Log In | Register
Five right-wing myths about healthcare reform, and the facts
Turning America socialist apparently wasn't enough for him -- now President Obama is trying to make old people kill themselves, callously deny important medical procedures, funnel tax dollars to abortion clinics and wiggle the government's way into every doctor's office in America.
Obama wants to kill your grandma
Seeded on Mon Aug 10, 2009 12:04 PM EDT
Article Source: Salon.com- Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
- Public Discussion (200)
I want to hear the ideological right's reasons for being against health care reform. But so far the message has been outright lies and innuendo.
I'm seeding this to a few of the conservative/right wing groups here on The Vine in the hopes of getting the following questions answered:
1. What about the Obama health care reform plan do you disagree with (please don't use talking points)?
2. What is another viable solution?
- 28 votes
I want to hear the ideological right's reasons for being against health care reform.
I want to hear the ideological left's explanation about what is actually being reformed in this so called health care reform bill. All that I see is the government creating a start-up company to be a new health care provider, NOT reformer. This answers 1.
2. What is another viable solution? -
The government does what it's supposed to do, create, amend, and enforce laws of the land, not create and run businesses. To that end, they put out a federal mandate to each state that each of it's citizens must have health care coverage (i.e. Massachusetts) and the government regulates/reforms the costs of medical coverage from hospitals and pharma companies, just the way they do now with any of out other monopoly companies.
- 4 votes
The government does what it's supposed to do, create, amend, and enforce laws of the land, not create and run businesses. To that end, they put out a federal mandate to each state that each of it's citizens must have health care coverage (i.e. Massachusetts) and the government regulates/reforms the costs of medical coverage from hospitals and pharma companies, just the way they do now with any of out other monopoly companies.
The problem is health insurers and healthcare services have few ways to raise revenues other than pricing. Unlike a lot of monopolish companies who can create new products, expand beyond this country to new consumers, etc.
They will not be able to regulate the cost lower without interference in supply and demand. Or outright pricing controls.
Healthcare was government run in this country for a long time, so it was not always been a private business. It would be creating and running a service. Just like prisons, schools, highways, military (in states cases firestations, police stations, etc).
Privately run healthcare has not proven itself over 70 years or so. Unlike other things that were/are federally run and we've seen the benefit of privately run service (i.e. the USPS)
- 9 votes
On your first point:
All that I see is the government creating a start-up company to be a new health care provider, NOT reformer.
I can understand both this perception and appreciate objections to it. Still, if the solution you propose doesn't work (read on), maybe this is the right thing to do, especially in light of the success the government has already had (e.g., The Veterans Administration).
On your second point:
The government does what it's supposed to do, create, amend, and enforce laws of the land, not create and run businesses. To that end, they put out a federal mandate to each state that each of it's citizens must have health care coverage (i.e. Massachusetts) and the government regulates/reforms the costs of medical coverage from hospitals and pharma companies, just the way they do now with any of out other monopoly companies.
I fear it results in an unfunded directive.
Doesn't passing a law that mandates universal coverage and then dumping the issue on the individual states seem to put government in the same role of creating and running programs (departments, businesses, whatever you want to call it) that you complain about -- only at a state level rather than federal?
Also it's worth noting that the medical, pharmaceutical, and insurance industries are not monopolies and thus can't be regulated as such. The best the government could do is (possibly) pursue charges of price fixing, collusion, and other malfeasance, but I suspect that would take decades (heck, look how long it took for RICO laws to even start to have an effect on organized crime).
- 14 votes
Doesn't passing a law that mandates universal coverage and then dumping the issue on the individual states seem to put government in the same role of creating and running programs (departments, businesses, whatever you want to call it) that you complain about -- only at a state level rather than federal?
You have to look at how Massachusetts has set up their program. The state does not run the program, they simply mandate that all citizens must have health insurance. The citizen has the power to chose the provider of their choice, there is no state intervention in this, it's free enterprise. This just needs to be extended to all of the states in the USA. From there, the Federal government needs to enact it's "reform" to keep the hospitals, insurance providers and pharma companies from gauging the common citizen while rewarding innovation so we don't stifle progress with science and medicine.
So, in summary, I would NOT like to see the Federal OR State government running health care. The health reform needs to regulate the way the health care industry works, NOT create thier own health care provider company.
Yes, I think the majority of Americans would agree that we need REFORM, however, what people are fighting back against is the government creating it's own health care provider business and not truly reforming anything.
I'm still waiting to hear from a supporter of this 1000+ page health care bill as to what it is truly reforming but yet to get an answer of many different threads to date.
- 2 votes
I'm happy with my health insurance plan. I've paid for it for years and don't want it changed. It has cost me some money.
I feel that any involvement by the government will either, reduce my coverage or cost me money.
I have been to the VA hospitals. The smell is bad as soon as you get to the front door. The staff is not first class. Sometimes, items are not in stock in the supply rooms and they reschedule you. It reminds of going to the post office that is under funded.
- 1 vote
I'm fairly happy with mine as well, but I must say that the premiums are going up a lot faster than my income and so are my costs like co-pays and now for the first time I have a $1000.00 deductible.
I for one would like to see a public alternative. I have yet to see a plan that would "force" me into a Govt. plan or V.A. facility for care. The problem as I see it is that insurance companies are calling the shots, not health care providers.
My wife recently had what appears to have been an allergic reaction to some kind of insect bite. Her feet swelled up and she felt some pressure and discomfort in her chest. As it was a Sunday night, we went to the E.R. Because she said the magic words "chest pain", she was admitted almost immediately. The first thing they did was check her BP (again), listen to her heart and run an EKG. Then they came back and took 3 or 4 vials of blood and run another EKG. About an hour after that, they came back with some results, no answers and ran anotherEKG. She was put on some meds that took down the swelling and remanded to their tender ministrations overnight. I came back very early the next morning and spoke with the Dr. who was covering for our regular MD. She said that my wife chest pressure and pain was likely caused by swelling around her heart. Then they did another EKG, announced that they weren't really sure what was wrong, but it wasn't her heart, the swelling seemed to be going down nicely, and we would like to keep her overnight again, just to be sure. At least they didn't run another EKG! She's fine now. We still have no answers, but brother you should see the bill.
The moral of the story is, with insurance, every test you can imagine is run. Some are done multiple times and most likely unnecessarily. Why? Insurance pays for it, and they are making a profit. Without insurance, we would have spent many hours in the ER, if my wife was treated before she died, it would have most likely been ONE EKG, probably half the blood tests and she would have gone home the next day because her symptoms were abating. This in a rather large nutshell is what's wrong. As long as health-care is a profit driven industry there will be abuses to the system by those who profit from it.
A Govt' option would probably be mandated to run with fewer superfluous tests and expenses and so be less expensive. Having no CEO or executives being paid obscene amounts of money or shareholders looking for dividends would help make that happen. This would make the private insurance companies run a leaner, more efficient operation in order to compete. I think that's a good thing.
- 7 votes
I feel that any involvement by the government will either, reduce my coverage or cost me money.
It could also increase your coverage or save you money. The reason I state that is that citizens of other countries seem to pay considerably less than we do for the same level of care. They also enjoy comprehensive care without denial based on pre-existing conditions.
You feel that the experience here in America would be different than everywhere else. I wonder why.
- 8 votes
The reason I state that is that citizens of other countries seem to pay considerably less than we do for the same level of care.
WHAT?!?!? The Canadian government takes around 50% of a workers paycheck whether you use the medical care or not, how is that saving money?
They also enjoy comprehensive care without denial based on pre-existing conditions.
Source?
- 1 vote
"WHAT?!?!? The Canadian government takes around 50% of a workers paycheck whether you use the medical care or not, how is that saving money?"
The average tax rate in Canada is slightly higher than in the United States. In Canada total tax and non-tax revenue for every level of government equals about 33.4% of GDP, [2] compared to the U.S. rate of 28.2%.[1]
A significant portion of this tax differential is due to spending differences between the two countries. While the US is running deficits of about 4% of GDP,[3] Canada has consistently posted a budget surplus of around 1% of GDP.[4] Considered in a revenue-neutral context, the differential is much smaller - Canada's total governmental spending was about 36% of GDP[5] vs. 31% in the US.[3] In addition, caution must be used when comparing taxes across countries, due to the different services each offers. Whereas the Canadian healthcare system is 70% government-funded, the US system is just under 50% government-funded (mostly via Medicare and Medicaid); adding the additional healthcare-spending burden to the above figures to obtain comparable numbers (+3% for Canada, +7% for the US) gives adjusted expenditures of 38–39% of GDP for each of the two nations.
The taxes are applied differently as well. Canada's income tax system is more heavily biased against the highest income earners, thus while Canada's income tax rate is higher on average, the bottom fifty percent of the population is roughly taxed the same on income as in the United States.
Canadian and American economies compared
And there is no denial for pre existing conditions in Canada. You are covered from birth.
- 11 votes
I'd love to see that myself, but I haven't heard one solution yet on the part of the GOP.......only 'NO" we can't do that!!
- 7 votes
The taxes are applied differently as well. Canada's income tax system is more heavily biased against the highest income earners, thus while Canada's income tax rate is higher on average, the bottom fifty percent of the population is roughly taxed the same on income as in the United States
This only states that the tax taken out a paycheck is close between the US and Canada for the bottom fifty percent of the population, and of course it doesn't give a high-low value to that.
Otherwise, as one gets higher in pay scale that comparability diminishes. Also ...
In addition to the 5% GST levied on most purchases, some Canadians also pay a provincial sales tax at a rate that varies by province and can be as high as 10%. In Ontario, for example, where the provincial sales tax (PST) is 8%, consumers must pay a total of 13% sales tax on top of the purchase price.
13% SALES TAX?
Nothing "good" in life is free, or cheap, and neither is social medicine.
- 1 vote
Try adding your health insurance premiums to your tax and see what your numbers look like.
And don't forget the sales tax..
- 5 votes
I'm still waiting to hear from a supporter of this 1000+ page health care bill as to what it is truly reforming but yet to get an answer of many different threads to date.
