View Full Version : Is Obama really a Democrat?
This blog comment got me to wondering about the coming election cycle. I know everyone says that the coming election will probably depend on one thing more than any other - the economy. Or would that be jobs? Thinking back over the last 2 1/2 years it seems that even with a Dem majority (prior to 2010 election cycle) in both houses of Congress the issues that most Dems care about were more about "compromise" than typical Democratic Philosophy. Although I know that the 60 vote issue seemed to kill much of the legislation I fault Obama for not using the bully pulpit to push for the issues he campaigned on. His nature seems to be to distance himself from the "fray" and then come in afterwards to try and reach a settlement. IMO, that has not been positive for Dems because the decisions made are more about "compromise" than "principle". Remembering that the primary reason he was elected was the total disgust with George Bush - people and the world were FED UP with the last 8 years of ignorance at every level.
As the current debt ceiling talks progress I see yet another opportunity squandered and the issues that most people care about (or at least Dems) will be sacrificed simply because the attitude that "something is better than nothing. I totally disagree. I would much rather lose a political battle based upon principle than to totally lose the war of ideology.
Although there is almost nothing that the current "conservative" movement represents that I would agree with I will admit that they do seem to "stand for something" - albeit it wrong IMO. I fear that most Americans are being lulled asleep with rhetoric and sound-bites from Dems and while they might not vote for the right-wing clowns they might not enthusiastically vote at all - which in effect is the same result.
Back to the orignial question - Is Obama really a Democrat?
Peace
Blog below -
Even when President Barack Obama has public opinion on his side (health care public option, ending the disastrous Bush tax cuts, etc.), he caves to Republicans. No use of the bully pulpit for this president. Instead, compromise with a force that actually wants his presidency to fail (and ultimately the nation). For his part, Obama seems to be a willing participant in their rope-a-dope sparring match.
Some right-wingers do not believe Obama is an American citizen and a true believer in the Christian faith. Most Americans believe this to be just more right wingnut nonsense. I, however, wonder if he is really a Democrat.
poetry_writer
7-2-11, 11:13am
This blog comment got me to wondering about the coming election cycle. I know everyone says that the coming election will probably depend on one thing more than any other - the economy. Or would that be jobs? Thinking back over the last 2 1/2 years it seems that even with a Dem majority (prior to 2010 election cycle) in both houses of Congress the issues that most Dems care about were more about "compromise" than typical Democratic Philosophy. Although I know that the 60 vote issue seemed to kill much of the legislation I fault Obama for not using the bully pulpit to push for the issues he campaigned on. His nature seems to be to distance himself from the "fray" and then come in afterwards to try and reach a settlement. IMO, that has not been positive for Dems because the decisions made are more about "compromise" than "principle". Remembering that the primary reason he was elected was the total disgust with George Bush - people and the world were FED UP with the last 8 years of ignorance at every level.
As the current debt ceiling talks progress I see yet another opportunity squandered and the issues that most people care about (or at least Dems) will be sacrificed simply because the attitude that "something is better than nothing. I totally disagree. I would much rather lose a political battle based upon principle than to totally lose the war of ideology.
Although there is almost nothing that the current "conservative" movement represents that I would agree with I will admit that they do seem to "stand for something" - albeit it wrong IMO. I fear that most Americans are being lulled asleep with rhetoric and sound-bites from Dems and while they might not vote for the right-wing clowns they might not enthusiastically vote at all - which in effect is the same result.
Back to the orignial question - Is Obama really a Democrat?
Peace
Blog below -
Even when President Barack Obama has public opinion on his side (health care public option, ending the disastrous Bush tax cuts, etc.), he caves to Republicans. No use of the bully pulpit for this president. Instead, compromise with a force that actually wants his presidency to fail (and ultimately the nation). For his part, Obama seems to be a willing participant in their rope-a-dope sparring match.
Some right-wingers do not believe Obama is an American citizen and a true believer in the Christian faith. Most Americans believe this to be just more right wingnut nonsense. I, however, wonder if he is really a Democrat.
As the country song says "You've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything".......and so many did, they fell for Obamas many promises which led to nowhere.... Not sure what your comments about the "right wingers" and your wondering if Obama is really a Democrat have to do with each other. I really dont care what he is....Most people are concerned about our country...jobs are scarce, health care a joke, people are struggling to survive. I wouldnt vote for Obama if he ran for dogcatcher, but he did inherit a huge mess that no one can fix alone.
The Storyteller
7-2-11, 11:14am
Back to the orignial question - Is Obama really a Democrat?
Was Bill Clinton?
I wonder if he is Democrat also. But one must look at the realities. During his first two years he did not have a super majority in the Senate and anyone Senator could block any programs. It took two Republicans to pass the health care bill. You also must remember that Mitch McConnell stated his goal was to make Obama fail and in the Senate with it's dumb rules one person can do that.
If you decide that he's not a Democrat, what does that make him?
Not on my side, that's for sure.SO I guess he's out there, hanging in the wind.
... You also must remember that Mitch McConnell stated his goal was to make Obama fail ...
I thought that was Rush Limbaugh who wanted Obama to fail, at least that's what's been bandied about on this board for years now.If the archiving and search engine was any good I'd pull up those posts, but there's no point to that. I can't even find the post where a favorite member was disappeared. But getting off track...
Wait--could it be that people wish Obama's ideology to fail? Would that be the sense of their expression?
Both parties are generally driven by big business and lobbyists.
That said, I would call Obama a centrist - but the center is much further to the right than it used to be.
I think the bigger question would be "what is a Democrat?"
I think the bigger question would be "what is a Democrat?"
I agree, I think there may be nearly as many answers to that question as there are Democrats.
Is President Obama a Democrat? I'd have to say yes as that party best reflects his ideology, although I believe that ideology is closer to Socialism. There's just no traction to be gained by aligning with them politically.
For those who think he's a centrist due to his unwillingness to actively advance his agenda, I think that he's been influenced too much by his community organizing days. That's where he learned to agitate and demagogue, but he never learned how to follow through on the rhetoric. He's also an ineffective politician because of his lack of experience and his early political strategy of not taking firm stands on issues that may be questioned later.
Just my opinion of course.
The Storyteller
7-2-11, 1:23pm
I think the bigger question would be "what is a Democrat?"
Well, see, there are two major parties in the United States political system, Democrat and Republican. If one is registered as a Republican, then one is a Republican. If one is registered as a Democrat, then one is a Democrat. If one is an elected official, then one is generally elected as one or the other, although one can be an independent, or may switch parties if one wishes.
Hope that helps.
Was Bill Clinton? I don't really so and I think his siding with the GOP on NAFTA was possibly the worst thing that happened to this country with the exception of Reagonomics. I think Obama is very much like Clinton only maybe not quite as politically savvy.
If you decide that he's not a Democrat, what does that make him?
Not on my side, that's for sure.SO I guess he's out there, hanging in the wind.
Not really sure at this point? I haven't totally given up on him yet and considering the likely choices probably won't. I also in the back of my mind I wonder if, after all is said and done, his administration will viewed successful. He talks a good game and makes very good statements that I usually agree with but his ability to "implement the change or fight for what is right" is lacking. He has been given many opportunities to differentiate himself from the right on so many issues and doesn't seem to understand the importance of showing clear choices. I am beginning to think the Dems are just not capable of dealing with the typical GOP "take no prisoners" philosophy.
He certainly did not cause the malaise this country is in but the American public, particularly liberals, are getting tired of the compromise. He will be a one term President unless he stands up and fights for his issues. I really think issues like SCOTUS appointments, future minority electability, environmental issues, and labor rights could very much depend on what happens in the election. IMO, status quo is not acceptable. I wish he wold make and push or bold moves - I think it would serve him well.
Just in the last few weeks locally I have heard the comment "Anybody but Obama" and I always ask them to give me some examples of what they "blame" him for - usually the reply is "everything". It seems that the same people that think government is not the answer always look to government to fix things? What up with that?
edited to add: I don't it will affect our war mongering regardless of the party. It seems as Americans we simply love war and will probably never end that insanity in one form or another - pretty sad.
Peace
It seems that the same people that think government is not the answer always look to government to fix things? What up with that?
Peace
If you mean that people who think that government is not the answer would like to see government back off on it's attempts, then you're right.
As an example, how can government stimulate the economy if their only answer is to take more from the persons and industries which drive the economy through job creation and innovation and give the proceeds to persons and organizations which will forever depend upon the private sector to support them? How can government encourage private industry by making it harder and more expensive for them to operate?
If anyone can answer those questions, I'd be very interested.
ApatheticNoMore
7-2-11, 2:09pm
How can government encourage private industry by making it harder and more expensive for them to operate?
Things like single payer might actually make it less expensive for at least some industries to operate, there were certainly industries that wanted it, just not the health insurance industry! Things like education up to a point provide boatloads of training industry doesn't pay for that makes it less expensive for industry to operate (at a certain point ever increasing education inflation is a major disadvantage to individuals, and very expensive, but I don't think private industry bears the brunt of it at all) and if they are so against it, why do they still require a degree to do anything?
The Storyteller
7-2-11, 2:21pm
I don't really so and I think his siding with the GOP on NAFTA was possibly the worst thing that happened to this country with the exception of Reagonomics.
So, basically there hasn't been a Democratic president since Jimmy Carter.
Assuming you think he was a Democrat, that is.
I don't see how someone living in Texas could possibly say Obama isn't Democrat enough, considering the kind of "Democrats" you have in office down there.
"In the U.S. there is basically one party - The Business Party. It has two factions, called Democrats and Republicans, which are somewhat different but carry out variations of the same policies."
- Noam Chomsky
We had a republican president that seriously attacked habeas corpus and a democrat president that furthered those policies. A democrat president severely advancing a policy that allowed a significant intrusion into privacy. A hawkish republican president followed by a hawkish democrat president. A republican candidate that proposed some form of universal health care insurance. A republican base that rallies against the evils of medicare and social security but did nothing to actually dismantle these programs while holding an absolute majority in congress and holding the white house. A democratic majority that did nothing to reign in wall street or military spending.
Another example... now we're hearing about the horrible evils of government intrusion in things like outlawing certain light bulbs. It's a talking point where we rail against the evils of democrats (a line and tact I've heard countless times). Of course, this light bulb ban was passed by an overwhelming bipartisan majority and signed into law by Bush. But, it's easier to forget these details and provide entertainment to the masses.
It's all lip service with some minor differences. However, I feel those differences are largely due to which benefactors are on their side. After all, even with a single business party, there will be factions aligned with businesses opposed to each other.
but, everyone should enjoy their bread and circuses while they can ;)
The Storyteller
7-2-11, 2:45pm
Had Obama (or Gore for that matter) been in office, there would not have been an Iraq war. Had McCain won the election, there would not be a health care act. Watered down though it may be, it is still better than nothing. And whether you agree it was the right thing to do or not, there also would not have been a stimulus plan.
Maybe one or the other party doesn't go far enough in the direction you would like it to go, be it left or right, but I just don't see how one can say there aren't very real and profound differences between the two.
So, basically there hasn't been a Democratic president since Jimmy Carter.
Assuming you think he was a Democrat, that is.
I don't see how someone living in Texas could possibly say Obama isn't Democrat enough, considering the kind of "Democrats" you have in office down there.
Correct, but I really think the best example of my version of a "real Democrat" would have been LBJ. Also remember that Texas is a very large state but with the exception of probably Houston and Austin it is maybe the most conservative state in the nation.
A Democrat in Texas is very likely to turn into a Republican to get re-elected if that is what it takes - the name of the game is money 'round here' and no one, even the Dems, are ashamed to admit it. My kind of Democrat is usually found on the East or West coast or "South of the River" in Austin. I'm a liberal and also proud to be a Texan.
There are also a few liberals in the Dallas area but I have always considered Dallas part of Oklahoma.>8)
Peace
"In the U.S. there is basically one party - The Business Party. It has two factions, called Democrats and Republicans, which are somewhat different but carry out variations of the same policies."
- Noam Chomsky
We had a republican president that seriously attacked habeas corpus and a democrat president that furthered those policies. A democrat president severely advancing a policy that allowed a significant intrusion into privacy. A hawkish republican president followed by a hawkish democrat president. A republican candidate that proposed some form of universal health care insurance. A republican base that rallies against the evils of medicare and social security but did nothing to actually dismantle these programs while holding an absolute majority in congress and holding the white house. A democratic majority that did nothing to reign in wall street or military spending.
Another example... now we're hearing about the horrible evils of government intrusion in things like outlawing certain light bulbs. It's a talking point where we rail against the evils of democrats (a line and tact I've heard countless times). Of course, this light bulb ban was passed by an overwhelming bipartisan majority and signed into law by Bush. But, it's easier to forget these details and provide entertainment to the masses.
It's all lip service with some minor differences. However, I feel those differences are largely due to which benefactors are on their side. After all, even with a single business party, there will be factions aligned with businesses opposed to each other.
but, everyone should enjoy their bread and circuses while they can ;)
Very true - the differences are basically how they spend our money, borrowed or otherwise. Thank God for drugs!
Peace
The Storyteller
7-2-11, 2:58pm
Correct, but I really think the best example of my version of a "real Democrat" would have been LBJ.
And yet he was the one who escalated the Vietnam conflict. Kennedy was the spitting image of Clinton, politically. Harry Truman dropped the bomb. Twice. When he didn't need to. Roosevelt locked up American citizens because of their ancestry, and Woodrow Wilson jailed war protesters and set troops against war veterans. By the standards you folks are using, makes me wonder if there has EVER been a "real Democrat" president.
There are also a few liberals in the Dallas area but I have always considered Dallas part of Oklahoma.
Thanks, but no thanks. Dallas you can keep. :)
NAFTA isn't a Republican agenda any more than it's a Democratic one, since the two parties are marching (left, right, left, right, left, right) in the same direction. The first Bush passed his presidency off to Clinton because a Democrat was needed in order to push NAFTA through, just as the second Bush began the big-business bailouts near the end of his second term so that Obama would be free to continue them. Don't be fooled by the Republican versus Democrat charade, which is the equivalent to choosing which football team you're going to root for. They are both playing the same game to the same ends, differing only in the details.
Is there anyone here who doesn't believe that McCain could as easily have been Obama's running mate as his opponent in the last election? I think we can count on the GOP to field another candidate this time around who can ensure us that nothing will change regardless of who wins the 2012 election. Don't forget that the former Soviet Union held elections too.
And yet he was the one who escalated the Vietnam conflict.
I think he was willing to fall on his sword for the sake of his domestic programs. It was the price he had to pay to keep the extremist right-wing Republicans from torpedoing his real program. Then there would have been no Great Society, no Medicare and no Civil Rights Law if LBJ hadn't appeared to support the requests of the commander on the ground. This was the "great compromise" which was mostly brought on by the right-wing financial Republicans and the racist Dixiecrats who had worked together to prevent any social or economic progress in American society for decades.
I'm not saying he was right. I think War is always the wrong answer unless there is no other choice. But like I said earlier - we love our wars.
Peace
The Storyteller
7-2-11, 3:58pm
Sooo... he compromised in order to get some of his agenda passed.
Sounds familiar. ;)
The Storyteller
7-2-11, 3:59pm
Don't forget that the former Soviet Union held elections too.
Oh, good grief.
Oh, good grief.
I'm sorry if it upsets the belief systems that were handed down to you, but they did, and they were as useless as our own.
Sooo... he compromised in order to get some of his agenda passed.
Sounds familiar. ;)
Thanks Storyteller - maybe I should be more optimistic? Hopefully I'll live long enough to look back at Obama's Presidency with a sense of pride as I do now with LBJ. After returning from Vietnam I was not a very enthusiastic supporting of LBJ either, but as the years rolled on and I saw what he was able to accomplish I changed my mind. I have a tendency to have "great expectations" of our leaders and am usually mostly disappointed but as benhyr said earlier "everyone should enjoy their bread and circuses while they can http://www.simplelivingforum.net/images/smilies/744%5B1%5D.gif"
Is Obama a Democrat? From all of the feedback it seems so, but I wish he would move just a little bit more to the left. This current movement reminds me of almost the McCarthy era (although I was just a child at the time).
I feel just a little guilty for doubting Pres. Obama and will send a contribution today as penance.:D
Reminds me of a funny story - we had a neighbor and his wife come over the other day for the first time. I have a postcard that I received from the DNC propped against my desk lamp with a photo of Pres. Obama and the caption "I value your ongoing support". They saw that and it became the topic of conversation for the rest of the evening. My DW said that we probably wouldn't be seeing much of them in the future. I knew I should have hid the "damn thing".
Peace
The Storyteller
7-2-11, 4:55pm
I'm sorry if it upsets the belief systems that were handed down to you, but they did, and they were as useless as our own.
That isn't what I meant. To compare the Soviet electoral system to the US system is just silliness. They are in no way alike, in form or result. In America people have real choices, whether you happen to agree with those choices or not. Hell, I've even voted socialist a time or two. In the USSR, they had none.
I know you are trying to make a point that the two parties are very similar, but the credibility of your argument is severely hampered when you make stupid analogies.
In the 2000 election, the only choices who had a chance of winning were Bush and Gore. In 2004, it was Bush and Kerry. In 2008, it was Obama and McCain. Where are the real choices between any of these candidates? Yes, theoretically, I suppose we could nominate someone who would present us with a real choice in a general election but as long as we allow the media to decide who the viable candidates are (and I see no evidence of that changing for the good), our votes are as meaningless as were those who voted in Soviet elections. I didn't say they were identical, I said they were equally meaningless.
Well, see, there are two major parties in the United States political system, Democrat and Republican. If one is registered as a Republican, then one is a Republican. If one is registered as a Democrat, then one is a Democrat. If one is an elected official, then one is generally elected as one or the other, although one can be an independent, or may switch parties if one wishes.
Hope that helps.
Of course in that respect he is a Democrat. Probably more people would except that than his birth certificate. But I don't think that that was the intent of the topic.
The Storyteller
7-2-11, 6:00pm
In the 2000 election, the only choices who had a chance of winning were Bush and Gore.
And a gigantic difference between those two choices. As he has shown since, Gore was much farther to the left than he let on during the election. We might have had some meaningful climate change legislation by now. We certainly would never have gone to war in Iraq. That one difference makes all the difference in the world between them.
I blame those 8 years more on the left than on the right. It was the same sort of thinking i am seeing in this thread, this fantasy that there are no real differences between the parties, that led to the election of GWB. I recall scarce few lefties during those 8 years who thought there were no real differences between the parties.
It is too bad the left is so fragmented. Everybody seems to want it all, now. As a result they frequently receive nothing at all.
And a gigantic difference between those two choices. As he has shown since, Gore was much farther to the left than he let on during the election. We might have had some meaningful climate change legislation by now. We certainly would never have gone to war in Iraq. That one difference makes all the difference in the world between them.
58% of Dem senators voted to authorize military force against Iraq. Of course, in balance, 61% of the Democrat representatives did vote against.
I agree that war may have been unlikely, but I don't have a multiverse that I can travel to in order to authoritatively state that.
I blame those 8 years more on the left than on the right. It was the same sort of thinking i am seeing in this thread, this fantasy that there are no real differences between the parties, that led to the election of GWB. I recall scarce few lefties during those 8 years who thought there were no real differences between the parties.
You'll have to enumerate those differences. Considering, as I mentioned, our current president extended the attack on habeas corpus, kept and extended Bush's wiretapping policy (which he vowed to eliminate while campaigning) and is seeking to allow wiretapping of anyone suspected of downloading illegally licensed media.
Look at the attacks on our domestic freedoms by both sides and tell me they're such an amazing difference. I'm really not seeing it.
He is a rational, reasonable person so obviously he can't be a Republican. (Ducking and running for cover>>>)
I agree with the guy that said he was a dick.
He is a rational, reasonable person so obviously he can't be a Republican. (Ducking and running for cover>>>)
I think that pretty well sums up the biggest difference between the two parties. Democrats are delusional. :|(
I agree with the guy that said he was a dick.
To be fair, the guy said he acted like a dick during the recent speech. And to that I'd have to agree!
He went into full campaign mode and did everything possible to demagogue the opposition and promote class warfare. That works for the far left contingent of his base, but it's not gonna convince moderates and independants to vote for him again.
Come to think of it, since he doesn't seem to see the effect of his actions, or perhaps doesn't care, maybe your take on that guy's comments is more accurate.
loosechickens
7-2-11, 11:42pm
Well, I'm one who believes that President Obama was NEVER the liberal, not to mention "socialist" that his opponents have painted him to be. I think that he is pragmatic about what he can actually see accomplished, tries to move the ball down the field in the direction he wants the country to go, and works to compromise and actually get stuff done, and pretty much, "getting stuff done" occurs in the center, and not at either fringe, left OR right.
Liberals seem unhappy with this President, I think, mostly because their expectations of what he would do were both less realistic than they should have been, considering his lack of a supermajority, an opposition that was determined to oppose anything he tried to do, just for the sake of opposition and to try to make sure he failed, even when it was over things that BEGAN as Republican initiatives, leaving many Republican legislators in the position of having their heads spinning trying to keep track of their flip/flops on issues.
I think we will look back and marvel at what this President managed to accomplish under very difficult circumstances. I think the average person really does not grasp just how close this country was to a total financial meltdown when President Obama took office, and while we're still not in good shape, I think he pulled us back from the brink in a way that will be more apparent over time.
He's engaged in long term thinking about our manufacturing sector, for example, working to encourage highly skilled, clean energy, technical manufacturing, as opposed to industry that can easily get a low skilled workforce overseas, so will follow the lowest labor costs and send jobs right out of the country.
He managed to see a health reform bill passed, with things in it that have not been able to have gotten done for decades, such as health insurance companies no longer able to drop you when you get sick, having a way for high risk people to be able to GET insurance, modernizing record keeping, helping to bend the cost curve, etc. Yes, it's not a universal health care plan, and has its faults, but given the broken system we have and the stranglehold the health care industry lobbyists have on the system, and the fact that he couldn't just "design" a perfect system and implement it, but had to work within the system we have, against immense pressure from those with profits to protect, managed to do something that over time, people are going to realize is an improvement.
He IS getting Don't Ask, Don't Tell gone, slow as the process has been.
He HAS directed a much smarter assault on Al Qaeda, having picked off many of their leaders around the world, without a lot of fanfare, and Osama bin Laden is now feeding the fishes, from operations instigated under his watch.
Those on the right and those on the left really don't decide elections....mostly, national elections are won in the middle, and that is where I see President Obama having governed. There's been a huge amount of hype from the right, everything from calling him a Muslim, unAmerican, socialist, palling around with terrorists, etc., that makes him sound like Che Guevara or something, and liberals on the left see him as a sellout to their cherished ideals, but in the end, I think he's an able man, intelligent, capable, realistic, pragmatic and I'm glad he's my President. I'll vote for him again.
One thing that has to be faced is that this country as a whole has moved VERY far rightward in the past thirty years or so. The "center" is way more rightward than it used to be, and what used to be the "left" has virtually disappeared, and what used to be the far right "fringe", John Bircher types are now considered almost mainstream in the Republican Party.
But, it really comes down to where the choices are. And our choices are going to be between two people in the end, and it's likely that the decision will end up being made by the people within a few degrees of the middle on either side, not the far left or the far right. It's just how it works.
I think this man has been a good President in some very turbulent times, facing difficulties he certainly didn't create, and doing the best he can within a political system that is terribly polarized in a way not seen since the Civil War, and doing the best he can, despite that.
I really am disappointed. I thought that after the election of the first black President, control of the Senate and the House he would be able first to get a single-payer healthcare system as he talked about on the campaign trail. Then it became a congressional battle with falsehoods and name calling while he failed to even become engaged to push for his agenda. It was as if he came into the discussion after the battle was already decided and that was to be just the beginning of this type of inaction for almost every item. Gitmo, repeal of the tax cuts, financial reform, and on and on - still just sitting back waiting as if the Congress has the guts to take a stand without his leadership - they didn't and I think still don't have the confidence that this President will not cut a private deal just to get something passed.
Nancy Pelosi looks whipped and Harry Reid is more like Mr. Rogers everyday.
Peace
Mangano's Gold
7-4-11, 8:55pm
I think that there are some important differences between the parties. If you could distill them down to a digestible nugget it would be that the primary purpose of the Democratic Party is to represent the interests of the middle and lower classes, while the Republcian Party serves to protect and pursue the interests of the wealthy. The parties may couch these objectives in less controversial language, or use wedge issues to garner and consolidate support, but this is really what a lot of the hub-bub is about. This will be futher illuminated in the budget debates to come.
I am somewhat sympathetic to kfanders's position, though. The debates do occur within a fairly limited spectrum. Few are trying to overthrow the system with a dramatically different replacement.
I disagree with the earlier statement that we wouldn't have gone to Iraq if Gore had been elected. I believe we probably would have. Gore wasn't exactly a peacenik, and his VP, IMO is every bit as bad as anyone in the Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz/Perle quartet. I also believe there would have been a stimulus plan of comparable size in 2009 under any President (McCain, Romney, Huckabee, etc...). The tax/spending mix just would have been more heavily weighted towards tax cuts.
He is a rational, reasonable person so obviously he can't be a Republican.
Florence, it appears that even David Brooks would agree with you on that one!
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/05/opinion/05brooks.html?pagewanted=print
Florence, it appears that even David Brooks would agree with you on that one!
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/05/opinion/05brooks.html?pagewanted=print
Mr. Brooks has apparently never taken part in high stakes negotiations. Perhaps not even a good round of poker.
David Brooks has been cozying up to Obama since he came on the scene. I still like David Brooks but I believe we should carefully review his full record before renewing his Republican card.
The Storyteller
7-5-11, 11:50am
Mr. Brooks has apparently never taken part in high stakes negotiations.
I'm guessing neither have you.
I'm guessing neither have you.
Was that supposed to hurt? Okay, Ouch!!
Feel better now?
poetry_writer
7-6-11, 1:23pm
Well, I'm one who believes that President Obama was NEVER the liberal, not to mention "socialist" that his opponents have painted him to be. I think that he is pragmatic about what he can actually see accomplished, tries to move the ball down the field in the direction he wants the country to go, and works to compromise and actually get stuff done, and pretty much, "getting stuff done" occurs in the center, and not at either fringe, left OR right.
Liberals seem unhappy with this President, I think, mostly because their expectations of what he would do were both less realistic than they should have been, considering his lack of a supermajority, an opposition that was determined to oppose anything he tried to do, just for the sake of opposition and to try to make sure he failed, even when it was over things that BEGAN as Republican initiatives, leaving many Republican legislators in the position of having their heads spinning trying to keep track of their flip/flops on issues.
I think we will look back and marvel at what this President managed to accomplish under very difficult circumstances. I think the average person really does not grasp just how close this country was to a total financial meltdown when President Obama took office, and while we're still not in good shape, I think he pulled us back from the brink in a way that will be more apparent over time.
He's engaged in long term thinking about our manufacturing sector, for example, working to encourage highly skilled, clean energy, technical manufacturing, as opposed to industry that can easily get a low skilled workforce overseas, so will follow the lowest labor costs and send jobs right out of the country.
He managed to see a health reform bill passed, with things in it that have not been able to have gotten done for decades, such as health insurance companies no longer able to drop you when you get sick, having a way for high risk people to be able to GET insurance, modernizing record keeping, helping to bend the cost curve, etc. Yes, it's not a universal health care plan, and has its faults, but given the broken system we have and the stranglehold the health care industry lobbyists have on the system, and the fact that he couldn't just "design" a perfect system and implement it, but had to work within the system we have, against immense pressure from those with profits to protect, managed to do something that over time, people are going to realize is an improvement.
He IS getting Don't Ask, Don't Tell gone, slow as the process has been.
He HAS directed a much smarter assault on Al Qaeda, having picked off many of their leaders around the world, without a lot of fanfare, and Osama bin Laden is now feeding the fishes, from operations instigated under his watch.
Those on the right and those on the left really don't decide elections....mostly, national elections are won in the middle, and that is where I see President Obama having governed. There's been a huge amount of hype from the right, everything from calling him a Muslim, unAmerican, socialist, palling around with terrorists, etc., that makes him sound like Che Guevara or something, and liberals on the left see him as a sellout to their cherished ideals, but in the end, I think he's an able man, intelligent, capable, realistic, pragmatic and I'm glad he's my President. I'll vote for him again.
One thing that has to be faced is that this country as a whole has moved VERY far rightward in the past thirty years or so. The "center" is way more rightward than it used to be, and what used to be the "left" has virtually disappeared, and what used to be the far right "fringe", John Bircher types are now considered almost mainstream in the Republican Party.
But, it really comes down to where the choices are. And our choices are going to be between two people in the end, and it's likely that the decision will end up being made by the people within a few degrees of the middle on either side, not the far left or the far right. It's just how it works.
I think this man has been a good President in some very turbulent times, facing difficulties he certainly didn't create, and doing the best he can within a political system that is terribly polarized in a way not seen since the Civil War, and doing the best he can, despite that.
We are at the brink of a total financial collapse now. You cant have millions out of work and be in "good shape". As for the health care reform, its a joke. The only people it might have helped were people already insured. Those without insurance are still without it. Little if anything has changed in the way of healthcare for most Americans. He did inherit a huge mess , but he has done little to fix it. Maybe no one can.
loosechickens
7-6-11, 3:23pm
I don't think anyone disagrees, poetry_writer, that the country is still in quite a bad spot economically, especially in creation of new jobs, but we are nowhere NEAR the total economic meltdown that we were facing just before President Obama took office.
