(Let me first say I am not necessarily in favor of what the President is signing in to law.)

 

It is a very interesting question and dilemma I struggle with when trying to evaluate this whole health care stuff. I feel your frustration with those abusing the system, in which case I agree with you. But do we as human being have any moral obligation to provide care to the "3 kids" who did not ask for this? Or should our moral obligation be only to ourselves? Fact is, there are an abundance of people who work diligently and do their best, but health care costs are so much it is not always possible.

 

To me I always view health care in this light. You have one family, they bust their tails, make $10,000,000 a year. Money is no object to them. Then we have family number two. They bust their tails, make a combined $75,000 a year. Both, in my estimation are living the American Dream. The question is, should one family be privy to more health benefits than the other simply because they make more money? The health industry, for many procedures and medications, has out priced family number two. Something about that does not feel right to me.

 

 

My frustration isn't so much with those that abuse the system as it is with the government taking away our personal freedoms of choice. Would I be willing to help those in need that I could? Absolutely I would, however I feel we should be given the choice.

I believe you should lower the dollar amount. The amounts you have, both families should be able to afford insurance, if it is not a part of their pay package. There are all sorts of programs in place to help. The SCHIP covers people to 3 or 4 times the poverty level. Once again, this bill did not have to be passed in its present state to make some changes. There were less expensive and intrusive ways of helping.

There is a difference in being able to afford insurance and being able to afford things beyond what your insurance will cover. Policies are set to insure those to a certain point, at some point you have to start forking over some money. And "some" can easily be turned in to a boat load.

Also, just to point out that it's not just health insurance, I'm flat-out against any and all government social programs.

 

I bet a debate between you and acemona would be interesting....

 

As a believer in the pure free market system I need to say - there is a place for government programs and functions.

 

Government can and should provide safety nets that can not or are not provided by other means. But, safety nets should not be cushioned hammocks.

 

Even in health insurance the government can and possibly should play a role - but not take over the system in totality.

 

Two key HC areas that are SUPPOSED to be fixed by this new legislation - pre-existing conditions and catastrophic coverage. These are areas that normal business accounting simply can not account for. Companies can not have unlimited liability. And these elements create 'unlimited liability' for companies and thus companies have to 'cap' that liability. So companies are called all sorts of nasty names but they are just following the 'natural law' of free markets and GOVERNMENT MANDATED ACCOUNTING RULES. In the world of Sarbaines-Oxley (SBX) where an executive can go to jail for not following the accounting rules you better believe they enforcing caps.

 

The government can be the 'insurer of last resort'. The government can tolerate the risks that private companies can not. It has deeper pockets and can borrow far greater amounts than any company can. So the government CAN do things private companies can not. Examples of this approach is the national flood insurance program.

 

So government can play role but it does not need to take over the whole system play that role.

My frustration isn't so much with those that abuse the system as it is with the government taking away our personal freedoms of choice. Would I be willing to help those in need that I could? Absolutely I would, however I feel we should be given the choice.

 

What about those who want insurance and can't get it? Their "American dream" is destroyed because of an unfortunate health issue that causes financial ruin. How should we help them?

 

How about the person who gets cancer and then is dropped by their insurance carrier? They get insurance, pay for protection and then when the very situation they paid to protect occurs, their protection is withdrawn.

 

That is where my frustration is. Good hard working people who did what they were supposed to do to protect themselves and then are ruined because of a health issue.

What about those who want insurance and can't get it? Their "American dream" is destroyed because of an unfortunate health issue that causes financial ruin. How should we help them?

 

How about the person who gets cancer and then is dropped by their insurance carrier? They get insurance, pay for protection and then when the very situation they paid to protect occurs, their protection is withdrawn.

 

That is where my frustration is. Good hard working people who did what they were supposed to do to protect themselves and then are ruined because of a health issue.

What would be an example of someone who can't get insurance?

What would be an example of someone who can't get insurance?

 

I will take a stab at this and I am sure you will correct me if I am wrong. How about a young adult who has to move from their parent's coverage but has a health condition that no insurance company will write a policy on? Is that one? :idunno:

What would be an example of someone who can't get insurance?

 

My friend worked for the Peace Corps in Kenya and then for a non-profit in Ghana for a year. When he returned to the states last fall, he discovered that living in Africa for a certain period of time makes you uninsurable. He could not get coverage from any private healthcare provider, simply because he'd been living in Africa, doing charitable work.

There is a difference in being able to afford insurance and being able to afford things beyond what your insurance will cover. Policies are set to insure those to a certain point, at some point you have to start forking over some money. And "some" can easily be turned in to a boat load.

 

Out of pocket maximums are there for a reason. There is absolutely no reason that a family with the income levels you suggest can not afford extremely good health insurance. If not, they need to evaluate their own spending/expenses balance sheet and get their priorities in order. Millions of people are accomplishing what I suggest on significantly less than $75K per year. Cost is only an issue in the absence of value.

I will take a stab at this and I am sure you will correct me if I am wrong. How about a young adult who has to move from their parent's coverage but has a health condition that no insurance company will write a policy on? Is that one? :idunno:

 

My friend worked for the Peace Corps in Kenya and then for a non-profit in Ghana for a year. When he returned to the states last fall, he discovered that living in Africa for a certain period of time makes you uninsurable. He could not get coverage from any private healthcare provider, simply because he'd been living in Africa, doing charitable work.

Both are good examples but what % of the population would you guess falls into either of these catagories? Less than 1%? Probably lower. Does it take 2400 pages to address these very very few special cases?

Edited March 25, 201016 yr by woodsrider

I agreed with everything up to the bolded. If what you say is right how does this bill change anything? There will still be uninsured people getting sick.

 

How about instead of strong arming people into purchasing insurance you take measures to bring the cost of insurance down so there is no excuse for not having it.

 

Now that's a novel thought!

In a free society that is your choice to make.

There were other reforms that could have been tried to help control costs and help cover those who needed help, rather than pass this big government effort at controlling our basic decisions.

 

:thumb:

My frustration isn't so much with those that abuse the system as it is with the government taking away our personal freedoms of choice. Would I be willing to help those in need that I could? Absolutely I would, however I feel we should be given the choice.

 

You mean like who can marry whom, or whether or not someone can have an abortion. Those kinds of freedoms of choice, or just economic?

You mean like who can marry whom, or whether or not someone can have an abortion. Those kinds of freedoms of choice, or just economic?

I will agree with you on the marriage but abortion just doesn't fall into that catagory.

I will take a stab at this and I am sure you will correct me if I am wrong. How about a young adult who has to move from their parent's coverage but has a health condition that no insurance company will write a policy on? Is that one? :idunno:

 

I would say that isn't one...I was born with numerous heart conditions, and just within the past year got my degree, a job, and had to get my own health insurance. I was able to make the transition to my company's carrier with a simple letter from my parent's provider saying I had been covered.

You mean like who can marry whom, or whether or not someone can have an abortion. Those kinds of freedoms of choice, or just economic?

 

While I feel abortion is extremely wrong, and feel those that have and or perform abortions are the lowest form of scum on the earth, I don't necessarily feel it's the government's place...

 

I honestly have zero problem with the marriage issue.