Mar 30, 2012 -- 2:51PM, TENAC wrote:

Nope.

It takes away freedom.  Choice.  Specifically MY choice.

Health Care is going to suffer, regardless. 

There is no way to reduce health care costs without giving up some aspect of care.  Simply no way.  We are not talking about fraud or anything like that.  Medicare doesnt pay for what they determine as "comfort items."  LOL.....depends on who's is wanting the comfort that determines the worth.

But on the other hand, if you will remove MCOs and group health insurance, you can get over 50% of the way to IMPROVING health care and LOWERING costs.

It does not take away your freedom of choice you're not tied to in netwok you can go to any doctor you want, no more of we are no longer accepting patients with a certain carrier.
And it will be cheaper, it's not for profit, I heard costs would be cut 15 to 30%.
You can't say healthcare is going to suffer, do you have a magical crystal ball.

Mar 30, 2012 -- 9:20AM, ted08721 wrote:

It seems that many people have something in common with my sister-in-law, she has health insurance and her two main reasons for not wanting national one payer health insurance is because she is fearful the quality of her medical care might go down which is unfounded but that is what those that have an invested interest in healthcare for profit are spreading.

She also uses that "I am not responsible to pay for everyone else's needs."
Well she is a freakin TEACHER! where does she think the school gets the money to pay for her healthcare! from us through our school taxes along with paying for her vacation time and all those extra days teachers get off for.
How would she like it if when her union contract expires we drop medical coverage for the new contract.

So it is a combination of fear, selfishness and not caring about your fellow human being.

The fear is very real. Many, many, though maybe not your sister in law, will lose their coverage, and be forced into a govt run exchange that they may not want.

The not responsible is absolutely true and necessary. Everyone needs at least some personal responsibility, something that Obamacare ignores.

The last doesn't show that in her statement, but about demanding we all have skin in the game so to speak.

How about a law being changed that would allow those who cannot afford insurance to enroll into Medicaid? Expand Medicaid to be the poor man's health insurance.

Allow those who can afford health insurance to keep theirs.

Mar 30, 2012 -- 9:37PM, TENAC wrote:

What I wish people could realize is the govt is after one thing, power.

If the average US family spends $15,000 per year on health insurance premiums, they can do the math and imagine that in extra tax revenue.  How many families in the US doing that?  This is where they are going.

And you will be promised more and better health care coverage.  All of you on the left truly believe that will be the case and probably a conservative or two.

You cannot point to any govt program that functions well.  None.  And you would turn over the care of your health and that of your children to politicians that cannot balance their own check books or stay faithful to their wives.

Mistrust of government is a very healthy thing indeed.

Actually we can point to government programs that work, like all the single payer programs in Europe,Japan, Korea etc. You folks on the right forget that the military is a Government program that is virtually worshiped by everyone on the right and since America should never apologize then all our governments foreign policies must be perfect too. As I recall we landed on the moon and rebuilt Europe after WW2. All Government programs. Now in contrast,lets look at places that dont have these pesky government programs,like Somalia....

Oh, dear - it seems some readers missed the part where I was NOT complaining about our having to pay a very discounted rate for coverage for our son's insurance over the next few years.

Until  May he *has* a 'job' - he's carried a 3.9 cum in Bio and Biochem majors at a state university.  Oh, he's also doing stints at the tutoring center and expects to be working part-time once he finishes his undergrad degree.  He already owes about $25K in student loans.

Now I understand that $200/month for the coverage we can get him as an 'overage dependant' is dirt cheap:  my sister's paying well over twice that for minimal coverage.

BUT:  Employer-subsidized insurance coverage is:  single/couple/singlewkids/couplewkids .  ONE rate no matter how many children are covered.  The problem I see is for OTHER retired military is paying $2400/year EACH when there are 2 or 3 children or more in that age group.  It just looks like one more way to screw the military .........

What does not seem fair to me is the separate charge for each child which is relatively unique to this plan - because the plan pool includes retirees who may be as young as 40 and have more than one child in the age group for several years running, I think there is a larger number of those households than on average.  There are plenty of military retirees who are otherwise unemployed, and it's them I'm thinking of in particular.

I can't tell you how many of my son's classmates have been forced to wait to complete their degrees because they and their families couldn't scrape together tuition money.  These are good kids who work hard and are diligent students.  Most of them come from families with less than we have:  one guy left school to go to work because his Mom got sick and couldn't work and there was no money coming in for the other kids still living at home.

And again - lots of OTHER military retiree households are in that economic bracket, and THOSE are the people I'm concerned about.  NOT OURSELVES.

Incidentally, the son is taking the next year to prepare himself for med school - and for joining the Navy to get that training.  He's volunteering at a hospital and getting his EMT training AND will be working at least part-time.  He wants to be sure he's certain about that path *BEFORE* HE STARTS, because he knows it will be a long haul and he won't have further choice for close to a decade.

It wouldn't matter WHAT the health insurance cost - if I have the money, I will pay it if he can't, because it's something he needs and I want him to have it.  I decided I'd rather have him insured than have new kitchen cabinets (these are 40-year old junk and we'd like to be able to sell the house someday, yanno!) .   But then I have the funds to make that choice.

OTHER people don't.  And it's OTHER people I'm concerned about:  this one segment of the population who are mandated to get coverage but who are also seemingly being penalized for being retired military.