OK, I am a mother to be who can't get health care insurance because pregnancy is considered a pre-existing condition (messed up I know but that what they've been telling me) and, not to mention, I couldn't afford insurance anyways, but I was going to try to stretch my money for the sake of the child. Health care insurance is just too expensive for some to pay every month as a "just in case". For the answers to my previous question I have found that Hilary plans on making health care, at a lower cost, mandatory for those who can afford it, and only those who can afford it, I personally don't think it's a bad idea and would be a lot better than paying out the rear for insurance that is going to look for every loop hole to get out of paying for your medical expenses and would open health care up to the thousands of people who can't afford it at the current rate or get denied because they have a condition, But does anyone know what the expected price of the new health care would be? A note to those saying I shouldn't have a child if I can't afford the high health care cost:
First off, I tried getting health care when I found out I was preg but was denied due to pregnancy being considered a pre-existing condition.
Second: The reason it's a stretch on my budget is because I have used a lot of my money getting my own business started and now that I am making enough to afford the health care I can't get it because I am already pregnant (pre-existing condition).
Third, those saying that sound like they would support killing of the lower class because they can't afford insurance, to judge someone's right to be a parent by income is inhuman, were it the case many great people would have never been born, who knows, maybe one of your great grandparents were poor, meaning you may not have been born if they thought the way you do. Don' t listen to the Hillary haters. I don't know what it would cost but I'm sure it's going to be affordable. Wont work look at Canada horrible system over there that's why all the rich people are coming here. Our country is a democracy that's why you pay more money Togo to a better doctor sortta like the old saying you get what you pay for Report It
An arm and a leg. $ 110 Billion every year. It would cost healthier Americans, that's for sure. 10000000000000000000 million dollars!
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
BOTOX U KNOW!!!!:) I don't think even SHE knows how much it will cost. Both HRC and Obama have absolutely no idea on how they will be able to effectively pay for their programs. This is bedrock of the Democratic Party promises.
One thing is for sure, you're taxes will increase if you pay them. If you don't, then you will get more government freebies. Health insurance is much cheaper than raising children...Abort and save money... It will cost more than we all make a year. In your case, her plan would garnish your wages to buy you insurance. Along with all the other things she plans to give away... it will cost our national security. Click on the link below so you can better inform yourself.
http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Hillar...
Vote for Hillary! I have NOTHING against helping the elderly and the young.
I DO have a problem SUPPORTING the people that do NOT want to get off of their butts and EARN an honest living - instead of "leeching" off of hard working citizens.
AND they teach their children, and their children's children HOW to DO NOTHING !!
Just realize ... that those of us that ACTUALLY have to work for a living, are getting tired of PAYING for the Democrats idea of HELPING.
Shouldn't MANDATORY Urine Tests be REQUIRED of people that are requesting "government handouts"?
IF you are on LEGAL prescription drugs, then you will not have a problem proving it !!
Would Universal HealthCare end up being like our Social Security system - THAT ELECTED POLITICIANS ARE NOT A PART OF, BECAUSE THEY HAVE AND SUPPORT their own Retirement system (the Congressional Retirement and Staffing Plan)?
SO, WHY would they WANT to FIX a government program that THEY are NOT REQUIRED to participate in?
IF YOU had spent years getting a PhD and then the government TELLS you that your ability to make a really good living is being taken away, WHAT would YOU do ?? Probably the same thing that a lot of medical professional would do ... change careers !!! With that kind of education, WHO wants to be told that your income is limited and you have to SEE a hundred people a day and you cannot provide quality care because you are rushed??? Odd, You can't afford insurance and The rest of us can't afford Hillary's tax to pay for it.
Anyhow, good luck with your baby. Let me put it this way, if you think Health Care is expensive now, wait until hillacare or obamacare take hold. It will cost us dearly!
http://theinternetassassin.com/ I think it's curious that she won't actually say how much it would cost individual Americans. At least Obama has said how much his would save Americans that already have health insurance and that it would be made affordable to those Americans who don't have it. Hillary doesn't know how much it will cost, how could she? Anyone who makes it to the White House will have to deal with Congress regarding any plan they have. Once that happens all bets are off concerning cost, coverage etc. If we get any health care plan it won't look anything like originally proposed. And that is a given. The health care system in the USA sucks just like the IRS!
Every one should be able to afford health insurance if it was not so high! Volume insurers should lower the price just like supply and demand!
