PDA

View Full Version : A thought about ObamaCare.....



gimmethesimplelife
6-30-12, 9:50pm
I was thinking today about one aspect of ObamaCare that I have not seen or heard brought up yet.....Then again I have not been doing the media frenzy on this so it's quite likely it's been discussed and I missed it. My thought is this - isn't ObamaCare a good thing in the sense that it unchains people from their employers with respect to health care? Just think of how much more entrepreneurship there could be if folks could access health insurance through the coming exchanges and not be dependent upon traditional employment for health insurance.....

Seems to me as if entreneurship would be considered a very desirable thing to encourage by both sides of the aisle.....Does this health care reform not free up folks to pursue self employment to some degree? What do you'all think? Rob

Alan
6-30-12, 9:55pm
The vast majority of people have not been chained to their employers for health insurance, it's just been the cheapest way to have it. That will not change under Obamacare.

bae
6-30-12, 9:58pm
I was a serial entrepreneur, and health care/insurance costs were never a factor in my decision to start a new venture, or to move on to the next, and I had very little trouble recruiting people for companies in the early stages that lacked any health plans.

bunnys
6-30-12, 10:13pm
I have watched a lot of news since the decision came down. Yes, that is one of the benefits routinely touted as a benefit of Obamacare. Guess you have just missed this point.

One of the reasons I stay in my job is for my health insurance. It isn't the main factor or exclusively the factor but it is a consideration. There are many Americans who feel differently from me but many feel the same.

gimmethesimplelife
6-30-12, 10:32pm
The vast majority of people have not been chained to their employers for health insurance, it's just been the cheapest way to have it. That will not change under Obamacare.May I offer another take on what you have posted here? For myself, I could not disagree with you more.....When I have held insurance, except for a brief period of five months when I once qualified for Medicaid, the only insurance I have ever held has been through employment.....Given that I have a pre-existing condition, this is the only way I could have EVER afforded it. I have only been what Americans would consider middle class for fairly brief periods of my life - during the bubbles - and yes, some of this is my own doing and choices I have made, I will give you that - but the point remains, for me personally the only way I could ever have afforded insurance is via employer subsidy. I can not begin to tell you how that restricts your freedom and cuts off your circulation as it were. I'm guessing that your economic situation may be quite different, in a positive way, from mine? If so, great, I think that's great. But this is not one size fits all and this situation is different for those in the lower strata of the food chain.....Just my two cents. Rob

gimmethesimplelife
6-30-12, 10:43pm
I have watched a lot of news since the decision came down. Yes, that is one of the benefits routinely touted as a benefit of Obamacare. Guess you have just missed this point.

One of the reasons I stay in my job is for my health insurance. It isn't the main factor or exclusively the factor but it is a consideration. There are many Americans who feel differently from me but many feel the same.And that's my point....how nice to not have health care chaining you to a desk you'd rather not be chained to.....just think of all the 30's and 40's folks out there who have less incentive now to stay chained.....who knows what kinds of interesting small businesses some may break free to create now as health care is off the table as a roadblock?

Alan
6-30-12, 10:49pm
.... For myself, I could not disagree with you more.....
Perhaps you don't fit in with the 'vast majority'?

AnneM
6-30-12, 11:28pm
I am married, working full time with a stay at home dad, and 2 children ages 11 and 9. My employer pays 100% of the health care costs for my family of four. It has been a huge factor in my decision to remain with this employer over the last six years.

gimmethesimplelife
6-30-12, 11:29pm
Perhaps you don't fit in with the 'vast majority'?I think that would be a fair take, that I dont fit in with the vast majority.....but the problem is Alan, just how vast is this majority you refer to? Food for thought...I'm not the only one out there in this situation......Please rest assured if you don't know others in my situation, I do....I'm not the only one in this situation. Rob

gimmethesimplelife
6-30-12, 11:37pm
Something I'd like to add to my above post.....Due to the upcoming ability for me to buy insurance on an exchange with a government sudsidy for my premium costs, I AM MUCH MORE willing to take some risks and go out on my own and at middle age, attempt to start some kind of sucessful business on my own.....I won't have to live in fear of financial ruin if I get sick....To me that's a HUGE roadblock off the table....Rob

freein05
6-30-12, 11:57pm
I am married, working full time with a stay at home dad, and 2 children ages 11 and 9. My employer pays 100% of the health care costs for my family of four. It has been a huge factor in my decision to remain with this employer over the last six years.

This brings up a good point. Those of us who buy our health insurance on the open market are subsidizing corptions and their employees. Corporations get 100 percent tax write off. I only get a percentage of the amount I pay.

AnneM
7-1-12, 12:51am
This brings up a good point. Those of us who buy our health insurance on the open market are subsidizing corptions and their employees. Corporations get 100 percent tax write off. I only get a percentage of the amount I pay.

I do not work for a corporation. I work at an entity that does not have revenue, and does not have the ability to deduct expenses, as they are not a business.

Regardless, don't forget that in 2018 ( I believe that's the year) employers will be forced to pay a 40% tax, due to Obamacare on the medical coverage they pay for their employees. that is if the medical paid is greater than $10,200 for an individual and $27,500 for a family.

Zoebird
7-1-12, 4:13am
I think that it will create more alternatives in he market. A friend of mine works in insurance and asserted that this bill is basically designed to do that.

Thus, I think that it will create more affordable health care options, and between employer "matching" (can't think of the word) or government subsidy, and an individual's own evaluation of programs, I think it will create affordable healthcare for a lot of families.

As I posted on the other thread, I wanted out of my husband's company's plan, but any independent plan cost nearly double per month (meaning double both our contribution as well as what the employer provided in contribution) and if we opted not to go with the company plan, we lost their 'match.' and thus would have had to pay 2/3 more for even more basic insurance than we were provided through the company.

I think that this will -- over the next few years -- provide a more competitive market. (Just looking at switzerland, whose program has some similarities, that looks to be the case.)

creaker
7-1-12, 7:37am
The vast majority of people have not been chained to their employers for health insurance, it's just been the cheapest way to have it. That will not change under Obamacare.

Isn't that because the vast majority of that vast majority have no health insurance at all?

I think it does provide more options to the unemployed - right now you have the option of COBRA, which is usually prohibitively expensive, or going without and hoping you reestablish insurance soon (I think that certificate they give you saying you had insurance is only good for 6 months, after that you'll run into preexisting conditions issues). My daughter did a short stint unemployed - and she has migraines and some other health issues. She was able to go on MassHealth (MA's Medicaid) while unemployed and until she got coverage under a new employer so she had uninterrupted coverage.

dmc
7-1-12, 7:48am
I think that it will create more alternatives in he market. A friend of mine works in insurance and asserted that this bill is basically designed to do that.

Thus, I think that it will create more affordable health care options, and between employer "matching" (can't think of the word) or government subsidy, and an individual's own evaluation of programs, I think it will create affordable healthcare for a lot of families.

As I posted on the other thread, I wanted out of my husband's company's plan, but any independent plan cost nearly double per month (meaning double both our contribution as well as what the employer provided in contribution) and if we opted not to go with the company plan, we lost their 'match.' and thus would have had to pay 2/3 more for even more basic insurance than we were provided through the company.

I think that this will -- over the next few years -- provide a more competitive market. (Just looking at switzerland, whose program has some similarities, that looks to be the case.)

I will bet that it will cost some more. Remember that the insurance companys wrote most of the bill. No one really knows how much the new cost will be. And will those that choose to go with the high deductible plans still be able to get them? Doesn't the bill also tell you how much coverage that is required.

It will probably be cheaper for me, I pay about $15,000 per year now, I can easily adjust my income from year to year and probably get subsidized every other year or so. It will also be interesting to see if many companies start dropping the covering of health insurance.

And good luck with finding a doctor that will take the new Medicaid or Medicare plans. I have talked with a few doctors I know and they will not accept any new patients since they generally don't pay enough to cover cost.

Alan
7-1-12, 8:14am
Isn't that because the vast majority of that vast majority have no health insurance at all?


I don't think so. The vast majority of Americans do have health insurance, with most of those securing it through their employers since it's cheaper to allow someone else to subsidize it for them. That doesn't mean that it is not available to them outside of their employment.

My point being that for the vast majority of people, availability of health insurance doesn't tie them to a job, it's just cheaper to get it that way and I don't believe that new government subsidies for those who wish to go out on their own will make the cost of an outside policy cheaper for them.

In my experience, most people without health insurance are low wage, service workers who choose not to pay their portion of the expense for policies available to them. I'm not sure how that will change under Obamacare.

catherine
7-1-12, 8:16am
I was thinking today about one aspect of ObamaCare that I have not seen or heard brought up yet.....Then again I have not been doing the media frenzy on this so it's quite likely it's been discussed and I missed it. My thought is this - isn't ObamaCare a good thing in the sense that it unchains people from their employers with respect to health care? Just think of how much more entrepreneurship there could be if folks could access health insurance through the coming exchanges and not be dependent upon traditional employment for health insurance.....

Seems to me as if entreneurship would be considered a very desirable thing to encourage by both sides of the aisle.....Does this health care reform not free up folks to pursue self employment to some degree? What do you'all think? Rob

Haven't read the other posts yet, but I have thought exactly the same thing! I know I have taken jobs just because the family needed health insurance--for the most part I hated those jobs but I had 4 kids to keep healthy. I finally got to a position where I was making enough money to buy my own insurance, and that's when I quit and started my own consultancy. But I pay $1232 a month for both my husband and I (and it's NO Cadillac plan, either)--and I'm betting there are a lot of would-be entrepreneurs who would not be able to afford that and so they defer their dreams. For me, I consider it the price I pay for my freedom.

Also, I know tons of couples where one is self-employed and the other agrees to take a "real job" just for the family insurance.

Yes, Rob, I agree that cutting ties to employer-based health insurance as the most affordable way of getting health insurance could definitely free up options for people who want to go out on their own. That's one reason our pre-Obama health care system makes absolutely no sense. That system is simply a relic of the Industrial Age.

gimmethesimplelife
7-1-12, 8:32am
I don't think so. The vast majority of Americans do have health insurance, with most of those securing it through their employers since it's cheaper to allow someone else to subsidize it for them. That doesn't mean that it is not available to them outside of their employment.

My point being that for the vast majority of people, availability of health insurance doesn't tie them to a job, it's just cheaper to get it that way and I don't believe that new government subsidies for those who wish to go out on their own will make the cost of an outside policy cheaper for them.

In my experience, most people without health insurance are low wage, service workers who choose not to pay their portion of the expense for policies available to them. I'm not sure how that will change under Obamacare.What other options do low wage service workers have, and how many are forced into low wage service work now that good paying jobs are being shipped overseas left and right, and since jobs in general remain fairly scarce? Just some food for thought from someone on the battlefield living the nightmare.....Rob

gimmethesimplelife
7-1-12, 8:35am
Haven't read the other posts yet, but I have thought exactly the same thing! I know I have taken jobs just because the family needed health insurance--for the most part I hated those jobs but I had 4 kids to keep healthy. I finally got to a position where I was making enough money to buy my own insurance, and that's when I quit and started my own consultancy. But I pay $1232 a month for both my husband and I (and it's NO Cadillac plan, either)--and I'm betting there are a lot of would-be entrepreneurs who would not be able to afford that and so they defer their dreams. For me, I consider it the price I pay for my freedom.

Also, I know tons of couples where one is self-employed and the other agrees to take a "real job" just for the family insurance.

Yes, Rob, I agree that cutting ties to employer-based health insurance as the most affordable way of getting health insurance could definitely free up options for people who want to go out on their own. That's one reason our pre-Obama health care system makes absolutely no sense. That system is simply a relic of the Industrial Age.Thank you Catherine.....I couldn't agree more that how insurance has worked is a relic of the industrial age....Way overdue to update how health care is accessed IMHO.....Rob

gimmethesimplelife
7-1-12, 8:46am
I don't think so. The vast majority of Americans do have health insurance, with most of those securing it through their employers since it's cheaper to allow someone else to subsidize it for them. That doesn't mean that it is not available to them outside of their employment.

My point being that for the vast majority of people, availability of health insurance doesn't tie them to a job, it's just cheaper to get it that way and I don't believe that new government subsidies for those who wish to go out on their own will make the cost of an outside policy cheaper for them.

In my experience, most people without health insurance are low wage, service workers who choose not to pay their portion of the expense for policies available to them. I'm not sure how that will change under Obamacare.Two more thoughts - It is true that more folks have insurance than don't - in Texas which is the worst state, something like 24% of the population doesn't, and in Arizona, a close runner up for folks not being worth access to basic health care, 1.3 million folks don't have insurance. But even in these states, more people have it than don't. Agreed. My question is this - is this acceptable? Is it OK to wave your flag around on July 4th for a system that denies access to health care to ANYONE? (let's assume the anyone is here legally to clarify). Let's just say for me personally there will be no flag waving until January 1st, 2014 - I consider that day a major victory for basic human rights.

Second question - until the insurance companies can't deny an applicant coverage based on a pre-existing condition, how does one with a pre-existing condition GET COVERAGE? Your post makes it sound so simple - but when you have been on the battleground dealing with the nightmare of US healthcare, you have a totally different perspective on it.

One more issue - given that incomes have flatlined for many and declined for some, how does one afford - say they are even still in the middle class - to purchase insurance outside of their job?Have you priced individual policies lately? Where does this money come from in light of wage stagnation/declines and the costs of so many other essentials rising? I submit these questions as I honestly have no idea....Rob

Alan
7-1-12, 8:57am
Two more thoughts - It is true that more folks have insurance than don't - in Texas which is the worst state, something like 24% of the population doesn't, and in Arizona, a close runner up for folks not being worth access to basic health care, 1.3 million folks don't have insurance. But even in these states, more people have it than don't. Agreed. My question is this - is this acceptable? Is it OK to wave your flag around on July 4th for a system that denies access to health care to ANYONE? (let's assume the anyone is here legally to clarify). Let's just say for me personally there will be no flag waving until January 1st, 2014 - I consider that day a major victory for basic human rights.



If you acknowledge that a large percentage of those folks you mention choose not to pay for health insurance, I'm not sure how it's a victory for human rights to force them to pay up against their will. I also don't understand your comments about flag waving and the 4th of July.

Rob, I really do understand how emotional some issues can be for people, and that's fine, but let's not abandon reason in our discussions.

gimmethesimplelife
7-1-12, 9:04am
If you acknowledge that a large percentage of those folks you mention choose not to pay for health insurance, I'm not sure how it's a victory for human rights to force them to pay up against their will. I also don't understand your comments about flag waving and the 4th of July.

Rob, I really do understand how emotional some issues can be for people, and that's fine, but let's not abandon reason in our discussions.Alan, the problem with what you have posted is very simple. How do these people without health insurance find money to pay for it...you yourself have stated they tend to be low income service workers....how are they going to afford health care? I see nothing that you have posted that explains this....

gimmethesimplelife
7-1-12, 9:06am
If you acknowledge that a large percentage of those folks you mention choose not to pay for health insurance, I'm not sure how it's a victory for human rights to force them to pay up against their will. I also don't understand your comments about flag waving and the 4th of July.

Rob, I really do understand how emotional some issues can be for people, and that's fine, but let's not abandon reason in our discussions.About that flag waving on the fourth of July - I have found July 4th very embarrassing for many years due to the fact that so many lives are not worth access to health care in the US. For moral and ethical reasons, I can't wave the flag around on July 4th due to this.....I just can't. But I will on January 1st, 2014, so I'm not totally un-American I guess. Rob

Lainey
7-1-12, 9:18am
Rob,
you're on the right track. The anti-Obamacare people have successfully framed the debate in terms of "loss of their freedom." Hence their repeating of the words "choose" and "choice" when in reality, as you've stated, low-income workers have no such choices.
Excellent essay on this point, here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harlan-green/obamacarewhat-loss-of-freedom_b_1639938.html?utm_hp_ref=politics&ir=Politics

gimmethesimplelife
7-1-12, 9:46am
Rob,
you're on the right track. The anti-Obamacare people have successfully framed the debate in terms of "loss of their freedom." Hence their repeating of the words "choose" and "choice" when in reality, as you've stated, low-income workers have no such choices.
Excellent essay on this point, here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harlan-green/obamacarewhat-loss-of-freedom_b_1639938.html?utm_hp_ref=politics&ir=PoliticsLainey, Thank You.....I have been struggling with US healthcare for some time and I'm grateful that I'm not the only one who understands this here. The Supreme Court upholding ObamaCare has been beyond huge for me as health care is the one topic I am passionate about.....the only one I'd ever post in Public Policy about lol. I'll check out your link too. Rob

redfox
7-1-12, 11:50am
I thought this editorial had an interesting perspective as well:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/dannywestneat/2018570932_danny01.html

bunnys
7-1-12, 12:11pm
If I were a low wage worker at wal-mart working 30+ hours per week and so was ineligible for their insurance program because they wouldn't give me full-time work, I'd jump at the chance to buy into their health insurance option if it were offered me. If I went out and got another part-time job at say, kmart, I might still be working really hard at 2 jobs for 60 hours per week but I still wouldn't be eligible for health insurance. And I'd have priced myself out of Medicaid because at 60 hours per week of minimum wage employment I'm too wealthy to meet the eligibility requirements.

And for those who say the "vast majority" of Americans have health insurance, how many more people going without makes the situation bad enough that something must be done? Our population is 300 million. Estimates of 30-45 million Americans without health insurance means that 10-15% of people have no health insurance. We're not talking 10-15% percentage of Americans are just inconvenienced by not having access to some luxury. This is something that ruins lives and economic opportunities in ways that families simply can never recover from.

