Obama's healthcare 'experiment:' RNC

OK, RNC thanks for your 6 month old sudden concern for the economy, and your complaint about the cost of the Obama plan, which falls in line with your complaints about anything Obama does.

But Mr. Steele, how about an idea? Mr. Steele? John D, Terry, Party Gal Bruce? Any Republican have a constructive thought?

I didn't think so.

I wish to continue letting the insurance companies choose my options than the government. Their decisions are not driven by their bottom line....just the concern for Americans.

How can anybody expect vibrant economic activity / JOB CREATION ( faulted by the non-alternative naysayers to distract a series of scandals ) and housing boom in the context one in two Americans say someone in their family skipped pills, postponed or cut back on needed medical care due to the cost ?

Thank You !

Sore losers.

OK, time for the truth meter to fire up.......the pugs are patently false when they say that the current system offers you choices while the new one takes the choices away. Anyone with fire between their ears knows that. http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/07/19/patient.insurance/index.html

The next big one is cost. The pugs scream and squeel about costs. They also love to use Canada in their arguements....so let's use Canada in the cost arguement. The US national debt is $11.6T+ and our population is 306.5M+ for a debt/ person ratio of $37,878.69. http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/ Keep in mind, that we do not have national health coverage.

Now, our smart cousins to the north have a national debt of $476.7B+ and their per capita share is $14,229.15, and yes, they do provide health insurance to all of their populace. http://www.debtclock.ca/ Looks like public healthcare will not sink a country after all.

The supposed "wait times" in CA are a direct result of the US's high pay scale for doctors (many making $500,000.00 per year http://www.allied-physicians.com/salary_surveys/physician-salaries.htm ) and the competing contries for the doctors. In effect, the US healthcare problems of money are spilling over across our borders and into Canada and robbing them of care.

So, please do you homework folks. The pugs are up to their armpits in lies, smears, and fear campaigns. The truth could not be further from them.

The founder of the CA public healthcare, Tommy Douglas, has been selected as the nation's greatest person. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Greatest_Canadian

Yep, Canada sure hates their expensive healthcare all right....the evidence is overwheliming!

AMERICA’S NATIONAL HEALTHCARE EMERGENCY!

It’s official. America and the World are now in a GLOBAL PANDEMIC. A World EPIDEMIC with potential catastrophic consequences for ALL of the American people. The first PANDEMIC in 41 years. And WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES will have to face this PANDEMIC with the 37th worst quality of healthcare in the developed World.

STAND READY AMERICA TO SEIZE CONTROL OF YOUR NATIONAL HEALTHCARE SYSTEM.

We spend over twice as much of our GDP on healthcare as any other country in the World. And Individual American spend about ten times as much out of pocket on healthcare as any other people in the World. All because of GREED! And the PRIVATE FOR PROFIT healthcare system in America.

And while all this is going on, some members of congress seem mostly concern about how to protect the corporate PROFITS! of our GREED DRIVEN, PRIVATE FOR PROFIT NATIONAL DISGRACE. A PRIVATE FOR PROFIT DISGRACE that is in fact, totally valueless to the public health. And a detriment to national security, public safety, and the public health.

Progressive democrats the Tri-Caucus and others should stand firm in their demand for a robust government-run public option for all Americans, with all of the minimum requirements progressive democrats demanded. If congress can not pass a robust public option with at least 51 votes and all robust minimum requirements, congress should immediately move to scrap healthcare reform and request that President Obama declare a state of NATIONAL HEALTHCARE EMERGENCY! Seizing and replacing all PRIVATE FOR PROFIT health insurance plans with the immediate implementation of National Healthcare for all Americans under the provisions of HR676 (A Single-payer National Healthcare Plan For All).

Coverage can begin immediately through our current medicare system. With immediate expansion through recruitment of displaced workers from the canceled private sector insurance industry. Funding can also begin immediately by substitution of payroll deductions for private insurance plans with payroll deductions for the national healthcare plan. This is what the vast majority of the American people want. And this is what all objective experts unanimously agree would be the best, and most cost effective for the American people and our economy.

In Mexico on average people who received medical care for A-H1N1 (Swine Flu) with in 3 days survived. People who did not receive medical care until 7 days or more died. This has been the same results in the US. But 50 million Americans don’t even have any healthcare coverage. And at least 200 million of you with insurance could not get in to see your private insurance plans doctors in 2 or 3 days, even if your life depended on it. WHICH IT DOES!

If President Obama has to declare a NATIONAL STATE OF EMERGENCY to rescue the American people from our healthcare crisis, he will need all the sustained support you can give him. STICK WITH HIM! He’s doing a brilliant job.

THIS IS THE BIG ONE!

THE BATTLE OF GOOD Vs EVIL!

Join the fight.

Contact congress and your representatives NOW! AND SPREAD THE WORD!

(http://action.firedoglake.com/page/s/publicoption) (http://www.actblue.com/page/healthcareheroes)

God Bless You

Jacksmith – WORKING CLASS

How can anybody expect vibrant economic activity / JOB CREATION ( faulted by the non-alternative naysayers to distract a series of scandals ) and housing boom in the context one in two Americans say someone in their family skipped pills, postponed or cut back on needed medical care due to the cost ?

In regard to the stimulus investment, my understanding is as follows:

1. The current surging fuel cost (World oil prices doubled during the last 6 months) is overwhelming the market rally.
And the pending clean energy bill might serve as a second stimulus package world-wide boosting private investments.

2. People are so worried about losing their job, coverage, denial of treatment, which seems to increase bank deposit latetly. That means stimulus funding mainly goes toward bank deposit for a rainy day increasing jobless rate. It proves again that a healthy society yields better productivity, prosperity.
It is time to 'Change' the notion of the public health as a fundamental human right and install 'a safety system for all' like all of the other industrialized nations, I think.

3. The stimulus funding begins to mobilize just 11%, meanwhile, the auto industry has undergone its restructuring with the massive job-related impact.

4. The pandemic swine flu has been hurting the global economy seriously.

And there have been many different polls that show the public is overwhelmingly in favor of Obama's version of reform, which includes a public option (for example, a CBS News/New York Times poll had 72% in favor and even a poll done by healthcare reform opponents showed 83% in favor of the public option).

Additionally, the post buries the news in the paragraph:

On health care, the poll, conducted by telephone Wednesday through Saturday, found that a majority of Americans (54 percent) approve of the outlines of the legislation now heading toward floor action. The measure would institute new individual and employer insurance mandates and create a government-run plan to compete with private insurers. Its costs would be paid in part through new taxes on high-income earners. There are sharp differences in support for this basic package based on income, as well as a deep divide along party lines. Three-quarters of Democrats back the plan, as do nearly six in 10 independents.

Thank You !

ANOTHER TYPICAL REPUBLICAN RESPONSE TO THE HEALTH CARE PROBLEM IN AMERICA!! NOW IT IS AN EXPERIMENT?? I THOUGHT WE WERE THE ONLY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD WITHOUT NATIONAL HEALTH CARE, NOW IT IS AN EXPERIMENT?? THE REPUBLICANS NEVER DO ANYTHING FOR THIS NATION, THEY ONLY DO THINGS TO THIS NATION. whiteagle38

Our goal should be to cover all individuals through private health insurance. We are not prepared to turn our health system over to the government. Advocate for greater transparency in both quality and price information. Place both the decision making ability and healthcare dollars in the hands of the consumer. Support the Friends of the U.S. Chamber and sign the Health Care petition at http://www.friendsoftheuschamber.com/takeaction/index.cfm?ID=40 .

This government can't do anything right for the people...I WILL NOT TRUST THEM WITH MY HEALTH!!!!! I want to keep my own private insurance.

KB,

Sorry it took so long to reply, but I have not part of BO's 9.5% - I have a job.

Solutions - Make healthcare portable between jobs, elimintae the discrimination of pre-existing conditions, and eliminate the health insurance barriers between states - more options, lower price. I would like to see the economic costs of this.

Next, for those still uninsured, I would offer catestrophic healthcare to them where strcit income limits would be part of this. The families getting subsidized for health insurance would not be allowed to have cableTV, cell phones (if they have landlines), and the internet - if these families can afford these luxuries, then they can use that money and contributes towards their helathcare.

Run the numbers on that and see if the deficit is under $239 billion.

Terry,

You're nobody's 90.5% though; you're a fair and independent thinker, if only after the 9-5 number crunching.

The uninsured under your plan are treated like lepers (or not, as I guess leprosy would be catastrophic). And of course the poor and uninsured shouldn't have a lifestyle (as has been pointed out to me, homeless have been provided with cellphones so they can be responsive to job opps and interviews and get out of the 9.5%). Why not take it a step further and ban polished hubcaps if they're receiving government supported healthcare? Better take a close look at what you're saying and rise above it.

Hey Terry, what was the unemployment rate in January 2001? How about January 2009?

Tell me again how the unemployment rate is all Obama's fault.

I;m syure the unisured though are thrilled tghat you would offer them utterly usely catastrophic health insurance. The cancer will be too far along to save them before it's detected. No preventive care, no peridoic colonscopies and the such Do you get regular colonscopies Terry? Are yopu willing to do without? Is your life more valuable than the lives of the uninsured?

Tell us Terry should the executives at the TARP Banks, GM , and Chrysler have their phone, internet and cable cut off too? How about any manager of a business that recieves federal aid?

"I want to keep my own private insurance."

You can. Obama hasn't at any point expressed a desire to dismantle the private insurance industry. That's why it's called a public OPTION. According to Webster, that means it's not mandatory.

Truth is, we have the highest infant mortality rate in the developed world and we spend more on health care than any other nation. Even by its own standards, the so-called "free market" health care system has failed miserably.

I know the GOP wants to raise cain about the costs, but if it bothers them that much, why don't they just close their eyes and pretend they're voting to spend all that money on Iraqi citizens instead of Americans? The sure didn't have any qualms about that 6 years ago. I guess if we had more oil fields in this country, the Repubs would consider us a worthy investment.

Oh well.

"Make healthcare portable between jobs"

HealthCARE?? HealthCARE cannot be made portable. Not unless healthCARE can be made mandatory. Do you want cops showing up at your door when it's time for your annual physical? Me neither.

You want healthCOVERAGE made portable.

Done. See HIPAA.

"elimintae the discrimination of pre-existing conditions"

Done. See HIPAA.

...and you only thought HIPAA required you to read and sign 75 pieces of paper before a doctor could see you...

"eliminate the health insurance barriers between states"

Can't do that without negating state's jurisdiction.

----------------------------

Of the 45 million [+-] Americans who do not have healthCOVERAGE of their own, roughly 1/3 choose to not get what they are offered. These include working spouses who decline their own company's health insurance because they are on their spouse's health plan.

Another 1/3 do not have insurance available through an employer, but have the money to buy private health insurance; they simply opt not to.

The remaining 1/3 do not have available coverage, and do not have the money to buy private insurance. This is the target audience of this proposal. Because roughly 15 million Americans are uncovered, the Chicken Littles among us are justified in claiming that the entire system is broken. And once we believe the entire system is broken [rather than simply being fat and inefficient]we're going to spend trillions to push everyone into a government-run program that will take the worst aspects of insurance company bureaucracy and saddle it with the cost-be-damned philosophy of the federal government.

This cannot be considered rational by anyone who's ever seen the government work.

"Obama hasn't at any point expressed a desire to dismantle the private insurance industry. That's why it's called a public OPTION. According to Webster, that means it's not mandatory."

Apparently, ScubaDew, you are new to the planet and don't quite grasp how governments really work. They start with "optional" and slowly eliminate the options until all that's left is their mandate.

This happens through a few mechanisms: first, is statutory elimination of competing options. Second, is private institutional elimination of their own private option. Specifically for this subject: employers wish to reduce their financial burdens will eliminate health benefits because their employees can get the "free" government coverage. This is already happening, by the way.

"we have the highest infant mortality rate in the developed world and we spend more on health care than any other nation. Even by its own standards, the so-called "free market" health care system has failed miserably."

What you meant to say is that despite having the highest infant mortality rate in the developed world we have a combined life expectancy which is not statistically significantly different from the rest of the developed world. The measure of a nation's health system is life expectancy; bottom line. Ours is not significantly better or worse than Canada's or Sweden's.

It is, though, inefficient along different lines. Whereas in Canada, the healthCARE system rations access by practical effect of law, our private insurance scheme puts insurance company accountants in charge of our healthcare.

What this monstrosity would do is put government accountants in charge of our healthcare -- which, if you had a little more familiarity with the way human governments work, you would realize is not real progress.

Welcome to the planet. We're a silly species, and prone to arrogantly believing that we can just up and "fix" things. We can't, really. But we like to delude ourselves a lot.

We have a tendency in America to argue for or against a concept based on our own personal philosophy or view of the world, what advances our personal interests, or the interests of our party, family, organization, or region. Perhaps viewing the issue from a management or systemic perspective might result in innovative approaches to the issue. The American national mindset, citizen philosophy, lack of citizen motivation to be proactively healthy, and governance model make the socialization of health care in America very problematic, particularly at this point in time. A country needs to know its limitations.

When are you idiots going to realize that republicans have been lying to the public since the nixon days? What they do know is if national health care passes, as Medicare has, no one will EVER elect another republican for anything. Think reaganbushbush. Those three simians have done all they could to destroy this Republic! You need to wake up. They do not give a flying fuck about ANY of us!

"What you meant to say is that despite having the highest infant mortality rate in the developed world we have a combined life expectancy which is not statistically significantly different from the rest of the developed world."

So you're just fine with the fact that babies keep dying in this country due to inadequate care?

Also, our life expectancy isn't that great.
"Eespite the fact that the US spends roughly $5.2bn (£2.6bn) every day on health care, more per capita than any other nation in the world, Americans live shorter lives than citizens of every western European and Nordic country, bar Denmark"(http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/american-inequality-highlighted-by-30year-gap-in-life-expectancy-869736.html)

"They start with "optional" and slowly eliminate the options until all that's left is their mandate."

Save the conspiracy theories for the tea parties. Every country that enacted a national plan did so because the public wanted it, not because of some shady government plot.

"in Canada, the healthCARE system rations access by practical effect of law, our private insurance scheme puts insurance company accountants in charge of our healthcare."

If you seriously think the private insurance corporations don't ration care and that the Canadian public would prefer our plan over theirs, I'd strongly suggest information sources that aren't named Limbaugh, Hannity, or Coulter.

"What this monstrosity would do is put government accountants in charge of our healthcare -- which, if you had a little more familiarity with the way human governments work, you would realize is not real progress."

Our military is owned and operated by the government, yet I don't hear conservatives howling about how it's "socialist" or any such garbage they use to describe a potential government-run health plan. Nor do I hear them call our policemen and firefighters "inept" or "government bureaucrats". If these agencies were exclusively run like our health care system, nobody would protect our citizens, teach our children, or build our highways unless it was considered "cost-efficient".

KB,

Let me add Medical Savings Account to the solution also and tax credits for helath insurance spending.

Poor the should have a lifestyle - it should match their economic condition. They shouldn't be eating stake when their economic condition dictates hamburger.

An example, if a poor person has $50 and has the choice to use the money towards the payment of one of two bills - his health insurance bill or his cable bill. Where should he make his payment? Would you agree that health insurance is more important than cable TV? If he chooses his cable bill and then the gov't pays his health insurance bill, since health insurnace is more important (I hope you answered correctly), then the gov't is in fact subsidizing his cable bill, not his health insurance. Are you saying buying shiny hubcaps are a more important use of one's money than purchasing health insurance.

Let me tell you a story about afriend of mine that works as a serviceman for a utility in Chicago. His major job in the spring and summer is to shut-off the gas of people that don't pay their bills. He says he can tell this story daily. He will approach the house of someone that has not paid their gas bill and notice a satilite dish on the hosue. He enters the house to see the 40"+ flat-screen TVwith an X-Box attached to it. He will notice a teenager sitting at the computer on the internet. But yet these people can't pay their heating bill. Guess what, that household will get a gov't subsidy before next winter to get their gas turned back on for the winter and come spring the whole cycle repeats itself.

Bill,

Point to point statitical analysis is very weak. Look instead at the 96 months worth of unemployment stats during the Bush administration and average it.

Never did say unemployment was BO's fault - although the economy is now his - including unemployment. Especially since members of his economic team said the Stimulus package would have immediate effect. After 5 months - nothing positive yet.

Just because one has catestrophic health insurance does not mean they can't have physicals. There is a thing called CASH.

Can the bank executives afford to have cable, internet, etc...? I'll bet even if they were fired, they would have stashed enough away to cover these monthly bills.

Let's say you had a neighbor that said he needed $1,000 to pay for his monthly health insurance premium and you, being a kind hearted person, says yes. Then the next day you see the neighbor drive-up in a nice brand new SUV. Would you question yourself on why you gave him the money?

Terry (if it IS Terry, as the Terry I know wouldn't put up with the typos),

If it is you, you must be under stress. Number crunching must be miserable these days, and we all know that.

Again, have another look at your post, you're falling down the slippery slope that only Archie Bunker would approve. You're better than that.

KB,

It's me, king of the typos.

I'm not on a slope, I'm on the top of the hill. Quit dodging the questions.

Terry, what dream world do you in where the cable bill and the health insurance bill are equivalent? Do you pay $1069/Month for cable? That's the average cost for an unemployed person to continue insurance through COBRA. To imply that the poor don't have health insurance because they pay for cable and "shiny hub caps" is just ignorant stereotyping.

Terryn should your same strict lifestyle controls be applied to executives at any company that recieves federal aid?

T,

I'm not the artful dodger. Your gasline buddy (not John D, is it -- he's big on gas) tells you an urban myth and you're going to base your thinking about all poor people on that?!!

C'mon, grab a rope and pull some folks up the hill with you and stop kicking dirt in their faces. (Trickle down never worked -- ask Stockman. And the GOP wonders why it hasn't made inroads to urbanites).

"So you're just fine with the fact that babies keep dying in this country due to inadequate care?"

Scoobee Doo, don't ever put words in my mouth. Alright? Because if you're going to insist on being dishonest, I'm going to insist on saying so.

Whether or not I am "fine" with anything is not the issue. The issue -- as others insist on asserting -- is that our healthcare system is a "failure" and that is supported by any data. If others, on the other hand, were to merely claim a rational and supportible argument that our system has notable and rather obvious problems -- such as high infant mortality among specific demographics -- then you would find me agreeing wholeheatedly and not telling you that you are a grand boob.

"Also, our life expectancy isn't that great."

It's not significantly different from any other western nation. It is within the margin of error. Sorry. Learn the math.

"Save the conspiracy theories for the tea parties. Every country that enacted a national plan did so because the public wanted it, not because of some shady government plot."

Please recall what I told you up top, Scoob: Do not put words in my mouth. This is not a joke.

Cool straw man, Scoob. If you wish to stick to the point maybe we could talk about the subject. If you don't want to stick to the point, just concede that you lost and are flailing.

"If you seriously think the private insurance corporations don't ration care and that the Canadian public would prefer our plan over theirs, I'd strongly suggest information sources that aren't named Limbaugh, Hannity, or Coulter."

Many and serious issues with this attempted retort, Scoob:

1] I didn't say anything about rationing healthcare. I said rationing ACCESS to healthcare. Please read what I write and not what you'd preferred me to have written. As it is, this is a second strawman, a second intellectual dishonesty, and puts you in serious danger of being discarded as an ideological drip.

2] Besides, nowhere did I glorify or otherwise laud the current system which is dominated by health insurance carriers and their "Bottom Line Uber Alles" mentality. Quite the opposite, in fact. And again, if people would limit themselves in this discussion to the rational rather than the ideological and partisan flim-flammery, then perhaps we could have a serious discussion. But you, for one, seem to be unwilling to do so [see #4 below].

3] I don't care whether Canuckians would prefer their system to ours; it is entirely rrelevant. The only relevance is that their system has institutional problems the same as ours. But what we are proposing as national policy isn't even attempting to be a copy of Canada's policy; what we are proposing as our national policy is a government-run Current US Insurance System. It will be the current "private enterprise" system ... but with the government running it. Which means -- once again, to anyone with familiarity at how the government really works -- that it will take the WORST aspects of the idiot insurance bureaucratic interference and multiply it many, many, many times over.

4] And you are so intent on seeing everyone who quibbles with your un-thought-out idealisms as some boogey-man under the bed that you cannot even begin to discuss the subject rationally or honestly. Anyone dares to point out that your preferred solution is superficial, trite, officious overkill and they suddenly become "Limbaugh, Hannity, or Coulter" followers. Dude: I don't even know who one of them is, and have only heard the other two for as long as it took me to change the station. As you so cleverly advised me: save your conspiracy theories for your free time. And stop creating straw men; you are dishonest.

"Our military is owned and operated by the government..."

And you have got almost a full squad of straw men at this point. Please learn to discuss the subject at hand, and not whatever makes you feel self-superior. Newsflash: you aren't.

"If these agencies were exclusively run like our health care system, nobody would protect our citizens, teach our children, or build our highways unless it was considered "cost-efficient"."

The military is a legitimate function of our defined form of government: read the Constitution.

Public education is not: again, read the Constitution. And public school teachers are, as a class, largely incompetent. When they are not individually incompetent, they are rendered incompetent by the bureaucratic system overlaid upon them.

Road building generally is a legitimate function of our defined form of government. Read the Constitution.

Providing health care, or providing COVERAGE for health care is not. Read the Constitution.

Now, this is all a very libertarian response to your army-of-straw-man challenge. But it serves to segue back into the subject at hand: if you want to have health care or, as the proposal on the table would prefer, COVERAGE for healthcare become a legitimate function of our government, then there are legitimate means of changing the Constitution to make it so.

Please keep in mind, if you wish to respond further to me, that I have not said one way or another whether doing so is a good idea or not; just that the proposed solution is just like the current system, only government-operated ... and hence prone to be more bureaucratic, less responsive, and without a profit-motive significantly more costly than the overly-costly system we have now.

The proposed solution is dumb beyond belief.

"Just because one has catestrophic health insurance does not mean they can't have physicals. There is a thing called CASH."

Is this Terry guy for real? I mean seriously is he just a schill for the RNC?

When asked how the poor would get a colonoscopy under his Catastrophic Coverage plan, his answer is to pay CASH. Obviously he has no clue what a colonoscopy costs.

http://www.costhelper.com/cost/health/colonoscopy.html

In case you haven't figured it out Terry, being poor means you don't have a lot of CASH. The $3,000 cost of a colonoscopy would be 19% of the GROSS pay of a full time worker making the minimum wage. Heck that's 6% of the median household income. That's for ONE procedure for ONE person in the family. Heaven forbid that you'd want more than one preventive medicine procedure or test. Yet Terry thinks the poor and lower middle class are just rolling in so much CASH that they can just shell that out anytime they want. It's simply not plausible that anyone is either uninformed enough or stupid enough to think that is a serious response.

KB,

The gas worker story I will take as true since it came from my friend's lips and I will not treat it as an urban legend. He's in the trenches everyday.

What I would rather do, unlike BO, is get more people pushing the economic wagon and not sitting on it for a free ride.

Billy,

I'm not sure where you get $1069/month for cable - you aren't paying attention.

KB, Billy, and Little Kevin,

I guess the concept of marginal income or marginal expenses are a fofriegn thought in your worlds. It is what would you do with the last dollar you would earn.

Kevin,

There is a thing called credit. This is where that additional money from cable and internet bills could be used to pay off medical procedures over time.

Would you spend your last dollar on health care insurance or cable TV? Healthcare insurance or the internet? Healthcare insurance or the lottery?

Ask yourself this - for ALL of these 47 million people - do we buy there food? Pay their rent/mortgage? Utility Bills? Those are three daily urgent needs that we msut have. Unlike healthcare which you need occasionally. So the food and shelter issues are more urgent than even helathcare, yet we don't pay for ALL of these folks urgent bills.

In addition, what is the problem you have with someone contributing their excess income that they spend on cable service, internet service, lottery tickets and the like towards their healthcare? YOu have heard we are running deficits and the forecast looks like we will for quite a while

Hey terry. I have relatives in Canada, not one of them have moved here for their health care, nor have they came here for temporary help. Same ol, from the same ol, as in 1993!! THE REPUBLICANS NEVER DO ANYTHING FOR THIS COUNTRY, THEY ONLY DO THINGS TO THIS COUNTRY!! whiteagle38

Palepigeon38,

Good for your relatives. I have realtives in the United States and they never moved to canada for health insurance. Guess were even. BTW, keep your ilk on the northern side of teh border, we have enough people down here not pulling their weight.

T,

Your biases aside, the healthcare system is skewed and needs fixing -- badly.

BTW, my expenses are never marginal, and my income always is. By low, sell high, right number cruncher? I got mine, get your own, right GOP?

I know you're a "last worder." This will be off the front page by then, so I'll say adios for now, while you're busy writing a congratulatory letter to the Cambridge Police Dept.

Terry, Credit? Now you think that the poor and lowrer middle class can get thousands of dollars of credit whenever they want? Should they pull out their American Express Gold cards? You are just so utterly and completely unrealistsic it defies belief!
Let's summarize how Terry believes healthcare for the poor should work, Shall we? First off the poor and middle class only need it occasionally, so it's no problem if they don't have it. If they do need it, they should be able to wing thousands of dollars of out of pocket expenses by putting the procedure on their high limit credit cards by saving the $40 a month they may be spending on cable. Does that sound even remotely realistic to anyone other than Terry? I doubt it even sounds realistic to Terry. Terry has no interest in a solution, because he really sees no problem with 15% of the American public not having access to decent healthcare, a number that grows every day.

KB,

Not sure what the police situation in the land of liberalism has to do with healthcare, but I'll let you loons take care of this issue in one of liberalisms great Meccas.

Should we also fund these peoples' housing, their cliothing, their food? Those are the more urgent needs for survival.

If you read my posts, you will notice that I am asking for contributions toward the costs of picking up their health care costs. So if it costs $1,000/mo for their health insurance and they can afford to contribute $200 per month by cutting back on cable TV, internet, etc... - then why shouldn't they contribute that?

Kevin,

Ever receive a doctor's bill and been able to pay 1/2 when its due and then you keep making payments until that payments are done. That is where it will giving up little luxeries like cable and internet can help.

Don't lump the truely poor ionto this - let's talk the middle class. the truely poor already have medicaid. This is the plan BO wants everyone in. There are items the middle class can afford to give up to help meet the cost of their own healthcare.

The solution is not to trash the health insurance of the 85% for the sake of the 15%. Give a solution to the 15% that requires some "skin in the game" from them. the only solution you have is a bill that increases the deficits, prints more money, and increases the taxes on teh job producers.

Terry, most doctors or hospitals will not see you on a non-emergency basis if you do not have insurance, or the ability to pay up front. They are not in the habit of extending credit to whoever shows up at their door seeking non emergency care. That's the reality, which again you show your disconnect with. Drop ny your local hospital, tewll them that you want a colonoscopy, that you have no insurance, and that you can't pay upfront. See how willing they are to do the procedure. Even if you fantasy "Pay half when the bill comes" plan were real, where are they going to get the $1500? The cable bill again? Man. It's amzing how far that $40 a month goes in your dream world. It pays for everything!

Now let's move on to your next error. Medicaid. Medicaid does not cover every poor person. Poor individuals without children are not covered by that program.

http://www.cms.hhs.gov/MedicaidEligibility/Downloads/MedicaidataGlance05.pdf

The only solution you have is for more people to suffer, for more people to do without, while you snear down at them with your ridiculously erroneous notions of how they can get healthcare.

Terry, most doctors or hospitals will not see you on a non-emergency basis if you do not have insurance, or the ability to pay up front. They are not in the habit of extending credit to whoever shows up at their door seeking non emergency care. That's the reality, which again you show your disconnect with. Drop by your local hospital, tell them that you want a colonoscopy, that you have no insurance, and that you can't pay upfront. See how willing they are to do the procedure. Even if your fantasy "Pay half when the bill comes" plan were real, where are they going to get the $1500? The cable bill again? Man. It's amazing how far that $40 a month goes in your dream world. It pays for everything!

Now let's move on to your next error. Medicaid. Medicaid does not cover every poor person. Poor individuals without children are not covered by that program.

http://www.cms.hhs.gov/MedicaidEligibility/Downloads/MedicaidataGlance05.pdf

The only solution you have is for more people to suffer, for more people to do without, while you snear down at them with your ridiculously erroneous notions of how they can get healthcare. As i said before, you offer no solution, because you really do not see that 15% of the population not having access to decent healthcare as a problem in any way.

T,

Your comments, the story relayed by your gas buddy, and the Cambridge Police story have everything to do with profiling.

Do you work for an insurance company?

You just want people that can afford to pay a little not to contribute at all - more people on the economic wagon and less people moving it forward.

Solution - Put these 47 million onto medicaid. Done.

Terry, If they can afford to pay a little, great. However that's a far cry from your iil-informed arguments that they can afford to pay for medical procedures by canceling the cable and getting credit. I'm glad to see that youy are accepting that you had no idea what you were talking about at that time and have abandoned your silliness. I would encourage you to contact your Senators and Representatives to encourage them to open up Medicaid to a more people.

Kevin,

Go back thru this thread (7-21-09 at 7:50pm) and you will see that is where this conversation started - having folks contribute towards their own bills, otherwise this is a gov't subsidy of their cable bills.

I haven't abandoned my silliness since I have none. My point is still the same.

Don't you wonder why BO hasn't just advocated opening up Medicaid? It is because he wants universal healthcare. He wants the gov't in charge of everyone's healthcare - including the 255 million that are covered already.

Makle sure you contact your rep and let him know about Medicaid option. I have contacted my rep and told his staff that BO's plan, with its high taxes, is a job killer. The staff didn't quite understand the economics lesson.