Obama's will cost more! Hiliary has more experience but remember just one thing. Your congress people are the ones who decide who gets what. The President just signs it. more than we as a nation can afford to pay well your getting the health care go sign up it's free if your in the limits thank Hillary for that or you wouldn't have any If you or you husband are working, your wages will be garnished to support the plan. Although she has been asked, she does not know how much that would be.
My concern is, will I have the same amount deducted from my check as Bill Gates? He wouldn't notice.. but any amount from my check, I would certainly notice. Is it $25 ... or, what I fear... 25%.
There are many unanswered questions. Here is the more important question should you be having children if you cant afford health insurance......???????
all your reasons are the basis of our failed economy. Hope you make better judgements in your own business....let me guess tupperware sales amway or some well thought out internet ploy............. Well, my oppinion is that of a regular consumer..
how many times have i heard a line being "affordable"..
many times..
then I go to the store..an affordable means $100 for a pair of jeans or something..
So as a consumer, affordable to me means a "sale" that marks 10% off of a $100 tank top..that's not affordable..but it IS a sale right?
i think her plan is misleading and I don't want to sign on to a candidate that is going to mandate me to buy health insurance without knowing how much it will cost Listed below are two neutral articles discussing the plan. It should cost somewhere around 110 Billion total, but we are already spending a share of that money on the current health care system. Further, it focuses on providing insurance to lower income people for free, allowing everyone to opt into a plan if they chose, tax incentives to companies that provide health care to their employees, and lowering premiums to no higher than a percentage of the family's income. You may get health care for free, or at a reduced rate. Federal insurance would not be able to drop people for pre-existing conditions. The exact amount is unknown, because there are no real numbers for the plan yet, such as the amount of the tax incentive, the cutoff for people who qualify for full coverage, and the percentage of your income for the minimum premium. No one knows what Hillarycare would cost. It's not possible to know.
However, let me disabuse you of a false notion--that you'd be covered.
First, When 75% of the people who declare bankruptcy over medical bills ARE INSURED, then insurance is CLEARLY not the answer.
"Aldrich鈥檚 situation is "asinine" but increasingly common, said Dr. Deborah Thorne of Ohio University. Thorne, co-author of a widely quoted 2005 study that found medical bills contributed to nearly half of the 1.5 million personal bankruptcies filed in the U.S. each year, said that ratio has likely worsened since the data was gathered.
...
Like Aldrich, Thorne said, three-quarters of the individuals in the study who declared bankruptcy because of health problems were insured. "
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20201807/
Second, CURRENTLY Hillary is claiming that she will let people keep whatever insurance they have and that they'd select from existing policies. See above problem and know also:
Linda Peeno, MD testified that SHE had often denied treatment JUST to save the insurance company money http://www.thenationalcoalition.org/DrPe...
Furthermore:
"the vast majority of health insurance policies are through for-profit stock companies. They are in the process of 鈥渟hedding lives鈥?as some term it when 鈥渦ndesirable鈥?customers are lost through various means, including raising premiums and co-pays and decreasing benefits (Britt, 鈥淗ealth insurers getting bigger cut of medical dollars,鈥?15 October 2004, investors.com). That same Investors Business Daily article from 2004 noted the example of Anthem, another insurance company. They said the top five executives (not just the CEO) received an average of an 817 percent increase in compensation between 2000 and 2003. The CEO, for example, had his compensation go from $2.5 million to $25 million during that time period. About $21 million of that was in stock payouts, the article noted.
A 2006 article, 鈥淯.S. Health Insurance: More Market Domination, More CEO Compensation鈥?br>
(hcrenewal.blogspot.com) notes that in 56 percent of 294 metropolitan areas one insurer 鈥渃ontrols more than half the business in health maintenance organization and preferred provider networks underwriting." In addition to having the most enrollees, they also are the biggest purchasers of health care and set the price and coverage terms. 鈥溾€橳he results is double-digit premium increases from 2001 and 2004鈥攑eaking with a 13.9 percent jump in 2003鈥攕oaring well above inflation and wages increases.鈥?quot; Where is all that money going? The article quotes a Wall Street Journal article looking at the compensation of the CEO of UnitedHealth Group. His salary and bonus is $8 million annually. He has benefits such as the use of a private jet. He has stock-option fortunes worth $1.6 billion."
--Save America, Save the World by Cassandra Nathan pp. 127-128
"Insurance Companies Robbing Patients
Robbing patients to pay CEOs leads to unprecedented medical insurance corporation greed.
