Health Insurance = No Homesteaders & No Freedom

ArmyDoc · #81 08/08/12, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ArmyDoc

We have a system of universal health care too... its just a crummy one. If you don't have insurance or money for care, you wait till it's an emergency, go to the ER where you will be seen (eventually) and treated. If you have not insurance, or no money, society will pick up the tab.

The difference is that in other countries they have already decided society is picking up the tab, so they are going to do it proactively. They tax everyone, and everyone gets care when they get sick, not when it becomes an emergency. But it's not all a bed of roses, not everything possible is available. CatScans and other forms of advance medical technology were/are much more readily available here than they were/are in those countries.

The real question is: Who pays, how, and when?

The first is silly - we all pay in one way or another. The second two depend on what society votes for. We pay in higher medical bills (current system), or we pay in higher taxes (government system), or we pay in having to pay insurance premiums (private system), or we pay in higher cost of goods and services (your job provides insurance).

Quote:

Originally Posted by MO_cows

While that bolded part is true for delivering babies and people having heart attacks, for things like cancer it is a death sentence for those who don't have access to care. If you wait until cancer gets bad enough to send you to the emergency room, you likely have hours or maybe days left to live.

It is "common knowledge" that the government is inefficient, right? But look at Medicare. It is the smallest deduction out of most everyone's paycheck by far, yet it pays 80% of the medical expense for every single American over 65. (I honestly don't know if it funds Medicaid, too) What they take out of my check for Medicare, combined with the "other half" my employer pays, is still less than what my dad pays for his Medicare "supplement" to cover the other 20% plus some extras! So even though I have believed for years that the goobermint couldn't possibly be efficient or effective, the fact remains that they are taking care of the 80% cheaper than the private sector will cover the 20%. It is really something to think about, isn't it?

I don't know a lot about the universal health plans in other countries. I did have a friend from the U.K. and she was quite satisfied with the medical care there, and the impression I got was they think it is rather uncivilized or even barbaric the way we let people suffer and die here in the U.S. because they can't afford medical care. And people do suffer and die - the ones that have just too much to get on Medicaid but still can't afford the insurance or the care on their own.

I think you may have missed the first part of what I said - our system of universal health care is a crummy one. The most expensive and least effective way to pay for health care for the poor/uninsured is to have them come in when they become an emergency and pay for it by jacking everyone elses rates up. I suspect we are in agreement for the need for universal healthcare.

I do have to take issue with your seeming support of the medicare/medicaid as being efficient. Medicare/medicaid are the lowest reimbursing payors - so low that physicians often loose money seeing these payments and as a result are not accepting new patients.

The real argument remains not if, but how we pay for healtcare. In my opinion, the answer is NOT having universal healthcare paid for by the government, although I would prefer that to the current system. I would prefer to have two things happen:

a) Regulate the insurers so that they
1) can't charge different rates for the same coverage/policy (i.e. average the risk accross everyone instead of just one employer, and if they drop the price for one large buyer, it helps everyone.)
2) have to offer a basic policy, so that there is competition between insurers on that policy. (add ons and better policies are fine, but the basic policy should be starndardized)
b) Require employers to insure their employees with the minimu policy
c) Government should purchase the basic policy for the lowest cost for the unemployed (thus driving down the costs for everyone else too)

That keeps the burden off the individual (who is least able to afford it) out of the hands of government, and stimulates competition to drive prices down.

And yes, we will all still have to pay for it, because businesses will pass the costs along to the consumer in the form of higher prices...

sidepasser · #82 08/08/12, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedH71

Work for Target part or full time. Everyone gets health insurance regardless of the number of hours worked.

Same with Home Depot..part time or full time - both get insurance. I used to work for HD and I had insurance as a part time employee. Starbucks also offers ins. to part time employees.

sidepasser · #83 08/08/12, 01:39 PM

Even though I have outstanding health insurance (which I pay greatly for), if I got cancer and the cost of treatment was going to exceed what my ins. would pay, I would opt not to have treatment. I will not bankrupt my family nor lose everything I have worked for to pay for expensive treatments which may or may not work. Health care insurance is not "all that and a bag of chips" to keep a person from losing everything they have. Usually capped at a million dollars for treatment and many treatments are exempted even under the best of policies, (especially if the treatment is deemed "experimental" it isn't covered anyway.

