HER2 Support Group Forums - View Single Post

Carolyns · 02-10-2009, 05:07 PM

Snufi,

I haven't heard the President speak about National Health care only expanding health care options to more people. I noticed that the Bloomberg article was based on commentary by Betsy McCaughey. I will look further into her insights on the matter as this article is a commentary.

The other article seems to speak about extending Medicaid benefits to laid off workers during this time when many have lost coverage. I cut a pasted a part of the Ed Koch article below. It seems like I am missing something here and the connection between National Health Care and these articles. As a Stage IV cancer patient I take this all very seriously but do not want to be upset without reason. Isn't it a good thing to extend benefits to people who have no options for health care because they have lost their job? Or to help laid off workers retain private health insurance from the employer that laid them off because otherwise they could not afford to retain the private policy?

Carolyn

"With little notice and no public hearings, House Democrats would create a temporary new entitlement allowing workers getting unemployment checks to qualify for Medicaid, the heath program for low-income people. Spouses and children could also receive benefits, no matter how much money the family had. In addition, the stimulus package would offer a hefty subsidy to help laid-off workers retain the same health plans they had from their former employers. Altogether, the economic recovery bill would speed $127 billion over the next two and a half years to individuals and states for health care alone, a fact that has Republicans fuming that the stimulus package is a back door to universal health coverage…As Congress rushes to inject cash into a listless economy, it is setting aside many of the restraints that have checked new domestic spending for more than a decade. The White House said the changes contemplated by Congress would provide coverage for nearly 8.5 million newly uninsured people who had lost their jobs and would protect Medicaid for many more whose eligibility would otherwise be at risk.”

02-10-2009, 05:07 PM	#6
Carolyns Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: South Florida Posts: 477	Snufi, I haven't heard the President speak about National Health care only expanding health care options to more people. I noticed that the Bloomberg article was based on commentary by Betsy McCaughey. I will look further into her insights on the matter as this article is a commentary. The other article seems to speak about extending Medicaid benefits to laid off workers during this time when many have lost coverage. I cut a pasted a part of the Ed Koch article below. It seems like I am missing something here and the connection between National Health Care and these articles. As a Stage IV cancer patient I take this all very seriously but do not want to be upset without reason. Isn't it a good thing to extend benefits to people who have no options for health care because they have lost their job? Or to help laid off workers retain private health insurance from the employer that laid them off because otherwise they could not afford to retain the private policy? Carolyn "With little notice and no public hearings, House Democrats would create a temporary new entitlement allowing workers getting unemployment checks to qualify for Medicaid, the heath program for low-income people. Spouses and children could also receive benefits, no matter how much money the family had. In addition, the stimulus package would offer a hefty subsidy to help laid-off workers retain the same health plans they had from their former employers. Altogether, the economic recovery bill would speed $127 billion over the next two and a half years to individuals and states for health care alone, a fact that has Republicans fuming that the stimulus package is a back door to universal health coverage…As Congress rushes to inject cash into a listless economy, it is setting aside many of the restraints that have checked new domestic spending for more than a decade. The White House said the changes contemplated by Congress would provide coverage for nearly 8.5 million newly uninsured people who had lost their jobs and would protect Medicaid for many more whose eligibility would otherwise be at risk.”