Health care reform - Some of this stuff just makes me want to spit and cuss
ARTICLE IN THE AP TODAY ABOUT OUR HEALTH CARE WAR.
READ THE ACTUAL ARTICLE HERE.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090908/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_health_care_overha...
BUT I ALSO INCLUDED THE TEXT.
Fines proposed for going without health insurance
AP
By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR, Associated Press Writer Ricardo Alonso-zaldivar, Associated Press Writer – 37 mins ago
WASHINGTON – Americans would be fined up to $3,800 for failing to buy health insurance under a plan that circulated in Congress on Tuesday as divisions among Democrats undercut President Barack Obama's effort to regain traction on his health care overhaul.
As Obama talked strategy with Democratic leaders at the White House, the one idea that most appeals to his party's liberal base lost ground in Congress. Prospects for a government-run plan to compete with private insurers sank as a leading moderate Democrat said he could no longer support the idea.
The fast-moving developments put Obama in a box. As a candidate, he opposed fines to force individuals to buy health insurance, and he supported setting up a public insurance plan. On Tuesday, fellow Democrats publicly begged to differ on both ideas.
Democratic congressional leaders put on a bold front as they left the White House after their meeting with the president.
"We're re-energized; we're ready to do health care reform," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., insisted the public plan is still politically viable. "I believe that a public option will be essential to our passing a bill in the House of Representatives," she said.
After a month of contentious forums, Americans were seeking specifics from the president in his speech to a joint session of Congress on Wednesday night. So were his fellow Democrats, divided on how best to solve the problem of the nation's nearly 50 million uninsured.
The latest proposal: a ten-year, $900-billion bipartisan compromise that Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., a moderate who heads the influential Finance Committee, was trying to broker. It would guarantee coverage for nearly all Americans, regardless of medical problems.
But the Baucus plan also includes the fines that Obama has rejected. In what appeared to be a sign of tension, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs pointedly noted that the administration had not received a copy of the plan before it leaked to lobbyists and news media Tuesday.
The Baucus plan would require insurers to take all applicants, regardless of age or health. But smokers could be charged higher premiums. And 60-year-olds could be charged five times as much for a policy as 20-year-olds.
Baucus said Tuesday he's trying to get agreement from a small group of bipartisan negotiators in advance of Obama's speech. "Time is running out very quickly," he said. "I made that very clear to the group."
Some experts consider the $900-billion price tag a relative bargain because the country now spends about $2.5 trillion a year on health care. But it would require hefty fees on insurers, drug companies and others in the health care industry to help pay for it.
Just as auto coverage is now mandatory in nearly all states, Baucus would require that all Americans get health insurance once the system is overhauled. Penalties for failing to do so would start at $750 a year for individuals and $1,500 for families. Households making more than three times the federal poverty level — about $66,000 for a family of four — would face the maximum fines. For families, it would be $3,800, and for individuals, $950.
Baucus would offer tax credits to help pay premiums for households making up to three times the poverty level, and for small employers paying about average middle-class wages. People working for companies that offer coverage could avoid the fines by signing up.
The fines pose a dilemma for Obama. As a candidate, the president campaigned hard against making health insurance a requirement, and fining people for not getting it.
"Punishing families who can't afford health care to begin with just doesn't make sense," he said during his party's primaries. At the time, he proposed mandatory insurance only for children.
White House officials have since backed away somewhat from Obama's opposition to mandated coverage for all, but there's no indication that Obama would support fines.
One idea that Obama championed during and since the campaign — a government insurance option — appeared to be sinking fast.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., told reporters a Medicare-like plan for middle-class Americans and their families isn't an essential part of legislation for him. Hoyer's comments came shortly after a key Democratic moderate said he could no longer back a bill that includes a new government plan.
The fast-moving developments left liberals in a quandary. They've drawn a line, saying they won't vote for legislation if it doesn't include a public plan to compete with private insurance companies and force them to lower costs.
Rep. Mike Ross, D-Ark., who once supported a public option, said Tuesday that after hearing from constituents during the August recess, he's changed his mind.
"If House leadership presents a final bill that contains a government-run public option, I will oppose it," Ross said.
House Democrats are considering a fallback: using the public plan as a last resort if after a few years the insurance industry has failed to curb costs.
Obama's commitment to a public plan has been in question and lawmakers hoped his speech to Congress would make his position on that clear.
Baucus is calling for nonprofit co-ops to compete in the marketplace instead of a public plan.
An 18-page summary of the Baucus proposal was obtained by The Associated Press. The complex plan would make dozens of changes in the health care system, many of them contentious. For example, it includes new fees on insurers, drug companies, medical device manufacturers and clinical labs.
People working for major employers would probably not see big changes. The plan is geared to helping those who now have the hardest time getting and keeping coverage: the self-employed and small business owners.
____
Associated Press writers Erica Werner, Ben Feller, Alan Fram and Jim Abrams contributed to this report.
I couldn't get past the first sentence. My brain just shut down at the idiocy. How can you fine someone if they already don't have the money to pay for insurance?!
That's right up there with arresting someone for resisting arrest.
For real though, that can't be right, right? This is some republican thing where they're twisting things around and calling it a "fine" when it's really just something about tax deductions or something, anything.
Back during the primaries, when they were still doing the political phone survey's, I remember this being one of the questions asked on one of the survey's I was answering questions to.
At the time I nearly choked with both disgust and laughter.
The fine of $3,800 for a family of four is the exact amount a lower income family of four receives as a tax return. So much for pumping it back into the economy. Oh, wait... most low income families are of unintelligent stock so ignorant that they won't realize that.
THIS IS FUCKING WRONG.
That's actually not as bad as it sounds, it would benefit most people since when those without insurance need emergency care the cost of that gets passed on to people WITH insurance through more expensive premiums. So if everyone had insurance this might lower costs for most people. In theory. In reality Congress will fuck it up to make sure it only benefits their employers in the health care industry because bribery is legal in this country if you call it "campaign contributions".
None of this shit is worth getting worked up over, nothing that radical will ever be part of the bill. It's going to be completely watered down and do nothing to fix the most significant problem which is the cost of health care. The end result of this whole fucking charade has been as predictable as a Harlem Globetrotters game and anyone expecting serious reform is like Krusty the Clown betting his fortune on the Generals to finally win.
Read this and have an aneurysm:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/29988909/sick_and_wrong/
It's not easy having a good time.
Even smiling makes my face ache.
---spelling errors, i know----
i suspect this is all just right wing propaganda b.s.
like ozy said it will be revised and gone over to death so it will be at least somewhat pleasing to both sides although republicans will not be happy any which way, they know if this passes it will be a huge breakthrough for the u.s. and obama will look real good and probably win a second term, and they will not have that. plus alot of insurance and pharmaceutical companys are lining republicans pockets with cash to scare everyone and call these bullshit town hall meetings,
(cuz it's gunna cut the amount of money these corporations make) truth is no one really knows what this bill will look like yet, only a rough draft. so these protesters have nothing to protest against, it's assanine.
give it time and everyone will calm down, at least i hope.
nothing is as perfect as you can imagine it.
I live in a bubble so I've managed to remain fairly ignorant about all of the health reform proposals. Lately I've been thinking that its something I should read up on, as healthcare is one of my biggest issues with America. I pay about $350 a month and have since I graduated college. I have to do this because I'm self-employed. Most people I know wouldn't be worried about it, but it has all ready saved me over $30k because of my gall bladder and appendix. I'm in a group with my mother and Uncle right now. I applied for an individual plan with the same company, but I was denied because I take anti-depressants and Vyvanse for ADHD. If my mom gets on medicare and my Uncle does something else, I'm screwed. This scares me. But I still can't seem to get through any of the articles about healthcare reform, no matter how hard I try.
"I'm glad I live in the GPS era. In a different century, I would've set off to visit the other side of the village and wandered off into the mountains and been eaten by a carnivorous plant. Or discovered the Americas."
-LaJessica
Why are you guys so shocked, this is what they do in Massachussetts, they just force you to get insurance. It's immoral and impractical, as it only hurts the poor who don't have it already because its too expensive, to buy it anyway.
More later, yes, socialized health care will suck no matter what you do to it, its in its nature. The solution is to end that which is only maintained by manipulation, and watch prices drop as competition soars.
Gov't cannot magically make something cheaper than market rates. All progress in this realm is solely artificial.
But I've talked too much today.
"They sold you hippies grunge, hip hop, now liberty activism."
If you're poor then you qualify for MassHealth; the quality of which, incidentally, is outstanding.
Do not speak out of turn about your betters.
Competition doesn't currently exist and the market hasn't done a goddamn thing to stop costs from increasing out of fucking control. Most people who go bankrupt from medical bills HAVE INSURANCE. That's how bad it is.
What in the fuck are you even talking about?
Just today?
It's not easy having a good time.
Even smiling makes my face ache.
I don't think anyone is opposed to healthcare reform. The system is clearly broken, and if not broken, at least fractured.
The problem comes in how to fix it.
Do not speak out of turn about your betters.
Competition doesn't currently exist and the market hasn't done a goddamn thing to stop costs from increasing out of fucking control. Most people who go bankrupt from medical bills HAVE INSURANCE. That's how bad it is.
What in the fuck are you even talking about?
Just today?
Don't tempt my humility.
The market is sick with the cancer of government, and as gov't meddles, costs rise. The market seeks equilibrium in a corrupted dimension.
And I personally know people who were robbed of $500 or some crazy amount like that, a fine for not getting health insurance they didn't want in Mass, so hold that up against your talking points memo.
"They sold you hippies grunge, hip hop, now liberty activism."
Do not speak out of turn about your betters.
Competition doesn't currently exist and the market hasn't done a goddamn thing to stop costs from increasing out of fucking control. Most people who go bankrupt from medical bills HAVE INSURANCE. That's how bad it is.
What in the fuck are you even talking about?
Just today?
And the competition doesnt exist because the health insurance lobby made it that way. These companies dont want competition and they have had laws passed in every state to set up little fifedoms. And while what Gig proposes sounds nice, these so called health insurance companies will make sure no real reform ever happes. Its benificial for them to have the current system , and they are the ones that made it so. Why do you think these companies had no problem when the govt came up with HMO's in the 70's? Well because the health insurance lobby pushed for it and made it look like a govt idea.
Also dont trust a fucking word Max Baucaus says, the guy is a shill for the health insurance companies and has received over two million dollars in contributions form them.
Opening line: "The nation's drugmakers stand ready to spend $150 million (150,000,000 FRNs) to help President Barack Obama overhaul health care this fall, according to numerous officials, a staggering sum that could dwarf attempts to derail his chief domestic priority."
Fixed link:
http://www.examiner.com/a-2158981~Drug_industry_helping_Obama_overhaul_h...
"They sold you hippies grunge, hip hop, now liberty activism."
also, i wish all these people who say it gives goverment to much control and to much goverment interference. ever heard of the patriot act? it had a few good things as far as protecting us, i guess, however it gave the goverment so much more power to watch us and track us, like what books we checked out at the library for god's sake (oh no, i checked out pygmy, they may come question me about a terrorist attack) in fact in a data base that probably just sent up a red flag. fuckin hell.
bush signed the biggest intrusion on our rights ever into law.
sorry, i will just sit back and read this now, whew.
nothing is as perfect as you can imagine it.
Thanks for letting me know I need to be equally loud in other areas. Want me to take you up on that?
"They sold you hippies grunge, hip hop, now liberty activism."
More later, yes, socialized health care will suck no matter what you do to it, its in its nature. The solution is to end that which is only maintained by manipulation, and watch prices drop as competition soars.
Gov't cannot magically make something cheaper than market rates. All progress in this realm is solely artificial.
But I've talked too much today.
A fully privitised, deregulated healthcare system would be far from ideal. For a start two groups would almost certainly be at a massive disadvantage - the people with pre-existing or congenital health problems and the elderly. The amount it costs to treat these people would mean that insurance companies would have to charge high premiums, which means poor people in these groups wouldn't be able to get any kind of coverage.
In a similar vein, poor people are more likely to suffer from health problems than middle class or wealthy people, so that could set a bottom limit to a price-war. At the moment there are something like 40 million Americans without health insurance. Competition wouldn't necesserily bring prices low enough to decrease that number by a drastic amount because even though lower prices should increase the number of customers the profits would be offset by the increased amount of care being demanded. Companies would maximise profits by keeping prices at a certain level and excluding some of the people who need it most.
