It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Dem. Congresswoman Admits Obama’s Health Care Plan Will Destroy Private Insurance

page: 2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in


posted on May, 2 2009 @ 03:08 PM
reply to post by Keyhole

We've been duped to believe that Insurance Companies are our best protection.

We've lost control of our choice and access to health care at reasonable prices.

Now, I understand that infrastructure, support and technology are expensive, but if it were any other business they would consider these capital investments and ordinary expenses to be recouped over the long term, or from ordinary revenue.

If citizens had access to a pool of money and made their own choices, we'd drive prices back into market-driven competition. Insurance would only be necessary for catastrophic injury and disease.

Insurance is a wager: carrier bets you won't need more than X dollars/year. They carry "reserves" to cover lost bets. The rest is INVESTED in stock, real estate, et c for above market returns on YOUR unused money (premiums). If they lose their 'bets,' your premiums go up.

I do not want a third party telling me who to see, what to take and how much to pay. I can deal with realtors, bankers, car dealers and contractors to get what I want at a price I can afford.

I should be able to do the same with health care providers.

There ARE some doctors who will see you on 'self-pay' bases. I do this. I pay less than insurance companies would, but the doctor gets paid on the spot (or in installment) and has NO PAPERWORK, haggling with adjusters, over-billing for under-payment, or any of the other crud that goes into dealing with a third-party payor.

We can do this!


posted on May, 2 2009 @ 04:37 PM
reply to post by jdub297

one notion of insurance that's been discussed is something like we do with car insurance. like your idea, it's for big stuff. hospitalizations, surgery, the big ticket items. Your car insurance doesn't pay for oil changes and fixing your transmission or new tires. You pay for them. Insurance kicks in when it's big. We could structure medical insurance that way. Health care could become a personal responsibility. You choose when to see the doctor and pay for it. We could pay for our own drugs and this would definitely drive down prices because normal people can't pay those inflated prices. Right now it is, I believe, a cabal between insurance companies, drug companies and hospitals to keep raising prices. doctors have little to say about those things and we patients are stuck in the middle.

posted on May, 2 2009 @ 11:17 PM
Insurance companies s*** no doubt. But this is some of the scariest reasoning I have heard to think socialized medicine is going to somehow solve the problem. To the person who says they are sick of paying insurance companies to decide what medicine you are going to take. Well, what do you think the government is? The government becomes the corporation and you still pay your share through taxes and unforseeable human cost. Honestly this is no way to go just because you don't like the current health system. At least the way it is, although it stinks, you theoretically have a choice to go with another company. ...more and more walk-in clinics are opening up that allow you to use insurance or pay by service. You get a choice. I can't remember his name but one doctor set up a system where you simply pay a flat yearly fee (forget what it was but it was extremely affordable) and then it included all health services, both treatment and preventative. So many doctors loved the idea they wanted to do the same thing....(I think his plan included 3 visits a year) then the govt. stepped in and found a way to make the guy charge more. There are other creative ways to solve the health crisis. Why anyone would want to give the PTB sole control over your health and that of your loved ones is simply beyond me. Think people. I for one don't want Obama and his immoral cronies making these personal decisions for me and I am sure the Bush-haters out there would feel the same way if he were in power.

[edit on 2-5-2009 by glad_to_be_His]

posted on May, 3 2009 @ 12:00 AM
reply to post by glad_to_be_His

There surely are other ways.

You are right that nationalized health care would just be substituting one third-party for another.

Obama himself admitted as much in the NYT Magazine interview to be published today.

He says that with some cases, there'd have to be someone outside the Dr./patient relationship to decide what care or expense was appropriate.

Unfortunately, Obama's plan will focus on RATIONING over everything else, NOT your health and comfort.

He's given an interview to the NYT Magazine, to be published Sunday, in which he discusses his grandmother's need for surgery while suffering from terminal cancer:

...I actually think that the tougher issue around medical care — it’s a related one — is what you do around things like end-of-life care …

… sort of in the aggregate, society making those decisions to give my grandmother, or everybody else’s aging grandparents or parents, a hip replacement when they’re terminally ill is a sustainable model, is a very difficult question. If somebody told me that my grandmother couldn’t have a hip replacement and she had to lie there in misery in the waning days of her life — that would be pretty upsetting.

… So that’s where I think you just get into some very difficult moral issues. But that’s also a huge driver of cost, right?

I mean, the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out here.

... you have to have some independent group that can give you guidance.

(emphasis added)

So there you have it! BHO wants your health dictated by demographics, economics and "independent groups" for guidance as to what's best for you.

Deny ignorance!



