The Big Lie of Health Care Reform

1. 0

   Poppa Bluesposted 14 years ago

   This article is worth reading because it explains clearly why the claims about the health care bill crafted by Obama is nothing but LIES!
   
   March 13, 2010
   The Big Lie of Health Care Reform
   By Robert Gelinas
   
   One-Sixth of the US Economy is threatened with a takeover by the Federal Government on the erroneous rationale that " Tens of millions` of people in the US are without health care insurance, and therefore are being denied access to adequate health care." Unjust! Unfair!
   
   This is, of course, an absolute lie. And nor do some large number of people "die every day from lack of health insurance coverage." That too is a lie.
   
   Access to the health care providers (professional services) and medicine (products) of the best health care system in the world is already universal and available to every US Citizen, legal resident, illegal alien, prisoner, detainee, or visitor - regardless of whether anyone is covered by any insurance policy or health plan. For heaven's sake, even the illegal aliens have figured out that anyone who walks into an Emergency Room is required by law ( EMTALA) to be treated, regardless of the person's ability to pay.
   
   The Big Lie: Without health care insurance, there is no access to health care.
   
   Health care insurance coverage is but one method of paying for health care products and services. Doctors and hospitals are quite open to accepting cash, checks, or credit cards for their services rendered and have no problem with getting paid directly -- meaning they get their money right away, don't have to fill out and file mounds of bureaucratic paperwork with insurance companies, don't have to worry about what treatments are approved and reimbursable by the insurance companies, etc.
   
   In fact, when health care is directly paid for by a patient, then issues like preexisting conditions, escalating premium rates, denied claims, dropped policies, and all of the regularly lamented shortcomings of the health insurance industry become moot. Case in point: elective surgery such as breast augmentation is a medical procedure that isn't covered by any health insurance, but somehow there doesn't seem to be any access issues to the procedure or lack of them occurring.
   
   And yet most people are led to believe that they simply can't afford to pay for their own health services directly. That's why they purchase health insurance, or their employer purchases it for them as an employee benefit. Actually, this too is a great misunderstanding of the problems with respect to health insurance coverage, which are completely distinct issues from access to actual health care services.
   
   Any form of insurance (Home, Car, Flood, Health Care, etc.) is nothing more than a financial instrument used to mitigate an unacceptable potential financial risk. Insurance wouldn't work unless more people are paying into a common pool than are taking money out of it. The whole idea of insurance coverage is to spread financial risk among many people so that any one member isn't hit with some catastrophic expense should a major need occur. But in many respects, most health insurance coverage has been expanded in scope to become some kind of "Health Services Subscription Club" that pays for many services that really don't represent unacceptable financial risks by themselves.
   
   Indeed, overpaying beyond an individual's actual needs via insurance premiums is a viable means to avoid getting hit with major medical expenses. However, that's why they invented Catastrophic Insurance Policies -- i.e. those cheaper high-deductible plans that don't kick in until direct expenses go over a few thousand dollars.
   
   Regardless, even without any kind of health insurance policy whatsoever or ObamaCare, if someone gets in a car wreck, the ambulance will still respond and take the injured to the Emergency Room, where they will be treated regardless of their ability to pay. It's already the law.
   
   The whole ObamaCare health care reform debate isn't really about people who already have health insurance; rather, it's supposedly being crafted for the benefit of all those who are without coverage, who need it, but can't afford it. Nevertheless, if tomorrow the government bought health insurance policies for everyone who doesn't have one, that wouldn't make access to health care services any more available than they already are.
   
   To the contrary, the law of supply and demand dictates that if 30 million or more new customers are added to a market place (the demand), and there is no proportional increase in the number of service providers (the supply), then prices will go up as service availability goes down -- which means the whole system gets worse for everyone -- not better.
   
   The real issue is that there are those who wish to argue that, despite all the adverse (if not catastrophic) consequences of ObamaCare to the system, health care is a "basic human right" and therefore the basis for a massive new government entitlement program. But health care isn't an "inalienable right" -- it's a basic human necessity -- just like food, clothing and shelter. All of these basic human necessities are bought and sold every day in the free market in the context of the goods and services that they really are.
   
   The simple reality is this: there are those in our society who can afford these necessities, and there are those in our society who can't. For those who can't afford the basic human necessity of proper health care -- just like food, clothing, and shelter -- that need becomes the basis of voluntary charity and aid.
   
