Hillary for President! Vote?

[Liebling:-)))]

Hello, that was a fictional movie, not a true story.

Yes I know but it could be happened one of you some day if you don´t have health insurance.

I remember one former ADer who told us the story in other forum at several years ago that she and her hubby are worker and don´t have health insurance until the happend to her hubby. Her hubby fall down from the ladder and his arm or leg fractured and surgery... It cost them $10,000. Those situation cost their hassle and stress... after that bad experience, they decided to insure healthcare... They make sure that it won´t happen again. They made monthly payment to doctor until the debt is end...

 

[fredfam1]

You have 8 person in household? How many children do you have? Do you have child allowance in America?

I thought Americans work to pay taxes to federal government, don't they?[/COLOR]

I have 4 children left at home. The others have left and are adults
on their own. One college student that is home on weekends, my
husband, myself and my mother. My mother pays her own medical
from medicare and extra private insurance. We do not have an allowance
but something almost as good. At the end of each year you can take
a certain amount off of your taxes for each child. So I don't have to
pay as much in taxes with all my little ones. (something Hillary would
like to take away)

The federal government takes our taxes, and the state government
takes our taxes. These are listed on our checks, every thing the
government takes out. If you look at all that is taken out you begin
to get suspicious because you think "where is all that money going?"
and we should have free health care and spas with all that money
coming out of pay checks."

I would much rather make payments to end a debt and therefor
only have to pay when is necessary than to have the govt take
more money when I am not using it. And like Reba says, if we
were to have any really huge debt, there are govt programs you
can file for that will pay your medical bills. Say one of my kids
had an accident and I owed a $10,000 medical bill. Then I would
apply for the Oregon Health Care plan. I didn't do it for $300
because I would rather make payments than cause another
taxpayer to have to help pay for my kids medical bills. As I said
there is already enough taken out of checks for taxes. If anything
it is the governments fault for using the money they already get
in unneccasary spending, like when Bill Clinton got that $700 hair
cut on the airplane. Does anyone else here remember that? I would
have cut his hair for $20 and saved the taxpayers some money. I
would have even slapped his hand if he tried to sneak a feel!

 

[fredfam1]

About antibiotic... I would recommend you to take herbal tea and some vitamin C to reduce your bad cold, flu etc. I don't use any medical but drink herbal tea and hot lemon. It work pretty good within 3 days... If it's more than 3 days then check with doctor.

Excellent advice. I would like to add, L-lysiene taken on an empty stomach
once per day is anti-viral and will shorten the duration of a cold. I talked to
an emergency room doctor here who was from Romania. She said that here
if she tells someone to drink herbal tea and hot lemon with ginger like she
does for a sore throat, that she could lose her liscense to practice medicine
over here!

 

[Reba]

Yes I know but it could be happened one of you some day if you don´t have health insurance.

I remember one former ADer who told us the story in other forum at several years ago that she and her hubby are worker and don´t have health insurance until the happend to her hubby. Her hubby fall down from the ladder and his arm or leg fractured and surgery... It cost them $10,000. Those situation cost their hassle and stress... after that bad experience, they decided to insure healthcare... They make sure that it won´t happen again. They made monthly payment to doctor until the debt is end...

Were they refused medical care? No.

Did she have to take a gun to force the doctor to help her hubby? No.

An unexpected accident is always a "hassle and stress". But he did get medical care, right?

That situation isn't even close to the movie story.

 

[Reba]

...I work to pay social insurances (health, nursing care, pension and unemployment) AND taxes (Gross tax, solidarity tax and Church tax) My Employer and I as employee or worker pay social insurances and taxes 50%-50%.

Is your "social insurance" voluntary or mandatory? That is, can you refuse to participate in that insurance? Do you have a choice of which insurance company that you use?

Yes, I know you work to pay tax for medicare to help poor people but you don´t have medicare yourself that´s because you are work... Right? I get my medical care because I work to pay insurances.

Medicare is for older retired people. Retired working people are eligible for Medicare whether or not they are "poor".

Medicaid is for disabled and/or poor people regardless of age.

 

[tinkskater]

I totally dont support her...sorry but her husband has been doing all the work it seems.... also i heard on the radio...that she went to a resturant && didnt leave a tip to the waitress... thats totally not cool....I'm sorry but my votes going somewhere else if i could actually vote...i'm only 16 so i cant yet vote...