Best one can do is try to remain healthy and out of the system.

where I want to · #84 08/08/12, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cedarvalley

I guess thats just not enough though huh!!! Do you see a problem with your argument?

What is objectionable is to get a piece of a story that does not seem reasonable and be expected to fall in line with the conclusion.

It is possible that medicaid would not cover some treatments that would stand a good chance of curing someone's cancer but there are too many expamples of the cost being covered for needed care to simply buy into that. Maybe not desperate attempts at treatment. After all, this man's care in the hospital was being covered by someone, if he couldn't afford it.
So the first thought is that, something is wrong with this story. Something is missing.

So I simply do not think your story proves any point about health care and insurance.

cedarvalley · #85 08/08/12, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ArmyDoc

I think you may have missed the first part of what I said - our system of universal health care is a crummy one. The most expensive and least effective way to pay for health care for the poor/uninsured is to have them come in when they become an emergency and pay for it by jacking everyone elses rates up. I suspect we are in agreement for the need for universal healthcare.

I do have to take issue with your seeming support of the medicare/medicaid as being efficient. Medicare/medicaid are the lowest reimbursing payors - so low that physicians often loose money seeing these payments and as a result are not accepting new patients.

The real argument remains not if, but how we pay for healtcare. In my opinion, the answer is NOT having universal healthcare paid for by the government, although I would prefer that to the current system. I would prefer to have two things happen:

a) Regulate the insurers so that they
1) can't charge different rates for the same coverage/policy (i.e. average the risk accross everyone instead of just one employer, and if they drop the price for one large buyer, it helps everyone.)
2) have to offer a basic policy, so that there is competition between insurers on that policy. (add ons and better policies are fine, but the basic policy should be starndardized)
b) Require employers to insure their employees with the minimu policy
c) Government should purchase the basic policy for the lowest cost for the unemployed (thus driving down the costs for everyone else too)

That keeps the burden off the individual (who is least able to afford it) out of the hands of government, and stimulates competition to drive prices down.

And yes, we will all still have to pay for it, because businesses will pass the costs along to the consumer in the form of higher prices...

Armydoc: I like your plan, those ideas are something are lawmakers need to consider as an alternative to what were about to be presented with now. For those of you that seem to think i am in favor of this new health care law, that couldnt be further from the truth. I do think we need to come up with a way to make health care affordable to all though.

PhilJohnson · #86 08/08/12, 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by silverseeds

So how do we pay for it? the ability to stack debt onto future generations only goes so far. As the baby boomers retire we could cut pretty much the entire military and not be able to fund medicaid and medicare. (or SS being that we spent the cash and have IOUs instead)

Do you want to pay more for basic goods and services? Would you rather spend an extra 20-40 percent on necessities so those people who work menial jobs do not have to rely on government assistance? We have a stable nation because there is not a huge restless underclass, that stability cost money. There is not a single developed nation that does not have a myriad of social programs. The old adage you get what you pay for rings true here.

We do have the money, it's time to dump the private tax charged by private insurance companies. As much as everyone claims that people are fed up with socialized medicine in other countries I do not hear the masses in those nations clamoring there for an American style system. Expensive health care is a damper on the economy. With a single payer system people would be granted more freedom to choose what they would rather do, such as self-employment thus freeing up jobs that others need.

I think the passage of time has made people forget how hard things used to be. In the 1930s when the ground work was being laid for our modern safety net the people of the day did grow up during the pioneer days. Those people had a perspective that few people of today can truly comprehend.

Quote:

Originally Posted by silverseeds

It reminds me of the cycle of civilizations. a common theme is a society getting more and more complex until the complexity cripples it. We seem pretty close to that actually.

I agree with that to a point. As population has grown the rules that keep everything from blowing up have had to become much more complex. The complexity grows to the point where civilization backs itself into a corner. There is not a single solution that won't cause someone discomfort, whether that is the elderly, poor, wealthy, or all groups.

silverseeds · #87 08/08/12, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilJohnson

We do have the money, it's time to dump the private tax charged by private insurance companies. As much as everyone claims that people are fed up with socialized medicine in other countries I do not hear the masses in those nations clamoring there for an American style system.

cutting out the insurance companies wouldnt even come close to covering the costs. Heck cutting the entire military isnt enough. The western countries you speak of cant afford it either even though the same procedures cost a fraction of the same amount in many cases, and they dont have the massive military we have. they are piling debt onto their kids to do it, and its starting to fail horribly for them, if you havent noticed. The "can", can only be kicked down the road so far.

