Ahh... here it comes

Is ANYONE really surprised?

This user's post has been ignored.

Not really a fan of Obama, but this one seems like it has (good) potential.  What does drive me crazy is all the campaigning bs that he's:

a) not following through with.
b) doing the opposite.

I guess that depends on the limits of what the government plan will provide.  Does it mean that there are prescribed treatments for certain maladies?  Use that treatment or lose it?  Like in Britain.  Or will we be given a health savings account for normal medical expenses such as the Singapore health system?  This is an extremely complicated system, and I think we can all agree that if whatever system we use, eliminates the desire of companies, researchers, or physicians to develop new drugs and new medical procedures then no matter how little we pay as individuals, it is not worth it.  I for one want innovation to keep coming.  Imagine how much new medical technology we have today that wouldn't exist had there been no incentive for someone to make a profit. 

I'm sorry, but it won't ever be cheaper.  The government can't run anything on the cheap.  That is where I just don't buy into it.  The government is going to ruin healthcare for the over 80% who are covered for the roughly 5-9% (removing the illegal immigrants and those that choose not to be covered) that are truly not covered rather than focus on a plan to catch that 5-9%. 

I am tired of being told I need to work more and pay more to support everyone else.  Selfish?  You bet.  I have worked since I was 12 yrs old in my parent's store and for 25 years in private industry.  The US has created the land of entitlement at someone else's expense and it is disgusting.

 
 I'd like to hope that it will equal out. Common sense tells me that the increase in my taxes to cover 50 million people is going to be substantially higher than the amount my premiums will decrease by. The fact that they can't give me the numbers to back up their claims reinforces my suspicions that it won't add up.

I'm calling everyone with a D beside their name on this list and telling them to vote no. I'm at the H's. http://www.numbersusa.com/content/congress/phone-numbers-and-mailing-addresses-memb.html

This user's post has been ignored.

This user's post has been ignored.

x2!!! "Like no one saw that one coming!

I am fully aware of that and still don't think it will be cheaper, particularly for me as one who is classified as wealthy (two income family, far from wealthy living style) my taxes will go up and my quality of care will go down.  Definately won't offset what I currently pay in healthcare costs through my employer.

This user's post has been ignored.

Edited by SweetK 2009-08-03 12:42 PM

This user's post has been ignored.

I think that is an over-simplified statement.  Of whom is this a hidden cost?  The government or insurance companies.  If they are uninsured (and presumably if they are poor they may tend to be unhealthy because of food choices, living conditions, and other habits) wouldn't this tend to decrease the average cost of the participant since the unhealthy uninsured have aided the insurance company in avoiding moral hazard?  Or if it is the government, then wouldn't this be a hidden cost of taxes (rather than premiums) aiding medicaid or some other social program? 

And no, I don't think it will equal out unless certain topics are covered in the program.  What if we end up shifting from one beauracratic mess to another?  Just remember, when dealing with health issues, there is a limited amount of funding/taxes to cover the costs...but there is a nearly unlimited number of ways to spend people's money on healthcare. 

Sorry, not all of us will pay for it.  The people that are likely to receive this healthcare gratis, will likely not have their situation change and will continue to receive these services gratis.  Also, there are still plenty of Americans that pay no taxes while in 2007, the top 1% of Americans paid 40.3% of ALL US taxes.  Is it really fair to further "burden" them simply because they can afford it? 

This user's post has been ignored.

This user's post has been ignored.

1.  The increase won't be small...(we need to pay for $1 trillion)
2.  The premiums will not be lower.. (look at Mass)
3.  The burden on small business will be ever higher than it is now, and since SBs are the majority of the businesses it will be MORE burden on us.

"I would rather pay more for the government to operate a transparent public program"

Ha!  Transparent.. that's funny...good one SweetK.. oh... you're weren't kidding... oh..um...



Edited by TriRSquared 2009-08-03 1:39 PM

This is wrong.

If they are uninsured they don't have insurance and therefore the insurance companies do not pay.  The county, state and federal run hospitals (and medicade and medicare and welfare etc...) are the ones who pick up the tab.  Insurance companies do not pay for uninsured people.  Hell, they hardly cover the ones who ARE insured.


Edited by TriRSquared 2009-08-03 1:38 PM

This user's post has been ignored.

Wow, the use of 10+ exclamation points...let me get on the phone to my senator right now.

Ummmm --- What????
OK - so who draws the line at who is too sick and who is not?  I mean, are you only talking about terminal illness?  I have personally met people that I was quite sure weren't going to live for another two weeks, and then a donor organ became available and they now live compelling, productive lives working a job and paying taxes.  Would you have cut them off?  How do you know when to say when?  I am quite sure that many people would have put me into that category at some point.  16 months after life saving surgery I completed my first triathlon.  I work a 50+ hour week, I run a not for profit charitable organization, I am a husband to my wife, a father to my children and someone that in the last year has purchased a new home and two new vehicles.  Certainly the plug should have been pulled on me one of the 6 times I was in ICU from 2003 to 2006, right?
Which people should not get coverage for disease.  You mention smokers with lung disease, what about diabetics.  Many diabetics are Type II diabetics.  Not all of them (not most of them, really) get the disease becasue they are obese or took poor care of themselves.  Sometimes, body parts wear out.  With a good diet and exercise, this disease can be controlled.  Sometimes it takes a little bit of drug interaction.  It certainly takes some monitoring.  Who makes the decision who got Type II because of bad habits and who got it because of genetics.  What about the Type I diabetic?  Certainly nothing that most of them did caused the disease.  In my case, maybe I should have been let go then as well.  I mean, I caused my diabetes.  If I hadn't become a Marine and I hadn't volunteered to go on an insertion mission into a foriegn country and I hadn't have had an accident as I entered the ocean from 25 feet, well, I would have never gotten the diabetes that caused the kidney disease that required my transplant in the first place. 
What about Luekemia?  Certainly those folks are expendable. 
What about the kids that are growing up obese because their parents don't teach them about nutrition.  Then, when they reached adulthood, they discovered a healthy lifestyle.  Should we not treat them as children?  Should we not aid them in their journey to get healthy and stay alive?  I know for a fact that there are many people that we count among our numbers as triathletes that have made this journey.  Certainly we should have stopped them before they started. 

If you feel that population control is emminent to solving the nations problems with healthcare and water supply, then it needs to be approached before life begins - not after (not a debate topic - define that point as you see fit as an individual).  Until you are ready to sacrifice your own children, don't ask anyone to sacrafice theirs.