The amount of bullcrap in regards to HCR on DU is disappointing

[no limit]

The bill that is getting ready to pass has it's upsides and it's downsides. There are people that this bill will help, but there are also many people that this bill will hurt. I am one of those people that this bill will hurt because I won't be able to afford the healthcare I will now be forced to buy and I'm too young (or too single) for the government to give me any help with the payment. When I made a thread detailing this that thread got locked, but not before it shot up to the top of the greatest page. And that's fine, I'm not here to complain about that. But there are millions of people in the same boat as me, mainly young americans that aren't married; and what a lot of people here like to do is pretend that people like me don't exist or don't matter.

Instead many like to pretend that this is a great move forward in our conuntry's history and that Obama is somekind of hero for being able to pass this. You can make the argument that in the end this bill is better than nothing (an argument I disagree with) but don't feed us bullshit that this is some kind of amazing legislative accomplishment, it simply isn't. Or there are the arguments that the reason this bill is good is because Rush Limbaugh thinks it's bad. Since when did anyone care about what Rush has to say? If it's not that then it's a number of other dumbed down talking points that have absolutely no constructive value.

So I ask that instead of concentrating on things that don't mean anything in the real world this community takes some time to actually concentrate on the substance of this bill. Don't brush off people like me who live pay check to pay check now being asked to make $200 a month we don't have appear out of thin air because it goes against what you believe.

[Cleita]

1. Bernie Sanders talking about the public option and says it can be done

in a few months. I don't know, but if it's possible then we have to hound our Congress people to do it. Elections are coming up. My Senator Barbara Boxer already has her hand out for campaign funds. Now is the time to tie strings to it. I intend on asking her to do something about this before the election if she wants any money from me.

[no limit]

8. Would you trust Bush to fix his mess? My apologies if I don't trust the senate

to fix their mess.

[Cleita]

29. I would trust Bernie, but

many others not so much.

[bvar22]

59. I trust Bernie too, but he is wrong here (for what ever reason).

There will be NO "Fixing it Later", and those who believe that are suckers.

[ShortnFiery]

61. Sanders is wrong on THIS. It WON'T be done and we'll be left with a shitty bill. eom

[dflprincess]

98. We've been hounding Congress asking for real reform

but, unfortunately, even if we formed our own PAC we couldn't match the bribes contributions they've been getting from pharma and the insurance companies.

[RandomThoughts]

2. I will be part of a 1 person movement.

Refusing to pay mandate, or a fine from mandate, on grounds that it is a tax to a nonrepresentative corporate body.

But I like how the bill helps people so not worried about it.

[Subdivisions]

3. 1 person movement? Hardly. I stand beside you, and for the same reasons. n/t

[no limit]

4. Good luck with that, but it won't work.

[ixion]

9. It will work

if enough people do it.

[no limit]

11. The right wingers have been trying this protest in some form for a long time

it never worked. Because legally you have absolutely no right to do this, and most americans won't come to join your cause especially when you consider most americans already have insurance.

[RandomThoughts]

14. I said 1 person movement.

So I wont be looking for people to join me in the movement, that is not the point either.

I have the right, I can even explain it. But will wait till later. has to do with non representative forms of governance.

[RandomThoughts]

12. I didn't say it would work, although it could, but thats not the point.

I just think it is wrong for me.

But rest of bill is worth voting for it.

[no limit]

13. So you're willing to cheat on your taxes (or just not pay them) if this bill passes

yet you support this bill?

[RandomThoughts]

15. I would not cheat on taxes.

and yes I support the bill, because it gets help to people that need it.

[no limit]

16. Ok so you wont pay them. Either way you are screwed

so why support this?

If you are getting hurt by this bill chances are millions more will. This kind of logic is silly too, it's ok if it hurts some people as long as it helps some. If we took away welfare from half of the people in this country and gave the savings to the other half you could use the same logic to say that's a good thing since it ends up helping some.

[RandomThoughts]

20. I support it because it will help people that have different views then me.

I agree with the principle of a mandate, just not to non representative governance. It is a minor point due to my view on things, that not everyone will have, most people will go against mandate because of its cost, that is not the concern I was mentioning.

This is not the best arguement to have.

First if I am 'screwed' by your perception that does not bother me. Been awhile anyway LOL


And I would not support taking away welfare from half the people, nor do I think that is a valid comparison, since it is my thought that it will cost some people more, but will not force them out of their homes or take food. If the bill was taking food from people that would be a different story, but it is not, however some people will chose to pay a mandate.

Thinking on it, paying a fine might not be against views, have to see how it is structured, and there are other factors. No paying a fine would be against views because of the concept it enforces through punitive cost.

What I do is not relevant, it is about people needing care and them getting it. It isn't about me.

[no limit]

22. What do you mean it wont people out of their homes or take away their food?

That's exactly what it will do. Do you understand that in my case I will be asked to caugh up $200 a month I don't have? They will give me no subsidies. I already live pay check to paycheck. That means that I will have to cut out $200 from my spending somewhere. That might very well be rent or food.

And going to jail in protest is not an option for me even if you feel its an option for you (I'll believe it when I see it).

[RandomThoughts]

28. I don't plan on going to jail either.

I don't want to argue it with you, and it is sad that it will add hardship for you, I hope it works out for you. Not much more I can say. I also understand that those that get added hardship are not any of the people in middle or higher brackets, people with insurance already, and the mandate adds the added payments to mostly younger and lower wage people. I am not saying it is a fair bill.

[ixion]

5. You won't be alone in your movement

I can assure you. :hi:

[girl gone mad]

56. You won't be alone.

Some will join the First Church of Christ, Scientist, others will drop out of the system, leave the country or find other means of avoidance. Ive already been in touch with a Constitutional Law professor at one of the nation's top colleges who believes the mandate is unconstitutional and has expressed interest in challenging the mandate if it becomes law.

[bvar22]

58. I will let the Democratic Party make me a criminal...

...before I will hand over a single fucking nickel to a For Profit Health Insurance Corporation.
SOLIDARITY!
:patriot:

[sabrina 1]

103. You won't be alone. The mandate will be challenged

as unconstitutional as soon as this bill passes. All it will take is one person who refuses to be forced to buy a product from a private industry claiming it violates their constitutional rights. Groups are already forming all across the political spectrum to challenge Congress' right to force them buy a product from a private business and I wouldn't be surprised to see the ACLU get involved.

However, while all that is happening, the Insurance Companies will be profiting from the bill for as long as they can get away with it. Which is really what this is all about.

A ruling in a Federal Court recently demonstrates that Congress is not beyond violating the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens. ACORN won their case against Congress when the Federal Judge agreed that Congress' bill to defund ACORN was a violation of the Constitution which forbids them to single out a corporation or individual for punishment without an investigation, or when other corps are treated differently.

In Mass. where the smaller version of this bill gives a clue to what we can expect if this bill ever passes without a PO, many thousands of people remain without insurance, despite the mandates and the fines that have more than doubled since the law went into effect three years ago. Premiums too have gone up every year since, as predicted although denied at the time by Republicans.

The bill may pass, but I doubt it will work. Multiply Mass by the entire country and as I said, I doubt you will be the only refusing to accept this.

[Florida Blue]

6. If I understand it correctly

I will lose my Medicare Advantage policy and the wellness that it pays for. Primarily the gym membership at a very well furnished ymca, and have to go back to regular medicare and buy a prescription drug policy, lose my vision add on to the policy, and yes I would vote for the bill because when I am dead others will be benefiting from it

[laughingliberal]

10. Uh, no

The government is ending the subsidies to Medicare Advantage plans who make way more profit than what they are getting in the subsidy. I am aware of the campaign by these for profit companies that found a cash cow in our Medicare program to kill this reform but if they drop out of the programs, it's because their greed knows no bounds.

Sorry about your gym membership. Let your MA company know they can choose to be greedy bastards but you think their profit margins are more than high enough to quit siphoning money out of Medicare.

Many reasons to oppose the Senate HCR bill but this ain't one of 'em.

[Florida Blue]

60. Am getting to enjoy being a "silver sneaker"

[dionysus]

77. Medicare Advantage is not Medicare, it is a private insurance plan with a deceptive name. it fleeces

people.

[jonathon]

7. Unfortunatley,the substance and content of the bill often takes a back seat...

To those vested in reducing legislative policy making down to cheering for a sport's tem...

Every poster that personalizes this to their love of a politician over the substance and content of the legislation is
playing right into the same old political game.

And, working against their own best interest. It is the exact same phenomenon we saw with those who supported Bush despite the atrociousness of his policies. I see a lot of legitimate concern and criticism directed towards Obama's policies dismissed out of hand with the trite and ridiculous statement that those who don't support Obama's policies hate him, want him to fail, etc....

I am waiting to be accused of hating America, the dialogue is so close.

[JTFrog]

17. As opposed to the substance of your Obama supporters = Cheerleaders/Bush supporters post?

Nice try.

:eyes:

[havocmom]

37. +1

:applause:

[sendero]

71. Exactly..

... I don't hate Obama but as a citizen I cannot support him any longer, he's not much different than a Republican in his actions, he's only a Democrat in his speech.

I don't care if people think I'm a "good Dem" or not, Obama's not a "good Dem" and this whole HCR exercise is a joke, a bad joke that is on his shoulders.

I seriously hope this bill fails UNLESS it includes a real Public Option. Because is it not a health care bill it is a guaranteed monopolistic profits bill.

[Foo Fighter]

104. An apt analogy.

You're exactly right when you equate politics to cheering for a team in sports. In sports, there are only two teams. If you're not cheering for "our" team, that must mean you support the opposing team. At least, that's how some people see it. And that's why those from the left that criticize Obama are often accused of being right-wingers. After all, if you're not on "our" team, you must be on that "other" team.

Of course, we all know that's not true. There's another team out there that's being ignored and has been ignored for far too long. It's the team of those that are to the left of both of the other teams. And as both of those two other teams move further to the right, the ignored team on the left continues to grow. And the criticisms become more strident. Funny how that works.

[LostInAnomie]

18. It is a big step forward and will help millions of people.

Look into the subsidies.

[no limit]

19. I'm not an idiot, I looked in to the subsidies. And I won't get any, as millions of others wont

So why is it ok to help some poeple while hurting others?

[LostInAnomie]

24. I don't know your specifics, but I would probably say you are wrong.

Unless you make more than 300% above poverty level (approx $33,000 for a single person), you would qualify. Add in all the reduced costs due to all the people buying insurance that weren't before, and you have millions of people that can now afford health care that couldn't before.

It's better for the country.

[no limit]

25. How much money do you make? because you seem to think 33K is a large amount of money

It's not, its around what I make and as a result I live paycheck to paycheck. So the fact you are calling me a liar tells me you never lived on 33K a year.

[LostInAnomie]

26. Haha... I was a teacher for years making around $28 -31K

It's not broke, I can tell you that. Especially, if you live alone. If you have kids you get an even bigger subsidy and a higher wage level.

$200 a month (if that after HCR and the bigger pool of insured) is a lot cheaper than needing medical treatment without coverage.

[no limit]

27. When were you a teacher making that amount of money? Were you single?

Yes, it is a lot cheaper. But that doesn't really mean anything when you don't have $200 a month to spare.

[LostInAnomie]

31. I was making that from May 2006 - Jan. 2009. I was single, living alone, and paying for insurance.

I know a lot of people like to fantasize that teachers are paid enormous wages, but that's about average.

You might be the one that falls through the cracks, but everyone else making <$33,000 that will get subsidies and will receive a lower insurance rate from the broadened pool of the insured will receive a much better deal than what they had before. No matter what the plan, you were going to have to pay something.

[no limit]

34. Did you have $200 left over each month? How much was your insurance?

[LostInAnomie]

36. Yes, I did.

I was paying around $45 a week for health insurance, plus my monthly union dues. If I knew that money was going towards improving the system, I would have gladly paid it.

Sometimes to do the greater good you have to eat a shit sandwich. It will pay off in the end though with new regulations on the insurance corps.

[no limit]

39. You paid $45 for insurance? Damn, must be nice to get employer insurance

I would have to pay $200.

Put that aside very few people can save up additional money living on $30K. If you did that good for you, I simply don't see how it could be possible to do that here. Any savings I do accumulate go away when something comes up which costs a crap load of money. After taxes 34K is around 26K is about $2,100 a month. After rent, food, gas, electric, water, internet, car, car insurance, phone bill, gas, leisure, credit card debts from 4 years ago when you were making 24K /yr and other things you need to pay for to live not a whole lot is left.

