November 16th, 2011 - Kathy-762678 said:
Effected by the economy Free AARP membership must be 50 or older...free spouse card or add a year to current membership.
I love the drug interaction checker.
Drug price comparing tool
Cost Effective Wills
Online software and ready-made forms make creating your own will a snap
Free Tax help
In these uncertain economic times, we know that many people 50 and over may be experiencing financial difficulties and some may have even recently lost their jobs.
If you are one of the many people who have been impacted by an unexpected job loss, AARP would like to offer you a complimentary 1-year membership, or for current members, a complimentary 1-year membership extension.
If you experience problems with this page, please call: 1-800-566-0242.
medication,food and shelter security
September 17th, 2011 - Freddie-714102 said:
wow, no less than 27% of us here on catholic match are statists. too bad.
and to Marie's argument, there's nothing that says you have to drive a car, so purchasing car insurance truly is optional, whereas if you breathe, liberals want the government to compel you to buy health insurance as a condition of living. that is tyranny, and auto insurance is not an equivalent practice or issue.
March 8th, 2010 - David-432594 said:
Just a quick mention per the world health organization rating;
This ranking's criteria are different then what we expect in current health care. For instance, I believe it is Germany who is rated to have a lower new born mortality than the US. There is a hitch here, in the US we count every child born or a pregnant mother who deliveres earily, and if that child dies we indicate it as a newborn mortality, hence our stats, according to WHO, goes down. These other countries may not count the death of who we call a new born untill that child has either survied the first month out of the womb or made it to year one. S
SO these world health org's numbers are based upon each indiviaual's country's standard of retporting. When we place the other countries equal to our HIGHER standards and moral expectations these other countries fail miserably.
Well, that is if you choose that our country should also "change" our defiintion of moral and quality health care. We need to fix our HEALTHCARE repayment/competativeness, but not our healthcare system or structure of our Government to allow health care for one another.
February 16th, 2010 - Jean-543872 said:
I think they should have looked for a way to solve the economy crises first. The health care was'nt exactly the first thing that came to my mind. You can't pay for a bill that costs a million, billion, trillion, ka-zillion dollars, without having a million, billion, trillion, ka-zilion dollars. ;p
January 17th, 2010 - Espe-410886 said:
Changing the health care to government run health care is not the answer. We must be responsible for our health, our bodies and take care of them. Sure, "some" of the health issues are beyond our control but for the most part we have control not to over induldge in food & libation, in making the wrong choices. This is called "free will."
January 11th, 2010 - John-221057 said:
Here is the World Health Organization's ranking of the health care systems of the world, but I'll just give you the top 40.
3 San Marino
18 United Kingdom
26 Saudi Arabia
27 United Arab Emirates
36 Costa Rica
37 United States of America
41 New Zealand
Happy New Year to you too, Stephen. God bless and all the best. :-)
January 6th, 2010 - John-221057 said:
How is a universally accessible health care system class warfare? And what do you know about Canadian health care other than what you've been told by the Republicans and the insurance industries?
Canada's system isn't perfect either. It has many flaws and I can name a lot of things that are wrong with it. But in Canada you don't have to worry about going bankrupt if you get sick or dying because you can't afford health care. When you need health care, you get it. You don't have to worry about how you're going to pay for it. In short, it is far superior to the American system. I fail to see how this is class warfare.
Sarah Palin ran her mouth about death panels. But she didn't mention that there already are death panels in your country. They are the board of trusties for insurance companies. They are the ones who make the decision of whether or not you can have a procedure done. Many people die because they decided that they would rather save the insurance company money rather than fund the care that sick people need. If that's not a death panel I don't know what is.
Your government has trillions of dollars to spend on the military and overseas wars. They have the money to spend on death and destruction yet come up with all kinds of excuses of why they can't spend money that helps people.
Some facts about Canada:
- On the whole Canadians are healthier than Americans
- Canada's life expectancy is higher
- Canada's child mortality rate is lower
- More Canadians than Americans have access to a family doctor
- Canada spends less than half of what the US spends on health care yet gets better results, as the above facts demonstrate
And in my country even the most right-wing governments support universal health care and would never take it away.
December 28th, 2009 - John-221057 said:
All of you people who cry socialism and oppose government-funded health care have never gotten sick and actually needed an expensive proceedure done, assuming that most of us here are middle class. Just wait until it happens or you know someone who gets sick and then your HMO comes up with a reason why they can't insure you.
That is not freedom, Ken. I call that oppression.
December 13th, 2009 - John-221057 said:
William, only rich people go to the US to get health care. How can you possibly afford American health care unless you are wealthy? Some medical procedures cost as much as a house. I'm guessing that you have never had to have an expensive procedure done and don't know anyone who has. If you ever get into this situation or know someone who has, then you'll start seeing things my way. Or maybe you're rich and could afford to come up with half a million dollars just like that if you needed long-term care.
December 7th, 2009 - John-221057 said:
Do you lot know that the United States is the only first world industrial country that doesn't have universally accessable health care?
I live in Canada, and while our system certainly has its problems and is by no means perfect, I never take for granted the fact that if I get sick or injured I will get care without going bankrupt and will not die because I can't afford care.
My grandfather had cancer and underwent treatment for many years. In the US that would have easily cost millions of dollars and there is no way that we would have been able to come up with that kind of money.
The system you have right now is unfair, not right, and not Christian.
I don't know how some of you can all yourself Christians yet have such a selfish attitude towards people less fortunate.
November 29th, 2009 - Eugene-483503 said:
Being a nurse, my observation is that nothing will change until Americans stop demanding an MRI for a headache.
We, as a people, expect far too much--when something simple will suffice.
Next, comes tort reform...sueing for every little thing is causing too many wasteful lab exams for cover.
Lastly, Americans need to lose weight.
November 22nd, 2009 - Mary-483351 said:
Elaine--please explain to Norma. Norma--you're insane! ;) Please don't hear that as being critical--I'm the dramatic type. Comment--interesting that so many were NOT interested in "mandatory coverage" and "more government regulation
' because that is EXACTLY what is going to happen with the public option and requirement that businesses be forced to offer certain levels of coverage to all...they will be put out of business and we should be trying to SAVE jobs right now. Mr. Obama is an idealogue: He is concerned only with forcing his idea on us, and blind to the terrible effects it will have on the economy. This is called crazy--not living in reality.
November 19th, 2009 - Barb-450667 said:
There are over 1,300 health insurance companies in our country, but we citizens have been restricted from purchasing insurance over state lines. Reversing that law would be greatly beneficial since it would promote competition. Another law-created problem are mandates. The insurance companies in my state cover abortion. They also cover alcohol counseling. It is likely that both have been mandated by the state. It was FDR who forced companies to provide benefits because he threatened them with higher taxes if they didn't, which pushed socialism on a large part of the population. The best solution would be to reverse that trend, People who do comparison shopping always improve the market. The consumer not their employer should shop for the best health insurance for them personally. That would mean price and quality information being more available. Because the health insurance companies would have to compete. They would have to provide information on the best physicians, best hospitals, medicine and so forth.
November 15th, 2009 - Elaine-157114 said:
I am an RN and have been for 35 yrs. Having lawyers write a health care reform bill is absolutely INSANE! This bill is not going to provide FREE health care. It will get more expensive and makes it mandatory to pay insurance premiums via the IRS! Or pay a huge fine and it also has jail time! Wake up this is a payback to the unions who will get over a billion dollars to bail out their retirement funds and make it mandatory to unionize ALL health care workers. It also places taxes on your healthcare benefits and durable medical equipment, prescriptions, implantables (pacemakers, hip replacement ) ! It is all about power over our lives. It is NOT about health care reform.
November 11th, 2009 - Thomas-505056 said:
Tort reform is important, so long as the system that replaces it ensures that the victims of malpractice don't have to pay the resulting hospital bills. That said, it is but a drop in the bucket compared to the severely twisted incentives doctors have. Tort reform involves state law (not federal law) and piecemeal efforts to put it into place have been made across the country, but there is little correlation between states that have enacted tort reform, and lower medical costs. On the other hand, all of the proposed versions of the public option would rely entirely on charge premiums, and not taxes. Thus, if government is too inefficient to compete with private insurance, it won't make a difference, but if the insurance companies are gouging us (and forming virtual oligopolies) it will at least make things better. So why not at least give it a try? (All of this assumes it doesn't involve taxpayer paid abortions.) Put differently, if the Republicans are right and government is more inefficient than insurance companies, the public option will fall flat on its face with no cost to the taxpayer, embarrassing the Democrats. If they're wrong, then at least we get cheaper health care.
November 4th, 2009 - Joe-180233 said:
Everyone should understand that a public option is in no way fair competion with the private sector. The government sets the rules and has no measure of success. They can never fail or go out of business like the private sector would do, and does, when they don't keep enough of their costumers satisfied.
November 2nd, 2009 - Elle-411254 said:
Health care does not need reform. The health care insurance industry needs the reform, but their lobbyists have congress in their pockets. The figures are vastly incorrect for the numbers of Americans without any "health coverage". Such a joke. If the current proposals are enacted, there will be an exodus of the most qualified medical providers. The wait for care will be 10x as long, and those who are in need of the most urgent care will be singled out for natural law to take effect..
November 2nd, 2009 - Alex-285308 said:
RAMON, a few below is right on. For this poll an option in addition to tort reform would be to EDUCATE people to live healthy lifestyles. Yes, it's still true that it is ultimately someone's choice to eat unhealthy, however, the greatest and long lasting change must start at a social/societal level. It's also true that the likelihood of this may seem far fetched, yet I believe as adults we all come to some realization that we will not live forever, wishing we may continue to live life to the fullest, so why not start instilling that in our children today? Or, start asking for improvements to be made in schools so children (and young adults) learn and learn to like eating healthy (not to mention living a moderately active life).
November 1st, 2009 - Jason-119281 said:
The US Bishops Confererence has already come out Against the bill as it currently exists. Abortion is the issue...Democrats have shot down two different attempts by Republicans to get language explicitly forbidding use of tax dollars to pay for abortion in the legislation. Rep Stupak has abut 40 Democrats that oppose abortion. Problem is, once the bill is introduced into the "Debate" phase - 60 votes are need to make ANY changes. So, those who are accepting of the bill as it stands now, cannot likely count on changes being made with any ease.
October 26th, 2009 - Jason-119281 said:
P.S. Yes, 500 Billion Cuts in Medicare - and supposedly the elderly are not going to see their care get worse. How do you cut 500 Billion of anything and not decrease the quality? That makes nooo sense. And if Obama thinks they can finance this by eliminating waste - please tell me this - why isn't the waste already gone???? They know there is waste and are choosing not to do anyting about it until a health bill is passed??? Yea right, they are not going to get Billions of dollars from eliminating waste...not a chance. If it's so easy, it should have been done 8 mos ago.
October 26th, 2009 - Jason-119281 said:
The economics, practically speaking of a public option are not pretty! Can anyone name one gov program that is consistently financially solvent? Not too mention, the discretion now present in the current Health Bill, Obama and those 5 or so members responsible for "adjusting or modifying" the system after it's in law get to implement their agenda on family and life issues right in to the national health care system. So, those that really think abortion will not be paid for - guess again - it will be provided. Any time the language "protection of the mother's health" is included as "an exemption to permit abortion" - the powers that be will get to interpret that as narrowly or broadly as they wish. So, while "best bang for buck" is the question, there are some SERIOUS moral issues trumping the financial aspects of this. Some Pro-life Democrats (nearly an oxymoron, but not just yet) are maintaing real reservations due to moral aspects of this.
That aside, mandating coverage is not going to work, so long as the penalty for not carrying insurance is less than the cost of getting it. And frankly, the government can pretty much regulate the living daylights out of the insurance industry, minimizing the factors and fundamentals that would normally "create" optimal competition. In fact, to some degree, such is already the case; ever try to buy coverage from a plan sold in Iowa? How about Minnesota or Deleware? Yea, no, because currently we can't. Apparently there is a "State's Rights" issue in play on that one.
I honestly don't see a good option on this. Tort reform might offer the best chances, but, it's more like "damage control" in comparison to the others offered. Public option -becomes a Single payer system - everyone is forced to have government insurance, period. The gov won't go bankrupt, and they can undersale everyone else as much as they want to - not to mention - the government decides all the rules. At least in some cases, doctors under public option would only be reimbursed at the Medicare or Medicaid rate, which is significantly lower than what private practice offers. And if we think there is rationing now, wait until the government gets involved. Yikes!! Just on the budgeting of this - they will collect money for 4 years before any penny in spent on a public option healthcare service. So, projecting 10 years out. So, the program is "deficit" neutral for the 1st 10 years because 6 years of service was paid for by 10 years of taxes and payments. So, what happens from year 11 and then on? If it costs 10 years of payments to finance 6 years of care, we will be in the whole within 17 years of this. Which means in 20 years...YEEEEHHAAAAA... .we have a HUGE deficit and debt issue exploding on us.
Too many issues, Tort reform just seems least bad option. By the way, speaking of economics, how the heck are we going to get enough doctors and such to suddenly handle another 40 million people?
