Due to some preexisting conditions I can't afford health care. The government says I make to much to get help from them.
For those of you opposed to government health care, what do you want me to do?
I get sick, where should I go? Free clinics take away from work, and hence my ability to provide for my family.
If I broke my arm, not only could I not afford healthcare, I would not be able to work, then I would have to go on welfare. Just going to cost you more money in the long run.
I'm honest, I'm hard working, I work 40+ hours a week, in a low paying field (Food, you know the stuff you eat, I'm the one that makes it), I'm good at what I do, and to date, I have not killed anyone with my cooking.
I have broken no laws, and but due mainly to private enterprise not being regulated, or being overtly regulated, by government, I can't retain services that might save my life, and spare me a substantial amount of pain.
For those of you who would deny me healthcare, because I'm poor, what do you want me to do?
Is living in the greatest country the world has ever seen not enough to ensure that in case of illness, I can continue to provide for my family, and the people in the community to which I serve?
Don't tell me to get a better job either, it's not out there. I'm always looking.
I could have worked a factory job 30 years ago and been alright, but we all know what happened there.
Businesses send away my work, I'm told to find a job, people raise prices, I'm told to work more. I am afflicted by the same conditions as everyone else, yet I can't receive help?
I'm guessing the majority who disagree with healthcare reform have never been poor. It sucks FYI.
My heart goes out to you for the situation you're in. If you want to give more info on the circumstances, maybe the folks here could offer suggestions that could help you. (I'm not suggesting you release personal info...just what your condition is, what you've tried, etc. There might be options out there you haven't heard of.)
I'm sure you're a great, upstanding guy who works very hard, and I appreciate and applaud your work ethic. Unfortunately, fairness is a nice fairy-tale concept but it doesn't exist in nature.
In being against Obamacare, I'm not trying to deny you anything other than the opportunity to take my money without my consent: You don't have a right to demand that I contribute to pay for something you can't afford and to use the government -- and by extension, the threat of violent force -- to see that it happens.
For the record, I've been poor and without health care. I'm not rich today. But if I lost my job tomorrow, I wouldn't demand you or anyone else pay for things I need. I guess it's a matter of different fundamental principles.
Similar situation (though I get mine back next month due to obamacare) though I don't support a government option or the vast majority of the Obamacare bill. There are parts I do support in it though, like the regulations that make it so insurance companies can't deny you based on pre-existing conditions. The bill did do some good. I'm not against reform, I'm against more requirements, taxes, and government power.
Well does that mean that you guys are also against car insurance (why shall I pay for your stupidity?) house insurance (see car insurance), flood insurance (why shall I pay because you build you house in a flood area?).
The idea of insurance is that everybody pays a little, so anybody can have insurance.
Has anybody ever analysed the "Obamacare" bill? Do you have the background knowledge to decide, what is right or wrong in it? Or do you just believe what the talking heads on TV say?
A fact is that Americans pay the highest cost for Health Care of all industrialized nations, but have the least outcome! That means, we are wasting lots of money with the current absolutely broken system.
Motorcharge writes he likes the thing that no body can be prevented form getting a insurance, even with pre-existing conditions. But everything else can go by the wayside. Well, that is nice! I have worked all my life in health care and know that patients with pre-existing conditions are the most costly. Does that mean that you expect me to pay for your insurance, because that is what you say you like about the bill!
Brian says he doesn't want anything of that because he is not willing to pay for anybody besides himself. What are your recommendations? what shall we do with the about 40 Million people that can't afford insurance or can't get any? Shall we leave them die in the alleys?
Or shall we continue like we do presently and help them in the most expensive health care settings we know off, the emergency rooms? By the way, you also pay for those treatments indirectly with higher Doc cost, etc.
Or shall I and my peers work for free in those emergency rooms? What do you see as solution? All modern countries in this world have a national health insurance system, the US is the only country without one!
Let's hear some ideas how we could help fellow citizens like Funetical, or shall we send him away when he comes to the emergency room because you don't want to share his bill with me and millions of other Americans?
