Obama's Health Care Overhaul: Your Opinions

[key]

At the very least "Medicare Advantage" should be required to change its name. It is a private insurance company, it is NOT Medicare. I have no problem with this private insurance company losing customers. And while we are at it AARP should be abolished too, as it is just a front group for private insurance. I want all private insurance companies to lose all of their customers and get everyone on a not for profit system.

The reform process is not over people. Check out Alan Grayson's proposal to allow anyone to buy into Medicare at cost. I would even be agreeable for anyone under 65 to buy into Medicare at cost plus 5% or something to help cover costs for others.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_492831.html

[Apocalipstic]

President Obama is actually a Baby Boomer, as are most members of Congress, I am sure some thought was given to the cost?

If we were not at war, we would have plenty of money for this.

If we were not so anti-immigration, we would have plenty of money to pay for this.

I think it is important to provide health care for all of us, The US is only as strong as the weakest among us, and right now, that is pretty darn weak.

Maybe I know more people without insurance? Performers, artists, musicians, food and beverage workers, stage managers, directors, av people.....on and on....I am fine with paying higher taxes if the money goes to helping this situation.

[Linus]

For those wondering, you can now figure out how many chickens you'll need on hand to pay for various health care procedures: http://lowdenplan.com/

I figure I might need 4,000 chickens but since I'm vegetarian/vegan I wonder if I can pay with Seitan Spicy Wings.

[casey35]

I may not have the right for this opinion but this is mine. I personally dont think that we the tax payers should have to pay for others insurance. If you dont have insurance which i dont then it should be your responsablity to get some.

[Linus]

Originally Posted by casey35

I may not have the right for this opinion but this is mine. I personally dont think that we the tax payers should have to pay for others insurance. If you dont have insurance which i dont then it should be your responsablity to get some.

So what happens when you get hurt in an accident (fell off a ladder say because your foot slipped), have no job and have been out of work for 9+ months and insurance costs $600 a month (as it does in parts of NYC)? Why is it wrong to be compassionate and caring for one another, even if we are strangers to each other?

[Luv]

Ive been turned down for insurance because of pre-exhistiing problems I have had..if I am able to get insurance it will cost me 1/2 of my monthly paycheck.

My generation has been called " Generation Jones " ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_Jones ) . As I look at life now days,,Id say yea..we are. Here we are approaching middle age or are middle aged and have no health insurance. I hope they get this thing figured out.

[casey35]

I do understand the need of insurance and for those who are declined from insurance. But the government needs to back out of our personal life. I do not believe that the government should tell me what i can do and what i cant. For me to hear from our leaders it unamerican to not vote for the health care pisses me off. I have served my country and I for one believe it still america and we have choices what we want and what we dont.

[apretty]

Originally Posted by casey35

I may not have the right for this opinion but this is mine. I personally dont think that we the tax payers should have to pay for others insurance. If you dont have insurance which i dont then it should be your responsablity to get some.

wowzers.

what about parks, schools, libraries, DO YOU USE ANY OF THOSE?

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by casey35

I may not have the right for this opinion but this is mine. I personally dont think that we the tax payers should have to pay for others insurance. If you dont have insurance which i dont then it should be your responsablity to get some.

I'm curious can you explain what the difference between these are:

Scenario 1: There's a program that people can buy into. This pools the risk. Those who are healthy are, essentially, paying for those who are less healthy. By the time that you, yourself, become less healthy there are other people who have flowed into the system to pay for those who are less healthy which now includes you.

Scenario 2: There's program everyone contributes to. The population that is more healthy pays more into the system then they use in services. The population that is less healthy gets more in services then they are *currently* paying in.

Now, have I described an insurance policy, Medicare or single-payer national healthcare?

The thing is, that description could more or less apply to *any* of them!

So my question is this:

Why is it that if in one scenario, a large, corporation is making profits beyond the dreams of avarice it is a Good Thing (r) and the way the world should work but if in another scenario it is the government that is paying the health care providers that is 'tax payers paying for other's health care'. Both are pools of risk, the two seem pretty much the same as far as I can tell. The *difference* is this: Aetna has one goal and that is to make a profit. If, in the course of doing so, someone happens to get needed medical attention no one at Aetna will shed a tear. But if there is SOME way to deny your claim, they will.

Now, as far as paying for others. In my department, there are a bunch of middle-aged folks, with middle-aged people's problems, and a number of twenty-somethings. The fact of the matter is, the twenty-somethings are *paying* for us middle-aged people. The kids, as we call them, hardly use their healthcare at all while us old farts use it rather often. Should the kids be able to pull out of the insurance because it'll be a decade before they start using the health insurance in a manner closer to what us older folks do?