Don't have an account? To participate in discussions consider signing up or signing in
facebook connect
Sign-up, its free! Close [x]

Benefits

  • okay Create lasting relationships with other like minded women.
  • okay Blogging, let your voice be heard!
  • okay Interact with other women through blogs,questions and groups.
  • okay Photo Album, upload your most recent vacation pictures.
  • okay Contests, Free weekly prize drawing.
  • okay Weekly Newsletter.

Q & A

There has been a lot of discussion about the Health Care Reform.
What is your biggest concern and have you looked for the actual facts on your concern?

  •  



Answer this See more Questions

View All Answers

    • +1 votes vote up vote up

      Mary Clark wrote Sep 3, 2009
    • THOSE area all great questions Annie....and I will have to ditto that....but bottom line is.....

      there are too many other things being attached to this bill that are not even health related......why is that?  It’s called the good ole boy system.  

      The entire bill concerns me......every bit of it.




            Report  Reply


    • +1 votes vote up vote up

      Vikki Hall wrote Sep 3, 2009
    • Thx Ladies!




            Report  Reply


    • +1 votes vote up vote up

      Tamra wrote Sep 3, 2009
    • Yes, I have read sections of HR3200, although not all 1017 pages of it.  My impression is that this bill is so vague, no one really knows how it will affect our society.  That’s exactly why Annie and others have so many questions.  

      I have read a great deal of US tax law because of my 20+ years as a tax accountant.  As I’m sure you can imagine, it is very hard to interpret and apply, hence the reason for our US tax courts.  This health legislation is similar in that respect.  The legal-ese in this bill leaves many things up in the air, therefore insuring future litigation.  And is, no doubt, the reason why there is so much debate presently.

      Unless our legislators can come up with something that is clear and concise, I suggest no changes will occur.  We have a decent (not perfect) system of health care now.  Unless we can be relatively sure the changes will improve care, it will be virtually impossible for the American people to accept new legislation.  We will not be willing to take a chance on law that may deplete our health care.  

      I know there is a segment of our population that is in need of better options.  But the politicians don’t care about that minority when the majority are happy with the current system.  It won’t get them re-elected to care for the few at the cost of the many.




            Report  Reply


    • 0 votes vote up vote up

      Feathermaye wrote Sep 3, 2009
    • I agree that the bill is vague, and that’s bothersome. But, I am completely in support of a “socialistic” medical plan.

      The problem here is that our country allowed the fat cats to get in on the game in the beginning. The UK and Canada have a system in place that works very well for them. To my understanding, there are still private practices where you can actually pay more than what is coming out of your taxes to receive the more personal care. That should remain an option in our country, too.

      I have Aetna insurance through my employer. I pay high monthly premiums for my 'good' coverage, but have to check Walmart's $4 list before I can allow my doctor to prescribe me medications. In spite of my monthly premiums, a good number of my medications would cost me more if I were to go through my insurance company to get them. And, if I go months at a time without getting sick, then all I've done is pad someone's wallet on the chance that I might get sick.

      While I can agree that the currently-proposed document does not contain the answers we need, I very strongly believe that it is a step in the right direction. Nothing is going to be perfect, or please anyone right out of the gate; but rather than bashing it down into a billion, unrecognizable pieces, I wish the opposition would offer some alternatives.




            Report  Reply


    • +1 votes vote up vote up

      Trudy S wrote Sep 3, 2009
    • As far as I know, Canada & UK & Australia & New Zealand & Singapore & Sweden....the list is pretty long....are all capitalist free-market economies.  Yet they all still have single-payer health care systems.

      Socialism = a theory or system of social organization  that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

      Capitalism = An economic and political system  characterized by a free market for goods and services and private control of production and consumption.  

      The countries mentioned above mix both capitalism and socialism in an effort to give the best protection to their citizens.




            Report  Reply


    • +2 votes vote up vote up

      Yana Berlin wrote Sep 3, 2009
    • I have lots of concerns, growing up in a country where everything was "take care of" by the government; I remember how my grandfather had to pay off the doctor under the table for distilled needles, and the right medicine to save my aunt. WHY? Because otherwise she would of died. No one will ever convince me that socialistic medicine works.

      In the US Medicaid & Medicare are government run, and it's gradually bankrupting our society, so why does anyone think that if government takes over the rest of the medical care system for the rest of the society it will actually work? Why not let Obama administration reform Medicare and Medicaid before nationalizing everyone's health care?

      I have several dear friends in Canada, and I can tell you that their "system" doesn't work either. My friend paid out of pocket to see a specialist when her son needed immediate care, my other friend paid to get a cast on her son's arm because the doctor available for free wasn't able to see him until 10 days later.

      The grass is always greener on the other side.




            Report  Reply


    • +1 votes vote up vote up

      Trudy S wrote Sep 3, 2009
    • Yana, I have a colleague in my M.A. class who also was raised in the FSR.  She also feels VERY strongly about socialized medicine.  We had a great conversation about socialism vs. communism and how that can be so very different.  I totally respect where both you and she are coming from.  She felt that it was (and many say still is)  a pretty screwed up system.

      My entire family lives in Canada estatic.  I live in the USA and am happy to be here...but was happy to be there too.  Like anywhere, including both Canada and the USA...there are times when systems breakdown.

      Myself and my family have experienced that ninety-five percent of the time both systems work just fine.  We get what we need when we need it.  The problem is that 5% of bad experiences can really be what you remember and is publicized.  I think we’ve all (my family )had less than ‘stellar’ experiences on both sides of the border....but mostly good.  estatic

      If that 5% breakdown causes irreparable damage...in any system...it is heartbreaking and unforgettable/unforgivable.




            Report  Reply


    • +1 votes vote up vote up

      Tamra wrote Sep 3, 2009
    • A comment was made that we pay premiums for months without getting sick, only to pad the wallets of the insurance cos.  That is not an accurate viewpoint of how insurance works.

      The premiums are used to pay for the costs of caring for others in the plan.  The funds are also used to purchase investments so that if you get sick there will be funds to pay for your care.  The reality is that if you have only one serious illness or accident, you will cost the insurance co much more than you have ever paid in premiums.  Your care is now the burden of others paying into the company.

      Insurance is socialistic in nature.  Unless the gov’t implements change to control costs, nothing is going to improve.  Why aren’t we addressing the real reasons for the high costs?  Like Annie said, fix what needs to be fixed, but don’t change the whole system that, for the most part works.  Identify what is causing the high costs, and fix those things rather than revamp the entire system to a socialistic system.




            Report  Reply


    • +1 votes vote up vote up

      Trudy S wrote Sep 4, 2009
    • In my opinion,  it is pretty amazing that anyone still says 'leave the USA if you don't like it'.  

      As far as I can tell, this country was built on change, because of change and for change.  THAT is what made it a great country.  Not fear of change.

      A country is not great because it’s people say ‘everyone must be the same and do the same thing and think the same way or want the same thing‘.  That sounds like the Taliban to me.




            Report  Reply


    • +1 votes vote up vote up

      Feathermaye wrote Sep 4, 2009
    • I agree and understand that the insurance premiums go to the ‘general fund’ for the good of the covered group, but I will not be convinced that there is no profit being made. Private insurance is a business, and business is conducted to make a profit. So, a percentage of each monthly premium goes to the pool, and a percentage goes to the investors. Then, based on how much money is paid (or not paid) out of the general fund, the investors earn bonuses. So, the more people who receive insurance approval, the smaller the bonuses. Hmmm, doesn’t sound like that’s in my best interest.

      When someone is covered by insurance, has paid all of their premiums and has rarely if ever had to make use of that ‘general fund‘, yet gets denied treatment, medications, simple procedures or mobility equipment that would improve their quality of life, who benefits there? How is that a positive thing?

      And the question was raised as to, under a public health plan, who would 'own the medical decisions?' between the doctors and the government. Well, neither of them own those decisions now. The doctor can recommend a course of treatment or an apparatus or whatever, and the insurance companies get to decide if they are going to pay for such. Is that really a better solution?

      Yes, the current systems are weak and flawed; and yes, the proposed system is not without its own weaknesses. But when it comes down to the general public’s quality of life versus a businessman’s bonus check, I’m going to root for the people each and every time.




            Report  Reply


    • +1 votes vote up vote up

      Feathermaye wrote Sep 4, 2009
    • I'd like to think that, by supporting my president and engaging in non-combative conversation about his proposals and plans and the pros and cons as far as I can see them, I am serving my country.

      Like anything else, I guess, it’s all a matter of perspective.




            Report  Reply


    • +1 votes vote up vote up

      Tamra wrote Sep 4, 2009
    • I also do not want to see greedy executives become wealthy on the backs of the insured.  But since when is it evil to make a profit?  Isn’t that what our whole economy is based on?  Profitability encourages investment, the backbone of the creation of jobs.

