You’re doing exactly what you’re accusing the left of. Snap out of it.
Fox news seems to cater to and encourage the fringe rather than spend time with intelligent fact based analysis. Is that the left you’re talking about?
As I see it there are extremists on both sides. What amazes me is that there are people who do not want Obama to succeed even though they are cutting off their own noses to save their faces. They complain about socialized medicine but want their religious beliefs forced on others, yell about freedoms but want to control the freedoms in one’s own home and bedroom. It seems they want religion and state to be united as long as it is their religion that rules. Many are mad that Obama got in because he wants all Americans to have rights. Some just hate people that are different.
They have the right to voice their opinion but that doesn’t mean the rest of the country has to pay attention to their yelling and their not wanting to hear the whole truth. Like Palin saying Obama would want her child dead, which is a big lie(if she really said that) and is misleading the people; and many just take the word of some bigot and do not bother to check the facts. Or take bits and pieces of a quote and do not bother with what could be taken out of context.
I know I’m pretty ignorant about insurance in general. My insurance as always paid for by my employer or my ex’s. I’ve been healthy all my life so never fought any battles with them. I did have an experience with auto insurance where it became obvious they routinely deny valid claims just to discourage those who don’t have the will to fight back.
Isn’t the basic principle of insurance profit that you insure lots of people some need health care and lots don’t so you make money? I can see where one major illness can eat up the premiums of many healthy folks. It seems the problem in part is the need to increase profits and show more profit from quarter to quarter. That inevitably means finding ways , ethical or not, to deny claims and weed out those who have ongoing issues that require a payout.
I think insurance companies could make a reasonable profit and operate ethically. A single payer plan makes sense to me if everyone has to pay in and we can negotiate prices for procedures and medicine. I’m not in favor of completely subsidizing the poor.
Right. IMO it is patriotism to be seriously concerned about the direction our country is going in , but please look at the issues honestly with as many facts as possible. The issues are too important and affect too many lives to be treating it like a team sport where we want our team to win.
I think we need the balance of honesty thoughtful conservatism and liberalism in discussions to find solutions. Angry division and dishonest political positioning from either side hurts us all.
I think a lot of people are okay with health reform. What they don’t like is not being told up front what form it will take and a lack of specifics. That’s pretty reasonable. What’s muddying the debate is the barrage of dishonest info being used to flame the fire.
The increase in MPH from cars junked to new ones bought in the program has been a bit over 10. I would have liked more, but it is a step in the right direction.
Seems to me that we spent a fair amount of time during the Bush years with protesters in “free speech zones” and having people wearing t-shirts critical of President Bush being hauled out of events for fear they would disrupt the proceedings. I guess the right wing funsters are trying to prove themselves right.
Not when the connotation IS the message. When they say “I don’t like UHC because it’s socialist”, they mean “I don’t like UHC because it’s Communism”, not “I don’t like UHC because it means an increased level of social services in the government, an approach which is within the rights of free people to freely choose but which I happen to disagree with.”
Theodore Roosevelt is spinning in his grave right about now.
May I show you what that would look like had it been posted by someone other than one of the Usual Suspects?
When you’re engaged in mindless partisanship, you’re not in a position to criticize others for mindless partisanship.
You begin to understand. You see, they have the true religion, and of course its precepts should be enshrined in law. But not those other guys. That’s just silly talk.
Cite? On what do you base this claim?
I’m not on welfare – never have been.
Nor am I “sitting on my ass and making excuses.” And I never said “Nothing was my fault”, but I don’t need to go into details of my job search, as it’s none of your business. Nor are the details of my finances.
What about VA hospitals? You have something against health care for veterans? For taking care of those who fought for our country? For the military?
I can’t remember if it was in this thread that someone mentioned the Tea-Baggers, but THIS picture seems relevant.
If the problem is a lack of “acceptable” competition (according to you), how does it follow that the answer is no competition, as the case would be under UHC?
Since there will in fact continue to be competition under UHC, but with another (public) option increasing the competition, what isn’t following is your logic.
If it’s none of our business, why do you keep posting about your sad-sack, woe is me, lack of work, or any other demonstration of basic adult self-sufficiency?
Where is the competition under single-payer?
Where is there provision for single-payer in any versions of health insurance reform under consideration in Congress?
Hint: Nowhere.
If you’re done with all that straw, I could use it for stall bedding; my horse generates almost as much manure as you.
It’s almost impossible to introduce effective competition in some fields of healthcare, after all anyone can open a grocery store but not everybody can be a doctor. Where universal coverage wins is one giant risk pool and nonprofit insurance framework saves a third of costs, one giant buyer for healthcare treatments, products, drugs etc. Walmartizes the buying costs of those things. Paying hospitals and doctors by results instead of per treatment saves pointless bill-padding treatments being carried out and changing the law to allow comparative-effectiveness studies to be able to find out which treatments are cost effective and which are expensive bill-padders would also save a huge chunk of healthcare costs.
The United States has the most bureaucratic health care system in the world. Over 31% of every health care dollar goes to paperwork, overhead, CEO salaries, profits, etc. Because the U.S. does not have a unified system that serves everyone, and instead has thousands of different insurance plans, each with its own marketing, paperwork, enrollment, premiums, and rules and regulations, our insurance system is both extremely complex and fragmented.
The Medicare program operates with just 3% overhead, compared to 15% to 25% overhead at a typical HMO. Provincial single-payer plans in Canada have an overhead of about 1%.
http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php
In 2003 the U.S. will spend $399.4 billion ($1,389 per capita) on health bureaucracy, out of total expenditures of $1660.5 billion ($5,775 per capita). The states could save $286.0 billion dollars in 2003 if they streamlined administration to Canadian levels by adopting a single-payer national health insurance system. The potential savings are equivalent to at least $6,940 for each of the 41.6 million Americans uninsured in 2001.
These potential administrative savings are far higher than recent estimates of the cost of covering the uninsured. For instance researchers from The Urban Institute estimate that covering all of America’s uninsured with an “average” private insurance policy would cost $69 billion annually (Hadley and Holahan, Health Affairs, May/June, 2003). Thus, the $286.0 billion in administrative savings could cover all of the uninsured, with $217 billion left over to upgrade coverage for Americans who are currently under-insured - e.g. to offer first dollar drug coverage to seniors.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/8800.php
The report, released by Health Care for America Now (HCAN), uses data compiled by the American Medical Association to show that 94 percent of the country’s insurance markets are defined as “highly concentrated,” [local monopolies] according to Justice Department guidelines. Predictably, that’s led to skyrocketing costs for patients, and monster profits for the big health insurers. Premiums have gone up over the past six years by more than 87 percent, on average, while profits at ten of the largest publicly traded health insurance companies rose 428 percent from 2000 to 2007.
So was Dear Leader pandering and lying about his intentions during the campaign, or is he pandering and lying about his intentions, now?
And even if you can find the ways to compare doctor to doctor, the doctors all have different facilities, different hospitals where they work, different support staff, etc.
One of my coworkers has a daughter who just gave birth to 24 week twins. That’s really REALLY early. I don’t know how high the bills are going to go for these two little guys, but they’re going to be extraordinary. Just as a f’rinstance for those who say all healthcare needs is competition, let’s think about the case of these twins and their mom.
How should she have gone about comparing doctors and hospitals? She had an emergency C-section. How should she have benefited from competition between hospitals and doctors? After the birth, how should she be comparing facilities? The kids are now at Children’s Hospital in Columbus. Should she move them? How would she know?
In short, does anyone have the level of expertise and information necessary to compare doctors and hospitals and facilities and prices? Does anyone have the time or the money to go through identical assessments by all doctors to determine the best fit?
Healthcare is the most complex service in the world. Expecting people to be able to compare like-to-like is unrealistic and the penalties are horrendous.