Health Care Reform Bill & Abortion add on... USA

[deleted account] ( 224 moms have responded )

Ok so I will openly admit that I have not done extensive amounts of research on this, but was not happy to hear they added something to the reform bill about cutting funding for abortions? But then I've heard others say that government funding already does not cover this so the bill only reiterated what already was in law??? So IDK? I'm confused? I'm pro-choice and from what I've read it sounds like this will limit abortions for people, but then hear that it doesn't change anything???? What is really going on? How should I feel about this? I'm just confused...I need more research.

MOST HELPFUL POSTS

Krista - posted on 03/23/2010

12,562

16

842

You know, that’s one thing that I just do NOT understand—during the debates about healthcare, I kept hearing opponents claiming that socialized medicine is a threat to freedom.



I live in a country that has had universal healthcare since before I was born.



And yet, I am still free. I’m free to come and go as I please, to pursue (or not) whatever religion I wish. I’m free to marry whomever I wish, and to pursue whatever career I wish. I’m free to start a business, drive a car, fly a plane and drink in public.



I’m free to speak out against my government without fear of recourse. I’m free to vote my conscience. I’m free to wear whatever I like. I’m free to raise my children in the manner that I see fit.



The way I see it is this: I am MORE free than people living in countries without that social safety net. Having universal healthcare allows me the freedom to not have to stay in a shitty job just because it has good health insurance. It allows me the freedom to consider starting my own business, because I know that I have health insurance regardless. It allows me the freedom to make decisions regarding medical treatment for me and my family, without having to worry about how the hell I’m going to pay the bills.



Socialized medicine has given me GREATER freedom than a lot of Americans have. It’s not a threat to freedom—it enables freedom.



Having that social safety net has not prompted the people of my country to sit on their asses and do nothing. Instead, it has encouraged them to take risks and to strive to achieve, because at least they know that if things don't work out, their lives won't be destroyed. People are a lot more likely to take those risks when they know that the safety net is there.

Esther - posted on 03/23/2010

3,513

32

144

I also wanted to add that although I am FAR from fabulously wealthy, or even moderately wealthy, I will happily pay highter taxes if it means that no child (or adult for that matter) will ever have to go without the healthcare he or she needs. If we have to cut, I say let's take a look at the defense budget. NOBODY on the right was complaining about the staggering cost of the Iraq war. They just kept signing more and more and more money over to the pentagon regardless of results produced. Supposedly this is all necessary to keep us safe from terrorists. Well, 3000 people were killed on 9/11 while 45,000 die every year for lack of health insurance. I'll take my chances with the terrorists (and I work on Times Square in New York) and put my money into healthcare for all. I think you get a lot more bang for your buck that way.

Mary - posted on 03/24/2010

3,348

31

119

I think what a lot of people are missing here is that WE ARE ALREADY FOOTING THE BILL FOR THE UNINSURED AND ILLEGALS....you just don't see it. And...the way the current system is set up, it ends up costing more in the end.

Any of you familiar with EMTALA?
It is the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act. It requires hospitals and ambulance services to provide care to anyone needing emergency healthcare treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay. There are no reimbursement provisions. What does this mean? Well, it means that ANYone can show up in an ER, and any hospital who receives reimbursement from Medicare or Mecicaid MUST assess and treat them. Who foots the bill for this? Why you do...just a bit indirectly. If this person does not qualify for medical assistance, and has no personal funds, the hospital end up eating the cost. Sure, they send bills, and set up payment plans...but they are, for the large part, a joke. Some of these things the hospital writes off...but that only goes so far. They have to make up the difference somewhere...someone has to cover the costs of the staff, equipment, meds and other resouces utilized to provide that care...after all, that stuff is neither cheap nor free. Guess what? The only viable option left is to INCREASE the cost to it's paying customers...the insured patient. Part of how they factor in a charge for say, an appedectomy, is to make up what they lost with their non-paying patients.

The current economy, with so many people losing jobs and insurance, ahs only made it worse. You are nothing short of a fool if you don't think that the quality of healthcare available to you in this country has suffered for it. Hospitals are seeing huge decreases in revenue...and they have to tighten their budgets as well. This results in (to me) scary nurse:patient ratios (proven to impact patient outcomes), not replacing or updating costly equipment, down to something as simple as decreasing housekeeping (DON''T sit on that tolilet seat!). What I have witnessed in cutbacks in hospitals over the past year is downright fucking scary...but the average American is blissfully unaware...and stupidly thinks our system is superior to that of the UK or Canada.

So yeah...cling to what we have...it's just fucking great the way it is...until it personally impacts you, or someone you love.

Esther - posted on 03/23/2010

3,513

32

144

Quoting Kelly:

And why should those "fabulously wealthy" people have to be forced to "share" the fruits of their labor?


Because often they are enjoying the fruits of OTHER people's labor. While GDP has increased by about 2% a year since 1950, slowing down a bit in recent years, CEO salaries have skyrocketed this decade, with regular double-digit annual increases. In 2007, the average CEO made 364 times the average worker's paycheck, and 885 times minimum wage. Some of the biggest jumps in compensation went to serious underperformers like Capital One (NYSE: COF) CEO Richard Fairbank and Lehman Brothers' Richard Fuld.

Esther - posted on 03/30/2010

3,513

32

144

I totally copied & pasted the following from a column written by Aaron E. Carroll but I thought it did a nice job summing up why the "too soon / too fast" argument is really quite lame:



Yeah... too fast. That's the problem with health care reform. We've been moving too fast.



Way back in 1912, almost a century ago, Teddy Roosevelt ran for president on the Progressive Party ticket, pledging national health insurance for Americans. He lost to Woodrow Wilson, and so did the country's chance for robust health care reform. I guess he moved too fast.



In 1932, the Committee on the Costs of Medical Care, headed by Secretary of the Interior Wilbur, recommended:





Socialization of medical care for the people of the United States, based on a system of group practice and group payment, with community medical centres to provide complete medical service, both preventive and therapeutic, in return for weekly or monthly fees, in the form of insurance, taxation, or both



This was, or course, called socialism. The opposition, of course, said the issue was one "between incitement to revolution and a desire for gradual evolution based upon analysis and study." That's high-faulting talk for "they're moving too fast."



In 1945, after becoming President, Harry Truman called for the creation of National Health Insurance. However, before he could get anything enacted, the Republicans won control of Congress in 1946, and his hopes for reform became unobtainable. In 1948, however, President Truman won re-election with a mandate for health care reform. The Democrats even retook control of Congress. But conservative Democrats wound up blocking his efforts.



Sound familiar?



President Kennedy tried again in the early 1960s, but was also blocked by conservative Southern Democrats. President Johnson failed similarly in his first term. After a landslide victory in 1964, though, with a 150+ vote majority in the House and a 26 vote majority in the Senate, they passed Medicare; even then they couldn't get health care reform for everyone, just the elderly.



Or course, those opposed to reform claimed the process was socialism and the end of freedom. None of that turned out to be true, of course. You'd think that no one had heard those arguments before. Maybe, since things were moving so fast no one had paid close attention.



In the 1970's Senator Ted Kennedy tried again for National Health Insurance. President Nixon, in an effort to cut him off, proposed his own brand of more conservative reform. Ironically, his proposal is arguably more liberal than the "socialism" working its way through Congress now. But, because there were too many different ideas (and some losses and gains in Congress), reform stalled.



Sound familiar?



I wont even go into President Clinton's efforts. But let's remember they occurred in the early 1990's. That was a pretty long time ago.



How slow do we need to move? When will America be ready for health care reform?



Throughout much of the Democratic primary, Senators Clinton and Obama debated health care reform. That started in 2006. Throughout the entire general election in 2008, Senators Obama and McCain debated health care reform. About one year ago, President Obama asked Congress to work on health care reform.



Was no one paying attention? How long is it supposed to take?

This conversation has been closed to further comments

224 Comments

View replies by

[deleted account]

what they are doing for sex change and abortion is that if you want that option you pay 1.00 extra a month out of your paycheck and once you have enough saved up for it some insurances will cover it.

Dana - posted on 04/03/2010

11,264

35

489

Dorn and Ayers are brought up like the hold some kind of significance and we're the ones out of touch with reality? That's just laughable.

This thread has just gotten too stupid in my opinion. It's a prime example of why this country can't pull it together.

PEOPLE QUIT LISTENING TO GLEN BECK, HE'S ROTTING YOUR BRAIN AND RUINING THIS COUNTRY IN THE PROCESS!

Jennifer - posted on 04/02/2010

145

11

15

lol. I just read that "Dorhn and Ayers" post, and I had to Wikipedia them to figure out who they were. Clearly I'm not one of those liberals who idolizes them. I don't idolize violence. I don't like the violence members of the Tea Party are implying, and I do not like the threats of violence that recently targeted some politicians currently in office. I'm not trying to explain or excuse the behavior of Dorhn & Ayers, but honestly, they aren't on my mind. It happened before I was born, and it doesn't sound good. Not sure why I would be characterized as seeing them as patriots.



Despite the promise to get back to my post, Kelly A never addressed it. Would say more, but crying baby and all...

Krista - posted on 04/02/2010

12,562

16

842

Bernadette Dorhn and Bill Ayers are a married couple who were the leaders of "Weather Underground", a radical anti-Vietnam-war, anti-government group. In the 1970's, they bombed federal buildings and police stations (note: they only targeted buildings, not people).



There was a kerfuffle during the election in which the right-wing (particularly Sarah Palin) accused President Obama of "palling around with terrorists", based solely on the fact that he served on two non-profit boards with Ayers, and had once been at a party at their house.



Obviously, anybody with a lick of sense saw this as a smear job. Being on a board with someone does not mean that you are close friends with them. I've worked in non-profits for years, and it was not unusual for these board positions to be purely honorific in nature, with the members of the board rarely (if ever) actually meeting. And I've been to many a party where I barely knew the host, due to having been invited along by someone else. Hell, I've been to multiple parties hosted by Ron Joyce (the co-founder of Tim Horton's) and have been in more than a few pictures with him. But I certainly wouldn't claim an association. We're barely nodding acquaintances.



But, that didn't satisfy the right, who went on and on about Ayers and about Obama's "close ties" with a "domestic terrorist", even though Obama would have been about 10 years old when Ayers and Dorhn were bombing buildings.



But, because so many on the left don't see what the big deal is, and think that the right was just grasping at straws, evidently we're "idolizing" Ayers and calling him a patriot.

?? - posted on 04/02/2010

4,974

0

171

They are demanding answers from CONGRESS. They are rallying and educating people to be better prepared in November for the mid-term elections. While I realize that many of you have bought into mainstream media's push that these people are all racists that are sponsored by FOX, I am sorry, but that is just not the case. Some of us have not forgotten the Constitution, and what it ACTUALLY stands for and provides.






While I realize that you think that every person that doesn't think the way you do relies on their hatred for Fox, Beck, Bush and Palin to back up their ideas of what they would like to see in the American health reform, that is just not the case. And if they think they need to be the ones educating people, they're sadly mistaken. Some of 'you' that are fighting 'for the constitution' simply have different ideas than other Americans.



Just because 'you're' fighting for the constitution doesn't mean the 'other side' isn't. They just have different ideas. And "maybe if you paid more attention to reality... you would be better able to grasp why" the ideas are so different and the points of view vary so much.



We've seen THAT, in action, on COM. You "are completely out of touch with reality" though so why would you even bother looking at the points right in front of your face? Because they are all indicators of the differences of opinion / points of view and they don't agree with YOU. BUT it's the people on the other side who ignore things right? The hypocrisy continues!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Regardless of what you and a few of the people who are trying to "educate people" and fight for those constitutional rights seem to think -- your biggest enemy is the people within your own parties who ARE giving out FALSE information and being BAD spokespeople. Your biggest enemies are not the people on the left because if you actually sat down with someone who is generally on the opposite side of the spectrum as you and you said "This is what I think is wrong with this and why" and they said "This is what I think is wrong with this and why" chances are they'd be the same things but just for a different reason or presented from a different view point.



If some of 'you' would REALIZE THAT and actually get your heads outta your asses and stop assuming the other side are just ignorant and that you need to 'educate them' and actually listen to WHY they think something could work or wouldn't work.... I would guess there is a lot you agree on - again, just with different reasonings and from a different point of view. BUT... everyone is so intent on "winning" and being "right" that, THAT discussion NEVER takes place.











You're proving my point exactly though Kelly, when you continue being lil miss negative with your bitchy pants on. Maybe one day you'll snap into reality and read what people are saying, not as an attack on YOUR OPINION, but as an idea of how you all could address this TOGETHER so that you will start being a part of the solution, instead of the problem.



The fact that you KNOW your thought process is negative and you just say it's "reality," what is that?? Really?? You are part of the problem and you just admitted it by saying that. And that sums up why talking to YOU is pointless. You're set on bringing everyone down. You are the problem.

Krista - posted on 04/02/2010

12,562

16

842

Well, Kelly, if we're so out of touch with reality, then how come according to a recent and comprehensive Quinnipac poll, voters say 51 - 40 percent that proposed action by several state attorneys general to block the health care overhaul is a "bad idea,"? So yes, there are some people upset with the law. I'll grant you that. But to claim that this law was passed in direct defiance of the will of the American people? Sorry. Like it or not, "the American people" actually does include people who think differently from you.



And what liberal idolizes Dorn and Ayers and says they're patriots? I have NEVER seen any sort of idolizing of these people by anybody on the left. I've seen plenty of liberals dismissing their importance, and laughing at the right's attempt to connect Ayers with Obama. But idolizing them? You're reaching. Big time.

Sara - posted on 04/02/2010

9,313

50

584

This whole debate hinges on perspective, so I don't think it's fair to say that people who have opposing opinions to you are "out of touch with reality"...

[deleted account]

The ppl trying to take it to court aren't the same ppl that voted on it though! WA state rep voted FOR the bill and WA state DA is bringing it to court! The rep is Democratic and the DA is Republican, surprise!



*Attorney Generals no DAs sorry*

Kelly - posted on 04/02/2010

700

16

37

You people are completely out of touch with reality. 14 states are filing lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the healthcare law. Whether they win or not, it shows that there a quite a few people upset with not only the healthcare crap, but with the direction our country is going. Obama complained the other day in Maine that the media is still running headlines declaring division over the healthcare issue.

Any idiot could grasp that if this law is to be changed at all, it needs to be done before the entitlements begin. Once THAT starts, it will be very difficult to repeal it.

As far as putting more people in "companies pockets", there are now 50 lobbyists in Obama's administration. It is laughable that libs are up in arms over the supposed "violence" from the right, when they idolize domestic terrorists like Dorn and Ayers and claim they are patriots. THAT is hypocrisy.

As as far as our "corrupt" lending system, the problems began with the two largest mortgage finance lenders. The Federal National Mortgage Association, and the Federal Home Mortgage Corporation. Otherwise known as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That is a perfect example of what happens when government overstretches its bounds, and gets involved in things it shouldn't.

Krista - posted on 04/02/2010

12,562

16

842

Exactly. If the change is as vastly unpopular and as unwanted as you say, then there should be a lot of support for repeal, right? Can't say as I'm seeing that out there. People are nervous and worried about what these changes will bring, not in small part due to the doomsday scenarios that have been depicted by the bill's opponents (death panels, anybody?) But I think most sensible people, while wary, are willing to at least see where this goes.



Oh, and if two grossly expensive wars and a corrupt lending and investment system haven't sunk your country's economy, I somehow doubt that health reform will take the whole ship down.

?? - posted on 04/01/2010

4,974

0

171

But you just told me that the law can be changed.



The bell can't be un-rung or it's not said and done, which way is it Kelly?

Kelly - posted on 04/01/2010

700

16

37

We are just going to continue to go around in circles on this. I feel like I am beating my head against a brick wall, and I am sure you are feeling the same way. I don't claim to have all the facts Krista, I just try to look at how things affect the big picture. To me (and many others) saying this bill is a good start isn't accurate. Once this bell is rung, it will be impossible to un-ring it. And if it turns out that it was a bad execution of healthcare reform, we as Americans, and ALL of us as a global community stand to loose a lot more than we gain. You may see my point of view as negative, I do too. But I also see it as reality.

?? - posted on 04/01/2010

4,974

0

171

I never said the law can't be changed, ever. Don't be ridiculous Kelly, you should read what I said again because unless you're reading what I said the wrong way, there's nothing there that even remotely implies I said that the law can't be changed. The average American citizen understanding the law before it was passed, wouldn't make a difference now, the law is already passed, so move forward.



"You aren't going to make any decisions on the matter that actually change the law so your understanding it doesn't really matter anymore."



I should have said "your understanding before it was passed, doesn't really matter any more."





And if you take what I said in context, it is said and done. I quote, myself;



"I understand that a campaign promise was made but it's said and done so worrying about that now is wasted emotion don't you think?"



The campaign promise wasn't lived up to, in some people's mind - by not having it available for the public in advance to it being decided on - it's said and done. There's nothing you can do about it now. That's just ONE MORE campaign promise that Obama apparently hasn't lived up too (not that it really matters cause to some people he's lived up to more than enough, others he hasn't, to some he never will so whatever). It's time to move on. It wasn't available, now it is. It's done, move forward.







So now I'll say this, Kelly, you're awfully quick to imply that the other side doesn't know the facts. And I'll be honest, I don't really give a shit who has the facts, whoever has them and where they got them from, on either side of the fence. I don't care. Because each of those facts can be disputed through the other sides facts. So at the end of the day I don't give a rats ass about the tea party and I don't give a rats ass about Beck and Moore and what they have to say and I don't give a shit about what 27% or 35% or 98% of the population says in polls... because there's extremists on all sides and the polls will continue to change and there will be more people in this company's pocket and more people that company's pocket and there will be the right calling the left hippies and the left calling the right assholes and NONE OF IT MATTERS.



Your hypocrisy is just as bad as any other hypocrisy. They don't cancel each other out.



I have no doubt there are SOME PEOPLE out there on the right who actually are fighting for shit that MATTERS but then the rights loudest voices are the fuckin lunatics and then you have the average american who have valid reasons and concerns who's voices are looked over because they get annoyed with people on the other side who ALSO have valid points and instead of either side agreeing there's good and bad, you end up bitching like a bunch of bitches.



There's no in the middle for either side and frankly there's more people on the left saying "there is a lot that needs to be changed, but this is a start" than there are people on the right saying "there is some shit that we can work with, this is a start to a good change" so the right side ends up on the bummer side of the argument because it's all negative, negative, negative.



I have NEVER seen ANYONE say "THIS LAW IS PERFECT!!! I LOVE IT !!!!"

Kelly - posted on 04/01/2010

700

16

37

Sorry the truth hurts Jenny. And Obama made LOTS of promises during the campaign. He has broken a lot more than he has actually followed through with. And those fat cats in Washington have gotten complacent, yes. But the American people as a whole have gotten fed up with the idiocy on BOTH sides of the isle. This isn't a Republican v. Democrat battle anymore. It is the American people v. the assholes they trusted to act in their best interests.

Kelly - posted on 04/01/2010

700

16

37

And the hypcrisy continues! What do you think the Tea Party people are doing Jo? They are demanding answers from CONGRESS. They are rallying and educating people to be better prepared in November for the mid-term elections. While I realize that many of you have bought into mainstream media's push that these people are all racists that are sponsored by FOX, I am sorry, but that is just not the case. Some of us have not forgotten the Constitution, and what it ACTUALLY stands for and provides. The fact is that our elected leaders stopped listening to their constituents a long time ago. According to the latest Rasmussen reports, 64% of voters still think Congress is doing a bad job. 41% think members of Congress are corrupt, 76% think members are more interested in their own careers than helping people, and only 18% think Congress has passed legislation that will significantly improve life in America. (57% disagree with that last statement)

And actually, you are wrong that the law can't be changed. It is not "said and done." Over a dozen states have already committed to challenge the law in court. Some of the taxes kick in now, but the majority of the benefits don't start for another 4 years. There is plenty of time to amend or repeal this law. The fact that Pelosi, Reid and others pushed through this legislation knowing full well that it was against the will of the majority of American people shows they are only concerned with pushing their own agenda. I hope and pray that the Tea Party maintains its momentum, and carries the fight to the polls in November. Not so that we can take away healthcare from those who need it, but so that we can get reform that won't destroy our country fiscally.

Jenny - posted on 04/01/2010

4,426

16

126

Kelly, there's no reason to be a bitch about it. I said there are MANY unanswered questions and there was shadiness and that is it, that is not theory but history. If you want to hash out that topic make a new thread.

Jo that is totally it. Obama was promising universal health care and I beleive it was a big reason he was elected. Americans have to look at every other first world nation providing for it's citizens while jack squat is being done in their own in the name of corporate interest. Capitalism is being valued more that human rights, it's absurd. Everyone KNOWS their reps are in the pocket of big business. Yet they still continue to bicker back and forth about left vs. right issues and it's not getting anything ACCOMPLISHED.

I don't think you'll find many who are 100% content with this health care reform, the supporters are just aware it is a step in the right direction. I many people who are polled saying they disagree are sayin git becasue it is not nearly far enough. They're getting sick and tired of the baby steps but they have got to get off their butts and get HEARD to make it actually happen.

?? - posted on 04/01/2010

4,974

0

171

You aren't going to make any decisions on the matter that actually change the law so your understanding it doesn't really matter anymore. I understand that a campaign promise was made but it's said and done so worrying about that now is wasted emotion don't you think? It's nice if people can understand it now and it makes these debates more interesting. But ultimately the American people aren't the ones that NEED to understand the bill to make it into law.



The house of reps do though, and if they understand what it says -- then they are the ones that should be carrying the brunt of the issues. They were voted in by the American people as representatives for the American people. So your issue shouldn't be with OBAMA, your issue should be with your representatives.



At this point, everyone is blaming each other and Obama and the people who ACTUALLY made the CHOICES, the individual decisions in choosing what is law are sitting up there goin "well ahhh we made da best choices dat we's knowed to do." While your entire nation is crumbling right before your eyes, dividing amongst each other because of something that really does not matter at all anymore.



Stop bitching at EACH OTHER and start bitching at your REPRESENTATIVES. They're the ones that are failing in epic proportions in the eyes of the American people.



Stop blaming Bush. Stop blaming Obama. Start blaming the people you all chose to make these SPECIFIC DECISIONS on your behalf! Obama is TRYING to get things into progress and he's being bitched at left right and center when in all reality he's just listening to the voices that YOU ALL CHOSE to represent you !!!



No? Am I making myself a lil more clear now? Why are you focusing on crap that has no relevancy anymore and focus on stuff that you can actually do? Understand the bill now and let your rep know what you disapprove of and then they know, that is their job afterall right? This is a starting point, right? Why not move forward in a productive way? Instead of being a part of the PROBLEM, be a part of the SOLUTION. Being positive, is a freakin AWESOME step in the RIGHT direction, IMO.

Kelly - posted on 04/01/2010

700

16

37

Give me a break Jenny. The sad thing is that you can say that and actually believe it, yet think it's asinine when anyone questions Obama's birth place, or the fact that he is a Socialist intent on destroying America. Both extremes are suspect. But what you practice is hypocrisy.

As far as the OP, your earlier comment is correct. Canada, and MANY other countries have fiscal interest in the US economy. So eventually you too will feel the bite when the US economy is further weakened by the downward spiral this healthcare law is creating.

[deleted account]

JO: "I'm really unsure what your point is Kelly? It really does make it sound even worse considering the jobs of the people who are supposed to read and understand those things have the whole working day to read and understand those bills, laws, amendments, etc. It's their job. That's why they have the position they have. They also have any amount of people available to help them understand it. "



Since my point obviously wasn't clear, let me clarify: Congressional and House debate on this bill was not made public to the AMERICAN PEOPLE as promised in the election. The actual bill was not made public to the PEOPLE--not the house reps, or members of congress, but American citizens who this bill will actually affect (as you know, gov. employees are exempt)--until less than a month before it was voted on.

I have no doubt our congressmen & women can read and understand the bill, and have a good understanding of what was in it since they were the ones deciding what to put in it. My point was that the majority of American CITIZENS WHO ARE NOT IN THE HOUSE OR CONGRESS, did not have adequate information on the bill, or time to read and understand it, or the compromise and "fixes" before they were passed.

Is that clear enough?

Jenny - posted on 04/01/2010

4,426

16

126

Well that's not fair at all Kelly. Many educated people, including structural engineers, believe the same thing that there are MANY unanswered questions and there is no denying how shady the Bush regime was about the whole thing. But that's a whole different 3 page thread.

Kelly - posted on 04/01/2010

700

16

37

Aside from that, I would not put it past the Bush administration to cook up 9/11...they were in bed with them well before that incident! The fact that most of what he did was in regards to 9/11, terrorism & war does not say to me that he did much for our country. We are still at risk, he never even caught the dude...we've been pouring money into these companies that were all buddy buddy w/him and probably lined his pockets for the great service he did them!!! So no, i will not negate the possibility that 9/11 was staged for their benefit.


Well this pretty much sums up the fact that anything I say will be a waste of breath. The lunatics have truly taken over. I understand that some people find it hard to grasp economics and how the global system works, but this is just plain madness. And as someone who lost co-workers and friends that day, I find your comment absolutely disgusting.

Maybe if you paid more attention to reality, and less to Michael Moore, Rosie O'Donnell, and "Loose Change" you would be better able to grasp why this healthcare reform just might not be the best thing since sliced bread.

ME - posted on 04/01/2010

2,978

18

190

I don't see how anyone in their right mind could be against abs. education, especially anyone with children. What I am against is self-delusional thinking. Believing that NOT teaching our youth about other forms of birth control and sexual relationships in general is the way to to keep them safe, is just that! It should all be taught...that is the bestt way to keep our kids safe!

?? - posted on 04/01/2010

4,974

0

171

Personally, this is one of the few things I agree with in the bill. It does not say they cannot teach about artificial birth control, but they must teach that abstinence is the only method of birth control that is 100% effective.






It is the only 100% effective form of birth control. And it's good that they HAVE to teach that. You can see it as that is the ONLY thing that they HAVE to teach -- but I see it them just HAVING to say that it is the ONLY 100% effective form -- there are LOTS of other forms, the pills, the shot, condoms, IUD, etc etc etc, but they are not 100% effective like abstinence is.



I also think that ANY sexual education program that is worth paying attention too WILL tell every person that abstinence is the only 100% effective form of birth control. And then it will continue to list off other forms of birth control as well because the only way ANY birth control is effective, is if the person using it is educated about all of their options.





I'm really unsure of why you would want to point that out? Other than to try and twist it around a lil bit. When in reality all it does is state the truth...?



In all honesty, if that IS the ONLY thing any particular sexual education program decides to teach their students... it's better than nothing. And as much as I think they need to be taught a lot more than that -- chances are if that is the only thing they're teaching it's because they think it's the most effective message for that group of students.



At least I would hope so. If it's not... then I would have to assume that entire educational organisation (that school or that church or that youth group) has many other problems within their teaching structure and there's a lot that those students will remain ignorant of outside of sexual education.

?? - posted on 04/01/2010

4,974

0

171

Jo, I'm sure a lot of COLLEGE students could read & understand 2000, and have time to debate and contact the house and congress, but real Americans have families and jobs and other responsibilities. They don't have 2-3 hours every night to spend reading. Also, consider that a HUGE portion of our middle class is not college educated. The bill would have been VERY difficult for them to understand. however, if the debates in congress and the house had been made public as promised, Americans would have at least known most of what was in the bill before it passed.




I'm really unsure what your point is Kelly? It really does make it sound even worse considering the jobs of the people who are supposed to read and understand those things have the whole working day to read and understand those bills, laws, amendments, etc. It's their job. That's why they have the position they have. They also have any amount of people available to help them understand it.



College students have other obligations and responsibilities too..? Like other courses. Lawyers, doctors, surgeons, basically anyone who is in college or university have lives outside of ONE specific course. They still have to read, understand, debate and accurately present their knowledge of what they were to read and understand in order to pass or fail that course -- that could be the reason they become a doctor or a lawyer or a zoo keeper. Only they have to do that exact same thing with multiple other courses to the same extent.



The fact that the people who are in charge of making the decisions that make or break changes in your health care laws don't have 2-3 hours a night to do their job... just goes to show that the entire thing is going to bomb regardless of what choice they make.



And it's kind of awkward to know that the foundation of something that big is epicly failing at READING AND UNDERSTANDING 2000 PAGES of a LAW... you're doomed. You might as well move to Canada or Australia - you'll have a better chance of getting citizenship here and free / affordable health care than..... anyone doing any good ever there lol



You can argue until the cows come home on who is right or wrong - left or right - top or bottom - up or down - you can blame either side for any part of it but the entire foundation is broken -- if a group of people who's jobs it is to control, maintain and make those crucial decisions about the laws that NEED to be decided can't do that job -- failure is imminent. And it makes all this fighting back and forth pointless.



Dividing the country just for an epic fail. It's kinda sad to watch from the outside looking in. Especially cause I know there's a lot of business back and forth between our countries. If your fighting destroys our country... you can be damn sure that if American's weren't welcome in Canada before, they sure as shit won't be after lol

[deleted account]

I'm in no way for an abstinence only sexual education, but seriously abstinence IS the only 100% effective way to not get pregnant or STDs! AND schools have been taking govt. money for years on the basis that they teach an abstinence only curriculum.

Aside from that, I would not put it past the Bush administration to cook up 9/11...they were in bed with them well before that incident! The fact that most of what he did was in regards to 9/11, terrorism & war does not say to me that he did much for our country. We are still at risk, he never even caught the dude...we've been pouring money into these companies that were all buddy buddy w/him and probably lined his pockets for the great service he did them!!! So no, i will not negate the possibility that 9/11 was staged for their benefit.

i think that the 85% of ppl (who had insurance) probably didn't have to USE their insurance so much is why they were happy with it! so what about the Americans that were unfortunate enough to have preexisiting conditions and couldn't qualify, or those who needed it and couldn't afford it, or had it but then coudn't affodr the copays after that! Or even those that are on state insurance & don't have anyone in the area to go see, and all because they don't make enough $ to get it on their own :( Those will all be helped by this bill & for that i'm hopeful!

[deleted account]

Speaking of knowing what is in the bill, how many of you knew about the abstinence education money and how do you feel about it being there? (p.618)
Having read a lot of your posts on other threads, I know most of you who are posting in favor of this bill are against abstinence education, so how do you feel about the wording in this bill?

I was reminded of this after reading this article:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/03/31/abs...

Personally, this is one of the few things I agree with in the bill. It does not say they cannot teach about artificial birth control, but they must teach that abstinence is the only method of birth control that is 100% effective.

[deleted account]

Yes Jenny, I paid $1200 for min 9 weeks ago. The yearly checks are done as a part of the yearly physical, which is between $150-$250 depending on where you live. They don't charge extra to check the IUD but you do have to pay for the physical.



Jo, I'm sure a lot of COLLEGE students could read & understand 2000, and have time to debate and contact the house and congress, but real Americans have families and jobs and other responsibilities. They don't have 2-3 hours every night to spend reading. Also, consider that a HUGE portion of our middle class is not college educated. The bill would have been VERY difficult for them to understand. however, if the debates in congress and the house had been made public as promised, Americans would have at least known most of what was in the bill before it passed.



Krista, the American people did not ask for healthcare during the Bush administration, they asked for protection, so that is what they gave us. In comparison to segregation, since you brought that up--when 85% of Americans were happy with it, the government didn't change it. The government desegregated AFTER the people asked for it--just like healthcare.

Krista - posted on 04/01/2010

12,562

16

842

And Kelly, my mention about segregation was simply to illustrate the point that if we wait for the majority of the population to agree that a certain societal change is needed, then we're waiting far beyond the point of injustice. Saying that 85% of people were satisfied with their insurance does not negate the fact that your system had some terrible, terrible inequities in it that desperately needed to be addressed. Sure, politicians could have waited until the majority of people were dissatisfied. And in the meantime, how many people would have died?

Jenny - posted on 03/31/2010

4,426

16

126

Amie, I'd also add that big part of our economy is tied with the US such as retirement plans and exports. When they go down, we go with them to an extent.

Is an IUD really $1200? I paid $65 for mine, which covered under my extended benefits and zero for the doctor to put it in, check it yearly and take it out 5 years later. Craziness.

?? - posted on 03/31/2010

4,974

0

171

the bill was available less than a month before the vote--it was over 2000 pages!!






I just wanted to say that there are students that have to read over 2000 pages in a weekend, or even a week, and their passing / failing grades on a test on their understanding of those 2000 pages is what will give them a degree in any number of different very crucial degrees. Saying that an entire group of grown people can't read and understand, dispute and/or agree on 2000 pages in a month... is pretty pathetic. Even if you break it down to 75 pages a day that doesn't seem like a whole lot to deal with when it comes to something as important as health care reform. [Especially considering it's their jobs to know, understand and deal with all of those issues.]



This isn't a here nor there point - just something I found kind of odd and kind of a shining light on how obviously disorganized everything is in the first place... regardless of the issue... it's doomed to be wobbly if the base is broken...

Amie - posted on 03/31/2010

6,596

20

408

I'm not commenting on the health care thing but Kelly I will address your Canadian bankruptcies issues.



Bankruptcies were up because of the recession, along with having 3 really good years before that people were buying everything on credit. (bigger houses, brand new vehicles, etc.) Recession comes, OT and even jobs were no longer there. So they're left with debt that they can't pay. So they file for bankruptcy. This should be common enough knowledge. We did get hit pretty hard during the recession, our government is just doing one of the best jobs around the world in pulling our country out of it.



What has our government done to help people?



Economic Action Plan, has created many jobs through out our entire country for people to get back into the work force. It has also created tax breaks for individuals, families and businesses. They're helping the unemployed by extending EI benefits, work share programs, retraining, etc. They're created infrastructure to get people back to work. One of the things I liked the best the plan did was help stimulate the housing sector. There were tax breaks for reno projects, extra breaks for people who went eco friendly, etc. Our government has also been setting it up to have an 'economy of tomorrow'. Updating and modernizing labs, research facilities, clean energy research has gotten a huge chunk of change. You get the point, they're looking forward.



Our laws also changed to make it that much harder for people to file for bankruptcy but they have a different option now. It's called a consumer proposal. Some may end up paying a bit more in the long run under this system but the payments each month are more affordable.



Is every bankruptcy because of the recession? No, but the RISE in bankruptcies is because of it.

Kelly - posted on 03/31/2010

700

16

37

Krista, it's a pretty far stretch to compare healthcare reform to segregation.
Yes, 170,000 is a lot of people going bankrupt because of healthcare costs. But considering there are over 300 million people in the U.S., that is a pretty small number overall. So how does screwing 300 million people "six ways from Sunday" in order to help 170,000 make any sense? Canadian consumer bankruptcies were up almost 30% from 2008 to 2009 and hit an all time high. So what are you doing to help them? Why exactly are Canadians going bankrupt when they don't have to worry about health costs? Canada wasn't hit as hard as the US with the housing crash because your lending practices were tighter (good thing for you). So what is the deal? The fact is, shit happens. No matter what, someone somewhere will fall on hard times. The reason I am "liberal bashing" as you claim, is because our current leaders would rather drag us all down to the lowest level instead of merely holding out a hand to those in need.

Kelly - posted on 03/31/2010

700

16

37

Had to get the kids in bed, sorry for the late response
Lets see.....
-Capture of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed
-built coalition of almost 100 countries to fight terrorism
-secured commitment from N. Korea to end nuclear weapons progress
-persuaded Libya to dismantle WMD missile programs
-halved US nuke stockpile 5 yrs ahead of schedule
-increased size of Pell Grants to an all time High and doubled support for the Pell program
-Enacted the Do Not Call List
-Tax Cut Bill
-National Parks Legacy Project
-Airline Transportation Bill (big one for me as an airline employee at the time)
-Protect Act (Nationalized the Amber Alert system)
-Welfare Reform Extension Act

Just a few of the accomplishments of the Bush Administration. Give me time, I can probably remember some more for you.

So why do they keep printing money? Right now our economy is not self-sustaining. The Fed is buying back Treasurys (bonds, bills, etc) and mortgage backed securities to pump cash into the system and lower interest rates. Kind of like an AED for a heart attack victim. They are basically trying to avert what is in our future. Inflation is pretty much a given, its already happening. At worst, we could see stagflation or even deflation. Are you familiar with what happened in the 70's and 80's? That would be a good example of Stagflation. I don't want to be insulting by throwing an economics lesson at you, but if you are unfamiliar with how it all works, I can certainly throw stuff out there for you.... it's a little more complicated than setting up a government savings account.
And what exactly do you mean by the current war being a "cooked up plot to get more $ for national security?" Are you one of those who think 9/11 was an inside job?

Krista - posted on 03/31/2010

12,562

16

842

And at one point, 85% of the population was probably pretty happy with segregation, too. Doesn't mean that it shouldn't have been changed.



And the claim that the majority of bankruptcies are due to medical bills did not originate with the WH or with Dem leaders. It originated with a 1995 Harvard study.



Two of your sources are the American Enterprise Institute, which is a noted conservative think-tank. Not exactly what I'd call an unbiased source.



And you know what? Let's just say, for kicks and giggles, that your third link is correct, and that the actual figure is more like 17 percent. Almost one million bankruptcies are filed per year. The vast majority of these are consumer bankruptcies. You're still talking about 170,000 people who are rendered bankrupt due to medical bills. So who gives a sweet damn whether it IS the majority, or only 17 percent? That's still an insane number, and I find it incredibly alarming and depressing that you seem to be more interested in partisanship and bashing liberals than in the fact that so many of your fellow Americans are being screwed six ways from Sunday.

[deleted account]

What DId we get through his presidency though??? You know what I got? I got the right to own assault riffles, which I totally took advantage of, but seriously what else was there??? I got to watch our president take more vacations then I can count, he made a fool out of himself quite often...funny considering his speeches were written for him!

No I don't want our debt trippled, but apparently noone else wants to pay for it either...what exactly should we do? How should we pay for it when noone wants to pay more in taxes and go further in debt...We needed to take a leap and we did. The first of many I'm sure! We can't sit around waiting to save $ for it! We are in no position to save money considering our current debt... Yeah, the war itself is its own subject, that stupid cooked up plot to get more $ for national security...ahhh, crack pot theories!

I do not understand why money keeps getting printed? There is plenty in circulation at the moment isn't there? So WHY do they keep making more??? And WHY do we keep spending all this money to change damn coins?

Kelly - posted on 03/31/2010

700

16

37

Well, our government used to act on the wishes of the majority of the entire population, not just their own party, or in this case their own ideology. 85% of the population was happy with their healthcare, and felt the concerns of the government should lay elsewhere. Like JOB CREATION AND RETENTION. I am not under the impression that "it could never happen to me". But realistically, the idea that the majority of bankruptcies are because of medical bills is suspect. I find it odd that people claim conservatives are "brainwashed by FOX" and other conservative news outlets, yet those same people are so quick to jump on the bandwagon and assume everything that comes out of the WH or Dem. leaders mouths is fact.

http://www.american.com/archive/2009/aug...
http://www.aei.org/docLib/20060719_Medic...
http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/con...

As far as the national debt Erin, is your belief that since it is already so out of control, what does it matter to triple it? You do realize that the money we print has to be BACKED by something of worth don't you? I fear that the leaders in Washington have forgotten that little detail. And while I do have issues with Bush, overall I wouldn't rate him as poorly as Obama. Are you mad because Bush didn't expand entitlements to the point that America became completely dependent on government? What "didn't you get" exactly? And in case you forgot, it was a Democratic Congress that voted to go to Iraq. The war itself is a whole different subject so I won't expand.

Krista - posted on 03/31/2010

12,562

16

842

The fact that you all (Liberals in general) keep hammering on the point that the right would rather just let people continue to suffer, shows how tunnel visioned you have become. Yes, there were problems with the current system. There are problems in EVERY system. No one wants to see people suffering and losing everything because of bad health.




So um...when you had a Republican president, AND Republican majorities in the House AND the Senate, then how come they didn't try to do anything to fix health care? That would have been a pretty darned good opportunity, if you ask me. That also might have been a good time to repeal Roe v. Wade. Funny, you'd think that with the majority of Republicans being solidly pro-life, that this would have been one of the first things that they would have done. I mean, it's not like they intend to keep abortion legal, for the sole purpose of using it as a wedge issue with which to fire up their base, right?



And I don't think that the right-wing necessarily WANTS people to suffer. I think that a lot of you (in general, not you personally) just don't really think about it, especially if you don't know anybody to whom this has happened. And if you (once again, in general) do hear about a someone going bankrupt due to medical expenses, you find all sorts of reasons why that person screwed up, or made mistakes, or was dumb, or made the wrong choices. This allows you to comfort yourself, thinking that it'll never happen to you. I think that overall, liberals are a bit more pragmatic about it, and realize that medical bankruptcy could happen to pretty much anybody, including them, and the fact that it happens to anybody at all means that the system needs serious repair.

[deleted account]

IDK? Our country all ready has a HUGE deficit that grows larger day by day...and NOT just because of this health care bill... I think that if you are right and more people are thrown into huge debt and possibly lose their houses then action will be taken, because then the ppl losing their houses are going to be middle/upper middle class ppl and y'all seem to have more of a pull then the lower middle & lower class groups. It'd be a damn shame if that happened, but something will be done to fix it. I don't necessarily think that it is tunnel vision to say the right wouldn't have done anything. We had republicans in office for 8 yrs and we got squat, oh no I lied...we got HUGE debt for a war the ppl are not for! Awesome!!!

Kelly - posted on 03/31/2010

700

16

37

Krista, the only thing I agree with you on is that had this healthcare reform failed, the Dems wouldn't have continued to try and push it.

The fact that you all (Liberals in general) keep hammering on the point that the right would rather just let people continue to suffer, shows how tunnel visioned you have become. Yes, there were problems with the current system. There are problems in EVERY system. No one wants to see people suffering and losing everything because of bad health. But this is not the answer. All this is going to do is hurt even more Americans struggling to pay their bills when they are slapped with higher premiums. And after the first 10 years when it magically isn't "deficit neutral" anymore, we all stand a chance of losing our homes, because our COUNTRY will be bankrupt. Yeah, this is change all right.

[deleted account]

Erin, you are right--I didn't clarify that. I was only referring to middle class women. Currently middle class, female Americans are already responsible for their own birth control, so really that "hope" wouldn't change anything that is not already law here.
Birth control in America is VERY inexpensive: Pills range from $20-$45/ month, and IUD is only $1200 and lasts up to 5 years, Injections are similar in cost, I think about $200 for 3-6 months depending on the one you choose, so it would not be difficult for middle class women (those targeted in this bill) to buy it themselves.
Medicaid currently covers birth control (but not abortions) for lower income Americans and I would NOT hope for that to change.

Krista - posted on 03/31/2010

12,562

16

842

Also, as I've said several times before, I AGREE that we need healthcare for everyone! I just do not agree with the way this law goes about it.




Okay, fair enough. There are more than a few people out there who agree with you.



However, I would like you to consider this: as flawed as the bill may be, what do you think would have happened if it had NOT passed?



Do you think that the Dems would have said, "Well, back to the drawing board. Let's fix this up and get a better bill out there." ?



No. They would have seen pundits and the media crowing about Obama's giant failure, and they would have remembered Hilary Clinton's failure, and they would have said, "I am NEVER touching healthcare again." There's nothing wrong with wanting a better bill. But I saw some people on the left actively trying to defeat it, because it wasn't perfect, and I just wanted to go beat my head against the wall. If the healthcare bill wasn't passed until it pleased everybody, then it would have NEVER been passed. Not in our lifetime.



I'm a pragmatist. When I read about the bill, my first thought was "why can they not just have universal healthcare instead?" But, I also recognized that this bill is important not just in its contents, but in its context: it changes the status quo, when all too many people, because THEY aren't suffering, would be all too happy to leave it as is. Health care can and will continue to be improved upon in forthcoming years. But will it go back to the way it was? No. It won't. That toothpaste is out of the tube, and that's not a bad thing.The plight of the uninsured (or underinsured) was being way too conveniently ignored or explained away. Nobody gave a damn about them.



So no, this new law isn't perfect. But at least it is no longer acceptable in your country for someone to lose their home or go bankrupt because of medical bills. And that's a huge change -- one that we should applaud.

[deleted account]

Kelly H. I soo agree that food stamps should not be able to pay for crap food like pop, chips, etc... You know you can buy Papa Murphys w/WA state EBT card! How awesome is that? *please note sarcasm!* I work in a little convienent store and we don't accept EBT, THANK GOD!, but people want to buy senseless crap foods with it ALL THE TIME! And it drives me NUTS! What also drives me nuts are the others who want to use their welfare money to buy cigarettes!!! AHHH

Anyways...the one thing I have an issue about with your hopes...in #2 you want Birth control to be paid for in full by the person recieving it? Seriously??? I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume you are prolife, but DUDE!!!! If we want to piss and moan about girls using abortions as a means of b/c lets take away discounted b/c!!!! I'm sure that wont negatively impact anything!!! Having more kids running around this over populated world would do us all a lot of good too! Put those tax payers $ to good use... OMG!!! Unless you want insurance covering kids who can't otherwise afford insurance then I think insurance covering b/c is a small price to pay for this!!!

[deleted account]

Dana these are the reasons I disagree with this bill, and what I hoped would be in it instead:
Disagreements
1. Requiring people to buy insurance. (I understand that this is there to keep people from waiting until they are sick to purchase it, but you will see in my "hopes" that there are ways to finance catastrophic illnesses without over priced insurance)
2. It does not significantly lower the cost of insurance for middle class people, but it does significantly raise their taxes and healthcare burden.
3. It does not make preventative care more available for people on Medicaid-it expands coverage of individuals, but does not increase the number of non-ER facilities that accept the coverage (thus continuing them to seek non-emergency care in ER's)
4. The provision prohibiting insurers from charging more to cover people with preexisting conditions was removed.

Hopes:
1. A system that uses taxes to cover preventative care for all citizens regardless of income (higher earning citizens would pay more taxes). OR A system the provides preventative care on a sliding scale based on income (i.e. a percentage of a family's income would equal their cost for preventative care.
2. Optional care, such as cosmetic surgery, birth control and abortions would still be paid for in full by the person receiving the service or their legal guardian.
3. A provision that would make it affordable for doctors and other non-emergency care facilities to accept Medicaid or SCHIP and/or require them to do so.
4. Certain catastrophic health conditions would be entirely covered by the government healthplan--here's how that would work. The average family pays 5-10% of their income towards insurance. Instead of paying that towards insurance, it would be paid to a tax that would in turn pay for catastrophic illnesses. For instance, I would pay an additional 10% income tax, and if I never got sick, the government would never have to pay for anything but my preventative care, but if I did get sick, the government would pay for my treatment--basically the same way insurance works, but without the profits.
5. A tax on unhealthy habits such as food containing high amounts of high fructose corn syrup, high amounts of trans fats, tobacco, indoor tanning (this one made it!), and sodas.
6. Tax incentives for healthy habits, such as gym memberships, fresh produce, home gym and sporting equipment, and league sports dues.
7. Prohibit food stamps from purchasing soda and other foods with high amounts of transfat or high fructose corn syrup.

Kelly - posted on 03/31/2010

700

16

37

You can't REQUIRE anyone to do charity work, including doctors. While most people probably go into medicine because they want to help people, they also expect to make a living. That is not possible if the majority of their practice is medicaid. And the government isn't "encouraging" doctors to accept it, they are strong arming doctors into accepting it.

As far as people without income having to pay fines for no insurance, no they would not. If you would pay 8% or more of your income for the cheapest available health plan, you would be exempt from a fine. This is good on one aspect,(in no way should the government be able to fine you for not wanting to purchase specific goods and services) but bad because it kind of defeats the purpose of the law doesn't it? Those people would STILL not be buying insurance because of the cost, and therefore remain uninsured.

Kelly - posted on 03/31/2010

700

16

37

There was a link to the CDC study in the first article, although it didn't support the argument, it was interesting to look at. Here is an interesting article from the Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/...

In my opinion it does a pretty good job of breaking down the affect depending on your situation.

In my OPINION, I think this bill has more bad things than good. In the short term, I think we are going to see higher premiums, companies dropping coverage for their employees, higher taxes and higher rates of insolvency for smaller insurance firms. In the longer term, we will see deficits skyrocket, employers dropping coverage for employees completely, and a complete breakdown of the private insurance market. In this way, Dems will receive their wish of a single payer system.

[deleted account]

Mary, As I understood it, there is no provision in the law that excludes people with no income from having to pay the fine. Where did you read that?
Also, you made a very good point about non-ER services being hard to find for people on Medicaid. I think putting provisions in in this bill to require service providers to accept Medicaid would have been a huge step forward and taken many of those people out of the ER and into places that are much more affordable. Unfortunately, there is nothing in the bill about that, and for the most part, people on Medicaid will still be on Medicaid after the new law takes effect. In fact, it expanded Medicaid coverage, so the few physicians who accept it will be burdened with even more patients, reducing availability to care outside the ER even more.
I know several physicians who do not take Medicaid because it is not profitable to do so. Many took it for a while, there is a tax incentive, but no longer accept it because the tax incentive no longer made up the loss they were taking from Medicaid. The government needs to make it affordable for Doctors to accept Medicaid.

ME - posted on 03/31/2010

2,978

18

190

Many/most docs do not take public aid hx ins. We had two pediatricians to choose from, both out of town, and the ONLY OBGYN who accepted pub aid within 20 miles of my house wasn't taking new clients when I lost my private insurance because my hubby was laid off. It takes hours longer to get in and out of the peds office then it did when we had private insurance. They are trying to see way TOO many clients because SO many people in this state are on public aid right now (due to the economy). I live in a large suburb of chicago too...not in the middle of nowhere! If I didn't have reliable transportation, I would have no choice but to go to the emergency room for everything, because there is no public transport to the places where a ped. is available to someone on public aid...Many poor don't have reliable transportation...so, this problem Kelly brings up seems pretty obvious to me. If more people need treatment through public aid, and the government is doing more to encourage docs to accept it, this "problem" should get better too!

Dana - posted on 03/31/2010

11,264

35

489

I understood the article quite fine. How do you not agree how this bill works, you keep stating that without actually saying why.

[deleted account]

Dana, the story was about the ER in Texas, but it referenced statistics from a study that included a broad sample of hospitals (the ICC study included Texas hospitals, the CDC statistics are national). That study found that only 17% of ER population is uninsured, 82% are on Medicaid or SCHIP. These two program provide healthcare for people who cannot afford health insurance, but they are NOT reducing the number of trips their recipients take to the ER. These people have health coverage that allows them to utilize doctors and urgent care facilities, but they are not using them. That is the point I am trying to make.


Also, it said that 8 of the 9 have histories of drug abuse. Clearly you didn't fully understand the article.
Also, as I've said several times before, I AGREE that we need healthcare for everyone! I just do not agree with the way this law goes about it.

I apologize for the second link being the same story, I was trying to link to a pdf. of one of the studies which was found on the statesman website, but the pdf won't link, it just takes you to the article. You can do a search for the study though if you really want to read it.

Join Circle of Moms

Sign up for Circle of Moms and be a part of this community! Membership is just one click away.

Join Circle of Moms