   Conversely, the government version of involuntary charity via taxation is called "Welfare." So whether it's private charity or a government welfare program that helps people buy something they otherwise couldn't afford but need, that's fine; just recognize that's the issue -- not an entitled right, not an access or availability problem, not a lack of insurance policies.
   
   Now if making health care more affordable for everyone is really the goal, to thereby lower the threshold of who can readily pay for it directly and/or indirectly via an insurance policy, and thus reduce the necessity of charity and/or welfare for those who need assistance, then free market business forces, scientific and technological advances, along with increased competition -- not intrusive government forces -- are the answers.
   
   Consider one mathematical fact: the purchase of 30 million new insurance policies that cost $5,000 each is only $150 billion, which is a fraction of the real price tag of ObamaCare.
   
   One can therefore reasonably conclude that ObamaCare isn't really about making health care more available or affordable to those who need it and can't afford it. It isn't about lowering insurance costs or reducing the federal deficit -- what has been proposed achieves none of these objectives.
   
   ObamaCare is simply a leviathan of a lie, whose only practical impact for generations to come will be increased welfare state dependency on government, greater government intrusion, and control over people's personal lives and privacy, reduced availability of health care providers as more of them are driven from their professions -- all of which translates to higher and higher costs, which only accelerates the country's financial death spiral.
   
   But that's to be expected: most grandiose plans predicated on lies don't end well.
   
   Robert Gelinas is a technology executive at JPE Inc. Consulting, the Publisher of ArcheBooks Publishing, the author of The Mustard Seed and five other novels.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      qwarkposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      There are powerful opinions on both sides of the health care bill.
      If you haven't read and understand the 16 lb, 2000+ page bill, then I don't want to hear from ya.
      Yer blowing smoke outa yer rectum!

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Evan G Rogersposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Don't you think that it's ludicrous to assume that anyone has actually read the bill?  2,000 pages is a bit much for anyone to actually understand. We need less government, not more.

         replyreport
   2. 71

      thisisoliposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      As an Englishman emmigrating to America I can safely say that one of my biggest issues is the lack of a national health service in America.
      
      America is one of the few countries which has no real National Health Service.
      
      I like the way you say everyone can use hospitals in america, they can pay by cash or credit card without insurance.
      
      What about the people who can't afford either medical insurance, or direct hospital bills?
      
      Maybe I have been softened by being able to go to the doctors for free, even if I just think I have a problem to get it checked out without worry. But I am defiantely going to miss that level of security when I leave for America.

      replyreport
      1. 70

         Cagsilposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Okay, I don't want this to sound too awkward, so I'm just going to say it.
         
         First off Oli, you can walk into any hospital in the Country and get your problem solved. NO Hospital can deny anyone services.
         
         They do not reserve that right, as a business, because of code of ethics of the AMA association which tells Doctor's that they are to help ALL people, not select few.
         
         Just a thought.
         
         P.S. that level of security you are going to miss? is more of an invasion into individual right to life and right to choice than it's worth. The Government is hard-wired into almost everyone's life, who isn't homeless. That's a bit tight, don't you think?

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Doug Hughesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            I just got back from the ER - they have a sign posted at admissions - they are obliged to 'stabilize' a patient regardless of ability to pay - but the sign doesn't imply  they are obliged to treat a non-emergency condition. This is why 85% have some kind of insurance.
            
            Suggesting that the average person can whip out a checkbook and pay hundreds or thousands of dollars  (and that's what an overnight stay, MRI, CAT,  MRA, ambulance trip, blood tests, and really poor hospital food will cost BC/BS) The average family makes 50K per year. The average family medical insurance costs 13K - a whopping 26% of their gross income. Kep in mind the word 'average' means as many people make LESS than 50K  as earn more... If you don't get insurance through work, that's the other 15%  -  American families cut out of the American dream.
            
            When you get through the arguments against - it's all excuses for excluding the poor from life-saving services. "Let them eat cake.", as Marie put it..

            replyreport
            1. 60

               JON EWALLposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               One day the truth will set you free.
               
               Check this out
               The taxpayers are paying $ 1 billion a day interest on the national debt.
               
