Gulp, Home Visits!

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-16-2009
Gulp, Home Visits!
30
Wed, 08-05-2009 - 12:13pm

Health Care Bill Will Fund State Vaccine Teams to Conduct ‘Interventions’ in Private Homes
Thursday, July 16, 2009
By Terence P. Jeffrey, Editor-in-Chief


(CNSNews.com) - There is a knock at the front door. Peeking through the window, a mother sees a man and a woman, both in uniform. They are agents of health-care reform.


“Excuse me, ma’am,” says the man. “Our records show that your eleven-year-old daughter has not been immunized for genital warts.”

Photobucket

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-17-2005
Fri, 08-07-2009 - 11:34pm

"This argument makes no sense to me because under the current system a bean counter in an insurance company makes these *exact* decisions. I see absolutely NO difference. Out of curiosity did you read that second link? I am looking at this from a very different vantage point."

Yeah, cause I look at it from a bean counter's vantage point, since I am a bean-counter after all :) . I think I read both links but I'll make sure.

The current system has doctor's offices which are overwhelmed. When a sudden influx of patients flood the offices, long waiting periods will begin. That's just a fact. With the current system, I may have to wait a few weeks, but with the overload that normal two week period will turn into months.

Surely you realize there's a difference in a government employee and one that can be easily fired? Now I have plenty of friends who work for the government so I'm not saying all are like this. I know for a fact, they are not easily fired even when they don't do their jobs. Executive jobs at insurance companies are likely very secure too - but with that kind of pay, they are more likely to give a flip about job performance. The government employee knows he's got a secure position and most are satisfied with their pay...satisfied, but not motivated because there's no incentives. When I worked in the insurance industry - my pay was all about incentives...and I imagine that executives got where they are via those same incentive programs offered to salespeople.

The system used by insurance companies to decide on someone's health in regard to age and needed surgery is a system that is archaic and it's very foundation is based on profits alone, not lives. It's partly to blame for the cost of health-care today. The entire system is broken and I do agree needs major "change" but this health care bill as it stands is not the answer, it will be an awful disaster.

The home visits will also be the government official coming into your home to assure that your children are properly fed and even teach you how to cook what the government deems "healthy" foods. Did I misinterpret that part?

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-17-2005
Fri, 08-07-2009 - 11:40pm

"That is naive. If the government did that there would be NO insurance companies period. What would the motivation be to stay open if there was not a profit to be made? People do not work in that industry out of the goodness of their hearts. What you are suggesting is a heck of a lot closer to communism than the current health bill is to socialism.?

Why would you assume that nobody is getting paid? Non-profit organizations employee people...nobody is suggesting working for free. My husband goes to work everyday for his paycheck, he does not benefit from stock dividends. Most people don't but they still take home a paycheck.

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-17-2005
Fri, 08-07-2009 - 11:54pm

Insurance companies are already regulated by the government. No, I'm not talking about government-run anything. Insurance companies can survive as non-profits, I see no reason why they can not. There would be no need for investors when you have grant money. No paying it back with interest because it was free to begin with. Wealthy people need to make charitable contributions in order to keep from paying more tax.

The government can change the rules to insure that no one is turned down for coverage, each state would have its own welfare insurance for those who can't live without cellphones. The hospitals would also need to be non-profit, but not the doctors. The staff would be employees, paid as empolyees of the non profit or employees of the doctor. The government already regulates decisions for the insurance industry, so nothing new there.

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-17-2005
Sat, 08-08-2009 - 12:00am

"IMO the government in general is totally corrupt and it has nothing to do with who happens to be the current glamorized figurehead nor their party. It is all about what lobbyist bought what legislator. We need to kick them all to the curb and start over."

I couldn't agree more!!! :)

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-16-2009
Sat, 08-08-2009 - 12:37am

I misrepresented my thoughts- I understand what it means to be non-profit, the hospital my mother works at is a non profit. That was not how I interpreted your post, sorry for the confusion.

