From my email box, Ms. Kidd sends this:
In 2007 and 2008, 2.9 million Georgians went without health insurance for six months or more. Today, 1.6 million Georgians do not have health insurance.
That’s simply disgraceful.
Fortunately, America is finally moving in the right direction on health care, under the leadership of President Obama and the Democratic Congress. But in addition to the reforms proposed by the Obama Administration, Georgia needs real leadership that is committed to solving Georgia’s health care crisis.
That’s why we’re launching a new campaign today to show Georgia’s two U.S. Senators that Georgians are serious about health care. We need your voice and your good name to help us get the message to them.
This bit is the kicker for me though. I’m hurt that I wasn’t listed as one of the evil Republicans.
Please take a moment today and visit www.GeorgiaDemocrat.org/sick. There, you can learn more about Georgia’s health care crisis, and sign our petition calling on Senators Isakson and Chambliss to stand with Georgians who need health care, even if it means standing up to Republican leaders like Rush Limbaugh and Dick Cheney.
Erick, I don’t have to tell you that a concerted effort from the extreme Republican minority in the U.S. Senate can derail or delay President Obama’s health care reform plan. It’s our duty to make certain that Johnny Isakson and Saxby Chambliss are sticking up for Georgians, not obstructionist Republican party bosses and the special interests.
{ 45 comments }
My views on health care are softening. I got laid off last month, and didn’t find out until after the fact that the company was too small to be eligible for COBRA. Unlike most people, I have the means to afford private insurance. However, my wife just had a miscarriage a few months back, so all the carriers can see from our records that we’ve been trying for kids recently… and thus we’ve been “mysteriously” rejected everywhere we’ve applied so far.
The job market is terrible at large law firms, yet I’m not sure that hanging my own shingle is practical (after years of sacrifice toward the possibly of that goal)… because a sole proprietorship doesn’t get the same guaranteed-acceptance as employees at a large company. I have no clue what I’m going to do, nor any idea what would happen if I got in a car wreck tomorrow.
At its heart, health insurance is about shifting the costs from sicker and older people onto healthier and younger people. Without government regulation, carriers will simply reject older and sicker people so as to minimize payouts. The only “market-based” check and balance is the bargaining power of large employers, which leaves small business and individuals (supposedly the backbone of the economy) screwed. Moreover, even those large employers are paring back their benefits… and all signs point to that trend continuing. Cry “socialism” all you want… but if you’re over 35 and have coverage right now, it’s probably due to heavy-handed regulation and legislation. If you think we’re better off otherwise, then be careful what you wish for.
Again, I HAVE the means to afford private insurance… but there is apparently not a “market-based solution” when it looks like you might get pregnant (or have diabetes, or high blood pressure, or any other common condition that you’re likely to contract by the time you reach your 40′s). I don’t care about trillions is subsidies, but there needs to be some SANE regulatory framework for access… that doesn’t leave holes based on your employer being too small, or having a temporary lapse, or being fertile, or simply being middle-aged.
I’d love to hear discussion and SERIOUS alternatives from the political opposition… but all I got out of the last election was McCain saying we should end the tax deduction on employer benefits and leave individuals to the market. Sorry, but if all the “party of ideas” can put on the table, then Obama actually has greater credibility on this issue.
I didn’t know I would need a shovel when I subscribed to PP.
I know you get that memo every morning, Erick, titled “This is how you shovel the bs down people’s throats,” but it’s pretty basic that not a single member of Congress has proposed “socialized medicine” except for the continued support for the VA.
The most left-wing proposal is putting everyone on Medicare, which is so ridiculously popular that there’s that old story of the citizen coming up to a Senator and yelling, “Please, don’t let the government get its hard on Medicare!” because a few people have been brainwashed that everything the government does is evil so a successful, well-run program must be run by some other entity…
I agree that something should be done. However, looking at President Obama’s plan, I am just not on board. There are one or two things that I do like about it, but the plan as whole moves us in the wrong direction. Let me say for the critics that I do not have all the answers. I am not fan of COBRA. Cobra and the same policy you have now are not the same. I have always been a fan concept of portable health insurance that travels with you when you leave a company. I am a fan of the concept of if you don’t use your money on health care, you get to keep it.
