# Waiting for the official word that healthcare has passed



## artgoddess (Jun 29, 2004)

Anyone know when we will know for sure one way or the other?


----------



## KatWrangler (Mar 21, 2005)




----------



## KatWrangler (Mar 21, 2005)

I think they are still in a two hour long debate. I bet it will be after Midnight before there is a vote.


----------



## Viola (Feb 1, 2002)

I only posted that because I just ate popcorn.


----------



## Carhootel (Jul 16, 2008)

I have to say that it's times like now that I'm glad I'm not in front of a TV - I can only imagine the endless news cycles going on right now, I just get to refresh CNN.com









and I'll







: along with you all


----------



## artgoddess (Jun 29, 2004)

just waiting. Nancy Pelosi is speaking now.


----------



## Arduinna (May 30, 2002)

They approved the rules of debate, that is all.


----------



## artgoddess (Jun 29, 2004)

it passed!


----------



## goodygumdrops (Jan 25, 2007)

YAY


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

Where is the text of the bill that actually passed? It was so confusing what *exactly* was even being pushed at this point


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

Just wanted to post a reminder to stay within the rules of the N&CE forum on this topic. Specifically:

Quote:

We welcome most topics of News & Current Events. However, we do *not wish to host political debate* or political/celebrity gossip or speculation.

Incidental and occasional reference to politics is understandable. However, *politics should not be the focus of the thread*. Political or partisan topics will be removed at moderator discretion. If members continue to post in a political or divisive manner, we reserve the right to restrict their participation.
Lets keep the focus on heath care & away from any partisan bickering or posturing.

Thanks!


----------



## artgoddess (Jun 29, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TiredX2* 









Where is the text of the bill that actually passed? It was so confusing what *exactly* was even being pushed at this point









yep, now that it has passed, my uterus has some big questions. like how long is it okay for maternity care to excluded from my plan.


----------



## Arduinna (May 30, 2002)

oh yeah yet another mandate that we have to spend money

I can't wait till November, this is going to be FUN!


----------



## Arduinna (May 30, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *artgoddess* 
yep, now that it has passed, my uterus has some big questions. like how long is it okay for maternity care to excluded from my plan.

considering that we will be paying for it for 3 years before anything happens, don't hold your breath.


----------



## artgoddess (Jun 29, 2004)

Just to be clear, Rush retracted right? he'll be staying here anyway.


----------



## Arduinna (May 30, 2002)

huh? I have no idea what you are talking about.


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Arduinna* 
huh? I have no idea what you are talking about.

Rush Limbaugh said he would move to Costa Rica if Heath Care passed.

The real confusion? Why Costa Rica:
"Socialized" heath care
New president pushing carbon neutrality


----------



## Arduinna (May 30, 2002)

Oh, I don't follow Limbaugh LOL so I hadn't heard that.


----------



## Freud (Jan 21, 2008)

The actual text of the bill is over 2000 pages.









Someone want to read it and let me know what it means for me?


----------



## Arduinna (May 30, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Freud* 
The actual text of the bill is over 2000 pages.









Someone want to read it and let me know what it means for me?









What I want to know is how many that voted on it ( either way ) actually read it.


----------



## JessicaS (Nov 18, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Arduinna* 
What I want to know is how many that voted on it ( either way ) actually read it.

That is a good question. I know many were actually stating a lot of incorrect information.

I did write to my Congressmen regarding the bill but they don't tend to vote the way I ask them to.


----------



## BeeandOwlsMum (Jul 11, 2002)

I am very interested in what it all will mean.


----------



## JessicaS (Nov 18, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *AdinaL* 
I am very interested in what it all will mean.

Yes, after a bill is passed is when they start fine tuning it. We might not end up with precisely the same thing that passed today.


----------



## Flower of Bliss (Jun 13, 2006)

Here is what the National Partnership for Women and Families claims this means for me. This is obviously a special interest group, and I'm not calling their report unbiased (nor am I looking for an abortion debate). So, is "Employers will be required to provide a reasonable break time and place for nursing mothers to breast feed." really true?!?


----------



## Freud (Jan 21, 2008)

I don't know much about what the bill actually says; however, one major issue I have with it (as it is being reported by the media) is that it requires people to have insurance. What if someone doesn't want insurance? They get fined for it, I think that's stoopid.

Also, I think the bill will fine employers who don't offer insurance to their employees. If they don't then they get fined. Unless the fine is larger than the amount the employer would have to pay for group insurance, then I think many employers will just opt to pay the fine.

Someone let me know if my facts are off.


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

I found this article interesting:

The Top 10 Immediate Benefits You'll Get When Health Care Passes

Quote:

Prohibit pre-existing condition exclusions for children in all new plans;

Provide immediate access to insurance for uninsured Americans who are uninsured because of a pre-existing condition through a temporary high-risk pool;

Prohibit dropping people from coverage when they get sick in all individual plans;

Eliminate lifetime limits and restrictive annual limits on benefits in all plans;

Require premium rebates to enrollees from insurers with high administrative expenditures and require public disclosure of the percent of premiums applied to overhead costs.
I do wonder what #3 (On the quoted portion) will mean in reality. I







the concept of the last one listed.


----------



## Drummer's Wife (Jun 5, 2005)

Thanks, TiredX2.


----------



## BeeandOwlsMum (Jul 11, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Freud* 
I don't know much about what the bill actually says; however, one major issue I have with it (as it is being reported by the media) is that it requires people to have insurance. What if someone doesn't want insurance? They get fined for it, I think that's stoopid.

Also, I think the bill will fine employers who don't offer insurance to their employees. If they don't then they get fined. Unless the fine is larger than the amount the employer would have to pay for group insurance, then I think many employers will just opt to pay the fine.

Someone let me know if my facts are off.

I also wonder about this. I don't believe it dictates what level of coverage you have, so you could still just have catastrophic, which isn't a bad thing. I don't know the particulars though, so I don't know what exactly this will really pan out to be, you know?

Thanks, Tired, for the link.


----------



## Arduinna (May 30, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Freud* 
I don't know much about what the bill actually says; however, one major issue I have with it (as it is being reported by the media) is that it requires people to have insurance. What if someone doesn't want insurance? They get fined for it, I think that's stoopid.


That is one of my biggest complaints too.


----------



## hakeber (Aug 3, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TiredX2* 
Rush Limbaugh said he would move to Costa Rica if Heath Care passed.

The real confusion? Why Costa Rica:
"Socialized" heath care
New president pushing carbon neutrality










Well maybe he wanted to go to the second worst socialized medicine in the world?







Or he wanted to move to a country where they make even more absurd empty promises than in the states?

Ironically, it was probably the recent crack down on immigration policy for which they have been borrowing from US policy that made him change his mind.







It's too much of a pain in the ass to bother any more.

I was under the impression that the intent of the intial bill was that it requires adults have insurance for their CHILDREN, but not themselves. IME the only time private insurance is worth a penny of its premiums is when it has to compete with a competent and high qulaity public health care system.

As far as I can tell this is hardly healthcare reform, it's just insurance reform.


----------



## Monarchgrrl (Aug 16, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Freud* 
Also, I think the bill will fine employers who don't offer insurance to their employees. If they don't then they get fined. Unless the fine is larger than the amount the employer would have to pay for group insurance, then I think many employers will just opt to pay the fine.

Someone let me know if my facts are off.

Employers of over 50 people already have to provide group insurance, or be fined _now_. Under this new plan that won't change. Employers with less than 50 people still won't have to, but those that do provide insurance will get 50% of their premiums back in a tax credit. So that's a good thing!

Personally I'm so happy this passed! Especially for the reasons that TiredX2 posted. It's not perfect for sure, but it's a least a step in the right direction. I'm hoping that eventually this leads to complete, socialized health care. I'm hoping that insurance companies will have to lower their rates to compete with the federal plan. Next February DW and I won't have our employer-paid health insurance anymore and I'm SO glad that pre-existing conditions won't matter and that they can't drop us if we get cancer or some other expensive disease.


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

HuffingtonPost now has "Top 18 Immediate Effects":

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_508315.html

There are some *really* interesting changes!


----------



## kyndmamaof4 (Jul 25, 2006)

Quote:

Chain restaurants will be required to provide a "nutrient content disclosure statement" alongside their items. Expect to see calories listed both on in-store and drive-through menus of fast-food restaurants sometime soon.
Linked from: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0...15.html#s75203








It's about time! I think it would make people think twice about ordering from fast food places if it told how many calories are actually in their Bic Mac. *It's actually 540 (empty) calories.

*http://nutrition.mcdonalds.com/nutri...mDetailInfo.do


----------



## Aeress (Jan 25, 2005)

I would like to see the penalty for choosing to not be insured removed...while the reasoning that the uninsured who get sick cost more is often used, people should have choice.


----------



## KatWrangler (Mar 21, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Arduinna* 
That is one of my biggest complaints too.

Why?


----------



## Arduinna (May 30, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Monarchgrrl* 
Employers of over 50 people already have to provide group insurance, or be fined _now_.

.

The point is *individuals* will be fined for not purchasing health insurance. Personally I think calling this health care reform is inaccurate it's an insurance mandate.


----------



## hakeber (Aug 3, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TiredX2* 
HuffingtonPost now has "Top 18 Immediate Effects":

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_508315.html

There are some *really* interesting changes!

Thanks for that link! Very interesting.


----------



## Monarchgrrl (Aug 16, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Arduinna* 
The point is *individuals* will be fined for not purchasing health insurance. Personally I think calling this health care reform is inaccurate it's an insurance mandate.

Yes, I know about individuals being fined. That's not what I was answering. I was answering the question/point about businesses being fined if they don't provide it.

I'm fine with the fine. I mean, I think the best system would be higher taxes and free healthcare for everyone. But we're not there yet. Low income people will have the fine reduced and/or removed. And the fine doesn't start to kick in until 2014, IIRC. There is time to plan for it and budget for insurance. I think people need to prioritize in order to have health insurance. I'm sure that sounds classist of me but just like if you choose to drive a car you must have auto insurance or be fined, I think health insurance has to be a part of people's budgets just after shelter and food. I think (hope) this reform (which is really health insurance reform, not healthCARE reform) will make it more affordable for people to have health insurance.


----------



## Arduinna (May 30, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Monarchgrrl* 
Yes, I know about individuals being fined. That's not what I was answering. I was answering the question/point about businesses being fined if they don't provide it.

*I'm fine with the fine. I mean, I think the best system would be higher taxes and free healthcare for everyone.* But we're not there yet. Low income people will have the fine reduced and/or removed. And the fine doesn't start to kick in until 2014, IIRC. There is time to plan for it and budget for insurance. I think people need to prioritize in order to have health insurance. *I'm sure that sounds classist of me but just like if you choose to drive a car you must have auto insurance or be fined*, I think health insurance has to be a part of people's budgets just after shelter and food. I think (hope) this reform (which is really health insurance reform, not healthCARE reform) will make it more affordable for people to have health insurance.


To the first bold part, what we are getting is higher taxes and a mandate to pay for insurance. Nothing is ever free where government is concerned.

To the second, the two are not comparable. With car insurance the states requirements are either tied to your drivers license or car registration ( depending on what state you live in) and no one forces you to own a car or get a DL license.

With health insurance, it's tied to your very existence.


----------



## artgoddess (Jun 29, 2004)

Also though, ER's are forced to care for people regardless of their ability to pay. If people who are low income (who will get free or reduced insurance) had coverage they could go to the doctor before it go so ill they needed an ER. I do have coverage, I self pay for. it's about 40% of my income, but I just can't imagine being without coverage. Under this new plan I will not be charged more than 9.5% of my income for my health care. That's huge for me. huge!


----------



## Monarchgrrl (Aug 16, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Arduinna* 
To the first bold part, what we are getting is higher taxes and a mandate to pay for insurance. Nothing is ever free where government is concerned.

To the second, the two are not comparable. With car insurance the states requirements are either tied to your drivers license or car registration ( depending on what state you live in) and no one forces you to own a car or get a DL license.

With health insurance, it's tied to your very existence.

To your first point, yes, that's why I said that would be the BEST situation. I didn't say that's what we're getting. Unless you are very very rich, your taxes aren't going up. But even if mine were, I would be fine with higher taxes if it helps the community or people with lower incomes get what they need, like health insurance.

I know that health insurance isn't like auto insurance. I think it is every person's right to have health insurance, and until that's free for everyone then I think it should be required to have it. If you have a car you have to have auto insurance. If you live here you have to have health insurance. If you work you have to pay taxes. I really do hope that the federal option is very inexpensive, especially for those that are barely making it now.


----------



## Arduinna (May 30, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Monarchgrrl* 
I think it is every person's right to have health insurance, and until that's free for everyone then I think it should be required to have it.

Nothing is ever free for everyone. That is a financial impossibility.


----------



## A&A (Apr 5, 2004)

I'm very happy about the 10% on tanning!!! People really need to think twice about doing that (and hey, cigarettes are taxed heavily, tanning should be, also.)

Does anyone know the income level that will have an increased tax to pay for health care reform? I think I read anyone making over 200k will pay more, but I'm not sure.


----------



## Arduinna (May 30, 2002)

I'm sick and tired of "sin" taxes.


----------



## witchygrrl (Aug 3, 2006)

see, I used to work in health insurance, so there are some things that make me sing about this. The frst and foremost beng the mandate to buy. I live in MA, so I'm mandated to buy it anyway unless I want a tax penalty, and I also have to buy car insurance unless I want to drive illegally. but getting to my point: the more people in a risk pool, the better the price will be. so if healthy people need to buy in, the cost for everyone, including the very sick, evens out, so the overall price becomes lower.

the other thng is, health insurance is not like other commodties--there is a moral component to it. my preference would be for single-payer, and then if I want extra goodies, I can buy supplemental insurance, like in Canada. and if i don't need it, then great, my tax money will help those that do. And I'm okay with that.


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

If I can't afford health care how will I afford the penalty? How can they take money if you don't have it? I worked for a year at a food pantry that provided prescription vouchers on a limited basis--there are so many poor people without insurance. They can barely feed their families. They won't be able to pay the penalty, and they won't be able to pay one single PENNY for their own health care. Reduced fees won't help. They have no money for extra's like health care.

I just don't get it.


----------



## A&A (Apr 5, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama* 
If I can't afford health care how will I afford the penalty? How can they take money if you don't have it? I worked for a year at a food pantry that provided prescription vouchers on a limited basis--there are so many poor people without insurance. They can barely feed their families. They won't be able to pay the penalty, and they won't be able to pay one single PENNY for their own health care. Reduced fees won't help. They have no money for extra's like health care.

I just don't get it.

Getting on Medicaid will be easier, as well.


----------



## tinybutterfly (May 31, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *witchygrrl* 
the other thng is, health insurance is not like other commodties--there is a moral component to it. my preference would be for single-payer, and then if I want extra goodies, I can buy supplemental insurance, like in Canada. and if i don't need it, then great, my tax money will help those that do. And I'm okay with that.

So people with more money still have better health insurance/care in Canada? I didn't know this. I thought everyone had the same health insurance and access to treatment in Canada.

How will access to Medicaid be easier? Are they changing the requirements that need to be met to qualify?

I am uncomfortable with the government making people get health insurance or making them pay a fine. It may still be unaffordable for some, insurance or the fine.

What about people who just don't use regular health care services? They still have to pay for an insurance they won't use? And that is okay if someone has extra money and they are okay dumping that money into the pool, but not everybody has extra money. That money might have been better used in their family to pay for alternative health care ( chiro, naturopath, etc.) or will those types of healthcare also be covered under insurance...I am doubtful they will be.

And I wonder if single payer is workable in the USA because our country is so big. If a country is small or has a smaller population, it might work really well, but here our country is pretty big and population is fairly high. Wondering if single payer will even be workable here?

I'll go back to reading now.


----------



## artgoddess (Jun 29, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *heartmama* 
If I can't afford health care how will I afford the penalty? How can they take money if you don't have it? I worked for a year at a food pantry that provided prescription vouchers on a limited basis--there are so many poor people without insurance. They can barely feed their families. They won't be able to pay the penalty, and they won't be able to pay one single PENNY for their own health care. Reduced fees won't help. They have no money for extra's like health care.

I just don't get it.


Quote:


Originally Posted by *A&A* 
Getting on Medicaid will be easier, as well.

Exactly part of the bill includes lowering, wait no, raising?, the annual income amount to be eligible for a government plan. It also has exemptions for the fine for those who are financially unable to pay.

I mean what do you do now if you or your kids get sick? miss work? go to the ER and just not pay? Are you in medical debt now?


----------



## KatWrangler (Mar 21, 2005)

All I know is, my husband and I are screwed by the end of August if he doesn't get a full time job with benefits. We are on transitional Medicaid. We lose it at the end of August.









With my husband's condition and the fact I have had PPD and currently on meds, we can't get an individual policy. Couldn't afford it anyway.







We will not be able to afford my husband's therapy and Docs. Unless we get script assistance, we will not be able to afford his meds.


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *tinybutterfly* 
So people with more money still have better health insurance/care in Canada? I didn't know this. I thought everyone had the same health insurance and access to treatment in Canada.

Just like in the US, people in Canada can go *outside* of their insurance at any time. In the US, if your insurance only covers certain things (like a hospital birth) you can choose to pay out of pocket for other things (like a home birth). In Canada if you don't want to wait a certain amount of time for a non-emergent proceedure, you can always choose to pay for faster service. If you want tests that have been determined to be non-medically necessary, you can find somewhere who will provide them for $.


----------



## allgirls (Apr 16, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TiredX2* 









Just like in the US, people in Canada can go *outside* of their insurance at any time. In the US, if your insurance only covers certain things (like a hospital birth) you can choose to pay out of pocket for other things (like a home birth). In Canada if you don't want to wait a certain amount of time for a non-emergent proceedure, you can always choose to pay for faster service. If you want tests that have been determined to be non-medically necessary, you can find somewhere who will provide them for $.

No..this isn't true...except with perhaps cosmetic surgery..but that's not covered under health care to start with. But you can't buy a test or a procedure. You cannot pay for medical service in Canada and bump the line...what you can do, if you have enough money, is fly into the US for example and buy medical testing if you don't want to wait or like the premier of Newfoundland, went to Florida for a procedure(he's very wealthy, donates his salary for being premier to charity) because he has a condo there and decided Florida was a nice place to recover. And you might have work benefits in lieu of wages for things like eyeglasses or dental care coverage or prescription drug coverage etc. But you don't get to jump the line if you have money...unless there is some big underground practice going on I'm completely unaware of..and if there is please do tell









But you can't pay for faster service for non-emergency procedures, beyond cosmetic stuff which isn't covered anyway so there are private clinics for that.


----------



## shantimama (Mar 11, 2002)

Exactly.

The extra insurance you can purchase in Canada is not for medical services like check ups, diagnostic procedures, surgery, etc. It is for dental care, prescriptions, massage therapy, eye glasses, hearing aids, etc. Those expenses can also be deducted when you file your income tax. Home birth and midwifery care are fully covered in several provinces.


----------



## Zamber (May 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *tinybutterfly* 
What about people who just don't use regular health care services? They still have to pay for an insurance they won't use? And that is okay if someone has extra money and they are okay dumping that money into the pool, but not everybody has extra money. That money might have been better used in their family to pay for alternative health care ( chiro, naturopath, etc.) or will those types of healthcare also be covered under insurance...I am doubtful they will be.

This is the big question that is on my mind.

I was once upon a time on medicaid (when pregnant with DS - worst care I have ever recieved in my life), but I dropped it when all of the alternative care physicians, chiropractors, etc. I took myself and my son to after his birth didn't accept medicaid (and the nutropath I want to take my family to now accepts NO insurance). It was a waste of time going down and filling out stacks and stacks of invasive paperwork for something I was not going to use.

I don't plan on ever taking my family or myself to a mainstream doctor ever again (we don't need the harassment of why we don't vax, circ, etc.). To top it off, we live paycheck to paycheck (I support my 5 year old son, student husband, and myself on 1 income) - there is no wiggle room for fines and mandatory health insurance. What are we suppose to do?

I get that something needed to be done, but I am just not sure forced insurance or fines is the answer.


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *allgirls* 
No..this isn't true...except with perhaps cosmetic surgery..but that's not covered under health care to start with. But you can't buy a test or a procedure. You cannot pay for medical service in Canada and bump the line...what you can do, if you have enough money, is fly into the US for example and buy medical testing if you don't want to wait or like the premier of Newfoundland, went to Florida for a procedure(he's very wealthy, donates his salary for being premier to charity) because he has a condo there and decided Florida was a nice place to recover. And you might have work benefits in lieu of wages for things like eyeglasses or dental care coverage or prescription drug coverage etc. But you don't get to jump the line if you have money...unless there is some big underground practice going on I'm completely unaware of..and if there is please do tell









Except that 75% of the popultion of Canada lives within 100 miles of the US border. So anyone who has the money & ability to get south 100 miles can "hop the line" anytime. I'm sorry I wasn't clearer earlier.


----------



## mamadelbosque (Feb 6, 2007)

Zamber, you may never want to goto a mainstream medical provider... but what happens if you get in a car accident and are seriously hurt? What if your house catches on fire and you/your kids get 3rd degree burns? Or your kid wrecks his bike and breaks an arm/leg?? I get that you will not willingly goto a mainstream doctor, but some stuff theres really no option for. So, your just going to show up to the ER, there going to help you and your not going to be able to pay. So then the hospital has to pass those costs on to everyone else. THATS why we need mandated coverage. Because most of us hope we never need it. But when we need it, we _NEED_ it. And if we don't have it, then everyone else pays for us via higher costs.

Rich people everywhere will always be able to fly/drive to another country to get better/experimental/unneccasary procedures done. Honestly, I'm all for single-payer. Then we're all in the same boat, and we can figure out how to pay for it. We'll all have the same basic level of care, and nobody will be going bankrupt and loosing their house cause' they got sick or got in a car accident or whatever.


----------



## Violet2 (Apr 26, 2007)

Here is my little contribution to this conversation...

I just got out of the hospital. I except the bills will be $20k+. We have a high deductible on our insurance and will likely have to pay $10k or so. Which is impossible for us financially yet we are 'middle class'. I mean, we'll be on the hook now for this year's deductible and _then_ next year we start at $0 again. So we'll be paying for this year's deductible PLUS adding next year's on top of it (although hopefully I'll stay out of the hospital) which just compounds the financial devastation. Further none of my meds or copays apply toward the deductible so we have an additional $1k to $2k out of pocket that doesn't even 'count'.

It seems asinine to me that I have insurance and can still face the poorhouse due to one night in the hospital. That I have insurance that costs me $200 a month out of pocket that never counts toward my deductible.

This is insurance from a Fortune 500 company that I personally helped make millions of dollars for and my DH continues to contribute to their profit. We have made them more money than they have spent on our health care.

I have no idea if the health care reform bill will end up being a good thing, but we had to do something. I hope we keep doing something so we have an equitable system that anyone can afford.

V


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Mandated coverage means nothing if American's are not given affordable health care options.

Most bankruptcies here are due to medical debt, and most people who file for this reason DO have health insurance. It is not enough to 'pick a plan' with affordable premiums...that plan has to be affordable start to finish. Affordable premiums are window dressing--the deductible and co-pays for care must be affordable, the cost of prescriptions, emergency care, etc. must also be affordable. For most people, this is not the case.

I also read that most medical bankruptcies (by people who had insurance) were the result of bills totaling less than 10,000 dollars.

The reality is that most Americans do not have an extra 5 or 10 thousand dollars laying around nor do they have any way to get their hands on it to pay the deductible.

It is kind of a ticking time bomb. You pay the premiums so you can say you have healthcare...but when pressed to find money for the deductible many people can't do it.

So even though "only" 50 Million Americans are un-insured, millions and millions of those counted as currently 'insured' are in fact, just as likely to wind up in bankruptcy as the uninsured if they become ill and can't pay their deductibles.

I feel there has not been much talk about this with the health care legislation. The talk focuses on affordable premiums, without saying as much about the crisis created by deductibles.


----------



## JessicaS (Nov 18, 2001)

I really like that restaurants will be required to display the nutritional content of their menu.


----------



## Violet2 (Apr 26, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *abimommy* 
I really like that restaurants will be required to display the nutritional content of their menu.

Me too! It's actually really helpful!

V


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Violet2* 
Me too! It's actually really helpful!

I've been surprised at how informative it really is. DP feels it is unnecessary but there have been several times that I was surprised at the relative calorie content of different items on the same menu.


----------



## KatWrangler (Mar 21, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *abimommy* 
I really like that restaurants will be required to display the nutritional content of their menu.

This will be very helpful. I just started Weight Watchers again. I try to be prepared ahead of time, but sometimes I get caught off guard.


----------



## JessicaS (Nov 18, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *KatWrangler* 
This will be very helpful. I just started Weight Watchers again. I try to be prepared ahead of time, but sometimes I get caught off guard.

It is really hard, I keep seeing those "CALORIE HORRORS!!!" things on yahoo and it is just mind boggling how horrible some of the salads are. There have been several salads with more calories than someone should eat in a day!!


----------



## JessicaS (Nov 18, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TiredX2* 
I've been surprised at how informative it really is. DP feels it is unnecessary but there have been several times that I was surprised at the relative calorie content of different items on the same menu.

I found California Pizza Kitchen's (yum) nutritional content to be pretty horrific. They have *multiple* salads over 1000 calories.









Of course, it only makes sense that Blue Cheese isn't *healthy* but I think it would really help people to actually see it right in front of them. Also, it might be a kick in the pants to restaurants to start being a bit more responsible with their menu.


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *abimommy* 
I found California Pizza Kitchen's (yum) nutritional content to be pretty horrific. They have *multiple* salads over 1000 calories.









See, that is exactly what I'm talking about. Red Robin is another one. I wonder how many people order something they think sounds better for them than a burger and fries---- like a chicken salad--- only to look and the calories are out of this world!


----------

