President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

[Rockindeano]

I just knew you would cite "Universal Healthcare" as a problem with the divide in this country, lol. Too much. Let's not help 32 million of our brothers and sisters....what a ridiculous thing to do. Nevermind the question. You Cons just sadden me with your thought process.

Clearly you don't understands the ramifications of Universal Healthcare well enough to continue the debate. You Libs sadden me with your rose-colored glasses view of Universal Healthcare.

Oh honey, I understand it quite well. Your favored system covers a part of the country. My favored view covers everyone. I win.

I don't care if you are in the profession or not, it doesn't make your view correct. If anything, the newly passed bill doesn't go far enough. As for rose overed glasses, I'll take that over a close minded selfish conservative POV every time, thank you.

[Angel]

This bill falls very short of being good - but it's better than staying on course. I have an MBA and I worked as a Healthcare Administrator for many years, and had to deal with so many insurance companies refusing to pay for life-saving procedures and necessary tests that I KNOW change is needed.

It's a start, IMHO.

I understand that, but do you think it is going to get BETTER when it's the government instead of the insurance companies that you are dealing with? I think not.

[7 Wishes]

Hey, getting the government involved is ALWAYS the best idea. You know that.

[Angel]

Hey, getting the government involved is ALWAYS the best idea. You know that.

[Angel]

I just knew you would cite "Universal Healthcare" as a problem with the divide in this country, lol. Too much. Let's not help 32 million of our brothers and sisters....what a ridiculous thing to do. Nevermind the question. You Cons just sadden me with your thought process.

Clearly you don't understands the ramifications of Universal Healthcare well enough to continue the debate. You Libs sadden me with your rose-colored glasses view of Universal Healthcare.

Oh honey, I understand it quite well. Your favored system covers a part of the country. My favored view covers everyone. I win.

I don't care if you are in the profession or not, it doesn't make your view correct. If anything, the newly passed bill doesn't go far enough. As for rose overed glasses, I'll take that over a close minded selfish conservative POV every time, thank you.

Your view covers everyone, but at what cost? And I'm not just talking about money. The quality of healthcare will greatly suffer.

I fully agree that something needs to change-I've said that a million times-I just don't think universal HC is the answer.

[The_Noble_Cause]

I understand that, but do you think it is going to get BETTER when it's the government instead of the insurance companies that you are dealing with? I think not.

Where in the bill are HMOs outlawed? Unlike other countries that have undergone reform, the bill doesn't even mandate that they are run as a non-profit. If anything, they stand to be swimming in subsidies - it's a windfall. The bill consolidates their power, not the other way around.

[donnaplease]

Angel, that's not what I think - and I believe Deano and I are basically on the same page.

This bill falls very short of being good - but it's better than staying on course. I have an MBA and I worked as a Healthcare Administrator for many years, and had to deal with so many insurance companies refusing to pay for life-saving procedures and necessary tests that I KNOW change is needed.

It's a start, IMHO.

I agree with this, Daniel. I once worked for a doctor who wanted to order an MRI for a patient due to headaches. The insurance company wouldn't give authorization for it because they hadn't followed the insurance companies protocol for cost containment by ordering a plain x-ray and/or a CT scan first. The doc said that those tests would not provide the answers he was looking for. He begrudgingly ordered the CT scan. When the results came back, the radiologist report stated "an MRI would be a more appropriate test". AARGH!!! Talk about a waste of valuable time and money! Let the effin' doctors decide what the patients need... NOT the insurance companies!!! But...this system is not gonna be any better. Someone other than the doctors will still be deciding what the patient can and can't have. And in watching some of the viewpoints of the new CMS director, I can already tell Medicare and Medicaid are in trouble.

The Medicare Part-D program was a start too... where's the praise for that?

[7 Wishes]

Sure, it was - as long as they close down the $250 doughnut hole. That's a mess.

[donnaplease]

Sure, it was - as long as they close down the $250 doughnut hole. That's a mess.

Yeah, that's kinda stupid. Even the analogy is dumb. I understand it in theory, but there's gotta be a better way.

