"Loan payments will be capped at 10 percent of a student’s disposable income (it’s currently 15 percent) and any debt remaining after 20 years will be forgiven (the current threshold is 25). For public servants – including teachers, nurses, or members of the armed forces – that cap is 10 years."
Now, I have every intention of paying back every penny I am borrowing for school, but I found this interesting.
More generally, the reform cuts out the middle man banks in the student loan process, lending the money directly from the government. I don't think there is expected to be much difference noticeable to students but, in general, I approve for a couple reasons:
1. although there are no credit restrictions on student loans, those of us with significant bruising might have a better experience with the fed than with for-profit lending institutions, and
2. after TARP, I am having a harder and harder time feeling bad for banks generally.
But do you see the dilemma in a bill generated to help soften the blow to the American publics wallet but it is already having the reverse effect?
Or for instance in my particular situation, I carry health insurance on my children but not on myself, so...now I HAVE to get some or be fined? How is that in my best interest?? Is it because I didnt bother to plan for the policy change of losing my job to an overseas outfit that I should be forced to pay for something thats not in my current budget or have to be "subsidized" by the government? I'm not looking for any handouts.
I clearly agree that healthcare reform is necessary but what I find detrimental is the economic situation that must first be fixed unless we want the entire unemployed population looking for those handouts...thats alotta people our already tapped government is going to have to help "subsidize". My children and their children will pay the price, just like with Social Security.
As for Aetna, corporations are all greedy. Corporations revolve around the bottom line and its what capitalism is founded on. I find it very disturbing that our congress and President elected themselves out of this law but yet, we the people, are supposed to smile and applaud and pay the resulting inflated price. Our country is a capitalist society and the continual socialistic trends are bound to devastate some of those companies, what happens in a year if Aetna and United and BCBS (or on the flip side Sallie Mae and Nelnet) turn around and say they are facing bankruptcy because of this (this is very hypothetical, but addresses some of my concern) is the government then going to have to give out another 800 billion dollar bailout because the economy couldn't stand that kind of blow, like with the banks and auto industry?
I dont know how true this is as I haven't taken the time to look it up myself but I've heard that doctors wages will be cut (I've even heard essentially salaried despite specialty, but dont know if I believe that) so are we then going to be shipping our best and brightest overseas so that they can earn that almighty dollar that our supposed capitalist society will no longer allow them to earn? Again I dont know this to be fact so if you have any knowledge about that particular area, please share!
I'm not attempting to be rude or snide about any of this, I have what I feel are legitimate concerns and because this bill was rushed through the channels and alot of the negotiating done behind closed doors I feel like I'm validated in having them. You seem to be very educated and articulate about the matter so I'm genuinely just asking.
It is having the reverse effect in the interim, yes. But the bill is not to fault for that. You have a right to be concerned, but your anger is misplaced.
Concerning the fines...There are no federal regulations currently in place with the new bill for federal enforcement action taken against those who choose not to pay the fines (no property liens, wage garnishment, etc.). It is very likely that those who choose not to pay will never see a penalty for that decision. That's point number one.
My question for you is this: What is the point of carrying health insurance for your children? Why do you do it? If it is because you believe their lives are valuable and you want them to be eligible for care should they require it, then why not carry it for yourself as well? Is your life not just as valuable? Who will care for them if you become terminally ill? If you do not carry health insurance for yourself because you cannot afford to, then the healthcare bill seeks to change that so that you can.
I've heard the argument about the constitutionality of requiring citizens to pay a fine for refusing to carry health insurance. There are also laws that require us to wear seat belts. While I could conceivably decide to exercise my constitutionally protected right to not wear a seat belt while I hurl a 2 ton box of steel down a concrete strip at 70 miles per hour, to do so would be monumentally stupid.
Laws are in place not only to protect us from ourselves, but to protect us from others. Can you imagine what the majority of Americans having access to healthcare might do for national health? Thinking in terms of communicable disease, if you choose not to be treated for illness by way of refusing to carry health insurance on the basis of your pride (because you've been conditioned to view a basic human right that doesn't cost you an arm and a leg as a "hand out"), and infect everyone you come into contact with....Well, if you want to gamble with your own life that's one thing, but I'm not sure how I feel about you gambling with my life or the life of my child. As for me, I'd rather my children's children pay the price of healthcare with their tax dollars rather than with their lives.
