Privately, Barack Obama strongly pushing "public option"

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by Mak Manto
I care for everyone's death, but 45,000 people DIE UNNECESSARILY.

We can change health care around, but there are people on this site who have been blinded by the corporations.

They've been made into scared puppets to keep a system that has failed us for decades now.

It's time to change it, once and for all. To save lives that companies don't want to!

Twisting what people here say and using false statistics does not make you right - at all.

I don't recall anyone saying that what we have is perfect and should be kept as is.

What people against obamacare are saying is that a bad healthcare bill is worse than no new healthcare bill. Don't make it worse, make it better and there are better ways to do it than obamacare.

And a reliable source, please, for the 45,000 deaths statistic you keep posting ...

Of course, I would never go without a source when presenting my views on ATS.

45,000 Uninsured Die a Year

45,000 people a year...

reply to post by Mak Manto
For the 4th time in this thread, not to mention all of ATS, this study does not support the conclusions you profess or imply.

1st. It describes people who refused insurance, took no preventive care, and about whom no history was available. The sample and extrapolation were flawed, and conclusion unproven - it was AN ESTIMATE BASED ON AN EXTRAPOLATION.

2nd. Your "source" is either a report on the report, or a blog on the report.
Cite the report. Give facts.

Posting a dead link doesn't support you one bit. As always. Linking to a report or opinion on the report is NOT a source.

Want me to spell it out? The "Harvard Study" is the "source."

Post it. Let's look at it in depth. I dare you.

(here's another hint: Go to a school. Use the library. Use LEXIS/NEXIS.)

Deny ignorance!

jw


[edit on 7-10-2009 by jdub297]

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by dizzie56

Originally posted by Mak Manto
I care for everyone's death, but 45,000 people DIE UNNECESSARILY.

We can change health care around, but there are people on this site who have been blinded by the corporations.

They've been made into scared puppets to keep a system that has failed us for decades now.

It's time to change it, once and for all. To save lives that companies don't want to!

Can you show me the reasons why the estimated 45,000 people who die each year have no health care?

I can also show you how to use Google. Try it, it's so simple even you can master it!

There has been a study, get it? It links these 45k death with lack of prevention -- which I think is pretty obvious in itself. When you do go to ER it's usually way too late.

www.reuters.com...

Apparently while learning to master such a simple search engine like google, you failed to understand reading comprehension. There is more to dieing than having or not having insurance.

I'll ask the question again, but this time in caps so maybe you can google it easier or something.

CAN YOU SHOW ME THE REASONS WHY THE ESTIMATED 45,000 PEOPLE WHO DIE EACH YEAR HAVE NO HEALTH CARE?

I'm sorry, but i thought that the question i asked was pretty obvious but apparently it wasnt. There was a reason why the people didnt have health care. Why didnt they? To costly? Previous conditions? What? Give an answer instead of another "But 45,000 people die each year because of lack of insurance" whining crybaby type answer. Also, ill say it again, that number is an estimate based on a study of 9,000 people. They dont say if any of the 9,000 people died, it just says they "have a 40 percent higher risk of death" (thats according to your own source if you didnt do that pesky reading comp thing again). That means of the 9,000 people, there were 3,600 people who are at a higher risk of dieing...the next obvious question is why? What disease do they have? Obese? Heart disease? Cancer? ITS AN ESTIMATE OF RISK OF DEATH NOT ACTUAL NUMBERS. Get over it.

If this is true then why the hell doesn't he make a lot of noise about it as opposed to tip toeing around the whole issue?

I fear that the Democrats will once again snatch defeat from the jaws of victory...

(something they have mastered, and in fact may be the only thing that they are good at...it is so sad watching invertebrates trying to stand up.)

on this issue and if that happens...more than anything Obama will be to blame since he has the bully pulpit and spends way too much time equivocating.

Without the public option there will be no meaningful reform because unless the insurance companies feel their bottom line threatened any change will be superficial and they will do all that they can to undermine whatever is passed.

reply to post by grover

If this is true then why the hell doesn't he make a lot of noise about it as opposed to tip toeing around the whole issue?
on this issue and if that happens...more than anything Obama will be to blame since he has the bully pulpit and spends way too much time equivocating.

I think you hare close but not quite on the mark. I've emphasized parts of your statement that reflect recognition of the relevant behavior, but not the motivation and goals.

Because the Democratic leadership are fearful of snatching defeat, they will DO things and try to HIDE, or even deny, their intended effect.

The goal of the liberal "reform" movement is to eliminate private insurance from healthcare completely. (Covered on ATS, even with Chicago rally video clips.)

The motivation is to place as much control over the public into Federal hands as possible. If the voters are dependent upon you for their well-being, you control the voters.

Very simple, really.

Poorly executed thus far, but still possible.

The reason for "tiptoeing" and "equivocation" is that if the liberal wing of the Democratic party came out and announced their plan, the game would be over.

The ONLY way to accomplish the goal is surreptitiously; with prevarication if necessary, denial always plausible, and "straw men" ("there are those who would say ... ") liberally deployed to distract the uninformed and the sheep who only need a rallying cry to join in their ethical and economic suicide.

Deny ignorance.

jw

reply to post by jdub297


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

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

Is this true? I'm just asking because you have initiated A LOT of threads slamming health insurance reform, and in doing so, you continue to deny scientific studies and established, widely accepted data that shows reform is necessary.

I'm being serious jdub.

You start threads about a public option, many different threads, all attacking the same thing, but in different ways.

You start the thread, stay on the thread, day and night, while you insult people in favor of reform, cite scientific studies as having "flawed data", and You deny ignorance in almost every post on every thread.

Every fact is in dispute regarding reform, yet every thing you say is beyond reproach.

We cite studies, polls and established, accepted fact, and you cite ATS, usually threads or posts that you have initiated, as being proof of something, usually that the insurance companies don't need reforming.

-Deny Ignorance.

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by Mak Manto

 

For the 4th time in this thread, not to mention all of ATS, this study does not support the conclusions you profess or imply.

1st. It describes people who refused insurance, took no preventive care, and about whom no history was available. The sample and extrapolation were flawed, and conclusion unproven - it was AN ESTIMATE BASED ON AN EXTRAPOLATION.

2nd. Your "source" is either a report on the report, or a blog on the report.
Cite the report. Give facts.

Posting a dead link doesn't support you one bit. As always. Linking to a report or opinion on the report is NOT a source.

Want me to spell it out? The "Harvard Study" is the "source."

Post it. Let's look at it in depth. I dare you.

(here's another hint: Go to a school. Use the library. Use LEXIS/NEXIS.)

Deny ignorance!

jw


[edit on 7-10-2009 by jdub297]

But you haven't explained as to why they refuse health care?

Why do you think that is JDub?

Because, and I'll explain this to you, people are unable to get quality health care, and even if they are, many health care corporations don't allow for major surgery.

That means, people are paying hundreds of dollars a month on their health care, but if they get sick with cancer, or need major surgery on their body, their health care company will not pay for it.

Do you now see?

Deny ignorance, JDub.

Originally posted by pexx421
Ah, we have public schools (government funded) and we have private ones that compete just as well. We have public government run mail, and we have fed ex and UPS that compete just fine.

Further, while there may be some corruption or mess if we get government healthcare, it wont be NEARLY as much corruption and mess as we have with private insurance where 30% of ALL MEDICAL COSTS last year were due to insurance fraud, filed by insurance companies for doctors that no longer practice and patients that were no longer alive.

Prior to government takeover the postal service was private, and was rampant with corruption, with post masters taking bribes to refuse delivery of certain groups mails, and refusing to deliver mail of political groups they disagreed with....equally corrupt was the fire departments. Now as they are government controlled i have to admit that our mail and our fire service are reasonably reliable, and i never have any misgivings that the fire dept would not come if i called, nor do i worry when i drop something in the mail. All of this is just fear mongering that was initiated by the insurance industry in order to preserve their profits....and unfortunately many people fall for it.

If you think that public schools is a shinning example of how well the government runs programs then you sir must be living under a rock. There is a reason as to why that in every campaign politicians embark on they play on our heart strings and say that they are going to make it better...thats because they suck.

Also, the post office is subing out work to UPS and FEDEX because the post office cant compete because, again, the government doesnt know how to run anything. There is a reason as to why postal workers are getting laid off and not to much mail is going thru there anymore...its because the postal service is outdated and the gov doesnt know how to run things.

You also mention the fire departments. They know how to do their jobs and do a great dead for the community. But, since the government doesnt know how to run things, there are many of them that are shutting down and makeing paycuts across America because of lack of funds. Instead of the gov taking a lil cut on spending money on insane research projects (Iowa and pig farming comes to mind), they just cut the pay of firemen, cops, and teachers instead...again, the gov doesnt know how to run things.

What happens when the insurance plan starts running out of money? A) They will tax us to our threshold of almost down right revolution. B) They will ration care. There is no other way around it. The numbers and history dont lie.

reply to post by jdub297

They are not that competent. Corrupt and drunk with power yes but not competent...besides it is not a liberal or Democratic thing because the Republicans under the bush did the same damned thing...hide their intentions.

As for how the Democrats do things...I am not sure God almighty could sort that out.

I still vote for the buggers though (that's not to say anything bad about buggers) because while I have no faith in the Democrats I have less faith in the Republicans.

I'm just off a phone conversation with my wife.

We are getting bills again from the hospital where we received ER treatment for my daughter.

We have a decent insurance and they dutifully check it every time. Nobody ever told us there was any sort of problem with it.

If a nurse or two who were in attendance during that day aren't participating in the particular health plan (and I have a MAJOR plan, not some fly by night operation), you are billed regardless of your insurance.

This is the fourth time this is happening, with my wife receiving pre-childbirth consultation, then a sonogram and on other occasions.

To all the proponents of this private healthcare nonsense -- how does all of this sound to you? The services are fragmented, we have people who are employed in non-productive jobs such as shuffling bills and collecting fees from me, a premium payer.

I'm totally fed up with this idiotic setup which works only for insurance companies and not for anyone else.

Down with it.

reply to post by uaocteaou

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

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

First, I don't care what anyone who PMs you thinks. The mere fact that you get PMs from them says enough.

If they are so sure of themselves, then they can post and challenge me directly.

I've said this at least 6 times (search for the terms and see for yourself):

I DESPISE INSURANCE COMPANIES. I DESPISE EXCESSIVE GOVERNMENT INTRUSION. HEALTH CARE REFORM IS NECESSARY. HEALTH CARE WILL NOT BE IMPROVED BY GREATER GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT.

Clear enough?

I've also explained WHY I say what I do.

I've worked for insurance companies. I've worked for government.
I've worked against insurance companies. I've worked against government.

Against is better. And more rewarding. Always.

(search for that, too)

Understand?

Any questions?

Is this true? I'm just asking because you have initiated A LOT of threads slamming health insurance reform, and in doing so, you continue to deny scientific studies and established, widely accepted data that shows reform is necessary.

No. I have slammed GOVERNMENT CONTROL of health care.

"Widely accepted" means ZERO as proof of anything.
I agree that "reform is necessary."

You just don't get it, do you?

I'm being serious jdub.

I hope that's a joke, because the only reason I even respond to your pathetic replies is because YOU ARE A SHILL setting up softballs to be hit out of the park, or left to moulder in the minds of those too feeble to "call you out" on such baseless assertions, parroting propaganda.

This is a joke right? Or are you?

You start threads about a public option, many different threads, all attacking the same thing, but in different ways.

No, again. I start threads that point out the flaws, distortions and obfuscation of those posing a "public option" as a means to arrive at a single-payer (government) system.

(By the way, single-payer does not work. It will not work with a population of 350 million patients. But THAT's a different topic/thread, no?)

You start the thread, stay on the thread, day and night, while you insult people in favor of reform, cite scientific studies as having "flawed data", and You deny ignorance in almost every post on every thread.

That (in bold) is a baldpfaced lie, and you know it.
I have NEVER insulted "people in favor of reform."

That's a straw man, as well. What people? Where? For what?

Once again, braniac, I AM IN FAVOR OF REFORM.

And I only quote the ATS motto to support others who see the light on things, seem to need encouragement, or just need to be reminded to NOT be ignorant.

Many posts just end with my initials.

Every fact is in dispute regarding reform,

You seem to equate government-run health care with "reform." They are not the same thing. In my mind, they are mutually exclusive.

yet every thing you say is beyond reproach.

That may be true. Thank you for noticing.

Look, if you post something, or a list of 15 somethings, followed by the word "fact." That does not make it so.

If you say "a recent Harvard study reported on you tube and CBS says 45,000 people die because they are uninsured,"

I'll tell you that the study covered 9,000 people, made no inquiry into lifestyle and preventive care or pre-existing conditions (if you've got some things, no amount of insurance will save you), and CHOICE to insure or not insure themselves, casue of death, likelihood of recovery or successful mediation through treatment, availability of care despite lack of insurance, and many other factors that do not support the widely repeated statement that "45,000 die BECAUSE OF NO INSURANCE."

The study itself only created an ESTIMATE and a CORRELATION.
It made absolutley no conclusions about CAUSATION.

And, I would've asked you to post a link to your "source" (that is, "a Harvard Study").

NOT a youtube clip, or a reporters report on the report, or a blog on the report.

How about we look at THE REPORT?

We cite studies, polls and established, accepted fact, and you cite ATS, usually threads or posts that you have initiated, as being proof of something, usually that the insurance companies don't need reforming.

Ever heard of "junk science?" Anyone can find an "authority" to support anything. I'll show you mine if you'll show me yours.

Understand this, too: I will not hold myself to a higher standard of proof than that to which you hold yourselves.

Show me yours, you get to see mine. Fair is fair.

"Accepted fact?" "Polls?" You're still joking, right?

If I cite ATS, it is because the same or a similar issue has already been addressed, you'd been challenged to show proof and refused or disappeared, and it is shorter than going through the whole thing again and again and again with you.

When you cite the "45,000 die" crap in a day or two, I'll link to THIS thread as my next shortcut.

Keeps me from having to repeat myself.


Are we clear on this?

If not, send me a PM.

Oh, in case you're wondering, I thought up a "reform" plan a few years ago when I was in the middle of a huge fight with an insurer. I won, and thought, 'there's got to be a better way.' So I put one together, published it in several places, and shared it HERE with people who've PM'ed ME.

Guess what. MY reform plan doesn't rely on insurance for basic and preventive care. Doesn't rely on government either. It relies on people like us.

It's been tested at micro- and macro scale and it works. People are treated better, get well quicker, and it costs less than what we pay today under this mangled mess everyone insiusts on calling a "system."

Deny ignorance.

jw

reply to post by Mak Manto

But you haven't explained as to why they refuse health care?

Nor have you. You can only SPECULATE or make up imaginary scenarios that fit your make-believe world.

Why do you think that is JDub?

Because the study's authors didn't inquire.

Why do YOU think that is?

Because, and I'll explain this to you, people are unable to get quality health care, and even if they are, many health care corporations don't allow for major surgery.

Pure "straw man" argument.

Which "people?" Which "corporations?" "Care" for what?

Does that include Medicaid? Non-prfits, like Mayo, Johns Hopkins, or the U.T. Health Science and Cancer Treatment system?

HUGE corporations, all.

Name ONE the many that "don't allow for major surgery." What surgery? For which conditions?

Straw man.

That means, people are paying hundreds of dollars a month on their health care, but if they get sick with cancer, or need major surgery on their body, their health care company will not pay for it.

See above. Name names. Cite conditions.

Do you now see?

I see, very clearly.

Deny ignorance, JDub.

Does that mean I don't have to reply to you anymore?

jw

reply to post by dizzie56
Great responses to utter nonsense. Clearly a product of public schools.

Funny thing, but yesterdat on NPR Diane Rehm was talking to - guess who-- the Commissioner of the USPS!

He was describing the deplorable conditions they work under, the under-staffed offices and the need to cut service to 5 days and from some locations/zip codes altogether! There are some places where they just can't do it all and get it right.

A shining example of government efficiency, no?

As for Fire Depts., a local township couldn't pay the fire crews becaus they'd already spent the budget on cars and supplies for the Township officials!

My local V.F.D. in Texas had to close and SELL their remaing equipment when it was discovered that the ONLY paid employee, the "Fire Marshall" had been selling radios, safety gear, et c. and didn't maintain the firefighting vehicles!

What happens when the insurance plan starts running out of money? A) They will tax us to our threshold of almost down right revolution. B) They will ration care. There is no other way around it. The numbers and history dont lie.

Facts are facts. CBO has released the "numbers" on the Baucus plan. They say it's "deficit neutral." Same as was predicted for Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare. AND it assumes Congress will CUT MEDICARE by $400 billion, and INCREASE TAXES on "medical devices."

jw

Originally posted by buddhasystem

If a nurse or two who were in attendance during that day aren't participating in the particular health plan (and I have a MAJOR plan, not some fly by night operation), you are billed regardless of your insurance.

This is the fourth time this is happening, with my wife receiving pre-childbirth consultation, then a sonogram and on other occasions.

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

I had something similar happen to me, almost. I had a recent procedure done to alleviate my kidney stone. After it was all done i saw on the bill that i was billed $800 for the anesthesia and another $800 for the anesthesia consult...that took ten mins of questions that i had previously answered at least 3 seperate times.

Now, I know the next obvious kneejerk response will be "You shouldnt have had to pay that much and private health care is ripping you off blah blah blah". But instead of having the kneejerk response that we always do, lets sit down and look at just the procedure of questions. Like i said, i was asked the same questions about three seperate times by 3 different people (2 nurses and the last was the anesthesiologist), all of the questions regarding my age, height, weight, what i ate, drug use, yada, yada, yada. Remember, I got billed $800 for pretty much taking a survey about myself.

Now, keep the kneejerk reactions down a bit and ask why did i have to go thru that and pay so much. Answer, liability insurance. They have to have a procedure set up to where they can make themselves look strong in court in case i lied and didnt tell them the truth for some reason so they ask several times and the cost of asking the questions (time it took), cost of computing (puttin them in my file), and of course the legal cost all takes their tolls.

Do I agree with them charging me a rediculous amount for such a procedure...hell no. Do i know why they have to do the procedure, yes. How do we solve the problem you may ask? TORT REFORM. Bamm!!! The cost of insurance and health care in general just went down by a third.

But, to buddhasystem, if i was you and if this truly was the case, i would take it back to the hospital or doctor and bitch and complain till i got it taken off the bill. That is truly fraud if that is what happened, but that wouldnt be the insurance companies fault, that would be the hospital/doc's fault (which, gee, have to report to the gov cause they are regulated in what they do and probably had to have those nurses stand in their as witnesses in case you tried to sue). You can always pitch a fit still...it aint run by the gov yet.

Try and argue with a gov worker about your health care after they take over, you will truly be bald fast from pullin out all the hair and if you dont believe me, just call up any old gov program and try and get anything done whatsoever. Hell, i dare you to even raise your voice to one on the phone, you would be put on hold so fast and for so long that you wouldnt know what hit ya.

reply to post by dizzie56




This is a sin.

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by Mak Manto

 

But you haven't explained as to why they refuse health care?

Nor have you. You can only SPECULATE or make up imaginary scenarios that fit your make-believe world.

Why do you think that is JDub?

Because the study's authors didn't inquire.

Why do YOU think that is?

Because, and I'll explain this to you, people are unable to get quality health care, and even if they are, many health care corporations don't allow for major surgery.

Pure "straw man" argument.

Which "people?" Which "corporations?" "Care" for what?

Does that include Medicaid? Non-profits, like Mayo, Johns Hopkins, or the U.T. Health Science and Cancer Treatment system?

HUGE corporations, all.

Name ONE the many that "don't allow for major surgery." What surgery? For which conditions?

Straw man.

That means, people are paying hundreds of dollars a month on their health care, but if they get sick with cancer, or need major surgery on their body, their health care company will not pay for it.

See above. Name names. Cite conditions.

Do you now see?

I see, very clearly.

Deny ignorance, JDub.

Does that mean I don't have to reply to you anymore?

jw

Oh, no, you'll keep replying back, because if you didn't, that would mean you concede the argument.

The people are these:

1. People who have had a disease before, such as cancer, or are high risk. Many companies will not take them on due to the fact that if they were to get sick again, the company would have to pay.

2. Low income families will be excluded from better plans. This is a horrible way that companies look at people: how much their income is. To think that the more money you make, the more better your health care is.

3. Children of illegal immigrants. Children have to be excluded here. It's not their fault that their parents came into the country illegally. They should be given health care.

Scary country we live in...

reply to post by Mak Manto


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

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


[edit on 7-10-2009 by carewemust]

reply to post by Mak Manto

The people are these:

1. People who have had a disease before, such as cancer, or are high risk. Many companies will not take them on due to the fact that if they were to get sick again, the company would have to pay.

It's obvious that you do not understand the "pre-existing exclusion."

My ex had cancer in 1985. Given a 5% survival. Med-mal caused a misdiagnosis and it had progressed unchecked. She HAD insurance and it didn't prevent the misdiagnosis.

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

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

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

This keeps thieves and liars from skating by without care or insurance, who then get sick, fill out an application, lie, and hope some "big corpoiration" will pay for their own stupidity.

If you're honest, the pre-existing condition doesn't hurt you.

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

2. Low income families will be excluded from better plans. This is a horrible way that companies look at people: how much their income is. To think that the more money you make, the more better your health care is.

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

Let's return to reality:

No insurance carrier I know, have been insured by, fought for, or fought against, ever asked an applicant for financial background information.

This is an outright lie.

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

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

Outright lie No. 2

3. Children of illegal immigrants. Children have to be excluded here. It's not their fault that their parents came into the country illegally. They should be given health care.

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

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

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

And, they're THE BEST programs, right?

Outright lie no. 3.

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

Deny ignorance!

jw

[edit on 7-10-2009 by jdub297]

reply to post by jdub297


Your x-wife was covered by 3 plans without any exclusions because she
was on "group" health insurance at her places of employment.

Group policies are highly regulated by the states. If she were applying
for an individual policy, your ex wouldn't have been so fortunate. Group
policies cost more for this reason.

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

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

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

I've negotiated and purchased both.

jw