Obama Care Could Be Deadly

[quote name='lawdood']How many people honestly 'rave' about their healthcare, private or public? The costs and copays alone for private keep skyrocketing, while fewer and fewer procedures are covered for many.

I know firsthand that the VA provides pretty damn good healthcare coverage, esp. for the price.[/QUOTE]

well you described it was great coverage and just now desscribed it as pretty damn good. so if its so great, they why shouldnt people rave about it? but i get your point, i think were really just splitting hairs on VA coverage. plus your from sacramento, so ill assume youre a cool guy that goes to streets of london and not a douche that goes to powerhouse.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Oh, stop.



:lol: Give the customers more choices! Take away the public option![/QUOTE]

Problem is Pelosi's bill takes away the private option giving the customers far less choices than they've ever had, reducing them to a whopping 1 - the government. Yeah, you can keep your private insurance - until you get married, change jobs, or have a child, at which point you are forced into the public option. If you want more choices, Obamacare is not what you are looking for.
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']well you described it was great coverage and just now desscribed it as pretty damn good. so if its so great, they why shouldnt people rave about it? but i get your point, i think were really just splitting hairs on VA coverage. plus your from sacramento, so ill assume youre a cool guy that goes to streets of london and not a douche that goes to powerhouse.[/QUOTE]

lol, that I am. :lol:
 
[quote name='Ruined']Problem is Pelosi's bill takes away the private option giving the customers far less choices than they've ever had, reducing them to a whopping 1 - the government. Yeah, you can keep your private insurance - until you get married, change jobs, or have a child, at which point you are forced into the public option. If you want more choices, Obamacare is not what you are looking for.[/QUOTE]

Are you arguing against a public option at all, or the public option as the only choice? You're being inconsistent here.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Are you arguing against a public option at all, or the public option as the only choice? You're being inconsistent here.[/QUOTE]

This country has the greatest health care in the world. Sure, you have to work until you're 70 to enjoy it, but why wouldn't you want to work that extra 20 years? Free time kills.
 
[quote name='Ruined']Doesn't really matter if you get a serious disease and die before it is your turn to get adequate care for it, now does it?[/QUOTE]

Tough call.

Financial ruin under our current system or a possibly lower quality of health care?

Which would you choose?
 
[quote name='maxim2boobles']When I masturbate I pretend my dick is the slap chop an I'm destroying vegetables. Do you think that's a eating disorder?[/QUOTE]

lulz
 
Wow - I missed a lot while working.

Few things - not everyone who is anti-"ObamaCare" is Republican, and not all of us are evil Warmongers. As I stated before, personally, I was against going into Iraq and wasn't convinced going into Afghanistan was a good idea. To be all "Oh, you'll pay for war, but not for health." is disingenuous at best.

Second, No, you don't have to be Mother Theresa - however, we all work and do our best to maximize our lives. That's why some of us can, say, play video games, afford XBox Live memberships, etc. If you do it, it's really a game of pot calling the kettle black for you to get mad at those who do it as well - just better than you.

It'd be like Charles Manson saying Osama is a bad person or such. "Sure, I killed people - but he killed way more." No one would listen to that and we certainly wouldn't hail him as a patron saint for it.

Third - I keep hearing what a greedy bastard I, and those who oppose "ObamaCare" are. Think long and hard about this.

I would probably benefit from "ObamaCare". I doubt my taxes would go up much - and the money I pay into for my current coverage would probably be much less.

The same for most of you. I keep seeing y'all post these stories about how the current system has ruined your lives, the lives of co-workers, loved ones, etc.

It seems y'all would benefit. All while making other people pay for it. Y'all would probably come out ahead, while others would be on the losing end of the stick.

So, I would say, if you want "ObamaCare" and it makes your life better - then *YOU* are the ones being greedy bastards - expecting others to pick up your tab.
 
The point is most everyone will probably end up paying less for health care in the long run, and maybe paying a bit more taxes. Only time will tell what the ratio of those changes turns out to affect our bottom line.

And I'm like you, I do pretty well for myself working as a professor and I'll ALWAYS have pretty good health care. SO I doubt "ObamaCare" would make my life better. I'll likely always be a state employee at universities, so my health care will always be good. No one will ever have to "pick up my tab." I'm just fine paying some more taxes if that's what it takes to give similar options to those less fortunate. And I have little respect for others who are well off and don't have the same attitude.

AndI don't get mad at people who do better than me. I get mad at both people who do better AND worse than me, who don't care about others less fortunate than them and bitch and moan about maybe paying a bit more taxes to give those worse off than them similar access to health care.

