Ben Nelson Plans To Oppose Public Health Plan

Ben Nelson Plans To Oppose Public Health Plan

www.huffingtonpost.com

Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) said Friday that he will oppose legislation that would give people the option of a public health insurance plan. The move puts him on the opposite side of two-thirds of Americans.

(visit the link for the full news article)



[edit on 2-5-2009 by TheAssociate]

[edit on 2-5-2009 by TheAssociate]

Not even all Democrats agree that nationalized health care is a step in the right direction. Senator Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) opposes the steps being taken to implement socialized medicine. This is great news for those of us who oppose this.
Nelson says his reasoning is that the public plan would hurt private insurance, and this is definitely true. I say "thanks, but no thanks." I would much rather have my private insurance than bureaucrat mandated health care.


TA

www.huffingtonpost.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Originally posted by TheAssociate

Nelson says his reasoning is that the public plan would hurt private insurance, and this is definitely true. I say "thanks, but no thanks." I would much rather have my private insurance than bureaucrat mandated health care.

And I would rather have affordable health care that would actually pay up instead of putting up road blocks and fineprint BS when ever I file a claim.

I want the same type of health care that my elected Representatives have that my tax dollars pay for. Is that to much to ask. The VA is a bureaucracy and it works just fine. That's what the American taxpayer deserves instead of for profit health care. that doesn't work for most of the premium payers. Scumbags!!

[edit on 2-5-2009 by whaaa]

reply to post by whaaa

The VA is a bureaucracy and it works just fine

No disrespect, and thanks for the reply but,

Have you ever been to a VA hospital? Its nothing but red tape and the cheapest available care. This is not the kind of care i want. I agree that private insurance should be made to cover what the policy says they should but nationalized health care is not a solution to that problem. Star for the reply.


TA

Originally posted by TheAssociate

Nelson says his reasoning is that the public plan would hurt private insurance, and this is definitely true.

Well, we definitely know who's been paying off Mr. Nelson.

God forbid our precious private insurers, who play dollars and cents with people's lives, should lose some of their precious income.

Or did we all forget about this very relevant clip from Dr. Linda Pino?

It is a crime against humanity that the US has not had a top rate national health care plan in for years, and has forced so much suffering of its people. In fact this should be done for the world!

I really think that the neocons and their evil henchman scientists released this virus to make as much trouble as possible for getting a good health care plan in!

It's too bad the insurance companies are more interested in raising profits than helping people. There is a conflict of interest there.

Of course, if you are the insurance company, you are going to want to limit the amount of claims paid as much as possible. This affects the bottom line directly. They pay people to scrutinize claims looking for any little thing to be able to deny it.

I don't know why you would want to pay premiums for that type of system.

Originally posted by TheComte

Of course, if you are the insurance company, you are going to want to limit the amount of claims paid as much as possible. This affects the bottom line directly. They pay people to scrutinize claims looking for any little thing to be able to deny it.

Exactly, financial gains and people's lives DO NOT mix. We have a very backwards health care system and its really a joke that the U.S. is the ONLY wealthy industrialized nation without a universal healthcare program. Source

The link in my earlier post is to a video of a Dr. testifying before congress that she had let a man DIE, by refusing a medical procedure that she knew would save his life, because it would save Humana a few thousand dollars. She is extremely courageous to come forward in such a manner, but what's really sickening is that this sort of thing goes on all the time.

/Disclaimer: I am an evil, greedy Libertarian. If this offends you, you may wish to ignore this.

Nobody has a right to a cut of my income. Period. If someone truly needs of help paying for health care, there are charities out there. The American Tax Payer should be forced into making charity look like something it isn't.

If the government insists on instituting this program, let them cut expenditures elsewhere to facilitate it, instead of raising taxes.

I shouldn't be asked to "tighten my belt" when the government refuses to reciprocate. It's hard enough paying the bills that are rightfully mine. It would be next to impossible to pay mine on top of those of everyone else. Flame away...

Edit to add: The Constitution guarantees a right to life, not a guarantee of life.

/Disclaimer off

Thanks for the replies, stars for you all.


TA







[edit on 2-5-2009 by TheAssociate]

reply to post by drwizardphd


And the lobbyists for the private insurance companies lie and pay enough money to politicians to ensure that the system remains status quo.

ineffect.blogspot.com...

Some interesting bits:

Schwarter makes the charge the if the government intervenes in the health care crisis, it will surely lead to rationing as a means for cutting costs. This is ridiculous charge on its head considering that with over 40 million uninsured and countless more underinsured in the US today, the privatized American health care market already rations more than any other system in the industrialized world -- and our costs still are by far the highest!

Administrative costs -- which amount to 1/3 of the total cost for health care in the US -- go almost entirely to feed the myriad of private insurance companies competing in the US system.

A simplified consolidated payer system would streamline care to the point that these costs could easily be cut in half, which is the case for single-payer countries that still manage to afford universal care for their citizens.

reply to post by TheAssociate


It would just replace what you're paying the private company already, no? And, wouldn't it depend on how much you have to pay? If all it costs everyone is an extra $200 -$300 a year for unlimited health care no matter what, isn't that worth it? It would be if you had to undergo expensive cancer treatments or have re-constructive surgery after an accident.

[edit on 2-5-2009 by TheComte]

Originally posted by TheAssociate
reply to post by whaaa

 

The VA is a bureaucracy and it works just fine

No disrespect, and thanks for the reply but,

Have you ever been to a VA hospital? Its nothing but red tape and the cheapest available care. This is not the kind of care i want. I agree that private insurance should be made to cover what the policy says they should but nationalized health care is not a solution to that problem. Star for the reply.


TA

I have been to a VA hospital many times and i got a lot better care then the local hospital in my area.
The VA was able to DX a couple of the disorders i have that the local hospital was totally baffled by.
But then again the VA i go to is staffed by top doctors from UCLA.

I have been a EMT for over 35 years and from what i have seen in many of the hospitals i have worked out of the VA system is by far the best system.

The only hospital that are comparable are teaching University hospitals
But many VA hospitals are staffed by these teaching universities.


In 2006 i walked into the ER at my VA hospital having a heart attack and they had it stopped within 20 mins and I had a 5 way bypass surgery two weeks later and drove myself home 7 days after the surgery and have had no problems with my heart since.

[edit on 2-5-2009 by ANNED]

Originally posted by TheAssociate
/Disclaimer: I am an evil, greedy Libertarian. If this offends you, you may wish to ignore this.

Nobody has a right to a cut of my income. Period. If someone truly needs of help paying for health care, there are charities out there. The American Tax Payer should be forced into making charity look like something it isn't.

If the government insists on instituting this program, let them cut expenditures elsewhere to facilitate it, instead of raising taxes.

I shouldn't be asked to "tighten my belt" when the government refuses to reciprocate. It's hard enough paying the bills that are rightfully mine. It would be next to impossible to pay mine on top of those of everyone else. Flame away...

I am certainly not going to flame you, but what you described is not libertarianism. You are actually describing Fiscal Conservatism. Not that there is anything wrong with your point of view, but libertarianism really has nothing to do with the issue of healthcare.

You must take into account the full range of the political spectrum. At the Top is Authoritarianism. Opposite that, at the bottom, is Libertarianism. On the left is Liberalism, and to the right is Conservatism. Matters of government programs, spending and taxes apply to the left-right part of the spectrum. Matters of individual liberties such as what you can and cannot do, or what the government decides for you, apply to the top-down part of the spectrum.

To put this another way, I am a Libertarian Socialist. I believe in a very open and free society, with industry being in the hands of the people instead of the state or private industry.

You would be (and I'm of course assuming), a Libertarian Conservative. You would prefer an open and free society, with industry being mostly privatized (or in the hands of the state, if you are a nationalist).

To simplify even further, Libertarian Socialists are concerned mostly with social freedoms, such as the freedom for everyone to receive free and equal healthcare. Libertarian Conservatives are concerned with economic freedoms, or the "hands out of my wallet" approach.

reply to post by drwizardphd

You would be (and I'm of course assuming), a Libertarian Conservative. You would prefer an open and free society, with industry being mostly privatized

Yes, you're correct. I should've been more specific, but i had to slap that reply up quickly to throw in my 2 cents and thank the repliers. Thanks, another star for you.


TA



[edit on 2-5-2009 by TheAssociate]

Originally posted by TheAssociate

Nobody has a right to a cut of my income. Period. If someone truly needs of help paying for health care, there are charities out there. The American Tax Payer should be forced into making charity look like something it isn't.

Taxes are what you pay for civilisation. Period. Are you gonna keep your cash and build your own roads, be your own cop, get rid of your own sewage?

I don't think so.

As to public health...my cancer was cured for $35 CDN...maybe $28 US...out of pocket. Hard to find the conspiracy against God and Man in that statement.

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

Taxes are what you pay for civilisation. Period. Are you gonna keep your cash and build your own roads, be your own cop, get rid of your own sewage? I don't think so.

No, i'm going to pay a private company to handle my share (and nobody else's) of that, except for the police force. The only things that can't be privatized are the law enforcement. Taxes are a necessary evil but should be as limited as absolutely possible.


TA

Edit: thanks for the reply, star for you.

[edit on 2-5-2009 by TheAssociate]

As to public health...my cancer was cured for $35 CDN...maybe $28 US...out of pocket. Hard to find the conspiracy against God and Man in that statement.

As for that, that was $35 CDN that YOU payed, the rest was paid by someone else through either taxes or forced subscriptions to the public health plan (same difference, really).


TA

Edit: thanks to the person who flagged the thread

[edit on 2-5-2009 by TheAssociate]

Originally posted by TheAssociate

As to public health...my cancer was cured for $35 CDN...maybe $28 US...out of pocket. Hard to find the conspiracy against God and Man in that statement.

As for that, that was $35 CDN that YOU payed, the rest was paid by someone else through either taxes or forced subscriptions to the public health plan (same difference, really).

I don't have a problem with that...I pay my taxes so we Canadians have a good life...my fellow taxpayers do the same. You don't need to wonder if you can afford to see a doctor...you don't need charity to make it happen. If you prefer your way...then that's your choice. I hope it works for you...and I hope you're never disentitled for some reason.
Peace.

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck


You make some good points, and i respect your opinion, but i'm still not swayed from mine. This is a rather touchy subject, and i appreciate your (and all of those who posted) civility in the discussion. I meant to post earlier that i'm glad you recovered from your cancer. I'm a cancer survivor as well, and it is always heartening to hear that others have battle the same beast and lived to tell the tale, no matter how their costs were covered. Another star for you, and Peace to you as well.


TA

I'm not sure if anyone has pointed this out, but...

...America just spent hundreds of billions of dollars, on, of all things, bailing out its banking and financial system.

An amount of money that is currently being borrowed from China.

An amount of money that would pay for a decent public healthcare system several times over.

Coming from a country that has red-commie healthcare, I have to say, I really don't understand why a country like the US doesn't have a similar system.

Just today it was announced the Australian government will subsidize breast cancer and bowel cancer medicines, saving people about AU$60,000 a year, the cost of some of these highly specialized drugs.

Total net cost - AU$600 million.

By the same token, let's take a look at the amount thrown at 'stimulating the economy' (and money that I know personally is being taken by people while they holiday overseas):

AU$30 billion in cash handouts, and tens of billions in another spending.

What I'm trying to get at, the amount of money needed to offer people a public health safety net is phenomenally lower that what is being spent in encouraging people to buy junk from China.

[edit on 2-5-2009 by mattguy404]

I'm not for socialized medicine myself Im for allowing people to buy insurance from outside your state and Im for being able to import your medicine from places like Canada but I find it ironic these government officials who rail on the government insurance are at the same time USING that insurance for themselves. Why dont these government officials who dont like the government insurance cancel their policies and go buy private insurance then and save us taxpayers some money?

[edit on 2-5-2009 by tjeffersonsghost]