!
When Obama introduced his Health Care reform, I was honestly optimistic. I thought this time it might actually happen. Well I was fucking wrong. Guess their is no optimisim in government. The lies I heard on network news drove me crazy: death panels, rationing, killing old people. And now, I'm very upset that there will be NO public option, because really, it would have created competition. And more people in America would have had health insurance. Politicians are deeply intertwined with lobbyists, and huge companies. They've become a company themselves. That's not what America is supposed to be like, or what was imagined during the birth of America.
Ahh, well, there's nothing we can do. So discussing any of this is pointless.
Ahh, well, there's nothing we can do. So discussing any of this is pointless.
welcome to my world.
"I'm glad I live in the GPS era. In a different century, I would've set off to visit the other side of the village and wandered off into the mountains and been eaten by a carnivorous plant. Or discovered the Americas."
-LaJessica
ok what about us assholes who are too rich for medicare and too poor to afford our own? i can't afford an extra $120 a month right now, which is what my employer offers. i just can't, i tried to fit it into my budget. i don't think they're gonna require healthcare with fines though. that's just stupid. in fact, this whole thing is retarded. are we we really the best country in the world if we can't find a way to take care of our own sick and dying? i don't know, i'm dumb about this kind of thing. but it's money before people, right?
This is also a concern to me. I can't really afford the $350 a month I pay, but I find a way because of my numerous health problems that could end up costing me way way more. Its the college-age folks, the waiters and other service industry folks, the tattooists and musicians who have trouble now and will likely still have trouble.
"I'm glad I live in the GPS era. In a different century, I would've set off to visit the other side of the village and wandered off into the mountains and been eaten by a carnivorous plant. Or discovered the Americas."
-LaJessica
What if we just give everyone free healthcare across the board, then just give them all placebos. Be very cheap and I think would solve some of the problems.
I hear a *gasp* republican take on health care reform that somewhat makes sense to me... the voucher system. People under a certain income level (I believe they want it set at 50K and below) would get tax credits to help cover the cost of their insurance premiums, essentially giving them a check to buy into the free market system. This way, the gov't doesn't have to create a big new bureaucracy, and the market prices get lower/more competitive because more people are able to buy in... there's some drawbacks, of course (pre-existing conditions, cost of care beyond deductibles) but it sounds like a fairly feasible plan.
Anybody have any extra details on the "free-market" solutions that don't include scaremongering about death panels and such? I like to get both sides of the argument, but the right seems only interested in making noise instead of offering alternatives.
If this bill doesn't end pre-existing condidtions then...well thats just fucked up.
More later, yes, socialized health care will suck no matter what you do to it, its in its nature. The solution is to end that which is only maintained by manipulation, and watch prices drop as competition soars.
Gov't cannot magically make something cheaper than market rates. All progress in this realm is solely artificial.
But I've talked too much today.
A fully privitised, deregulated healthcare system would be far from ideal. For a start two groups would almost certainly be at a massive disadvantage - the people with pre-existing or congenital health problems and the elderly. The amount it costs to treat these people would mean that insurance companies would have to charge high premiums, which means poor people in these groups wouldn't be able to get any kind of coverage.
In a similar vein, poor people are more likely to suffer from health problems than middle class or wealthy people, so that could set a bottom limit to a price-war. At the moment there are something like 40 million Americans without health insurance. Competition wouldn't necesserily bring prices low enough to decrease that number by a drastic amount because even though lower prices should increase the number of customers the profits would be offset by the increased amount of care being demanded. Companies would maximise profits by keeping prices at a certain level and excluding some of the people who need it most.
I think if the market was completely deregulated tomorrow, its already too late, the big companies are already entrenched into America. Maybe a combo dergulation and govt plan could get prices low, but that wont happen.
Basically to change health care we'd probably have to blow it up and start over from scratch. Thats not going to happen.
Our politicians have this situation so screwed up nothing is going to happen. Thank the lobbyists for that.
Now what I would like to see is free health care for anyone under 18, and if your in college free care for anyone under 24. And I would be willing to pay a tax for that. Its not a kids fault if his parents cant get insurance.
I have Republican friends who like this idea as well.
I also have a Repub friend who thinks health care should be free for anyone making under 40 grand a year.
Its a very complicated situation and I dont think anyone has all the answers. There are even moral considerations that get complicated as well.
Is it moral to force someone to pay someones elses health care?
Is it moral to let people be sick because they have been priced out of health care?
we are all ready being forced to pay for other people's healthcare. Which I don't mind as much as being forced to pay for lazy people who keep having babies to support their families.
"I'm glad I live in the GPS era. In a different century, I would've set off to visit the other side of the village and wandered off into the mountains and been eaten by a carnivorous plant. Or discovered the Americas."
-LaJessica
Thats very true and thats part of the reason costs are high, you pay for people who are not. Now your always going to have that 'lazy' segment of society but how do you fix that? Do you cut them off? They are still going to show up at the ER and they will receive care and not pay. Hospitals cannot by law deny anyone care. What is the solution?
Some will say 'single payer' but will it work? Im conflicted on it personally.
Thats very true and thats part of the reason costs are high, you pay for people who are not. Now your always going to have that 'lazy' segment of society but how do you fix that? Do you cut them off? They are still going to show up at the ER and they will receive care and not pay. Hospitals cannot by law deny anyone care. What is the solution?
Some will say 'single payer' but will it work? Im conflicted on it personally.
make them stop having babies they can't afford.
"I'm glad I live in the GPS era. In a different century, I would've set off to visit the other side of the village and wandered off into the mountains and been eaten by a carnivorous plant. Or discovered the Americas."
-LaJessica
I got that far and my happiness quotient was met for the day, so I'll save the rest for later.
"They sold you hippies grunge, hip hop, now liberty activism."
And I'm sure if any of them went face-first through a windshield they wouldn't go to an emergency room and pass part of the cost onto me but would just die in the hospital parking lot on principle.
You can't just decide that you're never going to need health care. We live in a fucking community, anyone who doesn't wish to be responsible can go live in the mountains. Or Nashua if the mountains are too advanced for them.
It's not easy having a good time.
Even smiling makes my face ache.
Thats very true and thats part of the reason costs are high, you pay for people who are not. Now your always going to have that 'lazy' segment of society but how do you fix that? Do you cut them off? They are still going to show up at the ER and they will receive care and not pay. Hospitals cannot by law deny anyone care. What is the solution?
Some will say 'single payer' but will it work? Im conflicted on it personally.
make them stop having babies they can't afford.
Sterilization?
!
Thats very true and thats part of the reason costs are high, you pay for people who are not. Now your always going to have that 'lazy' segment of society but how do you fix that? Do you cut them off? They are still going to show up at the ER and they will receive care and not pay. Hospitals cannot by law deny anyone care. What is the solution?
Some will say 'single payer' but will it work? Im conflicted on it personally.
make them stop having babies they can't afford.
Sounds great in theory, but this is where the so called 'religious right' steps in and says you cant force people to not have babies. (Just playing devils advocate here)
Sadly I think this is one situation that you cant fix. Even if unemployment was at 1% and the country was wealthy again, there will always be that segment of society thats poor and makes babies. And thats not just a problem in America, thiat happens all over the world.
I actually do believe that anybody who has more than two children out of wedlock while consistently being unable to pay child support should receive a mandatory vasectomy.
Hell these days people should have to take a test and get a license to be a parent.
Health care reform needs to happen, but Im afarid our politicians and their lobbyist donors are going to fuck it up and nothing will change.
its hard to talk about this issue with out getting accused of being advocates of eugenics, but hey, China has a one baby law and you pay a huge fine if you have more. Shit is out of hand here with people having babies they can't afford and continuing to do so because they get rewarded for it. A vasectomy is a big step. But injected or implanted birth control seems viable to me.
"I'm glad I live in the GPS era. In a different century, I would've set off to visit the other side of the village and wandered off into the mountains and been eaten by a carnivorous plant. Or discovered the Americas."
-LaJessica
I don't think it needs to come down to eugenics. I just think serial babymakers, guys you see on Morey who have 5 kids with three women, need to be stopped. Yes, this would probably adversely effect poor minority communities more, but it would also stop overcrowding and help poor people hang onto their money.
