New Health Plan Questions

[Jeff G]

Hopefully they will stick the public option in there before they send it back .

[Hellraiser]

I'm confused by all of this.  Is someone who is on medicare against socialized medicine?

[Dachshund]

Nah, that just doesn't seem like it's personal enough. And for your friend the bill didn't get passed back then and it's not over with yet.

Put on your best dress Mary, we'll have a tea party. Oh, and you're welcome.

[Dachshund]

Senate just passed reconciliation 56-43 and the bill returns to the house to be voted on around 7:00 pm. Healthcare here we come!

[Jeff G]

Put on your best dress Mary, we'll have a tea party. Oh, and you're welcome.

I do hope you are talking about a proper Tea party . Those Tea Bagging Republicans have turned something wholesome like a hot hairy nut sack dangling in my upturned face into something ghastly . 

[Miss Philicia]

It's dead in the water I tell ya!  N'obama is a miserable failure, as is Pelosi!

[azprince]

It's dead in the water I tell ya!  N'obama is a miserable failure, as is Pelosi!

I smell tea bags 

[Miss Philicia]

I smell tea bags 

You're soaking in it, Madge!

[Miss Philicia]

MSNBC BREAKING NEWS: Reconciliation just passed in the house 220-207

This legislation is now complete.

[Assurbanipal]

This legislation is now complete.

NAWwww

This legislation is now ready to be signed into law and set the floor for  vast ongoingimprovements in access to health care for all Americans!  With this legislation as a base we have taken a solid first step.

And here's to many more!

[metekrop]

Most of the provisions in the bill won't take effect until 2014.

What do you mean?  Should people keep on dying up to the year 2014.  It will be effected in the coming 10 - 15 days.  It is the question of servival.

[Florida69]

I thought this was pretty informative.... made sense to me..

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/03/24/health.care.viewer.faqs/index.html?hpt=C1



CNN) -- With the passage of the health care reform bill, CNN has been flooded with viewer questions about specifics of the measure and how their lives may be affected. In response, we're providing answers here, based on our reporting research, that address some of the issues you're raising most often. Got another question? E-mail us at healthcare@cnn.com.

Question: Would you please check and report on this "doctors fix" part of the bill? Is it a part of this new bill, and if so, did the [Congressional Budget Office] score it against the deficit? I heard that it will be part of this bill and that it wasn't scored by the CBO, and if it had been scored that the CBO would have shown this to add to the deficit. I want what is in this bill, but I'm concerned that the country can't or won't be able to afford it down the road. Asking you to keep them honest!

Answer: The "doctors fix" (which would eliminate years of scheduled pay cuts for Medicare doctors) is not in the final health care plan. It was in the House bill but was dropped when Democrats decided to move forward with the Senate version instead. Your deficit concerns are still appropriate, though. Doctors' groups expect a separate bill dealing with this issue, and Democrats passed language in their "pay-go" measure allowing them to borrow money to pay for the "doc fix." It will be hundreds of billions of dollars.

Question: Health care for all is a necessity, and it's a noble goal, but the current process leaves much to be desired. By many estimates, there are 48 million without insurance. This plan covers 32 million. What happens to the remaining 16 million? They will still need and get health care, somewhere. They can not be turned away by hospitals under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, passed by the same elected people who are now saying that these people are not eligible to be covered under health care reform.

Answer: You're right, the health bill is forecast to bring health insurance to 32 million more Americans than now (by 2019). But your second number may be off. The Congressional Budget office thinks that by 2019, there will be 23 million people without health insurance (instead of 16). What happens to them? A significant amount of them will be illegal/undocumented immigrants who, under the Senate bill, cannot buy insurance in the main market, even with their own money. You are right that this group may raise further health care questions.
Go here, page 7, for more information.

Question: If this is going to help us get cheap insurance, why do we have to wait four years? We will be broke because the insurance companies will raise all of our rates.

Answer: The health care plan sets up a high-risk pool for people who can't get or have high-cost insurance now (for various reasons) and who can't wait for the plan to fully kick in. The idea is to significantly cut costs for groups that face the highest rates and most trouble getting insurance. But it's temporary, lasting only until the broader reforms start in 2014.

Question: The Constitution says the federal government is not supposed to meddle in state business. If a state opts not to accept this health care bill, can the feds force me as an individual to get insurance?

Answer: No one may have the answer to this question yet. Attorneys general from 14 states are preparing to sue the federal government precisely over this issue. Those states are Alabama, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia and Washington.

Question: Could you give me an outline showing a timeline or date grid explaining what laws take effect on what dates? My wife has a pre-existing condition, and we pay a huge amount for her coverage. I'm wondering how soon we can apply for coverage from another company and not get rejected. Time is running out on us -- financially.

Answer: Many parts of the bill go into effect at different times. The new insurance "exchanges" and individual mandate, for example, start in 2014. And unfortunately for you, insurers can continue to exclude or charge higher rates for adults because of pre-existing conditions until 2014. There is some potential help for your family, though. This bill sets up a "high-risk" pool for people like your wife who have difficulty getting reasonably-priced (or any) health insurance. That should be set up in coming months. Start by calling the Department of Health and Human Services. And here's a timeline outlining when measures will come into effect.

Question: Can you explain whether the elimination of lifetime caps under the new health care bill applies to existing policy-holders as well as new insurance sign-ups?

Answer: Yes, within six months, the private insurance plans will have to stop some practices, such as setting lifetime limits on coverage and canceling policy-holders who get sick, on all new policies and current policies.

Question: I have been watching all of the debating. I still cannot figure out, what does this mean to me? I'm an unemployed 56-year-old. Lost my health care. Cannot afford COBRA. Now, what is there for me? I have a daughter in college. My insurance company refused to pay for therapy on my knees, calling it pre-existing. My unemployment just ran out. Now what?

Answer: When the insurance exchange opens, as required by the health care bill, people who are self-employed or whose employers don't offer coverage can purchase a plan. If you lost a job, you could get insurance through this new marketplace. Also, once this exchange opens, private insurers will no longer be able to turn away people with medical problems or charge them more. Individuals would be required to purchase coverage or face a fine of up to $695 or 2.5 percent of income, whichever is greater, starting in 2016. The plan includes a hardship exemption for poorer Americans. Exemptions will be granted for financial hardship, those for whom the lowest-cost option exceeds 8 percent of an individual's income and those with incomes below the tax filing threshold (in 2009, the threshold for taxpayers under age 65 was $9,350 for singles and $18,700 for couples).

Question: What happens to the cost of insurance to the company that is providing the insurance to the employee? Is there a set amount or percentage of the total premium that the employer is required to pay? Will it change the mix that already exists between employer and employee responsibility?

Answer: By no later than 2014, states will have to set up Small Business Health Options Programs, or SHOP exchanges, in which small businesses will be able to pool together to buy insurance. Small businesses are defined as those with no more than 100 employees, though states have the option of limiting pools to companies with 50 or fewer employees through 2016; companies that grow beyond the size limit will also be grandfathered in. But until the SHOP exchanges are set up, there will be a tax break for small businesses that goes into effect right away: Tax credits of 35 percent to 50 percent of premiums will be available to small businesses that offer coverage.

Question: I am living with HIV and cannot get health care coverage. If this reform passes, how long before I am able to get coverage?

Answer: By 2014, that there would be no discrimination based on pre-existing conditions. You could not be denied based on an infection or some sort of pre-existing illness. That's four years away, though.

Question: What will happen when there are not enough doctors to oblige all the patients?

Last year, the American Academy of Family Physicians predicted a shortfall of 40,000 primary care doctors, and that was before the signing of the health care bill. That will put another 32 million people into the system -- with a promise of free preventive care -- and insurance to pay for regular doctor visits. Some physicians have expressed concern about this. Patients could see increased wait times, as in Massachusetts, where since "RomneyCare" went into effect, residents wait an 10 extra days to see the doctor. But others say the bill will help create more community health centers, so primary care can happen at these centers instead of expensive emergency rooms

Question: Isn't defensive medicine a big factor leading to overtreatment both at the beginning and at the end of life?

Answer: A recent Gallup Poll found that nine in 10 doctors admit having practiced defensive medicine at some time during their career. Some estimates put the cost at hundreds of billions of dollars in a year. If you look at all the lawsuits, there are about a million people who claim some sort of harm in any given year. But only about 11,000 lawsuits are actually paid out. Medical malpractice represents really only about 2 percent of the health care budget.

Question: Is there anything in the bill about rationing health care?

