Health Care Bill

airborneinf82, BSN · Mar 22, 2010

Pelosi made mention of how this bill was on par with social security and medicare. as has been mentioned here, it is obvious that this bill WILL BE just that. another governmnet program that will push our debt and spending beyond the point of sustainability. social security and medicare were already rapidly approaching this point. just this year, social security became insolvent.

everyone talks about the benefits of this bill, but no one seems to care about the implications of the cost. everyone says, its worth the cost. how can that be if the cost exceeds what we can afford? right now we BORROW money at an astounding rate and this will only increase that. what happens if we cannot continue to borrow like we do. that day is approaching and we will all find out. this spending and borrowing is unsustainable.

as far as the other countries having such great health care systems, like as mentioned, canada, please explain why they all come HERE to receive care? if their systems are so good, why go elsewhere? no one EVER answers this question and i doubt i will get one here. also, what major medical advancments and drug developments have come from these countries? everyone demonizes insurance companies and drug companies for their profits. but the profit margins in insurance companies are some of the lowest in business. profits in drug companies do 2 things. 1, covers the cost of r&d for failed drugs or ones that dont ever make it to market and 2, provides funding for new r&d to get us the latest and greatest drugs.

things are going to change because of this. it will not be today or tomorrow, but soon we will feel this bill. do yourself a favor and do some research. dont base what you think you know on what the pundits and politicians say. actually look in to stuff yourself and you will be surprised what you find.

WAnurse17 · Mar 22, 2010

Thank you airborneinf82. I agree. Before you rely on the politicians, please investigate for yourself.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/21/health.care.main/index.html?hpt=T1

airborneinf82, BSN · Mar 22, 2010

The battle over what happens to insurance premium costs under the bill was most pronounced during President Obama's health care summit Feb. 25. Obama and Republican Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee argued over whether premiums would increase (Alexander's view) or decrease (Obama's), compared with what premiums would do in the absence of legislation. The truth is that for most people, premiums wouldn't change significantly.
The Congressional Budget Office estimated that for those in the group market-those who get insurance through their employers-premiums would largely stay the same. The change in the average premium in the large group market would be between 0 percent and a 3 percent decrease, for instance, compared with where they'd be under current law in 2016. The average premiums for those who buy insurance on their own would go up, however, by 10 percent to 13 percent. The reason is that benefits would become a lot better for this market under the bill. Also, most people buying their own coverage would receive subsidies that make their net costs for these plans substantially lower than they otherwise would be.

Be clear, the CBO analysis states that the non-group market (about 17% of the overall insurance market) will see a large impact on their premiums, by going up. According to the Department of HHS this is 26.9 million people. The group market (employer based or 5/6ths of insurance market) could see no increase or a decisively small decrease. This covers about 174 million people. Guess this is pretty fair though huh?

trae55 · Mar 22, 2010

Pelosi made mention of how this bill was on par with social security and medicare. as has been mentioned here, it is obvious that this bill WILL BE just that. another governmnet program that will push our debt and spending beyond the point of sustainability. social security and medicare were already rapidly approaching this point. just this year, social security became insolvent.

everyone talks about the benefits of this bill, but no one seems to care about the implications of the cost. everyone says, its worth the cost. how can that be if the cost exceeds what we can afford? right now we BORROW money at an astounding rate and this will only increase that. what happens if we cannot continue to borrow like we do. that day is approaching and we will all find out. this spending and borrowing is unsustainable.

as far as the other countries having such great health care systems, like as mentioned, canada, please explain why they all come HERE to receive care? if their systems are so good, why go elsewhere? no one EVER answers this question and i doubt i will get one here. also, what major medical advancments and drug developments have come from these countries? everyone demonizes insurance companies and drug companies for their profits. but the profit margins in insurance companies are some of the lowest in business. profits in drug companies do 2 things. 1, covers the cost of r&d for failed drugs or ones that dont ever make it to market and 2, provides funding for new r&d to get us the latest and greatest drugs.

things are going to change because of this. it will not be today or tomorrow, but soon we will feel this bill. do yourself a favor and do some research. dont base what you think you know on what the pundits and politicians say. actually look in to stuff yourself and you will be surprised what you find

The healthcare bill will still cost less than the Iraq war. If we ended the war (or never went into it in the first place) we wouldn't be in this mess. No one tries to blame Bush for making a mistake because he thought Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. We paid for it with our wallets and our citizens. Now, we have a president that is trying to make insurance companies accountable and give us healthcare and people are marching against it in the streets?

trae55 · Mar 22, 2010

Be clear, the CBO analysis states that the non-group market (about 17% of the overall insurance market) will see a large impact on their premiums, by going up. According to the Department of HHS this is 26.9 million people. The group market (employer based or 5/6ths of insurance market) could see no increase or a decisively small decrease. This covers about 174 million people. Guess this is pretty fair though huh?

A small amount of people that buy their own insurance will see their premiums go up by 10-13%. However, keep in mind what that policy is buying. You are paying insurance companies only while you are healthy. If you pay your own insurance and you get sick, you WILL be dropped. If I had a private insurance plan I would gladly pay an extra 10-13% more to know that the insurance will be there when I need it.

airborneinf82, BSN · Mar 22, 2010

The healthcare bill will still cost less than the Iraq war. If we ended the war (or never went into it in the first place) we wouldn't be in this mess. No one tries to blame Bush for making a mistake because he thought Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. We paid for it with our wallets and our citizens. Now, we have a president that is trying to make insurance companies accountable and give us healthcare and people are marching against it in the streets?

This has nothing to do with the health care legislation. This is a whole different discussion.

A small amount of people that buy their own insurance will see their premiums go up by 10-13%. However, keep in mind what that policy is buying. You are paying insurance companies only while you are healthy. If you pay your own insurance and you get sick, you WILL be dropped. If I had a private insurance plan I would gladly pay an extra 10-13% more to know that the insurance will be there when I need it.

A small amount of people? 26.9 million people is small? Funny that since you aren't in the group you have no concern with their rate increases. Regardless, don't try and say that because you get sick your insurance company will drop you. While I will admit in rare circumstance this has and probably does still happen, it is far from the norm. If this were the case the hospitals would be empty because no one would have coverage. Its outlandish lies/mistruths like this that give people false information, and again leads me to say to people to look in to their own information.

CFitzRN, ADN · Mar 22, 2010

Pelosi made mention of how this bill was on par with social security and medicare. as has been mentioned here, it is obvious that this bill WILL BE just that. another governmnet program that will push our debt and spending beyond the point of sustainability. social security and medicare were already rapidly approaching this point. just this year, social security became insolvent.
everyone talks about the benefits of this bill, but no one seems to care about the implications of the cost. everyone says, its worth the cost. how can that be if the cost exceeds what we can afford? right now we BORROW money at an astounding rate and this will only increase that. what happens if we cannot continue to borrow like we do. that day is approaching and we will all find out. this spending and borrowing is unsustainable.
as far as the other countries having such great health care systems, like as mentioned, canada, please explain why they all come HERE to receive care? if their systems are so good, why go elsewhere? no one EVER answers this question and i doubt i will get one here. also, what major medical advancments and drug developments have come from these countries? everyone demonizes insurance companies and drug companies for their profits. but the profit margins in insurance companies are some of the lowest in business. profits in drug companies do 2 things. 1, covers the cost of r&d for failed drugs or ones that dont ever make it to market and 2, provides funding for new r&d to get us the latest and greatest drugs.
things are going to change because of this. it will not be today or tomorrow, but soon we will feel this bill. do yourself a favor and do some research. dont base what you think you know on what the pundits and politicians say. actually look in to stuff yourself and you will be surprised what you find
The healthcare bill will still cost less than the Iraq war. If we ended the war (or never went into it in the first place) we wouldn't be in this mess. No one tries to blame Bush for making a mistake because he thought Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. We paid for it with our wallets and our citizens. Now, we have a president that is trying to make insurance companies accountable and give us healthcare and people are marching against it in the streets?

Everyone blames Bush, loudly and clearly. The truth is, Iraq had defied numerous demands by the UN to allow access by the UN Security teams to come in and inspect for WMDs - time after time after time Iraq (Hussein) denied access. There was evidence that they were developing these weapons - and it came out recently that they were intentionally "behaving" in ways that indicated they were developing WMDs in an effort to deter Iran from attacking them - so the intelligence that Bush received ALL indicated development of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. Therefore, Bush acted exactly as he should have in order to protect our nation's security interests and Congress backed him - and not only a republican controlled Congress, but a democrat controlled Congress (they took power in '06). The democrat-controlled congress voted in a $100 billion funding package for the war efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. You should check these things before making declarations about "a war we shouldn't have been in in the first place" or whatever you said. I'm so over that same old tired, uneducated tripe.

trae55 · Mar 22, 2010

This has nothing to do with the health care legislation. This is a whole different discussion.

It has everything to do with healthcare legislation. If you want to know how we're going to pay for healthcare, end the war.

