Muscatine

Let's work on something that works for more people since it is going to cost us an arm and a leg no matter what.

I agree JC, but medicare and medicaid are pretty much bankrupt.....so to believe that the government can run a new plan successfully is insane.....while haysus believes that government is his savior....thats wishful thinking.....if his friend needs to find a way to pay for his healthcare...then maybe he should get a second job....right now GPC is paying thier temps pretty well....13.00 an hr is what i was told.....our hospitals and clinics take payments...there is hawk-i insurance for children in iowa...if haysus' friend is that bad off theres always medicaid....

July 17, 2009 --
PRESIDENT Obama promises that "if you like your health plan, you can keep it," even after he reforms our health-care system. That's untrue. The bills now before Congress would force you to switch to a managed-care plan with limits on your access to specialists and tests.

Two main bills are being rushed through Congress with the goal of combining them into a finished product by August. Under either, a new government bureaucracy will select health plans that it considers in your best interest, and you will have to enroll in one of these "qualified plans." If you now get your plan through work, your employer has a five-year "grace period" to switch you into a qualified plan. If you buy your own insurance, you'll have less time.

And as soon as anything changes in your contract -- such as a change in copays or deductibles, which many insurers change every year -- you'll have to move into a qualified plan instead (House bill, p. 16-17).

When you file your taxes, if you can't prove to the IRS that you are in a qualified plan, you'll be fined thousands of dollars -- as much as the average cost of a health plan for your family size -- and then automatically enrolled in a randomly selected plan (House bill, p. 167-168).

It's one thing to require that people getting government assistance tolerate managed care, but the legislation limits you to a managed-care plan even if you and your employer are footing the bill (Senate bill, p. 57-58). The goal is to reduce everyone's consumption of health care and to ensure that people have the same health-care experience, regardless of ability to pay.

Nowhere does the legislation say how much health plans will cost, but a family of four is eligible for some government assistance until their household income reaches $88,000 (House bill, p. 137). If you earn more than that, you'll have to pay the cost no matter how high it goes.

The price tag for this legislation is a whopping $1.04 trillion to $1.6 trillion (Congressional Budget Office estimates). Half of the tab comes from tax increases on individuals earning $280,000 or more, and these new taxes will double in 2012 unless savings exceed predicted costs (House bill, p. 199). The rest of the cost is paid for by cutting seniors' health benefits under Medicare.

There's plenty of waste in Medicare, but the Congressional Budget Office estimates only 1 percent of the savings under the legislation will be from curbing waste, fraud and abuse. That means the rest will likely come from reducing what patients get.

One troubling provision of the House bill compels seniors to submit to a counseling session every five years (and more often if they become sick or go into a nursing home) about alternatives for end-of-life care (House bill, p. 425-430). The sessions cover highly sensitive matters such as whether to receive antibiotics and "the use of artificially administered nutrition and hydration."

This mandate invites abuse, and seniors could easily be pushed to refuse care. Do we really want government involved in such deeply personal issues?

Shockingly, only a portion of the money accumulated from slashing senior benefits and raising taxes goes to pay for covering the uninsured. The Senate bill allocates huge sums to "community transformation grants," home visits for expectant families, services for migrant workers -- and the creation of dozens of new government councils, programs and advisory boards slipped into the last 500 pages.

The most recent ABC News/Washington Post poll (June 21) finds that 83 percent of Americans are very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with the quality of their health care, and 81 percent are similarly satisfied with their health insurance.

They have good reason to be. If you're diagnosed with cancer, you have a better chance of surviving it in the United States than anywhere else, according to the Concord Five Continent Study. And the World Health Organization ranked the United States No. 1 out of 191 countries for being responsive to patients' needs, including providing timely treatments and a choice of doctors.

Congress should pursue less radical ways to cover the uninsured. We have too much to lose with this legislation.

Betsy McCaughey is founder of the Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths and a former lieutenant governor of New York. betsy@hospitalinfection.org

Oh, gta1, you're so funny. Hypocritical, uninformed, and easily misled, but funny nonetheless.

Based on what you've posted, here's the way I see it:

By your tacit admission, you would have accepted public insurance had it been available to you when your son was born. In fact, you even indicate that you were seeking help when you say "according to dhs we made too much money." So when you needed assistance you were all for it but now that you don't need it, well... (For the record, I think this is the definition of a selfish person - someone who is only interested in the things that will benefit them directly.)

Your basic argument seems to be that we shouldn't pass healthcare reform because you didn't get any help so neither should anyone else. But what if you were to lose your job, gta1? What if your health benefits were suddenly gone?

I know that you keep bringing up hawk-i, however, hawk-i only covers kids under the age of 19. You said yourself that you are 39 yrs old so you, like my friend in his late fifties are not eligible for hawk-i coverage. You've also mentioned Medicaid as an option. However, Medicaid has requirements of its own. I can't say for sure, but it doesn't sound like you would be eligible for that either. I know my friend isn't. So where do you turn, gta1?

Well, I did some checking on what it would cost for insurance coverage for a 39 yr old male and his spouse. I went to Health Insurance Finders, entered some basic information (5'10", 175 lbs., non smoking) and asked for some quotes. The quotes range from around $100 per month w/ a $10,000 per person deductible and virtually nothing covered (office visits, prescriptions, etc.) to almost $600 per month with a $500 deductible and fairly decent coverage ($20 copays for most things). So with no benefits and limited income, what do you do? Go without? Pick crappy coverage?

I think I understand where you're coming from, though, gta1. You say you've been a conservative since you were 19. Since this would put the year at about 1988 or 89, I think it's safe to assume that you're a Reagan fan. Reagan was fond of trotting out the image of the welfare queen who drives a Cadillac any time he needed to stir up the base. Too bad that was an exaggeration of a single case of welfare fraud for which the woman was eventually convicted. Healthcare reform isn't about a free ride. It will still cost people to enroll and get coverage. What healthcare reform is about is controlling costs so that everyone has a better chance of affording coverage if it's not provided by their employer. Health care costs are up by as much as 80% since 2000 according to studies. Healthcare reform is simply looking to control those costs.

Now, being a Reagan fan, I can assume that you're also a free market person. One of the popular Repub talking points is that this will kill the health care industry. Not according to the CBO it won't. Private insurers will still be able to compete.

Now, like a true Reaganite you complain about taxing people (in this case the rich) to death. Have you looked at the tax rate the wealthy are paying? By and large they are paying a far lower percentage of their income in taxes than you and I. You may remember Warren Buffet's challenge to his fellow billionaires. He was willing to pay $1,000,000 to any of them that could prove they paid a higher or equal average tax rate than their secretaries who made far less. Needless to say, nobody could do it. So again, I'm sure the wealthy appreciate you sticking up for them, but I think they're doing just fine on their own.

And last but not least, the article by Betsy McCaughey is a real gem. And from the New York Post nonetheless. Aside from the fact that the Post is a bastion of Republican talking points, Ms. McCaughey (not surprisingly left out in the Post's byline) is a fellow at the Hudson Institute which receives major funding from many pharmaceutical companies such as Merck Novartis and PhRMA along with uber-conservatives like the Scaife family. So it's no surprise that Ms. McCaughey is against healthcare reform. After all, she was opposed to it back in the nineties as well. I think it's safe to say that she probably has a horse in this race.

I'm not expecting to change your mind, gta1. Obviously you're going to believe what you want. I just hope that if you some day find yourself in a financial bind like my friend's that there's an affordable health plan available for you and your family.

I have been in that bind before....and didnt go crying for the government to bail me out....we had to go to dhs so that if we were turned down they would set us up on payments....we had to be turned down for help first....i take it you and your parents are always first in line for handouts.....since u didnt deny wanting the free or virtually free insurance nobama wants to give you.....and u didnt deny that u believe the government is better at taking care of you than you are.......in what i posted gives the page numbers of the bill where the info is located....guess u just didnt want verify it for yourself......you my friend are the selfish one wanting the rich to pick up the tab for you....and yes i know what hawk-i covers...i believe i stated it was for children....obviously with the already bankrupt insurance programs the government runs now u still believe they can truly do it this time...

So haysus, tell me why you feel that the government and the wealthy owe you anything?

are you too lazy to provide for yourself?.....i believe it was John Adams who said "you dont work, you dont eat" theres too many people out there who expect a handout ...

I think it's safe to assume that you're a Reagan fan. Reagan was fond of trotting out the image of the welfare queen who drives a Cadillac any time he needed to stir up the base. Too bad that was an exaggeration of a single case of welfare fraud for which the woman was eventually convicted.

This statement is so false....i used to work a job where i dealt with people on welfare and more than one stated whenever they needed a raise they jus had another kid.....

 One woman went so far as to say to me "i'm a mexican, i dont have to work"......heres another case...3 families living on doliver st in one house....the 3 men worked at Heinz, the 3 women said they were seperated ...the men brought home paychecks while the women recieved welfare.....and there were 2 brand new cars and 1 brand new truck in the drive...pretty nice living off of welfare.....so dont tell me that its not abused ...cuz if i sat down and really remembered back that far there is alot more abuse that i could lay out for ya.....so dont tell me its an exaggeration  cuz it happens more than you choose to believe......

It's all about the handout with you, isn't it? It's a handout because the government provides it, is that what it is? That's what you've got your undies all in a bunch about?Do you complain when the mail arrives in your mailbox? That's a government provided service, gta1. Do you complain when the potholes in the roads get filled. That too is a government provided service, gta1. Are you going to turn down your social security when you retire?

Nobody's saying that people won't try to game the system. (And shame on you if you let them go and did not report all those examples you stated.) But just because some unscrupulous people will try to get one over on the system doesn't mean that it's not worthwhile. I think I've used this example before, but it bears repeating. Consider prescription pain killers. Ever hear of anyone getting hooked on them? Ever hear of anyone faking symptoms or doctor shopping to illegally obtain them? (Think Brett Favre and Rush Limbaugh, among others.) But just because a handful of people might be able to get away with a scam doesn't meant that there aren't plenty of honest people who legitimately need them and should be able to legitimately obtain them. (You can make the same argument about guns. Just because a small percentage of fools can't be trusted with them doesn't mean that the right thing to do is to ban them all.) Yes, it's possible that people will try to milk the system, but such is the case with everything. It happens. You shouldn't punish the entire shift crew because of the actions of one idiot.

Another story for you. My wife's father left when she was very young. She had two older siblings and her mother had never had a job. Naturally, her mom got a job right away. In fact she got three but still didn't make enough to be able to provide for her family. She continued to work three jobs for many years but needed government assistance to provide some of the basic needs for her kids. They were on food stamps and ADC. Would you call her a welfare queen, gta1? Would you deny her those government services because you know of three families all living in one house on Doliver Street? And although her kids were covered, should she have to go without healthcare knowing that if she were to get sick and find herself unable to work that it would mean her entire family would be without any income?

And speaking of welfare queens, you say my statement was "so false." Well, Reagan's welfare queen statement spoke of a woman from the south side of Chicago who famously had 80 aliases, 30 addresses, a dozen social security cards, etc. However, nobody, including Reagan, was ever able to put a name to this woman. It was an exaggeration meant to rile the base. Besides, do you know how difficult it would be to get rich off of welfare? Just as an example, the average monthly food stamp coupon value per recipient was a grand total of $86.02 per month in 2004 (2004 figures are the most recent I was able to find). Even for a family of four that's less than $4200 per year. Nobody's getting rich off of that, gta1.

I've already stated I'd take the insurance if it was better or comparable at a lower price so I didn't see a need to beat that horse any longer. Are you saying that you'd turn down better, more affordable insurance if it was offered to you?

Because it's an idiotic Repub talking point that's not worth debating. It will do nothing but devolve into a "Yes you do," "No I don't" argument. I figured there's enough of that that goes on around here anyway.

Did you read it? I didn't think so. Guess you just didn't want to verify it for yourself, huh? You're just gonna take her word for it because it agrees with your ideological notions. Well, I got news for you, gta1... I have read quite a bit of it (not all, it's pretty dry reading). Enough to know that the alleged issues she's raising are mostly fabricated BS. You can read the House version of the bill for yourself here (PDF File).

You're going to have to show me where I said the government and the wealthy owe me something. I'm afraid I don't remember ever having said/written that. Instead, I might refer back to the same thing that I started with: Why don't you go and get your own mail instead of relying on the government to deliver it for you? Why don't you fill the potholes yourself instead of relying on the government to do it for you? Are you too lazy to provide for yourself?

Again, I don't expect to change your mind, gta1. I'm just giving you my side of it. I truly believe that there are people in this country who could legitimately benefit from public health care. I'm not naive enough to think it's going to be perfect, though. People will try to scam the system, yes, but there are millions of people without insurance that could certainly use it. Maybe if your side of the elected aisle would offer something that could serve as a worthwhile alternative this wouldn't be such a divisive issue, but so far they're just trying to score political points instead of doing what the people sent them there to do.