Wednesday, November 28, 2012

child support vs health insurance Which should be paid 1st

child support vs health insurance Which should be paid 1st?
My Ex Husband is 16 weeks late paying his child support but even being self employed and having to pay for health insurance 100% out of his own pocket (over $1000 a month!) he has chosen to keep his health insurance up to date (this policy covers our children as well as himself, his current wife and their 3 children) We also live in a state that requires you to have health insurance...BUT my question is would a judge think that paying child support a more important responsibility over keeping health insurance current?? Interested in other's thoughts?? I'd like to add that he is 16 weeks behind in his child support and we are in severe danger of losing our home...I guess I just always thought Food Shelter & Clothing were top priorities
Marriage & Divorce - 12 Answers

Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Health insurance first... If you don't have that heaven forbid something happens to your children and you have to pay that kinda of out of pocket expense. Its not just HIS health insurance he keeps up to date Its YOUR children, plus 3 other children. Be happy hes paying that at all.
2 :
Health insurance... In fact health insurance *counts as* child-support money and is subtracted off what he is suppose to pay. What he is paying for health-insurance is "reasonable" - that's what it cost in the US today. If you take this to court you will look like a greedy bitch. He still is suppose to pay and get caught up, but maintaining the health insurance is clearly important to the state since they mandated it.
3 :
In my state, insurance and child care payments are taken out in a lump child support payment, but they are separate from the actual child support. If he is in arrears for just the support, you can report him and enforcement will begin. But in my opinion, good insurance is more important
4 :
I would think that the insurance would be more important.
5 :
I would pay the health insurance. Because the minute your policy cancels is when something happens and your stuck with thousands of dollars owed to a hospital. And seeing that they live in a state requiring it, this bill comes first. Right now, a judge will probably just let him continue to fall behind in child support and possbily hand you his income tax. Be glad your kids have health insurance.
6 :
You don't get prosecuted or go to jail for missing health insurance premiums. Paying child support comes first -- if the premiums are such an issue, go to court and renegotiate support and insurance provisions. That sounds like such a criminal minded sociopathic psycho -- "Well, your Honor, I didn't pay the Child Support because I mismanaged my money to the point I couldn't pay the bills." That's what the court will see and think. 2nd wives are such enablers to evil. Oh babe, no need to pay Child Support -- the court will think it's cool just because you got the kids INSURANCE - piffle on a roof over their heads or FOOD. Paying your 1/2 for their care - aw shucks, no biggy if they lose that.
7 :
Health insurance is more important... I don't even have my ex cover my daughter's health insurance... I immediately took it upon myself to add her to my policy when she was born.... In turn, the courts decided to tack on $9/week into his child support to cover some of the premiums... Health insurance is ALWAYS a top priority to me... Other expenses can be adjusted if the economy is hurting him that much... My father is self-employed and hasn't paid himself in months in order to keep the business going and maintain employment for everyone that works for him... At the holidays they had the decison... A holiday bonus and he needs to lay someone off, or no bonus this year and everyone goes home with a job... They all rang in the new year happily employed... A tough economy hurts everyone so don't try to get blood from a stone right now... If his business collapses then you will see nothing for a long long time... Be patient, thankful for what you have, and adjust expenses to accomodate...
8 :
well obviously what i think has nothing to do with what a judge thinks. because i am not that person. but i would have to say no of course ive never been a huge fan of child support in many cases. but of course many cases i am as well.
9 :
That health insurance is very important. Unless you can cover your kids yourself, he needs to keep up the insurance, and you don't need to be that petty about your child support.
10 :
What good is health insurance if the kids aren't eating
11 :
im sorry.. but common sense says if the state requires you to have insurance then that comes first right????? Think about this... Child support can always be put in to arrears.. insurance cant.. if the policy is out of date NO ONE including your kids get covered... so would you rather have some child support and a medical bills you cant pay because your kids dont have insurance? Or your ex has crazy medical bills because no insurance and STILL cant pay child support? or know that if something happens to your kids they will be covered and eventually you may get more child support because it is in arrears? Its been 4 months since he paid child support, clearly you still have internet and a computer so you must be doing OK with out it for the moment... My thought would be keep the insurance up to date and have the child support go in to arrears... hes gotta pay it at some point...
12 :
Take him to court. The law will find for the original family....and tell him to make more money. It sounds brutal, but judges are tired of hearing that the second family needs things too. More than one has said "You should have thought of that before." Good luck with it.

