Is Heath Care a moral issue???

[niccig]

ETA. I'm not talking about the specific health care bill...this is a philosophical question...

I don't want to start a fight, and mods if that happens, please lock this down. What I do want is to have a discussion that is respectful. I'm trying to understand this issue more...

I was driving home and caught the last part of an interview on NPR. I didn't catch all of it, or the person's name. I should try to find it. Someone who was being interviewed was saying that Health Care was a moral issue. The President of Switzerland was asked about how the Swiss people would react if someone went bankrupt and lost their home because of medical bills. The President said the people would feel ashamed that this happened, there would be an uproar over it, people demanding change. The interviewee then went on to say that there isn't the same feeling of shame here in the USA, that people accept that you could lose your home over a serious medical issue.

I'm Australian, lived there for 30 years, and I would say that the Australian people would also be ashamed if someone lost their house because their had cancer. It would be reported all over the media etc. It just doesn't happen. And it does boggle my mind that it does happen here.

A friend's sisters has asthma and 5 years ago melanoma. She couldn't get health insurance when he husband was laid off - they couldn't afford COBRA, and no one would cover her, or the premium was sky-high. My friend was telling me how her sister was struggling to breathe most days as they couldn't pay for her asthma medication. She went to the ER a couple of times when it got really bad, and then they couldn't pay that bill...I just can't imagine that being allowed to happen. I was flabbergasted when I was told about the situation. In Australia, you would see your DR., there is a copay that varies from Dr. to Dr. but you know that upfront - my Dr was $10-$15 I think, other Dr.s are less or more. There are also clinics with no copays. You get your medicine, there is a copay at the pharmacy, but again it's not too much and it's the same for everyone. Low income do not pay the copays. My sisters friend if she was in Australia would never struggle to breathe because she couldn't afford medicine.

Ok...so I've put it out there...how do people feel? Is there a moral right to health care or not??

[Reyadawnbringer]

It absolutely 100% IS a moral issue. As a matter of fact I was just (and by just I mean like 7 mins ago) appalled at all the status messages where my biological mom spewed hate for Obama and the push for healthcare. I notice from a lot of the haters that it is not hate for this particular plan only, but a general hate for any healthcare plan. I would hate to see them fall victim to a tragedy like losing their home over medical bills, but I literally have come to believe that they will never see it any other way until they are facing those situation themselves. I feel like America is VERY me centered and in general we don't give a hoot about our fellow neighbors.

[edurnemk]

I believe there is a moral right to Health Care, but I'm also not American. I believe that the obligations of the State include providing security, education and healthcare, because these are basic needs that every human being need to fullfill in order to live a dignified life.

Also, one's health has no relation to how hard you work or anything. You can be a super responsible citizen, hardworking, etc, and still suddenly develop an illness or have an accident that requires very expensive care. There's no guarantee for any of us that we'll allways be able to afford the best health insurance, or even that our insurance will pay for certain treatments. And when I see people who have lost everything because of a health insurance, I just think it's unforgivable for us as a society.

Now, I like being able to choose my doctor and get the best care, even if I have to pay a lot, but I also know that in my country if I'm not able to afford that premium care, I do have an option, and don't have to risk my family's stability.

I don't know what the perfect balance woud be or how to make it work in the US, but ideollogically speaking I do think no one should have to sacrifice health care for lack of means.

[ChunkyNicksChunkyMom]

I feel like America is VERY me centered and in general we don't give a hoot about our fellow neighbors.
__________________

So you feel this, in general, about people who opposed this particular health care reform?

[wellyes]

I'll take it from the other side.

Many people believe it is immoral and unfair to take from someone who works to give to someone who does not. Any expansion of the federal government for social welfare is immoral in that sense.

To me - I can see the beauty of that idea. But it doesn't work and hasn't ever worked anywhere unless you are OK with rampant poverty and crime and a dearth of education/nutrition/health for kids and old people. It's kind of like pure communism: in theory, yes, I can understand the logic of it, but in practice it's proven to be a failure over and over and over.

*****

I'll also add that my FIL recently died of cancer and lost a lifetime of savings earned through very frugal living in the process of trying to get better. Shameful shameful shameful.

[ChunkyNicksChunkyMom]

Asking people to believe that this will reduce the deficit is just plain
insulting.

[ellies mom]

I'll take it from the other side.
To me - I can see the beauty of that idea. But it doesn't work and hasn't ever worked anywhere unless you are OK with rampant poverty and crime and a dearth of education/nutrition/health for kids and old people. It's kind of like pure communism: in theory, yes, I can understand the logic of it, but in practice it's proven to be a failure over and over and over.
England? Canada? Not exactly hotbeds of crime and poverty

ETA- And for me it is a moral issue. I don't think a child should use up their lifetime of insurance benefit after an extended stay in the NICU as a newborn. I don't think insurance companies should be able to get away with calling domestic violence a pre-existing condition.

[edurnemk]

Wellyes, I'm very sorry for the loss of your FIL.


I'll take it from the other side.

Many people believe it is immoral and unfair to take from someone who works to give to someone who does not. Any expansion of the federal government for social welfare is immoral in that sense.

I can see what you mean, but this attains only to a certain sector of the population (and I agree about slackers not deserving to be rescued with the money of others). But, what about the people who do work, but don't make enough to pay huge medical bills? Or their illness requires such treatment, that their insurance runs out and they end up in debt/bankrupt?

I hear a lot about universal health care not woking in other countries, and of course I agree they have lots of problems. But, IMHO, the health care system in the US hasn't worked either (since millions don't have coverage, and thousands have lost everything in spite of having coverage). That is, neither option has worked perfectly, so it is time to try to find a new solution.


England? Canada? Not exactly hotbeds of crime and poverty


I agree, the countries that do have poverty and crime, do not owe it to their health care system, but rather corrupt authorities, lack of education, etc, etc.

[Raidra]

I think it's definitely a moral issue. There are plenty of good, hardworking people out there who suffer tremendously because of our healthcare system. We have a responsibility to take care of our fellow humans. It's true that there will be people who take advantage, but that is *their* moral issue, not mine. I can't make anyone be moral. I would much rather take care of the good and the bad, than nobody at all. It's not fair to ruin it for those who deserve help just because there are some jerks out there.

Obviously, no system is perfect, but I really don't see the problem with socialized healthcare. Schools, police, fire, libraries, postal service, etc, are all socialized. Seems like health care is at least as important as libraries and our mail.

[Indianamom2]

First, I have a 36+ hour migraine, so I apologize for being short, but here are my thoughts:

I agree with the poster who said that it is immoral to take from those who work to give to those who will not. This healthcare bill being discussed is another entitlement program that will rob those who earn the most to pay for those who do not. It is a redistribution of wealth, whether you like the term or not.

Healthcare is broken, no doubt about it, but this healthcare bill being proposed is absolutely, 100% NOT the answer and will ultimately end up costing trillions. Americans are being lied to left and right about the costs involved. It's utterly insulting to think that this is "deficit neutral" or that it will reduce the deficit. It is absolutely impossible.

There are much better ways to reform health care, but this whole bill is not about reforming health care....it's about the government taking over the health care system. It's about the government taking away options, rather than providing them. It sounds nice, like a lot of government programs do, but the government cannot effectively or efficiently manage anything. Just look at Medicare and the Welfare system. Or Social Security. They are disasters, yet everyone is willing to just hand over their health care to the very same people? Sorry, I'm not buying it.

Reform is a noble goal, but there is nothing noble about this bill and process by which it is being shoved down our throats.

And speaking of a moral issue, I am morally opposed to abortion. Why should the government be allowed to take my tax dollars to fund them?

I'm not debating, but I am beyond frustrated with this subject.

[mamicka]

Sorry, but I don't see how having a respectful discussion is possible or even the true motive here when it's presented in this fashion. People who don't want whatever flavor of government intervention into healthcare should be ashamed & are immoral. That's basically what's being said here. I'll pass on this "respectful" discussion. Thanks.

[Ceepa]

Sorry, but I don't see how having a respectful discussion is possible or even the true motive here when it's presented in this fashion. People who don't want whatever flavor of government intervention into healthcare should be ashamed & are immoral. That's basically what's being said here. I'll pass on this "respectful" discussion. Thanks.

:yeahthat:

Stepping away from this minefield.

ETA: Back to add I don't care for the way this legislation has been handled.

[wellyes]

There are much better ways to reform health care, but this whole bill is not about reforming health care....it's about the government taking over the health care system.I'd love to hear about the better ways. I think everyone agrees the current system is broken. But I've never heard a realistic alternative to what's being offered (the compromise) on either end of the spectrum.

I think it's fine to argue "it is a moral issue but the current proposal sucks" or "it is not a right, it's a privilege". I think this discussion COULD work, but then again I've seen wars on this board over much less controversial issues so who knows?

For political junkies, Slate has a running tally here: http://www.slate.com/id/2247673/

[mamicka]

But I've never heard a realistic alternative to what's being offered (the compromise) on either end of the spectrum.


I've posted this before & I'll post it again.

Paul Ryan's Patient's Choice Act http://www.house.gov/ryan/PCA/.

[Indianamom2]

I'd love to hear about the better ways. I think everyone agrees the current system is broken. But I've never heard a realistic alternative to what's being offered (the compromise) on either end of the spectrum.

I think it's fine to argue "it is a moral issue but the current proposal sucks" or "it is not a right, it's a privilege". I think this discussion COULD work, but then again I've seen wars on this board over much less controversial issues so who knows?

For political junkies, Slate has a running tally here: http://www.slate.com/id/2247673/

I will certainly admit that I don't have all the answers. No one here does either. What I do know for absolute certain is that the current bill proposed is so corrupt it's not even funny.

I have believed all along that we need more competition among insurance companies. Allow them to cross state lines and compete. Competition always drives down price.

We need tort reform. Frivalous law suits are a major problem for health care and drive up prices.

What we need is not to overhaul the whole thing at once and assume that the government will be able to better run something than the private sector. It never works. We need to start small and fix one issue at a time.

[Naranjadia]

We need tort reform. Frivalous law suits are a major problem for health care and drive up prices.


I'm all for tort reform, especially in terms of the way law suits effect the way doctors provide or don't provide care. But I believe the stats on the cost of such frivolous law-suits place them at between 1-5%. So it's sort of like cutting off one small dying branch off of a diseased tree.

[Ceepa]

Honestly with what's at stake and the way it's being handled, doing nothing and reworking the options is preferable to advancing this agenda ... I mean, bill. How is anyone comfortable with such a controversial bill being rammed through like it is?

[JBaxter]

Asking people to believe that this will reduce the deficit is just plain
insulting.

I agree. What they are trying to shove through is completely insulting. I work I have always worked. I did with out many things to afford my health insurance I never worked for a big company ( offices of 10 or less people). I had a plan with a high deductable but it would have covered anything major. Yes it REALLY bugs me to be required to pay for ANYTHING given to people who are not helping themselves.

I believe many things can be done to make it more affordable but our health care system will be destroyed with this current legislation. < In MY opinion>

[edurnemk]

Sorry, but I don't see how having a respectful discussion is possible or even the true motive here when it's presented in this fashion. People who don't want whatever flavor of government intervention into healthcare should be ashamed & are immoral. That's basically what's being said here. I'll pass on this "respectful" discussion. Thanks.

In, niccig's defense, I think she wasn't referring specifically to the US Health Care Bill, I took her original post to be more of a phillosophical question, attaining to the entire human race.

And my answers are not related to that bill, since I have no idea of what could work or not, in the US or any other country, but I mantain that health care is a right, not a privilege.

[Reyadawnbringer]

In, niccig's defense, I think she wasn't referring specifically to the US Health Care Bill, I took her original post to be more of a phillosophical question, attaining to the entire human race.

And my answers are not related to that bill, since I have no idea of what could work or not, in the US or any other country, but I mantain that health care is a right, not a privilege.

:yeahthat:

[mamicka]

In, niccig's defense, I think she wasn't referring specifically to the US Health Care Bill, I took her original post to be more of a phillosophical question, attaining to the entire human race.

And my answers are not related to that bill, since I have no idea of what could work or not, in the US or any other country, but I mantain that health care is a right, not a privilege.

OK. Then in general - if it requires some one else to do something for you, it can't be a right. Health care can't be a right because it needs to be provided by someone & if it's your right to have it then they would be required to give it to you.

[wellyes]

I'll avoid talking about today's vote anymore - I'm just all nervous about it.


OK. Then in general - if it requires some one else to do something for you, it can't be a right. Health care can't be a right because it needs to be provided by someone & if it's your right to have it then they would be required to give it to you.

I don't really understand, isn't that anything from the government? Like - education, the interstate, the police, etc?

[arivecchi]

I think all human beings should have a right to a certain level of healthcare, perhaps not the best, but yes, some form of coverage. We are often appalled at the state of affairs in poor countries, yet we allow people to die/go bankrupt in our own country because they do not have decent medical coverage. Yes, I hate paying taxes too, but I fundamentally agree with the idea of giving up some of my income to help others. No bill will ever be perfect. This is just a start.

[JBaxter]

I guess when I see stories about the 600lb woman who is TRYING to gain 400lbs and we would be REQUIRED to cover her healthcare it really burns me. There would be no place to draw the line.

[niccig]

I feel like America is VERY me centered and in general we don't give a hoot about our fellow neighbors.
__________________

So you feel this, in general, about people who opposed this particular health care reform?


Oh I knew I shouldn't have started my OP when in a hurry.

I'm not talking about this particular health reform bill. Nor do I agree that if you oppose this bill, you don't care about other people, nor you don't want health reform. You can oppose it because you don't like the provisions, but still want health reform.

I was asking about the difference in cultures where one country would be appalled if you lost your house because you have cancer, while in another country that has been allowed to occur. Is it a right to have health care or a privilege?

[niccig]

In, niccig's defense, I think she wasn't referring specifically to the US Health Care Bill, I took her original post to be more of a phillosophical question, attaining to the entire human race.

And my answers are not related to that bill, since I have no idea of what could work or not, in the US or any other country, but I mantain that health care is a right, not a privilege.

Yes that. I wasn't talking about this specific bill. I haven't read it all, so I can not talk about it.

It is a philosophical question I was posing.

And for the record - Switzerland doesn't have universal health care, everyone has to buy private insurance, but my understanding it is much cheaper to purchase.

[LexyLou]

I guess when I see stories about the 600lb woman who is TRYING to gain 400lbs and we would be REQUIRED to cover her healthcare it really burns me. There would be no place to draw the line.

Yes, but these type of people are the exception, not the norm.

I mean are we going to only allow public education for kids who get a 3.0 or better? We don't draw a line there. All US kids are entitled to an education.

Why is health care any different?

[JBaxter]

Yes, but these type of people are the exception, not the norm.

I mean are we going to only allow public education for kids who get a 3.0 or better? We don't draw a line there. All US kids are entitled to an education.

Why is health care any different?

Thats another can of worms. I do believe all US kids deserve an education. I also believe non residents should pay for their childrens education through taxes or tuition.

Many people milk the system already ask ANY ER nurse. Things that could be taken care of at any GP/Peds office are brought to the ER at 11pm why... because they can and it doesnt cost them anything. There needs to be reforms across the board.

[niccig]

I work I have always worked. I did with out many things to afford my health insurance I never worked for a big company ( offices of 10 or less people). I had a plan with a high deductable but it would have covered anything major. Yes it REALLY bugs me to be required to pay for ANYTHING given to people who are not helping themselves.

I believe many things can be done to make it more affordable but our health care system will be destroyed with this current legislation. < In MY opinion>

Friends have a similar plan, high deductible plan and everything was fine until their son was born. He has Downs Syndrome. They knew that, they did not terminate the pregnancy, which many people do, and his NICU bill was $200K for 2 weeks. They couldn't pay that - they worked with the hospital as some of the bills were because certain doctors were not on their plan, which they had no control over etc. He is 3 and they are still paying it off. Their son is now covered by MediCal, and they don't have to pay for his neurologist, cardiologist etc. They are lucky that he is covered based on his diagnosis.

These people aren't just sitting around with their hands out. They're both working very hard to provide for their family.

I can see how people do abuse the system, but I know more people like my friends that are financially in the hole over medical bills, they need help.

[bubbaray]

OK. Then in general - if it requires some one else to do something for you, it can't be a right. Health care can't be a right because it needs to be provided by someone & if it's your right to have it then they would be required to give it to you.


Allison, I'm not being snarky, but I'm confused about this. What about education? Isn't public education funded by taxes (or individual levies?)? What about public library access? I mean, even civic services like roads, sewer, water, etc are paid for by people who own property and/or work. Do we say that the unemployed homeless can not drink water or walk/drive on roads?

I think at some level, there are certain services that are considered public/basic or even civilized. In most other Western countries, those basic/public services include health care. In the US, it does not. I think most people who live outside of the US are confused about the exclusion of healthcare. Possibly that is what Nicci is talking about?

*I* would like to see people across the globe, not just in the US, have access to a certain basic level of health care. I guess that makes it a moral duty in my mind. I don't like to see people suffer unnecessarily.

[JBaxter]

Friends have a similar plan, high deductible plan and everything was fine until their son was born. He has Downs Syndrome. They knew that, they did not terminate the pregnancy, which many people do, and his NICU bill was $200K for 2 weeks. They couldn't pay that - they worked with the hospital as some of the bills were because certain doctors were not on their plan, which they had no control over etc. He is 3 and they are still paying it off. Their son is now covered by MediCal, and they don't have to pay for his neurologist, cardiologist etc. They are lucky that he is covered based on his diagnosis.

These people aren't just sitting around with their hands out. They're both working very hard to provide for their family.

I can see how people do abuse the system, but I know more people like my friends that are financially in the hole over medical bills, they need help.

See people like your friends are who programs like Medical was designed for. The lady who came to the ER with a toe nail fungus that demanded to be seen a 9pm are the problem. When my brother asked her why she didnt make an appt with her doctor her answer was she didnt want to. ( lets say she was still sitting in the waiting room when my brother got off his shift at 7am) Or parents leaving the child with him in the curtain area getting a breathing treatment while they go off hospital property to smoke. He has stories like that every night.

[Raidra]

See people like your friends are who programs like Medical was designed for. The lady who came to the ER with a toe nail fungus that demanded to be seen a 9pm are the problem. When my brother asked her why she didnt make an appt with her doctor her answer was she didnt want to. ( lets say she was still sitting in the waiting room when my brother got off his shift at 7am) Or parents leaving the child with him in the curtain area getting a breathing treatment while they go off hospital property to smoke. He has stories like that every night.

So they qualified for Medical, but still had to pay $200k for the NICU stay. I don't think it's right to make them pay so much money just because some jerks out there will take advantage. We don't apply that principle to other areas.. if a kid misbehaves on a playground, to we take away all the playgrounds everywhere? If one of our kids behaves badly, do we punish all of our kids?

I totally agree with Melissa.. so much else is free, given to us by the government through our taxes, and it's strange that we exclude healthcare (which, I'm sorry.. is more important that library access).

And not for nothing, but small steps will not do anything to help. Look at the trouble with the banks. The government made rules to reform the system, and the banks found dozens of ways to get around them. We're being forced out of our home, even though we're current on our mortgage, despite the steps the government has taken to protect citizens from their mortgage companies. I highly doubt that any small steps to reform insurance companies would actually do any good. They obviously have a huge incentive to stay as profitable as they have been, they're not just going to up and turn good because the government says "boo."

[mommylamb]

Asking people to believe that this will reduce the deficit is just plain
insulting.

Ok, so the bill has some provisions that cost money, and some provisions that raise money. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (as in the same folks doing the analysis when Republicans are in charge as the ones there now), it raises more money than it spends. It's a pretty simple concept. Yes, it's hard to accurately score anything that goes out over a multitude of years, and this bill is no different than any other. But, this is the best estimate by the economists that do the work.

[mommylamb]

First, I have a 36+ hour migraine, so I apologize for being short, but here are my thoughts:

I agree with the poster who said that it is immoral to take from those who work to give to those who will not. This healthcare bill being discussed is another entitlement program that will rob those who earn the most to pay for those who do not. It is a redistribution of wealth, whether you like the term or not.

Healthcare is broken, no doubt about it, but this healthcare bill being proposed is absolutely, 100% NOT the answer and will ultimately end up costing trillions. Americans are being lied to left and right about the costs involved. It's utterly insulting to think that this is "deficit neutral" or that it will reduce the deficit. It is absolutely impossible.

There are much better ways to reform health care, but this whole bill is not about reforming health care....it's about the government taking over the health care system. It's about the government taking away options, rather than providing them. It sounds nice, like a lot of government programs do, but the government cannot effectively or efficiently manage anything. Just look at Medicare and the Welfare system. Or Social Security. They are disasters, yet everyone is willing to just hand over their health care to the very same people? Sorry, I'm not buying it.

Reform is a noble goal, but there is nothing noble about this bill and process by which it is being shoved down our throats.

And speaking of a moral issue, I am morally opposed to abortion. Why should the government be allowed to take my tax dollars to fund them?

I'm not debating, but I am beyond frustrated with this subject.

Based on this, it seems you don't really know what's actually in the health care bill. I can understand this because there's a lot of misinformation and propaganda out there. It sounds like you think this bill is a single payer system. It's not. There isn't even a public option in there. Sadly, most people have no clue as to really what this bill does. Some of that is because it's complicated, some is because of the misinformation, and some is because people who dislike Obama just don't want to know.

[Globetrotter]

I think at some level, there are certain services that are considered public/basic or even civilized. In most other Western countries, those basic/public services include health care. In the US, it does not. I think most people who live outside of the US are confused about the exclusion of healthcare.