No ObamaCare supporters can answer this? So you just back something you don't even know about or truly even understand?
- 2 votes
Try adding your health insurance premiums to your tax and see what your numbers look like.
And don't forget the sales tax..
The beauty of the American way, we can shop for lower prices, or live in a state with low or NO sales tax. In Canada?
We want Reform from the government, not a health care provider.
- 2 votes
NH:
The beauty of the American way, we can shop for lower prices, or live in a state with low or NO sales tax. In Canada?
Funny you just posted that, because I just finished placing my prescription order with a Canadian company and then came back to this discussion to check the new comments. You see, I shopped around and Canadian pharmacy outlets have - by far - the lowest prices.
- 4 votes
You have to look at how Massachusetts has set up their program. The state does not run the program, they simply mandate that all citizens must have health insurance. The citizen has the power to chose the provider of their choice, there is no state intervention in this, it's free enterprise. This just needs to be extended to all of the states in the USA. From there, the Federal government needs to enact it's "reform" to keep the hospitals, insurance providers and pharma companies from gauging the common citizen while rewarding innovation so we don't stifle progress with science and medicine.
So, in summary, I would NOT like to see the Federal OR State government running health care. The health reform needs to regulate the way the health care industry works, NOT create thier own health care provider company.
Gotcha, thanks for clarifying. Disclaiming I don't know the details of the MA program (I live on the other side of the country), I am curious as to how many people still fall through the cracks and what can be done to learn from MA's program.
For instance, I know the state subsidizes coverage for low income earner, which has become a budget issue of late.
- 3 votes
WHAT?!?!? The Canadian government takes around 50% of a workers paycheck whether you use the medical care or not, how is that saving money?
See above post. I was going to point out the same things.
And on the 13% sales tax, I pay 8.25% in Houston. So while it's more, it's not a ton more. Although I disagree that income taxes are not more, they are more even for the lower classes.
Also don't forget provincial taxes.
http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/ndvdls/fq/txrts-eng.html
In my current bracket I pay 15% income tax, there it would be 22%. Along with an approximate 10% "State" Income tax, which I pay 0% now.
You do have to pay for the system. It is not free.
And a lot of Canadas financial success is from circumstance. Just saying, when oil and all assets moved up in value that was good for a country that has many natural resources. I will give them slightly better budget management than us. But being the "Russia" of North America makes for easy gains when commodity prices are high.
- 1 vote
For instance, I know the state subsidizes coverage for low income earner, which has become a budget issue of late.
And it is a huge budget issue and budget buster here in Tennessee as well. When the trial balloon Tenncare was started, it was supposed to help of the lower income people. Well, what proceeded to happen and still is happening, is people want what is free, so some opt out of their insurance - various ways of gaming the system even though you are above the pay scale for getting it and some are doing that, or in the case of the unemployed in this state, they go on this program, or they are just low income. The Tenn(no)Care Budget exploded as a result - there are delays and long wait periods, there IS rationing, there are denials (that nobody says anything about - I worked in a group of doctor's offices) becasue the doctors are compensated little, late, and are overwhelmed with the paperwork and the hassle of the system. In addition to that, sometimes the patients didn't even show up -which cost the doctors money as well, not to mention the fact that others had to wait sometimes for months to get an appointment. And invariably they call up the next day and give some reason they weren't there and want an immediate appointment. It's a mess!
if this was a trial balloon for national healthcare (and some seem to think it is) - I hate to see what it will be like on a full government scale.
Here's a couple of ideas:
everyone needs to "have some skin in the game"- maybe a sliding scale - some people abuse "free" things
you have to regulate costs
you MUST reform the system from fraud, waste, and frivilous lawsuits. ( Like the 9 people who went to the same hospital ER over a 6 year period for a total of 2700 visits and cost the hospital and ultimately the rest of us 3 million dollars). It is ridiculous.
I don't pretend to know what the answer is but a 1000+ page bill of mumbojumbo legalese hardly seems like the way to go with the big daddy gov't controlling it.
- 3 votes
you MUST reform the system from fraud, waste, and frivilous lawsuits. ( Like the 9 people who went to the same hospital ER over a 6 year period for a total of 2700 visits and cost the hospital and ultimately the rest of us 3 million dollars). It is ridiculous.
I agree with that too.
But it is possible a single payer option can deal with some of those things. Especially unnecessary lawsuits, and people abusing insurance privileges (using the system a ridiculous amount of times).
- 1 vote
Reported. Will you please quit spamming this. Try having relevant discussion for once.
- 3 votes
Fisher,
To ask a question like that on a thread is a bit ridiculous don't you think. That is a huge question, thus the answer is huge. I think the bit that interest most Americans is the public option. Here the government will offer a not for profit option run by the US government. Most Americans will pay in just like we do now with private insurance, however by taking the profit need and huge CEO salaries out of the equation the cost should be substantially lower. Chances are this will cause a ripple effect with private health insurance providers who needing to compete will also lower cost. So the insurance industry may not have record profits like the last 25 years, but the idea is the American public will benefit.
A few of the other regulations the Health insurance reform is proposing is outlawing annual and life time caps on Insurance Company payouts, Setting limits to annual out of pocket expenses allowed, setting up the health insurance exchange(where companies will have to list cost allowing the consumer to compare insurance companies side by side). The list is of benefits is huge and I do suggest people do some research. The Insurance companies and the GOP have thus far done a far better job at getting their info out, sadly most of it is lies.
- 4 votes
The Canadian government takes around 50% of a workers paycheck whether you use the medical care or not, how is that saving money?
You act like the only difference in services is medical care. They also go to University, and sometimes get paid for doing so. The amount the average Canadian pays for his medical care is a fraction of what the average American pays.
- 4 votes
All that I see is the government creating a start-up company to be a new health care provider, NOT reformer.
the difference is with the government you wont be denied coverage due to an existing condition.
- 3 votes
There is no solid argument against universal health care. Any half-way educated American should be able to see it is only about loss of money.
- 3 votes
NH Fishercat
I want to hear the ideological right's reasons for being against health care reform.
I want to hear the ideological left's explanation about what is actually being reformed in this so called health care reform bill. All that I see is the government creating a start-up company to be a new health care provider, NOT reformer. This answers 1.
2. What is another viable solution? -
The government does what it's supposed to do, create, amend, and enforce laws of the land, not create and run businesses. To that end, they put out a federal mandate to each state that each of it's citizens must have health care coverage (i.e. Massachusetts) and the government regulates/reforms the costs of medical coverage from hospitals and pharma companies, just the way they do now with any of out other monopoly companies.
No you don't. You don't want to know or you'd read the bill. Instead you just listen to others. The government doesn't want to be a healthcare provider. That's up to doctors and hospitals. They want to offer an insurance alternative. They created Medicare. Now tell grandma we need to dissolve that perk that I pay for dearly and she has to go to Blue Cross/Blue Shield and shop for her own coverage. An HMO, 80/20 with big deductibles and a lifetime benefit of $250,000. Once she hits it, she has to go to the death panel.
- 2 votes
Medicare is government run health care. It is functioning just fine. The Thompson's and Limbaugh's of radio land just keep talking lies. Too bad we really can't discuss this issue intelligently. This has turned inot a childish shouting match. I attended my Representative's meeting and the "children" in the room did not allow the man to speak. Nonsense drowns out discussion.
I have a list of questions that I never hear anyone on the right/anti-Obama/anti-reform crowd answer. I don’t expect you to answer all of the questions at any one time (although it would be interesting), but you certainly could pick three or four and give a honest factual answer.
- Why are we the only industrialized nation in the world that does not have universal health care?
- Why are we the only nation in the world that allows insurance companies to deny coverage because of pre-existing conditions?
- Why do Republicans say that a government run health insurance system will be more costly than a private system when actual administrative costs for Medicare are just 3% of the total expenditure and for private insurers are 14% of the total?
- Why do Republicans claim that private insurance companies are better run than any government system would operate but then whine that a government system would be too efficient for private insurers to compete against? President Obama insists that a public system must be self-sufficient and not subsidized by taxpayers so it would be a level playing field.
- Why are 31% of health care costs in the U.S. spent on administrative expenses while less than half of that expense occurs in single payer government run systems around the world? Over $1000.00 per person per year is spent on health care administrative costs in the USA.
- Why do we rank 37th in overall quality of care and 72nd in overall health of 191 countries evaluated? The facts are that virtually every nation with universal care spends far less on their health care than we do with far better results.
- Why do French men live three years longer than American men? Don’t they drink a lot, smoke a lot, and eat rich food? Could it be that their health care is far better than ours?
- Why, if we have the most technology and spend the most money on health care, do we rank 29th in infant mortality rate? The rate our babies die in their first year is twice that of European nations. Why is acceptable to Republicans to kill our babies unnecessarily?
- Why would Republicans worry that a government bureaucracy would get between the patient and the doctor when they find it acceptable for private insurance companies do that right now?
- Why, if Canadians have to come to the US for timely treatment as Republicans claim, are our border states’ hospitals not overrun with Canadians? Could it be that the vast majority of Canadians getting care in the US are doing so because they get sick during their 2-3 months as “snowbirds” in Hilton Head, Myrtle Beach, and West Palm Beach? Studies by legitimate independent researchers do not support the antidotal “evidence” in the GOP ads.
- Why are we are spending 50% more of our GDP on health care costs than any other nation? The average annual costs for countries with universal health care is 10% of GDP. France, with the best health care in the world, pays just 11% of their GDP versus our 16% of GDP.
- Why, if Republicans are concerned about costs for businesses and the government, do they support a system that spends so much more of our GDP than other countries?
- Why, if adjudication costs are going down (a statistical fact), are malpractice insurance costs continuing to rise? (More profits for the insurance companies?!?!).
- Why do the top 5% of Americans use 50% of health care expenditures?
- If our average American is getting “the best health care in the world” for an average insurance cost of $12,000.00; what do the Rolls Royce plans provide for $40,000.00? What is it that the wealthy are getting for their insurance dollars that the average American is not? Private rooms do not cost that much.
- Why, if Republicans are worried about the bottom line, did they pass the Medicare drug bill without the ability to negotiate costs with drug companies?
- Why, if Republicans are worried about deficits, did they pass the Medicare drug bill without a means to pay for it? President Obama has said that health care reform will be budget neutral and his reinstated PayGo requirements for congress.
- Why are we one of only two countries in the world that permits television advertising of prescription drugs?
- Why do Republicans say that there are ways of taking care of the problems with the health insurance industry and delivery of care other than what the Democrats want to do, yet they offer no actual plans that stand scrutiny?
- Why, if Republicans have a better way of fixing health care as they claim, did they not do it during the Bush administration?
- How do we claim a higher moral standing than others when we find it acceptable to make a profit on the misery and illnesses of our citizens when all other nations believe it is morally reprehensible to treat their people that way?
- Why are the same “moral and Christian value” politicians who stopped health care reform fifteen years ago still putting insurance companies and private for-profit providers ahead of the citizens they claim to represent?
How can anyone give honest answers to these questions and still fight against reform?
- 2 votes
I want to hear the ideological right's reasons for being against health care reform.
I'm a conservative and a registered Republican. I don't know who the ideological right is, so I'll just share my thoughts. A few days ago I published this article about the topic and it's apolitical. Feel free to debate any of the four points against government-architected reform. Indeed the system is highly dysfunctional today, but adding indifferent federal bureaucrats to the mix can only make things worse.
1. What about the Obama health care reform plan do you disagree with (please don't use talking points)?
Representative Tom Price (R Georgia) was a physician and makes a compelling argument in this video that the Democratic plan fails to serve the patients.
2. What is another viable solution?
When hospitals treat uninsured patients like this, the system IMO is too dysfunctional to reform and infested with special interests who will resist at all costs having their oxen gored. I fear nothing short of a wholesale economic collapse can purge the rampant greed, corruption, and indifference from American health care.
- 1 vote
How can anyone give honest answers to these questions and still fight against reform?
I'm all for reform. I just don't want this president and Congress to have any part in it.
- 1 vote
I just don't want this president and Congress to have any part in it.
That speaks volumes!
@rickace:
I'm a conservative and a registered Republican. I don't know who the ideological right is, so I'll just share my thoughts. A few days ago I published this article about the topic and it's apolitical. Feel free to debate any of the four points against government-architected reform.
Thanks for the insightful article. I appreciate you four points, but I debate the free market approach is the right way to go. While I might agree in spirit with your assertion that "capitalists make the best providers," corporations don't unless they operate under nonpartisan oversight and guidelines. That is the job of government.
I am sure you agree that especially in the last 25 years, we have seen Corporate America demonstrate almost unequivocally that their focus is on their own bottom lines, very often at the expense of the public. This has extended into the political arena and evidenced by corporate lobbying resulting resulting in relaxation of oversight, lack of enforcement of existing laws, etc.
Put simply, while I also have a healthy distrust of government, I trust government to act in the public interest more than I trust corporations to. I don't think any solution is possible without government guidance and oversight.
- 1 vote
rickace - Why do you not want this president and Congress to have any part of health care reform?!?!?
Who is it that you trust to do it instead of our president and the Democratic congress? The GOP? The insurance companies? Please tell me who.
rickace - I looked at Rep. Price's tirade in which he gave absolutely no factual points to prove that patient care would not be improved during his five minutes. He used bogus GOP talking points and made up innuendo throughout his time. I watched some of the meetings and hearings on CSpan and witnessed committees who were working together so I know some of his screed was flat out lies. False talking points are false talking points whether they come from you, Rep. Price, or any other anti-reformer.
I would still like to know why you are against reform by this president and Congress.
Josh
Thanks for the insightful article. I appreciate you four points, but I debate the free market approach is the right way to go.
You're welcome sir. Debate as you may, the future is damned bleak for you and your baby. Free markets are feral. I have no wife or children, but believe me you this one's a killer.
- 1 vote
rickace - I looked at Rep. Price's tirade ...
That was no tirade.
The ignore list grows yet again.
- 1 vote
Not too many takers on the right, are there?
May be it has something to do with the confusion over the single payer vs. single provider issue. Maybe the right doesn't realize we're paying for Obama's plan already, we're just not getting it. In 2007, we spent 2.4 trillion bucks on health care in this country just on group plans. Thats' $7900 each that year.
- 4 votes
#3 - Mon Aug 10, 2009 12:40 PM EDTActually, for a family of 4 it runs about $15000 per year. I myself am paying about:
- $6000 in insurance premiums ALONE for my family of 4
- $6000 (at least) My employer pays for their portion
- $1000+ for my family's Dr. visit copays
- $2000+ for my family's prescriptions (copay only)
For a grand Total of about $15,000 per year. About $9,000 of which is OUT OF POCKET. This does NOT include DENTAL or VISION.
And that's just for maintenance. God forbid we have something HAPPEN to us.
If we didn't have insurance:
- $9,000 for Dr. visits.
- $11,000+ for Rx (my son has 3, and another 3 for the rest of the family)
For a grand total of about $20,000 per year OUT OF POCKET. Not including DENTAL or VISION.
But, really - a public option would be too expensive....for who?!? The Insurance companies???
- 31 votes
But, really - a public option would be too expensive....for who?!? The Insurance companies???
Exactly.
- 9 votes
I ran a similar analysis for my family, and it came to $50,000 per year in round numbers. Granted, I have a special needs child, but it's still a hellava lot.
- 5 votes
I run $950 a month, and when Cobra kicks out, it will go up 50%. The deductible is another $5000, and when dental and vision is added in (which this year were high), I have already paid out of pocket over $10,000. But without insurance, I could not possibly afford my families health care.
- 1 vote
Thank you,mdnorcuss, Buckeye Voter, trm2008, and The UXGuy. I think the point is adequately made that we are already paying for the reforms in health care, we just don't have them. In a single pay plan, we would.
- 1 vote
I'll weigh in for the right. I've been unemployed since 2000 due to health issues that can at best be mitigated. Since that joke COBRA ran out I've been uninsured as well.
As for "the single payer vs. single provider issue", I don't even know what that is. I pay all costs out of my own pocket, and once got fleeced by a greedy hospital.
- 1 vote
@rickrace:
Doesn't sound like you've weighed in for the right at all to me. Sounds more like you've stated very sound, albeit anecdotal reasons for immediate reform.
The confusion about single pay vs. single provider stems from the totally irrational fear that your doctor will somehow become a government employee, like an army captain or something. The government will not provide health care under the current reform package pending in congress. It will merely pay for that care. And yes, I do know what that means to the taxpayer: about what it means now to the policy holder, with the exception that EVERYONE will have coverage.
Or maybe there are still a lot of fear-inspired (and insurance company lobbyist funded) people who think it makes better sense to have their premiums helping to drown insurance execs and politicians in their money, and paying for a computer generated duck to quack across their TV screens during football broadcasts while millions remain uncovered like you, rickrace.
- 1 vote
seems the retarded right hasn't shown up to back up their moronic behavior.
the simple reality is these inbreds are retarded and should have their voting rights removed!
it's time in this country to keep those that can't make decisions from pretending they have the ability to make informed decisions!
they have proven all they can do is follow their preachers instructions!
how can you trust someone that can't read at a third grade reading level to make decisions for the people when they can't make them for themselves!
its time to upgrade the retardation laws and include hyperactive and ADD adults, these people are both retarded and mentaly ill, and also include anyone that reads below a 4th grade reading level' if you don't understand the meaning of three syllable words, you shouldn't be allowed to vote because there is no way in the world you will ever decipher legalese, the language all laws are written in!
- 5 votes
#4 - Mon Aug 10, 2009 12:52 PM EDTWow.
its time to upgrade the retardation laws and include hyperactive and ADD adults, these people are both retarded and mentaly ill, and also include anyone that reads below a 4th grade reading level' if you don't understand the meaning of three syllable words, you shouldn't be allowed to vote because there is no way in the world you will ever decipher legalese, the language all laws are written in!
Is this sarcasm or straight talk?
- 2 votes
@Dave, only warning.
I realize this is a heated topic, but please keep the tone civil. Name calling on both sides of the ideological spectrum is counterproductive and divisive.
I don't like moderating but will shut down inflammatory threads.
- 9 votes
its time to upgrade the retardation laws and include hyperactive and ADD adults, these people are both retarded and mentaly ill,
I was wondering if you could be more incorrect and more offensive?
- 7 votes
DeFex's comment deleted for being inflammatory and without value.
- 5 votes
Name caling doesn't strengthen anyone's argument. Some of us would like to understand others' points-of-view, especially those with whom we disagree.
- 5 votes
And #4 isn't defamatory, inflammatory, without value, Josh?
The thought that an adult with ADD is not capable of reading at a 4th grade level and should be stripped of voting rights?
What about that is NOT inflammatory and without value?!??
- 3 votes
And #4 isn't defamatory, inflammatory, without value, Josh?
The thought that an adult with ADD is not capable of reading at a 4th grade level and should be stripped of voting rights?
What about that is NOT inflammatory and without value?!??
Scroll up and read #4.2, which was in response to that post.
- 2 votes
You should have deleted it.
Thanks for your opinion; I chose to give a warning.
- 1 vote
Josh
Kim is right. On my column it would be toast because I don't tolerate bigotry. It is sad that you do. It even got five votes. Assuming the author voted for it, that's four more lurking bigots.
Kim
You and I have been seeing eye to eye a lot lately. What have you done with the real Kim?!?!?
^.^
Just kidding. I'm glad you weighed in on this.
- 1 vote
@rick and @kim.
Thanks, but I think public warnings are effective (as evidenced by the lack of other inappropriate posts by the same user).
At the risk sounding dismissive, this thread is not about my style of moderation. Let's move on.
- 1 vote
IMO if you have no answers...it is tough to respond to reasonable questions on what is wrong with the plans and what might be better.
the right's only recourse is to attack....and to stur up racial anxiety.... perhaps they know that they are cornered?
Why I believe that the flow will be coming back to the reform side by September....
- 12 votes
#5 - Mon Aug 10, 2009 12:57 PM EDTThose who are unaccustomed to being questioned are usually less capable of giving coherent answers.
They need scripts!
- 4 votes
"the need scripts"
Yes, and they need to have them wired in to earpieces that the president can wear. Like Bush.
- 6 votes
It's fear of change. There is a saying lawyers use to try to win their cases:
If you can't argue the law then argue the facts, if you can't argue the facts then attack your opponent. I think that is what is happening here with the right-wingers. They are on the attack because they can't argue the facts or the law- can't or won't!
- 14 votes
#6 - Mon Aug 10, 2009 12:58 PM EDTMyths become truths over at Faux News.
The intellectually challenged watch with mouths hung open for Hannity to tell them what they think about Health Care Reform.
- 7 votes
#7 - Mon Aug 10, 2009 1:00 PM EDTWell, since I am a democrat and not one of those "retarded, in-bred, rights" as you so eloquently put it, I must be a "retarded, in-bred, left" because I am against a total government health care plan. Here are some facts and figures for you. This artcle was in the paper last week, written by Deroy Murdock.
Deroy Murdock: Government medicine stumbles in Canada, U.K.
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Imagine that your two best friends are British and Canadian tobacco addicts. The Brit battles lung cancer. The Canadian endures emphysema and wheezes as he walks around with clanging oxygen canisters. You probably would not think: “Maybe I should pick up smoking.”
While that response would be highly irrational, the fact that America even is considering government medicine is equally wacky. The state guides healthcare for our two closest allies: Great Britain and Canada. Like us, these are prosperous, industrial, Anglophone democracies. Nevertheless, compared to America, they suffer higher death rates for diseases, their patients experience severe pain, and they ration medical services.
Look what you’re missing in the U.K.:
-- Breast cancer kills 25 percent of its American victims. In Great Britain, the Vatican of single-payer medicine, breast cancer extinguishes 46 percent of its targets.
-- Prostate cancer is fatal to 19 percent of its American patients. The National Center for Policy Analysis reports that it kills 57 percent of Britons it strikes.
-- Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development data show that the UK’s 2005 heart-attack fatality rate was 19.5 percent higher than America’s. This may correspond to angioplasties, which were only 21.3 percent as common there as here.
-- The UK’s National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) just announced plans to cut its 60,000 annual steroid injections for severe back-pain sufferers to just 3,000. “The consequences of the NICE decision will be devastating for thousands of patients,” Dr. Jonathan Richardson of Bradford Hospitals Trust told London’s Daily Telegraph. “It will mean more people having spinal surgery, which is incredibly risky, and has a 50 per cent failure rate.”
Things don’t look much better up north, under Canadian socialized medicine.
-- Canada has one third fewer doctors than the OECD average. “The doctor shortage is a direct result of government rationing, since provinces intervened to restrict class sizes in major Canadian medical schools in the 1990s,” Dr. David Gratzer, a Canadian physician and Manhattan Institute scholar, told the U.S. House Ways and Means Committee on June 24. Some towns address the doctor dearth with lotteries in which citizens compete for rare medical appointments.
-- “In 2008, the average Canadian waited 17.3 weeks from the time his general practitioner referred him to a specialist until he actually received treatment,” Pacific Research Institute president Sally Pipes, a Canadian native, wrote in the July 2 Investor’s Business Daily. “That’s 86 percent longer than the wait in 1993, when the (Fraser) Institute first started quantifying the problem.”
-- Such sloth includes a median 9.7-week wait for an MRI exam, 31.7 weeks to see a neurosurgeon, and 36.7 weeks to visit an orthopedic surgeon.
Thus, Canadian Supreme Court justice Marie Deschamps wrote in her 2005 majority opinion in Chaoulli v. Quebec, “...this case shows that delays in the public health care system are widespread, and that, in some cases, patients die as a result of waiting lists for public health care.”
A public option is just the opening bid for eventual nationalization of American medicine. As House Banking Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D -- Mass.) told SinglepayerAction.Org on July 27: “The best way we’re going to get single payer, the only way, is to have a public option to demonstrate its strength and its power.”
President Obama seconds that emotion.
“I don’t think we’re going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately,” Obama told a March 24, 2007 Service Employees International Union healthcare forum. “There’s going to be potentially some transition process. I can envision (single payer) a decade out or 15 years out or 20 years out.” As he told the AFL-CIO in 2003: “I happen to be a proponent of single payer, universal health care coverage ... That’s what I’d like to see.”
Government medicine has proved an excruciating disaster in the U.K. and Canada. Our allies’ experiences with this dreadful idea should horrify rather than inspire everyday Americans, not to mention seemingly blind Democratic politicians.
Deroy Murdock is a columnist with Scripps Howard News Service and a media fellow with the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace at Stanford University.
- 1 vote
While that response would be highly irrational, the fact that America even is considering government medicine is equally wacky. The state guides healthcare for our two closest allies: Great Britain and Canada. Like us, these are prosperous, industrial, Anglophone democracies. Nevertheless, compared to America, they suffer higher death rates for diseases, their patients experience severe pain, and they ration medical services.
I think you are confusing government-provided health care with universal health care. Still, that's just semantic :-)
Your comments are food for thought, but it raises two corollary questions:
1. Could this rate be tied to the fact the US pays more per capita than any other country in the world for health care?
2. How would you respond to government-provided health care that is already in place? These publicly-funded and government administered programs that serve millions of Americans come to mind: Veterans Administration health care, Medicare, Medicaid, for example.
- 7 votes
Ok, problem with your comparison, neither is applicable to the bills that are being proposed, and are again attempting to promote misdirection, misinformation and fearmongering. The healthcare reform proposed is nto a mirror of either the Canadian or UK systems, so bringing them up is moot. Bringin up speeches from 2-5 years ago is also not regarding the current legislation. I'd like to see a single payer system as well, but that doesn't mean that the current proposals are that. So far the points you've made are that you don't like the Canadian or UK systems and that you disagree with Obama's stance on Single Payer. Ok, well done, but are you going to get to what is on the table now? Trying to tie the current legislation to a tyrannical first step to national socialism is further fearmongering and your opinion, not fact. If a public option works well it will likely lead to single payer, though that is not in the current legislation, if it does not work well, it will not lead to single payer. We do know that the status quo is killing and bankrupting people and families and that cannot stand.
We are here to discuss the specifics of the current proposals and why you may or may not support them.
- 8 votes
Please post the link that give the stats you quoted above. As I have Relatives in Britain that swear they have the best care in the world I always like to look at the reports that say otherwise. I have sent on a couple of links to them and asked for their response and have received answers such as: Of course Breast cancer kills. In America the Doctor lists the secondary infection (pneumonia, dehydration, heart attack) even though the secondary illness was caused by the primary diagnosis. IE; A woman being treated for breast cancer develops pneumonia due to low immunity and dies. In Britain the cause of death is breast cancer - in America it is listed as pneumonia.
As for the wait to see a surgeon, I have been informed that the patient with the greatest need is seen first in Britain while here in America it is the patient with the better insurance policy and ability to pay.
If a public option is not included in this bill then hundreds of millions of Americans will again be left with no insurance and no medical care. If it is included and does a better job then my private insurance why should I not be allowed to buy into it?
- 8 votes
Yep... with the inclusion of a few minor complaints, my friends in the UK are very happy to have the NHS!
- 5 votes
I think you are confusing government-provided health care with universal health care.
I think there's confusion between the concept of "one payer" and the concept of "one provider".
- 3 votes
In America the Doctor lists the secondary infection (pneumonia, dehydration, heart attack) even though the secondary illness was caused by the primary diagnosis. IE; A woman being treated for breast cancer develops pneumonia due to low immunity and dies. In Britain the cause of death is breast cancer - in America it is listed as pneumonia.
Absolutely true. My mother died of brain cancer but her cause of death was listed as a stroke.
- 7 votes
Have you seen the condition of the UKers teeth (tooth)? I hope that doesn't represent the UK medical system. That is not the system I want.
Country Comfort,
This was a newspaper article written by Deroy Murdock and I am sure that he researched it before he wrote it but here is a link to this article and others he has written. http://author.nationalreview.com/?q=MjE1OQ==
Enjoy.
National Review? Can you link something not so blatantly right wing?
- 3 votes
National Review? Can you link something not so blatantly right wing?
this always happens when you give them some facts. They then gripe about where you got them. This is just the link that links you to this man's writing..sheeze
- 2 votes
trm,
lol, I am sorry this mans articles are in my local newspaper, if you would like I can go link a newspaper that has his articles. I don't care if it right wing, left wing if it makes sense to this democrat it is worth taking into consideration. I am not so close minded that I am going to go with whatever my party says and yell, scream and call people names because they think differently.
Ok- a quote from Wikipedia-
Deroy Murdock's columns appear in The New York Post, The Boston Herald, The Washington Times, National Review, The Orange County Register and many other newspapers and magazines in the United States and abroad. His political commentary has aired on ABC's Nightline, NBC Nightly News, CNN, Fox News Channel, MSNBC, PBS, other television news channels, and numerous radio outlets.
Does this make it better?
Sorry, didn't see any credentials in healthcare??? Where are his statistics?? from?
I know a number of people from the UK who would definately dispute his statistics???
- 2 votes
Ok that is a fair question but, I can't give you an answer other than, I would guess that he researched it. He has been around for a while and I would think he would know how to do that. If you like I will get you his email address and you can contact him and ask.
Here you go, Mr Murdocks e-mail address.
E-mail him at deroy.Murdock(at)gmail.com)
just_my_opinion: While I'll read anything and consider it, as I did with what you posted, when it seems to completely out of whack with other reliable sources you really have to wonder about it. There are quite a few Canadians on Newsvine, and a few Europeans as well, and they are participating in these discussions. Just about every single one that has posted is very happy with their health care system. Surveys of Canadians show they are overwhelmingly happy with their system. So I'm sorry, but I've got to take that article with a huge rock of salt....
Well - cleaned up response from forward is:
Where did these numbers come from? His A$$? Why did this columnist not cite the materials where research was done? Who was interviewed and consulted about the opinions cited by citizens of other countries? Anyone can write anything, if they do not back it up with referenced facts then it is as reliable as the opinion of an alley-cat!
- 1 vote
I think personal experience with the health care programs by other nations play a role in your perspective. My in-laws had a friend in the UK who waited one year to receive by-pass surgery. My father-in-law waited three days. My in-laws friend died while waiting.
I don't want to see any friend, enemy or otherwise having to wait for simple medical procedures that the US takes for granted. I'd support something similar to MA's requirement that all residents have insurance, but I don't want the government running it.
- 1 vote
Like I said you can email him and find out where he got these numbers. I for one tend to believe he researched it and came up with the right numbers. Those who say they like their socialized medicine, could be like some of us who are happy with our insurance. I also have friends in Canada and maybe it has to do with where they live, I don't know, but they aren't always real happy with the health care they receive. I also have one friend who is pretty happy with it.
Every body is different and everyones expectations are different. I am sorry but, I don't feel theOur Government is very good at handling tax payers money and balancing a budget and I don't want my health in the hands of these same people.
Now, this subject has been beat to death here on the vine and I think everyone should just agree to disagree. Maybe what the new Health Care plan should be is voluntary, if you want to use it you pay for it with your taxes, if you don't you get a tax break.
We need reform not government takeover.
. How would you respond to government-provided health care that is already in place? These publicly-funded and government administered programs that serve millions of Americans come to mind: Veterans Administration health care, Medicare, Medicaid, for example.
That seems to be my question I'd like to pose to the elderly that are so vocal in these town hall meetings....
Hey if you don't wish for govt supported health care options -
please opt out... and pay the health insurers what your coverage would be.....
IMO the light bulbs would finally go off..... when they see how much coverage they would get for the price tag....
- 6 votes
#9 - Mon Aug 10, 2009 1:26 PM EDTI think the irony over this whole thing is that small businesses lose big time with the health care system as it stands...
You'd think that a party that (seemingly) stands so strongly alongside small businesses and entrepreneurship would be more open and willing to attend a town hall meeting and listen, give meaningful input rather than use SS like tactics to simply squash the conversation.
it makes me wonder how long before the GOP begins to sanction the nightly disappearance of
those that oppose them.
Its so difficult for me to take these guys seriously...
from the beginning the use of semantics, boldfaced lies and intimidation have been used to drown out logic and empathy...lets not forget the obviously annoying rewriting of recent history to make useless points
how do you talk to people who have nothing more than hate, fear, the political pundit lies and exttremist blogs rather than personal research and societal awareness as the basis of their argument?
I suppose we can continue to rise above the rhetoric...
but it sure does get old...
- 5 votes
#10 - Mon Aug 10, 2009 1:33 PM EDTI propose we privatize EVERYTHING!
Let's privatize the Fire Departments. If you don't have Fire Insurance, or can't afford it - tough luck, your house burns.
Let's privatize the Police Departments. If you don't pay for protection, sorry - you get robbed or killed.
Let's privatize the roads. If you don't pay for driving rights, you can't use the roads.
Let's privatize the EPA. If you don't pay for clean water - you drink sewage.
Let's privatize the military...oh wait...tried that with Blackwater, and we see how well that went...
- 14 votes
#11 - Mon Aug 10, 2009 1:36 PM EDTDon't forget privatizing all schools, libraries and parks as well. No post office, no FDA, EPA or FCC as well. I mean, who needs any regulations or protections at all, the free market will make it all good. right?
- 9 votes
And we ALL HAVE to participate and use these privatised systems...no alternatives...
no net...
dont even think about complaining about it if these private industries cant or wont meet your needs...
that might make you unAmerican...
or even...
hold your breath
and EVIL SOCIALIST!
- 6 votes
Not only that, let's privatize all the government health care programs Like Medicare and Medicaid.
But, let's especially take away the government subsidized health insurance that nearly every single goverment employee is on. Nearly person that works for the government and nearly every single veteran is getting their health care subsidized by tax dollars. If we don't want a government option, they need to pay for their own private insurance.
- 5 votes
And the legal system - How dare that big bad federal government make laws that apply everywhere and then pay judges/court/prison employees to enforce them. I say that it should be privatized. Every town can make its own laws, appoint a judge of its choice to oversee the legal proceeding, and who needs a jail - with this system you either pay the fine and get run out of town or hung as an example.....
- 7 votes
And what the hell's with all this free oxygen we breathe? What's that about? Privatize it. And tax the farters!
- 9 votes
Ok well if health care is suppose to be run by the government and is a right, then my dental care, eye care should be a right also just for paying taxes. Car insurance should be a right, I shouldn't have to have it or pay for it.
Oh wait, my property taxes, if I pay property taxes then I shouldn't have to pay for my home since, I am paying taxes on it. I mean after all why should I have to pay a mortgage and property taxes, except for one little thing, those property taxes support all those above mentioned items to be privatized.
I have been without health insurance and I didn't think it was my right to have it, I always believed that I had to pay for it or it was a benefit from the company I worked for.
When my husband was laid off it was our right to have it if we paid for it and we did. It was tough but we adjusted our life style to fit the needed items instead of the luxuries.
We didn't go out and buy anything during that time that we couldn't eat, no new clothes, no new electronics, nothing except food, so that we could pay for our own health insurance. Not to mention at the time that he got that surprise layoff on his birthday, we had a couple thousand dollars in medical bills that we had to pay on also. We did it, we didn't complain that someone else should be paying for us. When he got another job we continued to pay on insurance for 6 months because the company he worked for didn't provide insurance until you were employed by them for 6 months. My job didn't offer insurance due to the fact that it was considered a minimum wage job.
I don't want the government taking over my health care. It hasn't done such a great job on Social Security why would anyone think our government is going to be able to handle our health care. I agree there should be an affordable health insurance available for those who don't get it through work and I agree the health care and insurance industry needs reformed not taken over.
I personally believe if we had manufacturing and good middle class jobs to put people back to work this would go a long way to fixing many of the problems we are faced with today, including health care.
- 1 vote
you are right. It does need some serious reform but not a takeover - like auto industry, banking, mortgage business - it's always a screw up when they do.
- 2 votes
Not only is Obama gonna whack your grandma - according to that ditz Sarah Palin his "death panels" are going to kill our sick children too! The nutcases are practically crawling out of the woodwork and he's only been in office 6 months!
- 7 votes
#12 - Mon Aug 10, 2009 1:58 PM EDTThe comment was made on Palin's new Facebook account:
The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's "death panel" so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their "level of productivity in society," whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.
- 9 votes
Can you tell me a list of 10.... no, lets make it even simplier, 3 items of proposed reform in the 1000+ page health reform bill? You seem to know exactly what this health care bill will do for us, so 3 points of reform should be easy to list.
- 3 votes
For all of you who continue to moan about the healthcare reform bill even before it's passed, get a life. The parts of the bill (legislation) is what they continue to work on to put forth in a bill; there is NO bill to this day. If you would put forth your IDEAS, instead of ranting and raving, perhaps they would be included. But that's seems too difficult to all of you protesters who just say "NO"~!!! It's called debate and it's part of the American process!!!
- 3 votes
cjn, i have debated the issue. i have my views, which if you read my posts aren't just rants. just because i don't believe the government has to provide insurance does not mean i just rant.
what has been lacking in the health care industry has been effort to change the industry's regulations, not a lack of government supplied insurance.
- 1 vote
@Chuck1968, I am moderating your post. While you have some very valid points, framing it in expletives and name calling is divisive, inflammatory, and not at all conductive to civil conversation. I invite you to politely repost your comment.
- 1 vote
look while some of the reaction has been over the top there is concern to be had if you dig into the bill. for me personally i would rather not have the government involved in setting up it's own shop for providing insurance. if they do, as they are discussing now, reforming health care without a government provided option then i would be for it.the industry needs it.
as for the right just using talking points etc. etc. there is some truth to certain aspect of what is said. ive read the 1000 pages the congress originally pushed out. it's not that bad to read. there are legitimate elements that needed to be worked out that i would think every American should be aware of.
for example
on page 425 it specifically states that everyone on social security and and senior citizens are mandated to attend counseling every 5 years to learn and choose ways from ways to end your suffering (suffering? what is that suppose to imply, all senior citizens are suffering??).
Because this counseling is mandated they reserve the right to deny and decided your health care approach based on age because you've had counseling of things you should know already" This is directly from the source with no garbage media added to it.
So lets put an example to that. My dad retires and all the sudden comes down with a treatable form of cancer, but he's happened to attend a counseling session where they talked about this cancer and ways to prevent it, things to add in your lifestyle etc. Now the government will have the ability to tell my retired dad,
"well, we warned you about how you could get this form of cancer blah blah so we're choosing not to give you the more expensive treatment that will have a better chance of saving your life".."we have the ability but since you attending health counseling you apparently didn't take our advice".
That's not a far fetch scenario with how the wording of the bill is in that section. I didn't need to hear that from any inbred, I just read the bill.
If they choose the route where they add regulation to the industry than I'm for that. I believe reform is needed, but not one where the government needs to be in the business of providing.
To me, a body that can regulate an industry should not also be partaking as a business in it as well. It's one or the other. That is not some crazy inbred thought either, it's a rational and logic to me as well as many other Americans, dem or rep.
- 2 votes
Hold it!!!!!!
for example
You mean:
"Advance Care Planning Consultation
"(hhh)(1) Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), the term ‘advance care planning consultation’ means a consultation between the individual and a practitioner described in paragraph (2) regarding advance care planning, if, subject to paragraph (3), the individual involved has not had such a consultation within the last 5 years. Such consultation shall include the following:
"(A) An explanation by the practitioner of advance care planning, including key questions and considerations, important steps, and suggested people to talk to.
"(B) An explanation by the practitioner of advance directives, including living wills and durable powers of attorney, and their uses.
"(C) An explanation by the practitioner of the role and responsibilities of a health care proxy.
"(D) The provision by the practitioner of a list of national and State-specific resources to assist consumers and their families with advance care planning, including the national toll-free hotline,
Now, no where in this excerpt from page 425 covering end of life counseling does it:
on page 425 it specifically states that everyone on social security and and senior citizens are mandated to attend counseling every 5 years to learn and choose ways from ways to end your suffering (suffering? what is that suppose to imply, all senior citizens are suffering??).
Read the bill - Not the propaganda about it!
- 12 votes
Um....the section you're quoting deals with making sure that if you can't express your wishes, you have them written ahead of time - hence LIVING WILL.
Strip away the legalese and it goes something like: "You're suffering from a terminal illness like Alzheimer's... Before you get too addle-brained, you are entitled to a consultation to make sure your wishes for end-of-life services are followed. "
That's all...
- 5 votes
You're right its not all shoved on page 425 my bad, its roughly 425-430.
The social security act is ammended with the following. So now you can add this little segment into the social security act.
15 SEC. 1233. ADVANCE CARE PLANNING CONSULTATION.
16 (a) MEDICARE.—
17 (1) IN GENERAL.—Section 1861 of the Social
18 Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x) is amended—
19 (A) in subsection (s)(2)—
20 (i) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of
21 subparagraph (DD);
22 (ii) by adding ‘‘and’’ at the end of
23 subparagraph (EE); and
24 (iii) by adding at the end the fol25
lowing new subparagraph:
1 ‘‘(FF) advance care planning consultation (as
2 defined in subsection (hhh)(1));’’; and
3 (B) by adding at the end the following new
4 subsection:
5 ‘‘Advance Care Planning Consultation
and it goes onto their definition of Advanced Caer Planning Consultation subsequently.
one section
‘‘(B) An advance care planning consultation with re2
spect to an individual may be conducted more frequently
3 than provided under paragraph (1) if there is a significant
4 change in the health condition of the individual, including
5 diagnosis of a chronic, progressive, life-limiting disease, a
6 life-threatening or terminal diagnosis or life-threatening
7 injury, or upon admission to a skilled nursing facility, a
8 long-term care facility (as defined by the Secretary), or
9 a hospice program.
10 ‘‘(4) A consultation under this subsection may in11
clude the formulation of an order regarding life sustaining
12 treatment or a similar order.
I would just rather subsections like the previous one not be the governments job, especially if they're the ones providing the insurance too. Is that too much of a concern? Again, this is straight from the bill. If you're ok with it then thats cool, I read that as something I should probably wonder how it would be implemented, thats all. Do you support every aspect of this 1000 page proposed bill?
- 4 votes
‘‘(B) An advance care planning consultation with re2
spect to an individual may be conducted more frequently
3 than provided under paragraph (1) if there is a significant
4 change in the health condition of the individual, including
5 diagnosis of a chronic, progressive, life-limiting disease, a
6 life-threatening or terminal diagnosis or life-threatening
7 injury, or upon admission to a skilled nursing facility, a
8 long-term care facility (as defined by the Secretary), or
9 a hospice program.10 ‘‘(4) A consultation under this subsection may in11
clude the formulation of an order regarding life sustaining
12 treatment or a similar order.
Are you aware that a individual can not get a 'do not resuscitate' order without a physicians consultation? Are you aware that Doctors can not bill Medicare or Medicaid for these consultations? Are you aware that MPA and Advance directives require legal standing in order to be enforced? So why should we deny our seniors (or any terminally ill person) the right to have a paid consultation with their doctor about their long term medical condition, the alternatives available to them, and instructions on how to navigate the system of medical legalities they are facing? Why should physicians give up their time and money to do these consultations? An advance care consultationis about planning your future care - Not about being denied care. This bill would allow doctors to start billing medicare and medicaid for the services they are already providing (or denying) their current patients.
- 5 votes
Yes - that's precisely what it's about. It's not about requiring care to be terminated - it'a about explaining what options a person has.
Let's translate:
"A Consultation under this subsection" (A talk with your doctor, as defined in this part of the bill)
"may include the forumlation of" (Might involve you and your doctor creating)
"an order" (a plan on what to do)
"regarding life sustaining treatment" (um...regarding life sustaining treatment)
"or a similar order." (An order like a DNR, or other treatments - which are similar)
- 3 votes
im aware and no i don't think consultations shouldn't happen with your doctor, for the reasons you provide.
so if the government is involved and says something like, which is on page 428..
‘‘(III) provides training for health care
2 professionals across the continuum of care
3 about the goals and use of orders for life sus4
taining treatment;
is there not a concern that maybe it might sometimes be about being denied care? Perhaps not every case, but with how it is worded in the bill it leaves the ability of government to "provide training for health care professionals" as they say here to maybe deny certain cares/treatments that otherwise may be available had the government not been involved? Again, that is my only concern. And to me it's somewhat a rational concern, hopefully not an inbred concern.
I know it's not perfect as it is now but adding government in this manner is the solution?
- 3 votes
right uxguy, with the government adding
‘(III) provides training for health care
2 professionals across the continuum of care
3 about the goals and use of orders for life sus4
taining treatment;
so my doctor im getting this consultation from has been provided training that the government has set up? What if I don't like his assessment? Am I certain I'll have a good amount of selection if I was under the government insurance option?
Those are some questions I would have.
- 2 votes
is there not a concern that maybe it might sometimes be about being denied care?
Do you not believe that a low income, medicare recipient, that is diagnosed with terminal cancer and behind on their medical bills is not be denied care right now? Do you not understand that critically ill, uninsured Americans are not getting the treatment they need now? Neither Doctors, Hospitals, nor medical clinics are required to treat anyone. So someone spends their last dime on medical care to extend their life and the day they run out of money their doctor/hospital/clinic can begin denying treatments due to lack of payments. As for private insurance - it has a lifetime cap (mine is one million) that can be reached with one critical illness (cancer treatment) or a series of illnesses - then you are effectively uninsured and all bills are out of pocket. Without a 'government plan' to fall back on you will either die or go bankrupt trying to stay alive - only to be denied care when your money runs out........
- 5 votes
again, i know people are denied now and it's not good how it is now. but is the solution bringing the government into it? I've stated there are issues with how it is now, I've been more the government sticking to the regulation side and not in the business of providing insurance. That's why I'm more for what they're discussing now which is without the government insurance option.
Do you expect anyone (including the government) to pay for multiple critical illnesses after a million dollars? Is that our right that every individual be covered for anything and everything no matter the cost, is it feasible to do so?
Neither Doctors, Hospitals, nor medical clinics are required to treat anyone.
Well the illegal immigrant here can walk into our hospital downtown, get treatment in an ER and not be denied.
- 3 votes
Well, I can tell you about a family member who is on medicaid.
They went to the doctor for a flu shot. When they got there, the doctor no longer gave the flu shot to medicaid patients because the government didn't even allow them to charge enough for it to get the cost of just the vaccine back. Just the liquid they shoot into the arm.
The family member who should have this flu shot for health reasons asked if they could pay for it themselves. The answer was negative because, the government won't allow the doctors office to except payment for the flu shot from a medicaid patient. So, after another family member taking their time and gas to drive said family member 20 miles to and from for a total of 40 miles, they had to find somewhere else to get the flu shot. They went and paid cash for it at a local pharmacy, I don't understand why the government wouldn't let someone pay for something like that at a doctors office.
Doesn't make sense to me, the patient should be allowed to pay the difference at the doctors office. Especially since the medical history is well know at the doctors office.
Well the illegal immigrant here can walk into our hospital downtown, get treatment in an ER and not be denied.
But they may not be getting top rate care either..... example: Uninsured walks into the ER and complains of stomach and abdominal cramps and pain - Doctor sees them 5 minutes - diagnoses a intestinal infection, gives them a RX for antibiotics and out they go. Only to have their appendix rupture in the middle of the night, turns septic by morning, back to the nearest ER, DOA.......
The same scene also occures with American citizens who have no insurance........
- 2 votes
when they have to tell you "what this part means is"...you have a right to be concerned.
- 2 votes
or the ER doctor give them the appropriate antibiotics to treat the infection and they're cured. i mean isn't that a possibility too? Hey not bad for someone who just showed up and didn't pay a dime.
- 1 vote
jkrystof:
on page 425 it specifically states that everyone on social security and and senior citizens are mandated to attend counseling every 5 years to learn and choose ways from ways to end your suffering (suffering? what is that suppose to imply, all senior citizens are suffering??).
Because this counseling is mandated they reserve the right to deny and decided your health care approach based on age because you've had counseling of things you should know already" This is directly from the source with no garbage media added to it.
Thinking you really read the issue and did not just listen to some fanatic talk, I just checked it out myself.
It only says that the insurance covers a consultation for seniors on end of life and it cannot be covered more than once every five years. There is nothing about denying anything or mandating that you choose how to die.
This is exactly what causes problems. Don't know who put this cr*p in your head, but it is not what 425 says!!
- 1 vote
Nope... read that page again. It mandates that end of life counseling be available every 5 years... not that anyone has to actually be counseled. All this does is provide funding for this if you want it. If you do not make your wishes known, then life-supporting care for you will continue (feeding tubes, mechanized breathing, etc.) until your body gives out. The counseling provides advice on Durable POAs for health care and end of life instructions. I have this in place and I am a 40 year old woman. Everyone should declare how they want to be treated if severely incapacitated. I personally do not want to be resuscitated and do not want to be fed for months at a time if brain dead. Other people may wish to be resuscitated over and over and never taken off life support, no matter what.
It is your choice to make. This bill provides the resources for making your wishes known. If you are a DNR kinda person... make that known so that hundreds of thousands or maybe millions of taxpayer money is not spent keeping you alive after you can't express your wish to die.
