jump to last post 1-50 of 62 discussions (254 posts)

Health Care reform, Why are so many fighting it?

  1. Georgiakevin profile image59
    Georgiakevinposted 7 years ago

    I simply do not understand why people are fighting health care reform. I have heard the arguments against it and I keep saying how is that worse than being held hostage by the insurance companies? My insurance cost keeps going  and in turn I get less and less coverage. They say the govt run health care will mess things up. How is that worse than the insurance company white collars who a without medical background determine what my doctor/hospital can do for me?

    How can the govt. do worse than what happened to my mother? She was to have as much of her brain tumor removed as possible. She went in for prep. They shaved her head put a shunt in to her, prepped her for surgery and then sent her home. They told her to be back the next day. When my brother complained they said it was cheaper that way. How can health care reform be worst than that? My family and I used to belong to an HMO that was nicknamed group death. The doctors were forced to see as many patients as they could in a day. They missed my wife's thyroid cancer even though her tumor stood out four inches from her throat. We had to pay our own money for a visit to a naturopath for her cancer to be discovered.

    The time for health care reform was twenty years ago but our legislature in D.C. lacked the courage to do it. Now the time for health care reform is critically over due. It's time to stop the bickering and do something to make health care better. Doing nothing again is not an option!

    1. nicomp profile image59
      nicompposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      You are asking to replace profit-motivated white collars with self-interested bureaucratic white collars. Can you name one thing the government does efficiently? No. Do you want the same bureaucratic nightmare that couldn't deliver water bottles to Katrina victims to decide if your mother gets surgery? Do you want the same bureaucratic nightmare that ran Walter Reed Hospital into the ground to run your local hospital? I hope not.

      It will be worse because your mother will fall victim to rationed health care and she may never see the inside of an operating room.


      What I don't understand is how anyone can imagine that adding another layer of white collar federal bureaucrats can improve health care.

      I also don't understand why if health care is so important that so many people want someone else to pay for it.


      It's completely illogical to "just do something". It can get worse and it will get worse. We simply don't have the money to pay for everyone's health care. Reform is some other way, but don't turn over 17% of the economy to the federal government.

    2. ledefensetech profile image80
      ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Oh it can do much worse than what's going on now.  Remember these are the same people in charge of our education that doesn't educate, bridges that don't get upkeep done and fall into rivers, are you sure you want to put them in charge of healthcare. 

      Few people would argue that there do need to be changes, but the fact remains that what we face is an artificial supply problem when it comes to healthcare in this country.  Not only that, it's mostly by government fiat, that we suffer from these high prices.  Government mandated universal healthcare is like asking the foxes to guard the chicken house.

      1. Silver Rose profile image79
        Silver Roseposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Come now. Mr Obama has only been in office for eight months, and the Dem Congress has only been in power for just over two years. How can you blame them for everything that happened over the last decade?

        There will always be some inefficiencies and incompetance in government. But the great thing about democracy is that you can throw the incompetants out! Which of course you just did in the last general election!

        Now you should allow the new guy his four years to show what he can do. Rome wasn't built in a day, nor eight months for that matter. And pretending that Obama has been in power for a decade and blaming him for all the ills in government over that time, just to try to scupper his presidency from the start is unfair. Give him his chance, if at the end of four years you don't like what he's done, throw him out.

        P.S. how do you have so much time to spend arguing in the forums? Perhaps take a break and go write some hubs? It's more productive.

        1. tksensei profile image60
          tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          So Obama and the Dems are not to be held accountable for anything they do or do not do for FOUR YEARS?

        2. ledefensetech profile image80
          ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          You can't throw them out if there is only a two party system.  At best you only exchange one set of incompetents for another.  These problems go back decades if not centuries.  Few people but historians really know why things are the way they are.

          P.S.  Yeah I know, but writing on the forums is kind of like junk food, bad for you, but you can't seem to help it.

          1. girly_girl09 profile image76
            girly_girl09posted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Yes, you can always elect someone new.

            But - the most important thing is - you cannot throw out a health insurance plan of this proportion. There is no going back. Even if you do choose to elect new leadership - the plan is still there. Sure, it can be reformed, but by then the system will have experienced a complete overhaul. It would take decades to reform and fix. Attempting to fix the situation then would be like attempting to fix Social Security.

            There are other states in the Union who have done plans similar to this (see earlier posts in this thread about Maine). The plan is not sustainable.

            Having an attitude of "oh, we'll spend a couple trillion dollars on legislation and implementation of a plan like this just to test it out, we can always change it" would be a very scary attitude. This is a very serious piece of legislation. It's not a 'test' or anything like that. It can't be easily reverted back.

            1. ledefensetech profile image80
              ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Really?  Come on, you know as well as I do that the current political parties are going to have a certain amount of money no matter what.  They get access to that money by crafting legislation to benefit....the people who contribute to their campaign.  This must be the only place in the world that calls corruption, free speech.

              1. girly_girl09 profile image76
                girly_girl09posted 7 years ago in reply to this

                I'm not sure what you're referring to? Are you saying that funding will prevent the election of new leadership?

                1. ledefensetech profile image80
                  ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  I'm saying that as long as we allow corporations to contribute to campaigns like individuals, we will always have corporations that influence the legislative process for their own ends.  Not to mention the fact that legislators get involved in areas that they are barred from by the Constitution.

            2. Silver Rose profile image79
              Silver Roseposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              But your current system is unsustainable too isn't it? I understand that American heath costs as a % of GDP are creeping up by about 2% every five years. Soon a quarter of your entire economy will just be heathcare, with other industries crowded out.

              It seems to be that your choice is between a known unsustainable (the current system) compared to taking a leap of faith on something that might just work. At worst it will be unsustainable - which will be no worse than where you are right now. So essentially you have nothing to lose, and potentially something to gain.

              1. ledefensetech profile image80
                ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                The answer is simple.  Stop limiting the supply of healthcare.  End drug monopolies and end doctor licensing and you'd see the price of healthcare drop like a rock.

                http://mises.org/story/3643

              2. Misha profile image75
                Mishaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Why are you spending so much time on the forums? Wouldn't it be more productive to write more hubs? wink

                1. girly_girl09 profile image76
                  girly_girl09posted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  Similar plans been proven unsustainable in other U.S. states. (See my other posts re: Maine's Dirigo Health (private gov plan) on this thread).

                  This is not a decision to be taken lightly. I understand that people are desperate for change and reform. I am too. Health insurance is wayyyy too expensive. This bill is not the answer. I'm confident of that. A piece of legislation of this magnitude should never, ever be viewed as a leap of faith. It costs trillions and trillions of dollars, it is not reversable. It will put private health insurance companies under.

                  Again, it's like killing a mosquito with a cannon. We need to work on providing affordable health insurance to those who need it. This plan covers way too many people. When private health insurance dies, it will essentially cover everyone. (There will be different premium levels under Obama's plan...not everyone will be able to afford the best plans)

                  We could help those less fortunate if we truly focused on them instead of the entire lower AND middle class.

                  I hate our current system, but I do not want the proposed system. We need to work on legislation to help lower health care insurance costs in the private sector. It can be done. Again, I am really upset this wasn't worked on enough over the last 8 years.

                  1. ledefensetech profile image80
                    ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    Switch insurance with supply and you've got it.  There is no reason for people to have to use insurance to pay for things like doctor's visits or basic medical care.  Insurance should be, like life, auto and housing for emergencies when you would not be able to pay those bills.  Insurance pays for a car when it's totaled, a house when it burns down.  So too, should insurance pay for something like a cancer diagnosis or some other critical disease, possibly even for chronic conditions like diabetes or MS. 

                    Costs go up because we don't have enough health care providers.  More providers = less cost.  Of course that means doctor's salaries drop on average, but that is part and parcel of lowering costs.

                2. Silver Rose profile image79
                  Silver Roseposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  LOL Misha. I've done my quota for today!

            3. tksensei profile image60
              tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Once again you are right.

        3. Lisa HW profile image82
          Lisa HWposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          I don't think most people who talk about how incompetent and mucked up things are when the government runs things are blaming Obama for it.  Anyone who has lived long enough knows that the government does, at best, a mediocre job at most things; and makes giant, destructive, messes in lives at a lot of other things.  In fact, for a lot of people the issue with Obama is that he is new.  Reasonable people won't blame him for all the mess he inherited any more than they'll blame a lot of other presidents for whatever messes they inherited.  A lot of people, though, aren't comfortable with some new person showing up from out of the woodwork, swooping in, and trying to make super-speedy and major changes that do, or could, have some very unexpected and undesired consequences (whether people who want a quick answer see that or not).

          1. ledefensetech profile image80
            ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            You misunderstand.  I don't blame Obama for the mess we find ourselves in today.  I blame him for the mess his decisions are going to make of things in the future.  I'm thinking as an historian and economist about this.  That's a different way of thinking. 