               The Obama administration and the 111th congress in 1 year,the deficit has exceeded the last 6 years of the bush administration combined.
               
               The illegal are costing our government  $300 billion+ a year in government entitlements
               In the proposed healthcare bill, illegals are not excluded in healthcare entitlements. The Republican amendment to exclude illegals was defeated by the dems.
               Obama was in ohio today campaigning for the bill,which has not been written. When will the press call him on his lies and half truths.
               
               Can you imagine paying for a service that will not provide you the service until 4 years latter? All that money collected will be put in a trust fund for future use, really.Sounds like something like the social security trust fund? We the government owes the fund $2.5 trillion ,right now we have iou's from the government
               
               The house is again working on a jobs bill, cost to the deficit another $100 billion.
               
               I heard that in the spring the president and congress will be planting a lot of money trees. Tthey will need a lot of fertilizer ,the clean kind. we hope.

               replyreport
            2. 55

               Sab Ohposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               "When you get through the arguments against - it's all excuses for excluding the poor from life-saving services. "Let them eat cake.", as Marie put it.."
               
               
               Emotional blackmail is a cheap, unreasonable, and ultimately ineffective way to demand one way of addressing an issue.

               replyreport
2. 64

   SparklingJewelposted 14 years ago

   here's another interesting perspective
   
   "'We allow the insurance industry to run wild in this country,' President Obama declared [last] Monday. 'We can't have a system that works better for the insurance companies than it does for the American people.' Yet Obama's plan to tame health insurers would boost their business, protect them from competition and guarantee their profits, all at the expense of consumers and taxpayers. It is therefore not surprising that the insurance companies, while they object to the president's rhetoric and quibble over some of the details, are happy to be domesticated. ... As he himself notes, 'They're going to have 30 million new customers,' thanks to the government's mandates and subsidies. To distract us from the favor he is doing for insurers, Obama claims to be getting tough with them by demanding that they take all comers and charge them all the same rates, without regard to health. While abolishing risk-based pricing contradicts a basic principle of the insurance business, the industry has to weigh the loss of that freedom against the gain of government-guaranteed revenue. Despite his talk about reining in 'excessive' premium hikes, Obama's plan commits him to keeping insurers financially sound so they can provide the coverage he is promising. ... In essence, then, Obama's plan would use money forcibly extracted from taxpayers and policyholders to keep insurers healthy." --columnist Jacob Sullum

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Evan G Rogersposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      This is a good argument.
      
      'Those bastard health insurance companies!!! I'm going to force them to pay for EVERYONE, no matter the cost, and no matter if they have a pre-existing condition!!'
      
      Translates, in the ears of insurance companies, directly into
      
      'I'm going to force insurance companies to gain the money and profits that would be generated by the people can't afford it now!'
      
      or, a bit more directly...
      
      'i'm going to force everyone to pay money to insurance companies!'
      
      .... And we're supposed to hate the insurance companies?

      replyreport
      1. 55

         Sab Ohposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         You forgot to add:
         
         "I'm going to make sure that the insurance companies all go under so the 'we know better - trust us' government can take over."

         replyreport
         1. 70

            Cagsilposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            

            replyreport
      2. 65

         Ralph Deedsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Yes. Health insurance companies are parasites on the body politic. They contribute to skyrocketing health care costs and perform no necessary function.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Poppa Bluesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            Really? Then what is government???
            
            If insurance companies are so bad, why is Obama giving them 30 million new customers and forcing Americans to buy their product??
            
            The fact is, we couldn't live without insurance. They serve a valuable function, managing the risk of disaster in our lives and for that service they collect a small profit. That's hardly evil!

            replyreport
            1. 65

               Ralph Deedsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               "If insurance companies are so bad, why is Obama giving them 30 million new customers and forcing Americans to buy their product??"
               
               Good question. A better solution would be universal single payer coverage which could be accomplished by phasing in an expansion of Medicare to cover everyone. At the very least making an effective public option available is essential in order to put a brake on insurance company outrageous depredations.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  Poppa Bluesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  So essentially you want the government to become an insurance company! How is that different? You think there will be a big "savings" because they won't "charge" a "profit"?
                  
                  Yeah I'd agree but we both know that government is incapable of containing costs. they have no incentive to! They do have incentive to expand and frankly, they're way too big already!

                  replyreport
3. 0

   Madame Xposted 14 years ago

   It's never been about healthcare. Those are just the scare tactics. It's about government takeover and intrusion into our lives.
   
   No wonder Pelosi et. al. are drooling over it.
   
   Good article Poppa

   replyreport
   1. 64

      SparklingJewelposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      yes, but the article shows just another of the many "twists" that Obama perpetuates that proves his motives, which is as you say, government intrusion and government being run by the big systems/elites...I am not dissing the threads point

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Madame Xposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         We agree jewel - you just hit the "post" button faster then me

         replyreport
4. 60

   lender3212000posted 14 years ago

   Great article! I wish mainstream media would get on board with exposing this farce for what it is. They are just so afriad to touch it that we continue to get nothing but propaganda shoved down our throats.

   replyreport
5. 60

   Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years ago

   Using lies to scare rubes into believing something that is not close to the truth is absolutely immoral.  This idiot along with the other you quoted last week are living in a parallel universe.

   replyreport
   1. 64

      SparklingJewelposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      ...and that is what this is all about...people coming to the understanding of what Truth is, and how it plays out in life.
      
      It is easy to see there are in general, just two ways of living in and looking at the world, God's and man's.
      
      until people accept each others perspectives and start working together on the steps and issues that can be resonably lived with by all involved, there will be no peace
      
      Obama's agenda as part of a larger agenda to decide what is best for others is not sitting well with most people, as per the degree to which they have awakened what is going on. Man's way of seeing the world is a misuse of power, power used to
      "vampirize" off the people.
      
      We are looking at people needing to discern between what is "natural law"; the way the Universe was created and man's place in the scheme of things

      replyreport
   2. 0

      Poppa Bluesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      You have no credibility Ron! You always speak in generalities without any examples to back up what you say. We have already established the fact that you are a socialist and would prefer to live in Cuba, so what's your point?
      
      Why are they lies? Because you say so? You'll have to do better than that!

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         I'm the only one who recognizes the lies of the wingnuts you quote? 
         
         Citing sources which actually contradict your statements doesn't seem to be helping your case much.
         
         Calling your assertion that I am a Socialist a "fact" is another lie on your part, but you'll continue to repeat it, hoping in vain that by doing so it will become truth.
         
         Again, good luck with that.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Madame Xposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            Only because you sound like one

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               To people who recklessly throw terms around, I'm sure I do.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  Madame Xposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  Who is it that throws terms around?

                  replyreport
         2. 0

            Poppa Bluesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            Well I'm not going to bother looking for the post where you said you'd "rather live in Cuba, because at least THEY have health care"
            
            Maybe you'll remember it though. That pretty much cements the label socialist to you in my opinion. Let's face it, you're always standing up for the "common good", so what would you call it?
            
            This is what I don't get, there's nothing wrong with believing in socialism, it's just not what America was founded upon, so why would you be ashamed of the label? You should wear it proudly along with your hammer and sickle tee shirt!

            replyreport
            1. 0

               Madame Xposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               He just doesn't want to admit it. If he does, then he can't pass off his stance as being for the ideals of our Constitution

               replyreport
6. 0

   Madame Xposted 14 years ago

   Seems the voice of wisdom and all knowledge has decided to grace us with his presence

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Only among this group could I reasonably claim such a title.

      replyreport
7. 79

   mega1posted 14 years ago

   my take on the health care issue:
   
   #1 - at least this president's administration is doing SOMETHING
   #2 - the "Right" like to say "most" people think that government is taking over our lives - they've been saying this since I was in diapers.  Nothing is new on that front
   #3 - the people opposing Obama are not offering any solutions, just criticism - as usual.  These are the same people that have a lot of media power, and still lost the last election - that tells me that the people they don't reach with their polls are still in the majority and their voice is still being heard (in the background)
   #4 - most young people (under 30) I know are worried that if the medical establishment and also insurance establishment, (two different estabs.) are not regulated somehow, they will be overwhelmed by medical bills and insurance costs before they can ever buy homes, have families or pay for their educations.  With this looming ahead of them they are feeling disheartened in their life paths before they can even get started.
   
   (and that's just a start of all the things I think about the big business of medical and insurance and their disastrous impact on our lives, even though many of us don't see it or know it is affecting us because we may not have had direct impact from the lack of regulation - so far)

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Madame Xposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      #1 - even the Nazi's did "something"
      #2 - the "right" has been saying that about government since you were in diapers because the government has been doing just that since you were in diapers
      #3 - the people opposing Obama have offered several options on how to proceed since he introduced this monstrosity but all input from any republican has been either ignored or rejected outright
      #4 - most young people are too busy enjoying their lives to worry about ill-health at this time
      
      This bill is going to destroy us. Yes, something needs to be done, but not this.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         PrettyPantherposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Okay, what would the "right" say needs to be done about it?  Since the "right" had the majority in Congress for six years with a Republican president, and did nothing, I'm curious to know what you think they would do?

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            In fairness, they did make some suggestions...
            
            None that came close to solving the big problems, but I think they did actually think this through to the best of their ability.
            
            More's the pity.

            replyreport
         2. 0

            Madame Xposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            They have suggested a number of things. The first being that competition be allowed across state lines for insurance companies. When companies are allowed to compete prices come down because consumers go to either the better price or the better service.
            
            Another thing they suggested was tort reform.
            
            Both things were dismissed by the democrat-controlled congress, even after all of Obama's hot air about "bi-partisan" effort. Instead they went into a room and locked the door.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               PrettyPantherposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               And how will this help the uninsured?

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  Madame Xposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  Allowing competition across state lines makes insurance affordable.

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     PrettyPantherposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                     That is debatable.  In any case, I believe both the House and Senate bills have incorporated this idea.

                     replyreport
                     1. 65

                        Ralph Deedsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                        That is plain wrong. It would completely undermine the individual states' ability to regulate and result in a "race to the bottom." I.e., the companies located in the least regulated states would drive those in the regulated states out of business, much like what occurred in the credit card business. We would end up with insurance available from companies located in one or two states with weak regulations--e.g., North Dakota or Mississippi.

                        replyreport
                        1. 0

                           Madame Xposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                           It's the only way to have an insurance company shake out, which is very badly needed. Put proper regs in after they've cleaned house.

                           replyreport
                        2. 0

                           PrettyPantherposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                           I know what you're saying, Ralph.  I just didn't have the energy to write it all out so I settled on "that's debatable."  lol

                           replyreport
                     2. 0

                        Madame Xposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                        No, it is not in either bill. The democrats have summarily rejected all bi-partisan efforts.

                        replyreport
                        1. 0

                           PrettyPantherposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                           That's not true, although I'm sure you already know that so I don't know why I waste my time pointing it out.

                           replyreport
                           1. 0

                              Madame Xposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                              Because you don't know what you're talking about. Free-market competition among insurers across state lines is not in either bill. And yes, the democrats actually locked the door as they were crafting this bill so no one else would have any input but them.

                              replyreport
                  2. 60

                     Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                     Yeah, just like it did with bank credit cards...
                     
                     Oh wait, that didn't quite work out as planned.

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        Madame Xposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                        Apples and oranges.
                        
                        But a socialist wouldn't be able to see the difference

                        replyreport
         3. 79

            mega1posted 14 years agoin reply to this

            I can't speak for those guys, or any other guys.  I should tell you that most evenings in this house the Fox news people are spouting off and it is beginning to just sound like background.  But I have noticed they haven't offered any real constructive solutions for medical insurance or anything else for that matter.  So how could I tell you what they think would work?  they don't say that  - they just dis the president and anyone who they call a "progressive liberal"  -
            
            I forgot to say that I don't really like the idea of being required to have health insurance whether you like it or not.  I am just hoping that some brilliant alternative health providers will put together some affordable medical insurance for us whole-person health care nuts, that will include more modern methods with less pharmaceutical healthcare.  Since the current medical establishment won't cover "alternative" treatments I am currently out of luck even if I could afford their $600/month premiums!

            replyreport
            1. 0

               PrettyPantherposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               I hear you, mega.  These bills are not perfect by any means, and there is quite a bit I don't like about them, but they are a small step in the right direction.

               replyreport
            2. 55

               Sab Ohposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               " But I have noticed they haven't offered any real constructive solutions for medical insurance or anything else for that matter."
               
               Then you, like the dems, haven't been paying attention.

               replyreport
         4. 60

            Evan G Rogersposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            What do we need to do about it?
            
            Get. Government. Out. Entirely.
            
            The government's tentacles  are already so entangled in the healthcare debate. Just look at the history of health care legislation in the US.  --- there's a lot of it!!!
            
            Get the government out, and let the market work.

            replyreport
            1. 55

               Sab Ohposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               Yeah, I don't think the current administration is capable of even considering such a point of view.

               replyreport
8. 60

   theirishobserver.posted 14 years ago

   Good morning,
   
   1 -- in every six dollars in the U.S. economy is spent on health care today.1
   
   If we do nothing, in 30 years, 1 out of every three dollars in our economy will be tied up in the health care system.2
   
   Skyrocketing health care costs aren't just crippling the U.S. economy -- they're emptying the pocketbooks of American families.  If we do not enact health insurance reform, individual and family spending on premiums and out-of-pocket health care costs could increase 79 percent in just 10 years.3
   
   Bottom line: the cost of doing nothing is too high.  The time is now to reform our broken health care system.
   
   
   
   1 is just the latest number in 'Health Reform by the Numbers,' our online campaign to raise awareness about why we just can't wait any longer for health insurance reform.  Help spread the word by forwarding this message to your friends, family and online networks.
   
   Let's get it done.
   
   Sincerely,
   
   Nancy-Ann DeParle
   Director, White House Office of Health Reform

   replyreport
9. 64

   SparklingJewelposted 14 years ago

   I think it is important to step back a bit and look at this whole picture again...the consciousness of many has changed a lot gradually over the last 20-40 years. The main things have been the elite padding their pockets and accounts through their devious and misguided business affairs and collusion with government officials. It has taken the citizens a long time to see how those plans have corrupted their lives and lead them sheepishly into slavery of the systems of the elites.
   
   There is a lot to discern here and sort out, all sides have only a portion of the right ideas on how and what to change
   
   that is why my plan is to continue to go to my highest consciousness to seek answers for my individual situation and decide for myself where I want to fit in to, if I want to fit into, a system...I have that right per the Constituion; this bill deems to take that away

   replyreport
10. 67

    MikeNVposted 14 years ago

    Unfortunately the cost to pay direct for your own Health Care can be as much as 7x higher!  These are the abuses that need to be fixed.
    
    Hospitals routinely charge more to the uninsured.  This is a documented practice:
    
    COPYRIGHT 2005 Association of Trial Lawyers of America
    
    "A Los Angeles judge has approved the settlement of a nationwide class action against Tenet Healthcare Corp., one of the largest providers of health care in the country, headquartered in California. The suit claims that Tenet’s 114 hospitals in 16 states routinely charged uninsured patients substantially higher rates than those charged to patients with health insurance."
    
    If interested you can read the full text here:  http://www.healthsynergyrx.com/hospital … sured.html
    
    This is not isolated.  I am quoting just one case... there are 100's of documented cases.
    
    The uninsured should be able to purchase their care without insurance at the same rate as the insured.  But this is NOT the case.
    
    Actually even trying to get a "quote" for care is nearly impossible as the Billing Codes are overly complex and the Hospital Staffers know very little about what they are doing and are basically told by management NOT to quote costs.  I have first hand experience with this practice.
    
    Try it yourself.  Call your local hospital and ask how much it costs to have any procedure performed?
    
    Hospitals do NOT want to deal with the uninsured.
    
    20 Ways Hospitals Overcharge Patients
    
    http://www.healthsynergyrx.com/20-ways- … ients.html
    
    So we definitely need to address these issues.  We definitely need to look at our view of Health Care which is focused on expensive treatments after one becomes ill and very little preventative medicine.
    
    Health Care beings with PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. What you put into your own body!
    
    I read the fallacy that not having insurance kills X amount of people each year.  Lack of insurance kills no one.  Disease kills people... accident kills people.  Hospitals can not by law turn people away.  Sure there are people who die... but it's not because they don't have insurance.  It's because they did not take personal responsibility for their actions.
    
    If you are a 501C Not for profit hospital you are required by law to provide charitable services.
    
    The problem is the System is broken, there are abuses... but the reality is the proposed legislation will not fix anything... it will just make care more expensive.
    
    This legislation penalizes Physicians. The very people that have to provide the care.
    
