WebMD Community Talk Show

I have to note that the article mentioned and discussed here made statements which shows a strong negative position on this ruling. Referrals to statements and positions made only by conservative Congressional members and Romney. Is this an example of 'Better information, Better health' ? Or is this position possibly influenced by the advertising of drug manufacturers and others on this site? I have used this site extensively in the past for what I believed to be 'Better information'. Now I plan to go back to the NIH and other sites that do not rely on such advertising, for information that may come from a more rounded view. It's a bit off subject, but this is the same SCOTUS that many were very happy with for their ruling as to unlimited corporate spending on campaigns. They based their ruling strictly on the rule of law; but now one ruling is okay and one is not? Same court, same methodology. It's a 'bad' ruling it's said; yet how would you feel if yourself or a loved one had their coverage denied because their insurance company wasn't making enough profit from that coverage? This plan is not perfect, but does address some very poor practices in health care. And it's interesting that we, along with only Mexico and Turkey, are the only industrialized countries without some form of universal health care. In 1999, we ranked 24th in the world for life expectancy; now we're 49th. Seems like the present system is not working too well...

Hmmm interesting because I buy private health care. I have been pricing to switch plans. Before the health care reform my policies for me and my children were HIGHER in cost and they implemented pre-existing clauses on my children who had minor health issues.
AFTER I priced again. The prices went down and they could no longer implement the pre-ex on my children.
There will be a variety of affordable plans to purchase as well as several catasophic plans they are not in any way going away. Anyone can still choose a plan it will actually offer more choices. ( I am licensed agent and have seen the new plans). Lots of choices , lots of good plans for lots of circumstances.
I am grandfathered in on an old plan I purchased. In comparing the new plans they are actually better and more cost effective for me and my children.
I do not see where there is any of the plan that "older folks" get the shaft on. Most of the good is for all.
Does it need tweeks? Absolutely. But I have been in the insurance industry many years and seen many new laws come in effect. They all get changed and tweeked as time goes on .
I feel it was absolutely necessary to have this law. I do not feel like it is the "doomsday" sky is falling, our country will fall apart law that certain groups are portraying.
Do you gripe about having to buy car insurance? Haven't heard many gripes. How about homeowners or flood insurance?
Isn't your body/health worth getting insurance for?
What many do not understand is how much we are already paying for those without insurance? Do you really think you are not paying for them? At least now if they have some type coverage it may drive our costs down. Premiums are made up of covering those uninsured as well. Now they will have to have coverage as well. We all need it at some point in our life.
But as I have heard those against it they only have blinders on to see one small part and not looking at the big picture.
I know even writing this I will not change any minds about it. I only know what I read, studied and what my personal experience has been thus far.

I am petrified until I know more. We self-pay and I am a cancer survior so I need decent insurance. An mri is almost $5000 and I have to pay 20% of that each year on top of my huge premiums.
I am scared rates will go up and where will the money come from? Food, gas, just living has skyrocketed so much I don't know where to cut from anymore.
Those who make the rules are covered by wonderful health plans and don't have to make decisions about health care or heat, etc each month.
I pray like crazy rates don't go up while services and co-pays/insurances continue to go down.

Amen to a very wide person!

It is not the governments job to force health insurance. This will make money for insurance companies, discourage people from entering a medical career, and worst of all, take lots of money out of our pockets to pay for more idiots to work for the federal government in areas they know nothing about. a very sad day for Americans!

Right on! This will mean less health care coverage for everyone, along with extremely high prices! This country is in a financial crises already; we can't afford this! Speak up to your congressmen & senators urging them to trash this idea...please for the good of our kids who will be payinf off all this debt!

yes, free health care is available to all; we already pay county taxes to provide this care!

You know it will be!

The existing condition part is the only good part of the whole bill. We pay county health system taxes to provide excellent health care for those without income or insurance. This will reduce health care for all, raise costs for all, and only help insurance companies and the new government workers that will be hired to handle this in Wash DC! It will NOT help 1 individual with healcare. Look at the damage thats been done and the cost of having Medicare for reference on the value of this idea.

Thank goodness states have that option; with federal money comes costly and limiting regulations.

Asolutely, anything our government does under the idea of "helping us" takes lots of money out of everyones pockets!

Well thought out and said!

What do I think? I think that anyone who makes a "carved in stone" declaration right now as to the postive or negative of this ruling would do better to give it a few days or longer to see how it plays out in reality. As of this moment, I don't think there is anyone who knows the full picture...Just lots of anticipation, fears and assumptions. Calm heads are needed in this poor 'ole world and it's about time we each do our part toward that effort.

Please, Mods, repost this question again in about a month or so... and then in a year...Let's see how it plays out over time. Okay?

Rachael

Government intrusion is almost ALWAYS BAD!

The ONLY good intrusive federal bill I can remember (I'm 63 YO) is when automobile exhaust systems were mandated to last a number of years. (When did you last have to have one replaced?)

When medical insurance is discussed, terminology/phrasing by some conveys the idea that medical insurance is a product to be purchased - if you qualify. Once purchased, it is just another monthly bill to be paid. When treatment is needed, there is often a co-payment.

And relief because the exorbitant amount is mostly "covered".

"Covered" by insurance...

If you asked all of your neighbors to help you with a bill, you'd know who to thank.

When participants of your health plan have THEIR premiums used to "cover" YOUR bill, you don't know them. And you are not inclined to thank anyone anyway because, after all, you paid your premium and co-payment.

Insurance means anonymity of those contributing.

BUT, THIRTY PERCENT of those premiums purchase NO TREATMENT or MEDICATION.

THIRTY PERCENT was used to run the insurance company, lobby Congress for mandated participation, pay huge executive salaries, develop convoluted exceptions regarding coverage, etc.

And what about doctors?

When was the last time you saw a doctor without at least two or three "assistants" having little or no medical training?

They are required to handle the complex insurance documentation.

Adding to the doctor's cost of doing business.

And, regardless of the economy, insurance executives and medical practitioners receive pay increases EVERY YEAR.

Why?

Because they are insulated from the principal of Supply and Demand!

Two better solutions:

1. SCRAP all medical insurance and require the withholding of Ten percent of workers' salaries to be deposited in the bank of their choice. Withdrawals ONLY allowed for medically-related payments. Upon passing, wills dictate what becomes of remaining balances. Shopping for one's own health care restores Supply / Demand market structure. And, not having insurance means there would be Greatly reduced insurance fraud.

O.K., insurance is so powerful that will never happen.

After all, Personal Responsibility would negate the slide into Socialism.

2. Expand Medicare to cover the majority of people. Medicare has no profit motive and about THREE percent overhead versus private insurance's THIRTY percent.

Consider that Hilary Clinton wanted health care reform and the insurance industry was firmly against it - so it went nowhere.

Obama wanted health care reform and the insurance industry was in favor - and it passed - by an "overwhelming" vote of 219 - 212.

Please remember that vote.
And, when you wake up to the fact that only insurance companies are benefiting, cast future election votes appropriately. We have no other tool for righting this wrong as the Supreme Court has ruled.

Do you think private insurance backed it for "the good of the people"?

Or did they back it because they can't wait to reap even more profit resulting from the mandate to buy or "be taxed"?

This Supreme Court decision will HAUNT us.

If you are young, there are only two viable long term vocations:

Government

Health Care

You just have to ignore documents from our Founding Fathers.

And check your morals at the door...

am 31 i am a single mother.i cant afford health insure for my self.its not right that they are going to fine you if you have none.so what buy insurance and be without food or a home.i make enough just to pay my bills.its not right.very upset