            Bill Bonner nails this sort of thinking right on the head in his newsletter "The Daily Reckoning"  I highly recommend it.  The following is about the "Cash for Clunkers" fiasco, but the theory behind it could easily be adapted to healthcare:

  2. profile image0
    Leta Sposted 7 years ago

    Amen.  Amen.  Amen...  Thanks for telling your story.  I believe it to be closer to the actual truth in America than the empty and loud blatherings we are hearing from the 'opposition.'  Or should I say from those who have let themselves be thrown into a frenzy of fear by less than honest, indeed unethical propaganda campaigns put forth by interests that are heavily invested in seeing any health care reform fail.

    Or should I say from mean-spirited, bored and not-to-bright trolls on the Hubpage forums?

    It's about as pretty, ingenuous and honest as the cigarette lobby.

    1. nicomp profile image59
      nicompposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I'm not too bright, but shouldn't that be "not-too-bright" ?

  3. Valerie F profile image60
    Valerie Fposted 7 years ago

    How can the government do worse than what private insurers do? Why not ask someone who's ever had trouble with the VA or Tricare? I'm not opposed to reforming health care, but I've heard enough to know that the government options currently available need to be cleaned up as well as the private insurance industry.

  4. Lisa HW profile image82
    Lisa HWposted 7 years ago

    Georgiakevin, I think your argument and question are very legitimate (and refreshing, in view of all the ridiculous forum rantings that Republicans (and anyone else opposed to the new plan) "don't want medical care for people who can't afford it"; or that everyone opposed to it "must be a fat-cat who is only worried about his own pension package"; or, nuttiest of all, "people just don't like Obama".

    I don't think most people who are opposed to the particular plan being put together are opposed to health care reform at all.  Most of us know it is needed.  It's just that many people believe reform could/should be instituted in ways other than having the government take over the whole health-care thing.

    There's a difference between "health care reform" and "making medical care available to those who can't afford it".  While I'm only speaking for myself here, I have witnessed (first-hand, either in my own life or in the lives of people I know) staggering tax-payer waste  (in more than one case, in the millions of dollars on one individual or situation).  While these could be isolated cases (I won't go into the details), it's unlikely they are.  This means that this particular type of waste (which we aren't hearing about because the people involved don't even see how it happens) could probably be multiplied by any number of people in any given state.  To make it worse, this waste actually destroys lives.  I'd like to see all waste cleaned up (but particularly this easy-to-clean-up variety), and then see the tax-payer dollars now being wasted used to help people who can't afford medical care get it.

    I've considered writing a Hub (or even a whole book) about all the factors that contribute to making the government and government agencies a disaster (in a number of different ways).  People who don't want the government running the health-care show have their reasons to see it as bad situation turned worse.

    Then there is the matter of so many Americans growing up believing that the concept of limiting government involvement (even if the government was a "well oiled machine", which it plain old isn't) in private lives is one on which this nation was founded.  What works or doesn't work for the UK is the UK's business, but the US is a different country, a different sized country, and one that was founded on a set of principles that are important to a lot of Americans who have grown up to believe those principles are worth preserving.

    I, personally, am among the Baby Boomers who grew up not long after World War II.  With a veteran father and a mother who had lost her first young husband during the war, I was raised hearing about how Hitler (and anyone who showed signs of trying to limit the freedoms of others) should have been stopped when he first started spouting off his garbage talk and attempts to gain power of other people. I grew up hearing, "Whenever you hear someone who seems to want too much power over other people, or whenever you see signs of the government trying to take too much power over private lives; you should say something or do something before things go too far."  I was little when I asked my father, "Will anyone ever attack this country like they did Pearl Harbor?"  He said, "This country has a strong defense, and everyone knows it.  If this country is going to be destroyed it's more likely that it will be destroyed from within, little by little, by people who don't see it happening until it's too late."

    I know what you mean about insurance companies deciding, but I think it would be worse to have government "hacks" making the same decisions because of the dynamics involved with the whole "government worker" scenario.  Even if the "decision-makers" are of equal intelligence, integrity, and capability (for good or ill), I'd still prefer the lesser of two evils of having someone at a private company make the decision.  At least then one has some hope of suing in some instances; but even if not, at least (all things being equal) it would not mean having the government in my life.

    I grew up a few minutes from Boston's freedom trail, so maybe growing up "soaking" in all the talk of the history of the Nation's founding.  It was natural that my little, modest, American, public school "pushed" the history of Massachusetts.   A lot of Americans today didn't grow up so close to history.  Some (the president included) were not even educated in the US.  Many do not have fathers who had first-hand experience with WWII (which was a very different war than Korea, Viet Nam, or others that have followed). Many Americans are interested only in what they can get from the government and don't think much about what may - in the long run - be best for preserving the principles on which the Nation was founded.

    The other side to growing up and living in Massachusetts, though, is having witnessed first-hand that the state where it all began has also, in a lot of ways, been a leader in the un-doing of so much of it.  Maybe it's different in other states; but I've seen for myself that everything this state touches (through it's agencies, courts, schools, whatever else..) is damaged and/or destroyed.

    My "thing" is that I'd like to see insurance made available to people who can't afford it and want/need it.  I'd also like to see the government get a realistic picture of all the things that contribute to the increasing cost of health care and address those as needed.  Neither of these things should require the government taking over the whole business.

    Well, as you can guess, I've been keeping all that bottled up through all the health-care-reform posts on here.  To be honest, I don't think I've run into another "debate" on here that looked even worth bothering with (because there are so many bizarre, nutty, and ignorant "contributions").

    1. kerryg profile image89
      kerrygposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      But the government is NOT trying to take over the whole business. The main thing on the table right now is the creation of a voluntary government run health insurance plan, which would behave much like a very large employer provided plan and provide an cheaper alternative for people who can't afford private insurance.

      1. Lisa HW profile image82
        Lisa HWposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        "Taking over the whole business" my have been a careless choice of words, but the point it that with the degree of "design" and involvement of the government, that's close to what it would amount to.  As others have said, private insurance as we know it would not be the same.

        1. girly_girl09 profile image76
          girly_girl09posted 7 years ago in reply to this

          I agree with your original choice of words, Lisa. I did a post earlier referring to page 116/117 of the bill. The phrase in the bill stating "ensuring a level playing field" is a strong indicator that government seeks to compete with private healthcare insurance. The proponents of this bill know darn well that eventually private companies will fall under. That is why saying "don't worry, you can keep your private healthcare" is a huge half-truth.

          Private insurance companies won't be allowed to take on new clients. To make matters worse, employers that choose private plans will be fined a penalty by the government. How on earth would private companies succeed? Their clients will be dying off eventually. This bill would doom the health insurance industry. Government will take over the entire business and this bill has been written to do just that. It is clear they do not want the private health insurance sector to succeed. If this bill was passed, it'd be impossible.

          I don't want the government to be allowed to determine doctor's salaries. Right now, the bill states that the government will determine doctors fees for the ones that participate in the program. Once private insurance is gone - all doctors will be forced to participate in the program if they want to earn any money.

          Once private health insurance disappears, and if people want health insurance, they will be forced to sign up for government plans.

    2. flread45 profile image82
      flread45posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      You should have made a hub about this..

  5. Bibowen profile image91
    Bibowenposted 7 years ago

    Why are they fighting it? I think it's called fighting for your life.

    1. Army Infantry Mom profile image61
      Army Infantry Momposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      You said it,...People just don't see the big piture here of what is exactly going on. I only hope they will keep an open mind as more information comes to light.

      1. tksensei profile image60
        tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        So anyone who disagrees with you just doesn't "see the big picture"?

      2. view profile image78
        viewposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        That's right, let things get clearer.

  6. tksensei profile image60
    tksenseiposted 7 years ago

    Which would, in short order, kill most private insurance.

    1. girly_girl09 profile image76
      girly_girl09posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Absolutely, all private insurances would eventually go under. This national plan is similar to the State of Maine's Dirigo Health (a government funded health insurance). There have been problems for years in the state with affordable health insurance because the state does not allow a healthy busines climate. Too much business regulation and it is actually ILLEGAL to shop around for health insurance for outside states. Mainers can shop for car insurance, but NOT for health insurance out of state. That being said, private health care can only be purchased through your employer from one of three companies.

      So, the state started it's own government run health insurance. It's original goal was certainly noble, to bring many families off of medicaid. They estimated 100,000 would switch to the plan. To this day only about 5,000 are on the plan, it is lessening each year. Why? Because the plan is not sustainable. The government cannot afford to run it. Families cannot afford to stay on it.