      A profit motive is actually a positive influence on the insurance cos. and would totally disappear under a socialized system of medicine or a gov’t option plan.  Consideration of profitability and competition is a constant reminder to the cos. that they need you as their client.  If you are not happy with the service you are getting with your current company, you may move to another.  But because they don’t want to lose you, the co wants to provide the desired services at the desired prices.  That motivation for quality will be eliminated if we move to a socialized system.  That would be extremely detrimental to the poor who can’t pay for care out of their own pocket.  

      Furthermore, the industry is regulated by the states.  Perhaps the regulation is ineffective and should be changed.  The profitibility of insurance cos is public information as is the top executive compensation.  A suggestion - If you think someone is paid too much, write to your state officials and have them investigate.  

      Like several have said, there are things that can be done to improve the current system.  But don’t throw out the baby with the bath water!  The current system offers some of the best health care available in the world, and the majority of our citizenry is happy with their care.  A complete overhaul of the system is not necessary.




            Report  Reply


    • +1 votes vote up vote up

      Feathermaye wrote Sep 4, 2009
    • I never said making a profit was evil; however, I don't believe that my health care and health needs should be a part of anyone's business plan . And never, at least in my world, has an insurance carrier said to me: "You don't like our decision to terminate the coverage on your maintenance medications? You don't like our annually-increasing rates? Then how can we make this better for you?" It's either pay your premiums and be covered, or don't.

      It has been said a couple of times that the majority, estimated to be 80 percent of Americans, are covered by insurance and happy with the coverage. However, the percentage does not offer a fair view of the population as a whole.

      Assuming that the percentages are accurate, that still means that over 40 million Americans are without health insurance. Not because they weren't happy with the service level offered to them, and not because they've not exercised their choices  in a provider. A vast majority of those are uninsured because they cannot afford it, yet make too much money to qualify for the existing public health options. Where is their option under the current system?

      The lucky ones, those who are offered health insurance through their employers, have seen their premiums increase by 117 percent from 1999 to 2008, and are still increasing at an average of 12 percent annually. Our cost of living isn’t increasing at a rate anywhere near the aggressively-inflating cost of simply staying alive.

      I'm not saying that a textbook socialistic system is the answer; but something other than claiming 'the majority are happy so let's just come up with a few tweaks to an otherwise-fine system' has to be done. This situation needs to be looked at realistically, and the practice of sweeping 20% of the population under the rug needs to be corrected.




            Report  Reply


    • +1 votes vote up vote up

      Mztracy wrote Sep 4, 2009
    • DITTO DITTO Feather!!!

      I have private insurance, and they screw me at every turn. Deny me medications until my doctor talks to theirs. WTF!!!!

      Until you actually have to use your insurance for something other than the sniffles, you have no clue!! That is unless you are ‘rich’ then it does not matter to you and your probably get what you need anyways!!




            Report  Reply


    • 0 votes vote up vote up

      Feathermaye wrote Sep 4, 2009
    • My husband suffered a heart attack in November of 2007 and was hospitalized. When they took him in to have a stint installed in one of his valves, he was not given a shot for pain because he didn’t have insurance. As a result, the pain of the procedure made him physically ill, and he vomited. He was then chastised for it.

      To say that the current system offers some of the best health care in the world is more than inaccurate. The National Coalition on Healthcare (a nonprofit and nonpartisan organization) reports that The United States spends more money on medical care than any other industrialized country, yet it performs worse on nearly all measures of health care quality and health outcomes .  

      For anyone doubting how poorly our current system is performing, [Link Removed] is a fount of information. Even before President Obama's time as the leader of our country, I have stayed aware of the state of health care in our country and have relied on the facts reported by the NCHC over any other source.


      Feathermaye, Your links have been removed, please consider upgrading to premium membership.




            Report  Reply


    • 0 votes vote up vote up

      Tamra wrote Sep 4, 2009
    • What evidence is there that a gov’t run plan is going to treat you any better?  None.  In fact, quite the contrary.  Has the IRS ever treated you with respect, kindness and dignity?  I highly doubt it.  So why do you think a bureaucracy of health care will satisfy your needs?  

      Take the current gov’t supervised program of health care for the retired.  I can say from personal experience that Medicare isn’t compassionate toward our seniors needing care.  That’s about the best evidence of what you can expect once we are all faced with gov’t supervised care.  Is that what you want?  Not me!  Open your eyes!

      Oh, sorry, I got a little carried away there.  It’s just that this is a very serious issue in my family at the moment.  We are dealing with life and death issues, not just “sniffles.”




            Report  Reply


    • +1 votes vote up vote up

      Feathermaye wrote Sep 5, 2009
    • There is exactly zero evidence that a public health plan will provide better care than we are receiving now. But there’s also no evidence to the contrary.