Answer: No one is using the term "rationing" as part of the bill. But there is a term called comparative effectiveness. And that's this idea that we figure out what works in medicine and make sure to pay for those things. This also means that there are a lot of things being done right now where there's not scientific proof that it works and maybe those things won't get paid any more. Some people call that rationing. Other people say, look, rationing exists under the current system. It's just that the insurance companies are essentially rationing by denying payment or dropping people off their coverage.

Question: I recently had to go to the ER for a rash. I had a $100 co-pay. If the new health care bill passes, would the co-pays for ER visits go down?

Answer: Not necessarily. In 2014, you will be able to buy a standardized health plan through a state-based exchange, with tiers of benefit packages available, if you do not have insurance through your employer, Medicare or Medicaid. You will be able to choose whether you want a plan with a higher premium and lower cost-sharing or a lower premium and higher cost-sharing. It will be very clear what the responsibilities will be for co-pays. Also, through the exchanges, there will be two multistate private plans under contract with the federal government, one of which must be nonprofit. But none of this means that your co-pays for ER visits will necessarily go down.

Question: I am on a Blue Cross Blue Shield PPO plan where I pay $252 now. It has been increasing every year, and I may have been to the doctor probably once or twice a year for physical. I do not smoke and am in perfect health, but every year for some reason, my they keep raising my insurance costs. With the new reform, are they going to have some checks and balance on these companies, who before did not have to answer to anyone? Or can I change my insurance to a government-run cheaper insurance?

Answer: Beginning in 2011, companies that spend more than a specified portion of premiums on administrative costs and profits must give a rebate to enrollees. In other words, large insurance companies will need to give rebates if they spend less than 85 percent of money from enrollees on medical costs. In the individual market, that figure is 80 percent. Also, the health care exchanges could reject premium increases that insurers propose if they think they are too high.

In 2014, on the individual market, you can buy your own insurance through the exchanges if you do not have health insurance through your employer, or through Medicare or Medicaid. These exchanges are supposed to provide plans that are as good as employer-based plans, which generally have good benefits. If you do have employer-based coverage, however, and don't spend more than 9.5 percent of your income on premiums and the plan covers at least 60 percent of medical costs, you are not eligible for premium subsidies. But if your employer-based coverage does not meet this standard, you will be able to get insurance through the exchange, and your employer is required to pay a penalty.

Question: Over 30 million couples suffer from infertility in the United States. Most insurers will not cover this problem. Will the new bill finally address this as a significant health problem?

Answer: There is nothing in the bill regarding this issue. One benefit is that insurance companies cannot deny coverage to couples who suffer from infertility because it was deemed a pre-existing condition. However, in terms of covering infertility treatments or in-vitro fertilization, none of that is made mandatory under the bill for insurance companies.

Question: Is there any provision for a part-time employee getting health insurance from their employer under the new health care bill?

Answer: It's not in the employer responsibility provision to offer health insurance to their part-time employees under the new law.

However, employers who have more than 50 full-time employees are required by 2014 to offer coverage to employees or pay a $2,000 penalty per employee after their first 30 if at least one of their employees receives a tax credit.

[Inchlingblue]

Question: I am living with HIV and cannot get health care coverage. If this reform passes, how long before I am able to get coverage?

Answer: By 2014, that there would be no discrimination based on pre-existing conditions. You could not be denied based on an infection or some sort of pre-existing illness. That's four years away, though.
 

I wonder why they did not mention the high risk pools for this person? Isn't that an option for someone with HIV without insurance?

[ATorrez]

Not all states have high risk plans. A few years ago, I was planning to move to Nevada and I was unable to secure a job before moving there. I looked to see if they had a high risk plan in the event I couldn't find a job before getting out, but they didn't have one.

I ended up not moving, because there just are not that many jobs out in Nevada in my field. I could have moved to Utah, but I can't stand Mormons.

[Inchlingblue]

Not all states have high risk plans. A few years ago, I was planning to move to Nevada and I was unable to secure a job before moving there. I looked to see if they had a high risk plan in the event I couldn't find a job before getting out, but they didn't have one.

I ended up not moving, because there just are not that many jobs out in Nevada in my field. I could have moved to Utah, but I can't stand Mormons.

