71% Mo. voters reject key provision of health care law

scb wrote:

HeidiJam:

Why do you keep insisting that healthcare is affordable despite the evidence that virtually no one in the United States can necessarily afford it? And please back up your response with cited data.

Why do you support a system (private health insurance) where some people pay more than their share and others take more than their share, but reject a such a system only when it would mean coverage for everyone (public health insurance)? How can you reject this system and support the unemployment system?

We are fortunate and proud to live in a nation that has the ability to care for the health of our ENTIRE population. As a rich and proud nation, why on earth would we not choose to care for our own people?

Why do you value your money over the health of others?

No, i was saying that healthcare insurace is affordable, which in turn makes healthcare affordable. Where is your data that healh insurance is not affordable. Just because people don't have it does not mean its not affordable. People have a choice on what to spend their money on, and some don't think that health insurance is that important. I can only support that system that i know and that I have had no issues with. I have had no issue witht he current system and it is the only system that I know. How is that not a good enough answer, I am not going to say taht universial health care is better when i have never experienced it. How can you say that??? We are a fortunate nation that SOME have the ability to pay for health care, others will simply receive a service that they will not pay for. I am not choosing to NOT care for our own people, Its that your using the word RIGHT as a disguise to cover what is really is, and that is dependancy. We can't continue to prop people back up just to continually leach the system. My concern is that I don't see an end to the constant FORCED chairity, And i fear that we are a few generations away from deeming priviliges as rights. We are already on that path we are now supplying cell phones to people on welfar. That is a privlige, yet we are now treating that as a right.

inmytree wrote:

who's saying everything is a right...?

I think you're just making stuff up now....

And why do you hate people so much...? seriously, you present yourself as angry individual...

Your saying health care is a right and its not. I am simply asking where does it end, and no one can answer me because you keep disguising the word right with dependancy. And what have I made up. I have done nothing but express my opinion on the matter? And if you don't think people are lazy then i feel sorry for you. Why do you think I hate people??? because i don't think health care is a right???
I am not an angry individual, you think that because I don't agree with yoru point of view... Sorry, but unlike you I am not a pansy and I think it is time for people to start taking care of them selves. if you can't respect of understand that then quit replying to my posts.

HeidiJam wrote:

scb wrote:

HeidiJam:

Why do you keep insisting that healthcare is affordable despite the evidence that virtually no one in the United States can necessarily afford it? And please back up your response with cited data.

Why do you support a system (private health insurance) where some people pay more than their share and others take more than their share, but reject a such a system only when it would mean coverage for everyone (public health insurance)? How can you reject this system and support the unemployment system?

We are fortunate and proud to live in a nation that has the ability to care for the health of our ENTIRE population. As a rich and proud nation, why on earth would we not choose to care for our own people?

Why do you value your money over the health of others?

No, i was saying that healthcare insurace is affordable, which in turn makes healthcare affordable. Where is your data that healh insurance is not affordable. Just because people don't have it does not mean its not affordable. People have a choice on what to spend their money on, and some don't think that health insurance is that important. I can only support that system that i know and that I have had no issues with. I have had no issue witht he current system and it is the only system that I know. How is that not a good enough answer, I am not going to say taht universial health care is better when i have never experienced it. How can you say that??? We are a fortunate nation that SOME have the ability to pay for health care, others will simply receive a service that they will not pay for. I am not choosing to NOT care for our own people, Its that your using the word RIGHT as a disguise to cover what is really is, and that is dependancy. We can't continue to prop people back up just to continually leach the system. My concern is that I don't see an end to the constant FORCED chairity, And i fear that we are a few generations away from deeming priviliges as rights. We are already on that path we are now supplying cell phones to people on welfar. That is a privlige, yet we are now treating that as a right.