[edit on 3-5-2009 by jdub297]

posted on May, 3 2009 @ 12:19 AM
if the bailouts, stimulus plan, budgets, and takeover of auto industry and financial sector are any example, we will have little to say about what happens next. obama will call some people together, meet behind closed doors, have nancy and harry propose a bill and the dem congress will approve it. end of story. that's the new transparency.

I haven't been able to get any real details about his plan. friends tell me it's too early yet. he's just proposing the framework and the money. but based on the stuff mentioned above, it's a done deal. he'll get a few friends together and hammer it out and that's called health care reform.


posted on May, 3 2009 @ 12:42 AM
reply to post by earlywatcher

Remember, Obama, Clinton, Biden and Emanuel have each gone on record that 'crises' are "opportunities that shouldn't be wasted!"

So, what could BHO & Co. use for a National Health Care opportunity? Border wars? Governement take-over and control of corporations?

Oh, I know! A Pandemic! One that doesn't really differ from ordinary, seasonal diseases, but spreads easily (especially in countries with National Health Care, like Mexico, the UK, and Canada) without seriously harming American victims.

Don't look now, but we're about to be "saved" by BHO and his health care program. (Motto: Paid for by us, controlled by them)


posted on May, 3 2009 @ 12:19 PM
Honestly, i get kinda riled when i see people comparing socialized medicine to allowing the "government to choose what you will get", and saying it will be just as bad as corporations choosing, the way we have it now. Get real! One main difference would be that the governments "choice" of what you need would not be profit obviously nothing done in government is to worried about not wasting money (haha).

But honestly, i was in the military.....i worked in hospitals there.... in the armed forces we had a socialized type medical system, and let me tell you, there was NO dithering there. If you had ANY issue, you went into the hospital, and they took care of it. Even to things like laser eye surgery for improved vision, and breast implants or penile enlargements for "morale benefiting" surgeries. FURTHER, the costs per medication, and per surgery or treatment are rock bottom compared to civilian costs, as insurance doesnt have a hand in the pocket, nor have the pharmeceutical lobbies managed to legislate no bid pricing on their drugs there yet, the way they have on civilian meds. Plus there is the freedom from frivolous lawsuits, as you cant sue in the military. All those things work to minimize the costs of basic treatment for service men and women, and i didnt hear any complaints while i was in as EVERYONE got taken care of for every little thing. Keeping in mind, this was the air force, so im not sure what the other services were like.

posted on May, 3 2009 @ 01:25 PM
reply to post by pexx421

I was USAF, as was my father. I come from the home of Brooke Army Medical Center, the "Walter Reed" of the South.

VA-style care is not what BHO intends. If it was, he'd just adopt the program and open it to the genreal public.

You as the "client" get your choice of care. Cost is not part of the equation.

Obama has consistently described his proposal (which no one has yet seen) as an additonal "third-party payor" system in which the gov't is a payor competing with private insurers.

Did you see my link to his NYT Magazine interview? Obama states clearly that some care must be rationed, and the some outside party must make the determination of what care is permitted!

Go back, or go directly to and read for yourself.

This is not anything like VA care.


posted on May, 3 2009 @ 02:29 PM
I understand that Jdub, and i do not like his plan, or the one hillary tried to implement.

However, that has nothing to do with my post. As many others do, you have obviously confused obamas plan (third party payer), with Socialized medicine (which is what i mentioned above). The two are pretty much diametrically in socialized systems, the means of production are owned by all the people, not a small group of massively wealthy individuals, and any profit that does happen to result is divided among the populace.
All our proposed "socialist" medical systems, however, still keep one thing in common....a third party group or groups (insurance companies, and big pharma) who stand to make massive amounts of money from sick people in desperate need. Not "socialism" by any stretch....corporatism actually....which is another name for "fascism"

posted on May, 3 2009 @ 04:26 PM
Not only should he go after health insurance but all "essential" services such us gasoline, natural gas, electricity, any other types of insurance such as automobile should be forced to become non-profit or become nationalized. If they become non-profit everyone would win, our prices drop drastically and businesses well stay in business.

posted on May, 3 2009 @ 04:26 PM
reply to post by pexx421

I know what you said about socialized medicine.

However, that is NOT what Obama has proposed. His own words speak for themselves. He envisions "a group that will make those choices." That is, the choice between expenditure of funds for care versus efficacy of treatment or the "value' of treatment viv-a-vis the status of the recipient.

The countries that have implemented their own versions of "socialized" medicine (e.g., UK, Canada, Mexico, France) do not make very good examples.

Each of the foregoing countries' programs feature variations of rationed resources and treatment.


posted on May, 3 2009 @ 05:50 PM
Obama's healthcare is NOT the solution...


Everybody In / Nobody Out!!!

Single Payer Action . Org

To hell with the health care corporations. I care about them as much as they care about us, none at all. Don't let their love for your $$ confuse you, you mean nothing to them other than MO'MONEY!

I would love to roast marshmallows in the flames of their establishment burning.

[edit on 3-5-2009 by Animal]

posted on May, 3 2009 @ 09:56 PM
You know what's interesting about this? We have laws in place today to end the fraud and abuse in the Insurance industry without socializing anything. It is unbelievable how easy it is for the people in power get away with crap like this. We just have to enforce these laws and kick powerful lobbies OUT of Washington. Cut that money off, government of, for, and by the people should not be subject to sale. And such frauds and treason should be exposed and called what it is.

The insurance companies are in on this too. Where do you think the government is going to get the consumer base, and the real estate to run their Health Care program? I'm willing to bet that it's most costly, and "vital" operations will be largely held secret for various reasons. I see this as inevitable only because of design. The insurance industry has been relatively quiet, barring a few voices.

Of course, ownership of health care will eventually lead to ownership of your records, your genetic sequence and makeup, your entire life. you must SERVE TO BE A CITIZEN. Because they now own you.

This is fascism on steroids. But there are ways of surviving it. A lot of it means keeping your mind free, even if you conform to the bubble, and make only small waves.

posted on May, 3 2009 @ 11:50 PM
Well, naturally, i mean we have laws in place to prosecute and limit all kinds of fraud and abuse. The problem is that in our system, it is those with the most money that PUSH what we decided to investigate and prosecute, and they are certainly not going to regulate themselves. In fact, often the legislation is pushed, BY THEM, to limit the publics ability to know whats going on, and to limit how much we are able to do anything about it.

posted on May, 4 2009 @ 03:30 PM
Originally posted by projectvxn
Of course, ownership of health care will eventually lead to ownership of your records, your genetic sequence and makeup, your entire life.

Too late! Obama's 'Stimulus Bill' will allow, if not encourage "digitization" and sale of your medical records.


posted on May, 4 2009 @ 04:30 PM

Originally posted by projectvxn

This is fascism on steroids. But there are ways of surviving it. A lot of it means keeping your mind free, even if you conform to the bubble, and make only small waves.

excellent post, but i love this bit. making small waves is a lot. most of us aren't warriors. we survive by getting along. but we can keep our minds free and we can make small waves, in our own personal ways.

posted on May, 4 2009 @ 11:06 PM
reply to post by earlywatcher

I think it has been proven that small waves, over time, can merge with others to become giant, "rogue waves!"

Easy as it is to go along to get along, I think the islands of discontent are subtley growing. After enough time, the mass will become too big to ignore.


posted on May, 8 2009 @ 09:16 PM
You can't provide quality health care for all without somebody's ox being gored. In this case it will be the poor, poor insurance companies, which will have to find other ways of making big money, and Big Pharma, which will be forced to negotiate with the government over drug prices. I shed a tear for them both, but that's the way the old ball bounces.

BTW Animal is right. There is a difference between Obama's plan, which will still require either private or government subsidized insurance, and a single payer plan, which is what Schakowsky is advocating. The single payer plan is by far the best way to go. Think of medicaid and/or medicare, which are both programs that are run more efficiently and cost-effectively by the federal government. The fed can put caps on how much they will pay doctors and how much they will pay for medicines, and most doctors and phatmaceutical companies accept their terms.

Medicaid and medicare are both programs that are in place right now. The government could just expand these programs to cover everybody and cut out miles of expensive third-party interventions, like insurance companies, and other red tape. The framework is already there.

Definitely, the single payer route is the best one to take.

posted on May, 8 2009 @ 10:41 PM
reply to post by Sestias
Medicare and Medicaid "run more efficiently by the government?"

How is paying $17,000 many times over for equipment that cost $750 "efficient" management?

These are among the most corrupt and wasteful systems in all of Federal social services.

Have you seen the "scooter" commercials? $150 million covered for needless "aids" that can be obtained with a "telephone" consultation and Rx. Another federalized scam in the guise of "healthcare."

You could run a 200 page thread on the Medicare, Medicaid and SS scams, waste and fraud.

The only real solution is to put choice and the means to pay for ordinary care directly into the hands of the consumer.

Insurance may have a role in "catastrophic" losses (serious injury and disease), but not as it currently functions. A pool of funds, perhaps kept liquid by the Feds or the public (i.e., "nationalized" or "socialized") may be the solution.


posted on May, 10 2009 @ 09:11 AM
Pray you don't get cancer or any other type of life threatening illness. In America, if you have enough money you might live, if you are a average smuck, tough luck.

Doctors, hospitals, life saving drugs should not only be for the rich.