- 5 votes
My local hospitals, St. Anthony's and National Jewish, have both provided me access to brochures or documents that I can fill out according to my best judgment, beliefs and wishes. I'm not on social security and not chronically ill.
So I guess St Anthony's and National Jewish are part of the 'death committee' too, huh? The Catholics AND The Jews are after you. Run, run and hide!
- 2 votes
In response to countrycomfort-
Do you not believe that a low income, medicare recipient, that is diagnosed with terminal cancer and behind on their medical bills is not be denied care right now? Do you not understand that critically ill, uninsured Americans are not getting the treatment they need now? Neither Doctors, Hospitals, nor medical clinics are required to treat anyone. So someone spends their last dime on medical care to extend their life and the day they run out of money their doctor/hospital/clinic can begin denying treatments due to lack of payments. As for private insurance - it has a lifetime cap (mine is one million) that can be reached with one critical illness (cancer treatment) or a series of illnesses - then you are effectively uninsured and all bills are out of pocket. Without a 'government plan' to fall back on you will either die or go bankrupt trying to stay alive - only to be denied care when your money runs out........
Our government is in charge of medicare so wouldn't that prove that the government coverage doesn't work that well or any better than what we have now? I still don't think the answer is in Government Control of our Health Care. I do agree that our Health Care and Insurance companies need some reform but not taken over by the Government.
- 1 vote
Our government is in charge of medicare so wouldn't that prove that the government coverage doesn't work that well or any better than what we have now?
No, what my statement proves is that the medical care currently offered in this country is not based on patient need it is based on profit margin. I did not say that the government would deny paying the medicare portion of the care - I said the patient would be denied care because they could not afford to pay the expenses above and beyond what medicare pays. Every medical facility in the country requires you to sign a legal agreement that you will take financial responsibility for any charges above and beyond your coverage limits. That means if your insurance approves a 500 dollar payment and the hospital charges 1000 guess who owes the difference?
I still don't think the answer is in Government Control of our Health Care. I do agree that our Health Care and Insurance companies need some reform but not taken over by the Government.
This bill does not 'take over' health care. It may offer the possible option of a buy in for uninsured citizens who can not afford 'private' insurance. If Private Insurance does not want the government to offer affordable health care insurance then they should offer a plan of their own that people can afford.
- 3 votes
If Obama really is trying to kill our grandmas, may I offer mine as the the first? She's a mean, spiteful old hag :-)
- 4 votes
#14 - Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:25 PM EDTare ya talk'em about me again,sonny? Gonna take the strap to ya if ya don't stop talken bad about grann......LOL
- 1 vote
Can I get my ex-mother-in-law signed up to be whacked too? Please?
- 1 vote
People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless.
The British are praised for spending half as much per capita on medical care. How they do it is another matter. The NICE people say that Britain cannot afford to spend $20,000 to extend a life by six months. So if care will cost $1 more, you get to curl up in a corner and die.
From : How House Bill Runs Over Grandma
They kind of lose their point when you realize that Stephen Hawking was born in the UK and lived there his whole life.
- 12 votes
#15 - Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:27 PM EDTI cracked up when I read that!! I was thinking I read it wrong because I was pretty sure Mr. Hawking is British.
- 5 votes
Riddle me this:
If Canadas health care system is so bad, how come their life expectancies are ranked 8th in the world?
If the UK's health care system is so bad how come their life expectancies are ranked 36th in the world?
If the U.S. health care is so great, how come our life expectancies are ranked 50th in the world, even though we spend more per capita than Canada and the UK combined?
- 9 votes
An American (truck driver) friend of my driving in Canada, came down with a fleash eating illness. The Canadian Health System had 200 similar cases in the past year.
We do not treat this illness. We'll make you confortable. He died in less than 2 months.
His father had his truck driven back to the United States within 1 month. His casket came back after his death. This is not the type of health system I want.
- 1 vote
maybe because no matter how much we spend on health care it doesn't make up for how much more unhealthy we live as a culture. We are the most unhealthy country in the world hands down. Just go take a trip around the world and we're easily the fattest country, have great deal of stress, etc. we have extremely poor health lifestyles. I mean call me an idiot but I figure that catches up to you at some point and no matter how great you're health care is it can't fix it all when years of your unhealthy lifestyle catch up to you.
Anyone who pulls this argument just ask yourself, if we all took pride in our health a bit more (ate better, lived with less stress, exercised) would our health care/life expectancy rank come in higher in the world?
- 3 votes
tuna:
You stated:
An American (truck driver) friend of my driving in Canada, came down with a fleash eating illness. The Canadian Health System had 200 similar cases in the past year.
We do not treat this illness. We'll make you confortable. He died in less than 2 months.
His father had his truck driven back to the United States within 1 month. His casket came back after his death. This is not the type of health system I want.
I think if I were to become ill in Canada and was given the same information, my family would have had ME driven back to the US or any other country where I might find treatment for my flesh-eating disease immediately. Why in the world, if you have given us all the facts, did he wait around in Canada for two months to die? If there was no hope, wouldn't he have returned to die surrounded by friends and family? If there was hope elsewhere, wouldn't he or his family been concerned enough to pursue other treatment? His family was concerned enough to have his truck and his remains hauled back home, why not figure out other treatment options at home or elsewhere? They had 2 months to do it. As the story has been told to us, I am sceptical of it's validity.
- 6 votes
TL
He was unable to drive or travel. It would have cost him $30,000 to fly. He wasn't advised immediately of the possible end results. His family went to him. They did not have a great deal of wealth. It's a sad story with a sad ending.
Jane Skelding is happy to be recuperating at home with her family after her second operation to fight deadly flesh-eating disease.
Although surgeons had to remove half of her right breast and sent her home in pain without closing the incision from her breast to her armpit, she is surprisingly upbeat
Fighting back against flesh-eating disease
This may, or may not be, the same type of flesh eating disease. Some are ony treatable by cutting away the parts with the disease, so it depends where its spread to. But this was treated in Canada, and the $158,000 bill from the Georgia hospital for a job unfinished was picked up by her Canadian health insurance.
- 3 votes
tuna,
I have never called a fellow viner a liar unless I could absolutely prove it, so I wont break this rule with you, but I will say your story is highly suspect.
"Flesh eating disease" or properly known as necrotizing fasciitis, it is rather rare and and rapidly progressing. Typically without treatment patients become septic and die within a matter of days or weeks, if someone survived for nearly 2 months with this and not treated, then it was most likely not necrotizing fasciitis at all.
Canada does treat this disease, as the treatment is surgery, aggressive antibiotics and occasionally hyperbaric oxygen therapy, of which Canada has capabilities of. More Lucien Bouchard, a former Premier of Quebec became infected with the disease and was treated...in Canada. While he did lose a leg, amputation is a common outcome of this infection, he did survive.
Perhaps you simply have the wrong disease or maybe a simple confusion of terminology. But if you are in Canada, as an American citizen, and become stricken with a disease that they wont treat-and America will...why WOULDN'T you do everything in your power to go back to the states. The Dr advises against traveling...but what do you have to lose at that point?
Like I said I am not calling you a liar, I am calling your story suspicious.
- 2 votes
I have never called a fellow viner a liar unless I could absolutely prove it, so I wont break this rule with you, but I will say your story is highly suspect.
@ol doc gold, thank you for being polite and civil. It's appreciated.
- 2 votes
RE: Stephen Hawking
I linked on "Dumbass Quote of the Day" and got this:
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2009/08/dumbass_quote_of_the_day_47.php
What if the bill passes and we all are eventually forced on this plan, well with the exception of the unions and government. So, the bill passes. What is going to happen in future years if we have a nut job President or politician, one who decides to use this government plan to control the American Ethnic Populations? Think about, they will be able to say who to have an abortion or not, who get life saving health care. Life saving health care can be needed at any age, not just at an elderly age. So, what if the government plan assesses how much future costs your life saving trauma situation may need and decide your future medical costs are too cost prohibited? Are they going to let you die because you will exceed your what they consider the value of your life? How will the government decide when it is time to stop allowing you medical care at any age? What could happen if your child was in a serious accident? Expensive medical coverage or Gov medical administration decides no coverage? It is to cost prohibited. Scary.
- 2 votes
#16 - Mon Aug 10, 2009 3:04 PM EDTWhat is going to happen in future years if we have a nut job President or politician, one who decides to use this government plan to control the American Ethnic Populations?
Lets not panic! We do not elect an all powerful demigod to run this country. A Government plan - Any government plan - is not run by the President. It will be run by an agency according to the laws passed by the legislature, and upheld by the Supreme court. So for your scenerio to come to pass the American public would need to elect a majority of people who plan to control a specific population and have a public agenda to do so.
Impossible! No? But most likely improbable unless the majority of the public lets the media do their thinking for them and only pays attention to the sound bites....... OMG WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!!!!!!!!!
- 4 votes
and countrycomfort, why do you want the government involved in all of that you talk about with regards to health care? Doesn't that just add more bureaucracy? I hardly think things would be run anymore smooth with those guys calling the shots in such a big industry.
- 3 votes
I hardly think things would be run anymore smooth with those guys calling the shots in such a big industry.
Funny you should reference big industry. No, I don't trust the government any more or any less then big industry. I feel that politicians are really no worse then the corporate CEO's whose primary concern is their corporate investors and the bottom line profit margin. I do not believe medical care should be a profit driven industry. I do not believe politicians should be readily available to corporate lobbyists. I do believe health care needs reform and unless there is a government option the big industrial medical service industry will have no incentive to change. So adding one more supplier to the field (government) may be the incentive he whole industry needs to reform itself.
- 3 votes
the only place we differ in thought is that i dont feel the only solution for reform in the health care industry is a government supplier.
- 1 vote
countrycomfort:
You are absolutely correct!! Healthcare needs reform and has needed reform for at least the last 40 years. The problem with the disrupters is that they have been fed the lie that this is a gov. takeover. The truth is that most medical corporations do NOT want a public option only because they would have to clean house and reduce their profits. These corps will continue to abuse and rape all Americans with healthcare because they have no rules and are only concerned with their profit. Without a public option, there will be no reform!!!
