It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Why we push for healthcare reform

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 03:06 AM
While those advocating this legislation package that has currently been passed and signed into law are quick to take their opposition of this Bill to task for inflammatory rhetoric, and fallacious appeals of widespread belief, this thread serves as just one example of how willing they are to do the same. Once again, we are bombarded with the highly emotional and always popular:

"It's for the children!" We're doing this for the children!"

But what has been done? How does this legislation change that unfortunate infants situation in any way? Baby Huston still was born with a heart problem, and he received the necessary surgery and care to correct the problem as best can be done. What has happened is the insurance company is attempting to back out of any liability for the debt. It appears as if absolutely no health care was denied this child, and yet, those who support the most recent legislation will downplay as much as possible the issue at hand, which is one of debt, and instead do all they can to paint a picture where health care itself is what is being denied, rather than "coverage".

Coverage has become the convenient term to describe an insurance policy, and insurance, regardless of what is being insured, is not health care, and is more viably fiscal management, and as such still what insurance which has always been, which is speculation. Insurance is risk management, and not health care. Medicine is health care, and insurance is risk management. There are other methods of risk management than insurance, just as there are other methods of health care than medicine.

While the insurance industry, particularly the health insurance industry, may need to be reformed, so does the health care industry which is an entirely different industry, and all hopes of some how fixing the clear problems that exist in the health care industry today, have been placed upon an insurance policy. This legislation is not health care reform it is an experiment in social reform, but it is not health care reform, and it is far from given that the legislation will do anything at all to reduce the costs of health care.

For all the emotional appeal little baby Huston has, to drag this child out as some sort of spokes model for the insurance industry is baffling and only seems to illustrate just how confused people are on the matter of health care. In the matter of health care, this little baby was born with a congenital heart disease and had surgery to correct the problem and is good condition today. Prior to 1944 children born into the same situation were not afforded the same luxury, and most children just didn't survive.

The first attempts at operating on congenital heart defects began in 1944, and they have helped to dramatically increase the life expectancy of those born with these heart defects, but even so, it is a stressful and precarious life for one born with these defects, and their families, where life long care, and relationship with a cardiologist is necessary to prevent any future complications that are more likely to occur due to the defects. Survival for children born with problems such as this are faced with a cost of survival potentially far greater than most.

The costs of keeping a person healthy and alive who has congenital heart failure are far greater today than they were in 1944 for a number of reasons, the biggest being most children born with this disease did not survive. The advances made today in cardiology were made by a private system where individual doctors, surgeons, and other scientists endeavored to learn more about the heart and the diseases that come, and is not due to any government involvement, nor is it due to the third party debt management system of health insurance companies, the advances were made under a free market system.

The cost of this particular health care regarding cardiology is no doubt high, and for a new family just starting out, to be faced with the liability of debt owed for keeping their child alive, is imaginably great. That they have a policy with an insurance agency all ready, to help them cover some of that debt seems clear, and without reading the terms of the contract that family signed with the insurance agency, it is hard to speak intelligently as to whether or not that agency is in breach of contract. It is a tort issue, and not a social one. It is a business dispute over the liability of debt, plain and simple. No health care was denied, nor is there any threat of future health care being denied, with or with out this recent legislation.

So again, I ask, how has this recent HCR Bill changed that baby's situation? If I were to answer the question myself, I would guess that presumably the question of liability would be moot and this would be a relatively non news story. What this means is that all that has been changed is those who all ready have insurance, receive immediate perks and privileges but it has done nothing at all for a vast majority of the uninsured. Telling people they must purchase an insurance policy by force of law is not helping the uninsured, it is bullying them.

Since this social experiment known as the "health care reform" seems to have a system set up for those uninsured who want it but can't afford private insurance, then it can be assumed that for some of those uninsured this new legislation probably sounds good, and offers some sort of relief for them, but the price of creating a system where those less fortunate can be afforded a health insurance policy is the forced purchase of insurance policies for all. Those who are uninsured by choice are now faced with either complying with the law, or living as an outlaw.

