|
|
Post by Kyng of JDs on Mar 22, 2010 19:26:05 GMT -5
I guess I somewhat agree with you Muse.
We need reform. This bill ain't it. If you are FORCED to buy the most expensive health care option (e.g. not being able to select lifetime caps, elect no coverage until 20XX, etc) You are actually putting MORE money in the hands of those companies that Damie noted.
As a current and future small business owner, this bill is going to burn me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Julie Art on Mar 22, 2010 22:12:25 GMT -5
Dang it Damie! You beat with car insurance example. I've heard others say I'm healthy, I shouldn't have to get health insurance, etc. But keep on living. I never thought before I was 25 that I would have had to have 5 surgical procedures between now and then. One of them was pretty major. Like my grandfather use to say, just keep on living daughter girl. Keep on living. Okay, I'll be the one to sayit; I have some issues with this bill. 1. I shouldn't have to pay a penalty if I ELECT not to purchase insurance. I've done a cost benefit analysis in re: to the cost of healthcare for me, and because I mitigate my health risks (eating properly, moderate exercise, etc), it's less expensive for me to pay for such expenses out of pocket, because I rarely have any, extending beyond my annual optometry, dental visits, etc. 2. Will this reform expand what is covered by most insurers? I am naturopathic, so I don't take any synthethic pharmaceuticals. Will visits to an N.D. be regarded in the same manner as an M.D.? What about alternative (commonly called complementary) treatments for disease? Other preventative measures? Natural (whole) supplements - will they be subsidized in the same way as "traditional" Western medications? If not, how does this plan benefit the millions of constituents whole live like me?
You may also feel like you're a safe driver or feel like the cost to benefit ratio suggests that you defer getting auto-insurance - however you assume risk... and unfortunately that risk is not constrained to just you.
If you wind up in an emergency room due to some accident or catastrophy, the costs of your care still have to be covered. And by electing to NOT purchase insurance, if you are unable to pay out of pocket, the cost is subsumed by those of us who DO pay insurance. Your risks affect more than just you.
Now with this new insurance bill, the one thing I can say is that out of pocket costs are capped. I believe that is one of the features of the bill that begins early on once it's signed, but I can absolutely understand the idea for a mandate. |
|
|
|
Post by Julie Art on Mar 22, 2010 22:18:06 GMT -5
I mean I hear what you all are saying but you never know what will happen 6 months from now, a year, etc. Heck, tomorrow, lol! Good health isn't promised to anyone, just like tomorrow isn't promised to anyone.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kyng of JDs on Mar 22, 2010 23:20:51 GMT -5
Okay, I'll be the one to sayit; I have some issues with this bill. 1. I shouldn't have to pay a penalty if I ELECT not to purchase insurance. I've done a cost benefit analysis in re: to the cost of healthcare for me, and because I mitigate my health risks (eating properly, moderate exercise, etc), it's less expensive for me to pay for such expenses out of pocket, because I rarely have any, extending beyond my annual optometry, dental visits, etc. 2. Will this reform expand what is covered by most insurers? I am naturopathic, so I don't take any synthethic pharmaceuticals. Will visits to an N.D. be regarded in the same manner as an M.D.? What about alternative (commonly called complementary) treatments for disease? Other preventative measures? Natural (whole) supplements - will they be subsidized in the same way as "traditional" Western medications? If not, how does this plan benefit the millions of constituents whole live like me?
This is a bad comparison. In most, if not all, states you must have automotive insurance OR post a bond or some financial instrument with the state certifying proof of a minimum coverage amount.
In Texas, the amount is $40,000. So, if I have say 100k in the bank and I don't want to "waste" money on a premium, I can file an affidavit with the state promising to cover $40,000 of damages I cause. To use your health care example, this election would be removed and I would be forced to enrich pay an insurance company.
You may also feel like you're a safe driver or feel like the cost to benefit ratio suggests that you defer getting auto-insurance - however you assume risk... and unfortunately that risk is not constrained to just you.