[Angel]

I agree with this, Daniel. I once worked for a doctor who wanted to order an MRI for a patient due to headaches. The insurance company wouldn't give authorization for it because they hadn't followed the insurance companies protocol for cost containment by ordering a plain x-ray and/or a CT scan first. The doc said that those tests would not provide the answers he was looking for. He begrudgingly ordered the CT scan. When the results came back, the radiologist report stated "an MRI would be a more appropriate test". AARGH!!! Talk about a waste of valuable time and money! Let the effin' doctors decide what the patients need... NOT the insurance companies!!! But...this system is not gonna be any better. Someone other than the doctors will still be deciding what the patient can and can't have. And in watching some of the viewpoints of the new CMS director, I can already tell Medicare and Medicaid are in trouble.

The Medicare Part-D program was a start too... where's the praise for that?

Welcome to my world. AND, I've found that Medicare/Medicaid are even worse than the insurance companies-it seems like no matter WHICH drug I order I get a call from the pharmacy that it won't be covered until I've tried a different drug first...and in some cases the drugs are not even in the same class. I understand having to have cost control, etc but it's insane.

[donnaplease]

I agree with this, Daniel. I once worked for a doctor who wanted to order an MRI for a patient due to headaches. The insurance company wouldn't give authorization for it because they hadn't followed the insurance companies protocol for cost containment by ordering a plain x-ray and/or a CT scan first. The doc said that those tests would not provide the answers he was looking for. He begrudgingly ordered the CT scan. When the results came back, the radiologist report stated "an MRI would be a more appropriate test". AARGH!!! Talk about a waste of valuable time and money! Let the effin' doctors decide what the patients need... NOT the insurance companies!!! But...this system is not gonna be any better. Someone other than the doctors will still be deciding what the patient can and can't have. And in watching some of the viewpoints of the new CMS director, I can already tell Medicare and Medicaid are in trouble.

The Medicare Part-D program was a start too... where's the praise for that?

Welcome to my world. AND, I've found that Medicare/Medicaid are even worse than the insurance companies-it seems like no matter WHICH drug I order I get a call from the pharmacy that it won't be covered until I've tried a different drug first...and in some cases the drugs are not even in the same class. I understand having to have cost control, etc but it's insane.

Add to that the various insurance companies that cover the Part-D services... they each pay for different meds, depending on what's on their formulary. 2 patients can have the exact same condition and their meds may or may not be covered, depending on which Part-D plan they have. I feel for ya if you are prescribing for these folks!

[RocknRoll]

Hey, getting the government involved is ALWAYS the best idea. You know that.

OK 7!! I basically almost always disagree with what you post, but this really made me laugh!! Yes, I saw the and it's a right back at ya'

[Rockindeano]

I agree with this, Daniel. I once worked for a doctor who wanted to order an MRI for a patient due to headaches. The insurance company wouldn't give authorization for it because they hadn't followed the insurance companies protocol for cost containment by ordering a plain x-ray and/or a CT scan first. The doc said that those tests would not provide the answers he was looking for. He begrudgingly ordered the CT scan. When the results came back, the radiologist report stated "an MRI would be a more appropriate test". AARGH!!! Talk about a waste of valuable time and money! Let the effin' doctors decide what the patients need... NOT the insurance companies!!! But...this system is not gonna be any better. Someone other than the doctors will still be deciding what the patient can and can't have. And in watching some of the viewpoints of the new CMS director, I can already tell Medicare and Medicaid are in trouble.

The Medicare Part-D program was a start too... where's the praise for that?

Welcome to my world. AND, I've found that Medicare/Medicaid are even worse than the insurance companies-it seems like no matter WHICH drug I order I get a call from the pharmacy that it won't be covered until I've tried a different drug first...and in some cases the drugs are not even in the same class. I understand having to have cost control, etc but it's insane.

Add to that the various insurance companies that cover the Part-D services... they each pay for different meds, depending on what's on their formulary. 2 patients can have the exact same condition and their meds may or may not be covered, depending on which Part-D plan they have. I feel for ya if you are prescribing for these folks!

You two just made the argument for Universal Healthcare. There should never be a question from n insurnce company whena certified doctor orders them. The government would just pay for the drugs, no questions asked. Instead, in todays fucked up system that you two wholeheartedly support, deny drugs, deny servies, deny deny deny. Gee, what a great healthcare system we have. And Natalie, get off the "healthcare will decline" bullshit. Nothing will change for those already covered.

[Angel]

You two just made the argument for Universal Healthcare. There should never be a question from n insurnce company whena certified doctor orders them. The government would just py for the drugs, no questions asked. Instead, in todays fucked up system that you two wholeheartedly support, deny drugs, deny servies, deny deny deny. Gee, what a great healthcare system we have. And Natalie, get off the "healthcare will decline" bullshit. Nothing will change for those already covered.

Dean, you are not even reading what I'm saying....the CURRENT government funded programs are WORSE than the insurance companies. Why the HELL would it get better?????? Then add the fact that the government funded programs will cover more people that it does now and it just intensifies the problem....

[RocknRoll]

I agree with this, Daniel. I once worked for a doctor who wanted to order an MRI for a patient due to headaches. The insurance company wouldn't give authorization for it because they hadn't followed the insurance companies protocol for cost containment by ordering a plain x-ray and/or a CT scan first. The doc said that those tests would not provide the answers he was looking for. He begrudgingly ordered the CT scan. When the results came back, the radiologist report stated "an MRI would be a more appropriate test". AARGH!!! Talk about a waste of valuable time and money! Let the effin' doctors decide what the patients need... NOT the insurance companies!!! But...this system is not gonna be any better. Someone other than the doctors will still be deciding what the patient can and can't have. And in watching some of the viewpoints of the new CMS director, I can already tell Medicare and Medicaid are in trouble.

The Medicare Part-D program was a start too... where's the praise for that?

Welcome to my world. AND, I've found that Medicare/Medicaid are even worse than the insurance companies-it seems like no matter WHICH drug I order I get a call from the pharmacy that it won't be covered until I've tried a different drug first...and in some cases the drugs are not even in the same class. I understand having to have cost control, etc but it's insane.

Add to that the various insurance companies that cover the Part-D services... they each pay for different meds, depending on what's on their formulary. 2 patients can have the exact same condition and their meds may or may not be covered, depending on which Part-D plan they have. I feel for ya if you are prescribing for these folks!

You two just made the argument for Universal Healthcare. There should never be a question from n insurnce company whena certified doctor orders them. The government would just pay for the drugs, no questions asked. Instead, in todays fucked up system that you two wholeheartedly support, deny drugs, deny servies, deny deny deny. Gee, what a great healthcare system we have. And Natalie, get off the "healthcare will decline" bullshit. Nothing will change for those already covered.

You've got to be kidding me.

Now it will have to be approved by the new gov't organization that our tax dollars will be paying for as well as the insurance company. Good luck getting that next knee replacement!! The new healthcare guru will figure it's cheaper to keep you in a wheel chair.

[donnaplease]

You two just made the argument for Universal Healthcare. There should never be a question from n insurnce company whena certified doctor orders them. The government would just pay for the drugs, no questions asked. Instead, in todays fucked up system that you two wholeheartedly support, deny drugs, deny servies, deny deny deny. Gee, what a great healthcare system we have. And Natalie, get off the "healthcare will decline" bullshit. Nothing will change for those already covered.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-dQfb8WQvo

In his own words... maybe someone can tell the doctor that the patient is better off taking the pain killer

Who the hell do you think that someone is? A bureaucrat! A bureaucrat who will deny deny deny...

I don't think - in fact I KNOW - that either of us 'wholeheartedly support' the current system. We have both said that reform is needed. And I'm not arguing this with you again. Tired of hitting my head against that wall.

I hope for repeal. Period. Call me whatever names you want. If you want to think me selfish and only caring about myself, fine with me. I'm far from rich, and would probably financially benefit if I didn't have to pay for health insurance. But that's not the point, and I won't be made to feel guilty by the liberals because I don't follow their mantra.

[Rockindeano]

You two just made the argument for Universal Healthcare. There should never be a question from n insurnce company whena certified doctor orders them. The government would just pay for the drugs, no questions asked. Instead, in todays fucked up system that you two wholeheartedly support, deny drugs, deny servies, deny deny deny. Gee, what a great healthcare system we have. And Natalie, get off the "healthcare will decline" bullshit. Nothing will change for those already covered.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-dQfb8WQvo

In his own words... maybe someone can tell the doctor that the patient is better off taking the pain killer

Who the hell do you think that someone is? A bureaucrat! A bureaucrat who will deny deny deny...

I don't think - in fact I KNOW - that either of us 'wholeheartedly support' the current system. We have both said that reform is needed. And I'm not arguing this with you again. Tired of hitting my head against that wall.

I hope for repeal. Period. Call me whatever names you want. If you want to think me selfish and only caring about myself, fine with me. I'm far from rich, and would probably financially benefit if I didn't have to pay for health insurance. But that's not the point, and I won't be made to feel guilty by the liberals because I don't follow their mantra.

What a sourpuss post. You think you're the ONLY one hitting your head against the wall? Look, your POV is the same as this:

"I don't give a shit if American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan get killed or not. Not my problem. I don't care if they have proper equipment or not- it's a waste of taxpayer money. I m not in the war, so I don't give shit."

That's what your take sounds like to me....fuck the rest of the Americans w/o insurance.

[7 Wishes]

The new system would have been much better - and far more protective of the consumers - had the GOP not weakarmed the Democrats in to conceding key measures in the bill that would have regulated the aforementioned "bureaucrats".

[The_Noble_Cause]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-dQfb8WQvo

In his own words... maybe someone can tell the doctor that the patient is better off taking the pain killer

Who the hell do you think that someone is? A bureaucrat! A bureaucrat who will deny deny deny...

1) I'd be willing to bet that the 99yr old woman's pacemaker was footed by the US taxpayer and paid for by Medicare - ie socialized medicine. If you're trying to make the case against government health insurance, this isn't the way to do it, especially considering that Medicare covers the vast bulk of hip replacements and other old age surgeries.

2) You seriously don't think bean counting, paper shuffling wasteful bureaucrats exist at HMOs? Why are the motives of a gov't employee any scarier than an insurance death merchant looking to fatten quarterly earnings and executive pay?

[donnaplease]

What a sourpuss post. You think you're the ONLY one hitting your head against the wall? Look, your POV is the same as this:

"I don't give a shit if American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan get killed or not. Not my problem. I don't care if they have proper equipment or not- it's a waste of taxpayer money. I m not in the war, so I don't give shit."

That's what your take sounds like to me....fuck the rest of the Americans w/o insurance.

This from the man who just a few weeks ago told me that it was ok that a man from my community died in the war because he was in Afghanistan and not Iraq... No, Dean, it was not ok. This man was doing his job, working for his country and for all of us. I am a STRONG supporter of our military in whatever endeavor they are undertaking. I am the wife and daughter of a war veteran, and love and respect our military. I believe in our government supporting them in WHATEVER they need. So while your analogy is a nice try, you fail on that one. But a big F-U for the attempt.

I have a long professional history of supporting people who don't have insurance. I've seen the effects of people not having insurance, and the decisions that they make which affect their lives. I do know what I'm talking about in real-life circumstances, not the political bullshit generalities that you post. The guilt trips don't work with me.

[Rockindeano]

What a sourpuss post. You think you're the ONLY one hitting your head against the wall? Look, your POV is the same as this:

"I don't give a shit if American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan get killed or not. Not my problem. I don't care if they have proper equipment or not- it's a waste of taxpayer money. I m not in the war, so I don't give shit."

That's what your take sounds like to me....fuck the rest of the Americans w/o insurance.

This from the man who just a few weeks ago told me that it was ok that a man from my community died in the war because he was in Afghanistan and not Iraq... No, Dean, it was not ok. This man was doing his job, working for his country and for all of us. I am a STRONG supporter of our military in whatever endeavor they are undertaking. I am the wife and daughter of a war veteran, and love and respect our military. I believe in our government supporting them in WHATEVER they need. So while your analogy is a nice try, you fail on that one. But a big F-U for the attempt.

I have a long professional history of supporting people who don't have insurance. I've seen the effects of people not having insurance, and the decisions that they make which affect their lives. I do know what I'm talking about in real-life circumstances, not the political bullshit generalities that you post. The guilt trips don't work with me.

