E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Tom Reel / San Antonio Express-News
Jerry Fielder, 64, of Universal City, Texas, is a cancer patient whose family was turned down by 16 different insurance companies because of pre-existing conditions before accessing coverage under the Affordable Care Act.
Jerry Fielder and Beth Ann Levendoski breathed separate sighs of relief Thursday -- one in Texas, the other in California -- on the news that the U.S. Supreme Court had largely upheld President Obama's signature health care law, preserving the guarantees that the seriously ill women will have health insurance.
Fielder, a 64-year-old cancer patient from Universal City, Texas, and Levendoski, a 57-year-old San Diego woman with a history of complicated spinal surgeries, were among those with the most to lose from the long-awaited ruling on the Obama Administration’s Affordable Care Act: people with pre-existing health conditions.
"I am thrilled. I can't tell you what this means," said Levendoski, who is still recovering from two 10-hour surgeries in 2011 to correct spinal fractures and a compressed spinal cord, which left her virtually paralyzed. "I hardly slept all night."
On a 5 to 4 vote, the nation’s top court on Thursday upheld the provisions of the Affordable Care Act, including the controversial proposal that requires all Americans to have health insurance, or face financial penalties. The court interpreted the so-called "individual mandate" as a tax, however.
"I was on pins and needles. I was dreading the results," said Fielder. "Then I was like, Oh my God, they upheld it? I can't believe it."
For Fielder, the ruling means she won’t have to count the months until Medicare kicks in next spring to continue treatment for lymphoma and a fist-sized malignant tumor in her abdomen.
Fielder spent most of the past decade struggling to acquire and maintain health insurance after giving up employer-sponsored care when the family decided to start a small business. They assumed they'd be able to buy private insurance, but when Fielder and her husband, Charles, now 65, went looking for coverage, they were stunned to be turned down by 16 different providers because of his history of heart problems.
They paid $73,000 out of pocket for Charles' heart surgery in 2003, but then, in 2009, came Jerry’s diagnosis.
“You can pay for a broken leg, you can pay for a broken arm, but you cannot pay for cancer,” she said.
Without insurance, Fielder received no treatment for months, growing sicker and weaker as the cancer spread. Only after she gained access to a stop-gap program through the ACA did Fielder get care that has slowed her disease and allowed her to return to work. Charles became old enough to qualify for Medicare last year.
Fielder said she has met many families, including single mothers with young children, struggling to find coverage for existing illnesses.
Courtesy Beth Ann Levendoski
Beth Ann Levendoski, 57, of San Diego, is enrolled in a PCIP, a health insurance plan provided under the Affordable Care Act for people with pre-existing conditions.
"Everybody is just a blink away from needing insurance," Fielder said.
Between 36 million and 122 million adults under age 65 in the United States have a pre-existing health condition and as many as 17 million do not have health insurance, according to the Government Accountability Office. The estimates vary widely because of the type and number of ailments used to define pre-existing conditions in each of five estimates. In the lowest estimate, adults reported whether they had ever been told they had one or more of eight specific conditions. The highest estimate included any individual reporting a chronic condition in 2009.
Fielder and Levendoski are among more than 67,000 people nationwide who enrolled in Pre-existing Condition Insurance Plans, or PCIPs, which were created to provide insurance for people too sick to get coverage on the private market. Both women were among the first to join in October 2010.
The PCIPs are temporary programs aimed at bridging the insurance gap until 2014, when the health reform law requires insurers to accept all comers, including those with previously identified health issues.
Their support for Thursday's ruling was largely echoed by a poll conducted by Truth On Call for msnbc.com, which found that nearly 64 percent of family care doctors queried thought that the high court's ruling was correct, while 36 percent disagreed.
For Levendoski, being able to maintain her insurance coverage is the key to her future.
Poll: Do you agree with the health care ruling?
A former director of a nonprofit agency, she lost her insurance in 2004 after being laid off. She exhausted benefits through the state COBRA health benefits program and then learned that she couldn't get private insurance because of a history of kidney problems and the degenerative effects of childhood scoliosis, which required repeated surgeries. Her condition grew so dire, she suffered spinal fractures and a compressed spinal cord that left her unable to walk.
She exhausted about $55,000 in savings paying for care out of pocket before the ACA was enacted. She eventually lost her home and had to declare bankruptcy because of the medical bills. Levendoski was able to buy insurance and resume her treatment in 2010 after enrolling in the PCIP.
The two surgeries last year helped relieve the paralysis in her legs, but left her with lasting, debilitating weakness in her arms. Unable to work now, she lives for free with her 80-year-old mother, which allows her to use state disability payments to cover the monthly premium of $467 for the PCIP program.
Regaining strength in her arms and re-learning to walk mean Levendoski has a long road ahead, including another major surgery planned in just a few weeks.
She was in an agony of anticipation most of this week. When the high court didn't rule on the law as expected Monday, Levedoski was in tears. On Thursday, as early reports appeared mixed, she was worried, then elated.
"I am going to be so relieved," she said.
More health reform coverage:
- Supreme Court upholds health care law
- Dems cheer high court as Romney leads GOP charge to repeal health law
- Health care reform is legal, but is is moral? Bioethicist weighs in
NBC's Tom Costello explains the benefits of the healthcare law and the costs to small business to insure their employees.
Leave a Comment:
"Sick patients cheer ruling"? That just proves how stupid people are that support Obamacare.
They won't be cheering when they are inevitably let down and discover the error of their ways.
let down? you mean by not having a slow and painful death with little to no medical care?
The LARGEST TAX INCREASE in American History !!!! I recall Obama saying this wasn’t a tax… hard to track all his lies….. the most pathetic, lying president in American history.
This will get repealed and replaced with something more sensible and affordable!!!
Now imagine where we’d be if that time were spent on JOBS, IMMIGRATION, MEDICARE, MEDICAID, SOCIAL SECURITY FIX, REAL HEALTHCARE (you know where tort reform and cross state competition among ins. providers, and no deals with big pharma are involved), BALANCING A BUDGET, ETC.
ROMNEY – 2012 (The Re-Igniting of American Pride)
Just D Facts is anything but.
Massachusetts has had the mandate for a few years now. 98% of its citizens have access to health care and their insurance premiums have actually DECREASED by 5%.
Just One Affordable tax payment insurance do Covers :For Single bread-winner man , a Family Man ,Maybe with 3,4,5,6 kids from the age 1-26 yrs old do matters,or maybe someone family with precondition illness. It means saving a-lot for any American Family.
Just "With One Affordable Tax Payment" insurance do Covers :For Single bread-winner man , a Family Man ,Maybe with 3,4,5,6 kids from the age 1-26 yrs old do matters,or maybe someone family with precondition illness. It means saving a-lot for any American Family.
"You either with us or against us".G.W.Bush
Just_D_Facts, I do imagine what life would have been like if we'd stayed out of Iraq, and had offered green cards for Osama bin Laden's head. And I still think that the the most pathetic, lying president in American history was either Cheney's hand puppet, GWB; Bill Clinton; or Richard Nixon.
Republicans don't care about fellow Americans. They only care about MONEY and GREED. Everyone else can just die for all they care. Money over people every single time.
How Christian of them. Maybe they should read how Jesus was all about universal health care and how we should take care of ALL of the sick without reservation or cost. I guess they don't like reading that part of the Bible and what Jesus said. It conflicts with their ever pressing GREED.
Hugh Akston,
If corporations have the same rights as people, we need to shut down Wall St., as we shouldn't be buying & selling them.
Corporations were given the legal rights of people for the purpose of thwarting democracy and maintaining minority rule. That was the drive behind legal strategies of railroad barons and lawyers, and it has worked well. But unlike a human being engaging in corporate crime, the corporation can't go to jail.
It's not a thing, it's just an abstraction and that's part of the reason that the strategy of corporate personhood was a brilliant one they created this artificial thing that could be endowed with any kind of powers and any kind of characteristics.
