![[Spencer Daily Reporter nameplate]](http://www.spencerdailyreporter.com/images/nameplate.png)
|
|
Fair ~ Wind Advisory High: 67°F ~ |
|
 Email link
 Read comments (37)
 Blog archive
Share:
Health Care Reform -- It's not as bad as you think.Posted Monday, March 22, 2010, at 7:22 AM
$940 billion over ten years! Oof! That number hits me like a brick. However, as of Monday morning, March 22, $978 billion of our tax dollars have gone to wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yes, we must fight terrorism, but isn't it also necessary to save the health and lives of our own? Good news: when the reforms are phased in - 2014, 95 percent of Americans will have coverage. Why? Those who don't have coverage, who are not low-income, will have to purchase coverage or pay a fine. Less good news for the individual but better for the common good because we will not have people using emergency rooms for non-emergencies, then not paying, so that we get stuck with the bill. Life-saving reforms Starting this year, insurers would be forbidden from placing lifetime dollar limits on policies, from denying coverage to children because of pre-existing conditions, and from canceling policies because someone gets sick. Isn't that great news! Get your mind around this -- let's say you have health insurance, you pay for it, you like it for the most part, and you wish everyone else would just get health insurance like yours, pay for it, and shut up. Surely you've had at least some issues with your insurance covering according to policy. Your insurance company would NOT be able to deny coverage because you've had an illness before you started that job, or because they can. There would not be a lifetime dollar limit -- I have friends who because of persistent, serious mental illness are approaching their one million dollar lifetime cap due to repeated inpatient hospitalization periods and failed attempts to alleviate their symptoms -- before they opt for ECT treatments that can easily run $50,000 to $75,000. This is their attempt to attack their symptoms enough so they can go back to work and avoid going on disability -- something else many taxpayers do not enjoy paying for. I cannot imagine how quickly someone with recurrent cancer, a catastrophic injury, heart disease, HIV/AIDS and other serious conditions could reach their lifetime cap. My mother was getting close in the 1980s before she opted not to have then-experimental heart/lung transplant surgery. That was due to a congenital heart disease that was 100% not her fault. What if it was you or your family member who was ill or injured when their treatment stopped because they hit the magic number? Parents would be able to keep young adult children on their coverage up to age 26. A new high-risk pool would offer coverage to uninsured people with medical problems until 2014, when the coverage expansion goes into high gear. Major consumer safeguards would also take effect in 2014. Insurers would be prohibited from denying coverage to people with medical problems or charging them more. Insurers could not charge women more. Medicaid and Medicare Yes, Medicaid is expanded. So is medicare, especially in the area of health care coverage for seniors. Do we really want grandpa and grandma to have to choose between buying food and buying medicine? Oh, that Nebraska thing where they bribed Nebraska by promising to pay the full cost of implementation for that state? Gone. They're not doing that anymore. Taxes Of course they're going to raise some taxes, silly. The law dramatically scales back a Senate-passed tax on high-cost insurance plans that was opposed by House Democrats and labor unions. The tax would be delayed until 2018, and the thresholds at which it is imposed would be $10,200 for individuals and $27,500 for families. To make up for the lost revenue, the bill applies an increased Medicare payroll tax to the investment income and to the wages of individuals making more than $200,000, or married couples above $250,000. The tax on investment income would be 3.8 percent. Businesses are NOT required to offer coverage. Instead, employers are hit with a fee if the government subsidizes their workers' coverage. The $2,000-per-employee fee would be assessed on the company's entire work force, minus an allowance. Companies with 50 or fewer workers are exempt from the requirement. Part-time workers are included in the calculations, counting two part-timers as one full-time worker. Look at it this way. You and I won't be subsidizing medicaid for thousands of workers at the world's largest employer because most of their workers miss the full time work threshold by two or three hours a week. In the long run, that's an everyday low price guarantee I'll get on board with. Almost no change for people working at medium-to-large size firms Those working at small firms, the self-employed and the uninsured pick from a plan offered through new state-based purchasing pools called exchanges, opening for business in 2014. The exchanges would offer the same kind of purchasing power that employees of big companies benefit from. People working for medium-to-large firms would not see major changes. But if they lose their jobs or strike out on their own, they may be eligible for subsidized coverage through the exchange. But they're going to cover abortions! No, they're not. No health plan would be required to offer coverage for abortion. In plans that do cover abortion, policyholders would have to pay for it separately, and that money would have to be kept in a separate account from taxpayer money. States could ban abortion coverage in plans offered through the exchange. Exceptions would be made for cases of rape, incest and danger to the life of the mother. Does this make more sense? All in all, after over a year of working on this, fighting about it, issuing scare tactics to raise opposition, and finally passing it in both the Senate and the House, I'm glad it's over. Maybe now they can work just as hard (but I hope not as long) on jobs, the economy, and what to do about the war. Comments Showing comments in chronological order [Show most recent comments first] |
Amy Hillgren Peterson has been married to Ed since 1992 and is the mother of three children: one at Spencer High School, one at Spencer Middle School, and one at Lincoln Elementary School. Her articles and essays have won several awards and have appeared in local and national publications. She is the author of a memoir and a novel, and is currently at work on a trilogy of stage plays. She blogs about faith, relationships, simple, sustainable living, mental health and creative writing.