And I hate the "well why don't you live in poverty and give everything to charity" non-sense responses for two main reasons.

1. It's stupid hyperbole. Asking people to not be miserly, assholes who don't want to give up maybe a few percentage points more of their income in taxes (which will likely be off set somewhat long term by lower insurance premiums) to make sure everyone has decent health care options is not a huge sacrifice on par with expecting people to give up everything. I mean we're at most talking what? Maybe giving up one meal out a month or something? Even less than that if you factor in savings in health care premiums going down over time.

2. People who don't have generosity on that front probably donate relatively little to charity themselves. And any donations they do make are probably for tax purposes rather than any generosity or kindness. With exceptions of course, there are those who just hate government and oppose healthcare reform on that front who may be very generous in their donations.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']And I'm like you, I do pretty well for myself working as a professor and I'll ALWAYS have pretty good health care. SO I doubt "ObamaCare" would make my life better.[/quote]

Actually, like I said above, I'd probably come out ahead with "ObamaCare" - in the short-term, at least. I'm merely trying to look beyond my own self-interests.

1. It's stupid hyperbole. Asking people to not be miserly, assholes who don't want to give up maybe a few percentage points more of their income in taxes
Click to expand...

A few more points here, a few more there - next thing you know, you've got 1% of the population paying for 40% of the government... oh, wait!

And any donations they do make are probably for tax purposes rather than any generosity or kindness.
Click to expand...
Do people *really* give millions to charity just to write off a couple of thousand dollars on taxes?
That doesn't seem like a very winning proposal to me...
 
Those people are the exceptions to the rule.

There's no use talking about the top few percent. It's the upper middle class, lower upper class etc. that I was more targeting with that comment.

But we'll just have to agree to disagree. As we have polar opposite views on how government should work and how people should live their lives.
 
I think we'd agree more than not.

In fact, I'm not completely against the idea of government sponsored health insurance. I'm merely against making it mandatory, taking away the rights of private companies to offer insurance on the same level and raising taxes/deficit spending to pay for the government-sponsored coverage.
 
[quote name='maxim2boobles']When I masturbate I pretend my dick is the slap chop an I'm destroying vegetables. Do you think that's a eating disorder?[/QUOTE]

Is it slapping your troubles away?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Are you arguing against a public option at all, or the public option as the only choice? You're being inconsistent here.[/QUOTE]

I am arguing against the public option because I believe if included *at all* the government will rig it so that it WILL become the only choice in time even if it is not initially. Pelosi's bill is already rigged this way, it says so right in the bill that you can keep your private insurance, but if you switch jobs/get married/have kids you are forced into the public option. Even if the final senate bill did not have this language, with the initial bill drafted as such it reveals the direction the government wishes to go in - public option being forced upon people as the only option.
 
Myke - you do know that - at least - one version of the bill includes a section that makes it illegal for a private company to sign up new customers or allow customers to change their policy, right?

This will, effectively, kill private insurers.
 
To all of you who support these bills, this isn't health care reform. Its bullshit. Its the medical industry's bailout.
Look at this article written by a progressive:
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=+3]M[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]any progressives are getting all bent out of shape over the "brown shirt" rabble organized by health industry PR firms to disrupt the so-called "town meetings" being organized all over the country by Democratic members of Congress.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]What they are conveniently forgetting is that these are not really "town meetings" at all, at least in the sense of the town meetings I grew up with, and started out covering as a young journalist in Connecticut--that is, meetings called and run democratically, with leaders elected from the floor, open to all residents of a community.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]These "town meetings" are really nothing but propaganda sessions run by members of Congress who are trying to burnish their fraudulent credentials as public servants, and trying to perpetrate a huge fraud of a health care bill that purports to be a progressive "reform" of the US health care system, but that actually further entrenches the control of that system by the insurance industry, and to a lesser extent, the hospital and drug industry.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]ObamaCare is to health reform what bank bailouts are to financial system reform, which is to say it is the opposite of what its name implies.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]The right-wing nuts who cry that ObamaCare is introducing euthanasia for the elderly and infirm, or that it is socialism, are ignorant wackos, to be sure, but they are right about one thing: Americans are about to be royally screwed on health care reform by the president and the Democratic Congress, just as they've been screwed by them on financial system "reform."[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]The appropriate response to this screw-job is the one the right has adopted: shut these sham "town meetings" down, and run the sell-out politicians out of town on a rail, preferably coated in tar and feathers they way the snake-oil salesmen of old used to be handled![/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]This is not about civil discourse. This is about propaganda. The Obama administration and the Democratic Congressional leadership have sold out health care reform for the tainted coin of the medical-industrial industry, and are holding, or trying to hold, these meetings around the country to promote legislation that has essentially been written for them by that industry--legislation that will force everyone to pay for insurance as offered, and priced, by the private insurance industry. What a deal for those companies--a captive market of 300 million people! There will be little or no effort to control prices, and the higher costs will be financed through higher taxes, and through cuts in Medicare benefits.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]This isn't "reform." It's corruption, pure and simple.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Any mention of a system that works--single payer--the system we already have in the form of Medicare for the elderly and disabled, and the system that has proved successful for almost four decades in Canada-- has been systematically blocked and censored out of the discussion. Every effort has been made to bury an excellent bill, HR 676, offered up by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), which would cover every American by simply expanding Medicare to cover everyone.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]The only proper response at this point is obstruction, and the more militant and boisterous that obstruction, the better.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Instead of opposing the right-wing hecklers at these events, progressives should be making common cause with them. Instead of calling them fascists, we should be working to turn them, by showing them that the enemy is not the left; it is the corporations that own both Democrats and Republicans alike.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]The only proper approach to the wretched health care legislation currently working its way through Congress at this point is to kill it and start over. At these "town meeting" staged events, Obama and the Democrats need to hear, in no uncertain terms, that we don't want no stinkin' ObamaCare. We want Medicare for all.[/SIZE][/FONT]
Click to expand...
That's the truth about this health care reform.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/13/internal-memo-confirms-bi_n_258285.html
Here's an article detailing how Obamacare is just another corrupt piece of legislation.
A memo obtained by the Huffington Post confirms that the White House and the pharmaceutical lobby secretly agreed to precisely the sort of wide-ranging deal that both parties have been denying over the past week.
The memo, which according to a knowledgeable health care lobbyist was prepared by a person directly involved in the negotiations, lists exactly what the White House gave up, and what it got in return.
It says the White House agreed to oppose any congressional efforts to use the government's leverage to bargain for lower drug prices or import drugs from Canada -- and also agreed not to pursue Medicare rebates or shift some drugs from Medicare Part B to Medicare Part D, which would cost Big Pharma billions in reduced reimbursements.
In exchange, the Pharmaceutical Researchers and Manufacturers Association (PhRMA) agreed to cut $80 billion in projected costs to taxpayers and senior citizens over ten years. Or, as the memo says: "Commitment of up to $80 billion, but not more than $80 billion."
Click to expand...
What happened to the 300 billion in savings we were promised?
This:
http://firedoglake.com/2009/08/09/democrats-in-pay-for-play-deal-with-phrma
 
All this talk about choice confuses me at times.

Who cares about choice if the health care plan is affordable for all and the coverage is good? As long as my premiums are reasonable (compared to current rates) and I can get the care I need in a timely manner (timely based on urgency of the problem) I couldn't care less how many health care options.

Having wasted a few hours of my busy schedule on picking out health care and other benefits crap at my new job a couple of weeks ago, I'd probably prefer the convenience of not having a bunch of plans to compare and just having one that was at least as affordable and as good of coverage as what I get now.

Choice is usually pretty limited anyway--there were only 6 or 7 plans I could chose from through my employer, and only 2 of them were affordable to me. A high deductable one that had a $27 premium a month which wasn't an option as I'd never hit the $3,000 deductible barring an emergency. So really the only option I had was the $110 a month HMO option--which I'm not a huge fan of with needing referrals for specialists etc. But I wasn't paying $300+ a month for the plans that allowed self referral.

And I don't think a public option would kill private plans. There would always be some pricier plans around for the better off who want to pay more to have more flexibility in their health care plan etc.

[quote name='mykevermin']
And so you're against the public option because it will become the only choice. How does that work? How will the public option force others out of the market?[/QUOTE]

I understand where he's coming from. People think the public option will run like a non-profit--or more likely even at a loss--and premiums will be so low that the private sector can't compete. Or more at least won't want to compete as these are greedy, capitalistic companies out to maximize profits by charging as much as they can and paying for a few services for their customers as they can legally manage. And they won't be able to do that and keep customers if there's a public option out there giving the same (or better care) for less price.

Which gets to my point, who cares about choice of the public option is more affordable and gives the same or better care? Which country's like France show can work well.
 
