What about compelling people to purchase insurance drastically more expensive than they currently have? I know one person who currently pays $50 per month, with a $1200 'deducitble'. He now faces thousands of dollars a year in premiums, and if he can't afford it, his policy is cancelled, and fines are levied in the form of taxes. If he doesn't pay that, he's up on felony tax evasion. His current insurance suits his needs and wants and is in no way deficient. This doesn't seem just.

 

I'm already in disgust at the mass widespread abuse of state and federal health care programs, so my I'm only slightly outraged by what I know about this bill.

 

The last several hundred bills I submitted to Medicaid that will get MAYBE a 12% payment to my hospital after months of haggling? The literally hundreds of patients that chech themselves into the ER with their medicaid that I've personally checked in for fake illnesses and toothaches to get pain meds? The thousands upon thousands of self pay bills that rotate through my network for people that came in for ridiculous, non life-threatening illnesses, got their meds and never paid a dime?

 

The ER is a nasty chain of pill seekers, bill dodgers, and illegal immigrants that will never pay a dime. The Medicaid programs is full to the brim with people using the ER for mundane, unnecessary practices.

 

I watch it first hand, and it drives me crazy.

 

No, I agree with you, and apologies if that came off as ranting at you, it's just a massive deep seated rant I have. I go off like that pretty consistently, lol.

 

The thing is, my problem with this bill so far isn't the idea behind it,. because as I've stated before I actually support reformation of our system. Getting people out of the ER is definately at the root of fixing the system.

 

But my ideology is that you first start with the system in place, then move onto improving upon it. The foundation of American healthcare finances is DEEPLY flawed, both at the payor side and the patient side.

 

The government would win me over if they A:) Called for stricter standards and deeper investigation of healthcare claims, B:) Tightened the requirements for Medicaid applicants (DRUG TEST DRUG TEST DRUG TEST), and C:) Acknowledge the widespread abuse that we see of the system.

 

This is, in my opinion, a desperate bid at keeping campaign promises, and pleasing a certain group. Our government, be it Republican or Democrat-run, is far too afraid of losing votes or support to acknowledge the real problem.

 

So working the past few years in this industry and seeing first hand the huge financial burden of system abuse, it really hits me at the core when politicians go on and on about what the "problem" is, and not even attempt to touch on hey, people are abusing this in a really big way.

 

The idea is there, and I'll commend them for that. Preventative care is at the root, but so is educating the public as to A:) Financial responsibility and B:) their own health.

 

I'd gladly support programs to educate the public on health care, but the government has set up so many Catch-22's and loopholes that liabilities prevent this from happening. If anybody wants me to expound on this, I will, but otherwise it's just way too much to go into in a single post, and would detract form my main point anway.

And people said there would be month long waits to get anything done!

 

(picked off another one, and another one, and another one...)

 

I predict unemployment hits 20% in the next 12 months... Repeat after me "double dip recession"

 

 

and yet ANOTHER example of the media forcing idea's onto the public and the public believing it.

 

I was listening when Rush said what he said.

 

And it wasn't that he would leave the US if it passed. But, the media does what it does, and that is what they repeated as fact over and over until it became "fact" to many people.

 

 

What Rush said was that he "would leave the US for his HEALTH care". As in, he would go to other countries to have his medical procedures done in the future if this passes. Then he would fly back home (he owns a very nice jet btw).

 

Not that he was leaving the US for good...

 

 

typical msm spin, nice to see you believed it...

 

http://bit.ly/cxbeCd - http://bit.ly/cxbeCd

 

That kind of stuff is all to familiar, and you should record it for when you get out of their class you can then put it out there.

People should be free to do as they wish, if you want to smoke and kill yourself, go right ahead. Just don't ask me to pay for your healthcare.

 

which is exactly what this bill does. Forces all of us to pay for the poor choices of members of our society.

 

It is just like the bail outs to the companies that were "too big to fail".

 

Insurance isn't the problem, like I have stated over and over, they make 3% or less. The problem is the sue mentality and the way healthcare is set up to cover their backsides.

 

You walk into an ER with a bellyache and instead of diagnosing your problems old school style, you are dropped on a mri machine and someone else ends up paying for that $1,200 test.

 

When they just had a bellyache from drinking too much beer.

 

That is the problem. Government getting involved will only increase the cost significantly. Which will put insurance companies out of business. And then the government takes over... THAT Is the goal.

 

it ain't rocket science.

No, preventative care is more along the lines of screening for conditions before they get bad enough to manifest themselves obviously. Simple things like a doctor being able to say "You're friggin' fat. Eat less and eat better." without being sued for hurting someone's feelings. Regular mammograms, or prostate exams. Blood work to check for imbalances that might indicate an emerging condition. Early surgery to correct a degenerative problem.

Most medical conditions are treated and cured far more easily, quickly, and inexpensively if they can be detected early. The term 'preventative care' by definition means medical care that is intended to prevent later problems.

 

Here is an example.

 

Criminals in Canada were using hand guns to kill people.

 

So, Canada bans hand guns. (regulation affecting everyone, causing law abiding citizens grief over their ability to protect themselves).

 

And what happened.

 

You still have criminals killing people with hand guns...

