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.


Health INSURANCE Reform, not Heath Care Reform???

page: 1
<<   2  3 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 02:40 PM

Health INSURANCE Reform, not Heath Care Reform???

Health insurance is fundamentally about peace of mind. If you have good insurance, you don't have to worry about an accident or sudden illness. You know that whatever happens, you and your family will be taken care of.

We can't eliminate all disease. But through health reform, we can give every American access to quality, affordable health insurance so that if they do get sick, they have the best chance possible of getting better without bankrupting their families.

The current health-care system gives insurance companies all the power. They get to pick and choose who gets a policy. The
(visit the link for the full news article)

posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 02:40 PM
I realize that quoting a MSM newspaper article by the Secretary of Health and Human Services is bound to get me in trouble around here, but I really think the debate has been intentionally twisted, and it all starts with what we call it.

This is why I think one of the biggest problems facing the debate right now is as simple as the very name given to that debate, "Health Care Reform." If my understanding of the proposal is correct, and I've done extensive reading and have watched both sides closely, then I think it would be better named "Health Insurance Reform."

The problem with calling it Health Care Reform (HCR) is that it implies a government take over of hospitals, doctors and nurses. I know there's been a lot of scare tactics used by the insurance companies to prop that notion up, and there's quite a number of people out there convinced that that is what is in store. But I'm not so sure that's the case.

Based on what Obama has said (and I know some of you will automatically not trust anything out of a politicians mouth, and usually I would agree), the goal is to provide coverage for the 40 million Americans without health INSURANCE. The proposal is to pool together options from the private health insurance industry and by pooling them be able to collectively bargain with those private insurance providers for cheaper prices. In addition the plan calls for the Government to fund a public INSURANCE option which will be among the private options available. This is quite simply not the same as Government take over of health care.

Maybe using the controversial analogy Obama used yesterday can help illustrate my point. I’ve tried to explain Obama’s Post Office analogy in other threads, but it never seems to get through to the people who want to twist it into something it’s not. In the analogy the role of the public option is played by the USPS, and the Private options are played by Fed Ex/UPS. The analogy is simply that the post office will not bankrupt UPS and thus the public option will not bankrupt the private health insurance industry. Thus, concerns that Government can't run a business (USPS) are made moot, because if in fact, as is often claimed, the Government option will fail, then no problem. People can still use the private options (Fed Ex/UPS) they have pooled together for us. Further, if you already have coverage you like, you can continue that option. The only thing a public option can do, is drive the cost down by making sure the private industry keeps their prices competitive.

Furthermore, the post office may be the poster child for government inefficiency in many people’s opinions, but I'm actually not convinced. Think about it, you buy a stamp for 42 cents and drop a letter in your mailbox, and within few days that letter is in the mailbox of your friend on the other side of the country. That's not too shabby if you ask me. But I get it, the private carriers are better. OK, so what, if you've got the money and you want to use, go ahead no ones stopping you. So why do you think it's so important that I not be allowed to use the Post Office if that's my decision. Same thing with health care

The biggest problem is the insurance companies, and they will do anything - lie, cheat, steal, probably even murder - to keep you riled up against health INSURANCE reform. I don't trust the Government either, hell, that's why I'm on this site. But, that doesn't mean we should reject every single idea that comes out of Washington. Instead we should look at what they are offering, and question it with due scrutiny.

I'm self employed and have huge student loans, so I can't afford good health insurance. I was in the Navy for 8 years so I use the VA, and to be honest, I've never had a problem with bad service. I know there are people that have, but I'm not one of them. But, if there was a plan that allowed me to have the same insurance my girlfriend has (a State Employee) I would love it. It would make room so some other, more needy, veteran wouldn't have to wait in a line for me. So why is it that so many people are up in arms about my opportunity to have health insurance when it is not socialism, is not government take over, and does not effect them? Why? Because the insurance companies have lied to you good people, and have rightfully pissed you off. But I'm sorry, they are liars.
(visit the link for the full news article)

posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 03:15 PM

So why is it that so many people are up in arms about my opportunity to have health insurance when it is not socialism, is not government take over, and does not effect them?

How can it not effect them if they are helping to pay the subsidizing of 40 million Americans?

I'm all for helping uninsured get insured. However, in return I want to see a written guarantee that the other 260,000,000 Americans will see savings in their premiums and health cost.

Think about it, you buy a stamp for 42 cents and drop a letter in your mailbox, and within few days that letter is in the mailbox of your friend on the other side of the country. That's not too shabby if you ask me.

The 42 cents doesn't include the tax money USPS gets to run its business.

You make some good points. But it is hard to convince people that this is good for America when our own politicians fail to read what they are proposing. Maybe if they had taken the time to read the bill, they could have better articulated what the bill is really about.

IMO, it is just a big pile of mass confusion at this point.


posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 04:33 PM
reply to post by jam321

I agree completely with the assertion that not reading a bill before it is passed is insane. But right now there there are at least two Bills, the House Bill and the Senate Bill, and several version of each of those that are still going through committee. I would hope that when the Bill is finalized and ready for a vote that everyone would take the time to read it, and yes, hopefully articulate what is actually in the Bill as opposed to the speculation and misrepresentations we have seen up to now.

As for subsidizing the 40 million uninsured, the administration has guaranteed that it will not sign any version of the Bill which does not pay for itself. Methods of making it self sufficient are mostly what the debates within the committees has thus far been all about. But, if you take Obama at his word (and again, I admit that's a mighty big if), then your request for a guarantee has already been met (albeit it is not yet in writing).

And yes, I must admit, the Post Office does not pay for shipping cost with proceeds from stamps alone, but that wasn't really the point. The point is that they are not as worthless as some people would have us believe. But as a long as you bring the topic up, it may be relevant to point out that the public option would also have to be self sustaining through collecting premiums and providing competitive services.

I'm really not trying to convince anyone that this is the right Bill or the right form of insurance reform, but rather I'm interested in an honest dialogue about the true pros and cons of insurance reform in general. It seems that most of what I have seen in the threads the past couple of weeks has been wild speculation, unjust fears, and misrepresentation, all of which tends to support the one group most undeserving of such support in my opinion... the insurance industry.

posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 04:56 PM
The problem with Obama is that so far he is been promising to much and we all know that he is not going to deliver.

So far that is exactly what he has done since taking office, lots of promises but nothing done.

And if you are old enough to have been through various presidents, that is what they are good at, promises and deception.

If they were so good at what they promise our nation will not be facing an economic crisis right now.

Never trust what it comes from the mouth of a politician.

posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 05:12 PM
I agree that the appropriate term should be "health insurance reform." It's all about giving Americans adequate coverage for their health care needs, not setting up a National Health Service like England's. Japan, for example, has adopted this policy of universal health INSURANCE (everybody is covered) and most of the Japanese I have encountered are satisfied with it.

In addition to keeping the health insurance companies honest and offering competitive rates, health insurance reform will help lower the costs of medical care. If a health care provider charges too much, they run the risk of not being reimbursed beyond a certain amount by the insurers. Medicare and Medicaid work this way already. A health care provider may choose not to accept Medicare or Medicaid plans, but most do, as these programs provide a lot of business for them.

Drug companies, also, have an incentive to keep their costs within reasonable bounds, as they also run the risk of not being fully reimbursed for drugs that are covered in people's health care plans. They will still make a profit, just maybe not the astronomical ones they are getting now.

It's not a perfect plan. There will be lots of mistakes and "do-overs" once a bill is passed, but kinks can be ironed out as they are discovered and acted upon.

posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 05:14 PM
reply to post by marg6043
Blind faith in a politician, political party, or any one political ideology is a very dangerous thing in my opinion. So I agree that it is indeed foolish to trust politicians in general. However, I still contend our cynicism towards the political arena, while certainly justifiable, should not force us to believe that nothing good can ever come from government.

Every president makes campaign promises and every president breaks those promises. But that doesn't really apply here, not yet anyway. Obama has made the promises, and is in the process of attempting to keep one of them. Shocking as that may sound to most of us, I think it may be true. That doesn't mean I think he'll keep them all, and to be honest I don't want to keep them all, I don't agree with about half of what he says anyway.

But should we really be saying that since presidents and politicians in general are liars and charlatans that we want the entire process to grind to a halt out of the unreasonble fear of what if? Personally I can't agree with that. The puppet show must go on, so to speak. I just want to make sure I'm watching to see who's pulling the strings.

posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 05:16 PM
When all else fails just call it something else.

Sooner or later they will find a name the American people like.

posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 05:22 PM
reply to post by Artephius Abraxas Helios

Washington is owned by interest groups, any bill that is been proposed including the health care reform or health insurance reform is been plague by hundreds if not more than a thousand lobbyist trying to get their version of what they want.

Still most bills are no even written by our own for the people elected officials so at the end we don't even have a clue of what we will be getting after the whole deal is done.

Always loopholes to cover butts as things do not got the way they were intended will come out of the bill.

We may even end getting another disastrous entitlement program like the Medicare and Medicaid, still you have to pay for it even if you never will have any use for it, after all somebody has to pay for such an incredible expensive bill, yes it is going to be very expensive something that the politicians pro the bill are not telling.

We all know that we need reform but when big pharma and the insurance industries accounts for most of the lobbying power in Washington . . . well . . . we may end up been taken for suckers.

posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 05:37 PM
I wish I could give you 50 flags for this thread! Very well-said and I agree with you!

Unfortunately, the liars have very loud voices... And too many people are just looking with suspicion for something to dislike. I can find nothing to dislike about this proposal so far.

People complain that this new government health insurance will have a panel that decides what coverage you get. Well, yeah. Every insurance company in the nation has a panel that decides what's covered and what isn't.

And like I have been saying, this now proposed plan won't affect 90% of us anyway as we already have insurance. The proposal is for coverage for those people who DON'T have insurance, not everyone in the country! LOL But from some of the stuff I'm reading here, that's what a lot of people think - that they're going to be forced to take this government coverage! LOL I thought the members here were smarter than that...

posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 05:47 PM
reply to post by marg6043
You make valid points about the real source of power in Washington lying with the lobbyist. But again, using that logic alone, we should completely shut down all forms of Government. Now, if that were possible or in any way-shape-or-form feasible I would be all for it. Since it is NOT, it is not the solution. Therefore, if we can't simply do nothing, and we know what we have is not working, then what is a viable solution? I don't have all the answers, but it appears to me that one side of the debate has offered an option, and the other has only offered excuses as to why we can't trust politicians.

Washington is, as you say, owned by the interest groups. But the insurance industry is among the largest of those interest groups, and insurance reform would go a long way towards lessening their stranglehold.

posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 05:50 PM
Perhaps the question is Who is going to pay for the reform anyway it comes, so far nobody including Obama has come out with a definitely response of how he is planning to finance his health care venture.

That should be a reg flag of things to come.

posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 05:50 PM
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
I'm pretty sure ATS members are smarter than that as well. Sometimes it's just hard to tell where the truth is coming from. We all play the fool occasionally, and sometimes it's hard to see it coming. Hopefully honest debate can open some eyes around here, and if not...well, at least we can say we tried to deny ignorance.

posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 05:50 PM
By the way, The White House DOES call it Health Insurance Reform, not Health Care Reform.

posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 05:52 PM
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
Maybe that will do some good. I really think that's a more representative name anyway.

posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 05:59 PM
reply to post by marg6043
I think this may shed some light on how they propose to pay for it. As I've said before, it requires us to suspend our disbelief and trust that what he says is his actual intent. But, without a modicum of trust the entire process would grind to a halt.

posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 06:05 PM

Originally posted by marg6043
Perhaps the question is Who is going to pay for the reform anyway it comes, .

Who's Going to Pay?

President Obama proposed to limit itemized deductions for wealthier Americans, a move he said could raise substantial revenue. Elise Gould, PhD, director of health policy research for the Economic Policy Institute, says that large cost savings from more efficient health care delivery could also help cover the costs. “I also think the House bill has a pretty good solution, and that is to add a surcharge on people with high incomes,” said Gould from her Washington, DC office. “Above $350,000 there is a certain percent that goes up from there that wealthier Americans would have to pay, and that would go a long way toward paying for health care reform.”
From Gould’s perspective, offering a plan that competes with private insurance has no downside and succeeds in giving Americans more options. “In the individual insurance market, and in the small group market, there is little to no competition, and that is one of the problems that has led to high costs for small businesses and individuals,” says Gould. “A public option would put a check on the problems with insurance businesses. It would be an option that does not have a profit motive, and an option that would foster health system reform. It is really a win-win. If people like it, it will grow. If people don’t like it, it won’t grow and it won’t be effective.”

Right now, we're paying for people who can't afford insurance with our taxes. We're paying for their emergency room visits, for public hospitals and clinics, and other government programs. And not only that, many hospitals are using outdated methods that will cost less once updated.

I honestly don't think the government is the villain here (in this specific case), the insurance corporations are...

posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 07:42 AM
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

We are also paying for Medicare and Medicaid out of our pay checks as entitlement programs, unwillingly and regardless if we may use it or not.

That is how the government makes sure that a substantial income tax is allocated to pay for those two programs the target the middle class.

Embedded in the "health insurance reform" is a very tricky item that ask for access to peoples bank accounts.

Trust government? I rather not and remind skeptical been skeptical all my life (or a least for since I can remember).

I can guarantee and make a big prediction my friend, health insurance reform will become a reality and it will be passed after all the same way that the controversial bailout for the nations wealthiest and too big to fail banks (nothing more than to keep the wealthiest wealthy) was passed regardless of what the people want it or not) you remember how we fought here for awareness, but it was beyond our power as the people.

Then taxing the wealthiest, so far is all talk and not action no bills has been proposed to address that issue as yet, I can bet on that one also no bills will target the wealthiest in the nation when they already have the government to back them up with tax payer money for their financial failures.

Because after all they are untouchable and have enough wealth to buy lobbyist in Washington.

Now The ones to fall for the tax is the so "call wealthy by poor in the nation standards that makes more money than them" actually the middle upper class, the job makers and job generators because a nation that lack industrial base all it have left is small business owner to generate employment.

Obama very clear said that he will not raise taxes, that he will not add to the deficit, well you can not launch a big venture like a big reform and not need funds to do it, in a nation that depends on bailouts to keep the economy going, well . . . that pretty much raise another red flag.

Will the money comes from the Medicare and Medicaid programs, no as Obama also said he will not change them.

As unemployment keeps raising the tax revenue keeps falling.

The bill will pass, once is passed we will see how deep the mess will be.

I guess me personally will like to see reform but reform that will not come out of my pocket.

BTW good thread Artephius Abraxas Helios.

I am not angry because the reform to be pass but because uncertainty of things to come is what we should all be worry about.

Also already in CNBC yesterday groups that deal with communication technologies (the so call controversial chips ) were very positive about the the health insurance reform bill because they see a door for their technology to become necessary.

This is just one of the many interest groups that are looking to benefit from bills like this one.

Perhaps in my conspirator's mind I see the government having their government insurance covered people having conveniently under the skin chips to make medical records more easily accessed.

Now that is my own personal opinion after seen CNBC interviews with groups that specialize on this type of technology.

[edit on 13-8-2009 by marg6043]

posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 08:00 AM

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I can find nothing to dislike about this proposal so far.

How about increasing the deficit by another $239 million just over the next ten years? (CBO Cost Estimate for H.R. 3200 bottom of page 2) The estimate is just for the bill, it doesn't include anything else that will increase our deficit. I know another $239 million is just a drop in the bucket compared to our current deficit, but I for one certainly don't think we should be adding to it right now.

posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 08:01 AM

Originally posted by marg6043
Embedded in the "health insurance reform" is a very tricky item that ask for access to peoples bank accounts.

They will only have access to your bank account if you sign a paper saying that they can take your payments out of your bank account. I just signed one for the gym. They take my membership fee out every month. People do EFTs (Electronic Funds Transfers) all the time. If you don't want it, you don't sign for it.

But yes, there is a provision to set up an account that way. But they need your explicit permission, just as every other EFT needs your explicit permission.

Please Read This

new topics

<<   2  3 >>

log in