Free Our Health Care Now
By John Goodman Filed under Uncategorized on June 17, 2009 with 58 comments
I believe the best features of the US health care system are greatly at risk in the health care reform considered by Congress. If you agree with me, go to http://www.freeourhealthcarenow.com/ and sign the petition today. If you have already signed the petition, feel free to post your comments below.
The current US healthcare system is the worst, most corrupt, and terrible in the world.
We have now officially entered the realm of total lies and misdirection.
In an interview with the AP earlier in the week Sec. Sebelius told several outright lies about how insurance companies have failed to perform. She never mentions that health insurance companies are the most heavily regulated industry in the nation. Mandates in place on the state and federal level are significantly to blame for the heavy costs borne by private health insurance.
Does either she or Obama mention that the other major costs problem in health care is the way in which Medicare/Medicaid operate and their significant underfunding of their obligations? No — and in that way they are misdirecting public sentiment.
All in the name of socialism and political control of our lives. Americans — for pete’s sake, do you want your freedoms eroded more and more by these politicians? Stand up and say NO.
Allen,
It is very easy to make baseless charges such as yours, with no specifics and no evidence. Please educate me. What makes the current US healthcare system the worst, most corrupt, and terrible in the world. That is quite a charge considering that many people from around the world come here for their health care. Unless you have some data, evidence, explanation, your comments have no value.
We need an expanded Town Hall meeting. Why not approach another TV channel and get sponsors to underwrite a real review of health care reform. The public is mostly clueless about how Medicare/Medicaid and federal and state mandates drive up the cost of private health care while Medicare/Medicaid pay below market fees for provider services. The providers of course then price these under payments into higher fees for service against the private plans. If we permit the federal government to game the system and control health care, we will be giving the government too much control over our economy and our health.
The only reform that meets each and every one of your 4 goals – choice, access, fairness and responsibility – is a single payer expanded and improved medicare for all system such as that embodied in John Conyers’ bill, HR 676, which would provide for private choice of your doctor or hospital, no co-pays or deductibles, would be the simplest to administer, have the least amount of administrative overhead (saving 350 billion/year – enough to cover all the uninsured), reduce costs the most, offer coverage more comprehensive than that currently available on the private insurance market, control costs so that benefits are sustainable, and insure that no person in the United States goes without health care coverage. Get the full story at http://www.pnhp.org.
Tax credits are worthless to people with little income – like those starting a new business.
Two things need immediate attention:
Pre-existing conditions prevent many from getting coverage at any price. I know that this is the main reason that people stay in miserable jobs instead of striking out on thier own.
Individual policies must be eliminated – I pay almost $1,000 a month and there is only one thing wrong with me – my age (62). Allowing groups like NASE to have a group policy would help. All they offer now is MEGA (google it).
I have long been suggesting to this blog that this organization send out some mystery shoppers to the health care insurance industry and report on the results. I am beginning to think that they are afraid to do so.
I am not a radical liberal – just a guy trying to start a business and get it up and running. Health insurance is the biggest check I write (and just for myself). More than my mortgage, mor than my office rent.
[…] by Congress. If you agree with me, go to http://www.freeourhealthcarenow.com and sign the petition today. – John Goodman, National Center for Policy Analysis Share and […]
As most of us that are involved in the healthcare or the business of healthcare financing know, there is a multitude of bad ideas being championed by the President and Democrat congress. But IMO we need to train all our guns on the most covertly damaging aspect of their entire platform, and that is the notion of the “government sponsored public option”.
This is the Trojan horse of the Obama program. The public may see this as an innocent (even conciliatory) effort by Obama to provide solutions, but in reality it is the one thing that will assure the eventual down-spiral to a complete government run system.
The Health Care Quote of the Day comes from Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA):
“I kind of wake up at night thinking, ‘My gosh, we could wind up with a more convoluted system than we have now. We could just be multiplying the points in our system that create waste and abuse and cost us so much money.’’’
It is not true that people with pre-existing coverage cannot get get coverage at any price. By federal law, every state must offer a way for people with pre-existing conditions to get coverage.
In 2007, roughly 9 percent of Americans with private insurance were covered by individual health insurance, about 18 million people. Eliminating individual policies would probably make these people worse off as their rates are typically lower than they would pay in lost wages under an employer plan or in poor service under a government one.
According to StateHealthFacts.org, in 2006 the average annual employer provided family coverage premium was $11,381. According to the 2007 AHIP survey, the average family premium for people 60-64 was about $9,000.
U.S. health care is nominally referred to as a system. All problems/solutions should come out of that understanding. But, is the U.S. health care an appropriate system? The answer is likely encompassed in systems science. This question was explored in the following reference:
Janecka IP: Is the U.S. Health Care an Appropriate System? A strategic perspective from systems science. Health Research Policy and Systems 2009, 7:1
(Highly Accessed) http://www.health-policy-systems.com/content/7/1/1
Although I don’t like the term “Tea Parties – seems more appropriate to cover broader range, focusing on “Saving our Country” with a list of issues that includes taxes, health care, breach of Constitution, etc.) – we should have these gatherings around the country during NBC’s “Obama Health Care Propaganda Program” next Friday. June 24th as another example of how out of balance our checks and balances, etc. are. Is anything being organized?
While working at a large university hospital, our hospital was inspected by Medicare personnel, which is required every ten years.
After completing their inspection, they (Medicare) stated that they had overpaid our hospital $9 million dollars. What? Well you see, since we were doing more out-patient surgeries that didn’t require hospitalization, plus the surgery centers do not have to be built to hospital (stay) standards, they felt that we had been overpaid.
Of course, this didn’t make sense since we were being reimbursed for each procedure. Also, the amount of reimbursement had remained fairly flat over this ten year time period.
In the end, we won our case after 10 months of negotiations. We also found out that we were a test case. If they won (Medicare), they were going after other hospitals.
Correction: ABC’s program
The petition misses the point. All of those points in the patition will be championed by Obama.
Obama has said:
“You can keep your private insurance if you want.” The truth is most people will not be able to afford to keep their private insurance due to the inevitable increased cost of private insurance due to federal competition/interference.
Get tax advantages as employees get with employer provided health care. Employer provided health care will be either taxed out of existance or employers will move all employees to government care.
Portable insurance wont be needed as all will be in one payer system.
What the petition should be asking for is any government health care system should be the same system congress gets and nothing less. Also all government officials including congress and the executive would be forced to have the same system as the people.
Also, all medical decisions must be made by your doctor and could not be overridden by insurance or government bean counters.
These two would effectively kill any government health care program.
“Allen Fischer CPA Says:
June 17th, 2009 at 10:26 am
The current US healthcare system is the worst, most corrupt, and terrible in the world.”
I’m sure Mr. Fischer is talkng about Medicare and Medicaid. Both Government run healthcare systems.
How do I know this…because America’s private healthcare system is the best in the World.
Gregory Isaacs says, “I am not a radical liberal – just a guy trying to start a business and get it up and running. Health insurance is the biggest check I write”
Gregory, I think most people that believe government should not be involved in healthcare also believe that health insurance should not be an entry barrier to new businesses. The employer based healthcare system with its exclusive tax advantages is part of the problem.
In any “pay as you go” health insurance system you will always either be either be personally subsidizing younger/less healthy people, or they will be subsidizing you. The other option is for you to pay premium commensurate with your age and health. Regardless of the system, if you choose to be covered (especially with low deductible plans) you will pay the premium one way or another. If you think the premium is more than what’s it’s worth then don’t buy it, or opt for higher deductibles.
The fact that there is nothing wrong with you presently does not mean you are not a risk to the insurance company. One visit to the out patient surgical facility will eat up more than a year of the premium you indicated.
Whatever the problems may be with healthcare, they cannot be solved by government fiat (without price controls, rationing, and all the additional problems associated with same).
NOTICE TO SENIORS WITH MEDICARE HMO’S
President Obama under directions of the AARP wants to cut Medicare payments of $177 billion from your HMO which will in effect kill off all HMO’s and force seniors to take out medigap policies (hopefully from AARP) at a monthly cost in the range of $200 per month. Only the AARP and the Democratic Party gain from this move (AARP contributes heavily to liberal Democratic politicians). Seniors and America loses.
I think it’s great that we are all having this discussion…finally. That’s the good news. The bad news is that those who dismiss any suggestion of health care reform as “socialized medicine”, like Mr. Goodman, even when it’s clearly not, are detached from reality. We clearly have a problem. For the gentleman who’s challenged “Allen” for specifics and evidence, here’s a couple… U.S. citizens spend more of their income on health care by far than any country in the world. For those who like to proclaim that “we have the best health care system in the world”. It depends on your measuring stick. We do high-tech procedures,and surgery pretty well. We do preventative health care very poorly. What that would indicate is that our health care choices are often driven more by marketability and profitability, so treatment is often reactive instead of proactive. For those that argue that for a government funded single payer solution, here’s a statistic for you. The U.S. spends Medicaid and Medicare than Canada does on every Canadian citizen all of which are covered under its nationalized health care plan. Basically Canada covers a lot more people for a lot less money. You might see this as evidence that a single payer system can work, but you will have to pardon the folks that are nervous about the U.S. government’s involvement, and like to label it as socialized medicine. The fact is that the U.S, already has socialized medicine in the form of Medicaid and Medicare. We have just done a horrendous job of managing it. The fact is that we do have a problem. The free market does not lend itself to a viable solution as long as people do not have free choices, and let’s face it. We don’t. Health care is not something you shop around for like a new car. The government isn’t the panacea either. Until they can fix Medicaid and Medicare, both of which are part of the health care problem, not an alternative to it, no one is going to trust them. What we need is a public-private solution that provides health care for everyone without the bureaucracy that currently exists in both the public and private sectors. I personally favor an assigned risk pool for those who are poor or otherwise can;t be insured. Let the ones in the pool choose from an array of pre-negotiated private plans, and pay based on ability. Insurance companies will be required to accept a number of assigned risks based on something like their revenues. The assigned risk option will keep health insurance premiums in check, and get the government out of the business of providing health care.
As president of an employer health care coalition, the following is my response to a reporter’s question about how employers view a public plan, which is a centerpiece of the current Washingtonn debate.
The administration’s advocacy for a public plan is to provide competition with health plans. However, the issue is not that they don’t have competition. There are over 100 different plans out there. Further, there is no real necessity of a public plan. While some public financial support, either federal or state, will be required to achieve coverage of the uninsured and underinsured, the potential to achieve all of the goals of the administration and other health care reformers can be achieved through modifications in the existing private sector system, and probably at lower cost in both dollars and bureaucracy than a federal program.
The problem is not failure of competition at either the plan or provider level. Rather, the problem is that there are not truly functioning markets in health care in which buyers make thoughtful purchasing decisions based on reasonably good information and comparative shopping. Health care is different in that there is limited comparative information regarding both providers and plans, and often no time to do appropriate shopping. Since providers are motivated by factors in addition to, and more important than, quality and efficiency, they often order tests and pharmaceuticals too easily to avoid missing a problem and forestalling legal risk, as well as the financial reward for the extra service. There is no offsetting market to control this. Administrators are motivated by market share and by profit. While the former may be obtained by lower costs, the size of the network and the control services that can be sold have weakened their emphasis on quality and cost constraint.
A truly competitive market would identify and reward providers, administrators and other service providers based on good comparative information on quality, efficiency and price. The information needs to be made available prospectively to buyers, rather than at the time of need, Plans have not adequately fulfilled this function. What is needed is accountability. This has been available in a limited number of areas, such as Rochester and California.
However, most of America does not have a Mayo or Kaiser in their communities. Therefore, for the rest of the country (in which care is obtained from a cottage industry type “non-system”) the trick is to identify the right doctors, preferably prospectively; provide proper payment structures and incentives, both rewards and penalties; work with identified physicians on projects of quality and process improvement; and incentivize patients to take personal responsibility, use identified high quality efficient physicians, and comply with an agreed upon, evidence-based plans for maximal prevention and chronic disease management. Of course these should be supported with modern information systems coupled with good data and analysis. If done well, such a comprehensive effort can create a “virtual” care system that can perform like the Mayos and Kaisers, reduce administrative overhead, and assure value for the purchaser’s health care dollar. These could be offered or made available through some neutral, not-for-profit entity that would create and coordinate health care markets by accumulating the necessary data, doing the analysis and offering the necessary information to buyers.. These entities could be set up at state or regional levels and might take the form of the regional cooperatives advocated by Senator Kent Conrad as a compromise to a public plan.
The final issue to be addressed is financing. Small employers (and large as well) could benefit from the opportunity to join together in large purchasing pools (with appropriate provisions to forestall the well leaving in order not to share in the costs of the sick) that would assure application of the insurance principle of spreading risk over large populations. The currently uninsured could join these pools, with the government entering in only to subsidize those with inadequate resources or potentially disqualifying medical conditions. These purchasing pools could buy insurance from plans, whose performance would be measured and documented by the neutral market facilitator or co-op or directly contract with providers. They should be allowed to purchase health plans and insurance from any insurer or plan licensed to provide services by any state in the country, creating an improved market for these services as well. The neutral intermediary or co-op could perform these purchasing functions in addition to their market facilitation, or the pools could purchase independently.