 

[Reba]

...I don´t beleive that Canadians went to USA for medical care since they have everything what they need in their country.

Please read this:

Canada's Expectant Moms Heading to U.S. to Deliver

Wednesday, October 10, 2007
By Sara Bonisteel

Mothers in British Columbia are having a baby boom, but it's the United States that has to deliver, and that has some proud Canadians blasting their highly touted government healthcare system.

"I'm a born-bred Canadian, as well as my daughter and son, and I'm ashamed," Jill Irvine told FOX News. Irvine's daughter, Carri Ash, is one of at least 40 mothers or their babies who've been airlifted from British Columbia to the U.S. this year because Canadian hospitals didn't have room for the preemies in their neonatal units.

"It's a big number and bigger than the previous capacity of the system to deal with it," said Adrian Dix, a British Columbia legislator, told FOXNews.com. "So when that happens, you can't have a waiting list for a mother having the baby. She just has the baby."

The mothers have been flown to hospitals in Seattle, Everett, Wash., and Spokane, Wash., to receive treatment, as well as hospitals in the neighboring province of Alberta, Dix said. Three mothers were airlifted in the first weekend of October alone, including Carri Ash.

"I just want to go home and see my kids," she said from her Seattle hospital bed. "I think it's stupid I have to be here."

Canada's socialized health care system, hailed as a model by Michael Moore in his documentary, "Sicko," is hurting, government officials admit, citing not enough money for more equipment and staff to handle high risk births.

Sarah Plank, a spokeswoman for the British Columbia Ministry of Health, said a spike in high risk and premature births coupled with the lack of trained nurses prompted the surge in mothers heading across the border for better care.

"The number of transfers in previous years has been quite low," Plank told FOXNews.com. "Before this recent spike we went for more than a year with no transfers to the U.S., so this is something that is happening in other provinces as well."

Critics say these border crossings highlight the dangers of a government-run health care system.

"The Canadian healthcare system has used the United States as a safety net for years," said Michael Turner of the Cato Institute. "In fact, overall about one out of every seven Canadian physicians sends someone to the United States every year for treatment."

Neonatal intensive care units in Alberta and Ontario have also been stretched to capacity, she said.

The cost of these airlifts and treatments, paid to U.S. hospitals by the province under Canada's universal health care system, runs upwards of $1,000 a child.

"We clearly want to see more capacity built in the Canadian system because it’s also expensive for taxpayers here to send people out of the country," Dix said.

The surge could be due to women giving birth later in life, and passport restrictions and family separation adds to the stress.

"I think it’s reasonable to think that this is a trend that would continue and we have to prepare for it and increase the number of beds to deal with perhaps the new reality of the number of premature babies and newborns needing a higher level of care in Canada," Dix said.

British Columbia has added more neonatal beds and increased funding for specialized nurse training, Plank said.

"There is an identified need for some additional capacity just due to population growth and that sort of thing and that is actively being implemented," she said.

FOXNews.com - Canada's Expectant Moms Heading to U.S. to Deliver - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News

 

[Reba]

...I don´t beleive that Canadians went to USA for medical care since they have everything what they need in their country.

This is a 90-page report:

Hospital Waiting Lists In Canada

http://downloads.heartland.org/20320.pdf

Here's one section:

...The result has been lengthy waiting lists, often as long
as a year or more, followed by public outcry, which in
turn has prompted short-term funding. Across Canada,
many governments have had to provide additional
funding for heart surgery in their provinces. In the
past, American hospitals have also provided a convenient
short-term safety valve for burgeoning waiting
lists for cardiac operations. The government of British
Columbia contracted Washington State hospitals to
perform some 200 operations in 1989 following public
dismay over the 6-month waiting list for cardiac bypass
surgery in the province.
Wealthy individuals, furthermore, may avoid waiting
by having heart surgery performed in the United
States. A California heart-surgery centre has even
advertised its services in a Vancouver newspaper.
Throughout Canada in 2006, an average of 2.3 percent
of cardiac patients inquired about receiving treatment
in another province, while 1.8 percent of patients
asked about treatment in another country. From these
inquiries, 0.7 percent of all patients received treatment
in another province and 0.6 percent received treatment
in another country (Fraser Institute, national hospital
waiting list survey, 2006).
The Fraser Institute / Hospital Waiting Lists in Canada (16th edition) / 23

 

[Reba]

Interesting:

The victims of “universal” healthcare

The waiting time for treatment in Canada varies from 14 to 30 weeks. Waiting lists for diagnostic procedures range from two to 24 weeks. Some patients die while waiting for treatment. To stop sick people from circumventing the “free” system, the government of British Columbia enacted Bill 82 in 2003, which makes it illegal to pay for private surgery. Patients waiting for critical procedures are now forced to seek procedures in the U.S. and doctors are abandoning Canada in droves. Cleveland, Ohio is now Canada’s hip-replacement center. Ontario is turning nurses into doctors to replace some of the 10,000 doctors who left Canada in the 1990’s....

