If Democrats ignore health-care polls, midterms will be costly

[MaggieMae]

Your problem is that you ONLY listen to the one side (Stossel, Fox?). Any good articulation by you gets buried by the confession of your bias, which I'm sure is inbred but certainly fueled by a lot of propaganda.

I think for myself, Maggie. I use my OWN logic. I don't depend upon other people to tell me what to THINK. I might agree with John Stossel on some things, or disagree with him on others... but nothing he could say would program my opinion. If you can't say the same, then I feel sorry for you... but it's your cross to bear and not mine.

Just before the election, 62% of Americans said it was more important than ever to take on health care reform according to ALL the polls. After last summer's hatefests at town hall meetings, and the rest of the widely publicized negativity from the right wing noise machines, that number has dropped considerably.

Doing something about the rising prices of healthcare doesn't mean approval of Obama's giant, pile-of-shit, takeover of healthcare. So, yeah... a majority of people think healthcare should be addressed. That does NOT translate into support of the proposed legislation.

Frankly, I have several problems with the current bill, not the least of which is that it's too confusing for the average American to understand, but there's no such thing as "simple" health reform. One part connects to another part or maybe all the other parts, so the bill is excruciatingly long by virtue of its attempt to cover all possibilities. But the bottom line is that health care in the private sector has been dramatically rising and more and more people in the middle are getting crucified financially because of it.

Ugh... WHY can you people not understand that it's because of the government interference we already have that the laws of supply and demand cannot work?
If a given State legislature MANDATES that insurance companies in that state provide coverage for X, Y, and Z... then the price of the policies MUST rise to provide each member with X, Y, and Z. It is no longer "insurance" when we're dealing with routine care. It's pre-paying the cost of the care.

Meanwhile, onerous regulations regarding licensing, liability insurance, and overhead keep the supply of practitioners small. My kids have bypassed careers in medicine and in education, even though they certainly have the aptitude. These things are too big a pain in the ass. They want less hassle and less outlay in expense.

This bill compounds our problems. It doesn't solve them. What we're seeing in healthcare today is NOT a free market.

If all of what you say is true, then the best route would be a single-payer public option and eliminate the need for any other government health care program, including Medicare and Medicaid. None of your arguments (reasonable as they are) address the fact that far too many fall through the cracks and simply cannot afford to maintain their health until it is too late. I'm sorry, but "private health accounts" (prepaid health care?) as proposed by Republicans won't cut it. Most people under 50 really don't plan on getting sick, which is why many don't have insurance and why those same people would not open a private health account for that very reason.

 

[The Rabbi]

Your problem is that you ONLY listen to the one side (Stossel, Fox?). Any good articulation by you gets buried by the confession of your bias, which I'm sure is inbred but certainly fueled by a lot of propaganda.

I think for myself, Maggie. I use my OWN logic. I don't depend upon other people to tell me what to THINK. I might agree with John Stossel on some things, or disagree with him on others... but nothing he could say would program my opinion. If you can't say the same, then I feel sorry for you... but it's your cross to bear and not mine.



Doing something about the rising prices of healthcare doesn't mean approval of Obama's giant, pile-of-shit, takeover of healthcare. So, yeah... a majority of people think healthcare should be addressed. That does NOT translate into support of the proposed legislation.

Frankly, I have several problems with the current bill, not the least of which is that it's too confusing for the average American to understand, but there's no such thing as "simple" health reform. One part connects to another part or maybe all the other parts, so the bill is excruciatingly long by virtue of its attempt to cover all possibilities. But the bottom line is that health care in the private sector has been dramatically rising and more and more people in the middle are getting crucified financially because of it.

Ugh... WHY can you people not understand that it's because of the government interference we already have that the laws of supply and demand cannot work?
If a given State legislature MANDATES that insurance companies in that state provide coverage for X, Y, and Z... then the price of the policies MUST rise to provide each member with X, Y, and Z. It is no longer "insurance" when we're dealing with routine care. It's pre-paying the cost of the care.

Meanwhile, onerous regulations regarding licensing, liability insurance, and overhead keep the supply of practitioners small. My kids have bypassed careers in medicine and in education, even though they certainly have the aptitude. These things are too big a pain in the ass. They want less hassle and less outlay in expense.

This bill compounds our problems. It doesn't solve them. What we're seeing in healthcare today is NOT a free market.

If all of what you say is true, then the best route would be a single-payer public option and eliminate the need for any other government health care program, including Medicare and Medicaid. None of your arguments (reasonable as they are) address the fact that far too many fall through the cracks and simply cannot afford to maintain their health until it is too late. I'm sorry, but "private health accounts" (prepaid health care?) as proposed by Republicans won't cut it. Most people under 50 really don't plan on getting sick, which is why many don't have insurance and why those same people would not open a private health account for that very reason.

Um, you do realize that over 90% of the American people have health insurance one way or another, right?

 

[MaggieMae]

The flaw in YOUR post is that BECAUSE OF Medicare, people are living longer because the elderly have access to better health care when they often had little or none at all. That also affects the population now receiving Social Security benefits. Are we just supposed to die off naturally after a certain age like we did not too many decades ago? Isn't the whole purpose of the Constitution to ...form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity...??

You didn't happen to notice that Medicare is going broke and that some doctors are turning it down?... or that rich people still keep better insurance on the side and pay out of pocket for things that aren't covered?

I thought what I said acknowledged that Medicare is broke--more people are living longer and therefore there have been more payouts than originally anticipated--is a given. As for "rich people," the ones I know have a Medicare Advantage Policy which covers the stuff that standard Medicare does not, but those extra costs are in fact paid out of the regular Medicare accounts. In other words, we're subsidizing the rich folks who pay a small increase in the monthly Medicare premium by using Advantage. How fair is that? Medicare Advantage WILL BE dismantled if a health bill gets passed, which will be a huge savings in the program.

The biggest problem I can see with this entire health care proposal is that there won't be enough doctors to service everyone who has been holding off on treatment or preventive care. Supply and demand? Hmmm, maybe your sons should re-think the profession if that happens.

 

[MaggieMae]

Sorry, but you would need to provide a link that says WHY those claims were denied. If a Medicare patient has a valid claim, s/he will NOT be denied based on some obscure formula unbeknownst beforehand like private insurers do. I got denied last year for the cost of a complete physical, which was optional on my part, because a Medicare recipient is only entitled to ONE complete physical paid for 100% and that's only in the first year of coverage. If you don't do it then, the payments are made (or denied) based on the specific formula outlined in a nice, easy to read, clearly stated manual with no fine print.

Private insurance companies cannot legally deny claims without a valid reason either. They're breaching contract if they do.

Omg, that's rich... I was looking for the guidelines for payment of claims by health insurers (and one does exist), and Googled these words: insurance companies not paying claims. There are page after page of articles confirming that they will do cartwheels trying not to pay claims. You might read a few of them.

 

[The Rabbi]

Sorry, but you would need to provide a link that says WHY those claims were denied. If a Medicare patient has a valid claim, s/he will NOT be denied based on some obscure formula unbeknownst beforehand like private insurers do. I got denied last year for the cost of a complete physical, which was optional on my part, because a Medicare recipient is only entitled to ONE complete physical paid for 100% and that's only in the first year of coverage. If you don't do it then, the payments are made (or denied) based on the specific formula outlined in a nice, easy to read, clearly stated manual with no fine print.

Private insurance companies cannot legally deny claims without a valid reason either. They're breaching contract if they do.

Omg, that's rich... I was looking for the guidelines for payment of claims by health insurers (and one does exist), and Googled these words: insurance companies not paying claims. There are page after page of articles confirming that they will do cartwheels trying not to pay claims. You might read a few of them.

How many of those articles referenced fraud on the part of the patient?
fwiw I have made numerous claims on my policy and never had them questioned.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I don't think any president worth his salt, can afford to make decisions of this magnitude according to the polls.

Dick Cheney.

Lookout Dick, you're going under the bus!

 

[Rinata]

I think the GOP is just flipping out about the fact that it appears the bill is going to make it. All I hear is them saying Americans don't want it to pass. A friend of mine sent me this article and it really made me laugh. I wish I had this woman's way with words. It's called, "Americans Can Speak For Themselves". Here's a little bit:

Have you voted on any of the Democratic health care reform plans? Me neither.

No such vote was ever taken. But with coordination that the Rockettes would envy, Republicans insist that "the American people have spoken" on the matter, and they want the proposals killed.

House Republican Leader John Boehner: "The American people have spoken, loudly and clearly: They do not want Washington Democrats' government takeover of health care."

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell: "The American people do not want this bill to pass."

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele: "The American people have spoken. The White House hasn't heard their message."

Quite a coincidence, these guys saying the same thing on the same day. No matter. What they're saying is nonsense.

All politicians try, but Republicans excel, at creating a fantasy public always marching behind their baton. What the GOP leaders lack in veracity, they make up for in confidence.

They base their public mind-reading on polls showing displeasure with the Democrats' reform legislation (or what the public thinks is in it). They ignore polls that don't.

Americans Can Speak for Themselves on Health Care by Froma Harrop on Creators.com - A Syndicate Of Talent

 

[Zoom-boing]

I don't think any president worth his salt, can afford to make decisions of this magnitude according to the polls.

Dick Cheney.

Lookout Dick, you're going under the bus!

Who?

 

[The Rabbi]

I think the GOP is just flipping out about the fact that it appears the bill is going to make it. All I hear is them saying Americans don't want it to pass. A friend of mine sent me this article and it really made me laugh. I wish I had this woman's way with words. It's called, "Americans Can Speak For Themselves". Here's a little bit:

Too bad it appears it will not pass:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100314/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_overhaul;_ylt=An5BDAltUlh9QXJ1gNKYKDis0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTNpOW1hNTk0BGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwMzE0L3VzX2hlYWx0aF9vdmVyaGF1bARjY29kZQNtb3N0cG9wdWxhcgRjcG9zAzEEcG9zAzIEcHQDaG9tZV9jb2tlBHNlYwN5bl90b3Bfc3RvcnkEc2xrA2RlbWhvdXNldm90ZQ--
And I believe it was Senator Obama who opposed some policy of Pres Bush and supported his argument by saying the American people had spoken and polls were against it.
Of course nothing Senator Obama said can have any bearing on what President Obama says.

 

[Rinata]

I think the GOP is just flipping out about the fact that it appears the bill is going to make it. All I hear is them saying Americans don't want it to pass. A friend of mine sent me this article and it really made me laugh. I wish I had this woman's way with words. It's called, "Americans Can Speak For Themselves". Here's a little bit:

Too bad it appears it will not pass:
Dem House vote-counter lacks health care votes now - Yahoo! News
And I believe it was Senator Obama who opposed some policy of Pres Bush and supported his argument by saying the American people had spoken and polls were against it.
Of course nothing Senator Obama said can have any bearing on what President Obama says.

Why don't we just wait and see???

 

[The Rabbi]

I think the GOP is just flipping out about the fact that it appears the bill is going to make it. All I hear is them saying Americans don't want it to pass. A friend of mine sent me this article and it really made me laugh. I wish I had this woman's way with words. It's called, "Americans Can Speak For Themselves". Here's a little bit:

Too bad it appears it will not pass:
Dem House vote-counter lacks health care votes now - Yahoo! News
And I believe it was Senator Obama who opposed some policy of Pres Bush and supported his argument by saying the American people had spoken and polls were against it.
Of course nothing Senator Obama said can have any bearing on what President Obama says.

Why don't we just wait and see???

Sure.
First the House has to line up the votes. So far they have failed, despite Nancy screeching they have the votes.
Second the Senate has to pass the fix. And the GOP will do everything in their power, which is considerable, to make that not happen.
Third, the measure has to survive challenges from the states' AG's in court.
Fourth the law will have to over come numerous other objections from groups that will sue to stop it.
Finally benefits don't kick in for 4 years while taxes start immediately, increasing misery on the U.S. at a time of recession. November here we come.

 

[Rinata]

Again, let's just wait and see.

 

[The Rabbi]

Again, let's just wait and see.

Yeah. Promises, promises:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cqN4NIEtOY]YouTube - Obama: We are 5 days from FUNDAMENTALly transforming America[/ame]

 

[Oscar Wao]

True, but DC's unleashing all their secret weapons, so to speak.

We'll see is right...seeing is believing/believing is seeing applies right now.

 

[Murf76]

If all of what you say is true, then the best route would be a single-payer public option and eliminate the need for any other government health care program, including Medicare and Medicaid. None of your arguments (reasonable as they are) address the fact that far too many fall through the cracks and simply cannot afford to maintain their health until it is too late. I'm sorry, but "private health accounts" (prepaid health care?) as proposed by Republicans won't cut it. Most people under 50 really don't plan on getting sick, which is why many don't have insurance and why those same people would not open a private health account for that very reason.

A single-payer system would require a Constitutional Amendment. There is no enumerated power that allows the government to run our healthcare. But proponents don't want to have THAT conversation. They prefer their deceitful method of incrementalism.

The fact is... these HSA's would put patients back in the financial aspects of healthcare transactions. And even though nobody ever "plans" on getting sick... EVERYBODY does. It might be an ear infection or the flu, but nobody escapes illness. People aren't so stupid that they don't know that. And it wouldn't take long for our general attitude toward common healthcare expenditures to change and for prices to fall.

 

[Murf76]

Omg, that's rich... I was looking for the guidelines for payment of claims by health insurers (and one does exist), and Googled these words: insurance companies not paying claims. There are page after page of articles confirming that they will do cartwheels trying not to pay claims. You might read a few of them.

I know very well how insurance companies will avoid paying when they can. But the denials are, with small exception, within the terms of contract. You have to know what's in your contract, just like anything else. I spent four years working medical. People don't even think they should have to know what medicine they're taking. So much is done FOR them, that there's very little personal responsibility involved anymore.

 

[Murf76]

I thought what I said acknowledged that Medicare is broke--more people are living longer and therefore there have been more payouts than originally anticipated--is a given. As for "rich people," the ones I know have a Medicare Advantage Policy which covers the stuff that standard Medicare does not, but those extra costs are in fact paid out of the regular Medicare accounts. In other words, we're subsidizing the rich folks who pay a small increase in the monthly Medicare premium by using Advantage. How fair is that? Medicare Advantage WILL BE dismantled if a health bill gets passed, which will be a huge savings in the program.

The biggest problem I can see with this entire health care proposal is that there won't be enough doctors to service everyone who has been holding off on treatment or preventive care. Supply and demand? Hmmm, maybe your sons should re-think the profession if that happens.

As a disclaimer, let me just say again that I don't agree with the federal government being involved in social welfare programs. That said, part of what Medicare Advantage was supposed to do was to increase the supply of doctors taking Medicare. So here again, you have a supply and demand problem.

Didn't you wonder why AARP would be onboard for Obamacare when it's NOT in the best interest of seniors? It's because AARP is nothing more than a jumped-up insurance company these days. They sell Medigap policies which COMPETE with Medicare Advantage.
They're utilizing the power of federal government to destroy a competitor. Meanwhile back at the ranch, we'll be back in the same situation we were in before, whereby doctors limit how many Medicare patients they will treat.

 

[rightwinger]

If all of what you say is true, then the best route would be a single-payer public option and eliminate the need for any other government health care program, including Medicare and Medicaid. None of your arguments (reasonable as they are) address the fact that far too many fall through the cracks and simply cannot afford to maintain their health until it is too late. I'm sorry, but "private health accounts" (prepaid health care?) as proposed by Republicans won't cut it. Most people under 50 really don't plan on getting sick, which is why many don't have insurance and why those same people would not open a private health account for that very reason.

A single-payer system would require a Constitutional Amendment. There is no enumerated power that allows the government to run our healthcare. But proponents don't want to have THAT conversation. They prefer their deceitful method of incrementalism.

The fact is... these HSA's would put patients back in the financial aspects of healthcare transactions. And even though nobody ever "plans" on getting sick... EVERYBODY does. It might be an ear infection or the flu, but nobody escapes illness. People aren't so stupid that they don't know that. And it wouldn't take long for our general attitude toward common healthcare expenditures to change and for prices to fall.

Constitutional Amendment? you watch too much Fox

Medicare didn't require one, Social Security didn't. Well within the scope of General Welfare

 

[Murf76]

Constitutional Amendment? you watch too much Fox

Medicare didn't require one, Social Security didn't. Well within the scope of General Welfare

The Medicare decision was predicated on the Social Security decision. The Social Security decision was COERCED by FDR's court-packing threat.

Truly, I hope that both are overturned if/when the Supreme Court gets it's hands on Obamacare. Social Welfare is NOT an enumerated power of Congress, and looking at our federal budget... it's clear why the founders didn't include it in the Constitution.

 

[Murf76]

you watch too much Fox

Oh... and you people would do well to get over your paranoid idiocy about Fox. It makes you look ridiculous.