Health Care

[Iron Horse-Apples]

OK, I won't use the word offended. How about bloody angry then?

I'm telling you that, despite what you read, our health service works really well. It has saved the lives of millions of people. The staff are, in my experience dedicated and wonderful people. At present it is being systematically destroyed by a bunch of very rich Eton schoolboys who have never wanted for anyhthing in their lives.

I'm telling you that you know nothing about our health service, and to come on here and say "as bad as the NHS" or whatever it is you said makes you look like an ignorant twat, which you're not!

And I'm not trying to be emotionally manipulative by mentioning my sister. I was voicing genuine hurt and anger at your remark. Free speech is also about having to deal with the impact of your words, and take responsibility for them, wouldn't you say? I get the impression you like to be controversial, and take pleasure in winding people up with some of your more sweeping statements. Sometimes it's funny, in this case it wasn't.

And you're right, Britain has poked its nose into lots of places it shouldn't. A lot of what is wrong with the world today is a direct result of our interfering. But the NHS is something we got very right, and is something that makes me genuinely proud to be British.

Irregardless of what you meant or didn't mean however, I apologise for the harsh tone.

Stephen

[Jason]

It's not even a matter of me wanting to be controversial in this case. It was on my mind and I said it. Maybe I was less tactful than I should have been, but hey...isn't the first time I've lamented a lack of foresight on my part. I'm actually not trying to wind people up in this thread. Sadly, the health care debate turns even the most ambiguous political commentator into a Fox News clone.

Trust me, I don't want health care to get any more worse than it is in this country. Sadly, the cronies in Washington see it otherwise. My opposition to a nationalized system is one of economics and the potential for corruption and decreasing quality. People absolutely have a right to pursue health care. I have major problems when an unaccountable entity known as government takes control of medical care. I also have similar gripes with the insurance companies as well.

[Iron Horse-Apples]

Religion, politics, autotune, Mike Love and healthcare.

[guitarfool2002]

In fairness to both parties here, there have been more than a few posters who do not live in the US who have chimed in about the US health care debacle, in some cases taking sides and supporting the direction and the ideology of the Affordable Care Act. And I'd say yes, anyone can express an opinion, but just like someone living outside the UK offering their opinions of the National Health, those posters are commenting on a system they don't have any direct knowledge about. And a major difference is also growing up within a government-run program your entire life versus a health care system like I just had taken away from me. It carries little or no weight to me for someone outside the US to question opposition to the Obama plans when you've never lived in the US and had more positive experiences, if not life-saving experiences under that very system which is being dismantled and destroyed. Much like Stephen's experience with the NHS means more personally than someone not living within that system would comment against it.

It's yet again a two-way street, and worth keeping in mind that the same feelings that stirred up in a UK resident with firsthand positive experiences reading a critique of the NHS from someone in America feels much like someone in America would feel reading similar comments against those challenges to the Obama plans or the notion of government-controlled health care in general coming from outside the US.

[Iron Horse-Apples]

Its cool now, I think.

TRBB knows I still love him 

[guitarfool2002]

On the health care issue itself, some pertinent information has emerged from all the smokescreens of the past two days since the pro-ACA forces have gotten their copy of the official "talking points" so they can flood the media outlets and websites with the company line designed to tell the people like me who got the letter why we're "wrong".  

There is an issue of timing and the notion of "grandfathering" that may or may not become more relevant than it may seem.

The revelation from NBC News (again, of all places) this week was that the Obama administration knew as early as 3 years ago, 2010, that there would be millions of plans canceled as mine was canceled, a number some have said may reach 19 million individual policy owners who buy insurance outside of a large employer. The political hay is being made over Obama's repeated comments that again I had posted here in the first post 10 pages ago about keeping your current plan...period. He continued to repeat that same "guarantee" in his own speech's wording well into the 2012 campaign, and the suggestion now is that was a lie and a deliberate attempt to sell this policy based on misinformation which they knew was false.

So that's the political side of it.

The nuts-and-bolts involves when exactly did the insurance companies actively renewing and selling their plans know that under the ACA mandates, specific and very minimal changes made to those policies would cause them to be considered "non compliant" under the ACA and therefore subject to termination?

The grandfathering issue came in when the mandates said any plan sold prior to a specific date, I believe October 2010, would have been "grandfathered in" and therefore exempt from the new list of requirements. HOWEVER, the asterisk was added to that which read any changes, even if the deductible was changed by a few dollars for an extreme example, would make that plan non-exempt and up for termination due to non-compliance.

See where I'm going with this?

I renew my plan every year, as everyone does. Renewal means a phone call or a letter saying "yes", I want the same coverage next year as I had this year. No packets of forms to fill in, no referrals, no nothing but a few "yes" answers. My insurance carrier *did* change my plan in ways that didn't affect my current standards as much as it did change some of the parameters which I never use anyway...

...but were they offering products as a business that works on a contract system which they knew as early as 2010 would be "non compliant" and subject to termination, yet did nothing to inform those signing the contracts that this was the case?

This could be something substantial. Contract law within private business agreements is very, very complex yet specific at the same time. You cannot sell or market a product or service that requires a contract agreement while holding the knowledge that the products you're pushing customers into purchasing will be found to be non compliant and therefore null and void.

Locally about 7 years ago we had a large restaurant who still may be on the hook for several thousand dollars to customers who they sold "gift certificates" to and booked parties with, within the span of weeks before they knew they would be closing down the business due to financial debts and bankruptcy issues. You *cannot* sell a gift card or book a large party, sign contracts, and all the legal terms within a week of the date you know the business will cease to exist, and not disclose to the people signing the contracts that the entity your contracting with will cease to exist within the next month.

Much like you cannot sign contracts to sell a house knowing but not disclosing everything that pertains to that property.

This now, to me, becomes an issue of my being asked to sign and comply with a contract that was sold to me without full disclosure and perhaps under false pretenses. If the standards were known to the Obama administration in 2010 yet he deliberately misled with his public statements, that's one thing...but if my health insurer knew in 2010 that the plans they were having me contract for were not in compliance yet failed to inform me of ANYTHING OF THE SORT until October 1 2013 when I got the letter...

Houston, we have a problem. And it may go to a higher legal authority. Hopefully. We'll see.

[Dunderhead]

I think when it comes to the tea party, Aaron Sorkin put it best.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGAvwSp86hY

Really powerful stuff here

Regardless of whether they can vote, half the country doesn't vote, so excuse me if I don't feel bad about the poor little black lady who can't vote for Obama. Two-Party Mass Democracy is the American version of the myth of the metals, Obama is a neo-conservative and like the other neo-conservatives he's a political platonist and an enemy of the open society. I find it hilarious that after years and years of bitching and moaning about the big bad neo-cons, as soon as the democrats elected a neo-con of their own, they've switched over to bitching about the big bad tea party.

Socialism is the worship of "Society":

"You bear a name and need no proof of your existence, you find faith and do no miracles to earn it, you get honor and have neither concept nor feeling thereof. We know that there is no idol in the world. Neither are you human, yet you must be a human image which superstition has made a god. You lack nor eyes nor ears, which nonetheless do not see, do not hear; and the artificial eye you form, the artificial ear you plant, is like your own, blind and deaf. You must know everything, and you learn nothing; you must judge everything, and you understand nothing, ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth; you are talking, or you are pursuing, you are on a journey, or peradventure you sleep, while your priests lift up their voice, and you answer them and their mockery with fire. Offerings are offered you every day, which others consume at your expense, in order that, on the grounds of your hearty meals, your existence seem probable. For all your fastidiousness, you nonetheless welcome all, if only they do not appear before you empty." - Georg Hamann's dedication to "The Public", from "Socratic Memorabilia", 1759

[Bean Bag]

Once the 10 who signed up for ObamaCare get it, we will see stories.  How it saved mama's foot.  But no stories of the millions who paid millions -- when it should have cost hundreds -- for her.

These people will not be heard from.  The people who paid for it.  People who paid the fine.  People who lost their health insurance.  Their employer dropped it.  And they couldn't afford Obama's plans.  So they opted to pay the smaller ObamaCare fine.  The fine the Supreme Court upheld.