here are a couple of slides showing how health care is not affordable for the average person in the united states. the first one shows that a vast mojority of the uninsured are either unemployed or "working poor" meaning they are working but below the poverty level, thus unable to afford health insurance..
http://facts.kff.org/chart.aspx?ch=482

the second one shows the skyrocketing cost of health insurance and if you will notice, the employers are kicking in much more money every year to make it affordable for their employees. so the cost of insurance is cutting into the bottom line of employers, and even at that rate, it is a stretch to say that health insurance is affordable in this country. for you to assume that it is either your employer is paying the majority of it for you. in my line of work, i am paying for all of my premiums myself which puts a definite strain on my budget and i am a health care professional. i have other sources but i am too busy to add them while at work.

http://facts.kff.org/chart.aspx?ch=491

i will reply to the rest of your post later. and by the way you never told us of your charity work...i'm still waiting for that..

Millions in U.S. Can't Afford Health Insurance
Obstacles mount when employer-based coverage is not an option, survey finds

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Healthday/ ... 143&page=1

TUESDAY, July 21 (HealthDay News) -- Most people in the United States who try to buy an individual health insurance policy on their own never end up getting coverage, often because the premiums are just too expensive, according to a new study.

A report by the Commonwealth Fund, a private foundation that supports independent research on health policy reform, found that roughly three of every four people who tried to buy a policy from the individual health insurance market in the past three years didn't get one. The main reason cited was premium cost. About 57 percent said it was very hard or even impossible to find coverage they could afford.

About 47 percent of the people surveyed said it was difficult or impossible to find a plan with the coverage they needed, and 36 percent reported being charged more or denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition or had the condition excluded from their coverage.

Called "Failure to Protect: Why the Individual Insurance Market Is Not a Viable Option for Most U.S. Families," the report compared the experiences of working-age adults with individual- and employer-based private health insurance.

It also found that people who bought health insurance in the individual market spend a lot more on premiums and deductibles than those with employer-based coverage.

The survey found that among U.S. adults with individual insurance, 64 percent spend $3,000 or more annually on premiums, whereas just 20 percent of those with employer-based insurance spend that much. Out-of-pocket expenses, including premiums, averaged $6,750 for people with individual market insurance, compared with $2,250 for those with employer-based plans.

"In our current system, millions of people without access to employer coverage have no affordable option for health insurance," said Karen Davis, president of the Commonwealth Fund. "To achieve a health-care system that works for all Americans, we need health-care reform that offers comprehensive, affordable health insurance to everyone regardless of their health status, premium subsidies to help families with low and moderate incomes afford health insurance, and requirements to ensure that no one is denied health insurance because of a health problem."


yeah, the system is fine, nothing to fix here..... :roll:

HeidiJam wrote:

inmytree wrote:

who's saying everything is a right...?

I think you're just making stuff up now....

And why do you hate people so much...? seriously, you present yourself as angry individual...

Your saying health care is a right and its not. I am simply asking where does it end, and no one can answer me because you keep disguising the word right with dependancy. And what have I made up. I have done nothing but express my opinion on the matter? And if you don't think people are lazy then i feel sorry for you. Why do you think I hate people??? because i don't think health care is a right???
I am not an angry individual, you think that because I don't agree with yoru point of view... Sorry, but unlike you I am not a pansy and I think it is time for people to start taking care of them selves. if you can't respect of understand that then quit replying to my posts.

I stand corrected...you're very happy, loving individual...

You've made up a slippery slope argument...I guess that's hard for you to understand...

and did you just call me a pansy...? that's some funny shit...I haven't heard that one since 7th grade...

I do find it amusing when you're reduced to name calling when you get frustrated and can't make a legitimate point...

for the record, I give respect to those who earn it...and I will keep replying to your angry, rambling posts...

have a nice day...

redrock wrote:

HeidiJam wrote:

We are already on that path we are now supplying cell phones to people on welfar. That is a privlige, yet we are now treating that as a right.

Actually, if you REALLY informed yourself, you will see you are talking rubbish again. But I guess you already knew that.... WE are not supplying anything (ie no one is using YOUR money). Organisations have come together and are helping people and being socially responsible.