I am curious what percent of whites in Georgia didn’t have health care for all or part of the period between 2007 and 2008. I’m really not. I just wanted to point out that the party diving us in to groups other than Americans or Georgians is the Democrat party.
If you don’t use your money on health care and get to keep it then how is the insurance company going to make a profit?
We already have a very dysfunctional form of socialized medicine. The real question how do we solve the problem.
There are a lot of dirty little secrets about insurance.
Most large employers have self-funded programs and hire an insurance company to administer the program. Self-funded insurance benefits are not regulated by state insurance commissioners. If you have dispute, don’t bother with the state insurance commissioner; he/she is toothless.
To greatly lower their risks, insurance companies price their group coverage on the demographics of the company being insured. Your premium is not affected by the entire national pool of people covered by the insurance company, just the people in your company. So companies with lots of middle aged workers are going to pay higher rates than companies with 20 and 30 year olds. From an insurance premium perspective, it is better for businesses to hire younger employees.
The biggest secret is the one right in front of you. Most people don’t find the holes in their insurance coverage until they have serious illness. Caps on diagnostic fees or outpatient services are big “gotchas”. One PET scan costs $8,000 a CT scan will run you $3-4,000. One dose of chemo-therapy costs around $9,000. Serious illness bankrupt people, even those who have insurance. It is adviseable to read your policy under a worst case senario – cancer, chronic disease, a car accident and you need rehab services. Read your policy and ask a lot of “what if” questions.
Don’t worry too much, Erick. I’m sure God has you on his list of evil-doers.
“I am curious what percent of whites in Georgia didn’t have health care for all or part of the period between 2007 and 2008. I’m really not. I just wanted to point out that the party diving us in to groups other than Americans or Georgians is the Democrat party.”
WTF?
I know. I saw that, too, but I was afraid to ask.
Rugby, sometimes you don’t have to scratch the surface very much to find the Rouge109 hiding inside these guys.
Everyone should read this WSJ piece on Safeway.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124476804026308603.html
I very much want the government to step in and offer a kind of insurance policy that would have the effect of providing “bankruptcy protection”. One of the biggest causes of personal bankruptcies is medical costs that got out of hand. In other words: the government grants everyone a policy that has a high deductible, co-payments for doc visits, wellness incentives to lower costs and that caps the amount of out-of-pocket expenses that someone would have for a medical problem.
Uninsured people block up emergency rooms because they have to be handled there regardless of ability to pay; having this plan would lower emergency room visits, lower hospital costs, lower insurance costs for everyone else (who do you think pays for the uninsured when they don’t pay??). It’s really a cost-shift from insured people to taxpayers, but in such a way as to lower the input costs and hopefully (if the legislation is written right) to lower the velocity of cost increases.
Doing nothing is the “Republican Plan” and it accomplishes nothing. Erick isn’t “evil”, he’s just wrong.
The rumblings from Congress have employer mandates and that’s wrong too. What the government should offer is a baseline policy that I described and then let insurance companies offer supplemental or replacement coverage if they can afford to and want to use that as an incentive when they try to hire the best-and-brightest.
I’m even ok with the government policy being administered at the state level by one or more insurance companies (similar to any policy now), so that there’s a bit of competition added to the mix. But the government determines the appropriate price and base level of coverage and insurance companies are free to decide if they want to offer that policy and get their reimbursement from the government for the policy costs.
For years over my career I’ve had the “company” insurance. Companies like TI (Texas Instruments), AT&T and SwissAir have very good coverage. When I wasn’t working in corporate America, from 1994 to 2000, I had private coverage and a MSA. High deductible, but good coverage. Then I had Dade County’s coverage for 4 years, again, good coverage BC/BS.
Earlier this year I had to go back on the open market and get insurance again. Not surprisingly insurance companies want to minimize risk by either excluding known problems a/k/a preexisting conditions (like my back history) or will ask you to pay more for them. I really don’t have a problem with that. If you expect to have an insurance company provide the same policy to a 59 year old man that they provide for a 21 year old at the same price then you’re expecting them to give you better coverage than you’re paying for. I foolishly gave up my MSA when I accepted the county’s policy or I would have no exclusions today. Now I have a family policy with a $10,000 deductible that covers only big stuff. That’s good enough for me for $600/month.
I believe the solution to healthcare is less government involvement, not more. With insurance there is no incentive for anyone to shop for better prices and I can assure you healthcare providers will negotiate if you tell them you’re self insured. Healthcare has gotten more expensive because of programs like Medicare and Medicaid where the government dictates what they’ll pay a doctor and the docs have no choice but to take that amount. Medicaid is the biggest problem. Having managed a medical practice before I can tell you that it’s almost not worth the effort to submit a Medicaid bill.
This is going to sound harsh but if individuals were held accountable for their own healthcare many of the “uninsured” would buy insurance because they can surely afford it. Then, when they show up at the emergency room they wouldn’t have to be treated as indigent with the overall costs having to be spread across those of us who are responsible enough to pay for our own insurance. I know individuals, and some families, who work, have nice houses and new cars who have NO insurance. Why? Because they know that you’ll pay the bill if they get sick.
Nothing is ever cheaper or better with the government involved in it in any way.
Sounds great, Ramblinwreck. Direct me toward this carrier that will approve my recently-pregnant wife for a health plan, and I’m on board. $600 is on-par with the quotes I was looking at (and declined for).
The cruel response would be to hope you get diabetes, and see how your current opinion holds up. I don’t seriously feel that way or wish that on anyone, but the abstract point stands.
Steve outlined the case at the beginning of this thread why Republicans are losing the healthcare debate. It’s real easy to say let the “market” determine the solution, until you realize that for many people (and a growing number) there is no market.
I’ve written before about the difficulty of keeping my mother insured prior to her reaching the age of medicare. I’m pretty sure the last policy she had prior to medicare was for $1,200/month with a $5,000 deductable. And there was no competition, as the only reason that company would insure her was she had been with them for over 10 years. No other company would underwrite a policy for her.
Republicans like to talk about small business being the growth engine of the economy, until you point out that one of the main reason that people stick with large corporate mid-management positions is for health insurance.
When you ask how the working poor that we want off of welfare rolls are to provide themselves insurance, we say make it tax deductable. Of course, we know that when you propose cutting income taxes for these people, the same folks scream “but they don’t pay any income taxes!”. So we know a tax credit won’t work to extend health care, yet we propose it as a solution for them. And we wonder why folks think we lack credibility on the issue.
Icarus
Very good point!
End game, let the free market work.
In the mean time and in order to lower cost, open up the market.
How? More options not less!
First lower cost and empty out the emergency rooms, to be used for true emergencies like this maybe(just one idea, I’ve heard of many more):
Icarus and I, neither are medical experts, but we are astute businessmen. We would like to open clinics to deal with the normal everyday illnesses and minor injuries; staff with an RN or two, physicians assistants and/or maybe some med students that want to moonlight… even post our prices in case somebody else sees the opportunity Icky and I see and want to compete, and make a deal with a local doctors office to refer patients to that come in with an illness or injury that seems to be beyond our level of service…. but we can’t, regulation (over regulations) precludes us from doing so (at least to a point it is not possible to make a profit and won’t let us fully perform the service we would like to i.e. write prescriptions or give shots for normal colds and pain).
As I’ve stated on many occasions and on many a blog, it is very easy to point to a sector in our economy and identify it as being over regulated. It’s the one where cost has risen while service and/or product quality and/or quantity has gone down (granted, in the medical sector, quality went up, but cost went up exponentially faster) . Natural free market pressures force the opposite. Sometimes it doesn’t happen as fast as we would like and it (period between crisis and free-market solution) is often exploited by politicians with intervention and regulation that has the opposite result of what was promised or wanted.
…. I could go on, but I’ve probably already lost readers. So let me bottom line it.
Solution: Find ways to open the health care market up, not close it further with added regulation and more government intervention. You’ll be amazed by the private entrepreneurial spirit and result.
