Soph the Vet, how's the reading of the bill coming?

[6packofun]

I'm curious how the reading is going for anyone attempting to go through this massive health care reform bill! Is there anything positive that would warrant support?

 

Just today I read section 440: Home Visitation Programs for Families with Young Children or Expecting Children

 

To read it yourself: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c111:1:./temp/~c111sUxube:e989766:

 

That is something scary waiting to happen.

[Retired]

I am not Sophie but I have read this section of the bill.

 

I do not think the federal goverments job is to be a parenting model.

 

I can imagine the "voluntary program" being expanding to a mandatory criteria if you want "health care"

 

The whole bill is a disaster.

[Soph the vet]

I am still at it. I have been spending time on the end of life issues in the pg. 425-430 or so range and discussing them with my mom (a senior).

I'm waiting for all the mark-ups in committee to happen but it doesn't really sound like they have done that much except cut 7% or something. I am determined to read all of it before any vote and thankfully that may not come until after the break.

[lollie010]

Ok I am motivated now. I am going to get started.

[astrid]

Just today I read section 440: Home Visitation Programs for Families with Young Children or Expecting Children

 

That is something scary waiting to happen.

 

My mom was a public health nurse in Boston in the late 1950's through the late 1960's and this was a regular part of her job. She enjoyed it---never had the "out to get you" mentality. She just made sure the new mom was okay, the baby was okay, and would answer any questions the family might have. It wasn't negative at all. I think there are several states that still pay for visits from nurses for every newborn/new mom.

 

Astrid

[shinyhappypeople]

My mom was a public health nurse in Boston in the late 1950's through the late 1960's and this was a regular part of her job. She enjoyed it---never had the "out to get you" mentality. She just made sure the new mom was okay, the baby was okay, and would answer any questions the family might have. It wasn't negative at all. I think there are several states that still pay for visits from nurses for every newborn/new mom.

 

Astrid

 

I was so clueless and overwhelmed when I brought DD home. I would have loved something like this.

[SquirrellyMama]

My mom was a public health nurse in Boston in the late 1950's through the late 1960's and this was a regular part of her job. She enjoyed it---never had the "out to get you" mentality. She just made sure the new mom was okay, the baby was okay, and would answer any questions the family might have. It wasn't negative at all. I think there are several states that still pay for visits from nurses for every newborn/new mom.

 

Astrid

 

We have a program like this in the county I'm in. I did like having the nurse come. It is completely voluntary. I'm not sure it would be so great if it were mandatory though.

[Hillary in KS]

My mom was a public health nurse in Boston in the late 1950's through the late 1960's and this was a regular part of her job. She enjoyed it---never had the "out to get you" mentality. She just made sure the new mom was okay, the baby was okay, and would answer any questions the family might have. It wasn't negative at all. I think there are several states that still pay for visits from nurses for every newborn/new mom.

 

Astrid

 

We had a program like this when I lived in Wisconsin. (In my county, anyway.) Visitations were voluntary, but they would send mailers and those HAD to be signed and returned. If you didn't, they WOULD send someone out the the house.

 

I like the idea of something like that being available on a voluntary basis, but not mandated. Imagine if you got stuck with someone not as sweet and helpful as Astrid's mom. One of those "My way is the right way" types!

[Renee in NC]

My mom was a public health nurse in Boston in the late 1950's through the late 1960's and this was a regular part of her job. She enjoyed it---never had the "out to get you" mentality. She just made sure the new mom was okay, the baby was okay, and would answer any questions the family might have. It wasn't negative at all. I think there are several states that still pay for visits from nurses for every newborn/new mom.

 

Astrid

 

The birth center where I delivered 3 children did this - it wasn't a big deal and I appreciated it.

[cdrumm4448]

I am on page 200 and I do intent to read the entire thing. We just stopped school for the summer, so I will have more time.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

None of the health care reform bills being proposed will lead to euthanasia.

 

Some special interests such as the private health insurance companies want us to believe that health care reform will kill seniors since these special interests are very afraid of a public health care option being offered to the American people. If the private health insurance policies are such a good deal, then why are they afraid of the option of public health plan?

 

If you go to factcheck.org, then you will see that health care reform does not propose or support euthanasia.

 

The bill in question does provide for that medicare and medicaid will have to pay for end of life counseling for those who seek it. This counseling is totally optional and would help patients in making their own decisions in regards to a living will. A living will specifies the type of care and interventions that you want or do not want in the case that you cannot speak for yourself and are terminally ill. Also your living will could say that you want everything done.

 

Currently, for the past 10- 15 years at least, it is already mandated by law that all patients who enter a healthcare facility be asked if they have a living will (advanced directive) so that their wishes can be followed. This bill will provide payment for those who desire such counseling whereas previously it was not specifically covered. Living wills are a good thing. I have one. I am an R.N. who worked in the hospital and critical care settings for 22 years. Living wills help to ensure that your wishes are honored.

Edited July 31, 2009 by priscilla
spelling

[Kari C in SC]

My mom was a public health nurse in Boston in the late 1950's through the late 1960's and this was a regular part of her job. She enjoyed it---never had the "out to get you" mentality. She just made sure the new mom was okay, the baby was okay, and would answer any questions the family might have. It wasn't negative at all. I think there are several states that still pay for visits from nurses for every newborn/new mom.

 

Astrid

 

When I had my first baby - I had a home health nurse come out and answer any of my questions. I was a thankful teen mom to have that. She was very kind and not intruding at all. She offered great advice on breastfeeding.

[Kari C in SC]

None of the health care reform bills being proposed will lead to euthanasia.

 

Some special interests such as the private health insurance companies want us to believe that health care reform will kill seniors since these special interests are very afraid of a public health care option being offered to the American people. If the private health insurance policies are such a good deal, then why are they afraid of the option of public health plan?

 

If you go to factcheck.org, then you will see that health care reform does not propose or support euthanasia.

 

The bill in question does provide for that medicare and medicaid will have to pay for end of life counseling for those who seek it. This counseling is totally optional and would help patients in making their own decisions in regards to a living will. A living will specifies the type of care and interventions that you want or do not want in the case that you cannot speak for yourself and are terminally ill. Also your living will could say that you want everything done.

 

Currently, for the past 10- 15 years at least, it is already mandated by law that all patients who enter a healthcare facility be asked if they have a living will (advanced directive) so that their wishes can be followed. This bill will provide payment for those who desire such counseling whereas previously it was not specifically covered. Living wills are a good thing. I have one. I am an R.N. who worked in the hospital and critical care settings for 22 years. Living wills help to ensure that your wishes are honored.

 

This is exactly what my 69 year old mother says about it. She worked in health care her entire life. When somebody posted a radio interview on end of life care, she immediately called me. She was worried. I told her to go READ the page 425 and decide for herself. She did. She came away that this was a VERY GOOD thing for elderly especially ones in nursing homes without family. Many of them have no idea what their choices are and do not have their wishes respected.

 

On a personal note, my dad died when he was 57. He was in the hospital for partial foot amputation. Things went bad and he ended up on life support. My mom had to make decisions. If my mom hadn't been there, I don't know what I would have done. I was pregnant and hysterical. I would have had a very difficult time making decisions. In the end my mom opted to let him pass peacefully. She said that was what he had always said he wanted. By having this end of life counseling in place - I would have known his wishes.

[astrid]

We had a program like this when I lived in Wisconsin. (In my county, anyway.) Visitations were voluntary, but they would send mailers and those HAD to be signed and returned. If you didn't, they WOULD send someone out the the house.

 

I like the idea of something like that being available on a voluntary basis, but not mandated. Imagine if you got stuck with someone not as sweet and helpful as Astrid's mom. One of those "My way is the right way" types!

 

 

I'm picturing "Nurse Ratchet" in a grey nurses' outfit, buttons bulging, snapping a rubber glove on her hand and towering over the new mom and babe, demanding, "Vat do you mean, you vant to brrrreastfeed? Vee have dis formula here. You vill use it and you vill LIKE it!" <snap the rubber glove, shove can of formula in horrified mother's face>

 

Nope. Not a pretty picture! :tongue_smilie:

 

Astrid

[Jean too]

You might want to read up on the two most influential men behind ObamaCare and their thoughts on over population and eldercare, John Holdren and Ezekiel Emmanuel.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCYfWrg4WKY

 

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(09)60137-9/fulltext

 

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Obamas-science-czar-suggested-compulsory-abortion-sterilization-50783612.html

 

More truth about ObamaCare

http://money.cnn.com/2009/07/24/news/economy/health_care_reform_obama.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2009072410

Edited July 31, 2009 by Jean too

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

I believe that arguments that euthanasia is the secret motive of President Obama et al and of the proposed healthcare reform is patently untrue.

 

IMHO, I think that powerful vested interests want us to believe such un-truths.

 

I would google the Bill Moyers Show on PBS and watch the piece on Wendall Potter who was a high level private insurance executive for over 2 decades who made a decision to leave after witnessing the hundreds of people who came to a free health clinic in Tennesee because they have been deprived of health care in our current system.

 

I believe that the current status quo cannot continue unless we just want to kick the millions of Amercians who are un-insured and under-insured to the curbside. I also think that in 5-10 years if the status quo is maintained that our health insurance premiums will be even more un-affordable and our plans made even skimpier. In regards to rationing, health care is already rationed by the private health insurance companies through their denials of payment, cancellations of policies, by raising their premiums to astronomical levels, and exclusions of coverage.

[astrid]

I believe that arguments that euthanasia is the secret motive of President Obama et al and of the proposed healthcare reform is patently untrue.

 

IMHO, I think that powerful vested interests want us to believe such un-truths.

 

I would google the Bill Moyers Show on PBS and watch the piece on Wendall Potter who was a high level private insurance executive for over 2 decades who made a decision to leave after witnessing the hundreds of people who came to a free health clinic in Tennesee because they have been deprived of health care in our current system.

 

I believe that the current status quo cannot continue unless we just want to kick the millions of Amercians who are un-insured and under-insured to the curbside. I also think that in 5-10 years if the status quo is maintained that our health insurance premiums will be even more un-affordable and our plans made even skimpier. In regards to rationing, health care is already rationed by the private health insurance companies through their denials of payment, cancellations of policies, by raising their premiums to astronomical levels, and exclusions of coverage.

 

:iagree::iagree:

 

astrid

[My3Boys]

I believe that arguments that euthanasia is the secret motive of President Obama et al and of the proposed healthcare reform is patently untrue.

 

IMHO, I think that powerful vested interests want us to believe such un-truths.

 

I would google the Bill Moyers Show on PBS and watch the piece on Wendall Potter who was a high level private insurance executive for over 2 decades who made a decision to leave after witnessing the hundreds of people who came to a free health clinic in Tennesee because they have been deprived of health care in our current system.

 

I believe that the current status quo cannot continue unless we just want to kick the millions of Amercians who are un-insured and under-insured to the curbside. I also think that in 5-10 years if the status quo is maintained that our health insurance premiums will be even more un-affordable and our plans made even skimpier. In regards to rationing, health care is already rationed by the private health insurance companies through their denials of payment, cancellations of policies, by raising their premiums to astronomical levels, and exclusions of coverage.

 

When an insurance company denies payment they are not denying the treatment, just payment for it. I still have the option of paying for it myself in some way. Not all will be able to find another way, but I would argue that most will. With nationalized healthcare, no one will not have that option.

 

As far as "powerful vested interests", who fits that description more than the government? In fact, I don't believe this has anything to do with caring about people getting good healthcare. If this passes, they will have unprecedented access to our personal records and control over our lives. IMO, it will be the end of our living in a free society.

 

BTW, I live in TN, and there is already a huge problem here with TennCare and medicaid fraud.

Edited July 31, 2009 by My3Boys

[astrid]

When an insurance company denies payment they are not denying the treatment, just payment for it. I still have the option of paying for it myself in some way. Not all will be able to find another way, but I would argue that most will. With nationalized healthcare, no one will not have that option.

 

I kind of don't think that a civilized society should allow poor women,for instance, to die because they've been diagnosed with breast cancer and are uninsured/denied and unable to afford cancer treatments. I think that's unacceptable.

 

 

astrid

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

By MY3Boys When an insurance company denies payment they are not denying the treatment, just payment for it. I still have the option of paying for it myself in some way. Not all will be able to find another way, but I would argue that most will. With nationalized healthcare, no one will not have that option.

 

IMHO, all I can say is good luck to anyone stuck paying the bill when denied coverage. I know that when my insurance company denied payments for my doctor trying to induce me during a very high risk pregnancy that I had to face a $1200.00 bill which is peanuts compared to other medical bills, but was not peanuts for me. Medical bills can be in the thousands, tens of thousands, and hundreds of thousands of dollars which is out of reach for over 90% of Americans if not more.

 

Also, none of the plans are outlawing paying for treatment by yourself. In fact, the several proposals are designed to increase choices which we do not have due to the monopolies that private health insurance have at the present time.

Edited July 31, 2009 by priscilla
spelling

[hornblower]

My mom was a public health nurse in Boston in the late 1950's through the late 1960's and this was a regular part of her job. She enjoyed it---never had the "out to get you" mentality. She just made sure the new mom was okay, the baby was okay, and would answer any questions the family might have. It wasn't negative at all. I think there are several states that still pay for visits from nurses for every newborn/new mom.

 

Astrid

 

We have this in Canada. I think it's extremely important, esp with early discharge. If you have a homebirth, the midwives will keep on visiting in the post partum period. If you were under the care of a doctor & delivered in hospital, the public health nurse is supposed to check in with you at least by phone within 24h of discharge to make sure baby is feeling well. They usually come by at least once. It's also an opportunity to do a bit of pre-screening for post partum depression, and offer referrals to other support groups - esp if mom is isolated and does not have a good support system.

 

These interventions save money in the long run. If we can keep babies from being readmitted to hospital because they're not feeding well, or if moms get the care they need to parent well, it's all to the good IMO.

 

I'm watching your healthcare debates with interest. :001_smile:

[MomLovesClassics]

You might want to read up on the two most influential men behind ObamaCare and their thoughts on over population and eldercare, John Holdren and Ezekiel Emmanuel.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCYfWrg4WKY

 

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(09)60137-9/fulltext

 

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Obamas-science-czar-suggested-compulsory-abortion-sterilization-50783612.html

 

More truth about ObamaCare

http://money.cnn.com/2009/07/24/news/economy/health_care_reform_obama.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2009072410

 

Yes, I have been reading about these, and saw others as well. It is scary.

[MomLovesClassics]

Dear Friend,

 

If you’re like most Americans, there’s nothing more important to you about health care than peace of mind.

 

Given the status quo, that’s understandable. The current system often denies insurance due to pre-existing conditions, charges steep out-of-pocket fees – and sometimes isn’t there at all if you become seriously ill.

 

It’s time to fix our unsustainable insurance system and create a new foundation for health care security. That means guaranteeing your health care security and stability with eight basic consumer protections:

 

• No discrimination for pre-existing conditions</ b>
  
• No exorbitant out-of-pocket expenses, deductibles or co-pays
  
• No cost-sharing for preventive care
  
• No dropping of coverage if you become seriously ill
  
• No gender discrimination
  
• No annual or lifetime caps on coverage
  
• Extended coverage for young adults
  
• Guaranteed insurance renewal so long as premiums are paid
  

Learn more about these consumer protections at Whitehouse.gov.

 

Over the next month there is going to be an avalanche of misinformation and scare tactics from those seeking to perpetuate the status quo. But we know the cost of doing nothing is too high. Health care costs will double over the next decade, millions more will become uninsured, and state and local go vernments will go bankrupt.

 

It’s time to act and reform health insurance, drive down costs and guarantee the health care security and stability of every American family. You can help by putting these core principles of reform in the hands of your friends, your family, and the rest of your social network.

 

Thank you,

Barack Obama

 

 

[Annabelle's Mom]

IMO, denial of payment IS denial of treatment. If one is financially very well off, yes, they can opt to pay themselves. But if one is already paying for insurance (which in itself if outrageously expensive), one is assuming that medical expenses will be paid.

 

Have you checked out how expensive medical care is now? Until last May, I hadn't. About 10 years ago I spent several hours in the ER with a passing kidney stone. It cost about $1000 for a 4 hour stay. I figured "well, ok, that's not too bad." Well, in May, dh had a bowel resection due to cancer. He has insurance on himself through his employer. Thank goodness! That 7 day stay (hospital only, not counting the various doctors' fees) cost $20,000. All told, it probably came close to $30,000. That is not something that most people can "opt" to pay.

 

I do not have medical coverage, although I hope to get on his insurance the next time they have open enrollment. It will cost an arm and a leg, and will be struggle to pay the premiums, but after his experience, I realize that we will not be able to afford medical care for me if I need it, and odds are I will need something. Right now, if I needed the care he had, and said up front that I had no insurance, most likely I wouldn't get it.

 

Dh and I are at odds with this. He always listens to Limbaugh, Beck and Ingram who always spout off against government health care. Notice they all could pay their entire medical bill even without insurance. It's easy to take that position if you can afford it. They don't seem to understand that there are millions of Americans that can't possibly afford $500 a month in medical insurance premiums, much less to pay the entire medical bill. Of course, dh does have medical insurance partially paid by his employer, and at the time of his surgery had just qualified (by age) for Medicare, so his perspective is also skewed. I'm in constant pain and feel crappy and can't afford to go the Dr, because when I finally get on his insurance (if I do) I don't want to be denied payment because of pre-existing conditions, so I just grit my teeth and drag myself through the day. It sucks not to be able to get help.

[Jean too]

That's just it, we can't afford it! The CBO has already done the math on this and the numbers Obama quotes don't work out. I realize Obama wants to pretend that those numbers don't matter that we should just press ahead and bankrupt the country. You cannot add 46 million people to the dole and not have to spend more money.

 

The eventual outcome of this plan, as Barney Frank lifted the curtain on yesterday, is for all of us to be on a single payer plan. As I said before look into the men behind Obama and their ideas on health care for infants and the elderly.

[LibraryLover]

/

Edited August 5, 2009 by LibraryLover

[astrid]

As I said before look into the men behind Obama and their ideas on health care for infants and the elderly.

