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.

 

Privately, Barack Obama strongly pushing "public option"

page: 5
3
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by carewemust
reply to post by Mak Manto
 


If an average of 2,392,000 die each year in the USA and 45,000 of them
don't have health care (health insurance?), what is the point you're trying
to make? (See: wiki.answers.com... )

Personally, I don't see the need for a Government Health Insurance plan
to "keep the insurance companies honest" as Prez Obama likes to say.
Is he assuming that they are honest and he wants to keep it that way?
That's what it sounds like. If so, there are many ways to keep them
honest via regulations. Regulations work for our banking, food, and
other important industries. It sure would be cheaper to impose and
enforce regulations on health insurance companies than it would be
to set up a huge new government department. That's a no-brainer.
-cwm

[edit on 7-10-2009 by carewemust]

The point I'm making is quite simple; get rid of private health care altogether.

Every developed country in this world has universal health care. Why do you think the United States health care standards are #37 on the WHO's list of countries?




posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 11:54 PM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 



It's obvious that you do not understand the "pre-existing exclusion." My ex had cancer in 1985. Given a 5% survival. Med-mal caused a misdiagnosis and it had progressed unchecked. She HAD insurance and it didn't prevent the misdiagnosis.

She recovered, luckily. She has moved and had 3 employers since then. She has obtained insurance each time, no problem. Every policy had a "p-e-c exclusion." She's had 3 recurrences. All covered. All by different insurers.

How? Simple. The pre-existing condition exclusion applies to conditions you suffer from or have been treated for in the past 2 years. If you FAIL TO DISCLOSE such care or condition, your policy may be canceled for YOUR "MATERIAL MISREPRESENTATION." You lie, you lose.

Tell the truth, you have to wait a year or so and it "kicks in" for the old stuff. Everything else is covered from DAY ONE.

This keeps thieves and liars from skating by without care or insurance, who then get sick, fill out an application, lie, and hope some "big corpoiration" will pay for their own stupidity. If you're honest, the pre-existing condition doesn't hurt you.

Thus, your premise is false and your argument a "red herring."

Do you honestly believe that...?

Let me give you a story...

This was given to Obama, and you probably know of it about the Texan woman who had breast cancer. Now, she had insurance, and was going to get a double mastectomy.

Why did she lose her insurance? Because of acne she had in the past and her weight being wrong...

Do you understand where that pre-existing clause is at? It's insane, and it's used by insurance companies to weed out thousands of people...


Since when can you predict what will happen to non-existent hypothetical people under plans that do not exist yet?

Let's return to reality: No insurance carrier I know, have been insured by, fought for, or fought against, ever asked an applicant for financial background information.

This is an outright lie.

You misread my point. The point I'm making is that low income families don't make much in the first place. Do you think they'll get a better plan?

No, they won't...


"Low income families" qualify for GOVERNMENT-subsidized health care (the BEST kind, right?) in every state. Children of such families get even more GOVERNMENT-subsidized programs from birth!

Aren't you contending that GOVERNMENT programs ARE the best? Then, "low income families" get it, don't they?

Of course I'm saying that government health care is the best, but you've never tried to go under medicaid, have you? It's hard, AS OF RIGHT NOW. With universal health care, all people can get the same health care.

But if families are thrown out of better plans because of their status, it's just sick and wrong...




The Constitution of the United States prohibits discrimination due to status or origin. PERSONS have Rights under the Constitution, not CITIZENS.

ALL government programs, State and Federal, can not legally deny care to ANY PERSON by reason of their ethnicity, status or origin.

You might want to talk to someone who passed high school government about this.

And, they're THE BEST programs, right? Outright lie no. 3.

(By the way, this makes all the Democrats who say "the government option will not cover aliens" liars, too, doesn't it?)

Oh, you mean WHEN THEY GO TO THE EMERGENCY ROOM?

Yeah, everyone is given that right. But what happens if a child of an illegal alien is found to have cancer, or needs a new heart? I've been hearing on here that it'll get done no matter what, and if you do say that, you're dead wrong.

You're not given a new heart if you need it. So, why not, JDub? If a child of an illegal immigrant or just anyone who doesn't have health care insurance and is trying to get onto medicaid fails, they die, correct?

Arrogant...

You've been blinded...



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 11:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by carewemust
 
No. You've missed the point. Each policy contained a "pre-existing condition" exclusion such as was described of by the poster.

She was covered because she was honest in her application and asymptomatic for extended periods between occurrences.

Group coverage is LESS expensive than individual. It's just a matter of spreading the risk.

I've negotiated and purchased both.

jw


But, should someone be thrown off their insurance when they need it if they fail to report a case of acne that they had? Or how about a case of gall stones that they forgot about?

Foolish...



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by uaocteaou
 



Okay, I'm going to just say what a lot of people have PM'd me....

You are suspected of being an agent of DISINFORMATION, attempting to further the agenda of the health insurance lobby.

Is this true?


You know it's not true.

But I know it is true about YOU.

YOU are posting disinformation yourself

"Anonymous DOJ Blogger Campaign Attacks Media and Critics"
Friday, October 2, 2009

muffledoar.blogspot.com...

So now we know who you are and what your motivations are. Why don't you start ADDING to this thread, instead of of wasting space?

jw

[edit on 8-10-2009 by jdub297]



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 09:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Mak Manto
 

Let me give you a story...

This was given to Obama, and you probably know of it about the Texan woman who had breast cancer. Now, she had insurance, and was going to get a double mastectomy.

Why did she lose her insurance? Because of acne she had in the past and her weight being wrong...

Do you understand where that pre-existing clause is at? It's insane, and it's used by insurance companies to weed out thousands of people...


Did you know that "story" is A LIE! The "woman" went on to get all her benefits and her treatment. She survived another 5 years before she died from a DIFFERENT condition.

Look it up, genius, instead of spouting false propaganda. I'm "calling you out" on this.

You take everything Obama says as the words of the messiah. He lied.
Want the truth?
Robin Lynn Beaton, 59, of Waxahachie, Texas had her insurance suspended because she failed to own up to a previous heart condition and did not list her weight accurately.

In Beaton’s case, the insurance company opened an investigation after her visit to a dermatologist and just before her scheduled breast cancer surgery, forcing postponement of her operation almost on the eve of it. The earlier problems on her enrollment form were discovered and her coverage was canceled.

Rep. Joe Barton, Beaton’s [conservative] Republican congressman in Texas, assisted her in her appeal and the insurer restored her coverage, enabling her to get the surgery 10 weeks after it was postponed. She told The Associated Press she owes Barton and his aides her life.

Get your facts straight, if you want any credibility.

But you don't, and I know why:

"Anonymous Obama Blogger Campaign Attacks Media and Critics
Friday, October 2, 2009

muffledoar.blogspot.com...

YOU are a disinfo agent!

I've got you pegged.

I'll be watching you, Fed.

jw



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 09:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Mak Manto
 

But, should someone be thrown off their insurance when they need it if they fail to report a case of acne that they had? Or how about a case of gall stones that they forgot about?

Foolish...


Is that a Freudian self-description there?

Someone should be "thrown off" for a FALSE "material representation"
because that affects risk.

If you ever fill out an application for insurance, you are specifically asked a"laundry list" of previous diagnoses and recent treatment. It includes things like "gall stones" and "heart disease" but not usually "acne."

Some liberal bloggers' adoption of propaganda and inability to understand reality is mind boggling.

And "foolish."

Deny ignorance.
jw

[edit on 8-10-2009 by jdub297]



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 09:59 AM
link   
www.msnbc.msn.com...

I just posted this on another healthcare related thread. It's relevant to this debate as well. It's a TV clip from last night, and while supporters of the insurance industry might as well avoid wasting time on it, the folks who know that we need real reform may find a suggestion toward the end of the short clip that will interest them.

I, personally, believe that the American public is in a war with the health insurance industry, and that a full-blown insurgency that results in the elimination of this industry is the only real method of protecting our society from this menace. That said, there are other ways of destroying this industry that do not involve violence. One way is to defame the reputations of every single individual that takes a paying position within this industry. As we can see in this clip, this effort has begun, and will continue to grow as the sins of this industry multiply - which they most certainly will do. By this time next year, I don't see any healthcare insurance industry professionals being able to feel comfortable in polite society. Not if the US media has anything to do about it.

However, there may still be time for the rank and file that work within this industry to wake up and force change upon it from within, for their own personal and professional sakes. After all, with a resume that may soon end up being equated with that of a porn actor, or a drug dealer, a healthcare management professional may want to protect his/her professional options by restructuring what this industry represents to the American society that they'll be forced to deal with for the rest of their lives.

It is, after all, their choice. They are the corporation after all. It's their own futures, and the futures of their children, that they are building as they show up to the office each morning.

[edit on 8-10-2009 by NorEaster]



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by dizzie56
Im not exactly sure what your saying here. Are you saying that you had a procedure done to your daughter and two nurses were in attendance and you got billed for it? If that is the case, how is it the insurance companies fault? If that is the case, you need to take that up with the doc and or hospital and find out what their policy is on such matters.


That's the thing. It's nobody's fault -- it's a retarded system as a whole.

I understand that the insurance company enters into contracts with providers and vice versa. Hospitals may choose providers they want. The net result is that though I am supposedly "covered", in many cases I'm not! Not sure if the hospital needs to tell me whether this particular nurse who gives me an IV is participating in the plan -- but this just demonstrates sheer insanity of the existing system. Which is super-expensive to the boot, not in the least because it's inefficient because of all that incredible bureaucracy.



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 10:14 AM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 
I think insurance and government have a place in healthcare, but only as backstops for catastrophic illness and accident s that would overwhelm averasge people.

For routine care, basic preventive services, maintenance and minor injuries/illnesses, people should be able to selct from competing providers with their own tax-free dollars.

A doctor in New York tried this and was attacked by liberal press, organized health care, and the State of New York for unfairly competing. He offered such services for a small monthly fee, like a subscription, and was CRITICIZED for it!

"NY regulators frown on doctor's flat-fee system"

Dr. John Muney is negotiating with state insurance regulators to maintain the system he arranged with patients who pay $79 a month for unlimited office visits

www.crainsnewyork.com...

THAT'S the problem with American health care.

jw



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by dizzie56
Im not exactly sure what your saying here. Are you saying that you had a procedure done to your daughter and two nurses were in attendance and you got billed for it? If that is the case, how is it the insurance companies fault? If that is the case, you need to take that up with the doc and or hospital and find out what their policy is on such matters.


That's the thing. It's nobody's fault -- it's a retarded system as a whole.

I understand that the insurance company enters into contracts with providers and vice versa. Hospitals may choose providers they want. The net result is that though I am supposedly "covered", in many cases I'm not! Not sure if the hospital needs to tell me whether this particular nurse who gives me an IV is participating in the plan -- but this just demonstrates sheer insanity of the existing system. Which is super-expensive to the boot, not in the least because it's inefficient because of all that incredible bureaucracy.

We've really lost control when we EXPECT or rely on others to make our health care decisions for us. It makesn no sense for us to pay for purely defensive practices caused by others' malpractice and the legal industry's exaggerated response to it.

I thinklarge providers, insurance and government have a place in healthcare, but only as backstops for catastrophic illness and accidents that would overwhelm average people.

For routine care, basic preventive services, maintenance and minor injuries/illnesses, people should be able to selct from competing providers with their own tax-free dollars.

A doctor in New York tried this and was attacked by liberal press, organized health care, and the State of New York for unfairly competing. He offered such services for a small monthly fee, like a subscription, and was CRITICIZED for it!


March 04, 2009 2:20 PM
"NY regulators frown on doctor's flat-fee system"


Dr. John Muney is negotiating with state insurance regulators to maintain the system he arranged with patients who pay $79 a month for unlimited office visits

www.crainsnewyork.com...

THAT'S the problem with American health care.

jw



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 10:30 AM
link   
as of 2009, all senators salaries go up to 174,000 dollars a year. that represents the top 5% of the wage earners in this country. therefore, all republican senators should be required to pay all of their medical bills out of their own pocket through private healthcare companies.

if the republican senators insist on the rest of us doing this at salaries or wages far less, then they are hypocrites. put their money where their mouth is, or shut the hell up.

[edit on 8-10-2009 by jimmyx]



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 10:39 AM
link   
Well if this true I am veyr happy to hear this, but I wonder what will be the restrictions on the public option, so far is falling short of competing with the corrupted private health care in the nation.

I can not wait to see the big private companies CEOs sweating their profits to keep up with government run health care.

What a shame in this Nation when private entities mandate what we do or not because of profits.

But I am still against anything in any of the bills in congress that is forcing the public to support any private entity by mandate, like I said before and I know many will agree with me, this is highly unconstitutional, not tax payer should be forced into supporting anything private.

[edit on 8-10-2009 by marg6043]



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by jdub297
I thinklarge providers, insurance and government have a place in healthcare, but only as backstops for catastrophic illness and accidents that would overwhelm average people.


Define catastrophic! A condition that is not life-threatening has all the potential to send my family into bankruptcy. Can you imagine the bureaucracy that will decide who's catastrophic and who's not?

The system needs to be simplified to get efficient, and universal coverage (which every sane country has) is the best way to achieve this.

Look, if you are flush with dough, nobody will object if you go and choose your providers and type of procedures etc (including plastic surgery etc).



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 10:45 AM
link   
The Impact of Rising Health Care Costs

Economists have found that rising health care costs correlate with significant drops in health insurance coverage, and national surveys also show that the primary reason people are uninsured is due to the high and escalating cost of health insurance coverage.

A recent study found that 62 percent of all bankruptcies filed in 2007 were linked to medical expenses. Of those who filed for bankruptcy, nearly 80 percent had health insurance.

According to another published article, about 1.5 million families lose their homes to foreclosure every year due to unaffordable medical costs.

Without health care reform, small businesses will pay nearly $2.4 trillion dollars over the next ten years in health care costs for their workers, 178,000 small business jobs will be lost by 2018 as a result of health care costs, $834 billion in small business wages will be lost due to high health care costs over the next ten years, small businesses will lose $52.1 billion in profits to high health care costs and 1.6 million small business workers will suffer “job lock“— roughly one in 16 people currently insured by their employers.

Over the last decade, employer-sponsored health insurance premiums have increased 131 percent.

Employees have seen their share of job-based coverage increase at nearly the same rate during this period jumping from $1,543 to $3,515.4

Yes, we need health insurance reform now, regardless of what industry insiders say to scare you or BS you into fearing reform.

A strong public option forcing competition is necessary.

[edit on 8-10-2009 by uaocteaou]



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by uaocteaou
 


Exactly, making people fight with the scare of socialization of health care is deceiving and outrage an insult to the intelligence of those that understand the deceiving and straight dirty tactics that has been used to scare and mislead the public.

No health care reform is a reform without a challenge to the status quo, private health insurance should never be allowed to become the sole supporters of the health care system in the nation while forcing the American tax payer to buy their rotten goods by mandate or get penalized.

For that our own congress should be sue by us the voters in the nation, is incredible that under misinformation people can even side with been forced into buying private health care or else.



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by jdub297
I thinklarge providers, insurance and government have a place in healthcare, but only as backstops for catastrophic illness and accidents that would overwhelm average people.


Define catastrophic! A condition that is not life-threatening has all the potential to send my family into bankruptcy. Can you imagine the bureaucracy that will decide who's catastrophic and who's not?


I believe I did: "that would overwhelm average people."

If people are referred to a hospital they should be able to draw on a "pool" of money set aside for ONLY those purposes.

Common and ordinary care wpuld come out of your own tax-free ( and thus, more valuable) money.

It takes complete reform of this stupid system, but it is not unworkable.

Government control is not the answer. It may be the easy one, but it is not the right one, cost-wise or care-wise.

Find one Federal program that excels at cost containment and delivery of quality service, and I might start to see possibilities.

Otherwise, I fail to see why so many people are convinced it is the ONLY alternative.

People cite Canada and the UK and Japan as examples, but they fail to realize that those programs are a BLEND of private and public resources, and they STILL are not working.

The more control you cede to the gov't., the bigger the problems in everything they do.

IRS
USPS
SSA
SSI
Education
Welfare
Medicare
Medicaid

some examples of institutions people love to hate

good intentions do not guarantee good solutions

jw



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 11:15 AM
link   
reply to post by uaocteaou
 


You have an excellent ability to copy and paste unsupported propaganda, now that your cover has been blown, don't you?

Try citing the sources fgor your "study" and "report" conclusions.

Every single point has been proven wrong before.

Show me your your support.

You won't because you are a disinformation agent:
“Anonymous DOJ Blogger Campaign Attacks Media and Critics”
Friday, October 2, 2009 “Anonymous DOJ Blogger Campaign Attacks Media and Critics”
muffledoar.blogspot.com...


Not only is the Department of Justice Blog Squad going to reach out to nontraditional media like TPM Muckraker or the Muffled Oar, but they are also tasked with fostering anonymous comments at conservative leaning blogs such as the Free Republic. They are also tasked with fostering anonymous comments, or comments under pseudonyms, at newspaper websites with stories critical of the Department of Justice, Holder and President Obama.


Try and support any of your claims. I know you can't.

Deny ignorance.

jw



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by uaocteaou
 


You have an excellent ability to copy and paste unsupported propaganda, now that your cover has been blown, don't you?

Try citing the sources fgor your "study" and "report" conclusions.

Every single point has been proven wrong before.

Show me your your support.

You won't because you are a disinformation agent:
“Anonymous DOJ Blogger Campaign Attacks Media and Critics”
Friday, October 2, 2009 “Anonymous DOJ Blogger Campaign Attacks Media and Critics”
muffledoar.blogspot.com...


Not only is the Department of Justice Blog Squad going to reach out to nontraditional media like TPM Muckraker or the Muffled Oar, but they are also tasked with fostering anonymous comments at conservative leaning blogs such as the Free Republic. They are also tasked with fostering anonymous comments, or comments under pseudonyms, at newspaper websites with stories critical of the Department of Justice, Holder and President Obama.


Try and support any of your claims. I know you can't.

Deny ignorance.

jw


And you have an excellent ability to deny scientific studies as being "flawed. You also have an excellent ability to hide your connections to the health insurance industry.

Argue the facts JDUB, but just shouting "no" "no" "flawed data" is the depth of your argument.

Your fear tactics and misinformation won't work anymore.

edited to include data supporting FACTS as stated.

You say I CAN't and Won't show where I get this flawed data...?

Here JDUB..... Here's your information, not lies, like you spread, but the FACTS!

FACTS, NOT JDUBS GARBAGE








[edit on 8-10-2009 by uaocteaou]



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by dizzie56
Im not exactly sure what your saying here. Are you saying that you had a procedure done to your daughter and two nurses were in attendance and you got billed for it? If that is the case, how is it the insurance companies fault? If that is the case, you need to take that up with the doc and or hospital and find out what their policy is on such matters.


That's the thing. It's nobody's fault -- it's a retarded system as a whole.

I understand that the insurance company enters into contracts with providers and vice versa. Hospitals may choose providers they want. The net result is that though I am supposedly "covered", in many cases I'm not! Not sure if the hospital needs to tell me whether this particular nurse who gives me an IV is participating in the plan -- but this just demonstrates sheer insanity of the existing system. Which is super-expensive to the boot, not in the least because it's inefficient because of all that incredible bureaucracy.


Yes the system is retarded as a whole. Most everybody will admit that. But think about what you just wrote. You said "it's inefficient because of all that incredible bureaucracy." Think about how you want to cure this problem again. You want the GOVERNMENT to create a public option and run it. If i really have to put two and two together for you then it is a sad day, but ill be glad to do it anyways.

You want to cure an incredible amount of bureaucracy by adding more bureaucracy? How do you remember to breathe at all, really? Thats like saying "Gee, I'm gonna clean up all the smog in L.A. by makeing sure everybody has a nice big suburban to drive in." Come on man, think for one minute instead of going on with the same old hot topics. Cure bureaucracy with an even bigger load of puffy bureaucracy. Are me and jdub the only ones that actually see the futility in this?

Do you all really solve all of your problems like this? If there is too much bureaucracy, to solve it you must cut the proverbial "red tape"...not create more. My head actually hurts right now because i cant believe what i just read. Cure bureaucracy with more bureaucracy. Who does that? Really?

So if you want to quench the fire in your mouth from eating hot wings do you A) Add more hot sauce, or B) drink the glass of milk? Hmmmm, i'm, thinkin answer A.

Creating a public option CREATES MORE BUREAUCRACY. The fact that I actually have to point this out to anyone is rediculous. Having too much bureaucracy in the health care system now IS the problem so do yourself a favor (along with everybody else that actually wants reform and not to just swing from Obama's, well, you get it) and help get rid of the bureaucracy instead of adding to it. Start by looking past everything that you are given as a little hot topic issue and actually do some research and above all, use some common sense. Adding something to something doesnt get rid of something, it only makes more of something.



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 08:52 PM
link   
What gets lost with all the healthcare reform talk is the fact that
Americans have a higher risk lifestyle than any other civilized
country. We are fatter and worry more. The cost of caring
for everyone in this country would FAR outweigh the medical
expenditures in UK or Canada...even if we had a smaller
population similar to theirs.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join