To the editor:
We must guarantee everyone has fair access to affordable health care coverage.
I’m 63 years old. My wife does not work, and I was laid off in February. I found that COBRA was going to cost us $1,039 per month so I tried to get private health insurance. They turned us down on so-called pre-existing conditions that we were finally able to prove wrong with the help of our doctor so they told us we could have health insurance for $1,504 per month. Even if I was still working at my old job, I couldn’t afford these prices.
The ARRA bill that was passed in mid-February provides us the opportunity to continue COBRA for nine months for $368 per month. If I don’t get a job with health insurance by November, we will not be able to continue having health insurance. This plays into the hands of big health care since they use these uninsured numbers as a reason to keep increasing prices.
Congress continues to talk about costs like any reform must be free of charge. The average American would be happy to pay a reasonable fee for health care. Talk about rationing! You are forced to find employment only with companies that provide health insurance, and wages are held back by the increasing cost of health care that companies pass on to their employees by direct deductions and reduced wages in general.
How can a truly caring public servant not see that “we the people” need help now?
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
jason2007 (anonymous) says…
Jerry: I am truly sorry for the situation you find yourself in. However, health care in this country is not a right bestowed upon the populace by the Constitution. Never has been. The Govt has no place dabbling in this arena to provide healthcare to all -- why can't people like you (who lived through the totalitarianism of Red Russia through the 50's/60s) see this?! We're giving up freedoms, handing over more and more keys to our castle to big govt, all the name of being out daddy.
I will never support the nationalization of healthcare, which is Obama's only answer right now to your point of ensuring all have access to healthcare.
If you read Ron Paul's book "Revolution", in it you will find that the govt destroyed universal access to healthcare many years ago. Mr. Paul, a physician, describes in his book how doctor's of the early 20th century would simply take care of their patients, even if they couldn't afford it. With the New Deal and The Great Society programs, doctor's moved away from a charitable mindset since govt was going to pay their bills. As a culture, we have lost the concept of charity in healthcare -- it's big business now and that is directly related to idiocy in govt getting involved.
merrill (anonymous) says…
Healthcare is not being nationalized. The healthcare industry will remain private as always.
The discussion is about health insurance that which pays for healthcare,
Because there is some evidence that $1.2 trillion medical insurance tax dollars could possibly cover all in america under HR 676 instead of only city,state and federal employees which apparently make up 60% of those in america with insurance.
That 60% is a bad bang for the tax dollar and fiscally reckless spending of taxpayer dollars. In the event that all in america could be covered under a more efficient plan for the same $1.2 trillion = fiscally responsible use of tax dollars.
In essence this HR 676 would be a huge savings to taxpayers and simply responsible spending of my tax dollars. Being fiscally responsible and fiscally conservative are two of my objectives which always make dollars and sense.
http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archiv...
In essence HR 676 eliminates high dollar medical insurance spending on what 1,500 health insurers add to the actual cost of providing care such as:
• its bureaucracy
• profits
• high corporate salaries
• advertising
* over charges
• sales commissions
• Shareholders ! are the primary clients of for-profit insurance companies, not patients
• Special interest campaign dollars
* Golden parachutes
* Politicians as shareholders:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/...
merrill (anonymous) says…
HR676 is the ONLY option being offered NOT connected to corporate american insurance. Politicians are still concerned for themselves as you and I pick up the cost of their insurance. Each of the many politicians could easily afford to pay their own way. Yet you and I are doing so.
I cannot afford THEIR medical insurance. Why should taxpayers be forced to pay insurance for elected officials? They say paying for mine is not affordable. Then how is theirs affordable? Think about it. How many times are we paying considering the number of politicians in our lives?
All taxpayers need coverage, taxpayers need relief and big time reduction in cost.
HR 676 is the only equitable approach that includes all of us.
HR 676 would cover every person for all necessary medical care including
prescription drugs, hospital, surgical, outpatient services, primary and
preventive care, emergency services, dental, mental health, home health,
physical therapy, rehabilitation (including for substance abuse), vision
care, hearing services including hearing aids, chiropractic, durable
medical equipment, palliative care, and long term care.
A family of four making the median income of $56,200 would pay about $2,700 in payroll tax for all health care costs.
HR 676 ends deductibles and co-payments. HR 676 would save hundreds of
billions annually by eliminating the high overhead and profits of the
private health insurance industry and HMOs.
jumpin_catfish (anonymous) says…
Damn Golden parachutes! Bronze would be just as good or we could force them to work for nothing or even make them pay to work. Screw 'em screw 'em all!
