Health Care Bill

[Narei Mooncatt]

I'm not disagreeing with your last post, really.  My mentioning of MSNBC and NBC wasn't specifically meant to be aimed at you, but trying to point out how big business could likely be quite in bed with the Obama camp and using their power of persuasion to skew opinions. Political commentators and colomnists are known to be more about opinion based on facts they present. They're not trying to be "news reporters". But you have actual news anchors reporting biased stories from the G.E. owned groups under the guise of being non-biased reporters and if this plan goes through it can mean millions, if not billions, for G.E. Fox and CNN may have some bias, but not on the same level by outward apperances and I don't know what they'd have to gain on the scale of G.E. That's why I put it at the very end of my post like I did, more of a side note.

[Epsy]

I'm not disagreeing with your last post, really.  My mentioning of MSNBC and NBC wasn't specifically meant to be aimed at you, but trying to point out how big business could likely be quite in bed with the Obama camp and using their power of persuasion to skew opinions. Political commentators and colomnists are known to be more about opinion based on facts they present. They're not trying to be "news reporters". But you have actual news anchors reporting biased stories from the G.E. owned groups under the guise of being non-biased reporters and if this plan goes through it can mean millions, if not billions, for G.E. Fox and CNN may have some bias, but not on the same level by outward apperances and I don't know what they'd have to gain on the scale of G.E. That's why I put it at the very end of my post like I did, more of a side note.

Ah, I see what you mean now.

[CiceroKit]

Just a note in response to the notion that non-profits are better because only people who choose to pay do so:

As someone who works for a domestic violence prevention program, I can attest that over half our funding comes from governmental grants. This is government money set aside to help pay for necessary, but non-governmental programs. Like all government money, this is generated from tax payer dollars. When we outsource our humanity to the non-profit sector, it means that we may still be providing a service, albeit one that is, perhaps, underfunded. Any notable service provided by a worthy non-profit is likely paid for in part by the taxpayers. We see this with private schools, non-profit healthcare and advocacy programs, and programs devoted to ending poverty.

[Narei Mooncatt]

I know I've mentioned non-profits in some of my earlier posts. I don't know if your comment was directed at one of them, but I want to clarify in case it was. What I've said is that non-profits are more efficient and better at administrating and using what funds they have because the people running them are volunteers for that specific orginization, doing it out of genuine concern. Not a government agency that will be tied up in red tape. With charities, they ask "Will you help?" You can turn it down if you want (maybe you don't believe in their cause or whatever), and nothing bad will happen to you. No one will fine you or arrest you. But when the government steps in, it becomes "You WILL help" and you wont have a choice.

Though you mentioned that you may be providing an underfunded service. What government funded entity isn't underfunded by them? And when one portion is underfunded too much, they will pull from other agencies and programs and use money that was supposed to belong to other services. For those wanting a full UHC and government ran healthcare, I believe this would happen there as well.

[Baako]

I'm going to cross post a few little paragraphs from a friend who posted on his LJ about this matter and the NHS,

"Universal healthcare is one of the most basic human rights, to be found in all developed western nations – except for the USA, of course; there are 50 million uninsured Americans, and now the American right are complaining that they’re giving them free health insurance!"

"The right-wingers seem to be very ignorant of things called statistics. The UK has a higher rated healthcare service (according to the World Health Organisation), lower levels of child death, and spends only 8% of the national GDP on covering the entire country’s population – opposed to the US’s 16% of GDP to cover only a fraction of people."

He said it better than I could. I don't see whats so wrong about giving a damn about your fellow human beings, not just a particular group which happens to have more money.

[Epsy]

Those paragraphs over simplify the matter and doesn't take the actual conservative arguments into account.

[Baako]

Those paragraphs over simplify the matter and doesn't take the actual conservative arguments into account.

Why make things more complex when its the core points which really matter?

[Yip]

Those paragraphs over simplify the matter and doesn't take the actual conservative arguments into account.

Why make things more complex when its the core points which really matter?

Because it helps to confuse things and puff up your side. I guess the idea is that if you have a lot to say, people will think you must know what you are talking about, even if much of what you say isn't really relevant.  It's why I dislike the rant format; even though I may agree with some of the points, much of it is superfluous.