Read more discussions :

Saturday, November 24, 2012

what did the iowa code (sj 978,2008) state pertaining to providing every child in iowa health care

what did the iowa code (sj 978,2008) state pertaining to providing every child in iowa health care?

Law & Ethics - 1 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Are you referring to Hawk-I? That is the state program dealing with uninsured children http://www.hawk-i.org/en_US/index.html

Read more discussions :

Tuesday, November 20, 2012

A father pays child support (Ca) and health ins. Mom applies for aid. Now father has lawsuit against him. help

A father pays child support (Ca) and health ins. Mom applies for aid. Now father has lawsuit against him. help?
This is a mess. The court is going after my husband because the mother applied for aid and recieved it. They also now want to raise his child support amount. The health insurance is overed under my employers plan but she went out and got medical for the daughter. I want to screem. No money left for lawyer because it has all been spent on child support. Any help appreciated.
Family - 2 Answers

Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
if you have a lawyer in the family, a friend thats a lawyer/has a lawyer in the family, a friendly lawyer in your town whos nice enough, or any connection whatsoever to a lawyer, USE IT try putting up signs asking for a lawyer ask all your friends if they know a lawyer/have one in the family spread the word around town ask for help in as many possible ways the most inexperienced lawyer could help you win this case
2 :
Obviously if mother had to apply for aid to support the child the child support wasn't enough. You say that health insurance is under your employers plan...is that for Primary or secondary because most often a step parent's health insurance would only count itself as secondary to a non-custodial step child and that could be why the mother got medical for her daughter, to cover the bulk of the costs. You chose to marry a man who had a child to support. That means that until the order of support runs out you and any family you have with this man will come in 2nd in the eyes of the law so you'd better get used to it now.

Read more discussions :

Friday, November 16, 2012

when i was a child i was diagnosed with adhd and when i turned 18 i didnt have health insurance so i stoped

when i was a child i was diagnosed with adhd and when i turned 18 i didnt have health insurance so i stoped?
going to appointments and just stoped everything. NOW 5 years later i have 2 kids and have been laid off job after job do to detail and proformance could anyone tell me what kind of doctor i should be looking for to regain my status as ADHD and get help!!!!!!!!!!!
Mental Health - 3 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
A neurologist. they're the ones who can screen and test for ADHD. Some psychiatrists can do it, but neurologists hold more clout. needless to say you're going to have to get back on your medications. Even being classified as ADHD does not guarantee that a job can keep you. It's not a disability, especially when you're doing nothing about it. Most pharmaceutical companies offer programs for discounted or low-cost medications. Just go to their websites (Phizer, Glaxo-Smithkline, Weyeth, Lilly, etc) and most have links on their main page for discounted prescriptions.
2 :
my husband and i both have adhd and are not treated but when we were we were seen by a psychologist they will be the one that matters with social security income if that's what you are going for
3 :
They tend to keep the label ADHD on you for life, but it is also looked at as a kid's problem. Try getting a job with health care, or going to a hospital that charges cheaply, or save up for an appoitment in the future. In reality, ADHD is not a disorder. It's just one more thing they are naming. They like to label people. ADHD is really just a boost of energy that makes you want to do a lot when you're a child. You don't necessarily have a deficit in attention. But everyone has a short attention span, especially kids, and every child has a lot of energy, so they should not label kids with that. They are on their way to labeling every child that's born with ADHD. There's no real need for an appointment. Just try to use your energy, and focus on what you're doing at the time, if the doctors say you still have it. Then, maybe the'll lift the label from you.

