Yuku free message boards

sylveena wrote:

---

From what I've read and heard over the years, Bush tried to do very similar cuts during his Reign as well, and not only to the health care for vets but other benefits as well - I guess you don't remember that?

I'm not sure where you get your information but from the document on the VA site containing historical budget information it shows that the VA budget went from 50.902B in 2002 to 72.820B in 2007 with an estimate of 86.6B in 2008.

And just for comparisons sake..
The VA budget went from 35.487B in 1993 to 45.044B in 2001.

sylveena wrote:

---

Are you willing to try anything? I mean, really, can you say without a doubt that people wouldn't take advantage of preventive health care if it's offered? Sure, there are those that wouldn't, but there are those that would. And if a plan was in place that offered something of the sort, and was a plan that endured year after year, don't you think people would start using it? Or that enough people would start using it to make a difference?

I guess I just don't understand the negativity surrounding this health care issue - I'm willing to learn more, give it the benefit of the doubt and see what happens. But then there are those, like you, that will shoot down any plan, it seems. And good grief, you even pooh-pooh having public forums. What's it hurt? Why is that a bad thing? At least it gives people a chance to speak, which they don't get very often.

And I know I must be a strange bird compared to the rest of you, but I'll say it again - I'll pay higher premiums if it means everyone can get the coverage they need. I do volunteer work, and just a couple of weeks ago I was listening to an elderly person talking abou they were going to have to stop taking their medication. They had already done the 'cut in half' but as other costs were rising, they had to make the choice between food, heat and medicine. They chose heat and food. Silly old people, they should just be glad the emergency room is there for them, shouldn't they?

Just a suggestion that you look into a program that you may not know about.
I am not sure what the name of it but it is supported by those evil drug companies and it provides free medication to those who can not afford it.

sylveena wrote:

---

Seriously, what program? I'm aware of programs offering discounts on certain drugs, and programs offering free prescriptions on certain drugs, but not programs flat out offering free medication. If you can remember the name I would appreciate it.

Here is a place to start:

http://www.rxassist.org/

sylveena wrote:

---

I'll see what I can find out from this site. But I'm pretty sure the lady I was overhearing (and those like her) don't have internet access and wouldn't know what to do with it even if they did - which is a problem in itself. How are they supposed to know about these programs?

First things first.
That is one of the major problems with a discussion about health care. And is even more so in a town hall type meeting that you think will be good. Statements are made as if they are the absolute truth when in fact they may not be.
Your previous statements led me, and I believe many others, to think that it was more than just hearsay and that you understood that person's situation. But now you are saying it is only hearsay and may or may not be true.
I would tell you about someone I know who scrimps on their medication because it is too expensive. That someone is also worth over a million dollars with a lot of it simply setting in CDs in the bank. I would tell you that and expect you to accept it as fact but as far as you know it is only hearsay.
Most people who identify as conservative can deal with an issue, like health care, much better with facts and not just hearsay.

Next, these programs are not only on the internet. They are advertised quite often on TV and I am surprised that you are unaware of them.

sylveena wrote:

---

I'm not sure why you are calling it hearsay - I overheard her speaking, which is not the same as hearsay. She was telling the man next to me that she was going to have to stop taking her medication because she couldn't afford it anymore, and she was going to leave her health in God's hands. And I DO know she's low-income, because she wouldn't have been where she was if not. Now, I reckon she may have been lying, but that's still not hearsay.

As far as being advertised on tv, several of the low-income don't have sets; maybe she doesn't have one, either. You have to remember, many older people, especially low income, just don't know how to get help, where to get help, or may not even want to get help because they feel they are a burden.' As for myself, I don't watch much, and I have a great ability to tune out commercials. I guess I better start paying more attention when I do watch.

But I guess I'm done with the 'discussion,' as it seems quite obvious that no one really wants anything to change. So we'll just stick with the status quo of health care being a privilege in this country, one which only certain people should have. And as I stated before, thank goodness for emergency rooms, huh?

Well see, that highlights what I have been saying about the inability to have any meaningful discussion.
You don't like the parts of the discussion that disagree with your opinions so you will solve that by just not discussing it anymore.
There are some things about our health care system that could stand a 'change'. But change just for the sake of change is not the way to do it. They needs to be some serious thought put into 'change' and improvements made instead of 'changes' made.
Concerning the lady that you discussed you say that several low income don't have tv sets. That could be true but I would be willing to wager that someone in her family does. One of those someones should step up and assist her, either in educating her about available programs or providing financial assistance. Or a volunteer could step up and do that. But we have reached the point in our society where that someone says 'I don't want to do that. Let the government (taxpayer) do it.'
If that lady is elderly you should also know that she is eligible for Part D of Medicare and if she falls below a certain income limit the Social Security will pay the premium.

Some time ago I provided a link about uninsured in Massachewitz (or whatever). A significant percentage of the uninsured were because they didn't want to bother with applying for, or didn't know about, programs that were out there for them. Another significant percentage could afford insurance but 'had other priorities'.

And finally I perused the link you provided some time ago about the Obama/Biden plan. It seemed to be a lot of pie in the sky rhetoric and it may have had something in there about educating people about the current programs but I don't remember it.
It did have solutions for problems that are not problems. One was the price of prescription drugs in other countries and of course the blame was laid at the feet of the evil drug companies. I personally don't know but do doubt that the drug companies wholesale outside the country much, if any, cheaper than the do in the US.
Perhaps part of the problem is the Federal bureaucracy that has to be dealt with in this country to get the drugs from the manufacturer to the drugstore. But that apparently is a non discussable issue.

It did have a solution to the 'high cost of malpractice insurance'.
The solution ignored the cause of the problem and instead focused on punishing the insurance companies that provide that insurance. It ignores the elephant in the room in that regard. That elephant is the frivolous malpractice lawsuits that make people like John Edwards multi-millionaires. In my opinion (notice I said opinion) those lawsuits are the biggest single factor in the increase we have seen in health care the last several years. And it is just not the cost of the insurance. It is also all the CYA medical procedures and tests that are a result.
Addressing that issue is a no no because the trial lawyers who are getting rich are major contributors to the Democrats. Perhaps you could read the last link KC provided.

And as a side note I think we saw a few years ago in Kentucky what happens when the government gets into the business of controlling the profits of insurance companies. If you remember all the health insurance companies except one fled the state and it got so bad the state had to set up an insurance company. The response to that insurance company was so underwhelming that the state mandated that local governments had to get insurance from there. And it seems to me that the cost was so much more than the local governments had been paying and caused financial hardships for many of them.