Again, your premise is false. Insurance Liability coverage is ONLY required on public roads. You may have an uninsured vehicle on private land. The example that is illustrative here is a race track. Here you have vehicles on private land conducting activity that is inherently dangerous. Because the cars are insanely expensive and the activity is dangerous, the owners "self-insure," meaning they absorb any loss that their vehicle causes. Put another way, the team views the overall safety of the sport to be worth absorbing the catastrophic financial loss insurance is supposed to prevent. Suppose a law were to pass requiring insurance ANYWHERE. Now, the teams would be FORCED to insure. This requirement and consequential premium would bankrupt most teams.
A proper reform bill would allow the flexibility to self insure and would still allow the creative options available today.
If you wind up in an emergency room due to some accident or catastrophy, the costs of your care still have to be covered.
Again, forcing particular plans is not the best way to solve the problem. If I can cover the costs, why make me buy insurance?
And by electing to NOT purchase insurance, if you are unable to pay out of pocket, the cost is subsumed by those of us who DO pay insurance. Your risks affect more than just you.
I would agree with this to a certain extent. But you assume all who do not have insurance cannot pay. What you WILL see is privatization of hospitals i.e. cash only.
Now with this new insurance bill, the one thing I can say is that out of pocket costs are capped. I believe that is one of the features of the bill that begins early on once it's signed, but I can absolutely understand the idea for a mandate. I respectfully disagree. Capped cost spread the portion outside of the cap to everyone in the similar way you stated earlier. Now you are shifting cost from the sick to the healthy. This is not good. Please explain further your understanding of the mandate idiom. |
|
|
|
Post by Julie Art on Mar 22, 2010 23:38:39 GMT -5
Majority who don't have insurance is because they can't afford it and they can't pay for medical expenses out of pocket. Those that can in this country are in the minority.
|
|
|
|
Post by T-Rex91 on Mar 23, 2010 8:14:02 GMT -5
Muse, good health is a blessing but is not assured. At 29, I was diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and really never needed to go to the doctor before that. Now, because I have a pre-existing condition, I've paid RIDICULOUS Cobra rates through periods of unemployment because of the fear that if my insurance ever lapsed, I wouldn't be able to get more. Passage of this bill won't impact everyone to the same degree but as one of the beneficiaries, I'm SOOOOOOO ecstatic that it passed.
We all pay into services we don't use. My property taxes go to pay for schools that I don't have any children in. Phone bills have universal service fees to fund service in rural areas in which I don't live. We all subsidize the masses. At least in this case, some lives will truly be changed for the better.
|
|
|
|
Post by Robelite on Mar 23, 2010 9:27:49 GMT -5
Kalani, Your issues are valid indeed, and most people (even dems) have some issues with the bill...it's not perfect, but it's a hell of alot better than what we had which was NOTHING. What if you lose your job (thus losing your coverage with your employer's carrier.) What would be left for you to do. No legislation of this magnitude is not without it's issues, but the good far outweighs the bad. And while you may not take any medications, NOW, can you assure yourself that you won't ever be in need of some type within your lifetime? That is a very narrow minded view to take. Like Julie said..."keep on livin!" We've all heard that! I have siblings who were healthy and strong as bulls AT ONE TIME in their lives. Well, they got older! I don't take any kind of prescription medications now either, but if I'm fortunate enough to live to be my dad's age, (92 on tomorrow...Happy Birthday Pop!  ) I will sure as hell likely end up taking something!! Speaking of jobs...is it just me, but won't this legislation also be responsible for the creation of jobs in the medical sector...nurse practitioners, medical tecnicians, etc.? That's one angle the democrats need to highlight as well about this bill while they deal with the wingnut fringe tea-baggers' "attempts" to overturn the bill; a move that will make them look even more ignorant than they've already revealed themselves to be. |
|
|
|
Post by Robelite on Mar 23, 2010 9:38:42 GMT -5
DearlyDeparted said:
We all pay into services we don't use. My property taxes go to pay for schools that I don't have any children in. Phone bills have universal service fees to fund service in rural areas in which I don't live. We all subsidize the masses. At least in this case, some lives will truly be changed for the better.
