Healthcare - 6/12 [thread #1] [Archive] - In Session Message Boards

JonDough

06-12-2009, 07:46 PM

The photo op was too good to be true. Health care providers trooped out of the White House and trumpeted their goal of saving $1.7 trillion of costs over the next decade in health spending. Now these drug companies, hospitals, insurance companies, medical device manufacturers, labor unions and doctors have laid out their plans in more detail.

And right there, in plain print, is the beginning of medical care rationing. Now that the cameras have been put away and the media is no longer watching, their secret emerges: They are going to cut medical costs by cutting medical care. Right now, they cite four targets. They plan to:

1. Cut diagnostic imaging tests like MRIs and CAT scans.

2. Reduce the use of antibiotics.

3. Perform fewer Caesarean sections.

4. Cut care for management of chronic back pain

These decisions will not be medical but financial. They will not be based on a doctor’s opinion of what his or her patient needs, but a bureaucrat’s and an accountant s opinion of what the new health care system can afford. http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/2009/06/06/here-comes-health-care-rationing/#more-594

Susan43

06-12-2009, 07:50 PM

For those interested in the truth, here is the healthcare website.

http://www.healthreform.gov/

Also, just as an aside. Medicare doesn't seem to have any rationing. And I don't know this for sure, but congress has government backed healthcare and I'd put money on it they don't have any rationing either.

Susan43

06-12-2009, 08:04 PM

This article is fairly long, but it is by far one of the best I've read on the subject.

The Cost Conundrum
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/090601fa_fact_gawande

baltoman99

06-12-2009, 08:06 PM

rowstreeter

06-12-2009, 08:26 PM

All the other major industrialized countries seem to be able to run a national universal health care system, (all capitalist nations, by the way) and all seem to have no rationing of care. In the USA, with a patchwork of private health insurance systems and profit centers, only the care the the uninsured is rationed now.

Somehow I realize all conservatives with their own private health insurance feel a national health insurance system (like Medicare) would force rationing in the USA, when every other nation with such as system manages to not have rationing. Only in the USA do we have such irrational fears of rationing.

Susan43

06-12-2009, 08:31 PM

rowstreeter

06-12-2009, 08:42 PM

I just don't get it that conservatives seem to think we are too stupid to set up a health care system that's as good or better then every other country that has one. It baffles me. I think we're very smart, why don't they?

Here's a funny video from The Young Turks, where a Republican Senator accidentally admits why the Republicans don't want a national health insurance option.

ooops!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NpTumjHylw&feature=channel_page

YoYo

06-13-2009, 11:16 AM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090613/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_health_overhaul_government_plan

"The idea got little attention when Obama proposed it as a candidate. Now, however, it's jeopardizing his effort to win broad political support for changes that would guarantee coverage for all and try to rein in medical costs."

YoYo

06-13-2009, 11:18 AM

Obama Wants New Cuts in Federal Health Spending:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090613/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_health_care

"Overhauling the nation's health care system is one of Obama's biggest ambitions, and lawmakers are working on a variety of plans. A top goal is to reduce costs in the government's largest medical programs, Medicare and Medicaid, which cover millions of elderly and low-income Americans and involve thousands of doctors, hospitals, nursing homes and other institutions."

YoYo

06-13-2009, 11:25 AM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090613/pl_politico/23697

"President Barack Obama says he's now found savings that will pay almost all the costs of a massive overhaul of America's health care system."

daniel green

06-14-2009, 01:22 AM

"As President Obama and the Congress turn their attention to health care reform, the uninsured are a major focus. Proponents of universal or near-universal coverage say an imperative in trying to control spiraling health care costs is to greatly expand coverage, so that those who now do not have insurance get their care in a doctor's office and not by walking into a much more expensive emergency room."What's wrong with the health care system in the United States?" Keehbauch says when we raise the question. "Well, it's not for everybody, you know. In our county alone, we have 200,000 patients that are uninsured. So there's just poor access to care.""

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/12/sotu.orlando.health.care/index.html

YoYo

06-14-2009, 10:00 AM

YoYo

06-14-2009, 11:03 AM

LOL, get on board, rush! It may just extend some lives. Corporate America has been pushing health and fitness for quite some time now.....:thumbup:

So you think this is just a waste of time for Obama to address - alrighty then. :thumbsup:

all4one

06-14-2009, 11:26 AM

Anything to do with healthcare will and should be posted here in this thread. I will be merging them as there are too many of individual threads. When this thread becomes too long, we will make a new one.
Thank you.

rowstreeter

06-14-2009, 01:34 PM

"Insurance industry goes after docs who help the uninsured"

"Individual doctors tried contacting their state legislators, who, outraged, then tried to introduce bills in various states to make these sole-practitioner doctors exempt from insurance-industry regulations, except (and here's where I'm guessing you can predict the rest of the story...) the insurance lobby got involved at the state level and the doctor-protection bills died from that tragic legislative epidemic of - ignored to death (West Virginia and Indiana)."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/gurley/detail?entry_id=41696&tsp=1

Lady_Jean_La

06-14-2009, 02:44 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090614/pl_nm/us_usa_healthcare_3

But some lawmakers have revived the idea as a way to paying for the healthcare overhaul. "We've made it clear we do not think that is the way to go. We think that is the wrong way to finance this legislation," Biden said.

LisaM22

06-14-2009, 03:02 PM

with universal Healthcare you pick your own doctor, you get more choice, thus more doctors compete to get your business

LisaM22

06-14-2009, 03:08 PM

Here's a funny video from The Young Turks, where a Republican Senator accidentally admits why the Republicans don't want a national health insurance option.

ooops!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NpTumjHylw&feature=channel_page

lol, love it, republicans put foot in mouth yet again

MiamiNice1

06-14-2009, 03:13 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/23559

"Any health care reform plan that Obama signs is almost certain to call for nutrition counseling, obesity screenings and wellness programs at workplaces and community centers. He wants more time in the school day for physical fitness, more nutritious school lunches and more bike paths, walking paths and grocery stores in underserved areas."

Now this is something I can REALLY support.
It IS a good idea, but, unfortunately, there isn't enough time in the school day anymore between tests and the importance of the almighty GPA.

Many high schoolers at our local high school are taking P.E. ONLINE! ONLINE. It is actually very educational - you learn about nutrition, consequences of not taking care of yourself, calorie counting - and you are to do some physical workouts on your own (signed by parent).

Anyone who has done an online course of any type, knows it is grueling written work, because they have no other way to gauge your work.

Of course, it does not replace the actual physical activities done at the school. The students are more concerned about taking AP College Courses, the more academic courses in order to be eligible for scholarships and admittance into the prestigious universities of their choice.

Seems the best we can hope for is to instill the necessity of physical activity and the importance of nutrition through education - and when they're out on their own, they'll follow through. :shrug:

imo

ridrea

06-14-2009, 03:15 PM

with universal Healthcare you pick your own doctor, you get more choice, thus more doctors compete to get your business

That's what they are claiming but that is not going to happen. This healthcare reform will cost so much that they are already talking about cutting back procedures. Doctors will make less money and some are already opting out of Medicare. There will be fewer doctors and longer waiting lists.
The government can't even run the postal service, how do you think they'll manage healthcare. Most hospitals & healthcare facilities are for profit, how long do you think they'll hang around when they are told how much to charge?
The public is not giving this enough thought and reasoning, 'free' or 'affordable' don't mean a darn thing if you can't get it!!

Alliekat

06-14-2009, 03:17 PM

Ah yes, Dick "toe man" Morris writes and it suddenly becomes fact.

Come on folks, get some real stories and post them here. Stories with facts. OPINION pieces are just the typical spew from those who just don't like anything Democrat.

That's why I never bothered to open up the Morris link...It's not fact--just opinion....which we all have.

YoYo

06-14-2009, 04:24 PM

This is an area where President Obama and the first lady can really make a big difference (especially) with young people. I would like to see both of them direct ongoing attention to the health of our children - and as appropriate include the girls in their efforts. They are a good-looking family - no doubt about that.

YoYo

06-14-2009, 04:55 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090614/ap_on_go_ot/us_health_care_s_forgotten

""It is heartbreaking to imagine that our leaders in Washington do not care, so I must believe that they do not know," Joe Garcia, president of the National Congress of American Indians, said in his annual state of Indian nations' address in February."

Brat2002

06-14-2009, 06:00 PM

Food for thought-

A group of more than 100 House Dems are attempting to limit the size and scope of government health insurance option.

Centrist Democrats raise big concerns
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/23668.html

Some Dems are bracing for the estimated cost of healthcare reform. Normally, they would use the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) cost estimate, but instead they are considering a different option of using the White House Office of Management and Budget, which would give Dem leaders hundreds of billions more to work with. Repubs see it for what it is, creative accounting and a huge spending loophole. Can’t the Dems just follow the usual rules?

Dems brace for CBO score
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/dems-brace-for-cbo-score-2009-06-11.html

Brat2002

06-14-2009, 06:01 PM

How Safeway Is Cutting Health-Care Costs
Market-based solutions can reduce the national health-care bill by 40%.

At Safeway we believe that well-designed health-care reform, utilizing market-based solutions, can ultimately reduce our nation's health-care bill by 40%. The key to achieving these savings is health-care plans that reward healthy behavior.

As much as we would like to take credit for being a health-care innovator, Safeway has done nothing more than borrow from the well-tested automobile insurance model. For decades, driving behavior has been correlated with accident risk and has therefore translated into premium differences among drivers. Stated somewhat differently, the auto-insurance industry has long recognized the role of personal responsibility. As a result, bad behaviors (like speeding, tickets for failure to follow the rules of the road, and frequency of accidents) are considered when establishing insurance premiums. Bad driver premiums are not subsidized by the good driver premiums.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124476804026308603.html

LisaM22

06-14-2009, 06:13 PM

That's what they are claiming but that is not going to happen. This healthcare reform will cost so much that they are already talking about cutting back procedures. Doctors will make less money and some are already opting out of Medicare. There will be fewer doctors and longer waiting lists.
The government can't even run the postal service, how do you think they'll manage healthcare. Most hospitals & healthcare facilities are for profit, how long do you think they'll hang around when they are told how much to charge?
The public is not giving this enough thought and reasoning, 'free' or 'affordable' don't mean a darn thing if you can't get it!!

the gov will not be running the doctors offices, you will still pick your own doctor, something you sometimes can not do with current insurance plans, and sometimes if your employer changes plans you have to get a new doctor even if you prefer your current one

YoYo

06-14-2009, 08:16 PM

Can we afford Obama's health care plan:

http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=13977324&ch=4226716&src=news

ridrea

06-14-2009, 08:37 PM

**************SNIPPED FOR BANDWITH*******

You keep posting wild assertions, but fail to provide any links to even one source. While I'm aware you are only posting your opinions, many may not, and it's quite disingenuous to post inaccurate information in order to further the right wing agenda. mo

As for YOUR assertion the public isn't giving this matter enough thought and reasoning; that's beyond absurd. How would you know what anyone is doing, except yourself? :blink:

For once our health is not going to be big-business-for-profit. It's high time!

mo

I have a right to my opinion and I see where this is going. Universal healthcare is not good! If the profit is removed, there will be less. If anyone approves, they don't understand how it will work. The word affordable or free sounds good but if there are waiting lists and less available, cost will not matter. I haven't seen a single program created by the government that works for long, even disability is abused.
Do you honestly think we'll know all the details up front, it's certainly not in a link yet, it's being sugar coated until after it's passed.

ridrea

06-14-2009, 08:48 PM

the gov will not be running the doctors offices, you will still pick your own doctor, something you sometimes can not do with current insurance plans, and sometimes if your employer changes plans you have to get a new doctor even if you prefer your current one

You keep believing that because the government will be telling that doctor that you choose what care you can get. It's just a matter of time.
The government bailed out banks, etc. and now they are adding stipulations, even to control their salaries. They change the rules as they go .... you getting the picture yet?

YoYo

06-14-2009, 08:52 PM

What some don't seem to realize is that the care provided will be determined by cost. MO

ridrea

06-14-2009, 09:11 PM

What some don't seem to realize is that the care provided will be determined by cost. MO

Exactly! And I really think they don't have a clue about the funding, just pass it and then sort out the fine print. Just like closing gitmo, Obama didn't even know how, just announced a deadline. This healthcare will be the same process.

ridrea

06-14-2009, 09:13 PM

I agree with you. I posted on another thread how politicians always promise the world when they are trying to get elected and they minimize hardships and costs when they are trying to push through a program.

History has shown that reality rarely matches their rhetoric. The one thing you can be sure of is that the ones who benefit less will be paying the most.

The biggest problem is that once bills are passed and programs started, it's almost impossible to undo! Very scary!

ridrea

06-14-2009, 09:29 PM

Your right wing agenda will never make you an expert on this subject. It would be helpful if you would note that your posts are your "OPINION" instead of trying to slide them by "some" as "facts"., hoping they'll believe you. Very disiingenuous to say the least. :cursing:

Since the right wing - gop is pretty much against government, I'm not surprised that "you" are of the opinion that not one of their programs works. Since the right wing doesn't like any program that helps those less fortunate, we end up with = "your" opinion.

The best part is we are going to have Healthcare Retorm, and we don't care what the right wing - gop think because the Democrats have control! :thumbsup: How lucky is that?

Those who think it's perfectly OK for our health to be big-business-for- profit are free to find another country if this one doesn't please them. Otherwise, get with it! We're going to have healthcare program that will work for every single citizen of this country, and it's high time. Since when is it OK for only the very rich to have quality healthcare?? Since when are they any better than anyone else?? :blink:

mo

Location...location....location!

The liberals are good at spending other people's money, not their own. I am not 'the very rich' and I have quality healthcare that I worked for and pay for, it's a priority for me. Those that really can not afford healthcare have medicaid, seniors have medicare. It's not just those that have lost jobs that don't have coverage, just like the claim of bankruptcies caused by medical bills. Sure, that happens but some are living beyond their means and those bills push them over the edge. What part of those statistics are illegals? My agenda is personal responsibility, does that bother you!!

ridrea

06-14-2009, 09:34 PM

More fear-baiting?? :wink:

mo

You mean like Obama saying there'd be a depression the following week if the stimulus was not passed? That unemployment would go to 9% but yet it's what, about 10% now!!

ridrea

06-14-2009, 09:38 PM

I think they know exactly what it will cost and will low ball it until it is passed. It is then that taxes will be increased to keep it afloat and rationing will become commonplace.

I agree and I hope others will see that also. I'm sure there would be other ways to cut costs but make sure the patient is the priority for the best care.

LisaM22

06-14-2009, 10:04 PM

You keep believing that because the government will be telling that doctor that you choose what care you can get. It's just a matter of time.
The government bailed out banks, etc. and now they are adding stipulations, even to control their salaries. They change the rules as they go .... you getting the picture yet?

current insurance companies do that know, so your really attacking the current system

you think adding stipulation against wasteful spending when saving a bank from bk compares at all

ridrea

06-14-2009, 10:10 PM

YOUR definition of 'personal responsibility' certainly does bother me. The very idea that you, or any right wing -gop member, is qualified to determine who has been living over their means and who hasn't, is beyond absurd.

A person ends up with over $500,000. in medical bills, and if they can't pay it, you throw out the rhetoric of, they lived beyond their means, blah, blah, blah. How ridiculous is that? Do you have a clue what your talking about? I think not. :seeya:

Doesn't matter! We are going to have healthcare reform and the right wing is going to hate it. Big deal!!!!

mo

mo

And that sure will be in our favor for 2010 & 2012 ;) You speak as though the present admin. is carved in stone forever, LOL!

Amazing how you don't like an opinion so you attack the poster ..... sorta insecure with your own views, you think!

YoYo

06-14-2009, 10:17 PM

Fear-baiting. Must be the catch phase of the week.

LisaM22

06-14-2009, 10:37 PM

if you like your current insurance, you can keep it, so not sure what republicans are complaining about, this new system will just keep insurance companies honest and lower our rates and deductibles

ridrea

06-14-2009, 11:36 PM

Not speaking from the left or right side of anything. However, I hope you realize just how fortunate you are that you are able to afford quality healthcare insurance. I have a daughter who recently graduated college; as a result she was removed from my health insurance. She could have opted for COBRA but that was $950 a month and does not include a dental plan or eye plan which is separate. As a recent college grad she could not afford so she had to take out a lesser version of it which is not quite near what we have or what she had being on my plan and there is an extremely high deductible she has to meet before the insurance company will contribute payment. In addition to that the insurance will not cover any pre-existing conditions or medication for that pre-existing condition so she has to pay for that out-of-pocket. As a result my hubby and I pay for her insurance and medication (she has fibromyalgia).

I also hope you are never hospitalized for any condition that requires long-term treatment as there is a cap on what the insurance companies will pay; that is how people go into bankruptcy - it is not because they are living beyond their means. For many cancer patients a lot of the treatment is considered experimental by the insurance companies and they will not contribute to the costs but people who are trying to stay alive do what they have to do.

I don't know what the specific answer is but healthcare indeed needs to be regulated just as the banks have to be. I believe in free enterprise -- but there should be a limit to any profit made off of hard-working citizens. JMHO

Thanks for your reply and I am so sorry about your daughter, I hope she can find a job with good benefits soon. And I do know how fortunate I am, my insurance does not have a cap and meds are paid with small co-pay. I worked 32 yrs. and took early retirement at 55, stayed as long as I did for the benefits, I have 5 more yrs. before I go to medicare and ins. now will be sup. I know many people with as good as mine and they work hard, it's not all luck. I fault NAFTA for jobs leaving U.S. and while unions help, they got greedy.
I have had many illnesses, major surgeries, etc., my max out of pocket is $3,000. I count my blessings everyday!
Every person should be able to buy good insurance but I don't like the idea of me paying taxes on my benefits to fund universal healthcare. More businesses will fold if forced to pay high premiums. There does need to be regulation but when doctors and hospitals are forced to cut their charges, they will cut back on employees and services, etc. So what do they do, it must be a solution. Should we have less quality healthcare for all or the ones that are lucky enough to get in. They even mentioned the elderly would suffer the most, how fair is that and even the ones that can pay will not be allowed.
I did not say all bankruptcies are from over extending but does happen, there are many reasons but we are being led to believe healthcare caused it to influence public opinion about healthcare reform. Reminds me of the statistic about how many children are killed with guns, the ages included are 0 to 21 yrs. which counts gang deaths to promote gun control.
Did you know that there are people on permanent disability because they are drug addicts or alcoholics but a person that has heart disease doesn't qualify. There is so much wrong with our system and the government allowed it to happen. We need a total overhaul of everything. Just like talking about kids affording college, any person can go to college already if they want to, anyone can get a student loan. However, I do think good grades should be rewarded with credit toward repayment. Medical students are not going to want that debt to end up with a government salary.
My DIL in California had 18 students in her 3rd grade class, 9 of those kids have non-english speaking parents, how can they even help with homework. We have to draw the line somewhere but not a word about immigration???
There's so much that is not fair but how do we fix it?

ridrea

06-15-2009, 12:02 AM

*********SNIPPED FOR BANDWITH*********

I can't believe it. So what if their parent's can't speak English. Throw the kids out of school, and then the whole family out of the country? Why does there have to be a line that you think you, and others, have the right to draw? The mentality of your post is frightening to me.

Our country is in a mess alright. Bush2, cheney, and repub. adm. destroyed it along with the economy. Our new President will fix it in due time, but it's going to take time. Understand this though, we are NOT going to go back to right wing way of government.

The right wing's idea of "fair" is exactly why the gop is in the dumpster, and will remain there for the next 4 - 5 decades. :thumbsup:

MO

The problems did not start with Bush...get over it!!
You really should stop reading my posts, the truth frightens you I guess. Just twist and twist...really pitiful!!
Time will tell, just continue with your wishful thinking!

LisaM22

06-15-2009, 07:33 AM

America needs Universal Health Coverage

YoYo

06-15-2009, 08:13 AM

ridrea

06-15-2009, 01:04 PM

http://www.charter.net/news/read.php?id=15620226&ps=1010&srce=news_class&action=4&lang=en&_LT=UNLC_NKNWU00L4_UNEWS

"The official spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the president's remarks before they were delivered."

I noticed in his speech today that he insist we can keep our doctor and coverage but never mentions the cost! Private ins. will increase so much that most will end up on his public plan!

He's certainly a wizard with words, eh! He knows what he's doing!

rowstreeter

06-15-2009, 01:50 PM

62% of Americans support Obama's health care initiative.

62%

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwSpepjnpWQ

ridrea

06-15-2009, 02:04 PM

Everytime he says "let me be honest with you", I find myself bracing for the next big lie.

Oh, me too!! He's really preaching hard today and when he tries to down play conservative's challenges, I really question his motives.
I keep remembering Harry Reid quoting Obama's remark 'I have a gift', at some point, the 'talking' will not be enough!

ridrea

06-15-2009, 02:48 PM

That's probably true. If you want to see what Obama's policies are going to do, look at California.

Wasn't it Mass. that started some type of healthcare plan and has almost bankrupted that state? CA is a good example!

snookums1

06-15-2009, 02:54 PM

Eighty-three percent of Americans favor and only 14 percent oppose “creating a new public health insurance plan that anyone can purchase” according to EBRI, a conservative business research organization. This flatly contradicts conservatives’ loudest attack against President Obama’s plan to provide quality, affordable health care for all.

http://ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2009062515/new-poll-shows-tremendous-support-public-health-care-option

ridrea

06-15-2009, 03:07 PM

I believe they are having a lot of trouble funding their plan.

I would like to understand how Obama thinks the 'quality' of healthcare will be so much better with public plan? That just shows he's saying anything to push his plan.

snookums1

06-15-2009, 04:02 PM

As a concept, I think it is magnificent. My first question though is whether it could be run without inevitably subsidizing shortfalls from the Federal budget, and if the answer is "no", what is the projected cost.

I'm am not sure if that information would sway my decision one way or another all by itself, but I'd like to know the answer. Here is how I see it. Right now all that have insurance and the money to pay medical bills are paying for the healthcare of millions that have neither. Hospitals have to raise the cost of every procedure to cover the cost of those that cannot pay. Plus, many that do not have coverage get medical welfare coverage. And we have to pay for both, in higher costs for care and taxes to cover medical assistance. So I don't see much difference except everyone will be covered.

rowstreeter

06-15-2009, 04:18 PM

Did everyone hear the doctors applaud Obama while he was speaking today? He got applause, yes, when, among other things, he said his plan would free doctors and health care people from being accountants and bookkeepers.

Obama Reiterates Support For Public Option

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGJmi6JB4js

LisaM22

06-15-2009, 04:23 PM

I noticed in his speech today that he insist we can keep our doctor and coverage but never mentions the cost! Private ins. will increase so much that most will end up on his public plan!

He's certainly a wizard with words, eh! He knows what he's doing!

this is the new republican argument, the public option is gonna be so good they say that very few will be left choosing private insurance thus rates for private insurance will go up - lol, so they actually think the public option will be that good do they, wonder if they actually think before they speak sometimes

LisaM22

06-15-2009, 04:37 PM

magythekat

06-15-2009, 05:51 PM

You mean like Obama saying there'd be a depression the following week if the stimulus was not passed? That unemployment would go to 9% but yet it's what, about 10% now!!

It's really quite sad to blame our concerns for this health plan as 'fear baiting'. Quite frankly, after hearing Obama's talk on health care today, I'm more scared than ever. WE DO NOT NEED Universal Health Care.
It becomes a downhill spiral, what is it about Dems that they don't see the quality of health care going down with Univeral health care. I don't want the gov. controlling my health care...it is MINE to control. Sheesh, it is astounding how blind some can be to the real facts.. Oh, and I loved the part where he said Sr's will have to pay a little more for medicare etc. Yeah, Sr's have paid into it their whole working careers, now suddenly they are going to have to pay more for services? Read between the blurred lines people!!

watcher2005

06-15-2009, 05:58 PM

I can believe that there is high support for the question as posed in the OP. Namely, a public plan that people -can- buy into.

But what would the results be if the potential mandates were included in the question? Would that be as high?

LisaM22

06-15-2009, 06:03 PM

LisaM22

06-15-2009, 06:11 PM

joolz

06-15-2009, 06:13 PM

ridrea

06-15-2009, 06:23 PM

It's really quite sad to blame our concerns for this health plan as 'fear baiting'. Quite frankly, after hearing Obama's talk on health care today, I'm more scared than ever. WE DO NOT NEED Universal Health Care.
It becomes a downhill spiral, what is it about Dems that they don't see the quality of health care going down with Univeral health care. I don't want the gov. controlling my health care...it is MINE to control. Sheesh, it is astounding how blind some can be to the real facts.. Oh, and I loved the part where he said Sr's will have to pay a little more for medicare etc. Yeah, Sr's have paid into it their whole working careers, now suddenly they are going to have to pay more for services? Read between the blurred lines people!!

I agree! Another thing Obama said today was that if his health plan was not passed that the healthcare would end up like GM and bankrupt. More fear mongering just like we'd be in a depression if stimulus didn't pass. There was another discussion on TV this afternoon saying this healthcare plan would be run like medicare & medicaid, only paying 71% to hospitals and difference would be made up with private ins. increasing rates. Then private ins. would be forced out and 120 million would then be without ins. also. And Obama says quality of care would be better??? There will have to be rationing to lower cost, common sense has to kick in eventually. I had already heard that the elderly would be hurt the most, just not fair!! He keeps talking about children not having care, what was CHIPS for??

LisaM22

06-15-2009, 06:26 PM

I agree! Another thing Obama said today was that if his health plan was not passed that the healthcare would end up like GM and bankrupt. More fear mongering just like we'd be in a depression if stimulus didn't pass. There was another discussion on TV this afternoon saying this healthcare plan would be run like medicare & medicaid, only paying 71% to hospitals and difference would be made up with private ins. increasing rates. Then private ins. would be forced out and 120 million would then be without ins. also. And Obama says quality of care would be better??? There will have to be rationing to lower cost, common sense has to kick in eventually. I had already heard that the elderly would be hurt the most, just not fair!! He keeps talking about children not having care, what was CHIPS for??

put your money where your mouth is, when the universal health coverage is released, choose to keep your private health coverage, I plan to look at both and then decide

Lady_Jean_La

06-15-2009, 06:31 PM

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2009/06/15/pm_ama/

President Obama is on a health care reform campaign and wants to cut costs. But the American Medical Association wants a second opinion on his proposed plan. Jill Barshay reports.

LisaM22

06-15-2009, 06:38 PM

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2009/06/15/pm_ama/

"President Obama is on a health care reform campaign and wants to cut costs. But the American Medical Association wants a second opinion on his proposed plan. Jill Barshay reports."

was that the one boo

"Obama opens to applause at AMA "

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/1623150,obama-chicago-health-care-reform-ama-061509.article

"President Obama got nine standing ovations and just one “boo” from the crowd of American Medical Association members today as he sought their help in taming medical costs."

LisaM22

06-15-2009, 06:40 PM

just listened to his speech on potus, sounds great, it's been too long coming, we definitely should have universal health coverage for all Americans :patriot:

ridrea

06-15-2009, 06:41 PM

put your money where your mouth is, when the universal health coverage is released, choose to keep your private health coverage, I plan to look at both and then decide

Just keep thinking that's how it will work!! Private companies will not survive and the government can not cover as much as it will cost to cover everyone without private companies.

LisaM22

06-15-2009, 06:48 PM

Where would a person tune into potus, is that a cable channel?

xm channel 130

http://www.xmradio.com/onxm/channelpage.xmc?ch=130

think you can sign up for a free 30 day trial to listen online from the listen on-line button on the top portion of page

ETA :

"Sign up for a free 14-day trial of XM Radio Online (XMRO), and sample POTUS - XM 130 along with all the other great content streaming live right now on XMRO." link is on the right side

ridrea

06-15-2009, 06:51 PM

There was a fair amount of applause from a group that's been painted recently as not totally on board with changes to the nation's health-care system. There was a "boo" or two as well at a couple of points.

But not when it comes to medical malpractice. Obama disappointed doctors today when he said he would not recommend caps on malpractice awards.

Robert Laszewski is a health-care policy analyst in Washington. He says what's really at stake for the doctors is their livelihood and how reform may redistribute the wealth.

Laszewski says that the American Medical Association isn't as powerful as it used to be. It represents only a third of the nation's 800,000 doctors. But he says the one thing they can agree on is that they don't want a pay cut.

He has made it sound so simple but it's not, it has so many links. There will be fewer medical students, they will not want a limited income fixed by the government. Some doctors have already opted out of medicare, they are tired of government fixing their fees. The quality of care is my biggest concern. Obama is saying you can keep your private ins. if you choose but rates will go so high that few can afford it and that's what he's counting on.

Lady_Jean_La

06-15-2009, 07:23 PM

We have a sticky for Obama's Healthcare plans.

How many does he have?

ridrea

06-15-2009, 07:35 PM

I truly believe it would not put private companies out of business; it just creates fair competition. JMHO

I would love to think you'll be right but in order to compete, they'll have raise rates, fewer people can afford it, they can not survive with fewer clients, people will be forced to government plan even with less care, no choice. Medicare & medicaid pays 71 cents on the dollar of what private companies pay (not 71% of total charges) and doctors/hospitals charge more to private companies to cover losses from those government payments. And now there will be more limit payments for universal healthcare, private companies can not compete by lowering rates. Obama does not like capitalism, he thinks the government can decide better what we should have or need. This is just the beginning! He wants more people to have to depend on the government to survive, thus more control. It's just a matter of time until the auto industry will be told what cars to build, our choice will be limited.
Just like he said today about healthcare plan, it's personal with him, his mother fighting with ins. company when she was ill. Regulate the insurance companies, end precondition clauses, let people pay by their income and set up a grace period for unemployed to run with their unemployment benefits. Obama doesn't want anything like this because it would not cover those that don't work or illegals.

LisaM22

06-15-2009, 08:21 PM

I truly believe it would not put private companies out of business; it just creates fair competition. JMHO

well that is up to private insurance, I have not seen them making any changes to my policy to try and keep me, if they want to survive they will have to compete or everyone will choose the public option - would not NOW be the time for them to try and change and show America they are willing to change?

magythekat

06-15-2009, 08:41 PM

I would love to think you'll be right but in order to compete, they'll have raise rates, fewer people can afford it, they can not survive with fewer clients, people will be forced to government plan even with less care, no choice. Medicare & medicaid pays 71 cents on the dollar of what private companies pay (not 71% of total charges) and doctors/hospitals charge more to private companies to cover losses from those government payments. And now there will be more limit payments for universal healthcare, private companies can not compete by lowering rates. Obama does not like capitalism, he thinks the government can decide better what we should have or need. This is just the beginning! He wants more people to have to depend on the government to survive, thus more control. It's just a matter of time until the auto industry will be told what cars to build, our choice will be limited.
Just like he said today about healthcare plan, it's personal with him, his mother fighting with ins. company when she was ill. Regulate the insurance companies, end precondition clauses, let people pay by their income and set up a grace period for unemployed to run with their unemployment benefits. Obama doesn't want anything like this because it would not cover those that don't work or illegals.

You are absolutely right on all of the above. Can you imagine the outcry if George Bush had of proposed such a thing? Some folks can't see the forest for the tree's. I honestly don't think it will happen, it's just more of the Obama control issues.

LisaM22

06-15-2009, 09:06 PM

ridrea

06-15-2009, 09:12 PM

I don't know about anyone else -- but I am confused as he** as whether to be pro or con about Pres Obama's proposed healthcare plan and the more I read the more confused I am and ridrea you have made some valid points. Just being honest ...... For now just thankful I have good medical insurance :ohmy:

Why it will work...

http://www.healthinsurancerates.com/6-why-barack-obamas-health-care-plan-will-work.html

Why it won't work

http://www.healthinsurancerates.com/7-barack-obamas-health-care-plan-wont-work.html

You are so right! How do we really know what will happen? Who do we trust? In a year or so, will Obama say it is really costing so much, we have to ration and raise more taxes? I keep thinking about the liberals insisting on raising minimum wage. Ok, all it did was cause layoffs, reduction of work forces and prices increased so it just increased cost of living that everyone had to pay. Those on a fixed income didn't get that wage inc. but they still had to pay out more. It didn't accomplish anything. Is Obama cutting off one end of the rug to sew to the other end?
Healthcare does need to be fixed but I don't think they've found a solution yet!

LisaM22

06-15-2009, 09:15 PM

You are so right! How do we really know what will happen? Who do we trust? In a year or so, will Obama say it is really costing so much, we have to ration and raise more taxes? I keep thinking about the liberals insisting on raising minimum wage. Ok, all it did was cause layoffs, reduction of work forces and prices increased so it just increased cost of living that everyone had to pay. Those on a fixed income didn't get that wage inc. but they still had to pay out more. It didn't accomplish anything. Is Obama cutting off one end of the rug to sew to the other end?
Healthcare does need to be fixed but I don't think they've found a solution yet!

raising min wage was not what caused layoff's geeze give me a break, nice spin, foreign outsourcing cause layoffs, which cause less consummer spending which caused layoff's and round and round it goes, the problem was greed, not min wage and Bush's tax cuts for the rich obviously did not create jobs or address the problem - what is really sad is the greed just made things worse even for the top 10%

ridrea

06-15-2009, 09:17 PM

raising min wage was not what caused layoff's geeze give me a break, nice spin, foreign outsourcing cause layoffs, which cause less consummer spending which caused layoff's and round and round it goes, the problem was greed, not min wage and Bush's tax cuts for the rich obviously did not create jobs or address the problem - what is really sad is the greed just made things worse even for the top 10%

Outsourcing did not cause ALL the layoffs!!!

LisaM22

06-15-2009, 09:45 PM

Outsourcing did not cause ALL the layoffs!!!

it was what started the snowball going downhill - it's like Pandora's box, the corps can't get their greedy little hands out of the box

LisaM22

06-16-2009, 12:05 AM

Really? Well, tell me, what happened to those employees, several thousand. that worked for AT&T when they outsourced? Do you think they kept them on? :blink: You missed the national news about that very issue, it seems

Of course the right wing is against raising the minimum wage. They'd keep it at a $1.00 an hour if they could. You do know that the Repub. party, right wing, gop were against Medicare don't you? It seems the right wing isn't for anything, or anyone, except themselves. :blink:

IMO

not just at&t, almost ever major corporation has outsourced overseas, that is a lot of jobs lost

YoYo

06-16-2009, 09:39 AM

ttp://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=14005152&ch=4226723&src=news

Bottom line - tax more and cut MC/MA benefits.

YoYo

06-16-2009, 10:05 AM

Just a little correction -- the taxes proposed would be on those that make $200K or more which he has said all along.

Correction? I didn't elaborate. Didn't it say that in the video? :)

YoYo

06-16-2009, 10:06 AM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20090616/us_time/08599190490200;_ylt=AvSJ6DBhfCjYhVh2qimD_Yms0NUE;_ ylu=X3oDMTJpczU1c3Z2BGFzc2V0A3RpbWUvMjAwOTA2MTYvMD g1OTkxOTA0OTAyMDAEY3BvcwMzBHBvcwMxMARzZWMDeW5fdG9w X3N0b3J5BHNsawN3aWxsdGhlcHVibGk-

YoYo

06-16-2009, 10:35 AM

http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=4226712&cl=13998671&src=news

YoYo

06-16-2009, 10:36 AM

<snip>

No offense intended. :)

None taken. :wub:

YoYo

06-16-2009, 12:45 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090616/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_sebelius_health_overhaul

"Sebelius discounted the importance of the early estimates, while saying the administration wants to keep the cost at about $1 trillion over 10 years, with about two-thirds of that coming from shifting funds from existing health programs like Medicare and Medicaid."

FurthurBB

06-16-2009, 01:33 PM

Just keep thinking that's how it will work!! Private companies will not survive and the government can not cover as much as it will cost to cover everyone without private companies.

I have to completely disagree since this plan is based on the Israeli plan and they have as many private insurance companies as we do. How about instead of constantly posting something that has been proven to be false, unless you just think only the US could screw this up and all other countries are just better than us, and go read about the actual plan that Obama's plan is based on. IMO

FurthurBB

06-16-2009, 01:34 PM

He has made it sound so simple but it's not, it has so many links. There will be fewer medical students, they will not want a limited income fixed by the government. Some doctors have already opted out of medicare, they are tired of government fixing their fees. The quality of care is my biggest concern. Obama is saying you can keep your private ins. if you choose but rates will go so high that few can afford it and that's what he's counting on.

All right, so you just believe that as a country we cannot pull this off because there is something inherently wrong with us? If not, you are not making any sense whatsoever. IMO

dinojen

06-16-2009, 03:02 PM

ABC News Teams Up With Obama White House to Present President's Health Care Plan
ABC News will host an hour-long special on health care reform in the U.S. next Wednesday from the White House East Room -- a move that ABC is defending but critics are calling a surrender to the Obama administration's effort to control the debate.

The prime time special -- called "Questions for the President: Prescription for America" by ABC News -- will be a nationally televised event during which President Obama will answer questions presented by audience members selected by ABC News.

Participants will present a broad range of "divergent opinions in this historic debate," according to the press release announcing the event. Viewers will also be able to submit questions via ABCNews.com.

But critics of Obama's health care reform are asking that they be allowed to voice their side of the national debate.

"In the absence of opposition, I am concerned this event will become a glorified infomercial to promote the Democrat agenda. If that is the case, this prime time infomercial should be paid for out of the DNC coffers. President Obama does not hold a monopoly on health care reform ideas or on free airtime," Ken McKay, Chief of Staff for the Republican National Committee, wrote in a letter to ABC News President David Westin.

"The president has stated time and time again that he wants a bipartisan debate. Therefore, the Republican Party should be included in this prime time event," McKay wrote.

ABC News Senior Vice President Kerry Smith returned volley to McKay in her own letter released Tuesday. She said any viewer who watches will be sure to find the network's coverage is "informative, fair and civil."

"Like any programs we broadcast, ABC News will have complete editorial control. To suggest otherwise is quite unfair to both our journalists and our audience," Smith wrote.

Rich Noyes, research director at the Media Research Center, said the amount of time being dedicated exclusively to Obama's platform presents a problem for those claiming fairness.

"Will the opponents of President Obama's health care plan get an equal shot at the debate on the airwaves? This is an awful lot of time that ABC is giving over to one side of the debate," Noyes said. "This is an issue of such importance, the public really requires a balanced debate."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/16/abc-news-teams-obama-white-house-present-presidents-health-care-plan/

dinojen

06-16-2009, 04:27 PM

Wow -- do you know how many people are unemployed and CANNOT find jobs ???

I have been working for 25+ years and my job got cut due to economy in January. I am in a good position since I am also a retiree of a major telecom company where I still have my healthcare insurance but most unemployed are not this lucky. :shrug:

The sad part is if this health plan goes through the way he wants it too.. it's going to push alot more cost on to the employer.. and it will either close doors because the costs are so high.. or that cost will passed on down to the employee and that will mean less take home.

Was reading about it yesterday.. will have to find the link and post it...

This healthcare plan is not going to come with no cost.. to the taxpayer IMO.

dinojen

06-16-2009, 04:41 PM

Yes it just may but there are many employers also who do not provide healthcare insurance to their employees now other than they get a discounted group rate they pay for themselves which is what my previous job did that I lost in January. As a retiree I did not have to rely on healthcare through the employer though.

http://www.kff.org/insurance/7527/upload/7528.pdf

What is really sad it's the small employer that has minimum employees that find it hard to find or offer health insurance due to the costs.. both my husband and I are lucky we were for fairly large companies, especially me where the cost of health care for us both is minimal. His employer still pays 3/4 of our premiums but the cost has gone up this year so his share is a bit more.. but I am not complaining at all.

A small company is a huge burden to carry health coverage for their employees cost wise and I think that's why many don't offer it.:sad:

dinojen

06-16-2009, 04:51 PM

Yes a smaller company certainly has a huge burden if they opt to cover their employees and many don't. Since 2004 (I edited my post above) more and more of the premium costs are being shifted to employees due to the increases. I don't know what the answer is / should be/ but something needs to be done. The costs are really getting totally out of control.

I had posted in another thread that when my daughter graduated from college (just recently) I had to drop her from my health insurance. The COBRA payments were ridiculous; she is self-employed and very tough to get insurance for her. We did manage but her deductible is extremely high and it does not cover pre-existing conditions and she has fibromyalgia. My husband and I pay for her medication and her premium as well as her expenses for her treatments because she just cannot afford it at least right now. In hindsight - it probably would have been better to go with the COBRA payments. Oh well ........

COBRA costs are beyond ridiculous. If you aren't working or you are laid off and you are offered the COBRA.. how the heck are you suppose to cover it if you aren't working ? I agree it's horrible what they charge.

YoYo

06-16-2009, 05:23 PM

That's a "T" people........

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090616/ap_on_go_co/us_health_overhaul

YoYo

06-16-2009, 07:11 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_overhaul;_ylt=AsQoW5qIfUZ1ZXcAnfHwEhCs0N UE;_ylu=X3oDMTJrMmVnbjljBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkwNjE2L3 VzX2hlYWx0aF9vdmVyaGF1bARjcG9zAzMEcG9zAzEwBHNlYwN5 bl90b3Bfc3RvcnkEc2xrA2RlbXNsb29rdG9jdQ--

"WASHINGTON – Jolted by cost estimates as high as $1.6 trillion, Senate Democrats agreed Tuesday to scale back planned subsidies for the uninsured and sought concessions totaling hundreds of billions of dollars from private industry to defray the cost of sweeping health care legislation..........."

LisaM22

06-16-2009, 08:56 PM

http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=4226712&cl=13998671&src=news

they are frustrated with the current system, want change, but fear change, I think that is normal

LisaM22

06-16-2009, 08:58 PM

That sounds pretty provocative when you don't have links to any statistics. Almost every major corporation? What constitutes "almost every" what constitutes "major corporation"? What constitutes "overseas"? What constitutes "a lot" of jobs lost?

That comment as just as illusory as "saved or created" is.

IMO

try calling customer service for a few major corporations and see if you get a rep in America and see for yourself

LisaM22

06-17-2009, 04:16 AM

Count them and weep. :(

Here is a list of companies we've confirmed are "Exporting America." These are U.S. companies either sending American jobs overseas, or choosing to employ cheap overseas labor, instead of American workers.

http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/lou.dobbs.tonight/popups/exporting.america/content.html

thinks for the link... choco_con, be sure and check out that link

YoYo

06-17-2009, 10:59 AM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090617/ap_on_go_co/us_health_overhaul

LisaM22

06-17-2009, 01:05 PM

No fair choco_con. A link was provided for you - see my posts 159 / 160

ETA Link to companies that outsource. I knew a lot of companies outsourced; but have to admit didn't know there were so many. :ohmy:

http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/lou.dobbs.tonight/popups/exporting.america/content.html

think choco_con is ignoring us now that you posted that link to the facts

magythekat

06-17-2009, 04:46 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdARfegZDns

A Canadian's words on socialized medicine. :thumbsup:

That was great...but on the unfunny side...I have Canadian friends that say pretty much the same thing about their socialized medicine. It's a downer, not a safety net...all 'nets' are jerked out from under you.

YoYo

06-17-2009, 04:52 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090617/ap_on_go_co/us_health_overhaul

YoYo

06-17-2009, 09:04 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090617/ap_on_re_us/med_ama_health_overhaul

"The AMA is known to be a conservative bunch and has clashed with previous administrations' attempts to shape health policy. Its membership has been dwindling for years, down to about one-fourth of the nation's physicians, but it remains a visible lobbying presence in Washington."

hmmmm.........

drgnrtz

06-18-2009, 02:56 AM

My Canadian co-workers say that the Canadian system is great...unless you need it.

Here is some eye opening videos about the Canadian healthcare system. There are companies people hire to broker US healthcare for them.

http://patriotroom.com/article/distributive-justice-and-falsehoods-in-the-healthcare-debate

your canadian co-workers? what specifically did they need that they didnt get?
i live in canada and dont know of anyone personally that has anything bad to say about our healthcare (except my cousin, surgery nurse...she hates the paperwork), and this is the first time i've heard of those videos, they dont really seem tell the whole story, not sure what to make of them, but maybe propaganda?

ortiga

06-18-2009, 10:17 AM

Report: Health care costs to rise 9 pct in 2010

AP report

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090618/ap_on_bi_ge/us2010_health_costs

dinojen

06-18-2009, 11:14 AM

ABCNews officials Tuesday defended a planned White House-set special on health-care reform from charges by the Republican National Committee that it would be nothing more than a "glorified infomercial" to promote a Democratic agenda.

"Poppycock" is what ABC officials said, though in more official terms.

The dustup began when officials at the Republican National Committee got wind that ABC News would devote extensive coverage to the topic, including an interview with President Obama and the First Lady on "Good Morning America," a White House-set telecast of "World News" and a one-hour prime-time town-hall type discussion with the President on health care on June 24.

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv/2009/06/17/2009-06-17_abc_pledges_gop_a_healthy_debate.html#ixzz0InLS HKTK&D

While I don't find anything amusing about the healthcare system in our country.. it's shameful actually.. and does need to be fixed..

But the more I hear about this DAY LONG INFOMERCIAL and IMO that's basically what it is.

"In the end, no one watching, listening to, or reading ABC News will lack for an understanding of all sides of these important questions," ABC News Senior Vice President Kerry Smith said in a letter to the RNC.

ABC responded after it was suggested on the Drudge Web site that it had turned over control of the program to the Obama administration.

The audience and questions for the prime-time special will be selected by ABC and only ABC, according to a spokesman, and the goal is to have a balanced broadcast with various views.

The RNC's attack appears to be an example of how the party intends to fight the camera-friendly Obama administration, which just recently got two hours of prime-time coverage on NBC with Brian Williams, is now letting ABC into the White House, and is on television virtually every day with a presidential appearance.

Moreover, coverage of the First Lady as a style icon has all but reached the play-by-play level.

"I think it's pretty obvious politics," said Jay DeDapper, a veteran political reporter for WABC/Ch. 7 and WNBC/Ch. 4.

"When NBC essentially did a version of [MTV's] 'Cribs' in the White House a few weeks back under the guise of news, the GOP said nothing, leaving it to Jon Stewart to point out the obvious - there was no news value at all - it was a promotional stunt by NBC News accommodated by a White House happy to use the network to advance the administration's political goals.

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv/2009/06/17/2009-06-17_abc_pledges_gop_a_healthy_debate.html#ixzz0InN1 VlPU&D

And I'm not even a registered Democrat.. I'll just wait and see how fair and balanced as another cable network likes to say...lol... these questions chosen by ABC truly are.. JMVHO

MaybytheBay

06-18-2009, 04:10 PM

I use it all the time. So do all my friends and family. We'd never give it up ....... and have never found much at all to complain about. And we're all pretty healthy ........ strange how you can make such comments about something you really know nothing about. :thumbdown:

There is no denying there sometimes long wait times (especially for non-emergency surgery and specialty treatment) for health services in Canada. Evident lack of services in rural areas. Evident lack of treatment options.....like diagnostic imaging and specialty equipment (because of costs).
It's a great system for Canada.... most Canadians overwhelmingly would never change from universal healthcare..... but there are budget restraints and shortages that need to be addressed. And it comes at a very high cost through taxes. And for most Canadians that does not include dental, prescriptions, chiropractor....it's impossible to get healthcare sponsored physiotherapy..., optometry...And of course doctors salaries are capped.....so there is a cap at which the doctor can no longer service patients.
I think the actual small percentage of people who cross the border for necessary surgery is being slightly over emphasized and inflated....but it does occur for necessary (life saving reasons) at times.
It's not perfect....but it works for Canadians....who enjoy a longer life span than Americans, infant mortality rates are lower...

rowstreeter

06-18-2009, 04:44 PM

rowstreeter

06-18-2009, 04:50 PM

"Eighty-three percent of Americans favor and only 14 percent oppose “creating a new public health insurance plan that anyone can purchase” according to EBRI, a conservative business research organization. This flatly contradicts conservatives’ loudest attack against President Obama’s plan to provide quality, affordable health care for all."

http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2009062515/new-poll-shows-tremendous-support-public-health-care-option

rowstreeter

06-18-2009, 05:35 PM

That everyone can purchase. There are plenty of health care plans that people could purchase now and choose not to.

People are going to have to get real about who can and cannot afford healthcare. Some people are going to have to get real about giving up some of their luxuries and taking responsibility for their healthcare costs and stop using our ER's as doctors offices and bankrupting them.

Did you read the link? The key word is "public", (as opposed to private health care plans), so I don't think you got the point. People who have no money cannot purchase health care insurance now, can they?

rowstreeter

06-18-2009, 05:49 PM

Baucus to ax $600B, GOP derides reform ‘joke’
By Alexander Bolton and Jeffrey Young
Posted: 06/17/09 08:23 PM [ET]

President Obama’s push for a bipartisan healthcare overhaul suffered a double blow on Wednesday when Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) announced he would cut $600 billion from his measure while Republicans derided a Democratic markup of an alternative bill as a “joke.”

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/baucus-takes-ax-to-600b-gop-derides-reform-joke-2009-06-17.html

Thanks for the link to the latest news! What do you think this will mean in the long run? Will we get a decent bill to cover everyone that wants in?

rowstreeter

06-18-2009, 06:14 PM

What a way to manipulate the American people! take over a network for a couple of hours and let the people hear one side. :rolleyes:

And with his charisma and oratory skills most will agree with everything he has to say.

People on this board are not representative of the country. Most really have no idea about politics.

imo

We are LIVING the "other side" and we don't need to hear more about it.
I posted a link saying 83% of people WANT a public option. The "other side" lost the election last November.

rowstreeter

06-18-2009, 07:09 PM

I don't think anyone can answer that question right now.
ABC is accepting questions for the 6/24 broadcast on healthcare:

As the country considers major reforms to the health care system, ABC News wants to hear from you. What question would you want to ask the president about health care? What story would you share?

President Obama's health care push will continue next week with a primetime event at the White House, moderated by ABC's Charles Gibson and Diane Sawyer during a nationally televised event on June 24, 2009 called "Questions for the President: Prescription for America."

The president will answer questions offered by audience members selected by ABC News who have divergent opinions in this historic debate, as well as some submitted via ABCNews.com.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/HealthCare/story?id=7845403

Thanks for this. I'm sure ABC will do a decent job of educating the public. Fox News, not so much.

dinojen

06-18-2009, 08:02 PM

Thanks for this. I'm sure ABC will do a decent job of educating the public. Fox News, not so much.

Yeah ABC will do a bang up job... we will hear one opinion and only one opinion.. I would bet good money on it. Oh they will attempt to make it look like they are covering all opinions.. but I don't see that happening, it hasn't yet..questions in the crowd that were hand picked.... another evening where I'll be watching my dvr.. I can catch the highlights later and bypass the umm's and ahhhh's and head going back and forth.:rolleyes:

JMO and no I am not a Republican...

dinojen

06-18-2009, 08:15 PM

Please post a link to your statistic. I'd like to know how many in that group are illegal aliens, how many have health care available and don't want the added expense of their contribution and how many will still have no health care under BO.

TIA

All I know is my state has a boat load of them...

<snippet>

A substantial chunk of the Golden State’s estimated 3 million illegal immigrants live in the region and benefit from the county’s 16 public school districts, generous medical care and an array of other taxpayer-financed benefits.

Providing free medical care for illegal immigrants has consistently been one of the state’s largest expenses, an annual cost of $775 million according to a recent news report which cited a legislative analysis. California also spends $4 billion a year to educate illegal aliens, $970 million to incarcerate them and about $500 million on other welfare benefits.

And who pays for that.. hmmm that would be you and me and all the taxpayers.. Paying for care for people that don't pay into the system.. what's wrong with this picture...

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2009/feb/county-cuts-free-illegal-alien-health-care

JMHO..

rowstreeter

06-18-2009, 08:23 PM

Yeah ABC will do a bang up job... we will hear one opinion and only one opinion.. I would bet good money on it. Oh they will attempt to make it look like they are covering all opinions.. but I don't see that happening, it hasn't yet..questions in the crowd that were hand picked.... another evening where I'll be watching my dvr.. I can catch the highlights later and bypass the umm's and ahhhh's and head going back and forth.:rolleyes:

JMO and no I am not a Republican...

You are not a Republican, so I admire your open-mindedness on this issue. At least you're not making your mind up before the event, now, are you?

Glad to see you approach such complex issues with such an open mind.

dinojen

06-18-2009, 08:34 PM

You are not a Republican, so I admire your open-mindedness on this issue. At least you're not making your mind up before the event, now, are you?

Glad to see you approach such complex issues with such an open mind.

Well thank you.. I got tired of having an open mind after about the 20th prime time PC or townhall chat.. nothing worse than having hot air blown up your NOSE... for lack of being able to use another word..

I'll wait and catch the synopsis the next morning.. kind of like Cliff Notes.. that will work fine for me without all the pomp and arrogance..:thumbsup:

JMVHO which I am more than entitled too:smile:

dinojen

06-18-2009, 08:50 PM

I think the amendments need to be amended to remove the loopholes that make it mandatory that illegal immigrants be treated "equally" and if businesses didn't hire them they would leave. Don't start me ..... JMHO

Discriminating against non-citizens raises constitutional concerns because the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that no person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws. Using that equal protection guarantee, the U.S. Supreme Court found local laws that discriminate against non-citizens are subject to "strict scrutiny" and has struck down laws that discriminate on the basis of citizenship status in the provision of these types of government benefits

http://www.aclusac.org/node/149

While I find it all warm and fuzzy that we can help anyone that comes to our shores and I don't mean to sound callous... but the state I live in is almost broke, our schools have no funding.. we are cutting law enforcement, cities are filing bankruptcy.. but yet we can give free care to illegals.. I understand they need care.. but I just don't agree that it all lands on the states taxpayers.. it's gotten beyond ridiculous.

Don't know what to say.. it's not as bad in No. CA as it is in So. CA.. down there it's really bad..

Sure we aren't going to make any amendments to the constitution to take care of this.. but something really needs to be done to help the states that cover the costs of these people.

Probably didn't say this very well at all.. but seems like people that work hard for their money, pay their fair share in taxes.. are supporting people that don't even put anything into the pot for the services.. it just is getting out of hand..

JMVHO

Lady_Jean_La

06-18-2009, 09:07 PM

AP

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090618/ap_on_bi_st_ma_re/us_wall_street

dinojen

06-18-2009, 09:10 PM

Here's the sad part. I honestly believe that some of the illegal immigrants who come here do work extremely hard for much of nothing and are just trying to make a decent living to feed and care for their families. I also didn't mean to sound callous and am sure that may have been the way it came across -- but where do we draw the line? IMO those businesses that hire illegal immigrants need to foot more of the bill. Sorry but I see way too many business owners driving around in their Mercedes SUVs that own good property at the expense of these hard-working people. NY also has more than its fair share of illegal immigrants. JMHO

Oh I totally agree with you.. there are many facets to the problem.. the sad part is it's the taxpayers that end up paying for the care of these people instead of the ones that are hiring them under the table and making $$$ off of their work..

Alot needs to be corrected...

The other thing is some of these people are the ones that some citizens refuse to do.. drive down I-5 through the valley and see who is out working the fields.. I'm not saying they shouldn't have the care.. I just don't agree with people that work hard for their money legitimately end up footing the bill through taxes... (does that make any sense at all):sad:

Brat2002

06-18-2009, 10:02 PM

Listening to debate regarding healthcare on C-Span. Orrin Hatch making some good points about changes that need to be made.

Anyone else listening?

rowstreeter

06-18-2009, 10:07 PM

Listening to debate regarding healthcare on C-Span. Orrin Hatch making some good points about changes that need to be made.

Anyone else listening?

Please spell them out. Like to know what Hatch has to offer, if you can do so.

vonna

06-18-2009, 10:09 PM

Listening to debate regarding healthcare on C-Span. Orrin Hatch making some good points about changes that need to be made.

Anyone else listening?

It's hard for me to imagine Orrin Hatch making good points about anything.

YoYo

06-18-2009, 10:11 PM

Senate Dems Pare Back HC Bill

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_overhaul

Brat2002

06-18-2009, 10:34 PM

I'll ignore the sarcasm and try to answer the above question.

It's hard to follow the discussion because my house is like Grand Central Station right now.

Hatch is concerned about the language in the bill and gave a good argument about why it might result in rationing of care. He pointed out how different each person is and how the same treatment will not work for everybody. The limited treatments that will be approved may not address the individual health problems a patient may have. If a certain procedure is not approved, then no one gets it. It leaves out those people with unique health issues. But, in order to cap costs, some things will be denied. This is the standard way that other countries have cut costs and we would be making a grave mistake to follow the same path.

The Dem response, which I did not think addressed Hatch's concerns adequately, was that the changes would somehow make it more difficult to sue for malpractice. Hatch argued that he would support people who bring lawsuits for legitimate cases, but would prevent many of the frivilous lawsuits that bog down our courts and raise costs for everyone.

I do not understand why both issues cannot be covered in the same bill. It's like they are telling us that we must choose between choice of care and the abilitiy to sue. I do not know the specific language being referred to and it is difficult to quote them verbatim. The Dem woman who responded to him simply read a prepared statement which, IMO, was not responding directly to Hatch, but rather written in anticipation of any kind of objections.

Too many distractions here and now I've missed a bunch of the debate, but would appreciate anyone else watching to state as many details as they can so we can actually discuss this.

We will have to live with whatever they decide. I, for one, would like to know what to expect. I don't care a whit about the big promises or the fluffy speeches. I want to know exactly what will happen with our healthcare, what services will be available and how much it will cost.

Brat2002

06-18-2009, 11:22 PM

The way I understood it Brat was that whatever the proposal by R was giving grants to the states to settle and keep the patients out of court. The argument is that it would eliminate trial by jury malpractice suits and to do that you would be denying the patient of an their right to jury trial which is a constitutional right.

Sr Enzi is saying that right now most insurance companies just settle because they just cannot afford to go to trial and hopes that someone comes up with a reasonable alternative to medical liability.

I can't listen anymore -- giving me a headache. Sorry guys !!!

ETA: I really wish we could all get away from the interjection of sarcastic comments and have a real discussion. I don't know about anyone else whether R, D or I but I am interested in how this healthcare plan is going to affect my current coverage ...... and these little barbs thrown out in between are very distracting. :shrug:

TY

I wish I could have listened to all of it, but just saw portions. I know most people prefer settlements because it guarantees them money while a trial is uncertain. Most cases are settled out of court as it is, but the settlement must be accepted. I assume that the plaintiff could still decline a settlement offer and still go to court.

There is no easy answer and no question that our courts are jammed up with frivilous suits. Doctors should never get away with sloppy practices, but yet people should be stopped from bringing bogus lawsuits in hopes of a settlement, which many get away with because the cost and publicity from a trial is more harmful to the doctor's reputation than a quiet settlement. Many settlements, IMO, are not an admission of guilt, but the easy way out and so many don't fight because you never know what a jury will do.

It's a mess for sure and there are great arguments on both sides. The people who are using our courts as a get rich quick scheme are raising costs for insurance. And doctors who take on more patients than they can handle in order to make money can sometimes get sloppy and make stupid mistakes.

There must be a way to balance this out and protect both the patients and the doctors. And if the taxpayers could be protected as well, then all the better.

baltoman99

06-18-2009, 11:28 PM

Very quick!

I'm afraid that the Dems are in the pocket of the AAW, SEIU and ACORN.

But hey, who really knows?

:confused:

Obviously, you don't. :rolleyes:

You can trot out the AAW, SEIU and ACORN all day long but when pressed, you nor any of the rest can produce one single fact to back up your assertions. :rolleyes:

Brat2002

06-18-2009, 11:51 PM

There is a lot to try and understand here and it's impossible to find all the details so we can fully understand just how this bill will affect each of us personally. Forget the hype. Let's find facts.

I found this article relating to the bill and it just raises more questions. According to the article, the bill will require most individuals to purchase coverage, though doesn't spell how who has to and who doesn't. It states that insurance companies cannot deny coverage regardless of medical conditions, which might raise the cost and they floated a compromise which rules out direct government competition with private insurers. But, it seems to me that if they force companies to insure all, this alone will raise rates for everybody. If the government offers a cheaper one for some (thanks to the taxpayers), then that will draw people to the government plan and therefore they will compete with the companies anyway, right?

To cover cost, some Dems privately circulated a list of ideas for tax increases, such as a 10 cents per can increase on sweetened drinks, raising the alcohol tax, imposing a payroll tax that equals 3% of their healthcare expenditures, taxing the employer provided benefits above certain levels and an increase of 1.5 % or more in sales tax with a few exemptions.

Senate Dems pare back health bill
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090619/ap_on_go_co/us_health_overhaul

What I'm seeing are big dollar signs and not increased access to healthcare. All procedures will have to be approved by bureaucrats, who apparently don't trust doctors to call the shots.

FurthurBB

06-19-2009, 12:11 AM

While I find it all warm and fuzzy that we can help anyone that comes to our shores and I don't mean to sound callous... but the state I live in is almost broke, our schools have no funding.. we are cutting law enforcement, cities are filing bankruptcy.. but yet we can give free care to illegals.. I understand they need care.. but I just don't agree that it all lands on the states taxpayers.. it's gotten beyond ridiculous.

Don't know what to say.. it's not as bad in No. CA as it is in So. CA.. down there it's really bad..

Sure we aren't going to make any amendments to the constitution to take care of this.. but something really needs to be done to help the states that cover the costs of these people.

Probably didn't say this very well at all.. but seems like people that work hard for their money, pay their fair share in taxes.. are supporting people that don't even put anything into the pot for the services.. it just is getting out of hand..

JMVHO

Actually, most illegals have jobs and pay taxes like everybody else. IMO

Brat2002

06-19-2009, 12:12 AM

Comment from hearings, sorry I don't recall who said it.

Doctors can't have two masters, patient and government, or it would be unethical.

FurthurBB

06-19-2009, 12:21 AM

I hate to do this, but:

LINK?????????????????????

And if you ain't got one that is sufficient I guess we'll all just go moving on!

:smile:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2008-04-10-immigrantstaxes_N.htm

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/19/business/19illegals.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/05/business/05immigration.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/04/AR2006060400965.html

I hate to do this, but, can you not use google yourself? IMO

Lady_Jean_La

06-19-2009, 12:22 AM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090619/ap_on_go_co/us_health_overhaul;_ylt=AgF0RyvR81QFCr_wKNMN00ms0N UE;_ylu=X3oDMTJqdmlxbDBuBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkwNjE5L3 VzX2hlYWx0aF9vdmVyaGF1bARjcG9zAzEEcG9zAzIEc2VjA3lu X3RvcF9zdG9yeQRzbGsDc2VuYXRlZGVtc3Bh

WASHINGTON – Key Senate Democrats, bidding for bipartisan support on health care, pared back subsidies designed to make insurance more affordable on Thursday and floated a compromise that rules out direct government competition against private insurers.

FurthurBB

06-19-2009, 01:43 AM

YoYo

06-19-2009, 07:27 AM

House Eyes New Taxes as Senators Pare Health Bill

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090619/ap_on_go_co/us_health_overhaul

YoYo

06-19-2009, 11:32 AM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090619/pl_politico/23906

"Top White House advisers, especially chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, are still privately predicting massive changes to the health care system in 2009. But for the first time, Democrats on Capitol Hill and in the administration are expressing frank worries about stronger-than-expected opposition from moderate Democrats and worse-than-expected estimates for how much the plan could cost."

rowstreeter

06-19-2009, 11:39 AM

Obama Boost: New Poll Shows 76% Support For Choice Of Public Plan

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/17/obama-boost-new-poll-show_n_217175.html

LisaM22

06-19-2009, 12:16 PM

I have to admit I had no idea that taxes were collected from illegal immigrants and it even says they may be paying more than what they actually owed including Social Security which they are not even eligible for. Shame on me. :(

From your first link:

The tax system collects its due, even from a class of workers with little likelihood of claiming a refund and no hope of drawing a Social Security check.
Illegal immigrants are paying taxes to Uncle Sam, experts agree. Just how much they pay is hard to determine because the federal government doesn't fully tally it. But the latest figures available indicate it will amount to billions of dollars in federal income, Social Security and Medicare taxes this year. One rough estimate puts the amount of Social Security taxes alone at around $9 billion per year.

Paycheck withholding collects much of the federal tax from illegal workers, just as it does for legal workers.

The Internal Revenue Service doesn't track a worker's immigration status, yet many illegal immigrants fearful of deportation won't risk the government attention that will come from filing a return even if they might qualify for a refund. Economist William Ford of Middle Tennessee State University says there are no firm figures on how many such taxpayers there are.

"The real question is how many of them pay more than they owe. There are undoubtedly hundreds of thousands of people in that situation," Ford said.

while I understand why the government is not looking into this , $$$, it worries me that if an illegal can use a fake ssn, so can a criminal on the run - jmho

YoYo

06-19-2009, 12:18 PM

Also from the huff n puff article:

"That said, the president still has his work cut out for him. In the same NBC/WSJ poll, only 33 percent of respondents said they thought the president's health care plan, to the extent they knew of it, was a "good idea;" 32 percent said it was a bad idea."

rowstreeter

06-19-2009, 01:23 PM

"THE REPUBLICAN HEALTHCARE HORROR SHOW"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78-UelAcyyE

Lady_Jean_La

06-19-2009, 01:25 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090619/pl_politico/23906;_ylt=Ak9U2UOsmDiUkagbEMKNvH6s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDM TJjc3Y5MDByBGFzc2V0A3BvbGl0aWNvLzIwMDkwNjE5LzIzOTA 2BGNwb3MDMgRwb3MDNwRzZWMDeW5fdG9wX3N0b3J5BHNsawNob 3dvYmFtYWNvdWw-

President Obama's campaign for health care reform by this fall, once considered highly likely to succeed, suddenly appears in real jeopardy.

:scared:

rowstreeter

06-19-2009, 02:12 PM

Are you sure your healthcare insurance is there when you need it? Just saw this while watching HLN:

Healthcare's Underreported Crisis: Rescission

STORY HIGHLIGHTS
Paul Begala: Health insurers are depriving some ill people of coverage
He says practice called "rescission" is used to deny people benefits
Begala says hearing on rescission got little media attention
He says Obama administration must put health care on front burner

Beaton, a retired nurse from Waxahachie, Texas, had health insurance -- or so she thought. She paid her premiums faithfully every month, but when she was diagnosed with aggressive breast cancer, her health insurance company, Blue Cross, dumped her.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/19/begala.health.care/index.html

That is DESPICABLE!!!!!!!!!! I think Blue Cross needs to be sued for this.
How can we have health insurance companies making money and not delivering a service? I think Blue Cross is supposed to be "non-profit", but this is way over the top. This happens because 50 states have different regulations on health insurance. Another reason for a national public option.

YoYo

06-19-2009, 02:15 PM

"THE REPUBLICAN HEALTHCARE HORROR SHOW"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78-UelAcyyE

You really don't want to play the youtube game, do you?

rowstreeter

06-19-2009, 02:32 PM

You really don't want to play the youtube game, do you?

I certainly think it's valuable to Americans to watch their Republican Senators and Representatives on the floor of Congress lying about a federal 'takeover', lying about "rationing" and "socialism". We also see Fox television personailities on the clip, parroting the the same words.

I find clips like this very useful in discovering who is telling the truth, and who is not. So sorry you disagree.

rowstreeter

06-19-2009, 02:34 PM

This is an article written in 2004

Summary
The President holds out the prospect of major cost savings if Congress will pass a law limiting what injured patients can collect in lawsuits. He wants a cap of $250,000 on any damages for “pain and suffering” and other non-economic damages. His administration projects savings to the entire economy of between $60 billion and $108 billion per year in health-care costs, including $28 billion or more to federal taxpayers.

But both the General Accounting Office and the Congressional Budget Office criticize the 1996 study the Bush administration uses as their main support. These nonpartisan agencies suggest savings – if any – would be relatively small.

http://www.factcheck.org/article133.html

Malpractice expenses make up just 0.5% of U.S. health care costs. Even in states like Colorado where tort reform and a variety of other changes in the market place have caused malpractice insurance premiums to fall 60% in real dollars between 1988 and the present, where tort trials are less common and where inflation adjusted awards have fallen, health care expenditures have doubled (or even increased moreso) in the past decade.States with medical malpractice damage caps actually see more malpractice insurance premium increases than states without them, and the impact of large non-economic damage awards on premiums is less than 1% of the amount paid according to insurance industry sources. Utah, for example, which has strict caps on non-economic damage awards ($250,000) in medical malpractice cases, had the second highest increase in malpractice insurance premiums since 1991. According to 2003 study by insurance industry analysis firm Weiss Ratings Inc.

Insurers in states with caps raised their premiums at a significantly faster pace than those in states without caps - 48 percent compared with 36 percent.

Despite the imposition of caps, insurers in nearly nine of 10 states continued to raise rates, while insurers in states without caps were actually more likely to hold or cut their premiums.

In states with caps, insurers are more likely to charge premiums exceeding the national median than those in states without caps.

http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Health_Care

I love your signature line, very relevant to your post here, too!

YoYo

06-19-2009, 03:49 PM

I certainly think it's valuable to Americans to watch their Republican Senators and Representatives on the floor of Congress lying about a federal 'takeover', lying about "rationing" and "socialism". We also see Fox television personailities on the clip, parroting the the same words.

I find clips like this very useful in discovering who is telling the truth, and who is not. So sorry you disagree.

Please tell me you don't depend on "clips like this" for your opinions/decision making. :laugh:

YoYo

06-19-2009, 03:51 PM

Dems try to reclaim HC momentum:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090619/ap_on_go_co/us_health_overhaul

YoYo

06-19-2009, 04:29 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_obama_health_care_promises;_ylt=AqF2.9jEEqRnFx6 jK0PoD3.X.aF4;_ylu=X3oDMTJvcHVkZ29wBGFzc2V0Ay9hcC9 1c19vYmFtYV9oZWFsdGhfY2FyZV9wcm9taXNlcwRjcG9zAzIEc G9zAzIEc2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yaWVzBHNsawNwcm9taXNlc3B yb20-

"WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama seems to leave little room for doubt when he promises that his health care plan will let people keep the coverage they have. His vow sounds reassuring and gets applause, but no president could guarantee such a pledge."

rowstreeter

06-19-2009, 06:00 PM

Please tell me you don't depend on "clips like this" for your opinions/decision making. :laugh:

I use it as one source of "information" about who is telling the truth on the floor of the US Congress, on Television networks that proport to be "News" channels, and when I read 4 or 50 other "sources" in my day. People not telling the truth, twisting and using improper charaterizations on the floor of the US Senate, yes, I weigh credibility that way, much as a sensible jurror weight credibility in a trial, by the totality of the evidence.

So far, Republicans mis-speaking on the floor of Congress don't add to their credibility. But you knew that.

Ignore the fact that Republicans CONTINUOUSLY MIS-SPEAK on the floor of the US Senate, refuse to watch the evidence, OK, I understand how you arrive at your positions.

YoYo

06-19-2009, 06:16 PM

<snip>

Ignore the fact that Republicans CONTINUOUSLY MIS-SPEAK on the floor of the US Senate, refuse to watch the evidence, OK, I understand how you arrive at your positions.

Let's be honest here....there is as much mis-speak from the Dems as from the Republicans. They all speak to fit their agendas. They are politicians. MO

LisaM22

06-19-2009, 06:19 PM

I think you are right about the increased costs and not much to show for it. The only way they are going to be able to float this is their old standby of saying only the rich will see increased costs. Of course we all know how that will play out. Once that doesn't cover the costs, the idea of "rich" will keep moving down.
<snip>

remove the caps and problem solved, no reason we have to pay the same tax for every dollar we earn and the rich do not

YoYo

06-19-2009, 06:26 PM

remove the caps and problem solved, no reason we have to pay the same tax for every dollar we earn and the rich do not

Are you willing to see the caps of SS benefits removed as well?

LisaM22

06-19-2009, 06:35 PM

Are you willing to see the caps of SS benefits removed as well?

I think they should be equal for all, not more or less for some

YoYo

06-19-2009, 06:45 PM

I think they should be equal for all, not more or less for some

Why am I not surprised?

LisaM22

06-19-2009, 06:53 PM

Why am I not surprised?

you should not be, its the only way that makes sense, why do you feel some should pay less per dollar they earn then others, that makes no sense

YoYo

06-19-2009, 06:56 PM

Why do you think you are entitled to part of what others earn?

LisaM22

06-19-2009, 07:13 PM

Why do you think you are entitled to part of what others earn?

I do not think I deserve more money from the government (tax payers) because I earn more money, you seem to be the one thinking that, why do you think you should pay less taxes per dollar you earn then the rest of us?

FurthurBB

06-19-2009, 07:42 PM

I certainly think it's valuable to Americans to watch their Republican Senators and Representatives on the floor of Congress lying about a federal 'takeover', lying about "rationing" and "socialism". We also see Fox television personailities on the clip, parroting the the same words.

I find clips like this very useful in discovering who is telling the truth, and who is not. So sorry you disagree.

I think the problem is that you tube is not a reliable source. Videos can and usually are edited. IMO

LisaM22

06-19-2009, 07:45 PM

I think the problem is that you tube is not a reliable source. Videos can and usually are edited. IMO

I would much prefer to see a youtube and read the quote then to only have access to one or the other, seeing someone actually say something is a definite plus

politicians need to learn they can no longer say one thing and say\do another without a youtube bringing it to the public

rowstreeter

06-19-2009, 07:54 PM

From AARP:

Every week, thousands of Americans file for bankruptcy related to medical costs. 42 percent of adults report having problems accessing health care due to cost.

46 million Americans are uninsured. Middle class and upper income families are the fastest growing segment.

http://www.aarp.org/issues/dividedwefail/health/divided_we_fail_platform_affordable_health_care.ht ml

Table HI01. Health Insurance Coverage Status and Type of Coverage by Selected Characteristics: 2007

http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032008/health/h01_001.htm

Sometimes I wonder if it will have to be only when the rich can't get health care because they don't have enough money will America do something about this national disgrace.

YoYo

06-19-2009, 08:02 PM

I do not think I deserve more money from the government (tax payers) because I earn more money, you seem to be the one thinking that, why do you think you should pay less taxes per dollar you earn then the rest of us?

We are talking FICA here, right? You think that the person who paid $200K into the program during their working years should get as much as someone who has paid $500K?

YoYo

06-19-2009, 08:12 PM

Should we replace some of FICA and SE taxes with a 7% sales tax?

http://www.helium.com/items/763088-should-we-replace-some-of-fica-and-se-taxes-with-a-7-sales-tax

I'm afraid I've particiated in taking the HC thread o/t :) so I'm not going to discuss here.

LisaM22

06-20-2009, 02:36 AM

We are talking FICA here, right? You think that the person who paid $200K into the program during their working years should get as much as someone who has paid $500K?

I think the saftey net should treat everyone equal, do you get more state benefits because you buy more thus pay more more sales tax (even though it is the same sales tax per dollar as everyone else pays) - same is true with income, just because you earn more doesn't mean you should pay less per dollar then everyone else - the person making 200k and the person making 500k should both pay the same tax for ever dollar they earn equally

YoYo

06-20-2009, 07:46 AM

Emerging $80B deal would help fund Medicare drugs:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090620/ap_on_go_co/us_health_overhaul

YoYo

06-20-2009, 04:32 PM

How Obama Could Lose HC Fight

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/23906.html

"President Obama's campaign for health care reform by this fall, once considered highly likely to succeed, suddenly appears in real jeopardy."

YoYo

06-21-2009, 10:39 AM

Obama May Need Firmer Hand on HC Debate

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090621/...ma_health_care

Carol25

06-21-2009, 01:00 PM

I'm reading these updates (thanks Yo-Yo) but what's up with wanting to make unions exempt from taxes on their health care benefits but the rest of us have to pay it should this get approved ????? My husband is a contractor. He has to pay $12.50 an hour for his worker's health care benefits (Steamfitters) :cursing:
:ohmy: OMG! That's not fair!

Lady_Jean_La

06-21-2009, 02:16 PM

http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/06/21/gop-senator-obamas-public-healthcare-plan-is-dead/

Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham said Sunday that this week brought to an end President Obama’s deepest wishes for healthcare reform.

YoYo

06-21-2009, 04:10 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_care_overhaul;_ylt=AlsPxZggPYV.AfDMFaesF AUGw_IE;_ylu=X3oDMTJpMWplb2wzBGFzc2V0Ay9hcC91c19oZ WFsdGhfY2FyZV9vdmVyaGF1bARjcG9zAzMEcG9zAzMEc2VjA3l uX3RvcF9zdG9yaWVzBHNsawNvYmFtYXNvd25wYXI-

"The CBO estimates "were a death blow to a government-run health care plan," Graham said. "The Finance Committee has abandoned that. We do need to deal with inflation in health care, private and public inflation, but we're not going to go down to the government-owning-health-care road in America and I think that's the story of this week. There's been a bipartisan rejection of that."

Susan43

06-21-2009, 08:37 PM

Poll: Most Back Public Health Care Option

A clear majority of Americans -- 72 percent -- support a government-sponsored health care plan to compete with private insurers, a new CBS News/New York Times poll finds. Most also think the government would do a better job than private industry at keeping down costs and believe that the government should guarantee health care for all Americans.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/06/19/opinion/polls/main5098517.shtml

Susan43

06-21-2009, 08:48 PM

Public Support for the Public Option

A major, though by no means the only, substantive point of debate regarding health care reform is whether the plan considered by Congress will include a "public option" -- a government-run insurance program that would compete with private plans. Barack Obama's plan on the campaign trail included a public option: "any American will have the opportunity to enroll in the new public plan or an approved private plan," it said.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/06/public-support-for-public-option.html

Good graph at the site.

Freebird

06-22-2009, 12:30 AM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090622/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_overhaul

MiamiNice1

06-22-2009, 01:12 AM

Right. They're gonna pay for Obama's Health Plan with Medicare money. Exactly what Obama promised NOT to do.

imo

I especially didn't like the "increases in revenue" part. :angry:

imo

LisaM22

06-22-2009, 01:18 AM

Right. They're gonna pay for Obama's Health Plan with Medicare money. Exactly what Obama promised NOT to do.

imo

when everyone has insurance you wont need Medicare silly, they too will have the (UHP) Universal Health plan

MiamiNice1

06-22-2009, 01:27 AM

He certainly DID.

"What Obama Used to Think About Medicare Cuts"

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YmIzYzU5YjU5NWNiZWY4Y2ZmNDBiOWI5YjBjOWRiZGM=
He was criticizing McCain for wanting to make cuts in Medicare?

Add this to the "flip-flop" list.

imo

MiamiNice1

06-22-2009, 01:50 AM

Right. It was the typical Liberal scare tactic - saying that McCain will make cuts in Medicare.

I guess all the "boobies" (grandmas) in Florida got taken by their grandkids. (and Sarah Silverman who made that slimy ad)

imo

I cannot believe she actually pleaded with the grandchildren to get down to Florida and convince their grandparents! For what? This mess!

imo

theal3

06-22-2009, 01:51 AM

Well I'm on Medicare and so is my husband ( cost us each $94 a mo.) out of our SS checks, but you need a supplemental, cause Meicare doesn't cover a LOT of things. Two years ago medicare cost $34 out of our SS check. That drug supplement Bush boasts about, cause premium to go up and it's not free: there are partials and copays etc. TGod we only need one prescription for one of us at this time. (We are healthy seniors. So drug companies are making big bucks off us in premiums for now..... we are relatively "new" seniors in mid 60s. Boomers are healthy, too. The generation draining the system are over: 66, IMHO. And 40% of all money spent on Medicare goes for Diabetes.

Eat healthy, exercise, and we can rid the nation of diabetes epidemic at all ages. We subsidized the farmer to grow corn to turn it into corn syrup to put in every food product you can find on the shelves, since the 80s? late 70s, and now we have sugar/corn syrup diabetes epedemic and health are cost related to that. Fat kids, fat people for last 30s years, or obese. Back pain, ankle pain, pain from being overweight.

Does anyone know how to cook anymore, or just grab food from a car or in a box? We have health problems for sure and how about putting PE and exercise back in schools? IMHO.

MiamiNice1

06-22-2009, 02:00 AM

Baucus, White House in deal with drug industry

By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent – Sat Jun 20, 7:03 pm ET
WASHINGTON – The pharmaceutical industry agreed Saturday to spend $80 billion over the next decade improving drug benefits for seniors on Medicare and defraying the cost of President Barack Obama's health care legislation, capping secretive negotiations involving key lawmakers and the White House.

"This new coverage means affordable prices on prescription drugs when Medicare benefits don't cover the cost of prescriptions," Sen. Max Baucus, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, said in a statement announcing the accord.

The deal marked a major triumph for Baucus as well as the administration. Obama praised the deal.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090620/ap_on_go_co/us_health_overhaul

Thanks for this article. Something as massive as HealthCare Reform needs major cooperation and the pharmaceutical companies scaling back is a good place to start.

imo

theal3

06-22-2009, 02:11 AM

Don't most people on Medicare pay for their own prescription coverage separately?

Yes, if you opted out of the Bush plan from 2003. Otherwise, you are in that loop with your private supplemental, which most seniors have. Prior to that you did pay on your own, now you either buy a supplemental, and you are at their mercy....... it's a mess if you need lots of presciptions, nice if you don't.

LisaM22

06-22-2009, 03:43 AM

HUH?

Well first of all I'm not old enough to be on Medicare, than you very much.

And second of all, what are you saying? That BO is going to delete Medicare from the planet? :rolleyes:

it will be rolled into UHP, why would we have two government programs doing the same thing?

YoYo

06-22-2009, 11:52 AM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090622/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_overhaul;_ylt=AjhACSUzgVyMM_b3J_pnG 3Ss0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTJwYTcwdGMzBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkwN jIyL3VzX2hlYWx0aF9jYXJlX292ZXJoYXVsBGNwb3MDMwRwb3M DMTEEc2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yeQRzbGsDZGVtb2NyYXRzbWF5

LisaM22

06-22-2009, 01:34 PM

Carol25

06-23-2009, 03:54 AM

I do not trust insurance companies, we were told our rates would go down for auto insurance when everyone was required to have it, when everyone was required to wear seatbelts ect... it was all talk, rates have not gone down
I can't say much about car insurance either, Lisa. But I love my health insurance. It never has let me down.

LisaM22

06-23-2009, 05:57 AM

I can't say much about car insurance either, Lisa. But I love my health insurance. It never has let me down.

well I can say many do let you down... big time, your lucky, i would keep your plan then, for the rest of us a public option would be a godsend

YoYo

06-23-2009, 08:28 AM

well I can say many do let you down... big time, your lucky, i would keep your plan then, for the rest of us a public option would be a godsend

Somehow I'd venture a guess that you can't speak for ALL of the rest of us. MO

LisaM22

06-23-2009, 01:14 PM

Somehow I'd venture a guess that you can't speak for ALL of the rest of us. MO

just as you can not, so let's leave the choice up to each of us, you keep your plan if you want and we can choose a public option if we want

Lady_Jean_La

06-23-2009, 01:51 PM

just as you can not, so let's leave the choice up to each of us, you keep your plan if you want and we can choose a public option if we want
Are those the only choices?

LisaM22

06-23-2009, 02:35 PM

Are those the only choices?

those are the choices I want to see, feel free to tell us what choice you would like to see added to that list

Lady_Jean_La

06-23-2009, 05:20 PM

those are the choices I want to see, feel free to tell us what choice you would like to see added to that listNone of the above. I had that most of my life.

Lady_Jean_La

06-23-2009, 06:28 PM

http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/1968094.html

The question now is whether we will nonetheless fail to get that change, because a handful of Democratic senators are still determined to party like it's 1993.

LisaM22

06-23-2009, 08:14 PM

Gee, who would ever think a company would think about making a profit for their shareholders? What a change? :biggrin:

And to think this came from a man who has always thought about his own political viability rather than helping people. I guess he would be the best one to know about selfish motives.

yeah profit should be more important then the health of Americans, why should a doctor decide what is best for you when someone more worried about profits can?

Lady_Jean_La

06-23-2009, 09:02 PM

yeah profit should be more important then the health of Americans, why should a doctor decide what is best for you when someone more worried about profits can?
Because the doctor wants to profit also.
:thumbup:

LisaM22

06-23-2009, 11:55 PM

Because the doctor wants to profit also.
:thumbup:

well you go right ahead and trust your insurance company to override your doctors choices, I will go with my doctor as I feel they are more likely to have my best interests at heart, how many year of education does a insurance rep have compared to your doctor?

LisaM22

06-24-2009, 04:07 PM

Sometimes you just can't believe these people are for real.

Yea, now that the polls are showing that the public is concerned about the deficit we are seeing this kind of tripe. All the while in other area money is still be squandered with very little benefit.

if the insurance companies think they can straighten out their mess without costing the tax payers is what I took from that, if not the government will fix the problem - I think we just do the universal heath coverage for all, but we will see what happens

rowstreeter

06-24-2009, 07:10 PM

Health Insurance Insider: 'They Dump the Sick'

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Health/story?id=7911195&page=1

""They look carefully to see if a sick policyholder may have omitted a minor illness, a pre-existing condition, when applying for coverage, and then they use that as justification to cancel the policy, even if the enrollee has never missed a premium payment," Potter said. "…(D)umping a small number of enrollees can have a big effect on the bottom line."

snookums1

06-25-2009, 01:33 AM

Potter, who has more than 20 years of experience working in public relations for insurance companies Cigna and Humana, said companies routinely drop seriously ill policyholders so they can meet "Wall Street's relentless profit expectations."
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Health/story?id=7911195&page=1

So, what else is new?

Details

06-25-2009, 01:35 AM

Details

06-25-2009, 01:47 AM

I've been following the hearings - amazing testimony. Were this a rational world, it should completely kill any idea of doing anything other than a public option for health care. Insurers deliberately dumping sick people, using complex claims forms to discourage payment, using their own supposedly 'independent' agency to set what average costs were that actually understated them by a huge percent (so consumers instead had to pay more out of pocket), and so on and so forth.

Any new healthcare option that involves including these sick vultures is nothing I want to see!

I know about some of this personally - my sister's husband has a huge preexisting condition - he was born with a heart defect, and it has required a lot of work over the years. He's going in for a procedure tomorrow. If my sister EVER loses a job with healthcare, they won't be able to insure him - and effectively, he'll die from that. He can't be maintained with mere emergency room visits - maintenance is needed, medications, and continual evaluation of if they are working, if they are destroying his kidney, liver, is required. Quite simply, if he ever loses health insurance from her work (and a place large enough that it doesn't exclude preexisting conditions), he dies.

Yeah, that makes sense.

snookums1

06-25-2009, 01:55 AM

I've been following the hearings - amazing testimony. Were this a rational world, it should completely kill any idea of doing anything other than a public option for health care. Insurers deliberately dumping sick people, using complex claims forms to discourage payment, using their own supposedly 'independent' agency to set what average costs were that actually understated them by a huge percent (so consumers instead had to pay more out of pocket), and so on and so forth.

Any new healthcare option that involves including these sick vultures is nothing I want to see!What insurance companies do to the people that pay premiums is totally disgusting. A huge percentage of people that have to file bankruptcy due to medical costs are insured. And then they also refuse to pay for diagnostic tests that doctor's order even though not having the tests and being diagnosed many times mean the insured dies of something that could be corrected.

Details

06-25-2009, 01:59 AM

I wonder - if there was a poll - how many people would say it's OK to let people die if they don't have health insurance?

If you aren't a doctor or nurse, aren't exposed to the issues, I think many people assume emergency care means you won't die due to a lack of medical insurance - just go broke and be on public support. They're wrong - but it's easy to not know that. I wonder if it'd help to prevent the industry from pushing another health insurance based solution down our throats, to have some of the many people who will die without health insurance, to come forward and tell their stories, explain why the emergency room isn't good enough, how insurance companies find every way possible to deny their care.

Details

06-25-2009, 02:16 AM

She's got a much greater chance of recurrence of her cancer, of death, of cancer in new areas - because an insurance executive interested in profit was in charge of her care.

And - without insurance - she'd have just had to live with that cancer or come up with $300,000.00 dollars!

RedSocksFan

06-25-2009, 01:09 PM

Been trying to learn about the proposed plan and dislike more and more every day. Has anyone else heard that union members will be exempt from being taxed on employer provided benefits? I can't believe some might use healthcare to pressure people into joining unions just so they can afford the plan.

And I think care will be rationed to save money. Obama keeps talking about controlling costs and there aren't many ways to do that. He can either force drug and medical supply companies to reduce their profits or he can force doctors, nurses and other hospital staff to take a big pay cut. Maybe he will do that but the one variable that can be controlled easier is the amount of care they give and that is where the cuts will be, in my opinion. One woman asked Obama about her mother who died at age 105. She said at age 100 her mother had a great spirit for life and needed a pacemaker. Two doctors said she was too old, but one specialist agreed it would help and because of the operation the mother lived another 5 years. The woman asked if this spirit of life is important in deciding care. Obama said no that spirit is too subjective and cannot be factored in and that basically some need to realize that pain killers are the answer for end of life care. I took that as saying that old people should not receive procedures to prolong their lives. The mother would have died at 100 while on pain killers. Shouldn't doctors and patients decide who would benefit from medical procedures and not government? One doctor asked Obama if he would want treatments not in the plan if his wife or kids became ill, but he didn't answer that and didn't need to because he won't ever have to worry about that like the rest of us.

Obama and congress have the best care available, but maybe the rest of us aren't worthy of such a good plan. If they think this new plan is so great, then shouldn't they be forced to have it too?

I am writing to my congressman and telling them to fight this.

RedSocksFan

06-25-2009, 02:01 PM

I think you have some of the facts a bit mixed up. The videos of his speech are posted up-thread.

Re: the unions being exempt from taxes -- I read it but didn't hear PO say it. However it is totally wrong. I had posted a link and comments on this somewhere in this thread.

Congress and the pres are exempt. Why do they not feel it's good enough for them, but is for us?

dinojen

06-25-2009, 02:39 PM

I did hear PO say his plan would be taxed to Charlie Gibson on Nightline?

I've been hearing this over and over and over...plus been reading it. My husband and I both have coverage through our work and it's deducted PRIOR to taxes... and now they want to tax us plus our employer for our benefits.. another tax... great..

I can't listen to the guy anymore.. I tend to read more about what his plans are than listen to him.. he makes me dizzy watching him... it's like a tennis match when the teleprompter is working right.. jk jk..

Anyway I was curious as to the ratings for the show last night and how many people watched.. ahhhhhhhhhhhh not good ABC.. you were in the bottom..

http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/06/25/wednesday-ratings-so-you-think-you-can-dance-keys-fox-win-philanthropist-premiere-fair/21421

Glad I taped the Philanthropist .. I forgot it was on.. looks good..:biggrin:

dinojen

06-25-2009, 03:51 PM

The above should have specified "no pre-existing conditions as a result of any of these habits." MO

That would leave out an awful lot of politicians.. lobbyists.. :tonguewag:

Lyvia

06-25-2009, 04:11 PM

I hate it. It is too close to legislating morality, behavior and personal choices.
I can see higher premiums for these things - like auto insurance does for higher risk drivers - but this is too close to taking away freedoms for my comfort.
I agree.

Plus, it isn't simply morality, behavior and choice. There are genetic factors. Alcoholism is itself a disease. And you'd just provide incentive to insurance companies to avoid finding underlying causes for conditions like obesity. They'd just blame people for not trying hard enough to lose weight. I wonder how many people would die from undiagnosed thyrodi problems. Then there is the evidence that that alcoholism is genetic, so it's not like people can just quit.

It's one of the sickest, most callous things I've ever seen suggested. But, yeah, it would save a boatload of money. :rolleyes:

Lyvia

06-25-2009, 04:35 PM

There are tests to detect thyroid conditions, and genetic is becoming the catch-all for everything. I guess eating half of a cake and drinking a six-pack in one sitting and is "genetic." MO
Yes, I referred to thyroid testing in the post I quoted. Under your plan, which would mean a lot of deaths so hence the financial savings, insurance companies would not want thyroid problems diagnosed, and would be hesitant to test for them.

I guess you don't know much about the conditions you listed, if you think it's as you describe. But you could read up and educate yourself. It's not hard at all to become informed.

Are you really comfortable with promoting a plan that would lead to the death and disability of millions of people?

Lyvia

06-25-2009, 04:43 PM

So, if I educate myself will I think like you?<snip>
You might understand the conditions you want to use to deny people coverage. It appears you don't if you think you can use healthcare coverage as a carrot to get people to magically stop addictions.

I'm for promoting a plan that will encourage people to be responsible for themselves.
Yes, one that would mean death, disability, and suffering for the millions who try and fail to overcome addictions. The reality is millions of people would suffer and die if your plan were reality. Are you ok with that?

Lyvia

06-25-2009, 04:57 PM

Changes are unless they do something about their drinking, smoking, and eating they are going to die anyway. Are you ok with that?

You couldn't answer me, which is interesting. And you clearly know nothing about the populations you want to deny coverage of. You want to think of them as lazy, indulgent slobs, which is a way of depersonalizing them, I guess. I guess that's something positive, in a weird way.

It's hard to answer your question (which you offer instead of an answer, lol) because it's based on a false premise (that they're all just going to die if they aren't denied medical coverage) It's ridiculous. I want these groups not to be excluded from coverage, so I do not want them to die. I thought at first you were joking, but you really are serious, aren't you?

Lyvia

06-25-2009, 05:03 PM

Plus, Raptor, how effective do you think it would even be? People can lose a lot of things--jobs, loved ones, self-respect, physical abilities--and still not overcome an addiction. There are plans and therapies that come under the umbrella of medical care that can help, and the above plan would deny it to the very people who need it.

Lyvia

06-25-2009, 05:05 PM

<snip>I'm serious about people helping themselves. Yes, I am.

You may be serious, but you're also proposing something that would needlessly lead to death, suffering, and disability for a population that might be helped with the very thing you want to deny them.

Lyvia

06-25-2009, 05:16 PM

I'm not opposed to programs that help people overcome addictions, but I am opposed to the government taking care of them when they make no attempt to take care of themselves.

Ok, I'm going to go back to your earlier post:

No coverage for alcoholics, smokers, or the obese until they have quit drinking, smoking, or are within their recommended weight

So you've decided that not one person in any of these categories makes any attempt to "take care of themselves." No one who is obese, no alcoholic, no smoker.

See...you're not coming from any place of reality in this idea. Just stigmatizing millions of people in your posts and proposing an idea that would further stigmatize them and worse, cause them suffering, disability, and for some, death.

Lyvia

06-25-2009, 05:21 PM

I haven't stigmatized anyone. They have stigmatized themselves. :shrug:

Yes, you have. It's tragic that you can't see that. Not for them. For you.

Lyvia

06-25-2009, 05:34 PM

I admit, some days I just like to eat my twinkie without someone wagging their finger at me.
:blushing:
Mmms, Twinkies.

;)

Alliekat

06-25-2009, 05:50 PM

Well, yes........ thank you. Thank you very much.

Proper use of English....my pleasure

Lyvia

06-25-2009, 06:08 PM

Alliekat

06-25-2009, 06:20 PM

That would be like telling other people how to spell "Sanford," but spelling it "Stanford" yourself, lol.

(I know it was a typo, though, aobtd, so I didn't say anything in the thread. But it's almost Murphy's Law that if you bust others for typos or grammar or spelling, you'll make an error yourself in the next post or so)

Ahh..you caught that too! When I corrected aobtd I did restrain myself from pointing out his/her correction to me on the spelling of Sanford...so I just chuckled.

Actually, I can't keep his name straight...lol...I have seen everything from Standford, Stanford..

Lyvia

06-25-2009, 06:24 PM

Ahh..you caught that too! When I corrected aobtd I did restrain myself from pointing out his/her correction to me on the spelling of Sanford...so I just chuckled.

Actually, I can't keep his name straight...lol...I have seen everything from Standford, Stanford..

Well, since aobtd did it so nicely on the other thread (I mean that...it wasn't snarky or mean), I just chuckled and had some sympathy for the typo. It's always good to have the right spelling of a name since you might want to Google for updates Not that they're hard to find on Sanford, lol.

fiver

06-25-2009, 07:42 PM

$4trillon price tag

http://www.hsinetwork.com/E&C_SC-Health_Parente_6-23-2009_oralFinal.pdf

:ohmy:

fiver

06-25-2009, 08:06 PM

Details

06-25-2009, 08:42 PM

There are tons of ways to reduce health care costs.

First - and I don't know why we don't realize this is so easy - look to other countries with better costs (which is nearly all of them) and see what they do. This is no new problem, and many other countries have found solutions that are working far better than our current solution.

They negotiate with drug companies and get medications, a substantial portion of your health care bill, reduced dramatically. We're the only saps paying list price. They fund preventative care - much cheaper to pay for a flu shot than for a hospitalization for the people who get a bad case, much cheaper to pay for asthma meds than for an asthmatic's hospitalization without the meds.

The ideas about lawsuit reform are good too - we need to have physicians who make a mistake held appropriately responsible - but there are frivolous lawsuits too, and lawsuits when everything was done right, but the result was bad - those should be made harder to do. And even when the doctor makes a mistake, the penalty needs to reflect the mistake - when it's a massive mistake, the penalty should be massive - but when it's a minor mistake, something barely even a mistake - the penalty should reflect that.

Some care coverage needs to be dealt with too. There was a list made of the least worthwhile medical procedures - the ones that cost the most and do the least. Life support for a baby born without a brain, for example - it will die, period, there is nothing there, no brain, very expensive life support will animate the corpse for awhile - we shouldn't fund that. There are several items in that line that we can make sure are not funded - things that are frivolous, that don't work, that are a less successful replacement of a cheaper therapy, things that do not sustain life.

We're the worst at this - which means we've got tons of room for improvement. Getting a public option alone will help a ton - Medicare has a 3-4% overhead cost (money spent on administration rather than doctors) while private insurance is more like 13-20% - spent on executives looking for excuses to deny your claim. There's a huge savings right off the top.

Details

06-25-2009, 08:45 PM

"President Obama struggled to explain today whether his health care reform proposals would force normal Americans to make sacrifices that wealthier, more powerful people -- like the president himself -- wouldn't face. "
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/HealthCare/story?id=7919991&page=1

He not only struggled, he failed.No sacrifice - you get your choice of the two policies - an extra choice is no sacrifice. A policy that actually works is a huge improvement.

Do the wealthy have the ability to buy more coverage? Of course they do. They can buy something better than Medicare when they retire too. Does that mean we should kill Medicare and let all our retired people fall by the wayside, because it's not as good as what some millionaire can buy?

Stupid question. A proper answer to it - but not what the interviewer wanted to evoke.

fiver

06-25-2009, 09:24 PM

No sacrifice - you get your choice of the two policies - an extra choice is no sacrifice. A policy that actually works is a huge improvement.

Do the wealthy have the ability to buy more coverage? Of course they do. They can buy something better than Medicare when they retire too. Does that mean we should kill Medicare and let all our retired people fall by the wayside, because it's not as good as what some millionaire can buy?

Stupid question. A proper answer to it - but not what the interviewer wanted to evoke.The point being made was that Obama would NOT stay w/in the limits of his proposed plan for his family. But of course average American will have to.

Details

06-26-2009, 11:50 AM

The point being made was that Obama would NOT stay w/in the limits of his proposed plan for his family. But of course average American will have to.So - we should let all Americans have something awful, because the better plan is not as good as the plan millionaires would have?

That's a silly point IMO. Of course people with more money will be able to buy extra coverage. They do today, because insurance is awful today. How is a better plan a problem just because it's not perfect?

You'll note - they couldn't even come out with a scenario. They had to go with a hypothetical situation, rather than a real lack of coverage. Although it's not that hard to think up - if I get injured, and insurance pays for me to be fixed, but not for plastic surgery to cover the scars - a wealthier person would pay for that themselves. If there's an experimental treatment not yet sure enough to be covered by insurance - a wealthy person would be able to use it when I cannot.

I don't care if some millionaire can get more coverage than me - what I care about is that the insurance covers what I NEED. Cover preventative care, cover lifesaving care. But to pretend any insurance plan is going to give us all what millionaires can buy - that's silly - unless they are TRYING to make the bill so large as to kill the plan entirely.

Right now, we've got awful coverage that denies plenty of necessary care, uses a patient's acne as an excuse to delay breast cancer surgery until the tumor has doubled in size, refuses to cover people with preexisting conditions by charging insane premiums, etc. And the insurance industry wants to kill any chance of our having a better option - because they LIKE the profits they get from these tactics. And - you know what? Obama - and anyone else with the money - buys better coverage than that garbage too!

snookums1

06-26-2009, 02:30 PM

Who are the uninsured?

Nearly 46 million Americans, or 18 percent of the population under the age of 65,
were without health insurance in 2007, the latest government data available.1
● The number of uninsured rose 2.2 million between 2005 and 2006 and has
increased by almost 8 million people since 2000.1
● The large majority of the uninsured (80 percent) are native or naturalized
citizens.2
● The increase in the number of uninsured in 2006 was focused among working
age adults. The percentage of working adults (18 to 64) who had no health
coverage climbed from 19.7 percent in 2005 to 20.2 percent in 2006.1 Nearly 1.3
million full-time workers lost their health insurance in 2006.
● Nearly 90 million people – about one-third of the population below the age of 65
spent a portion of either 2006 or 2007 without health coverage.3
● Over 8 in 10 uninsured people come from working families – almost 70 percent
from families with one or more full-time workers and 11 percent from families with
part-time workers.2
● The percentage of people (workers and dependents) with employment-based
health insurance has dropped from 70 percent in 1987 to 62 percent in 2007.

What additional costs are created by the uninsured population?
● The United States spends nearly $100 billion per year to provide uninsured
residents with health services, often for preventable diseases or diseases that
physicians could treat more efficiently with earlier diagnosis.14
● Hospitals provide about $34 billion worth of uncompensated care a year.14
● Another $37 billion is paid by private and public payers for health services for the
uninsured and $26 billion is paid out-of-pocket by those who lack coverage.14
● The uninsured are 30 to 50 percent more likely to be hospitalized for an
avoidable condition, with the average cost of an avoidable hospital stayed
estimated to be about $3,300.14
● The increasing reliance of the uninsured on the emergency department has
serious economic implications, since the cost of treating patients is higher in the
emergency department than in other outpatient clinics and medical practices.11
● A study found that 29 percent of people who had health insurance were
“underinsured” with coverage so meager they often postponed medical care
because of costs.15 Nearly 50 percent overall, and 43 percent of people with
health coverage, said they were “somewhat” to “completely” unprepared to cope
with a costly medical emergency over the coming year.15
http://www.nchc.org/documents/Coverage%20Fact%20Sheet-2009.pdf

There are a lot more facts at the link but the last data was collected in 2007 and it has risen since then.

Lady_Jean_La

06-26-2009, 03:48 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/cq/20090625/pl_cq_politics/politics3153708

"Our goal is to get it through the normal process -- that's why we're working very extensively, very aggressively toward that," Emanuel told a group of reporters. "Reconciliation exists as a tool, but that's not the goal."

Susan43

06-27-2009, 04:56 PM

Here is some fascinating testimony from a small business owner.

[Starting at 2:55] Now when I hear "public option" I don't hear "free option." I am not here asking for free health care, a government handout. I am asking for rational health care. As a business owner, I would gladly pay 8 percent of my payroll into a public option since that would give me two things. One, peace of mind that my employees would be covered by something backed by the government, and two, more importantly, an ability to accurately budget per year for my company's health care expenses. Right now my premiums and bills will fluctuate between 6 percent and 22 percent of payroll in any given year. An expense that large and unpredictable is what drives companies out of business, not a tax that they know they have to pay at the beginning of the year.

Now it may sound strange that I would be willing to pay a new tax, but rest assured, I am not a socialist. I am not here trying to undermine capitalism. Rather, the small mountain of money I send to you guys several times a year does not make me clamor for more government, but the unsustainable costs of my current health care, the one thing that could probably ruin the company, makes me clamor for an actual option.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ia-U_8DW7Dw
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/6/27/747177/-Some-Dont-Miss-Testimony-from-This-Weeks-Health-Care-Hearings

He's a nice young man and worth listening to.

RedSocksFan

06-28-2009, 01:36 AM

Why did Obama dismiss woman's idea of taking her mothers spirit into consideration as part of her ongoing healthcare. The first doctors did nothing for the elderly woman who needed a pacemaker, but finally a doctor had empathy and the woman lived many years because of that. So, we will get a supreme court judge with empathy rather than going by the letter of the law, but doctors with empathy have no place in Obama's healthcare. Just trying to sort out this logic of his.

rowstreeter

06-28-2009, 11:21 AM

Lady_Jean_La

06-28-2009, 02:52 PM

5 keys to getting health care deal

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/23995

2. Keep it at $999,999,999,999

Susan43

06-28-2009, 04:02 PM

"So now we have health insurance plans--NOT DOCTORS--deciding what treatment patients with metastatic cancer should receive?"

"So her doctor wants her to go on Tykerb (another of my drugs) and also have stereotactic radiation to her brain. But her health insurance plan is REFUSING to pay for either the Tykerb or the stereotactic radiation to the brain. The insurance plan is California Blue Shield, and they should be ashamed of themselves. "

http://www.assertivepatient.com/2009/03/ive-run-out-of-words-for-outrage.html

I always get a kick out of people that are soooooo worried about some bureaucrat making their healthcare decisions when they have been living with insurance companies making their healthcare decisions all these years. And the insurance company bureaucrat often get bonuses for making sure the company makes money.

That's how insurance companies make so much money and are able to pay their CEO's tens of millions of dollars. From denying care to sick people. The article you posted is just one story out of millions and that's where the money is coming from to fight a public option to the healthcare reform. It is coming from denying service to the sick.

I have medicare and so far none of my doctors has had to "consult" with them or ask them if I could have a certain treatment or drug. I can't imagine why the public option would be any different. The administration costs of SS and medicare are 3%. Insurance companies - 15%. Each one of those extra dollars could be going to curing or treating the ill.

The other night on ABC they featured Ron Williams the CEO of Aetna. He was compensated $24 MILLION in 2008. These are the type of people that want to continue to make America's healthcare the living hell it is now and they have a seat at the table while the gal in your article is slowing dying so they can make a bigger profit.

We need to remember that profit and capitalism are not in the constitutiion while "promoting the general welfare" is right there in the Preamble to the Constitution.