Almost every doctor visit generates a claim for the insured with its attendant overhead cost. Coupled with the common misperception that insurance benefits are free or at least inexpensive to the insured, there results an overutilization of the health care system and unnecessary escalation of the cost of health care.
Reduction in the number of third party payments for health care would address the overutilization problem. Fortunately, consumer driven health care and the tools of Health Savings Accounts and high deductible insurance are available to accomplish this without new legislation and new bureaucracies. Proposals to reduce the cost of health care generally ignore overutilization. I believe that efforts to reduce the cost of health care will fail unless they include major reduction in insurance claims.
What I haven’t seen addressed is the fact that Medical Savings Plan policies are also in danger. A couple of years ago Hillary Clinton specifically condemned them as she worried what people would spend the “nonused” funds on. In other words, people can’t have that much freedom or “too much” of their own money.
Also, the com,metm wa made that there are “100’s” of policies available, Maybe to bsuinesses, but not here in New York where there are over 50 government mandates which has caused many carriers to leave the state. People like myslef whoi have no emploee plan and are not independent contractors, sole proprietors etc have even less to choose from , and at a huge price.I work on a perdiem basis (about 40 hrs a week) but because I get a W-2, I’m not eligible for any of the “self-emplyed” plans.
What we do know is that our health care system is broken right now and that it has to be fixed!
Here are three very important questions that I definitely think have to be seriously considered:
1) How can uninsured people afford to directly pay a doctor on their own without any kind of government or third-party help when health care is so expensive today and when we are in a recession where most of the people in this country just do not have the kind of money that is realistically needed to pay for expensive medical bills?
2) What is a truly sick and uninsured person supposed to do if they truly cannot afford to directly pay a doctor or a surgeon and if they cannot get any kind of government or third-party help? Should they just be allowed to get even sicker and/or possibly die only because they cannot afford to pay for expensive health care?
3) Do you believe that health care is a right that all people are entitled to or is it just a privilege only for those people who have enough money where they can afford it with or without some kind of insurance? It is very obvious to me that legitimate health care is a right that all people are entitled to (just like police and fire protection) and that it is NOT a privilege to only those people who can afford it!
In conclusion, what I want to see passed at the end of the day is some kind of a legitimate health care program that will cover everybody (the many millions of people who do not have health insurance right now because they truly cannot afford it).
As for how health care for everybody will happen, I think that President Obama will have to work out those specific details with Congress in order to pass some kind of legislation that is bipartisan enough where it can pass in the House and get at least 60 Senate votes. If any health care plan can get 60 or more Senate votes, then that means it would have to be acceptable to moderate Republicans and moderate Democrats who I think are truly representative of the majority of the country and most of middle America!
Mitch Dworkin, M.Ed.
First, the need for replacing old and inefficient hospitals need to be addressed. Trying to beat the insurance companies, pharmaceutial companies and medical care givers over the head is wrong headed. Start curbing the ambulance chasers and then go after the “Certificate of Need” and other govenmental decrees and regulations for starters. Next, establish a Satellite system of health care facilities at the source of need which is interfacded with the medical and university medical schools; then you would have a SYSTEM which will be efficient and which will reduce costs by introducing wellness programs instead of sending eveyone to the “Illness Centers”. Time for a complete OVERVIEW OF THE PROGRAM, NOT A BANDAID APPROACH
Healthcare services began deteriorating when government got involved back in the 70’s and with socialized Medicare and Medicaid it has escalated. There are ways of controlling costs as Guerro has suggested in the above post. John also expressed some very valid points and so did the doctor. The government already has the Public Health Service that could provide services to the underserved and the uninsured bt establishing clinics (the service already provide services on reservations). There is a definite need to overhaul health services. Putting a government entity nationally in place will destroy choices of care and treatment – choices that should involve only doctor and patient, not beaucrats that do not know you as a person and a patient. Government has messed up healthcare services by its intervention in an industry it knows nothing about. Practicing doctors, and practicing healthcare professionals should be the ones determing how healthcare should be developed and managed, not theorists, economists or government beaucrats.
It’s no more a right than for food, clothing, and shelter. Society and government do provide for charity and welfare programs, but not because anyone has a “right” to demand them. The one caveat is that once government begins making free programs available to some, it needs to do the same for everyone.
…But you are only entitled to free police and fire protection if you happen to be in an area where these services are available for free to other citizens.
Of course you could argue that government, by means of the tax exclusion, subsidizes the cost of what amounts to community-rated insurance when purchased through an employer. Thus government obligates itself to offer the same subsidy to other consumers.
This wouldn’t mean much to a healthy individual, since the value of the tax exclusion merely cancels out the added cost of group insurance (relative to cheaper underwritten insurance). But to people at higher risk, the two are additive– in other words the value of the tax exclusion is added to the cost savings of a group policy (relative to the cost of a high-risk policy, if one were available).
In effect, the tax exclusion caps the net cost of health coverage for all covered employees, regardless of risk, at a level approximating that of a low-risk individual policy. So I think you could argue that government thereby obligates itself to do the same for other individuals.
Soon, the Obama administration will use the White House as a major campaign & partisan policy front, to push for socialized health care in America, while also using a media outlet to champion the cause.
Never before has the White House been used to push a partisan political agenda item like this & in my not so humble opinion, this is or will be despicable, in the extreme.
Add to this the disinformation campaign that has been launched & is supposed by a fawning partisan media that is now operating as though it is an official partisan public relations arm of the Democratic party & this president whose campaign never stopped. Based on the events of the past few months, the public will be subject to a constant campaign effort by this administration, supported by a biased media & those supposedly altruistic wealthy donors who bought & paid for this president.
The ‘press secretary’ could not name even ONE nation that has a successful socialized medical system in place. He could not tell the press one. That’s because no matter where it operates, the people get less service, less care & in many cases, are even refused care for “social justice” reasons like… you smoke or smoked, you are fat, you took drugs once, you drank, you ate the wrong foods, you did not exercise enough, you are too old, you are a physically disabled person whose contribution does not justify the costs. )Oops, sorry, those last two are reasons that the eugenics types will use in the future once they have their selective health care plan in place) {Does anyone think that reasoning sounds historically familiar??}
If we can get the public behind the coop proposals or other free market type plans, we “MIGHT” stand a chance of rescuing our nation from this fiasco. Otherwise, we face a bleak medical future unless we get actual politicians in office who listen to & respond to what the public demands of them.
where can we follow the results of this petition?
Where can I follow/view the results of the poll?
: 50 Million Without Healthcare?
The reports are from the Presidents economiic advisory council that there are 50,000,000 people in America who are without Healthcare. The number is misleading because it overstates the real issue.
First, nearly 10,000,000 of that number includes people who are not citizens.
Secondly, roughly 17,000,000 of the people classed as uninsured live in households making $50,000 or more a year and can technically afford to buy health insurance but choose not to.
Thirdly, 45% of all of the “uninsured” will be insured again within 4 months, accordin to the congressional Budget Office.
By aiming to nationalize healthcare the rest of us will have to pay for those 50,000,000 people. As there are over 300,000,000 Americans and 50,000,000 are “uninsured” you would increase the rolls and therefore the cost by 20%. That sounds noble except that over half of those people are either illegal or choose not to pay for it now, while nearly all of the rest are temporarily uninsured and would be better off with some sort of COBRA assistance from the government and not nationalized healthcare.
Nationalized Health Care Savings?….By Addition?
The Presidents economic advisory panel recently reported on Health Care that that there are 50 million uninsured (9mil illegals in there) Americans. They also conclude that with rigorous cost cutting they think they can feasibly shave 1.5% off of the increased cost of health care inflation we see each year.
I presume they mean the inflationary cost of service provided per person or per treatment. They can’t mean total cost because the panel was looking at providing nationalized coverage to those 50 million uninsured.
If you do the numbers, right now I have health insurance and there are are 250mil Americans who do as well. If you go one step further and add 50 million to the health care rolls who are paying nothing now (including illegal’s???) and make me pay for that, my costs will go up by about 20%. 300 million divided by 250 million is a 20% increase in those who would be covered.
If you are going to save 1.5% on the rise of costs and add 20% participants how can that cost less than what it costs now per person?
The govt ostensibly owns/funds colleges & universities, primary schools, Amtrak and the post office, but costs run well past inflation in each one of those operations so why is health care going to be different, without massive rationing as per Europe? If we all agree to nationalized healthcare then we the insured are agreeing to pay 10 to 20% more or receive much less care, choice and presumably quality.
Want Unionized Doctors?
If you are a big fan of Union Workers and how they helped the Big 3, Textile, Steel and other industries end up on the scrap heap, then you will be pleased to know that Nationalized Health Care will most likely unionize your Doctor.
Under nationalized health many nations end up with unionized doctors. As the US Government has the largest unionized workforce in the country it is not a stretch that when Doctors become employed by the government they will unionize. With such unionization in other countries has come reduced & standardized work hours, strikes for higher pay and a decrease in the influx of high quality doctors from other nations.
A unionized medical workforce promises to bring you more of what Unions have already brought to American productivity and competitiveness, less.
It is clear that we need health care reform, but what we don’t need is socialized medicine that has a price tag that burdens the yet unborn citizens of this country and yet another industry taken over by the government. The “facts” being used to support this legislation are misleading at best. Honesty, transparency, and fiscal responsibility in ANY reform measures are what the American people are looking for now. We grow tired of “facts and numbers” being bent to suit the purposes of power hungry politicians. Remember the old saying “The devil can quote Scripture to suit his purposes”?
The same government that brought you FEMA trailers, $500,000 retirement packages for government workers, and screening procedures at airports thinks that they will provide cheaper and more efficient healthcare?
Obama will create a 2 level system. Those will wealth get the best treatment, everyone else gets minimal treatment. Look at Cuba and S. America to see how it really works.
I am a retired CPA, 77 years old and on Medicare. In May, thanks to my coverage, I had two cataract operations for $100 each. I thank God for my bargain, but it is not realistic and will not last. I also am very concerned for the future of my children and for those who come after me.
I favor a change, including a “loser pays” tort reform. What else, I do not know except I hope we run, as fast as we can, from socialized medicine of any kind.
My wafe wanted to sign your petition, but I signed it first and only I have an email address. Our address, otherwise, is the same as we have been married for almost 52 years. When her “signature” was submitted however, it was refused. The reason according to the computer — You (Margaret, not Miles) have already signed the petition.
As a child, I was subject to Epilepsy which was thought to be caused by an injury at birth. I’ve taken my medication since before 1940 — and married life must agree with me as I have had no siezures since the mid-1960s.
No nationalized health care. Does not promote competition. Competition promotes advancement in technology and new ideas.
Having worked in the Healthcare field for over 35 years, I am well informed as to the needs of this country. I know that there are many citizens that do not have healthcare insurance, but also know that in most instances public healthcare options are available. It behooves me to hear the Obama administration and his democratic coharts, ramble on how we need to provide healthcare to everyone. I live in a farming community, and those citizens that do not make enough money, receive their healthcare at the local clinic free of charge. They are even provided free dental care…of which I do not even have. Does the healthcare system need fixed as far as what it costs? I definitely would say yes. Is the democratic plan the solution? DEFINITELY NO! Instead of passing healthcare reform that will only result in socialized medicine, and like Canda and England, end up costing more for less coverage…I say keep the freedom of healthcare as it is now, but allow the medical community along with the insurance industry the opportunity to sit down and work out a viable solution, which might more adequately address the present healthcare crisis.
NO…to nationalization of health care! We represent the best system in the world to care for our citizens. The Obama plan would destroy the current system. There is not one piece of evidence that when the govenment takes on the management of any large scale system that it has EVER BECOME PRODUCTIVE!!!!
The direct result of socialized medicine is death for many. Once the funds allowed are gone, you are told that nothing is wrong or another reason is given. My cousin from Norway died after 5 surgeries in one year for cancer. Each time he and his family were told that the surgery was successful, that they got all the cancer, that the cancer had metastisized but they got it all and he should recover. The doctors in Norways socialized medicine keep the patients blind to the facts. My cousin thought that metastisized mean that they had gotten it all.
The government will tell facilities how much is allotted for certain care and once that money is gone you will be turned away. Your options will be to return when the next fiscal year begins, or you will need to seek treatment in another country.
Socialism does not mean that everyone is equal. Freedom gives you equality. Socialism is not freedom; it is imprisonment.
Im for freedom and liberty!!!
If the health care program passes, I am wondering what will happen to military benefits for dependents, which I have neither heard about nor saw anything written about.
First of all, Police and Ambulance services are NOT free, they are paid for through property, income, and state and local taxes, and fire department fundraisers. For those of you that haven’t had an ambulance ride, here’s a little shock for you, a three mile trip to our local hospital cost me $425 three years ago.
To those that are struggling to make a go of small businesses, I agree with your plight. Insurer’s impose stringent restrictions on small business. I suffered an uninsured heart attack three years ago while running a small consulting firm. Fortunately I had the sense to negotiate with all providers, that took the $58,000+ bill for two stents and a heliocopter ride to Washington hospital center down to $36,000, and it took me three years to pay it off.
Despite all of this, I am opposed to Government intervention into healthcare. What we really need is regulation that protects the insured, NOT the insurer. How may times have you been refused refills of prescribed medications because they are not the brand or generic you insurance company insists on? I tell the pharmacist to go ahead and fill the prescription as prescribed, no insurance company is going to dictate my healthcare needs!
The problem that we have is too much system and not enough common sense. It all went to hell when public hospitals became for profit businesses, and they are very polished at striking the balance between their profitability and that of the insurers.
I am not for this and would like to see this. Spoke to a number of people and they feel the same way.
I like the government program for members of Congress and Senate. How can I get on that policy if not, how can we get Congress and Senate on Obama’s new health policy for us.
Thank You
No socializedhealthcare….Lived in Canada and it was
auful…..also a lot of doctors moved to the US because they could not make a living….there should be a compramise or better yet give us thesame policy
the the sen and congreeman have….also need thei
retirement……I am 74 and don;t get a raise is year
…..take their raise and give it to us.
Get the government out of business. Our tax dollars have been paying for people without insurance for years. The Federal Government is trying to take over everything and they don’t need to be trying to handle anything for us. These people are nuts.
In response to Matthew Michaels about “not knowing the price (cost) up front,” there are three services: health care (you identified), K-12 education and government. You do not know how much education costs until you get your annual property tax statement and the same for government when you get a tax increase.
We must focus on the big picture in the US and emphasize prevention and primary care. Let’s cover preventive services 100%. Let our primary care doctors focus on finding and curing the cause of illness with natural hormonal and nutritional remedies. We must stop allowing pharmaceutical companies to drive our care and causing more problems in side effects from patented medications. I work in a hospital and it is frightening to see the medication lists of the patients. No wonder they are sick! Wake up America! Each of us can do something for ourselves today to stop the downhill spiral of the chronic illnesses plaguing us. Take a walk, drink some water, eat a vegetable. This is not rocket science!
Let’s start with the universal truth that in all the government as a whole does nothing well. Every time the government gets involved with the free market shortages are bound to occur all in the name of regulation or fairness price fixing and rationing are the end results. However this is not the most disturbing part of the healthcare debate. The most disturbing part is the lack of intellectual honesty on the part of the proponents of socialized medicine. For example recently we all have heard the proclamation that 49 million are uninsured, this number is thrown about in an attempt to scare misdirect and downright mislead us into saying well 49 million we have got to do something about this huge problem. The facts however when one crunches the numbers really show how well even a heavily regulated quasi free market system works, and it is amazing that it works as well as it does. When you subtract those who have just lost their job and are on COBRA or will get another job shortly and therefore new insurance and then you minus out all of the illegal immigrants plus those who like myself are under 30 and are betting on getting health coverage after they get out of school and that we will not get sick then subtract the multi million heirs who pay for healthcare out of pocket you are left with 10 million chronically uninsured. Now if the politicians asked Americans honestly do you want to ration healthcare and pay ever increasing taxes to support a government run system to secure coverage for only 10 million Americans the answer would be a resounding no. Especially when one looks at the model systems those who advocate for government run healthcare hold up as shining examples of efficiency and you realize that in Canada the two top performing chemo drugs are not used since they cost too much and in France one has all the higher taxes the so-called free healthcare and still needs to purchase supplemental insurance coverage to fill some but not all of the horrific gaps in the socialist system. It makes me so angry that politicians consider me a rube just because I don’t live in NY or LA and what annoys me the most is that they are supposed to work for me and what I get from my representatives is a paternalistic we know better than you attitude and lies about how the largest ever purposed creation of new government power will effect me and my family. I say it is time we throw every single congressman or senator out of office even if they oppose this, because frankly if they aren’t rallying on every talk show and news cast or spending some of their own money on private television ads to inform all Americans of the evil this idea really is they are not doing a good enough job for their constituents!!! Finally one more thing I do not want the government telling me what to eat, what to drink, how much exercise to get etc. it baffles me how some of the strongest proponents of a right to privacy being in the Constitution will sit there and support this type of government intrusion in our lives but regardless of party or beliefs on other issues the important thing to note is that Americans are becoming fed up with this massive spending and ever increasing involvement in our lives and if you are a politician reading this take note we are going to take up our ballots and vote you out and some are even going to pledge our fortunes and sacred honor and run against you in 2010.
