Whats in the healthcare bill?

[Keenly]

In 1985 I broke my neck in an accident. I wasn't covered by insurance because of a "preexisting condition.' The surgeon agreed to take payments over a time that was comfortable for me. The hospital agreed to take a very minimum amount down with payments over a year. I met my obligations on time. My surgeon extended my life.

Are these the "greedy, unregulated, immoral thieves" you alluded to?

Vi

no sir, however you probably know as well as i do, that if this takeover passes

you most likely wont be able to bypass your denail due to your "pre existing" broken neck

i would love to punch whoever said that in the face

 

[ViRedd]

^^^ Huh? ^^^

 

[Keenly]

^^^ Huh? ^^^

im saying some one was nice to you that day


if the healthcare bill went into action i doubt you would be able to do something like that again

 

[ViRedd]

im saying some one was nice to you that day


if the healthcare bill went into action i doubt you would be able to do something like that again

Nice? I was a customer negotiating with the doctor and hospital in a free market situation. The surgeon wanted my business, knew that I was good for the money, and made a good business decision.

The hospital was in competition with another hospital in town. I played one off of the other for the best terms possible. Again, the hospital made a good business decision.

These options will not be available with government run healthcare. There will be no profit motive and no competition. As a result, you and I will take what they offer and like it, even if we don't like it.

Vi

 

[Green Cross]

Nice? I was a customer negotiating with the doctor and hospital in a free market situation. The surgeon wanted my business, knew that I was good for the money, and made a good business decision.

The hospital was in competition with another hospital in town. I played one off of the other for the best terms possible. Again, the hospital made a good business decision.

These options will not be available with government run healthcare. There will be no profit motive and no competition. As a result, you and I will take what they offer and like it, even if we don't like it.

Vi

Yes you will receive some of the same lousy service you already received from government run organizations like the public schools, AMTrak, The US postal service, and the notorious DMV

 

[Antidisestablishmentarian]

Ignorance at its finest.

Do you have anything other than personal insults to contribute?

Maybe you aren't aware of some things.


The poor already qualify for insurance from the government. It's called medicaide.

Some states have different qualifications, but low income is usually a requirement.

And people can go to a hospital to get care.

Hospitals are not supposed to refuse care to anyone. It goes against the hippocratic oath.

They might get charged out the wazoo, etc, but they will not be turned away.

 

[ViRedd]

By federal law, it is unlawful for any emergency room to deny service to anyone in need ... even if they have no insurance, no money and could care less.

Vi

 

[jrh72582]

In 1985 I broke my neck in an accident. I wasn't covered by insurance because of a "preexisting condition.' The surgeon agreed to take payments over a time that was comfortable for me. The hospital agreed to take a very minimum amount down with payments over a year. I met my obligations on time. My surgeon extended my life.

Are these the "greedy, unregulated, immoral thieves" you alluded to?

Vi

You know as well as I Vi that one example cannot be used as substantial evidence for a larger claim.

 

[ViRedd]

You know as well as I Vi that one example cannot be used as substantial evidence for a larger claim.

OK ... how about Medicaid, Medicare, County Hospitals, large deductible insurance policies and charities.

Did you know that service clubs like the Elks, Optimists, Knights of Columbus, etc., do wonders for the medical care of those who can least afford it?

And just as a practical matter, does it make sense to nationalize an entire medical system when the vast majority of people are already covered by an insurance system that they like?

Of the 47 million supposedly uninsured, 12 million are illegal aliens, 20 million are young Whippersnappers who could afford insurance, but chose not to have it. The rest can be covered through charity, Medicaid or Medicare as listed above.

It would take a LOT of convincing for me to believe that the politicians in Washington really care about my health care. I believe they are more interested in power over our lives more than anything else.

And by the way ... I'll move closer to believing the politicians in Washington have my best interest at heart just as soon as they agree to take on the same health care program for themselves as they are proposing for everyone else.

Vi

 

[TreesOfLife]

I'll move closer to believing the politicians in Washington have my best interest at heart just as soon as they agree to take on the same health care program for themselves as they are proposing for everyone else.

Vi

a cold day in hell...

 

[Operation 420]

You know when they toss out that bloated figure for health care "cost per person", it includes the costs generated by illegals too.