Congress "electing" themselves out of the bill is inconsequential. As federal employees, they are no doubt covered by federal healthcare.
The auto company bail outs were tied to economic stimulus. The healthcare bill is not. You're talking about apples and oranges. The difference is, the federal government doesn't manufacture vehicles. They aren't equipped to fill the void that a bankrupted auto company leaves. With healthcare, they can because the infrastructure is already in place. See: Medicare.
As for doctor's salaries, I don't know enough about the hype to say whether or not there's any truth to it either, but I will say this...There aren't many places doctors will be able to go, since the U.S. is one of only three developed nations without universal healthcare and I doubt they'd be making as much in Mexico or Turkey as they would here in the U.S. even with universal healthcare. Still, even if our best, brightest, and greediest relocate, there will still be doctors. There will still be nurse practitioners (this is the direction I plan to go in). And perhaps by the grace of God, those who remain will be in medicine for the difference it makes in people's lives and not for the paycheck.
Don't worry about seeming rude. No offence taken at all :) Keep tossing 'em my way, hon. I'll do my very best to keep knocking 'em out of the park.
LOL. Glad you're not taking offense. I completely disagree with alot of what you're saying, comparing apples to oranges for example. The point is not so much a pride thing about taking a "hand out" as it is that I have prioritized my finances. I am in excellent health and can afford to pay for the medical services that I require on an as needed basis. I carry health insurance on my children because it is more beneficial financially to me to pay for the insurance vs pay for well baby checks and immunizations. I'm under no illusions that some people cannot afford their healthcare be it health insurance or the services needed. It doesn't benefit me financially, period. And I believe that I am entitled that choice without the government mandating otherwise. Your hypothetical about communicable diseases made me laugh, I do not know of anyone who would knowingly infect others. Thats absurd.
As for the fines...why would they take the time, manpower, and resources necessary to issue these fines if people weren't really expected to pay them? Thats ludicrous, of course there will be consequences.
I feel that congress electing themselves out of this plan is very indicative of the way they view the plan itself. Yes, they've got federal insurance, absolutely, but 80% of working Americans also carry insurance through their employer, so why are they not opted out, but instead being forced to pay an increase in their premiums because of profit driven companies such as Aetna as a DIRECT result of this legislation? Seems to be penalizing the wrong people if you ask me.
And yes, many doctors do what they do for the money and not out of the kindness of their hearts. I love people, love caring for people, have a kind and sympathetic heart for people but that doesn't mean I can volunteer my time, I have to pay my bills too, just like the doctors do with their exorbitant malpractice insurance premiums. My point is this, we're a free market capitalist society that was founded on the freedom of its people to make their own choices without the constant interference from its government. I understand law and order, I understand the principles of a democracy is that the people will choose, by majority, those laws and which order to follow. Unfortunately, I feel like the American people were not given an option in this legislation, only congressmen who wanted to get their 80 billion in earmarks passed. This bill encompasses so many different facets that its nearly indiscernable at this point. I hope that you're right, it is my sincere, honest, whole-hearted wish that you are correct and I am wrong about the implications this law will have on our lives and the lives of our children!
LOL. Glad you're not taking offense. I completely disagree with alot of what you're saying, comparing apples to oranges for example. The point is not so much a pride thing about taking a "hand out" as it is that I have prioritized my finances. I am in excellent health and can afford to pay for the medical services that I require on an as needed basis. I carry health insurance on my children because it is more beneficial financially to me to pay for the insurance vs pay for well baby checks and immunizations. I'm under no illusions that some people cannot afford their healthcare be it health insurance or the services needed. It doesn't benefit me financially, period. And I believe that I am entitled that choice without the government mandating otherwise. Your hypothetical about communicable diseases made me laugh, I do not know of anyone who would knowingly infect others. Thats absurd.
As for the fines...why would they take the time, manpower, and resources necessary to issue these fines if people weren't really expected to pay them? Thats ludicrous, of course there will be consequences.
I feel that congress electing themselves out of this plan is very indicative of the way they view the plan itself. Yes, they've got federal insurance, absolutely, but 80% of working Americans also carry insurance through their employer, so why are they not opted out, but instead being forced to pay an increase in their premiums because of profit driven companies such as Aetna as a DIRECT result of this legislation? Seems to be penalizing the wrong people if you ask me.
And yes, many doctors do what they do for the money and not out of the kindness of their hearts. I love people, love caring for people, have a kind and sympathetic heart for people but that doesn't mean I can volunteer my time, I have to pay my bills too, just like the doctors do with their exorbitant malpractice insurance premiums. My point is this, we're a free market capitalist society that was founded on the freedom of its people to make their own choices without the constant interference from its government. I understand law and order, I understand the principles of a democracy is that the people will choose, by majority, those laws and which order to follow. Unfortunately, I feel like the American people were not given an option in this legislation, only congressmen who wanted to get their 80 billion in earmarks passed. This bill encompasses so many different facets that its nearly indiscernable at this point. I hope that you're right, it is my sincere, honest, whole-hearted wish that you are correct and I am wrong about the implications this law will have on our lives and the lives of our children!
Disagreeing with evidence solely for the sake of disagreeing is a tricky thing. I can disagree that the law of gravity is real, but should I fall from an 18 story building, my disagreement won't keep me from hitting the ground.
Communicable disease: There was a thread recently in General Nursing about a pt who was dying from an STD whose family insisted that the medical staff refrain from disclosing that information to the pt's spouse in an effort to keep a family secret, secret. Take a look at it. Very interesting stuff.
Re: your personal health coverage choices. For someone who makes healthcare decisions based on the impact they make on their wallet, I am surprised that the healthcare reform bothers you. You are fortunate that you have the financial flexibility to pay out of pocket for medical expenses as needed AND pay health insurance premiums for your children. You failed to answer one of my questions though...
What will you do in the event that you become terminally ill? What will you do if you sustain some injury that requires a costly medical procedure to keep you functioning, working, paying the bills? Do you also have 10's to 100's of thousands of dollars stashed away to pay those kinds of medical expenses?
And I can only imagine that the reason you are so confident that your health will always be excellent is because you have some kind of precognition that I do not have. I'd really like to borrow your crystal ball . The purpose of insurance is to protect you in the event of unforeseen circumstances.
Whether or not there will be any real penalties for those who don't pay the fine remains to be seen. Just as you believe that I cannot claim indefinitely that there will not be, neither can you claim that there definitely will be. Time will tell.
Re: Doctor salaries. I don't know too many MD's who are volunteers. I must be going to the wrong docs. Are you trying to tell me that doctors are struggling to pay their bills because of malpractice insurance? Can I ask...why is it okay for health insurance premiums to dictate the quality of living for hard working Americans who make $15 an hour, but not okay for malpractice insurance premiums to dictate the quality of living for working Americans who make $100 an hour? Sounds like they face a similar issue. If doctors' salaries decrease, malpractice insurance would also decrease. I doubt we'll be seeing doctors living in poverty. Besides, for the salary driven docs who don't practice out of the goodness of their hearts that you describe, the cost of malpractice insurances obviously isn't income prohibitive enough to cause them to stop practicing.
Re: Aetna's premium increases. I've gone over this already, in great detail. I can't force you to divorce your feelings from your reasoning. That is entirely up to you. People can opt out. They can opt out by dropping their insurance company. Since, health insurance is so unnecessary that to be required to carry it has a greater negative impact than not carrying it, then it's no big deal right?
Important question that I hope you will answer thoughtfully and thoroughly: As someone who is all for healthcare reform (as you have described yourself), tell me, what (in your opinion) are the advantages of universal healthcare in the U.S.? And if you don't believe universal healthcare is the answer, in your opinion, what is?
The funny thing here is I have heard no facts from you either. The truth of the matter is we are both simply speculating on the possible outcomes this "reform" will have on the American public. I respect your opinion, I welcome it, I believe its great to have a differing perspective to see things from. The simple truth is that neither of us can offer any substantial proof that things will go the way we believe them to go. I appreciate a different viewpoint, I just happen to disagree with it.
RE communicable diseases...that is appalling and completely disgusting. Perhaps I should rethink my earlier statement that nobody would willingly infect another with a communicable disease. But I fail to see how healthcare reform could fix their twisted thought process.
RE becoming terminally ill myself, I fail to see how my decision to not carry health insurance (by the way I have had health insurance my entire life until very very recently) would affect you. My children do have a father who, in the God forbid event that something happened to me would gladly take care of his children and that burden would not fall to you or any of the rest of the American public. As far as my crystal ball...I think that was a silly comment. Obviously I cannot foresee that something catastrophic will not happen to me, however; I can only hope that my current health will carry me through until I once again have health insurance, I do not plan to go the rest of forever without coverage. But at this time its the best decision for me and my family.
Re doctor salaries, again I think you misread, but my opinion is that if we are looking for a redistribution of wealth lets look at others who make far more than the people who help us to maintain our health, who are there in the event of terminal illnesses or catastrophic events. The purpose of this bill should not be to control the income of those who take care of us in our most desperate times. If we want to redistribute wealth...well, thats an entirely different conversation. But I do not believe that health insurance premiums should dictate any life, as you said, be it someone whose made the choice to work for $15 an hour or someone who makes $100 an hour.
RE Aetna. People cannot opt out, they cannot drop coverage, coverage is now mandated under this wonderful bill. And you are completely misunderstanding my misgivings regarding this and I dont think that even if I broke it down you would ever concede a point.
Re your so important question, I, unfortunately, do not have the answer. No I think if you talked to people in Canada or England you would find that even with a much smaller population universal healthcare is a bad idea. Great thought, wonderful intentions, just not easily carried out, not to mention our population is much much larger. I actually have friends from England who hated their healthcare system and I grew up 30 minutes from the Canadian border with many Canadian friends, I dont know anyone who just loves their healthcare system. And just incase you forgot this legislation offers no such thing as universal healthcare. Therefore; its a moot point. I think that with transparency from our government officials (like was promised by the current administration) we, the people could collectively form a much better, wiser, and more widely accepted plan to effectively manage the healthcare reform.
The funny thing here is I have heard no facts from you either. The truth of the matter is we are both simply speculating on the possible outcomes this "reform" will have on the American public. I respect your opinion, I welcome it, I believe its great to have a differing perspective to see things from. The simple truth is that neither of us can offer any substantial proof that things will go the way we believe them to go. I appreciate a different viewpoint, I just happen to disagree with it.
RE communicable diseases...that is appalling and completely disgusting. Perhaps I should rethink my earlier statement that nobody would willingly infect another with a communicable disease. But I fail to see how healthcare reform could fix their twisted thought process.
RE becoming terminally ill myself, I fail to see how my decision to not carry health insurance (by the way I have had health insurance my entire life until very very recently) would affect you. My children do have a father who, in the God forbid event that something happened to me would gladly take care of his children and that burden would not fall to you or any of the rest of the American public. As far as my crystal ball...I think that was a silly comment. Obviously I cannot foresee that something catastrophic will not happen to me, however; I can only hope that my current health will carry me through until I once again have health insurance, I do not plan to go the rest of forever without coverage. But at this time its the best decision for me and my family.
Re doctor salaries, again I think you misread, but my opinion is that if we are looking for a redistribution of wealth lets look at others who make far more than the people who help us to maintain our health, who are there in the event of terminal illnesses or catastrophic events. The purpose of this bill should not be to control the income of those who take care of us in our most desperate times. If we want to redistribute wealth...well, thats an entirely different conversation. But I do not believe that health insurance premiums should dictate any life, as you said, be it someone whose made the choice to work for $15 an hour or someone who makes $100 an hour.
RE Aetna. People cannot opt out, they cannot drop coverage, coverage is now mandated under this wonderful bill. And you are completely misunderstanding my misgivings regarding this and I dont think that even if I broke it down you would ever concede a point.
Re your so important question, I, unfortunately, do not have the answer. No I think if you talked to people in Canada or England you would find that even with a much smaller population universal healthcare is a bad idea. Great thought, wonderful intentions, just not easily carried out, not to mention our population is much much larger. I actually have friends from England who hated their healthcare system and I grew up 30 minutes from the Canadian border with many Canadian friends, I dont know anyone who just loves their healthcare system. And just incase you forgot this legislation offers no such thing as universal healthcare. Therefore; its a moot point. I think that with transparency from our government officials (like was promised by the current administration) we, the people could collectively form a much better, wiser, and more widely accepted plan to effectively manage the healthcare reform.
I didn't say facts. I said evidence. It's true neither of us can offer any proof. The best either of us can do is present a compelling argument based on what we do know that is consistent with reason and logic (notice that I did not include emotion or tradition). It's totally okay to assert your own point of view in opposition to my own, but don't think I'm going to exempt you from owning it and/or backing it up .
Re: communicable disease...My point was not that healthcare reform would fix twisted thinking, it was that the twisted thinking exists, which you did not believe before. Fixing it, well that's a whole other can o'worms. You do know that some psychiatric services are covered under healthcare insurance, yes? =P (kidding here)
Re: Hubs picking up the slack...What if the burden of the bills you leave behind in this hypothetical scenario are too heavy for him to bear? What if he dies (people do that sometimes)? That's what insurance is for - the what ifs. Hope, unfortunately, doesn't pay medical bills.
Your decision not to carry health insurance may not ever affect me. It may not ever affect anyone but you. But history shows that where a sense of responsibility to one's fellow man fails, separating a person from a significant enough bit of cash succeeds.
The healthcare bill is not about a redistribution of wealth. It is about making healthcare affordable to a greater number of people. Affordable healthcare will not raise that $15 an hour worker's salary. It will reduce his/her healthcare expenditure. That term does not apply to this discussion.
Healthcare is not mandated yet. It is entirely possible for someone to drop their existing coverage (to avoid jacked up premiums) in the interim until these changes go into effect and the playing field changes. The fines will not be enacted until 2014. They will start small and be phased in over the course of two years. As you've evidenced, the average American is so distraught over the idea of change that they aren't paying close attention to the details. In actuality, if people realized that they could escape exorbitant premiums over the next 4 years by dropping their insurance providers, the insurance companies might realize that they're shooting themselves in the foot by raising premiums, as some profit is certainly better than NO profit.
I understand your misgivings. You don't want to be fined and you don't think it's fair. Where we disagree is in what we each consider fair and equitable. You're chiefly considering how this legislation will affect you personally, in the short term. Which you believe is unfair - and that's cool. Your concerns are your concerns and I can respect that. I am chiefly considering how this legislation will affect the nation, in the long term. To me, it's a small price to pay for a brighter tomorrow for many. For example, firefighters used to be privatized. There was a time when if you couldn't afford to pay them to put out your house, then that sucker just went ahead and burned. Firefighters are now supported by tax dollars. Someone somewhere along the line decided that it would benefit the greater good to make firefighter's services available to all citizens. Sometimes we forget the freedoms we enjoy at the expense of our wallets because it's been that way for as long as we can remember. This is my hope for healthcare reform.
Re: your answer to my important question...Sounds to me like you've given an awful lot of thought to why you are against healthcare reform and not much thought to why you are for it - and you did say that you were for it. Perhaps taking some time to consider the pros AND the cons (not just the cons) would bring you a step closer to an answer to that question.
The fact is simply that I have yet to hear any "pros" from this bill. I have yet to hear any of this "evidence" you mention. Your saying that I am only considering myself in this is absolutely laughable. In case you haven't been reading thoroughly every post I have has arguments for the general working American populace. Sounds to me like you trust your government enough to take care of you and your child. That's the significant difference between you and I, I do not. I believe in me and my abilities to take care of my family, I do not depend on government officials who are only concerned with getting their earmarks passed to worry about this little Oklahoma chick and her babies.
And perhaps, I don't feel like sharing my ideas regarding healthcare reform with someone who is clearly opposed to absolutely every single idea that I have that doesn't support exactly what you believe. As I said earlier, I hope and pray you are right and this will ultimately serve the greater good of the American people. I agree to disagree with you, no harm, no foul. Now I'm going to go enjoy my Friday night and I hope you do the same! :)
The fact is simply that I have yet to hear any "pros" from this bill. I have yet to hear any of this "evidence" you mention. Your saying that I am only considering myself in this is absolutely laughable. In case you haven't been reading thoroughly every post I have has arguments for the general working American populace. Sounds to me like you trust your government enough to take care of you and your child. That's the significant difference between you and I, I do not. I believe in me and my abilities to take care of my family, I do not depend on government officials who are only concerned with getting their earmarks passed to worry about this little Oklahoma chick and her babies.
And perhaps, I don't feel like sharing my ideas regarding healthcare reform with someone who is clearly opposed to absolutely every single idea that I have that doesn't support exactly what you believe. As I said earlier, I hope and pray you are right and this will ultimately serve the greater good of the American people. I agree to disagree with you, no harm, no foul. Now I'm going to go enjoy my Friday night and I hope you do the same! :)
I understand your thinking that you are in good health and the cost of health insurance for yourself is not justified, and you are responsible about providing for your own needs. However, it won't matter how good your health is if you get hit by a car tomorrow, or suffer some other catastrophic injury (which does happen to many people every day). As someone asked earlier, how many hundred thousand do you have stashed away to cover a few weeks in ICU??? Very few of us can afford to cover that on our own, and, if that happens and you're uninsured, all the rest of us end up paying for your care.
Also, I'd like to see some documentation that Congress and the President "elected" (exempted?) themselves out of the new bill. Members of Congress and the President (and their families) are currently covered under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP), same as they have been for many years, the same plan that covers every Federal employee, from them down to someone mopping the floors at a VA or typing and filing at a Social Security office (I was covered under the FEHBP when I worked for the VA, and it was a great program). As with most people who have employer-provided coverage, there is nothing in the bill that would change that, and nothing that I'm aware of in the bill about Congress and the President writing themselves some special exception. If that's true, I'd be happy to see some proof of it.
I understand your thinking that you are in good health and the cost of health insurance for yourself is not justified, and you are responsible about providing for your own needs. However, it won't matter how good your health is if you get hit by a car tomorrow, or suffer some other catastrophic injury (which does happen to many people every day). As someone asked earlier, how many hundred thousand do you have stashed away to cover a few weeks in ICU??? Very few of us can afford to cover that on our own, and, if that happens and you're uninsured, all the rest of us end up paying for your care.
Also, I'd like to see some documentation that Congress and the President "elected" (exempted?) themselves out of the new bill. Members of Congress and the President (and their families) are currently covered under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP), same as they have been for many years, the same plan that covers every Federal employee, from them down to someone mopping the floors at a VA or typing and filing at a Social Security office (I was covered under the FEHBP when I worked for the VA, and it was a great program). As with most people who have employer-provided coverage, there is nothing in the bill that would change that, and nothing that I'm aware of in the bill about Congress and the President writing themselves some special exception. If that's true, I'd be happy to see some proof of it.
Absolutely, read the bill.
As for me getting in some catastrophic accident I can only hope that will not be. As I stated earlier I've never been without health insurance and like many Americans have been forced to prioritize my finances when my company decided to ship my job overseas. I do not foresee this being a long term thing, for the moment though, it is what it is. You can judge me all you like and when you've walked in my shoes you can tell me how you would do it differently :) the truth is, yes, its a gamble but we're all doing the best we can. Again, I agree to disagree with you....I hope you have a wonderful evening as well!! :)
The fact is simply that I have yet to hear any "pros" from this bill. I have yet to hear any of this "evidence" you mention. Your saying that I am only considering myself in this is absolutely laughable. In case you haven't been reading thoroughly every post I have has arguments for the general working American populace. Sounds to me like you trust your government enough to take care of you and your child. That's the significant difference between you and I, I do not. I believe in me and my abilities to take care of my family, I do not depend on government officials who are only concerned with getting their earmarks passed to worry about this little Oklahoma chick and her babies.
And perhaps, I don't feel like sharing my ideas regarding healthcare reform with someone who is clearly opposed to absolutely every single idea that I have that doesn't support exactly what you believe. As I said earlier, I hope and pray you are right and this will ultimately serve the greater good of the American people. I agree to disagree with you, no harm, no foul. Now I'm going to go enjoy my Friday night and I hope you do the same! :)
Pros:
Children will be covered under their parent's insurance plans without regard to pre-existing conditions.
Closed gap in prescription coverage for seniors.
Immediate access to healthcare for currently uninsured Americans who are uninsured due to pre-existing conditions.
Tax credits for small business who provide insurance coverage for their employees.
Lifetime and annual limits on benefits in all plans eliminated.
Requires new plans to cover preventative services and immunizations without cost-sharing.
Gives consumers access to appeals process in response to new insurance plan decisions.
Requires that insurance providers disclose to the public, what percentage of the premiums consumers pay go to cover operating costs.
Prohibits insurance companies from dropping policy holders from their plans when they become ill.
This is just a sampling of what is NOW, as in right NOW, in effect with the passage of this bill. Just because you cannot see the pros, doesn't mean they don't exist.
It's fine to believe in your abilities to take care of your family. You're not alone in that. I do as well. However, I also know that catastrophe happens and that not everything is within my control. Just as hope doesn't pay medical bills, neither does a healthy dose of confidence in myself.
And perhaps, I don't feel like sharing my ideas regarding healthcare reform with someone who is clearly opposed to absolutely every single idea that I have that doesn't support exactly what you believe.
You mean, as I have shared with you? You insisted that we are on the same side. If that's true, then what do you have to lose in you and I finding some common ground? Didn't you also say that you welcome a different perspective?
I think a more fitting explanation than "I don't wanna" might perhaps be, "I haven't actually thought of it that way." It's okay to be opposed to healthcare reform. But if you are, say so. Don't tell me that you're in favor of it to appease me because I just might call your bluff . If you're gonna take a stand, take a stand.
I am already enjoying my Friday evening :) I enjoy a good debate! For me, it's like playing chess, which I also enjoy.
Just curious...How do you plan to pay for your nursing education?
Ooops, sorry, I'm not going to read through the entire bill looking for some specific piece of right-wing propaganda disinformation. If you want to direct me to where in the bill it specifically exempts the President and Congress, I'll be glad to take a look. Since you're so sure this is the case (as opposed to what I've heard repeatedly in the coverage of the debate and passage of the bill), I'm sure you know where in the bill it's located ...
amends: h.r.4872 (which is the "fixes" bill that amended 3590)
sponsor: sen grassley, chuck [r-ia] (submitted 3/23/2010) (proposed 3/23/2010)
amendment purpose:...
to make sure the president, cabinet members, all white house senior staff and congressional committee and leadership staff are purchasing health insurance through the health insurance exchanges established by the patient protection and affordable care act.
sorry it took me a moment to get back with you all. here is the vote for an amendment that would require elected officials to partake in the law, as you can see it was rejected, kinda makes me wonder why....right? people who have healthcare through their employers are not exempt from these new changes, why are the legislators?
amends: h.r.4872 (which is the "fixes" bill that amended 3590)
sponsor: sen grassley, chuck [r-ia] (submitted 3/23/2010) (proposed 3/23/2010)
amendment purpose:...
to make sure the president, cabinet members, all white house senior staff and congressional committee and leadership staff are purchasing health insurance through the health insurance exchanges established by the patient protection and affordable care act.
sorry it took me a moment to get back with you all. here is the vote for an amendment that would require elected officials to partake in the law, as you can see it was rejected, kinda makes me wonder why....right? people who have healthcare through their employers are not exempt from these new changes, why are the legislators?
so, you couldn't find the provision in the bill itself... i'm not at all surprised.
as has been stated previously, it's a moot point. legislators are already exempted. as federal employees, they are already covered under federal healthcare.
read the statement of purpose of the motion: "to make sure the president, cabinet members, all white house senior staff and congressional committee and leadership staff are purchasing health insurance through the health insurance exchanges established by the patient protection and affordable care act."
to make sure that the president, cabinet members, all white house senior staff and congrssional committe and leadership staff...keep that in mind for a moment.
take a look at the votes. how many republicans voted nay? republican legislators are also federal employees and exempted. take a look at who lead the motion - chuck grassley (r-ia). why do you suppose he would motion on a moot point? it's no secret that the dems outnumber the repubs in the senate. could it be that the issue was raised with the express understanding that it would likely never pass? why would a republican senator do something like that?
did you even notice that the senate is not included in that statement of purpose? what's good for the goose ought to be good for the gander, right? that's your whole argument, isn't it?
still curious...how do you plan to pay for your nursing education?
. The purpose of insurance is to protect you in the event of unforeseen circumstances. 
You insisted that we are on the same side. If that's true, then what do you have to lose in you and I finding some common ground? Didn't you also say that you welcome a different perspective?
metal_m0nk, BSN, RN
920 Posts
It is having the reverse effect in the interim, yes. But the bill is not to fault for that. You have a right to be concerned, but your anger is misplaced.
Concerning the fines...There are no federal regulations currently in place with the new bill for federal enforcement action taken against those who choose not to pay the fines (no property liens, wage garnishment, etc.). It is very likely that those who choose not to pay will never see a penalty for that decision. That's point number one.
My question for you is this: What is the point of carrying health insurance for your children? Why do you do it? If it is because you believe their lives are valuable and you want them to be eligible for care should they require it, then why not carry it for yourself as well? Is your life not just as valuable? Who will care for them if you become terminally ill? If you do not carry health insurance for yourself because you cannot afford to, then the healthcare bill seeks to change that so that you can.
I've heard the argument about the constitutionality of requiring citizens to pay a fine for refusing to carry health insurance. There are also laws that require us to wear seat belts. While I could conceivably decide to exercise my constitutionally protected right to not wear a seat belt while I hurl a 2 ton box of steel down a concrete strip at 70 miles per hour, to do so would be monumentally stupid.
Laws are in place not only to protect us from ourselves, but to protect us from others. Can you imagine what the majority of Americans having access to healthcare might do for national health? Thinking in terms of communicable disease, if you choose not to be treated for illness by way of refusing to carry health insurance on the basis of your pride (because you've been conditioned to view a basic human right that doesn't cost you an arm and a leg as a "hand out"), and infect everyone you come into contact with....Well, if you want to gamble with your own life that's one thing, but I'm not sure how I feel about you gambling with my life or the life of my child. As for me, I'd rather my children's children pay the price of healthcare with their tax dollars rather than with their lives.
Congress "electing" themselves out of the bill is inconsequential. As federal employees, they are no doubt covered by federal healthcare.
The auto company bail outs were tied to economic stimulus. The healthcare bill is not. You're talking about apples and oranges. The difference is, the federal government doesn't manufacture vehicles. They aren't equipped to fill the void that a bankrupted auto company leaves. With healthcare, they can because the infrastructure is already in place. See: Medicare.
As for doctor's salaries, I don't know enough about the hype to say whether or not there's any truth to it either, but I will say this...There aren't many places doctors will be able to go, since the U.S. is one of only three developed nations without universal healthcare and I doubt they'd be making as much in Mexico or Turkey as they would here in the U.S. even with universal healthcare. Still, even if our best, brightest, and greediest relocate, there will still be doctors. There will still be nurse practitioners (this is the direction I plan to go in). And perhaps by the grace of God, those who remain will be in medicine for the difference it makes in people's lives and not for the paycheck.
Don't worry about seeming rude. No offence taken at all :) Keep tossing 'em my way, hon. I'll do my very best to keep knocking 'em out of the park.