!!!

 

[BuffyR]

Enough to offset the cost? I'm not sure about that. And what about the 40 million "uninsured" that will now be covered. You can't add 40 million people to a government paid for program without someone paying for it.

As the OP stated, there is going to be an individual mandate, so most people will either be covered by their employer (as they are now) or will buy insurance. The govt. will help out with subsidies for those who can't afford to buy insurance. There will not be 40 million people added to a government paid for program. Not sure where you are getting that information from.

 

[BuffyR]

No socialism is OK. This country was founded on individual freedom. That's why so many people have come here from around the world. They can be who they want to be, start their own business if they choose. All without the government on their backs and in their wallets. That has all changed over the last few years. Soon we will be like any other third world country. So sad, I feel so sorry for my children and grandchildren. Someday they will be slaves to the government of this country. Having to give up 80-90% of their income to pay off this monstrous debt this country now has. Who is going to pay for all this health care? We have NO MONEY!!!

Well if you think no socialism is ok then I hope you don't drive on public roads, attend or send you kis to publical schools, call the police or fire dept. when you need help, get student loans, etc. We have been for some time a mixed economy, part private owned and part government owned.

 

[Kettlecorn]

No socialism is OK. This country was founded on individual freedom. That's why so many people have come here from around the world. They can be who they want to be, start their own business if they choose. All without the government on their backs and in their wallets. That has all changed over the last few years. Soon we will be like any other third world country. So sad, I feel so sorry for my children and grandchildren. Someday they will be slaves to the government of this country. Having to give up 80-90% of their income to pay off this monstrous debt this country now has. Who is going to pay for all this health care? We have NO MONEY!!!

What third world country are you worried about becoming? Switzerland? Canada? France?
Actually, third world countries do not provide services, but you can find some of the richest people (and most corrupt) in the world in them.
yeah-- we're heading more toward a third world country in that the gap between the wealthiest and the poorest has been increasing for years.
The top tax rate during the "socialist" presidency of Eisenhower was 91%. Now I am not advocating a return to that, but the tax code could be more progressive. Right now the top tax rate is 35%. Most of the truly wealthy do not even pay that because most of their income is taxed at the capital gains rate of 15% for cryin' out loud. Where did you get this 80-90% figure?
I say we judge a country on how well it treats its most vulnerable citizens, not on how rich the richest can get.

 

[dorothyrd]

By 2014 small businesses will get a 50% credit per employee to help with insurance costs, so that is fairly substantial. PArt time employees in small businesses do not have to be covered.

As far as the insurances, my reply was to the person who said that this bill will cause insurance companies to get richer and line their pockets. I replied that the bill regulates premiums, and regulates how much cash on hand they must keep. I never said ANYTHING about whether this was good or bad, I was replying to the misnomer that the bill causes insurance companies to get richer. It does not, they will be highly regulated.

I do believe having less competition in the insurance industry will hurt us, and this will eventually lead to a one payer system, which many of you will probably be glad about.

In the meantime, government regulation causes the supply curve to shift left, reducing supply, and raising prices. So there may be a temporary shift up of prices during the interim time that everything gets put into place.

I also in my research did not find a lot on Massachusetts having a significant rise in premiums. Overworked doctors because lots more coming in, long waiting lines, and costs to government being much, much higher than the bill first proclaimed. They are actually cutting 30,000 legal immigrants off insurance, that were originally covered to save money. So those people will be back in the ER seeking coverage.

And so you know, I have had a sick child, a child who was denied coverage, who had bills refused and had pre-existing illness rubbed in my nose till it was raw. Don't preach to me about such things, I am well aware of the issues! Just don't turn a blind eye to what this could do to our economy. Coverage could have been put into place for much, much less cost. That is why all the good stuff is coming out immediately, it is not as costly to put into place.

 

[Gayle]

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.

Kettlecorn - Great post! *thumbs up*

 

[dr.mel_PT]

As far as the insurances, my reply was to the person who said that this bill will cause insurance companies to get richer and line their pockets. I replied that the bill regulates premiums, and regulates how much cash on hand they must keep. I never said ANYTHING about whether this was good or bad, I was replying to the misnomer that the bill causes insurance companies to get richer. It does not, they will be highly regulated.

