ObamaCare scares the daylights out of me!

“I think we probably agree on more than it seemed like however when one feels attacked one gets defensive as I believe both of us felt.”

I essentially agree with that (and felt that way also).

“I AM compassionate to extreme and hopeless situations as I myself have found myself in at certain times of my life and it HURTS ALOT.”

I do empathize with that. I am single with no children so I can only imagine the extreme pain you have experienced.

“I have been lied to and betrayed by those who were supposed to love me and had my children abandonned emotionally and financially and used as pawns. Health care was a big part of that also and he didn't seem to give a SHIT! I have a daughter who gets financial assistance for ptsd and a son who is an alcoholic/addict as a result of ptsd from the violence and abuse in our family and the aftermath of that ending who has been in and out of prison and will probably struggle the rest of his life.”

I have a very close friend that had similar difficulties with spouse; some things worse than you described, and some not quite as harsh as you described.
I am so sorry you and your children have had it so hard; you and your children deserve better.

“I know what it is like to feel stuck and feel guilty for staying in a bad situation for fear of those very things; ie no support no insurance etc. I've been there. In a perfect world we should all be entitled to have ALL of our needs met we just have to figure out how to pay for it without everyone getting so angry and defensive out of fear resentment entitlement or power struggles.”

I pretty much agree with that statement. Unfortunately it's not a perfect world; is it?
I know that most Americans are probably not on the same page in the health care debate as it stands now, because of all the fear, misinformation, misunderstanding, and of course the biggest one of all that you mentioned; “power struggles”.

“The auto insurance issue of uninsured drivers spills over into our health care also and taxes our system with people who in many cases are not even legals.”

Yes it does but it is relatively small compared to the plethora of other issues.
But for the unfortunate individual or family that has had the experience of being in a traffic accident and seriously injured and or major property damage that wasn't covered because of an uninsured motorist regardless of legal or illegal alien does cost our society something. In the case of serious debilitating injuries particularly when it renders an otherwise working person to being permanently disabled or killed, is a serious tragedy that taxes our society as a whole; and is devastating to persons close to that/those victim/s.

“There will always be opportunists and takers who are out to get everything free they possibly can but we have to realize that we cannot save the whole world. Charity begins at home.”

Some of those opportunists are executives of HMOs, pharmaceutical companies and private health care insurance providers.
“We cannot save the whole world” I agree, but we can help each other on the financial and health care crisis, when we band together and do the right things to organize our thoughts and peaceful actions. It's worth a good try anyway. That's why I am spending so much time posting on wackobb.

“We have to help ourselves before we can help others so that America can remain strong and not be sold down the river.”

I personally believe that one of the best ways we can help ourselves is for America to formulate a very comprehensive, health care system that emphasizes healthy practices for individuals, preventative checkups and maintenance for every American citizen, and a reasonable amount of fiscal responsibility.
I believe that the way that the private for-profit healthcare organizations have acted; they should be replaced with a nonprofit, progressive tax based, government-funded, structure; that consists of a consortium of doctors and professionals in the health field Instead of huge government bureaucracy.
The only bureaucracy involved already exists, is called the IRS.
With the correct tax structure and a few adjustments we all have to personally take responsibility for as our own adult individuals; we can tame this beast.

As far as being sold down the river is concerned, I think that happened in the 1800s; and I do believe that, that needs to be corrected before we can really succeed.

“When a plane is going down there is a reason they have the parents put their oxygen masks on ahead of their children......it's the same principle.”

Wow! I didn't know that about the airplane protocol. But it sort of makes sense because if the adults pass-out because of the decompression the very young children wouldn't likely be able to understand or be able to deal with the air masks by themselves.
But the healthcare system isn't really an airplane, and it shouldn't be in a crashing situation in the first place. The financial system the way it shown in the mass media is a façade. If it's crashing it is because we have the wrong pilot. We can change the pilot before it crashes. I am thinking yes we can, instead of no we won't.

Hotspring 44.

[quote=granna shaw;95736][quote=Hotspring 44;95700]

[quote=granna shaw;95427]… “AND auto insurance so that when we get clobbered by those uninsured motorists many of whom can't even speak the Queens English we are not wealthy or special but we are doing our best to be responsible for ourselves and our deductible is not $5000.”

Well, if you want to be that way about it you can, that's your right. But the way I see it healthcare, particularly the preventative measures is a right and not a privilege. You seem to be implying that it's a privilege, because you're lucky enough to have enough employment to be in the middle income class bracket in the first place.
I may not be middle-class like you claim to be, but I also pay auto insurance.
I can not afford health care insurance; even if I qualify because of the “pre-existing conditions” have maintenance and rehabilitation costs.
A lot of people that have less than what would be considered middle-class income worked their butts off too! The way you said that sounds to me that you may be a middle-class supremacist or something like that.
Where did you ever see me say anything about undocumented and illegal aliens should have the right to drive cars here in California or anywhere else in the States’ for that matter? I think if you're barking at me in that regard specifically to that, then you're barking up the wrong tree.

[quote=granna shaw;95427] “Some of us middle class citizens have offspring who struggle with addictions and mental health issues that don't belong in prison. This is another deficiency of our health care system and State governments irresponsibility.”

Honestly, I'm not so sure exactly what you mean by that, could you clarify?

Quote: Posted in reply to the post by granna shaw: “I propose that you are an angry hothead that has diarreha of the mouth and can't take a breath long enough to get the beans out of your ears to consider what someonelse feels thinks or views may have! some merit. If you don't have a healthy outlet for ALL of that anger you may want to look for a higher power too.”

There you go “saying higher power”, what about inner power? This conversation sounds to me like when sometimes people ask for a “higher power”, they’re really looking for an inner power, but they don't have enough's confidence in themselves; so that they look for a higher power or blame other people for their own inner anger.
Just because I have strong opinions doesn't mean I'm particularly angry a particular individual.
Besides this forum and others that I have participated in are a form of “higher power” than just my individual self is. :thumbsup:
And I do as best I can with my imagination to put myself in other people's shoes. Sorry if my imagination isn't good enough for you to realize that.
Diarrhea of the mouth? Hotheaded? Besides, you don't know me and what I've been through. Of course everybody's views and feelings have some merit.
I think you should consider your own inner anger before your righteousness accuses others of being so “hot Headed” and angry with “ears full of beans” as you state.
Here's one for you; imagine yourself coming from a family that has never had enough money to be middle-class; your child gets ill, and you go to the doctor's office then they tell you that you can't be seen there because you have no insurance (because you couldn't afford in the first place) so you have to go to the emergency room instead.
That scenario in the first place, should be unnecessary, but the way things are now that happens all too often.
Second of all imagine getting that hospital bill, when it could've just been a doctor's bill. And then you're second child, two days later gets ill with something else. What would you do, take that child directly to the emergency room? Or try another doctor's office and get refused again, just like last time? If you have the slightest bit of imagination, you would already know that those are heart wrenching things to consider, but they happen every day; (I'm guessing that you do already know those things), but if you don't please try to imagine them for a moment.

I think we probably agree on more than it seemed like however, when one feels attacked one gets defensive as I believe both of us felt. I AM compassionate to extreme and hopeless situations, as I myself have found myself in at certain times of my life and it HURTS ALOT. I have been lied to and betrayed by those who were supposed to love me and had my children abandonned emotionally and financially and used as pawns. Health care was a big part of that also and he didn't seem to give a SHIT! I have a daughter who gets financial assistance for ptsd and a son who is an alcoholic/addict as a result of ptsd from the violence and abuse in our family and the aftermath of that ending, who has been in and out of prison and will probably struggle the rest of his life. I know what it is like to feel stuck and feel guilty for staying in a bad situation for fear of those very things; ie no support, no insurance etc. I've been there. In a perfect world we should all be entitled to have ALL of our needs met, we just have to figure out how to pay for it without everyone getting so angry and defensive out of fear, resentment, entitlement or power struggles. The auto insurance issue of uninsured drivers spills over into our health care also and taxes our system with people who in many cases are not even legals. There will always be opportunists and takers who are out to get everything free they possibly can but we have to realize that we cannot save the whole world. Charity begins at home. We have to help ourselves before we can help others so that America can remain strong and not be sold down the river. When a plane is going down, there is a reason they have the parents put their oxygen masks on ahead of their children......it's the same principle.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Braggi:

How about bringing up some validation of those numbers from peer reviewed journals so we actually have something to talk about.

-Jeff

---

One doesn't have to be a genius to figure out that the longer you withhold healthcare from a person who needs it, the smaller their chances of overcoming their illness become.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by OrchardDweller:

One doesn't have to be a genius to figure out that the longer you withhold healthcare from a person who needs it, the smaller their chances of overcoming their illness become.

