quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

Margaret Thacher is the last ray of sunshine that Britain has seen for years and years. You two are simply not used to the light...

quote:

ORIGINAL: nevergrowdup

One of the most compelling pieces I've seen yet is a PBS interview with Wendall Potter, a former big wig at Cigna who gave up his cushy job in PR because he realized that the little guy was hurting while the corporate executives were living in excess.  He talks about how Cigna would deny expensive treatments, drop people that became too expensive.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmEwhakknkk

I've heard that the difference between conservatives and progressives is an opinion on who will handle matters better ... corporations with the profit motive or government with inefficiencies.  Free market thinkers will show how private schools are more efficiently run, which is largely true, but they do compete with free public schools, so they have the incentive to keep quality high and cost low.  The problem is that there's no such incentive in health care.  If the pubic option was a choice, perhaps then we'd see some real changes.

If the private insurers are allowed to play in the field, there must be new rules ... like the inability to drop coverage or raise premiums based on the health of a particular patient.

I've been separated from the hubby almost two years.  We're ready to move on the divorce but that's on hold now.  Why?  He lost his job.  If we divorce, he'll have no health insurance.  He's 50 years old, heart disease runs rampant in the family (usually with a severe first heart attack in the early 50s).  He has high BP meds with co-pays over $50/month ... without well over $300.  If something happens to him, that would wipe out all his assets.  I don't love him, but I do want what's best for him ... and if he loses his ability to pay for himself, that means I have to figure out a way to support my kids through college alone.

There's got to be a better way.

quote:

Ultimately "controlling health care costs" is taking a position that there is enough technology, enough drugs, a long enough life span etc. There WILL be a time when enough people will no longer pay for those improvements that they will no longer be pursued. Do you want to decide when or do you want the government to decide when?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Crush

I especially love how the Senate has decided to opt itself out of any Nationalized Health Care....anyone surprised?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124786946165760369.html

On Tuesday, the Senate health committee voted 12-11 in favor of a two-page amendment courtesy of Republican Tom Coburn that would require all Members and their staffs to enroll in any new government-run health plan. Yet all Democrats -- with the exceptions of acting chairman Chris Dodd, Barbara Mikulski and Ted Kennedy via proxy -- voted nay. In other words, Sherrod Brown and Sheldon Whitehouse won't themselves join a plan that "will offer benefits that are as good as those available through private insurance plans -- or better," as the Ohio and Rhode Island liberals put it in a recent op-ed. And even a self-described socialist like Vermont's Bernie Sanders, who supports a government-only system, wouldn't sign himself up.

quote:

...If you think you have control of your health under the current system, get really sick and see how that goes...

quote:

ORIGINAL: CallaFirestormBW

quote:

Ultimately "controlling health care costs" is taking a position that there is enough technology, enough drugs, a long enough life span etc. There WILL be a time when enough people will no longer pay for those improvements that they will no longer be pursued. Do you want to decide when or do you want the government to decide when?

...well, right now my INSURANCE COMPANY is deciding 'when'... and 'where', and 'how much', and still saying 'no' when the rubber hits the road... so I'd say I can't see myself having much LESS say than I do right now. they may be deciding how much THEY will cover, you are still the one making the decision about what YOU are willing to pay for

Having the 'right' insurance means having to have the "right" job -- for as long as that 'right' job is willing to provide it, and for as long as the insurance company is willing to accept the company's pooled risk, so the current system also means I can't choose where I work if I want decent health care. wrong again. You can work anywhere you want, and if you dont like the health care they provide you can supplement it yourself. It affects my budget, so if I want decent health care, I can't choose where I live, or what I eat with impunity (especially in this part of TX, where buying fresh produce requires platinum-level credit)... Tell me again who is deciding the terms of my health care???

If you think you have control of your health under the current system, get really sick and see how that goes.

DC

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brain

quote:

ORIGINAL: Crush

I especially love how the Senate has decided to opt itself out of any Nationalized Health Care....anyone surprised?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124786946165760369.html

On Tuesday, the Senate health committee voted 12-11 in favor of a two-page amendment courtesy of Republican Tom Coburn that would require all Members and their staffs to enroll in any new government-run health plan. Yet all Democrats -- with the exceptions of acting chairman Chris Dodd, Barbara Mikulski and Ted Kennedy via proxy -- voted nay. In other words, Sherrod Brown and Sheldon Whitehouse won't themselves join a plan that "will offer benefits that are as good as those available through private insurance plans -- or better," as the Ohio and Rhode Island liberals put it in a recent op-ed. And even a self-described socialist like Vermont's Bernie Sanders, who supports a government-only system, wouldn't sign himself up.

Obama said, "If you like your health insurance plan you can keep it”. So no I’m not surprised. The senators liked the plan they have and decided to keep it. And if anybody else likes the health insurance they have they can keep it as well. So what’s the problem? there are two problems. The health insurance plan they have has to be a "qualified plan", and any plan that changes virtually any aspect of its coverage is no longer a "qualified plan", and will have to be "accredited". The second problem is the government plan will eventually crowd out private plans to the point where they are no longer viable. Make no mistake, the ultimate end game is a single government provided plan or set of plans.

If the public option isn’t good enough then they should make it better, if that’s your point. But remember the private insurance companies need to make money so they don’t want a public alternative that’s too good to compete with.

I don’t read the Wall Street Journal anymore anyway, the same scumbag who owns Faux news owns the WSJ now. He also owns Dish Network and probably the Fox television network too I think. And some people think somebody like Rupert Murdoch should not pay more taxes, I guess he needs to buy another yacht.

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

Ultimately "controlling health care costs" is taking a position that there is enough technology, enough drugs, a long enough life span etc. There WILL be a time when enough people will no longer pay for those improvements that they will no longer be pursued.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

and/or be one of those folks who has adverse and/or allergic reactions or doesn't even respond to conventional treatments that insurance WILL pay for, all or in part, and see how that goes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brain

Obama demands Congress move quickly on healthcare reform



Reporting from Washington -- President Obama, calling the need for healthcare reform "urgent" and "indisputable," said today that it is not his own political fortune that is at stake, but rather the health of the nation's economy.

"The need for reform is urgent, and it is indisputable," the president said, in an appearance at the Children's National Medical Center.



http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-obama-healthcare21-2009jul21,0,318541.story