People against healthcare reform must alreay be on govt care or havn't been to the doctor...

[ghurley]

My wife and I are both 26 and in great health. We both work for large national companies that I thought provided decent health care coverage.

My wife passed out at work and was compalining about seeing black spots. I got the call from her boss when I was leaving work, so I went over and we decided to go to the emergency room because she said that she was seeing these black spots. The emergency room was fine. No wait to get a room, and the doctor and nurses didn't waste a lot of time doing what they were doing. Blood was taken and a CT scan was done because the doctor was concerned about the spots she was seeing. After everything came back ok, we paid the $50 copay and went on our way.

Then the bills started coming in. Call me naive, but I got out of the Navy a couple years ago after joing right after highschool, and I have never been to the doctor for more than a checkup... I wasn't expecting hospital bills to be this high. $90 for a pregency test, $80 for this test and that test, $500 for reading lab work, $4000 for the ct scan. Then there was the bill from the person that actually looked at the ct scan and the bill from the people that actually ran the blood work. I don't have all the bills infront of me, but when it was all said and done, we had to come out of pocket for $900.

I'm sure there are plenty of people out there that have gone though much worse than me. I have been thinking about what Sen. Franken says about medical bankruptcy in this country. I had just never really thought about it a lot, or gotten in any arguements when people talked about it. My wife and I are healthy, we never really looked at or read our policies. But then I found out that her company only covers 80%, and we were responsible for the rest. $900 is a lot of money for us, and money that we were really not ready to spend.

I have always been for healthcare reform, just never paid much attention. I am now convinced that anyone who is against change dosn't pay for their healthcare because they don't have to (Obama is already taking care of them :patriot: ) or they havn't been to the doctor lately.

My wife works as a bank teller, and her till was short by $70. She was trying to figure out why she was $70 short, and was late leaving work. Had her drawer been balanced, she would have alreay left, and could have been driving home when she passed out. Funny how things work out.

[dionysus]

1. there's serious flaws in the health bill, but people seem to be forgetting about the people it will

help when they're screaming "KILL THE BILL! KILL THE BILL!".

[ghurley]

2. When you look how long it takes to get things done...

Just getting the ball moving with any legislation has to be a good thing. Healthcare is so big, employs so many people, I doubt there is any way one bill could make everyone happy.

[dionysus]

3. well, that is true, but this bill is little more than a first step going forward. it's going to

help an awful lot of people but it could have been much, much, much better. unfortunately, we've got a little problem called leiberman\blue dogs...

[ghurley]

4. I'm just really suprised Sen. Franken dosn't get used more for TV apparences...

I think people should be talking more about how much people have to come out of pocket for healthcare. I can't understand how this conversation got to killing grandma and away from real problems real people have.

[dionysus]

5. i don't know why all the big dems weren't on TV pushing for this.

part oft he problem is the MSM always turns to repthugs for almost ALL commentary... if we're lucky we get a token democrat on there against 5 republicans.

[laughingliberal]

7. It's my understanding the President got the bill he wanted

At least that was Russ Feingold's statement after Lieberman killed the Medicare expansion. He said people shouldn't be so hard on Joe as this was the bill the President wanted all along. Lieberman is largely despised in the party. He made the perfect fall guy. Starts to make sense why Obama supported Lieberman in keeping his chairmanship. Very useful in the long run.

[dionysus]

8. that's russ's opinion, i don't buy it. if he's dissappointed in the bill, you're not going to see

him go on TV and badmouth his own party over it, it would be a horrible political move.

[laughingliberal]

18. The fact is there is no way to prove it one way or the other

But Feingold has some credibility IMO. It also adds up under a preponderance of the evidence-the president's failure to speak out while the PO was being savaged daily, the deal with PhRMA, Rahm showing up on a Sunday night and ordering Reid to give Joe what he wanted, the fact that the president didn't get involved in a personal way until it came time to defend the tax on workers' benefits. No, I don't know that what Russ told us is true beyond a shadow of a doubt but neither do you know it isn't true. I'm pretty sure you will continue to see it your way and, unless some other information comes to light to explain the president's behavior, my opinion will not change.

[dionysus]

20. at least we agree our opinions are just opinions. i like russ, i just think he has this one wrong.