I'm exhalting her for that!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Vudu_Prince on Mar 23, 2010 10:00:50 GMT -5
Kalani, Your issues are valid indeed, and most people (even dems) have some issues with the bill...it's not perfect, but it's a hell of alot better than what we had which was NOTHING. What if you lose your job (thus losing your coverage with your employer's carrier.) What would be left for you to do. No legislation of this magnitude is not without it's issues, but the good far outweighs the bad. Speaking of jobs...is it just me, but won't this legislation also be responsible for the creation of jobs in the medical sector...nurse practitioners, medical tecnicians, etc.? That's one angle the democrats need to highlight as well about this bill while they deal with the wingnut fringe tea-baggers' "attempts" to overturn the bill; a move that will make them look even more ignorant than they've already revealed themselves to be. Thats a negative. There already exist a shortfall on Nurses right now as we speak. The health-care industry is currently understaffed. So to figure this bill would create more jobs is unsubstantiated by a long shot. Jobs already exist that are unfilled right now. |
|
|
|
Post by T-Rex91 on Mar 23, 2010 10:08:11 GMT -5
Opponents are already crying about how this is going to cost the insurance industry jobs. There will be pluses and minuses in different sectors.
|
|
|
|
Post by Robelite on Mar 23, 2010 10:31:07 GMT -5
Kalani, Your issues are valid indeed, and most people (even dems) have some issues with the bill...it's not perfect, but it's a hell of alot better than what we had which was NOTHING. What if you lose your job (thus losing your coverage with your employer's carrier.) What would be left for you to do. No legislation of this magnitude is not without it's issues, but the good far outweighs the bad. Speaking of jobs...is it just me, but won't this legislation also be responsible for the creation of jobs in the medical sector...nurse practitioners, medical tecnicians, etc.? That's one angle the democrats need to highlight as well about this bill while they deal with the wingnut fringe tea-baggers' "attempts" to overturn the bill; a move that will make them look even more ignorant than they've already revealed themselves to be. Thats a negative. There already exist a shortfall on Nurses right now as we speak. The health-care industry is currently understaffed. So to figure this bill would create more jobs is unsubstantiated by a long shot. Jobs already exist that are unfilled right now. A shortfall of nurses won't decrease the CREATION of JOBS. Those are two different matters (having enough to fill the opportunities created.) If anything, it would be similar to the boom in the need for more teachers 15 or so years ago. More people gaining access to health care would generate a need for more professionals in that field..just like the increase in districts/communities and the number of elementary, middle and high school aged kids. Iv'e seen those numbers here where I live grow almost overnight. It will be incentive for more people to pursue degrees in those fields...likely then another incentive for anyone who chooses it as their college field of study. |
|
|
|
Post by Vudu_Prince on Mar 23, 2010 10:47:36 GMT -5
Dude jobs already exist by the thousands. You're not making sense. Lets look at your position for a second. Lets say we have a shipyard which is understaffed, underpaid and overworked. Then you have more work coming in at a cheaper price. What you will see is a bottleneck in the health care industry. You're expanding the people covered but the infrastructure of the industry stays the same. Wait times will be longer. It could potentially bog down the system. In my estimation the next step in streamlining the healthcare industry is to go digital. In the medical community more technology equals less jobs not more. An example is medical records. If you digitize medical records which Obama wants you will lose jobs in that area. So this bill will force the medical industry to further include technology for streamlining purposes which will in turn take jobs away.
