What's your opinion on the health care bill?

Lizzy · Guru

What's your opinion on the health care bill?

LDSMOM · Senior Member

I hate what's in there now. It's just another way to take my freedom from me and increase cost for everyone. Plus, I believe it will make health care much harder to come by except for the super rich.

sappy · Guru

i'm glad you started this thread. i really wanted to read the bill and contact my representatives based on what i read but i haven't read it yet.

i'm off the read it now.

Lizzy · Guru

LDSMOM wrote:

I hate what's in there now. It's just another way to take my freedom from me and increase cost for everyone. Plus, I believe it will make health care much harder to come by except for the super rich.

tbh, I am not that familiar with it....what provision are you most worried about that will affect your freedom (do you mean freedom of choice or just general gov't involvement?)

LDSMOM · Senior Member

Lizzy wrote:

LDSMOM wrote:

I hate what's in there now. It's just another way to take my freedom from me and increase cost for everyone. Plus, I believe it will make health care much harder to come by except for the super rich.

tbh, I am not that familiar with it....what provision are you most worried about that will affect your freedom (do you mean freedom of choice or just general gov't involvement?)

I won't have the choice in which health plan to participate. I know they want everyone to believe that we'll still have the choice, but there's a part in it that will tax those who choose not to participate and that tax will be higher than the amount you would pay if you participated. Also, people can keep what plan they're currently on but they won't be able to change to anything else but the public plan.

Another part I hate is that they would have access to every bank account. If that part passes, my bank accounts will be closed and I will use money orders to pay bills. Yes, it would be more of a pain, but I'm more concerned with protecting myself.

There are other things, too, but I'm drawing a blank. I'll have to hunt up more later.

-- Edited by LDSMOM on Monday 24th of August 2009 10:15:32 AM

CoffeeQueen · Guru

I could be wrong, but I hear there is no way this is passing. Theys say many of the democrates are not even on board with it.

I have to read up on it. I do not know the fine points.

sbucking · Guru

I am totally against it. It takes all choice away. While they state that everyone can keep their current policies, there is a provision that states that once your current policy changes in any way, even premium increases, you will have x number of days to change to the public policy.

The end if life stuff in there is just horrible too.

I believe it will just lead to rationing and a worse care for everyone.

I also don't buy into the fact that we are in desperate need of reform of the insurance industry. I think a lot could be done with TORT reform.

The government can't even run a Cash for Clunkers program correctly so why would they do any better with our healthcare.

sappy · Guru

sbucking wrote:

I am totally against it. It takes all choice away. While they state that everyone can keep their current policies, there is a provision that states that once your current policy changes in any way, even premium increases, you will have x number of days to change to the public policy.

The end if life stuff in there is just horrible too.

I believe it will just lead to rationing and a worse care for everyone.

I also don't buy into the fact that we are in desperate need of reform of the insurance industry. I think a lot could be done with TORT reform.

The government can't even run a Cash for Clunkers program correctly so why would they do any better with our healthcare.

first i will say that i haven't read the bill yet. it's taking forever to load on my computer. (at least on the site i clicked on)

having said that - we have insurance through my husband's job. huge company, decent benefits (though since he is "management" the benefits are not as good as the hourly employees get - oddly enough). last year we paid over $600 a month in premiums for the "best" plan because we knew we would need it.

this year their "best" plan went up to $1000/month in premiums. that plan still has a deductible, coinsurance, copays .... we couldn't afford it.

so now we pay $400 a month, have a $700 deductible PER PERSON, the plan pays 80% IF we stay in network and we have a family out of pocket max of $3500/yr. That $3500 a year does not include premiums, copays, anyone that's out of network, etc....

right now we are averaging - between premiums, copays, prescriptions, etc... a little over $1100 a month out of our pocket. Keep in mind that doesn't include gas to hospitals, parking, etc....

so ... i actually DO buy into the need for health care reform. especially since my insurance company doubled profits this year.

http://ducknetweb.blogspot.com/2009/07/unitedhealthcare-profits-doubled.html

i will say, i was never for government involvement in health care when i was mostly healthy.

-- Edited by sappy on Monday 24th of August 2009 11:43:20 AM

muffy · Guru

i am so deeply saddened by the whole thing...

american so desperately need a new healthcare system.

but not just healthcare... you also desperately need to change tort laws to stop all those ridiculous payouts and frivolous lawsuits. and you need to reign in the HMOs, insurance companies and drug companies.

america is a blessed country where we have less govt control. where people and companies can make a big buck... and that is what a select few are going... there are select people/special interest groups - lawyers, drug cos, insurance agencies, politicians getting kickbacks.... other involved companies - its those ceos who are making millions off the back of americans. and the people are suffering with a crappy, crappy healthcare system.

i think a lot of americans, who have coverage and do not have any serious illnesses, think they are fine.

but.... even with "good" health insurance (or so you think...) all it takes is a devastating illness or accident to realise how crappy crappy it really is.

my bff forever, the one with the brain tumours, is a daily walking example of this for me.

for everyone who thinks it is just fine the way it is... pray that nothing bad ever happens to anyone in your family.

Lizzy · Guru

Regarding the current bill, I am not that familiar but I have read a few articles that have left me less than impressed and may make the problem worse.

I just think that the system we have now (a mix of profit based and gov't led systems, ie. Medicare, Medicaid - virtually guarantee failure).

Here is a quote from a book I read:

The crux of the problem is that government has subsidized more and more healthcare costs. This has dramatically increased demand, but government has done nothing to increase supply. Indeed, government regulations and licensing restrict supply, keep it from growing. More demand, together with the same or less supply, leads to higher prices, then more subsidies, then still higher prices, in a vicious circle that particularly injures the poor, the aged, and the unemployed. Moreover, the high cost of healthcare also contributes to unemployment, because, (at least in the U.S.), employers often pay for health insurance, and rising health costs lead to less hiring. Healthcare costs were a particularly important factor in reducing payroll growth in the U.S. at the beginning of the twenty-first century (54).

Juni · Guru

LDSMOM wrote:

Lizzy wrote:

LDSMOM wrote:

I hate what's in there now. It's just another way to take my freedom from me and increase cost for everyone. Plus, I believe it will make health care much harder to come by except for the super rich.

tbh, I am not that familiar with it....what provision are you most worried about that will affect your freedom (do you mean freedom of choice or just general gov't involvement?)

I won't have the choice in which health plan to participate. I know they want everyone to believe that we'll still have the choice, but there's a part in it that will tax those who choose not to participate and that tax will be higher than the amount you would pay if you participated. Also, people can keep what plan they're currently on but they won't be able to change to anything else but the public plan.

Another part I hate is that they would have access to every bank account. If that part passes, my bank accounts will be closed and I will use money orders to pay bills. Yes, it would be more of a pain, but I'm more concerned with protecting myself.

There are other things, too, but I'm drawing a blank. I'll have to hunt up more later.

-- Edited by LDSMOM on Monday 24th of August 2009 10:15:32 AM

I think it's still a gray area but I don't think this is necessarily true. What it states (to me) is that there will be an opportunity to do this (just as you would do for online bill pay) but nowhere does it state that it is mandatory. Again, it could mean that but the wording is pretty ambiguous. (Go figure.)

I respect your opinion I just feel like people are basing their decisions on what others say and those others are warping it to make it scary and not what anybody would want. I'm not saying it's not - I'm just saying I hate that people will tell other so many lies or distort things just barely to make it ludicrous when it is not exactly so.

Where are you hearing this? (You being anybody.)

Are you guys reading the actual bill (I know it is HUGE) TWSS or just basing this off of things you hear from other people? (I'm genuinely curious I know that might sound rude, I don't mean it to be.)

Juni · Guru

FYI I am not saying I support it, or don't. I honestly haven't had enough time to do a lot of research.

mctex · Guru

sappy wrote:

sbucking wrote:

I am totally against it. It takes all choice away. While they state that everyone can keep their current policies, there is a provision that states that once your current policy changes in any way, even premium increases, you will have x number of days to change to the public policy.

The end if life stuff in there is just horrible too.

I believe it will just lead to rationing and a worse care for everyone.

I also don't buy into the fact that we are in desperate need of reform of the insurance industry. I think a lot could be done with TORT reform.

