Health Care

[Cleo's Mom 257]

If there's a public option out there that isn't looking to make a profit, how will the other insurance companies compete with it? They can't! When it is the less expensive plan out there, it will grab up all the clients, and this will cause the ins. companies to raise their premiums so they can make their pay outs for medical care, which in turn will eventually close their doors. Then the only option left is the government plan for all. So, in the long run, there will be NO option for the people.

You have yet to respond to this. We don't want the government in control of our medical decisions! When they close down all the ins. companies with their public option plan, they will be all we have left. How is that giving the American people a choice?!

I have responded to this but you just dismiss the facts and keep repeating nonsense and lies. The public option would only be available to about 2% of people - those without health insurance. If you have insurance through your employer you don't decided now what insurance you will have - your employer does. That won't change.

Again, I will repeat. It is not my job to advocate for the insurance industry. They are just another private industry (like private colleges and private schools) that would have to compete with a public industry (like public colleges and public schools). They would have to change the greedy way they do business and lower premiums to compete.

I don't care if they are unwilling to do this. And I doubt they would go out of business. BUT I DON'T CARE IF THEY DO. It would be their own doing.

Many have given the answer for competition between ins. companies. Open the competition between all the states. You can buy auto ins. from a company that's not within your state, why not medical ins.?

How about tort reform? Oh yeah,... Obama's campaign contributers were big time lawyers. He owes them.

Just a red herring. Very little in savings.

[pattygreen 5]

But, if they all go out of bsiness, then the government will be the only one you can have. And if they are the only one you can have, then they make the HC choices and decisions for you. What gets covered, what doesn't who can have what service, and who can't, how much this or that will cost, how much they will pay a doctor for a precedure, and on and on. I, and many other Americans do NOT want the government to have that kind of control. You do?

[Cleo's Mom 257]

But, if they all go out of bsiness, then the government will be the only one you can have. And if they are the only one you can have, then they make the HC choices and decisions for you. What gets covered, what doesn't who can have what service, and who can't, how much this or that will cost, how much they will pay a doctor for a precedure, and on and on. I, and many other Americans do NOT want the government to have that kind of control. You do?

Are you really that naive? Who do you think has that kind of control now???

THE INSURANCE COMPANIES!!!!

That's who decides if they are going to cover you at all when you get sick, or if they will pay for the procedure the doctor says you need. Or which person will get the procedure, etc.. They deny, deny, and deny all the time. They have ALL the control and power. But somehow you are okay with that. I guess because they make obscene profits because of it.

[pattygreen 5]

right now, if I don't like the company I have, I can choose another one. With the government option, I have no choices. Let me get one thing straight. I am all for reforming HC, and it needs to be done. I am just NOT FOR THE GOVERNMENT GETTING THE CONTROL. Opening up the state lines to sell insurance across borders will bring much needed competition to all ins. companies. Right now in CT, there are only 3 to choose from. but there are over 130 in the country. Now, just that ONE law change could really vamp up competition. But why doesn't the government do that? Because it's not really competition that they want. It's a socialized government controlled HC ins. that they want. (control) If they had it, they could tax us for anything they want, like they do on cigarettes right now. Anything that they deem "unhealthy" they can put a tax on and force more money from businesses than ever before. They are trying to get more money from the people so that they could continue on with their luxurious spending sprees. They want that control. They can also do some tort reform. But you also know why that don't do that. There are many kinds of small things that they could do to reform HC, and when done all together will make a big difference, but they choose not to. Some in congress have even said that if the public option isn't in the final bill, why bother voting for it. That shows that reform isn't what they want ultimately. It's the control.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