Their budget forced them to choose.  Pay the mortgage/keep the home (and go without health insurance) -- or just pay the fine.  The mandatory fine for choosing NO PLAN.  No thanks.

So they have no coverage.  On top of the fine.  Their previous policy was dead.  The news didn't mention any of this.  How much more it cost for ObamaCare.  Their old plan was cheaper.  It was dead and it was better.  They are still uninsured.

[Loaf]

Add my support for the NHS too.

Saved my wife's life, not to mention the childbirth, home visits from midwives, pre- and post-natal classes, discounted prescriptions. Family members have had heart surgery, knee surgery, hernia operations... I could go on and on.

And what do we pay? A small percentage of our meagre incomes.

Being an adult means taking care of your neighbours when they need it.

Those who badmouth the NHS have an agenda that has nothing to do with treatment or the level of care the NHS provides.

[Dunderhead]

Being an adult means taking care of your neighbours when they need it.

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2013/08/private_school_vs_public_school_only_bad_people_send_their_kids_to_private.html

Hail Baal

[guitarfool2002]

There is so much in the past week which has come out, blatant lies and cover-ups told by the creators of this law, which are worth noting.

The big one, the biggest perhaps, was the discovery by a reporter (NOT a politician or any of their well-paid staff and researchers) in a Federal document updating the status of the law and noting changes and amendments to it from JUNE 2010, laughably on page 2000 or something of that report, where the Obama administration officials noted and specifically cited the issue I raised about "grandfathering" existing health care plans after the law took effect.

This was *not only* for individual plans like mine, which as we saw are getting terminated by the thousands each day, and which are now being called "cheap" or "substandard" by the democrats including the president when they're nothing of the sort.

Rather, it involved employer-based coverage plans, of the type most workers have as part of their full-time job. The number is estimated at around 151 million workers carry this insurance.

And the federal document and notes from June 2010 cite a figure that at the minimum, HALF of those workers' plans will be terminated after they're found to be "not in compliance" with the new law.

Just like my individual coverage.

It will be happening to you, too. The figure is estimated around 75 million for the plans to be canceled, on employer-based coverage alone. add in the 15-19 million individual plans which are already set to be canceled, as mine was, you're looking at potentially 100 million people getting a notice that their plan was being terminated.

And the options are bronze-silver-gold-platinum, which all four could be lumped together and called simply "sh*t". Higher rates, higher deductibles, lesser benefits.

Oh, but NO!!!! the democrats and pundits this week have been telling me...you will get BETTER coverage, better plans, your previous plan was cheap, garbage, no good...we have a better plan!

Yep, and I'll be paying for services I don't need. Like maternity care and female birth control, not to mention various pediatric services and other things I don't need yet will still be paying for.

I'll compare it to living in the desert and being forced to buy flood insurance on my homeowners policy. Or having a clean driving record with no accidents and being forced to buy the same kind of liability and higher rates that a person who has had 2 drunk driving convictions would carry.

Those under employer based coverage, enjoy the yearlong temporary reprieve from the mandates. Because you may be one of the 75 million estimated who will be shifted into the "metallic" plans in 2015.

Funny how they knew this in 2010, published it, yet NOT ONE POLITICIAN ON EITHER SIDE BROUGHT IT UP IN THREE YEARS SINCE THE REPORT WAS PRINTED.

Period.

[leggo of my ego]

FRAUDcare:

Cause every 62 yrs old male bachelor needs pregnancy coverage, paternal care & pediatric dentristy.

[guitarfool2002]

FRAUDcare:

Cause every 62 yrs old male bachelor needs pregnancy coverage, paternal care & pediatric dentristy.

Keep this in mind, this was the exact tactic used when the bill was designed in order to declare these millions upon millions of existing health plans "non compliant" so those people could be put into the "exchanges" in numbers large enough to fund this catastrophe. They need a quota of so many million new subscribers, and they knew those millions with good plans would never voluntarily drop their existing plan to go into the exchanges, so they rigged it. Simple and pathetic.

Notice the same lies being told this week by supporters of the law when they try to say the current plans like mine weren't good enough, so the new coverage I'll be forced into will be better for me.

