pafret wrote:
You ignored my concomitant condition of 'leave my insurance alone and you buy whatever the government is offering as medical insurance'. My insurance like many others was affordable, with copays and out of pocket deductibles that were also affordable. They are not any longer with the government's plans, which were supposed to be cheaper and better that what I had.
Your accusations of heartlessness are what are to be expected from those whose attitude is that what is mine is mine and what is yours is also mine. Do you impute some form of selfishness to me because I provided for my own health insurance by earning the money to buy it? Should I have turned my paycheck over to you to see if anyone else wanted to claim the results of my labors? Yet you believe that I should be willing to shoulder other's health problems while my own go begging because I can no longer afford to go to the doctor or the hospital -- particularly since I work for a living. Your example of a close relative is just guilt tripping; obviously I am going to take care of my family but the real question is why aren't you taking care of yours?
Going bankrupt because of health care is a hard cross to bear. I personally reached near that point with my five year old son's medical treatment for Cancer. My solution to this problem was to work two full time jobs, which I did for a period of three years. My wife had the full time, unassisted, responsibility of raising four young children and keeping our home. She and I worked our way out of the near financial disaster. This may not be a possibility fo many people but it was for me and was consistent with my personal credo of paying my own way.
We are all well aware that insurance is gambling. The insurance companies employ teams of statisticians, actuaries et.al., to constantly figure the odds and then price their policies accordingly. They may lose in your particular case but overall they win and win big. The packages or bundles are undoubtedly like the automotive industries accessory groups, they always include several features nobody wants but are extremely profitable to the manufacturer along with the critical, must have "accessory". The government introduced distortions into the calculations by requiring excessive coverage via these groups or bundles which always include profit winners. These distortions ranged from preexisting conditions, to unneeded coverage in bundles extended to all, to absolutely bad bets such as the newly insured needing horrendously expensive treatments, which he was unable to get anyone to pay for. Most policies I have seen had prohibitions on pre-existing conditions for a period of time buit I am not familiar with all policies. It may be that some conditions are not covered forever.
The end result was that prices went up. Obama's government had entered into agreement with the insurers to cover any loses incurred, to eliminate their opposition. At the same time, the government wanted to make sure they would not have to pay out for any loses the insurance companies incurred so they compelled the extremely high out of pocket expense. Presto, everybody has health insurance. Those with catastrophic diseases or no insurance benefit immediately, everyone else pays the bill and never benefits from their so-called "Health Insurance". They give it up or do not participate because it is cheaper to pay the bill. They are saddled with fines and penalties for not participating in this wealth redistribution scheme. Of course, in your view they are selfish for not wanting to pay all of their own medical expenses and yours as well. It is wondrous to realize that we were doing that before under the gambling paradigm, what could possibly have changed?
None of this considers the destructive effect on society caused by the regulations on employers, which forced them to convert full-time jobs with benefits, to part-time employment. Nor the effect on workers who had to find additional part time jobs and have no benefits (health insurance, 501K plans etc.) at any of them. Some of the effects of this we have seen already, the real crunch will come when these workers try to retire with no savings, a likely reduced Social Security and no prospects of continuing their existence.
You ignored my concomitant condition of 'leave my ... (
show quote)
Yes, Co-pay certainly still exists, being affordable is subjective to a person's income, before the ACA we were easily paying a person's annual salary, while never making a claim. Once claims come in the premium rises, not a good place for seniors.
Like I said you are the one fixated on what people are taking away from you. Who is really taking anything away from you? Taxes? We the self-employed, are the major payers, and as long as poverty grows along with the military and government jobs, (who have it paid for through taxes also) we will continue to go down this same road, taking from you and I, the tax base...so who are the winners really, we know the answer to that don't we.
Looking at this new health plan, it seems to be designed to promote the sick and elderly to die, maybe their way of filtering out the dead wood and only have productive people exist, while not acknowledging their lifetime of service, only that their use has expired. These are the people I refer to being selfish, but if you go along with their plan then you would be compliant also.
Our healthcare has been below the world status for a long time. Although the U.S. has the most expensive health care system in the world, the nation ranks lowest in terms of efficiency, equity and outcomes. It is our tax money, a pool to be dispersed by priority. You concentrate your thoughts so much on the poor you don't see the real unbalanced distribution of money is to the wealthy, but for some reason you choose to ignore them and resent the people who have nothing, though many of them bust their buts working very hard every day, and are torn between fixing their car or paying for insurance or a doctors bill.
A good part of the money given to the ACA was from tax money from the wealthy off of their dividends, the profit they gambled on it in the market which acquired a good return. Where was the harm in a slight increase in the percentage of tax in that to help bring down healthcare costs? Which is what Obama did.
I've noticed in this new health plan, there weren't any new regulations for pharmaceutical gauging or price fixing.
I ask you are people heartless when they choose profit over peoples lives? I did not ask for anyone to pay for anyone including myself which no one does. We, like you, have worked many years and long hours, all I'm asking for is reasonably priced insurance that actually gives quality coverage. The rest you stated of what I want, are incorrect assumptions from preconceived notions, and not my opinion.
I didn't refer to you as selfish unless you were part of the elite that is for this so-called health plan, which is no health plan at all, it does nothing but put all the control back into the hands of the unreined insurance companies, and people will die because of it. Yes, I think that is heartless.
People will go uninsured, once again, and that cost will still go to us, the taxpayer, not an insurance company that would be helping to fit the bill.
Personally, I think workingclasstiff has the right idea, get rid of insurance companies, put all that money into healthcare for all. This would also put a halt to companies having to supply health insurance as you mentioned and thereby possibly freeing up more money to pay employees a decent wage.
My apologies I thought I had commented on people keeping their own insurance. That's fine more power to you if you have the extra funds. I don't see why they can't work it like the school system, one private and one public.