I agree too
I don't want health care and I certainly don't want to pay for something I don't use more than a ER visit once in a blue moon.
|
I agree too
I don't want health care and I certainly don't want to pay for something I don't use more than a ER visit once in a blue moon.
Hello righty's:
During this debate, I've pointed out that the insurance companies act the same way that you THINK the government is GOING to act if health care is passed...
If I'm not mistaken, you're worried about the government telling you what foods you can eat, and how much exercise you need each day...
But, you don't seem to be worried about your insurance company telling you that stuff... What's the difference?
excon
But I have the right to NOT get insurance the way it is now. The way it will be I won't be able to afford it.
Prevention is where I think the government has a right to take the lead in healthcare.
It is good to have panels and research and accounting for what treatments, preventative care, is cost effective for the US population as a whole.
Vaccinations, mamograms, nutritional education, smoking cessation, substance abuse counseling and rehab, are some of the areas in which the tax dollar would be wisely spent.
Chemotherapy, dialysis, coronary bypass, joint replacements - acute care should be left primarily to the doctor / patient.
I am not oppposed to the accountants and the number crunchers SUGGESTING that treatment A has better outcomes than treatment B for this or that group of people but healthcare is far from cookbook.
G&P
Unfortunately they want the money they make on the meds so they discredit many preventatives as quackery and they allow foods to be filled with synthetic processed garbage.Quote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
Private insurance companies don't have the coercive power to tax us/ take our money, to 1] gain power for themselves by using tax revenue to 2] redistribute tax revenue as they see fit.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
There is one government. No choice, no options.
There are multiple options in health, auto, life, home insurance.
G&P
Hello again, in:Quote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
Let's dispel this myth right now. I've heard about all this choice we have - but it's bunk... If you're a working stiff who gets his health insurance from his job, as MOST of us do, you don't have any choice... If you have a pre-existing condition, you don't have any choice. NO insurance company will sell you anything... If you're amongst the working poor, the choice you make is between health insurance and eating... That ain't choice.
Now if you're wealthy, you have some choice..
excon
There is a huge difference in my view between building in incentives and covering preventive care on the one hand;and monitoring and mandating behavior on the other. I certanly was not implying that it should be forced on an individual .Quote:
If I'm not mistaken, you're worried about the government telling you what foods you can eat, and how much exercise you need each day...
But, you don't seem to be worried about your insurance company telling you that stuff... What's the difference?
But that is exactly what is being proposed in the Senate Bill being crafted by the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee (HELP) .
Under the plan the brownshirts... oops I mean the government will recruit a “national network of community-based organizations” to “promote healthy living and reduce disparities”.(Section C of Title III entitled" Creating Healthier Communities, with Community Transformation Grants "is on pages 382-387 of the bill ).
3 types of entities will be eligible to receive grants under the program: State government agency; local government agency; or a national network of community-based organizations.
The bill has HHS and the CDC award grants “for the implementation, evaluation, and dissemination of proven evidence-based community preventive health activities in order to reduce chronic disease rates, address health disparities, and develop a stronger evidence-base of effective prevention programming.”
Subparagraph (A) of the section entitled, “Community-Based Prevention Health Activities,says the eligible entity (community-based organization) "shall, with respect to residents in the community, measure–
“(i) decreases in weight;
“(ii) increases in proper nutrition;
“(iii) increases in physical activity;
“(iv) decreases in tobacco use prevalence;
“(v) other factors using community-specific data from the Behavioral Risk Surveillance Survey; and
“(vi) other factors as determined by the Secretary [at HHS].”
Don't worry ;Sen.Dodd doesn't think that ACORN would be eligible to monitor your weight.
This is a vehicle for the inclusion of pork into the bill . The provisions designers Sen Kennedy and Dodd envisons local communities using funds from this bill to do infrastructure projects loosely related like build and maintain sidewalks, parks, bike paths, and street lights.It can be argued that these are worthy projects for local communities to take on ,but should these be included to pad bills addressing health care coverage ?
