I was recently listening to a debate on most of the health care agenda in which Alan Colmes was trying to point out some poll ( I haven't yet been able to find it) Supposedly implying the reason most Americans rejected Obama Care was that it wasn't liberal enough IE it didn't include a one payer system ( Totally Federally funded). I shook my head in wonder as I listed to him because most of the people I know would see that as unconstitutional esp with a provision saying you must buy it to live here. While I know I am personally quite far right on most issues. How many readers here feel that way , and if so how would you tell the congress to go about paying for this?

You may blast away with lightening bolts at any time now!!!!

Views: 151

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I think most Americans have other critical concerns with the proposed Heath Care Bill, namely, being forced to buy some policy, or have the money seized for payment, or face a fine/jail, and death panels. Playing the devil's advocate in favor of a one payer system, i.e., Uncle Sammy, 1) let no future bills pass that have ANY earmarks other than the intended point of the bill itself, 2) remove the troops from all the quagmires in the world where our presence only puts more fuel on the fire, instead of winning wars and bringing permanent peace to an area, 3) make a budget cut on all Federal programs and employees of 25% across the board asap. The GOP has already stated this is going to be attempted in 2011 for a target of 20% to start.
Those are good starts... Do you think especially when the Dems claim their plans bombed because they were not liberal enough that the Republicans now have a mandate?

There are too many earmarks and the elderly & handicapped are losing out. My private insurance jumped almost $100 a month (just for major medical only) and still does not cover prescriptions or doctor visits. What the increase covers is baby shots, prenatal care, std testing etc etc. There was not one thing there that benefits me. At one time I could choose to not have those benefits since there's no way I'd have a baby at my age...

 

They took from medicare to pay for abortions? Yet seniors have to pay much more for basic coverage including end of life counseling which is required of doctors beginning today.  Basically every time a senior goes to a doctor they have to listen to this spiel about the benefits of laying and dying for the good of the country.

 

Those who reviewed the bill in it's entirety are against it. Seniors can not afford the added expense now especially since they are paying more for medicare coverage to get higher co-pays, less coverage and no COLA. Bottom line is less income for seniors.

And who in their right mind would ever think the governmnent could spend
money more efficiently than a senior citizen that has years of
experience making ends meet?

 

 

That's been my point all along Dis who thinks the Government can even be efficient doing this?

Masonco,

 

You always appear to be well informed about Medicare and health care issues because of your job experience and your husband's illness, and I respect your knowledge. However, you seem to focus a lot on being forced to receive end-of-life counseling. It is my understanding that such counseling is optional, not mandatory, and it is for the purpose of shared decision making between a patient and his or her physician when the patient is faced with terminal illness or impending death due to irreversible, age-related health issues. Medicare and private insurance companies would cover the cost to physicians or their staff to provide that service. It does not constitute a death panel.

 

Personally, I would welcome that help when I am faced with my own impending death and must choose between heroic and cost-prohibitive measures to keep me alive, even if for a few extra weeks, or a peaceful and pain-free end to my life in hospice care. We are all going to die at some point - that is non-negotiable. I also have experience in the health care industry, albeit from a different perspective than yours. I think we strongly disagree on this issue, but I just wanted to put in my two cents worth.

I was thinking, since my kid is 1/4 mexican(or spanish, aztek, incan, mayan, who knows) maybe I could use that to get some of the assistance that all the immigrants get. As of now she needs her tonsils out and it is about $7000 to get it done. BUT I am afraid to do it paying cash because if their are complications and she needs other treatment I am afraid they would deny her since there is no insurance to back up the surgery.

With no insurance that is coming out of my pocket. If she gets stomach pains at night or weekend and I have to debate whether to take her to the ER or hope it is not appendicitis. Yet all these on medicaid go to the ER for every little sniffle or scratch.

The ER should be for emergencies only, if people used it properly their might be enough money to raise the income limits so people like me could have coverage, at least for our kids.

 

I mean I work, her dad works, her dad has some south of the border blood in him so why not use that to milk the system a little. Being white I sure as hell can't get any help, But if i made us up to be poor immigrants or something the DHS would be falling all over us with services.

 

Her Eustacian tubes get plugged because of the size of the tonsils and her ears can't drain and then her ears pop and pop and pop and it drives her crazy, I am afraid she will have hearing issues from this problem.

I sent an app into DHS to try to get a "spend down", where I pay most of it but they pay some based on income. Well that was two months ago and I have not heard a thing. I even left the lady two messages to call me back to confirm she had the application and never heard from her. Called the front desk and they say they have 30 days to review, then called again a couple weeks later and they tell me they have 45 days. I bet if I was awelfare lifer they would actually care about my kids ears, but since I am a white person with a full time employed mom and dad in the house they don't care. I am angry.

Off topic but I get pissed when i see other people having medicaid and I cannot even get my kids tonsils out unless I take a loan on my house.grrrrrrrr

Linda

 

The forced coverage for children already took effect. Not sure if it includes Mediaid coverage for them or not.

 

As far as taking a loan? Even with Hubby on Medicare now, co-pays, prescription costs, increased premiums for Medicare resulting in decreased money in pocket we still paid more in medical costs than our income was last year. I worked when I was called (company doesn't pay benefits that way), but pay for my own private major medical insurance which some months was greater than my income. I know when I do income taxes, our medical expenses will be more than our income last year.

 

in 2011, Hubby's social security income will actually be less than this year because of higher copays for doctors and prescriptions, complete pay now for oxygen  and some medications to keep him alive and active.

 

My private health care insurance (I'm not eligible for Medicare yet) increase almost $100 a month as well yet still does not cover prescriptions or doctor visits but does cover abortions, birth control, prenatal and post natal along with baby well being care and STD's. Ummmm?

 

Medicare also covers prenatal, abortions, birth control blah blah blah. Plus now anyone on Medicare can expect a "counseling" session every time they see a new doctor or go to ER. Topic? End of life recommendations including eliminating care and expensive medications. Not sure if rumor is true that seniors will have less access to cancer treatment etc. There is less cancer prevention screening coverage for most over 60.

 

So far these are some of the coverage (or lack of) I've received in letters from our insurance company. AARP endorsed the healthcare bill expecting that all government medicare would go to them.  Seniors on Medicare have AARP to thank for dropping the ball on that one.

What do you mean the forced coverage for children already took effect? I don't understand what that is.  I thought it just made it so those with insurance had to pay up to age 26, but not for those without,

 

Are you saying someone somewhere has to give her coverage? If so ..who,when hwere how?

Lando,

 

You are correct. Insurance companies now have to cover children of subscribers up to age 26, even if the offspring is employed, married and/or does not live in the subscriber's household. I'm not sure what Masonco is referring to.

Mary your partially right ..They have to cover them up to 26. But they do not have to cover them at the same price as your original plan. Many are finding the priced t be similar to cobra insurance. that is supposed to cover you from one job to another in Michigan. As many know the premiums and deductibles for such a policy, makes it so you may as well drop it to save money so you can stay alive.
Why am I not surprised at this? I'm sure this must be a disappointment to many.
Have you looked into MiChild? I think I remember you saying you have, but what are the requirements?

RSS

© 2024   Created by XLFD.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service