We cant even afford medicaid and medicare now, and that will become essentially impossible to do as more boomer retire. Cutting out insurance companies only accounts for a tiny fraction of the needed capitol.

Our credit rating is already in jeopardy through all the major rating houses. The BRICS nations and the IMF are already talking about replacing the dollar as the reserve currency. It simply cant last, (large segments of the economy relying on debt) and if we try to wish and spend it away it cant end well.

where I want to · #88 08/08/12, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Work horse

I pay big $$$$ in taxes but no worries about paying for health care.

Yours truly,
a Canadian.

Much of the time, you would be right not to worry. The same could be said for Brits, Greeks, Spaniards, Italians, Irish, Japanese, until recently too.

Canada is in an expansion mode right now, using oil reserves to fuel it. That will not always be true. It was true for the US for years too.

PhilJohnson · #89 08/08/12, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by silverseeds

cutting out the insurance companies wouldnt even come close to covering the costs.

Why not? Especially when there is profit built into the system. Also consider this, when you pay for health care you are paying for people who don't pay. You and I don't live in a bubble world were the rates for health care are only based on paying customers. We are paying for those who don't pay. The idea of cutting assistance to those who can't pay won't make health care any cheaper because you still have to pay anyway. That is unless we make a new law that enables hospitals to refuse treatment of trauma victims ect.

Quote:

Originally Posted by silverseeds

Heck cutting the entire military isnt enough. The western countries you speak of cant afford it either even though the same procedures cost a fraction of the same amount in many cases, and they dont have the massive military we have. they are piling debt onto their kids to do it, and its starting to fail horribly for them, if you havent noticed. The "can", can only be kicked down the road so far.

Like what countries, Greece and Spain? Those countries never were very stable to begin with and have issues that go far beyond revenue. And those countries are not truly developed nations like the USA and Canada. Norway, Switzerland, Sweden, ect seem to be doing quite fine with their socialized medicine. It is also interesting that you acknowledge that health care cost in those countries is a lot lower there than it is here. Yet we have a free market system and those nations have a closed market system.

Quote:

Originally Posted by silverseeds

We cant even afford medicaid and medicare now, and that will become essentially impossible to do as more boomer retire. Cutting out insurance companies only accounts for a tiny fraction of the needed capitol.

Tiny fraction? If everyone had to pay a non-refundable tax where hospitals got reimbursed 100 percent for cost and there was no one left stuck holding the bag. I am not sure how that would some how cost more than having an uninsured person come in on their death bed rack up a bill and die and then still not pay? The current model of health care is not sustainable. Making higher and higher deductible health plans is not a solution. What do you suggest? Tort reform? Everywhere that tort reform has been tried it has not lowered cost by any appreciable amount. I would like to hear what your idea would be for an equitable solution.

Quote:

Originally Posted by silverseeds

Our credit rating is already in jeopardy through all the major rating houses. The BRICS nations and the IMF are already talking about replacing the dollar as the reserve currency. It simply cant last, (large segments of the economy relying on debt) and if we try to wish and spend it away it cant end well.

For all that hoopla about our triple AAA rating being cut it hasn't amounted to anything. I believe the move was more politically motivated than being factually based. As bad as our nation may be financially there are a lot of other nations that are worst off. Also investors, banks, and nations are willing to continually buy US treasury bonds even though T-bill yields have hovered near zero percent. They view it as a safe and stable haven for their money regardless of what Moodys or the IMF say to the contrary.

silverseeds · #90 08/08/12, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilJohnson

Why not? Especially when there is profit built into the system. Also consider this, when you pay for health care you are paying for people who don't pay. You and I don't live in a bubble world were the rates for health care are only based on paying customers. We are paying for those who don't pay. The idea of cutting assistance to those who can't pay won't make health care any cheaper because you still have to pay anyway. That is unless we make a new law that enables hospitals to refuse treatment of trauma victims ect.

Because there isnt enough of it to cut.

further paying for those that wont pay will literally only drive up costs, they get emergency care now, not a full spectrum healthcare plan.

Quote:

Like what countries, Greece and Spain? Those countries never were very stable to begin with and have issues that go far beyond revenue. And those countries are not truly developed nations like the USA and Canada. Norway, Switzerland, Sweden, ect seem to be doing quite fine with their socialized medicine. It is also interesting that you acknowledge that health care cost in those countries is a lot lower there than it is here. Yet we have a free market system and those nations have a closed market system.

Im not talking about market systems. Im also not convinced we have free markets in the states... If you believe only spain and greece are in trouble in europe this is to deep of a conversation for me to care to challenge...

Quote:

Tiny fraction? If everyone had to pay a non-refundable tax where hospitals got reimbursed 100 percent for cost and there was no one left stuck holding the bag. I am not sure how that would some how cost more than having an uninsured person come in on their death bed rack up a bill and die and then still not pay? The current model of health care is not sustainable. Making higher and higher deductible health plans is not a solution. What do you suggest? Tort reform? Everywhere that tort reform has been tried it has not lowered cost by any appreciable amount. I would like to hear what your idea would be for an equitable solution.

Never said the current model was sustainable. Im not suggesting an alternative. simply pointing out that we cant even fund current social programs, let alone expand. We will end up being able to afford even less of these things if we dont change our ways.

Like what countries, Greece and Spain? Those countries never were very stable to begin with and have issues that go far beyond revenue. And those countries are not truly developed nations like the USA and Canada. Norway, Switzerland, Sweden, ect seem to be doing quite fine with their socialized medicine. It is also interesting that you acknowledge that health care cost in those countries is a lot lower there than it is here. Yet we have a free market system and those nations have a closed market system.

Tiny fraction? If everyone had to pay a non-refundable tax where hospitals got reimbursed 100 percent for cost and there was no one left stuck holding the bag. I am not sure how that would some how cost more than having an uninsured person come in on their death bed rack up a bill and die and then still not pay? The current model of health care is not sustainable. Making higher and higher deductible health plans is not a solution. What do you suggest? Tort reform? Everywhere that tort reform has been tried it has not lowered cost by any appreciable amount. I would like to hear what your idea would be for an equitable solution.

Quote:

For all that hoopla about our triple AAA rating being cut it hasn't amounted to anything. I believe the move was more politically motivated than being factually based. As bad as our nation may be financially there are a lot of other nations that are worst off. Also investors, banks, and nations are willing to continually buy US treasury bonds even though T-bill yields have hovered near zero percent. They view it as a safe and stable haven for their money regardless of what Moodys or the IMF say to the contrary.

I take it these are issues you arent terribly voiced in. politically motivated?? It isnt even physically possible for us to pay current obligations, raising taxes or not. No country in history has ever paid down debt at levels even close to what ours was over a decade ago, let alone now. Only reason anyone invests here is because most of the western world is even worse off then ourselves. best looking horse in the glue factory wont amount to much in the end. Apparently the coming years will be a huge shock to you as this unravels.

You literally believe we can pile up debt forever? (or that this is an acceptable way to treat our kids) Or that there is a way to expand social programs AND balance the budget? (even getting rid of the entire military isnt enough) (all while the dollars role as reserve currency is in question, which I have no idea how anyone could think this is a moot point, it is paradigm changing to say the least)

Id need to cite a few dozen sources to make a solid case apparently. I didnt realize anyone believed the baseless claims our fearless leaders tell us (yes republicans as well) I guess I spend to much time on forums with people that look at the actual stats. My view was biased.

cedarvalley · #91 08/08/12, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by where I want to

What is objectionable is to get a piece of a story that does not seem reasonable and be expected to fall in line with the conclusion.

It is possible that medicaid would not cover some treatments that would stand a good chance of curing someone's cancer but there are too many expamples of the cost being covered for needed care to simply buy into that. Maybe not desperate attempts at treatment. After all, this man's care in the hospital was being covered by someone, if he couldn't afford it.
So the first thought is that, something is wrong with this story. Something is missing.

