OOPS! Woman championed by Obama eligible for aid, despite Obama's claims otherwise, page 1
Pages: <<  1    2  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 13 times


reply posted on 16-3-2010 @ 10:43 PM by jdub297
reply to post by sos37


I'll be the first to admit that the current system sucks. I hate insurance companies, generally.

But, you'd think that as bad as the system is, if the Administration gave a damn about the truth they'd be able to find a legitimate example of system failure.

Pathetic.

jw


reply posted on 16-3-2010 @ 11:13 PM by villagesmithie
How about this quote from the same article.


Obama is not wrong in saying that a patient in Canfield's situation might have to choose between her home and health care, said Eileen Sheil, a spokeswoman for Cleveland Clinic. "But this patient is probably not the best example of someone in that situation, although we've have patients in that situation who haven't yet qualified for Medicaid, or didn't have the resources" to pay for care, Sheil said.


Or, maybe this one.



Canfield has racked up thousands of dollars in debt from previous medical treatments, including a recent gall bladder infection, said her sister, Connie Anderson. "She was always raised to believe that you took care of yourself," Anderson said, explaining why her sister had not tried to apply for financial assistance before. "And she didn't want to be, you know, part of the system."


Or, even this one.


However, Canfield's fears that she could lose her home - if, for example, the hospital tried to put a lien on it - are not necessarily unfounded, Sornberger said. "There are other hospitals that will do that," he said. "There's nothing in the industry that says you can't do it. So she could go 5 miles to some other facility and find that they do have that practice in place."


The way I see it this thread is an example of the same thing you are accusing Obama of.

Just another game of "gotcha" with the "other side" instead of a real discussion of the issue.



On another note, genius/idoit, What does this contibute, and could you show your sources.

obama=liar,dirty,conman,grifter,POS,self absorbed,weak,feminine,drug addict,anti American,crybaby!



reply posted on 16-3-2010 @ 11:32 PM by jdub297
reply to post by villagesmithie


Your cites of what "might" happen in other circumstances, or what "other hospitals" would do in other situations are nothing more than speculation that add nothing of substance to support the call for greater government involvement in health care.

Do you know if the "other" hospital is public or private; accepts medicaid or other assistance? You have no idea, therefore the "examples" are false.

On the other hand, the subject of the article states that she did not know there was a program to cover her costs; and claims not to even know what "Medicaid" is!

A government-run health care system will never cure ignorance.

The "victim" would be in exactly the same situation under Obamacare if she is so oblivious to programs designed and already in place for people just like her!

Deny ignorance.

jw

[edit on 17-3-2010 by jdub297]



reply posted on 17-3-2010 @ 01:46 AM by Southern Guardian
reply to post by jdub297



She's eligible for Medicaid?? Socialist healthcare? Wonderful! Now hows about we extend medicare to others in the same position as her. Those millions of individuals who are left out from the private insurance industry. Im glad you finally get it.


reply posted on 17-3-2010 @ 02:15 AM by Southern Guardian
reply to post by sos37



Yes exactly sos37! Obama is a liar! She doesnt need socialist healthcare! She can just go on medicaid instead! Right on.


reply posted on 17-3-2010 @ 08:19 AM by jdub297
reply to post by villagesmithie


As for the "victim", the reasons for her ignorance are also stated in the article. Like many Americans she tried to do it on her own, but the rising cost of insurance pushed her out of the market.


The presence or absence of insurance (which is what Obamacare is offering, after all), has nothing to do with situational awareness.

Natoma should be as aware as any other citizen of her available resources, without regard to whether she once had her own insurance policy.

If she didn't know about Medicaid or the clinic's resources (if you believe her story), there's no reason to believe she or anyone else in her position would know of any other program or protection of which she may avail herself.

Regardless of the "mights," "wills," or any other predictions or conjecture, the bottom line is true:

Natoma is NOT at risk of a hospital lien,
Natoma is NOT at risk of foreclosure, and
There already ARE programs providing the benefits she believes she needs for her own care.