I'll read posts later, but figured I'd throw this out there.
I don't support or not-support these other bills, (I likely don't support them, though) but either way, there's this:
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/52896
"They sold you hippies grunge, hip hop, now liberty activism."
Call me crazy, but I think health care is a complicated issue!
I am in favor of people getting health care.
Controversy!!
I think it would be positve but percieved as adverse ."You want let me have babies, your infringing on my rights"
I think most of us are tired of supporting irresponsibility in this issue.
Dont get me wrong, there are people that truly need help, the problem is the fraud that goes with it perpetuated by those that are taking advantage of the system.
Not everyone who is poor is a lazy bum. Not everyone who has a child they "can't afford" does so for the intention of collecting public assistance (which is a joke, by the way, some of my worst memories were of attempting to get real help when I needed it years ago) And not everyone who has kids out of wedlock does so with multiple people they have no intention of having a family with.
Some people who are broke actually vote and think and try to better not only their own lives but the community as well.
Thought I'd throw those obscure ideas out there in an attempt at being rational.
Pepper, I think you misread what I was saying. I'm talking specifically about men who are serial philanderers. If you have already had multiple kids with different women and are unable to support any of them financially, the government should take away your ability to make more. Same as they take cars away from serial drunk drivers, guns away from the mentally ill (braces for Giggan), or take children away from unfit parents.
I'm not condemning poor people, being that I've been on the lower income side of things my entire life. I'm saying there are many things that need to happen to combat poverty, and stopping irresponsible sperm donors is one step in the right direction.
Some people who are broke actually vote and think and try to better not only their own lives but the community as well.
Thought I'd throw those obscure ideas out there in an attempt at being rational.
No one said everyone is included. These people exist, we all know it. No one is saying you didn't actually need help and there aren't valid reasons for government assistance. We're saying its out of hand in a lot of cases. And whether or not a person has a baby to get more money is a non-issue, people who can't afford children, especially those all ready receiving government assistance should not continue having more.
"I'm glad I live in the GPS era. In a different century, I would've set off to visit the other side of the village and wandered off into the mountains and been eaten by a carnivorous plant. Or discovered the Americas."
-LaJessica
I think you both may have taken the inflections in my post wrong.
Those statements were not made out of feeling persecuted by the things said in this topic. They were just some of my personal observations of the world. I've seen people far less deserving of having babies, in fact have the misfortune of being related to a couple of them, than those who simply cannot afford or refuse to pay child support.
The topic seems to have fallen into a discussion of who should or shouldn't have babies.
It would be nice if there were some sort of program for those in the lower income bracket where they paid based on income for their health care.
If there is a program like this I am completely ignorant of it. Which is why I made the topic, to understand from a human perspective what others know about what is going on and what people think and feel about possible changes to the current system.
As it stands right now it seems the only people who can have health insurance are those who are able to pay hundreds, or even a thousand or more a month, and those who have no money at all who receive free state care.
There is a whole so called (lower) middle class who must go without.
Maybe I just have some sort of communist instincts deep down in my heart, but I'd honestly be willing to work quite a few weekends out of each year when I am healthy in exchange for some sort of voucher that allows me a yearly checkup and the ability to go to the doctor once or twice a year if I am ill instead of suffering and wondering if I can really afford the ER bill. Maybe that's a good idea... Craigslist add: Willing to paint lovely abstract art and bake cookies and vacuum your floor and scrub toilet in exchange for yearly checkup.
Obamas on tv right now adressing the congress about this. Lets watch!
About vasectomies for deadbeats?! 
Nope. Not at all actually! I'm probably the only one here that watched it...
I agreed with everything Obama said. It was a great speech, but what else do you expect. He also called everyone out, from the media to the outrageous lies, and republicans. The republicans were PISSED! And one screamed at him, and apologized immediately after the speech. Anyway, if you want to know what he wants; watch the speech.
well it turns out insurance at my job is more like 80 a month, which is doable i think. but i can't get it until re-enrollment, which is in march. i don't know why i can't just sign up whenever i want but whatever, i'm young and healthy.
I pay almost $500 per month in premiums for family coverage through Blue Cross and Blue Shield...shit goes up every September, too, along with all my co-pays and such. I think we're going up to a $40 Dr. visit co-pay this time. Bastards.
wow you guys have shitty insurance. My wife only pays $14 weekly for a family coverage. The co-pay is just $12-15 a visit. She works for GE.
What they do here (Puerto Rico) is provide goverment health care with an insurance company, so you can go to private doctors (they waiting line is long but it's free). They have goverment run clinics for stuff like free checkups etc. (again the quality is bad but it's free). When we were broke we paid only $3 for my son's birth.
However it doesn't cover everyone, if you earn more than $800 a month you don't qualify. They pay this coverage with the money they recover from the sales tax.
Business owners are fucked on this end. My brother owns a business and he doesn't earn enough to cover healthcare, and he doesn't qualify for the goverment plan. The only thing he can do, which he hasn't done yet, is to report he earns less so that he can qualify, but that would screw up other things not to mention that is fraud.
So...We are still going to die. Right?
I didn't watch it but I did read several articles about the speech that were hastily written right afterward. I think it all sounds like a pretty good plan, overall... though it also sounds as though it is going to be mandatory to have health insurance, I completely disagree with this and find it ridiculous. It seems like saying, basically, you must pay to be an American citizen.
I think of auto insurance. It is required that you have it in order to be on the road. It is one of the costs of being a responsible and legal driver. But if one is unable to afford auto insurance then they have the (perfectly legal) option of simply not driving; taking public transportation, using their own two feet to get around etc. A pain in the ass, but perfectly acceptable in the eyes of the law and safety for the rest of the drivers on the road.
Requiring that one has health insurance or facing fines if one does not creates nothing but another bill on peoples already full to the brim plates. And at then end of the day, the only thing any of us really have is the fact that we are still breathing, you can't just choose not to live because you can't afford the bill. Well you can, it is called suicide, and I think it is safe to say most of people are in agreement that it is not really an option, or a cowardly option at best that causes a spiral of pain and difficulty to everyone we leave behind.
I think of my best friends situation: She has two young children. Her husband passed away suddenly two years ago. Six months later her mom was diagnosed with terminal lung cancer. At the time she (my friend) had decent insurance through her employer. She decided to quit her job in order to care for her mom in her last months. She is an only child so there is no one else who could do this. Most of the people she knew called it a stupid move, personally I supported this decision because it was ultimately about spending as much time with her mom as possible before the end and she was still in grief over her husband as it was.
After several months my friend could no longer afford her insurance and lost it.
After her mom passed she inherited a small apartment complex with four units. A complex that is falling apart and costs her more to maintain than she earns off of it. At this point in time it is pretty impossible to sell even a nice home. Because she is a property owner with supposed assets now she is unable to qualify for even the smallest public assistance, such as food stamps. And in this economy there is no good work. She has had to take a job as a graveyard clerk at a convenience store just to scrape support herself and her children, when what she wants to do is buy a nice home in a good neighborhood and go to school be a drug counselor or social service worker.
On paper she has assets that put her over the poverty level, in reality she has to exchange child care for another friend when she is not working graveyard for grocery money.
And there are so many, many other people out there with similar (or different) trials, trials out of their control, that put them in the group that would not receive medicare but could not afford to purchase their own policies, unless this new overhaul truly reduces the cost by an immense amount. The type of person that would end up being fined.
I truly hope the over haul plays out to not include a requirement. It just seems wrong. It scares me.
I am not fully up on my politics, but I am very interested in the general subject and specifically (at this point in time/history) interested in the subject of health care/health care reform.
I'd be very interested in hearing peoples intelligent view points on this subject. Arguments for or against health care reform. And solutions to the problem of where our system is at currently.
As an uninsured American I realize my own opinion is, at the least, somewhat biased.
I do think every American deserves the right to proper medical care being readily available, but I also think there is more to the picture than just reforming the currant system... i.e; fixing the economy and school systems etc. so the average (as well as below poverty level) family/individual can become more self sufficient in regards to issues like this.
Anyone out there have, not only opinions about this (health care issues), but ideas for solutions to the currant situation?