    This bill is full of pork projects and special interest deals.
    
    Forcing people to buy insurance will not make them healthy any more than having automobile insurance will reduce my risk of having an accident.
    
    Here is a simple analogy.  This bill forces insurance companies to take on "pre existing conditions"... at what cost who knows?  But lets say at the same cost as everyone else.
    
    This is like telling Automobile insurers they have to offer Auto Insurance to those convicted of DUI's at the same price as every one else!  Can you imagine what your premiums would jump too?
    
    Like DUI people with Pre Existing conditions will be higher risk... thus rates MUST be raised to cover them.
    
    Society has got to decide where it wants to allocate it's resources.  There is simply not enough money to play war all over the world, build business infrastructure, pay for everyone's medical needs, and support lifestyles of continuing consumption.
    
    Lets get behind REAL HEALTH CARE REFORM and Obamacare simply is NOT the answer.
    
    And it's better to do nothing than to enact laws that will make a bad system worse.

    replyreport
11. 70

    Cagsilposted 14 years ago

    The Big Lie of Health Care Reform? The WHOLE Concept!
    
    Edit: One HUGE distraction played out in the media so as to spin understanding.

    replyreport
    1. 0

       Madame Xposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       

       replyreport
12. 70

    Cagsilposted 14 years ago

    Did I say something funny?

    replyreport
    1. 0

       Madame Xposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       Yes.

       replyreport
       1. 70

          Cagsilposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          Okay, might letting me in on why it's funny? Please do tell. I am curious.

          replyreport
13. 0

    Madame Xposted 14 years ago

    "The WHOLE concept."
    
    None of this banter about healthcare reform is about healthcare. It is nothing more than a tax bill - hence, the Slaughter Proposal. So I found it amusing that you would point that out, in an oblique way. Perhaps I misunderstood your post.

    replyreport
14. 80

    bgpappaposted 14 years ago

    The OP lays out the idealogical argument.  Some believe that access to healthcare is a privilege that should be sold on the open market.
    
    Others believe it is a right.  The market has been given its chance to work but it simply doesn't at this point.  The healthcare reform isn't just about those who are uninsured, but also about those who have insurance but still pays thousands in premiums, copays, deductables and only have their insurance pulled when they actually need it the most.
    
    The Public option doesn't take over the system.  It adds a competitor.  The "takeover" argument is a domino effect argument without much objective support. 
    
    I don't am not a huge fan of the bill myself.  But it does get rid of preexisting conditions which is good and objective financial observers find it will help with the national deficit (CBO).

    replyreport
15. 70

    Cagsilposted 14 years ago

    Well, it seems that the "Healthcare" issue/problem is being looked at in the wrong manner, which is exactly what "business" and "government" wants people to think.
    
    If anyone truly understood, then "Healthcare" reform wouldn't really be an issue at all.
    
    The simple fact- U.S. Government "Employment" and "Minimum Wage" Programs have become non-growth problems.
    
    The Social Security program is deceitful and abused by both- Government and Business, and to some dishonest people.
    
    Healthcare Reform is a myth, as is the Government providing "Healthcare" to anyone. It's absurd.
    
    The Healthcare system is a distraction topic made to be a problem. Each person should have the knowledge and understanding that Government's main purpose is the protection against domestic and foreign threats- it's a republic, NOT a democracy.
    
    Capitalism can strive and grow in a Republic environment, but falters in any other, because GOVERNMENT takes too much.
    
    Government shouldn't be interferring to this extent into the lives of citizens. It's detrimental to the founding fathers that started America.
    
    The pure and simple fact is that each person should be responsible enough to have healthcare for themselves and be able to pay for it. What's lost in translation is the "how to do it"?
    
    Which is tied to another problem, but I won't go into but did recently write a hub about Joblessness? If anyone wants to hear my take on that side of the equation.
    
    Well, that's my thoughts about it. If I need to clarify anything, please do let me know.

    replyreport
16. 71

    thisisoliposted 14 years ago

    All I know is that whenever my fiancee has had to have treatment in America we have got hit with some horrendous bills.
    
    Is emergency treatment free in America?
    
    To be honest the English government has only really started interfering recently, and most of that was down to the Blair era, who was basically the Bush lapdog.
    