So no, I do not have $200 a month to spare. I can not afford this bill. I will have to end up paying the fee which will cost less but is still fairly unaffordable to me and in the end I will still not be able to see a doctor when I get sick. This is not a unique case, millions more like me. Use the calculator here:

http://healthreform.kff.org/SubsidyCalculator.aspx

A single 25 year old adult making $20,000 a year will be asked to shell out about $100 a month. You think single people living on $20K have $100 to spend on healthcare they will never be able to use because the deductibles and copays will be to expensive?

[LostInAnomie]

40. $45 a week.

[no limit]

41. Sorry, didnt read that closely enough. See my post again though, made an edit

[Hello_Kitty]

45. "Sometimes to do the greater good you have to eat a shit sandwich."

Jesus God, do you guys listen to yourselves sometimes? That's your persuasive argument? You gonna go door to door with that? Put it on flyers?

The tone deafness is staggering.

[LostInAnomie]

46. I'm grown up enough to know that you actually have to pay a cost...

... to better society.

Every social program and improvement has some sort of cost that has to be paid by everyone. Even the public option and single payer would cost people with little or nothing to spare. To do the greater good it is necessary.

[Hello_Kitty]

47. Oh great, now it's the "grown up" one.

Again, insults and condescension do not make your case and they do not persuade.

[LostInAnomie]

50. I'm not trying to persuade you. That would be a futile task.

I'm just telling the truth. You can't get anything for free and there is always some downside. I don't know where we got the idea that somehow we shouldn't have to pay to improve society as a whole and promote the common good.

[Hello_Kitty]

51. Well here's the thing, only 34% of the public wants this bill right now.

Therefore, it's incumbent upon YOU and other supporters to sell it to them or there will be a bloodbath come November. Frankly, you should be off your computer and down at your Dem party or OFA office phonebanking independent voters to tell them how great this HCR is.

(Hint: Try to avoid telling them they need to "grow up".)

Like you said, everyone needs to make sacrifices. Time for you to sacrifice some of your free time and work to get the public to like this thing.

[LostInAnomie]

53. Wow! 34% for it! That an improvement from the 73% against Faux has been flouting.

Right now the polls are absolutely meaningless in reference to the actual content of the bill, because most people don't actually know a damn thing about it. All they know is the discontented bluster the RW and LW have been throwing around, and the echo chamber that the polls are against it.

[Marr]

52. There's a social program here?

Odd. I see only the institutionalization of another corrupt industry, via mandates and subsidies that go directly to their CEOs' bank accounts. A sweet little arrangement, if you happen to be an insurance provider, but it has little to do with providing health care.

[rcrush]

54. Where do you live?

Around here I'm on unemployment and have to live on half of that. Not saying that I'll be able to afford the insurance either I actually agree with you. I'm just pointing that out.

[Cleobulus]

33. Absolutely not true, subsidies only kick in when insurance premiums hit a certain...

percentage of income, 9.8% in the Senate bill and 12%(sliding scale) in the House bill when you have employer provided insurance that meets the minimum threshold for coverage(which as a minimum, is pretty useless for the average American).

I make about 150% above poverty level, and I would get jack shit in subsidies under this bill unless they radically reduce threshold for subsidies, then it might be useful(that and fully paying my deduct and reducing copays to double digits).

[Raineyb]

48. Because you're single and aren't worth saving.

Apparently, those with preexisting conditions who will probably be priced out of the market because there are no price controls, they're not worth saving either. And older people? Screw them. But it's a win so let's celebrate!

THAT seems to be the attitude of those who insist this bill is mana from heaven.

Damn short sighted but some people care more about the party than the policy.

[bvar22]

64. You need to look into the subsidies.

Most people eligible for subsidies will still be required by law to come out of their own pockets with money they are forced to hand over to For Profit Corporations who will sell them a High Co-Pay/High Deductible Package they won't be able to use because of the high Out of pocket cost.

These subsidies are Public Money of which a percentage WILL go toward buying NEW Summer Homes in Aspen and NEW Yachts for Health Insurance Industry Upper Management.
This WILL be done by MANDATE!