Well said, Melissa.
In the end, we pay if the uninsured can't afford preventive care but present with late state disease and end up in the ER (just one example). I have a relative who moved his family here. this guy works his butt off (he is very well educated) but due to visa reasons he is stuck in a job that doesn't provide benefits for his family, so his wife has untreated fibroids, among other issues. they do not visit the doctor until it is absolutely essential, and until last year their child wasn't insured. I worry about them because a major illness would be disastrous.

[shilo]

i suppose your original question really comes down to how you define your morals (and yes, i do believe that's an individual thing). too often lately, it seems that i find myself not understanding how we as a country could seriously contemplate so many of what have been made into these huge contentious issues... because they just seem (to me) to have such clear cut moral answers. but i guess that's b/c of how i define the morals i live by - which are obviously different from many of the smart, saavy, women of character i've come to love and respect here.

to me, it does seem that _i_ would have to be indifferent to my beliefs and morals to not support healthcare reform. i can't see this issue as one of an 'entitlement' when we're talking about the VAST majority of potential beneficiaries being _deserving_ to the same rights as my family and i. _most_ are not the caricature of the right - slovenly, lazing welfare queens who have ceded their personal responsibilities as individuals, parents and/or citizens. they are hard working, upstanding individuals who may be down on their luck or not have the education or opportunities as the 'haves' like me. and i cannot and will not espouse to my representatives with anything less than _my_ morals which dictate my compassion and conscience here.

[mommylamb]

Personally, I stay out of the question as to whether health care is a moral issue or not. I see this more of a question as whether the specific bill that's on the table right now is better than the status quo or if it's not. In my mind it is better than the status quo. But, as I said before, I think that a lot of people have strong opinions about the bill either in support or as opposed, but don't really understand what's actually in the bill. The bill is not a single payer system. It is not universal coverage. It is not a net cost to taxpayers because of the revenue raisers included in the bill. There are things in the bill that I like and things that I don't like. On the whole, I think it moves the ball forward.

I'm interested in the specifics of why people don't like the bill. And, by specifics, I don't mean the propaganda. I mean specifics.

One of the things I find interesting is people who complain about the cuts in Medicare. It's interesting to me that the same people who complain about unchecked growth of entitlements are suddenly so concerned about cuts to an entitlement. Hypocracy at its finest.

[wellyes]

So they qualified for Medical, but still had to pay $200k for the NICU stay. I don't think it's right to make them pay so much money just because some jerks out there will take advantage.

Same thing with my FIL. Worked his whole life, saved, had health insurance..... cancer diagnosis..... got dropped, went broke. It can happen to anyone in the current system.

[ChunkyNicksChunkyMom]

First, I have a 36+ hour migraine, so I apologize for being short, but here are my thoughts:

I agree with the poster who said that it is immoral to take from those who work to give to those who will not. This healthcare bill being discussed is another entitlement program that will rob those who earn the most to pay for those who do not. It is a redistribution of wealth, whether you like the term or not.

Healthcare is broken, no doubt about it, but this healthcare bill being proposed is absolutely, 100% NOT the answer and will ultimately end up costing trillions. Americans are being lied to left and right about the costs involved. It's utterly insulting to think that this is "deficit neutral" or that it will reduce the deficit. It is absolutely impossible.

There are much better ways to reform health care, but this whole bill is not about reforming health care....it's about the government taking over the health care system. It's about the government taking away options, rather than providing them. It sounds nice, like a lot of government programs do, but the government cannot effectively or efficiently manage anything. Just look at Medicare and the Welfare system. Or Social Security. They are disasters, yet everyone is willing to just hand over their health care to the very same people? Sorry, I'm not buying it.

Reform is a noble goal, but there is nothing noble about this bill and process by which it is being shoved down our throats.

And speaking of a moral issue, I am morally opposed to abortion. Why should the government be allowed to take my tax dollars to fund them?

I'm not debating, but I am beyond frustrated with this subject.


I could not agree more.

[Ceepa]

Hipocrisy.


I don't support the bill. I don't like the way it has been moved through Congress. I think there is enough opposition for the bill that it should be considered unsatisfactory and returned for reworking. If someone wants to build a new overpass we take a year to conduct environmental impact studies, funding reviews, etc. etc. etc. So I hear 'we're tired of talking about it let's get it done.' Huh? What? This thing is huge. This has broad sweeping implications. But the pressure is on to slam it through. Is it so we can finally get back to the business of job creation? Shovel-ready projects? Remember those? So we want to get this done before Easter break? Or else it will stall momentum? The only momentum is massaging peripheral Dems into voting YES. Deem and pass was being considered. If that doesn't raise the disgust in people than what can I say.

And I feel for anyone here or elsewhere who knows someone whose life is intimately and negatively affected by this issue. We all have anecdotes: I have a close family member who is not insured. It is the life decision she has made. She does NOT support this bill.

[mamicka]

Allison, I'm not being snarky, but I'm confused about this. What about education? Isn't public education funded by taxes (or individual levies?)? What about public library access? I mean, even civic services like roads, sewer, water, etc are paid for by people who own property and/or work. Do we say that the unemployed homeless can not drink water or walk/drive on roads?

I think at some level, there are certain services that are considered public/basic or even civilized. In most other Western countries, those basic/public services include health care. In the US, it does not. I think most people who live outside of the US are confused about the exclusion of healthcare. Possibly that is what Nicci is talking about?

*I* would like to see people across the globe, not just in the US, have access to a certain basic level of health care. I guess that makes it a moral duty in my mind. I don't like to see people suffer unnecessarily.

IMO just because the US government (or any government) has instituted these things does not convince me that they are a *right*. I don't believe that I have a right to well maintained roads or a library or even an education for my children. It is one thing to think that all people *should* receive everything they need (healthcare, food, shelter, people who love them, an education, etc) it is quite another to mandate via government that any people foot the bill or do the work in order to make that happen. Not to even touch the issue of who determines what any one person *needs*.

[tnrnchick74]

I haven't read all the replies - blame it on chasing a cranky almost 2 year old...

BUT as an RN, I will say that yes health care is a human right & moral issue. How to PAY for it is not a moral issue or human right - $$ is a finite resource.

And I do not agree with enabling people who refuse to work (and note I say refuse, not unable...though I think that there are a lot of people who are "disabled" who can work and do SOMETHING with retraining) get something for free. I see it all the time in the health care industry - people who refuse to take care of themselves, who refuse to work, who get the million dollar workup for a cold!

I'm for universal healthcare in THEORY. I think Canada and UK have it as close to right as possible, but I'm not sure I want the government running the healthcare industry. They don't have the best record managing social programs - social security is just one example.

I also like that I can choose which hospital, doctor, pharmacy, etc I use - within the guidelines of my healthcare plan.

I'm all for a flat "tax" - 10% across the board to pay for all the social programs the US needs.

[tnrnchick74]

Friends have a similar plan, high deductible plan and everything was fine until their son was born. He has Downs Syndrome. They knew that, they did not terminate the pregnancy, which many people do, and his NICU bill was $200K for 2 weeks. They couldn't pay that - they worked with the hospital as some of the bills were because certain doctors were not on their plan, which they had no control over etc. He is 3 and they are still paying it off. Their son is now covered by MediCal, and they don't have to pay for his neurologist, cardiologist etc. They are lucky that he is covered based on his diagnosis.

These people aren't just sitting around with their hands out. They're both working very hard to provide for their family.

I can see how people do abuse the system, but I know more people like my friends that are financially in the hole over medical bills, they need help.

and these are the people I think SHOULD have assistance from the government (under current plans)...actually I believe ALL children should have easy access for healthcare. They are innocent and cannot work. The parents, they need to be working and being made to pay a minimum amount based on their salary. It sounds like your friends are doing just this and I applaud them!

[BelleoftheBallFlagstaff]

Same thing with my FIL. Worked his whole life, saved, had health insurance..... cancer diagnosis..... got dropped, went broke. It can happen to anyone in the current system.

Happened to my parents. My dad was an engineer, my mom a former RN (at the time was a SAHM). She was diagnosed with a brain tumor had surgeries, long terms care, etc. My dad went bankrupt and lost our house. His employer let him go due to missing so much work, and the health care cost bankrupted him. They owned a home, their cars were paid for, had savings, etc. and my dad still lost it all. That was in 1983.....

[mommylamb]

e.

And I do not agree with enabling people who refuse to work (and note I say refuse, not unable...though I think that there are a lot of people who are "disabled" who can work and do SOMETHING with retraining) get something for free. I see it all the time in the health care industry - people who refuse to take care of themselves, who refuse to work, who get the million dollar workup for a cold!



Then your beef isn't with this bill, it's with the already existing Medicaid program. That's not what this bill's about.

ETA: If anyone is interested in what's actually being voted on, rather than the rhetoric, the Kaiser Family Foundation does a very good factual issue-by-issue description of the bill with none of the spin. http://www.kff.org/healthreform/sidebyside.cfm You want to look at the first PDF on the page, which compares the white house/leadership final bill to the previous versions passed by the Senate and House. The first of the three columns is the relevant one.

[gatorsmom]

Yes, I believe this is a moral issue. I'm writing this in a hurry so this won't be as eloquently stated as I'd like. But, as a Catholic, I draw from what I personally believe Jesus Christ would have wanted- to help the poor, sick and underprivileged, disabled, forgotten, etc. I believe that as a society we have a duty to protect anyone who cannot protect themselves, or speak for themselves or needs help in any way. This applies to so many "hot topic" discussions- welfare, abortion, and so many other topics. Providing healthcare for those who cannot provide it for themselves is our duty as a society.

ETA: I hope this bill floating around Congress can do that without harming the rest of our society in some way.

[arivecchi]

ETA: If anyone is interested in what's actually being voted on, rather than the rhetoric, the Kaiser Family Foundation does a very good factual issue-by-issue description of the bill with none of the spin. http://www.kff.org/healthreform/sidebyside.cfm You want to look at the first PDF on the page, which compares the white house/leadership final bill to the previous versions passed by the Senate and House. The first of the three columns is the relevant one. Thanks for presenting the facts. This is very interesting.

[Cam&Clay]

I try to stay out of these discussions, mostly because I feel I really don't know enough about either side. DH, however, is adamantly opposed to the bill and spouts off about it all the time. The only point he has made to me that stuck was that people shouldn't want government in their health care. WE (our family) have government health care (military) and hate it. It's slow. I have no choices. They don't pay for hardly anything I need. It's the worst health care I've ever had and I can't wait until he retires and we can get regular insurance.

So that's the only point I agree with. Having the government in my health care has made it worse, in my opinion. Now, one could argue that at least I have health care. I agree. I am fortunate that I do, and that it is free. But, we he retires next fall, we will not be paying out of pocket to continue with Tricare. No way.

[jenmcadams]

Ok, so the bill has some provisions that cost money, and some provisions that raise money. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (as in the same folks doing the analysis when Republicans are in charge as the ones there now), it raises more money than it spends. It's a pretty simple concept. Yes, it's hard to accurately score anything that goes out over a multitude of years, and this bill is no different than any other. But, this is the best estimate by the economists that do the work.

I know we're not supposed to be debating the bill, but that CBO study is based on the fact that the Revenue generating activities kick in almost immediately, but most of the benefits and entitlements (expenditures) take 4 years to phase in. So, the CBO report is right that in the first ten years, the plan generates slightly more revenue than it uses (with a lot of assumptions), but after that ten year period, when all of the benefits are in full force, the plan is no longer revenue generating. Additional research has been done (and the CBO admits they were looking at the 10 year period specifically) that supports this by both liberal and conservative groups.

[3blackcats]

Every time I take my daughter to the dr's, I think that somewhere in America there is a mom who can't afford to take her baby to get well. This breaks my heart. How do you choose to feed your family or get them well? I don't think that this should be a choice families have to make.

Over the last few years, I have watched my good friend struggle to keep a roof over her head, food on the table and the bill collectors away. Her little girl was diagnosed with leukemia. Some months all she had for groceries was $20.

Of course this is a moral issue.

Next time you go to the hospital, picture having to step over the hurting/sick/injured person who won't be able to be treated because they aren't lucky enough to have health insurance. What happens if this person was a little girl with leukemia? Or your own parent? Are you morally superior enough to be ok with them not getting help?

Who gains with this type of setup? Not the regular folks, it's the corporations.

Of course I'm Canadian, so I do feel that health care is a right, not a privilege.

[Reyadawnbringer]

Every time I take my daughter to the dr's, I think that somewhere in America there is a mom who can't afford to take her baby to get well. This breaks my heart. How do you choose to feed your family or get them well? I don't think that this should be a choice families have to make.

Over the last few years, I have watched my good friend struggle to keep a roof over her head, food on the table and the bill collectors away. Her little girl was diagnosed with leukemia. Some months all she had for groceries was $20.

Of course this is a moral issue.

Next time you go to the hospital, picture having to step over the hurting/sick/injured person who won't be able to be treated because they aren't lucky enough to have health insurance. What happens if this person was a little girl with leukemia? Or your own parent? Are you morally superior enough to be ok with them not getting help?

Who gains with this type of setup? Not the regular folks, it's the corporations.

Of course I'm Canadian, so I do feel that health care is a right, not a privilege.

:yeahthat:

I completely agree with everything you said. I REALLY have a hard time believing that the naysayers would hold by their convictions if such things were to happen to them.

[wellyes]

I believe that as a society we have a duty to protect anyone who cannot protect themselves, or speak for themselves or needs help in any way.I personally agree with this viewpoint. But I also to add that health care reform is not really about charity, or helping the downtrodden. The argument is that everyone thinks it's awful that coverage is cut for people who get very sick or have preexisting conditions. But the only way to make coverage affordable for healthy people, while still covering the sickest/most expensive people, is to get everyone insured. In that sense, the morality of "is healthcare a right" is pretty separate from the pragmatic question of the best way to shape reform.

Do I think it's a right? Well. I don't know. I have been to developing nations and I have a hard time envisioning a world where everyone can even get enough food, let alone be guaranteed antibiotics or dental care or screenings whenever they need it. But in a very wealthy nation like ours I do have a hard time with the the idea that health coverage is earned through labor (or the labor of a spouse / parent) and propped up by tax incentive to employers. I wish we should have a more logical system driven by community good.

[tarahsolazy]

I don't think this bill will solve the major crisis in the funding of the healthcare system.

I really think that everyone should have access to affordable basic health care coverage, somehow, and I'm not at all opposed to a single payor system.

However, there is real problem IMO (and I work in the system, with both privleged and poor patients) with the idea that only the market should drive health care usage and access, because while it sounds great to say this, it is not what happens. If you're going for a solely pay for play system, with the proxy that you pay by working and getting coverage via an employer, then people who can't pay shouldn't get care. period. Everyday where I work, people with no coverage come in and get literally millions of dollars in services that are never payed for. So, the insurance premiums of those with coverage end up going up, in a roundabout way. I think if you want the market to rule, it should rule. You can't have it both ways. Luckily, I just take care of my patients and try to save their lives regardless, and I always will, but I don't believe that our system can work when we have no way to soften the blow of expensive care for uncovered patients, and my patients are often million-dollar babies.

I also don't think that companies should be able to make profits for stockholders by providing health insurance. I cannot see how that is anything other than a huge conflict of interest. If the premiums are higher, and less services are delivered, you make more money, which doesn't really fit with my idea of ethical business practice. Sure, you can make your overhead plus a small growth percentage to support the business, but profit on this seems obscene to me.

I am morally opposed to the Iraq war, and to corporate tax breaks, and to bailing out banks, but unfortunately, the government used my tax money for that. No one can win every time.

[MissyAg94]

The real question is whether or not it is the proper role of the US Federal Government to be involved in health insurance for the citizens of this country. I can't find it in the Constitution. That is the problem. The role of the Federal government was well-defined by our founders. We move away from that foundation at our own peril.

[mamicka]

The real question is whether or not it is the proper role of the US Federal Government to be involved in health insurance for the citizens of this country. I can't find it in the Constitution. That is the problem. The role of the Federal government was well-defined by our founders. We move away from that foundation at our own peril.
:yeahthat:

[SnuggleBuggles]

Every time I take my daughter to the dr's, I think that somewhere in America there is a mom who can't afford to take her baby to get well. This breaks my heart. How do you choose to feed your family or get them well? I don't think that this should be a choice families have to make.

Over the last few years, I have watched my good friend struggle to keep a roof over her head, food on the table and the bill collectors away. Her little girl was diagnosed with leukemia. Some months all she had for groceries was $20.

Of course this is a moral issue.

Next time you go to the hospital, picture having to step over the hurting/sick/injured person who won't be able to be treated because they aren't lucky enough to have health insurance. What happens if this person was a little girl with leukemia? Or your own parent? Are you morally superior enough to be ok with them not getting help?

Who gains with this type of setup? Not the regular folks, it's the corporations.

Of course I'm Canadian, so I do feel that health care is a right, not a privilege.

I think that is a great answer to the OP's title question. I agree.

Beth

[sariana]

The real question is whether or not it is the proper role of the US Federal Government to be involved in health insurance for the citizens of this country. I can't find it in the Constitution. That is the problem. The role of the Federal government was well-defined by our founders. We move away from that foundation at our own peril.

Well, I can find in the Constitution that a black person counts as only three fifths of a person. So I'm always really careful about holding up the "original" Constitution as the be-all and end-all of our nation.

The Founding Fathers were brilliant in that they made sure our Constitution was a dynamic document. They knew they could not possibly foresee all future issues, so they created a document that had the ability to be changed as needed to meet the changing needs of its citizens. [word repetition was not originally intentional, but I decided to leave it]

[MissyAg94]

Then you should be calling for an amendment to the Constitution making health insurance a federal issue!!!!! That is what makes the Constitution "dynamic."

BTW, the AG's from many states will be filing a lawsuit fighting this bill and it's obvious trampling of state's rights.

[gatorsmom]

I guess when I see stories about the 600lb woman who is TRYING to gain 400lbs and we would be REQUIRED to cover her healthcare it really burns me. There would be no place to draw the line.

Honestly, I see statements like this and I just dont' understand. CLEARLY, a woman who weighs 600lbs already and wants to gain more NEEDS help, most likely of a psychological kind. In my opinion, there are many people in society who just have a hard time living and pulling it togehter on a day to day basis. So many people are quick to judge them as lazy or dishonest and maybe some are but many are not. They are just unable to pull it together because of emotional or psychological issues. Maybe with regular medical care they could get the help they need and become productive members of society.

[motherofone]

I believe access to healthcare is a right. Like other posters, I too know a person whose life has been negatively affected by the insurance companies desire for profit. At 36, one of my closest friends suffered a major stroke. Of course, she can no longer get "regular" health insurance. She pays $2500 per month-yes month, for a catastrophic plan that has a huge deductible. It doesn't cover regular doctor visits so pap smears, blood tests or anything else is paid for out of pocket. She works as much as she can and her husband works so I don't see her getting anything for nothing.

Healthcare reform is not only for the indigent, it is for hard working people affected by disease or accidents. It is for people who work yet cannot afford health insurance. For all of you who say "get a job," good luck finding something with full benefits.

My dd goes to private school so we don't use the public school system. Should my family (and all others who don't have kids in public school-including seniors, childless people, private schoolers) not have to pay taxes to the schools? Why should my hard won money be taken away to pay for those parents who don't work hard enough to pay for private school?

[vonfirmath]

If you only have enough resources in the country to treat X cases of Y disease and X+10 people actually have Y disease -- and it is a right for all X+10 of those people to have their disease treated, what is the answer?

What if, instead of X+10 it is X+100, or even X+1000.

What if, the fact of the matter is,it is not cost efficient to treat even those X Cases because they may not die of Y Disease, but after being cured of that, some percentage of them will have Z as well which ALSO takes more resources to take care of.

This is what health care has become and why it is a problem. If we didn't have the ability to treat these diseases, no one would be saying it was a right. But we have the ability, at astronomical costs. At an individual basis, we will spend EVERY penny plus more we have to keep an individual we love alive. (or ourselves). But an organization (even the government) that has limited resources it has to figure out how to divide and pass around? Is going to make different decisions.

[pinkmomagain]

In my opinion, there are many people in society who just have a hard time living and pulling it togehter on a day to day basis. So many people are quick to judge them as lazy or dishonest and maybe some are but many are not. They are just unable to pull it together because of emotional or psychological issues. Maybe with regular medical care they could get the help they need and become productive members of society.

I think this is very, very true. Sorry if this is straying a bit from the OP, but just as many are quick to judge a child as "bad" when in fact their undesirable behavior has a valid cause, so I believe it is with people who label others as "lazy." Heck, I personally know people like this who really have some sort of emotional or learning or psychological issue that hampers their abilities to keep a good job and pay their bills, etc.

[edurnemk]

Not to even touch the issue of who determines what any one person *needs*.

To me anything that affects the physical wellbeing of a person is a need, it's something you can't do without. And I think healthcare falls in this category.

[sariana]

My dd goes to private school so we don't use the public school system. Should my family (and all others who don't have kids in public school-including seniors, childless people, private schoolers) not have to pay taxes to the schools? Why should my hard won money be taken away to pay for those parents who don't work hard enough to pay for private school?

I think the public school system is an excellent analogy for the healthcare debate. We have an institution that provides a basic level of service for all children. Some children need more (such as my son); they get more. Some people choose not to utilize the system; that is their right. Some use the system and also supplement (private tutoring, after-school classes, etc.); that also is their right.

A long time ago our country decided that an educated public was an important component of a strong country. Is it free? Of course not. Do some people feel they should not have to pay taxes to support the public school system? You bet; I hear it every time there is a proposal to levy a new tax to support the schools. But part of living in a society is participating in (and yes, paying for) things that are good for the society.

It's not a perfect analogy because education is run largely at the local level. But some aspects (such as the special education services my son receives) are mandated at the federal level.

I don't understand why healthcare can't be the same way. Everyone receives access to a basic level of care; those who need more receive more (within certain limits--what would those be? I don't know. That's a problem in education too and would require new debate.). People could choose to decline to use those services but would still have to pay the taxes to support the services. People also could choose to purchase additional services (or their employers could offer additional services).