    I have seen very little in the way of govenment interference with our liberties in England, compared to where I'm moving to we have lesser laws on everything from public drunkeness and possesion of marijuana, to increased consumer protection laws which ensure we do not get ripped off.

    replyreport
17. 85

    gamergirlposted 14 years ago

    Oh look, another thread by Poppa denouncing the merits of universal health care...
    
    Oh, and we smacked through the wall of Godwin's Law before the end of page one.
    
    Sprinkle in some personal attacks.. a liberal dosing of buzz words meant to label one side or the other as the "greater evil", McCarthy-esque labels of Socialism, big government paranoia..
    
    Didn't we leave the Cold War a long time ago?

    replyreport
    1. 0

       PrettyPantherposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       You noticed a pattern, huh?  ;-)

       replyreport
18. 60

    Doug Hughesposted 14 years ago

    The pattern is that they never address the components of the problem.
    
    They never discuss 45,000 people will die for the lack of healthcare due to the fact they DON"T HAVE INSURANCE! (Harvard study - last year)
    
    (You do hear lame excuses - fist denial that Harvard is reputable - oh reeeely? - anyone can go to the ER - of coure the ER is only required to stabilize a patient - not provide health care. And my favorite - they can just pay cash if they don't have insurance.)
    
    They don't want to discuss that 40 million Americans don't have health insurance and this bill will cover 30 million of them.
    
    They don't want to discuss that this bill will REDUCE the deficit - 100 billion in the first decade while programs are brought up to speed, and a TRILLION in the next decade when everything is in place.
    
    (The trillion in the second decade kicks a hole in the argument that the 100 billion in the first decade is accounting tricks.)
    
    The fact is the choice is between this bill and doing nothing. Doing nothing is going to be VERY expensive for everyone. The average premium jump in CA (non-group policies) was 25%.
    
    People with pre-existing conditions will be covered. NO one who gets sick will have their policy cancelled. This is common practice now - somtimes fatal. Insurace companies are comfortable killing a patient rather than pay for expensive therapy and they are spending huge amounts in DC to keep it that way. Talk about your 'special deals'.
    
    They don't want to discuss that the US ranks #37 in the world - not because we have a second rate doctors or hospitals - but because we treat people without insurance like 3rd world refugeees. (actually worse, sometimes)
    
    It's been proven over and over - the bill doesn't cover abortion - doean't provide benefits to illegal aliens - drasticly slows the increase in premiums. There is no public option - there is no 'government takeover' of health care. There are no death panels - there is no one between you and your doctor. And you hear these lies repeated and repeated and repeated.
    
    I hear a lot of complaints about process. I'm not crazy about democrats using the same tactics as the GOP - but the GOP has no cause to complain about the tricks they cooked up first. Childbirth is not a neat or pretty process either - but it's the result that you remember. Ultimately, that will be true of HCR.
    
    There are flaws in Health Care Reform as it will become law. The benefits to society - the individuals with insurance - those without it - and the economic health of the country FAR outweigh the defects. I respect the rights of those who have a different opinion, but I have contempt and loathing for those who deliberately spread lies about what's in Health Care Reform.

    replyreport
    1. 0

       Poppa Bluesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       http://www.factcheck.org/2009/09/dying- … insurance/
       
       As usual, all distortions of the facts!
       
       The dems don't bother to talk about all the other things this health care bill will do like:
       
       http://www.heritage.org/Research/Report … ealth+Care
       
       And if the health care bill is so good, why can't the democrats muster the votes to pass it? No, they want to "deem" it into law!!

       replyreport
19. 60

    JON EWALLposted 14 years ago

    JUST A REMINDER
    
    Hubbers
    A SPECIAL INVITATION TO THE HEALTHCARE DEBATE
    
    On Saturday 3/20/10 EXCLUSIVLY on Fox News cable at 10:00am to 12:00 ET time NO OTHER PLACE BUT FOX NEWS
    
    A special program regarding healthcare reform '' LIVE AND UNCUT '' direct from Washington , hosted by Neil Cavuto.
    
    Members of both parties will be interviewed.
    
    FOX NEWS '' WE REPORT YOU DECIDE '' '' FAIR AND BALANCED ''
    
    Try not to miss the program, it's for Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Conservatives, Liberals and all Americans.
    I don't believe I missed anyone.
    Looking forward to comments.

    replyreport