I think the Bill being proposed is just bigger government and less freedom of choice. It is always explained with a few words though has what, 2,000 pages. Still is not covering all citizens which is suppose to be what it is all about.
As I've posted I am for a plan that would provide health care coverage for all Americans with a graduated premium. I would believe that if a person has their own health care insurance coverage that they should be allowed to opt out though. There are aspects of the current bill I am strongly for such as the Community Choice Act (which I have been a supporter for years on its own) and aspects I do not support. I still believe that if it is passed before then there will be some revisions in it as there usually are (as there are negotiations between both sides) and unfortunately some political pork thrown in. Health care coverage should be available for all Americans. I don't know if this bill is the optimum way to provide it. I have the text of the bill bookmarked from a thread a while ago and I am still trying to read it through it:
I did hear some of it read, one of the things is EVERYONE has to have it there is no choice , and if you dont pay its a big fine, if you dont pay the fine they can if they choose chuck you in Jail. My daughter in UK cannot get a mammogram till she is 50 even though on her fathers side 2 Aunties have had cancer, After the first Baby you have to have children at home its too expensive to have them in hospital if like me the cord is wrapped around the Babies neck, the one midwife sends for what they called a Flying' Abulance to hospital, hopefully you get there in time again this was in London it may vary in differant cities, but I was told NO to hospital with 2 of my children, . till you reach an age that is deemed as old' so you may go to hospital again, my brother waited for many months to get a prostate test then more to get the results ....I could go on and on , I fled from the socialism in UK....You wait several days to see a Doctor in many places, they are paid by the Government so they dont do too well.In UK you pay what they call a 10 pound stamp to pay for it, its going to be hugely expensive here. Best thing is to google for all the horrors that happen under a Government run health care system, the Brits are used to it, they havent known much else ...My own feelings are I hope the Senate throws it out.....Oh heres a tidbit they are trying to pass a bill where all will be given a card they carry with their carbon footprint on if they go over what they are allowed guess what fines ,and worse .....
I have a lot of problems and have to go to drs constantly. I would definitely go over my allowed amount. They may decide I am too expensive for care!
I would think leaders that are voting on this bill would be ashamed to vote yes on such a thing. I can't believe that drs would want the government to control what care they can give their patients. Prices are not cheap to get treatments and tests, but if it is required to help a person, it should be left up to the individual to choose their care.
I searched for more than 20 years to find out the problem that affects my voice. I did finally find out, but I went through a lot to get to the right dr. That would not be allowed if the Bill was during that time.
Having babies outside of the hospital is very risky. Before they went to hospitals, there were a lot of deaths for women as well as the babies.
It is good to have someone that has been in that situation to advise us on what it is like.
I am glad that there is a site we can go to that we can see what the Bill is about. Hope they have the whole thing posted.
Thank you both for your valuable information. RJ
The perfect solution to which no known problem exists.
Yes I've noted that many people are opposed to it and I can see why. I also have heard similar stories myself from people who lived in the U.K. or Canada offsite. I would not agree with the concept of socialized medicine. There are people here in the various forums from Canada or the U.K. who cannot find coverage for medications that are commonly prescribed in the United States because of health care rationing there. However, there are many people in the United States without health care coverage. What would people want to see instead?
I don't know about other states, but where I live there are clinics and hospital care for those that don't have insurance. The income is the basis for cost. Before I had insurance, that is what I did and never had a problem. My sister is a single mother and has had several surgeries and her son also. The drs in which the plan is set up are in a teaching hospital with expert drs and technology. I still go to the same drs and have for years with insurance. If the costs are based on income then people that can't afford insurance can still get care and with expert drs. I personally think it is a great set up. It doesn't interfere with those who have insurance and provides equal care for those that don't.
Actually the folks that have not had health care coverage in the US and I am including all the illegal folks have had it ,I know of many 'free clinics that are run by Doctors in their 'spare time' and all the ER s in nearly every area and city there is a clinic run by Public health ,has been for many years I know of most Mexican workers who get good health care that way. On yesterdays news they informed us that they are re thinking the age for mammograms as I prevoiusly said happens in UK its going to be 50 ...and thats before the OBama care gets in ...so it begins .
