ObamaCare scares the daylights out of me!

[theindependenteye]

YESTERDAY ON "ABC-TV" ... OBAMA WAS ASKED:
"MR. PRESIDENT WILL YOU AND YOUR FAMILY ... JOIN THE NEW 'UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE PROGRAM' THAT THE REST OF US WILL BE ON ????".....

This might be legit, but it sounds like the urgent news that I've won $60 million in the New Guinea Lottery. If Obama actually stumbled on that softball, he's working way too hard.

How do you "join the new Universal Health Care Program"? The bills in Congress mandate universal health care, under many options, one of which would be a public option. Is the writer objecting that this option isn't good enough and would prefer to have NO option?

This is on a par with Palin's Death Panel. A vast number of people are spreading lies faster than a speeding bullet, taller than the tallest building, able to leap cross-country at a single bound. It's a bird! It's a plane! It's ... ka-plop! ... a bull in the jet-stream.

Peace & joy—
Conrad

[Lorrie]

YESTERDAY ON "ABC-TV" ... OBAMA WAS ASKED:
"MR. PRESIDENT WILL YOU AND YOUR FAMILY ... JOIN THE NEW 'UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE PROGRAM' THAT THE REST OF US WILL BE ON ????".....

This might be legit, but it sounds like the urgent news that I've won $60 million in the New Guinea Lottery. If Obama actually stumbled on that softball, he's working way too hard.

How do you "join the new Universal Health Care Program"? The bills in Congress mandate universal health care, under many options, one of which would be a public option. Is the writer objecting that this option isn't good enough and would prefer to have NO option?

This is on a par with Palin's Death Panel. A vast number of people are spreading lies faster than a speeding bullet, taller than the tallest building, able to leap cross-country at a single bound. It's a bird! It's a plane! It's ... ka-plop! ... a bull in the jet-stream.

Peace & joy—
Conrad

good one! lol ha ha ha

[Barry]

British Health System Hits Back At U.S. Critics

RAPHAEL G. SATTER | 08/12/09 08:28 PM |

LONDON — Britain's health care service says it is sick of being lied about.

Pilloried by right-wing critics of President Barack Obama's health care plan, Britain's National Health Service, known here as the NHS, is fighting back.

"People have been saying some untruths in the States," a spokesman for Britain Department of Health said in a telephone interview. "There's been all these ridiculous claims made by the American health lobby about Obama's health care plan ... and they've used the NHS as an example. A lot of it has been untrue."

He spoke anonymously in line with department policy.

A particularly outlandish example of a U.S. editorial, printed in the Investor's Business Daily, claimed that renowned physicist Stephen Hawking, who is disabled, "wouldn't have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless."

Hawking, who was born and lives in Britain, personally debunked the claim. "I wouldn't be here today if it were not for the NHS," he told The Guardian newspaper. Investor's Business Daily has since corrected the editorial.

As the debate over how best to look after American patients rages on, Britain's socialized health care system has increasingly found itself being drawn into the argument. Critics of the Obama administration's plan to overhaul US health care say the president is seeking to model the U.S. system on that of Britain or Canada – places they paint as countries where patients linger for months on waiting lists and are forbidden from paying for their own medication.

A Republican National Committee ad said that in the U.K. "individuals lose their right to make their own health care choices." Another ad launched earlier this month by the anti-tax group Club for Growth claimed that government bureaucrats in Britain had calculated six months of life to be worth $22,750. "Under their socialized system, if your treatment costs more, you're out of luck," the ad says, as footage of an elderly man weeping at a woman's bedside alternate with clips of the Union Jack and Big Ben.

The online attacks on Britain's health care system have been paired with strident criticism from Republican lawmakers
In an interview widely interpreted here as an attack on the U.K., Republican Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa told a local radio station last week that "countries that have government-run health care" would not have given Sen. Edward Kennedy, who suffers from a brain tumor, the same standard of care as in the U.S. because he is too old. Another Republican, Congressman Paul Broun of Georgia, said that the U.K. and Canada "don't have the appreciation of life as we do in our society, evidently.

The criticism, widely covered in the U.K. media, has clearly stung Britain's left-leaning Labour government. The Department of Health took the unusual step of contacting The Associated Press and e-mailing it a three-page rebuttal to what it said were misconceptions about the NHS being bandied about in the U.S. media – each one followed with the words: "Not true."

At the top of the list was the idea that a patient in his late 70s would not be treated for a brain tumor because he was too old – a transparent reference to Grassley's comments about Kennedy.

And what of Republicans' claim that British patients are robbed of their medical choices? Fal

"Everyone who is cared for by the NHS in England has formal rights to make choices about the service that they receive," it said in its rebuttal.

Then followed a fact sheet comparing selected statistics such as health spending per capita, infant mortality, life expectancy, and more. Each one showed England outperforming its trans-Atlantic counterpart.

The British government offers health care for free at the point of need, a service pioneered by Labour in 1948. In the six decades since, its promise of universal medical care, from cradle to grave, is taken for granted by Britons to such an extent that politicians – even fiscal conservatives – are loath to attack it.
But the NHS faces significant challenges, not least a multibillion pound (dollar) deficit predicted to open up over the next five years. It has its critics too, particularly cancer patients who complain that the government refuses to cover costlier drugs, leaving those who need expensive treatments to pay for them out of pocket.

Nevertheless, many in the British press bristled at the criticism from America's right wing.

"How dare the Republicans bad-mouth our free health care system?" Guardian columnist Michele Hanson wrote Wednesday. "If I'd been born in the U.S., I'd probably be dead by now."

[d-cat]

Please watch the movie, SICKO, again.

and watch Fahrenheit 911 again to see what a whitewash that movie was, and then look into the subject of "controlled opposition".