People need to quit fooling themselves, it isn't your doctor making the big decisions, it's the insurance companies.

Susan43

06-28-2009, 06:21 PM

A day in the life of a primary care physician: prior authorizations, denials, & delays in treatment

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/6/28/747789/-A-day-in-the-life-of-a-primary-care-physician:-prior-authorizations,-denials,delays-in-treatment

Author - Aaron Fox, MD

National Physicians Alliance

FurthurBB

06-28-2009, 11:59 PM

With the Obama plan bureaucrats will decide whether a patient deserves a new hip or knee, even whether s/he lives or dies based on criteria such as cost, age etc. Ted Kennedy is a good example, does anyone think the finest brain surgeon in the country would have operated on his "inoperable" tumor if it weren't for his money and status as one of the elite? I accept that those who can afford it will receive treatment that is far superior to what those in Obama's plan will receive, what I object to is those currently paying (or their company) for a plan that is far superior to the Obama plan but not in the league of Kennedy's plan will be forced into the Obama plan.

This is just not even true. IMO

ortiga

06-29-2009, 09:34 AM

"And while Gallup tells us that Americans in general are ranked 18th among citizens of industrialized countries in terms of satisfaction with their health care -- while spending more than twice as much per person as top-ranked Ireland -- those 160 million people who are covered by their employers are vulnerable to industry-sponsored messages suggesting they could lose their current coverage."

http://www.alternet.org/healthwellness/140960/got_health_insurance_fighting_for_a_public_option_ might_just_get_you_a_raise%21/?page=1

Lyvia

06-29-2009, 10:06 AM

I always get a kick out of people that are soooooo worried about some bureaucrat making their healthcare decisions when they have been living with insurance companies making their healthcare decisions all these years. And the insurance company bureaucrat often get bonuses for making sure the company makes money. <snipped only for length>
Your whole post was, of course, spot on. But I want to address this point, that people are complaining about something that they apparently don't know is happening now. It's the same as when they complain about paying for healthcare for the uninsured and underinsured. They don't realize we already are. Only instead of paying for a homeless person to get a few inexpensive visits to a clinic to help manage diabetes, we're paying for his foot amputation and cellulitis treatments. We don't pay for an inexpensive clinic visit for an infection, we often pay for a lengthy hospital stay for a course of IV antibiotics. We pay for expensive ER visits and not cheaper clinic visits. Our own care is more expensive because of the uninsured. Our taxes are higher because of the uninsured. There's a good Boston Globe piece (http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2005/06/23/hospitals_cut_costs_for_uninsured/) on how hospitals recoup costs from treating the uninsured. Here's one snippet:

Hospitals routinely treat uninsured patients, who are required during their hospital stay to fill out a financial disclosure form. In some cases, hospitals enroll patients in the state Medicaid program. Patients who don't qualify for Medicaid but whose incomes are below a state-set maximum are covered fully or partly by the state's free-care pool. The pool reimburses hospitals for some or all of the patients' care.

Copyright 2006 Globe Newspaper Company

Where do people think the money for programs like Medicaid (which not everyone can get) and the "free-care pool" come from? We're just paying for more expensive care for more people. From every perspective--practical, financial, humanitarian, insuring every person makes sense.

Brat2002

06-29-2009, 07:01 PM

More examples of "transparency". I find this disturbing that the public, for which they serve, aren't being given an opportunity to read this bill. We are supposed to know what our representatives are doing. We should have the chance to understand what they are voting on and the freedom to voice our opinions before the vote. So many in Washington don't bother to read bills before they vote, so I think their "bosses" should have the chance so we can tell them what we think.

Pelosi Won't Give Public a Week to Review Text of Health-Care Bill Before House Votes on It
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=50229

Harry Reid Won't Commit to Giving Public a Week to Read Health-Care Bill Before Senate Votes on It
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/Content/Article.aspx?rsrcid=50131

rowstreeter

06-29-2009, 08:27 PM

Why SOME Democrats as well as Republicans, oppose a public insurance option? I think this will make it pretty clear.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6CP4ieRiV0

rowstreeter

06-29-2009, 08:29 PM

If Obama care is going to be so awesome, why will every single congressman be exempted from it. I urge everyone here to contact your representative or Senator and make them sign a pledge that they will be reassigned to any health care program they pass, without exception!

I bet not a single one of them will agree to it because they know that they are passing a bill to provide inferior coverage to the masses.

IMO:thumbdown:

"Inferior coverage to the masses"? You mean all those people without any insurance now? How "inferior" is THAT coverage?

And you are misrepresenting what Obama has said 100 times.
What part of the word "CHOICE" escapes your understanding?

Susan43

06-29-2009, 09:04 PM

Great post, Susan. :thumbsup:

Great to be back in my old dress. :wink:

Hi Jen...:seeya: It's nice to have you back and I hope you had a good time on the cruise.

And thanks for the nice compliment.

Susan43

06-29-2009, 09:09 PM

Your whole post was, of course, spot on. But I want to address this point, that people are complaining about something that they apparently don't know is happening now. It's the same as when they complain about paying for healthcare for the uninsured and underinsured. They don't realize we already are. Only instead of paying for a homeless person to get a few inexpensive visits to a clinic to help manage diabetes, we're paying for his foot amputation and cellulitis treatments. We don't pay for an inexpensive clinic visit for an infection, we often pay for a lengthy hospital stay for a course of IV antibiotics. We pay for expensive ER visits and not cheaper clinic visits. Our own care is more expensive because of the uninsured. Our taxes are higher because of the uninsured. There's a good Boston Globe piece (http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2005/06/23/hospitals_cut_costs_for_uninsured/) on how hospitals recoup costs from treating the uninsured. Here's one snippet:

Copyright 2006 Globe Newspaper Company

Where do people think the money for programs like Medicaid (which not everyone can get) and the "free-care pool" come from? We're just paying for more expensive care for more people. From every perspective--practical, financial, humanitarian, insuring every person makes sense.

Thank you for the nice compliment and I say the same thing right back at you...you're just spot on. We spend far more on medical care then any other country and they have coverage. It's inexplicable to me why more people aren't supporting a public option and that congress doesn't seem to be listening to those of us that are in favor of it. The last numbers I saw over 70% of the country wants healthcare reform.

I just don't get it. Everyone interested, please write or call your critter. I'm afraid that without more pressure from the public they will give into the insurance industry and then people like Ron Williams will make another $24 M in 2010, using our tax dollars.

Lyvia

06-30-2009, 01:37 PM

I don't mean to be snarky, choco con, but did you really read those links?

The first one talks about primary care physicians in Illinois being pleased with Obama's address, at least on payment reform. The article talks about an existing problem and touches on Obama's ideas for fixing it, to which physicians responded positively.

The second is a September 2008 piece that talks about fewer doctors in Texas accepting Medicare. But it doesn't speak to a thing about Obama's plan, or anything current.

Lyvia

06-30-2009, 02:14 PM

I always read the links I post. Both clearly point to the fact that the low payments from government run health care leads to fewer primary care physcians. <snip>
Both comment specifically on one program each and the effect on one area. The first link said primary care physicians were pleased with Obama's address on payment reform. That reform could reduce or remove the issues that caused the negative effect.

From that, you seem to want to throw out the very idea of government-administrated programs.

It would be very hard to have a discussion with you, because you seem to read different things that what is on the page.

Lyvia

06-30-2009, 03:01 PM

Perhaps we view what is on the page differently. But, perhaps your presentation on the specifics of the Obama plan will answer the questions I have asked and will change my opinion on the government run concept. I look forward to your answers.

TIA

LOL, my presentation? Nice effort to try to divert. I do understand why you'd need someone to tutor you, so I understand why you'd ask me. But really...if you are having trouble with such simple, straight forward articles, I don't have the patience.

Funny thing is, I didn't even say anything about Obama's plan. I simply provided accurate information about your own links that you apparently misunderstood.

I'm happy to have correctly provided information for those who might not click on your links. That's my public service for the day.

Lyvia

06-30-2009, 04:16 PM

See...that's why I won't engage. You make inaccurate assumptions and just want to to fight. You assume I am "testy," another assumption and a tactic.

Unlike you, I've been on these boards for a lot of years and I never run from a discussion unless the other poster makes makes inaccurate statements and assumptions as you have, or seems to want a polarized fight, which you also seem to want. I like to have intelligent, civil discussions. You haven't demonstrated a willingness to have one.

Susan43

06-30-2009, 07:32 PM

You are exactly right. How is a normal business supposed to compete when the taxpayers will be subsidizing the public plan?

Won't this be a double insult? A taxpayer would have to pay to subsidize the inferior government plan and also pay for their own plan...and then have their plan become mediocre as the company tries to compete.

Testimony from a small business owner with a video at the link so you can see the whole thing.

[Starting at 2:55] Now when I hear "public option" I don't hear "free option." I am not here asking for free health care, a government handout. I am asking for rational health care. As a business owner, I would gladly pay 8 percent of my payroll into a public option since that would give me two things. One, peace of mind that my employees would be covered by something backed by the government, and two, more importantly, an ability to accurately budget per year for my company's health care expenses. Right now my premiums and bills will fluctuate between 6 percent and 22 percent of payroll in any given year. An expense that large and unpredictable is what drives companies out of business, not a tax that they know they have to pay at the beginning of the year.

Now it may sound strange that I would be willing to pay a new tax, but rest assured, I am not a socialist. I am not here trying to undermine capitalism. Rather, the small mountain of money I send to you guys several times a year does not make me clamor for more government, but the unsustainable costs of my current health care, the one thing that could probably ruin the company, makes me clamor for an actual option.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/6/27/747177/-Some-Dont-Miss-Testimony-from-This-Weeks-Health-Care-Hearings

The insurance costs are not just bankrupting the public but really hurting small business people too. This is a young man that would like to do the right thing for him employees, but has found himself in a bind.

ETA in case you find DKos offensive you can go right to the youtube and listen to him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ia-U_8DW7Dw&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Edailykos%2Ecom%2Fstoryonly %2F2009%2F6%2F27%2F747177%2F%2DSome%2DDont%2DMiss% 2DTestimony%2Dfrom%2DThis%2DWeeks%2DHealth%2DCare% 2DHearings&feature=player_embedded

Susan43

06-30-2009, 08:05 PM

Which clearly shows that Obama is not being honest when he says "if you are happy with your health care, happy with your doctor, you will not have to change your program. OF COURSE YOU WILL...because the government is going to make private health insurance (which currently subsidizes the costs of medicare and medicaid, but paying the higher costs the goverment won't pay) unaffordable and all those insurers will drop their plans and there goes any choice on the part of current employees happy with their coverage and plan. It is the government, who won't pay decent fees to doctors..which results in doctors gouging private insurers, which results in higher costs to individuals.....that is why the small businessman is suffering.

But it's good to see DKos proving Obama's misleading statements to people about their ability to keep what they have and are happy with.

IMO

This might make sense if the insurance companies had not already made themselves unafforable. Why do you think so many people have no insurance or are underinsured? It's because insurance is so expensive. I guess you didn't watch the video where he clearly talks about choices and having more options. You don't even have to open DKos, just go listen to this small business owner.

rowstreeter

07-01-2009, 12:08 PM

"U.S. healthcare lies"

"But there are many other economic advantages to universal health care which makes one wonder why the Republicans, conservatives and business interests haven’t been pushing for it. Instead, they are gearing up for a battle against President Obama which is, frankly, acting against their own best long-term interests. Here’s why:"

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/francis/archive/2009/05/13/u-s-healthcare-lies-part-ii.aspx

rowstreeter

07-01-2009, 12:30 PM

CNN's Elizabeth Cohen and Tony Harris talk about how the U.S. stacks up compared to the rest of the world.
Source: CNN | Added June 17, 2009
more CNN video:

http://thetruthintoronto.blogspot.com/2009/06/rating-us-health-care_18.html

Infant mortality 44th in the world
Life expectancy 50th in the world

High administrative costs, more use of specialists, less emphasis upon prevention.

snookums1

07-01-2009, 02:05 PM

Insured, but Bankrupted by Health Crises

Health insurance is supposed to offer protection — both medically and financially. But as it turns out, an estimated three-quarters of people who are pushed into personal bankruptcy by medical problems actually had insurance when they got sick or were injured.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/01/business/01meddebt.html?_r=3&partner=rss&emc=rss

And you wonder why we rank 37th in the world when it comes to healthcare?

rowstreeter

07-01-2009, 03:47 PM

Citing anecdotal evidence to bolter fautly statistics does nothing but diminish any valid argument you might actually present.

IMO

Faulty statistics? How are the statistics "faulty"? I doubt you have an answer other than another opinion piece which cites a conservative from the American Enterprise Institute, (the one you cited this morning that proved nothing with a fact , and claimed all sorts of "scew", due to the population needs of Medicare recipients.... I couldn't bother to respond, or compare Medicare with Canadian administration costs, or UK costs, or whatever, he was just cherrypicking and obviously over his head on true statistical analysis).

Do you have a link to assert your "faulty statistics" claim?

Do you know how many bankruptcies are filed by people who have overwhelming medical debt, people who simply could not afford "insurance" at $1500 or more per month, due to "prior existing conditions"?

fiver

07-01-2009, 07:05 PM

I would still like to know why this has to be done by the end of summer. We are fundamentally altering an entire system for this nation and it HAS to be completed by the end of August? If this were about what is best for this country, it would be done with deliberate and well informed planning, with input from ALL sides.

You believe that is or will happen? I don't.

IMO
I agree. Why not get the problems in Medicare ironed out and then show all us skeptics just how well the Gvt can care for us by first taking care of our vets.

Why can't Congress provide our vets with the same high quality health care they give themselves?

Alliekat

07-02-2009, 01:11 AM

No, it's normal in Canada to get life-saving care when it's called for ....... from excellent doctors, quick diagnostics ......... I worked with the ambulance. The homeless were just as 'lucky' as anyone else and got the same thing from the same top physicians I'd place against yours any day. You were lucky, I'd say, that you have insurance millions don't. :confused:

I have many friends who live in Canada so I can vouch for everything you say.

Jumbo1

07-02-2009, 01:33 AM

And I have several Canadian friends and co-workers who can vouch for everything I have said. That's why most of them live here now.

Yes, I'm sure that little kid who lived down the block from me & couldn't get a bone marrow transplant without the cash was just making that up so they could just get some sympathy from fellow Wichitans who were asked to pony up to help pay for it! Shame on him!

Jumbo1

07-02-2009, 01:55 AM

So you are concerned with the "millions" who don't have coverage now and its worth it to you to force the majority of people who are happy with their health care into a system they don't want for those "millions" of people...when its already been stated that this plan will NOT cover everyone of those "millions" and will in fact result in at least 18 million people remaining uninsured?

So which millions are more deserving of your concern? The ones with no coverage now or the ones with no coverage later?

So the best thing to do is....nothing...and the problem will magically disappear?

Jumbo1

07-02-2009, 03:09 AM

Never said that. Something needs to be done, but it needs to be the right thing and it needs to be well thought out and not done just because "something needs to be done". There needs to be some serious long term planning involved and input from all arenas including private pay and doctors and not just a flat system that tried to fit everyone under the same big umbrella regardless of the effect on them and the economy. I think there are hundreds of things that can be done to improve the existing system to give more affordable and available care to people right now without giving all of the control to the government.

It's not an either or situation. Do something or do nothing. There is the ultimate option of do something RIGHT.

What's the old saying....something about pouring money down a rathole...