Three Weeks in America Without Health Reform
Posted on July 17th, 2009 by Jason Rosenbaum in Congress Watch
 |
Some in Congress are talking about delaying health care reform for another three weeks through the August Congressional recess. Just to put a fine point on it, over three weeks in America:
- 143,250 people will lose their health insurance coverage [pdf]
- 53,507 people will file for bankruptcy because they can't pay their medical bills
- 1,265 people will die [pdf] because they lack coverage
There is a real human cost of even a few weeks in America without health reform. And there is no logical reason for the delay. The House of Representatives is almost done marking up a health reform bill that has the support of a wide coalition, including the American Medical Association. The HELP Committee has passed a health reform bill that lowers costs for Americans and gives us a choice of our private health insurance or a public health insurance option. The President is deploying all of his resources to pass these historic reforms. And the Senate Finance committee has been working on health care reform since January, a full six months. Why is more time needed?
The Senate Finance Committee has been unable to come to a bipartisan deal on health reform, because Republicans have been reluctant to join Democrats in supporting health reform that helps the American people. This is not a reason to delay reform any longer. It is more important that we get health reform that gives us quality, affordable health care for all than getting health reform a few Republicans can support. It is their choice whether to join us in passing historic reform Americans need so desperately. If they refuse to do so, the Senate should help pass reform anyway.
The perverse conceit of Joe Lieberman & the tiny centrist gang
is on display here once again. Do Lieberman and his usual suspects not comprehend just how disingenuous this 'give us more time' thing sounds? Lieberman isn't even on any of the health care legislation committees.
First, the Administration has already asked Speaker Pelosi to make sure a final combined House version does explicitly drive down costs. That issue has been identified and will be addressed.
The key here is that Lieberman has already come out against a competing public option. They're running cover for the Max Baucus Secret Caucus (aka the Baucus-Grassley-Conrad-run Senate Finance Committee) that is squealing like baby pigs because Sen. Chris Dodd's HELP Committee has already passed and reported a version with a public option in it.
They want, in fact, to block the kind of effective health care reform that the overwhelming majority of Americans — and the AMA (which yesterday stated it's support for the House bill!) — are demanding.
The perverse conceit here is that this same centrist gang, which never takes legislative leadership — particularly Lieberman, Nelson, Snowe and Collins — are the ones who in February elevated themselves to the status of "deal-makers" by insisting that the stimulus bill be reduced by about $100 billion of actual economic stimulus.
Their argument at the time, which Lieberman's staffers were repeating even today in response to callers, was that this had to be done "in order to have a bill that would pass".
And whose votes were at stake? Well theirs actually.
Mark my words, they will attempt to pull the same thing with the full public option this time. And we can't let them, Democrats and progressives can't let them, the House and Senate leadership can't let them, and President Obama can't let them.
I hope the bill passes with the public option. If Obama can push it through, physicians and patients will be grateful and I personally will switch parties and join the Democrats. If it fails, then it will confirm that the medical insurance industry controls the government. I only wish Obama would include tort reform in the bill.
You obviously have not read the bill.
The bill would force everyone to pay through payroll or anyother way. Think about it. It would eliminate Sec. 125 of
the IRS Code, making it the biggest tax increase in history.
Every working american would suffer. How much are you willing to pay for health care. Freedom is way too high of a price. Our government was never set up to take care of this. They are trying to enslave the public and the Obahma Nation continues blindly…
We definitely need to pull together on health care. America was not built on the kind of greed and "me-ism" that is rampant among many Republicans. Americans need to help one another - it's time to unite and return to the principles that made America great… and it wasn't greed!!!
Unfortunately our Country was founded on greed and me-ism, what do you think Capitalism is? It is a system that promotes greed and me-ism along with freedom of choice, speech, religon ect. Sadly, the greed factor appears to be the only factor anybody cares about recently.
Why does Senator Max Baucus want to tax employer-provided health care insurance? Health insurance is a scarce resource. Good health insurance, so-called "Cadillac Plans", cost more every year to employees. Add to that a government subsidy?
Don't we want more health insurance available to everyone and therefore cost less? If you tax health insurance benefits, you are imposing more scarcity by increasing its cost. Health care continues to be a luxury. What incentive is there to lower cost?
If this tax becomes the linchpin for reform, I propose we call it the "Max Tax".
Americans are afraid. Taxing employer health insurance makes it look like our employers are paying for health insurance. Its the employees who are paying for health insurance with increased productivity. This means lower wages. This is a deadly combination.
Its about tme the LOBBYISTS are named and how much they PAID for their Blue Dog supporters. I remember when a group I was a member of BOUGHT a Senator–who gave us tremendous sums of money. (Above and beyond what had been asked for. This group woud brag, "Yes, we OWN..(so and so)"
Wowm no wonder we ared having such a hard time trying to "SELL" Democracy to other countries with Dictator rulers.
O.k.
Since when did increased productivity drive down wages.
I am among those priviledged citizens that calls myself an educated American worker, and the bottom line rests on my ability to choose what is best for myself and my family.
The more time I am able to commit to my work without worrying whether my son will have health insurance tomorrow is the more time I can invest into my right's as a worker.
Put it this way, the smoke signals for healthcare reform have been seen by every American but the question is whether or not they will be heeded. I heed the signals for progress.
I heed the signals for the right to choose. I choose an insured America by means of healthcare reform.
We don't have a choice. That is not true. If you are sick and cannot get insurance, or if you are not insured at all, you will be eligible for either medicaid or the exchange. Most of us won't get a choice. That is a positive thing but no legitimate plan to pay for it has been put forward. Without that it's DOA anyway. The important legal rights that are being sold at a premium to the highest bidder and dumping all of the poor into NOT a choice but Medicaid, the worst and least effective system we have, will at least buy time. That's what it's all about…or did you not notice all the delays in implementation for years and years and years…the best is the medicare drug delays. That is just heartwarming.
Your comment doesn't make sense to me. It is full of inaccuracies whether you are talking about current medicaid policies or proposed co opt/ public option reforms. Are you being sarcastic at the end? I can't tell. Did you mean to use quotes on 'we don't have a choice'? or did you mean to cancel out that statement with the following statement, 'That is not true.' I don't know if you support Obama's program of health insurance reform, or not, or what you'd propose as an alternative. Personally, I support Universal Single Payer Healthcare,HR676. It is already more than paid for out of our economy, it is just that everyone isn't covered for their health care needs. The difference between what it costs to provide 100% of us with healthcare and the uncovered now are where the Grim Reapers of the Insurance Industry take their profits.
If you are going to bother participating, which is a good thing, then you need to be more effective in communicating your viewpoint.
…yeah…many need health care that costs very little but i fear this is just opening the door to "Control"…in american citizens lives'…just one more time!!! sooooooo screw you and your purported hiddin agenda, none of you are espousing to help people…the way i see it…this govts' agenda is only out to rape and pillage…mark my words,… you all will someday!(when it's to late to go back)
There is nothing that man cannot make a little cheaper and sell for a little less and those for whom price is the only concern is this mans fair game. There is no free lunch.
If this passes there is no going back. What do we stand to lose? - Research for starters. Right now we pay a high price for research due to the fact that the cost has been shifted to us when Canada and England nationalised healthcare (where a lot of the savings for them came from). Who will pay that cost? Perhaps no one… Second - Our top Doctors and rsearchers will leave for greener pastures, and who can blame them. Costs will be cut, and they are a lot of where that cost cutting will occure. Our premier hospitals are just that because of the system we have now. Where will the incentive be for a hospital to maintain top state of the art equipment and people if this falicy of a program comes to be? There won't be one. Where will you go when its do or die… well, in Canada and England its to the USA if they can afford it. That or die waiting many times. Where will we go? Mexico? Brazil? India? Where…
Sure there are people that can't afford insurance, but there is NOBODY in the US that is denied healthcare right now. NOONE. People need to be made aware of what's available, and yes there are things that can be done so more people CAN afford insurance and healthcare. One place to start is Tort Reform… ahhh, but nobody it talking about that. Why? Because most of the people debating this right now are Lawyers, and that THIER pocket your talking about with tort reform.
People, there is no such thing as something for nothing… and what you're really talking about with this is trading our something for nothing. If you think government can do a good job running healthcare may I suggest you go and visit your local Social Security office, a DMV, or perhaps take a trip to any of the numerous other government agencys that are there to serve you and see just what it is you might expect.
Big Al typed: "People, there is no such thing as something for nothing… and what you're really talking about with this is trading our something for nothing"
The reason, Big Al, that this is patent nonsense, is best expressed by one word: France.
France has a health care system that provides the greatest satisfaction to its citizens and much better outcomes that the US, as well. Not to mention that the cost is roughly one-half of what we pay here per capita.
"France spends $2,401 per capita on health, while the US spends $4,497 (almost double!). In return, life expectancy is 68.1 in the US, 71.5 in France. Infant mortality: 4 per 1000 in France, and 7 per 1000 in the US. And maternal mortality: 8.8 in France, and 10.5 in the US. I guess socialized medicine has some benefits after all! [One more aside: the inefficiency of the US system stems from the fact that the insurance companies cream off a huge skim as middlemen...]" http://tinyurl.com/og5yzp
Also, anyone who actually does research about these issues (unlike Big—completely uninformed—Al) knows that law suits have little-to-no influence on the sky-rocketing cost of health care. It has to do with the insurance industry's overhead costs.
Here is some information from Susan A. Miller, M.D., clinical professor at Virginia Commonwealth University's department of family medicine:
"The average primary care doctor spends two hours a week — and her staff spends a whopping 16 hours a week — on paperwork generated by the insurance industry."
"Medicare overhead is 3 percent, while the private insurance industry takes 30 percent of the health care dollar for CEO salaries, profit, and administrative overhead."
"For those who really want to look at quality metrics, please note that the Veterans Health Administration (the only form of truly socialized medicine in the U.S.) has been beating private hospitals on quality metrics and implementation of electronic records, as well as transparency and medical errors, for 10 years." http://tinyurl.com/nfzxts
Now check out 'Bait and switch: How the “public option” was sold' by Kip Sullivan at http://tinyurl.com/r24qcz:
'According to the Congressional Budget Office, the “public option” proposed in the House “tri-committee” bill might insure 10 million people and would leave 16 to 17 million people uninsured. The “public option” proposed by the Senate HELP committee, again according to the Congressional Budget Office, is unlikely to insure anyone and would hence leave 33 to 34 million uninsured. The CBO said its estimate of 10 million for the House bill was highly uncertain, which is not surprising given how vaguely the House legislation describes the “public option.”
'Put yourself in the “public option” director’s shoes. … [T]he House bill did not create a ready-made pool of enrollees for you to work with the way the 1965 Medicare law created a ready-made pool of seniors prior to the day Medicare commenced operations. …
'The only other feature in the House bill that appears to give you any advantage over the insurance industry is the provision requiring you to use Medicare’s rates plus 5 percent, which essentially means you are authorized to pay providers 15 percent less than the insurance industry pays on average. But the House bill also says providers are free to refuse to participate in the plan you run.'
Go read the whole article, but the so-called public option will do nothing to actually create competition for the insurance industry because, like so many government programs, it has been "compromised" into ineffectiveness.
The article also speaks to how 'Health Care for America Now,… repeatedly describe[s] the House and Senate HELP committee bills as “strong” or “robust,” always without any justification for this claim, and have repeatedly failed to warn the public that the “public options” they promote today are mere shadows of the “public options” they endorsed in the past.'
Last, but not least, check out digby's post on Republican talking points: http://tinyurl.com/n9qq23.
Mr. Michtom makes several good points. Nicely done.
I, for once, disagree with Move On's push to get Congress to pass legislation before the August recess. This is some of the biggest and most complex legislation ever created and the political will to tackle health care may not come around again for decades. First and foremost, it needs to be carefully considered and crafted — and, generally speaking, done right.
Against this need, rational, pragmatic people should recognize that the clock is ticking. As we get closer to Congressional elections next year, our representatives will become increasingly risk averse and, thus increasingly less likely to make the hard choices necessary to pass an effective, progressive health care bill that flies in the face of the health care industries that funnel large amounts of money into their campaign chests.
Mr. Michtom rightly points to the watered down and eviscerated state of the public option as one major obstacle to doing health care right. Another is that it is far from clear that any of the options can adequately fund the plan. For example, Federal funding for the quite sizeable proposed increase to use of Medicaid is not accounted for, nor is the state funding for their portion of Medicaid. Many states are in budget crises and clearly do not have the ability to meet mountainous new unfunded health care obligations. The bi-partisan outcry from the governors convention against a potentially unfunded health care mandate spoke volumes.
So, how do we balance the competing need to take the time necessary to draft an effective health plan against the pressure to act before impending Congressional elections eat away and ultimately kill the possibility of passing politically risky legislation?
The Obama administration needs to put a very public full court press on Congress to keep working — very, very long and very, very hard — until an effective, cost efficient bill is put together and passed. The President indicated in his speech on Wednesday, 7/22, that he'd accept a bill by the end of the year. That's probably a much more realistic expectation.
Congress needs a tremendous amount of pressure brought to bear on them to act and to do so quickly and responsibly. Rahm Emmnuel needs to sharpen his elbows, go down to Capital Hill and use every bit of leverage he has to push Congressman in any and every way possible: cajole, threaten, horse trade, whatever it takes. And the administration and their congressional allies shouldn't hesitate to remind conservative naysayers who won the election. Either get on board or get out of the way. Obama offered Republicans the olive branch and, for the most part, it wasn't taken. NOW is the time to cash in substantial amounts of the political capital afforded by last November's victory.
At the same time, the rest of the administration must undertake a herculean effort to dominate the news cycle as continuously as possible to keep progress on the effort front and center in the public consciousness.
None of this will be easy. I think, however, that it's the best way to balance the need to draft a properly considered bill against the need to act quickly.
We've elected the "best and the brightest." It's time for them, stand up to conservative obstructionists, take advantage of the great (but transient) pool of public support and earn their place in history.
I would respectfully disagree. The health care plan has been worked on for the past six months, since January. The ideas have been in the making for two years, since the candidates started running for President, and we've been waiting for reform for over 100 years. I'm not sure why we need a few more weeks.
My father died in a mine accident in 1961 leaving my mother to raise five boys on her own. In 1966, she found a lump in her breast. We had no health insurance. She had re-married an abusive man and he had deserted the family so she did not have Social Security or any type of assistance.
"You boys better learn to take care of yourself," she told us. "I might not be around much longer to care for you. I have a lump in my breast and we have no insurance. We have to hope for the best and pray that God will watch over us", she explained.
We were all devastated but knew what she was telling us was true. She was trying to raise us on her own and didn't want us to lose our trailer house, which was paid for. It was our only security.
In 1969 she had to take a medical exam for a new job. They found the lump and therefore she was not hired for the position. A kind doctor took her under his wings and did all he could to save her, for free, but she died two years later in 1971.
For all the shameful selfish idiots out there that think this is ok in this country, I wish you ill health and no insurance. Maybe then you will open your eyes and see what a disaster our current medical system is.
Amen - I have a friend who has cancer and her insurance was cancelled….it is wrong for "ability to pay" to determine life or death.
I've been in dialogue with the man married to my niece who thinks govt. should be smaller and that it has "no business in health care". Funny thing: he's in the service and he and wife and two children are all on the federal insurance for Army families. Hmmmmmm….what will happen when he leaves the service?
We need to get this sorry situation fixed. Working on it in Idaho!
Sorry to hear about your loss in 1971 but there have been a lot of changes since 1971 and someone who is diagnosed with cancer now without insurance does have options available to them. I have a best friend who was diagnosed with cancer and told she might only have two years. It has been 5 years now and she is still with us. She goes to the Siteman Cancer Center. Please research the options available to people now and don't think that just because what happened to your mother in 1971 is a reason to enslave the entire county in 2009.
May I ask, who is paying for her treatments? Does her family make enough to buy insurance? Is she trying to raise children without a father and no income? It's not the type of treatment I am concerned about here, it's the access to treatment. Had she gone to the emergency room with the lump, they may have treated her but they would have also billed her. We would have lost our only shelter. Her decision was not the best but she was unselfish and wanted us to have a home for as long as possible. Access to healthcare does not enslave anyone. The European Union and Canada both have universal healthcare and I don't see them all running around as slaves. This is just a bunch of garbage rendered by the insurance companies and the rich.
Please, let's get Congress on board so the 3 million people who lost their jobs under ObombA, and the 400,000 who will not share in the recovery this month, won't have to go to Cuba for Socialist/Communist health care. We can't afford another Carter Depression with 18.5% prime mortgage interest, 10% inflation and 10% unemployment. Scratch that we already have 10% ObombA unemployment. We need to spend more money we don't have so we can keep out of bankruptcy according to Joe "the mouth" Biden - so let print a lot of paper, steal from those dirty rich and end evil capitalism for a more comrad like goulag we can all enjoy.
Why don't you stop BASHING EACH OTHER AND GET SOMETHING DONE. You all have health insurance why can't the America people have the same. With no illegals covered. I don't want to pay for them, send them back home. I'm retired and my insurance cost my wife and I $633.00 per month, with no dental or vision. This is bull shit. After working and paying taxes for 55 years. You guys get a life and help the working man. John Shearer
Agree with you toitally. Tell Congress the can not be PAID,or use Health care
Benefits– while they are away on Vacation. Seems to me they ARE already on vacation. And the so-called "Blue Dogs" are just plain Republican owned DOGS to me. I'll never vote for one again.
PLEASE SAVE THE CHILDREN, I KNOW A FAMILY NOW THAT NEEDS HELP NOW. BOTH PARENTS HAVE CANCER AND HAVING DIFFICULTY GETTING SERVICES! I HOPE AND PRAY THAT THEY LIVE OR NOT GET WORSE WHILE YOU ALL ARE ON VACATION…THEY AND THE CHILDREN NEED HELP NOW, NOT FOSTERCARE LATER!. WHICH ONE IN THE END WILL COST MORE?! ESP. THE TRAUMA TO THE KIDS THAT NO ONE WOULD HELP! THIS IS A TRUE REPORT FROM COLUMBIA, MD. STEPHANIE, WHO WILL BE SALT AND LIGHT AND STAND FOR THE WEAK LIKE JESUS DID…NOT JUST IN WORD BUT IN DEED!!!!!!!I HOPE YOU AND YOUR FAMILY SLEEP WELL FOR THAT MONTH. I WILL KEEP YOU AND YOUR FAMILIES IN PRAYER TOO, PLEASE TALK TO GOD ABOUT THIS AND ALL OF YOUR DECISIONS, FOR GOD HAS PLACED YOU IN THIS AUTHORITY BY HIS AUTHORITY AND HE WILL HOLD YOU RESPONSIBLE.PEOPLE NOT POLITICS ARE WHAT IS MOST IMPORTANT!!!
Let them go on vacation BUT leave their health care at the door. See how they like being without health care.
We should have the same benefits that Congress has. Exactly the same. They do work for us. Right?
If they could stop thinking about themselves and think about the people that put them in office we would all be better.
Folks, if you are for this health care bill and you care about our seniors; please take the time to read pages 425 - 427 of the HR 3200 bill - this must be STOPED NOW!
End-of-Life services
I've read pages 425-430. It seems to me that it describes how physicians SHOULD BE PAID for their time spent with patients when explaining issues like living wills, healthcare proxies, advance care directives. The same way a physician is paid for their time spent performing an annual healthcare exam, or any other service.
Patients NEED to be informed that they have rights in determining what treatment they want (or wish to decline) in the event they are UNABLE TO MAKE THOSE DECISIONS THEMSELVES. They need to understand their options, how to make their wishes known, and how to select someone to act on their behalf.
I don't understand why this is so scary! If I had to suddenly make health care decisions for a loved one because they were unable to do so for themselves, I would consider it a blessing that they had already made informed choices and made their wishes known, in writing.
I think having an informative conversation with your primary care physician is an excellent way to be educated on how to protect your rights as a patient. And WHY SHOULDN'T that physician be compensated for that appointment.
Cheryl, I completely agree with you, I have read pages 425 and -430 for myself. This part of the bill provides payment to the healthcare providers whom we choose to make appointments with to discuss end of life care directives. This provision is important so that those of us who choose to face life's realities head-on won't leave loved ones in the lurch to decide on our behalf what we would want. These directives addressed complicated medical procedures and have pro's and con's. I want competent medical advice when deciding what a dignified life and death mean to me. This portion of the bill is only saying I have the right to make these decisions for myself, ahead of time, with competent medical advice and the medical personnel involved have the right to be paid for this service, like all the other consultations they provide on my behalf.
I agree with a pressing need for healthcare, but have a few talking points.
I think the reform should mirror the justice system, where it is better afforded that 10 guilty people be let free than 1 innocent person be punished. So too should it be that rather 10 "illegals" be insured than 1 person legitimately in need be unable to receive healthcare.
Big Al: You do bring up one valid point. All previous indications are of government inefficiency. But this should be a reason to create the most effective system possible.
Bill Mitchom: Excellent points, excellent research. This is the kind of informed public that democracy depends on.
Steven Hamburger: I agree wholeheartedly that this MUST be reasonably funded. However, I don't agree that this is a problem necessarily fixed with elbow grease. If we cannot afford to fix the healthcare system through a public option under the current climate, then it may need to be waylaid in favor of more sensible options until the global economy is given time to mend. But I agree, it is their job and duty to create the best reform possible. Well put.
In the meantime it may be prudent to create incentives for insurance companies to cover those in need more readily?
Jason Rosenbaum: I disagree with the sentiment that 100 years have passed, so why wait a few weeks? That is exactly why we can wait a few weeks to make it as perfect as possible(reasonably). As long as it takes, not as long as we'd like
John Shearer: This is clearly a humanitarian issue. If we were saying "give it to only those who earn it" then you would be just as "up shit-creek" as the "illegals" of whom you speak. If they are capable of living illegally in the borders, then they are most likely capable of defrauding healthcare. This is a separate issue.
Are all you naysayers aware that we rank 38th in the world in healthcare? Are you aware of what all 37 of the countries ahead of us do to be better than us? Simple answer, they all hav single payer care, and pay far less than we do as well.
We're even behind some third world countries too, like Cuba and Costa Rica.
As to costs, with 65% of all personal bankruptcies being a result of health care costs, how much does that cost us? And with the public option we would no longer have the ER costs for people without insurance, so you can deduct those enormous costs from the CBO's estimate of costs for the public option plan.
Basically, there is no legitimate reason for opposing it. In fact, there is no legitimate reason for opposing single payer. Before I retired I had a number of insurers depending on my job. I had BC/BS back before they became a for profit company and they were wonderful, just like a government run plan. Lately I had United Healthcare, not too bad, but not too good either. At least they had a fairly large number of in network providers. Then I had Aetna which forced me to change all my doctors and limited services badly.
Now I have medicare, and nobody gets between me and my doctor any longer. And, I can go to any doctor I want.
If this is socialism (it isn't) then would you like to do away with the infrastructure, schools, the police and fire departments and the military? Frankly, whatever it costs it's worth it. If necessary, raise taxes. It would still be cheaper than paying private insurers and 57% of the people think raising taxes for healthcare is a good deal.
There are a few European countries that allow private insurers, but they are required to provide primary care on a non-profit basis and cannot refuse coverage for anyone or anything in that primary care. They can make a profit on secondary care, such as elective surgery or room upgrades.
Anyone who votes against the public option should have all of us chipping in to fund primary challengers to them in the next election. We should also work to pass a law making it a crime for any politician to vote in favor of any bill that any corporate donor is helped directly by. It's de facto bribery. But not being stupid, I know that will never come to pass.
I'm physician. Our present "system" is unfair, brutal, and deadly! Clear evidence indicates that we can insure all citizens, at around 1/2 the cost per person, and get better outcomes. But the insurance industry and other big players control congress in ways that are ILLEGAL in other advanced democracies! I'm hoping that the slight reform we'll now get will be a step in the right direction.
Please be diligent in assessing my comments and think of what your decision might be if you were a World leader and how would you go about resolving these problems. This is America and every citizen deserves the very best care available under all circumstances. Discrimination is discrimination. Hope and fear are the two greatest motivators known and often used by Governments to keep citizens in check. Well I’m maintaining Hope that we all get together again and my personal Fear has been eased by awareness of the forthcoming events from paying attention to sixty years of bad Government policy and self-gratification by Washington Aristocracy, whose arrogance exposes their intent. This should send up flags demanding the severest scrutiny possible at this critical point in time. We are in a situation that is devastating to our very existence and will exceed the great depression’s impact on society without recourse. The purpose in 1929 was to shift wealth to cover assets that never existed at the expense of the working class, and it has happened again. Then gold surplus increased, capitalism was intact and our Constitution was observed; now our security blankets are gone. Please reflect on History, what we've been told and the real effects your families have experienced. We are a compassionate and forgiving society that has become compulsive buyers willing to pay tomorrow. This one time we must resist until we UNDERSTAND THE FINE PRINT and not just the words the salesman is spouting. We have reached a point where world over population is unsustainable and Senior Citizens are an economic liability to America. As opposed to being prepared through planning resolve to protect our Constitution and way of life, I fear development through condescending education and reverse discrimination appeasing petty grievances has breached unity in a society that has historically set precedence by overcoming obstacles. We again must unite to protect our Country and the Liberties we all share as individuals with respect for others right to be different. Planning and rationalizing mass genocide on a world scale has been on the drawing board for decades, starting with the assassination of JFK. However, it was the Bush II administration’s final economic positioning, Health cost expansion and containment bill to establish the foundation for Obamanism to take us over the edge. In my reviews, both pro and con, I have concluded that with the urgency push, as was done with the stimulus bill, it behooves us to Question and check out in detail, the potential adverse effects on this Health Care Reform bill, or it will be like signing a Death Warrant for Medicare Recipients and the younger generations will be scrutinized based on many factors including their participation (18-25) in mandatory social (Marxist) groups. When checking cabinet CZARS background, many specialize in areas of concern and provide no qualifications for positions assigned. The true measure of ones’ character is their resistance to temptation. I pray for character abundance in the times ahead. Hospital Protocol has changed again in the last 3 Months (my area) but I’ve been told it has nothing to do with Obama's Policy awaiting approval. From this I conclude the Bill’s concept was scheduled to take effect whether passed of not. Medical Necessity Medication and predetermined heart surgery are no longer available and my wife has been subjected to drugs causing known allergic reactions on two separate occasions over protests. Beware my friends and consider the potential difference in resisting now or later.
You see, this is the dilemma our 'representatives' in Congress face: On the one hand, they need to deliver to their corporate suppliers of cash and now do their bidding. On the other hand they need to do for their constituents who put them in office with the only possession they have: their measly but invaluable vote, what they want. But the two objectives are as diametrically opposed as is imaginable and are a genuine example of irreconcilable differences. What to do? Make a simple problem very complex. Talk the issues to death, create all kinds of obstacles and difficulties and questions and doubts and above all, fear. Claim it's too expensive, costs jobs, need to find savings, of course from the already poor. All this grand theater, smoke and mirrors game, in the name of helping the poor uninsured, the poor poor. I have never seen so many millionaires claim over 50 years now, to try and help so many poor, yet the poor are more numerous than ever and more miserable than ever while those unconscionable enough and brazen enough to play this game of inhuman cruelty and deceit for profit, wear fine custom tailored suits.
.
The Republicans and Consertatives have been attacking with negative ads. When will we react. The folliwing is an expample of how:
Today you rely on health coverage spnsored by your employer. What is you should lose your job? What is your employer decided to reduce your benenfits or drop your coverage? what would you do? The Republicans and conversatives want you to depend on the existing employer health insurance system that has been shown to be disfunctional. Can we trust our health to a system that rely heavily on employer sponsored health coverage? It is time for a change!
Another suggestion for an ad to counter the Replication negativity:
Are you satisfied with your health coverage? Most emplyers are concerned about the rising cost of sponsoring health coverage for their employers. The Republicans want you to keep your current coverage which puts most americans at considerable risk. Most Americans depend on their employers to provide health coverage; while, employers are actively looking for ways to reduce their expenditure on health coverage. What if your employer drops or changes your health coverage? What if you lose your job? The current cost of health insurance by individuals is beyond the ability of most Americans. Isn't time for a change?
Here's a direct quote from Barack Hussein Obama:"I don't think we're going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There's going to be potentially some transition process." Now why would the president want to take away my employer-provided medical insurance coverage? I don't see anything in the Constitution that gives the president the right or responsibility to take over private companies, like GM, and appoint his financial backers (Ed Whitacre) as the company president. How can Obama justify giving the openly corrupt and often convicted voter fraud group ACORN hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars and possible control of the U.S. Census. Anyone who can't recognize open and blatant corruption raise your hand. This is NOT a Socialist state. We have a Constitution and a Bill of Rights that delineate very limited power to the federal government. We are a nation of laws, and the politicians are our employees, not our keepers. Our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and states rights to makem their own laws are very easy to understand. There are too many corrupt people who would like to centralize ALL power in Washington, D.C. The politicians are NOT aware of reality for the average American and they should NEVER be able to pass any laws that don't apply to them, as well as the taxpayers. They don't pay into Social Security, yet I get money extorted out of every paycheck against my will. That's money that's funding Obama's corrupt activities and pet projects. He has already raised the national debt to the point that just the interest on our debt is up to 70% of our national GNP. What part of tax-and-spend do you not understand? It's inevitable that this is going to raise inflation. That's Economics 101. Butall of the millionaire politicians don't have to worry about everyday concerns like inflation. That's only for us little people. Let me reiterate, THEY ARE OUR EMPLOYEES.
Obama doesn't want my employer to offer me health care coverage, and if my employer does offer it, Obama wants to tax my benefits in addition to the extortion I'm already being subjected to. Americans, keep your eyes on the real ball, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They are both being ignored by the millionaires who "represent" us in DC. Obama is the definition of corruption. No more "czars". People need to be responsible to the process, not insulated from it. Ed Whitacre gets to be president of GM. ACORN gets hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars. The UAW gets 55% of Chrysler in violation of US bankruptcy laws. Obama IS corruption.
None of the above is true, of course…
Idea for an ad campaign:
The co-sponsors and organizers for all anti-reform rallies:
-FreedomWorks led by Dick Armey , backed by UnitedHealthcare, the biggest insurance company in America.
-Americans for Prosperity (Exxon Mobil, Koch Industries)
-Conservatives for Patients Rights led by Rick Scott, former health insurance executive, fired amid a 1 billion dollar insurance fraud.
We have Dick Armey on tape calling Medicare "tyranny", we also have numerous GOP officials and various other Republicans talking against Medicare, Medicaid and VA. Because they're all Govmnt-run, they were deemed by these peopple as "inefficient", "broken" and "corrupt" , which need to be dismantled. All of it on the record!
Tell the Seniors what conservatives think about Medicare and their plans to do away with it! Get the truth out there!!!!! Fast!
Hi Follks. Those who are truly concerned and working for Health Insurance Reform… HR676, Single-Payer is the answer. Just look around the world. Single-Payer Universal Health Insurance is the only affordable, fiscally conservative, plan that would cover All Americans that have several working examples. Also notice that there are no examples of mandating the purchase of private health insurance (unless the that industry is regulated like utility companies). Medicare for All… Patients before Profits! Health Insurance reform was never an Option… it is a Necessity.
If Congress will not fix the corrupt National VA Health Care system for Veterans,and will not enforce Federal Laws violated by VA, how can they expect veterans and citizens to trust them with a National Health Care system?
I “was” for government health care for all.
Jerry McNerney is a member of the Congressional VA Committee. He lives in Pleasanton, CA.
I am a Vietnam Era Veteran and go to the VA (Livermore and Palo Alto – Livermore is under Palo Alto) for my health care. Palo Alto (VAPAHCS) is under VISN-21 in Martinez.
I have changed my mind by my experience with the Federal Government and Congress run VA Health Care System and Jerry McNerney’s ignorance of VA matters and his and his staff’s unwillingness to assist veterans like me concerning our issues with VA.
I have found the VA system to be corrupt, inept, blatantly breaking federal laws with impunity and the blessing of VA executives, stealing Veterans money by illegally using the Treasury Offset Program, and causing more health harm to Veterans than improving their health – Blinding seven (7) Veterans at VAPAHCS. Each facility is like a Fiefdom run by a king or queen who chops off heads if they disagree and promotes the yes men and women and somehow keeps the VA Office of Inspector General out of their Fiefdom.
Some of the problems with VA recently have been,:
1. VA Palo Alto (VAPAHCS) failing to follow policy, giving improper care, and costing seven (7) patients their vision – i.e., VAPAHCS caused their blindness.
2. Dysfunctional Mental Health System hearing by the Ninth District Court in San Francisco where Judge Stephen Reinhardt said that when the government doesn’t follow the law, “it’s not novel for a court to tell an agency to comply.”
3. The contract dispute between VA in California and Anthem Blue Cross that affects all California Veterans having Anthem Blue Cross and having their claims denied, thereby having the VA take the Veteran’s money instead of getting it from the third party provider, Anthem Blue Cross.
4. By law, VA must file third party claims for Veterans, however, often they do not file the claims and they charge the Veteran.
VA has been backlogged in filing of claims on Veteran’s behalf to third party insurers and has outsourced filing of claims. Even so, often claims are filed outside of the contractual time period and are denied. These claims are either charged to the Veteran or are written off, thereby, paid by the taxpayer instead of the third party insurer.
It is the function and responsibility of the VA OIG to investigate allegations of criminal activity by VA officials. When they fail to do this, they become useless and should be disbanded and not funded by Jerry McNerney and his VA Committee.
This is only the tip of the iceberg concerning how the Federal Government and Congress and my Congressman run the VA.
If the Federal Government and Congress and my Congressman are unable to fix the systemic, insidious, illegal and criminal practices of the VA, the stealing of Veterans money, the blinding of seven (7) Veterans by VAPAHCS, and the dysfunctional VA mental health system the how can they have a functional national health care system?
I could go on an on, but I think you get the picture.
Even tho we need health reform this bill(#3200)is too intrusive! After reading it, but still unable to make heads or tails out of some parts (because it is in flux), I believe a simpler form would work much better. Many of the issues are being addressed already and to restate these is a waste of time and money.The language needs to be simpler and clearer so most people would be able to understand exactly what it is proposing. To intrude in a citizens life in this manner is not the governments work.All elected officials should remember that their constituents make the decisions and it is up to them to be sure they are put into law then carried out! The idea that government knows more about the needs of its people without following their wishes is incorrect, a hugh mistake.Since this is such a large issue the citizens should be voting and not just legislators.
I am a 68 year black woman and I pay for some of my insurence and thank God I can do to the fact that I for 20 years and have medical care and a pention. I would love tto have the coverage that the congress has for insurence. As is all the tax payers would. You have to pass some kind of insurence policy that people can pay and keep. With all the insurence companys out there that can give our goverment a unmberlla policy.
God Love You Mary Alice! There are indeed changes that need to be made, but selectively and not all encompassing. What the current administration is trying to do is just not constitutional. The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution confirmed the understanding of the people at the time the Constitution was adopted, that powers not granted to the United States were reserved to the States or to the people. Universal, federally-provided health care was NOT granted to the Federal Government. It could have been, but was not. And, there were doctors and medical care at that time but was paid for by the individual and not by government. So, if Congress wants to pursue an amendment to the Constitution for Universal Health Care from the Federal Government, and the States ratify the amendment, then it becomes law and I will support it. Meanwhile, tort reform is one option that can be implemented to keep the price health insurance down, and there are others that can be implemented to stem the rising cost of health care.
Keep the government out of my health!!! Anyone who thinks that the cost of health care will decrease under the administration of a Federal Government Bureaucracy is niave, foolish or both! What ever happened to the constitution limiting the power and scope of government?!
"The government which governs best, is the government which governs least." Thomas Jefferson
Seeing as Medicare and Medicaid, government health care programs, are cheaper than private care, this is a load of BS…
Watching the so-called "free market" advocates at health care reform town hall meetings scream: "Keep the government's hands off my health care", when clearly more than half of them are Medicare recipients, would be laughable if the consequences of their ignorance were not so tragic for people who do not have such a government plan available to them.
This cognitive dissonance; that they are against the the plan that they are so vigorously protecting; can only be explained by concluding that these people have no idea what the are protesting or advocating. They just got on a bus and did what they were told.
Poll after poll that asks the question about support of a government option "choice" shows over 70% of Americans think that a government plan as a choice would be good competition for private market insurance and a necessary safety net against private market abuses in denying or overcharging for coverage.
The funniest comment I heard was from a Republican Senator on CNN saying about health care, "Government can't be trusted to run anything." - Hello? Isn't he part of the government?
BECAUSE MOST OF THEM ARE DEMBOS WHO ARE GOING TO RUIN THE COUNTRY.
I think it is time to start making plans for the future. If the public option is not in the new health care bill, we need to make sure that those who work for the government do not have their insurance paid by the public. We need to end all government sponsored health care for government employees. They can pay for their health insurance through the same sources as the rest of us. Aetna, Cigna or whatever. I'm tired of paying for services to government employees that is not rendered as an option to me.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR PUTTING MY HUSBAND OUT OF WORK AND 300 OTHER MEN WHO WORK FOR HIM THIS BILL IN MY OPINION STINK,S.
Health care reform? Who is going to pay for it? Hard working Americans thats who. Who is going to benefit, Those that do not work so hard!! What a deal. Yet another program to allow the lazy to get lazier.