Corporations can live forever and live in many nations at once and cut off parts of themselves and this is the entity they have given legal rights and personhood to.
Another example of people not understanding the bill that they're so opinionated about.
If you don't know, you don't have a right to claim an educated opinion! "The fine for not having insurance would be a minimum of $695 per person per year, with exemptions for financial hardship and other special cases." Exemptions for financial hardship. Should I say it again? Exemptions for financial hardship. And that's if you can reasonably, not in your eyes but the government's eyes, afford it.
If you can't afford it, Medicaid, a joint federal-state program for the poor, will cover all of the poor, instead of just a few groups the way it currently does. Right now, to qualify for Medicaid, a person has to be poor and also disabled, elderly, pregnant or a child. Under the new plan, all poor adults would qualify. It's kind of like auto insurance. You have to have it. Or you shouldn't be driving.
If everyone had health insurance who could afford it, there wouldn't be so much being written off by hospitals for inability to collect, thus causing them to raise costs to cover the losses and costing us all more money.
But like I said, since you obviously don't have an understanding of it, you don't have the right to claim that your opinion shows intelligence, or even matters
@ Sammy :
You are an idiot. If you had cancer would you make such moronic statements ?
They won't be cheering when they are inevitably let down and discover the error of their ways.
Dying is so much cooler anyway.
This will get repealed and replaced with something more sensible and affordable!!!
Yeah, just like how it was going to be found unConstitutional right? Har har.
The Republicans didn't care about this, after all, they offered nothing to address this problem for the six years they controlled the entire government.
Are you kidding- sick people will be eventually let down?? As the Mom of a child with a chronic illness, I am SO happy that the Court, through STRICT and INTELLIGENT scrutiny of the Constitution, took the horrible worry off families like mine!! Stop thinking of yourself, and walk a mile in the shoes of people who were denied coverage due to pre-existing conditions, young people trying to figure out how to get coverage they can afford, and yes, my beautiful daughter!!!!
Yes, those of us hardworking tax paying folks who now have insurance (FYI I cut a check to my insurer every month) because of the Act are cheering. I can now have my medication, and visit the doctor occasionally. If I did not have insurance, I'd be forced to quit my job and let the taxpayers pay for my care, probably about $50,000 a year. Asd to the "tax" its a way of paying the fine through the IRS and if you have insurance, or a waiver, you won't be paying squat. I understand the bill could use some work, but use your brain and realize the more people who are insured, the less your premium will be, and it will break some of the corporate stranglehold on health care and turn it back to the health care providers. The fact that the market doesn't like the decision should tell you everything you need to know, unless of course you are a Kool Aid drinking Faux news watching, white Christian nation neocon
Does this mean that you don't have to be an "elite" in the U.S. to afford healthcare?
When elites are held in check, typically by effective legal mechanisms, everyone else in society does much better and sustained economic growth becomes possible. But powerful people - kings, barons, industrialists, bankers - work long and hard to relax the constraints on their actions. And
when they succeed, the effects are not just redistribution toward themselves but also an undermining of economic growth and often a tearing at the fabric of society.
Please sign the petition to the U.S. Senate Banking and House Financial Services Committee asking for improved oversight of federal banking and market regulators that have proven ineffective
at not only detecting inappropriate behavior, but also preventing such behavior that has crippled our economy.
To read more about what we’re trying to do and to sign the petition, click here:
http://www.change.org/petitions/u-s-senate-banking-and-u-s-house-financial-services-committees-use-technology-to-provide-oversight-of-u-s-banking-and-market-regulators?share_id=HTpDoOQNJgpe=d2e
It'll just take a minute!
Any Health Care "deadbeat" that doesn't want to pay for health insurance should just be able to sign a waiver that says if you ever get sick you will waive your right to be treated. Then you can drag your deadbeat @ss to the local free clinic...or sit outside and hope the sun's radiation will cure your cancer. Don't expect the rest of us to pay for treatments you sorry @ss fool!
Everyone needs health care at some point of their lives....
This is the reality that the conservatives don't want to face.
Either everyone pays into the healthcare system (Obamacare), or uninsured sick people only get ER treatment and catastrophic care and the people with insurance pay for it (the past system), or we leave people to die on the streets.
That's the choice.
Unfair- that waiver would need to be tattooed on their forehead. That way if they pass out on the street, anyone walking by knows not to call an ambulance for them.
The tax increase for this may be the largest in US history but it's still not as large as the tax increase Massachusetts saw when NitWitMit implemented his own healthcare coverage for that state.
The Republicans are SO bankrupt on this issue. All they care about is that is is a tax increase. We were paying for it anyway. If it is an increase, so what.
At least now people will not loose their homes and their lives because they got sick. At least now they will not suffer and maybe die because they can't afford healthcare.
Now at least, health care is a RIGHT to all Americans regardless of their ability to pay.
I for one do not mind paying a little more for these guarantees.
This is a good day for all Americans.
"This will get repealed and replaced with something more sensible and affordable!!!"
Like what, maybe a continuation of those 20% annual medical insurance, deductible, and out-of-pocket cost increases that have plagued the middle-class ever since GW was elected by a 5-4 vote of the Supreme Court? Just think, if those 20% annual cost increases and the average increase in pay rates among the bottom 90% of us continue through 2020, just 8 years from now, 90% of Americans will not be able to afford to have health insurance at all!!! By 2025 that figure is 97% too!!!
I have to believe that the Republicans have been trying to get rid of health insurance for most of us, and they are upset that the ACA and the SCOTUS have derailed those long-cherished plans!!!
Now even though I am a liberal Democrat further left than the current administration, I could see one of the Republican proposals, which would be allowing health insurers to cross State borders. The way that the ACA reads now, my fear is that the residents of certain rural or economically-depressed States will be disadvantaged by the ACA's strict within State boundaries approach, while the residents of other wealthier more-liberal States most-likely will do much better under the terms of the ACA. I have to believe that the establishment of a national health insurance exchange would greatly help to keep costs down as well as offer health insurance options much more evenly across all States. What we do not want to see is States competing to see which one can most-poorly cover their own citizens.
Thank-you, Chief Justice Roberts, for helping to restore some of my faith in fairness for all in America, as my wife and I are both considered "pre-existing" conditions, both due to no fault of our own, in fact, my medical condition was accidentally given to me by the medical community itself. And, ever since I was diagnosed with Hepatitis-C in 2006, given to me by a 1987 blood transfusion after a botched root canal and oral surgery, the medical community has tried to avoid any responsibility for giving me the disease, as well as in 2010 then denied my access to health insurance after my left eye starting giving out and I lost my 30-year trucking career because of my loss of depth-perception because of it.
I had a 30-year, 3 million mile trucking career without an injury accident starting at age 21, and I had health insurance non-stop since 1997, and 90% of the time going back to 1978 too, but when I actually needed my health insurance, "sorry, get lost, helping you will cost us too much" was the result!!!
I mean, who stuck a needle in whose arm, and who charged me 20 times as much for that blood as the blood bank paid the junkie that they got it from??? "We didn't know" is not a good reason to take your victim's health insurance away, considering that the current cost of the new 3-drug cocktail which only has a 65% chance of ridding me of the disease is almost $100K without insurance.
Thankfully today's SCOTUS decision renders this issue a moot point starting in 2014 just as long as my Democrats win the House, or at least 41% of the the Senate, and/or retain the Presidency this Fall! Imagine something like this happening to you or a member of your family??? Is that possibility what you Republicans want so badly?
If you vote to elect Romney or the Republicans, being denied health insurance after the medical community makes an egregious and 50% fatal mistake very well could happen to you or to anyone that you know. Why would the vast majority of us want to elect someone whose allegiance is tied firmly to ultra-conservative big business interests and who most likely could care less what happens to the vast majority of us???
Remember all of that consternation the Republicans made leading up to the 2010 Congressional elections about creating jobs??? How many jobs have the Republicans in the House created since then, since it would seem that all they have wanted to do since they were elected is roadblock any progress toward creating jobs ever since! And you think that Romney will somehow be different?
One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results!
And it's a TAX. So, great, Obamacare does nothing valuable and is now the biggest tax INCREASE in history.
Nothing valuable? I don't think you understand it.
I would think that conservatives would want everyone to have health insurance. Currently, responsible Americans who carry health insurance cover the health-care bills of free riders. In fact, if you have health insurance, you have been paying $1,017 a year more to cover folks who don’t have health insurance. This is “welfare” that conservatives love to complain about. I think the only reason they are against it is because it’s Obama’s idea. People die every day because they didn’t have the kind of health insurance Justice Alito enjoys.
You do realize that this will raise premiums and destroy peoples credit right? Insurance won't magically become affordable for those that can't currently afford it. So those people will pay a tax-fine for not having insurance, which is cheaper than being insured. That money goes to the government. It does not go to corporations as a subsidy for health care. People can't be jailed for an inability to pay the tax-fine, but they can be reported to creditors and the IRS for it, and their credit will tank.
I like how cause and effect are always ignored when they is a crisp ideology behind something. This is NOT universal health care. This does NOT give everyone insurance. All it does is make it so anyone can obtain it, assuming you can afford it. It also makes those who have health care have to pay more to get less, since insurance companies now have to cover more people with less money.
And Sam, people are against it because its a bad and poorly implement idea. It has nothing to do with Obama himself. Seeing as how he doesn't write laws, congress does.
"All it does is make it so anyone can obtain it, assuming you can afford it. It also makes those who have health care have to pay more to get less, since insurance companies now have to cover more people with less money."
No, you're wrong. Insurance companies are given an incentive to provide affordable Health Care for the Americans that are paying for it. This competition will bring the price of coverage down. You can bet that the insurance companies are going to get behind Obama on this one because they get to keep that incentive.
Sam, there are many families like mine that don't have insurance yet will never take a dime from our fellow taxpayers to pay for care. Just because some people without insurance are free loaders doesn't mean they all are. Many families, like mine, in the Amish and Mennonite communities help each other out regardless of how steep the bill is (even bills in the hundreds of thousands or millions), and never take a dime of help from the government or insurance holders. Now I'll have to go spend hundreds of dollars a month on a product I do not need.
The bill has numerous other problems as well. I have an incurable preexisting condition, and I still think the bill stinks. You would never force a car insurance company to cover a car that is already wrecked. Why should health care companies be forced to do so?
Now insurance holders (even those without children) are forced to pay for other people's adult, deadbeat children. Now if you're a woman and past child-bearing age, you are still forced to pay for a plan that covers contraception, even though you obviously will not need it.
There is nothing valuable in here... health costs will only go higher. Our government is already broke, having piled over $50,000 of debt on each of my three young children, and yet they keep spending more on junk programs like this. And don't tell me it is revenue neutral. That is only because lawmakers wrote in a 500 billion decrease in spending for Medicare, something they know will never materialize. Only weeks after passage of Obamacare, congress passed a "doctor fix" to avoid an automatic cut of just 14 billion from Medicare. If they cannot find they spine to cut $14 billion from Medicare, they will never find the spine to cut $500 billion from it. The whole revenue-neutral thing is a big lie.
Horn,
You are correct. "This is NOT universal health care. This does NOT give everyone insurance. All it does is make it so anyone can obtain it, assuming you can afford it." However, as one of those with a pre-existing condition (Asthma) it is a Godsend! Try getting insurance that covers the most basic aspect of life - breathing - once you've been intubated for breathing issues. YOU CAN'T. At least now I have the chance of getting insurance - me and approximately 8 million of the 14 million who currently don't have healthcare because they CAN'T buy it, no matter what they are willing to pay.
Some Major Benefits of the Reform. Some of the touted benefits of reform are not new. For example, since 1996 federal law has barred insurers from dropping your coverage just because you get sick. However, the following changes are new:
Of course there are costs to these benefits. But, at least a significant portion of the uninsured population will now be able to get healthcare benefits and not have to go to the emergency room and have treatment - much of which is paid by taxpayers.
Frustrated, as someone with a husband with a chronic illness, we are thrilled also!! If he should lose his job, he wouldn't have been able to continue his infusions which have helped him stay healthy and able to work the last several years. The cost of treatment is still steep for us, even WITH insurance, but without insurance we couldn't continue treatment. He would be sick and unable to work and support our family. The irony of the situation is that he WORKS in the healthcare industry and sees families struggle every day because insurance companies do all they can to NOT cover care.
My husband is disabled and cannot get insurance because it is preexisting condition from his child hood that has come back as an adult.... We pay 200.00 bucks a month to a bills worth more than 1 million dollars.(i know its not much but we pay it)
We have never taken a cent from anyone and make too much money for medicaid. My only question is how will I afford to pay the medical debt we have already and pay for insurance.... That is not in my budget.
I am excited to at least stop the bleeding on our mounding bills and know that if my husband needs help we can get it all the time on a preventative basis in stead of life or death in the ER!
Where is the evidence that this will raise premiums? Or is it just another right wing talking point? And where are you getting this is a tax raised on all people? Or is it just another ridiculous talking point? And where are you getting that it will cause credit to crash? And why do you people all of a sudden give one flying f*ck about other people's credit? You don't give a damn whether they live or die, why should you care about their credit?
OR, is it just that people like the right just can't stand that they're wrong and will cling on to any outright LIE that they can hold to because they're too godd*mn stupid to really understand what they're talking about? I'd say that's the most likely because your assetions are completely baseless and, in fact, contradicts all of the facts that exist.
But keep talking...I'm sure somone more stupid than you people will eventually listen to your ridiculous, ludicrous bulls*it.
Bernardo @ 2.4
" Now I'll have to go spend hundreds of dollars a month on a product I do not need."
The bill contains a religious waiver exemption for cases such as you describe. Just as you pay no Social Security if you're Amish or Mennonite as you claim, you will not be assessed a tax penalty if you do not have health insurance.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/exemptions.asp
The text of the article quotes the provisions of the bill that provide for this.
Reaper M Jones
I work for a large, global company. We have already be informed of the changes to our medical coverage in 2014 when these laws enact. Namely our premiums will go up, and our coverage will go down. This is due to the company dropping the coverage to dodge the "Cadillac Tax" which is being used to partially fund the Bill.
I'm actually a Centrist. I have views from both sides of the isle. Most the time the true middle tends to have a more objective opinion.
The reason the "Individual Mandate" was not shot down by the court is that it was acceptable when viewed as a Tax. I assume you are competent enough to find the article on MSNBC yourself.
No, it was an informed and entirely accurate statement.
I didn't say it would "crash" credit. I said it would, "destroy peoples credit". In simpler terms, many people that can't afford coverage now, still won't be able to afford it in 2014. Except now they will forced to pay a Tax-Fine that they currently aren't obligated t pay. So these people will now have to spend more money, or default on the Tax-Fine, and still not have insurance. That is bad for an "individual's" credit. It has nothing to do with the credit market as a whole.
They don't "all of a sudden", but many people, myself included, have cared all along. If to many people can't purchase things due to poor credit, then the economy will slow even more. Thus perpetuating this cycle we are in right now, and that doesn't help anyone. Its an educated outlook on our society.
You're right, I don't care if some I don't know lives or dies. It has no affect on my personal well being. However, as I have already stated, a society with bad credit results in a slow economy, which does affect my personal well being.
I'm not saying people with a pre-existing condition should be turned down. On a moral level that's just wrong. I just don't feel that the people doing things right, (like myself) should be punished to serve that purpose (foot the bill). I would of preferred the government gave those people (basic) access to Federal medical plans (they exist). I don't mind pay a slightly higher tax that as it won't interfere with my medical coverage.
BTW: Please take note that Intentionally ignored ALL of your biased and obscene comments. I am neither a "Left Wing" Bat nor a "Right Wing" Nut.
Let's see now;
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office now says that Obamacare, which was supposed to be 'revenue neutral', will likely cost $1.76 Trillion (link below), so who's going to pay for this massive new 'entitlement'?
The 'rich'? No, because they already have health insurance, so they don't have to pay the fine/tax.
The 'poor'? No, because they get free health insurance from the government thru Medicaid- paid by taxpayers.
Let's see now, who's left to pay for it? Oh yes - the Middle Class. This could be the biggest tax increase in history on the Middle Class.
When they find they've been 'snookered' by Obama, I doubt that they will be very happy.
Remember how Obama said "I pledge that any families making less than $250,000 per year will not have to pay any increased taxes - not one dime"? Well guess what - the Supreme Court says Obamacare is OK because it's a TAX.
Remember this in November.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/1175831
Intelligence and truth wins. Looking forward to the debates.
You know nothing of intelligence and truth.
Typical conservative response. Please provide your reasons. Name-calling and finger-pointing doesn't do it for me.
OBAMA/BIDEN 2012!!
What else do they have, Sam? Finger pointing and name calling, plus outright, bald face lies are their only ammunition.
Reaper, You're sadly mistaken about who does more name calling. This site is so biased towards liberals it's pathetic. Your statement is a blatant lie.
So Griff...you're calling me a liar? I'm sorry...did you have any other than finger pointing to do? Perhaps an actual point based on facts? Or do you just want to do the as*hole tango with me all day?
Griff now Dear don't soil yourself over this. Just move on. If you don't like this site...who has a Gun to your head? I hear Fox is having a complete melt down, you know, drooling, snarling, chest(and wife) beating. Maybe you should go over there dear OR Be a nice child now and go have a cup of TEA and stop your tantrums.
Debate this.
how are people already scraping by with either no job, less work hours or reductions in pay going to pay for the health insurance?
Now the one possability is that people who already have health insurance will have to pay more. two years ago when this started health insurance where i work for a family was $320 a month. Guess what? its now $875 a month.
Intelligence? giving the govt free rein to tax you, and take money that they are going to do what with?
the Post Office is nearly bankrupt, we are borrowing money to keep our military in afghanistan, we have millions of people out of work with more coming as soon as afghanistan is over and the govt quits buying all the beans and bullets. the economy is in the toilet. people are still losing their homes.
just what we need another tax. Which Obummer stated that he would not raise taxes. HW bush stated that and raised taxes and you know what happened to him. He got voted out.
the majority of americans do not want obummercare. that includes people who have no insurance. Like young people who rarely go to the doctor, but will have to pay for all those going who are older.
Who wins? The health insurance industry. Course they will complain that they are getting the shaft but in the end raise rates and make a wad. course bush had his haliburton and obummer has his solydyne.
This really fixes what? Free health care, try again.
The bottom line is that whatever the majority of americans want does not count anymore. It depends on what the president, with the congress makes law. and the last bastion is the stupidreme court. You cant overide the court.
So in closing whatelse is going to get shoved down our throats. Hey btw, check out greece cause thats where we are heading. full steam ahead and damn the torpedos.
And i am sorry you probably wont understand this as it is intelligent.
thomas,
Anyone can come down with a pre-existing condition at any time, so I would say the fact that was upheld is a good thing for anyone who cares about their own life. It also helps anyone feel more secure in owning a house.
thomas
" two years ago when this started health insurance where i work for a family was $320 a month. Guess what? its now $875 a month."
Then your employer is sticking it to you. Health care costs have risen at an annual rate of nearly 10% a year for the past 40 years. Yet now it's because of the Affordable Care Act? And in Massachusetts, where they have "RomneyCare"? Insurance costs have GONE DOWN.
"giving the govt free rein to tax you, and take money that they are going to do what with?"
Don't know how to break this to you but the governments right to levy taxes is in the Constitution. And that tax that ObamaCare levies? It's a maximum of a little over $500 a year. It's not unreasonable to make people trying to freeload off of my insurance premiums to have to chip in a little to, is it?
"the Post Office is nearly bankrupt"
That's largely because Republicans have demanded that their pension program be fully funded for at least the next 50 years. Which meant that in a few years time they had to come up with the money to fund pensions of people that they haven't even hired yet.
"people are still losing their homes."
And that's LESS likely to happen if they get a huge medical bill and they're uninsured?
"Like young people who rarely go to the doctor, but will have to pay for all those going who are older."
Guess which demographic is most often involved in things like motor vehicle accidents. Or get pregnant? Or have you heard of common hereditary diseases like Multiple Sclerosis, which most often strikes in your late 20's or early 30's. Do you want to try and get insurance coverage after you've gotten that diagnosis?
And those young people? They are eventually going to get older themselves (unless we kill them off first by denying them insurance coverage). I'm 56 years old and have a single coverage insurance policy and it cost me over $8000 a year. Assuming no premium increases over the next 4 years, it will be over $12,000 by the time I'm 62. Without a program like Medicare would you like to guess what the premiums would be when I hit 70? 20 grand? 25? Or 80 years old? Do you think you'll have that kind of money when you retire?
"Who wins? The health insurance industry"
Of course, the most sensible approach would have been to go to a single-payer system like almost ever other industrialized nation has. On average we pay over 100% more in health care costs than they do and we have outcomes that are no better most and worse than many. Documentation is below:
http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/oecd042111.cfm
Of course, trying to go to a single payer system would have made Republican's heads explode so instead we instituted a plan that was devised by the Heritage Foundation (a conservative think-tank) in 1989 and actually introduced into Congress by 23 Republicans in 1993 as an alternative to the Clinton single payer system. It was a cornerstone of Bob Dole's 1996 Presidential campaign and part of the Republican party national platform from 1994 until 2006. Again, documentation below:
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/stories/2010/february/23/gop-1993-health-reform-bill.aspx
I would challenge you to find ONE significant difference between the 1993 Republican plan, RomneyCare in Massachusetts and the Affordable Care Act. Yet somehow between 2006 and 2009 the exact same plan became "a Socialist takeover of the healthcare system". Please.
What would be your answer to our current health care system? Keep it as it is and hope that costs will stop going up by 10% a year, in spite of 40 years of evidence to the contrary? Watch as millions more each year lose health care thru their employers because of rising costs? There are already over 40 million Americans without health care. Where do we hit the breaking point? 80 million? 100?
" check out greece cause thats where we are heading. "
While Greece's social system was in dire need of an overhaul the reason it's in crisis is because of rampant greed allowed to run unfettered thru the early 00's. Free of regulation and oversite banks took insane gambles with depositors money, ran shell games with investors capitol and con games on mortgage holders until the whole house of cards came tumbling down and we were left with the options of either allowing the entire world economy to collapse into anarchy or for the governments to step in. People forget but at one point banks WOULD NOT EVEN LOAN MONEY TO EACH OTHER because there was no way to tell what their assets and liabilities really were because of shell corporations, crooked accounting and fraud. In a matter of months trillions of dollars of overvalued or even completely imaginary assets disappeared and they dragged down trillions of dollars of real assets with them. Wouldn't it have been better if the government had stepped in sooner? It might have meant lower growth in GDP for a couple of years but a huge part of that "growth" was nothing but smoke and mirrors anyways but in the end we all would have been far better off.
The Affordable Care Act is a first step in fixing our health care system. You can say that the best thing to do would be keep the current system as it is but eventually, just like the economy, it's going to come crashing down. Far better that we start fixing it NOW.
Let's see now;
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office now says that Obamacare, which was supposed to be 'revenue neutral', will likely cost $1.76 Trillion (link below), so who's going to pay for this massive new 'entitlement'?
The 'rich'? No, because they already have health insurance, so they don't have to pay the fine/tax.
The 'poor'? No, because they get free health insurance from the government thru Medicaid- paid by taxpayers.
Let's see now, who's left to pay for it? Oh yes - the Middle Class. This could be the biggest tax increase in history on the Middle Class.
When they find they've been 'snookered' by Obama, I doubt that they will be very happy.