Personally, I can totally understand how people who religiously pay their health insurance premiums would be really p!ssed off that they have to pay the "free riders" who don't (for whatever reason) have it and when the tragedy comes to to the emergency room and get the most expensive solution to their problem. This is ultimately borne by the cost of those purchasing the insurance through higher health care. Shouldn't there be some kind of solution to get those people insured?

If there were a public option, I would absolutely look at switching my employee offered health care to it. It would be nice to at least have a choice.

SteveinMN
7-1-12, 12:26pm
Estimates of 30-45 million Americans without health insurance means that 10-15% of people have no health insurance. We're not talking 10-15% percentage of Americans are just inconvenienced by not having access to some luxury. This is something that ruins lives and economic opportunities in ways that families simply can never recover from.
You also (generously) don't mention that some of the insurance there is "catastrophic" coverage only, omitting coverage for well-baby visits and preventive care and education that could help people avoid the catastrophic illness later.


IMHO, it's misleading at best to infer that the reason the "working poor" don't have medical insurance is because they choose to not buy it. It's a bit like saying people live in vermin-infested apartments and old broken-down houses because they choose not to buy something better. Sometimes it's not a real choice; sometimes the reality of life collides with intention and plan. Unfortunately, a large portion of the U. S. has bought into the myth that anyone can just up and get themselves a better job and/or more pay. That that does not square with their own experiences or those of pretty much anyone they know does not appear to matter.

I know anecdotes are not data, but I'm guessing most of us know someone like this: A brother of mine has a disease (not a "lifestyle disease", BTW) which does not allow him to take care of himself. Most help is provided by a stream of hired Personal Care Assistants. Despite the fact that they need some training specific to the ailments of those they care for, in our area, they make about $10-12/hour -- with no vacation or holiday pay, no medical or disability insurance, no nothing.

One of my brother's PCAs was an older gentleman who lived with his wife and three of his grandchildren (their parents were not available to be parents). They lived in a small house in a not-so-good part of town (been that way for a long time), drove one used Toyota, really didn't do anything outside the home but work (she worked, too, as a hotel maid), and every month it came down to whether he could afford his blood-pressure medication and/or the doctor's visits required to keep his BP (and the rest of his health) in check.

The gentleman was over 50, not well educated, and "of color" (no, that's not supposed to matter, but in this area for that job it still does). What kind of bootstraps was he supposed to pull on? What better job was he realistically going to get? How much better would this man's life have been if he didn't have to figure out if there was enough cash left after house payments, utilities, car maintenance and fuel, working expenses, food (including food for three tweens/teenagers), and school expenses? How much longer might this man have worked and lived if he didn't die of a heart attack before he was 60? Granted, not everyone becomes financially responsible for their grandchildren, and it's hard to know what other health factors were at play, but they were playing the hand they were dealt (it's not the kids' fault their parents weren't fit) and it forced hard choices that a modern Western healthcare system would not have forced. I don't know as making this family buy health coverage would have been much better; really, this is an argument for single-payer care.

For a country supposedly devoted to the teachings of a man of extreme compassion, we have a funny way of showing it.

bunnys
7-1-12, 12:40pm
The flaw in the bootstrap-pulling-up argument is that it assumes everyone starts with a pair of boots.

gimmethesimplelife
7-1-12, 1:09pm
The flaw in the bootstrap-pulling-up argument is that it assumes everyone starts with a pair of boots.+1

ApatheticNoMore
7-1-12, 1:17pm
I hope the rosier predictions on how this will play out are right, as it seems we are stuck with it anyway (yes even in a Romney win, as it is also a matter of congressional votes - or should be) and yes the existing medical payment system is indeed pretty bad anyway (but that doesn't mean it can't get even worse ... things can *ALWAYS* get worse). The problem is the plan seems to have no real way to control medical COSTS (which are so much the problem), and was indeed written with the health insurance companies in the room (and you know they still need ever increasing profits year after year). And money owns the political process. Thus skepticism ....

I'm quite sure the poor don't buy medical policies when they are offered because they are poor. I worked for a CEO who said he looked at who choose to use the medical insurance at the company and who didn't (and it was not a particularly costly plan), direct relationship with income, it was the lower wage employees who chose to go without. Broke his heart so he choose to have one FREE for the employee medical plan so that all employees could be covered (HMO with quite limited provider network - not the cadillac plan but not high deductable or anything). Bleeding heart businessmen, yea they exist too, but that wasn't the point, the point: I absolutely believe poor people go without policies because they can't afford it. Cobra was $400 a month at my last job and probably would be $600 at this one (because the average age of the workforce is older here). I went for awhile without health insurance (dumb I know - and had health scares then and had to work for several months at this job before qualifying for insurance). Of course the overwhelming amount of the time I have had insurance. And I have no health scares whatsoever ever pretty much, only when I was briefly without it. >8) Even $600 isn't my biggest bill when unemployed, the rent that is due every month is more but it is more flexible - you can always live 4 to a place if rent becomes completely untenable, health insurance has no flexibility.

Oh and though I like many of the founding principles, I've long since ceased waving the flag for a country whose goal is to take over the whole world (or at least any country with resources) in wars of conquest, torture whomever it wants, indefinitely detain whomever it wants, and murder whomever it wants along the way. I may have some sustainably raised meat, some potato salad, etc. and might even watch a public fireworks display although I consider them incredibly wasteful of resources really :(. That's ritual though, don't confuse it with patriotism, it's not.

Rogar
7-1-12, 3:38pm
The vast majority of people have not been chained to their employers for health insurance, it's just been the cheapest way to have it. That will not change under Obamacare.

From my experience, younger people who are healthy are willing to take some risk with health insurance. Once people approach middle and and have families or pre-existing conditions people are indeed chained to employers who offer health insurance. It becomes too expensive, difficult, or for some nearly impossible to get private health coverage . I don't know what constitutes "vast majority", but my estimate from folks I've know would be over half fall of middle age and older workers fall into those categories.

gimmethesimplelife
7-1-12, 3:51pm
From my experience, younger people who are healthy are willing to take some risk with health insurance. Once people approach middle and and have families or pre-existing conditions people are indeed chained to employers who offer health insurance. It becomes too expensive, difficult, or for some nearly impossible to get private health coverage . I don't know what constitutes "vast majority", but my estimate from folks I've know would be over half fall of middle age and older workers fall into those categories.Very well said.......Rob

Zoebird
7-1-12, 4:07pm
I like hte opinion piece, redfox.

I think it's helpful to look at MA's law in this matter -- since "obama care" is a mirror of "romney-Ma-care." They are, surprisingly, very closely related/worded. I find it ironic that Romney is sort of taking the anti-obamacare stance. But I guess he has to.

Uhm, ok. . . here's the wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_health_care_reform) on the MA law, but it doesn't go into how plans have become affordable in general. I'm still looking for the market in MA. Though apparently low income within a certain range of income, that doesn't qualify for medicaid can be insured at no cost to them and no deductable and then above a certain amount there, on an income-based sliding scale.

herbgeek
7-1-12, 5:56pm
The MA plan is not sliding scale, there's one price if you make below about 45K, and one price above. There are different plans at different prices depending on any extra bells and whistles you want and what type of premium and co-pays you want.

I have one of the lowest priced plans available, with high copays and deductibles and for my spouse and I (no kids), it will be $750/month this year, up from $702. If you qualify for the low income plan, its about $110. The low income plan includes lots of extras not available in the non-subsidized plans. When both of us were both unemployed, we briefly qualified for the low income plan. The low income plan has free physicals, vision, and dental. The non subsidized plan is eliminating preventive care this coming year, a physical is just like any office visit subject to co pays and or deductibles, the dental plan is less generous, as is the vision care.

There is a huge jump from 110 to 750 for those at the cusp of the income level. I don't think 9000/year for a family making just over 45K is really "affordable".

bae
7-1-12, 6:18pm
For context, in WA state, my insurance is about $900/month, or ~$11,000 a year, for two 49 year old adults with no health issues, and one 15 year old girl. It covers pretty much just catastrophic care, and a few odds-and-ends, but almost everything is out-of-pocket up to the yearly huge per-person deductable.

That's not affordable here in the context of our county's median wage of $26k/year. And most jobs here don't come with any sort of health care benefit.

gimmethesimplelife
7-1-12, 6:28pm
The MA plan is not sliding scale, there's one price if you make below about 45K, and one price above. There are different plans at different prices depending on any extra bells and whistles you want and what type of premium and co-pays you want.

I have one of the lowest priced plans available, with high copays and deductibles and for my spouse and I (no kids), it will be $750/month this year, up from $702. If you qualify for the low income plan, its about $110. The low income plan includes lots of extras not available in the non-subsidized plans. When both of us were both unemployed, we briefly qualified for the low income plan. The low income plan has free physicals, vision, and dental. The non subsidized plan is eliminating preventive care this coming year, a physical is just like any office visit subject to co pays and or deductibles, the dental plan is less generous, as is the vision care.

There is a huge jump from 110 to 750 for those at the cusp of the income level. I don't think 9000/year for a family making just over 45K is really "affordable".I went to mahealthconnect.org to check out the plans available in Massachusetts and what the subsidies were and what the income criteria were to get the subsidies. Turns out that my being single and waiting tables and making less than 30K a year gets me a smoking hot deal on insurance in Mass - I am amazed!!!! But it I were to make $35,000 (won't happen in this life unless I start some kind of business) I would be paying over $300 a month from the $118 I was looking at and being very jealous of....and this is assuming I even make that much waiting tables, could be much less with an even lower premium to boot. I guess in Massachusetts they take care of the lower end quite well BUT.....I would agree that there needs to be a more graduated climb in the increase in insurance premiums after a certain income level, what you are facing does seem very harsh, I won't deny that.....Rob

Zoebird
7-1-12, 6:43pm
For context, in WA state, my insurance is about $900/month, or ~$11,000 a year, for two 49 year old adults with no health issues, and one 15 year old girl. It covers pretty much just catastrophic care, and a few odds-and-ends, but almost everything is out-of-pocket up to the yearly huge per-person deductable.

That's not affordable here in the context of our county's median wage of $26k/year. And most jobs here don't come with any sort of health care benefit.

I think this is what is exceedingly relevant.

(herbgeek -- thanks for the insight in MA. I have only just started looking at it, and was trusting the wiki. of course, I never fully trust the wiki!)

Rogar
7-1-12, 7:10pm
I haven't looked at the numbers for a while, as hopefully I am pretty much set. But the differences are not only having the employer pay, but also being part of a larger pool of insured. For example, I worked for a fairly large company and am healthy but older. My higher risk of needing insurance is off-set by being in a pool of insured that includes young healthy 20 and 30 somethings who are much less likely to need medical attention. So my health insurance cost, which is shared by myself and my former employer, is averaged down by being part of a diverse age group.

If I were in a position to have to self insure by going out on my own somehow, there might be some cost benefits to being young healthy and single, but I would have to pay an extra premium as a result of being older or by having young children. And if I had certain pre-existing conditions I might have to unsure through the state's high risk pool which is extremely expensive.

Maybe everyone knows that, but I thought it was worth saying.

redfox
7-1-12, 8:36pm
I am opposed to health care being in the commodities market. I'm opposed to all basic human needs being bought & sold for profit, which include housing, food, water, education, & health care. Capitalism is a lousy system for mediating the distribution of these necessary resources.

Capitalism is great for mediating the distribution of many things. It's a tool, like every other economic system, and not every tool works well for every job. I'm not anti-capitalist, or am I anti-open market, especially since I am a sole proprietor business owner. I'm fundamentally in favor of the right tool for the job.

This health care law is beneficial in many ways. We still need a single payer system, preferably with the benes that our Congresspeople receive. I look forward to that day!

awakenedsoul
7-1-12, 10:38pm
Rob,
I totally get what you're saying. Your post doesn't sound emotional to me. I am an artist, so I have basically lived on $20.000.-30,000. a year since 1982. A lot of those years I didn't have health insurance. I was young and not super responsible about those types of bills. I felt that I couldn't afford it, after meeting my basic needs. Now I see that I actually could have afforded catastrophic, had known about buying in bulk, baking my own bread. growing my own food, etc. That takes a lot of time, though. I approach simple living as a full time job now.
I had my own business for part of that time. The thing is, even though it did very well the first year, (50% profit margin,) each year after that it fell 50%. Writing off your health insurance is great, but you have to make enough money to do that. I wasn't able to write off anything but my business rent from 2009 on...I've talked to many small business owners in LA and they all tell me they've been in the red for the last three years. My father warned me that it wasn't a good time to start a business, and he was right. I came out okay, but I did my monthly profit and loss and got out of my lease once I saw that the numbers were tanking. I didn't lose any money. I made some, but not much. I paid off all my SBA loans in two years, and gave refunds to all my customers.
But, if you have a business that is a need, (like food,) I think you're right. Ballet and yoga are luxuries.
Oh, I also know lots of people who have taken jobs for the health insurance benefits. Lots of dancers, especially. MGM offered full coverage. That was a big draw. I worked there for a few years. Many of the guys have HIV, and they definitely look for jobs with good health insurance benefits. I also know people with children who take jobs "they hate" because at least the family has coverage. (Especially if the husband is not working.)

I hope you can start your business. I would just advise having no debt and a year's living expenses and business expenses put aside first. Also, if you have a lease, they're legally binding. Most of the people where I was working were having to do buy outs at 50% of their balance left on the lease. In my case, (had I not gotten out of my lease,) that would have been $25,000. Ouch! Suze Orman has great advice on starting a business in this economy is her book The Money Class.

redfox
7-1-12, 11:16pm
Good heavens, so one sounds emotional! It's pretty damn close to home to be scared of a major illness with no help, or to face the prospects of bankruptcy. It's completely insane that our society does not apparently give a hoot about poor people. Those who lack health insurance are the working poor.

When will we as a people just say no to the immoral profiteering that comes from the health care industry? I detest the fact that this country is the most backward, regressive society in the post-industrial world regarding health care and so many others basic human needs.

bae
7-1-12, 11:22pm
When will we as a people just say no to the immoral profiteering that comes from the health care industry?

How much profiteering is there, really? When I have looked at investing in various healthcare-related businesses, ROI didn't seem exceptionally high, compared to other, boring, moral industries, and was in fact low enough that I found better things to invest in.

How much of the cost isn't "profiteering", but rather "mind-boggling inefficiency"?

Lainey
7-1-12, 11:29pm
Overhead for Medicare is about 3%; overhead for Cigna, etc. is 20-25%. That's profiteering.
Of course overhead will be restricted to 15-20% under the new law.

Have you looked at the pharmaceutical industry? That's profiteering.

bae
7-1-12, 11:31pm
The actual "profit" doesn't seem to be that high though, judged by return to investors, compared to other industries, over time. Bloated overhead being spent on armies of zombie-like paperpushers isn't "profiteering", it's "inefficiency", by my reckoning.

awakenedsoul
7-1-12, 11:55pm
Good heavens, so one sounds emotional! It's pretty damn close to home to be scared of a major illness with no help, or to face the prospects of bankruptcy. It's completely insane that our society does not apparently give a hoot about poor people. Those who lack health insurance are the working poor.

When will we as a people just say no to the immoral profiteering that comes from the health care industry? I detest the fact that this country is the most backward, regressive society in the post-industrial world regarding health care and so many others basic human needs.

It seems to me that most people in the corporate world are so overworked that they are out of touch with artists, single mothers, and other people who make far less money, but do work and use their talents. I feel the corporate workaholics are brainwashed and on the road to severe health problems. To me, that's not a life, but if you don't "play the game" you're fired. When I was teaching, often I worked at five different studios and ran myself ragged. My father wanted me to go to Stanford and find a husband, but I wanted to pursue my dream. He would say, "Why don't you work for Chevron Oil, or Walmart?". I can't deal with the lies and manipulation of a corporate environment. It reminds me of a cult.

bunnys
7-2-12, 12:01am
Don't even get me started on pharmaceuticals! Here's my pharmaceutical anecdote.

I'm 48. I'm vain. I hate wrinkles. About 2 years ago I'd had it and decided I wanted some Retin-A. But I rarely go to the doctor. So I went online and bought some illegal Retin-A via some sketchy online company. I was so scared. I thought they were going to have the DEA busting down my door with their guns drawn. I thought the sketchy company was going to charge my CC up to the limit. Surprisingly, neither of these things happened. Six weeks later I got my illegal Retin-A (2 years worth for about 60 bucks) by way of a slow boat from Mumbai.

Cut to the present. Illegal Retin-A tubes are nearly empty. Thought this time I'd go legit. Not only bc I don't like breaking the law--mostly because I was sure it would be a lot cheaper.

Went to fill my prescription for the generic version of a 25-year-old wrinkle cream drug which is essentially a strong form of Vitamin A acid that surprisingly the pharmaceutical company is not trying to offset a multi-million dollar ad campaign for or doing testing on this drug that's decades old by jacking up their prices. No, they're jacking up their prices to we American dupes because there are no consumer protection pricing laws in the US.

So how much was my drug? $307! For GENERIC! Lickety-split, I went back online to a Canadian pharmacy (Retin-A is OTC in Canada, btw) and purchased the same drug at 1/10th the cost!

This is despicable in my eyes. I want Obamacare Part 2: The Drugs, this year!

gimmethesimplelife
7-2-12, 12:13am
Don't even get me started on pharmaceuticals! Here's my pharmaceutical anecdote.