Hot topics Because King would NEVER resort to a political stunt...(17 ~ 11:06 PM, Sep 2)
Five Houses for Every 1
What does Spencer need right now?
A Passion for Fashion
Original Theater Right Here!
|
![[Feed icon]](http://www.spencerdailyreporter.com/images/icons/feed-icon-14x14.png){kind=icon}
The one thing the anti gov't crowd never has an answer for is: what do you do with the least among us that can't help themselves (elderly, kids, disabled, etc.) whether it's providing health care, food or shelter?
Leaving it up to charity relies on the whims of people donating, enough charitable resources, honesty in the charities, charities that don't discriminate, access to the charities, etc.
Telling people to be self reliant is not an answer. Kids are not self reliant. Elderly may have been self reliant their whole lives then find themselves in need at the end of those lives.
As far as I can tell, the anti gov't crowd just doesn't care if people suffer and die needlessly. Except if it's them. They'll be first in line to get what they need.
This is an excellent blog. Thanks for taking the time to address some of the common concerns!
Sorry helped myself, I think you got that one a little backwards. Government always has more stipulations on how and who they give to. Charity should come from the local sources of Family, friends, and the church. I think you will find more compassion locally, than you ever would find from someone thousands of miles away from you. That goes ten times as much if it is the government you are looking to. It is funny how the people in government think they know best how and who, to give the money they confiscate from us to.
Do a search of John Stossel and charity, he has done the research to back my point. I will play the part of the government and do it for you . Here is the result of the search, http://townhall.com/columnists/JohnStoss... .
This health care bill has me sick to my stomach. I lost my job last year and with it my family health insurance. I didn't look to the government to fix it, I chose to go without for myself. We enrolled my family in my wife's work plan at a cost. I am now under her plan also, only because I choose to be. If this new bill was in effect at that time I would have had to "pay a fine" for CHOOSING not to have insurance. Now that is compassion for you from the government.
978 billion to the people who defend our freedoms and protect us from our enemies. The freedoms that the government is trying to take away, that's not enough pay if you ask me. Protecting us from foreign forces is the only thing government is sometimes good at. God bless those who fight for you and I.
You talk as though employers are the enemy or an entity that doesn't already pay their share.
"Instead, employers are hit with a fee if the government subsidizes their workers' coverage. The $2,000-per-employee fee would be assessed on the company's entire work force, minus an allowance." This just forces us into a government run health care. Why pay for any one employees health care if you have to pay 2000.00 for each employee. Down size 10 employees and you just saved your company 20,000 annually. Now there is an economy stimulator.
Insurance was a business till the government decided to take over. Life is not fair but when the insurance company only makes 3.9% profit margin, you cannot force them to take on bad risks (every sick person). Anheuser-Busch makes a 8.87 % profit margin maybe the government should get into that business. They can give us all free beer, and we can all drink our healthcare worries away. While insuring everyone is a great idea it won't work in a sober world.
When healthcare is free people will abuse it. If I have to pay for my doctor visit I am only going when I need to. Ever heard the saying you get what you pay for? With this new law only the rich will be able to get good health care by paying for it.
I would like to write to all the points on the blog, but I need to do some work now so I can pay for everyone to go see the doctor for their runny noses.
Metalman, I respect your opinion. I have to clarify something that either I didn't express correctly or was not read correctly.
"...employers are hit with a fee IF THE GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIZES THEIR WORKERS' COVERAGE."
In other words, if a larger business pays so little their workers can't afford the company health plan and must go on Medicaid, then they get the fee. Small businesses are exempt from this, as are businesses who offer the company health plan to all workers and pay a living wage.
I do also hope God blesses the military people who are fighting abroad. However, since when has a war the U.S. has been involved in lasted seven years (if you just count from the invasion of Iraq -- nine if you go from the attacks in Afghanistan)? I do wish the President and Congress had worked as long and hard on solving the problems that led to the war as they have on health care.
When somebody chooses not to have insurance, it can become a drain on everybody else. What if you get sick or injured? Who will pay for it?
Aimee,
Not having Insurance is a CHOICE with that Choice I accept the responsibilities of my actions. I risk what I own or even my life. It would not be a burden that others would have to bare for me. If you make it that everyone must have health care you do make it a burden on all.
Stop living in a idealistic land, this does not work it's been tried. The United States is the greatest country in the world but even it cannot make this work. The government will ration who gets treated and when, it happens in Canada. I have talked personally to people in Canada who have experienced it. You can get anything you want done for free if you live long enough to get your turn. "Canada doesn't have good home grown doctors they move to the USA to practice medicine" that is a quote from a nurse I know in Canada. They import their doctors from other countries.
This world is about making CHOICES. God gave us the freedom to make them, don't let government make them for you in the name of helping.
Metalman-Perfectly Said!
Thanks for the realistic views Metalman. Amy and Aimee are the poster children for "journalistic and liberal" optimism.
Let me get this straight: health care plan written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it but exempts themselves from it, to be signed by a president that also hasn't read it, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes... all to ...be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that's broke.
To commemorate this glorious day, the President is expected to issue an Executive Order tonight ordering that all toilet paper used in the White House and Congress be printed with the US Constitution to make it clear how they feel about the document that built this great Nation...
It must be the name.
Here are my problems with Health Care Reform: 1. the fact that it is such a huge reform package (read: many, many aspects lumped into one large package) and 2. the fact that I am experiencing government-run healthcare currently (US military), and there are many problems.
1. I believe that this reform could have been better handled as several smaller pieces of legislation instead of one large package. Not every American (or their congressman/woman) is going to be satisfied with EVERYTHING, but you run a much better chance of doing so by introducing small aspects at once and guaging public and expert opinion on each. Also, changes that are deemed necessary could already be taking place. Instead, we are sitting here a year after work began just beginning to pass the thing. I also believe its easier for individuals and government to achieve one thing at a time.
2. I'm currently experiencing government-run health care, and while our insurance is great, the standard of care is not. Many of those who are insured are being forced to wait long periods of time for their health care, and most are being asked to use a foreign provider because there just aren't enough doctors to handle everyone. There aren't enough funds to bring in more doctors, so for the time being, we have to live with it.
My child, who is now 2, hasn't received her 12 month dental check-up because the [ONLY] pediatric dentist is overbooked but since they forsee openings "in the near future" we won't be allowed to seek care locally. There is no OB/GYN (or OB equipment) available locally, either, and this is a community made up of mostly 18-30 year olds- prime years for childbearing.
The shortage of care isn't the only issue- then you have the red tape. To be referred to a non-government provider requires you to fill out paperwork, wait in line, and meet with the referrer, when they will tell you they will email you so you can come in to actually get your referral. After you receive your appointment to make an appointment, you have to go back in so they can tell you you will have an appointment soon. You then finally get your referral, and still have to book your non-government appointment.
Another (ridiculous) example is the process to make an appointment at the clinic. You can call from home, but if you need a follow-up appointment, you cannot walk up to the desk with the "APPOINTMENTS" sign above it. You must walk across the room, pick up the phone, and talk to the very same attendant at the appointment desk OVER THE PHONE. IN THE SAME ROOM. THEN, you can make your follow-up. If, of course, they have room.