The high-risk pools  (or "exchanges") that I'm referring to are part of the new legislation. Supposedly they will go into effect within the first year and be open to those with pre-existing conditions. It's explained above, in Florida69's post with the CNN reporting.

[Assurbanipal]

I wonder why they did not mention the high risk pools for this person? Isn't that an option for someone with HIV without insurance?

A lot of it is pretty iffy .  
 - They talk about the State AG suits without mentitoning the 16th Amendment
- They don't mention the training programs (and the recent decision by Medicare to pay more to the types of docs we need the most and less to those in oversupply) when they talk about access to docs

It's CNN -- they don't do detail well

But yes, HIV is a preexisting condition and if you were denied coverage you are eligible for the high risk pools.  And maybe they think they covered it with this one

Question: Could you give me an outline showing a timeline or date grid explaining what laws take effect on what dates? My wife has a pre-existing condition, and we pay a huge amount for her coverage. I'm wondering how soon we can apply for coverage from another company and not get rejected. Time is running out on us -- financially.

Answer: Many parts of the bill go into effect at different times. The new insurance "exchanges" and individual mandate, for example, start in 2014. And unfortunately for you, insurers can continue to exclude or charge higher rates for adults because of pre-existing conditions until 2014. There is some potential help for your family, though. This bill sets up a "high-risk" pool for people like your wife who have difficulty getting reasonably-priced (or any) health insurance. That should be set up in coming months. Start by calling the Department of Health and Human Services. And here's a timeline outlining when measures will come into effect.

[madbrain]

Here is a page with slightly more info about the new high-risk pools.

http://health.newamerica.net/blogposts/2010/implementation_transforming_high_risk_pools_into_reality-29840

[Inchlingblue]

"Applicants must be U.S. citizens who are not covered by another form of insurance, have been denied coverage due to a pre-existing condition and have been without health care coverage for at least six months."

That's a crock, in six months someone with HIV and no meds can die. Same goes for anyone with any other life threatening illness. Why do they make people have to jump through hoops? It should be enough that a person has a condition, period. But no, they make you wait six months and they make you apply for insurance and be denied before you even qualify.

Does it cross anyone's mind to try and make life just a little easier for a person with a serious condition such as HIV or cancer or diabetes or whatever? NO, God forbid, let's make them wait six months and make sure they show proof that they've applied for other insurance, maybe by then they'll be dead and we won't have to deal with them at all!

I have to vent.

[madbrain]

"Applicants must be U.S. citizens who are not covered by another form of insurance, have been denied coverage due to a pre-existing condition and have been without health care coverage for at least six months."

That's a crock, in six months someone with HIV and no meds can die. Same goes for anyone with any other life threatening illness. Why do they make people have to jump through hoops? It should be enough that a person has a condition, period. But no, they make you wait six months and they make you apply for insurance and be denied before you even qualify.

I think you could remain on ADAP during the 6 months period since it isn't health insurance. But if you are ineligible for it and without any coverage, then you are screwed.

Does it cross anyone's mind to try and make life just a little easier for a person with a serious condition such as HIV or cancer or diabetes or whatever? NO, God forbid, let's make them wait six months and make sure they show proof that they've applied for other insurance, maybe by then they'll be dead and we won't have to deal with them at all!

I have to vent.

I think previous iterations of the health care bill would have done that. But now you have to wait until 2014 to be guaranteed coverage. And yes, it sucks. But it's still better than what we have now. Provided it doesn't get repealed by then.

[Inchlingblue]

Provided it doesn't get repealed by then.

The President would have to sign the repeal and, as long as it's Obama or a Democrat in the White House, they would veto it so it's unlikely to happen for a while.

I do hope they improve upon it. This other provision in the high risk pools can make it prohibitive for many, 65% of costs (if they stick to that minimum) is pretty shabby:

The plan must cover at least 65 percent of participants’ health costs and follow annual out-of-pocket limits set in the bill.

[ATorrez]

Actually, no, the President does not need to sign a repeal. If there are enough people in the House and Senate to support something they can override a Presidential veto.

And I hope to high hell, we (the Republicans) take back power and obliterate this bill. I can't think of anything short of a cure for HIV that would make me happier.

[Inchlingblue]

Actually, no, the President does not need to sign a repeal. If there are enough people in the House and Senate to support something they can override a Presidential veto.

And I hope to high hell, we (the Republicans) take back power and obliterate this bill. I can't think of anything short of a cure for HIV that would make me happier.

You and RapidRod shouldn't get your hopes up.

Because it’s highly doubtful that the GOP will convince any Democrats who supported the bill to change their votes, that means Republicans would need to win 40 House seats and 10 Senate seats in this fall’s election to gain simple majorities to pass the bill. But to repeal some of the reforms — like the individual insurance mandate — they would need 60 votes in the Senate, meaning the GOP would have to gain 19 seats.

Even then, it wouldn’t be signed into law because there’s no doubt President Obama would veto it. To override a veto, Republicans would need two-thirds of each house.

That means 67 senators and 290 House members. To achieve that goal, Republicans would need to gain 26 seats in the Senate and 112 in the House.

LINK:

http://www.pensitoreview.com/2010/03/26/to-repeal-health-care-law-gop-must-elect-26-new-senators-112-house-members/

One of the strangest and indescribable things I have seen and heard throughout this whole Health care debate is the new campaign slogan that Republicans have come up with that they are sure is going to be a winner and that is "Repeal and Replace." Their supporters are jumping up down with joy over this but there is on little thing that Republicans are not telling their supports and that is repealing a new law is extremely hard, it is even harder than just beating a filibuster. For Republicans to be able to repeal this legislation not only would they have to have a complete sweep in the election in November they would have convince several Democrats to vote with them, not only to get the 3/5ths vote necessary to repeal the law but the 2/3rds vote to over turn a veto by President Obama. But as President Obama said yesterday, if the Republicans want to run on that then they can go for it.

LINK:

http://www.mccookgazette.com/blogs/1460/entry/33975/

[phildinftlaudy]

To paraphrase some words I read in a thread earlier today "it is beyond my scope of imagination" why anyone would want the health reform bill overturned and remain with the status quo - which was more than 37 million with no insurance and people being only one medical bill away from bankruptcy - it is really beyond my scope of imagination particularly how anyone who is HIV+ (if they are actually HIV+) would want this bill repealed.  Maybe anyone who thinks this way is one of the elite -- God help the person if they ever suffer a downturn in their economic status and find themself in need of medical care, insurance or any other type of government assistance. 

[madbrain]

Around the same time, I lost my job and am waiting to begin COBRA so that I might start paying for my meds. I found out today, that it takes approx. 30 days for Cobra to kick in, and I only have 1 weeks worth of current trial meds available before leaving the study.

Insurance companies are required to provide uninterrupted coverage. It should not take 30 days, even if their records are not updated. When I left my job last year and the coverage was stopped, Kaiser made me sign a paper saying that I would be financially responsible for charges if they were not covered by insurance. I paid the copays just as before. I got some bills in the mail soon after. But when I finally got to pay the COBRA premium, coverage was retroactive to my termination date and all those bills were cancelled.

[madbrain]

But according to him the clause forcing coverage of pre-existing conditions doesn't set a limit on how much they can charge, so they could charge as much as $2,000 a month for coverage for him, so it would be pointless to do that.

That's incorrect, the bill also prevents insurance companies from charging higher premiums based on those pre-existing conditions. Otherwise, there would be no point - companies would accept you and then charge you for the full cost of your meds and indeed, there would be no point. I think only tobacco usage and age are allowed to be considered in the premium.

Also, it changes levels of Flexible Spending Accounts, to lower numbers ($2,500), which hurts him since that's what he uses to pay his $900 per month, and also raises the medical expense deduction for income taxes from 7.5 to 9.5%, which also hurts him since he won't quite meet that if paying $900 a month.  

The bill sets maximum out-of-pocket annual expenses for all insurance plans in 2014. That limit will be less than $900/month. So his costs will go way down.

Is this true?  He is pretty irate about it.  I can't find that it will change anything for me, but from what I'm reading, I have a so-called "Cadillac plan", and I'm worried about increased tax burden for that?  I do like the protections (exchanges, etc) it creates if we pozzies were to lose our jobs, or if we wanted to start our own businesses, but then again, my state already had a high-risk pool that I could have qualified for, so I have to wonder how redundant that is?

Some of those state high-risk pools are pretty bad. For example the California plan has annual limits of $75k and lifetime of $750k . If you get your meds through them, it can eat into those limits. Any hospitalization on top of that probably would still leave you with lots of bills. And of course once you hit the lifetime cap, it's over.

[RapidRod]

You and RapidRod shouldn't get your hopes up.

Because it’s highly doubtful that the GOP will convince any Democrats who supported the bill to change their votes, that means Republicans would need to win 40 House seats and 10 Senate seats in this fall’s election to gain simple majorities to pass the bill. But to repeal some of the reforms — like the individual insurance mandate — they would need 60 votes in the Senate, meaning the GOP would have to gain 19 seats.

Even then, it wouldn’t be signed into law because there’s no doubt President Obama would veto it. To override a veto, Republicans would need two-thirds of each house.

That means 67 senators and 290 House members. To achieve that goal, Republicans would need to gain 26 seats in the Senate and 112 in the House.

LINK:

http://www.pensitoreview.com/2010/03/26/to-repeal-health-care-law-gop-must-elect-26-new-senators-112-house-members/

One of the strangest and indescribable things I have seen and heard throughout this whole Health care debate is the new campaign slogan that Republicans have come up with that they are sure is going to be a winner and that is "Repeal and Replace." Their supporters are jumping up down with joy over this but there is on little thing that Republicans are not telling their supports and that is repealing a new law is extremely hard, it is even harder than just beating a filibuster. For Republicans to be able to repeal this legislation not only would they have to have a complete sweep in the election in November they would have convince several Democrats to vote with them, not only to get the 3/5ths vote necessary to repeal the law but the 2/3rds vote to over turn a veto by President Obama. But as President Obama said yesterday, if the Republicans want to run on that then they can go for it.

LINK:

http://www.mccookgazette.com/blogs/1460/entry/33975/

Wrong, it could be independents.

[ATorrez]

That's incorrect, the bill also prevents insurance companies from charging higher premiums based on those pre-existing conditions.

Actually, you're only partially correct. Rates are "pooled", usually. So just because they can't raise YOUR rates because a pre-existing condition does NOT mean they can't do it to the entire pool.

[skeebo1969]

why anyone would want the health reform bill overturned and remain with the status quo - which was more than 37 million with no insurance and people being only one medical bill away from bankruptcy - it is really beyond my scope of imagination particularly how anyone who is HIV+ (if they are actually HIV+) would want this bill repealed.  Maybe anyone who thinks this way is one of the elite -- God help the person if they ever suffer a downturn in their economic status and find themself in need of medical care, insurance or any other type of government assistance. 

I agree.

[Miss Philicia]

The idea that Republicans will retake any part of Congress when their white trash supporters are running around the country vandalizing property is simply absurd.  There will be no repeal.  Ever.

[ATorrez]

To paraphrase some words I read in a thread earlier today "it is beyond my scope of imagination" why anyone would want the health reform bill overturned and remain with the status quo - which was more than 37 million with no insurance and people being only one medical bill away from bankruptcy - it is really beyond my scope of imagination particularly how anyone who is HIV+ (if they are actually HIV+) would want this bill repealed.  Maybe anyone who thinks this way is one of the elite -- God help the person if they ever suffer a downturn in their economic status and find themself in need of medical care, insurance or any other type of government assistance.  

I am against it because I don't believe in government handouts. I believe in people going out and getting a job and supporting themselves. This country would not be in debt if we weren't always giving away free shit. Our public schools have done a huge diservice to our children by teaching them that they are owed stuff just because they're alive. They're not.

Being HIV+ makes me feel this way even more. When I was diagnosed I made a vow that I would never die of AIDS. I will die of my own hand before I die of AIDS. I made a promise to myself that I was always going to work hard and be a productive citizen. I made a promise that no one would take away my dignity.

Do I struggle? Hell yes. I am depressed a lot of the time, but I keep pushing myself. I have to wake up at 5 a.m. some days to be in class by 6, other days I have to be up at 4 a.m. to be at the hospital an hour away from me at 5:30 a.m. for clinical rotations. And it's hard, and I bitch and moan and I cry about it, but I still do it anyway. There are so many people in such worse situations who are able to get their ass out of bed and go to work.

I'd love to sit around and collect "free" stuff from the government, but I have too much pride to do that. No one gives me a fucking dime for anything, everything I have it bought and paid for by myself and it belongs to me and whomever I wish to share it with.

When I graduate from the anaesthesiology programme next year I expect my income to go from the $65,000 a year it is now to $130,000 a year. Why is anyone else entitled to a portion of that? I have been in college since I was 17 years old working my ass off. I don't care if you or anyone else thinks I am greedy. I worked hard for it and it's mine, get your own.

[phildinftlaudy]

ATorrez - since you are always so quick to point out when people are not correct, let me say you are incorrect -- no one has ever died from AIDS - they might die from an OI, but not AIDS
Next - this country had a surplus, until a Republican President used false information to put us into severe debt and left the financial industry to run amuck
Most people who receive SSDI, SSI, Medicare, etc have paid taxes
Even if one has only paid sales tax, they have contributed
And FYI - most higher education is subsidized by the governement - whether it be student loans or other support of colleges/universities that comes from the government
I also wake up and go to work everyday (40 hours a week) and do private consulting another 40 hours or so a month
I'm glad I believe in karma to a degee and many times the words we speak and beliefs will come back to bite us --
On another note, I had to look up the definition of the word molest today and found that as a verb one of its meanings (American Heritage) is to annoy --- the opinions of some people make me feel molested --

[Joe K]

I'd love to sit around and collect "free" stuff from the government, but I have too much pride to do that. No one gives me a fucking dime for anything, everything I have it bought and paid for by myself and it belongs to me and whomever I wish to share it with.

When I graduate from the anaesthesiology programme next year I expect my income to go from the $65,000 a year it is now to $130,000 a year. Why is anyone else entitled to a portion of that? I have been in college since I was 17 years old working my ass off. I don't care if you or anyone else thinks I am greedy. I worked hard for it and it's mine, get your own.

Surely you have anti-freeze in your veins, because your comments are some of the most inhumane I have ever heard. I am so happy for you that you can work. I on the other hand, cannot, through no fault of my own. I worked for 35 years and paid my taxes and now I need some help... because I cannot work. For you to insinuate, especially on an AIDS website, that people with disabilities are lazy and sit around taking government handouts, is possibly the vilest thing I have ever heard. Lucky for you, most people are not heartless, so if you get disabled by AIDS, unlike you, we won't be suggesting that you be thrown to the wolves.

[skeebo1969]

  I think it's time.

[Inchlingblue]

  I think it's time.

LOL

That's very cryptic.

Time for what, skeebo?

[ATorrez]

It's not through no fault of your own.

Most of us, including myself, contracted HIV through unprotected sex or drug use. I began having unprotected sex with older men when I was only 18 and a few years later I was HIV+. Who's fault is that? MINE. So if I get sick and die it's my fault, not anyone else's. Now if you were disabled due to, let's say, Multiple Sclerosis or something, I would have more sympathy. There is nothing one can do to cause themselves to have Multiple Sclerosis.

On the other hand, I cause my own disease and there is no one to blame but myself. Why should the tax payers have to shoulder that burden? They shouldn't. I believe in personal responsibility, which is why I advocate for people taking care of themselves.

I realise to many this may be a bitter pill to swallow, but that's because for decades we've been told that we are "victims" and that nothing is our fault, blah blah blah. That's bullshit. No one forced me to take raw dick up my ass. No one held a gun to my head and told me to do it.

Everyone has choices, and you must live with the consequences of your choices.

[skeebo1969]

LOL

That's very cryptic.

Time for what, skeebo?

Dunno, time to bite my tongue!!  My wife and I  are tax payers.  Home paid for, as is both our cars....  And we are sinking further into debt because of our medical bills.

[Joe K]

It's not through no fault of your own.

Everyone has choices, and you must live with the consequences of your choices.

Since you don't know how I got infected, you can't just make blanket statements and expect anyone to take them as fact. I've been reading your posts and your views are just more of the Republican hate-everyone-but-white-guys crap, they have been peddling for years. Speech like yours, while protected, is nothing more than hate speech repackaged. Hatred and violence are the language of the heartless. I thank the universe, everyday, that there just are not that many people, like you, who have such hatred for everyone and I know that karma, has a few lessons in store, for you. Over and out.

[WillyWump]

Why should the tax payers have to shoulder that burden? They shouldn't.

This is the UNITED STATES!! Not some third world country. WE take care of those that need assistance and need help!! This is one of the things that make us the greatest nation on this planet! Wake up!