The One Minute Case Against Socialized Healthcare » The One Minute Case

 

[PowerON]

You don´t get it either.

I explained Reba in my previous post... That's why I am for Hillary's support plan because everyone (yes, I mean everyone) should pay health insurance if they are work and support the others who are out of work or living on pension money. Its about support each other. I really have no problem for that.

I rather to help people with my money because their health come first before war issues.

I don´t beleive that Canadians went to USA for medical care since they have everything what they need in their country.

I'm saying to earn salary isn't much you made as govt took out from your payroll to use for medical. Geez.

More tax, more quick to get people see doctor
• no money for vacation (rat!)

Less tax, long listing to get people to see doctor
• holiday for vacation (hello Hawaii!)

None are win-win situation

 

[Maria]

Hello, that was a fictional movie, not a true story.

I thought it ( John Q ) was based on a true story as it says on the back of its box with details what the movie was all about. :-\

 

[fredfam1]

Also, remember Somalia?


CLINTON FOREIGN POLICY FAILURE PAGE

Wow Reba! I vaugley remember this stuff but not well enough to even research it so I can remind people. I can do this with medical but notpolitical. Do you keep a file?

 

[Reba]

Wow Reba! I vaugley remember this stuff but not well enough to even research it so I can remind people. I can do this with medical but notpolitical. Do you keep a file?

No, I don't keep a file of this stuff. :P

 

[Kaitin]

Too many people in the US are uninsured, including many children.

From the New York Times: Survey Finds 43.6 Million Uninsured in U.S.

About 43.6 million people in the United States, or 14.8 percent of the population, had no health insurance in 2006, according to a survey by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released Monday.

The finding, based on a survey of 100,000 people, is lower than previous federal estimates of 46 million.

The estimate is based on those who did not have insurance at the time of the interview. About 54.5 million people in the country, or 18.6 percent of the population, had no insurance for at least part of 2006.

The survey, by the National Center for Health Statistics, found that about 9.3 percent of children under 18 did not have health insurance, a decrease from 13.9 percent in 1997.

Texas had the largest percentage of people without health insurance, with 23.8 percent of the population not covered, the report said. Michigan had the lowest, at 7.7 percent.

---

Medical bills are a huge problem and cause bankruptcy, even with insurance but more problems without insurance.

From ConsumerAffairs.Com: Medical Bills Leading Cause of Bankruptcy, Harvard Study Finds

Illness and medical bills caused half of the 1,458,000 personal bankruptcies in 2001, according to a study published by the journal Health Affairs.

The study estimates that medical bankruptcies affect about 2 million Americans annually -- counting debtors and their dependents, including about 700,000 children.

Surprisingly, most of those bankrupted by illness had health insurance. More than three-quarters were insured at the start of the bankrupting illness. However, 38 percent had lost coverage at least temporarily by the time they filed for bankruptcy.

Most of the medical bankruptcy filers were middle class; 56 percent owned a home and the same number had attended college. In many cases, illness forced breadwinners to take time off from work -- losing income and job-based health insurance precisely when families needed it most.

Families in bankruptcy suffered many privations -- 30 percent had a utility cut off and 61 percent went without needed medical care.

The research, carried out jointly by researchers at Harvard Law School and Harvard Medical School, is the first in-depth study of medical causes of bankruptcy. With the cooperation of bankruptcy judges in five Federal districts (in California, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Tennessee and Texas) they administered questionnaires to bankruptcy filers and reviewed their court records.

Dr. David Himmelstein, the lead author of the study and an Associate Professor of Medicine at Harvard commented: "Unless you're Bill Gates you're just one serious illness away from bankruptcy. Most of the medically bankrupt were average Americans who happened to get sick."

---

Not all poor people get Medicaid including some poor kids.