Read more discussions :

Monday, November 12, 2012

How to get health insurance for children

How to get health insurance for children.?
I'm trying to find info on c. Does anyone know how a father that is ordered to provide the health care for his child but does not have custody can apply for programs like CHIPS. No insurance is offered through his job and I'm not sure what programs he can apply for since the child does not live with him. We are in Texas. Any info would help. Btw the mother cant qualify because of the new husbands income.
Other - General Health Care - 3 Answers

Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Apply with the State SRS as the requirements for children are much less strict than an adult. The new husbands income should not apply to the children as He is not responsible for the children's medical expenses.
2 :
You can apply for a program like CHIPS in Texas but you may end up having to purchase a regular TX individual health insurance plan for the child. There is no requirement that the father would have to be on the plan in order for the child to be on the plan (although he really should have some form of health insurance coverage). Here is some more information on health insurance for children and also some info specifically on TX health insurance:
3 :
United Healthcare offers "kids only" health insurance plans that provide children's coverage for sickness and accidents. Their plans are written through school districts and many private K12 schools throughout the US. Their health plan (at just $98 every 2 months) is designed to be more affordable than an individual policy. Check out www.k12studentinsurance.com or www.covermykid.com to see if your child's school district or private school is participating. Click on the "Plans & Pricing" tab, enter the district name or private school name in the search box and review the plans. FYI - the Waco ISD is participating with United Healthcare's k12studentinsurance.com plan.

Read more discussions :

Thursday, November 8, 2012

Why are people for this bill about children's health care

Why are people for this bill about children's health care?
Okay, I see post after post asking why Bush hates children. So I'm wondering why people are for taxing the poor since they are usually the ones who smoke to pay for health care for children whose parents make up to 83 thousand and for "children" who are 25. Isn't that like robbing the poor to give to middle class? There is already a program that handles child's healthcare. Bush agreed to give more funds to this program, just not the amount Dem's are asking You are basing your question on lies and twists. Since facts are easy to find these days, do people not realize how that makes them look when they fib and then can't back up what they say? EDIT: Nice twist ideogene, attack the person, not the question. Like you know the first thing about me. Now can you answer the question? It is a fact that most smokers are POOR, and this tax would help people making 83 thousand. Is that poor in your opinion EDIT: Nice twist ideogene, attack the person, not the question. Like you know the first thing about me. Now can you answer the question? It is a fact that most smokers are POOR, and this tax would help people making 83 thousand. Is that poor in your opinion JIM1970 "darling" I said majority..not all. Why has misquoting become so popular these days? Please show me where it s Since you can't do your own research, I'll help you. But all you have to do is look at the bill to know it's trash. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071003/ap_on_go_pr_wh/children_s_health_glance;_ylt=AoPg9ycMe9NLeeIE6CVJfKSyFz4D Poor kids first," Bush said later in explaining his decision, reflecting a concern that some of the bill's benefits would go to families at higher incomes. "Secondly, I believe in private medicine, not the federal government running the health care system," he added in remarks to an audience in Lancaster, Pa. The president said he is willing to compromise with Congress "if they need a little more money in the bill to help us meet the objective of getting help for poor children." http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071004/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_children_s_health;_ylt=AqrLw5ba6yPm5Fmqy4LzHQiyFz4D I don't know why I bother, you're not going to read All the people comparing it to the war. It is governments job to provide defense. Please show me where it says it is government's job to furnish health care to anyone who doesn't want to pay for it. I'm all for helping poor children, but this bill is B/S. WWD: I agree with you on the child with illness. There should and must be a program to help the family. I don't believe Bush said they shouldn't. Your arguement about smoking. I am an ex smoker and I know personally how hard it is to quit. I really don't believe that many will stop smoking because of this program. I used to say I'd quit when they were more than a dollar a pack, at 3 dollars I was still smoking. The program that exists does need more funding but not at the cost and age bracket that the dem's are suggesting and not at the cost of ONE group of people.
Politics - 12 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
a community that does not care about the health of its children is doomed to extinction
2 :
People don't have to smoke..it's a choice...The amount that Bush agreed to give to the program would not even cover the people currently in the program.
3 :
I'm a smoker. i can quit if it gets too expensive. i wouldn't mind paying an additional 61 cents for my pack if i knew the money was going to poor kids that need health care. why are you and Bush against raising taxes on a LUXURY item to pay for a basic need?
4 :
What do you have against children anyway?
5 :
Your right, there are a lot of problems with the bill. I think people claiming that Bush hates children are trolling, and really shouldn't be taken too seriously. Generally, if someone responds to, or posts, a message thats only one sentence long and inflamatory, they should probably be ignored :P
6 :
You are absolutely right on all counts. But the most sinister aspect of all this is that it's a step toward socialized health care. This was never about taking care of kids. It's about the feds taking control of your health care.
7 :
Darling, you can't back up what you say...... I come from a high income bracket and I know several people who smoke. The program that handles children's health care sucks..... You are basing your statements on conservative crap and Fox news. Bush wants another $189 billion dollars for his war.....and he won't insure our nations children. NOT EVERYCHILD IS INSURED....I don't know where people get that crap.
8 :
The dems are hopping that another lie will stick. They live in a fantasy world where they just take what their leaders tell them for granted. They are either too naÃ¯ve, to hateful, or too lazy to want to know the truth. Youâ€™re absolutely right that today nothing has to be a secrete. They just donâ€™t care!
9 :
I agree with you. The tobacco tax is one of the most regressive taxes that we have. There are two issues here. The first is: Is the program worthwhile? I think it is not. I agree that we should cover health insurance for poor children. This is an expansion of a benefit designed for poor children to include middle class and upper middle class individuals. Thus, the net effect is, as you accurately state, to tax the poor to pay for middle class health benefits. If the program is worthwhile, why would we pay for it with tobacco taxes? The only answer that I can find to that is that it is politically expedient. Smokers are a targeted class with little political voice. If the program is socially responsible then it should be funded with income taxes that do not single out a small segment of society to pay for it. PS I disagree with the war spending also but one does not justify the other. We cannot afford either one right now. Lets balance the budget first.
10 :
It does not take a village to raise a child. It takes two dedicated parents, optimally, and 4 grandparents, hopefully. Now with that said. I want to know where I should have to pay taxes for someone elses children? (Socialized Health care stinks!) We are already paying for poor children. As a nurse, I can tell you no child is ever turned away from a hospital. And that is the truth. Did you know that we will even help poor people apply for help? And if your income is too high, you can send as little as $5.00 a month to pay your bill? (Don't tell them I told you though ;)) The SCHIP was a farce and we should not have to pay for something written in those terms. How many people were for it and never read it? And over 18 you are an adult!
11 :
Liberals won't be happy with health care until they have completely turned this country into a communist Hell hole where sure, health care is free and all, you just have to wait a year before a doctor treats you (when you might be dead by then). It's so easy to sway peoples' opinion by telling everyone, "Hey, the President doesn't want to pay for your child's health care!" Nobody realizes its not money out of HIS pocket, its money out of mine and yours. I'm having a hard enough time paying for health care for my own family because I pay into a system that not ONLY takes care of the poor, but also the fat, lazy, and incompetent too. That's not because of George Bush, that's because of the libs, who feel they can spend our money better than we can, hence, we shouldn't have any, THEY should have it all. Party for the poor? I think not. Their ideals are as communist as they come. Here's an example, take New Orleans. Every liberal thinks if we just let THEM run America, it'd be a paradise with no hatred and no pains and struggles. Well no place in America should have been more of a eutopia then New Orleans, since it's been such a liberal strong hold, and what was it like before Katrina? A smelling, crime-ridden hole in the ground, that's what. The Democrats were in power there, so why were so many people homeless and in poverty? Then a hurricane hits and no one on the left can blame Bush fast enough. Whining and crying, "Where's Bush? Where's ferderal relief?" when at any other time, they complain that, "Oh my God! He's consolidating his power!" The point is, we as individual Americans have a responsibility to provide for ourselves. If we want to provide for the poor, let's define poor, because I'm tired of lazy oafs being lumped into the mix because they won't work.
12 :
It's normal for there to be more heat that light generated by these things, and I'd hope they can come up with a compromise. SCHIP is, after all, a Republican program. But before you get too smug about your position, I'd like you to consider the family in which both parents make $40k, and they're trying to put through school a child with a chronic illness whose health care costs are thousands of dollars every month. Private insurance is not an option, and other programs like Medicaid are out because of eligibility rules. Surely something should be available. Also consider that cigaret taxes don't only provide income, they also change behavior, and some of those poor smokers will quit smoking, and have better health themselves, if the tax rate is increased. Polarization is entertaining, but in this as in so many other areas, wouldn't it be better to get past the slogans and have a civil discussion of problems and potential solutions?

Read more discussions :

Sunday, November 4, 2012

My ex-wife has contacted the DHS even though I pay child support and provide health insurance for my kids

My ex-wife has contacted the DHS even though I pay child support and provide health insurance for my kids?
I got a message from my ex-wife that she needs a letter from me stating how much I pay in child support so that she and the kids can get Tenncare. She is telling me that she "had to agree to let them go after me for health insurance on the kids", but that it should not matter since I already provide it. I am getting the feeling that she is trying to pull a fast one. If I already have court-ordered child support in place, can the DHC just change the amount without a hearing or without me being there? I am currently deployed to Iraq at the moment, and will not be home for a few more months.
Marriage & Divorce - 5 Answers

Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Don't give her anything. If you already have a child support order in place, and you already have health insurance for the kids you don't have to do anything more. Don't send her a letter for anything because she is trying to go against the court order. Also don't sign anything unless you bring it to your lawyer first, and your lawyer says it's ok to sign. She is trying to pull a fast one one you, and it's a real shame that she is taking advantage of you while you are in Iraq. Don't pay her any mind, and continue doing things as the court order states
2 :
The kids are military kids, they are covered. Why on earth would she need Tenncare???? She can show her divorce decree showing how much she receives in child support monthly. I'm sure there is other proof of child support payments (i.e. bank statements - direct deposit or copies of checks, etc.). It's her problem, let her figure it out until you return. The kids are covered. She just needs to get to the military base for their care, if it's an emergency you can go to any hospital.
3 :
I agree with the other two. Keep all information to yourself and if there is already a court order in place then nothing can happen without a hearing. They won't have a hearing if you aren't in the country. If you're still not sure what to do, consult an attorney or one you may have used for your first court order. Good Luck with this and with your deployment. God Bless
4 :
OK I was in the same boat guy so first of all i feel for you. DHS does require a letter stating how much you make. The reason is to determine the amount of medical coverage children can receive. being you are in the military and deployed I would highly recommend that you send the information to your ex as it will be a lot easier for her to have the additional medical off post as well as on post. The kids are the most important thing here always remember that. Only send your ex what information she needs and try if you can not to give to much but remember also you were married and she probably all ready knows a lot of the information needed and would have got you all ready. Good luck God Bless and stay safe.
5 :
I would contact your lawyer and get legal advice that way, rather than through these boards. This is serious and could get ugly fast.

Read more discussions :

Thursday, November 1, 2012

Why do liberals want to deny health care to the elderly

Why do liberals want to deny health care to the elderly?
OK, now that I have your attention I will ask a question about national health insurance in the US. (I am tired of seeing questions like "why do conservatives want to deny poor children health insurance, and for once I decided to respond in kind, to illustrate the absurdity.) We know from experience in other countries that government control of health care results in rationing to save costs, and the waiting periods and "triage" that goes with it. Many times, procedures are not performed on patients because of their age. Even if one company does this in the US, there's an ability to "shop" for different insurance providers. If the government ran it, there's only one game in town. Shouldn't we "fix" the health insurance system by REMOVING some of the distortion resulting from existing government regulation, rather than make it worse? Nost importantly, what's YOUR solution? Thanks. Many good answers. Again, I apologize for the "headline," but sometimes that's the only way to get responses.
Other - Politics & Government - 9 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
If it iis free regardless of the over all poor quality and lack of skilled doctors they'll take it. They will punish the entire country by lower medical standards, to wit the good doctors will go to countries that pay and our new doctors will be whats left.
2 :
You have to realize that with private health insurance now, people are denied treatment for a lot of things and they are denied treatment by the doctor they would want. It's not called rationing, but how different is it? Right now, we have national health insurance for the elderly - it is called medicare. Elderly patients are not denied treatment for their age. In fact, this is one of the biggest and costliest economic problems - they aren't denied coverage. Typically, of the entire lifetime cost of a person's healthcare, most of it is spent in the last few months of your life. This is done to give you an extra few months. It is kind of stupid. You deny coverage when a person is young and treatment can have a significant effect on the quality of thier life and have limitless treatment when they are about to die. Really, the solution to most of the cost of healthcare is to give MORE treatment to younger people and less treatment to terminal, dying patients. It's a tough decision and I don't know how you enact it I think it requires people to take a realistic look at things.
3 :
The problem is that much of the regulations have been removed and the drug and insurance companies have the ability to deny services and charge huge prices for their products. We need a basic system where those that cannot afford insurance can still get aid. We also need to be able to bargain with the drug companies instead of allowing them to charge whatever they wish. I want the same health care system that Congress has. That would be ideal but as long as politicians are in the back pocket of the corporations we will get more of the same inadequate services.
4 :
The major distortion in the health care industry today is not government regulation, it's the insurance industry. They exist to make a profit, and making a profit requires denying claims as often as possible. This causes hospitals to charge excessive prices to everyone so that they can break even after half of them are denied. I don't necessarily subscribe to universal health care, but I do subscribe to universal health insurance. The Medicare system works very well, at an administrative cost of only 2 to 3 %. If we extended Medicare to all citizens, it would level the playing field a lot. People could opt out if they wanted to, and rejoin when they wanted to. This will, of course, never happen because the insurance companies contribute major campaign funding to all candidates.
5 :
We also know that government control of health care results in EVERYONE having health care. The system is places like Canada and Britain is not as broken as we pretend it is. EVERYONE gets health benefits. EVERYONE is taken care of for their most basic needs. And if you want to pay more for better service, you can, and people there do. I challenge you to show that the elderly are not taken care of in countries like these. It simply isn't true. Meanwhile, the "why do conservatives deny poor children insurance" argument is actually pretty sound. Millions of people, including children AND the elderly, do not have health insurance in our country. MILLIONS! And it is not because of government regulations. It is because it costs lots of money to have insurance and they cannot afford it. Seems to me that universal health care sponsored by the government is a MUST. The alternative is millions of children AND elderly people not getting the help they need. Health insurance companies only care about profits in our system. They are not going to help those in need without government sponsorhip or legal obligation. The past 50 years has proven that to be a fact.
6 :
You're partly correct. There's no question socialized health care has its drawbacks. The "allure" in the US comes simply from the fact that our system of health care is obviously broken--and since there is,as yet, no seriousl effort by policy makers to really address the problems, a lot of people are looking for alternatives on the theory that anything would be better than the mess we have. And--the cold hard truth is that some of the socialized systems are working better than US health care right now. I'm not in favor of government control of helalth care, etither--just point out the realities. BUT--you are off base in simply saying "get rid of regulations." That won't solve the problems. We do need the removal of some bureaucratic rules/regulations/red tape. But--we also have to have sensible regulation. To take a simple example: should a doctor or an insurance accountant make life-and -death decisions about medical care for a patient? The reality is that you need rules to guide policy--and those rules have to be effective and well thought out. As for solutions" first of all, we need comprehensive reform--and it needs to be drastic. That DOES NOT mean moving to socialized medicine. Here are some areas that badly need addressing: >tort reform to rein in inappropriate malpractice cases/awards >Reform the Medicare/medicaid system to allow "Independant Living" as a option (this one change woudl improve care fro the elderly, and save a minimum of $50-100 BILLLION annually) >Restore the FDA's authority to regulate new/existing medications (as it stands they are a paper tiger). >Restore public health services. Many peopledon't like te idea of "spending taxpayer money" on clinics, etc. for the poor. So what we've got is emergency rooms trying to provide care--at two or three times the cost. And, since lower-income groups are also getting less health education as a result of current policies, the need for medical care--and the cost of providing it--is going through the roof. Not providing such public health services, in short, costs more in the long run than providing them >We have to sit down ant think about how to make private health insurance affordable--either that or work out some way employers can afford to provide it. Right now, that issue isn't being seriously addressed. You'll note that what I've suggested involves a mix of both public and private health care. That's vital--you cannot have access to health care for everyone purely on a private sector system. And the only other alternative is government-controlled health care. As I said--extensive reforms are absolutely necessary. And--if they are not forthcoming soon, the demand for SOME sort of change will become overwhelming. Andthat will lead only to socialized medicine. We either fix the system--and I mean real changes, not "get rid of some regulations" or other half-measures--or we end up handing the whole thing over to the government. Take your pick.
7 :
No group who genuinely wants to reduce health care and make it affordable, would support the largest negative factor, causing the most harm- trial lawyers. Michael Moore gave the trial lawyers (partners in socialism) a pass, in Sicko, what does that tell you? The people who cry about evil drug companies and evil insurance comapny, support trial lawyers. Instead of exploiting people who suffer (liberals primary targets) a positive solution would be to stop personal injury attorneys from profiting on 30% - 40% contingency fees, from frivolous law suits. The USA is the only country who allows the loser, in a law suit, to be not repsonsible for the legal expenses, the innocent party incurs, defending themselves from these ridiculous law suits. No wonder, health care costs are a bigger problem in the US than countries who don't allow trial lawyers from terrorizing our way of life.
8 :
Very good answers. I am impressed. My solution would be to end capitalism when it comes to health care. Law suits drive up doctor and hospital costs. A panel set up in every state to decide if a lawsuit has merit or not and set ranges for payment if they do, would be a good start. Paying 6 or 7 dollars for a couple of Tylenol is ridiculous as are most hospital charges. Ever wonder why hospitals have an office designated only to take care of disputed bills? Doctors that demand you come in every few months to continue getting meds for high blood pressure are just wanting the office visit money. Taking a blood sample every 3 months to check blood sugar when you are checking it yourself is just a money making scheme. I don't mind doctors making a good living, they deserve, it but running people through like cattle is over the top. If they stopped this practice we wouldn't have to wait an hour to see one. Dentists that want to do an xray every other visit is the same thing .Everyone should be able to afford insurance. Even companies that provide group rates pay way too much which causes lower wages. A lot don't know it, but the workers 150 dollars a month for health insurance is a lot less than the companies share of it.
9 :
Well, you're wrong when you say that other countries have miserable healthcare. I have many friends in Europe and Canada who have zero complaints about their system, except for the magazines they have in the waiting room. I wish that was my only complaint for our healthcare system. That whole concept about these countries being unhappy is just propaganda from the US health insurance companies. Try talking to people that utilize the national healthcare in Canada, UK, France, etc.. You'll find that most citizens are very satisfied knowing that when they get sick, they get cured. Money is irrelevant. Isn't it materialistic and down right evil to put $ over the well being of humans. I don't get how people can argue anti-abortion/pro-life and then tell a 9 year old girl "tough luck" because her parents can't afford the required operation to keep her alive. Sometimes, I'm ashamed to be an American citizen where we hold $ higher then human life and well being.

Read more discussions :