ObamaCare - exchanges ,report your states options!

[Snorri1234]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/118423/Ameri ... -Care.aspx
http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/03/27/in ... index.html
http://news.health.com/2009/04/08/traveling-treatment/

The number of americans who travel to other countries to get care is far greater than the number of people who come to the US for care.

[Night Strike]

http://www.denverpost.com/ci_13530098

Why does the greatest health care system in the world ban healthy babies from insurance?

Our health care system IS the best. Our health insurance system is what causes the problems. But the democrats took the completely WRONG approach when trying to fix the problem by assuming that more government is the solution. Get government out of the way through non-taxable health savings accounts, allow insurances to sell across state lines, and remove the employer-based insurance system in favor of an individual-based one that won't change when you change jobs and the insurance system will work too.

[Frigidus]

http://www.denverpost.com/ci_13530098

Why does the greatest health care system in the world ban healthy babies from insurance?

Our health care system IS the best. Our health insurance system is what causes the problems. But the democrats took the completely WRONG approach when trying to fix the problem by assuming that more government is the solution. Get government out of the way through non-taxable health savings accounts, allow insurances to sell across state lines, and remove the employer-based insurance system in favor of an individual-based one that won't change when you change jobs and the insurance system will work too.

Yeah, the only reason that insurance companies mug you is because the government is in the way. Remove all regulations and things will resolve themselves through the magic of free market capitalism.

[Snorri1234]

http://www.denverpost.com/ci_13530098

Why does the greatest health care system in the world ban healthy babies from insurance?

Our health care system IS the best. Our health insurance system is what causes the problems. But the democrats took the completely WRONG approach when trying to fix the problem by assuming that more government is the solution. Get government out of the way through non-taxable health savings accounts, allow insurances to sell across state lines, and remove the employer-based insurance system in favor of an individual-based one that won't change when you change jobs and the insurance system will work too.

Oh yes i am sure that insurance company would totally want to insure that baby if it wasn't for that pesky government!

Did you even read the article? They don't cover him because covering infants above the 95 percentile is not profitable. Advocating insurance companies be given even more freedom to deny coverage is quite frankly absurd.

[Night Strike]

Yeah, the only reason that insurance companies mug you is because the government is in the way. Remove all regulations and things will resolve themselves through the magic of free market capitalism.

Oh yes i am sure that insurance company would totally want to insure that baby if it wasn't for that pesky government!

Did you even read the article? They don't cover him because covering infants above the 95 percentile is not profitable. Advocating insurance companies be given even more freedom to deny coverage is quite frankly absurd.

The only thing magic here is the belief that the government can help your lives better than you can help your own lives. The free market is simple: remove some onerous regulations and companies can start to explore new markets. If you aren't getting the service you desire, you have the ability to find a service that will cover you, which is why these state-line restrictions are driving UP the price of insurance. If you can't get standard health insurance, then there needs to be options for catastrophic health insurance (which is an option you have for vehicles). I don't need health insurance right now, but catastrophic coverage would be beneficial just in case something happens. If you don't want the insurance industry to be profitable, stop paying for it and pay for your own health care; you can always return to the ways of the traveling doctors in the 19th century.

[Pedronicus]

Our health care system IS the best.

what other countries have you visited to give a balanced comparison of your health system?
I'd hazard a guess that you've never left America

[Frigidus]

Yeah, the only reason that insurance companies mug you is because the government is in the way. Remove all regulations and things will resolve themselves through the magic of free market capitalism.

Oh yes i am sure that insurance company would totally want to insure that baby if it wasn't for that pesky government!

Did you even read the article? They don't cover him because covering infants above the 95 percentile is not profitable. Advocating insurance companies be given even more freedom to deny coverage is quite frankly absurd.

The only thing magic here is the belief that the government can help your lives better than you can help your own lives. The free market is simple: remove some onerous regulations and companies can start to explore new markets. If you aren't getting the service you desire, you have the ability to find a service that will cover you, which is why these state-line restrictions are driving UP the price of insurance. If you can't get standard health insurance, then there needs to be options for catastrophic health insurance (which is an option you have for vehicles). I don't need health insurance right now, but catastrophic coverage would be beneficial just in case something happens. If you don't want the insurance industry to be profitable, stop paying for it and pay for your own health care; you can always return to the ways of the traveling doctors in the 19th century.

Removing all regulations leads to the condensing of market share to the point that there aren't any reasonable alternatives to the shoddy service the primary suppliers provides. Any attempt by a smaller group at usurping this is quashed by the larger group temporarily taking a hit to their wallets until the competition suffocates. How can you not see this. I am seriously too angry to respond to the ridiculous traveling doctors comment, I can feel my pulse in my neck.

[Snorri1234]

The free market is simple: remove some onerous regulations and companies can start to explore new markets. If you aren't getting the service you desire, you have the ability to find a service that will cover you, which is why these state-line restrictions are driving UP the price of insurance.

Except that no single insurance company in it's right mind is going to cover people who are bound to cost them money. The baby we're talking about gets screwed over because for the company it's easier to not cover any kid in the 95th percentile. It isn't for any company.

And that's the fundamental problem here. The insurance companies don't want people who are unhealthy or old. That's a liability to them and because of your awesome system they can get away with not covering those people. They can hire people who's job it is to find a way to deny you coverage. You can pay for years, get a treatment and have the company refuse to pay for it because you forgot to mention when you signed up that you broke your nose. BAM pre-existing condition, pay for it yourself asshole!

That's not a problem of "too much regulation", that's a fundamental conflict of interest. You want them to pay for your medical expenses, and they really don't want to pay and they try their best to not pay for it. For them it would be bad if they paid for every expense because medicine costs money! Insurance works if the money people want out of the program is less than the money people pay into the program. But for health care that simply doesn't work because EVERY PERSON IS GOING TO USE IT SOMETIME IN HIS LIFE. Not every person is going to crash their car, but every person is going to visit a doctor once and that costs money.

If you don't want the insurance industry to be profitable,

Of course I don't want them to be profitable. Their profit comes from making sure people that get sick are screwed over.


We have universal health insurance. However, the government still pays almost half the costs of our treatments because quite simply health-insurance isn't profitable. Unless the government helps by covering the peakcosts (cancerpatients, old people) you can only lose money insuring everyone.

[Snorri1234]

I am not even touching upon the issues that are related to costs of wanting to be so free-market about your insurance. It's expensive and inefficient, but f*ck the fundamental issues are already obviously showing how bad such a system is.

[PLAYER57832]

Yeah, the only reason that insurance companies mug you is because the government is in the way. Remove all regulations and things will resolve themselves through the magic of free market capitalism.

Oh yes i am sure that insurance company would totally want to insure that baby if it wasn't for that pesky government!

Did you even read the article? They don't cover him because covering infants above the 95 percentile is not profitable. Advocating insurance companies be given even more freedom to deny coverage is quite frankly absurd.

The only thing magic here is the belief that the government can help your lives better than you can help your own lives. The free market is simple: remove some onerous regulations and companies can start to explore new markets. If you aren't getting the service you desire, you have the ability to find a service that will cover you, which is why these state-line restrictions are driving UP the price of insurance. If you can't get standard health insurance, then there needs to be options for catastrophic health insurance (which is an option you have for vehicles). I don't need health insurance right now, but catastrophic coverage would be beneficial just in case something happens. If you don't want the insurance industry to be profitable, stop paying for it and pay for your own health care; you can always return to the ways of the traveling doctors in the 19th century.

Night strike, the markets won't work because we DON'T HAVE a free market insurance system. This has nothing to do with the government, this is because employers are the ones providing most insurance, but are not the ones using it. In fact, they have a vested interest in seeing that people who need large amounts of insurance DON'T WORK FOR THEM .. either because they are laid off (for "completely unrelated reasons ... topic covered extensively elsewhere, won't reiterate here) OR simply because they refuse to hire them. Employers don't offer insurance because it really makes sense, is a good thing. They do so because during WWII, wages could not be increased and offering benefits like health care was a way to recruit employees. Since health care is not taxable, many, many people quickly bought into this system. They get to provide people with what is effectively a higher wage and get a tax bonus too boot!

