Health Care - Universal Coverage thoughts?

Renee - posted on 12/14/2009 ( 59 moms have responded )

621

28

139

I am wondering about what moms think about health care being universal. I want it. I have had private health insurance my whole life I didn't realize how spoiled I was but I lost my health insurance in my divorce two years ago and now still without it. I am 44 years old with any health insurance. I want universal coverage and I'm willing to pay what I can afford. What do you think ladies?

MOST HELPFUL POSTS

Krista - posted on 12/18/2009

12,562

16

842

Quoting Candice:

Yes I agree that preventive medicine is the best. I strongly disagree with allowing illegal immigrants to get the so called "free" health care. I would like someone to list 10 government run agencies that don't waste money on beaurocracy and have had an overwhelming success. There aren't any and I do not want to leave my health care to an inadequate government run agency!!


I'd rather have my healthcare up to a government-run agency than up to a corporation that is focused solely on profits. 



Actually, I HAVE my healthcare up to a government-run agency, and it's been great. I had my baby boy and walked out without any sort of bill. 



And just from the other perspective, I used to work for an insurance company that offered group medical benefits. I can tell you that the claims adjusters were never looking for a reason to approve a claim -- they were looking for a reason to decline them. Sadly, a lot of people in the U.S. have been dropped by their insurance company, because they cost more in claims than they bring in in premiums. Often, those people cannot get insured elsewhere, because no corporation wants to bring on a policyholder who will bring in negative revenue. They're a business -- it would make no sense to bring in people like that. 



With government-run insurance, they cannot drop you. You are covered for life, regardless of how many claims you make. For people with serious medical conditions, it's (literally!) a lifesaver. 



Besides..."government-run healthcare" is a bit of a misnomer. My healthcare is up to my doctor and up to me. The government doesn't decide what medical care I get, they just decide what they're going to cover. And believe me, anything that is deemed medically necessary is covered. The only stuff that's not covered is elective surgeries, dental care, vision care, and prescription drugs.  So when I need to get something done medically, I never have to stop and think "Can I afford this? Will my insurance company cover this?" If I need it, I can get it. Full stop. 

Kelley - posted on 12/18/2009

330

30

27

Quoting Sara:

Well, there are flaws in every system, I'm not saying Karl Marx was perfect or that his ideas were perfect, but I find his writings interesting...but I'm also of the opinion that no pure system could ever work. Not pure communism, not pure socialism, not pure capitalism. All those are doomed to fail.



I agree, I know there's alot of stink right now about capitalism, and I am all in favor of it, but I think the flaws come in when people are allowed to run amuck with greed, or power. So I think some controllable factors are nescessary, (I've caught alot of heat because I feel this way) but people are not perfect so they're are going to be those that really hurt others by their own selfish devices.

Amie - posted on 12/18/2009

6,596

20

408

See with UHC here illegals don't. You need to have an active and up to date health card otherwise you pay at the doctors office. The cards are handed out by the provincial governments. You get one corresponding to whichever province you reside in. If you move out of province you have 3 months to get one for the new province you are in. They mail out stickers every 3 years to validate them again. If you don't have the sticker in place, then again, you have to pay.

If you don't want government to waste money on bureaucracy then don't have a government. Every single government wastes money here or there. That is another bad example. Some of it can be let to slide, when it gets out of hand they need to be held accountable. In Canada they are. We also have a lot more parties keeping an eye on each other though so it's easier for them to get caught.

Krista - posted on 12/17/2009

12,562

16

842

Quoting Mary:

"His Ideas were limiting, in the name of equality, where did anyone get a certificate along with our birthcertificate that all things will be equal and fair? With his limiting (equal) measures there comes an inherent stifling of dreams. We are a land built upon dreams and how far they can carry us. Let's face it why do we strive to further our education (masters, phd's etc.)? To make more money in most cases, How many of us grew up knowing thing like 'an honest days work for an honest days pay" or believing that the harder we work on something (study, practice, etc.) the further we will go in life. ? By Karl Marx standard that is of no matter. We go out do our work and get what everybody else gets and then we can all be happy because no-body's better that anybody else, we're equal. The huge flaw in this thinking is motivation! (putting it REALLY simply) Why would I bother to do better or best if my neighbor did a 'pss-poor' job and we both cashed out equal......"

Actually...Karl Marx believed that we privilege certain capacities and abilities and reward them in an unfair way. He was arguing that all "work" is necessary in a society, and should be rewarded equally. If our health care, education, and other services were covered by our government, there would be no reason to privilege basketball playing over teaching (for example)...oh...wait, there's no excuse for that anyway. Marxist Communisim absolutly has flaws, as does every other pure system of government...but it is NOT the great evil that Americans seem to think it is.


Exactly. The guy that collects your garbage is performing a much more valuable public service than the movie star (or the Goldman Sachs executive), but because of the way our society is set up, the latter is paid much, much, much, MUCH more than the former. Universal healthcare is simply a way of acknowledging that even if your job doesn't pay much, you're still a valuable member of society and deserve to be treated with a basic level of respect.  As much as many people like to think that the U.S. is a meritocracy, it's not. There are a lot of incompetent, lazy dunderheads in positions of wealth and power, simply due to sheer luck or good connections. So why do they deserve premium healthcare, while the convenience store owner who works 16-hour days is told "Too bad, buddy -- you should get a better job!"? 

ME - posted on 12/17/2009

2,978

18

190

"His Ideas were limiting, in the name of equality, where did anyone get a certificate along with our birthcertificate that all things will be equal and fair? With his limiting (equal) measures there comes an inherent stifling of dreams. We are a land built upon dreams and how far they can carry us. Let's face it why do we strive to further our education (masters, phd's etc.)? To make more money in most cases, How many of us grew up knowing thing like 'an honest days work for an honest days pay" or believing that the harder we work on something (study, practice, etc.) the further we will go in life. ? By Karl Marx standard that is of no matter. We go out do our work and get what everybody else gets and then we can all be happy because no-body's better that anybody else, we're equal. The huge flaw in this thinking is motivation! (putting it REALLY simply) Why would I bother to do better or best if my neighbor did a 'pss-poor' job and we both cashed out equal......"

Actually...Karl Marx believed that we privilege certain capacities and abilities and reward them in an unfair way. He was arguing that all "work" is necessary in a society, and should be rewarded equally. If our health care, education, and other services were covered by our government, there would be no reason to privilege basketball playing over teaching (for example)...oh...wait, there's no excuse for that anyway. Marxist Communisim absolutly has flaws, as does every other pure system of government...but it is NOT the great evil that Americans seem to think it is.

If you see this, leave this form field blank.
Powered by RESPECT not THUMPS

59 Comments

View replies by

Sara - posted on 12/18/2009

9,313

50

584

Quoting Candice:



BTW~ Anyone without healthcare who is sick can go to the hospital and will not get turned away.



Yes, but then when people without insurance can't afford to pay the hospital, the hospital sends it to collections and has to write it off...so in effect it drives up healthcare costs for everyone else.

ME - posted on 12/18/2009

2,978

18

190

"BTW~ Anyone without healthcare who is sick can go to the hospital and will not get turned away"



I did that once before for a broken foot...I actually thought I had insurance, but the hospital didn't tell me until after they treated me that it had been cancelled the day before without my knowledge. I have an outstanding bill in collections for over 1,000 $$$ for that...I'm pretty sure that I don't want one of those for a 30,000 $ C-section. I would gladly pay taxes to support health care for all human beings living in the US. It is necessary, it is good, and it is the right thing to do. I like doing the right thing to help out my fellow human beings...it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

Candice - posted on 12/18/2009

8

1

0

Yes I agree that preventive medicine is the best. I strongly disagree with allowing illegal immigrants to get the so called "free" health care. I would like someone to list 10 government run agencies that don't waste money on beaurocracy and have had an overwhelming success. There aren't any and I do not want to leave my health care to an inadequate government run agency!!

Amie - posted on 12/18/2009

6,596

20

408

Quoting Candice:

I think that noone knows exactly what universal healthcare is and should know that it is not just free healthcare. It is not free at all actually,we will be paying for everyone to go to the doctors,including people who always think they are sick and run to the doctors every chance they get.I don't agree with the way our gov't has run gov't programs so far and highly doubt they would run a govt run healthcare system well. They will also take our money and send it to other countries for free healthcare,did u know that? There are alot of things that we are not informed of regarding these bills that they want to pass and it is sad that they try to hide all the other details in the bills.The bills should actually have to be approved by the people if they are really for the people,we should be able to see exactly what is in it and who and what is covered before they approve anything.The govt will also decide who is eligible for procedures and if its you and 10 other people ,how will they choose who should get the procedure first and what if it is a life or death situation.I am sad to see so many people blinded by the crap that people are handed by the govt promising to take care of everyone.What they need to do is create more jobs with benefits therefore more people can have there own income and there own health insurance.Also..If people do not agree with abortions they should not have to pay for someone else to get one or two or three because in todays society ,unfortunately some women do use them as birth control..There is alot of things to think about other then someones own personal situation regarding this universal healthcare plan.

BTW~ Anyone without healthcare who is sick can go to the hospital and will not get turned away.


Everyone knows what UHC is. That was not proposed. A public option was proposed but is now dead in the water.

Where exactly would they be sending money? Why does that even matter? The U.S. and many other countries already send aid to countries that need it. It is no different.

No the bill should not have to be approved by the people at large. If everything went to vote by the people for every bill that was needed to be passed there would be no need to elect representatives. That is what they are for. If you are not happy with your respresentative get involved to try and get your guy elected. Not only would there be no need to be representatives then but it would also take even horrendously longer than it does now to get bills passed.

Correct me if I am wrong here but does the new bill not cover small businesses and make it easier (in theory) for employers to insure their employees?

The abortion aspect is not one to be used. As it is private insurance companies already offer abortion coverage to people. Anyone who uses those companies is in a way paying for the abortions. All the money that is put in is used by the company for all the people. No matter what your plan is, someone else may have that abortion coverage and use it. So in essence it is no different than UHC (which wasn't proposed) or a public option (which was proposed). The money is all in a pool, when the company (or government) needs money to pay for certain things for certain people they use the pooled money. They don't just take what that person put in. That is what insurance is for. You pay X amount of dollars each month, when you need it, you use it. Many people have some type of plan from said company not everyone uses it or needs it as much as others. So the pool is made and used as needed by customers.

People getting emergency aid is actually more expensive in the long run than getting care regularly would be. If people had preventative (regular) care more often then there would be less need of emergency care, which would drop costs. Did you know that Canda (which has a UHC system) uses less of it's GNP on health care than the States does? Everything is taken into account, population differences, etc.... and Canada uses 5% LESS to pay for everyone to be covered. While the States uses that extra 5% to cover emergency care, people who ditch on bills, etc.

Krista - posted on 12/18/2009

12,562

16

842

Quoting Kelley:



Quoting Sara:

Well, there are flaws in every system, I'm not saying Karl Marx was perfect or that his ideas were perfect, but I find his writings interesting...but I'm also of the opinion that no pure system could ever work. Not pure communism, not pure socialism, not pure capitalism. All those are doomed to fail.






I agree, I know there's alot of stink right now about capitalism, and I am all in favor of it, but I think the flaws come in when people are allowed to run amuck with greed, or power. So I think some controllable factors are nescessary, (I've caught alot of heat because I feel this way) but people are not perfect so they're are going to be those that really hurt others by their own selfish devices.





Exactly. Regulation is not a bad thing -- it's what helps keep workers from being abused by those who only care about the bottom line. It's what keeps every single consumer product that we use or ingest safe. 



I've seen more than a few free-market nutbars who say that the "invisible hand" of the free market will solve everything -- that businesses that treat their employees bad, or that put out a dangerous product, will simply be put out of business due to people not patronizing their business. But what about all of the people who were hurt prior to that happening? The "invisible hand" can sometimes be pretty darned slow to act, which is why we need government regulation in order to protect us from the unscrupulous. 

Candice - posted on 12/18/2009

8

1

0

Should the Government Provide Free Universal Health Care for All Americans?
In a Nutshell

reasons for yes

1. The number of uninsured citizens has grown to over 45 million (although this number includes illegal immigrants, etc.).
2. Health care has become increasingly unaffordable for businesses and individuals.
3. We can eliminate wasteful inefficiencies such as duplicate paper work, claim approval, insurance submission, etc.
4. We can develop a centralized national database which makes diagnosis and treatment easier for doctors.
5. Medical professionals can concentrate on healing the patient rather than on insurance procedures, malpractice liability, etc.
6. Free medical services would encourage patients to practice preventive medicine and inquire about problems early when treatment will be light; currently, patients often avoid physicals and other preventive measures because of the costs.
7. Patients with pre-existing conditions can still get health coverage.


Reasons for no
1. There isn't a single government agency or division that runs efficiently; do we really want an organization that developed the U.S. Tax Code handling something as complex as health care?
2. "Free" health care isn't really free since we must pay for it with taxes; expenses for health care would have to be paid for with higher taxes or spending cuts in other areas such as defense, education, etc.
3. Profit motives, competition, and individual ingenuity have always led to greater cost control and effectiveness.
4. Government-controlled health care would lead to a decrease in patient flexibility.
5. Patients aren't likely to curb their drug costs and doctor visits if health care is free; thus, total costs will be several times what they are now.
6. Just because Americans are uninsured doesn't mean they can't receive health care; nonprofits and government-run hospitals provide services to those who don't have insurance, and it is illegal to refuse emergency medical service because of a lack of insurance.
7. Government-mandated procedures will likely reduce doctor flexibility and lead to poor patient care.
8. Healthy people who take care of themselves will have to pay for the burden of those who smoke, are obese, etc.
9. A long, painful transition will have to take place involving lost insurance industry jobs, business closures, and new patient record creation.
10. Loss of private practice options and possible reduced pay may dissuade many would-be doctors from pursuing the profession.
11. Malpractice lawsuit costs, which are already sky-high, could further explode since universal care may expose the government to legal liability, and the possibility to sue someone with deep pockets usually invites more lawsuits.
12. Government is more likely to pass additional restrictions or increase taxes on smoking, fast food, etc., leading to a further loss of personal freedoms.
13. Patient confidentiality is likely to be compromised since centralized health information will likely be maintained by the government.
14. Health care equipment, drugs, and services may end up being rationed by the government. In other words, politics, lifestyle of patients, and philosophical differences of those in power, could determine who gets what.
15. Patients may be subjected to extremely long waits for treatment.
16. Like social security, any government benefit eventually is taken as a "right" by the public, meaning that it's politically near impossible to remove or curtail it later on when costs get out of control.

Candice - posted on 12/18/2009

8

1

0

I think that noone knows exactly what universal healthcare is and should know that it is not just free healthcare. It is not free at all actually,we will be paying for everyone to go to the doctors,including people who always think they are sick and run to the doctors every chance they get.I don't agree with the way our gov't has run gov't programs so far and highly doubt they would run a govt run healthcare system well. They will also take our money and send it to other countries for free healthcare,did u know that? There are alot of things that we are not informed of regarding these bills that they want to pass and it is sad that they try to hide all the other details in the bills.The bills should actually have to be approved by the people if they are really for the people,we should be able to see exactly what is in it and who and what is covered before they approve anything.The govt will also decide who is eligible for procedures and if its you and 10 other people ,how will they choose who should get the procedure first and what if it is a life or death situation.I am sad to see so many people blinded by the crap that people are handed by the govt promising to take care of everyone.What they need to do is create more jobs with benefits therefore more people can have there own income and there own health insurance.Also..If people do not agree with abortions they should not have to pay for someone else to get one or two or three because in todays society ,unfortunately some women do use them as birth control..There is alot of things to think about other then someones own personal situation regarding this universal healthcare plan.

BTW~ Anyone without healthcare who is sick can go to the hospital and will not get turned away.

Krista - posted on 12/16/2009

12,562

16

842

Quoting Kelley:



Quoting Sara:

For the life of me, I don't understand why people are so down on Karl Marx. The guy wasn't Hilter or Stalin...he was a political philosopher. Is it only ok to quote political philosophers like Locke or Paine because you agree with them (b/c Glenn Beck just loves to do that)? Marx had a lot of nice ideas, but his ideas are not intrinsically evil, I would say the opposite of it...I just don't get it.






His Ideas were limiting, in the name of equality, where did anyone get a certificate along with our birthcertificate that all things will be equal and fair?  With his limiting (equal) measures there comes an inherent stifling of dreams. We are a land built upon dreams and how far they can carry us. Let's face it why do we strive to further our education (masters, phd's etc.)? To make more money in most cases, How many of us grew up knowing thing like 'an honest days work for an honest days pay" or believing that the harder we work on something (study, practice, etc.) the further we will go in life. ? By Karl Marx standard that is of no matter. We go out  do our work and get what everybody else gets and then we can all be happy because no-body's better that anybody else, we're equal.  The huge flaw in this thinking is motivation! (putting it REALLY simply)  Why would I bother to do better or best if my neighbor did a 'pss-poor' job and we both cashed out equal......






haven't seen Glen Beck bit on this,  this is the way I read the Karl Marx plan.





Poppycock. 



Nobody is saying that everybody has the right to a new car, or a big house, or designer clothes. But this is healthcare -- your fellow citizens are DYING due to a lack of it. 



And while yes, we should all strive to do as well as we can in life, not everybody has the means or the motivation to climb the corporate ladder -- and that's okay. SOMEBODY has to flip your burger, or do your dry cleaning, or drive your taxi, right? We don't yet have robots to do these things -- sorry. Those are honest jobs, which perform a valuable service to society and are done by hard-working people. (Yes, there are poor people who work damn hard, despite your society's weird insistence that poor = lazy.)  



Why are these people looked down upon like being poor is some sort of moral failing? As though it's their own damn fault for not being able to afford health insurance?



We'd be the first ones to bitch if nobody was providing those very valuable services, and yet we shriek at the very thought of any of our taxes going towards helping these people to...you know...not DIE. It's that horrible "Screw you, I got mine" mentality that I see a lot right now. There's this weird paranoia out there that if someone "undeserving" (i.e. someone with less than me) gets something, then it must be taking away from someone else who is "deserving" (i.e. me). Why does everything have to be a zero-sum game?



Until "menial" jobs pay well enough to afford health insurance,  you are going to have a lot of people who are uninsured, because they can barely make ends meet as it is.  I don't know about you, but there's a LOT of useless crap upon which my tax money is spent. But I have NO problem knowing that part of my tax money might have gone towards chemotherapy for someone who could not have otherwise afforded it. 

Renee - posted on 12/16/2009

621

28

139

Hello Karl Marx are you serious that quote was actually from a French Doctor from France that is the motto he lives under the system he works under and he loves it. Not Karl Marx. That system also provides some the best health care on the planet. Not to mention that France has a longer life expectancy than the U.S. and a lower infant mortality rate. I'm sorry but go ahead and call me Karl Marx if you want to you won't offend me. I'd rather be that than some other names on this site.

Sara - posted on 12/16/2009

9,313

50

584

Well, there are flaws in every system, I'm not saying Karl Marx was perfect or that his ideas were perfect, but I find his writings interesting...but I'm also of the opinion that no pure system could ever work. Not pure communism, not pure socialism, not pure capitalism. All those are doomed to fail.

Kelley - posted on 12/16/2009

330

30

27

Quoting Sara:

For the life of me, I don't understand why people are so down on Karl Marx. The guy wasn't Hilter or Stalin...he was a political philosopher. Is it only ok to quote political philosophers like Locke or Paine because you agree with them (b/c Glenn Beck just loves to do that)? Marx had a lot of nice ideas, but his ideas are not intrinsically evil, I would say the opposite of it...I just don't get it.



His Ideas were limiting, in the name of equality, where did anyone get a certificate along with our birthcertificate that all things will be equal and fair?  With his limiting (equal) measures there comes an inherent stifling of dreams. We are a land built upon dreams and how far they can carry us. Let's face it why do we strive to further our education (masters, phd's etc.)? To make more money in most cases, How many of us grew up knowing thing like 'an honest days work for an honest days pay" or believing that the harder we work on something (study, practice, etc.) the further we will go in life. ? By Karl Marx standard that is of no matter. We go out  do our work and get what everybody else gets and then we can all be happy because no-body's better that anybody else, we're equal.  The huge flaw in this thinking is motivation! (putting it REALLY simply)  Why would I bother to do better or best if my neighbor did a 'pss-poor' job and we both cashed out equal......



haven't seen Glen Beck bit on this,  this is the way I read the Karl Marx plan.

Kelley - posted on 12/16/2009

330

30

27

Quoting dana:



Quoting T:

Actually Sara, I think the opposite is true. I think doctors give breaks to those with insurance....






My doctor gives breaks for those without insurance.  I have insurance now but then it did help quite a bit.





When we had the family medical savings ins. plan. and we told doctors about how it would be paid they did give us the break, because it meant no lengthy paper work/filing,  we were in - out, done.

Sara - posted on 12/16/2009

9,313

50

584

For the life of me, I don't understand why people are so down on Karl Marx. The guy wasn't Hilter or Stalin...he was a political philosopher. Is it only ok to quote political philosophers like Locke or Paine because you agree with them (b/c Glenn Beck just loves to do that)? Marx had a lot of nice ideas, but his ideas are not intrinsically evil, I would say the opposite of it...I just don't get it.

Sara - posted on 12/16/2009

9,313

50

584

Quoting T:

What I'm saying is that the doctor bills the insurance, the insurance says we'll only pay xx amount of dollars, and the doctor accepts that amount. If the doctor had billed me rather than the insurance, I would have had to pay the full amount. That is what I was trying to say.



Got 'cha...didn't mean to overreact!!  :)

Isobel - posted on 12/16/2009

9,849

0

282

Quoting Maleasha:

And which insurance company would that be? If people are gullible enough to be coerced into attending an anti-UHC rally, then they have major issues. I attend these events of my own free will, as did everyone I talked to. And as I said before, these rallies aren't just about the healthcare reform. We touch on a variety of topics. But, of course, most people only believe what they hear on the news about those crazy, racist, uneducated, teabaggers. Right.


 





At least one major insurer is urging its employees to participate in tea parties.



Last week, UnitedHealth Group--the second largest health insurance company in the country--sent out a letter to its employees urging them to call UHG's United for Health Reform Advocacy Hotline to speak with an advocacy specialist about health care reform. The advocacy specialist, according to the letter, is there to help UHG employees write personalized messages to elected officials, and to arm them with talking points to use at local events in order to better oppose the public health insurance option.



TPM has obtained the letter, which you can read here, but a UHG advocacy specialist was not willing to provide TPM with a copy.



However, a source who's insured by UHG--and who also obtained the letter--called the hotline on Tuesday and says the company directed him to an Dave Daubenmire, scheduled for today outside the office of Blue Dog Rep. Zack Space (D-OH).



UHG was not immediately available for comment.



Some conservatives have used the fact that industry groups nominally support health care reform to attack liberals and Democrats for blaming town hall disruptions and other public displays of opposition to health care reform on those same groups. Well, as you can see, it's perfectly possible for industry to have it both ways.



 



 



 



If you think that not wanting to lose your job is gullibility...I guess that's up to you.



 



Your movement is a farse...It has been created and nurtured by the insurance company and big pharmaceutical companies.  If you are not able to question who is pulling the strings behind the curtains, or that they are going to walk up to you and explain the whole reason they are there...I think I know who the gullible ones are.



Dana - posted on 12/16/2009

11,264

35

489

Quoting T:

Actually Sara, I think the opposite is true. I think doctors give breaks to those with insurance....



My doctor gives breaks for those without insurance.  I have insurance now but then it did help quite a bit.

ME - posted on 12/16/2009

2,978

18

190

I have always thought that the US needs some form of public health care option available to anyone who wants to participate. At this point in my life, it seems quite serious that something be done NOW. I am saddened by the mess that our representatives and senators are making of this process. We NEED some basic reforms NOW. We need a public option NOW. There are so many people out of work and without insurance through NO fault of their own (my husband and family included).

My husband lost his job the week before thanksgiving. He had worked for the same co. for 6 years, and had steadily moved up until he reached managment. He was doing amazingly well, and was very successful at his position. The co. downsized, and fired everyone in his position, but called it something else in order to avoid actual "layoffs". My husband has applied for 200+ jobs in 4 weeks, and gone to several job fairs; so have 2.5 million other unemployed people in the state of IL. My baby is due on March 1st, but will be taken by c-section on 2/22. The total cost of my first delivery was around 30,000$, and it took my husband and I 14 months to pay off the 10% we owed after our insurance paid out. We will NEVER be able to pay for the entire cost. My two year old is sick, and has no insurance, my husbands daughter from a previous relationship has no insurance because we covered her as well. We have always worked, paid taxes, and taken care of ourselves. However, EVERY door we knock on now, in our emergency situation, is slammed in our faces. We cannot get WIC, we cannot get medicaid, we cannot get AllKids (IL's supplemental ins. for low income moms and kids), my husbands ex-employer is refusing to pay unemployment, and while they might eventually lose that fight, we haven't had any income since mid-nov. We will probably lose our apt. at the end of January unless a miracle happens in the next two weeks, so purchasing private insurance isn't even an option. The hardest part of all of this for me is that we thought we were being responsible with our decisions. His job seemed secure last spring when we started trying for baby #2, we were paying off all of our small debts, and saving a little money each month. We had opened a small retirement savings account, we bought life insurance to protect our family and children. We were doing fine, and even looking forward to being able to buy a home in about 2-3 years time. At the end of Janurary almost every cent that we had saved will be gone, and while Family has already offered us a place to live, that will not do anything for our health care situation.

Refusing to do anything about health care is hurting millions of families like my own. I am saddened and sickened that my fellow americans (generally speaking) care so little for ALL of us that they are willing to allow this to go on. In fact, they seem almost gleeful about preventing my family and others like us from getting the help we need. I hope that anyone with a heart has written to their congress people to demand the reforms we, as americans, need and deserve!

Renee - posted on 12/16/2009

621

28

139

Sorry I mis-spoke above the HMOs started in the 70s not health insurance in general.

Renee - posted on 12/16/2009

621

28

139

To T: i am also dead set against the bailouts and that includes any business. I don't care if Cigna employees are laying on the sidewalk outside their multibillion dollar building in Manhattan. But I believe that if Great Britain, France, Japan, Austrailia and a whole list of other countries can provide a system for National Health Service then so should we. The health insurnace companies started with Kaiser (and Nixon) in the 70s and that de-regulation allowed them to flourish. Doctors will all make a better than average living wage under a NHS. Maybe they won't make enough for 2 or 3 nice homes or 5 or 6 luxury cars but doctors in other countries make a good decent living and nurses and other health professionals do as well. It will do no good to put a small band-aid on this problem we don't need more rules, the current rules are so complicated they can't be enforced (I mean have you tried to argue with Blue Cross Blue Shield about coverage!) I have and no one and I mean no person in this country should have to spend hours and hours trying to get some therapy for a family member. NHS will solve most of the problems about malpractice, those premiums would go down, a national database system to track all patients, no insurance fraud, there would be one prescription system that all pharmacies would adhere to, one of everything, no cross referencing systems that don't work together. See where I'm going? Simpler, cheaper, Medicare would be rolled in this system. This is the motto in France - patients receive according to their needs and pay according to their means. The pay part is that citizens pay tax rates according to their income. That's my motto too.

Sara - posted on 12/16/2009

9,313

50

584

Well, in my experience working in doctor's offices and dealing with insurance and discussion with my mother who is the Executive Director for a group of family practice physicians, I don't think so. The bottom line is a doctor cannot charge an insurance patient more than any other patient, and they only get reimbursed a certain amount from insurance, that's why they set their prices so high. I mean, have you ever looked at your EOB's? I got one just yesterday that said my doctor charged $96 for an office visit, but after all the "adjustments" by my insurance company they got paid $28.00. If they charged less they wouldn't make squat.

Sarah - posted on 12/16/2009

5,465

31

331

On the point of doctors not wanting to paid less, doctors here get paid quite a good sum!! I looked up on Google and they're certainly paid very good wages. :)

Sara - posted on 12/16/2009

9,313

50

584

Quoting Maleasha:



Quoting Jenn:





I have to wonder how many doctors would 'charge less' if lawsuits were regulated.   I do think that most would.  The doctors I have talked to would love to be able to lower their costs.  The problem is they have to pay so much out in malpractice insurance.  One doctor told me that the premiums to cover his clinic rise every year.  If the cost for malpactice insurance would go down, he would be able to lower his prices some.  Secondly,  I like the idea of Medicaid and Medicare, my only problem with them is the government keeps putting caps on how much doctors can be reimbursed on the patients that use these programs.  What happens is that the doctors then have to find some other way to make this money back and so the only option they have is to up their rates for everyone else.





I don't think that doctors would lower their prices if their malpractice insurance went down...I mean, you understand that prices are set, in part, by insurance companies and what they are willing to pay for a given service, right? If a doctor accepts a certain insurance, there are flat rates they pay for services. You cannot, by law, charge a patient with insurance more than you charge a patient with no insurance, so if you charge $150 to insurance for a service, you must charge that same $150 to an individual with no insurance....tort reform would be nice, but I don't think it will have the impact people think it will as long as insurance companies have the power to set the standard.

Maleasha - posted on 12/15/2009

507

13

72

And which insurance company would that be? If people are gullible enough to be coerced into attending an anti-UHC rally, then they have major issues. I attend these events of my own free will, as did everyone I talked to. And as I said before, these rallies aren't just about the healthcare reform. We touch on a variety of topics. But, of course, most people only believe what they hear on the news about those crazy, racist, uneducated, teabaggers. Right.

Isobel - posted on 12/15/2009

9,849

0

282

Quoting Maleasha:

I truly believe that we need healthcare reform, but where to start and exactly what we need is going to be hard to figure out. I do believe that so many politicians are moving too fast. If we are going to do this, we need to get it right the first time. If we fail at this, our healthcare system is going tank.

I do think that quite a few of the insurance companies are corrupt. You can go back and look at their profit margins and also see how much some of the executives are making and it truly is disturbing. How to weed out that corruption, I'm not sure. I don't have any suggestions for that.

If the only goal for gov't health care reform is to provide insurance for poor people who can't afford it, there would be no need to overhaul the entire system. All we'd have to do is provide insurance for those who can't afford it. That would be FAR less expensive than any of the bills congress considered and is considering.

Here's what could be done -- constitutionally:
1. Reform of laws that would eliminate frivolous lawsuits. Tort reform. Doctors pay out hundreds of thousand of dollars every year for malpractice insurance. If we could cut down on how much a plaintiff is awarded in a malpractice lawsuit, then the amount of money doctors pay out for insurance would go down, allowing them to lower how much they charge.

2. Regulating insurance so that people can buy insurance across state lines. Also, like I said before, we need to try to find a way to weed out the corruption. Not sure on this one.

3. STATES can create programs to help those who can't afford any insurance at all. That should be done by providing a specific amount of money that people are to spend on the health insurance of their choice. Also, I like the idea of a medical savings account. We had a friend who had one, and he said it was great. When he needed to use it, it was there. The rest of the time, it sat and accumulated interest.

I do agree that there will always be people who don't agree, but I do believe that we can come to some agreement. I really don't want the see a public option. Main reason being, who else is going to run it except for the government and there is plenty of corruption there, too. The cost of this bill is pretty extravagant. We're already $4 trillion in debt. I don't think it's a good idea to add another $1+ Trillion to it.

And on a side note, Laura, I've been widely involved in a couple of different rallies. We were not created by any insurance companies or influenced in anyway by them. We aren't only concerned about healthcare, we're concerned about a wide variety of things. We might be most outspoken about healthcare, but that's not all we're fighting for. I could care less what the insurance companies have to say. I see how corrupt they are first hand while I'm at work. I also see first hand how badly we need some kind of reform.


I'm curious...did you interview ALL of the people at these rallies?  Because I know of at least one insurance company that coerced ALL their employees to attend all anti-UHC rallies (hundreds of employees)...since there are several insurance companies in any given area (and I assume that this is a regular practice...just cause it sounds about right)...perhaps there were not as many like minded republicans as you thought.  :)

Maleasha - posted on 12/15/2009

507

13

72

Quoting Jenn:


I have to wonder how many doctors would 'charge less' if lawsuits were regulated.   I do think that most would.  The doctors I have talked to would love to be able to lower their costs.  The problem is they have to pay so much out in malpractice insurance.  One doctor told me that the premiums to cover his clinic rise every year.  If the cost for malpactice insurance would go down, he would be able to lower his prices some.  Secondly,  I like the idea of Medicaid and Medicare, my only problem with them is the government keeps putting caps on how much doctors can be reimbursed on the patients that use these programs.  What happens is that the doctors then have to find some other way to make this money back and so the only option they have is to up their rates for everyone else.



Call me pessimistic, but I don't know too many poor doctors, and I don't know any doctors that would consider making 'less' money and have to change their lifestyle to accommodate the lower cash flow.   I agree that there are probably many doctors that do live quite lavish lifestyles.  I don't think it's right.

In theory, it's a great idea, but in reality - do you REALLY think that a Dr. would lower their profit margin? The life they live already costs a certain amount - and people are already paying those prices.
I think I liken it to: "a barrel of crude oil is now just below 68 dollars, so WHY am I still paying $2.65 a gallon for gas?"


Maybe it's just being in a small town, but here most of the doctors live just like the rest of the town.  They don't live in fancy homes or drive really expensive cars.  The only doctor that did, killed himself.



I like the system we have here.  Families can come into the clinic and apply for the sliding scale system.  Depending on how much your family makes determines the amount you pay per visit and it also determines how much you pay for presciptions.  When I was out of a job the beginning of this year, we went in and applied for the sliding scale.  We were able to go in to see the doctor and all we had to pay for a visit was $20.   I don't know if other clinics do this, but I think this is a great idea.  All the doctors in the office have agreed upon this, so noone is left out of the loop.



Also, I feel that many people seem to forget that healthcare is a business.  I went to school for 4 years.  I didn't go into healthcare just for the money, that's a bonus.  I enjoy my work and if I could, I would work for free, but just like everyone else, I have bills, kids to feed, house payments, etc.  So do the doctors and other nurses.  I wasn't able to get any finacial help with my schooling.  It came out of my pocket.  I have finished paying for it, but there are still plenty of people trying to pay off school loans.  You can't just expect to walk into a doctors office and recieve healthcare for a drop dead price or for free.  Just like you wouldn't walk into the grocery store, departments stores or a car dealership and expect them to be handing their services out for free.

Renee - posted on 12/15/2009

621

28

139

Okay I'll say it I think we should jump straight to UHC do not stop for anything, change the system because it is grossly broken to the point where I am afraid to get sick and how can I help that!? I mean serously how can I not get sick, like H1N1? I cannot absolutely prevent that what about the thousands of other illnesses that are out there. All I can do right now is eat as healthy as I can stay as healthy as I can until I can obtain some type of health insurance. I am 44 not 24. Things start breaking on people at some point. How many decades is this country going to ignore this problem? They knocked Hillary in the head about it and told her to shut her mouth and she did. The health insurance lobby is one of the richest and strongest lobbys out there. They are protecting their profits - have you seen the profits they're huge! Getting rich off premiums and denying care.

?? - posted on 12/15/2009

4,974

0

171

No where did I say jump straight to UHC, did I?



I also said both sides need to stop whining and start working together.





There are many things that could be implimented to lower costs but they won't happen and no one will be happy with them (except whoever suggested it) because there is this HUGE drift amongst American people right now about this subject.



Your first point, putting a cap on how much people can sue for (simplifying what you said) so that malpractice insurance goes down, so that drs can lower costs - that doesn't help people who can't afford insurance really - sure it makes it a lil less but when it comes to extreme cases - the cases that actually bankrupt a family (being hospitalized for extended periods of time, needing multiple surgeries, terminal diseases etc etc etc) having 'lowered costs for a doctor' is not going to help that family.



Your second point, getting insurance from another state - that might help some people, but not nearly enough that can't afford insurance-period. I think that is something that should be implimented anyways for the people who can afford insurance being able to get better, cheaper insurance if possible.





I like the idea of a medical savings account but if you have no extra money to put into this account, well... it's an empty account and if you have like $5, or $10 sure that's awesome but the interest you get on even just $500 isn't going to cover all that much. It'd help with the yearly check ups but if something happens that family is still doomed.



So those suggestions in particular - sure there are some Americans that it will help and it might take a chip out of some people's irritation but it still leaves a whole wack of people left in debt and floundering to care of their loved ones.



I agree that each state should take it upon themselves to come up with a program that helps it's residents - but it needs support from federal stand point in order to work and I think there should be people looking into this -- but it still comes down to needing cash flow and time to make it happen and baby steps need to take place in order for this kind of thing to be implimented. So it will be rough and there will be more debt (even if it is 1 trillion) added to the already high amount... but the sooner that this kind of thing happens............................. the sooner that debt can start to come down.





I would bet that there would be more people who get off government programs (welfare etc) and get a job too if there were more insurance opportunities. I know of a few people who don't work and stay on welfare because if they worked - they would make too much or too lil to qualify for this or that but if they stay on welfare they qualify. Some people just need that lil window.

~Jennifer - posted on 12/15/2009

4,164

61

365

I have to wonder how many doctors would 'charge less' if lawsuits were regulated.



Call me pessimistic, but I don't know too many poor doctors, and I don't know any doctors that would consider making 'less' money and have to change their lifestyle to accommodate the lower cash flow.



In theory, it's a great idea, but in reality - do you REALLY think that a Dr. would lower their profit margin? The life they live already costs a certain amount - and people are already paying those prices.

I think I liken it to: "a barrel of crude oil is now just below 68 dollars, so WHY am I still paying $2.65 a gallon for gas?"

Maleasha - posted on 12/15/2009

507

13

72

So we should just jump straight to UHC. To me that is a giant leap, not just a baby step in a direction that could help our healthcare system. I mentioned some things that could be done, that of course are going to cost some money, that could work in helping fix some of the problems and could lower the cost of healthcare.

No type of change is easy or cheap, but we could look at ways that are more cost effective first.

I want things done right. And if that means taking a little bit more time, I'm all for it. This bill doesn't only effect people without any healthcare coverage, it also effects people who work in healthcare. ME and thousands of others. So if it doesn't work, because they moved a little too fast, then there will be alot of pissed of healthcare workers.

?? - posted on 12/15/2009

4,974

0

171

Nothing you do will be perfect at the start and there will be added debt no matter what kind of reform you do right now. Both of those 'reasons' are pointless for not accepting a starting point to go from... In the meantime - people are still going in debt, or slowly dying because they can't afford the care they need...



I just gotta say this is amusing; "I do believe that so many politicians are moving too fast." Because if they really did take their time, conservatives would be the first people at the door saying YOU'RE NOT DOING ANYTHING!!!!!!!!





I've said it before - there has to be a starting point to see what will work and it WILL BE HARD AT THE START but it will get better - the sooner you [in general] take the leap and BOTH SIDES compromise at the starting point - the sooner people will get the care they need without bankrupting their families and the sooner the country will find something that works.



If you sit all day and say "well this could work. that might work. this will probably work." you have a whole bunch of plans that work for 1 group or work for another class of people or work for the rich or work for the poor but until you [again in general] put something into play no one is going to really see what will work best.



Both sides need to stop whining, and start working together. Realize that this reform - no matter what happens - WILL NOT be easy, WILL NOT be cheap and the sooner the baby steps are implimented, the sooner strides can take place.

Maleasha - posted on 12/15/2009

507

13

72

I truly believe that we need healthcare reform, but where to start and exactly what we need is going to be hard to figure out. I do believe that so many politicians are moving too fast. If we are going to do this, we need to get it right the first time. If we fail at this, our healthcare system is going tank.

I do think that quite a few of the insurance companies are corrupt. You can go back and look at their profit margins and also see how much some of the executives are making and it truly is disturbing. How to weed out that corruption, I'm not sure. I don't have any suggestions for that.

If the only goal for gov't health care reform is to provide insurance for poor people who can't afford it, there would be no need to overhaul the entire system. All we'd have to do is provide insurance for those who can't afford it. That would be FAR less expensive than any of the bills congress considered and is considering.

Here's what could be done -- constitutionally:
1. Reform of laws that would eliminate frivolous lawsuits. Tort reform. Doctors pay out hundreds of thousand of dollars every year for malpractice insurance. If we could cut down on how much a plaintiff is awarded in a malpractice lawsuit, then the amount of money doctors pay out for insurance would go down, allowing them to lower how much they charge.

2. Regulating insurance so that people can buy insurance across state lines. Also, like I said before, we need to try to find a way to weed out the corruption. Not sure on this one.

3. STATES can create programs to help those who can't afford any insurance at all. That should be done by providing a specific amount of money that people are to spend on the health insurance of their choice. Also, I like the idea of a medical savings account. We had a friend who had one, and he said it was great. When he needed to use it, it was there. The rest of the time, it sat and accumulated interest.

I do agree that there will always be people who don't agree, but I do believe that we can come to some agreement. I really don't want the see a public option. Main reason being, who else is going to run it except for the government and there is plenty of corruption there, too. The cost of this bill is pretty extravagant. We're already $4 trillion in debt. I don't think it's a good idea to add another $1+ Trillion to it.

And on a side note, Laura, I've been widely involved in a couple of different rallies. We were not created by any insurance companies or influenced in anyway by them. We aren't only concerned about healthcare, we're concerned about a wide variety of things. We might be most outspoken about healthcare, but that's not all we're fighting for. I could care less what the insurance companies have to say. I see how corrupt they are first hand while I'm at work. I also see first hand how badly we need some kind of reform.

Sarah - posted on 12/15/2009

5,465

31

331

Maybe it's because i've never known any different, but i just can't see why anyone would be opposed to universal healthcare! I just genuinely can't think of a single argument against it. Every single man, woman and child deserves to be able to get care when they are sick.....end of story!

Dana - posted on 12/15/2009

11,264

35

489

I agree, Sarah, it is a right and not a privilege. It's so disturbing to actually hear Republicans say that it's a privilege and not a right. It freakin blows my mind. What kind of person or country could lack such compassion. What pisses me off the most is the majority of these people are so called Christians. I think they use religion as a front. It makes me ashamed to think they are MY fellow Christians.

Sarah - posted on 12/15/2009

5,465

31

331

I'm from the UK and i SO strongly feel that healthcare should be available for ALL.
It really breaks my heart to think of people worrying about money when they should be concentrating on getting better!
I can walk into a doctors or emergency room and be seen and treated for FREE (except prescription charges) and that's exactly how it should be!!
Healthcare should be a RIGHT not a privilege!!

Renee - posted on 12/15/2009

621

28

139

Has anyone seen the Michael Moore movie Sicko? It was very enlightening and showed the UHC systems in France, England and Canada. I wish our country was so conerned for our healthcare and I do believe it is a right that all people receive at least the same level of care. Even when I had insurance I had to argue to get basic things which were written in the policy as being covered.

Kelley - posted on 12/15/2009

330

30

27

Quoting Laura:

I hate to say this, but you would not believe how much of this sentiment I attribute to the insurance companies...they have LITERALLY sent people out amongst the public to sew seeds of decent!...They make SO much money by cheating people out of the coverage they have paid for and deserve...that they are actually creating (and influencing) political movements...read:teabaggers.

too fast, too fast, too fast...tell that to Mary (one of our members whose husband was recently laid off and her baby is due in two months) and to Jenn (another member whose husband is laid off and is trying to find an operation to allow her child with Cerebral Palsy, Autism, Seizures, and developmental delay.



I haven't even paid attention to the insurance co. on this issue...I could care less what their saying, I think the really gouge us and I'm put out with them. I'm simply seeing somthing in the process that truly concerns me....It's three thousand pages.... it should be taken to heart and studied.

Amie - posted on 12/15/2009

6,596

20

408

That's true. I've only ever heard of one that I can remember. It was very well deserved. They got a couple of million. =( The mom had gone in to get her tubes tied. Went back in the next day complaining of abdominal pain. The nurse brushed her off and told her to take some of her pain pills, it was just gas. It wasn't. The doctor had nicked her bowel and she was septic and almost died by the morning after that. Her legs and arms had to be amputated. It affected her brain as well and her level of awareness (I can't remember what it's actually called) is that of a 12-13 year old. She is permanently in a nursing home because her husband can not care for her and there two boys at the same time while working. It was all very sad. While money does not make up for what happened it has made their lives a little easier.

Isobel - posted on 12/14/2009

9,849

0

282

well... I did use the wrong word...there is no cap. There is however a reason that our settlements are higher. In the States, to get punitive damages, you only have to prove negligence... In Canada "Punitive or exemplary damages are generally only available in Canada where there is proof of malicious conduct on the part of the defendant. Canadian courts are generally careful in exercising their discretion to award these damages, which are an exception to the time-honored principle that civil damages seek to compensate the victim"

It has to be pretty severe to get anything out of a lawsuit here.

Amie - posted on 12/14/2009

6,596

20

408

I'm another Canadian who has Universal Health coverage. I can not tell you how many times my husband and I have laughed our butts off at the things we heard coming off the American news networks. Blatant lies were told and even when they were proven to be lies they were still used! The wrong wording was used to describe the plan. Even in the OP it misleads as to what Obama has proposed. He proposed a public option, which one day may or may not turn into a single payer system. A public option is vastly different from the single payer system. Canada has a single payer system. Our doctors, hospitals, etc. are all privately run but they are paid by the government. Which is even farther removed from the government run health care that I heard a lot about in the past months. Government run plans means doctors are government employees, hospitals are owned by the government, etc. The public option though is one more option, among the many out there, that people can choose in a competing market place. I really wish this had been better understood, maybe there wouldn't be so much negativity about the entire bill now.

I've had good experiences with our UHC. My entire family has had good experiences with it. Another big misconception is that there are long wait times. There are.. for NON emergent care. Which means if your life is actually in danger you are bumped to the front of the line. If you will survive without the care then you are moved down the line a bit to care for those who need it most. This again is not a huge issue.

All that being said I do hope this bill passes. There is a lot of good in it. No bill is ever 100% perfect either. It will never satisfy all the people. If that was the goal then I highly doubt that anything would ever get passed. It is a stepping stone though. It will benefit a lot of families. It will benefit a lot of individuals. From what I've heard in the last week the public option is dead anyway. They are extending medicare and opening up the plan that congress uses to the public. I do believe there was major tort reform in this bill as well. I need to go read up on it again. Christmas time so I'm only able to get snippets here and there!

I just wanted to comment on Laura's post too about the caps on punitive damages. From all my research there are no caps. There are however a lot of road blocks in place to stop people from filing frivolous law suits. Our payouts are higher on average when compared to America; however the amount of law suits brought forth are a lot lower on average when compared to America. Our doctors are also covered through the government. Whereas in the states they buy private insurance.

Isobel - posted on 12/14/2009

9,849

0

282

I hate to say this, but you would not believe how much of this sentiment I attribute to the insurance companies...they have LITERALLY sent people out amongst the public to sew seeds of decent!...They make SO much money by cheating people out of the coverage they have paid for and deserve...that they are actually creating (and influencing) political movements...read:teabaggers.

too fast, too fast, too fast...tell that to Mary (one of our members whose husband was recently laid off and her baby is due in two months) and to Jenn (another member whose husband is laid off and is trying to find an operation to allow her child with Cerebral Palsy, Autism, Seizures, and developmental delay.

Kelley - posted on 12/14/2009

330

30

27

Most of all my contention on this current plan is it's being touted as the 'answer' and way too fast, most of these legislatures aren't afforded the due time to analyze everything in them before they're being asked to bring a huge debt upon us. It's not even a complete work, it's has way too many specifics to still finish. Not with the price they're asking us to heap on our heads and our childrens heads.

I would ask for more time to review, specifics finalized, and true open forum from both sides of the elected legislative body. It's not about hitting a home run here for the pres. I want it to be a body of work, that the people, medical providers, and businesses of insurers can all be benefitted by. WHY aren't our elected officials being allowed to weigh in on this designing? I expect them so be neigh saying until they come to a point of hammering it out together.

I do want a reform, but not just for the sake of a coup.

Kelley - posted on 12/14/2009

330

30

27

Also wanted to share one of the ins. options we had to revert to when we owned our small business, it was a medical savings....It wasn't perfect, but I really liked the control over our family health. It litterally allowed our account to accumulate and at different times of accumulation we could be sure to see to the little health extras, that with current insurance and soooo many limitations, now get over looked or just dropped.

I wish this could happen on a much lager scale. it was a very fysically responsible plan, and it made me negotiate with my physicians (sounds odd but it really made me be very thorough in finding providers and scheduling all the kids and me/and husband)

this kind of financially responsible approach would be a really healthy way for families and Doctors to answer the much needed call for excellent care. It also had a very good emergency and ctastrophic coverage.

Kelley - posted on 12/14/2009

330

30

27

I also am saddend by the rude awakening I've had with my own ins experiences. I can remember when having my second and third babies were covered my husband and I both worked and this the took care of it....It was obviously why we both opted to get coverage. This just isn't the case, I feel very slighted and even deceived in some ways. As a woman especially women in childbearing years this part of the whole package, "the woman package" and now this is somehow treated as an add=on in the package...Are they kidding????? I happen to have four daughters, 3 of them being of high/school college age. This is the kind of crap these ins. co. have been pulling....It's no-wonder that there's been a huge out cry! This is minor compared to some other situations.

But not happy with curent solutions either....

Krista - posted on 12/14/2009

12,562

16

842

Quoting T:

I'm hoping this current bill goes down in flames. It has less support than Hillary care did and that crashed and burned...here's hoping!

I think there are ways to fix the current situation without having the gov't be a cog in the wheel. I trust even the nastiest business more than I do the gov't. A business will go out of business when they don't perform optimally, the gov't just makes excuses and begs, borrows, and steals more money.


Um no. When an insurance business is not performing optimally, they will look to find a way to increase profits. 



How do they do that? They do that by looking for ways to decline claims, and by getting rid of the policyholders who cost more in claims than they pay in premiums. More and more Americans are getting dumped by their insurance companies. And then many of them are unable to obtain coverage elsewhere, due to pre-existing conditions. 



Insurance companies are businesses, and like it or not, businesses are all about the bottom line. It's the nature of the beast. NO insurance company is going to want to take on customers who will bring in negative revenue. They'd be out of business within a year. 



So in the meantime, you have all of these uninsured people with nowhere to turn. The Urban Institute estimates that 137,000 people in America died between 2000 and 2006 because they were uninsured. That's shameful, and should NOT be happening in an industrialized nation, let alone the world's lone superpower! American citizens NEED a government-run insurance option that is not operated solely for profits. That is the ONLY way to ensure that everybody is covered. 

Isobel - posted on 12/14/2009

9,849

0

282

I think...that there were some legitimate arguments against UHC in America (I too am in Canada)...But last summer, while I was in Maine for two weeks...my boyfriend and I were GLUED to CSPAN (what else are ya gonna do at 9 00 and the kids are in bed? LOL) What amazed me was the ridiculous comments made that have discredited the entire movement. (see:Obama=Hitler, for example)

I believe that tort reform is ABSOLUTELY necessary...we have massive caps on punitive damages here in Canada. (or Ontario at least, as far as I understand)...but the public option HAS to be there...to keep everyone else honest.

The argument that people don't want gov't in between them and their doctors (to me) is asinine! Right now you have some guy in a suit whose only responsibility (and yes there are regulations AGAINST them taking the care of human beings into account) in between you and your doctor.

If the Insurance companies were not in charge of the "movement" against UHC...why on earth would there be SOOOOO much misinformation about every UHC system in the world?...I keep hearing over the American media...how bad MY system sucks...I had NOOOO idea. I thought it was pretty good! Apparently so do the people in England, France, etc., yet the American media insists on covering them as if they were hell on earth.

Renee - posted on 12/14/2009

621

28

139

According to the above post "a business will go out of business when they don't perform optimally". Do you mean like banks or the auto industry when the government bailed them out with our money? Is that what you mean by letting a business fail that doesn't perform well?

Dana - posted on 12/14/2009

11,264

35

489

Quoting T:

I'm hoping this current bill goes down in flames. It has less support than Hillary care did and that crashed and burned...here's hoping!

I think there are ways to fix the current situation without having the gov't be a cog in the wheel. I trust even the nastiest business more than I do the gov't. A business will go out of business when they don't perform optimally, the gov't just makes excuses and begs, borrows, and steals more money.



I'm curious where do you draw the line then.  I hear so much about the government sucking, but what  luxuries are you willing to give up. 

Dana - posted on 12/14/2009

11,264

35

489

Traci, good to see you posting! I sent you a PM the other day. You're either ignoring me or just didn't see it. lol

If you see this, leave this form field blank.
Powered by RESPECT not THUMPS

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