List of Shows
Interesting Links
AOL Television - ATWT Billy Warlock Josh Taylor Official Site General Hospital Soaps Blogger Blog Maurice Benard Soaps.com is on Myspace! Soaps on Youtube BethAnn Bonner... List of all links >>Tell your friends
POPULAR SEARCHES
|
|
Soaps.com - MESSAGE BOARDS
Soaps Boards :: Gov't sponsored Health Care
Please register and login to be able to post in this message board.
Gov't sponsored Health Care
Started by cats meow at 2009/06/15 09:49AMLatest post: 2009/08/03 06:34PM, Views: 1993, Replies: 155
#71
2009/07/18 09:22AM
Re: Gov't sponsored Health Care
cats meow |
Following conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh and the Media Research Center, Fox News host Sean Hannity and Fox Business' David Asman echoed false claims in a July 15 editorial by Investor's Business Daily, which stated that the House health care reform bill includes "a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal" and that the "provision would indeed outlaw individual private coverage." In fact, the bill does no such thing. |
#72
2009/07/18 09:27AM
Re: Gov't sponsored Health Care
|
cats meow |
We've written before about conservatives claiming that Congress, or Obama, or Washington, or Democrats in general want the U.S. to have a Canadian-style, government-run health care system. The truth of the matter is that the president has repeatedly said he doesn't. In fact, since being sworn in as president, Obama has riled advocates of such single-payer systems by largely excluding them from the health care debate. He has answered several questions from members of the public who asked at town hall events: "why not" have such a system. Sen. Max Baucus of Montana, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and one of the leaders in drafting legislation, has said bluntly: "single-payer is not going to get even to first base in Congress." Yet, the Canada claims continue. |
#73
2009/07/18 11:54AM
Re: Gov't sponsored Health Care
sarahconnor |
thanks for the great posts Cats! |
Modified 1 times(s), last time at:
2009/07/18 11:55AM
#74
2009/07/18 11:58AM
Re: Gov't sponsored Health Care
grits1976 |
I think that gov. systems tend to have too many loop holes. If we can find a way to close loopholes where the system is not being played, like the welfare system has been for so many years. I think that there should be some restrictions, like: |
#75
2009/07/18 12:14PM
Re: Gov't sponsored Health Care
|
sarahconnor |
Quote lovesit:  I'm more confused. I read it all (of that section) when I made the post, and then your post, and I still see where some instances make it illegal (for lack of better word) to have private insurance. Or is it saying that in some/all instances, you can still have the private, but the private must be ran parallel to the gov plan? Sorry. I thought I had it figured out, but you said there are other parts that negate this part? i like to consider myself well-read, but I got no idea now on this. So glad I'm not in charge of passing things like this... the only time (as how i am understanding) that you can not have private insurance is when they do not comply with the government's bill of regulations. you can keep your old insurance (grandfathered) as long as they don't enroll new people if they don't comply with the bill. otherwise for private sectors to enroll new people, they must comply with the rules and regulations that are drawn out. the bill is also to protect people from being overcharged by private insurance companies. there are some restrictions YES..but they are not outlawing private insurance. not by how i'm reading it. heck maybe i'm reading something wrong - if you think i have, please clarify so i can research further. but this is how myself and many others are understanding it. i don't disagree with it entirely but i don't agree entirely either. i am lucky to have private insurance myself. i have united healthcare/premium with only a 150 deductable. i also pay ALOT for this insurance. if i lost my insurance for whatever reason combined with something happening that i did not forsee with my health or the health of my children, i could be completely out of luck with the way healthcare is now. i always think of the worst case scenerio and i'm not above it no more than anyone else. there are too many families suffering and filing bankruptcy due to medical bills they can't afford. even families who thought they were well prepared and once lived very comfortably. our healtcare system is in need of reform badly. to be honest, i really wish they could have figured out some sort of government "plan" to bridge the gap between medicaid/medicare and private insurance and worked on regulation of costs itself. that would have been ideal (in my eyes) but i guess it doesn't make the timeline in which they want to roll this out. there is too great of a divide and i don't think anyone should lose their home, file bankruptcy, etc b/c their child develops leukemia (good example there) and they just can't keep up. there are so many stories out there that just break my heart. i think this is better than doing nothing although i would have been more for bridging the gap. i'm assuming that would have taken too long, been too drawn out and that is the reason. so although this plan is not perfect in my eyes, i think it's better than doing nothing. editing to say i meant medicaid vs private healthcare. (not medicare) |
Modified 2 times(s), last time at:
2009/07/18 12:56PM
#76
2009/07/18 12:24PM
Re: Gov't sponsored Health Care
|
sarahconnor |