If I'm a single man of any age, and buying a health plan for the next year, knowing my situation why would I need to buy any form of maternity, pregnancy, or any other care related to pregnancy or children if I don't have any, am a male, and know for a 100% fact that I will not become pregnant in the next 12 months...or biologically speaking, ever?

Yet, because my plan didn't cover enough prenatal care in general, it's garbage according to the law's supporters and talking heads?

Again, I use two simple words in reply: "lies" and "bullshit".

Or to flip it around, what about requiring a female of any age, single, to buy insurance related to prostate cancer?

So damn simple to see the fraud in all of this, yet ideology and politics (not to mention blind devotion in and support for certain politicians) gets in the way of common sense.

I guess more people than I thought don't mind being lied to if they love and support those telling the lies.

[Jason]

Add my support for the NHS too.

Saved my wife's life, not to mention the childbirth, home visits from midwives, pre- and post-natal classes, discounted prescriptions. Family members have had heart surgery, knee surgery, hernia operations... I could go on and on.

And what do we pay? A small percentage of our meagre incomes.

Being an adult means taking care of your neighbours when they need it.

Those who badmouth the NHS have an agenda that has nothing to do with treatment or the level of care the NHS provides.

And pray tell, what agenda do you hallucinate those against nationalized health care have?

[guitarfool2002]

Being an adult means taking care of your neighbours when they need it.

I'll bite. Temporarily.

True story: A former neighbor of mine had a history of heart issues. This led to a multiple-bypass surgery, this was about 10 years ago. Having known and worked with several men his age (55+) who had similar surgeries, the post-operative regimen included a very strict, very controlled diet which included no caffeine, no alcohol, definitely no tobacco, and other very specific directions from the doctor in order to remain healthy.

How should we have reacted then when walking to the car one weekend afternoon we spotted him drinking a can of beer and smoking a cigarette in front of his place?

At some point there should at least be an attempt to accept some of the responsibility along with accepting the care from the neighbors. If neighbors are being told to take care of each other, I'd suggest those being taken care of should take some measures to earn that notion that someone will take care of them.

You cannot expect people to pay for your care if you ignore the burdens and responsibilities of receiving it.

Also, you as a neighbor: If a neighbor comes to you and says "I'm really short this month, I need some money to help cover my bills and my kid, can you loan me something?" And you voluntarily say yes, in the name of taking care of your neighbor, and write him a decent-sized check to cover his bills, and help him out.

Then a week later, you're walking out your front door and you see a brand new Harley motorcycle sitting in the guy's driveway, and he yells over "Check out my new bike!".

Would you feel just a little bit duped at that point? Would you loan him money again?

Now I'm expected to be forced into helping with no standards of responsibility or accountability or even honesty being included in that agreement?

[Jason]

See, that's the lefties and their idea of "personal responsibility" - having others pay for their lack of personal responsibility.

[Loaf]

Being an adult means taking care of your neighbours when they need it.

I'll bite. Temporarily.

[...]

Now I'm expected to be forced into helping with no standards of responsibility or accountability or even honesty being included in that agreement?

You've presented a single case among nearly limitless examples both for and against, so I'm not sure how responding to one single case will provide a suitable answer for every different example out there, but here is my simplified answer to your simplified case... Yes.

Yes, the guy who needs heart surgery gets it. Maybe there's qualifications, and i'm not a policymaker, but as a general rule, yes. Tough sh*t. So he's smoking and drinking afterwards... so, he'll die? Problem solved. No more surgeries for him. If he doesn't appreciate it, tough luck.

[Loaf]

See, that's the lefties and their idea of "personal responsibility" - having others pay for their lack of personal responsibility.

I'm not sure if i'm a "lefty" under attack here (i'm not "left" or "right" btw), but in case i am, or if my post is under attack, i have no lack of personal responsibility. I work hard for a below-average salary. Money, beyond a certain minimum level, just isn't that important to me. I enjoy my job, i work hard, i support my family, and thank foda i don't have to worry about putting a price on my health, because that's covered by the NHS. One less thing to worry about in life, and i can concentrate on more important things than money

[Loaf]

Being an adult means taking care of your neighbours when they need it.