There are two main questions here:
1) Should there be a universal health-care plan
2) Is this proposed bill a good universal health-care plan

There seems to be a lot of confusing the two going on in this thread.

[Narei Mooncatt]

Those paragraphs over simplify the matter and doesn't take the actual conservative arguments into account.

Why make things more complex when its the core points which really matter?

Core points yes, but simplification doesn't think things through. Take your friend's post:

Universal healthcare is one of the most basic human rights, to be found in all developed western nations – except for the USA, of course

Access to health care maybe, but not getting it. To say healthcare is a human right is to say that you are entitled to it. Since most people can't be their own doctor, it means someone else has to treat you. For this to work, you would have to force a doctor into slavery. I say this because what happens to your "human right to healthcare" if/when doctors start shutting down because they don't want to be a part of that system? If there are no doctors, or not enough, then not every one will be able to get their right to care unless the government infringes on the rights of would be doctors and forces them at the point of the governmental "gun" to give services against their will and likely at a financial loss.

A human right is something that can be applied equally. Not being abused in prison, being allowed free expression, being able to buy your own food, not being forced into slavery...those are human rights that can be applied without hurting anyone. To claim healthcare a human right means that by your mear existance, I should be expected to pay for your care and not be able to ask anything in return.

there are 50 million uninsured Americans

I'm not sure who is coming up with this number (usually quoted around 45-47 million state side), but no one is saying what this number includes. There's 12-15 million illegals in our country by most estimates. Those are likely included because it beefs up the argument but to cover them would add insult to injury. There's also reports of millions of people eligible for current government programs that are not applying for them. And then there's the people that just choose not to get health insurance for whatever reason even though they can afford it. Perhaps they'd rather spend the money on more material things. I can't prove one way or another, but until someone can, one should assume these people are being lumped in to the XX millions of uninsured because it props up said arguement for those using the claim. Yet these are all people that should *NOT* be counted because they are not the truely down trodden that they're portrayed to be.

and now the American right are complaining that they’re giving them free health insurance!"

So very wrong. Even if you are not paying out of pocket when you go to a doctor, that doesn't mean it's free. NOTHING paid for by the government is free. It's payed by tax payers. And with the current proposals, only a certain portion of the population would be paying in, but everyone would be getting services, which is by no means fair and doesn't even hold up to the loosed "general welfare clause" claim against the constitution. Also, you cannot add that many people to the government plans without raising money somewhere. Our government isn't about to cut that much wasteful spending to cover it, so the money has to come from higher taxes. To say any sort of UHC is free only shows the person's lack of understanding of how it works.

"The right-wingers seem to be very ignorant of things called statistics. The UK has a higher rated healthcare service (according to the World Health Organisation), lower levels of child death, and spends only 8% of the national GDP on covering the entire country’s population – opposed to the US’s 16% of GDP to cover only a fraction of people."

Someone else on here would have to help me on how it actually breaks down, but how the U.S. and other countries report their statistics is different, which skews the WHO claim. On such statistic I seem to recall is if a child in the U.S. is still born, it is counted as a child death but in the U.K. it is not. In the U.S. we can get care when we need it, not wait in a long line. So while we may have more people dying after treatment, other countries may have more dying before they even get treatment...maybe even before a proper diagnosis. Again, it's how care is counted. The U.S. has the highest cancer survival rate I believe. The WHO claim is an old argument that has been dispelled many times.  As for how much per GDP is spent, it's because A) We will exhaust every treatment option we can to get better. We don't believe in just giving up if the patient wants to continue treatments. Under UHC's, treatments have to be rationed, there's no way around it because there's only so much funding from government with no option to spend your own money for extras. So it will be a government body deciding if it's worth it to explore more expensive options. And B) it can also be argued that it's a cultural difference in that the U.S. has a lot of lazy people that make poor life choices that contribute to higher healthcare needs. This point is debateable though.