Even those who choose to homeschool or send their children to private schools probably are grateful that other people's children have the option of attending public schools. The alternative could be frightening. Why does it seem so different when it comes to healthcare?

[MissyAg94]

I believe access to healthcare is a right.

But you do not have the right to have that access paid for by your fellow citizens through federal mandate IMO.

[sste]

Yes, I believe healthcare is a moral issue.

I think what some posters may not realize is that the non-working poor have OK health insurance -- medicaid. The non-working elderly have comparatively great health insurance - - medicare. The people who are particularly vulnerable are not those who don't work . . . they are the people just like us. People who worked but lost their job due to the illness, people swamped by bills from catastrophic illness, lower income and even middle income people with crappy insurance who can't manage all the self-pay on their own, and working people who can't get remotely affordable health insurance.

No comments about the healthcare bill per se as I have not looked into it closely since I don't think its going to pass.

[edurnemk]

I don't understand why healthcare can't be the same way. Everyone receives access to a basic level of care; those who need more receive more (within certain limits--what would those be? I don't know. That's a problem in education too and would require new debate.). People could choose to decline to use those services but would still have to pay the taxes to support the services. People also could choose to purchase additional services (or their employers could offer additional services).



This is the way it works in my country. I have never used the public health system, but I pay for it (it's deducted as a part of social security from everyone's salary). The quality of care is in no way as good as private health care, but if I could not affor private care I know I have this option.

[Fairy]

I guess when I see stories about the 600lb woman who is TRYING to gain 400lbs and we would be REQUIRED to cover her healthcare it really burns me. There would be no place to draw the line.

Yes, but how many people would truly fall into this kind of abuse of the system? This is an extreme example that is not representative of the big picture. There's always someone who's gonna abuse the system no matter what the system happens to be.

[BelleoftheBallFlagstaff]

Yes, but how many people would truly fall into this kind of abuse of the system? This is an extreme example that is not representative of the big picture. There's always someone who's gonna abuse the system no matter what the system happens to be.

VERY true. One bad apple shouldn't spoil the bunch!

[Fairy]

The real question is whether or not it is the proper role of the US Federal Government to be involved in health insurance for the citizens of this country. I can't find it in the Constitution. That is the problem. The role of the Federal government was well-defined by our founders. We move away from that foundation at our own peril.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I'm being serious. The first word there being life. I'm not being snarky. Do I believe that the Constitution should drive the level of entitlement of healthcare? No. However, I very much believe that if one does want to look for a Constitutional edict, then I find it there.

[Fairy]

But you do not have the right to have that access paid for by your fellow citizens through federal mandate IMO.

We already do. It's called Medicare and Medicaid. I want to repeat, this particular bill today does not have a public option -- meaning no gov't-run healthcare plan; all the plans are corproate entities. Which people will BUY. With their money.

[kcandz]

How is anyone comfortable with such a controversial bill being rammed through like it is?

I wasn't comfortable with the rush to call war and jump into Iraq on the whole "WMD" "reasoning" of the previous administration and that still got rammed through. Sometimes stuff we don't like happens.

[Fairy]

This thread is was not initially about how we get there, but about whether or not healthcare is a basic human right and, therefore, a moral issue. I believe healthcare is a basic human right. So, I do believe it is a moral issue.

[sariana]

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I'm being serious. The first word there being life. I'm not being snarky. Do I believe that the Constitution should drive the level of entitlement of healthcare? No. However, I very much believe that if one does want to look for a Constitutional edict, then I find it there.

Technically this quote comes from the Declaration of Independence, which is not a legal document for our country. However, the Constitution was written with the intention of upholding the principles of life, liberty, and property (the pursuit of happiness?), so the argument is still valid.

[niccig]

I want to thank everyone for replying to this thread, and to apologize for starting a thread like this, and then being gone for half the day. I should have posted it tomorrow when I was around more.

I wanted input as I found the interview I quoted in my OP to be on mind every since I heard it last week. Is health care a moral right or a privilege?

Coming from a country where it is a right, everyone has a certain level of access and you can buy more if you wish and people do buy private insurance in Australia, but it is much much cheaper than here, it has been difficult for me to grapple with how health care is set up here in the USA. In many ways I have not met with culture shock, but this one issue has me scratching my head.

It's the wealthiest country in the world, yet 45,000 deaths are said to be due to no health insurance http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/17/harvard-medical-study-links-lack-of-insurance-to-45000-us-deaths-a-year/

46.3 million don't have any health insurance http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/income_wealth/014227.html There is 307 million people in the USA, so 1 in 6 do not have health insurance.

I personally know people that don't get the medication or treatment they need because of their high deductible, no coverage for what they need.


I've never had this conversation with anyone until I moved to the USA. It is unbelievable for people that live outside the USA, that not everyone in the USA has medical coverage of some sort. There is also a level of stress here over medical issues that is not present in countries that have some sort of coverage for everyone. People don't lose their coverage if they change/lose jobs nor do they go bankrupt because they hit their lifetime maximum and still have cancer etc.. I do think that many people here may not realise how much stress you are dealing with, until you don't have that stress. Seriously, no one in Australia discusses health and medical issues to the extent I have experienced here. My cousin was in a very sesrious motorcycle accident before Thanksgiving last year, 2 months in a coma, 3 months in inpatient rehab and probably another 6 months in outpatient rehab. Friends here would first say "I'm sorry, I hope he gets better," and then the next question was "how is he going to pay for all that treatment? It will bankrupt your family." Bankruptcy never crossed my aunt's mind as that doesn't happen.

I do think health care is currently a privilege here in the USA. You have health care if your job provides it, if you have enough money to pay 1K a month for private insurance premiums + high deductibles (1k seemed to be what people said it costs them in a post I made the other day) or if you're healthy enough to not have lost your job or be excluded for a pre-existing condition. It's also a privilege that anyone can lose at any moment through unemployment, or illness. Get sick with cancer, lose your job because you can't work, and there goes your health insurance, so no more medical treatment for you.

I do feel very lucky that we have the health care that we do have through DH's work, and at the same time I feel guilty that some other mother in this country can not give it to her child. Why is my DS more deserving than hers? And my answer is, he is not more deserving, his Dad just has a better job so DS gets more privileges. I can't accept that my son gets medical care and another child does not.

I do like the analogy with education. It is a right for all children in the USA to have an education through grade 12. People would be fighting the government if they said no more public education, it is too expensive, if you want your child to be educated than pay for it out of your own pocket. Yet, we do this with health care. Why was education seen as a right and as good for society, yet access to health care was not seen as good for society?

I am trying to understand the different positions on this issue and I thank everyone for sharing their views.

[BelleoftheBallFlagstaff]

I want to thank everyone for replying to this thread, and to apologize for starting a thread like this, and then being gone for half the day. I should have posted it tomorrow when I was around more.

I wanted input as I found the interview I quoted in my OP to be on mind every since I heard it last week. Is health care a moral right or a privilege?

Coming from a country where it is a right, everyone has a certain level of access and you can buy more if you wish and people do buy private insurance in Australia, but it is much much cheaper than here, it has been difficult for me to grapple with how health care is set up here in the USA. In many ways I have not met with culture shock, but this one issue has me scratching my head.

It's the wealthiest country in the world, yet 45,000 deaths are said to be due to no health insurance http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/17/harvard-medical-study-links-lack-of-insurance-to-45000-us-deaths-a-year/

46.3 million don't have any health insurance http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/income_wealth/014227.html

I personally know people that don't get the medication or treatment they need because of their high deductible, no coverage for what they need.


I've never had this conversation with anyone until I moved to the USA. It is unbelievable for people that live outside the USA, that not everyone in the USA has medical coverage of some sort. There is also a level of stress here over medical issues that is not present in countries that have some sort of coverage for everyone. People don't lose their coverage if they change/lose jobs nor do they go bankrupt because they hit their lifetime maximum and still have cancer etc.. I do think that many people here may not realise how much stress you are dealing with, until you don't have that stress. Seriously, no one in Australia discusses health and medical issues to the extent I have experienced here. My cousin was in a very bad motorcycle accident before Thanksgiving last year, 2 months in a coma, 3 months in inpatient rehab and probably another 6 months in outpatient rehab. Friends here would first say "I'm sorry, I hope he gets better," and then the next question was "how is he going to pay for all that treatment? It will bankrupt your family." Bankruptcy never crossed my aunt's mind as that doesn't happen.

I do think health care is currently a privilege here in the USA. You have health care if your job provides it, if you have enough money to pay 1K a month for private insurance premiums + high deductibles (1k seemed to be what people said it costs them in a post I made the other day) or if you're healthy enough to not have lost your job or be excluded for a pre-existing condition. It's also a privilege that anyone can lose at any moment through unemployment, or illness. Get sick with cancer, lose your job because you can't work, and there goes your health insurance, so no more medical treatment for you.

I do feel very lucky that we have the health care that we do have through DH's work, and at the same time I feel guilty that some other mother in this country can not give it to her child. Why is my DS more deserving than hers? And my answer is, he is not more deserving, his Dad just has a better job so DS gets more privileges. I can't accept that my son gets medical care and another child does not.

I do like the analogy with education. It is a right for all children in the USA to have an education through grade 12. People would be fighting the government if they said no more public education, it is too expensive, if you want your child to be educated than pay for it out of your own pocket. Yet, we do this with health care. Why was education seen as a right and as good for society, yet access to health care was not seen as good for society?

I couldn't agree more. I think seeing a persons opinion from outside the US is a good thing. My MIL is Canadian, and although she isn't nearly as well versed as you, she can't understand it either. My dad was the person that lost it all... Job, home, savings and worst his wife.

[kijip]

Sure it's a moral issue. But like many interesting moral issues there is more than one way to dice the apple. Perfectly moral and caring people can disagree on the solution.

Uninsured people cost taxpayers and rate payers money so yes, it can be cheaper, and deficit reducing, to just provide affordable coverage off the bat than pay for emergency care and deferring cheap preventative medicine. There are a number of examples of this working for high risk groups. In my city one pilot that provided housing and healthcare to chronic street drunks saved 4.7 million on a handful of dozens of people in a single year. Yet when it opened people were decrying it for the high cost. Now everyone, on both sides of the aisle wants to see it replicated.

[kijip]

In my opinion, there are many people in society who just have a hard time living and pulling it togehter on a day to day basis. So many people are quick to judge them as lazy or dishonest and maybe some are but many are not. They are just unable to pull it together because of emotional or psychological issues. Maybe with regular medical care they could get the help they need and become productive members of society.

There is also the following to consider:

When adjusted for inflation HUD spending (driving the affordability of housing for the poor) is vastly lower than it was in 1975.

Mental health assistance is less readily available now to the low-income and poor than it was a generation ago.

Over a number of decades, we have shed millions and millions of well paying manufacturing and production jobs in the rush for ever cheaper consumer crap. The economic pressures faced by the working poor now are more vast than ever. Now we are shedding tech jobs. What's left? Our economy can not survive on Subway and Walmart jobs alone and roughly 3/4 of Americans do not have higher educations.

1 in 8 Americans is now on food stamps and need to be in order to eat.

Hundreds of thousands of formerly working poor and previously middle class folks will become homeless this year. I know a woman, with 2 children and a law degree that is moments from being homeless. Poverty is not a problem only a few people face.

Being poor and facing all the above could make it hard for ANY OF US to function.

A formerly homeless client at my work said this and I think it rings true in the health care and jobs debates:

"I want to see some justice done for these people out here, and not just because I'm one of them, but because we're all together in this thing called life and we have to look out for each other"

[jamesmom]

I want to thank everyone for replying to this thread, and to apologize for starting a thread like this, and then being gone for half the day. I should have posted it tomorrow when I was around more.

I wanted input as I found the interview I quoted in my OP to be on mind every since I heard it last week. Is health care a moral right or a privilege?

Coming from a country where it is a right, everyone has a certain level of access and you can buy more if you wish and people do buy private insurance in Australia, but it is much much cheaper than here, it has been difficult for me to grapple with how health care is set up here in the USA. In many ways I have not met with culture shock, but this one issue has me scratching my head.

It's the wealthiest country in the world, yet 45,000 deaths are said to be due to no health insurance http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/17/harvard-medical-study-links-lack-of-insurance-to-45000-us-deaths-a-year/

46.3 million don't have any health insurance http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/income_wealth/014227.html

I personally know people that don't get the medication or treatment they need because of their high deductible, no coverage for what they need.


I've never had this conversation with anyone until I moved to the USA. It is unbelievable for people that live outside the USA, that not everyone in the USA has medical coverage of some sort. There is also a level of stress here over medical issues that is not present in countries that have some sort of coverage for everyone. People don't lose their coverage if they change/lose jobs nor do they go bankrupt because they hit their lifetime maximum and still have cancer etc.. I do think that many people here may not realise how much stress you are dealing with, until you don't have that stress. Seriously, no one in Australia discusses health and medical issues to the extent I have experienced here. My cousin was in a very sesrious motorcycle accident before Thanksgiving last year, 2 months in a coma, 3 months in inpatient rehab and probably another 6 months in outpatient rehab. Friends here would first say "I'm sorry, I hope he gets better," and then the next question was "how is he going to pay for all that treatment? It will bankrupt your family." Bankruptcy never crossed my aunt's mind as that doesn't happen.

I do think health care is currently a privilege here in the USA. You have health care if your job provides it, if you have enough money to pay 1K a month for private insurance premiums + high deductibles (1k seemed to be what people said it costs them in a post I made the other day) or if you're healthy enough to not have lost your job or be excluded for a pre-existing condition. It's also a privilege that anyone can lose at any moment through unemployment, or illness. Get sick with cancer, lose your job because you can't work, and there goes your health insurance, so no more medical treatment for you.

I do feel very lucky that we have the health care that we do have through DH's work, and at the same time I feel guilty that some other mother in this country can not give it to her child. Why is my DS more deserving than hers? And my answer is, he is not more deserving, his Dad just has a better job so DS gets more privileges. I can't accept that my son gets medical care and another child does not.

I do like the analogy with education. It is a right for all children in the USA to have an education through grade 12. People would be fighting the government if they said no more public education, it is too expensive, if you want your child to be educated than pay for it out of your own pocket. Yet, we do this with health care. Why was education seen as a right and as good for society, yet access to health care was not seen as good for society?

Amen! Thanks for putting it so eloquently! I also come from a country with universal healthcare where people have a safety net if they get a serious illness or injury. It's always been mind boggling to me that so many families in this country are one serious illness or injury away from bankruptcy, even when they have health insurance. I also know families who have been pushed to the brink financially because they have a child or children with autism and need to pay for a lot of therapy that isn't covered by their insurance company. Our health insurance system is broken, and the legislation passed today is a start in addressing some of the problems.

[niccig]

I think at some level, there are certain services that are considered public/basic or even civilized. In most other Western countries, those basic/public services include health care. In the US, it does not. I think most people who live outside of the US are confused about the exclusion of healthcare. Possibly that is what Nicci is talking about?

Yes, and this then is a historical question. Why was healthcare excluded yet other public/basic services like education/public works/emergency services included?

DH thinks part of the answer is the mis-trust of the government, which goes back to how the USA was formed. As he likes to remind me "we kicked out the King, you kept the Queen." But then I don't understand the trust in the corporation to do a better job, as that hasn't happened. When health insurance is a for-profit business, profits are increased when payouts are decreased. I do wonder how many people were denied medical treatment for the ex-Cigna CEO to get a bonus of $110 million? I do think it's morally wrong for a health insurance company to have millions and millions in profits and people are denied coverage or going bankrupt over medical bills. When did health care become a for-profit business and not about caring for people?




*I* would like to see people across the globe, not just in the US, have access to a certain basic level of health care. I guess that makes it a moral duty in my mind. I don't like to see people suffer unnecessarily.

I agree with this. Lack of basic health care is not solely an issue for people in the US, it is across the globe.

OK, it's late and I'm going to bed.

[mommylamb]

The real question is whether or not it is the proper role of the US Federal Government to be involved in health insurance for the citizens of this country. I can't find it in the Constitution. That is the problem. The role of the Federal government was well-defined by our founders. We move away from that foundation at our own peril.

The constitution also set up a legislative branch of government. And, believe it or not, the purpose of that branch is to pass laws, not twiddle their thumbs. Why on Earth would they have created a Congress if they thought the only legal framework that would ever be needed is the constitution itself. That's kind of silly.

[mommylamb]

I know we're not supposed to be debating the bill, but that CBO study is based on the fact that the Revenue generating activities kick in almost immediately, but most of the benefits and entitlements (expenditures) take 4 years to phase in. So, the CBO report is right that in the first ten years, the plan generates slightly more revenue than it uses (with a lot of assumptions), but after that ten year period, when all of the benefits are in full force, the plan is no longer revenue generating. Additional research has been done (and the CBO admits they were looking at the 10 year period specifically) that supports this by both liberal and conservative groups.

CBO always looks at a 10 year period. As it is, any prediction even that far out is only a best guess. It really doesn't make sense to go out any further. It's a good point that you make, and this bill certainly isn't the end all be all of health care. There are a lot of things that I wish they had done that they hadn't in this bill.

[egoldber]

Yes, and this then is a historical question. Why was healthcare excluded yet other public/basic services like education/public works/emergency services included?

And oddly enough, a few months ago there was an NPR story:

Accidents Of History Created U.S. Health System (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=114045132)

[arivecchi]

The real question is whether or not it is the proper role of the US Federal Government to be involved in health insurance for the citizens of this country. I can't find it in the Constitution. That is the problem. The role of the Federal government was well-defined by our founders. We move away from that foundation at our own peril. So we should get rid of Medicare and Medicaid then?

[mommylamb]

I try to stay out of these discussions, mostly because I feel I really don't know enough about either side. DH, however, is adamantly opposed to the bill and spouts off about it all the time. The only point he has made to me that stuck was that people shouldn't want government in their health care. WE (our family) have government health care (military) and hate it. It's slow. I have no choices. They don't pay for hardly anything I need. It's the worst health care I've ever had and I can't wait until he retires and we can get regular insurance.

So that's the only point I agree with. Having the government in my health care has made it worse, in my opinion. Now, one could argue that at least I have health care. I agree. I am fortunate that I do, and that it is free. But, we he retires next fall, we will not be paying out of pocket to continue with Tricare. No way.

Again, this bill does not set up a publicly run insurance option. It sets up exchanges for private insurance policies and holds them to certain standards. It requires people to buy a private insurance policy and provides poor people the resources to help them do so.

I know plenty of people who love Tricare. One of the women in my office could get health insurance through our work, but she chooses to stay on Tricare. And lots of people with private insurance, like you, are not satisfied with their private policies.

I suppose this means that come 65 you won't be relying on Medicare. I know I will be.

[himom]

The constitution also set up a legislative branch of government. And, believe it or not, the purpose of that branch is to pass laws, not twiddle their thumbs. Why on Earth would they have created a Congress if they thought the only legal framework that would ever be needed is the constitution itself. That's kind of silly.

The creation of a legislative branch of government is not the same as granting them the ability to make any law they want.

Off topic slightly, but legislators are supposed to be representing the people that voted them into office, not following the commands of the chief executive. That's why we have different branches. People around here (Democratic state) are MAD and the next election should be interesting.

[jenmcadams]

Off topic slightly, but legislators are supposed to be representing the people that voted them into office, not following the commands of the chief executive. That's why we have different branches. People around here (Democratic state) are MAD and the next election should be interesting.

Honestly, this is a big part of what makes me furious. While I understand that part of having a representative democracy involves having my representative get more educated about topics/legislation than me, so that they can make educated decisions on which way to vote, this whole process has seemed extreme. It honestly makes my skin crawl (as a conservative leaning independent) to have the government tell me they know better than I do about something like this. It honestly bugs the crap out of me to see the headlines about how the Obama administration is getting ready to start a PR campaign today to "sell" this program/bill to the people. I feel like they underestimate my ability as a bright, analytical person to read this bill and understand what it contains. The public sentiment has been so against this particular bill and it's such a historic and massive undertaking that I can't believe so many people were swayed by backroom deals and arm twisting to vote for it. In the same way Republicans overspent and mismanaged things for the previous 8 years and were voted out of office, I'd be pretty nervous to be Democrat who voted for this bill come November.

[egoldber]

I'd be pretty nervous to be Democrat who voted for this bill come November.

But the way I understand it, it was pretty much they were damned if they did and damned if they didn't. No matter how they voted, in the fall the Republicans were going to either decry the bill OR say that were weak and ineffective. Which was it to be? I guess personally I'd rather be voted out of office because of something I did do and voted with my conscience vs being voted out for something I didn't do.


I feel like they underestimate my ability as a bright, analytical person to read this bill and understand what it contains.

They may underestimate you, but I think most people have NO IDEA what is actually in the bill. How many people posting here said exactly that they did not know what was in the bill, but instead relied on someone else's impressions? And this board on the whole has a MUCH higher education level than the average American. So I really think it is true that the majority of the American people don't know what is in this bill.

[wellyes]

They may underestimate you, but I think most people have NO IDEA what is actually in the bill. How many people posting here said exactly that they did not know what was in the bill, but instead relied on someone else's impressions? And this board on the whole has a MUCH higher education level than the average American. So I really think it is true that the majority of the American people don't know what is in this bill.Yeah. I think there is more disinformation out there than actual info.

Is health care a moral issue - I don't think there is any poster on this board who wouldn't (or hasn't) made sacrifices to ensure that their family is covered. And I'm sure most of us would go bankrupt and give up all our comforts and go hungry to ensure our loved ones and especially our kids got care if they needed it if if wasn't covered. Health insurance aside, health care is critically important to all of us. Whether that desire for people to have the ability to get well extends beyond our own family, well that's a different issue.