"LIFELINE/SAFELINK FACT SHEET

There is no "Obama phone" or other newly created federal program to provide free cell phones.[/b] As you may know, this is a myth that is now circulating on the Web via email and blog sites. It has been thoroughly debunked by independent groups. (See for example: FactCheck.org at http://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/the-obama-phone/, which notes: "Low-income households have been eligible for discounted telephone service for more than a decade. But the program is funded by telecom companies, not by taxes, and the president has nothing to do with it."
The federal "Lifeline" program was created during the Reagan Administration. Lifeline is a federal program created by the Reagan era Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in 1984...... ..... designed to ensure that quality telecommunications services are available to low-income customers at just, reasonable, and affordable rates.....
Thanks to SafeLink, Lifeline support is now available for wireless phones. Traditionally, the Lifeline program was only available as a discount on a consumer’s landline telephone bill. ..... SafeLink Wireless applies the Universal Service Fund subsidy to an allotment of free airtime minutes and TracFone provides the wireless handset at the company’s expense. ....The cell phone offers in-demand features: voicemail, text, three-way calling, call waiting, caller ID and access to 911.
SafeLink phones are not paid for by taxpayers or the federal government. TracFone Wireless pays for the phones and also the cost of promoting its SafeLink program to make sure that eligible consumers know about the program."


https://www.safelinkwireless.com/Enroll ... efits.aspx

touche'

thanks for the link redrock. i was looking for this

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

touche'

thanks for the link redrock. i was looking for this

I had heard about this 'urban legend' and remember checking it out at the time. This is only one example on the way some people 'inform' themselves. Hey.. I read that this person had a heart transplant - the heart was from a serial killer and the recipient of such heart thus became a killer himself. Is that true? Of course not. One can't believe all this things. Referring to the points in this thread most, if not all, of them are verifiable (ie stats, documents, etc.) somewhere. There is no excuse to be ignorant on some of these major points or 'live on' urban legends and myths.

HeidiJam wrote:

redrock wrote:

HeidiJam wrote:

We are already on that path we are now supplying cell phones to people on welfar. That is a privlige, yet we are now treating that as a right.

Actually, if you REALLY informed yourself, you will see you are talking rubbish again. But I guess you already knew that.... WE are not supplying anything (ie no one is using YOUR money). Organisations have come together and are helping people and being socially responsible.

Man you really, really need to learn how to read my posts. WE (as in THE USA) are supplying cell phones to people on welfare. I never said i was paying for it BUT someone is. And my point is that if you can't afford a CELL PHONE, then you don't deserve one. Cell Phones are a PRIVILEGE not a RIGHT. Same as cabel TV, etc. Do you support this???

Since your 'we' has usually been in the context of the taxpayer (ie you), this is how it is read. The USA are NOT supplying phones to people on welfare. A non-profit organisation working with telecoms companies have decided that some people on low income could benefit from this (social responsibility). Cable TV is nothing like a phone. An elderly person being able to dial 911 is not a luxury. Subsidy is only for a minimal amounts of minutes - the rest they pay themselves. The phones are meant to be a lifeline, in case of emergencies, to be contactable by potential employers, etc. It's all part of a bigger project. Again, you might like to read the whole article that was linked in my post:

From the 1996 Telecommunications Act: .... "ensure all Americans, including low-income consumers and those who live in rural, insular, high cost areas, shall have affordable service and [to] help to connect eligible schools, libraries, and rural health care providers to the global telecommunications network." So do you think the telecoms companies should stop the work they do with schools, libraries, rural health care providers because it's a PRIVILEGE as you say? If they can't afford full price for calls & equipment, tough for them?

Read both articles - you may understand where all this is coming from, how it's financed, etc. Note: not one mention in my post of 'right'. You're the one going on about this.

Can anyone provide a link that has a detailed outline of how the healthcare system will work and be funded?

Jason P wrote:

Can anyone provide a link that has a detailed outline of how the healthcare system will work and be funded?

I would like to know also, I am sure they can find a link. :roll: