Editions: e-Edition | Lite | Mobile | Subscribe | Twitter | RSS
Manage: My Account | Logout

TimesArgus.com - We Are Vermont

Public hearing on health care promises to turn personal



Postcards urging a single-payer health system were delivered to lawmakers last week.

Photo by Stefan Hard

Toolbox

By KEVIN O'CONNOR
STAFF WRITER - Published: January 10, 2010

Richard Davis didn't want knee replacement surgery four days after Christmas. But having already paid $2,700 of his $3,000 annual health insurance deductible, the 60-year-old Vermonter didn't want a bigger bill with the start of this new year.

"Do I pay $300 now or $3,000 later?" the Guilford man said just before his operation. "I had emergency back surgery in December 2001 and complications in January 2002 and ended up paying the deductible twice within a month, in addition to the premiums."

The only redeeming thing to come out of his ordeal: a personal story for this week's Statehouse public hearing on health care reform.

Davis, a registered nurse and executive director of the Vermont Citizens Campaign for Health, is one of several grass-roots organizers getting people to testify Tuesday night before a joint House and Senate committee.

For the average Vermonter, doing so means driving as many as three cold, dark hours to Montpelier, then sitting before media microphones to reveal the most private of medical and economic hardships.

"We can't get some of the testimony we'd like to because people don't want others to know how bad off they are," Davis says. "Why would anyone want to tell someone how horrible their life is? It's a humiliating experience."

Even so, legislative organizers anticipate so many will attend the 6 to 9 p.m. hearing that they've booked the House chamber, will start a signup list at 5:30 p.m. and will limit individual testimony to two minutes.

Davis understands the drill - members of his Windham County-based group have done this before. When the Legislature was creating the state's Catamount health insurance plan in 2006, Guilford poet Verandah Porche, 64, not only attended a similar hearing but also wrote and read a poem.

"My body's coverage is skin," it concluded. "Thick or thin, my only coverage is skin."

Porche bemoans the "bread and circus" aspect of such events.

"Everybody needs to be heart-warmed or titillated."

But she also believes in telling the truth.

"Part of the Vermont brand is doing without, and one form of flamboyance is tightening your belt in public. It's a huge shift to come out and say, 'I'm breaking from that story, I've got this one instead.'"



'Bittersweet and greed'

Porche has chronicled several people's plights on the campaign's Web site, www.universalhealthvt.org. There, Brattleboro logger Duane Young, in his 40s, explains how a helmet used to be his only coverage - and something that saved his life.

"You know it's a lot easier to thin a forest than fix the system," Young is quoted as telling Porche. "It's all wrapped up in, like, kudzu, grapevine, bittersweet and greed."

Guilford dairy farmer Phil Cutting, in his 50s, told the poet how he paid at least $400 a month for insurance but found a doctor's visit for chest pains still left him owing about $2,000.

"Said it was probably gas," Cutting is quoted on the Web site. "Being a farmer, you don't have to worry about robbers. No one's going to come after your money."

With the passage of Catamount - part of the state's new Green Mountain Care brand of government services - Porche and about 12,000 formerly uninsured Vermonters now have coverage. But the Legislature didn't change anything for residents who are underinsured or paying high premiums and deductibles, so advocates are pushing for a second round of reform.

The Burlington-based Vermont Workers' Center launched its Healthcare Is a Human Right Campaign after finding that coverage costs were trumping its longtime fight for livable wages.

"We realized we couldn't advance our cause without getting a real solution on health care," director James Haslam says. "It has an enormous impact on every level, from state and school budgets all the way down to family budgets."

The center has held public forums in 10 of Vermont's 14 counties (the next will take place today from 3 to 5 p.m. at Vergennes' Bixby Memorial Library). Advocates are lining up rides for Tuesday so people from those events can speak out to the state.

"We've had folks come out with the most personal, powerful, courageous stories," Haslam says. "People who have gotten sick, people with high medical bills, people who have lost a loved one, small-business people who have had to lay off people because they can't afford health care - the list goes on and on."



Forgoing care

The center, surveying more than 1,000 residents for its recent report "Voices of the Vermont Healthcare Crisis," found that nearly a third of the state's population is underinsured, with six in 10 of those polled saying they had refrained from seeking care because they couldn't afford it.

Jim Hyde, a 61-year-old Fair Haven truck driver, used to have a "halfway decent" health plan with a $5,000 deductible. When his premium price "went sky high," he had to raise his deductible to $10,000 - leaving him shortly after with a $6,000 hospital bill.

Hyde let the center tell his story in its recent report, but he's not planning on attending Tuesday's hearing. Currently disabled after a work injury, he'll let others spread the message.

"We the people want affordable health care," Hyde says. "The Legislature could do something more - and faster."

Dr. Deborah Richter concurs. A family practitioner in the small Lamoille County town of Cambridge, she's founder of Vermont Health Care for All, a group seeking publicly funded coverage, and co-author of the recent book "Gridlock: The Unhealthy Politics of Health Care in Vermont."

Many state lawmakers and laymen hope Congress will agree on historic national health-care reform. But although that may aid Americans without options like Catamount, Richter will testify that it won't necessarily help Vermont.

"What is happening in Washington will not address the cost of health care," she says. "The problem is getting worse and worse, and I see it every day. The Legislature has no choice but to do something."



'The pressure is on'

But grass-roots groups are conflicted on whether, after being heard, anything will actually happen.

"It's important to have this hearing, but on the other hand, I think the leadership is doing this as an appeasement gesture," Davis says. "Legislators keep telling us they need to hear these stories, but they've heard them all before."

Lawmakers interviewed last week promised they would consider several reform proposals, although they acknowledged Gov. James Douglas didn't share their interest.

Advocates promise they'll push for more than talk. They point to two identical bills calling for a single-payer system, S.88 and H.100.

"What we really want is a bill to go through committee for a vote," Davis says. "We want legislators to know the pressure is on."

To demonstrate, the Vermont Workers' Center welcomed the House and Senate back to Montpelier last week with some 4,000 postcards from constituents.

"We're working on the shoulders of people who have been struggling decades and decades for health care," Haslam says. "It's not up to any one person to tell their story. Our challenge is to show elected officials that the vast majority of people are ready for change."



kevin.oconnor@rutlandherald.com



Follow us on Facebook and Twitter.





READER COMMENTS


@Jeff Perkins
Thanks for the link, it's important to note that this only exempts union members from paying a tax on so-called "Cadillac" health care plans valued at $8,900 or more (for an individual) through 2017. I don't support this decision, but just as republicans tend to give consessions to big business because that's where a lot of their support comes, democrats give concessions to labor. That's how politics works.

Here's an editorial on the agreement, which I found to be more informational than the New York Post article you linked. New York Post is really more of a tabloid than a newspaper, just for future reference.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/16/opinion/16sat1.html?pagewanted=1
-- Posted by RGC None on Mon, Jan 18, 2010, 6:12 pm EST

report this comment



"Do you realize that what you are talking about was a part of Senator Baucus's health reform proposal and was going to be a way to fund a public option. This would be relevant if it was a part of the current health care bill, but it isn't."

RGC,
Perhaps you need to know the facts before claiming to as well. In fact Obama did just cut a deal wednesday night that will exempt all union workers from paying taxes on the proposed health care plan. Again, very convenient being they are major contributers to the democratic party and virtually pay him right out of pocket.

Check out the link below...
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/unions_get_pecial_treatment_in_health_AB053CwqPIJlIxXAm37DOM


JF
-- Posted by None None on Sun, Jan 17, 2010, 12:05 am EST

report this comment



@Jeff Perkins
I didn't say they were on a government-run option, I said that their health insurance costs were subsidized by the government.

Massachusetts only has free health care for those earning up to 150% of the poverty level. Of course, that means that it isn't universal health care because not everyone is covered.

There are people, me included, who want the bill to pass. I believe it will be an improvement over the current system even if it isn't perfect. If nobody on the left thought it was an improvement, then it would not have been passed.

Unemployment passed 8% before Obama was sworn into office. Perhaps if the stimulus had been passed sooner, it could have turned the job losses around sooner, but it's impossible to say. Don't blame Bush's problems on Obama. Also, just so you know, unemployment didn't reach 10.5%, and is now on the decline.

We will see how the voters in Massachusetts react after they've voted. A lot of pundits claim to have ESP, but I'd rather wait for the facts.

If you're going to try to call someone out on being inaccurate, then please try to be accurate yourself.
-- Posted by RGC None on Sat, Jan 16, 2010, 10:59 pm EST

report this comment



RGC none,
Thats not true, congress has a "market place" where they can shop from most available plans in the country, which obviously the insurance companies give a great deal to. There is about as much money spent on these "executives benefits" as any other big company. Actually, what congress has is pretty much what the republicans wanted to make available to the rest of us, but the dem's shut it down without even reading to proposal.

This bill is not what anyone wants, left or right. So why even bother passing it? Politics is my guess. Obama has a lot of favors to repay and so far he has done little to "make payments". Plus, he needs at least ONE accomplishment to talk about in the up coming state of the union address. I mean he could talk about winning the nobel peace prize and then talk about his record war spending bill. Or about his guarantee to "close gitmo within one year of taking office". Perhaps he could discuss how he kept his promise with the stimulus, claiming that "if passed, unemployment will not go above 8%", and here we are at 11% if not higher... You see what I mean, they want to cram down a bill effecting 18% of the economy just for show.... Its pathetic, and possible not going to happen.

Just look at Mass and how the voters are reacting there, remember, they have universal healthcare in Mass already and they are not pleased.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704586504574654602781512842.html

ML
-- Posted by Jeff Perkins on Sat, Jan 16, 2010, 6:50 pm EST

report this comment



Dirty politics=Massachusetts
synonymous

SEIU is bussing in people from out of state. Hmmm sound familiar? Dirty politics as usual for Liberals. Intimidation

NJ- No one thought Christie would be beat Corzine either....Landslide

That is the reason Scott Brown(R) is ahead of Cookley by 4percenatge points. The people are aware of what is going on and they are fed up
Masssachusetts already has tried this single payer route in massachusetts-it is a disaster, they are living theproblems, the ER overcrowding, hours and hours in waiting rooms, doctor shortages.
Think of that on a National Level?
DISASTER

But oh, thats right, the lawmakers in Washington exempted themselves from any of this, they create the mess, step back and let teh little people fight. Sick liberals
-- Posted by Are you Kidding? on Sat, Jan 16, 2010, 7:43 am EST

report this comment



@None None
Do you realize that what you are talking about was a part of Senator Baucus's health reform proposal and was going to be a way to fund a public option. This would be relevant if it was a part of the current health care bill, but it isn't.
Source: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=32398

@AYK
The specifics of the bill haven't been finalized yet. The benefits will be based on income so people who need help will get help. I'm not sure exactly what point you were trying to make. I think it would help your clarity if you boiled down your posts to one key sentence that encapsulated what you are trying to say. It's hard for me to respond when I don't understand what I'm responding too.

Just so you know, the Massachusetts senate race will not matter in terms of whether the health care bill ultimately passes. It probably will have been voted on before the election result is certified (10 days from the election date at a minimum for absentee & military ballots to come in, perhaps more if Brown wins, which is highly unlikely, I would give him less than a 5% chance) and the winner is sworn in.
Source: http://www.bostonherald.com/business/healthcare/view.bg?articleid=1224249
-- Posted by RGC None on Sat, Jan 16, 2010, 7:00 am EST

report this comment



How do those of you in support of the proposed healthcare reform feel about all union members being exempt from paying taxes on healthcare plans?

Ultimatley, assume there are two individuals that receive identical benefits, the only difference is one pays taxes on them, while the other, a union worker does not.

Wow! How convenient for the democratic party who are recipients of outragously large contributions from unions.

In addition, what a great way to force those workers that choose not to be members right into the union without an option.

America is quickly moving towards an event that will define its history. A revolution is on the horizon. The time for those allowed to take, take, take, while not deserving, who posess a false sense of equal entitlement to the luxury's rewarded to working class individuals for services provided, must end.
-- Posted by None None on Sat, Jan 16, 2010, 3:08 am EST

report this comment



It seems Times Argus has forgot the Senate race in Massachusetts and its naitonal importance and forgot any articles this week.
SCOTT BROWN (R) vs Martha Coakley (d)
He's a man of value and principle and is running and winning and up 4% based on his promise to not vote for this healthscare bill

Cookley on the other hand, is another empty suit/dress , flies in political winds and as DA and AG she has imprisoned an innocent man for 4yrs, she also let a dirty cop arrested for raping a 2yr old with a hot curling iron out on the street no bail..She let the cop off the hook because his father was head of a union that paid off Coakley
She is a dirty corrupt politician from the get-go

SUPPORT Scott Brown, call anyone you know in Massachusetts be sure they get to the polls next week

Electing Brown can stop this entire socialist/commie/marxist agenda currently driven by the White House bus.

Scott Brown has made $1million a day in contributions, conservatives can win the People's Seat and Kill teh Healthscare bill
http://www.brownforussenate.com/re Bill
We have teh Momentum!!!
-- Posted by Are you Kidding? on Fri, Jan 15, 2010, 10:01 pm EST

report this comment



Yes it does RGC
The "insurance Exchange" programs are all based on income,
Guess hwat, they are based on income so teh government can pay the insurance companies the difference in premiums.
All just like what Vermont already has, there is something for everyone in Vermont already. Enough of this nonsensical money sucking wealth redistribution ********e
-- Posted by Are you Kidding? on Fri, Jan 15, 2010, 9:03 pm EST

report this comment



Great Video & song!!!

Awww just keep an open mind RGC, give it whirl, ya just might like it!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dc_-L4fyLUo

RAY STEVENS.com
Love it!
-- Posted by Are you Kidding? on Fri, Jan 15, 2010, 8:46 pm EST

report this comment



@AYK
What part of "the current bill does not include government subsidized health care" do you not understand?

Congress already have their health expenses subsidized by the government, and they seem happy with their health care. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, but I'm sure that it isn't based on anything resembling facts, so I'm not going to waste time googling to try and figure it out. Feel free to link some more youtube videos that I won't watch.
-- Posted by RGC None on Fri, Jan 15, 2010, 7:46 pm EST

report this comment



If Govt subsidized healthcare was the best thing for ALL Americans, then why was the first thing Congress and Senate do was EXEMPT themselves from it?

Why did SEIU bribe the White House for exemptions?

Why did the Doctors require a side deal $250Billion extra up front in their pockets to buy their support?

Why did Obama bribe the pharma companies into a special deal after teh drug companies instanly raised their prices this summer to make up for not making any future raises next 4yrs?

Seriously , is it that hard for u liberals to understand the culture of Corruption by this skanky White House administration?
-- Posted by Are you Kidding? on Fri, Jan 15, 2010, 6:22 pm EST

report this comment



@AYK
Good, I support government subsidize health care for all Americans. If you took the time to read what other people posted, then you might realize that.

And just FYI, anything can be disputed. Video and audio are often spun and taken out of context just as much as text can. Get the whole story.
-- Posted by RGC None on Fri, Jan 15, 2010, 4:05 pm EST

report this comment



There's an interesting and informative article about health care on Fox News.com

It's titled "U.S. Trails Others in Health Care Satisfaction"

"Americans are more dissatisfied than citizens of other nations with their basic health care even while paying more of their own money for treatment, a five-nation survey released Thursday notes."

It's interesting reading. You can find it at http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,136990,00.html
-- Posted by Mike D on Fri, Jan 15, 2010, 11:33 am EST

report this comment



RGC- Cant dispute a video or audio clip, sorry about your luck chuck
O'Bammy in his OWN words
to SEIU in 2007 , he said thats what he wanted, but he knew it wouldnt go stright there, but step by step. "His transition process"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-bY92mcOdk

That is exactly what they are doing now. Pass anything, they dont care, they just need a bill they can tailor to what they really want, make ammendments and delete
-- Posted by Are you Kidding? on Fri, Jan 15, 2010, 5:39 am EST

report this comment



The liberals are on a mission to pass Obamacare at any cost, they have this kooky idea in their brains they need this "historical" legislation:

The Black Plague in Europe was historic, The Holocaust was historic. The Haiti Earthquake is historic. The crash and burning of the HIndenburg was historic. The Fall of Rome was historic.

Now we have Obamcare, it's exactly the kind of historic we're seeing. The BAD kind of "historic"
The liberals are responsible for the Fall of teh American Society and Bankrupt nation. American lifestyles will be no different than teh Haitans Cuban or Venezuela......The most corrupt governemnt in US history run by an elitist lawyer
in the first year, spent more money in 1 year than any other admin in history.

Oh yea, Historic? oh It'll be Historic
-- Posted by Are you Kidding? on Fri, Jan 15, 2010, 5:36 am EST

report this comment



You leave a thread for a day and all of a sudden it's regressed to a jumbled mass of youtube links and partisan assertions with nothing to back them up.

Here's a few thoughts I took from the jumble:

Avatar was a good movie. I'm jealous that I haven't gotten a chance to see it in 3D yet.

The current health care bill will not create a government-run anything, just for those who are opposed to that.

A moral question: if an illegal immigrant was dying on the steps of the ER, and we had government subsidized health care for all Americans, would you rather the immigrant died, or was treated? (treated & deported would be another option, but that would mean requiring ID for ER visits as well as encouraging people to try and tough injuries out, resulting in increased fatalities and probably higher medical expenses as waiting translates into more serious maladies which translates into more money)

Don't give a youtube video, give evidence from a source that a smart person who knows their way around the internet might find credible.

A lot of the stuff on partisan shows (both democratic and republican ones) is less reliable than what you'll hear on TMZ. The shows spin the hell out of anything and everything. Get the whole story before filing it in your mind as fact and preaching it everywhere as if it was the word of God himself.

Time to wait for another interesting thread to come up, this one is dead to me.
-- Posted by RGC None on Fri, Jan 15, 2010, 3:25 am EST

report this comment



EVIDENCE shows that medcare, medicaid, social security and post office are all govt run and mismanaged and going broke.

Govt is only good at stealing money they sure cant manage a budget
-- Posted by Are you Kidding? on Thu, Jan 14, 2010, 10:46 pm EST

report this comment



"claim that private insurance companies can provide healthcare more efficiently and economically than Single Payer, when ALL OF THE EVIDENCE points to the opposite being true."

Bennett, I was responding to AYK, though I started by using some of your words. Medicare Part D is a big rip-off and proof that private insurers still are not getting it right on the fourth anniversary of full implementation. AYK and others worry the government will make a mess of health care and desire staying with the private sector. Part D is a glaring example of the mess to expect for people when buying private insurance through the exchanges. Just wait..... If no authority has been able to get Part D private companies to administer that benefit properly aimed at a bloc that actually votes in high numbers (seniors), expect the same or worse for the Average Joe.
-- Posted by Christina Colombe on Thu, Jan 14, 2010, 8:01 pm EST

report this comment



Christina,

I was referring to fiscal conservatives who claim that private insurance companies can provide healthcare more efficiently and economically than Single Payer, when ALL OF THE EVIDENCE points to the opposite being true.

.
-- Posted by Bennett Shapiro on Thu, Jan 14, 2010, 7:01 pm EST

report this comment



"But Benny- ONCE a bill is passed and is enacted, the libs can add, delete, amend twist contort to whatver they think is best for everyone....KILL the BILL, dont give them one inch, liberals mistake kindness for weakness and will take advantage of any good hearted gesture."

Actually AYK, once the bill is passed and enacted, making changes to it, adding, amending and twisting the bill become MORE difficult, not less so. Turning this bill into a Single Payer bill would be A MAGIC TRICK on a COLOSSAL SCALE. This bill is the opposite of Single Payer. You are correct when you say that Obama promised a first step in the direction of Single Payer, BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT'S HAPPENED. The monied interests have won again. Big insurance companies and other businesses have gotten their way- NOT THE LIBERALS- they wanted Single Payer. I agree whole-heartedly the bill (it probably actually does equal parts ill and good) should probably be killed- not because its a liberal bill- but because its NOT LIBERAL AT ALL.

.
-- Posted by Bennett Shapiro on Thu, Jan 14, 2010, 6:55 pm EST

report this comment



DEALS DEALS BRIBES MORE DEALS
Officials said the agreement was thrashed out over more than 15 hours of negotiating at the White House, ending after midnight. Participants included AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka; Andy Stern, head of Service Employees International Union; Anna Burger, head of Change to Win, and the leaders of unions representing teachers, government workers, food and commercial workers and electricians. Obama's deputy chief of staff, Jim Messina, was the lead White House bargainer, although Vice President Joe Biden also was involved periodically.

If it holds, the tentative deal should ease concerns among labor friendly lawmakers in the House, and also permit the White House and senior Democrats to move quickly through numerous other decisions as they drive for a compromise on the overall health care bill.
-----------------------------------------------------------

Liberals want a single payer- absolutely correct.
Liberals in Washington Also said this would be a first step in getting to the ultimate single payer.
In Obama's own words to SEIU in 2007 , he said thats what he wanted, but he knew it wouldnt go stright there, but step by step. "His transition process"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-bY92mcOdk

That is exactly what they are doing now. Pass anything, they dont care, they just need a bill they can tailor to what they really want, make ammendments and delete teh good things in it.
-- Posted by Are you Kidding? on Thu, Jan 14, 2010, 12:19 pm EST

report this comment



But Benny-
ONCE a bill is passed and is enacted, the libs can add, delete, amend twist contort to whatver they think is best for everyone.
Just like teh facde of conference committee. Each bill comes together in whatever way they want to add or delete things

Obama adminstration and his cronies in the culture of corruption. Bribes deals, they dont care, they have sold their soles for their own personal gain. When do ya think nancy is going to drain her swamp? She just lies in wait in the reeds, satalking waiting and salivating at the thought of any onld bill they can turn into a single payer

KILL the BILL, dont give them one inch, liberals mistake kindness for weakness and will take advantage of any good hearted gesture.
-- Posted by Are you Kidding? on Thu, Jan 14, 2010, 12:14 pm EST

report this comment



A fiscal conservative's dream just like Medicare Part D. There was little immediate benefit with that program either; it started with a discount card. It was a passed on a pre-dawn vote. It also was drawn up behind closed doors. It got off to a poor start because private insurers could not get their acts together to pay out for claims on their new customers. Even today, the private insurers for Part D are still messing things up, with HealthNet making it into the news this year for billing and coverage issues.

How short people's memories are. . . .
-- Posted by Christina Colombe on Thu, Jan 14, 2010, 11:25 am EST

report this comment



But AYK,

The current proposal moves us AWAY from a Single Payer type system. It locks in the positions of private insurance companies, and STRENGTHENS them. It has NO public option to compete with private insurance. It does very little to expand Medicare/Medicaid to those who need it. This bill is a fiscal conservative's DREAM.

.
-- Posted by Bennett Shapiro on Thu, Jan 14, 2010, 10:56 am EST

report this comment



Liberals want a single payer- absolutely correct.
Liberals in Washington Also said this would be a first step in getting to the ultimate single payer.
In Obama's own words to SEIU in 2007 , he said thats what he wanted, but he knew it wouldnt go stright there, but step by step. "His transition process"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-bY92mcOdk

That is exactly what they are doing now. Pass anything, they dont care, they just need a bill they can tailor to what they really want, make ammendments and delete teh good things in it.
-- Posted by Are you Kidding? on Thu, Jan 14, 2010, 8:35 am EST

report this comment



People,

All ridiculous bickering aside, we can make donations to the American Red Cross (doing amazing disaster relief work in Haiti and countless other places right now) at:

http://american.redcross.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ntld_main&s_src=RSG000000000&s_subsrc=RCO_BigRedButton

Thanks for being generous.

.
-- Posted by Bennett Shapiro on Thu, Jan 14, 2010, 7:25 am EST

report this comment



Watercloset,

Trying to use reason or math with these guys is ridiculous. They can't even keep with whom they are conversing straight, let alone pay attention to the details of what you are saying. And you expect them to be able to do simple math? Silly silly.

.
-- Posted by Bennett Shapiro on Thu, Jan 14, 2010, 3:12 am EST

report this comment



"There is no other "product" that the feds "require" everyone to purchase, and it is simply unconstitutional. Why will you not admit that this one plan is clearly not the solution the American people want?"

Mary Lou,

I do not want this healthcare plan- it would not be my first, second, or third choice for how to go about this. No self-described liberal wants this plan, either. Liberals want Single Payer. Do you guys just not understand the words that you read on the screen or what?

The reason the Democrats are for this plan IS BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT LIBERALS. THEY ARE MODERATES. Some of the more liberal Dems will vote for the plan because it insures so many more people than are insured now, and because they see the need to pass something rather than nothing, but this wouldn't have been their first choice in how to do this- as several of them (including Bernie) have said.

.

.
-- Posted by Bennett Shapiro on Thu, Jan 14, 2010, 3:00 am EST

report this comment



And dont forget about the money in the $787B to go towards the healthcare bill
The snakes broke it up, $250 doctor fix and this money already allocated through stimulus bill
$20 billion for health information technology to prevent medical mistakes, provide better care to patients and introduce cost-saving efficiencies.
$4.1 billion to provide for preventative care and to evaluate the most effective healthcare treatments.
-- Posted by Are you Kidding? on Thu, Jan 14, 2010, 12:46 am EST

report this comment



I will not support any form of government run healthcare, certainly not the underdeveloped, financially irresponsible one being proposed, until our government begins holding all able bodied U.S. citizens accountable as contributing members of society, while also denying illegal immigrants access to healthcare funded by the American tax payers. We already have a disaster of a program in place known as Welfare, which reinforces and perpetuates irresponsible individuals. There are far, far to many people that could, should, and yet sadly, will not contribute anything to such a program as untaxed, unemployed, underserved welfare recipients, being held unaccountable by an unaccountable government.

The equation simply fails when the number of people taking increases, causing the number of people giving, and their resources to, inevitably, decrease, and eventually run out.

As contributing citizens it is your responsiblity to hold those individuals who can, but do not contribute or act responsibly as members of society, accountable. If not, then you as well, are failing to do you part.

JF
-- Posted by None None on Thu, Jan 14, 2010, 12:16 am EST

report this comment



Yes Benny your wrong again-
I pay $420.58 month BC/BS and $148. for Delta dental

Benny- THere are people taht do not think twice about buying a new car and paying collision insurance, then whine about all the bills they have and then to boot dont have health insurance by choice. Of Course tehy all have cell phones too, yet another $70 month bill.

Priorities--WHY?- PRIORITIES
Because the slackers know if they dont pay for the car, it gets repossessed, but fi they dont pay for a doctor, nothing happens, just an unpaid bill.
-- Posted by Are you Kidding? on Thu, Jan 14, 2010, 12:11 am EST

report this comment



"Well, if we can finally get health care for all passed, our taxes will go up but we will have no insurance premiums, no copays, no out of pocket medical expenses - that would save us a lot of money and a lot of worry!"

ARK: What is the matter with Sandra's statement? She is right. Your taxes might go up, but when you add up all the savings that Sandra has listed, plus not having to pay two years for one ER visit, you would be saving much more than you think.

"I have no problem with those who need help, I have a problem with those who don't and think they do."

Douglas: How do you tell the difference between the two? And who do you have as a judge? I pay a lot of money each year in health care premiums to cover the costs for the diseases of people that smoke. I do not smoke, but the smokers keep an industry alive and people working, and companies getting rich. Are the smokers people that do not deserve help and think that they do.

"people should consider a good used car, and spend $300mo onhealth insurance at the very least."

ARK: What kind of insurance do you have? Are you on medicaid/medicare? If am right, I remember somewhere that you said you lived on a fixed income. I might have remembered wrong here, but I'll take a chance. If I am wrong here, sorry about that in advance. You talk so glibly of someone spend $300 a month for a car payment. But, unless there are breakdowns, that is usually all they pay -- that is, beside the monthly insurance and the annual registration fees. In health insurance, you also have to pay thousands of dollars in deductibles and co-pays in addition to this $300 a month. That is the problem. When the policy's year is up, assuming you've used the deductibles, the deductibles kick in again. It's difficult to see why that is so hard for you to understand.
-- Posted by Watercloset on Thu, Jan 14, 2010, 12:05 am EST

report this comment



FREE FREE FREE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKb78kJhaMw
in line for Obama cash.

ROGULSKI: Why are you here?

WOMAN #1: To get some money.

ROGULSKI: What kind of money?

WOMAN #1: Obama money.

ROGULSKI: Where's it coming from?

WOMAN #1: Obama.

ROGULSKI: And where did Obama get it?

WOMAN #1: I don't know, his stash. I don't know. (laughter) I don't know where he got it from, but he givin' it to us, to help us.

WOMAN #2: And we love him.

WOMAN #1: We love him. That's why we voted for him!

WOMEN: (chanting) Obama! Obama! Obama! (laughing)
-- Posted by Are you Kidding? on Wed, Jan 13, 2010, 11:11 pm EST

report this comment



Speaking of "blue glasses", you should all go see avatar 3D, it is soooo amazingly cool. it is a visual masterpiece with a great "green" message. Sorry, but it is really good.

ML
-- Posted by Jeff Perkins on Wed, Jan 13, 2010, 11:06 pm EST

report this comment



ITS ILL INFORMED PEOPLE LIKE THIS THAT HAVE RUINED THIS COUNRTY < FREE FREE FREE:

Well, if we can finally get health care for all passed, our taxes will go up but we will have no insurance premiums, no copays, no out of pocket medical expenses - that would save us a lot of money and a lot of worry!

-- Posted by Sandra Bettis on Wed, Jan 13, 2010, 10:31 pm EST


LOLOLOLOLO
Hey Bettis go read the bill NOTHING IS FREE and u will make co pays, GOOGLE do something to get informed!
http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislative/a_three_sections_with_teasers/votes.htm
-- Posted by Are you Kidding? on Wed, Jan 13, 2010, 10:52 pm EST

report this comment



He as to take off his blue glasses to see that it is all about big money and lots of power over our individual lives. It is only the beginning. There is no other "product" that the feds "require" everyone to purchase, and it is simply unconstitutional. Why will you not admit that this one plan is clearly not the solution the American people want?

See for your self Benny Boop:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/01/11/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry6084856.shtml

"The president has 40% approval on the economy and 56% disapproval.

He has 37% approval on health care and 58% disapproval."
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/01/in-gallup-poll-president-obama-at-alltime-lows-for-handling-of-economy-health-care.html

"Polling data show that Mr. Obama's approval rating is dropping and is below where George W. Bush was in an analogous period in 2001."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123690358175013837.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/congressional_job_approval-903.html

Come on Benny Boop, take of the shades, its not cool to wear them inside anyway....

ML
-- Posted by Jeff Perkins on Wed, Jan 13, 2010, 10:51 pm EST

report this comment



Benny Hill Shapiro:

If theres a crisis, and people need health coverage now, today, why are they waiting 4 years before they give the people the benefits?
So the liberals are going to let 47 million people die in the streets for the next 4 years?
Why doesnt the bill start day after passage if the libs say the bill wont cost anything? Deficit neutral according to the corrupt Obama admin
-- Posted by Are you Kidding? on Wed, Jan 13, 2010, 10:26 pm EST

report this comment



Benny-

They are in a hurry to scam and pass a bill that will not give out any benefits until 2013

BUT as soon as they pass a bill they want to start pilfering and scrounging from the taxpayers
-- Posted by Are you Kidding? on Wed, Jan 13, 2010, 10:21 pm EST

report this comment



"If this healthscare thing is such a crisis, why isnt this crisis being addressed until 2013??!
So, what are the people supposed to do for next 4 years if theres 47 million dying in the streets and being denied coverage?

What is the hurry? Why not just allow all isnurance companies (1500) of them, to compete across state lines and then put limits on lawsuits tort reform.

Why are the LIBERALS saying OH JUST PASS ANYTHING, we dont care, we just need something passed?
Could it be, as soon as they get a bill, then they will add and delete whatever they want so in the end (LIBS like " the ends justifies the means thinking"")"


AYK,

You can't have it both ways. Either they're in a hurry, OR they're being slow in not addressing the crisis until 2013...

Why would you call the Dems in Congress liberals? The liberals aren't saying "Oh just pass anything." The liberals want a single payer system. Its the moderates (or Democrats, as you know them) who want to maintain the private insurance system. Bernie's the closest thing to a liberal there- HE'S NOT A DEMOCRAT and he wants Single Payer .

.
-- Posted by Bennett Shapiro on Wed, Jan 13, 2010, 10:00 pm EST

report this comment



If this healthscare thing is such a crisis, why isnt this crisis being addressed until 2013??!
So, what are the people supposed to do for next 4 years if theres 47 million dying in the streets and being denied coverage?

What is the hurry? Why not just allow all isnurance companies (1500) of them, to compete across state lines and then put limits on lawsuits tort reform.

Why are the LIBERALS saying OH JUST PASS ANYTHING, we dont care, we just need something passed?
Could it be, as soon as they get a bill, then they will add and delete whatever they want so in the end (LIBS like " the ends justifies the means thinking"")

Can the Liberals be this deceitful and corrupt? I think teh Obama adminstration and his crony weasles are more corrupt than Castro and Chavez combined.

BRIBES, backroom deals, and on and on

REMEMBER IN NOVEMBER
Vote out all teh weasle incumbents
-- Posted by Are you Kidding? on Wed, Jan 13, 2010, 9:34 pm EST

report this comment



Requirement To Maintain Minimum Essential Coverage- An applicable individual shall for each month beginning after 2013 ensure that the individual, and any dependent of the individual who is an applicable individual, is covered under minimum essential coverage for such month.

`(b) Shared Responsibility Payment-

`(1) IN GENERAL- If an applicable individual fails to meet the requirement of subsection (a) for 1 or more months during any calendar year beginning after 2013, then, except as provided in subsection (d), there is hereby imposed a penalty with respect to the individual in the amount determined under subsection (c).

`(2) INCLUSION WITH RETURN- Any penalty imposed by this section with respect to any month shall be included with a taxpayer's return under chapter 1 for the taxable year which includes such month.

`(3) PAYMENT OF PENALTY- If an individual with respect to whom a penalty is imposed by this section for any month--

`(A) is a dependent (as defined in section 152) of another taxpayer for the other taxpayer's taxable year including such month, such other taxpayer shall be liable for such penalty, or

`(B) files a joint return for the taxable year including such month, such individual and the spouse of such individual shall be jointly liable for such penalty.
-- Posted by Are you Kidding? on Wed, Jan 13, 2010, 9:27 pm EST

report this comment



Applicable Individual- For purposes of this section--

`(1) IN GENERAL- The term `applicable individual' means, with respect to any month, an individual other than an individual described in paragraph (2), (3), or (4).

`(2) RELIGIOUS EXEMPTIONS-

`(A) RELIGIOUS CONSCIENCE EXEMPTION- Such term shall not include any individual for any month if such individual has in effect an exemption under section 1311(d)(4)(H) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act which certifies that such individual is a member of a recognized religious sect or division thereof described in section 1402(g)(1) and an adherent of established tenets or teachings of such sect or division as described in such section.

`(B) HEALTH CARE SHARING MINISTRY-

`(i) IN GENERAL- Such term shall not include any individual for any month if such individual is a member of a health care sharing ministry for the month.

`(ii) HEALTH CARE SHARING MINISTRY- The term `health care sharing ministry' means an organization--

`(I) which is described in section 501(c)(3) and is exempt from taxation under section 501(a),

`(II) members of which share a common set of ethical or religious beliefs and share medical expenses among members in accordance with those beliefs and without regard to the State in which a member resides or is employed,

`(III) members of which retain membership even after they develop a medical condition,

`(IV) which (or a predecessor of which) has been in existence at all times since December 31, 1999, and medical expenses of its members have been shared continuously and without interruption since at least December 31, 1999, and

`(V) which conducts an annual audit which is performed by an independent certified public accounting firm in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and which is made available to the public upon request.
-- Posted by Are you Kidding? on Wed, Jan 13, 2010, 9:26 pm EST

report this comment



http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c111:5:./temp/~c111QwLp8E:e427141:
-- Posted by Are you Kidding? on Wed, Jan 13, 2010, 9:25 pm EST

report this comment



@ED the 2nd part I can answer. As of now you can file for an exemption that will get approved or disapproved. I don't know how they can judge a person's beliefs but they are going to.

Douglas Duprey
Marshfield,VT
-- Posted by Douglas Duprey on Wed, Jan 13, 2010, 9:12 pm EST

report this comment



Just two questions. Would the cost of health insurance be as high as it is in Vermont if Governor Dean had left things alone so that there was still competition between several insurance companies? Does a person that doesn't want health care, because of their religion, get an exemption from paying a fine?
-- Posted by Ed Kuban on Wed, Jan 13, 2010, 6:23 pm EST

report this comment



... we do have the infrastructure already set in place to tax the American people.

@RGC None

That is probably the truest statement I have ever read on these forums :)

Douglas Duprey
Marshfield, VT
-- Posted by Douglas Duprey on Wed, Jan 13, 2010, 2:04 pm EST

report this comment



@AYK
What does that have to do with government health care? You're talking about government subsidized health insurance, which I only support because it may be a step towards government subsidized health care.

Of course, because there will be no government run insurance option, I would assume that tax data can be used to determine income brackets. They also have these nifty things called computers which can be used to process lots of numbers in a short amount of time. Most of the work will be delegated to the insurance companies because that is where the money is going.

It's always good to remember that we do have the infrastructure already set in place to tax the American people.

@Jeff Andrews
I would say that's a fair statement.
-- Posted by RGC None on Wed, Jan 13, 2010, 1:19 pm EST

report this comment



RGC,

I trust that you were being as facetious as I was.

-
-- Posted by Jeff Andrews on Wed, Jan 13, 2010, 1:00 pm EST

report this comment



Nationally, yes. Vermont, not so much as this already done with Medicaid and Catamount. I imagine there would be a boost in TEMPORARY workers, as there as a couple years ago with OVHA when there was an attempt to get as many people insured as possible. Those were temporary workers. Call OVHA and ask...

Did you object to any extra Social Security workers, if any, hired to process Extra Help and MSP applications?
-- Posted by Christina Colombe on Wed, Jan 13, 2010, 12:47 pm EST

report this comment



right, so not only are people with current insurance has to have thier plans checked and verified to be sure theymeet govt minimum standards, but are trying to say there wont be any additional help needed as far as clerk/social workers to provcess an additional 47 million people not currently on teh insurance rolls?
-- Posted by Are you Kidding? on Wed, Jan 13, 2010, 12:31 pm EST

report this comment



Aye, yigh, yigh, AYK,

Ever heard of Medicare's Extra Help program for Medicare Part D? How about the Medicare Savings Programs for Medicare Part B? Those are income and means tested and are processed through Social Security or the local social welfare office.

How about premium-free Medicare Part A? That is an investigation of past work history and earnings, though probably not much of a project due to IRS records.

I would say for Medicaid, it would be a combination of state and federal research just as it is now. Keep in mind, though, that because Vermont already has expanded Medicaid up to 150% FPL, there should not be all that many more people to verify.

Besides, much of that has become automated through "tape matching."

As for premium subsidies through the insurance exchange, bankrate.com states that will be paid in the form of tax credits, so the determination for eligibility for a subsidy sounds like an IRS issue.

"Consumers would get premium subsidies in the form of tax credits."

http://www.bankrate.com/finance/insurance/what-health-care-reform-will-cost-consumers-2.aspx
-- Posted by Christina Colombe on Wed, Jan 13, 2010, 12:16 pm EST

report this comment



Who is going to pay for all the people needed to go over applications and verify income information or is this going to be run like a giant federal welfare office?

Is each state going to have to hire more social workers to do the same things that are now done on teh smaller scale of medicad, medicare?

When Obama had a grand plan for lower unemployment in the US....was his grand scheme of things to hire oodles of govt workers for this ginormous healthcare plan...thus...more beaurocracy paid by taxpayers??

Sure seems like an evil circle of taxpayers paying govt employees to turn around and pay their own income taxes from money they made off of taxpayers to begin with......


OR is all of this beaurocracy going to handed over to private sector to monitor and verify everyone personal financial income data?
-- Posted by Are you Kidding? on Wed, Jan 13, 2010, 11:37 am EST

report this comment



Okay, thanks for clarifying that it's the fear of a national ID that sets health care apart. I too would oppose a national ID that you would be required to carry at all times for fear of a fine, but I haven't heard of that being proposed in tandem with health care.

One point I would make is that if everyone is covered, then there would be no need for an ID card except to prove that you were not an illegal immigrant. I for one would be on the side of only requiring identification for doctor's visits and routine checkups. I wouldn't feel ethical denying emergency care to anyone, regardless of if they are here legally or not.

It is very doubtful that a national ID card would be imposed (we already kind of have one in Social Security) even if the government began paying for everybody's health care. That being said, if that looked like it would be the case, I might have to reconsider my support.
-- Posted by RGC None on Wed, Jan 13, 2010, 10:27 am EST

report this comment



Can you say National ID card!

They tried to nationalize all driver's licenses, failed miserably
So as usual this is another backdoor attempt to try to get another National ID card system. Hidden in their 'goodwill' for free healthcare for all

What a bunch of snakes and weasles in DC
-- Posted by Are you Kidding? on Tue, Jan 12, 2010, 11:53 pm EST

report this comment



@RGC None

You will also be required (if adult or own your own) to carry an insurance card at all time. Failure to do so can result in a fine and you have to present it the IRS, Gov't insurance agent, or other legal law enforcement office(r).

Can you say gov't I.D.

Douglas Duprey
Marshfield, VT
-- Posted by Douglas Duprey on Tue, Jan 12, 2010, 11:07 pm EST

report this comment



@RGC None

as AYK says above. The federal one will require the IRS to collect. If the gov't decides you are under-insured you will still be subject to all fines and debt collection. This could turn you into a felon, and you were trying to do the right thing. Yet, the GOv't says its not a tax. As I read the bill (its confusing), in this case you will pay the full amount of the gov't plan plus be taxed xx% of your adjusted gross income. If the IRS thinks you did this on purpose, they can prosecute you and you end up in jail.

That is how it is written and how it is so much different then anything we have had before. This is why it should NEVER pass. Even if I ignore the many constitutional issues. Now imagine what would happen if you decided not to be insured on purpose.

Douglas Duprey
Marshfield, VT
-- Posted by Douglas Duprey on Tue, Jan 12, 2010, 10:58 pm EST

report this comment



Current Senate bill violates the constitution

------------ IRS having control to tax, fine and collect on fines for any non compliance if someone cant afford healthscare insurace. Remember, teh govt will be setting the income guidelines and types of plans, and anyone that doesnt comply, will be fined & when IRS arm comes in to collect, of course ALL American will have to give IRS all bank account information
-- Posted by Are you Kidding? on Tue, Jan 12, 2010, 10:27 pm EST

report this comment



@Duprey
Tell me how health care would be any different from anything else that our taxes pay for. I respect your opinion that it should be a state-by-state issue, and maybe that will be the ultimate solution, but I don't see how this is any different from anything else federal taxes pay for. People earning little enough that they aren't taxed would also be served by the program and still be considered Americans without having to pay for it.

To be clearer, I'm just stuck on how you think health care is different from the other programs paid for by the federal government.

Ignore whether you think it is constitutional or not, that is up for interpretation and a matter of opinion, not to mention that there are already other programs funded by federal taxes which some people consider unconstitutional. I just want to know how it is different from everything else that the government is doing.
-- Posted by RGC None on Tue, Jan 12, 2010, 10:17 pm EST

report this comment



@RGC None

I spend money on health care. Also, while in practice I agree that we are required to do things to be law abiding, we are not forced to purchase anything. If as an adult I choose to not work, or not work at a level taxes are required then I pay none. However, I hope people are productive.

I think you (and others) misunderstand me about health care. I am trying my best to make myself clear. I believe based on the Constitution that Health Care as a "law" is a right of the states to enact or not. The power to regulate interstate commerce belongs to the federal gov't. If VT wants "single payer" making the people of VT 100% insured it is VT's right to do so. The law the federal gov't is passing (working on) is over stepping their constitutional powers.

I want people to be healthy and live with less worry. However, I am not will to sacrifice the liberty or freedom of me or others for a bit of "less worry". My freedom and the freedom of others is more important to me than any other thing. Mandating I have to purchase something in order to be "free" is not freedom.

Douglas Duprey
Marshfield, VT
-- Posted by Douglas Duprey on Tue, Jan 12, 2010, 8:31 pm EST

report this comment



@Duprey
One other thing, to be a "law-abiding citizen", we are mandated to buy things through taxes. Things like military, USPS, infrastructure, social security, medicare, and billions of dollars of other stuff. If those don't count to you, then I don't see how health care would count as being any different.
-- Posted by RGC None on Tue, Jan 12, 2010, 8:05 pm EST

report this comment



@Duprey
Health care is already something that people are forced to purchase or else they die. As I said before, I support government subsidized health care, not insurance. I have yet to meet someone who would rather die than spend their money on health care. I guess you might be the first.
-- Posted by RGC None on Tue, Jan 12, 2010, 8:01 pm EST

report this comment



@RGC None
section 8 of the US Constitution "...To establish Post Offices and post Roads" I suggest you learn what you are talking about. Social Security was found Constitutional. The VA handles all branches of service and monies come from all branches of military in part to pay for services. Some monies are provided for by Congress, I do not know what percentage (sorry). TSA and FAA, I am not sure on. It is the gov't job to provide safe commerce between states. In closing, yes some things the gov't over steps their rights and responsibilities on. As in federal healthcare (mandated) for all. Other times the feds abdicate responsibility.

@Christina Colombe wrote:

In you opinion, all people experiencing medical bankruptcy ("Let them go bankrupt, lose their toys and then hopefully they will learn.") are undeserving of receiving affordable health care because "they refuse to even try to take care of themselves."

- If people can buy a new vehicle (and don't need it ) or "toys" yet refuse to plan for their health care in one form or another yes, I have problem with them.

You seem impervious to seeing that some people have taken care of themselves well enough physically but still incur an unremitting expensive illness beyond medicine's current understanding in instructing people how to avert it

-No this is a case of where somebody is trying.

If your comment also refers to people taking care of themselves financially as well by buying health insurance (instead of toys), people would buy health insurance, in general, if the product was comprehensive enough (no big deductibles) and otherwise affordable in premiums in copayments.

-This is can (could be) easily regulated by the states or even possibly the Interstate Commerce clause of the Constitution.

You do not want to mandate the purchasing of health insurance, rather, have people learn the hard way by going bankrupt.

No mandated insurance to be a legal citizen of the USA!

I have to wonder, once a person goes bankrupt, if they had health insurance to begin with. And once a person experiences medical bankruptcy, if the buying health insurance becomes more important, no matter the monthly costs, including paying premiums for a year and receiving nothing in return due to the pre-existing condition leading to the medical bankruptcy.

-This is again a case of trying. Also, pre-existing conditions could be regulated out via state or federal as stated above.

_____________________________________________________________


As stated before I do not have a problem helping people help themselves. I don't have a problem with "healthy" regulation on any given commerce.

I have also stated that if insurance is to be 100% it is a state issue not a federal. I object with every fiber in my being to requiring ANYTHING to be purchased to be a legal law abiding citizen of these United States!! Forced purchases are not what we should be standing for. Right now NOBODY has to buy ANYTHING to be a legal law abiding citizen!! We need to keep it this way!

Douglas Duprey
Marshfield, VT
-- Posted by Douglas Duprey on Tue, Jan 12, 2010, 7:20 pm EST

report this comment



I'm a single payer. And I pay quite a bit too. I don't know if being a married payer is any better either.
-- Posted by Olde Man on Tue, Jan 12, 2010, 6:57 pm EST

report this comment



@Jeff Andrews
I'm glad you've come to your senses. I am certain that if our founding fathers examined the modern situation closely that they would come to the conclusion that government intervention is the best solution. Basing modern policy on readings from hundreds of years ago is usually not the best idea. I'm ecstatic that you came around.

@AYK
I don't pay for cable TV as it is an extraneous expense when I could be saving money for more essential things than watching Glenn Beck. If you link to it then I might check it out sometime.
-- Posted by RGC None on Tue, Jan 12, 2010, 6:00 pm EST

report this comment



Glenn Beck has great program on right now on the UNIONS and corruption
-- Posted by Are you Kidding? on Tue, Jan 12, 2010, 5:15 pm EST

report this comment



RGC,

I just re-read your comments and you seem to be very certain that the founders "would approve government intervention" in the current debate.

Sorry I questioned your interpretation. My judgement was too clouded by historical readings from that era.

-
-- Posted by Jeff Andrews on Tue, Jan 12, 2010, 5:09 pm EST

report this comment



@Jeff Andrews
To argue that we know what our forefathers would say about any specific issue is preposterous. The same can be said about arguing that their stances on any particular issue is correct. Some of the founding father were slave owners, so should slavery have not been abolished despite the underlying right to liberty?

Viewpoints change over time, and the America of 1776 is not the same America as today. The underlying values and aspirations might be similar, but the federal government of then was in no position to help provide health care to all its citizens. It would have been illogical for a fledgling government to take on something as vast as health care.

I am not saying that I can see into the brains of our forefathers, or that I know what they thought. I am reading what they wrote and interpreting it as I see it applying to the modern day. The present is the sum of the past, the future builds off of the present, and the past tries to control the future. It's not your grandfather's world out there, wake up.
-- Posted by RGC None on Tue, Jan 12, 2010, 2:45 pm EST

report this comment



"But when it comes to health care or insurance or even taking a chance and going to ER, jsut pay teh ER bill, so what. It took me 2 yrs to pay one off, but i did, hospitals are more than reasonable and will work with anyone."

ARK: Did it ever occur to you the that the stupidity of having to pay off one visit to the ER for two years is insane? And what if that bill was more? It would be a lot more than two years and the payments would be more? What if you needed some major surgery above and beyond the ER? You got the cash on hand to pay for that for two, three, four, five years? Go for it, ARK. See you in your home on the streets.

" but a single payer plan only furhter damages the quality and speed of healthcare delivery."

Jeff, how do you know this? Provide proof. Medicare, for example, is a single-payer system and do you see the quality and speed of delivery going down? And, even if it does, it does not ration health care between those that have insurance and those that do not.
-- Posted by Watercloset on Tue, Jan 12, 2010, 1:16 pm EST

report this comment



Douglas Duprey: "I don't have a problem helping people. However, I refuse to give people 'anything' when they refuse to even try to take care of themselves. I used a real life issue to illustrate a problem. If people are trying and need help I am all for helping. If they are wasting their money and don't care about themselves to care for themselves why should anybody help? I am talking about people who have the capability to try, not children or other incapacitated people. . . . If people who are able to make a rational decision won't, then that is their problem. Let them go bankrupt, lose their toys and then hopefully they will learn. Our system allows for this."

Yow know, Doug, I do not see where I spun anything you wrote. Let me match up my statements with yours:

In you opinion, all people experiencing medical bankruptcy ("Let them go bankrupt, lose their toys and then hopefully they will learn.") are undeserving of receiving affordable health care because "they refuse to even try to take care of themselves." You seem impervious to seeing that some people have taken care of themselves well enough physically but still incur an unremitting expensive illness beyond medicine's current understanding in instructing people how to avert it. If your comment also refers to people taking care of themselves financially as well by buying health insurance (instead of toys), people would buy health insurance, in general, if the product was comprehensive enough (no big deductibles) and otherwise affordable in premiums in copayments. You do not want to mandate the purchasing of health insurance, rather, have people learn the hard way by going bankrupt.

I have to wonder, once a person goes bankrupt, if they had health insurance to begin with. And once a person experiences medical bankruptcy, if the buying health insurance becomes more important, no matter the monthly costs, including paying premiums for a year and receiving nothing in return due to the pre-existing condition leading to the medical bankruptcy.
-- Posted by Christina Colombe on Tue, Jan 12, 2010, 11:59 am EST

report this comment



RGC None,

You state: "In the Declaration of Independence, our forefathers made it clear that every American has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Good health is essential to life, and probably to liberty and the pursuit of happiness as well. Therefore, health care is a place where our forefathers would approve government intervention to save a failing system."

There may be viable arguments for government intervention into healthcare, But, to argue that our forefathers would even consider this as a task of the federal government is preposterous.

As a whole, the founders abhored large, concentrated power at the federal level (Hamilton being the possible exception). For example, it took until the last century for the Constitution to even be amended to allow for a federal income tax (interestingly, Vermont and most of the other New England states were holdouts from ratification).

When Jefferson wrote of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", he was making a natural rights argument. That is, these rights existed naturally from the creator in the absence of any government. Further, any government, properly constituted, should not impede on these rights.

Given the concentration of federal power and huge, confiscatory levels of taxation in the currently proposed healthcare bills in Congress, it's beyond doubtful that the founders would even consider the concept of such an undertaking.

-
-- Posted by Jeff Andrews on Tue, Jan 12, 2010, 11:31 am EST

report this comment



@AYK
When you end up with ten of thousands in hospital bills and you were already living with no discretionary income, how are you going to pay off that bill? You can sell your car and buy a cheaper used one, but then all of a sudden the engine conks out and you don't have a car, you still have thousands in hospital bills, and are still dirt broke.
-- Posted by RGC None on Tue, Jan 12, 2010, 12:09 am EST

report this comment



@Douglas Duprey
I'm not talking about government subsidized health insurance, I'm talking about government subsidized health care.

By your thinking you should only be buying what is absolutely necessary and forgoing anything extra like an automobile or eating out on the off-chance that something terrible happens to you and you rack up millions in medical bills. People should live their lives without the fear that an injury will soak up their retirement fund and leave them out to dry despite their years of hard work.

I am sorry, but if you can so easily throw out life and liberty, then I cannot respect your views on the constitution. Life and liberty are essential to the pursuit of happiness. The government should do whatever it reasonably can do to ensure that Americans have life and liberty with which to pursue what they want. I suppose by your logic the government shouldn't care about murder or slavery either since life and liberty cannot be completely "guaranteed" for every citizen. The impossibility of perfection is no excuse to not do your best.

I suppose you would have us do away with the USPS, VA, FAA, TSA, Highway Funding, Social Security, Medicare, and any other program that isn't specifically drawn out in the constitution (I'll give you a hint, none are). The fact is that the constitution is a flexible thing which is up for interpretation, and if the founding fathers had not wanted the federal government to have any power, then they would not have created the legislature.

I for one will always believe in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness being central pillars of american society. I am done debating interpretations of the constitution with people who are willing to throw any of those out the door.
-- Posted by RGC None on Tue, Jan 12, 2010, 12:03 am EST

report this comment



Christina Colombe,

Where do I say this? Show me. You try and spin what I say. It won't work. I said "If you need help fine, if you need help and are trying fine, if you need help because you choose to not try, then why should I or anybody else help you." No where did I say people deserve to be sick or that it is their fault!

Nor did I even comment on money. My comments were based on choices. Read what I write, don't spin it, don't read in between the lines, just what I write. You might open your mind and understand what I am saying.

Don't make any assumptions about what I know or don't know about medical conditions or the cost of medicine. I didn't even mention diet, smoking, etc. Get your facts straight. Just because I am not saying what you want to hear does not make me ignorant. However, it sure shows you in a bad light.

Douglas Duprey
Marshfield, VT
-- Posted by Douglas Duprey on Mon, Jan 11, 2010, 11:49 pm EST

report this comment



Doug Duprey, you are pretty ignorant of medical conditions and diseases to suppose that ALL people with high medical costs deserve what is coming to them due to poor diet, smoking, etc., OR that there are certain outrageously expensive conditions (made so in large part by Big Pharma) that anyone could afford to buy insurance AND afford the copayments and deductibles. Insurance may be affordable as far as premium (barely so for many), but if you use it, even once like the first poster stated, you pay for the care received for a long time to come.

Why does high medical usage always have to someone's fault, or the lack of affordability of such health care is always related to how many "toys" someone has?
-- Posted by Christina Colombe on Mon, Jan 11, 2010, 10:40 pm EST

report this comment



RGC None,
People can complain all they want. I don't care if they complain. You missed my point also. While health can be unpredictable, the foreword looking to its care shouldn't be. As you say a car isn't required to live. Yet, many people have no issue with a new car, truck, toy payment, while ignoring health insurance or health care in general. So yes, I have a problem with these people. I hope everybody never gets sick, I hope all live to a nice ripe old age.

As you say its about Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The pursuit being key, because nobody can guarantee Life, or Liberty. I do not believe our founding fathers would support this. Would our founding fathers support the equal ability to do business in all 50 states, I don't even think they would agree to that. Read the Constitution, the states have the ability to regulate many things. Mandatory insurance would cancel out the liberty part.

In fact, when the peace treaty was signed stopping the Revolutionary war, the King recognized that he was signing a peace treaty with 1 union and 13 sovereign states. I have compassion. If an individual sovereign state wants to cover 100% of its inhabitants, then it is within its powers. However, it is not within the Republic's power.

Douglas Duprey
Marshfield, VT
-- Posted by Douglas Duprey on Mon, Jan 11, 2010, 10:26 pm EST

report this comment



RGC - Precisely 'Thank you for comparing health insurance premiums to car insurance premiums, I'll be happy to tell you the difference. Everyone has a body and must worry about their health and receive care if they are seriously ill or injured, the other choice would be to die. Last I knew, cars, while nearly a necessity in a rural place like Vermont, are not something needed to live."

So why do people buy a new car & pay high payments (collision necessary) and dont sweat a bullet. $300-$400 mo at least

But when it comes to health care or insurance or even taking a chance and going to ER, jsut pay teh ER bill, so what. It took me 2 yrs to pay one off, but i did, hospitals are more than reasonable and will work with anyone.

But libs seem to think they can have what they want when they want it, leave healthcare bills for last & whine like a bunch of babies,
-- Posted by Are you Kidding? on Mon, Jan 11, 2010, 10:11 pm EST

report this comment



@AYK
Thank you for comparing health insurance premiums to car insurance premiums, I'll be happy to tell you the difference. Everyone has a body and must worry about their health and receive care if they are seriously ill or injured, the other choice would be to die. Last I knew, cars, while nearly a necessity in a rural place like Vermont, are not something needed to live.

In the Declaration of Independence, our forefathers made it clear that every American has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Good health is essential to life, and probably to liberty and the pursuit of happiness as well. Therefore, health care is a place where our forefathers would approve government intervention to save a failing system.

I for one wish good health on all, no matter their work ethic, and I do not see how any godly person can say to themselves that because a person is not holding down a steady job, that they do not deserve the guarantee that if they fall and break their leg, they will be cared for despite their inability to pay.

It astounds me to this day that conservatives are so adamantly against government supported health care when this is one of the few things which is clearly liscensed by the words of the founders of our country.

@Douglas Duprey
Are you saying that people are not entitled to complain about a system until they are swimming in debt with nothing left to their name and lying in a hospital bed with a terminal illness? Life is unpredictable, and while there are people who have unhealthy lifestyles (smoking is one which comes to mind which not only sucks income but also decays health), I don't believe that a bad financial decision should relegate a person to the curb in their time of greatest need. If you believe otherwise then please tell me why, I'm curious.

Have a heart, people.
-- Posted by RGC None on Mon, Jan 11, 2010, 9:36 pm EST

report this comment



Gov Sarah Palin is now on Fox News !!
Woohoo!
-- Posted by Are you Kidding? on Mon, Jan 11, 2010, 9:03 pm EST

report this comment



Healthcare and control and power grab and theft of our money--- all synonymous

Baning sugar, transfat, ban salt, ban cigarettes, but yet, the LIBS cant live without marijuana, there stuck in reefer madness and even argue for laws to allow medicinal use (just a stepping stone) for all the dopey liberals.
-- Posted by Are you Kidding? on Mon, Jan 11, 2010, 8:01 pm EST

report this comment



Many American have no problem spending $300month for new cars.
So at the very least perhaps if healthcare is sooooooooo important, people should consider a good used car, and spend $300mo onhealth insurance at the very least, and while hteyre at it, they could save on car insurance PREMIUMS which no one complains about paying (how come that isnt free and a right)

As far as I am concerned tooo many people have thier priorities screwed up, and wait for teh govt to bail them out with free healthcare, but pay more in carinsurance and new car premiums wihtout a flinch
-- Posted by Are you Kidding? on Mon, Jan 11, 2010, 7:58 pm EST

report this comment



Even with a filibuster proof majority the Democrats are making a bad system worse.
As the Democrats love the term historical it will certainly be used to describe the appalling bill the Senate has passed as one of the worst in our history.
In order to gain 60 votes the Democrats, behind closed doors, with payoffs and bribes with tax payer money and because they can't even agree among themselves (except to blame Republicans) have given up on any version of a public insurer while leaving everything else in place. The result makes no sense whatever. Rather than reform a failing system it subsidizes that system and compels all Americans to pay increasingly expensive premiums to the despised private insurance companies. In their frenzy to pass any health care bill they they have used smoke an mirrors as well as an absurd reduction in Medicare costs to explain the financing of a law that won't go into effect for four years.
That four years is the good news as even if it becomes law it will give genuine reformers time to reject this totally partisan ideologically driven disaster and repeal it and start over.
-- Posted by coydog on Mon, Jan 11, 2010, 1:02 pm EST

report this comment



Christina Colombe, I think you missed my point. I don't have a problem helping people. However, I refuse to give people "anything" when they refuse to even try to take care of themselves. I used a real life issue to illustrate a problem. If people are trying and need help I am all for helping. If they are wasting their money and don't care about themselves to care for themselves why should anybody help? I am talking about people who have the capability to try, not children or other incapacitated people.

You are just talking money. I am talking decision making. You nor I have right to anything except what is guaranteed us by God ( your God, my God, Or anybody else's God) and the Constitution of the USA and our state. If people who are able to make a rational decision won't, then that is their problem. Let them go bankrupt, lose their toys and then hopefully they will learn. Our system allows for this.

Vermont can pass a 100% healthcare bill and it could be legal. I really don't have a problem with the concept. Vermont is sovereign, as are all the other states. However, lets tax properly. Those who have a higher income should pay more. Lets tax according to true wealth, not what we are doing now.

Once people with all the "toys" figure out what it really is going to cost them in real taxes, perhaps they will figure out its cheaper to pay for their own health care. However, they probably won't. Once things start getting taxed properly, then people who really needed the help will get it.

(I don't proof read)

Douglas Duprey
Marshfield, VT
-- Posted by Douglas Duprey on Mon, Jan 11, 2010, 11:23 am EST

report this comment



james taylor -- man...! you "tupid" boy. . .!
-- Posted by Olde Man on Sun, Jan 10, 2010, 9:33 pm EST

report this comment



"I don't know enough or have enough discipline to save money as a reserve for a health plan deductible."

James, what part of this piece is it that you did not understand? Did you see the figures for health care deductibles? For premiums? Do you think you can save for that in today's economy, even if you do not have a flatscreen? I do not have a flatscreen, I do not even have a television. I do not own a house. I do not have an iphone. I have an ipod, but I got that off of e-bay for a ridiculously low price. I work two jobs. What part of having a to pay $400 a month for premiums, then thousands in deductibles do you not understand?
-- Posted by Watercloset on Sun, Jan 10, 2010, 6:18 pm EST

report this comment



james taylor, how many health plans out there have an annual out-of-pocket max? I think that is why there is such an increase in medical bankruptcy. You are familiar with that term, huh?

Hmmm, co-payments of 20% x 40,000 =$8000, and that excludes insurance premiums, deductibles. Need actual health care on top of that, well, whip out 20 percent after 20 percent after 20 percent. See a problem?

Oh yeah, as my conditions are pre-existing, I would have to fork over full payment for the first year. I could not earn enough to pay my medical bills, and I am not alone.

As far as grad school, I would have been working on that at least full time but would not have been considered an employee and would have exhausted student insurance in the first few weeks on the plan.

I am quite the frugal person, and started out with cash assets of 30K and about 5K in retirement. That is long gone.
-- Posted by Christina Colombe on Sun, Jan 10, 2010, 6:13 pm EST

report this comment



Help me! Save me my government! I don't know enough or have enough discipline to save money as a reserve for a health plan deductible. The demand of vacations, big screen TVs, IPods, etc is overwhelming me and only the government can save me. Let's go for the ultimate bailout via a malfunctioning public option health plan.
-- Posted by james taylor on Sun, Jan 10, 2010, 5:51 pm EST

report this comment



AYK, autoimmune is the body attacking itself.

And yes, while AIDS is an immunological disease, that is not what I have. They get raped on their medications as well, probably more so.

Cost of HIV medications per month:

http://aids.about.com/od/hivmedicationfactsheets/a/drugcost.htm
-- Posted by Christina Colombe on Sun, Jan 10, 2010, 4:55 pm EST

report this comment



Immunological diseases? Or HIV AIDS?

has anyone noticed how Obama has lifted teh 22yr ban on HIV people coming into our country to travel freely.
Did anyone happen to read the influx will be here to get free or reduced medical care for HIV AIDS, which is so expensive even for our citizens....well now they quietly lifted teh ban, then the hopes are to have new healthcare bill which cannot refuse pre existing ocnditions, which means, No one needing AIDS treatment in the world can be stopped from getting it here on our tax dollars. Gee what timing how convenient............Sneaky, always coming in the back door, what a coincidence? Watch Free Speech or Democracy now late night TV, the hosts say there is a huge rise in AIDS, but govt has been tryign to keep it quiet.
-- Posted by Are you Kidding? on Sun, Jan 10, 2010, 4:04 pm EST

report this comment



re: Drug 2 rant "stable price for a year"

Should have stated "stable price for about 6 months"

I pick up different amounts for that drug, so it harder to track. The price for 4 or 6 boxes is not a simple price proportion to the price for my standard 8 boxes, so I have less data to track for that one due to my refill preference.
-- Posted by Christina Colombe on Sun, Jan 10, 2010, 1:39 pm EST

report this comment



The biggest handout I see is to Big Pharma. Looking at my online health account, I have documented the escalation in price for two drugs for my autoimmune diseases. Hey Duprey and ML, yah got an answer for people avoiding for immunological diseases? From your perspective, it has to be SOMEONE'S fault.

Drug 1: 5/5/08: $5,568.05
8/19/08 $6,081.50
1/01/09 $6,623.30
1/02/10 $7,787.49

Tell me, why geniuses, why Drug 1, which has been around for about 10 years and has competing products, increased by a whopping $1200 (22%) in about a year and half? And drug 2, which has been around for greater than 15 years, should cost what it does? There are two recent competitors to Drug 2, are much cheaper, but I would have to practically set up camp in the bathroom to deal with the side effects.

Drug 2: 05/03/08: $2,177.54
01/07/09: $2,177.54
01/10/10: $2,530.10

Hmm.... stable price for a year and half but a 16% price jump just before federal health care reform passes. Coincidence, you say?

On top of the above price escalation data, my total drug bill for 2009 YTD: $41,467.50, about $1500 higher than the year before.

No meds for high blood pressure, cholesterol or other ills you can pin on poor eating, addictions, unsafe behaviors, etc.. I drive a 2000 model Honda. My monthly Internet and cable bill is about $60 total and dumping those would not do a thing to reduce my drug bills or come even close enabling me to pay my drug bills myself.

And I agree with Richard Davis: "Legislators keep telling us they need to hear these stories, but they've heard them all before." I was out there in 1998 and it made no difference in my life at all. I could not believe the system choses to sideline individuals over health matters. I had to give up grad school and any sort of personal advancement in order to get my medical needs taken care of. I am a case of utterly wasted human potential. How sad for the individuals and families having to become impoverished by their own illnesses, or that of a loved one. I have a friend whose wife works more than full time for an employer she has worked for for many years, and the pressures my friend's drug bills have made them poor enough to have to resort to getting food at the food shelf to make it through. The insurance for her employer is insufficient to cover her spouse's medical needs. She has been trying for the last two years to find another job, including becoming certified in another field, and no one will hire her as beginner in the new field. Suspected reason: her age (mid-50s).
-- Posted by Christina Colombe on Sun, Jan 10, 2010, 1:31 pm EST

report this comment



Thats just it douglas, they more you "offer" the more people will take, leaving only a very few to flip the bill. I know the current system does not best suit the consumer but a single payer plan only furhter damages the quality and speed of healthcare delivery. Lets be realistic and not emotional about this so that are kids are not left with a poor healthcare system and a huge debt as a result.

Save the IRAQ bs, thats not what we are talking about lefties.

ML
-- Posted by Jeff Perkins on Sun, Jan 10, 2010, 12:20 pm EST

report this comment



Whats is sad is people complain how much health care cost but still have internet, atv, snowmobiles, big TVs, cable, satellite, new car, or other extras. Yet, they don;t have money for their own well being.

I had a discussion with somebody I know the other day about health care and they said how expensive it was and they couldn't afford their insurance rates, then they went out and bought a brand new truck. They set their priorities and it was about handouts.

I have no problem with those who need help, I have a problem with those who don't and think they do.

Douglas Duprey
Marshfield, VT
-- Posted by Douglas Duprey on Sun, Jan 10, 2010, 11:06 am EST

report this comment



Yes...change would be good. I just got an increase of $120.00 per month to cover my three person family between medical and dental. I had an ER visit in November and because of the 5000.00 deductible, I'll be paying an additional monthly hospital bill (over and above my premium) of $50.00 per month for what....4 years? And...of course, no increase in pay this year due to the "economic crisis". So...not given anything to even remotely offset the insurance premium hike...My paycheck is $120.00 poorer each month, and I have and addition $50.00 outgo. So...My families budget spending was just reduced by $170.00 per month. In the middle of winter even.
Our family WILL NOT be going to the docs, or hospital for anything the coming years, unless it is life threatening. Heal thyself is our new moto....sad! Very sad!
-- Posted by Lori Renaud on Sun, Jan 10, 2010, 7:10 am EST

report this comment


You must be logged in to leave a comment. Register | Log In

Logout