right now, if I don't like the company I have, I can choose another one. With the government option, I have no choices. Let me get one thing straight. I am all for reforming HC, and it needs to be done. I am just NOT FOR THE GOVERNMENT GETTING THE CONTROL. Opening up the state lines to sell insurance across borders will bring much needed competition to all ins. companies. Right now in CT, there are only 3 to choose from. but there are over 130 in the country. Now, just that ONE law change could really vamp up competition. But why doesn't the government do that? Because it's not really competition that they want. It's a socialized government controlled HC ins. that they want. (control) If they had it, they could tax us for anything they want, like they do on cigarettes right now. Anything that they deem "unhealthy" they can put a tax on and force more money from businesses than ever before. They are trying to get more money from the people so that they could continue on with their luxurious spending sprees. They want that control. They can also do some tort reform. But you also know why that don't do that. There are many kinds of small things that they could do to reform HC, and when done all together will make a big difference, but they choose not to. Some in congress have even said that if the public option isn't in the final bill, why bother voting for it. That shows that reform isn't what they want ultimately. It's the control.

This is just your same old tired "the sinister, plotting, evil government who wants to take all your money and control everything"..ad infinitum...ad nauseum. I have refuted these points before. I am tired of continuing to do so.

I know I have the facts on my side. I don't need to support them with fear tactic and conspiracy theories.

[pattygreen 5]

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 capps on damages. Why? Because as Howard Dean has openly admitted, "Democrats don't want to take on the trial lawyers." Hedidn't need to say why. (They give millions to the democrats for precisely this kind of protection.)

[pattygreen 5]

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!

excerpts fromCharles Krauthammer's editorial(a syndicated columnist)

Edited November 27, 2009 by pattygreen

[pattygreen 5]

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. HC and the treasury.

[pattygreen 5]

A DIVIDER, NOT A UNITER "The gap between Obama's approval rating among Democrats and among republicans is nearly 70 percentage points--a higher partisan divide than either Bill Clinton or George W Bush experienced. Obama's agenda and actions this year, and some mistakes, have solidified this divide." So much for his promise to bring "this country together as a healed and united nation." (Matthew Dowd noted this about our post-partisan president.)

[pattygreen 5]

We wont be able to climb out of this debt. We wouldn't be the first great Nation to bankrupt themselves. 4 months ago, a report was issued by the Social Security and Medicare trustees that stated that the combined funded liability of the two programs has reahed $107 Trillion. That's 7X the size of the U.S. economy. Just to pay for these programs, excluding everything else the gov. does, they'd have to collect 1/3 of the earnings of every American by 2054. That, or cut benefits. This is a gov. created vise. But, like a neurotic who can never perceive the self-inflicted nature of his troubles, Democrats cannot or will not see that much of what is wrong with Americas health care system is government caused. The patient has a 104 fever and Dr. Democrat is prescribing a heating pad! The bills would cost taxpayers more than $3 TRILLION over the first 10 years. They would burden the entire U.S. economy with new and onerous taxes, stifle medical advances and diminish the quality of care. Even then, they would not cover all of the uninsured.

When you compare survival rates after cancer diagnosis, a much better gauge of HC quality, the U.S. leads the world. As for spending too much on HC, democrats refuse to see gov. incentives contributed to the problem. Making HI plans deductable for employers but not for individuals has encouraged a "third party payer" system that insulates people from the cost of their care. This leads to over consumption. By encouraging a free for all liability system (half of all Drs. are sued at least once) that enriches their chief doners, trial lawyers, the Dems have added billions to the cost of medical care by forcing Drs. to practice defensive medicine. Government has jacked up the price of HI by piling mandates on Ins. companioes forcing them to cover everything from psychotherapy to invitro fertilization. If the gov. would allow interstae sale of HI, nearly everyone would be able to find affordable plans.

Rather than consider a reform that would bring HI rates down, Pelosi prefers to demonize Ins. companies as "villians" while Obama rails at them for "holding us hostage." Having misdiagnosed what ails us, the Nurse Ratched Democrats are poised to administer their remedy. Delivering much more of the same. If we were facing a likely fiscal train wreck before Obama took office, we are facing a certainty now.

(excerpts from Mona Charen, a syndicated columnist)

[tdslf1 0]

I think this needs to be made clear.

Most people do not support the current bill in the Senate in its current form, but we do support passing healthcare. That is the current question that most are being asked. Do they support the healthcare bill now? Most people do support having healthcare, but not in the current form of

a) healthcare going backwards for women that they passed in the House

:smile: not all Americans being insured

c) No Single payer system

d) Spending more money

What these polls point to are for the current bill, not healthcare completely. Please understand the difference. Most people do want it, just with the things listed above getting address better.

[Fae 0]

Most people that live in countries that have government run health care, usually get it for free, by it being put straight into their taxes. This new healthcare reform and I do think the system needs to be reformed by all means, basically does not entitle every Amercian to health care.

You still have to pay for it and if you don't, you get fined. How are certain people, who can't even afford to barely feed themselves, going to be able to afford this healthcare? That's my main question about it. I'm not talking about bums here ether. I'm talking about people with jobs, factory workers, waitresses, cashiers. People that live pay check to pay check. How will they pay for this? What will happen to them if they can't pay the fine? You can't buy auto insurance, you can't legally drive. What happens when you don't have health care insurance? I wonder about this.

This system is not our own and it's not something that has been well established in other countries that have free insurance for all. It's something totally different.

I know in the state of Mass, they did try something similar to this. Making health care mandatory for all, but making everyone pay to have it. A lot of people simply didn't purchase it and they just complied fine after fine from health care they could not afford.

Everyone *needs* health care, don't get me wrong. Thousands of people die every year simply because they do not have insurance and cannot afford treatment in the US alone.

However, I don't think forcing people to pay for it, will help the situation ether. There will be tons of people that can't afford it for good reason, they have bills, they need to eat. Or for bad reasons, they rather go to the strip club or go bar hop. Ether way, people will fall through the cracks. And personally, since this health care is supposed to make everything "better", that really bothers me.

[pattygreen 5]

The bill includes all sorts of budget gimmicks, two of which illustrate that there is no fiscal restraint in it. One calls for steep cuts in Medicare and the other imposes a 40% excise tax on private, gold plated health plans. It's just not plausible that this Congress will actually cut Medicare or tax health plans the unions have spent decades creating. They say they're now instructing agencies to put freezes on spending or propose a 5% cut in their budgets for next year. This wont add up to much unless they use the budgets they had before the stimulus inflated their spending as their baseline in calculating their cuts. For example, if the education dept. uses its current stimulus inflated budget of $141 billioninstead of the $60 billion budget it had before Obama moved into the WH, freezing its budget will do nothing to fix the fiscal mess the president has created.

Mr. Obama's spending choices are dragging congressional Democrats into ugly electoral territory where many are likely to meet a brutal fate next fall!

[BJean 16]

It is absolutely correct that Americans want healthcare reform!!! The fact that Congress hasn't been able to come up with an acceptable plan simply illustrates how powerful the insurance lobbies are!

Why we should put up with a system that puts an insurance company between us and our doctors is absolutely beyond me.

Everybody screams about socialized medicine but very few Americans really know much about it other than what they've been told by people who stand to lose if we should adopt a decent universal health care system.

There are countries who have good government run health care systems and countries whose systems do not work very well. We should be smart and learn from both models. But we are so friggin' tied up with arguments that cloud the true issues, we aren't even willing to sensibly discuss the possibilities.

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.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

It is absolutely correct that Americans want healthcare reform!!! The fact that Congress hasn't been able to come up with an acceptable plan simply illustrates how powerful the insurance lobbies are!

Why we should put up with a system that puts an insurance company between us and our doctors is absolutely beyond me.

Everybody screams about socialized medicine but very few Americans really know much about it other than what they've been told by people who stand to lose if we should adopt a decent universal health care system.

151 members of congress receive socialized (government run) health care - a/k/a: medicare, including 66 republicans who oppose allowing the american public the opportunity to have a public option (government run health care). I will again repeat my mantra: If it weren't for hypocrisy, the republicans would have nothing.

There are countries who have good government run health care systems and countries whose systems do not work very well. We should be smart and learn from both models. But we are so friggin' tied up with arguments that cloud the true issues, we aren't even willing to sensibly discuss the possibilities.

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.

I agree with everything else you say. To the usual government bashing, fear mongering, distorting and lying posts I say:

YAWN. :w00t: