This is topic YAY (gulp) ! , A PRESIDENT TACKLES (is tackled?) HEALTHCARE in forum General Support at LymeNet Flash.

To visit this topic, use this URL:

Posted by sometimesdilly (Member # 9982) on :
a non-completely doom and gloom and dang that socialist president perspective.

the process will absolutely be corrupted by powerful interests.. ain't that America, the home of the free,

but unlike the past 8 years when pretending that the problem didn't exist, at least this president is reaching for social justice.

why that is so threatening to some i can't imagine, but thank God, the majority of us elected him and gave him a decisive mandate to do things differently, including health care.

[ 08-07-2009, 01:45 AM: Message edited by: sometimesdilly ]
Posted by Need Lots of Help (Member # 18603) on :
A president shouldn't be tackling healthcare....
Posted by luvs2ride (Member # 8090) on :

Please outline exactly what is wrong with healthcare.

Posted by dmc (Member # 5102) on :
Check out the VA healthcare system before you look for government to "correct" the health system.

Not very good...
Posted by Renee K (Member # 21220) on :
Be careful what you wish for, you just may be determined to be one who does not deserve to receive ANY medical treatment
Posted by Zebco 33 (Member # 18376) on :
I personally do not want the government telling me what doctor and what medication "they" think I should have.

This is a very slippery slope. Will they tell you how much you should weigh?

Will they tell you how you should live if you are predisposed to cancer or an addiction?

Would I like "free" health care? Absolutely!

I'm really not sure "The President" is really running the country.

Therefore, I go fishing and hiking and try to enjoy my favorite things.

If people really knew what was important, there would be a lot less fishing poles!!! hehe.
Posted by Meg (Member # 22) on :
Healthcare is not in the President's job description.
He or She is not King and is not expected to run every jot and tittle in this Country.
Posted by luvs2ride (Member # 8090) on :

Please tell us what you think will be better about healthcare with Obama's plan.

His own economists are saying the costs of his plan will be unsupportable and his own party is beginning to back peddle.

I don't understand why his solution to "healthcare" problems is a national insurance plan. How does that improve medical care in America?

Sounds to me more like a government takeover of a another profitable industry. Will the government insurance profits disappear down the same black hole down which the lottery profits have disappeared? The same hole the $500 million tax dollars lost by the Chicago school system?

Amazingly, congress has 12 private insurance plans they can choose from and of those 12, medicaid is missing. hmmmm..... Wonder if John McCain and other veterans who are now politicians use their VA medical benefits or private medical care? hmmmmm......
Posted by luvs2ride (Member # 8090) on :

I went to your link and read about how Obama's plan is doomed to cost Americans trillions of dollars contrary to what Obama said in his televised conference to the nation.

Check it out for yourself.
Posted by luvs2ride (Member # 8090) on :
Oops! Dilly, You aren't going to like this.

You may recall that in another post I mentioned I work in the insurance industry (not health) and have not heard even so much as a whisper of concern in the insurance grapevine which led me to believe the insurance companies are not concerned about the public healthcare plan.

Well, take a look at this article.

Particularly note:

"The drug industry, the American Medical Association, hospital groups and the insurance lobby are all saying Congress must make major changes this year. Television ads paid for by drug companies and insurers continued to emphasize the benefits of a health care overhaul -- not the groups' objections to some of the proposals."

"It's all got to do with shifts in the economy. Even before the recession hit, employer-sponsored health coverage had been steadily shrinking, and many people couldn't afford the premiums for individual policies. Meanwhile, government programs have been expanding -- and they've gotten increasingly friendly to private insurance companies. Insurers now play major roles as middlemen in Medicare, Medicaid and the children's insurance program.

And if the government requires everybody to get coverage -- just what the overhaul legislation calls for -- it could guarantee a steady stream of customers subsidized by taxpayers not only for insurers, but for all medical providers."

As I stated in another post, everyone needs to step back from their political preferences and analyse our government seriously and objectively.

Nothing that is being done is for our benefit. Nothing. Big Business and Big Government have one honeymoon of a marriage and we are paying for it. The joke is on us.
Posted by sometimesdilly (Member # 9982) on :

obama does not want a national insurance plan- a single payer system,call it what you will; by any name that means NO private insurance companies, just one single gvmt-run system.

that ain't happening, ain't even on the table, never was, never will be.

saying that's what he wants or has proposed or is what the dems are working on is a complete, total, utter distortion of what's going on.

its funny, really, that we seem to agree on what to me is obviously the most significant reality of all, which is ..

oh yes, our government is now and has been since Reagan opened the US treasury to corporate looters, more thoroughly corrupt and bought and owned by big business than any time since the 1920's. Unpleasant realities for most regular folk followed back then as they do now.

that's a non-partisan reality that actually the majority of americans know to be true.

couple of givens starting out. bush deliberately drained the treasury of trillions, which even the staunchest conservatives says publically is true. some say that's great- the starve the gvmt till you can drown it the bathtub variety of conservative, and others say eww, bush increased gvmt spending more than any president since LBJ and feel betrayed by him. whatever.

what matters is that the money went to the rich and to war-mongerers and profiteers, NONE to infrastructure of any kind, including social.

obama started off with enormous republican engineered deficits and a deeply entrenched corporate class that will NEVER relinquish its power unless, to quote Mao, it is at the barrel of a gun.

i read the cites you provided. sorry, but imo yahoo wire service "news" is about as reliable as Fox news or the national enquirer.

i'll reread factcheck when i have more brainpower, but it is odd to me that aiming for health coverage of 90 percent isn't presented as an astonishing possibility, rather, it is dismissed as not the plan O promoted when running for prez. well , yeah, DUH.

after the past too many years of yes sir republican congresses and a supreme court that gave away a presidency, its easy to see why many of us don't remember the gvmt has 3 branches.

well, at least in theory, anyway...
Posted by luvs2ride (Member # 8090) on :
Obama is the boss puppet my friend. His strings are pulled by the very same people who pulled Bush' strings and all presidents at least as far back as Woodrow Wilson and the establishment of the Federal Reserve.

Obama and McCain both went to Washington and climbed onboard that stupid bailout. The bailout of corporate giants. Obama is as beholding to them as anybody else.

They were in the heat of an election battle my friend. Commonsense will tell you that at least one of those two boys would have jumped on the platform of the 85% population who was screaming "Don't do the bailout!" They would have jumped on that bandwagon for the votes.

But neither one did that. They both got behind Bush. Wake up! Wake up! Wake up!

That is what I am trying to make you see. There is no hero in our government.

Here is something else to chew on. George Sorros. He is the 29th wealthiest man in the world. He has financially backed Friends of Hilary, John Kerry, Barrack Obama, George W Bush, John McCain. In other words, he will own whoever we elect.

George Sorros wants socialism. Now that should make you sit up and ask "Why?". Socialism is supposed to take from the rich and give to the poor. So George Sorros would be hurt financially under such a system. Right??

Oh, please spare me his "I'm old and enjoy giving my money away" speeches. Are you that naive really?

I'm telling you folks that if you give all the power to government (my honest opinion is that we are not going to be able to stop them, but we still have to try) George Sorros and his cronnies will be the powers behind the political puppets.

He won't lose. He will gain. He is just one such power monger.

Dilly, I pointed out your own link, Even they are finding lies in Obama's speach. Yet you are stuck in your position and stand your ground without reading your own sources.

You have to look beyond the facade you have placed so much trust in.

This is exactly what I had to do when my beloved president spoke to me on national TV and said "We must bailout AIG by this weekend or the country is ruined."

I walked away from my party at that moment. I'm very saavy in business and finance and I knew he was lying.

When you get your brainpower back, please reread my July 24 post under

I said there that I work in the insurance industry and have not heard a whisper of concern about Obama's national healthcare plan. Normally, we get tons of mail, e-mail, faxes alerting us to the downside of these bills and urging us to contact our state representative. Not a word this time.

I said this before the article I post in this thread. That article simply confirms what I already suspected.

You,Dilly, can't get focused on the right issues about healthcare. That is medical costs. You can't get past your insurance premium. The insurance premium is NOT THE COST OF MEDICAL CARE.
Posted by luvs2ride (Member # 8090) on :
PS. Thank God the single payer system isn't on the table (I'm not so sure about that). With it we will lose freedom of choice and that is NEVER a good thing.
Posted by kam (Member # 3410) on :
I really don't know what this current administrations plan is for health care reform.

I have been trying to figure that out when I am able.

But, my guess is insurance companies will fight any change and most likely win.

I recall when I was trying to get a dx, one of the doctor's I saw showed me the headlines for the HMO I had at the time.

It was about how much profit they had made that year. It was huge. And I was not able to get help with my health.

Insurance rates were going up to. $1200 a month would be taken out of my pay check for insurance premiums with the PPO that I thought I would get next.

But, did not get well enough to get back to work.
Posted by luvs2ride (Member # 8090) on :
Right Kam. Everyone's focus is on the insurance premium when it needs to be on the cost of medical care. Why is Mepron $600 a bottle? Liquid gold? Why is one chemotherapy treatment $20,000? What on earth could possibly be worth that?

Hey I am all for eliminating insurance altogether and then you would see medical costs come down.

Goverment programs already in place are so stringent on the fee they will pay doctors that most doctors refuse to take patients on these plans.

I assure you that is not going to change with any new government program. We will pay a lot and receive a little.

Now, my particular insurance plan costs my husband and I $800 a month. It is a PPO and has excellent coverage and service. Both my husband and I are over 50 which means even when we are healthy, our premiums are sky high and still only $800 a month.

I love it, am not complaining about it, am not asking you or anybody else to pay for it and I don't want to lose it.

Can you guarantee me I will not lose this great insurance plan?

What I am trying to tell you and you just aren't listening or don't believe me is that insurance is not fighting this because they are going to be a part of it. They are going to benefit from it. Obama and company have struck a deal with them that we are not aware of.

The article I post says that plain and clear. I believe it because I am in the industry and have not heard one peep of objection from any source. That is HUGE!

Pay attention. You guys think you're going to get those dirty dogs, but those dirty dogs are laughing all the way to the bank right along with the dirty politicians.

Pay attention. Start reading and learning.

Listen to both the left and the right media. Seek out and listen to independents and those who are not running for office. You will begin to understand when you drop your prejudices.
Posted by sometimesdilly (Member # 9982) on :
Luvs- because people don't agree with one or another parts of your assessment, or any of it for that matter, doesn't mean they aren't paying attention, aren't well-informed, or are fools.

its not really possible to have a genuine discussion about anything starting from that place.

i don't understand where you got the impression i worship at O's feet or am not aware of the greed and power elements of what is going on.

i started another thread because i was tired of argument by slogans and labels that are just nonsensical on their face-- such as socialist for the O.

i mean,HELLO... socialists don't sit down with capitalist barons to decide how to divide the pie.
Posted by Lymetoo (Member # 743) on :
Scares me to death.
Posted by luvs2ride (Member # 8090) on :
Me too Lymetoo.


I am studying capitalism, socialism and politicians right now as ardently as I had been studying lyme over the last 4 yrs.

I am becoming convinced that the powers that be (and trust me, they are way bigger than America) are both capitalists and socialists. Only they are so big, they are nearly unstoppable.

Socialism takes from the working class. Not the rich.

Capitalists barons are behind the socialist movement.

We bailed out the capitalists barons when they nearly lost their shirts in the mortage debaucle. They are doing fine now and back to making huge profits while we are saddled with the debt for decades.
Posted by sometimesdilly (Member # 9982) on :
luvs- i think we have 2 very different different definitions of "socialism."

capitalists barons (to use a shorthand term) ARE the rich.

the rich and powerful have always bought their power by buying legislators, local state and then federal. Always. That's how it works.

They buy reps so that the reps will write laws that give, maintain, then lock in the baron's power.

not all reps want to be bought, but sooner or later the ones who aren't bought realize they don't have enough money to win the next election if they don't, well, help out this or that baron's industry.

when too many laws are distorted to give barons carte blanche and have regulators of whatever strip look the other way, the barons inevitably overreach out of pure greediness and arrogance, harming the overall economy or too many of folks who actually vote, and so can't be allowed to drown.

(well, ok, if they're black they are allowed to literally drown, see Katrina).

well, what then? should the gvmt such as it is simply let the screwed through no fault of their own fend for themselves, heck with the social and economic consequences for all of us?

Is it your definition of socialism- a loose one, if so-- that if the gvmt designs policy in response- -good or bad or confused or whatever-- then that is socialism?
Posted by Lymetoo (Member # 743) on :
Soros is one rich "baron" who is behind it.
Posted by luvs2ride (Member # 8090) on :
No Dilly, that is not my definition of socialism.

The bailout was not socialism. George Bush did not want socialism nor do I. I bet you dollars to doughnuts GW did not want to do the bailout either.

But you are right about one thing. The barons own D.C. and all who are in it. They also own England, Germany, France, etc.

Ask yourself why Warren Buffet is campaigning for a second stimulus package. We haven't spent the money of the first one yet. Why does Warren want us to go deeper into debt?

Weelll, lets see now. He owns many corporations of which Wells Fargo is one and they received stimulus money. He helped beef up one of the big guys, I think it was Bank of America and he received some of their bailout monies in return.

He is gaining from all of this and you can bet the other barons are too. They have another name for these guys.....oligarks.

AIG could have been allowed to fail just as Bear Sterns was and Lehmann Brothers. AIG could have filed bankruptcy and continued operating with protection from their creditors.

But you see, their creditors were the barons. Not that the barons had loaned AIG money. No. AIG had guaranteed the investments all the financial institutes had in mortgage loans.

Only AIG had not used an insurance policy to guarantee these investments. That would have required them to set aside enough capital to pay the claims should the loans have defaulted.

Nope. They used another vehicle called a Credit Default Swap. It works like a bond or a promisory note.

No one expected all the mortgage loans to go belly up at one time. When it did, AIG could not pay the claims.

We antied up the money to pay those claims. The 85 billion did not go to bonuses like the media wants us to think. $13 billion went to Goldman Sachs which is very interesting since Henry Paulson is an ex-CEO of GS and was treasury secretary at the time of the bailout. 5 billion went to Bank of America, billions were paid to France and Germany and Switzerland.

Obama does want socialism for sure. But he is a beholding to the barons as was Bush. That is why both O and John McCain supported the bailout. The BOMB (Bush, Obama, McCain Bailout). George Sorros supported Friends of Hilary, John Kerry, Barrack Obama, George W Bush, John McCain.

He owns whomever we place in office. Furthermore, there are now about 15 ex-CEOs from GS in our government. GS is a big player in all of this. It is no coincidence that GS' two main competitiors were allowed to fail just hours before we decided to rescue AIG.

I am sure you see socialism as a "leveling of the playing field" but you can betcha the barons will not be leveled.

It will become like Russia during their socialist days, or Cuba and China now. The very rich and the working poor. No middle class to be found.

The working class will simply be slaves to the government and the government is the front for the barons.

As for the "black drowning" comment. Give me a break. I'm not black but I am a career woman who has encountered, endured and overcome plenty of sexism and prejudice my entire life.

I deal with it and work around it. All successful blacks have done the same thing.

For that matter, there are plenty of white men who have endured racism, castism, etc. They come from the wrong neighborhood, the wrong school, they don't have enough money, or attended the right schools. It is just human nature to have to lord it over someone or some class of people about something so you feel good about yourself.

It is done in every race and every community. It isn't right but it is experienced by nearly everyone at some point or another. Whoever is in power becomes oppressive and socialists are no different.

America had the best system when the people controlled the government. But that system stopped a long time ago. The federal government should do nothing more than protect us. The states should do the governing. That way we have 50 voices and Tennessee can be Tennessee and California can be California and you are free to live in whatever state suits you best.

I am absolutely certain we could clean up the bloated excess waste in government and the out and out stealing of our tax dollars and find enough excess income to pay off our debt, bring social security into the black and never have to cut a single dollar from the social programs.

Russia in 2003 adopted a flat tax system. Their tax rate dropped from 46% to 13% and they went from a deficit to being in the black as a result.

It is impossible to cheat on a flat tax system.

No tax credits and no tax hikes. People making a lot of money would pay more taxes than people making a little money.

And it is simple!

BTW, I support social programs. I would rather see them run by the states as I believe the closer to home the better we can keep it clean.
But I do not resent some of my tax dollars going for social programs.

It is my firm belief that the politicians are stealing our tax dollars. After a few politicians were vetted and found that they had not paid all their taxes, I wanted every single politician to be audited to see who else did not pay their taxes.

How dare they mandate money from us when they aren't paying their share.

Corruption, corruption, corruption.
Posted by Tincup (Member # 5829) on :
You know what is so great about this whole discussion?

Everyone gets to voice their opinion, no matter how slick shot or how lame it may be.



And just for talks sake..

What if Obama actually could give all American's decent health care coverage?

He did say he would try... and from what I see he IS doing that.

Maybe everyone could sit back and chill for a bit and give the President a chance to come through?

I have a couple theories here.

1. The USA has ALWAYS been in debt in the past and we will always be in debt in the future. I mean does anyone believe Obama or anyone else can reduce a trillion dollar debt to zero at this point?


Sooooooooooooo... since we will ALWAYS be in debt, why not in the meantime be sure all folks have one of the basics needs.... health care.

2. Will there EVER be a perfect system for health care in our country?

Heck no. Never will there come a time when EVERYONE is happy with the decisions made.

But like Obama said... we need to try to get it done NOW.

It will be years before it takes affect and folks are suffering NOW.

BTW- I've seen Medicare in action and have seen many many insurance companies in action.

By far, no question about it, government has a Medicare plan 1,000 times better than ANY private insurance I've seen.

They pay 80%, you pay 20%. The fees per person are incredibly super low compared to any other insurance plan.

They let you go to a doctor of your choice and a specialist and you have a choice of treatment options.

If we ALL had a Medicare-like plan it would be fantastic.

[Big Grin]
Posted by luvs2ride (Member # 8090) on :

U R right. It is great to be able to express ALL opinions without recrimination or personal assault.

But have you really done a study of ALL insurance plans?

I said early on in one of the threads that at least Obama is doing something.

However, you better note he is stopping that great medicare-pay-all-claims-presented practice.

That is one of the big ways he is going to save money to apply to the new plan. By actually examining the claims presented to medicare. He openly says that in all his speeches.

Something I am noticing in these threads about healthcare is that no one who is for it is giving any actual information about it. Just a kind of "no place like home" belief that whatever it is it will be better than what we have now.

Dilly posted a link to but then didn't read the link apparently because when I went to the link, all I saw was the falsity of Obama's speech given Weds. night.

And , you Tincup, laud the way medicare pays everything presented, even the fraudulent claims without question. Yet, Obama keeps saying he is going to put a stop to that.

He is going to proof those claims for validity just like insurance companies do. I've been crying for that for years. So, go Obama! In fact, there are many times I line up in my thinking with Obama. I love Michelle's organic garden and how she is teaching the children about organic gardening.

Any everyone here that knows me knows I am a strong supporter of eating right to heal your own body. Obama is no supporter of ice cream and if he has his way, you will pay a stiff penalty for your love of ice cream if it is connected to your health issues.

I am very willing to hear what is going to be the actual benefit of the new program and why it should replace the existing government healthcare programs, but no one answers me. You just keep jumping on me for giving evidence that it may not be better and in fact, gives strong indication of being worse.

Especially for the old and the DISABLED!

Why not make medicaid and medicare into one plan and expand the eligibility requirements?

My insurance plan is excellent and I am happy with it and do not want to lose it. Please when getting your dream plan with taxpayer dollars, please try not to screw up the plan I already have and pay for with my own income.

Thank you.

[ 07-27-2009, 07:41 AM: Message edited by: luvs2ride ]
Posted by luvs2ride (Member # 8090) on :
PS. Doesn't anyone else think combining medicaid and medicare into one program and expanding the eligibility requirements is a good idea?

Why do we need to scrap those plans and come up with an all new plan?
Posted by sometimesdilly (Member # 9982) on :
SOME REASONS Why The PROPOSED plan might actually be an improvement....

1. It calls for a demonstration program to evaluate the benefits of ``shared decision-making'' by letting Medicare pay for the time doctors and decision-making coaches spend consulting with their patients about various treatment options.

Research shows that when patients are given the opportunity to weigh potential risks and benefits, roughly 20 percent decide against elective surgery, treatments and tests.

The goal of ``shared decision-making'' is not to save dollars --the aim is to let the patient make an ``informed choice'' rather than passively giving ``informed consent''--and later regretting the decision.

Patients who engage in shared-decision-making are much less likely to experience regrets, and much less likely to sue.

This, too, will help trim the nation's healthcare bill--particularly if other states follow the state of Washington's example

and provide legal safe harbor for doctors who follow the shared decision-making protocol. (LLMD's anyone?)

It encourages primary care--which is almost always less expensive than specialists' care.

The proposal would raise Medicare payments to primary care physicians by at least 5 percent, hiking reimbursements by 10 percent in areas where there is a serious shortage of primary care doctors.

In addition, the plan offers bonuses for doctors who create medical homes

and manage chronic diseases (LLMD's, anyone?)

as well as loan-forgiveness for medical students who choose primary care. The public plan would follow Medicare's example.

Over ten years, this could lead to a significant increase in the supply of primary care physicians.

But in the U.S., thanks in large part to low reimbursements, we have too few family practitioners, and so patients wind up seeing a specialist--or land in an ER--because they cannot secure an appointment with a primary care doctor.

In addition, under the House bill, private insurers will no longer be allowed to charge co-pays for preventive care.

Research shows that even small co-pays can cause low-income patients to put off needed care. Over the very long term, this is likely to mean that poorer Americans will live longer, and yes, that will increase total health care costs.

It recommends that all manufacturers of drugs and devices be required to report their financial relationships with physicians, pharmacies, hospitals, and other organizations.

The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPac) has concluded that such relationships create conflicts, which lead to increased spending and suboptimal patient care.

(In one notorious case, device-makers were paying kick-backs to surgeons to use their most expensive products--whether or not those devices were best-suited for that particular patient.)

It requires that all private insurers pay out a certain (as yet unspecified) percentage of their premiums in reimbursements.

Those who do not meet the target will have to give rebates to enrollees.

This implicitly puts a cap on insurers' profits, and encourages greater administrative efficiency.
Posted by luvs2ride (Member # 8090) on :
Thank you Dilly.

That gives me solid information to chew on and much of it sounds very good.

No plan will be all perfect. Gotta weigh the good against the bad.

I like that kind of information.

Thanks again
Posted by Renee K (Member # 21220) on :
The government sponsored plan would end up being a disaster

Please go to a site where someone has read the entire House Bill and the Kennedy Proposal

Obama has said repeatedly his preference is a single payor system....that would mean nationalized healthcare.

I do not want a government agency deciding what treatments are best for me. Right now I have choice, with that I will not and probably be unable to obtain the care from my LLMD.
Posted by Geneal (Member # 10375) on :

Many people died during Katrina.

Mostly the poor.

New Orleans is a "poor" city; statistically over 70% African American.

