Jump to content

80 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Filed: Country: Philippines
Timeline
Posted
Gary, are you familiar with Massachusetts Health Care Plan? Sounds good to me.

The proposal sets a sliding scale of affordability standards in which, for example, a single person earning $40,001 a year would be expected to pay no more than 9 percent of income, or about $300 a month, for health insurance; a single person earning $25,000 a year would be expected to pay a much smaller percentage, about 3.3 percent of income, or $70 a month.

.....

It would allow about 52,000 more low-income people to qualify for free or cheaper coverage. A person earning up to $15,315, one and half times the federal poverty level, would not have to pay anything under this proposal.

Individuals earning $30,630 to $50,001 would not be eligible for state subsidies, but they would not be penalized if they could not find health insurance priced at $150 to $300 a month. People who earn more than $50,001 would not be given a cap on insurance costs.

People who claim they cannot afford coverage under the new system could apply for a waiver.

The proposal represents a carefully hammered-out compromise. Business groups wanted to make sure that premiums for state-sponsored insurance would not be too much less than the employee contributions to an employer’s plan because they fear that people would flock to the government-sponsored plans, driving up the cost to the state. Advocates for poor people had wanted lower costs for more residents.

“It doesn’t go the whole way, but it’s good enough for today,” said John McDonough, executive director of Health Care for All, an advocacy group. “I know there’s a lot of trash talk around the country about, ‘Oh it’s falling apart in Massachusetts.’ It ain’t true. We are going to be far and away the state with the lowest number of uninsured by a country mile.”

Leslie A. Kirwan, the Massachusetts secretary of administration and finance, who is chairwoman of the authority’s board, said the support of advocates like Mr. McDonough was earned in part by action by Gov. Deval L. Patrick, who agreed to waive fees that more than 10,000 poor families were paying for their children to be covered by Medicaid.

“There were real doubts about whether we could forge a compromise that the advocates could embrace and also make sure that the business community embraced it,” Ms. Kirwan said.

An employers’ group gave the plan cautious support on Wednesday.

....

For Andrea Peña, a single mother of three, the proposal would make possible better and more secure health care coverage. Ms. Peña, a 39-year-old dental assistant who lives in public housing in South Boston, has been receiving Medicaid, but the income from her two part-time jobs recently increased to above $20,000, threatening to disqualify her from state aid. Under the new plan, Ms. Peña would be eligible for free state-sponsored insurance that would provide better dental and vision coverage.

“Just imagine if something were to happen to me,” Ms. Peña said. “Thanks to this I don’t have to worry about that any more.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/us/12mas...nyt&emc=rss

I have heard of it but I haven't really researched it. But it does kind of prove my point though. The federal government does not need to take over the whole health care system. It can be done on a state by state basis just as our constitution lays things out. I know in Illinois we have a state program that covers children. So there are no children in Illinois that is without health care.

There is a basic difference between a federal one size fits all health care system and something each state can come up with. I am best described as a constructionist. I believe in states rights and a minimum of federal government intervention. I will never be in favor of a national health care system but I would listen to a state by state system that is easier to manage.

Sounds reasonable to me. I just want to see everyone have access to healthcare, regardless of income.

  • Replies 79
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted (edited)

I really dont understand your acceptance Gary that basic health care in a civilised society should not be a right for all, from the cradle to the grave. Because I am lazy I am going to cut and post (vaguely edited) my comments in a previous thread on health care. I am sorry but I find the "system" here wholly unpalatable, like someone else suggested I too suspect you are in the enviable position of being provided/affording good health coverage (will this always be the case?) and again would ask is there anyone who has moved here from one of these "socialised" health care systems that actually prefers the sytem here in the USA either for themselves individually or for the population as a whole?

I find it very hard to follow some of what I find the "high ground" logic applied throughout all arguments not to provide universal health care here. I suspect that many of those who argue most vehemently against it are in the very fortunate position of being very adequately covered by personal insurance or work related benefits.

I come from the UK health system and whatever anyone may say I personally through 47 years of experience never had a single complaint, I paid my taxes when working and from the cradle to the grave knew I was covered and wouldn't be questioned about my coverage or given a bill when circumstances dictated I needed to use the health service and if the situation was life threatening I never met a waiting list.

I am appalled that a country that ranks so poorly in league tables of life expectancy, health coverage and infant mortality can so easily scoff at systems like the UK's (I am amused when Rush Limbaugh can say socialist - which the U K's system isn't - and make it sound like communist!)

Some things I have witnessed since I have lived here:

- health care seems to be based on the insurance policy you carry if they'll pay for the tests they will run them regardless of necessity or benefit

- I have seen people lose their homes due to medical bills - unpalatable to me in a civilised society

- not qualifying for Medicaid due to low income doesn't mean you can afford the high premiums of an insurance policy and co-pays

- I have known someone die of cancer of the breast because she felt she couldn't afford to seek treatment by the time she did it was too late to be treatable

- in my job I have seen elderly people make the choice on whether to buy prescriptions or food !!!!!!!!

- here individual employers each pay (or not) differing health care costs thus creating an uneven economic playing field a nationalised system levels the field for all to compete (every firm paying the same level of taxation and each employee contributing the same amount of salary to receive like benefits)

I personally believe that you judge a society by the way it treats those least able to help themselves ...............

With regard to your comment that any system should be done state by state surely taht would lead to a system that creates health care on the smae basis as immigration benefits good service depending where you live.

By providing basic health care for all you automatically create a healthier society, and you can still allow those who can afford it the ability to buy fast executive care (BUPA) and by taking the management and funding off individual employers to provide and set a standard tax rate per employee for both employer and employee you create a level playing field for all businesses. I ead somewhere that the % of health care costs that goes on administration is astronomical compared to other systems (try a Google search) around the world.

Do I think it will ever change here .... no ..... there are too many vested interests (doctors, insurance companies etc) all with their finger in the pot and funding political candidates for there ever to be a decent system that is humane to all its societies members not just those lucky enough to be in a position to look after themselves.

And I am certain that over an average life the cost of care here far exceeds the cost of the health care tax burden "imposed" on UK workers ........ but the peace of mind in the UK that what tomorrow throws up os catered for is PRICELESS

* Edited to ask "how many are aware President Bush this week vetoed an increase to the child health provisions of the free programme fully supported by both senate and congress?" pooooh the powers of veto!

Edited by Widge

LifeacrossthePond

Removing Conditions (here we go again)

July 27th I-751 sent to Nebraska

July 30th USPS delivered

Aug 22nd check cashed

Aug 23rd I797C received - case been transferred to California

Aug 29th Biometrics Appt Letter arrived

Sept 12th Biometrics Appt Pittsburgh

Sept 24th email notice of Approval - card ordered !!!!!!

Filed: Country: United Kingdom
Timeline
Posted
I really dont understand your acceptance Gary that basic health care in a civilised society should not be a right for all, from the cradle to the grave. Because I am lazy I am going to cut and post (vaguely edited) my comments in a previous thread on health care. I am sorry but I find the "system" here wholly unpalatable, like someone else suggested I too suspect you are in the enviable position of being provided/affording good health coverage (will this always be the case?) and again would ask is there anyone who has moved here from one of these "socialised" health care systems that actually prefers the sytem here in the USA either for themselves individually or for the population as a whole?

I find it very hard to follow some of what I find the "high ground" logic applied throughout all arguments not to provide universal health care here. I suspect that many of those who argue most vehemently against it are in the very fortunate position of being very adequately covered by personal insurance or work related benefits.

I come from the UK health system and whatever anyone may say I personally through 47 years of experience never had a single complaint, I paid my taxes when working and from the cradle to the grave knew I was covered and wouldn't be questioned about my coverage or given a bill when circumstances dictated I needed to use the health service and if the situation was life threatening I never met a waiting list.

