Who are the uninsured and why we need to repeal the health bill.

KingCondanomation

New member
Often times when we hear about the uninsured we imagine some poor group of people who are so desperately poor they can't afford health care insurance or find a job that provides it, that they are just stuck waiting until the worst happens, but let's look a little closer at.

"Roughly one quarter of those counted as uninsured — 12 million people — are eligible for Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP), but haven't enrolled. This includes 64 percent of all uninsured children, and 29 percent of parents with children. Since these people would be enrolled in those programs automatically if they went to the hospital for care, calling them uninsured is really a smokescreen.

Another 10 million uninsured "Americans" are, at least technically, not Americans. Approximately 5.6 million are illegal immigrants, and another 4.4 million are legal immigrants but not citizens.

Nor are the uninsured necessarily poor. A new study by June O'Neill, former director of the Congressional Budget Office, found that 43 percent of the uninsured have incomes higher than 250 percent of the poverty level ($55,125 for a family of four). And slightly more than a third have incomes in excess of $66,000. A second study, by Mark Pauly of the University of Pennsylvania and Kate Bundorf of Stanford, concluded that nearly three-quarters of the uninsured could afford coverage but chose not to purchase it.

Only about 30 percent of the uninsured remain so for more than a year, approximately 16 percent for two years, and less than 2.5 percent are uninsured for three years or longer. About half are uninsured for six months or less. Notably, because health insurance is too often tied to employment, the working poor who cycle in and out of the job market also cycle in and out of health insurance.

For example, young, healthy, and well-off people might be more inclined to buy insurance if it cost less. That means ending regulations, like community rating, that increase the cost of insurance for younger and healthier workers; eliminating costly mandated benefits; and creating more competition by allowing people to purchase insurance across state lines.
And if people are losing their insurance when they lose their jobs, we should move away from a health care system dominated by employer-provided health insurance. That means changing the tax treatment of health insurance.
The current system excludes the value of employer-provided insurance from a worker's taxable income. However, workers purchasing health insurance on their own must do so with after-tax dollars. This provides a significant tilt toward employer-provided insurance. Workers should receive a standard deduction, a tax credit, or, better still, large Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) for the purchase of health insurance, regardless of whether they receive it through their job or purchase it on their own.
Who Are the Uninsured? * Michael D. Tanner

Some important points from this are that
- In America, unlike most countries, you actually have the freedom NOT to pay for health insurance, a few people may disagree with their choice but it was their choice and we should respect it
- The vast majority of people declining insurance are NOT poor enough to afford it
- We can help best by doing real reform of reducing government's role in healthcare, rather than once again expanding it.

If we show the facts, and have confidence that from the fact that Pelosi and Reid's approval ratings are around 10% there is no reason we cannot repeal this bill.
Kill the bill must turn into repeal the bill, it starts now and what any fiscally sound person needs to run on.
 
LOL Obama is going to legalize them in his next piece of shit large legislative cram down.

LOL let's all go bankrupt from healthcare spending which at over $800 billion and rising fast even before this massive spending bill passed, is more than 9 times as costly as the Iraq war which is winding down.
 
Repeal is going to require veto proof majorities. That's not coming in 2010. Not in 2012. By that time, it will be for good unless it just breaks the US financially.
 
2012 is the only shot the Republicans have at repealing the bill. While I appreciate your gusto, at this point you are spitting into the wind.
 
LOL let's all go bankrupt from healthcare spending which at over $800 billion and rising fast even before this massive spending bill passed, is more than 9 times as costly as the Iraq war which is winding down.
People WITH insurance go Bankrupt every year in this country from their healthcare spending. I don't think this bill was the answer but I am really tired of you conservatives looking at the dike with all the water coming through and telling us everything is ok.
 
Repeal is going to require veto proof majorities. That's not coming in 2010. Not in 2012. By that time, it will be for good unless it just breaks the US financially.
It could be, I hope not.
Clinton vetoed the first 2 welfare reform bills before giving in, maybe Obama will too in 2010. If not then 2012 is the best shot.

You are probably right but we have to try.
 
2012 is the only shot the Republicans have at repealing the bill. While I appreciate your gusto, at this point you are spitting into the wind.
Nothing is more permanent than a government "entitlement". However, the best chance they have is the courts, the SCOTUS may rule in favor of states rights. This is going to be interesting. With the court cases this will remain in the minds of people for the near future, people will be constantly reminded how they asked their congress to reject this and start over and were ignored.
 
People WITH insurance go Bankrupt every year in this country from their healthcare spending. I don't think this bill was the answer but I am really tired of you conservatives looking at the dike with all the water coming through and telling us everything is ok.

I get it and I'm sorry if I made a false impression.
I don't think everything is ok, but this does nothing to control cost and those with insurance will pay more anyway. I was in favor of real reform like reducing red tape across states so there can be more competition and put pressure on prices to come down.

What we really have is the status quo of YET more government involvement in healthcare which like the Pill Bill, HMO Act, etc... has only made things worse. And honestly I think the Dems expect it to get worse from this bill, insurers will need to raise rates even more from the extra regulation and then Dems will say now we need universal healthcare with a public option. Most of the honest ones I've seen are very open about this being the first step.

We all know what they really want and they will get it unless we fight back and actuall repeal an increase in government for once.
 
Cap and trade isn't going anywhere. Next is education, immigration and bank reform, not necessarily in that order.

Hope your right, give me time to get a fair price for my stock and cash out before we drive gas prices to $5 gallon and rape our energy companies.
 
Often times when we hear about the uninsured we imagine some poor group of people who are so desperately poor they can't afford health care insurance or find a job that provides it, that they are just stuck waiting until the worst happens, but let's look a little closer at.

"Roughly one quarter of those counted as uninsured — 12 million people — are eligible for Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP), but haven't enrolled. This includes 64 percent of all uninsured children, and 29 percent of parents with children. Since these people would be enrolled in those programs automatically if they went to the hospital for care, calling them uninsured is really a smokescreen.

Another 10 million uninsured "Americans" are, at least technically, not Americans. Approximately 5.6 million are illegal immigrants, and another 4.4 million are legal immigrants but not citizens.

Nor are the uninsured necessarily poor. A new study by June O'Neill, former director of the Congressional Budget Office, found that 43 percent of the uninsured have incomes higher than 250 percent of the poverty level ($55,125 for a family of four). And slightly more than a third have incomes in excess of $66,000. A second study, by Mark Pauly of the University of Pennsylvania and Kate Bundorf of Stanford, concluded that nearly three-quarters of the uninsured could afford coverage but chose not to purchase it.

Only about 30 percent of the uninsured remain so for more than a year, approximately 16 percent for two years, and less than 2.5 percent are uninsured for three years or longer. About half are uninsured for six months or less. Notably, because health insurance is too often tied to employment, the working poor who cycle in and out of the job market also cycle in and out of health insurance.

For example, young, healthy, and well-off people might be more inclined to buy insurance if it cost less. That means ending regulations, like community rating, that increase the cost of insurance for younger and healthier workers; eliminating costly mandated benefits; and creating more competition by allowing people to purchase insurance across state lines.
And if people are losing their insurance when they lose their jobs, we should move away from a health care system dominated by employer-provided health insurance. That means changing the tax treatment of health insurance.
The current system excludes the value of employer-provided insurance from a worker's taxable income. However, workers purchasing health insurance on their own must do so with after-tax dollars. This provides a significant tilt toward employer-provided insurance. Workers should receive a standard deduction, a tax credit, or, better still, large Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) for the purchase of health insurance, regardless of whether they receive it through their job or purchase it on their own.
Who Are the Uninsured? * Michael D. Tanner

Some important points from this are that
- In America, unlike most countries, you actually have the freedom NOT to pay for health insurance, a few people may disagree with their choice but it was their choice and we should respect it
- The vast majority of people declining insurance are NOT poor enough to afford it
- We can help best by doing real reform of reducing government's role in healthcare, rather than once again expanding it.

If we show the facts, and have confidence that from the fact that Pelosi and Reid's approval ratings are around 10% there is no reason we cannot repeal this bill.
Kill the bill must turn into repeal the bill, it starts now and what any fiscally sound person needs to run on.

What about people like this, who fall through the cracks?

"Ken Haney is caught in the kind of vicious cycle that's supposed to end under the health insurance reform legislation passed Sunday night by the House of Representatives. He's had to choose between making a living and getting life-saving health care. Of course he's chosen the latter, but he would rather do both...

Mr. Haney has multiple sclerosis. He is being kept relatively functional by monthly infusions that cost $3,000 each, paid for by Medicaid because he couldn't get health insurance due to his pre-existing condition. He wants to work full time, but if he earns more than $200 a month he won't qualify for Medicaid. Without treatment, he'll become too disabled to work...

"I would like to work full time, earn a living and have a normal life," he said. "The treatments are working well, and I'm so much better than I was before. I ride my bike everywhere and don't have a problem with the steps in my house...

"I had health insurance, but it didn't actually pay for any of my medical expenses. I tried to get a better policy but they turned me down...

"If I could get affordable health care coverage, I could work and still be covered. With what's passed, maybe it will provide me with that option. As of now I don't have any options."


Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10082/1044944-455.stm#ixzz0j19YAaeF
 
What about people like this, who fall through the cracks?

"Ken Haney is caught in the kind of vicious cycle that's supposed to end under the health insurance reform legislation passed Sunday night by the House of Representatives. He's had to choose between making a living and getting life-saving health care. Of course he's chosen the latter, but he would rather do both...

Mr. Haney has multiple sclerosis. He is being kept relatively functional by monthly infusions that cost $3,000 each, paid for by Medicaid because he couldn't get health insurance due to his pre-existing condition. He wants to work full time, but if he earns more than $200 a month he won't qualify for Medicaid. Without treatment, he'll become too disabled to work...

"I would like to work full time, earn a living and have a normal life," he said. "The treatments are working well, and I'm so much better than I was before. I ride my bike everywhere and don't have a problem with the steps in my house...

"I had health insurance, but it didn't actually pay for any of my medical expenses. I tried to get a better policy but they turned me down...

"If I could get affordable health care coverage, I could work and still be covered. With what's passed, maybe it will provide me with that option. As of now I don't have any options."


Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10082/1044944-455.stm#ixzz0j19YAaeF

That is indeed a sad situation but the problem I see is that someone has to pay for the treatment. The government has been doing so so far. Maybe they should keep doing so but take the restriction off of what they let the guy earn. I don't see how a business (insurance company) can pay out that sort of money per month and stay afloat for long. Again, I don't have the answers but "forcing" insurance companies to pay this, realizing that this isn't an isolated case but probably applies to several people, is a sure way to put them out of business...thus costing more jobs.
 
Cap and trade isn't going anywhere. Next is education, immigration and bank reform, not necessarily in that order.

Bank reform should be simple. Put Glass Steagall back in place and break up the big investment banks.... separate the retail banking from the investment banking. Then if the investment banks go under, they don't take down the financial system due to bank runs.

But no... our idiots in DC won't go with what worked for 60+ years. They will instead attempt to re-create the wheel. In the process they will find 535 ways to fuck it up.
 
Repeal is going to require veto proof majorities. That's not coming in 2010. Not in 2012. By that time, it will be for good unless it just breaks the US financially.
I'd say that those who are signing on now to repeal it are commiting political suicide. It won't take long after implementation that this legislation becomes very popular. If I was a republican...I'd tread carefully. To quote the shrub "They misunderestimate the American public and how fickle they are."
 
Back
Top