I've lived in countries with govt health care... and HATED IT! You'd spend all day waiting in overcrowded waiting rooms (when healthcare is "free" people go for anything) and if you don't get to see the doctor that day, you have to come back the next day to do it all over again. In some countries, if you want to see an eye doctor for example, you first have to go see a GP who then will write something up so you can go to an eye doctor. I found it ridiculous. At hospitals, the doctors and nurses are overworked, and can spend very little time with you. I once needed an emergency operation (due to a misdiagnosis at another hospital) and had to wait a week for a hospital bed. But don't believe me - have a look at the what Canadians think of their system:

link

That is not to say that our current system (corporate health care) is much better. The care may be better but too many can't afford it. Congressman (and medical doctor) Ron Paul says that long ago before the govt got involved, no patient was turned away and patients were always charged the lowest price (compared to being charged the highest price today). Dr. Paul didn't charge his needy patients, but says free care was available to anyone via the church hospitals. In my opinion, I see big faults in both systems and neither system is what we should be striving for.

Obama is a highly intelligent man, working diligently to make our country a better place.

You might have a look at this too:
video clip

and this documentary if you have the time:
documentary

It's currently the most viewed documentary on the web. Though it's not a left/right documentary and more about the powers behind the presidency, I never hold much hope for Obama supporters to watch it. I've noticed people don't like to see such things about their party or candidate, maybe because it makes it difficult to maintain their belief system that they are "working diligently to make our country a better place". Perhaps some here are more open-minded. I believe it's important to know that whether the oval office is occupied by the left or the right, we continue the wars, we continue to lose civil liberties, and continue to get taxed more and more (either by taxes or through inflation) to fund a government that's out of control. I believe the two party system is a duopoly that keeps other parties and any real, positive change out of the game. It's just a puppet show to make you believe you have a choice.


Another 45,000 US troops needed in Afghanistan
link

Obama Demands Right to Recruit Minors for*Military
link

Afghans riot over air-strike atrocity
Shouting "Death to America" and "Death to the Government", thousands of Afghan villagers hurled stones at police yesterday as they vented their fury at American air strikes that local officials claim killed 147 civilians.
link

'US strike killed 95 children in Afghanistan'
link

Obama's backsliding on torture
After the president's swift move to close Guantánamo, I thought Binyam Mohamed would soon be free. I fear we were deceived
link

Obama Picks Bilderberger for Health Secretary
link

After Obama praises torture ruling, civil liberties group appalled
"Hope is flickering," [ACLU's executive director] Romero said in a statement. "The Obama administration's position is not change. It is more of the same. This represents a complete turn-around and undermining of the restoration of the rule of law. The new American administration shouldn't be complicit in hiding the abuses of its predecessors."
link

Ashcroft: Obama, Bush Detainee Policies Exactly The Same
Only difference is how they spell their names
link

U.S. Rescue May Reach $23.7 Trillion
link

Billion For Cops To Be Given Out By Obama Administration
link

[Barry]

Hey d-cat,

Please update your registered email address here: https://www.waccobb.net/forums/profi...o=editpassword

[justme]

So d-cat..

Are running for any kind of public office so you can help change all the bad things you mention?

[Clancy]

...I believe it's important to know that whether the oval office is occupied by the left or the right, we continue the wars, we continue to lose civil liberties, and continue to get taxed more and more (either by taxes or through inflation) to fund a government that's out of control. I believe the two party system is a duopoly that keeps other parties and any real, positive change out of the game. It's just a puppet show to make you believe you have a choice...

I am mostly in agreement with the above statement. There is some slight difference between the parties though - with the GOP in power Wall St's greed is completely unfettered, when the dems are in power, slightly more moderate forces are at play.

Left or right, people have a huge emotional investment in believing that the powers that be have our interests at heart, so, I suggest that if you actually want to make people aware that our two party system is an elaborate illusion, that you stop promoting alarming RW whacko causes, at least here on a predominately liberal website.

Choose your battles carefully, tone down your rhetoric and stop posting links that often don't work or that take us to some of the most politically extreme websites out there.

Like all of us, you too have an emotional investment in your world view. The more aware you become of it, the more effective you will be.

[justme]

Although I don't agree with most of d-cat's opinions, since when is the bulleting board being censored for only "liberal views" to be posted. I am liberal, and that means to me EVERYONES POV is allowed, whether I like it or not... For being a libersal, the last post has Bush era sounds too it.. "Either you are with us, or you are against us"... God, give it a rest for a bit and let Wacco be a sounding board for all.....

[Clancy]

Although I don't agree with most of d-cat's opinions, since when is the bulleting board being censored for only "liberal views" to be posted. I am liberal, and that means to me EVERYONES POV is allowed, whether I like it or not... For being a libersal, the last post has Bush era sounds too it.. "Either you are with us, or you are against us"... God, give it a rest for a bit and let Wacco be a sounding board for all.....

What censorship are you referring to?

[justme]

Your post...

"Left or right, people have a huge emotional investment in believing that the powers that be have our interests at heart, so, I suggest that if you actually want to make people aware that our two party system is an elaborate illusion, that you stop promoting alarming RW whacko causes, at least here on a predominately liberal website.

Choose your battles carefully, tone down your rhetoric and stop posting links that often don't work or that take us to some of the most politically extreme websites out there."

Did I read this statement wrong? If so, what did you mean?

[Clancy]

I don't know if you read it wrong or not, but I can't censor anyone here. It means what it says. I gave my opinion regarding how he could be more effective on a point with which we agree, and I thought I did it in a very friendly way too.

He is free to post RW whacko causes, and I am free to tell him I think it's counterproductive.

Your post...

"Left or right, people have a huge emotional investment in believing that the powers that be have our interests at heart, so, I suggest that if you actually want to make people aware that our two party system is an elaborate illusion, that you stop promoting alarming RW whacko causes, at least here on a predominately liberal website.

Choose your battles carefully, tone down your rhetoric and stop posting links that often don't work or that take us to some of the most politically extreme websites out there."

Did I read this statement wrong? If so, what did you mean?

[d-cat]

So are the schools and our highway system, due to corporate America sucking the lifeblood out of the system.

Shall we close the schools and shut down the freeways because we're broke?

huh??? I just said I understand Medicare is broke. I didn't say it should be shut down. WTF!

[d-cat]

So d-cat..

Are running for any kind of public office so you can help change all the bad things you mention?

No I'm not. There are those who have more interest in that and they are running. People in this movement do many different things besides running for office. Waking people up is a priority though. The better informed the public, the lesser chance they can be fooled.

[Barry]

Although I don't agree with most of d-cat's opinions, since when is the bulleting board being censored for only "liberal views" to be posted. I am liberal, and that means to me EVERYONES POV is allowed, whether I like it or not... For being a libersal, the last post has Bush era sounds too it.. "Either you are with us, or you are against us"... God, give it a rest for a bit and let Wacco be a sounding board for all.....

I created WaccoBB.net as a way of connecting the conscious/progressive community. Other points of view are welcome if they are thoughtful, respectful and don't end up dominating or hijacking the conversation. I'm hoping the d-cat will leave room for other points of view...

Again, if you want to see what full "freedom of speech" will get you, check out the PD forums.

[d-cat]

I am mostly in agreement with the above statement. There is some slight difference between the parties though - with the GOP in power Wall St's greed is completely unfettered, when the dems are in power, slightly more moderate forces are at play.

well of course there are differences, otherwise it wouldn't fool anybody.

Left or right, people have a huge emotional investment in believing that the powers that be have our interests at heart, so, I suggest that if you actually want to make people aware that our two party system is an elaborate illusion, that you stop promoting alarming RW whacko causes, at least here on a predominately liberal website.

Choose your battles carefully, tone down your rhetoric and stop posting links that often don't work or that take us to some of the most politically extreme websites out there.

Like all of us, you too have an emotional investment in your world view. The more aware you become of it, the more effective you will be.

OK I will try to be more like you want me to be.

The Obama documentary link didn't work because I left out the "http//". I'm so sorry that I made a mistake Clancy.

BTW I had been a lifelong Democrat from a Democrat family. It should be obvious that I no longer believe in the false left/right paradigm, though I'm often accused of being right wing or liberal, depending on what forum I might be on and how badly the people there are fooled by the false choice.

Clancy, I remember you from this thread:
https://www.waccobb.net/forums/wacco...ing-fraud.html

though it looks like you went back and deleted some of your responses. In post #6 I wrote the following,

"This exchange has been time consuming and confusing, with no new knowledge gained for me. So I hope you'll understand why I do not wish to continue this exchange any further."

I'm already feeling that again so please understand if I spend my time on something else and fail to respond to you.

[d-cat]

I'm hoping the d-cat will leave room for other points of view...

huh????

[Clancy]

It should be obvious that I no longer believe in the false left/right paradigm, though I'm often accused of being right wing or liberal, depending on what forum I might be on and how badly the people there are fooled by the false choice...

There's plenty of left wing whacko issues too, I've only seen you promote those on the right.

[Hotspring 44]

This is a bulk e-mail I received from:
David Axelrod
Senior Adviser to the President

