100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: They're still reading the HealthCare bill now they know.. | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
I received the following today from one my Representatives – just a tiny little bullet list, but there is much more yet to be reviewed.
Another post in this forum discusses the extreme number of agencies that would have to be established to administer to all the functions in support of healthcare, I’ve been trying to tell people that for several months. The government is the largest single employer in this country and with the healthcare bill they are sure to exceed any previously imagined number of employees. We certainly need new jobs but continuing to build jobs around government functions does not add to the growth and development of the country – In fact it only adds to taxation and the wealthiest individuals of this country (the capitalists) those in the ‘private’ sector will surely pay, because at the rate we’re going the shrinking middle class will not even be able to uphold it’s 28% share of tax revenues. The Republicans have a plan – to deny funding for the pieces of HC as they come up for vote, and then to gain approval from constituents for a full repeal – possibly with an alternative replacement plan. (I don’t know if I like how they plan to accomplish it) but something has to be done. Here is one story about the Republican Plan Republican Party eyes choking health law funding http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/40536.html My hope is that the States with current lawsuits against the Federal government over the HC plan will win. As I had posted before – There are a lot of really big businesses who may yet reconsider insurance as an employee benefit, choosing instead to pay the penalties. Bad news for employees who will be mandated to purchase insurance on their own. Your opinion about the Republican plan - about the lawsuits - about stopping this HC from developing, or your reasons for supporting continuation of the HC plan. The Speaker of the U.S. House said we had to pass the healthcare bill before we could find out what was in it. Well, guess what: now that analysts have been able to read this 2,500 page document, we’re finally finding out what actually is in it, and it’s not looking pretty. The healthcare bill is massive, and will have a number of surprises in store for Hoosiers: • Punishment for moving or downsizing- According to Senator Dick Lugar’s office, starting in 2013, individuals making more than $200,000 a year ($250,000 for married couples filing jointly) will be subject to a 3.8 percent Medicare surtax on any profits from the sale of their principal residence (or vacation home or rental property) that exceed $250,000 ($500,000 for married couples filing jointly). • Government is forcing you to buy a private product –That’s right, individuals will pay a yearly penalty of $695 (or up to 2.5% of their annual income) if they choose not to buy a government-approved health policy. • Government is forcing you to buy a private product for your child There will also be a yearly fee of $347 for each uninsured child in a family, up to $2,250. • Seniors on fixed incomes and anyone else with investments will be faced with a 3.8 percent annual tax on investment income over a certain threshold. What’s more, sources report that the new tax is not indexed to inflation, so more people will fall under it each year. • Taxed at 40%: It’s true- the most expensive health care plans will face this enormous tax. • Tanning salons will be punished with the first ever federal sales tax-a new 10% tax which will go straight to Washington. • Businesses will be punished with a fee of $2,000 per employee if they do not buy government-acceptable coverage and at least one employee receives a tax credit. • Businesses will be buried under a terrifying avalanche of 1099 forms. Not only will businesses be punished if they can’t afford to offer health care; from now on, 1099s are required for almost every type of transaction a business performs. I see this provision as being especially odious, like a red light camera being placed at a quiet intersection: it’s a government moneymaker disguised as public safety. As one Cato Institute senior fellow put it: “After all, every dollar spent collecting data, filling out forms, reprogramming computers, hiring accountants and wrestling with the IRS bureaucracy is a dollar that can’t be used to hire or pay workers.” In case you were wondering, though: the healthcare bill does seem to be a jobs package. Unfortunately, it’s a jobs package for DC. The Internal Revenue Service “plans to hire 16,500 new auditors, agents and investigators” in order to enforce the healthcare bill. And this is just the beginning. As enraged as you are, State Rep. Cindy Noe |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Kings_Knight
on
Tue 08/03/10 08:09 PM
|
|
It's a given. Come 2013, you can pretty much bet that all businesses are gonna dump their employees into the 'government option' and save that 8% overhead. 'Hope' and 'Change' ... right. We get the government we deserve. "We have to PASS the bill before we know what's IN the bill." ... right ... Line 'em all up against a wall and shoot 'em.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's a given. Come 2013, you can pretty much bet that all businesses are gonna dump their employees into the 'government option' and save that 8% overhead. 'Hope' and 'Change' ... right. We get the government we deserve. "We have to PASS the bill before we know what's IN the bill." ... right ... Line 'em all up against a wall and shoot 'em. Thank-you for not bashing anyone but responding to the topic instead. I think I sent more emails to more Congress memebers (even from other states) and signed more petitions against this bill than I did for gay issues in two years - (well maybe one/depending on the year) and that's a lot. I think we need to keep updates on this topic flowing in the forum so we can share the kinds of alternatives and actions we might take. THAT MEANS all sides of the issue - you never know what information or ideas can lead to better alternatives or courses of action. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Wed 08/04/10 01:09 AM
|
|
I think the old adage, 'you get what you pay for' sums it up for me.