I am appalled that a country that ranks so poorly in league tables of life expectancy, health coverage and infant mortality can so easily scoff at systems like the UK's (I am amused when Rush Limbaugh can say socialist - which the U K's system isn't - and make it sound like communist!)

Some things I have witnessed since I have lived here:

- health care seems to be based on the insurance policy you carry if they'll pay for the tests they will run them regardless of necessity or benefit

- I have seen people lose their homes due to medical bills - unpalatable to me in a civilised society

- not qualifying for Medicaid due to low income doesn't mean you can afford the high premiums of an insurance policy and co-pays

- I have known someone die of cancer of the breast because she felt she couldn't afford to seek treatment by the time she did it was too late to be treatable

- in my job I have seen elderly people make the choice on whether to buy prescriptions or food !!!!!!!!

- here individual employers each pay (or not) differing health care costs thus creating an uneven economic playing field a nationalised system levels the field for all to compete (every firm paying the same level of taxation and each employee contributing the same amount of salary to receive like benefits)

I personally believe that you judge a society by the way it treats those least able to help themselves ...............

With regard to your comment that any system should be done state by state surely taht would lead to a system that creates health care on the smae basis as immigration benefits good service depending where you live.

By providing basic health care for all you automatically create a healthier society, and you can still allow those who can afford it the ability to buy fast executive care (BUPA) and by taking the management and funding off individual employers to provide and set a standard tax rate per employee for both employer and employee you create a level playing field for all businesses. I ead somewhere that the % of health care costs that goes on administration is astronomical compared to other systems (try a Google search) around the world.

Do I think it will ever change here .... no ..... there are too many vested interests (doctors, insurance companies etc) all with their finger in the pot and funding political candidates for there ever to be a decent system that is humane to all its societies members not just those lucky enough to be in a position to look after themselves.

And I am certain that over an average life the cost of care here far exceeds the cost of the health care tax burden "imposed" on UK workers ........ but the peace of mind in the UK that what tomorrow throws up os catered for is PRICELESS

* Edited to ask "how many are aware President Bush this week vetoed an increase to the child health provisions of the free programme fully supported by both senate and congress?" pooooh the powers of veto!

mittens.gif

Wonderful post, completely agree.

Filed: AOS (pnd) Country: Australia
Timeline
Posted (edited)

Without some sort of government intervention the predicament the USA is in will only get worse. Since insurance companies are profit motivated they will continue to cherry pick only the healthiest of individuals to offer affordable coverage to. As medical costs continue to rise insurance companies will continue to raise premiums, forcing more and more companies to drop insurance coverage for their employees. The current system is a no-win situation and needs to be fixed. If you believe that somehow that the medical or insurance industries will somehow work this all out by themselves you are mistaken.

The latest number I saw said their were 47 MILLION uninsured people. My guess is that a large majority of these people work in low paying jobs that don't offer health insurance benefits. There is NO reason why these people should have to live in fear of getting sick or injured and going into the hospital just ONCE and winding up with enough debt to either bankrupt them or take literally years to pay off.

Edited by JohnK
Posted
"how many are aware President Bush this week vetoed an increase to the child health provisions of the free programme fully supported by both senate and congress?" pooooh the powers of veto!

Funded by a cigarette tax. How stupid is that?

cp23faeb4662a1120b41f7570b9451ff95.gif

Filed: Citizen (pnd) Country: Canada
Timeline
Posted
I personally believe that you judge a society by the way it treats those least able to help themselves ...............

Amen. Great post Widge!

*Cheryl -- Nova Scotia ....... Jerry -- Oklahoma*

Jan 17, 2014 N-400 submitted

Jan 27, 2014 NOA received and cheque cashed

Feb 13, 2014 Biometrics scheduled

Nov 7, 2014 NOA received and interview scheduled


MAY IS NATIONAL STROKE AWARENESS MONTH
Educate Yourself on the Warning Signs of Stroke -- talk to me, I am a survivor!

"Life is as the little shadow that runs across the grass and loses itself in the sunset" ---Crowfoot

The true measure of a society is how those who have treat those who don't.

Filed: Country: Philippines
Timeline
Posted
Without some sort of government intervention the predicament the USA is in will only get worse. Since insurance companies are profit motivated they will continue to cherry pick only the healthiest of individuals to offer affordable coverage to. As medical costs continue to rise insurance companies will continue to raise premiums, forcing more and more companies to drop insurance coverage for their employees. The current system is a no-win situation and needs to be fixed. If you believe that somehow that the medical or insurance industries will somehow work this all out by themselves you are mistaken.

The latest number I saw said their were 47 MILLION uninsured people. My guess is that a large majority of these people work in low paying jobs that don't offer health insurance benefits. There is NO reason why these people should have to live in fear of getting sick or injured and going into the hospital just ONCE and winding up with enough debt to either bankrupt them or take literally years to pay off.

Well said. :thumbs:

Posted (edited)
I really dont understand your acceptance Gary that basic health care in a civilised society should not be a right for all, from the cradle to the grave. Because I am lazy I am going to cut and post (vaguely edited) my comments in a previous thread on health care. I am sorry but I find the "system" here wholly unpalatable, like someone else suggested I too suspect you are in the enviable position of being provided/affording good health coverage (will this always be the case?) and again would ask is there anyone who has moved here from one of these "socialised" health care systems that actually prefers the sytem here in the USA either for themselves individually or for the population as a whole?

I find it very hard to follow some of what I find the "high ground" logic applied throughout all arguments not to provide universal health care here. I suspect that many of those who argue most vehemently against it are in the very fortunate position of being very adequately covered by personal insurance or work related benefits.

I come from the UK health system and whatever anyone may say I personally through 47 years of experience never had a single complaint, I paid my taxes when working and from the cradle to the grave knew I was covered and wouldn't be questioned about my coverage or given a bill when circumstances dictated I needed to use the health service and if the situation was life threatening I never met a waiting list.

I am appalled that a country that ranks so poorly in league tables of life expectancy, health coverage and infant mortality can so easily scoff at systems like the UK's (I am amused when Rush Limbaugh can say socialist - which the U K's system isn't - and make it sound like communist!)

Some things I have witnessed since I have lived here:

- health care seems to be based on the insurance policy you carry if they'll pay for the tests they will run them regardless of necessity or benefit

- I have seen people lose their homes due to medical bills - unpalatable to me in a civilised society

- not qualifying for Medicaid due to low income doesn't mean you can afford the high premiums of an insurance policy and co-pays

- I have known someone die of cancer of the breast because she felt she couldn't afford to seek treatment by the time she did it was too late to be treatable

- in my job I have seen elderly people make the choice on whether to buy prescriptions or food !!!!!!!!

- here individual employers each pay (or not) differing health care costs thus creating an uneven economic playing field a nationalised system levels the field for all to compete (every firm paying the same level of taxation and each employee contributing the same amount of salary to receive like benefits)

I personally believe that you judge a society by the way it treats those least able to help themselves ...............

With regard to your comment that any system should be done state by state surely taht would lead to a system that creates health care on the smae basis as immigration benefits good service depending where you live.

By providing basic health care for all you automatically create a healthier society, and you can still allow those who can afford it the ability to buy fast executive care (BUPA) and by taking the management and funding off individual employers to provide and set a standard tax rate per employee for both employer and employee you create a level playing field for all businesses. I ead somewhere that the % of health care costs that goes on administration is astronomical compared to other systems (try a Google search) around the world.

Do I think it will ever change here .... no ..... there are too many vested interests (doctors, insurance companies etc) all with their finger in the pot and funding political candidates for there ever to be a decent system that is humane to all its societies members not just those lucky enough to be in a position to look after themselves.

And I am certain that over an average life the cost of care here far exceeds the cost of the health care tax burden "imposed" on UK workers ........ but the peace of mind in the UK that what tomorrow throws up os catered for is PRICELESS

* Edited to ask "how many are aware President Bush this week vetoed an increase to the child health provisions of the free programme fully supported by both senate and congress?" pooooh the powers of veto!

I have never heard a great deal about the Uk's UHC plan. I also havent heard anyone using it as a "model" Maybe the best way is to give people a choice between private and government. May the best plan win.

Edited by CarolsMarc

"I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."- Ayn Rand

“Your freedom to be you includes my freedom to be free from you.”

― Andrew Wilkow

Posted
Without some sort of government intervention the predicament the USA is in will only get worse. Since insurance companies are profit motivated they will continue to cherry pick only the healthiest of individuals to offer affordable coverage to. As medical costs continue to rise insurance companies will continue to raise premiums, forcing more and more companies to drop insurance coverage for their employees. The current system is a no-win situation and needs to be fixed. If you believe that somehow that the medical or insurance industries will somehow work this all out by themselves you are mistaken.

The latest number I saw said their were 47 MILLION uninsured people. My guess is that a large majority of these people work in low paying jobs that don't offer health insurance benefits. There is NO reason why these people should have to live in fear of getting sick or injured and going into the hospital just ONCE and winding up with enough debt to either bankrupt them or take literally years to pay off.

i agree totally brother john....

Peace to All creatures great and small............................................

But when we turn to the Hebrew literature, we do not find such jokes about the donkey. Rather the animal is known for its strength and its loyalty to its master (Genesis 49:14; Numbers 22:30).

Peppi_drinking_beer.jpg

my burro, bosco ..enjoying a beer in almaty

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...st&id=10835

Posted
Without some sort of government intervention the predicament the USA is in will only get worse. Since insurance companies are profit motivated they will continue to cherry pick only the healthiest of individuals to offer affordable coverage to. As medical costs continue to rise insurance companies will continue to raise premiums, forcing more and more companies to drop insurance coverage for their employees. The current system is a no-win situation and needs to be fixed. If you believe that somehow that the medical or insurance industries will somehow work this all out by themselves you are mistaken.

The latest number I saw said their were 47 MILLION uninsured people. My guess is that a large majority of these people work in low paying jobs that don't offer health insurance benefits. There is NO reason why these people should have to live in fear of getting sick or injured and going into the hospital just ONCE and winding up with enough debt to either bankrupt them or take literally years to pay off.

Well said. :thumbs:

It's actually a bit worse than that. The biggest problem an insurance company has is getting people around my age or a little younger to get coverage. We're a desired group because, well, we rarely get seriously sick. (To quote from House, 'she's 28 years old. whatever she has is unusual.) So to the insurance company, I'm easy money. I'm going to give them a monthly payment, and in return I might schedule an annual checkup or get a pap smear.

Thing is, people my age are just starting out in their careers (so don't necessarily have health insurance available through work) and are likely to figure they're better off taking their chances than paying out the ### for a service the odds say they won't use. So the insurance company's profit margin depends on them courting a group that doesn't really have a good reason to bother with them.

AOS

-

Filed: 8/1/07

NOA1:9/7/07

Biometrics: 9/28/07

EAD/AP: 10/17/07

EAD card ordered again (who knows, maybe we got the two-fer deal): 10/23/-7

Transferred to CSC: 10/26/07

Approved: 11/21/07

Filed: Other Country: Canada
Timeline
Posted (edited)

Okay, so... the American healthcare system is flawed. I can believe that. The Canadian healthcare system is also flawed. I can believe that as well. So what do we do about this?

Well, how about instead of each side pointing fingers and reciting ridiculous rhetoric, we come up with a plan that's actually middle-of-the-road? One that's not all privatized or all government-run, but something in-between. Yes, that's a lofty goal and it'd probably be fairly tough to institute, but it sounds better to me than a completely "black-or-white" option.

Here's what I think: We merge the best of the American and Canadian healthcare plans together and use that. As in Canada's healthcare system, basic coverage would be available to everyone. Notice I emphasized the word "basic." That's because the system would cover absolutely vital and essential needs; however, it would not cover everything and private insurance would be available to anyone and everyone if they so wished.

Would there be a difference in the quality of care? Maybe. I don't know for sure. However, I do believe in the old saying: "You get what you pay for." In other words, if Bob wants a procedure done for free and John wants the same procedure performed, but says he can pay "top dollar" for it, who do you think is probably going to be given priority, better service and possibly even higher quality treatment? ;)

Don't start with the whole "but that's unequal treatment" #######. Of course it's unequal! Since when has anything been truly equal?! If two people are demanding the same service from you, only one is paying and the other isn't, do you honestly believe you're going to give both of them the very same treatment?

If you say "yes" then you're not being honest with yourself and I'm not saying this to mean or insulting. You may not even intend on being unequal in your treatment, but without even realizing it, you will be. Why go through all the effort and hard work for someone who isn't paying you? It's a waste of your time, energy and resources. The only time it might be acceptable is if this "freebie" was done for family or close friends, and even then, it shouldn't become an all too often occurrence.

Edited by DeadPoolX
Posted

The Birth of Socialist Planning

It is often thought that the idea of socialism derives from the work of Karl Marx. In fact, Marx wrote only a few pages about socialism, as either a moral or a practical blueprint for society. The true architect of a socialist order was Lenin, who first faced the practical difficulties of organizing an economic system without the driving incentives of profit seeking or the self-generating constraints of competition. Lenin began from the long-standing delusion that economic organization would become less complex once the profit drive and the market mechanism had been dispensed with—"as self-evident," he wrote, as "the extraordinarily simple operations of watching, recording, and issuing receipts, within the reach of anybody who can read and write and knows the first four rules of arithmetic."

In fact, economic life pursued under these first four rules rapidly became so disorganized that within four years of the 1917 revolution, Soviet production had fallen to 14 percent of its prerevolutionary level. By 1921 Lenin was forced to institute the New Economic Policy (NEP), a partial return to the market incentives of capitalism. This brief mixture of socialism and capitalism came to an end in 1927 after Stalin instituted the process of forced collectivization that was to mobilize Russian resources for its leap into industrial power.

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Socialism.html

"I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."- Ayn Rand

“Your freedom to be you includes my freedom to be free from you.”

― Andrew Wilkow

Filed: Citizen (pnd) Country: Canada
Timeline
Posted

and your point is.....?

*Cheryl -- Nova Scotia ....... Jerry -- Oklahoma*

Jan 17, 2014 N-400 submitted

Jan 27, 2014 NOA received and cheque cashed

Feb 13, 2014 Biometrics scheduled

Nov 7, 2014 NOA received and interview scheduled


MAY IS NATIONAL STROKE AWARENESS MONTH
Educate Yourself on the Warning Signs of Stroke -- talk to me, I am a survivor!

"Life is as the little shadow that runs across the grass and loses itself in the sunset" ---Crowfoot

The true measure of a society is how those who have treat those who don't.

 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
- Back to Top -

Important Disclaimer: Please read carefully the Visajourney.com Terms of Service. If you do not agree to the Terms of Service you should not access or view any page (including this page) on VisaJourney.com. Answers and comments provided on Visajourney.com Forums are general information, and are not intended to substitute for informed professional medical, psychiatric, psychological, tax, legal, investment, accounting, or other professional advice. Visajourney.com does not endorse, and expressly disclaims liability for any product, manufacturer, distributor, service or service provider mentioned or any opinion expressed in answers or comments. VisaJourney.com does not condone immigration fraud in any way, shape or manner. VisaJourney.com recommends that if any member or user knows directly of someone involved in fraudulent or illegal activity, that they report such activity directly to the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. You can contact ICE via email at Immigration.Reply@dhs.gov or you can telephone ICE at 1-866-347-2423. All reported threads/posts containing reference to immigration fraud or illegal activities will be removed from this board. If you feel that you have found inappropriate content, please let us know by contacting us here with a url link to that content. Thank you.
×
×
  • Create New...