“Dear Friend, This is probably one of the longest emails I’ve ever sent, but it could be the most important. Across the country we are seeing vigorous debate about health insurance reform. Unfortunately, some of the old tactics we know so well are back — even the viral emails that fly unchecked and under the radar, spreading all sorts of lies and distortions. As President Obama said at the town hall in New Hampshire, “where we do disagree, let's disagree over things that are real, not these wild misrepresentations that bear no resemblance to anything that's actually been proposed.” So let’s start a chain email of our own. At the end of my email, you’ll find a lot of information about health insurance reform, distilled into 8 ways reform provides security and stability to those with or without coverage, 8 common myths about reform and 8 reasons we need health insurance reform now. Right now, someone you know probably has a question about reform that could be answered by what’s below. So what are you waiting for? Forward this email. Thanks, David David Axelrod Senior Adviser to the President P.S. We launched www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck this week to knock down the rumors and lies that are floating around the internet. You can find the information below, and much more, there. For example, we've just added a video of Nancy-Ann DeParle from our Health Reform Office tackling a viral email head on. Check it out: [IMG]file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/SH/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/msohtml1/01/clip_image001.jpg[/IMG] 8 ways reform provides security and stability to those with or without coverage Ends Discrimination for Pre-Existing Conditions: Insurance companies will be prohibited from refusing you coverage because of your medical history. Ends Exorbitant Out-of-Pocket Expenses, Deductibles or Co-Pays: Insurance companies will have to abide by yearly caps on how much they can charge for out-of-pocket expenses. Ends Cost-Sharing for Preventive Care: Insurance companies must fully cover, without charge, regular checkups and tests that help you prevent illness, such as mammograms or eye and foot exams for diabetics. Ends Dropping of Coverage for Seriously Ill: Insurance companies will be prohibited from dropping or watering down insurance coverage for those who become seriously ill. Ends Gender Discrimination: Insurance companies will be prohibited from charging you more because of your gender. Ends Annual or Lifetime Caps on Coverage: Insurance companies will be prevented from placing annual or lifetime caps on the coverage you receive. Extends Coverage for Young Adults: Children would continue to be eligible for family coverage through the age of 26. Guarantees Insurance Renewal: Insurance companies will be required to renew any policy as long as the policyholder pays their premium in full. Insurance companies won't be allowed to refuse renewal because someone became sick. Learn more and get details: https://www.WhiteHouse.gov/health-insurance-consumer-protections/ 8 common myths about health insurance reform Reform will stop "rationing" - not increase it: It’s a myth that reform will mean a "government takeover" of health care or lead to "rationing." To the contrary, reform will forbid many forms of rationing that are currently being used by insurance companies. We can’t afford reform: It's the status quo we can't afford. It’s a myth that reform will bust the budget. To the contrary, the President has identified ways to pay for the vast majority of the up-front costs by cutting waste, fraud, and abuse within existing government health programs; ending big subsidies to insurance companies; and increasing efficiency with such steps as coordinating care and streamlining paperwork. In the long term, reform can help bring down costs that will otherwise lead to a fiscal crisis. Reform would encourage "euthanasia": It does not. It’s a malicious myth that reform would encourage or even require euthanasia for seniors. For seniors who want to consult with their family and physicians about end-of life decisions, reform will help to cover these voluntary, private consultations for those who want help with these personal and difficult family decisions. Vets' health care is safe and sound: It’s a myth that health insurance reform will affect veterans' access to the care they get now. To the contrary, the President's budget significantly expands coverage under the VA, extending care to 500,000 more veterans who were previously excluded. The VA Healthcare system will continue to be available for all eligible veterans. Reform will benefit small business - not burden it: It’s a myth that health insurance reform will hurt small businesses. To the contrary, reform will ease the burdens on small businesses, provide tax credits to help them pay for employee coverage and help level the playing field with big firms who pay much less to cover their employees on average. Your Medicare is safe, and stronger with reform: It’s myth that Health Insurance Reform would be financed by cutting Medicare benefits. To the contrary, reform will improve the long-term financial health of Medicare, ensure better coordination, eliminate waste and unnecessary subsidies to insurance companies, and help to close the Medicare "doughnut" hole to make prescription drugs more affordable for seniors. You can keep your own insurance: It’s myth that reform will force you out of your current insurance plan or force you to change doctors. To the contrary, reform will expand your choices, not eliminate them. No, government will not do anything with your bank account: It is an absurd myth that government will be in charge of your bank accounts. Health insurance reform will simplify administration, making it easier and more convenient for you to pay bills in a method that you choose. Just like paying a phone bill or a utility bill, you can pay by traditional check, or by a direct electronic payment. And forms will be standardized so they will be easier to understand. The choice is up to you – and the same rules of privacy will apply as they do for all other electronic payments that people make. Learn more and get details: https://www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck https://www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck/faq 8 Reasons We Need Health Insurance Reform Now Coverage Denied to Millions: A recent national survey estimated that 12.6 million non-elderly adults – 36 percent of those who tried to purchase health insurance directly from an insurance company in the individual insurance market – were in fact discriminated against because of a pre-existing condition in the previous three years or dropped from coverage when they became seriously ill. Learn more: https://www.healthreform.gov/reports/denied_coverage/index.html Less Care for More Costs: With each passing year, Americans are paying more for health care coverage. Employer-sponsored health insurance premiums have nearly doubled since 2000, a rate three times faster than wages. In 2008, the average premium for a family plan purchased through an employer was $12,680, nearly the annual earnings of a full-time minimum wage job. Americans pay more than ever for health insurance, but get less coverage. Learn more: https://www.healthreform.gov/reports/hiddencosts/index.html Roadblocks to Care for Women: Women’s reproductive health requires more regular contact with health care providers, including yearly pap smears, mammograms, and obstetric care. Women are also more likely to report fair or poor health than men (9.5% versus 9.0%). While rates of chronic conditions such as diabetes and high blood pressure are similar to men, women are twice as likely to suffer from headaches and are more likely to experience joint, back or neck pain. These chronic conditions often require regular and frequent treatment and follow-up care. Learn more: https://www.healthreform.gov/reports/women/index.html Hard Times in the Heartland: Throughout rural America, there are nearly 50 million people who face challenges in accessing health care. The past several decades have consistently shown higher rates of poverty, mortality, uninsurance, and limited access to a primary health care provider in rural areas. With the recent economic downturn, there is potential for an increase in many of the health disparities and access concerns that are already elevated in rural communities. Learn more: https://www.healthreform.gov/reports/hardtimes Small Businesses Struggle to Provide Health Coverage: Nearly one-third of the uninsured – 13 million people – are employees of firms with less than 100 workers. From 2000 to 2007, the proportion of non-elderly Americans covered by employer-based health insurance fell from 66% to 61%. Much of this decline stems from small business. The percentage of small businesses offering coverage dropped from 68% to 59%, while large firms held stable at 99%. About a third of such workers in firms with fewer than 50 employees obtain insurance through a spouse. Learn more: https://www.healthreform.gov/reports/helpbottomline The Tragedies are Personal: Half of all personal bankruptcies are at least partly the result of medical expenses. The typical elderly couple may have to save nearly $300,000 to pay for health costs not covered by Medicare alone. Learn more: https://www.healthreform.gov/reports/inaction Diminishing Access to Care: From 2000 to 2007, the proportion of non-elderly Americans covered by employer-based health insurance fell from 66% to 61%. An estimated 87 million people - one in every three Americans under the age of 65 - were uninsured at some point in 2007 and 2008. More than 80% of the uninsured are in working families. Learn more: https://www.healthreform.gov/reports/inaction/diminishing/index.html The Trends are Troubling: Without reform, health care costs will continue to skyrocket unabated, putting unbearable strain on families, businesses, and state and federal government budgets. Perhaps the most visible sign of the need for health care reform is the 46 million Americans currently without health insurance - projections suggest that this number will rise to about 72 million in 2040 in the absence of reform. Learn more: https://www.WhiteHouse.gov/assets/documents/CEA_Health_Care_Report.pdf [IMG]file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/SH/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/msohtml1/01/clip_image002.jpg[/IMG]

End

In essence, I (Hotspring 44) made snippets of the above letter and interjected my comments below each.
I also wrote a few paragraphs of my own opinion beyond the comments on the specific snippets approximately 4 paragraphs after the last (Table) box.

“8 ways reform provides security and stability to those with or without”

“1. Ends Discrimination for Pre Existing Conditions: Insurance companies will be prohibited from refusing you coverage because of your medical history.”

I suspect that because of that, private insurance companies will still be ‘permitted’ to ‘gouge’ people that do have certain “Pre Existing Conditions”; in other words, the ‘bipartisan’ aspect of the “reform”.

“2. Ends Exorbitant Out of Pocket Expenses, Deductibles or Co Pays: Insurance companies will have to abide by yearly caps on how much they can charge for outof pocket expenses.”

This is why the private insurance companies are crying foul.

“Ends Cost Sharing for Preventive Care: Insurance companies must fully cover, without charge, regular checkups and tests that help you prevent illness, such as mammograms or eye and foot exams for diabetics.”

Just as I thought; no preventative dental or mental illness coverage!

“4. Ends Dropping of Coverage for Seriously Ill: Insurance companies will be prohibited from dropping or watering down insurance coverage for those who become seriously ill.

Another reason why the private insurance companies are crying foul.

“5. Ends Gender Discrimination: Insurance companies will be prohibited from charging you more because of your gender.”

Yet again another reason why the private insurance companies are crying foul.

“6. Ends Annual or Lifetime Caps on Coverage: Insurance companies will be prevented from placing annual or lifetime caps on the coverage you receive.”

Aha! A loophole for the insurance companies to gouge again! (In the spirit of ‘bipartisanship’).

“7. Extends Coverage for Young Adults: Children would continue to be eligible for family coverage through the age of 26.

The government really doesn't want you to be an “individual”… … ever!

“8. Guarantees Insurance Renewal: Insurance companies will be required to renew any policy as long as the policyholder pays their premium in full. Insurance companies won't be allowed to refuse renewal because someone became sick.

If that “someone” is a single individual, and is too sick to work, they won't be able to pay! So single-payer is the ultimate thing that we would end up with anyway. (I will follow up on that later at some point in the future.).

“8 common myths about health insurance reform”

“1. Reform will stop "rationing" not increase it: It’s a myth that reform will mean a "government takeover" of health care or lead to "rationing." To the contrary, reform will forbid many forms of rationing that are currently being used by insurance companies.”

My concern is that if “reform” does not include some kind of funding to increase the amount of actual healthcare workers, in other words; doctors, nurses and facilities, etc. then triage form of “rationing” would be inevitable; unfortunately.

“2. We can’t afford reform: It's the status quo we can't afford. It’s a myth that reform will bust the budget. To the contrary, the President has identified ways to pay for the vast majority of the up front costs by cutting waste, fraud, and abuse within existing government health programs; ending big subsidies to insurance companies; and increasing efficiency with such steps as coordinating care and streamlining paperwork. In the long term, reform can help bring down costs that will otherwise lead to a fiscal crisis.”

My concern about this is that the same kind of underestimation such as the recent bank bailout/s in regards to the true costs could cause a backlash and have the whole thing pulled out by its roots at a critical time in the future.

“3. Reform would encourage "euthanasia": It does not. It’s a malicious myth that reform would encourage or even require euthanasia for seniors. For seniors who want to consult with their family and physicians about end of life decisions, reform will help to cover these voluntary, private consultations for those who want help with these personal and difficult family decisions.”

I have issues with this kind of rhetoric. For instance, what about the right to die? Under certain specific conditions it is legal in some states. Just because one person's religion ‘believes’ in ‘miracles’ or what ever else, doesn't mean another person's right to have say so and put an end to their own suffering when in a terminal condition with assistance if necessary at the very end. Shouldn't that person have the right to make that decision for their own self? Does that mean if they (the family, the spouse, or that individual person) spent all their/his/her money and they/that person are/is too poor and in some kind of a “Public Option” plan, would that individual no longer be permitted where they otherwise would be? If not; why not? Wouldn't that be somebody else's religious, moral, or whatever interfering with that person's decision?

“4. Vets' health care is safe and sound: It’s a myth that health insurance reform will affect veterans' access to the care they get now. To the contrary the President's budget significantly expands coverage under the VA extending care to 500,000 more veterans who were previously excluded. The VA Healthcare system will continue to be available for all eligible veterans”

I could probably get sarcastic about this when considering the veterans hospital that was being overrun with rats at the time two or three years back when some of the Iraq war veterans came home, with serious wounds, and that particular hospital was in such a rundown deplorable condition. But at this point, I will leave it at that.

“5. Reform will benefit small business not burden it: It’s a myth that health insurance reform will hurt small businesses. To the contrary, reform will ease the burdens on small businesses, provide tax credits to help them pay for employee coverage and help level the playing field with big firms who pay much less to cover their employees on average.”

I don't see how that could possibly happen without raising taxes somewhere. I am not against raising taxes in certain places. But I still can't see how it could possibly happen without raising them at some point in time.

“6. Your Medicare is safe, and stronger with reform: It’s myth that Health Insurance Reform would be financed by cutting Medicare benefits. To the contrary, reform will improve the long term financial health of Medicare, ensure better coordination, eliminate waste and unnecessary subsidies to insurance companies, and help to close the Medicare "doughnut" hole to make prescription drugs more affordable for seniors.”

“Reform” without the proper tax increase is not so much as mentioned; is unlikely, if not impossible. The expense that it will take cannot come out of thin air!

“7. You can keep your own insurance: It’s myth that reform will force you out of your current insurance plan or force you to change doctors. To the contrary reform will expand your choices not eliminate them.”

Until those insurance companies’ executives or whatever; bleed the company into folding.

“8. No government will not do anything with your bank account: It is an absurd myth that government will be in charge of your bank accounts. Health insurance reform will simplify administration making it easier and more convenient for you to pay bills in a method that you choose. Just like paying a phone bill or a utility bill you can pay by traditional check or by a direct electronic payment. And forms will be standardized so they will be easier to understand. The choice is up to you – and the same rules of privacy will apply as they do for all other electronic payments that people make.”

So does that mean just like the Utility Company, Phone Company, Landlord, Mortgage Holder, etc. it can get shut off or you can get kicked out of healthcare? The way that is stated is so manipulative it stinks!
The way I see it is that it is not healthcare for all at all! It's just political grandstanding at its worst!
Or, what I really think is way worse than that; it's not an “option”; it'sa federally mandated legal requirement! You shall have no choice (“option”) in the matter. Note the verbiage: “… “you to pay”… …“you can pay by traditional check or by a direct electronic payment.” Notice the placement of the words: you and pay.
“You pay, you pay, you pay, you pay. Where is the word we?

With Single-Payer health care coverage for everybody we will pay, but we will also be in more control.
How many of the people out there that have healthcare coverage now are also shareholders that have a vote in that health care insurance company? What's the percentage of people with coverage that own a stake other than the coverage they have? The answer is probably; very few, under 1% I would expect.
So therefore it's a case of: “I have mine” and even though I'm not going to say it to your face; if it's a choice between keeping the status quo and sharing “mine” with you; you can drop dead! “Don't F*** with me!... … syndrome. Then the red baiting starts; like name calling: “socialist”, “Communist”, “Welfare Queen” etc. etc..
Oh, and I shouldn't forget all the offensive lies and misinformation tactics.

My whole issue at the beginning of this whole conversation (not necessarily this particular thread) is: why in the world aren't more people insisting on single-payer universal health care for everybody?
It's Canada Communist? Is the United Kingdom Communist? It's France Communist? Is West Germany, a communist country? No, no, no, and no; none of the above aforementioned are Communist Countries! And the red baiting still goes on.
I think the big question that people seem to be bringing up is: can we afford it? I say invert the question: can we afford being without it?
Obviously, the people that do have health insurance that they believe covers them adequately now have already answered the can we afford being without it question for themselves; that's why some of them are monkey wrenching it in those town hall meetings and elsewhere.
I think some are torn between thinking of themselves as “socialists” and not having adequate health care coverage. I think because of that, some are absolutely furious!

Hotspring 44.

[justme]

Seems to be plenty of "other points of view" here!!!!! Some I just get lost in all the lines of rhetoric so I eventually don't even know what they are trying to say!!!!

Also.......... regarding this comment....

Other points of view are welcome if they are thoughtful, respectful and don't end up dominating or hijacking the conversation.

Shouldn't this say All points of view...........................................?

[granna shaw]

Exactly!!!! If you saw Rachel Maddow (and you still can if you go on msnbc.com and dig the show out of the archives) Monday night, you saw lots of damning and specific evidence against those opposing the plan. The main point was that all the nay-sayers are quoting "The Lewin Group" as experts--when this group is OWNED by one of the biggest insurance co.s around!

This whole ObamaCare thing terrifies me too. Seems a bit like sugarcoated communism. If any of you or your loved ones have ever had to go through the bureaucrisy of a VA hospital and the lower level of care our heroes get and the foul-ups on appointments that tax and try our ailing and elderly patients with limited time, energy, patience and money, then you have only a glimmer of how long and difficult it will be to actually get good care in a timely manner before it is too late for some. For one who cannot afford ANY care, this may be an attractive consolation prize, (better than nothing) but don't shove it down EVERYONE'S throat and ask them to pay for that too. That is dictatorship at it's worst. Don't take our choices and freedoms away Uncle Sam. One size does NOT fit ALL!!! This is not about partisanship, it is about our personal liberties, choices and fairness. Look at the financial crisis in California. It is wonderful to be dogooders if you can afford it, but some who don't qualify are jumping on the bandwagon for an easy ride without paying their own dues. Some people would rather spend their money on flashy cars and cell phones for their kids than they would to purchase health insurance. Prioritize people, and if you are truly down and out then we have charities for that. Big brother will not be there to take care of you when he becomes bankrupt or sold out to another country. Watch the California crisis play out. Soon you will see dangerous inmates roaming the streets and taking whatever they want from us all. If you have a higher power, Pray and Pray hard for divine guidance because Satan is hard at work here on our own soil.

[Clancy]

This whole ObamaCare thing terrifies me too. Seems a bit like sugarcoated communism...

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!

[granna shaw]

I have come to this forum to express concerns and my own personal views and feelings. I feel what I feel and my feelings have merit and validity just as your views you have expressed are your American right. If you have not checked out Page 59 lines 21-24 of the ObamaCare plan, maybe you should and you might rethink some of your sarcastic onesidedness. It gives direct access to (Your) bank accounts electronically to pay for out of pocket costs without your previous consent. Is this democracy and personal choice?

[Clancy]

I have come to this forum to express concerns and my own personal views and feelings. I feel what I feel and my feelings have merit and validity just as your views you have expressed are your American right. If you have not checked out Page 59 lines 21-24 of the ObamaCare plan, maybe you should and you might rethink some of your sarcastic onesidedness. It gives direct access to (Your) bank accounts electronically to pay for out of pocket costs without your previous consent. Is this democracy and personal choice?

Please link it here and I'll be happy to read it.

I wonder, if you're "terrified" that universal health care is a form of communism, how do you feel about our police and fire services, roads, schools, water etc which are similarly 'communistic'?

[Clancy]

If you have not checked out Page 59 lines 21-24 of the ObamaCare plan, maybe you should and you might rethink some of your sarcastic onesidedness. It gives direct access to (Your) bank accounts electronically to pay for out of pocket costs without your previous consent. Is this democracy and personal choice?

It says no such thing. Why would you make this up?