Below is a really good link to a man's website. His name is Richard Kelley and he wrote Deathstroke.

Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness are promised to all Americans.

Good, high quality medical care and education should not come only to the elite rich.

Did anybody ever stop to ask whether it is morally defensible that a society should organize itself so that there are massive profits to be made off of the sickness, suffering and death of its members? It seems to me that that very same society could organize itself to treat those same illnesses without having to devote an extraordinary share of its capital to the profit of those involved in the undertaking.

Consider how much of our health care dollars are not going to health care. Before Judy died, I was spending over $800/month on health insurance. Where did those dollars go? Let’s examine the dollars that did not go to health care:

1) Advertising: Because my insurance company is in business to make a profit, it advertises to attract more customers. So it spends part of my $800/month on advertising. That means:

a) That it pays some of my money to an advertising firm to create ads for both print and radio/TV commercials;

b) That it pays for space in newspapers and magazines to show their ads;

c) That it pays for air time on both radio and television to air their ads.

d) Profit: Each of these entities (the ad agency, the newspapers and magazines, the radio and television stations and networks) is in business to make profit. So a sizeable chunk of my $800/month goes to pay for things that have absolutely nothing to do with health care.

2) Profit for the Insurance Company: My health care insurance company makes money for its investors. So, like every business, a very big chunk of my $800/month goes to pay for “executive compensation” (the more profit that can be squeezed out of the system, the bigger the compensation). It also goes to meet the demands for return on investment of the stockholders. Not one of these dollars goes to buy a drop of chemo drug or even a bandage.

But more ominous than this, is what it causes an insurance company to do in order to maximize its profits. It has two options: 1) it can increase premiums, and/or it can 2) reduce what it pays out for claims. I have had the unhappy experience of being on the receiving end of 2) for the past three years.

My Experience: When you are confronted with a catastrophic illness like cancer, your “full time job” becomes immersed in treating the disease. What is not well known is that your other “full time job” becomes plowing through a mountain of paper in order to find out if your insurance company is actually paying your bills.

I had an MRI to screen for the recurrence of my cancer. It was the normal course of treatment for my type of cancer. The MRI was done in January. I received an “E.O.B” (Explanation of Benefits) form from my insurance company which listed the MRI. I thought it meant that the bill had been paid (after all, it came on a document called “explanation of benefits”). But in reality, there was a code on the form that, had I understood it, would have informed me that my insurance company was denying the claim (because the MRI wasn’t performed on the same day as my doctor’s appointment — -one of the many fine print exclusions under my policy). The problem is that my insurance company didn’t inform the MRI company that it was denying the claim until the end of May. The MRI people didn’t get back to me until late July. By then, my 6 month period for appealing the denial had passed. I went ahead and appealed anyway. A year later, after two rounds of appeal, the insurance company acknowledged that they should have paid the bill, but said that since my appeal was not timely filed, they would not pay it. And to rub salt in the wound, I had to pay the bill at the full rate, whereas, if my insurance company had paid it, the MRI company would have accepted 50% of the full price.

That was just one bill. For Judy’s three year ordeal, the denials came fast and furious. One example was particularly infuriating. When Judy developed headaches (a sign that the breast cancer had spread to her brain), her doctor ordered an immediate brain MRI. Because the hospital MRI was not available, they sent her to another MRI facility across the street from the hospital. My insurance company denied the claim because the MRI was not performed in the hospital. That one took a year and a half to resolve with the insurance company. Eventually, after three rounds of appeal, the company agreed to pay the bill under duress. They sent me a letter stating that they would pay the bill but admonished me not to allow it to happen again (as though I were some sort of a criminal policy holder).

My point is this: As a society, we have turned our medical care over to a system that is based on profit. I have come to see quite clearly that this produces a system that seeks to actively reduce its payments for treatment by 1) putting a mine field of fine print exclusions in the policy language, and then 2) refusing to pay claims and then hide that refusal behind outright deception and a wall of appeals that will exhaust even the heartiest of policy holders. All of this takes place because PROFIT encourages it. Indeed, PROFIT DEMANDS IT. Without profit, there would be no incentive to cheat the policy holder or deny the payment of his or her just medical bills.

President Obama said that his grandmother spent the final months of her life locked in a battle with her health care company over bills that they would not pay. Having just spent the last three years locked in the same battle, I wonder why our lawmakers are seeking to address the health care crisis by making sure that every American can afford insurance! I believe that this is the wrong solution. You can’t solve a crisis by pouring more gasoline on the fire. Unless and until we come to grips with the real source of the problem — -that a health care system that is based on profit will devour the country that employs it — -we will never find our way out of this swamp.

top topics

<< 1    3  4 >>

log in