Very little notice of evacuation; very little time to leave.

I got my Mother from over there to my house....

Which I lost too.

The sad reality is that even when the city gave people free rides,

Free stay, free food, etc., little over than one-half left for Gustave.

While I fault the government for not being prepared

For rescue/recovery efforts after the storm,

I don't hold the government responsible for my living

Outside for 37 days without choice as we stayed.

I would hope a regulation of services and payment plans

For health insurance and coverage would be the prevailing idea.

Not one, big government run beurocratic mess....

Like the VA hospitals. Yeah, the government runs those places well.

This isn't a dig on the President so much as it is a real

Concern that we don't all fit the same shoe.

I cannot fathom not having a choice in what type of insurance I get.

How about my Mother? What happens to her under this new plan?

Does she get counseled on dying now? (Page 425 of health care bill).

My Mother who married my Dad in Germany, came to the US,

Became a citizen and has lived, worked and

Contributed to this great nation of ours. Is this her reward?

Is this the destiny for all of us?

Remember, I still have a Grandmother living in Germany.

She is 88 and was diagnosed with Breast Cancer a year ago.

No radiation.....just a "happy" shot once a week.

Why? Ask the government run insurance program.

They made that decision.

I had family in both East and West Germany Prior to the wall coming down.

I know what communism is. I grew up with a very healthy respect

For freedom. I knew from my family still in East Germany

What it was like to not have any freedom of choice in anything...

IMHO, firm regulation of private insurance companies

and pharmaceuticals would allow us to still have choices and save money.

I also like the idea of offering a Medicaid/Medicaire

Type of insurance for anyone who wanted it for their families.

I still want the choice to choose mine.


Posted by luvs2ride (Member # 8090) on :
Wow, Geneal

You can speak from experience.

I agree with you that I want freedom of choice.
Posted by Lymetoo (Member # 743) on :
One concern of mine:

Health care costs will skyrocket. A government run system will cost more than $1 trillion and Washington will have to keep raising taxes, rationing care, and limiting your choices in doctors and treatments in order to keep up.
Posted by c3mom (Member # 16412) on :
I want freedom to choose also. Interesting, luvs, that you mention Soros and the Fed Reserve not many people know about it - good for you.

Are you familiar with when/why the WTO was formed - now that's an interesting read for sure!

Posted by Tincup (Member # 5829) on :
Luv said .. "However, you better note he is stopping that great medicare-pay-all-claims-presented practice. That is one of the big ways he is going to save money to apply to the new plan. By actually examining the claims presented to medicare."

I am delighted he is determined to stop government waste. Just what is needed... and very much appreciated.


Luv said.. "And , you Tincup, laud the way medicare pays everything presented, even the fraudulent claims without question."

Excuse me?

Did I say anything even close to that? I don't think so.

But you make a good point.

Most folks are saying what they hear others say or are making conclusions up in their own minds from bits and pieces.

Change the channel and you'll hear a different point of view.

Most haven't read the actual document ... but they have no problem saying things that just aren't so and putting their own spin on it... and putting things in the President's mouth that he never said.

We need to be careful about that if we want to be credible.

Luv's said.. "He is going to proof those claims for validity just like insurance companies do."

Again, if THEY- not the President himself... he won't have time to do it himself so he can't be said to be doing it....

If they (Medicare offices) don't do that already, they should.

Luvs said.. "But have you really done a study of ALL insurance plans?"

No. Not all of them, yet. I actually don't know anyone who has either.

But.. I work daily on trying to get folks across the country help with their insurance plans for rightly due benefits which are being denied, with some cases taking a year or more to get them help.

After all these years of doing this.. I have never had a problem with Medicare... only private insurance.

And folks can preach to me all day that insurance is a good thing... but a duck is a duck is a duck and you know how I feel about that...

And to me insurance will NEVER be something that I think is decent, fair or has the patients best interest at heart.

I'd ship ALL the insurance companies to the south pole if I could .... (car, home, medical, etc) then feel sorry for anyone having to go within 1,000 miles of them... so you might want to save your breath on this issue.

At least with me.



As for your comment..

"Obama is no supporter of ice cream and if he has his way, you will pay a stiff penalty for your love of ice cream if it is connected to your health issues."



Now Luv's... that's not really true, is it?

And you don't hardly think I would have voted for Obama if he didn't support ICE CREAM, do ya?

I know my President.. the important things at least... and I do check out the facts.

Obama eats ice cream, his kids eat ice cream... and even his dog eats ice cream!

"The president snacked on vanilla custard with hot fudge and toasted almonds in a cup... Sasha ordered a brownie sundae treat with vanilla custard, hot fudge and chocolate sprinkles. Malia walked out of the shop, eating the remains of a waffle cone with vanilla frozen custard."

"The Obamas... took home a bag of frozen "puppy pops" for their dog, Bo."

[Big Grin]

PS.. I love your passion.

Just maybe try to get the facts you present more in line and you'll probably do better convincing others to come around to your point of view.
Posted by Tincup (Member # 5829) on :

Forgot the first lady!

And love. And the first kiss that tasted of chocolate. And marriage.. and then comes the baby carriage.

"Before Michelle Obama spoke, the convention saw a short video describing her early life in Chicago's South Side and her relationship with Obama, who joked that she had been won over when he bought her an ice cream."


"Before leaving Charlottesville, the family stopped at Arch's Ice Cream on the Corner, where they picked up some dessert and surprised the people inside the restaurant."


"``I treated her to the finest ice cream Baskin-Robbins had to offer, our dinner table doubling as the curb,'' he wrote.

On the Tyra Banks Show in October 2007, he again headed straight for the dessert: ``We went to the Baskin-Robbins near my house and sat on the curb and ate ice cream,'' he said.

``After a firm picnic, she drove me back to my apartment, and I offered to buy her an ice cream cone. ... I asked if I could kiss her. It tasted of chocolate.''

[Big Grin]
Posted by LisaS (Member # 10581) on :
I'm with you on this one Dilly! Love Obama and all that he has already done. Wisconsin now has healthcare for adults without kids, or whose kids are over 19 who work but don't qualify for state Medicaid.

I think he was left with a lot to deal with, and he has already done a lot already.
Posted by sometimesdilly (Member # 9982) on :


1. Soros' bzackground (from wikipedia):

Soros was thirteen years old in March 1944 when Nazi Germany took military control over Hungary[12].

For two days, Soros worked for the Jewish Council[5], which had been established during the Nazi occupation of Hungary to forcibly carry out Nazi and Hungarian government anti-Jewish measures. Soros later described this time to writer Michael Lewis:

The Jewish Council asked the little kids to hand out the deportation notices. I was told to go to the Jewish Council. And there I was given these small slips of paper...It said report to the rabbi seminary at 9 a.m....And I was given this list of names.

I took this piece of paper to my father. He instantly recognized it. This was a list of Hungarian Jewish lawyers. He said, "You deliver the slips of paper and tell the people that if they report they will be deported.[13]

To avoid his son's being apprehended by the Nazis, Soros's father paid a Ministry of Agriculture employee to have Soros spend the summer of 1944 living with him and posing as the godson.

Young Soros had to hide his Jewishness even as the official was overseeing the confiscation of Jewish property.[14]

In the following year, Soros survived the battle of Budapest in which Soviet and German forces fought house-to-house through the city.

.............he went into investing on his own. He began to investigate how to deal in investments. From 1963 to 1973 he worked at Arnhold and S. Bleichroeder, where he attained the position of vice-president. Soros finally concluded that he was a better investor than he was a philosopher or an executive. In 1967 he persuaded the company to set up an offshore investment fund, First Eagle, for him to run; in 1969 the company founded a second fund for Soros, the Double Eagle hedge fund.[15]

When investment regulations restricted his ability to run the funds as he wished, he quit his position in 1973 and established a private investment company that eventually evolved into the Quantum Fund.

He has stated that his intent was to earn enough money on Wall Street to support himself as an author and philosopher - he calculated that $500,000 after five years would be possible and adequate.

He is also a former member of the Carlyle Group.[15] (this is UBER capitalist group--Bushes have always been in the thick of things there too).


According to the New Statesman's Neil Clark, Soros's role was crucial in the collapse of socialism in eastern Europe.

Clark states that from 1979, Soros distributed $3m a year to dissidents including Poland's Solidarity movement, Charter 77 in Czechoslovakia and Andrei Sakharov in the Soviet Union; in 1984, he founded his first Open Society Institute in Hungary and pumped millions of dollars into opposition movements and independent media.[33]

Since the fall of the Soviet Union, Soros' funding has continued to play an important role in the former Soviet sphere.

His funding and organization of Georgia's Rose Revolution was considered crucial to its success by Russian and Western observers, although Soros has said that his role has been "greatly exaggerated."[34]

Alexander Lomaia, Secretary of the Georgian Security Council and former Minister of Education and Science, is a former Executive Director of the Open Society Georgia Foundation (Soros Foundation,) overseeing a staff of 50 and a budget of $2,500,000.[35]

Former Georgian Foreign Minister Salom Zourabichvili wrote that institutions like the Soros Foundation were the cradle of democratisation and that all the NGOs which gravitated around the Soros Foundation undeniably carried the revolution.

She opines that after the revolution the Soros Foundation and the NGOs were integrated into power.[36

Soros despised Bush and did everything he could to defeat him. That does not make him a socialist anymore than my feeling and doing exactly the same thing (in my tiny way) makes me a socialist.

Criticize Soros- ok- but get the basic facts about him straight. He is exactly not a socialist.
Posted by sometimesdilly (Member # 9982) on :


"The U.S. spends 16% of gross domestic product on health care, Germany 10.7%. They like their system much better than we like ours.

But here is the banner headline, given our gridlock on health care reform: the German system is not socialized. The Germans do not use a single-payer, Medicare-type plan.

Here are some attributes of the German system:

* Coverage is portable
* Premiums based on ability to pay
* No deductibles
* Co-payments for service
* Free choice of provider
* Administrative simplicity
* Little or no wait for surgery or diagnostic tests
* After-hours care (by a physician) a phone call away
* 85% of the population covered by supervised semi-private plans
* 15% covered by fully private insurance plans offering more amenities
* Opt-in parallel private insurance available to the wealthy
* Workers and employers each pay about 8% of salary to a health fund of their choice
* Non-working spouse covered by employee contribution
* Self-employed purchase relatively affordable insurance from private providers
* Uses few tax dollars
* No significant rationing

The reason Germans achieve the results they enjoy is that they effectively regulate the semi-private plans offering health insurance.

These providers cannot refuse coverage to anybody. And they cannot charge differential pricing based on age or health status. This mandate makes the playing field level for all of the plans, with no competitive disadvantage to any provider.

The Germans call these funds sickness funds--not a very sexy name, but these are the Germans, after all. We could call them health funds. In Germany, there are about 200 of them.

In exchange for tightening the social compact, causing the wealthy to pay more by virtue of percentage-of-income pricing, which has long been standard progressive taxation practice, everybody gets access to insurance they can afford.

Nobody is denied health coverage based on a pre-existing condition.

Does the German model work well enough for us to consider it? Germans experience relative greater satisfaction with their health care system than we do, according to Lou Harris polls.

And consider this: though Germans are allowed to opt out of the sickness funds to go exclusively with private insurance, most don't, even among the most affluent consumers."
Posted by sometimesdilly (Member # 9982) on :

(succinctly-- the O may favor it but he's a realist who knows it will never happen and is NOT proposing anything like it).

Fact Check: Obama Consistent in His Position on Single Payer Health Care
January 05, 2008

Rhetoric: "Today, he opposes single payer health care, and attacks Sen. Clinton for proposing a plan that covers everyone"

Reality: Obama Has Consistently Said That If We Were Starting From Scratch, He Would Support A Single Payer System, But Now We Need To Build On The System We Have

If Obama Were Starting From Scratch, He Would Support A Single Payer System. The New Yorker wrote, "'If you're starting from scratch,' he [Obama] says, 'then a single-payer system'-a government-managed system like Canada's, which disconnects health insurance from employment-'would probably make sense.

But we've got all these legacy systems in place, and managing the transition, as well as adjusting the culture to a different system, would be difficult to pull off.

So we may need a system that's not so disruptive that people feel like suddenly what they've known for most of their lives is thrown by the wayside.'" [New Yorker, 5/7/07]

If Obama Were Starting From Scratch, He Would Support A Single Payer System.

"At a roundtable with a handful of invited guests at Lindy's Diner in Keene, Obama said if he were starting from scratch, he would probably propose a single payer health care system, but because of existing infrastructure, he created a proposal to improve the current system." [Concord Monitor, 8/14/07]

If Obama Were Starting From Scratch, He Would Support A Single Payer System. Obama said,

"Here's the bottom line. If I were designing a system from scratch I would probably set up a single-payer system...But we're not designing a system from scratch...

And when we had a healthcare forum before I set up my healthcare plan here in Iowa there was a lot of resistance to a single-payer system. So what I believe is we should set up a series of choices....Over time it may be that we end up transitioning to such a system.

For now, I just want to make sure every American is covered...I don't want to wait for that perfect system...The one thing you should ask about the candidates though is who's gonna have the capacity to actually deliver on the change?...

I believe I've got a better capacity to break the gridlock and attract both Independents and Republicans to work together." []
Posted by sometimesdilly (Member # 9982) on :


AP is now reporting-- that the Senate Finance Committee will likely call for the creation of a system of non-profit co-operatives in lieu of a public option--something which has been in the works for weeks

--but will not require employers to provide insurance for their workers.

Officials stressed that no agreement has been reached on a bipartisan measure, and said there is no guarantee of one. They also warned that numerous key issues remain to be settled, including several options to pay for the legislation.

They spoke on condition of anonymity, saying they were not authorized to discuss matters under private negotiations.

They said any legislation that emerges from the talks is expected to provide for a non-profit cooperative to sell insurance in competition with private industry, rather than giving the federal government a role in the marketplace.

The White House and numerous Democrats in Congress have called for a government option to provide competition to private companies and hold down costs.

Officials also said a bipartisan compromise would not subject companies to a penalty if they declined to offer coverage to their workers.

These businesses would be required to reimburse the government for part or all of any federal subsidies designed to help lower-income employees obtain insurance on their own.
Posted by sometimesdilly (Member # 9982) on :
now Tincup, the most regrettable and tragic fact check of all.

the big O does NOT like ice cream!!! [Eek!] [Eek!] [Eek!]

"......Not too far into the interview, a bored Sasha said, "Mommy, when are we getting ice cream?"

"We're getting ice cream? Ice cream is my favorite food. I could eat ice cream forever," Malia said.

"Everybody should like ice cream," Sasha said. "Except Daddy. My dad doesn't like sweets."

Obama confessed, "I'm not a real sweets guy."

Malia and her Dad noted he does like pie, especially pumpkin pie.

"He likes like minty gum; he doesn't like bubble gum," Sasha said.

"I'm a little conservative when it comes to my gum," Obama conceded."

i hope you are not too disillusioned, tin-tin.

Posted by sometimesdilly (Member # 9982) on :
UH OH....

about that employer mandate thing...

"But Blue Dogs (conservative democrats) have also been complaining about the employer mandate, which is even more at odds with their supposed concern about spending.

The Congressional Budget Office has already weighed in on this issue: without an employer mandate, health care reform would be undermined as many companies dropped their existing insurance plans, forcing workers to seek federal aid -- and causing the cost of subsidies to balloon.

It makes no sense at all to complain about the cost of subsidies and at the same time oppose an employer mandate.

Posted by Tincup (Member # 5829) on :
Pickle said.. "the big O does NOT like ice cream!!!"

That is a sure fact from someone who keeps a cow in their spare bedroom to have fresh milk for making their own homemade ice cream.


And ice cream may NOT be his favorite... but he buys it for love.

And here he said he doesn't like sweets... ohhhhhhhhh.... that's so cute.

[Big Grin]
Posted by sometimesdilly (Member # 9982) on :
tin--you remembered the cow- i'm impressed!! ....BUT but no mention of the cabana boys. i see what YOUR priorities are.. [Big Grin]

yes, buying ice-cream for love rather than just to eat is big-hearted plus, but a shameful lack of good taste nevertheless.

are all non ice-cream eaters socialists? [Razz]
Posted by Tincup (Member # 5829) on :
Non-ice cream eaters are funky chickens.

[Big Grin]

Cabanna boys you say? Hmmmmmmmmmm...

I ain't forgot... I'm just a bit slower than I use to be.

And I figured once you had your way with them.... they would be hopelessly devoted to you.

How's that for a compliment?

[Big Grin]
Posted by Geneal (Member # 10375) on :
I see what the report on Germany's health care system is,

However, my Mom grew up there and my grandmother is dying there.

Dying due to breast cancer.

Yes....she has a "private" policy.

Yes....she gets house calls.

When she broke her hip a few years ago,

It took many days to organize her surgery.

Many days to schedule/organize any rehab which was very limited.

Her breast cancer won't be treated.

Although she holds a private policy, they still are regulated

By the Government and certain standards.

On paper it looks pretty good.

Reality isn't quite as nice.

Although they do offer 3 months in the peace and quiet in the country

For those having nervous breakdowns.

They just make you an appointment and take you away.

They even pick you up in a car.

My aunt is currently on vaction on one of these trips.

My Aunt was hospitalized about 8 times due to high blood pressure

That no one could figure out how to address or compensate for.

Thus, the mental health diagnosis. One we are all familiar with.

Can't fix the problem, so it must be the patient.

She must be very anxious.

She had to travel 100-200 miles to hospitals equipped to

Address or try to address her hypertension issues.

It is still unresolved. Maybe some quiet in the country will fix that.

When my Mom was a child she said she remembers everyone going to

The local doctor. No appointments, no set time for opening, etc.

The waiting room would be filled.

Then she said that her Mom and her would walk in.

Went straight to the front of the line.

They had private insurance.

There was no guaranty that the people waiting would even be seen

On the date they were there.

It may work for some, but usually the very healthy

Or the ones wealthy enough for private insurance.

Just my very humble experience from my Mom and my Grandmother.

My Grandmother whose cancer has been allowed to spread

Without check throughout her body.

Of course the doctor does make house calls and gives morphine shots.

Quite regularly.

Just wanted to share some experiences that my family is

Dealing with under their current healthcare system.

At least here, we would be given the option to pursue chemo or radiation.

Or mastectomy or lumpectomy, or hospice.

She didn't/doesn't have that choice.


Posted by Lymetoo (Member # 743) on :
HEY LISAS .. please clean out your mailbox so I can reply to your email from last week!! [Cool]

Concern #2:

Millions of Americans will lose their current health care coverage. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates up to 20 million Americans would remain uninsured, even after spending more than $1 trillion.

Private insurance companies will go out of business because they can't compete without new customers coming in to offset their aging policyholders.


In a short time, health care will be reduced to basic coverage. Research and development will come to a standstill as there will be no incentive for private industry to spend money on new equipment and procedures.
Posted by luvs2ride (Member # 8090) on :
Time will tell folks.
Posted by sk8ter (Member # 8671) on :
Page after Page of Reasons to Hate Obamacare
Alan Caruba Bio
mailto:?subject=Canadafreepress.Com: Page after Page of Reasons to Hate Obamacare&body= Article

By Alan Caruba Sunday, July 26, 2009
Here are just a few very good reasons to hate Obamacare:
* Page 22: Mandates audits of all employers that self-insure!
* Page 29: Admission: your health care will be rationed!
* Page 30: A government committee will decide what treatments and benefits you get (and, unlike an insurer, there will be no appeals process)
* Page 42: The ``Health Choices Commissioner'' will decide healt h benefits for you. You will have no choice. None.
* Page 50: All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free healthcare services. SEE Page 170 below.
* Page 58: Every person will be issued a National ID Healthcard.
* Page 59: OMG!!!!! The federal government will have direct, real-time access to all individual bank accounts for electronic funds transfer.
* Page 65: Taxpayers will subsidize all union retiree and community organizer health plans (read: SEIU, UAW and ACORN)
* Page 72: All private healthcare plans must conform to government rules to participate in a Healthcare Exchange.
* Page 84: All private healthcare plans must participate in the Healthcare Exchange (i.e., total government control of private plans)
* Page 91: Government mandates linguistic infrastructure for services; translation: illegal aliens
* Page 95: The Government will pay ACORN and Americorps to sign up individuals for Government-run Health Care plan.
* Page 102: Those eligible for Medicaid will be automatically enrolled: you have no choice in the matter.
* Page 124: No company can sue the government for price-fixing. No ``judicial review'' is permitted against the government monopoly. Put simply, private insurers will be crushed.
* Page 127: The AMA sold doctors out: the government will set wages.
* Page 145: An employer MUST auto-enroll employees into the government-run public plan. No alternatives.
* Page 126: Employers MUST pay healthcare bills for part-time employees AND their families.
* Page 149: Any employer with=2 0a payroll of $400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays an 8% tax on payroll
* Page 150: Any employer with a payroll of $250K-400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays a 2 to 6% tax on payroll
* Page 167: Any individual who doesnt' have acceptable healthcare (according to the government) will be taxed 2.5% of income.
* Page 170: Any NON-RESIDENT alien is exempt from individual taxes (Americans will pay for them).
* Page 195: Officers and employees of Government Healthcare Bureaucracy will have access to ALL American financial and personal records.
* Page 203: ``The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax.'' Yes, it really says that.
* Page 239: Bill will reduce physician services for Medicaid. Seniors and the poor most affected.''
* Page 241: Doctors: no matter what speciality you have, you'll all be paid the same (thanks, AMA!)
* Page 253: Government sets value of doctors' time, their professional judgment, etc.
* Page 265: Government mandates and controls productivity for private healthcare industries.
* Page 268: Government regulates rental and purchase of power-driven wheelchairs.
* Page 272: Cancer patients: welcome to the wonderful world of rationing!
* Page 280: Hospitals will be penalized for what the government deems preventable re-admissions.
E2 Page 298: Doctors: if you treat a patient during an initial admission that results in a readmission, you will be penalized by the government.
* Page 317: Doctors: you are now prohibited for owning and investing in healthcare companies!
* Page 318: Prohibition on hospital expansion. Hospitals cannot expand without government approval.
* Page 321: Hospital expansion hinges on ``community'' input: in other words, yet another payoff for ACORN.
* Page 335: Government mandates establishment of outcome-based measures: i.e., rationing.
* Page 341: Government has authority to disqualify Medicare Advantage Plans, HMOs, etc.
* Page 354: Government will restrict enrollment of SPECIAL NEEDS individuals.
* Page 379: More bureaucracy: Telehealth Advisory Committee (healthcare by phone).
* Page 425: More bureaucracy: Advance Care Planning Consult: Senior Citizens, assisted suicide, euthanasia?
* Page 425: Government will instruct and consult regarding living wills, durable powers of attorney, etc. Mandatory. Appears to lock in estate taxes ahead of time.
* Page 425: Goverment provides approved list of end-of-life resources, guiding you in death.
* Page 427: Government mandates program that orders end-of-life treatment; government dictates how your life ends.
* Page 429: Advance Care Planning Consult will be used to dictate treatment as patient's health deteriorates. This can include an ORDER for end-of-life plans. An ORDER from the GOVERNMENT.
* Page 430: Government will decide what level of treatments you may have at end-of-life.
* Page 469: Community-based Home Medical Services: more payoffs for ACORN.
* Page 472: Payments to Community-based organizations: more payoffs for ACORN.
* Page 489: Government will cover marriage and family therapy. Government intervenes in your marriage.
* Page 494: Government will cover mental health services: defining, creating and rationing those services.
A tip of my hat to my friend, Ben Cerruti, for providing this look at the Obamanation called Obamacare.
Write, email, fax or call your Senators and your Representative and=2 0tell them to vote NO!
Click for a contact directory of Senators and House Reps. for your location.
Posted by Cass A (Member # 11134) on :
Dear Friends,

As usual, in my opinion, the public "debate" on this issue has not even touched the real situations in health care.