You the man merrill. Keep those post comin'
number3of5 (anonymous) says…
Medicare can start when one becomes eligible for retirement. One can take an early retirement at age 62, this might be something for this man to look into for an income but depending on his income from his former job it can be small. But he will still not be eligible for medicare until he is of retirement age. If his wife doesn't work because of a disability, then she should look into Social Security Disability Insurance. If she is eligible for this she can get Medicare after 2 years on SSDI. I live without any insurance except Medicare through my SSDI and my tribal affiliation by receiving my general meds and healthcare at Haskell Health Center. I am very fortunate in this respect. If the man is a veteran, he can apply to the VA for medical care and medications.
merrill (anonymous) says…
When does Medicaid kick-in?
After bankruptcy and one is virtually void of assets.
Why not help first instead of placing someone on a bunch of more expensive government programs?
Allow people to retain assets and homes so they can at least help assist themselves.
Bankruptcy
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04...
commuter (anonymous) says…
Did Merrill say anything original? No I guess not, he sounds just like a broken record.
Satirical (anonymous) says…
Since we are giving away handouts, I want help too! I would like the price of gas, car insurance (since I am required to have it), milk, bread, housing, etc., to drop so they are more affordable for me. I am in my twenties and healthy. I need to afford to pay for stuff for my family and can't afford to have my resources reallocated to pay for those who think they deserve stuff cheaper "just because". Cry me a river that you have to find a job which offers insurance. Life could be much worse.
In fact even private insurance reallocates money from those who are healthy to pay off the bills of those who are elderly or unhealthy. Perhaps I should be saying to the elderly, who by age group have much more wealth than those in their twenties, that I am sick of subsidizing their infirmities. Yet people like this who have a "me first" attitude want all the resources reallocated to people situated just like they are. How about you stop being so selfish and think about others who need to pay off debt from school loans, and pay for their own necessities. And since it isn't your money to begin with, how dare you presume YOU are more entitled to MY money than I am.
Health insurance isn't perfect, and definitely needs some overhaul that incentivizes behavior which lowers prices. But when government enters into the private market the only way they can succeed is by having an unfair advantage (government is inefficient). Regulation and proper incentives is wiser than allowing the government to take over (another) industry.
SettingTheRecordStraight (anonymous) says…
Mr. Kemberling,
My health care is not your responsibility. Equally, your health care is not my responsibility.
denak (anonymous) says…
"....health care in this country is not a right bestowed upon the populace by the Constitution. Never has been...."
So, your argument is that since it isn't in the Constitution, it shouldn't exist. Excellant point. Since it isn't in the Constitution, lets do away with the following:
1)Public Education--who needs a literate society anyway.
2)Judicial Review
3)"Innocent until proven guilty"
4)THe right to trial by a jury of one's peers
5)The right to travel
6)The Air Force
7) The Right to vote
8)The Right to Marriage
9)THe RIght to Privacy
10)Electoral College
11)Executive Orders
Since these things are specifically mentioned by the constitution, then we don't need them. Does't matter that we could not have a free society without them, they are of no importance, since they aren't in the constitution.
Dena
mom_of_three (anonymous) says…
Affordable health care should be a right of all americans. It's gotten so ridiculous in this country. No one should have to do without their prescriptions, office visits to maintain health, and fundraisers for uncovered hospital expenses because the costs are too high.
Why should some person wait for an operation until funds can be raised? Why should someone lose their house to pay for their child's cancer treatment?
Healthcare shouldn't be something you have to worry about.
dandelion (anonymous) says…
jason2007, so poor people should just go away and die, and leave you alone? Is that what you will do if you lose your job, or your fortunes change? It may not be in the constitution, but it is immoral to deny people help. It 's not like this guy doesn't want to work and is lazy. I'm so glad your life is just wonderful, you better pray real hard that it stays that way, because no one is going to want to help such a cheap, immoral person.
SettingTheRecordStraight (anonymous) says…
dena,
It's a different argument.
No one would disagree that all you have mentioned are rights. However, a right of the individual does not necessarily become the responsibility of the society.
You have a right to car insurance, but I'm not expected to pay for it. You also have a right to health care, but the only person responsible for paying for it is you.
Cooky_the_Cook (anonymous) says…
denak, your post is terrible. The U.S. Constitution outlines exactly how the electoral college works in Article II, and several of the Amendments deal with voting rights. Those are just two areas where you are totally wrong. You must have been reading the wrong constitution.