I'm 48. I'm vain. I hate wrinkles. About 2 years ago I'd had it and decided I wanted some Retin-A. But I rarely go to the doctor. So I went online and bought some illegal Retin-A via some sketchy online company. I was so scared. I thought they were going to have the DEA busting down my door with their guns drawn. I thought the sketchy company was going to charge my CC up to the limit. Surprisingly, neither of these things happened. Six weeks later I got my illegal Retin-A (2 years worth for about 60 bucks) by way of a slow boat from Mumbai.

Cut to the present. Illegal Retin-A tubes are nearly empty. Thought this time I'd go legit. Not only bc I don't like breaking the law--mostly because I was sure it would be a lot cheaper.

Went to fill my prescription for the generic version of a 25-year-old wrinkle cream drug which is essentially a strong form of Vitamin A acid that surprisingly the pharmaceutical company is not trying to offset a multi-million dollar ad campaign for or doing testing on this drug that's decades old by jacking up their prices. No, they're jacking up their prices to we American dupes because there are no consumer protection pricing laws in the US.

So how much was my drug? $307! For GENERIC! Lickety-split, I went back online to a Canadian pharmacy (Retin-A is OTC in Canada, btw) and purchased the same drug at 1/10th the cost!

This is despicable in my eyes. I want Obamacare Part 2: The Drugs, this year!Do you want to hear something that will make you more anti-pharma? I just got back from Mexico where I purchased two tubes of retin A over the counter.......for $2.25 each....generic of cource, but $2.25 each!!!!! Turns out that THE MEXICAN GOVERNMENT REGULATES WHAT PHARMACEUTICALS COST!!!!! Yes, you heard that right, crooked though they may be, they actually regulate what pharmaceuticals can cost in Mexico!!!! Once I discovered that a few years ago, I really started questioning A LOT....Rob

gimmethesimplelife
7-2-12, 12:17am
It seems to me that most people in the corporate world are so overworked that they are out of touch with artists, single mothers, and other people who make far less money, but do work and use their talents. I feel the corporate workaholics are brainwashed and on the road to severe health problems. To me, that's not a life, but if you don't "play the game" you're fired. When I was teaching, often I worked at five different studios and ran myself ragged. My father wanted me to go to Stanford and find a husband, but I wanted to pursue my dream. He would say, "Why don't you work for Chevron Oil, or Walmart?". I can't deal with the lies and manipulation of a corporate environment. It reminds me of a cult.This is very similar to how I feel and part of the reason I have made some of the life choices I have and have remained waiting tables....I just could not give that much of myself to an employer.....What I would get in return would not justify it.....slow death, no time, no peace, no serenity....just work/consume, work/consume, work/consume......No thanks!!!!! Rob

gimmethesimplelife
7-2-12, 12:20am
Overhead for Medicare is about 3%; overhead for Cigna, etc. is 20-25%. That's profiteering.
Of course overhead will be restricted to 15-20% under the new law.

Have you looked at the pharmaceutical industry? That's profiteering.When I was in Mexico last week, I compared the price of Celebrex my mom takes - Walmart, with no insurance, cash price - $130, vs. in Mexico over the counter, $34! To me the price diffential is profiteering, no matter what kind of spin you want to put on it......Rob

gimmethesimplelife
7-2-12, 12:23am
Good heavens, so one sounds emotional! It's pretty damn close to home to be scared of a major illness with no help, or to face the prospects of bankruptcy. It's completely insane that our society does not apparently give a hoot about poor people. Those who lack health insurance are the working poor.

When will we as a people just say no to the immoral profiteering that comes from the health care industry? I detest the fact that this country is the most backward, regressive society in the post-industrial world regarding health care and so many others basic human needs. I couldn't agree with you more, especially with your 2nd paragraph! Makes me very glad to be part of this online community.....there are some folks here on the same page or a similar page with me......Rob

gimmethesimplelife
7-2-12, 12:29am
Rob,
I totally get what you're saying. Your post doesn't sound emotional to me. I am an artist, so I have basically lived on $20.000.-30,000. a year since 1982. A lot of those years I didn't have health insurance. I was young and not super responsible about those types of bills. I felt that I couldn't afford it, after meeting my basic needs. Now I see that I actually could have afforded catastrophic, had known about buying in bulk, baking my own bread. growing my own food, etc. That takes a lot of time, though. I approach simple living as a full time job now.
I had my own business for part of that time. The thing is, even though it did very well the first year, (50% profit margin,) each year after that it fell 50%. Writing off your health insurance is great, but you have to make enough money to do that. I wasn't able to write off anything but my business rent from 2009 on...I've talked to many small business owners in LA and they all tell me they've been in the red for the last three years. My father warned me that it wasn't a good time to start a business, and he was right. I came out okay, but I did my monthly profit and loss and got out of my lease once I saw that the numbers were tanking. I didn't lose any money. I made some, but not much. I paid off all my SBA loans in two years, and gave refunds to all my customers.
But, if you have a business that is a need, (like food,) I think you're right. Ballet and yoga are luxuries.
Oh, I also know lots of people who have taken jobs for the health insurance benefits. Lots of dancers, especially. MGM offered full coverage. That was a big draw. I worked there for a few years. Many of the guys have HIV, and they definitely look for jobs with good health insurance benefits. I also know people with children who take jobs "they hate" because at least the family has coverage. (Especially if the husband is not working.)

I hope you can start your business. I would just advise having no debt and a year's living expenses and business expenses put aside first. Also, if you have a lease, they're legally binding. Most of the people where I was working were having to do buy outs at 50% of their balance left on the lease. In my case, (had I not gotten out of my lease,) that would have been $25,000. Ouch! Suze Orman has great advice on starting a business in this economy is her book The Money Class.Thanks for the advice and the good wishes about starting a business.....I am starting to see it as a soul preservation move as waiting tables with the downturn in the economy has become all about extracting the max dollar you can out of each and every partron, with many places keeping track of your sales prowess with sophisticated software now.....UGGGGGH! At least I want to say I tried going out on my own. About having some money saved - definitely important, also to have bills down as low as they can go and debt, if not gone 100%, very minimal.....I will check out the Suze Orman book too, thanks for the recommendation! Rob

heydude
7-2-12, 2:17am
Obamacare does not exist. I cannot list it on my insurance form at the doctors office.

flowerseverywhere
7-2-12, 2:38am
The actual "profit" doesn't seem to be that high though, judged by return to investors, compared to other industries, over time. Bloated overhead being spent on armies of zombie-like paperpushers isn't "profiteering", it's "inefficiency", by my reckoning.

after reading every entry this one stuck out to me. When I see a giant gleaming building with an insurance company logo on it full of workers all I can think of is a portion of everyones premium goes to supporting all of this. I for one would like to go to an MD office that doesn't need a whole section of workers dedicated to working with insurance companies. I wish I could find an office where I go in, pay cash for what I consume and that is is. No subsidizing the bloated staff they have to have, no paying an insurance company CEO, no drugs that an MD prescribes because the rep was just in that week. I believe the large majority of people would do very well under this system and it would give much more incentive for people to take care of themselves rather than relying on a magic pill.
Unfortunatly I am chained to the current system and don't know how to get out of it. I actually tried to find a for cash western style MD and there are none anywhere around me.

Rogar
7-2-12, 8:13am
There was a 60 minutes program quite a while ago that compared management and administration fees as a percent of medical costs for various countries and the U.S. was indeed significantly higher than the others. Like Bae, I don't think anyone is especially taking us to the cleaners, it's just a cumbersome and inefficient system.

At least in my area there are an increasing number of doctors who do not take medicare patients. I am hearing more and more about doctors who do not accept insurance. I am not sure that I understand how this works, but somehow patients pay cash up front for a yearly care contract.

It is too bad our politicians did not tackle these two big issues around escalating medical costs and problems first. The shortage of doctors and inefficiencies of the system will continue to be a burden on Medicare, taxpayers, and the federal budget. maybe in a bigger way than Obamacare.

dmc
7-2-12, 8:15am
This is very similar to how I feel and part of the reason I have made some of the life choices I have and have remained waiting tables....I just could not give that much of myself to an employer.....What I would get in return would not justify it.....slow death, no time, no peace, no serenity....just work/consume, work/consume, work/consume......No thanks!!!!! Rob

But your OK with those working stiffs who will be subsidizing your health care.

dmc
7-2-12, 8:18am
When I was in Mexico last week, I compared the price of Celebrex my mom takes - Walmart, with no insurance, cash price - $130, vs. in Mexico over the counter, $34! To me the price diffential is profiteering, no matter what kind of spin you want to put on it......Rob

I wonder how much the cost of all the regulations , liability, ect the US has compared to Mexico?

SteveinMN
7-2-12, 8:48am
I wonder how much the cost of all the regulations , liability, ect the US has compared to Mexico?
I was hoping someone would raise this point. It may seem like "gouging" to pay multiples of the Mexican price for a particular drug, but at least some of the money paid in the U.S. goes to paying U.S. employees living wages (or, in the case of their CEOs, much better than that); FDA approval (it would be interesting to learn about the approval cycle for drugs in Mexico); the higher costs of transportation; ligitation; etc.

I don't doubt for a minute that drug-company and insurance-company CEOs are largely overpaid (like their brethren in other large American businesses), and I know from personal experience (worked in doctors and hospitals in an earlier life) that the paperwork is crushing. I might be more enthusiastic about the current pay-for-play system if, indeed, the outcomes truly were better. But when you look at key metrics like infant mortaility, life expectancy, etc., for all the money spent on health care here, the U.S. is well behind countries with tax-funded universal-coverage plans. And even spectacular outcomes don't matter if you can't afford the treatment in the first place.

Frankly, I'm not that thrilled about ACA. I really wanted a more comprehensive plan -- single payer, tort reform (willful malpractice and fraud are one thing; guessing wrong is another, but today in America many folks want others to pay when they make a mistake), and maybe a little reason behind just how much we spend on end-of-life care. ACA simply is better than what we had before. But it's rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic to believe it will fix the problems with health care in the U.S.

bunnys
7-2-12, 9:49am
Steve:

You're right.

Infant mortality rankings--Industrialized nations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mortality_rate
Many of the countries higher on the list have government-run insurance companies. We're number 34.

Life expectancy rankings--IN
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy
We're number 38. Many ahead of us have "socialized" (read: Satanic) health insurance.

Just do a Google search of FDA and "big pharma" and you'll get dozens of hits about how corrupt the drug approval procedure is. I don't believe that I can blindly count on the quality/safety/effectiveness of a prescription I get from my doctor simply because it was approved by the FDA.

Redfox: Can you imagine an issue where Americans would be more likely to get emotional than life/death as represented by our health care industry?

DMC: Rob isn't a "working stiff?" I think his posts have stated all along that he is absolutely not ok with other working stiffs subsidizing his health care. That's why he agrees with Obamacare (I actually love the name Heydude. Ultimately this program will be loved by Americans just as SS is and his name will be associated with it forever.) That's why Rob wants opportunities for those without health insurance to get it through a government plan so all the working stiffs out there who are currently paying for those who run to the emergency room with no insurance can get a better deal--and so a portion of it will actually be paid by those who just take now and don't contribute. (Sorry for the run-on sentence.)

gimmethesimplelife
7-2-12, 10:14am
But your OK with those working stiffs who will be subsidizing your health care.Im still working....I very much am working and am indeed a "working stiff" as you put it.....My questions are why is my contribution to society not worth health care and why is the work I perform deemed not worthy of health care? Are you saying that overworked corporate folks are worth health care and folks who have made my life decisions - even though they are still working and contributing to society - are not? Perhaps I am misunderstanding you - and I don't mean this personally - if this is what you are saying, and I could be wrong, ok? - it is this kind of thinking that very much embarrasses me to be a citizen of the United States. It is this kind of thinking that led to the Occupy Wall Street Movement, and I worry it is this kind of thinking that may lead to revolution down the road....Make things too unequal, eventually the people rise up.....Rob

gimmethesimplelife
7-2-12, 10:19am
I wonder how much the cost of all the regulations , liability, ect the US has compared to Mexico?I don't deny you have a point here dmc.....But the fact that you have a point here does not help me pay the $96 differential to buy these pills here in the US.....Since I value my life energy, what other choice do I have but to outsource these kinds of things to Mexico when it is more cost effective to do so? And on some level, would I not be guilty of condoning this $96 price differential if I did not outsource this to Mexico? Food for thought.....Rob PS I'm coming back to add that if I had insurance, which I don't, and it had some kind of prescription drug benefit, of cource the math would be different and I would see this much differently. So for those reading this who have prescription drug coverage, imagine the math here if you didn't have this, and how differently you might then see things.....

gimmethesimplelife
7-2-12, 10:38am
@ Bunnys - I tried to make a comment on what you had posted and I messed it up somehow, this is why you will see an edited by gimmethesimplelife at the bottom of your last post.

Just wanted to say - Thank you, you understand, thank you. You know, seriously, if it helped myself and others to get healthcare, I wouldn't mind paying 1/3 more in taxes every year to the Federal Government. Seriously. Now here I would like to add that I don't make that much so my taxes are not that high, and also I am single without children and my bills are very low. So I can make a statement like that and mean it but I do understand that there are many who are in different situations who could not. For me it would mean a couple of hundred dollars extra a year, much less than the cost of buying it on the individual market, which I can not afford, or even get due to a pre-existing condition.....And paying this extra would eliminate the concept of a "free ride" as I am paying my fair share towards something that would directly benefit me.....Rob

Gingerella72
7-2-12, 11:20am
The vast majority of people have not been chained to their employers for health insurance, it's just been the cheapest way to have it. That will not change under Obamacare.

Many, many people stay at jobs they don't like because of their health insurance coverage through that job, because it is unaffordable otherwise. How is that not being chained to their employer?

Alan
7-2-12, 12:21pm
Many, many people stay at jobs they don't like because of their health insurance coverage through that job, because it is unaffordable otherwise. How is that not being chained to their employer?
Health insurance is available to most people outside employment. What an individual may find affordable or not, is another issue.

This will not change under the Affordable Care Act. Although there will be subsidies available to various income levels, will it match the employer subsidies for all?

Also, since the pending government subsidies come from the taxpayer, does the argument that healthcare will be cheaper under the Affordable Care Act hold water? If we're subsidizing 10 or 20 or 30 million people at a level of up to $5K or more annually, will that be cheaper than the current model, or will it increase overall health care cost per individual?

While I'm asking questions, what about the role of pharma in overall expense? If the government, in an effort to bring down expenses, starts putting price controls on prescription medication, what effect will that have on availability? On research and development of new medications?

If they insist on generic prescriptions, what would incentivize pharma to take a chance on the R&D expense, the regulatory hoops and the simple risk involved in bringing new drugs to market? And, what effect would that have on those countries whose lower cost prescriptions are a direct result of their ability to capitalize on American pharma's intellectual properties.

Actually, there are hundreds of relevant questions that must be taken into account before we can truly assess the technical benefits of this legislation, not to mention the social costs of additional governmental control.

dmc
7-2-12, 12:31pm
Im still working....I very much am working and am indeed a "working stiff" as you put it.....My questions are why is my contribution to society not worth health care and why is the work I perform deemed not worthy of health care? Are you saying that overworked corporate folks are worth health care and folks who have made my life decisions - even though they are still working and contributing to society - are not? Perhaps I am misunderstanding you - and I don't mean this personally - if this is what you are saying, and I could be wrong, ok? - it is this kind of thinking that very much embarrasses me to be a citizen of the United States. It is this kind of thinking that led to the Occupy Wall Street Movement, and I worry it is this kind of thinking that may lead to revolution down the road....Make things too unequal, eventually the people rise up.....Rob

Most make choices, you say you make around $30,000. You, for whatever reason either chose a job that does not pay much, or do not wish to put in more time to pay for insurance. You claim you can not afford a few hundred dollars more a month, at $15 a hour that's only 13 hours more a month. You seem to have time to spend in Mexico.

Now I know there are always exceptions, but many want $10,000 worth of services, but want to pay $5,000. I pay $14,000 a year in health insurance. I could chose to pay less, or more, but this is the plan that my wife and I chose. And I pay with after tax dollars as I am not employed.

I have seen nowhere were the cost is suppose to go down, unless you get a subsidy from the government. With the insurance company's basically writing the bill for the Democrat's, I don't see them taking a hit. They just may get more money directly from nanny government.

freein05
7-2-12, 1:02pm
DMC said "Most make choices, you say you make around $30,000. You, for whatever reason either chose a job that does not pay much, or do not wish to put in more time to pay for insurance. You claim you can not afford a few hundred dollars more a month, at $15 a hour that's only 13 hours more a month. You seem to have time to spend in Mexico. "

What world are you living in. Many of if not a majority of the jobs in the new service economy pay less than $30,000 a year. The service economy for many waitress, Walmart sales clerks. Walmart has a tradition of only having their clerks work 30 hours a week so they don't pay medical insurance. Many did not chose these jobs. They are the only jobs available! Ask the service people at your country club what they make better yet go out of the country club and ask people in the real US what they make.

bae
7-2-12, 1:17pm
I would like to work hard at my new profession of philosopher/blacksmith, and I find it upsetting that our unenlightened society doesn't value my hard work highly enough to pay for my health care, shelter, food, and education.