One great problem right now is that multinational corporations are going great.....they are sitting on many billions in profits, and they ARE creating jobs....the problem is they are not creating jobs in the United States. They are creating jobs elsewhere in the world, in the recent trend toward moving to less labor cost environments. They can even create jobs in other developed countries with highly paid workers, in countries with government run universal health care, because they are able to pay good wages, but save so much on health care costs that it is worth it. So....jobs are being created, just not so much, here. A big problem, and one not likely to go away since the multinational corporations are not really U.S. centric, just profit centric, so rising incomes in places like India and China are giving them a steady supply of new customers to buy their products, so they're fine with it. And the people who live on the dividends from those companies are doing pretty well, too.
One problem with the health reform act is that in a real effort to make it easier for states and health insurance companies to comply, the benefits of this legislation were staggered over a period of years, so many of the best parts of the program have not really began.
I was talking in the pool the other day with an executive with the Kaiser Permanente folks, and she is one of the folks in charge of implementing their new electronic recordkeeping to be adapted under the Obama plan. She is a Republican, and wasn't for the health reform act, but she says that now that she is seeing the MILLIONS of dollars that Kaiser is going to be saving, plus the benefits of the records being available easily to each doctor the patient sees, she has become a believer, if for no other reason than that one. She says that Kaiser was picked to be one of the places given incentives to implement the new systems first, kind of to be guinea pigs, and it has worked out beyond their wildest imaginings.
There are some real benefits already to the health reform act:
Health Insurers cannot deny children health insurance because of pre-existing conditions. A ban on the discrimination in adults will take effect in 2014.
Lifetime caps on the amount of insurance an individual can have will be banned. Annual caps will be limited, and banned in 2014.
A temporary high-risk pool will be set up to cover adults with pre-existing conditions. Health care exchanges will eliminate the program in 2014.
Businesses with fewer than 50 employees will get tax credits covering up to 50% of employee premiums.
Seniors will get a rebate to fill the so-called "donut hole" in Medicare drug coverage, which severely limits prescription medication coverage expenditures over $2,700. As of next year, 50 percent of the donut hole will be filled.
The cut-off age for young adults to continue to be covered by their parents' health insurance rises to the age 27.
New plans must cover checkups and other preventative care without co-pays. All plans will be affected by 2018
Insurance companies can no longer cut someone when he or she gets sick.
Insurers must now reveal how much money is spent on overhead.
Any new plan must now implement an appeals process for coverage determinations and claims.
New screening procedures will be implemented to help eliminate health insurance fraud and waste.
Medicare payment protections will be extended to small rural hospitals and other health care facilities that have a small number of Medicare patients.
Non-profit Blue Cross organizations will be required to maintain a medical loss ratio -- money spent on procedures over money incoming -- of 85 percent or higher to take advantage of IRS tax benefits.
Chain restaurants will be required to provide a "nutrient content disclosure statement" alongside their items. Expect to see calories listed both on in-store and drive-through menus of fast-food restaurants sometime soon.(I took good advantage of this one just the other day at the Dead Lobster, and was able to make a healthier choice than my usual with the help of this info).
The bill establishes a temporary program for companies that provide early retiree health benefits for those ages 55‐64 in order to help reduce the often-expensive cost of that coverage.
The Secretary of Health and Human Services will set up a new Web site to make it easy for Americans in any state to seek out affordable health insurance options The site will also include helpful information for small businesses.
A two‐year temporary credit (up to a maximum of $1 billion) is in the bill to encourage investment in new therapies for the prevention and treatement of diseases.
I DO believe that the Obama administration and those in favor of this health reform act have been FAR worse at publicizing the benefits included in it for ordinary people, with and without insurance, and the opponents of the bill, and the folks who stand to lose some profit because of it (it's always been more profitable to insurance companies to be able to just drop someone when they got sick, something that happened to a friend with a private policy when she got breast cancer some years ago. Her insurance company promptly dropped her, and because she had cancer, she was unable to get coverage from anyone else......) WAY more profit to the insurance company that way...no wonder they have spent many millions lobbying and marketing against these provisions.
But "a joke". I really don't think so, and I think if you look carefully at provisions that probably help you and YOUR family, you'll see that it's no "joke" at all.
It's not even close to a perfect plan....but it has some badly needed improvements that no one else has been able to get through for many years. And this President was not able to have the luxury of creating a perfect plan, but instead had to come up with a plan that could get passed, which is a very different thing. So I give this President high marks for it myself. I have Medicare, but my husband has a high deductible private insurance policy, and several of the above improvements affect him directly.
Hope this helps, and hopefully tells you some things about the health reform act, of which you may have been unaware. I'm surprised at the tremendous ignorance about this program, although almost EVERYBODY managed to hear about the totally nonexistent "death panels"....go figure....... ;-)
And often, people who are "against" the plan, seem to have the least real knowledge of what is contained within it, and how those changes will affect their own families in a positive way. At least with the ones I've met.
-------------------------------
edited to add: i just realized that the site that had the list of provisions in the health reform legislation helpful to ordinary families, with insurance and without, published this list in March of 2010, so some of the things that the list says "will happen", actually have already been implemented, although some are still being phased in and every one will not be up and working until 2014, because of allowing states and health insurance companies time to implement systems and procedures.
poetry_writer
7-6-11, 5:22pm
I don't think anyone disagrees, poetry_writer, that the country is still in quite a bad spot economically, especially in creation of new jobs, but we are nowhere NEAR the total economic meltdown that we were facing just before President Obama took office.
One great problem right now is that multinational corporations are going great.....they are sitting on many billions in profits, and they ARE creating jobs....the problem is they are not creating jobs in the United States. They are creating jobs elsewhere in the world, in the recent trend toward moving to less labor cost environments. They can even create jobs in other developed countries with highly paid workers, in countries with government run universal health care, because they are able to pay good wages, but save so much on health care costs that it is worth it. So....jobs are being created, just not so much, here. A big problem, and one not likely to go away since the multinational corporations are not really U.S. centric, just profit centric, so rising incomes in places like India and China are giving them a steady supply of new customers to buy their products, so they're fine with it. And the people who live on the dividends from those companies are doing pretty well, too.
One problem with the health reform act is that in a real effort to make it easier for states and health insurance companies to comply, the benefits of this legislation were staggered over a period of years, so many of the best parts of the program have not really began.
I was talking in the pool the other day with an executive with the Kaiser Permanente folks, and she is one of the folks in charge of implementing their new electronic recordkeeping to be adapted under the Obama plan. She is a Republican, and wasn't for the health reform act, but she says that now that she is seeing the MILLIONS of dollars that Kaiser is going to be saving, plus the benefits of the records being available easily to each doctor the patient sees, she has become a believer, if for no other reason than that one. She says that Kaiser was picked to be one of the places given incentives to implement the new systems first, kind of to be guinea pigs, and it has worked out beyond their wildest imaginings.
There are some real benefits already to the health reform act:
Health Insurers cannot deny children health insurance because of pre-existing conditions. A ban on the discrimination in adults will take effect in 2014.
Lifetime caps on the amount of insurance an individual can have will be banned. Annual caps will be limited, and banned in 2014.
A temporary high-risk pool will be set up to cover adults with pre-existing conditions. Health care exchanges will eliminate the program in 2014.
Businesses with fewer than 50 employees will get tax credits covering up to 50% of employee premiums.
Seniors will get a rebate to fill the so-called "donut hole" in Medicare drug coverage, which severely limits prescription medication coverage expenditures over $2,700. As of next year, 50 percent of the donut hole will be filled.
The cut-off age for young adults to continue to be covered by their parents' health insurance rises to the age 27.
New plans must cover checkups and other preventative care without co-pays. All plans will be affected by 2018
Insurance companies can no longer cut someone when he or she gets sick.
Insurers must now reveal how much money is spent on overhead.
Any new plan must now implement an appeals process for coverage determinations and claims.
New screening procedures will be implemented to help eliminate health insurance fraud and waste.
Medicare payment protections will be extended to small rural hospitals and other health care facilities that have a small number of Medicare patients.
Non-profit Blue Cross organizations will be required to maintain a medical loss ratio -- money spent on procedures over money incoming -- of 85 percent or higher to take advantage of IRS tax benefits.
Chain restaurants will be required to provide a "nutrient content disclosure statement" alongside their items. Expect to see calories listed both on in-store and drive-through menus of fast-food restaurants sometime soon.(I took good advantage of this one just the other day at the Dead Lobster, and was able to make a healthier choice than my usual with the help of this info).
The bill establishes a temporary program for companies that provide early retiree health benefits for those ages 55‐64 in order to help reduce the often-expensive cost of that coverage.
The Secretary of Health and Human Services will set up a new Web site to make it easy for Americans in any state to seek out affordable health insurance options The site will also include helpful information for small businesses.
A two‐year temporary credit (up to a maximum of $1 billion) is in the bill to encourage investment in new therapies for the prevention and treatement of diseases.
I DO believe that the Obama administration and those in favor of this health reform act have been FAR worse at publicizing the benefits included in it for ordinary people, with and without insurance, and the opponents of the bill, and the folks who stand to lose some profit because of it (it's always been more profitable to insurance companies to be able to just drop someone when they got sick, something that happened to a friend with a private policy when she got breast cancer some years ago. Her insurance company promptly dropped her, and because she had cancer, she was unable to get coverage from anyone else......) WAY more profit to the insurance company that way...no wonder they have spent many millions lobbying and marketing against these provisions.
But "a joke". I really don't think so, and I think if you look carefully at provisions that probably help you and YOUR family, you'll see that it's no "joke" at all.
It's not even close to a perfect plan....but it has some badly needed improvements that no one else has been able to get through for many years. And this President was not able to have the luxury of creating a perfect plan, but instead had to come up with a plan that could get passed, which is a very different thing. So I give this President high marks for it myself. I have Medicare, but my husband has a high deductible private insurance policy, and several of the above improvements affect him directly.
Hope this helps, and hopefully tells you some things about the health reform act, of which you may have been unaware. I'm surprised at the tremendous ignorance about this program, although almost EVERYBODY managed to hear about the totally nonexistent "death panels"....go figure....... ;-)
And often, people who are "against" the plan, seem to have the least real knowledge of what is contained within it, and how those changes will affect their own families in a positive way. At least with the ones I've met.
-------------------------------
edited to add: i just realized that the site that had the list of provisions in the health reform legislation helpful to ordinary families, with insurance and without, published this list in March of 2010, so some of the things that the list says "will happen", actually have already been implemented, although some are still being phased in and every one will not be up and working until 2014, because of allowing states and health insurance companies time to implement systems and procedures.
So let me get this straight. Obama is creating jobs overseas and I should be happy about that.....for what reason? The big companies sitting on millions are creating jobs in foreign countries. well yay. I will ponder that next week when I pick up my unemployment check. Again, most everything you listed about healthcare helps those ALREADY insured. For the 57 million uninsured Americans, it does little or nothing. One good thing, I will know that my Big Mac is fattening. do they think we are stupid?
So let me get this straight. Obama is creating jobs overseas and I should be happy about that.....for what reason? The big companies sitting on millions are creating jobs in foreign countries. well yay. I will ponder that next week when I pick up my unemployment check. Again, most everything you listed about healthcare helps those ALREADY insured. For the 57 million uninsured Americans, it does little or nothing. One good thing, I will know that my Big Mac is fattening. do they think we are stupid?
P_W, if you think that your access to healthcare would improve with a "conservative" President then think again. As an example let's just use the state of Texas. Our state government would like nothing more that to have "Obamacare" overturned, yet our wonderful state has the highest uninsured rate in the nation with the only option for those with a pre-existing condition is a Texas High Risk Pool which by state law has to be double the standard rate of private insurance - with a one year waiting period. The only other option is of course Medicaid which if most conservatives and definitely Texas government had their way would not even exist. Be careful for what you wish for.
If you are on unemployment now then the same applies - the state actually turn down $830 million specifically designated for unemployment benefits just last year - the thinking was that the longer a person is drawing unemployment the less likely they would be to get a job - typical conservative thinking.
I think you really need to spend a little time trying to understand the ideology of both major parties. It actually might help you vote for someone that has your interests in mind.
Peace
The only other option is of course Medicaid which if most conservatives and definitely Texas government had their way would not even exist. Be careful for what you wish for.
Can you site a source for that?
If you are on unemployment now then the same applies - the state actually turn down $830 million specifically designated for unemployment benefits just last year - the thinking was that the longer a person is drawing unemployment the less likely they would be to get a job - typical conservative thinking.
Do you think that might have something to do with the strings attached to accepting the money rather than your explaination? That would be more in line with conservative thinking.
Can you site a source for that?
This stuff isn't exactly hard to find.. of course, to come up with the right language, you have to know which sites to look on ;)
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/07/us/politics/07ttmedicaid.html
http://www.dlcc.org/node/2129
http://www.txstatedemocrats.org/?p=2119
poetry_writer
7-6-11, 7:27pm
P_W, if you think that your access to healthcare would improve with a "conservative" President then think again. As an example let's just use the state of Texas. Our state government would like nothing more that to have "Obamacare" overturned, yet our wonderful state has the highest uninsured rate in the nation with the only option for those with a pre-existing condition is a Texas High Risk Pool which by state law has to be double the standard rate of private insurance - with a one year waiting period. The only other option is of course Medicaid which if most conservatives and definitely Texas government had their way would not even exist. Be careful for what you wish for.
If you are on unemployment now then the same applies - the state actually turn down $830 million specifically designated for unemployment benefits just last year - the thinking was that the longer a person is drawing unemployment the less likely they would be to get a job - typical conservative thinking.
I think you really need to spend a little time trying to understand the ideology of both major parties. It actually might help you vote for someone that has your interests in mind.
Peace
. I think its over your head to discuss anything without an insult. Perhaps you need to re read? I didnt say anything at all about electing a conservative president, did I?
This stuff isn't exactly hard to find.. of course, to come up with the right language, you have to know which sites to look on ;)
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/07/us/politics/07ttmedicaid.html
http://www.dlcc.org/node/2129
http://www.txstatedemocrats.org/?p=2119
You're right about the wording. The two Democratic sites you linked failed to include the following from the Times:
State Senator Jane Nelson, Republican of Flower Mound, who heads the Senate
Public Health Committee, said dropping out of Medicaid was worth considering —
but only if it made fiscal sense without jeopardizing care.
Currently, the Texas program costs $40 billion for a
period of two years, with the federal government paying 60 percent of the bill.
As a result of federal health care changes, Ms. Nelson said, millions of
additional Texans will be eligible for Medicaid.
“I want to know whether our current Medicaid enrollees, and there certainly
could be millions more by 2014, could be served more cost efficiently and see
better outcomes in a state run program,” she said.
It's getting harder and harder to sort your way through all the demagoguery.
You're right about the wording. The two Democratic sites you linked failed to include the following from the Times:
It's getting harder and harder to sort your way through all the demagoguery.
Not really. The Times article is substantially older than the other two. It was a good way to show a progression of an idea. I understand from the latest article (the one posted by the Texas dems) that this has actually passed the house but, as Medicaid recipients in Texas have no direct affect on me, I hadn't cared to research it further and actually read through the bill.
I'd also highly suspect that the idea floated in the original Times article, completely dropping out of Medicaid, isn't truly reflected in the actual bill which is likely a substantial decrease but not complete abandonment.
Has the cost of automobile insurance gone up or has it gone down since auto insurance became mandatory? Have auto insurance companies become easier or harder to deal with since our state governments began mandating that we buy their product regardless?
I can see why Texas would be worried about Obamacare - 1 out of 4 people there are currently uninsured. When we passed Romneycare here in MA, I think we were already at about 93% covered, now it's less than 1% not covered - Obamacare going into effect here is not going to cause big changes in MA. But it would require big changes in states like Texas.
. I think its over your head to discuss anything without an insult. Perhaps you need to re read? I didnt say anything at all about electing a conservative president, did I?
An insult? What kind of insult? I didn't think you said anything about a "conservative" President but you seemed to be "blaming" Obama for the lack of healthcare availability?
Peace
Do you think that might have something to do with the strings attached to accepting the money rather than your explaination? That would be more in line with conservative thinking.
http://cdn.svcs.c2.uclick.com/c2/70c27a3e4dee102dbf94001438c0f03b
Mangano's Gold
7-6-11, 10:29pm
I can see why Texas would be worried about Obamacare - 1 out of 4 people there are currently uninsured.
That's nearly the figure nationwide for people in the donut hole (ages 18-64). Too old for Medicaid/CHIPs, too young for Medicare. If people can keep up the juggling act of staying insured during this phase then they should be fine.
Mangano's Gold
7-6-11, 10:41pm
Again, most everything you listed about healthcare helps those ALREADY insured. For the 57 million uninsured Americans, it does little or nothing.
That's mostly true today, but won't be true in 2014 when the heart of the plan kicks in. It will help the uninisured in two primary ways: first, it expands Medicaid eligibility to everyone below a certain income threshold. Currently, Medicaid is primarily for pregnant women, children, and the elderly who need nursing home care. Single (childless) adults, no matter how poor, don't typically qualify.
Second, the (overly complicated) system of subsidies and cross-subsidies effectively sets insurance premiums as a percent of an individual's/family's income (for those who aren't covered by an employer plan). This is a huge deal. Far less people will be priced out of the market.
There will still be uninsured, no doubt. The only way to get everyone covered is to just cover everyone, which is what a lot of countries do. Unfortunately, that isn't politically possible here. Obamacare is the best deal we could get.
loosechickens
7-6-11, 11:56pm
"So let me get this straight. Obama is creating jobs overseas and I should be happy about that.....for what reason? The big companies sitting on millions are creating jobs in foreign countries. well yay. I will ponder that next week when I pick up my unemployment check. Again, most everything you listed about healthcare helps those ALREADY insured. For the 57 million uninsured Americans, it does little or nothing. One good thing, I will know that my Big Mac is fattening. do they think we are stupid?" (Poetry_writer)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, poetry_writer.......I don't think that George W. Bush was responsible for multinational corporations choosing to fatten their bottom lines by searching the world for the lowest cost labor forces and moving jobs there, and President Obama isn't the cause of that, either. If you're looking for someone to blame, perhaps recognizing that large corporations have no "patriotism" feelings about creating jobs in this country, care most for how they can make the most profit, and will create jobs where it's in THEIR best interest to do so. But.....it really sounds as though you are determined to pin the blame for most everything on this current President, so there's not much ability for facts to sway that, I guess.
There are HUGE benefits in the heath reform act for people who are not now insured. It will take millions of uninsured people who are unable to buy private health insurance because of pre-existing conditions, and give them viable options for insurance, and people who have lower incomes and cannot afford a policy will have access to government subsidies for the premiums.
Between people unable to purchase private insurance because of pre-existing conditions, and people with lower incomes who cannot afford premiums, you have the greater majority of the folks who are uninsured. This new health reform plan will give those people far more viable options for insurance coverage.
If I'm not mistaken, aren't you the person who posted about having to provide all your info to a hospital because you were trying to get them to write off, or greatly reduce a bill you incurred by having to go to the emergency room, because you had a low income? Why in the world would you want to keep on with that kind of insecurity when the new laws will actually HELP you no longer be in that position, of going, hat in hand, to the hospital, the way you described? Instead, if your income is low, you'll receive assistance by a subsidy in order to be able to HAVE insurance, and should you have to visit the emergency room again, after the law takes full effect, you will no longer be in the humiliating position you were in this time, trying to get the hospital to reduce or write off the bill.
It surprises me almost daily that some who need this program the most are among the ones who have been marketed to despise it. But.....carry on.
Obviously, probably pretty much everybody know that Big Macs are pretty fattening, but I noticed in the Red Lobster the other day that there was a HUGE variation between one entree and another, in calories, sodium, fat, etc., and because of the information provided, substituted skewers of grilled shrimp brushed with garlic butter over my usual coconut shrimp because I hadn't realized just how high those coconut shrimp were in calories. Yep, they are fried, but there was even a huge difference between them and other fried shrimp. Why WOULDN'T we want more information about the food that restaurants are serving us? It's a new thing that I really appreciate, and it's unlikely that the restaurants would be providing that info unless someone was making them do it.
poetry_writer
7-7-11, 10:55am
"So let me get this straight. Obama is creating jobs overseas and I should be happy about that.....for what reason? The big companies sitting on millions are creating jobs in foreign countries. well yay. I will ponder that next week when I pick up my unemployment check. Again, most everything you listed about healthcare helps those ALREADY insured. For the 57 million uninsured Americans, it does little or nothing. One good thing, I will know that my Big Mac is fattening. do they think we are stupid?" (Poetry_writer)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, poetry_writer.......I don't think that George W. Bush was responsible for multinational corporations choosing to fatten their bottom lines by searching the world for the lowest cost labor forces and moving jobs there, and President Obama isn't the cause of that, either. If you're looking for someone to blame, perhaps recognizing that large corporations have no "patriotism" feelings about creating jobs in this country, care most for how they can make the most profit, and will create jobs where it's in THEIR best interest to do so. But.....it really sounds as though you are determined to pin the blame for most everything on this current President, so there's not much ability for facts to sway that, I guess.
There are HUGE benefits in the heath reform act for people who are not now insured. It will take millions of uninsured people who are unable to buy private health insurance because of pre-existing conditions, and give them viable options for insurance, and people who have lower incomes and cannot afford a policy will have access to government subsidies for the premiums.
Between people unable to purchase private insurance because of pre-existing conditions, and people with lower incomes who cannot afford premiums, you have the greater majority of the folks who are uninsured. This new health reform plan will give those people far more viable options for insurance coverage.
If I'm not mistaken, aren't you the person who posted about having to provide all your info to a hospital because you were trying to get them to write off, or greatly reduce a bill you incurred by having to go to the emergency room, because you had a low income? Why in the world would you want to keep on with that kind of insecurity when the new laws will actually HELP you no longer be in that position, of going, hat in hand, to the hospital, the way you described? Instead, if your income is low, you'll receive assistance by a subsidy in order to be able to HAVE insurance, and should you have to visit the emergency room again, after the law takes full effect, you will no longer be in the humiliating position you were in this time, trying to get the hospital to reduce or write off the bill.
It surprises me almost daily that some who need this program the most are among the ones who have been marketed to despise it. But.....carry on.
Obviously, probably pretty much everybody know that Big Macs are pretty fattening, but I noticed in the Red Lobster the other day that there was a HUGE variation between one entree and another, in calories, sodium, fat, etc., and because of the information provided, substituted skewers of grilled shrimp brushed with garlic butter over my usual coconut shrimp because I hadn't realized just how high those coconut shrimp were in calories. Yep, they are fried, but there was even a huge difference between them and other fried shrimp. Why WOULDN'T we want more information about the food that restaurants are serving us? It's a new thing that I really appreciate, and it's unlikely that the restaurants would be providing that info unless someone was making them do it.
I am not interested in pinning the blame on Obama. You mentioned the president who has not been our president in...how long? Yet you are still blaming him. I am interested in real solutions. None of which are happening right now, but millions would like to see real workable solutions. Making Americans BUY insurance isnt a real solution. If they dont have jobs, what will they buy it with? I dont have a low income, I have no income. I am unemployed. All the jobs went overseas. I wasnt at all in a "humiliating position" at having to seek help at the hospital loosechicken, but your insurance will likely go up since I do not have any. Your bp meds will probably have to be increased when you get the bill. The ERs are overflowing with uninsured Americans. I realize no president can step in and fix the mess into which this country has fallen. But President O is all talk and no action.
I am not interested in pinning the blame on Obama. You mentioned the president who has not been our president in...how long? Yet you are still blaming him. I am interested in real solutions. None of which are happening right now, but millions would like to see real workable solutions. Making Americans BUY insurance isnt a real solution. If they dont have jobs, what will they buy it with? I dont have a low income, I have no income. I am unemployed. All the jobs went overseas. I wasnt at all in a "humiliating position" at having to seek help at the hospital loosechicken, but your insurance will likely go up since I do not have any. Your bp meds will probably have to be increased when you get the bill. The ERs are overflowing with uninsured Americans. I realize no president can step in and fix the mess into which this country has fallen. But President O is all talk and no action.
In MA under Romneycare, you would be eligible to get under MassHealth, your insurance would be provided by the state while you are unemployed. Not a perfect solution, but better than going without or paying outrageous amounts under COBRA. It makes a big difference for those who become unemployed to stay covered in between jobs.
To be fair, the brunt of Obamacare doesn't start until 2014. But there are many people under 26 who have had the option of going back under their parents insurance. I think there are other portions that go into effect prior to 2014 as well. And while I've heard a lot of push to dismantle Obamacare, I haven't heard any "fix" provided to take its place, just going back to where we were.
Free or affordable medical care is available to anyone who needs it, including illegal aliens in this country, and that is without Obamacare. Obamacare is not about ensuring that people are covered for necessary medical care. It's about taking control over it from employers, states and insurance companies and putting it into the hands of the federal government - which has proven itself to be, oh so capable in everything else that it has done.
loosechickens
7-7-11, 2:51pm
"I am not interested in pinning the blame on Obama. You mentioned the president who has not been our president in...how long? Yet you are still blaming him." (poetry_writer)
----------------------------------------------------------
Did you even read what I said, poetry_writer? I said "I don't think that George W. Bush was responsible for multinational corporations choosing to fatten their bottom lines by searching the world for the lowest cost labor forces and moving jobs there, and President Obama isn't the cause of that, either."
When the health reform act is fully implemented, a person in your position of being unemployed and with no income would be covered by insurance, if necessary, paid for by the government, or with eligibility for Medicaid, and you wouldn't BE in the position of having to go to the emergency room and then try to figure out how to get them to reduce or forgive the bill.
Personally, if I were in your position, I would be welcoming this health reform act with open arms, just as I welcomed the arrival of my Medicare card when I turned 65 years old.
Free or affordable medical care is available to anyone who needs it, including illegal aliens in this country, and that is without Obamacare. Obamacare is not about ensuring that people are covered for necessary medical care. It's about taking control over it from employers, states and insurance companies and putting it into the hands of the federal government - which has proven itself to be, oh so capable in everything else that it has done.
This is not true - I wish this had happened (single payer), but it didn't.
So where should everyone sign up for this free, affordable healthcare? Are you talking about ER care? It is not free or affordable (even if the person receiving care does not pay, the cost is picked up by the paying customers), and it only covers emergency treatment.
loosechickens
7-7-11, 3:04pm
ah, kfander.....were that only true. But, as creaker says, it isn't.
And, like poetry_writer, since it sounds as if you are in something of a perilous position regards health care and an existing condition, (aren't you the one who posted about having been diagnosed with prostate cancer, and has inadequate insurance with a $20,000 benefits cap?), perhaps it would be worthwhile for you do actually do factual research on this health reform act, because if you actually believe your own post, you are misinformed.
Lots of people have opinions, but I am amazed at how inaccurate and actually mistaken, so many people's views about this act are. Including, especially, many who would be very much better off under it.
Very interesting piece this morning on how access to even Medicaid is beneficial to people's health.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/07/medicaid-study-health_n_892102.html
Free or affordable medical care is available to anyone who needs it, including illegal aliens in this country, and that is without Obamacare.
Tell me more! I've always paid for mine but I'd be interested in stopping.
On the health care insurance front, my personal opinion is that anyone who doesn't think health care needs to be fixed (in some form) in this country, has either never bought individual insurance from a for-profit company or is incredibly naive.
poetry_writer
7-7-11, 4:11pm
ah, kfander.....were that only true. But, as creaker says, it isn't.
And, like poetry_writer, since it sounds as if you are in something of a perilous position regards health care and an existing condition, (aren't you the one who posted about having been diagnosed with prostate cancer, and has inadequate insurance with a $20,000 benefits cap?), perhaps it would be worthwhile for you do actually do factual research on this health reform act, because if you actually believe your own post, you are misinformed.
Lots of people have opinions, but I am amazed at how inaccurate and actually mistaken, so many people's views about this act are. Including, especially, many who would be very much better off under it.
Very interesting piece this morning on how access to even Medicaid is beneficial to people's health.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/07/medicaid-study-health_n_892102.html
No wasnt me who had prostate cancer. Females do not get that...:o)
Free or affordable medical care is available to anyone who needs it, including illegal aliens in this country, and that is without Obamacare. Obamacare is not about ensuring that people are covered for necessary medical care. It's about taking control over it from employers, states and insurance companies and putting it into the hands of the federal government - which has proven itself to be, oh so capable in everything else that it has done.
What have you been smoking? I pay over $15K per year for 80/20 insurance and I have no other option. If my former employer were to drop health benefits as many have already stated that they probably will, then I could not even get insurance because of pre-existing conditions. I suspect that you are of the age where you seldom use your healthcare (it usually is a non-issue until past the 50 year mark) so you are not aware of the real world out there. My DW who has glaucoma spend over 3K per year just on co-pays for her drugs.
Yes, if you have absolutely nothing saved or no net worth then you might qualify for medicaid coverage but for most people that is not the case. The US spends over 16% of GDP on healthcare for our preditory system and that compares with about 9% for those that have a single-payer system.
The present debate is not about healthcare at all it is about capitalism and profit.
Peace
This is not true - I wish this had happened (single payer), but it didn't.
A bump in the road, more for show than anything else. It'll get there, and then things will be even worse.
So where should everyone sign up for this free, affordable healthcare? Are you talking about ER care? It is not free or affordable (even if the person receiving care does not pay, the cost is picked up by the paying customers), and it only covers emergency treatment.
I'm not talking about emergency room care, although that's included. I am also not talking about stiffing someone for the bill, although that works too. I will be having surgery next month for prostate cancer. The tests, the lab, the surgery, the hospital stay, doctor bills, and the follow up tests - none of it is going to cost me a cent. If my income were higher, then there would be a cost, and if it were higher yet, I might have to pay the whole thing. Of course, then I'd be able to afford it. Call your hospital, and ask about a sliding scale. In my case, although I am doing alright as far as being able to pay my regular living expenses, my income qualified me for free medical care. Last year, I had to pay a percentage, based on my income. I live in a town of only a few thousand people, yet we have two federally subsidized medical clinics and one dental clinic, each of which predated Obamacare by several years, and which provide care on a sliding scale. Most medical facilities or providers who do not offer sliding scale programs will accept minimal monthly payments. You do have to make the inquiries, however. Simply lying around waiting for Obama to call you on the phone to offer to pay your bill isn't going to do it.
And, like poetry_writer, since it sounds as if you are in something of a perilous position regards health care and an existing condition, (aren't you the one who posted about having been diagnosed with prostate cancer, and has inadequate insurance with a $20,000 benefits cap?), perhaps it would be worthwhile for you do actually do factual research on this health reform act, because if you actually believe your own post, you are misinformed.
Wrong. I am one hundred percent certain. It's all arranged, and the $20,000 insurance cap has nothing whatsoever to do with it.
I suspect that you are of the age where you seldom use your healthcare (it usually is a non-issue until past the 50 year mark) so you are not aware of the real world out there.
I will be sixty next month. In the past fifteen years, I have had a strangulated hernia, which put me in the hospital for six weeks. I have had a non-cancerous cyst removed from my hand. I have had my gallbladder removed, and I will be having surgery next month. The strangulated hernia occurred while I was in Texas, a state that has been berated in this same thread, if I remember correctly, as being one in which no one will be able to get medical care without Obama coming to the rescue. I was not insured, yet a very easy payment plan was arranged, and the medical care had already been provided even before I made these arrangements.
Yes, if you have absolutely nothing saved or no net worth then you might qualify for medicaid coverage but for most people that is not the case.
What country do you live in? Not once has anyone even inquired into my net worth. The only criteria has been income. In fact, for my upcoming surgery, I wasn't even asking for anything. I called, asking about making payments and they suggested that I might qualify for a sliding scale program; which I did - in fact, it slid all the way down to nothing.
Last year, I had to pay a percentage, based on my income. I live in a town of only a few thousand people, yet we have two federally subsidized medical clinics and one dental clinic
Is your proposed solution to avoiding federal programs like Obamacare to be lucky enough to have a federal program to turn to close by? And fit the income curve to make it affordable?
Is your proposed solution to avoiding federal programs like Obamacare to be lucky enough to have a federal program to turn to close by? And fit the income curve to make it affordable?
So you want the federal government to take over the entire healthcare system because you don't want to drive? The hospital that is doing my surgery is four hours away from me. My assumption is that most hospitals offer sliding scale programs, except perhaps for some private hospitals, and if you don't qualify for sliding scale payments, you can afford to buy an insurance program. Mandating health insurance will do for health insurance what it has done to auto insurance - make it far more expensive and more difficult to deal with.
What country do you live in? Not once has anyone even inquired into my net worth. The only criteria has been income. In fact, for my upcoming surgery, I wasn't even asking for anything. I called, asking about making payments and they suggested that I might qualify for a sliding scale program; which I did - in fact, it slid all the way down to nothing.
I will admit that I have never tried any other way other than keeping insurance. If what you are saying is true then we really have a bigger problem than I thought.
But to answer your question, I live in the country of Texas which is a "whole nuther country" ;) Would you care to elaborate on the details of you personal experience - example, went to GP who referred to specialist, etc. or maybe went to ER or community clinic who took income information, didn't ask for tax return, or income statement, etc. (I'm retired and loive on a small pension and investment savings)
After reading you post I am wondering who is naive? If you would give me some idea I would like to check it out on a local level just for my own information. Man, I have been spending almost 20K per year for both insurance and drug co-pays for the last few years.
Peace
poetry_writer
7-7-11, 6:35pm
I will admit that I have never tried any other way other than keeping insurance. If what you are saying is true then we really have a bigger problem than I thought.
But to answer your question, I live in the country of Texas which is a "whole nuther country" ;) Would you care to elaborate on the details of you personal experience - example, went to GP who referred to specialist, etc. or maybe went to ER or community clinic who took income information, didn't ask for tax return, or income statement, etc. (I'm retired and loive on a small pension and investment savings)
After reading you post I am wondering who is naive? If you would give me some idea I would like to check it out on a local level just for my own information. Man, I have been spending almost 20K per year for both insurance and drug co-pays for the last few years.
Peace
Having a retirement pension and small savings will in many cases disqualify you from any assistance. If you have savings, you dont qualify for govt programs. If you are using the savings to live on, and paying off your medical bills would suck all your savings, you still wouldnt qualify. This is one of the issues: to qualify for ANYTHING you have to have NOTHING. (Obviously every case is different and I am only commenting in general, not about your own situation ..zig).
But to answer your question, I live in the country of Texas which is a "whole nuther country" ;) Would you care to elaborate on the details of you personal experience - example, went to GP who referred to specialist, etc. or maybe went to ER or community clinic who took income information, didn't ask for tax return, or income statement, etc. (I'm retired and loive on a small pension and investment savings)
In Texas, it began as an emergency. I was a paramedic and got a hernia lifting a patient. I didn't think much of it at first but by the time I got to the hospital, it had strangulated, and I could barely breathe. The first hospital that I was in was a small hospital, which wouldn't have been my first choice but it was the one that we were transporting our patient to at the time, so I just had myself admitted along with my patient. They did the surgery but there were complications, and I didn't feel comfortable having them do the follow-through, so I made arrangements with a larger hospital in another city, who accepted me as a patient knowing full well that I wasn't insured. I was there for nearly six weeks, as it was no simple hernia. Once everything was done, I asked about a payment plan. They reduced my bill by far more than fifty percent and were accepting as little as $100 a month, which was far less than an insurance policy would have cost me. When I sold my part in the ambulance company before moving to Maine, I used that money to pay it off because I was leaving the state and didn't want to leave a bill behind.
Interestingly, at the time that I was hurt lifting a patient, I carried an insurance policy that was supposed to cover me should I sustain an injury, whether on or off the job. The insurance policy refused to pay, insisting that a hernia was a medical emergency and not an injury. I had paid on that policy for more than ten years and the first time I needed it, they refused to pay.
My wife and I both earn our living online, and don't receive regular weekly paychecks. Some months, we do quite well; other months, not so well. After moving to Maine, I found a physician who practices out of our local hospital, and his office volunteered sliding scale payments. In Maine, at least, you do have to re-qualify for sliding scale payments every six months so when we were doing well financially, we just paid our entire bills. Otherwise, we would ask about payments, and would usually end up on a sliding scale. Depending on our income over the past six months, that might mean that we would have to pay twenty-percent or another percentage of our bill, but even that could be made on payments when necessary.
I have lost weight and no longer need to do so but I was taking medication for high cholesterol for a couple of years and did have to pay the cost of the medication; although there is a policy that would help with the cost of medications, that all seemed kind of complicated to me so I opted to pay for it myself. Doctor visits, lab work, and other costs were covered by the sliding scale, however.
As I mentioned earlier, my town also have two competing medical clinics that offer federally-subsidized sliding scale programs, as well as a dental clinic, and there are only a couple of thousand people in my town. Similar programs were around in Texas when I was there as well, and I'm not talking about free clinics set up for homeless people. They are regular medical clinics that receive federal subsidies, and which operate as non-profit medical clinics. There were several around Texas when I was there as well.
I have carried insurance in the past. While I was employed by Champion Paper Company, I was insured for medical and dental, but if you pay attention, you'll find that if they know you're insured and have your policy number when you register for treatment, they will charge you far more than they will if they think you might have to pay it yourself.
Other than a couple of dental clinics, I have never been asked to pay for treatment upfront for anything that I have needed, and I have lived in six states. When someone says, as they so often do, that the uninsured do not have access to medical care, I know better. They might have to do more calling around after the care has already been provided but, other than perhaps a purely private hospital, you are not going to be turned away for needed care.
Once care has already been provided, they are all too happy to take whatever they can get, and will generally appreciate the patient who takes the time to ask about arrangements. Without Obamacare, there are federal, state and private coffers that they can turn to in order to recoup a portion of the cost of providing your care, and when you figure that they are charging you many times what it cost them to provide that care, they're generally willing to make arrangements with you. Usually, this will be either a sliding scale, a reduction in your bill, or an affordable payment plan, or a combination of these. Not once has anyone even asked about personal property or real estate, income being the only criteria they are interested in. Medical providers are far more willing to work with you than the IRS, I can guarantee that, and this is what scares me about Obamacare.
I was part owner of an ambulance company in Texas for six years. Located in the Rio Grande Valley of Texas, a significant percentage of our patients weren't even citizens, and a much larger percentage of our patients never paid us a dime for our services, and wouldn't even respond to our billing. We were happy to hear from anyone who bothered to call us to make arrangements, and were often able to find federal, state or county resources that would take care of their bill for them, and we did the necessary paperwork in order that we might be able to collect anything at all. Otherwise, we would gladly take payments as little as five dollars a month. Many of those who never even responded to our billing still called us the next time they had an emergency, and we provided the same care for them as we did for anyone else, the hospitals took them in without question, and the doctors who they were referred to for follow up care also saw them.
The cost of medical insurance has grown beyond all reason and promises to get much more expensive once Obamacare hits us fully, since they will no longer have any reason to cater to their clients, given that their clients will no longer have the options they currently have. Look at what has happened with auto insurance since auto insurance became mandatory. My car was totaled by someone who fell asleep and hit me from behind yet, between his insurance and my insurance, I didn't even collect what I still owed on the car that was totaled through no fault of my own. When insurance is mandatory, insurance companies no longer have to give you value for your money. Those who can't afford to carry an insurance policy now won't be able to afford to do so when it become mandatory, and correspondingly even more expensive.
Going without takes more work. There are sometimes a lot of calls to make, and you spend a lot of time on hold. So if it's the convenience of being able to refer the whole thing to an insurance company and be satisfied with whatever part of your greatly exaggerated bill they choose to pay, then by all means do so if you can afford it. There are other options, however.
Having a retirement pension and small savings will in many cases disqualify you from any assistance. If you have savings, you dont qualify for govt programs. If you are using the savings to live on, and paying off your medical bills would suck all your savings, you still wouldnt qualify. This is one of the issues: to qualify for ANYTHING you have to have NOTHING. (Obviously every case is different and I am only commenting in general, not about your own situation ..zig).
A retirement pension might, if it is significant, because that would count as income. No one has ever once inquired as to my personal property, real estate, home, or bank account. Not once, nor are there even blanks on the forms on which to provide such information.
I own a house on a half acre of land, a hundred of acres of land on which I am currently building a camp, two cars, and a savings account. No one cares about any of it. As I have said, there are not even blanks on the form on which I could add such information if I were so inclined.
poetry_writer
7-7-11, 7:12pm
A retirement pension might, if it is significant, because that would count as income. No one has ever once inquired as to my personal property, real estate, home, or bank account. Not once, nor are there even blanks on the forms on which to provide such information.
I own a house on a half acre of land, a hundred of acres of land on which I am currently building a camp, two cars, and a savings account. No one cares about any of it. As I have said, there are not even blanks on the form on which I could add such information if I were so inclined.
The hospital I am currently negotiating with wants my ss#, my license number, my bank account number, my credit card info, how much I pay for rent, want to know what I own? how much do i pay for food? for auto insurance? do i have a car? year and model?.......etc etc etc......One guy on the phone told me "they will want to know how you eat. If you are eating you must have money" i started to ask him if it was OK if I did eat. Each hospital is different, but that has been my experience.
The hospital I am currently negotiating with wants my ss#, my license number, my bank account number, my credit card info, how much I pay for rent, want to know what I own? how much do i pay for food? for auto insurance? do i have a car? year and model?.......etc etc etc......One guy on the phone told me "they will want to know how you eat. If you are eating you must have money" i started to ask him if it was OK if I did eat. Each hospital is different, but that has been my experience.
That's good, since you're pretty much invested in believing your original story. I would find a different hospital if I were you, but then I doubt that I would be asked all this stuff. I could have my surgery done in the home-town hospital but the stats from a further away hospital are much better, since they do way more of these surgeries, so I opted for another hospital. Please keep in mind that my surgery is scheduled for next month, so it's not even as if they had already done it and are looking to get whatever they can. They offered a sliding scale beforehand, and refusing care didn't appear even to be an option. Never have I dealt with a hospital that cared whether I had money in the bank, let alone the car that i drove.
I won't be arguing this one anymore because those who believe otherwise are going to continue to insist otherwise, while I will continue to know that everything that I have said has been factual, and that this has been true in more than one state that I have lived in.
poetry_writer
7-7-11, 7:36pm
That's good, since you're pretty much invested in believing your original story. I would find a different hospital if I were you, but then I doubt that I would be asked all this stuff. I could have my surgery done in the home-town hospital but the stats from a further away hospital are much better, since they do way more of these surgeries, so I opted for another hospital. Please keep in mind that my surgery is scheduled for next month, so it's not even as if they had already done it and are looking to get whatever they can. They offered a sliding scale beforehand, and refusing care didn't appear even to be an option. Never have I dealt with a hospital that cared whether I had money in the bank, let alone the car that i drove.
I won't be arguing this one anymore because those who believe otherwise are going to continue to insist otherwise, while I will continue to know that everything that I have said has been factual, and that this has been true in more than one state that I have lived in.
I am very very glad you are getting the care you need. Hope your surgery goes well. Not everyones experience is like yours however.
Thank you, Poetry Writer. Paid for or not, surgery scares me.
I am very very glad you are getting the care you need. Hope your surgery goes well. Not everyones experience is like yours however.
Agreed. The problem is you can't just offer everyone a sliding scale - a hospital can only eat so much of the costs, beyond that it's the paying customers picking up the slack. And as they pick up the slack, the cost of their healthcare and their insurance goes up.
As the lines get longer, opportunities like that become less and less likely.
In Texas, it began as an emergency. I was a paramedic and got a hernia lifting a patient. I didn't think much of it at first but by the time I got to the hospital, it had strangulated, and I could barely breathe. The first hospital that I was in was a small hospital, which wouldn't have been my first choice but it was the one that we were transporting our patient to at the time, so I just had myself admitted along with my patient. They did the surgery but there were complications, and I didn't feel comfortable having them do the follow-through, so I made arrangements with a larger hospital in another city, who accepted me as a patient knowing full well that I wasn't insured. I was there for nearly six weeks, as it was no simple hernia. Once everything was done, I asked about a payment plan. They reduced my bill by far more than fifty percent and were accepting as little as $100 a month, which was far less than an insurance policy would have cost me. When I sold my part in the ambulance company before moving to Maine, I used that money to pay it off because I was leaving the state and didn't want to leave a bill behind.
Interestingly, at the time that I was hurt lifting a patient, I carried an insurance policy that was supposed to cover me should I sustain an injury, whether on or off the job. The insurance policy refused to pay, insisting that a hernia was a medical emergency and not an injury. I had paid on that policy for more than ten years and the first time I needed it, they refused to pay.