Predictable reply. Oh and thanks for telling me to fuck off.

My analogy is dead on. I am making the point that a soldier is no better than a private citizen. They are both AMERICANS. I knew you would fly off the handle t the military analogy. EVERYONE should have insurance, period. I am done with you on this. I got my bill. For you people to want to repeal this mkes me sick. God help you if you ever need insurance, or you ever get denied life threatening service. Just unbelievable how you Cons can think the way you do.

No one wins unless we all win.

[7 Wishes]

In all fairness, I think you're the one subscribing to political bullshit generalities. The O'Reilly / Limbaugh / Beck / Coulter non-fact based talking points don't carry you very far against the raging tide of reality and fact.

[donnaplease]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-dQfb8WQvo

In his own words... maybe someone can tell the doctor that the patient is better off taking the pain killer

Who the hell do you think that someone is? A bureaucrat! A bureaucrat who will deny deny deny...

1) I'd be willing to bet that the 99yr old woman's pacemaker was footed by the US taxpayer and paid for by Medicare - ie socialized medicine. If you're trying to make the case against government health insurance, this isn't the way to do it, especially considering that Medicare covers the vast bulk of hip replacements and other old age surgeries.

2) You seriously don't think bean counting, paper shuffling wasteful bureaucrats exist at HMOs? Why are the motives of a gov't employee any scarier than an insurance death merchant looking to fatten quarterly earnings and executive pay?

1) I'd be willing to bet you're right about who footed the bill. But, with the addition of so many people to this socialized medicine, that 99 year old woman is not going to get the surgery she needs, because she won't be deemed a good risk to have it. Medicare does not tell a patient that they cannot have a surgery based on criteria that determine the patient's worth. I concede that there are many cases where surgery or other major interventions are not likely the best way to go. Sometimes we don't know that until after the fact, though. I have personally had to make decisions on both parents and my brother whether to pursue aggressive treatment (cancer treatments and TBI care) or not. I have professionally had to counsel patients and families on procedures that are life-prolonging vs life-saving. I teach them to look at a patient's quality of life as opposed to their quantity. It should be THEIR informed decision though.

2) I gave an example above of a wasteful bureaucrat in an insurance company. I think they're both (insurance and government options) bullshit because it takes the choice out of the hands of the doctor and patient. There's simply got to be a better way. I don't have the answer, but I know it's out there somewhere.

[donnaplease]

In all fairness, I think you're the one subscribing to political bullshit generalities. The O'Reilly / Limbaugh / Beck / Coulter non-fact based talking points don't carry you very far against the raging tide of reality and fact.

No, Daniel. I base my views on my personal experiences and values.

[RocknRoll]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-dQfb8WQvo

In his own words... maybe someone can tell the doctor that the patient is better off taking the pain killer

Who the hell do you think that someone is? A bureaucrat! A bureaucrat who will deny deny deny...

1) I'd be willing to bet that the 99yr old woman's pacemaker was footed by the US taxpayer and paid for by Medicare - ie socialized medicine. If you're trying to make the case against government health insurance, this isn't the way to do it, especially considering that Medicare covers the vast bulk of hip replacements and other old age surgeries.

2) You seriously don't think bean counting, paper shuffling wasteful bureaucrats exist at HMOs? Why are the motives of a gov't employee any scarier than an insurance death merchant looking to fatten quarterly earnings and executive pay?

I'm going to buy this book NEW RULES written by the NEW MEDICARE CZAR soon to manage health care for all Americans. I'd really like to read through it and understand what he really thinks about the medical profession and health care.

Anyway, this is an article I found from someone who read it. I can't find this very encouraging. I've seen a lot of news reports regarding the past conditions in England, pretty scary!! I understand it's improving after decades of horrible conditions.

http://axcessnews.com/index.php/articles/show/id/20451


Op-ed: New Rules by Czar Berwick, Chief Denier and Redistributor of Medical Care

By Jane M. Orient, M.D.

(AXcess News) Phoenix - Transformer-in-Chief Obama is rolling right over Congress to appoint his pick to head CMS, the agency that runs Medicare and Medicaid, without opening a discussion of the New health care agenda.

