The Mass. model is working

[J.R.]

If you're looking for a figure on how much uncovered people are costing - in MD it's 7%. It's an extra 7% in medical costs and hospital charged built into the system. The states have a right to address that. I personally pay close to $300 a month for coverage and it's not fair that I have to pay for my neighbor with the new plasma tv who says "screw it." I have no problem with my tax dollars going to the poor and underpriveledged. I have a huge problem with it going to morons with money who just don't give a crap.

Maryland Newsline - Health Special Report: Uncovered: Maryland's Health Insurance Crisis

I agree with you John about have some sort of penalty. If I elected to not have car insurance I believe I will get charged an initial $150 plus $7 for each day of not having car insurance. So, let's say Geico pisses me off and I don't go with insurance for a year. That will cost me $2705 or $225 a month. I was paying around $190 a month for full coverage until I changed policies. Granted, if I didn't have coverage I'm open to risk, but what separates me is that I'm willing and able to pay back expenses should they occur because it is the right thing to do. I prefer options and freedom vs. mandates....

What really urks me is how the media is spinnings things to make this an issue of race. It is not an issue of race because no race is predisposed to being poor. It's called socio-economics you idiots.......They cite Hispanics and African Americans as being the most at risk, yet White people comprise 36% of the total uninsured according to their stats.

I'm sick and tired of hearing about issues pertaining to race, especially in MD. I'd say that probably 80% of the western part of Maryland is a democrat or liberal and to my knowledge, those denominations love everybody. I love life and people myself, but I'm also going to hold you accountable for your actions.

They article alluded to the fact that Hispanics could not obtain health insurance because their employer did not offer it, they don't make a lot of money or they are not legalized. Here's an idea..... Find a way to make more money if health insurance is important enough to you, become legalized and obtain the "right and privileges" of being a U.S. Citizen, and trade in the Hummer for used honda civic. Not only are government officials trying to get the uninsured, non-citizen insured, but like usual. You also might want to trade in the Hummer for a Honda Civic. We are penalizing the people who put into the system by making us pay for others. I have no problem helping out somebody in their time of need, but if they have a care less attitude, then that feeling is mutual. Something is wrong with our value system when we cannot take care of our citizens, but feel inclined to offer benefits to U.S. Citizens.

I have a good friend who joined the military and served in the USAF to obtain citizenship. I'd go to war with that guy anytime and fully support him because he was proactive, recognized a way to get what he wanted, and served the U.S. with respect and dignity.

 

[GreenSky]

That same 37 yr. old that pays from $167-252 a month for the lowest priced coverage without Rx can obtain a plan with generic Rx, copays for 4 office visits and 100% coverage after a $2,500 deductible for $135 monthly in my zip code.

Better yet, he can get an HSA with 100% after $1,750 deductible for $121 or a $2,400 deductible for $101.

Of course, my choices are underwritten but why should taxpayers subsidize this guy just because he chose not to buy coverage? It's not for the government to make certain someone does the right thing for himself.

This gets back to the helmet law. If I choose to ride without a helmet, it's MY head. If I'm stupid enough not to have insurance, I should go broke paying for my stupidity if I have a medical need. (I do believe group plans must be owned by the individual so that one doesn't lose their insurance when they exhaust Cobra.

That being said, if the government handouts had not rendered fraternal societies obsolete, this might not be an issue.

I strongly recommend a book "From Mutual Aid to the Welfare State" by David Beito. Search for the best prices for this and all other books at Web Hosting, VPS and Dedicated Servers by eBoundHost. Great history lesson on the start of medical insurance and social programs.

Rick

 

[Crabcake Johnny]

I think the point is, what does that same 37 year old do in other states if he employer doesn't offer any coverage or lacking coverage? I'm sure it's fun to hop on these forums and act retarded with comments like "Well then he just finds a job that does give benefits."

Latest stats out yesterday are now UNDER 50% of all people are covered through work. If you're a non-degreed hourly earner it's tough to find group coverage. Even if you do it's still possible you can't afford it. Oh...want to add your family? Good luck.

And just how much is a 37 year old making? Can he afford family coverage even if offered through work when to add the family is "$600?" There are people who want to get coverage and just can't afford it.

I'm not that big of a douchebag where I'm at the "screw you" point to people who are busting their ass but making $35,000 a year gross. There are people working very hard out there who simply can't afford it.

It's basically well-off idiots who sneer down on others with the "well that's your problem" mentality and that needs to change. Go figure that most health insurance agents don't want some form of a national system.

 

[James]

I think the point is, what does that same 37 year old do in other states if he employer doesn't offer any coverage or lacking coverage? I'm sure it's fun to hop on these forums and act retarded with comments like "Well then he just finds a job that does give benefits."

Latest stats out yesterday are now UNDER 50% of all people are covered through work. If you're a non-degreed hourly earner it's tough to find group coverage. Even if you do it's still possible you can't afford it. Oh...want to add your family? Good luck.

And just how much is a 37 year old making? Can he afford family coverage even if offered through work when to add the family is "$600?" There are people who want to get coverage and just can't afford it.

I'm not that big of a douchebag where I'm at the "screw you" point to people who are busting their ass but making $35,000 a year gross. There are people working very hard out there who simply can't afford it.

It's basically well-off idiots who sneer down on others with the "well that's your problem" mentality and that needs to change. Go figure that most health insurance agents don't want some form of a national system.

Well this is quaint essential the ramblings of a liberal, I care more than you and no debate is allowed! Yet what they can not seem to phanthom is that the Individual can actually survive without their far superior moral compass they have given themselves.

