Ava
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 30, 2011 12:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 4,256
|
Post by Ava on Feb 22, 2014 20:35:41 GMT -5
www.minnpost.com/community-voices/2013/11/health-insurance-problems-keep-arising-vermont-offers-ray-hopeI didn't know VT was doing this. A step in the right direction. Hopefully more states will follow through. All but ignored in the multitude of media coverage about the ACA and its problems, Vermont has become the first state in the union to pass a single-payer universal health care law for its residents. It has a snappy slogan: Everybody in, nobody out. The system will be fully operational by 2017, funded by Medicare, Medicaid, federal money for the ACA given to Vermont, and a slight increase in taxes. Everyone will be able to go to any doctor or hospital in the state free of charge. No plans to figure out, no insurance forms to sweat over, no gotchas. Estimated to save 25% Dr. William Hsaio, the Harvard health care economist who helped craft health systems in seven countries, was Vermont’s adviser. He estimates that Vermont will save 25 percent per capita over the current system in administrative costs and other savings. Employers will suddenly be free to give raises to their employees instead of paying for increasingly expensive health benefits. All hospitals and health-care providers in Vermont will be nonprofit. Medicare recipients will no longer need to wade through an inch-thick book to choose supplemental plans and sort out other complex options in their Medicare enrollment.
|
|
grits
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 17, 2012 13:43:33 GMT -5
Posts: 3,185
|
Post by grits on Feb 22, 2014 21:32:36 GMT -5
Now, if we could all get our populations down to the size of Vermont's, we might could make this work.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Feb 22, 2014 21:48:16 GMT -5
Frankly, I'll be watching this one. Vermont has taken "the step". I'll be interested to see how it goes for them.
|
|
Ava
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 30, 2011 12:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 4,256
|
Post by Ava on Feb 22, 2014 22:57:02 GMT -5
Now, if we could all get our populations down to the size of Vermont's, we might could make this work. That's why it's great that it has started in a small state, and not at the Federal level. I think VT has a good chance of making it work. From there, other states probably will vote for this. Let's face it; it's way easier to implement it at the state level first.
|
|
busymom
Distinguished Associate
Why is the rum always gone? Oh...that's why.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 21:09:36 GMT -5
Posts: 29,235
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"https://cdn.nickpic.host/images/IPauJ5.jpg","color":""}
Mini-Profile Name Color: 0D317F
Mini-Profile Text Color: 0D317F
|
Post by busymom on Feb 22, 2014 23:31:29 GMT -5
I'll be watching them, & wishing them success. Even though there are no longer any exclusions due to pre-existing conditions now, the insurance monthly premiums are still crazy-expensive here.
Think of how much less complicated the paperwork will be now. There will be savings just in that! Not to mention, you won't need people working in collections for unpaid bills.
However, I kind of doubt that those employers who feel the "need for greed" will pass the savings in premiums onto increased wages. We'll see how all of this plays out.
|
|
grits
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 17, 2012 13:43:33 GMT -5
Posts: 3,185
|
Post by grits on Feb 23, 2014 1:15:39 GMT -5
Now, if we could all get our populations down to the size of Vermont's, we might could make this work. That's why it's great that it has started in a small state, and not at the Federal level. I think VT has a good chance of making it work. From there, other states probably will vote for this. Let's face it; it's way easier to implement it at the state level first. It is primarily being funded by Medicare, Medicaid, and the ACA. The feds are involved.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 8, 2024 18:25:34 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2014 10:40:58 GMT -5
I can't imagine the taxes required to pay for this. Medicare, Medicaid, and the ACA aren't going to be enough to replace the $$$ that employers have been contributing.
It will be simpler, but I can't see that it will be better.
|
|
Blonde Granny
Junior Associate
Joined: Jan 15, 2013 8:27:13 GMT -5
Posts: 6,919
Today's Mood: Alone in the world
Location: Wandering Aimlessly
Mini-Profile Name Color: 28e619
Mini-Profile Text Color: 3a9900
|
Post by Blonde Granny on Feb 23, 2014 11:11:02 GMT -5
SS: Taxes to pay for this Nope, it's going to be free, don't you know? The only people who are going to have to pay for it are those who already pay taxes, the rest can continue to skip their merry way through life.
As if 17T isn't enough debt already, add this new Obama-cr*p into the mix and there is only one way for our total debt to go.....can anyone tell me the number that comes after trillion?
|
|
vonna
Well-Known Member
Joined: Aug 11, 2012 15:58:51 GMT -5
Posts: 1,249
|
Post by vonna on Feb 23, 2014 11:21:46 GMT -5
SS: Taxes to pay for this Nope, it's going to be free, don't you know? The only people who are going to have to pay for it are those who already pay taxes, the rest can continue to skip their merry way through life.
As if 17T isn't enough debt already, add this new Obama-cr*p into the mix and there is only one way for our total debt to go.....can anyone tell me the number that comes after trillion? a trillion and one.
But, the number one followed by 15 zeros is a quadrillion.
|
|
Ava
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 30, 2011 12:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 4,256
|
Post by Ava on Feb 23, 2014 11:26:14 GMT -5
Do you think the status quo is working for us? Just read the thread about how much some posters have spent in out-of-pocket health expenses and tell me charging people so much after they've paid premiums AND taxes is not criminal.
If you are worried about the "freeloaders"; children, disabled, and elderly people for the most part, think about this; someone somewhere is making billions off our backs through the healthcare industry. Of course you have some real freeloaders out there; people who know how to work the system. You'll always have a percentage of the population doing that, no matter what. They are not that many, and they don't really make a difference from a financial point of view. And believe me, I live in a very economically depressed area. I am surrounded by people who get food stamps, state health insurance, section 8, etc. Trust me; you don't want to be in their place. Those that are not physically disabled have some sort of mental issue, mostly depression. The money and benefits they get are enough to survive. They barely make it to the end of the month. Yes, they have the i-phone (which I don't) and an old semi-reliable car. They have cable, the big screen TV. That's all they have. Their homes are not that nice, would never own a house, don't travel, by the end of the month they are trying to con $20 out of you because they don't have enough to eat. They don't have any sort of plan, any future, or any hope. I'm not here to survive, I am here to thrive.
Grits; you are right, the feds are involved because they are paying. But the program is set-up and run by the state of VT.
|
|
Blonde Granny
Junior Associate
Joined: Jan 15, 2013 8:27:13 GMT -5
Posts: 6,919
Today's Mood: Alone in the world
Location: Wandering Aimlessly
Mini-Profile Name Color: 28e619
Mini-Profile Text Color: 3a9900
|
Post by Blonde Granny on Feb 23, 2014 11:44:07 GMT -5
ava: to answer your question, first let me say. I have grandchildren, Disabled ? Yep, got that covered, as my DH is a disabled Viet Nam vet. Elderly ? Yep, got that too.....both will be 70 this year.
Is someone making billions off our backs? You're darn right they are!!!!! And who's to begrudge them? They provide jobs and more jobs. They provide wealth to their shareholders (remember Roth, IRA and 401K). Those that you begrudge are like my son, who not only takes care of his own family (his wife is an attorney who hasn't practiced in 15 years, she opted to stay home and raise 3 kids.) He worries about his employees...how he will be able to provide for them and their families. What more can he do as an employer to help better their lives?
There is far too much attempt to get those that have, to pay for those that won't!!! Therein lies the problem.
Is there a solution, probably not in my lifetime, maybe not your either.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 23, 2014 11:50:35 GMT -5
Now, if we could all get our populations down to the size of Vermont's, we might could make this work. That's why it's great that it has started in a small state, and not at the Federal level. I think VT has a good chance of making it work. From there, other states probably will vote for this. Let's face it; it's way easier to implement it at the state level first. "Small" is something of an understatement. The entire state has a population of 620,000.
|
|
Ava
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 30, 2011 12:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 4,256
|
Post by Ava on Feb 23, 2014 11:58:16 GMT -5
There is a solution, I don't know if either of us will see it, but I hope we will. I am talking about healthcare being a for-profit business in this country. This is the only industrialized country that doesn't see health care as a right for its citizens. Blonde Granny; nobody is trying to take anything off your son. If he has employees and worries about helping them and making their lives better, congratulations; your have a wonderful son. Is someone making billions off our backs? You're darn right they are!!!!! And who's to begrudge them? They provide jobs and more jobs. They provide wealth to their shareholders (remember Roth, IRA and 401K).
Healthcare is different than the other industries. If you are sick or injured you need to get care. In other words; demand is inelastic. You'll sign whatever they put in front of you to save your life, or your family member's life. You don't know how much it costs until you get the bill; cannot shop around even if it wasn't an emergency situation. If you don't have insurance many doctors won't even see you nowadays. Not everybody who doesn't have health insurance qualifies for state health insurance. You are leaving millions of citizens without access to healthcare. Then the majority complains because they go to the emergency room. Where else are they supposed to go? And we are all paying for that. Can you say dysfunctional system? I am looking forward to the next few years. I think major changes are coming in the healthcare field. The ACA is far from perfect, but it's a first step. I think people are waking up and realizing that other countries are covering EVERYBODY and don't spend half what we do here. There is a way, and I'm confident sooner or later we'll find it.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 8, 2024 18:25:34 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2014 12:32:54 GMT -5
I am looking forward to the next few years. I think major changes are coming in the healthcare field. The ACA is far from perfect, but it's a first step. I think people are waking up and realizing that other countries are covering EVERYBODY and don't spend half what we do here. There is a way, and I'm confident sooner or later we'll find it. We are putting more people into a broken system. Our costs are high because of our system which is based on over-medication and cover-your-ass over-testing to protect against uncapped malpractice risk. Putting more people into that system without major reform will only degrade the entire system. Estimates on long term cost savings will be proven completely wrong in the next 5 years.
|
|
Ava
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 30, 2011 12:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 4,256
|
Post by Ava on Feb 23, 2014 13:03:51 GMT -5
What is the solution, then? Of course you need reform to go with universal healthcare. Why wouldn't we be able to reform healthcare?
We are putting more people into a broken system
They are already in the system. They don't get preventative and routine care, their emergency care is very expensive and shared by all of us, but they are in this broken system.
|
|
econstudent
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 15:36:44 GMT -5
Posts: 2,288
|
Post by econstudent on Feb 23, 2014 16:12:53 GMT -5
I wonder how it will work when Vermont residents visit other states. Presumably they've worked (or will work) something out with the doctors and hospitals in the state, but I wonder what how the coverage works if they are out of state and a medical issue comes up.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 8, 2024 18:25:34 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2014 16:50:09 GMT -5
Ava, what you aren't recognizing is that there is no "free" healthcare. Not even for the poor. Someone is paying for it. Right now it is a hodge-podge of employers, private individuals, and the government. When employers and individuals are no longer paying anything for it, it only stands to reason that the government's proportion will go up. Who funds the government? Taxpayers.
I do think anything that is "free" is often abused. I provide "free" paper on top of a filing cabinet in my classroom. It is easier for kids to walk up and get the "free" piece than it is to open their notebook and take out a piece. Every single illness or injury we have does not require a doctor's visit. At least with co-pays, etc., you think about whether you really need to go to the doctor.
We do not give people universal access to whatever food they want for free, and I would argue that food is even more necessary than health care. Even the poorest are given an allotment (food stamps) to supplement their own spending. Food stamps were never meant to be the sole source of food for a family. Insurance is not meant to be the sole source of funding for healthcare.
We take care of the elderly (Medicare), the very poor (Medicaid), and the children (CHP). The ACA is making it easier for the truly sick to afford health insurance. But there is only so much we can do unless we want to socialize medicine. That is what the Vermont system does. Socialized systems of government are very, very expensive.
Meanwhile, ask the doctors if they borrowed their way through medical school and bought into practices in order to be non-profits. A single-payer system dictates what the doctor will be reimbursed, and it is usually very low. Expect a two-tier system to develop with haves (money) and have-nots (those who must use the state's systems). Doctors practicing under the state system will have to overbook even more in order to sustain their practices and pay their bills. There is a reason that my husband's doctors will take him only because my insurance and not Medicare is primary. My insurance still negotiates the payment significantly, but it is nowhere near as low as what Medicare pays.
I understand, Ava, that you aren't American by birth. You may have experienced socialized medicine first-hand. Is that the case? Most of us have just read the horror stories of Canada and Great Britain in regards to how long it takes to get an appointment, schedule a procedure, etc.
Just don't expect medicine as you know it now to exist under the system that you are championing.
|
|
Ava
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 30, 2011 12:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 4,256
|
Post by Ava on Feb 23, 2014 19:12:33 GMT -5
I understand, Ava, that you aren't American by birth. You may have experienced socialized medicine first-hand. Is that the case? Most of us have just read the horror stories of Canada and Great Britain in regards to how long it takes to get an appointment, schedule a procedure, etc.
Just don't expect medicine as you know it now to exist under the system that you are championing.
Yes, socialized medicine and it works great. It doesn't take longer than here to get appointments or see a doctor. There's zero chance of you having financial issues caused by medical bills. I'm still covered in the old country and plan to go there if I need surgery or extensive care and I have time to plan for it. Not only because of the expense but also to be with family who can help me if I'm in pain. What is more, in the old country nobody would question me coming back to receive care if I need it. They don't have the mentality of "why should I pay for your care when you don't live here anymore, don't work here and don't pay taxes?" I'm one of them; I'm covered. Even people who live there (legally or illegally) are also covered. Somehow, a poor third world country is able to cover all their citizens without going bankrupt. That's why I'm so skeptical about it being unaffordable here. It won't bankrupt the US; it would make it better.
|
|
Ava
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 30, 2011 12:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 4,256
|
Post by Ava on Feb 23, 2014 19:17:11 GMT -5
I wonder how it will work when Vermont residents visit other states. Presumably they've worked (or will work) something out with the doctors and hospitals in the state, but I wonder what how the coverage works if they are out of state and a medical issue comes up. That's a very interesting point. I would guess the medical provider would bill the state of VT.
|
|
Blonde Granny
Junior Associate
Joined: Jan 15, 2013 8:27:13 GMT -5
Posts: 6,919
Today's Mood: Alone in the world
Location: Wandering Aimlessly
Mini-Profile Name Color: 28e619
Mini-Profile Text Color: 3a9900
|
Post by Blonde Granny on Feb 23, 2014 19:30:46 GMT -5
I wonder how it will work when Vermont residents visit other states. Presumably they've worked (or will work) something out with the doctors and hospitals in the state, but I wonder what how the coverage works if they are out of state and a medical issue comes up. That's a very interesting point. I would guess the medical provider would bill the state of VT. If that situation would happen it could be like some HMO programs or other policies that have residence restrictions....it might only cover emergency medical care, and then only with permission.
|
|
mollyanna58
Junior Associate
Joined: Jan 5, 2011 13:20:45 GMT -5
Posts: 6,719
|
Post by mollyanna58 on Feb 23, 2014 19:58:18 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure the doctors, nurses, laboratories, etc in VT did not volunteer to become non-profit. While I believe most health professionals went into medicine for the science and to help others, I also believe they want to be paid adequately for their services.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Feb 23, 2014 21:25:17 GMT -5
"All hospitals and health-care providers in Vermont will be nonprofit."
How can the state unilaterally decide this? Under what authority? Shouldn't that concern people? That certainly concerns me. Are we really going to let the government turn a for profit business into a non profit enterprise with the stroke of a pen? What if the owners do not wish to run a non profit? Are they expected to keep up the work of running a business as a public service? How many hospitals and health care providers are going to close their doors or move out of state because of this?
"The system will be fully operational by 2017, funded by Medicare, Medicaid, federal money for the ACA given to Vermont, and a slight increase in taxes."
Maybe I'm wrong, but aren't there rules about what states can spend federal healthcare money on? Can they spend Medicaid money on people who don't qualify for medicaide? What about Medicare? Isn't that only for folks over 65 or so? And someone is still going to have to file the paperwork for those programs, is that being taken over by the state? Are they hiring extra employees? How much is that going to cost.