My wife and I both earn our living online, and don't receive regular weekly paychecks. Some months, we do quite well; other months, not so well. After moving to Maine, I found a physician who practices out of our local hospital, and his office volunteered sliding scale payments. In Maine, at least, you do have to re-qualify for sliding scale payments every six months so when we were doing well financially, we just paid our entire bills. Otherwise, we would ask about payments, and would usually end up on a sliding scale. Depending on our income over the past six months, that might mean that we would have to pay twenty-percent or another percentage of our bill, but even that could be made on payments when necessary.
I have lost weight and no longer need to do so but I was taking medication for high cholesterol for a couple of years and did have to pay the cost of the medication; although there is a policy that would help with the cost of medications, that all seemed kind of complicated to me so I opted to pay for it myself. Doctor visits, lab work, and other costs were covered by the sliding scale, however.
As I mentioned earlier, my town also have two competing medical clinics that offer federally-subsidized sliding scale programs, as well as a dental clinic, and there are only a couple of thousand people in my town. Similar programs were around in Texas when I was there as well, and I'm not talking about free clinics set up for homeless people. They are regular medical clinics that receive federal subsidies, and which operate as non-profit medical clinics. There were several around Texas when I was there as well.
I have carried insurance in the past. While I was employed by Champion Paper Company, I was insured for medical and dental, but if you pay attention, you'll find that if they know you're insured and have your policy number when you register for treatment, they will charge you far more than they will if they think you might have to pay it yourself.
Other than a couple of dental clinics, I have never been asked to pay for treatment upfront for anything that I have needed, and I have lived in six states. When someone says, as they so often do, that the uninsured do not have access to medical care, I know better. They might have to do more calling around after the care has already been provided but, other than perhaps a purely private hospital, you are not going to be turned away for needed care.
Once care has already been provided, they are all too happy to take whatever they can get, and will generally appreciate the patient who takes the time to ask about arrangements. Without Obamacare, there are federal, state and private coffers that they can turn to in order to recoup a portion of the cost of providing your care, and when you figure that they are charging you many times what it cost them to provide that care, they're generally willing to make arrangements with you. Usually, this will be either a sliding scale, a reduction in your bill, or an affordable payment plan, or a combination of these. Not once has anyone even asked about personal property or real estate, income being the only criteria they are interested in. Medical providers are far more willing to work with you than the IRS, I can guarantee that, and this is what scares me about Obamacare.
I was part owner of an ambulance company in Texas for six years. Located in the Rio Grande Valley of Texas, a significant percentage of our patients weren't even citizens, and a much larger percentage of our patients never paid us a dime for our services, and wouldn't even respond to our billing. We were happy to hear from anyone who bothered to call us to make arrangements, and were often able to find federal, state or county resources that would take care of their bill for them, and we did the necessary paperwork in order that we might be able to collect anything at all. Otherwise, we would gladly take payments as little as five dollars a month. Many of those who never even responded to our billing still called us the next time they had an emergency, and we provided the same care for them as we did for anyone else, the hospitals took them in without question, and the doctors who they were referred to for follow up care also saw them.
The cost of medical insurance has grown beyond all reason and promises to get much more expensive once Obamacare hits us fully, since they will no longer have any reason to cater to their clients, given that their clients will no longer have the options they currently have. Look at what has happened with auto insurance since auto insurance became mandatory. My car was totaled by someone who fell asleep and hit me from behind yet, between his insurance and my insurance, I didn't even collect what I still owed on the car that was totaled through no fault of my own. When insurance is mandatory, insurance companies no longer have to give you value for your money. Those who can't afford to carry an insurance policy now won't be able to afford to do so when it become mandatory, and correspondingly even more expensive.
Going without takes more work. There are sometimes a lot of calls to make, and you spend a lot of time on hold. So if it's the convenience of being able to refer the whole thing to an insurance company and be satisfied with whatever part of your greatly exaggerated bill they choose to pay, then by all means do so if you can afford it. There are other options, however.
Thanks for the detailed reply. I looked up the federal poverty level for a family of two and my pension while small is about twice that amount, so I probably would not qualify - but it never hurts to ask.
I do think that your last few posts show how screwed up our healthcare system is in this country. It is pretty obvious to me that it is very little about healthcare and mostly about profit. The back and forth, depending on your political philosophy will never come together but the facts show that a very large percentage of people in this nation use a government provided system already. Those of us, like myself, just regular working people are forced to support this capitalistic system year after year until it probably and most likely with deplete our savings and we will then join the group that can no longer afford our system.
I still say that at some point we should view healthcare as a right and share the cost amongst all of us which would allow for cost savings for everyone based upon the sheer numbers. The sticking point of "forcing people to pay for insurance" seems to be a big issue and I suspect that many of the people against this are simply just choosing to suck on the government teat and obviously view it as an entitlement. A strange twist from an ideological viewpoint.
Peace
So you want the federal government to take over the entire healthcare system because you don't want to drive?
Or maybe I don't even want the federal government (aka, my tax dollars) paying for you, no matter how far you drive. I just find it interesting that your solution to a federal program you don't want is a federal program that currently benefits you (since you can drive, which is certainly a luxury for many) combined with an income level that happens to work for you. I'd prefer to eliminate the one that benefits you since it doesn't benefit me and save myself the tax money. Cold, I know.
Now, when I went to find insurance, one option was a high deductible plan where if I missed anything, at all, in ten years of medical history, the insurer had the right to retroactively cancel my insurance. So, say 30 years down the road I develop cancer and need treatment, that insurer has a pretty strong incentive to find something in the 10 years prior to my app that wasn't on there and cancel based on that. Fortunately, I live in a state that has an insurer of last resort and ended up buying an individual policy from them instead. The premium increase for the peace of mind of not having my insurance yanked out from under me? $40 a month. Money well spent.
Thanks for the detailed reply. I looked up the federal poverty level for a family of two and my pension while small is about twice that amount, so I probably would not qualify - but it never hurts to ask.
I'm above the federal poverty level.
Those of us, like myself, just regular working people are forced to support this capitalistic system year after year until it probably and most likely with deplete our savings and we will then join the group that can no longer afford our system.
For most of us, I think it goes both ways. As a fairly well paid union employee of a large paper company, I paid my share into the system. Then, as a part owner of an ambulance service, I provided medical services to patients, at least fifty percent of whom never paid us a dime.
I still say that at some point we should view healthcare as a right and share the cost amongst all of us which would allow for cost savings for everyone based upon the sheer numbers.
Except that it won't work that way. Those who are not paying into the system now won't be paying into it then either, so their end will have to be held up by those who are. Since those who are paying their own way will no longer have any alternative, costs will go up rather than down. Or are you implying that our federal government is good at cost savings?
Or maybe I don't even want the federal government (aka, my tax dollars) paying for you, no matter how far you drive. I just find it interesting that your solution to a federal program you don't want is a federal program that currently benefits you (since you can drive, which is certainly a luxury for many) combined with an income level that happens to work for you. I'd prefer to eliminate the one that benefits you since it doesn't benefit me and save myself the tax money. Cold, I know.
The very same thing that qualifies someone for free care now will qualify them for free care then, except that the care will be less for everyone and the costs will be higher for those who are paying.
As part owner of an ambulance company, I may have preferred to send my ambulances out only to those who could afford or were willing to pay but that's not the way that things work in the real world. Do you really believe that everyone will be paying an equal share under Obamacare?
Now, when I went to find insurance, one option was a high deductible plan where if I missed anything, at all, in ten years of medical history, the insurer had the right to retroactively cancel my insurance.
Have you ever dealt with the IRS? If you enjoy dealing with the IRS, you'll love living with a healthcare system run by the federal government. Have you spoken to a veteran lately? Ask them how they enjoy the VA program. That may not be a perfect example because I understand there are some good VA hospitals in existence, although not the majority.
Some people don't know what might be available to them in regard to their taxes. They might simply file a short form and pay whatever number comes up after the simplest calculation. Others know their way around the tax codes, or can afford to hire someone who can find every tax break that might be available. Are they taking unfair advantage? Are they not paying their fair share?
By the way, the CPA who has been doing my taxes for the past ten years has never charged me a cent. I did create a web site for him once, and have offered to pay him every year since, but he won't give me an invoice. Does that make you mad too?
If I am unaware that Dunkin' Donuts offers a discount for seniors and pay the full price, should I be angry with the guy who does know that, and takes the time to mention that he's older than fifty-five? After all, it might be said that he's not paying his fair share.
If you don't like the fact that federal and state governments subsidize certain industries and people, or that federal programs exist that might provide assistance to those who meet certain criteria, don't be angry with those who take the time to learn their way around and to get the most value for their dollar, but rather you should vote for people who can promise real change rather than someone, like Obama, who simply continues the same failed policies of his predecessors, and whose only unique contributions are to make things worse whenever possible.
When I become old enough to qualify for Social Security and Medicare, should I refuse to accept it so that I can continue to, in your eyes, pay my fair share? If you don't know that there are alternatives to paying into an insurance policy that won't be there for you when you need it, that's your fault.
I'm above the federal poverty level.
For most of us, I think it goes both ways. As a fairly well paid union employee of a large paper company, I paid my share into the system. Then, as a part owner of an ambulance service, I provided medical services to patients, at least fifty percent of whom never paid us a dime.
Except that it won't work that way. Those who are not paying into the system now won't be paying into it then either, so their end will have to be held up by those who are. Since those who are paying their own way will no longer have any alternative, costs will go up rather than down. Or are you implying that our federal government is good at cost savings?
I'll go out on a limb here and say that you should be ashamed of yourself. Nothing personal but your kind of attitude is exactly the reason that so many people love to criticize the "welfare state" or even people that through no fault of their own play the system for their own benefit. I might be wrong but I really do think that the programs that you are so proud to scam were designed to help people not to be a pathway to fraud. An to gloat about is the worst.
There are plenty of people that really need help, that would love to help themselves given an opportunity but to play the system as if that is the answer IMO is simply just wrong. There is right and there is wrong. Your ideas, at least from the way you explain them are wrong. I compare it to the typical financial or white collar crime that has become so popular - it might be ethical but it ain't illegal.
Peace
I'll go out on a limb here and say that you should be ashamed of yourself.
Peace
Have you ever collected unemployment benefits? Shame on you. I haven't. Have you ever applied for a tax refund? Shame on you. Not everyone knows they can do that. Do you intend to apply for Medicare or Social Security when you qualify for it? Shame on you. If someone offers to sell you something at a discount, would you insist on paying full price? Otherwise, shame on you.
Did you know that Medicaid advertises? Apparently, someone in our federal government believes that we need to know what subsidies are available to us. I don't qualify for my state's equivalent of Medicaid, however.
If you don't like a law, change the law. Don't criticize those who are aware of the law. In my case, it wasn't even a matter of being aware of the law. I called, knowing that I was not insured and that I was scheduled for surgery, so that I could ask about a payment plan. The rest was offered to me on the basis of my supplying accurate and honest answers to questions asked, and after supplying a copy of last year's tax return. On the basis of this accurate information, I qualified. Can you please tell me where a scam comes into all of this?
If you'd rather pay an insurance company money that you can't afford only to have them turn you down when you try to collect on your policy, fine. Do that. I opted not to spend money that I didn't have, considering that my income varies from month to month, on an insurance policy that would likely not give me value for my money, and to make arrangements to pay the bill if I should need to, knowing that this could be done through a payment plan. I didn't know that it was going to be free, and I didn't ask for it to be free.
Once your beloved Obamacare comes into full effect, the same criteria that was used to qualify me for free care now will very likely apply then, since I am fairly certain that it's a federal subsidy; but since it's something that the hospital applied for, not me, its origins don't greatly concern me. For all I know, it comes from somewhere else, but pretty much every hospital in the country has access to it, because I have never come across a hospital that would refuse to treat a patient in need of medical care, or threaten to take his house or car. If you do, my only suggestion would be to avoid that hospital.
I'll go out on a limb here as well and suggest that I have probably paid more taxes in my lifetime than you have. If it makes you feel good to pay into something all your life only to refuse to collect when you are entitled to get something back, have at it.
Maybe if you would insist on paying your medical expenses in cash rather than asking your insurance company to do that, they might be able to lower their rates. After all, why should another policyholder have to pay into the insurance pool only to have you draw out of it? That's hardly fair.
loosechickens
7-7-11, 11:07pm
Originally Posted by loosechickens
ah, kfander.....were that only true. But, as creaker says, it isn't.
And, like poetry_writer, since it sounds as if you are in something of a perilous position regards health care and an existing condition, (aren't you the one who posted about having been diagnosed with prostate cancer, and has inadequate insurance with a $20,000 benefits cap?), perhaps it would be worthwhile for you do actually do factual research on this health reform act, because if you actually believe your own post, you are misinformed.
Lots of people have opinions, but I am amazed at how inaccurate and actually mistaken, so many people's views about this act are. Including, especially, many who would be very much better off under it.
Very interesting piece this morning on how access to even Medicaid is beneficial to people's health.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_892102.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
No wasnt me who had prostate cancer. Females do not get that...:o) (poetry_writer)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
O.K. maybe we've isolated the problem. Are you sure you are actually READING the posts I've made, and not just skimming and hitting reply? Because it's hard to miss on the above post:
"ah, kfander.....were that only true. But, as creaker says, it isn't.
And, like poetry_writer, since it sounds as if you are in something of a perilous position regards health care and an existing condition, (aren't you the one who posted about having been diagnosed with prostate cancer, and has inadequate insurance with a $20,000 benefits cap?),"
that I am saying, "kfander", and addressing my post to HIM, and then saying, "like poetry_writer," that he also appears to be in a perilous position as regards access to health insurance, covered care, etc...........
No wonder you are misinformed about what benefits you would gain under this new legislation, if you read them with as little grasp of what was actually being said, as the above.
sorry, but.....GEEZ........
The very same thing that qualifies someone for free care now will qualify them for free care then, except that the care will be less for everyone and the costs will be higher for those who are paying.
and we should get rid of the current system too. If you can't afford your surgery, it's not really my problem :)
Maybe if you would insist on paying your medical expenses in cash rather than asking your insurance company to do that, they might be able to lower their rates. After all, why should another policyholder have to pay into the insurance pool only to have you draw out of it? That's hardly fair.
Actually, on my high deductible plan, it's much cheaper to let the doctor bill the insurance company and then have the claim rejected so that I pay the negotiated rate than it is for me to pay the doctor cash. Which I think is awesomely stupid as it's just tied things up for two months for my doctor to get paid (plus their staff has to handle my bill twice) versus me paying cash at the time of service.
And, like poetry_writer, since it sounds as if you are in something of a perilous position regards health care and an existing condition, (aren't you the one who posted about having been diagnosed with prostate cancer, and has inadequate insurance with a $20,000 benefits cap?), perhaps it would be worthwhile for you do actually do factual research on this health reform act, because if you actually believe your own post, you are misinformed.