It truly reminds me of people who found out, very belatedly, that Rockefeller was actually controlling "BOTH SIDES" in a very heated controversy about oil.

Looking at what we have to go thru with Lyme, do you really want a bureaucracy, whose information is controlled by corrupted people, to be running health care???

As an example, my mother recently was hospitalized for a few days when she nearly died. (I had to get her out of there on hospice, as she was being brutally restrained against my express wishes so they could suction her lungs)

At any rate, we got the bill--$75,000 or so. The health care plan paid less than $5000!!!!!!!

This is extortion.

No one can afford to be without a health care plan because they couldn't possibly pay for what is "charged."

Additionally, I could talk about how much the "evidence" on treatment is being cooked by crooked medicos taking $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ from BigPharma.

Then, there's the huge amount of toxins in our food and the environment.

The health care approach is to just drug you so you don't notice the symptoms.

As I said, the debate is not about the real situations.

And, none of the legislators even read the bill they voted on.

Check out DownsizeDC on that issue.


Cass A
Posted by luvs2ride (Member # 8090) on :

Is your family on the hook for $70,000? How horrible if they are. Or did the hospital accept the $5000 as payment in full?

In 1989, Univ of Va charged $4500 for an overnight stay for an accident victim. The victim told me (auto claims adjuster) the hospital did no care at all except to give her tylenol. They kept her overnight to watch for signs of a concussion. When I challenged the bill with the hospital, they apologized and said I had mistakenly received the bill meant for medicare. My bill was only $450. WHAT?????

Everyone is expecting the policymakers, aka politicians to ride in on their white horses and save our medical day.

No one seems to get the picture that the policymakers are a huge part of the corruption.

Give them more money? I say give them NO MONEY until they start doing what they are paid to do. Represent OUR interests, watchdog business to keep it legal and protect us from corruption.

People seem like they are members of a government cult bowing to the powers that be like they were Gods.
Posted by sometimesdilly (Member # 9982) on :
i used to work for ACORN. my job was to try to help menial laborers receive decent pay and benefits- including health insurance.

perhaps that'll help you understand why i don't fall for the nonsense first arising during the 2008 election that ACORN is an agent of socialism or evil or whatever.

time is precious to me- was so even before Lyme- and there isn't enough of it to continue putting it into dialogues like this one, where folks skate over plain vanilla facts.

health care is a huge topic with a huge amount of detail, most of it worthy of honest debate. that just ain't what is happening here, perhaps unsurprisngly, as it aint almost anywhere else either, for that matter.
Posted by LisaS (Member # 10581) on :
Lymetoo, it's cleaned out
Posted by Aniek (Member # 5374) on :
I had to give the ok for letters to be sent out canceling health insurance coverage for a number of low income workers who had just received health care for the first time. Their employer refuses to pay less even though their cost is less than $200 per month per employee.

It disgusts me that these people will be uninsured with no access to health care.

Just as it disgusts me that there are millions of people in America with no access to health care.

Just as it disgusts me that there are millions of people with insurance who can't access their health treatment because they are underinsured.

We, with Lyme, are a much more complicated case because of the controversies around treating Lyme. But there is no similar controversy in the treatment of illnesses like diabetes.

Right now, we, as taxpayers, pay for somebody who has untreated diabetes go through Dialysis, live in comas, and pay for amputations. We pay the social security as well as health care because they are disabled and can no longer work because we have people who can't afford the cost of treating their chronic condition.

It is disgusting that we pay for this, but that we, the richest country in the world, can't find a way for them to actually afford their diabetes treatment.

And how about the people who can't afford to go the doctor when they have a bulls eye rash so they just ignore it? I'm sure there is at least one person like that on this list.

Our health insurance system does not work and it isn't going to change by the powers of the free market.
Posted by Ocean (Member # 3496) on :

I just want to say that I am so very sorry about your grandmother.

What they are doing to her is a crime.

The elderly used to be looked upon for wisdom.

I will not be surprised when Obama creates a lack of options for the elderly (not to mention the mentally impaired).

I worked in a Neonatal Intensive Care Unit as an RN before I relapsed.

We saved neonates whose mothers were illegal immigrants from Mexico. Yes...some co-workers complained.

It's a life. A beautiful human being.

An innocent child.

Many hospitals will save 24 weeks and up. 23 weeks and 6 days gestation they will let die.

BTW, we had SEVERAL infants who were 22 and 23 weeks that survived and are doing VERY well now!

With this "New and Improved" Healthcare system that Mr. President is touting...what happens to the preemies??

Will they be seen as highly unable to make it and not worth the effort?

Will a viable baby be seen as 30 weeks and up?

It frightens me very much.

And by the way....I am VERY happy to have had home insurance this winter when our pipes froze due to -13 degree weather and the basement flooded. If we hadn't gotten the nearly $5K to repair it...I don't know what we would have done!

We have a good health insurance policy...sure there are some things they don't want to pay, but 3 of us in the family had Cardiac Echo's this spring and the insurance paid every dime..hoping they will cover hubby's wireless insulin pump this fall!

Like someone said...we will have to wait and see. I didn't vote for if we go downhill...I wasn't part of it [Eek!]

Posted by randibear (Member # 11290) on :
oh yeah, wait until you go for meds for lyme or treatment and get told "oh we don't cover any of that, it's against our policy."

or your file is redtagged because you file too many charges....

be careful....i am happy to have my bc/bs but i will be very unhappy if the government controls my medical care and then taxes me on what i worked over 30 years to get.

so far, i've seen nothing good about this.
Posted by kam (Member # 3410) on :
Not able to read what other posted. But, I was watching a bit of the View this am. Not sure if it was a current one or a rerun.

The doctor they had on said that we don't know what the plan is.

There are several plans in Congress right now being discussed.

And from what I know about Congress. They don't look for solutions but they look for faults.
Posted by bettyg (Member # 6147) on :
i have not read all replies just today's i believe....

i ended watching watchign AARP's town hall meeting in DC w/obama.

some things addressed were this:

END OF LIFE; drs. chosing what will happen to us.

obama stressed for each of us to have paperwork, dog gone it.....neuro lyme again, and can't think of YOU DECIDING WHAT YOU WANT TO DO:

... have them work on you even though there is no hope;
.. have them use things attached to your check to jump start your body


there is no hope for you, you've chosen DO NOT RESUSITATE, and your wishes will be honored but you have to tlak to family and stress for them to honor YOUR WISHES.

those having drs. now can KEEP THEM; they don't have to find new ones.

they will NOT be forced to find someone else...

there was 1 other thing along this line, but neuro lyme!! if i think of it eventually, i'll come back and edit this adding it.

1 woman mentioned the donut hole: they pay $900/mo. for insurance and out of pocket up to $8,000 and can't keep up and losing things; nothing to live on.
Posted by ThatColorGreen (Member # 16016) on :
This was sent to me in an email:


A recent Investor's Business Daily article provided some interesting
statistics from a survey by the United Nations International Health

% Men & Women who survived a cancer five years after diagnosis

U.S. 65%

England 46%

Canada 42%

% Patients diagnosed with Diabetes who received treatment within six months:

U.S. 93%

England 15%

Canada 43%

% Seniors needing hip replacement who received it within six months:

U.S. 90%

England 15%

Canada 43%

% referred to a medical specialist who see one within one month:

U.S. 77%

England 40%

Canada 43%

Number of MRI Scanners (a prime diagnostic tool) per Million people

U.S. 71

England 14

Canada 18

% of seniors (65+), with low income, who say they are in "excellent health"

U.S. 12%

England 2%

Canada 6%

I don't know about you but I don't want Obama's "Universal Healthcare" ?


Posted by luvs2ride (Member # 8090) on :
Wow, Green

That came from the UN?

Well, geez Louise!

That is scary.
Posted by Aniek (Member # 5374) on :
We get more treatment, but more of our babies die and we don't live as long. Statistics never tell a whole story.

Infant Mortality

United States - 6.4 out of 1000 live births die as infants
UK - 5.7
Canada - 4

Life Expectancy

United States - 78
UK 78.7
Canada - 80.3

[ 07-30-2009, 08:41 AM: Message edited by: Aniek ]
Posted by liesandmorelies (Member # 15323) on :

Very good point.


Thank you for starting this thread. I am so happy that our president is doing what we elected him to do.

You are correct when you say that nothing was done for the last eight years, when we knew full well that this problem was heading into crisis mode.

If you read this bill you will find that, no one,no one has ever once said that you had to take this healthcare plan if it comes to pass.

And, if it does pass and company's abandon offering health care coverage, than they are to blame not a government supported or run plan for those that don't have a plan or don't have an affordable option.

Bottom line is that any time you allow a middle man(insurance agent) into the equation, you will be at their mercy to decide what and how much of any treatment you can get.

Since corporate greed is at an all time high, it appears that the government is stepping in and taking charge. What did we expect???? Poorly run healthcare is a form of murder if you will and I would expect my government to protect(or try)to protect me from murderers etc.

Where was everyone who does not want a government run plan when things started getting out of whack???? Funny how everyone is complaining now. This has been a major issue since the Clinton years(when Hillary was trying to bring healthcare reform).

Then Bush came along and totally ignored this all important issue. You should ask yourself why?????Now we have a president that understands the urgency of creating a plan that will help those that don't have an affordable option and some are angry.

Well, I have been angry for years watching good, decent, hardworking people not have an affordable option. The time has come to join the modern world we live in and offer these people an affordable plan.

I have not seen any concessions being made on the side of the drug industry, insurance agency's or the medical community.
So this is what happens.

We need intervention regarding putting caps on these astronomical charges that the medical and drug industry are charging to patients. It's criminal to say the least.

I blame both the insurance agency's, the drug industry, and the medical field. Where do they get off charging these insane fees??

And, isn't it insane that the fee that an insurance agency pays to lets say a doctor for services rendered is about one fourth the cost that I would pay had I not had insurance.(That is why you need to have insurance plain and simple.)

This is a multi-facceted problem and there are no easy answers, but health care is breaking this country financially, and it must be dealt with.

This is not a new problem, but one that Obama at least is trying to deal with. To not deal with this problem, could be the downfall of our great nation. Many experts(on both sides I might add) believe that healthcare costs could topple us as a nation into becoming a third world country if not dealt with swiftly and effectively.

Healthcare issues are many times the sole reasons that businesses are shutting down. Many of our great businesses are overseas now because of the horrendous rising costs that healthcare have bestowed upon them.

Sad thing is, that many ppl believe we are so rich and wealthy , that we can't loose our position in the world. Let me tell you, China loves assuming the note and the more we keep pumping into their economy and the more we keep borrowing, then we will just as quickly lose our status and standing.

