Local observers weigh plan as debate heats up
By Adam Parker
File/AP
Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn. (left); Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y. (center); and Rep. George Miller, D-Calif. (right), look on as President Barack Obama speaks on health care reform July 15 in the White House Rose Garden.
Health care stats
--Total spending was $2.4 trillion in 2007, or $7,900 per person. Total health care spending represented 17 percent of the gross domestic product.
--U.S. health care spending is expected to reach $4.3 trillion in 2017, or 20 percent of the GDP.
--Health care spending accounted for 10.9 percent of the GDP in Switzerland, 10.7 percent in Germany, 9.7 percent in Canada and 9.5 percent in France, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
--In 2008, employer health insurance premiums increased by 5 percent, two times the rate of inflation. The annual premium for an employer health plan covering a family of four averaged nearly $12,700. The annual premium for single coverage averaged more than $4,700.
--Health care spending is 4.3 times the amount spent on national defense.
--About 47 million Americans are uninsured.
--Since 1999, employment-based health insurance premiums have increased 120 percent, compared with cumulative inflation of 44 percent and cumulative wage growth of 29 percent during the same period.
--Health insurance expenses are the fastest growing cost component for employers.
--The average employee contribution to company-provided health insurance has increased more than 120 percent since 2000. Average out-of-pocket costs for deductibles, co-payments for medications, and co-insurance for physician and hospital visits rose 115 percent during the same period.
--The United States spends six times more per capita on the administration of the health care system than its peer Western European nations.
The health care debate, put firmly on the country's front burner by President Barack Obama and members of Congress, is characterized by a plethora of yet-to-be-answered questions.
Should reform come quickly or incrementally? Will the "public option" encourage competition and lower costs? What will happen to insurance companies? Will individuals and businesses be penalized if they fail to secure coverage? Will insurance policies be portable?
And then there's the biggest question of all: How will we pay for it?
White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel stated the administration's large objectives Friday: Control costs, expand coverage and provide choice. These goals are not very controversial. But the proposed methods for achieving them have prompted some Republicans and conservative Democrats to try to slow things down.
In Charleston, the plan has garnered some tentative support, though health care providers and insurers worry about the effects of reform.
"The devil's in the details," said Dr. Patrick J. Cawley, medical director of Medical University Hospital.
Self-reliance
Obama's news conference Wednesday was an attempt to convey a sense of urgency, wrest control of the debate from critics and prompt average Americans to get behind the idea of reform. Though many questions remain unanswered, aspects of the emerging vision for an improved health care system are becoming clearer:
--There is no plan to shut out the private sector or mandate reform of the insurance industry.
--"Universal coverage" is a goal to provide affordable access to health care for all Americans.
--A public option is meant to give Americans "a better range of choices, make the health care market more competitive and keep the insurance companies honest," according to Obama.
--Uninsured individuals and families likely will have the responsibility of securing their own coverage.
The so-called individual mandate has found backing from people on the payment and the provider side of health care because the result would be a larger customer base with an ability to pay and because it does not challenge the for-profit status quo.
Most of the nation's 47 million uninsured would be required to buy health insurance. Those who earn below a certain threshold would receive a government subsidy or "hardship exemption." Consumers who failed to buy a policy could incur a penalty. Employers would contribute to the cost of care.
The concept is derived from the Massachusetts model, introduced three years ago when the state overhauled its health care system.
Critics such as Marcia Angell, a physician and lecturer at Harvard Medical School, say that this would be a financial boon to insurers and pharmaceutical companies and do nothing to lower overall costs.
Obama, once opposed to the individual mandate, told CBS in an interview last week that he had been persuaded to change his mind.
"I was opposed to this idea because my general attitude was, the reason people don't have health insurance is not because they don't want it, but because they can't afford it. And if you make it affordable, then they will come," he said. "I've been persuaded that there are enough young, uninsured people who are cheap to cover, but are opting out. To make sure that those folks are part of the overall pool is the best way to make sure that all of our premiums go down."
Nearly three-quarters of the uninsured in the United States in 2007 were younger than 54, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.
Cawley of Medical University Hospital said hospitals, particularly those that receive many referrals, already are under significant financial strain.
"The biggest issue is underinsured and uncompensated care," he said. "From the Medical University's perspective, covering all Americans would be good."
It would mean more of the hospital's patients would be able to pay. But "in Massachusetts, they didn't control the costs at all, only added new costs," he added.
The federal government's "disproportionate share hospital" program provides funds to some institutions, such as MUSC, that treat patients who are unable to pay, Cawley said. In the Massachusetts experiment, a disproportionate share of fund was diverted by the state from hospitals to help pay the cost of universal coverage. Hospitals that do a lot of work for free suddenly received even less, he said.
Private vs. public
So far, the for-profit insurance industry has been a willing party to the discussions in Washington about reform.
"There is lots of room for improvement," said Michael Jernigan, president and Chief Executive Officer of Select Health of South Carolina.
But the industry is concerned about the idea of a public option that Americans can choose in lieu of a private insurance policy. Obama has said the public option would spark competition, potentially lowering costs, and help to "keep the health insurance industry honest."
"It's a tremendous goal for our nation for everybody to have access to health care," Jernigan said. "I don't know why we can't do that with an expansion of existing programs and services (such as Medicaid, the Children's Health Insurance Program and health care savings accounts) without the need for a new federally mandated option which might disrupt the existing free-market approach to employer-based health insurance."
The public option, should it catch on, represents a potential threat to the long-term survival of the industry, Jernigan said.
The current employer-based system, which includes both for-profit and nonprofit organizations, mostly works well, he said. And the situation could be better still if payers and providers promoted good health and emphasized preventive care. The challenge, Jernigan said, is finding a way to protect the uninsured.
"The elephant in the room for us is, who pays for it?" he said.
Paying for the estimated $1.2 trillion health care plan would require a combination of taxes, fees and cost savings, according to the House bill.
House Democrats are calling for a surtax on individuals earning at least $280,000 in adjusted gross income and couples earning more than $350,000. This would generate about $550 billion over 10 years. Reform proponents say they expect to make up the difference through cost savings, penalties paid by those who fail to purchase insurance and a new employer tax.
Patrick Labbe, a 52-year-old hospice nurse and Summerville resident, said the claim that Obama is promoting a system of "socialized medicine" that puts an inefficient big bureaucracy between the patient and his doctor is misleading.
Insurance companies are big bureaucracies that get between patient and doctor, Labbe said. Existing government programs such as the Veterans Health Administration and Medicare work efficiently and should serve as a model for legislators in Washington, he said.
The real problem is the for-profit model itself, he said.
"For-profit businesses must by definition keep costs down and income up to ensure profits. That's their nature," he said. "Our health should not be in the marketplace. It's not like buying a car."
The Washington Post contributed to this report.
E-mail this story
Printer-friendly version
Comments
scottmcx (anonymous) says...
The USA has the best Health Care in the world, Don't fix it if it ain't broke.
People (adults) need to wake up to "you get what you pay for" we get the best and it has a price. Pay less and you'll get less.
Allowing insurance companies to work nationally would create larger groups and lower costs. As it is companies like Blue Cross of SC are limited in their potential customers limiting spreading risk.
Creating a nationwide Government owned and subsidized insurance plan would put the smaller private State sized companies out of business. This would end competition and destroy choice.
Any plan passed should become the "standard" that ALL members of Congress and ALL government employees should be required to participate in.
July 26, 2009 at 7:52 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
laurasmorris (anonymous) says...
