"Obama keeps all-Democratic health care option open": Yahoo!

1. 59

   fishskinfreak2008posted 14 years ago

   Web-site/URL: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100218/ap_ … e_overhaul
   
   In addition to THE PUBLIC OPTION (which is essential), he should also allow people with disabilities to stay on the family plan should they be unable to find a job in this difficult economy (as job prospects are still HORRIBLE) or if they are so unfortunate that they become incapacitated.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      chasingcarsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Yah to the power of hoo!  That's the first good thing I've heard coming out of congress in a while.  Not only would  it offer people affordable options, it would be effective in keeping prices competitive.  Did you hear that Wellpoint and a number of other insurance companies, drunk on their success in controlling congress, are trying to raise premiums in California by 38%.  My hero, Sibelius, is doing her damndest to shut them down.  Insurance premiums could go up to $7000 a year more for Californians who can't get group health care.  They have also dropped "loser" insurees despite the fact their ceos are running home with million dollar profits.  Maybe this dumb move will motivate the dems to get off their asses and get the public option through.  It might just be all that needs to be done.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         A Texanposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         

         replyreport
   2. 0

      Poppa Bluesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Do you read what you write? You hope "HE" will "allow"... This is precisely the problem with government taking over health care, which they are NOT permitted to do according to the constitution!
      
      What you must understand is that your rights are not given to you by your president, or your government which is why the founders limited the powers of government in the first place. They knew if man had power over men, that power would be abused which is exactly what the health care bill does!

      replyreport
      1. 57

         Sab Ohposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Good post PB!

         replyreport
2. 64

   Mishaposted 14 years ago

   What? Ron was wrong?

   replyreport
   1. 0

      A Texanposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      That's a first?

      replyreport
      1. 64

         Mishaposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         No, but I sort of hoped he was right this time... No luck though

         replyreport
3. 60

   Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years ago

   Yahoo bans only last a few minutes.

   replyreport
4. 68

   MikeNVposted 14 years ago

   This new twist on Obamacare is not what Congress is approving it's what Obama himself "thinks" the system should be like.  Since when does the president become the sole source of lawmaking?
   
   No matter how you slice it... Obama is still trying to force through the same POORLY CONSTRUCTED BILLS that are simply BAD LEGISLATION.  In stead of addressing the issues one at a time in a open forum he is not back tracking and trying to force through as much BAD LEGISLATION as possible.
   
   I am very much for Health Care Reform... but these Bills are not going to benefit the people.
   
   CASE IN POINT:
   
   Republicans want to place limits on medical malpractice judgments, an approach the Congressional Budget Office says would save money by reducing defensive medicine. Obama has toyed with the idea, saying he agrees that something should be done, but thinks limits on jury awards go too far.
   
   The Congressional Budget Office says it would save money and Obama is against it? Obama is against limiting Jury Awards?  Then how does he propose to contain costs?
   
   COST OF MALPRACTICE INSURANCE:
   
   The next time you visit your doctor, scrutinize the bill carefully. What it won't tell you is that about ten cents of every dollar paid for health care goes to the malpractice insurance doctors must have to protect themselves in case patients sue them.
   
   Malpractice premiums cost doctors tens of thousands of dollars a year, not because an individual doctor has a history of making mistakes, but because in some states juries make excessively generous awards, knowing that insurance companies will pay.
   
   Medical specialties with the highest premiums include obstetrics and anesthesiology. Insurance premiums for some doctors in high-cost states can reach $200,000 per year, whereas premiums in low-cost states are closer to $20,000 annually. Resolving a suit takes at least three years, distracting physicians' efforts from the practice of medicine.
   
   According to Towers Perrin, a global professional services firm, malpractice litigation costs $30 billion a year and has grown at more than 10% annually since 1975. But that's less than half the story. To avoid being sued, doctors use excessive tests and other procedures to avoid lawsuits, and stay out of certain areas of medicine. The result is higher costs for medical care.
   
   The 1,000-plus page health-care bill under consideration in the House of Representatives mentions the word "malpractice" only once, on page 263, in the context of "malpractice geographic indices" for determining physician reimbursements for Medicare services. Yet crafters of the health care bill cannot find a single section to limit costs of lawsuits.
   
   Rather, Democrats have sponsored three bills to broaden the scope of malpractice suits.

   replyreport