I hate these long diatribes when others post them, so I apologize. However, this issue hits close to home, and I do feel that I have first-hand knowledge. Maybe this time, they will get it right, but after seeing what's currently going on, you have to wonder...
Charities are good only if they exist, have resources and are available to those in need. What about people living in remote locations where there is no community?
As far as taking responsibility for your own health care and not buying insurance, I hope you don't ever, ever, ever show up at a free clinic or an ER without a credit card when you're sick as I'd hate for you to be in violation of your own convictions.
If you want to be covered by health insurance when you're old and sick, you need to contribute when you're young and healthy too.
There were elections. The duely elected officials enacted a law per the rules of the constitution. Thank goodness for this country. The people have spoken and were heard. This bill isn't perfect but it's a strong foundation that took over 100 years to get laid.
If the GOP plans to run on putting the donut hole back in Medicare Part D they originally put there, on allowing ins. companies to deny sick kids coverage for pre-existing conditions, on allowing ins. companies to set arbitrary limits, then they will continue to lose elections.
Some here seem to prefer paying for health care by holding fund raisers. What happens if there's a community disaster injuring a large percentage of that community? Will the healthy few pay to heal the whole town?
I know, why not plan ahead, pool small donations from everyone over an extended periods of time and make the funds available to those that contributed as needed?! We could call it INSURANCE!!!
And if you never need to use the insurance, then THANK YOUR LUCKY STARS!!!
helped_myself, I also notice the large number of fund raisers. I think many of them are to pay for frequent travel and lodging for the family to see the injured or ill person, etc. However, I also know some came about because insurance stopped paying, found a loophole so they could refuse coverage, or would only cover a skeleton of the needed care, or would only pay for a substandard care facility.
Your point about the disaster is great, too. And for Metalman -- what if your entire family was in a disaster or accident. Even if it was not your fault and out of your control, doctors and hospitals would want money, lots of money.
If a family came in who could not pay, the emergency rooms would still be obligated to provide the treatment. Then, guess who'd be paying one way or another anyway?
There are no easy answers. I once thought a program like the link below, was good, but they don't pay for mental health treatment and a lot of other things they deem to be "un-Christian."
http://www.samaritanministries.org/works...
It's not a total solution, and one must be Christian to join, but it would fit in with meeting a health care need at the point of need rather than paying premiums over a long time for care you might not need.
You know the thing that makes me so upset about this heath care bill is that you CANNOT chose or be FREE to have coverage or not. You will pay penalties if you don't have the coverage that the government sees fit you should have. That is not the America that I know. Our freedoms are being taken away from us this is just the beginning of more of our freedoms to be taken. Beyond that the CBO says the numbers aren't there to fund this bill. What happens when they ration care? What happens when the States have to start paying medicare? What happened to CHOICE? What happened to the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS not the right to?
Ablthicks -- I do appreciate your answer and I will address it in another post. What leaped into my mind upon reading it though -- how does this compare to auto insurance? Everyone must have at least liability insurance or pay a fine? Why? Because if you're in an accident, you must have coverage to pay for damages and injuries caused. Otherwise someone's uninsured motorist policy or the people in general will foot the bill for the medical expenses.
So what about medical coverage? If someone is in a catastrophic accident, has an illness, etc., very few individuals or families can pay the medical bills associated with that. If the patient can't pay, the hospital is still obligated to provide some level of care. Who pays for that?
Don't get me wrong -- I'm not looking forward to the requirement to have insurance no matter what. We've been pretty lucky and healthy and thus I'm sure paying for insurance will be more expensive than pay-as-we-go -- unless something catastrophic happens.
Why us there no mention of the IRS in any of this discussion or Article?
I hope Iowa has enough common sense to allow us to opt out of this unconstitutional piece of garbage that was past. The American people were not for this bill and these idiots did not listen. I wish all these people living off my hard work were proud enough to sit on the corner and hold their hand out. At least I would respect that.
The good news is, this bill will not hold up in court, the democrats will be out of office in November, and hopefully we impeach this Socialist Dictator who can't even govern. He had to use our tax dollars to buy the votes he needed, he is not capable enough to do it on his own. What a leader.
Our founders would slap Pelosi right across the mouth. I would love to see it, she would have been imprisoned for treason. Our founders would slap most of us in the face for this needy, handout, society. People should be expected to take care of themselves. If you get sick and don't have insurance and the hospital saves your life, you should have to give up what valuables you have. Would you rather be alive and have to find a new home or dead? You have to pay for things, the ones who can't well they better start making an effort.
It is funny how all these democrats point to these crazy socialist countries as being great. When is the last time you heard of people boarding a boat to get to Cuba, or when Russia was a Super Power who was trying to go there? Nobody, those people are so poor. Our bums on the street live better than working people in most countries. We all can't have everything get it through your skulls people. These stats that people 45,000 people die because they don't have health insurance every year. What a bunch of crap. Those people would have died with or without health insurance. Well every year millions of people die with Health insurance, I guess if I was a betting man I would go without.
Strangely...I would have to side with DWD for once!! I would like to see the stats of how many people died WITH health insurance last year!! Probably staggering!! **chuckles** I do agree that SOMETHING needs to be done. But more hand outs at the expense of hard working, tax paying citizens isn't the thing to do!! We simply can't afford it!! In my family, if we can't afford something...we simply don't get it!! We don't go knock on our neighbor's door and ask them to buy it for us!!! We either do without or save for the things we want!! We, as a country, need to stand on our own two feet. We need to stop waiting for a bailout and save ourselves!! There ARE jobs out there...perhaps not great jobs...but jobs that pay money, jobs that will pay the bills, jobs that will keep us from needing to lean on the government and stand with our hands out!! Get out there and flip a burger if you have to...America needs to stop being too good to work!! Amen.
I didn't read or intend anything in this blog to mean that we should support people who refuse to work and stand with hands out. This is about working people who have paid in to health insurance policies not having to be told they aren't covered when they do get sick.
Many insurers lately have collected premiums for years from people while they were well then balked at paying when they were sick or injured. No one in that situation is looking for a hand-out. They just want to receive the coverage they paid for in their premiums.
Also, so many people are out of work now -- does it make sense for them to pay MORE for health insurance than they did when they were working? Now they can BUY into a single payer plan at a group rate with others who are unemployed, self employed or "other." That way if they do have an emergency, their hospital bill will (we hope) be paid by insurance and you and I won't end up paying when they can't with higher medical bills to cover those who don't pay.
On a similar note -- I just called Congressman Steve King's office 202-225-4426 to let him know as a constituent that I was appalled by his violent, irresponsible language the other night when he talked of "chasing down...taking out" the political opponents of himself and the Tea Party Patriots, of "forcing a reckoning." He is also talking of secession -- all because he didn't happen to win Sunday night.
I think whatever side of the aisle you're on, it would be good if King heard from his constituents that his language and behavior Sunday night was irresponsible and uncalled for. If a Democrat had used such violent language, King would have been first in line to call for his or her resignation. I'm not calling for King's resignation -- I think the voters should decide on that in November. I'm asking Rep. King to actually rethink and apologize for what he said. Not say it was a joke taken out of context but really use his brain before he says outlandish, harmful things all the time.
As far as his floating the idea of secession -- no. I want the country to stay united and he should too. Do you think it's right for our congressman, even in "jest" to talk about secession as an actual solution?
This law is a joke. I don't have a lot of time to so here are few points:
-Somebody here mentioned auto insurance and how we have to pay a fine if we get a ticket or into an accident, etc if we don't have insurance. The difference is the IRS is not regulating and taxing us if we don't have auto insurance. Why doesn't the gov't pass a law forcing all of us to have Uninsured Motorist insurance and then have the IRS check up on us to make sure we do? I mean, any body who doesn't have a car could be walking across the street and be runover by some uninsured motorist.
-The 50 or fewer employees: Companies that are very close (55 - 65 employes) to the cut off will more than likely dump the extra 5 - 15 employees so they don't have to offer insurance. But that's ok because those people can surely get jobs that pay minimum wage at the world's largest employer.
-It's funny to me how the major parts of this law don't actually take effect until 2014 (two years into the next presidency). This administration knew exactly what they were doing when they wrote this in. The next POTUS (and, yes, I'm betting it won't be Obama) will have to deal with this disaster. This administration just wanted to pass something "historic" and they will leave the fallout for their successors.
-This law basically tells people 'Don't attempt to make more money or try to better yourself because Big Daddy Government is here to take care of you.' If people do work hard to take care of themselves and earn gobs of money they will just get taxed from here to eternity. Same thing goes for small business - don't grow or you will get penalized.
-Education: Where is the mention of the takeover of education loans? The next thing that will happen is the government will say, sure we'll give you a loan but in return (and in addition to repayment) you must serve your government in some capacity for X amount of years.
This law is a joke. Yes, we need some sort of option for people who are truly down on their luck but this is not the way to go about it. And, no, an insurance companies shouldn't be allowed to dump you after you've paid your premiums and actually need to use your insurance. I guess to me healthcare reform would be looking at what people are actually being charged for services during clinic visits and hospital stays, and ending frivolous lawsuits. Going to a doctor and trusting them is a gamble. They are not God but human and they make mistakes. It's a chance you take.
First of all lets get all the facts straight. The Liar in Chief Obama said that now all kids will be covered immediately. Well as you can see he didn't read the bill because kids with preexisting conditions won't be covered until 2014. Second you think the insurance companies are horrible. If you took all the profits from every health insurance provider for one year you could cover the American people for only 2 days. Yes billions of dollars sounds like a lot, but they take hundreds of billions of dollars in risk. If you think that the private health insurance companies don't pay claims, the government is almost 3 times more likely to deny a claim than a private insurer.
By the way how come the govt tells us not to smoke, but Obama does. They tells us we shouldn't feed our kids fast food, but the Obamas do. They tell us this is so great for us, but they are exempt and won't participate in it.
Yes people are out of work right now. Shouldn't it have been their responsibility to have a plan if that happened? What happened to personal responsibility? Shouldn't people maybe save money before they waste it on cable tv, internet, cell phones, or a new car? People who don't have an income already have health care anyway. The only thing this bill does is raise our taxes. We have to pay taxes on this for 4 years before it even goes into effect. The 940 billion or whatever made up number is over the next ten years. More than likely if you would look at any govt projection you can double if not triple that figure. Plus since it does not take effect until 2014 it is really over six years. The full coverage of the 32 million won't be there until 2018.
You have been bamboozled people. Children who have medical conditions were suppose to be covered today, sorry try back in 4 years. Our taxes were not suppose to go up, sorry you will be bringing home less very soon. Quality of care is going to be as good as you get from the school nurse on the days she is not there.
You will accuse me of hating the poor, far from it. In fact I would argue that Obama and his anti American friends are the ones that hate the poor. In the America I know a poor person can climb out of the gutter and become successful. In today's America if you are poor we are going to make being poor comfortable. Sounds familiar. Here grandma, your old. There is no sense prolonging the inevitable. Have a pill.
What a bunch of weak, pathetic, dirt bags we have turned into. Mr. Obama will you take care of me? I really need the help. I am unable to plan, and I really wanted to do better. It is just like giving a child a participation trophy, what a bunch of crap. Lets keep our kids on our insurance until they are 40, then they never have to become adults. Wouldn't that be nice.
Wake up, quit being babies. Take care of yourself, if you have extra help your neighbor. The government won't help and doesn't care about you and your problems.
Participation Trophy!!! LOVE IT!! I find it strange that I am agreeing with you DWD, as you are the villian. I find very little that I don't agree with on your post. It is time we stop enabling the poor to become poorer, the weak to become weaker. For God's sake people, pull yourself up and get on with it!!
What I find so utterly ridiculous is the fact that people are complaining about putting insurance on your life but have no complaints about putting MANDATORY insurance on your vehicle. Last I knew if you got pulled over without insurance you were fined a hefty amount (roughly $360) EACH TIME you are found without insurance. So you could be fined once a day for a whole year. This bill is a once a year fine. Funny how that diesel pickup is more important than your life or the well being of your children...
So what you are saying is I should quit paying on my insurance and be uninsured. I would be fined only 200 bucks. Sound like a deal to me.
I'm still waiting to hear April Fools but I see we are still in the month of March
Driving is a choice I have. If I choose to drive, I have to buy insurance. I do not have to buy insurance if I don't drive.