So I simply do not think your story proves any point about health care and insurance.

The family got billed for his end of life care (meds, etc.). Without insurance the hospital would not do any expensive procedures. (surgery, chemo, etc.) Obviously you havent had any experience in trying to get treatment w/o Insurance, or cash up front.

uhcrandy · #92 08/08/12, 04:50 PM

Honestly, I think this is a tempest in a teapot. There are some simple solutions out there. The answer is not the government, the government is the problem.
1.There is a "safety net" in medicaid. People gripe about some of the issues, but over-all, it a good program for poor people. This covers all the really poor. I see no reason why its said "I have no insurance". Go get on medicare. There should also be some "little help" programs for those who "just barely" missed qualifying for Medicaid.
2. Years ago there were chairities that ran programs. In my city, there were two relgious Hospitals un till about 20-25 years ago. Due to the Government, almost all of the religious health programs are gone. Change regulations that make it possible for charity health programs (hospital/clinic).
3. make people responsible for their own care. No one should ever get anything for free...ever. I dont care if its only a dollar, everyone should contribute to their own care. Everyone should be in the same boat. A smoker should pay more for their care than I, who has never smoked.
4. Use cheaper drugs. If you can pay for non-generic drugs, fine pay for them. If you expect you neighbors to pay for your medication, then generic will be fine.
5. MORE COMPITITION,(there isn't much now) Allow people to buy the policy they want. Allow Insurance companies to compete for your bussines. Allow insurance policies to move with you i.e. I buy a policy in one state, and take it with me when I move to another state.

Just a few ideas that would make big improvements..

ErinP · #93 08/08/12, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sidepasser

Same with Home Depot..part time or full time - both get insurance. I used to work for HD and I had insurance as a part time employee. Starbucks also offers ins. to part time employees.

You guys DO realize these companies are only found in well-populated areas, right?
Personally, I have to drive nearly 200 miles to find one...

MO_cows · #94 08/08/12, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by uhcrandy

Honestly, I think this is a tempest in a teapot. There are some simple solutions out there. The answer is not the government, the government is the problem.
1.There is a "safety net" in medicaid. People gripe about some of the issues, but over-all, it a good program for poor people. This covers all the really poor. I see no reason why its said "I have no insurance". Go get on medicare. There should also be some "little help" programs for those who "just barely" missed qualifying for Medicaid.

The "little help" idea contradicts your "not the government" statement. There are many, many people who don't qualify for medicaid but can't afford a policy on their own. More all the time. And the cheaper policies have high co-pays and deductibles which can just break lower income people. I know someone who lost their house due to medical bills. They had insurance but not enough money to cover the deductibles/co-pays and the house payment, too. It is pretty sad that in such a wealthy country, a person has to choose between their health and their home, isn't it?

2. Years ago there were chairities that ran programs. In my city, there were two relgious Hospitals un till about 20-25 years ago. Due to the Government, almost all of the religious health programs are gone. Change regulations that make it possible for charity health programs (hospital/clinic).

Do you know for a fact it was regulations that caused them to close? Could it have been the rising cost, liability issues, etc.? Shriners hospitals, St. Judes, there are some groups doing wonderful things for children. But too many adults still slip thru the cracks.

3. make people responsible for their own care. No one should ever get anything for free...ever. I dont care if its only a dollar, everyone should contribute to their own care. Everyone should be in the same boat. A smoker should pay more for their care than I, who has never smoked.

It isn't free. Somebody, somewhere paid for it. Again, you contradict yourself. Your previous statement was that medicaid is a "good program for poor people". The anti-smoking campaign was as big a failure as the war on drugs. Smoking has been on the decline for 20 years. Your health care costs go down any? Mine didn't either. But, yes, if everyone could be covered they should pay for it, based on their income.

4. Use cheaper drugs. If you can pay for non-generic drugs, fine pay for them. If you expect you neighbors to pay for your medication, then generic will be fine.

This only works when there IS a generic. Medical science is moving at a fast pace and lots of new meds don't have a generic yet.

5. MORE COMPITITION,(there isn't much now) Allow people to buy the policy they want. Allow Insurance companies to compete for your bussines. Allow insurance policies to move with you i.e. I buy a policy in one state, and take it with me when I move to another state.

