It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Why is 'everyone' on this board so against an expansion of Public Health Care in the U.S?

page: 5
9
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 04:15 PM
link   
The only thing the laissez faire capitalists have brought us the past 30 years is a redistribution of wealth to the upper 5 % of the population particularly the highest 1 % while destroying middle class jobs and income. Yeah something "trickled down" but is smells like piss to me and we are drowning in it!

Most of this "wealth creation" was based on criminal lies, war and bubble/bust economic policies ending in a trillion dollar bailouts given to the already wealthy creators of the mess. "Privatized gains and socialized losses" is their credo. They are socialists to the core when it comes to their money. Government subsidies for wealthy corporations are just fine with them. Even "Mr Bubbles" Alan Greenspan says he made a "mistake" thinking the markets could "regulate themselves".

This site can help you see through the lies and help you make an informed decision about who is really on your side.

Deconstructing the Right Wing Lies on the Health Insurance Bill

Here is a sample from the article:



Here are just a few very good reasons to hate ObamaCare:


• Page 22: Mandates audits of all employers that self-insure!



First of all, it starts on page 21, not 22, and it simply mandates a study of risk on the part of all companies that choose to provide self-insurance, to make sure they are capitalized properly. This is something that private insurance companies are required to do; it's to protect the consumer. Say you work at a company with their own health insurance system; how would you like to find out after you've received a $100,000 bill for a hospital stay, that the insurance pool can't pay the bill?



This is also important because when they can't pay the bills, then everyone else with insurance ends up picking up the slack. Got that? That's the reason health insurance premiums have more than doubled in the last ten years, and are scheduled to double again in the next ten, if nothing changes.



Anyway, why should companies acting as health insurance companies be allowed to operate under different rules than insurance companies? Isn't that unfair competition?



• Page 29: Admission: your health care will be rationed!



The section actually starts on page 26, and it's entitled:

SEC. 122. ESSENTIAL BENEFITS PACKAGE DEFINED.


There is absolutely NO section in there, from page 26 through page 30, that indicates rationing of any kind. Looking at Page 29 specifically, it contains a section called "Annual Limitation." A-HA! See? It's a LIMITATION! That's the same as rationing, right? Didn't they admit rationing?



Well, no. Because the limit is on the amount that people will have to pay out in cost-sharing, should the agency implementing the bill decide to use a version of cost-sharing. The limit is on how much a patient will have to pay, not a limit on the health care the patient receives.Watch how many times these tools bring up the "rationing" canard. It's almost as often as they mention ACORN. (I kid you not. Just wait.)



See what I mean when I say we have to watch these people, and check their "facts?"



• Page 30: A government committee will decide what treatments and benefits you get (and, unlike an insurer, there will be no appeals process)



The section on Page 30 establishes an advisory committee, and yes; they will decide which treatments and benefits you get. I'm unsure as to why this is a bad thing. I don't want my health insurance premiums going to Britney's boob job, even if I have private insurance. Which reminds me; does this bozo actually think private insurance companies don't have a list of acceptable treatments and benefits?



There is one difference here, though. The committee's recommendations will be published and the public will have access to them. Which means they will be able to offer input to the process.



Oh, and there is nothing here about "no appeals process." The Committee will simply recommend processes for implementation. Not only that, but varying appeals processes are laid out in detail throughout the bill. So, he lied about that...



• Page 42: The “Health Choices Commissioner” will decide health benefits for you. You will have no choice. None.



See above. The Commissioner will simply oversee implementation of the rules that are decided upon by the Commission. He or she will be responsible for making sure that everyone is held accountable up and down the line. Nothing in the bill gives power to a "czar," who will make health benefits decisions. The commission and the Secretary will make decisions on benefits as changes become necessary. Again; I'm not sure why this is a bad thing, except that right wingers don't seem fond of accountability.Well, unless we're talking about unskilled poor people who get welfare money.



• Page 50: All non-U.S. citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free healthcare services.



Now, when you read something like this, you half expect to see something mandating that non-US citizens be given "free health care."



The funny thing is, the word FREE only appears one time in the entire bill, and it is not coupled with the term "health care." People will be provided with a new health care choice, based on their income, to a certain extent. So we can toss that little red herring off the boat right away. NO ONE will receive free health care. I mean, unless they win some sort of sweepstakes or something.I guess that's possible.



No, the section the wingnut refers to is entitled:




posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jenna

Originally posted by Animal

perhaps you could elaborate?


I already did in my first post to this thread.