 

I"m assuming you are raising moral/ethical/religious objections. I"m asking whether it's moral/ethical/etc. to allow people to die because they themselves cannot afford treatment.

 

The big scary false information that's circulating is that the elderly will be rounded up and euthanized. Come on. It's preposterous, and downright cruel to suggest such a thing. But how is that different, really, than what's happening now? Allowing the elderly to die because they cannot afford their medication? Allowing women to die because they can't afford breast cancer treatment?

 

I really struggle with how this is rationalized. I"m ashamed that in America, the "haves" get needed medical treatment while the "have nots" do without. I"m not talking repeated MRI's or superfluous tests. I"m talking dialysis, chemotherapy and expensive, necessary medication. I just cannot wrap my head around how that is moral/ethical/pick-your-religion-and-make-it-an-adjective.

 

astrid

[OHGrandma]

....

 

• Guaranteed insurance renewal so long as premiums are paid

...Thank you,

Barack Obama

 

 

 

 

So, what happens if we decide we're not going to pay the insurance?

[Jean too]

I don't think the elderly will be rounded up and euthnized and never suggested that they would be. I think it's pretty preposterous that you would jump to such a conclusion based on my post. However, I do believe after reading up on Ezekiel Emmanuel and John Holdren that care will be denied to the unborn (except to abort them), newborns with complications and the elderly. They may not be euthanized but their care will be rationed.

 

The bottom line is this plan cannot be funded. I trust the CBO to know more about this than Obama or any other politician in office.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

By OHGrandma So, what happens if we decide we're not going to pay the insurance?

 

Currently, many private health insurance companies will try to find a reason such as inadvertant mistakes on your application so they can drop you like a hot potato once you become ill. The proposals being discussed would prevent this and would be a great improvement in my book.

 

On poor woman had her insurance policy cancelled on the Friday before a scheduled Monday morning mastectomy for breat cancer. The reason given is that she failed to tell the insurance company that she was treated for acne in the past.:001_huh: There are thousands and thousands of people who have experienced this injustice.

 

Recently, congress asked a group of health insurance excecutives if they would stop cancelling (rescinding) insurance policies for inadvertent mistakes or ommissions. They all said no.:001_huh:

Edited July 31, 2009 by priscilla
spelling

[astrid]

I don't think the elderly will be rounded up and euthnized and never suggested that they would be. I think it's pretty preposterous that you would jump to such a conclusion based on my post. However, I do believe after reading up on Ezekiel Emmanuel and John Holdren that care will be denied to the unborn (except to abort them), newborns with complications and the elderly. They may not be euthanized but their care will be rationed.

 

The bottom line is this plan cannot be funded. I trust the CBO to know more about this than Obama or any other politician in office.

 

I never said you did. I just responded to the thread, and I guess my post fell under yours. Actually, I was listening to Limbaugh today on my way home from the grocery store ( I NEVER listen to him, but for some reason my FM stations wouldn't come in while the defroster was on, and it's so wet here I needed my defroster on to keep my windows from fogging up!)

and literally, that's what he was implying. That's just wrong! It's awful to even imply that! My post wasn't a reaction to YOUR post, as much as a reaction to what I've been hearing and read in mass emails forwarded to me by my ultra-conservative neighbor. Sorry if you felt I was attacking you.

 

Now....to your concern regarding care to the unborn, newborn and elderly......you are saying that under this bill, no care will be given to the these groups? Do you think hospitals could get away with telling a new mom, "sorry, your baby was born at 30 weeks. He needs respiratory therapy, but we're not allowed to provide it. Good luck!" I seriously doubt any hospital, let alone practitioner, would do that. Are babies dying all over Canada? Sweden? France? Great Britain?

 

this is such an emotional issue for so many, I fear that rational thinking is being forsaken by many. We're responding to soundbites, and that's never good for civil discourse.

 

Astrid

[Soph the vet]

 

I really struggle with how this is rationalized. I"m ashamed that in America, the "haves" get needed medical treatment while the "have nots" do without. I"m not talking repeated MRI's or superfluous tests. I"m talking dialysis, chemotherapy and expensive, necessary medication. I just cannot wrap my head around how that is moral/ethical/pick-your-religion-and-make-it-an-adjective.

 

astrid

If the government would stay out of healthcare and let the free market decide costs, it may just be that more "have-nots" would be able to afford care. Look at Lasik surgery (not covered by insurance, must pay out of pocket), over time clinics have become more cost-competitive and quality of the procedure has gone up. The "haves" are the ones building private hospitals, creating jobs, donating wings onto children's clinics, etc. etc. Charity is a wonderful thing and should be exercised by all who can do it. Look at the Shriners hospitals, I don't think they turn anyone away, do they? And for things just like you are describing dialysis, etc. If we allow the government to takeover healthcare (unconstitutional) and pay for it by either heavily taxing the "haves" or printing fiat money = hyperinflation, we are allowing them to just create more "have-nots". They can't even run the cash for clunker program and we expect them to get our healthcare right?:lol:

[Audrey]

My mom was a public health nurse in Boston in the late 1950's through the late 1960's and this was a regular part of her job. She enjoyed it---never had the "out to get you" mentality. She just made sure the new mom was okay, the baby was okay, and would answer any questions the family might have. It wasn't negative at all. I think there are several states that still pay for visits from nurses for every newborn/new mom.

 

Astrid

 

They do that here. They call you first and ask if you want a visit, then schedule one that works for you. At the visit they do a "well-baby check-up." Basically, weighing baby, check temperature, movement, etc. -- they ask if he's eating well, pooping/peeing okay.

 

Then they ask if you have any questions -- on anything from breastfeeding to managing your household with a new infant. I found them a real blessing. They come with pamphlets on everything you can imagine. I was trying desperately to keep house the same as before, but had no energy -- et voilà! Out pops a cool little handout on keeping house looking nice with a minimum of input. It was a little schedule of the bare basics and tips on "quick clean" ideas. I still use many of the tips on that sheet.

 

But then... I love my little 'socialist' love fest up here. :D

[Elaine]

If the government would stay out of healthcare and let the free market decide costs, it may just be that more "have-nots" would be able to afford care. Look at Lasik surgery (not covered by insurance, must pay out of pocket), over time clinics have become more cost-competitive and quality of the procedure has gone up. The "haves" are the ones building private hospitals, creating jobs, donating wings onto children's clinics, etc. etc. Charity is a wonderful thing and should be exercised by all who can do it. Look at the Shriners hospitals, I don't think they turn anyone away, do they? And for things just like you are describing dialysis, etc. If we allow the government to takeover healthcare (unconstitutional) and pay for it by either heavily taxing the "haves" or printing fiat money = hyperinflation, we are allowing them to just create more "have-nots". They can't even run the cash for clunker program and we expect them to get our healthcare right?:lol:

 

Where's the bowing down smiley when you need it?

 

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

[Peek a Boo]

If the government would stay out of healthcare and let the free market decide costs, it may just be that more "have-nots" would be able to afford care. Look at Lasik surgery (not covered by insurance, must pay out of pocket), over time clinics have become more cost-competitive and quality of the procedure has gone up. The "haves" are the ones building private hospitals, creating jobs, donating wings onto children's clinics, etc. etc. Charity is a wonderful thing and should be exercised by all who can do it. Look at the Shriners hospitals, I don't think they turn anyone away, do they? And for things just like you are describing dialysis, etc. If we allow the government to takeover healthcare (unconstitutional) and pay for it by either heavily taxing the "haves" or printing fiat money = hyperinflation, we are allowing them to just create more "have-nots". They can't even run the cash for clunker program and we expect them to get our healthcare right?:lol:

 

No kidding!!

 

I don't think that being sick gives you the right to steal someone else's money. It certainly gives you the right to approach people and organizations for help.

 

I'm not seeing how taking money from person A to give to person B is "civilized."

 

While this bill doesn't "round up" people for euthanizing, we can look at how the rate of euthanasia has increased [including elderly as well as children under 12, then teens] in other countries under a national healthcare plan and be prepared. Learn from history or be doomed to repeat it and all that.

[MeanestMomInMidwest]

If the government would stay out of healthcare and let the free market decide costs, it may just be that more "have-nots" would be able to afford care. Look at Lasik surgery (not covered by insurance, must pay out of pocket), over time clinics have become more cost-competitive and quality of the procedure has gone up. The "haves" are the ones building private hospitals, creating jobs, donating wings onto children's clinics, etc. etc. Charity is a wonderful thing and should be exercised by all who can do it. Look at the Shriners hospitals, I don't think they turn anyone away, do they? And for things just like you are describing dialysis, etc. If we allow the government to takeover healthcare (unconstitutional) and pay for it by either heavily taxing the "haves" or printing fiat money = hyperinflation, we are allowing them to just create more "have-nots". They can't even run the cash for clunker program and we expect them to get our healthcare right?:lol:

 

Letting the free market decide costs is part of what got us into this mess to begin with. Research managed care.