Quote grits1976: I think that gov. systems tend to have too many loop holes. If we can find a way to close loopholes where the system is not being played, like the welfare system has been for so many years. I think that there should be some restrictions, like: 1. You either have to be a US citizen or show proof of being employed legally and paying taxes to the US govt. to get free health care. 2. Free birth control yes. Free fertility treatment NO 100% patient paid. Prenatal and perinatal care 100% paid for up to 2 pregnancies that result in live birth, if some one miscarries I don't think that that should count toward her preggos. Surrogate pregnancies should be 100% final parent paid. After 2 govt paid preggo care the parents pay 100% of the bills. Abortions should be covered up to 2 as well. If a woman has 2 abortions she should be encouraged to get her tubes tied 100% free. 3. Vasectomies- 100% free. 4. Vanity surgeries -pay 100% of the bill, accident victims reconstructive surgeries- 100% free, unless it was industry related the the employer should be responsible. 5. preventive care- govt paid. 6. Prescriptions- similar to Medicare D plan. 7. Things like gym memberships and healthier living should also be rewarded. I think that the govt. should look into what the HMOs & PPOs cover and tweak it a bit. But I don't want the gov. to pay for every pregnancy that a mega family like the Duggars has. I also don't want to pay for all the starlets in Hollywood's boob jobs.  If that makes me a mean self righteous, mean conservative, so be it. what you said..I AGREE WITH. i feel we should have government plans set in place for families at risk for a financial crunch due to medical emergencies. i do not like the idea of paying for medically unnecessary cosmetic surgery or any kind of fertility treatments either. i agree with the restrictions you mentioned. all i am saying is that i do not disagree with the bill entirely - nothing is perfect and it's better than nothing. |
#77
2009/07/18 12:29PM
Re: Gov't sponsored Health Care
Eppy |
Quote sarahconnor: I'm not sure what you mean by bridging the gap between medicaid/medicare. Medicaid is a state -funded program for the lowest income folks; Medicare is a federal program that one can opt into upon becoming eligible for Social Security Retirement (or permanent disability). One isn't required to take Medicare if they do not want it, or have another insurance they wish to use. Medicare requires it's recipients to pay premiums, deductibles and share of cost. A very low income retiree may apply for State medicaid assistance to pay Medicare premiums, but that is the only tie-in I'm aware of. I guess I just don't understand your reference to the gap between the two.
Quote lovesit: I'm more confused. I read it all (of that section) when I made the post, and then your post, and I still see where some instances make it illegal (for lack of better word) to have private insurance. Or is it saying that in some/all instances, you can still have the private, but the private must be ran parallel to the gov plan? Sorry. I thought I had it figured out, but you said there are other parts that negate this part? i like to consider myself well-read, but I got no idea now on this. So glad I'm not in charge of passing things like this... the only time (as how i am understanding) that you can not have private insurance is when they do not comply with the government's bill of regulations. you can keep your old insurance (grandfathered) as long as they don't enroll new people if they don't comply with the bill. otherwise for private sectors to enroll new people, they must comply with the rules and regulations that are drawn out. the bill is also to protect people from being overcharged by private insurance companies. there are some restrictions YES..but they are not outlawing private insurance. not by how i'm reading it. heck maybe i'm reading something wrong - if you think i have, please clarify so i can research further. but this is how myself and many others are understanding it. i don't disagree with it entirely but i don't agree entirely either. i am lucky to have private insurance myself. i have united healthcare/premium with only a 150 deductable. i also pay ALOT for this insurance. if i lost my insurance for whatever reason combined with something happening that i did not forsee with my health or the health of my children, i could be completely out of luck with the way healthcare is now. i always think of the worst case scenerio and i'm not above it no more than anyone else. there are too many families suffering and filing bankruptcy due to medical bills they can't afford. even families who thought they were well prepared and once lived very comfortably. our healtcare system is in need of reform badly. to be honest, i really wish they could have figured out some sort of government "plan" to bridge the gap between medicaid/medicare and private insurance and worked on regulation of costs itself. that would have been ideal (in my eyes) but i guess it doesn't make the timeline in which they want to roll this out. there is too great of a divide and i don't think anyone should lose their home, file bankruptcy, etc b/c their child develops leukemia (good example there) and they just can't keep up. there are so many stories out there that just break my heart. i think this is better than doing nothing although i would have been more for bridging the gap. i'm assuming that would have taken too long, been too drawn out and that is the reason. so although this plan is not perfect in my eyes, i think it's better than doing nothing. |
Modified 2 times(s), last time at:
2009/07/18 12:34PM
#78
2009/07/18 12:53PM
Re: Gov't sponsored Health Care
|
sarahconnor |
Quote Eppy: Quote sarahconnor: I'm not sure what you mean by bridging the gap between medicaid/medicare. Medicaid is a state -funded program for the lowest income folks; Medicare is a federal program that one can opt into upon becoming eligible for Social Security Retirement (or permanent disability). One isn't required to take Medicare if they do not want it, or have another insurance they wish to use. Medicare requires it's recipients to pay premiums, deductibles and share of cost. A very low income retiree may apply for State medicaid assistance to pay Medicare premiums, but that is the only tie-in I'm aware of. I guess I just don't understand your reference to the gap between the two. Quote lovesit: I'm more confused. I read it all (of that section) when I made the post, and then your post, and I still see where some instances make it illegal (for lack of better word) to have private insurance. Or is it saying that in some/all instances, you can still have the private, but the private must be ran parallel to the gov plan? Sorry. I thought I had it figured out, but you said there are other parts that negate this part? i like to consider myself well-read, but I got no idea now on this. So glad I'm not in charge of passing things like this... the only time (as how i am understanding) that you can not have private insurance is when they do not comply with the government's bill of regulations. you can keep your old insurance (grandfathered) as long as they don't enroll new people if they don't comply with the bill. otherwise for private sectors to enroll new people, they must comply with the rules and regulations that are drawn out. the bill is also to protect people from being overcharged by private insurance companies. there are some restrictions YES..but they are not outlawing private insurance. not by how i'm reading it. heck maybe i'm reading something wrong - if you think i have, please clarify so i can research further. but this is how myself and many others are understanding it. i don't disagree with it entirely but i don't agree entirely either. i am lucky to have private insurance myself. i have united healthcare/premium with only a 150 deductable. i also pay ALOT for this insurance. if i lost my insurance for whatever reason combined with something happening that i did not forsee with my health or the health of my children, i could be completely out of luck with the way healthcare is now. i always think of the worst case scenerio and i'm not above it no more than anyone else. there are too many families suffering and filing bankruptcy due to medical bills they can't afford. even families who thought they were well prepared and once lived very comfortably. our healtcare system is in need of reform badly. to be honest, i really wish they could have figured out some sort of government "plan" to bridge the gap between medicaid/medicare and private insurance and worked on regulation of costs itself. that would have been ideal (in my eyes) but i guess it doesn't make the timeline in which they want to roll this out. there is too great of a divide and i don't think anyone should lose their home, file bankruptcy, etc b/c their child develops leukemia (good example there) and they just can't keep up. there are so many stories out there that just break my heart. i think this is better than doing nothing although i would have been more for bridging the gap. i'm assuming that would have taken too long, been too drawn out and that is the reason. so although this plan is not perfect in my eyes, i think it's better than doing nothing. sorry, i worded that wrong. i seem to always get medicare and medicaid mixed up. what i meant was medicaid vs private insurance. there is a huge gap in which to qualify for medicaid one must be of a substantially low income..then there is private insurance. in my opinion, that divide is just too great. for some reason i had the terms medicare and medicaid grouped in as one so i apologize for my lack of knowledge on medicare itself. medicaid i know a bit about b/c while my mother was struggling to take care of me & my sister, she had that and it saved her (us) from financial ruin. my sister had a host of medical problems including asthma. we were only on the system until my mother obtained her degree and got a great job in the chemical engineering field that came with great benefits. there really is nothing to assist with medical if you are between low income and a higher one. if someone has children making under a certain income, they are certain to fail if there is an unforseen medical situation yet b/c they have a minimum wage job, they won't qualify for medicaid. even people who are comfortably well off with savings can fall into this sinkhole. the system is broken. i would be all for bridging that gap with government plans and reform over our current medical situation but i am guessing that would take too long. i was only expressing that would indeed be ideal but i am most certainly not against the bill for government healthcare and it does not deny the right to private insurance as long as the private insurance company comply with the bill. i hope that clarified what i was trying to say..sorry for the confusion, that was on my part. |
#79
2009/07/18 01:09PM
Re: Gov't sponsored Health Care
|
Eppy |