From the US Department of Health and Human Services: Overview of the Uninsured in the United States: An analysis of the 2005 Current Population Survey

According to the Census Bureau's 2005 Current Population Survey (CPS), there were 45.8 million uninsured individuals in 2004, or 15.7% of the civilian non-institutionalized population. Those that lack insurance represent a diverse group.

- The 45.8 million uninsured are more likely to be poor and low income than higher income. Figure 2 shows that over half of the uninsured are below 200% of poverty, with 25% below the poverty line and 28% between 100% and 199% of poverty.(3) That the uninsured are concentrated among lower-income individuals is not surprising, given that low-income individuals are less likely to:

* be working, and if they do work they are less likely to be working full time,
* receive an offer of insurance, and
* be able to afford an offer of coverage.

Not all low-income individuals are eligible for Medicaid. Medicaid eligibility is based on a combination of income and population “category.” The population groups that qualify for Medicaid are generally children, parents of dependent children, pregnant women, the disabled, and the elderly. The income levels at which these groups qualify differs from state to state, and group to group, with coverage of children and pregnant women being available at higher income levels, followed by the disabled and elderly, then parents of dependent children last (though this varies by state). Childless adults who are not disabled or elderly rarely qualify for Medicaid, even at the very lowest income levels.

- The uninsured are more likely to be young. Figure 3 shows 21% of the uninsured are below age 18 and 63% are under age 34. Young adults age 18-34 are disproportionately uninsured relative to their representation in the overall population, while older adults are slightly under-represented relative to the overall population.

---

Poor people struggle more to pay medical bills probably.

From PBS NewsHour: Hospitals Charge Uninsured Patients More, Study Finds

In 2004, U.S. hospitals charged uninsured patients more than two-and-a-half times the amount they charged insurance companies for the same services, the study found. Hospitals also charged uninsured patients more than three times the allowable costs specified by Medicare.

In general, hospitals set prices for services but then negotiate discounts with private insurers. They are also limited as to what they can charge patients covered by Medicare and Medicaid.

The study, which examined hospital charges between 1984 and 2004, found an ever-widening gap between what hospitals charge insured and uninsured patients. In 1984, the uninsured were charged 1.35 times as much as Medicare for hospital services; by 2004 that number had grown to 3.07 times as much.

More than 60 class-action lawsuits have been filed against hospitals over the issue, according to Reuters.

---

Millions of uninsured cost everyone money now but the cost is hidden in insurance payments and taxes. And poor people suffer more and wait to see a doctor because of worries about money. I think a plan with health care for the poor is better because the poor can get preventative health and not wait until so severe problems with big costs. Everyone with insurance pays now and not only with health care for the poor. One difference nowis the poor have worse health and more struggles.


From Families USA: Paying a Premium: The Increased Cost of Care for the Uninsured

This study quantifies, for the first time, the dollar impact on private health insurance premiums when doctors and hospitals provide health care to uninsured people. In 2005, premium costs for family health insurance coverage provided by private employers will include an extra $922 in premiums due to the cost of care for the uninsured; premiums for individual coverage will cost an extra $341.

Nearly 48 million Americans will be uninsured for the entire year in 2005. What happens when some of these 48 million Americans get sick? Research has shown that the uninsured often put off getting care for health problems—or forgo care altogether. When the symptoms can no longer be ignored, the uninsured do see doctors and go to hospitals. Without insurance to pay the tab, the uninsured struggle to pay as much as they can: More than one-third (35 percent) of the total cost of health care services provided to people without health insurance is paid out-of-pocket by the uninsured themselves. - Through this study, we found that the remaining $43 billion is primarily paid by two sources: Roughly one-third is reimbursed by a number of government programs, and two-thirds is paid through higher premiums for people with health insurance.

As the costs of care for the uninsured are added to health insurance premiums that are already rising steeply, more employers can be expected to drop coverage, leaving even more people without insurance. And as more people lose coverage and the cost of their care is added to premiums for the insured, still more employers will drop coverage. It's a vicious circle that will not end until we as a nation take steps to solve the underlying problems.

 

[Reba]

I thought it ( John Q ) was based on a true story as it says on the back of its box with details what the movie was all about. :-\

I've been searching all the sites, and I can't find any that say it was a true story. I did find many reviews that stated it was a fictional story.

 

[Reba]

John Q., National Health Care and the Hollywood Left
by Donald A. Tevault

Denzel Washington is a brilliant actor who wastes his talent by starring in some really stupid, poorly-written movies. I now only watch his movies whenever I happen to be someplace where one is playing on television. That was the case a few nights ago, when I saw John Q. on the Starz channel. John Q. isn't just a bad movie, though. It's also a two-hour long propaganda piece that extols the virtues of national, government-run health care.

John Q. Archibald, played by Mr. Washington, is the main character. He's a typical blue-collar family man whose son will soon die if he doesn't receive a heart transplant. Mr. Archibald doesn't have health insurance, though, and the hospital isn't willing to perform the surgery if there's no chance of getting paid for it. So, our "hero" follows the only logical path. He gets a gun and takes the staff and patients of the hospital emergency room hostage. His demand is simple; he wants a free heart transplant for his son. When the police make contact with him to negotiate, he states his demand, but gives his name only as "John Q.". The police are left to figure out on their own who is in need of the new heart. (This is one reason why I say the movie is poorly written.) Of course, as luck would have it, a woman gets killed in a cheesily-staged car accident, and a new heart becomes available. The hospital staff finally give in, the kid gets his heart and John Q. finally lets the hostages go. In the process, John Q. becomes a hero for the cause of National Health Care.

During the hostage crisis, the movie's news media go out and interview people on the street concerning the case. The interviewees all echo the same message. The rich don't care, because they can afford health care. The rich don't want to pay the taxes to set up National Health Care. Yadda-yadda-yackity-smack. A stream of liberal politicians-- including Hillary herself--make cameo appearances in which they praise the courage of John Q. and encourage people to vote for National Health Care. No one offers any opposing view.

This movie takes advantage of many American voters' ignorance about history and economics. The movie's producers know that they can bamboozle the public into supporting their socialist pet programs. Had these producers not been allergic to proven fact, they could have included the following:

* Socialized health care in other countries has been a disaster. Competition is eliminated, so anyone who isn't satisfied with quality of care no longer has the option to change hospitals or doctors. Any incentive for a customer to control expenses is also eliminated, so the system becomes clogged with people who run to the doctor when they don't really need to; this has already happened in the Medicare system.
* Our current health care system isn't perfect. That's partly because of the government meddling that's already taken place. Before World War II, each person was responsible for buying health insurance for himself and his family. If rates were too high, the people in a given community would pool their money to make a bulk buy of health insurance. This would help bring the rates down, and people would be insured even if they were between jobs. During the war, government policies encouraged employers to provide health care insurance for their employees. Because of that, when people lose their jobs, they also lose insurance coverage. It has also taken away some incentive for people to control health care expenses, though not to the extent that socialized health care would.
* There's already a National Health Care system in place for the elderly. It's called Medicare. The Medicare system is rife with fraud, and--due to its system of price controls--has caused the cost of care outside of the Medicare system to rise. (Doctors need to charge higher prices for non-Medicare customers in order to make up for the lower fees mandated for Medicare patients.)
* For folk like John Q., there are already private charity groups and state grant programs that could have helped him out. Quite a few years ago, back home in my native Virginia, I knew a real life John Q. who had just lost his job--and insurance--when his son needed an operation to repair a hole in his heart. He found out about Virginia's grant program for people in his situation, and obtained the money for the operation.

As you may have guessed, I don't recommend this movie. Even if it weren't for the socialist message, the movie is just plain bad.

See also:

* HillaryCare in Tennessee
The disaster that might have been for the entire country.
Wall Street Journal Op-Ed
* Free health care
Walter E. Williams describes nightmare inflicted on Canadians.
* The 'cost' of medical care
If you ask most people about the cost of medical care, they may tell you how much they have to pay per visit to their doctor's office or the monthly bill for their prescription drugs. But these are not the costs of medical care. These are the prices paid.
by Thomas Sowell
* Hillary's back!
A huge headline on the front of a recent issue of the New York Times Magazine said more than they intended: "Now Are We Ready to Talk About Health Care?" Inside was an article with the same title by Hillary Clinton.
by Thomas Sowell
* This measure will not strengthen Medicare
I voted against the Medicare reform bill because it will not strengthen Medicare and does not responsibly address the need for prescription drug coverage. It will add trillions of dollars onto Medicare's current $13.5 trillion in unfunded liabilities for future generations.
BY SENATOR CHUCK HAGEL
* Entitlements Are Forever
Republicans make a bad deal on Medicare.
Wall Street Journal Op-Ed
* More freebies for older Americans
Despite how popular free drug benefits for the elderly may be, and the elderly undoubtedly love the idea, Keith D. Cummings says that it's state sponsored robbery.
* Letters about medical care
Reader responses to the discussion of government-controlled medical care in this column raised questions that need answering. The most frequently raised question was why American pharmaceutical drugs sell for less in other countries.
by Thomas Sowell
* Free-lunch medicine
It is always fascinating to see elementary economics make front-page news. It was front-page news in the Wall Street Journal of November 12th that there are long waiting times for seeing medical specialists in Canada and in other countries with government-controlled medical care systems -- but not in the United States, where some politicians are trying to get us to imitate these countries.
by Thomas Sowell
* Fitness, Fatness, Freedom – Who Decides?
Some might call it a symbiosis. We call it a racket: Professional medical worrywarts find or manufacture a problem, label it a crisis, then demand that the government take action.
by Michael Arnold Glueck and Robert J. Cihak
* Paying Dearly for Free Prescription Drugs
As Congress finalizes plans to expand Medicare, more and more seniors are beginning to understand that “free” prescription drugs from the government will carry a very high price tag.
by Rep. Ron Paul
* Health and taxes: Even worse than death and taxes
If you let the government control how you receive health care, says Richard E. Ralston, you get the worst of all worlds.
* Killing the goose that laid the golden egg
When it comes to foreign policy, I sleep better at night knowing that Republicans control the White House and the Congress. But on health care, it has lately become difficult to imagine how things could be much worse with the Democrats in charge.
by Mona Charen
* Costly Medicare Changes, Without Real Reform
In "The Medicare Mess" we described some of the problems with the Medicare "reform" bills passed by the U.S. House and Senate last month. We also need to review how the bills shorten the fuse on the demographic time bomb facing Medicare and other entitlements.
by Michael Arnold Glueck and Robert J. Cihak
* 'Universal health care': Part III
Those of us who are getting on in years can remember a time when most people had no health insurance, when we simply paid the doctors or the pharmacies and went on our way, without giving it a second thought.
by Thomas Sowell
* The Newest Medical Threat
How would you like it if every time you went to your doctor, for whatever reason, he asked: Over the past two weeks, have you felt down, depressed, or hopeless? Have you felt little interest or pleasure in doing things?
by Sheldon Richman
* A Stupid Way to Get Health Insurance
Who came up with the idiotic idea that workers should get health insurance through their employers? If it’s such a great idea, why is no one getting their fire and auto insurance that way?
by Sheldon Richman
* Health Care Interventionism: A Case Study
The demise of HealthPlus illustrates the unintended consequences that accompany any government intervention of market forces. In this case, writes Christopher Westley, federal regulations require private owners of hospitals to provide health care to all comers. In this sector, this cannot be done at a profit.
* Gore Endorses Canada's Medical System
In a recent newspaper interview, Al Gore finally came out of the socialist closet and declared that the "solution" to what he deems as a "crisis" in U.S. medical care is for the government to impose a "single payer system." While some folks might consider Gore's remarks a setback to the possibilities of actually establishing free market healthcare in this country, actually I believe it presents an opportunity for advocates of freedom and private property to make the case that should have been made all along.
by William L. Anderson
* Marcus Welby Doesn't Live Here Anymore
How Bismarck and the Tooth Fairy created the health-care "crisis."
BY DANIEL HENNINGER
* "Bad Medicine" or Bad Economics?
While most of the writings of Paul Krugman are, to me, analogous to one’s scraping his fingernails on a chalkboard, I must admit to reading his stuff. His latest gripe about a story on how many doctors are refusing to see more Medicare patients provides ample proof that one can be called an "economist," yet not know much about economics.
by William L. Anderson
* The Trouble with Medicare
One of the most difficult chapters in life is the art of growing old thoughtfully and gracefully. While the frailties of age multiply and the pains grow sharper, the lamp of experience hopefully has given us wisdom that allows us to cope with our frailties. Yet many an old temptation may come to us and becloud our vision. We may be tempted especially by politics which always has been the systematic organization of power and privilege.
by Hans F. Sennholz

John Q., National Health Care and the Hollywood Left

 

[Liebling:-)))]

Kaitin,

for post important imformation here...

I you for that.

 

[Liebling:-)))]

The really poor people can get Medicaid.



We already do that. My taxes pay for Medicaid and Medicare for other people.

You work to pay taxes to take care of poor people's medicine needs but what about yourself? It mean that you have to pay extra to join private health insurance to cover your medical needs. Right?

Who will pay for the additional medical services that Hillary proposes? If my taxes increase to pay for her programs, then I will have less money to pay for my own medical needs.

No, you do not need to pay extra for your own medical needs since you already work to pay taxes under Hillary's plan.

 

[Liebling:-)))]

I have 4 children left at home. The others have left and are adults
on their own. One college student that is home on weekends, my
husband, myself and my mother. My mother pays her own medical
from medicare and extra private insurance. We do not have an allowance
but something almost as good. At the end of each year you can take
a certain amount off of your taxes for each child. So I don't have to
pay as much in taxes with all my little ones. (something Hillary would
like to take away)

First of all, I appreciate very much for your interesting and polite post with us here. It's interesting to read your description post over US system to compare with EU countries.

Yes, we also pay low tax, too because we are married and have children. Single people pay more taxes than married couples. They (married or unmarried couple or single mother) also get low tax, too if they start family. We pay low tax but still we get children allowance from government separately. It does the same with other EU countries.

No, Hillary would not take your tax away since you already have a family.

The federal government takes our taxes, and the state government
takes our taxes. These are listed on our checks, every thing the
government takes out. If you look at all that is taken out you begin
to get suspicious because you think "where is all that money going?"
and we should have free health care and spas with all that money
coming out of pay checks."

Would you like to support federal government to spend your taxes on war issues to neglect their people and country? Do you worry that government spend your taxes to help people's healthcare, not war issues? I rather to see government take care of their people and their health. I rather to see my taxes goes to help people who need our help.

I would much rather make payments to end a debt and therefor
only have to pay when is necessary than to have the govt take
more money when I am not using it. And like Reba says, if we
were to have any really huge debt, there are govt programs you
can file for that will pay your medical bills. Say one of my kids
had an accident and I owed a $10,000 medical bill. Then I would
apply for the Oregon Health Care plan. I didn't do it for $300
because I would rather make payments than cause another
taxpayer to have to help pay for my kids medical bills. As I said
there is already enough taken out of checks for taxes. If anything
it is the governments fault for using the money they already get
in unneccasary spending, like when Bill Clinton got that $700 hair
cut on the airplane. Does anyone else here remember that? I would
have cut his hair for $20 and saved the taxpayers some money. I
would have even slapped his hand if he tried to sneak a feel!

I respect your POV but what if you or your family have few or more accidents or whatever per year since you have family in household... It might cost you more than $50,000 ? Can you acheive to pay the month payment? Have you read Katin's post #214? It could end to ruin your life for pay high debts... It could lead bankruptcy. Do you think it's easy for you to rely Oregon Health Care plan for the help if you have more accidents or whatever per year and then next happened in next year? I can image to myself if I live in USA and have to pay over $100,000 for my son's head surgery... I would end to sell my house to cover the debts because monthly payment is too high. That's why I support Hillary's plan.

$700 for hair cut? As what you said that Clinton's hair cut cost $700. It's from taxpayers.

 

[Liebling:-)))]

Excellent advice. I would like to add, L-lysiene taken on an empty stomach
once per day is anti-viral and will shorten the duration of a cold. I talked to
an emergency room doctor here who was from Romania. She said that here
if she tells someone to drink herbal tea and hot lemon with ginger like she
does for a sore throat, that she could lose her liscense to practice medicine
over here!

Interesting, we have many Heilpraktiker (I don't know what translate into English but I would like to call them as "herbal doctor" or "natural doctor") - I found translation between German and English dictonary but I am not sure either it's correct translation.

dict.cc Wörterbuch :: heilpraktiker :: Englisch-Deutsch-Übersetzung

They made homeopathy, herbs and acupuncture treatments etc. like what I told you about in my previous post that public health insurance don't alway cover the cost but I am lucky is my family doctor know a lot about herbs/natural medicines etc.

My family doctor is not an official Heilpraktiker (herbal or natural doctor) but she can advise us to use herbs or whatever... It's up to us as patient either we trust her or not. The doctors would be glad to advise you something if you let them know that you beleive in herbs... She pick kind of herbs medicines where health insurance can cover the cost. I know many doctors advised their patients to drink herbs, milk with honey, hot lemon, etc... They only lost their liescne if any happened to patients thru wrong surgery, wrong advice, etc.