Healthcare Bill

[goodshot911SNK]

well here is the thing if he passes it lets say TODAY we will automatically start paying for this bill so the damage will still be bad on american families all over with increase taxes witch he said in the campaign that he "would not raise middle class taxes"  

[Latopazora]

I was talking with my Aunt and she was giving me some news on what's going on with my cousin and my cousin and his family are scared now that the bill passed. Their daughter has spina bifida, she's doing really good right now. My cousin's family is in the higher income bracket, that means they'll be paying high taxes and that could effect the costs of their daughter's medical. I don't know if they pay out of pocket or if they have insurance. But I'm still scared for them. Its people like her I'm really scared for.  

[Rainbowfied Mouse]

If they're in the higher-income bracket, it's not like the tax is going to be so huge that it will affect all their income. Worse case scenario they have to cut back on luxury spending and use it on their daughter.

I'm more happy about lower-income/middle-income families, like mine. We have good health insurance only because my mother works at the hospital. But, we're going through tight-budget times right now that I (who only make 300/month) had to pay my cat's vet bill because he wasn't breathing correctly, wasn't eating or drinking, and wasn't meowing correctly either... that came to $350... then I had to pay the internet/phone bill.... $75... and as you can see that was beyond what I make, I dipped into my savings for that. Could you imagine if I had to take one of my family members to the ER today, that costs $50 non-refundable by our insurance plan. Worst comes to worse and this really happens, I will overdraw my account and get bad credit.

My mom doesn't get paid until Friday, right now we're living off the little money I have left in savings... I get payed Tuesday, which will carry us through some more, but that's not for another few days. We don't even have some groceries that are well needed. So I'll probably end up purchasing that as well, putting me at broke until my next check.

I can only imagine what things other families would have to do without the insurance that I currently have... $150 just to find out their daughter was having an anxiety attack? (Happened just this summer while we were camping, insurance reimbursed us)

And as you can see from this real scenario that I'm currently living through, sure, I could have not payed the internet, had it shut off for a month, and probably been better off for a week, sure I could have let my cat possibly die. But should I have to do that? Should this be the scenario I live through going week-by-week with meager income because a health problem comes up? I don't even want to think about the stress other families go through, we have three people making income (two people make a much larger income, and one a very small one) here and we're on a tight budget... some people only rely on one, some places just don't have jobs available for people to work to even get close to paying a medical bill, or even put money towards the insurance companies in hope that nothing will go wrong health-wise. Some people just don't get dealt a good hand, others live in places (like Michigan) where they cannot get employed, or do get employed but do not make such a meager income they can barely live off of it, let alone pay an insurance company that has a goal to get profit, rather than to help out people.  

[Lord Bitememan]

The thing is, Mouse, this bill isn't "providing" health care to anyone. That would be what the Canadian health care system does. This bill FORCES people to BUY health care for THEMSELVES. It provides a graduated system of government reimbursements for households who make up to certain amounts above the poverty line. So, for my household, which will have a reportable income of approx. $30,000 for 2009, we actually fall $12,000 above the federal poverty line. We barely get by as it is, and this bill wants us to purchase expensive insurance policies on top of that, with what will probably be far less than a 100% reimbursement, and I won't even see a dime of that till the end of the year when they rebate me the money through my taxes. This was a year where I made 3 late rent payments because we couldn't get the money on time. Somehow the government thinks that I can just find a way to cram insurance in on top of that. Your situation probably won't be any better (remember, the government isn't GIVING your family insurance, it's just making you buy it).

The benefit of the status quo was that it allowed me to make private economic decisions that most suited my personal conditions. I'm fit as a fiddle. I haven't had worse than a case of the flu since I was 18 (save for a workplace accident with the company's insurance covered [such insurance is a mandate of the law in the status quo anyways]). I'm very nearly 31. That would have been 13 years of wasted money which I didn't have anyways. The individual mandate was a demand of the insurance industry, not the medical industry. The medical system isn't inundated with 20 year olds complaining of arthritis pain and congestive heart failure, this bill could fail with zero consequences to this demographic. The reason you have an individual mandate in this bill is because Congress forced insurers not to turn away people with pre-existing conditions and to charge all customers the same rates. Read that as follows; the insurance companies demanded a law to expand their customer base in exchange for charging people who use lots of health care the same rate as people who never use health care. That's not "providing" health care to the country, that's deal-making with industry to provide a gift to a special interest constituency (aging baby boomers). That does neither you nor me any favors.

This is not universal health coverage. In fact, it was never meant to be. Even the estimates of the bill sponsors include the expected penalties of those who do not comply with the individual mandate as a source of revenue for the bill. In short, they expect a significant portion of the country to remain uninsured and still pay for the health care bill. Who exactly are these people going to be? They're not the rich, who can buy themselves the greatest health insurance under the sun. They're not the poor, they're already covered by medicaid. It's going to be people who make just enough money that they don't qualify for meaningful reimbursement, but not enough to where they can afford an insurance plan. So, basically, lower-middle class two income households will be getting nailed with this penalty. This is a bad law and people have a right to be frightened of this thing.  

[Pumona]

Lord Bitememan

The thing is, Mouse, this bill isn't "providing" health care to anyone. That would be what the Canadian health care system does. This bill FORCES people to BUY health care for THEMSELVES. It provides a graduated system of government reimbursements for households who make up to certain amounts above the poverty line. So, for my household, which will have a reportable income of approx. $30,000 for 2009, we actually fall $12,000 above the federal poverty line. We barely get by as it is, and this bill wants us to purchase expensive insurance policies on top of that, with what will probably be far less than a 100% reimbursement, and I won't even see a dime of that till the end of the year when they rebate me the money through my taxes. This was a year where I made 3 late rent payments because we couldn't get the money on time. Somehow the government thinks that I can just find a way to cram insurance in on top of that. Your situation probably won't be any better (remember, the government isn't GIVING your family insurance, it's just making you buy it).

The benefit of the status quo was that it allowed me to make private economic decisions that most suited my personal conditions. I'm fit as a fiddle. I haven't had worse than a case of the flu since I was 18 (save for a workplace accident with the company's insurance covered [such insurance is a mandate of the law in the status quo anyways]). I'm very nearly 31. That would have been 13 years of wasted money which I didn't have anyways. The individual mandate was a demand of the insurance industry, not the medical industry. The medical system isn't inundated with 20 year olds complaining of arthritis pain and congestive heart failure, this bill could fail with zero consequences to this demographic. The reason you have an individual mandate in this bill is because Congress forced insurers not to turn away people with pre-existing conditions and to charge all customers the same rates. Read that as follows; the insurance companies demanded a law to expand their customer base in exchange for charging people who use lots of health care the same rate as people who never use health care. That's not "providing" health care to the country, that's deal-making with industry to provide a gift to a special interest constituency (aging baby boomers). That does neither you nor me any favors.

This is not universal health coverage. In fact, it was never meant to be. Even the estimates of the bill sponsors include the expected penalties of those who do not comply with the individual mandate as a source of revenue for the bill. In short, they expect a significant portion of the country to remain uninsured and still pay for the health care bill. Who exactly are these people going to be? They're not the rich, who can buy themselves the greatest health insurance under the sun. They're not the poor, they're already covered by medicaid. It's going to be people who make just enough money that they don't qualify for meaningful reimbursement, but not enough to where they can afford an insurance plan. So, basically, lower-middle class two income households will be getting nailed with this penalty. This is a bad law and people have a right to be frightened of this thing.

Thank you for reminding people how bad this plan can be for the lower middle class. Another issue is by making employees in smaller buisness's have medical insurance the company's the work for will/can go under.
So in other words employees and employeers are going to have major issues.  

[goodshot911SNK]

Pumona

Lord Bitememan

The thing is, Mouse, this bill isn't "providing" health care to anyone. That would be what the Canadian health care system does. This bill FORCES people to BUY health care for THEMSELVES. It provides a graduated system of government reimbursements for households who make up to certain amounts above the poverty line. So, for my household, which will have a reportable income of approx. $30,000 for 2009, we actually fall $12,000 above the federal poverty line. We barely get by as it is, and this bill wants us to purchase expensive insurance policies on top of that, with what will probably be far less than a 100% reimbursement, and I won't even see a dime of that till the end of the year when they rebate me the money through my taxes. This was a year where I made 3 late rent payments because we couldn't get the money on time. Somehow the government thinks that I can just find a way to cram insurance in on top of that. Your situation probably won't be any better (remember, the government isn't GIVING your family insurance, it's just making you buy it).

The benefit of the status quo was that it allowed me to make private economic decisions that most suited my personal conditions. I'm fit as a fiddle. I haven't had worse than a case of the flu since I was 18 (save for a workplace accident with the company's insurance covered [such insurance is a mandate of the law in the status quo anyways]). I'm very nearly 31. That would have been 13 years of wasted money which I didn't have anyways. The individual mandate was a demand of the insurance industry, not the medical industry. The medical system isn't inundated with 20 year olds complaining of arthritis pain and congestive heart failure, this bill could fail with zero consequences to this demographic. The reason you have an individual mandate in this bill is because Congress forced insurers not to turn away people with pre-existing conditions and to charge all customers the same rates. Read that as follows; the insurance companies demanded a law to expand their customer base in exchange for charging people who use lots of health care the same rate as people who never use health care. That's not "providing" health care to the country, that's deal-making with industry to provide a gift to a special interest constituency (aging baby boomers). That does neither you nor me any favors.

This is not universal health coverage. In fact, it was never meant to be. Even the estimates of the bill sponsors include the expected penalties of those who do not comply with the individual mandate as a source of revenue for the bill. In short, they expect a significant portion of the country to remain uninsured and still pay for the health care bill. Who exactly are these people going to be? They're not the rich, who can buy themselves the greatest health insurance under the sun. They're not the poor, they're already covered by medicaid. It's going to be people who make just enough money that they don't qualify for meaningful reimbursement, but not enough to where they can afford an insurance plan. So, basically, lower-middle class two income households will be getting nailed with this penalty. This is a bad law and people have a right to be frightened of this thing.

Thank you for reminding people how bad this plan can be for the lower middle class. Another issue is by making employees in smaller buisness's have medical insurance the company's the work for will/can go under.
So in other words employees and employeers are going to have major issues.

yea it is just so amazing that they are actually still trying to pass this the only thing that gets my scard is alot of people do not know this or just don't care even look into it and others just here the words free and health care and think it is  

[II ninja5 II]

"If you think the fed's will fund baby killing you lie" What now America.  

[Lord Izaran]

II ninja5 II

"If you think the fed's will fund baby killing you lie" What now America.

If you are refering to Section 222 part D. It has two subsections.

1) Abortion coverage prohibited under basic package.
2) Voluntary choice of coverage by plan.

You can find both of those on page 109 of H.R. 3962

Yeah, I do my research.

Wait I stand corrected...part E. Not D.  

[mr_emotion12]

I have a ?????? what is the point in spliting the bill in 2 question  

[Lord Izaran]

ninjakid55

I have a ?????? what is the point in spliting the bill in 2 question

What do you mean?  

[Vilified]

Yes, the healthcare system was broken.
It just needed to be fixed, not totally replaced.

 

[Vilified]

The Healthcare Bill is just another pipe in the toilet that America is being flushed down.

 

[Lord Izaran]

I hate this law. And it is now 1990 Pages. I TRIED to read it. OMFG SO PAINFUL. Not the content, the LENGTH.  

[Shark Bacon]

Lord Izaran

I hate this law. And it is now 1990 Pages. I TRIED to read it. OMFG SO PAINFUL. Not the content, the LENGTH.

I agree... I'm on page 27. I don't even think I'm past the introduction part yet.  

[Kyo the III]

ITS THE REFORM FROM HELL