Dr. Donald Berwick is not a newcomer; he's been hovering with the academic elite "reformers," biding his time, for more than a decade. His book New Rules, with coauthor Troyen Brennan, was published in 1996.

The Old Rule, in the Oath of Hippocrates, is that each physician should prescribe for the good of each patient, according to his own best judgment. The New Rule is that medicine is an industry, doctors are assembly-line workers, and patients are interchangeable widgets.

On an assembly line, individual craftsmen do not trim individual wheels and axles to fit. Any wheel taken off the shelf must fit any axle. Allowing individual workers to solve problems at the point of production would cause variation and waste. Hence, the workers' behavior must be standardized, Berwick writes.

To his dream of using the industrial model of Total Quality Management to standardize medical care, the biggest impediment is the old-fashioned doctor. Such a doctor wants to tailor the treatment to the patient, for the maximum benefit of the patient, not jam the patient into a protocol, for the good of the collective. The decision making of independent physicians, Berwick says, is the "critical element in health care inflation." In other words, caring about patients costs too much.

In addition, with its emphasis on individuals, America "lacks sufficient redistributive impulse to guarantee access to care for the poor." That means we need to take care away from those who are getting "too much" to give to others deemed more needy or worthy.

Does it appear that ObamaCare will drive independent doctors out of business? That's the whole idea. Berwick wants us all in an "integrated" institutional model, which some call "an HMO on steroids." This is designed to shift the power from physicians—and their patients—to a higher level.

Berwick likes the view from 30,000 feet. He can’t bomb the system from there and start over, as he reportedly has advocated, metaphorically speaking. From the pinnacle of CMS he can, however, shift resources around to eliminate "disparities," demand mountains of electronic data on his desired "outcomes," and use the data to "cull" the noncompliant or "outliers"—the patients and doctors who don’t fit into the Plan.

From this height, one can rhapsodize about the "fair" and "scientifically grounded" 60-year-old British model without seeing the ugly details: blood-soaked patients lying in the accident room unattended for hours; elderly patients literally starving to death on hospital wards because nobody feeds them; or cancer patients undiagnosed for months and denied the latest treatments.

It isn't quite accurate to call Berwick "Dr. Death." That sounds like Dr. Kevorkian, who "helped" give lethal injections to individuals when they decided they wanted to die. Berwick's method is to redistribute the patient's life support, including wealth that might be used to buy medical care, to others, when Berwick, or his scientific calculator, decides the appropriate time has come.

Maybe he should be called "Dr. Pain." The rationing agency of the British National Health Service—which he calls a "global treasure" -decided last year to cut annual steroid injections for severe back pain to 3,000 from 60,000. That takes pain shots away from 57,000 patients.

Berwick knows that rules and regulations stymie innovation, and generate a huge burden of meaningless busywork, without any proof of better quality or safety. His prescription, nonetheless, is more regulation. Only this time, the regulation will be "responsive"—he never says to whom. But now he won't have to respond to congressional inquiries before he gets installed.

As a book reviewer pointed out in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1996, the New Rules can't pass their own tests. They are not evidence based.

That is, there is no evidence that they will decrease costs or improve care.

But transform society? If there was any doubt about the true agenda for "health care reform," Berwick's appointment has erased it. The New Rules will bring about the New System that Berwick’s ideological comrades have been trying to force on America since the 1940s—with government dependency and subjugation for all.

Source: www.aapsonline.org

[Angel]

Predictable reply. Oh and thanks for telling me to fuck off.

My analogy is dead on. I am making the point that a soldier is no better than a private citizen. They are both AMERICANS. I knew you would fly off the handle t the military analogy. EVERYONE should have insurance, period. I am done with you on this. I got my bill. For you people to want to repeal this mkes me sick. God help you if you ever need insurance, or you ever get denied life threatening service. Just unbelievable how you Cons can think the way you do.

No one wins unless we all win.

Dean, you are TOTALLY missing the point here. For you to say "God help you if you ever need insurance, or if you ever get denied life threatening service..." just shows you ignorance. Why wouldn't a person want to be DENIED life THREATING service??? I certainly don't want a service that is going to threaten my life...