Of the many problems with equating an insurance policy with health care, there is the very real problem that since the history of third party risk and debt management entered the health care field, the price of health care has risen dramatically, that cost then created an apparent need for people to consider owning health insurance given the rising cost of health care, while the costs just keep rising. While correlation does not prove causation, there is a link between the rise of health care and the alliance with the insurance industry that is worth examining. Further, there is no observable link between the insurance industry and medical progress. So, while it is likely that the the involvement of a third party player in a doctor/patient relationship has only added to the total cost of health care, they have done little to nothing to advance it.

The issue regarding this recent legislation, is not, nor has it ever been an issue of health care, and has always been hung on the hopes and ambitions of an insurance policy. Consider that, and what it is we insure. We insure our lives, betting we'll die sooner than the insurance agency believes we will, otherwise why purchase the policy? We purchase life insurance in the event of a catastrophic event that brings about our death, a financial need for our family and loved ones. We purchase auto insurance...well, we purchase that now, because we're told to do so, but there was a time when it was simply purchased in the event an accident or theft of the vehicle took place. We insure our homes in the event of catastrophe, and on and on, and on, we purchase insurance policies to address the risk of living. For surely as their is a cost of living, their is a risk in doing so.

Insurance policies can do nothing more than honor an agreement of financial remuneration in the event of some loss or damage due to some sort of catastrophic event, and have very little to do, or should, with the cost of health care. Always remembering that price controls are not cost controls, how will this legislation address the cost of health care? Thus far, the price has has been mandatory compliance, what will be the cost?

posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 03:54 AM

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
highly emotional

Healthcare is a highly emotional issue in this country. If you see this fact as an exaggeration you have got to get your head out of the sand Jean.

I dont see it as a matter to play down. People have lost loved ones, have lost entire savings due to the costs of healthcare. People are being cut out of coverage because of pre-existing conditions. Often its a catch 22, they dont fit the criteria for medicaid, they are not old enough for medicare, what must they do?

Better yet Jean, what makes you think these insurance companies will do any different if every parachute social programme (medicare, medicaid) is cut out? Do you think they'll automatically cover these folks? Or is it just 'bad luck' in your view?

How does this legislation change that unfortunate infants situation in any way?

For one major reason, the bill prohibits all health insurance companies from barring coverage for individuals with pre-existing conditions. In particular, the barring of children on the basis of pre-existing conditions will be the first part of the bill to go into effect.

I'd figure a free market advocate like you would support this? It was either this or a 'socialist public option'. Atleast in this bill we are still covering people under a consumer driven healthcare system.

In anycase this bill will not completely solve our healthcare crises and I already explained that in my thread.

It appears as if absolutely no health care was denied this child,

She got healthcare! Really? Wonderful, why are the parents complaining then? They should easily be able to pick up the tab right? Nevermind that their private insurers opted out. I mean is this really your logic? Do you know howmany people find themselves in deep debt as the result of healthcosts? Did you actually read my thread? The majority of bankruptcies last year resulted in healthcare costs. Smalls businesses are suffering because of rising healthcare costs. How on earth do you expect the people of this to deal with it? Most of these people just want to be covered but cant because the insurance companies bar them from that. What the heck is their next option Jean?

If insurance companies are barring people off over silly 'pre-existing conditions' reasons, and if people like you call for socialist programmes like medicare and medicaid to be dismantled, whats the next option for these guys? Just go to doctors and deal with the 1000's worth of dollars in costs? And you expect this economy to fix itself under such a system? Are you mad? We cannot continue like this Jean.

While the insurance industry, particularly the health insurance industry, may need to be reformed, so does the health care industry which is an entirely different industry, and all hopes of some how fixing the clear problems that exist in the health care industry today,

And you plan on fixing the system by doing what? Allowing more freedom to the market? And how is this going to change their current methods? If insurance companies are barring people from being covered over pre-existing conditions, millions of americans might to be exact, what is a more free market approach going to change for them? You cut medicare out, you cut medicaid out, and these insurance companies are barring people for pre-existing conditions while raising premiums. How on earth is deregulation going to change this?

to drag this child out as some sort of spokes model

Obviously you will see it this way Jean because corporate apologists like you cannot handle the reality of the situation facing the healthcare system. A case like baby Houstons here can only be pushed aside as 'publicity' because surely this system works fine and dandy right? Are you just going to dismiss the reality facing millions of americans as something that is false? How on earth do you dismiss the reality of the fact? Do you think all people put it upon themselves not to be covered under insurance? Do you completely dismiss circumstances to suit your ideological biases? Jean I by the least expected better than this from you.