Decent read. Any system is going to have it's problems--especially in these economic times. Seems they need to do more to cut costs and maybe raise taxes some more to not lose so much money.

But it's still vastly preferable to having a huge number of uninsured in your country IMO.

The quote that stood out to me though, was this one:

In France, "If you are in medical care for the money, you'd better change jobs," says Marc Lanfranchi, a general practitioner from Nancy, an eastern town. On the other hand, medical school is paid for by the government, and malpractice insurance is much cheaper.
Click to expand...

I say amen to that. When I'm picking doctors I usually end up switching several times until I find a doctor who takes his time with patients, doesn't overbook appointments in each day and rush around going through as quickly as possible etc. etc. to maximize the amount of money they bring in.

A huge part of health care reform MUST be keyed on getting costs down. And having government pay for schooling (so doctors don't have huge loans) and getting malpractice down will be a big part of that as then they can charge less for their services without hurting their bottom line as much.

People should not be going to med school primarily to become rich. They should be going as they care and want to help people, while at the same time making a nice upper middle class or lower upper class living. And those are the kind of people I want for my doctor. Not the person rushing form patient to patient and ordering uneeded tests and treatments that net them or their friends more money.

But that's just me. I have little respect for people who put becoming rich as their main life goal. We all want to do well for ourselves and have a comfortable living. But I have much more respect for those who do something they love and feel is important with the monetary benefits as the secondary reasoning. As such I don't want such people treating me, so I tend to go through a few primary care providers before finding one I like.
 
Doesn't bother, health care shouldn't be for profit. Ideally it would be right at cost or as close as possible each year in a public system.

But I'm fine with it losing money, it should just be coupled with savings in government spending in other areas.

Cut back the military, and stay out of wars that aren't necesary to defend our borders and that could pay for it there.

For 4 years pay to put the X number of people cut in the military scale back through college (as opposed to paying X number of annual salaries on that number of people) so they scaleback isn't totally screwing people who wanted to stay in, and then you have your savings there.

Cut back foreign aid to countries like Israel, Egypt (pay them millions not to attack Israel) etc. etc.

So it is annoying that they aren't talking about such cutbacks to pay for health care.
 
[quote name='fullmetalfan720']To all of you who support these bills, this isn't health care reform. Its bullshit. Its the medical industry's bailout.
Look at this article written by a progressive:
That's the truth about this health care reform.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/13/internal-memo-confirms-bi_n_258285.html
Here's an article detailing how Obamacare is just another corrupt piece of legislation.
What happened to the 300 billion in savings we were promised?
This:
http://firedoglake.com/2009/08/09/democrats-in-pay-for-play-deal-with-phrma[/QUOTE]

The bush that article keeps beating around is that there is a much more important issue at the heart of all these other issues, healthcare included.

It's frustrating as hell to watch the national debate keep centering on the limbs of the beast while everyone is continuously and successfully distracted away from the heart of the beast.

This leads me to this bumper sticker I'm thinking of having made and giving out: "Want real change? Don't vote for anyone that doesn't promise to abolish the Federal Reserve".

Until we get in that mindset, it's around the merry-go-round we'll go while it rusts and flies apart.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']And I don't think a public option would kill private plans. There would always be some pricier plans around for the better off who want to pay more to have more flexibility in their health care plan etc.[/QUOTE]

The Pelosi/House plan forbids private insurance companies to write new policies, and it forbids consumers to change their private policy, forcing them into the public option if they change jobs/marry/have kids. So there would be *no* option *except* the government public option under the Pelosi/House plan as you can see from the bill text a few posts above. The bill kills off private insurance companies on purpose.

So, when Obama says you can keep your private insurance he is right, albeit severely misleading. Because that is the only private insurance you can *ever* have going forward. If you change jobs, marry, or have kids you lose your private insurance and are forced to go public under the house plan. That is why many people are freaking out, it is forcing the country into government healthcare with *no other option* in time.
 
Bob basically comes right out and says that he is willing to sacrifice his family at the altar of "free markets".

Other posters point to problems that countries with universal healthcare systems have, which exist but could probably be solved if they were paying any where close to the amount we pay.
 
[quote name='Ruined']The Pelosi/House plan forbids private insurance companies to write new policies, and it forbids consumers to change their private policy, forcing them into the public option if they change jobs/marry/have kids. So there would be *no* option *except* the government public option under the Pelosi/House plan as you can see from the bill text a few posts above. The bill kills off private insurance companies on purpose.

So, when Obama says you can keep your private insurance he is right, albeit severely misleading. Because that is the only private insurance you can *ever* have going forward. If you change jobs, marry, or have kids you lose your private insurance and are forced to go public under the house plan. That is why many people are freaking out, it is forcing the country into government healthcare with *no other option* in time.[/QUOTE]

Agreed
 
[quote name='Ruined']The Pelosi/House plan forbids private insurance companies to write new policies, and it forbids consumers to change their private policy, forcing them into the public option if they change jobs/marry/have kids. So there would be *no* option *except* the government public option under the Pelosi/House plan as you can see from the bill text a few posts above. The bill kills off private insurance companies on purpose.

So, when Obama says you can keep your private insurance he is right, albeit severely misleading. Because that is the only private insurance you can *ever* have going forward. If you change jobs, marry, or have kids you lose your private insurance and are forced to go public under the house plan. That is why many people are freaking out, it is forcing the country into government healthcare with *no other option* in time.[/QUOTE]

I can see that, and I don't really support putting those kind of restrictions in. There should just be a public option and private companies can do whatever they want to try to compete IMO.

But I'm also not freaking out about it, as I said earlier I don't care if I have choices as long as the public health care is affordable and the quality of care comparable to what I get now.

As long as it's costing around what people with good jobs/insurance pay now (as percentage of income) and offering the same (and likely better) coverage in terms of not denying things, problems with pre-existing conditions etc. etc. then who cares about choice beyond the just anti-government, libertarian types?
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I can see that, and I don't really support putting those kind of restrictions in. There should just be a public option and private companies can do whatever they want to try to compete IMO.

But I'm also not freaking out about it, as I said earlier I don't care if I have choices as long as the public health care is affordable and the quality of care comparable to what I get now.

As long as it's costing around what people with good jobs/insurance pay now (as percentage of income) and offering the same (and likely better) coverage in terms of not denying things, problems with pre-existing conditions etc. etc. then who cares about choice beyond the just anti-government, libertarian types?[/QUOTE]

What exactly would motivate the government to have a quality of care to be comparable to what you have now if there is *no competition*? If there is only the government option and nothing else, you will take what they give you and like it, because you have no other option. Don't like it? Too bad. And that is why the current democrat bills are dogs. Private insurance competition needs to be in there, and all of the current democrat bills essentially eliminate that competition over time, leaving a single government public option with no competition as the *only* option. That leaves open the possibility of the care being significantly worse than what you have now with the citizen having nothing they can do about it and no ability to elect coverage from another provider.

Frankly, given the intentions of the Democrat bills out there which all explicitly eliminate private insurance over time, I won't trust ANY bill with a public option in it for that reason. Our government seems keen to take everything over exclusively. Thus, I and many other are staunchly opposed to any bill containing a public option at all as a result.
 
I just see that as typical anti government paranoia.

They have incentive to take the best care possible of their citizens. If they don't they aren't going to get re-elected.

If the health care system sucks, there would be all kinds of uproar.

So I don't share your pessimism. I think it could be done right and end up costing most people less in the long run with no real reduction in quality of care other than maybe some longer waits for non-urgent issues.
 
[quote name='Ruined']What exactly would motivate the government to have a quality of care to be comparable to what you have now if there is *no competition*? If there is only the government option and nothing else, you will take what they give you and like it, because you have no other option. Don't like it? Too bad. And that is why the current democrat bills are dogs. Private insurance competition needs to be in there, and all of the current democrat bills essentially eliminate that competition over time, leaving a single government public option with no competition as the *only* option. That leaves open the possibility of the care being significantly worse than what you have now with the citizen having nothing they can do about it and no ability to elect coverage from another provider.

Frankly, given the intentions of the Democrat bills out there which all explicitly eliminate private insurance over time, I won't trust ANY bill with a public option in it for that reason. Our government seems keen to take everything over exclusively. Thus, I and many other are staunchly opposed to any bill containing a public option at all as a result.[/QUOTE]

clapping.gif
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I just see that as typical anti government paranoia.

They have incentive to take the best care possible of their citizens. If they don't they aren't going to get re-elected.

If the health care system sucks, there would be all kinds of uproar.

So I don't share your pessimism. I think it could be done right and end up costing most people less in the long run with no real reduction in quality of care other than maybe some longer waits for non-urgent issues.[/QUOTE]

Have you had any experience firsthand with the free government healthcare Medicaid program? Because I have. Its not even close to what private healthcare companies deliver in terms of quality of care. It is servicable and you can get your health needs met to an extent - which is not bad since its 100% free - but compared to the private options one pays for its slim pickins in terms of doctors and especially specialists; also you often have to jump through hoops and/or face long waittimes to get advanced procedures done.