|
|
|
|
Post by Robelite on Mar 23, 2010 10:52:52 GMT -5
No one is denying the current existing of jobs, but as I said, jobs that currently exist and having folks to fill them are two different matters. There are jobs that have been created here in this city that need folks to fill them. That does not detract from the fact that they still exist. I know about the digitizing of medical records and information, but there are those who will still require medical attention via staffing, and as the numbers of folks with access to medical care increasing (which this legislation creates, ALONG WITH folks getting older,) they will still need people to care for them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kyng of JDs on Mar 23, 2010 10:59:13 GMT -5
We all pay into services we don't use. My property taxes go to pay for schools that I don't have any children in. Phone bills have universal service fees to fund service in rural areas in which I don't live. We all subsidize the masses. At least in this case, some lives will truly be changed for the better. You choose to live in your neighborhood. You weighed the tax cost with the benefit of living in your area. YOU decided it was worth it. You choose to have a phone. This bill in a phone context would require you to pay the service fees if you DID NOT have a land phone. Again, I should be able to choose whether I think the benefit is worth it. This bill eliminates choice. And with the sacrifice of the public option, this bill will make the insurance companies a fortune. |
|
|
|
Post by Robelite on Mar 23, 2010 10:59:19 GMT -5
Opponents are already crying about how this is going to cost the insurance industry jobs. There will be pluses and minuses in different sectors. Exactly...as it is with any type of legislation...esp one this big and historic. As far as white folks were concerned, the Civil Rights Act cost them jobs, because it allowed for US to gain access to jobs to which we were denied before. |
|
|
|
Post by Kyng of JDs on Mar 23, 2010 10:59:39 GMT -5
Kalani, Your issues are valid indeed, and most people (even dems) have some issues with the bill...it's not perfect, but it's a hell of alot better than what we had which was NOTHING. What if you lose your job (thus losing your coverage with your employer's carrier.) What would be left for you to do. No legislation of this magnitude is not without it's issues, but the good far outweighs the bad. Speaking of jobs...is it just me, but won't this legislation also be responsible for the creation of jobs in the medical sector...nurse practitioners, medical tecnicians, etc.? That's one angle the democrats need to highlight as well about this bill while they deal with the wingnut fringe tea-baggers' "attempts" to overturn the bill; a move that will make them look even more ignorant than they've already revealed themselves to be. Thats a negative. There already exist a shortfall on Nurses right now as we speak. The health-care industry is currently understaffed. So to figure this bill would create more jobs is unsubstantiated by a long shot. Jobs already exist that are unfilled right now. Agreed |
|
|
|
Post by DamieQue™ on Mar 23, 2010 11:00:24 GMT -5
Kyng by my eye - you're not invalidating the analogy, you just made an argument that you should be able to use some other instrument to insure yourself (as you could with an automobile). The point was that you need to be insured by SOME mechanism. Because if you can't cover the expenses of your services (whether out of pocket or through coverage) those of us who are insured DO pay for it by EVER increasing premiums.
With respect Kyng, your argument here is bad. It is true that insurance liability coverage is not required on private roads. It is ALSO true however that the overwhelming majority of our society drives on PUBLIC roads (roads which by the way you also help subsidize even if you NEVER drive over them yourself). Your analogy only holds merit if you assume ALL risks yourself as the NASCAR team does. If you will refuse any service that you can't pay for THEN you have a point. But if you would at ANY point, say be in accident, and be taken to the hospital and treated but can't afford the bill - the INSURED shoulder the cost.
Because you may NOT be able to. And your risks affects other people's premiums. Just as you driving on public roads affects other people driving on public roads.
What I assume is that anyone who is in need of medical services will not refuse them when offered for free. You'll have to explain your assertion about the privitization of hospitals.
Kyng - any costs outside of the cap would be paid by the individuals plan. That is the new reform that didn't exist prior to this legislation. Prior to this legislation - you could literally lose your house and go bankrupt paying costs because there was no cap. And that is exactly what people did. In the study done by the American Journal of Medicine, 62% of the respondents that ended up in bankruptcy cited medical debt as one of the causes. BTW, who eventually absorbs the cost for those bankruptcies?
I haven't heard any of you mention medicare or medicaid in any of this. If you are paying taxes, you are paying into the system, which has an unfunded liability in the Trillions (plural) which is only increasing (not because of an increase in the pool of participants but the rise in cost per participant). For those of you not for reform, what would be your suggestion about how to deal with this?
|
|
|
|
Post by Kyng of JDs on Mar 23, 2010 11:01:01 GMT -5
Opponents are already crying about how this is going to cost the insurance industry jobs. There will be pluses and minuses in different sectors. Insurance companies lobbied for this version of the bill. They will make a killing now. Jobs will not be lost in this sector. |
|
|
|
Post by Robelite on Mar 23, 2010 11:02:04 GMT -5
We all pay into services we don't use. My property taxes go to pay for schools that I don't have any children in. Phone bills have universal service fees to fund service in rural areas in which I don't live. We all subsidize the masses. At least in this case, some lives will truly be changed for the better. You choose to live in your neighborhood. You weighed the tax cost with the benefit of living in your area. YOU decided it was worth it. You choose to have a phone. This bill in a phone context would require you to pay the service fees if you DID NOT have a land phone. Again, I should be able to choose whether I think the benefit is worth it. This bill eliminates choice. And with the sacrifice of the public option, this bill will make the insurance companies a fortune. Kyng, You are paying for those kinds of things whether you live in those neighborhoods/communities or not. What do you think taxes are all about? As far as the bill goes, the premiums for small businesses will be lowered, so you won't be effected negatively by that. |
|
|
|
Post by T-Rex91 on Mar 23, 2010 11:13:50 GMT -5
We all pay into services we don't use. My property taxes go to pay for schools that I don't have any children in. Phone bills have universal service fees to fund service in rural areas in which I don't live. We all subsidize the masses. At least in this case, some lives will truly be changed for the better. You choose to live in your neighborhood. You weighed the tax cost with the benefit of living in your area. YOU decided it was worth it. You choose to have a phone. This bill in a phone context would require you to pay the service fees if you DID NOT have a land phone. Again, I should be able to choose whether I think the benefit is worth it. This bill eliminates choice. And with the sacrifice of the public option, this bill will make the insurance companies a fortune. so I guess you choose not to pay income taxes too? Because a TON of that payment goes to support Medicare/Medicaid that you (presumeably don't use), wars (that you may or may not support), and infrastructure (roads you may or may not drive on). Why are you acting like this is an isolatee situation where you will contribute a portion of your wealth to an asset pool for mass use? I guess what I'm hearing the opponents of this bill say is that they are healthy, don't need converage, and should they EVER require care, they are comfortable with an EXHORBITANT premium cost (certainly more than $700) and there should be no forgiveness of the debt should you not be able to pay (because then I just subsidize your debt right?). Or better yet, you don't carry insurance, you don't receive medical care unless you can pay in full for the services BEFORE they are performed. Yeah, I can go with that. |
|
|
|
Post by Noble Work on Mar 23, 2010 11:25:44 GMT -5
Ok. Now this is just me. My own little opinion/question/comment. But wasn't the reason why companies/employers were understaffed because of..... well, to put it in a nutshell, because basically they didn't have any money to pay these new staff. And at times they even had to let staff go? Soooooo how does that tie into now the medical field and all that jazz?
I'm asking a really sincere question? Honestly.