In the matter of health care, this little baby was born with a congenital heart disease and had surgery to correct the problem and is good condition today.

And you continue to blatantly dismiss the problem here. The cost of not being covered in this country. How on earth do you expect these middle to working class families to afford healthcare if insurance companies are barring them off? What the heck are they suppose to do? You continue to go on about the healthcare facilities and proffesionalism in this country, thats not the problem. The problem is the cost of healthcare and the fact insurance companies are barring millions of americans from being covered.

I mean the majority of your post here consisted of a rant that ignored the problem and any solution to it.

[edit on 27-3-2010 by Southern Guardian]

posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 04:52 AM
Thank goodness baby Houston got the surgery needed to fix his ailment. However, some have mentioned rhetoric and with situation such as the one highlighted in the video and others of people being denied health insurance on the concept of preexisting conditions. That is absolutely disgusting, and yes, government should have regulated that a long time ago. In a perfect world everyone who is willing to pay into an insurance program should have the right to do so, regardless of their medical condition at the time. In most cases we cannot help when we get sick or become racked with a debilitating illness. However, I want that child to have liberty and the rights awarded to him under the Constitution.

All Americans should feel that way at the very least. This healthcare reform was a scam, and now the federal government is in the business of forcing people to do business with the insurance companies. It has to do with the seemingly draconian measure of a mandate, fines, imprisonment, and the IRS peering into people private affairs in terms of an individual's coverage status. Under the new law everyone must have insurance regardless of one's ability to afford or want of such insurance.

Some will say this the current economic climate with healthcare is bringing down the economy, and to a certain extent they are correct. In the system before the law was passed there has been corruption, price gouging, never ending lawsuits on doctors, and limited access to care and coverage among those with preexisting conditions. However, how is this law going to help the economy when the little guy cannot meet their mortgage, car payments, property taxes, and other economic misfortunes in an economy were jobs are few and far between the norm? What makes matters worse, the government has now enforced another tax burden on those very same people mentioned above. What gives?

The story presented by the OP is the same kind of teary-eyed rhetoric used by the politicians for the greater part of last year as this bill gathered steam. They were using the sufferings of Americans for a political agenda. How is that not plain to see? It should not be, because it is as apparent as the eyes on our faces. Now, they have added authority and the power to send reasonable law abiding citizens a hefty fine and a prison term for those who cannot comply with this mandate provision. In essence, this bill criminalized the 300 million people they said it would help. I value the liberty given to choose if I want health insurance or not. Under the Constitution, Congress only has the authority to regulate preexisting interstate commerce, and not the authority to force someone into a private business transaction.

Will HCR Revive The “Lost” Tenth Amendment

Under particular attack will be the mandate provisions that require citizens to purchase health insurance and requiring businesses with more than 50 employees to provide health insurance to employees. In pursuit of seeking to have courts declare the new law unconstitutional one of the underpinnings will be the Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

. . . Those seeking to nullify the law will no doubt argue that HCR is unique in American history. HCR purports to federally require all citizens to purchase a product or service from private companies. Those defending the law will point to state insurance requirements on motor vehicles. The response to that will be that vehicle insurance laws are state laws, not federal, and that ownership and operation of a vehicle remains an individual choice.

Clearly, this legislation violates the the 10th amendment. It should be obvious to all, and this bill is nothing more than another trampling of rights and liberties afforded to Americans under the Constitution. My view of the Federal Government, Congress, and the Executive Branch is that of good stewards in terms of protecting Constitution when drafting and enacting laws. If a provision is unconstitutional then a congressman regardless of party affiliation should vote it down. How much more simpler can it be?

In other words, with the recent actions of our leaders in government on addressing this hot button issue; I see our elected representatives and our own President as a group of surgeons inebriated beyond belief operating on a country that is in shambles and in a political climate of a blood soaked emergency room with dull knives passing laws that do more harm than good. Our political surgeons, if you will, need to sober up and follow the laws in which they have sworn to uphold! Just my two-cents on the subject of healthcare, since it is still as controversial as it was when discussion began. Moreover, I am pleased that regular everyday people are teaming together and involved in helping baby Houston and his family with their medical expenses.

[edit on 27-3-2010 by Jakes51]

posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 05:03 AM
reply to post by Southern Guardian

My Dear Friend and Respected Member Southern Guardian,

Regardless of how emotional this issue may be, that emotion has no place in legislative matters. Emotions are what we feel, and laws must be based upon something more tangible than how we are feeling at the time, if they are to have any meaning at all.

While you claim to have no reason to play down the costs of health care, you continue to do so, simply speaking to the price of health care, and more specifically the price of health care for people who choose to insure their health. For you, this all seems to be about health insurance, and the cost of health care is only your concern in relation to its price. In short, you understandably want the best medical services the health care industry can provide at the most affordable price, and you believe that health insurance policies will accomplish this. This is your choice to make, but you now are advocating the use of force to make everyone else handle their private affairs in regard to health in the same manner.

S.G., you ask me directly what makes me think that insurance companies will do if Medicade and Medicare are cut out, and my direct answer is what has that got to do with health care? What ever insurance companies do it comes down to accepting or denying liability for claims, which is essentially, and for the purposes of the issue of health care, an issue of debt. Who owes that debt is the issue when a third party player is involved, and the issue becomes moot when there is not a third party player. There is no reason to be emotional about it, this is the cold hard facts, about debt. If there is a debt that mean someone is liable for that debt, and until it is paid, the cost of performing the service or supplying a product is a loss.

It is the crushing and astonishing debt that people are finding themselves faced with in regards to certain types of health care, that should be the issue, yet you continue to steer as best you can, the discussion in directions of "coverage". What needs to be addressed is why certain aspects of health care are becoming more and more cost prohibitive for the uninsured. What is making health care so damn expensive should be the issue, not how can we get everybody covered with some form of health insurance.

Thus far, the insurance industry has done nothing to reign in these cost prohibitive services for people who are faced with some sort of accidental injury or chronic illness, and beyond that, simple check ups are costlier today, in all likelihood due to third party players, for every body, including the uninsured. I remains deeply skeptical that pinning all hopes on creating a health care system that is affordable for most on insurance schemes, and have always found the insurance industry to be a dubious form of enterprise.

Indeed, I find the practice to be, more times than not, flat out morbid. Insurance is a wager between the insured and the agency giving the insurance. Life insurance becomes a wager that the holder of a policy will live long enough to off set the cost of any pay out. The pay out is contingent upon the holders death. The same is often true for health insurance. The wager is that the holder of the policy will remain healthy enough to charge enough premiums to off set the cost of any pay out, when that expectation of pay out becomes when the holder suffers from some chronic illness that requires major medical procedures and care. In short, the pay out for having health insurance is getting sick. There is a morbid quality to this sort of fiscal management.

As to your confusion of free market principles my friend, please understand that mandatory compliance with this HCR Bill is in no way, shape or form a free market principle. In regards to the free market and the insurance industry, I am an advocate of Laissez faire capitalism, so I do not advocate any regulation of any industry and even with regulation would always suggest the buyer beware. You keep insisting that the only way to reduce the cost of health care is through some social insurance scheme, when no insurance scheme, social or private, seems to be able to keep up with the cost of that health care.

Your attempts at special pleading, and arguing that everyone should have health insurance because you believe the cost of your health care will become insurmountable, and bad things will happen if we don't all just play along and buy insurance, while our legislatures continue to tinker with their legislation, (and quite probably much of the tinkering is due to the emotional nature of the crafting of the Bill), is just more fallacy. Why is the cost of health care becoming so insurmountable? This is the issue, and to a lesser extent, why is it you believe you will need to pay for this insurmountable health care? Do you expect to contract some chronic illness in the future? Are you betting that you will be hit by a bus or some other catastrophic event will happen where by you will require the marvels of Western medicine?

You ask me directly how I would "fix" the system, and come close to correctly answering that question yourself, as you've come to know me fairly well my friend, and yes part of my suggestion would be to let the free market system work itself out. In terms of regulation, as a free market advocate, I am always extremely reluctant to agree that government should be the choice to regulate industry. However, I also recently read an interesting post in another thread you and I have debated in, who suggested that the failure of Mises versus the success of Keynes, came down to a willingness to flirt with power structures, and in that spirit, if there is any valid regulation to be done, it would have to begin with the health care industry itself.

The trick is not to get sick, right? To live a long and healthy life and avoid the costs of chronic illness all together. Couple that with prudent actions and thereby avoiding any calamity that would create some massive trauma or injury, and the costs of health care do not disappear, they are instead transferred from a medical system set up to facilitate ill health, towards a more sustainable, both health wise and economically, regimen. There are those who spend a good portion of their income purchasing healthy foods, vitamin and herbal supplements, and some form of exercise and this too is health care.

We fear heart disease, cancer, diabetes, and various other chronic illnesses because of the top ten causes of death in the United States, nine of them are from chronic illness and the other is accidental injury. Why is heart disease, cancer, diabetes and other chronic illnesses on the rise? This is a crucial question to ask in this issue, but who has asked it and who will address it? Why are chronic illnesses becoming more and more the norm, for an average person who survives into adulthood? As long as these chronic illnesses continue to rise rather than decline, health insurance is not going to do a thing to curb the costs of health care.

If I were to fix the problem, I would do what I could to address this fundamental problem. That we are not doing enough personally to ensure our healthy longevity, expecting to experience longevity while suffering from bouts of chronic illness is a ridiculous way to live in my humble opinion. I would never advocate mandating or regulating any personal behavior, and any government expense on the matter, should come under promoting the general welfare and in that regard, I would promote as best I could through speech, press and example, a healthy life style to better avoid the dreaded costs of chronic illness.

I am running out of character space my friend, I will continue later.

[edit on 27-3-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 08:40 AM

Originally posted by David9176 have integrity...and you care. I have the utmost respect for you because of this. You are not one who falls to the endless rhetoric. It speaks volumes of who you are...even though we'll never agree on some things.

And I could (and do) say exactly the same thing about you, David.

Originally posted by AshleyD
However, the concern in many people's minds is not that we don't need reform- it's that this specific bill doesn't really address the problem in a fair manner.

I have addressed this issue before. You're right, this bill is not perfect. It doesn't do enough in some areas and it goes too far in others. But it is MY belief (as it is others on this site - though I don't want to speak for others) that if this bill was not passed and we scrapped it and started all over, there would be disagreements in Congress AND in the nation of monumental proportions - to the point where nothing would EVER be agreed upon and no health care reform would get passed. It would take up more time and cause more bad feelings and it would be all for nothing.

Plus, Obama would get nothing else done during his presidency.

After all, they DID start from scratch and this is what they came up with. Why do people think that starting over again would bring about a different result? There's no reason to think that. It would be a waste of time, money, energy and resources.

A bill that would please everyone does not exist. No matter what bill they came up with, many people would disagree with parts of it and claim that they want health care reform, but not THIS health care reform. You simply can't please everyone.

Originally posted by AshleyD
But not this stuff where a great portion of the population will be in 'that zone' of having their taxes increased but not receiving the benefits. Depending on your location, $80,000's, especially for a 2 income family, is not that uncommon.

I don't know how you are under the impression that a family that makes $80K is going to have increased taxes. Where can I read about that? And if that IS the case, then my taxes will be going up, too. I'm not afraid, nor do I feel like I'll be getting nothing for it. I WANT little Houston to have health care. If I have to do with a little less or put a little less in savings or be a little more frugal so people with preexisting conditions have health care, then I am MORE than willing to do that. I'm fine with that.

Why? Because I have been that person who couldn't get health insurance at any price because I had breast cancer at one time. Maybe that's why I see this as something good for us all. Because I still have a history of breast cancer. That's not ever going to go away. And who knows what might happen in the future for you or me?

[edit on 3/27/2010 by Benevolent Heretic]

posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 09:50 AM
Ashley, this is what I have found regarding tax increases and $80,000.

Health Care Law Answers

-- I make $300,000 a year and have a very generous employer-paid health plan. How much more will I have to pay? You do face higher taxes. A higher Medicare payroll tax of 2.35 percent will begin in 2013 on earnings of more than $200,000 a year for individuals and more than $250,000 for couples, up from 1.45 percent. You'll also face an additional 3.8 percent tax on unearned income such as dividends and interest over the threshold.

What Health Care Reform Means for Small Businesses

Starting this year:

You can get a 35% tax credit if you have 10 or fewer employees, and they earn less than $25,000 on average.

You qualify for a smaller tax credit if you have 25 or fewer employees with an average wage $50,000 or less.

You don’t get a tax credit if you have more than 25 employees. Also, any employee who earns more than $80,000/year will be excluded from your credit.

A business that has more than 25 employees doesn't get the 35% tax credit and a single employee of that business that makes $80K or more does not figure into that 35% tax credit.

This is all I found in HCR about $80,000.

posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 10:01 AM
I think MOST would agree that the reform about pre-existing conditions is good. Being a life long asthmatic, that is pretty much the only thing I like about this bill. As I said in another thread, this perk is being blasted out ad nauseum in a tone of incredulity as to how anyone could not support this bill because since insurance companies can't deny coverage for pre-existing conditions.

Personally, I'm thrilled about that.

However, the reason I have my avatar showing the size of the bill is that it is about much more than just this issue that keeps getting blasted in our faces over and over.

Like Ed said, all this bill really is, is about more taxes. I'm sorry but until our government is able to show even a shred of responsibility with our current taxes, I'm pretty upset that they're asking for more when they can't handle what they already have. Also, I don't like the thought of passing legislation that forces people to purchase something.

If this was to go through, I was really pulling for a public option but that never happened either. So great, in my bracket (not 80K), my taxes went up, I receive no credit, and I'm forced to buy something from a private company. It's not right.

This one perk about pre-existing conditions is flaunted about which is why I have my avatar set to what it is- to show there is a lot more in this bill than the talking points we keep hearing about repeatedly.

posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 10:13 AM
If the government wants to give everyone healthcare, and pay for it, and it is free and without penalty or cost to the people, fine. But what they put forth is a violation of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution and therefore illegal.

The government simply cannot force any individual to purchase a product under penalty of law.

[edit on 27-3-2010 by Fromabove]

posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 10:25 AM

Originally posted by AshleyD
So great, in my bracket (not 80K), my taxes went up, I receive no credit, and I'm forced to buy something from a private company. It's not right.

So, your tax bracket is over $200,000. That's cool. And you are VERY fortunate compared to most people in the US. Yes, if you make over $200,000 by yourself or $250,000 for two people, your taxes will go up. I want to say "I'm sorry", but that doesn't exactly convey my feelings. I AM sorry that some people have to pay more taxes. No one wants to pay more taxes.

This one perk about pre-existing conditions is flaunted about which is why I have my avatar set to what it is- to show there is a lot more in this bill than the talking points we keep hearing about repeatedly.

Yes, there is way more in the bill than the preexisting clause. And I agree it's probably much more than it needs to be (although I'm ot sure of that). But what, in those 2000 pages do you have a problem with? I mean, the FACT that there are 2000 pages isn't something concrete. How is the number of pages relevant if you don't have a specific issue with what's IN those 2000 pages (besides the tax increase, of course).

I mean, we all know how legal mumbo-jumbo can take ten pages to say what we can say in a sentence. And this is one-sided, double spaced, with HUGE margins. It's really more like 500 pages. The number of pages is irrelevant if you don't bring up specific issues with the bill itself.

Again, a bill to please everyone would be impossible.

posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 10:38 AM
This bill is certainly not health care reform. Its something other than that really.

If they were really thinking about fixing a broken system the bill would have included that the insurance industry must sell 100% coverage policies.

One gets insurance to protect assets for one thing. We should have insurance that protects our savings.

Say you rack up some high bills. Your insurance covers 80% but you still owe 50k and that eats up all your savings or whatever. So what is the point? I for one would be glad to pay higher rates for full protection.

Also if your insurance and the hospital have an issue they should have to work that out and not come back on the patient if the company doesnt want to pay for some service.

posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 02:08 PM
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

I have the same problem. I, too, have had breast cancer and one other major illness. Both of those would be pre-existing conditions if I were to try to get new insurance. The enormous cost of both has been covered by my employee's health insurance. Even then, there's a lifetime cap on the second illness, so even if I keep my present insurance I will be up a creek the next time I have to be hospitalized.

Heaven help me if I lose my insurance.

My only other option would be to spend up all my assets, make less than $1,000 a month (in my state anyway) and go on medicaid.

Not a very good option.

[edit on 27-3-2010 by Sestias]

posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 04:51 PM
reply to post by Jakes51

Jakes firstly Im glad that atleast you came to the agreement that the situation of baby Houstons is an example of how broken our system is. Atleast we can agree that this system needs to be fixed and these healthcare insurers need to be held accountable.

Now you mention that the what the government is doing through this reform bill is unconstitutional. I cannot fully agree with this because by your view we should then dismantle programme like medicare, medicaid, social welfare and unemployment assistance to which alot of americans depend on, alot of hardworking americans (most of them are not merely 'lazy') to which the system doesnt work for them. It it fair a working class familiy be left with no options but private insurers who continue rising costs of premiums? What about those insurance companies refuse to cover? Whats the alternative? You agree that these healthcare insurance businesses need to be held accountable in some way, what do we do then?

I did hear about the idea from Ron Paul over reform from providing tax credits to solve the rising costs. My issue with this idea from Ron Paul and other conservatives is that how will this stop rising premiums? If you have these private corporations and even some of these medical proffesionals purposefully rising costs, for how long will those tax credits assist in these costs? What about those being barred. I mean Im not hearing specifics from conservatives to combat the issue. Im sure you will be able to explain to me on this issue as you know the problem at hand.

posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 05:53 PM
free markets provide better, cheaper, and more accesable care to a wider portion of the population than socialist nonsense.

"Free" care is impossible.

Costs must be contained by price controls in a socialist system.

Price controls DEMAND RATIONING.

You can not have price controlled medical care without rationing. It is an economic impossibility.

Never in the known history of man has something been placed under price controls AND been unlimited in its accessibility besides infinitely reproducible goods such as electronic media.

[edit on 27-3-2010 by mnemeth1]

posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 06:07 PM

Originally posted by mnemeth1
free markets provide better, cheaper, and more accesable care to a wider portion of the population than socialist nonsense.

"Free" care is impossible.

Costs must be contained by price controls in a socialist system.

Price controls DEMAND RATIONING.

You can not have price controlled medical care without rationing. It is an economic impossibility.

Never in the known history of man has something been placed under price controls AND been unlimited in its accessibility besides infinitely reproducible goods such as electronic media.

[edit on 27-3-2010 by mnemeth1]

Or you can have a socialized basic universal plan and pay out of pocket for private supplemental insurance like they do in all the other socialist pig nations...

PEOPLE will have coverage and the choice to augment and shop around at will.

The core of the "human" problem will be solved and the such a specialized supplemental
market place should bring about stiff competition and innovation.

Also give each state the option to opt out all together in a financial and participatory manner.

[edit on 27-3-2010 by Janky Red]

posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 06:35 PM
reply to post by Southern Guardian

Thank you...the other day i´d debated this issue, about the lost american caring of each other...but noone seemed intressed to take part on the right thank you for writing this thread to help making americans aware...

posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 06:41 PM

Originally posted by mnemeth1
free markets provide better, cheaper, and more accesable care to a wider portion of the population

And yet it failed miserably for the past 3 decades for this nation. Why is it that healthcare is more easily accessable and less costly in Canada, Britian and Australia which have well established public options, single payer systems, and yet here people continue to struggle? You people continue to insist the socialist healthcare systems there are failing yet why is it that when you actually talk to the people from those countries they have little to no problems?

Dont bring up the absolute BS that this system of ours has been controlled. More than 80% of the american population have been living under private insurers. We have had a consumer driven healthcare system and yet we lag behind developing countries is accessable affordable healthcare with socialist systems. How on earth can you continue to insist when the statistics are there? Are you just going to continue to dismiss?

"Free" care is impossible.

Nobody argued this here, nobody claimed that this bill will provide free healthcare to all, it is you making this claim.

Costs must be contained by price controls in a socialist system.
Price controls DEMAND RATIONING.

The private healthcare insurers in this country have already been RATIONING healthcare by cutting off more people and restricting who they are covering. The private insurers have been making money off of RATIONING healthcare in this nation while raising premiums.

But instead of having doctors working to remove her brain tumors on the day the surgery was scheduled, she sat in a San Francisco hotel room. Why? Because at the last minute, her insurance company, Blue Shield, decided it wasn’t going to pay for the treatment her doctors at UCSF Medical Center had recommended.

You continue to accuse other socialist programmes of rationing when we see little to no such evidence in other developed countries while you continue to ignore that healthcare insurers do just that. We see it in the same situation as baby Houstons here, we see it in other cases for millions of americans. It is a financial benefit when private insurers RATION healthcare and yet you continue to blatantly ignore that fact.