From what I know people who are illegal immigrants are only eligible for emergency Medicaid only (that meaning a literally life threatening emergency, coverage stops after that). I do know the benefits system where I live. I definitely would not extend that. Health coverage should be for people who are American citizens as is, with the same minor restrictions on people who have legal status (green card, etc.) as now which are fair minded. I would agree that the United States right now in a reccession can't economically absorb that many immigrants into the workplace so I do agree that bill is unworkable as well. I think from what we are all typing here the average American has more sense than the government but we only have a say in who we elect not what happens after that. Its only on state levels that people can vote on proposals that become laws.
ILADVOCATE: Where I live, illegal immigrants get to go to our county health dept's and many get better care than we, who have insurance. They even get sent to major hospitals that we have a hard time getting sent to.
I think the health care plan has gotten way off track. It started out as something that would give "affordable health CARE" to all Americans; then all of a sudden it shifted gears to "affordable health INSURANCE" - like it doesn't matter whether we can afford the CARE or not because we have INSURANCE and someone else will be paying the bills. If the CARE were affordable, we wouldn't have to worry about whether we had INSURANCE or not.................
I, personally, am trying to get my medical issues under control before this stupid plan goes into effect. The government is going to "subsidize" people who can't afford insurance -- how doggone expensive is it going to be anyway, that it has to be government subsidized?? And who's going to pay for THAT, if not US.........
Yes I would agree. I am concerned about the health insurance industry in general as it seems to have so many denials set up in it that many people, myself included get denied for medications that can be life sustaining. I am not sure what health care was like before people needed to be covered under a health insurance plan but perhaps in some ways it was better. The health insurance companies donate enough to politician's campaigns that they appear to be the only winners in any situation and determine the quality of a person's care. The insurance companies should either be further regulated or there should be enough competition between them that some of them to stay in business would have to lower premiums or have better rates and then people would by choice pick those plans. If the insurance companies in any case make the final decisions there would be no improvement and in fact people's options would worsen and premiums go up.
Well, I'll really date myself here, but *I* do remember what it was like before health insurance, and though it wasn't always easy to pay for, medical care was available. When I was young, people were still bringing the doctor a chicken to pay for their care, or something else. When my children were born, we had insurance, but for most things, we didn't even file a claim -- a doctor visit was like $20 - and that wasn't the co-pay, that's what it cost.
It's these days of law suits and fancy offices, medical centers, etc, that the cost of basic care has gone out of sight.
The only thing I agree with in the health care plan is the idea of not allowing insurance companies to deny coverage to those with pre-existing conditions.
We never doubted that it needed reform I think its one thing we all agree on, its how its done and the Big rush to do it, its not as important as the economy or Job losses, I am hoping that the Senate will not pass it, we will get reform the ball is rolling but not OBamas way ,hey are we still picking money off trees to pay for it, where do these left wing folks who are waiting for government handouts think the money to pay for healthcare is coming from , the tooth Fairy ??
No, margy, they are "picking" the money to pay for this out of our pockets.
Yes, we do need reform, but I hope the Senate doesn't pass it too; however, I have a feeling that Obama's going to have it "his way" one way or another..........His rush to get it done is that he doesn't want US to be able to figure out what all's happening until it's too late and we can't do anything about it...............
Interestingly enough last I read although there is a democratic majority that could easily pass it 3 senators who are democrats are refusing to vote for it for many of the same concerns people expressed. There may very well be some changes to it before it gets passed and that may not just come from republicans. The option of not having a choice as to having coverage or not as for one very big issue seems to be increasingly unpopular among officials not just the American public.
I have just finished watching a news programme I dont know if every tax paying American especially middle class realises that if this healthcare bill is passed , we start paying taxes immediatly and there are some hefty ones in it, yet we dont get the healthcare until 2014 .......
If that is the literal time line then I would say that's a lousy piece of bureaucracy right there. Everyone, myself included is sick of co-pays, deductables and denials of coverage and some people don't have health care coverage to begin with because they can't afford it or don't meet the guidelines. All I know is when I saw that movie by Michael Moore "Sicko" part of me said "this is too good to be true" so I believe now I was right. I do believe there needs to be a complete overhaul of the health care system (and remember unlike other benefits this one impacts on all people as if one person without coverage gets sick it can spread to other people, I am still upset about the H1N1 flu rationing and think the government should have made a better effort to be ready for it and have enough of the supply of the vaccine available for everyone this after president Obama calls it a "national epidemic") but this clearly is not the way. It doesn't change my political perspective as a whole. However, it does broaden it as to things being more complex than I was originally lead to believe.