---

In other words, d-cat can't support the very specific statistic he quoted, so we can ignore the post, but you're willing to believe it for some reason. You are correct in that it doesn't take a genius to think that way.

I'm not certain at all that the average US health care consumer waits longer for breast cancer treatment. I know a great many people who have "full" health care coverage die each year because their insurance companies delay or fail to approve treatments altogether. How does that work for the tens of millions of people in the US who have no coverage?

I'm not sure how that plays out in England, but I'd like to know. Of the people I hear interviewed on the radio, most are very happy with the national health care they are living with, and most of the people from the US are complaining about how badly the insurance companies treat them.

A national health care coverage would solve these problems, not create them. It doesn't take a genius to see that, but a genius certainly could.

-Jeff

Has anybody here wondered, as I have, where "BizWrangler" came up with the original post that began this very active thread?

I did a google search on "Obamacare - are you paying attention?
The communists have landed..."

I propose each of you do that as well and see what kind of source BizWrangler depends on for his information.

And then I propose Barry remove this entire thread.

-Jeff

Disturbing, but I'm not going to remove this. Carry on...

I'll post an NY Times editorial that is equally disturbing shortly.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Braggi:

Has anybody here wondered, as I have, where "BizWrangler" came up with the original post that began this very active thread?

I did a google search on "Obamacare - are you paying attention?
The communists have landed..."

I propose each of you do that as well and see what kind of source BizWrangler depends on for his information.

And then I propose Barry remove this entire thread.

-Jeff

---

This is also scary - in that the current proposal no longer delivers what the reform set out to do. :(:
Barry


https://graphics8.nytimes.com/images...logo153x23.gif

---

August 18, 2009
Op-Ed Columnist

This Is Reform?
By BOB HERBERT

It’s never a contest when the interests of big business are pitted against the public interest. So if we manage to get health care “reform” this time around it will be the kind of reform that benefits the very people who have given us a failed system, and thus made reform so necessary.

Forget about a crackdown on price-gouging drug companies and predatory insurance firms. That’s not happening. With the public pretty well confused about what is going on, we’re headed — at best — toward changes that will result in a lot more people getting covered, but that will not control exploding health care costs and will leave industry leaders feeling like they’ve hit the jackpot.

The hope of a government-run insurance option is all but gone. So there will be no effective alternative for consumers in the market for health coverage, which means no competitive pressure for private insurers to rein in premiums and other charges. (Forget about the nonprofit cooperatives. That’s like sending peewee footballers up against the Super Bowl champs.)

Insurance companies are delighted with the way “reform” is unfolding. Think of it: The government is planning to require most uninsured Americans to buy health coverage. Millions of young and healthy individuals will be herded into the industry’s welcoming arms. This is the population the insurers drool over.

This additional business — a gold mine — will more than offset the cost of important new regulations that, among other things, will prevent insurers from denying coverage to applicants with pre-existing conditions or imposing lifetime limits on benefits. Poor people will either be funneled into Medicaid, which will have its eligibility ceiling raised, or will receive a government subsidy to help with the purchase of private insurance.

If the oldest and sickest are on Medicare, and the poorest are on Medicaid, and the young and the healthy are required to purchase private insurance without the option of a competing government-run plan — well, that’s reform the insurance companies can believe in.

And then there are the drug companies. A couple of months ago the Obama administration made a secret and extremely troubling deal with the drug industry’s lobbying arm, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. The lobby agreed to contribute $80 billion in savings over 10 years and to sponsor a multimillion-dollar ad campaign in support of health care reform.

The White House, for its part, agreed not to seek additional savings from the drug companies over those 10 years. This resulted in big grins and high fives at the drug lobby. The White House was rolled. The deal meant that the government’s ability to use its enormous purchasing power to negotiate lower drug prices was off the table.

The $80 billion in savings (in the form of discounts) would apply only to a certain category of Medicare recipients — those who fall into a gap in their drug coverage known as the doughnut hole — and only to brand-name drugs. (Drug industry lobbyists probably chuckled, knowing that some patients would switch from generic drugs to the more expensive brand names in order to get the industry-sponsored discounts.)
To get a sense of how sweet a deal this is for the drug industry, compare its offer of $8 billion in savings a year over 10 years with its annual profits of $300 billion a year. Robert Reich, who served as labor secretary in the Clinton administration, wrote that the deal struck by the Obama White House was very similar to the “deal George W. Bush struck in getting the Medicare drug benefit, and it’s proven a bonanza for the drug industry.”

The bonanza to come would be even larger, he said, “given all the Boomers who will be enrolling in Medicare over the next decade.”

While it is undoubtedly important to bring as many people as possible under the umbrella of health coverage, the way it is being done now does not address what President Obama and so many other advocates have said is a crucial component of reform — bringing the ever-spiraling costs of health care under control. Those costs, we’re told, are hamstringing the U.S. economy, making us less competitive globally and driving up the budget deficit.

Giving consumers the choice of an efficient, nonprofit, government-run insurance plan would have moved us toward real cost control, but that option has gone a-glimmering. The public deserves better. The drug companies, the insurance industry and the rest of the corporate high-rollers have their tentacles all over this so-called reform effort, squeezing it for all it’s worth.

Meanwhile, the public — struggling with the worst economic downturn since the 1930s — is looking on with great anxiety and confusion. If the drug companies and the insurance industry are smiling, it can only mean that the public interest is being left behind.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Braggi:

Has anybody here wondered, as I have, where "BizWrangler" came up with the original post that began this very active thread?

I did a google search on "Obamacare - are you paying attention?
The communists have landed..."

I propose each of you do that as well and see what kind of source BizWrangler depends on for his information.

And then I propose Barry remove this entire thread.

-Jeff

---

I did a Google search on "Obamacare - are you paying attention?
The communists have landed..." and there was no match. Kindly post a link, next time you want us to read something.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Gayla:

I did a Google search on "Obamacare - are you paying attention?
The communists have landed..." and there was no match. Kindly post a link, next time you want us to read something.

---

Here's the search result I got when I searched on: Obamacare-Are you paying attention? The communists have landed...

When I clicked on the link that matched exactly it returned a 404 error which means the document has been removed. Sadly, the disgusting, racist, sexist website that hosted the document remains.

Not sure why the search didn't work for you Gayla.

-Jeff

[quote=Braggi;95771] “Has anybody here wondered as I have where "BizWrangler" came up with the original post that began this very active thread?”

My answer is yes; and my guess was pretty close.

[quote=Braggi;95771] “Obamacare - are you paying attention? The communists have landed”

Sometimes we should follow our own advice; at the very top of that page, I got: www.niggermania.net/.../nigger-barack-hussein-obama/32810-obamacare-you-paying-attentionia-2.html (Note: 404).

And: www.niggermania.net/forum/nigger-barack-hussein-obama/32810-obamacare-you-paying-attentionia.html. (Note: 404) Whereas; I got the 404 web site not found message.
I guess you didn't send the link; because; (?), but it's still the same as sending a dead link or sending the link that you yourself haven't read (?). I'm not trying to be harsh. I was just disappointed in getting the 404 web site not found message!
Maybe you could have mentioned that.
I noticed that the title of those web pages are no longer linked with Google in the Google search (the ones that, when you click it, you end up with the 404 web site not found message) are quite inflammatory to say the least. But it is at this point in time, now a dead (404) page, and only gives a hint of what it might have been said.

[quote=Braggi;95771] “I propose each of you do that as well and see what kind of source BizWrangler depends on for his information.”

I vaguely recall going to a link many weeks ago, when this thread started and a web page saying those exact words somewhere, it could have been that exact web site, but I don't remember for certain.
BTW here is the web page that I found in the past that very specifically pertains to the original post of this thread. (BTW I did mention it, post it, and link it in one of my previous posts in this thread.) https://www.rememberourconstitution....ing-attention/
Here are a couple of others: https://www.thewoodlandsteaparty.com...stein-twitter/
And: https://twitter.com/Fleckman.

I thoroughly read the first one and skimmed over the second one. I did not bother with the one in twitter, I don't do twitter.

[quote=Braggi;95771] “I propose each of you do that as well and see what kind of source BizWrangler depends on for his information.”

Been there, done that.

[quote=Braggi;95771] “And then I propose Barry remove this entire thread.”

I totally disagree with doing that for several reasons.
1. it’s a form of censorship.
2. There are a lot of worthwhile posts in the thread.
3. It is very educational to see what people say, why they say it, and what information and sources they utilize for their arguments.
4. it’s a good study topic in different ways and reasoning’s of what and why people use and why they have the opinions that they do. (Educational).
5. There would be that much less information available of whom, why and how certain entities use media, spread scare tactics, and disinformation etc. etc and the mechanisms used to monkey wrench things such as health care reform, for example.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Braggi:

Has anybody here wondered, as I have, where "BizWrangler" came up with the original post that began this very active thread?

I did a google search on "Obamacare - are you paying attention?
The communists have landed..."

I propose each of you do that as well and see what kind of source BizWrangler depends on for his information.

And then I propose Barry remove this entire thread.

-Jeff

---

[quote=Braggi;95784] “Not sure why the search didn't work for you Gayla.”

Braggi: This is what I got (from your link) when I went to the very top of the page: www.waccobb.net/.../55817-obamacare-scares-daylights-out-me.html .
Braggi: which one of these 1,340 for Obamacare - are you paying attention? The communists have landed ;specifically, were you referring to? I don't know about you but I don't have that much time or energy to do deal with that many web pages just to figure out what your exact point is considering the fact that I think I already get it.

Hotspring 44.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Braggi:

Here's the search result I got when I searched on: Obamacare-Are you paying attention? The communists have landed...

When I clicked on the link that matched exactly it returned a 404 error which means the document has been removed. Sadly, the disgusting, racist, sexist website that hosted the document remains.

Not sure why the search didn't work for you Gayla.

-Jeff

---

If you don't want auto-insurance, you can simply not drive and take mass transit instead.

If you don't want health insurance, well, you can't exactly not live. Mandated coverage is the grossest injustice in the various plans being talked about. Just like the prescription drug benefit, it is a way to ensure larger cash flows for corporations without giving any incentive for them to improve in any way. In the meantime, public input not in agreement with Obama is being treated as all equally extremist (the entire mainstream media) and/or racist (Newsweek/MSNBC.)

As for the public "option" it can be efficient until it achieves a monopoly. After that there is no telling what happens if we get a Bush III into office. Not all Presidents are competent, and I've never seen Congress very competent about anything, exactly because they style themselves experts in everything. <-- This is the fundamental problem.

Congress is trying to do it all at once, and so the bill is so big that lobbyists can sneak in whatever they want. There are smaller steps that can be taken.

I guess I fail to see why everyone is dismissing the idea of a cooperative, or laws prohibiting insurers from testing for pre-existing conditions, or tax incentives for insurers that offer more affordable coverage to more people or for existing non-profit organizations to do more to help the currently uninsured. Charity has historically been the domain of religion, and government charity is simply government religion.

~ Jessica

[quote=Neshamah;95804] “I guess I fail to see why everyone is dismissing the idea of a cooperative, or laws prohibiting insurers from testing for pre existing conditions, or tax incentives for insurers that offer more affordable coverage to more people or for existing non profit organizations to do more to help the currently uninsured.”

Many co-ops are scams in the first place.
Aren't tax incentives just another form of bail outs or government giveaways?
Where are the nonprofits going to get the money from? Is it one of those so-called “options” that are absolutely required like income tax?
I think the term existing nonprofit organization is a good one. But I'm not so sure there are enough of them; I think there needs to be more of them than what exists today to make it work effectively.
I think the “fix” in favor of the for-profit health-care system as a whole, is in! And it's just a matter of whether or not, between certain governments entities behind closed doors with the cabal of pharmaceutical companies and HMO’s etc. under the guise of “health-care reform” can get away with fooling the public again. These (and others combined) corporations will make subjects out of citizens, if we don't keep some sort of citizen control on those situations.

[quote=Neshamah;95804] “Charity has historically been the domain of religion and government charity is simply government religion.”

I would be more inclined to call it subjugation when the government is involved making decisions about things like everyone has to purchase insurance simply because you're alive and desperation when a person has to resort to religious charity from an entity of which has a religion that they don't themselves believe in.
I thought America was supposed to be an entity that has some sort of a separation between church and state.

[quote=Neshamah;95804] “Mandated coverage is the grossest injustice in the various plans being talked about.”

Yes; unless it is government-sponsored and everybody is taxed like Social Security, for example, only more efficiently (in other words, no ceilings on income, the more you make the more you pay; period), I would hope. And of course everybody has unbiased coverage to the benefit.
But to mandate somebody to purchase insurance from a for-profit company or an ineffective, irresponsible, deadbeat co-op, or some such beast just because you're alive in the first place is absolutely subjugating the public at which point all freedom is essentially lost and eventually forgotten! If somebody doesn't pay the bill, which they cannot afford then they will go directly to prison to a hard labor camp is an unacceptable, diabolical, and horrible outcome!
What do you think those want to be secret FEMA concentration camps are anyway?
I'm not trying to be an alarmist. I'm thinking that people should just think about and consider what's happening.
Single-payer health care is really the only way to go into the future without being subjugated.
I'm hoping some of the smarter senators are going to put the co-op situation in lieu of affordable government alternatives to private unaffordable requirements DOA, and not even consider it. The only problem is I think that the Republicans in Congress will vote for it!
I think that it's getting pretty dicey and that the whole thing is well on its way to a train wreck that has so much momentum that it cannot stop in time before something gets screwed up. It's just a matter of who and or what will get evacuated away from the point of impact so to speak at this point.
At the end of the day the poor and uninsured will still be poor and uninsured. The real question is whether or not the poor and uninsured will be required to pay something that they don't have with the threat of prison sentences if they do not pay something they are incapable of paying; and whether or not the government entities will try to foist the whole bill onto the middle class, which in turn makes the middle class resent poor people even more! Diabolical, I say, diabolical!

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Neshamah:

If you don't want auto-insurance, you can simply not drive and take mass transit instead.

If you don't want health insurance, well, you can't exactly not live. Mandated coverage is the grossest injustice in the various plans being talked about. Just like the prescription drug benefit, it is a way to ensure larger cash flows for corporations without giving any incentive for them to improve in any way. In the meantime, public input not in agreement with Obama is being treated as all equally extremist (the entire mainstream media) and/or racist (Newsweek/MSNBC.)

As for the public "option" it can be efficient until it achieves a monopoly. After that there is no telling what happens if we get a Bush III into office. Not all Presidents are competent, and I've never seen Congress very competent about anything, exactly because they style themselves experts in everything. <-- This is the fundamental problem.

Congress is trying to do it all at once, and so the bill is so big that lobbyists can sneak in whatever they want. There are smaller steps that can be taken.

I guess I fail to see why everyone is dismissing the idea of a cooperative, or laws prohibiting insurers from testing for pre-existing conditions, or tax incentives for insurers that offer more affordable coverage to more people or for existing non-profit organizations to do more to help the currently uninsured. Charity has historically been the domain of religion, and government charity is simply government religion.

~ Jessica

---

Boring!!!!!!!!:smkdev:

Two very quick points. I do not think anyone is talking about prison time for those who do not get health insurance. They would just be forced to pay tax penalties.

Being forced to pay into social security, especially for young people who will never get anything from it, is just as wrong.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Hotspring 44:

... which one of these 1,340 ... specifically, were you referring to? ...

---

I was referring to the exactly one that contains the quote exactly. The one on top that shows the disgusting, racist title of the site the article was posted on. The fact that clicking the link brings up a 404 error means the document has been taken down, not that the site is dead, which, sadly, it's not. It's still there in all its disgusting, racist, sexist nature.

So go ahead and check it out if you want to, though I don't recommend it.

-Jeff

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by justme:

Boring!!!!!!!!:smkdev:

---

Thanks for the erudite contribution to this discussion.

You really raise the level of discourse here.

-Jeff

I found out first hand that the combination of having had a few really bad financial months and having no savings combined with being brought in to Hospital Emergency in total crisis gets you the best care. No insurance company second-guessed my doctors, I was given every test my doctor considered necessary and was very well cared for. Emergency MediCal (CMSP) paid for everything. Being uninsured, had I gone to the Emergency Room saying I had difficulty breathing, I would have owed a fortune in medical bills and not been admitted. However, coming into emergency with all the bells and whistles of full respiratory arrest....

Had I had medical insurance, I would still be paying off ridiculous deductibles and uncovered tests and drugs. They might have refused to pay for any of it as I was a smoker at the time even though what happened had nothing to do with my smoking.

The rest of this is just general commentary...not specifically in response to you.

I did know several people who have died due to Insurance Companies delaying tests and treatments....Kaiser as well. Maybe, preventive does not save money, but I'd be willing to bet early detection does. I don't see how people can sincerely believe that care is not rationed now...I was born and raised in France originally...care is not denied to the disabled and the elderly...but, yes, Terry Schiavo would not have been on a respirator for years and years...if you consider that restriscting care...

My favorite story as someone who is not insured was when I was told several years ago that I qualified for free breast cancer screening but made too much money to qualify for treatment!?!? If I could not afford the test, I could afford the treatment?!?! (I had found a lump in my breast at the time). I would be more likely to die of breast cancer if we have a government plan? And honestly...if peole like me (hard workers not covered by an employer with pre-existing conditions), or anyone else for that matter,
can have access to medical care, I don't care if it's Socialism or what name it goes by. Medical care should not be a for-profit industry. What justification can anyone give for CEO's of medical insurance companies making millions while their customers are denied care?

Who has the right to decide that the chamber-maid is less worthy of access to medical care than the Senator? All workers, from the garbage collector to the President are necessary for the smooth functioning of society...access to medical care should not depend on how much money a job pays or if the company someone works for offers medical benefits.

My elderly aunts and uncles in France were never denied any medical care, my two disabled cousins are well covered and live good lives...One of my cousins not only was treated for breast cancer at no cost to her, but as she was still young and childless, the surgeon removed the lump in a manner that would not disfigure her and would not damage her ability to nurse.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Braggi:

In other words, d-cat can't support the very specific statistic he quoted, so we can ignore the post, but you're willing to believe it for some reason. You are correct in that it doesn't take a genius to think that way.

I'm not certain at all that the average US health care consumer waits longer for breast cancer treatment. I know a great many people who have "full" health care coverage die each year because their insurance companies delay or fail to approve treatments altogether. How does that work for the tens of millions of people in the US who have no coverage?

I'm not sure how that plays out in England, but I'd like to know. Of the people I hear interviewed on the radio, most are very happy with the national health care they are living with, and most of the people from the US are complaining about how badly the insurance companies treat them.

A national health care coverage would solve these problems, not create them. It doesn't take a genius to see that, but a genius certainly could.

-Jeff

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Braggi:

Thanks for the erudite contribution to this discussion.

You really raise the level of discourse here.

-Jeff

---

You are very welcome....:wink:

thank you christine for some sanity on this subject...without repeating too much of what you have already said...i asked my mother the same question today. "can you honestly say that health care is not being rationed in the us as we speak?" as long as any of us are denied health care for any reason whatsoever, well yes we can definitely say that it is being rationed...

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Christine:

I found out first hand that the combination of having had a few really bad financial months and having no savings combined with being brought in to Hospital Emergency in total crisis gets you the best care. No insurance company second-guessed my doctors, I was given every test my doctor considered necessary and was very well cared for. Emergency MediCal (CMSP) paid for everything. Being uninsured, had I gone to the Emergency Room saying I had difficulty breathing, I would have owed a fortune in medical bills and not been admitted. However, coming into emergency with all the bells and whistles of full respiratory arrest....

Had I had medical insurance, I would still be paying off ridiculous deductibles and uncovered tests and drugs. They might have refused to pay for any of it as I was a smoker at the time even though what happened had nothing to do with my smoking.

The rest of this is just general commentary...not specifically in response to you.

I did know several people who have died due to Insurance Companies delaying tests and treatments....Kaiser as well. Maybe, preventive does not save money, but I'd be willing to bet early detection does. I don't see how people can sincerely believe that care is not rationed now...I was born and raised in France originally...care is not denied to the disabled and the elderly...but, yes, Terry Schiavo would not have been on a respirator for years and years...if you consider that restriscting care...

My favorite story as someone who is not insured was when I was told several years ago that I qualified for free breast cancer screening but made too much money to qualify for treatment!?!? If I could not afford the test, I could afford the treatment?!?! (I had found a lump in my breast at the time). I would be more likely to die of breast cancer if we have a government plan? And honestly...if peole like me (hard workers not covered by an employer with pre-existing conditions), or anyone else for that matter,
can have access to medical care, I don't care if it's Socialism or what name it goes by. Medical care should not be a for-profit industry. What justification can anyone give for CEO's of medical insurance companies making millions while their customers are denied care?

Who has the right to decide that the chamber-maid is less worthy of access to medical care than the Senator? All workers, from the garbage collector to the President are necessary for the smooth functioning of society...access to medical care should not depend on how much money a job pays or if the company someone works for offers medical benefits.

My elderly aunts and uncles in France were never denied any medical care, my two disabled cousins are well covered and live good lives...One of my cousins not only was treated for breast cancer at no cost to her, but as she was still young and childless, the surgeon removed the lump in a manner that would not disfigure her and would not damage her ability to nurse.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Clancy:

You poor thing, you have so much to be afraid of. What with our socialized police and fire departments, socialized highways and schools the commies and Satan have got you surrounded!

---

Not to mention, infrastructure such as roads bridges etc, Social Security and
Medicare!

https://www.markfiore.com/

Mark Fiore speaks for me....

His newest is titled, "Rage-Ex".

If you're not subscribed to his feed, you're just not "Cool!"...

"Mad" Miles

:burngrnbounce:

Dissident Voice : The Entertainment Value of Snuffing Grandma

Apologies for over-posting, but I just read the above. As usual, Joe Bageant nails it.

My only question for him is, how many rednecks read Guy Debord? Not many, is my bet!

"Mad" Miles

:burngrnbounce:

Just wanted to post this little story for those of you who think the government option means rationed care: My dear friend Larry, who has supposedly excellent medical insurance coverage, started having trouble swallowing in Nov. of '08, by Christmas he had lost over 40 pounds and could no longer swallow. Starting in Nov. his doctor pushed for a CAT scan...it took the Insurance Company until February to approve it, and then only because his doctor so strongly pushed for it. Larry turned out to have an unusually aggressive form of esophagal cancer. He was in Stage 4. My question would be, had he been given the tests earlier, would he have been in Stage 4? He is, according to his team of doctors, the one in a hundred to be "cured" of this cancer. How much money would have been saved if he'd had the tests earlier when the tumors were smaller and less numerous? They almost killed him and people are worried about death panels and rationed care? We have them, they're called Medical Insurance Companies.

A couple of weeks ago Larry's wife, Bethany, received a call from a social worker offering in home nursing care. This would provide, she was told, someone to help with his care who would decide when Larry needed to be taken to the hospital as well as determining at what point he should be placed in Hospice. Anyone else smell rationed care??? They would have completely lost control over his medical decisions.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Neshamah:

If you don't want auto-insurance, you can simply not drive and take mass transit instead.

If you don't want health insurance, well, you can't exactly not live. Mandated coverage is the grossest injustice in the various plans being talked about.

As for the public "option" it can be efficient until it achieves a monopoly. After that there is no telling what happens if we get a Bush III into office. Not all Presidents are competent, and I've never seen Congress very competent about anything, exactly because they style themselves experts in everything. <-- This is the fundamental problem.

Congress is trying to do it all at once, and so the bill is so big that lobbyists can sneak in whatever they want. There are smaller steps that can be taken.

I guess I fail to see why everyone is dismissing the idea of a cooperative, or laws prohibiting insurers from testing for pre-existing conditions, or tax incentives for insurers that offer more affordable coverage to more people or for existing non-profit organizations to do more to help the currently uninsured. Charity has historically been the domain of religion, and government charity is simply government religion.

~ Jessica

---

As to the idea of health care co ops, I have yet to see any detailed plan description that reassures me. I am currently uninsured, but I carried Kaiser coverage for years, as an individual, until it got just too costly. The final three years, I was able to get that coverage through what is a kind of co-op -- a local builders supply group for small business owners. Since I had a small home business on the side, doing bookkeeping, I was able to pay a fee to join this organization and then access the group rates for health care. By June '08, my individual plan was over $450/month! So that's the discounted, co-op rate, which is why I'm not enthused when I hear politicians spouting talk equating health care reform with the creation of co-ops.

Second, you expressed a concern about the public option, and the changing of administrations. I think you might be saying that we could get a public option under Obama, then have it rescinded under a different President (?). It's certainly a valid point, however I think the politics of taking away something are much more difficult than trying to prevent it from being offered in the first place. Medicare was not an easy sell, but the Democrats succeeded in passing it. Now, no politician in their right mind would try to dismantle Medicare.

My own hope is for a robust public option, allowing people to opt into Medicare, maybe for an annual fee until they turn 65. For those who are indigent, the fee can be waived. For those like me, who have a decent income yet can't afford even $250 per month for health insurance (plus co-pays, non-covered visits, and the like), the option of participating in a Medicare-type coverage for say, $500 per year, would be heaven sent. I would even gladly pay $1,000 per year to have such coverage.

The process is already in place -- doctors already accept Medicare patients, hospitals already accept Medicare patients, as do rest homes, nursing homes, and a whole host of medical providers. I imagine many health care providers would jump at leaving the paperwork nightmare of private insurance reimbursement behind to take on a new Medicare patient instead.

There is an excellent article on the editorial page of the Press Democrat today (Sept. 2) entitled the "The five biggest myths about health care around the world", by T.R. Reid. He really breaks down the fear-based misconceptions about what it would mean for the U.S. to have a Government administered health insurance system. The article can be accessed on-line by following this link: The five biggest myths about health care around the world | PressDemocrat.com | The Press Democrat | Santa Rosa, CA