The government can't even run a Cash for Clunkers program correctly so why would they do any better with our healthcare.

first i will say that i haven't read the bill yet. it's taking forever to load on my computer. (at least on the site i clicked on)

having said that - we have insurance through my husband's job. huge company, decent benefits (though since he is "management" the benefits are not as good as the hourly employees get - oddly enough). last year we paid over $600 a month in premiums for the "best" plan because we knew we would need it.

this year their "best" plan went up to $1000/month in premiums. that plan still has a deductible, coinsurance, copays .... we couldn't afford it.

so now we pay $400 a month, have a $700 deductible PER PERSON, the plan pays 80% IF we stay in network and we have a family out of pocket max of $3500/yr. That $3500 a year does not include premiums, copays, anyone that's out of network, etc....

right now we are averaging - between premiums, copays, prescriptions, etc... a little over $1100 a month out of our pocket. Keep in mind that doesn't include gas to hospitals, parking, etc....

so ... i actually DO buy into the need for health care reform. especially since my insurance company doubled profits this year.

http://ducknetweb.blogspot.com/2009/07/unitedhealthcare-profits-doubled.html
i will say, i was never for government involvement in health care when i was mostly healthy.

-- Edited by sappy on Monday 24th of August 2009 11:43:20 AM

To the original question -- I completely agree that we desperately need health care reform in this country... I have no idea how that's going to happen, though. I haven't read the bill itself -- it's over 1000 pages -- and the sites that I've seen offering "summaries" are clearly slanted with propaganda (they claim the bill says something and even link to it, but then what you read what the bill says, it doesn't come even close to the claim). IHNI what the answer is -- because the *best* answer for health care would be in tremendous violation of civil liberties.

Sara, I'm quoting your post only because I was curious about the details surrounding UHC... the claim was that profits are up for this quarter over the same quarter last year, and company management said last year's profits were uncharacteristically low due to "hefty legal charges". So in proper context, it doesn't mean the company is making more money.

However, there was an interesting snippet about how the company's revenues are up, despite the fact that the number of patients enrolled has declined -- which is certainly not a pretty picture...

Lizzy · Guru

sbucking wrote:

I am totally against it. It takes all choice away. While they state that everyone can keep their current policies, there is a provision that states that once your current policy changes in any way, even premium increases, you will have x number of days to change to the public policy.

The end if life stuff in there is just horrible too.

I believe it will just lead to rationing and a worse care for everyone.

I also don't buy into the fact that we are in desperate need of reform of the insurance industry. I think a lot could be done with TORT reform.

The government can't even run a Cash for Clunkers program correctly so why would they do any better with our healthcare.

I don't know if you are referring to the "death panel" claims made by Palin but if it were true, don't you think that the if the government were really going to ration health care or set up "death panels" as part of government health care programs, wouldn't the government have started by doing these things to the poor, the elderly or disabled veterans-precisely the people who rely on the government for health care today.

On a related note, my mother suffered from cancer and NEVER once had a talk with her cancer doctor about end of life concerns. He never introduced a talk or asked what she wanted done. In fact, the last time she was at the hospital, he sent his assistant down to the ER to talk to my mom and tell her that her cancer had spread to her liver (which is essentially a death sentence). We knew right away something was wrong because he never once visited her in the ER. I spent alot of time trying to convince her to talk to the social worker about hospice. We (as he family) were never clear about what woudl happen in the end...no one told us what to expect, what or how long she might have until we got a visit from a hospice nurse and my mom very close to death.

No family should ever have to go through this...yes, doctors have a responsibility to inform patients about their end of life options. (even if they are paid with gov't dollars).

eta that my mom was on Medicaid.

-- Edited by Lizzy on Monday 24th of August 2009 01:25:03 PM

Jilly · Veteran Member

sbucking wrote:

I am totally against it. It takes all choice away. While they state that everyone can keep their current policies, there is a provision that states that once your current policy changes in any way, even premium increases, you will have x number of days to change to the public policy.

The end if life stuff in there is just horrible too.

I believe it will just lead to rationing and a worse care for everyone.

I also don't buy into the fact that we are in desperate need of reform of the insurance industry. I think a lot could be done with TORT reform.

The government can't even run a Cash for Clunkers program correctly so why would they do any better with our healthcare.