[Peek a Boo]

 

But then... I love my little 'socialist' love fest up here. :D

 

we know ;)

 

This goes back to an interesting question posed earlier:

does Canada's ideas about the morality of socialism extend beyond the border? i mean, if y'all have it so good up there, why not open the border to make it easier for people who LIKE socialistic policies to move up there? That would seem to be the height of really walking the walk and putting your [Canada's] policies where your alleged intentions are.... :confused:

[Peek a Boo]

Letting the free market decide costs is part of what got us into this mess to begin with. Research managed care.

 

a small part.

research how government intrusion destroys the very thing that makes real capitalism work: the ability to fail when you can't compete.

don't forget tort reform and malpractice insurance.

and how our Good samaritan Law is being attacked.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

If the government would stay out of healthcare and let the free market decide costs, it may just be that more "have-nots" would be able to afford care. Look at Lasik surgery (not covered by insurance, must pay out of pocket), over time clinics have become more cost-competitive and quality of the procedure has gone up.

 

All of the proposals being discussed are designed to maintin the free market and to increase choice. I think Lasik surgery is a poor example since the surgery is completely optional and is not needed to maintain health and life.

 

The "haves" are the ones building private hospitals, creating jobs, donating wings onto children's clinics, etc. etc.

 

In regards to private hospitals are you referring to doctor's hospitals which are designed to pad doctor's wallets IMHO? These so-called doctor's hospitals often do not have adequate services if an emergency should arise due to a procedure and they often do not serve the community with emergency rooms and critical care from what I have read.

 

I have read many articles on the problems associated with these hospitals and as a nurse if I were to have a procedure done, then I would want it performed in a full service, community hospital since things do go wrong sometimes. These type of doctor's hospitals also hurt community hospitals who serve the community by taking away from their bottom line.

 

Charity is a wonderful thing and should be exercised by all who can do it. Look at the Shriners hospitals, I don't think they turn anyone away, do they?

 

I think charity is great too, but where are all the people stepping up to the plate to help the millions of Americans who are un-insured or under-insured? We have already heard from several posters in other threads who went through quite challenging times with illness and no one stepped up to the plate to help them.

 

I think the problem we face as a country is too big for charity alone to deal with. This health care crisis is hurting not only millions of Amercians, but also businesses, community hospitals, and local and state goverments.

 

 

They can't even run the cash for clunker program and we expect them to get our healthcare right?:lol:

 

Actually, from what I understand 240,000 more efficient cars have been purchased through this program. I call that a success for car dealers, car makers, and consumers. They only set aside a set amount of money.

Edited July 31, 2009 by priscilla
clarify

[MeanestMomInMidwest]

a small part.

research how government intrusion destroys the very thing that makes real capitalism work: the ability to fail when you can't compete.

don't forget tort reform and malpractice insurance.

and how our Good samaritan Law is being attacked.

 

Well, if we can agree that the free market didn't solve the healthcare problem of rising costs in the 1980's, can we agree that it won't solve it now?

[astrid]

No kidding!!

 

I don't think that being sick gives you the right to steal someone else's money. It certainly gives you the right to approach people and organizations for help.

 

I'm not seeing how taking money from person A to give to person B is "civilized."

 

While this bill doesn't "round up" people for euthanizing, we can look at how the rate of euthanasia has increased [including elderly as well as children under 12, then teens] in other countries under a national healthcare plan and be prepared. Learn from history or be doomed to repeat it and all that.

 

Oh my! In what other industrialized, modern nation are teenagers being rounded up and euthanized? I've got teenaged neighbors with mini-bikes and no concept of peace and quiet.

 

astrid

[MeanestMomInMidwest]

I have to agree with Priscilla about private hospitals. I am an experienced Critical Care nurse, and picked up a few shifts at a physician's hospital. They were able to choose only patients who had insurance, did no charity care, had no ER, did not inform the patients as to the limitations of care that could be provided.

 

My advice to all is to choose a hospital that is a full-service, community hospital, whether for profit or non-profit. Stay away from the small, private hospitals and surgical centers.

[Peek a Boo]

Allof the proposals being discussed are designed to maintin the free market and to increase choice.

so the gvt is NOT limiting what private insurers can and can't do??

 

 

In regards to private hospitals are you referring to doctor's hospitals which are designed to pad doctor's wallets IMHO?

I thought she was talking about the Catholic [or other religious] and Shriner hospitals.

 

I have read many articles on the problems associated with these hospitals and as a nurse if I were to have a procedure done, then I would want it performed in a full service, community hospital since things do go wrong sometimes. These type of doctor's hospitals also hurt community hospitals who serve the community by taking away from their bottom line.

My worst birth experience was at a community hospital. I would want a procedure done at the hospital that had the best track record for that particular procedure, not to simply pad their "bottom line."

 

 

I think charity is great too, but where are all the people stepping up to the plate to help the millions of Americans who are un-insured or under-insured? We have already heard from several posters in other threads who went through quite challenging times with illness and no one stepped up to the plate to help them.

 

good question.

most articles and studies about philanthropy show more giving from teh religious right than the secular left [words used in the studies, not my own choice]. People can only step up to help if people reach out FOR help. My advice to my own family is to keep asking till someone has the answer you need. people WANT to give --you just need to find a way to match your need with their abilities/programs. most people won't seek that hard.

 

 

I think the problem we face as a country is too big for charity alone to deal with. This health care crisis is hurting not only millions of Amercians, but also businesses, community hospitals, and local and state goverments.

 

I agree. i think gvt needs to overhaul a few other things before it tries to add a healthcare plan to its plate. And even then, it should be a voluntary plan.

 

 

Actually, from what I understand 240,000 more efficient cars have been purchased through this program. I call that a success for car dealers, car makers, and consumers. They only set aside a set amount of money.

 

yeah.... and how long will it be till those consumers default due to a sinking economy? we already saw how those "live the American dream" types of home policies where people were allowed to buy a home that they really couldn't afford worked.....

I'll wait and see what happens to those consumers and their new car loans before calling it a success.

[MeanestMomInMidwest]

.... we can look at how the rate of euthanasia has increased [including elderly as well as children under 12, then teens] in other countries under a national healthcare plan and be prepared. Learn from history or be doomed to repeat it and all that.

 

I had no idea that this was happening on an increased rate in other countries. Which countries and how much of an increase? Could you give me a link to the stats?

[stripe]

I love the assumption that those seeking health care are out to "get" others. Certainly it is every parent's dream to have a kid with a defective heart, or water in the brain, so they can suck the taxpayers dry. Stick it to the man! That'll show 'em!

 

What a relief that our system is so much better than mass euthanasia -- to bring children into the world and let them die (slowly) because, say, they couldn't find a dentist to fill a cavity?

 

Just like in that thread about the upset child who speaks about 5 words. We are wisely advised on this board that, when the child gets upset while shopping, to put that child in the car, and walk away (of course, we know we haven't abandoned the child [just in case any police get involved], but the child certainly does perceive abandonment); then when the child agrees to behave and say (s)he's sorry, then we will allow the child to be strapped back in the shopping cart and taken for another round at the grocery store.

 

I see a theme. And it doesn't look like compassion.

 

Maybe we all need to be put out of our suffering.

[Peek a Boo]

Oh my! In what other industrialized, modern nation are teenagers being rounded up and euthanized? I've got teenaged neighbors with mini-bikes and no concept of peace and quiet.

 

astrid

 

start with killing children against parent's wishes in Belgium.

 

http://www.parentalrights.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={AE104423-1DC5-4E7C-B34A-765BD172BE56}

 

and then with parental consent:

http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000006962.cfm

 

then look at what is being seriously considered in other areas, even here in the US.

 

http://www.internationaltaskforce.org/noa.htm

 

but if you want to dismiss the serious issue of euthanasia with a snide comment about neighbors with mini-bikes and no concept of peace and quiet then go right ahead. :001_huh:

[Peek a Boo]

I love the assumption that those seeking health care are out to "get" others. Certainly it is every parent's dream to have a kid with a defective heart, or water in the brain, so they can suck the taxpayers dry. Stick it to the man! That'll show 'em!

.......

 

I see a theme. And it doesn't look like compassion.

 

Maybe we all need to be put out of our suffering.

 

yeah... i see a theme too: stealing other people's money because you happen to be sick is not only morally and ethically right, it is A Right. I'm not seeing how that's "compassion" either.

[Peek a Boo]

I had no idea that this was happening on an increased rate in other countries. Which countries and how much of an increase? Could you give me a link to the stats?

 

links in above post.

 

It's "increasing" in that it wasn't allowed at first, but is being implemented.

That's the point people are making about tHIS plan: it may not be there NOW, but history shows it usually gets there.

[Peek a Boo]

Well, if we can agree that the free market didn't solve the healthcare problem of rising costs in the 1980's, can we agree that it won't solve it now?

 

first we have to question whether we actually HAD a legitimate free market in the 80's --do you really think we did???:confused:

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

By Peek a Boo first we have to question whether we actually HAD a legitimate free market in the 80's --do you really think we did???:confused:

 

In regards to free markets, do mean where health insurance companies are free to cancel you policy for frivolous reasons, exclude you from coverage because you are too sick, or jack up your rates whenever they like despite their overwhelming profits? As it stands now many private health insurance companies are free to do this and are making money hand over fist on the backs of individuals.