      Quite frankly, I’m looking forward to a world where I don’t have to decide between taking a real vacation or having dental work done. I look forward to knowing that my family will not be denied certain services in a hospital setting because my insurance plan does not cover them (or because I may not have insurance at all). And it pleases me no end to know that even if a doctor treats me like crap, I’m not paying him for the injustice.

      And I remain hopeful that as our country grows and evolves from the manufacturing-based economy of the past to the service-based economy of today that all existing industries will make strides to serve their customers and their employees in the best ways available. You can make money and still treat people humanely.




            Report  Reply


    • -1 votes vote up vote up

      Tamra wrote Sep 5, 2009
    • How can you say there is no evidence that a gov’t plan will not meet your needs?  Take a look at Medicare!!!




            Report  Reply


    • +1 votes vote up vote up

      Feathermaye wrote Sep 5, 2009
    • I am not a Medicare recipient, Tamra. You asked how I thought I would be treated any better by a public plan, and I answered your question based on the treatment I and my family are receiving now. With insurance coverage.

      My previous statements referring to the obvious need for changes in the existing systems should not be disregarded.  

      I am not blind to the fallacies and failings that already exist, but I have to hope that within the plans for a new system, accommodations have been made to remedy the shortcomings.

      Ultimately, that's the whole point: I am hoping for something better for everyone , including the elderly and the poor. The system sucks all the way around, and the only way to improve it is to make changes. In my opinion, resisting change for the betterment of everyone is short-sighted and reckless.




            Report  Reply


    • +1 votes vote up vote up

      Mztracy wrote Sep 5, 2009
    • Feather, you are my hero!! estatic
      My hubby sends you big kudos!!




            Report  Reply


    • 0 votes vote up vote up

      Tamra wrote Sep 5, 2009
    • Feather, I agree.  Changes are needed.  And consideration of everyone is important.  But I am fearful that current proposals appear to make the problems worse, not better.  

      I understand you personally are not a medicare recipient, but I bring it up only to point out that government’s current attempts to control health care are mediocre at best.  And I see nothing that is going to change that reality to give me confidence that it could be any better.

      If current legislators and the administration truly want to make improvements, I question why they don’t directly address what I see as the true problem - what is causing expenses to be out of control.  That approach would better solve the main problem behind your poor experiences.  But completely changing the entire system when it is working in many cases, is a huge risk to take.

      For instance, why not crack down firmly on Medicare fraud?  Why not reduce the frivolous lawsuits causing duplicate and unnecessary medical testing?  Why not better regulate the insurance cos instead of bowing down to the insurance lobbyists?  Why not allow consumers to buy insurance across state lines to encourage more competition?

      Furthermore, folks who receive health insurance from their employer will be taxed on that benefit as they are taxed on their wages.  That will not affect me as I don’t receive a benefit, but it seems ridiculous to me to tax working citizens for their health insurance.

      I’m sorry you have had such bad experiences with doctors and hospitals.  That is unacceptable and certainly speaks to the need for change.  

      Personally, I have witnessed excellent care for, not only myself, but for extended family as well.  We are not wealthy people, but we have always made it a priority to have adequate health insurace coverage, sacrificing whenever necessary to pay premiums.  We all take very active roles in our care, keeping journals and documentation of our care, and constantly asking questions about our treatment.  When my father became very ill last week, I must say the cardioligist’s presence was very comforting, and we are very happy with his service.  I would wish the same for you and everyone.  If you receive poor treatment, dump that doc and get another.  Like any business, they are competing for your dollar and don’t want to lose their clientale.  

      Yes, I would love to see improvements because my family and I pay enormous premiums, but I do not want change for change sake when the current system has literally saved the lives of many of my family members.




            Report  Reply


    • 0 votes vote up vote up

      Tamra wrote Sep 5, 2009
    • Even the Obama administration isn’t happy with the current proposed legislation.  The news is reporting that the administration is writing it’s own health care plan now after being disappointed in the lack of progress legislators have made.




            Report  Reply


    • 0 votes vote up vote up

      Trudy S wrote Sep 5, 2009
    • OK...and now for the lighter side of Health Care Reform...

      [Link Removed] 

      estatic


      Isagenixbeliever, Your links have been removed, please consider upgrading to premium membership.




            Report  Reply


    • 0 votes vote up vote up

      Tamra wrote Sep 5, 2009
    • Funny stuff!

      “‘People should know that every day we are working without their best interests in mind,’ Reid said.”

      Somehow, I already knew that.  ;^)




            Report  Reply


Ask a Question






mature content submit as anonymous