ITTTA!!!

muffy · Guru

ok - slight tangent....

what are peoples impression of medicare? does anyone have actual experience with it?

reason i ask is because i think it sets a good example of what a US govt medical system could be -as it is actually in effect today :)

i have no personal experience, but my bff with the pituitary tumours/cushings and alllll the related medical issues is on medicare and i have to say....it has been a GODSEND for her and she had gotten pretty freakin amazing medical care under it - i mean, the best brain surgeons at the cleveland clinic... and as her tumour is currently growing back, her medical care increases by the month and she is still under the care of about 4-5 specialists, the best in the country. she will have another brain surgery in a year or two - just as soon as it is big enough to safely operate again - it will cost over $250k like the last time, and medicare will cover.

so those assuming they will get crappy substandard care.... judging from near personal experience i am not at all convinced that would be the case....

btw - her medical insurance before qualifying for medicare was very good - she worked for an office supply company that her father had previously owned, and he made sure they had great coverage.... but with her devastating illness the insurance co played lots of asinine games with her, refusing to pay most of her treatments and in the end dropping her completely as she could not "prove" the exact date when the tumour in her brain started growing and thus they considered it a pre-existing condition (she had been working there all her adult life - covered by this insurance company for nearly 20 years when they screwed her over) this is what happened when a private company out for a buck determined her health care.... great, huh?

but yeah, sorry for the tangent

but i am really interested on any opinions on medicare :)

Juanita · Guru

muffy wrote:

ok - slight tangent....

what are peoples impression of medicare? does anyone have actual experience with it?

reason i ask is because i think it sets a good example of what a US govt medical system could be -as it is actually in effect today :)

i have no personal experience, but my bff with the pituitary tumours/cushings and alllll the related medical issues is on medicare and i have to say....it has been a GODSEND for her and she had gotten pretty freakin amazing medical care under it - i mean, the best brain surgeons at the cleveland clinic... and as her tumour is currently growing back, her medical care increases by the month and she is still under the care of about 4-5 specialists, the best in the country. she will have another brain surgery in a year or two - just as soon as it is big enough to safely operate again - it will cost over $250k like the last time, and medicare will cover.

so those assuming they will get crappy substandard care.... judging from near personal experience i am not at all convinced that would be the case....

btw - her medical insurance before qualifying for medicare was very good - she worked for an office supply company that her father had previously owned, and he made sure they had great coverage.... but with her devastating illness the insurance co played lots of asinine games with her, refusing to pay most of her treatments and in the end dropping her completely as she could not "prove" the exact date when the tumour in her brain started growing and thus they considered it a pre-existing condition (she had been working there all her adult life - covered by this insurance company for nearly 20 years when they screwed her over) this is what happened when a private company out for a buck determined her health care.... great, huh?

but yeah, sorry for the tangent

but i am really interested on any opinions on medicare :)

Is she on medicare or medicaid?

sappy · Guru

mctex wrote:

sappy wrote:

sbucking wrote:

I am totally against it. It takes all choice away. While they state that everyone can keep their current policies, there is a provision that states that once your current policy changes in any way, even premium increases, you will have x number of days to change to the public policy.

The end if life stuff in there is just horrible too.

I believe it will just lead to rationing and a worse care for everyone.

I also don't buy into the fact that we are in desperate need of reform of the insurance industry. I think a lot could be done with TORT reform.

The government can't even run a Cash for Clunkers program correctly so why would they do any better with our healthcare.

first i will say that i haven't read the bill yet. it's taking forever to load on my computer. (at least on the site i clicked on)

having said that - we have insurance through my husband's job. huge company, decent benefits (though since he is "management" the benefits are not as good as the hourly employees get - oddly enough). last year we paid over $600 a month in premiums for the "best" plan because we knew we would need it.

this year their "best" plan went up to $1000/month in premiums. that plan still has a deductible, coinsurance, copays .... we couldn't afford it.

so now we pay $400 a month, have a $700 deductible PER PERSON, the plan pays 80% IF we stay in network and we have a family out of pocket max of $3500/yr. That $3500 a year does not include premiums, copays, anyone that's out of network, etc....

right now we are averaging - between premiums, copays, prescriptions, etc... a little over $1100 a month out of our pocket. Keep in mind that doesn't include gas to hospitals, parking, etc....

so ... i actually DO buy into the need for health care reform. especially since my insurance company doubled profits this year.

http://ducknetweb.blogspot.com/2009/07/unitedhealthcare-profits-doubled.html
i will say, i was never for government involvement in health care when i was mostly healthy.

-- Edited by sappy on Monday 24th of August 2009 11:43:20 AM

To the original question -- I completely agree that we desperately need health care reform in this country... I have no idea how that's going to happen, though. I haven't read the bill itself -- it's over 1000 pages -- and the sites that I've seen offering "summaries" are clearly slanted with propaganda (they claim the bill says something and even link to it, but then what you read what the bill says, it doesn't come even close to the claim). IHNI what the answer is -- because the *best* answer for health care would be in tremendous violation of civil liberties.
Sara, I'm quoting your post only because I was curious about the details surrounding UHC... the claim was that profits are up for this quarter over the same quarter last year, and company management said last year's profits were uncharacteristically low due to "hefty legal charges". So in proper context, it doesn't mean the company is making more money.
However, there was an interesting snippet about how the company's revenues are up, despite the fact that the number of patients enrolled has declined -- which is certainly not a pretty picture...

you know after i quoted that i realized it was kind of a biased site. i would like to look around for more info about this.

Lizzy · Guru

muffy wrote:

ok - slight tangent....

what are peoples impression of medicare? does anyone have actual experience with it?

reason i ask is because i think it sets a good example of what a US govt medical system could be -as it is actually in effect today :)

i have no personal experience, but my bff with the pituitary tumours/cushings and alllll the related medical issues is on medicare and i have to say....it has been a GODSEND for her and she had gotten pretty freakin amazing medical care under it - i mean, the best brain surgeons at the cleveland clinic... and as her tumour is currently growing back, her medical care increases by the month and she is still under the care of about 4-5 specialists, the best in the country. she will have another brain surgery in a year or two - just as soon as it is big enough to safely operate again - it will cost over $250k like the last time, and medicare will cover.

so those assuming they will get crappy substandard care.... judging from near personal experience i am not at all convinced that would be the case....

btw - her medical insurance before qualifying for medicare was very good - she worked for an office supply company that her father had previously owned, and he made sure they had great coverage.... but with her devastating illness the insurance co played lots of asinine games with her, refusing to pay most of her treatments and in the end dropping her completely as she could not "prove" the exact date when the tumour in her brain started growing and thus they considered it a pre-existing condition (she had been working there all her adult life - covered by this insurance company for nearly 20 years when they screwed her over) this is what happened when a private company out for a buck determined her health care.... great, huh?

but yeah, sorry for the tangent

but i am really interested on any opinions on medicare :)

My mom was on Medicaid and had great care (aside from my issue with the end of life/hospice thing). My father had Medicare and also had great care.

When Andrew was young, he was covered by Medicaid and we always had good/great care at hospitals (not so much at his doctor's office). I also had Medicaid when he was born and, although, it was 20 years ago, I received less than stellar care - especially compared to the OB I had w/ Ivy (having private insurance).

Juanita · Guru

I haven't read all of the bill either, and with it being over 1000 pages long, I doubt very seriously that all of the Senate has either, and that alone scares me.

I do NOT want the government telling me what doctor, hospital, speciality clinic I can use or take my children to. I do NOT want them telling me how long I need to wait to have a certain procedure done, or when any of my family can have surgery.

I do not want them determining what a "qualified plan" is, and if I'm not covered under a qualified plan, that they determine, I'll be automatically enrolled in the public health plan (page 16 of the bill)

In this bill private insurers aren't allowed to make a profit--what's wrong with that? I mean, they ARE a business. Now, don't get me wrong, the private insurance companies need a good overhaul, but until some of the waste and abuse of the medicaid system is done, that's not gonna happen. I want the option to have private insurance if I so choose.

The public health plan has no dental coverage (page 117)

There will be No more specialty hospitals, like cancer treatment centers (page 272)

Future doctors and/or nurses can no longer pick their specialties. The secretary will pick their areas of interest based on "needs" (page 869)

Nurse Practitioners and Physicians Assistants are being elevated to the same status as Medical Doctors under the public health plan (page 461 and 480)

Those are just a few of the reasons I have.....But again, I haven't read the ENTIRE bill.