As for your "no need for insurace".. you are dreaming and depending upon our emergency care system and other tax payers to pick up YOUR tab. The reality is that right now, you are lucky -- lucky you have not gotten in an accident or contracted a dastardly disease. It has nothing to do with intelligence or even your lifestyle. (some lifestyle issues definitely contribute to health, but the overriding issue here is pure, plain luck). You are plain and simply gambling with MY kids tax dollars that you will have a better job, better insurance before you get sick enough to really and truly need extensive health care. Oh, and that "catastrophic policy" you crow about... the reality is you won't even know if that policy really does cover you until you actually need it. I would strongly urge you to read the small print very, very carefully AND to think about the many people who only find out they don't have enough insurance when they contract cancer or get into a serious accident.

As for your overall "the free market will fix it".... even beyond the above issues, the free market will NEVER truly and wholly work in health care for one simple reason -- it simply does not follow normal "supply and demand" principals. I will "shop around" for a dishwasher, my vegetables, etc. But healthcare? Our community has exactly 1 physician taking new patients. The wait to see specialists like gynecologists (for me) and hearing specialists (for my kids) is a minimum of a year. Note that my son has had speech issues, so hearing is pretty critical. Still -- there is a wait.

A second reason is education. I don't know much about cars, but I can drive one, can do a relatively small amount of research into things like gas mileage, reliability, etc and make a decent decision. When it comes to medical care... I am more knowledgeable than most people, but with 2 years of research I am still just beginning to understand my son's issues. I have no choice BUT to rely upon my doctor. My doctor has no choice but to rely upon the rules the insurance company sets forth.

NONE of that has much to do with what is really best for my son in the long run.

I absolutely understand that cuts have to be made, that some things plain and simply must be limited in health care. However, I would be far, far more comfortable if those limits were based upon EVIDENCE, based on effectiveness studies completed by scientists and doctors, not insurance companies who won't even share such information as "proprietary".

There are absolutely times when the government needs to step back. However, in this case is is not a Lack of regulation that we need, it is effective legislation in the correct areas. When a corporation has a vested interest in seeing that people DON'T actually use the health care for which they pay, then is it any surprise that the result is travesty? The only entity that can force them to make other decisions, place the burdens of proof where they belong (on evidence along with cost, but by people with no vested interest in particular medications or devices), is the government.

Right now, our system is being driven by insurance companies and employers who, even if they wish it were otherwise, really need to ensure that many people pay, but few people use health care. The costs are largely being driven by techinical companies who see no limit to the money people can put out and therefore htey can earn from fancier and fancier devices. Even the local family practitioner is right now driven to see more patients quickly, to push out those difficult cases that require extra time in favor of seeing more patients with minor issues. (this push is directed both by administrators or plain accountants who , if they don't have to turn a profit, at least need to ensure they cut costs).

Look at that and see if you can find where the patient and patient needs are in that whole mess. The answer is NO WHERE.

The fixes you present won't even begin to solve those issues. Letting insurance companies market policies anywhere? Unless you work for a union plant, or have an occupation that is in high demand, where heavy benefits are the norm (fewer and fewer positions), you have almost certainly seen your health care benefits slide. Now those companies won't even have to follow the state limits. (Medicaid, though will still be run by states). Right now, in my town, roughly half of the people who ought to be able to qualify for Medicaid, based upon income, are forbidden from receiving it because their employer offers minimal insurance. Note that under medicaid, EVERYTHING --dental, eye, etc are covered. Under the low tiered Blue Cross policy most plants offer now, you have, first of all $25-75 "co-pays" -- co-payments that don't even count toward the deductables. The deductibles wind up being over $1000 per person and $2000 per family. Once that limit is reached, then you still have to pay a percentage. In our case, taking our son to see 2 specialists, along with a 4 day hospital stay in isolation (not intensive care, just isolation, with me because I was nursing) wound up costing us close to $3000 out-of-pocket. (the deductable was doubled because the insurance changed Dec 1). Worse, we had less than 30 days notice of this change. We still faced harassment, overcharges, etc, etc.'