There is a basic lesson in econmics 101 to be learned here and we must do something(Something has to give. We might not like it, but it is going to happen)

On a final note, if you don't like the plan keep the plan you have and if your plan vanishes because your current employer discards it, then perhaps your real beef should be with your employer, not the government.

There are many out there who claim it is each individuals "responsibility" to take care of themselves.

Well, I say to you, if the wonderful healthcare plan that you currently have goes away, because your employer gets rid of it after Obama puts into place an affordable plan for those who don't currently have on, then you will need to take responsibility and fight them tooth and nail to reinstate their plan.

I say this tongue and check of course, as I don't think that will happen, but mention it to allude to the fact that, that is what people have been fighting for, for years in regards to a plan like the one Obama is suggesting.

People have been taking responsibility only to get nowhere. The affordable option is a thing of the past for millions. I sit in shock when I hear that people don't think people in this day and age have a basic human right to an "Affordable" health care plan.

I like to think our country is better than that, and I believe that it is. We all knew going into this election cycle that Obama was going to make change. This country elected him and now we will have to sit back and wait and see.

In the meantime, I would recommend reading the Plans document and not believe everything that you hear second hand.
Posted by Need Lots of Help (Member # 18603) on :
Oh, jez, are we on the Bush train again... Bush bashing?

Like it was said in another post, we (America) is in debt so much that it doesn't matter who is President...that person is owned. We do not vote anymore by the majority of the public's vote.

Votes based on who owns who's A&& and who is scratching who's back and Congress is running bills through quicker than we can read, comprehend, and take a stance on.

While we are arguing about Healthcare reform everything is going to pot.......cap and trade...the livestock bill....

We are in trouble and it isn't just about Healthcare anymore. America will not be home of the free for long.

And it is simple, you can't be free if the governement is in control of everything and that is where the governement is going.


Posted by Renee K (Member # 21220) on :
I do not want government deciding anything about my healthcare options. If there is a public plan just how long do you think employers will offer private plans? Really think about it. Money controls everything.

I was a nurse and was originally told I could work anywhere in the hospital because "a nurse is a nurse" even though my specialty was pediatrics.
Non pediatric nurses were scared silly to work Peds because it is a specialty, I was scared silly to work in ICU, justifibly so, but was forced to. I couldn't make good judgements there.

No doctor knows everything about every disease process..a nephrologist won't treat a heart problem and vice versa..

So there is no way a board can be set up by the government to determine "best practices"; what works for one doesn't work for another.

Just watching the IDSA review yesterday made my blood boil. I dread that any such panel would ever be making other determinations about my healthcare

Wormser,Steere et al are just the type of physicians that will be put on the advisory boards

I dealt with a HMO for years where ONE Physician was in charge of determining who would get what care in a tri-county area.

He was a general MD and was giving neurosurgeons heck for having patients in too long, getting involved in deciding how long a heart bypass
patient could stay in the hospital

He was not God but sure acted like it, is that where we want to go?

They'll probably decide most diseases are "Somatization" and it is some fault in the patient causing them
Posted by luvs2ride (Member # 8090) on :
I just took payment from a customer.

It was so interesting to talk with him. He is disabled. His wife is unemployed.

He was adding his 3rd vehicle to his insurance (just 2 drivers) and he was asking if we insure boats. He and his wife just purchased a 33' sailboat and will be sailing soon to the bahamas.

He is completely renovating the boat himself. Maybe he could find work doing boat renovations and get off disability?

So good to see my tax dollars at work.
Posted by trishden (Member # 722) on :
Don't beleive this bafoon! They can't even get the cash for clunkers right. What they are proposing is Socialized medicine like Canada and the UK. Both lauded as failures by the very doctors in these countries.

This means rationing of healthcare and if your deemed too old or sickly, your SOL. Also there is a clause written in the bill that he doesn't tell you about that you will be penalized for not signing up for the gov. healthcare. Like thousands a year.

It will be interesting to see if anyone of them reads the damn bill before they vote on it. These politicians don't care about us as they get top of the line healthcare coverage for life.

I don't understand these people who want to give up their freedom and liberty for some supposed goverment handout.

They've (politicians) have screwed up and bankrupted our SS, couldn't handle motor vehicle and the mail system is going down hill, what makes you think they can handle something as important as our healthcare?

They keep saying it is broken, (lie). Our system does have it's problems but it is still the envy of the world. They pass this bill it will be a disaster for us all.
Posted by sometimesdilly (Member # 9982) on :
trish- our healthcare system is NOT the envy of the world. that is factually completely inaccurate. othern western democracies actually feel incredibly bewildered and sorry for us that we can't agree that basic health care is a human right- they actually find us quite barbaric.

we are quite ALONE of wealthy nations in how we dispense health care, family leave, etc etc etc.. ..

None of this information is beyond your reach. GOOGLE. find out for yourself. beyond the TV or the same old same old sources who you agree with....


i'm sorry, but it is impossible to take seriously anyone who is yelling socialism about any policy on the table, including healthcare, but not only that.

i don't hope to convince a single one of you with reality, but here's another sliver of reality.

Go back as far as ONE HUNDRED YEARS AGO to any newspaper in the United States of America, and what you'll read is this. (i have spent thousands of hours doing just that and have paid my reality dues).


If you could see this pattern for what it is yo0u would laugh too, then get angry with those who think you are so stupid to as to believe the same 100 plus year old lie.

Disagree or agree with this or that policy, but THINK FOR YOURSELVES, for goodness sakes, and stop mindlessly throwing around labels that with all due respect, are completely without any meaning other than an intent to scare.

[ 07-31-2009, 09:57 PM: Message edited by: sometimesdilly ]
Posted by Aniek (Member # 5374) on :

Can you please cite the part of the legislation that penalizes people for not participating in the government plan? Because I work in health policy and this is the first I have heard of that. I am figuring I haven't heard of it because it isn't true.

There are bills that would penalize employers for not providing health care, but all of the proposals are much less than the actual cost of health benefits and it doesn't require employers to buy the public plan.

Social security is going bankrupt because people live longer than they did when the program was created and it hasn't been updated because in order to be updated to address that either people would have to pay more taxes or the benefits would have to start later.
Posted by Tincup (Member # 5829) on :

Your boat people.

You sound jealous? Or is that just anger?

Have you considered the following...

Are you absolutely positive that his father didn't pass away recently and leave him some money?

Or that before he became disabled he had worked for years and made lots of money.. and is now disabled?

Are you positive he didn't get the boat at a good deal or for free and as he is able (having good days)... he is working on it?

Could he have been diagnosed with a terminal disease and has decided to go out with a bang?

Could his kids have pitched together to help?

Could his son or daughter have given him the car because they left to go serve our country in the military and that was a way to keep their car running and tagged for them till they get back?


I KNOW you don't think all disabled people should be denied some simple pleasures in life... or that they should be denied the right to have a life long dream come true .... so where is this negative attitude coming from?
Posted by Tincup (Member # 5829) on :
Two women go into a store to buy a dress for the weekend church picnic.

One is the Mayor's wife... whose father invented ice cream and they are "loaded" with money.

The other is a woman that works at the local phone company.

The mayor's wife spends $200.00 on her new dress because she can.

The other lady spends $100.00 on her dress.

That to me is absolutely fine.

No problem.


The mayor's wife has a one year old who fell down a flight of stairs.

And the other lady has a one year old that also fell down a flight of stairs.

Don't both babies deserve equal access to health care?

Or should one baby, because his mother couldn't afford insurance, suffer with no care or inadequate care?

We need a system where all people have access to health care.

Until we do, the system sucks.

[Big Grin]
Posted by liesandmorelies (Member # 15323) on :

Thank you for saying what so many of us wish we could say. You put it out there in a unique way and really have made us all ponder the answer to your questions.

I feel very, very sorry for anyone that thinks people don't deserve affordable care or access to health care. How very sad and selfish indeed.

My mom once told me before she died. "It's not always about what "YOU" want, rather it should always be about what is right."

Her words will live with me forever and I feel it applies to this very topic.

Thanks Tincup! =)
Posted by trishden (Member # 722) on :

When you file your taxes, if you can't prove to the IRS that you are in a qualified plan, you'll be fined thousands of dollars - as much as the average cost of a health plan for your family size - and then automatically enrolled in a randomly selected plan (House bill, p. 167-168).

I beg to differ about SS. It's gone bankrupt because the politicians where using those funds that we paid into for other things, basically taking it out of escrow and not replacing.

[ 08-01-2009, 10:26 PM: Message edited by: trishden ]
Posted by Geneal (Member # 10375) on :
There is not one state hospital that can turn away a patient.

Not a child, elderly, drug addict, etc.

It is already there. Medical Care.

There is a law that assures that.

So the lady with the child who falls down the stairs

Who has no insurance, can go to any emergency room and not be turned away.

Equal health care for everyone?

In Utopia maybe.....but here? In the US where everybody

Is in everybody else's back pocket?

Sorry, but I think it is unrealistic without major concessions and restrictions.

Should we all get the same opportunity for health care?


A cut in services, denial of services, latency of services, refusal of services

Will certainly put us all in the same boat.

The government at the helm. We'll all be equal.

If that doesn't make you shudder...

It makes me cringe.

There already are living wills, DNR's, etc.

People already have the right to decide if they want

Peg tubes, IV's, blood transfusions, etc.

I see it everyday in the Nursing Home.

I want the Right to Live....making choices for myself.

Healthcare is the very core of that decision making.

I am truly distressed and frightened of what may come.

Saw Senator Dodd yesterday using his prostate Cancer

To promote the President's Health Care Agenda.

He said how lucky he was to have health insurance as a US Senator.

I laughed. Definitely not the same health care plan proposed for us.

I think, in all fairness, all members of congress and the Senate,

The Executive Branch of the Government, and the President

Should extend themselves as guinea pigs to trial out the new Health Care.

You don't actually think they will get the same plan as we do?

Yet.....we trust them to make decisions for all of us regarding

Freedom and the ability to make a choice regarding our health care.

Should costs be lowered? Heck yes.

However, a blanket system doesn't seem to me to be the right answer.

Maybe a blanket system for charges for health care and services

Would serve the American public much better.



Posted by Ocean (Member # 3496) on :

Please do a search as to why it APPEARS that more of our infants die in the US.

Multiple births and premature births due to IVF are huge factors.

Also, in some countries, premature infants are not considered 'viable' and are NOT counted in mortality rate. Simply counted as a 'miscarriage'.

Believe me, I learned much of this while working in the NICU.
Posted by sometimesdilly (Member # 9982) on :
social security IS NOT bankrupt, nor even close to bankruptcy.

the system will have to be modified to ensure its solvency through the giant surge of babyboomer retirements and beyond, but most reasonable people agree that can be done without killing the program (refer back to bush jr's futile attempt to privitize ss)

what IS effectively bankrupt is Medicaid, and unless costs can be contained, Medicare is next.
Posted by sometimesdilly (Member # 9982) on :
Geneal- ERs are not the equivalent of health care- I know you must know that.

and the denial of services, rationing etc. you describe? That is the very definition of what health insurance companies are allowed to do, right now, with complete impunity, which you must know already too, especially as a Lyme patient, even if YOU magically haven't had that first hand experience.
Posted by trishden (Member # 722) on :
Well said General.

I just heard today that there realy is only 2 percent of the LEGAL population that doesn't have healthcare.

Some 5 million. Not 144 as some lying politicians have aluded

Why would we do a major overhaul of the system for 2%?

Surely we can address those people without majorly killing the whole system.
Posted by emla999/Lyme (Member # 12606) on :
Are There Really 47 Million Americans Who Can't Afford Health Insurance?