|
|
econstudent
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 15:36:44 GMT -5
Posts: 2,288
|
Post by econstudent on Feb 23, 2014 21:26:15 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure the doctors, nurses, laboratories, etc in VT did not volunteer to become non-profit. While I believe most health professionals went into medicine for the science and to help others, I also believe they want to be paid adequately for their services. To be fair, the hospital and other clinics being non-profit does not necessarily mean that the medical professionals will be paid less than market wages.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Feb 23, 2014 21:34:56 GMT -5
I can't imagine the taxes required to pay for this. Medicare, Medicaid, and the ACA aren't going to be enough to replace the $$$ that employers have been contributing. It will be simpler, but I can't see that it will be better. I was wondering the same thing. I thought Medicare/Medicaid accounted for about 50% of all healthcare dollars spent, and the rest was self/insurance pay. How can "modest" tax increases cover 50% of healthcare expenditures? They are replacing insurance, which was funded by employers and individuals through premiums. That's a lot of cash to account for, even taking into account the additional funding from ACA.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Feb 23, 2014 23:41:20 GMT -5
Vermont is a small state, with a lot of neighboring states close by. Once the doctors realize they're not only getting the Medicare/Medicaid rates for all of their services I wouldn't be surprised to find them starting to leave to New Hampshire, Mass, Maine, etc.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Feb 23, 2014 23:56:31 GMT -5
I understand, Ava, that you aren't American by birth. You may have experienced socialized medicine first-hand. Is that the case? Most of us have just read the horror stories of Canada and Great Britain in regards to how long it takes to get an appointment, schedule a procedure, etc. Just don't expect medicine as you know it now to exist under the system that you are championing.Yes, socialized medicine and it works great. It doesn't take longer than here to get appointments or see a doctor. There's zero chance of you having financial issues caused by medical bills. I'm still covered in the old country and plan to go there if I need surgery or extensive care and I have time to plan for it. Not only because of the expense but also to be with family who can help me if I'm in pain. What is more, in the old country nobody would question me coming back to receive care if I need it. They don't have the mentality of "why should I pay for your care when you don't live here anymore, don't work here and don't pay taxes?" I'm one of them; I'm covered. Even people who live there (legally or illegally) are also covered. Somehow, a poor third world country is able to cover all their citizens without going bankrupt. That's why I'm so skeptical about it being unaffordable here. It won't bankrupt the US; it would make it better. I call utter BS on saying it doesn't take longer in socialized countries. There are plenty of articles and studies on the wait times in Canada and Great Britain. About how you are assigned a specific GP in Great Britain and if you want another you can ask to see someone else, but have to go through the appropriate channels for the change and then you can still be denied. About how the private insurance and private doctors is thriving because the NIH will only approve standard care, and if for some reason you need twice as much as the standard dose you have to pay out of pocket. How in Canada the wait for non emergency MRI/CT scans can be over a year. I'm not familiar with your country, but do they have as advanced medical coverage as we do? Can you get a non-emergency MRI scheduled in one day if you want there? Do you have to go through channels to see a specialist? Wait months to schedule a surgery? You recently got a new job with a promotion and increased responsibility. Would you still accept the job if your pay didn't increase? Would you be pushed to create and invent new ways to improve your job if you were making the same as your old job?
|
|
mollyanna58
Junior Associate
Joined: Jan 5, 2011 13:20:45 GMT -5
Posts: 6,719
|
Post by mollyanna58 on Feb 24, 2014 8:19:57 GMT -5
Medicare currently pays far less than market rates, which is why many doctors do not accept Medicare patients. I doubt that the rest of the reimbursement rates will be much more generous.
OTOH, many medical practices have employees whose primary job is to deal with insurance companies. Maybe those jobs can be cut down, which will reduce the practice's overall wages and benefit expense.
|
|
Blonde Granny
Junior Associate
Joined: Jan 15, 2013 8:27:13 GMT -5
Posts: 6,919
Today's Mood: Alone in the world
Location: Wandering Aimlessly
Mini-Profile Name Color: 28e619
Mini-Profile Text Color: 3a9900
|
Post by Blonde Granny on Feb 24, 2014 8:28:11 GMT -5
In our area, many of the former private practice physicians have moved to being aligned with the major hospitals. My PC was in a 3 person group who was offered a great position under the hospital umbrella. The hospital paid for the renovations of office space, takes care of all insurance billing, the phone system to the PC office goes thru the hospital system. For patients, so far it is win-win. We see no difference in care, and medical records are held by the hospital systems, so when I saw my new cardiologist, he had my full records at his fingertips.
|
|
tskeeter
Junior Associate
Joined: Mar 20, 2011 19:37:45 GMT -5
Posts: 6,831
|
Post by tskeeter on Feb 25, 2014 16:54:39 GMT -5
www.minnpost.com/community-voices/2013/11/health-insurance-problems-keep-arising-vermont-offers-ray-hopeI didn't know VT was doing this. A step in the right direction. Hopefully more states will follow through. All but ignored in the multitude of media coverage about the ACA and its problems, Vermont has become the first state in the union to pass a single-payer universal health care law for its residents. It has a snappy slogan: Everybody in, nobody out. The system will be fully operational by 2017, funded by Medicare, Medicaid, federal money for the ACA given to Vermont, and a slight increase in taxes. Everyone will be able to go to any doctor or hospital in the state free of charge. No plans to figure out, no insurance forms to sweat over, no gotchas. Estimated to save 25% Dr. William Hsaio, the Harvard health care economist who helped craft health systems in seven countries, was Vermont’s adviser. He estimates that Vermont will save 25 percent per capita over the current system in administrative costs and other savings. Employers will suddenly be free to give raises to their employees instead of paying for increasingly expensive health benefits. All hospitals and health-care providers in Vermont will be nonprofit. Medicare recipients will no longer need to wade through an inch-thick book to choose supplemental plans and sort out other complex options in their Medicare enrollment. I don't believe some of the claims in the final paragraph. I'd really like to see before and after numbers to confirm these claims. These claims are structured to be easily misleading. For example, "estimated to save 25%" only applies to administrative costs and is on a per capita basis. This doesn't mean that total VT spending on health care administration will go down. In all probabiltity it will go up. Because the administrative costs will be spread across more people, the per person cost will go down, not the total cost. Then, consider the cost of the acutal health care services. Nobody is claiming any savings there. So you reduce the per patient cost of the administration, which is maybe 15% - 20% of the total cost, while the 80% to 85% of the cost that is services is unchanged. But, because you have more people receiving the services, the total cost of medical care in VT is likely to go up. I'm sure, too, that VT will find, like Oregon, that there is no limit to the demand for "free" services. When consumption of medical care services is disconnected from payment for those services, consumption of medical care services will most likely increase. This will increase the amount that VT residents, in total, spend on medical care services. The money to pay for those services has to come from somewhere. So, I expect that VT taxpayers will be seeing tax increases to fund the cost of their single payer medical care system. And that some VT resident will be experiencing significant tax increases as they are required to pay for the medical care serices consumed by VT residents who don't pay enough taxes to cover the cost of the medical care services they use. Smoke and mirrors, propaganda and misinformation. It's going to cost more money. In my mind, the only question is whether you will be one of the people footing the bill or whether you will be one of the people enjoying the benefits without having to pay for them.
|
|
tskeeter
Junior Associate
Joined: Mar 20, 2011 19:37:45 GMT -5
Posts: 6,831
|
Post by tskeeter on Feb 25, 2014 17:01:28 GMT -5
Do you think the status quo is working for us? Just read the thread about how much some posters have spent in out-of-pocket health expenses and tell me charging people so much after they've paid premiums AND taxes is not criminal. If you are worried about the "freeloaders"; children, disabled, and elderly people for the most part, think about this; someone somewhere is making billions off our backs through the healthcare industry. Of course you have some real freeloaders out there; people who know how to work the system. You'll always have a percentage of the population doing that, no matter what. They are not that many, and they don't really make a difference from a financial point of view. And believe me, I live in a very economically depressed area. I am surrounded by people who get food stamps, state health insurance, section 8, etc. Trust me; you don't want to be in their place. Those that are not physically disabled have some sort of mental issue, mostly depression. The money and benefits they get are enough to survive. They barely make it to the end of the month. Yes, they have the i-phone (which I don't) and an old semi-reliable car. They have cable, the big screen TV. That's all they have. Their homes are not that nice, would never own a house, don't travel, by the end of the month they are trying to con $20 out of you because they don't have enough to eat. They don't have any sort of plan, any future, or any hope. I'm not here to survive, I am here to thrive. Grits; you are right, the feds are involved because they are paying. But the program is set-up and run by the state of VT. No, the feds aren't paying. I am! "Government" money doesn't appear by magic. It is taken from hard working taxpayers. It's way past time that large portions of the US population comes to grips with the concept that money to fund government subsidies and programs doesn't fall out of the air. It comes from their neighbors.
|
|