Even if there were better national mandates (yep, that word you decry), then there is the whole problem of who will regulate. Credit card companies have already all migrated to the 1-2 states with few regulations. That's why most people are now paying upwards of 30% or more (NOT even penalty rates, just the increases they added across the board). Why would the insurance companies be any different.

Beyond that, Night Strike, even some of the original proponents of the "let the markets rule", "Chicago" economic thinking now admit it just does not work in all cases, in fact it ONLY works in a few limited cases .. situations that existed for a short while in our history, (and did exist for generations prior), but which no longer exist.

[Snorri1234]

Our health care system IS the best.

what other countries have you visited to give a balanced comparison of your health system?
I'd hazard a guess that you've never left America

But he watches Fox News which is fair and balanced.

[Night Strike]

Too long to quote.

I already mentioned a few posts ago that we need to remove the employer-based insurance system. As far as catastrophic insurance, it's my prerogative to read up on what insurance I decide to purchase. For the next 4 months, I'll still be on my parents' plan, but after that it's up to me and my (nearly) wife. If we don't like the policies that insurance providers in our state offer, we should have the right to look out-of-state for a suitable plan. We need to stop making excuses revolving around the fine print: start taking control of your own life by reading or asking lawyers. If it's important enough to have a good plan, then you should be willing to do the research into any possible problems. (Same philosophy goes to credit cards and other fine-print excuses.)

If you want more specialists (and overall doctors) in the system, cut the costs. If the government wants to get involved, offer huge tax credits and tuition write-offs for students to study medicine. Put a cap on malpractice suits and automatically throw out frivolous ones so doctors don't have to have expensive insurance for themselves. It's a price to pay with modern technology that there are way too many health areas for every doctor to be proficient (muchless excellent) in, so specialization is a necessary evil for the better health we have.

[PLAYER57832]

Too long to quote.

I already mentioned a few posts ago that we need to remove the employer-based insurance system. As far as catastrophic insurance, it's my prerogative to read up on what insurance I decide to purchase. For the next 4 months, I'll still be on my parents' plan, but after that it's up to me and my (nearly) wife. If we don't like the policies that insurance providers in our state offer, we should have the right to look out-of-state for a suitable plan. We need to stop making excuses revolving around the fine print: start taking control of your own life by reading or asking lawyers. If it's important enough to have a good plan, then you should be willing to do the research into any possible problems. (Same philosophy goes to credit cards and other fine-print excuses.)

IMPORTANT enough to have a good plan???
In the real world, most people are stuck with the plan their employers decide is best for THEM.. the employer.

As for "shopping around" -- gee, that's precisely what the clearing houses proposed by Congress, and idea you rejected soundly, were supposed to provide. It was supposed to be a place where anyone could go. Initially, it was to be open only to those without insurance, to prevent a whole-scale slide. later, it was to be open to anyone who chose to buy insurance through those clearing houses. The first part of that to go? The "anybody can pick this" bit. And YOU were among the most viciferous against it, on the grounds that, according to you, people would be forced to give up their current plans.

]If you want more specialists (and overall doctors) in the system, cut the costs.

I see, we have gone from an age when a basic appendectemy was about the most specialized medicine anyone could reasonably expect to endure and live, to a system where people count on everything from advanced heart surgery to treatment of difficult cancers and you think the basic reason costs have risen is the government and a lack of a true free market????

If the government wants to get involved, offer huge tax credits and tuition write-offs for students to study medicine.

They do. The best come for providing care in "underserved communities".

Put a cap on malpractice suits and automatically throw out frivolous ones so doctors don't have to have expensive insurance for themselves

The problem is the basic idea that a lawsuit, huge payouts are somehow the best way to ensure a doctor does his job, combined with such a poor healthcare system that if someone is injured about the only way they can get the care they need is to sue.

The current system serves insurance companies and lawyers. It helps no one else, really. What we need is a Geisenger-like system of responsibility. If you screw up, you need to pay for the care necessary to correct the problem free. I would add that a patient should be able to go to another facility if the first screws up, at the expense of the first. BUT, I would insulate the doctors from the financial aspect of that. I would create a kind of "no fault" insurance that would cover almost all problems. The money should go to investigating ways to reduce errors, not huge payouts. (evidentiary research by independent people). One issue we already know, for example, it the problem of fatigue on residents. Hospitals are already moving to correct that (to a point), but there are many other issues that may only require relatively quick fixes. I would reserve direct doctor penalties for the few true screw-ups, be they incompetant or truly criminal. THEY should have serious penalties.

It's a price to pay with modern technology that there are way too many health areas for every doctor to be proficient (muchless excellent) in, so specialization is a necessary evil for the better health we have.

This has nothing to do with specialization, or little. The major need is not for more specialists it is for competant general care practitioners, (including basic gynecologists, by-the-way). They are the ones who take the brunt and make the least -- IF they really take care of patients, instead of just shuffling them through. We actually have too many specialists in many areas (not all) because those are where you can make big money.

Again, you want to listen to conservative economic blogs as if they will tell you about our health care system. I suggest you start listening to people who actually have, use, pay for and deal with health care. I assure you your attitude will change once you are put in the real world.

PS, one of the new laws will make you eligible for your parent's insurance until you are 30... so you may well stay under that policy. As for your "need" and "judging what you need". The problem is you are NOT the best judge, as are few younger people, because you really and truly do not have a decent idea of the kind of healthcare you will need over your life. By the time you do, the cost will be exhorbitant... and laid on my kids, much like the cost of our parents is laid upon us now.

You are correct, that if you want to look strictly at your personnal finances, right now, then perhaps you can "get away" with a cheap policy. The problem is that you WON'T STAY healthy all your life. The reason you need to pay for more now is to "bank" money for YOUR future care. That is the part you keep wanting to ignore.

Typical conservativism -- ignore the real, overall impacts and look only at the narrow field that comes directly within your vision. Externalities? Piff! But, guess what? Those externalities do exist and do have to be dealt with. Dealing with them is what this entire economic crisis right now is all about (in a nutshell). THAT is why the free market has failed us. Because folks like you are allowed to ignore the real and true costs of our decisions in favor of what is happening in the immediate.

[Phatscotty]

Too long to quote.

I already mentioned a few posts ago that we need to remove the employer-based insurance system. As far as catastrophic insurance, it's my prerogative to read up on what insurance I decide to purchase. For the next 4 months, I'll still be on my parents' plan, but after that it's up to me and my (nearly) wife. If we don't like the policies that insurance providers in our state offer, we should have the right to look out-of-state for a suitable plan. We need to stop making excuses revolving around the fine print: start taking control of your own life by reading or asking lawyers. If it's important enough to have a good plan, then you should be willing to do the research into any possible problems. (Same philosophy goes to credit cards and other fine-print excuses.)

If you want more specialists (and overall doctors) in the system, cut the costs. If the government wants to get involved, offer huge tax credits and tuition write-offs for students to study medicine. Put a cap on malpractice suits and automatically throw out frivolous ones so doctors don't have to have expensive insurance for themselves. It's a price to pay with modern technology that there are way too many health areas for every doctor to be proficient (muchless excellent) in, so specialization is a necessary evil for the better health we have.

that sounds like a lot of work. just turn it over to the gov't. sure, they will screw it up, but at least I don't have to use my brain.

[Frigidus]

Too long to quote.

I already mentioned a few posts ago that we need to remove the employer-based insurance system. As far as catastrophic insurance, it's my prerogative to read up on what insurance I decide to purchase. For the next 4 months, I'll still be on my parents' plan, but after that it's up to me and my (nearly) wife. If we don't like the policies that insurance providers in our state offer, we should have the right to look out-of-state for a suitable plan. We need to stop making excuses revolving around the fine print: start taking control of your own life by reading or asking lawyers. If it's important enough to have a good plan, then you should be willing to do the research into any possible problems. (Same philosophy goes to credit cards and other fine-print excuses.)

