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

page: 9
9
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 02:09 PM
link   
Another attempt at government run healthcare...



voices.washingtonpost.com...

In 2006, the state of Massachusetts required every single one of its residents to get health insurance, and every single one of its businesses to provide it. Otherwise, residents and employers would be fined.

Some have asked, as national healthcare reform works its way through Congress, is there anything we can learn from the Massachusetts experiment?

Yes, according to the state's treasurer, interviewed today on CNBC: Whatever you do, don't do what we did.

In a blisteringly frank interview, treasurer Tim Cahill laid out some jaw-dropping stats, which eviscerated the plan and excited every conservative's worst fears about government getting further into the health insurance business:

-- The program has so far cost 30 percent more than anticipated.
-- It already has a $9 billion shortfall projected over the next two years.
-- Costs have risen 41 percent since the program's inception, well outpacing the rise in healthcare costs nationwide, which stands at 18 percent.
-- We thought this program would mean fewer people would go to hospitals, which is the highest cost any insurance plan has to pay. In fact, fewer people are not going to hospitals.
-- A Harvard study shows 60 percent of state residents are unhappy with the plan. The most unhappy? Those whom it should be helping the most -- those making $25,000 to $50,000 per year.
-- To cut costs, the program is now having to kick out legal immigrants.


I see a common trend with all government run health care programs.

1. The cost is always more than what was projected.
2. Services promised initially, are withdrawn after the fact.
3. The ones the programs are designed to help get the biggest shaft.
4. More money is thrown at the problem, which only temporarily treats the symptoms, instead of correcting it.

[edit on 2-8-2009 by mhc_70]




posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 10:13 PM
link   
Failures have value in that they can be used as bad examples.

The point I keep trying to make is to not build anything using failure as a model. The only thing showing proof of failure does is prove that things fail and in no way helps the problem we are currently in. It's as though people want the system to fail, and by system I mean America because that is the direction we all are headed.

Everyone here can waste all of their time debating over an endless amount of failed examples while everything falls apart. I strongly urge that everyone think about success and bring up examples of systems that do work. If we built a system using success as a model than we create a chance to become successful. This thread seems to be showing how good people are at being failures.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 07:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Devino
Failures have value in that they can be used as bad examples.

The point I keep trying to make is to not build anything using failure as a model. The only thing showing proof of failure does is prove that things fail and in no way helps the problem we are currently in. It's as though people want the system to fail, and by system I mean America because that is the direction we all are headed.

Everyone here can waste all of their time debating over an endless amount of failed examples while everything falls apart. I strongly urge that everyone think about success and bring up examples of systems that do work. If we built a system using success as a model than we create a chance to become successful. This thread seems to be showing how good people are at being failures.


I agree completely.

I strongly urge you to show us a successful government run model we can compare Obama care to.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 07:46 AM
link   
Becasue its a free chioce yuor allwoed to make. This is america, land of the free ya know..well was..
At my retail job, a friend who invests in stocks opposes this obama plan, cause it means they wil be removing $30 more to cover this new health plan. And..someone else here had osted a thread about the fine print of whats in the package deal..and basically i loks like, in fine print of course..governemnt is gunna give you what they feel yuo need, nothing less or more. And, they seem to favor, if your really sick about o craok, their attitude seems to favor..hurry upn croak. thats why this lpan sucks.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 07:48 AM
link   
Everyone knows the government lies and nuetralizes people, and murders...and some feel comfortable now thier gunna be administering our neede meds?? NO WAY MAN@ this is almost just like Kevorkian (doctor of death) as yuor doc now, and is deciding what meds yuo gunna be on! as well as the dosage



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 01:37 AM
link   
So many of you are fear mongers, I can't believe it! For many years I went without health insurance, sick or well, and missed a lot of work because I couldn't afford to pay cash for medical attention, even tho I was working at the same job for many years. I'd have GLADLY paid $100 or $200 or even $300 a month to have been able to go see a doctor when I really needed to, and have had some help paying for prescriptions I could never afford.

Now I pay $1500/month with a very large deductible... and we're STILL paying over $6,000/year for out-of-pocket expenses, over and above the monthly premium and deductible. I'd GLADLY be willing to accept single-payer, government-backed healthcare; it surely couldn't be any WORSE... or any less expensive than what we're paying for now. I have three specialists, and NONE of them can agree, EVER, or anything! Under a government sponsored plan, I don't think I'd have the doctors squabbling amongst themselves, while I sit and wait 90 days for one of them to make a decision the OTHERS can agree with...

Healthcare, when provided to all Americans, won't be perfect, but that's why it's called "The PRACTICE of Medicine," folks. At least all Americans would be able to see a doctor when it's needed, and the cost wouldn't be nearly as much as I pay now.

[edit on 4-8-2009 by CynCritter]



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 07:43 PM
link   
Long time reader, first time poster... that being said, why the hell is it so hard to find the actual thread you want to respond to? This was actually in response to "In his own words" Obama wants to eliminate private health insurance, but since this is the closest I could find, I digress...

I work in health insurance. I would say that "for fear of my job" I won't say which private health insurer but since I can't stomach this nonsesne any longer it's Blue Cross/ Blue Shield of... well, pick a northern state often associated with gardens for reasons passing all understanding.

I understand why the government dipping it's hands into anything privately associated with the populace of this country is a bad thing due to incessant beurocracy and committee upon committee deciding what benefits to include, what to exclude and who should be covered up until what age. I also understand why for-profit health insurance companies are the bane of human existence... I once had to tell a provider that a patient's maternity benefits wouldn't be covered due to her pregnancy being considered... wait for it... a pre existing condition.

Neither one left of it's own accord could be trusted to do the right thing by all taxpayers... but maybe the two in competition could cancel out the other's greedy inadequacy and leave the American public with something resembling parity.

Let the government have it's public option (leave out the national/regional/state co-ops as they're paper tigers), and let big pharma sweat out the details. I hate to say it, but considering the fact that in Switzerland it's illegal for healthcare to be for-profit, this is the only option left to a purely capitalist society. There needs to be some form of nationalized public option in order to keep the greedy, money-hungry profit mongers who run the healthcare industry honest... even if that public option is only somewhat less greedy or beurocracy driven...

There is an option to be considered, either by private health insurance companies or the federal government which I haven't yet heard discussed... maybe it has, so I apologize if this is a re-hash. Captitation. With HMOs and providers, there exist cap lists... for each capitated patient for a given primary care physician, that physician's office recieves somewhere between $25 and $50 monthly... whether or not that patient actually goes to the doctor. Take such funding for rarely seen patients and put it into a public slush fund for your public option. There's at least 70% of the cost right there. Granted, such cap lists prevent providers for charging for certain services but at the same time, regardless of whether the plan is a B&E, HMO open access or PPO, if said provider has a cap list, they get paid for their patients whether they come in or not.

Just a few ideas, but as one who sees how broken the current system is from inside out, if there's nothing done the problem is only going to get worse. And if you truly have a problem with the concept of having some of your tax dollars going to a credible solution that helps level the playing field and keeping corporate insurance ponzi-scheme artists honest, then I feel a great swell of pity for you... especially since I work for these people, would support my tax dollars going to help fund it and as yet, can't even afford health insurance myself...



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Peruvianmonk
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


Level playing field was in reference to the U.K. Yes this bill will not solve all the inequality of the system but it will go some way. It may be a minority, but i belive it is 40 mil without insurance or adequete insurance, a pretty big minority don't you think?

I'm sure those with the money will still continue to see much of the same service they already recieve. There were the same fears about the NHS, that it would take away from those who already had the money to get coverage, yet there is still private healthcare in Britian which helps the NHS out and recieves help back, making it easier to treat patients.

[edit on 29-7-2009 by Peruvianmonk]

40 million without insurance is is only 15%. Do you wreck something for 85% of the population to help 15%? It doesn't make sense to me.

The details of the bill show it is more about expanding government control and power over the citizens than it is about improving health care or even paying for it.

As imperfect as our system is, no one dies for lack of treatment, unless they don't get to a hospital. No one does for lack of being able to pay. Where is the crisis?



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 08:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Legion2112
 


Well done (Star btw
) and thank you for posting a positive outlook on this mess. An intelligent, honest opinion from someone in your position does far more good for this issue then all of the negative and misguided rantings combined.

This problem is going to destroy America if we don't do something and even though it may be too late to change our coarse it's still much better to do the right thing on the way out.



[edit on 8/4/2009 by Devino]



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Devino
reply to post by Legion2112
 


This problem is going to destroy America if we don't do something and even though it may be too late to change our coarse it's still much better to do the right thing on the way out.




Thats absurd.

40 million people, 15% of Americans, don't have health insurance, but 40% of those make 50K or more a year.

They choose a new car, bigger house...its a matter of personal priority, not the destruction of America.



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Legion2112
And if you truly have a problem with the concept of having some of your tax dollars going to a credible solution that helps level the playing field and keeping corporate insurance ponzi-scheme artists honest, then I feel a great swell of pity for you


Here is another concept, spending tax money to improve heath care and education will also improve this nation socially and economically. With an improving economy we all make more money and have a better standard of living so we can afford to pay more taxes. If money is invested wisely in a system thus increasing the overall value it will return 10 fold. I have no problem paying more taxes so long as it's spent wisely.



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Devino

Originally posted by Legion2112
And if you truly have a problem with the concept of having some of your tax dollars going to a credible solution that helps level the playing field and keeping corporate insurance ponzi-scheme artists honest, then I feel a great swell of pity for you


Here is another concept, spending tax money to improve heath care and education will also improve this nation socially and economically. With an improving economy we all make more money and have a better standard of living so we can afford to pay more taxes. If money is invested wisely in a system thus increasing the overall value it will return 10 fold. I have no problem paying more taxes so long as it's spent wisely.


What part of the plan, and how is it different from previous attempts by the government, to make you so confident we will see all these wonderful benefits this time around?



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 06:41 PM
link   
In all honesty, I can't think of either entity (federal government or private health insurance companies) coming up with a "plan" that provides all these benefits... the benefits come when you have these two, how shall I say? "Idiot" conglomerates realizing that the only way they can compete with each other successfully is to cut out some of the beurocratic monopolization of their operations to streamline the practical application of their businesses. Case in point: prex. Obamacare wants to eliminate it. Big pharma makes their money off of it. Obamacare eliminates pre existing conditions in order to entice more people to go with a public option. Private health insurance in turn eliminates it in order to compete... or keeps it and raises premiums on existing subscribers, ensuring that they have no choice in the near future but to reduce wait dates, what qualifies as prex or foregoing it altogether to stay in business. I hate to put it like this, but two mentally challenged powermongers competing over the same space invariably creates parity. It's not that the government's plan (of which I've read most but not all) is better, it's that it's another option, period. Believe me, even though nothing has passed by the POTUS' desk with a signature on it, healthcare companies are scared even with the Blue Dogs and Republicans trying everything they can to stop it from going forward. So scared I would bet my miniscule salary on plans already in place to virtually eliminate pre-existing conditions (I know they only occur if you go from a large group policy to an individually funded or small group one, but still), insane in network supplemental deductibles or out-of-network deductibles as well as what makes basic and essential so very basic and essential that despite the monthly $400+ premiums they cover virtually nothing for anyone with a family. My opinion, but two morons figuring out how to competitively sell lemonade will at least get rid of the arsenic in it.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Legion2112
In all honesty, I can't think of either entity (federal government or private health insurance companies) coming up with a "plan" that provides all these benefits... the benefits come when you have these two, how shall I say? "Idiot" conglomerates realizing that the only way they can compete with each other successfully is to cut out some of the beurocratic monopolization of their operations to streamline the practical application of their businesses. Case in point: prex. Obamacare wants to eliminate it. Big pharma makes their money off of it. Obamacare eliminates pre existing conditions in order to entice more people to go with a public option. Private health insurance in turn eliminates it in order to compete... or keeps it and raises premiums on existing subscribers, ensuring that they have no choice in the near future but to reduce wait dates, what qualifies as prex or foregoing it altogether to stay in business. I hate to put it like this, but two mentally challenged powermongers competing over the same space invariably creates parity. It's not that the government's plan (of which I've read most but not all) is better, it's that it's another option, period. Believe me, even though nothing has passed by the POTUS' desk with a signature on it, healthcare companies are scared even with the Blue Dogs and Republicans trying everything they can to stop it from going forward. So scared I would bet my miniscule salary on plans already in place to virtually eliminate pre-existing conditions (I know they only occur if you go from a large group policy to an individually funded or small group one, but still), insane in network supplemental deductibles or out-of-network deductibles as well as what makes basic and essential so very basic and essential that despite the monthly $400+ premiums they cover virtually nothing for anyone with a family. My opinion, but two morons figuring out how to competitively sell lemonade will at least get rid of the arsenic in it.



I agree, but Obama has clearly said his plan will eventually eliminate private health insurance. If it was put in place to provide those without insurance an alternative to private health insurance I would be more open to consider it.

Also his plan does not address health insurance reform or torte reform, which in my opinion are the 2 main factors causing increases in health care costs.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by CynCritter
 





Now I pay $1500/month with a very large deductible... and we're STILL paying over $6,000/year for out-of-pocket expenses, over and above the monthly premium and deductible. I'd GLADLY be willing to accept single-payer, government-backed healthcare; it surely couldn't be any WORSE... or any less expensive than what we're paying for now. I have three specialists, and NONE of them can agree, EVER, or anything! Under a government sponsored plan, I don't think I'd have the doctors squabbling amongst themselves, while I sit and wait 90 days for one of them to make a decision the OTHERS can agree with...


So let me get this straight. You believe that a single-payer health system, with NO COMPETITION, no RECOURSE, if you don't like it, and the government deciding whether you can have cancer treatment or not, is going to cost less than $1,500 a month?

If so, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you!


With a single payer system, you're right- you won't have 3 specialists to take advice from. You may not even have one, because if the government decides that what you have is too expensive to treat, you're out of luck.

The 90 day wait bothers you. Then go to England, where some people wait one year for treatment, or to see a specialist with their government run health care.


You think your premiums to the government run health care system are all that you will pay? Wrong again. your taxes will go through the roof. Add those extra taxes to your government premiums, and you'll choke on the figure.

Be fortunate enough to reach Medicare age, and you'll find that no doctors will even see you, because Obama wants to cut the Medicare reimbursements to doctors drastically.

I pay $1,200 a month for health care, because I haven't reached 65 yet, and as bad as that is, I would never trade my health care for what the administration is proposing. It is truly Draconian.

READ the entire bill, then come back and post on this thread. If you're honest, you'll see why this bill is so dangerous. The truth will set you free.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Wildbob77
 





The people that don't have health insurance can still get treatment if they go to the emergency room. So, if they break a bone, it's not like it won't be taken care of for free.


This is very true. My husband got bit by a tick and ended up in a coma for ten days. We have no healthcare and were both out of work. After a lot of paperwork the bill was marked paid.

I would rather see programs like that for those of us who fall through the cracks and need major healthcare.

No one mentions the cost cutting accountants and the loss of research dollars. If there isn't the possiblity of big bucks for new innovations research.funding will to some extent dry up. Cost cutting may effect the supply of doctors too.



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 05:13 AM
link   
reply to post by mhc_70
 


Just to be clear I don't have confidence in our government and I have good reason to believe that the bipartisanship is an illusion. A lot of people I know want to believe in the system so badly it blinds them. I don't see a difference between blindly believing in a failing system versus focusing on this failure and its problems in a worthless endeavor to assign blame.

The only way improvement can happen is through positive contribution and inversely so with corruption, disinformation and negativity creating failure. The concept I was referring to in my post is based on the social programs and construction projects funded by our government between 1950 and 1980 that created the middle class. Since then corruption, disinformation and negativity has been destroying our country.

Debating over the level of corruption and how bad the effects are does not help in any way and is a type of disinformation when used as a reason to not improve the system. Since I know almost nothing about how private insurance works and I detest the lying and deception in politics I avoid these topics and focus on positive solutions. I don't mean ignore all of our problems, I think we all should to pay attention and see things for what they are but do not become consumed by the negative.


Originally posted by mhc_70
...Obama has clearly said his plan will eventually eliminate private health insurance. If it was put in place to provide those without insurance an alternative to private health insurance I would be more open to consider it.

I agree that this is not a good idea, the elimination of competition is a bad thing and if this is the goal then its purpose needs to be addressed.



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 06:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Devino
 


I understand your point and agree to a certain exstent. But given the title of the thread, the nature of the responses are going to be inherently negative.

I constantly hear people saying our present system is a failure and that simply is not true. 70-80%, depending on which poll you look at, of Americans are happy with the system as it is.



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 06:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Peruvianmonk
 


Not everyone is against the health care bill first of all. Those of us who oppose it just dont like the idea of the goverment telling us what doctor we can see or what care we are elligible for. How would you like it if your mom or dad was denied knee replacement surgery because they were old and would probably die soon anyway.America is in enough debt without providing every border jumper free medical care. There are free clinics in every city so if you cannot afford proper medical care, go to school, get a better job and quit expecting someone to hand you everything for free. Why would anyone want to even be a doctor with the government dictating how they treat their patients???



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 07:05 AM
link   
just to answer the topic ,

the belif that their current situvation is better
the belif that they will get less then what they now spend on it
the belif that tax money is to souly be spent on the military
the belif that medical people take an oath and not live up to it
the belif that only tax paying people should have acces to health care even thou the patien is a citizens.
the belif that healthcare is a political agenda

its your money , your health , your goverment , dont be a jackass





new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join