I could be wrong but I read that these stipulations won't take effect for another 10 years. That gives insurance companies plenty of time to jack up their premiums for fear of what their costs will look like down the road when these caps do, in fact, take place. In 2010 alone, my premiums went from $80/month to $180/month and I am covered for way less than I was last year; I am single, my health insurance is through my employer, and I have the middle-of-the-rung plan. The insurance agent flat out admitted that hikes were implemented across the board for all insurance companies just based on the fear that any type of healthcare reform was passed. Now that it has been and there are 10 years for them to take advantage, they will.

 

[double t]

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?

There were other options to increase competition, which would drive the prices down. Government regulations result in higher prices and shortages of services. All of the same arguments made in favor of this thing were made for social security, medicaid, etc. and they are all broke. Why is this thing going to be any different?

Respectfully, how do you know that most people are happy with their insurance only because their employers bear the big part of the cost? There may be other reasons as well.

Ramrodded thru in the sense that they bribed everyone in sight, even threatened some, to come on board and made this such an urgent matter when 75% are happy with their coverage. I agree, prices are skyrocketing, but if you think this option is sustainable then I am afraid you are going to be in for a big surprise in years to come.

Some things in the bill that my doctor was talking about the other day. Whether these get changed or not, who knows. Tell me if these are fair:
1. Single males without children must have a policy that covers pediatric services.
2. You're a woman who cannot have kids? Tough, your policy must cover maternity services.
3. Are you a teetotaler? --Too bad, your policy must cover substance abuse programs.
Those are under section 1302 of the bill.
Why should a single, healthy male, age 30, have to pay the same premiums as a 50 yr old mother of 5 who is on drugs, obese, and smokes?

Under section 2711, if you would like to pay less in premiums by buying insurance with lifetime or annual limits on coverage, you can no longer do that because health insurers will no longer offer such things.

They should be focusing on jobs in my opinion. Unfortunately, this will cost us jobs. I guess we could go work for the IRS. They'll be hiring.

I guess we'll see what happens. Based on history, I don't believe this will work. Independents like myself carry the swing votes in this country and one of these parties had better start toeing the line on spending or we'll just vote them all out, Repub or Dem.

 

[dorothyrd]

I thought regulation was much sooner than that, but I will see if I can find that information in the bill. One thing to remember, a lot of the rules have not been written yet, so you can look at the bill, but all the answers are not there yet.

Whether you think this is a good thing, bad thing, or you simply don't know, I would recommend people slog their way through the bill. That way when things come out in the press, you are more knowledgeable and understand what is going on.

This is major, major change, and it will happen, it is now law. So educate yourselves, don't leave it up to the media or other people to tell you.

 

[BuffyR]

There were other options to increase competition, which would drive the prices down. Government regulations result in higher prices and shortages of services. All of the same arguments made in favor of this thing were made for social security, medicaid, etc. and they are all broke. Why is this thing going to be any different?

Respectfully, how do you know that most people are happy with their insurance only because their employers bear the big part of the cost? There may be other reasons as well.

Ramrodded thru in the sense that they bribed everyone in sight, even threatened some, to come on board and made this such an urgent matter when 75% are happy with their coverage. I agree, prices are skyrocketing, but if you think this option is sustainable then I am afraid you are going to be in for a big surprise in years to come.

Some things in the bill that my doctor was talking about the other day. Whether these get changed or not, who knows. Tell me if these are fair:
1. Single males without children must have a policy that covers pediatric services.
2. You're a woman who cannot have kids? Tough, your policy must cover maternity services.
3. Are you a teetotaler? --Too bad, your policy must cover substance abuse programs.
Those are under section 1302 of the bill.
Why should a single, healthy male, age 30, have to pay the same premiums as a 50 yr old mother of 5 who is on drugs, obese, and smokes?

Under section 2711, if you would like to pay less in premiums by buying insurance with lifetime or annual limits on coverage, you can no longer do that because health insurers will no longer offer such things.

They should be focusing on jobs in my opinion. Unfortunately, this will cost us jobs. I guess we could go work for the IRS. They'll be hiring.

I guess we'll see what happens. Based on history, I don't believe this will work. Independents like myself carry the swing votes in this country and one of these parties had better start toeing the line on spending or we'll just vote them all out, Repub or Dem.

You know I keep hearing these vague accusations bribing and threats to pass healthcare but I really haven't seen any real detail or evidence. Care to elaborate?

How will it cost jobs? Don't you think that more healthcare workers will need to be hired to care for the newly insured?