In health bill, billions for parks, paths - The Boston GlobeQuote:
“These are not public works grants; they are community transformation grants,'' said Anthony Coley, a spokesman for Kennedy, chairman of the Senate health committee whose healthcare bill includes the projects.
“If improving the lighting in a playground or clearing a walking path or a bike path or restoring a park are determined as needed by a community to create more opportunities for physical activity, we should not prohibit this from happening,'' Coley said in a statement.
No ;no one is saying you should prohibit it from happening . But I question why the Federal Government should fund them.
Here's the difference:Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
The insurance companies can put whatever restrictions they want on me. If I don't like it, I can buy DIFFERENT insurance. Or choose to pay medical expenses out of pocket. Or renegotiate my deal with them... I'm sure that if I am willing to pay them enough money, they'll cut me any deal I want, with as few restrictions as I am willing to pay for.
In a single-payer government system, there is no other option. There is no other insurance to buy. The government will not make special deals with me. And I won't be able to pay out of pocket, because that's illegal in a single-payer system.
The difference, excon, whether you are willing to recognize it or not, is CHOICE.
Elliot
So... according to you, if you have a pre-existing condition, you are not allowed to pay out of pocket for services not covered under your insurance plan. That's what you are saying.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
And it is just simply not true. You know that. I know that.
We both know that if something isn't covered under medical insurance you still have other ways of paying for it. And you can still get the services you need, EVEN IF YOU CAN'T PAY FOR THEM. We've pointed out all the programs that are in place to help people who need medical care that isn't covered under insurance or that are uninsured.
So who is it you think you are fooling when you say that individuals in a private health plan have no choices?
Elliot
Devils advocate
I think what ex is saying is you have this paid for insurance that you think has you covered and they find a pre existing condition and bing your not covered and that in itself isn't much of a choice
Hello again, El:Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
Sure... And, if he didn't like the way his broken down VW is working, he can buy a Mercedes Benz...
But, in the REAL world, where I live, I don't know anybody who can buy services that their insurance won't cover...
It's like saying that every poor slob has the choice between Filet Mignon, and pheasant under glass... Which is true if he has the bread... But the FACT of the matter is, his only real choice is between corn flakes and twinkies...
You are WRONG! WRONG and WRONG!! Plus, you're even WRONGER than that.
excon
Problem with that argument, Zip, is that there IS a choice. Several of them, in fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by zippit
1) Challenge the insurance company's decision via that company's appeals process, (9 times out of 10, they end up giving in and paying if you challenge them)
2) Pay out of pocket for the services you need,
3) Go to any one of the thousands of charitable organizations that assist people who are in that situation in getting the services they need,
4) Go to the local ER and get the services anyway, since the hospitals cannot turn a patient away for inability to pay.
Any and all of them are viable options. These are CHOICES available to those on private insurance that are NOT available in a single-payer government insurance plan.
Really? You mean you've NEVER paid out of pocket for a medical need?Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
I do it about twice a week. I go to therapies that are NOT covered by my insurance and pay out of pocket for those services.
I think you are being less than honest about that. At SOME point, you have paid out of pocket for a medicine, an exam, a diagnostic test, a therapy, that was not covered by your insurance. The amount may have been small, or it may have been large. But you CHOSE to pay it.
Under a single-payer government system, you can't do that.
The choice may indeed be between cornflakes and twinkies. But cornflakes will keep your belly full, and twinkies are a nice snack supplement. True, it ain't fois gras and filet mignon, but it'll keep you alive. And a choice between cornflakes, or twinkies or PAYING OUT OF POCKET for filet mignon is still a choice.Quote:
It's like saying that every poor slob has the choice between Filet Mignon, and pheasant under glass... Which is true if he has the bread... But the FACT of the matter is, his only real choice is between corn flakes and twinkies...
Now... compare that to the government single-payer choice, which amounts to "We'll decide what's on the menu, if it ain't on the menu you don't get it, and if you don't like it, tough, you ain't getting anything else."
Then they proceed to tell you that the only thing on the menu is stale bread and gruel, and if if you're over 65, you only get half as much of it as everyone else, because giving you the same as everyone else isn't cost effective. And the COST of the stale bread and gruel is anywhere from 35% to 500% higher than you could buy it on your own, but you're not allowed to buy it on your own.
I'll take the corflakes and twinkies with occasional servings of filet mignon and pheasant under glass that I pay for myself rather than being forced to eat the overly expensive gruel and stale bread, thanks.
Nuh uh.Quote:
You are WRONG! WRONG and WRONG!! Plus, you're even WRONGER than that.
Excon
(Hey, I figure that's about the same 6-year-old level as what you wrote.)
Elliot
Elliot is correct of course. By contrast ;inside various sections of HR3200 are "limitation on review"provisions.
As an example here is the section covering readmission into hospitals.. pages 284-288, SEC. 1151. REDUCING POTENTIALLY PREVENTABLE HOSPITAL READMISSIONS:
Quote:
ii) EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN READMISSIONS.—For purposes of clause (I), with respect to a hospital, excess readmissions shall not include readmissions for an applicable condition for which there are fewer than a minimum number (as determined by the Secretary) of discharges for such applicable condition for the applicable period and such hospital.
And, under “Definitions”:
''(A) APPLICABLE CONDITION.—The term 'applicable condition' means, subject to subparagraph (B), a condition or procedure selected by the Secretary.. .
And:
''(E) READMISSION.—The term 'readmission' means, in the case of an individual who is discharged from an applicable hospital, the admission of the individual to the same or another applicable hospital within a time specified by the Secretary from the date of such discharge.
And:
''(6) LIMITATIONS ON REVIEW.—There shall be no administrative or judicial review under section 1869, section 1878, or otherwise of—.. .
''(C) the measures of readmissions.. .
Hello again, El:Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
Nope. YOU are the one who's being dishonest... You are unable to argue the points I make so you deflect to some ridiculous point... You KNOW what I mean. You are purposefully being obtuse. You are doing that because you don't have a REAL reply... That's fine. I'm used to your crap...
Yes, El. I HAVE paid out of pocket... for the things I could afford... But, what I was talking about, and what you KNOW I was talking about, is the MAJOR medical procedures that your insurance won't cover, and that are beyond ANYONE'S ability to pay out of pocket for, unless the patient is WEALTHY...
That would be MOST procedures. Consequently, unless it is for some MINOR procedure, THERE IS NO CHOICE!! NONE! ZERO! NADA!
I don't know what's so HARD for you to get.
Are you NOW going to say that the person can go to an emergency room for this procedure?? You're not going to say that are you?? Well, maybe you are...
excon
Hello again, in:
What I'd like to do, is change the conversation... There are several points that the right wing believes, that are NEVER going to change. Arguing with them/you is POINTLESS, as can be seen. I have pointed out the untruths of the right wing opposition continuously, and to NO avail...
What I'd LIKE to talk about, is the fact, that as wrong as the right is, they're/you're WINNING! Let's talk about how a Democratic president, with a 100 seat or so majority in the House, and a filibuster proof majority in the Senate, CAN'T get its agenda passed.
excon
I'm going to be part of a telephone town hall meeting with Congressman Engel tonight . I will specifically address my concern that members like Anthony Weiner ;on the Chris Matthews show yesterday were stubbornly resisting any option that did not include a public option. He was insistant that the Senate should go nuclear and adopt reconciliation to get it done if they couldn't get the 60 votes .Quote:
Let's talk about how a Democratic president, with a 100 seat or so majority in the House, and a filibuster proof majority in the Senate, CAN'T get its agenda passed.
He appears to be one of the leading radical Democrats revolting against any flexibility and is now a critic of the President for deemphisis of the public plan as a priority .
The President as Wondergirl likes to point out never went to Congress to tell them what he would like in a plan .
Had he done so perhaps we would be debating his plan . But he didn't,and that left the loons like Pelosi ,Waxman ,and evidently Weiner to try to bum rush a Fabian socialists plan down our throats .
I intend to remind Engel that ultimately he represents the people and not the narrow vision of the lefty ideologues that control the Congress.
Liar, liar, pants on fire! That is NOT what WG said!Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Actually, I answered each of your points on a point by point basis. You just don't like the answers, so you seek to dismiss them.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Fact: A person who is denied a medical service by his insurance company can still purchase that service on his own. He also has the option of getting that medical procedure without paying for it at all, through charitable organizations or by just going to an ER and obtaining it. That fact is not open to dispute. You can argue all you want about how hard it is, how difficult it is, yadda yadda. Fact is, it can be done and it IS done every single day by people all over the country.
Fact: You cannot do that under a single-payer government health plan. You can claim all you want that the government won't limit our care, won't place limitations on what they'll cover. The fact is that government health care systems all over the world, including the ones inside the USA, limit care every day. And if they do, you're screwed because there is no other option.
End of story.
That's it. You just admitted to my entire point. I win the argument. You lose.Quote:
Yes, El. I HAVE paid out of pocket...
If you can pay out of pocket, if that CHOICE exists, no matter how hard it is for you to make that choice, then you prove my point. That choice is NOT available in single-payer government health care.
You can talk all you want about how hard it is to pay out of pocket. Under a government system the option isn't even available. If it comes to a choice of "hard to accomplish" or "not an option", I'll take "hard to accomplish".
There's nothing else to talk about.
Elliot
Really?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Looks like you did.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Or did AMHD "misplay what you said"?
Elliot
This just from this op
Originally Posted by inthebox https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/amhd_i...s/viewpost.gif
Obamacare, whatever that may be, is unpopular
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Originally Posted by 450donn https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/amhd_i...s/viewpost.gif
HUH!!!
The anointed one demanded that this "non" bill be passed by congress before the recess. So what is it that Nobama was demanding be passed. Another piece of garbage to waste another trillion dollars on?
I pointed out originally in #9 response that the President hadn't advanced his own plan and just like the bucket list stimulation bill ;he will rely on Congress to do the work . (to refresh your memory... Excon responded something to the effect that my balls were dragging on the floor) .Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
If they send him a pork sandwich he will be happy to sign it . He has no ideas of his own.
If I am wrong then please correct me by showing me the outline for his plan that he submitted to Congress.
Speaking of Obama letting Congress do the work, Nat Hentoff - a guy who is not exactly a right-winger mind you - points out the ominous part of Obamacare is not the legislation but the regulations hammered out by the bureaucrats once the legislation is passed.
And that is why it's so scary to even consider passing this behemoth of a bill. It is intentionally vague even at over a thousand pages, the details will be worked out later while your back is turned.Quote:
I was alerted to Lanes' crucial cautionary advice — for those of use who may be influenced to attend the Obamacare twilight consultations — by Wesley J. Smith, a continually invaluable reporter and analyst of, as he calls his most recent book, the "Culture of Death: The Assault on Medical Ethics in America" (Encounter Books).
As more Americans became increasingly troubled by this and other fearful elements of Dr. Obama's cost-efficient health care regimen, Smith adds this vital advice, no matter what legislation Obama finally signs into law:
"Remember that legislation itself is only half the problem with Obamacare. Whatever bill passes, hundreds of bureaucrats in the federal agencies will have years to promulgate scores of regulations to govern the details of the law.
"This is where the real mischief could be done because most regulatory actions are effectuated beneath the public radar. It is thus essential, as just one example, that any end-of-life counseling provision in the final bill be specified to be purely voluntary … and that the counseling be required by law to be neutral as to outcome. Otherwise, even if the legislation doesn't push in a specific direction — for instance, THE GOVERNMENT REFUSING TREATMENT — the regulations could."
Who'll let us know what's really being decided about our lives — and what is set into law? To begin with, Charles Lane, Wesley Smith and others whom I'll cite and add to as this chilling climax of the Obama presidency comes closer.
Hello:
It could be written in half a page... Or less. If one wanted single payer, it could be called: Medicare for all. If one wanted a public option, it could be called: buying into Medicare. It should be written like that, and it should be sold like that. It's simple and everybody would understand it. If they DID that, it would pass with flying colors...
Then we wouldn't have to reform the insurance companies. Let them continue to do what they've always done.
excon
I happen to agree with you that if the bill were presented in that fashion it would be easier to sell. Not to mention being more transparent to the public. I still wouldn't agree with the idea, but I agree that it would be easier for the public to buy in to the idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
So why do you think that the bill ISN'T being presented that way? Why are the Dems going out of their way to first muddy the waters and then get us to drink? Why did they write a bill that was so long that THEY didn't even bother reading it, and then try to ram it through without giving anyone else time to read it? And why did they make it so complicated when it could have been made really easy and simple to understand? And why did they not even CONSIDER any of the other ways that health care in America could be reformed to cover the uninsured, lower medical costs across the board and increase access to all?
Elliot
Hello again, El:Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
Why?? Because they're Democrats.
excon
For once we are in agreement.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Though I think that the reason may be more sinister than that. I believe that they attempted to hide a bunch of stuff into this bill that they really didn't want us to know about. They buried it in the bill and tried to get it passed quickly so that we wouldn't have time to find it. Same as they did with the pork in the stimulus bill and the pork in the omnibus bill and the hidden provisions of the Cap & Trade bill.
If for no other reason than that, this bill should be killed.
Elliot
Darn that broken U.S. health care system, U.S. life expectancy at all-time high.
-- Record high life expectancy was recorded for both males and females (75.3 years and 80.4 years, respectively). While the gap between male and female life expectancy has narrowed since the peak gap of 7.8 years in 1979, the 5.1 year difference in 2007 is the same as in 2006.
-- For the first time, life expectancy for black males reached 70 years.
-- The U.S. mortality rate fell for the eighth straight year to an all-time low of 760.3 deaths per 100,000 population in 2007 -- 2.1 percent lower than the 2006 rate of 776.5. The 2007 mortality rate is half of what it was 60 years ago (1532 per 100,000 in 1947.)
-- The preliminary number of deaths in the United States in 2007 was 2,423,995, a 2,269 decrease from the 2006 total.
-- Heart disease and cancer, the two leading causes of death, accounted for nearly half (48.5 percent) of all deaths in 2007.
-- Between 2006 and 2007, mortality rates declined significantly for eight of the 15 leading causes of death. Declines were observed for influenza and pneumonia (8.4 percent), homicide (6.5 percent), accidents (5 percent), heart disease (4.7 percent), stroke (4.6 percent), diabetes (3.9 percent), hypertension (2.7 percent), and cancer (1.8 percent).
-- The death rate for the fourth leading cause of death, chronic lower respiratory diseases, increased by 1.7 percent. Preliminary death rates also increased for Parkinson’s disease, chronic liver disease and cirrhosis, and Alzheimer’s, but these gains are not statistically significant.
-- There were an estimated 11,061 deaths from HIV/AIDS in 2007, and mortality rates from the disease declined 10 percent from 2006, the biggest one-year decline since 1998. HIV remains the sixth leading cause of death among 25-44 year-olds.
-- The preliminary infant mortality rate for 2007 was 6.77 infant deaths per 1,000 live births, a 1.2 percent increase from the 2006 rate of 6.69, though not considered statistically significant. Birth defects were the leading cause of infant death in 2007, followed by disorders related to preterm birth and low birthweight. Sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) was the third leading cause of infant death in the United States.
Still below other nations but you're catching up!
Life expectancy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...d_Factbook.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Li...d_Factbook.png
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Yeah, we're doing good... But, it looks like the other Western nations, the ones that take care of ALL their people, are ahead of us. Or is the map not telling the real story?
excon
Don't worry, NK. Eat a few more Big Macs and you'll be right there with us.