Now you might be on to something. If it was a person's personal policy and not the employer's "one size fits most" policy, I think it would be better for all. Employers who provide health insurance could just pay a per diem or annual "health insurance bonus" instead and let the employee take care of it themselves and save the company a bunch of administration cost.

Just a few ideas that would make big improvements..

It is like a snowball rolling downhill, getting bigger as it goes. Because of the people who can't pay, prices are jacked up for the ones who do pay to cover them. So health insurance and care costs more, and more people can't afford it. And more people don't pay. So the prices get jacked up even more to cover more losses. And so on. It is a vicious cycle.

Shygal · #95 08/08/12, 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by earthkitty

Let me try this one more time. It is a scam, mandated by the government at the request of lobbysists. Individual group policies do NOT cost 1200.00 a month for run of the mill insurance. Your employer didn't pay that much, but because COBRA is seen as a "favor" done for you by your benevolent overlords, people accept that as fact.

We have bought our own policies for our family of five for over a decade, and never has a policy for our family cost that much, for really good insurance.

You can get a better deal shopping for your own policy than you can get via COBRA. Yeah, government says continue this, and so they do, but at a ridiculous price. Get government involved in anything of the sort, and prices go through the roof. Look at how much they spend per kid on public education. It doesn't cost that much to educate each kid, and at those prices we should have the smartest kids on the planet. And yet...

I'm not trying to convince you, I'm just pointing out the cost discrepencies. Government will do what it wants, regardless of how I feel about it, because people continue to want endless "help".

Im sorry but you don't get it.

COBRA is not run by the government. It is not set up by the government. The cost is not set by the government.

It is a program that will allow you to KEEP THE INSURANCE YOU HAD AT YOUR JOB, by paying what the employer paid for your insurance. My employer paid 1200 a month for my insurance at the hospital. I can choose to continue the SAME plan and SAME coverage by paying the 1200 they paid. The amount is not set by the government, it was what my hospital was paying.

Im sorry but yes some group policies DO cost that much, especially the FAMILY plans, sheesh.

where I want to · #96 08/08/12, 08:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cedarvalley

The family got billed for his end of life care (meds, etc.). Without insurance the hospital would not do any expensive procedures. (surgery, chemo, etc.) Obviously you havent had any experience in trying to get treatment w/o Insurance, or cash up front.

Again, why did the family not seek medicaid? Or help from others? Cancer associations? Church?
Every hospital has people who specialize in helping people get services covered.
What services did the hospital refuse to give him while he was still in the hospital even if he could not pay?
Was his condition so advanced that none of those things would be useful?

Basically you make a generalized statement without explanation as to why all the normal ways of getting coverage for treatment.
And your right, it has been years since I did not have medical coverage- that is why I took and kept a difficult job through many diffiulties. Oh and part of that job was getting people help for medical services. It's out there for lots of folks.

sidepasser · #97 08/08/12, 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ErinP

You guys DO realize these companies are only found in well-populated areas, right?
Personally, I have to drive nearly 200 miles to find one...

My point is: if you want health insurance, there are ways to get it, even with part time work.

Why should I have to fund someone else's lack of health insurance since I already fund MY OWN plus my child's? I pay and pay and pay..taxes, health insurance, FICA, etc.

When does it become incumbent upon those that do not have health insurance to take care of THEMSELVES? Their HEALTH INSURANCE? Yes, I am mad because I work my rear end off and pay for all my own stuff..taxes, property taxes, health insurance, medical bills, tuition, college tuition, books, etc.

and yet, there are those out there that say "poor me, pay for me, you owe me" Well I don't owe anyone ANYTHING..and I AM TIRED OF PAYING for those that will not take care of themselves!

Nothing in life is guaranteed except DEATH. Yes, DEATH. and Taxes. You are gonna get one or the other or both. Why should I be responsible for both?

Yes I am tired, I am sick and tired of being held responsible for paying for those that do not think they should pay for themselves. If you don't have insurance, then get some, get a job that has insurance, buy insurance, heck go on Medicaid - I already pay for that through my taxes and yes, I pay a danged boatload of taxes. Have always had to pay taxes because I am not RICH enough to be able to get away with not paying, nor am I poor enough to not pay and get everything back.