Posted by sometimesdilly (Member # 9982) on :
Rule one in separating fact from distortions/hidden agendas:


the cnsnews source cited above..

what do we have here?

Ah, that article relies upon the supposed objectivity of a distinterested egghead doc. But wait... he has an agenda!!!

He's a senior fellow from an advocacy group called:

Americans for Prosperity

(I always love the org names corporate interests choose to mask who they really are. And what is the AFP?)


Americans for Prosperity (AFP),are

"committed to educating citizens about economic policy and a return of the federal government to its Constitutional limits."[1]

AFP was one of the lead organizations behind the Tax Day Tea Party protests April 15, 2009.

In mid 2009, Americans for Prosperity launched an advertising and advocacy campaign opposing U.S. health care reform named Patients United Now [1].

(interesting timing, eh? these are called ASTRO-TURF groups for those who are unaware...)


They are pro-Big Tobacco:

Tobacco industry involvement

AFP advocates pro-tobacco industry positions on issues like cigarette taxes and clean indoor air laws. The name "Americans for Prosperity" will sound familiar to tobacco prevention policy advocates, as Americans for Prosperity worked around the U.S. in recent years to defeat both smokefree workplace laws and cigarette excise tax increases.

Americans for Prosperity opposed a proposed Texas smoking ban in 2005. According to the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, ``A proposed statewide smoking ban appears all but dead, supporters acknowledged Monday as they waged a frantic battle to bring the bill up for a vote in the Senate. `I think the bill is dead,' said Peggy Venable, Texas director of Americans for Prosperity, which opposed the legislation, arguing that it is an intrusion on private-property rights."

The strategy of portraying smoking as a "property right" can be traced to Philip Morris which, in the mid-1990s, introduced bills in state legislatures nominally to protect property rights as a means of fighting smoking bans. Venable called the smoke-free measure a "reckless expansion of government" that "set a dangerous precedent."

Although Venable did not testify against the bill directly on behalf of the tobacco industry, the Houston Chronicle reported in 2007 that Americans for Prosperity had, in fact, been underwritten by tobacco companies in other states.[5][6]

Americans for Prosperity opposes smoking bans by using slippery-slope arguments ("Where will it stop?") and erroneous arguments that smoking restrictions are economically damaging.[7][8]

Americans for Prosperity (AFP) also opposed an Illinois state tax on cigarettes in 2008, claiming it would eliminate jobs.[9]

AFP opposed a clean indoor air law in Washington, D.C. in 2006.[10]

AFP opposed a clean indoor air law in Kansas City, portraying the issue as one of personal liberty and economics rather than public health.[1


They ridicule the scientific FACT of global warming:

During 2008, Americans for Prosperity ran its Hot Air Tour campaign, a hot air balloon cross-country tour with the slogan, "Global Warming Alarmism: Lost Jobs, Higher Taxes, Less Freedom."

According the the Hot Air Tour website, "Climate alarmists have bombarded citizens with apocalyptic scenarios and pressured them into environmental political correctness. It's time to tell the other side of the story. Americans for Prosperity is working hard to bring you the missing half of the global warming debate. What will the impacts of reactionary legislation be for you, your family and our economy?"[12]

Etc. etc.

check 'em out for yourself and look up the Board members if you need further clues.

Ok, whois Lew Rockwell? At least he identifies himself rather than hiding behind a faux grassroots group.

Excuse me, though, if I don't take his statements at face value- he is anything but a neutral source of information:

(from wikipedia...)

"Rockwell was closely associated with his teacher and colleague Murray Rothbard until Rothbard's death in 1995.

Rockwell's political ideology, like Rothbard's in his later years, combines a form of anarcho-capitalism with cultural conservatism and the Austrian School of economics.

He also advocates federalist concepts as a means of promoting freedom from central government, and also advocates secession for the same political decentralist reasons.

Rockwell has called environmentalism "[a]n ideology as pitiless and Messianic as Marxism."[7]
[edit] Paleolibertarianism

In 1985, he was named a contributing editor to Conservative Digest.[8] During the 1990s Rothbard, Rockwell and others described their views as paleolibertarian[9], but Rockwell no longer uses the term to describe his ideas.[10]

Jean Hardisty, founder of Political Research Associates, wrote in 1999 that Rockwell was one of the most influential proponents of the paleoconservative faction of "right-wing libertarianism."[11]

Lew Rockwell's web site features a selection of articles, including opposition to war and imperialism ---((WELL THAT I CAN AGREE WITH!!!)

along with occasional articles criticizing the presidency of Abraham Lincoln.[12] The site also carries essays which argue against the participation of the United States in the Second World War, speculation about an end of the United States as a cohesive union and assertions the Western world is threatened by an intersection of fascism and socialism alike as politicians and states centralize their power.[13][14][15]

These writings are sometimes controversial and have brought harsh criticism from some on the political right.[16][17] As of August 21, 2008, his web site also provides a daily podcast on weekdays featuring interviews with scholars, including many affiliated with the Mises Institute.

back to the topic at hand....

Anyone have a reliable source of information about how many are actually uninsured? Though, in any case, it is NOT simply or even largely the number of uninsured that is driving this debate.

If most middle income voting Americans had health insurance that was affordable to their employers,themselves, and in the overall economy, there is no doubt at all that the uninsured would be INVISIBLE and the topic would never have come up.

This straw man argument-- that there aren't really very many without insurance-- is obviously given a great big boost --for some--by the wedge-driving, unsubtle in the extreme assertion- THE ONES WITHOUT INSURANCE ARE ILLEGALS!!!

i think i'll start keeping a list of the top 10 corporate-funded lies out there meant to destroy reform.
Posted by trishden (Member # 722) on :
You have an answer for everything somethingdilly. You obviously are in the tank for Obama and he can do no wrong.

He is taking this country so far left, and yes taking over the banks, car manufacturers, wall street and now our health care, it's unpecedented.

He is trying to get his narcissistic hands on all private sector and that is socialism.

I don't know about you, but the bigger government gets the more freedoms and liberty we lose. Our founding fathers must be rolling over in their graves.

Why don't you try and get your news other than the main stream in the tank for Obama and can't be trusted media.
Posted by Geneal (Member # 10375) on :
Ms. Dilly,

I respectfully read your response to my post.

I just don't agree with the plan.

I have paid out of pocket for all of my children's LLMD visits.

Not because they didn't have insurance.

Because I don't want it on their "health insurance records".

I am not by any means rolling in money. Especially after Katrina.

Nor do I expect to with the current economic environment.

My LLMD is not covered by my health insurance.

Never has been.

How do I know what will happen to my private health records?

I don't trust the government to not allow all of the physicians to

Access anybody's medical records under the "united" plan.


I mean no disrespect. I think that my view point comes

From personal family experience (albeit an Ocean away)

And my concern about my privacy, rights and freedoms of this country.

I do not see this program as increasing any of these rights.

I hope you are doing well. I hope that everything

You are expecting this plan to be comes to fruition.



PS I have no Magic [Smile]
Posted by luvs2ride (Member # 8090) on :
dilly said:

what IS effectively bankrupt is Medicaid, and unless costs can be contained, Medicare is next.
True and costs will be contained how?

dilly said:

and the denial of services, rationing etc. you describe? That is the very definition of what health insurance companies are allowed to do, right now, with complete impunity, which you must know already too, especially as a Lyme patient, even if YOU magically haven't had that first hand experience.
Go to Go to the rules and regulations, pick your state and take a look at all the regulations your insurance company must comply with in order to do business in your state.

This is the National Association of Insurance Commissions. Ins. Commissioners are GOVERNMENT employees who govern the insurance companies by state. Each state has an insurance commissioners office whose sole purpose is to regulate the insurance companies ALLOWED to do business in that state.

It is the politicians favorite trick right now to vilify the insurance companies and you guys are following along like mice after the pied piper.

The Truth is the government completely regulates insurance already. If the rules aren't sufficient then all government has to do is enact a new law and the insurance company has to comply.

If the lobbyists are buying favors from the government to prevent those rules from happening then our government is corrupt. [Eek!] Imagine that!

So why do you want to give more money and more control to a corrupt government system?

The insurance company is not the villian.

I watched Bill Moyers Thurs night and his show was focused on the evil insurance industry. They showed a family whose daughter needed an experimental, potentially life-saving surgery and the insurance company was refusing to pay for it because it is experimental.

All I could think was "why aren't the doctors and the hospital offering to do the surgery for a reduced cost? Why aren't they also villans for letting this girl die when they could have saved her?"

Again, I ask? Why aren't we going after the real problem with healthcare? The extortionists prices being charged for medical care?
Posted by Geneal (Member # 10375) on :
One more thought to ponder this am.

Specific to our disease and plight.

Have you thought about our treatment and the IDSA?

I don't believe that our LLMD's would escape the definition as set by IDSA.

For identification and treatment. Whether you get to "choose" them

As your primary care giver, or not.

What about alternative treatments?


Just some additional concerns regarding this health care package.


Posted by kam (Member # 3410) on :
After the hearings, a person asked this question to Dr. Cameron.

Haven't been able to read the other posts just Geneal's, so this may all ready be posted.

But, Dr. Cameron said ..rephrasing..that education is what is needed one way or the other with lyme and company.

If you watch marc media once they get it posted on ilads, you will be able to get the original statement.
Posted by sometimesdilly (Member # 9982) on :

i don't reduce the world to black and white, us versus them, you're with us or you're against us, i'm right and you're wrong terms.

i certainly don't believe i have the answer to everything, or the older I get, to much of anything that really matters.

I never said here- and don't believe it--that President O has all the answers to anything, much less to healthcare.

I in fact have said at every turn that even the very best ideas and very best intentions on the issue are going to be subverted during the policy process, by power and by money.

I've been politically active for over 30 years, and haven't been accused of being politically naive for... well, at least the last 20 of those years.

What I have little tolerance for is sloppy thinking and still less, the rote repetition of "facts" from biased sources with an agenda of their own, and least of all, especially after the past 8 years, the cynical use of raw fear to sway or stifle political debate.


Geneal- I completely agree with you about access to our medical records, and have always felt that way. There is no reason to trust that the information in them will not be used against us, and every reason to think that the precise opposite will happen.

For example, I've feared for a long while what i see as an inevitability, that sooner or later we will all be given genetic testing at birth or soon after to see what diseases and conditions we are predisposed to genetically, and that the information gathered then will determine ever after access to medical care and not just that.

I do not trust "the government" to safeguard my privacy, but oh man, I am a million percent more afraid of giving private info to private sector goons whose ONLY allegiance is to profit margins.

BTW, we seem to agree in principle about the need to protect our civil liberties and freedoms, good lady. I think we have different notions about what entity poses the greatest threat, though, and so are looking in different places for solutions.

hugs to you, too..
Posted by Need Lots of Help (Member # 18603) on :
Any child who falls down the stairs is going to go to the ER. Period. Does it equal having a healthcare plan, no, but in an emergency that child will get care. And that child (or adult, or illegal alien) can go back to the ER for follow ups. Knowing that the bill will not be paid.

Again, yes, I would LOVE for everyone to have health insurance, but I do not want the government in charge of anything else....

Posted by liesandmorelies (Member # 15323) on :
Any child that falls down will go to the ER, but that same child who does not have an "affordable" plan very, very rarely if ever goes for well check ups and proper monitoring of their health that would help to reduce overall costs if he or she had decent affordable ongoing healthcare coverage.

Would you rather they keep going back to the ER or receive an affordable option that would only encourage them to go to an emergency room when the true emergency arises???

Now we all know that the ER is a very, very expensive proposition and should really only be used in an emergency. Studies have shown that if these same people that have been forced to frequent the ER had affordable healthcare(or a free plan for those that are truly poor), then the overall cost would be greatly reduced.