God bless all of you!
October 22nd, 2009 - Edwardo-279510 said:
Tort reform is Not the answer. Texas is a prime example, Med Malpractice caps were put into place years ago and guess what.....medical cost have continued to go up. So, protect victims rights and reject more stringent tort reform!! This is just big business (insurance companies) putting a spin on the problem to lower their potential liability.
October 21st, 2009 - Patricia-345841 said:
Being informed is the key.
No $$ from drug makers is not true to begin with. Doctor presribe a medication and it does not benefit them in any way. People get confused because of the paid vacations and lunches. This is misrepresenting what is happening. To stay abreast of the latest and greatest pharmaceutical companies do these things to get a doctor's time. He/she has to eat, they pick up the tab, doctor listens to their pitch. Doctor goes to conference, family get to vacation, doctor listens to pitch.
We as a society have decided that you cannot be turned away from an emergency room. Regardless of why you are there, regardless of legal status, regardless of anything. This is a good thing. But that should go hand in hand with you must have coverage as with car insurance. Otherwise you get fined. If you have an accident in your car and have no insurance you are fined and out of a car. As long as you didn't hurt anyone or anything else, end of story. But if you go to the emergency room, for any reason, and don't have insurance you will be seen and treated and everyone else pays.
A government option is necessary. Because after my last point if you are going to make everyone get insurance, which I think you should, you have to find a way to cover those above the poverty line, that qualify for Medicaid, and those below an income level sufficient to afford it on their own. Most people don't realize that if you have insurance through your employer, they pay an insurance company to handle the paperwork. The insurance company is paid a percentage of the total cost of medical care for that company. Which means there is no incentive to reduce cost. In addition, Medicare is presently leading the way in cost cutting, electronic records etc. because the have to. They are about to be bankupt.
Biggest bang for the buck = change the fee for service model. If a doctor talks spends time with you creating a diet and exercise plan for 45 minutes or hands you a weight loss pill in 10 minutes. Which is more cost effective? You could exercise and rehab for hip pain or get a hip replacement. Which earns the doctor more money? (and by the way hip replacements in most cases don't improve quality of life over the long term)
Ok too long but there is so much more to say on this. I'm going to get the book Revolution as recommended by Jennie. I encourage everyone to read as much as possible on this subject and write you congressmen.
October 20th, 2009 - KarenAnn-468879 said:
Be careful. Health care reform also includes a 50 billion dollar cut in Medicare benfits to the elderly. I disagree with cutting benefits to elders who have earned it so that we can give it to people who want health care handed to them. Change is neccessary---but robbing from Peter to pay Paul is just plain wrong. What happened to ' honor thy father and thy mother"?
October 17th, 2009 - James-369813 said:
No Abortion bailout!!! Keep abortion out of Health Care!!! Abortion is not Health Care!!!
No tax payer funds to Planned Parenthood. No to Goverment run Health Care.
States Rights. Subsidiary (Decisions should be made at the most local level) Pope Ben. XVI
October 14th, 2009 - Mary-105867 said:
I would love to choose a couple of answers on the poll. Tort reform would need to address the "sue happy" attitudes as well as realistic settlements. Consumer involvement is needed but unbiased and balanced education is important to create intelligent choices and participation. True competition by independent doctors would be a nice touch as well. Hard to do when the seemingly empty pockets can sustain artificially low consumer costs longer than an independent can stay in business. We have a ball of yarn that needs re-wound!
October 14th, 2009 - Jennifer-412513 said:
Ask persons actually LIVING in countries with socialized medicine - Canada and the UK included - and the will tell you horror stories about getting an appointment with a doctor... which can be a really BAD thing, especially if you have a life-threatening illness! Do YOU want to be put on a "waiting list" just to get in to see a physician - while you have CANCER?!?! Big government needs to stay out of our health care and let this be a state-decided issue. The Constitution DOES NOT provide for this kind of Federal over-stepping of boundaries!!! READ IT, people - don't quote something you haven't studied - it only reveals your ignorance.
Oh, and to Pete - consider the source when quoting studies done by Harvard - they have their own agenda. And, assuming they are correct, please remember that the very people who conduct these studies in the Harvard School of Medicine are also the ones who DENY the VERIFIED numbers of babies aborted each year.
It is horrible that 45k people would die due to lack of insurance. I assure you, however, that MANY TIMES that will die on the streets - homeless - in a country which makes it a crime to be so. Oh, and if you want numbers - over 60% of the homeless men on the streets today are United States VETERANS!