I much prefer MY tax dollars to go toward providing actual Health Care, as it would in an expansion of Medicare.

[area51]

68. +1

And to bring up an important point, forcing people at gunpoint to buy for-profit, unregulated health insurance does not mean they will actually be able to afford health care. This is GingrichCare, pure and simple. Gingrich and his ilk think that Americans are too lazy to buy insurance so to solve the crisis, he advocated years ago that he wanted to see a law forcing Americans to buy insurance. Now the democratic party has moved so far to the right that they embrace his ideas. What a world.

[stray cat]

21. this bill may not have been created for your well-being

[no limit]

23. No, it was created to hurt me. and millions more like me. Thanks for proving my OP

you can't argue logically so instead you drive by with these dumb comments.

[gulliver]

30. This post is bullcrap unless you have even one link.

You say you are going to be hurt by the bill, but you have to prove that. You need a link showing you will be forced by buy insurance you can't afford. Otherwise, this post, and every post with the same (lack of) backup is bullcrap.

[no limit]

38. Sorry, I should have been more specific, here you go:

http://healthreform.kff.org/SubsidyCalculator.aspx

Age 25
Income 34K
No employer insurance
Single adult

I get no help and have to shell out $200 a month.

[tranche]

44. empty

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Raineyb]

74. Get a fucking clue

When someone says they don't have x amount of dollars extra that doesn't mean they don't know how to manage their money or don't have a budget. It means that after paying their bills they don't' have an extra 200 bucks. For you to assume otherwise is asinine but then so was your reply.

[gulliver]

106. Thanks for the link

...It also says "The proposal also makes available a catastrophic policy for young adults and those exempted from the requirement to obtain insurance that is less comprehensive and has a lower premium than other coverage. It is not reflected in the calculator."

So, I'm thinking this means you could get an HSA with a high deductible and low premium. I have an HSA, and I like it. I pay about $200 per month and have a deductible of $2,700 per year. I am 48 and healthy. You, on the other hand appear to be 25. I would expect you to be able to get an extremely low premium.

Also, you can contribute to the HSA and deduct the contributions. Then you can spend that untaxed money to cover your deductible should you need to use it.

Finally, as I read the information on the page, this 9.8% is your maximum premium, not what you would be "forced to pay." But I am not sure I understand exactly what that part means.

[Stinky The Clown]

32. Gumby done visited your post

[Juche]

35. It is supposed to subsidize those up to 400% of poverty levels

I don't know your back story, but I was under the impression that income up to 150% got medicaid and 150-400 got subsidies.

Either way, this is a problem for some in MA, where it is cheaper to pay the fine than buy health care. But I still support the bill, it does more good than bad.

[no limit]

42. Here you go, subsidy calculator

Put in 25 year old adult and play with the numbers. Then actually think about what those numbers are. A single adult 25 years old living on 20K will be asked to pay $100 a month. I dont know if you know a lot of single adults living on 20K, but they dont usually have $100 to spare at the end of each month.

[Juche]

97. I always had $100 at the end of each month

And my brother and his wife (when he was in grad school) made $1700/month net income and still saved $500/month while still paying for high deductible health insurance. Of course they owned their cars outright and lived in a low cost part of the country (Ohio) where rent was $350/month for a 2 bedroom. $100 a month for health insurance isn't a bad price really. That is 6% of gross annual income (probably closer to 9% of net annual income).

But either way, I don't think the solution is to abandon the health bill as much as to empower the working/middle class in the situation you describe so people aren't working a full time job and still not be able to afford subsidized health insurance.

[Hello_Kitty]

43. They want us single childless people to have four roommates and eat ramen.

I remember a few particularly obnoxious posters on the thread commenting that you didn't have mouths to feed so they didn't care about you. I'd love to see their reaction I suggested cutting the subsidies to families (who will be getting the lion's share of them) to level more commensurate to what single people get. Then I'd tell them they could do without the TV or the internet or hey, they could move into a house with another family and save on rent!

[patrice]

63. No, that's what "they" plan for Boomers, who can't afford to live on their own anymore.

[Johonny]

49. It is the DU

There is BS posted on here all the time. I don't think any regular reader is unaware of this. If you enjoy the DU, you probably enjoy the good and BS stuff. If not you're not going to last long. It's the DU we fight, laugh at and cry with each other. It is the internet(s) after all, Enjoy.

[Vidar]

55. K&R.

[Greyhound]

57. K&R #5

[patrice]

62. It is not logical to say that one's own needs should not be ignored, but those of others should.

I have been uncomfortable with the mandate ever since I heard it the first time in the campaign debates.

It's in there to drive the price down, so that those who need coverage and can afford it (some with subsidies) will be able to get it.

You say you need your money more than you need coverage. So it's your need, which you are telling us to honor, balanced against the health care needs of others, which we are trying to honor and We'll just have to take your word, and that of others more or less like you, about what your need is and how you have defined that.

I guess my basic point here is that it is not possible for the group (which provides the wherewithal by means of which needs are met) to honor your need and not that of those who need health care, nor honor the needs of those who need health care and not honor your need for whatever that $200. was providing.

This is where greater good rhetoric usually comes in and you are in the minority in that case.

If the Insurance Companies didn't have such a strangle hold on our politics, it would probably be possible to give you something else for your mandated $200. that you would find more useful to your needs.

[bvar22]

65. No.

The Individual Mandate is "in there" to increase profits for the Health Insurance Cartel and their bought politicians.

If "driving down the price" was the REAL goal, we would have simply expanded Medicare.

[patrice]

67. That's right, because that's the way that it is now.

I just don't buy into the idea that the (more) Perfect justifies the suffering that happens as a result of rejecting the less-than-Perfect.

If you are telling me that you should not have to suffer the loss of your $200., as part of the group which provides for needs, I cannot say that your need is more significant than anyone else's.

I also think that IF this bill contains a real Public Option or even a small extension of Medicare, the thinking about it at this point is way toooooo zero-sum thinking.

There is a great deal that depends upon what changes people will do themselves, not only on this, but on all of the related issues too.

[Raineyb]

76. You seriously aren't arguing that he's just going to have to suck it up and be screwed are you?

That CAN'T be your argument. It's the stupidest load of crap I've ever heard. It's insensitive and you just told him that his well being doesn't mean shit but think of all those other people it will help (although I would argue that it won't help them but that's an argument) so you can sacrifice being able to take care of yourself so that others can take care of themselves.

Are you for fucking real?

That's asinine. And worse, it's not progressive. Progressives are supposed to try to get care for EVERYBODY not demand some go without so that others can have care. So if the OP gets sick he should just what? Drop dead?

What needs to drop dead is that POS bill.

Health care is NOT something that you offer to some and demand that others sacrifice being able to get for themselves to make it happen.

Disgusting!

[patrice]

82. Your manufactured rage is obviously of higher priority to you than HC

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Go fuck with someone else. I won't be playing your game.

[Raineyb]

93. Manufactured rage? I'm one of those people who would have to suck it up

so you and the rest of the people who have their noses up the DLC's ass can say "look ma we passed something."

This bill does not actually provide health care as insurance does not equal care. But if you're too fucking daft to get that there's no point on continuing is there?

Go sell you snake oil somewhere else. *I* am not buying it.

You think that a "win" is more important than making sure people get health care. I find that absolutely disgusting.

[girl gone mad]

80. Mandates have not driven prices down in Massachusetts..

under Romneycare.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2009/0930/p09s01-coop.html

Three years ago, Massachusetts adopted a plan requiring all residents to purchase health insurance, with state subsidies for lower-income residents. But rather than creating a utopia of high-quality affordable healthcare, the result has been the exact opposite – skyrocketing costs, worsened access, and lower quality care.

Under any system of mandatory insurance, the government must necessarily define what constitutes acceptable insurance. In Massachusetts, this has created a giant magnet for special interest groups seeking to have their own pet benefits included in the required package. Massachusetts residents are thus forced to purchase benefits they may neither need nor want, such as in vitro fertilization, chiropractor services, and autism treatment – raising insurance costs for everyone to reward a few with sufficient political "pull."

Although similar problems exist in other states, Massachusetts' system of mandatory insurance delivers the entire state population to the special interests. Since 2006, providers have successfully lobbied to include 16 new benefits in the mandatory package (including lay midwives, orthotics, and drug-abuse treatment), and the state legislature is considering 70 more.

The Massachusetts plan thus violates the individual's right to spend his own money according to his best judgment for his own benefit. Instead, individuals are forced to choose from a limited set of insurance plans on terms set by lobbyists and bureaucrats, rather than those based on a rational assessment of individual needs.

Because the state-mandated health insurance is so expensive, the government must also subsidize the costs for lower-income residents. In response, the state government has cut payments to doctors and hospitals. With such poor reimbursements, physicians are increasingly reluctant to take on new patients.

The Massachusetts plan is also breaking the state budget. Since 2006, health insurance costs in Massachusetts have risen nearly twice as fast as the national average. The state expects to spend $595 million more in 2009 on its health insurance program than it did in 2006, a 42 percent increase. Those higher health costs help explain why the state faced a $5 billion budget gap this summer. To help close it, lawmakers raised taxes sharply.

Costs have risen so much that a special state commission has recommended eliminating fee-for-service medicine, instead paying physicians and hospitals a single annual fee to cover all of a patient's needs for that year – in other words, rationing.

[patrice]

66. Do you suppose all of those healthy people in other countries with national HC demand their taxes

back?

[Cleobulus]

69. Fuck, I hate this stupid ass talking point. Do we vote on who runs the insurance companies?

No we don't, but in those countries with NHS systems do vote on who runs(or appoints people to run) their national health care plans. Private Insurance Companies do NOT equal Public Programs!

[patrice]

86. Your side STILL has to justify all of those who suffer through the, what, 6-10 years it could take

to get whatever it is that you want (and that's an optimistic estimate).

[Cleobulus]

90. What the fuck are you talking about? No one has demonstrated that the current bill...

will alleviate suffering, not to mention it doesn't go into affect for 3-4 years anyways.

ON EDIT: Indeed, it is just as equally likely that this bill can make things worse rather than better. With few price controls and even fewer cost controls, many people will end up being covered under policies that won't be worth the paper they are written on because they cannot afford to use said policies.

[patrice]

94. I think you are mischaracterizing the bill. I should take your word over Senator Sanders'?

I should take your word over Howard Dean's?

There is no real need for you to reply to this post. You are obviously much more about anger than you are about anything else.

And I do not talk to rude people.

[Cleobulus]

95. Why is Senator Sanders pushing for a Public Option...

Some things in the bill are good, others are bad, this I think we can both agree on. It looks to me that Senator Sanders is thinking that it isn't enough of a balance between the two so a Public Option is necessary.

The fact is you made a stupid point an apples and oranges comparison that has no basis in reality.

[grantcart]

70. My understanding is that if you cannot afford it and don't qualify for

any subsidy, a point that none of us know because the final levels haven't been finalized, you can apply for an exemption.

[Cleobulus]

73. If that ever makes it into the final bill, it just shows how fucked up the bill will be...

seriously, the fact that people would qualify for an exemption should be a big clue as to how ineffectual the bill will be in providing real health care affordability.

[yowzayowzayowza]

75. I'm paying at least an extra $150/mo in premiums to cover you,...

folks that show up in the ER uninsured.

I CAN'T AFFORD IT EITHER.

[Cleobulus]

78. You really seem to be stuck on that, aren't you?

I didn't know your premiums were about 1500 dollars a month, considering that your complaint accounts for about 8% of health care costs to those with insurance, that would have to be true, right? Its not an exaggeration or lie is it?

Not to mention the fact that you cost someone who is also on your plan money every time you visit the ER(or have any expensive treatment done) unless you simply never use your insurance and pay everything out of pocket.

[yowzayowzayowza]

84. Yea, I'm stuck on my money jus like the OP.

I did not give an exact number and neither you er I er anyone else knows the exact number. KNOCK OFF THE PERSONAL ATTACKS ALREADY.

[Cleobulus]

87. You make it personal yourself, not to mention that you were, at the very least, inaccurate in...

your assessment of the cost to you personally. Hell, at least 2 other people have already refuted you on this, why not own up to the fact that you are exaggerating at the very least?

[yowzayowzayowza]

92. Pfffftht.

Your query has already been answered.