 

All you got was regulation. Not change.

 

BTW, I was speaking with a customer of mine in Germany and he stated in their system, people pay 15% of their income, and the employer matches it. If I understood properly, there is a cap of what you have to pay though either by only taxes up to a certain percentage of your income, or maxing out at a certain fixed amount per year. They also have private insurance there, and it is actually cheaper and better than public insurance, but it is harder to get. I..e women and those with preexisting conditions can't qualify.  

 

The first step will be to rank everyone, and people that fall in the "overweight" catagory will pay more, maybe by paying more for junk food, or maybe they will be taxed. But, it will happen. That is the way all socialism starts.

 

And before you say "no worries, I'm pretty healthy".

 

Pop in your stats and see where you come out.

 

http://www.nhlbisupport.com/bmi/ - http://www.nhlbisupport.com/bmi/

 

I'm a former professional athlete, and I still carry quite a bit of muscle... So according to the bmi chart I am "overweight". I would have to lose 17 pounds to get into the "normal weight" range. One of my friends is a pro body builder, he is 6 3 and weighs 240, waist 30. Considered "obese" on the bmi wheel.

 

Here is a pic of him from my paintball event on Saturday. He is the blond guy on the left, with his son in front of him.

 

 

 

Well, you now HAVE TO have insurance. In other words, YOU will have to pay for health insurance period. That would be the government telling you that you have to DO something. (buy insurance).

 

 

 

 

 

 

PariellsBack wrote: OPBN wrote: ]They also have private insurance there, and it is actually cheaper and better than public insurance, but it is harder to get. I..e women and those with preexisting conditions can't qualify.   Women can't qualify? Explain how that would work for me, real quick.  Since any woman who has a child is probably going to need medical care.

Women of child bearing age, would have a hard time qualifying for the private option. And/or the public option is cheaper. My customer, for example, has himself and his son covered by private insurance, while his wife is covered by the public option as she is a stay at home mom currently. Actually, she is on extended maternity leave if I remember correctly. His exact words were that you had to be in very good health to get private insurance, but it was better and cheaper. He intimated that it was very difficult for women to get private insurance because of costs associated with potential pregnancy.

 

But, government loves stuff like that, as they can then regulate everyone...

 

http://www.senate.mo.gov/02info/billtext/intro/SB680.htm - http://www.senate.mo.gov/02info/billtext/intro/SB680.htm

 

http://www.lbo.state.oh.us/fiscal/fiscalnotes/128ga/SB0210IN.htm - http://www.lbo.state.oh.us/fiscal/fiscalnotes/128ga/SB0210IN.htm

 

they have already used bmi when writing laws... Since no one knows what is in the passed senate bill, (remember pelosi said we have to pass it to find out what is in it...) it could be in there...

 

Or in the doctors fix, or the amendments used in reconciliation.

 

But, remember a few years ago when french fries were awesome, and now they are ok but not great anymore?

 

Well that is because trans fats were banned, and most fast food places stopped using them. I don't eat fried food very often, but now that it doesn't taste very good I eat it even less... And wow, everyone is so skinny now...

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16051436/ - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16051436/

 

http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Legislation/Californian-trans-fat-ban-takes-effect - http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Legislation/Californian-trans-fat-ban-takes-effect

 

 

How is making other people take financial responsibility for themselves rather than making you take financial responsibility for yourself plus them a bad thing?  I believe you used the ant and the grasshopper fable before, this is no different.  I'm not arguing for or against the bill as a whole because I am unfamiliar with it, but I am not entirely against making people have insurance.

Just like they force car owners to buy insurance.  Such a travesty to freedom.

The government forces car owners to buy LIABILITY insurance. Compelling people to buy health insurance is akin to the gov't trying to force you to insure the value of your car against theft or collision. Your analogy is poor.

Not really.  If you get hit by a driver with only liability, your car still gets fixed.  You might lose out on a little, but not a lot.  If that same driver with just liability hits a tree, he loses his car and you lose nothing.  If someone has no insurance and goes to the hospital, the costs for his stay are passed on to everyone who does have coverage.  His decision to not spend his own money on his insurance costs everyone else money.

It's being represented both those ways, and many more.

The actual legal challenges (from twelve states now) look like they'll be tenth amendment based. There are a LOT of diverse objections to this.

No, the alternative choice with health insurance is to just dump your hospital bill off on everyone who does have insurance.

But hospitals are required to treat you if it is an emergency, insured or not.  

See the connect?

OMG REPORTED

Also what I keep pointing out and that people keep ignoring is the fact that someone else not having insurance does indeed affect everyone else because it raises the cost of everyones medical care.

Linus wrote: Eville wrote:   Linus wrote: God wrote: FreeEnterprise wrote:   Well, you now HAVE TO have insurance. In other words, YOU will have to pay for health insurance period. That would be the government telling you that you have to DO something. (buy insurance). Just like they force car owners to buy insurance. Such a travesty to freedom.   States require car insurance, not the federal government. You are also not required to drive a car.  See the disconnect?    But hospitals are required to treat you if it is an emergency, insured or not.   See the connect?   It's so cute that you think hospitals are required by law to help people.

http://www.emtala.com/law/index.html - See Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act