If you want more specialists (and overall doctors) in the system, cut the costs. If the government wants to get involved, offer huge tax credits and tuition write-offs for students to study medicine. Put a cap on malpractice suits and automatically throw out frivolous ones so doctors don't have to have expensive insurance for themselves. It's a price to pay with modern technology that there are way too many health areas for every doctor to be proficient (muchless excellent) in, so specialization is a necessary evil for the better health we have.

that sounds like a lot of work. just turn it over to the gov't. sure, they will screw it up, but at least I don't have to use my brain.

How would any of that have a substantial effect on making medical care cheaper/available to those not having it? The quality of health care when actually given has never been an issue.

Also, good luck with the reading your own contracts thing. You'd better be able to afford a good lawyer if you want to understand that stuff. And if you can, you can probably afford the premium costs anyways.

[rockfist]

Most people in the US are satisfied with THEIR healthcare. This is just another fine example of trying to give poor people a handout that will not make them more self reliant and able to climb the economic ladder and it teaches people if you cry loud enough, long enough, you get your way. Shame on the Democrat party. Luckily most Americans see through their bullshit.

[Frigidus]

Most people in the US are satisfied with THEIR healthcare. This is just another fine example of trying to give poor people a handout that will not make them more self reliant and able to climb the economic ladder and it teaches people if you cry loud enough, long enough, you get your way. Shame on the Democrat party. Luckily most Americans see through their bullshit.

Explain to me why the poor (and the rest of the country for that matter) don't have to pay for the police and the army to protect them, for firefighters to put out their property if it catches, or for construction workers to pave the roads they drive on, but if they get sick tough shit. What principal says that some "handouts" are OK, but only the ones you approve of?

Also, most people are NOT satisfied with their health care. My health care pisses me off, and I can afford it easily. I still have to choose between being mugged by insurance companies or going without proper coverage. I doubt that a majority are happy with their care, and I wonder how many that are happy with it have suffered a major illness and had to rely on their insurance company to not stiff the fees.

[rockfist]

So your opinions as to what handouts are valid are worth more than mine? Believe me if it was reasonable to have a private sector that provided military protection, police, and fire protection I would be the first one saying we should do it.

The polls do not support what you are saying. You are taking your personal opinion, which the majority of elected officals agrees with and assuming the majority of the public does. The assumption is wrong.

[Snorri1234]

f*ck! Tomorrow I will lay down the law but tonight I was too busy talking about Lost despite not knowing anything about the show.

[notyou2]

You can't sway their dumbass opinions, they believe that if healthcare goes through, the antichrist will appear and punish the sheeples.

The problem appears to be the loudest, with the most to lose, has swayed the opinion of the mindless masses.

[PLAYER57832]

So your opinions as to what handouts are valid are worth more than mine? Believe me if it was reasonable to have a private sector that provided military protection, police, and fire protection I would be the first one saying we should do it.

It would be nice if you read through what I said (yeah, I know it was long, but , hey being able to read is a benefit of education).

This is NOT about HANDOUTS! Ironically enough, those who get handouts, those who qualify for Medicaid are about the only working-class people (other than those working for union plants ) who actually GET full coverage.

When I talked of $25-75 "co-payments" that do not count toward a yearly $1000 per person deductable, I was talking about people who work a MINIMUM of 40 hours a week.

The vast majority of those without insurance are employed -- they work parttime. A large number of families getting Medicaid are headed by a WORKING adult. Often they work more than one part-time job (and "part-time" can be anything up to 32 hours), sometimes even for the same company,(but being in different positions means they are not classified as "fulltime" and so companies don't have to pay benefits!).

The polls do not support what you are saying. You are taking your personal opinion, which the majority of elected officals agrees with and assuming the majority of the public does. The assumption is wrong.

Not true. Or rather, true ONLY if you look at "catch phrases" and rhetoric, rather than the details.

Example -- many people say they oppose the bill because it will mean a "government takeover" OR will mean that they might be "forced" to give up their insurance. However, if you ask people what choice they have in insurance, most say they must simply take what their employer offers. Ask them what insurance they will have if they lose their job OR their employer changes the policy and you get more or less a blank look. Read through this thread for some more examples.

Many people say they want to be able to choose their own policy, yet for some reason have already decided that the "exchanges" cannot possibly work, simply because the idea was put forward by Democrats. (even if it was borrowed from an earlier Republican idea).