[edit on 27-3-2010 by Southern Guardian]

posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 06:54 PM
Sad videos about babies are sad.

Okay, good, now that we have that out of the way, could we talk about the actual contents of the law at hand? Because this the actual bill, the most important question, is invariably pushed aside so we can deal with more poignant issues like which tragedy-of-the-week is having their dignity stripped for the sake of political expediency.

As far as I can tell, the major thrust of this bill is forcing able-bodied folk, young-folk, and other folk who would have never purchased health insurance to buy it, in order to improve the actuarial accounting of insurance companies so that they can "charge less" and "cover more people" which is not functionally different from saying that you'll make bananas half-price at the grocery store with the caveat that you're not allowed to check out without first buying bananas. And what of all the wasted dollars on wasted bananas that no-one will ever eat? Well, at least the grocer walks away with a handsome profit, having assured himself that his perishables are being liquidated. Those people who wanted half-price bananas also make out like bandits. And since, let's face it, most people want half-price bananas, it's worth all the wasted money and wasted bananas that the customers who didn't want bananas had to buy anyway, right?

"Health care" is a rhetorical category combining two very charged words into a hyper-charged soundbite meant to evoke the most base and passionate emotions in service to a political agenda. I care for my health every day. I eat right, exercise, and don't take unnecessary risks. Furthermore, I didn't even make enough last year to be subject to federal tax liability, so the rhetorical weapon "class warfare" must be placed in reserve for the rich folk who call these sort of things into question.

That's all this post is for: calling things into question. It might have just been my teen-aged exposure to Fox Mulder, but I am absolutely certain that his favorite adage applies times ten to politicians and their shills.

posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 06:59 PM
reply to post by Southern Guardian

We don't have free market healthcare in this country.

What we have is a fascist joke, and what Obama is proposing is even more a joke.

It does nothing to improve quality or reduce costs.

All it does is steal from the elderly to provide care for the poor.

It barely does that.

Its a joke, just like socialism is a joke.

We don't have free market healthcare, doctors are not allowed to create exculpatory contracts, lawyers run the medical industry, government pumps in hundreds of billions each year in to care, insurers are not allowed to sell cross state, massive regulatory overhead, etc.. etc..

[edit on 27-3-2010 by mnemeth1]

posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 07:20 PM
[edit on 27-3-2010 by Janky Red]

posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 07:22 PM

Originally posted by Professor Tomorrow
Sad videos about babies are sad.

Say that to the parents. Tell them its all publicity, all an exaggeration and that we can put trust in private insurers after what they just did.

Its astound howmuch of an effort you people make to play down what is one of millions of situations regarding private healthcare insurers.

Okay, good, now that we have that out of the way, could we talk about the actual contents of the law at hand? Because this the actual bill, the most important question, is invariably pushed aside so we can deal with more poignant issues like which tragedy-of-the-week is having their dignity stripped for the sake of political expediency.

If you had read my OP you would have understood this was a not thread to credit the bill itself, infact I states clearly as you people tend to purposefully miss out, that this reform bill is not enough. My thread centered around our healthcare issue and situations like this, and whether you are rightwing or left wing, we can agree there is a problem to our system. You are not bothering to get the OP at all.

I care for my health every day. I eat right, exercise, and don't take unnecessary risks.

So you think people like baby Houston here are suffering because of not 'eating right and excising'? Really? Is this your excuse? This is pathetic.

Do you think people who are born with respiratory problems are like that because they didnt 'eat right and exercise before they were born'?? What about cancer sufferers who are cut off by insurance companies on the last minute in many cases, did they get cancer because they 'didnt eat right'? Where did you get that scientific conclusion from?

You people are unbelievable. No only do you brush aside the real unfortunate circumstances going on for people, uncontrollable circumstances, you brush all these situatons of as self causing, not bothering to look more objectively into the situation. You cannot handle the people are suffering under a system that caters to your ideological beliefs so you belittle it by making any excuse you can pull out. It is disgusting. Go tell the parents that baby Houston you have been eating right and exercising.

The reply from many opponents thus far is dissappointing. I dont know what more I can say about it. Im speechless that this is the reply I get.

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in