Let's say for a moment that it really is 15-20% of people uninsured in the U.S. for whatever reason. Why should you *FORCE* the other 80-85% of responsible people in the country to give up more of what they earned to cover these people? And a recent report has claimed that of those that do have coverage, 91% of them are happy with said coverage. I know I am with mine. What is being proposed would amount to hurting the vast majority to cover a numerical minority. With the way our government seems to work, they will not be required to change their habits or lifestyles, so those that are paying into the system can expect to see nothing asked of those receiving the benefits.

[Baako]

Not my statistics, don't know where he gets his.

It comes down to, What sort of person would deny another healthcare? Surely the right to live healthily is one of the most basic.

The only reason people wouldn't want free healthcare is because of money, and money should never come before the wellbeing of your fellow human.

Oh and FYI, you don't "wait in line" in the NHS, you go to your GP and if you need serious medical care, you get sent to the hospital where there will amost always be room for you. If its just a case of medicine, you get a free prescription if you are unemployed, and you get a discount prescription if you are employed.

Its simple and it works.

EDIT: BTW, I don't know much about American politics, so I'm not getting into a debate, my point is purely moral.

[Narei Mooncatt]

It comes down to, What sort of person would deny another healthcare? Surely the right to live healthily is one of the most basic.

The question really should be: Is it ok to *FORCE* someone to pay for someone else (healthcare in this case). It's not a question of denying someone healthcare. I think we should help our fellow man by our own choice, not to be compelled to do so by the government and then punished if we refuse. Like I said earlier, a charity asks "will you", government commands "you will."

The only reason people wouldn't want free healthcare is because of money, and money should never come before the wellbeing of your fellow human.

Again, even in a UHC, healthcare is not free. The only people that even come close to getting it for free are those not paying into the system. In that case, it's someone else paying for it. No matter how you look at it. It. Is. Not. Free. I should ask, is it right to force someone to sacrifice more of what they earn for someone else and not expect anything in return?

If its just a case of medicine, you get a free prescription if you are unemployed, and you get a discount prescription if you are employed.

No, you're getting a taxpayer funded/subsidized perscription and treatment. It is still not free, and you pay for it by other means through taxation.

EDIT: BTW, I don't know much about American politics, so I'm not getting into a debate, my point is purely moral.

It's ok, I don't know a lot about British politics, but the issues I'm bringing up are not righ/left/American/British/etc. They are issues that need to be addressed. You say your point is purely moral. And you seem to think it moral to want to help others. That's great, so do I. Where I draw the line is when we let our government legislate morality. Take abortion for example. If that becomes covered under a UHC type system, and you don't think it's moral to have them, too bad. You're still paying for them in taxes. Or what if you're one of the people that don't believe in medicine at all and only believe in faith based healing? You'd still be paying into a system you think isn't moral against your will.

Or let's say you're out of work. Is it right for you to go to your neighbor and hold him at gun point and demand that he pay for your recent doctor visit under the threat of jail time? Would that be moral? Because that's essentially what happens in government ran systems, only it's the government demanding that money. And if you do think that is right and moral, then do you also agree it right and moral for your neighbor to expect you to live a certain way? Would you be ok if he told you you are no longer allowed to drink, or smoke, participate in hard contact sports, and that you are required a certain amount of exercise daily? If no, then why not? If he's the one paying for your bill, shouldn't he have the right to lower those extra costs so he isn't spending as much supporting someone he may not even know? And let's go back to the idea of healthcare being a right. If so, then who has the responsibility to provide it? What if they deny providing government funded care because it's not profitable? All you can do is tell someone they "have a right to healthcare." and then....that's it. Nothing. The person may have a right to healthcare, but they're not gonna get it if no one provides it. So it's really not a right then, is it?

These are all things that have to be considered when looking at any kind of government controlled system. And I've yet to see anyone that can give a proper, plausible answer to these concerns. It's always "we should help others." Yeah, but at what cost. Not just monetary, but socially. You're making the richer people slave to the poorer by way of being required to pay for something that has no return benefit. It's legislating morality at best, and not something I support.

[Yip]

Core points yes, but simplification doesn't think things through.

Nor does going on and on about irrelevant issues. Something which you’ve done repeatedly in this thread.  I suspect this thread would get a wider range of responses if you weren’t so quick to jump in with your mile-long posts that are often only vaguely referencing the issue being brought up.