Here it is, verbatim;

‘‘(C) enable electronic funds transfers, in
21
order to allow automated reconciliation with the
22
related health care payment and remittance ad-
23
vice;
24

Here's the actual document, if you choose, you can read the part you're afraid of, in context.
https://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi...=f:h3200ih.pdf

[Hotspring 44]

[quote=granna shaw;95427] “This whole ObamaCare thing terrifies me too. Seems a bit like sugarcoated communism. If any of you or your loved ones have ever had to go through the bureaucrisy of a VA hospital and the lower level of care our heroes get and the foul ups on appointments that tax and try our ailing and elderly patients with limited time, energy, patience and money, then you have only a glimmer of how long and difficult it will be to actually get good care in a timely manner before it is too late for some.”

What do you mean or think of when you say or hear the word communism?
I think that word is too commonly abused, and is more of a scare tactic, without further explanation.
I and both of my parents went through the bureaucracy of Medi-Cal. That is why I am absolutely certain that if it was equal for everybody, that situation including the one you mentioned about the VA hospitals would improve because it would get everybody involved instead of just letting the few impoverished folks with their dwindling lack of resources, try to fend for themselves.
In my mother's situation (Medi-Cal) it was not timely, and it was inadequate and too late.
That is exactly why I am an advocate of single-payer! Because when everybody is in the same boat, everybody pitches in what is necessary to bail the boat out. BTW, no special life rafts for the rich or members of Congress either!

[quote=granna shaw;95427] “For one who cannot afford ANY care this may be an attractive consolation prize (better than nothing) but don't shove it down EVERYONE'S throat and ask them to pay for that too. That is dictatorship at it's worst.”

The main problem is that the people on the higher end of the income scale are not paying their fair share! And haven't for much too long!
I am thinking that the fat cats paying their fair share is not “shove it down EVERYONE'S throat”!... … it's not communism or dictatorship either! The way it's been is one-way capitalism! Individuals that have too much money are a lot like dictators in Third World countries! But instead of using military force for the most part, they use their money and buy legislators with campaign funding of sorts, which then in some instances (because of certain legislation) use the police, which is like using the military in a Third World country.
Yes, I believe that some people have too much money!
You could jump up and down and have a fit and call me a “socialist” or “communist” ; but that would be more name-calling and red baiting than it would be having a real discussion about the dire situation of the health care situation in this country.

[quote=granna shaw;95427] “Don't take our choices and freedoms away Uncle Sam. One size does NOT fit ALL!!! This is not about partisanship it is about our personal liberties choices and fairness. Look at the financial crisis in California.”

Who do you mean by “our” when you say that?
I do agree with: “One size does NOT fit ALL!!!”. However, I think the buck probably stops there so to speak, because I believe in a progressive tax schedule; and I am guessing that you probably don't.
Yes, take a close look at the financial crisis in California; or the fact that ‘Reganomics’ still exists! People try to blame it on Jarvis Gann and the infamous Proposition 13; but it's not the whole Proposition 13 it's the part that lets certain business interests utilize private industry, so to speak to negotiate loans based on their real estate value, but not pay tax on that same real estate value; (that's just one example).

[quote=granna shaw;95427] “It is wonderful to be dogooders if you can afford it but some who don't qualify are jumping on the bandwagon for an easy ride without paying their own dues.”

Yes, like private health-care insurance company, AIG, and other banking executives!!!!... … etc.

[quote=granna shaw;95427] “Some people would rather spend their money on flashy cars and cell phones for their kids than they would to purchase health insurance.”

That comment buys into the sensationalism of the media!
A lot of the people that you're referring to could not pay the $5,000 or more deductible anyway!!!

[quote=granna shaw;95427] “Prioritize people and if you are truly down and out then we have charities for that.”

Didn't anybody see the news for the last two days? Did anyone see how many people were in line for free health care in Inglewood, California? (Hundreds Turn Out for Free Health Care at Forum - KTLA)
Just last night there were over a thousand people staying overnight so they could be there today because it's first-come first-served. There'll probably be the same amount or more because it's Friday tonight, they had to turn away Many of them today!
I'm sorry but I think you're uninformed about the severity of the situation here. Many charities, food banks have gone dry during the recent past holiday season (Food Banks Running Low During Recession | NewsHour Extra: Video ClipBoard | PBS) for example. Since then more people are out of work, and also at the end of their unemployment insurance. What happens when the charities go broke? Should the government subsidize charities? If those charities that you mention do go broke and the government does subsidize them, what's the difference?
Private health-care insurance company executives are not the only ones whom are not paying their own fair share; or doing right by their constituents; so also is the misinformed Citizenry, by way of withholding otherwise available financial recourses based on fear of “going broke”, “Socialism”, “Communism”, etc.

[quote=granna shaw;95427] “Big brother will not be there to take care of you when he becomes bankrupt or sold out to another country.”

Crapolla! “Big Brother” is not about to sellout his cash cow!!!
On the other hand if big Brother is allowed to get too big, he may want to eat more stakes!!! And who do you suppose big Brother is anyway? Is it the government officials whom are bought off by the extra-large size, multinational corporations that are “too big to fail”? Misinformed sheep-like citizens that act like Bulldogs? Or?

[quote=granna shaw;95427] “Watch the California crisis play out. Soon you will see dangerous inmates roaming the streets and taking whatever they want from us all. If you have a higher power, Pray and Pray hard for divine guidance because Satan is hard at work here on our own soil.