Originally posted by Jenna
Personally I'm all for helping those who don't have insurance get it, and last I checked that's what Medicaid and Medicare are for.


If Medicaid and Medicare are for those who can not afford insurance why are there 50,000,000 uninsured in the USA? Because the current system of Medicaid and Medicare does not allow for these people to receive coverage as they exist now.



The insurance I have is run by the government. I had the same doctor for years, until we got our new government-run insurance. Then I had to change doctors because mine wasn't covered, and lucky me had my choice of three doctors in my area that I don't trust.


The new Public option would allow you to choose you physician.

From the AMA:

First:



First, the AMA wants affordable health care coverage for all and all patients to have health insurance with subsidies for those who cannot afford it. The AMA wants patients to have choice of affordable health insurance options and insurance market reforms to make that happen. Patients should own their own health insurance with financing that can include their employer. And patients must retain the ability to choose their own doctor and be permitted to enter into private contracting arrangements with their physicians. Medical decisions should be made by patients and their doctors, using the best possible information.
link

Second:



1) House health system reform bill draws AMA support
In a July 16 letter to leaders of the U.S. House of Representatives, the AMA voiced its support for H.R. 3200, "America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009." This legislation, which House leaders unveiled July 14, includes provisions that are key to effective, comprehensive health system reform, including:

"The status quo is unacceptable," AMA President J. James Rohack, MD, said. "We support passage of H.R. 3200, and we look forward to additional constructive dialogue as the long process of passing a health reform bill continues."
link



I had a baby a few years ago and my OB had to code everything just right or my insurance wouldn't cover it. When it was time to have the baby the doctor and I decided to do a C-section because of my baby's size and the harm that could have been done to both him and me had I not had the C-section. Insurance didn't want to cover it until my doctor convinced them it was a medical necessity and not elective.


The same would have been the case with corporate insurance. They do not pay for ANYTHING they deem optional, that is a well known fact.



I also have a heart condition that wasn't diagnosed until after we got our government-run insurance. The doctor ordered a halter monitor to see exactly what my heart was doing. Insurance didn't want to cover it because apparently heart problems in a then-22 year old aren't that serious.


The outcome? They never paid? If so HR 3200 would solve that problem for you too as it ensures citizens get the care they require.



That is what some are all happy happy joy joy about getting for everyone. The kind where an otherwise healthy 22 year old can be on the verge of cardiac arrest for no apparent cause and insurance doesn't want to pay for tests to find out why so that it can be taken care of. The kind where the well-being of an unborn child isn't that important and they'd rather claim a C-section was elective.


They DID pay for you C-Section as you your self stated, and I wonder if they ended up paying for the Heart Monitoring as well.



But I should be happy about the government forcing that kind of care on the rest of the country? I don't think so. They can stick that healthcare bill where the sun doesn't shine for all I care.


They are not forcing THAT kind of care on the country they are forcing care that WORKS. That is why the American Medical Association is in SUPPORT of this bill.


yet the right-wing libertarian fringe ...


So out of curiosity, is it possible for you to respond without labeling people who disagree with you as right-wing libertarians? Name-calling and labeling people who disagree with you is entirely unnecessary. All it does is serve to further divide people and distract from the topic with partisan bickering.

[edit on 30-7-2009 by Jenna]

I am labeling an group that is clearly definable. A groups whose claims and actions are a collective movement, ill-informed and illogical, to prevent what they see as contradictory to their PERSONAL belief system. A group who ignores the FACTS and resorts to the use of questionable information and flocks to the call of their corporate political, and media masters. It IS partisan, that is clear. I am sorry if drawing a line bothers you, but it was the right-wing libertarian fringe that drew the line in the first place, being called on it should be acceptable to you.



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Peruvianmonk
That's the question i pose to you all. There seems to be a general consensus that helping millions of people who cannot afford to get health care is fundementally wrong. It seems to suggest that a as long as 'i'm all right Jack' kind of culture exists in the U.S.

Correct me if i'm wrong please, but surely helping those who really genuinely cannot afford health insurance get it is a great thing. No-one, i feel, should have to enter through hospital doors with 'can i afford this?' running through their head.

We have the NHS in the U.K and it is nowhere near perfect, trust me, but at least it is all inclusive and levels the playing field for everyone. ANd at the same time you can get private health care if you please.

I am not trying to interfere or tell you how to run your country, i just have trouble understanding the mentality behind this. Is it because of the economic troubles your country has, and you think you cannot afford it as a nation? Is it an idelogy against any kind of paternal socalistic role of the government?

Please let me know.


Would you trust Barney Frank to write your mortgage? Would you trust any one politition not under oath with anything they said about the energy, immigration, tax reform, the FED reform, Wallstreet reform, earmark reform?

These are the very people that we voted in office that swore an oath to uphold the Constitution of this country.

NOW DO YOU REALLY TRUST THEM ON HEALTHCARE AND IT BE TOTALLY IN THEIR CONTROL?

Our forefathers have rolled in their graves at this point.

Eye of Eagle



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Peruvianmonk
 


Tax level low?

They tax income, resulting in about 25-35% going away for it, especially if you work over time!

They got sales tax.

Property tax.

There is just so much I do not even feel like continuing. Not to mention the tax on gas, ciggs, etc.

By the time you spend your "check", making decent money (lets say 1,300 including over time), at least 50% goes to taxes.

Should be about 20%, if not less by the time you are through with it...

Just goes to show you how much money they waste.

Of course, if you make almost nothing, you are barely taxed out of your check...but once your income starts climbing just enough, BAM!

SO. My point? Healthcare will be another tax that only helps the poor, when they already get ridiculous amounts of help if they actually go for it.



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 05:23 PM
link   
The OP appears to be european, and so, does not understand the differences in public perception of the 'state' between europe and the US.

Europeans mostly see the state as a means to provide the services that the citizens want. They believe that the state can do things cheaper and better than private enterprise, and they are mostly right.

Americans are more divided, but you can argue that they mostly see the state as a bureaucracy designed to spend as much money as possible of other peoples money on politicians and their grand ideas. They are mostly right.

The difference is that europeans are culturally inclined towards individualism in a collectivist setting, whereas americans are culturally inclined towards individualism in a cleptocratic setting.



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Animal
If Medicaid and Medicare are for those who can not afford insurance why are there 50,000,000 uninsured in the USA? Because the current system of Medicaid and Medicare does not allow for these people to receive coverage as they exist now.


Because those programs need to be fixed. A complete overhaul and reworking of the entire healthcare industry is not necessary to fix Medicaid and Medicare.


The new Public option would allow you to choose you physician.


That's what I was told about the insurance I have now. Lo and behold, I can choose any doctor except the one I trust.


The same would have been the case with corporate insurance. They do not pay for ANYTHING they deem optional, that is a well known fact.


I hardly think a C-section to keep an unborn child from being harmed during delivery counts as optional.


The outcome? They never paid? If so HR 3200 would solve that problem for you too as it ensures citizens get the care they require.


No they didn't actually. I just paid it all off not long ago. I got the care I required, but my wonderful government run insurance didn't pay for the very test that helped my doctor diagnose me which directly led to me receiving the care I needed.


They are not forcing THAT kind of care on the country they are forcing care that WORKS. That is why the American Medical Association is in SUPPORT of this bill.


I'm very impressed that the organization that originally campaigned against Medicare in the 50's and 60's, and attempted to keep it's members from working with HMO's in the 30's supports this bill. Really, very impressive. Unfortunately, I don't base my opinion on someone else's opinion, not even an organizations opinion. I base it off of what I see and what I know.

When other countries with this type of care have waiting lists for procedures we can get done much more quickly here, I hardly think you can claim that the system works.


I am sorry if drawing a line bothers you


The only line you're drawing is the one where anyone on the other side of it is automatically wrong and worthy of being labeled simply because they don't agree with you. Call it what you like, doesn't change what it is.



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Jenna
 


you say medicare / medicade needs to be overhauled to provide care for the 50,000,000 uninsured. How do you propose this be done, and if you are going to take on such a huge task in offering this care why not offer it to ANYONE interested in option out of the corporate racket?

What I find most interesting about your opinion is that you seem to dislike government health care so much yet you subscribe(ed) to it. how telling.

ignore all the facts seems to be your MO here. you base your opinion on grievances from the past yet you ignore all the changes this bill proposes.

i enjoyed you bringing out the staple 'waiting for procedures' argument that the right-wing libertarian fringe loves to use as a fear tactic. it is interesting to me that the USA is ranked #37 in the world for quality health care and those countries that are so often touted as the perfect example of public health care gone wrong are ranked so much higher than us.

perhaps you should start providing SOLID proof that this is the case an such a system will in fact cause us to sink below the #7 mark rather than raise us above it.

you are a perfect example of my critique of the right-wing libertarian fringe. dogmatic to the end.

[edit on 30-7-2009 by Animal]



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Animal
you say medicare / medicade needs to be overhauled to provide care for the 50,000,000 uninsured. How do you propose this be done, and if you are going to take on such a huge task in offering this care why not offer it to ANYONE interested in option out of the corporate racket?


I say it needs overhauled because it does. Many people can't afford insurance and it seems to me that costs can be lowered without forcing government into the mix.


What I find most interesting about your opinion is that you seem to dislike government health care so much yet you subscribe(ed) to it. how telling.


Yeah, because I don't have a choice at the moment. Once I do have a choice it'll be a different story, but for now I don't. Does that somehow discount my opinion?


ignore all the facts seems to be your MO here. you base your opinion on grievances from the past yet you ignore all the changes this bill proposes.


Because I'm fully aware that what the government intends isn't usually how it end up being. I'm not that naive sorry. They can't even be trusted to keep sensitive information off the internet or control their spending, yet I should trust them to control healthcare?


you are a perfect example of my critique of the right-wing libertarian fringe.


Well now there's a surprise.



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Jenna
 





Because I'm fully aware that what the government intends isn't usually how it end up being.


Corporate influence is responsible for this. Until we get Congress to change how how elections and campaigns are run....by taking out corporate influence with campaign contributions and making it completely public funded.

If each person in this country were charged a 5 dollar tax per year that would equal 2 billion dollars to have for elections and keeping corporate money/influence out of our government.

Until we fix this nothing will change.

It's vital.



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Peruvianmonk
 


How about because it is unconstitutional?

Nothing in the United States Constitution grants government the power to use OUR money to fund healthcare for others.



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by David9176

If each person in this country were charged a 5 dollar tax per year that would equal 2 billion dollars to have for elections and keeping corporate money/influence out of our government.


I agree. Politicians are too deep in the corporations pockets to do anything aside from what they're told. I'd be more than happy to pay 5 dollars a year to fund elections if it would keep the corporations out of it. Heck I'd pay 50 if it meant that politicians worried about the people instead of making sure they keep the people funding them happy.



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by TheAftermath
 


Constitutionality is very debatable.Emphasis in bold is mine.

If I was a betting man, I think Congress would use the below as justification for Health Care for all.


Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States;


www.law.cornell.edu...



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 08:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Jenna
 





Heck I'd pay 50 if it meant that politicians worried about the people instead of making sure they keep the people funding them happy.


I would too...hell I'd pay even more than that to get someone to back the people. I really don't see any other way of fixing this. Any piece of legislation that passes in our government will continue to be tainted by corporate power and the elite until we change this.

I wish the hard political left/right would see it. They refuse to let it go. If we don't come together on this no one will get what they want. I can accept laws that pass as long as they are legit and the American people actually want them...the problem is no one gets what they want. Everything is crap and favors those already well off....in the meantime the middle class continues to disappear...yet we still have people defending the most powerful with all the money.

It makes no sense to me and I can't defend it anymore and I was wrong for ever doing it in the first place....but at least I admit it.

I wish others would as well and look at what they are defending and what they believe in...and who it truly benefits...



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 09:11 PM
link   
reply to post by David9176
 



I can accept laws that pass as long as they are legit and the American people actually want them...the problem is no one gets what they want. Everything is crap and favors those already well off


It wouldn't be quite so bad if the politicians actually bothered to read the bills they keep passing instead of just reading the title and which party sponsored it. That in itself would go a long way. It certainly wouldn't fix it, but at least then there would be a chance that someone might say "Wait a minute, this doesn't really sound like that good of an idea."

And someone needs to find the Good Idea Fairy that's buzzing around Congress and shut her up. That would help a lot too.



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 09:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Jenna
 





It wouldn't be quite so bad if the politicians actually bothered to read the bills they keep passing instead of just reading the title and which party sponsored it. That in itself would go a long way. It certainly wouldn't fix it, but at least then there would be a chance that someone might say "Wait a minute, this doesn't really sound like that good of an idea."


They won't. Those 1000 page bills are written by political staffers who are heavily influenced by lobbyist. No politician is writing these bills...they don't even make their own personal biographical books that long for cripes sakes...lol.

It's all sham and we've got to stop it. Until then all of our gripes and ideologies mean nothing. There will never be a real left and right until this is fixed.

But this is truly why both sides feel like government doesn't work for them....because it doesn't.



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 09:39 PM
link   
I'm wondering if the OP is not a seminar poster? A progressive in UK/Euro civilian clothing?
"Evil insurance and drug companies"??? Questions as to why would we ever want to pass up such a Utopian health care system?? Evil free market, "poor" illegal aliens...Progressive talking points abound.

Many great answers and a good talk that has proved why there is much that is bad about this health care bill, but.....I'm just sayin..


[edit on 30-7-2009 by Daytomann]

[edit on 30-7-2009 by Daytomann]

[edit on 30-7-2009 by Daytomann]

[edit on 30-7-2009 by Daytomann]

[edit on 30-7-2009 by Daytomann]



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 10:16 PM
link   
Why?
Because its the land of the greed,(big pharma, insurance,etc)
home of the fraid'. (Oh, no it will never work!)
We enjoy medical bankruptcy anywho!

You are right, it wont work here.
Because.....all together now, same-o same-o, from the top.
Land of the needy, home of the grave?
Its always something. But common sense.



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 11:13 PM
link   
reply to post by jam321
 


The general welfare clause has been twisted, raped, and bears no resemblance to its original intent.

That being said, no court has ever found "the general welfare" to include healthcare, nor will they ever.


More people have health insurance than dont.

If you are injured, you can walk into an ER and get treated whether you can pay for it or not.

General welfare means just that: General, as in the whole, not the individual.



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 11:30 PM
link   
reply to post by TheAftermath
 



That being said, no court has ever found "the general welfare" to include healthcare, nor will they ever.


I don't think any court has ever the general welfare not to include healthcare.

other than the above I agree with everything else you said. All I was saying is that Congress will try to twist it to their advantage.



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Peruvianmonk
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 
As for blaming everything on illegal immigrants, forced to look for work outside there own countries as a result of the pushing of the free-market ecnomy on their countires by sucsesive U.S administrations, get a new record, cause i just broke that one.

40 mil does not include those who do not have comprehensive insurance, but don't worry, your alright Jack.

Well said...This is a result of Bill Clinton's signature on NAFTA and is also a part of Reaganomics. Sell all of the manufacturing jobs overseas and open the boarder to illegal immigrants so they can flood what's left of the American job market. The hypocrisy of exploiting these illegal workers to undermine the American job market and then use the problem of illegal immigration as a political wedge issue was too much for me to handle. It wasn't until G W Bush's mass deregulation policies, that has all but destroyed America economically, did the flood of illegals subside (no more jobs for anyone).



Originally posted by Wimbly
Public Housing:
Goal: To provide cheap housing to those that can't afford it at taxpayer expense.
Result: Sending in SWAT teams on a regular basis to clear out the drugs, gangs, and prostitutes. I'm not sure what the costs are, but I'm quite confident they've gone up, not down. And all we have to show for it is another generation of couch potatoes living off the government tit.

You forgot to add that public housing creates jobs for construction workers, and the SWAT teams lol. The best way to spend money collected from the tax payers is employing these tax payers to build stuff like hospitals, schools, houses and roads.

Criminal behavior and poverty are not genetic, add suppression in there and I would agree that there is a pattern at least. Give people something to work for and be proud of and watch crime rates drop.


Originally posted by Wimbly
Public Retirement (aka Social Security)
Goal: To provide retirement for all the people
Result: This system will collapse(it's really a ponzi scheme), when, around 2020(the exact data isn't important) or something like that? Costs have skyrocketed, and services(and payments) are being cut.

Reagen replaced America's social security fund with an IOU that has yet to be repaid, put back what has been taken and social security will live on long after we are all gone. Social security funds are for retirees and not to fund terrorism in the middle east.


Originally posted by Wimbly
Public Education
Goal: To provide education opportunities for all
Result: Costs(such as college tuition) ha ve skyrocketed and the standards have fallen apart. We spend more per student/per year than any other industrialized nation on earth yet....How many US students can't find Mexico on the map?

Failure is not in the idea, for the idea is sound, but failure is in our leadership. Guess what president decided government paid college tuition was a bad idea.

The one thing Reaganomic politicians have done very well over the past 30 years is to prove how many ways they can make government not work.


Originally posted by Wimbly
Public Health care(Medicare & Medicaid)
Goal: To provide health care to the poor and elderly
Result: Cost explosion and service are far below what would be considered adequate. Why are there so many "supplamental" insurance programs out there? To date Congress has never been able to rein in spending or accurately forecast costs of this program

The goal of public health care would be to provide health care to the public and since this has not happened the results today are from the failed system in place.

By following the actions of what has taken place up to this point it is obvious that the goal is to bankrupt the American economy under cover of mass disinformation. I am truly amazed on how many people are deceived and cannot see this.

The goal remains the same in my opinion, ignore the disinfo bs and work for Education, Health Care and Retirement for everyone!




top topics



 
9
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join