Ps. But don’t forget to thank your representative as if they came up with the solution, themselves (we need them to keep doing what’s needed to fix most of society’s problems as they pop up…. NOTHING!)
Danny, I’m all for market based solutions… where there IS a market. Absent regulation, there is a NOT a market for many (if not most) middle-aged people. Moreover, without employer subsidies (made possible through government tax breaks), a household with average income could not afford insurance at all. I didn’t blink when Ramblinwreck threw out a figure of $600/month. However, if I made $40k per year I would have had an aneurysm on the spot… as that would be about a third of my take-home pay.
I agree that low-cost clinics for routine ailments would be a great way to reduce overall costs. Transparency in pricing would be a great step also. However, that’s treating the skin rash while ignoring the kidney failure. I say again, there is simply NOT a practical health insurance market for millions of middle-aged people(*).
This is because the term “health insurance” itself is a misnomer. “Insurance” is something you buy while hoping to never use it. “Health insurance” is something you buy knowing good and darn well that it will be used. It’s not “health insurance”, it’s “health care”… and it inherently involves government intervention because otherwise no one would submit to cost-shifting like that. Society has shown itself unwilling to throw indigent E.R. patients in the street to die, so even a purely “market based” system will involve cost-shifting. The question is whether you want to wait for $20/month high blood pressure to turn into a $50,000 heart attack before you shift the cost.
I just shake my head at some of these completely oblivious non-answers. While I respect Cato on most issues, you could drive a subsidized commuter rail train through the logical holes in this one. The attitude here is basically, “I’m healthy and/or affluent myself… f–k everybody else!” Just unbelievable.
(*) For the record, my wife and I are in our early-30′s with no health problems and no kids. There’s no market for us either.
For those who were confused by my quote:
“I am curious what percent of whites in Georgia didn’t have health care for all or part of the period between 2007 and 2008. I’m really not. I just wanted to point out that the party diving us in to groups other than Americans or Georgians is the Democrat party.”
If you followed the link in the opening comment:
“www.GeorgiaDemocrat.org/sick”
You would have found the following statistics:
“42.2% of African-Americans and 66.2% of Latinos in Georgia were uninsured for all or part of the period between 2007 and 2008.”
Fair enough. 36% of all Georgians were uninsured for all or part of the period between 2007 and 2008. 18% of all Georgians are uninsured at this moment. Happier?
I am not really happier. I am just pointing out those are the statistics that should have been used instead of the ones provided. I am tired about how something affect hyphenated Americans or just different races. Let’s look at how a situation affects all of us, not just some of us.
I really do wish there were an edit function on here. “something affect” should be “somethings affect”
I agree that the Dems’ cites are for a cynical purpose… but it’s silly for the other side to pretend that these distinctions don’t exist and/or aren’t important. If some issue affected 2 out of every 3 white people, while affecting only 1 out of 5 in another group, you can’t pretend that it wouldn’t be hotly discussed along the same lines.
Besides (if I may drift a tad off-topic), in most cases the conservative “backlash-against-minority-backlash” is usually far more aggressive than the original minority backlash (e.g. see any Pete Randall post). I don’t think that most conservatives or Republicans are inherently bad or bigoted people… but I do think you guys are largely unaware of how that comes across sometimes.
Steve,
I’ve been unemployed before too and broke my back in the military (I could use VA, but I don’t… if you want to see socialized medicine… hang out at a VA hospital/clinic for a day or two. I figured one less person in that system could help someone else get the attention they need faster), so I know the problem very well.
However, we must start to unwind the market restraints (regulation) that currently exist, if we want things to get better.
The CATO thing was just one idea, there are millions of others if they were allowed to enter the market to be tested. Entrepreneurs don’t see “problems”, we/they see “opportunity”. Where I guaranteed that if you opened up the market, things would get better… I’ll also guarantee, if you close it further, it will get worse or cause a bigger problem some where else.
The thing with the free market;… I, as an individual, don’t have to come up with the solution. Just as 2 heads are better than 1 … millions of heads are better than a “blue ribbon” government committee. But I know you know this already. Open up the market and be patient(sp.).
See, I’m not heartless:
I would be OK with some government assistance (must include sunset clauses) during the transition of re-opening up the health care market. Which is how government intervention should work… like dealing with a natural disaster; move in, in order to maintain and assist, then get the hell out as soon as possible. “Problems” for government are often times seen as “opportunities” too…. for new permanent programs, when just temporary assistance, between problem and free market solution, would suffice.
As a libertarian, I believe even future temporary assistance could be handled better by private enterprises… but I’ll concede, Americans will have to re-learn what “America” and “freedom” is and re-gain their faith in it before this would be allowed.
Not calling you heartless, Danny. Just pointing out your assurance that even though you don’t have the answers right now… the “Market Fairy” will eventually come up with one, if only we discard all the existing access mandates in the meantime and pray for the best. Sorry, but “intelligent design” is far more rational.
Health “insurance” (which again is “insurance” in name only) is about taking money from healthy people and using it to treat sick people. Period. The goal of private health “insurance” is to take in more money from healthy people than is paid out to sick people, so the carrier can keep the difference. I have not yet heard one plausible notion for why a carrier would take on a sick person, or keep a healthy person once they become sick, without being forced. In fact, under corporate law it could create legal liability for the corporation NOT to attempt avoiding this.
I have no doubt that entrepreneurship could come up with endless ways to reduce costs in delivering services… some of which have already been discussed above. But trimming costs for the insured is a separate conversation from access to insurance in the first place. I’m not uninsured because Bush or Obama enacted a regulation… I’m uninsured because my wife has ovaries. The same is true for millions of others with medical conditions (including mere age). Such people are statistically likely to incur more costs than they could pay in premiums… and left to their own devices, it would therefore be a breach of fiduciary duty for a businessman to give them the time of day. Cough up an “entrepreneurial” answer to that dilemma, and we can talk.
Daniel:
The problem is healthcare choices don’t follow standard economic theories of choices and the free market in healthcare has only driven costs up.
Our market based system has failed. Completely. There is plenty the government can do that in all actuality costs taxpayers nothing and drives costs down. You also have to recognize there are countries with socialized medicine (if you wish to call it that) that have superior coverage and medical care than we have in the U.S.
Cough up an “entrepreneurial” answer to that dilemma, and we can talk.
I only have the one’s I’m aware of and would invest in. But I
do have faith inknow others will come up with others.Reduce cost (#1 priority) and then more money goes to things like this.
Another guarantee: If this place was owned and operated by government, I guarantee it would not be as successful. Reduce medical cost across the board and their cost goes down too… and could do even more with more.
Only after the “free-market fairy” has been allowed to work… if there are still people not getting the health care they need… “then we can talk.”
ps. My heartless comment was not directed to you, but for those that claim libertarians to be.
Rugby,
ArrrrrrG!!!
no, No and NO!!! I’ve lived in other countries and I know, superior coverage, maybe, superior care , Absolutely, that is NOT TRUE! Go to any/every medical facility around the world and find me one, just one person that says “I’m an American, I came here for the superior care I couldn’t get in my country.”
I’ll even give you that someone might seek out an individual specialist in some other country… but Superior care……… You really out did yourself with that load of CRAP!
As a Registered Nurse who has worked in the emergency department let me tell you why our emergency departments are overflowing:
1) “I got shampoo in my eyes” – my response – did you try and wash it out with water – “no, I came straight here”
2) called an AMBULANCE via 911 for “ran over my toe with my IV pole”
3) “I’m having chest pain (or difficulty breathing)” (has learned this will “get me back quicker” – actually there for a paper cut or a cold) then when arrives back in the room “what do you have to eat, can I use the phone, where is the tv remote, can I order a pizza”
4) “the dog/cat scratched him/her”
I can go on and on, this is only part of the problem with ER’s – another problem is there are not enough hospital beds for admissions and people are held in the ER because of no beds upstairs – but no worries thanks to GOVERNMENT REGULATION now people are getting kicked out of the ICU back to home, if they get a UTI or a Decubitus because “Medicare won’t pay for it” – hospitals come up with reasons to discharge but mostly because they will not get paid to care for the person.
