Health Insurance Discussion

[goodyphilips]

Well I am also a strong votary of Obama Care, so to say.I think it has been devised by him with true intentions and with his heart in the right place. Infact every step Obama is taking are consistent with the high ideals and positive changes he promised to bring.

[DaddyDavid]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_reform#United_States

[DaddyDavid]

Go to Wickipedia, folks, for the ultimate comprehensive explanation of Gobama's health care bills. You'll be suprised, for one, to see details that were not reported in the mainstream media, and also you'll be scared.

[momisery]

The public option is the only choice at this point. At one time smaller clinics and hospitals and independants doctors could have worked, but not now. Today we have far too much big business/insurance/politics that is driving the costs. Like the stock market that now is a huge casino of betting instead of investing in America.

[ApresMoi]

Privately operated health insurance is already a mess. This unrealistic fear of "government" control doesn't make any sense. People have this false idea that privatization of an organization will have the best interests of people at hand, which is completely untrue. Health Care is a major, major money making business, and a lot of big wigs money is a risk if health insurance is improved to start paying out for coverage versus denying everything to keep growing their bottom line. Obama's initiative to instigate, review and discuss health care reform is the one of the best social interest initiative we've seen over the past eight years. It's definitely better than the wasteful, "War on Terror" move.

The status quo is the worse thing that can be down with health insurance situation right now. Is a universal or government operated insurance the answer? Not necessarily, but across the board reform is needed sooner rather than later.

I heartily agree. The current health care reform bill is a boondoggle, imho, that will force millions of new customers into the waiting arms of a largely unregulated industry. This bill was written by lobbyists for big pharma and insurance companies.

The good news? The senate version included a state 'opt out' provision, provided the state meets certain guidelines. States can create their own plans, including single payer or public option plans, in lieu of the federal plan. The earliest such plans could be put into effect is 2017. Groups in CA are already working on getting this done after Arnie is out of office.

The CA state legislature has introduced not one, but TWO, public option plans during the Governator's tenure, and he vetoed them both. If the next Governor is a Democrat, CA could very well wind up with a solid public option for health care.

[momisery]

First off.. it is not mom... the name is really missouri misery.. lol... which is what I found after living here for a couple years. I did raise two teenagers, but I never had a family of my own, I lost a child, so mom is not exactly a great memory. However, I have enjoyed my full life, and the teens are grown and doing great!

Both issues are linked our purchasing power as American within our nation, and the rising cost of healthcare. If we can not afford to buy goods and services without using credit lines we will continue down that path. So, where has the money gone? Simple, CEO"s have increased their pay from the 40+ times more than the average Joe to 340+ times the income of the aveage Joe. And they are not alone. My first job I was making less than the Comptroller, but only 4.8 times less. Today if you put min. wage in to the comptrollers income it is much worse. The money has floated to the top because workers have not protection. Unions did help, but of course they had their problems too. But if you read the history the Pinkertons and Vanderbuilt fired the first shot in the old west and wiped out several memebers of a camp of workers including women and children because they were joining the union. Unions were crime ridden, but so was management. Small business is the best choice we could have to rebuilt our nation and take it back from our government and the fat cats on wall street. But this thread is healthcare, and I believe fixing it would help working class Americans who are losing their jobs, and even those who are keeping them are losing their incomes and have been for a long time.

[banca rotta]

Our wages have declined again for another decade and there is every reason to believe they will decline again. So, if we can not effectively tax business and the rich who do we tax? Or do we turn this in to a free for all? If so, I am fine with that, I would like to stop supporting a lot of things that I disagree with too. Stopping taxes on everyone is a plan that I would support and to heck with the whole country?

This is true. Who here wants to know why?

It's not the rich and "greedy", not the unions, not the illegals. Yes it's the US Govt, the Fed Reserve Printing press and the fiscally irresponsible leaders like bush and bama.

They dilute the money supply by running deficits every year and printing new money into existance. Each administration does this so they can give us all programs such as "healthcare reform" without raising taxes and the lost purchasing power is felt after the administration that caused it is long gone.

This way they can "tax" the poor and working class without actually raising taxes.

Now that bama had a larger deficit then bush you can be sure in ten years your income won't budge but food and fuel prices will go through the roof.

Start getting use to using both sides of your toilet paper.

Hey mom, I think you should give the govt healthcare a rest and start researching why we are all losing purchasing power and it's only getting worse.

[momisery]

Our wages have declined again for another decade and there is every reason to believe they will decline again. So, if we can not effectively tax business and the rich who do we tax? Or do we turn this in to a free for all? If so, I am fine with that, I would like to stop supporting a lot of things that I disagree with too. Stopping taxes on everyone is a plan that I would support and to heck with the whole country?

[JRScott]

What's your data source, JR? The "41 million uninsured" posters posted their source. Please post your source. There's just too many unsubstantiated rumors floating around - thanks!

And frankly, to me regardless whether the real number is 41 million or 15-20 million, it's still many, many millions too many who have no access to basic healthcare. The results of this lack reverberate through our US society from top to bottom.

Since the Constitution seems to come up a lot in these discussions, the writers of our Constitution stated this in the preamble: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." How do you separate "promote the general Welfare" from being healthy?

Also stated in the Declaration of Independence as "inalienable rights": "....among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". To me health is directly related to life.

Between the Constitution and Declaration of Independence, I'm convinced that our founding fathers *did* care about the health of US citizens. Just because they didn't write the exact word "healthcare" 200 years ago doesn't mean they didn't believe a healthy populace is necessary to carry on the stated duties of citizens involved in state and national government. Do you believe otherwise?

I'm not going to cite sources nor get into that again because in the past many on this board don't accept legitimate sources. There has been plenty of commentary that my figures are within the realm of what is true not what is purported by the liberal media. Do your own research.

Go and get a 1789 dictionary and see what that means, it doesn't mean what you think it does in the language of that time, and the perversion of the FDR administration to expand the meaning by expanding the Supreme Court to usurp power was a fallacy and largely what has led us to our bankrupt country. General Welfare in 1789 was synonymous with prosperity not health, and our country is far from prosperous because of disastrous government programs dating back over the last century.

The larger the government the larger the waste. The larger the government the higher the taxes. The higher the taxes the more you pay for everything. There is no such thing as a free lunch.

Every tax you assess is passed on. If you tax the rich, they pay themselves more money, so they then raise prices to cover that. If you tax business they pass it on to the consumer. Every program, every mandate increases the costs of everything you purchase or use.

Keep in mind unless you live in Nebraska you will pay higher state taxes as a result of the increased Medicaid costs that the Senate Health Bill will impose on the states. That's the reason the bill really isn't deficit neutral. The federal government is only picking up a portion of the cost (around 50%), the rest your states have to pay for. Unless your Nebraska where the rest of us have to pay for theirs and Louisiana who got 300 million but at least it wasn't in perpetual as Nebraska.

[momisery]

I think our forefathers wanted to build a better nation than what existed. many who came here from Merry Ole England at the time were suffering religious persucusion, and with that was "low" standings in society. Once a hand maid always a hand maid.. Our forefathers decided to give us all the right to worship and to prosper thru our own HARD work, not thru others HARD work which is what was going on in England at the time, slave labor. The UNDER class had little choice an could not afford to pursue businesses. Our own county has done the very same thing to different colors, but we have grown away from that. The one thing we had that made us the BEST was that fact that we provided FREE PUBLIC education to all. Of course mom and dad also taught you skills on the farm or at the local small business. Today, we damn free education and fund the areas that least need the EXTRAS with better schools based on tax dollars inputted. So, many poor kids suffer. At home moms and dads do not have skills they can pass on nowdays. In the 50's thru the 80's your could pretty much at least get a job in a factory and be trained by the factory. The tides have turned, we now have nothing but big business and they are heck bent on Profit for share holders and themselves. We are not growing employees anylonger, we want them to pay for the education at prices they can not afford. If we will not accept low enough wages, fine they will simply pass a law to curb the tariffs and ship the jobs overseas. Both parties are bought out, and on the healthcare issue again it is all about money. All I hear is fear from some on a public option. With the public option everyone could get care. If they have a breast removed for example it will save their lives, but the cosmetic surgery will not be covered, it is not covered in France. If your are wealth, you will still be able to afford an extra plan to cover for those items. So, I fail to see where the problem is. If you have money you still get to have the best. With out the money you will have the public option only. IF we could count on big business to control healthcare then I could care less if it is changed. But they have proven we can not. Smaller business owners do what and they do bargin, but they can not compete in to days market, look at the dairy industry they are dropping prices to drive private people out of it. Plain and simply, we need to get rid of the gambling going on in Wall Street and make it only investors and tax them like ordinary earned income. What is the difference between that and dealing at a casino? Then maybe big business will be kicked out of wall street dealings that require no labor or work. Still smaller businesses sound like the best tool we have.

[WhatMoney]

This is what the 2009 American Journal of Medicine Report, with researchers from Harvard/Cambridge hospitals, Harvard law School, and and Ohio University actually concluded. This does not exactly agree with your summary, which seems a bit biased to me.

BACKGROUND: Our 2001 study in 5 states found that medical problems contributed to at least 46.2% of
all bankruptcies. Since then, health costs and the numbers of un- and underinsured have increased, and
bankruptcy laws have tightened.

METHODS: We surveyed a random national sample of 2314 bankruptcy filers in 2007, abstracted their court
records, and interviewed 1032 of them. We designated bankruptcies as “medical” based on debtors’ stated
reasons for filing, income loss due to illness, and the magnitude of their medical debts.

RESULTS: Using a conservative definition, 62.1% of all bankruptcies in 2007 were medical; 92% of these
medical debtors had medical debts over $5000, or 10% of pretax family income. The rest met criteria for
medical bankruptcy because they had lost significant income due to illness or mortgaged a home to pay medical
bills. Most medical debtors were well educated, owned homes, and had middle-class occupations. Three
quarters had health insurance. Using identical definitions in 2001 and 2007, the share of bankruptcies attributable
to medical problems rose by 49.6%. In logistic regression analysis controlling for demographic factors,
the odds that a bankruptcy had a medical cause was 2.38-fold higher in 2007 than in 2001.

CONCLUSIONS: Illness and medical bills contribute to a large and increasing share of US bankruptcies.

● 62.1% of all bankruptcies have a medical related cause.
● Most medical debtors were well educated and middle class; three quarters had health insurance.
● The share of bankruptcies attributable to medical problems rose by 50% between 2001 and 2007.

http://download.journals.elsevierhea...4309004045.pdf

[justbroke]

I think 60% of all unsubstantiated statistics are, well, unsubstantiated. Just like the number they use that 67% of all bankruptcies are caused by high medical expenses. It's actually more like 67% of all bankruptcies, include some medical debt. I think you can work these numbers, percentages, any way you want, and much is conjecture. I haven't seen the federal government ever get a single number correct.

I believe the number of uninsured is somewhere between 1 and 350,000,000. I'm pretty sure I'm 99.9% correct.

Adding... that I agree that we should back up our numbers with sources. I'm sure there are sources on all three sides of the fence.

The 62% number for "medical" bankruptcies was a random and unscientific study of only 2,300+ cases. Published by a medical journal... it was only a conclusion that the medical caused the bankruptcy, because the person had more than $5,000 in medical bills discharged, loss significant pay due to illness or mortgaged their home to pay for medical. Ooops... that's not causation by any definition. Even Harvard was more cautious to say that it "contributed" but not caused. Source: The American Journal of Medicine, August 2009

According to Dr. Ning Zhu at UC-Davis, only 5% were "caused" by medical bills.

PolitiFact says it's 32.1% of the bankruptcies that are directly caused by medical issues. Source: PolitiFact

In the end, most people go Bankrupt for one reason, and one reason only. Overspending. DUring the last decade, people spent and didn't save. If they had saved, they would have the money for unanticipated urgent care. Instead, they spent the money on dining, cruises, vacations, fancy cars. Then, when calamity struck... no money. I wonder why. I would hope that we stop using this "healthcare causes bankruptcy" as a crutch to push healthcare reform.

I opine, that it will be true, but only that healthcare will cause bankruptcy of the federal government, given it's current need to... well... overspend.

(FWIW, I overspent as well when I should have been saving. I started investing in real estate when the market was big. Had I just put my money into savings -- not the general market but more stable funds -- and not spent like there was no tomorrow... I wouldn't be here on this forum, today.)

[lrprn]

Exact numbers of categories is hard to establish but really the actual number of those who are American Citizens and not eligible for already existing federal programs is most likely between 15-20 million.

What's your data source, JR? The "41 million uninsured" posters posted their source. Please post your source. There's just too many unsubstantiated rumors floating around - thanks!

And frankly, to me regardless whether the real number is 41 million or 15-20 million, it's still many, many millions too many who have no access to basic healthcare. The results of this lack reverberate through our US society from top to bottom.

Since the Constitution seems to come up a lot in these discussions, the writers of our Constitution stated this in the preamble: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." How do you separate "promote the general Welfare" from being healthy?

Also stated in the Declaration of Independence as "inalienable rights": "....among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". To me health is directly related to life.

Between the Constitution and Declaration of Independence, I'm convinced that our founding fathers *did* care about the health of US citizens. Just because they didn't write the exact word "healthcare" 200 years ago doesn't mean they didn't believe a healthy populace is necessary to carry on the stated duties of citizens involved in state and national government. Do you believe otherwise?

[lindsay2181]

Oh stop the BS!
The numbers come from the US Census Bureau. Of course since the Census Bureau is part of the the US government you won't believe the numbers, but that's your problem.

Here is the latest report (2008 statistics), released Sept 2009, which includes the latest health insurance statistics:

http://www.census.gov/prod/2009pubs/p60-236.pdf

Since you suspect that not all of the 47 Million without health insurance are "Americans" - well you would be correct. There are "only" 21.4 million White non-Hispanic uninsured Americans. It's all those "other people" who make up the rest - American Indians, Hawaiian natives, Blacks, Asians, and Hispanics. I'm not sure which of these non-white people you consider "Americans". The uninsured rate among Hispanic non-citizens is about 47%. So yes there is an estimated 7 Million non-citizen Hispanics living in the USA that do not have health insurance and are part of the 47 Million. The actual numbers are larger since these folks do not like to be counted. Not surprisingly, poverty and lack of health insurance track well among all groups.

Oh now, I hope the convo is not going to go there...I am one of those "other people," (American Indian), and most certainly "American."

[JRScott]

banca no such thing as a free lunch, while they may think they are getting a free ride, the increased costs of goods and services passed on to the consumers because of the health insurance mandates will hit the poor much harder than if the government would have just taxed them directly for it.

That's why the elderly are hurting in this country. We gave them 'free' stuff, however its not really free and the costs of that stuff is passed on to consumers, which causes prices to increase hurting the poor and the elderly the most. That's generally what liberals don't seem to understand, there is no free stuff.