ObamaCare scares the daylights out of me!

[Lorrie]

I'm bleeding...(get it?) over to this thread. lol I have a joke that applies here...

It's not clear where the AMA stands on the new plan...

The American Medical Association has weighed in on the new Obama health
care proposals.

The Allergists voted to scratch it, but the
Dermatologists advised not to make any rash moves.
The Gastroenterologists had sort of a gut feeling about it,
but the Neurologists thought the Administration had a lot of nerve.

The Obstetricians felt they were all laboring under a misconception.
Ophthalmologists considered the idea shortsighted.
Pathologists yelled, "Over my dead body!" while the
Pediatricians said, "Oh, Grow up!"

The Psychiatrists thought the whole idea was madness,
while the Radiologists could see right through it.
Surgeons decided to wash their hands of the whole thing.
The Internists thought it was a bitter pill to swallow, and
the Plastic Surgeons said, "This puts a whole new face on the matter...."

The Podiatrists thought it was a step forward, but
the Urologists were pissed off at the whole idea.
The Anesthesiologists thought the whole idea was a gas,
and the Cardiologists didn't have the heart to say no.

In the end, the Proctologists won out,
leaving the entire decision up to the a**holes in Washington.

[ChristineL]

I unfortunately have a sad follow-up to this story. While the Insurance Company once again argued against a follow-up cat-scan, Larry formed new tumors that were not confirmed until he was admitted through the emergency room due to inability to swallow anything, including water. There is nothing more that can be done and he is being sent home to die. Hospice care is being arranged at home.

Maybe this would have happened anyway, but...maybe if cat-scans had been immediately done, the original cancer would have been more treatable, maybe its complete return could have been stopped.

I'm not afraid of Nationalized Medicine, or Socialism, I'm afraid of Medical Insurance companies whose massive administrative costs and CEO salaries are paid for by the premiums and require denial of medical care to continue being paid.

Those who are satisfied with their insurance plans have not yet suffered anything serious enough to be denied needed tests, medications or physical therapy...or for their insurances to find a way to drop them altogether.

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.

[justme]

I have heard for weeks the argument for and against the health care bill. I admit, I haven't read it in it's entirety. I have just one question...

How more "Socialist" is the health care bill than "Social Security? I rely on health care. And yes, I will rely on my Social Security benefits. Social Security contributions are based on income, as, I believe are the health bill's.

One difference however, is that as long as I work, I contribute to my benefits at retirement.

Not so with health care. I work 32 hrs a week and my health care is non-existent. It all revolves around my employers ability, and desire to offer it. Plus there is the pre-existing condition issue.

I am open to any information that anyone has to these comparison. If you just want to sound off at me... please don't. I am looking for honest, reliable and documented information...

Thanks

[Hotspring 44]

Fla. judge strikes down Obama health care overhaul

By MELISSA NELSON, Associated Press December 31/2011

PENSACOLA, Fla. – A federal judge declared the Obama administration's health care overhaul unconstitutional Monday, siding with 26 states that argued people cannot be required to buy health insurance.


Senior U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson agreed with the states that the new law violates people's rights by forcing them to buy health insurance by 2014 or face penalties. He went a step further than a previous ruling against the law, declaring the entire thing unconstitutional if the insurance requirement does not hold up.

Attorneys for the administration had argued that the states did not have standing to challenge the law and that the case should be dismissed.
Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said Monday the department strongly disagrees with Vinson's ruling and intends to appeal.

"There is clear and well-established legal precedent that Congress acted within its constitutional authority in passing this law and we are confident that we will ultimately prevail on appeal," she said in a statement.

The final step will almost certainly be the U.S. Supreme Court. Two other federal judges have already upheld the law and a federal judge in Virginia ruled the insurance mandate unconstitutional but stopped short of voiding the entire thing.

At issue was whether the government is reaching beyond its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce by requiring citizens to purchase health insurance or face tax penalties.

Vinson said it is, writing in his 78-page ruling that if the government can require people to buy health insurance, it could also regulate food the same way.

"Or, as discussed during oral argument, Congress could require that people buy and consume broccoli at regular intervals," he wrote, "Not only because the required purchases will positively impact interstate commerce, but also because people who eat healthier tend to be healthier, and are thus more productive and put less of a strain on the health care system."

Obama administration attorneys had argued that health care is part of the interstate commerce system. They said the government can levy a tax penalty on Americans who decide not to purchase health insurance because all Americans are consumers of medical care.

But attorneys for the states said the administration was essentially coercing the states into participating in the overhaul by holding billions of Medicaid dollars hostage. The states also said the federal government is violating the Constitution by forcing a mandate on the states without providing money to pay for it.

Opponents of the health overhaul praised the decision Monday afternoon. House Speaker John Boehner said it shows Senate Democrats should follow a House vote to repeal the law.

"Today's decision affirms the view, held by most of the states and a majority of the American people, that the federal government should not be in the business of forcing you to buy health insurance and punishing you if you don't," he said in a statement.

Democrats just as quickly slammed the decision.

"This lawsuit is nothing more than an attempt by those who want to raise taxes on small businesses, increase prescription prices for seniors and allow insurance companies to once again deny sick children medical care," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said in a prepared statement.

Former Florida Republican Attorney General Bill McCollum filed the lawsuit just minutes after President Barack Obama signed the 10-year, $938 billion health care bill into law in March. He chose a court in Pensacola, one of Florida's most conservative cities. The nation's most influential small business lobby, the National Federation of Independent Business, also joined.

Officials in the states that sued lauded Vinson's decision. Almost all of them have Republican governors, attorneys general or both.

"In making his ruling, the judge has confirmed what many of us knew from the start; ObamaCare is an unprecedented and unconstitutional infringement on the liberty of the American people," Florida GOP Gov. Rick Scott said in a statement.

Other states that joined the suit are: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Indiana, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin and Wyoming.
___
Associated Press Writer Curt Anderson in Miami contributed to this report.

[Hotspring 44]

Not.

Now, if we could only find some private enterprise arrangement that could do for American healthcare what privatization has done for promoting democracy, American ideals and freedom overseas, we’d really have something great.

Or not.

/mhqc/

[Louella]

Not.

Obama care is not perfect. But I have already experienced good changes from it. My 22 Year old daughter who's about to graduate from UC Berkeley will have insurance through our plan. Also effective this January, new preventative care laws are making ( I say this because you have to twist their arms) my insurance pay for tests that are not included in my deductable. WhIch I have a very high deductable since we are self employed and have to pay for high rates otherwise. But I encourage you to get involved in the Single Payer Now, which is backed by California progressive Mark Leno. Also Health Care for All. org and see the history of this bill SB 810 They almost past Single Payer system in California last year. And it may go through this year. But they need our support!!

[Louella]

[This is a nice balance report telling both sides. What I think is damning is that the Republicans immediately picked
very Republican states that they knew would find in favor of throwing out the new health care bill. They also know that the one
way to stop the funding of it is to not pool enough tax money from everyone. In Europe they know everyone has to give their share. We have people here waiting until they are very sick and then running to the hospital for free very expensive care. These people can pay a relatively low tax or get insurance that they can afford through the government pool that has been offered in the the Obama health care plan. Also take note that the other states in favor of not having the health care plan are all pretty conservative states. And keep in mind that when you buy insurance they can raise the premium can go up anytime at
as much as they feel like, even they are already having record profits right now while we struggle. At least they can't just dump you when you get sick.
I have got a question though. What is considered a small business. I heard a Republican on the media say that a very large,
Millions of dollars in profit company, was a small business. I believe they are part of the 1% of the rich. All the people I know that have a small business like I do earn a salary per year between $50.000 to maybe $100.000 a year. Especially after you pay workers with taxes, overhead costs etc. What are we a tiny weeny business? Once again taxes should be cut on people earning less than $250.000 a year. I heard on the corporate news (TV) that we can get free tax filing help if we earn less than
$80.000 a year and they casually mentioned that was 70% of all Americans. If you Listen very carefully you will hear fleeting bits of real information on corporate news. Not that often. I recommend Listening to Free Speech TV.