|
|
|
|
Post by peppermint on Mar 23, 2010 12:15:45 GMT -5
Florida says several states to file healthcare lawsuit Mon Mar 22, 2010 11:01am EDTMIAMI, March 22 (Reuters) - Florida's attorney general will file a lawsuit with nine other state attorneys general opposing the healthcare legislation passed by Congress, a spokeswoman said on Monday. Bonds "The health care reform legislation passed by the U.S. House of Representatives last night clearly violates the U.S. Constitution and infringes on each state's sovereignty," Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum, a Republican, said in a prepared statement announcing a news conference. "On behalf of the State of Florida and of the Attorneys General from South Carolina, Nebraska, Texas, Utah, Pennsylvania, Washington, North Dakota, South Dakota and Alabama if the President signs this bill into law, we will file a lawsuit to protect the rights and the interests of American citizens." (Reporting by Michael Connor, Editing by Chizu Nomiyama) www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2215987420100322?loomia_ow=t0:s0:a49:g43:r1:c0.571429:b32050316:z0I agree with others in that the bill is not perfect. There is no perfect bill, hence why we have amendment after amendment. Personally I don't like the penalty for individuals not getting insurance but I understand the purpose. I do think that the governors/states filing suits should consult with the people in their states before moving forward. |
|
|
|
Post by Vudu_Prince on Mar 23, 2010 12:32:06 GMT -5
No one is denying the current existing of jobs, but as I said, jobs that currently exist and having folks to fill them are two different matters. There are jobs that have been created here in this city that need folks to fill them. That does not detract from the fact that they still exist. I know about the digitizing of medical records and information, but there are those who will still require medical attention via staffing, and as the numbers of folks with access to medical care increasing (which this legislation creates, ALONG WITH folks getting older,) they will still need people to care for them. Understaffing shortfalls in the medical industry as more to do with lack of interest. An example. Medical Technologist (Clinical Laboratory Scientist) are understaffed like a mofo. The Lab keeps the hospital going. You can have all the doctors and nurses that you want but if don't have an efficient lab to run your blood it affects the overall efficiency of patient care as well. The only way the healthcare industry will be able to handle this influx over the next 4 years is to digitize many processes. When you digitize things you are taking away jobs point blank. An example do people realize how many jobs could be created if you got rid of 35% of the ATM machines? Do you also understand how much more money people would save? How many bank tellers could be hired? If you digitize medical records eventually you will need less oversight ESPECIALLY if its fail-safe automated. Meaning you have pre-set values. This is also happening in the research sector with failsafe automation expanding. In my estimation over the next 10 years this will almost make a CRA irrelevant to the clinical trial process. |
|
|
|
Post by Vudu_Prince on Mar 23, 2010 12:36:18 GMT -5
Ok. Now this is just me. My own little opinion/question/comment. But wasn't the reason why companies/employers were understaffed because of..... well, to put it in a nutshell, because basically they didn't have any money to pay these new staff. And at times they even had to let staff go? Soooooo how does that tie into now the medical field and all that jazz? I'm asking a really sincere question? Honestly. No Hospitals right now offer free Nursing and Clinical Laboratory Scientist training in an exchange for a 3-6 year job assignment working for them. Yeah I said FREE. Under-staffing mostly has nothing to do with money and more so to do with lack of interest. Some feel the money they are paid isn't enough. Most MT's make 52,000 first year. Most nurses can clock between 60-80 first year. Yet and still with free training and fairly good salaries these jobs are understaffed. Lets not be so quick to jump behind a slogan without reading the fine print. |
|
|
|
Post by Kyng of JDs on Mar 23, 2010 12:58:05 GMT -5
Kyng by my eye - you're not invalidating the analogy, you just made an argument that you should be able to use some other instrument to insure yourself (as you could with an automobile). The point was that you need to be insured by SOME mechanism. Because if you can't cover the expenses of your services (whether out of pocket or through coverage) those of us who are insured DO pay for it by EVER increasing premiums.
With respect Kyng, your argument here is bad. It is true that insurance liability coverage is not required on private roads. It is ALSO true however that the overwhelming majority of our society drives on PUBLIC roads (roads which by the way you also help subsidize even if you NEVER drive over them yourself). Your analogy only holds merit if you assume ALL risks yourself as the NASCAR team does. If you will refuse any service that you can't pay for THEN you have a point. But if you would at ANY point, say be in accident, and be taken to the hospital and treated but can't afford the bill - the INSURED shoulder the cost.
Because you may NOT be able to. And your risks affects other people's premiums. Just as you driving on public roads affects other people driving on public roads.
What I assume is that anyone who is in need of medical services will not refuse them when offered for free. You'll have to explain your assertion about the privitization of hospitals.
Kyng - any costs outside of the cap would be paid by the individuals plan. That is the new reform that didn't exist prior to this legislation. Prior to this legislation - you could literally lose your house and go bankrupt paying costs because there was no cap. And that is exactly what people did. In the study done by the American Journal of Medicine, 62% of the respondents that ended up in bankruptcy cited medical debt as one of the causes. BTW, who eventually absorbs the cost for those bankruptcies?
I haven't heard any of you mention medicare or medicaid in any of this. If you are paying taxes, you are paying into the system, which has an unfunded liability in the Trillions (plural) which is only increasing (not because of an increase in the pool of participants but the rise in cost per participant). For those of you not for reform, what would be your suggestion about how to deal with this?I will respond to this when I have time to give you the well-thought-out response you deserve. |
|
|
|
Post by DamieQue™ on Mar 23, 2010 13:22:54 GMT -5
Kyng by my eye - you're not invalidating the analogy, you just made an argument that you should be able to use some other instrument to insure yourself (as you could with an automobile). The point was that you need to be insured by SOME mechanism. Because if you can't cover the expenses of your services (whether out of pocket or through coverage) those of us who are insured DO pay for it by EVER increasing premiums.
With respect Kyng, your argument here is bad. It is true that insurance liability coverage is not required on private roads. It is ALSO true however that the overwhelming majority of our society drives on PUBLIC roads (roads which by the way you also help subsidize even if you NEVER drive over them yourself). Your analogy only holds merit if you assume ALL risks yourself as the NASCAR team does. If you will refuse any service that you can't pay for THEN you have a point. But if you would at ANY point, say be in accident, and be taken to the hospital and treated but can't afford the bill - the INSURED shoulder the cost.
Because you may NOT be able to. And your risks affects other people's premiums. Just as you driving on public roads affects other people driving on public roads.
What I assume is that anyone who is in need of medical services will not refuse them when offered for free. You'll have to explain your assertion about the privitization of hospitals.
Kyng - any costs outside of the cap would be paid by the individuals plan. That is the new reform that didn't exist prior to this legislation. Prior to this legislation - you could literally lose your house and go bankrupt paying costs because there was no cap. And that is exactly what people did. In the study done by the American Journal of Medicine, 62% of the respondents that ended up in bankruptcy cited medical debt as one of the causes. BTW, who eventually absorbs the cost for those bankruptcies?
I haven't heard any of you mention medicare or medicaid in any of this. If you are paying taxes, you are paying into the system, which has an unfunded liability in the Trillions (plural) which is only increasing (not because of an increase in the pool of participants but the rise in cost per participant). For those of you not for reform, what would be your suggestion about how to deal with this?I will respond to this when I have time to give you the well-thought-out response you deserve. |
|
|
|
Post by Noble Work on Mar 23, 2010 16:12:18 GMT -5
But under-staffing has everything to do with money especially in our current economy. In today's economy a lot of people take jobs because it pays the bills. It may not be necessarily what they want to do, or in there chosen field but it pays a mortgage, car note or a light bill. I don't think a lot of people will pass up an opportunity simply because they lack the interest in the job. They take the job to stay afloat, often times going back to finish their degree or go to graduate school.
I will go on to say this; it's been a long time (at least 5 years) since I've heard someone leaving there job because it doesn't "pay well". In our economy right now people Pray to keep their low wage (but bill paying), Medical Benefits having Jobs.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vudu_Prince on Mar 23, 2010 16:38:39 GMT -5
It's different in the medical community. Again don't make broad sweeping statements unless you have done your research. When managed health care came on the scene under Slick Dick Willie Clinton during the 90's to cut cost alot of nurses were laid off. The industry has never recovered and nurses are now leaving the field because they are being over worked. It's so bad that nursing unions have petitioned congress to enact a bill putting a cap on how many patients can be assigned to them during a shift. Basically democrats created this bullchit under Clinton then come in to save the day 12 years later. lol
|
|
|
|
Post by Julie Art on Mar 23, 2010 16:50:20 GMT -5
I'mma consult my friends that are actually in the medical field and then be back with my thoughts.
|
|
|
|
Post by Noble Work on Mar 23, 2010 16:53:14 GMT -5
What? I AM in the medical field. I AM the research. lol That 's why am missing most of what you are saying. I don't see it.
Are you a nurse in the field?
|
|
{=}http://s2.images.proboards.com/cool.gif{/=}
) I will sure as hell likely end up taking something!! 
