PERSONAL HEALTH  
AlterNet / By Joshua Holland
comments_imageCOMMENTS: 273

10 Awesome Things That Would Happen If Health Reform Passes

Forget the fearmongering scare tactics of the right, here's how your life will actually be better.
August 14, 2009  |  
 
 
 
LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Join our mailing list:

Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Personal Health headlines via email.

 
 
Advertisement
 

    Unable to win the debate on the merits of their arguments, opponents of health care reform have resorted to a dizzying array of outright falsehoods to terrify Americans into opposing a process that might deliver real benefits to their families.

    They've falsely claimed that the government would "take over" the health system, put private insurers out of business and let pasty bureaucrats decide what treatment Americans would receive.

    They've spun wild tales of federal agents coming into Americans' homes for lifestyle checks and faceless government officials making end-of-life decisions for patients.

    They've falsely claimed that the legislation being considered by Congress would cover undocumented immigrants, and they sent around elaborate-but-wholly-fake "analyses" of the supposed bill, with references to made-up page numbers and all.

    All of these serve the same ends: using the politics of distortion and distraction to capitalize on people's natural fear of change and compelling them to fight noisily against their own interests. And it can be somewhat effective -- that's clear from the raw, populist anger unleashed into the health-care debate in recent weeks by well-heeled corporate-lobbyists bent on derailing the democratic process. 

    The industry-approved fog-and-monsters strategy has another benefit: It puts advocates of reform in the position of batting down a series of nonsensical arguments based on an endless string of health-policy straw men when they could be explaining why getting something decent done would in fact be good for the country.

    So let's get past the fearmongering and look at some of the highlights of what's really in the more progressive legislation working its way through Congress. The proposals aren't perfect. As I've written before, in their current form, the bills fail the test of having a truly "robust" public insurance option, and as such has limited potential for cost savings.

    But they are also substantial reforms that would go quite a way toward beefing up the health and economic security of a lot of American families if enacted.

    The following breakdown is based on the legislation developed by three committees in the House of Representatives (HR 3200) and the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee. A third piece of legislation is yet to emerge from the Senate Finance Committee. Reports suggest that the legislation coming out of Finance will be much more accommodating to the insurance industry and other corporate stakeholders.

    Much of the real legislative fight will come when the two Senate bills are combined and then, later, when the final Senate and House bills are reconciled. 

    1: The First Thing That Will Happen Is Absolutely Nothing

    At least that's the case for a lot of people who now have quality health insurance.

    If you have a decent health plan through your job, nothing will change for you in terms of your insurance.

    In fact, if you work for a large or medium-sized company and have decent coverage at a price you can afford, then nothing can change for you -- you'll be ineligible to enroll in the public insurance option (which is discussed below).

    If you have already have government-run health care -- if you're a vet, or are on Medicare or Medicaid or have a child in the State Children's Health Insurance Program, nothing will change for you in terms of your coverage. (One exception: Under the House bill, eligible children would be shifted from S-CHIP to a new public insurance program in 2013).

    The only thing that would change for you in these circumstances would be this: your current insurance company would have a harder time screwing you over if you get sick. That's because, although your policy wouldn't change, it would be governed by new public-interest regulations for the entire health insurance industry. (See next item.)

    2. New Protections for Consumers

    Regardless of your place of employment or the kind of coverage you have now, new regulations would take effect in 2010 that would go a long way toward curtailing the insurance companies' worst abuses.

    • Insurance companies could no longer deny coverage to people because they've had health problems in the past, nor could they charge hugely different rates for different groups of people (premiums could only vary by age, geography, tobacco use and family size).
    • The House bill bans recissions -- the insurance industry's habitual practice of collecting premiums until someone gets sick, and then digging through their histories for an excuse to cancel coverage.
    • Insurers wouldn't be allowed to cancel an individual's coverage for reasons other than failing to pay the premium.
    • Insurers would no longer be permitted to impose annual or lifetime caps on benefits.
    • Insurers that sell insufficient, cheapo plans that leave people vulnerable to medical crises would be required to disclose that fact to their customers.
    • All insurers would be required to disclose how much of their spending is on health care and how much goes to costs like overhead, advertising, etc.
    • The legislation (especially the Senate HELP bill) creates new tools for fighting insurance fraud and abuse.

    3. Medical Bankruptcies Would Plummet


View as a single page
 
Joshua Holland is an editor and senior writer at AlterNet.
Email
Print
Share
Post on reddit
Post on stumbleupon
Post on facebook
Post on digg
Post on twitter
Post on delicious
LIKED THIS ARTICLE? JOIN OUR EMAIL LIST
Stay up to date with the latest Personal Health headlines via email
See more stories tagged with: health reform

comments COMMENTS ( 273 )
READ COMMENTS
LOGIN OR REGISTER TO POST A COMMENT
 

Comments are closed-

I'M RAPIDLY LOSING CONFIDENCE & RESPECT FOR AMERICA'S GREATEST GENERATION
[Report this comment]
Posted by: foreverhope on Aug 14, 2009 12:17 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm not even going to attempt to get a swine flu shot. It ain't lookin so good for availability, etc.

I want some other person younger to have my vaccination. I've already decided it and I'm so very good with it.

Did our Greatest Generation fight and die on the beaches of Normandy so they could live to be fooled and scared to death in their old age, used as mouth pieces to incite riots at our Town Hall Meetings?

I'm really losing respect for the Greatest Generation every single moment.

My former mother in-law bought a Mercedes and a fur coat when Reagan was elected. Nancy is her role model. If one talks about the needs of others in our country, poor ppl, children, her eyes literally glaze over.

If one points out the 'problem' with W she blandly stares with a placid smile on her face.

She's a millionaire btw.

She thinks President Obama was born in Kenya. She thinks our gov't is going to put a pillow over her face.

Where is our Greatest Generation on HCR?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» The Worst Generation! Posted by: Macarthur
» RE: The Worst Generation! Posted by: EJLima
» Bush can speak Spanish?!? Posted by: mjglow
» What An Ugly, Racist A-hole! Posted by: jvaljon1
» RE: The Worst Generation! Posted by: hms2004
» God, I hate Booomers. Posted by: Macarthur
» RE: The Worst Generation! Posted by: simmertime
» RE: The Worst Generation! Posted by: aichbe
» RE: The Worst Generation! Posted by: aichbe
» Being selfish Posted by: foreverhope
» the fingerprints of Marxism Posted by: Macarthur
» RE: Thank you for your public service Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» Thank you Lauren! Posted by: foreverhope
» As you see it. Posted by: JenniferBedingfield
» RE: Being selfish Posted by: MT512
» CONGRATULATIONS MR. PRESIDENT! Posted by: foreverhope

Comments are closed-

Premium Costs Rise Astronomically ...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: mmckinl on Aug 14, 2009 12:46 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
by Tom aka Rusty from Angry Bear ...

The Doomsday Scenario


So why are conservatives so excited about health care reform?

Many see the progressive left pushing a gradual move to the Doomsday Scenario, something like this:

1) private health insurance is hyper-regulated, underwriting standards are eliminated, and premium costs rise astronomically

2) employers, especially smaller employers, drop coverage and push employees to the “public plan”

3) the resulting dislocation of coverage and expansion of the public plan becomes a rationale for single payer – “see, we told you so” by the left

Having read thousands of pages of reform material over the past 18 months, and having studied the various reform movements since the early 90s, I think the Doomsday Scenario is quite feasible, and certainly I wouldn’t put it past the progressive left.

In public President Obama emphatically denies any such scenario. However, if the Scenario were to evolve, would he revert to his earlier ideas on single payer?

My request is for an honest debate. If Obama really wants to move to single payer, he should say so, and let the real debate begin.

For now, expect fireworks (not excusing rude behavior by the way).

The Doomsday Scenario

~~~

Yes ... the green shoots of health care reform ... all destined cost America much more than the 60% extra we now pay over other countries with single payer ...

Strategy or Catastrophe ?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Mr. Holland, thanks but no thanks. The final version is likely to get further watered down.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: JenniferBedingfield on Aug 14, 2009 12:52 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here's my take on the 10 awesome things you mentioned:

"1: The First Thing That Will Happen Is Absolutely Nothing"

So we have to wait until 2013 for this bill to take effect? That is NOT change one can believe in but aside from that, it seems that when it comes to bailing out the war machines and Wall $treet, it's hurry up or else and yet when it comes to assisting the working class who really need the bailout, it's hang dry. There is nothing awesome about this !

"2. New Protections for Consumers"

Having seen the points within, I'm willing to bet you all the money in the world that at least half of those sub points Big Insurance will see to it that Congress strips before the bill finally passes.

"3. Medical Bankruptcies Would Plummet"

I doubt it. In our current disaster capitalist climate, what with unemployment and underemployment rising and wages falling not to mention Joe Biden's 2005 Bankruptcy Overhaul bill still in effect, the bankruptcies will continue.

"4. People Who Could Never Get Decent Coverage Will Finally Be Able To"

And what about the growing number of unemployed who don't? In any case, Big Insurance is still the middle man unlike single payer where Big Insurance would be limited to supplemental insurance. So the American people are still at the mercy of Big Insurance.

"5. (Almost) Everyone Gets Covered"

Nice try but the details clearly spell Massachusetts Care aka Mandatory Care ! You want to bet that government will go it easy on mandatory purchasing from Big Insurance or for that matter the penalty fees?

"6. Those Who Can't Afford the Premiums Will Get Help Paying "

Um, all these minor subsidizations and small tax credits won't cover the huge costs from Big Insurance and they can price gouge as they wish.

"7. No Free Lunch for Businesses"

This is what I hate about this bill. Why should employers be forced to carry the burden of overhead costs of Big Insurance just to cover their employees? Single payer would eliminate all this complicated nonsense.

"8. More Low-Income Workers Eligible for Medicaid"

And it will still remain a privilege. Sigh...

"9. Some Things Will Change, but You'll Never Notice"

Oh sure, some things will change FOR THE WORSE, but we'll never notice. So since not-so-rich doctors will likely get economically persecuted and ordinary people won't notice any difference in their attempt to look, you think that makes it better? All I see is drip drip drip for the worse ! :(

"10. Over Time, the System Will Become Healthier"

What ?!? With the way the economy is getting worse and the current health care system getting costlier and no true reform package in the works and nothing to rein in Big Insurance/Pharma, the system will only get worse to the point that it will have to be scrapped entirely. And then when everyone's finally bankrupted and brokenhearted, we'll get a single payer system for a change.

I'm sorry Joshua but you're being way too optimistic here.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» New lows for Alternet Posted by: james108
» Joshua is optimistic Posted by: foreverhope

Comments are closed-

Dear Mr. Holland.....
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Sgellero on Aug 14, 2009 1:05 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
'Laws' are subject to interpretation. The Democrats voted down an amendment to specifically exclude illegal aliens. Please tell why?

An office of 'comparative effectiveness' has already been authorized with a BILLION DOLLAR appropriation. It is modeled after a similar body of the British NHS, which is used to RATION CARE. An amendment to insure that this data was not used to RATION CARE was voted down by Democrats in committee. Can you explain this??

Mandated electronic medical records have NEVER been empirically shown to improve care or outcomes. So why does the law ( recently passed House version ) insist on it? Do you think someone who contracted Herpes in college wants her dermatologists staff to see it 15 years later? You don't see this as a problem?

Please.............answer..............I'm waiting in eager anticipation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Dear Mr. Holland..... Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Dear Mr. Holland..... Posted by: countingdaisies
» RE: Dear Mr. Holland..... Posted by: Joshua Holland
» HERE IT IS MR. HOLLAND.... Posted by: Sgellero
» RE: HERE IT IS MR. HOLLAND.... Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Dear Mr. Holland..... Posted by: MT512
» RE: Dear Mr. Holland..... Posted by: Lilly
» Well, duh... Posted by: countingdaisies
» Who says.... Posted by: Sgellero
» RE: Who says.... Posted by: Ylle

Comments are closed-

the "they're lying" theme
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Sister_Lauren on Aug 14, 2009 2:28 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Brits Are Fed Up with GOP Lies On NHS

Over a million Britons are so fed up by Republican lies about their National Health Service that they're joining a movement to Twitter in its defense.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: the "they're lying" theme Posted by: Mrs. Jefferson

Comments are closed-

Get Thse Points Heard Above The Din of Emotionlism
[Report this comment]
Posted by: drricklippin on Aug 14, 2009 4:09 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thanks. But we need to get these sober and rational messages heard above the din of irrational 24/7 media "noise" or coverage of "noise" from the extreme right

Josh Holland says- It's nothing less than a testament to the power of industry propaganda..

True- But industry is irresponsibly stoking a far greater issue than protecting its obscene profits. It is stoking viceral fear of our nation's first black president and the acceptance of a need for real and necessary change that Obama both literally embodies and correctly promotes.

Dr. Rick Lippin
Southampton,Pa

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

these changes would make the US a less unequal society and would have these benefits
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Suzon on Aug 14, 2009 4:29 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
More equal societies have been assumed to primarily benefit the poor.  But the epidemiologists Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett state in The Spirit Level: why fairer societies almost always do better:

"The relationships between inequality and the prevalence of health and social problems...suggest that if the United States was to reduce its income equality to something like the average of the four most equal of the rich countries (Japan, Norway, Sweden and Finland), the proportion of the population feeling that they could trust others might rise by 75 per cent--presumably with matching improvements in the quality of community life; rates of mental illness and obesity might similarly each be cut by almost two-thirds, teenage birth rates could be more than halved, prison populations might be reduced by 75 per cent, and people could live longer while working the equivalent of two months less per year."  p 261

So health care reforms would have far-reaching benefits, positively affecting all aspects of American life.

The people resisting the reforms should be asked what it is that they don't like about more trust, fewer teenaged mothers (and presumably fewer abortions), less crime and an increase in their own longevity.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» You're relying on a faith based scenario. Posted by: JenniferBedingfield
» 1 step forward, 4 steps backward. Posted by: Wayne Etheridge

Comments are closed-

This might be good news if you like pot
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Sister_Lauren on Aug 14, 2009 4:59 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Federal Government Solicits Proposals for Medical Marijuana Cultivation

the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) is allegedly seeking competitive applications to "grow, harvest, analyze, store and distribute" cannabis (marijuana) "on large and small scales."

The RFP also seeks applicants that can "extract cannabis to obtain purified phytocannabinoids," including tetrahydrocannabinol, otherwise known as THC, "prepare marijuana cigarettes and related products," and "distribute marijuana, marijuana cigarettes and cannabinoids, and other related products for research and other Government programs."

The recent RFP is similar to solicitations that are issued every five years by HHS. Proposals are due on or about October 9, 2009.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» It isn't a myth Posted by: brunowe
» RE: It isn't a myth Posted by: xvictor
» It IS a myth. Posted by: -matti
» No it doesn't Posted by: brunowe
» RE: Can we lay off the tired old spoiler myth? Posted by: JenniferBedingfield
» Truth to power! Posted by: Tweck9

Comments are closed-

#4 SIMPLE MESSAGES FOR THE DEMS
[Report this comment]
Posted by: drricklippin on Aug 14, 2009 5:47 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
PLEASE READ MY LIPS!

The Dems need some very simple straightforward messages on health care reform

(Eggheads step aside until we cross this political goal lin

I offer these four up-

-“Insurance companies routinely deny needed care”

-“Medicines in the US are way too expensive”

-“You will not be able to afford your health insurance premium soon”

-“Grandmothers need our deepest love and respect both in life and in death”

Thanks,

Dr.Rick Lippin
Southampton,Pa

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Corporate Healthcare Police State?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Tweck9 on Aug 14, 2009 6:12 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Therer are some really positive things in this article, but whether they appear in final legislation remains to be seen, and experience leads me to believe that many of them won't, and the ones that do will be made less effective by private industry pressure.

Likely, the only thing that will be 'robust' in the end-product will be the move to turn America into a Corporate Police State where consumerism is mandated by a government authority and you have to pay a monthly tithe to wealthy CEOs under penalty of law.

Why not tax the wealthy CEOs instead? They're the ones who have spent decades getting insanely rich on the suffering of the American People.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

WAY more benefits from single payer
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Erik1968 on Aug 14, 2009 6:51 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If we passed single payer:

-Auto insurance plummets because nobody would have to pay for medical bills

-Malpractice insurance plummets

-Liability insurance of all kinds plummets (someone slips and falls in front of your store? Their medical bills are paid for).

-Employers have more money to spend on salaries/profits

-Workers have more money in their pockets (some over $100 a WEEK).

And, if we taxed the millionaires and billionaires to pay for it, HUGE TAX CUTS for all working Americans

Too bad Obama is a conservative. Sigh.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: WAY more benefits from single payer Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: WAY more benefits from single payer Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: WAY more benefits from single payer Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: WAY more benefits from single payer Posted by: Joshua Holland
» Not exactly reality-based Posted by: brunowe
» Dive in to this overlooked benefit... Posted by: americansheep

Comments are closed-

The European Model WORKS!!! (Thx to MARX!!)
[Report this comment]
Posted by: xvictor on Aug 14, 2009 7:13 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Right now the "socialist" European economy is recoverning very nicely and the U.S. is trying hard to emulate that success. A good start is to adopt European-style "socialist" medical care which has been doing very well for them.

It's been touted that the present state of U.S. medical care is excellent. Yet, more people die under U.S. healthcare assistance than in other country that has the "alternative" healthcare. And in those countries, where preventive medicine is stressed, people get sick less often than in the U.S.

I believe as more rational folks become aware of the facts, they'll be ready to embrace "socialist medicine". And that's a good thing!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

A couple of rich conservatives are gonna laugh even more when they read this embarassing article.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Benn_Miller on Aug 14, 2009 7:19 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They're already having barrels of laughs reading the Obama cultists swiftboating progressive and liberal dissent on pointing out Obama's fraudulent behavior. I showed them this site last night and boy do they love the Obama cultists to death for doing their dirty work for them ! The conservatives might want Obama to win again to serve as Bush's 4th term and shackle the Democrats to rightwing-lite mode. So far, Obama and his party are taking the bait and asking for even more. Sooner or later, Dr. Faustus Obama and the rest of the GOP-lite Faustian Democrats will have to pay the Lucifer GOP their dues and it won't be pretty.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

ba
[Report this comment]
Posted by: mnstra on Aug 14, 2009 7:24 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I cant believe how naive Josh is. Is he finally taking his antidepressants?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: ba Posted by: Benn_Miller

Comments are closed-

important to think about where we are headed
[Report this comment]
Posted by: DrXyzzy on Aug 14, 2009 8:14 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think Holland's article is an important contribution, whether you agree with every assertion or not.

It helps to have two forces at work in social change.

1. A sense that continuing present course is intolerable. Something to push us away from the status quo.

2. A vision for how things can be better. Something to pull us toward the next step.

Push gets us started, but when we get into the middle of the struggle, as we are today, pull is just as important. Holland gets us thinking about that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» not really Posted by: james108

Comments are closed-

Socialized medicine is THAT good? Don't make me laugh.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: AJR Journal on Aug 14, 2009 8:37 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The compassion of the IRS
The efficiency of the Post Office.
The friendliness of the Wisconsin DMV.
The results of the Milwaukee Public Schools.

Is this what you want?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

So, who died and made Obama the only option for the Left?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: bonapartist on Aug 14, 2009 9:00 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dear Mr. Holland, reading the latest Alternet campaign I have to ask who died and made Obama the only option?

First and foremost Obama himself is centrist at the best, as is his party. US doesn't have a "leftist" political party.

Second it seems that the Alternet and majority of "progressive" medias have no ear for the Obama's opposition from the left.

If you oppose Obama you are a rightwing gun nut, if you are NOT rightwinger - you are automatically expected to support Obama's garbage no questions asked.

So what about the Left that doesn't buy into this nostrum served by Bambam & his old time insiders?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» You kinda are, Josh Posted by: james108
» RE: You kinda are, Josh Posted by: Joshua Holland
» You're inferring, I'm not implying Posted by: Joshua Holland
» Adding ... Posted by: Joshua Holland
» You are clearly leaning Posted by: james108
» RE: You are clearly leaning Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Maybe next year. Posted by: oregoncharles
» Nothing wrong with trying :) Posted by: brunowe

Comments are closed-

It would be "Risk Managers" who screw it up!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: ctuck622 on Aug 14, 2009 9:01 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A crucial aspect yet to be addressed:Any gov program, whether Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, or housing works only as well as the systems & checks&balances in place to support it.

The "pink elephant in the rm," the "crazed relative hidden in the attic" is the role Risk Mgrs, actuaries, & Agency Counsels play in day-to-day operations & life&death decisions, who more often than not, prevent Ams from pursuing life, liberty, happiness, & the quickly-fading Am dream.

It's reckless Risk Mngmnt & paranoid fear of litigation--who often creates MORE litigation--who steer gov agencies nowadays.It's Risk Mgrs, actuaries, & Agency Counsels who are the Wizards of Oz behind the curtain, who loudly becry, "Pay no attn to that man behind the curtain," who advise against respecting citizens' rights, those very rights on which our gov began.Risk Mngmnt has become "risky business," & until gov addresses this "pink elephant," the horrendous injustices, corruption, & abuses of power continue.

Risk Mgrs advise against violating citizen's rights to have gov agencies communicate in writing, as is every citizen's right to request.Risk Mgrs advise gov agencies to not return Read Email Receipts to citizens & to completely ignore citizens' missives, in hopes they will just go away.Risk Mgrs advise healthcare corps&gov agencies to never admit wrongdoing.Gone are days when citizens would receive written apology for wrongdoing, that would be the end of it, & goodwill restored, but now, thnks to Risk Mngmnt, paranoid Risk Mgrs convince gov & corp Am that apology for wrongdoing invites lawsuits.

Risk Mgrs advised a school where I substituted several yrs ago to leave me lying on the floor.It's believed if they help you up & bring you a wheelchair, it lends credence to the injured party's subsequent claim.Then they can offer as a defense that the injured party walked away on their own&therefore isn't all that injured.Risk Mngmnt told me I had to get in my car&drive to the Risk Mngmnt office before going to a dr--of their choosing.Talk about enTRAPment!I was in PAIN & could've been KILLED driving across town.

Risk Mngmnt advised Sam'sClub after a case of water fell on my leg to make me walk, hobbling & in PAIN, w/out assistance, to the front of the store--whose employees were then horribly rude, after which Sam's Club refused to pay the claim&no attys would take the case, again, because Risk Mngmnt advises attys not to take cases they can't win or will cost them too much to fight&where does THAT leave the injured citizen?NOWHERE, in PAIN & with no resources for med assistance if underinsured, uninsured, or unemployed.

More&more cases are coming to light of late attesting that behind-the-scenes Risk Mgrs advise govt&corp employers to illegally discriminate against past, present, & prospective employees based on "perceived disability," in direct violation of Federal EEOC, ADA, & HIPAA laws, kowtowing to ins co strangleholds.When ins companies commit acts of injustice, it's ONE thing, but when gov "self-insured" plans do it, it's another.What that amounts to, which is why I currently have such a case in the US SupremeCourt, is that a citizen employed by gov to serve gov, who's promised benefits such as retirement, ins&tuition waiver, is not only betrayed by gov w/out conscience or restraint on the part of gov, but is then denied any future career in gov service, condemned to an existence of poverty, dependent upon social services.

Nor can the citizen then procure a career in corp America either, as again the "pink elephant" rears its ugly head&the "man behind the curtain" runs the citizen's name through the ins database, which has also received some, but insufficient, exposure in recent yrs, & is again denied life, liberty, happiness, & satisfaction in the pursuance & accomplishment of, the Am dream.

Carol Tucker, MA
Court Reform-NOW

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Great Article
[Report this comment]
Posted by: robchapman on Aug 14, 2009 9:06 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Finally, someone lays out the benefits and scope of Obama's plan without getting into the thicket of socialized medicine or single-payor.

This is clearly an instance in which the perfect must not be the enemy of the good.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Plain Simple And Free.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: melpol on Aug 14, 2009 9:07 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Most Americans do not want to listen to the complex arguments of those against the new health care plan. People are tired of paying for their health care and deserve a freebie. Make it plain simple and free.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

So why are conservatives so excited about health care reform?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: robchapman on Aug 14, 2009 9:11 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So why are conservatives so excited about health care reform?

This is not a policy issue, as the President has already explained, the health insurance industry is moving toward bankruptcy and millions of Americans are in danger of losing access to health care.

What is at stake is the success of the Obama Presidency. The conservatives believe that in blocking health care reform, they will break Obama.

This is a purely political fight in which the issues have been driven well into the background.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Well Posted by: Joshua Holland

Comments are closed-

Unwarranted Cynicism
[Report this comment]
Posted by: robchapman on Aug 14, 2009 9:24 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Mr. Holland, thanks but no thanks. The final version is likely to get further watered down.

[Report this comment] [Ignore this user] Posted by: JenniferBedingfield on Aug 14, 2009 12:52 AM

Referring to Jennifer's post earlier:

Single-payor is not national health insurance.

Single-payor simply means that the government will take over all medical bills.

Single-payor is often referred to as medi-care for all. What would medi-care for all accomplish?

Many providers now REFUSE to treat medicare patients because the reimbursement rates are too low. Providers receive only about 40% of the amounts billed to medicare and must pay themselves, their staffs and all their overhead from this palty reimbursement.

Medicare is not entirely government funded. Medicare beneficiaries are REQUIRED to carry private insurance, these insurers pay some 20% of the medicare approved reimbursement. Medicare beneficiaries are allowed to pay out of pocket or through other plans if they want to go to non-Medicare providers.

Medi-care has confiscatory spend down requirements for the frail elderly and chronically ill. Patients who require institutionalization or who have chronic conditions are required to liquidate their assets to qualify for medicare benefits. That is why you have to sell your Mom's house and possessions when you put her in the nursing home.

The claims about single-payor's benefits are as bogus as the conservatives' claims of governmental perfidy.

We need to overhaul the insurance system, utilize our medical resources better and emphasize preventive care to keep people away from the doctor and living healthy lives.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I partially agree Posted by: james108
» RE: Unwarranted Cynicism Posted by: Steppin Razor
» RE: Unwarranted Cynicism Posted by: Amy27605
» -matti, excellent and a big THANK YOU ! :) Posted by: JenniferBedingfield
» Check out School House Rock Jenn! Posted by: foreverhope
» RE: Unwarranted Cynicism Posted by: rainingwolf

Comments are closed-

Rationing is already done
[Report this comment]
Posted by: robchapman on Aug 14, 2009 9:35 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
which is used to RATION CARE.

This writer apparently thinks that the current US medical system does not ration care.

What does he think the health insurance industry is doing when it excludes people with pre-existing conditions or denies payment for various drugs and procedures?

The commentors contention that passing a health care reform act is typical of shoddy thinking of modern American Conservatism.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

SINGLE PAYER or Nothing
[Report this comment]
Posted by: maxfrisson on Aug 14, 2009 9:42 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The biggest hidden message is that when this complicated scheme is put in action, single payer will be DEAD. This will build a infrastructure that will be self-perpetuating and will doom us to it's Gov't hell

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Let's talk
[Report this comment]
Posted by: robchapman on Aug 14, 2009 9:52 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The compassion of the IRS
The efficiency of the Post Office.
The friendliness of the Wisconsin DMV.
The results of the Milwaukee Public Schools.

Is this what you want?

Let's stop playing games and talk about the real world.

The compassion of the IRS
The USA has the largest system of voluntary tax collection in the world.

The efficiency of the Post Office.
The Post Office continues to move millions of pieces of mail without fail. Rural patrons as well as inner-city residents get their mail and can mail correspondence at a cost that is well within their means.

The friendliness of the DMV.
I took out Wisconsin, because we are all familiar with our state DMV. They register boats, trailers, motor-cycles, cars, trucks, track millions upon millions of transactions and changes of ownership and insurance policies. They do it a reasonable cost and with a relatively low-paid work staff.

The results of Big City Public Schools.
Again, I made the original reference generic.
The recent book Outliers, has an interesting segment on the Baltimore public schools. Like big cities throughout America, the inner city schools show lower cumulative levels of achievement than the suburban and elite private schools.

The author of Outliers, broke the statistics down for annual levels of achievement and showed that within the nine- months of the school year achievement was about the same across the board.

The data show that it is outside factors, primarily poverty that causes the achievement gap between inner city schools and their suburban and private counterparts.

All in all our public institutions perform well.

In the age in which big banking, big real estate and big auto companies have failed, the conservatives adverse comparison of public institutions to private is invalid.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Let's talk Pentagon Posted by: kettleblack

Comments are closed-

The November Election
[Report this comment]
Posted by: robchapman on Aug 14, 2009 9:55 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dear Mr. Holland, reading the latest Alternet campaign I have to ask who died and made Obama the only option?

No one died and made Obama the only option. The energized electorate who voted him into office last November made that decision.

We voted for Obama, he won the election, and it is up to the rest of you to be good citizens and abide by the result.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The November Election Posted by: cmaciain

Comments are closed-

Good article but let's be a little cautious
[Report this comment]
Posted by: imagreate on Aug 14, 2009 9:56 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's nice to hear someone talk about the benefits instead of the everyday fearing that's always available in abundance. But the same questions come to my mind...what will the final version look like? Can we really believe that what they say is what they will do? Could they be possibly be hanging the things we want out on a string while they really have their own agenda for us? I don't believe in paranoia but I also don't believe in blind following...we need to listen but also question.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Wow! an informative easy to understand article
[Report this comment]
Posted by: sausage on Aug 14, 2009 10:19 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Which of course, Joshua, will fall on deaf ears...actually in this case blind eyes.

You ain't advocatin' single payer or nothing like the boys over at ZNet and Counterpunch. So for all the kids on campus gettin' their medical care from student health you, Joshua, must be a tool of "Big Pharma," "Big Insurance," and the Democratic Party.

Makes me wonder how may of the smart college kids singing the "single payer or nothing" tune are gettin' cushy jobs in the health care insurance biz after graduation?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Try this.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Quasar on Aug 14, 2009 10:45 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here's another way to do it:

Instead of treating these towhalls as open ended discussions about a bill that barely exists, treat every town hall as a referendum on the Health Care Industry, especially health insurance.

Talk about the probelms that exist and the changes the people want to make. Actually list them: Choice. Pre-exisitng conditions, Availability. Quality. Cost. Prescriptions. and yes, End-of-life consultation etc. and then have everyone vote if they'd like to see "reform" or not.

Then tell everyone what it would look like without reform.

Then tell everyone on medicare that they are receiving government run healthcare and then ask them if they want to keep it or give it to private insurance.

Turn the tables and put health insuracne at the center of the debate. Make them answer for the state of affairs and give the people the power to affect change. "Obamacare" is excatly the wrong way to couch this argument.

Spread the word. Let's get it done.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Bushiness
[Report this comment]
Posted by: tmgibs on Aug 14, 2009 10:47 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I had lunch with Senator Patty Murray yesterday. She explained that she was working on health insurance reform. Her idea is we can fix health care by changing insurers. What a hoot. People have been doing that for decades because our totally unregulated health care industry’s runaway costs make impossible for any insurance company to keep up. Insurance is expensive because health care is expensive. The reform that we need, health care reform is apparently too difficult. Changing insurers will not control the cost drivers in our system.

When Congress passed their education bill it did not contain provisions to fill the shortage of primary care providers-it was hard work-“Bushiness”. (bush- ē-ness)

When Congress decided to pass an electronic health records bill they didn't insist on quality and upgrade our medical coding system from ICD-9 to the standard the rest of the world has been using for 10 years, ICD-10 so we can do things like track emerging trends like swine or bird flu in real time, it was too hard, more “Bushiness”.

Congress hasn't done anything to slow down the flow of toxic food that chokes the aisles of our supermarkets; it's hard work-more “Bushiness”.

When Congress started tackling Medicare marketing problems they didn't create marketing rules that make it mandatory for people to get as many side by side comparisons of plans as they want prior to signing up for a plan. They let plans that have great big holes in their coverage and high prices directly market to Medicare beneficiaries without showing them any comparisons. Instead they cut reimbursement rates so the companies that were offering the most value at the least cost to beneficiaries were forced out of the market leaving only the lowest value plans that will create a great deal of harm for the most vulnerable people in our society.

In short, what we have is George Bush with a new face. Doing research, making a difference isn’t as important as pandering to the most extreme segments of your party because the most important thing is getting re-elected and staying in power, not doing anything that will actually reform health care or of quality because like “it’s real hard work…

The one thing that we were promised is that by electing Patty Murray she will keep bringing home the bacon. She spent the first half of her speech reminding us how many earmarks came to construction projects and other “investments” that our children and grandchildren will be paying for at a time when the number of people that will be paying for out retirement benefits has been cut in half. Patty Murray is wasting time. I just hope it isn’t as hard on her as it’s going to be on the rest of us. As someone that voted Democratic most of my life I am disappointed and saddened by what is happening in Washington today.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Debunking Republican Party Propaganda
[Report this comment]
Posted by: aberdeen on Aug 14, 2009 10:55 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
RESPONSE POINT BY POINT TO REPUBLICAN LITERATURE HEALTH CARE PROPAGANDA THAT WAS HANDED OUT AT YESTERDAY'S HEALTH CARE RALLY HERE IN NASHVILLE...

1. We need to reform health care. It costs too much.

RESPONSE: The Republican Party never once proposed to reform health care prior to the election between John McCain and President Obama; McCain was forced to provide alternative ideas due to the many proposals put forth by Democrat candidates during the campaign. The Republican Party has no established track record of seeking health care reform, other than de-regulation to enhance health care industry profits; such de-regulation greatly increases the cost for health care for the vast majority of Americans and, causes millions to be callously dropped from their insurance plans when they health care the most. There is no established track record reason to believe that the Republican Party would care at all about reform if the Democrats were not now making health care a primary issue. Thus, Republican Party proposals now to "reform" health care reek of partisan political charades and total dishonesty.

2. Make health insurance portable so Americans can keep their coverage when they change jobs.

RESPONSE: This does nothing to help reduce health care costs, reduce high deductibles and expensive co-payments, help the uninsured, the unemployed or people with pre-existing conditions. Like above, this was never proposed by the Republican Party until health care reform became a primary issue during the recent presidential campaign.

3. Provide tax credits to make health care more affordable and accessible. In addition to solving none of the things noted in #2 above, this was first proposed by John McCain while running against Obama. Prior to that, there is no track record of Republicans wanting to provide tax credits. On the contrary, Republicans in Congress and Bush did everything possible to reduce federal funding to the states and eliminate and otherwise cut back on federal legislation to help the uninsured including children, thus greatly increasing health care costs for the middle class on down in the form of higher state taxes and otherwise, causing millions of Americans including children to be cut from state health care and related programs.

4. President Obama and Democrats are conducting a dangerous 1.6 trillion dollar experiment with our health care.

RESPONSE: This is the most expensive worst-case scenario; a more likely cost is less than 1 trillion when cost savings are factored in. This cost is for ten years, not an immediate or annual cost, thus the actual cost to taxpayers would be about 100 billion per year. This is less than 1/10th of the total estimated cost for the war in Iraq. Tax cuts for the wealthy under Bush alone would far more than cover this cost. Where was the Republican outrage over government spending during the Bush war years, when our nation was run into debt for generations to come, by waging an illegal war of aggression in the Middle East and granting trillion-dollar tax cuts to the wealthy? Also, most of what Obama and the Democrats have proposed has already been tried in other nations, thus their proposals do not represent a "dangerous experiment" but rather, they are known ways that will serve to reduce health care costs and provide the approximately 50% of Americans who are not adequately covered or covered at all with much needed health care.

WHO WOULD JESUS BOMB?
www.FreedomTracks.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

REPUBLICAN PROPAGANDA DEBUNKED (continued)
[Report this comment]
Posted by: aberdeen on Aug 14, 2009 10:57 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
5. Create a national set of one-size-fits-all regulations, making health care more expensive for everyone.

RESPONSE: This is not at all what Obama and the Democrats are proposing but even if it was, it would serve to greatly reduce the cost of health care for everyone, if the health industry was forced to bid against the entire population base. Thus, even if this were true, it would have the opposite effect on health costs than the Republicans pretend in their literature.

6. Impose new regulations for existing plans that would make your employer drop your plan or make your current insurance carrier stop offering your plan.

RESPONSE: New regulations that have been proposed would actually have the exact opposite effect than what is pretended here in Republican Party literature. New regulations proposed include requiring employers to insure their employees or else have to pay a substantial penalty to offset the costs of a government option. New regulations proposed also include forcing insurance providers to accept all people, regardless of pre-existing conditions and, force them to cease dropping patients who are deemed "too expensive" for their profit margins.

7. Create a government run insurance option that would unfairly drive out competitors to become a monopoly.

RESPONSE: What has actually happened in the insurance industry over the past few decades since de-regulation began under Ronald Reagan, is that major insurance corporations have essentially become a monopoly, unfairly driving out smaller competitors and competitors who attempted to provide honest coverage by covering people with catastrophic illnesses and not dropping patients who develop necessary expensive treatments. They have also repeatedly denied health coverage for patients based on legal technicalities, protected by bogus health industry lobby-bribed-and-paid-for legislation, predominately supported by Republican congressional leaders; legislation which reduced and eliminated regulations that previously prevented the health care industry from refusing to pay for expensive treatments, as well as to protect poor and elderly patients from being dumped out the backs of ambulances onto Skid Row, as has been famously video taped and shown on national television.

Who Would Jesus Bomb?
www.FreedomTracks.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Why is that?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: oregoncharles on Aug 14, 2009 11:16 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Good article, very clarifying, except for the wishful thinking about the best elements being in the final bilk.

I especially like this line: "The right's fearmongering is only effective because the health care debate is often so complex."

So why is this proposal so damned COMPLICATED? Just like Hillarycare, which was so soundly roasted by the insurance companies? Well, because it's trying to disguise a massive subsidy to the insurance companies, that's why.

Why is the most important "protection for consumers" missing? That is denial of care - refusing to pay for needed care, even though it should be covered. Banning recissions would help, of course; but nearly everyone is affected by denials of specific procedures. That's the core of insurance company fraud, and it isn't mentioned.

Why does it still burden employers - even more, in fact? I'm as anti-corporate as anyone, and I certainly think they should pay their fair share; but we also want them to hire people, and pay them as much as possible, right? (Digression: has anyone else in this room BEEN an employer? I have, on a small scale, and it's a pain in the ass. Trust me, we don't want to make it even MORE expensive.) So why would we add to employers' costs? Besides discouraging employment, this makes them less competitive with companies in countries with public health care. Outsourcing, anyone?

Then there's requiring people to buy insurance. That means me, Joshua. It's the biggest gift to the insurance companies of all. It will also breed a lot of resistance. That's an easy form of civil disobedience, you know: I won't buy the insurance, and I won't pay the penalty. And if they're really going to require us to enable them to take it right out of our checking accounts, that's BigBrother on steroids. Harder to avoid, of course, but possible.

Why all that? Well, it's politics, and the answer is really pretty simple: because the Democratic Party has sold itself to the highest bidder, and they're prepared to defy the public's will to do their bidding. Unless you think you can outbid Big Business, you're going to have to try something new.

Once again: there's only one national party campaigning for single payer, and that's the Greens. If you want the Dems to get your message, SWITCH YOUR REGISTRATION, then tell all your elected officials you've done so, and why. Political parties follow registrations closely; at least they're an indication of public feelings, and in states like Oregon they have practical effects (the Greens' ballot access depends on registrations). A shift in registrations would get their attention on a very practical level, and you don't have to wait till next year.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Left One Out Posted by: oregoncharles
» RE: Left One Out Posted by: madashell8683

Comments are closed-

This blog needs to be posted on other sites
[Report this comment]
Posted by: 8 nontheist on Aug 14, 2009 11:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You've told me that nothing will change for me since I'm a 100% service connected disabled veteran. I'll continue to be cared for by the VA at no cost to me. While the quality of VA health care must be improved & I need to be cared for my home town to avoid going to a VA Hospital for hospitalization, I won't be stuck with paying for expensive private health insurance.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

This comment has been removed from the site due to non-compliance with AlterNet's community policies.

Comments are closed-

I'm afraid the critics here got it right and sharp analysis as well.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: maxpayne on Aug 14, 2009 12:16 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Not much to say here since you great folks out there who could see through the sellout bs nailed this article from all angles and God bless you.

On the other hand, I'm afraid Josh here has read a totally different bill because I read the full thing for what it was worth and none of these 10 points match the real bill except for the mandatory payment part and that's for the worse. If this bill passes and will likely get worse before it does, I can assure you that millions more will be left behind. This article sounds just as bad as a typical sleazy car salesman trying to sell a broken used car.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» what's the price tag? Posted by: james108

Comments are closed-

Chinese Will Pay Medicare.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: melpol on Aug 14, 2009 12:46 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Never bite the hand that feeds you has been my lifelong motto. Uncle Sam is about to give away a trillion dollars in health care benefits and I will Accept it with open arms. Some say: "who will pay for it?" My answer will be the Chinese who will wind up getting screwed on their treasuries.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: And never pay it back. Posted by: oregoncharles

Comments are closed-

clear things up about Oama's heralth plan from AFLCIO
[Report this comment]
Posted by: cori on Aug 14, 2009 1:52 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A lot of angry, over-the-top rhetoric is muddying our discussion of health care reform. To help clear things up, here’s a brief summary of President Obama’s plan, including how it will stop insurance company abuses and help you—even if you currently have a strong health benefits plan.
• Health care reform will stop insurance company abuses.
o Insurance companies won’t be able to refuse to pay a claim or give you coverage because of “pre-existing” conditions.
o Your out-of-pocket expenses will be capped. No more going broke because of a serious illness or injury.
o Insurance companies won’t be allowed to charge women higher rates than men or drop you if you get sick.
o Insurance companies will have to cover your children until age 26 instead of dumping them at 19.
• Health care reform will hold down rising costs.
o A public health insurance option will force private insurers to compete and will lower costs for everyone.
o By requiring companies to pay their fair share, we’ll stop them from dumping their health care costs on the rest of us.
• Health reform means affordable care will be there for you, no matter what. If you lose your job, or your kid loses his. If you get sick. When you retire. Affordable health care will be there for you, no matter what. That means you and your family can’t fall through the cracks and won’t go broke because of health care bills.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

It's morally wrong
[Report this comment]
Posted by: reg373 on Aug 14, 2009 2:21 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
to leave 100 million Americans un or underinsured, 1 illness away from financial ruin. And it's wrong to burden small business with the outrageous insurance costs also -- found a cool site; Balkingpoints ; incredible satellite view of earth

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

From the POV of a guy at the bottom, all of these "good "things, just ain't
[Report this comment]
Posted by: DaBear on Aug 14, 2009 2:47 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I read this with shock and horror. Josh, you absolutely don't understand what it's like to be working poor. When you're collecting bottles and cans to be able to eat and you're still fasting so the kids get adequate nutrition, having to pay ANY amount of money is too much. Whatever happens, if it ain't single-payer universal HC it's shit. Period.

Our family's medical bills total between $560-870 per month depending on which kid needs more therapy, how rough and zero-tolerance the school decides to get, how quickly or not my back heals from the same injury that led us to bankruptcy and homelessness.

NONE of the good things you mention will positively impact my family AT ALL. Come down off the middling-upper class soap box and live amongst us unwasheds for a change. Life looks a helluva lot different down here.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Unholy shit! Posted by: oregoncharles

Comments are closed-

Yes, but...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: dayahka on Aug 14, 2009 3:40 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
OK, if it passes then things would be better, but not great. Everyone should be covered, but the plan, you say, leaves out 5% or so, which is 15 million people. While procedures would be developed so doctors wouldn't have to jump through hoops to get paid, nothing is done to limit the pay of doctors, many of whom are in it just for the money, the more the better.

There are also problems with how much medical care we should be entitled to. Does everyone have a right to wreck their health, then get a new set of lungs, a new heart, etc. even if it's their own darn fault? Surely this is irrational.

Another problem lies in how much coercion there is under medicare or other plans to get people to do what they do not want to do. For example, I'm totally against getting a flu shot, but I may be forced to get one because I'm under medicare. I like medicare for taking care of any accidents or infectious diseases (other than flu), but there are some things I do not want from them--like flu shots and other treatments or conditions that are related to diet.

Another area is the failure to say anything about the use of alternative or natural medicines. Nothing is done to curtail the power of the pharmaceutical companies to make medicines only of patentable substances, nor is their model of medicine (cut 'em open and sew 'em up) challenged, nor is the habit of faking tests and marketing toxic substances for profits.

So, is something better than nothing? Maybe, maybe not.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Yes, but... Posted by: Lilly
» RE: Yes, but... Posted by: countingdaisies
» RE: Yes, but... Posted by: rainingwolf

Comments are closed-

Pasty Bureaucrats Decide What Treatment Americans Receive.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Ted Voth Jr on Aug 14, 2009 5:32 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Pasty bureaucrats do decide what treatment Americans receive, pasty health insurance industry bureaucrats.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

None of these ideas will do anybody that doesn't have health insurance any good.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: popsicle67 on Aug 14, 2009 6:53 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is starting to look like NCLB for health care. When the democrats lose the congress and White house in 2012 we will lose this whole drafty shed roof plan through some legislation and we'll be right back to where we are now only deeper in the hole. At this point I think the only wise thing to do is move to France.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Just REARRANGING THE DECK CHAIRS!!!!!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: AlwaysAskWhy on Aug 14, 2009 7:32 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm from Oregon and recently read Sen. Roy Wyden's (along with Senator Bennett, R-KS) piece on the mish-mash choices plan they have offered, and it's nothing more than :

REARRANGING THE DECK CHAIRS!!!!!

I'm reading the article and what keeps going through my head is: WHO THE HELL IS GOING TO BE ABLE TO FIGURE OUT WHICH CLASSIFICATION THEY BELONG IN??? AND WHO WILL DECIDE? AND HOW? A MYRIAD OF FORMS, AGENCIES, CONSULTANTS - EVERY SINGLE YEAR?!!! What happens when you sign up for one and they tell you that you belong somewhere else... then have to wait months to re-apply or process your application????

When Medicare Part D came out, senior centers scrambled to create assistance to FIGURE IT OUT! WHAT A NIGHTMARE. And that was merely Part D. Now we're trying to figure out which MEDICARE ADVANTAGE PLAN to buy... HA! ANOTHER NIGHTMARE... especially when, if you don't like it, and you cancel it, you have to wait for the next enrollment in January to sign up for a different INSURANCE PLAN... HA!

What in this new legislation DOES NOT SMACK OF IMPENDING BUREAUCRATIC CHAOS???? !!!

ANYTHING SHORT OF "SINGLE-PAYER HEALTH CARE" (MEDICARE FOR ALL) IS JUST 'REARRANGING THE DECK CHAIRS" ON THE SINKING SHIP OF INSURANCE COMPANIES, WHO HAVE SABOTAGED THEMSELVES WITH THEIR OWN GREED AND INDIFFERENCE TO HUMAN LIFE AND SUFFERING.

That our congress people and senators are caving in to their corporate contributors is A HELLACIOUS and INDIFFERENT LAST DITCH DIVE AT CORPORATE CONTRIBUTIONS... THE REST OF US BE DAMNED.

NEVER RE-ELECT ANYONE! EVER AGAIN!

And, oh yeah: DEMAND PUBLICLY FUNDED ELECTIONS: i.e., CLEAN MONEY CAMPAIGNS NEED "YOU"!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Election next year. Posted by: oregoncharles

Comments are closed-

Verdun
[Report this comment]
Posted by: RevolutionNet on Aug 14, 2009 7:43 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here's what I think the deal is with the health care debate. Party leaders met behind closed doors and said, "We're damned close to getting lynched over this mortgage crisis. We need a hot button issue that we can use to fill up the headlines for a few months, one that ultimately will go absolutely nowhere. Then we'll pass a bill that looks really great on the surface but will accomplish very little except to spread some graft around."

When you weld or solder two things together that have a lower melting point than the metal you're connecting you use a heat sink to draw heat away from what you're working on. That's what the health care issue is: A political heat sink.


FREE AMERICA

REVOLUTIONARY (DIRECT) DEMOCRACY

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

OMG! I SPENT THE DAY READING 1000 PAGES ON HCR! HOLY SHIT!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: foreverhope on Aug 14, 2009 9:33 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It says we will all have to wear stockings on our hands!

Obviously conspiring with stocking manufacturers! Making back room deals!

We will be FORCED to fill the ashtrays in our cars with CEMENT! So we don't smoke!

Obviously a conspiracy with the cement industry! Making back room deals!

We will have to pay every single frigging year for FUMIGATORS! To kill possible germs in our own homes!

Obviously conspiring with fumigators behind closed doors!

WORST OF ALL!

We will all have to wear shoes, no matter what! From the very smallest to the very oldest! No more wiggling our toes in the grass! No more barefoot walks on the beach! In case we pick up a splinter or a piece of glass!

Obviously conpiring behind closed doors with BIG SHOE manufacurers!

Where will it end! Where will it stop! I'm so afraid! I adore going barefoot!

;-D xooxoxoxoxooxoxxoxoxoxoxoxoxoox

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

If
[Report this comment]
Posted by: talkville on Aug 14, 2009 10:09 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
you depend upon your own earnings to sustain and maintain your standard of life, get ready to add another MRC (Monthly Recurring Charge): Health Insurance Premiums. Unlike the many starry-eyed scenarios, these Premiums will not in the least be cheap. And in all likelihood, they will be mandatory or subject to a "penalty" (check out the word "punishment" in a good dictionary). In this "flexible, temporary, and fast-paced "21st Century Economy", it will be mandated as portable, so that if you should lose one job you must still carry this insurance with you at all times. And this insurance will be provided 90% by Private Insurance Providers -- benevolent folk that care about your well-being indeed!

"They've spun wild tales of federal agents coming into Americans' homes for lifestyle checks and faceless government officials making end-of-life decisions for patients."

Thus the author says. Depends just what one means when 'federal agents' is expressed. In this Private-Public Partnership Model of Government we are tyrannized under totally today, this 'agent' has quite a range of costumes to choose from. We are already being legally observed and punished for our "life-style choices". Legally. Privately and Publicly. At the Office, at home, and on the public streets, the highways and byways, across the land. "End-of-life" decisions are already largely determined negatively, by what you cannot "afford".

Add a line to your Monthly Budget.

This time in the next couple of years, I hope I'll be proved wrong; I certainly do.

Nevertheless....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

UK NHS
[Report this comment]
Posted by: the man with a dog on Aug 15, 2009 1:08 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am over 70 so you can see I have known the UK NHS from its conception
My children all delivered in NHS hospitals---FREE
Their few illnesses treated --FREE
My parents spells in hospitals---FREE
MY two hernia operations ---FREE
Ny damaged shoulder in a fall, four hour operation---FREE
Daily tablets for blood pressure cholestrol ---FREE
My wifes daily tablets (6)---FREE
Eye tests ---FREE
Last test showed cataract problem this is being treated---FREE
I read of how great the USA is and also read about people being delivered to hospitals and they are asked "have you got insurance"
If thats the land of the free you can stuff it
America is the land of the priveleged who can pay for their needs
Those down the lower end of the scale it`s a case of "TOUGH SHIT FOLKS"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: UK NHS Posted by: wannabersc
» RIGHT ON! Posted by: Tweck9

Comments are closed-

Government Healthcare
[Report this comment]
Posted by: wannabersc on Aug 15, 2009 3:48 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Howdy Folks.

All this talk of Government Healthcare, Government run economies, Government ordered morals (pick your own examples of THAT particular nemesis) presumes one, little "Fact";
The Government is trustworthy.

Now, is there any reason why I (or presumably you) should trust the corporation euphemistically referred to as "The United States of America"?

How many people have to die before you wake up?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Corporate Healthcare Posted by: Tweck9

Comments are closed-

Co Pays Still way too high!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: fizzbincat on Aug 15, 2009 5:01 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The statement...medical bankruptcies will go down coupled with still allowing insurance companies to force people to pay out of pocket up to $10,000 a year while charging obscene premiums is just that "obscene" what about the fact that most of the out of pocket expense people pay never seems to count toward their maximum and I'm sorry, the $5,000 and $10,000 numbers are still huge and will prevent people from being able to afford medical care...we need NO copays on serious illness requiring hospitalization otherwise bankruptcies will continue.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Some points for further discussion
[Report this comment]
Posted by: ksm on Aug 15, 2009 8:09 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article is wrong or wrong headed in so many ways that it is difficult to know where to start. In the interests of time let me address a just a few points that stand out:


Insurance companies could no longer deny coverage to people because they've had health problems in the past, nor could they charge hugely different rates for different groups of people (premiums could only vary by age, geography, tobacco use and family size).



Insurers wouldn't be allowed to cancel an individual's coverage for reasons other than failing to pay the premium.



Insurers would no longer be permitted to impose annual or lifetime caps on benefits.





These items are presented as improvements, when they actually hobble or destroy private insurance options, paving the way for a government run single payer system like Social Security or medicare – both of which are bankrupting our country.



Responsible parties should be allowed to enter into contracts of their choice, as long as they are not illegal. No one should force an insurance company to offer services to those to whom it has no obligation. To force companies to offer insurance to those who have the certainty (rather than the risk) of illness destroys the concept of what insurance is – risk management. We could achieve the same positive results (coverage for those w/ pre-existing conditions) in better, more free-market friendly ways.





“In 2007, Harvard researchers studied thousands of bankruptcy filings and found that medical causes played a role in more than 6 in 10.”



“Played a role” is an ambiguous statement. Was that role significant, or very minor?







4. People Who Could Never Get Decent Coverage Will Finally Be Able To



There are other, better ways of doing this than turning 1/6 of the US economy over to the government. One improvement would be to break down the barriers that keep insurance companies from competing across state borders – increasing the pool size and competition by making the government less involved, not more.







5. (Almost) Everyone Gets Covered



That brings us to another "controversial" -- but ultimately commonsense -- piece of the puzzle, the "individual mandate." It means that (almost) everyone would either have to buy health insurance or pay a modest penalty that would contribute to the system. In the House bill, the penalty would max out at 2.5 percent of income. Waivers would be available in the cases of economic hardship or for those who have religious objections.



Today million of Americans make over $50K/yr and yet elect to have no insurance. Others are young and healthy and elect to forego insurance to spend their money in ways that they value more highly. This bill takes away their freedom to make their own decision in this area. What right does the US government have to do such a thing?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

More points for further discussion
[Report this comment]
Posted by: ksm on Aug 15, 2009 8:11 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
6. Those Who Can't Afford the Premiums Will Get Help Paying



Ultimately, even if the public exchanges were to succeed in bringing the price of health insurance back to earth, a lot of people would still be priced out of the market.



All of the Democratic plans come with subsidies to help those at the lower end of the economic ladder get access to decent health care. The most generous are in the House bill, and how extensive the subsidies will be in the final legislation will be a point of heated debate.



In the House bill, individuals making less than 400 percent of the poverty line -- $43k per year and families earning under $88k -- will be eligible for subsidized coverage on a sliding scale.



Those at the lowest income levels (but who earn too much to get Medicaid) will be required to pay no more than 1.5 percent of their total income for health coverage.



Subsidies would also be available for co-pays -- also for people earning up to 400 percent of the poverty line.



Finally, many small businesses would be eligible for tax credits for insuring their employees.



Under these terms my family might qualify – but I don’t want it. I don’t want a more complex tax code. I don’t want more government intrusion into my finances. I don’t want the government poking its nose even further into my private life and personal decisions. And such complexities often generate unintended consequences, bureaucratic inefficiencies and great opportunity for corruption and misuse.







7. No Free Lunch for Businesses



Currently, large employers that rely on low-skilled workforces usually offer little or no health coverage, and much of these workers' health care is already subsidized by taxpayers in the form of Medicaid and Medicare payments, other public programs and unpaid bills for emergency-room visits. Under the proposals in Congress, medium and large firms would face a simple choice: Offer their employees decent coverage or pay something into the system to offset the burden their employees' health needs impose on the American taxpayer.



“unpaid bills for emergency-room visits” account for 2% of our annual medical spending. Health Insurance needs to be decoupled from employment by equalizing how businesses and individuals are taxed on monies spent on this insurance. As someone who ran a small business (up to 75 employees) for 10 years I can attest to the importance of trying to offer good benefits for the retainment of good employees. Why tie my hands in that area? Why not let me select the mix of benefits that my employees seem to want most and that I can actually afford?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

A few more points to discuss
[Report this comment]
Posted by: ksm on Aug 15, 2009 8:12 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For example, there are measures that would impact the way doctors are paid, allocate additional dollars for developing the health care workforce and bring new technologies online.



These provisions will have a significant impact on a variety of stakeholders -- mostly health professionals -- but ordinary people looking for health coverage are not going to notice anything different about their health care.



Ya, right – just like so many doctors even refuse to take Medicaid patients because of the low prices and paperwork headaches. When you reduce the compensation or make the work more onerous in a profession, the best and brightest people go elsewhere. I want my doctors to be smart. I don’t mind if they are wealthy. I want that profession to attract the best of the best.



And the government is not nearly as good at “developing the health care workforce and bring(ing) new technologies online”. Why take this approach when the private sector has a track record that is vastly superior?





10. Over Time, the System Will Become Healthier



Everything depends on what the final legislation entails. But if it were done right, those systemic changes -- greater competition, tighter regulation, technological improvements, a greater emphasis on prevention, the buying power and efficiency of less-fragmented insurance pools and an end to treating the uninsured in emergency rooms -- would gradually "bend the cost curve" of health coverage and offer insurance to tens of millions of people who today struggle with the health problems and stressful economic insecurity of living without insurance.



This sounds like a bunch of “Hopey-Changey” to me. Socialized medicine (and socialism in general) has failed or is failing everywhere is has been tried. Why do we think we are so special that it would magically work for us?







Understanding what's actually contained in the legislation leads to an unavoidable conclusion about the anger we've seen in recent weeks: it's doubtful that at anytime in the history of our nation have a group of people been so furiously opposed to something that would so obviously be an improvement over what they now have.



It's nothing less than a testament to the power of industry propaganda.



Actually, this legislation will result in our most personal decisions being dictated by the government. Private insurers will be squeezed out, resulting only one choice (just like Obama has said he prefers). Costs will exceed expectation, like they did w/ SS, Medicare, the USPS, Amtrak, etc. Rationing will result. American innovation in the field of medicine, which has benefited the entire world, will suffer, and the world with it.


This legislation takes us in precisely the wrong direction. It is no surprise that it comes from people who have learned the wrong lesson from the history of the 20th century.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

tmginnova
[Report this comment]
Posted by: tmginnova on Aug 15, 2009 9:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Fool. The GOP would love to invent you (if you aren't already their plant).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Seriously! Wonder how much Posted by: songbird1268

Comments are closed-

Illegal immigrants already have health care.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: hackbut on Aug 15, 2009 9:46 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Enough of the left-wing lies about illegal immigrants. Even if they're not covered by any health care bill initially, they can still go to emergency rooms and triple your costs when you go to the hospital. Therefore, as they continue to do so post health care "reform" it will be axiomatic that the law will be quickly amended to avoid those expensive emergency room visits. If we had any guts as a nation we'd just shovel them back across the border.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» If we don't get single payer . . . Posted by: countingdaisies
» GOOD! Posted by: Tweck9

Comments are closed-

THE HARVEST IS IN
[Report this comment]
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Aug 16, 2009 8:19 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Looking at the comments it seems as though very few people like what we have but go on to find something wrong with every other plan presented to them. Nobody is able to spell out what they want, other than everything medical science has to offer but it has to be free. About the European countries: what they do works, no question. But they pay much higher taxes than we do and there is no country that has 300 million people to consider. It's one thing to be able to point out specific shortcomings but to bash everything across the board makes no sense. What exactly does everyone want? ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Other fish to fry... Posted by: clickron
» RE: THE HARVEST IS IN Posted by: talkville

Comments are closed-

Trusting the Government
[Report this comment]
Posted by: clickron on Aug 16, 2009 5:12 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Not one attempt was made to reduce billing fraud, to curtail lawsuits, to reduce malpractice insurance. No meetings with other countries who have successes and failures in what they've done and how we can learn from it. No due diligence, no hard decisions, Just "hurry up and give us the money". I smell a rat, a government power grab and I am a registered independent who voted for Obama.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

EITHER WAY YOU LOSE
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Wilde on Aug 16, 2009 9:55 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From a Canadian perspective, I can tell you that it doesn't matter whether you remain under the existing health-care paradigm or establish a universal program because unless you take your health into your own hands, you're screwed either way.

Canada has been under a government operated universal health care system [read: sick care management system] for some forty years. Initially it worked to the advantage of the general populace, but in the last decade has deteriorated to the point of collapse.

Billions are thrown into health care every year yet patient care becomes progressively worse. Surgical wait times are often over a year with some hospitals down-sizing or closing their doors altogether. Pregnant mothers have even been turned away in some cases due to over-crowding. Super-germs now proliferate facilities that were meant to heal the sick.

The system has become so maligned that ironically, the public is willing to accept any alternative, including a privatized one that the majority of US citizens can't wait to unload. Maybe we should just swap systems and be done with it.

Though our government would have us believe otherwise, it's always been a two-tiered system with those who have the money or status moving to the front of the queue.

The biggest downfall with this type of health ideology is that it's predicated on drugs, surgery and invasive preventative measures such as radiation and vaccination.

The prestigious Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA, July 2000) reported that doctors were the 3rd leading cause of death in the US with over 200,000 deaths largely due to prescribed drugs, failed surgeries and misdiagnoses. Those alarming statistics, of which are only the reported numbers, have surely increased since that time and certainly won't abate with a reformed system.

As much as the information is suppressed, people do get well from far less invasive and costly alternative, holistic and naturopathic treatments and therapies. Of course, conventional care is essential when it relates to crisis situations like heart attacks, mending broken bones and torn flesh, but as far as degenerative and infectious disease are concerned, allopathy has been a disaster. This is what should be discussed in town hall meetings instead of the ineffectual left/right name calling.

The medical industry says we're living longer and healthier through science, but the fact is that the new generation will not outlive its predecessor. Other factors, including an aging population, unhealthy lifestyle choices, gmo and junk foods, squandered research funding and escalating disease rates, will insure that whatever the Obama health care proposal promises to offer, it will surely fail to deliver.

Correspondingly, it doesn't matter whether the present day government is Liberal, Conservative, Democrat or Republican. The truth is that opposition parties only appear to pit themselves against the reigning government, but in reality they actually support one another in their quest for power. So for them it's a win-win situation, while for the majority of US citizens, it will always be a losing proposition. It's the old "divide and conquer" ploy that has obviously been very effective in this issue.

Better to cease with the in-fighting and accept the inevitable. Do your research and become your own doctor. Your odds of becoming a medical statistic will be far less than if you place your health in the hands of a private or public health "authority".

#1 NATURAL HEALTH WEB SITE

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

This comment has been removed from the site due to non-compliance with AlterNet's community policies.

Comments are closed-

I'd love to see a list like this on a cable news show
[Report this comment]
Posted by: launcher on Aug 18, 2009 12:45 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Excellent piece, Josh Holland. But it's sad how we rarely see a nice summary of the health care debate - like this one - from the main stream media.

I admit that I get sucked into CNN and MSNBC from time to time, and I do like watching Olbermann or Maddow take down a right-wing politician (or kick-boxer/B-rate actor). But it would be great if these progressive talk show hosts at least occasionally depart from their wham-bam gotcha journalism to talk about the real facts of the proposed health care bills (and other issues for that matter) and dig into the details a bit. No left-wing spin necessary. That's because, more often than not, facts and reason tend to support the liberal cause.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

CRYBABY IN CHIEF
[Report this comment]
Posted by: reelman on Aug 20, 2009 5:56 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
THE SHAMELESS COWARD IN CHIEF

Obama: Republican conspiracy out to kill health reform… Drudge August 20.2009

CRAWFISH NOTE: Is this like the “vast right wing thing”…good grief…its never because democrats can’t explain the bill, refuse to read the bill, avoid or give baloney answers to voter questions or the bill is simply full of expensive socialism.
Its ALWAYS blame-shifted to Republicans despite the FACT the democrats have the votes.
Oh, I forgot, some democrats are not on board with most of this “healthcare” bill and we have to hush that up.

Was there a “Democrat conspiracy” to kill Social Security reform (aka private option) under Bush?
Gee, we must have missed that coverage angle back when. Remember when the democrats wheeled in 80 year olds with signs despite the fact the private thing was an OPTION for those under age 55? Oh, you missed that objective network coverage too.

What a spoiled cowardly serial liar leads America now.

http://conservablogs.com/theconservativecrawfish

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

DVD to Gphone Converter
[Report this comment]
Posted by: boay on Aug 24, 2009 6:39 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
DVD to Gphone Converter

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: jtpatrick108 on Aug 27, 2009 5:45 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1 of the most delightful ways to remove the obesity problem in this country would be to give people miracle berry so that disgusting healthy food will taste amazing. Since obesity is such a big problem, this could save money when it comes to health care. Ok I'm just joshing!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

aass
[Report this comment]
Posted by: mjx729 on Aug 27, 2009 10:22 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]

Comments are closed-

Fraud is the Problem!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Rasplanet on Aug 29, 2009 1:04 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It doesn't matter how good your health care is or how many bills get passed in favor of it. If the govt. doesn't pay attention to Drs. and hospitals and stop the fraud, nothing is going to do any good. The drs. are sucking the life out of health care. They charge insurance companies for services they don't even perform. I had a doctor shooting me up with saline water and charging my ins. for an expensive drug. I've had things like this happen many times. I wouldn't have caught any of them, had I put too much trust in my doctors. People trust doctors too much. Doctors are cut from the same cloth as lawyers. They can't be trusted because they are money motivated. I see the country torn apart because of the health care debate, and it's stupid, because the doctors and hospitals are sitting back laughing, knowing that no matter how it comes out, they are still going to get paid well. The real answer to health care is: stop letting your dr. over charge your provider. Ask questions about fees and look and see what you are being charged and for what. Fraud takes place every where, every day. And we Americans just go along with it. If you do your part to stop being overcharged, you will see costs and premiums drop. After all, the ins. companies can't be in the drs exam room with you. Most people are intimidated by their doctor, and are afraid to call him out on some ridiculous charges. Nowadays a doctor becomes filthy rich with just a handful of patients. How? And when you really need him/her you have to go to the golf course. Every one of them will blame high cost on malpractice insurance. well duh!
And how about a referral to a specialist? Wow! It seems we need a specialist for even a hangnail. This drives costs up because every body gets paid whether they do any work or not. I don't like insurance companies, but they would be willing to insure us all for less, if we could do our part in stopping the abuse. They actually pay out more for people who don't need a doctor, than they do for people who need major surgery. Most doctors can't wait to operate or have you operated on. They earn exponentially, just on referrals.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

bold What will also happen if we get Obamacare.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Meanjoegreen on Aug 31, 2009 10:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
bold No one has answered the question, if this Health Care Bill is passed and everyone has health insurance- Where are the Doctors coming for this plan? As you and I know, when something is free and almost free, people tend to use it more(even if not needed).
What is going to happen when the costs for this National Health Insurance plan get out of control? And they will. Medical Cost Control Boards will be set up to control costs(just like England and Canada).They will deside who get good care, who gets poor care and who gets no care under the plan.
Look at the VA Health Care System. This is a poorly run system. Would another government health plan be run any better?
I am all for Health Care reform, requiring private employers and insurance companies to do it, not the federal government.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Alternet Comments:

Comments are closed-

I'M RAPIDLY LOSING CONFIDENCE & RESPECT FOR AMERICA'S GREATEST GENERATION
[Report this comment]
Posted by: foreverhope on Aug 14, 2009 12:17 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm not even going to attempt to get a swine flu shot. It ain't lookin so good for availability, etc.

I want some other person younger to have my vaccination. I've already decided it and I'm so very good with it.

Did our Greatest Generation fight and die on the beaches of Normandy so they could live to be fooled and scared to death in their old age, used as mouth pieces to incite riots at our Town Hall Meetings?

I'm really losing respect for the Greatest Generation every single moment.

My former mother in-law bought a Mercedes and a fur coat when Reagan was elected. Nancy is her role model. If one talks about the needs of others in our country, poor ppl, children, her eyes literally glaze over.

If one points out the 'problem' with W she blandly stares with a placid smile on her face.

She's a millionaire btw.

She thinks President Obama was born in Kenya. She thinks our gov't is going to put a pillow over her face.

Where is our Greatest Generation on HCR?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» The Worst Generation! Posted by: Macarthur
» RE: The Worst Generation! Posted by: EJLima
» Bush can speak Spanish?!? Posted by: mjglow
» What An Ugly, Racist A-hole! Posted by: jvaljon1
» RE: The Worst Generation! Posted by: hms2004
» God, I hate Booomers. Posted by: Macarthur
» RE: The Worst Generation! Posted by: simmertime
» RE: The Worst Generation! Posted by: aichbe
» RE: The Worst Generation! Posted by: aichbe
» Being selfish Posted by: foreverhope
» the fingerprints of Marxism Posted by: Macarthur
» RE: Thank you for your public service Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» Thank you Lauren! Posted by: foreverhope
» As you see it. Posted by: JenniferBedingfield
» RE: Being selfish Posted by: MT512
» CONGRATULATIONS MR. PRESIDENT! Posted by: foreverhope

Comments are closed-

Premium Costs Rise Astronomically ...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: mmckinl on Aug 14, 2009 12:46 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
by Tom aka Rusty from Angry Bear ...

The Doomsday Scenario


So why are conservatives so excited about health care reform?

Many see the progressive left pushing a gradual move to the Doomsday Scenario, something like this:

1) private health insurance is hyper-regulated, underwriting standards are eliminated, and premium costs rise astronomically

2) employers, especially smaller employers, drop coverage and push employees to the “public plan”

3) the resulting dislocation of coverage and expansion of the public plan becomes a rationale for single payer – “see, we told you so” by the left

Having read thousands of pages of reform material over the past 18 months, and having studied the various reform movements since the early 90s, I think the Doomsday Scenario is quite feasible, and certainly I wouldn’t put it past the progressive left.

In public President Obama emphatically denies any such scenario. However, if the Scenario were to evolve, would he revert to his earlier ideas on single payer?

My request is for an honest debate. If Obama really wants to move to single payer, he should say so, and let the real debate begin.

For now, expect fireworks (not excusing rude behavior by the way).

The Doomsday Scenario

~~~

Yes ... the green shoots of health care reform ... all destined cost America much more than the 60% extra we now pay over other countries with single payer ...

Strategy or Catastrophe ?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Mr. Holland, thanks but no thanks. The final version is likely to get further watered down.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: JenniferBedingfield on Aug 14, 2009 12:52 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here's my take on the 10 awesome things you mentioned:

"1: The First Thing That Will Happen Is Absolutely Nothing"

So we have to wait until 2013 for this bill to take effect? That is NOT change one can believe in but aside from that, it seems that when it comes to bailing out the war machines and Wall $treet, it's hurry up or else and yet when it comes to assisting the working class who really need the bailout, it's hang dry. There is nothing awesome about this !

"2. New Protections for Consumers"

Having seen the points within, I'm willing to bet you all the money in the world that at least half of those sub points Big Insurance will see to it that Congress strips before the bill finally passes.

"3. Medical Bankruptcies Would Plummet"

I doubt it. In our current disaster capitalist climate, what with unemployment and underemployment rising and wages falling not to mention Joe Biden's 2005 Bankruptcy Overhaul bill still in effect, the bankruptcies will continue.

"4. People Who Could Never Get Decent Coverage Will Finally Be Able To"

And what about the growing number of unemployed who don't? In any case, Big Insurance is still the middle man unlike single payer where Big Insurance would be limited to supplemental insurance. So the American people are still at the mercy of Big Insurance.

"5. (Almost) Everyone Gets Covered"

Nice try but the details clearly spell Massachusetts Care aka Mandatory Care ! You want to bet that government will go it easy on mandatory purchasing from Big Insurance or for that matter the penalty fees?

"6. Those Who Can't Afford the Premiums Will Get Help Paying "

Um, all these minor subsidizations and small tax credits won't cover the huge costs from Big Insurance and they can price gouge as they wish.

"7. No Free Lunch for Businesses"

This is what I hate about this bill. Why should employers be forced to carry the burden of overhead costs of Big Insurance just to cover their employees? Single payer would eliminate all this complicated nonsense.

"8. More Low-Income Workers Eligible for Medicaid"

And it will still remain a privilege. Sigh...

"9. Some Things Will Change, but You'll Never Notice"

Oh sure, some things will change FOR THE WORSE, but we'll never notice. So since not-so-rich doctors will likely get economically persecuted and ordinary people won't notice any difference in their attempt to look, you think that makes it better? All I see is drip drip drip for the worse ! :(

"10. Over Time, the System Will Become Healthier"

What ?!? With the way the economy is getting worse and the current health care system getting costlier and no true reform package in the works and nothing to rein in Big Insurance/Pharma, the system will only get worse to the point that it will have to be scrapped entirely. And then when everyone's finally bankrupted and brokenhearted, we'll get a single payer system for a change.

I'm sorry Joshua but you're being way too optimistic here.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» New lows for Alternet Posted by: james108
» Joshua is optimistic Posted by: foreverhope

Comments are closed-

Dear Mr. Holland.....
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Sgellero on Aug 14, 2009 1:05 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
'Laws' are subject to interpretation. The Democrats voted down an amendment to specifically exclude illegal aliens. Please tell why?

An office of 'comparative effectiveness' has already been authorized with a BILLION DOLLAR appropriation. It is modeled after a similar body of the British NHS, which is used to RATION CARE. An amendment to insure that this data was not used to RATION CARE was voted down by Democrats in committee. Can you explain this??

Mandated electronic medical records have NEVER been empirically shown to improve care or outcomes. So why does the law ( recently passed House version ) insist on it? Do you think someone who contracted Herpes in college wants her dermatologists staff to see it 15 years later? You don't see this as a problem?

Please.............answer..............I'm waiting in eager anticipation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Dear Mr. Holland..... Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Dear Mr. Holland..... Posted by: countingdaisies
» RE: Dear Mr. Holland..... Posted by: Joshua Holland
» HERE IT IS MR. HOLLAND.... Posted by: Sgellero
» RE: HERE IT IS MR. HOLLAND.... Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Dear Mr. Holland..... Posted by: MT512
» RE: Dear Mr. Holland..... Posted by: Lilly
» Well, duh... Posted by: countingdaisies
» Who says.... Posted by: Sgellero
» RE: Who says.... Posted by: Ylle

Comments are closed-

the "they're lying" theme
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Sister_Lauren on Aug 14, 2009 2:28 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Brits Are Fed Up with GOP Lies On NHS

Over a million Britons are so fed up by Republican lies about their National Health Service that they're joining a movement to Twitter in its defense.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: the "they're lying" theme Posted by: Mrs. Jefferson

Comments are closed-

Get Thse Points Heard Above The Din of Emotionlism
[Report this comment]
Posted by: drricklippin on Aug 14, 2009 4:09 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thanks. But we need to get these sober and rational messages heard above the din of irrational 24/7 media "noise" or coverage of "noise" from the extreme right

Josh Holland says- It's nothing less than a testament to the power of industry propaganda..

True- But industry is irresponsibly stoking a far greater issue than protecting its obscene profits. It is stoking viceral fear of our nation's first black president and the acceptance of a need for real and necessary change that Obama both literally embodies and correctly promotes.

Dr. Rick Lippin
Southampton,Pa

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

these changes would make the US a less unequal society and would have these benefits
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Suzon on Aug 14, 2009 4:29 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
More equal societies have been assumed to primarily benefit the poor.  But the epidemiologists Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett state in The Spirit Level: why fairer societies almost always do better:

"The relationships between inequality and the prevalence of health and social problems...suggest that if the United States was to reduce its income equality to something like the average of the four most equal of the rich countries (Japan, Norway, Sweden and Finland), the proportion of the population feeling that they could trust others might rise by 75 per cent--presumably with matching improvements in the quality of community life; rates of mental illness and obesity might similarly each be cut by almost two-thirds, teenage birth rates could be more than halved, prison populations might be reduced by 75 per cent, and people could live longer while working the equivalent of two months less per year."  p 261

So health care reforms would have far-reaching benefits, positively affecting all aspects of American life.

The people resisting the reforms should be asked what it is that they don't like about more trust, fewer teenaged mothers (and presumably fewer abortions), less crime and an increase in their own longevity.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» You're relying on a faith based scenario. Posted by: JenniferBedingfield
» 1 step forward, 4 steps backward. Posted by: Wayne Etheridge

Comments are closed-

This might be good news if you like pot
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Sister_Lauren on Aug 14, 2009 4:59 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Federal Government Solicits Proposals for Medical Marijuana Cultivation

the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) is allegedly seeking competitive applications to "grow, harvest, analyze, store and distribute" cannabis (marijuana) "on large and small scales."

The RFP also seeks applicants that can "extract cannabis to obtain purified phytocannabinoids," including tetrahydrocannabinol, otherwise known as THC, "prepare marijuana cigarettes and related products," and "distribute marijuana, marijuana cigarettes and cannabinoids, and other related products for research and other Government programs."

The recent RFP is similar to solicitations that are issued every five years by HHS. Proposals are due on or about October 9, 2009.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» It isn't a myth Posted by: brunowe
» RE: It isn't a myth Posted by: xvictor
» It IS a myth. Posted by: -matti
» No it doesn't Posted by: brunowe
» RE: Can we lay off the tired old spoiler myth? Posted by: JenniferBedingfield
» Truth to power! Posted by: Tweck9

Comments are closed-

#4 SIMPLE MESSAGES FOR THE DEMS
[Report this comment]
Posted by: drricklippin on Aug 14, 2009 5:47 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
PLEASE READ MY LIPS!

The Dems need some very simple straightforward messages on health care reform

(Eggheads step aside until we cross this political goal lin

I offer these four up-

-“Insurance companies routinely deny needed care”

-“Medicines in the US are way too expensive”

-“You will not be able to afford your health insurance premium soon”

-“Grandmothers need our deepest love and respect both in life and in death”

Thanks,

Dr.Rick Lippin
Southampton,Pa

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Corporate Healthcare Police State?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Tweck9 on Aug 14, 2009 6:12 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Therer are some really positive things in this article, but whether they appear in final legislation remains to be seen, and experience leads me to believe that many of them won't, and the ones that do will be made less effective by private industry pressure.

Likely, the only thing that will be 'robust' in the end-product will be the move to turn America into a Corporate Police State where consumerism is mandated by a government authority and you have to pay a monthly tithe to wealthy CEOs under penalty of law.

Why not tax the wealthy CEOs instead? They're the ones who have spent decades getting insanely rich on the suffering of the American People.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

WAY more benefits from single payer
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Erik1968 on Aug 14, 2009 6:51 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If we passed single payer:

-Auto insurance plummets because nobody would have to pay for medical bills

-Malpractice insurance plummets

-Liability insurance of all kinds plummets (someone slips and falls in front of your store? Their medical bills are paid for).

-Employers have more money to spend on salaries/profits

-Workers have more money in their pockets (some over $100 a WEEK).

And, if we taxed the millionaires and billionaires to pay for it, HUGE TAX CUTS for all working Americans

Too bad Obama is a conservative. Sigh.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: WAY more benefits from single payer Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: WAY more benefits from single payer Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: WAY more benefits from single payer Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: WAY more benefits from single payer Posted by: Joshua Holland
» Not exactly reality-based Posted by: brunowe
» Dive in to this overlooked benefit... Posted by: americansheep

Comments are closed-

The European Model WORKS!!! (Thx to MARX!!)
[Report this comment]
Posted by: xvictor on Aug 14, 2009 7:13 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Right now the "socialist" European economy is recoverning very nicely and the U.S. is trying hard to emulate that success. A good start is to adopt European-style "socialist" medical care which has been doing very well for them.

It's been touted that the present state of U.S. medical care is excellent. Yet, more people die under U.S. healthcare assistance than in other country that has the "alternative" healthcare. And in those countries, where preventive medicine is stressed, people get sick less often than in the U.S.

I believe as more rational folks become aware of the facts, they'll be ready to embrace "socialist medicine". And that's a good thing!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

A couple of rich conservatives are gonna laugh even more when they read this embarassing article.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Benn_Miller on Aug 14, 2009 7:19 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They're already having barrels of laughs reading the Obama cultists swiftboating progressive and liberal dissent on pointing out Obama's fraudulent behavior. I showed them this site last night and boy do they love the Obama cultists to death for doing their dirty work for them ! The conservatives might want Obama to win again to serve as Bush's 4th term and shackle the Democrats to rightwing-lite mode. So far, Obama and his party are taking the bait and asking for even more. Sooner or later, Dr. Faustus Obama and the rest of the GOP-lite Faustian Democrats will have to pay the Lucifer GOP their dues and it won't be pretty.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

ba
[Report this comment]
Posted by: mnstra on Aug 14, 2009 7:24 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I cant believe how naive Josh is. Is he finally taking his antidepressants?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: ba Posted by: Benn_Miller

Comments are closed-

important to think about where we are headed
[Report this comment]
Posted by: DrXyzzy on Aug 14, 2009 8:14 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think Holland's article is an important contribution, whether you agree with every assertion or not.

It helps to have two forces at work in social change.

1. A sense that continuing present course is intolerable. Something to push us away from the status quo.

2. A vision for how things can be better. Something to pull us toward the next step.

Push gets us started, but when we get into the middle of the struggle, as we are today, pull is just as important. Holland gets us thinking about that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» not really Posted by: james108

Comments are closed-

Socialized medicine is THAT good? Don't make me laugh.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: AJR Journal on Aug 14, 2009 8:37 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The compassion of the IRS
The efficiency of the Post Office.
The friendliness of the Wisconsin DMV.
The results of the Milwaukee Public Schools.

Is this what you want?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

So, who died and made Obama the only option for the Left?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: bonapartist on Aug 14, 2009 9:00 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dear Mr. Holland, reading the latest Alternet campaign I have to ask who died and made Obama the only option?

First and foremost Obama himself is centrist at the best, as is his party. US doesn't have a "leftist" political party.

Second it seems that the Alternet and majority of "progressive" medias have no ear for the Obama's opposition from the left.

If you oppose Obama you are a rightwing gun nut, if you are NOT rightwinger - you are automatically expected to support Obama's garbage no questions asked.

So what about the Left that doesn't buy into this nostrum served by Bambam & his old time insiders?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» You kinda are, Josh Posted by: james108
» RE: You kinda are, Josh Posted by: Joshua Holland
» You're inferring, I'm not implying Posted by: Joshua Holland
» Adding ... Posted by: Joshua Holland
» You are clearly leaning Posted by: james108
» RE: You are clearly leaning Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Maybe next year. Posted by: oregoncharles
» Nothing wrong with trying :) Posted by: brunowe

Comments are closed-

It would be "Risk Managers" who screw it up!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: ctuck622 on Aug 14, 2009 9:01 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A crucial aspect yet to be addressed:Any gov program, whether Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, or housing works only as well as the systems & checks&balances in place to support it.

The "pink elephant in the rm," the "crazed relative hidden in the attic" is the role Risk Mgrs, actuaries, & Agency Counsels play in day-to-day operations & life&death decisions, who more often than not, prevent Ams from pursuing life, liberty, happiness, & the quickly-fading Am dream.

It's reckless Risk Mngmnt & paranoid fear of litigation--who often creates MORE litigation--who steer gov agencies nowadays.It's Risk Mgrs, actuaries, & Agency Counsels who are the Wizards of Oz behind the curtain, who loudly becry, "Pay no attn to that man behind the curtain," who advise against respecting citizens' rights, those very rights on which our gov began.Risk Mngmnt has become "risky business," & until gov addresses this "pink elephant," the horrendous injustices, corruption, & abuses of power continue.

Risk Mgrs advise against violating citizen's rights to have gov agencies communicate in writing, as is every citizen's right to request.Risk Mgrs advise gov agencies to not return Read Email Receipts to citizens & to completely ignore citizens' missives, in hopes they will just go away.Risk Mgrs advise healthcare corps&gov agencies to never admit wrongdoing.Gone are days when citizens would receive written apology for wrongdoing, that would be the end of it, & goodwill restored, but now, thnks to Risk Mngmnt, paranoid Risk Mgrs convince gov & corp Am that apology for wrongdoing invites lawsuits.

Risk Mgrs advised a school where I substituted several yrs ago to leave me lying on the floor.It's believed if they help you up & bring you a wheelchair, it lends credence to the injured party's subsequent claim.Then they can offer as a defense that the injured party walked away on their own&therefore isn't all that injured.Risk Mngmnt told me I had to get in my car&drive to the Risk Mngmnt office before going to a dr--of their choosing.Talk about enTRAPment!I was in PAIN & could've been KILLED driving across town.

Risk Mngmnt advised Sam'sClub after a case of water fell on my leg to make me walk, hobbling & in PAIN, w/out assistance, to the front of the store--whose employees were then horribly rude, after which Sam's Club refused to pay the claim&no attys would take the case, again, because Risk Mngmnt advises attys not to take cases they can't win or will cost them too much to fight&where does THAT leave the injured citizen?NOWHERE, in PAIN & with no resources for med assistance if underinsured, uninsured, or unemployed.

More&more cases are coming to light of late attesting that behind-the-scenes Risk Mgrs advise govt&corp employers to illegally discriminate against past, present, & prospective employees based on "perceived disability," in direct violation of Federal EEOC, ADA, & HIPAA laws, kowtowing to ins co strangleholds.When ins companies commit acts of injustice, it's ONE thing, but when gov "self-insured" plans do it, it's another.What that amounts to, which is why I currently have such a case in the US SupremeCourt, is that a citizen employed by gov to serve gov, who's promised benefits such as retirement, ins&tuition waiver, is not only betrayed by gov w/out conscience or restraint on the part of gov, but is then denied any future career in gov service, condemned to an existence of poverty, dependent upon social services.

Nor can the citizen then procure a career in corp America either, as again the "pink elephant" rears its ugly head&the "man behind the curtain" runs the citizen's name through the ins database, which has also received some, but insufficient, exposure in recent yrs, & is again denied life, liberty, happiness, & satisfaction in the pursuance & accomplishment of, the Am dream.

Carol Tucker, MA
Court Reform-NOW

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Great Article
[Report this comment]
Posted by: robchapman on Aug 14, 2009 9:06 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Finally, someone lays out the benefits and scope of Obama's plan without getting into the thicket of socialized medicine or single-payor.

This is clearly an instance in which the perfect must not be the enemy of the good.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Plain Simple And Free.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: melpol on Aug 14, 2009 9:07 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Most Americans do not want to listen to the complex arguments of those against the new health care plan. People are tired of paying for their health care and deserve a freebie. Make it plain simple and free.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

So why are conservatives so excited about health care reform?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: robchapman on Aug 14, 2009 9:11 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So why are conservatives so excited about health care reform?

This is not a policy issue, as the President has already explained, the health insurance industry is moving toward bankruptcy and millions of Americans are in danger of losing access to health care.

What is at stake is the success of the Obama Presidency. The conservatives believe that in blocking health care reform, they will break Obama.

This is a purely political fight in which the issues have been driven well into the background.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Well Posted by: Joshua Holland

Comments are closed-

Unwarranted Cynicism
[Report this comment]
Posted by: robchapman on Aug 14, 2009 9:24 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Mr. Holland, thanks but no thanks. The final version is likely to get further watered down.

[Report this comment] [Ignore this user] Posted by: JenniferBedingfield on Aug 14, 2009 12:52 AM

Referring to Jennifer's post earlier:

Single-payor is not national health insurance.

Single-payor simply means that the government will take over all medical bills.

Single-payor is often referred to as medi-care for all. What would medi-care for all accomplish?

Many providers now REFUSE to treat medicare patients because the reimbursement rates are too low. Providers receive only about 40% of the amounts billed to medicare and must pay themselves, their staffs and all their overhead from this palty reimbursement.

Medicare is not entirely government funded. Medicare beneficiaries are REQUIRED to carry private insurance, these insurers pay some 20% of the medicare approved reimbursement. Medicare beneficiaries are allowed to pay out of pocket or through other plans if they want to go to non-Medicare providers.

Medi-care has confiscatory spend down requirements for the frail elderly and chronically ill. Patients who require institutionalization or who have chronic conditions are required to liquidate their assets to qualify for medicare benefits. That is why you have to sell your Mom's house and possessions when you put her in the nursing home.

The claims about single-payor's benefits are as bogus as the conservatives' claims of governmental perfidy.

We need to overhaul the insurance system, utilize our medical resources better and emphasize preventive care to keep people away from the doctor and living healthy lives.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I partially agree Posted by: james108
» RE: Unwarranted Cynicism Posted by: Steppin Razor
» RE: Unwarranted Cynicism Posted by: Amy27605
» -matti, excellent and a big THANK YOU ! :) Posted by: JenniferBedingfield
» Check out School House Rock Jenn! Posted by: foreverhope
» RE: Unwarranted Cynicism Posted by: rainingwolf

Comments are closed-

Rationing is already done
[Report this comment]
Posted by: robchapman on Aug 14, 2009 9:35 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
which is used to RATION CARE.

This writer apparently thinks that the current US medical system does not ration care.

What does he think the health insurance industry is doing when it excludes people with pre-existing conditions or denies payment for various drugs and procedures?

The commentors contention that passing a health care reform act is typical of shoddy thinking of modern American Conservatism.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

SINGLE PAYER or Nothing
[Report this comment]
Posted by: maxfrisson on Aug 14, 2009 9:42 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The biggest hidden message is that when this complicated scheme is put in action, single payer will be DEAD. This will build a infrastructure that will be self-perpetuating and will doom us to it's Gov't hell

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Let's talk
[Report this comment]
Posted by: robchapman on Aug 14, 2009 9:52 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The compassion of the IRS
The efficiency of the Post Office.
The friendliness of the Wisconsin DMV.
The results of the Milwaukee Public Schools.

Is this what you want?

Let's stop playing games and talk about the real world.

The compassion of the IRS
The USA has the largest system of voluntary tax collection in the world.

The efficiency of the Post Office.
The Post Office continues to move millions of pieces of mail without fail. Rural patrons as well as inner-city residents get their mail and can mail correspondence at a cost that is well within their means.

The friendliness of the DMV.
I took out Wisconsin, because we are all familiar with our state DMV. They register boats, trailers, motor-cycles, cars, trucks, track millions upon millions of transactions and changes of ownership and insurance policies. They do it a reasonable cost and with a relatively low-paid work staff.

The results of Big City Public Schools.
Again, I made the original reference generic.
The recent book Outliers, has an interesting segment on the Baltimore public schools. Like big cities throughout America, the inner city schools show lower cumulative levels of achievement than the suburban and elite private schools.

The author of Outliers, broke the statistics down for annual levels of achievement and showed that within the nine- months of the school year achievement was about the same across the board.

The data show that it is outside factors, primarily poverty that causes the achievement gap between inner city schools and their suburban and private counterparts.

All in all our public institutions perform well.

In the age in which big banking, big real estate and big auto companies have failed, the conservatives adverse comparison of public institutions to private is invalid.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Let's talk Pentagon Posted by: kettleblack

Comments are closed-

The November Election
[Report this comment]
Posted by: robchapman on Aug 14, 2009 9:55 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dear Mr. Holland, reading the latest Alternet campaign I have to ask who died and made Obama the only option?

No one died and made Obama the only option. The energized electorate who voted him into office last November made that decision.

We voted for Obama, he won the election, and it is up to the rest of you to be good citizens and abide by the result.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The November Election Posted by: cmaciain

Comments are closed-

Good article but let's be a little cautious
[Report this comment]
Posted by: imagreate on Aug 14, 2009 9:56 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's nice to hear someone talk about the benefits instead of the everyday fearing that's always available in abundance. But the same questions come to my mind...what will the final version look like? Can we really believe that what they say is what they will do? Could they be possibly be hanging the things we want out on a string while they really have their own agenda for us? I don't believe in paranoia but I also don't believe in blind following...we need to listen but also question.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Wow! an informative easy to understand article
[Report this comment]
Posted by: sausage on Aug 14, 2009 10:19 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Which of course, Joshua, will fall on deaf ears...actually in this case blind eyes.

You ain't advocatin' single payer or nothing like the boys over at ZNet and Counterpunch. So for all the kids on campus gettin' their medical care from student health you, Joshua, must be a tool of "Big Pharma," "Big Insurance," and the Democratic Party.

Makes me wonder how may of the smart college kids singing the "single payer or nothing" tune are gettin' cushy jobs in the health care insurance biz after graduation?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Try this.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Quasar on Aug 14, 2009 10:45 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here's another way to do it:

Instead of treating these towhalls as open ended discussions about a bill that barely exists, treat every town hall as a referendum on the Health Care Industry, especially health insurance.

Talk about the probelms that exist and the changes the people want to make. Actually list them: Choice. Pre-exisitng conditions, Availability. Quality. Cost. Prescriptions. and yes, End-of-life consultation etc. and then have everyone vote if they'd like to see "reform" or not.

Then tell everyone what it would look like without reform.

Then tell everyone on medicare that they are receiving government run healthcare and then ask them if they want to keep it or give it to private insurance.

Turn the tables and put health insuracne at the center of the debate. Make them answer for the state of affairs and give the people the power to affect change. "Obamacare" is excatly the wrong way to couch this argument.

Spread the word. Let's get it done.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Bushiness
[Report this comment]
Posted by: tmgibs on Aug 14, 2009 10:47 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I had lunch with Senator Patty Murray yesterday. She explained that she was working on health insurance reform. Her idea is we can fix health care by changing insurers. What a hoot. People have been doing that for decades because our totally unregulated health care industry’s runaway costs make impossible for any insurance company to keep up. Insurance is expensive because health care is expensive. The reform that we need, health care reform is apparently too difficult. Changing insurers will not control the cost drivers in our system.

When Congress passed their education bill it did not contain provisions to fill the shortage of primary care providers-it was hard work-“Bushiness”. (bush- ē-ness)

When Congress decided to pass an electronic health records bill they didn't insist on quality and upgrade our medical coding system from ICD-9 to the standard the rest of the world has been using for 10 years, ICD-10 so we can do things like track emerging trends like swine or bird flu in real time, it was too hard, more “Bushiness”.

Congress hasn't done anything to slow down the flow of toxic food that chokes the aisles of our supermarkets; it's hard work-more “Bushiness”.

When Congress started tackling Medicare marketing problems they didn't create marketing rules that make it mandatory for people to get as many side by side comparisons of plans as they want prior to signing up for a plan. They let plans that have great big holes in their coverage and high prices directly market to Medicare beneficiaries without showing them any comparisons. Instead they cut reimbursement rates so the companies that were offering the most value at the least cost to beneficiaries were forced out of the market leaving only the lowest value plans that will create a great deal of harm for the most vulnerable people in our society.

In short, what we have is George Bush with a new face. Doing research, making a difference isn’t as important as pandering to the most extreme segments of your party because the most important thing is getting re-elected and staying in power, not doing anything that will actually reform health care or of quality because like “it’s real hard work…

The one thing that we were promised is that by electing Patty Murray she will keep bringing home the bacon. She spent the first half of her speech reminding us how many earmarks came to construction projects and other “investments” that our children and grandchildren will be paying for at a time when the number of people that will be paying for out retirement benefits has been cut in half. Patty Murray is wasting time. I just hope it isn’t as hard on her as it’s going to be on the rest of us. As someone that voted Democratic most of my life I am disappointed and saddened by what is happening in Washington today.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Debunking Republican Party Propaganda
[Report this comment]
Posted by: aberdeen on Aug 14, 2009 10:55 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
RESPONSE POINT BY POINT TO REPUBLICAN LITERATURE HEALTH CARE PROPAGANDA THAT WAS HANDED OUT AT YESTERDAY'S HEALTH CARE RALLY HERE IN NASHVILLE...

1. We need to reform health care. It costs too much.

RESPONSE: The Republican Party never once proposed to reform health care prior to the election between John McCain and President Obama; McCain was forced to provide alternative ideas due to the many proposals put forth by Democrat candidates during the campaign. The Republican Party has no established track record of seeking health care reform, other than de-regulation to enhance health care industry profits; such de-regulation greatly increases the cost for health care for the vast majority of Americans and, causes millions to be callously dropped from their insurance plans when they health care the most. There is no established track record reason to believe that the Republican Party would care at all about reform if the Democrats were not now making health care a primary issue. Thus, Republican Party proposals now to "reform" health care reek of partisan political charades and total dishonesty.

2. Make health insurance portable so Americans can keep their coverage when they change jobs.

RESPONSE: This does nothing to help reduce health care costs, reduce high deductibles and expensive co-payments, help the uninsured, the unemployed or people with pre-existing conditions. Like above, this was never proposed by the Republican Party until health care reform became a primary issue during the recent presidential campaign.

3. Provide tax credits to make health care more affordable and accessible. In addition to solving none of the things noted in #2 above, this was first proposed by John McCain while running against Obama. Prior to that, there is no track record of Republicans wanting to provide tax credits. On the contrary, Republicans in Congress and Bush did everything possible to reduce federal funding to the states and eliminate and otherwise cut back on federal legislation to help the uninsured including children, thus greatly increasing health care costs for the middle class on down in the form of higher state taxes and otherwise, causing millions of Americans including children to be cut from state health care and related programs.

4. President Obama and Democrats are conducting a dangerous 1.6 trillion dollar experiment with our health care.

RESPONSE: This is the most expensive worst-case scenario; a more likely cost is less than 1 trillion when cost savings are factored in. This cost is for ten years, not an immediate or annual cost, thus the actual cost to taxpayers would be about 100 billion per year. This is less than 1/10th of the total estimated cost for the war in Iraq. Tax cuts for the wealthy under Bush alone would far more than cover this cost. Where was the Republican outrage over government spending during the Bush war years, when our nation was run into debt for generations to come, by waging an illegal war of aggression in the Middle East and granting trillion-dollar tax cuts to the wealthy? Also, most of what Obama and the Democrats have proposed has already been tried in other nations, thus their proposals do not represent a "dangerous experiment" but rather, they are known ways that will serve to reduce health care costs and provide the approximately 50% of Americans who are not adequately covered or covered at all with much needed health care.

WHO WOULD JESUS BOMB?
www.FreedomTracks.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

REPUBLICAN PROPAGANDA DEBUNKED (continued)
[Report this comment]
Posted by: aberdeen on Aug 14, 2009 10:57 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
5. Create a national set of one-size-fits-all regulations, making health care more expensive for everyone.

RESPONSE: This is not at all what Obama and the Democrats are proposing but even if it was, it would serve to greatly reduce the cost of health care for everyone, if the health industry was forced to bid against the entire population base. Thus, even if this were true, it would have the opposite effect on health costs than the Republicans pretend in their literature.

6. Impose new regulations for existing plans that would make your employer drop your plan or make your current insurance carrier stop offering your plan.

RESPONSE: New regulations that have been proposed would actually have the exact opposite effect than what is pretended here in Republican Party literature. New regulations proposed include requiring employers to insure their employees or else have to pay a substantial penalty to offset the costs of a government option. New regulations proposed also include forcing insurance providers to accept all people, regardless of pre-existing conditions and, force them to cease dropping patients who are deemed "too expensive" for their profit margins.

7. Create a government run insurance option that would unfairly drive out competitors to become a monopoly.

RESPONSE: What has actually happened in the insurance industry over the past few decades since de-regulation began under Ronald Reagan, is that major insurance corporations have essentially become a monopoly, unfairly driving out smaller competitors and competitors who attempted to provide honest coverage by covering people with catastrophic illnesses and not dropping patients who develop necessary expensive treatments. They have also repeatedly denied health coverage for patients based on legal technicalities, protected by bogus health industry lobby-bribed-and-paid-for legislation, predominately supported by Republican congressional leaders; legislation which reduced and eliminated regulations that previously prevented the health care industry from refusing to pay for expensive treatments, as well as to protect poor and elderly patients from being dumped out the backs of ambulances onto Skid Row, as has been famously video taped and shown on national television.

Who Would Jesus Bomb?
www.FreedomTracks.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Why is that?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: oregoncharles on Aug 14, 2009 11:16 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Good article, very clarifying, except for the wishful thinking about the best elements being in the final bilk.

I especially like this line: "The right's fearmongering is only effective because the health care debate is often so complex."

So why is this proposal so damned COMPLICATED? Just like Hillarycare, which was so soundly roasted by the insurance companies? Well, because it's trying to disguise a massive subsidy to the insurance companies, that's why.

Why is the most important "protection for consumers" missing? That is denial of care - refusing to pay for needed care, even though it should be covered. Banning recissions would help, of course; but nearly everyone is affected by denials of specific procedures. That's the core of insurance company fraud, and it isn't mentioned.

Why does it still burden employers - even more, in fact? I'm as anti-corporate as anyone, and I certainly think they should pay their fair share; but we also want them to hire people, and pay them as much as possible, right? (Digression: has anyone else in this room BEEN an employer? I have, on a small scale, and it's a pain in the ass. Trust me, we don't want to make it even MORE expensive.) So why would we add to employers' costs? Besides discouraging employment, this makes them less competitive with companies in countries with public health care. Outsourcing, anyone?

Then there's requiring people to buy insurance. That means me, Joshua. It's the biggest gift to the insurance companies of all. It will also breed a lot of resistance. That's an easy form of civil disobedience, you know: I won't buy the insurance, and I won't pay the penalty. And if they're really going to require us to enable them to take it right out of our checking accounts, that's BigBrother on steroids. Harder to avoid, of course, but possible.

Why all that? Well, it's politics, and the answer is really pretty simple: because the Democratic Party has sold itself to the highest bidder, and they're prepared to defy the public's will to do their bidding. Unless you think you can outbid Big Business, you're going to have to try something new.

Once again: there's only one national party campaigning for single payer, and that's the Greens. If you want the Dems to get your message, SWITCH YOUR REGISTRATION, then tell all your elected officials you've done so, and why. Political parties follow registrations closely; at least they're an indication of public feelings, and in states like Oregon they have practical effects (the Greens' ballot access depends on registrations). A shift in registrations would get their attention on a very practical level, and you don't have to wait till next year.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Left One Out Posted by: oregoncharles
» RE: Left One Out Posted by: madashell8683

Comments are closed-

This blog needs to be posted on other sites
[Report this comment]
Posted by: 8 nontheist on Aug 14, 2009 11:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You've told me that nothing will change for me since I'm a 100% service connected disabled veteran. I'll continue to be cared for by the VA at no cost to me. While the quality of VA health care must be improved & I need to be cared for my home town to avoid going to a VA Hospital for hospitalization, I won't be stuck with paying for expensive private health insurance.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

This comment has been removed from the site due to non-compliance with AlterNet's community policies.

Comments are closed-

I'm afraid the critics here got it right and sharp analysis as well.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: maxpayne on Aug 14, 2009 12:16 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Not much to say here since you great folks out there who could see through the sellout bs nailed this article from all angles and God bless you.

On the other hand, I'm afraid Josh here has read a totally different bill because I read the full thing for what it was worth and none of these 10 points match the real bill except for the mandatory payment part and that's for the worse. If this bill passes and will likely get worse before it does, I can assure you that millions more will be left behind. This article sounds just as bad as a typical sleazy car salesman trying to sell a broken used car.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» what's the price tag? Posted by: james108

Comments are closed-

Chinese Will Pay Medicare.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: melpol on Aug 14, 2009 12:46 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Never bite the hand that feeds you has been my lifelong motto. Uncle Sam is about to give away a trillion dollars in health care benefits and I will Accept it with open arms. Some say: "who will pay for it?" My answer will be the Chinese who will wind up getting screwed on their treasuries.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: And never pay it back. Posted by: oregoncharles

Comments are closed-

clear things up about Oama's heralth plan from AFLCIO
[Report this comment]
Posted by: cori on Aug 14, 2009 1:52 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A lot of angry, over-the-top rhetoric is muddying our discussion of health care reform. To help clear things up, here’s a brief summary of President Obama’s plan, including how it will stop insurance company abuses and help you—even if you currently have a strong health benefits plan.
• Health care reform will stop insurance company abuses.
o Insurance companies won’t be able to refuse to pay a claim or give you coverage because of “pre-existing” conditions.
o Your out-of-pocket expenses will be capped. No more going broke because of a serious illness or injury.
o Insurance companies won’t be allowed to charge women higher rates than men or drop you if you get sick.
o Insurance companies will have to cover your children until age 26 instead of dumping them at 19.
• Health care reform will hold down rising costs.
o A public health insurance option will force private insurers to compete and will lower costs for everyone.
o By requiring companies to pay their fair share, we’ll stop them from dumping their health care costs on the rest of us.
• Health reform means affordable care will be there for you, no matter what. If you lose your job, or your kid loses his. If you get sick. When you retire. Affordable health care will be there for you, no matter what. That means you and your family can’t fall through the cracks and won’t go broke because of health care bills.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

It's morally wrong
[Report this comment]
Posted by: reg373 on Aug 14, 2009 2:21 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
to leave 100 million Americans un or underinsured, 1 illness away from financial ruin. And it's wrong to burden small business with the outrageous insurance costs also -- found a cool site; Balkingpoints ; incredible satellite view of earth

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

From the POV of a guy at the bottom, all of these "good "things, just ain't
[Report this comment]
Posted by: DaBear on Aug 14, 2009 2:47 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I read this with shock and horror. Josh, you absolutely don't understand what it's like to be working poor. When you're collecting bottles and cans to be able to eat and you're still fasting so the kids get adequate nutrition, having to pay ANY amount of money is too much. Whatever happens, if it ain't single-payer universal HC it's shit. Period.

Our family's medical bills total between $560-870 per month depending on which kid needs more therapy, how rough and zero-tolerance the school decides to get, how quickly or not my back heals from the same injury that led us to bankruptcy and homelessness.

NONE of the good things you mention will positively impact my family AT ALL. Come down off the middling-upper class soap box and live amongst us unwasheds for a change. Life looks a helluva lot different down here.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Unholy shit! Posted by: oregoncharles

Comments are closed-

Yes, but...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: dayahka on Aug 14, 2009 3:40 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
OK, if it passes then things would be better, but not great. Everyone should be covered, but the plan, you say, leaves out 5% or so, which is 15 million people. While procedures would be developed so doctors wouldn't have to jump through hoops to get paid, nothing is done to limit the pay of doctors, many of whom are in it just for the money, the more the better.

There are also problems with how much medical care we should be entitled to. Does everyone have a right to wreck their health, then get a new set of lungs, a new heart, etc. even if it's their own darn fault? Surely this is irrational.

Another problem lies in how much coercion there is under medicare or other plans to get people to do what they do not want to do. For example, I'm totally against getting a flu shot, but I may be forced to get one because I'm under medicare. I like medicare for taking care of any accidents or infectious diseases (other than flu), but there are some things I do not want from them--like flu shots and other treatments or conditions that are related to diet.

Another area is the failure to say anything about the use of alternative or natural medicines. Nothing is done to curtail the power of the pharmaceutical companies to make medicines only of patentable substances, nor is their model of medicine (cut 'em open and sew 'em up) challenged, nor is the habit of faking tests and marketing toxic substances for profits.

So, is something better than nothing? Maybe, maybe not.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Yes, but... Posted by: Lilly
» RE: Yes, but... Posted by: countingdaisies
» RE: Yes, but... Posted by: rainingwolf

Comments are closed-

Pasty Bureaucrats Decide What Treatment Americans Receive.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Ted Voth Jr on Aug 14, 2009 5:32 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Pasty bureaucrats do decide what treatment Americans receive, pasty health insurance industry bureaucrats.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

None of these ideas will do anybody that doesn't have health insurance any good.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: popsicle67 on Aug 14, 2009 6:53 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is starting to look like NCLB for health care. When the democrats lose the congress and White house in 2012 we will lose this whole drafty shed roof plan through some legislation and we'll be right back to where we are now only deeper in the hole. At this point I think the only wise thing to do is move to France.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Just REARRANGING THE DECK CHAIRS!!!!!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: AlwaysAskWhy on Aug 14, 2009 7:32 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm from Oregon and recently read Sen. Roy Wyden's (along with Senator Bennett, R-KS) piece on the mish-mash choices plan they have offered, and it's nothing more than :

REARRANGING THE DECK CHAIRS!!!!!

I'm reading the article and what keeps going through my head is: WHO THE HELL IS GOING TO BE ABLE TO FIGURE OUT WHICH CLASSIFICATION THEY BELONG IN??? AND WHO WILL DECIDE? AND HOW? A MYRIAD OF FORMS, AGENCIES, CONSULTANTS - EVERY SINGLE YEAR?!!! What happens when you sign up for one and they tell you that you belong somewhere else... then have to wait months to re-apply or process your application????

When Medicare Part D came out, senior centers scrambled to create assistance to FIGURE IT OUT! WHAT A NIGHTMARE. And that was merely Part D. Now we're trying to figure out which MEDICARE ADVANTAGE PLAN to buy... HA! ANOTHER NIGHTMARE... especially when, if you don't like it, and you cancel it, you have to wait for the next enrollment in January to sign up for a different INSURANCE PLAN... HA!

What in this new legislation DOES NOT SMACK OF IMPENDING BUREAUCRATIC CHAOS???? !!!

ANYTHING SHORT OF "SINGLE-PAYER HEALTH CARE" (MEDICARE FOR ALL) IS JUST 'REARRANGING THE DECK CHAIRS" ON THE SINKING SHIP OF INSURANCE COMPANIES, WHO HAVE SABOTAGED THEMSELVES WITH THEIR OWN GREED AND INDIFFERENCE TO HUMAN LIFE AND SUFFERING.

That our congress people and senators are caving in to their corporate contributors is A HELLACIOUS and INDIFFERENT LAST DITCH DIVE AT CORPORATE CONTRIBUTIONS... THE REST OF US BE DAMNED.

NEVER RE-ELECT ANYONE! EVER AGAIN!

And, oh yeah: DEMAND PUBLICLY FUNDED ELECTIONS: i.e., CLEAN MONEY CAMPAIGNS NEED "YOU"!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Election next year. Posted by: oregoncharles

Comments are closed-

Verdun
[Report this comment]
Posted by: RevolutionNet on Aug 14, 2009 7:43 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here's what I think the deal is with the health care debate. Party leaders met behind closed doors and said, "We're damned close to getting lynched over this mortgage crisis. We need a hot button issue that we can use to fill up the headlines for a few months, one that ultimately will go absolutely nowhere. Then we'll pass a bill that looks really great on the surface but will accomplish very little except to spread some graft around."

When you weld or solder two things together that have a lower melting point than the metal you're connecting you use a heat sink to draw heat away from what you're working on. That's what the health care issue is: A political heat sink.


FREE AMERICA

REVOLUTIONARY (DIRECT) DEMOCRACY

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

OMG! I SPENT THE DAY READING 1000 PAGES ON HCR! HOLY SHIT!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: foreverhope on Aug 14, 2009 9:33 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It says we will all have to wear stockings on our hands!

Obviously conspiring with stocking manufacturers! Making back room deals!

We will be FORCED to fill the ashtrays in our cars with CEMENT! So we don't smoke!

Obviously a conspiracy with the cement industry! Making back room deals!

We will have to pay every single frigging year for FUMIGATORS! To kill possible germs in our own homes!

Obviously conspiring with fumigators behind closed doors!

WORST OF ALL!

We will all have to wear shoes, no matter what! From the very smallest to the very oldest! No more wiggling our toes in the grass! No more barefoot walks on the beach! In case we pick up a splinter or a piece of glass!

Obviously conpiring behind closed doors with BIG SHOE manufacurers!

Where will it end! Where will it stop! I'm so afraid! I adore going barefoot!

;-D xooxoxoxoxooxoxxoxoxoxoxoxoxoox

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

If
[Report this comment]
Posted by: talkville on Aug 14, 2009 10:09 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
you depend upon your own earnings to sustain and maintain your standard of life, get ready to add another MRC (Monthly Recurring Charge): Health Insurance Premiums. Unlike the many starry-eyed scenarios, these Premiums will not in the least be cheap. And in all likelihood, they will be mandatory or subject to a "penalty" (check out the word "punishment" in a good dictionary). In this "flexible, temporary, and fast-paced "21st Century Economy", it will be mandated as portable, so that if you should lose one job you must still carry this insurance with you at all times. And this insurance will be provided 90% by Private Insurance Providers -- benevolent folk that care about your well-being indeed!

"They've spun wild tales of federal agents coming into Americans' homes for lifestyle checks and faceless government officials making end-of-life decisions for patients."

Thus the author says. Depends just what one means when 'federal agents' is expressed. In this Private-Public Partnership Model of Government we are tyrannized under totally today, this 'agent' has quite a range of costumes to choose from. We are already being legally observed and punished for our "life-style choices". Legally. Privately and Publicly. At the Office, at home, and on the public streets, the highways and byways, across the land. "End-of-life" decisions are already largely determined negatively, by what you cannot "afford".

Add a line to your Monthly Budget.

This time in the next couple of years, I hope I'll be proved wrong; I certainly do.

Nevertheless....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

UK NHS
[Report this comment]
Posted by: the man with a dog on Aug 15, 2009 1:08 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am over 70 so you can see I have known the UK NHS from its conception
My children all delivered in NHS hospitals---FREE
Their few illnesses treated --FREE
My parents spells in hospitals---FREE
MY two hernia operations ---FREE
Ny damaged shoulder in a fall, four hour operation---FREE
Daily tablets for blood pressure cholestrol ---FREE
My wifes daily tablets (6)---FREE
Eye tests ---FREE
Last test showed cataract problem this is being treated---FREE
I read of how great the USA is and also read about people being delivered to hospitals and they are asked "have you got insurance"
If thats the land of the free you can stuff it
America is the land of the priveleged who can pay for their needs
Those down the lower end of the scale it`s a case of "TOUGH SHIT FOLKS"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: UK NHS Posted by: wannabersc
» RIGHT ON! Posted by: Tweck9

Comments are closed-

Government Healthcare
[Report this comment]
Posted by: wannabersc on Aug 15, 2009 3:48 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Howdy Folks.

All this talk of Government Healthcare, Government run economies, Government ordered morals (pick your own examples of THAT particular nemesis) presumes one, little "Fact";
The Government is trustworthy.

Now, is there any reason why I (or presumably you) should trust the corporation euphemistically referred to as "The United States of America"?

How many people have to die before you wake up?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Corporate Healthcare Posted by: Tweck9

Comments are closed-

Co Pays Still way too high!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: fizzbincat on Aug 15, 2009 5:01 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The statement...medical bankruptcies will go down coupled with still allowing insurance companies to force people to pay out of pocket up to $10,000 a year while charging obscene premiums is just that "obscene" what about the fact that most of the out of pocket expense people pay never seems to count toward their maximum and I'm sorry, the $5,000 and $10,000 numbers are still huge and will prevent people from being able to afford medical care...we need NO copays on serious illness requiring hospitalization otherwise bankruptcies will continue.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Some points for further discussion
[Report this comment]
Posted by: ksm on Aug 15, 2009 8:09 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article is wrong or wrong headed in so many ways that it is difficult to know where to start. In the interests of time let me address a just a few points that stand out:


Insurance companies could no longer deny coverage to people because they've had health problems in the past, nor could they charge hugely different rates for different groups of people (premiums could only vary by age, geography, tobacco use and family size).



Insurers wouldn't be allowed to cancel an individual's coverage for reasons other than failing to pay the premium.



Insurers would no longer be permitted to impose annual or lifetime caps on benefits.





These items are presented as improvements, when they actually hobble or destroy private insurance options, paving the way for a government run single payer system like Social Security or medicare – both of which are bankrupting our country.



Responsible parties should be allowed to enter into contracts of their choice, as long as they are not illegal. No one should force an insurance company to offer services to those to whom it has no obligation. To force companies to offer insurance to those who have the certainty (rather than the risk) of illness destroys the concept of what insurance is – risk management. We could achieve the same positive results (coverage for those w/ pre-existing conditions) in better, more free-market friendly ways.





“In 2007, Harvard researchers studied thousands of bankruptcy filings and found that medical causes played a role in more than 6 in 10.”



“Played a role” is an ambiguous statement. Was that role significant, or very minor?







4. People Who Could Never Get Decent Coverage Will Finally Be Able To



There are other, better ways of doing this than turning 1/6 of the US economy over to the government. One improvement would be to break down the barriers that keep insurance companies from competing across state borders – increasing the pool size and competition by making the government less involved, not more.







5. (Almost) Everyone Gets Covered



That brings us to another "controversial" -- but ultimately commonsense -- piece of the puzzle, the "individual mandate." It means that (almost) everyone would either have to buy health insurance or pay a modest penalty that would contribute to the system. In the House bill, the penalty would max out at 2.5 percent of income. Waivers would be available in the cases of economic hardship or for those who have religious objections.



Today million of Americans make over $50K/yr and yet elect to have no insurance. Others are young and healthy and elect to forego insurance to spend their money in ways that they value more highly. This bill takes away their freedom to make their own decision in this area. What right does the US government have to do such a thing?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

More points for further discussion
[Report this comment]
Posted by: ksm on Aug 15, 2009 8:11 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
6. Those Who Can't Afford the Premiums Will Get Help Paying



Ultimately, even if the public exchanges were to succeed in bringing the price of health insurance back to earth, a lot of people would still be priced out of the market.



All of the Democratic plans come with subsidies to help those at the lower end of the economic ladder get access to decent health care. The most generous are in the House bill, and how extensive the subsidies will be in the final legislation will be a point of heated debate.



In the House bill, individuals making less than 400 percent of the poverty line -- $43k per year and families earning under $88k -- will be eligible for subsidized coverage on a sliding scale.



Those at the lowest income levels (but who earn too much to get Medicaid) will be required to pay no more than 1.5 percent of their total income for health coverage.



Subsidies would also be available for co-pays -- also for people earning up to 400 percent of the poverty line.



Finally, many small businesses would be eligible for tax credits for insuring their employees.



Under these terms my family might qualify – but I don’t want it. I don’t want a more complex tax code. I don’t want more government intrusion into my finances. I don’t want the government poking its nose even further into my private life and personal decisions. And such complexities often generate unintended consequences, bureaucratic inefficiencies and great opportunity for corruption and misuse.







7. No Free Lunch for Businesses



Currently, large employers that rely on low-skilled workforces usually offer little or no health coverage, and much of these workers' health care is already subsidized by taxpayers in the form of Medicaid and Medicare payments, other public programs and unpaid bills for emergency-room visits. Under the proposals in Congress, medium and large firms would face a simple choice: Offer their employees decent coverage or pay something into the system to offset the burden their employees' health needs impose on the American taxpayer.



“unpaid bills for emergency-room visits” account for 2% of our annual medical spending. Health Insurance needs to be decoupled from employment by equalizing how businesses and individuals are taxed on monies spent on this insurance. As someone who ran a small business (up to 75 employees) for 10 years I can attest to the importance of trying to offer good benefits for the retainment of good employees. Why tie my hands in that area? Why not let me select the mix of benefits that my employees seem to want most and that I can actually afford?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

A few more points to discuss
[Report this comment]
Posted by: ksm on Aug 15, 2009 8:12 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For example, there are measures that would impact the way doctors are paid, allocate additional dollars for developing the health care workforce and bring new technologies online.



These provisions will have a significant impact on a variety of stakeholders -- mostly health professionals -- but ordinary people looking for health coverage are not going to notice anything different about their health care.



Ya, right – just like so many doctors even refuse to take Medicaid patients because of the low prices and paperwork headaches. When you reduce the compensation or make the work more onerous in a profession, the best and brightest people go elsewhere. I want my doctors to be smart. I don’t mind if they are wealthy. I want that profession to attract the best of the best.



And the government is not nearly as good at “developing the health care workforce and bring(ing) new technologies online”. Why take this approach when the private sector has a track record that is vastly superior?





10. Over Time, the System Will Become Healthier



Everything depends on what the final legislation entails. But if it were done right, those systemic changes -- greater competition, tighter regulation, technological improvements, a greater emphasis on prevention, the buying power and efficiency of less-fragmented insurance pools and an end to treating the uninsured in emergency rooms -- would gradually "bend the cost curve" of health coverage and offer insurance to tens of millions of people who today struggle with the health problems and stressful economic insecurity of living without insurance.



This sounds like a bunch of “Hopey-Changey” to me. Socialized medicine (and socialism in general) has failed or is failing everywhere is has been tried. Why do we think we are so special that it would magically work for us?







Understanding what's actually contained in the legislation leads to an unavoidable conclusion about the anger we've seen in recent weeks: it's doubtful that at anytime in the history of our nation have a group of people been so furiously opposed to something that would so obviously be an improvement over what they now have.



It's nothing less than a testament to the power of industry propaganda.



Actually, this legislation will result in our most personal decisions being dictated by the government. Private insurers will be squeezed out, resulting only one choice (just like Obama has said he prefers). Costs will exceed expectation, like they did w/ SS, Medicare, the USPS, Amtrak, etc. Rationing will result. American innovation in the field of medicine, which has benefited the entire world, will suffer, and the world with it.


This legislation takes us in precisely the wrong direction. It is no surprise that it comes from people who have learned the wrong lesson from the history of the 20th century.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

tmginnova
[Report this comment]
Posted by: tmginnova on Aug 15, 2009 9:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Fool. The GOP would love to invent you (if you aren't already their plant).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Seriously! Wonder how much Posted by: songbird1268

Comments are closed-

Illegal immigrants already have health care.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: hackbut on Aug 15, 2009 9:46 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Enough of the left-wing lies about illegal immigrants. Even if they're not covered by any health care bill initially, they can still go to emergency rooms and triple your costs when you go to the hospital. Therefore, as they continue to do so post health care "reform" it will be axiomatic that the law will be quickly amended to avoid those expensive emergency room visits. If we had any guts as a nation we'd just shovel them back across the border.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» If we don't get single payer . . . Posted by: countingdaisies
» GOOD! Posted by: Tweck9

Comments are closed-

THE HARVEST IS IN
[Report this comment]
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Aug 16, 2009 8:19 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Looking at the comments it seems as though very few people like what we have but go on to find something wrong with every other plan presented to them. Nobody is able to spell out what they want, other than everything medical science has to offer but it has to be free. About the European countries: what they do works, no question. But they pay much higher taxes than we do and there is no country that has 300 million people to consider. It's one thing to be able to point out specific shortcomings but to bash everything across the board makes no sense. What exactly does everyone want? ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Other fish to fry... Posted by: clickron
» RE: THE HARVEST IS IN Posted by: talkville

Comments are closed-

Trusting the Government
[Report this comment]
Posted by: clickron on Aug 16, 2009 5:12 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Not one attempt was made to reduce billing fraud, to curtail lawsuits, to reduce malpractice insurance. No meetings with other countries who have successes and failures in what they've done and how we can learn from it. No due diligence, no hard decisions, Just "hurry up and give us the money". I smell a rat, a government power grab and I am a registered independent who voted for Obama.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

EITHER WAY YOU LOSE
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Wilde on Aug 16, 2009 9:55 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From a Canadian perspective, I can tell you that it doesn't matter whether you remain under the existing health-care paradigm or establish a universal program because unless you take your health into your own hands, you're screwed either way.

Canada has been under a government operated universal health care system [read: sick care management system] for some forty years. Initially it worked to the advantage of the general populace, but in the last decade has deteriorated to the point of collapse.

Billions are thrown into health care every year yet patient care becomes progressively worse. Surgical wait times are often over a year with some hospitals down-sizing or closing their doors altogether. Pregnant mothers have even been turned away in some cases due to over-crowding. Super-germs now proliferate facilities that were meant to heal the sick.

The system has become so maligned that ironically, the public is willing to accept any alternative, including a privatized one that the majority of US citizens can't wait to unload. Maybe we should just swap systems and be done with it.

Though our government would have us believe otherwise, it's always been a two-tiered system with those who have the money or status moving to the front of the queue.

The biggest downfall with this type of health ideology is that it's predicated on drugs, surgery and invasive preventative measures such as radiation and vaccination.

The prestigious Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA, July 2000) reported that doctors were the 3rd leading cause of death in the US with over 200,000 deaths largely due to prescribed drugs, failed surgeries and misdiagnoses. Those alarming statistics, of which are only the reported numbers, have surely increased since that time and certainly won't abate with a reformed system.

As much as the information is suppressed, people do get well from far less invasive and costly alternative, holistic and naturopathic treatments and therapies. Of course, conventional care is essential when it relates to crisis situations like heart attacks, mending broken bones and torn flesh, but as far as degenerative and infectious disease are concerned, allopathy has been a disaster. This is what should be discussed in town hall meetings instead of the ineffectual left/right name calling.

The medical industry says we're living longer and healthier through science, but the fact is that the new generation will not outlive its predecessor. Other factors, including an aging population, unhealthy lifestyle choices, gmo and junk foods, squandered research funding and escalating disease rates, will insure that whatever the Obama health care proposal promises to offer, it will surely fail to deliver.

Correspondingly, it doesn't matter whether the present day government is Liberal, Conservative, Democrat or Republican. The truth is that opposition parties only appear to pit themselves against the reigning government, but in reality they actually support one another in their quest for power. So for them it's a win-win situation, while for the majority of US citizens, it will always be a losing proposition. It's the old "divide and conquer" ploy that has obviously been very effective in this issue.

Better to cease with the in-fighting and accept the inevitable. Do your research and become your own doctor. Your odds of becoming a medical statistic will be far less than if you place your health in the hands of a private or public health "authority".

#1 NATURAL HEALTH WEB SITE

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

This comment has been removed from the site due to non-compliance with AlterNet's community policies.

Comments are closed-

I'd love to see a list like this on a cable news show
[Report this comment]
Posted by: launcher on Aug 18, 2009 12:45 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Excellent piece, Josh Holland. But it's sad how we rarely see a nice summary of the health care debate - like this one - from the main stream media.

I admit that I get sucked into CNN and MSNBC from time to time, and I do like watching Olbermann or Maddow take down a right-wing politician (or kick-boxer/B-rate actor). But it would be great if these progressive talk show hosts at least occasionally depart from their wham-bam gotcha journalism to talk about the real facts of the proposed health care bills (and other issues for that matter) and dig into the details a bit. No left-wing spin necessary. That's because, more often than not, facts and reason tend to support the liberal cause.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

CRYBABY IN CHIEF
[Report this comment]
Posted by: reelman on Aug 20, 2009 5:56 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
THE SHAMELESS COWARD IN CHIEF

Obama: Republican conspiracy out to kill health reform… Drudge August 20.2009

CRAWFISH NOTE: Is this like the “vast right wing thing”…good grief…its never because democrats can’t explain the bill, refuse to read the bill, avoid or give baloney answers to voter questions or the bill is simply full of expensive socialism.
Its ALWAYS blame-shifted to Republicans despite the FACT the democrats have the votes.
Oh, I forgot, some democrats are not on board with most of this “healthcare” bill and we have to hush that up.

Was there a “Democrat conspiracy” to kill Social Security reform (aka private option) under Bush?
Gee, we must have missed that coverage angle back when. Remember when the democrats wheeled in 80 year olds with signs despite the fact the private thing was an OPTION for those under age 55? Oh, you missed that objective network coverage too.

What a spoiled cowardly serial liar leads America now.

http://conservablogs.com/theconservativecrawfish

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

DVD to Gphone Converter
[Report this comment]
Posted by: boay on Aug 24, 2009 6:39 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
DVD to Gphone Converter

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: jtpatrick108 on Aug 27, 2009 5:45 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1 of the most delightful ways to remove the obesity problem in this country would be to give people miracle berry so that disgusting healthy food will taste amazing. Since obesity is such a big problem, this could save money when it comes to health care. Ok I'm just joshing!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

aass
[Report this comment]
Posted by: mjx729 on Aug 27, 2009 10:22 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]

Comments are closed-

Fraud is the Problem!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Rasplanet on Aug 29, 2009 1:04 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It doesn't matter how good your health care is or how many bills get passed in favor of it. If the govt. doesn't pay attention to Drs. and hospitals and stop the fraud, nothing is going to do any good. The drs. are sucking the life out of health care. They charge insurance companies for services they don't even perform. I had a doctor shooting me up with saline water and charging my ins. for an expensive drug. I've had things like this happen many times. I wouldn't have caught any of them, had I put too much trust in my doctors. People trust doctors too much. Doctors are cut from the same cloth as lawyers. They can't be trusted because they are money motivated. I see the country torn apart because of the health care debate, and it's stupid, because the doctors and hospitals are sitting back laughing, knowing that no matter how it comes out, they are still going to get paid well. The real answer to health care is: stop letting your dr. over charge your provider. Ask questions about fees and look and see what you are being charged and for what. Fraud takes place every where, every day. And we Americans just go along with it. If you do your part to stop being overcharged, you will see costs and premiums drop. After all, the ins. companies can't be in the drs exam room with you. Most people are intimidated by their doctor, and are afraid to call him out on some ridiculous charges. Nowadays a doctor becomes filthy rich with just a handful of patients. How? And when you really need him/her you have to go to the golf course. Every one of them will blame high cost on malpractice insurance. well duh!
And how about a referral to a specialist? Wow! It seems we need a specialist for even a hangnail. This drives costs up because every body gets paid whether they do any work or not. I don't like insurance companies, but they would be willing to insure us all for less, if we could do our part in stopping the abuse. They actually pay out more for people who don't need a doctor, than they do for people who need major surgery. Most doctors can't wait to operate or have you operated on. They earn exponentially, just on referrals.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

bold What will also happen if we get Obamacare.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Meanjoegreen on Aug 31, 2009 10:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
bold No one has answered the question, if this Health Care Bill is passed and everyone has health insurance- Where are the Doctors coming for this plan? As you and I know, when something is free and almost free, people tend to use it more(even if not needed).
What is going to happen when the costs for this National Health Insurance plan get out of control? And they will. Medical Cost Control Boards will be set up to control costs(just like England and Canada).They will deside who get good care, who gets poor care and who gets no care under the plan.
Look at the VA Health Care System. This is a poorly run system. Would another government health plan be run any better?
I am all for Health Care reform, requiring private employers and insurance companies to do it, not the federal government.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

 
Advertisement