Health Care

[Cleo's Mom 257]

All of a sudden this country is sooooooo concerned about the so called 45,000 deaths a year from lack of medical insurance. How come we never heard of this before? Did you know that 435,000 people die every year from tobacco, Thats 7X more the amount of people annually who die from lack of insurance, but does the government step in and take control and outlaw cigarettes and chewing tobacco? NO! How about the people who die annually in this country from alcohol. The number is 85,000 every year. (twice as many than those who die without insurance) But no, you can't take the 'fun' away from society. Give me a break! the government wants to be in control of what we can and can't do. They are not concerned about your health or mine!

P.S. I meant to say a million abortions annually.

Your reply is full of contradictions. You ask "does the government step in and take control and outlaw cigarettes and chewing tobacco?". And then you criticize the government and say the government wants to be in control of what we can and can't do.

So - what is it? You want them to outlaw tobacco and alcohol and control what we can and can't do? Or do you want them to stay out of our lives, or do you want them to do what they are doing - educating people and helping states to pass anti-smoking laws and tough drunk driving laws.

Here's what the government does about tobacco:

Do Anti-Smoking Programs Work to Reduce Smoking? | Michael Marlow | Cato Institute: Commentary

And I've always known that tobacco is responsible for about 500,000 deaths a year. It's on websites, in the newspapers, etc.. But the issue has been somewhat eclipsed by the obsession with covering the obesity epidemic.

Additionally, tobacco smoking and alcohol drinking are choices that people make. One does not need to do either. These people choose to pollute their bodies with poison.

Those who are dying from lack of proper care due to lack of health insurance would love to be able to afford affordable and proper healthcare. It is not their choice to die from this.

[pattygreen 5]

Plain - I don't know who you are but I doubt you are a Democrat who voted for Obama and also lacks health insurance. And I'm fairly certain you're not on Medicare. If I'm wrong, I'm sure you'll correct me.

I don't recall anything in the 2nd amendment advocating being dangerous. Michelle Bachman's words and those of the tea baggers (repeating Thomas Jefferson's words) are meant to be inflammatory and warn of a possible violent, bloody or dangerous direction to their position or actions.

My point was that those 9 protestors at Liberman's office were hardly threatening yet a poster here was offended by them. Because they were protesting something she opposes. How many abortion protestors have been carried away by police? Is there outrage at their behavior too by those who agree with their position?

I was not offended by the Lieberman protestors at all. We should all have the right to have our voices heard. I only posted about it because I want to point out that protesting policies is not only one sided. The Tea parties were deemed by yourself and bjean it one time as radical, conservative, right winged, bigots and haters who are trouble making. I posted that to point out that liberals have their protestors who get arrested and cause trouble as well. Somehow in your eyes, it was okay for liberal democrats who protested Lieberman's office, but not okay for conservatives to do the same.

[pattygreen 5]

Boy are you naive. Yes, they will tax the rich, but you will also be required by law to purchase it even if you don't want to. They even fine you and threaten you with jail time if you don't comply. Do you really believe that it won't add to the deficit???!!! Believe me, nothing in life is free. They won't call it a "TAX" that they take from you, because it wont be a tax. You will pay for this medical insurance through higher cost of living all around. The government will first allow you to 'choose' your own plan, (a government option will be offered at a very low premium, for they are not out to make a profit). People and businesses will eventually over time gravitate toward the government plan, for it will save them much, much money. It will always be the least expensive plan out there. Insurance companies, over time, will go out of business, cause who can compete with a (gov) ins. co. that isn't worried about making a profit for themselves? There you have it! A government run health care system with NO other option. Even Obama says it will take about 12 years or so to get to that point. He knows what he's doing to our FREE nation. He's socializing it! It's not about health care reform, it's aboput the government being in control. If they wanted to insure those 45 million people they say are without ins. then just buy them a plan. It would cost musch less than the trillions of dollars we are going to spend if this passes the Senate. He could talk tort reform, but he owes those Lawyers for financing his presidential campaign, so he wont even put that option on the table. He could talk about expanding competition between insurance companies by allowing people to go into other states for their insurance, but for some unknown reason that's not on the table. Don't be fooled, he's a liar. This poll on LBT speaks for itself. More are opposed to the bill than for it. Everyone I talk to is opposed to it. I ask people I see all the time if they are for or against it. I have not run into too many that are for it, but very many opposed. Why would you believe the government when they say it won't add to the deficit? There isn't much that the government runs that hasn't bankrupted. Why should this be any different?

[pattygreen 5]

Your reply is full of contradictions. You ask "does the government step in and take control and outlaw cigarettes and chewing tobacco?". And then you criticize the government and say the government wants to be in control of what we can and can't do.

So - what is it? You want them to outlaw tobacco and alcohol and control what we can and can't do? Or do you want them to stay out of our lives, or do you want them to do what they are doing - educating people and helping states to pass anti-smoking laws and tough drunk driving laws.

Here's what the government does about tobacco:

Do Anti-Smoking Programs Work to Reduce Smoking? | Michael Marlow | Cato Institute: Commentary

And I've always known that tobacco is responsible for about 500,000 deaths a year. It's on websites, in the newspapers, etc.. But the issue has been somewhat eclipsed by the obsession with covering the obesity epidemic.

Additionally, tobacco smoking and alcohol drinking are choices that people make. One does not need to do either. These people choose to pollute their bodies with poison.

Those who are dying from lack of proper care due to lack of health insurance would love to be able to afford affordable and proper healthcare. It is not their choice to die from this.

I don't want the government to outlaw smoking or drinking or to provide for health insurance. The government needs to downsize itself. The point I was making is this.... The government should not have a say in our freedoms. You're sooooo worried about the 45,000 who die every year without health insurance, but don't understand that that many plus even more die every year for many other reasons that are even more important to focus on. Let's ban cigarette companies from existing in this nation. There. We could save 7X as many people AND keep medical coverage down by eliminating the #1 cause of heart related operations needed by American people! (I'm not serious). The government certainly should not be allowed to tell people that they can't smoke if they want to. Just like they should not tell people that they must purchase medical insurance. It takes away our personal freedoms, liberties and rights if they do.

[msrojacks 1]

I think its funny how a thread about HI on a medical forum is showing in the poll that people are against it.

I think that people will assume in the future that if the HI passes, Everything will be Free.

I know when I purchased HI, I too assumed things would be free!

What is sad, is having HI doesnt mean I get the BEST care, and have to pay no money. Many of us on here should know that. My surgery cost me well over a grand when you take out my 1000 deductable, countless office visit copays, time out of work, cpap machine, etc

Another thing to consider, My fiancee doesnt have insurance. We both had to go to a walk in clinic over the summer on a sunday because we were really sick with the flu. My cost was 50 (copay) his you ask, 80. We left and went to get our presciptions. I was worried that his would be alot. Mine cost me 10, his 23. He got lucky there!

He has a doctor, and gets his physical. His cost 100.00

So 100.00 for a physical is unheard of? I pay 20. I also pay 118 each week for insurance, when he pockets that money!

People should invest there money in their own wellness, rather fancy cars, and big screen tvs

When people are terminally ill, is money really an issue? More and more hospital debt is written off each day.

I think that many will assume that if they are given this universal coverage, they will no longer have to pay a red cent on an asprin, while there paying more in taxes for this program.

I compared HI to Weight Watchers. WW is a great program, that should be free, but its not. Its an industry like HI. I went there a few years ago, and had to shell out the money to enroll, then the money each week to stay a member. Many benifit from WW (or any ww program) but it comes at a cost!

Also consider now the waiting time to be seen at a doctors office! When I mentioned earlier that Me and my fiancee went to a walkin emergency room, I didnt get seen Faster because I have health care, He didnt get seen slower because he didnt. Both our wait time was equal 2 hours! Now if people have free care, who is to stop them from going to a walkin clinic for non serious matters.

My last sentence (promise) is that I think the media is making it look like We are the streets of calcutta, and people are dying along the river banks. Swine flu is all over the news, obesity is being targeted as a killer. I think we should open the obituries up and look at the ages, and people dying more closely instead of being afraid all the time

[pattygreen 5]

msrojacks, well said. I agree with you wholeheartedly.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

I don't want the government to outlaw smoking or drinking or to provide for health insurance. The government needs to downsize itself. The point I was making is this.... The government should not have a say in our freedoms. You're sooooo worried about the 45,000 who die every year without health insurance, but don't understand that that many plus even more die every year for many other reasons that are even more important to focus on. Let's ban cigarette companies from existing in this nation. There. We could save 7X as many people AND keep medical coverage down by eliminating the #1 cause of heart related operations needed by American people! (I'm not serious). The government certainly should not be allowed to tell people that they can't smoke if they want to. Just like they should not tell people that they must purchase medical insurance. It takes away our personal freedoms, liberties and rights if they do.

The government would never ban cigarettes or alcohol (they tried the latter) but I would be supportive of a very high ($10/pack) cigarette tax to make it economically prohibitive. That money could be used to help fund many things. And people who quit would be healthier. That's a win/win. But the big tobacco lobbyists would never stand for it.

People should be required to buy healthcare insurance because those who choose not to buy it (but can afford it) are costing those of us who have insurance higher premiums to pay for their healthcare.

For those who can't afford insurance, there will be help to pay for it.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

I think its funny how a thread about HI on a medical forum is showing in the poll that people are against it.

I hardly think 14 people who voted in the poll constitute a national referendum on healthcare.

I think that people will assume in the future that if the HI passes, Everything will be Free.

I don't know anyone who assumes this. Healthcare will cost everyone premiums. Those who can't afford it would get some help with government subsidies. The public option would cost money and charge premiums. It just would not be for profit, unlike private insurance.

I know when I purchased HI, I too assumed things would be free!

That just reflects your lack of understanding and research on this subject because it has NEVER been promoted as free.

What is sad, is having HI doesnt mean I get the BEST care, and have to pay no money. Many of us on here should know that. My surgery cost me well over a grand when you take out my 1000 deductable, countless office visit copays, time out of work, cpap machine, etc

What would your surgery have cost without insurance? What did your insurance pay for your surgery? Many on here are self-pay and can tell you.

Another thing to consider, My fiancee doesnt have insurance. We both had to go to a walk in clinic over the summer on a sunday because we were really sick with the flu. My cost was 50 (copay) his you ask, 80. We left and went to get our presciptions. I was worried that his would be alot. Mine cost me 10, his 23. He got lucky there!

He has a doctor, and gets his physical. His cost 100.00

So 100.00 for a physical is unheard of? I pay 20. I also pay 118 each week for insurance, when he pockets that money!

The cost of taking care of the uninsured isn't about addressing the flu - it is about catastrophic illnesses and accidents that send people to the ER and cost those of us who have insurance with higher premiums.

People should invest there money in their own wellness, rather fancy cars, and big screen tvs

When people are terminally ill, is money really an issue?

I am so offended by this I don't know where to start. My husband died from terminal cancer. We were lucky to have insurance. His care was very close to 7 figures. What do you think I was supposed to do if we hadn't had insurance? Wave a magic wand and come up with the money? After all - you said money shouldn't be an issue. Sell my house and go on welfare? Did you know that medical bills are the number one reason for bankruptcy? Your statement was beyond heartless as if to imply that somehow those with a terminal illness will just "find the money somehow". Unbelievable!!!!

More and more hospital debt is written off each day.

I think that many will assume that if they are given this universal coverage, they will no longer have to pay a red cent on an asprin, while there paying more in taxes for this program.

Universal coverage is not being considered. That is called single payer. What is being proposed is a public option that would charge premiums. The taxes would be on those who make over $500,000 or cadillac health insurance plans and cutting waste in Medicare.

I compared HI to Weight Watchers. WW is a great program, that should be free, but its not.

Seriously, where are you getting your information that anyone is saying healthcare should be free?

Its an industry like HI. I went there a few years ago, and had to shell out the money to enroll, then the money each week to stay a member. Many benifit from WW (or any ww program) but it comes at a cost!

Also consider now the waiting time to be seen at a doctors office! When I mentioned earlier that Me and my fiancee went to a walkin emergency room, I didnt get seen Faster because I have health care, He didnt get seen slower because he didnt. Both our wait time was equal 2 hours!

People in the ER are seen based on the severity of their condition, not if they have insurance or not.

Now if people have free care, who is to stop them from going to a walkin clinic for non serious matters.

Again, where is all this free care?

My last sentence (promise) is that I think the media is making it look like We are the streets of calcutta, and people are dying along the river banks. Swine flu is all over the news, obesity is being targeted as a killer. I think we should open the obituries up and look at the ages, and people dying more closely instead of being afraid all the time

I think you really need to do more research and study this issue better before making comments that don't reconcile with the facts.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Boy are you naive. Yes, they will tax the rich, but you will also be required by law to purchase it even if you don't want to. They even fine you and threaten you with jail time if you don't comply. Do you really believe that it won't add to the deficit???!!! Believe me, nothing in life is free. They won't call it a "TAX" that they take from you, because it wont be a tax. You will pay for this medical insurance through higher cost of living all around. The government will first allow you to 'choose' your own plan, (a government option will be offered at a very low premium, for they are not out to make a profit). People and businesses will eventually over time gravitate toward the government plan, for it will save them much, much money. It will always be the least expensive plan out there. Insurance companies, over time, will go out of business, cause who can compete with a (gov) ins. co. that isn't worried about making a profit for themselves? There you have it! A government run health care system with NO other option. Even Obama says it will take about 12 years or so to get to that point. He knows what he's doing to our FREE nation. He's socializing it! It's not about health care reform, it's aboput the government being in control. If they wanted to insure those 45 million people they say are without ins. then just buy them a plan. It would cost musch less than the trillions of dollars we are going to spend if this passes the Senate. He could talk tort reform, but he owes those Lawyers for financing his presidential campaign, so he wont even put that option on the table. He could talk about expanding competition between insurance companies by allowing people to go into other states for their insurance, but for some unknown reason that's not on the table. Don't be fooled, he's a liar. This poll on LBT speaks for itself. More are opposed to the bill than for it. Everyone I talk to is opposed to it. I ask people I see all the time if they are for or against it. I have not run into too many that are for it, but very many opposed. Why would you believe the government when they say it won't add to the deficit? There isn't much that the government runs that hasn't bankrupted. Why should this be any different?

Please provide the link where Pres. Obama says that his goal is to have the government take over complete control of all healthcare and that it will take 12 years to get to that point.

If the private companies cannot or will not reduce their premiums and obscene profits to compete with a public option then THEY DESERVE TO GO OUT OF BUSINESS. And if the public option expands, then they will need to hire more people - maybe those who jump ship from the greedy insurance companies.

Again, 14 people voting on a LBT poll is hardly a public referendum.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

sigh

No, your jumping to conclusions. I am 27, I work a full time job where I get paid 13 an hour and a part time job making 8 while going to 2 colleges. So please don't assume because I invest money into my health that I am some "fatcat"

My employer offers free health care, but I would be paid less! I dont want to be given anything that I havent earned. I am at a job where I am worth 13 an hour basically. Why should you pay for my insurance, or my boss (small company might I add) Why can I not be responsable for my health insurance , and have the choice?

It sounds like you were given the choice and you made the choice to pay for health insurance rather than make less per hour. I don't have a problem with people having choice which is what this healthcare reform is all about - allowing those without insurance to have a choice - one of which is a public option.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

I was not offended by the Lieberman protestors at all. We should all have the right to have our voices heard. I only posted about it because I want to point out that protesting policies is not only one sided. The Tea parties were deemed by yourself and bjean it one time as radical, conservative, right winged, bigots and haters who are trouble making. I posted that to point out that liberals have their protestors who get arrested and cause trouble as well. Somehow in your eyes, it was okay for liberal democrats who protested Lieberman's office, but not okay for conservatives to do the same.

I never said that I don't believe people have the right to protest. These tea baggers are radical, conservative and right wing. Those who had those signs with Pres. Obama as Hitler, the Joker and those that said " A zoo has an African lion and the White House has a lyin African" were Obama haters who were possibly racists, too.

I do have a problem with them presenting themselves as grass roots when in fact they were organized by Glenn Beck and Dick Armey and Michelle Bachman, who acted surprised that sooooo many showed up at the November rally in DC. She said it was all so last minute that she didn't expect that many.

Then the media interviewed a woman who said "Yeah, I came down on one of the 40 buses Michelle Bachman had for us."

[pattygreen 5]

Please provide the link where Pres. Obama says that his goal is to have the government take over complete control of all healthcare and that it will take 12 years to get to that point.

If the private companies cannot or will not reduce their premiums and obscene profits to compete with a public option then THEY DESERVE TO GO OUT OF BUSINESS. And if the public option expands, then they will need to hire more people - maybe those who jump ship from the greedy insurance companies.

Again, 14 people voting on a LBT poll is hardly a public referendum.

I, personally, witnessed him speaking during his early campaigning days on TV say that it would take about 12 years or so to complete his plan of government insurance for all. After the slack he started to get he changed it to a public "option". He then started to say you can still keep your own doctor, etc. He didn't dare let the people know at that time what his 'true' goal was. Government run HI for ALL.

How do you expect that other HI companies will be able to stay in business and make a profit with a government run HI company competing with them and not concerned about profits at all. Be realistic! They won't be able to. I had a daycare at one time. In order to make more money in the long run, I started out charging moms the lowest rate in town. My business picked up dramatically. Others had to lower their rates to compete with me. Imagine if I wasn't concerned about making a profit? The other daycares in town would have lost their kids to me if there wasn't a cap on how many I could care for at one time.

It's only a matter of time before the government run public option would be the ONLY option. Obama knows it, Congress knows it and anyone with a thinking brain could see it down the road. Now, How is that competition? How is that "You can keep your insurance you have now if you like it?" And why do they 'deserve to go out of business' if they don't come down on their premiums and lose their own profit? And when they put all the other HI companies out of business and expand, like you say, who will pay those government employees salaries and government extravagant benefits and pensions? Who? The government already has more than enough people on their payroll. We can't afford it!

[pattygreen 5]

I never said that I don't believe people have the right to protest. These tea baggers are radical, conservative and right wing. Those who had those signs with Pres. Obama as Hitler, the Joker and those that said " A zoo has an African lion and the White House has a lyin African" were Obama haters who were possibly racists, too.

I do have a problem with them presenting themselves as grass roots when in fact they were organized by Glenn Beck and Dick Armey and Michelle Bachman, who acted surprised that sooooo many showed up at the November rally in DC. She said it was all so last minute that she didn't expect that many.

Then the media interviewed a woman who said "Yeah, I came down on one of the 40 buses Michelle Bachman had for us."

These kind of protests go on with every president. Am I to conclude that these anti-Bush policy and agenda protestors were radical leftwinged hater racists?! Get real, okay?

  

[LarraineM 6]

As a Christian how can anyone be against a healthcare system that provides care for all Americans. Our curent health care system is based on ability to pay. Over 42 million Americans+ have no health insurance. So some say thats fair,I say its inhumane. People die everyday in this country because of this cast system of healthcare delivery.I am ashamed that our country continues to treat the least of our brothers in this matter. YES I work with the uninsured everyday so YES I see peole everyday struggling to pay for life saving medications like Plavix and everyday I see the results of not being able to fill even half of a prescription. Glen Beck and others have convinced many that public clinics care for the uninsured, the truth is that they provide patch work healthcare. The doctors there will tell you if you inquire that they can identify that someone might have cancer,but there are no funds to provide testing or advanced treatment many of them need to survive.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

These kind of protests go on with every president. Am I to conclude that these anti-Bush policy and agenda protestors were radical leftwinged hater racists?! Get real, okay?

  

Yes, they were left wing and they were radical in that they wanted change and they hated bush. So do I. He was the worst president in history. He was stupid, ill-spoken, unwilling to admit mistakes, responsible for an unjustified war costing 4000+ lives and a trillion dollars adding to out debt, the deregulation of wall street resulting in the financial crisis of 2008 and the rise in unemployment (rose all through 2008 and is continuing), infringing on our freedoms (wireless wire taps), illegal foreign prisons, torture, ignoring Katrina victims, and ignoring clean energy, global warming, and last but not least - healthcare.

Now we have brains back in the White House and a president who is willing to tackle all these tough issues - the solutions often being tough but necessary. He has already said that if he is a one term president because he is willing to do what it takes to clean up bush's messes, then so be it. And if people want to protest him, they have that right. But don't tell me it's about healthcare or spending or the deficit. It's about Obama and wanting him to fail. Period.