:hi:

[laughingliberal]

6. Yes, with the deductibles many of the policies will have, those who go to use their insurance

initially will have a lot more than $900 coming out of their pocket for that bill. Nice slam at poor people who 'Obama is taking care of,' though. Are they anything like Reagan's 'welfare queens? This bill isn't going to cut down medical bankruptcies by much. Not sure of your finances but the out of pocket maximums the bill allows for policies are high enough to bankrupt a lot of people.

edited punctuation

[ghurley]

9. I had to lookup welfare queen...

Had never heard of it before. I was refering to people that don't want others to have the same coverage that they currently have. I don't think I ever said poor people. I'm talking about people that work for the government, their spouse works for the government (and they get to use their plans) or those on medicare that don't want any change. I'm trying to say that I can't figure out who would oppose healthcare reform that isn't already receiving somthing from the government? All I ever hear about is "I don't want Obama taking over my healthcare."

Not sure how what I said was a swipe at poor people?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

14. I'm opposed to the bill, and I'm not on government health care

I'm self-employed, over 50, and buying my own insurance on the private market.

The Senate bill would either be a wash or would make my situation worse.

[laughingliberal]

17. Yep.

I'm without insurance now for about a year since having to drop my COBRA. We are over 50 and without insurance for the first time in our adult lives. I would qualify for Medicaid under this bill but am still against it. The premiums for people in our age group who don't qualify for Medicaid will, likely, go up under the community ratings system of the Senate bill and all the 'good' things we keep hearing the bill will do are questionable at best given all the loopholes the bill contains. I don't see the insurance companies changing one thing about their behavior.

[laughingliberal]

15. Thank you for the explanation

If you were not aware of the term, "welfare queen," then I can see how you would not see how your words would have come across. There has been a war against the poor in this country since the days Ronald Reagan invented the myth of 'welfare queens.' His myth was based on large numbers of lazy poor people who were getting government assistance and driving their cadillacs to the grocery store to buy steaks with their food stamps. It was totally fabricated and demonized anyone who got assistance. A phrase like "Obama is taking care of them," will easily be construed to mean those on government assistance. It plays into the whole right wing philosophy that Democrats tax people who work for their money to give it away to lazy, shiftless poor people.

Sorry, if I misinterpreted but hope you can see the way in which this could be misinterpreted given the 30 years of dialogue around these issues.

My main point in my reply, however, is that most of the policies people will wind up with will have deductibles much higher than the $900 you wound up paying out of pocket after your wife's incident. It sounds as if your policy also covers a good percentage whereas most policies for those of limited means will pay a percentage more like 65% and have deductibles of $2000 which is the amount they will have to spend before insurance will pay any of the bill.

[enlightenment]

19. I think you should try doing a little more research into

who is opposed to the passage of the bill and why they are opposed, because you're digging a pretty deep hole for yourself. I don't believe it's intentional, but you can do better.

You are basing your argument on one position 'I don't want Obama taking over my healthcare'. That is not an argument you are likely to see on this forum at all; in fact, I'd suggest that it is not one of the majority positions of those opposed to the bill(s) anywhere, despite it's use as a hyperbolic slam against anyone who thinks the outcome of the current 'reform' is not going to do much to help in the long run.

I don't receive government assistance; I cannot afford health insurance; I haven't seen a doctor in many years. I'm not young, either. Yet I am opposed to what is going forward (with the understanding that none of us know precisely what will land on the President's desk for signature) because I do not believe that leaving for-profit health insurance companies in the mix is a rational way to address long-term issues. So I don't fit your model, do I?

You are young and undoubtedly busy with your life, but that's really no excuse. If you keep trying to defend a position based on hearsay in a thoughtless manner, you will start looking pretty silly. Read a little; figure out what people are actually saying and why they are saying it - this isn't a one-statement-fits-all situation.

[MadHound]

10. One hell of an assumption there, especially when it is based only on your own life

Try taking a step into the lives and situations of others. Here's mine.

I'm a teacher, I don't get paid crap. One of the ways our union tries to make up for that lack of pay is by having top notch insurance plans, including health insurance. Yes, one of those dreaded "Cadillac" plans so many like to dump on.

Now then, if this bill goes through with the excise tax there are going to be a couple of scenarios facing me. The union will either pass the cost of that excise tax along to me, resulting in higher rates. Or I could be taxed directly, having to pay an extra $1,100-1,300 out of my own already thin wallet. Or my coverage is reduced and I have to start paying for certain things out of my own pocket. Any or all of these scenarios will be a real hit for me, and for millions of others across this country.

Another issue with this bill is if it goes through with either the Stupak amendment or Nelson wording intact. Sorry, but I'm not willing to sacrifice the rights of women's choice just for health insurance. Perhaps you need to ask your wife if she's ready to make that sacrifice.

Finally, my biggest problem with this bill is that it is provides a mandated monopoly for the insurance industry with no effective way of controlling costs, ie a public option. When this happens you will, as in any other monopoly scenario, see your rates climb through the roof, thus negating any and all benefit of this bill. Can you afford rising insurance rates? I certainly can't.

When it comes down to it, in my opinion this is a weak bill that does more harm than good, and thus it needs to be killed and we need to start over, from the beginning.

[hayu_lol]

12. This is called a health care reform bill...

the only reform in this bill is the process of reforming the patients.

This bill needs to die.

Reform the damn insurance companies.

[TwilightGardener]

11. Glad your wife is OK. I also support the bill, flawed as it may be.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

13. This bill would not prevent the underlying reason that you are receiving those high bills

DEDUCTIBLES

An "avoid payment" scheme of the insurance companies. Unknown in most parts of the world (although some countries have co-pays).

The excuse is that deductibles discourage hypochondriacs from spending every day in the doctor's office, but the REAL reason is that it ensures that the majority of healthy people will keep paying often hefty monthly premiums and never meeting their deductible.

With the tax on "Cadillac" health plans, the Senate bill actually ENCOURAGES high deductibles.

This bill won't help you. In fact, if will probably hurt you unless you are very low income.

[Laelth]

16. Oh, we're FOR health care reform.

We're just against the bill currently being considered by Congress, mainly because it does very little to "reform" the system, while it does a lot to further enrich the health insurance companies.

:dem:

-Laelth

[zipplewrath]

21. Implied assumption

I keep having to write this, not uncommon on DU, but implied in your post is the assumption that the current Health Insurance Reform will some how make this different or better. It isn't clear at all that it will make things better, and for you, and those like you, it could make things much worse. Imagine that bill now being $1800 because your employer was avoiding having a "cadillac" plan. Imagine having to bear the full cost of that visit because your plan had a $3000 "deductible" that had to be met before it paid a dime. Imagine that now, your wife will be classified as having a "pre-existing condition" which now allows them to increase your premiums to 300% of what you currently pay. There are alot of loop holes in the current legislation that benefit the insurance companies, and little concrete protections for the consumers. Be careful about your assumptions about the Senate version, or the House for that matter. It's why the Public Option was so important. It gave people a choice between the commercial, for profit, policies and health insurance that would be run by and for the people.

[ghurley]

22. Let me step back for a minute...

I really know little to nothing about either version of either bill. I havn't been paying attention to the health care debate because it wasn't really an important topic for me a few months ago.

The reason I wrote this post is because of the rage that people were getting in over this. "Government run health care will never work" was all I ever heard from people who were receiving some for of government plans.

I am now finding out here (thank you DU) that what we have been left with, these 2 bills, might actually be worse than where we are now.

To me, knowing only what I have heard, it sounds like this is insurance reform, when really it is what we are being charged is a bigger problem.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

26. If this WERE government-run health care, it would probably work better

since the profit motive would be removed.

[subterranean]

25. You make many valid points, but I just want to clarify one thing:

The Senate bill allows insurers to charge 300% more based on age, not pre-existing conditions as you said. They would no longer be allowed to charge anyone more because of pre-existing conditions.

[Kansas Wyatt]

23. I'm union, with 28 years of pre-existing conditions, and I just LOST my health insurance.

Because there is NO work and enough money did not get contributed to my Health & Welfare Fund.
Obama doesn't pay for my insurance, my contractor contributes $7.40 per hour worked to my Health & Welfare Fund.

I am AGAINST this worthless fucking steaming pile of shit they are calling 'Health Care Reform.'

It is an INSURANCE INDUSTRY BAILOUT.

Anyone who is for this HCR/DLC SHIT Bill is against REAL Health Care Reform.

[madmom]

24. This is NOT health CARE reform...it IS health INSURANCE reform, and bad reform at that!