a Redneck look at Obamacare

[mikem12]

I had this sent me. Enjoy or not your mileage may vary

 

 

[suv_guy_19]

Your mileage with definitely vary.

[retro-man]

You need to ask mettech for advice about starting topics that people really appreciate, for instance this one: link

 

Now there's something people want to see! On a scale of one to 10, that one was an 11! Seriously:

 

vs. ??? Puh-leez.

[mettech]

[stephenhawkings]

Why can't we get the same option as our senators, congressmen, and other people doing public good?, or if we can't save the money and cut their free benefits!

[suv_guy_19]

I'm pretty sure that their benefits aren't free.

[stephenhawkings]

some are like free postage, I bet theres others

[BB390fe]

I'm pretty sure that their benefits aren't free.

 

Your friggin right there.... WE pay for them!

[joihan777]

Congressmen nitwitted enough to pass that bill ought to get an all-expense paid ONE-WAY trip to Venezuela.

[suv_guy_19]

No I'm pretty sure I've heard more than once during this debate that they pay for them.

[fmccap]

No I'm pretty sure I've heard more than once during this debate that they pay for them.

If your talking about there health benefits we pay for most of it.

[stephenhawkings]

No I'm pretty sure I've heard more than once during this debate that they pay for them.

I heard $800, and I think the tax payers pick up the rest.

Think about all the other benefits they get, car , home, flights, food, a doctor in the capital building in DC, lobbyist perks...

[suv_guy_19]

You elected them.

[fmccap]

You elected them.

Yes they did and thats why it pisses me off when they play the two sides game. The two major parties are two dirty sides of the same coin.

[Ralph Greene]

I know the right wing conservatives, and the left wing hopefuls don't want to hear this. But there is no health care bill yet. We still don't know it's final form until the house and Senate work out their differences. Then they will present it to Obama and he will sign it. At that time, we have a bill. Most of the what I hear from both sides about all that is wrong with it is BS in my opinion.

 

I'm looking forward to it. Finally my 33 year old handicapped step daughter maybe will qualify for some insurance. As of now, I'm paying for her insurance, although she is an adult. She has part time jobs occasionally, and usually makes $4000-5000 per year, and saves what she can for her expenses. Since her savings are greater than $2000 (she saves for an emergency), she does not qualify for medicade or any state assistance. She totally falls thru the cracks of society, and there are many just like her.

 

Since the do gooders of our society, and most Americans, claim not to want people to die in the streets of disease and starvation, it's about time we stepped up to the plate for those less fortunate. I'm not a socialist, and in the past didn't understand this need, but having watched my handicapped step daughter do her absolute best in trying to cope with life, I now believe it's time society stepped up in a cost advantageous way. If an uninsired Americam has a heart attack, you are already paying for his $800 ride to the ER, already paying for his $150,000 bypass, already paying $5000-$6000 per month for him to stay in rehab.....surely there is a more fair way to spread this cost around....or do it cheaper.

 

Now in truth....every American now has some form of medical care, and each of you already pay for this thru higher local and state taxes.....one way or another.....you just maybe don't realize how much you pay. It's called the emergency room and public clinics, and other forms of free local care. There has to be a better way. I think our Congress understands what I'm saying, although most Americans don't. That's why you feel they are not representing you. Maybe they see a bigger picture than you do....see the real costs now borne by society for health care, and want a better way. I hope so.

Edited January 2, 2010 by Ralph Greene

[retro-man]

Well Ralph, you've been there. Expect to hear all about it now from a bunch of people who haven't.

[joihan777]

I know the right wing conservatives, and the left wing hopefuls don't want to hear this. But there is no health care bill yet... ... and want a better way. I hope so.

 

I don't know of any Republican version of the bill that would strip anyone's coverage, including emergency federal coverage.

 

What Republicans want is to reduce outrageous lawsuits for doctor's mistakes and allow people to shop insurance across state lines. Why won't the Democrats allow that? Also, the Republican versions don't reduce current coverage to senior citizens.

 

My manager at my previous facility was in EXACTLY the same shoes as you. Her daughter had a lifelong congenital disease and they depended on public care. However, what pissed everybody off was how she lamented how much she had to pay out of pocket..... meanwhile she owned a multi-million dollar home and always had a brand new Mercedes. She was a hypocrite.

And she was a staunch liberal.

 

I cannot see why the dems think their version is superior to the repubs version.

 

Lastly, I read somewhere that up to 40% of medicare spending is burned in fraud. I'd rather clean up shop than add to the fire.

[suv_guy_19]

I've heard some people that worry opening up the medical insurance industry to allow operation across state lines would lead to the creation of a national insurance oligopoly.

[retro-man]

I think it should be opened up across state lines - hell, across national lines. Then we have to do what we have not done for decades: enforce our own anti-trust laws.

[fmccap]

Lastly, I read somewhere that up to 40% of medicare spending is burned in fraud. I'd rather clean up shop than add to the fire.

This is true. I don't remember the exact number but know it was rather high for medicare and medicaid.

 

Obama also stated that they would clean up the fraud to help pay for this new plan. My question is if they know of this fraud why have they not done something about it already???? We as tax payers should be pissed about that first.

[Ralph Greene]

I don't have the answers. It makes sense to me to allow insurance companies to sell product aross state lines. Limiting jury awards is tricky with regard to one's rights.....I would rather see a law that discouraged frivilous law suits.

 

BTW...before I retired, I participated in my employer health care plan. A generous plan where my employer subsidized the costs to about 50%. However....this was not free to me. If they had not spent that money on my benefits, I would have been paid more. Being retired....I'm still in it, but now I pay $954 per month this year. If our congressmen and women had a less generous benefit package, we would have to pay them higher salaries so they could buy it themselves. It's a myth that some folks get their insurance paid for them. Insurance is a cost to business and government, and if that cost was less, they would pay more. You just get benefits in leu of pay.

 

However....most marginally paid people, if you pay them more.....won't spend that extra pay on insurance. So society has learned, that's it's a good thing to subsidize and encourage businesses to provide insurance coverage to employees. If they don't, then society it'self picks up the tab, and businesses can probably monotor it better and control costs better than a government agency.

 

I'm not totally sure why the Dems want a public option. I think the real reason is they think, but won't say this publically, that medical industry people, especially Doctors and drug companies, make too much money. They want a way to cut the costs to high paid medical professionals. And they know the current system, or an expanded free enterprise medical system, won't cut those costs. Too much strength in the medical profession lobby. I understand both the Dem and Rep arguments to the health care debate. Hopefully, they will work out something that works better than the system we have now. Because the system we have now covers everyone in about the most expensive way possible.

[joihan777]

I don't have the answers. It makes sense to me to allow insurance companies to sell product aross state lines. Limiting jury awards is tricky with regard to one's rights.....I would rather see a law that discouraged frivilous law suits.

 

BTW...before I retired, I participated in my employer health care plan. A generous plan where my employer subsidized the costs to about 50%. However....this was not free to me. If they had not spent that money on my benefits, I would have been paid more. Being retired....I'm still in it, but now I pay $954 per month this year. If our congressmen and women had a less generous benefit package, we would have to pay them higher salaries so they could buy it themselves. It's a myth that some folks get their insurance paid for them. Insurance is a cost to business and government, and if that cost was less, they would pay more. You just get benefits in leu of pay.

 

However....most marginally paid people, if you pay them more.....won't spend that extra pay on insurance. So society has learned, that's it's a good thing to subsidize and encourage businesses to provide insurance coverage to employees. If they don't, then society it'self picks up the tab, and businesses can probably monotor it better and control costs better than a government agency.

 

I'm not totally sure why the Dems want a public option. I think the real reason is they think, but won't say this publically, that medical industry people, especially Doctors and drug companies, make too much money. They want a way to cut the costs to high paid medical professionals. And they know the current system, or an expanded free enterprise medical system, won't cut those costs. Too much strength in the medical profession lobby. I understand both the Dem and Rep arguments to the health care debate. Hopefully, they will work out something that works better than the system we have now. Because the system we have now covers everyone in about the most expensive way possible.

 

A friend of mine just applied to a Nurse Practitioner program. Cost is $200,000. How the heck is she supposed to pay for that but make less money once she graduates?

 

Medical professionals OUGHT TO BE paid more... because they earn it. You bust yer butt to make sure you get the science right. A mistake in our profession means someone gets hurt. The training we go through is not cheap, is not easy to obtain and is not for the faint of heart. If it were easy everybody would be a doctor or a nurse.

 

Any talk of reducing healthcare professionals pay and I will fight it to the end. NOBODY knows what we go through. Sorry, watching ER doesn't cut it. Sure there are bums in our field, but they are few and far between, and they get filtered out 'right quick'. As it is, nurses are MUCH underpaid compared to the skills we have, the gravity of our environment and investment made to become a nurse in the first place.

 

It is becoming increasingly clear that Obama/dems are becoming the enemy of "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Edited January 3, 2010 by joihan777

[suv_guy_19]

How much does say, an LPN get paid? What about an RN?

[joihan777]

How much does say, an LPN get paid? What about an RN?

It depends where you are. In San Francisco they earn ~$25/35 starting. A top level flight nurse can get $75/hr during missions.

In less expensive places LPN/RNs can average that after a few years under their belts, so long as no mistakes were made.

 

In rural areas they may only start at $15/25 respectively.

[suv_guy_19]

Thanks.