- 1 vote
jkrystof said:
the only place we differ in thought is that i dont feel the only solution for reform in the health care industry is a government supplier.
That might be right - it might not be the only solution. However, it is a solution that has been proved to be highly effective and efficient in other countries. Why experiment trying to find another solution when we know what works? Is it just some kind of American hubris that refuses to accept that other countries have done better than we have?
The one thing all of you folks complaining about a government supplier is that the current plan does not do away with private health insurance at all. It instead supplies a public option guaranteed issue for all the people like me who are deemed uninsurable by the insurance industry, and who do not have an employer provided health plan (where the carrier cannot decline to add you to the group plan).
The insurance industry apparently is opposing the bill because they do not want to have to compete with the group rate that a health plan with millions of subscribers that will be able to charge significantly lower rates, not just becuase of the number of its members but becuase it doesn't have to pay massive executive salaries and return a profit to shareholders.
- 2 votes
Josh of Arc
especially in light of the success the government has already had (e.g., The Veterans Administration).
Josh are you saying the VA provides excellent care?
#17 - Mon Aug 10, 2009 3:13 PM EDTJosh are you saying the VA provides excellent care?
Bill Kristol thinks so, it must be true. (But he doesn't think the rest of Americans deserve that level of care.)
- 3 votes
My experience with the VA has been comparable with other medical facilities.
- 5 votes
Yes. VA hospitals are first class and front line research and teaching facilities as well.
- 2 votes
My experience with the VA has been comparable with other medical facilities.
You are in the minority.
- 1 vote
I do not qualify for VA healthcare (non-service related) because I am not destitute. I will be destitute soon; maybe then this vet can get the care promised (when they needed soldiers).
President Obama recently announced changes in VA qualification, to help those excluded by previous administrations. I pray for the man.
- 2 votes
There are two issues that have obvious answers that are being overridden by ideology. One is the drug problem and the other is health care . The obvious answers are to legalize all drugs and to create a single payer universal health care plan. But ideologues get in the way on both fronts. If drugs were legalized and drug addiction treated like a public health problem just like alcohol addiction then there would be no drug black market. The economic backbone of the cartels would be broken. The enormous cost of corruption and our endless wars on drugs would disappear and the social ills of drug addiction could be attacked where the rubber meets the road, by educating the youth and treating the addicts. If we adopted single payer health care or some variant thereof then the enormous cost of health insurance premiums could be converted to a much lower cost in taxation that would actually save everyone money because all would be included and the public base of contributors to the funding would greatly expand. We would probably pay 50% less like our European neighbors do for their systems and we would get better results because of everyone having access to health care at all early stage disease or illness and even to preventive care.
But we act in direct opposition to our own interests because we are poisoned by ideological propaganda that prevents us from even considering logical solutions to these problems.
- 2 votes
#18 - Mon Aug 10, 2009 3:59 PM EDTit wouldn't be drug black market because it'd be legal. You'd just bring the cartels into a price competition with the legal companies selling it. It'd run them more thin but they'd still be doing what they do best now with more avenues available to them.
so just by legalizing drugs...
the social ills of drug addiction could be attacked where the rubber meets the road, by educating the youth and treating the addicts
we don't educate youths now? there aren't places for drug addicts to get treatment now?
im confused how legalizing would help people with the addiction? talk about promoting it.
to you it may seem logical but a universal health care system with all drugs legalized doesn't seem like the logical approach to me. how much of my money towards the universal system would be going to someone trying to help with an addiction to alegalized drug?
- 1 vote
Keep your filthy hands off my grandma! You damn dirty apes!!!
- 3 votes
Clearly Obama is not just interested in killing old people! He's gonna whack a bunch of sick kids too! Just ask that moron Sarah Palin who apparently will be taking her son before Obama's "death panel". I can't believe some of the stupid and ridiculous stuff being said these days!
And to think some people actually take her seriously!
- 6 votes
#19 - Mon Aug 10, 2009 4:03 PM EDTI hear the things being said and see their twisted ugly faces at Town Hall meetings. And I see they are the WHITE right winged republicans.. For the first time in my 52 years I am embrassed to be a white American....Everytime I go anywhere I want to tell people of color that I am not one of them....I am not a republican....I now really truely know what its like to be "judge by the color of my skin"....And it is not very nice...The Obama hiltler signs, the repeated lies, I truely need to let people know "I am not ONE OF THEM"...I am an American who believes all people should have health care, just as all people should eat and have shelter. These republican town hall protestors DO NOT believe that...As long as they have their own asses covered, they are all set....I know, I have many family members who are republicans and that is the way they feel.....Well Republicans your way DID NOT WORK, so get out of the way....You are an embrassement to the white people who are not as ugly and "evil" as you are....Prejudice makes your faces twisted and ugly, thats what you are twisted and ugly........
- 2 votes
#20 - Mon Aug 10, 2009 4:10 PM EDT@Carol, your observations and opinions about race are really not relevant to the discussion at hand: health care reform. Echoing what I've said repeatedly, name calling on both sides of the ideological spectrum is counterproductive and divisive.
In that light, I am moderating your other post (#23) as it crosses the line into being inflammatory and without value.
Please, folks, keep the tone civil.
- 3 votes
Carol:
Thanks for your observations as not only is my name also Carol, but whether Josh agrees or not, I feel the same way about race and I am a WASP (sometimes ashamedly).
Wow, because the majority of the working class people attending the town halls are Caucasian, you are ashamed of being white? Yes, I personally do not care for them using this sign because people will always infer racism due to idiot Caucasian supremacist morons use of the sign. So far, the one "Hitler" sign you've seen on TV had a circle with a line through it, it means no. No, Nazis. Communist Hitler took control over every aspect of his people, he took away all of the people's rights to choose. I do not want to loose my human right to choose. I agree, it was an ultra bad use of sign-age. sign-age, I am a WASP and I am not ashamed in standing up for my human rights. The color of my skin has nothing to do with how I feel about government taking over health care. Americans need to stop looking at Caucasians through racist glasses, human rights equality is for all-we are all equal. Personally, I am tired of the entire Caucasian race being targeted as guilty of an individual people's racist crimes. Blame only the person who commited the crime. Stop looking at the color of the world through the color of people's skins, but as individuals.
One more thought: With so many Caucasians over come by "white guilt", no wonder Caucasian children are lost in their own communities/families and are among the highest numbers in receiving depression drugs. What message are you sending? That they should be ashamed due to some moron using a stupid sign, enough with the racism.
Abortion? Mandatory participation? Medicare cuts? As I vet will I be forced to go to VA? Will it cost less than I am currently paying as promised?
#21 - Mon Aug 10, 2009 4:15 PM EDTBubba, I thought we established that because of your limited circumstances you go to your county hospital ER for your coverage for free. I'm wondering now what you say you're 'paying'?
If you want to see who is really rationing health care and running the death squads, just run this google search. The media has not covered this very much:
http://www.google.com/search?q=health+insurance+rescission&rls=com.microsoft:*:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7SUNA
- 1 vote
#22 - Mon Aug 10, 2009 4:15 PM EDTThere are only two ways to solve health care that can possibly work
#1. A true Single Payer system. Most insurance companies would go out of business. (Though if a person wanted private insurance to use private doctors. that's fine.)
OR
#2. A true "insurance" program. Everyone gets high-deductable, say $10,000/year individual, $12,000/family, insurance, with sliding-scale premiums. It's mandatory. (Deductable is by calendar year, or illness, so if you get cancer you only need to meet the deductable once.) Private insurance can deal with managed/pre-paid/HMO type health care for amounts under the deductable.
Personally, I favor #2. A person who gets cancer with no other insurance may have to borrow from friends/neighbors/etc, but won't get completely wiped out. And it would be relatively cheap to run. 99% of americans wouldn't ever make a claim in a given year.
#24 - Mon Aug 10, 2009 4:20 PM EDTJust as the congress woman from Missouri said today that she has found it very strange that the Republicans had complained about the bill on health care so they started to take it apart. She said that they have made some were near 140 changes, then they just flat out said they will have nothing to do with it. Makes complete sense if all you are doing is blowing it out of the water and change things so there is no way that it will past or do what it needs to do for it's people. It sounds alot to me that it is the Republicans that want to kill your grand mother and father.
- 1 vote
#25 - Mon Aug 10, 2009 6:08 PM EDTwell for what it's worth I'll take a shot at this one...prepare for a massive collapse Vine..he,he,he,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
OK I am almost 70, for my entire working life I have paid into Health care,in order to keep my kids healthy, and God forbid myself working. I am old enough to remember when a person actually got health care. If you were sick or broke something, you went to the Doctor {actually only one] and he fixed you . Either physically fixed the broken part or gave you meds to take to fix the inside and if you were on deaths door...he sent you to the Hospital. [where you were fixed by a whole team of people]...I remember when that all changed.
It was sometime around the early 70's and my doctors office all decided they had to have a specialty,besides just being a regular doc in the clinic....before that there were a FEW specialists that you were sent to when the collective expertise of the WHOLE office, where you went, were at a loss with what was wrong with you and the best way to fix your VERY EXOTIC DISEASE.
From then on it was all about billing your insurance after you were run around to half a dozen Specialists[who were billed above and beyond] the regular fee. Now a Doctor could get a second dip in the Insurance troth. The Ins. company's said :hold on there buck a roo..we are going to change the fee schedule here and so on and so on until Health Care was so convoluted and expensive, between the doctor trying to screw the Ins. Companies, an the Insurance companies trying to screw the policy holders UNTIL we have 2009 where most cannot afford the policies they have, then a quarter million ( more or less) illegal folks trying to steal health care from the ER rooms [at taxpayers expense,[sort of a double dipper for tax payers] and the politician's 'God love their black greedy hearts' are going to fix it for you...now if you believe there really is Health care reform..I got water front property for you in Nevada that is real cheap.....
- 2 votes
#28 - Mon Aug 10, 2009 7:53 PM EDTYou're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
