The Affordable HealthCare Decision

[Ed in Tampa]

Let me add this point and then I will shut up.

Obama is not the problem although I would never vote for him.
Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are the problem.
The problem isn't health care insurance or the lack of it.
The problems isn't the health care industry.

The problem is GREED and people really believing their greed is justifiable.

[claimdude]

I curious, why do people think it's a bad think to have healthcare for everyone? Every other Western country has health coverage for ALL of it's citizens.

FYI, lack of health insurance is the leading cause of bankruptcy.

Those who are willing to sacrifice liberty for security will eventually have neither. For me it is purely a matter of freedom to succeed or fail on my own steam. I recommend that you read about the debate between Keynes and Hayek. The debate rages today and is more relevant today than ever. If our standard is what the rest of the western countries do then it may be too late for the US.

Jack

[JPG]

Those who are willing to sacrifice liberty for security will eventually have neither. For me it is purely a matter of freedom to succeed or fail on my own steam. I recommend that you read about the debate between Keynes and Hayek. The debate rages today and is more relevant today than ever. If our standard is what the rest of the western countries do then it may be too late for the US.

Jack

I think 'Europa' has already been doing 'it'.

[dougrl]

Good Day and just a short note to you all. Today our Prov. in Canada is celebrating 50 years of medicare. If you live in the slums, or in a big house any where in our Prov. here in Canada, your hospital bill is PAID, your visit to the doctors office is paid. you can just walk out the door. We have alot of good things going for us and things that at not so good. I believe ED, hit it on the head "GREED" I will not say any more , I also hope all your Shopsmiths are working well, Mine is. Thank God for Medicare.

[holsgo]

I can only assume it's paid because of a tax of some sort. I don't claim to know how it works in Canada but nothings free. Anywhere. At all. It might be paid. But you are paying it. And you are paying for someone who doesn't have a job, money or the wherewithall to get either. This is the person I refuse to pay for....I'm not down on those that can't or vets or diabled etc. I'm down on those that don't play by the rules, rules that will now (with my limited rules understanding) have people who seek to break them. On my dime. Again.
And I'll still pay and play along the right way.

[danscot]

Here comes another foreigner's comment!

I'm not too familiar with the legislation being discussed but I get the impression that it's aim is to ensure that no American will be denied healthcare on grounds of their ability to pay - a noble objective I would have thought. The problem seems to center around how that can be paid for, who should be paying what, and the program's sustainability.

Here in the UK we have a system that was introduced after WW2 and which worked pretty well until the 1980's. Our National Health Service provides free (at the point of delivery) treatment for all. This, in theory, is paid for by "National Insurance", collected along with Income Tax from our paypackets.

This National Insurance was originally established to provide the country with a pot of money to pay for the citizens' healthcare, drug prescriptions, dental care, an old age pension and (not sure of this one - it may come from general taxes) unemployment benefit. Collectively known as the "Welfare State"

The benefit to the State was that the money flowed into it's coffers.

The benefit to the people was that millions who would not have made these provisions for themselves were effectively forced into it but, because the payment was a percentage of their paycheck, everyone was effectively paying the same (pro rata) so the system was fair and everyone was covered. The concept was brilliant.

Of course, the insurance companies couldn't make their huge profits anymore!

But that system is not working so well any more - more expensive treatments, people living longer (ironically the NHS effect has been partly responsible for that), higher unemployment so fewer paying into the pot, etc. So now more is flowing out of the pot than goes in. The system as it stands is borderline sustainable.

To some extent the decline in the fortunes of the NHS has been driven by some politicians and other vested interests who would love to see the US style system take over here ( for "vested interests" read "drug & insurance companies") so that they could start raking it in.

IMHO that would be a tragedy. Yes, Ed got it right - it's all about GREED and "the devil take the hindmost".

Whatever happened to helping your fellow man?

[holsgo]

You haven't seen an American emergency room obviously. What you say works in theory. I agree. But people will find a way to defraud it. Ps, we already cover the 12 million people here illegally...just check our emergency rooms. That's helping the fellow man I guess. I should just shut up and vote.

[pennview]

Here's a UK press article concerning the waiting period for hospital treatment after a doctors referral. Perhaps it will prove enlightening for some.

http://www.scotsman.com/edinburgh-eveni ... -1-2303371

I don't mean to start an international debate on the merits or lack thereof on government run health care, but the article does make you wonder where Obama care is taking us. Oh, if you skipped that news article, the waiting period is over four months and that goal isn't being met.

Today, on the news, I saw a U.S. Congressman who said that heretofore when someone without insurance went into the hospital the taxpayers paid for their treatment. But not to worry, that wouldn't happen under Obama care because everyone will have health insurance. He also claimed there were 50,000,000 people in the U.S. without insurance. I wonder if this guy knows who will be paying for those 50,000,000 insurance policies. Maybe, just maybe it will be those same taxpayers.

[paulmcohen]

In truth, I am not in you survey as I just do not know whether it is a good bill, a good intention yes. I think our courts have acted on this properly, but I want to review the dissenting views.

There were four questions asked, the first, is this a tax if so we can't rule on it until someone pays it. So it is not a tax, lets go on to the rest of the questions.

Is the mandate constitutional? Not under the commerce clause (good for all of us), OH it is constitutional because it is a tax (the largest increase in history). Well what happened to question 1 when you said it is not a tax.

This ruling is a mess of contradictions, even the majority opinion from Ginsberg reads like a minority opinion.

[swampgator]

Well, I was going to remain quiet about this issue, but a couple of things need to be noted. If you want waiting periods and socialized medical care, join the military, get hurt in the military and rely on VA to care for you. Oh, that's right. What VA is not prepared to care for, they contract with private medical establishments to get the job done.

As a federal retiree, we have had our own insurance since the early 1960's. We were not part of the Medicare system until 1982. So, we still pay about 1/3 of our total insurance premium, have several insurance options to choose from which best suites our needs and wallets and we pay our portion of premiums, copays and coinsurance. Then the insurance decides that the doctor is wrong and will sometimes deny the patient the medicine or the equipment to get along in life. Been there, done that with the worn out t-shirt.
Now, I'm approaching 65 and the insurance wants to move me from their rolls to Medicare. Did someone say "greed"? It will save the insurance many projected dollars not to care for seniors.

Another part I wish to bring up is so many folks have bought these savings accounts thinking that they will never need the money. Let's pray that goes that well for them. So, something drastic happens and they go to the ER. Customers and taxpayers make up the difference for them. The hospital approaches the state for fund to make up for lost funds not collected by the uninsured and deadbeats. The hospital also jacks up costs of products and services. Wife got a pneumonia shot while she was in the hospital. $600 and Medicare won't pay for it, neither will the insurance company. Hmmm! Who pay for it? Me. Medicare paid for most of the bill, Blue Cross/Blue Shield pay a few pennies leaving me with a $2K coinsurance for the 3 day visit. The cost of the shot is still in dispute. I find it very illogical to allow someone to buy a $20 motorcycle, no requirement for a helment or other protective gear, exceed the speed limits and fail or choose not to obey other traffic laws, get seriously injured but he has no insurance. Yet, he gets the same care as me and I have had my insurance for almost 40 years. And, that is just the tip of the iceberg. At least, with the new law, members of Congress have to take the same insurance as the rest of the nation. No longer can they use the federal employees health care plans. Finally, they have to play by the same rules as everyone else. But, trust politicians? Never. do you trust a cobra snake in a basket? Same thing.