Photobucket

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-17-2005
Sat, 08-08-2009 - 12:48am

"Another thing to consider with a public option- something I have not seen discussed is the concept of employee mobility."

I meant to mention that. Insurance should not be dependent upon employment and definitely should be mobile, I totally agree.

Thanks for the conversation but I've got tomatoes on the stove, tomatoes in my frige, in the garden there's tomatoes to be picked. I also have plants just now blooming and starter plants that I'm determined to keep alive and producing around Thanksgiving (they say it can't be done).

I've gotta go finish my soup in the crockpot and go to bed. I'll come back soon!

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-27-2005
Sat, 08-08-2009 - 9:12am

I'm reading reading reading!

 

Tracy - wife to Ron since 9/9/03, mom to college sophomore, Jason (18), high school Junior Chase
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-17-2005
Sat, 08-08-2009 - 3:34pm

In my state there are tens of thousands of families who could apply for state insurance policies for $58 a month for a family of four, even less for people making less than a certain amount, I’m not sure what the ceiling is. The majority of young people living in my county right now have cell-phones, but no health insurance. When I sold insurance, I couldn’t get people to buy a $6 per month life insurance policy but they drove 3 nice new cars and lived two or more families to a house so they could drive nice new cars. True, there are plenty of people who cannot afford a policy because they are being blacklisted (so to speak) due to pre-existing conditions. I certainly am NOT advocating we keep that charade going - but don’t you think we need to find a happy medium? People do not realize that what this plan doesn’t say plainly and blatantly – that is what we need to worry about. The wording can, and will, be twisted later on – later, after other policies come into play that may change things in ways we never imagined. People, even the people who are supposed to be reading – are not reading the bill. We need to seriously worry about this. My point is, there are more than two ways to deal with the health care crises in this country. I absolutely believe your son should be covered and you can’t get insurance for the cost of your cellular plan, I understand that too. It’s not what’s happening in the majority of young families out there. I’m telling you this bill as it stands is not financially viable. How you translate that into your situation seems to be all or nothing…either we approve this particular bill or keep things like they are. Why is that the only two options???

My husband has healthcare that we don’t use but its there when we need it. I would love to think I could keep that same plan, but that is not what will happen. You can listen to them tell you that all day long, it’s not true. The American people are being mislead once again and we need to take our heads out of the sand and carefully look at the wording.

Our family does not use cell phones. I use the money to put my kids in activities that they could do without, but I would rather them stay in - because of the need for daily exercise mostly. I could afford one if I really wanted one, but I take my Mom’s with me when I need one. I carried one for years but it’s been almost three years now and I don’t really miss it.

Wednesday I registered my kids for co-op at a Science Museum where my kids would be anywhere on the over 100 acres. But I will be there at the facility, while they are taking classes. I asked this lady to write something on the registration form in the space where it says “cell phone”, I wanted her to write “Parent/Teacher - Building B”. She started giving me grief after I told her I don’t have one. She didn’t believe me... ”Well, if we need to get in touch with you, it don’t matter that you’re on the grounds, we need a cell phone number”. I just walked away. The point is, I get that all the time, it’s like people think I just don’t want to share my number. It’s unheard of not to have a cellphone these days, I don’t expect families like yours to do without, that wasn’t my point!

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-16-2009
Sat, 08-08-2009 - 4:52pm

My cousin (she is also my best friend) moved to AU during her third year of college and decided there were too many benefits to move back to the states.

Photobucket

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-27-2005
Sat, 08-08-2009 - 5:03pm

yup, states have policies for FAMILIES, but not for individuals.


it doesn't have to be all or nothing, but it will be all or nothing because the republicans AND the democrats can't get their heads out of their collective butts to come up with a solution.


I do NOT believe that we will be forced to use this if other insurance is available to us.

 

Tracy - wife to Ron since 9/9/03, mom to college sophomore, Jason (18), high school Junior Chase