Okay - got 'cha! Yes, for very low income folks (even the working low income folks) medicaid is available, however it certainly is not the most effective. For one thing, most doctors are very reluctant to accept medicaid unless it is a community center doctor. There are shares of cost and deductibles with this program as well depending on one's monthly income. An insurance program for people who do not qualify for medicaid and still do not have enough income to afford regular insurance or receive insurance through their employment; and for those who have pre-existing conditions, there must be something for these folks - they are the one's who are the most un-(or) underinsured. They may very well be able to afford a program with reasonably priced premuims, deductibles and shares of cost. It certainly needn't be a totally government funded program, or a "give-away"! Revenues could be generated as they are through Medicare. |
#80
2009/07/18 01:15PM
Re: Gov't sponsored Health Care
|
grits1976 |
Quote sarahconnor: Quote Eppy: Quote sarahconnor: I'm not sure what you mean by bridging the gap between medicaid/medicare. Medicaid is a state -funded program for the lowest income folks; Medicare is a federal program that one can opt into upon becoming eligible for Social Security Retirement (or permanent disability). One isn't required to take Medicare if they do not want it, or have another insurance they wish to use. Medicare requires it's recipients to pay premiums, deductibles and share of cost. A very low income retiree may apply for State medicaid assistance to pay Medicare premiums, but that is the only tie-in I'm aware of. I guess I just don't understand your reference to the gap between the two. Quote lovesit: I'm more confused. I read it all (of that section) when I made the post, and then your post, and I still see where some instances make it illegal (for lack of better word) to have private insurance. Or is it saying that in some/all instances, you can still have the private, but the private must be ran parallel to the gov plan? Sorry. I thought I had it figured out, but you said there are other parts that negate this part? i like to consider myself well-read, but I got no idea now on this. So glad I'm not in charge of passing things like this... the only time (as how i am understanding) that you can not have private insurance is when they do not comply with the government's bill of regulations. you can keep your old insurance (grandfathered) as long as they don't enroll new people if they don't comply with the bill. otherwise for private sectors to enroll new people, they must comply with the rules and regulations that are drawn out. the bill is also to protect people from being overcharged by private insurance companies. there are some restrictions YES..but they are not outlawing private insurance. not by how i'm reading it. heck maybe i'm reading something wrong - if you think i have, please clarify so i can research further. but this is how myself and many others are understanding it. i don't disagree with it entirely but i don't agree entirely either. i am lucky to have private insurance myself. i have united healthcare/premium with only a 150 deductable. i also pay ALOT for this insurance. if i lost my insurance for whatever reason combined with something happening that i did not forsee with my health or the health of my children, i could be completely out of luck with the way healthcare is now. i always think of the worst case scenerio and i'm not above it no more than anyone else. there are too many families suffering and filing bankruptcy due to medical bills they can't afford. even families who thought they were well prepared and once lived very comfortably. our healtcare system is in need of reform badly. to be honest, i really wish they could have figured out some sort of government "plan" to bridge the gap between medicaid/medicare and private insurance and worked on regulation of costs itself. that would have been ideal (in my eyes) but i guess it doesn't make the timeline in which they want to roll this out. there is too great of a divide and i don't think anyone should lose their home, file bankruptcy, etc b/c their child develops leukemia (good example there) and they just can't keep up. there are so many stories out there that just break my heart. i think this is better than doing nothing although i would have been more for bridging the gap. i'm assuming that would have taken too long, been too drawn out and that is the reason. so although this plan is not perfect in my eyes, i think it's better than doing nothing. sorry, i worded that wrong. i seem to always get medicare and medicaid mixed up. what i meant was medicaid vs private insurance. there is a huge gap in which to qualify for medicaid one must be of a substantially low income..then there is private insurance. in my opinion, that divide is just too great. for some reason i had the terms medicare and medicaid grouped in as one so i apologize for my lack of knowledge on medicare itself. medicaid i know a bit about b/c while my mother was struggling to take care of me & my sister, she had that and it saved her (us) from financial ruin. my sister had a host of medical problems including asthma. we were only on the system until my mother obtained her degree and got a great job in the chemical engineering field that came with great benefits. there really is nothing to assist with medical if you are between low income and a higher one. if someone has children making under a certain income, they are certain to fail if there is an unforseen medical situation yet b/c they have a minimum wage job, they won't qualify for medicaid. even people who are comfortably well off with savings can fall into this sinkhole. the system is broken. i would be all for bridging that gap with government plans and reform over our current medical situation but i am guessing that would take too long. i was only expressing that would indeed be ideal but i am most certainly not against the bill for government healthcare and it does not deny the right to private insurance as long as the private insurance company comply with the bill. i hope that clarified what i was trying to say..sorry for the confusion, that was on my part. I think that all 50 states have an insurance program for low income children, I know AL does, in the form of allkids. I've been thinking that perhaps that it could be expanded to include low income adults, perhaps that would be ideal to bridge the gap.  Editing to add: Ours is available to all kids who are under 18, reguardless of parental income but the premiums are based on family size and income. They are also revaluated every 6 mos, or so. I checked on this recently, incase D changes employers in the near future. He's thinking about going to Publix. |
Modified 1 times(s), last time at:
2009/07/18 02:01PM
#81
2009/07/18 03:01PM
Re: Gov't sponsored Health Care
|
sarahconnor |
Quote grits1976: Quote sarahconnor: Quote Eppy: Quote sarahconnor: I'm not sure what you mean by bridging the gap between medicaid/medicare. Medicaid is a state -funded program for the lowest income folks; Medicare is a federal program that one can opt into upon becoming eligible for Social Security Retirement (or permanent disability). One isn't required to take Medicare if they do not want it, or have another insurance they wish to use. Medicare requires it's recipients to pay premiums, deductibles and share of cost. A very low income retiree may apply for State medicaid assistance to pay Medicare premiums, but that is the only tie-in I'm aware of. I guess I just don't understand your reference to the gap between the two. Quote lovesit: I'm more confused. I read it all (of that section) when I made the post, and then your post, and I still see where some instances make it illegal (for lack of better word) to have private insurance. Or is it saying that in some/all instances, you can still have the private, but the private must be ran parallel to the gov plan? Sorry. I thought I had it figured out, but you said there are other parts that negate this part? i like to consider myself well-read, but I got no idea now on this. So glad I'm not in charge of passing things like this... the only time (as how i am understanding) that you can not have private insurance is when they do not comply with the government's bill of regulations. you can keep your old insurance (grandfathered) as long as they don't enroll new people if they don't comply with the bill. otherwise for private sectors to enroll new people, they must comply with the rules and regulations that are drawn out. the bill is also to protect people from being overcharged by private insurance companies. there are some restrictions YES..but they are not outlawing private insurance. not by how i'm reading it. heck maybe i'm reading something wrong - if you think i have, please clarify so i can research further. but this is how myself and many others are understanding it. i don't disagree with it entirely but i don't agree entirely either. i am lucky to have private insurance myself. i have united healthcare/premium with only a 150 deductable. i also pay ALOT for this insurance. if i lost my insurance for whatever reason combined with something happening that i did not forsee with my health or the health of my children, i could be completely out of luck with the way healthcare is now. i always think of the worst case scenerio and i'm not above it no more than anyone else. there are too many families suffering and filing bankruptcy due to medical bills they can't afford. even families who thought they were well prepared and once lived very comfortably. our healtcare system is in need of reform badly. to be honest, i really wish they could have figured out some sort of government "plan" to bridge the gap between medicaid/medicare and private insurance and worked on regulation of costs itself. that would have been ideal (in my eyes) but i guess it doesn't make the timeline in which they want to roll this out. there is too great of a divide and i don't think anyone should lose their home, file bankruptcy, etc b/c their child develops leukemia (good example there) and they just can't keep up. there are so many stories out there that just break my heart. i think this is better than doing nothing although i would have been more for bridging the gap. i'm assuming that would have taken too long, been too drawn out and that is the reason. so although this plan is not perfect in my eyes, i think it's better than doing nothing. sorry, i worded that wrong. i seem to always get medicare and medicaid mixed up. what i meant was medicaid vs private insurance. there is a huge gap in which to qualify for medicaid one must be of a substantially low income..then there is private insurance. in my opinion, that divide is just too great. for some reason i had the terms medicare and medicaid grouped in as one so i apologize for my lack of knowledge on medicare itself. medicaid i know a bit about b/c while my mother was struggling to take care of me & my sister, she had that and it saved her (us) from financial ruin. my sister had a host of medical problems including asthma. we were only on the system until my mother obtained her degree and got a great job in the chemical engineering field that came with great benefits. there really is nothing to assist with medical if you are between low income and a higher one. if someone has children making under a certain income, they are certain to fail if there is an unforseen medical situation yet b/c they have a minimum wage job, they won't qualify for medicaid. even people who are comfortably well off with savings can fall into this sinkhole. the system is broken. i would be all for bridging that gap with government plans and reform over our current