Its all dead

[Excaliber]

Well #1 is possible, in other words they might fall short of even 51 votes. They won't go for the option unless there sure they have that many first though.

#2 is a "maybe not". Sure SOME Demo's would loose election's, but I doubt it would be a wholesale slaughter. The Repubs haven't gained a lot of support, more like the Demo's are getting bashed as good the Repubs are now. Still it's a "vote against" rather than for syndrome. National support FOR the bill was/is gaining some traction. I suspect that had it passed it would gain even more support in time. Obama still looks like a safe bet for a second term, with or without it.

[bomelia]

You can just forget about it. The bill is dead. If they use reconciliation, only the parts that are consistant with the current budget are allowable. And much of that POC bill would not be allowable. And in the house, too many "yeses" are glad Brown won to get them out of this mess. And Obama set the stage with his comments that nothing wil happen until after Brown is seated. He too knows its over. Its about saving face now.

We do need health care reform, but not in the guise of entitlements and increased taxes.

Everything libs (commie red basturds) have hoped for is DOA.

Mike

[Excaliber]

Everything Cons (those anti christ basturds)....

well, you get the point.

[bomelia]

No, all is well. My level of expectation has been lowered quite a bit. To see libs and lib policies dashed on yonder Siren shores is a much appreciated gift.

No, it looks like all of you folks looking for yet another handout from the worker bees are going to have to starve for another period of time.

Of course, you could get a job and earn that which you want others to give you. That's the Smith Barney way.

Mike

[Excaliber]

...you could get a job...

Been there, done that, had a great time (now I just mow the lawn)!

[bomelia]

Well, maybe you have retired. But if you retired and were not prepared for retirement, thats your problem and should not be other people's problem. The blame for this situation is in part due to The New Deal policies that made people dependent on government.

As I have said many times before, I want a picture of the old person(s) I am supporting (Sally Struthers style) so I can see how they are doing.

[Excaliber]

Really, seriously, many of them may be your neighbors! Just regular folk with a mortgage, couple of kids, trying to pay the bill's, perhaps recently unemployed. THESE are the people that need help with health care reform. The "poor" already have various Government programs they qualify for. This has never been about "welfare" or more Government aid, it's simply recognizing a very large part of our population, including small business', that are priced out of the market.

I'm only 58, but have done well enough financially to retire "early". I'm fortunate that my various investments over the years return a decent monthly income, but more importantly, those investments have not taken a hit during this down turn. For the most part, I'm just lucky in that regard, not some genius investor.

[bomelia]

I'm really sorry there are people who are in need of TEMPORARY help. And that they should get. But to create a gigantic new "entitelment" to solve a transitory problem is NOT the answer. If you feel so bad about your out-of-work neighbors, then go buy them health insurance until they get back on their feet. Pay their bills. Sounds to me you have done well for yourself, so certainly you should be able to spread YOUR wealth around? I am sure that they will be insentivized to go out and get a job after that and you won't have to foot their bills for long.

[Excaliber]

Niether charities or individuals can address the 20 + plus million with inadequate health care on a long term basis. It's a NATIONAL problem that needs national attention. While in some cases it may be temporary there will always be the working poor who need a break, a hand not a hand out, to get access to decent health care. For themselve and their families.

Spreading that "load" out to a larger group of people, taxing an appropriate group and cost cutting measures all have a roll in addressing the solution.

[bomelia]

What is an "appropriate group"? And are you in that group?

[Dan40]

A temporary Government entitlement program. Another liberal hallucination.

Life is tough, NOT fair. Always will be. CANNOT be changed except by those suffering.
Some win, some don't. Those that win, do not OWE anything to those that lost.

Its cold,
its hard,
its reality.

[bdeutsch]

We (my family) have been fortunate enough, save for a period of time that I was unemployed, to always have health care coverage. Beginning at age 60, as a retired AF Lt Colonel (10 years active and 11 years with the ANG), we (me/wife) fall under the TriStar program. So, at least in theory, we will be covered for life.

Having said this though, a couple of additional thoughts. During the period of unemployment mentioned above, I had the opportunity to utilize COBRA. At that time, for a family of 4, this coverage worked out to about $1,000/month. Fortunately, my wife was employed during this time and we were able to utilize her coverage. Had it not been for her job though, one cannot help but wonder how a typical family can afford for any length of time, $1,000out of pocket when there is no income. While it is not clear to me whether this condition would have changed under the proposed plan (and I think this is one of the problems, i.e., nobody really knows what it is supposed to do), it is just an example of one of the current issues with our healthcare system.

Next point, anyone with kids knows that once your children hit a certain age, and depending on their status (full time student for example), they are removed from your health plan. My oldest son, after graduating from a well known college here in California, was obliged to find his own healthcare plan, to fill the time lapse between the time he graduated and when he became eligible for benefits with his employer. It is during this period I found out how broke our healthcare system is. He has a very minor (really minor) condition which requires medication. Insurers defined it as a pre-existing condition. So here you have a very healthy and athletic 24-year old male, who, because of what any of us would consider to be more of an annoyance than anyting else, had a very difficult time finding an insurance carrier who would cover him. It was not really a question of the $$, we simply could not find a company that would insure him. I think the saddest thing about this whole experience is that we wanted to do the right thing, but went through a very difficult time actually getting him covered. Ultimately we were able to find coverage, but during this time, he was completely without healthcare insurance.

While various posters have made points about how the spoils should go to those who earn them, I submit that the challenges with our current healthcare system are much more complex than that. While I personally do not think that the healthcare course taken by our honorable representatives from the Democratic side of the aisle were correct, we (insurance companies, unions, public employees, for-profit companies, states, etc.) need to examine the current system, as at least in my opinion, it does not work even for those of us who try to do the right thing.

[Joe Wicked]

bdeutsch,
I don't know what minor thing you discuss, but I think we can make a difference without the full entitlement program by making small changes in regulation. Require companies to cover pre-existing with an additional fee to offset costs (would need a lot of specifics added, but just an idea). Maybe the pre-existing condition is exempted for a period of time to prevent someone from signing up to get a needed operation then canceling.

Also I think a lot of people would get behind a bill that required all who were getting coverage show proof of employment of a minimum of hours (say 30)/week with no option (or not enough coverage) from the employer. For those who are not employed, proof of a minimum number of applications (simple form to be signed by the company stating that you seriously applied for work). Pay for it by limiting the amount of time you are allotted to get a free ride. I personally know one lady who has been collecting welfare for over 20 years has had 8 kids and has 14 more years before the youngest is 18, so by then she will be "Too old to learn to go back to work" and continue the free ride. This is ridiculous. Limit the time allowed and make it hard to get on. You must seriously look for work and if you continue to get fired you can be declared ineligible because you are getting fired just so you can ride again.

Just some random thoughts I have on the subject.

[Excaliber]

What is an "appropriate group"? And are you in that group?

Well that IS a pertinent question, still to be resolved. At this point it seems the UAW cadillac plans won't be taxed. I for one certainly think THAT group should be! I don't know where I personally would stand on the tax issue, but I'm certainly willing to pay more if it will help cover folks like bduetsch's son.

Addressing the pre-existing aspect of health care is a needed reform.

The lady on welfare with eight kids? Virtually no impact on her or anybody else. She is already covered under the various welfare programs.

Health Care reform is NOT about more "welfare" it's about helping folks just like bduetsch. Some through a period of unemployment, some because they will always be the "working poor".

Kind of sad that several here have made it clear they won't lift a finger in any way to help these various groups of people get at least some coverage. Fortunately the majority of the Nation has indicated they ARE willing to pay more if it will help.

[bdeutsch]

All of us likely have examples of individuals who take advantage of the system, and while we all know this is wrong, it is simply human nature. I do not know of a way to fix this.

I think the thing that made me the angriest about the whole episode with our son was that we were willing to personally pay whatever was needed to get the healthcare bridge coverage. It simply did not matter though though as, at least initially, no carrier wanted to cover him (and again, the medical condition described in the earlier post was nothing).

It took us about 3-months and many calls to insurers, to get coverage that should have been a no-brainer. Had something happened to him during this time, a car accident let's say, we (gladly), would have given up everything to pay his medical bills (worse case scenario). This was a wake up call to us, that something is terribly wrong with the existing system.

[joyridin']

This was a good idea, but blown way out of proportion by the Dems and the Repubs.

We need catastrophic health care for just about everybody. Pick a dollar amount (say $10k or $20k) and start coverage from there. forget the $500 band-aids from the Emergency Room. We just can't afford it and nobody wants the tax increase.

So again, due to idiotic politics on both sides, we end up with a still broken health care system. Contrary to some of the opinions on this forum, you cannot continue to have double digit increases year after year in premiums and expect employers, or anybody for that fact, to be able to afford it. At least with major catastrophic insurance, many won't lose their houses due to some health ailment.

[jolsen42]

Originally Posted by Excaliber

It's worth noting that the number of people that think Obama is doing a good job is HIGHER than it was for Reagan at the end of his first year! "Potus" bashing is certainly nothing new.

Nope, they're both at 57 percent. You certainly can't be comparing Obama to Reagan?

John O

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by bdeutsch

I think the thing that made me the angriest about the whole episode with our son was that we were willing to personally pay whatever was needed to get the healthcare bridge coverage. It simply did not matter though though as, at least initially, no carrier wanted to cover him (and again, the medical condition described in the earlier post was nothing).

It took us about 3-months and many calls to insurers, to get coverage that should have been a no-brainer. Had something happened to him during this time, a car accident let's say, we (gladly), would have given up everything to pay his medical bills (worse case scenario). This was a wake up call to us, that something is terribly wrong with the existing system.

Actually, the possible scenario you spoke about has happened already to my one employee's nephew, an about 24 year old (with no insurance), while on vacation was assulted, they bashed his head in, still haven't caught or cared about catching the criminals. Obviously, he was sent to a trauma center unconscious, in an ICU for weeks, sedated, documented brain damage, unsure if he could ever walk or play instruments again. Anyways, he got on Medicaid insurance which covered his 3 month hospital stay, and now is at home, still going to therapy. His parents did not go bankrupt, although the mother quit her job so she could help take care of him at home. That was about 8 months ago.

That's what would happen, and it did.


The general public doesn't want to pay co-pays, high deductables, money out of their pockets for basic care. They complain to me about it all the time.

yes, a catstrophic plan is the type of insurance that makes sense, especially for someone who has accumulated some assets, but that's not the type of insurance that can be "sold" to the public.

[BeanCounter]

Was your son without coverage for a period of time?. If not why did you not obtain a Certificate of Credible Coverage which would have taken care of your problem? If there is one thing certain in this world you should never let your coverage lapse. When taking chances there is always a risk. That risk shouldn't be shoved off on to someone else

I've been paying for COBRA on my daughter for 16 months now since she lost her job. She too has medical problems (brain tumor, bi-polar amongst a few others). I don't expect Ernie to have to pay for her, she is my daughter. My wife and I have cut back on things so that we can help her out during this period. That is what family is supposed to do.

[Excaliber]

Good discussion on this. In the case Anthony cites whether or not his parents would be forced into bankruptcy seems rather beside the point. The legal obligation would have fallen on the 24 year old male, not his parents. They could have chosen bankruptcy to provide care for a loved one if they wanted to. HE could potentially be forced into bankruptcy, assuming he had any assets to begin with.

I think the new age limit is 23 now, by the way, if your dependant is attending school full time he/she can be covered under your family policy?

Bernie, I will gladly pay "a little more" on my personal policy to cover folks such as your daughter.