[jtuck004]

79. Who are you paying this to? Some lying weasel of an insurance co?

Because the hospitals get money from the government for uninsured patients...

http://www.nhpf.org/library/the-basics/Basics_DSH_06-15-09.pdf

So if your insurance company or hospital is saying that they are charging you more for insurance based
on someone else's medical needs, perhaps you should have the insurance co explain why they should keep 1 fifth of
your money for administrative expenses and tell you that they are paying it out to hospitals who are
getting money from the fed.

Just sayin...

[yowzayowzayowza]

85. Try:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7885565&mesg_id=7887590

[Cleobulus]

88. So your premiums ARE around 1500 dollars a month, is that it? n/t

[yowzayowzayowza]

91. I gave my portion of the premium in the LAST thread. N/T

[girl gone mad]

83. No you are not.

If anything, the uninsured in this country are subsidizing you by

1. avoiding care, a type of rationing which suppresses overall demand and keeps costs down.

2. paying higher costs out of pocket than insurance or Medicare/Medicaid reimbursements. Often insurance companies only pay a fraction of the billed price while the uninsured must pay in full.

3. lessening the paperwork and bureaucracy burden on doctors and hospitals.


Let me remind you that the vast majority of medical bankruptcies in this nation are filed by INSURED people. My next door neighbor is one example. My brother and many uninsured friends I know all paid hospital bills in their entirety.

[yowzayowzayowza]

89. You folks seem to disagree:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7885565&mesg_id=7887590

[girl gone mad]

105. Fail.

Like she said, 8% would be a very generous estimates. It's probably a fabricated statistic.

Like she also said, the uninsured use far less health care, which unarguably suppresses health care costs by a significant amount.

Either way you cut it, the uninsured are subsidizing the insured. That's probably why Mass. is seeing the biggest run up in premiums in the country.

Next time, try thinking it through first.

[yowzayowzayowza]

107. People who are paying nothing are subsidizing those who pay?

...regarding high cost emergent care. Thatz really rich. In any market retail purchases are always gunna cost more than buying in bulk.

Regardless the amount of health care the uninsured actually utilize or might utilize IF THEY WERE PAYING INTO THE SYSTEM, when the uninsured lose their bet and require more emergent care than they can afford, the government and insured end up paying their way.

eta: http://www.factcheck.org/2009/06/obamas-health-care-claims/

And while we find it doubtful that the uninsured cost other families $1,000 in higher premiums alone, once higher taxes and higher medical costs are factored in, the price tag for the uninsured could well be that high.

[Cleobulus]

96. How about this, I won't dispute the actual amount you say you are paying...

but let's create a realistic scenario here for you to deal with.

Let's assume that I'm signed up to my employers plan that I already can't afford, woohoo I'm insured!

Something happens and I have to go to the ER, and the total bill equals about 10,000 dollars, I'm patched up and sent home. A little later than that(assuming the Insurance Company accepted the claim) I'm faced with a 2,000 dollar medical bill. A bill I cannot pay immediately, now if the hospital aren't total assholes we can work out a payment plan to get me out of debt, say paying 50 bucks a month for the next 40 months. This, of course, on top of the premium I already pay.

Let's assume no other crises happen in the meantime that make me late on any payments, the hospital will still distribute the cost of 2 grand, just as the insurance company did for the other 8,000 they paid, to their other patients/members. So you still pay for my ER stay, it may not be as much, but then again its a matter of perspective, is it not?

The problem I have with your argument is that you seem to be arguing that you should never pay for anyone else's medical problems when that is actually the basis for insurance in the first place, regardless of who runs it.

[yowzayowzayowza]

99. Whatever.

I live in reality. I understand perfectly how insurance works. Dudn't change the fact that the government and those with insurance are coverin' for those w/o.

[Cleobulus]

100. Yes they are, what's your point? n/t

[yowzayowzayowza]

101. No, you can ride the merry-go-round by yourself.

Good Evening.

[Cleobulus]

102. No seriously, what is your point, you not only mention those without insurance but also...

on government assistance, are you opposed to medicaid for poor people or something?

[HughMoran]

81. I agree, The amount of bullcrap in regards to HCR on DU is disappointing

Very very disappointing.