Newell_Post (anonymous) says…
..... and denak, public education isn't mentioned in the constitution because it was traditionally a responsibility of state and local governments (instead of federal), not because it is unnecessary.....
pace (anonymous) says…
I especially resent the ads that indicate any change in the structure of health care would result in decisions be taken from the person and the doctor. Too late, health care reform will take some of the decisions away from the Insurance companies, who took the power from the client and the provider (doctor). We must not leave availability of affordable health care to corporations as a job benefit. That serves so poorly that it literally kills people and drives the horror of family bankrupts. Health care insurance should not be dependant on a job. Losing a job should not mean the money your spent on health insurance for decades is washed out. small business, families, preventive health measures, economies all are hurt or handicapped by the current model of health care delivery.
denak (anonymous) says…
".....The U.S. Constitution outlines exactly how the electoral college works in Article II, and several of the Amendments deal with voting rights...."
Cooky, I should have been more careful with my wording. Yes, the Constitution outlines electors, however, the words, electoral college never appears in the Constitution. The term "Electoral College" did not appear in common usage until the 1800s. The point I was trying to make is that terms and "rights" we think are guarenteed such as "innocent until proven guilty" are not in fact, guarenteed.
As for voting, again, the Constitution does not explicitly guarentee the right to vote. The Constitution dictates who and when a person can not be *denied* the right to vote. Throughout history, we have used various means to deny individuals the right to vote (ie literacy tests, poll tax, gender, race) Voting rights *can* be withheld. For example, felons and those who are considered mentally incompetant are denied the right to vote in some places.
Dena
denak (anonymous) says…
".....public education isn't mentioned in the constitution because it was traditionally a responsibility of state and local governments (instead of federal), not because it is unnecessary…..
Jasons point was that if it wasn't in the Constitution then it is not a right. The argument wasn't whether it is a federal or a state obligation. Traditionally, the state may have had control over education but no one can deny that it is a basic right of all individuals to be educated. Our democracy (and please do not right back and say "we don't live in a democracy we live in a republic) is strong and stable because we have an educated populace. The federal government recognizes this. The American people recognize this and the states recognize this. One can make a very real argument that, like education, the health of our democracy rests on the health of its people. Something as fundemental as health should not be at the whim of a corporation.
"....You have a right to car insurance, but I'm not expected to pay for it....."
No, we do not have a right to car insurance. Car insurance is mandated by law. However, if comprehensive universal health insurance only cost me $38 a month, like my car insurance does, I would have absolutely no problem with the government mandating health insurance also. And quite frankly, most Americans wouldn't either. Certianly 38 dollars/month is a whole heck of a lot better than the thousands and thousands individuals have to pay now.
Dena
jason2007 (anonymous) says…
@dandelion: Oh please. You're hatred and vitriol drip from every sentence and do nothing but demonstrate how emotionalism drives you.
I'm really a likable guy -- not wanting anyone to be harmed.
I'd challenge you to show me where in my original post I said, "People should just go away and die". Oh, and I doubt that you actually pray like you mention in your post. The hate that seeped from every word ran counter to any sort of organized religion (well, except Islam where you may want to kill me for being an infidel).
jason2007 (anonymous) says…
@denak: Your points are 100% on the money and are a logical dissection of the arguments that I posted. It's a shame that emotionalism is the driver of most people in how they frame a debate, these days. Used to be a time in this country when intellectual people could debate the issues on precedents, merits based on facts, persuasive arguments, etc. but the moment a person dipped into emotionalism that was the equivalent of a 3 y/o temper-tantrum, they lost.
Today, the temper-tantrum is the norm and unless you become emotional yourself via caring and compassion and all the buzzwords of our degenerative society, you lose. Logic no longer trumps emotional response. It's all about how a person "feels", not about how they think.
jason2007 (anonymous) says…
@Denak: Oh, I didn't even read the little nugget of intellectual prowess that was your 7/3 10:03 am post! Now that's rich!
Ok, apparently you do not understand how govt works, so let's start from the beginning. Ever watched "I'm just a Bill" from the 80's Schoolhouse Rock series? It might be a good backgrounder for you.
Every other piece of legislation is derived from, and superceded by, The Constitution. Public Education is legal in this country because it fits within the framework of the Constitution and Congress has (here's the key, pay attention now) passed legislation that makes public education a law. Public Education is NOT a right -- there's an important distinction -- it's just a law right now, which can be repealed at anytime via representative process. Our rights cannot be repealed without a Constitutional amendment which is an arduous process. Big difference between a right (bestowed on us via the Bill of Rights) and laws (which you listed in your 7/3 10:03 am post).
Are you nothing more than a bag full of emotional red herrings? I challenge you to correlate my point that healthcare is not a right granted to us by the Constitution and the Air Force. Your fallacious point is that since the Air Force is not called out in the Constitution, it should be abolished which demonstrates a gross misunderstanding of how the Constitution and our legislative process works (again, "I'm Just a Bill" in SchoolHouse Rock would really get you up to speed, I think).
Good luck on your quest to learn more about our government.
Cappy (anonymous) says…
...When I was sick, you comforted me...