Further, as has been pointed out many times, many people don't really and truly know how poor their insurance is because they have not gotten really, really sick. You may THINK you are covered, but then your kid gets cancer and ... I know of more than one family (personally, not "friend of a friend") who have either gotten divorced or considered divorce just so their kids could qualify for Medicaid.

Oh, yes, and we are another of those "deadbeats" who "drag society" -- yep, my husband a volunteer firefigher for over 25 years, coaches baseball, does scouts, takes care of the neighborhood old folk's lawns, ... etc. (and note that a $700 yearly stipend was enough to disqualify us from Medicaid coverage for our kids, reduced lunches at school, etc this January). I have been less active, having a young child in tow, but you can bet my husband could not do 1/2 of what he does without me. And.. I do volunteer in various places as well.

[rockfist]

So your opinions as to what handouts are valid are worth more than mine? Believe me if it was reasonable to have a private sector that provided military protection, police, and fire protection I would be the first one saying we should do it.

It would be nice if you read through what I said (yeah, I know it was long, but , hey being able to read is a benefit of education).

This is NOT about HANDOUTS! Ironically enough, those who get handouts, those who qualify for Medicaid are about the only working-class people (other than those working for union plants ) who actually GET full coverage.

When I talked of $25-75 "co-payments" that do not count toward a yearly $1000 per person deductable, I was talking about people who work a MINIMUM of 40 hours a week.

The vast majority of those without insurance are employed -- they work parttime. A large number of families getting Medicaid are headed by a WORKING adult. Often they work more than one part-time job (and "part-time" can be anything up to 32 hours), sometimes even for the same company,(but being in different positions means they are not classified as "fulltime" and so companies don't have to pay benefits!).

The polls do not support what you are saying. You are taking your personal opinion, which the majority of elected officals agrees with and assuming the majority of the public does. The assumption is wrong.

Not true. Or rather, true ONLY if you look at "catch phrases" and rhetoric, rather than the details.

Example -- many people say they oppose the bill because it will mean a "government takeover" OR will mean that they might be "forced" to give up their insurance. However, if you ask people what choice they have in insurance, most say they must simply take what their employer offers. Ask them what insurance they will have if they lose their job OR their employer changes the policy and you get more or less a blank look. Read through this thread for some more examples.

Many people say they want to be able to choose their own policy, yet for some reason have already decided that the "exchanges" cannot possibly work, simply because the idea was put forward by Democrats. (even if it was borrowed from an earlier Republican idea).

Further, as has been pointed out many times, many people don't really and truly know how poor their insurance is because they have not gotten really, really sick. You may THINK you are covered, but then your kid gets cancer and ... I know of more than one family (personally, not "friend of a friend") who have either gotten divorced or considered divorce just so their kids could qualify for Medicaid.

Oh, yes, and we are another of those "deadbeats" who "drag society" -- yep, my husband a volunteer firefigher for over 25 years, coaches baseball, does scouts, takes care of the neighborhood old folk's lawns, ... etc. (and note that a $700 yearly stipend was enough to disqualify us from Medicaid coverage for our kids, reduced lunches at school, etc this January). I have been less active, having a young child in tow, but you can bet my husband could not do 1/2 of what he does without me. And.. I do volunteer in various places as well.

My response was intended for Frigidus, I am sorry if I caused confusion.

[Snorri1234]

So your opinions as to what handouts are valid are worth more than mine?

Yes because he bases his opinion on facts and not bullshit. You either dissaprove of all handouts or you give a solid reason as to why some handouts are good and others aren't.

You haven't provided a good reason as to why you don't want this.

[rockfist]

Snorri

I am not going to explain why we need government to provide for national defense and a system of transportation and commerce. If you need that explained I can't help you because I am not a special ed teacher.

[Frigidus]

Snorri

I am not going to explain why we need government to provide for national defense and a system of transportation and commerce. If you need that explained I can't help you because I am not a special ed teacher.

We know why you need those. What we want to know is how you consider the "handouts" our government supplies, such as education and protection, to be different than the "handout" of a national health insurance system.