78 Million Americans Set to Lose Health Insurance

[Angel!]

Jun 9, 2011 11:07:17 GMT -5 NoMoreLunacy said:

Jun 9, 2011 10:25:50 GMT -5 Angel! said:

What is a better solution? Subsidizing premiums is far cheaper than covering ER bills of the uninsured, which is what we do now.

Why do we cover ER bills for the uninsured? Why can't we stop that?

What do we do, usher them out of the hospital & leave them to suffer/die on the street? Plus as ugonow pointed out - everyone having access to an ER is the republicans response to why everyone already has access to health care. Take that away & then what do the poor have now?

I think it is short-sighted that republicans can't realize that a trip to the doctor or urgent care is far cheaper than a trip to the ER for little things. Also, regular preventative care & maintenance meds are far cheaper for someone with a chronic condition like asthma than a trip to the ER every 2 months with an asthma attack.

[NoMoreLunacy]

Jun 9, 2011 11:31:35 GMT -5 Angel! said:

Jun 9, 2011 11:07:17 GMT -5 NoMoreLunacy said:

Why do we cover ER bills for the uninsured? Why can't we stop that?

What do we do, usher them out of the hospital & leave them to suffer/die on the street? Plus as ugonow pointed out - everyone having access to an ER is the republicans response to why everyone already has access to health care. Take that away & then what do the poor have now?

I think it is short-sighted that republicans can't realize that a trip to the doctor or urgent care is far cheaper than a trip to the ER for little things. Also, regular preventative care & maintenance meds are far cheaper for someone with a chronic condition like asthma than a trip to the ER every 2 months with an asthma attack.

Leave them on the street. Why should everyone else have to pay for higher cost of health-care because of emergency bills?

[Deleted]

Angel-- you are assuming all the uninsured go to the ER. That is not true. Just like you guys talking about high deductibles making you think more... MANY people like me that are uninsured just don't go to doctors, because we don't have the money, and can't afford the bills.. IF they will bill us. I can get free paps and mammos through a health dept program here in AZ that ANY uninsured woman can use once a year. I used that last year for the first time. It has been here for years and years. I checked many states health depts recently, and they all have the same, as well as family planning and STD clinics, many things-- already in place in the states. Aside from that I have been to a doctor one time in many many years, maybe 10 years or so--and that was when I broke my bones 3 months ago-- to the ER-- which I now have a bill from. You are thinking of 40 million people that use the ER for medical care. I am telling you that is just not true, but now there will be 40 million that CAN go to the ER, or a doctor, or Urgent Care-- that would not have done so before, that will be on subsidized Obamacare. Please explain to me how that will save money? The SAME people that now use the ERs for care still will, AND there will be many millions more that CAN. If you want to say you want it for some humanitarian thing, fine, but it does not make logical sense to even THINK that Obamacare will save money.

[Angel!]

Jun 9, 2011 11:36:27 GMT -5 NoMoreLunacy said:

Jun 9, 2011 11:31:35 GMT -5 Angel! said:

What do we do, usher them out of the hospital & leave them to suffer/die on the street? Plus as ugonow pointed out - everyone having access to an ER is the republicans response to why everyone already has access to health care. Take that away & then what do the poor have now?

I think it is short-sighted that republicans can't realize that a trip to the doctor or urgent care is far cheaper than a trip to the ER for little things. Also, regular preventative care & maintenance meds are far cheaper for someone with a chronic condition like asthma than a trip to the ER every 2 months with an asthma attack.

Leave them on the street. Why should everyone else have to pay for higher cost of health-care because of emergency bills?

Because as a civilized society we have a duty to provide at least basic welfare for the poor. Plus, there often is a difficulty in determining who has insurance & who can afford care & who cannot when admitting people to the ER.

I think the health care reform allows us to better care for everyone at a lower cost.

[NoMoreLunacy]

Jun 9, 2011 11:43:07 GMT -5 Angel! said:

Jun 9, 2011 11:36:27 GMT -5 NoMoreLunacy said:

Leave them on the street. Why should everyone else have to pay for higher cost of health-care because of emergency bills?

Because as a civilized society we have a duty to provide at least basic welfare for the poor. Plus, there often is a difficulty in determining who has insurance & who can afford care & who cannot when admitting people to the ER.

I think the health care reform allows us to better care for everyone at a lower cost.

I have no such duty. If you have such a duty, you go and open a charitable hospital. I just want lower taxes. Get rid of Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security too while you are at it. I won't be affected in the least bit.

[Angel!]

MANY people like me that are uninsured just don't go to doctors, because we don't have the money, and can't afford the bills..

Then why do I keep hearing that the ERs are over-crowded due to the uninsured? Or is that just a big myth & propoganda people use as excuses as to why we need to kick out illegals?

Just because you don't go to the doctor on a regular basis doesn't mean you never need medical care. Your accident is a perfect example of that. Suppose you have a heart attack & spend a week in the hospital - will you be able to cover the resulting 50K bill? What if regular medical testing & medication had been able to prevent that heart attack - wouldn't preventative medicine been cheaper that the resulting week in the hospital?

[Angel!]

Jun 9, 2011 11:48:49 GMT -5 @lonewolf said:

I know a lot of people who are only working so that they can get employee health insurance for their families. Will they leave their jobs if their employers drop the insurance? Huge ripple effect!

Yeah, unemployment will drop because people will retire early leaving room for companies to hire new staff.

[Deleted]

Angel-- where I live illegals are a huge problem in medical care and ERs. No one wants to deal with that. I hear it is spreading all over the country, and those people will still be there..

[Deleted]

Right, wolf.
So, angel-- will one person getting a job that will probably qualify them for subsidized Obamacare for.. say-- a family of 5, make up for that one person that quit their job that can now get subsidized Obamacare for self and spouse? I'm just asking. I really can't make the math work to our favor on Obamacare.

[Angel!]

So there must be uninsured using the ERs then. Just because you don't use the ER often doesn't mean that other uninsured people choose that route. Many don't have a choice. If you can't afford to regularly see a doctor & medicate a chronic condition, then eventually you will end up in ER.

[NoMoreLunacy]

Jun 9, 2011 11:58:36 GMT -5 Angel! said:

So there must be uninsured using the ERs then. Just because you don't use the ER often doesn't mean that other uninsured people choose that route. Many don't have a choice. If you can't afford to regularly see a doctor & medicate a chronic condition, then eventually you will end up in ER.

They do have a choice. Go without.

[Angel!]

Jun 9, 2011 11:56:43 GMT -5 @krickitt said:

Right, wolf.
So, angel-- will one person getting a job that will probably qualify them for subsidized Obamacare for.. say-- a family of 5, make up for that one person that quit their job that can now get subsidized Obamacare for self and spouse? I'm just asking. I really can't make the math work to our favor on Obamacare.

Not subsidized - we are talking about a large group of people that can afford insurance, but don't qualify for insurance due to pre-existing conditions. These people don't have the option to retire early because they have no way to get insurance, so they just keep working. Give them a way to purchase insurance & now they can afford to retire. This takes a group out of the workforce & opens up jobs for the unemployed, thus lowering the unemployment.

[Angel!]

Jun 9, 2011 11:59:23 GMT -5 NoMoreLunacy said:

Jun 9, 2011 11:58:36 GMT -5 Angel! said:

So there must be uninsured using the ERs then. Just because you don't use the ER often doesn't mean that other uninsured people choose that route. Many don't have a choice. If you can't afford to regularly see a doctor & medicate a chronic condition, then eventually you will end up in ER.

They do have a choice. Go without.

I take it you don't have much experience with chronic medical conditions. Maybe you are young.

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

What do we do, usher them out of the hospital & leave them to suffer/die on the street?

I was bored and actually read the Patient Bill of rights in my room. Yeah they can usher you out once you are stablized. The ER just has to stabilize you they do not have to keep and treat you if you cannot pay.

[NoMoreLunacy]

Plenty of poor people in third world countries have chronic illnesses and go without. Everyone has a choice.

[Angel!]

Jun 9, 2011 12:04:06 GMT -5 NomoreDramaQ1015 said:

What do we do, usher them out of the hospital & leave them to suffer/die on the street?

I was bored and actually read the Patient Bill of rights in my room. Yeah they can usher you out once you are stablized. The ER just has to stabilize you they do not have to keep and treat you if you cannot pay.

True, and then these people just come back a few days/weeks/months later when the symptoms re-emerge. Without regular care people with asthma will have asthma attacks, people with diabetes will go into diabetic shock or after a years of uncontrolled high blood sugar will start to have side effects like kidny failure & strokes. They will continuously enter the ER for treatment time after time because they have a lack of options & many of their problems could have been completely avoided with preventative care.

[cme1201]

many of their problems could have been completely avoided with preventative care

There is that damnable personal responsibility arguement again.

[Angel!]

Jun 9, 2011 12:36:25 GMT -5 cme1201 said:

many of their problems could have been completely avoided with preventative care

There is that damnable personal responsibility arguement again.

I'm all for personable responsibility, but I also understand the difficulty for lower wage folks. The entire health care system works against people trying for personal responsibility when you are broke & have no insurance or worse have a pre-existing condition.

[floridayankee]

Jun 9, 2011 11:31:35 GMT -5 Angel! said:

What do we do, usher them out of the hospital & leave them to suffer/die on the street?

And perhaps having that option available is part of the reason that generational mediocrity drones on and on. I think a lot more of the uninsured would actually purchase that insurance if the chances of being turned away existed.

Honestly, Angel, I don't know what the solution is. I do know that the solution is not this Obamacare monstrosity that was passed through back room bribery, vote purchasing and without even being read my most of the people voting on it.

[Angel!]

Jun 9, 2011 12:04:27 GMT -5 NoMoreLunacy said:

Plenty of poor people in third world countries have chronic illnesses and go without. Everyone has a choice.

When my choice is to die or go to the ER when I can't afford it, then I will chose the ER. You would do the same thing.

You want to give people options, then give them options for purchasing health insurance so they can take some personal responsibility for their health rather than just choosing ER visits that they no will never be paid for.