And if you ever happen to lay in front of me in the operating room, shall I say that I don't want to care for you because you don't care for your fellow citizens?
Well does that mean that you guys are also against car insurance (why shall I pay for your stupidity?) house insurance (see car insurance), flood insurance (why shall I pay because you build you house in a flood area?).
The idea of insurance is that everybody pays a little, so anybody can have insurance.
The difference is that with Obamacare everybody is forced to pay, but with conventional insurance the individual makes the decision (unless the item in question is not owned by the individual yet, as with a car or house). I don't think anyone here objects to insurance. What some object to is being forced to purchase what we may not want in order that our taxes that go toward paying for that benefit for others who cannot afford it under normal channels.
My suggestion is to revise the "normal channels" to make it easier and less-costly for folks to get it rather than compel people to pay. The latter -- compelling people to pay for something they don't want -- is illegal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hudsoner
Has anybody ever analysed the "Obamacare" bill? Do you have the background knowledge to decide, what is right or wrong in it? Or do you just believe what the talking heads on TV say?
A group of friends and I spent several hours going through the final bill. Yes, we've read it. Have you?
I don't watch TV.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hudsoner
A fact is that Americans pay the highest cost for Health Care of all industrialized nations, but have the least outcome! That means, we are wasting lots of money with the current absolutely broken system.
We do pay among the highest fees for health care, but our outcome is actually outstanding. The system is broken, but introducing more government into the mix is exactly the wrong thing to do. Fix the system by removing government -- and by extension, the allure of infinite taxpayer dollars -- allow interstate commerce insofar as insurance companies may do business over state lines, and implement tort reform.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hudsoner
Motorcharge writes he likes the thing that no body can be prevented form getting a insurance, even with pre-existing conditions. But everything else can go by the wayside. Well, that is nice! I have worked all my life in health care and know that patients with pre-existing conditions are the most costly. Does that mean that you expect me to pay for your insurance, because that is what you say you like about the bill!
For the record, I disagree with Motorcharge. The providers of a service determine your costs to receive that service, not the government. If someone is grossly overweight, his family has a history of diabetes and he smokes two packs a day, it is wrong for the government to force a company to charge him the same amount it charges someone who diligently works to stay in shape and doesn't abuse his body.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hudsoner
Brian says he doesn't want anything of that because he is not willing to pay for anybody besides himself. What are your recommendations? what shall we do with the about 40 Million people that can't afford insurance or can't get any? Shall we leave them die in the alleys?
How about we make it less costly for them to get the coverage they need through free-market methods rather than the Nanny State method?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hudsoner
Or shall we continue like we do presently and help them in the most expensive health care settings we know off, the emergency rooms? By the way, you also pay for those treatments indirectly with higher Doc cost, etc.
Or shall I and my peers work for free in those emergency rooms?
Given the choice between my working for free in my job (by virtue of having to pay taxes that rob me blind to cover someone else's needs) or you working for free, I'd opt for you getting screwed rather than me. That's basic self-interest.
But rather than have either of us get screwed, how about we return to the basic concept of a meritocracy: When one does good work and earns a fair wage, ONE GETS TO KEEP IT and one is not compelled by force to give it to others who have not exerted equal determination or talent to earn as much?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hudsoner
What do you see as solution? All modern countries in this world have a national health insurance system, the US is the only country without one!
Have you seen Europe recently? Are you aware of the fiscal problems in Ireland, England, Germany, France, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece and other nations? Their attempt to have government control access to commercially-offered products and services and regulate pricing along the way has, over time, caused their nations to overspend in a grand way. They cannot cover their debt.
The U.S. is in extremely bad shape in this regard, too. Our social spending has bankrupted municipal, state and federal coffers. Shall we double-down with Obamacare? I don't think so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hudsoner
Let's hear some ideas how we could help fellow citizens like Funetical, or shall we send him away when he comes to the emergency room because you don't want to share his bill with me and millions of other Americans?
I would really like to see if there is some way we could find a solution to Funetical's conundrum. I've said as much.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hudsoner
And if you ever happen to lay in front of me in the operating room, shall I say that I don't want to care for you because you don't care for your fellow citizens?
I care for my fellow citizens more than you can imagine. That is precisely why I am against giving them anything they did not earn, but I am for establishing a free-market system that makes what they might want or need less costly.
the biggest issue with the difference between the two is that most of the things you listed are optional, you can choose to drive a car/own a house etc
the two insurance ideas a re different though, with homeowner's/car insurance the rates are generally determined by the owner's actions so having risk based pricing is fair to all, drive safer and you will likely end up paying less, and while the same is slightly true for medical insurance, often it isn't or is affected by outside influences, eating right is always good but getting hit by a car or getting cancer aren't always preventable situations
The problem with our current health system is that health care is done by employer based plans, so if you switch jobs you lose coverage and a new plan counts it as a pre-existing condition, unlike a car or homewoner's insurance issues can go on for a lifetime, the most fair comparison would be if your homeowner's insurance company had a system to monitor your fire alarm and then cancel the the policy the moment the fire alarm goes off so they are only responsible for what the fire damaged up till that point.
insurance is meant to be paid in case something goes wrong and cover it when it does and usually works for cars/homes etc when a bad occurrence creates damage over a time span of minutes or seconds but this same model does not work for the time span of years.
sadly most people seem fine with having individual policies being pretty much watered down to being just discount cards with a little coverage but offering very little real/dependable insurance
sadly except for trying to get accepted into the state's high risk pools I'm not sure what else to recommend. I have sort-of been there as in buying individual plans and as far as a dependable contract they are not. you pay first and then in a few weeks find out how much they excluded from payment and how big their loopholes are. When signing up they actually asked me what dates I had any medical treatment for ACNE, seriously. not just month or year but the day and if they can find a record that contradicts my best guess technically they could cancel the policy according to their terms. Plus they had soem very vague questions like "abnormal test results", to an average person what does that mean exactly?
The ideal system needs to have people buying insurance directly for themselves from a marketplace and leaving the employer completely out of the picture (maybe offer a way for the employer to put credits towards the employees balance on the marketplace but that's it if they want to offer it as a benefit) but that is where I think this country made it's biggest error in handling health insurance as it works great for the people that have access to it, but everyone else gets royally screwed over by the system
The difference is that with Obamacare everybody is forced to pay, but with conventional insurance the individual makes the decision (unless the item in question is not owned by the individual yet, as with a car or house). I don't think anyone here objects to insurance. What some object to is being forced to purchase what we may not want in order that our taxes that go toward paying for that benefit for others who cannot afford it under normal channels.
well yes everyone has to pay to get everyone covered, this maintains the method for the buyer having a choice instead of single payer
Quote:
My suggestion is to revise the "normal channels" to make it easier and less-costly for folks to get it rather than compel people to pay. The latter -- compelling people to pay for something they don't want -- is illegal.
you mean like a health care exchange market where everyon buys in with group protections and the plans have a gurateed minimum level of coverage set by common standards? like obamacare?
Quote:
A group of friends and I spent several hours going through the final bill. Yes, we've read it. Have you?
did you read the republican plan to see how bad the alternative was going to be?
Quote:
We do pay among the highest fees for health care, but our outcome is actually outstanding.
well yes charging about 20% more of our GDP towards healthcare while excluding much of it from 1/6 of our population I would have to wonder why it's not far, far better. some of those european countries plans include spa visits and a doctor that makes housecalls when you are sick, for what we spend we should be getting some of those
Quote:
For the record, I disagree with Motorcharge. The providers of a service determine your costs to receive that service, not the government. If someone is grossly overweight, his family has a history of diabetes and he smokes two packs a day, it is wrong for the government to force a company to charge him the same amount it charges someone who diligently works to stay in shape and doesn't abuse his body.
and weight and smoking are factors that can be charged differently for
Quote:
How about we make it less costly for them to get the coverage they need through free-market methods rather than the Nanny State method?
free market methods would destroy any consumer protections, did you even read the republicans "free market" plan? the consumers would just be royally screewed with their plan
Quote:
The U.S. is in extremely bad shape in this regard, too. Our social spending has bankrupted municipal, state and federal coffers. Shall we double-down with Obamacare? I don't think so.