Almost nothing scottmcx says is accurate information. Whatever your views on the solution, we should at least try to deal with it with correct information. The USA clearly does NOT have the best health care in the world; it is seriously broken by any standard you choose to compare it with other developed countries and scores badly even compared to some undeveloped countries. Blue Cross of SC is not limited in any way as to who it can cover; it has about 75% of the market in South Carolina and is one of the largest contractors in the country for Medicare. The plan that Congress and Federal Employees have IS the standard for the House passed bill.
July 26, 2009 at 8:18 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Moontree (anonymous) says...
Each American has the right to refuse medical treatment (such as when a person refuses care for religious reasons) - how then can the governent require you to buy insurance for a service that you are free to refuse and may not want? That is like being forced to buy car insurance when you do not own a car.
July 26, 2009 at 8:37 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sixcar (anonymous) says...
52 year old Hospice nurse Patrick Labbe describes the Veterans Health Administration and Medicare as "efficient models."
That's interesting. Seems all we've heard about VA health care in the last 6 years is doom and gloom-- Iraq war veterans haven't been able to get the care they need. And remember the Walter Reed Army hospital fiasco?
And what about Medicare? Last I checked it was out of money and running redder by the day! Did somebody say it would be insolvent by 2017?
Who is pulling who's chain here? Is it that what Mr. Labbe describes as truth, or is it more that Obama is now president and Bush is not?
I think Mr. Labbe should spend more time tending to hospice duties and less time attempting to justify fiction over fact.
July 26, 2009 at 8:38 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Moontree (anonymous) says...
Of course America is the only industrialized country without a nationalized healthcare system - we are also the only country with the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Nowhere in our founding documents does it provide that the federal government shall ensure healthcare for everyone. Just because socialized and semi-socialized countries have nationalized healthcare and the US does not, does NOT mean out system is inferior. There is a reason we are the world's ONLY superpower. Do we want to remain that way, or just be like everyone else? Of the 46 million uninsured, 10 million are illegal immigrants and 15 million are wealthy individuals who choose not to buy insurance and self-insure. So take the true 21 million uninsured Americans and add them to the VA hospital plan since the governent is such an awesome healthcare provider.
July 26, 2009 at 8:47 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dawhetsell (anonymous) says...
I am a veteran and would not send my dog to the VA hospital. I have worked all my life to pay for medical ins. for my family and myself. If you want substandard health care go to another country and get there wait in line treatment like they do at the VA. I think obama the village idiot who is not a natural born citizen wants to give you spounges a crappy ins the up the funds to medicaid and let the crappy doctors who take the substandard pay treat you. LEAVE MY INS ALONE.
July 26, 2009 at 8:48 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sixcar (anonymous) says...
Lauramorris,
Let me point something out to you if I may...
If American health care is broken, as you claim, enlighten me as to why people from other countries come to this country for health care, and not the other way around.
The lack of portability is a huge problem with health care in this country. A health care plan in New York costs about $12,000 per year. Yet in Wisconsin, a similar plan runs about $3,000. Imagine what would happen to the cost of health care in New York if New Yorkers had the option to purchase plans from Wisconsin. I think you can understand the competition that freedom would stimulate.
July 26, 2009 at 8:49 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sixcar (anonymous) says...
The last sentence to my post at 8:38 should have read....
"I think Mr. Labbe should focus on providing more hospice care and less time attempting to justify fiction over fact."
not sure why it turned out the way it did.
July 26, 2009 at 8:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Moontree (anonymous) says...
Dawhetsell - thank you for your service to our country. I have veterans in my family and have heard firsthand about the inferior "care" the VA hospitals provide. It makes me mad. You brave individuals that have defended us deserve the highest care.
July 26, 2009 at 8:57 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
counterpoint (anonymous) says...
Moontree: good analogy, bad conclusion.
Everyone HAS health. When something goes awry and the uninsured can't pay, the rest of us pay. If that burden is to be imposed I want whatever metrics and control I can have over those costs. I also want treatable ailments treated proactively instead of reactively - before they become emergent and the costs explode.
I also want the poor diets, lack of exercise, and smoking to STOP. I'm tired of paying increased premiums due to the results of these as well (and I admit I've been guilty of the former two until recently). If you are overweight and/or smoke, you have no cause to complain about health care.
July 26, 2009 at 9:02 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Moontree (anonymous) says...
Counterpoint - glad to hear of your success in quitting smoking. I do believe changes are needed and prevention and healthy lifestyles are a very good start. I also agree that folks need some coverage other than waiting and going to the ER which costs more. I believe that the true numbet of uninsured Americans is around 21 million which is a smaller challenge; that means we should focus on helping them get basic coverage while leaving the rest of us in our plans. The current propsal will cost all of us more than is necessary. You and I agree something needs to change - I believe it can be solved with a less dramatic program.
July 26, 2009 at 9:17 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Moontree (anonymous) says...
Correction - you did not smoke you said former not latter - my mistake
July 26, 2009 at 9:19 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
majorjohnson (anonymous) says...
Every audit of Medicare finds around 35% waste to fraud and misspending, and not just one audit, every audit year after year. Health care providers are increasingly refusing Medicare patients because of the low payments. If you think that's an efficient model of health care I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
The biggest cause of high health care cost is the government mandated employers to provide health insurance and then mandated insurers cover everything from a splinter to a lung transplant. No one should need insurance in order to afford to have a splinter pulled or a boil lanced or even to give birth. I and my siblings were all born and paid for without insurance, because it was affordable before the government got involved in mandating insurance provision and coverage. The only affordable health care in the United States now is cosmetic surgery, which is not covered by insurance.
July 26, 2009 at 9:23 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
counterpoint (anonymous) says...
Moontree, interesting. With O & Congress throwing out 47 million as the number of uninsured, where are you getting 21 (truly curious) that would change the economy of scale that is being touted.
And it was weight/diet and lack of exercise that I changed, never been much of a smoker, but thanks for the congrats!
July 26, 2009 at 9:29 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
counterpoint (anonymous) says...
Majorjohnson, good points.
July 26, 2009 at 9:31 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
patlabb (anonymous) says...
Medicare has NEVER refused medical treatment for pre-existing conditions, Medicare pays well and on time. The VA is one of the best healthcare providers in the country. I have been a nurse for 20 years and I am a Veteran. Medicare has a 3% overhead compared to an average of 40% with private health insurance. President Obama wants to reform healthcare and give an option for public health care. No one is taking away your private insurance. If you are satisfied with it---keep it! BTW: I spend considerable time tending to my hospice duties.
Patrick C. Labbe RN MSN
Santuary Hospice
July 26, 2009 at 9:46 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Moontree (anonymous) says...
Counterpoint - Newsmax.com in a posted July 19 article said 12 million illegals are in the figure ( if you google health insurance and alien many sites give this figure). Will locate figure on wealthy.
July 26, 2009 at 10:13 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
philericksen (anonymous) says...
Full disclosure - in the health insurance business for 25 years.
Health insurance is not health care. Doctors and hospitals provide health care. Health insurance reimburses patients for excessive medical expenses that the patient could not foresee - the patient might choose to buy health insurance so that if unforeseen health problems arise that incur expensive treatment, someone else will cover the excessive cost.
People who choose not to buy health insurance are free to access health care and pay for it themselves. People who cannot afford health insurance should receive a subsidy to help them afford it.
Insurance companies do not actively prohibit people from receiving medical treatment. And without health insurance, you are not forbidden from paying your own money for your own treatment.
Public management of health care has been disastrous. Medicare is antiquated, insufficient, and bankrupt. Medicaid is a federal program, but largely left to the states to fund. Medicaid is broke - and cannot even enroll all eligible persons into its free coverage. The VA is awful.
Other government "private options" have proven equally catastrophic. Consider the public programs for mortgages, Freddie and Fannie, which drove the mortgage industry into collapse by forcing banks to lend excessive sums to people who could not repay. And Social Security. And public education. ..
The best medical care in the world is here in the USA. It is expensive. We should subsidize those who cannot afford insurance. We might need an open enrollment period for those with pre-existing conditions, but limitations for future pre-existing conditions - for those who choose not to buy coverage now - are necessary to keep healthy people in the insurance pool.
As long as everyone can afford and access coverage, it is then up to everyone to take responsibility for the cost of the care they incur.
July 26, 2009 at 10:17 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Moontree (anonymous) says...
Patlabb - the health plan prohibts private insurance companies from writing new plans so if I change employers I will not be able to have a private plan.
July 26, 2009 at 10:17 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
metallic (anonymous) says...
Posted by laurasmorris:
>>The plan that Congress and Federal Employees have IS the standard for the House passed bill.<<
If that is the case, then why, under the current house bill, have the members of Congress EXEMPT themselves from participation in the "government plan"?
Rep. John Fleming (R-La.) introduced a bill, H. Res. 615, that says members of Congress who vote for a government-run health care bureau should be required to participate in that government-run health-care:
http://www.fleming.house.gov/index.html
July 26, 2009 at 10:19 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
patlabb (anonymous) says...
>>
NOT TRUE. You listen too much to Fixed News and Rush L.
July 26, 2009 at 10:42 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Moontree (anonymous) says...
Counterpoint - mjperry.blogspot.com has a June 22 entry that hits on more information about the inflation of the uninsured figure including the fact that figure is even noted by the people who prepared it that it is inaccurately inflated dye to those changing jobs.
July 26, 2009 at 10:45 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Moontree (anonymous) says...
Patlabb - please see page 16 of the plan. And I do not listen to rush; sorry but I am an idependent.
July 26, 2009 at 10:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dbeast420 (anonymous) says...
>>Posted by metallic on July 26, 2009
Posted by laurasmorris:
>>The plan that Congress and Federal Employees have IS the standard for the House passed bill.<<
If that is the case, then why, under the current house bill, have the members of Congress EXEMPT themselves from participation in the "government plan"?
Rep. John Fleming (R-La.) introduced a bill, H. Res. 615, that says members of Congress who vote for a government-run health care bureau should be required to participate in that government-run health-care:
http://www.fleming.house.gov/index.html <<
I was listening to an interview with Fleming and when he proposed this resolution to the republicans,they were for it BUT when proposed to the Obamamessiah party,NONE of them were interested.
Makes ya wonder if they're not willing to sign on for the nationalized plan,can it be that great???
Here is Rep. Fleming in an interview on FoxNews.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iP0s7m...
July 26, 2009 at 11:27 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
patlabb (anonymous) says...
Moontree please read it yourself:
SEC. 112. GUARANTEED ISSUE AND RENEWAL FOR INSURED PLANS.
The requirements of sections 2711 (other than subsections (c) and (e)) and 2712 (other than paragraphs (3), and (6) of subsection (b) and subsection (e)) of the Public Health Service Act, relating to guaranteed availability and renewability of health insurance coverage, shall apply to individuals and employers in all individual and group health insurance coverage, whether offered to individuals or employers through the Health Insurance Exchange, through any employment-based health plan, or otherwise, in the same manner as such sections apply to employers and health insurance coverage offered in the small group market, except that such section 2712(b)(1) shall apply only if, before nonrenewal or discontinuation of coverage, the issuer has provided the enrollee with notice of non-payment of premiums and there is a grace period during which the enrollees has an opportunity to correct such nonpayment. Rescissions of such coverage shall be prohibited except in cases of fraud as defined in sections 2712(b)(2) of such Act.
In other words you are free to choose your new employers health care...as a matter of fact...
SEC. 111. PROHIBITING PRE-EXISTING CONDITION EXCLUSIONS.
A qualified health benefits plan may not impose any pre-existing condition exclusion (as defined in section 2701(b)(1)(A) of the Public Health Service Act) or otherwise impose any limit or condition on the coverage under the plan with respect to an individual or dependent based on any health status-related factors (as defined in section 2791(d)(9) of the Public Health Service Act) in relation to the individual or dependent.
Can't be denied!
as I was quoted in the article...our health should not be about profits...
Patrick C. Labbe RN MSN
July 26, 2009 at 11:28 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
patlabb (anonymous) says...
take the healthcare reform poll at www.dordems.net
July 26, 2009 at 11:43 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Cashu (anonymous) says...
Does any thinking, rational person really want something like this???
Cashu
==============
52 Reasons to Reject Obamacare:
The person producing this list doubled checked and states that these are the true meanings behind each and every listing. The reader is encouraged to look into the matter for him or herself. This is far too important to wait for the agents of "spin" to "explain" the matter.
1. Page 22 of the Healthcare Bill MANDATES the Government will audit books of ALL EMPLOYERS that self insure!!
2. Page 30 Sec 123 of Healthcare bill - THERE WILL BE A GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE that decides what treatments and benefits you get.
3. Page 29 lines 4-16 in the Healthcare bill - YOUR HEALTHCARE IS RATIONED!!!
4. Page 42 of Healthcare Bill - The Health Choices Commissioner will choose your Healthcare Benefits for you. You will have no choice!
5. Page 50 Section 152 in Healthcare bill - Healthcare will be provided to ALL non-US citizens, illegal or otherwise.
6. Page 58 Healthcare Bill - Government will have real-time access to an individual's finances and a National ID Healthcare Card will be issued!
7. Page 59 Healthcare Bill lines 21-24 Government will have direct access to your bank accounts for electronic funds transfer.
8. Page 65 Sec 164 is a payoff subsidized plan for retirees and their families in Unions and "community organizations" such as ACORN.
9. Page 72 Lines 8-14 Government is creating another "agency", the Healthcare Exchange to bring private heathcare plans under government control.
10. Page 84 Sec 203 Healthcare bill - Government mandates ALL benefit packages for private healthcare plans in the Exchange.
11. Page 85 Line 7 Healthcare Bill There will be specs regarding benefit levels for Plans: another way in which the Government will ration your healthcare.
12. Page 91 Lines 4-7 Healthcare Bill - Government mandates "linguistic appropriate services". Translation Spanish or other languages for illegals.
13. Page 95 Healthcare Bill Lines 8-18 The Government will use groups such as ACORN and Amiericorps to sign up individuals for the government healthcare plan.
14. Page 85 Line 7 Healthcare Bill A reiteration of the specs regarding benefit levels for Plans which means, AARP members, your health care WILL be rationed no matter what you are being told now.
14. Page 102 Lines 12-18 Healthcare Bill - Medicaid eligible individuals will be automatically enrolled in Medicare; you will have no choice regarding that enrollment.
16. Page 124 lines 24-25 Healthcare No company can sue the government on a charge of price fixing. No "judicial review" will be permitted against a government monopoly.
17. Page 127 Lines 1-16 Healthcare Bill Doctors: The Government will tell YOU what you can make.
(continued)
July 26, 2009 at 11:54 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Cashu (anonymous) says...
Does any thinking, rational person really want something like this???
Cashu
==============
52 Reasons to Reject Obamacare:
(continued)
The person producing this list doubled checked and states that these are the true meanings behind each and every listing. The reader is encouraged to look into the matter for him or herself. This is far too important to wait for the agents of "spin" to "explain" the matter.
18. Page 145 Line 15-17 An Employer must automatically enroll employees into the public option plan; there is NO CHOICE. However, this plan is so convoluted that obviously there must be someway this can be avoided (see #s 20 and 21: the mandated payroll taxes for employers who do NOT off the public option); this is an apparent contradiction, but this is what the bill says.
19. Page 126 Lines 22-25 Employers MUST pay for healthcare for part time employees AND their families.
20. Page 149 Lines 16-24 ANY employer with a payroll of 400k and above who does not provide the public option must pay an 8% payroll tax. (see # 18 above)
21. Page 150 Lines 9-13 Businesses with a payroll between 251k & 400k who don't provide the public option will pay 2-6% tax on all payrolls. (see #18 above)
22. Page 167 Lines 18-23 ANY individual who doesn't have acceptable healthcare according to the government will be taxed 2.5% of his income.
23. Page 170 Lines 1-3 Healthcare Bill Any NONRESIDENT Alien is exempt from individual taxes but Americans will pay.
24. Page 195 Healthcare Bill -officers & employees of Healthcare Administration (Government) will have access to the financial records of ALL Americans.
25. PAGE 203 Line 14-15 Healthcare - "The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax" Yes, it says that!
26. Page 239 Line 14-24 Healthcare Bill Government will reduce physician services for Medicaid. Seniors, low income and poor affected.
27. Page 241 Line 6-8 Healthcare Bill - Doctors, it doesn't matter what your specialty is, you will all be paid the same.
28. Page 253 Line 10-18 Government sets value of doctor's time, professional judgment, experience etc. Literally, the government will be setting the value on human life.
29. Page 265 Sec 1131Government mandates & controls productivity for private healthcare industries.
30. Page 268 Sec 1141 Fed Government regulates rental & purchase of power drive wheelchairs, scooters etc.
31. Page 272 Sec. 1145. Treatment of certain cancer hospitals - Cancer patients, welcome to rationing!
32. Page 280 Sec 1151 The Government will penalize hospitals for what GOVERNMENT deems preventable re-admissions.
33. Page 298 Lines 9-11 Doctors treating a patient during an initial admission which later results in a re-admission will be penalized by the government.
34. Page 317 L 13-20 PROHIBITION on ownership/investment. The government will tell doctors what and how much they can own.
(continued)
July 26, 2009 at 11:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Cashu (anonymous) says...
Does any thinking, rational person really want something like this???
Cashu
==============
52 Reasons to Reject Obamacare:
(continued)
The person producing this list doubled checked and states that these are the true meanings behind each and every listing. The reader is encouraged to look into the matter for him or herself. This is far too important to wait for the agents of "spin" to "explain" the matter.
35. Page 317-318 lines 21-25,1-3 PROHIBITION on expansion. Government is mandating that hospitals cannot expand.
36. Page 321 2-13 Hospitals have the opportunity to apply for an exception BUT "community input" is required. This opens the way to an incredible amount of extortion by "community groups" who might demand a quid pro quo from any hospital wishing to expand.
37. Page335 L 16-25 Page 336-339 - Government mandates the establishment of outcome based measures; that means, healthcare as they want it, a/k/a rationing.
38. Page 341 Lines 3-9 Government has authority to disqualify Medicare Adv. Plans, HMOs etc. thus forcing people into the government plan.
39. Page 354 Sec 1177 - Government will RESTRICT enrollment of "special needs people" a/k/a the handicapped!! Eugenics and euthanasia become a part of medical treatment.
40. Page 379 Sec 1191 Government creates more bureaucracy, that is the "Telehealth Advisory Committee (can you say "healthcare" by phone?).
41. Page 425 Lines 4-12 Government mandates Advance Care Planning Consultations for Senior Citizens which in effects lets seniors know that it's time for them to die and get out of the way.
42. Page 425 Lines 17-19 Government will instruct and consult regarding living wills, durable powers of attorney etc. This will be MANDATORY! (So much for individual liberty and privacy!)
43. Page 425 Lines 22-25, 426 Lines 1-3 Government provides approved list of "end of life resources" to help guide you into death. I'm sure that "Dr." Kevorkian will have a job with this group.
(continued)
July 26, 2009 at 12:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Cashu (anonymous) says...
Does any thinking, rational person really want something like this???
Cashu
==============
52 Reasons to Reject Obamacare:
(continued)
The person producing this list doubled checked and states that these are the true meanings behind each and every listing. The reader is encouraged to look into the matter for him or herself. This is far too important to wait for the agents of "spin" to "explain" the matter.
44. Page 427 Lines 15-24 Government mandates program for orders at the end of life; the government has a say in HOW and WHEN your life will end. This is called euthanasia.
45. Page 429 Lines 1-9 An "advanced care planning consultation will be used frequently as a patient's health deteriorates. Again, much American health care involves people with chronic conditions but who can still have many years of productive life WITH PROPER MEDICAL CARE. If you are deemed to be unworthy of such care by virtue of criteria such as your race, gender, socio-economic condition etc., the chances are good that you will be DENIED that care and you life will end far sooner than would otherwise be the case under today's healthcare system.
46. Page 429 Lines 10-12 the "advanced care consultation" may include an ORDER for end of life plans an ORDER from the GOVERNMENT. Again, we will have government ordained euthanasia which is nothing less than legalized murder.
47. Page 429 Lines 13-25 - The Government will specify which Doctors can write an "end of life" order. This means that the physician(s) who cared for you may not even be consulted and you will be condemned to death by some uncaring bureaucrat in Washington who knows nothing about you and your situation.
48. Page 430 Lines 11-15 The Government will decide what level of treatment you will have at the end of your life.
49. Page 469 - Community Based Home Medical Services regards services provided by non profit organizations like ACORN.
50. Page 472 Lines 14-17 Dictates payment to a community based organization like ACORN for such treatment. Both the treatment and the organization are determined by the government.
51. Page 489 Sec 1308 The Government will cover Marriage & Family therapy which means they will insert themselves into your marriage. If you are a Christian, it is possible that the government may be able to intrude into decisions made by your family as a result of your religion.
52. Page 494-498 Government will cover Mental Health Services including defining, creating, and rationing those services. Again, you could be adjudged "mentally ill" if you disagree with the prevailing agenda such as homosexual rights, abortion etc.
* * * * *
July 26, 2009 at 12:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
gringolandia (anonymous) says...
LOL @ cashu!!
Hey cashu, are you posting that from your underground concrete bunker? Load up on guns and rations because the commies and socialists are coming to take all your stuff dude. There are medications you can take to help with your paranoia.
July 26, 2009 at 1:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
lowcountrysteven (anonymous) says...
gringolandia:
You just don't like the fact that he has documented all the facts that would make Adolph Hitler proud of his spiritual protege Obama.
July 26, 2009 at 1:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Cashu (anonymous) says...
I hope you're at the front of that mob of "commies and socialists." That would give me great pleasure...
Cashu
=========================
July 26, 2009 at 1:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
LuckyDay (anonymous) says...
cashu
Try to figure out which way to shoot. That mob of so called "commies and socialists" is a voting majority, and they won. You and your ilk lost. You lost in 2006 and you lost in 2008. Take a look in the mirror and ask yourself why. Loser.
July 26, 2009 at 1:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Cashu (anonymous) says...
Under the tenets of Kennedy's recommendations for this "health care" travesty, congress, appointed heads of agencies and departments of the federal government, as well as senior GS lifers are exempt from participation under the bill. They are covered by a special government-provided insurance that is first dollar coverage for the rest of their lives, by virtue of their single term of "service" in office.
No wonder they have very little regard for the onerous mandatory requirements of what they propose for the rest of us. They really have no dog in the fight when they know they will never have to live under the bill they propose for the rest of us.
This can never be equitable unless ALL those exempted persons and their dependents are fully included in the mandatory requirements of this proposed travesty, forgoing any special coverage unavailable to the "great unwashed."
Can anyone say "Elite" now with a new understanding of ALL the implications of that short word???
Cashu
July 26, 2009 at 2:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
flowerchild55 (anonymous) says...
Our healthcare should not be at the mercy of the insurance companies, hospitals etc, making a profit. It should not be up to an insurance company to tell a doctor what type of medicine he can prescribe or to deny benefits for what they believe are not medically necessary.
Insurance companies are now the ones that call all the shots. And they are FOR PROFIT. They do not have our best interest at heart. They are TRAINED to deny claims and dictate what care THEY feel we need. Ask any doctor, they do not like being told how they must run their own practice or not be paid. I refuse to believe anything that the insurance industry puts forth would make any improvements. They are just trying not to let the $$ slip away.
If you really take a close look at health care in other nations, you will find that our mortality rates are lower and we pay more. Our healthcare certainly needs to be fixed.
July 26, 2009 at 2:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Cashu (anonymous) says...
Lucky Day - You've made a few crystal ball assumptions about me... let me make one about you: You take a check from the government every month that you haven't directly earned. Don't try to deny it - it's obvious...
Cashu
July 26, 2009 at 2:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
patlabb (anonymous) says...
Comparing Obama to Hitler! Now there's a right wing wacko tactic! As a Jewish person that is extremely offensive. BTW: most of what "cashu" posted was in fact a total distortion of the facts. I hope everyone will check the facts. Also non-US citizens pay taxes as well and should be entitled to healthcare. My wife and two children are legal residents with green cards. I pay taxes as a citizen and my wife pays taxes as a legal working resident. Legal residents of the US (non-citizens) contribute to this nation, should they have less rights as tax payers?
July 26, 2009 at 2:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
patlabb (anonymous) says...
I think "cashu" needs to stop listening to RUSH, GLEN BECK, JIM DEMINT and the other right wing wackos and really start thinking for himself
July 26, 2009 at 2:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
flowerchild55 (anonymous) says...
There used to be a time that people became doctor's because they cared about people. Others chose government to serve their community. People in general cared for each other and were willing to lend a helping hand to those in need. Now our society has been taken over by greed. Very sad.
To compare Obama to Hitler is outrageous. The right wing fanatics will stop at nothing. Just look at some of those explanations above and tell me how could any thinking person believe that bunk. I am not a communist, a socialist and do not and never have recieved a government check. I do believe that we need to make some serious changes or we will be in serious trouble.
We should try to work together instead of having the every man for himself attitude.
July 26, 2009 at 2:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Cashu (anonymous) says...
flowerchild55 - Ever heard the old phrase about "jumping out of the frying pan into the fire?"
Think about it - this isn't a debate about villains and knights in shining armour. It's about greed and power, choose your poison.
I would never make the argument that insurance companies are for anything but profit. Actuarially, they are required to be for profit. Same for pharma. The power they have is derived from lobbying congress and the executive branch (and who knows? maybe the judicial). You're right when you say they are not on the public's side - they are on their own side. Guess what? That's the way it should be.
The reason health care costs have skyrocketed in the past five decades is the advent of government participation. Let me ask you a couple simple questions. What program launched by the government (with lofty visions of great social need) do you know of that has been efficiently run, with little graft, fraud or waste. And which one do you know of that has not incrementally morphed into a behemoth with very little oversight from anyone? I don't know of one. They are all run dishonestly for the benefit, primarily, of the bureaucrats, and secondarily for the benefit of congress-critters' prestige.
Between these two alternatives, I'll choose to suffer with the insurance companies and do my dangdest to work to pry the federal government's hands off any control of any aspect of my private life or choices.
If you look at any country that has socialized medicine, you will find long lines for basic services and well as interminable delays in urgent care. Most of those on waiting lists have severe complications, including premature death, because of those delays. Of course, in every one of those countries, the elite in power are not required to suffer the same consequences - they have their own special medical provisions for themselves and their families...
Cashu
July 26, 2009 at 2:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
patlabb (anonymous) says...
Cashu states:
>>
Are they also required to pay their CEOs 1.5 Billion dollars in compensation a year as United Healthcare did?
Insurance companies profit on the backs of the working poor and middle class. As I've said before our health should not be for sale and for profit!
July 26, 2009 at 2:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
flowerchild55 (anonymous) says...
To correct my earlier post.....
Compared to other nations, our mortality rates are HIGHER and we pay more per person. Which means that even though we pay more, we don't live as long and have more infant deaths. Tell me how that equates to better healthcare?
July 26, 2009 at 2:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Cashu (anonymous) says...
patlabb - don't be trite - people tend to lose all respect for someone who has no real argument, but instead continually attacks the superficial existence of another.
Try to come up with substantive reasoned arguments to promote and bolster your point of view. You'll gain the respect of even those who diametrically oppose everything you say. Believe me, that thoughtful approach will work with any conservative - we respect intelligence.
However, as you continue to play the fool in the form of the vicious brain-dead liberal, you have no doubt found nothing but contempt from everyone, including the more intelligent of your fellow liberals. Perhaps pure socialists/communists make an exception and truly adore you. Ha!!!
This is only a suggestion, my ill-informed amigo, in the same spirit as yours to me above. I would be surprised if you had the strength of character to learn from it, but I've been surprised before...
Cashu
=======================
July 26, 2009 at 2:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Cashu (anonymous) says...
Patlabb - >>>"Are they also required to pay their CEOs 1.5 Billion dollars in compensation a year as United Healthcare did?"<<<
First, I think you exaggerate the figure. I know of no CEO being compensated in that lofty range. Several million, yes, more than a billion? No.
Secondly, you're coming across as flashing green. Methinks you're more jealous than rational here. Perhaps you should have stayed in school and taken it seriously or, alternatively, chosen a lucrative line of work that would pay well - something like being a plumber, for instance. Maybe you should have put your noodle in a vise and come up with a great idea that you could have exploited into a fortune as an entrepreneur. Looks like you missed the boat, financially, and are just an envious liberal who thinks other peoples' money should be confiscated for social programs.
Let me once again reiterate: In a free society, NO ONE has the right to anyone else's money. Period!!! People have every right to beg but absolutely NO RIGHT to demand, either individually or through the auspices of government. Do it yourself or suffer the consequences of your decisions...
Cashu
============
July 26, 2009 at 3:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
patlabb (anonymous) says...
Cashu:
Learn from what? Learn what? To be heartless and not care for my fellow beings? I am a liberal and proud (visit Dorchester Progressive Democrats @ www.dordems.net). I am not a communist and/or socialist, at least not in the way you mean it. I am a veteran of the United States Army and a born and breed American who believes in the free market. However I do not believe our healthcare sahould be in the marketplace. Our Founders stated among our inalienable rights were: LIFE, LIBERTY and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. None of which are possible without adequate healthcare.