Alan
7-2-12, 1:36pm
This is very similar to how I feel and part of the reason I have made some of the life choices I have and have remained waiting tables....I just could not give that much of myself to an employer.....What I would get in return would not justify it.....slow death, no time, no peace, no serenity....just work/consume, work/consume, work/consume......No thanks!!!!! Rob
Rob, I'll try and say this as respectfully and non-confrontationally as I can, but, what you're asking is that others subsidize your choices in a manner that you're unwilling to do yourself and implying that any country that does not subsidize your choices to your standard does not deserve your citizenship. I honestly believe you've got something backward in that equation.

ApatheticNoMore
7-2-12, 1:52pm
It probably isn't good to start calling middle class workers "brainwashed" and "cult members" when we are just trying to earn a living, just like you (that wasn't Rob directly though). We don't all have spouses to provide health insurance coverage and other free rides etc.. Because this middle class person will always know that the conditions that first affect lower wage workers will affect us soon enough (in fact are used to terrify us of losing our middle class jobs). Because this middle class person would never cross a working class picket, let Whole Foods and Starbucks strike and this yuppie scum will refrain from shopping at their favorite yuppie scum destinations for the duration of the strike :) (actually I don't go to starbucks very often anyway but ... couldn't resist the stereotype). Now whether or not I think a corporatist health care law is the solution I have my doubts, because the pharmaceutical and insurance companies are as much the problem as anything.

awakenedsoul
7-2-12, 2:05pm
Rob,
I'm going to move on from this thread because I feel you are being treated rudely. I don't like the tone or referring to people who earn less as "working stiffs." It's strange to me to treat people who are low income as if they are lazy and/or not working. The field I worked in, (Broadway musicals, television variety shows, and film,) only the top 1% make it. I can't put a price on the relationships and the talent the I experienced. Priceless to me. Sometimes people who aren't artists poo poo it, and don't consider it a real job.
There are positives to living on less. I thought as a simple living forum most people here were real do it yourself types and working towards self sufficiency. If you can cut your expenses in half, sometimes the solution(s) will appear. Maybe you will live in Mexico. I've read a book on people who retired early by reducing their expenses. They have a community of retired Americans there who can live on $600. a month! I'm sure there's an answer, and that you will find it. People have mocked me for my choices, but I was able to retire at 47, so I don't care. At this point, I don't use Western medicine. I do have the catastrophic as a safety net.

gimmethesimplelife
7-2-12, 2:11pm
Rob,
I'm going to move on from this thread because I feel you are being treated rudely. I don't like the tone and referring to people who earn less as "working stiffs." It's strange to me to treat people who are low income as if they are lazy and/or not working. The field I worked in, only the top 1% make a living. Sometimes people who aren't artists poo poo it, and don't consider it a real job.
There are positives to living on less. I thought as a simple living forum most people here were real do it yourself types and working towards self sufficiency, but I guess not. If you can cut your expenses in half, sometimes the solutions will appear. Maybe you will live in Mexico. I've read a book on people who retired early by reducing their expenses. They have a community of Americans there who can live on $600. a month! I'm sure there's an answer, and that you will find it.Thanks Awakened Soul.....I do have the feeling for the me, personally, the future lies in leaving the US....I sure wouldn't be the first, and I sure won't be the last. But for what it's worth, there are still good folks here and I am very excited to see ObamaCare pass.....Rob

bae
7-2-12, 2:15pm
I thought as a simple living forum most people here were real do it yourself types and working towards self sufficiency.

It seems to me that if your "self sufficiency" requires others to pay for your lifestyle, you aren't really "doing it yourself".

redfox
7-2-12, 2:17pm
I would like to work hard at my new profession of philosopher/blacksmith, and I find it upsetting that our unenlightened society doesn't value my hard work highly enough to pay for my health care, shelter, food, and education.

Lucky you, to have a choice about it all, as well as the means to get the insurance you want. Most folks, as I imagine you know, are not in this position.

I am damn lucky to have a MA (which I hope I can pay for), and to have gotten pretty continuous work in my field. However, being 57, and a half time contractor, I am now paying out of pocket for my health insurance. I cannot afford anything other than catastrophic, which means that little stuff is going unaddressed, including two chronic health issues. Hopefully little stuff doesn't turn into bigger stuff...

After 30 years in a non-profit career, I would have liked to have a robust retirement & a steady, good salary with good health benes. Oh well, tough sh*tt for me. If I'd had the capability, I would have gotten a degree in computer science, the only thing that appears to pay well, but I don't.

A society that structures itself around a winner take all economic system is a travesty.

gimmethesimplelife
7-2-12, 2:18pm
Rob, I'll try and say this as respectfully and non-confrontationally as I can, but, what you're asking is that others subsidize your choices in a manner that you're unwilling to do yourself and implying that any country that does not subsidize your choices to your standard does not deserve your citizenship. I honestly believe you've got something backward in that equation.So. Alan, it is OK that I work a 40 hour week with no benefits, this is OK to you that not just myself but many others out there do this? The constant fear these people must endure, this is OK for you? I don't mean this confrontationally either.....Is such citizenship worth having over the long haul? Maybe when one is young and healthy, but as they get older, is this viable citizenship for those not in the mast majority you refer to? I really wonder......At any rate, it looks like ObamaCare is the law of the land now, for better or worse, and I don't know that it can be repealed by those who want it gone.....So it looks like things are moving a little more in a direction that I would personally prefer, all politics aside.....Rob

bunnys
7-2-12, 2:20pm
I would like to work hard at my new profession of philosopher/blacksmith, and I find it upsetting that our unenlightened society doesn't value my hard work highly enough to pay for my health care, shelter, food, and education.

Bae: Do you have a PhD in Philosophy? Because if you did you'd realize that the big money with PhD's in Philosophy can be found in the carpentry field. Blacksmithing is way too antiquated a skill to make a living at and must be subsidized by the government. If you don't have a PhD, I suggest you go back to school and then you can REALLY cash in!

gimmethesimplelife
7-2-12, 2:22pm
Lucky you, to have a choice about it all, as well as the means to get the insurance you want. Most folks, as I imagine you know, are not in this position.

I am damn lucky to have a MA (which I hope I can pay for), and to have gotten pretty continuous work in my field. However, being 57, and a half time contractor, I am now paying out of pocket for my health insurance. I cannot afford anything other than catastrophic, which means that little stuff is going unaddressed, including two chronic health issues. Hopefully little stuff doesn't turn into bigger stuff...

After 30 years in a non-profit career, I would have liked to have a robust retirement & a steady, good salary with good health benes. Oh well, tough sh*tt for me. If I'd had the capability, I would have gotten a degree in computer science, the only thing that appears to pay well, but I don't.

A society that structures itself around a winner take all economic system is a travesty.It most certainly is a travesty, and sadder still, there are many out there who don't see this.....I take some comfort in the knowledge that I am not alone in seeing this, though, and I do support the rights of others to completely disagree with me on this.....Rob

gimmethesimplelife
7-2-12, 2:25pm
Rob,
I'm going to move on from this thread because I feel you are being treated rudely. I don't like the tone or referring to people who earn less as "working stiffs." It's strange to me to treat people who are low income as if they are lazy and/or not working. The field I worked in, (Broadway musicals, television variety shows, and film,) only the top 1% make it. I can't put a price on the relationships and the talent the I experienced. Priceless to me. Sometimes people who aren't artists poo poo it, and don't consider it a real job.
There are positives to living on less. I thought as a simple living forum most people here were real do it yourself types and working towards self sufficiency. If you can cut your expenses in half, sometimes the solution(s) will appear. Maybe you will live in Mexico. I've read a book on people who retired early by reducing their expenses. They have a community of retired Americans there who can live on $600. a month! I'm sure there's an answer, and that you will find it. People have mocked me for my choices, but I was able to retire at 47, so I don't care. At this point, I don't use Western medicine. I do have the catastrophic as a safety net.One thing about this board, it's very diverse, much like society is.,,,,,There's a little of everything represented here and this is in my mind a good thing.....Rob

ApatheticNoMore
7-2-12, 2:26pm
After 30 years in a non-profit career, I would have liked to have a robust retirement & a steady, good salary with good health benes. Oh well, tough sh*tt for me. If I'd had the capability, I would have gotten a degree in computer science, the only thing that appears to pay well, but I don't.

I'd prefer to work 30 years in a non-profit personally. It seems much more fullfilling, purposeful, and aligned with who I am. I don't have the advanced degrees and so it is not going to happen.


It's strange to me to treat people who are low income as if they are lazy and/or not working.

it's strange to me to treat people with maybe only slighter higher incomes as brainwashed cult members ..... I recall those words from somewhere.

gimmethesimplelife
7-2-12, 2:32pm
Most make choices, you say you make around $30,000. You, for whatever reason either chose a job that does not pay much, or do not wish to put in more time to pay for insurance. You claim you can not afford a few hundred dollars more a month, at $15 a hour that's only 13 hours more a month. You seem to have time to spend in Mexico.

Now I know there are always exceptions, but many want $10,000 worth of services, but want to pay $5,000. I pay $14,000 a year in health insurance. I could chose to pay less, or more, but this is the plan that my wife and I chose. And I pay with after tax dollars as I am not employed.

I have seen nowhere were the cost is suppose to go down, unless you get a subsidy from the government. With the insurance company's basically writing the bill for the Democrat's, I don't see them taking a hit. They just may get more money directly from nanny government.About my time in Mexico, I got a ride to and from and paid $20 in gas each way, and I paid $20 a night for my room in a hotel, and around $5 a day eating food from street vendors....my only real expenses were the meds I came down to get, all much cheaper than in the US and herbs (legal let me stress) at the herb shop, once again, much cheaper than in the US. And last year, for the record, I made $14,000 - my $30,000 days date back to the boom. On $14,000 I can't afford insurance, it's just not going to happen.....Should I suffer then, would this be OK? And if that's your answer, I'm OK with it, I would just wonder is this a country that I want to be part of? I really have to wonder sometimes.....Rob

Alan
7-2-12, 2:36pm
So. Alan, it is OK that I work a 40 hour week with no benefits, this is OK to you that not just myself but many others out there do this?
I can only comment on those things you've said and you said your work is the result of your life choices. Should anyone else be required to subsidize your choices or is that something better done yourself?

If your situation in life is indeed the result of life choices, I can only assume you value that choice above all others and went into it knowing the result. If you now value something else more, perhaps your life choices should change as well.

I believe in helping others in need, but I also believe they have the obligation to help themselves first.

flowerseverywhere
7-2-12, 2:39pm
Interestingly one of my Artist friends has worked for years under the table, and avoided paying taxes as well as her husband. one day she said to me "Our Government should be ashamed of itself not providing healthcare to it's citizens." That attitude is wanting it both ways. I don't see that the original poster is saying that at all.

It is totally different if you do everything legal, pay your taxes, work hard and try to get ahead yet are still struggling. Not all of us can be brain surgeons or computer specialists. Many good jobs that normal people used to have are now outsourced and all that is left are service jobs.

Maybe what we need are death panels. If you can pay, you are in and can get treatment. If not, too bad so sad. Maybe you should have worked a little harder, been born another color, on the other side of the tracks, or to two caring parents who even if not married cared about your well being, or even with a higher IQ.

I don't think we are talking about something for nothing here. But some are making gigantic profits on the backs of the middle and lower middle class (certainly not first line health care professionals). I don't see that changing much.

redfox
7-2-12, 2:51pm
Interestingly one of my Artist friends has worked for years under the table, and avoided paying taxes as well as her husband. one day she said to me "Our Government should be ashamed of itself not providing healthcare to it's citizens." That attitude is wanting it both ways. I don't see that the original poster is saying that at all.

It is totally different if you do everything legal, pay your taxes, work hard and try to get ahead yet are still struggling. Not all of us can be brain surgeons or computer specialists. Many good jobs that normal people used to have are now outsourced and all that is left are service jobs.

Maybe what we need are death panels. If you can pay, you are in and can get treatment. If not, too bad so sad. Maybe you should have worked a little harder, been born another color, on the other side of the tracks, or to two caring parents who even if not married cared about your well being, or even with a higher IQ.

I don't think we are talking about something for nothing here. But some are making gigantic profits on the backs of the middle and lower middle class (certainly not first line health care professionals). I don't see that changing much.

Yes, paying taxes is important if one wants the services! I pay 28% as a self-employed person. And, we already have "death panels". Those denied insurance or specific coverage die all the time due to lack of access to care.

My Mom is a retired hospital administrator, and in the 70's was seeking solutions to the way the health care system was structured. She kept telling us all that it was headed for collapse because it was so unsustainable. Time to get it all out of the for-profit market. Single payer!

gimmethesimplelife
7-2-12, 3:35pm
I can only comment on those things you've said and you said your work is the result of your life choices. Should anyone else be required to subsidize your choices or is that something better done yourself?

If your situation in life is indeed the result of life choices, I can only assume you value that choice above all others and went into it knowing the result. If you now value something else more, perhaps your life choices should change as well.

I believe in helping others in need, but I also believe they have the obligation to help themselves first.Fair enough.....This post of yours does seem reasonable to me about this issue. For the record, I have been looking for hotel jobs - serving, front desk, prep cook, anything - that are F/T with benefits - no luck. For starters here in Phoenix you are only going to get hired for 30 hours a week at such a place so you don't qualify for benefits.....which means you are better off just working in a restaurant at 4.65/hr (min for tipped employees in Arizona) and tips.....do the math and once benefits are not on the table, the math gets very easy......I will keep looking but at the moment it seems like insurance for me is the Mexican border until January 1st, 2014...and then signing up for insurance on one of the exchanges. As as a side comment, I have nothing but good things to say for the doctors in Los Algodones, Mexico, and no qualms whatsoever in going to them, just wish they were not 3.5 hours away, without a car this can get problematic.....Rob

gimmethesimplelife
7-2-12, 4:03pm
Yes, paying taxes is important if one wants the services! I pay 28% as a self-employed person. And, we already have "death panels". Those denied insurance or specific coverage die all the time due to lack of access to care.

My Mom is a retired hospital administrator, and in the 70's was seeking solutions to the way the health care system was structured. She kept telling us all that it was headed for collapse because it was so unsustainable. Time to get it all out of the for-profit market. Single payer!One of my problems with American health care is that I am aware that we already have the "death panels" you mentioned, Redfox.....How do I find it within myself to forgive the United States for this? There's a real difficult task if ever there was one!!!!! Rob

Alan
7-2-12, 4:05pm
Fair enough.....This post of yours does seem reasonable to me about this issue. For the record, I have been looking for hotel jobs - serving, front desk, prep cook, anything - that are F/T with benefits - no luck. For starters here in Phoenix you are only going to get hired for 30 hours a week at such a place so you don't qualify for benefits.....which means you are better off just working in a restaurant at 4.65/hr (min for tipped employees in Arizona) and tips.....do the math and once benefits are not on the table, the math gets very easy......I will keep looking but at the moment it seems like insurance for me is the Mexican border until January 1st, 2014...and then signing up for insurance on one of the exchanges. As as a side comment, I have nothing but good things to say for the doctors in Los Algodones, Mexico, and no qualms whatsoever in going to them, just wish they were not 3.5 hours away, without a car this can get problematic.....Rob
Have you looked at companies which provide outsourced food service to industry? One of my responsibilites at my job is to manage our outsourced cafeteria services. The company provides us with staff and their purchasing abilities through their restauraunt industry association to manage our cafeteria, vending and office coffee service. The cafeteria provides breakfast and lunch Mon-Fri as well as on-site catering for meetings and company events.

The way it works is the company provides a chef manager, two sous chef's and a cashier. We pay all the expenses incurred above sales, which currently is requiring approximately $140K a year in subsidy for cafeteria and another $25K or so in office coffee subsidy.

All the positions are full time w/benefits, although none of the hourly workers elect to receive health insurance. If they did, our subsidy would be higher.

The lowest paying position is the cashier's and it pays $14.75 per hour. If you want to work full-time in the food service industry, I'd think something like this might appeal to you.

bae
7-2-12, 4:07pm
One of my problems with American health care is that I am aware that we already have the "death panels" you mentioned, Redfox.....How do I find it within myself to forgive the United States for this?

Given non-infinite resources, how do you propose we ration healthcare, Rob?

Or is the United States morally obligated to spend whatever it takes for every condition and injury?

flowerseverywhere
7-2-12, 4:54pm
One of my problems with American health care is that I am aware that we already have the "death panels" you mentioned, Redfox.....How do I find it within myself to forgive the United States for this? There's a real difficult task if ever there was one!!!!! Rob

I don't get the connection between the healthcare problem and forgiving the United States. I see the rest of your points but as an avid history reader our treatment of individuals is so superior to anything that has ever been in the past it is remarkable. Yes, we are not perfect but we continue to move forward.

For things like heart transplants say, not only is there the initial surgery but a lifetime of anti-rejection drugs. For Cancer patients, there can be round after round of surgery, chemotherapy and radiation. One of my relatives was hit by a drunk driver and his medical bills exceeded $1,000,000 in less than one year and he was able to walk and talk after the first month. Very perplexing moral dilemnas. When to pull the plug or say enough is enough. How tiny babies can be and be saved. How many fetuses are too many for a woman to carry? How much fertility treatment and IVF should insurance pay for? How many inpatient alcohol and drug treatment programs? How many weight loss surgeries?

I know after working as a nurse for a lifetime I would be very careful before I started any cancer treatment to be sure I actually had a really good chance of recovery after one round of treatment. I know I would not want years of that torture, but people are different.

gimmethesimplelife
7-2-12, 5:14pm
I don't get the connection between the healthcare problem and forgiving the United States. I see the rest of your points but as an avid history reader our treatment of individuals is so superior to anything that has ever been in the past it is remarkable. Yes, we are not perfect but we continue to move forward.

