So whatever happend to the national healthcare law they were trying to pass??

[chickened]

Same goes for health insurance... if you want to own health insurance. And as we know a 20 year old does not feel they need health insurance as an example.

I really hate to keep correcting you but in every state that I know off automobile insurance is a requirement if you want to own a car. That is only one of many things that governmental authorities can and do require people to comply with.

 

[chickened]

Then by your logic we should start having children that may drive some day start paying auto insurance at birth??

The people that choose to not buy health insurance are still required to pay the bill if they get sick.

There are things in Obamacare that are a good step in the right direction but as with all bills the junk that is glued to them make them a bad deal. The Dems always want the rich/successful folks to foot the bill for the ever growing poor by choice folks.

I am self employed with a high school education and if I can do it anyone can as far as being successful financially so I see it as if you are able bodied, sound mind you really have no excuse.

Boy, I really hate to disagree with everyone in the State of Oregon, but I think you are wrong in your assesment of health insurance in that it has some similarities to the required purchase of car insurance. Yes, of course you are correct in that if you do not own a car you are not required to have car insurance. And, I guess that would be similar to health insurance if you can say that no one needs to have health insurance if they promise NEVER TO BE SICK AND TO NEVER USE THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM. In other words, people who do not have health insurance will get sick at the same rate as everyone else and once they do get sick they will go to the emergency room, use all the facilities and doctors and nurses etc, except they do not have any means to pay. So, when that happens, the costs go up and the people who do have health coverage wind up paying for those who do not. Now, I would have no problem with a law that says, like you suggest, No one is required to buy health insurance but when they get sick they must take care of themselves and probably die anyway, Until this problem is solved there can never be any real health reform.

 

[chickened]

Punkadoodle, nobody is preventing you from paying into someone elses healthcare I will let you pay into mine if you like. What you are really asking is that you and everyone else should pay into a system that allows healthcare to be dolled out to all and that you feel it is only "fair" that everyone else feel the same way about it as you do. The system you are describing already exists they are called group plans.

I pay through the nose for healthcare which by virtue eliminates fraudulent abuse of the system. When a hispanic has 10 kids because they do not believe in birth control makes minimum wage and expects me who was responsible in child bearing and lived within my means to pay for every office visit as if it were free to them and lives in a state with free healthcare you can see why people here are bitter.

It would be nice and I would support a system that sets a reasonable cost per person for basic care but it must be better than what the veterans get and better service than what the UK has.

Even though I have 'decent' (for US) healthcare right now, I *want* to pay into a system so that others can also have that. I certainly have seen how tough it can be for people, and have gotten ripped off by hospitals in the past when times were a lot tougher for us. What I would like to see is what was brought up in the past. People who *want* to participate pay into a program based on income. Thos who don't, opt out. They simply can not use the system, and can continue on with what they are doing.

 

[Capvin]

Even though I have 'decent' (for US) healthcare right now, I *want* to pay into a system so that others can also have that. I certainly have seen how tough it can be for people, and have gotten ripped off by hospitals in the past when times were a lot tougher for us. What I would like to see is what was brought up in the past. People who *want* to participate pay into a program based on income. Thos who don't, opt out. They simply can not use the system, and can continue on with what they are doing.

Thanks...this is a voice of reason that proposes an alternative. What you are suggesting is like a medical savings account and it has been proposed and in general, I like the idea. I would love your idea exactly as you said it except what do you do when someone, lets say a child, gets sick and his parents had opted out and did not participate. As Americans I think we would find it very difficult to refuse someone care and that is the entire problem. Reasonable people, like you, will understand that you could have a need for medical insurance and you would participate. Others would just say, I don't need it now so I won't pay and when something happens they still want to use the system that you already paid for. I am all for free choice except ewhen that choice will affect me personally and a whole group of people who will refuse to be responsible will affect what the cost of my health care will be.

As for the one who says"if I can do it then everyone else should be able to do it also." I will ask you what will you do if next year you are diagnosed with something that is not terrible but it causes your insurance company to cancel your policy and the only policy you can get is one that will cost you $27,000 per year. Is it still OK with you and can you still do it.? That happened to me in 1996 and by 2007 I was paying $27,000 per year for terrible coverage and had no choice but to pay and live with it until I turned 65.

 

[redhen]

My question is, will it be FREE like in some other countries..or what?
Right now its mandatory to have health ins. in my state. But the insurance rates in my state are crazy expensive..
So how will this law help me??