As for spending, at least this bill, unlike Bush's Medicare Drug bill is paid for and it actually reduces the deficit and doesn't add to it. Even so, I'd rather spend on things like the Stimulus Bill and Healthcare then for fighting wars and rebuilding Iraq and Afganistan.

 

[RapidBreath]

Driving is a privilege not a right. Theoretically, we have the right to live (until you commit a heinous crime and are convicted in a kill state.)

 

[Kettlecorn]

You know I keep hearing these vague accusations bribing and threats to pass healthcare but I really haven't seen any real detail or evidence. Care to elaborate?

How will it cost jobs? Don't you think that more healthcare workers will need to be hired to care for the newly insured?

As for spending, at least this bill, unlike Bush's Medicare Drug bill is paid for and it actually reduces the deficit and doesn't add to it. Even so, I'd rather spend on things like the Stimulus Bill and Healthcare then for fighting wars and rebuilding Iraq and Afganistan.

It is a little disingenuous for politicians to suddenly be concerned with deficits when they had no problems with deficits incurred by the war and Bush's tax cuts. Oh, and Bush did not even include the cost of the war in his budget! Very creative accounting!

 

[dorothyrd]

You know I keep hearing these vague accusations bribing and threats to pass healthcare but I really haven't seen any real detail or evidence. Care to elaborate?

How will it cost jobs? Don't you think that more healthcare workers will need to be hired to care for the newly insured?

As for spending, at least this bill, unlike Bush's Medicare Drug bill is paid for and it actually reduces the deficit and doesn't add to it. Even so, I'd rather spend on things like the Stimulus Bill and Healthcare then for fighting wars and rebuilding Iraq and Afganistan.

I wondered how long it would take for someone to bring the war into it. Old tired argument, we are talking about the future and what this will cost. It will NOT reduce the deficit, and it will cost much, much more than they are projecting, history is on our side showing that. In fact recent history.. it took only 4 years in Massachusetts to spend 3 times as much as they originally projected. Really, do you actually believe the dollar numbers they tell you?

I think that it will create lots, and lots of jobs.....government jobs on our tax dollar. No way this can be implemented and run without lots and lots of new government entities and jobs. Just wait and see.

 

[diane57]

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.

Completely completely agree. In most cases, I don't think millionaires work harder than those making minimum wage. I have quite a few millionaire clients and they have cushy jobs in big financial firms or law firms and take long lunches and go on vacation a lot. I have seen young associates in law firms put in fairly long hours but probably not longer than a poor woman working 2 jobs trying to feed her kids. Most wealthy people have had the benefits of education to slot them into the top-paying jobs, or they have been clever enough to invent Pet Rocks or whatever else America wants to purchase in mass quantities. But as far as hard work? I worked the hardest of any job of my life when I was a teenager working at fast food places for minimum wage scrubbing the chicken fryers and sweeping and mopping. I now work in a nice law firm with a pretty good salary and benefits. I am not working harder for my larger salary. The difference is I had a better education, which fortunately my mom could pay for, which enabled me to do a different job than a minimum wage job.

The people who come in to clean the office at night work very hard and I do not mind at all paying a larger chunk of my taxes so there will be some social programs to protect them.

Does anyone really think that Bill Gates works much harder than guys digging ditches? He has so much money he could probably pay for the health insurance package himself. I do not agree that he should keep every penny of his income because somehow he has "earned" it by working harder than anyone else.

 

[double t]

It is a little disingenuous for politicians to suddenly be concerned with deficits when they had no problems with deficits incurred by the war and Bush's tax cuts. Oh, and Bush did not even include the cost of the war in his budget! Very creative accounting!

Bush is not President now. The "two wrongs make it right" argument doesn't work. lol Plus, as I recall, Obama and his party were on board for "Bush's War". Before they were against it, that is.

You want to see creative accounting, you should check out how the CBO scored this bill. The assumptions and double counting are rampant. It's absolutely not paid for in any way shape or form. That's why they are taxing us now to pay for something that doesn't hit until 2014.

Someone above used roads and schools as an example of socialism....yeah, I suppose they are. And look at how crummy our schools and infrastructure are these days.
Bottom line for me is government can't get out of their own way and we should do all we can to keep them out of our lives in most things.

 

[double t]

Buffy---sorry I missed your post above.
See the Cornhusker Kickback, the Louisiana Purchase...and Gator Aid, among others. These are basically bribes to get votes.
I've also heard future jobs have been promised but I guess we'll see if that occurs. Happens in many admins but just because Obama does it doesn't make it ok.