<p>I support universal coverage for all legal residents, my question is how best to make that happen. I don’t think Obamacare does that – heck, no one actually knows what Obamacare does and it could turn out to make current supporters very unhappy. That said, I’m not confident that there is a single “fix.” It wouldn’t necesarily be a bad thing to have various options, each of which works well for specific populations at specific times. A patchwork quilt can be beautiful, strong and provide excellent protection from the cold. Maybe I’ve been fortunate, but I’ve had different insurance companies over the years and I’ve never found any to be particularly terrible. Imperfect, for sure, but not so bad as to be without adequate functionality. But I’m not looking for perfect. On something that isn’t unique to me, good enough is quite fine. I do think people should be able to choose catastrophic coverage if it works for them, I think coverage should be portable, I think people should be able to choose their own coverage/deductible amounts, should be able to shop around across state lines, I think vouchers and subsidies can work, and I think there should be a straight-up full coverage, government run option for those who can’t do for themselves. I’m just not sure that should be actually run at the federal level. I think Obamacare goes too far, does too much, costs to much and has too many other agendas hidden inside. On a purely personal level, I don’t think the actual medical administration of healthcare should be a federal responsibility. The thought of that bothers me a lot.</p>
<p>The vouchers that have been proposed do not cover the cost of health care…</p>
<p>Over time…the costs are increasingly shifted to the population and insurance companies will make more money.</p>
<p>My opinion…If we are going to use vouchers…we need new proposals…unless people want to give more of their money to insurance companies…</p>
<p>And I think it would really be helpful if people were told the truth about the vouchers that have been proposed…so the people can make informed decisions.</p>
<p>BCEagle, as I’m sure you know, Emergency Rooms are prohibited from turning any person away, regardless of ability to pay. Therefore, when an uninsured person turns up at a New Hampshire ER, YOU are paying for their medical care.</p>
<p>So the question is, Are you OK with subsidizing medical care for people who don’t pay into the system? Or do you believe we should move to a model where hospitals can withhold life-saving treatment unless the patient proves they either have insurance or can pay the bill in full? Or should we go to some kind of universal coverage, either mandate or single-payer? </p>
<p>It has to be one of the three. And option 1, Doing Nothing, keeps the present system of free-riders, which I wouldn’t think Live-Free-Or-Die-ers would much like.</p>
<p>
I specifically said “vouchers can work” not “vouchers are working” or “vouchers have worked.” Pretty clear that I think the concept is a good one, but implementation has yet to be resolved, and also pretty clear that I think vouchers are only appropriate as part of a whole package of reform and only for some populations.</p>
<p>The current system is flawed, the proposed system is worse. We need to start all over again.</p>
<p>I disagree the proposed healthcare plans are worse… Actually…the healthcare plans are being enacted…so I think the new healthcare plans are a big improvement. </p>
<p>Pre existing conditions are covered… That is huge
Risk pools are taking shape.
Kids can stay on their parent plans until they are 26…
More young people are getting insurance…which is a good thing.</p>
<p>I prefer single payer…but we don’t always get what we want.</p>
<p>
And I disagree with you. I think Obamacare is a complete and utter bomb, but we shall see how much of it is actually enacted and how much it costs to walk back its mistakes.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>You make statements that are just plain false. When you get called
on it, you guess the situation as to the cause or imply motives or
desires on other people. Those are strawmen.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>The cost of living in NH is lower than it is in MA and the
unemployment rate is lower so there are people that may want to live
in NH for those reasons. I think that healthcare may be a little easier
to get in MA and not having to pay for it would be a rational economic
decision for those in these circumstances.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I suppose that those that do this feel that it is in their own best
economic self-interest.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>You’d think that but I don’t see any evidence of it.</p>
<p>This morning I was driving through an intersection and a lady came
through it without stopping (she was doing the "rolling stop-sign
thing) looking in the other direction while on her mobile phone. I’m
really glad that she decided to look my way and then coming to a stop
inside the intersection rather than continuing her “rolling stop”.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Yes.</p>
<p>But those of us with insurance have the option of carrying uninsured
motorists coverage. Useful for driving in MA where there are a fair
number of people that drive without insurance despite it being
required.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Well, as I wrote before, NH has a special circumstance at the moment.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I think that we should lower the costs of healthcare by providing more
supply where supply is short and demand is high. I think that we
should encourage prevention and health over treating the results. I
think that rationing is present with any system. I’d like to see more
of a Singaporean model to control costs.</p>
<p>I am personally happy with the current model here.</p>
<p>[Vermont</a>, New Hampshire top list of healthiest states - CNN.com](<a href=“http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/06/health/list-healthiest-states-2011/index.html]Vermont”>http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/06/health/list-healthiest-states-2011/index.html)</p>
<p>The strengths of New Hampshires Health:</p>
<ul>
<li>Low percentage of children in poverty</li>
<li>Low violent crime rate</li>
<li>High use of early prenatal care</li>
<li>High immunization coverage</li>
</ul>
<p>Challenges:</p>
<ul>
<li>Moderate per capita public health funding</li>
<li>Moderate prevalence of binge drinking</li>
</ul>
<p>Highlights:</p>
<ul>
<li>Smoking decreased from 25.3% to 16.9% (adults) in the last decade</li>
<li>Percentage of children in poverty decreased from 10.5% to 6.2% in 2011</li>
<li>Diabetes increased from 7.1% to 7.9% (it’s pretty sad if that’s relatively good compared to the rest of the country)</li>
<li>Obesity increased from 18.1% to 25.5% (adults) in the past decade</li>
<li>Infant mortality rate declined from 8.4 to 4.7 per 1,000 since 1990.</li>
</ul>
<p>I know, Zoosermom.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>BCEagle, the state is immaterial. All states are under the same law, and must offer free emergency care. NH is no different. </p>
<p>As an example, from Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center (NH) website:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I ask each of you to please understand how we’re structured in this country, how care is delivered, and who really pays for it now.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Did I state otherwise?</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I know how it is structured in my state and I’d suggest that you do a little research on it rather than telling me how it works when you don’t really know.</p>
<p>I’m sorry if I misunderstood you, BCEagle. You had several times (i.e., “Well, as I wrote before, NH has a special circumstance at the moment.”) that NH was different, so I thought you were saying NH was different. </p>
<p>I don’t have to research NH law, as the law that pertains is federal.</p>
<p>I wasn’t arguing about the legal requirement - but the payment (or lack thereof) mechanism.</p>
<p>
Rational economic decision? Interesting spin. Its theft. Pure and simple. There is nothing false about that. If a resident of a state wants to get healthcare they know upfront they cannot pay for, its disgusting to go mooch off the services provided in a state where those residents pay their taxes and are eligible for these services. If residents of NH benefit from no state income or sales tax, then they should stick with the healthcare their non-taxes provide.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Why? If you’re poor, you do what you have to. Right? Or do you think
that you should dictate to the poor what they should do? The poor send
their kids to local schools but they don’t pay anywhere near the costs
of their kids’ educations. Is that theft?</p>
<p>One pays for insurance and doesn’t use it. Another pays for insurance
and uses it like crazy. Is that theft?</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>The state or residents have no control over what their residents
do. We don’t have guards at the border asking for ID.</p>
<p>Theft is when you purposely take goods or services you know you will not pay for. Your state has a Medicaid system. The indigent who cannot afford healthcare should apply for and use these services. That is what it is there for. Here ya go. [MEDICAID</a> | New Hampshire](<a href=“http://healthinsuranceinfo.net/getinsured/new-hampshire/financial-assistance/medicaid/]MEDICAID”>http://healthinsuranceinfo.net/getinsured/new-hampshire/financial-assistance/medicaid/)</p>
<p>I am not saying that the uninsured should not have healthcare. Of course they should. But to go to a different state that may have better services because their residents pay taxes to cover these services is wrong.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>So sending your kid to school is theft.
Using roads in another state is theft.
Using parks in another town is theft.</p>
<p>Our federal laws provide for the indigent to use hospitals that they can’t pay for. Yes, in other states. Our legal constructs apparently don’t construe this as theft.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I generally don’t tell the indigent what they should do. Why do you feel that you need to do this? Do you think that they will listen to you?</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Why is it wrong? Aren’t they entitled via Federal Law?</p>
<p>I guess NH residents aren’t really free…they are a bunch of moochers.</p>
<p>Bc-
Schools are paid for, in most states, by taxes. The analogies are ust plan silly. ayou want to cheat the neighboring state by going across the border and take higher quality services that you have no intention of paying for, you rationalize it any way you want. It is disgusting.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>We’re just talking about the uninsured.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Yes. But some pay more and some pay less. Are those paying less moochers?</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Do I want to? No. I have insurance and just pay for services out of pocket when I don’t
have coverage for something.</p>
<p>Why do I need to rationalize something? I’m merely reporting behavior.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Take it up with the uninsured.</p>
<p>
sure sounds like it.</p>
<p>Most roads are paid for with tax dollars. And if there is a cost to use it (aka a toll) everyone pays. Unless maybe the moocher NH uninsured run the tolls while they are going to cheat their MA neighbors. Same for parks. Several have admission fees or require parking permits or payment. I guess the NH moochers will sneak in and ingore any parking fine they get. Lovely set of morals they have.</p>