FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


New health care law a godsend for Texas lawyer, family





handfleisch
Interesting article on the effects of the health reform passed by Obama and the Dems

Quote:

New health care law a godsend for Texas lawyer, family

WASHINGTON Attorney Andrew Griffin doesn't share the outrage that many of his fellow Texans feel over the Obama administration's new health care law.

Instead, he thinks of his epileptic son Alec, 12, as almost a poster child for the new law and thinks that his family will benefit because it prohibits insurers from denying coverage of a pre-existing condition.

Two years ago, Griffin, a new law school grad, discovered that he made too much money at the Fort Worth law firm he'd just joined to qualify for his son's care under the Texas Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP.)

Alec's seizures, which had begun in 2003 but all but disappeared, had become constant, but more than 60 insurers rejected Griffin's applications for coverage. Turning to his wife, he proposed that they divorce so she and their two children could qualify for federal assistance.

"We'd do whatever it takes for him," said Griffin.

His boss, J. Steven King, was horrified.

"I said I would not let that happen," said King, who runs a family law practice in Fort Worth. He stepped in and proposed instead to cap Griffin's salary at $48,000, the limit for a family of four to quality for CHIP.

"I felt horrible, like I was taking advantage of him," King said.

Griffin had to make sure that he didn't have any assets a leased car passed muster, but not one he owned, and a house had to be rented but that way Alec could get the coverage and the surgery he needed.

When the new law kicks in three months from now, however, Griffin looks forward to getting out from under CHIP and nearly doubling his salary.

The health care law requires insurance companies to accept all applicants, regardless of pre-existing conditions, starting in 2014. Between now and then, the federal government will fund high-risk insurance pools in the states.


"Health insurance reform is designed to prevent any child from being denied coverage because he or she has a pre-existing condition," said Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius before Congress approved it.

For 12-year-old Alec Griffin, the new law and new coverage won't impact his care. But they'll have an impact on his family.

"Under the restrictions, you can't accumulate wealth," said Andrew Griffin. With a guarantee of insurance, the lawyer thinks that his family can start saving for a down payment for a home and ultimately provide Alec with "a better quality of life."


Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/04/25/92810/new-health-care-law-a-godsend.html#ixzz0m8yCbwum
coolclay
Quote:
cap Griffin's salary at $48,000
Oh no only $48,000 poor lawyer. My single mother supported us 3 children without government assistance just driving bus and landscaping for friends and family. It's too bad your so disgustingly stuck up the Democrats blank. Maybe you could try posting something at least half intelligent and nonpartisan.
Bikerman
There is no need for gratuitously offensive remarks. Your point is made without the highlighted sentence.

Bikerman - Moderator
handfleisch
coolclay wrote:
Quote:
cap Griffin's salary at $48,000
Oh no only $48,000 poor lawyer. My single mother supported us 3 children without government assistance just driving bus and landscaping for friends and family. It's too bad your so disgustingly stuck up the Democrats butt crack. Maybe you could try posting something at least half intelligent and nonpartisan.

Well your attitude is sadistic as well as vulgar, very typical of reactionary politics. Very unAmerican, though, in its naked envy of someone who is making a good wage. Are you anti-capitalism, or what?

Just because your mother suffered doesn't mean everyone should. In fact if this health care law was in place when you were young, maybe your mother could have skipped the second job. Wouldn't that have been nice for you all?

Also, did anyone of your brothers and sisters have serious chronic illnesses, like the child in the article? I doubt it, since then she would have had to used something like Medicaid, which is socialist medicine, and you might have a different attitude (like gratitude).

Do you think that people like your mother who have children with serious illnesses shouldn't have some affordable health insurance, or do you think it is right that they should go bankrupt first?

Did you even read the article? This person had to keep his salary artificially low so as to qualify for health insurance. Isn't that terribly anti-capitalistic, anti-freedom? The new law changes this, a victory for free enterprise.
Stubru Freak
I'm happy for America about the health care bill. You finally joined the rest of the civilised world in giving everyone medical help, which is a human right. Very Happy
Voodoocat
Quote:
When the new law kicks in three months from now, however, Griffin looks forward to getting out from under CHIP - and nearly doubling his salary.


I'm sure that I will get slammed for this, but if he is making $96.000 a year, and the median American salary is about $50,000 a year (http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/acs-09.pdf) , he can probably afford the medical care. Of course money will be tight, but if this family could live on the same salary that the most Americans live off of, he would have about $40,000 available to pay for medical care.
Stubru Freak
The problem is, if the boy had suddenly needed more healthcare than they could afford, he wouldn't have been able to pay for it. Under CHIP, he is safe.

By the way, this is money going from a government-run healthcare program to a private insurance company. Isn't that what Republicans want?
Voodoocat
My point is that this man makes twice the median salary, yet cannot find the money to pay for his child's healthcare. I understand that a family making $30,000 will have a very difficult time paying for long-term epilepsy care, but I just don't buy that a man making $96,000 can't find a way to pay for his own child's healthcare. There are many options. First, if the wife is not working, she could get a job to pay off the medical bills. Also, I'm sure that most banks would love to lend a first year lawyer money! After all, he is making $96,000 his first year. Imagine what he will be making in five years!!!!

It seems that even though this man had other options available, he chose to hand over the responsibility for his child's healthcare to the government.
Stubru Freak
Hmm, as far as I understand, the main problem is that nobody wants to sell health insurance for the kid. So I think that, although they could pay his hospital bills now, if there's a complication (e.g. he needs surgery or anything), they don't have the money to pay for it, and the kid wouldn't be able to get the surgery.

I don't otherwise see how his hospital bills could be so high that reducing his income that much would be profitable.
coolclay
Quote:
Well your attitude is sadistic as well as vulgar, very typical of reactionary politics. Very unAmerican, though, in its naked envy of someone who is making a good wage. Are you anti-capitalism, or what?

Just because your mother suffered doesn't mean everyone should. In fact if this health care law was in place when you were young, maybe your mother could have skipped the second job. Wouldn't that have been nice for you all?

Also, did anyone of your brothers and sisters have serious chronic illnesses, like the child in the article? I doubt it, since then she would have had to used something like Medicaid, which is socialist medicine, and you might have a different attitude (like gratitude).

Do you think that people like your mother who have children with serious illnesses shouldn't have some affordable health insurance, or do you think it is right that they should go bankrupt first?

Did you even read the article? This person had to keep his salary artificially low so as to qualify for health insurance. Isn't that terribly anti-capitalistic, anti-freedom? The new law changes this, a victory for free enterprise.


First of all my Mother did not suffer nor did us children. We learned responsibility and got jobs as soon as possible, and worked our way through school and college. Second of all he didn't "have to keep his salary artificially low", he chose too.

And besides I agree with the part of the health care law that requires insurance companies to accept everyone even preexisting conditions.

Oh and btw since you asked I am partially anti-capitalism, when we live in a closed system as we obviously do, a grow grow grow economic philosophy obviously will lead to the destruction of our system. A basic ecology class can teach you that.
handfleisch
coolclay wrote:
Quote:
Well your attitude is sadistic as well as vulgar, very typical of reactionary politics. Very unAmerican, though, in its naked envy of someone who is making a good wage. Are you anti-capitalism, or what?

Just because your mother suffered doesn't mean everyone should. In fact if this health care law was in place when you were young, maybe your mother could have skipped the second job. Wouldn't that have been nice for you all?

Also, did anyone of your brothers and sisters have serious chronic illnesses, like the child in the article? I doubt it, since then she would have had to used something like Medicaid, which is socialist medicine, and you might have a different attitude (like gratitude).

Do you think that people like your mother who have children with serious illnesses shouldn't have some affordable health insurance, or do you think it is right that they should go bankrupt first?

Did you even read the article? This person had to keep his salary artificially low so as to qualify for health insurance. Isn't that terribly anti-capitalistic, anti-freedom? The new law changes this, a victory for free enterprise.


First of all my Mother did not suffer nor did us children. We learned responsibility and got jobs as soon as possible, and worked our way through school and college. Second of all he didn't "have to keep his salary artificially low", he chose too.

And besides I agree with the part of the health care law that requires insurance companies to accept everyone even preexisting conditions.


You forgot to answer -- what would your mother have done if you or your siblings had a major chronic illness, how would she have paid for it? Wouldn't she have ended up using government-sponsored health care (after totally depleting all her resources, of course)?

You miss the whole point -- he had to keep his salary low so he could qualify for health insurance, otherwise he would have ended up bankrupted by the medical bills. This is not really a choice, when it's between bankruptcy/no health care for your kid versus maintaining an artificially low income.

So you should be celebrating the successful health care reform too, right?
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:

You miss the whole point -- he had to keep his salary low so he could qualify for health insurance, otherwise he would have ended up bankrupted by the medical bills. This is not really a choice, when it's between bankruptcy/no health care for your kid versus maintaining an artificially low income.

Pardon me if I have difficulty empathizing with the financial woes of someone who makes 4 to 5 times what I do... and who had to suffer the horrible fate of reducing his income... to about twice what I make.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
empathizing with the financial woes of someone who makes 4 to 5 times what I do... and who had to suffer the horrible fate of reducing his income... to about twice what I make.
I guess that is how people in this income bracket get to be as wealthy as they are. They seem to be savvy, not only in their earnings, but in minimizing their costs, including medical bills, and working with financial loopholes and any opportunities to maximize their wealth. Agreed however that it is not such a good story to market Obamacare with. Must have been an oops in their arsenal of marketing stories.
Related topics
More about Obama's lies/distortions
National Health Care in Socialist Stimulus Bill
Health care pharmacy
Health care definition
Americans want universal health care. Why can't we get it?
Palin says her family went to Canada for health care
Health Care bill
Not enough doctors under Obamacare
ObamaCare = longer waiting room times
US health care changes take effect today. SUPER
Can the Republicans get the new Health Legislation repealed?
Legal setback for Obama's health care regulations ....
House votes to repeal Obama's Health Care Law
Obama's health care reform wins in court again
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.