Your opinion on USA Free Health Care

You have to look at generally. Obviously some people it will not benefit, and others it will. I have not read the whole bill, so all I have for reference is Massachusetts. In Mass you can choose to keep your original provider, but you do have to have basic coverage. That may cost you more, but at least your covered. There is no age limit for accidents. Kids get hurt everyday. I was only 35 when my life fell apart. What if I had kids? What about your kids, and theirs? It will work out in the end. All the other countries are doing well, and like EF said, we'll do it better. Its the American way.

Now for the people in different countries this is why I posted facts. I am sure it works in your country but compare our population. This frightens me.

pullbangdead said:

This law will cost me more money that I don't want to spend, it's as simple as that.

Click to expand...

They aren't increasing taxes for it, they're cutting the education budget.

Like what wannaburn said. You get treated like a number. It is to my understanding this is exactly true. If the hospital/clinic/office is supressed on time and money they look at there computer. They have a 65 year old and a 20 year old. They both have cancer. They are going to most likely help the 20 year old no matter who is first on the "List." Some of you might find this just, but I believe everyone should have an equal chance at life.

zaery said:

They aren't increasing taxes for it, they're cutting the education budget.

Click to expand...

Yay! I say this a little loosly. Even more dumb people running this country.

Scotty 757 said:

Like what wannaburn said. You get treated like a number. It is to my understanding this is exactly true. If the hospital/clinic/office is supressed on time and money they look at there computer. They have a 65 year old and a 20 year old. They both have cancer. They are going to most likely help the 20 year old no matter who is first on the "List." Some of you might find that just but I believe everyone should have an equal chance at life.

Click to expand...

Wannaburn lives in Canada. The US system will be much different. You cant compare other nations, because we are all different.

must resist muuusssst resist...........

Tech_Junkie said:

You have to look at generally. Obviously some people it will not benefit, and others it will. I have not read the whole bill, so all I have for reference is Massachusetts. In Mass you can choose to keep your original provider, but you do have to have basic coverage. That may cost you more, but at least your covered. There is no age limit for accidents. Kids get hurt everyday. I was only 35 when my life fell apart. What if I had kids? What about your kids, and theirs? It will work out in the end. All the other countries are doing well, and like EF said, we'll do it better. Its the American way.

Click to expand...

Again, a high-deductible plan is great. It gives you coverage. The maximum out-of-pocket I would ever have to pay is $5000, 100% is covered beyond that. If I had an accident, I could afford $5000 just fine. And my healthcare expenses for the last 10 years are less than $5000, I can save way more than $5000 by not paying high insurance premiums for an expensive plan. It pays for itself for a healthy person, and catastrophic accidents or sicknesses are still covered just fine.

Sure, if you're in and out of the hospital, you need a plan that covers more routine visits and care. You might need prescription coverage. I don't. This law removes my freedom to choose the insurance that is right for me, and takes money out of MY pocket, and hands that money straight to an insurance company that you have already admitted you don't like.

My plan, that I choose, it perfect for me. It saves me money, it more than pays for itself even if something happens and my costs go to the full deductible because it's much cheaper, and it still covers me even if I suddenly needed $1million in medical care.

Why can't I keep this plan? What right does the government have to tell me that the medical insurance I choose for myself isn't good enough?

----------------------------

Heck, let's look at it the other way: not only do they fine you if you don't have enough insurance, they tax you extra if you have too much insurance! The "Cadillac" health plan tax! Let's say I want the most amazing plan there is, where everything I get done at a doctor's office is covered 100% and I never have to pay out of pocket, and includes all kinds of amazing extras that make me feel more secure. Now the governemnt says I should've have that insurance pla, that it's too much coverage for me, and are going to tax me on it.

The government is perfectly will to tax me if I don't have enough coverage (even though it is the perfect coverage for me), and at the same time tax a person if he wants too much coverage (even though that coverage may be perfect for him). Oh, unless that person with a "Cadillac" health insurance plan gets taht plan from a labor union. Amazing: two people with the exact same health insruance plan, and ones get an extra government tax because he's not a member of a labor union, while the other gets to skip the tax expressly because he's a member of a union. All men created equal, eh?

When did it become ok for the government to decide how much insurance is too much or too little, and tax people who get either, or levy taxes based on union membership?

------------------------------------

And again, you've said you liked Medicare, that's great!

This bill, as signed by Obama, cuts Medicare in multiple ways. Your coverage WILL get worse.

Scotty 757 said:

Yay! I say this a little loosly. Even more dumb people running this country.

Click to expand...

zaery is just a kid.

Every president has cut education, so nothing new. And as a rule Liberals usually dont cut as much as Republicans.

Tech_Junkie said:

Wannaburn lives in Canada. The US system will be much different. You cant compare other nations, because we are all different.

Click to expand...

We will change a little like we always do to adopted ideas but this is huge. It will take more than a little. I am a little hesitant because I am obviously mid class.

zaery said:

They aren't increasing taxes for it, they're cutting the education budget.

Click to expand...

This is demonstrably false on every account. Sorry.

Tech_Junkie said:

zaery is just a kid.

Every president has cut education, so nothing new. And as a rule Liberals usually dont cut as much as Republicans.

Click to expand...

Ya I thought he was joking. Kinda made me laugh.

Scotty 757 said:

Like what wannaburn said. You get treated like a number. It is to my understanding this is exactly true. If the hospital/clinic/office is supressed on time and money they look at there computer. They have a 65 year old and a 20 year old. They both have cancer. They are going to most likely help the 20 year old no matter who is first on the "List." Some of you might find this just, but I believe everyone should have an equal chance at life.

Click to expand...

People don't have an equal chance at life under the circumstances you're describing (overcrowding, understaffed) right now, with the current system. The process you describe here is called "triage" and it's practiced every day in every hospital in the world.. usually with immediate health concerns, but even with long-term illnesses like cancer. At any given time, somewhere in the healthcare system individuals are making these kinds of tough decisions which impact the survival prospects of people both long and short-term.

I myself don't know what's better.. these individuals performing triage or the government or both.

ElektroFreak said:

People don't have an equal chance at life under the circumstances you're describing (overcrowding, understaffed) right now, with the current system. The process you describe here is called "triage" and it's practiced every day in every hospital in the world.. usually with immediate health concerns, but even with long-term illnesses like cancer. At any given time, somewhere in the healthcare system individuals are making these kinds of tough decisions which impact the survival prospects of people both long and short-term.

I myself don't know what's better.. these individuals performing triage or the government or both.

Click to expand...

I feel ya. It honestly makes me sad to think this kind of stuff actually happens. Oh well, nobody has a perfect society. The best thing to do is be grateful for what we do have! I am glad I don't live in places like Mexico or India where they have a poor government wich hurts the people.

pullbangdead said:

Of course it's stupid not to have medical insurance. I have excellent coverage at very low rates. It's idiotic not to have coverage.

But what coverage should be required? Why does the government get to choose what health insurance is right for ME? As a young person in good health, I don't need prescription coverage, I don't need regular office visits covered, I don't need routine care of any sort. I keep track of my spending, and I therefore know that a high-deductible catastrophic-only insurance plan with an attached HSA is perfect for me. But according to the government, is that good enough? Will I be allowed to get the insurance that I want to get? This law changes how all HSAs are handled, and if they decide that the catastrophic plan that is right for me isn't good enough, then I have to spend more money than I want to.

Let's take an example. While I was between undergrad and grad school, I had already come off my parent's insurance, and my insurance provided free to me as a grad student hadn't started yet. It would be stupid to leave myself uncovered, because what if I got hit by a bus or fell down some stairs? So I got coverage, but what should I get? Being a perfectly healthy 21 year old, no health problems, a high-deductible catastrophic plan was great for me. $5000 deductible, and it was EXTREMELY cheap. I could've paid $100+ dollars per month for good insurance that would've saved me $100 every time I went to the doctor. But I was a healthy 21 year old, I've never been hospitalized, and I've been to the doctor <10 times in the past 5 years. It would make ZERO sense for me to pay for insurance that covered normal office visits. If I needed to go to a clinic, I could pay $100 for an office visit, as i did once during that summer with my high-deductible plan. And if I got hit by a bus and needed a million dollars in medical care, I only would've had to pay the first $5000 before the insurance covered the rest.

But is this approach legal under the bill that was passed? No, absolutely not legal. The bill will increase my insurance premiums, because the insurance I will be required by law to buy will be required to cover check-ups and preventative care at zero cost. I don't need that, it's irresponsible for me to pay for that, yet I will be legally required to buy it.

This law will cost me more money that I don't want to spend, it's as simple as that.

Click to expand...

We've been talking about this almost every other day in my Gov. class.
I figure... If we all get together and break our limbs about once a month, we'll end up getting our monies worth outta this thing =p

as I see it, making money with people health is not nice. Let the state manage that, it works perfectly here. I am asthmatic, if I had to pay all what the state has wasted to keep me alive, I would be dead probably.