Lots wrong in this country, I agree - but going the way of the dodo never helped anyone. Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it, and EVERY country or society in history that became "socialized" in this fashion has eventually collapsed. Check the facts for yourself.
The PEOPLE of the United States are OVERWHELMINGLY AGAINST socialized medicine, and - just to remind us ALL - the men & women in Washington DC work for US - for the PEOPLE - they are NOT working for some private company making internal policy. This is a government OF the PEOPLE, BY the PEOPLE, and FOR the PEOPLE. They would do well to remember this if they want to get re-elected next term.
October 13th, 2009 - Margaret-470845 said:
If you want socialized medicine moved to England were women are not get the life saving medicine they need for Breast Cancer and Men for Prostrate Cancer, or any Cancer for that matter. Also women are giving birth in hospital hall ways, stairways, and bathrooms in England because there are no more beds, and if the baby comes early they won't help you. In Canada you have to wait 2 years for treatment depending on the area where you live because they don't have enough doctors for their system and its bankrupting Canada. I have a cousin who married a Canadian and he moved here to the US along with his kids so they could have a better live, and had to get his mom so that she could be treated for breast cancer that she was told she would have to wait one year for surgery to see if the tumor was cancerous or not and if it was another year for treatment. This is not what the Catholic Doctrine implies, systems like that in Canada and Europe don't work and are very expensive not free. Our country is so great because we have control over our own lives and are free to make our own choices, this bill passes and you can kiss that goodbye because uncle Sam will tell you that you are no longer in charge of your health decisions.
October 11th, 2009 - Mike-370396 said:
The government is here to protect us and keep us safe. Eg; Police Fire Protection, Military,etc.
How about if our government would overhaul the FDA to help the citizens understand that nutrition is the only thing that will sustain a healthy body and an immune system that resists invasion. Right now our health care folks are shooting a biochemical up the nose of children and unsuspecting adults all in the name of preventing the flu. (The swine who are promoting this atrocity should be shackled in the public square.)
Like any insurance, if they have it, wouldn't many tend to ignore their nutritional needs knowing that the doctor can fix anything from stomach ache to replacing body parts?
At the "Sermon on the Mount", do you think that Jesus would have ordered in from McDonald's to feed the multitudes?
Both of you Michaels are right on about the government. They are the problem, not the cure.
God bless those doctors who genuinely care about us over the drug companies profits.
October 10th, 2009 - Richard-101481 said:
Well this is certainly a hot button issue for citizens of the United States.
As a Canadian I view the debate with a high degree of interest. What works in Canada may not work in the US at this point. The message is to find a method that works for your citizens. Likely it is a mandatory insurance combined with legal reforms.
I do want to note that one of the principles of our faith is a social conscience - caring for others and the world. I do believe in the single payer (taxpayer) system in Canada, however recognize that the United States has a different mindset towards government in general (less is better), and public intervention by the government is less than desirable, even though this intervention may bring back health to another person.
You will find your own way, and that may mean no change at all.
October 8th, 2009 - John-476772 said:
I totally agree with Kim. I dont' know why everybody is always going after the doctors. I recently graduated medical school and it will be at LEAST 10 years (on top of the 8 years I've already invested) before my income is able to overcome my student loan payments enough that I'm able to live a nice lifestyle. What ever happened to the American dream? Are 15-20 years of my life not enough for me to "deserve" to enjoy the fruits of my labor? Does anybody care that doctors STILL work 60-80 hours a week even after they finish residency in order to maintain what they have? And yes, probably 50-75% of all illnesses would be prevented, postponed in onset, or controlled cheaply and without negative disability if patients were compliant with both their lifestyle and the medications prescribed to them.
October 8th, 2009 - Kim-128301 said:
For those of you that think its pharmaceuticals and doctors driving up cost, think again. 75% of all prescriptions these days are filled with generics, NOT brand products. Doctors have experienced a decline in incomes over the last 10 years while their costs continue to go up (think electricity, pay roll and malpractice). If you want to point the finger at someone there are 2 groups: lawyers who sue for no reason, and patients who don't make the effort to take care of themselves and follow the direction of their doctors.
October 5th, 2009 - Ed-402279 said:
Government option will only steer employers and recipients of good insurance plans into a "One size fits all" universal plan. With penalties, fines, cutting Medicare and reimbursement rates, we will have no choice but to "Change!" This is what the majority voted for, change without specificity...careful what you wish for!