• Welcome to the PopMalt Forums! Whether you're new to forums or a veteran, welcome to our humble home on the web! We're a 20-year old forum community with thousands of discussions on entertainment, lifestyle, leisure, and more.

    Our rules are simple. Be nice and don't spam. Registration is free, so what are you waiting for? Join today!.

Tell me this specifically.....

shelgarr

Registered Member
If you are uninsured because you don't have a job that offers benefits, how will the health care bill help you?

Or, if you are unemployed and paying huge premiums for health insurance for a family, how will the health care bill help you?

Another, if you have coverage but it isn't fulfilling the costs of you particular health care cost, how will the health care bill help you?
 

Jeanie

still nobody's bitch
V.I.P.
My understanding of it, and I admit that I have not read it, but my understanding is that it provides lower-cost insurance to those whose job doesn't provide it, or are unemployed but still don't qualify for Medicaid or other programs.
 

Unity

Living in Ikoria
Staff member
In my state (Missouri), the Medicaid expansion part of PPACA is projected to cover around 67% of our state's current uninsured (that's a statistic from a recent paper I wrote on the subject, I think taken from the Missouri Budget Project). Our legislature/governor sponsored large cuts in 2005, so a restoration/expansion of coverage will be a big deal for our impoverished and sick populations.

So, for the working poor that can qualify or for those that are disabled/chronically ill in some way and unable to work, Medicaid enrollment can help.
 

shelgarr

Registered Member
So with #1, the uninsured could "afford" insurance, and in the case of #2 the bill forces the insurance to reduce the rate, and in #3 insurance would be forced to cover all medical costs. All while not pulling in the premiums. So the cost differences for premiums and/or medcial costs would then fall to the government. Tax money. And if they run out? More taxing?

None of the bill reformed the medical system cost or services. All it did was regulate insurance more. They are to become the instrument of government I suppose they'll ultimately be non-profit. That's called government run insurance.
 

Jeanie

still nobody's bitch
V.I.P.
I don't have a problem with government-run insurance. It seems to work fine in every other country in the world.
 

CaptainObvious

Embrace the Suck
V.I.P.
I don't have a problem with government-run insurance. It seems to work fine in every other country in the world.
Depends on how you define fine. And I would beg to differ in some examples, I can think of a few countries that have government run insurance that I wouldn't want any part of.
 

shelgarr

Registered Member
"That can qualify" is a key phrase. For the impoverished sick, we need Medicare reform which is a program already in existence. These should be easily evaluated and instead go through a rigorous enrollment process. As well, fraud should be tightly monitored but than we're talking beefing up personnell. If fraud prevention offsets costs it takes to have the program better run, than do it!!
 

Jeanie

still nobody's bitch
V.I.P.
Depends on how you define fine. And I would beg to differ in some examples, I can think of a few countries that have government run insurance that I wouldn't want any part of.
OK you got me, I was generalizing. I define "fine" as meaning people have the means to go to the doctor to get routine exams and tests that are needed to make sure everything is ok, and if it's not, they have the means to get treated. I'm talking about countries like Great Britain, France, and Canada - all places in which I have friends who have said that they would not trade their system for ours.

I define "fine" as the opposite of what I have - paranoia that I have abnormal cells growing on my cervix again and will never know until it's too late. Or that I'll get a simple staph infection or bronchitis or strep throat and not have the means to have it treated.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sim

shelgarr

Registered Member
For government to run insurance it would take panels of doctors to evaluate cases. Government would contract out for that amongst an already burdened system. We're talking increasing an the length of time for processing. Not to mention just one more body of people to determine when and how and where and why a consumer can get medical services. It won't work.
------
I used to pay out of pocket for a pap. Dr fee and lab fee amounted to $200. That was years ago however. Now with insurance so heavily in the mix, they drive the prices. I would rather just get the TRUE fees that the Dr sets.
 
Last edited:

Ilus_Unistus

Registered Member
From my findings in the US Health care bill approved in 2010, it is based on income for most part only for the "poverty" level incomes. Those who can afford basic Health insurance (judged by the government) will pay full premiums after new "subsidized" prices are applied and will be required to carry coverage by law. Those who can afford what is called "Cadillac Insurance Policies", that is policies with "extra's" above basic will pay full premiums, again once "subsidized" prices are applied plus a 40% tax.

Basically unless you are in poverty levels, what ever price you pay or would pay now will increase greatly once these laws are in-acted with taxes and "subsidies".

Also note worthy, all prescriptions will also undergo much higher tax increases and again more "subsidies". Not to mention medical research funding will be cut to almost half from what it is now.

The government control portions are mainly to determine if those in poverty levels are worthy of any procedures they may require. This and to monitor that all who are required are paying for their new, higher priced insurance.
 
Top