If you think the ER’s and hospitals are full now – just wait until everyone has insurance – then everybody can come to the ER to get the shampoo rinsed out of their eyes!!!
Obamacare = insurance for all & medical care for the most healthy and young people (RATIONING OF CARE WILL HAPPEN – just ask the Canadians and the Brits!!!)
Saxby and Johnny would sell their mothers on Talmadge Bridge for five dollars and a candy apple.
My brother lived in Munich for several years working with Texas Instruments. We’ve had numerous conversations and debates about this in the past. I eventually realized that we weren’t arguing about the exact same thing. I was arguing about which country had the best maximum care at the absolute high-end. My brother was arguing about which country had the best overall care on average.
Which of these two questions is more important is up for debate. But if I have a rare and exotic brain tumor, I want to be treated in the U.S… so Dr. Gregory House and Foreman can figure it out. If I have diabetes, or some other routine condition, I want to be in Germany.
@eschristian: Sorry you get a lot of calls for shampoo exposure and stubbed toes. People on average are fundamentally retarded. Perhaps you’d get more if additional people had insurance. That would be bad, as your bedside manner and people skills do seemed strained to the max as it is.
But you would also get fewer pregnant women (who have had near-zero prenatal care) sitting in the parking lot waiting for their water to break because that’s when indigent treatment kicks in. You might get fewer major medical emergencies that could have been mitigated by less expensive preventative care.
The “rationing in Canada and England” thing intrigues me for two reasons. Number one, whenever I talk to a friend from Canada or the U.K., they look down on our system… which would be ironic if their level of care were worse. Secondly, all the cost-cutting proposals I hear in the news lately from private carriers involve savings from “reducing unnecessary care”… which sounds suspiciously like rationing to me…
eschristian,
lol, It would be funnier if it wasn’t true.
The Icarus Adams, We have a Sacred Heart, clinic will wash shampoo out of your eyes for $10…. it says it, right up here on the board behind the cash register. Making money off of the “self inflicted stupid” is about as American as one can get.
(Would you happen to know what was the cost to the hospital for that “eyewashing ” emergency?)
That could be our moto… Saving the American Health Care Industry, One Dumbass at a Time….. well, maybe not,…. just brainstorming.
If I have diabetes, or some other routine condition, I want to be in Germany.
Get him to calculate his actual total percent of income to total taxes paid rate (not just income taxes).
The money comes from somewhere… and going through the “inefficient government middle man”… the cost to ” overall care on average” will be much higher, guaranteed…. again.
My point is that if you’re among the 20% of our society who lacks coverage, treatment would likely run above 100% of income (and for all practical purposes would not be available at all until the condition grew far worse).
I agreed that there are those/some of us that we need to help…. I just want to allow the free market to get that number/percentage of “those/some of us” lower. Then we can figure out if charity is enough and is taking care of “them/us” or not…, and proceed from there, instead of here.
Daniel:
The fallacies in your argument are too numerous to count (“I’m particularly fond of this one Go to any/every medical facility around the world and find me one, just one person that says “I’m an American, I came here for the superior care I couldn’t get in my country.”).
I’ll just point you to this, and I’ll give you bonus points if you can go without saying “NYTIMES IS LIBERAL OBAMA MOUTHPIECE THEY HATE FREEDOM”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/12/opinion/12sun1.html
Hmmmm. I have a basic question to ask:
Where in the U.S. Constitution does it specify anything relating to the U.S. Government engaging in legislating anything with regards to “healthcare?” All we do is talk about a subject that shouldn’t actually exist.
All the Constitution says is that government (federal or state) shall not be allowed to take away life, liberty, or property without due process. I can find nothing where it says the government must step-in and save someone from discomfort (a stubbed toe), or even prevent someone from dying of a disease they contracted.