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2013/08/private_school_vs_public_school_only_bad_people_send_their_kids_to_private.html

Hail Baal

I"m not sure why you're quoting my post and linking to this article. This article is disingenuous in the extreme and, to me, reads more like satire than journalism.

[Bean Bag]

FRAUDcare:

Cause every 62 yrs old male bachelor needs pregnancy coverage, paternal care & pediatric dentristy.

Homerun. Thank you.

[Bean Bag]

Get more people care. When they need it.  For lower costs.  And for longer than just one generation.  That's the goal.

Socialist-type plans don't work much beyond one generation.  To be exact... they don't withstand external "contaminants."  Such as, a flood of immigrants.  Or a baby boom.  Or a DROP in the birth-rate.  Workers to pay for it all and the loss of tax revenue when they're not working.  Any Life fluctuation is not accounted for in the socialism "nitty gritty."

Is the NHS sustainable?  Talk to your kids or grandkids, they usually get the bill.  If all this sounds like an agenda -- I'm cool with that.  An agenda out in the open is no problem.  It might even save a life in this case.



PS:  ObamaCare is much worse than the NHS.

[guitarfool2002]

Being an adult means taking care of your neighbours when they need it.

I'll bite. Temporarily.

[...]

Now I'm expected to be forced into helping with no standards of responsibility or accountability or even honesty being included in that agreement?

You've presented a single case among nearly limitless examples both for and against, so I'm not sure how responding to one single case will provide a suitable answer for every different example out there, but here is my simplified answer to your simplified case... Yes.

Yes, the guy who needs heart surgery gets it. Maybe there's qualifications, and i'm not a policymaker, but as a general rule, yes. Tough sh*t. So he's smoking and drinking afterwards... so, he'll die? Problem solved. No more surgeries for him. If he doesn't appreciate it, tough luck.

I've presented two cases, one from personal experience and one hypothetical which can be molded and shaped any way to outline the same thing.

There is less of a call to act responsibly than there is a call to act based on pure ideology or the emotion of "we have to do *something* to help". Yes, but what if the method of help is not effective, or beyond that actually becomes detrimental to those trying to offer the help?

See, that's what no one ever answers. Instead of answers, such a question is met with challenges and ideology-based hectoring along the lines of attacking those for even daring to ask the question.

I've seen it more times than I'd care to admit. And it tells me - personally - that the folks going back to the emotional-ideological playbook can't answer it with any level of logic. When logic fails, emotion takes over. So, we get cries of "but we need to help!".

Okay, so is "helping" in the case of seeing a neighbor's garage on fire running to fill buckets with water to put it out as a first reaction, or calling the emergency line for the fire department first? They could both be done to "help", yet one is and should be the immediate reaction.

And having lived for years in a major city, Boston, I interacted with the homeless nearly every day and night as I walked. I got to see that in between the truly needy, the truly helpless (when I'd walk past a shelter for homeless military veterans where they'd serve hot meals and the line would be around the block some nights), there were corners where you would see the same persons there every day. There was even a guy who would walk up and down Massachusetts Ave on a regular basis asking passers-by for help because he had run out of gas. He needed some money to get a gas can filled up so he could be on his way, 20 dollars, 10 dollars, whatever would help him out.

The first time I saw him, I almost bought the story, but I didn't have any spare cash to give him. Then when I saw the same guy about a week later on the same city block telling the same out-of-gas story as I got, I knew it was a ruse.

Tell me in any way why or how I would be expected to help that guy who was lying in order to get people's charity money? Am I expected to open my wallet and give him a 20? Who knows how many passers-by did in fact give him money, only to find him run out of gas on the same block days later.

Again, where is the level of responsibility on *that individual* when he says he needs gas money, someone gives him gas money, he takes it, and it turns out to be a scam from the beginning?

But you're suggesting that man is entitled to take and receive people's help? Where is the return, or isn't that necessary if the emotion says "that poor man needs my help"?

And again, I'm happy the NHS works for you personally, as it should. But that's in the UK, and within a totally different system and way of life than in the US. So what works within that system could run against much of what another system actually is. A square peg in a round hole. It wouldn't fit.

And before it gets into communism/socialism-versus-capitalism, that's not the point of this thread and I won't let it go there again. 

[Rocky Raccoon]

You're not looking at the big picture, Guitar Fool.  When it comes to helping the homeless, yes, giving money to people on the streets is incredibly irresponsible, both for the people asking and for the people giving.  But there are other ways to help such as volunteering to cook and/or serve at a soup kitchen which I have done many times and it is an incredibly rewarding experience and there's no getting cheated in it.

[guitarfool2002]

You're not looking at the big picture, Guitar Fool.  When it comes to helping the homeless, yes, giving money to people on the streets is incredibly irresponsible, both for the people asking and for the people giving.  But there are other ways to help such as volunteering to cook and/or serve at a soup kitchen which I have done many times and it is an incredibly rewarding experience and there's no getting cheated in it.

And there it is, spelled out: The exact kind of scenario I described. Emotion over logic, assumptions without knowledge. Now I'm not seeing "the big picture", do you assume I cannot see it, am not experienced or knowledgeable enough to see it, or just choose to ignore opinions which are more correct than mine on what exactly the "big picture" is?

There is no mention in your post of the issue of personal responsibility, there is no attempt to answer the question of what the return is for the help or even if there should be a different expectation...rather it's a case of my failure to see your definition of the big picture. Not the exact issue I raised, mind you, but a distraction and diversion into something else.

The emotion is helping the homeless. The assumption is I'm not seeing it the right way, or perhaps is that emotion also based on a perception that I'm somehow less sympathetic or that I simply don't "care" (love that buzzword) about either helping the homeless or the plight of the homeless in general.

What knowledge of me gave you the ability or even the right to make any personal assumptions about me when you know next to nothing about me, my past, my family, or damn near anything else necessary to assume and state anything about me apart from writings on a message board?

That's the old playbook being dusted off again. Just make assumptions, run purely on emotion, maybe suggest I don't care as much as you or someone else because of an opinion I expressed that disagrees with your own.

It doesn't bother me as much now because it's so easy to spot when it's thrown into a discussion, especially on anything remotely political in nature. So I take it for what it is.

Or maybe you know my history better than I do? Or else should we say because I posted something that gives you the ability to form an accurate profile of me enough to make suggestions to others?

Not gonna happen here.

And I commend you for volunteering to help the homeless. I seriously do. As my Dad was a veteran, he was very concerned with helping homeless veterans, but in his later years he was physically unable to do all that much in person. Yet we would take used clothing to veterans' clothing drives, support numerous charities helping homeless and veterans benefits, and do various other perhaps smaller things to help a cause he and I cared about.

Again, your volunteer work is very much appreciated and unfortunately very much necessary in these current times. I hope the food banks and programs like Manna and other meal programs don't become even more necessary in the next few years with what has been going on.

But that was not my point, nowhere near my point, and to raise it in this way was, I'd suggest, misplaced.

Since it's raised, though, ask yourself this: You volunteer of your own free will to give your time and effort in the ways you do. Would it be any different if you were mandated or forced in any way to do similar acts, even if it was strictly with money or even a mandate that said you are required under law to give up X amount of hours each week to work in the kitchens feeding the homeless, with no pay?

It gets to where the act of charity becomes a requirement, and there is no choice in the matter from the individuals required to perform those acts. It's not charity, it's your job, but with nothing given in return and nothing expected from those receiving your mandated time and efforts to receive them.

[Jason]

You're not looking at the big picture, Guitar Fool.  When it comes to helping the homeless, yes, giving money to people on the streets is incredibly irresponsible, both for the people asking and for the people giving.  But there are other ways to help such as volunteering to cook and/or serve at a soup kitchen which I have done many times and it is an incredibly rewarding experience and there's no getting cheated in it.

Yes, it is always so much easier to be a moral crusader with someone else's money. I mean hey, your conscience just SWELLS at the thought of someone else paying for your or someone else's indiscretion.

Your "big picture" is hallucinated on your part. It doesn't exist.