      The families that are left on Dirigo Health (Maine government's plan) should in all actuality be back on medicaid - they can't afford Dirigo Health!! The prices have been jacked up so much that now the state must actually pay back, each and every month, many of it's enrolled insurance members a stipend. They get a check, reimbursing them for all or some of their monthly premiums. The families can no longer afford Dirigo.

      It is a complete mess.

      The national plan, while not exact, is incredibly similar in the way that it is being orchestrated. This national plan is NOT sustainable. The national government won't be able to jack up prices ridiculously high like Maine, but the program will severely come short of it's estimated income.

      Exactly like Maine, private health insurance will eventually FAIL under this plan. They will no longer be able to enroll any new patients. People die. Our private companies will be driven out of business unless they are miraculously able to stay afloat without any new patients being enrolled.

      Your employer will be penalized if they do not switch to a government run plan. That being said, what do you think they'll do to save money? Once health insurance companies start losing private clients, especially employers, they'll go under. That fact is obvious. But, it is highly being overlooked.

      It's interesting to me how everyone is talking about how health care companies are taking us 'hostage', a term coined by the President's strategists.

      I ask - what about medical supply companies? Those are privately run, no one criticizes them for trying to stay afloat. They, too, jack up their prices.

      The fact of the matter - there is TOO much government regulation for health care insurance companies to do business. It is too costly for them to do business, it is why the prices are so high. Just like in the State of Maine. THIS is what we need reform on, folks. There should be a healthy business climate in which health insurance companies can do business and not have to jack up their prices to stay afloat.

      If you haven't read any of the legislation yet, I ask you to check out page 116/117.

      There is a subsection entitled "Ensuring a leveling playing field". http://waysandmeans.house.gov/media/pdf … 001xml.pdf

      The government will be competing with private health insurance - that language above - proves it.

      After many private insurance companies are forced out of business (this may take a few years, not right away), many families will be forced to sign up for government run health insurance as they'll fall into a certain income bracket.

      What the proponents of this plan are not telling you (and they know full well) - you can keep your insurance - absolutely!!!! But, a big 'but' - you won't be able to have private insurance once private companies are driven out of business.

  7. girly_girl09 profile image76
    girly_girl09posted 7 years ago

    I should also add that the people opposed to this current bill are NOT opposed to health insurance reform. That is quite the contrary - they desperately want health insurance reform - just not the type that takes away private health insurance. We are opposed to this potential legislation because we have grave concerns. There are a lot of scare tactics on each side, but I have taken time to read most of the legislation - but anyone that reads this - have you?

    Is it truly what you want?
    Do you want to purchase your health insurance from the government who will regulate how much your doctors get paid?

    Did you know that there will still be different levels of premium government plans? There will still be people with more coverage.

    I have been privately working, on the side from my old job, with pieces of various health insurance reform legislation. There is so much that can be done without being so damaging.

    This bill is essentially using a cannon to kill a mosquito.

    We need reform. Absolutely. Just not all of this. Private health insurance should be affordable for most Americans. It's not. That is what we need to reform. I am certainly regretful that substantial progress was not made on this over the last 8 years.

    1. tksensei profile image60
      tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I have said this dozens of times, but certain partisans don't want to hear it.

  8. girly_girl09 profile image76
    girly_girl09posted 7 years ago

    People do not realize what will happen to private health insurance. All they hear is "yes, you can keep your private insurance" and run with that. This is a half truth.

    If politics has proven anything, elected officials and candidates will say ANYTHING, including many half-truths to get elected or garner support. This is nothing new. Can you think of ANY administration that has not operated this way? There are promises and half-truths. It happens for both parties. It's the nature of the beast.

  9. tksensei profile image60
    tksenseiposted 7 years ago

    Too true.

  10. SparklingJewel profile image66
    SparklingJewelposted 7 years ago

    > FINALLY...THE $64,000 QUESTION WAS ASKED...

    >
    > YESTERDAY ON "ABC-TV" (BETTER KNOWN AS THE ALL BARRACK CHANNEL) DURING THE "NETWORK SPECIAL ON HEALTH CARE"....  OBAMA WAS ASKED:

    >

    >
    > "MR. PRESIDENT WILL YOU AND YOUR FAMILY GIVE UP YOUR CURRENT HEALTH CARE PROGRAM AND JOIN THE NEW 'UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE PROGRAM' THAT THE REST OF US WILL BE ON ????"

    >
    > THERE WAS A STONEY SILENCE AS OBAMA IGNORED THE QUESTION AND CHOSE NOT TO ANSWER IT !!!...

    >
    > IN ADDITION, A NUMBER OF SENATORS WERE ASKED THE SAME QUESTION AND THERE RESPONSE WAS..."WE WILL THINK ABOUT IT."

    >
    > AND THEY DID. IT WAS ANNOUNCED TODAY ON THE NEWS THAT THE "KENNEDY HEALTH CARE BILL" WAS WRITTEN INTO THE NEW HEALTH CARE REFORM INITIATIVE ENSURING THAT CONGRESS WILL BE 100% EXEMPT !

    >
    > SO, THIS GREAT NEW HEALTH CARE PLAN THAT IS GOOD FOR YOU AND I... IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR OBAMA, HIS FAMILY OR CONGRESS...?? 
    >

    1. tksensei profile image60
      tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      That says it all right there...

      1. nicomp profile image59
        nicompposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        They exempted themselves in this version of the bill:
        http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.vi … eId=104716

        1. Mark Knowles profile image60
          Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          So - all the religionists agree that providing health care for those who cannot afford it for themselves is a bad thing.

          Excellent. lol lol

          Is it a sin? lol

          1. tksensei profile image60
            tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Does every topic in the world come down to your fear of religion?

            1. nicomp profile image59
              nicompposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              *Laughing so hard I can't type*

              1. tksensei profile image60
                tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                It looks like a hard-core obsession!

          2. girly_girl09 profile image76
            girly_girl09posted 7 years ago in reply to this

            I am not religious and I am against this bill. People's faith should have absolutely nothing to do with this bill...I wasn't aware it was.

            It is not a bad thing to give healthcare to those in need. This bill is about health INSURANCE. I have never said that people without health insurance should go without medical care. We need reform in the industry to make it more affordable. Millions of Americans are on medicaid - people will always get free health care in this country, even if this legislation does not go through. Let's find a way to make it more affordable for EVERYONE. smile This bill does not accomplish that, whatsoever.

            1. nicomp profile image59
              nicompposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Thank you for making this issue more clear. It's about insurance, not care. Well said. I'm bored with being labeled "cold hearted" because I don't want to pay for everyone else's insurance.

              1. Plants and Oils profile image94
                Plants and Oilsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Sorry, I do think you are cold-hearted.

                1. tksensei profile image60
                  tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  Be careful someone doesn't decide you are cold-headed.

                  1. Plants and Oils profile image94
                    Plants and Oilsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    He or she would be welcome to his opinion. Being warm-hearted and cold-headed sounds ideal to me, though.

  11. Aya Katz profile image89
    Aya Katzposted 7 years ago

    I wasn't aware it was a religious issue, either. It's great to help others with your own money and with money freely given to you for this purpose by other people. What might be a sin, and certainly is a crime, is to take money from people by force, whether the purpose is to help others or not.

  12. Misha profile image75
    Mishaposted 7 years ago

    RAmen smile

  13. Valerie F profile image60
    Valerie Fposted 7 years ago

    I think the private insurance industry in the US doesn't really need competition from the government to kill it. Look at how many people opt out of any health insurance not because they don't need it, but because the coverage they get is not worth the money they are forced to spend on premiums.

    At one point, my husband and I spent more for health insurance than we did for our mortgage, and on top of that we still had to pay full price for our health care.

    1. girly_girl09 profile image76
      girly_girl09posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      That is very true. The private sector is dying. It is dying because of strict government regulation. This government regulation is what is dramatically increasing our costs. If we worked towards legislation to help lower government regulation of private health insurance companies, all of us who have or would like to have private health insurance could enjoy significantly lower premiums.

      To me, I will take that any day over the government taking over the health insurance industry and me being forced to choose a government run plan that chooses my benefits, which means I can't shop around for the best plan. That is not right.

  14. Lisa HW profile image82
    Lisa HWposted 7 years ago

    Or the eight years before that.

    1. girly_girl09 profile image76
      girly_girl09posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      It is sad that it has to come to this. Politically, it only started being recognized about a year or two ago as a pressing issue. Now look where we are. I feel strongly that the Bush administration should've viewed this with more importance. Hindsight, 20/20, I guess.

      We desperately need something new and many are feeling pressured that this is the best that the USA can come up with. Not the case.

      I essentially 'retired' from politics at the beginning of this year. Last week I got a call from a friend at a non-partisan think tank. I'm now working on a consultation basis for this issue because I'm so passionate about it; I couldn't refuse. In all honesty, spending time reading and discussing at HP is helping me with my research and memos!!!

      1. nicomp profile image59
        nicompposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        You go, girl. Let us know where you are publishing.

        1. girly_girl09 profile image76
          girly_girl09posted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Internal right now. big_smile I've essentially been publishing on here, however, what will be presented (perhaps in shorter form lol) internally to various advisors, candidates and legislators.

          This lone issue is going to be huge a contributing factor in a few campaigns next November.

  15. Misha profile image75
    Mishaposted 7 years ago

    Oh, it feels like deja vu for a long time already... sad

    1. girly_girl09 profile image76
      girly_girl09posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I still am in disbelief about this whole thing. It is obvious a lot of people are.

      Never would I have imagined that legislation would be written to openly say: "ensuring a level playing field" in regards to leveling the playing field for private health insurance companies and a government run program.

      It is absolute shocking.

  16. William F. Torpey profile image82
    William F. Torpeyposted 7 years ago

    We've had decades of private insurance "health care" coverage. How are we doing?

    Single payer health care is the only way to obtain real health care for everyone.

    I think history proves that scare tactics only work in the short run. The present right wing strategy of shouting down every effort to provide health care to all will not work in the long run.

    1. girly_girl09 profile image76
      girly_girl09posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Scare tactics are being used by both sides in this debate. I believe that I have raised many valid points without fringing upon using scare tactics. I have read the legislation and have posed questions from different areas. Not scare tactics, just discussing the actual text of the bill.

  17. Mighty Mom profile image92
    Mighty Momposted 7 years ago

    Who do you think sets the pay rates of doctors who work for HMOs? Certainly not the doctors!

    1. girly_girl09 profile image76
      girly_girl09posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Of course there are already pay rates set by some government HMOs (i.e. medicaid, medicare). I'm talking nationwide. smile

      Pay rates are not in effect nationwide. I would not be comfortable with that happening.

  18. earnestshub profile image88
    earnestshubposted 7 years ago

    Instead of looking only at the faults in existing free health care systems, and telling outright lies to make their point, (You will hear it on the news today) it would benefit Americans to look closely at the systems in other countries to meld together the best features of them all.
    We have had people die in Australia waiting for cancer operations as England has, yet the truth is, it works for nearly everyone else very well indeed including those who pay for it, and these incidents, as bad as they are are not common.

    As for paying for the care in taxes, the big picture is because those who are aged can get care without loading all worry and expense on their families, who are also likely to be poor the system works well, as it stops the snowball affect of poverty.

    The hidden expense of not having free health care for the needy is people become ever more ill. Without necessary and timely medical intervention the cost per patient is only reduced by letting the poor die.
    The moral necessity is glaring to those of us with a decent safety net for all our poor people.

  19. anime_nanet profile image61
    anime_nanetposted 7 years ago

    Don't want to repeat myself. My answer is on other similar topic...

    http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/19326?page=3

    Oh, and girlygirl, private will never cease to exist. That is completely utopic... and it's another catasthophist thinking example!

    1. earnestshub profile image88
      earnestshubposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      By all means, do repeat yourself, it is a long post and your view is useful to those who do not have the system you have. Australia has a similar system, and I would like to think our governments converse on health to keep improving both. I love the health system here.

      1. anime_nanet profile image61
        anime_nanetposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Ok, I will repeat myself, lol. Here goes:

        So, I just heard this on the news, but basically what Obama wants is to create a social healthcare system that will compete against the private insurance systems that already exist.

        Well I read the other posters and guess what... We have that kind of system here in Portugal.

        And bottom line is: if you want the test done in 2 days you have it... if you want that cosmetic surgery done tomorrow you can have it too... you can always do it from the private, like you normally do. If you can afford it that is...

        The others... well, the others wait 2 or 3 months (or one year)... But at least they have that oportunity, they aren't left to die on the street!

        People this is an ethical  thing... Is the state obliged to look for it's citizens or not? Or should the state let everything, including such an important thing as health be run solely by private corporations? You saw what happened with the banks, didn't you?...

        Of course, this will rock a few boats...

        Several lobbies (huge ones) will be up and against this. Of course, Insurance companies are at the top at the list. They will get a huge competitor to face! And, of course, the fortunates that can afford the insurances, in they blind media-induced fanaticism will be shouting against this too, because they are going to help the "indigents" with their tax money! Oh, the horror!

        But you know what, people... More competition means lower prices. So the people that want to do things the fast way can do it as usual... and probably cheaper too!

        And you know what, the poor can also live a little longer, so that's not such a bad thing too! Stop thinking only on your own noses! No one knows tomorrow! It can be YOU lying in the gutter and being kicked of an hospital because you can't afford the bills!

        The catastrophism of one of the earlier posters saying the best students won't go to med school... sorry, but that is utter bull****.

        So, they will get a little less money? And? They'll still earn big bucks from private practice, as well as all the pharmaceutical companies, as usual. Being a doctor will still continue to be a very lucrative profession.

        Besides, the really good doctors aren't in it only for the money. As all things in life, the great ones do it out of vocation, because they love what they do.

        So, I think I already wrote too much on this. Obama scores big time to me by proposing this. It shows he has a social conscience. Much more than the average american if we are to judge from all the protests. I hope the lobbies won't push him back.

        -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-

        Girly-girl09, the so called lobbies I mentioned earlier is what makes that statement of "private companies will go up in smoke" a fallacy and uterly utopic.

        USA will continue to be a capitalist country and the private companies will have something to say. They make the economy spin. But they won't have that special kind of monopoly they now have. So it will be a more balanced country in the end.

        Me thinks smile

        1. girly_girl09 profile image76
          girly_girl09posted 7 years ago in reply to this

          As you were writing this, I wrote a response above. big_smile I am not affiliated with any lobby association. I have read the legislation. It is not a fallacy that private companies will reach a demise. It is a fallacy that we'll be able to keep private health insurance. Eventually it will not exist. There will be no point in private health insurance companies existence.

          Anyways, I must get some sleep. smile It was nice discussing this with you all.

          I'm signing out, but once again will leave you with the link to the actual legislation. It is an interesting read.

          http://waysandmeans.house.gov/media/pdf … 001xml.pdf

          1. earnestshub profile image88
            earnestshubposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Thanks GG. I will have a read of what is proposed, but I really think you need free health for the poor, and if not this way, some way. It is morally urgent.

            1. tksensei profile image60
              tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              We already have that.

              1. jiberish profile image78
                jiberishposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                You forgot to add the famous saying....."I know I'm intelligent, and Don't belittle me".........smile

                1. profile image0
                  Leta Sposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  Oh, COME on...

                  Actually, you wondered.  It's posts like this.  Why would this innocuous comment warrant that statement?  Just because you disagree?  How childish.

                2. earnestshub profile image88
                  earnestshubposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  I do not know of any system in America which is what I would call free health "care" by the standards in my country, if that makes it clearer.

                  1. jiberish profile image78
                    jiberishposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    The question is, who is it free for?  It is free for those who are on Medicade, and those who walk into emegency rooms and never pay the bill. Other wise, we all pay for it, one way or another.

                    And the famous quote was for TK. He will understand. smile

                  2. tksensei profile image60
                    tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this
    2. girly_girl09 profile image76
      girly_girl09posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I have gathered my information from the actual legislation. smile
      I believe my interpretation is quite reasonable.

      With employers being fined that choose to remain with private health insurance companies and based upon the fact that private health insurance companies will no longer able to enroll new members - how will the private sector continue to exist? I'm not saying it will fail a year after the implementation of the proposed legislation, but eventually with no new enrolls and the loss of employer accounts, how can it stay afloat?

      It can't. The government certainly will not provide bail-outs. smile

  20. Mighty Mom profile image92
    Mighty Momposted 7 years ago

    Good points, Nellie and Earnestshub. But we're not talking only taking care of looking after our country's aged and infirm. We're talking about looking after babies, pregnant women, teenagers, and otherwise able-bodied citizens who have perhaps minor health care issues but are denied insurance because of them. The biggest group to benefit from this bill will be the erstwhile "middle class" who as pointed out above, are slaves to jobs they hate just for the benefits. Or who are happy with their employer-provided benefits but are losing financial ground to the ever-rising coinsurance payments.
    Oh yes, and those of us who ARE self-employed and can't even get insurance even if we were willing to pay 80% of our monthly income for it....

  21. profile image0
    Leta Sposted 7 years ago

    OK, just a point of reference:  How does the current Medicare exist side by side currently with private insurance and private companies handling their information (and, yes, they do, I worked for Medicare in this capacity 4-5 years ago) if GG's post above could be true?