So while its possible we could get mediocre public healthcare, why in the hell would I want to give up my premium private healthcare for that?? Just to save a buck or two? I'd rather spend the cash out of my check for premium healthcare, and also not have my freedoms restricted by the gov't under the banner of 'preventative healthcare.'
 
Exactly, that's a 100% free program, so it's not comparable.

I would expect it to be completely different with a public option since people are paying into it (either in premiums that go to the government or in taxes for that purpose etc.) to get their health care, rather than just being free health care for the poor.

I wouldn't expect to see the same limitations on choice of doctors, specialists etc. I'd expect it to be at least as good as in HMO network. Which is what I've had for years to keep my premiums down.
 
That might work for you but I always pay extra for the PPO-esque option (often called different things depending on the provider). I'll easily pay more to get maximum doctor access, which often means quickest and best treatment. Once again, with a public-only system having something like that would be unrealistic due to the costs and logistics of it; the government bungles nearly everything they touch, I don't see why healthcare would be any different.
 
I can see that.

The referral process can be tedious, but I don't use it much since I'm in excellent health, eat healthy and work out at least 3 or 4 times a week. I might would consider a PPO option if the price difference wasn't so great. My HMO is like $110 a month to me, the cheapest PPO option was around $330. Both are way up from what they were a few years back in this state before the economic crisis and the state drastically pulled back their premium contributions.

But ideally the public option should be more like a PPO--maybe have to have a Primary Care Provider but can self refer to specialists. Say a $15 co-pay to your PCP, $25-35 to specialists.

That would actually save the system money as if they require referrals they have to pay for the PCP office visit to give you the referral and for the specialist visits. So I don't see why they couldn't do that type of system. But I guess the concern is that people would make uneeded use of specialist, who tend to greedily charge a lot more for simple office visits than a general family doctor.
 
[quote name='Ruined']So, when Obama says you can keep your private insurance he is right, albeit severely misleading. Because that is the only private insurance you can *ever* have going forward. If you change jobs, marry, or have kids you lose your private insurance and are forced to go public under the house plan. That is why many people are freaking out, it is forcing the country into government healthcare with *no other option* in time.[/QUOTE]

Can you please source this for me? UncleBob linked to actual legislation, but what he pointed to did not relate to this point.

You, on the other hand, have linked to opinion-editorial articles and opinion polls.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Can you please source this for me?[/QUOTE]

Good luck with that. You cannot even get him to state why he thinks (let alone prove) the U.S. has the best healthcare system in the world.

Presumably it is because Glenn Beck said so.
------
More required reading.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17244

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/reprint/295/17/2037.pdf

"The United State has a considerably greater expenditure on medical care (US $5274 per capita) than in the United Kingdom (US $2164 adjusting for purchasing power). To determine whether that expenditure translates into better health outcomes for the adult US population, data on the degree of morbidity in each country beyond the childhood years are needed."

"With the sole exception of cancer, there exists a sharp negative gradient across both education and income groups in both countries ... As a result, country differences are larger and tend to be more statistically different at the bottom of the social hierarchy than at the top. Level differences between countries are sufficiently large that individuals in the top of the education and income strata in the United States have comparable rates of diabetes and heart disease as those in the bottom of the income and education strata in England."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='fullmetalfan720']To all of you who support these bills, this isn't health care reform. Its bullshit. Its the medical industry's bailout.
[/QUOTE]

As twisted as it sounds, I hope you're right.

I hope everything coming out of Washington makes life worse for the vast majority of people.

Why?

I pretty sure we're supposed to abolish a government that is destructive to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in the hope that a new government can most likely effect the people's safety and happiness.

The government has been fucking up SO much in the last 10, 20, 140 years that you have to wonder how many more chances it will get to turn things around.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']As twisted as it sounds, I hope you're right.

I hope everything coming out of Washington makes life worse for the vast majority of people.

Why?

I pretty sure we're supposed to abolish a government that is destructive to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in the hope that a new government can most likely effect the people's safety and happiness.

The government has been fucking up SO much in the last 10, 20, 140 years that you have to wonder how many more chances it will get to turn things around.[/QUOTE]

It's almost time for September TV premieres.

They're safe.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']It's almost time for September TV premieres.

They're safe.[/QUOTE]

I know. If only there was something like the sunglasses from "They Live" ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top