Are you advocating that we cut all govt funded programs helping the needy? Helping those with HIV?

[ATorrez]

Next - this country had a surplus, until a Republican President used false information to put us into severe debt and left the financial industry to run amuck

Do you think the President operates in a vacuum?

When Clinton was President he had a Republican House and Senate. If it wasn't for them the welfare reforms would have never gone through. Thank you, Republicans.

Under Bush, there was a Democratic House and Senate for the majority of his time in office.

I have heard all of that anti-Bush BS before. I was not a fan of Bush. But there were democratic senators and congressman who voted in favour of the war in Iraq and Afgahnistan. I know you said he lied, but I haven't seen any credible source of information say that. The government chose to go to war based on the information they had, democrats regret that CHOICE and they choose to BLAME someone else, as they usually do.

[ATorrez]

Since you don't know how I got infected, you can't just make blanket statements and expect anyone to take them as fact. I've been reading your posts and your views are just more of the Republican hate-everyone-but-white-guys crap, they have been peddling for years. Speech like yours, while protected, is nothing more than hate speech repackaged. Hatred and violence are the language of the heartless. I thank the universe, everyday, that there just are not that many people, like you, who have such hatred for everyone and I know that karma, has a few lessons in store, for you. Over and out.

I am hispanic/latino. Thanks for judging me though. It seems you are as guilty of making faulty assumptions as you claim I am.

[Joe K]

I am hispanic/latino. Thanks for judging me though. It seems you are as guilty of making faulty assumptions as you claim I am.

I was judging no one. Please reread what I wrote, I said your speech was "like" Republican ... not you personally.

[leatherman]

no one has ever died from AIDS - they might die from an OI, but not AIDS

that's really just petty semantics there. Plenty of people have died from AIDS. Of course, it's been PCP or non-hodgkins lymphoma or toxoplasmosis; but it's been because the HIV has developed into AIDS. Without "teh AIDS", there wouldn't be the deaths.

Saying that millions throughout the world have died of AIDS is totally correct, as AIDS was the underlying condition, and the actually OI was just another symptom from having a destroyed immune system.

[ATorrez]

This is one of the things that make us the greatest nation on this planet! Wake up!

Are you advocating that we cut all govt funded programs helping the needy? Helping those with HIV?

I don't think, in my entire, short, life I have ever heard a democrat say something positive about America. I think I might cry.

And yes, we should cut most services. Most people are poor because of choice they have made. They have had children out of wedlock that they couldn't afford to take care of. I  grew up with this girl who was afforded all the riches and options in the world, but she blew it. She got pregnant and 16 and kept pumping out babies until she was 20. She has 5 kids and is living in the housing projects. All of the children's fathers have walked out on her and she's all alone with these kids.

She is in that position because of her CHOICES. No one made her get pregnant. She could have had an abortion or gotten on birth control, but she didn't. And now she has to suffer the consequences.

[ATorrez]

I still don't see how telling people to go out and get a job is hateful/racist/homophobic or whatever. I don't hate anyone. I want to see people better themselves and you can't do that on your couch living on welfare or disability.

If I can do it, so can you.

Didn't you learn anything in grade school? "You can do anything you put your mind to"? Isn't that the canard they are teaching our kids today?

[phildinftlaudy]

As I lay down to sleep tonight -- I will pray many things -- one of them may be for those who come on these forums with one purpose -- to inflame and incite -- get the timeout or the ban.  Space on these forums wouldn't allow me to list all of the credible sources that show the misiformation and lies that were used to justify the Iraq war.  I can only pray that I have an anethesiologist who may not be filled with so much hate filled rhetoric that they might just put a patient at risk (particularly if they view the patient as someone who is sitting around collecting a government handout).  Long live health care reform, sing it from the mountain tops - long live health care reform   LA LA LA LA LA - we won (can't stand a sore loser)

[Miss Philicia]

Ain't passin' the sniff test.

[Ann]

ATorres,

If you cannot see how much offence (or more likely you CAN and you're loving it) you're causing to members of these forums, then maybe it's time for you to find another forum to post in. I'm sure they'd love you at Free Republic.

I'm giving you that seven day time out I warned you about earlier today to give you time to think about how you talk to people here. If you come back with more of the same after your time out, you'll probably find yourself permanently banned.

I'm also locking this derailed thread.

Ann