Remember how Obama said "I pledge that any families making less than $250,000 per year will not have to pay any increased taxes - not one dime"? Well guess what - the Supreme Court says Obamacare is OK because it's a TAX.
Remember this in November.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/1175831
Kryss "Anyone can come down with a pre-existing condition at any time, so I would say the fact that was upheld is a good thing for anyone who cares about their own life. It also helps anyone feel more secure in owning a house."
We don't need Obamacare to require insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions, and Romney has already said he would require insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions, even if Obamacare was repealed.
Many insurance companies previously would accept people with pre-existing conditions. However, either they would then exclude coverage for these conditions and any claims possibly related to these conditions, or they would charge premiums so high they were unaffordable.
Romney has said a number of things as a candidate. He'll promise anything to whoever asked him most recently. An example of this is that he was for Romneycare before he was against it. He'll say whatever it takes to get him elected.
Why should we believe he'll do anything about replacing the ACA?
If this is such a great new law, why are the government officials not participating with the people they govern?
I'd prefer the same health coverage they have..
Where is the money going to come from to cover this?
Increases in tax rates and insurance premiums for the middle class!
Yay for us, I suppose. Whooppee.
While Illegal Immigrants waltz into the emergency room for free care.
Roy Wilson,
Only two weeks ago, Romney said he was against every aspect of the Affordable Care Act, including the ban on dropping those with pre-existing conditions: "But it’s Romney’s unabashed public opposition to one of the law’s most popular provisions – a ban on health insurance company discrimination against people with pre-existing conditions — that is once again stirring the political pot. --ABC News, June 14, 2012
I really don't think his change from one polar opposite to another shows that he really believes what he's currently saying. I agree with post 3.13 on this question: Why should we believe he'll do anything about replacing the ACA?
Guylittle:
FactCheck.org found that this is not true, and is a "twisted claim based on misrepresentations of the House and Senate bills, neither of which exempts lawmakers." They found that this word/concept seemed to first appear in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece.
What are your sources?
Pete, I had this post for a similar post of yours:
It may help to know that:
The average U.S. family and their employers paid an extra $1,017 in health care premiums last year to compensate for the uninsured, according to a study to be released Thursday by an advocacy group for health care consumers. -USA Today
And that it will help to reduce the deficit:
In the long term, "the CBO predicts the law will actually reduce the deficit."
-Fox News March 14, 2012
Here's one way the Affordable Care Act helps everyone:
In 2011, an estimated 86 million Americans used provisions in the Affordable Care Act to get preventative care through their insurance plans, care that insurance companies previously subjected to co-pays or deductibles but now must provide for free.
-Sally Kohn
Then there's this:
And 4 million small businesses can now claim a tax deduction for providing health insurance to their employees, which so far over a quarter-million small businesses have claimed, providing insurance for 2 million workers. (Sally Kohn)
Forbes just had an article talking about how this act will help women greatly.
In the end, an overwhelming majority of people support protecting people with pre-existing conditions. Assuming you want to make sure that person doesn't lose their house or worse, how do you propose we pay for it?
The sad truth is, most people who are complaining about the affordable health-care act, don't know what their talking about and also they don't know what's in it.... Or the cost to them...
All they seem to hear are the right-wingers talking points... AKA. Do nothing Congress...
For too many years the Big Pharmacy and the Big insurance companies have dictated who got what and how much... The Affordable Health-care act isn't perfect, but it's a whole lot better than what we had...
This is wonderful for news for sick people with pre-existing conditions that were previously turned down my numerous insurance companies.
I have a preexisting, incurable disease and the bill stinks, thank you very much. You don't speak for me.
Me too Bernardo, and it doesn't help me either... I still don't have an extra 1000 a mo. to pay into the system.
Bernardo, just because you apparently prefer to die, doesn't mean the rest of us feel that way!
$1000/month? Most likely you'll be paying around $150...and if you are at or below 133% of the poverty level then you get medicare.
How many of you criticizing this have read it and/or understand it? Or are you getting your "facts" from the media?
For those who are sick I do wish the best, but the fact is that I still have to buy health insurance that I cannot afford or pay a penalty that I cannot afford either. So what am I and the millions like me suppose to do?
Pay your share, which will be highly subsidized by the rest of us if you cannot afford it. We are happy to help you out. You're welcome.
iCaff- the 1000 a month is how much the special "pre-existing conditions" program will cost for me based on the estimate my state gave me. And I've tried to get on medicaid and cannot because, despite being poor, I'm not poor enough in my state... thus, I am one of those people who live in the cracks. I'm sincerely grateful for many of the provisions that have passed, but my own circumstances prevent me from being happy with the mandate because it is not affordable. I'd be much happier with a job that paid a living wage and not have to worry about choosing between medication/doctor visits or food/shelter for myself and my family or insurance.
A Mom,
Won't the 2014 provision/s help you? In that case, the fact that this bill was so conservative/takes so long to fully implement hinders your situation. Regardless, there are ways of voting/advocating for solutions to make sure people don't fall through cracks that people can pursue...
I know, it's great that the law is going to max out health care premiums at 8% of total income. Finally, something that is fair to those with preexisting conditions.
Again, who is paying for this?
If the poor can only pay so much, and the 'insured' has a pre-existing condition, again, WHERE DOES THE MONEY COME FROM?
My pocket, I assume.
Yay.
pete,
It may help to know that:
The average U.S. family and their employers paid an extra $1,017 in health care premiums last year to compensate for the uninsured, according to a study to be released Thursday by an advocacy group for health care consumers. -USA Today
And that it will help to reduce the deficit:
In the long term, "the CBO predicts the law will actually reduce the deficit."
-Fox News March 14, 2012
Here's one way the Affordable Care Act helps everyone:
In 2011, an estimated 86 million Americans used provisions in the Affordable Care Act to get preventative care through their insurance plans, care that insurance companies previously subjected to co-pays or deductibles but now must provide for free.
-Sally Kohn
Then there's this:
And 4 million small businesses can now claim a tax deduction for providing health insurance to their employees, which so far over a quarter-million small businesses have claimed, providing insurance for 2 million workers. (Sally Kohn)
Forbes just had an article talking about how this act will help women greatly.
In the end, an overwhelming majority of people support protecting people with pre-existing conditions (anyone can become one!). Assuming you want to make sure that person doesn't lose their house or worse, how do you propose we pay for it?
All US citizens should have the exact same coverage as members of Congress for free as they don't pay. We are the only industrialized country without universal healthcare.
Congresspeople do pay, but they have a lot better coverage than the rest of us.
Pay for what? What part of medical coverage do members of Congress pay for?
There is no such thing as free healthcare. The questions is: will we pay more with the government involved or less? Pretty easy choice there... the government screws up anything they get their hands on.
"The government screws up anything they get their hands on." This is a common braying point from the right. The truth of the matter is...U.S. military personnel are very happy with their benefits, so are most government employees and even Medicare recipients. In actuality, people with "government health care" report being happier about their coverage than those using private health insurance companies. But don't let facts get in the way of a good right-wing fact-free moaning.
But it's working Massachusetts, Bernardo. But go ahead and tell me how what works on the state level can't work on the federal level. Why stop your lying now?
TraceyS,
Most government emploees don't pay a penny for their health insurance. No wonder they are "happy with it". LOL
It is true that government employees have the best health care coverage. And who pays for it? The tax payer. Just look up how much the govenment (or the tax payers if you will) pay for each and everyone of those on that health care. It is just another example of how much they are overpaid.
Really coloradoan??? I have been a federal govt emoployee for over 30 hears and I have ALWAYS had to pay my insurance. I pay over $400 a month which is taken out of my paycheck. I also pay Medicare, Federal, State, and OASDI taxes and in addition to paying into the retirement system. BTW, I am happy with my insurance coverage.
Coloradoan, please stop spreading these myths. My husband is a federal employee and we choose to decline coverage through him because it is expensive. I carry our family's insurance through my employer instead because it is cheaper. Health insurance for federal employees is partially employer-paid (like most large employers), has OK coverage, and is certainly cheaper than if we were paying the full premiums out of pocket, but it is far from free. Family premiums are hundreds of dollars a month, plus there are co-pays and deductibles like everyone else.
Why is it that people who want to purchase healthcare insurance, but are blocked by the various healthcare insurance companies, are not offered the option to purchase healthcare insurance within a large group healthcare plan? I think the Affordable Care Act just took care of that problem. I have never asked for a free ride, all I have asked for is the right to buy insurance. Blue Cross "blacklisted" me as a person with a preexisting condition, and the Affordable Care Act took care of the issue. I have asked every Member of the House and Senate why I cannot just buy healthcare insurance from their carrier? Oops, Blue Cross.
It is also wonderful news for anyone who is self-employed or unemployed and doesn't have access to an employer's health plan. Individidual coverage is generally only available (at a high price) to healthy people. If you need health care for something serious, it is not affordable in this country.
And once the health insurance exchanges are set up, it will increase the ability for entrepreneurs to create their own small businesses since they won't have to worry about being in the totally crappy and unaffordable individual insurance market.
Now we can start working on improving the ACA to get a public option.
Yeah, the one couple in the article started a small business and the ACA helped them.
I guess conservatives aren't for helping business owners.
I am all for helping out people. But when has the government run anything that did not cost twice as much as it should? If it does end up costing less it will be tax payer funded. But I guess everything is suppose to be tax payer funded now.
rgmoon
"But when has the government run anything that did not cost twice as much as it should? If it does end up costing less it will be tax payer funded. But I guess everything is suppose to be tax payer funded now."
Then explain why in every other industrialized country their healthcare coverage costs FAR less than ours (see link below) with care and outcomes that are at least as good as and mostly better than ours
http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/oecd042111.cfm
We spend 100% more, on average, than any other nation on the planet and still somehow do not have coverage for over 40 million of our fellow citizens. And yet the quality of healthcare here is not better than it is in any of those countries.
Hartvig: it costs less because in the good ol' USA, it's for PROFIT.
PROFIT for hospitals, doctors, and the insurance companies.
And also because of the UNINSURED and ILLEGAL ALIENS.
They waltz into an emergency room and suck up money. That gets passes on to everyone else.
I repeat: where is the money coming from to cover this unicornland scenario?
Not the rich - they're job creators, and taxes are bad!
Not the poor.
Who does that leave?
The middle class.
IT'S WONDERFUL!!!! Prepare to pay. And pay. And pay. Has to come from somewhere, your paycheck maybe?
bagadajoe can you explain ?
maybe if you had a child with a chronic condition, or you got a horrible disease like cancer and lost your coverage, you'd sing a different tune!! I'm a taxpayer, too, fella, and I am thrilled for all those that don't have the money to pay outrageous health costs- try thinking of someone else for a change, Selfish!!! Oh, and you don't have to like Obama to understand the tremendous relief this is for your fellow Americans!!!!!!!!!!!
Dee, don't hold your breath. These right-wing cretins can never support their fact-free positions.
We are alreay paying for everyones healthcare in the most expensive and least efficient way...speaking of your paycheck...that FICA/Med thing is a tax to pay for your parents and grandparents healthcare...please explain why they are owed something from my paycheck? I'm waiting joe
Rick, that FICA/MED deduction is also a safety net for young adults that could need social security disability if they are too ill or injured to work.
Hey Connie - you're "thrilled that those that don't have the money to pay outrageous health costs" can now have that outrageously priced health care ON THE BACKS OF THE TAXPAYERS?
It's taking from one group and giving to another.
These ladies have significant conditions, but some of us who were laid off and started our own businesses still could not get insurance based on minor issues or even non-issues. I had been enrolled in a group plan through my employer for 15 years, but when I applied with the same company as in individual, they denied coverage based on a test I'd had many years earlier -- which showed nothing was wrong with me! They rejected me for just having the test. The PCIP has been a godsend for many of us, and I only wish more people knew about it and enrolled. It's still expensive to buy the insurance, but at least it's available.
just an aside.....although jews make up only 2% of the nation's population, msnbc is always able to include some jews into unpopular or controversial articles
Perhaps they include themselves?
maybe because they are smarter than the most rednecks and can form grammatically correct sentences?
Well, let's see now who will be "Sleepless" in the Romney household, tonight shall we??? Congratulations to our President, his administration and the democratic persuasion of our country for winning a hard-fought and complex battle. A special show of appreciation to Chief Justice John Roberts for an unbiased and non-politically based ruling, which I believe surprised us all. There is HOPE for this country yet!!!
Obama-Biden 2012 H. Clinton 2016
Any country that piles $50,000 of debt on each of its citizens and still keeps spending is beyond hope. Sorry to break it to you, even though I desperately hope I am wrong. And no, I'm not blaming Obama alone for this. Republicans and Democrats alike are destroying our country.
No one is addressing the the states Medicaid portion of the bill that was found unconstitutional. This gives the states power to opt out of any expansion to their medicaid programs and forbids the federal government from punishing the states by withholding existing federal funding. So that leaves the very poor still without coverage. Also the I.R.S. has no authority to levy or imprison anyone who refuses to pay this new tax.
The Court said the States cant get the medicaid money taken away and if the State doesn't do what the law requires in exchanges then the government will implement it by default in 2014.
I don't think many states will opt out. Why? Because it is a disadvantage to businesses and their state economies. At the end of the day, opting out will leave state governors nothing to hide behind and no one to blame. oops.
This is a plan that has existed for many years. It was a real triumph when Romney implemented it as a governor. It was a national treasure when Bush formulated it.....yes, you heard me correctly, BUSH. The WORST thing that ever happened to Medicare recipients was Bush's Medicare Part D program, but it certainly made a fine photo op, at least until the entire fiasco was unveiled, by which time Bush was back hiding in Texas.
Let's recap: if people don't have insurance but are gravely ill, hospitals may not turn them away. Your insurance premiums increase. Of course, you don't realize it, because it's a circuitous path. Now it has been brought out into the open, and you're moaning and complaining because your taxes might go up a few dollars but....and here's the kicker....you are seeing the death knell of the $5 bandaid and the $10 aspirin, not to mention the denial for pre-existing conditions and a thousand other wrongs that have been shoved down the throats of the American public.
But of course it can't be a good thing, because it has that dark fellow's name on it. Amazing how people employ selective memory to suit their purpose of the moment.
Let me assure you, you have been paying and paying and paying for decades. You just didn't know it until the guy in the big White House brought it to your attention.
I couldn't agree with you more or have said it better.
Thank you, RetiredRN, for the best comment I've read yet on the matter.
Government needs to get out of healthcare... completely! Stop Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, Bush's Medicare part D, ALL OF IT! Let the people help each other they way it used to be.
I am a Republican, and you are 100% correct. We promoted this solution for years until Obama put it forward. Then the party decided eviscerating Obama was more important than helping people and businesses, which this act does.
Medicare is government health care, and everyone loves that. This debate has been turned into a circus, sadly, by the folks in my party who play fast and loose with the truth. All for votes. I am looking at you Rush Limbaugh and Anne Coulter. Both are a disgrace to the GOP and bigot mongering liars.
For any who doubt the veracity of RetiredRN or FlyOverMe's statements:
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/stories/2010/february/23/gop-1993-health-reform-bill.aspx
Please note the 23 Republican Senate co-sponsers at the end of the article. This framework was part of the Republican parties national platform in every election between 1994 and 2006.
In 2008 it somehow became "a Socialist takeover of the health care system".
I am completely bewildered why anyone would think that mandatory health care is a terrible thing. Taking care of the sick or any other vulnerable member of society is a social responsibility. People should NOT lose their homes or have to declare bankruptcy because they are diagnosed with an illness.
People need to get over the party rhetoric and partisian politics and clearly see what is best for the county. I am so tired of all the mud slinging. The Supreme Court did a wonderful thing today. Time to move forward
Bernardo...what on earth are you talking about? Have you been on here or any other website? You really think this is a country in which our citizens want to help one another? Honestly? Maybe in your day, champ. Nowadays a great number of folks would just as soon spit on you and leave you to die if it meant taking a dollar out of their pocket once a week to help someone. Charity no longer exists in the way it was once intended. You find me enough people willing to help their fellow man in this country and I'll be right behind your assertion.
Until then, you just keep dreaming of an America in which it's citizens care for one another. I wish like hell it existed but it doesn't. It's proven on First Read every single day and every other news source website. Go to Yahoo! and see how many people on there seem like the charitible types. Find even one and we'll put them in a traveling show where you have to pay fifty cents to see them next to the alligator woman and the bat boy. They don't exist. Charity in America is extinct.
Charity still exists. But most people do not donate because they just assume that the government will take care of everything. The problem is the government waists so much money. It was alot better when the charities tried to take care of things. Then if a charity started waisting money you could just stop donating to it. Just try and stop paying your taxes and see what happens.
Bottom line is do not get sick in this country.
I wonder Why the democrats don't repeat the word preexisting conditions a 100 times every hour every day every month. Also they should repeat the 26 yo children part of the family plan all day. Why in the world the republicans are against someone having health Inurance optional or mandatory what is the difference? It's a ncessicity anyway. Why Why Why they hate people? Why why they are so cruel? Why the republicans are just against against without any justification. Why people are so stupid to follow them. Who are these people of the CONTRA? Do they pay for insurance now? They don't have insurance and don't wish ever to have it? Why the care about the others? Health insurance is not a product is not a good it is not a tax is a right that must the available for everybody. It's not a broccolli either.
Retired R.N. said it all.
Thank God. Being self-employed and having a pre-existing condition, I'm glad that Republicans did not prevail in their efforts to damage these necessary if imperfect changes to our healthcare system. I've been observing what Republican congress has been doing since President Obama has taken office and have to say...shame on them for putting politics first instead of the people.
Being self-employed and having a pre-existing condition, I think the new health plan is a pile of cow dung. I wish the government would quit trying to solve our problems - they only make things worse. The only thing worse than a Republican in Washington is a Democrat in Washington. My 5-year-old is smarter than all of them combined.
Being self employed and my husband having no coverage through his work, I think this is a great law! The government is already involved in healthcare through Medicare. Want to get rid of that too?
This is GOOD for business. We will be able to compete better globally with this. This is also GOOD for families. Our son was denied coverage because he has Asperger's Syndrome. He uses the least health care of any of us and requires no medical treatments for it, but facts don't matter. This is a good law.
I think your five year old is smarter then you, as well!! Get past your partisan politics and start thinking of others- and yourself!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I hope everyone is ready for the change in healthcare costs. Because they are going to go up faster than an elevator. How can anyone think that government involvement is going to reduce costs? My pharmacy just increased operating costs due to a government mandate that the type on pill bottles be larger. So now the bottle is bigger and triangular (more plastic) so that the labels can be bigger (cost more) so that the type can be bigger (more ink).
I already get pages and pages of info in the bag on my medicine that already has bigger type and much more information than can be put on a pill bottle. The larger type mandate is just a duplication of effort that has increased costs.
Paying for more government employees to oversee more of healthcare is going to cost more money.
Idiots.
When did the American people wimp out and decide that they no longer wanted to be in charge of their own lives? Now they want the government to take care of them. It used to be a government by the people, of the people and for the people. Now it is "We will sit back and be controlled and feel happy about it".
And I have health issues so don't try and say I would think differently if I was sick.
Health Care costs have been increasing far greater then inflation for decades. All we can hope for is that the percent increase starts decreasing.
I must be old I can remember when people had a can do attitude instead of it's all pointless lets do nothing.
economykiller @ 15
As a practicing pharmacist of over 30 years allow me to point out that a) that law has been in effect since the early 1990's and b) at the most it added a penny or 2 to the cost of a prescription. And it allowed millions access to information that they would not have otherwise have had and help significantly reduce errors in how people take their medicine thus LOWERING the overall cost of healthcare. Multiple studies have shown this.
@economykiller...did you just call people idiots? Have you met the kettle? He's black too.
economykiller
lucky YOU. Now. Your self centered, egotistical Rants are not only unproductive but a bit BORING.
You must come from the I, Me...Mine.. school of thought. I had a heart attack in 1998...no insurance (BTW I would only stay in ICU 1 day..against my Dr pleadings) I did not want to lose my home & everything I had worked over 35 years for. Yes I work and am self-employed. Worked hard to pay off the $22000+ bill that one night stay cost me. In 2001 my appendix bust...almost died , waited 2 days to go to the ER...again No insurance. They had to leave a gaping hole in my abdomen due to so much infection. Again left the hospital after1 day and night. DR. wanted at least a weeks stay. I just paid that bill off in 2010. Because of a Pre-Existing condition (migraines) I was not able to buy heath Insurance. I can not Believe some of YOU people are so heartless. Had it been one of my kids or grand kids ......too painful to think about. You selfish bore! You are a pitiful excuse for a human.
Economy killer don't be ridiculous. The insurance companies always increase their prices as much as they want as someone said for 40 year they increase the premums in 10%. I have experienced 20%, 30% and even 39%. They don't need the government to use and abuse us. They cancel plans, they impose deductibles, co-pays, we pay hospitals, emergency rooms etc. So we pay both the insurance company and the health providers. They cancel plans anytime they want thye impose a more expensive plan with less benefits, Sometimes you want to pay more but they don't offer it. We don't have option. There are not many Insurance companies. Their benefits are similar they are a cartel they are a monopole. None of this depend of the government we are abused by them. So we are already obliged to have health coverage otherwise we get no treatment. What's the first question when you go to the doctor or hospital? what is your insurance?
Only the people thats never been sick or turned away are against this new ruling. Thousands of people have been discriminated against by doctors and hospitals for not having health insurance. Insurance companies for years have been allowed to just take people in good health so they could be sure to make money.They have never understood you have to accept the bitter with the sweet its always been about sure thing profit money money or we dont want you. This will put some of the greed hounds out of buisness.Hope you Repubs sleep well tonight.
I have a preexisting, incurable condition and have been denied coverage because of it, and I am against this ruling, thank you very much. We do not force car insurance companies to cover cars that are ALREADY WRECKED, so why should health insurance companies be forced to cover us? And if we don't expect a plumber to work for free, why should we expect a doctor to work for free? Health care costs money. Just because the government gets involved will not change that. I'm for people just helping each other out like it used to be. That works a lot better than government involvement. I'm for helping disadvantaged people in the most compassionate, efficient way possible, and that IS NEVER FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO BE INVOLVED. Just ask the former Soviet Union how the government running everything worked out for them.
Ah yes......the guy who claims to be the proverbial "sick person with a preexisting, incurable condition", who then compares himself to a wrecked car.
Apparently he wants the insurance company to total him out.
Bernardo: People are NOT 'wrecked cars' just like Corporations are NOT people-and I have never been a big fan of depending on the kindness of strangers.........ESPECIALLY if those strangers are Conservative Republicans!
We'll ask the Russians how it worked out when you ask someone from Canada, France, England, etc. how they like their healthcare. I have. Several nations worth of people disagree with you on it's worth.
Argue this all you want, but it was WAY pas time that this country had health care. We should've had it decades ago--most recently, under Clinton--when prices were lower for health care. But oh, no, insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies had to whine and complain out of fear for their bottom line... and to hell with the health of patients.
Read this article and know that this could be you. Read about the cases of NEWBORNS denied heath care because of "pre-existing conditions." Insurance companies have been and will continue to let people die out of GREED.
