The Health Care Law.

[Wishing4Wings]

Not entirely true. In VA, people who have had license issues must maintain insurance just to keep a valid - non suspended - license.

The people who will be burdened the most by the health care law are those who will have trouble paying the extra bill and are not capable (or willing) to put forth the extra effort to maintain the government provided assistance.

Yes, I understand, it's the same here in CA. However, I still have the option not to drive. It's not a desirable option, but it's still there if I don't wish to buy auto insurance. Will I still have the same option with regards to health insurance under the new law?

 

[RHRanch]

Then making those that do not own a car pay auto insurance is OK? afterall they may drive and/or get in an accident and need covered.

If you drive, it is a good idea to have auto insurance. Kind of a no brainer.

 

[Stephanie739]

Does that mean paying for a pot card is an act to avoid suicide? I am not sure I agree with you on this one. It is ALL about priorities. And of course the evolving definition of poor.

If it were up to me, cannabis would be legally growing in my garden. No money or pot card needed for that relief.

 

[Stephanie739]

Yes, I understand, it's the same here in CA. However, I still have the option not to drive. It's not a desirable option, but it's still there if I don't wish to buy auto insurance. Will I still have the same option with regards to health insurance under the new law?

You can always just choose to pay the tax instead.

 

[Aeropennchick]

Wow well I have only read part of this, but I am a nurse and I'd just like to say that it is across the board irresponsible to not have health insurance, no matter what your age. I don't care if you are "25 and healthy", I work in critical care and guess what, people of all ages get sick for no reason. And when people without insurance get sick, they come to the hospital, feel entitled to just as much care as everyone else, and often never pay a dime of their bill. And what happens now is those of us with insurance end up paying extra to cover the cost of those who don't pay at all.

My understanding of this law is that there will not be "government run health insurance" - there will be a mandate of proof of health insurance, like with auto insurance. The result *should be more affordable insurance for everyone, as there will be more people sharing the costs of care (that is, if a few well placed people don't line their pockets, which I admit is entirely possible).

I am willing to bet the farm that most young people who think they can't afford health insurance have I-phones with unlimited data plans, satellite television, fast internet connections, drive cars instead of use public transportation, etc. - it is a matter of prioritization of funds. If people would have reprioritized on their own, or if insurance companies would have created more low cost options for low-risk cohorts, we would not need this law.

It makes me confused when people are angry about this law. Do they think paying hospitals, doctors, nurses, etc. for our work is optional? Because that's what it translates to in my eyes.

 

[Stephanie739]

Wow well I have only read part of this, but I am a nurse and I'd just like to say that it is across the board irresponsible to not have health insurance, no matter what your age. I don't care if you are "25 and healthy", I work in critical care and guess what, people of all ages get sick for no reason. And when people without insurance get sick, they come to the hospital, feel entitled to just as much care as everyone else, and often never pay a dime of their bill. And what happens now is those of us with insurance end up paying extra to cover the cost of those who don't pay at all.

My understanding of this law is that there will not be "government run health insurance" - there will be a mandate of proof of health insurance, like with auto insurance. The result *should be more affordable insurance for everyone, as there will be more people sharing the costs of care (that is, if a few well placed people don't line their pockets, which I admit is entirely possible).

I am willing to bet the farm that most young people who think they can't afford health insurance have I-phones with unlimited data plans, satellite television, fast internet connections, drive cars instead of use public transportation, etc. - it is a matter of prioritization of funds. If people would have reprioritized on their own, or if insurance companies would have created more low cost options for low-risk cohorts, we would not need this law.

It makes me confused when people are angry about this law. Do they think paying hospitals, doctors, nurses, etc. for our work is optional? Because that's what it translates to in my eyes.

 

[thaiturkey]

Wow well I have only read part of this, but I am a nurse and I'd just like to say that it is across the board irresponsible to not have health insurance, no matter what your age. I don't care if you are "25 and healthy", I work in critical care and guess what, people of all ages get sick for no reason. And when people without insurance get sick, they come to the hospital, feel entitled to just as much care as everyone else, and often never pay a dime of their bill. And what happens now is those of us with insurance end up paying extra to cover the cost of those who don't pay at all.

My understanding of this law is that there will not be "government run health insurance" - there will be a mandate of proof of health insurance, like with auto insurance. The result *should be more affordable insurance for everyone, as there will be more people sharing the costs of care (that is, if a few well placed people don't line their pockets, which I admit is entirely possible).

I am willing to bet the farm that most young people who think they can't afford health insurance have I-phones with unlimited data plans, satellite television, fast internet connections, drive cars instead of use public transportation, etc. - it is a matter of prioritization of funds. If people would have reprioritized on their own, or if insurance companies would have created more low cost options for low-risk cohorts, we would not need this law.

It makes me confused when people are angry about this law. Do they think paying hospitals, doctors, nurses, etc. for our work is optional? Because that's what it translates to in my eyes.

One problem with compulsory private insurance is what to do with people who don't buy it. In the cases of auto insurance and business liability insurance, there are ways to make sure that people comply with the law. To monitor compliance with private health insurance laws might be more difficult. Then there is the question of what to do with people who have no income and, therefore, no means with which to buy insurance. They can't be left to suffer untreated so someone else has to pick up the tab.

There's no perfect solution. However, a government scheme funded from taxes would use a monitoring and collection system that's already in place. It could also give universal cover, free from the limitations imposed by private insurers. It works elsewhere and could also be effective in one of the world's richest economies.

 

[Royd]

Wow well I have only read part of this, but I am a nurse and I'd just like to say that it is across the board irresponsible to not have health insurance, no matter what your age. I don't care if you are "25 and healthy", I work in critical care and guess what, people of all ages get sick for no reason. And when people without insurance get sick, they come to the hospital, feel entitled to just as much care as everyone else, and often never pay a dime of their bill. And what happens now is those of us with insurance end up paying extra to cover the cost of those who don't pay at all.

My understanding of this law is that there will not be "government run health insurance" - there will be a mandate of proof of health insurance, like with auto insurance. The result *should be more affordable insurance for everyone, as there will be more people sharing the costs of care (that is, if a few well placed people don't line their pockets, which I admit is entirely possible).

I am willing to bet the farm that most young people who think they can't afford health insurance have I-phones with unlimited data plans, satellite television, fast internet connections, drive cars instead of use public transportation, etc. - it is a matter of prioritization of funds. If people would have reprioritized on their own, or if insurance companies would have created more low cost options for low-risk cohorts, we would not need this law.

It makes me confused when people are angry about this law. Do they think paying hospitals, doctors, nurses, etc. for our work is optional? Because that's what it translates to in my eyes.

Maybe the govt. should step in and prioritize everyone's life....Help me out in the Lifetime Priority bill. Primary, secondary school.job, health ins. food, clothing, shelter, college, auto Ins. Life ins. Home ins. Business, general liability ins, unemployment ins, worker's comp., Beer and cigs. cellphone, bigscreen tv, XBox.

As for the doctors and nurses, if Obama had his way, you'd be nothing but another service job, and you'd be doing it for the good of the community, because altruism is just so much more desirable that those greedy profit makers.

 

[Aeropennchick]

Maybe the govt. should step in and prioritize everyone's life....Help me out in the Lifetime Priority bill. Primary, secondary school.job, health ins. food, clothing, shelter, college, auto Ins. Life ins. Home ins. Business, general liability ins, unemployment ins, worker's comp., Beer and cigs. cellphone, bigscreen tv, XBox.

As for the doctors and nurses, if Obama had his way, you'd be nothing but another service job, and you'd be doing it for the good of the community, because altruism is just so much more desirable that those greedy profit makers.

I appreciate your joke about a Lifetime Priority Bill

The only reason I think this "intrusion" by the government is necessary is because failure to purchase your own health insurance negatively affects those with health insurance. I think one of the main functions of government is to enforce rules that prevent one person from unfairly benefiting from another person. Auto insurance is mandatory because the rights of the person you might hit with your car need to be protected. Health insurance should be mandatory because the rights of the few who are paying for the many need to be protected, and the playing field evened. Life insurance, on the other hand, is NOT mandatory because if you don't have it, only your family is screwed and not me.

I hope Obama has his way. As a nurse I think I am paid a ridiculous amount of money. I chose this profession in high school before I had any idea what the salary would be. We should instead be focusing on the unfair costs of higher education, necessitating that a person incur an enormous student loan to become a health care professional.

 

[hemet dennis]

I appreciate your joke about a Lifetime Priority Bill

The only reason I think this "intrusion" by the government is necessary is because failure to purchase your own health insurance negatively affects those with health insurance. I think one of the main functions of government is to enforce rules that prevent one person from unfairly benefiting from another person. Auto insurance is mandatory because the rights of the person you might hit with your car need to be protected. Health insurance should be mandatory because the rights of the few who are paying for the many need to be protected, and the playing field evened. Life insurance, on the other hand, is NOT mandatory because if you don't have it, only your family is screwed and not me.

I hope Obama has his way. As a nurse I think I am paid a ridiculous amount of money. I chose this profession in high school before I had any idea what the salary would be. We should instead be focusing on the unfair costs of higher education, necessitating that a person incur an enormous student loan to become a health care professional.

Do the millions getting food stamps negatively affect those that don't ? Is that person unfairly benefiting from other persons ?