For example:

So yes, the house and senate democrats have completely buckled and allowed the opposition to frame the debate on a lie. Shame on every politician who promoted this complete and outright lie. Not only does this make it seem like the likes of Sarah Palin were telling the truth (they weren't), but it pretty much ensures that UHC won't pass because democrats refuse to take make a stand.

Here she sums up the entire point of the post: that one party lied and the other backed down instead of standing up to it.  And yet your response, Narei, was like three freaking paragraphs long and didn’t even address this issue at all.

You claim that having a basic right to health care would force doctors into slavery. I’m sorry, but that’s completely absurd. I don’t mean to be rude, but is your position really so weak that you’d need to make such ridiculous arguments?   Oh, and believers of faith healing? Again that's beside the point. It's not like other government programs don't have ways for certain people to be exempt from it. You seem to be pulling out any little thing you can think of.

The question really should be: Is it ok to *FORCE* someone to pay for someone else (healthcare in this case). It's not a question of denying someone healthcare. I think we should help our fellow man by our own choice, not to be compelled to do so by the government and then punished if we refuse. Like I said earlier, a charity asks "will you", government commands "you will."

Didn’t we already cover this?  You again are talking like the government is going to find some deadbeat and assign his bills to you. It completely misrepresents how it actually works. Every pays in so that anyone can benefit; it’s not that difficult a concept, and it already happens with thousands of other government programs. And the arguments you are making could just as easily be applied to just about any government system. Should we be allowed to opt out of paying taxes?

As I said before, the only way any kind of system, government run or not, would be able to provide basic health care for everyone, it will entail those that can afford it paying more to cover the costs of those that can’t. It’s the very nature of the problem. And yet it's the very thing you seem completely unwilling to accept. It's as though you'd prefer just making everyone fend for themselves.

there are 50 million uninsured Americans

I'm not sure who is coming up with this number (usually quoted around 45-47 million state side), but no one is saying what this number includes. There's 12-15 million illegals in our country by most estimates. Those are likely included because it beefs up the argument but to cover them would add insult to injury. There's also reports of millions of people eligible for current government programs that are not applying for them. And then there's the people that just choose not to get health insurance for whatever reason even though they can afford it. Perhaps they'd rather spend the money on more material things. I can't prove one way or another, but until someone can, one should assume these people are being lumped in to the XX millions of uninsured because it props up said arguement for those using the claim. Yet these are all people that should *NOT* be counted because they are not the truely down trodden that they're portrayed to be.

It is good to question the reliability of statistics, but I must wonder if you’d have questioned it so harshly if it supported your position.  Perhaps you should look into it before claiming it to be artificially inflated. This figure comes from the US Census Bureau, and while there is no way for them to know for sure how many illegal immigrants were included, it was not specifically including them. There was no “lumping in” to make the numbers higher.  Check your facts next time before making allegations.  (BTW, your figure for the number of illegal immigrants is inaccurate. Which is to say that it’s too accurate. The range is closer to 7 to 20 million [according to the US Census Bureau].)

A human right is something that can be applied equally. Not being abused in prison, being allowed free expression, being able to buy your own food...

But wait, you can’t buy your own food unless there is food for sale. You’re forcing farmers into slavery!!!

Sorry...  just that the doctors into slavery thing was just...  completely ridiculous.  And the funny thing is, this was an obvious attempt at you puffing up your side while in the exact same post you accuse the other side of doing the same (allegations that were false I might add.)

I know this whole post may sound like an attack on you Narei. I don’t really mean it to be. But although I think a government health care system could work, I am largely undecided on this issue and I’d love to hear what both sides have to say on it. And I don’t see that happening with you jumping on anyone that says anything remotely in favor of it.   You don’t like the idea of a government health care system. We get it. Now can we move on?

[Narei Mooncatt]

We get it. Now can we move on?

Fair enough. Among the many things I think that have been taken the wrong way in your post, there is only one I'd like to address on here and I'd be more than happy to explain my logic on the rest of my points to anyone via PM if they are interested. About the doctor slavery/rights thing: A right is something someone can have, but not at someone else's expense. By introducing a government ran system, you are requiring those that have above an arbitrary amount of earnings to give it up against their will to pay for those that are unable/unwilling to pay for themselves. Not everyone will be paying in, and others will be using more than what they have paid. Doctors will have to take a loss on their services because the government, not them, will decide how much should be charged. How is that not a form of slavery? Yeah, they're not out picking cotton with a government official holding a whip ready to come after them if they try to quit. They just take part of your money before you even get to see one cent of it and don't pay enough to cover costs (meaning more subsidies in other areas). Your point about buying food was flawed as well. For that point to work, I would've had to claim food itself was a right. I only claimed the right to buy it.

And no offence taken.

BTW, I agree the government is way too bloated and I wish there were a reasonable way we could opt out of paying some taxes. There's a lot of programs the government controls that they shouldn't and I don't like being forced to support them.

[Yip]

Among the many things I think that have been taken the wrong way in your post, there is only one I'd like to address on here .... the doctor slavery/rights thing

Odd choice. You made an completely absurd comment, and I called you on it. And your one choice is to defend it?  Look, there is absolutely no way that doctors are going to be forced into anything remotely like slavery.  If things were made that bad for doctors, we'd simply see fewer doctors. No one is forcing them to have that job. No one is forcing them to go to medical school. There is no way a health card program would force any of that. And as long as that's true, there can't be anything remotely like slavery going on. It was a very poor analogy on your part.   Plus, whether it's even harmful to doctors or not would depend on the particulars of the system that's implemented. You can attempt to say you were referring to the current proposed plan, but since you were responding to someone who was talking about health care systems in general, then I'd have to call you on blurring the two issues as I stated in my previous post.

Oh, and I'll state it again in case you've missed it as I think it's important and shows the flaw in the majority of your complaints:

ANY health care plan, government or not, if it's going cover everyone will by necessity mean those that can afford it pay more to cover those that can't. There is no other way. It's the very nature of the problem.

[Narei Mooncatt]

Oh, and I'll state it again in case you've missed it as I think it's important and shows the flaw in the majority of your complaints:

ANY health care plan, government or not, if it's going cover everyone will by necessity mean those that can afford it pay more to cover those that can't. There is no other way. It's the very nature of the problem.

It comes down to choice (and constitutionality as well). Right now, we have choice. I finally got started on my HSA insurance and saving me about $70/mo over my employer's policies and getting what I see as better coverage because of that choice. Under what the Democrats want to do, I wont have that choice. I know the current reform proposals are not full government ran healthcare. As Barney Frank has said (paraphrasing as it was an audio interview I heard it on), if they push for it all, then it'll backfire. They are taking smaller steps that will work to their end. Obama is also on tape saying he would want full UHC if he could start from scratch, but knows that it's not possible under the current system. Others have voiced similar ideals.

You'll have to forgive me if you want me to try and link to said audio clips. I hear these as I'm driving, so I can't exactly write down what the sources may be, and after an 11-14 hour day you tend to forget some things like that. I've tried looking up these types of things before, but usually can't find any audio clips that any news media seems to be able to dig up.

[Yip]

Oh, and I'll state it again in case you've missed it as I think it's important and shows the flaw in the majority of your complaints:

ANY health care plan, government or not, if it's going cover everyone will by necessity mean those that can afford it pay more to cover those that can't. There is no other way. It's the very nature of the problem.

It comes down to choice (and constitutionality as well). Right now, we have choice. I finally got started on my HSA insurance and saving me about $70/mo over my employer's policies and getting what I see as better coverage because of that choice. Under what the Democrats want to do, I wont have that choice. I know the current reform proposals are not full government ran healthcare. As Barney Frank has said (paraphrasing as it was an audio interview I heard it on), if they push for it all, then it'll backfire. They are taking smaller steps that will work to their end. Obama is also on tape saying he would want full UHC if he could start from scratch, but knows that it's not possible under the current system. Others have voiced similar ideals.

You'll have to forgive me if you want me to try and link to said audio clips. I hear these as I'm driving, so I can't exactly write down what the sources may be, and after an 11-14 hour day you tend to forget some things like that. I've tried looking up these types of things before, but usually can't find any audio clips that any news media seems to be able to dig up.

You are blurring scope again. What I said was about whether there should be a government health care system in general, and you come back with something specific to the proposed bill.  This is irrelevant to what I was saying.  Any system that will cover everyone must by necessity require those that can afford it to pay more.  That's true whether it allows the individuals choices of which health care to receive or not.

[Epsy]

Looks like the public option is dead:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_care_overhaul

So it seems the conservatives have managed to defeat the liberals on health care.

[DreamerHusky]

...

[Nicholai]

Here's a good, non-partisan resource dealing with the most common myths in the healthcare debate:
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/seven-falsehoods-about-health-care/

Take a deeeep breath, and read it over. Interesting stuff.

[Traumerei]

Without public option, I don't see much incentive for passing a reform. Will the proposed bill still lower medical costs and help every American citizen get insurance?

[Narei Mooncatt]

From what I've heard of the new co-op plan that could replace the public option, I don't think lowering costs arbitrarily is really its goal. It was just announced today, but from what I've been hearing, it sounds like non-profit, non-governmental agency co-ops will be set up to compete with regular insurance companies similar to how other co-ops like agriculture and energy ones do in their respective industries. I hope that means something to some of you because I've never lived in a rural place that had any sort of a co-op anything and I'm not sure exactly how it's supposed to work. At first blush, it sounded like the co-op's would be funded through premiums and not by taxes, and truely compete instead of a public option that could undermine regular business and thus force them out of business. If that's really the case, then I am interested in hearing more about them.

[CiceroKit]

Having belonged to an area food cooperative for several years, I can attest that they do enhance competition and serve to keep the prices low. It would have been nearly impossible for me to afford to purchase free-trade and organic produce if I had not joined as a co-op member. Yes, there was a premium to pay, but the savings in the long run were substantial. It kind of sounds like the way insurance should work anyhow. My biggest complaint about health insurance companies is that so many are dishonest. I had insurance through Blue Cross/Blue Shield, and the policy stated that it covered orthopedic footwear. I had pronated arches, but since the physicians notes also stated that the footwear would help with lower back pain, they denied payment, stating, "...we only cover orthotics when there is a foot problem." There was a foot problem. It was documented. My physician and I went back and forth with the insurance company regarding this for months before we just gave up. I still owe money on the orthotics. If a health care co-op works as well as other co-ops, it will be a vast improvement.

[Kada-Ru]

I can see a lot of good coming from this plan.

1.  People who have worked all their lives to be where they want to be and then it is time to retire.  What happens when one or both of them get cancer?  The bills start piling up and if they can't afford more then what health insurance they already have they lose everything!  Their home.  Their vehicles.  Their nest egg.  Everything that living in a free world grants to everyone.

The health care system we have right now I don't see as benefiting the ones that are ill/get ill.  It benefits the doctor's and insurance companies.  The doctor's/insurance company's can come up with so many ways to deny a person's need for care.  Even if that person has been paying into the insurance company all their lives.  The only way the doctor's/insurance companies (not all of course) make money is by denying care and benefits.

WS had a dear friend that died in 2001, I believe, because his insurance would only pay so much of his care.  What he needed was above the insurance company's willingness to pay and hence since he didn't get the care he truly needed, he died.

That type of thing is actually pretty prevalent in the US.  It happens every where.  It is truly a shame too.  Who should decide on a person's worth over another's?  No one.

But, with our health care system the way it is now, our insurance companies are making that decision for us all the time.

By what I am understanding from some of the posts, is that since I am disabled, I shouldn't have the right to get help to make me physically better so that I too could be someone that is taking care of myself.  That saddens me.  I would be considered not important enough to live because of my disability.

I can tell you one thing though.  All of my life I have been independent and proud of myself for being a strong person who could do things myself.  Today?  I can't be independent any more because I can't do a lot of things that people take for granted every day.  Someone else has to do the simplest things for me because I can't do them myself any more.

I remember years ago there was some topic on Furtopia similar to something like this.  Not about this bill of course.  I remember reading a members post about how he hated people on welfare/ssi etc., because he felt that these people were all really ok and just didn't want to work.  It definitely struck a cord with me!