For things like heart transplants say, not only is there the initial surgery but a lifetime of anti-rejection drugs. For Cancer patients, there can be round after round of surgery, chemotherapy and radiation. One of my relatives was hit by a drunk driver and his medical bills exceeded $1,000,000 in less than one year and he was able to walk and talk after the first month. Very perplexing moral dilemnas. When to pull the plug or say enough is enough. How tiny babies can be and be saved. How many fetuses are too many for a woman to carry? How much fertility treatment and IVF should insurance pay for? How many inpatient alcohol and drug treatment programs? How many weight loss surgeries?

I know after working as a nurse for a lifetime I would be very careful before I started any cancer treatment to be sure I actually had a really good chance of recovery after one round of treatment. I know I would not want years of that torture, but people are different.Hi, just wanted to explain. The connection between healthcare and forgiving the United States for me is this - I find it inexcusable that there is such an inequality of wealth in this country that is getting worse and worse every year - that so many good paying jobs are being shipped overseas - that so much of the money is concentrated in fewer and fewer hands every year - maybe there is not much I can do about this - but I draw the line at letting people die becuase they don't have health insurance. I just can't forgive this - it goes against the very grain of my soul. Such a thing should be criminal with cash settlements - large ones - involved IMHO.....This aspect of American health care absolutely terrifies me and seriously makes me question the long term viability of this citizenship.....But I will say with ObamaCare passing, I do see some hope for the future.....But how do we forgive those who have been left to die as human life is not automatically worth health care in the US? Maybe for others, there is no issue here, and fine, I am OK with that, but for me it is a huge, huge, huge, huge, never really will ever go all the way away kind of thing.....Rob

Alan
7-2-12, 5:30pm
.....But how do we forgive those who have been left to die as human life is not automatically worth health care in the US? .....
Is your issue with health care or health insurance? I have to ask because I'm not aware of anyone being left to die due to lack of health care. In my own family, my brother-in-law, who is the poster child for irresponsible behavior, was able to use Medicaid to save his life after being diagnosed with lung cancer.

Of course, Medicaid would require a person to use some of their own resources to cover their expenses. Is that the real issue, that people shouldn't have any skin in the game?

gimmethesimplelife
7-2-12, 5:30pm
Just wanted to say.....It is amazing to me how the topic of health care can stir so many people up.....and this includes me, I am not at all immune to being stirred up by this. Were we in Canada or Australia or another fairly prosperous developed nation, this would not be anywhere near this big a deal as these other countries already have framework in place to deliver healthcare to pretty much all citizens.....Though I will say in Europe there are protests of cuts, so yeah, there are some issues in other places, but not issues of getting the basic framework set up. And this is the most advanced econony on the planet I'm told? I also realize in my post above, about large cash settlements when folks are turned away for heathcare due to lack of insurance? Not going to happen, I get that. Rob

gimmethesimplelife
7-2-12, 5:34pm
Is your issue with health care or health insurance? I have to ask because I'm not aware of anyone being left to die due to lack of health care. In my own family, my brother-in-law, who is the poster child for irresponsible behavior, was able to use Medicaid to save his life after being diagnosed with lung cancer.

Of course, Medicaid would require a person to use some of their own resources to cover their expenses. Is that the real issue, that people shouldn't have any skin in the game?Fair question Alan.....I have big issues with struggling people, say who have maybe $5000 to their name after years of work, having to part with that to get health care they need if they don't have insurance but have worked and payed taxes into the system. And I have heard of folks being turned away in Arizona - all they have to do here in stabilize you, they don't have to address any real issues underlying getting you to a state of stabilization.....Rob PS Coming back to add - there was just a news special on Channel 12 here in Phoenix about hospitals starting to hit you up for payment before services are rendered now.....Really shows what America is about to me.....Ironically, I can't really blame the hospitals too much for doing this, as they have had to absorb massive losses since the recession started in 2007. I lay the blame at the doorstep of America, for human life not being worth having a framework to deliver healthcare for all long ere this.....Rob

gimmethesimplelife
7-2-12, 5:42pm
Have you looked at companies which provide outsourced food service to industry? One of my responsibilites at my job is to manage our outsourced cafeteria services. The company provides us with staff and their purchasing abilities through their restauraunt industry association to manage our cafeteria, vending and office coffee service. The cafeteria provides breakfast and lunch Mon-Fri as well as on-site catering for meetings and company events.

The way it works is the company provides a chef manager, two sous chef's and a cashier. We pay all the expenses incurred above sales, which currently is requiring approximately $140K a year in subsidy for cafeteria and another $25K or so in office coffee subsidy.

All the positions are full time w/benefits, although none of the hourly workers elect to receive health insurance. If they did, our subsidy would be higher.

The lowest paying position is the cashier's and it pays $14.75 per hour. If you want to work full-time in the food service industry, I'd think something like this might appeal to you.BTW Thanks for the advice off this topic! I have applications in with Sodexho Marriott who run several large corporate cafeterias here in Phoenix, but I sure can look and see if there are other such providers to apply with. Thanks!

Alan
7-2-12, 5:48pm
Fair question Alan.....I have big issues with struggling people, say who have maybe $5000 to their name after years of work, having to part with that to get health care they need if they don't have insurance but have worked and payed taxes into the system.

And that's where safety nets come into play. My previously mentioned brother-in-law, who had no assets due to his irresponsible habits and behaviors, not only had all his medical needs taken care of and paid for, but he also managed to qualify for Social Security disability benefits while still in his 40's. Just as he was finishing up the last rounds of radiation therapies, he received a lump sum payment of just over $60K and now receives nearly $1600 per month, which has helped him develop a fairly impressive heroin addiction. His only complaint is that now his income it too great to receive food stamps and most months he must choose between drugs and food, all on the public dime.

He likes to argue about income inequality as well.

gimmethesimplelife
7-2-12, 5:58pm
And that's where safety nets come into play. My previously mentioned brother-in-law, who had no assets due to his irresponsible habits and behaviors, not only had all his medical needs taken care of and paid for, but he also managed to qualify for Social Security disability benefits while still in his 40's. Just as he was finishing up the last rounds of radiation therapies, he received a lump sum payment of just over $60K and now receives nearly $1600 per month, which has helped him develop a fairly impressive heroin addiction. His only complaint is that now his income it too great to receive food stamps and most months he must choose between drugs and food, all on the public dime.

He likes to argue about income inequality as well.Alan, is he getting federal benefits or state? The reason I ask is that I live in Arizona - this is a state that is quite skimpy with the safety net - so I am asking if this is federal or state? You know, I am surprised no one has said - Look Rob, why don't you just move to Massachusetts? You would qualify there.....I have thought about this before, too. It would mean seriously disrupting my life but if insurance is so important to me.......point taken. The only reason I have off the top of my head is that I don't like the idea of being that far from the Mexican border for dental, and my Mom is still not 100% recovered, plus it would cost some money to move.....Rob PS But it's an option anyway.

Gardenarian
7-2-12, 6:01pm
I know many people, myself included, who would have taken different paths in life if they weren't worried about losing their health insurance. These are people who are willing to pay for it, but could not, either because the cost was too extreme (really, is $2000 per month reasonable for an individual?) or because they had pre-existing conditions and couldn't get insurance at any price on the free market.

Alan - I'm sorry your brother-in-law has made poor choices; I don't think you can generalize about the rest of our country based on him.

Alan
7-2-12, 6:02pm
The Medicaid $'s came from the state. The SS Disability is Federal.

Alan
7-2-12, 6:04pm
Alan - I'm sorry your brother-in-law has made poor choices; I don't think you can generalize about the rest of our country based on him.

I'm not generalizing, I'm pointing out that there are safety nets available for folks who for one reason or another do not have traditional health insurance and providing one specific example of how well they work.

gimmethesimplelife
7-2-12, 7:10pm
The Medicaid $'s came from the state. The SS Disability is Federal.I agree with you about the SS Disability, you could get this in Arizona....as it is Federal. As for the Medicaid, unless you have kids AND make under $931 a month, forget it, in Arizona it is not happening....I don't know where your brother is and I do know some states are nicer about Medicaid, but not in Arizona....just not happening here! Rob

gimmethesimplelife
7-2-12, 7:12pm
I'm not generalizing, I'm pointing out that there are safety nets available for folks who for one reason or another do not have traditional health insurance and providing one specific example of how well they work.There are some safety nets yes, the problem is that the parachute does not open for all.....all who truly and desperately need it too, anyway. Rob

Aqua Blue
7-2-12, 8:00pm
Reminds me of a previous poster(WJS?) who I assume has passed away due to the lack of health insurance.

bunnys
7-2-12, 8:15pm
@
Just wanted to say - Thank you, you understand, thank you.

No problem Rob. This is how I feel. I know I'm not alone in this. I'm not a Christian but I have heard that this country is a Christian nation and was established according to Christian principles. I know, according to the Bible Jesus had a few important things to say about poverty and sickness. Here are a few choice ones:

Mark 10:21
Jesus looked at him and loved him. "One thing you lack," he said. "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

Luke 6:38
Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

Luke 14:13-14
But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed. Although they cannot repay you, you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous.

Ephesians 4:32
Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you.

1 John 3:17-18
If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him? Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth.

Matthew 25.35-40
For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’
Then the righteous will answer him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?'
And the King will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.'"

Matthew 7:1
Judge not, that you be not judged.

If we are a Christian nation, I believe it is important to take care of the poor and needy first by establishing an economic system where they can help themselves and if that system doesn't fully make it possible for everyone to prosper financially including having food, shelter, education and health care our government should step in and help figure out a way to fill the void.

Let's just hope Obamacare keeps getting better and better so every American can relax, knowing that when they get sick, the no longer have to worry about how they're going to pay for their treatment in addition to worrying about whether or not they'll recover.

Alan
7-2-12, 8:21pm
Reminds me of a previous poster(WJS?) who I assume has passed away due to the lack of health insurance.
I'm not sure why you would assume that. She has returned here several times since the new forums were created and even started a thread about the safety net I mentioned earlier. Maybe you missed it: http://www.simplelivingforum.net/showthread.php?2647-Bouncing-in-the-safety-net

redfox
7-2-12, 8:27pm
Of course, Medicaid would require a person to use some of their own resources to cover their expenses. Is that the real issue, that people shouldn't have any skin in the game?


In a public system, everyone has skin in the game.

flowerseverywhere
7-2-12, 8:33pm
alan, if your brother managed to get social security disability this day and age he was lucky. If he gets $1600 per month he must have had a long period of higher paying employment to be able to qualify for that much. Many cancer and heart patients die before their benefits are paid. If your brother got a $60,000 lump payment that would have been 37.5 months from the time he was declared disabled until he got benefits- correct me if I am wrong. I can't imagine that scenario in a family with young children and a sick parent. Most people only want to work and make a good life for their families and are not "bottom feeders" or cheats.

Every day I thank my lucky stars that when DH was injured (no fault of his own) and needed surgeries, then was diagnosed with cancer (no fault of his own) I was able to work full time and carry us both on insurance and keep the house going. Every day I am thankful that we have never had to access social services, always had enough to pay our bills, and live in a house. It was really really hard but I now I am one of the lucky ones. we could have lost every asset after a lifetime of hard work.

flowerseverywhere
7-2-12, 8:40pm
In a public system, everyone has skin in the game.

actually, there will always be people who do not contribute their fair share. There have always been the drunks, the mentally ill (village idiots), women who were thrown out by husbands or widowed and some cheats- but maybe this new system will attempt to level the playing field.

SteveinMN
7-2-12, 8:47pm
If we are a Christian nation, I believe it is important to take care of the poor and needy first by establishing an economic system where they can help themselves and if that system doesn't fully make it possible for everyone to prosper financially including having food, shelter, education and health care our government should step in and help figure out a way to fill the void.

Let's just hope Obamacare keeps getting better and better so every American can relax, knowing that when they get sick, the no longer have to worry about how they're going to pay for their treatment in addition to worrying about whether or not they'll recover.
Amen! I understand that the well is not endless and that no one is guaranteed an easy life of lobsters and steaks and serial college degrees. But in a society in which a large portion of the populace professes an active faith instructing them to "turn the other cheek" and "love thy neighbor", I find it curious that so many are so willing to codify their faith for all of us -- until it becomes something for which they truly have to sacrifice. The unborn baby is a topic of intense interest; the subsequent infant/toddler/youngster ... not so much. Pharmaceutical companies should be lauded for whatever miraculous drugs they can supply our seniors -- so long as the seniors' perceived contributions to society qualify them for the extremely high cost of those miracle drugs. Again, I don't get it.

Similarly, I'm confounded by people who believe they have achieved what they have by themselves. Typically these are people who grew up in families in which mom and dad or Uncle or Grandmother had a public job or two -- teacher, firefighter, accounting clerk, highway worker, the military ... They grew up in neighborhoods made safe by the presence of police officers; in houses made safe in part by municipal building codes and rules about clean water; by Customs inspectors who check imported foods for adulteration and products for electrocution hazards. They may have attended public schools all the way through graduate degrees. The courts protect their intellectual property and prosecute those who attempt to steal from them. The federal government gives them medical care and a minimal pension when they get older. Just how much do most of these folks do "all by themselves"?

bae
7-2-12, 8:49pm
I know, according to the Bible Jesus had a few important things to say about poverty and sickness. ...

.... our government should step in and help figure out a way to fill the void.



I don't see how you make the jump from those strong statements about individual moral responsibility to "the government should step in"....

Alan
7-2-12, 8:54pm
alan, if your brother managed to get social security disability this day and age he was lucky. If he gets $1600 per month he must have had a long period of higher paying employment to be able to qualify for that much. Many cancer and heart patients die before their benefits are paid. If your brother got a $60,000 lump payment that would have been 37.5 months from the time he was declared disabled until he got benefits- correct me if I am wrong. I can't imagine that scenario in a family with young children and a sick parent. Most people only want to work and make a good life for their families and are not "bottom feeders" or cheats.


Funny story in an ironic sort of way. He worked for 20+ years as a machinist. I'm not sure how much money he made, but he was comfortable enough. He liked to spend every night running the bars with his friends, which eventually resulted in one-too-many DUI's and he ended up losing his drivers license and spending 3 months in jail. He lost his job while in jail and upon getting out, got his last DUI along with a charge of Driving While Under Suspension. That one got him a lifetime suspension of driving privileges and another year in jail.

He came up with the idea of applying for disability benefits while in jail, claiming back problems. After being released, he decided he couldn't work anymore because it would hurt his chances of receiving disability and he couldn't drive to work without risking going back to jail, he'd have to use public transportation which was soooo beneath his dignity.

So, he allowed his mother to support him until she died, and shortly afterwards he was diagnosed with lung cancer. My wife helped him navigate the Medicaid paperwork which turned out to be amazingly easy. He then got a lawyer to amend his original disability request to show that he now had cancer. This made all the difference in the world apparently since he was approved within a few short months.

Now he's healthy and pretty much set for life. I think the safety net worked well for him.

Aqua Blue
7-2-12, 9:10pm
I'm not sure why you would assume that. She has returned here several times since the new forums were created and even started a thread about the safety net I mentioned earlier. Maybe you missed it: http://www.simplelivingforum.net/showthread.php?2647-Bouncing-in-the-safety-net

It is perhaps an assumption, and hopefully a wrong one as she had a young teenage daughter, as I recall. But that was sept of 2011, she weighed less than 125 lbs and had no hair from chemo for a recurrance of cancer. I don't think that looks very good, hopefully she posts and is doing well.

Aqua Blue
7-2-12, 9:12pm
No problem Rob. This is how I feel. I know I'm not alone in this. I'm not a Christian but I have heard that this country is a Christian nation and was established according to Christian principles. I know, according to the Bible Jesus had a few important things to say about poverty and sickness. Here are a few choice ones:

Mark 10:21
Jesus looked at him and loved him. "One thing you lack," he said. "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

Luke 6:38
Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

Luke 14:13-14
But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed. Although they cannot repay you, you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous.

Ephesians 4:32
Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you.

1 John 3:17-18
If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him? Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth.

Matthew 25.35-40
For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’
Then the righteous will answer him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?'
And the King will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.'"

Matthew 7:1
Judge not, that you be not judged.

If we are a Christian nation, I believe it is important to take care of the poor and needy first by establishing an economic system where they can help themselves and if that system doesn't fully make it possible for everyone to prosper financially including having food, shelter, education and health care our government should step in and help figure out a way to fill the void.

Let's just hope Obamacare keeps getting better and better so every American can relax, knowing that when they get sick, the no longer have to worry about how they're going to pay for their treatment in addition to worrying about whether or not they'll recover.

Bunny, I have sooo wanted to say that same thing to many of my facebook Christian friends. It contempt I find in them for poor people really saddens me.
I have also thought that early in our nations history people did do those things and perhaps that is why we prospered.

Alan
7-2-12, 9:19pm
It is perhaps an assumption, and hopefully a wrong one as she had a young teenage daughter, as I recall. But that was sept of 2011, she weighed less than 125 lbs and had no hair from chemo for a recurrance of cancer. I don't think that looks very good, hopefully she posts and is doing well.
You may have noticed that several months later, in the same thread, she reported that she was doing better with the latest round of chemo. Hopefully she'll check in again sometime soon.

bae
7-2-12, 9:21pm
Bunny, I have sooo wanted to say that same thing to many of my facebook Christian friends. It contempt I find in them for poor people really saddens me.
I have also thought that early in our nations history people did do those things and perhaps that is why we prospered.

You might want to check out:

From Mutual Aid to the Welfare State: Fraternal Societies and Social Services, David Beito, University of North Carolina Press (Cambridge), 1992.

The Voluntary City: Choice, Community, and Civil Society, David Beito, University of Michigan Press for The Independent Institute (Ann Arbor), 2002.

Bowling Alone, Robert Putnam, Simon & Schuster, 2000

iris lily
7-2-12, 9:36pm
I would like to work hard at my new profession of philosopher/blacksmith, and I find it upsetting that our unenlightened society doesn't value my hard work highly enough to pay for my health care, shelter, food, and education.

They won't pay for your dog food, either. Now that's a crock.

Lainey
7-2-12, 11:56pm
yes, all these people who voluntarily choose poverty are dragging us down! Why don't they go back to school and become hedge fund managers, a lifestyle that taxpayers don't have to subsidize, or ... wait, we do.

gimmethesimplelife
7-3-12, 12:05am
yes, all these people who voluntarily choose poverty are dragging us down! Why don't they go back to school and become hedge fund managers, a lifestyle that taxpayers don't have to subsidize, or ... wait, we do.LOL Good one, Lainey.....LMAO.....Rob

Gardenarian
7-3-12, 7:48pm
+1 Lainey

rosebud
7-4-12, 4:04pm
Given non-infinite resources, how do you propose we ration healthcare, Rob?

Or is the United States morally obligated to spend whatever it takes for every condition and injury?


Yes. It is a moral obligation which is already acknowledged by our society in the many forms of local state and federal socialized health care programs long in existence. These programs, Medicare, Medicaid, the CDC, the FDA, the VA, thousands of local clinics and emergency rooms have helped millions of folks and will continue to do so. To expand this system and tweak it in order to provide more coverage is consistent with the underlying morality of these programs.

Every other advanced country has some form of socialized health care. This is the real world. In the real world most people consider it morally wrong to allow people to die merely because they don't have enough money to pay for health care or health insurance. You keep trying to focus on the specific choices people make so that you can avoid your own obligations as a member of an advanced society. The point is that there are literally millions upon millions of stories of people who have no health insurance and little hope of obtaining it without some kind of societal help. Giving people help is not immiral unless you live in Ayn Rand upside down world. It is time for us as a society and as individuals to stand up to folks like you who seem to want the power to judge who exactly is worthy to live and who has made the wrong choices and therefore should suffer and die unecessarily. That power should not and must not be controlled by people like you.

bae
7-4-12, 4:14pm
You misunderstand my questions, and position. And then froth at me.

Try again.

rosebud
7-4-12, 5:38pm
You misunderstand my questions, and position. And then froth at me.

Try again.


No I got it right. You bend towards contrarianism and tend to run away from the reasonable inferences people draw from your comments but consider my remarks responsive to the general positions advanced by those who oppose socialized medicine in general and Obamacare in particular.


You have already basically lost the argument and are on the wrong side of history. There are no countries seeking to replicate our health care system. Everyone else in the world thinks we're nuts. They have universal coverage and it would be unthinkable to deny life sustaining care to citizens based on economic status in the "civilized" world. Making poor economic choices in life should not result in a premature death.

If medical protocol calls for a particular treatment and a rich guy can get that treatment then a less wealthy guy should get the same treatment. The rich guy can pay for fancier digs private nurses and so on. But we need to put an end to the notion that irresponsible blacksmith poet types should just die.

iris lily
7-4-12, 5:47pm
...If medical protocol calls for a particular treatment and a rich guy can get that treatment then a less wealthy guy should get the same treatment. ....

Medical protocol calls for all kinds of expensive established treatments for infertility. Are you in favor of poor people getting that as well at the public trough?

bae
7-4-12, 6:09pm
Rosebud - are our society's resources infinite?

How much money should we spend on that marginal last minute of life prolongment? An infinite amount?

Who decides?

flowerseverywhere
7-4-12, 6:16pm
Just as an FYI a relative of mine was hit by a drunk driver and racked up over 1,000,000 in hospital bills in less than a year and he could walk and talk after a month. The price of care is enormous for premies etc. A very difficult moral dilemna.

gimmethesimplelife
7-4-12, 7:06pm
No I got it right. You bend towards contrarianism and tend to run away from the reasonable inferences people draw from your comments but consider my remarks responsive to the general positions advanced by those who oppose socialized medicine in general and Obamacare in particular.


You have already basically lost the argument and are on the wrong side of history. There are no countries seeking to replicate our health care system. Everyone else in the world thinks we're nuts. They have universal coverage and it would be unthinkable to deny life sustaining care to citizens based on economic status in the "civilized" world. Making poor economic choices in life should not result in a premature death.

If medical protocol calls for a particular treatment and a rich guy can get that treatment then a less wealthy guy should get the same treatment. The rich guy can pay for fancier digs private nurses and so on. But we need to put an end to the notion that irresponsible blacksmith poet types should just die.Do I ever agree with your second paragraph, I could not have said it any better myself!!!!! Rob

gimmethesimplelife
7-4-12, 7:12pm
Medical protocol calls for all kinds of expensive established treatments for infertility. Are you in favor of poor people getting that as well at the public trough? To answer your question for myself, yes and no. I see you both have a point, you and the OP.....This one is a tough one for me but I lean towards siding with the OP. I do however, think one of our many HUGE problems in America is highlighted very vividly by your wording, Iris Lilly....."the public trough." Point being in Canada, Germany, Australia et al, health care for all is not considered the "public trough." Whoever came up with that notion and why do so many Americans cling to it so dearly? I saw though this one when I was 15.....I'm not saying I am smarter than anyone else when I say this, what I AM saying is that life taught me early on that this way of thinking just does not work for me....I can also say since that day it never really has. Rob

Zoebird
7-4-12, 7:23pm
Here in NZ, women get fertility treatments as part of their medical care. I believe it terminates after the third IFV treatment (assuming failure of prior treatments).

freein05
7-4-12, 8:04pm
Rosebud - are our society's resources infinite?

How much money should we spend on that marginal last minute of life prolongment? An infinite amount?

Who decides?

The person our their family. We have it in our will and health care directive. Pull the plug!

iris lily
7-4-12, 8:52pm
The person our their family. We have it in our will and health care directive. Pull the plug!

For those who wish comatose Grandma to go on and on on the taxpayer's dime is probably the bae's point. But really, it's not so much the grandmas, it is the tiny preemies who cost millions and millions, few parents will pull the plug on them and few will refuse to do all that modern medicine has available, yet is that worth it to society? I say it's not.

Zoebird
7-4-12, 9:08pm
Premies get excellent care here.

rosebud
7-4-12, 9:26pm
Rosebud - are our society's resources infinite?

How much money should we spend on that marginal last minute of life prolongment? An infinite amount?

Who decides?


They have figured it out in the rest of the civilized world. We are not an impovrished 3rd world country. Who decides now? Insurance companies. This is not a cogent argument or a moral one you are setting forth but one of pragmatics which basically concedes the moral point. Sweden. Switzerland. Israel. Canada. Somehow they have the resources. France. Germany. Are you saying we're not as smart as they are? That we are too poor or too stupid to figure out how to maximize our health care system? The limited resources argument is plainly bogus. What we lack is the political will to allocate our resources in ways that certain elites find distasteful and moral concensus that medical care is a human right. But we are just about there.

gimmethesimplelife
7-4-12, 9:40pm
They have figured it out in the rest of the civilized world. We are not an impovrished 3rd world country. Who decides now? Insurance companies. This is not a cogent argument or a moral one you are setting forth but one of pragmatics which basically concedes the moral point. Sweden. Switzerland. Israel. Canada. Somehow they have the resources. France. Germany. Are you saying we're not as smart as they are? That we are too poor or too stupid to figure out how to maximize our health care system? The limited resources argument is plainly bogus. What we lack is the political will to allocate our resources in ways that certain elites find distasteful and moral concensus that medical care is a human right. But we are just about there.I really wonder too, for the younger folks with brains and education and energy, are many of them even willing to stay if ObamaCare were to be somehow repealed? To face this horrible economy, crushing student debts, AND realize their lives are not worth access to health care here? What would be in it for someone young and in such a situation to stay in the US? Seriously? I wonder if there won't be a brain drain here if ObamaCare were to somehow be repealed....

rosebud
7-4-12, 9:43pm
Rosebud - are our society's resources infinite?

How much money should we spend on that marginal last minute of life prolongment? An infinite amount?

Who decides?

Btw I decide on that issue. I have a living will as all responsible adults should. It really is a shame that we cannot have a rational conversation in this society about end of life issues. Thank Sarah Palin for muddying the waters on that one with her death panel clap trap. I think you and I would agree on that and I would bet that you personally have executed the proper advance directives. I prepare these documents in my law practice for clients so you can imagine how frustrated I was when the provision in the ACA that compensated doctors for their time so that they could encourage folks on Medicare to get their paperwork in order and understand the medical terminology involved got taken out because of this nonsense. I think most people are sensible on this and do not want to drain resources for useless life prolonging care. I have only had a handful of clients who elected NOT to direct cessation of life prolonging measures where there is no reasonabe expectation of recovery.

SteveinMN
7-4-12, 9:52pm
I do however, think one of our many HUGE problems in America is highlighted very vividly by your wording, Iris Lilly....."the public trough." Point being in Canada, Germany, Australia et al, health care for all is not considered the "public trough." Whoever came up with that notion and why do so many Americans cling to it so dearly?
America has spent the last three decades engaging in class warfare. The Republican party in particular has been able to successfully depict taxation as a punishment rather than as the agreed-upon vehicle for funding the things we want a government to do. The GOP also has been amazingly successful in selling the idea that people (and now, corporations as people) will buy more "stuff" and fund more employment if they aren't hindered by taxes and by the rules that governmental organizations put into place. They sell the idea that, with some hard work, anyone can be part of the 1% -- and wouldn't it be a shame if you got there just in time for more government regulation and higher taxes! That this hasn't happened since the idea was first postulated doesn't seem to faze the PR machine or, apparently, many voters.

It also does not help that Americans don't recognize government help when they see it. Programs like Social Security and Medicare are considered entitlements. People still want prompt responses from fire and police departments and lots of help from FEMA when a disaster strikes. Government regulation may sound like a pain in the #$*> but people sure are happy about it when another several tons of tainted hamburger or melamine-laced formula are quarantined or companies are prosecuted for cutting corners on highway bridges and airplanes. It's fine to accept government money for not planting crops in the back forty, but handing an ADC check to a single mother seems like a handout. It's curious that terms like "public trough" come up frequently when the topic of discussion is universal health care or rent vouchers, but not when the topic of discussion is granting money for millionaire sports team owners to build new stadiums or continuing to buy a less-effective military weapon from a favored manufacturer.

I guess it goes back to that old saw about "wasteful government spending" being anything that does not benefit you directly. And it's not like it doesn't happen in other (developed) countries; it does. But I think people there grow up with less of a notion of exceptionalism -- and a more direct understanding of exactly what their taxes are buying them.

SteveinMN
7-4-12, 9:56pm
I really wonder too, for the younger folks with brains and education and energy, are many of them even willing to stay if ObamaCare were to be somehow repealed? To face this horrible economy, crushing student debts, AND realize their lives are not worth access to health care here? What would be in it for someone young and in such a situation to stay in the US?
Well, there's still family and friends. For many, there will be that whole "have-to-learn-another-language" thing (most Americans are not bilingual). And there still is the exceptionalism that helps them determine that it will be different for them -- that they'll have the billion-dollar idea and money won't be a problem or that they won't be hobbling around on a cane or on oxygen in another 50-60 years. I suspect the fallout, though, may be with the brains and energy of people who come here to learn or experience America and then take all that back to their home country. We certainly will be the poorer for that.

rosebud
7-4-12, 10:08pm
For those who wish comatose Grandma to go on and on on the taxpayer's dime is probably the bae's point. But really, it's not so much the grandmas, it is the tiny preemies who cost millions and millions, few parents will pull the plug on them and few will refuse to do all that modern medicine has available, yet is that worth it to society? I say it's not.



To respond to your two points about infertility and premies... What does medical insurance cover now? The point I have been making all along is that medical care is a human right. As far as I know there isn't any medical insurance that would not cover care for premies and you are in pretty dangerous territory when you start talking about pulling the plugs on sick babies if their parents are uninsured. Better not let the right to life crowd hear this. Me I'd rather pay a few extra bucks in taxes or premiums than force parents to kill off their babies. Wow who's pro life now!


I don't think most insurance plans in the US cover IVF b/c all the women I know who have done it paid out of pocket. So I doubt that will change though I do believe that some infertility treatments are covered and should be.

Zoebird
7-5-12, 3:48am
Brain Drain is a real problem in NZ.

The reasons are two-fold: 1st, a lot of NZ universities educate a lot of asian students. Those students then return home. 2nd, NZ students can easily head to Australia and make more money over there, even at the most basic jobs. Cost of living is lower as well. So, going to Oz is a real opportunity for them. And, it's close enough and they travel enough that it's not a big family burden.

I think a lot of young people would leave, if they could figure out how to leave the US. It isn't easy, but I recommend that under 30s travel on work-holiday visas and fall in love with locals and form marriages with them. Then they can live in that country forever, and it's the easiest way.

lizii
7-5-12, 5:06am
They have figured it out in the rest of the civilized world. We are not an impovrished 3rd world country. Who decides now? Insurance companies. This is not a cogent argument or a moral one you are setting forth but one of pragmatics which basically concedes the moral point. Sweden. Switzerland. Israel. Canada. Somehow they have the resources. France. Germany. Are you saying we're not as smart as they are? That we are too poor or too stupid to figure out how to maximize our health care system? The limited resources argument is plainly bogus. What we lack is the political will to allocate our resources in ways that certain elites find distasteful and moral concensus that medical care is a human right. But we are just about there.

Couldn't agree with you more, Rosebud (great name by the way!).

As a Canadian well under the poverty level, I have free health care. Fortunately, I have inherited the good genes of my forefathers, so very seldom have to see my doctor---once a year for my annual flu shot (also free), is pretty well it.

I spent two months in the hospital two years ago after I'd had a bad fall and broke my back. This included my x-rays, medications and food, at no cost to me. I was assigned a care aide to make my dinner every evening for the rest of my life.

If Canada can do this, there's no reason why the US, with a much larger population, can't do the same thing.

flowerseverywhere
7-5-12, 7:41am
If Canada can do this, there's no reason why the US, with a much larger population, can't do the same thing.

could this be one of the reasons?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

US spends 4.7% of it's GDP on military, and Canada spends 1.4%

yet, as you see the tax rates in Canada are 32.2% and in US are 26.9%, and both goverments are about 39% for spending as a percentage of GDP.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending

unless I am interpreting this wrong taxes are higher in Canada, but much more is spent on defense in the US therefore having much less to spend on human services.

edited to add that as I was thinking further, the US has a far greater debt load per GDP than Canada. All of these things cost the US taxpayers money that does not go directly to human services, infrastructure etc.

ApatheticNoMore
7-5-12, 9:11am
It also does not help that Americans don't recognize government help when they see it. Programs like Social Security and Medicare are considered entitlements. People still want prompt responses from fire and police departments and lots of help from FEMA when a disaster strikes.

want, I don't think anyone is absolutely expecting this post Katrina.


Government regulation may sound like a pain in the #$*> but people sure are happy about it when another several tons of tainted hamburger or melamine-laced formula are quarantined or companies are prosecuted for cutting corners on highway bridges and airplanes.

I think that to the extent anyone has real problems with regulation it's that which affects small businesses, and I don't think most of that is even federal regulation! It's state and local regulation, mostly red tape-ish stuff. I doubt the economic climate is particularly favorable in any way shape or form for small businesses, I don't see very many being started despite the fact small busineses have been historically started in recessions, but that's also because who is spending money these days in this economy either? Starting a business these days is such a losing proposition, unless you have a really great plan. That's why people saying health insurance is the only barrier to starting small business is almost laughable to me. It is a barrier and I'm sure it stops some people. But also isnt' the fact that not many are spending money in this economy also a a barrier? Anyway, I'll work anyday for the repeal of regulations, but not of the type your discussing, of the type that prevent home businesses and thus prevent people from more easily going into business for themself. It's not the type of thing you vote for on a national level, it's the type of thing you work for on a grass roots level. It's why you can't generalize about regulation this, regulation that, without talking nonsense.


It's curious that terms like "public trough" come up frequently when the topic of discussion is universal health care or rent vouchers, but not when the topic of discussion is granting money for millionaire sports team owners to build new stadiums

Plenty of people don't want sports teams, it just at a certain point feels like a losing fight. Lots of other people want to watch local sports darn the consequences.


But I think people there grow up with less of a notion of exceptionalism -- and a more direct understanding of exactly what their taxes are buying them.

What do our taxes buy us again? Endless war? Regardless of who is elected? That this is demonstratably, obviously, undeniably, true ... Not the only thing taxes buy, but a decent chunk. That this has economic benefits, oh it maintains the whole economic order for the whole world. Gotta conquest all that oil in Iraq etc., so all the multinationals can move in to grab it and they are. It probably does maintain cheaper gas prices (I always argue we need more expensive gas prices). It does maintain U.S. economic dominance in some sense. Maybe everyone knows it and realizes exactly what devil's bargain they get for that money. Maybe they do have an understanding of what their taxes buy them afterall, though it can't be talked about in the light of day (yea my government kills and conquests for oil, it has economic benefits ...).


Well, there's still family and friends.

Yea *THE* reason.