One thing that just came to me is that this plan was suppose to be so the uninsured would have medical care because they couldn't afford it. That sounds good because we don't want to see people not get the care they need. The thing is, okay we will be paying to spread the care, but those that can't pay to have medical care are going to be fined a hefty amount if they don't get it, even face going to jail or prison. Now, if someone can't afford it now, and it is suppose to help them, why is there going to be a reason for a fine? If the ones that already have it pays for them, why are they having to pay to start with? It is suppose to be $7,500 more per year in cost (according to ones that have read it), on top of having to pay taxes on the money paid for coverage. If it is government health care, as I know from Medicare, you pay taxes on the cost of coverage. I checked it when I filed taxes because it didn't seem right because they do charge for Medicare Insurance and it is paid out of the money you receive, though you get SS according to what you paid into it in taxes. That income is going to be cut also. People that draw SS are going to pay more for insurance and draw less money. That is going to hurt the elderly, big time, also. So, where is there anything good in this. The government is going to have a l-o-n-g waiting list to see the dr and if your illness is life threatening, they may decide not to give you the care you need. They are going to decide if and when we get mammograms. Medicare only will cover mammograms every 2 yrs now. My mother had breast cancer and I have already had one spot removed. My mammograms started earlier because of it, as well as my daughter. Where is that going to leave women that have a family history of breast cancer. Yet they are whining to cover abortions. They are going to put out $ to stop a life, but not to keep a life?
The people pushing to pass this Bill have big money and they will never see that type of treatment. They will always get the best. Does anyone think Peloski is going to put herself at risk? That won't happen, not to her, or she wouldn't be smiling from ear to ear. Neither will Obama's wife or daughters or mother in law. I guess it doesn't bother him. Didn't his dying mother that had all those forms to fill out, that didn't get the care she needed, have cancer?
I've said it before and I'll say it again ---- when the health care bill is good enough for the Pres, his family and congress, it will be good enough for ME and YOU.
Did any of you hear the latest news. Now they have obgyn drs on the news saying women no longer need to get pap smears until they are 21 and they have changed how often. Two drs were on the station talking about it. One (a man) said they were causing women more problems because they would find things that would just go away on it's own and unnecessary procedures would be done. The other dr (a woman), said the testing procedures are very minor and she did not agree. The dr that was against the tests said it is just bad timing that this just came out. It makes it look like they are just trying to save money. This thing is really starting to affect the health care of women.
I have saaid it many times this is following UK their health care , my daughter who has 2 family members on her fathers side with Breast cancer was denied it till she reached 50, as she is a long way off and was concerned she paid privately to get it done ,although she could not afford the hefty cost...so it begins guys, you will end up having Babies at home aswell trust me, no option I had 2 at home ...they say they cant afford the hospital beds, or that there arent enough hospital beds ..My son was born in a one bedroom appt in London ,several yaers ago I may add, I went into labor the midwife truned up, I eventually got some 'gas and Air' for pain, the cord was round his neck and I was rushed into Hospital on what they call the flying Ambulance..As for getting tests and treatment over a certain age Hummmm go whistle Dixie ...
I see exactly what you are talking about. Free America is swiftly going down the drain.
Unless"We the People ' turn it around again ........
Yes well I do know the country changes from one direction to another as various political leaders fail us. I believe that it was under then president Nixon that the phrase "the silent majority" was coined. He did indeed propose changes for health care reform and also created Supplemental Security Income (SSI) (both of which may have benefited people) but he left the country in a state of disgrace. I can't really think of a president within my life time without their own agenda that in some ways took precedence over the best interests of the American people. Politics has become too imbedded and the two party mindset creates some form of recidivism where people are mainly reacting to what they see wrong in one leader instead of what they want as there is no one who represents their best interests or the interests of the nation as a whole.
I do know this occured in the last administration when there were many people that had protests that really stood for nothing and despite my political stance I got disinterested in them as they were just grasping at straws and making our country apper to be divisive. I believe that other countries used this to foster a spirit of anti-Americanism which president Obama stated he would use negotiation and constructive means to end but nothing much has been done and the United States still has a low standing internationally which clearly any president that I would respect would take a stance against.