As for the way the bill was done - the overwhelming majority of Americans want reform, compromise was never going to happen, so I can understand the way it was done.

[Ceepa]

The constitution also set up a legislative branch of government. And, believe it or not, the purpose of that branch is to pass laws, not twiddle their thumbs. Why on Earth would they have created a Congress if they thought the only legal framework that would ever be needed is the constitution itself. That's kind of silly.

Look. The Congress has danced around and threatened to pervert their power for a while now. And when there is one party pulling for this and the other party is saying 'Let's take some time. Let's redo this. Let's rework it.' And the other party jams the bill through (against the wish of many citizens to boot). Then it is about advancing a political agenda. it is about the hubris of the administration. It is about the government taking liberties with their power. It is NOT about representation. And don't tell me every Dem voted their conscience. Political back room deals didn't come into play?

Nothing silly about that. I'll say it again. If this is the definition of silly then we are on a dangerous path.

And yes, let us bring up the Constitution. As pp very clearly and correctly said, if there is disagreement with the Constitution, then BEGIN AN AMENDMENT PROCESS, don't just trample the words therein. This goes beyond providing healthcare for the people.

[wellyes]

And yes, let us bring up the Constitution. As pp very clearly and correctly said, if there is disagreement with the Constitution, then BEGIN AN AMENDMENT PROCESS, don't just trample the words therein. This goes beyond providing healthcare for the people.

Would you dismantle the education department and social security / medicaid since they're not in there either? If so, that's certainly your right to feel that way, but that is a very minority viewpoint.

[Ceepa]

Would you dismantle the education department and social security / medicaid since they're not in there either? If so, that's certainly your right to feel that way, but that is a very minority viewpoint.

Your argument is misleading. Doesn't prove the point of ignoring Constitutional procedure.

[egoldber]

But the point is that a lot of what our government now does is not in the Constitution. Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, foods stamps, WIC, public education, school lunch subsidies, unemployment, tax subsidies to corporations, IDEA (special education and early intervention), and on and on are not based on the Constitution. I think health care reform is exactly analogous to almost any of these programs.

Now of course people may agree or disagree about the need for these programs or as to how effective they are. But I think it is quite a different thing to say the government has no right to create such programs because they are not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.

[jenmcadams]

But the way I understand it, it was pretty much they were damned if they did and damned if they didn't. No matter how they voted, in the fall the Republicans were going to either decry the bill OR say that were weak and ineffective. Which was it to be? I guess personally I'd rather be voted out of office because of something I did do and voted with my conscience vs being voted out for something I didn't do.

Kind of....except based on interviews with many of them, they weren't voting with their conscience. They felt the bill wasn't good in it's current form and wished they didn't have to vote for it, but felt pressured by their party to do so.

[Fairy]

Kind of....except based on interviews with many of them, they weren't voting with their conscience. They felt the bill wasn't good in it's current form and wished they didn't have to vote for it, but felt pressured by their party to do so.

Hence the damned if they do and damned if they don't.

[Lolabee]

I try to stay out of these discussions, mostly because I feel I really don't know enough about either side. DH, however, is adamantly opposed to the bill and spouts off about it all the time. The only point he has made to me that stuck was that people shouldn't want government in their health care. WE (our family) have government health care (military) and hate it. It's slow. I have no choices. They don't pay for hardly anything I need. It's the worst health care I've ever had and I can't wait until he retires and we can get regular insurance.

So that's the only point I agree with. Having the government in my health care has made it worse, in my opinion. Now, one could argue that at least I have health care. I agree. I am fortunate that I do, and that it is free. But, we he retires next fall, we will not be paying out of pocket to continue with Tricare. No way.

I find this POV interesting (and no, I'm really not being snarky here) because my family has an individual plan we pay for ourselves because my husband doesn't have employer-sponsored health insurance. The irony is I have pretty much the same complaints about our individual insurance plan. We pay almost $700 a month for a $2,500 deductible plan with no prescription drug coverage (because that would have cost nearly $200 extra a month). But the net effect is that we can't afford most of the asthma meds I need because they are so expensive. And now the same insurance company is trying to weasel it's way out of paying for a c-section for the next baby should I end up failing at my v-bac when the time comes. Anybody want to hazard a guess how much that is going to cost us if we have to pay for it out of pocket?

The bottom line is that I have personally been in the position now of foregoing medical care for myself because we just plain old can't afford it, even though we pay our premiums faithfully every month. And now we may very well be faced with financial catastrophe, even though we supposedly have health insurance.

So I do think the providing of basic medical care is very much a moral issue. And I think the issue goes beyond whether it's immoral for us as a society here in the U.S. to turn a blind eye to those who are not receiving basic medical care. I would also argue that the way most (if not all) insurance companies do business is immoral as well. They are more than happy to take premium payments from their customers in return for poor coverage that often still leaves them without actual coverage for some very basic medical issues. Then they turn around and budget millions of dollars to pay for lobbyists whose very job is to try and dissuade our representatives in Congress from doing anything that might put a dent in their precious profits.

And don't even get me started on what I think is the immorality of gambling on people's health in the first place, which is basically what the insurance companies do every day.

Sorry, I'm especially sensitive about this today because I'm just so fed up. I don't see how introducing more competition to the mix will change things. I highly doubt that it would encourage insurance companies to stop trying to exclude things like pre-existing conditions or the writing of plans that cover very little in return for premium dollars.

[MissyAg94]

Medicare and Medicaid would ideally be handled at a the state level. That's how our republic was set up. Not to mention, they are financial failures. They are wrought with fraud and waste. Many doctors won't accept them as payment anymore. Why in the world would we entrust the federal government with more of our healthcare?? It makes absolutely no sense to me.

And Social Security? How has that worked out? Public education? Works well when left to the local government but not so much when the feds interfere. I know we've all heard of NCLB. The federal government is not good at handling these types of things. They've proved that many times. Are the state or local governments perfect? Of course not but they are much more representative of the people than the federal government.

[egoldber]

I am not arguing that any of those programs are successful/wonderful/necessary. My point is we ("we", meaning the collective body of law of this country for the last 100+ years) don't think the federal government does not have the RIGHT to create such programs just because they are not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution.

[arivecchi]

I am not arguing that any of those programs are successful/wonderful/necessary. My point is we ("we", meaning the collective body of law of this country for the last 100+ years) don't think the federal government does not have the RIGHT to create such programs just because they are not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution.:yeahthat: Exactly. I don't mind people arguing against/for the bill on its merits, but bringing up the argument that the federal govt. cannot legislate in an area that is not specifically mentioned the Constitution is a diversion IMO. This thread certainly brings back memories of my Con Law days....

[MissyAg94]

My point is that these programs are failures in part because we didn't follow the Constitution and the way in which our government was set up. A bloated federal government is bound to fail and we have numerous examples of that already happening. Why would we want that government running our healthcare system? Again, it is truly baffling to me.

Apparently the AG's from several states feel that this is unconstitutional in certain aspects and intend to file suit. States standing up for states' rights. It's a start.

[MissyAg94]

arivecchi, I'm sorry that you feel it's a diversion. I feel that it's a worthy discussion but I understand that some do not. If you'd like to debate the bill specifically, let's do. Many states' AG's feel it's unconstitutional to require citizens to buy a specific product. Lawsuits will be filed as soon as the President signs the bill.

[ChunkyNicksChunkyMom]

My point is that these programs are failures in part because we didn't follow the Constitution and the way in which our government was set up. A bloated federal government is bound to fail and we have numerous examples of that already happening. Why would we want that government running our healthcare system? Again, it is truly baffling to me.

Apparently the AG's from several states feel that this is unconstitutional in certain aspects and intend to file suit. States standing up for states' rights. It's a start.


MissyAg, damn glad to meet ya!

[MissyAg94]

Hi Nick's Mom. I probably won't survive long here with my crazy views!

[kijip]

Medicare and Medicaid would ideally be handled at a the state level. That's how our republic was set up. Not to mention, they are financial failures. They are wrought with fraud and waste. Many doctors won't accept them as payment anymore. Why in the world would we entrust the federal government with more of our healthcare?? It makes absolutely no sense to me.

And Social Security? How has that worked out? Public education? Works well when left to the local government but not so much when the feds interfere. I know we've all heard of NCLB. The federal government is not good at handling these types of things. They've proved that many times. Are the state or local governments perfect? Of course not but they are much more representative of the people than the federal government.

You know, I know few people on Medicaid and Medicare that consider them a failure. Few parents with kids covered who consider CHIPP a failure. And if Social Security was such a colossal failure seniors of both parties would not be lining up to keep theirs. I see your point, but your perspective is merely one paradigm for evaluating these programs. I personally can count hundreds of folks for who 1 or more of these programs is working well. On a national scale that is MILLIONS. The alternative involves a human suffering too vast for the narrow and ever narrowing segment of privileged folks who mostly comprise this board to comprehend. I defy anyone who claims that these programs are ONLY bad to spend a few days with the people who rely on them and put a face on the statistics.

Some people don't trust government. Then there are people who realize that they are part of the government. I believe in the power of people and the inherent good in man. I can't see our government, thought to be a generally successful experiment, and say that it is a public bad and not a public good. Let's go ask people in Haiti and the Balkans and the Congo if they would prefer a strong federal and state government that works as well as ours or not.

I quite possibly am one of a few people on this board who grew up on Medicaid. My medical problems, and more over my brother (born with cerebral palsy) were addressed for less cost than if we had gone uncovered. An ounce of prevention and all that.

[Lolabee]

My point is that these programs are failures in part because we didn't follow the Constitution and the way in which our government was set up. A bloated federal government is bound to fail and we have numerous examples of that already happening. Why would we want that government running our healthcare system? Again, it is truly baffling to me.

I understand what you're saying, but my point is that the way the private sector deals with this issue isn't working either. Private health insurance companies aren't doing a fantastic job on their own of insuring our citizens or of providing them with even basic medical care. In fact, I believe that the way the insurance companies do business is morally bankrupt. Their business model as it stands puts profits ahead of basic and necessary health care for the very people the insurance companies are supposed to be serving in the first place.

I think it also bears repeating that the current bill before Congress does not provide for a government health care option anyway. So I think this argument is pretty much besides the point anyway.

[MissyAg94]

kijip, I wasn't advocating abolishing the programs. They have a place in society. But they are financial failures and that is a problem. If we can't fund them, they will go away. And the reason that they are financial failures is because they are run by a federal government that wasn't meant to act in that capacity. Things work better at the state and local level IMO.

I know that you aren't aware of my background but I am VERY familiar with people outside of the "privileged" represented on this board. Just because I believe that it's not the federal government's job to provide social services doesn't mean that I don't know or care about the less privileged in our country.

[arivecchi]

I thought this was pretty interesting and wanted to share it:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/03/21/us/health-care-reform.html

[MissyAg94]

Lolabee, you won't get an argument from me when it comes to current problems with the insurance industry in this country. We apparently disagree, however, on how to fix the problem.

[Karinyc]

[QUOTE=Ceepa;2667880]Look. The Congress has danced around and threatened to pervert their power for a while now. And when there is one party pulling for this and the other party is saying 'Let's take some time. Let's redo this. Let's rework it.' And the other party jams the bill through (against the wish of many citizens to boot). Then it is about advancing a political agenda. it is about the hubris of the administration. It is about the government taking liberties with their power. It is NOT about representation."

I can argue the same with the Iraq war. I can also say that the Republicans and lobbyists spread a great deal of fearful propaganda and misinformation (after reading tons of political blogs & viewing Fox News daily). I didn't hear from many a helpful tone of "Let's take some time". It felt more like obstructionism to me, at any cost. There are many differing opinions (and states rights is a whole 'nother topic- I personally believe in the "united" states, but understand why many feel states' rights trump the federal gov't- I just adamantly disagree with it).

To me, regulating insurance companies & setting standards does not smack of total government control. But, I don't necessarily fear my gov't and its abilities and judgements. I also feel its unethical for healthcare to be a big business. And if it is, then there should be regulations in place. Ultimately, personal experiences will strongly color views on this topic and it, unfortunately, has for me. My father started working the 2nd day he arrived in this country. Worked for more than 35 years trying to attain the "American dream" and because he loved the USA. He lost it all (including his life) to a devastating illness. It's sad to post, but I really regret that he & my mom came to the US. Ultimately, they would have been happier, more successful, and probably healthier (he worked with highly toxic chemicals) if they stayed in their home country.

[kijip]

kijip, I wasn't advocating abolishing the programs. They have a place in society. But they are financial failures and that is a problem.


How do you wager they are financial failures? What makes a success? If we are concerned about deficit, as we should be, there is the factor of the costs in the face of no services. I disagree with you that these are, wholesale, financial disasters. There are things to fix but there is, in my professional and personal opinion, quite simply no charitable solution to public problems that will be much of an improvement over what we have. These programs are by many metrics working. Injecting a profit model into them will not make they work better in my opinion. And I am tired of being demonized, rather than just disagreed with, by political official types and middling TV pundits, for the radical notion that we are not on a train to hell, that we have a lot more positives than negatives and that if our government is so bad we should try living in a place with small government. Like Indonesia. And see how awesome that is.

I wasn't saying that YOU don't know people outside of privilege. I was simply saying that this board is soooo far skewed to the advantaged of the country they I think the voice of the poor is usually overlooked here. By people on all sides of the debate. By me even.

[tnrnchick74]

Then your beef isn't with this bill, it's with the already existing Medicaid program. That's not what this bill's about.

ETA: If anyone is interested in what's actually being voted on, rather than the rhetoric, the Kaiser Family Foundation does a very good factual issue-by-issue description of the bill with none of the spin. http://www.kff.org/healthreform/sidebyside.cfm You want to look at the first PDF on the page, which compares the white house/leadership final bill to the previous versions passed by the Senate and House. The first of the three columns is the relevant one.

Actually I wasn't commenting on the bill or medicaide reform. I was commenting on the OP's question of if healthcare is a moral issue. Yes, it's a moral issue. End of story. What complicates the waters are the actions of a few abusing the current systems. And my fear that the actions of those few (or entitlement as others call it) will be allowed in any new legislation.

I will not and have not debated bills, or the current health care legislation. I think any/all options suck.

[Fairy]

Hi Nick's Mom. I probably won't survive long here with my crazy views!

Your crazy views -- and mine ;-) -- have no bearing on your worth as a parent on this board. Conservatives and Liberals and Republicans and Democrats and Reds and Blue's and Purples and Independents and Communists (hey, throwin' it in) and Neocons and Treehuggers alike have babies, obsess over carseats, getting a good latch, CIO'ing, and the benefits/evils of binkies. I may disagree with your politics, but that doesn't mean I don't assign value to you here on this parenting board.

[Fairy]

... or entitlement as others call it ...


I really think the lexicon is half the battle. The words that are assigned by the lefr or right or talking heads, quite frankly, are often designed to bait, mislead, and enrage. I spend way too much time trying to understand the meaning behind the words that it's easy to lose focus of the baseline issue.


I think any/all options suck.

True dat. Currently. There are less sucky options than others, but there's no perfect answer here. For anyone. We ain't gonna get perfection. The sooner everyone just comes to jesus on the fact that NO answer is going to get it 100% right for 100% of the people, the sooner we can just get on with the business of moving the hell on, already.

[misshollygolightly]

I know I'm coming to this thread a little late, but I wanted some time to think it over and read other responses. I'm posting my comments not so much to elicit more discussion or controversy as to state my own perspective (after which, I will probably not return to this thread). First, as always, I think it is really fascinating to read all the other thoughtful responses on this thread that have approached the issue from nearly every perspective. I'm grateful for this unique forum (the BBB), and I'm even more grateful to be in a nation where important ideas are open for discussion and where we are able to disagree and hash things out with words instead of violence. To me, this is even more evidence that we will, eventually, be able to create a much better health care system as the conversations continue at every level of our nation (from the president's office to the BBB) :-) I do think health care is a moral or at least ethical issue (most complex issues are, in my opinion, as their are ethical and moral consequences to most actions). And I think it's a tough one, where there is lots of room for valid, intelligent conflicting opinions. I, for one, am really pleased that we are taking steps to ensure that more Americans have better access to quality health care, and I hope we'll continue to move in that direction (though there are bound to be some missteps along the way as we learn how to do this). As for the founding fathers not specifically making allowances for the federal government to provide minimal health care to all, well...that seems like a strange idea to me for many of the reasons already mentioned in this thread, but also simply because there wasn't really anything remotely comparable to "health care" or a "health care industry" at the time...I mean,"health care" at the time meant wooden teeth for George Washington and amputations performed by the local veterinarian/doctor/pharmacist (if you were lucky enough to have one of those in horse-riding range). That's putting it a little crassly, I know, but seriously, there WAS no health care for anyone at the time (at least not that would be recognizable to us), so it just doesn't make sense to say that the founding fathers evaluated health care and determined that it should be something the federal government stayed out of.

[MissyAg94]

How do you wager they are financial failures? What makes a success? If we are concerned about deficit, as we should be, there is the factor of the costs in the face of no services. I disagree with you that these are, wholesale, financial disasters. There are things to fix but there is, in my professional and personal opinion, quite simply no charitable solution to public problems that will be much of an improvement over what we have. These programs are by many metrics working. Injecting a profit model into them will not make they work better in my opinion. And I am tired of being demonized, rather than just disagreed with, by political official types and middling TV pundits, for the radical notion that we are not on a train to hell, that we have a lot more positives than negatives and that if our government is so bad we should try living in a place with small government. Like Indonesia. And see how awesome that is.
These programs are unsustainable long-term in their current forms. Our federal government simply can't afford to continue funding them. Of course, they will be funded through deficit spending but that doesn't bode well for the future financial health of this country. I believe that if these programs were run at the state level (and the feds would refrain from meddling) they would be more financially viable and more efficiently run. I'm sure you won't deny the fraud and waste that is rampant in these programs.

Social security should have been a self-funding program. But our FEDERAL elected officials robbed the SS fund to pay for other programs and now SS is in danger of going broke. We simply cannot trust the fed govt with more of our money to pay for social programs. They have broken that trust.

And I feel your pain on being demonized by political officials and TV pundits.

[Fairy]

I know I'm coming to this thread a little late, but I wanted some time to think it over and read other responses. I'm posting my comments not so much to elicit more discussion or controversy as to state my own perspective (after which, I will probably not return to this thread). First, as always, I think it is really fascinating to read all the other thoughtful responses on this thread that have approached the issue from nearly every perspective. I'm grateful for this unique forum (the BBB), and I'm even more grateful to be in a nation where important ideas are open for discussion and where we are able to disagree and hash things out with words instead of violence. To me, this is even more evidence that we will, eventually, be able to create a much better health care system as the conversations continue at every level of our nation (from the president's office to the BBB) :-) I do think health care is a moral or at least ethical issue (most complex issues are, in my opinion, as their are ethical and moral consequences to most actions). And I think it's a tough one, where there is lots of room for valid, intelligent conflicting opinions. I, for one, am really pleased that we are taking steps to ensure that more Americans have better access to quality health care, and I hope we'll continue to move in that direction (though there are bound to be some missteps along the way as we learn how to do this). As for the founding fathers not specifically making allowances for the federal government to provide minimal health care to all, well...that seems like a strange idea to me for many of the reasons already mentioned in this thread, but also simply because there wasn't really anything remotely comparable to "health care" or a "health care industry" at the time...I mean,"health care" at the time meant wooden teeth for George Washington and amputations performed by the local veterinarian/doctor/pharmacist (if you were lucky enough to have one of those in horse-riding range). That's putting it a little crassly, I know, but seriously, there WAS no health care for anyone at the time (at least not that would be recognizable to us), so it just doesn't make sense to say that the founding fathers evaluated health care and determined that it should be something the federal government stayed out of.

Nicely said. :bighand:

[AnnieW625]

WARNING: I have not read all 12 pages of responses!

I think that like everything else in life there is something moral about everything. Healthcare is no different. I had to make the choice to terminate a pregnancy almost a year ago and while being a devout life long Catholic in a pretty conservative Catholic parish that is always preaching right to life I still had to make a decision that most women (including devout or non devout religious women) will never have to make. It was hard, but for my life and my sanity I am glad we chose to make that choice. Am I different person because of it? Yes I am but morally I know that had my baby been healthy and had the chance to live the same wonderful life as every other living member of our family I couldn't have and never would've even made that choice based on what I had been taught to respect life. Now prior to that there were extremists that bothered me (like people who protest at abortion clinics, don't want victims of rape or incest to be able to have an abortion, or at sometimes where I had witnessed priests talking about abortion in the middle of the sermon with young children present), but the thought just like the millions of other moms yearly who have to make the same decision that I would ever have to make the decision to do the same. In the end I would not want the govt. telling any mom/dad in America that they can't have a pregnancy terminated because there are a number of senators, reps., or the President who don't believe in abortion because of their own moral values.

Now as far as health care goes I have never been a big fan of it even since the early 90s when the Clinton adminstration tried to make it work, and have always said that health care works in countries like France because France is the size and has the population of Texas. Also if we look to our neighbors in Canada yes they have care there too, but the entire country has a population around the same size as California (I think). I guess I am just afraid to commit to something because I don't know how well it will work here.

[MissyAg94]

Your crazy views -- and mine ;-) -- have no bearing on your worth as a parent on this board. Conservatives and Liberals and Republicans and Democrats and Reds and Blue's and Purples and Independents and Communists (hey, throwin' it in) and Neocons and Treehuggers alike have babies, obsess over carseats, getting a good latch, CIO'ing, and the benefits/evils of binkies. I may disagree with your politics, but that doesn't mean I don't assign value to you here on this parenting board.
We agree! I've learned tons of great things by reading here and find this board to be a wonderful resource for so many parenting issues. But maybe I'll stay out of the political threads from now on. ;) I might enjoy it more that way.

We're off to the park. It's a beautiful day here and I don't intend to waste it worrying about politics.

[Fairy]

We're off to the park. It's a beautiful day here and I don't intend to waste it worrying about politics.

Good for you! I should probably get some work done, myself ...

[ChunkyNicksChunkyMom]

It is really easy to be altruistic when you are doing it with someone else's money :)

[Cam&Clay]

I suppose this means that come 65 you won't be relying on Medicare. I know I will be.

I'll be using it, I'm sure; however, I will have to have a supplement. My mother died in November. She had Medicare AND a supplement. Without the supplement, my father would be broke right now.

So, even with Medicare, you still have to pay.

[niccig]

It is really easy to be altruistic when you are doing it with someone else's money :)

And I would say it's easy to not do anything when you've got health coverage. I have had someone tell me "I'm fine, I have health insurance", when I asked about the 46 million people that don't have it. She didn't care, as she was OK. Her DH is now laid off and they don't have health insurance anymore, their kids are covered under a state plan, but not the parents. Hopefully, one of them will find work soon.

[mommylamb]

The creation of a legislative branch of government is not the same as granting them the ability to make any law they want.

Off topic slightly, but legislators are supposed to be representing the people that voted them into office, not following the commands of the chief executive. That's why we have different branches. People around here (Democratic state) are MAD and the next election should be interesting.

Assuming that the laws are constitutional as deemed by the courts, then yes the legislative branch can pass whatever law they want. That's what they're there to do, legislate.

You overestimate the Democratic party if you think Democrats are continually in lock step with their President. I think we've seen time and again that the Republican party is the more organized and unquestioning party.

And, while legislators are meant to represent their constituents, we also have a representative democracy, not a direct democracy and many of their constituents wanted health care reform. The polls may go up and down, but legislators have to make a decision based on what they think is best, and of course what they think is best for them. But, since there is a diversity of opinion out there at some point they have to choose and someone will get pissed off.

[wellyes]

It is really easy to be altruistic when you are doing it with someone else's money :)

It's not altruism, it's self-interest. Right now the system is set up so that if I get sick, I can get bumped and go broke. Has happened to many people including a family member - could happen to anyone. Reform means that me & people I love will be safer and better off.

As for "other people's money" - without getting into the whole "taxes pay for police, infrastructure, education, etc" - I'll draw the anaolgy between health coverage & auto coverage. I like that everyone is required to get licensed to drive (despite that meaning taxes fund the DMV) and I like that everyone has to have insurance (even though it cost each car owner hundreds of hard earned dollars every year). I've been in countries where there aren't relaly road laws or any particular requirements to drive and if you get into an accident or get hit -- too bad for you. It is not good.

[mommylamb]

Look. The Congress has danced around and threatened to pervert their power for a while now. And when there is one party pulling for this and the other party is saying 'Let's take some time. Let's redo this. Let's rework it.' And the other party jams the bill through (against the wish of many citizens to boot). Then it is about advancing a political agenda. it is about the hubris of the administration. It is about the government taking liberties with their power. It is NOT about representation. And don't tell me every Dem voted their conscience. Political back room deals didn't come into play?

Nothing silly about that. I'll say it again. If this is the definition of silly then we are on a dangerous path.

And yes, let us bring up the Constitution. As pp very clearly and correctly said, if there is disagreement with the Constitution, then BEGIN AN AMENDMENT PROCESS, don't just trample the words therein. This goes beyond providing healthcare for the people.

That's the way it works and both parties do it. I can't imagine someone as smart and involved as you would deny the fact that Republicans did the same thing when they were in power. Complaining about the process is what the minority party does and using the rules to your advantage is what the majority party does. To think anything else is naive.

[Reyadawnbringer]

And I would say it's easy to not do anything when you've got health coverage. I have had someone tell me "I'm fine, I have health insurance", when I asked about the 46 million people that don't have it. She didn't give two hoots as she was OK. Her DH is now laid off and they don't have health insurance anymore, their kids are covered under a state plan, but not the parents. Hopefully, one of them will find work soon.

:yeahthat:

Not only that but it's not just someone else's money- its MY money too. I don't feel like I would be following the principals preached to me by my religion if I were not to look after my neighbor as I look after myself.

I feel like I have to stop right there, or I will get WAY too worked up over this. My mom and I are already warring about this back and forth on FB- and now I have to evacuate the building because of a bomb threat....

[mommylamb]

Kind of....except based on interviews with many of them, they weren't voting with their conscience. They felt the bill wasn't good in it's current form and wished they didn't have to vote for it, but felt pressured by their party to do so.

No one thinks any bill is perfect when it passes. It's compromise. It's saying "is this better than the status quo, or is it not?" That's the sausage making process. No one is going to get everything they want or like any bill 100%. It's just not realistic.

I wish this bill did more to track the way money is spent in the health care system.

I wish this bill got rid of the insurance companies' anti-trust exemption-- something that actually would spur competition and could have brought down costs.

I wish the bill included a public option trigger (the mechanism supported by Olympia Snowe, who I think is one cool lady).

I am concerned about the Medicaid expansion in this bill and its impact on state budgets.

But, I like the individual mandate. I like the exchange concept. I like the subsidies to help people purchase insurance. There is more that I like about this bill than that I don't like, so I've gotta go with that. It's about being pragmatic about the possible.

[ChunkyNicksChunkyMom]

And I would say it's easy to not do anything when you've got health coverage. I have had someone tell me "I'm fine, I have health insurance", when I asked about the 46 million people that don't have it. She didn't care, as she was OK. Her DH is now laid off and they don't have health insurance anymore, their kids are covered under a state plan, but not the parents. Hopefully, one of them will find work soon.


I agree there are problems with healthcare as it stands. I do however, think there is nothing shameful or wrong in wanting to keep the wealth we have accumulated over a lifetime of my husband's hard work. I expect most on this board would disagree with that :)

[gatorsmom]

Over a number of decades, we have shed millions and millions of well paying manufacturing and production jobs in the rush for ever cheaper consumer crap. The economic pressures faced by the working poor now are more vast than ever. Now we are shedding tech jobs. What's left? Our economy can not survive on Subway and Walmart jobs alone and roughly 3/4 of Americans do not have higher educations.



:yeahthat: :yeahthat: :yeahthat: I'm not kidding, I think about this everyday. EVERYDAY. Everytime I hear someone gripe about the low quality of goods in the U.S, or how everything is made in China nowadays, I think, "yeah, but are you really willing to pay what it costs for an American to make this??" This is wayyyyy going off on a tangent, but I think about those working poor because I have a lot of them in my family. They are mostly now retired and on Medicare (Thank God), but they were hard, faithful workers who were proud to work in steel mills and factories all their lives. They saved up for their retirement and do not live beyond their means. They are good, solid members of society. But if they were a generation younger, they'd probably be homeless. And that loss of pride might drive them to crime to provide for their families. And I honestly think that is how a lot of people get to the desperate spot they are in.

How do we get Americans to be wiling to help each other- not by providing charity but by paying the right price for goods and paying what a service actually costs to provide? The greed of Americans is killing our country. I think most people don't understand that we pay either way. We can provide Americans with jobs, buy their products and be willing to pay what they really cost to create OR we can pay higher taxes for more jails and more welfare programs because jobs are given to lower paid workers with shabby materials. The difference is, with the first option comes the dignity of contributing to society. But, we pay either way.

That probably didn't make any sense but I'm not working with much rest today.

[mommylamb]

kijip, I wasn't advocating abolishing the programs. They have a place in society. But they are financial failures and that is a problem. If we can't fund them, they will go away.

Just FYI, one of the revenue raisers (the major one) in this bill is reigning in out of control Medicare spending and dealing with some of the waste and fraud in that program. It was entertaining to see the Republicans, who up until this point were all for controlling the growth in entitlement programs, suddenly aghast that there were proposed cuts to Medicare. I think I remember some Republicans saying the Democrats were stealing from seniors. I find those sorts of things hypocritical

[ChunkyNicksChunkyMom]

It's not altruism, it's self-interest. Right now the system is set up so that if I get sick, I can get bumped and go broke. Has happened to many people including a family member - could happen to anyone. Reform means that me & people I love will be safer and better off.

As for "other people's money" - without getting into the whole "taxes pay for police, infrastructure, education, etc" - I'll draw the anaolgy between health coverage & auto coverage. I like that everyone is required to get licensed to drive (despite that meaning taxes fund the DMV) and I like that everyone has to have insurance (even though it cost each car owner hundreds of hard earned dollars every year). I've been in countries where there aren't relaly road laws or any particular requirements to drive and if you get into an accident or get hit -- too bad for you. It is not good.

Youa re not getting what I was trying to say here. I am saying it is easier for you to endorse "reform" when it is MY tax that will be going up. (generic you and me).

[niccig]

I agree there are problems with healthcare as it stands. I do however, think there is nothing shameful or wrong in wanting to keep the wealth we have accumulated over a lifetime of my husband's hard work. I expect most on this board would disagree with that :)

But will you keep that wealth if one of you gets a major debilitating illness? We have a 2 million lifetime maximum on our health insurance through DH's work. 2 million is nothing if you have a long term ICU stay. My one night stay in the general ward after my hospital surgery was nearly 100K billed to insurance company, and I wasn't in the ICU. So, I could stay in the hospital for 20 nights and be out of my 2 million dollars.

I may not be remembering correctly, but was it your DH that was seriously injured while in Germany? If yes, would his treatment here have cost more? Would you have used up a lot of your lifetime maximum or savings over that one accident? I might be confusing you with another BBBer...if yes, ignore.


Once you run through your lifetime maximum, how will you pay to get your loved one the medical treatment they need to live. We do have accidental death and disability, we have an emergency fund, we have our retirement and our house. We would need to go through all of those.

We can cross our fingers that we don't get cancer or some other serious illness, so far we're healthy, but I can't predict what will happen to me. I could be in a serious car accident tomorrow and there goes my 2 million, and all our other savings.

I agree that there are many factors that affect the cost of medical care, and the cost needs to be lowered. We have to start somewhere and for me that is telling the insurance company ENOUGH. We're done paying and paying and getting nothing in return, while they make profit and give out $110 million in bonuses to ONE person. They corporations won't regulate themselves, they won't remove prexisting conditions, and they won't remove lifetime limits. They're in it for profit, pure and simple, and don't care if you or I go bankrupt or die. All they do care about is their bottom line on their quarterly statement. If this Bill and others puts restrictions on their practices that are better for the health of USA people on main street, then I am all for that.

[Fairy]

Youa re not getting what I was trying to say here. I am saying it is easier for you to endorse "reform" when it is MY tax that will be going up. (generic you and me).

Plenty of people endorse reform whose own taxes will go up and are aware of that impact.

[jse107]

Assuming that the laws are constitutional as deemed by the courts, then yes the legislative branch can pass whatever law they want. That's what they're there to do, legislate.

You overestimate the Democratic party if you think Democrats are continually in lock step with their President. I think we've seen time and again that the Republican party is the more organized and unquestioning party.

And, while legislators are meant to represent their constituents, we also have a representative democracy, not a direct democracy and many of their constituents wanted health care reform. The polls may go up and down, but legislators have to make a decision based on what they think is best, and of course what they think is best for them. But, since there is a diversity of opinion out there at some point they have to choose and someone will get pissed off.


No one thinks any bill is perfect when it passes. It's compromise. It's saying "is this better than the status quo, or is it not?" That's the sausage making process. No one is going to get everything they want or like any bill 100%. It's just not realistic.

I wish this bill did more to track the way money is spent in the health care system.

I wish this bill got rid of the insurance companies' anti-trust exemption-- something that actually would spur competition and could have brought down costs.

I wish the bill included a public option trigger (the mechanism supported by Olympia Snowe, who I think is one cool lady).

I am concerned about the Medicaid expansion in this bill and its impact on state budgets.

But, I like the individual mandate. I like the exchange concept. I like the subsidies to help people purchase insurance. There is more that I like about this bill than that I don't like, so I've gotta go with that. It's about being pragmatic about the possible.

Wow, I miss a day or two and I'm way out of the discussion!

I agree with what's quoted above. I'm not sure where in the Constitution HRC is...how will it be deemed unconstitutional. I'm clearly not a constitutional expert, but the Preamble seems to indicate that we should work towards the common good:

"We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish the Constitution of the United States of America."

I personally believe this is a moral issue. We are the only developed nation that does not provide health care to its citizens. I have great health care right now--I'm viewing this as a societal issue.

And the argument that millions of taxpayers don't want to spend thier money on health care? Well, I didn't want to spend my tax dollars on the Iraq War in a futile search for WMD. Yet, here we are.

[Fairy]

From a Constitutional POV (which I don't quite espouse, I don't think, not sure, mulling it over), one could also look to the Preamble (thank you Schoolhosue Rock, as I'm now gonna be singing this all day) for that. See bolded section.


"We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish the Constitution of the United States of America."

Since my faux pas with the Declaration of Independence (D'oh! Kearns-Goodwin I am not!), I post this carefully :-)

[Ceepa]

That's the way it works and both parties do it. I can't imagine someone as smart and involved as you would deny the fact that Republicans did the same thing when they were in power. Complaining about the process is what the minority party does and using the rules to your advantage is what the majority party does. To think anything else is naive.

If status quo is a person's litmus test for well-run government and we should just shrug and say, 'everyone's doing it' than we have more to worry about than I first thought.

[ChunkyNicksChunkyMom]

Plenty of people endorse reform whose own taxes will go up and are aware of that impact.


Of course, and I give props to those who put their money where their mouth is.

[Ceepa]

Of course, and I give props to those who put their money where their mouth is.

Money and lifestyles.

[Jeanne]

I agree there are problems with healthcare as it stands. I do however, think there is nothing shameful or wrong in wanting to keep the wealth we have accumulated over a lifetime of my husband's hard work. I expect most on this board would disagree with that :)

No way Susan! Couldn't agree with you more. I work my butt off each and every day and make the sacrifice to be a WOHM so I can pay the $10k Orthodontia bill that will be ours for the next 4 years, to pay the outrageous heating bills that seem to go up each year and are projected to rise another 30% next year, to save as much as I can to send my kids to college so they can make good choices and be productive tax paying citizens, to put as much as I can into my retirement so I have options some day - if I don't die first because the age of retirement will probably rise again.

I'm not morally opposed to health care for everyone. I just can't figure out how it's going to be funded. We can't deficit ourselves to oblivion here. At some point, it's going to require a hefty tax burden on everyone. Do only those that choose to work bear that burden? Good employer provided HC is a big recruiting incentive. Always has been and there are tons of people who work just to have good HC. Technically, if I quit my job, then my husband still pays taxes to subsidize this but he's one person contributing for 4 people. If I continue to work, we as a family pay more taxes to subsidize this. So it's a boon to the government for me to continue working. But when exactly will it become a boon to me? I get to give up a lot to be a working mother while other people don't? My point in bringing this one point up is that tax burdens to redistribute wealth leave the door open for a million issues to prospect. This is just one issue that can be raised. What about people who are just plain lazy and don't want to work? Or people who feel they shouldn't have to compromise so they stay out of the workforce because a simple job is beneath them? My looser cousin is an example of this. I'm stuck paying for this guy too?

I am not a person lacking compassion for those less fortunate. And I don't necessarily think that pay for play is a good thing. However, nothing in life is free. Someone always pays for it so what's the incentive here for the people who are going to pay for it? Wages, regardless of what level will be dinged and there are middle class people out there that won't be able to take the hit. This should be a huge concern.

[niccig]

And oddly enough, a few months ago there was an NPR story:

Accidents Of History Created U.S. Health System (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=114045132)

Thanks Beth. I found that interesting to read.

[bcafe]

I like that everyone has to have insurance (even though it cost each car owner hundreds of hard earned dollars every year).
Actually car insurance is not mandated in every state. On the note of car insurance how about using the same platform for health insurance. The more you use it, the more costly it is. The more claims filed, the more your rates increase. This gives more personal responsibility and accountability to the consumer.

[BabyBearsMom]

I haven't been reading all the many pages of responses, but I just wanted to say "bravo" to MommyLamb for being so knowledgeable on the topic and debunking so much of the propaganda. :bighand:

[Fairy]

Of course, and I give props to those who put their money where their mouth is.

I just meant cuz you were stressing "you" in the collective as it relates to other people's money.

[GaPeach_in_Ca]

No way Susan! Couldn't agree with you more. I work my butt off each and every day and make the sacrifice to be a WOHM ...
Technically, if I quit my job, then my husband still pays taxes to subsidize this but he's one person contributing for 4 people. If I continue to work, we as a family pay more taxes to subsidize this. So it's a boon to the government for me to continue working. But when exactly will it become a boon to me? I get to give up a lot to be a working mother while other people don't?

This is something I've thought about quite a lot.

I do sacrifice some things to be a WOHM and it the idea that my tax dollars might then subsidize my friends that choose to SAHM is, well, kind of annoying.

At the same time, though, I do think everyone should have some sort of healthcare.

Argh. Hard to reconcile everything.

Also, I feel like people are always talking about "tax the rich". Well, we're in a high tax bracket and again, I feel like it's not really fair to tax us the same as a family with say 1 working parent that makes the same amount of money because there is a lot more sacrifice & cost to have 2 working parents to make that same amount. I feel like there should be some sort of adjustment. :p I'm sure that would not be popular!

Anyways, that was a bit of a tangent that has nothing to do with health care really.

[Lolabee]

Actually car insurance is not mandated in every state. On the note of car insurance how about using the same platform for health insurance. The more you use it, the more costly it is. The more claims filed, the more your rates increase. This gives more personal responsibility and accountability to the consumer.

This seems like a false analogy to me though. Getting into several car accidents and/or accruing several moving violations is not nearly the same as availing oneself to health care because of illness. The health insurance system as it stands right now often encourages patients to forego preventative care for fear of seeing her rates go up or worse yet getting dumped altogether. I know that being seen by my doctor for asthma related care will get noticed by our insurance company and that I'm considered an even bigger liability as a result.

I fail to see how rationing my own health care is a matter of personal accountability or responsibility as a health care consumer. At the end of the day it only creates a situation whereby I (and millions of others who are either uninsured or underinsured) increase the likelihood of needing hospitalization in the future for our medical ongoing medical conditions. That may save money for the insurance companies in the short term, but it results in sicker insured patients, who of course they can try to wring ever increasing premiums out of for fear of going completely uninsured.

This sort of scenario is less likely when one has employer-sponsored coverage through an employer. But it's a reality for those of us who are forced to go on our own to secure health insurance. As I said before, the system as it stands today is terribly broken and I simply can't foresee how free market forces alone will ever encourage the insurance companies to deal in good faith or with an eye towards promoting the health and well-being of their insureds.

[Indianamom2]

No way Susan! Couldn't agree with you more. I work my butt off each and every day and make the sacrifice to be a WOHM so I can pay the $10k Orthodontia bill that will be ours for the next 4 years, to pay the outrageous heating bills that seem to go up each year and are projected to rise another 30% next year, to save as much as I can to send my kids to college so they can make good choices and be productive tax paying citizens, to put as much as I can into my retirement so I have options some day - if I don't die first because the age of retirement will probably rise again.

I'm not morally opposed to health care for everyone. I just can't figure out how it's going to be funded. We can't deficit ourselves to oblivion here. At some point, it's going to require a hefty tax burden on everyone. Do only those that choose to work bear that burden? Good employer provided HC is a big recruiting incentive. Always has been and there are tons of people who work just to have good HC. Technically, if I quit my job, then my husband still pays taxes to subsidize this but he's one person contributing for 4 people. If I continue to work, we as a family pay more taxes to subsidize this. So it's a boon to the government for me to continue working. But when exactly will it become a boon to me? I get to give up a lot to be a working mother while other people don't? My point in bringing this one point up is that tax burdens to redistribute wealth leave the door open for a million issues to prospect. This is just one issue that can be raised. What about people who are just plain lazy and don't want to work? Or people who feel they shouldn't have to compromise so they stay out of the workforce because a simple job is beneath them? My looser cousin is an example of this. I'm stuck paying for this guy too?

I am not a person lacking compassion for those less fortunate. And I don't necessarily think that pay for play is a good thing. However, nothing in life is free. Someone always pays for it so what's the incentive here for the people who are going to pay for it? Wages, regardless of what level will be dinged and there are middle class people out there that won't be able to take the hit. This should be a huge concern.

:yeahthat:

[arivecchi]

I wonder how support for the bill breaks out among different income groups. Anyone have any data?

[BelleoftheBallFlagstaff]

Actually car insurance is not mandated in every state. On the note of car insurance how about using the same platform for health insurance. The more you use it, the more costly it is. The more claims filed, the more your rates increase. This gives more personal responsibility and accountability to the consumer.

I have a thyroid tumor (my second one) and need the other lobe of my thyroid removed. I will be on meds for the rest of my life, so I should pay more because of a health issue that is no fault of my own?

[bcafe]

I have been in healthcare for many many years and know exactly what you are going through as I have had many patients with thyroid issues. I also know many people who have health insurance who take their children and themselves in for every. single. thing. I know the costs of diagnostic and lab testing as well. These are costly things. Yes, I think individuals who have medical issues should pay more for their premiums than those who don't. And, yes, healthcare is a very consumer driven commodity these days. Hospitals have ratings that are publicized on the net now. Healthcare is a personal responsibility and everyone should be accountable for how they use it. My DH fainted once during an out of town meeting and all hell broke loose. He was tested and re-tested for cardiac issues (even though he can feel the fainting spells coming on so clearly not his heart). Guess what? He pays through the roof for his life insurance eventhough he is in perfect health. It's called risk. I feel for those who have health problems and they are in every family. The premiums should be tiered in my opinion.