For many, there will be that whole "have-to-learn-another-language" thing (most Americans are not bilingual).

I learn another language every few years (unfortunately it's a computer language :( ). So it's more not seeing any gain in learning a human language, that's not where the jobs are IN THIS COUNTRY (and there still are jobs in learning computer languages). But think of all the people I could socialize with in other languges - um no, I'm an introvert, I have to have had an exceptionally good day to even want to socialize with anyone in my native language! I could travel, yea across the border by car is fine, but is travel on planes even moral? Doesn't one plane trip use as much fossil fuel as you do all year commuting?


And there still is the exceptionalism that helps them determine that it will be different for them -- that they'll have the billion-dollar idea and money won't be a problem or that they won't be hobbling around on a cane or on oxygen in another 50-60 years.

Nah it's all about famly and friends, this nonsense doesn't motivate. I never believed this country would lead to exceptional wealth. A better place to live than somewhere in Africa, yea now I was always told that. It did once have a pretty good record on civil liberties and so on. I thought I'd have what my parents have, but not with today's housing costs I won't for one thing. If one ends up on oxygen in 50-60 years, if one ends up in a gulag under the NDAA, it's the price you pay for family and friends now. One already pays every single day of their life anyway. Cost of living is painfully high. I'll work all my life at distatesful jobs and never own property. I've already accepted that afterall. If I wanted to go back to school, I'd probably go pay out of state tuition at Arizona state schools while living here or something because the system here is unusable, I've already accepted that. The unemployment rate is well into double digits, you think it's not painfully ridiculously obvious the grass is greener elsewhere?


I suspect the fallout, though, may be with the brains and energy of people who come here to learn or experience America and then take all that back to their home country. We certainly will be the poorer for that

Our colleges already allow in more and more international students because that's where the money is, where is the money in educating people whose parents have paid taxes all their life to support your schools? Then eventually the INEVITABLE happens, people stop voting for more taxes to pay for these state colleges altogether, I'm not saying I would vote for or support this, but this is all but INEVITABLE when people see more and more benefits going to internatioinal and out of state students and not to the taxpayers, that the colleges see this policy as somehow being a short term win rather than the final death to all state funding is insane but that's how they think.

SteveinMN
7-5-12, 10:32am
That's why people saying health insurance is the only barrier to starting small business is almost laughable to me. It is a barrier and I'm sure it stops some people. But also isnt' the fact that not many are spending money in this economy also a a barrier? Anyway, I'll work anyday for the repeal of regulations, but not of the type your discussing, of the type that prevent home businesses and thus prevent people from more easily going into business for themself.
When I left my job as a software performance engineer, I started my own business. Yes, in this economy. I had to pay to register the name of the business, I've had to spend some money on equipment, software, another phone line, Web hosting, and business liability insurance. If I had chosen to incorporate, I would have had some lawyer's fees and filing costs. If I needed a storefront or warehouse, there would have been that expense, as well. Only the least of those expenses were required by the government. And none of them was a company-crushing burden. Granted, I am a sole proprietorship and, granted, we have another income in the house, so making a ton of money is not critical. But I'm not alone: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/14/fashion/maybe-its-time-for-plan-c.html To declare that small businesses are being regulated out of even being created does not stand up to examination.



It's curious that terms like "public trough" come up frequently when the topic of discussion is universal health care or rent vouchers, but not when the topic of discussion is granting money for millionaire sports team owners to build new stadiums
Plenty of people don't want sports teams, it just at a certain point feels like a losing fight. Lots of other people want to watch local sports darn the consequences.
The campaign to get the public to foot much of the bill for the recent Twins stadium here was to point out that the hundreds of millions needed would amount to just an additional 19 cents or so on a $20 purchase. Funny how they never couch fundraising for repairing roads or keeping libraries open later in the same way....



But I think people there grow up with less of a notion of exceptionalism -- and a more direct understanding of exactly what their taxes are buying them.
What do our taxes buy us again?
You make my point -- when you are taxed but get, in return, medical care whenever you need it, unemployment compensation when you're not working, a free or minimal-cost education, and a pension, it's easier to see why you're paying what you're paying.



For many, there will be that whole "have-to-learn-another-language" thing (most Americans are not bilingual).
But think of all the people I could socialize with in other languges - um no, I'm an introvert, I have to have had an exceptionally good day to even want to socialize with anyone in my native language!


And there still is the exceptionalism that helps them determine that it will be different for them -- that they'll have the billion-dollar idea and money won't be a problem or that they won't be hobbling around on a cane or on oxygen in another 50-60 years.Nah it's all about famly and friends, this nonsense doesn't motivate.
Well, that's you. More and more jobs almost require knowing at least some of another (human) language to be most effective in them. Certainly more people in the U.S. would be bilingual (or better) if English were not the lingua franca (pardon the pun) of the world. And if the idea of becoming the next Steve Jobs or LeBron James doesn't appeal to the young, how have politicians been so successful in selling the possibility? Someone's buying it.


Our colleges already allow in more and more international students because that's where the money is, where is the money in educating people whose parents have paid taxes all their life to support your schools?
I guess I don't understand this point of view or what you're trying to say. First, college tuition is not cheap even if you're a resident. From the University of Minnesota Web site: "your tuition dollars pay for approximately 67 percent of the cost of instruction at the University. The state of Minnesota subsidizes the remaining portion, a benefit of approximately $4,277 a year to the average full-time student." So colleges are appealing to prospective students who will pay even more as out-of-staters? I don't see the problem.

Second, for whatever reasons, international students seem to value education more than Americans do. Go look at the names of the award winners at your local high school or junior high school. They're not all Roberts and Marys or even Megans or Taylors. Anti-intellectualism is on the rise in America, much to the detriment of the country. The bill for that will come due in another generation or so.

rosebud
7-5-12, 12:31pm
Couldn't agree with you more, Rosebud (great name by the way!).

As a Canadian well under the poverty level, I have free health care. Fortunately, I have inherited the good genes of my forefathers, so very seldom have to see my doctor---once a year for my annual flu shot (also free), is pretty well it.

I spent two months in the hospital two years ago after I'd had a bad fall and broke my back. This included my x-rays, medications and food, at no cost to me. I was assigned a care aide to make my dinner every evening for the rest of my life.

If Canada can do this, there's no reason why the US, with a much larger population, can't do the same thing.

Sorry about your medical woes but glad you got the treatment you needed. I must amend what I wrote because I impugned third world countries. I just read that Rwanda has achieved near universal health care access in the past ten years. So there you go. Even impovrished third world countries are heeding the moral imperative of extending health care to all citizens.

If Rwanda can do it the greatest nation on earth can do it. It really is that simple. They figured out a way to move beyond the scars of a recent civil war. And yet we still can't let go of our tribalism our greed and our false morality about who deserves to live and who deserves to live.

Lainey
7-5-12, 2:30pm
Given non-infinite resources, how do you propose we ration healthcare, Rob?

Or is the United States morally obligated to spend whatever it takes for every condition and injury?

Not Rob, but I wonder the same thing after Cheney's 5 heart attacks, heart pump implant, pacemaker, and then a heart transplant at the age of 71 ..

Life_is_Simple
7-5-12, 6:30pm
I was thinking today about one aspect of ObamaCare that I have not seen or heard brought up yet.....Then again I have not been doing the media frenzy on this so it's quite likely it's been discussed and I missed it. My thought is this - isn't ObamaCare a good thing in the sense that it unchains people from their employers with respect to health care? Just think of how much more entrepreneurship there could be if folks could access health insurance through the coming exchanges and not be dependent upon traditional employment for health insurance.....

Seems to me as if entreneurship would be considered a very desirable thing to encourage by both sides of the aisle.....Does this health care reform not free up folks to pursue self employment to some degree? What do you'all think? Rob
Rob - Yes, that is how it was for me. I had to work at a job, quit when it made me sick, be self-employed for up to 18 months, then get another job before the COBRA ran out. And start the cycle all over again.

Since RomneyCare was enacted in Massachusetts, I have been able to be self-employed and not look back. Also, being self-employed is health-enhancing in itself, so that's another positive.

gimmethesimplelife
7-5-12, 11:11pm
Rob - Yes, that is how it was for me. I had to work at a job, quit when it made me sick, be self-employed for up to 18 months, then get another job before the COBRA ran out. And start the cycle all over again.

Since RomneyCare was enacted in Massachusetts, I have been able to be self-employed and not look back. Also, being self-employed is health-enhancing in itself, so that's another positive.LOL you know, on a lighter note from where this thread has gone, I belong to an online seasonal worker community and it seems that the craziness of working in the real world beyond the parks has jumped the gates at many national parks and the politics and the games and the BS that people could once escape by doing the seasonal lifestyle, well all this is in the parks now. Several of my online acquatainces - a few of who I have met IRL - are coming to the same conclusion - perhaps self employment is the ticket for their health and sanity. Crazy that work is now designed in such a way that it makes you sick, absolutely crazy! Glad you are doing well with self employment, BTW Life is Simple, and that it works for you. Rob

Spartana
7-9-12, 7:14pm
When I was in Mexico last week, I compared the price of Celebrex my mom takes - Walmart, with no insurance, cash price - $130, vs. in Mexico over the counter, $34! To me the price diffential is profiteering, no matter what kind of spin you want to put on it......Rob

The funny think is that at the VA Hospital I use (and I assume at all VA hospitals and clinics) they buy all their meds from Canada. Says so right on the label! So it seems that even the US. Govmint isn't willing to pay the high price for med from US Pharmas.

As for Obama care - while it doesn't personally effect me since I am fortunate (or unfortunate depending on how you look at it) to have a service-connect disability from my time in the military so can use the VA hospitals for little or no cost - I am happy to see "something" out there for others. It's not the universal healthcare for everyone I would have liked to see (too socialist for most I guess but something I'd be VERY willing to pay much greater taxes for) but it's something. My only concern (again for others not myself) is that by being "required" by law to purchase insurance from a for-profit insurance agency, and no way to control the costs of premiums, that they could charge the average middleclass family who have some pre-existing conditions exorbitant premiums because they earn too much to qualify for any substidy. And of course, by law, those people have no choice but to pay those premiums irregardless of how high they are. Was there any caps put on premiums? If not I wonder why, as I see nothing holding insurance companies from charging as much as they want - and raising premiums as much as they want, whenever they want. It seems in many ways that the we are giving the for-profit insurance co's alot of control over costs - too much control. To put a cap on premiums would have gone a long way to make the program better.

Spartana
7-9-12, 7:42pm
Have you looked at companies which provide outsourced food service to industry? One of my responsibilites at my job is to manage our outsourced cafeteria services. The company provides us with staff and their purchasing abilities through their restauraunt industry association to manage our cafeteria, vending and office coffee service. The cafeteria provides breakfast and lunch Mon-Fri as well as on-site catering for meetings and company events.

The way it works is the company provides a chef manager, two sous chef's and a cashier. We pay all the expenses incurred above sales, which currently is requiring approximately $140K a year in subsidy for cafeteria and another $25K or so in office coffee subsidy.

All the positions are full time w/benefits, although none of the hourly workers elect to receive health insurance. If they did, our subsidy would be higher.

The lowest paying position is the cashier's and it pays $14.75 per hour. If you want to work full-time in the food service industry, I'd think something like this might appeal to you.


And going to the places that are booming job-wise. Nebraska, South Dakota, etc... You don't need to work on the pipeline or for thr Halliburton oil-kingdom, but with so many workers they are building mini-boom cities with new servces, and the need for workers and higher salaries (and I believe healthcare benefits), out there on the grasslands and corn fields. Moving to find a better job, as well as a better life, is an age old tradition.

bae
7-9-12, 7:48pm
Moving to find a better job, as well as a better life, is an age old tradition.

If you are willing to deal with being your own boss, you can make $20-$25/hour where I live doing light gardening, housekeeping, or light handyman sort of work. If you have real electrical, plumbing, welding, or woodworking skills, you can get $50/hour. If you are the sort who is reliable and shows up on time, you can easily score a decent-paying job in the tourism industry here, though that is a bit more seasonal. I know plenty of folks here that with no more capital than their knowledge and willingness to work manage to put together several jobs of this sort to achieve a good living.

No benefits though, usually.

early morning
7-9-12, 7:59pm
bae, can one afford to live where you do on $25 an hour? (Which is more than I make as a teacher with a master's degree - but I do have benefits that aren't included in that hourly amount). I was under the impression that it was expensive to find rental housing where you are. Hey, I'm always looking for beautiful places to retire tom where I could continue working in some capacity.

bae
7-9-12, 8:19pm
bae, can one afford to live where you do on $25 an hour?

People seem to manage.

It is pretty expensive to live here if you demand a suburban lifestyle, and don't have enough capital to purchase a home/land. If you are willing to live differently, you can make do though. Finding year-round rentals here is difficult, if you are looking for a "nice" place, as so many of those places are rented by-the-week for the summer season, then available for "long term" rental only 8-9 months of the year, so you need to figure out how to deal with that.

I have plenty of friends who bought an inexpensive piece of land, or leased one long-term, and have lived happily for years in nice yurts and such, while building their more permanent home, or amassing savings to purchase one. Some of them have decided to just use the yurt or other structure as their permanent dwelling - the climate is so temperate here, and many folks spend much of their time outside anyways.

Spartana
7-9-12, 8:20pm
bae, can one afford to live where you do on $25 an hour? (Which is more than I make as a teacher with a master's degree - but I do have benefits that aren't included in that hourly amount). I was under the impression that it was expensive to find rental housing where you are. Hey, I'm always looking for beautiful places to retire tom where I could continue working in some capacity.

I have lived for many years in a VERY expensive part of SoCal - "The O.C" on what was less than $3000/month take home pay at the height of my working years (and about half that now that I no longer work). I was able to buy a house and save money at the same time. So with a bit of self-sacrifice (i.e. living the "real" simple life :-)!), then I think you can live pretty much anywhere. Of course it often takes strict austerity, which isn't for everyone, but often it only takes a few years of living like that to get far enough ahead. Of course I had some advantages such as buying a house in the mid-90s when property values were lower, divorced and childless with few other expenses beyond my home, utilities, food, taxes, etc.. AND (to stay on topic) heathcare thru the VA which was a big thing when deciding whether to take time off from my job or not. Even though I rarely use them except for issues with my military service-connected disability, and buying a low cost, high deductible emergency insurance plan thru Blue Cross (who suck BTW!), knowing I had that there for me in the event I needed it was wonderful. I'm assuming more people will feel the same under Obamacare as Rob pointed out in the OP. Now I rent (shared) in the same area and it's very inexpensive for me to do that.

early morning
7-9-12, 9:33pm
thanks for your input, Spartana and Bae. If - God forbid - something happens to DH - you give me hope that I might indeed retire to someplace really awesome! (DH is tied here, both physically, with his health issues, and emotionally... he won't ever move from here if he can help it.) PLEASE don't think I'm looking to get rid of him, lol - I'll gladly stay here forever if he's here too - but he's really the major tie to this particular place.

flowerseverywhere
7-10-12, 10:48am
I applaud those who served in the military and have been able to have some pension and healthcare assistance. When I graduated from high school in the late sixties joining the military would have been the last thing I would have done. That was about the time that anti-vietnam sentiment was at an all time high, and every night there would be scenes on the evening news of the carnage of war. A very important thing to remember is while the military is a great career path for some, with some great benefits if you put in your time, but you always have to realize you could end up fighting a war or working in a war zone.
I also would have much more money if I had no children and would have been able to live much more cheaply. Instead of working extra shifts when they were in college to help them out as much as I could it would have been nice to relax or save up and retire earlier. but I would not trade them or my grandchildren for any amount of money.

It truly is different strokes for different folks.

So that is why I applaud the attempt to have affordable health care. I want my children and grandchildren to live in a country where middle class can afford to see a doctor. Where a society is composed of all kinds of families of all kinds of religions and economic status. Not one where the super rich can afford to have the best of care, where the poor have some stopgap medical care and the vast middle class struggles to make payments in case they get sick. Some of the figures that have been posted here of what people pay for family coverage would take over half the after tax wage of normal middle class people.
Will there be some tough decisions that have to be made? Age limits for transplants and the resultant lifelong expensive drug regimin needed? If you show up at an emergency room and are 94 should they make all efforts to revivie you or should you be allowed to die in peace and dignity? Should a woman on disability be able to have in-vitro with implantation of eight embryos despite having six children already? Who makes these decisions?

Something has to change. Even if this plan is not it, I have not seen any proposals that come close to helping middle class america have access to the medicine and health care that will keep them productive citizens.

peggy
7-10-12, 12:14pm
The funny think is that at the VA Hospital I use (and I assume at all VA hospitals and clinics) they buy all their meds from Canada. Says so right on the label! So it seems that even the US. Govmint isn't willing to pay the high price for med from US Pharmas.

As for Obama care - while it doesn't personally effect me since I am fortunate (or unfortunate depending on how you look at it) to have a service-connect disability from my time in the military so can use the VA hospitals for little or no cost - I am happy to see "something" out there for others. It's not the universal healthcare for everyone I would have liked to see (too socialist for most I guess but something I'd be VERY willing to pay much greater taxes for) but it's something. My only concern (again for others not myself) is that by being "required" by law to purchase insurance from a for-profit insurance agency, and no way to control the costs of premiums, that they could charge the average middleclass family who have some pre-existing conditions exorbitant premiums because they earn too much to qualify for any substidy. And of course, by law, those people have no choice but to pay those premiums irregardless of how high they are. Was there any caps put on premiums? If not I wonder why, as I see nothing holding insurance companies from charging as much as they want - and raising premiums as much as they want, whenever they want. It seems in many ways that the we are giving the for-profit insurance co's alot of control over costs - too much control. To put a cap on premiums would have gone a long way to make the program better.

http://thanksobamacare.org/index.php?id=5
Well, here you go. Insurance companies who want to be a part of the state exchange, and they all will cause that's where the pool of customers will be, must be transparent in their fees and payment decisions, use a certain percentage of the fees for actual medical care (not hide it in overhead and 'business' costs) and must justify to the exchange rate increases. So, insurance companies who want to plug into this pool of customers can't just screw you over.

That is, of course, only if you live in a state that isn't trying to score political blows to Obama by refusing to form an insurance exchange for independent business people, self employed or small businesses. Texas is one, and there are others. In those states 'We the People' are less important than Job#1

Spartana
7-10-12, 1:03pm
thanks for your input, Spartana and Bae. If - God forbid - something happens to DH - you give me hope that I might indeed retire to someplace really awesome! (DH is tied here, both physically, with his health issues, and emotionally... he won't ever move from here if he can help it.) PLEASE don't think I'm looking to get rid of him, lol - I'll gladly stay here forever if he's here too - but he's really the major tie to this particular place.

Of course I wouldn't be able to live in this area on my pension alone if I didn't have shared housing (or had kept my house as it was paid off). Even a small one bedroom apt is around $1200- $1400/month. And housing prices are still very high compared to most other places in the country so would be able to buy another place here even if I just had my pension. But, when I'm ready to settle down again, I don't plan to buy in this area anyways and would look for somewhere where the housing costs to buy or rent alone are much much lower.

Spartana
7-10-12, 1:10pm
http://thanksobamacare.org/index.php?id=5
Well, here you go. Insurance companies who want to be a part of the state exchange, and they all will cause that's where the pool of customers will be, must be transparent in their fees and payment decisions, use a certain percentage of the fees for actual medical care (not hide it in overhead and 'business' costs) and must justify to the exchange rate increases. So, insurance companies who want to plug into this pool of customers can't just screw you over.

That is, of course, only if you live in a state that isn't trying to score political blows to Obama by refusing to form an insurance exchange for independent business people, self employed or small businesses. Texas is one, and there are others. In those states 'We the People' are less important than Job#1

That's great! I was thinking that with no choice to turn down insurance coverage without penalty, people could become trapped, helpless vicitms held hostage to the insurance co's greed. I saw it as sort of like gas stations or airlines, that once one starts raising prices, the others follow suit (and of course the reverse happens too). But because we have a choice not to drive or fly or buy anything if the prices rise too much, with the mandatory payments required by Obamacare we wouldn't have that choice. But you've eased my mind a bit. Still.... I would have much preferred a more European or Canadian style universal healthcare that wasn't so dependent on for-profit companies.

Also, what are those penalties for not buying health insurance? How will they (the govmint I'm assuming) monitor that and enforce that? This is the part of Obamacare I throughly dislike - way too Big Brotherish for me (both the mandatory buying of insurance as well as ther govmints penalizing and monitoring those who don't) although I like the majority of the rest of the plan.

creaker
7-10-12, 2:09pm
That's great! I was thinking that with no choice to turn down insurance coverage without penalty, people could become trapped, helpless vicitms held hostage to the insurance co's greed. I saw it as sort of like gas stations or airlines, that once one starts raising prices, the others follow suit (and of course the reverse happens too). But because we have a choice not to drive or fly or buy anything if the prices rise too much, with the mandatory payments required by Obamacare we wouldn't have that choice. But you've eased my mind a bit. Still.... I would have much preferred a more European or Canadian style universal healthcare that wasn't so dependent on for-profit companies.

Also, what are those penalties for not buying health insurance? How will they (the govmint I'm assuming) monitor that and enforce that? This is the part of Obamacare I throughly dislike - way too Big Brotherish for me (both the mandatory buying of insurance as well as ther govmints penalizing and monitoring those who don't) although I like the majority of the rest of the plan.

If it's anything like Romneycare we get a 1099-HC to file as proof of insurance. Their only option for the penalty is to take it out of your tax refund. I would think if people planned their tax payments so they wouldn't get a refund, they wouldn't pay a penalty, either.,

peggy
7-10-12, 2:32pm
Yeah, I'm sure you would just file your proof of insurance when you file taxes, like you prove other things for taxes. (interest payments, charity givings, etc...)

Absolutely universal health care would have been the way to go, and maybe we will do that now that things are rolling.

Sure you can choose to fly or drive, or not, but we really can't choose to live and breathe, and all evidence points to the simple fact that EVERYONE will need health care in some form eventually. Some more than others, certainly, but if I don't need much 'care', well, I'm not going to complain any more than I'd complain I never get to use my auto insurance!;)

I guess one could look at it in the context that we may choose not to drive on the road, but we all are drivers through life, the end result being a crash! :0! OK, well, maybe that's a little too dramatic!

Gregg
7-10-12, 4:04pm
I don't see how you make the jump from those strong statements about individual moral responsibility to "the government should step in"....

I was a little sidetracked by that as well.

Spartana
7-11-12, 1:34pm
I applaud those who served in the military and have been able to have some pension and healthcare assistance.

Yes, being in the armed forces can lead to great benefits if you do at least 20 years. And I think for the educational benefits you only need to commit to 6 years and have a Honorable Discharge. I know lots of people complain that service members get too many pension and medical benefits but the job is tough! It's certainly not a Mon - Fri 9 to 5 with nightts, weekends and holidays off type of job for most people in the service. When we would go on our annual patrol (I was in the Coast Guard) on the big cutters that went worldwide, we'd be gone for over a year sometimes - not going home or seeing our families at all during that time, working non-stop with very few breaks in often very hazardous and dangerous conditions, and pretty much being stuck with the same people living in a tiny shared communal space 24/7 for months and months at a time. And don't get me started on the food :0!!! And even when you where in in your home port for a couple of months, you still had to work a huge amount, stand watches, have over-night and weekend duty (on the job for a 24 hour shift). And of course, then you'd do it all again. All for that giant paycheck of about $1000 - $2000/month!! So I always tell people who say that folks in the service have too many benefits to imagine kissing the spouse, kids and dog goodbye one morning and heading off for work - and then staying there for a year and living and working there with all your co-workers 24/7. Sleeping withg them all in one room together, eating, showering, using the bathrooms, and socializing just with them - and not going home or seeing your loved ones for a year. And then doing that each year for 20 years for very little pay (and no overtime either) to get those pension benefits. Puts a different perspective on things.

As for the medical benefits service members get, they are pretty great - even at the "much trashed by the media" VA hospitals. And they are portable. I can use any facility, anywhere in this country, at any time. That can't be said for private hospitals or doctors as most insurance co's seem to only cover the area you live in except for during an emergency (something I also would have liked seen done with Obamacare - transportability of you medical coverage so if you move or travel, your medical coverage goes with you). I have gotten great care at both the VA and at military hospitals - much better care then at civilian hospitals sad to say - and would love to see those same kind of medical benefits available to everyone in the country. Of course that means a tax payer based universal healthcare system but why not? I mean we can do it for education where evey person is given a free education until grade 12. I feel medical care is just as important - maybe more important - as educating our population. And like with schools, for those who arenj't happy with public education system, and who have the financial means, they can opt to pay for private schools. So can those with the means opt for private health insurance if they aren't happy with the public one. And while I'm not a big fan of Obamacare as it's written, it;s better than nothing.

Spartana
7-11-12, 1:41pm
If it's anything like Romneycare we get a 1099-HC to file as proof of insurance. Their only option for the penalty is to take it out of your tax refund. I would think if people planned their tax payments so they wouldn't get a refund, they wouldn't pay a penalty, either.,

Any idea how much the penalty is? Is it some % of your income or just an arbitary fixed number that's the same for everyone? I wonder how it will work for people who don't have enough income to file taxes - maybe a Romneycare type proof of insurance form to sent to the Feds even if you don't have to file income taxes. Also, and this may have been asked already here, but what do people who have a religious belief again medical care do? Do they have to pay also or is there a clause that exempts them based on their religious beliefs?

creaker
7-11-12, 3:06pm
Any idea how much the penalty is? Is it some % of your income or just an arbitary fixed number that's the same for everyone? I wonder how it will work for people who don't have enough income to file taxes - maybe a Romneycare type proof of insurance form to sent to the Feds even if you don't have to file income taxes. Also, and this may have been asked already here, but what do people who have a religious belief again medical care do? Do they have to pay also or is there a clause that exempts them based on their religious beliefs?

This is a little rough, I'm copying off web page: http://www.massresources.org/health-reform.html#howmuchpenalty



Penalties are based on ½ the cost of the lowest-priced Commonwealth Choice plan available to you. The penalties vary by age and income, based on percentages of the Federal Poverty Guidelines (FPG). People with incomes at or below 150% of the FPG do not have to pay a penalty if uninsured.

The 2011 tax year penalties are:
Income and Age 150.1-200% FPG | 200.1-250% FPG | 250.1-300% FPG | Above 300% FPG (FPG = Federal Poverty Guidelines)
Age 18-26 | Age 27+
Tax penalty $19 per month/$228 per year | $38 per month/$456 per year | $58 per month/$696 per year | $72 per month/$864 per year | $101 per month/$1212 per year

You can use the FPG income and household size categories below to see which penalty category would apply to you.

(For example, if your income is greater than the 150% FPG income amount and less than or equal to the 200% FPG income amount shown below for your household size, your tax penalty category would be "150.1-200% FPG.")


Health Insurance Tax Penalty Income Categories - Tax Year 2011
(based on Federal Poverty Guidelines effective January 2011) Household size Annual Income (% of Federal Poverty Guidelines)
150% FPG 200% FPG 250% FPG 300% FPG
1 $16,344 $21,780 $27,228 $32,676
2 $22,068 $29,424 $36,780 $44,136
3 $27,804 $37,068 $46,332 $55,596
4 $33,528 $44,700 $55,884 $67,056
5 $39,264 $52,344 $65,436 $78,516
6 $44,988 $59,988 $74,976 $89,976
7 $50,724 $67,620 $84,528 $101,436
8 $56,448 $75,264 $94,080 $112,896
each extra person +$5,736 +$7,644 +$9,552 +$11,460

On waivers:

Can I get an exemption or waiver?

Massachusetts residents who can afford MCC health insurance but do not buy it must pay a tax penalty unless they qualify for an exemption or a waiver.

If your income is at or below 150% of the Federal Poverty Guidelines, you do not have to pay a penalty.
If you cannot find an affordable health plan, you do not have to pay a penalty. The Commonwealth Connector has an online affordability tool to let you see how much you should be able to pay for a health insurance plan based on your income and family size, and if an affordable plan is available for you: Commonwealth Connector Affordability
You can claim a religious exemption if you have sincerely held religious beliefs that prevent you from buying or having health insurance.
If you had a financial hardship during the year and filed for a Certificate of Exemption before December 1, you do not have to pay a penalty if you received an exemption. For more information, see Waivers from the Tax Penalties and Filing a Certificate of Exemption on the Commonwealth Connector web site.
If you owe a penalty, but you faced a hardship during the year that prevented you from buying health insurance despite your income, you can file an appeal when you file your state income taxes. If you have another good reason for not buying health insurance, you can also file an appeal.


And unless they just changed this all, it's been considered a tax here, I think, since its inception.

Spartana
7-11-12, 4:15pm
Thanks Creaker. I know that's for Mass but it'll probably be similair for obamacare. While none of this will personally effect me, it is good to know as my sister pays for her own health insurance (Kaiser HMO at around $425/month) and is currently unemployed with no income - although will be starting a part time job soon. Wonder if cost of living for different areas will be taken into account for subsidies or is it just based on income alone? Obviously a person earning $10K a year in rural Oklahoma probably has a much lower cost of living then someone earning $10K a year in coastal SoCal. Not sure if I think tcost of living should be taken into account or not but just wondered if it will be.

stuboyle
7-11-12, 4:47pm
I'm getting into the conversation late and I see it's been touched on earlier but I believe that the employer sponsored health-care system creates wide-spread economic mis-allocations. I say we get rid of it and have employers increase everyone's pay to compensate so they can go out on the free-market and get it. If that were to happen then you wouldn't lose your insurance because you lost your job. One argument of course people will say is that you couldn't afford insurance if you lost your job. My reply to that is well, you knew that could happen, so you should have been saving for that eventuality.

Of course there are a lot more issue to work out, such as for pre-existing condtions.

Spartana
7-11-12, 5:03pm
I'm getting into the conversation late and I see it's been touched on earlier but I believe that the employer sponsored health-care system creates wide-spread economic mis-allocations. I say we get rid of it and have employers increase everyone's pay to compensate so they can go out on the free-market and get it. If that were to happen then you wouldn't lose your insurance because you lost your job. One argument of course people will say is that you couldn't afford insurance if you lost your job. My reply to that is well, you knew that could happen, so you should have been saving for that eventuality.

Of course there are a lot more issue to work out, such as for pre-existing condtions.

Or you could do away with employer sponsered heathcare system and have them pay the amount they were paying to cover each employee and their family - as well as the cost of overhead to administer their programs (HR stuff) - in taxes to ther govmint to provide for a universal healthcare program. Those taxes, as well as tax contributions from everyone , could probably fund most of it.

stuboyle
7-11-12, 5:19pm
Or you could do away with employer sponsered heathcare system and have them pay the amount they were paying to cover each employee and their family - as well as the cost of overhead to administer their programs (HR stuff) - in taxes to ther govmint to provide for a universal healthcare program. Those taxes, as well as tax contributions from everyone , could probably fund most of it.

Maybe so. I don't know. The free market doesn't seem very "free" as it applies to healthcare. If we use electrical deregulation in Texas as an analogy, which may or may not be a very good one, before we had the state electrical commission negotiate directly with the producer and rates were fixed. Then we deregulate which introduces a middleman who extracts profits and we have one of the highest electrical rates in the country.

peggy
7-11-12, 6:30pm
I'm getting into the conversation late and I see it's been touched on earlier but I believe that the employer sponsored health-care system creates wide-spread economic mis-allocations. I say we get rid of it and have employers increase everyone's pay to compensate so they can go out on the free-market and get it. If that were to happen then you wouldn't lose your insurance because you lost your job. One argument of course people will say is that you couldn't afford insurance if you lost your job. My reply to that is well, you knew that could happen, so you should have been saving for that eventuality.

Of course there are a lot more issue to work out, such as for pre-existing condtions.

Ahh...but Obamacare addresses this. This is where the state insurance exchanges come in. The exchange is a collection of insurance companies who offer a variety of plans. This is for independent business people, self employed or those who wish to , or need to buy insurance outside of a job. The companies who participate in the exchange must abide by a set of rules, justify increases, etc... in order to participate in the exchange, and they will all want to participate because here is a huge pool of customers. Think of it kind of like a food co-op. Lots of families participate in the co-op so that keeps the prices low while still offering the producers (insurance companies) a decent profit.
Unfortunately, some states, like Texas, refuse to set up an exchange, because, after weighing the choices, they decided landing a blow on Obama and the democrats is way more important than serving their people. * Job #1 you know. Obamacare says if states don't want to set up these exchanges then the feds will do it for them. My state, in their infinite wisdom, have decided that not only do they not want to set up this exchange, they want to block the feds from doing so as well. Lucky us...Do I really need to say this is a republican state senate? I wonder how long before people, even people who vote republican stop and say, "wait, let's think about this. Now who has my best interest at heart?" I'm not holding my breath.
Well, this is why republicans want to disenfranchise students in voting. Don't really want an educated public, cause an educated public is a democratic public. Sorry if I sound bitter. I love where I live, but if it weren't for other factors, I'd absolutely be moving to a 'bluer' state. But, i am covered. I have that wonderful health care coverage Spartana talked about, so I got mine. It's just a shame that republicans are fighting tooth and nail to keep everyone else from having the peace of mind i have as to health care.

*http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/mcconnell-stopping-obamas-re-election-still-

creaker
7-11-12, 6:57pm
Thanks Creaker. I know that's for Mass but it'll probably be similair for obamacare. While none of this will personally effect me, it is good to know as my sister pays for her own health insurance (Kaiser HMO at around $425/month) and is currently unemployed with no income - although will be starting a part time job soon. Wonder if cost of living for different areas will be taken into account for subsidies or is it just based on income alone? Obviously a person earning $10K a year in rural Oklahoma probably has a much lower cost of living then someone earning $10K a year in coastal SoCal. Not sure if I think tcost of living should be taken into account or not but just wondered if it will be.

My daughter did a small stint unemployed with no income - she was able to get on MassHealth (MA's Medicaid), and then transition onto her current employers healthplan when she started working again.

creaker
7-11-12, 7:04pm
I'm getting into the conversation late and I see it's been touched on earlier but I believe that the employer sponsored health-care system creates wide-spread economic mis-allocations. I say we get rid of it and have employers increase everyone's pay to compensate so they can go out on the free-market and get it. If that were to happen then you wouldn't lose your insurance because you lost your job. One argument of course people will say is that you couldn't afford insurance if you lost your job. My reply to that is well, you knew that could happen, so you should have been saving for that eventuality.

Of course there are a lot more issue to work out, such as for pre-existing condtions.

That's a slippery slope - it's a lot easier to chip away dollars than a benefit. I expect that "increase" would evaporate fairly quickly, while and at the same time healthcare is jumping in cost. Not to mention we would all be getting billed as individuals, which would mean massive price hikes for many.