[NoMoreLunacy]

Jun 9, 2011 13:11:32 GMT -5 Angel! said:

Jun 9, 2011 12:04:27 GMT -5 NoMoreLunacy said:

Plenty of poor people in third world countries have chronic illnesses and go without. Everyone has a choice.

When my choice is to die or go to the ER when I can't afford it, then I will chose the ER. You would do the same thing.

You want to give people options, then give them options for purchasing health insurance so they can take some personal responsibility for their health rather than just choosing ER visits that they no will never be paid for.

I don't want to give people options if that means I have to pay for it. People need to make their own options and in many cases that would mean going without. So is life. What do you think an Afghan villager does when he is in his death bed? There are no ERs.

[hello fromWarsaw]

#80-oh yes it is...

55% don't want it, 70% don't understand it... ;D

[NoMoreLunacy]

Jun 9, 2011 13:08:42 GMT -5 Angel! said:

Jun 9, 2011 12:36:25 GMT -5 cme1201 said:

There is that damnable personal responsibility arguement again.

I'm all for personable responsibility, but I also understand the difficulty for lower wage folks. The entire health care system works against people trying for personal responsibility when you are broke & have no insurance or worse have a pre-existing condition.

Life will always be difficult for lower-wage folks. That's just reality.

[Angel!]

Jun 9, 2011 13:09:45 GMT -5 floridayankee said:

I think a lot more of the uninsured would actually purchase that insurance if the chances of being turned away existed.

I doubt it, at least not today. Most of the situations I was referencing would be people that could not purchase insurance due to pre-existing conditions. Then anyone suffering from a severe accident or severe illness probably never imagined they would have such an accident & wouldn't have purchased insurance. Many younger people choose not to purchase insurance, not because they can't afford it, but because they are healthy & don't think they will need it.

Honestly, Angel, I don't know what the solution is.

I don't know the full answer either. But, in my opinion, doing something is better than doing nothing. The health care reform solves a lot of issues that I see with health care. It isn't perfect, but takes care of a lot of the problems we have today.

If the republicans stopped trying to just go against the reform & came up with their own better solution, then I would be all for it. All they manage to do is try to point out all the reasons this is a bad idea, which isn't productive. Since they can't bother to come up with a better solution, then I'm left thinking it is either this reform or nothing & I prefer the reform .

[Angel!]

Jun 9, 2011 13:17:19 GMT -5 NoMoreLunacy said:

Jun 9, 2011 13:08:42 GMT -5 Angel! said:

I'm all for personable responsibility, but I also understand the difficulty for lower wage folks. The entire health care system works against people trying for personal responsibility when you are broke & have no insurance or worse have a pre-existing condition.

Life will always be difficult for lower-wage folks. That's just reality.

I agree, but that doesn't mean that have to be left dying in the street.

We don't live in an afghan village, we live in the best country in the world. The best country in the world should be able to manage to provide a minimum standard of living for all its residents.

[hello fromWarsaw]

This reform IS a Pub plan- they just want the Dems to fail no matter what...

[NoMoreLunacy]

Jun 9, 2011 13:22:03 GMT -5 Angel! said:

Jun 9, 2011 13:17:19 GMT -5 NoMoreLunacy said:

Life will always be difficult for lower-wage folks. That's just reality.

I agree, but that doesn't mean that have to be left dying in the street.

We don't live in an afghan village, we live in the best country in the world. The best country in the world should be able to manage to provide a minimum standard of living for all its residents.

Citizens in the best country in the world should be able to provide for themselves without having to mooch off the rich.

[Angel!]

Jun 9, 2011 13:25:06 GMT -5 hello fromWarsaw said:

This reform IS a Pub plan- they just want the Dems to fail no matter what...

I actually agree. It is very similar to what Romney put together & very similar to what Ryan proposed. So, republicans are coming up with pretty much the same exact ideas.

It just goes back to partisan politics & hating the other side no matter what.

[Angel!]

Jun 9, 2011 13:27:19 GMT -5 NoMoreLunacy said:

Jun 9, 2011 13:22:03 GMT -5 Angel! said:

I agree, but that doesn't mean that have to be left dying in the street.

We don't live in an afghan village, we live in the best country in the world. The best country in the world should be able to manage to provide a minimum standard of living for all its residents.

Citizens in the best country in the world should be able to provide for themselves without having to mooch off the rich.

I would love to live in your fantasy world, it must be a pretty nice place.

[floridayankee]

Jun 9, 2011 12:36:25 GMT -5 cme1201 said:

many of their problems could have been completely avoided with preventative care

There is that damnable personal responsibility arguement again.

The preventative care thing was tried with HMO's and it is part of the reason for their failure. Any savings realized form relatively few serious conditions caught early were eaten up by the increasingly large number of preventative care visits. Face it, when you try to bend the supply demand curve by artificially lowering price below market value, the demand dramatically increases.

For a real life example, go to your local all you can eat buffet (which could be one of the reasons behind the dire need for preventative care). Most people are going to walk away from a buffet with plates piled high. Much higher than you'd see at a portion controlled sit-down restaurant. Some will even go back for seconds. Or even thirds. Why not get all you can? You paid your price and their is no further cost....so load up, right?