Hellobee Boards

I will be happy when the medical system has an incentive to keep the total cost of care down. This is one step towards that, I hope.

@jessiejo17: Agreed. I'm not well versed in this bill either. But this is what I gather from it as well.

I think it's a step in the right direction. It's not a perfect plan, but I do think it's made an improvement.

I like the overall message - but don't like the idea of any additional taxing for any reason while we are in a struggling financial position nationwide. I think there are also a lot of problems with Medicare, that aren't necessarily going to be resolved by this.

I would like to be a lot more informed than I am currently on the whole situation. But, it has been difficult for me to find information that isn't laden with emotional jargon for the easy-to-consume news sources and/or in simple enough language for me to understand in the more complex writing on the matter (like the supreme court written opinions).

@Adira: Do you know if this source is unbiased? I think it has very great information, but I just want to make sure that the information I am getting is unbaised!

@Adira: hahaha that's fair!

I like the idea, but I don't like that it doesn't address the cost issue -- which, in my mind, is the No. 1 issue with healthcare in this country. Over testing, over treating, over charging. I do realize some of that stems from those who do not have insurance and/or cannot pay. I just think that the issue is more complicated than what the bill in its current state seeks to do.

I also really like choice, and while I don't know as much as I should about systems like Canada's or Great Britains to be making comments like this... my general impression is that you can't choose what doctors you to to, you can't choose what facilities you use, and you have to wait a million years for many treatments and procedures. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, please! I'm not trying to diminish what other countries do. But I would hate to go to a system here where I'm assigned to a hospital and can't get certain treatments as a result.

@Adira: Thanks for the link - that's super helpful! I love that "Explain Like I'm 5" thing

@Adira: True, thanks for pointing that out!

@MamaMoose: That's so interesting... wow.

I do think there are a lot of good parts to this plan. But as some one who believes in fair and competitive markets I just can't get on board with things like this: "•A new tax on insurance companies based on their market share. Basically, the more of the market they control, the more they'll get taxed."

I'm very happy about it b/c I think it's a great step in the right direction. Do I think it's the perfect solution? No way. But I think it's very important move towards universal coverage.

@MsLipGloss: I very much agree with you on concerns about expanding Congress' power. And maybe it's just me but it seems crazy to me that something that will have such HUGE effects on every American and that sets a scary precedent can be approved by such a small margin.

@MamaMoose: The scariest part is that very few seem to have taken notice of the drastic impact of this decision (by and through the expansion of Congressional power . . . if Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, it can regulate virtually anything) because it has been *gift wrapped* in the highly idealized and glammed-up notion of national/socialized medicine.

@ladyfingers: I'm going to share my Canadian expierence, which isn't the same for everyone depending on the size and population of the area your in.

We have 2 major hospitals servicing our area, and they are both excellent. Only one of the hospitals has a labour and delivery floor, though, so you have to go to Hospital 'A' to give birth. You are not forced to use any particular doctor at any time. For instance, when I saw my GP to confirm my pregnancy,she asked me which OB I wanted to be referred to. I never pay for any of those visits (GP or OB) I didn't pay for ultrasounds, or my NST. The only cost I had was the bill for the private room after having LO, and of the $400+ dollars for that, my medical benefits through work paid for all but $28!

On the contrary, I had an in grown toenail that I needed treatment for, and the doctor my GP referred me to had a 3 month wait, but I went to see a chiropodist and paid out of pocket (but later claimed that, and got reimbursed through my work coverage).

The other major difference is that healthcare in Canada is not federally run, but its run on a provincial level (what would be a state level in the USA). So the coverage Blushink has in Quebec isn't run the same way as it is for me in Ontario. There are federal guidelines as to what every citizen is entitled to though.

All in all, I wouldn't change it for anything, it's very nice to not worry about paying for medical care.

Here's something that I'm not sure people have recognized (and please correct me if I'm wrong). Employers are NOT required to provide insurance, they can pay a penalty/tax instead. My understanding is that cost is $2,000/year/employee. For my employer that equates to a savings of nearly $2million over what they currently pay to provide me with really crappy insurance. I fully expect my employer to stop offering insurance and I will have to go to the exchange.

I fully expect that every company will be looking at this decision and I'm not sure the exchanges will be able to survive with the mass amounts of people that might be forced to use them.

And while I currrently enjoy fully covered preventative care, I've certainly seen the impact of it on the premiums that I pay.

@Blushink, I wish I ONLY paid $1800/year for insurance for my family. I currently pay that per QUARTER.

Lastly, our currently financially broke country cannot afford to make this change. I won't argue politics of it, numbers are my game.

I will say that I work in the insurance industry (not health) and it's scary that the federal government is stepping into the insurance arena. Insurance is not currently federally goverened.

Just to clarify for some... This isn't a bill that is being proposed. This is a law that was passes and challenged in federal court and then referred to the supreme court for a final decision. This means that it has been approved in one way or another by the house (twice), the senate, the executive branch and now the judiciary.

For now it means that you can't be turned down for insurance due to pre existing condition, that young adults can stay on their parents' insurance until age 26, and many other changes to go into effect in 2014.

I'm strongly in favor of hcr though I do wish the went further and gave universal coverage.

Just a note about Canadian healthcare. It's great that we have it but unfortunately we are in extreme danger of no longer being able to afford it! Also, it's not like someone mentioned about England, we are unable to use private clinics if we decide we just want to pay, it's pretty much all public (except for dental, eye care, and a few other things usually covered by your employer under an insurance plan). So, say I need surgery but the wait list is 6 months. I can't just say, oh well I'll just pay out of pocket and go to a private clinic, I have to wait. Just wanted to clarify those points

@Grace: Employers in my state (I'm not sure if any state requires it) are not required to offer medical insurance as a benefit. Most employers provide this as part of the compensation package and I personally would expect any employer of good size (we employee 400) to offer this benefit. In the US, getting individual insurance is extremely costly and there is typically advantages in numbers. The more people in the group, the greater the discounts that are afforded in the way of premiums.

In the new law, employers with more than 50 employees are required to provide insurance or pay a penalty. At my employer, our understanding is the penalty is $2000/employee/year. That is less than what my employer currently spends to provide insurance. As for profit companies are always looking for ways to boost the bottom line, reducing expense is always a factor. If it's cheaper to not provide insurance and the employees have another option (the exchanges) then why not?

If this tends to be true for many employers, we will see is shift in benefits provided in corporate America. It will no longer be presumed that your employer will have medical insurance available.

@ladyfingers: to expand the knowledge-base past england and canada, i know of two other countries with socialized healthcare that have major issues.

for one, my best friend is a teacher in hungary, and the healthcare has caused nothing but stress and aggravation. she can only go to the doctor two days a week, and must only use her assigned doctor. the doctor's office operates more like a clinic, and is only open from 3-6pm. she has to get to the doctor at 9am, and wait outside in a line around the building to be let in to see the doctor. ACK!

secondly, argentina has a government-provided healthcare system with problems too numerous to count. my parents spend 1-2 months there every year right outside of buenos aires. they have the social/government hospitals for everyone, but also have private hospitals for those that can afford private insurance or the cost of treatment. this has created a great divide in care and treatment. instead of making everyone equal, it deepens the chasm. the wealthy get great care, while the middle and lower class are shafted. the government hospitals we've seen are seriously and unfortunately sub-par, while the private hospitals are pristine and state of the art. so sad for the people we love there.

of course, this doesn't mean that america will end up like either of these countries, but it sure as heck scares me!