I've already dealt with this one twice, so I won't go through it again just because you didn't read it the first time. My upcoming operation is scary because it's an operation and because it's cancer. The financial part of it is settled. That is not a problem, nor will it be.
and we should get rid of the current system too. If you can't afford your surgery, it's not really my problem :)
I can. So it doesn't have to be your problem.
I can. So it doesn't have to be your problem.
Well, why should my tax dollars go to subsidize the federal program you benefit from but not go to provide health care reform that I benefit from?
Actually, on my high deductible plan, it's much cheaper to let the doctor bill the insurance company and then have the claim rejected so that I pay the negotiated rate than it is for me to pay the doctor cash. Which I think is awesomely stupid as it's just tied things up for two months for my doctor to get paid (plus their staff has to handle my bill twice) versus me paying cash at the time of service.
That's not the point. The point is that it is unfair for you to expect your insurance company to pay your bills. If you were instead willing to pay your premiums faithfully, then elect to pay your medical bills yourself rather than passing them on to your insurance company, perhaps your insurance company could pass the savings on to other policyholders. It's awfully unfair of you to expect other policyholders to pay the bill for your medical expenses.
Does that sound crazy? So does your argument with me. I call to see about paying my expenses and I am told there will be no expenses. What would you have me pay?
loosechickens
7-7-11, 11:30pm
Well, kfander, clearly our current system is working quite well for you, so I can understand your preference. I'm glad you've figured out a way to suck onto the government or charity teat, to get the care you need. As you said, you've figured out how to use the system to your advantage, so why should you want a system where everyone gets benefits?
I wish the very best for you and hope that this surgery you are going to get is successful and that your cancer has not and will not spread. Because if it does, costs can skyrocket, and even you, with your knowledge of how to work the system, could find yourself in serious difficulties insofar as expenses. So, you might want to be careful about bragging how you're even going to "make a profit" on your cancer insurance policy over the cost of your premiums.
The facts are that we pay nearly twice as much for health care in this country as any other developed democracy, yet fifty to sixty million of our citizens are uninsured, and only a portion of them are lucky to have the knowledge resources to negotiate and work the system as you've done, and in many states, millions fall through the cracks.
How many seniors with single payer, government run, socialist Medicare are willing to hand over their Medicare cards? Not even the ones with grey hair at Tea Party rallies carrying signs "get the government out of my health care". Nope, they'll have to pry those Medicare cards out of their cold, dead hands.................
I'm kind of feeling like benhyr right now.....
It's awfully unfair of you to expect other policyholders to pay the bill for your medical expenses.
But of course, your example is flawed. Let me fix it for you.
In my case, all policyholders at my insurance company pay the negotiated rate. This might mean we pay $65 for a $100 procedure. This doesn't affect any policyholders at my insurance company and, of course, since my insurance company isn't paying my bills, they're not passing the savings on to other policyholders.
However, there is a good probability that the doctor would charge less to all of their patients if they didn't have a negotiated rate with my insurance company. In this scenario, I'm hurting those that can only pay cash and don't have insurance. They're paying the full $100. Maybe the doctor would charge $80 for the procedure if they weren't providing some people a discount. In fact, maybe they only need to charge $75 for this procedure if they don't have to also pay for staff to handle the billing at all (across multiple insurance companies)
In the same way, your use of the system affects everyone not using the system. It works until it doesn't. If it's not subsidized by tax money (which means your neighbors are paying for your surgery) then it's subsidized by the hospital charging more for services to others in order to charge less to you (which means all of their other patients are paying for your surgery)
My only argument with you is that I'd prefer to see the federal program you're using eliminated (hypothetically) as it doesn't benefit me at all. I don't fault you for using it... it's a good game when you can win at it.
How many seniors with single payer, government run, socialist Medicare are willing to hand over their Medicare cards? Not even the ones with grey hair at Tea Party rallies carrying signs "get the government out of my health care". Nope, they'll have to pry those Medicare cards out of their cold, dead hands.................
For you LC:
http://0.tqn.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/E/u/2/guvmint-out-of-my-medicare.jpg
There are so many out there that I hope it's simply a well-staged gag but my fear is that it's not.
But of course, your example is flawed. Let me fix it for you.
In my case, all policyholders at my insurance company pay the negotiated rate.
It is not flawed at all. I am also paying the negotiated rate. I am not refusing to pay a bill, nor have I scammed to receive something that I didn't qualify for. I inquired about payment on my upcoming expenses, and those were the results.
My only argument with you is that I'd prefer to see the federal program you're using eliminated (hypothetically) as it doesn't benefit me at all. I don't fault you for using it... it's a good game when you can win at it.
That's fair, just as I would like to see Obamacare eliminated before it takes effect because it will include all of the same problems and abuses that can be seen in the current system, but on steroids, seeing as the federal government will be running it.
Mangano's Gold
7-8-11, 12:31am
kfander, thanks for taking the time post details, and you definitely have an interesting case history. But man, after reading this through this, I've got to say that you've offered the weirdest defense I think I've ever heard to the status quo.
ApatheticNoMore
7-8-11, 3:37am
On the health care insurance front, my personal opinion is that anyone who doesn't think health care needs to be fixed (in some form) in this country, has either never bought individual insurance from a for-profit company or is incredibly naive.
It depends. Under Corba it's $380 a month. Now this is a lot of money and I hate it (man I need a job I guess, and yea one with health insurance :P). But you should see my rent if you really want to know where my money goes, because that is several times that every month. So health insurance is expensive but on the other hand EVERYTHING is expensive (no wonder everyone's broke :P)
It depends. Under Corba it's $380 a month. Now this is a lot of money and I hate it (man I need a job I guess, and yea one with health insurance :P). But you should see my rent if you really want to know where my money goes, because that is several times that every month. So health insurance is expensive but on the other hand EVERYTHING is expensive (no wonder everyone's broke :P)
I hear you, but Cobra is continuation of group insurance, not individual insurance. And, I'm not talking just cost, I'm talking what you're signing up for.
If you try and buy individual insurance from Aetna, UHG, etc, you fill out an app that requires medical history. The Aetna app I looked at required 10 years of history and I understand the others are similar. Now, I mean, they requires dates and reasons and doctor names for each and every visit in the last ten years. And, you gave them permission to retroactively cancel back to the issue date if they discovered that you missed even one bit of history. In practice, of course, they don't typically do this, although it does happen now and then... but it's still a heck of a thing to sign up for.
Then, of course, there's the fact that if you actually need health insurance, it's a really hard thing to get. I have a buddy who's diabetic and there's no way on earth he's getting health insurance until he's exhausted his Cobra and is then eligible for his state's high risk pool.
(note, this was all true a year and a half ago, health care reform has started to open this up)
That's why I'm happy that, since I need individual insurance, I live in a state with a BCBS that also functions as an insurer of last resort. Otherwise, I'd be back working for some big company with health benefits rather than doing the cool stuff I am now :)
poetry_writer
7-8-11, 9:42am
Well, kfander, clearly our current system is working quite well for you, so I can understand your preference. I'm glad you've figured out a way to suck onto the government or charity teat, to get the care you need. As you said, you've figured out how to use the system to your advantage, so why should you want a system where everyone gets benefits?
I wish the very best for you and hope that this surgery you are going to get is successful and that your cancer has not and will not spread. Because if it does, costs can skyrocket, and even you, with your knowledge of how to work the system, could find yourself in serious difficulties insofar as expenses. So, you might want to be careful about bragging how you're even going to "make a profit" on your cancer insurance policy over the cost of your premiums.
The facts are that we pay nearly twice as much for health care in this country as any other developed democracy, yet fifty to sixty million of our citizens are uninsured, and only a portion of them are lucky to have the knowledge resources to negotiate and work the system as you've done, and in many states, millions fall through the cracks.
How many seniors with single payer, government run, socialist Medicare are willing to hand over their Medicare cards? Not even the ones with grey hair at Tea Party rallies carrying signs "get the government out of my health care". Nope, they'll have to pry those Medicare cards out of their cold, dead hands.................
I'm kind of feeling like benhyr right now.....
God, What a cold reply to a person facing cancer surgery. Your isnt the only post. Others said "not my problem" etc. Working the system? Poor choice of words loosechicken. What exactly do you expect him to do?
God, What a cold reply to a person facing cancer surgery. Your isnt the only post. Others said "not my problem" etc. Working the system? Poor choice of words loosechicken. What exactly do you expect him to do?
What do you expect the millions who aren't insured to do? The millions who haven't learned how to suck the government teat while condemning the government teat? He just doesn't want to share it. He doesn't want others to have what he has. It all comes down to simple greed. If there's more for others then there is less for me.
What he is not acknowledging is the simple truth that, if he is paying less, then someone is paying more. In insurance, in taxes, it's coming from somewhere. Probably from the eeevil, liberul, government he keeps wanting to 'stay out of his health care'.
I'm reminded of the fat puppy who pushes the smaller weak one aside so he can suck just a little more.
Oh, and my family has lived under government run health care for 30+ years and I'll guarantee you not a single veteran, congressman or retired military would give it back, so, there is personal experience. I take exception when people criticize the VA based on the 'vast experience and knowledge' of Fox News.
Every republican congressperson, every republican senator, every one, to a man/woman, who is talking dismantling health care reform, who criticizes government run health care, who whips up the peasants into a frenzy of 'government run health care' won't work, enjoys......government run health care. Every one! Every republican.
Have any refused it? No. Have any said, no thanks, I can do better through the private sector? No. EVERY. SINGLE. ONE.
Why is this question never asked at those tea party rallies? Why are the republicans never asked, Do you have government run health care? And why?
It's like there is this whole mental disconnect. I don't like to call people stupid, but geez! Get Government out of my medicare? Really? Backing politicians who run on dismantling government health care... while using government health care. Until the tea partiers (which sounds nicer than raciest homophobic mob) actually ask the questions that should be asked and stand for real reform, they are just a bunch of pesky boobs who will bring down the republican party, and the country if given the chance.
poetry_writer
7-8-11, 2:01pm
What do you expect the millions who aren't insured to do? The millions who haven't learned how to suck the government teat while condemning the government teat? He just doesn't want to share it. He doesn't want others to have what he has. It all comes down to simple greed. If there's more for others then there is less for me.
What he is not acknowledging is the simple truth that, if he is paying less, then someone is paying more. In insurance, in taxes, it's coming from somewhere. Probably from the eeevil, liberul, government he keeps wanting to 'stay out of his health care'.
I'm reminded of the fat puppy who pushes the smaller weak one aside so he can suck just a little more.
Oh, and my family has lived under government run health care for 30+ years and I'll guarantee you not a single veteran, congressman or retired military would give it back, so, there is personal experience. I take exception when people criticize the VA based on the 'vast experience and knowledge' of Fox News.
Every republican congressperson, every republican senator, every one, to a man/woman, who is talking dismantling health care reform, who criticizes government run health care, who whips up the peasants into a frenzy of 'government run health care' won't work, enjoys......government run health care. Every one! Every republican.
Have any refused it? No. Have any said, no thanks, I can do better through the private sector? No. EVERY. SINGLE. ONE.
Why is this question never asked at those tea party rallies? Why are the republicans never asked, Do you have government run health care? And why?
It's like there is this whole mental disconnect. I don't like to call people stupid, but geez! Get Government out of my medicare? Really? Backing politicians who run on dismantling government health care... while using government health care. Until the tea partiers (which sounds nicer than raciest homophobic mob) actually ask the questions that should be asked and stand for real reform, they are just a bunch of pesky boobs who will bring down the republican party, and the country if given the chance.
I am not insured. But screw the politics of it all when a fellow human being and member of this forum says he is facing cancer surgery and is accused of"sucking the govt teat" or whatever. I simply care about a person facing a very scary situation. Some of the responses, including yours, was very cold.
What do you expect the millions who aren't insured to do? The millions who haven't learned how to suck the government teat while condemning the government teat?
Learned how? It's a simple matter of getting on the telephone, or going into the office if you prefer, and asking what you can do about an upcoming bill. The rest was offered, not manipulated by myself. More than one call was required, but my entry into it was suggested by the hospital billing department, not initiated by myself. My only point in posting in this thread was in response to those of you who were suggesting that a federal takeover of our healthcare system was necessary because otherwise people without insurance would not have access to the healthcare system. That's nonsense, and I used my own example, aware that it would upset some of you, in order to demonstrate that this simply isn't so. Not just in my case, but for anyone who takes the time to make some telephone calls.
You may criticize my decision to not be insured. That's probably fair, but it's not without reason. My own experiences with insurance companies have led me to believe that they are unlikely to pay or to pay adequately when it comes time to collect on a policy; in other words, that they do not give value for the money. Plus there is the fact that my income does not guarantee me any certain amount of money each month, so that it would be quite likely that I might miss a payment at some point, which could adversely effect any claim that I might have, so that payments that I had made were money wasted. Rather than taking a chance that cost me more money each month than I could afford, and probably have nothing to show for it, I took a chance that would cost me only if I required healthcare. Had I known that I was going to be diagnosed with cancer, I might have loaded up on cancer insurance but I have never smoked or worked in particularly carcinogenic environments, and I don't have a family history of cancer, so I thought that might be a reasonable risk. Had I done so and dared to mention it here, you'd probably berate me for taking advantage of the insurance system.
Upon a diagnosis of cancer then, there were two possible courses of action, neither of which would have denied me access to healthcare. One, I could have simply stiffed the hospital, doctor, laboratory, and other healthcare providers after the fact, and ignored my bills. My credit would really suck if I were to choose that option, but I have not depended on the credit system for several years. I use a debit card rather than a credit card, and I paid cash for my house. My cancer would still have been treated, but that is not a course of action that I am comfortable with. The second choice was the one I opted to go with, which was to make the telephone call beforehand, let them know what my situation was, and ask how I might be able to handle the payments. Having been offered a sliding scale by my doctor and dentist, and in previous surgeries, I was well aware that payments could be made on a sliding scale, but was prepared to have to pay at least a percentage of my bill. If you wish to consider this to be scamming the system, then I can only suggest that, when the time comes, you should be consistent in your beliefs and refuse to accept Social Security, Medicare, unemployment insurance, or any other possible benefits that the system may include, because this is as much a part of the system as anything else. I can only suppose that you criticize those individuals and companies who make use of our bankruptcy laws, as this is another part of the same system. There may be some merit in your criticism but I can guarantee you that if you should ever find yourself in a position where bankruptcy is the best course of action, you'll take it. This is all part of the same system and, even without Obamacare, it is a system that doesn't leave anyone unable to access the healthcare system.
Thank you Poetry Writer, for your kind words. I know that I had promised several posts ago that I was going to stop posting in this thread because everyone seems pretty much invested in whatever position they feel called upon to hold, and it seemed to be stirring up a lot of anger without any sign of productive good, so I will belatedly live up to that promise now.
My essential point here is that no one is denied access to the healthcare system, whether or not they are insured. As a paramedic in Texas, I have repeatedly transported uninsured people to the hospital who made no overtures toward even responding to a request for payment. Each time they were treated in the emergency department and when indicated, transferred to other departments of the hospital for ongoing treated, then referred to a physician who saw them without payment. The next time they called, they received the same treatment, and it was no different than that received by patients who were insured. Since we were operating within minutes of the Mexican border, a significant percentage of our patients were not in this country legally. Some of them paid, but most did not. They also received the same treatment and care. As a part owner of an ambulance company for six years, this came out of my pocket, so it goes both ways.
That said, I'm out of here. Thanks for playing.
Acute care at an ER is not a substitute for preventative care and overburdens the system for all care except trauma care. I'm not sure if I would consider an ER obligated to treat patients as access to health care.
The proper, logical response, if you are against the federal government subsidizing health care, would be to immediately call and complain to your congressman about the subsidy being offered to you. I cannot reconcile any other course of action. This isn't an angry response, it's logic. One is either for a system or against it; not for it when it benefits them and against it when it benefits others.
Also, the best type of insurance for someone choosing to go naked would be catastrophic insurance only. This provides a very low monthly payment but covers catastrophes such as cancer treatment (but leaves the policy owner on their own for standard preventative and acute care)
You keep missing the point kfander. No one is saying you are doing something illegal, or even immoral. what we are trying to point out is that when you get federally funded/subsidised health care, someone else is paying more. We, the people, are paying for your federally subsidized health care. Now, if you are getting it simply because you don't see the point in paying insurance premiums because someone else (us) will pick up the slack in the end, then you are milking the system (us) and not being a responsible citizen.
We are the government and the government is us. Do you think the rest of us like paying insurance? Do you think the rest of us like paying more knowing there are people like you who can afford something, even a little bit, but choose not to and instead work the system? Maybe you think we are all fools for paying for insurance. Well what do you think would happen if nobody paid insurance? What if we all worked the system? Think there would be a system to work? I don't think so.
It's called responsibility. That is the essence of health care reform. Everyone pays who can, even a little, and the responsibility is shared, so the benefits are shared. It's not a government takeover of health care, that is a flat out lie. Of course it would have been better if we could have had universal health care and then we could tame those hated insurance companies you talked about, but I'm guessing you were against that as well.
Acute care at an ER is not a substitute for preventative care and overburdens the system for all care except trauma care. I'm not sure if I would consider an ER obligated to treat patients as access to health care.
I wasn't going to continue this but can't let you just misrepresent things so blatantly and pass that off as an argument.
I was diagnosed with cancer because I did receive preventative care, including an annual PSA test for the past few years, on a sliding scale which sometimes meant that it was free. I visit the doctor regularly and have been a patient in an emergency department only twice. I have stated also that two different clinics were competing for a contract to provide medical and dental services on a sliding scale in my town alone, which has a population of only a couple of thousand. These same companies have clinics in several towns, and similar clinics are located all over the country. They were competing for the right to provide medical care on a sliding scale, so I can only assume that it is profitable for them to do so. The hospital is also not at all hesitant about providing medical care on a sliding scale, as they offered it; obviously, they too find this to be profitable and worth their while. My surgery is scheduled, my diagnosis was the result of regular preventative care, and a referral to a urologist who also seems to be doing pretty well for himself, and will also be doing the surgery. I don't think he feels that he has been cheated.
If your misrepresentation was prompted by my statements about transporting patients to the emergency department, this too is misleading. I transported these patients to the emergency department because we operated a 9-1-1 emergency service, and that is where we generally transported our patients. Any one of these patients could also be seen by a general practitioner or non-profit clinic, and many of them did, for there were plenty of them available.
As stated, patients who we transported to the emergency department were referred to doctors for follow up treatment which was not in an emergency room, and they received this continuing care, with or without insurance.
For our part of the bill, sometimes we were able to find funding for them, either from federal, state, county or even private sources. All that this would generally require from the patient was a signature, and some refused even to give us that. Still we were there for them the next time they needed us. Those who did had no reason to be ashamed that they were unable to pay their bill and since we billed patients for far more than providing the service cost us, if we could collect even a small percentage of the bill, we were doing okay.
If no one had insurance, medical expenses would lower dramatically.
It has occurred to me that most of you who think that I am a horrible person because I didn't turn down an offer of necessary medical care, because it may be the result of a federal subsidy, are the very same people who are in favor of the federal government taking over the entire healthcare system. In a single-payer system, controlled by the federal government, will you then refuse to accept treatment because others have had to share in the expense? To be consistent in your position, you would have to. Why should I have to share in the costs of your medical treatment? We currently have a system where the government subsidizes the medical treatment of those who are in need of it, but you think that people should refuse to take part in it, even as you lobby for a huge expansion of this same system. That just doesn't make any sense.
Why should I have to share in the costs of your medical treatment?
you shouldn't, nor should I have to share in the cost of yours. Or, you should be consistent in wanting to pay for the cost of mine if you want me to pay for the cost of yours. And, I do think you should refuse to partake in it if you are lobbying against it. Anything else does strike me as illogical... not that I think you're a horrible person for doing so. I don't know you so how would I judge you.
So, this follow up care that people are receiving, if they can't or choose not to afford it, how are they receiving it? Per my earlier post, either the hospital is eating the cost which means they're inflating the cost of their services (so those that do pay are paying more) or it's being subsidized through tax money which means everyone else is paying more.
So, this follow up care that people are receiving, if they can't or choose not to afford it, how are they receiving it? Per my earlier post, either the hospital is eating the cost which means they're inflating the cost of their services (so those that do pay are paying more) or it's being subsidized through tax money which means everyone else is paying more.
Every medical provider inflates the cost of their services, which is a large part of why they are able to reduce the bills for those who are paying their own expenses. Twelve years ago, when we administered an 80-mg aspirin tablet to a patient with chest pain, we billed him for $10. That was standard, and we had to bill outrageous amounts, not only to make up for those who weren't paying anything at all, but also because Medicare and Medicaid would only pay a small percentage of the allowable amount, and the allowable amount was based in large part on the average of what other providers in the area were charging. If we were to charge ten cents, which would have been more than we were paying for an aspirin tablet, other area medical providers would feel that we were cheating them, and we'd hear from the ambulance association as well as the state department of health. Because Medicare and Medicaid would refuse payment on other necessary medical treatments, we would have to inflate the charges on those things that they did generally approve. Thus, every six-inch EKG strip was billed for $25, and we would sometimes run a couple of dozen of them during a transport. Electrocardiograms were themselves expensive, so we did have to recoup the cost of the machine, as well as periodic upgrades, but still this would not have been nearly this expensive were it not for Medicare and Medicaid. These things would only worsen under a single-payer system since government is not at all known for doing anything inexpensively.
poetry_writer
7-8-11, 7:24pm
For heavens sake, he is just trying to get cancer surgery? Where is the compassion? That is what is wrong with our country, bottom line. People dont give a **** about anything but themselves.
Maybe we should just accept the fact that our healthcare system is pretty sad. Obama, while running for President endorsed the public option but strangely seemed to forget his passion for that program. Add in the right-wing free market folks and we end up with our present day healthcare system. Some folks don;t like any part of it because it was a Obama initiative, some don't like it because they have to pay for insurance at some level, and some don't like it because they consider it socialism. On the other had many, maybe the majority, while not liking the program (as compared to a single payer plan) think it is much better than our present system.
As far as the specifics of "playing the system" I won't comment further - people have been doing it for years in terms of liquidating assets in order to qualify for long term care with Medicaid. The very same people that seem to hate government programs are quite willing to spend-down their wealth in order to qualify for this program.
I think we have much bigger problems in this country. Working people, like myself, have very little control on what happens to them in terms of the distribution of our tax dollars. I just read today that funding for the 2012 budget is increasing $78B for the military- don't it make you proud. Here we are talking cut in social programs, cutting SS, cutting taxes, cutting everything but yet we still seem to love our wars.
The planet is heating up, we probably will face extreme issues in the future but it seems that the American public love the sound-bites of austerity and then cast the blame on government.
Peace
Every medical provider inflates the cost of their services, which is a large part of why they are able to reduce the bills for those who are paying their own expenses. Twelve years ago, when we administered an 80-mg aspirin tablet to a patient with chest pain, we billed him for $10. That was standard, and we had to bill outrageous amounts, not only to make up for those who weren't paying anything at all, but also because Medicare and Medicaid would only pay a small percentage of the allowable amount
Ok, last set of questions. I know it'll be anecdotal, but that's at least some insight. How much less did you charge someone paying cash than someone on Medicare? And, was Tricare better, worse, or the same as Medicare?
I do have to admit that I find it hard to reconcile that you can charge less if someone doesn't have insurance but you have to charge more to cover the people that can't pay. And, I've never gotten a better price from a doctor by offering to pay cash versus having it billed, but maybe I've just had 10 years of bad shopping. Again, though, that's just anecdotal.
Technically, you can't truly charge less to someone without Medicare because then Medicare will consider that lesser amount to be your true charge and pay you a percentage of that. Some ambulance companies refused to sign onto the Medicare program, so as not to be bothered with Medicare's restrictions, but that was a tough option to take if you were operating in a part of the country where a large percentage of your patients were on Medicare. Without being a registered Medicare supplier, Medicare would pay patients directly for their costs, whether or not they had actually paid their bills, so too often you wouldn't collect anything at all if you couldn't collect it directly from Medicare.
Early on in my career, I tried offering a 30-percent reduction for all bills paid within thirty days. Medicare then considered that our actual bill was thirty percent less than the amount stated and paid on that basis, despite the fact that they took several months to pay. The average payment through Medicaid was a year, and we would have to appeal nearly fifty percent of them due to unreasonable denials, such as the call not being an emergency despite the fact that the patient died hours after arriving at the hospital. This is a large part of my fear about putting our healthcare system in the hands of the government.
Medicare did not insist that we actively pursue patients for the full payment on their bills however, so we would agree to write off a percentage of their bills if the remainder was paid. It amounted to the same thing, and we would do something similar in other situations as well. Writing it off did not mean, as some people assume, that we were able to collect it from other sources, such as our tax returns.
When I was the director of an ambulance company that I wasn't a part owner of, I had a patient who was conscientiously trying to pay his bill despite a very low income. We would receive $5 one month, $10 another, and sometimes an apology for not being able to make a payment. When his bill was about fifty percent paid, he had another stroke. When I received a payment from his wife for $25, I asked the ambulance board if I could consider his bill to be paid in full. Receiving permission, I sent her a receipt with a note that this was payment in full and that her husband had a zero balance.
I am not familiar with Tricare, other than knowing that it is a healthcare program for active duty service members. I may have had patients on Tricare, and would think that I probably did, since we certainly provided service to active duty military personnel from time to time, but I don't recall that I did. I wonder if maybe it was called something else then.
From a healthcare perspective, Medicare wasn't bad, although my former partner tells me that they have gotten a whole lot harder to deal with. One odd thing that they would do is base whether or not a call was an emergency or not on the final outcome. For example, if a patient dialed 9-1-1 complaining of chest pain, shortness of breath and general body weakness, we would have to treat that as a possible heart attack, since paramedics are not diagnosticians. Emergency personnel would continue care as if it were a possible heart attack, but if the end result was that the symptoms were due to something other than a heart attack, Medicare would refuse payment on any diagnostics, such as the EKG, as well as any treatments that were specific to a possible cardiac event, and sometimes refuse payment altogether, if it turned out that the patient's outcome was not emergent, although we would have no way of knowing that at the time.
Medicaid was okay as a supplement to Medicare, because it often paid the percentage of the bill that Medicare didn't, although they took forever to do so. For patients who only had Medicaid, they denied half the claims, forcing us to appeal and then ask for an administrative hearing, sometimes delaying payment as long as a year and a half. Medicaid allowable amounts were based on average costs that included the greatly reduced costs charged to large hospitals, which was sometimes less than what we had actually paid for it. Anytime we started an IV on a Medicaid patient, we were paid less than the amount that we had paid for the IV needle and solution, so we had to make that up somewhere. Prior to the Clinton administration, we were able to purchase many of our disposable supplies from the hospital at their costs, but a federal law that introduced at that time made that illegal, which greatly increased our costs for supplies.
Other reasons for inflated costs include the high costs of the ambulances themselves, and the cost of replacements, which had to be made up somewhere, as well as the cost of malpractice and other insurances, training, wages and benefits, building maintenance, etc. County and municipal contracts went a long way toward offsetting these costs, although not every ambulance company had such a contract, and instead had to bill large base rates on calls.
poetry_writer
7-10-11, 3:14pm
I have a friends whos husband is about to be sent home from the hospital. His condition is not good (rare autoimmune disorder). They simply said you are "unfunded" and no furthur treatment will be carried out. He has been in the hospital for two months so they did treat him, knowing they wouldnt be paid. Another friend , who is an RN and familiar with the situation said there is little they can do for him at this point, but he would not be sent home if he was insured. This same RN is from Canada and she said if he was in Canada, he would already be dead. So which sucks more? I do not know. The hospital is going to "help then arrange home care" Home health agencies do not work for free. Dont know what will happen.
You're right. Home health is seldom free, unless connected directly to a large hospital system, but they are also generally aware of funding that might be available, and it's in their best interests to pursue it on behalf of a prospective patient. Chiropractic care, since it's generally done through private chiropractic clinics, usually isn't free either, but on the positive side, chiropractic care is usually pretty affordable. Grave diagnoses or those which interfere with employment can sometimes lead to early eligibility for Social Security however, which leads to automatic enrollment in Medicare Part A and B. On the downside, it often takes a year or more before early enrollment in SS is determined but, on the plus side, those who are ultimately enrolled are given a lump sum payment backdated to the time of application. Attorneys are often involved in such claims but when they believe you have a good claim, you can usually find one that doesn't demand payment upfront.
poetry_writer
7-11-11, 10:37am
You're right. Home health is seldom free, unless connected directly to a large hospital system, but they are also generally aware of funding that might be available, and it's in their best interests to pursue it on behalf of a prospective patient. Chiropractic care, since it's generally done through private chiropractic clinics, usually isn't free either, but on the positive side, chiropractic care is usually pretty affordable. Grave diagnoses or those which interfere with employment can sometimes lead to early eligibility for Social Security however, which leads to automatic enrollment in Medicare Part A and B. On the downside, it often takes a year or more before early enrollment in SS is determined but, on the plus side, those who are ultimately enrolled are given a lump sum payment backdated to the time of application. Attorneys are often involved in such claims but when they believe you have a good claim, you can usually find one that doesn't demand payment upfront.
I pray they have some funding for home care. They have told them that he will never be able to work again, he is on a feeding tube and cannot walk. He is only in his 50s. they have applied for disability. But as you said it can take months. In this town no attorney is going to do it without some money up front. I am familiar with the system here. So I do not know what they will do. they have no income. Hopefully they will help them considering his condition.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.