 

[chickened]

Believe me I am sympathetic to your cause. If the authorities would prosecute abuse and fraud in the healthcare system I think rates would be lower. If I pay cash for treatments I get a big discount. One of the problems is people treat insurance like a piggy bank and run to get any procedure done and all these little abuses add up. You are older than I am and you should have figured out by now that insurance is generally a rip off and unfortunately that is the system we have. The UK and Canada have socialized medicine and that is probably where I would go If I were diagnosed with an illness that needed care or pay the price.

I think the government could run insurance as they have no profit margin to be concerned about but their track record on running business sucks. I suppose we could pass laws that require insurance companies to cover people with fair rates but someone undoubtedly will have the job of deciding who lives and who dies and we all know the elderly will get the ax first. People have this idea that when we pay for something that we should get the best service for our buck and I foresee the government mandated healthcare to be a copy of the USPS as it has mandates that are killing it.

Would you want your healthcare decisions made by a carbon copy postal worker?

Thanks...this is a voice of reason that proposes an alternative. What you are suggesting is like a medical savings account and it has been proposed and in general, I like the idea. I would love your idea exactly as you said it except what do you do when someone, lets say a child, gets sick and his parents had opted out and did not participate. As Americans I think we would find it very difficult to refuse someone care and that is the entire problem. Reasonable people, like you, will understand that you could have a need for medical insurance and you would participate. Others would just say, I don't need it now so I won't pay and when something happens they still want to use the system that you already paid for. I am all for free choice except ewhen that choice will affect me personally and a whole group of people who will refuse to be responsible will affect what the cost of my health care will be.

As for the one who says"if I can do it then everyone else should be able to do it also." I will ask you what will you do if next year you are diagnosed with something that is not terrible but it causes your insurance company to cancel your policy and the only policy you can get is one that will cost you $27,000 per year. Is it still OK with you and can you still do it.? That happened to me in 1996 and by 2007 I was paying $27,000 per year for terrible coverage and had no choice but to pay and live with it until I turned 65.

 

[bakerjw]

Why is it that tort reform or portability of insurance between states was never even considered? Wasn't the administration that pushed this down our throats supposed to bring both sides together to determine what was best? I was between contracts during the process and clearly remember the dems going into meetings behind closed doors to come up with this crap. Why didn't they even look at coming up with plans that every state could support? Why? Because it isn't about insuring everyone. It is about control. Once everyone is covered under the government plan we will be told what we can eat, what we should weigh, etc... Check any hospital's records to see what the poor, the welfare hoard, or illegals pay. They don't pay a darn thing. Those costs are passed on to people that are insured or ones who need their help. I've been there. I went in after a cycling accident with no insurance. I paid the 100% inflated charge at risk of being sent to collection while Juan Jiminez and Betty the welfare queen didn't pay a cent. Will this bill fix the problem? Not a chance. It will get worse until there is rationing.
<rant off>

 

[DCasper]

Heath Care Reform the people want and a policy that is forced on the people are not the same thing. This was passed by executive order and not passed by Congress, even when the Congress had a majority of Democrats. This policy of forcing people to purchase something is wrong and should not stand. Unfortunately we currently have a leader who is the great divider and thinks he is above the law, the Constitution and who thinks Congress only gets in his way.

If anyone disagrees with me I would request you use facts and not name calling. If you can show me that I am wrong...I will post a detraction.

 

[Capvin]

Believe me, there is no way to disagree with anyone in this country who possibly believes that the current Health Care law was passed by executive order. I would logically assume that everyone who truely believes that would also believe that Obama was born in Kenya and that Elvis lives. I think it is best to just quietly let your statement speak for itself because telling you that you are wrong about that or misinformed would not help.

 

[punk-a-doodle]

Quote: Unfortunately, more people than I'd like are cool with refusing people, kids included, care. I mean...when it isn't them in that boat. That said, the way I understand it, people who opted out would still have the same private coverage, or they decided (at that point, it would be a decision) that they did not need health care, and the two groups would be treated the same as they are now.


Quote: I know many like to make this topic about "me and my tax dollars"...buuut, I did not offer to pay money to any one individual. That would defeat the whole care of society aspect! And I'm not sure where you are getting the second portion. No where does the above compromise say everyone else should pay into a system of my choosing. In fact, it says those who wish to continue on using private health care providers can do so. It merely gives others the option to 'feel differently', and to have access to a fund they paid into. You wouldn't have to pay for anyone else if you didn't wish to...you just couldn't use the system you chose not to pay into. If you chose the public funded option, no private coverage, if you chose private, no public.
...Group plans are completely different, and rather easy to lose access to...

A very similar proposal to the above was shot down at the time. Reasons given included one from senate Republican leader, McConnell. In his words, "because the private insurance people will not be able to compete with a government option." *cough*