No real arguement? 47 million uninsured people in this country is enough of an arguement. Universal healthcare was proposed over 100 years ago by Teddy Roosevelt (a Republican by the way and certainly not a socialist) and the big business/wealthy 1% of this country have been opposing it since.
In the words of Our president:
IF NOT NOW, WHEN?
IF NOT US, WHO?
We cannot wait any longer?
How many more must die for insurance company profits?
July 26, 2009 at 3:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
patlabb (anonymous) says...
CASHU:
Just for the record. I did stay in school and hold 6 college degrees: Two Masters degrees, two associate degrees and two Bachelor degrees:
(a ADN,BSN and MSN-Nursing; a BS in Liberal studies, A Master of Divinity and an Associate Degree in Paralegal Studies)
I learnt something in school: Care about your fellow beings, care about Mother Earth and care about making this place a better place while we are here.
One thing that my religious life as a Jewish person teaches me is if the world is to be a better place we must work to make it so. It's called a Mitzvot in the Jewish Faith. Meaning being a commandment, a good deed and a blessing.
July 26, 2009 at 3:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Cashu (anonymous) says...
Patlabb - my, that was impassioned. If you could make points by being a loving, caring, bleeding-heart liberal, you would win the day, hands down.
But this is not about feeling - it's about thinking, and understanding that real freedom is the sanctity of indivual rights, not the collective "needs" of society. That phrase you quote about "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is predicated on the right to private property. That, sir, is primarily the right to dispose of your own earned money in any way that you choose. It does not mean the "right" to have it confiscated for the pleasure of other "needy" groups of citizens who won't respect it, won't benefit from it except in the very short term, and who will ultimately be enslaved by the ease of allowing taxpayers to support them.
Tytler had it right when he warned that democracies are doomed when the populace learn they can vote themselves treasure from the government at the expense of taxes. From that point forward, there is little hope of reversal. But those of us who believe in freedom and liberty do continue to try.
Look around you and see how far we've fallen from being free, with the inherent right to make ALL our decisions and to contol All of our earnings. It has been decades since we could call ourselves relatively free, regardless of what Lee Greenwood has to say on the subject.
The money in your pocket is only paper, backed by nothing but the good reputation of the federal government. How's that working now after four trillion dollar expansions of the scrip with nothing behind it?? How are you coping with the rising prices of dang near everything as a direct consequence to the inflation of the scrip supply?? Does your dollar buy as much as it did last year?? Mine certainly doesn't and there's a reason for that: It's called corporate greed backed by the irresponsible government action of giving those patlabb-denigrated executives billions of taxpayer dollars. And did they use those dollars responsibly? They used a large portion for bonuses, vacations and party conferences in places such as Las Vegas. All around, the lobbyists have been successful against shrub's and obomination's stupidity.
I could go on indefinitely, but space and time prevent...
Cashu
================
July 26, 2009 at 3:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
gringolandia (anonymous) says...
Lots of great examples of fear based on ignorance.
LOL @ "presenting the facts" Yeah right, "facts" in the world according to Limbaugh.
The previous administration, and Republican controlled congress from 1994-2006, didn't exactly lead us to the promise land. Look at the mess Obama inherited, largely due to failed right wing ideology.
How quickly and conveniently you forget the past and Bush debacle.
WHere is old Dubya these days anyway? Rumor has it he's back on the nose candy and chasing skirt out in Crawford.
As her name implies, "Cashew" is just another right wing nut.
July 26, 2009 at 3:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
gringolandia (anonymous) says...
Upon further review, Cashew makes some good points. But i'm not sure what she's arguing in favor of.
What is the role of gov't (in a few sentences, please; you're a little "long winded", girlfriend.)
Many of your points apply to all gov't regardless of party. You were most likely against Dubya's spending spree and blowing of the budget surplus he inherited, right?
And corporate greed is a great topic and property rights, etc. Property rights end when activity on one's property negatively affects those nearby. Generally the Supreme Court has had a large role in establishing the scope of property rights.
According to your arguments, you have opposed the actions of nearly every President and all versions of Congress, right?
Do you consider yourself an anarchist?
July 26, 2009 at 3:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Cashu (anonymous) says...
Patlabb - I hope you're being facetious in your spelling... "learnt" is not a word.
>>>"I learnt something in school: Care about your fellow beings, care about Mother Earth and care about making this place a better place while we are here."<<<
But I digress... To return to the debate, did you also learn, while you were being steeped in the knowledge and lore of the hallowed halls of the ivy league, that the only meaningful way of helping anyone in any capacity is with your own money? Voting to use someone else's money for your pet causes is inherently dishonest, if not downright morally criminal. Government funded social programs, especially those that are morally repugnant to many Americans, should never exist in a free society. Thomas Jefferson stated that there is nothing as disgusting as forcing someone to pay for something he disagrees with through the confiscation and use of his tax dollars. You'll excuse my paraphrase of Tom's words, but the meaning is accurate and I'm sure you will understand that meaning.
Liberals never understand that the glorious, desirable (in their eyes) end NEVER justifies a dishonest means. Taking money from hard-working earners at the point of a gun (just try not paying your taxes to see what that gun looks like) to fund social programs for the benefit of another group of citizens who think they have a "right" to use money they haven't earned is the prime example of morally dishonest government. ALL real conservatives can see the dishonesty, but most liberals, including the neo-conservative republicans, have a mental block against that institutionalized dishonesty and immorality.
In short, Patlabb, I have nothing but respect for those who dig in their own pockets to support those things they deem important and necessary, but I have nothing but contempt for those who dig in other peoples' pockets for the wherewithal to support those same things, regardless how worthy they seem to be.
This has been fun, Patlabb, but I've got other things I must attend to. I'll be looking to see how you post in future. I hope you can keep it on a higher plane than you've done in past...
Cashu
=================
July 26, 2009 at 3:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Cashu (anonymous) says...
Gringolandia - I don't try to debate stupidity. Why don't you do everyone a favor and go home. Somewhere, there is a Central or South American country missing its idiot. Please correct that imbalance at your earliest...
Cashu
================
July 26, 2009 at 3:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
patlabb (anonymous) says...
South American counrty missing it's idiot? Could that be our infamous governor down in Argentina crying?
July 26, 2009 at 4:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
patlabb (anonymous) says...
Good bye Cashu. I actually enjoyed our exchange. God bless.
July 26, 2009 at 4:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
yird (anonymous) says...
Posted by laurasmorris on July 26, 2009 at 8:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The plan that Congress and Federal Employees have IS the standard for the House passed bill.
==============================================
Y0ur devotion to the socialist party is dully noted.
Casu, notice how simpletons will accuse you of being a tool for Limbaugh etc. as you take pains educate them. They have no facts so they start blaming Bush or corporate greed.
Suggesting that the grimygrngo could replace a missing idiot discredits idiots.
July 26, 2009 at 4:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
patlabb (anonymous) says...
take the healthcare poll at www.dordems.net
July 26, 2009 at 5:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
gringolandia (anonymous) says...
yird you little booger eater, how the heck are you? I thought you'd be knee deep in the bingo game at Bishop Gadsden right now, it's good to see you ranting anonymously into cyberspace.
Last time you were on here you were challenging everyone to fight and trying to get people to call your house. It's good to see you may have calmed down a bit.
And don't worry, we never really believed the rumor that you're mildly retarded (although sometimes it seems like...) haha, just kidding yird. Your posts crack me up!
July 26, 2009 at 5:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
charlestonnative1963 (anonymous) says...
seems to me the people most opposed to the revised health care are doctors and insurance folks and people who are never going to like Obama even if the good Lord came down and ordered it. Seems that that is reason enough to support health Care reform. AND BTW--we in America do NOT have the best health care in the world. We are obese, we have high blood pressure, we have high mortality rates for children compared to the rest of the industrailized world....just maybe thngs DO need to change
July 26, 2009 at 5:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
gringolandia (anonymous) says...
We spend more on health care than any other country in the world, yet we rank near the bottom of developed countries in terms of quality of health care.
Cashu, coppin out. Typical arrogant elitist attitude. lmao
July 26, 2009 at 6 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Cashu (anonymous) says...
Patlabb - Got that nasty little obligation taken care of. I, too, have enjoyed our exchange. It's rare that I enjoy talking to a liberal, and to tell the truth, I'm a bit mystified in this instance. All I can think is that maybe, just maybe, you have an open mind. Few liberals do, but you may be an exception.
I represent a man who, in my 63 years of existence, have come a complete reversal in my political outlook. I've made the transition from radical liberal to ultra conservative because of a very few events, one of which was a watershed moment when everything changed.
When I was married in 1966, we started our life together with a total of 22 dollars and enough to pay one month's rent. I had a decent job and made about a hundred a week, gross. After a few years, we felt secure enough to buy our first piece of new furniture.
In the summer of 1969, sitting in front of our new color television set a few days after buying it, we were watching the evening news. A demonstration was the news of the day. In front of the capitol building, a group of women were rotating with signs reading "unfair" and "we're second class." As the story unfolded, we learned that the welfare office had decided to stop giving recipients new furniture, and instead would forthwith begin reconditioning used furniture instead, as it would save the county beaucoup bucks. Those women were trying to tell the world that having to accept that refurbished furniture made them second class citizens.
My wife and I looked at each other and, as we only had one piece of new furniture, which we had paid for with our own money, decided that we must be third or fourth class citizens, since we were paying the taxes to allow those women to live far beyond our means.
At that point, I became a republican. Since then, I've come to the realization that republicans are no better than democrats - just different.
Anyhoo, that's the genesis for my conversion. I've always tried to find the basic, underlying truth in any argument and, politically, I've found it to be individual responsibility coupled with individual reward. If you think about it, that is the bedrock of freedom and liberty.
Now that doesn't make us heartless or stingy or any of a number of accusations by the left. We give as much and probably much, much more than most liberals - the difference is, we give our own money to organizations and causes we've evaluated and found worthy of our money; we don't try to feel generous with other peoples' money. My personal preference is to donate to the Salvation Army. Almost all of my donation goes to help people, whereas most charities spend a substantial amount on management salaries and advertising (read Red Cross here).
Please have a happy and healthy day, Patlabb...
Cashu
===============
July 26, 2009 at 6:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
scottmcx (anonymous) says...
LAURAMORRIS,
It is my understanding that "Blue Cross" is an association of different corporations across the country.
That's why there is a Blue Cross of Illinois & Blue Cross of Wisconsin, etc. They are not one company.
This is because "Insurance" is controlled by State Insurance Commissions and the rules in each State are slightly different. That's why you have to be licensed to sell insurance in each State.
I think you see "Blue Cross" and think its a SC company covering the country, I strongly believe you're incorrect.
If you have information or proof that I'm incorrect, please procude it.
One giant Federal Insurance program would be able to melt all 300 million US citizens into one "group" instead of the 50 (or more) that other insurance companies are forced to divide the insured individuals into. This would unfairly reduce the Federal Risk and take power, again, from the States.
Any insurance guys out there that can confirm?
July 26, 2009 at 6:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
scottmcx (anonymous) says...
produce it...typo..
July 26, 2009 at 6:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Cashu (anonymous) says...
Yird -
>>>"Casu, notice how simpletons will accuse you of being a tool for Limbaugh etc. as you take pains educate them. They have no facts so they start blaming Bush or corporate greed."<<<
As you probably are, I'm kinda used to it. Liberals rarely debate. When they feel threatened by the truth, they fall back on "I HATE BUSH." assuming that whoever they're trying to vilify and demonize must be a neo-conservative. It would be wonderful if they could get beyond shrub and take a good look at the real world once in a while...
Cashu
July 26, 2009 at 6:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sassysandy (anonymous) says...
This so called Healthcare plan is a means to an end, GOVERMENT CONTROL AND TRACKING OF EVERY PERSON. They will know everything there is to know about you. They already filmed people who attended the tea parties. This has to do with a one world goverement as foretold in the Bible in the end times. No one benefits from this plan. Yes, the insurance industry has been out of hand for years as is the drug industry, they have alot of goverement officials in their back pockets, payoffs and such. But this plan, it's the worst thing that could happen to us at this point. You won't even be able to get in to see a doctor, every place will be overun with people. They have clinics for those without insurance. They may not cover surgeries but hospitals cannot refuse them in times of emergency. And yes, we WILL PAY FOR THIS! as we will all the benefit checks that have been paid out. This president is not only making everything worse, we are drowning and he's holding us under the water. Our great great grandchildren will be paying this high price if the world last that long. Obama wants a one world goverment. Maybe he is part of God's plan as his means to an end. Obama is the end of us and most people have no clue because they only listen to local bias news. Do some research yourself. Don't leave it to others to ill inform you. Their are radio stations and web sites that will give you the truth and nothing but the truth.
July 26, 2009 at 7:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
wjhamilton3 (anonymous) says...
We're having a more and more difficult time helping people maintain health insurance coverage as they go through divorce. COBRA coverage gets prohibitively expensive then runs out. In some cases, people just live separate and apart merely so one party can stay on the other's health plan for years. They live with other people. Sometimes they have kids.
It's also clear insurers are working relentlessly to shed sick and older people from plans. Canceling plans dumps them into the market. The healthy get new coverage. The sick can't find it. Anybody entitled to coverage can expect a fight if they're identified as a "cost center." Pitfalls are prepared for the careless, unsophisticated or uneducated. Working hard doesn't promise anything.
The manipulations never end. Mandatory forms that don't exist. Paperwork which gets "round filed." Any way to frustrate people into giving up.
This isn't the "worlds best healthcare system." We're now behind Costa Rica. This is the worlds best system for Health Insurance Companies.
July 26, 2009 at 7:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Cashu (anonymous) says...
sassysandy -
>>>"This so called Healthcare plan is a means to an end, GOVERMENT CONTROL AND TRACKING OF EVERY PERSON."<<<
Be careful how you phrase your beliefs. This site is rife with liberals who will vilify, demonize and marginalize any talk about the end times. You'll be categorized as a "right-wing nutjob." Of course, if that doesn't matter to you, go for it!!
For what it's worth, I think you're on the right track in looking at what seems to be coming. Implanted chips are almost inevitable at this point. Recently, within the past year, two manufacturers of implantable RFID type chips, both of which can be tracked by GPS are approved by the FDA and are now on the market. Each has the capacity to hold a complete medical profile and has plenty of capacity to spare for a complete financial profile. They could find wherever you are and they could control your ability to buy and sell at will. All that is necessary for it to become reality is to phase out physical scrip and make it mandatory (there's that word again) for everyone to be chipped.
The brain-dead among us - mostly democrats and neo-conservatives won't have the ability to see it coming. All they will be able to focus on is the convenience and "security" inherent in a cashless society. However, they will see the full ramifications once it's implemented, especially if one disagrees with the federal government over any controversy, legitimate or not. Once this system is in place, if the federal government decides you don't have a right to live, they will merely turn your chip off and make it illegal for anyone to do barter business. How will you live if that happens? The answer - you won't. You'll have a short, fugitive existence until you're caught and liquidated. A basic truth that has never failed yet is the concept that what becomes possible quickly becomes reality. If they find they could do this, they most definitely WILL do it...
