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.

 

"Outraged Calls to 'Keep Government Out of Medicare"

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 01:04 PM
link   
the link

While I have been making an effort to remove myself form the divisive political debate here on ATS I felt that this story was worthy of some discussion as it highlights a key issue with political discourse in the USA today. This issue is ignorance based on spin and hype hoisted onto the American people by corporations and their shills in the media and government.

The piece I want to present is:

"Town Hall Lunacy Includes Outraged Calls to 'Keep Government Out of Medicare,' When Medicare Is Government"



As the health care discussion has descended from contentious to surreal, there is perhaps one message that encapsulates better than any other the incoherence of those expressions of rage seen at town hall meetings across the country: "Keep government out of my Medicare!"

The incoherence isn't limited to the low-information rubes turning out at town halls either. Supply-side, "voodoo economist" Arthur Laffer cautioned during a recent interview on CNN, "If you like the post office and the Department of Motor Vehicles, and you think they're run well, just wait till you see Medicare, Medicaid and health care done by the government." And in a wildly convoluted interview on Fox News this week, RNC Chairman Michael Steele argued simultaneously that Medicare is an inefficient, deeply flawed program that must be protected at all costs.


This highlights what is taking place within the debate surrounding the poorly named 'Health Care Debate'. To begin with we are not talking about reforming health care in the USA, we are talking ONLY about reforming INSURANCE. There is no way to debate this as it is simply a fact.

What is happening though is highlighted by the latest attempt to make people believe that government will ruin medicare / medicade if it involves itself. Which is clearly a very confusing argument as these programs are pure government. They were never separate from government in any way shape or form.

The current crusade against reforming Insurance in the USA is being waged by the insurance industry and their media and political lackeys. Just like the Bush administration before them they are using FEAR generated through half truths and outright lies to scare people away from supporting this reform.

This can be clearly seen in how the debate has become the 'health care' debate and not the 'insurance reform' debate. It can be seen in the issue of 'death panels', 'waiting lines like in UK', the 'poor quality of care in Canada', and even in the 'keep the government out of medicare!'.

The debate is being poisoned with distortion and lies that detract from any real ability to have a coherent discussion. You see if the people are too busy trying to sort out what is reality and what is fiction how can they even address the issue at hand?

As a collective of above average thinkers I would have hoped that we too did not fall into this trap of distorted reality, but sadly myself and many others here have. Despite the motto 'Deny Ignorance' too many of us have been blinded by the media's 'kool aid' and have sadly joined the zombie masses if rioting over illusions.

It is long past time that those of us who fell into this trap woke up and joined the ranks of the living.

I encourage every member to try to look beyond the hype and realize the foolishness of the debate at hand.




posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Animal
 


My "objections" to universal care are quite simple and I don't need "hype" to make a point.

#1 - To many people would accept and fight for a "steaming turd" government healthcare plan without even fighting for something better.... "Just because" To me that is idiocy. If you want something good, get something good instead of settling for what crumbs are thrown to you.

I will settle for government healthcare when our prestigious elite leaders are forced to take the plan themselves! No exceptions (For those who don't know, Democrats voted overwhelmingly to EXEMPT themselves from the government plan when a vote was taken.) So good enough for you but not me isn't going to cut it.

#2 - For those who will still argue that Government Healthcare / Public option will be a choice, I call BS again. OK, IF you work your employer buys a health insurance plan from an insurance company... we don't get much choice on what we get.. we get United, Anthem, whatever company they have decided to purchase from that year... I can't say "I don't want United, give me Blue Cross" if it isn't offered, I can only choose "United" plans if United is the insurance company chosen by my employer. Now when the public option costs less than normal insurance, what to you think my employer will purchase? Do I have to explain this further?

#3 - If I am forced into this public option then damn the politicians trying to exempt themselves. If WE the people need to "sacrifice" or "join the club" then guess what.... So Should They. And if they will not then you are a fool if you support a government plan.



I don't care if we have public healthcare as long as it is as GOOD OR BETTER than what I have today!

And I do NOT believe that the current plans are BECAUSE the same Political representatives that are pushing this have VOTED to EXEMPT themselves from it!

Case closed... Until they put their money where their mouth is MOST of us are not going to believe a word they say..... (It's good enough for you but NOT for us... yeah ... I really want the "not good enough for you esteemed politician" plan!) Yeah, that's a winner alright... cmon, think about it!


Really, I am open to a "universal basic medical" plan for EVERYONE. But Let's do it right! Tort reform, Pharma price negotiations, sane costs controls, etc.

Once you start seeing ANY EXEMPTIONS for specific elite or favored groups you know that that a plan is BS. Point blank, if were going to have a "universal care" then it damn well better be "universal" because trying to ram a crap plan down the throats of the middle class while EXEMPTING yourselves is BS. Let's all bear the burden together if were going to do it at all! Anything less is another screwing to the middle class and we all know it.


All or nothing baby!!!

Don't try to make the rest of us "take one for the team" if your not willing to do it yourselves!

The same politicians who are pushing this on ME have VOTED OPENLY to EXEMPT THEMSELVES so... you know.... I think I will be against this one, start over and bring us a good healthcare bill this time!

[edit on 27-8-2009 by infolurker]



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Animal
 


Bill Maher says America is a Stupid Country
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Sheep will be sheep




posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by infolurker
reply to post by Animal
 


My "objections" to universal care are quite simple and I don't need "hype" to make a point.

#1 ...government healthcare plan...

I will settle for government healthcare...

#2 - For those who will still argue that Government Healthcare / Public option will be a choice, I call BS again...

#3 - If I am forced into this public option then damn the politicians trying to exempt themselves. If WE the people need to "sacrifice" or "join the club" then guess what.... So Should They. And if they will not then you are a fool if you support a government plan....
[edit on 27-8-2009 by infolurker]


There is NO GOVERNMENT HEALTH CARE PLAN ANY WHERE IN THE USA. PERIOD.

There is a proposal for INSURANCE reform but that is it.

Do yourself a favor, read about WHAT universal health care is. Compare that definition to the present bill and sort yourself out friend.



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by warrenb
 


thanks for the heads up warrenb, i'll check it out!



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 01:35 PM
link   
I find it sad that people are swallowing free health care without reading the bill to find out what exactly that entails. Oh it's free, that sounds good why would anyone oppose this, they must be nuts! No the nuts are the ones who support something without bothering to read the fine print and like to throw labels on those who oppose their ignorance.



[edit on 27-8-2009 by warrenb]



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Animal
 


Stop playing word games and be truthful. It is what it is and my points are 100% valid. Call it any name you want. The concerns of myself and many have NOT been addressed. And since there is nothing preventing employers from going cheap on a (whatever you want to name it public plan) then we who work pretty much expect to get stuck with it. If were getting stuck with it, it better be as good or better than what I have and if not then why should those who work get penalized while our fatcat politicians go out of their way to EXEMPT themselves from it? Thus, we must conclude that it isn't good if our esteemed politicians overwhelmingly voted against adopting it for themselves.


Any arguments or rebuttals to these concerns? Is there some information released that invalidates these concerns?

[edit on 27-8-2009 by infolurker]



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by warrenb
I find it sad that people are swallowing free health care without reading the bill to find out what exactly that entails.

[edit on 27-8-2009 by warrenb]


anyone who believe they are going to get anything for free has some issues.


Originally posted by infolurker
reply to post by Animal
 


Stop playing word games and be truthful. It is what it is and my points are 100% valid. If were getting stuck with it, it better be as good or better than what I have and if not then why should those who work get penalized while our fatcat politicians go out of their way to EXEMPT themselves from it?
[edit on 27-8-2009 by infolurker]


If your points are so valid why not show us some comparisons from your present insurance plan with this one?

Show us where #1 you will be forced to participate in the public 'option' and #2 where this form of insurance falls short of your present coverage.

do both of these and THEN your concerns become 100% valid.



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 02:06 PM
link   
So your telling me that the "public option" or whatever you want to call it is better then my private insurance? I am the citizen, we are the public, we are the voters, they serve us, we are not servants or subjects... The burden of "Proof" lies with those pushing the plan. The burden of proof lies with those drafting the bill TO and American Public in which they serve!

Until my concerns are invalidated with information to the contrary they stand firm.

#1 So, What prevents Employers from giving the public option to it's employees if it is cheaper for them? IF you work your employer buys a health insurance plan from an insurance company... we don't get much choice on what we get.. we get United, Anthem, whatever company they have decided to purchase from that year... I can't say "I don't want United, give me Blue Cross" if it isn't offered, I can only choose "United" plans if United is the insurance company chosen by my employer. Now when the public option costs less than normal insurance, what do you think my employer will purchase for us, the employees? Do I have to explain this further?

#2 - If I am forced into this public option then damn the politicians trying to exempt themselves. If WE the people need to "sacrifice" or "join the club" then guess what.... So Should They. And if they will not then you are a fool if you support a government plan. Don't try to make the rest of us "take one for the team" if your not willing to do it yourselves! The same politicians who are pushing this on ME have VOTED OPENLY to EXEMPT THEMSELVES. Let's all bear the burden together if were going to do it at all! Anything less is another screwing to the middle class and we all know it.

If it is so good, then why do they REFUSE to be part of it? Put your money where your mouth is or nobody will believe you.
_javascript:icon('
')







[edit on 27-8-2009 by infolurker]



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by infolurker
So your telling me that the "public option" or whatever you want to call it is better then my private insurance?


Yes, I am betting it is.



I am the citizen, we are the public, we are the voters, they serve us, we are not servants or subjects... The burden of "Proof" lies with those pushing the plan. The burden of proof lies with those drafting the bill TO and American Public in which they serve!


You don't even knwo what your plan says do you? Do you know who makes decisions about what you are covered for and what you are not? Do you know who creates the plans types you can choose from? Do you know who determines what is elective and what is necessary in your current plan? Do you know who determines what medicines are covered and which are not? Do you know what your personal obligation limit is per year? Do you know who will be making the decision concerning whether or not your serious illness is 'preexisting' or not? Probably not.

You see the burden of proof is actually on YOU.

They have shown you exactly what they are going to propose to you as a CHOICE you can make as an alternative to what you have now. You will still PAY for it. It will still do all the same things that your insurance does now but it was written to prevent you from getting 'dumped' by an insurer or employer because you are sick. It sets a LIMIT on how much YOU will have to pay every year to prevent you from going into bankruptcy like 60%+ of people who get a major illness in the USA do today.

So why don't you show us how incredibly BAD-BA-DUNK-A-DUNK your current insurance is and why it is superior to what is being offered as an ALTERNATIVE if you CHOOSE to subscribe. Tell us why others should not be able to make this CHOICE because you don't want to.



Until my concerns are invalidated with information to the contrary they stand firm.


Your concerns are the smoke the corporations and their shills have been blowing up your ba-dunk-a-dunk for the last few months. you've got nothing. you can't even stay on topic. you keep ranting about 'health care' when that is not even the issue. wake up mate, for your own good....



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Animal

Originally posted by infolurker
So your telling me that the "public option" or whatever you want to call it is better then my private insurance?


Yes, I am betting it is.



Yes you are betting it is? .. You are BETTING IT IS?? well GOOD for you!

That is an answer?

But you are not betting my life or those I care about because YOU have a "good feeling" about it. My arguments are now concluded because continuing is pointless. You cannot counter-argue the points because you have no answers to my questions.

And no sir, the burden of proof lies with the State in a free society. My concerns are valid and it appears they cannot be answered.

Thanks and have a great day.





[edit on 27-8-2009 by infolurker]



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by infolurker
 

My "objections" to universal care are quite simple and I don't need "hype" to make a point.
Thanks for making Animal's point.

There have been NO plans for "universal health care." Period. Yet you continue to perpetuate this myth. Why???


Until you can show me some proof, not speculation or read-between-the-lines theory, I will assume that you either don't know what your talking about or are intentionally lying. Either way, you pollute the stream of actual discourse with your misinformation.

I understand that you like your insurance, you don't want insurance reformed, and you think that a public "option" will be made "mandatory" for all intents and purposes.... FINE. All of that is legitimate concern and relevant to the dialogue. But, when you refuse to admit that the proposed insurance reform is not the same as "universal health care" you come across as one unwilling to engage in legitimate debate.

If your concern is that your employer will enroll you in the public option, then that may be legitimate, but that is between you and your employer. If you do not wish to take part in the public option, then you can go and buy as much private insurance as your heart desires. But you like it that someone else pays, right? But you should know that if your employer already supplies you with insurance than that employer should be able to negotiate the best bargain possible. You should also know, that as an employer myself, I pay for my employees insurance now, but cannot afford my own. This is not mandatory, but standard in my business. If the new policy becomes that it IS mandatory that I pay for ALL of my employees insurance, than I will need a public option to drive the costs down by being competitive with the private options.

As for Congress, they already have a similar plan. Your irrelevant demand that they all be willing to enroll in the public option misses the point of the reform entirely. The Federal Employees insurance program is a pool of private insurance policies that federal employees (CONGRESS included) can participate in, and choose from that pool which is best for their needs. The proposed reform would do the same exact thing for individuals not associated with the Federal Government, with one added choice - a publicly funded insurance option. There is nothing, I repeat NOTHING, in the bill which indicates that this OPTION will be mandatory for individuals, thus your crying about making it mandatory for Congress is irrational.

It would therefore appear that either you do not understand the terms, the economics, or the realities of the proposal. Either that, or you have a ax to grind for political reasons.



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 02:51 PM
link   
I was under the impression Medicare was government, but controlled by the corporates or lobbyists anway. So, how is that ever going to change?


Is it that we'll eventually see another type of deduction from paychecks for yet another insurance program besides medicare, medicaid, as now 'basic' healthcare?

Obviously, the money has to come from someplace and not just higher insurance fees for those who opt out or want better coverage.

Sounds more like auto insurance coverage to me with their basic and extended coverages. How is that different from the medicaid? Many doctors won't take medicaid. Many will still get the same preferential treatment they've always had.

Just throw the dog another dog biscuit.....made in China.


We need a preventitve health care system with cheaper or free testing. The abcense of proper labwork and testing is what's killing us.

The people need to decide, not the investors. The human race; Planned obsolescence?



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Artephius Abraxas Helios
reply to post by infolurker
There have been NO plans for "universal health care." Period. Yet you continue to perpetuate this myth. Why???


I don't care what we call it... let's go with "H" something... maybe H-Plan or Plan-H, wait... Preparation H would be a humorous name, let's go with that.. OK, just a joke but I thought it was funny. OK, on with the real issues:


I understand that you like your insurance, you don't want insurance reformed, and you think that a public "option" will be made "mandatory" for all intents and purposes.... FINE. All of that is legitimate concern and relevant to the dialogue.


Thank You, I am highly concerned because it isn't hard to see this coming a mile away. If it is cheaper for our employers to go with the "public option" then that is what we will get. It is a concern for me and MILLIONS of Americans who will get stuck with it unless we want to fork over an additional thousand a month (or whatever) to "Buy our own"... Should I say "thank you"?


If your concern is that your employer will enroll you in the public option, then that may be legitimate, but that is between you and your employer. If you do not wish to take part in the public option, then you can go and buy as much private insurance as your heart desires. But you like it that someone else pays, right? But you should know that if your employer already supplies you with insurance than that employer should be able to negotiate the best bargain possible. You should also know, that as an employer myself, I pay for my employees insurance now, but cannot afford my own. This is not mandatory, but standard in my business. If the new policy becomes that it IS mandatory that I pay for ALL of my employees insurance, than I will need a public option to drive the costs down by being competitive with the private options.


Exactly the expectation. Thus the conclusion that most of us will get stuck with the public option as it is predicted to be cheaper than private insurance. And If I am going to get "stuck" with it, It better be good or I'll scream foul like a stuck pig! And we should scream since our Federal Employee's program is good but will not be offered to us though we pay for their benefits with our tax money.


As for Congress, they already have a similar plan. Your irrelevant demand that they all be willing to enroll in the public option misses the point of the reform entirely. The Federal Employees insurance program is a pool of private insurance policies that federal employees (CONGRESS included) can participate in, and choose from that pool which is best for their needs. The proposed reform would do the same exact thing for individuals not associated with the Federal Government, with one added choice - a publicly funded insurance option. There is nothing, I repeat NOTHING, in the bill which indicates that this OPTION will be mandatory for individuals, thus your crying about making it mandatory for Congress is irrational.


Exactly, then why don't we have access to the "Federal Employee's insurance program?" Why the (real or perceived) sub-standard public option? Why have this option if the current system is great and works for Federal Employees? I know exactly why and so do you. Because it is good and will cost to much for us "common citizens"? Joy. So, I have to sacrifice while Federal employees don't? That pretty much is exactly the problem. Yes, I don't want to "sacrifice" more because I have a freeking JOB in the private sector... it is insulting. Hey Federal employees, you live off the taxpayers and you get better health coverage then the plebes do. See what I mean, it is not perceived as a "good thing" for most of us (who have full time Jobs with decent health benefits that is).


It would therefore appear that either you do not understand the terms, the economics, or the realities of the proposal. Either that, or you have a ax to grind for political reasons.


My axe to grind is simple... we get screwed. I do not believe the public option can be good if our leaders who are trying to push it on us are exempt and stick with their current plans (that we pay for but cannot have ourselves... screw that, we should all have this plan at the SAME cost as our Federal employees). Simple as that. Why would I support something that I believe is worse than what I have and settle for a steaming turd on a platter when we have a perfect federal employees program that we all should share in? Make sense?

I am sick of "taking one for the team" while our esteemed leadership only "take" for themselves.

Thank you for being honest and addressing the concerns / summarizing the issues. As an employer, I can see why the public option is a positive since we DO have a massive problem with our current insurance system that needs to be addressed and cannot continue "status-quo" much longer. I sincerely thank you for your post on the issues. I just want to make sure that we the "employees" don't take the shaft with this public option.




[edit on 27-8-2009 by infolurker]



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by infolurker
 



#2 - For those who will still argue that Government Healthcare / Public option will be a choice, I call BS again. OK, IF you work your employer buys a health insurance plan from an insurance company... we don't get much choice on what we get.. we get United, Anthem, whatever company they have decided to purchase from that year... I can't say "I don't want United, give me Blue Cross" if it isn't offered, I can only choose "United" plans if United is the insurance company chosen by my employer. Now when the public option costs less than normal insurance, what to you think my employer will purchase? Do I have to explain this further?



And that is the whole point, isn't it? If it were always going to be a choice, congress would not have had to vote themselves exempt.



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by infolurker
 

I don't care what we call it... let's go with "H" something... maybe H-Plan or Plan-H, wait... Preparation H would be a humorous name, let's go with that.. OK, just a joke but I thought it was funny.
That is funny!
Preparation H sounds about as accurate a name as has been tossed about, so why not? (I almost said "Lol, preparation H works for me" but thought better of it)


Thank You, I am highly concerned because it isn't hard to see this coming a mile away. If it is cheaper for our employers to go with the "public option" then that is what we will get. It is a concern for me and MILLIONS of Americans who will get stuck with it unless we want to fork over an additional thousand a month (or whatever) to "Buy our own"... Should I say "thank you"?
I'll admit I hadn't really seen it from this perspective, as I am looking more from the employer's side of things. But I know for myself, if the public option is inferior to the private, then regardless of costs, it will not be the option I choose for either myself or my employees. That may not do much to alleviate your fears, but I take it your employer already provides you with "good" insurance, so what makes you think that they will drop your good coverage for the public option just because it MAY be cheaper.

At this point there is nothing to indicate that it will necessarily be an "inferior" product. Quite the contrary, because it will be the standard bearer for no exclusions for pre-existing conditions, etc, it may be "superior." Either way, any theorizing on the quality of insurance the public option will provide, is simply speculation at this point.


Thus the conclusion that most of us will get stuck with the public option as it is predicted to be cheaper than private insurance. And If I am going to get "stuck" with it, It better be good or I'll scream foul like a stuck pig! And we should scream since our Federal Employee's program is good but will not be offered to us though we pay for their benefits with our tax money.
I couldn't agree more about it "better be good." Especially since as it is now, the public option will have to pay for itself by collecting premiums and providing competitive services. If it does not provide competitive services it will be a failure, and it will not last. If it is going to be soooo bad, as many claim, then why is it such a threat to private insurance options. It cant be both and inferior product, and a threat to your current plan (though your current insurance provider very much appreciates you believing that it can)!


...why don't we have access to the "Federal Employee's insurance program?" Why the (real or perceived) sub-standard public option? Why have this option if the current system is great and works for Federal Employees? I know exactly why and so do you. Because it is good and will cost to much for us "common citizens"? ... See what I mean, it is not perceived as a "good thing" for most of us (who have full time Jobs with decent health benefits that is).
This is an excellent question, which really should be closer to the heart of the debate. Why not model the reform EXACTLY after the Federal plan? Well, the only response I've seen that makes sense so far, is that the number of people and insurance policies the government needs to pool together for the reform is so much larger than the Federal plan, that the private insurance companies would have no incentive to change their policies regarding pre-existing conditions and other exclusionary practices, unless a control measure (like either co-ops or a public option) is inserted into the plan. Makes sense, but to be completely honest, I'm not so sure.

Either way, something has to be done, and likely needs to be done sooner rather than later.



new topics

top topics



 
5

log in

join