[JTsMom]

Health care is very much a moral issue. Since DS was born and diagnosed with his heart condition, I've been worried about our coverage, and his future coverage. His condition is nobody's fault- it was just a fluke that occurred during his development. I was very careful during my pregnancy- I even went for the pre-TTC check-ups, and started my PNV's early. It still happened.

DH was and is a very hard worker. He has been in the same line of work his whole life, and is very good at what he does. We were incredibly fortunate to have good insurance when DS was born, but around a year later, his entire workforce went through massive paycuts- we lost about 50% of our income. He frantically searched for a new job, and was able to find one, but at not much higher of a salary than the cut one. Our insurance coverage at the new job was not great, and insanely expensive. We had no choice though- if we allowed coverage to lapse, we'd never be able to insure DS again! No private company would take us, at any amount.

I worried for DS as an adult. What if he wanted to start a small business, or work in a field that didn't provide group coverage? What if he was just simply denied coverage no matter what line of work he was in? What if there was a gap in time in between him being a student and our insurance, and him finding employment?

Every human being deserves to have access to health care, and nobody should have to lose their home or life savings to have that.

[BelleoftheBallFlagstaff]

When an uninsured person that cannot afford diabetes meds & waits until they need a limb amputated, WE the taxpayers pay for it. We pay for the uninsured every single day already! I have friends that work, and are on "Access" AZ's "Medi-Cal". They work, work hard, but as their employers cannot afford to provide them insurance, and they are the lower working middle class, cannot afford the $1500 a month premiums to cover their families. I live in a city where people with 4 year college degrees earn more as a waiter than what they would in their chosen profession and waiters make a $2.13 per hour minimum rate, so that says something!

We are already and have been for years paying for the un/underinsured. I love the pre-existing condition provision in the bill. Imagine having a child with a congenital condition, not qualifying for state aid, and your insurance denying you.

[jenmcadams]

One of my major concerns is the individual mandate..theoretically, people will be required to purchase insurance, but the penalties for not doing so are laughably low (especially in the early years -- I think in the first few years it's only a fine of $95 for not having insurance and even once the plan is fully implemented the penalty will be $500). So, if I'm in my 20s or 30s and relatively healthy and decide to forgo insurance (and instead just pay the penalties) but then something awful happens (car accident, cancer, etc), the current legislation says that an insurance company has to take me on, can't charge me more b/c of a pre-existing condition and has to cover my care. To me that amounts to universal health care, not insurance. Insurance by definition is something you pay for (and is priced based on actuarial data) without knowing for sure if you need it.

With this current legislation, my premiums are going to skyrocket...whether or not you believe the CBO estimates or think it's fair that they're essentially based on 6 years of benefits and 10 years of revenue generation (taxes), you can't argue that costs for people who currently pay for insurance are not going to rise. My DH is an entrepreneur with 8 people working for him....currently he pays 100% of the premiums for his employees and their families (so for an employee with a spouse and children, the premiums are over $1400 a month). The new bill will require people to purchase things they may not need or want as part of their insurance. For example:

**Why should young adults be covered by their parents insurance until they're 26? People won't have a choice about this....Family plans are required to offer this, so my rates will go up b/c other people want their kids covered until 26. I'm fine with covering kids who are still in school (college, trade, whatever) up until a certain age, but I know in my case, I was covered by parents until I finished undergrad and then I got a job with benefits. My DH paid for a catastrophic plan for a while and eventually was covered by his univeristy while getting his PhD.

**Why should insurance companies not be allowed to charge copays -- I think that copays are good for helping manage the system and can serve to make you stop and think if the latest round of sniffles really warrants a trip to the doctor? Currently, my DH chose a PPO plan for his employees that includes copays vs. a more expensive plan that doesn't.

**Why should insurance companies have to take someone on who chose not to get insurance (and whose penalties for not buying insurance are so low, they have no incentive to buy it) until they're sick?

I like to think good of people and I really believe that the goal of this plan and the goal of the lawmakers was to help those people who aren't insured, but I'm pretty disgusted by this plan. I hate the crazy rule adjusting they did (and I hated it when the republicans did similar things for budget issues during the Bush administration). I hate that they tacked on significant student loan legislation to a health care bill. Most of all I hate that most supporters seem to admit this legislation is significantly flawed, but they feel like it was better to do something than nothing. I'm not saying that legislation has to be perfect (b/c it never is), but this is pretty far from good. Finally, I don't understand how premiums won't rise...maybe they can cook the CBO books and say the federal part of the plan will break even, but overall for those of us already paying for our own insurance, it's going to cost more. And for those people who are making $200K+ (individuals) or $250K+ (families), their taxes are going to skyrocket along with their premiums. As someone who doesn't make that much and who will probably only be hit on the premium side of things, I'm still disgusted by the idea that we should keep taxing those who are lucky enough (and work hard enough) to be successful to pay for something that doesn't look to me like it's going to work that well.

[m448]

To sit back and think that the only difference between you and someone who has less money or health coverage is hard work, is foolish at best, foolhardy at most. I have health coverage, my husband has a good job. I don't gripe about our taxes covering public schools even thought we'll homeschool our children.

My mother who worked her tail off her whole life was injured on the job and lost that wonderful health coverage she had but never needed to use. Then she was diagnosed with cancer and told the meager coverage she was able to afford on her own covered her diagnosis but not the treatment. Thankfully there was some sort of state plan in Florida which assisted in this type of situation. She's 58, still active, still working, still contributing (she works respite care for families with autism).

eta: and I'm a registered Republican.

[BelleoftheBallFlagstaff]

I have been in healthcare for many many years and know exactly what you are going through as I have had many patients with thyroid issues. I also know many people who have health insurance who take their children and themselves in for every. single. thing. I know the costs of diagnostic and lab testing as well. These are costly things. Yes, I think individuals who have medical issues should pay more for their premiums than those who don't. And, yes, healthcare is a very consumer driven commodity these days. Hospitals have ratings that are publicized on the net now. Healthcare is a personal responsibility and everyone should be accountable for how they use it. My DH fainted once during an out of town meeting and all hell broke loose. He was tested and re-tested for cardiac issues (even though he can feel the fainting spells coming on so clearly not his heart). Guess what? He pays through the roof for his life insurance eventhough he is in perfect health. It's called risk. I feel for those who have health problems and they are in every family. The premiums should be tiered in my opinion.

I take my DC to the doctor once per year, and besides her jaundice as a newborn have NEVER taken her in for anything else besides her AAP rec'd scheduled visits. I do not overuse the system. Even with insurance I will be paying $5,000 to have a thyroid lobectomy. To me and our family that is a lot of money. So those that are unlucky and heave health issues should have to pay more (which I already will, as if I didn't need surgery I wouldn't come close to maxing out my deductible)? It's not like I am a bad driver, or I am obese because I eat poorly or live a sedentary life, I didn't choose to have a tumor in my neck. I do not think things like choosing to not abort a child with Down's Syndrome should be a decision that is based on cost, but often it is.

I think when it comes to health it shouldn't be like car insurance, you shouldn't be penalized for things beyond your control.

[gatorsmom]

When an uninsured person that cannot afford diabetes meds & waits until they need a limb amputated, WE the taxpayers pay for it. We pay for the uninsured every single day already! I have friends that work, and are on "Access" AZ's "Medi-Cal". They work, work hard, but as their employers cannot afford to provide them insurance, and they are the lower working middle class, cannot afford the $1500 a month premiums to cover their families. I live in a city where people with 4 year college degrees earn more as a waiter than what they would in their chosen profession and waiters make a $2.13 per hour minimum rate, so that says something!

We are already and have been for years paying for the un/underinsured. I love the pre-existing condition provision in the bill. Imagine having a child with a congenital condition, not qualifying for state aid, and your insurance denying you.

:yeahthat: I agree with this. The hardworking people of our country are ALREADY paying for the uninsured who need medical care. We can't continue the way things are going. Healthcare insurance premiums are getting more and more costly and they still don't sufficiently cover all our healthcare needs.

Healthcare reforms will have to be done eventually. The bill that mommylamb has so kindly and intelligently interpreted and explained to us isn't perfect but it's better than what we've got now.

[Fairy]

Since DS was born and diagnosed with his heart condition ... I was very careful during my pregnancy ...

And even if you weren't, even if you did every wrong thing that could be done, it isn't his fault, is it? In that scenario, we could make you pay (literally and figuratively) into oblivion, but if you died tomorrow penniless, your child will still be here, with a condition that is the epitome of pre-existing since he was born with it, thru no fault of his own. In my view, he should not have to wonder if he'll have proper care.

[jenmcadams]

To sit back and think that the only difference between you and someone who has less money or health coverage is hard work, is foolish at best, foolhardy at most. I have health coverage, my husband has a good job. I don't gripe about our taxes covering public schools even thought we'll homeschool our children.


I agree with you that luck is involved and I'm blessed that we basically won the genetic lottery in terms of IQ, had supportive (although poor) parents who helped us make good choices and we now have the education and experience to have great jobs that pay great benefits. But, hard work was a piece of it and a big piece of it. I'm all in favor of some type of health care reform and I agree we always need to have social safety nets for our citizens...I want people to receive treatment when they need it and I want kids, the elderly and others who can't help themselves to be covered. I also want people with pre-existing conditions and affordability issues to have options.

I don't mind paying for public schools (although we do use them too), b/c an educated citizenry makes for a better society. Health Care options are important in the same way, but I don't want health care run by the govt for everyone. This plan isn't universal health care (yet), but I disagree strongly with a number of provisions and I think its creation and passage just highlighted the problems with both parties and the way legislation works through congress

Having said all of that, I feel like many of my choices are being taken away with this reform package. No longer can I choose a high deductible plan, a plan with co-pays, or a plan that doesn't cover 25 year olds on their parents health care -- all of these things will mean that my premiums (as a family who pays 100% of their (along with their employees) health benefits) will go up. To me, that's exerting too much control over a private sector transaction...if you want to pay for a plan that has no copays, covers adult children, etc., you should be able to, but why should I be forced to have that type of coverage.

I'm OK with more government involvement and trying to figure out a way to make affordable health care options available for the working poor, but restricting choice for those of us already happy with our health care and going so far as to limit profits for a private sector industry really bothers me.

[BelleoftheBallFlagstaff]

And even if you weren't, even if you did every wrong thing that could be done, it isn't his fault, is it? In that scenario, we could make you pay (literally and figuratively) into oblivion, but if you died tomorrow penniless, your child will still be here, with a condition that is the epitome of pre-existing since he was born with it, thru no fault of his own. In my view, he should not have to wonder if he'll have proper care.

:applause: Well said!

[niccig]

We are already and have been for years paying for the un/underinsured. I love the pre-existing condition provision in the bill. Imagine having a child with a congenital condition, not qualifying for state aid, and your insurance denying you.

My friend, whose son has Down's Syndrome, put him on their insurance at birth. The insurance company couldn't deny it then. BUT, they did jack up their monthly premiums EVERY year since he was born. He's got mediCal now, and they want to take him off their private insurance to lower those premiums, but she said he'll never get private insurance again. Now, they might be able to do that as pre-existing conditions for children can't be used to refuse insurance, but I don't see where it says they're not allowed to make the premium so costly you can't afford it. So, still not a complete solution.

And I can't believe people would think it is fair for them to pay more because they have a mentally disabled child, and he will use more medical services than a normally developing child. No one chooses to have a genetic medical condition. It's a crap shoot.

[Ceepa]

I think when it comes to health it shouldn't be like car insurance, you shouldn't be penalized for things beyond your control.

So who is to say what is beyond our control? Who sets up those precious guidelines? I think I understand what you're saying: there are those who choose to smoke and live sedentary lifestyles so they should have to pay more for health insurance, but health issues not directly resulting from "poor life choices" should not come into play for costs to customers.

[ChunkyNicksChunkyMom]

To sit back and think that the only difference between you and someone who has less money or health coverage is hard work, is foolish at best, foolhardy at most. I have health coverage, my husband has a good job. I don't gripe about our taxes covering public schools even thought we'll homeschool our children.

My mother who worked her tail off her whole life was injured on the job and lost that wonderful health coverage she had but never needed to use. Then she was diagnosed with cancer and told the meager coverage she was able to afford on her own covered her diagnosis but not the treatment. Thankfully there was some sort of state plan in Florida which assisted in this type of situation. She's 58, still active, still working, still contributing (she works respite care for families with autism).

eta: and I'm a registered Republican.


Is this in response to my post??

[m448]

Yes but not exclusively. As a christian to adopt the whole "God helps those who help themselves" line of thought (despite this not being in the bible) is mocking the source of my husband's and my own ability to do the work we do today. Do I agree with the nitty gritty of the bill and all of the details? Of course not, but to sit back and say that my money is my money and therefore those who cannot just were poor planners is awful.

[wellyes]

One of my major concerns is the individual mandate..theoretically, people will be required to purchase insurance, but the penalties for not doing so are laughably low (especially in the early years -- I think in the first few years it's only a fine of $95 for not having insurance and even once the plan is fully implemented the penalty will be $500).

I believe it is $95/month.

[Jeanne]

Yes but not exclusively. As a christian to adopt the whole "God helps those who help themselves" line of thought (despite this not being in the bible) is mocking the source of my husband's and my own ability to do the work we do today. Do I agree with the nitty gritty of the bill and all of the details? Of course not, but to sit back and say that my money is my money and therefore those who cannot just were poor planners is awful.

Perhaps directed at my post?

[jenmcadams]

Yes but not exclusively. As a christian to adopt the whole "God helps those who help themselves" line of thought (despite this not being in the bible) is mocking the source of my husband's and my own ability to do the work we do today. Do I agree with the nitty gritty of the bill and all of the details? Of course not, but to sit back and say that my money is my money and therefore those who cannot just were poor planners is awful.

I'm guessing it may have also been in response to some of my posts. I'm not sure anyone is saying "my money is my money...", but the nitty gritty of the bill is important and if I'm going to pay to help people who didn't plan (along with all of the people who had unfortunate problems, need help and can't help themselves, etc.), I want the details to be right or a lot closer than this is...and I don't like my choices restricted and mandated as part of this plan. I'm happy to help those less fortunate and those who find themselves in a bad situation. I want there to be more affordable options. But this bill seems like it will make things worse, not better and it seems like it includes a lot of unnecessary things that will make my health care worse/more expensive.

[JTsMom]

And even if you weren't, even if you did every wrong thing that could be done, it isn't his fault, is it? In that scenario, we could make you pay (literally and figuratively) into oblivion, but if you died tomorrow penniless, your child will still be here, with a condition that is the epitome of pre-existing since he was born with it, thru no fault of his own. In my view, he should not have to wonder if he'll have proper care.

I couldn't agree more.

[KrisM]

I believe it is $95/month.

According the comparision website posted, it's $95/year for 2014, $325 in 2015, and $695 in 2016 for the flat fee or 1.0% of taxable income in 2014, 2.0% of taxable income in 2015, and 2.5% of taxable income in 2016.

http://www.kff.org/healthreform/sidebyside.cfm

[Jeanne]

I'm guessing it may have also been in response to some of my posts. I'm not sure anyone is saying "my money is my money...", but the nitty gritty of the bill is important and if I'm going to pay to help people who didn't plan (along with all of the people who had unfortunate problems, need help and can't help themselves, etc.), I want the details to be right or a lot closer than this is...and I don't like my choices restricted and mandated as part of this plan. I'm happy to help those less fortunate and those who find themselves in a bad situation. I want there to be more affordable options. But this bill seems like it will make things worse, not better and it seems like it includes a lot of unnecessary things that will make my health care worse/more expensive.

ITA.

And of those that opt not to buy and instead pay the meager penalty thus waiting till they really need the high ticket care are not in the same category as those who ran their CC debt up or bought a house they couldn't pay for and still have new cars, big TV's, expensive phones, etc... (all of which I DON'T have and haven't done and I HAVE a job)? There has to be some kind of penalty to those who don't take their HC seriously. How many people are griping about the cost of HC for smokers or people who just plain old don't take care of themselves??? A free ride is not going to teach responsibility. It never does.

[jenmcadams]

I believe it is $95/month.

I think this is the actual penalty schedule/phase-in plan...

Those without coverage pay a tax penalty of the greater of $695 per year up to a maximum of three times that amount ($2,085) per family or 2.5% of household income. The penalty will be phased in according to the following schedule: $95 in 2014, $325 in 2015, and $695 in 2016 for the flat fee or 1.0% of taxable income in 2014, 2.0% of taxable income in 2015, and 2.5% of taxable income in 2016. Beginning after 2016, the penalty will be increased annually by the cost-of-living adjustment.

Either way....at the maximum of $2085 annually per family of four (which won't be the max until 6 years from now), it still might be cheaper to forgo insurance, pay the penalty and wait until you need it. At $1400 a month, our annual health insurance costs are $16,800 per year. Even if I add that benefit to my DH's salary and say that that whole amount should count as taxable income, we're at over 11% of taxable income. This assumes that our family's premiums don't rise (and with all of the added benefits in this plan, I'm pretty sure that's an unrealistic assumption). I don't think a penalty of 2% of taxable income is enough of a deterrent for some people when insurance will costs significantly more than that.

[jenmcadams]

ITA.
A free ride is not going to teach responsibility. It never does.

I love this...I don't truly consider myself a republican or a democrat....probably more libertarian than anything, but I strongly believe in personal responsibility. I think everyone should have to pay something in taxes, fees, etc. whether your income is $20,000 or $2 million. I realize we'll always have a graduated tax bracket, etc., but it scares me that everyone doesn't have "skin in the game." If after child tax credits, EIC, other benefits, etc., people are essentially paying no taxes (which is the case for a significant number of people), I worry that they will have no incentive to help control costs and think rationally about what we spend money on (be that the war, health care, whatever). I wish everyone had to pay something, no matter how small...

As someone who is definitely more affluent than not (although I think our HHI puts us pretty much middle class or just slightly above by census type estimates), I'm happy to pay a higher % to help. I just think everyone should pay something.

[BelleoftheBallFlagstaff]

So who is to say what is beyond our control? Who sets up those precious guidelines? I think I understand what you're saying: there are those who choose to smoke and live sedentary lifestyles so they should have to pay more for health insurance, but health issues not directly resulting from "poor life choices" should not come into play for costs to customers.

I am not saying what is/isn't in our control is black and white. I was saying in response to another post, that I do not think the fact that I developed thyroid tumors should force me to pay more that someone that by chance didn't. Or that my mother, who developed a very rare brain tumor at 36 and died at 39 should have been the reason my dad lost our home, savings and went bankrupt. My mom was an RN, that stayed home with me, and my dad was a Mechanical Engineer for Lockheed Martin.

[Reyadawnbringer]

When an uninsured person that cannot afford diabetes meds & waits until they need a limb amputated, WE the taxpayers pay for it. We pay for the uninsured every single day already! I have friends that work, and are on "Access" AZ's "Medi-Cal". They work, work hard, but as their employers cannot afford to provide them insurance, and they are the lower working middle class, cannot afford the $1500 a month premiums to cover their families. I live in a city where people with 4 year college degrees earn more as a waiter than what they would in their chosen profession and waiters make a $2.13 per hour minimum rate, so that says something!

We are already and have been for years paying for the un/underinsured. I love the pre-existing condition provision in the bill. Imagine having a child with a congenital condition, not qualifying for state aid, and your insurance denying you.


And even if you weren't, even if you did every wrong thing that could be done, it isn't his fault, is it? In that scenario, we could make you pay (literally and figuratively) into oblivion, but if you died tomorrow penniless, your child will still be here, with a condition that is the epitome of pre-existing since he was born with it, thru no fault of his own. In my view, he should not have to wonder if he'll have proper care.

:yeahthat: For both of these.

[maylips]

arivecchi, I'm sorry that you feel it's a diversion. I feel that it's a worthy discussion but I understand that some do not. If you'd like to debate the bill specifically, let's do. Many states' AG's feel it's unconstitutional to require citizens to buy a specific product. Lawsuits will be filed as soon as the President signs the bill.

Just out of curiosity (not being snarky here), how many of those AG's are republicans vs. democrats?

The problem with our country is that we've become so partisan, it doesn't matter if the other side has a good idea or not - we're not going to support it for fear that the other side will remain in majority for the next election.

Everyone is talking about the bill get "railroaded" through Congress - this debate has gone on for FIFTY years. Each President since JFK has mentioned healthcare reform at some point or another during his presidency. Representatives are up for reelection every 2 years. In November of '09, the Democrats were voted into majority. IMO, they needed to do something since they had the majority votes.

Personally, I think a lot of the problem with healthcare is the discrepancy in what people pay for the same care. It cost me $4k to have my daughter in 2007 when if I had had her in 2008, it would have only cost $2k on my same company's insurance plan. If I had stayed at my previous job, it would have cost a max of $1500. I see it all the time in my husband's PT practice too - some people have copays of $35 each time, which adds up quickly when they need to be seen 3x per week. And EVERY.SINGLE.PERSON with that high of a copay changes their own doc's prescription because of those costs vs. those that don't have to pay as much.

[himom]

Just FYI, one of the revenue raisers (the major one) in this bill is reigning in out of control Medicare spending and dealing with some of the waste and fraud in that program. It was entertaining to see the Republicans, who up until this point were all for controlling the growth in entitlement programs, suddenly aghast that there were proposed cuts to Medicare. I think I remember some Republicans saying the Democrats were stealing from seniors. I'm sorry, but these folks need to have some convictions. You can't be supportive of stopping the growth in entitlement spending until it's your opponent who's proposing it. Hypocrites, all of them.

So you think you remember "some" Republicans saying something and that makes them ALL hypocrites?

Edited per Moderator request.

[kijip]

It is really easy to be altruistic when you are doing it with someone else's money :)


Of course, and I give props to those who put their money where their mouth is.