CBO's estimates state it will reduce the deficit and not just for the short term taking advantage of timing but even going forward since there are taxes in place to pay for it
Quote:
I care for my fellow citizens more than you can imagine. That is precisely why I am against giving them anything they did not earn, but I am for establishing a free-market system that makes what they might want or need less costly.
but yet by keeping the status quot that is EXACTLY what you are doing, giving people free access that I as a taxpayer and an insurede indiviual have to pay for
free market methods would destroy any consumer protections
No, free-market access would improve quality and access. It's only when you introduce the government into the mix that the free-market nature of this entire industry goes away and costs soar.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedJeepXJ
but yet by keeping the status quot that is EXACTLY what you are doing, giving people free access that I as a taxpayer and an insurede indiviual have to pay for
I do not advocate giving people free access. If a hospital, doctor or other caregiver wishes to establish a policy of providing free care to those who truly can't pay, that's up to them. But the mandate that a hospital must tend to anyone who walks into the Emergency room doors whether they can pay or not is wrong. As you say, this is being abused terribly, and it's costing us dearly. So rather than spread the cost around by spreading our wealth around, how 'bout we just stop with the hand-outs instead?
There are ways, at the community level, to establish means to provide health care for those who need it but can't pay. That's how we used to do things in this country and that's what we must get back to.
did you even read the republicans "free market" plan?? If we got any "free market" solution that is what it would likely look like and it's not pretty at all, practically no protection for consumers, you may as well be gambling when you buy a policy or take a prescription drug or use a medical device because there won't be anything to balance out that power differential
@RedJeepXJ
I agree with most of your analysis and conclusion. I do not see the current plan as being the final thing, but it is a beginning and can be modified to function well. The free market has not functioned at all over the last decades, why should anybody believe it would function now?
Because of my job I have excellent health care (and will always have it), but I see the results of the free market over and over again during my work.
And again, we have the highest health care cost with one of the poorest outcomes. The average US life expectancy ranks 27th in the world, just one place in front of Cuba! (Health Care Spending). I would not call the very good.
As a person of the health care profession I can say that the US health care system is the best in the world, while the distribution of health care (that it can reach everybody in the population) is the by far poorest in the industrialized world. What good does a perfect health care system if far more than 50 million people have no chance to get the benefit's of it? That would mean, about the entire population of France or Great Britain would be without health care coverage!
And Brian seems not to have a great knowledge about Europe, when he claims that European fiscal problems are do to government control of services. Well the government does not have control over services, it just regulates some of them (as does the US).
Germany as one, does not have problems, it has a roaring economy and is the worlds export champion (in front of China by product value), the Benelux countries are doing also very fine, and problems are only in Greece, Spain, Portugal and Irland. These problems are there, because of the US housing bubble crash and some of the banks there bought rotten debts from US banks, and it came out now, that they had "massaged" the books to cover up for this.
Becaue they are Euro zone countries, Germany and the other healthy Euro countries have to help out now.
But enough of that. It seems that some people here have more empathy for every penny in their pocket book than for the suffering of their fellow citizens. But many of them call themselves patriots!
Patriotism is love and devotion to one's country. The word comes from the Greek patris, meaning fatherland. Because ones country is made of the people living in it, a real patriot should be interested in the well being of those people. Otherwise the word is only an empty phrase, the same like those stickers on the cars that say "support our troops" and the only thing the owner of such a sticker has ever done to support the troops is buying that sticker! Nothing but lip service!
Linear Mode