Because the private sector has failed to provide a viable option that is "Affordable", the government has to intervene.

Perhaps the battle should be fought with the private sector who has for years now held a monopoly.

I find it ironic that everyone is angry all of a sudden with the government when they are forced to act responsibly and clean up the mess that this country is now in. Perhaps this anger should have and should be directed to the greed that is ruining our country.

Maybe people really ought to be battling Big corporate America, who has had no problem or guilt about ousting our best manufactoring jobs, reducing benefits, allowing the insurance agency's, the drug company's run us a muck.

We all know that corporate America has the power to pretty much do what it wants, so why oh why have they not been able to come up with a viable "affordable" plan?

We should not only be putting pressure on corporate America, but also with the medical community as well. It has gotten absolutely ridiculous more times than not with what they are charging for services rendered.

This is a multi-faceted problem and is not as easy as saying that all children will be treated if they fall down. I don't believe that all children who fall down are treated the same way after the fall and after the ER visit is over.

I am much more concerned with the long term health of individuals and making sure that all people receive good health services which will enable us as a country to reduce healthcare costs because the preventative healthcare is of the utmost importance in regards to lowering health care costs.

It's kinda like maintaining a car. If you only put oil in the car when it totally runs out, it's likely that you will have done major damage to the engine. But, if on the other hand you make sure you do oil and filter changes on a regular schedule and make sure that you check for problems any time the engine alert light goes on, chances are the problem will cost a lot less to take care of, then if you hadn't

This is just food for thought, and I hope you can appreciate the illustration. To me it's a no brainer. It's a must if our country is to get on our feet again, be profitable and have a chance at competing in the modern world. And, it's the right thing to do morally, ethically and because we can.

Will the plan be perfect? No, but it's a start that we can't afford to not do.
Posted by luvs2ride (Member # 8090) on :

You are talking without investigating.

Check out my website above and read how much control government has right now on the insurance industry then you will understand the truth.

The government is already in complete control of your insurance.

The government now wants the profits. And those profits will not be used to improve our infrastructures. We are slaves to the government.
Posted by Aniek (Member # 5374) on :

State insurance commissioners do not regulate my insurance or the insurance. Why? Because the federal law called ERISA provides exempts most employer provide health benefits from state regulations.

Also, I'm wondering, are all doctors evil because they haven't taken a vow of poverty? Should all health care providers just work for free for people who can't afford it? You keep talking about reducing costs, how exactly do you suggest that it happens? Can you show me a budget of a doctor's office and a hospital and tell me exactly where they are charging too much for services?
Posted by trishden (Member # 722) on :
dilly, I didn't mean to be disrespectful but I find it is the democrats that do the fear mongering.

They had to pass that stimulus or we'll be in the next depression.

They haven't even put a 5th of it out there yet and most of it is full of pet projects and pork.

How is that going to stimulate the economy?

What they should be focusing on is jobs not healthcare with a bill of some hundreds of trillians of dollars.

They villify the insurance companies, which is just the last one.

Then there was big oil, the car industry, wall street. It goes on and on.

They are the party of fear mongering in mho.

what about if you put a republican in office, black churches would burn.

Republicans are all racists. Wasn't it Bush 2 that had Condoliza Rice and Colon Powell in high positions.

Clinton didn't have any people of color in his administration. Also the oldest Senators Robert Byrd, a democrate was in the KKK.

Taken from Wiki African-American Civil Rights Movement (1955-1968)

The Republican Party -- the "party of Lincoln" -- which had been the party that most blacks belonged to, shrank to insignificance as black voter registration was suppressed.

By the early 1900s, almost all elected officials in the South were white Democrats.

It was President Woodrow Wilson a southern Democrat but also the govenor of NJ who introduced segregation in Federal offices in 1912.

But if you ask my 18 year old son, he thinks the Republicans are the racist only because the democrats have pepetuated this lie for so long.

So no, I don't believe the opposition to this disasterous healthcare bill is just fear talk. There is so much wrong with it, number 1 being how are they going to pay for it?

I heard today they are well aware that a majority of people don't want it, but they still are trying to forge it through the faster the beter.
Posted by luvs2ride (Member # 8090) on :

Can you prove to me that doctors, hospitals and the drug cartel don't charge too much?

You ok with $20,000. for one chemo treatment? What is in it that is worth so much?

Hmmmm, you defend that and then you complain about the cost of health insurance premiums?

Skip the premiums and just pay for the medical care yourself. That will cut out the middle man.
Posted by LymeLearned (Member # 20565) on :
I think we can (or should) agree that:

*Health care is a Basic Human Right.

*Schools are already "socialized", as are Police, Fire, Library and Postal services, Highways, Bridges, and Prisons.

*I hope that we can get to a place where in the wealthiest, most powerful nation in the world, everyone will agree that NO ONE should have to suffer illness or premature death for lack of funds for medical care.

*Sadly health care has become commodity that allows some at the top of the towers to extort the hardest working, and those who can least afford it.

ON that 2%, How does this mesh with 10% and higher unemployment? Nearly all Americans get their health care from employers.

The ONLY thing offred to laid off workers is COBRA. This is a limited offer that requires 25% of thier unemployment check, which is already about 60% of thier former income.

When I was laid off, I just had to cross my fingers and pray nothing went wrong. I also avoided ANY dangerous recreation activities or situations.

Still, I could have been hit by a car or something and have ended up paying for the rest of my life. This is not my America.

ADD to this that having healthcare does NOT promise you won't still lose your home and everything you own if you actually get very ill. The health care providers are extorting families into poverty.

Have you seen this? This guy is truly ON OUR SIDE...

One upper middle class professional couple did just this after the husband had two heart attacks, and then the wife had cancer. By they time they were both medically on their feet, EVERYTHING was gone.

We MUST get into a situation where medical care is NOT tied to employment because any illness that puts out out of work for a while (like cancer, or even Lyme disease) would mean that the health coverage ends.

The incentive to avoid treating Lyme disease might dissipate if we pulled the plug on high profit healthcare.

Don't we at leasst all agrree that:
Health care is a Basic Human Right?
Posted by Tincup (Member # 5829) on :
Just stopping in to be sure no one has chewed off their own leg during this great debate. HA!

Looks like everyone is still running around on all 4's.


A couple of comments about the child who fell down the stairs... here is one that was made....

"So the lady with the child who falls down the stairs. Who has no insurance, can go to any emergency room and not be turned away."

Of course, it was only an "example" that I gave about the stairs and the child falling, originally.

And having worked in an ER, been a volunteer on an ambulance for years... and having had to be the patient in an ER on numerous occasions...

They are required to provide ONLY minimal care needed to save a life.

Also, you can not go back to the ER for check ups on your injury or sickness.

You are given written instructions when you leave to go to a family doctor for follow-up treatment.

This way of treating is not acceptable health care.

I agree with Lymelearned and others.

Health care is a basic human right.

And like having food and clean water is a basic human right...

We wouldn't settle to give those without food or water, a pound of rice per month and 1/2 gallon of water to sustain them.

That is not acceptable.

If we settled for giving them only the rice and the 1/2 gallon of water...

It would be the same as saying people already have health care because they can go to the ER when they have an accident.

Except it would have another disadvantage of costing too much if we do it that way.

I don't know what works.. but what we have now is not working.

I am glad someone (President) is taking it on themselves to make changes.... no matter how unpopular it makes them with those who are afraid of change and just want to argue for arguments sake.

[Big Grin]
Posted by Tincup (Member # 5829) on :
Ms Green didn't have insurance.

She had to depend on getting help from the ER.. in one of the wealthiest places in the USA.

This is what happened to Ms. Green. This is unacceptable, to say the least.
Posted by Tincup (Member # 5829) on :
Now ask those affected if we all should have access to health care or not.
Posted by liesandmorelies (Member # 15323) on :
Lymelearned and Tincup,

I agree with both of you that health care is a basic human right.

I think you would be suprised(or maybe not)at how many people in this day and age do not believe that it is a basic human right.

They will say things like....Although I would love to be able to give everyone.... or, we all would like to be able to give.... or better yet...I want everyone to have good affordable health care, but....

It's the "BUT" that is always the excuse for inhumanity in the world that we live in. Sorry to be so blunt, but...
Posted by Tincup (Member # 5829) on :
What they determined in Ms. Green's case....
Posted by liesandmorelies (Member # 15323) on :
Thank you for sharing Tincup.

That is very sad and this kind of treatment is not unusual in poor inner city hospitals, in fact it even happens in suburban areas too.
Posted by sometimesdilly (Member # 9982) on :
well, the song isn't over, but is sure is sounding nasty all over the place.

VIOLENCE (over a healthcare debate, folks. is this AMERICA?????)

Tampa, Florida

(OUTSIDE) Angry protesters and strong supporters are clashing inside and all around a health care reform town hall meeting in Downtown Tampa.

The meeting which was scheduled to begin at 6:00 at the Children's Board of Hillsborough County drew hundreds of people who quickly began to overwhelm staff and event organizers at the front entrance.

As the building filled to capacity, angry protesters stuck outside began to scream, yell, and chant. At one point, those trying to get inside began banging on windows as Tampa Police officers quickly spread out guarding all entrances.


"There is more consensus than there is disagreement when you get right down to it,'' Castor offered, immediately drowned out by groans and boos.

She pressed on, mostly unheard among the screams from the audience of more than 200.

"Tell the truth! Tell the truth!"

"Read the bill!"

"Forty-million illegals! Forty million illegals!"

The spectacle at the Children's Board in Ybor City sounded more like a wrestling cage match than a panel discussion on national policy..


2. news from Michigan:

The crowd was starting to settle down, when someone from the Larouche Pac organization strolled in with the Obama=Hitler sign which the crowd loudly cheered.

Prior to the start of the meeting, pens and paper were handed out. The emcee from AARP asked audience members to fill out questions and submit them and he would take some to Rep. Dingell (the crowd booed loudly, while some screamed "answer my question.")

After the questions were collected, a disabled woman spoke on how she lost her healthcare in December 2008 and since she has pre-existing conditions.

Disabled Woman

She was greeted with catcalls, interuptions--"I shouldn't have to pay for your healthcare" and "get government healthcare." Zero sympathy from the anti-reformers.

Then came John Dingell. Dingell, in his 80's, went to the podium and immediately a man with his son in a wheelchair came strolling down the aisle.

Disabled son

Now for some reason, the crowd had sympathy towards this man and wanted John Dingell to answer his question which wasn't a question, but was "your healthcare plan is going to take healthcare away from my son and kill him".

When Dingell responded, "No, it will not." The man responded "Liar" over and over again. He finally had to be escorted out (but not arrested by police).

When Dingell tried to answer any question, he was interrupted by someone screaming, "Liar", "the goverment is going to kill us when we are older", "the goverment is providing abortion money", etc.

In the audience were the Liberty Counsel, Republicans, Libertarians, Tea-Baggers, Larouchites, anti-abortion activists and some Dingell supporters.

...When it was over, this gentlemen told me he "couldn't wait for my end of life meeting" with my Doctor, I guess.


To follow--

chapter 2 (when things go bad- really bad- having us fight against us instead of us focusing our anger at them is always the owners' strategy, and unfortunately, it is effective almost all of the time all over the world.)

chapter 3: (lobbyist hyenas are circling ever closer around the carcass healthcare bill,dividing up the pounds of aint looking pretty over that way either).

chapter 4: Happy days are NOT here again, and we are going to have greatly rationed healthcare no matter what or whom or whatever. the only question remaining is who gets to decide what and how much gets rationed.

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3