Democrats run away from health care
A handful of House Democrats are making health care reform an election year issue
Maybe it's just me, but I don't think mandated health insurance for all was what people from my POV (which could be very small, I'm admittedly biased because I deal with high healthcare costs every time I look at our budget)...think of as access to appropriate healthcare for all, or has much to do with reining in the high cost of treatment.
Here's a true story from my neck of the woods...everyone in my dh's group agreed to forego a tiny raise (not actually a raise, a one time bonus) this year; last year there were no raises either. But our insurance company costs more and there deductions are higher. September is our family's high cost month; our outgo is about fourth of our family's annual take home pay: : we pay ds's tuition, life insurance, property taxes, and the last 3 month supply of medicines/supplies for our kids, and the $300 each deductible for prescriptions until the copayment kicks in ...dh needs some shoes that he can hike in because his work boots are mostly to protect his feet on the job or riding his motorcycle...not good for hiking. So I when he wanted to buy hiking shoes, I said, until I run the figures, don't buy them...you might have to wait until October. So...dh has had a lifelong case of acid reflux, not susceptible to the OTC medications...so his doctor tried him on a new one, to turn off his stomach acid and let the upper GI tract heal. (dh's dad also had gastric reflux, as does our daughter...so far we have not been able to solve this by changing diet, etc. And it's a risk cancer in various kinds of cancers, including pancreatic, which dh's father died from.) Anhyow, the doc had a sample of a new drug that works really well for dh...but very expensive and not covered by insurance, so she prescribed Nexxium again, a less well tolerated drug. The pharmacist handed me the package...$135 for a one month's supply. For a gastric reflux drug.
I took the prescription back to the car. dh was very quiet. Then he started talking about needing to make more money, which would mean quitting the only job he's ever truly loved. I could tell that he was thinking about the shoes.
I know we have an unusual combination of high expenses. For dh, it's just waiting another couple of months to get shoes. But what about the half of Americans in similar situations who make less than we do? So called "healthcare reform" left the insurance companies in the driver's seat.
"So called "healthcare reform" left the insurance companies in the driver's seat"
Absolutely agree and I also agree that mandated healthcare for all does not equal access to appropriate healthcare for all or do much to reign in costs.
Actually I know a LOT of conservatives (in my very very red state) who told me they were in favor of single payer...not reflected at in the the rhetoric of our "congresscritters", as they are called around here.
If you have recurring health care needs how much exactly do you think you should have to pay for them?
Not that this is you--but so many people think they should be provided for free to them or next to nothing simply because they didn't chose to be sick. I disagree with that premise.
You may not have chosen to be sick but you are and it really isn't anyone else's responsibility to pay for your needs--it's a risk of life.
Now, if others want to pool their risks so they are covered in the event they have a medical need--that should be a choice---that's why we have insurance.
So just exactly how much do you think one should have to pay to cover their own health care needs? Personally I think it should be a percentage of income. What income to include and how to calculate it--I've not thought out.
But you should have a choice. Either buy the insurance or agree to pay the first x percentage of your income to cover your own needs.
What do you think that percentage should be or should it be a percentage? I also think there should be a maximum out of pocket for everyone---yes, even the rich. And that everyone should have to pay something. It's just not right to have to pay nothing for your own health care needs so you can use your own money for something you want more.
Yes and no.
The OP isn't about what 'should' have been done, it is about the Dems who passed the bill, yet don't want that 'out there' now.
As for anyone that wants government healthcare, I think that is wonderful if:
You check 'yes' on your taxes to pay for it....There is a pool from those that want to participate....No doctor is forced to participate, they can set their rates, and great if it works....There is no tax dollars used for the government pool except for those people who pay into it.
Well I think it's obvious why - it's not a popular bill and they are trying to appeal to independents. Like the article said, if they voted against it why not capitalize on that fact? If they voted for it, well, maybe now is not the best time to pat themselves on the back - again, it isn't a popular bill and even a fair amount of Liberals aren't happy with it.
I imagine that if, when the bill goes completely into effect, it becomes more popular then the people who voted in favor for it will be happily trumpeting that they did indeed vote for it and the ones who voted against it will be quiet. Just like any other bill, really.