The goverment to going to take us from the womb to the tomb whether we like it or not. I had always believed that the people were the employers and the politicians were working for US, ie they are the employees. We have to quit talking about these problems and act now before we do become a third world country with Obama and company as dictator.
Why is it that no one is talking about how much this “Mandated” Plan will cost a person monthly for their premiums, Obama indicates that the mandated fee for persons forced to carry the Plan will be affordable…
But what he thinks is affordable and what I feel is affordable are two different things, and because I will be mandated to provide Ins. for myself, I should know what extra expenses that I will be forced to incur….
Also, it is clear to me that this Plan is designed to eventually place every American on it, because if you dont have a policy when it’s enacted, you are then forced to purchase the Govt. Plan, and then not allowed to discontinue it…
I really hate all of these hidden things, where is the transparency, I dont want Govt. deciding for me…
I have been a Democrat for over twenty years, and I honestly dont know what happened to my party, I hardly recognize them anymore….
Jollee
I do not want the Government deciding my health care plan, or my taxes paying for abortions!
Obviously it is time to get your youngs warriors home and fight in there country for the peoples , the enemy are the FDA and similar organization driven by greed : they have taken an unprecedented ferocity and elaborated technique to succeed in there malicious goals .
Ah ! I forgot your military is part of the problem since they feed on the$e .
Good luck!
If anyone thinks this health care plan is good they just need to download it and take the time to read it. I know it is very lengthly, but since it will effect all of us, it is something everyone should do. It is really scary especially to those of us over the age of 65.
i am with you all
As a younger adult not fully aware of all the ins and outs of healthcare I do know this…..I do not want my money in any way shape or form paying for the killing of a unborn child. The government can call it whatever they want. They can sugar coat it, but murder is murder. Also I think that if the government wants to make good healthcare more reachable for people then they should make laws against insurance companies being so crapy. An example of this would be prior existing clauses,high deductables, and the general monthly cost. I mean I am 28 years old and have not had insurance for myself or my son for 4 years. I have been diagnosed with P.O.S, which can cause ovarian cancer and have been unable to seek the medical help I need. I am a hard working mother that strives to meet the basic needs and wants of my household,but I just can’t afford good health insurance. I hope our government reconsiders there idea of the healthcare reform.
The democrat from Virginia was speaking in a town hall, I saw it on
C-Span Monday, Labor Day. He made a statement that shows that our
representatives are
A: trapped by conventional thinking
B: are using fear to scam Americans into surrendering power to the government (if once you get Gov’t run health care, it is hard to go back as those folks working for that outfit will vote in favor of their jobs. This helps keep liberals in power. Look how well it worked with Social Security.)
The statement was something like: “Preexisting condition keeps
Americans from seeking better jobs because of the fear that they will
lose their health insurance…”
This is false. People may _think_ that preexisting condition is the
reason for this, but it is not so. While preexisting condition is an issue that needs to be dealt with, the true culprit is that the
business, not the employee, is the owner of the health insurance
coverage. You own your auto, homeowners, renters, or life insurance, why not your health insurance? Is not your health more important than your car or belongings? This, like most things needing reform in the health care system, can be fixed with a simple uncomplicated bill. I have given it the working name of _The Health Insurance Portability Act_
They did this with telecommunications and the Phone Number
Portability Act, is not our health insurance more important?
_The Health Insurance Portability Act_ would contain ONLY those
things related to health insurance portability, such as:
1. All health insurance policies will become the property of the
employee insured on [date]
2. Employers will continue their current percentage of premium contributions
3. All health care expenditures will be 100% pretax dollars for all tax payers, this includes health insurance (A modification to the tax code)
4. A health insurance policy cannot be canceled because someone
moves to another state
5. No insurance company may be denied from writing policies in any state. This insures competition.
It is easy to see how this would eliminate health insurance as a job
change factor and would allow preexisting condition to be dealt with
separately and on its own merits. Health Insurance premiums would
then become yet another factor in salary negotiation. I think that
they could do this in 25 pages, certainly less than 100.
This would not solve the low income issue, but that can be handled in
a separate bill as well.
(John Adams: I have come to the conclusion that one useless man is called a disgrace, that two are called a law firm, and that three or more become a Congress.)
someone has attached a virus to the petition…