I responded to this 'kid'.  He was actually a minor.  Things that he just 'does' every day without thinking about it are difficult for me.  He can get up every morning and go about his day with out thinking about walking.  Standing etc.  Every morning I worry that I won't be able to stand up out of bed.  I worry about how far am I going to be able to walk today.  Can I make it to the bathroom.  Which is only 10-15 feet away.  Am I going to be able to stand long enough to do the dishes.  I no longer can do the dishes nor cook as my disability has taken those RIGHTS away from me.  Did I choose to be lazy and not be in the working force?  HELL NO!  I would NEVER have chosen this type of life!  I can't go for walks with WS nor the dogs.  I have troubles sitting in a car for more then 2 hours with out painful consequenses later.  I rarely leave the house as to go anywhere is a big strain on me.  Yes, I do have my wheelchair.  So what?  That just means I can enjoy being out more.  I still pay from that enjoyment later after I get home.  Does anyone think that I enjoy this type of life?  If you do than you have a serious problem.  I'm looking at spending the rest of my life in a wheelchair and/or bed ridden when my DDD gets seriously debilitating.  And from where I am sitting, that isn't too far in the future.

I would love being able to do the things that most people just do without a second thought.

Now, what does all this have to do with this bill?

With that type of health care and the help from those that don't mind helping others I could actually get a surgery to replace my discs so that I too could live a life like most every one else does without a second thought.

But sadly, with todays type of health care, I can only be put on meds to help ease the pain until it gets so bad that I can no longer move.  And a lot of the meds that used to work quite well, the state health care doesn't cover any more.

So, I guess I am for the bill.

[Narei Mooncatt]

Kada, I do wish you the best and putting aside my views on any federal "reform" bill...

And a lot of the meds that used to work quite well, the state health care doesn't cover any more.

Do you think that on a federal level that you wont see the same sort of cut backs in meds and treatments? It sounds like you've experienced this first hand and similar stories abound with state run healthcare programs. Theres also many stories of people in positions like yours that have found ways to make it in the current system through various programs, be it local, state, federal, or charity. While I don't want to derail too much, I've heard many hospitals have people you can talk to similar to financial aid, where they can help people like you find funding for major operations. Perhaps your hospital or one you can get to has something like that as well.

You are right, there are a lot of things that need to be fixed in the system, but lets fix those problems instead of turning the whole thing on its head. Nothing is gonna happen overnight that suddenly makes everthing ok, and I feel a lot more personal responsibility is going to have to come into play. I.E. not charging to insurance any time you get the sniffles. We don't expect car insurace to cover the cost of a new tire when you have a blowout, and the same should apply to simple medical needs. Also, I think we need to get away from being a greedy litigious society so doctors can concentrate more on curing you instead of covering their tail from lawsuits and high malpractice insurances. Thats just the first two that popped into my head.

I do recall Obama saying something along the lines of helping pay for the proposals by cutting wastful medicare/medicade spending (also having to raise taxes on rich, but thats another point of debate all together). If thats the case, how about we see him cut the waste anyway, and save up a few years to prove it could be done and it may gain him some trust on the issue.

[Kada-Ru]

Thank you, Narei.

Theres also many stories of people in positions like yours that have found ways to make it in the current system through various programs, be it local, state, federal, or charity. While I don't want to derail too much, I've heard many hospitals have people you can talk to similar to financial aid, where they can help people like you find funding for major operations. Perhaps your hospital or one you can get to has something like that as well.

If Obama gets rid of the medicaid/medicare there go a lot of folks without any medical at all.  I am on the medicaid program and no, there are no places to get loans for surgeries, unless one has a home etc that they can use for collateral. Being one of the 'poor' and disabled I have no such personal things.  Can't afford them.  With the state system the way it is one gets ONLY enough to survive on and some times that isn't enough.  Yes, there are other programs to help with housing/food/utilities but still one can only survive on the income.  I would much rather be able to go back to work and earn 2-4 times the amount I get now on a program.

With the meds I am on, I would not want to live if all my medicaid were considered 'wasteful'.  I would be in such severe pain and unable to move that living wouldn't be worth it.  I already have enough problems finding meds that medicare WILL pay for.  And every month it is getting to be less and less.

Medicare is for the elderly.  What will they do without medicare?  Most of them have medicare along with another insurance program that THEY pay for to supplement what their own insurance doesn't cover.