There you have it, nailed him with facts and he comes back with personal attacks.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Keep trying to spin stuff, we'll be here to show the truth.
Ex, I ask again, who is NOT getting health care in this country? Whether we've caught up to those other countries is irrelevant to the point. The report belies the narrative that our health care system is broken or failing. It needs changes, we've all acknowledged that, but let's have an HONEST discussion and an HONEST attempt to fix what's wrong instead of ramming a massive, intentionally vague, unsustainable, complete overhaul of the system.
Personal attacks? You have absolutely no sense of humor do you?Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
SOMEBODY isn't getting health care, or are you saying that health insurance companies pay for EVERYTHING? Nahh, you wouldn't say that... You wouldn't be saying, that the average working stiff who is turned down by his insurance company, can afford to PAY for the services himself, would you?? Nahh, you wouldn't be saying that... You wouldn't be saying, that an average working stiff who's been turned down for medical services by his insurer can get those services at his local emergency room?? Nahhhh, you wouldn't be saying that... You wouldn't be saying that this person is going to get charity to pay for these medical services, would you? Nahhh, you wouldn't be saying that.
You wouldn't be saying that a working poor person, with NO insurance, could get a check up at his emergency room, would you?? Nahhh, you wouldn't...
By the way, where WOULD a working poor person with NO insurance get a check up?? Where would that be?? Where?? You say everybody is getting health care, but it's just not true - not true at all.
excon
Excon, you have again made the classic mistake of confusing health care with health insurance.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
There are plenty of people in this country without health insurance.
There are NONE without health care.
They do all the time. Are you saying they don't?Quote:
You wouldn't be saying that a working poor person, with NO insurance, could get a check up at his emergency room, would you?? Nahhh, you wouldn't...
They go to ERs for their day-to-day care. Got the sniffles, go to your local ER to get it checked out. Happens all the time. My brother, the doctor, deals with such people every day.Quote:
By the way, where WOULD a working poor person with NO insurance get a check up?? Where would that be?? Where?? You say everybody is getting health care, but it's just not true - not true at all.
Excon
They also go to free clinics. You've heard of those, right?
Are you saying they don't? If you are, you are either lying or lacking in the facts.
Elliot
You know, in my area Planned Parenthood has made one its primary arguments for its existence is to provide health care, mostly for women but not exclusively, including regular checkups. That might be a place to start.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Also in my area (which I've mentioned many times now), our public hospital furnishes regular outpatient care for those who can't afford it both at the hospital and at a separate clinic.
We have a medical school branch where such people can get regular health care.
We have a fairly advanced cancer center funded largely by a private foundation and other charitable gifts.
Several times a year checkups, various screenings, etc. are offered free of charge or at reduced rates at clinics sponsored by various groups.
Are we the only community in the country that does such things? If our community of 200,000 can do it why can't others?
Hello again, El:Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
If you have a complaint, they'll treat you at the ER. If you have a ROUTINE procedure that you need, such as a check up, they won't. If you say they will, you're either lying or you don't have the facts.
Steve, you say I won't answer your question, yet you won't answer mine. If all this great health care is available just for the asking, why would ANYBODY buy insurance??
excon
Good question.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
No one said it was "just for the asking." I do say no one has to go without health care. I've also explained what the purpose of insurance was, to "insure" against catastrophic loss and not pay for your every sniffle. If you guys want to pay for every sniffle for the uninsured then take some of those billions of federal dollars and build some clinics for those who need it, open up the insurance industry to more competition such as cross-state shopping, allow us to pick what we want to pay for in a policy, enact tort reform - and leave the rest of us alone.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
I believe in a safety net for those who truly need it, but I don't believe in the liberal idea of "social justice." I buy insurance of all kinds because I'm a responsible person, I want to protect my family and I want to protect others from a loss if I'm liable. That's why we buy insurance, we work hard, we pay our way, we want to be responsible. Many DON'T because they AREN'T responsible, not just because they can't afford it.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:37 AM. |