I'm a veteran and go to the V.A., and while the care isn't perfect, it IS there. I've been to different states and different V.A. hospitals and gotten various levels of competent treatment--same as with any hospital or doctor's office that you'd go to (if you were lucky enough to have insurance). During a visit to the Detroit V.A., I was able to zip through several departments at once because they had plenty of openings that day; at the West L.A. clinic, I've waited up to three months for consults. It depends, but at least this GOVERNMENT-PROVIDED health care exists and I am eligible for it.
We're doing cattle-call round-ups of health care for our citizens in this country, having people camp out for days on end to get seen in stadiums and horse stalls for treatment by volunteers. This ruling, like it or not, was a necessary step in our country's ability to take care of its own citizens, which is a merciful and concerned process that we as Americans have been falling woefully short on.
It's all "me, me, me" and "I hate (insert religion/race/ethnicity her) because they (blah blah blah)" these days. Never mind how the innocent have to suffer so that the privileged can feel some kind of justification.
Argue this all you want, but it was WAY pas time that this country had health care
Last time I checked, we DID have health care in America. Some of the best in the world, in fact. This law will only make the care worse.
It's certainly by far the most expensive and has worse net outcomes, while failing to cover 15% of the population.
Some of the best care for some of the people. The rest, not really. The rest of the industrialized world has good health care for all people. It's an interesting dichotomy and says something about our society. It's not a very nice thing either.
Once again, Bernardo...you are incorrect. The U.S. ranks in the 37th percentile in health care. Can you guess what kind of system the nations above us have?
If you have the MONEY, yes, we in America have the "best" health care available.
If you DON'T, then you stand to lose your house, your car, your savings, your 401K... everything you spent your whole life saving to combat cancer, or to recover from a car accident, or to save your child's life. And that's even WITH insurance, if you're lucky enough to be allowed to have it.
It's not the sick people who are thrilled and relieved. It's the leeches, the thieves, and the stupid. Free men, no matter what their health, are mourning the ever quickening demise of liberty and the once great America.
I'm a very healthy guy who runs a small business, and I'm thrilled.
Now we can start working on improving the ACA to get a public option.
Tell you what, chief, why don't you post the same thing to a cancer support group and see how they feel. I'm sure the lady who was laid off and could no longer afford insurance and then was turned down due to a pre-existing condition would appreciate your calling her a leech and a thief. Or how about someone who lost their child to cystic fibrosis...tell them about how only the stupid are celebrating. You're really ballsy on this site...go to theirs and see how it works out for you.
I know several people with pre-existing conditions (some as simple as kidney stones!) who are thrilled about the ruling, and several more who do not have pre-existing conditions but who are relieved should they ever come down with one and have to worry about suddenly being in that category.
Thank you, Retired RN for your comments.
That ANY American with cancer has to forego health care and allow themselves to get weaker and sicker, lose their home, declare bankruptcy and live through severe illness with such fear, stress and instability -- just because they can't afford our over-priced, price-gouging medical system -- it turns my stomach.
And I have had it *up to here* with people who are against tax increases for any reason. You people are extremist and irrational and we as a society are paying the price for your obstructionist, irrational views.
As a small business owner who's had a lump in my right breast for over a year who cannot afford to get a cancerous diagnosis, I live in fear of how I might pay for treatment... and I do what millions of other folks do: stall. Cancer runs rampant in my family, but if you can't "afford" to get sick in our country, good luck to ya!
Our health care system is a mess and I for one am thrilled that I will be able to qualify for health insurance two years from now. And I don't even mind that I'll be taxed for it either. Whoop-dee-doo. If you don't have your health, you ain't got nothing.
Texangal, you may qualify now. Look into it.
How much would our taxes have to go up to cover everyone's care?
I'm not trying to be mean, I just want some answers. Our whole 'health insurance' industry feels like one big Ponzi scheme to me - an unsustainable one. And as long as our country refuses to raise taxes while spending itself into oblivion, we'll never have universal health care - particularly with the highly profitable insurance industry lining the pockets of our elected officials.
Now I can get off off social security disability. Do you know how much it and SSI costs the government each year? Lack of private health coverage possibilities is the number one reason hardly no one ever gets off. The government is about to save money, big time.
Socialism then Communism and the slow death of America :(
Southern Gals back in the day said that when the slaves were freed, Social Security was created, desegregation enforced, etc.
Yet, strangely, America is still not a communist socialist dictatorship. Weird !
Ya'll might want to sit under the big ol oak tree with a moon pie and a RC cola and think about that fer a bit
You do understand, don't you, that socialism is completely different than communism? Oh, never mind. You obviously don't or you wouldn't have posted your comment.
Go read a book or 30. You might learn something.
Apparently you lack a proper education Southern gal. You may win the award for the least correct comment of the column. Obama is not a socialist, as any socialist will tell you, nor is this act. Your tossing out communism with it simply implies our education system is still appalling.
Southern gal
Ya'll are still ticked that you lost the war. You still wish we were all in the fields. I hate to tell you but there are no more commies so get off the bench and read something.,, or better yet go finish the 8th grade.
Southern Gal
Below is a link to a bill proposed by 23 Republican Senators in 1993, including 1996 Republican Presidential candidate Bob Dole. The framework of the bill was part of the Republican party platform from 1994 until 2006.
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/stories/2010/february/23/gop-1993-health-reform-bill.aspx
Please point out one significant difference between that bill and the Affordable Care Act.
Or why it was "a Socialist takeover of the health care system" in 2009 but not in 2006.
So are social security and SSI and, wait, insurance.
Socialism is not a dirty word, but since most of the conservative greedy dimwits out there think it is (and Capitalism is the be-all-end-all), let's not call it anything, but common sense.
I just started reading the most fascinating and optimistic book I've ever read..."Looking Backward 2000-1887" by Edward Bellamy (written in 1888 so it needs to be re-introduced to society). In it he outlines a model of how our nation and our world should operate...a way in which no one is without work, no one is hungry, no one is cold, no one is without shelter, no one is without health care, and there is no war...and all done without money.
I know, this scares you money grubbing republicans...but open your minds and your hearts, and let's get this movement started...the People's movement!
It should be required reading for every human on Earth, so do your great-great grandchildren a favor and reserve a copy at your local library today...so all of us 'greedy republicans' and 'bleeding heart liberals' can live together in harmony.
Ignorance, Southern Gal, will be the death of America...you and your ilk seem to have cornered the market on this. Congratulations...paranoia and stupidity appears to be running rampant in the south. You must be a credit to southern people who are ranked what in education? Oh yeah...damn near the bottom.
Thank you Retired RN. Only people that have to buy individual coverage understand this problem. I've always insured myself, but was limited where I could move to because of 50 different state insurance laws and the inability to carry my insurance across state lines. Almost everyone has a pre existing condition by age 50. Some were born with one and were 'screwed' for life. Bernardo you're a fool to let the insurance companies set all the rules. Does that benefit you? No it allows the insurance CEO to take home $20+ million/year. Never saw Republicans trying to address the pre exiting condition problem.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
You want to know how to get the GOP understand health care? Hope that each and everyone gets cancer and gets voted out of office and cannot get individual coverage (oops... FOX News will hire them and make sure they get coverage)... and then they have skin the game....
I don't think we have to go that far... If every member of congress would just make a call to an insurance company and ask about health insurance for them and their family, they would be educated very quickly about the realities.
People just do not understand the cost of this care. The lady with the $400+ policy. It will increase. Individual policies under Obamacare will probably be $500. Who knows what family policies will be. People do not have to buy this insurance, they will still receive care and pay a fine at the end of the year. We--taxpayers still pay for the care as we do today. Doctor's can refuse to see these patients, they do it today(refuse to see medicaid & medicare patients). Hospitals have to treat them, nothing different here. Starting in 2013 you will be paying a 3.7% tax when you sell your house to pay for this. What does real estate have to do with health care???? There is a increase tax on all medical equipment & supplies. Get the picture, tax, tax, tax. Makes me sick to my stomach!!
Except that statistics seem to show that is not true. MA has seen decreases in premiums. The logic you pose is simply not borne out by any study or actual experience.