Now folks seem to think that because we working tax payers pay our fair share that we should just "shoulder up" and pay for all those that don't care, can't, won't, think they don't need to, expect some one else to"..

Yeah bunk. I would rather quit work and sit on my behind and collect EBT, Medicaid, etc. just like all the rest. Why should I work? Why should I even care?

Do you see what is happening here? Does anyone care? Oh the "taxpayers" will cover it..well y'all I am the taxpayer and I am darned tired of "covering it" for all those that can't, won't, don't care and never will care.

It's time for all of us that really do pay into the system to take a stand and say enough is enough.

and yes, I am mad. I am mad to think that I work 10 - 12 hours a day and pay my more than fair share (since I don't have any deductions except myself and one child) just so some can skate on through life with free medical care, free hospitalization, free food, free housing, free danged near everything. Why the heck should anyone work anymore?

salmonslayer · #98 08/08/12, 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shygal

Im sorry but you don't get it.

COBRA is not run by the government. It is not set up by the government. The cost is not set by the government.

It is a program that will allow you to KEEP THE INSURANCE YOU HAD AT YOUR JOB, by paying what the employer paid for your insurance. My employer paid 1200 a month for my insurance at the hospital. I can choose to continue the SAME plan and SAME coverage by paying the 1200 they paid. The amount is not set by the government, it was what my hospital was paying.

Im sorry but yes some group policies DO cost that much, especially the FAMILY plans, sheesh.

I used to pay about the same for HC a month for my family so I understand those prices but out of curiosity; if an employer will get fined significantly less than $1200 a month( something like 2K a year) for not covering their employees under OBama care why do you think they would continue HC insurance? Wouldnt it be a sound business decision to just drop it and dump the problem on the government? I cant see the logic in the governments position personally as it seems like a no-brainer that private companies would actually save money in many cases by dropping their HC coverage.

By the way my daughter is a nurse and cant afford the premiums for her HC options through her employer at this point in her life so I understand your plight and I am sorry for your job loss. It seems crazy that in some areas medical professionals are getting laid off while in others they pay a bonus to move to an area. If you are interested in an Alaskan employment adventure PM me and I will point you in the right direction.

ErinP · #99 08/08/12, 09:55 PM

Quote:

My point is: if you want health insurance, there are ways to get it, even with part time work.

Of course.
If you can afford it, and you aren't denied because of pre-existings, you simply go with a self-pay plan.

But frankly, in my part of the world, ANY jobs that have benefits are few and far between. Shoot, I have friends who are full-time nurses that don't get health coverage! Part time jobs with benefits are unheard of.

Truly, I realize you can't understand this (as is the case for many, it would seem), and that's where this divide ultimately comes from, IMO. But your lack of understanding does not somehow mean the problem doesn't exist...

sidepasser · #**100** 08/09/12, 06:30 AM

The problem does exist, but as you pointed out, people with jobs who are working have to choose to make insurance or health care a priority. When the company I worked at for 14 years told me they were closing, I looked for another job in my area. When I did not find one with pay and benefits that I thought would support me, I found one that did and MOVED to the area where the job was.

That is taking responsibility for my life, my healthcare and my earnings. It was HARD to move, I had lived at the same place for 26 years. I still own the farm. It was my dream to have a farm. But I accepted the fact that no one in my community or anywhere else for that matter, should have to take on my health care, my unemployment, pay my bills, feed me or my kid, pay for my kid to go to school, or accept any responsibility for the cares in life that are my OWN to shoulder.

I don't get where people think that everyone else should assume the burden for people who fail to plan for events that can be catastrophic.

I accept the burden for the truly poor and those that are disabled in some manner. They need help and I pay taxes for that. I also contribute to charity to assist those in need. That is my social responsibility.

There comes a point when the system of those who pay will collapse due to carrying the weight of those that take. It has happened in the past and will and is (if anyone is paying attention) happening now. Our country is broke. There are more "takers" than "payers". We support huge social and military programs that are not sustainable. And I for one, in just a few years, will quit. As the sign on my desk reads "Your failure to plan does not constitute a crisis for me".

Step up, assume responsibility, make the hard decisions and take care of yourselves. I thought that was the "homesteading" mindset.