Thursday, January 3, 2008 8:52 AM
By: Michael Arnold Glueck & Robert J. Cihak, The Medicine Men"
http://www.newsmax.com/medicine_men/medi...
Therefore ANY pol who doesn't START with insurance reform: enforcement of antitrust and contract laws as the bare minimum leaves EVERY seriously ill person open to bankruptcy and ALL of us to skyrocketing costs and games.
Second, UHC is not the answer--but she'll claim it is IF we're foolish enough to go with her plan. First, this is how we'll see the current concept of mandated insurance without reform doesn't work--Romney did it in Taxachusetts with only 6.5 million folks and look at this:
"Massachusetts announced that spending on its health care plan would increase by $400 million in 2008, a cost expected to be borne largely by taxpayers. "
http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/200...
Last modified: January 29. 2008 5:03AM
Read that article and you'll see CA could NOT find the money to offer UHC in their state. And about 2 weeks later THIS news came out of CA:
"L.A. County may close most of its clinics
Facing a deficit, health officials want to pay private centers to take up the
slack. Critics say the plan's logic is faulty. "
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition...
ll.story?ctrack=1&cset=true
Also, from a Canadian doc who studies world health care and now lives in the US:
"...Another sign of transformation: Canadian doctors, long silent on the health-care system鈥檚 problems, are starting to speak up. Last August, they voted Brian Day president of their national association. A former socialist who counts Fidel Castro as a personal acquaintance, Day has nevertheless become perhaps the most vocal critic of Canadian public health care, having opened his own private surgery center as a remedy for long waiting lists and then challenged the government to shut him down. 鈥淭his is a country in which dogs can get a hip replacement in under a week,鈥?he fumed to the New York Times, 鈥渁nd in which humans can wait two to three years.鈥?br>
And now even Canadian governments are looking to the private sector to shrink the waiting lists. Day鈥檚 clinic, for instance, handles workers鈥?compensation cases for employees of both public and private corporations. In British Columbia, private clinics perform roughly 80 percent of government-funded diagnostic testing. In Ontario, where fealty to socialized medicine has always been strong, the government recently hired a private firm to staff a rural hospital鈥檚 emergency room.
This privatizing trend is reaching Europe, too. Britain鈥檚 government-run health care dates back to the 1940s. Yet the Labour Party鈥攚hich originally created the National Health Service and used to bristle at the suggestion of private medicine, dismissing it as 鈥淎mericanization鈥濃€攏ow openly favors privatization. Sir William Wells, a senior British health official, recently said: 鈥淭he big trouble with a state monopoly is that it builds in massive inefficiencies and inward-looking culture.鈥?Last year, the private sector provided about 5 percent of Britain鈥檚 nonemergency procedures; Labour aims to triple that percentage by 2008. The Labour government also works to voucherize certain surgeries, offering patients a choice of four providers, at least one private. And in a recent move, the government will contract out some primary care services, perhaps to American firms such as UnitedHealth Group and Kaiser Permanente.
Sweden鈥檚 government, after the completion of the latest round of privatizations, will be contracting out some 80 percent of Stockholm鈥檚 primary care and 40 percent of its total health services, including one of the city鈥檚 largest hospitals. Since the fall of Communism, Slovakia has looked to liberalize its state-run system, introducing co-payments and privatizations. And modest market reforms have begun in Germany: increasing co-pays, enhancing insurance competition, and turning state enterprises over to the private sector (within a decade, only a minority of German hospitals will remain under state control). It鈥檚 important to note that change in these countries is slow and gradual鈥攎arket reforms remain controversial. But if the United States was once the exception for viewing a vibrant private sector in health care as essential, it is so no longer."
http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_3_ca...
IF you're serious about sensible reform, check out the only plan I've seen that makes sense AND is voluntary:
QUALITY, ACCESSIBLE, AFFORDABLE health care for all.
That means preventative care (physical with follow up). Real medication (no Medicare "donut holes" the really ill are ripped off again.) No bogus ridiculously low "caps" on needed medical procedures. No abuse of the ER. No paying for the silly with the sniffles to go to the doc for free. No more bankruptcies over medical bills. I want THIS plan that ends abuse of the taxpayer, takes the burden off employers, provides price transparency, and ends the rip-off of the US taxpayer at the hands of greedy insurance CEOs (which has been repeatedly documented).
http://www.booklocker.com/books/3068.htm...
Read the PDF, not the blurb, for the bulk of the plan. Book is searchable on Amazon.com
Cassandra Nathan's Save America, Save the World
Good luck with your pregnancy. |