 

[medicineman]

BTW, healthcare is not a right.
I don't give a shit what the UN says.
It is a service, it is goods.
Just like food and toilet paper.

And, this is the basic difference between the left and the right. The left thinks health care should be a right, and the right thinks health care should be a commodity, sold on the private market to only those that can afford it. The classic haves against the have-nots.

 

[leeny]

so much talk about this and nobody really knew what the new healthcare WAS... just about how we might pay for it... (b.s) I'm so sick of our Gov. in general

 

[MuyLocoNC]

And, this is the basic difference between the left and the right. The left thinks health care should be a right, and the right thinks health care should be a commodity, sold on the private market to only those that can afford it. The classic haves against the have-nots.

You are correct for once Med. However, the fact that health care has NOT been a right in this country since it's founding is proof enough that it IS'NT a right. If it were a right as you say, it would have enjoyed that status from the beginning. So what it boils down to is that you want to MAKE health care a right.

It is a fundamental change to our society. The problem is when you make a dramatic change simply because you want it, not because it's possible, you end up destroying something that could have been improved. I've said to you and your ilk time and time again, you're sinking the lifeboat in your struggle to save everyone. In a real life situation, the people in the lifeboat that see the inevitable outcome, will throw you out to keep you from killing everyone.

What it really pathetic is most of us, including the "Right Wing Loonies" think that the health care system does need more regulation and oversight...where you lose us with this current proposal is it will lead to national health care...single payer system...total crap...hope you aren't planning on living past 59 and if you do, you better not get sick. If you do, it will be "take a pain pill" and go die.

One thing I'm confused about. When the hell did LIBERALS become government puppet mouthpieces that actually welcome bigger, more powerful government with more influence on their lives...I thought it was all about fighting the establishment...and don't give me any of that anti corporate crap...there is NO establishment larger than the government, especially now that they are in league with GE and other tyrannical corporations.

 

[jrh72582]

You are correct for once Med. However, the fact that health care has NOT been a right in this country since it's founding is proof enough that it IS'NT a right. If it were a right as you say, it would have enjoyed that status from the beginning. So what it boils down to is that you want to MAKE health care a right.

It is a fundamental change to our society. The problem is when you make a dramatic change simply because you want it, not because it's possible, you end up destroying something that could have been improved. I've said to you and your ilk time and time again, you're sinking the lifeboat in your struggle to save everyone. In a real life situation, the people in the lifeboat that see the inevitable outcome, will throw you out to keep you from killing everyone.

What it really pathetic is most of us, including the "Right Wing Loonies" think that the health care system does need more regulation and oversight...where you lose us with this current proposal is it will lead to national health care...single payer system...total crap...hope you aren't planning on living past 59 and if you do, you better not get sick. If you do, it will be "take a pain pill" and go die.

One thing I'm confused about. When the hell did LIBERALS become government puppet mouthpieces that actually welcome bigger, more powerful government with more influence on their lives...I thought it was all about fighting the establishment...and don't give me any of that anti corporate crap...there is NO establishment larger than the government, especially now that they are in league with GE and other tyrannical corporations.

So false. Countries with socialized health care ALL have higher life spans that we do. Look it up.

And GE is tyrannical?

 

[MuyLocoNC]

So false. Countries with socialized health care ALL have higher life spans that we do. Look it up.

And GE is tyrannical?

Well, I have actually. Since you value the insights of your fellow "academia", maybe you should peruse this study. I think the tables on pages 17, 18 and 19 that show our healthcare is second to none do a fairly good job of trashing your life expectancy argument.

Here's the link.... http://www.aei.org/docLib/20061017_OhsfeldtSchneiderPresentation.pdf

And I've already read the arguments that espouse the possibility that more of our victims of violence and traffic/transport accidents would survive if our healthcare system was better. I don't think ANYONE thinking rationally would actually make the argument that our trauma surgeons and technology is second to anyone. It may be expensive but if you're going to get shot or in a severe accident, there are few places I'd rather go than a medical center in the US.

So, as you see I have already looked it up. Please shoot down this study, which was using statistics from a decade ago and is probably more of a factor in our life expectancy if it were using more current figures. I particularly like the table showing survival rates for the US against all the other countries as it relates to diseases.