    1. JonTutor profile image60
      JonTutorposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Excellent point. smile

      1. Misha profile image75
        Mishaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Not touching on the main topic, but here is an example for you Jon of liberals being nasty, frankly nastier then TK usually are. Lita just accused GG of lying, and you called this "excellent point" LOL

        If what GG said could not be true, it necessarily was lie. smile

        My English could be off of course, but this is how I read it.

        1. JonTutor profile image60
          JonTutorposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          I was complimenting on the fact she pointed out..... that both medicare and private insurance coexist.... Lita is disagreeing on topic.... when GG keeps saying ... both difficult to coexist.... private insurance will vanish....  GG is part assuming and part imagining lots of things.... IMO which is a fair call..... everything that can't be completely true doesn't necessarily mean a lie. smile

          1. Misha profile image75
            Mishaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            This could not be true Jon tongue

            Or rather it really is defined by a receiving party. GG may or may not take offense on it, I would guess she will not since she is a wise person, but someone not as wise as her easily could, I saw quite a few people doing this. smile

            To avoid such a thing I usually avoid any judging generalizations and prefer to say something like 'in my experience it is different' or 'my observations do not support it'. smile

            Lita's post also could have been worded differently if she addressed directly her perception of incompatibility between Medicare coexistence with private insurance and inevitability of private insurance disappearance under proposed bill, rather then addressing GG's post. smile

            1. profile image0
              Leta Sposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Sooo sorry you don't like my writing, Misha.  However, I do work as a writer professionally, and today learned I broke into 4 national magazines (very good for a PR person) so maybe your opinion is just an opinion.

              And I will call facts, facts.  I worked for this company.  We provided info. on these programs that were half private insurance/half govt. medicare.  This is actually common knowledge.

              1. tksensei profile image60
                tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                ....................  roll

            2. SweetiePie profile image83
              SweetiePieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Why do you always say things to point out how you think certain people do things better than others?  Yes I do think GG is a very wise person, but just because someone handles a situation differently does not mean their are unwise.  Oh well, I think maybe that is a little comment towards me and how skin paper thin some have snickered at me for being.  Honestly there have been a few comments you made in the past that were a little on the judgmental side towards me.  I do not hold it against you, but just sharing.

              1. profile image0
                Leta Sposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Because he is actually very biased, SP, Pam Grundy can attest to that.  And that's cool, too.  I usually don't even have a problem with that.  (But some things just are not my style...  Sorry about it, but ???? Come on!)

                And it is exactly like what Jon Tutor said earlier.  You don't see liberal guys going after conservative women all that much...lol.  And some, ruff, ruff, are on another realm just all together.

                And yes, GG is smart and expresses herself well.  But I think she is dead wrong in some of her opinions/interpretations of facts.

              2. Misha profile image75
                Mishaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Oh, not always Sweetie, but some people sometimes prompt me to do this. Actually here I was just trying to answer the question Jon asked in another thread, and to show him liberals are not always the nicest persons around smile

                Not sure if i ever was judgmental about you, but if I was sorry about that smile

                1. SweetiePie profile image83
                  SweetiePieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  You probably do not even realize it, and that is what I sort of figured out all along.  I know you do not like a lot of things I say either, so I was just sharing smile.  Maybe at this point it is best to leave the discussion between GG and Lita as it was their exchange anyway.

                2. profile image0
                  Leta Sposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  Those who enjoy arguing/debate KNOW where things leave off.  Why do I feel this is all about some ancient history on these forums, wink?

  22. SweetiePie profile image83
    SweetiePieposted 7 years ago

    There actually is no nastiness on either side.  Lita and GG have different view points on this issue, and that is what she was illuminating.  I think maybe we need to get away from talking about how certain people are out of line.  I really am not even bothered by tk at this point or I would not talk to him.  He is alright, but just asks a lot of questions, which can sometimes get to be grating.  That is just his style, and he seems to enjoy it.  Lita has a great amount of respect for GG, so I know he did not have any ill intent with her comments.

    1. profile image0
      Leta Sposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Some don't WANT to understand, SP.  And it does have to do with some personal issues...  It's cool.  I'm simply not interested in talking to those people.  It's just easier and for the best...at least for me.

      There are so many others they can talk to and flirt with or whatever snaps their trigger, so to speak.

      And yes, some of us clearly enjoy the debate...like to argue, respectfully.  And we do happen to know what crosses the line.

      1. SweetiePie profile image83
        SweetiePieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        You are smart to ignore them.  Honestly I did feel singled out at times, so I was trying to be understanding by conversing.  I basically got chided for doing that on the other thread tonight, which I thought was sort of silly.  My stance is everyone should be free to share on the forums, but the truth is some are more free than others.  Feel I have to censor myself a bit on this one.

  23. profile image0
    Leta Sposted 7 years ago

    They DO BOTH EXIST....Medicare and Medicare Humana Gold, Medicare Blue/Cross Blue shield.  I provided info. to consumers on these programs in Iowa City, IA, working for a company called NCS, contracted by the govt.. 

    This is Jon's point, on another post to GG, about interpretation on facts.  I might also go so far as to call it, perhaps, spin.

    No big deal.  Politicians and lawyers do it advocating their cause all the time.

    1. SweetiePie profile image83
      SweetiePieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Lita,

      You definitely have a great deal of background on this subject, so I am going with what you have shared smile.

      1. profile image0
        Leta Sposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Well, its just the same as Obama saying that the post office and UPS exist side by side.  It is true, they do.  A govt. program and a private company.

        With Medicare, those private companies offering insurance are actually meshed with Medicare.

        1. SweetiePie profile image83
          SweetiePieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Good point.  Obama actually made more sense in his speech than those railing against health care reform.  I would have liked to have actually seen a single payer model here in the US, but I know Obama and others did not want to go up against that opposition.

        2. JonTutor profile image60
          JonTutorposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Now NHS(UK) is denying all the BS about it..... The "great" American health care debate has crossed atlantic. smile

          1. profile image0
            Leta Sposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            And good on them, too!  It isn't a stretch to see that those screaming and closing down town hall meetings are low info. on the issues. 

            Yeah, and then there are whole countries where the private sector/public sector peacefully coexist.

        3. tksensei profile image60
          tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          A false comparison on many levels.

  24. Misha profile image75
    Mishaposted 7 years ago

    Did I ever say I did not like your writing Lita? yikes

    All what i said was that if you worded this particular post differently, it would have get the point across just as good, without being offensive. smile

    And thank you for another set of credentials, very impressive lol

    So, let me get it straight, do you possess THE TRUTH? wink

    1. profile image0
      Leta Sposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Again, breaking into my affairs and conversations.

      I'll trust my own idea of what my writing should be, always.  It has served me fairly well.  I'll take the 'advice' and place it where it should be placed.

      And yes...it is a FACT.  I worked for Medicare and these private options exist.  I'm not interested in moral relativism concerning facts.  I consider that stupid and also frustrating to 'debate,' if you want to call it that.

      1. tksensei profile image60
        tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Oh? Is this your private forum?

        1. rastrother profile image59
          rastrotherposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          I was about to say the same thing, dang dog. sad

          1. tksensei profile image60
            tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Great minds and all that.

            1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
              Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              And nitwits

  25. JonTutor profile image60
    JonTutorposted 7 years ago

    The same text can be interpreted in different ways..... neither conservatives nor liberals can be free from stated bias.... we really gotta have a  workable health care system.... IMO we gotta study some successful systems.... and modify it for USA..... everybody deserves health care. smile

  26. Misha profile image75
    Mishaposted 7 years ago

    At least we prepared some giggles for GG when she wakes up smile

    1. JonTutor profile image60
      JonTutorposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      She still didn't wake up.... for "giggles". lol

  27. profile image0
    sandra rinckposted 7 years ago

    ... because they have thing up their butts that cannot be removed without insurance. big_smile

  28. SparklingJewel profile image66
    SparklingJewelposted 7 years ago

    One more reason why some are fighting the Plan:

    Try to step outside your own box of how you perceive life, and understand where Chuck is coming from...seriously good will intent aside...

    "Dirty secret No. 1 in Obamacare is about the government's coming into homes and usurping parental rights over child care and development. It's outlined in sections 440 and 1904 of the House bill (Page 838), under the heading 'home visitation programs for families with young children and families expecting children.' The programs (provided via grants to states) would educate parents on child behavior and parenting skills. The bill says that the government agents, 'well-trained and competent staff,' would 'provide parents with knowledge of age-appropriate child development in cognitive, language, social, emotional, and motor domains ... modeling, consulting, and coaching on parenting practices,' and 'skills to interact with their child to enhance age-appropriate development.' Are you kidding me?! With whose parental principles and values? ...

