ok: can someone tell me what good is left for the health care reform

[briansd1]

[quote=jpinpb]
And so if the government has to get involved, then have it be universal healthcare paid w/maybe a higher tax. Why get insurance involved?[/quote]

I agree, we don’t need insurance involved.

The money that currently goes to insurance companies would be more than enough to finance non-profit healthcare without the need to raise taxes.

We just need to get the political will to do what’s right.

[briansd1]

I have personal experience helping a guy apply for County Medical Services. He had a fistula that was infected with pus flowing out. Pretty disgusting.

If you don’t have insurance, can’t pay for preventive care, and have cancer or a chronic problem, once you enter the “system” it’s too late. It’s not like you can walk into an emergency room and they’ll give you the best care.

The members of the Tea Party congressional caucus who don’t believe we need universal healthcare, when they get sick, should pretend they don’t have insurance and see the kind of services they receive.

I’m not saying that Obama Cares is the ideal solution, but we do need some kind of universal coverage.

[briansd1]

I have personal experience helping a guy apply for County Medical Services. He had a fistula that was infected with pus flowing out. Pretty disgusting.

If you don’t have insurance, can’t pay for preventive care, and have cancer or a chronic problem, once you enter the “system” it’s too late. It’s not like you can walk into an emergency room and they’ll give you the best care.

The members of the Tea Party congressional caucus who don’t believe we need universal healthcare, when they get sick, should pretend they don’t have insurance and see the kind of services they receive.

I’m not saying that Obama Cares is the ideal solution, but we do need some kind of universal coverage.

[briansd1]

I have personal experience helping a guy apply for County Medical Services. He had a fistula that was infected with pus flowing out. Pretty disgusting.

If you don’t have insurance, can’t pay for preventive care, and have cancer or a chronic problem, once you enter the “system” it’s too late. It’s not like you can walk into an emergency room and they’ll give you the best care.

The members of the Tea Party congressional caucus who don’t believe we need universal healthcare, when they get sick, should pretend they don’t have insurance and see the kind of services they receive.

I’m not saying that Obama Cares is the ideal solution, but we do need some kind of universal coverage.

[briansd1]

I have personal experience helping a guy apply for County Medical Services. He had a fistula that was infected with pus flowing out. Pretty disgusting.

If you don’t have insurance, can’t pay for preventive care, and have cancer or a chronic problem, once you enter the “system” it’s too late. It’s not like you can walk into an emergency room and they’ll give you the best care.

The members of the Tea Party congressional caucus who don’t believe we need universal healthcare, when they get sick, should pretend they don’t have insurance and see the kind of services they receive.

I’m not saying that Obama Cares is the ideal solution, but we do need some kind of universal coverage.

[briansd1]

I have personal experience helping a guy apply for County Medical Services. He had a fistula that was infected with pus flowing out. Pretty disgusting.

If you don’t have insurance, can’t pay for preventive care, and have cancer or a chronic problem, once you enter the “system” it’s too late. It’s not like you can walk into an emergency room and they’ll give you the best care.

The members of the Tea Party congressional caucus who don’t believe we need universal healthcare, when they get sick, should pretend they don’t have insurance and see the kind of services they receive.

I’m not saying that Obama Cares is the ideal solution, but we do need some kind of universal coverage.

[CA renter]

[quote=briansd1][quote=UCGal]
I view it in the exact opposite way. The bill that passed was a give away to the private health insurance companies – customers are mandated to buy insurance but there were no cost constraints imposed.

Economies of scale are NOT working in insurance and big pharma. Look at Lipitor – it’s actually MORE expensive now, despite being one of the most prescribed meds out there. Shouldn’t it have gone down in price if true market forces were allowed to be in place?[/quote]

I agree UCGal. Big give away to the health insurance industry.

I believe we’d be better off with government-run health care for everybody. We should start with a comprehensive ban on drug advertising.

The rich would be better off also because could they could supplement their coverage with private pay-for-service or private health insurance.

Businesses would be more competitive because they would not have provide and deal with health care for employees.

*

Much of the bill has not yet been implemented. So flu’s private insurance rates (likely negotiated last year) are likely part of the “normal” appreciation that has taken place in the last decade.
http://healthreform.kff.org/Timeline.aspx%5B/quote%5D

Could not agree more, UCGal and Brian. The insurance industry is part of the FIRE sector. They have been running this country for far too many years, and the way this bill was passed made it clear that they had every intention of squeezing every last penny from what’s left of U.S. workers.

This bill had nothing to do with healthcare; it was all about enriching the insurance companies.

[CA renter]

[quote=briansd1][quote=UCGal]
I view it in the exact opposite way. The bill that passed was a give away to the private health insurance companies – customers are mandated to buy insurance but there were no cost constraints imposed.

Economies of scale are NOT working in insurance and big pharma. Look at Lipitor – it’s actually MORE expensive now, despite being one of the most prescribed meds out there. Shouldn’t it have gone down in price if true market forces were allowed to be in place?[/quote]

I agree UCGal. Big give away to the health insurance industry.

I believe we’d be better off with government-run health care for everybody. We should start with a comprehensive ban on drug advertising.

The rich would be better off also because could they could supplement their coverage with private pay-for-service or private health insurance.

Businesses would be more competitive because they would not have provide and deal with health care for employees.

*

Much of the bill has not yet been implemented. So flu’s private insurance rates (likely negotiated last year) are likely part of the “normal” appreciation that has taken place in the last decade.
http://healthreform.kff.org/Timeline.aspx%5B/quote%5D

Could not agree more, UCGal and Brian. The insurance industry is part of the FIRE sector. They have been running this country for far too many years, and the way this bill was passed made it clear that they had every intention of squeezing every last penny from what’s left of U.S. workers.

This bill had nothing to do with healthcare; it was all about enriching the insurance companies.

[CA renter]

[quote=briansd1][quote=UCGal]
I view it in the exact opposite way. The bill that passed was a give away to the private health insurance companies – customers are mandated to buy insurance but there were no cost constraints imposed.

Economies of scale are NOT working in insurance and big pharma. Look at Lipitor – it’s actually MORE expensive now, despite being one of the most prescribed meds out there. Shouldn’t it have gone down in price if true market forces were allowed to be in place?[/quote]

I agree UCGal. Big give away to the health insurance industry.

I believe we’d be better off with government-run health care for everybody. We should start with a comprehensive ban on drug advertising.

The rich would be better off also because could they could supplement their coverage with private pay-for-service or private health insurance.

Businesses would be more competitive because they would not have provide and deal with health care for employees.

*

Much of the bill has not yet been implemented. So flu’s private insurance rates (likely negotiated last year) are likely part of the “normal” appreciation that has taken place in the last decade.
http://healthreform.kff.org/Timeline.aspx%5B/quote%5D

Could not agree more, UCGal and Brian. The insurance industry is part of the FIRE sector. They have been running this country for far too many years, and the way this bill was passed made it clear that they had every intention of squeezing every last penny from what’s left of U.S. workers.

This bill had nothing to do with healthcare; it was all about enriching the insurance companies.

[CA renter]

[quote=briansd1][quote=UCGal]
I view it in the exact opposite way. The bill that passed was a give away to the private health insurance companies – customers are mandated to buy insurance but there were no cost constraints imposed.

Economies of scale are NOT working in insurance and big pharma. Look at Lipitor – it’s actually MORE expensive now, despite being one of the most prescribed meds out there. Shouldn’t it have gone down in price if true market forces were allowed to be in place?[/quote]

I agree UCGal. Big give away to the health insurance industry.

I believe we’d be better off with government-run health care for everybody. We should start with a comprehensive ban on drug advertising.

The rich would be better off also because could they could supplement their coverage with private pay-for-service or private health insurance.

Businesses would be more competitive because they would not have provide and deal with health care for employees.

*

Much of the bill has not yet been implemented. So flu’s private insurance rates (likely negotiated last year) are likely part of the “normal” appreciation that has taken place in the last decade.
http://healthreform.kff.org/Timeline.aspx%5B/quote%5D

Could not agree more, UCGal and Brian. The insurance industry is part of the FIRE sector. They have been running this country for far too many years, and the way this bill was passed made it clear that they had every intention of squeezing every last penny from what’s left of U.S. workers.

This bill had nothing to do with healthcare; it was all about enriching the insurance companies.

[CA renter]

[quote=briansd1][quote=UCGal]
I view it in the exact opposite way. The bill that passed was a give away to the private health insurance companies – customers are mandated to buy insurance but there were no cost constraints imposed.

Economies of scale are NOT working in insurance and big pharma. Look at Lipitor – it’s actually MORE expensive now, despite being one of the most prescribed meds out there. Shouldn’t it have gone down in price if true market forces were allowed to be in place?[/quote]

I agree UCGal. Big give away to the health insurance industry.

I believe we’d be better off with government-run health care for everybody. We should start with a comprehensive ban on drug advertising.

The rich would be better off also because could they could supplement their coverage with private pay-for-service or private health insurance.

Businesses would be more competitive because they would not have provide and deal with health care for employees.

*

Much of the bill has not yet been implemented. So flu’s private insurance rates (likely negotiated last year) are likely part of the “normal” appreciation that has taken place in the last decade.
http://healthreform.kff.org/Timeline.aspx%5B/quote%5D

Could not agree more, UCGal and Brian. The insurance industry is part of the FIRE sector. They have been running this country for far too many years, and the way this bill was passed made it clear that they had every intention of squeezing every last penny from what’s left of U.S. workers.

This bill had nothing to do with healthcare; it was all about enriching the insurance companies.

[jpinpb]

[quote=CA renter]
This bill had nothing to do with healthcare; it was all about enriching the insurance companies.[/quote]

X2

[jpinpb]

[quote=CA renter]
This bill had nothing to do with healthcare; it was all about enriching the insurance companies.[/quote]

X2

[jpinpb]

[quote=CA renter]
This bill had nothing to do with healthcare; it was all about enriching the insurance companies.[/quote]

X2

[jpinpb]

[quote=CA renter]
This bill had nothing to do with healthcare; it was all about enriching the insurance companies.[/quote]

X2

[Author]

Posts