No one can claim that people who support healthcare reform are not putting their money where their mouths are. Living in a liberal, affluent city my taxes go to fund rural conservative areas and states all the time. Yet still my city passes every school levy etc. The AMT also hits people in urban, progressive areas where the standard of living they enjoy is relatively middle class compared to people who live much higher on the hog in lower cost of living areas.

[ChunkyNicksChunkyMom]

Yes but not exclusively. As a christian to adopt the whole "God helps those who help themselves" line of thought (despite this not being in the bible) is mocking the source of my husband's and my own ability to do the work we do today. Do I agree with the nitty gritty of the bill and all of the details? Of course not, but to sit back and say that my money is my money and therefore those who cannot just were poor planners is awful.

Excuse me? You are attributing things to me that have NOTHING to do with what I have said here.

[kijip]

Youa re not getting what I was trying to say here. I am saying it is easier for you to endorse "reform" when it is MY tax that will be going up. (generic you and me).

What about your/our costs being lower because there is not a colossal emergency or crisis situation? It's expensive to do preventative medicine. But it's more expensive not to. My husband works at a hospital which receives extensive state and donor funding. Uninsured care and non-reimbursed care is threatening their survival. And it's the hospital where the sickest patients in their demographic come from a 5-6 state area and to a degree nationally. It's where your kids would go if you lived 500 miles away and they were gravely ill. It's where my middle class kids and their friends go for serious issues. Cheap is expensive.

[ChunkyNicksChunkyMom]

not worth it

[niccig]

I'm not sure anyone is saying "my money is my money...", but the nitty gritty of the bill is important and if I'm going to pay to help people who didn't plan (along with all of the people who had unfortunate problems, need help and can't help themselves, etc.), I want the details to be right or a lot closer than this is..
I get the feeling that some people don't want to pay for people that didn't plan better to afford health care eg. didn't get a job that paid more, or paid better benefits or saved more.

I think this may be a philosophical difference for me. I have family that are the poster children for buying a house they couldn't afford, running up credit card debt to have a lifestyle they couldn't afford. They weren't out buying flat screen TVs, but they did put things on credit card like dance lessons for their DD, extra things they couldn't afford on one income. I've been told the wife made a conscious choice to have credit card debt and stay home. I find this to be the utmost in irresponsibility. The DH was laid off, they may lose their house, and I'm not losing any sleep over that - family will take them in,they will have a roof over their heads, and they'll make it back on their feet somewhat when he gets a job.

What I do loose sleep over is the possibility that she or her DH will get cancer and not have medical treatment and die leaving their 2 children without one parent. That I am not willing to live with.

You were irresponsible and lost your house, fine you can live somewhere else and hopefully you will learn from this. You were laid off and can't pay health insurance and you don't have any savings, and now you will die, not fine with that. I'm just not OK with someone losing their life because they don't have health insurance. You can argue all you like that they were irresponsible to not save, they should have seen the warning signs and find another job before the lay off, gone into a field that paid more, gotten a better job with my security etc, but I'm not comfortable with denying them health coverage that could save their life. And it is people's lives we're talking about here. There are 45,000 deaths a year attributed to lack of health care.

[Ceepa]

I am not saying what is/isn't in our control is black and white. I was saying in response to another post, that I do not think the fact that I developed thyroid tumors should force me to pay more that someone that by chance didn't.

I was just confused about your position. The part about being penalized by things beyond one's control when, IMO, that covers most health conditions out there. That's all.

[Gena]

I love the pre-existing condition provision in the bill. Imagine having a child with a congenital condition, not qualifying for state aid, and your insurance denying you.

I fully support getting rid of exclusions for pre-existing conditions, especially for children.

A year ago we had really good insurance. DH worked hard at his job and his company provided great benefits. I had become a SAHM when we realized that DS had developmental issues and I spent much of my time working on DS's therapies and interventions. Our good insurance covered DS's private therapies, specialists, and medications. Even so, our deductables and copays were high, so we racked up some debt.

Almost exactly a year ago DH got laid off. It wasn't his fault. Each department had to let a certain number of people go and he had less seniority than most of his co-workers. So we lost our benefits. Dh and I both stated looking for jobs, but unemployment was/is high in our area and job opportunities have been few and far between. DH went on unemployment and we lived on a shoestring budget. We couldn't afford COBRA, even with the government paying part of the premiums.

DS did not qualify for medicaid. We knew that DH and I would not qualify, but we had hoped that DS would. DH's unemployment, plus my part-time/temp jobs put us over the income requirements to qualify. DS did not qualify for SSI, because we have too many assets (we own our home and our cars). So we joined the ranks of the uninsured.

We stopped DS's private therapies. We had stockpiled asthma meds before our insurance ran out and then begged the doctor for samples. When we hit the 12-month mark since DS's last asthma attack, we weaned him from the Pulmicort, with the doctor's reluctant OK. (The Doc would have preferred he stay on it an additional 12 months.) DS still needed to see his specialists, because if he does not go to his regular appointments we risk having the specialists drop him from their caseloads. Plus, DS is on medication that needs to be monitored. So we went deeper into debt to make these sure we went to these appointments.

In Sept, I went to work full-time on a temp-to-perm basis. In Dec, the company hired me direct. So since January we have had health insurance again! Yea! But DS's autism, asthma, and albinism have been declared pre-existing conditions. So they are not covered by my insurance for 12 months. His specialists and his meds will all have to be paid out of pocket for a year and those expenses won't even count towards our deductable. It's gonna be a rough year for us, but we're doing our best to get through it. And DH is still looking for a job. I make a lot less than he did when he worked, so money is really tight.

I don't know what the answer is to fixing health care. But I know it's broken. When we could not get state aid for our disabled child, when we had to choose between taking him to the dentist or taking him to the eye doctor (we could not afford both), when we cut back on grocery staples so we could pay for medication, DH and I would look at each other and ask, "What did we do wrong?"

Lots of people work hard at good jobs and have good insurance, and live in a bubble of security. But it doesn't take much to pop that bubble - a bad accident, a major illness, a job loss - and then your world can come crashing down. People shouldn't have to go through that.

I don't know the answer. But there has to be one somewhere.

[jenfromnj]

No one can claim that people who support healthcare reform are not putting their money where their mouths are. Living in a liberal, affluent city my taxes go to fund rural conservative areas and states all the time. Yet still my city passes every school levy etc. The AMT also hits people in urban, progressive areas where the standard of living they enjoy is relatively middle class compared to people who live much higher on the hog in lower cost of living areas.

I wholeheartedly agree with this. I am in the same situation as described above. My family is in a high tax bracket, but we're by no means wealthy or live extravagantly, we simply live in a very high COL area. We both work extremely hard (though I have taken a short hiatus for DS's first year), put huge amounts of time, effort and money into our education in order to hold down the jobs we do, and pay tons in taxes, and get no tax breaks (such as being able to deduct DH's massive law school loans or take any childcare deductions).

Despite being squeezed by taxes, I still feel that basic healthcare is a right. I realize that, despite our hard work and careful saving, we could someday be unfortunate enough to be in a situation where one of us developed a catastrophic illness, and everything we've worked and saved for could be gone. I imagine that the vast majority of Americans could face a similar fate if they or a spouse/child developed such an illness--as others have said, there are unfortunately many ways to lose coverage in such cases, and even if you're lucky enough to have coverage, one serious illness can cause a person to exceed the lifetime max of many plans.

That's not to say that there are some who take advantage of the system. However, I think that's an issue of enforcement and oversight that should not preclude the majority who are in the category described above, from having some assurance that they or their child won't die for lack of healthcare simply because they've sold their house, cars, etc, and have nothing left to give.

ETA: DH is technically self-employed, and we pay an insane amount monthly for healthcare. Do we enjoy paying $2k/month for that expense? Of course not. However, I know that many others are not fortunate enough to be able to pay the high costs of healthcare (esp via private or small group plans, or COBRA), no matter how carefully they spend, and I don't think that I should be entitled to lifesaving care and that they should not be, simply because of this. This is my opinion in spite of spending $$$ on health coverage presently, and the fact that my taxes will most certainly be going up as a result of the current healthcare reform.

[BelleoftheBallFlagstaff]

I was just confused about your position. The part about being penalized by things beyond one's control when, IMO, that covers most health conditions out there. That's all.

It's all good!:wink2:

[niccig]

I don't know what the answer is to fixing health care. But I know it's broken. When we could not get state aid for our disabled child, when we had to choose between taking him to the dentist or taking him to the eye doctor (we could not afford both), when we cut back on grocery staples so we could pay for medication, DH and I would look at each other and ask, "What did we do wrong?"


Gena, I'm so sorry you're going through this. I just wish the no pre-existing conditions for children were in place before you started work in January. It is despicable that your DS is denied health care that he needs. I do hope that things look up for your family this year. If you DH gets a job with benefits, and the new law is in place, you could put DS on his plan, correct???

[himom]

My costs for our family through my job are $800 a month, which is ridiculous to me already. If we are required to pay for a more expensive plan (which it looks like we will be trending toward) than....well, there's no way. There's no getting blood from a turnip.

We've already experienced an expensive hospital stay -- 3 years ago, and we're still paying it off installments -- so I see that things are hard in so many ways and people need help. We were lucky, as lucky goes. Others are not. But is the new bill going to change that.....when we walk out of the hospital next time are they just going to forward our $200,000 bill to the government?? What happens when people run up bills of millions? It has to come from somewhere.

I think the lower middle class is going to get killed by this bill, and there still won't be enough money to cover it. Unless we just print up more!

[Jeanne]

I get the feeling that some people don't want to pay for people that didn't plan better to afford health care eg. didn't get a job that paid more, or paid better benefits or saved more.

I think this may be a philosophical difference for me. I have family that are the poster children for buying a house they couldn't afford, running up credit card debt to have a lifestyle they couldn't afford. They weren't out buying flat screen TVs, but they did put things on credit card like dance lessons for their DD, extra things they couldn't afford on one income. I've been told the wife made a conscious choice to have credit card debt and stay home. I find this to be the utmost in irresponsibility. The DH was laid off, they may lose their house, and I'm not losing any sleep over that - family will take them in,they will have a roof over their heads, and they'll make it back on their feet somewhat when he gets a job.

What I do loose sleep over is the possibility that she or her DH will get cancer and not have medical treatment and die leaving their 2 children without one parent. That I am not willing to live with.

You were irresponsible and lost your house, fine you can live somewhere else and hopefully you will learn from this. You were laid off and can't pay health insurance and you don't have any savings, and now you will die, not fine with that. I'm just not OK with someone losing their life because they don't have health insurance. You can argue all you like that they were irresponsible to not save, they should have seen the warning signs and find another job before the lay off, gone into a field that paid more, gotten a better job with my security etc, but I'm not comfortable with denying them health coverage that could save their life. And it is people's lives we're talking about here. There are 45,000 deaths a year attributed to lack of health care.

I guess I don't understand this because I have/had a family die after an 11 year battle with kidney disease. She was 13 years old. My aunt and uncle have jobs, (crap jobs as laborers in rural upstate) they also have 5 other kids. They own a crap house and crap cars. They also have some form of insurance that did not pay the millions and millions of dollars that she incurred in those 11 years. She had 2 transplants, spent 6+ months of every year in the hospital while my aunt and uncle took turns living in the Ronald McDonald house, then had a hemodialysis machine placed in their home (unheard of even now) to deal with her condition with my Aunt being the only non medical person certified in 3 states to run that thing. They had to take a second mortgage out on their crap home to play for the funeral. They owe MILLIONS of dollars but they have good credit and haven't lost their homes or crap cars. Why? Because they pay on that bill every month (whatever they can) and always will. She was never denied care and received the best care she could have.

I have a cousin who just today had surgery to remove skin cancer. He's the looser cousin I mentioned in my other thread. He has no insurance and no job because he believes that most of the jobs he could get now are just beneath him. His unemployment is about to run out and it's not like he was a high paid executive. He was a janitor. Not knocking janitors but just saying that taking a job as a waiter is not a step down. Nor is anything else if you are motivated to take responsibility. And yet from the time the mole was looked at 11 days ago, there he is having it removed by a surgeon TODAY at our local stellar hospital. He will not loose his house or car because he only has to pay $5 per month until it's paid off.

The hospital cannot send you to collection or ding your credit if you are showing intent to pay.

I do feel terrible for those who work like dogs and get the short end of the stick in life. I really do. And I think reform is in order. BIGTIME. But I don't want my quality of life to degrade and children's future to tank for so many of those in this country who don't want to take responsibility.

[GaPeach_in_Ca]

I guess I don't know how this is going to work. What himom wrote just reminded me of this.

We generally complain about how expensive health insurance is, but the cost of the insurance seems pretty low compared to the costs of one catastrophic health event.

$800/month is less than $10k a year. 100 years of paying that before you hit $1 million, which you can easily hit with a month in NICU or ICU (I think).

I guess I start thinking of rationing, but that's unpopular too. Of course, no one wants their or their loved ones care rationed, but maybe evidence based medicine would help?

[himom]

I guess I don't know how this is going to work. What himom wrote just reminded me of this.

We generally complain about how expensive health insurance is, but the cost of the insurance seems pretty low compared to the costs of one catastrophic health event.

$800/month is less than $10k a year. 100 years of paying that before you hit $1 million, which you can easily hit with a month in NICU or ICU (I think).

I guess I start thinking of rationing, but that's unpopular too. Of course, no one wants their or their loved ones care rationed, but maybe evidence based medicine would help?

It's not an easily solved equation, is it?

But also factor in what it's like to pay $10,000 a year on a $45,000 income. It's "low" compared to a catastrophic event, but that much of your income disappearing is horrific too. And that's not even counting taxes to pay everyone else's insurance!!

[ChunkyNicksChunkyMom]

What about your/our costs being lower because there is not a colossal emergency or crisis situation? It's expensive to do preventative medicine. But it's more expensive not to. My husband works at a hospital which receives extensive state and donor funding. Uninsured care and non-reimbursed care is threatening their survival. And it's the hospital where the sickest patients in their demographic come from a 5-6 state area and to a degree nationally. It's where your kids would go if you lived 500 miles away and they were gravely ill. It's where my middle class kids and their friends go for serious issues. Cheap is expensive.

Katie, I do not believe my costs will be lower. I believe that the cost of my existing health coverage will skyrocket ( even more so than the normal huge increases) with government reform. And my taxes will be higher. We already pay a huge amt in taxes, at some point it would be nice to keep what is "ours". My posts seem to rub you the wrong way so often, perhaps it is time you put me on ignore.

[niccig]

They had to take a second mortgage out on their crap home to play for the funeral. They owe MILLIONS of dollars but they have good credit and haven't lost their homes or crap cars. Why? Because they pay on that bill every month (whatever they can) and always will. She was never denied care and received the best care she could have.


I'm sorry they lost their DD and hope they will always be able to pay on that medical bill and the 2nd mortgage, so they don't lose their house etc. They've dealt with enough and shouldn't have to deal with anything more.

As for your loser cousin, I can see why you don't want to pay for him, but how do you distinguish between a case like his and case like Gena's with her son. What would be your requirement before health coverage is given to a person??

[wellyes]

:wavey: Forum rules include:

No Flaming
Discussions must be kept civil. Users must treat others with respect and limit debate to issues rather than engaging in namecalling or other personal attacks.

No Baiting or Harrassment
Your membership may not be used to harass or exploit other members in any way. The posting of a message with the intent of drawing another user into a less-than-civil discussion (baiting) will not be tolerated. Baiting of the moderators is also prohibited; if you have an issue with the way the board is being administered, please contact the mods or site owners directly.

This is a good discussion and insults directed at other posters (for example "your comments do not contribute to the discussion") WILL get it locked. Everyone please behave so we can keep talking.

[jenfromnj]

We already pay a huge amt in taxes, at some point it would be nice to keep what is "ours".

I am truly not asking this to be snarky, but would honestly like to know (I think this was mentioned upthread, but not addressed specifically as far as I can see): to those who have expressed concern over keeping what you've worked for, what would you do if one of your children or your spouse faced a life-threatening illness that either caused you to lose your health insurance, or to exceed the lifetime cap of your plan, and you ended up millions in debt as a result? I know that DH and I work extremely hard and have built a nice little life for ourselves and a nest egg, but I truly don't know what we would do if something happened where our medical bills totaled millions.

I know someone said that hospitals won't send you into collections or take your home if you're showing some honest intent to pay, but as someone with numerous doctors, nurses and other healthcare professionals in my family, I know this is not the case everywhere. Unfortunately, I know for a fact that the system my dad works in has "ability to pay guidelines" that are not at all in keeping with what an average, middle class family who is already dealing with the complications of a serious illness, could pay. My family also knows numerous people with jobs and homes whose lives have been turned upside down by medical bills--it seems that often the hospital/healthcare provider's idea of "honest intent to pay" does not fit with the reality of the already very sick person who still needs to pay for housing, food, etc.

[kijip]

Katie, I do not believe my costs will be lower. I believe that the cost of my existing health coverage will skyrocket ( even more so than the normal huge increases) with government reform. And my taxes will be higher. We already pay a huge amt in taxes, at some point it would be nice to keep what is "ours". My posts seem to rub you the wrong way so often, perhaps it is time you put me on ignore.

Discussion does not mean that you rub me the wrong way. I disagree with you but I don't feel the need to ignore people or tell people to ignore me. Seriously, are we collectively so uncivil that we can't hear different ideas? You are overestimating my reaction to you. I ignore (metaphorically) people that have often name-called or been uncivil, but I don't think that is really all that common here.

I am not saying that this bill is cheap. I am saying that there is a more expensive way- one that will cause us all more burden.

[egoldber]

So who is to say what is beyond our control? Who sets up those precious guidelines?

I do not personally think it is possible to legislate these types of situations.

Which is why I believe in a single payor system and universal health care. :)

[gatorsmom]

I am truly not asking this to be snarky, but would honestly like to know (I think this was mentioned upthread, but not addressed specifically as far as I can see): to those who have expressed concern over keeping what you've worked for, what would you do if one of your children or your spouse faced a life-threatening illness that either caused you to lose your health insurance, or to exceed the lifetime cap of your plan, and you ended up millions in debt as a result? I know that DH and I work extremely hard and have built a nice little life for ourselves and a nest egg, but I truly don't know what we would do if something happened where our medical bills totaled millions.

I know someone said that hospitals won't send you into collections or take your home if you're showing some honest intent to pay, but as someone with numerous doctors, nurses and other healthcare professionals in my family, I know this is not the case everywhere. Unfortunately, I know for a fact that the system my dad works in has "ability to pay guidelines" that are not at all in keeping with what an average, middle class family who is already dealing with the complications of a serious illness, could pay. My family also knows numerous people with jobs and homes whose lives have been turned upside down by medical bills--it seems that often the hospital/healthcare provider's idea of "honest intent to pay" does not fit with the reality of the already very sick person who still needs to pay for housing, food, etc.

I agree with this line of thinking. Some very good friends of ours are ultra conservative, right wing in their beliefs (We aren't so discussions are always interesting!). They are adamantly against government involvement in healthcare and most anything else. However, her daughter is in the midst of getting a divorce and has been saying that as a single mother she won't be able to provide for her baby and that her daughter will probably have to go on welfare. My friend says she is really hoping her daughter qualifies for other state-provided funding. My jaw dropped when she said this.

As so many other posters have said, this is just another case of "no one wants it until they need it."

[ChunkyNicksChunkyMom]

I agree with this line of thinking. Some very good friends of ours are ultra conservative, right wing in their beliefs (We aren't so discussions are always interesting!). They are adamantly against government involvement in healthcare and most anything else. However, her daughter is in the midst of getting a divorce and has been saying that as a single mother she won't be able to provide for her baby and that her daughter will probably have to go on welfare. My friend says she is really hoping her daughter qualifies for other state-provided funding. My jaw dropped when she said this.

As so many other posters have said, this is just another case of "no one wants it until they need it."


If this daughter is able to work then my jaw would have dropped as well!

[mommylamb]

So you think you remember "some" Republicans saying something and that makes them ALL hypocrites? Your poor reasoning and gross over generalizations are insulting and don't contribute to either side of the argument.

First of all, thanks to those of you who came to my defense on this.

Personal attacks really aren't necessary and say more about the person attacking than the person attacked.

ET remove comments about not caring what others think of me.

And by saying they're all hypocrites, I meant politicians in general. But, I found those sorts of statements about the Medicare cuts to be particularly egregious. And there were numerous people saying this. It was pretty much a Republican talking point.

ETA: Please know that when I see hypocrisy in the Democratic party, I call it like I see it. I have little respect for many of those in my own party as well, and those of you who have read my posts in other threads can probably attest to that.

[Fairy]

Hey guys, look at this cute little guy!

http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u178/FairyMay9/Dogforhilnew.gif

I just thought I'd inject a little smile that we can all agree on. Right? Right? Who's with me?!

[arivecchi]

:hysterical:

[mommylamb]

He is a cute puppy.

[BelleoftheBallFlagstaff]

If this daughter is able to work then my jaw would have dropped as well!

Able to work does not mean even living above the poverty level in some situations.

Say she works 40hrs/week at $8/hour. Before taxes that is $320. $16,640/year or approx $1386/month.Let's say childcare is $500/month, that leaves $886 (pre-tax) for housing, food, utilities, car ins., gas, etc.

This is just an example, I obviously don't have a clue about their situation. But this is REALITY for many Americans.

[ChunkyNicksChunkyMom]

Discussion does not mean that you rub me the wrong way. I disagree with you but I don't feel the need to ignore people or tell people to ignore me. Seriously, are we collectively so uncivil that we can't hear different ideas? You are overestimating my reaction to you. I ignore (metaphorically) people that have often name-called or been uncivil, but I don't think that is really all that common here.

I am not saying that this bill is cheap. I am saying that there is a more expensive way- one that will cause us all more burden.

Katie, I seem to recall a few posts of mine that have really seemed to get under your skin (WIC?). Perhaps I am confusing you with someone else :)

[BelleoftheBallFlagstaff]

Universal Healthcare for dogs! Socialist puppy care!:rotflmao:

Thanks Fairy!

[mamicka]

Hey guys, look at this cute little guy!


I just thought I'd inject a little smile that we can all agree on. Right? Right? Who's with me?!

He's cute, but he's no baby girl. Try again, Hilary. ;)

[ChunkyNicksChunkyMom]

Hey guys, look at this cute little guy!

http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u178/FairyMay9/Dogforhilnew.gif

I just thought I'd inject a little smile that we can all agree on. Right? Right? Who's with me?!


Fairy it that a Springer? I gave a springer to my last bf (before husband). We named him Nixon and the morning we were taking him to be neutered we heard on the car radio that it was the anniversary of Watergate- poetic!!!!

[Ceepa]

Yup. English Springer Spaniel.

[Fairy]

Fairy it that a Springer? I gave a springer to my last bf (before husband). We named him Nixon and the morning we were taking him to be neutered we heard on the car radio that it was the anniversary of Watergate- poetic!!!!

No clue, but I'll take him!

[LarsMal]

Hey guys, look at this cute little guy!

http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u178/FairyMay9/Dogforhilnew.gif

I just thought I'd inject a little smile that we can all agree on. Right? Right? Who's with me?!

Can you believe this is my first reply to this entire thread!? I've been following it closely, but didn't have anything new or brilliant to add, so I've just been lurking. This pup, though, definitely deserves a response...

What an UGLY dog!!!!! Juuuuuuussssst kidding!!! I love spaniels!

That face reminds me of our naughty cocker spaniel who now lives with the grandparents. Poor Wrigley (yes, after the field!). She could have used some universal puppy care for her sad, blind eyes!

[gatorsmom]

If this daughter is able to work then my jaw would have dropped as well!

She has a high school degree and works as a waitress. She works all the hours they give her and has her mother (my friend) baby sit for her for free, but this wouldn't be enough for her to live.

But that's not my point. My point is, my friend doesn't think she should have to pay for these types of programs. Then suddenly her daughter needs them and she thinks they are a good idea and doesn't hesitate to use them. Hypocrisy at it's finest.

[JTsMom]

Fairy! :hysterical::bowdown:

[Jeanne]

I'm sorry they lost their DD and hope they will always be able to pay on that medical bill and the 2nd mortgage, so they don't lose their house etc. They've dealt with enough and shouldn't have to deal with anything more.

As for your loser cousin, I can see why you don't want to pay for him, but how do you distinguish between a case like his and case like Gena's with her son. What would be your requirement before health coverage is given to a person??

Thank You. As do I. They works like dogs and the 4 out of 5 (work age) remaining kids all send something in towards it each and every month. Amazing.

I don't know what the answer is. I just don't. I never thought it through because I didn't think we'd see this day in this country. I feel for people who have dealt with such situations. I really really do. It's an unfair card to be dealt with in life. Just don't know how to separate the decent hard working folks with good intent from those like my cousin.

But free entitlements born on the backs of those who are in the workforce isn't fair either, is it? IMO, if I leave the workforce right now and decide that I'm not going back until I feel like I had my entitled due as a SAHM, at my age, we will not have enough money to retire without having to rely on someone else (and by that I'm sure taking more SS than I would have contributed). Is it right that I get to make that self centered ME decision and have everyone pay for it? And again, I'm just using this point as one example of the million arguments and talking points that can come out of redistribution of wealth and entitlement plans.

[Ceepa]

She has a high school degree and works as a waitress. She works all the hours they give her and has her mother (my friend) baby sit for her for free, but this wouldn't be enough for her to live.



Sorry but what a mess. Not a perfect set up but as long as she can live with her parents and get some kind of child support maybe it'll be enough for her to further her education, training and slowly move forward without relying on programs so much. Of course, I know nothing of this person and hope she makes it for her baby's sake.

[gatorsmom]

Fairy, he's the cutest doggie I've seen in a long time. Thank you for the distraction!!! :grouphug:

[Jeanne]

Does anyone know what this bill would do for those with fertility issues? I have no idea what the specifics are so hence the question. One of my childhood friends did 4 rounds of IVF to have her son. The first 3 were paid for by her company - they had a $30k cap on it. The last attempt was paid for by her and they wiped out their savings for it. This was 10 years ago when IVF was $10K per try.

Does this new plan allow for multiple infertility treatments? Or do you have to buy supplemental insurance hoping you never need it but it's there if you do? The fact that her employer had a generous offering was her motivator to stay at that company.

[wellyes]

The two big changes with this bill:
1. Uninsured and self-employed people will have a lot more options
2. Insurance can't be denied for preexisting conditions.

Otherwise, you just keep your current plan. So if you're covered now, you're covered.

[Jeanne]

The two big changes with this bill:
1. Uninsured and self-employed people will have a lot more options
2. Insurance can't be denied for preexisting conditions.

Otherwise, you just keep your current plan. So if you're covered now, you're covered.

Okay. Thanks. Wonder how many things are going to be dropped from people's private insurance now? And it will happen. If good health care is not an incentive in the workplace and companies no longer need to compete with that to attract workers, then I imagine that everything will start dumbing down.

[missym]

Thanks to everyone who has worked to keep this thread civil despite the diverse opinions represented here. We'd like to see this interesting discussion continue, so please keep in mind the forum rules regarding civility and personal attacks.

(Some recent posts have been removed for moderator review.)

[niccig]

I don't know what the answer is. I just don't. I never thought it through because I didn't think we'd see this day in this country. I feel for people who have dealt with such situations. I really really do. It's an unfair card to be dealt with in life. Just don't know how to separate the decent hard working folks with good intent from those like my cousin.

Again I think this goes back to what you feel health care is, a privilege or a right. It seems that you think it is a privilege and that your lazy cousin has not earned it yet, and why should others pay for him to have it. He hasn't paid his dues. But if he doesn't have health coverage and that mole is cancer, he could die of skin cancer. Would you be OK with that happening to him?

I see a certain level of health care as a right. If my irresponsible family member, who currently doesn't have health insurance, had a suspicious mole, I would want it taken care of before it becomes more serious. I don't want them to die of cancer, and by catching it early, it could prevent it from spreading and being more costly later down the track.

Or do you want someone to kick your cousin in the pattootie and get up off his rear and get a job that has benefits. I can totally agree with feeling that way, but how does the state make someone go get a job when many people want the government to stop telling them what to do??



But free entitlements born on the backs of those who are in the workforce isn't fair either, is it? IMO, if I leave the workforce right now and decide that I'm not going back until I feel like I had my entitled due as a SAHM, at my age, we will not have enough money to retire without having to rely on someone else (and by that I'm sure taking more SS than I would have contributed). Is it right that I get to make that self centered ME decision and have everyone pay for it? And again, I'm just using this point as one example of the million arguments and talking points that can come out of redistribution of wealth and entitlement plans.

I wonder how all the other SAHM feel about this. I SAHM for 5years by choice and yes we save less for retirement because of that decision. We'll have less money and will need to adjust our retirement life accordingly. I do plan to go back to work, and that will bump up our savings. But many SAHMs do no want to go back to work at all. Is that an entitlement??

[vludmilla]

It is happening to my father right now. He has worked 6-7 days a week for my entire life. Two jobs for a good part of the time. He had two illnesses last year and insurance didn't cover everything. Job didn't pay him for the time off that was medically required to recover and he has been burning through his retirement money. A man who has worked like a dog for over 30 years may not be able to retire EVER and he is losing his house that only had about 7 years or mortgage payments left. It makes me sick.

[Jeanne]

Again I think this goes back to what you feel health care is, a privilege or a right. It seems that you think it is a privilege and that your lazy cousin has not earned it yet, and why should others pay for him to have it. He hasn't paid his dues. But if he doesn't have health coverage and that mole is cancer, he could die of skin cancer. Would you be OK with that happening to him?

I see a certain level of health care as a right. If my irresponsible family member, who currently doesn't have health insurance, had a suspicious mole, I would want it taken care of before it becomes more serious. I don't want them to die of cancer, and by catching it early, it could prevent it from spreading and being more costly later down the track.

Or do you want someone to kick your cousin in the pattootie and get up off his rear and get a job that has benefits. I can totally agree with feeling that way, but how does the state make someone go get a job when many people want the government to stop telling them what to do??



I wonder how all the other SAHM feel about this. I SAHM for 5years by choice and yes we save less for retirement because of that decision. We'll have less money and will need to adjust our retirement life accordingly. I do plan to go back to work, and that will bump up our savings. But many SAHMs do no want to go back to work at all. Is that an entitlement??

Agreed about my cousin on many fronts. I don't want to see him die of this but his attitude is so toxic that I'd like him to suffer a little to learn that life is not a free ride and that attitude is not what should pass for good productive citizens. I'm conflicted on whether it's a right. Someone has to pay for it and being paid well to offer a service is what drives excellence. I'm equally conflicted with certain aspects of public education. An educated citizenry produces working productive people - people who pay for the social programs already in place to benefit so many. I'd have a hard time with retired people not paying for public ed when in truth, a good many will live longer and spend more than their SS will pay out so we need an educated workforce to pay for all this. ETA to add it's the same conflict I have an a homeowner. It's my priveledge to own a home and with that comes the tax bill for public eduction whether or not I chose to use it. And currently, I send my kids to private so I'm paying double. But I also know that a 200 apartment complex with 100 of those units sending kids to the same public school is not generating the same amount of tax revenue from that apartment owner as they would be getting from all those individual home owners. However, the need for a roof, warm clothing, food, and basic education is essential to survival so thus, a right.

Like I said, I never got very far in my thought process because I didn't think we'd see this day. And I do worry about what this does to R&D in this country.

I can't speak to what SAHM's feel about that and my intent was not to start a working/non working debate. But my Aunt is one who never worked as soon as she got married and just outright refused to her entire life. My Uncle passed away after a lengthy battle with cancer. She now receives the reminder of his SS. But she has received far more than she ever put in in her lifetime and used far more public entitlement than she or my uncle ever earned. I think she was selfish and I think she still is selfish about it. To to your point on whether or not people who are like that should suffer, then yeah, I think they should feel the impact of the hardship they are refusing to help offset a little more than they are or will, with this bill. Otherwise, what is the motivating factor here? I would love nothing more than to chuck this lousy job and bail out and let everyone else worry about it. But I just can't.

[Sillygirl]

I guess I don't understand this because I have/had a family die after an 11 year battle with kidney disease. She was 13 years old. My aunt and uncle have jobs, (crap jobs as laborers in rural upstate) they also have 5 other kids. They own a crap house and crap cars. They also have some form of insurance that did not pay the millions and millions of dollars that she incurred in those 11 years. She had 2 transplants, spent 6+ months of every year in the hospital while my aunt and uncle took turns living in the Ronald McDonald house, then had a hemodialysis machine placed in their home (unheard of even now) to deal with her condition with my Aunt being the only non medical person certified in 3 states to run that thing. They had to take a second mortgage out on their crap home to play for the funeral. They owe MILLIONS of dollars but they have good credit and haven't lost their homes or crap cars. Why? Because they pay on that bill every month (whatever they can) and always will. She was never denied care and received the best care she could have.


I am sorry about your cousin, but I think it's interesting that this is your example. Why? Because, of all the chronic and deadly conditions out there, there's only one that is guaranteed to be covered by the US Government. It isn't cancer, it isn't heart disease. It's end stage renal disease - dialysis. It was written into the original Medicare bill. A patient came and testified to Congress while hooked up to a dialysis machine. Your cousin for sure had out of pocket expenses, but if her parents were US citizens, her dialysis was paid for by Medicare, as was her transplant and her medications.

If it had been leukemia, the story would have been quite different.

[arivecchi]

It is happening to my father right now. He has worked 6-7 days a week for my entire life. Two jobs for a good part of the time. He had two illnesses last year and insurance didn't cover everything. Job didn't pay him for the time off that was medically required to recover and he has been burning through his retirement money. A man who has worked like a dog for over 30 years may not be able to retire EVER and he is losing his house that only had about 7 years or mortgage payments left. It makes me sick. I am so sorry. :hug:

[Jeanne]

I am sorry about your cousin, but I think it's interesting that this is your example. Why? Because, of all the chronic and deadly conditions out there, there's only one that is guaranteed to be covered by the US Government. It isn't cancer, it isn't heart disease. It's end stage renal disease - dialysis. It was written into the original Medicare bill. A patient came and testified to Congress while hooked up to a dialysis machine. Your cousin for sure had out of pocket expenses, but if her parents were US citizens, her dialysis was paid for by Medicare, as was her transplant and her medications.

If it had been leukemia, the story would have been quite different.

It's the only example I have. I don't know anyone else who had something this catastrophic happen. Thankfully. Her disease was born of a severe form of strep.
I do know she reached her lifetime cap in the 4th year of treatment. I have no idea what Medicare paid for. I never asked. I do know that my Aunt and Uncle's bill is above $4 Million and they don't get to walk away from that. So Medicare didn't pay for all or even most of it. They did have insurance. I'm sure Medicare will pay the balance though because my Uncle is now 58 and my aunt 50. They can never earn enough to pay this balance off and if they default, they will loose what they have. So a free ride they didn't get. But she didn't die waiting to be treated at least.

[Indianamom2]

It's not an easily solved equation, is it?

But also factor in what it's like to pay $10,000 a year on a $45,000 income. It's "low" compared to a catastrophic event, but that much of your income disappearing is horrific too. And that's not even counting taxes to pay everyone else's insurance!!

Not disagreeing with you at all...but just thinking logically here, we pay the same percentage as your example for our taxes each year...and then some....already. And yes, it's horrific to see that much disappear (percentage-wise). That's one of the hardest parts of this to swallow. We're already being taxed and taxed and taxed. The money isn't being used as efficiently as it could be by the government, and now they want more. And I'm pretty sure it's going to be A LOT more.

Our money doesn't grow on trees....

[kijip]

Katie, I seem to recall a few posts of mine that have really seemed to get under your skin (WIC?). Perhaps I am confusing you with someone else :)

Again, disagreement and opposing viewpoints don't mean anger or "getting under my skin". Sometimes I say more than my fair share and I am a long winded sort of a gal but that does not mean I am pissed off or take your view (which I often do disagree with) on a personal plane. We have different perspectives. But I maintain that one learns far more from differing perspectives than their own than they could possibly learn from things they agree with wholesale.

[ohiomom]

I am sorry about your cousin, but I think it's interesting that this is your example. Why? Because, of all the chronic and deadly conditions out there, there's only one that is guaranteed to be covered by the US Government. It isn't cancer, it isn't heart disease. It's end stage renal disease - dialysis. It was written into the original Medicare bill. A patient came and testified to Congress while hooked up to a dialysis machine. Your cousin for sure had out of pocket expenses, but if her parents were US citizens, her dialysis was paid for by Medicare, as was her transplant and her medications.


Medicare covers only 80%. I'm not up to date, but think current annual cost is pushing$50K. Transplant meds are only covered for 3 years, then you are on your own. They run thousands a month. A few of our TP recipient coworkers got socked with bill for over $500 for co-pay for one of their immunosuppressants recently -- WITH high quality insurance and prescripton coverage because they wee advised to NOT switch to generic version by their transplant doctor. (Up to 20% variability in generics and fear of risk losing the organ.) Dialysis patients are also on many medications and only those given during treatment IV or IM are covered. Therefore patients have huge out of pocket med expenses. That said, prior to Medicare covering dialysis treatments, most non white, non upper middle class plus, non working, non young non male patients with end stage kidney disease died, basically due to rationing of care. I am grateful for the coverage that is there, although take great issue with the 3 year cap on transplant drugs since retaining the organ is cheaper long term than dialysis expenses... but that's a big tangent left for another day.

Me, I was not in the loop re: this bill, so haven't commented. Have really liked the discussion and strongly believe there is an ethical/moral imperative to provide decent health/dental care to all members of society. I'm hoping there is somehow a new emphasis on promoting healthy lifestyles and prevention but realize this is often a force of luck rather than by self-determination.

[momtoblondie]

can someone respond to me re: this blog entry . . . . I do not know much on all the ins and outs on the bill. But this was an interesting perspective! I am not sure if/and how this really plays out. Thanks

http://drb1020.wordpress.com/2010/03/17/the-death-of-insurance/

[Reyadawnbringer]

I think that no matter which side we agree with we can ALL agree that stuff like this (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36020850/ns/politics-capitol_hill/) is NOT ok.

I mean seriously... do these people really think this is going to help them get their point across???:hopmad:

[LMPC]

I think that no matter which side we agree with we can ALL agree that stuff like this (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36020850/ns/politics-capitol_hill/) is NOT ok.

I mean seriously... do these people really think this is going to help them get their point across???:hopmad:

:yeahthat:

I just don't understand how people think this is helpful! Bullying gets us nowhere!

[Kymberley]

:yeahthat:

Bullying gets us nowhere!

It got this healthcare bill passed...

[choopi]

The problem is that so many people who do work very hard either can't get coverage through their employer, can't afford to pay for health care out of pocket, or have lost their jobs and the insurance that came with it.


I'll take it from the other side.
Many people believe it is immoral and unfair to take from someone who works to give to someone who does not. Any expansion of the federal government for social welfare is immoral in that sense.

[Ceepa]

nevermind.

[Lolabee]

can someone respond to me re: this blog entry . . . . I do not know much on all the ins and outs on the bill. But this was an interesting perspective! I am not sure if/and how this really plays out. Thanks

http://drb1020.wordpress.com/2010/03/17/the-death-of-insurance/

I think this whole line of reasoning is really just a strawman. I have more than one pre-exisiting condition (according to Unicare, who denied our application for insurance with them, this includes my past IVF attempts :irked:) and I make sure that I maintain medical insurance because I acknowledge my real pre-exisiting conditions for the ticking time bombs they actually are. I don't know anyone else with a pre-exisiting condition who doesn't feel similarly.

I mean seriously, it's possible to imagine up all kinds of scenarios where one might try to evade taking personal responsibility for herself. But I would like to see the actual numbers on people who already have a pre-existing condition and are foregoing insurace coverage voluntarily (and not because they can't afford coverage or can't secure it in the first place individually or through group coverage.) Furthermore, it's plain old conjecture to assume that this sort of phenomenon will increase after the reform bill actually takes effect.

[LMPC]

It got this healthcare bill passed...

I truly do not believe that what you are talking about and what I am saying are comparable....
rock throwing, n-word calling, f-word calling....unacceptable!!!

[Kymberley]

I truly do not believe that what you are talking about and what I am saying are comparable....
rock throwing, n-word calling, f-word calling....unacceptable!!!

You are correct, I was just referring, in jest, to the "bullying" comment. Sorry, I have a horrible headache and am going on no sleep, and I didn't mean to offend.

[LMPC]

You are correct, I was just referring, in jest, to the "bullying" comment. Sorry, I have a horrible headache and am going on no sleep, and I didn't mean to stir the pot.

And I am sorry that I snapped back (forgive me?) -- I am just still completely annoyed by the insensitive behavior that is resulting from this bill -- it's such a distraction from the real issues. I hope your headache gets better! I totally have BTDT with the no sleep thing! Make sure you are drinking water -- dehydration=headache :wavey:

[Kymberley]

And I am sorry that I snapped back (forgive me?) -- I am just still completely annoyed by the insensitive behavior that is resulting from this bill -- it's such a distraction from the real issues. I hope your headache gets better! I totally have BTDT with the no sleep thing! Make sure you are drinking water -- dehydration=headache :wavey:

Of course you're forgiven! I'll be sure to think a little more before I type away next time.
DS just went down for his nap, and I'm going to do the same. I hope I wake up less like a zombie!

[niccig]

I truly do not believe that what you are talking about and what I am saying are comparable....
rock throwing, n-word calling, f-word calling....unacceptable!!!

I do wonder if some unstable person will take the "gun targets" literally and assassinate a member of congress. I understand that people are angry about the Health Reform legislation. There's a process if you don't agree. You vote the democrats out of power, you donate to political causes or legal actions. You don't throw bricks through windows, make threats against someone's lives or cut gas lines - that's not democracy.

[ash]

I am not sure if this has been posted yet...just some stats on uninsured...

In 2007, the Census Bureau reported that 253.4 million people -- about 85 percent of the total population -- did have health insurance.

According to Census Bureau data, of the estimated 46 million "Americans" without health insurance, more than 10 million are non-U.S. citizens.

Many young workers, whose employers do offer it, simply do not consider health insurance. According to the Census Bureau, 18.3 million of the uninsured are under age 34.


In 2007 the Census Bureau reported that more than 14 million people without health insurance earned annual incomes of at least $50,000, with 7.2 million of them making over $75,000.


In a June 30, 2009 article, the New York Times reported that, "An estimated three-quarters of people who are pushed into personal bankruptcy by medical problems actually had insurance when they got sick or were injured."

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/medicarehealthinsurance/a/insurancestats.htm


There are other options to keep this in the hands of the American people and capitalism rather than scaring us into a government take over. Here are some examples...

http://www.hermancain.com/news/press-opinion-041309.asp

I can speak first hand of the demise in public education due to government policies that waste money with less and less true education happening(for a whole new thread:)). Our children are suffering in the education system and it gets substatially worse each year. Also, I work privately in a clinic that bills medicare/medicaid-what a terrible system...funds going away, rarely do you speak to someone who is competent, inconsistencies in service and payment (another whole thread too). We have a semi social healthcare system as it is (Medicare) and it is going down the tubes...And social security? That is going bankrupt. Wow, and they were actually bragging about the comparison of this bill to medicare and social security....holy cow:thumbsup:

OK, sorry if I offended anyone. I definately believe we need some reform as healthcare is getting out of control. I just do not support a fear tactic of forcing us into something that means more government dependency.