Its worth the taxes and the costs to me to see everyone able to get healthcare without having to lose a house or go bankrupt and without being denied because of how badly they are hurt or how ill they are. humans lives are worth a contribution of 3 or 4 percent tax rate, heck, the cost of stamps has a higher increase than that in any given three or four years. I just cant weigh in such slight increases as more hurtful than healthcare that isnt available to all(without fear of bankruptcy). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
more on the issue of 'force' from politifact.com
Citizens are required to have health care coverage by 2014 under the bill. But not all will have to buy it from a private company or buy it at all, said tax expert Howard Gleckman, a resident fellow at the nonpartisan Urban Institute, and Joseph Antos, a health policy expert with the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, a nonpartisan think tank with conservative roots. There are multiple exceptions to the rule. For instance, people under financial hardship, who have religious objections to purchasing health care or are American Indians do not have to buy it. People on Medicaid, which covers low-income people, don't have to buy insurance from a private company. The government covers them. The punishment for failing to buy health insurance is pretty mild. You don't get tossed into jail. Instead, you pay a tax penalty. The penalty is small in comparison to the cost of buying insurance, Antos and Gleckman agree. In 2014, it's $95 for most individuals. Later on it grows to $695. Higher-income people will pay based on different criteria. So Oxendine's statement about the families buying health insurance had some truth to it: The federal government did tell families to have health insurance. Many will purchase it from private companies. Some people, however, don't have to buy it or will get it from the government. People who are required to buy it, but hate the thought of doing so, can pay a tax penalty that will likely cost them less than insurance. But the constitutionality of the law is far from settled, and Oxendine's statement that Congress "clearly" overstepped its authority is premature. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm confused about the term "fines".
Is this fine a one-time, for life thing that one will never incur again or, after a time of not purchasing insurance, will you receive another fine? As with the other mandated insurance. If you get caught with out it, you get a fine and still have to have it within a certain time. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm confused about the term "fines". Is this fine a one-time, for life thing that one will never incur again or, after a time of not purchasing insurance, will you receive another fine? As with the other mandated insurance. If you get caught with out it, you get a fine and still have to have it within a certain time. Good questions. The penalty is an annual penalty BUT what if you don't have insurance and become ill, say with a catastrophic illness? Currently, you are still treated and there are dozens of nonprophit organizations which help to cover much of the cost, and nonprophit hospitals often accept hardship claims and write off the rest. Obviously that can't change, one of our core values (as Americans) is to provided for those in need. So now let's say you have to pay a penalty - how are they going to force you to purchase a medical plan - take it out of your bank account or garnish your wages???? In the end the govenment supports the nonprophit sector, particularly medical, so that little penalty means nothing compared to the cost of the medical care. We currently pay for the medical care of all persons, in one way or another, who cannot pay for themselves. That will not change because most of those who cannot pay for insurance will be subsidized and insurance will be through a State insurance exchange (supposedly a nonprofit insurance company established by the State). Retirees, those on fixed income, the disabled will be in the medicaid program, rather than the State insurance exchange. Those who earn over a 'certain threshold' on investments will pay an investment tax and those selling high end homes will pay a higher capital gains tax - all meant to help defry the costs. Tax cuts for the wealthy are expected to end, and more service industries are expected to be considered for a service tax. In other words a whole lot of new taxes had to be created in order to susidize this healthcare plan. But somehow we were paying the cost of medical care for all those people without those taxes. We havn't even gotten to the point of all the new public administrations that have to be created to make this thing run - where do you suppose that money is going to come from since the first round of new taxes has been aimed at the wealthy???? One last thing - anauthorized aliens? Ever go to an inner city ER or walk the halls of that hospital? They will still all be treated at no expense (That's what America does). We will still have to pay for that too. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think the old adage, 'you get what you pay for' sums it up for me. Its worth the taxes and the costs to me to see everyone able to get healthcare without having to lose a house or go bankrupt and without being denied because of how badly they are hurt or how ill they are. humans lives are worth a contribution of 3 or 4 percent tax rate, heck, the cost of stamps has a higher increase than that in any given three or four years. I just cant weigh in such slight increases as more hurtful than healthcare that isnt available to all(without fear of bankruptcy). When you loose a house or file for bankruptcy you simply get rid of a lot excess baggage and then you start again. Doctors, lawyers, hospitals and such can only get so much out of someone and they cannot follow you around for many years attempting to collect an unpaid debt - its not cost effective. Here is my suggestion - take about 15% of all the money you earn and donate it to your favorite medical cause - generally these are nonprofit organizations. Do this on a continuing basis. There ya go - instant healthcare for all those who cannot currently affort it. But in general, people don't do that, they may do a small amount here and there but by in large it is the wealthy and governmental grants which fund these nonprofits. If every person who worked contributed the cost of a mid-range non-insurance penalty - say $350 year to a non-profit we would not be concerned at all about healthcare reform. But NOW - that fee will be mandadory and it will far greater because we are forced to pay for our insurance, our taxes will increase and our donations (whatever they once were) will decline. And in the end we will still treat everyone, even unauthorized aliens. What was the point of healthcare reform when no one was actually denied treatment in the first place? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think the old adage, 'you get what you pay for' sums it up for me. Its worth the taxes and the costs to me to see everyone able to get healthcare without having to lose a house or go bankrupt and without being denied because of how badly they are hurt or how ill they are. humans lives are worth a contribution of 3 or 4 percent tax rate, heck, the cost of stamps has a higher increase than that in any given three or four years. I just cant weigh in such slight increases as more hurtful than healthcare that isnt available to all(without fear of bankruptcy). How much, in taxes, will you have to pay? Me, I'm exempt. I don't pay and I get free coverage. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think the old adage, 'you get what you pay for' sums it up for me. Its worth the taxes and the costs to me to see everyone able to get healthcare without having to lose a house or go bankrupt and without being denied because of how badly they are hurt or how ill they are. humans lives are worth a contribution of 3 or 4 percent tax rate, heck, the cost of stamps has a higher increase than that in any given three or four years. I just cant weigh in such slight increases as more hurtful than healthcare that isnt available to all(without fear of bankruptcy). How much, in taxes, will you have to pay? Me, I'm exempt. I don't pay and I get free coverage. Not sure about how all this will effect our income taxes (yet) but they will affect our purchase power - especially if service taxes go into effect, AND as States need to raise various taxes to fund their insurance exchange and the public administration that will have to be formed. There is yet another question regarding the ability of States to keep a solvent insurance exchange. Some states have particularly large working poor and poverty level citizens. Those who live in that fringe of society are among tho most unhealthy. Those States will not be able to raise taxes to support this healthcare program. Guess how they will be subsidized (Federal entitlement) - know where that money comes from? (taxation). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Wed 08/04/10 12:54 PM
|
|
I think the old adage, 'you get what you pay for' sums it up for me. Its worth the taxes and the costs to me to see everyone able to get healthcare without having to lose a house or go bankrupt and without being denied because of how badly they are hurt or how ill they are. humans lives are worth a contribution of 3 or 4 percent tax rate, heck, the cost of stamps has a higher increase than that in any given three or four years. I just cant weigh in such slight increases as more hurtful than healthcare that isnt available to all(without fear of bankruptcy). When you loose a house or file for bankruptcy you simply get rid of a lot excess baggage and then you start again. Doctors, lawyers, hospitals and such can only get so much out of someone and they cannot follow you around for many years attempting to collect an unpaid debt - its not cost effective. Here is my suggestion - take about 15% of all the money you earn and donate it to your favorite medical cause - generally these are nonprofit organizations. Do this on a continuing basis. There ya go - instant healthcare for all those who cannot currently affort it. But in general, people don't do that, they may do a small amount here and there but by in large it is the wealthy and governmental grants which fund these nonprofits. If every person who worked contributed the cost of a mid-range non-insurance penalty - say $350 year to a non-profit we would not be concerned at all about healthcare reform. But NOW - that fee will be mandadory and it will far greater because we are forced to pay for our insurance, our taxes will increase and our donations (whatever they once were) will decline. And in the end we will still treat everyone, even unauthorized aliens. What was the point of healthcare reform when no one was actually denied treatment in the first place? people ARE denied treatment, for life threatening illnesses and recurring or pre existing conditions I currently need a hysterectomy which I am denied because I have o insurance and no other way to pay an upfront cost we dont deny in EMERGENCIES, thats the only time denial cant occur meanwhile people who dont have insurance go without vital care in many situations and in others the hospital bills after their emergency care can send them into situations where they have to sell their home ,,,,not acceptable in such a wealthy country |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The only people who get penalized for not buying insurance are those who report enough income to afford it and didn't buy it.
Those who didn't get insurance and couldn't afford it will not be penalized. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The warm steamy bag of crap that's been set on fire and placed on our national doorstep after Obama rang the doorbell is 'DeathCare'. It WILL consume ONE-SIXTH of the American economy. It WILL decide who LIVES and who DIES. It's called 'RATIONING' of health care (but wait, that's an obsolete term these days). Obama's wet-dream 'czar', Berwick, is an unabashed admirer of the National Health Service in Britain - the one they're now DOING AWAY WITH because it DOESN'T WORK ... and we're installing it HERE to replace the best health care system in the world. Sorry, there's no defence that can make this steamy bag of crap not catch fire except REPEAL. 'De-funding' is insufficient because future 'congresses' (to use a term) can always RE-fund it. It needs to be killed thru the REPEAL process. Nothing else is satisfactory. But hey, there's a bright side: All the 'Hopey-McChangey' types who bought into the "Mmm-mmm-mmm! Barack! Hussein! Obama" chant get to be on the cattle cars with the rest of us plebians ... that's some 'justice', aint' it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Dragoness
on
Wed 08/04/10 01:00 PM
|
|
In truth with the agenda based semi information, misinformation and out and out lies told about the healthcare bill it is almost impossible to know.
I read it. My memory does not retain too much information so I cannot recall all the major points in it anymore. I do remember it is not all that it should be in the way of coverage but that is because of the Republicans fighting the good stuff. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Redykeulous
on
Thu 08/05/10 12:01 AM
|
|
I think the old adage, 'you get what you pay for' sums it up for me. Its worth the taxes and the costs to me to see everyone able to get healthcare without having to lose a house or go bankrupt and without being denied because of how badly they are hurt or how ill they are. humans lives are worth a contribution of 3 or 4 percent tax rate, heck, the cost of stamps has a higher increase than that in any given three or four years. I just cant weigh in such slight increases as more hurtful than healthcare that isnt available to all(without fear of bankruptcy). When you loose a house or file for bankruptcy you simply get rid of a lot excess baggage and then you start again. Doctors, lawyers, hospitals and such can only get so much out of someone and they cannot follow you around for many years attempting to collect an unpaid debt - its not cost effective. Here is my suggestion - take about 15% of all the money you earn and donate it to your favorite medical cause - generally these are nonprofit organizations. Do this on a continuing basis. There ya go - instant healthcare for all those who cannot currently affort it. But in general, people don't do that, they may do a small amount here and there but by in large it is the wealthy and governmental grants which fund these nonprofits. If every person who worked contributed the cost of a mid-range non-insurance penalty - say $350 year to a non-profit we would not be concerned at all about healthcare reform. But NOW - that fee will be mandadory and it will far greater because we are forced to pay for our insurance, our taxes will increase and our donations (whatever they once were) will decline. And in the end we will still treat everyone, even unauthorized aliens. What was the point of healthcare reform when no one was actually denied treatment in the first place? people ARE denied treatment, for life threatening illnesses and recurring or pre existing conditions
Yes, just last week a Transgender woman caughing up blood was, terribly treated in the ER at Ball Memorial Hosp in Indiana, and was ultimatly sent away, because of her condition - which was being transgender and they didn't know how to treat her???? Do you have any examples, not that I don't believe they exist, but I do think there's more to it, because treatment for any illness can be gained through several avenues. I currently need a hysterectomy which I am denied because I have o insurance and no other way to pay an upfront cost
we dont deny in EMERGENCIES, thats the only time denial cant occur I'm sorry to hear about your condition, at least if it becomes life threatening you know it will be taken care of, whether you have insurance or not. meanwhile people who dont have insurance go without vital care in many situations and in others the hospital bills after their emergency care can send them into situations where they have to sell their home ,,,,not acceptable in such a wealthy country
why would anyone have to sell their home because they have medical bills - unless, of couse they can't work and can't pay the mortgage, but that has nothing to do with medical bills. We are a wealthy country? what does that mean? Obviously you are not wealthy, so you think Bill Gates should pay for your hysterectomy? After all, he can certainly afford it. The truth is - the wealthy, are predominantly the poeple supporting all those charities, through their philanthropy. If that gives the appearance of being a wealthy country then a closer inspection needs to be undertake. How much do you think we can ask the 'wealthy' to give? At some point the giving will be our responsibility as well, even if it's giving more at the store, more to get your hair cut, and more from your earnings as we bear the burden of this HC bill with a slew of new taxation. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think the old adage, 'you get what you pay for' sums it up for me. Its worth the taxes and the costs to me to see everyone able to get healthcare without having to lose a house or go bankrupt and without being denied because of how badly they are hurt or how ill they are. humans lives are worth a contribution of 3 or 4 percent tax rate, heck, the cost of stamps has a higher increase than that in any given three or four years. I just cant weigh in such slight increases as more hurtful than healthcare that isnt available to all(without fear of bankruptcy). When you loose a house or file for bankruptcy you simply get rid of a lot excess baggage and then you start again. Doctors, lawyers, hospitals and such can only get so much out of someone and they cannot follow you around for many years attempting to collect an unpaid debt - its not cost effective. Here is my suggestion - take about 15% of all the money you earn and donate it to your favorite medical cause - generally these are nonprofit organizations. Do this on a continuing basis. There ya go - instant healthcare for all those who cannot currently affort it. But in general, people don't do that, they may do a small amount here and there but by in large it is the wealthy and governmental grants which fund these nonprofits. If every person who worked contributed the cost of a mid-range non-insurance penalty - say $350 year to a non-profit we would not be concerned at all about healthcare reform. But NOW - that fee will be mandadory and it will far greater because we are forced to pay for our insurance, our taxes will increase and our donations (whatever they once were) will decline. And in the end we will still treat everyone, even unauthorized aliens. What was the point of healthcare reform when no one was actually denied treatment in the first place? people ARE denied treatment, for life threatening illnesses and recurring or pre existing conditions
Yes, just last week a Transgender woman caughing up blood was, terribly treated in the ER at Ball Memorial Hosp in Indiana, and was ultimatly sent away, because of her condition - which was being transgender and they didn't know how to treat her???? Do you have any examples, not that I don't believe they exist, but I do think there's more to it, because treatment for any illness can be gained through several avenues. I currently need a hysterectomy which I am denied because I have o insurance and no other way to pay an upfront cost
we dont deny in EMERGENCIES, thats the only time denial cant occur I'm sorry to hear about your condition, at least if it becomes life threatening you know it will be taken care of, whether you have insurance or not. meanwhile people who dont have insurance go without vital care in many situations and in others the hospital bills after their emergency care can send them into situations where they have to sell their home ,,,,not acceptable in such a wealthy country
why would anyone have to sell their home because they have medical bills - unless, of couse they can't work and can't pay the mortgage, but that has nothing to do with medical bills. We are a wealthy country? what does that mean? Obviously you are not wealthy, so you think Bill Gates should pay for your hysterectomy? After all, he can certainly afford it. The truth is - the wealthy, are predominantly the poeple supporting all those charities, through their philanthropy. If that gives the appearance of being a wealthy country then a closer inspection needs to be undertake. How much do you think we can ask the 'wealthy' to give? At some point the giving will be our responsibility as well, even if it's giving more at the store, more to get your hair cut, and more from your earnings as we bear the burden of this HC bill with a slew of new taxation. people lose their homes to try and pay medical bills, I had an 'emergency' visit to the hospital , didnt even stay the night, had no insurance so they had to take me, guess what my bill was ? nearly 8000 dollars,, who can pay that type of rate for a five hour visit in this economy? now imagine people who end up staying for extended care in the hospital or have to have repetitive or long term care for illnesses,,and how much those charges are people sell their homes , go into foreclosure , or bankruptcy,, just because they became ill? thats unacceptable to me to end those practics I would GLADY contribute to a national system |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Kings_Knight
on
Thu 08/05/10 08:56 AM
|
|
Nice to see that 'class warfare' and the 'politics of envy' are still alive and kickin' ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Thu 08/05/10 09:03 AM
|
|
Nice to see that 'class warfare' and the 'politics of envy' are still alive and kickin' ... isnt that something? I also wish people werent so classist and envious and caught up in concepts about which people are more 'deserving' than others which are tied up in how much money people earn,, it would be nice if we were in a place where we all agreed that EVERYONE should have decent access to affordable healthcare,,, but I guess there is no place where EVERYONE agrees about anything,,huh? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think the old adage, 'you get what you pay for' sums it up for me. Its worth the taxes and the costs to me to see everyone able to get healthcare without having to lose a house or go bankrupt and without being denied because of how badly they are hurt or how ill they are. humans lives are worth a contribution of 3 or 4 percent tax rate, heck, the cost of stamps has a higher increase than that in any given three or four years. I just cant weigh in such slight increases as more hurtful than healthcare that isnt available to all(without fear of bankruptcy). When you loose a house or file for bankruptcy you simply get rid of a lot excess baggage and then you start again. Doctors, lawyers, hospitals and such can only get so much out of someone and they cannot follow you around for many years attempting to collect an unpaid debt - its not cost effective. Here is my suggestion - take about 15% of all the money you earn and donate it to your favorite medical cause - generally these are nonprofit organizations. Do this on a continuing basis. There ya go - instant healthcare for all those who cannot currently affort it. But in general, people don't do that, they may do a small amount here and there but by in large it is the wealthy and governmental grants which fund these nonprofits. If every person who worked contributed the cost of a mid-range non-insurance penalty - say $350 year to a non-profit we would not be concerned at all about healthcare reform. But NOW - that fee will be mandadory and it will far greater because we are forced to pay for our insurance, our taxes will increase and our donations (whatever they once were) will decline. And in the end we will still treat everyone, even unauthorized aliens. What was the point of healthcare reform when no one was actually denied treatment in the first place? people ARE denied treatment, for life threatening illnesses and recurring or pre existing conditions
Yes, just last week a Transgender woman caughing up blood was, terribly treated in the ER at Ball Memorial Hosp in Indiana, and was ultimatly sent away, because of her condition - which was being transgender and they didn't know how to treat her???? Do you have any examples, not that I don't believe they exist, but I do think there's more to it, because treatment for any illness can be gained through several avenues. I currently need a hysterectomy which I am denied because I have o insurance and no other way to pay an upfront cost
we dont deny in EMERGENCIES, thats the only time denial cant occur I'm sorry to hear about your condition, at least if it becomes life threatening you know it will be taken care of, whether you have insurance or not. meanwhile people who dont have insurance go without vital care in many situations and in others the hospital bills after their emergency care can send them into situations where they have to sell their home ,,,,not acceptable in such a wealthy country
why would anyone have to sell their home because they have medical bills - unless, of couse they can't work and can't pay the mortgage, but that has nothing to do with medical bills. We are a wealthy country? what does that mean? Obviously you are not wealthy, so you think Bill Gates should pay for your hysterectomy? After all, he can certainly afford it. The truth is - the wealthy, are predominantly the poeple supporting all those charities, through their philanthropy. If that gives the appearance of being a wealthy country then a closer inspection needs to be undertake. How much do you think we can ask the 'wealthy' to give? At some point the giving will be our responsibility as well, even if it's giving more at the store, more to get your hair cut, and more from your earnings as we bear the burden of this HC bill with a slew of new taxation. people lose their homes to try and pay medical bills, I had an 'emergency' visit to the hospital , didnt even stay the night, had no insurance so they had to take me, guess what my bill was ? nearly 8000 dollars,, who can pay that type of rate for a five hour visit in this economy? now imagine people who end up staying for extended care in the hospital or have to have repetitive or long term care for illnesses,,and how much those charges are people sell their homes , go into foreclosure , or bankruptcy,, just because they became ill? thats unacceptable to me to end those practics I would GLADY contribute to a national system thats most of the problem. it's not going to end those practices. the doctors don't think are wrong by charging those outrageous fees. but i'm also wondering if it is all the doctors fault. i've been hearing they pay outrageous fees themselves. the hospital fees, their malpractice fees,(insurance) seems to me the whole health care system is corrupt, with the everyone involved just wanting to get rich. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
this is a place to start, I dont believe it will solve everything, but I do think it will be a step in the right direction
|
|
|
|
|