Agreed
But for Rugby:
I prefer to get my information from a source like this that uses statistics based on empirical evidence instead of statistical reporting of opinions… or where foregone conclusions are supported by selective cherry picking while ignoring or discounting anything that doesn’t support the authors thesis. (I see this tactic used by socialist social conservatives too…. but not the freedom loving social conservative, their integrity won’t allow it
).
That being said, and as I said before, there are problems in our health care industry. But after reading this (follow link above), which I thought was more informative than yours, with some same conclusions ( but, without the fluff and opinion based pseudo statistical analysis that was in the article you provided… The Times piece almost lost all credibility when it used SICKO as a source) However, they both did indicate that in America, more emphasis is needed in preventative care, which most are already aware of (a problem that the Adams Icarus clinic could help with…. I decided to change the top billing since Icarus doesn’t seem to be reading this thread and is making me do all the work). There is also the problem of cost per capita. Which I also acknowledged earlier that “cost” is a problem and should be #1 priority (again AIC). But in the article I mentioned above, I don’t know if elective cosmetic surgery was included or not.
All this does not reverse my conclusion that more choice, free-er markets and entrepreneurial ventures can fix these “opportunities”. But I’ll concede that on quality, the US isn’t tops in every category as measured, even though both articles concluded that other than asthma problems or liver and kidney transplants, your best choice is here for life threatening illnesses (also, I’m still skeptical that neither report stated whether people that needed liver and/or kidney transplants that died before receiving care or that died due to being denied care because of rationing were included in the countries that have a record of this happening). So I’ll stay here for those too, until I can find more information.
Socialism is never the answer to free enterprise capitalism… the opposite is true as well, (capitalism is always answer to socialism, …treasury secretaries should know better).
ps. do I get the bonus points… especially since I think Obama is no different than the last republican establishment president which most main stream media outlets tend to be a mouth piece for on important issues, while not adequately reporting alternative viewpoints and that I don’t think the NYTimes hates freedom… given the benefit of the doubt, they probably just don’t know what Freedom is.
There should be a cash option that Doctors can use for patients that do not have insurance. There are Doctors at Northside in Atlanta that refuse to provide patients with a cash option. Why not let people without insurance pay for visits? I lost my job a year ago and my C-PAP machine needs to be checked and I need a new mask. However, I am unable to go to the Doctor I have used before since they do not provide a simple cash option.
Thank God for Peach Care! I pay $15 a month for two kids and Peach Care offers regular wellness visits as well as vision and dental. The Doctors on the list are excellent and the people that work the phone lines are nice and very open to answering questions. When I do go back to work and make more income, Peach Care will charge me more depending on how much I make.
A single-payer system will keep many young people from going into the profession and in 10 years we’ll be standing in long lines for stitches and MRI’s. Some hospitals are so nervous about Obamacare that they are putting holds on all new construction and expansion of their facilities. I hope the Democrats allow the Republicans to join the debate. But as long as Senator Max Baucus is threatening lobbyists that if they talk with Republicans they will be considered an enemy, how does this help achieve a solution?
Does anyone like their health insurance policy? All I know it is a constant wrestling match to get them to pay!
What lotsa people don’t seem to get, (and what the corporate conservatives can’t even comprehend) is whenever you empower the GUBMENT with socialism, you’re also paying for (in a roundabout way) for the GOON SQUADS to eliminate the competition. a.k.a. anything that isn’t approved by the “industry” and the “experts” a.k.a. CORPORATE WHORES. This is a simple case of supply and demand. And when the supply of health resources is diminished (through artificial means) you pay more.
In other words, you won’t hear “Rush” defending Chiropractors, foot reflexologists, supplements, ect… No, to these folks it’s all about Dem vs. Republican. And hey, for the status quo this was a great reason to support “prescription drugs” doncha know.
Where in the U.S. Constitution does it specify anything relating to the U.S. Government engaging in legislating anything with regards to “healthcare?” All we do is talk about a subject that shouldn’t actually exist.
Hey Fred, that was my exact question. I’ve been watching here for two days now, and not a soul has answered it. In fact, the conversation about this “subject that shouldn’t actually exist” just rolls on.
Sad, isn’t it?
Comments on this entry are closed.