Health Care

[BJean 16]

I agree with you too, Cleo's Mom. And one of the most boring aspects of an earlier rant is the premise that people are unable to have any kind of decent moral standards without the Bible. That is hogwash, pure and simple. And further proof of the brainwashing that some people have fallen victim to.

[pattygreen 5]

Rave on you anti-government people. You stand to be harmed as much as everyone else by the absurd healthcare system that we have now. One day, you will probably be harmed from being denied healthcare by your provider and you will finally understand what the rest of us already know

At least we KNOW what we have now. Whenever the government gets involved in a program, you never KNOW what you're gonna get. Most of their programs go bankrupt. I believe it would just be better for them to stay out of it. I'd rather stick with what we have, even if it could be better, than go into anything that the government runs. BTW, our HC in America is the best, why mess with the best?

Edited December 6, 2009 by pattygreen

[pattygreen 5]

The answer to the HC problem is tort reform. This is money. A low end estimates about a half a trillion per decade. Part is simply bled into the legal system to benefit a few jackpot lawsuit winners and an army of rich extravagant malepractice lawyers like John Edwards. The rest is wasted within the medical system in the millions of unnecessary tests, procedures and referrals undertaken solely to fend of lawsuits. Resources wasted on patients who don't need them and which could be redirected to the uninsured who do. In the 4000 plus page bill there is no tort reform. The house bill actually penalizes states that "DARE" "limit attornys' fees or impose caps on damages. Why? Because as Howard Dean has openly admitted, "Democrats don't want to take on the trial lawyers." He didn't need to say why. (They give millions to the democrats for precisely this kind of protection.)

Also, get rid of the forbidding of buying HI over state lines. Why not allow interstate competition? After all, you can buy oranges across state lines. If you couldn't, oranges would be extremely expensive in Wisconsin, especially in winter. And the answer to the resulting high orange prices in Wisconsin? An established federally run orange growing company to introduce competition? No. It would be to allow Wisconsin to buy Florida oranges!

Neither of those 2 things, (tort reform or interstate allowance of medical insurance sales) is in the bill, because that would obviate the need-the excuse- for the public option, which the left wing of the Democratic party sees (correctly) as the royal road to socialized medicine!

The better choice is targeted measures that attack the inefficiencies of the current system one by one: tort reform, interstae purchasing and taxing employee benefits. It would take 20 pages to write such a bill, not 2000, and provide the funds to cover the uninsured without wrecking U.S. Health Care and the treasury.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that tort reform would save about $54 billion over 10 years. Hardly the 500 billion stated. The CBO is an independent budget agency.

As to purchasing insurance across state line:

Those who support purchasing health insurance from any state argue that it will invigorate market competition and drive down premiums. However, a recent study by the New America Foundation showed that:

The primary source of "savings" under [this kind of proposal] is not more competition or more efficient insurers. The savings comes from separating the healthy from the sick.... [it] would lower premiums for the healthiest Americans, but it would raise premiums and reduce coverage options for everyone else.

Indeed, permitting the sale of health insurance across state lines would undermine all existing consumer protections, which are determined state by state. As Families USA revealed, state consumer protections-particularly in the individual health insurance market-vary dramatically from state to state. Some states have made tremendous strides in creating accessible, functional insurance markets for individuals and small businesses. As the New America Foundation points out, Senator McCain's proposal would eliminate the best protections and bring all states down to the lowest common denominator:

[selling health insurance across state lines] would have the ultimate effect of standardizing state regulation to the least restrictive level, thus

de facto de-regulating individual insurance markets

. Politically, this allows the de-regulatory preferences of one state to negate the regulatory preferences of the 49 other states, without either a national or state-specific vote.

This proposal has far more insidious implications for consumers than its proponents will admit. Crossing state lines to find a great deal on a limited edition autographed book is one thing. Crossing state lines to find health insurance just crosses the line.

[pattygreen 5]

what a load of bull!!!!!

[BJean 16]

Sure there are some mucked up programs in the government, but I think it is shameful that you declare that all government programs are bad and ill run. It just isn't true. We've been through this before. When you point out one badly run government program, someone else can point out one that is not only well-run but extremely beneficial to the country.

To me, saying the all government is bad and all government programs are poorly run is tantamount to treason.

I get to say this because people say that to criticize the military or President G.W. Bush is unpatriotic. Stands to reason is all I'm sayin...

[BJean 16]

And declaring tort reform to be the answer to our horrible health care system (that is not run by the government, by the way) is one of the most ridiculous things the right wing has tossed into the ring.

There is a tiny element of truth to the fact that some tort reform is needed, but the insurance companies would love for you to believe that tort reform is the answer to everything. They'd like nothing better than for the government to make it illegal to sue your negligent doctor or hospital. It's pitiful that some of you have bought into that mantra. They're leading you down the scary path to even more insurance company control of your life!

You should be far more afraid of what the insurance companies and their lobbyists have up their sleeves than what the government has up its' sleeves.

[BJean 16]

As for Cleo's post... what about it is bull? Why do you have such a hard time seeing the truth? Are you in the insurance business yourself? That would certainly explain a lot of things.

[pattygreen 5]

{QUOTE}There is a tiny element of truth to the fact that some tort reform is needed

Well then, something we can agree on. So if we (as opposing Americans) feel this is true, then why don't they enforce tort reform? It's a start. Let's see what it would do for us. But, No. That wasn't even in there at all. Not even one sentence. So much for bipartisanship, or compromise, heh?

[Cleo's Mom 257]

what a load of bull!!!!!

Call it what you want, it's the facts. But that's right, you don't believe the facts when they prove you wrong.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

As for Cleo's post... what about it is bull? Why do you have such a hard time seeing the truth? Are you in the insurance business yourself? That would certainly explain a lot of things.

I am SO glad you asked that because I have been thinking the same thing. Why would anyone outside of the insurance industry advocate soooooo much for them and worry sooooo much about whether they might go out of business if a public option available to about 2% of the uninsured gets passed.

I advocate for the american people and couldn't care less if the greedy, profit-driven, claim-denying insurance companies go out of business due to their unscrupulous policies.

[BJean 16]

Tort reform has no business being in the proposed health care legislation. It is a separate issue. And it has many implications and problems that will need to be scrutinized and resolved before it could be a good thing for Americans.

Even though we may agree that there is some value in tort reform, the difference between you and me is that you believe that tort reform is the answer to all our problems in the medical industry and I know that it is not.

[pattygreen 5]

I am SO glad you asked that because I have been thinking the same thing. Why would anyone outside of the insurance industry advocate soooooo much for them and worry sooooo much about whether they might go out of business if a public option available to about 2% of the uninsured gets passed.

I advocate for the american people and couldn't care less if the greedy, profit-driven, claim-denying insurance companies go out of business due to their unscrupulous policies.

It's not about whether the insurance companies get rich or fail. It's about government being in the insurance business and having a say in my HC. Nothing more. I could care less about the ins. companies. If you allow the government to get too BIG, they will control too much. They already regulate every tiny thing as it is. It must be stopped. As for the Ins. companies getting too big, that's how it is in a FREE enterprise society.

They have their right to grow and prosper just like any other business does.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

It's not about whether the insurance companies get rich or fail. It's about government being in the insurance business and having a say in my HC. Nothing more. I could care less about the ins. companies. If you allow the government to get too BIG, they will control too much. They already regulate every tiny thing as it is. It must be stopped. As for the Ins. companies getting too big, that's how it is in a FREE enterprise society.

They have their right to grow and prosper just like any other business does.

The government is already in the healthcare business in medicare, medicaid and veteran's medical care. I don't have a problem with them offering or providing non-profit healthcare. We should take the profit motive out of healthcare.

I am glad the government regulates things. It was de-regulated wall street that caused the economy to crash. IT WASN'T THE GOVERNMENT - IT WAS CORPORATE AMERICA.

CORPORATE AMERICA ARE THE BAD GUYS AND THEY NEED REGULATED TO REIN IN THEIR GREED AND RECKLESS BEHAVIOR. AND THE INSURANCE COMPANIES ARE AT THE TOP OF THE GREEDY LIST.

I am glad the government regulates the food and drugs I use and the safety of the workplace. And regulates for clean air and Water. CORPORATE AMERICA WOULD NEVER DO THESE THINGS ON THEIR OWN - THEY ARE JUST ABOUT MAKING MONEY. PERIOD. SO IT IS UP TO THE GOVERNMENT TO KEEP US SAFE - AND THAT DOESN'T JUST MEAN MILITARILY.

And as for insurance companies getting too big - well "too big to fail" (eg: AIG) was/is a big problem with our economic crisis and being too big to fail caused a lot of the problems and the need for a bailout. No company should be allowed to get that big. And I'm all for regulations that would prevent it.

My other mantra: Regulate, baby , regulate.

[BJean 16]

Right on!! We have a health care system where COMPANIES, strictly motivated by profit, are making the medical decisions that we and our doctors should be making. It is not in the companies' best interest to give us the best possible medical care. It is in their best interest to see to it that we have the medical care that costs them the least amount of money. So who suffers here and who profits? We individuals suffer and the companies make huge profits. And we pay exorbitant sums of money to be told which doctors we can see and what treatments and drugs we can use.

Americans are getting the short end of the stick with the system that we have. Our health is the most important component to our survival and we depend on a purely for profit business to make life and death decisions for us. What could be worse? Well, having the government intervening on our behalf sure isn't worse! Right now, it's our only hope out of this mess we have allowed ourselves to be sucked into.