 

[ilkhan]

You people have no concept of what a right is do you.
You think its a privledge granted to you by government don't you.
Just because you want a thing to be a right does not make it so.
It isn't a right if you must impose on someone elses rights.

If the government chooses what your care will be.
What meds your doctor can give
or indeed where your doctor lives.
That is not a halmark of a free society.
While I don't think less of you as people for holding socialistic notions like these.
I would rather suffer the problems of to much liberty then the horrors of not enouph.

BTW if you think the poor are gonna have the same service as the rich
in a socialized system you got another thing comin'.

Quick question maybe one of the more learned people could answer for me.
Why is cosmedic surgery maintaining the same costs or lowering
while other medical things are going up?
Are cosmedic surgens not greedy?
The government and most insurance don't cover cosmedic surgery.
Cosmedic surgery can be dangerous.
It is often fairly invasive.
Just wondering if you could enlighten me.

 

[hanimmal]

Quick question maybe one of the more learned people could answer for me.
Why is cosmedic surgery maintaining the same costs or lowering
while other medical things are going up?
Are cosmedic surgens not greedy?
The government and most insurance don't cover cosmedic surgery.
Cosmedic surgery can be dangerous.
It is often fairly invasive.
Just wondering if you could enlighten me.

Supply and demand, technological advances, lowering quality? More people are wanting the procedures now so more doctors got into it. Then they are all competing in this relatively new area so they started to outpace the demand and so they had to lower their prices to get people in.

Then technology got better and became cheaper.

After that you start to get hacks that are in it for a quick buck (just watch some skinimax to see the nasty boob jobs out there) and are willing to cut margins for a quantity vs quality issue.

But that is just a quick guess.

If the government chooses what your care will be.
What meds your doctor can give
or indeed where your doctor lives.
That is not a halmark of a free society.
While I don't think less of you as people for holding socialistic notions like these.
I would rather suffer the problems of to much liberty then the horrors of not enouph.

Insurance companies tell you now what they will allow or not allow, and usually it is after you actually get it done screwing you.

Your doctors don't know as much about drugs as you think. I would talk with a pharmacist about them, they usually have far more info on it (since that is their specialty) so forcing them to actually learn the drugs they perscribe and giving you a better alternative would be a very good thing.

The problem is you believed the spin of our medical system and don't realize it kind of sucks as it is. We needed a update and are trying to emulate the number #1 medical system (France) which is a mixture of private and public insurance companies.

 

[jrh72582]

Well, I have actually. Since you value the insights of your fellow "academia", maybe you should peruse this study. I think the tables on pages 17, 18 and 19 that show our healthcare is second to none do a fairly good job of trashing your life expectancy argument.

Here's the link.... http://www.aei.org/docLib/20061017_OhsfeldtSchneiderPresentation.pdf

And I've already read the arguments that espouse the possibility that more of our victims of violence and traffic/transport accidents would survive if our healthcare system was better. I don't think ANYONE thinking rationally would actually make the argument that our trauma surgeons and technology is second to anyone. It may be expensive but if you're going to get shot or in a severe accident, there are few places I'd rather go than a medical center in the US.

So, as you see I have already looked it up. Please shoot down this study, which was using statistics from a decade ago and is probably more of a factor in our life expectancy if it were using more current figures. I particularly like the table showing survival rates for the US against all the other countries as it relates to diseases.

WRONG! We are 41st in life expectancy worldwide. 41st. I repeat, 41st. As of 2008. FACT. Look at all the countries above us - how many are socialized???????

 

[ilkhan]

Oh no I don't believe the spin.
I know the insurance companies are wack.
BUT, the government can't do it any better.
I say get them all out of the buisness altogether.
Let people contract with doctors themselves.
Set up HSA. (health savings accounts)
As well as major medical insurance.
We sure as hell don't need any government (or insurance companies)
between us and our doctors.\

What is needed is more competition to lower costs.
Not one huge system we must all cope with.

so what if we are 41st. I bet it has more to do with
lifestyle and diet then socialized healthcare.

Also the countrys with socialized health care don't have a 1 trillion dollar a year military empire to pay for. We can't afford this nonsence even if it was a good idea. (which its not)