medical situation but i am guessing that would take too long. i was only expressing that would indeed be ideal but i am most certainly not against the bill for government healthcare and it does not deny the right to private insurance as long as the private insurance company comply with the bill. i hope that clarified what i was trying to say..sorry for the confusion, that was on my part. I think that all 50 states have an insurance program for low income children, I know AL does, in the form of allkids. I've been thinking that perhaps that it could be expanded to include low income adults, perhaps that would be ideal to bridge the gap. Editing to add: Ours is available to all kids who are under 18, reguardless of parental income but the premiums are based on family size and income. They are also revaluated every 6 mos, or so. I checked on this recently, incase D changes employers in the near future. He's thinking about going to Publix. yeah i know about that plan..i never thought it was quite good enough and that the family income should have been raised like it was attempted when bush was in house. they wanted to expand it or have a plan for kids with families making up to 80k. i know that sounds like a lot of money but it's not when you have children. that money goes very fast. anyway bush VETO'ed it. i'm a firm believer that kids need to be covered regardless. in addition, there should be something for lower income adults too - i don't know all of the stipulations, restrictions ,etc to it but a govt plan to cover ALL in between (especially kids and raise the allowable combined income) would be great. the things we do have..they are not good enough. i don't know how bush sleeps at night. |
Modified 1 times(s), last time at:
2009/07/18 03:06PM
#82
2009/07/18 03:58PM
Re: Gov't sponsored Health Care
|
sarahconnor |
Quote lovesit: I don't get it. I'm not being argumentative, but if you understand it better can you try to dumb it down for me? All I see is the same thing I thought I understood it to be earlier - that in some circumstances you will not be allowed private healthcare? you said this :: I got this link from alwaysEJ - thanks! We have probably all heard the bill is now over 1000 pages long, and will be another one that gets "read" and voted on in the middle of the night. So here are some very important parts we should know: On page 16 is a provision that makes private healthcare illegal once the public option is made law - Those who currently have private individual coverage won't be able to change it. Nor will those who leave a company to work for themselves be free to buy individual plans from private carriers. in some circumstances you won't and those circumstances are only when the private healthcare companies do not comply with the new bill's regulations. the bill ensures that private healthcare is fair and affordable. but this by no means states it's illegal. otherwise you may keep your existing plan (grandfathered) as long as they are not enrolling new people under a plan that does not comply to the new regulations. i feel this is better than NO plan at all. our current system is a mess and a large part of why many are homeless, filing bankruptcy, etc. to generalize and say it will be illegal to purchase private healthcare is simply unfounded by what i am reading and that is the bill itself. |
Modified 1 times(s), last time at:
2009/07/18 04:00PM
#83
2009/07/19 03:02PM
Re: Gov't sponsored Health Care
|
sarahconnor |
Quote Eppy: Okay - got 'cha! Yes, for very low income folks (even the working low income folks) medicaid is available, however it certainly is not the most effective. For one thing, most doctors are very reluctant to accept medicaid unless it is a community center doctor. There are shares of cost and deductibles with this program as well depending on one's monthly income. An insurance program for people who do not qualify for medicaid and still do not have enough income to afford regular insurance or receive insurance through their employment; and for those who have pre-existing conditions, there must be something for these folks - they are the one's who are the most un-(or) underinsured. They may very well be able to afford a program with reasonably priced premuims, deductibles and shares of cost. It certainly needn't be a totally government funded program, or a "give-away"! Revenues could be generated as they are through Medicare. exactly Eppy! that is what i mean. i think the vast majority of people fall "in between"...what i refer to as the gap between medicaid and private insurance. like you said, they have pre-existing conditions or make too much to qualify for medicaid yet not enough to survive and have insurance on what the costs are today. if we had a plan in place for this years ago, this would help to bridge that gap a lot. nothing is perfect but i think it would have helped. and it could be a plan done on a sliding scale of income therefore no give-aways. i realize it's probably not that simple but at the same time i can not understand why something was not put into place. alleviating medical bills for those the most in need would be better than any stimulus or tax cuts for our economy. |
#84
2009/07/20 05:32PM
Re: Gov't sponsored Health Care
|
sarahconnor |
I guess there are not any more questions or concerns on this? |
#85
2009/07/20 10:09PM
Re: Gov't sponsored Health Care
rei1 |
well I watched "sicko" with Michael Moore and thought well hell who wouldn't want that kind of healthcare...and then I really thought shoot if it's really that great why are people coming to the USA for benefits? |
Please register and login to be able to post in this message board.
