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.

 

Anyone watching/watched the health care summit??? Thoughts?

page: 3
7
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 25 2010 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by maybereal11
 


At least you noticed the rectal exam issue, I suppose you have no argument with any of the other points in my post?



The summit and our posts here are ultimately irrelevant, one way or another (reconciliation) this monstrous bill will pass, and maybe you'll be one of the first in line for that rectal exam.

Especially when you discover how much this government is going to be screwing you.




posted on Feb, 25 2010 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


Who is misrepresenting? You asked for opinions of it and I gave you one. My opinion was that it was a waste of time.

And there's no doubt, I haven't seen all of it. I doubt I watch any more of it. Why? Its not going to make a damn bit of difference, that's why. Everyone has already made up their minds and the battle lines have long since been drawn. This little bit of political theatre will be forgotten by Monday.



posted on Feb, 25 2010 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by St Udio
 


I don't know...I thought Obama was pretty calm through the whole process. You can call Obama a lot of things...but about to lose it mentally??? I'm not so sure.

I really don't see how you can say he was searching for a coherent thought...he made good points about almost everyones comments.



posted on Feb, 25 2010 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Walkswithfish
reply to post by maybereal11
 


The summit and our posts here are ultimately irrelevant, one way or another (reconciliation) this monstrous bill will pass, and maybe you'll be one of the first in line for that rectal exam.



My wife lost her insurance four years ago when she left her job to raise our kids. She was on Cobra for six months and then I applied to put her on my policy...Denied!

She had an "abnormal pap" The obgyn wrote a letter to her insurance company explaining it wasn't a cancer indicator, but rather a urinary tract infection..Still Denied!!!

Ditto every other carrier I applied to.

A year later her appendix exploded..exploded because she ignored the pain for days out of fear of going to the doctor and adding to our expenses..

The surgeon asked why she didn't come in sooner and told us she very nearly died. I just cried. Good news is she lived, bad news is she had no insurance and her ten day stay in the hospital, antiobotics etc. plus surgery ran us around 58K. Not to mention the three weeks unpaid I took off work to look after the kids while she was in the hospital and then recovering at home.

She is still uninsured, not because we don't want to pay, I do...desperately, but they refuse to cover her.

I have paid out of pocket for 2 births and 1 surgeries/hospital stay over the past 4 years because of one abnormal papsmear...a papsmear whom the very doctor who obtained it explained in plain written form to the insurance company was benign. I am still in a whole lot of debt and frankly barely surviving.

So yes I will be the first in line...not for the mandatory rectal exam you seem to be hoping is in the bill, but to buy my wife a regular old fashioned insurance policy...the kind that people all over the world, rich and poor in civilized nations are able to purchase.

So you can imagine what I think of the ideological rhetoric and BS that folks toss around on this issue. It is a very real debate to me. An issue I am intimately familiar with.


[edit on 25-2-2010 by maybereal11]



posted on Feb, 25 2010 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by maybereal11
 


I am very sorry for yours and your wife's issues with the health care system nightmares.

I am not saying the system and especially insurance does not need reforms, I think we can all agree that it does.

I just do not believe a massive expansion of government is the answer. I see this as a massive power grab over a large portion of the economy.

Which is worse, a government run system that denies treatment, or a private insurer?

Heck, in Oregon their state run health care denied cancer treatment to a woman and suggested she take the option of physician assisted suicide (legal in that state)

Is that what you want on a national scale?

If they really wanted to reform the system to make it better and cheaper, I'd be all for it... But they simply want to control it, collect revenues from it and take care of special interests and that is why there are thousands of pages, and yes some of those are amendments added by republicans. Too many laws that can be used to take away choice, freedom and liberty. There has to be a better way.

A simplified reform plan that confronts fraud and corruption with some additional regulations on insurance companies would be a start. But really, THOUSANDS of pages?

Don't be fooled by their talking points and their exploitation of victim's horror stories... Because their planned reforms when passed are not going to improve things, it could ultimately make it worse for everyone and burden taxpayers even more, how is that going to help the collapsing economy and job market?

If this massive expansion of government passes, in time everyone is going to see how wrong it was... The sad part is that it will be way too late to stop it then.



posted on Feb, 25 2010 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Walkswithfish
Heck, in Oregon their state run health care denied cancer treatment to a woman and suggested she take the option of physician assisted suicide (legal in that state)


In the event that I may be accused of making a false claim above...

abcnews.go.com...



The news from Barbara Wagner's doctor was bad, but the rejection letter from her insurance company was crushing.

The 64-year-old Oregon woman, whose lung cancer had been in remission, learned the disease had returned and would likely kill her. Her last hope was a $4,000-a-month drug that her doctor prescribed for her, but the insurance company refused to pay.

What the Oregon Health Plan did agree to cover, however, were drugs for a physician-assisted death. Those drugs would cost about $50.

"It was horrible," Wagner told ABCNews.com. "I got a letter in the mail that basically said if you want to take the pills, we will help you get that from the doctor and we will stand there and watch you die. But we won't give you the medication to live."

Critics of Oregon's decade-old Death With Dignity Law -- the only one of its kind in the nation -- have been up in arms over the indignity of her unsigned rejection letter. Even those who support Oregon's liberal law were upset.


If you believe the current health care system is a nightmare, just wait until the government has control and you or a loved one has to fight their way through health care bureaucracies to either be approved or denied treatments.

Actually, maybe it is better to offer suicide in that case?



You still want the government to control the health care system?

Go for it!



posted on Feb, 26 2010 @ 12:05 AM
link   
What I find funny is how plainly obvious how this is political theater.Neither party are interested in finding any real solutions because the Insurance and Health Care companies give money to both sides.The game is fixed,folks and this summit shows it.



posted on Feb, 26 2010 @ 12:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Walkswithfish
 


I am sorry, but I think you misunderstand what this plan is, keep in mind, I don't like this plan either, but I think you have some misconceptions about it.

The bill as it stands now is a corporate takeover of healthcare. Not a government takeover. The government wants to force you to buy insurance from a private company or penalize you for not doing so.

While it's not much of a difference, I think it's important to point out because a lot of people are getting misinformation about the health care bill.



posted on Feb, 26 2010 @ 03:32 AM
link   
My overall opinion of this health care summit can be summed up like this...

It was like an ATS thread on healthcare without the intelligence level of debate that ATS is known for.



posted on Feb, 26 2010 @ 04:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by endisnighe
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


No solutions? I find it hilarious that the Dems keep mentioning that their are things that the Repubs agree with them on, YET, they will not pass a bill on the agreed upon items.

To me, it seems like the Dems are the obstructionists in this debacle.

If they agree on some things, WHY NOT pass a smaller measure FIRST?

No, the Dems want a HUGE bureaucracy. That is their idea. They want a NEW and improved Medicare system for everyone. How are they going to pay for it?


Exactly what I have been saying...Take the things dems and republicans agree on, maybe throw in tort reform, buying across state lines, cheap or maybe even free health care for kids and those making under 25k/year...
take that and turn it into a health care plan. In a few years, if it works and is affordable, then we can talk about expanding it. But to just come out full swing with what is practically a government takeover of the health care industry is insane [or corporate takeover according to whatukno]

[edit on 2/26/2010 by AnonymousMoose]



posted on Feb, 26 2010 @ 08:18 AM
link   






I wanted to copy over here as much of the debate as possible, I have yet to find the full debate anywhere. This is from the White House YouTube channel. So take it as it is, and let's see if we can bring something new to the table out of this. To me nothing new was really discussed which should really piss people off. I can't believe both sides actually had the balls and stupidity to use political talking points as arguments. This wasn't supposed to be a free for all for the political pundits who constantly spin lies on both sides. The objective was to really figure out a solution.

Obviously to me, nothing was accomplished. All the pathetic talking points are still in place.

But that is my opinion.



posted on Feb, 26 2010 @ 09:01 AM
link   
My favorite part:


McCain criticized a provision of the Senate bill that spared 800,000 seniors in Florida from benefit cuts in the Medicare Advantage program, the private insurance under the umbrella of the government program.

"Why should we carve out 800,000?" McCain asked.

"I think you make a legitimate point," Obama responded to a surprised McCain.
source

and mccains response?


Ut...uh.....eh....er......ummm....thank you...????



Priceless.



posted on Feb, 26 2010 @ 09:21 AM
link   


I am so disgusted by this issue and how our country is handling it - or failing to handle it.

The whole scene was just a dog and pony show. It was evident that it was a futile endeavor from the jump.

I just cannot understand how our elected officials do not get how serious and demanding this issue is. That they trifle while people suffer and die is criminal.

I also do not understand how the public can be so easily manipulated into being polarized on this topic. Everyone I know knows someone who has been in dire straits due to the sad state of health care in the USA.

If we don't provide minimum health care for children they will be sickly and unproductive adults. If we do not provide minimum health care for adults, again, they will be unproductive as well as unable to tend to their children and families and will drain our governmental resources.

It's not rocket science. What's so hard to understand? Health care is an investment.

To me this issue is yet another indication of how corporate interest supersede the good of our nation. Good health care is inherently jeopardized by a for profit system.

I, for one, will learn my lesson well from the spectacle of yesterday's "summit". I intend to vote in November the same way I voted in 2008 - against ALL incumbents, local or national, who have obviously failed to represent us by even the minimum standard.

I'll keep changing my vote until this country actually gets the change it requires.




[edit on 26/2/2010 by kosmicjack]



posted on Feb, 26 2010 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by endisnighe
 


As we all know a 2700 page bill has not been fully read. Bills are famous for hiding tax hikes and other agendas in them hoping no one will read every page. My concern is that the reason the Dems won't either start over or pass just a few things that all agree on is that things inside this bill further the agenda. My question is this.... Dems and Obama keep saying we need to do this NOW..... What is the rush? what is it that is putting such a fire up their butts? Just like the microchipping of all Americans that is in this bill, some states have passed legislation to block this law, what else is hidden in there no one is talking about? As the NEW WORLD ORDER looms they want this huge bill to further their control. Is mandatory vaccinations in this bill? H1N1 vaccine has been found to be unsafe and also a hoax, so they are pushing this for a reason. Americans should be allowed to see every page of this 2700 hundred page bill online and read it for ourselves. So much for transparency. I feel if they push this bill through next week we should all be very concerned.



posted on Feb, 26 2010 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by alexgia
 


I believe the main reasoning behind this bill is that benefits will not kick in for 4 years.

It is a tax scheme mainly. The hidden taxes in it are enormous.

The two main schemes the Dems have tried to pass so far, are TAX bills.

Cap and Trade and the Health Care bills are tax schemes!



posted on Feb, 26 2010 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Walkswithfish
reply to post by maybereal11

Which is worse, a government run system that denies treatment, or a private insurer?



Which is worse??....a Private Insurer.

For the 46 Million Americans without insurance and the millions more on there way there as insurance companies jack up rates beyond what employers are willing to cover...ANY insurance is better than none.

Get it?

As it stands the insurance business is a criminal enterprise. They charge as much as they like and drop or refuse to cover anyone that remotely looks like they might actually have to pay for.




Sixty-two percent of all bankruptcies filed in 2007 were linked to medical expenses, according to a nationwide study released today by the American Journal of Medicine. That's nearly 20 percentage points higher than that pool of respondents reported were connected to medical costs in 2001.


Of those who filed for bankruptcy in 2007, nearly 80 percent had health insurance. Respondents who reported having insurance indicated average expenses of just under $18,000. Respondents who filed and lacked insurance had average medical bills of nearly $27,000.


voices.washingtonpost.com...

AND THIS IS IN 2007!!! Imagine what the numbers are for the past 2 years during the economic crisis!!

AND 80% of those driven into bankruptcy by medical expenses HAD INSURANCE...That means the insurance companies denied/delayed thier claims or outright dropped them.

WHY?? Because put very simply, they are incentivised to. Paying medical bills costs them money. They are a business and thier business is making money...collect premiums...find anyway possible not to pay.




The Truth About the Insurance Industry
Wendell Potter. Potter, ... worked in the health insurance industry for more than 20 years. He rose to be a senior executive at Cigna. He was on their calls, at their board meetings, in their books. And today, at a hearing before Sen. Jay Rockefeller's Commerce Committee, he testified against them.

What drove Potter from the health insurance business was, well, the health insurance business. The industry, Potter says, is driven by "two key figures: earnings per share and the medical-loss ratio, or medical-benefit ratio, as the industry now terms it. That is the ratio between what the company actually pays out in claims and what it has left over to cover sales, marketing, underwriting and other administrative expenses and, of course, profits."

Think about that term for a moment: The industry literally has a term for how much money it "loses" paying for health care.

The best way to drive down "medical-loss," explains Potter, is to stop insuring unhealthy people. You won't, after all, have to spend very much of a healthy person's dollar on medical care because he or she won't need much medical care. And the insurance industry accomplishes this through two main policies. "One is policy rescission," says Potter. "They look carefully to see if a sick policyholder may have omitted a minor illness, a pre-existing condition, when applying for coverage, and then they use that as justification to cancel the policy, even if the enrollee has never missed a premium payment."

Potter also emphasized the practice known as "purging." This is where insurers rid themselves of unprofitable accounts by slapping them with "intentionally unrealistic rate increases." One famous example came when Cigna decided to drive the Entertainment Industry Group Insurance Trust in California and New Jersey off of its books. It hit them with a rate increase that would have left some family plans costing more than $44,000 a year, and it gave them three months to come up with the cash.





voices.washingtonpost.com...


[edit on 26-2-2010 by maybereal11]



posted on Feb, 26 2010 @ 01:04 PM
link   
Alot of you are saying things like "republicans don't support this"..
Now I am not a big believer in polls, but I think it is pretty concrete that the majority of this country doesn't support this. You can keep playing the blame game, and pointing fingers.

"Other than that the President did terrific. Intelligent, articulate, didn't let any political rhetoric or BS slide. "

Maybreal, its funny you mention this as I was going to comment on how I saw his performance. You really have to wonder how he has this reputation for being such a good speaker. He is a terrible listener. from what it looked. You can clearly see him struggle to hear the oppositions words. He stops and stutters, without any form of a written speech or teleprompter.

I guess it is a tough seat to sit in though.
Back to the issue I have is that both sides are completely out of touch with what Americans want. They will keep saying the other side is wrong and completely ignore what we all think. After all that is their illusion.



posted on Feb, 26 2010 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mailman
Alot of you are saying things like "republicans don't support this"..
Now I am not a big believer in polls, but I think it is pretty concrete that the majority of this country doesn't support this.


At one time, in the not too distant past, the majority of the public DID support this; however, I believe that everyone has become so disgusted by the partisan politics, never ending campaigning and failure of a filibuster proof majority that now people are projecting those frustrations towards the idea of health care reform in general.



posted on Feb, 26 2010 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mailman
Alot of you are saying things like "republicans don't support this"..
Now I am not a big believer in polls, but I think it is pretty concrete that the majority of this country doesn't support this.


Interesting thing about the polls. Almost all of them were funded by big healthcare companies and right wing political pacs.

The only recent poll that asked unbiased questions was done last week by the kaiser foundation.

And yes...a poll of general sentiment about the bill showed opposition...BUT 2/3 (GOP, Dems and Independants) said they wanted the movement to continue to fix healthcare..

AND almost 70% (GOP, Dems, and Independants) approved of the specific policies contained in the bill.

What does that tell us? BS works for a segment of the population and the talk of microchips and death panels combined with the partisan heckling has confused people about what is in the bill...which of course has been the objective of that rhetoric.

Public To Politicians: Do Something On Health Care
www.npr.org...


Originally posted by Mailman
You really have to wonder how he has this reputation for being such a good speaker. He is a terrible listener. from what it looked. You can clearly see him struggle to hear the oppositions words. He stops and stutters, without any form of a written speech or teleprompter.


There is no denying that he pauses, even sometimes stutters. In my mind that is often a trait of someone intelligent who chooses their words carefully...as opposed to simply repeating slogans and campaign talking points. He had near complete informational command of every issue that was raised. And each hesitation in oratory was most often followed by a substantiative, well articulated response...and that is a rarity in politicians.

I guess I percieve the moments where he pauses to actually think about a question and choose his words for careful response as honest intellectual thought and conversation as opposed to the scripted rhetoric we are accustomed to.

But I guess I can see how a generation raised on the loud and often mindless political voices of Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck might see that conversation style as some kind of weakness.

Tomato/Tomawto i guess.



posted on Feb, 26 2010 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Mailman
 



Alot of you are saying things like "republicans don't support this"..
Now I am not a big believer in polls, but I think it is pretty concrete that the majority of this country doesn't support this. You can keep playing the blame game, and pointing fingers.


So, if we are going to govern by the will of the people at any given time, then why didn't we leave Iraq in 2005 or 2006, 7, 8, 9, 10, etc?

This country elected Barack Obama, therefore we elected his ideals. I, for one, am up for anything.

Why?

I'm tired of paying some one a lot of money every month so that my wife and I aren't in danger of going bankrupt if someone were to break a leg.

Oh wait, we still can, because private business is allowed to say "you broke your leg watering a ficus? Well, our policy doesn't cover that"



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join