It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Why I oppose this Health Care Reform

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 11:30 AM
link   
It is no secret that I oppose the recent passage of the Bill by the House. I have made that well known. What is not overly known is that I could really benefit from it. Recently, I have developed a pinched sciatic nerve in my right leg. The foot is numb, the joints and muscles are racked with pain. Walking has become a labor.

My doctor believes that it is the result of a herniated disc. In order to know for sure will require x-rays and a MRI. Then probably corrective surgery in order to fix the problem. Then of course post-operative recovery and rehab therapy. My doctor and I believe that this is a result from an old on the job injury from two years ago that was misdiagnosed and improperly treated as no tests where done and was treated as a strained muscle in the back.

Workman's Comp, right? Wrong. The previous employer refuses to allow the case to be reopened. They claim that I only received initial treatment and never returned for a follow up. Medical records from the Urgent Care that saw me, prove their statement as false. Guess what, that does not seem to matter when dealing with what will be a large cost over a former employee.

Sure, a Universal Health Care System would solve the problem quickly. But this is not nor was it ever a UHC. What about my current insurance via my current employer you might ask? It is a supplemental policy, only meant to help cover the out of pocket expenses of a traditional policy. That is right, no x-rays or other such diagnostic nonsense in a non-emergency/non-life threatening situation. Are there any doubts that such a policy qualifies as “already having employer sponsored insurance”? I have not seen anything suggesting that such a policy does not qualify.

That is my personal situation but is hardly a good reason to oppose this proposal.

Do the people really benefit? No. While it does allow for 4% more of legal Americans the ability to purchase insurance it only does so by forcing them to purchase insurance. It does so by forcing you to spend money on something that you may or may not ever need in your lifetime. Would you support a bill to provide reliable transportation to everyone by forcing them to buy a new car? What about the mental and physically handicapped? Should a person that does not have the ability to butter a slice of toast be forced to buy a car?

Does this extend a direct control over the people? Yes. You must purchase. There are ways for the the federal government to circumvent the fourth amendment to ensure that you comply. Your banking records are now in full view of the federal government. As more people use less cash for transactions your spending is in direct view. What if we should ever elect a narcissist megalomaniac to POTUS, would the medical review boards be advised that you did not contribute to his campaign funds and act accordingly in order to retain their cushy job should you require to purchase the government option?

Is this a political move? Have you seen the voting record? I am reminded of a lesson from my high school history teacher on the differences between Republicans and Democrats on charity. A Republican will see a person in need and help that person and to hell with anyone that they did not see and feel good about themselves. A Democrat will see a person in need and start an organization to take care of people that may be in that particular need and feel good about themselves and to hell if the guy they saw received help or not. The debates on this bill seem to follow that philosophical anecdote fairly well.

I am reminded of SO's post a while back about his visit to Washington. On how the Republicans will stop at nothing to sink Obama and the Democrats even at the expense of all else including the country. I must ask the question does anyone truly feel comfortable with exchanging of freedom for the security that this Bill portends to provide?

As for my personal health situation, I would feel far more comfortable with people passing the hat to resolve my situation rather than pointing a gun at people's heads until they contribute. To me, one is charity the other is what this Bill represents.




posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 11:39 AM
link   
I wanted to thank you for the post, and while I followed you well enough, I lost sight at the point where you started generalizing political ideology.

I also agree this is not universal health care, this bill was never about that. This bill won't help the vast majority of people that need it. I don't see how making someone buy health insurance is going to help with health care.

I just don't see this as being in way helpful to you or me.

As a sign of fairness, I should admit here that I am for true uhc.



posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 11:47 AM
link   
Interesting concept. I'm not exactly sure how the healthcare will work in the states. But if they are trying to model it after Canada's, then the only MAJOR downfall is waiting.

I don't pay a damn thing for anything. So I'm not really forced to buy anything. But then I have NO clue how the American one will work.

And like I said, waiting for treatment is not good. People with Cancer etc...sometimes have to wait 6-8 months from diagnosis to see a specialist. A lot of us pay and see someone quicker, in the states.

If this ability is changing...there is another "depopulation" theory. haha. Everyone just has to wait soo long for serious matters...they die.

The bigger problem is (and I like your history teacher's outlook)is that regardless of whether they are dems or republicans doesn't matter at all.

They are politicians.

Regardless of the "democracy" we think we live it, they do what they want. If they don't get something they want the first time, they push until it does get through.

I hope that you are able to get your body fixed. I had a pinched sciatic as well. Its not pleasant at all. My Chiropractor fixed me up good in 8 visits.



posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Seiko
 


Pretty much that a Republican would give a homeless guy on the street a few bucks to get some food and shelter for the night and not worry about the homeless around the corner. The Democrat would get funding to open a homeless shelter and not worry if the original guy they saw received any help at all.

I remember that statement because it sparked a huge debate in class of which was the more ethical thing to do that lasted several days. I see this bill as no different of a situation, except in this case we are making the homeless guy fork over his cash before any help is given....makes you wonder just how he became homeless in the first place.



posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Ahabstar
 


I follow your reasoning, I just won't ascribe to the left right thing. I don't believe any of them are watching out for us.

If the republicans truly believe this is the worst thing to ever happen, they will filibuster. If they do not, they're just talking and saving face for the next election.



posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 11:58 AM
link   
The problem with this is I think it will eventually eliminate alot of peoples good insurance. Look at the auto insurance, Once it was not mandatory, now it is. In some states you only have a choice of a few companies to get insurance from, and hence they jack the premiums up. I think we will see the "richer" folks able to afford the premium insurance plans and then all the rest of the dying middle class will be forced to buy the inferior public plan.



posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Demoncreeper
And like I said, waiting for treatment is not good. People with Cancer etc...sometimes have to wait 6-8 months from diagnosis to see a specialist. A lot of us pay and see someone quicker, in the states.



Whoah, 6-8 months? Here in the UK it's 2 weeks, max. If they can't get you an NHS specialist, they go Private. if none are available there, they'll pay to send you abroad.

Sounds like Canada could do with some reform too!

On topic, why are Americans so against a UHC system? Or is it the way it is being implemented as opposed to the idea itself? Seems to me that it's just a bunch of right-wingers crying it's "unconstitutional" all the time, but there is no mention the constitution about UHC, so what's the deal?



posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


Well I can speak for myself and I am for uhc. The problem is this bill isn't uhc. This is a bill that makes it a law we have to buy health insurance. In our country having health insurance does not mean you'll get health care.

Most of us admit the system does not work as is. So what they're now doing is forcing us to buy into this broken system. Instead of fixing it, they're throwing money at it.



posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Ahabstar
 



I am sorry you are having health problems. I also am having problems and I do not support Pelosi Care.

Currently rich people come from all over the world to enjoy the fruits of our health system. But poor Americans must go to Mexico to get affordable care. That is if they have the money to get to Mexico.

It seems that the millionaire lawyers in Washington have drafted a bill that only benefits, lawyers, bureaucrats, and doctors. Everyone else is screwed. Now they will finally have a use for all the prison camps everyone has been up in arms about. Let the murderers and child molesters out of prison early to make room for folks who cannot afford health insurance.



posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 12:12 PM
link   
This bill (the one that passed last night), is not the perfect fix, but it is a step in the right direction.
All this opposition against reform even agree that we need reform, yet none come close to bringing actual reform, so while this bill is not the answer, it is "an" answer, and is certainly better than the status quo.

We also should remember how we are hearing many of the same arguments that were posed before to other reforms, that Americans would never abolish today.

The GOP stood against....

-Social Security
-Medicare
-Medicaid
-Equal rights amendment
-Equal pay for Women
-G.I. Bill

The same arguments we hear today, are those we've all heard before, yet now those listed above are a part of America and few, if any would vote to eliminate them.

The big industry, special interests are opposed to this reform, which means it's good for Americans, perfect, no, but much better than having an industry executive, paid on the basis of denials, between you and your doctor.



posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


I do not oppose a UHC either. Just make an amendment to the Constitution and go for it.

Heck I even said so on another thread months ago and came up with a viable rate. Something along the lines of $25/week premium for single coverage and $50/week for family with a $10-25 co-pay (depending on the level of the visit) and a $50 co-pay for ER visits. And let this ride for dental and optical as well.

This would leave the door open for insurance companies to sell supplemental policies to cover the co-pay 100% or for charities to cover the co-pay based on need.

And if the government finds this to not be enough, deduct the additional costs from their salary and retirement benefits. Sad but true, any 25 year old that happens to get elected to the House and serves a full two year term and never runs for so much as a dog catcher has retirement and medical coverage for life.



posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason


Whoah, 6-8 months? Here in the UK it's 2 weeks, max. If they can't get you an NHS specialist, they go Private. if none are available there, they'll pay to send you abroad.

Sounds like Canada could do with some reform too!

On topic, why are Americans so against a UHC system? Or is it the way it is being implemented as opposed to the idea itself? Seems to me that it's just a bunch of right-wingers crying it's "unconstitutional" all the time, but there is no mention the constitution about UHC, so what's the deal?


That's a pretty extreme set of circumstances. Although, family experiences tell me the wait can sometimes be more damaging than the treatment.

The health system over all could use revamping all over. Getting better treatment for EVERYONE, doesn't stomp all over constitutional rights.

To think that those that have money should take priority over those that don't, is a pretty archaic way of thinking.
I don't think people are less important than one another, because of their wealth or social status.

Everyone should get treatment. I pay taxes. Regardless of my wealth. Don't you think they'd want to keep me alive? haha.



[edit on 8-11-2009 by Demoncreeper]



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join