Topic: YAY (gulp) ! , A PRESIDENT TACKLES (is tackled?) HEALTHCARE
sometimesdilly
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 9982
posted
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 ]
Posts: 2507 | From lost in the maze | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
A president shouldn't be tackling healthcare....
Posts: 893 | From Florida | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
luvs2ride
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 8090
posted
dilly,
Please outline exactly what is wrong with healthcare.
Luvs
-------------------- When the Power of Love overcomes the Love of Power, there will be Peace. Posts: 3038 | From america | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
dmc
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 5102
posted
Check out the VA healthcare system before you look for government to "correct" the health system.
Not very good...
Posts: 2675 | From ct, usa | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Be careful what you wish for, you just may be determined to be one who does not deserve to receive ANY medical treatment
Posts: 130 | From Central NY | Registered: Jul 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 145 | From Paris, Tn. | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
luvs2ride
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 8090
posted
dilly,
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......
-------------------- When the Power of Love overcomes the Love of Power, there will be Peace. Posts: 3038 | From america | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
luvs2ride
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 8090
posted
dilly
I went to your link www.factcheck.org 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.
-------------------- When the Power of Love overcomes the Love of Power, there will be Peace. Posts: 3038 | From america | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
luvs2ride
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 8090
posted
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.
"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." END QUOTE
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.
-------------------- When the Power of Love overcomes the Love of Power, there will be Peace. Posts: 3038 | From america | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
sometimesdilly
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 9982
posted
luvs-
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...
Posts: 2507 | From lost in the maze | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
luvs2ride
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 8090
posted
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, www.factcheck.org. 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.
-------------------- When the Power of Love overcomes the Love of Power, there will be Peace. Posts: 3038 | From america | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
luvs2ride
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 8090
posted
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.
-------------------- When the Power of Love overcomes the Love of Power, there will be Peace. Posts: 3038 | From america | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
kam
Honored Contributor (10K+ posts)
Member # 3410
posted
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.
Posts: 15927 | From Became too sick to work or do household chores in 2001. | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
luvs2ride
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 8090
posted
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.
-------------------- When the Power of Love overcomes the Love of Power, there will be Peace. Posts: 3038 | From america | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
sometimesdilly
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 9982
posted
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.
Posts: 2507 | From lost in the maze | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- --Lymetutu-- Opinions, not medical advice! Posts: 96239 | From Texas | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
luvs2ride
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 8090
posted
Me too Lymetoo.
Dilly,
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.
-------------------- When the Power of Love overcomes the Love of Power, there will be Peace. Posts: 3038 | From america | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
sometimesdilly
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 9982
posted
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?
Posts: 2507 | From lost in the maze | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Soros is one rich "baron" who is behind it.
-------------------- --Lymetutu-- Opinions, not medical advice! Posts: 96239 | From Texas | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
luvs2ride
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 8090
posted
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.
-------------------- When the Power of Love overcomes the Love of Power, there will be Peace. Posts: 3038 | From america | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Tincup
Honored Contributor (10K+ posts)
Member # 5829
posted
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.
It's AMERICA!
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?
Nah.
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.
luvs2ride
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 8090
posted
Tincup,
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 factcheck.org 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.
-------------------- When the Power of Love overcomes the Love of Power, there will be Peace. Posts: 3038 | From america | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
luvs2ride
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 8090
posted
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?
-------------------- When the Power of Love overcomes the Love of Power, there will be Peace. Posts: 3038 | From america | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
sometimesdilly
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 9982
posted
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.
Posts: 2507 | From lost in the maze | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
luvs2ride
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 8090
posted
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
-------------------- When the Power of Love overcomes the Love of Power, there will be Peace. Posts: 3038 | From america | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 130 | From Central NY | Registered: Jul 2009
| IP: Logged |
Geneal
Frequent Contributor (5K+ posts)
Member # 10375
posted
BTW,
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 electricity....my 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 chemo....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.
Hugs,
Geneal
Posts: 6250 | From Louisiana | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
luvs2ride
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 8090
posted
Wow, Geneal
You can speak from experience.
I agree with you that I want freedom of choice.
-------------------- When the Power of Love overcomes the Love of Power, there will be Peace. Posts: 3038 | From america | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
-------------------- --Lymetutu-- Opinions, not medical advice! Posts: 96239 | From Texas | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
Tincup
Honored Contributor (10K+ posts)
Member # 5829
posted
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."
Tincup
Honored Contributor (10K+ posts)
Member # 5829
posted
OOPS!
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.''
LisaS
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 10581
posted
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.
sometimesdilly
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 9982
posted
BACK TO WHOMEVER'S STATEMENT THAT GEORGE SOROS IS A SOCIALIST:
Reality
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).
NOTE THE BELOW, ESPECIALLY... SOROS IS ACTUALLY WIDELY KNOW AS AN EXTREMELY ACTIVE ENEMY OF SOCIALISM:
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.
Posts: 2507 | From lost in the maze | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
sometimesdilly
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 9982
posted
THE
GERMAN HEALTHCARE SYSTEM- FROM aarp.ORG
"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."
Posts: 2507 | From lost in the maze | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
sometimesdilly
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 9982
posted
REALITY- OBAMA ON SINGLE PAYER SYSTEM..
(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." [http://iowa.barackobama.com/page/community/tag/Ames]
Posts: 2507 | From lost in the maze | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
sometimesdilly
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 9982
posted
NATIONALIZATION OF HEALTHCARE? HARDLY, AND LESS SO EVERY DAY.
SENATE'S BACKTRACKING, AS OF TODAY:
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.
Posts: 2507 | From lost in the maze | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
sometimesdilly
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 9982
posted
now Tincup, the most regrettable and tragic fact check of all.
the big O does NOT like ice cream!!!
"......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.
--pickles
Posts: 2507 | From lost in the maze | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
sometimesdilly
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 9982
posted
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.
OH DEAR.
Posts: 2507 | From lost in the maze | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
Tincup
Honored Contributor (10K+ posts)
Member # 5829
posted
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.
posted
HEY LISAS .. please clean out your mailbox so I can reply to your email from last week!!
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.
#3
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.
-------------------- --Lymetutu-- Opinions, not medical advice! Posts: 96239 | From Texas | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
luvs2ride
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 8090
posted
Time will tell folks.
-------------------- When the Power of Love overcomes the Love of Power, there will be Peace. Posts: 3038 | From america | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Page after Page of Reasons to Hate Obamacare Author Alan Caruba Bio mailto:?subject=Canadafreepress.Com: Page after Page of Reasons to Hate Obamacare&body=http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/13158Email 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. http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/Posts: 871 | From orange county, ca. | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
Cass A
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 11134
posted
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.
Best,
Cass A
Posts: 1245 | From Thousand Oaks, CA | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
luvs2ride
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 8090
posted
Cass,
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.
-------------------- When the Power of Love overcomes the Love of Power, there will be Peace. Posts: 3038 | From america | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
sometimesdilly
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 9982
posted
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.
Posts: 2507 | From lost in the maze | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
The Lyme Disease Network is a non-profit organization funded by individual donations. If you would like to support the Network and the LymeNet system of Web services, please send your donations to:
The
Lyme Disease Network of New Jersey 907 Pebble Creek Court,
Pennington,
NJ08534USA http://www.lymenet.org/
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[lol]](graemlins/lol.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic