Insurance companies wrote the Healthcare reform bill and they will be getting
The law just makes the insurance companies richer period. People who do not have
pre- existing conditions that have no jobs will have to buy insurance seeing as
how they will be forced to do so in order to keep the insurance companies in
business. Everybody will go broke because of this and have a microchip implanted
in them also. The bill claims it is just for transients but it does have that
clause that says "Or anybody else they deem necessary". If we didn't
have such a spending problem in this country, we may have been able to insure
these people without going broke. I bet you wish we didn't have a 14 trillion
dollar debt now?
MarxistAnother disciple of the cloward and piven plan..."we are
going to have to see the collapse of the American system before any fixes
(fundamental transformation) are possible." Well there you have it in a
That woman in the photo looks like she's not 'right' in the head. I hope she
doesn't have a position of influence in our country.
To "Truthseeker | 2:14 p.m." it all comes down to who tells you that
the money isn't there to pay for your treatment. Either you come to that
realization or else some faceless government official.Also, my post
was in response to people wanting universal care systems, I was not saying that
the HC law resembles Canada's system.Given the choice of declaring
bankruptcy, and having to go to court to get my debts restructured and death by
government programs, I would choose bankruptcy.
Re:RedShirtThe new healthcare law does not in any way resemble Canada's
healthcare system. Twenty-eight industrialized countries have single-payer
systems including Australia and Taiwan.To counter your articles I
could post a number or examples of people in the U.S. dying as a result of not
getting healthcare at all and we could go back and forth. I could also point out
that Cardiothoracic surgery article was not about people in urgent need of
surgery not getting timely care in Canada or that the woman in "Reality
Check" was not in urgent need of surgery, and was not facing a life or
death situation. And despite Canada also looking at ways to decrease escalating
costs they are not looking at the U.S. as a model.
Good! Anything that changes our death panel system I'll support. It's funny to me, we have billions to give away in republican nation
building yet we don't have money to help support our own people. Anyone else
hear of the kid that played darth vadar in that one commercial? He has a heart
condition that isn't supported by insurance. That poor child and his family are
now turning towards the government to try and help them. How sad is
that? We have plenty of money to make Karzai and other arab people
millionaire rich. Yet we don't have a few thousand too spend on a
poor American born child. Incredible.
To "deserthound | 12:37 p.m." and "marxist | 12:39 p.m."
lets see what happens when you go to a universal care system.From
the Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery we read about the Canadian system. Their
article "Cumulative incidence for wait-list death in relation to length of
queue for coronary-artery bypass grafting: a cohort study" found that their
wonderful system kills people waiting for bypass surgury.From Canada
dot com we read "Medicare refuses to pay for woman's life-saving
surgery" They refuse to pay for the surgury to save a person's life.CNN even wrote a story about the poor care in Canada in "Reality
check: Canada's government health care system", where a patient was quoted
4 to 6 months of waiting to see a specialist. The wait would have killed
her.CBC ran a story titled "Medical wait-list insurance to be
available in B.C.". Seems like you have to pay extra to be seen quickly in
Canada.Apparently Canada's system is more expensive than you think,
Read Reuter "Soaring costs force Canada to reassess health model".
For the real story on our miserable health care system, read the 2006 book,
"Critical Condition: How Health Care in America became big business and bad
Our present health care financing system is a disgrace. Too many people unable
to afford coverage, and employers tightening the noose around their employees,
ever bigger co-pays. You may want to note that Canadians seem entirely
comfortable with their health care financing system (even the conservatives
support it), and you may also wish to note that Canada remains recession free.
Pointing these things out in Utah is, of course, spitting into the wind; we're
going to have endure the collapse of the American system before any fixes are
Esquire is spot on. The U.S. health care system is the most expensive in the
world while on a fast train to a train wreck, and it's all because of private
health insurance and this stupid model of employer-provided insurance. Americans
have been bamboozled into believing that the private sector can do it better.
What a stupid idea. Remove the constant pressure to increase profits
and dividends to shareholders while decreasing benefits to customers (i.e,
patients) and suddenly things become much more economical and workable for all
concerned, mostly patients and doctors. Want to see the greatest
stimulus to our economy? Go to a single-payer Medicare for all. You remove
insurance profits, the coverage stays with the patient no matter where they go
or who they work for (talk about efficiency!), and suddenly millions of
Americans would then be free to start their own business without the worry of
losing everything. And it would free up billions of existing business assets to
expand and grow, assets that are currently hamstrung by the big black cloud of
private insurance. Oh, lose the label "Obamacare." It's
nothing but an erroneous PR label to scare us.
To "Ultra Bob | 11:56 a.m." there is a huge problem with your first
idea. That is you leave out the fact that you can choose to take the health
insurance that your company offers or not. I have yet to hear of a company that
requires that you join the company health plan as a condition of employment.
Also, if employers are to be kept out of being involved with the health
insurance of their employees, does that include the Federal Government since
they are a very large employer?Everything else makes you sound like
a conservative that wants to get government out of the way and let health
insurance providers work. Are you really becoming a conservative?To "merich39 | 10:37 a.m." outside of the fact that history proves
you wrong, and that prior to the 1980's the health insurance companies provided
for both the sick and the healthy. Do you have an arguement based on reality or
are you just going to repeat what your fear mongering liberal masters tell you?
The best thing anyone could do for working people with regards to health care is
to prohibit employers from being involved with the health care of their
employees. Businesses use health care insurance as an enslavement device for
their employees and to reduce their payroll tax bill. If people
were treated as individuals by health insurance companies, people could design
their own coverage to fit their own needs instead to the needs of the employer.
The second best thing would be to get state government out of the
health care insurance business of people. People should be able to buy an
insurance product from any state in the U.S., maybe any nation. The
third best thing would be to require all entities in the health care industry to
provide understandable, published, and dependable prices for insurance and the
things it covers. The forth best thing would be to require all
brochures, manuals, advertising and communications to ordinary people to be
written and spoken in people English, not the gobbledygook of politicians and
insurance salesmen. The Fifth best ...
Right wing think tanks. Truth doesn't matter anymore only perception. So it's
easy to sell the perception that it's all Obama's fault and healthcare was going
just fine before. hardeeeharhar.
So, if we need health care delivery reform, why pass a bill that is health care
payment and coverage expansion mandated. The only thing that has happened to
control costs is the panels being established by the administration to review
and approve coverage for the elderly. There needs to be reform, the current is
not that and in the main worsens everything.
Redshirt1701... and the alternative to mandates is health insurance that only
covers the healthy. anyone with any kind of condition will be excluded, as they
won't be profitable enough.
I nearly choked on my coffee when I read the last few words of the first
paragraph "...at a price they can afford". at a price who can
afford?!? I've been involved for the last 20+ years in negotiating the annual
renewal of our employer provided health care. our premiums have increased a
minimum of 10% and a maximum of nearly 30% every one of those 20+ yrs. and
those premium increases were AFTER we negotiated increased co-pays to keep the
premiums as low as possible. because of the skyrocketing costs of health-care,
more and more lower income families are dropping their coverage altogether.
but, they still get emergency health care for free, as mandated by law. so the
costs of their health care gets passed on to those who have insurance coverage.
every year, fewer and fewer insureds are paying the total health care bill. and
the problem will only become worse as the costs continue to incur double-digit
inflation and more and more lower income families are forced to choose between
food and clothing or health care.
To "Esquire | 7:10 a.m." the private health insurance is getting more
expensive because of government mandates. Over the past 30 years we have gone
from 200 mandates to over 2200 mandates. What do you think that does to the
price of insurance?Remember a couple of years ago Utah wanted to add
Autism treatments to the list of mandates in Utah. It would only cost $50/yr
for each insurance policy. That doesn't sound like much, but if you add 20 of
those mandates you have now added $1000 to the cost of insurance. Each mandate
costs money.Studies have found that 20% to 50% of the price of
insurance is due directly to government mandates. With the HC bill that was
passed, those premiums are going to go up even faster because of the new
mandates and taxes.Also, thanks to medicare reimbursement rates,
doctors charge those with insurance more than they otherwise would. That right
there adds about $1000 to the price of insurance.
Who is going to pay for Obamacare? If you haven't noticed, we are broke already!
This article is spot on, unless you are lucky enough to get a waiver, which most
companies are seeking! Gee, I wonder why, since Obamacare is such a "great
deal"? The truth is, Obamacare is an unaffordable, unworkable, unmanageable
nightmare waiting to happen! It is ripe for fraud and corruption and will be ten
times more expensive than we have been told it will be, just like anything the
The McKinsey study runs counter to studies done by the CBO, the Rand Corp., and
the Urban Institute. It has been criticized for it's poor methodology,
basically a push poll, and characterized as being a pitch to attract business
for itself. Esquire is correct this article is nothing but
This is nonsense. As an employer, I have seen premiums go up 25 to 35% every
year with diminishing benefits. Lots of employers are cutting or eliminating
programs. And this is BEFORE the reform legislation. The private health
insurance system is collapsing, and the Senator, instead of trying to protect
the status quo, should focus on further reforms. Our system is shameful in the
industrial world. We have outcomes that are near third world. Our so-called
American exceptionalism is a farce until we resolve this basic need in a way
that does not ruin the lives of our citizens. Find solutions, Senator, instead
of trying to undo an effort to address the problem. It is better than doing
nothing, which is what you have advocated.