Obamacare

[wa3zrm]

TOP TEN INDICATORS THAT YOUR COMPANY HAS CHANGED TO THE GOVERNMENT'S NEW PROPOSED HEALTH CARE PLAN:
10. Your annual breast exam is done at Hooters.
9. Directions to your doctor's office include "Take a left when you enter the trailer park."
8. The tongue depressors taste faintly of Fudgesicles.
7. The only proctologist in the plan is "Gus" from Roto-Rooter.
6. The only item listed under Preventive Care Coverage is "an apple a day...."
5. Your primary care physician is wearing the pants you gave to Goodwill last month.
4. "The patient is responsible for 200% of out-of-network charges," is not a typographical error..
3. The only expense covered 100% is "embalming."
2. Your Prozac comes in different colors with little M's on them.
AND THE NUMBER ONE SIGN YOU'VE JOINED THE GOVERNMENT'S NEW HEALTH CARE PLAN:
1. You ask for Viagra and they give you a Popsicle stick and Duct Tape.

[sgreger1]

I think a lot of people are confused about this healthcare thing. It's not really a government takeover of anything, just a giant 2,000 page long piece of shit saying this:


Everyone has to purchase insurance. Tada! Your now insured and I (obama) have just brought insurance to 40 million more people. And you have to buy decent insurance too, none of that liability only insurance like with cars. Gotta buy the good stuff.

In there you got some subsidies for families to help pay, a whole bunch of fees and taxes, including a medicare tax of unearned income (capitol gains) etc.

Nothing to address that insurance companies continue screwing everyone, no public option, just a mandate that everyone buy health insurance so that they can say they reformed the HC industry and insured millions of previously uninsured people.


All and all, not as bad as I was expecting from them, but completely lacking any meaningful reform. The one thing I do like is the exchange idea, glad they put that in there.




What pisses me off is that they don't seem to have enough votes so they are instead going to change the rules and say it passed the senate without a vote. In the end, if this passes (which I think it will), it will stay tied up in court for years as people tear at the constitutionality of mandating people buy something for being alive etc.

[tom502]

I still say the problem with our health care system IS the insurance companies. They are like the mafia, and Obamino want's to force us to be extorted by them.

Real socialized medicine would be to disolve the insurance scam, and just pay the drs and hospitals a government check.

[wa3zrm]

EYE OPENING STATISTICS

A recent "Investor's Business Daily" article provided very interesting statistics from a survey by the United Nations International Health Organization.

Percentage of men and women who survived a cancer five years after diagnosis:

U.S. 65%
England 46%
Canada 42%

Percentage of patients diagnosed with diabetes who received treatment within six months:

U.S. 93%
England 15%
Canada 43%

Percentage of seniors needing hip replacement who received it within six months:

U.S. 90%
England 15%
Canada 43%

Percentage referred to a medical specialist who see one within one month:

U.S. 77%
England 40%
Canada 43%

Number of MRI scanners (a prime diagnostic tool) per million people:

U.S. 71%
England 14%
Canada 18%

Percentage of seniors (65+), with low income, who say they are in "excellent health":

U.S. 12%
England 2%
Canada 6%

I don't know about you, but I don't want "Universal Healthcare" comparable to England or Canada .

Moreover, it was Sen. Harry Reid who said, "Elderly Americans must learn to accept the inconveniences of old age."

SHIP HIM OFF TO CANADA OR ENGLAND !

He is "elderly" himself but be sure to remember his health insurance is different from yours as Congress has their own high-end coverage! He will never have to learn to accept "inconveniences"!!!

AND THE WINNER IS VERY INTERESTING!

The percentage of each past president's cabinet who had worked in the private business sector prior to their appointment to
the cabinet. You know what the private business sector is...a real life business, not a government job. Here are the percentages.


T. Roosevelt........ 38%
Taft................... 40%
Wilson .............. 52%
Harding.............. 49%
Coolidge............. 48%
Hoover............... 42%
F. Roosevelt....... 50%
Truman.............. 50%
Eisenhower.......... 57%
Kennedy............ 30%
Johnson.............. 47%
Nixon................ 53%
Ford.................. 42%
Carter............... 32%
Reagan.............. 56%
G H Bush............ 51%
Clinton ............. 39%
G W Bush........... 55%

And the winner of the Chicken Dinner is:
Obama................. 8% !!!

Yep! That's right! Only Eight Percent!!!..the least by far of the last 19 presidents!! And these people are trying to tell our big corporations how to run their business? They know what's best for GM...Chrysler... Wall Street... and you and me?

How can the president of a major nation and society...the one with the most successful economic system in world history.. stand and talk about business when he's never worked for one?.. or about jobs when he has never really had one??! And neither has 92% of his senior staff and closest advisers.

They've spent most of their time in academia, government and/or non-profit jobs....or as "community organizers" when they should have been in an employment line.

[Roo]

Could you somehow specify if your posts are your words or more chain emails? It makes a difference as to how it's interpreted. Thanks!

[Snusmun]

EYE OPENING STATISTICS

Number of MRI scanners (a prime diagnostic tool) per million people:

U.S. 71%
England 14%
Canada 18%

Boy that is a real eye opener. What kind of "statistic" is that?

The only other really eye opening statistic is this:

Percentage of Bankruptcies Due to Medical Bills:

U.S. >60%
England 0%
Canada 0%

[sgreger1]

The statistics on both sides mean nothing, yet they are both right. There is no question that socialized systems allow more complete access to medical services, though there is some reduction in the amount of care or in some cases quality. Basically everyone has it but you have to wait longer (again, in some cases. once the infrastructure is built it's not such a problem). Here in the US it costs more but we have access to some new drugs not yet approved by NHS et all, but most of us can't afford that anyways.


Some would argue that it is worth it for everyone to have coverage, even if it may mean longer waits. I would have to agree.

But this is all irrelevant since the current reform being proposed in the US is nowhere near "socialized" universal care. It is more like forcing everyone to buy insurance and then the politicians claiming they brought insurance to millions of people who previously went without.

Either way, no need to compare statistics with other countries since we are not even considering adopting what other countries have. As always, we have concocted our own special brew of failure in the healthcare reform process here in America.


EDIT: Also our diet and lifestyle is very different in America than it is in France, Canada etc. We are fat and lazy, and smoke crack. It will be more expensive for us either way. I would rather have socialized medicine than the current proposed method of reform. I just hope they don't touch my current insurance plan because I am very satisfied with it.

[Snusmun]

I have to say sgregr that this is the first post I've read of yours that I completely, unequivocally agree with. You are spot on.

Except of course the part of anyone screwing with your current insurance plan. That will never happen. You are clearly a profitable customer, or else you would not be insured......you would be bankrupt, or dead.

[wa3zrm]

I just hope they don't touch my current insurance plan because I am very satisfied with it.

That's how I feel too!

Personally, I'd don't give a damn what they do with health care unless it has an impact on me. The current bill under consideration is so complex and convoluted with pork, I don't think anyone really understands it.. and that's what scares me.

Pelosi tells us "not to worry about what is in it... and we will be happy with it once it passes." Yea... and the check is in the mail too.

[WickedKitchen]

Well, I wish I were happier with my coverage. It's excellent coverage, fast, polite, good customer service, etc. Problem is I'm paying out of pocket $1,440/month for a family of four. My company is also kicking in $350/mo. That's a mortgage payment for many people.

I think that's the root of my problem with health care. With a mandate that everyone be covered and not exempting pre-existing conditions (probably a good thing en mass - insurance should accept these people if they're paying) the costs will rise. If we dump more people into the system the only outcome is to increase the $$ into the system as well or decrease the output services (or a combination of the two). Nobody wants less service when they're accustomed to it. To me, that's just simple economics. Where does that increase in money come from? Certainly not the people that can't afford it to begin with.

I had the privilege of watching that move "Sicko" with a cardiologist friend of mine and I learned some things then.

A statistic that is looked at as an indication of the success of a health care system is lifespan. If you compare us to Europe our lifespan is usually less. It's easy to say diet and lifestyle is the problem here but the data is skewed. In Europe a stillborn baby is not counted and in the US it is counted as a person. This throws off the average considerably. Be careful with statistics...

I think a major part of this problem is that we have too much health care in this country. I'm not talking about acute cases but in general. Doctors insist on testing many things. The root of much of that is CYA for the hospitals but much of the testing is unnecessary. It's cheaper for the hospital to do these things even is some people don't pay than to get sued for missing one thing.

Another big component in the costs are the size of research investments. This too will most likely decrease. It'll be a short-term benefit, but I think it's pretty safe to say that science and innovation are not the correct things to skimp on.

Like sgreger2 said our diets and lack of exercise are terrible en mass. I think that we could reduce health care costs more if every American lost 10-15 pounds than we could with any legislation.

[truthwolf1]

Working for a small company about 100 employees.
The coverage offered here is unaffordable for my family of three. My companys plan would take a little more then half of a bi-weekly paycheck with a $1000 dollar deductable for each person, each year. Affordable would be about 200-500 max for any number of family and no deductable's.
If you are lucky enough to have affordable insurance then good for you but most people I talk with dont and this bill is not doing anything to solve that problem.

[sgreger1]

I have to say sgregr that this is the first post I've read of yours that I completely, unequivocally agree with. You are spot on.

Except of course the part of anyone screwing with your current insurance plan. That will never happen. You are clearly a profitable customer, or else you would not be insured......you would be bankrupt, or dead.

See, the stars can align sometimes :wink:

I don't know how my insurance company could be making a profit off me though, I have had 30k+ medical bills MORE than once, and I mean way more than once. I've probably cost them tripple what I pay into it. It's largely a myth that as soon as you are not profitable they cut you off. I work at an insurance company for example and theres just no way that could ever happen. Mainly what they do is insure people who cost nothing (like young people) and then they use that excess money to make up for what the old people cost. I personally have never known anyone who has had there plan canceled and I know people with cancer, lots of old fat ladies working at the office with multiple lifelong medical conditions etc. But there are some whos insurance completely screws them and that is why we need reform, so they don't fall through the cracks.


Everyone should have ACCESS to healthcare/ insurance, which i interpret to be affordable for the average joe (which insurance right now is not). Not necessarily so much the gov providing it, but I honestly would be okay with the gov providing it. I spent years going to the VA hospital and it was okay, it worked and everyone got what they needed. Longer linges and a bit of a mill but everyone was qualified, facilities were good and everyone got seen. I still have access to the VA but I buy my own insurance since its chepa through my employer and I can choose whatever Dr I want, but i've seen what go healthcare looks like and it's not all bad.

[sgreger1]

Working for a small company about 100 employees.
The coverage offered here is unaffordable for my family of three. My companys plan would take a little more then half of a bi-weekly paycheck with a $1000 dollar deductable for each person, each year. Affordable would be about 200-500 max for any number of family and no deductable's.
If you are lucky enough to have affordable insurance then good for you but most people I talk with dont and this bill is not doing anything to solve that problem.

You are part of the group that I think needs the most attention in this reform debate. They need to find a way to make it affordable for small businessed of 500 or less employees get affordable care that is on the same level as the big corporate plans. Not sure how they would do this, but a lot of americans work for small businesses (the majority if I recall), so this needs to be dealt with.

No working or temporarily unemployed American should go without access to healthcare. I don't care about illegals or people who live on welfare for forever. But working americans who are just trying to get bye should not have to worry about going bankrupt from going to the Dr.

[amorican]

Damn I haven't posted here in a long time, but I have to get in on this. I have a pre-existing condition which exempts me from being covered by any individual plan. My only way to get coverage is from being on a group plan offered by an employer. That is not O.K. I NEED insurance to get my meds, which out of pocket cost in the 1000's a month. People like me need an option. It's sickening that insurance companies can turn down people such as myself, who need it the most. I personally think all Americans should be covered, but at least we need to get rid of the pre-existing condition issue.

I have an option in Colorado called Cover Colorado, which I am on. It's very good insurance that covers people who are exempt from other plans due to certain pre-existing conditions. I don't know that there are any other states that have a program like this, so I am very fortunate, but tied down as far as moving is concerned.

I think if you are a proud American, you should be looking out for the well being of your fellow citizen. We really need to at least realize that our current system is broken, and we need some dramatic change. I just hope that our politicians are going to do right by us. At this point all I can do is trust them. I know, I'm crazy right?

Senator Michael Bennet of Colorado has gone on record in interviews stating that he will vote for healthcare reform even if it costs him his job. We need this kind of attitude from all politicians, no matter what side of the debate they're on. Politics should not be about a career, but rather doing what is right for this country. That come to the central reason why we can't trust most politicians, they do what will get them re-elected, not what's right for this country.

Also, I might get flamed for this, but if we cut down a bit on some of our ridiculous amount of defense spending, maybe we wouldn't be so worried about how we're gonna pay for this.

[sgreger1]

We need this kind of attitude from all politicians, no matter what side of the debate they're on. Politics should not be about a career, but rather doing what is right for this country..

Your right, but at the same time for your representative to vote the opposite of what their constituents want kind of goes against the concept of a republic.


But your right, we need to make sure somehow most everyone is covered and good americans are not going without. How to accomplish this is up for debate but imo what they are voting on now is not what aynone is looking for, and I expect that once this thing passes and people see what it really is, a lot of dissapointment will occur, and a lot of people will feel let down.

Here's the newest version for anyone intirested:
http://budget.house.gov/doc-library/...iation2010.PDF


If this is truly what people wanted they would have the necessary votes. Even with a majority they cant pass it so they have decided to just not vote on the bill itself.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...503742_pf.html