    Do we really believe they would contextualize and personalize every form of parenting in their education, or would they merely universally indoctrinate with their own? ... One government rebuttal is that this program would be 'voluntary.' Is that right? Does that imply that this agency would just sit back passively until some parent needing parenting skills said, 'I don't think I'll call my parents, priest or friends or read a plethora of books, but I'll go down to the local government offices'? To the contrary, the bill points to specific targeted groups and problems...

    on Page 840: The state 'shall identify and prioritize serving communities that are in high need of such services, especially communities with a high proportion of low-income families.' ... Is all this what you want or expect in a universal health care bill being rushed through Congress?" --columnist Chuck Norris

  29. tksensei profile image60
    tksenseiposted 7 years ago

    Stay tuned, the Trojan Horse play is being called from the sidelines...

    1. nicomp profile image59
      nicompposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      A lot of microbes will fit into a Trojan Horse and still leave room for Brad Pitt.

      1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
        Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Microbes?

  30. tksensei profile image60
    tksenseiposted 7 years ago

    Thanks. You should avoid the US at all costs, I guess.

  31. profile image0
    Ghost32posted 7 years ago

    I'm against it and then some, though I don't expect my opinion to make a rat's bony hind end worth of difference (as in, what will bureaucratically be, will bureaucratically be).  But for what VERY little it's worth, here is my reasoning:

    1.  It makes governmental influence in our lives bigger without question.  NO ONE argues that point.  Government is, in my view, a "necessary evil" with equal weight carried in each of those 2 words.  Right now, we've already gone way past "necessary" and are well on our way into "evil".  Boo.  And even hiss.

    2.  I don't use health insurance, hardly ever have, and don't expect to in the future, period.  When I crap out, I crap out.  But I WILL be billed for "MY SHARE"  (sez f$7!!! WHO it's my share?) of the increased coverage.

    3.  My wife has terrible and many needs but has been locked out of the system.  Doctors won't treat her, won't even take her on as a patient.  You might say, "Oh, that's why you SHOULD want it!"  Wrong.  DEAD wrong.  HMO?  Stands for Hand Me Over to governmental control.  We KNOW Pam won't get coverage NO MATTER WHAT form of so-called increased coverage comes along.

    4.  The Bill (as it stands at the moment) has a LOT of sneaky control stuff in it that has nothing to do with health but everything to do with (here he goes again) government snooping and control.

    5.  What the HELL is wrong with getting sick and dropping dead anyway? Come on folks, it's called Population Control, and I'm MORE than happy to see lots of suffering and corpses if it means LESS Control  of  Population.

    You guys think so-called security is a good thing?  Good luck.  I'm gonna go out and chew some tree roots, see if I can shake this paranoia, conspiracy minded, anti-liberalism from which I seriously and endlessly suffer.

    Oh.  Wait.  That's reality.

  32. profile image0
    Leta Sposted 7 years ago

    I dunno.  I suppose it was just as funny as portraying earnesthub as "a reellly reallly good person who reads the newspaper and actually went to school so please don't offend my dignity," or whatever.

    I'm truly not that worried.  I'm reallllly healthy, too.  Genetically, my mother, for instance, has never had a health problem...never seen a doctor for a thing, and she's 61.  I've also now got a big savings account.  So!  If I were a happy Republican, I wouldn't give a damn or worry, period, but count my lucky lil stars.

    Fortunately, I'm not.

    1. tksensei profile image60
      tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Then maybe you shouldn't have said it.




      Missed the point of that one too, huh?




      You probably don't need to be, because this ridiculous bill is likely to die when Congress gets back in session.



      How wonderful for you. Tell us more things you love about yourself.

    2. SweetiePie profile image83
      SweetiePieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Do not worry, that remark was not even meant for earnest.  It is meant for me, and some will never let me forget it smile.  If you noticed I do not even try to participate in this threads the last couple of days lol.

      1. profile image0
        Leta Sposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Actually, SP, it is meant for all of us even remotely in the realm of being called 'liberal.'  It's really weird...you see the same terms: 'intellectual,' blah blah, 'good person,' blah, and all that crap irregardless of the identity of the liberal...person.  It's like they all listen to the same radio shows, wink.  Which they do.

        After I saw this...on a number of people's hubs--Ralph Deeds, pgrundy's, ie, I'm not taking it for more than what it is.  Bilge.

        1. tksensei profile image60
          tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Really? I thought it was meant for anyone who, in an utterly ridiculous display of arrogance, ego, and self-obsession, went out of their way to tell everyone how wonderful they think they are. Didn't know it was tied to political leanings.

        2. SweetiePie profile image83
          SweetiePieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Yeah you are probably right smile.  It just seems one little comment I made awhile back has served as a great source of fun for a few people on here.

          1. profile image0
            Leta Sposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            No, really.  It is about anyone who seems like a liberal, or I'd even go so far as to say, has done a lot of reading, has experience, or education....etc., who "seems liberal."  You see it over and over again on the political hubs.

            And anyway...lots of us know that there is something really the matter with Kansas, these days, anyway.  wink  That is actually the title of a book by Thomas Frank examining why some people have been induced to turn to the right and mainly, vote against their best interests.

  33. tksensei profile image60
    tksenseiposted 7 years ago

    As I recall, a "little comment" was made over and over and over again, but whatever...

  34. secondreview profile image61
    secondreviewposted 7 years ago

    How it is in Canada.
    1.  You can go to whatever hospital you want.
    2.  You can see any doctor you want.  Any specialist will see you provided you have a valid referral from your GP.
    3.  All employers pay a healthcare premium and corporate taxes.   There is no opt out unless you are a "self employed contract worker".
    4.  If you can afford private health care clinics, you are welcome to go and do whatever you want.
    5.  Dentists, eye doctors, chiropractors, (unless you have certain conditions, e.g. glaucoma or diabetes) are not part of the healthcare plan and you do pay for it.  Most employers have additional benefits which covers or discounts these extra costs.
    6.  Your bank balance, occupation or employment status does not affect your triage treatment.
    7.  You may have to wait a little longer for elective surgery, but if you are hospitalized and need surgery, you will get it when you need it.
    8.  Healthcare professionals are just as committed and competent as in the USA.
    9.  There is no life time maximum or treatment maximum.
    10. There is no age restriction. Grandma will not be downgraded to 2nd or 3rd level care.

    All these horror stories, fears and worries about universal care are promoted by the people who reap the benefits of charging $10 per aspirin, receive astronomical salaries because of their grad school connections and live in "estates".

    Grandma dying on the stretcher, unattended or homeless because of unfair healthcare costs is the American plan and not anyone elses.

    1. Misha profile image75
      Mishaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I beg to differ, I charge only $5 for aspirin! lol

    2. tksensei profile image60
      tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this
    3. anime_nanet profile image61
      anime_nanetposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Similar system to Portugal's. I agree 100% with this poster.

      1. megs78 profile image60
        megs78posted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I too, agree with this post.  I don't understand all the fear-mongering at all.  People just dont have their facts straight and so assume the worst.  Healthcare in Canada is not a nightmare, take it from me, I've had 3 babies, numerous surgeries, and a lot of emergencies (3 kids).  I have never been part of a nightmare and am always treated well and usually swiftly.  After going through a life-threatening episode with my 1 year old son and living in hell, I can't imagine having the stress of wondering how I was going to pay for all his medical attention.  Suffice it to say, he is still going through numerous testing, has seen a specialist, and is being treated with the promptest care and he has amazing doctors.  So please tell me why anyone wouldn't want this?

        1. nicomp profile image59
          nicompposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          The simple answer is; we don't have the money and it's unconstitutional anyway. Neither can be debated.

          1. megs78 profile image60
            megs78posted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Why unconstitutional? (seriously want to know, not being insolent), and how is it you don't have the money?  Yes, I know, recession, recession, recession, but like here, why not pay through taxes?  Yes, we see it coming off our cheques, but we don't feel it so much and we feel safe.

            1. nicomp profile image59
              nicompposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              The constitution gives specific powers to the federal government. The document is written to enumerate powers to the feds and leave everything else to the states. It is very clear in that regard. The United States was established with an emphasis on the concept of States Rights. Health care authority was not granted to Washington DC.

              As for affording it, we are currently running a deficit of over 1 billion dollars per day. In other words, we borrow that much money each day to finance the federal government. We are already in debt up to our eyeballs.

              There isn't enough tax money out there to finance free health care for every citizen. It's just not there. We could confiscate all the income of 'the rich' and that still wouldn't cover it. The illusion that technology and preventative medicine will make it cheaper is silly. Preventive medicine is great, but it costs more.

              1. SparklingJewel profile image66
                SparklingJewelposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Not sure what you define as preventive medicine...but I have never had health care insurance and have practiced natural wellness preventive medicine for over 30 years while raising my four children...it is not only a less expensive alternative to health care insurance, but along with the lifestyle that comes from learning how to care for yourself in that way, it maintains constitutional integrity by keeping one from becoming too dependent on others or the government. I could list many more benefits.

                Yes, it will take a gradual shift for an entire country to get anywhere near self preservation I have achieved, but the increments would definitely be worthwhile and cost less.

                1. nicomp profile image59
                  nicompposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  Preventive medicine is a prostate exam every year, mammograms every year, etc. I'm not opposed to preventive medicine. I'm only explaining that generally it's more expensive than not, from a macro perspective.

                  Of course, an individual who skips his prostate exam and is struck down by cancer would look back and say "wow, it sure would have been cheaper to have that 5 minute test every year than pay for chemo." However, asking the government (us) to pay for free exams for everyone will cost much more.

                  For example, breast cancer occurs in women at an overall rate of 123.8 per 100,000 women, or 0.1238 perecent. About 1/10 of one per cent. According to census.gov, there are 151,627,727 females in the country, of which about 48% are over 30. That's about 72,781,308 mammograms to subsidize every year.

                  Assuming $250 per mammogram, we will be paying $18,195,327,240 per year. That's 18 billion dollars. Assuming that .1238 per cent of the women actually contracted the cancer, that works out to about 90,103 cases per year. That's a big number and it's horrifying to imagine the suffering that is behind that number. Medicare reports an average cost per case of $20,964. That works out to a total of $1,888,924,728. That's about 2 billion dollars, or 1/9 of the cost of the preventive procedure.

                  I'm not a doctor. I'm just presenting the numbers.

                  Sources:
                  http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/breast.html

                  http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ST … CONTEXT=st

                  http://www.dentalplans.com/articles/335 … -soar.html

                  1. SparklingJewel profile image66
                    SparklingJewelposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    Ok, you are defining preventive care under the mainstream conventional healthcare system...that is not what I am talking about. I think the mainstream system, as in insurance focuses on illness too much, instead of on wellness. It also creates problem with it's methods that "knock" one's natural flow of energy way off course.

  35. earnestshub profile image88
    earnestshubposted 7 years ago

    Same in Australia.

  36. mcbean profile image83
    mcbeanposted 7 years ago

    In Australia, as in most countries with a functional public health system, all emergency care is provided in public hospitals. It does not matter if your are the Prime Minister, President, King, or a celebrity, the only place equipped to deal with major trauma and emergency medicine is a public hospital.
    The private health system is encouraged by the government through tax breaks to take the pressure off the public system for elective and non-life or limb threatening procedures.
    Those that can't afford private health insurance can still have elective operations done on the public system via a waiting list.
    Homeless people, drug addicts, the rich and the poor all get emergency care. In busy times it is the patients medical need that determines who is seen first.Not income or insurance status

    1. tksensei profile image60
      tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Same here.

  37. Envoy profile image61
    Envoyposted 7 years ago

    A memo obtained by the Huffington Post confirms that the White House and the pharmaceutical lobby secretly agreed to precisely the sort of wide-ranging deal that both parties have been denying over the past week.

    Critics on Capitol Hill and online responded with outrage at the reports that Obama had gone behind their backs and sold the reform movement short. Furthermore, the deal seemed to be a betrayal of several promises made by then-Sen. Obama during the presidential campaign, among them that he would use the power of government to drive down the costs of drugs to Medicare and that negotiations would be conducted in the open.

    The White House meeting took place on July 7th, as first reported that evening in the Wall Street Journal. Also on the same day, a health care lobbyist following the talks was provided the outline of the deal by a person inside the negotiations.

    Obama is walking a tightrope here. He wants to keep PhRMA from opposing the bill, and benefits by having its support, which now includes a $150 million advertising campaign. That's a fortune in politics -- more than Republican presidential candidate John McCain spent on advertising during his entire campaign -- but it's loose change in the pharmaceutical business.
    ===============================================

    & yet naive people think it's about helping the American people with health care reform all the while there is infighting among democrats as well because as THEY all know it's about politics, money & power. As pelosi screams why wasn't I invited to your secret meeting boo who. Had to have my junk food today hee hee ha ha!

    1. profile image0
      Leta Sposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      That's actually old news.  The health care industry was one of Obama's biggest campaign contributors.

      Also, (though I think he's controversial at best), see Michael Moore's "Sicko."  Somewhat spells it out.

      As far as it all being money & power vs. helping people, I'm pretty sure it is a bit of both.  Nothing is all dark and/or all light.

      1. Envoy profile image61
        Envoyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Oh I see old news to you means not important oh thank you how foolish of me to think the president should not be in bed with the drug companies. Oh thank you for that wisdom!
        I am so glad to know your source of information that makes me look at you in a new light. Very informative indeed. I care about who is lining the presidents pockets it happens to be a very valid point old news or not. More of the same as Bush indeed.

  38. tksensei profile image60
    tksenseiposted 7 years ago

    LOL! I love the "voting against their own best interests" canard! A simplistic, presumptuous, partisan bromide.

    1. profile image0
      Leta Sposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I'm sure you are familiar....with the book...or something in the title of the book.  Of course, that is Frank's 400 page or something canard...

  39. tksensei profile image60
    tksenseiposted 7 years ago

    LOL! I love the "voting against their own best interests" canard! A simplistic, presumptuous, partisan bromide.

  40. tksensei profile image60
    tksenseiposted 7 years ago

    the US has the highest five-year survival rates for breast cancer at 83.9% and prostate cancer at 91.9%.

  41. SparklingJewel profile image66
    SparklingJewelposted 7 years ago

    Here is another reason many are fighting aspects of healthcare reform...it will limit the right of conscience of some taxpayers to not pay for abortions much more than is done now.


    Question: Won’t the Hyde Amendment and Capps Compromise  prohibit tax payer funded abortions?

    Answer:  On July 30, the House Energy and Commerce Committee added to H.R. 3200 an amendment written by staff to Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Ca.) and offered by Rep. Lois Capps (D-Ca.), both of whom have consistently pro-abortion career voting records. This “phony compromise” explicitly authorizes the “public plan” to cover all abortions. This would drastically change longstanding federal policy. This means that any citizen who wants to take advantage of the public plan will be compelled to purchase coverage for abortion on demand. The federal agency will collect the premium money, receive bills from abortionists, and send the abortionists payment checks from a federal Treasury account. It is a sham to pretend that this does not constitute funding of abortion. If this passes, the federal government will be running a nationwide abortion-on-demand insurance plan.

    Under H.R. 3200 as amended by the Capps Amendment, some private plans may elect not to include abortion, but private plans that cover elective abortion will be federally subsidized. Both bills provide funds for the new premium-subsidy program through a new funding pipeline that would not be subject to the Hyde Amendment, which is merely a year-to-year provision that currently prevents federal funding of abortions in the Medicaid program. As the Associated Press accurately reported in its August 5, 2009, analysis, “A law called the Hyde amendment applies the [abortion] restrictions to Medicaid . . . The [Obama-backed] health overhaul would create a stream of federal funding not covered by the restrictions.”

    Further, there is no doubt whatever that the Obama Administration would immediately use the Capps authorization to cover elective abortions in the public plan.  On July 17, 2007, Barack Obama appeared before the annual conference of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund.  Speaking of his plans for “health care reform,” Obama said, “In my mind, reproductive care is essential care.  It is basic care, and so it is at the center and at the heart of the plan that I propose.”  He also stated that, “What we’re doing is to say that we’re gonna set up a public plan that all persons and all women can access if they don’t have health insurance.  It’ll be a plan that will provide all essential services, including reproductive services.”

  42. Aya Katz profile image89
    Aya Katzposted 7 years ago

    Nicomp, interesting statistics.

    There's also the quality of life issue. We're told how insurance and preventive medicine will make life better for those who otherwise would succumb to particular diseases. But to burden every person with the diseases and potential diseases of his neighbor is to make everybody suffer the financial effects of disease every day.

    It's very similar to the issue of the various safety features in automobiles that are now mandatory because they might save a life if you're in an accident, but end up costing so much even if you're not. The quality of life of every person is diminished every day.

    1. nicomp profile image59
      nicompposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Good points. Quality of life cannot be quantified, or paid for by the government. I disagree that every person sees their quality of life decrease every day. We can't measure that; each able-bodied person is responsible for their own happiness.

  43. jiberish profile image78
    jiberishposted 7 years ago

    Even Obama himself, said that the Canadian plan would not work for us. While you may have something that works in your country, the way this plan is worded would cause chaos at best in this country. I agree with helping those that somehow don't get care, but this plan is detrimental.

  44. Aya Katz profile image89
    Aya Katzposted 7 years ago

    Nicomp, I agree with your last statement: we're each responsible for our own happiness.

  45. profile image0
    Leta Sposted 7 years ago

    Nicomp and Aya...

    You guys take things...even language and interpretation of data...to extremes.  It's a little scary, actually.

    For starters, insurance companies are making money off of the people who have those 'wellness' exams every year.  They are the people who have nothing wrong with them but pay there premium religiously...the cost of the exams is negligible.
    That's why they are so often free (in my Blue Cross Blue Shield insurance, everywhere I've gone, they are free.)  Dental exams/cleanings, breast exams, blah, blah, etc., etc.

    You ARE confusing preventative medicine/wellness with mainstream exams, too...the 'commercialization' of medicine.  Which is a subject all its own...and which many high quality (Andrew Weil) physicians, and hubpages own Jewel, wink, is on to here.

    AND to characterize the vocation of medicine--which at the heart of it has always been HELPING the sick and those who need it--as penalizing other healthy people through the designation of payment...whatever way it ends up--borders on the psychological definition of paranoia, I think.

    1. nicomp profile image59
      nicompposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Sigh. Feel free to cling to anecdotal evidence if you like. I am confusing nothing. You can dispute my numbers or double-check my calculations, but to dismiss them out of hand as extreme is ... well, extreme of you.

      Insurance companies are *supposed* to make money. That's how they pay employees and keep the lights on. I trust that you don't begrudge the folks at HubPages their profit.

  46. Dolores Monet profile image92
    Dolores Monetposted 7 years ago

    nicomp, a nonprofit insurance system would pay the bills and overhead - it's the huge profits made off of sick people or people's fear of becoming sick that is a big problem. Now, the health system is run by businessmen for profit. I'd like to see a health care system run by medical professionals.
    They really need to cut down on costs and one of the first things to do is outlaw TV advertising of prescription medications. Years ago, they were not allowed to advertise.

    1. nicomp profile image59
      nicompposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      They don't make money off the sick people! They make money off people like me, who payed monthly premiums and never went to the doctor.

      There's nothing wrong with big business or businessmen running anything for profit.

      Seriously, if there was a niche, we'd see a nice person some along and open an insurance company that runs with a tiny profit and at the same time pays every claim 100%. Since no companies are doing that, it's obviously impossible.

  47. SweetiePie profile image83
    SweetiePieposted 7 years ago

    Some people do not even drive, and work several jobs just to pay for their living expenses.  There are many circumstances that make high health care premiums unaffordable, and buying private insurance is not affordable.  Once you have paid a $5,000 dollar deductible for just a few procedures then you will see what I mean.

    1. nicomp profile image59
      nicompposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      So someone else should pay for it...

      1. SweetiePie profile image83
        SweetiePieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        No, we should have a single payer model where everyone pays in, and no one is penalized because they have to buy private insurance, or cannot afford insurance.  The US is not even advocating a single payer model, so all the fuss is really over the top.  People who have bought private insurance actually end up paying much more than you probably have for basic procedures, but you are so afraid that you would be paying for their health care.  Maybe this is a little paranoid, I do not know.

        1. nicomp profile image59
          nicompposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          I don't know where you get your information, but Obama is on record as favoring a single payer system that depends on 'the rich' to foot the bill. Nowhere in any proposal is a fee schedule that requires 'everyone' to pay in. Shucks, only 1/2 of federal filers pay any income tax now. How in the world do you think we can get them to kick in for their own health care?


          Obama: "Single payer system. That's what I'd like to see."
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpAyan1fXCE

          http://money.cnn.com/video/news/2009/07 … .cnnmoney/

          1. SweetiePie profile image83
            SweetiePieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Actually the Obama plan is not a true single payer plan because in countries with those plans: Canada, the UK, etc, everyone has the government health insurance plan.  The health care reform proposed here in the US is similar to what they have in Switzerland, which allows for a government structured health care plan and private plans to coexist.  My view is if you are wealthy you probably can afford to pay more taxes, and the wealthy have actually paid less since when Ronald Reagan was in office. 

            Most people that work pay income tax because it is taken out of their check, and if they did not have to pay on their income tax returns it is because they made under or certain amount, or they planned accordingly and had more taken out of their check through out the year.  Since I have a regular job, and I do online writing I had money taken out of my paycheck, and I had to pay taxes at the end of the year for contract payments.  Most people that work do pay some form of tax, and to imply people do not is a little silly.

            1. nicomp profile image59
              nicompposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              The money taken out of your paycheck is irrelevant; you just get it back at filing time.

              Don't let the facts get in the way of your opinion.
              http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/250.html
              The bottom 50% of income tax filers paid 2.99% of the total income tax collected.

              You don't even read the references I provide for you, but I'll keep pushing: Obama is on record as favoring a single payer system:
              Obama: "Single payer system. That's what I'd like to see."
              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpAyan1fXCE

              1. SweetiePie profile image83
                SweetiePieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Guess what, I agree with him.  However, he has made it clear he will not push for the single payer plan because the US is not ready for that structure.  I looked at your links, but as usual you are very opposed to any health care reform, so I can see you are just being pushy.  Many Americans are opposed to health care reform, but the reality is those are the same Americans that have employer benefits, or who are wealthy enough to pay for any procedure they desire.  Those who have to buy private insurance, cannot afford insurance, or who have crummy employer insurance often want something better for their country and fellow people.  I think you actually have to be in someone else's position before you can know this.

  48. nicomp profile image59
    nicompposted 7 years ago

    Read this:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/15/healt … .html?_r=2

    Look at the graphic on the left. You can easily see that the plan is to soak the rich to ostensibly pay for everyone else's insurance.

  49. profile image0
    pgrundyposted 7 years ago

    People who have insurance are already footing the bill for the uninsured in the form of rising costs. When someone walks into an emergency room because they can't afford a doctor and can't pay the bill, those costs have to be passed on. That's why costs are going up so fast. If no reform package is passed, the cost of health care, including insurance, will double in five years, and it's already unmanageable.

    This is one of those subjects where people seem to argue out of ideology rather than practicality. In 2008 I ended up with over $4,000 in medical bills AFTER INSURANCE from a 36-hour visit to an ER that was not avoidable.

    All of this "I don't want to pay for poor people" is silly because if you have insurance, you're already paying for poor people, and you don't have adequate coverage for yourself.

    This year the state approved a 22% increase for the nongroup version of BC/BS in Michigan and that was supposed to be a HAPPY thing.

    They were expecting a much bigger increase.

    1. nicomp profile image59
      nicompposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      The current bill(s) are not reform in the sense that all opportunities to reduce costs will be addressed. For example, congress has exempted itself from the legislation and will undoubtedly exempt federal employees and probably employees of labor unions.


      If we are paying for the poor already, then the 45 million without insurance is a red herring, as I'm sure you agree.


      The state of Kentucky passed emergency legislation allowing laid-off employees to continue to purchase their insurance at the same rates as when they were subsidized by their employers. Insurance companies simply increased rates for everyone else by 30%. All of this stinks, but giving over 17% of the economy to the federal government will only make it much worse.

      No private for-profit company can compete with a federal bureaucrat who is only motivated by spending up to his budget and keeping his job.

      1. profile image0
        pgrundyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Except Obama's plan doesn't give 17% of the economy to the federal government.

        Even if it did, it's just not true that private industry can't compete with the government. Fed Ex seems to compete pretty successfully with the Post Office. Or, look at it in reverse--the government provides decent care way cheaper. Wow, that would be awful, huh?

        I'm sorry I just can't feel sorry for health insurance corporations.

        The trouble with profit-driven health care is that it doesn't create health or provide care. Why? Because it's more profitable to do neither. Profit drives more profit--more expensive tests, less preventative care, drugs prescribed for things they aren't meant to treat, huge clerical departments devoted to denying or limiting care... It isn't working. "It's not that bad," isn't a good answer because it IS that bad.

        1. livewithrichard profile image84
          livewithrichardposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Good point and I don't like the way the system is now. But, I don't like the idea of the government in control of the financial side either.  Government control encourages waste.

          Quick example of my experience:  When I was in the military, I was a combat medic and ran an aid station when we were not in the field.  We had an annual budget of $35,000 for our aid station to purchase medical supplies and equipment.  2 months before the end of the fiscal year we would still have $20,000 or so left on the books.  We had to spend every penny of that budget or we wouldn't get the same budget the next year.  Did we need the larger budget? No.  We would purchase supplies and equipment and then store it in our own bunker which was the size of a gymnasium "in case we ever went to war."  Crazy thing is, we were a 3rd echelon training base and would never see war unless it came to us.

          Every branch of the military, every department of every government agency has an allotted budget that works in the same manner.  Use it all or you wont get as much the next time.

          The only way I can see it working is if insurance were non-profit driven and non-government controlled.

  50. Aya Katz profile image89
    Aya Katzposted 7 years ago

    What would our health care system look like if nobody, rich or poor, had any insurance, whether publicly or privately funded? I think it would be a lot less expensive and doctors would still make house calls.

    Insurance destroys!

Closed to reply
 
working