You talk about fixing what we have now but what we have now just doesn't work the way it is.  The best thing would be to implement this bill and that would take the worry away from EVERYONE whether or not they can afford to go to the doctor or hospital.

From what I have seen with the care in Canada, lets say, the doctor's get paid MORE by giving the preventive and good care that their patients need.  Whereas the doctor's in the US get more money by denying some people care.  Big difference.  Which would you prefer?  That your doctor got paid more for doing his job?  Or for not doing his job?

The best way to put it I guess is to put yourself in someone else's shoes.  Do some research on how people are treated that don't have insurance.

************************************************
THAT REMINDS ME:  WS's friend wasn't on any insurance.  His mother paid for him to have the surgery to remove the tumor but since he didn't have the money to afford the chemo, he passed away from the cancer continuing to spread.  The surgeon's thought they had got all of it but without the chemo they couldn't make sure. Sorry for the misinformation.
*************************************************

Do you think that on a federal level that you wont see the same sort of cut backs in meds and treatments?

With this bill I do see people being able to get the meds they NEED not what is only available on some insurance program that only wants to pay for the cheapest medicine available.  This bill will make the meds available no matter what the cost.  So, if someone needs a med that is expensive, there won't be a problem getting it.  Yes, one can choose a brand name, which usually is more expensive only because it is a brand name, or get a generic which has a lower price but is still the same medicine.  I doubt that would change.  I always choose the generic if it is available.

When we get visitors from outside the US, I always tell them to make sure they have their own insurance from their country before coming over.  If something happened to them while here, they would not be able to afford it.

Do you have any idea what can happen to people without insurance when ill in the US?  I'm sure even members here that live in the US have their own horror stories about their health care.  It's scary what our system can do to those without insurance.  That's why this bill would be such a benefit.  No one would have to worry about whether they are going to get the treatment they need or worry about losing their homes that they worked all their lives to achieve.  They won't have to worry about being turned down/turned away for treatment if they don't have insurance.

Back in the day when my son was a toddler I had to go to the ER because of severe pain in my right ear and the tube being swollen.  I was seen but turned away for treatment since I had no insurance at the time.  I went home and the pain reached it's limit when my ear drum burst.  That could have been prevented if we had the same type of health care that other countries had.

Pre-existing conditions also wouldn't be a problem.  With a lot of insurances these days if you have certain pre-existing problems you can't get insured anyway.

I have been dealing with my condition all my life.  Yes, other peoples hard earned money that pay taxes has been paying for my health care and living since 1990.  Now, with the bill, I could have had surgery or what ever I needed way back when before my DDD got as bad as it has and would have been self supporting within a couple of years of surgery.

Looking at it this way, which would you prefer?  To help pay for someone to get the treatment they need without the bureaucracy that we have now with our insurance companies, that allows that person to get back on their feet and self supporting sooner than later?

Being disabled is NO fun by any means.

On another note, I believe you also said something about taxing junk food and the like.  I would also go for it.  But that isn't the problem.  The problem with most poor people is that healthy food is almost ALWAYS more expensive then the junk foods.  If they have limited funds of course they are going to go for the cheaper foods, which usually is the junk.  If the pricing of healthy foods were cheaper then the junk foods, I'm sure you would see people eating a lot less of the junk foods.  I believe that is what would fix that problem.

I'm not trying to change your mind about how you feel, Narei.  I'm only trying to show the other side of the question from one that is on that other side.  We all have our points of view through our own personal experiences.

There is a video that we watched awhile back that really opened my eyes to the health care in the US that I didn't even know existed as bad as it was.  I was in shock at how some people here had been treated since they didn't have insurance.  Ever since then I have been wanting the NHS for the US as well.  Not just for me, because I do have some coverage even though it is limited, but for those that have NO insurance at all.

I know the creator of the film is hated by some and loved by others but the film was quite accurate all the way around.  The title of the film is "Sicko" and will open a lot of eyes as to our health care system.  I felt so fortunate to have the health care that I DO have after watching that film!

I really suggest viewing that film.  It opened my eyes in a BIG way.

Ok, I'm done. LOL