Now John if you are a liberal or not really doesn't concern me but the argument you put forth is the liberal mindset of "I know best".

 

[Crabcake Johnny]

I'm as Republican as they get but that doesn't mean I have a "screw you" attitude towards people less fortunate then me.

 

[J.R.]

I'm as Republican as they get but that doesn't mean I have a "screw you" attitude towards people less fortunate then me.

Damn......You even have the same middle name as me. Viagra and Paxil here I come

 

[Crabcake Johnny]

Interesting - I didn't know that wanting coverage for all Americans was a liberal concept. Last time I checked Romney was Republican.

 

[James]

Interesting - I didn't know that wanting coverage for all Americans was a liberal concept. Last time I checked Romney was Republican.

Party affliation has nothing to do with Liberalism and Conservatism or whatever your favorite expressions to divide political beliefs.

Now John if you are a liberal or not really doesn't concern me but the argument you put forth is the liberal mindset of "I know best".

Now what I said is that you're are espousing liberal reasoning, as in your so called reasoning of the individual not being able to take care of themselves. How I divide people are those that believe that Government involvement is needed and those that don't, many and yes I included will use words like Liberalism and Conservatism as common phrases being used today. Obviously being a Republican or Democrat has little to do with how any one person will fall on this specific issue (as you noted Romney is a Rep and has directly ((yet now in denial)) aided in getting this legislation made the law of the State), that is only a way of muddying the debate as in the old adage "I'm a card carrying whatever". Even the Bush Family are all quite liberal in domestic agenda, they including the father and son presidential team.

What is really at stake here is simple, it isn't about helping people but who is best suited in the long run and as in the "Whole" of the population to handle Health Care? Generally speaking Governmental intrusion does not have a good track record in these type of industries. May that be Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid and Welfare just to name the biggies. Yet now, we are assured they can handle "Health Care" for all! LOL, call me a skeptic.

Plus I think we all can agree this is in its infancy and we don't know what is around the corner, let at least give it a year or two before we stamp this with the proverbial "Stamp of Approval". Oh well though, as the story goes a Governmental Worker and strong supporter of this gave it thumbs up to yet another Governmental Worker and supporter so it must be true?

 

[TXINSURANCE]

This gets back to the helmet law. If I choose to ride without a helmet, it's MY head. If I'm stupid enough not to have insurance, I should go broke paying for my stupidity if I have a medical need. (I do believe group plans must be owned by the individual so that one doesn't lose their insurance when they exhaust Cobra.

The problem with this is if you are stupid enough to not have insurance the hospital will give you the EXACT same care as myself who is paying a good penny to have the coverage. When people are already broke, "going broke" isn't a real big threat.

As for Group plans being "owned" - huge problem doing that. First the group was dictated and designed by your employer whom you no longer have an affiliation with, same with the rates, claims, and all that fun stuff of our current "group system"

I think a better approach would be something like this...

Keep your COBRA, go shop for individual, and if you are declined individual go to a state risk pool. This way free markets do their job and I keep my home and business, and everyone can buy affordable health care that THEY pick the design and THEY own.

Ohhh wait that's what we have now.... and I think it is GREAT!

However there are flaws - like if the POOl is less than COBRA they should be able to choose the POOL. The POOL should offer HSA's this is just silly not to... POOL should have MULTIPLE companies and should not be called "high risk pool" maybe "helping citizens pool" or something politically catchy.

 

[Crabcake Johnny]

Party affliation has nothing to do with Liberalism and Conservatism or whatever your favorite expressions to divide political beliefs.



Now what I said is that you're are espousing liberal reasoning, as in your so called reasoning of the individual not being able to take care of themselves. How I divide people are those that believe that Government involvement is needed and those that don't, many and yes I included will use words like Liberalism and Conservatism as common phrases being used today. Obviously being a Republican or Democrat has little to do with how any one person will fall on this specific issue (as you noted Romney is a Rep and has directly ((yet now in denial)) aided in getting this legislation made the law of the State), that is only a way of muddying the debate as in the old adage "I'm a card carrying whatever". Even the Bush Family are all quite liberal in domestic agenda, they including the father and son presidential team.

What is really at stake here is simple, it isn't about helping people but who is best suited in the long run and as in the "Whole" of the population to handle Health Care? Generally speaking Governmental intrusion does not have a good track record in these type of industries. May that be Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid and Welfare just to name the biggies. Yet now, we are assured they can handle "Health Care" for all! LOL, call me a skeptic.

Plus I think we all can agree this is in its infancy and we don't know what is around the corner, let at least give it a year or two before we stamp this with the proverbial "Stamp of Approval". Oh well though, as the story goes a Governmental Worker and strong supporter of this gave it thumbs up to yet another Governmental Worker and supporter so it must be true?

Ok, a guy runs his own business, no employees, in MD - not married and makes very good money - $100,000+ but he doesn't qualify medically. His former job laid him off and since it was a small biz they didn't have to offer him Cobra. MD doesn't have any group of 1 coverage.

Here's my question - without "tell him to get another job" should he be able to get health insurance if he's willing to pay? I say yes. Others say "No. He has no "right" to health insurance. Tell him to shut his business down and go get anther job that has benefits." I disagree with that. Should a health insurance company be able to charge him "$3,000 a month" for a guaranteed issue plan even if he had one? Again, I say no.

My largest problem is the gov't is supposed to provide for its citizens things they cannot do on their own. Right now with less than 50% of everyone covered through work we cannnot depend on businesses to provide coverage.

Not everyone lives in some thriving metropolis. There are people who live in small towns where finding work is hard at best - and they're gonna want full bene's?