Under this retarded law you have to buy insurance. If you don't you have to pay the fine. Lets think about this fine for a minute. For most people the fine is about $600/yr, insurance is probably $1200/per person or more. Why would I buy the insurance? If I get sick they can no longer turn me down, so why spend any money on it until I get sick. Now tell me this policy won't bankrupt our country.
Obviously the people making the laws are not capable of reading them.
Jusa- get a clue. Nobody said that. The difference between auto insurance and health insurance is that the health insurance will now be tracked by the IRS. Realistically people will not be pulled over everyday and its very unlikely they would even need to use their insurance in a year's time. Its a safety net - same as health insurance. You're screwed if you have it; you're screwed if you don't.
But you did touch on something that I don't think was intentional on your part... Insurance on your life. Mandatory life insurance makes way more sense than mandatory health insurance. As Ben Franklin said nothing in this world is certain except for death and taxes. So I guess I would rather pay taxes on something that would be of absolute benefit to me even though I'm dead. I mean, at least my family would have some kind of financial security after I'm gone.
I would still like to see someone address how they are going to maintain the standard of care- as I stated before, we already have government run health insurance and the insurance is not the issue.
I think it's safe to say everyone promotes personal responsibility and that if a person can find affordable health insurance and someone to sell it to them, they should buy it. There are many comments demanding people take responsibilty for themselves, but that means nothing to those that chose otherwise.
So, when this becomes a requirement to do what many are demanding, suddenly, the very supporters of personal responsibility are against applying consequences. I don't get it. Will they be dropping their health insurance now too? After all the fine is $95 a year for those not exempt, to be noted in tax returns. That's much cheaper than the insurance.
People need to take personal responsibility. Those of us who do that everyday are angry because this mandate the government placed on us does not make the the rest of society take responsibility. It makes us take responsibility for them. I am curious as to how many of you that support this bill actually read it. How do you feel about 7 Billion going to fund jungle gyms? I know its only 7 Billion and you are not contributing any of it. How about the billions that are going to Native American Sex offenders? Do you think that these two items will bring down the cost of health care? I can go on and on, and usually do, but you can't teach stupid people anything. Which is why our public schools are failing, we keep trying.
Get off you butts people and get a job, wait there aren't any. I wonder why. When you do get a job spend your money wisely. If you are not saving money, don't complain when you lose your job and they take your house. It is your fault. It is your fault when your car gets taken away. Probably shouldn't have had a car payment. Cut up your credit cards and prioritize your life. Quit making us bail you out. 47% of you don't pay taxes, yet you get all the benefits. 1% pay 39% of the taxes, or 1% of us are supporting 47% of this country. No taxation without representation does that sound familiar? Well it is time to stop representing that 47% without making them contribute to society.
DWD, have you ever stopped to think about who makes up those 47%?
Around 12% of the population is 65+ and those numbers are growing. Retired people don't pay income taxes on Social Security or their small withdrawls from their retirement accounts. They have already paid into the system.
Then on the other end, you have the youngsters. Around 13% of the population is between 20-29. Much of this age group is still getting their education, and not making much money yet. So, they aren't paying in, either.
You make it sound like 47% of the country is sitting on their rears at home. It's not that simple.
Lake writer you said "I'm asking Rep. King to actually rethink and apologize for what he said. Not say it was a joke taken out of context but really use his brain before he says outlandish, harmful things all the time." I think you are giving King too much credit. Asking him to "rethink" something he said assumes that he thought about it in the first place. And I don't know where to begin with him "really us[ing] his brain before he [speaks]". Steve King is a blowhard who will say anything for attention - much like a class clown in school (King: Congress clown; I like it)
Iowaskeptic -- I did in fact call Steve King's Washington DC office and spoke to a very polite young man on his staff who listened, asked questions to clarify which day/event/words I was speaking of, and dutifully took down what I said. However, he then stopped just short of saying, "Good luck with that." He seemed surprised to actually have a call where someone bothered to raise an objection to what King said, but I really felt listened to and not "handled" by the staffer.
King, I'm sure, had a good laugh.
Europeans think of themselves as not living in a 'socialized' country but rather in a 'civilized' country. What a great way to look at it!
What about the hidden agenda of the government takeover of the student loan program via this new healthcare law? Any thoughts on that one.
Also, where are the doctors and the nurses and the other healthcare workers in this great debacle? I want to hear from them. What about hospital administrators or nursing home administrators...what do they have to say about this?
Well Spencer is going to lose a few surgeons to early retirement that I know to be a fact. Over 1/3 of all doctors plan to retire early, which will will only lead to more problems. The more that insurance has become a role in health care the higher costs have gone and the worse care has become. Parents need to stop wasting the doctors time every time their children or they spike a little fever or have a runny nose. If people had to pay the full cost of going to the doctor instead of a little copay, they would only go to the doctor when they were sick. As a dentist it is only going to be a matter of time before braces are a right, or having white teeth.
Nursing home administrators are worried. Basically everyone in the health care profession is worried, minus the instructors and the students who are unable to understand what this will actually do since all they do is treat freebies anyway.
Another issue is the lack of high quality doctors we will produce. I know of several students who are no longer going to pursue the profession. In a profession that only took the best of the best minus the quotas, is now going to lower the standards. I am sure that will lead to better care.
Insurance companies were required by law to pay out 65% of every dollar collected. That left them 35% to pay staff, stockholders, and meet the government required reserve. Under the new law they are required to pay out 85%, now what options do they have. They can either raise premiums to ridiculous levels, or shut down. This is a sneaky way for the government to become the only option.
If the purpose of this bill is to cover everyone. Why did it take 2700 pages to say that? If you are for universal health care, you are an idiot, but you still should be concerned about this. If you aren't reading the writing on the wall, then you haven't been paying attention. They tell business owners they can no longer allow costumers to smoke, yet because that is bad for business they exempt government money makers from the law. They are going to tell us what we can eat, drink, how much we have to exercise, how late we can stay out, what we can watch, people look at what is happening.
They make these laws saying they are to protect us. Did you ride in a car seat when you were a kid? I didn't. Did you wear a bike helmet? I didn't. We have are freedom to choose taken away, to save a few lives. I would rather have the choice to take a chance and have freedom.
"Why did it take 2700 pages to say that?"
Now THAT, I find humorous.
The conspicuous fact that only one political party, with only a bare majority, voted for the health care takeover bill, against bi-partisan congressional opposition and 53% to 65% of the citizens opposed, should raise a red flag that it may have been primarily a politically driven power & money grab.
Congress, regardless of which party controls it, has continually led the country further & further into the present & rapidly rising 12.87 Trillion dollar national debt which is now growing about $12,000 PER SECOND, or over a $BILLION PER DAY!
Thomas Jefferson left this sound advice: "It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world. Leave no authority existing not responsible to the people." How does any parent or grandparent justify their willingness to pass on the mountainous national debt to enslave their descendants? Just because it is more satisfying to spend more than we can earn ourselves?
Soc.Sec., Medicare, Medicaid, & various other gov't-run programs are chronically riddled with billions of waste, fraud, & abuse and are becoming unsustainable. (Prime example, S.S. dips into red ink this year.) Where is the example that causes any competent person to think that a management & oversight entity like Congress, with such a long record of insolvent management and perpetual corrupting political conflicts of interest, would be a good choice to take over one sixth of the national economy??? Did anyone notice how they failed to oversee Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac & other institutions and prevent the recent sub-prime mortgage fiasco?
There seems to be no good reason health insurance should be "free" to the individual and the responsibility of an employer, the gov't, or someone else, any more than house insurance, car insurance, or any other insurance. Ben Franklin made this observation, which will probably never be uttered by a typical politician today: "I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer."
When some activity or behavior is taxed, it nearly always discourages it; when either is subsidized or rewarded in some way, it encourages more of the same. For decades the U.S. has been fostering a growing entitlement mentality that consumes ever more of the federal budget and leading us toward bankruptcy. Politicians are inclined to perpetually "give a man a fish" (confiscated from someone else of course, and then hope to win the recipient's vote), as opposed to "teaching him how to fish" and placing some expectation on the individual.
Congress cannot make everybody happy or prosperous just by confiscating more & more money from the productive people, and handing some of it back to a chosen group, many of whom then have less reason to be self-sufficient and instead just wait for the next handout.