Now I know where you're coming from, because of the “Satan is hard at work here on our own soil” statement.
I guess it's much easier for some people to “believe” something rather than to really take a close look at and analyze the mechanics of the situation. So let's just “blame” it on something like “Satan”, “the devil”, “Communists” “Socialists”, “red herrings” (red colored fish), “welfare queens”, “Drug Addicts”, the 40% of California's prison population that have been incarcerated for drug possession or victimless crimes, etc. etc. etc.
Why shouldn't you/we blame it (“… dangerous inmates roaming the streets and taking whatever they want from us all.”) on people that voted for Arnold Schwarzenegger instead of leaving Gray Davis in there? Gray Davis was into building more prisons with more cells so that the thing that you're complaining about (dangerous inmates; and all that rhetoric) would not have been necessary because those prisons would not be unconstitutionally overcrowded.
Of course I do know that some people do believe that all drug addicts and people in jail for drugs and victimless crimes should be hung by their neck and kick in pain until they are dead, in a high branch of the nearest oak tree! Fortunately, the vast majority of us do not believe that!!!
Isn't it interesting that because a “Republican” Governor; won the election in a landslide recall, because of a financial crisis; which was in theory caused by a Democrat Governor, is now in the worst financial crisis in the state of California since the Great Depression.
It really amazes me that these ‘Reaganomics’ schemes (special tax breaks for the rich in lieu of upholding governmental responsibilities for those whom are not so rich/ Definition: Economic program utilized during the Reagan administration, which emphasized low taxes, low social services spending, and high military spending. Contributed to low interest rates, low inflation, and large budget deficits) aren't seen for what they are before they happen; or at least before it increases to a crisis level! (https://www.alternet.org/workplace/141523/our_economy_has_failed_--_it%27s_the_reaganomics,_stupid!/?page=entire).
BTW I did not like Gray Davis either! If I recollect correctly, Gray Davis was not into spending any money on rehabilitating nonviolent “criminals”. Maybe it is because he knew the state was going to go broke at some point in the near future, so maybe he thought that building more prisons for drug addicts and nonviolent criminals was going to be a necessity to maintain status quo. I don't know for sure about that, but it seems plausible.
Besides, what about the dangerous people that probably should be “inmates” like Madoff for example? There are many more of them out there. Their crimes are far from victimless! Because of the lack of the government's proper regulation of and, in large part because of the predatory practices of people like that, and also the fact that they essentially steal it away from everybody they possibly can; people end up not being able to afford health care and actually die as more of a direct result than you might think!!!
What about the tens of thousands of Swiss bank accounts that exist for the main purpose of tax evasions? I say let the nonviolent drug addicts out; subsidize rehabilitation, and put the real dangerous financial criminals behind bars and confiscate all that money and put it into the health-care system!!!
BTW, that's not communism or socialism. (Busting the tax evader's) That's good old-fashioned American justice!!! (“America Love it or leave it!”, “if you're not with us you're against us”); just relinquish all of that money in those tax evaded, Swiss bank accounts and go.
They should just enjoy their so-called freedom somewhere else!!.. .. like maybe the Congo or maybe Switzerland, if they let their broke asses in their countries after their Swiss bank accounts gets frozen. Or they could come ‘home’ from the Bahamas or wherever, to a nice, subsidized, ‘comfortable’, ‘constitutional’ American Prison!
So there, how do you hard-liners like that!? Is that hard-line enough for you? Or would you still call that communism or socialism?
BTW I don't think the past couple of paragraphs are off subject either because if it weren't for those massive rip-off’s the country wouldn't be broke in the first place! Then we could really get to the heart of what our fellow Americans really think about each other, instead of using fear tactics, red baiting and misinformation by way of mass media frenzy.

[justme]

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!

Don't forget this socialized bulletin board too!!!!!!

[Barry]

Don't forget this socialized bulletin board too!!!!!!

That's right! And we're running a big deficit!

[Neshamah]

What happens when you depend on government run transportation and the bus driver skips your stop or the buses do not run when you need them? You cannot go to their competitors because there are none. Our government run highways tax everyone whether they drive on them or not and put the far more efficient railroads at a severe disadvantage. "No child left behind" pretty much assured that teachers teach what is tested and can be penalized if they spend time on anything else. Police cannot respond instantly and yet people wonder why people are concerned about keeping their second amendment rights. Lobbyists lobby Congress instead of the people because that's where our money is whether we want it there or not. We need to reform government before we can competently reform healthcare. Otherwise we will end up with more unintended consequences. (Never mind we cannot afford more spending after the bailout to pharmaceutical companies provided by the un-negotiated Medicare prescription drug benefit and the bailouts to the most incompetent of financial institutions and auto-makers.)

I agree that we need healthcare reform, and I am not automatically opposed to a public option much as we have in education, but Congress has attempted to rush through a massive bill without time for the public to understand or debate it. A panicked backlash was inevitable. Much of what is circulating about the bill is blown out of proportion or simply wrong, but given that it was written for lawyers rather than voters, it is hardly surprising. Bills that the majority of voters cannot understand is the antipathy of democracy and open-government.

Congress needs to step back, realize that we cannot borrow our way out of the last eight years, and start thinking about the long term. Rather than try to force through a massive bill and see what happens in the courts, we should start with smaller steps.

Freedom has risks. Government run healthcare, government run secret prisons, government surveillance, government regulations on cats, and so forth probably does make us all safer and live longer, but what sets the United States apart from the rest of the world is that most of us value our freedoms above all else and are willing to do without a little security in order to keep them.

~ Jessica

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!

[Neshamah]

Don't forget this socialized bulletin board too!!!!!!

Wait, I thought Barry was a private citizen. There is nothing unconstitutional about private individuals voluntarily organizing, contributing to, or participating in anything they believe beneficial to society. I don't think WaccoBB would be improved by a government takeover.

[Clancy]

What happens when you depend on government run transportation and the bus driver skips your stop or the buses do not run when you need them?

That's a valid question, and I am relieved to know that most western countries have socialized medicine, and that the service they get is superior to the awful mess we have here in the USA today.

Even Cuba's infant mortality rate is better than here in the USA according to the CIA's World FactBook.