Deny ignorance.

jw


reply posted on 17-3-2010 @ 08:31 AM by jdub297
reply to post by Southern Guardian

Now hows about we extend medicare to others in the same position as her. Those millions of individuals who are left out from the private insurance industry. Im glad you finally get it.


You misinterpret my statement of the obvious for an endorsement. That is false, and you know it. But, that's the best you can do.

If others are "in the same position as her," then they already ARE eligible!

Our current system is CORRUPT. It is the result of government support of insurance companies who are merely "socializing" the costs of medical care.

Whether it is insurance companies or Obamacare, the health care consumer is NOT served by ANY system under which she has no control over the choice or costs of her care.

In the current system, we have effectively turned over the direction of a significant portion of our lives to others who do not have the same motivation or goals.

It doesn't matter who the ultimate "payor" is: government or corporate or charity; when you no longer "drive" the transaction you are at someone else's mercy, and subject yourself to their terms of compliance.

That is not a fair trade-off in something as important as health care.

jw


reply posted on 17-3-2010 @ 08:35 AM by jdub297
Originally posted by Southern Guardian
reply to
post by sos37



Yes exactly sos37! Obama is a liar! She doesnt need socialist healthcare! She can just go on medicaid instead! Right on.


Just to keep this on-topic:

I agree with you that "Obama is a liar", who will say whatever he wants without regard to facts or truth, to accomplish his agenda.

(Did you see CNN's Cafferty, and his castigation of the deceit?)

Deny ignorance.

jw



reply posted on 17-3-2010 @ 09:51 AM by villagesmithie

If she didn't know about Medicaid or the clinic's resources (if you believe her story), there's no reason to believe she or anyone else in her position would know of any other program or protection of which she may avail herself.


I think your assuming to much. If we have "obamacare" as you like to call it, that would be part of our healthcare/insurance system which she apparently navigated OK. What she didn't know about was a system she believed she wouldn't need and from her sisters statement tried to avoid and therefore didn't learn about.

So, yes the hospital, in this case may not take her house but the fact is many foreclosures are in part due to medical costs. Here is a quote from Health Matrix: Journal of Law-Medicine, Vol. 18, No. 65, 2008. This was in 2008 before the housing crisis.


Half of all respondents (49%) indicated that their foreclosure was caused in part by a medical problem, including illness or injuries (32%), unmanageable medical bills (23%), lost work due to a medical problem (27%), or caring for sick family members (14%).


Source.
papers.ssrn.com...

I also disagree with your assertion:


Our current system is CORRUPT. It is the result of government support of insurance companies who are merely "socializing" the costs of medical care.


The goal of business is to make a profit. If insurance companies have the option of not cutting into their profits to pay health cost they will do it. I don't fault them for that, we live in a capitalist system and they are doing their job. We need the regulations in place to provide us with the health care we all need at some point and we need a system that doesn't bankrupt individuals when we do. I believe our current model does a poor job of providing that. Your scare word "socializing" may be exactly what we need. We ALL need to pay in we ALL should have coverage. That is not going to destroy democracy or capitalism and lead us down the path of "Socialism". It would keep our population healthier and more productive. It would strength our ability to compete in the world market and strengthen capitalism.


reply posted on 17-3-2010 @ 10:23 AM by jdub297
reply to post by villagesmithie

The "Health Matrix" study has been exposed for its bias and flawed analysis here and in the mainstream. It is not a valid statement of the nature of foreclosures or bankruptcies.

We need the regulations in place to provide us with the health care we all need at some point and we need a system that doesn't bankrupt individuals when we do.


I agree that for-profit businesses have a place in the system. We do not need more "regulations .. to provide us the health care we need."

Government "regulations" that favor one segment of an industry, or society, over another are precisely why we are facing housing, banking, and health care crises.

Some Americans already belong to or participate in a "system that doesn't bankrupt individuals." It is called "consumer-driven health care."

Are you opposed to letting consumers of ANY service (and especially health care) have control of the basic transactions and decisions? Do you REALLY think your government representatives know what is best for you, or that they will do it if they did?

I believe our current model does a poor job of providing that. Your scare word "socializing" may be exactly what we need.


"Socializing" is not a "scare word;" it is inefficient, unfair, and gravitates to the lowest common denominator for the "greater good." It necessitates lowered standards (one size fits all) and over consumption (I want everything everyone else is (perceivedly) getting) from a limited amount of resources..

We ALL need to pay in we ALL should have coverage. ... It would keep our population healthier and more productive. It would strength our ability to compete in the world market and strengthen capitalism.


This is a non-sequitur. Guaranteeing everyone anything does equate with better health or productivity. It actually eliminates incentive for improvement and encourages trust that "'the system' will take care of us."

Those who can afford to, should be able to make their own health care choices. Those who cannot, should be afforded the means to do so, or provided access to the services directly.

jw

p.s.: Google or investigate "consumer-driven health care" and tell me what is wrong with the concept, if you can

[edit on 17-3-2010 by jdub297]


reply posted on 17-3-2010 @ 10:48 AM by JIMC5499
Originally posted by jdub297
Our current system is CORRUPT. It is the result of government support of insurance companies who are merely "socializing" the costs of medical care.

Whether it is insurance companies or Obamacare, the health care consumer is NOT served by ANY system under which she has no control over the choice or costs of her care.


The biggest problem with our current system is GOVERNMENT both on the State and Federal levels. They handicap the insurance industry with rules and mandates that raise the costs of doing business and hamper competition. They jack up the cost of programs like Medicare and Medicaid by adding endless layers of bureaucracy. Something like 7 out of every 10 dollars in these programs is spent on administration. On both the State and Federal levels you have large office buildings, full of hundreds of people, who's job is to administer these programs. Problem is that ALL of these people are UNION members so when it comes time to reduce costs, the government reduces the amount it pays the doctors and hospitals, instead of doing what the private sector does and cut back on employees. As a result, the doctors and hospitals have to raise their rates to make-up for the shortfall. That means that insurance companies and people without insurance have to pay more for services to subsidize government programs.

Government won't do anything to reign in the trial lawyers, so billions of dollars are spent on defensive medicine. Don't tell me it isn't. A few months ago I cut my right leg and had to go to the emergency room for stitches. I'll admit that I'm a pretty big guy, but do I really need a heart sonagram and EKG just to get 8 stitches in my leg. The worst part is that I had just had both tests done at the same hospital a month prior as part of a physical. I was told that the privacy laws prohibited them from accessing the previous tests and not to worry because I had good insurance and it would pay for the tests.

I can go on all day here. This so called "Health Care Bill" has NOTHING in it to address these issues. It is more concerned about regulating vending machines and taking over the Student Loan Program. One last question. How is cutting $500 billion from Medicaid going to benefit anybody's health care?


reply posted on 17-3-2010 @ 11:59 AM by Grayelf2009
reply to post by jdub297



I just love it when stories like this expose the truth.
Liar Liar Pants on fire.

Still its sad to see the lows that have been taken to get one bill passed, shame on them.
Pages: <<  1    2  >>    ^^TOP^^



Lamar, the author of SOPA comes back with an even worse bill
  Posted 19 days ago with 122 member flags
Senator Paul is being detained at the Nashville Airport by the TSA
  Posted 18 days ago with 89 member flags
Bruins goalie Tim Thomas takes stand against U.S Government
  Posted 17 days ago with 88 member flags
This is what happens when Ford announces they are hiring
  Posted 18 days ago with 77 member flags
Romney: "I\'m Not Concerned About the Very Poor"
  Posted 9 days ago with 73 member flags
The Girl Killed by Obama: She "never saw it coming"
  Posted 2 days ago with 62 member flags
Ron Paul In Nevada - The Caucus Is Rigged!! - w/VIDEO
  Posted 5 days ago with 60 member flags

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:

Santorum wants more fracking!!!
  US Political Madness, Posted 12 hours ago, 53 replies
Pass Me My Rifle
  World War Three, Posted 8 hours ago, 52 replies