Cashu
================
July 26, 2009 at 9:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dogswteeth79 (anonymous) says...
This is welfare on steroids.During the campaign the Reps talked some about welfare reform by saying it had already been done. The dems did not because they knew the med plan was a continuation of being an enabler and preventing folks from getting off the free wagon by making them more dependent on the system
July 26, 2009 at 11:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
IValueU (anonymous) says...
Having read many of the posts, I am disheartened by the number of apparently able bodied responders who are not man enough or have the marketable skills to provide for their own daily needs including health care and feel it is their right to mooch off of the resources of others of whom over 50% are women or believe it is an inalienable right for "government" to coddle them from the cradle to the grave.
July 26, 2009 at 11:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
patlabb (anonymous) says...
Cashu:
My genesis is just the opposite. I was raised in a strong Republican home but migrated to Democratic ideals based on my world view and studies of the Jewish sages. As I said before I believe Judaism calls me to social justice. Have you noticed there are 13 Jewish US Senators and all are Democrats. It is the call to social involvment and social justice that is part and parcel to Jewish theology.
I commend your support of charity. I too give to charity: esp. my personal time.
I respect you and the discourse we are having here. You are obviously a good person and good people can disagree and debate without being nasty.
Even the President invited the cdop and the professor to the White House for a beer :).
I HOPE PEOPLE WILL REMEMBER THAT MR. OBAMA IS OUR PRESIDENT, SOME HERE MAY DISAGREE WITH HIMBUT SHOULD RESPECT THE OFFICE AND HIS ROLE.
We're all in this together and none of us can afford the country to fail.
July 26, 2009 at 11:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
yird (anonymous) says...
Posted by wjhamilton3 on July 26, 2009 at 7:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"It's also clear insurers are working relentlessly to shed sick and older people from plans."
=============================================
Evidently you haven't read any of the Health Care Destruction Bill HR3200.
Pages 425 through 430 gives the federal government the same option.
That's of course okay with you no doubt.
Wonder what your reaction as a lawyer would be if the evil Bush administration had the audacity to try and pile this dung heap of a bill onto the American public.
I'd wager you'd be screaming bloody murder.
Do you democrats even listen to what Obama is saying, or is just the fact that as long as his lips are moving, your content?
July 26, 2009 at 11:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
yird (anonymous) says...
patlabb , If this president succeeds the country will fail.
July 26, 2009 at 11:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Cid95 (anonymous) says...
Our healthcare system (the care plus the means of paying for it) SUCKS.
I walked into a doctor's office in Singapore off the street, no appointment and obviously not a citizen. Within 15 minutes I was seen by a doctor as good as any I've known in the US, had a minor surgical procedure and prescribed medicine which was given to me at the doctor's office so that I didn't have to go to a separate pharmacy. Total cost in US$ was about $50.
In the US, it would have easily cost two or three hundred dollars.
Why? The standard of living and average life expectancy in both countries is similar.
July 27, 2009 at 12:04 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
patlabb (anonymous) says...
yird:
>>
You sound like Rush L. Unfortunately, you play into the hands of the terrorists that run our corporations, the terrorists that run our police and the terrorists from wiothout that would destroy what little freedomn we have left. You, my dear one, are a Right Wing NUT JOB. I do not sayu it lightly because although Cashu posted here and we disagreed I found him even handed and intellegent...you are just plain ignorant. Go ride your horse wearing your hood and burning crosses on the lawns of African Americans and Jews like me. By the way you get two for one when you attack me: I'm Jewish and in a multi-racial marriage. So my children are Jewish people of color. Go peddle your hate elsewhere.
July 27, 2009 at 5:50 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
yird (anonymous) says...
patlabb,my my, arnt't we the sensitive twit?
Your obvious confusion about who and what you are has clouded your ability to think rationally.
Just because this Marxist has duped simpletons like you, and is working avidly to destroy this country, we are supposed to love him because he is half Arab or sub Saharan African, and if we don't we are racist.
I suppose if we don't agree with the idiot Feinstein on the gun issue then according to you we (or I specifically)are anti sematic and hate Jews.
If anyone is a hate monger it is trash like yourself who blame everyone and everything for the stupid choices they make in life, except themselves of course.
If the truth is so hard for you to take just ignore it. Seems like you've been doing that right along.
July 27, 2009 at 8:38 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
yird (anonymous) says...
Just finished a huge breakfast of bacon eggs grits and biscuits which of course you partlab, would not approve off.
Took a few minutes to look over your past posts.
Your very selective about what you comment on, aren't you?.
Since you accused me of essentially being a racist Klan member I shall tell you exactly what I think of you.
You are a vehemently anti Christian progressive with a jaded sense of reality and an extremely uneducated concept of history.
Your bragging to be a progressive just shows how little you know about the progressive movement.
Both major political parties have been sucked into this "movement" albeit the democrat party has been far more enabling when it come to actually putting the various facets of the progressive scheme into play.
You have been totally scammed by the notion that caring for others takes precedence over caring for ourselves.
In reality, one has to be able to take care of one's self if they are ever going to be able to look after someone else. You probably consider that "selfish". It's called being practical, a trait that eludes most progressives.
Because some people are more adept at doing so seems to bother mindless zombies like you who have never truly learned to think for yourselves.
Why do you find it necessary to announce yourself as a Jew in so many of your posts?
Are we supposed to use that as a "caution" careful not offend sign?
Posted by patlabb on July 26, 2009 at 11:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"Have you noticed there are 13 Jewish US Senators and all are Democrats. It is the call to social involvment and social justice that is part and parcel to Jewish theology."
Funny you fail to mention the "social justice" eventually visited on millions by the Jewish birth of the Bolshevik revolution.
Many Jews that came here after WWII were communist or communist sympathizers (their progeny were excellent candidates for the progressive movement) because Hitler supposedly hated communists and of course the Jews rightfully hated Hitler. It never occurred to them that the communists leadership persecuted Jews with the same amount of fervor as the Nazis. They just were better at disguising it.
The "progressive movement got it's first nudge by T.Roosevelt, was set into motion by Wilson, accelerated by FDR, then Carter, and is now racing ahead full speed under Obama.
As I said before, I hope this president fails so the country can survive.
If that makes me a racist in your eyes so be it.
I've noticed that the most ardent racists posting on these threads are the first ones to accuse others of racisim.
That describes you perfectly!
July 27, 2009 at 11:05 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Postandcourier.com is pleased to offer readers the enhanced ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Postandcourier.com does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not postandcourier.com. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "report abuse" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website. Read our full Terms and Conditions.
Users can now build user-to-user connections, follow friends' recent posts, add an avatar that fits their personality, and more. If you have posted here before you'll need to sign up again, or if you've never posted before, start now by signing up!
- Most Commented
- Most Emailed
- Shared
- Upper King on rise: Hotels, apartments, restaurants changing face of downtown area
- Missing woman case gets murkier
- Missing woman's fiance found dead in his home
- Isle of Palms wants to patch beach
- Body of missing woman's fiance was found near handgun
- DAVID SLADE: S.C. offers hybrid car tax credit
- Advocating for cyclists
- Pinterest: Pinning hopes and dreams
- Facebook posts may cost you a job
- Black women today: Strong. Resilient. Ambitious.
