Health Care

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Rueters reported Thursday, Wellpoint, the largest health insurer was using computer algorithm that automatically targets patients recently diagnosed with breast cancer, among other conditions. Theyre dropping patients after being diagnosed, now theyre being investigated. It also states they are "for profit". Status Quo is great isnt it?

I posted the report yesterday - post #1266. But how can this be since someone on here posted that the wonderful insurance companies don't drop people when they get sick? I guess that's because she's usually wrong.

[BJean 16]

Once again, you can't have a conversation about Obama's administration without bringing up past administrations. I could care less about what happened under Bush. You can't change the past. This is today! (patty's quote)

The question I have for you is why couldn't you care less about what happened in past administrations? We learn from the past. We pattern our entire processes after what has happened in the past. Plus the very important fact is that the things that Obama is doing today are a direct result of what happened in the past.

Of course we can't change the past. But the Republicans think they can. They think they can re-write history. It is very important to note that you think that the Bush administration's behavior and policies are not relevant today. What this current administration is having to do to save this country is a direct result of the very things that Cheney, Rove, Bush and others are trying to say happened differently than they actually went down. You've got your head buried in the sand if you don't understand that.

The poll speaks for itself. You can be in denial if you want, but the facts are that more Americans do NOT trust the government. (almost 80%) If you want to continue to believe in them as your Saving power, go right ahead, but the majority of us know better. There are no gov. programs out there that are running financially stable.

This administration is not the government. So to pretend that any poll that says Americans distrust the government means that they distrust the president is just plain stupid.

But if Americans distrust the government, it is very probable that it is because of things that have happened over the course of history. If a poll wants to know if Americans distrust the president, then that is the question it will ask.

And to address your sarcastic remark, we don't think that the president is the second coming, but we know that he is trying to fix what's broken. And getting rid of programs that are ineffective, outdated and mismanaged is one of his priorities. But to say that there are NO GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS that are running financially stable is quite a stretch.

You always tend to exaggerate. Why don't you just stick to what you know. And you know that you don't know that ALL government programs are unstable. Or if you don't understand that, you don't care that you don't know, but you're willing to state it anyway. Hmmmm, sounds a lot like some of the proclamations of the tea baggers.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

August 12, 2009:

Republican Sen. Grassley on pulling the plug on grandma with healthcare reform:

Grassley: Government shouldn’t ‘decide when to pull the plug on grandma’

By Jason Hancock 8/12/09 11:13 AM

WINTERSET — Americans should be scared of provisions in a health care bill currently in the U.S. House because it will allow the government to have a say in end-of-life decisions, Republican U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley told a crowd of more than 300 Wednesday morning.

Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, speaks to more than 300 in Winterset Wednesday morning.

“In the House bill, there is counseling for end of life,” Grassley said. “You have every right to fear. You shouldn’t have counseling at the end of life, you should have done that 20 years before. Should not have a government run plan to decide when to pull the plug on grandma”

March 24, 2010:

Singing a different tune now and taking credit for healthcare-THAT HE VOTED AGAINST- in true republican hypocrisy (reminiscent of the stimulus hypocrisy)

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) has long been a vocal critic of the Democrat's health reform efforts, but today he started taking credit for some provisions of the bill, and talking up his own role in crafting the legislation.

In a release sent out by his staff to reporters today, Grassley says the bill will "hold tax-exempt hospitals accountable for the federal tax benefits they receive" thanks to his work.

The full text of his release is after the jump.

Grassley has been among the most vocal opponents of Democratic reform over the past year, but he's also known as one of the biggest flip-floppers on the issue.

At the start of the process, Grassley was expected to be among those Senators working to craft a bipartisan bill. But it wasn't long before he abandoned that effort, and helped to start the "death panel" meme heard at town halls across the country throughout last summer.

Edited April 27, 2010 by Cleo's Mom

[BJean 16]

Typical, just typical. I'm sure the tea baggers are eating it up.

[ariscus99 1]

This administration is not the government. So to pretend that any poll that says Americans distrust the government means that they distrust the president is just plain stupid.

What do you mean by this?

[BJean 16]

Seriously?

[ariscus99 1]

Seriously?

This administration is not the government? Well who is the government?

[BJean 16]

So you think the president is the government?

I know you can explain it to me since you are so anti-government. You're bound to know exactly what you're protesting, right?

[ariscus99 1]

So you think the president is the government?

I know you can explain it to me since you are so anti-government. You're bound to know exactly what you're protesting, right?

Wouldn't the president make up that little part of the government called the executive branch? Or am I wrong?

[BJean 16]

Sure it makes up a small part of the government. Lots and lots of things make up the government.

My point was that for someone to ask the question, do you approve of your government (or similar verbage) they are not asking, do you approve of your president.

They're not even asking do you approve of the legislative branch, or the military branch or the executive branch or any other segment of the goverment. Many segments make up our goverment. So assuming that a certain percentage of the population responding to a such a broad based question, responds no they do not approve of the job the government is diong, it certainly should not indicate to any extent that those people disapprove of the president.

It just doesn't make any sense to do that.

[pattygreen 5]

I am never against a hand up, and I am glad that the government is there to help those who need it. I was one of them at one time in my life. The problem is that it is TOO much now. The government has grown increasingly powerful and intrusive as well as financially indebted. We are talking about a debt of close to $170,000. per household. That is unsustainable! Cleo's often portrays me as one who doesn't want to help the poor or the elderly because I am against government handouts. This is not true. Some government help is fine. But, where we are at today with "so called" help is a farce. Obama himself admits his goals straight forward. He wants to redistribute the wealth around. Some who live in an apartment and rent and live paycheck to paycheck and are just getting by are not happy with that. I wouldn't be either. I lived that way once. We were at the bottom, but we (or anyone else) didn't have to stay there. We worked real hard, counted and saved every penny, sacrificed alot of 'wants' and even 'needs' to save for a multifamily house. I could never afford to pay a mortgage without rental income to help, so we sacrificed and lived with people over us, but, we still owned our own home, and we were proud of it. I saved for school and my husband worked long, hard hours and we eventually were able to buy a second multi family home right next door to ours, and now that's almost paid off as well. Our retirement should be okay due to the rental property and our 401K's and savings we pay into, even if SS is not there for us in 15 years. Some people start off sacrificing everything they have to start their businesses and then build up for themselves a great company and deserve to have their big expensive homes and be able to purchase things like HI and Life ins. and fancy cars or whatever they feel like buying. Obama feels that if you are rich, then you need to give some of that to those who are not. And, if you are poor, the government will make sure that you are cared for by coersion and thievery from those who are rich. This is sooooo wrong. Even if you feel that rich people should not be selfish or that rich people should 'share'. It's no ones place to tell anyone (rich or poor) what to do with their money that they worked hard to get. I am not rich by any means. I am comfortable and content, I guess. But I wasn't always. I know how it is to be both very poor and financially secure. I am not against paying taxes at all. I understand the need for them.

Waterbury, CT is a big city in my state. That city is in so much debt. Their property taxes are already the highest in the state, but now they need to raise them because they have a budget crisis that they can't find the funds for. This will cost on average another $2000. a year for homeowners there. They can't find the funds? How about cutting some of the big spending and doing some state layoffs or getting rid of the humongus pensions that those who retired recieve? It's always bleed the citizens dry! Never cut the spending! Did you ever hear of a government program that ended? I haven't. Obama has no right to redistribute the funds. They're not his.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

I am never against a hand up, and I am glad that the government is there to help those who need it. I was one of them at one time in my life. The problem is that it is TOO much now. The government has grown increasingly powerful and intrusive as well as financially indebted. We are talking about a debt of close to $170,000. per household. That is unsustainable! Cleo's often portrays me as one who doesn't want to help the poor or the elderly because I am against government handouts.You printed your list of government subsidies that you would cut. I did not agree with them. And I doubt many others on here would either. This is not true. Some government help is fine. But, where we are at today with "so called" help is a farce. Obama himself admits his goals straight forward. He wants to redistribute the wealth around. Since the first taxes were collected by the federal government there has been redistribution of wealth. The federal government collected the taxes and then sent money to the states, etc. It wasn't invented with Pres. Obama. When bush collected my taxes and sent them to Iraq, my "wealth" went to the military-industrial complex. So, move on from this fallacy

And please write this down somewhere as I have posted it to you before: IT IS THE JOB OF ELECTED CONGRESSMEN TO GO TO DC AND BRING FEDERAL DOLLARS BACK TO HIS/HER DISTRICT. IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE ME, CALL YOURS AND ASK HIM.

Some who live in an apartment and rent and live paycheck to paycheck and are just getting by are not happy with that. I wouldn't be either. I lived that way once. We were at the bottom, but we (or anyone else) didn't have to stay there. We worked real hard, counted and saved every penny, sacrificed alot of 'wants' and even 'needs' to save for a multifamily house. I could never afford to pay a mortgage without rental income to help, so we sacrificed and lived with people over us, but, we still owned our own home, and we were proud of it. I saved for school and my husband worked long, hard hours and we eventually were able to buy a second multi family home right next door to ours, and now that's almost paid off as well. Our retirement should be okay due to the rental property and our 401K's and savings we pay into, even if SS is not there for us in 15 years. Some people start off sacrificing everything they have to start their businesses and then build up for themselves a great company and deserve to have their big expensive homes and be able to purchase things like HI and Life ins. and fancy cars or whatever they feel like buying. Obama feels that if you are rich, then you need to give some of that to those who are not. And, if you are poor, the government will make sure that you are cared for by coersion and thievery from those who are rich. This is sooooo wrong. Even if you feel that rich people should not be selfish or that rich people should 'share'. It's no ones place to tell anyone (rich or poor) what to do with their money that they worked hard to get. I am not rich by any means. I am comfortable and content, I guess. But I wasn't always. I know how it is to be both very poor and financially secure. I am not against paying taxes at all. I understand the need for them.

Waterbury, CT is a big city in my state. That city is in so much debt. Their property taxes are already the highest in the state, but now they need to raise them because they have a budget crisis that they can't find the funds for. This will cost on average another $2000. a year for homeowners there. They can't find the funds? How about cutting some of the big spending and doing some state layoffs or getting rid of the humongus pensions that those who retired recieve? It's always bleed the citizens dry! Never cut the spending! Did you ever hear of a government program that ended? I haven't. Obama has no right to redistribute the funds. They're not his.

They weren't bush's or reagan's either but they were collected and spent by them. What is your point. Geez!!!

And your life story of hard knocks is getting weary. It implies a "one size fits all" approach which fits nicely with your black & white view of the world and the simplistic solutions to which you ascribe. "If I can do it then anyone can" ignores the millions of individual circumstances that people find themselves in.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

This example is so typical of the selfish attitude by many we see who are just against everything. It's an attitude that "I have mine (and I deserve it) and I don't care about anyone else and it doesn't affect me". UNTIL IT DOES.

What happened to Obama's Armageddon?

Mon May 17, 2010 at 02:06:01 PM PDT

I guess the headline of this story could have been: I was against health care reform until my son got sick and now i'm for it.

"I did not support any sort of government sponsored healthcare reform... and as it turns out, I will be one of those who benefits the most from it".

Last year, a $1 million lifetime cap on health care expenses meant nothing more than fine print on an insurance policy to Jim Bucher.

"I never thought I'd hit that," Bucher said. "Who's going to spend a million dollars?"

That was before his 6-year-old son, Landon, was diagnosed with leukemia last July.

What followed were hospital stays that lasted weeks at a time, expensive chemotherapy drugs and a bone marrow transplant at Duke University Hospital.

Landon has now accrued about $700,000 in medical expenses, and there are still some hefty outstanding bills.

For Jim Bucher and his wife, Patty, health care reform can't get here fast enough. The act signed by President Barack Obama in March eliminates lifetime caps from health insurance policies.

// snip

...."It's turned my life upside-down," said Bucher, a mortgage loan officer.

It's also given the Virginia Beach resident a new perspective on health care reform. Before, he didn't really think government should get involved.

"The way it was presented, it seemed like a negative thing. I figured, 'I have insurance, so I don't need to worry about it.' "

Now he's finding out just how critical the new law will be to his family.

For one thing, the label of "pre-existing condition" that his son now carries cannot be used to deny him insurance coverage or charge him prohibitive rates. That provision starts Sept. 23 for children and in 2014 for adults.

////

For the Buchers, the past 10 months have been an education on the expense of medicine and the complexity of insurance billing. An e-mail Bucher recently sent to friends and family telling them about their latest fundraiser read:

"Soon, with the recent Healthcare Reform, the 'cap' on insurance coverage will no longer be allowed - ironic, as I initially did not support any sort of government sponsored healthcare reform... and as it turns out, I will be one of those who benefits the most from it."

/// much more

dailykos

There are so many examples of the attitudes of republicans only being changed after a PERSONAL experience with some catastrophe, Healthwise or something else.

Take cheney, for example. If his daughter were not a lesbian, what do you think his attitude would be regarding gays? He would want them lined up and shot at sunrise. It's a shame that it often has to become personal for some people to wake up.

That's the difference between the democrats and republicans in congress. The democrats can see the suffering/problems of people outside of their family. For the republicans, if it doesn't affect them, they don't care.

Edited May 18, 2010 by Cleo's Mom

[loserbob 11]

I am never against a hand up, and I am glad that the government is there to help those who need it. I was one of them at one time in my life. The problem is that it is TOO much now. The government has grown increasingly powerful and intrusive as well as financially indebted. We are talking about a debt of close to $170,000. per household. That is unsustainable! Cleo's often portrays me as one who doesn't want to help the poor or the elderly because I am against government handouts. This is not true. Some government help is fine. But, where we are at today with "so called" help is a farce. Obama himself admits his goals straight forward. He wants to redistribute the wealth around. Some who live in an apartment and rent and live paycheck to paycheck and are just getting by are not happy with that. I wouldn't be either. I lived that way once. We were at the bottom, but we (or anyone else) didn't have to stay there. We worked real hard, counted and saved every penny, sacrificed alot of 'wants' and even 'needs' to save for a multifamily house. I could never afford to pay a mortgage without rental income to help, so we sacrificed and lived with people over us, but, we still owned our own home, and we were proud of it. I saved for school and my husband worked long, hard hours and we eventually were able to buy a second multi family home right next door to ours, and now that's almost paid off as well. Our retirement should be okay due to the rental property and our 401K's and savings we pay into, even if SS is not there for us in 15 years. Some people start off sacrificing everything they have to start their businesses and then build up for themselves a great company and deserve to have their big expensive homes and be able to purchase things like HI and Life ins. and fancy cars or whatever they feel like buying. Obama feels that if you are rich, then you need to give some of that to those who are not. And, if you are poor, the government will make sure that you are cared for by coersion and thievery from those who are rich. This is sooooo wrong. Even if you feel that rich people should not be selfish or that rich people should 'share'. It's no ones place to tell anyone (rich or poor) what to do with their money that they worked hard to get. I am not rich by any means. I am comfortable and content, I guess. But I wasn't always. I know how it is to be both very poor and financially secure. I am not against paying taxes at all. I understand the need for them.

Waterbury, CT is a big city in my state. That city is in so much debt. Their property taxes are already the highest in the state, but now they need to raise them because they have a budget crisis that they can't find the funds for. This will cost on average another $2000. a year for homeowners there. They can't find the funds? How about cutting some of the big spending and doing some state layoffs or getting rid of the humongus pensions that those who retired recieve? It's always bleed the citizens dry! Never cut the spending! Did you ever hear of a government program that ended? I haven't. Obama has no right to redistribute the funds.

You "conservatives" crack me up(ya, Bush was so conservative). You act like these"handouts" caused the economic collapse when in reality the Bush administration caused the collapse, these handouts are in response to the Bush failures so the middle class can get through these tough economic times.

[loserbob 11]

I am never against a hand up, and I am glad that the government is there to help those who need it. I was one of them at one time in my life. The problem is that it is TOO much now. The government has grown increasingly powerful and intrusive as well as financially indebted. We are talking about a debt of close to $170,000. per household. That is unsustainable! Cleo's often portrays me as one who doesn't want to help the poor or the elderly because I am against government handouts. This is not true. Some government help is fine. But, where we are at today with "so called" help is a farce. Obama himself admits his goals straight forward. He wants to redistribute the wealth around. Some who live in an apartment and rent and live paycheck to paycheck and are just getting by are not happy with that. I wouldn't be either. I lived that way once. We were at the bottom, but we (or anyone else) didn't have to stay there. We worked real hard, counted and saved every penny, sacrificed alot of 'wants' and even 'needs' to save for a multifamily house. I could never afford to pay a mortgage without rental income to help, so we sacrificed and lived with people over us, but, we still owned our own home, and we were proud of it. I saved for school and my husband worked long, hard hours and we eventually were able to buy a second multi family home right next door to ours, and now that's almost paid off as well. Our retirement should be okay due to the rental property and our 401K's and savings we pay into, even if SS is not there for us in 15 years. Some people start off sacrificing everything they have to start their businesses and then build up for themselves a great company and deserve to have their big expensive homes and be able to purchase things like HI and Life ins. and fancy cars or whatever they feel like buying. Obama feels that if you are rich, then you need to give some of that to those who are not. And, if you are poor, the government will make sure that you are cared for by coersion and thievery from those who are rich. This is sooooo wrong. Even if you feel that rich people should not be selfish or that rich people should 'share'. It's no ones place to tell anyone (rich or poor) what to do with their money that they worked hard to get. I am not rich by any means. I am comfortable and content, I guess. But I wasn't always. I know how it is to be both very poor and financially secure. I am not against paying taxes at all. I understand the need for them.

Waterbury, CT is a big city in my state. That city is in so much debt. Their property taxes are already the highest in the state, but now they need to raise them because they have a budget crisis that they can't find the funds for. This will cost on average another $2000. a year for homeowners there. They can't find the funds? How about cutting some of the big spending and doing some state layoffs or getting rid of the humongus pensions that those who retired recieve? It's always bleed the citizens dry! Never cut the spending! Did you ever hear of a government program that ended? I haven't. Obama has no right to redistribute the funds.

You "conservatives" crack me up(ya, Bush was so conservative). You act like these"handouts" caused the economic collapse when in reality the Bush administration caused the collapse, these handouts are in response to the Bush failures so the middle class can get through these tough economic times.

Whats a multi-family house? Do you live with other families?