A small amount of people? 26.9 million people is small? Funny that since you aren't in the group you have no concern with their rate increases. Regardless, don't try and say that because you get sick your insurance company will drop you. While I will admit in rare circumstance this has and probably does still happen, it is far from the norm. If this were the case the hospitals would be empty because no one would have coverage. Its outlandish lies/mistruths like this that give people false information, and again leads me to say to people to look in to their own information.

You are misunderstood what I wrote. First, 17% of the insurance market is small when compared to the rest of the insurance market. Second, it doesn't matter because this 17% has unfair insurance policies that are worthless if they get sick. Third, if you are PRIVATELY insured you will be dropped if you get sick. That is not misinformation. You misread.

trae55 · Mar 22, 2010

Everyone blames Bush, loudly and clearly. The truth is, Iraq had defied numerous demands by the UN to allow access by the UN Security teams to come in and inspect for WMDs - time after time after time Iraq (Hussein) denied access. There was evidence that they were developing these weapons - and it came out recently that they were intentionally "behaving" in ways that indicated they were developing WMDs in an effort to deter Iran from attacking them - so the intelligence that Bush received ALL indicated development of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. Therefore, Bush acted exactly as he should have in order to protect our nation's security interests and Congress backed him - and not only a republican controlled Congress, but a democrat controlled Congress (they took power in '06). The democrat-controlled congress voted in a $100 billion funding package for the war efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. You should check these things before making declarations about "a war we shouldn't have been in in the first place" or whatever you said. I'm so over that same old tired, uneducated tripe.

This is untrue. There were MANY qualified people that said Iraq did NOT have weapons of mass destruction. Certain factions of government have repeatedly told this lie that the decision to go to war was based on the information Bush was given at the time. It is ignorant to repeat this because it is not true.

CFitzRN, ADN · Mar 22, 2010

Everyone blames Bush, loudly and clearly. The truth is, Iraq had defied numerous demands by the UN to allow access by the UN Security teams to come in and inspect for WMDs - time after time after time Iraq (Hussein) denied access. There was evidence that they were developing these weapons - and it came out recently that they were intentionally "behaving" in ways that indicated they were developing WMDs in an effort to deter Iran from attacking them - so the intelligence that Bush received ALL indicated development of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. Therefore, Bush acted exactly as he should have in order to protect our nation's security interests and Congress backed him - and not only a republican controlled Congress, but a democrat controlled Congress (they took power in '06). The democrat-controlled congress voted in a $100 billion funding package for the war efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. You should check these things before making declarations about "a war we shouldn't have been in in the first place" or whatever you said. I'm so over that same old tired, uneducated tripe.
This is untrue. There were MANY qualified people that said Iraq did NOT have weapons of mass destruction. Certain factions of government have repeatedly told this lie that the decision to go to war was based on the information Bush was given at the time. It is ignorant to repeat this because it is not true.

Prove it.

greenfiremajick · Mar 22, 2010

I am not sure if anybody knows what the 1000+ page bill will do to health care, especially from the nurses point of view. I doubt if most of the people who voted in favor of it even know what it contains.
-mandate everyone to purchase heath insurance
-cut Medicare
-add to Medicaid
-prevent insurance companies from dropping you for exceeding cost limits
-raise taxes on the rich (200K+ year)
-cut physicians reimbursements for Medicare/Medicaid
It will be years before everything comes to light, but I think it will hurt nurses/physicians working conditions and compensation because there will be more regulation/paperwork and less money going to the actual health care providers.
I would love to see a bullet point break down of the bill if anyone has that info, there just seems to a lack of actual information out there.

This bill doesn't force everyone to have insurance....It just punishes you up to something like $750 a yr, if you DON'T have it....

I am in favor of one of the tenets and that is that children cannot be denied/dropped that have preexisting conditions.

It makes me very nervous, but I have seen some good in it....

ZenNurse2016 · Mar 22, 2010

Mandating everyone to have health insurance is no different from mandating that everyone has auto insurance. Of course there will be some who go uninsured and hit our car one day then who get's hurt? Those of us who are paying for auto insurance, get their premiums raised. So why not bring everyone into the health system to pay equally, we are already covering uninsured who turn up in hospitals and by law we cannot turn anyone away. More people in the health system equal more patients to take care of. Insurance companies will still be making money, business as usual, only this time they cannot cherry pick and decide not to take care of patient's with preexisting conditions or refuse to pay for a stroke patient to transfer to LTAC facility because they class her as unable to be rehabilitated.