Media Matters salaries: David Brock chairman and CEO: $286,804; Eric Burns president: $240,579; Tate Williams chief of staff: $162,812, Eric Boehlert senior fellow: $115,000; Ari Rabin-Havt VP of communications & strategy: $134,484 pushing United Nations Agenda 21 and ICELI. If you don't know what UN Agenda 21 and ICELI are, then LEARN before you vote! It's why Obama did nothing to help US poor.
Ook... How is that any better, Congressman?? At least if they STILL HAD JOBS, they could perhaps save a little in a medical savings account or SOMETHING. If they lost their jobs, they're fucked.
This is even WORSE, because it shows how utterly ridiculous our employer-based insurance system is. No one should have to rely on a job just for healthcare, esp. a shitty one.
It doesn't seem like he's laughing at the fact that people are losing their health insurance or their jobs. It seems like he's laughing because he's about to deliver the punchline (he obviously thinks it's a good one).
Based only on this little snippet of video, I think his point is valid (unless it was taken out of context).
@sleazybtd It's only valid if you think that employer based insurance is the cats meow... I do not, I think it makes our companies less competitive and hurts Americans the most when times are tough. IE layoff time...
Medicare has been underfund since the first year it began. The government failed to realize that giving FREE healthcare would result in unbridled consumption. Costs have risen because the Congress keep buy the votes of the elderly with more benefits that the government cannot pay for.
By putting the burden on providers, they have hidden the true cost of Medicare. Instead of raising premiums or taxes, the cost is passed on to others in the healthcare system.
Explain how a public option will make your insurance go up. By the way, if we do nothing, we can expect private insurance rates to go up by at least a thousand dollars on average in the following years if I understand the insurance companies' complaints correctly. I'm not going to promise that rates won't go up if we pass reform, but I can promise you they will if we don't. (continue)
I'm not lying or trying to manipulate you, but real reform has been offered, and the Republicans have gutted some meaningful parts from it already. Read some statistics comparing us to France or the UK in health care. Do goggle some of the Republican claims and see if they are telling the truth. Ask five doctors about medical costs. Best of all, ask any of the people who go bankrupt every day because of medical debt. (And most of these people had medical insurance by the way.) I urge you.
I have done the research. I want meaningful reform as do many Republicans. You cannot blame the Republicans for gutting anything. They don't have the votes to do that.
People go bankrupt for MANY reasons. Having insurance is no guarantee. It depends on the coverage YOU choose and how you handle your finances.
There are problems with Healthcare. No one denies that. First, we need to properly define the problem. Blaming the insurance companies is convenient but they are not the problem
"I want meaningful reform as do many Republicans."
Oh, really? What did the Republicans do about it over the last 15 years, during which time they had the votes, and for many years wielded power in the Senate, the House AND the White House?
But they had the votes to cut taxes for the rich, not once but TWICE. At a time of war when they should have been raising taxes to pay for their wars instead of running trillion-dollar deficits..
There is no public option at this time. I really wish there was one with certain restrictions. I don't believe that the government can run an insurance plan BETTER than the private sector. But I welcome the opportunity for them to try.
Rates will go down IF healthcare costs go done. The only way that costs go down is to deal with the factors that increase the cost of healthcare. For example, I would make it illegal for a provider to charge different prices for the same exact procedure.
No, he won't! Because these guys will manage to get government insurance somehow. Look at this :
"Rudy Giuliani found social health insurance a perfect solution to the financial problems faced by former Mayor John V. Lindsay, who fell on financially hard times during the 1990s as a result of chronic illness. Mayor Giuliani rushed to his friends assistance by appointing Mr. Lindsay to two no-show city jobs that came with tax-financed municipal health insurance and a tax-financed pension."
on top of that republians had control of congress from 1994-2006 if they really wanted to get somethin done they had 2 chances to get it done...they really could of gotten it done under bush...but did they?? NO! bushes health care plan was not to get sick...
and obama wants to work with these guys? if health care reform fails it will bethe democrats and obamas fault for trying to with with the GNOP they are gonna say no to everything he tries to do...obama needs to get his ass in gear and say he fully supports a public option like speaker peopsi has and get this done...seems like republians still have control of congress because of this failed attempt at bipartianship. screw that if reform fails the dems can kiss 2010 GOODBYE!!
There are many self employed and small business owners who cannot afford it for themselves and their employers because the cost of Health Insurance is rising dramatically because they have No competition and they pay their CEO's about 10-30 million dollars a year.
No, if you choose to pay for the COBRA option then you can keep the same coverage you had while employed, but its super expensive without having a job.
The republican was right on the mark in his comments. Obama is causing 14000 a day to lose their job, and of course their income and their health care SINCE OBAMA IS A POS LOSER THAT CANT DO SHIT ABOUT THE ECONOMY. So yes, Obama's BULLSHIT is pretty damn ironic and laughable if you think about it.
jobs are lost due to costs including cost of rising health insurance. if employers dont want to fork out payroll expenses to american workers, they'll go to 3rd world countries instead. ironically, some of those 3rd world countries have a more integrated system of healthcare via govt than we have here.
I didn't get a chance to hear this entire segment but what I gathered from his remarks is that the laugh was a gesture over the irony of the predicament as being unemployed certainly is a valid reason for not being able to afford health insurance.(Those are laymen's terms I'm sure even a Liberal couldn't purposely twist, thwart, misinterpret or have a hard time understanding the simplicity).Gotta love the "Ignoring the elephant in the room" politics behind it however.
republicans are full of hate, and they think their the best and are superior to everyone else...their stupis ass bitches that are ignorant and think watever they say is the best for america
Lose a contract, a reduction in force invariably occurs. That's been normal operations for decades in cyclic industries. When I departed, I commented "32 years, seeing no more than 18 months in advance."
You're totally mis-informed, dismissive, and obviously not aware of who got us into this mess in the first place. You're argument doesn't make sense, or your logic for that matter. Do you really believe that healthcare be based solely on the economy? Do you really believe that people should not have access to healthcare because they've lost their jobs? What kind of person are you?
Look if you don't know that too much government was the problem in the first place and more of it sure as hell won't fix than you need to learn some more.
We should all realize that government was the problem in the first place and getting less of it will work much better.
Going the same way that got us into this is not a good idea.
"Too much government"? Is the US government regulating the health insurance companies the same way that German/Swiss/French/Japanese governments are regulating theirs?
Only if you lay around collecting unemployment. I know what it is like to have to pay for one's own health insurance. I know first hand it is not cheap. I also know that MANY people afford lots of other thing instead of buying medical insurance.
"Only if you lay around collecting unemployment. "
That's simplistic. Even if people get a job, chances are pretty high that there are no health-care benefits. And then there is the issue of pre-existing conditions. Some people lose jobs due to bad health and they also lose their insurance at the same time. Their poor health prevents them from being able to get health insurance from any other provider.
It may be simplistic, but it is the reality in many situations. I have bought and paid for my own health insurance for decades. You do what you have to do to take care of your family.
What kind of money? I work hard for my money and so does my wife. We don't drive new cars or buy fancy mobile phones. We saved and pay our bills. When someone on welfare has better health insurance than I do, something is very wrong with the system.
Yeah, right. What did the government give Nikki White - dead at the age of 32 from lupus (a perfectly treatable condition) after Tennessee cut off her Medicaid? Did it give her "more than she should get"? Shame on you if you think so!
If you had the sense to do a simple Google search on the topic, you would have found out that they cut her off from Medicaid because Tennessee curtailed its Medicaid funding.
And yet this is program, the President and Democrats, want to expand? Her situation is sad, but hardly serves to prove that we should expand medicaid on states that already are broke.
So, what is your solution? Should the "world's richest country" and the country with "the greatest health care system in the world" continue to allow people to die then?
My questions are rhetorical. I know that you think that the present situation is pretty good and we need not do anything about the 45,000 Americans that die every year because of lack of access to health care.
No one is suggesting that we don't have some problems with healthcare. However false claims of people dying by the thousands because they don't have insurance does not address the problem.
As for a solution, there are many things that could be done to help improve the situation. None of which includes give the government MORE control over our lives.
Yeah, right. A peer-reviewed Harvard Medical school study is "false claim". Why? Show me one thing that is false with the study that estimates 44,789 Americans die every year due to lack of access to health insurance.
"As for a solution, there are many things that could be done to help improve the situation."
Yeah, like allowing insurance companies to sell insurance from Northern Mariana islands?
If you look it up, the authors of the study have already said that was NOT the conclusion of their study. No one dies from not having health insurance. They die from a lack of healthcare. Simply because someone has health insurance does not mean they will seek treatment.
How about the government actually paying the cost of treating medicare patients for starters?
"No one dies from not having health insurance. They die from a lack of healthcare."
That is a distinction without a difference. For those who are not covered by Medicare and Medicaid (which is getting increasingly cut) lack of health care is a direct result of lack of health insurance.
It is a big difference. People die who have preventable illnesses and do have insurance. The authors of the study have already backed away from their conclusions.
No, they have not backed away from the conclusions. If anything they have reiterated their original findings. Point me to any reliable source that says the authors have backed off from what they said.
And people WITH insurance dying of preventable illnesses is A-OK????!!!!! Hello!
I never said it was "OK" but it is their choice to do so. You cannot make everyone do what you think they ought to be doing. Freedom also means being free to be stupid if you want to.
Even accounting for the fact that people with insurance are free to choose what they want to do, it still is true that those without coverage are far more likely to die of preventable conditions than those without medical coverage.
That does not mean that it is a cause, only one of many factors involved. This is why you cannot honestly say we are killing them by not making them have health insurance.
They are being killed by lack of access to health care. You are talking as if it is equally likely that they are being killed by creatures from outer space! They are dying because our health care system didn't work for them. As simple as that.
No, they are not. They have access to health care. They simply do not have health insurance for whatever reason. Some choose not to buy it. Others have pre-existing condition that make them unable to obtain insurance.
It is equally likely that they did not WORK with the system to get the healthcare they need. Blaming the system for every death is just not logical or factual.
I do more than care. I take care of them. There are lots of people who say they care about their kids and then don't take care of them. Even when they have the opportunity to buy insurance, they don't.
Don't even start with bring Jesus Christ into this discussion. You probably have no idea what he would or would not agree with. Stick with the facts.
"Even when they have the opportunity to buy insurance, they don't."
Any studies that show how many people fit that description? Or do we have to accept it just because some radio blowhard said it and you are repeating it?
As for Jesus Christ, yes I agree, we have no idea whether or not he asked the lepers to produce their insurance cards before he healed them! ;-)
I know from personal and professional experience. Why do you think states mandate car insurance? This mythical number of uninsured get changed almost daily now.
Why must this all get fixed in one big bill?
Why not start with a mandate that everyone carry catastrophic health insurance?
What is mythical about the number of uninsured? Don't you believe the US Census Bureau's numbers? Ah, I see - it is a Communist outfit. RIght?
Catastrophic health insurance? What a joke. It is also called junk insurance. Something like $1000/mth premium and a $5000 deductible. For an average family with income of $45,000. No wonder they turn up at free clinics run by Remote Area Medical.
Why can't that be true? I know of someone who was told to $15K/yr before his insurance co. pays anything (assuming that they don't wiggle out of it). And his family income is $45K/yr
We just had census data released recently. That might have made you think they do it every week!
Or maybe you confused it with this : 22,000 Americans die of treatable diseases/conditions every year because of lack of insurance. The figures for Japan : 0, UK: 0, France: 0, Germany : 0, Korea : 0, Canada : 0
He was not paying $1000 a month for that coverage though. The Census is based on what PEOPLE say, not actual data.
How do we know 22,000 Americans die because of a lack of insurance? None of these people were eligible for Medicaid? I know people have insurance and die of treatable diseases.
Why do you assume that an insurance company would NOT honor their obligations? In my 50 plus years, I have never had that happen with any claim I have filed with my insurance company.
Duh! Premiums can vary from person to person. Just because it was $500 for you, it doesn't mean that somebody else can't be ripped off of $1000
And the census data have been confirmed by numerous independent, non-partisan studies.
The number of Americans dying of lack of insurance has been determined by many surveys, public and private. Many people don't qualify for Medicaid because they are too "rich" i.e. have incomes barely above the poverty line.
You still have failed to tell me what the current reforms will do to make things better. It is clear to me that they are designed to do one thing and one thing only: eliminate private health insurance for most people.
If the goal here is universal, government run healthcare, then that is what the President should have proposed and supported. He is being deceptive and pulling a bait-n-switch on the American people.
"I know people have insurance and die of treatable diseases."
And you still think the insurance companies are great! Did they give you a free lobotomy or what? How would you feel if your family had insurance and one of you died of a treatable disease?
"Why do you assume that an insurance company would NOT honor their obligations?"
Are you being serious? Haven't you seen Congressional testimony where the insurance co, CEOs have refused to promise that they won't rescind coverage? Sheesh!
You completely missed the point. People can have insurance and STILL not go to the doctor for a check up and treatment. It is not an issue of cost but of personal choice. For example, many diabetics do not treat their illness seriously and avoid the doctor's office.
It depends on why the person is being rescinded. If you lie on your application and then it is discovered later that you did. That is grounds for canceling your coverage.
What about those who have no choice? People who have uninsured have no choice. Period. They can go to the hospital when they are close to death but other than that, they have no coverage.
It is despicable to lump people who can't get health care with those who don't bother to get it.
As for rescission, how come insurance companies seem to catch those "lies" only when a large claim is made? They seem to be OK with those "lies" as long as the "liars" are sending their premiums!
The reason is the same as when you get auto insurance. What they charge you is based on the risk you pose. If you know you have cancer or a chronic expensive illness and lie just to get coverage, that is fraud and illegal.
The problem needs to be better defined and the real causes need to be dealt with.
It is a sad state of affairs when a person would even have to lie about having Cancer or any other "chronic expensive illness" just to get the care they need to survive.
I hope you don't classify yourself as a Christian.
If some has an illness they should be able to see a doctor. No body should be able to deny a sick person medical treatment based off of preexisting conditions. It is highly immoral and unethical.
Please don't bring Christianity into this discussion.
We have billions of dollars going to Medicare and Medicaid, S-chip and other programs to help people with Healthcare. There is no justification for LYING. That is immoral and unethical.
If you think rescission is being done in an ethical way, you are a fool (or a shill for the insurance industry - who are now held in lower esteem than used car dealers). This is what a study said about rescission :
"If the health insurer had to verify the information... it would catch more genuine liars, but many of these liars would have turned out to be healthy, profitable customers... [W]hat the carrier really wants is a population devoid of expensive claims, not devoid of liars"
Yeah, right. The insurance companies are soooo misunderstood! When they deny coverage to people, they are doing it for our own good. Right?! ;-)
"If the insurance company is doing something illegal then the government SHOULD deal with that"
Platitude. Any idiot will know that the politicians on both sides of the aisle are bought and paid for by the insurance companies. Only a popular Civil Rights like movement can get us out of the mess.
Ideally, it should be the Beveridge model. But in practice, it could have been the Bismarck model. But that would mean we tame our insurance companies, which we cannot. So the only way out is the Taiwanese or Korean models.
But i we just let things drift, we will automatically drfit into the Malawi or Mali or
Please get to know a thing or two about the health care systems in the rest of the developed world. And after that, if you still support the American health care "system" as it exists now, at least it won't be out of ignorance. Best wishes.
It is a fallacy to think that only those who don't have insurance have problems. Even those who have insurance have to deal with the issues of claims being denied for any reason or even for no reason.
And then there's the issue of people losing insurance when they lose their jobs. If a person got a pink slip and a cancer diagnosis on the same day, America is the ONLY developed country where it is a death sentence. Not in Japan, Germany, France, UK, Taiwan or any other developed nation.
That is totally and completely NOT true. Having no insurance does not mean you do not get healthcare. We have Medicaid and Medicare and lots of other programs to help people.
As someone else has thoughtfully pointed out to you (which by the way, you seem civil and respectable enough and I appreciate that) the tax payers pay for health care whether they have it or not.
You're right; not having health insurance is not the same as having health care. You can always walk into a hospital, bleeding and receive care. But that cost doesn't stay with you and if too many people do it, that hospital in question may close from debt. Insurance prevents that
I'm not an economist, a doctor nor a congressmen, so if you're looking for a miracle cure as if anyone opposing your view (not you personally again, thank you for the civility) have had such a plan all along. But three things NEED to happen.
1) Cost need to be contained. A public option does this by reducing premiums across America
2) Competition must be spurred for better service; a public option also completes this by forcing Private Insurer's from malpractice (rescinded coverage, etc)
The problem is that the Democrats have made the insurance companies the villain in this debate. They have not addressed the real cause for why medical care costs so much these days.
I happen to believe that a public option would not have the effects you say IF it is operated solely on the funds it receives in premiums. Insurance costs have gone up because medical costs have gone up. Unless you address those costs, insurance will still go up.
Actually what has really gone up is insurance profits. They are the middleman through which we purchase medical care and they charge us through the nose for it. I recently read of an insurance CEO who received a $1.4 billion golden parachute. How many premiums did it take to pay for that? How many denied treatments?
Can you tell me what their profit margins are? What difference does it make what the CEO is paid? You are getting caught up in class envy instead of looking at facts.
Insurance companies make a profit of about 3 to 4 percent on the average if I am not mistaken. This is not, by any means, a poor return. The problem is that they make a profit by denying care and refusing treatment for pre-existing conditions. Veteran Administration and Medicare deliver better care at a lower cost, and they treat pre-existing conditions. Why? They have fewer administrative costs and no profit angle. (continued)
There is no class envy involved. There is anger at my insurance company for refusing to cover certain treatments so that they can apply my insurance premiums to someones already inflated salary. And watch out: Your costs will be rising too if something is not done. My taxes pay for Rep. Gingrey's healthcare and that of his family. I want the same benefits for me and my family.
There is no connection between denying coverage and what the CEO makes. Insurance is a contract between you and the insurance company. If you don't like the deal, go somewhere else for coverage.
I would like the same coverage as well but I have to pay for mine as should you! Or you could run for Congress or get a better job.
There is a great connection between CEO earning and the profits of a company. CEO earnings are -- or should be -- based on the profits a company makes. Insurance companies gain money through premiums. They lose money when they pay for treatments, thus making less profits and resulting in the CEO earning less money. (continued)
As for getting a better job, I don't work. I do, however, have good insurance by American standards. I am covered for almost everything. However, most Americans are not so fortunate. Over 40 million Americans lack healthcare insurance. Over 1,000 Americans die every day because of lack of access to medical care. We are the richest in the world, yet we rank 37th in healthcare -- behind Costa Rica!
IF there are 40 million without health insurance, then we need to find out WHY they don't have and address each specific reason.
Where do you get your "1000 die every day" number? Last time I heard it was 44,000 a year. Now it is up to 365,000 a year! I guess it you are going to make up the numbers any number will do.
Do you honestly believe that Costa Rica has better overall healthcare than we do? REALLY! COME ON! Use your common sense.
They lack insurance because they are unemployed, or poor, or their employer can't afford it, and countless other reasons. I got the number 1,000 from a congressman. Nevertheless, let's assume you are correct. Even 44,000 a year is too many. As for Costa Ricans having better healthcare on the average, that is true. We have better facilities here in the US but most people don't have access to them. (continued)
France is rated number one in the world in healthcare. Yes, the French live longer than we do. Not only that, but they pay about 60% per person or what we do. Look all this up at the WHO or the like if you disagree.
I don't accept the work of the WHO because I have no faith in the integrity of their numbers. We send medical missionaries to Costa Rica. I guess it just does not occur to you that they are LYING about their outcomes.
We have better facilities and doctors and specialists. We also have greater freedom as well. Figures don't lie but liars figure.
Liberals lie all the time, and I never trust what they say. They have an agenda.
The fact is this is not really about healthcare reform, but a takeover of the whole healthcare industry. Liberals know that Medicare and Medicaid are about to implode. They need the money in the industry to cover up their incompetence.
I am an activist liberal, and agenda is the same as yours. I want America to be a better place. That's the reason I served my country in the armed forces. I make no secrets about what I want. The problem is not Medicade and Medicare. Do you know how much it would cost to place the old on private insurance? No company would take them because of pre-existing conditions. Surely you don't want us to let the old die. (continued)
Some of the best healthcare in America today is that delivered by the Veterans Administration, Medicade, and Medicare. It is also far more cost effective that private healthcare. I just want all Americans to receive the same healthcare that I now receive at a reasonable price. Note that most of the Congressmen who oppose healthcare reform also accept huge amounts of funds from the healthcare industry. (continued)
As for liberals lying, I would remind you that its not liberals lying about "death panels," it wasn't liberals lying about WMD in Iraq, and it wasn't liberals lying about Iraq flying planes into the WTC. Rather, it was the same people who today say that improved healthcare for all is not in your best interest. Remember when Republicans want to put all Social Security into the market? Think of how much money we would have lost if liberals had not stopped them. Look at both sides for a change.
Besides, why would Obama want to cover for Bush? If the system is really that bad, he would turn the records over to the press (and the records are open to the press), and let the Republicans take the blame. Why would he want to take over another president's failures?
He is not. He is covering for liberals who have pushed Medicare and Medicaid and fought any "reform" by Republicans. Now cutting Medicare is a great idea. They call it "slowing the growth" but it is a cut by their own definition.
You need to stop blaming President Bush for everything. He made plenty of mistakes, but the Democrats were in Washington as well.
Republicans said social security was a bad idea, they opposed us lend-lease, they opposed civil rights, they opposed worker safety rules, and they opposed healthcare reform. They were wrong on all they ideas. The last time the Republican to oppose something for the right reason was Lincoln. And he was a liberal Republican. (continued)
As to the idea that Iraq was trying to get WMD, why could Bush show it? Why couldn't we find proof when we took over Iraq? Why didn't Bush invade North Korea? They did have WMDs.
Iraq invade Kuwait. That's why. He was suppose to allow monitoring and inspections. He refused to allow them. He was trying to gain a WMD. That is a fact. He was in violation of the cease-fire agreement. That is a fact. He had corrupted the Oil for Food program. That is a fact. He was starving over million Iraq children. That is a fact.
President invaded Iraq for a number of very good reasons. Most of all, we needed to force the terrorists to confront our military and it worked.
We could have confronted the terrorist in Afghanistan where they were without creating new ones in Iraq and killing tens of thousands of innocent people. We created more terrorists by invading Iraq, and opened the country to Iranian influence. We also broke international law. There's never a good reason for starting an unnecessary war..
Afghanistan is a different kind of war and would not have been as effective.
I don't buy the whole "creating new terrorists" argument at all. Terrorists are going to be terrorists no matter what we do. The only way of dealing with them is to kill them before they kill you. It was not an illegal war by anyone's law. The war was absolutely necessary for the defense of our nation.
Iraq had no ability to harm our nation save by destabilizing the region. They did not do that. Iraq was a secular state. Other Arab states and Iran hated it. It's military was weak. Now it an Islamic republic, perhaps the most dangerous type of government on earth. Theocracies are inherently a threat. The terrorists who attacked on 9/11 operated out of Afghanistan, and they were protected by Afghanistan. (continued)
Also, terrorists are created by political, economic, and religious reasons. Look, for example, at the American Revolution. Americans in the South on both sides, patriots and loyalists alike, became what we would now call terrorists. Do you think they would have been terrorists had it not been for the war?
I am sick and tired of people equating terrorists with soldiers and freedom fighters. They are two totally different things. As a former member of the military, I am surprised you do not know the difference.
Which war are you talking about Gulf War 1 or 2? If the Gulf war produced the terrorists, why were they Saudis and not Iraqis? The tactic of terrorism is only used by evil and immoral people to accomplish a desired goal when they lack any political or military power to do so.
No one knew that for sure since we could not longer monitor and inspect properly. If Saddam has acquired a WMD, he would pose a threat to our security.
Iraq is not a theocracy but a democracy. While other Arab states did not like Saddam, the point was to establish a free, democratic state in the Middle East.
And yes, it was an illegal war. WWII established that it is illegal to attack nations that pose no threat. We hanged both German and Japanese leaders for doing that.
Iraq was in violation of the cease-fire agreement it made at the close of the first gulf war. We had continuous combat operations against Iraq all during that time (No-Fly Zones). No one could know for sure if they were or were not a threat.
Would you have been happier with the war had Saddam had massive amounts of WMDs and used them against our troops?
Of course not. But he didn't have WMD did he? Just like the Germans, the French, the UN inspectors, and the original CIA assessment said he didn't. So, was it worth the death of 4,000+ Americans, and tens-of-thousands Iraq deaths. Or were those of us who opposed the war from the beginning prove correct? And while we were messing about in Iraq, Osama bin Laden escaped to who-knows-where to plan future attacks on the US and its allies. (continued)
But what has this got to do with healthcare? We need healthcare reform. We need to stop lagging behind France, England, Canada, Costa Rica, and several other nations in healthcare.
We are lagging behind 36 other nations when it comes to average healthcare. As for socialized medicine, do you think VA care, the fire department, the police, and highway departments are socialized? The goal is better healthcare, not labels.
You are avoiding the question. Let's get down to the facts. Do you think what the President and the Democrats are proposing to do IS socialized medicine? Don't give me the old "fire, police, and highway department are socialized" dodge because they are NOT socialized. Everything that is government run is not socialism.
Tell me, how is "reform" going to improve healthcare when it only deals with health insurance?
No it is not socialism. A single-payer plan you can call socialism, and we would be better off for it. France has a single-payer system, and they have the best healthcare in the world, and it costs about 60% per person of what we spend, and we don't take care of everyone.
The government running something is the very definition of socialism. The military and so on are socialized. (continued)
And healthcare reform will improve healthcare by covering the 45 million Americans who lack healthcare today, by covering pre-existing illnesses, by not denying treatment, and by cutting costs. These are things insurance companies cannot or will not do.
First, we don't even know if there is 45 million uninsured. Second, how is it going to lower the cost of healthcare? Third, it is going to raise the cost of health insurance.
Second, we have to treat the uninsured in ER rooms now. This is the most expensive form of treatment there is. Furthermore, the government can purchase healthcare cheaper than we can. Insurance companies must make a profit and has higher administrative cost than the government does. (continued)
It would cost much more to treat those who are on Medicare care now if we placed them on private insurance and the insurance companies would not cover all the treatments the government covers. In the long run (five+ years), it will drastically cut the cost of healthcare.
Third, actually, it is possible that it will lower the cost of insurance. When people have a public option, the insurance companies will be forced to cut costs in order to compete
I don't think anyone is proposing getting rid of Medicare at this time. The President is cutting 600 billion from Medicare and Medicaid to pay for this "reform" though.
Is there going to be a public option? So far the President does not seem will to push for one. I really do favor the idea with certain conditions.
Have you considered what would happen if the insurance companies just simply stop writing health insurance?
The money saved from Medicare and Medicaid will be money that is normally given to insurance companies to pay for services. Now the money will be applied directly to the needed healthcare instead of using an insurance middleman. That is how the propose bill will cut costs. It will not cut services.
There is no such a "savings" to be had. The federal government will continue to cut reimbursements to providers who are drop Medicare assignment. Medicaid costs are going to be shifted to the states who are even more broke.
Insurance companies will only stop issuing policies only when there is no profit in it. That's one reason we need Medicare -- Old people can't get cheap insurance.
I guess you did not listen to the President's speech before Congress. He said that insurance companies could no longer have annual or lifetime maximums in their policies. He also said he was going to cap out-of-pocket expenses. This is addition to forcing them to insure EVERYONE regardless of health or pre-existing conditions. It appears to me that reform is designed to drive companies out of the health insurance market.
It would be a great idea if the president could force the insurance companies to do that but he can't. Even congress can't can do that. That is why we need a national healthcare plan.
The plan is to force them out of the business completely so that there will be a national plan. I find it odd that he needs to lie and deceive in order to get what he wants.
What lies has he told? The Republicans have been caught in lies, not Obama. You feel pity for the insurance companies? I assure you it is not reciprocated. They will still be happy to deny you treatments if reform fails. Do you want to let people die? Why do you oppose meaningful reform? Why do you believe those who have lied to you before? When it comes to Republicans, "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me." You should have stopped when they lied about "death panels."
I just gave you one and you complete dodged it. This "reform" is definitely going to affect my insurance, yet the President says it is not. That is a lie and he knows it.
I don't feel pity, but I don't feel anger either. I don't let liberals manipulate my feelings. Like you, "do you want to let people die?". Of course, I don't want people to die. I don't opposing "meaningful" reform. I am still waiting for some.
Sarah Palin never said that the reform package itself had death panel. She was looking down the road to where government run healthcare might take us with "end-of-life" counseling coming from a doctor paid for by the government administering government healthcare.
"End-of-life" counseling has been around for a long time, and it is a good thing for a patient and the family. I know from personal opinion. And what congress would ever vote for euthanasia? He or she would never win reelection. Any it's known that the elderly receive after Medicare than they received from private insurance companies. Why revert to back to a more expensive system that has already failed? (continued)
Yes, people go bankrupt for many reasons, but saying it it was their fault is unfair. Most people are forced to rely on the insurance provided by their employers; they have no other option. And some families lack the money to buy good insurance. I rely on government insurance, and I would not trade it for anything I ever had in private industry even though I made more money there. I like being able to visit a doctor when I need to, not when some clerk allows me to.
I did not say it was their fault, but many times it is their fault. People need to take responsibility for themselves and their choices.
Respectfully, you do not have government insurance. You have a government benefit paid for the people of this country. Any American can go to any doctor they want. The issue is who pays for it.
As I said, the vast majority of people who go bankrupt do so with medical insurance, and it not their choice what insurance they have. Also, when people lost their jobs, they lose their insurance. The poor economy is at fault in the mass majority of cases. (continued)
When people go bankrupt because of medical debt, it affects more than just them. It also affects creditors and the people who work for those creditors. The scale of medical bankruptcies today affects our whole economy and raises the price of medical care for all. (continued)
You are right in the sense that my insurance is not government. I am insured by the government through a private insurance company, but I receive superior care because it is backed by the government. It would be cheaper for the government if they paid for it directly. Note that my insurance is an employment benefit. I had no choice in the plan, and if I lost it, I could lose my economic independence.
Then I suggest you manage your income appropriately and protect your "economic independence". However, you are still avoiding the real issue of what does this reform do to lower the cost of healthcare.
I manage my budge well, but thanks for the advice.
This reform will lower healthcare costs by eliminating the administrative costs and profit cuts taken by the insurance companies. When a Medicare recipient receives a hip replacement, there are fewer costs compared to the exact same procedure when covered by private insurance. Second, for those who remain on private insurance, in order to remain competitive, insurance companies would have to lower their costs. (continued)
The US is absolutely fucking mental, what happened to the country that led the free world in social mobility and being a good example?
Tomtaroo 9 months ago
@Tomtaroo The rich own the government now.
mundane1 9 months ago
Media Matters salaries: David Brock chairman and CEO: $286,804; Eric Burns president: $240,579; Tate Williams chief of staff: $162,812, Eric Boehlert senior fellow: $115,000; Ari Rabin-Havt VP of communications & strategy: $134,484 pushing United Nations Agenda 21 and ICELI. If you don't know what UN Agenda 21 and ICELI are, then LEARN before you vote! It's why Obama did nothing to help US poor.
vechorik 5 months ago
Go fuck yourself guy.
TheAwakenedHeretic 9 months ago
Ook... How is that any better, Congressman?? At least if they STILL HAD JOBS, they could perhaps save a little in a medical savings account or SOMETHING. If they lost their jobs, they're fucked.
This is even WORSE, because it shows how utterly ridiculous our employer-based insurance system is. No one should have to rely on a job just for healthcare, esp. a shitty one.
whoo689 1 year ago 4
It doesn't seem like he's laughing at the fact that people are losing their health insurance or their jobs. It seems like he's laughing because he's about to deliver the punchline (he obviously thinks it's a good one).
Based only on this little snippet of video, I think his point is valid (unless it was taken out of context).
sleazybtd 1 year ago
@sleazybtd It's only valid if you think that employer based insurance is the cats meow... I do not, I think it makes our companies less competitive and hurts Americans the most when times are tough. IE layoff time...
mundane1 9 months ago
HA-HAA! Gawd this guy is almost as ugly as he is stupid!
kurd55 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kurd55 You're one to talk.
furmountain21 1 year ago
Medicare has been underfund since the first year it began. The government failed to realize that giving FREE healthcare would result in unbridled consumption. Costs have risen because the Congress keep buy the votes of the elderly with more benefits that the government cannot pay for.
By putting the burden on providers, they have hidden the true cost of Medicare. Instead of raising premiums or taxes, the cost is passed on to others in the healthcare system.
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
Explain how a public option will make your insurance go up. By the way, if we do nothing, we can expect private insurance rates to go up by at least a thousand dollars on average in the following years if I understand the insurance companies' complaints correctly. I'm not going to promise that rates won't go up if we pass reform, but I can promise you they will if we don't. (continue)
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
I'm not lying or trying to manipulate you, but real reform has been offered, and the Republicans have gutted some meaningful parts from it already. Read some statistics comparing us to France or the UK in health care. Do goggle some of the Republican claims and see if they are telling the truth. Ask five doctors about medical costs. Best of all, ask any of the people who go bankrupt every day because of medical debt. (And most of these people had medical insurance by the way.) I urge you.
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
I have done the research. I want meaningful reform as do many Republicans. You cannot blame the Republicans for gutting anything. They don't have the votes to do that.
People go bankrupt for MANY reasons. Having insurance is no guarantee. It depends on the coverage YOU choose and how you handle your finances.
There are problems with Healthcare. No one denies that. First, we need to properly define the problem. Blaming the insurance companies is convenient but they are not the problem
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
"I want meaningful reform as do many Republicans."
Oh, really? What did the Republicans do about it over the last 15 years, during which time they had the votes, and for many years wielded power in the Senate, the House AND the White House?
sudhisira 2 years ago
They never ALL the votes and ALL the power.
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
But they had the votes to cut taxes for the rich, not once but TWICE. At a time of war when they should have been raising taxes to pay for their wars instead of running trillion-dollar deficits..
sudhisira 2 years ago
There is no public option at this time. I really wish there was one with certain restrictions. I don't believe that the government can run an insurance plan BETTER than the private sector. But I welcome the opportunity for them to try.
Rates will go down IF healthcare costs go done. The only way that costs go down is to deal with the factors that increase the cost of healthcare. For example, I would make it illegal for a provider to charge different prices for the same exact procedure.
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
OMG! That is so funny! The idea of 14,000 people losing their health insurance AND their jobs is f-ing hilarious!
Those Republican'ts sure have a wicked sense of humor.
AlienSmithy 2 years ago
You missed the whole point.
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
No, he won't! Because these guys will manage to get government insurance somehow. Look at this :
"Rudy Giuliani found social health insurance a perfect solution to the financial problems faced by former Mayor John V. Lindsay, who fell on financially hard times during the 1990s as a result of chronic illness. Mayor Giuliani rushed to his friends assistance by appointing Mr. Lindsay to two no-show city jobs that came with tax-financed municipal health insurance and a tax-financed pension."
sudhisira 2 years ago
on top of that republians had control of congress from 1994-2006 if they really wanted to get somethin done they had 2 chances to get it done...they really could of gotten it done under bush...but did they?? NO! bushes health care plan was not to get sick...
leo2009910 2 years ago
and obama wants to work with these guys? if health care reform fails it will bethe democrats and obamas fault for trying to with with the GNOP they are gonna say no to everything he tries to do...obama needs to get his ass in gear and say he fully supports a public option like speaker peopsi has and get this done...seems like republians still have control of congress because of this failed attempt at bipartianship. screw that if reform fails the dems can kiss 2010 GOODBYE!!
leo2009910 2 years ago
He will get relected for this. He is in Georgia
dejahthoris 2 years ago
There are many self employed and small business owners who cannot afford it for themselves and their employers because the cost of Health Insurance is rising dramatically because they have No competition and they pay their CEO's about 10-30 million dollars a year.
dejahthoris 2 years ago
80% of uninsured Americans are working Americans. If you don't believe me look it up, we learned that stat in a history class I'm taking.
dabears2130 2 years ago
Comment removed
dabears2130 2 years ago
Under the current bill EVEN if you lose your job you would be covered. (I could be wrong, if I am then let me know please)
His argument is like saying "People can't breath because there isn't enough oxygen. They can't breath because their lungs are shot"
THEY STILL CAN"T BREATH!
fuckin idiot.
Joxman2k 2 years ago
No, if you choose to pay for the COBRA option then you can keep the same coverage you had while employed, but its super expensive without having a job.
dabears2130 2 years ago
The republican was right on the mark in his comments. Obama is causing 14000 a day to lose their job, and of course their income and their health care SINCE OBAMA IS A POS LOSER THAT CANT DO SHIT ABOUT THE ECONOMY. So yes, Obama's BULLSHIT is pretty damn ironic and laughable if you think about it.
neokevin3 2 years ago
jobs are lost due to costs including cost of rising health insurance. if employers dont want to fork out payroll expenses to american workers, they'll go to 3rd world countries instead. ironically, some of those 3rd world countries have a more integrated system of healthcare via govt than we have here.
rumpole33 2 years ago
Blah, what a retarded comment.
neokevin3 2 years ago
too bad you cant contradict it with any facts. kinda makes you sound like a kid with a grudge.
rumpole33 2 years ago
Taking a quote out of context
PresidentTeleprompte 2 years ago
I didn't get a chance to hear this entire segment but what I gathered from his remarks is that the laugh was a gesture over the irony of the predicament as being unemployed certainly is a valid reason for not being able to afford health insurance.(Those are laymen's terms I'm sure even a Liberal couldn't purposely twist, thwart, misinterpret or have a hard time understanding the simplicity).Gotta love the "Ignoring the elephant in the room" politics behind it however.
produde2008 2 years ago
what an asshole...cant expect much more from a Georgian congressman
VvXXXvV 2 years ago
republicans are full of hate, and they think their the best and are superior to everyone else...their stupis ass bitches that are ignorant and think watever they say is the best for america
guym619 2 years ago
How ironic, what is "stupis".
PresidentTeleprompte 2 years ago
Didn't Bush takeover Fannie and Freddie
Zlibservacratican 2 years ago
Republicans are so full of hate.
Rocko671 2 years ago
Republicans the new world terrorist group.
humaner 2 years ago
unemployment lol
KendalOzzel 2 years ago
Flag this video for spam and misleading text...
He's calling out the real reason people are lsoing health insurance and it's not because of bad healthcare.
It's because we are in a recession...this is the consequence of a recession.
Nothing to do with the current healthcare....Obama makes it sound like the healthcare itself is causing all this....I think not.
alex3914 2 years ago
alex3914 ... Of course, why didn't I think of that?
Loose your job, loose you health care insurance!
Nothing wrong with that!
TylerNutify 2 years ago
You don't normally lose your job.
And when your older you are supposed to get social security.
alex3914 2 years ago
Lose a contract, a reduction in force invariably occurs. That's been normal operations for decades in cyclic industries. When I departed, I commented "32 years, seeing no more than 18 months in advance."
sneakers55 2 years ago
You're totally mis-informed, dismissive, and obviously not aware of who got us into this mess in the first place. You're argument doesn't make sense, or your logic for that matter. Do you really believe that healthcare be based solely on the economy? Do you really believe that people should not have access to healthcare because they've lost their jobs? What kind of person are you?
Crazy!
Rationality2day 2 years ago 2
You are confusing health insurance with access to healthcare. They are not one and the same.
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
Why the HELL should people lose their health care because they lost their job? Does it happen in any other advanced country? Of course not!
sudhisira 2 years ago
Look if you don't know that too much government was the problem in the first place and more of it sure as hell won't fix than you need to learn some more.
We should all realize that government was the problem in the first place and getting less of it will work much better.
Going the same way that got us into this is not a good idea.
alex3914 2 years ago
"Too much government"? Is the US government regulating the health insurance companies the same way that German/Swiss/French/Japanese governments are regulating theirs?
sudhisira 2 years ago
There is no need for a person to lose their health insurance simply because they lose their jobs. They can pay the premiums themselves.
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
Duh! Maybe you can't understand that losing a job means that they most probably lose the ability to pay the premiums too.
COBRA is a joke because it assumes that if you can pay $3000 when you have a job, you have the ability to pay $12000 when you *don't* have a job.
sudhisira 2 years ago
Only if you lay around collecting unemployment. I know what it is like to have to pay for one's own health insurance. I know first hand it is not cheap. I also know that MANY people afford lots of other thing instead of buying medical insurance.
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
"Only if you lay around collecting unemployment. "
That's simplistic. Even if people get a job, chances are pretty high that there are no health-care benefits. And then there is the issue of pre-existing conditions. Some people lose jobs due to bad health and they also lose their insurance at the same time. Their poor health prevents them from being able to get health insurance from any other provider.
sudhisira 2 years ago
It may be simplistic, but it is the reality in many situations. I have bought and paid for my own health insurance for decades. You do what you have to do to take care of your family.
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
Nice that you have that kind of money.
susinga 2 years ago
What kind of money? I work hard for my money and so does my wife. We don't drive new cars or buy fancy mobile phones. We saved and pay our bills. When someone on welfare has better health insurance than I do, something is very wrong with the system.
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
Yeah you are absolutely corret. That just means that you are getting ripped off by your insurance company and you don't even realize it.
You may want to rethink your name.
Pboccuti 2 years ago
Not me....I have been doing this for decades.
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
"When someone on welfare has better health insurance than I do, something is very wrong with the system. "
Yes, you are right - your insurance company is ripping you off!
sudhisira 2 years ago
Wrong, the problem is that the government is giving these people more than they should get. It has been that way for decades.
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
Yeah, right. What did the government give Nikki White - dead at the age of 32 from lupus (a perfectly treatable condition) after Tennessee cut off her Medicaid? Did it give her "more than she should get"? Shame on you if you think so!
sudhisira 2 years ago
So her dying is the state of Tennessee's fault now? Why did they cut her from Medicaid?
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
If you had the sense to do a simple Google search on the topic, you would have found out that they cut her off from Medicaid because Tennessee curtailed its Medicaid funding.
sudhisira 2 years ago
And yet this is program, the President and Democrats, want to expand? Her situation is sad, but hardly serves to prove that we should expand medicaid on states that already are broke.
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
So, what is your solution? Should the "world's richest country" and the country with "the greatest health care system in the world" continue to allow people to die then?
My questions are rhetorical. I know that you think that the present situation is pretty good and we need not do anything about the 45,000 Americans that die every year because of lack of access to health care.
sudhisira 2 years ago
No one is suggesting that we don't have some problems with healthcare. However false claims of people dying by the thousands because they don't have insurance does not address the problem.
As for a solution, there are many things that could be done to help improve the situation. None of which includes give the government MORE control over our lives.
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
Yeah, right. A peer-reviewed Harvard Medical school study is "false claim". Why? Show me one thing that is false with the study that estimates 44,789 Americans die every year due to lack of access to health insurance.
"As for a solution, there are many things that could be done to help improve the situation."
Yeah, like allowing insurance companies to sell insurance from Northern Mariana islands?
sudhisira 2 years ago
If you look it up, the authors of the study have already said that was NOT the conclusion of their study. No one dies from not having health insurance. They die from a lack of healthcare. Simply because someone has health insurance does not mean they will seek treatment.
How about the government actually paying the cost of treating medicare patients for starters?
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
"No one dies from not having health insurance. They die from a lack of healthcare."
That is a distinction without a difference. For those who are not covered by Medicare and Medicaid (which is getting increasingly cut) lack of health care is a direct result of lack of health insurance.
sudhisira 2 years ago
It is a big difference. People die who have preventable illnesses and do have insurance. The authors of the study have already backed away from their conclusions.
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
No, they have not backed away from the conclusions. If anything they have reiterated their original findings. Point me to any reliable source that says the authors have backed off from what they said.
And people WITH insurance dying of preventable illnesses is A-OK????!!!!! Hello!
sudhisira 2 years ago
I never said it was "OK" but it is their choice to do so. You cannot make everyone do what you think they ought to be doing. Freedom also means being free to be stupid if you want to.
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
Even accounting for the fact that people with insurance are free to choose what they want to do, it still is true that those without coverage are far more likely to die of preventable conditions than those without medical coverage.
sudhisira 2 years ago
That does not mean that it is a cause, only one of many factors involved. This is why you cannot honestly say we are killing them by not making them have health insurance.
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
They are being killed by lack of access to health care. You are talking as if it is equally likely that they are being killed by creatures from outer space! They are dying because our health care system didn't work for them. As simple as that.
sudhisira 2 years ago
No, they are not. They have access to health care. They simply do not have health insurance for whatever reason. Some choose not to buy it. Others have pre-existing condition that make them unable to obtain insurance.
It is equally likely that they did not WORK with the system to get the healthcare they need. Blaming the system for every death is just not logical or factual.
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
The bottom-line is :
1. They had a condition that was treatable
2. We had the facilities to treat the condition
3. They had no access to the facilities
4. This resulted in their death due to a condition that was treatable.
Now, you can dance around this in whatever way you want. But those are the bare facts.
sudhisira 2 years ago
"You do what you have to do to take care of your family. "
So you care about your family, but the guy who saw his child die because he couldn't afford to buy insurance, didn't care enough?
Thank you very much for being so kind. Of course, Jesus Christ would agree with you completely, wouldn't he?
sudhisira 2 years ago
I do more than care. I take care of them. There are lots of people who say they care about their kids and then don't take care of them. Even when they have the opportunity to buy insurance, they don't.
Don't even start with bring Jesus Christ into this discussion. You probably have no idea what he would or would not agree with. Stick with the facts.
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
"Even when they have the opportunity to buy insurance, they don't."
Any studies that show how many people fit that description? Or do we have to accept it just because some radio blowhard said it and you are repeating it?
As for Jesus Christ, yes I agree, we have no idea whether or not he asked the lepers to produce their insurance cards before he healed them! ;-)
sudhisira 2 years ago
I know from personal and professional experience. Why do you think states mandate car insurance? This mythical number of uninsured get changed almost daily now.
Why must this all get fixed in one big bill?
Why not start with a mandate that everyone carry catastrophic health insurance?
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
What is mythical about the number of uninsured? Don't you believe the US Census Bureau's numbers? Ah, I see - it is a Communist outfit. RIght?
Catastrophic health insurance? What a joke. It is also called junk insurance. Something like $1000/mth premium and a $5000 deductible. For an average family with income of $45,000. No wonder they turn up at free clinics run by Remote Area Medical.
sudhisira 2 years ago
Not true, I have catastrophic health insurance and it is half that amount.
It is based on what people say, not on actually knowing who has or does not have insurance.
The number also seems to be growing on a daily basis. Did not know we had a census every week?
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
Why can't that be true? I know of someone who was told to $15K/yr before his insurance co. pays anything (assuming that they don't wiggle out of it). And his family income is $45K/yr
We just had census data released recently. That might have made you think they do it every week!
Or maybe you confused it with this : 22,000 Americans die of treatable diseases/conditions every year because of lack of insurance. The figures for Japan : 0, UK: 0, France: 0, Germany : 0, Korea : 0, Canada : 0
sudhisira 2 years ago
He was not paying $1000 a month for that coverage though. The Census is based on what PEOPLE say, not actual data.
How do we know 22,000 Americans die because of a lack of insurance? None of these people were eligible for Medicaid? I know people have insurance and die of treatable diseases.
Why do you assume that an insurance company would NOT honor their obligations? In my 50 plus years, I have never had that happen with any claim I have filed with my insurance company.
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
Duh! Premiums can vary from person to person. Just because it was $500 for you, it doesn't mean that somebody else can't be ripped off of $1000
And the census data have been confirmed by numerous independent, non-partisan studies.
The number of Americans dying of lack of insurance has been determined by many surveys, public and private. Many people don't qualify for Medicaid because they are too "rich" i.e. have incomes barely above the poverty line.
sudhisira 2 years ago
You still have failed to tell me what the current reforms will do to make things better. It is clear to me that they are designed to do one thing and one thing only: eliminate private health insurance for most people.
If the goal here is universal, government run healthcare, then that is what the President should have proposed and supported. He is being deceptive and pulling a bait-n-switch on the American people.
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
"I know people have insurance and die of treatable diseases."
And you still think the insurance companies are great! Did they give you a free lobotomy or what? How would you feel if your family had insurance and one of you died of a treatable disease?
"Why do you assume that an insurance company would NOT honor their obligations?"
Are you being serious? Haven't you seen Congressional testimony where the insurance co, CEOs have refused to promise that they won't rescind coverage? Sheesh!
sudhisira 2 years ago
You completely missed the point. People can have insurance and STILL not go to the doctor for a check up and treatment. It is not an issue of cost but of personal choice. For example, many diabetics do not treat their illness seriously and avoid the doctor's office.
It depends on why the person is being rescinded. If you lie on your application and then it is discovered later that you did. That is grounds for canceling your coverage.
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
What about those who have no choice? People who have uninsured have no choice. Period. They can go to the hospital when they are close to death but other than that, they have no coverage.
It is despicable to lump people who can't get health care with those who don't bother to get it.
As for rescission, how come insurance companies seem to catch those "lies" only when a large claim is made? They seem to be OK with those "lies" as long as the "liars" are sending their premiums!
sudhisira 2 years ago
The reason is the same as when you get auto insurance. What they charge you is based on the risk you pose. If you know you have cancer or a chronic expensive illness and lie just to get coverage, that is fraud and illegal.
The problem needs to be better defined and the real causes need to be dealt with.
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
It is a sad state of affairs when a person would even have to lie about having Cancer or any other "chronic expensive illness" just to get the care they need to survive.
I hope you don't classify yourself as a Christian.
If some has an illness they should be able to see a doctor. No body should be able to deny a sick person medical treatment based off of preexisting conditions. It is highly immoral and unethical.
Pboccuti 2 years ago
Please don't bring Christianity into this discussion.
We have billions of dollars going to Medicare and Medicaid, S-chip and other programs to help people with Healthcare. There is no justification for LYING. That is immoral and unethical.
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
If you think rescission is being done in an ethical way, you are a fool (or a shill for the insurance industry - who are now held in lower esteem than used car dealers). This is what a study said about rescission :
"If the health insurer had to verify the information... it would catch more genuine liars, but many of these liars would have turned out to be healthy, profitable customers... [W]hat the carrier really wants is a population devoid of expensive claims, not devoid of liars"
sudhisira 2 years ago
They are the victims of a great media campaign designed to make them the evil enemy.
If the insurance company is doing something illegal then the government SHOULD deal with that.
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
Yeah, right. The insurance companies are soooo misunderstood! When they deny coverage to people, they are doing it for our own good. Right?! ;-)
"If the insurance company is doing something illegal then the government SHOULD deal with that"
Platitude. Any idiot will know that the politicians on both sides of the aisle are bought and paid for by the insurance companies. Only a popular Civil Rights like movement can get us out of the mess.
sudhisira 2 years ago
Really, so what is this reform package?
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
Ideally, it should be the Beveridge model. But in practice, it could have been the Bismarck model. But that would mean we tame our insurance companies, which we cannot. So the only way out is the Taiwanese or Korean models.
But i we just let things drift, we will automatically drfit into the Malawi or Mali or
any of the Third World country model.
sudhisira 2 years ago
Whatever
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
Please get to know a thing or two about the health care systems in the rest of the developed world. And after that, if you still support the American health care "system" as it exists now, at least it won't be out of ignorance. Best wishes.
sudhisira 2 years ago
Our system has some problems. I have never said otherwise. We don't need to scrap the whole system to cover less than 10% that don't have insurance.
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
It is a fallacy to think that only those who don't have insurance have problems. Even those who have insurance have to deal with the issues of claims being denied for any reason or even for no reason.
And then there's the issue of people losing insurance when they lose their jobs. If a person got a pink slip and a cancer diagnosis on the same day, America is the ONLY developed country where it is a death sentence. Not in Japan, Germany, France, UK, Taiwan or any other developed nation.
sudhisira 2 years ago
That is totally and completely NOT true. Having no insurance does not mean you do not get healthcare. We have Medicaid and Medicare and lots of other programs to help people.
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
Medicare is not available for anyone under the age of 65 unless they have a serious mental or physical condition.
Read up on facts, Common Sense Joe.
Homieathome 2 years ago
Cancer qualifies as a serious condition.
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
There are a myriad amount of cancer forms, from begin to fatal, but ultimately, what's your point?
Homieathome 2 years ago
My point was simply that not having health insurance is not the same as not having healthcare.
If you want to change the system, then I think the Democrats should be honest about it and do it.
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
As someone else has thoughtfully pointed out to you (which by the way, you seem civil and respectable enough and I appreciate that) the tax payers pay for health care whether they have it or not.
You're right; not having health insurance is not the same as having health care. You can always walk into a hospital, bleeding and receive care. But that cost doesn't stay with you and if too many people do it, that hospital in question may close from debt. Insurance prevents that
Homieathome 2 years ago
What is it you think we should do about the healthcare situation then?
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
I'm not an economist, a doctor nor a congressmen, so if you're looking for a miracle cure as if anyone opposing your view (not you personally again, thank you for the civility) have had such a plan all along. But three things NEED to happen.
1) Cost need to be contained. A public option does this by reducing premiums across America
2) Competition must be spurred for better service; a public option also completes this by forcing Private Insurer's from malpractice (rescinded coverage, etc)
Homieathome 2 years ago
The problem is that the Democrats have made the insurance companies the villain in this debate. They have not addressed the real cause for why medical care costs so much these days.
I happen to believe that a public option would not have the effects you say IF it is operated solely on the funds it receives in premiums. Insurance costs have gone up because medical costs have gone up. Unless you address those costs, insurance will still go up.
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
Actually what has really gone up is insurance profits. They are the middleman through which we purchase medical care and they charge us through the nose for it. I recently read of an insurance CEO who received a $1.4 billion golden parachute. How many premiums did it take to pay for that? How many denied treatments?
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
Can you tell me what their profit margins are? What difference does it make what the CEO is paid? You are getting caught up in class envy instead of looking at facts.
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
Insurance companies make a profit of about 3 to 4 percent on the average if I am not mistaken. This is not, by any means, a poor return. The problem is that they make a profit by denying care and refusing treatment for pre-existing conditions. Veteran Administration and Medicare deliver better care at a lower cost, and they treat pre-existing conditions. Why? They have fewer administrative costs and no profit angle. (continued)
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
There is no class envy involved. There is anger at my insurance company for refusing to cover certain treatments so that they can apply my insurance premiums to someones already inflated salary. And watch out: Your costs will be rising too if something is not done. My taxes pay for Rep. Gingrey's healthcare and that of his family. I want the same benefits for me and my family.
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
Then why bring up what the CEO makes?
There is no connection between denying coverage and what the CEO makes. Insurance is a contract between you and the insurance company. If you don't like the deal, go somewhere else for coverage.
I would like the same coverage as well but I have to pay for mine as should you! Or you could run for Congress or get a better job.
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
There is a great connection between CEO earning and the profits of a company. CEO earnings are -- or should be -- based on the profits a company makes. Insurance companies gain money through premiums. They lose money when they pay for treatments, thus making less profits and resulting in the CEO earning less money. (continued)
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
As for getting a better job, I don't work. I do, however, have good insurance by American standards. I am covered for almost everything. However, most Americans are not so fortunate. Over 40 million Americans lack healthcare insurance. Over 1,000 Americans die every day because of lack of access to medical care. We are the richest in the world, yet we rank 37th in healthcare -- behind Costa Rica!
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
IF there are 40 million without health insurance, then we need to find out WHY they don't have and address each specific reason.
Where do you get your "1000 die every day" number? Last time I heard it was 44,000 a year. Now it is up to 365,000 a year! I guess it you are going to make up the numbers any number will do.
Do you honestly believe that Costa Rica has better overall healthcare than we do? REALLY! COME ON! Use your common sense.
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
They lack insurance because they are unemployed, or poor, or their employer can't afford it, and countless other reasons. I got the number 1,000 from a congressman. Nevertheless, let's assume you are correct. Even 44,000 a year is too many. As for Costa Ricans having better healthcare on the average, that is true. We have better facilities here in the US but most people don't have access to them. (continued)
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
France is rated number one in the world in healthcare. Yes, the French live longer than we do. Not only that, but they pay about 60% per person or what we do. Look all this up at the WHO or the like if you disagree.
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
I don't accept the work of the WHO because I have no faith in the integrity of their numbers. We send medical missionaries to Costa Rica. I guess it just does not occur to you that they are LYING about their outcomes.
We have better facilities and doctors and specialists. We also have greater freedom as well. Figures don't lie but liars figure.
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
You don't trust those who are yet to be caught in a lie, but you trust insurance companies whose dishonesty has proven in courts time and again.
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
Liberals lie all the time, and I never trust what they say. They have an agenda.
The fact is this is not really about healthcare reform, but a takeover of the whole healthcare industry. Liberals know that Medicare and Medicaid are about to implode. They need the money in the industry to cover up their incompetence.
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
I am an activist liberal, and agenda is the same as yours. I want America to be a better place. That's the reason I served my country in the armed forces. I make no secrets about what I want. The problem is not Medicade and Medicare. Do you know how much it would cost to place the old on private insurance? No company would take them because of pre-existing conditions. Surely you don't want us to let the old die. (continued)
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
Some of the best healthcare in America today is that delivered by the Veterans Administration, Medicade, and Medicare. It is also far more cost effective that private healthcare. I just want all Americans to receive the same healthcare that I now receive at a reasonable price. Note that most of the Congressmen who oppose healthcare reform also accept huge amounts of funds from the healthcare industry. (continued)
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
As for liberals lying, I would remind you that its not liberals lying about "death panels," it wasn't liberals lying about WMD in Iraq, and it wasn't liberals lying about Iraq flying planes into the WTC. Rather, it was the same people who today say that improved healthcare for all is not in your best interest. Remember when Republicans want to put all Social Security into the market? Think of how much money we would have lost if liberals had not stopped them. Look at both sides for a change.
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
Besides, why would Obama want to cover for Bush? If the system is really that bad, he would turn the records over to the press (and the records are open to the press), and let the Republicans take the blame. Why would he want to take over another president's failures?
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
He is not. He is covering for liberals who have pushed Medicare and Medicaid and fought any "reform" by Republicans. Now cutting Medicare is a great idea. They call it "slowing the growth" but it is a cut by their own definition.
You need to stop blaming President Bush for everything. He made plenty of mistakes, but the Democrats were in Washington as well.
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
Republicans said social security was a bad idea, they opposed us lend-lease, they opposed civil rights, they opposed worker safety rules, and they opposed healthcare reform. They were wrong on all they ideas. The last time the Republican to oppose something for the right reason was Lincoln. And he was a liberal Republican. (continued)
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
As to the idea that Iraq was trying to get WMD, why could Bush show it? Why couldn't we find proof when we took over Iraq? Why didn't Bush invade North Korea? They did have WMDs.
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
Iraq invade Kuwait. That's why. He was suppose to allow monitoring and inspections. He refused to allow them. He was trying to gain a WMD. That is a fact. He was in violation of the cease-fire agreement. That is a fact. He had corrupted the Oil for Food program. That is a fact. He was starving over million Iraq children. That is a fact.
President invaded Iraq for a number of very good reasons. Most of all, we needed to force the terrorists to confront our military and it worked.
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
We could have confronted the terrorist in Afghanistan where they were without creating new ones in Iraq and killing tens of thousands of innocent people. We created more terrorists by invading Iraq, and opened the country to Iranian influence. We also broke international law. There's never a good reason for starting an unnecessary war..
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
Afghanistan is a different kind of war and would not have been as effective.
I don't buy the whole "creating new terrorists" argument at all. Terrorists are going to be terrorists no matter what we do. The only way of dealing with them is to kill them before they kill you. It was not an illegal war by anyone's law. The war was absolutely necessary for the defense of our nation.
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
Iraq had no ability to harm our nation save by destabilizing the region. They did not do that. Iraq was a secular state. Other Arab states and Iran hated it. It's military was weak. Now it an Islamic republic, perhaps the most dangerous type of government on earth. Theocracies are inherently a threat. The terrorists who attacked on 9/11 operated out of Afghanistan, and they were protected by Afghanistan. (continued)
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
Also, terrorists are created by political, economic, and religious reasons. Look, for example, at the American Revolution. Americans in the South on both sides, patriots and loyalists alike, became what we would now call terrorists. Do you think they would have been terrorists had it not been for the war?
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
I am sick and tired of people equating terrorists with soldiers and freedom fighters. They are two totally different things. As a former member of the military, I am surprised you do not know the difference.
Which war are you talking about Gulf War 1 or 2? If the Gulf war produced the terrorists, why were they Saudis and not Iraqis? The tactic of terrorism is only used by evil and immoral people to accomplish a desired goal when they lack any political or military power to do so.
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
No one knew that for sure since we could not longer monitor and inspect properly. If Saddam has acquired a WMD, he would pose a threat to our security.
Iraq is not a theocracy but a democracy. While other Arab states did not like Saddam, the point was to establish a free, democratic state in the Middle East.
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
And yes, it was an illegal war. WWII established that it is illegal to attack nations that pose no threat. We hanged both German and Japanese leaders for doing that.
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
Iraq was in violation of the cease-fire agreement it made at the close of the first gulf war. We had continuous combat operations against Iraq all during that time (No-Fly Zones). No one could know for sure if they were or were not a threat.
Would you have been happier with the war had Saddam had massive amounts of WMDs and used them against our troops?
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
Of course not. But he didn't have WMD did he? Just like the Germans, the French, the UN inspectors, and the original CIA assessment said he didn't. So, was it worth the death of 4,000+ Americans, and tens-of-thousands Iraq deaths. Or were those of us who opposed the war from the beginning prove correct? And while we were messing about in Iraq, Osama bin Laden escaped to who-knows-where to plan future attacks on the US and its allies. (continued)
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
But what has this got to do with healthcare? We need healthcare reform. We need to stop lagging behind France, England, Canada, Costa Rica, and several other nations in healthcare.
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
We are not lagging behind anyone. Tell me, is what the President and the Democrats trying to do going to align us with socialized medicine?
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
We are lagging behind 36 other nations when it comes to average healthcare. As for socialized medicine, do you think VA care, the fire department, the police, and highway departments are socialized? The goal is better healthcare, not labels.
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
You are avoiding the question. Let's get down to the facts. Do you think what the President and the Democrats are proposing to do IS socialized medicine? Don't give me the old "fire, police, and highway department are socialized" dodge because they are NOT socialized. Everything that is government run is not socialism.
Tell me, how is "reform" going to improve healthcare when it only deals with health insurance?
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
No it is not socialism. A single-payer plan you can call socialism, and we would be better off for it. France has a single-payer system, and they have the best healthcare in the world, and it costs about 60% per person of what we spend, and we don't take care of everyone.
The government running something is the very definition of socialism. The military and so on are socialized. (continued)
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
And healthcare reform will improve healthcare by covering the 45 million Americans who lack healthcare today, by covering pre-existing illnesses, by not denying treatment, and by cutting costs. These are things insurance companies cannot or will not do.
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
First, we don't even know if there is 45 million uninsured. Second, how is it going to lower the cost of healthcare? Third, it is going to raise the cost of health insurance.
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
First, we do know that there are 45 million uninsured. We have good demographics. (continued)
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
Second, we have to treat the uninsured in ER rooms now. This is the most expensive form of treatment there is. Furthermore, the government can purchase healthcare cheaper than we can. Insurance companies must make a profit and has higher administrative cost than the government does. (continued)
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
It would cost much more to treat those who are on Medicare care now if we placed them on private insurance and the insurance companies would not cover all the treatments the government covers. In the long run (five+ years), it will drastically cut the cost of healthcare.
Third, actually, it is possible that it will lower the cost of insurance. When people have a public option, the insurance companies will be forced to cut costs in order to compete
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
I don't think anyone is proposing getting rid of Medicare at this time. The President is cutting 600 billion from Medicare and Medicaid to pay for this "reform" though.
Is there going to be a public option? So far the President does not seem will to push for one. I really do favor the idea with certain conditions.
Have you considered what would happen if the insurance companies just simply stop writing health insurance?
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
The money saved from Medicare and Medicaid will be money that is normally given to insurance companies to pay for services. Now the money will be applied directly to the needed healthcare instead of using an insurance middleman. That is how the propose bill will cut costs. It will not cut services.
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
There is no such a "savings" to be had. The federal government will continue to cut reimbursements to providers who are drop Medicare assignment. Medicaid costs are going to be shifted to the states who are even more broke.
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
Insurance companies will only stop issuing policies only when there is no profit in it. That's one reason we need Medicare -- Old people can't get cheap insurance.
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
Tell me, would you accept an unlimited responsibility for a limited payment?
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
No. Only a fool would. The healthcare plan doesn't and neither do insurance companies.
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
I guess you did not listen to the President's speech before Congress. He said that insurance companies could no longer have annual or lifetime maximums in their policies. He also said he was going to cap out-of-pocket expenses. This is addition to forcing them to insure EVERYONE regardless of health or pre-existing conditions. It appears to me that reform is designed to drive companies out of the health insurance market.
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
It would be a great idea if the president could force the insurance companies to do that but he can't. Even congress can't can do that. That is why we need a national healthcare plan.
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
The plan is to force them out of the business completely so that there will be a national plan. I find it odd that he needs to lie and deceive in order to get what he wants.
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
What lies has he told? The Republicans have been caught in lies, not Obama. You feel pity for the insurance companies? I assure you it is not reciprocated. They will still be happy to deny you treatments if reform fails. Do you want to let people die? Why do you oppose meaningful reform? Why do you believe those who have lied to you before? When it comes to Republicans, "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me." You should have stopped when they lied about "death panels."
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
I just gave you one and you complete dodged it. This "reform" is definitely going to affect my insurance, yet the President says it is not. That is a lie and he knows it.
I don't feel pity, but I don't feel anger either. I don't let liberals manipulate my feelings. Like you, "do you want to let people die?". Of course, I don't want people to die. I don't opposing "meaningful" reform. I am still waiting for some.
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
Comment removed
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
Sarah Palin never said that the reform package itself had death panel. She was looking down the road to where government run healthcare might take us with "end-of-life" counseling coming from a doctor paid for by the government administering government healthcare.
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
"End-of-life" counseling has been around for a long time, and it is a good thing for a patient and the family. I know from personal opinion. And what congress would ever vote for euthanasia? He or she would never win reelection. Any it's known that the elderly receive after Medicare than they received from private insurance companies. Why revert to back to a more expensive system that has already failed? (continued)
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
Yes, people go bankrupt for many reasons, but saying it it was their fault is unfair. Most people are forced to rely on the insurance provided by their employers; they have no other option. And some families lack the money to buy good insurance. I rely on government insurance, and I would not trade it for anything I ever had in private industry even though I made more money there. I like being able to visit a doctor when I need to, not when some clerk allows me to.
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
I did not say it was their fault, but many times it is their fault. People need to take responsibility for themselves and their choices.
Respectfully, you do not have government insurance. You have a government benefit paid for the people of this country. Any American can go to any doctor they want. The issue is who pays for it.
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
As I said, the vast majority of people who go bankrupt do so with medical insurance, and it not their choice what insurance they have. Also, when people lost their jobs, they lose their insurance. The poor economy is at fault in the mass majority of cases. (continued)
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
When people go bankrupt because of medical debt, it affects more than just them. It also affects creditors and the people who work for those creditors. The scale of medical bankruptcies today affects our whole economy and raises the price of medical care for all. (continued)
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
You are right in the sense that my insurance is not government. I am insured by the government through a private insurance company, but I receive superior care because it is backed by the government. It would be cheaper for the government if they paid for it directly. Note that my insurance is an employment benefit. I had no choice in the plan, and if I lost it, I could lose my economic independence.
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago
Then I suggest you manage your income appropriately and protect your "economic independence". However, you are still avoiding the real issue of what does this reform do to lower the cost of healthcare.
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
I manage my budge well, but thanks for the advice.
This reform will lower healthcare costs by eliminating the administrative costs and profit cuts taken by the insurance companies. When a Medicare recipient receives a hip replacement, there are fewer costs compared to the exact same procedure when covered by private insurance. Second, for those who remain on private insurance, in order to remain competitive, insurance companies would have to lower their costs. (continued)
LarcheOsborne 2 years ago