On the other hand, I do want to receive services that are life saving. There are laws in place to prevent hospitals from denying patients treatment when true medical emergencies exist. If a patient shows up to the hospital with a severed femoral artery NO ONE is going to be asking about insurance information before giving stabilizing treatment-they won't be doing it now and they won't be doing it in the future. (Spare me the examples of patients dying in ED waitng rooms....those are VERY rare cases and there's usually more to the story) However, it's the more common health ailments that will be the problem-the government will dictate what can and cannot be treated, how it can by treated and when it can be treated...the art of medicine will be lost and the art is more imporatant than the science, although, I don't expect you to understand that.

Reform needs to happen but it needs to start with insurance companies-the make WWAAYY to much money and don't cover enough. It needs to start with drug companies-they spend way to much trying to "buy" doctors and therefore way overcharge for drugs. It needs to start with medicare and medicaid reform and I fully believe that the first thing that should be put in place is a medicaid co-pay. It doesn't have to be a big amount but just enough that people will think twice about going to the ER for a cold. If they truly cannot pay the copay they can submit request to waive the copay. I could go on forever but it would be lost on you anyway so why bother?

[Rockindeano]

Predictable reply. Oh and thanks for telling me to fuck off.

My analogy is dead on. I am making the point that a soldier is no better than a private citizen. They are both AMERICANS. I knew you would fly off the handle t the military analogy. EVERYONE should have insurance, period. I am done with you on this. I got my bill. For you people to want to repeal this mkes me sick. God help you if you ever need insurance, or you ever get denied life threatening service. Just unbelievable how you Cons can think the way you do.

No one wins unless we all win.

Dean, you are TOTALLY missing the point here. For you to say "God help you if you ever need insurance, or if you ever get denied life threatening service..." just shows you ignorance. Why wouldn't a person want to be DENIED life THREATING service??? I certainly don't want a service that is going to threaten my life...

On the other hand, I do want to receive services that are life saving. There are laws in place to prevent hospitals from denying patients treatment when true medical emergencies exist. If a patient shows up to the hospital with a severed femoral artery NO ONE is going to be asking about insurance information before giving stabilizing treatment-they won't be doing it now and they won't be doing it in the future. (Spare me the examples of patients dying in ED waitng rooms....those are VERY rare cases and there's usually more to the story) However, it's the more common health ailments that will be the problem-the government will dictate what can and cannot be treated, how it can by treated and when it can be treated...the art of medicine will be lost and the art is more imporatant than the science, although, I don't expect you to understand that.

Reform needs to happen but it needs to start with insurance companies-the make WWAAYY to much money and don't cover enough. It needs to start with drug companies-they spend way to much trying to "buy" doctors and therefore way overcharge for drugs. It needs to start with medicare and medicaid reform and I fully believe that the first thing that should be put in place is a medicaid co-pay. It doesn't have to be a big amount but just enough that people will think twice about going to the ER for a cold. If they truly cannot pay the copay they can submit request to waive the copay. I could go on forever but it would be lost on you anyway so why bother?

Well I guess if I am so dumb and won't understand anything, I'll just exuse myself from this discussion. I had no idea you were so muh smarter than me, that we can't even debate this.

[Angel]

Well I guess if I am so dumb and won't understand anything, I'll just exuse myself from this discussion. I had no idea you were so muh smarter than me, that we can't even debate this.

See, now you're coming to your senses .....and when it comes to healthcare, I BETTER be smarter than you-I've spent over a sixth of my life studying it and a third of my life practicing it.....

[RedWingFan]

Why are the motives of a gov't employee any scarier than an insurance death merchant looking to fatten quarterly earnings and executive pay?

Firstly because we are able to sue the ass off of the "insurance death merchant" in cases of negligence!

[conversationpc]

I have an MBA and I worked as a Healthcare Administrator for many years, and had to deal with so many insurance companies refusing to pay for life-saving procedures and necessary tests that I KNOW change is needed.

Having an MBA and dealing with insurance companies doesn't make your opinion any more valid than anyone else's. I know folks that do the same right now who completely disagree with you. That being said, if anyone thinks the government is not going to be even more difficult to deal with than insurance companies are right now is living in fantasy land.