Good letter
 

The health debate isn't just about health or the role of government in the economy ("Health Debate Isn't About Health," Capital Journal, Aug. 11). It is about the Constitution, liberty and the future of the republic. As a high-school government teacher for 11 years, I have read the Constitution thoroughly and completely hundreds of times. The Constitution is about limiting government—keeping it as small and unobtrusive as possible. It is about the government protecting property, not taking away from one group to give to another.

As our government gets further away from those basic principles, we move toward the tyranny that the Founding Fathers hoped to avoid. The health bill may be well-intentioned, but it gives government sweeping powers to make health-care decisions concerning everything from preventing life (abortion) to ending it (end-of-life counseling). It may not intend to put the government between the physician and the patient but it gives the government unprecedented power to do just that.

There is no authority in the Constitution for government to take over our health care, just as there was no authority in the Constitution to take over General Motors or take taxpayer money to bail out failing banks. The government decided to throw the Constitution under the bus during the last year of the Bush administration, and the current administration has driven the bus back and forth over the document. The people of this country have a right to be angry and fearful for both our liberty and the future of our republic.
David Williams

Fairfax, Va.

The above is out and out nonsense.

Both House versions and the Senate version of healthcare reform gives the government ZERO power to make health care decisions for you, or to influence those decisions. The government will NOT be taking over your health care.

That is an out and out lie.

If one goes on CNN.com under politics, both the last Senate and biggest House versions of these bills are there.

NONE OF THE ABOVE is in either bill.

he's right. the fed was never intended to become the bloated lump of lard it has become. thomas jefferson wouldn't recognize it, and would be appalled.

We finally agree! Drop this nonsense and and keep Gov. out of health care completely! Hooray and welcome back to the Rep. party. Let's get on to more important things like how Cap and Trade will destroy American businesses and give the world including those not so friendly to us an advantage.

You have to be kidding.

Why would you want the Govt. to have all of your medical records? Isn't that kind of an invasion of privacy? Where is the A.C.L.U. when you need them?

No, I'm not. There are no death panels. There is no repeal of HIPPA regarding medical records. There is no government making healthcare decisions for you. There is no single-payer. There will be a debate when the three bills go to committee regarding offering a public option or a co-op, there will probably be a public option. Nobody will be affected unless they are uninsured and can now get insurance. Nobody has to change or give up their current health plan. It may become less expensive to you. And of course, you won't have to worry about being thrown off your current insurance plan after you have a claim, or worry about all companies refusing to insure you because you've had a previous health problem, or worry about losing your current insurance because you can't afford COBRA and you've lost your job.

Please, show me where the government will "control" my health care and make my healthcare decisions for me. Where they will tell me what I can have done, where I can have it done, and who will do it. Of course, my insurance company tells me that right now - here's the hospitals in your plan, here's the doctors in your plan, and here's what we will pay for. Unless, of course, we change our mind after you make the claim, then we can just arbitrarily decide not to pay after we've said we will.

That will stop. Yes, That's government control, I suppose - passing law not allowing insurance companies to do that to their clients anymore.

But go ahead. Tell me how the government will control my health care, and make my healthcare decisions for me. Something ... concrete and factual. Not just, "You just don't get it!" or "Are you kidding?" or "Oh, yeah, they will!" or "Sputter, sputter, anger, anger, I hate the government!"

Oh, I'm a Republican. You, however, might consider that you possibly are a closet Libertarian ;) :D

Cap and Trade worked for sulfer emissions :eek: :D

why do you suppose some Dr.'s refuse Medicaid patients but not privately insured patients? And do those Dr.'s tend to be the bottom of the barrel or the cream of the crop?

I can not believe you actually believe this. I have heard Obama say that you won't have to give up your current plan if you don't want to so many times, but what he is not telling you is your plan as it exists today won't exist if this healthcare reform bill is passed. No company is going to continue to offer health insurance to their employees because it will be cheaper to go on the government plan. How do you think they are going to pay for this? In today's current system there are numerous hospitals, etc. that will not and can not refuse care regardless or whether you have insurance. By being employed and paying for my health care plan I am able to choose what and how I want to handle and what I can afford as far my medical needs go. Do you really think that if I am 70 yrs old and in not great health (let's say I have had numerous heart attacks) that if I am on the government's plan that they will pay for my knee to be replaced? How about people with MS? My father had cancer that 90% of the dr's said that they needed to cut his whole leg off, he continued to search out additional opinions and today has 2 healthy legs, walks with a slight limp and has been cancer free for 15+ yrs. Do you think under the government's plan that he would have been able to receive numerous opinions? The government can't even compete with UPS or Fedex with something as simple as delivering overnight packages and the post office is losing millions of dollars and would be bankrupt if it was a private business and you think it is a good idea for them to be in charge of healthcare? If they can't compete with the private businesses in something so simple what makes you think they can do so with healthcare?

Lol ... gramps won't be able to get his knee replaced, eh, wiphan?




Con fear machine hitting on all cylinders now...

Name me one government run business that would survive in the private sector as a sucessfull profitable business? Public schools, Post office, do I need to continue?

I can't believe you actually believe one-sixth of the economy and the largest private companies in the world will somehow magically disappear ;)

No, the 85% of people insured today by their current private health plans will still be there. The government doesn't want to insure them. That is not in any of the reform bills now. We will be insured by our private plans. Nothing will change for us. Premiums may decrease. What will change is that the insurance company won't be able to drop their clients needlessly, nor exclude them for preexisting condtions.

BTW, not everybody is ELIGIBLE for the government plan (under both current House bill provisions). Private insurance isn't going anywhere.

Who will be insured are the currently uninsured. That's estimated to be 36 million out of 46 million uninsured, out of 330 billion in our country. Those whose big private insurance companies have dumped them because they made a claim (yes, that happens all the time, it's how insurance companies make money - by not paying claims). Young people that are currently uninsured will be encouraged to be insured and brought into the pools (decreasing costs for everyone). YOU will not be prevented from getting insurance because you have a pre-existing condition (happens all the time). YOU won't have to worry about losing your health insurance if you change jobs (happens all the time, few can afford COBRA)

Half of all bankruptcies in the US are caused by people bankrupted due to paying for medical bills - and the majority of these people are insured by private insurance companies. That will end. That is great for the economy.

Your insurance plan has a list of doctors in their plan, and a list of hospitals (providers) in their plan, and the insurance company determines what is paid out for what conditions.

They do now all the time. It's called "Medicare".

What "government plan" are you talking about? There is no single payer (the government paying for everything) in any of the reform bills. There is no provision for someone from the government to get involved in your health care.

??? The government isn't going to be "in charge of healthcare"? What provisions in the house bills or senate bill are you specifically are you talking about?

BTW, the government does very well, providing excellent comprehensive treatment at very lost cost (less than 5% of Medicare/Medicade budget goes to administrative costs) to Medicare, Medicad and Veterans right now.

[/quote]If they can't compete with the private businesses in something so simple what makes you think they can do so with healthcare?[/quote]

The Post Office is far from the disaster you say it is. They compete very well. You put a stamp on a letter, they pick it up, and in 3-7 days it's exactly where you wrote on the envelope it should go.

Because Medicaid pays less than some private insurance companies. In my experience (15 years in human healthcare before I became a vet) the ability of the doctor has nothing to do with what health insurances they accept (Medicaid is just another health insurance company, that happens to be the government)

Did you miss my story? My private, ultra-good bells-and-whistles Humana plan (for which I paid over $400 a month for, privately, as I am self-employed) approved and qualified me to have a knee replacement (both the doctors office and the hospital got approval, in writing, that the insurance company would pay, which is usual for any hospital admittance) - then a few months later, they decided they were not paying.

They gave me two choices: I could sign off and agree they wouldn't pay for what they already agreed to, and what was covered under my plan; or, if I didn't agree, the blackmail to that was they would cancel my entire policy from the beginning, and refund all my premiums minus what they paid out already on other conditions.

This is entirely legal for you to sign a contract and your insurance company to be able to renege at any time, with you having no recourse. Read your insurance contract. The Kentucky Insurance Commission said, "Nothing we can do".

I am currently sueing them. I will be lucky to get half of it paid, and it will take years. Insurance companies take the least expensive road.

The above is what private insurance companies do to keep profitable. When you have a large claim, they will try anything to put the policy in recission.

And the Healthcare reform act will END the above practice.

I do like to be sure I read Fox News daily. It's amazing: when 10 other news agencies are talking about one big story, when that is all over cable news - Fox News is often completely ignoring it.

Like the President's healthcare town halls, which were about an hour apiece - Fox News just declined to televise them, or relay much of what was included afterwards. Rupert Murdoch has always said he's in the entertainment business, not the news business. Glenn Beck has lost another 8 advertisers this past weekend (in addition to the previous five) for his calling the President a racist who hates white people a couple weeks ago. But I doubt Rupert will remove him, he incites and angers his two million viewers.

Someday, when you grow up, maybe you'll learn another adjective, other than the only two you know how to use now.

1) So Dr's are paid less in some cases if they take Medicaid?
2) And in your 15 years did you notice a greater amount of paper work (Schedules etc.) and greater amount of time in getting compensated by Medicaid/Care?
3) If I have a 'private' Dr. now and am forced by situation or circumstance into a Government policy will that Dr. be forced to accept me for treatment?

If you answer 'yes' to all three questions you should be able to see the flaws in the plan.

You're the dumbest b.itch on the internet. I'll take anything negative you say as a compliment.

Those are the flaws in our current private system, as it's pretty much the same. Blue Cross may not pay as much for a procedure as Humana does.

Doctors have a vast majority of their employees now dedicated to attempting to file insurance papers and make claims. It's a very, very expensive part of overhead for hospitals and doctors. It's not any different just because it's Medicaid. Medicaid is just another insurance company.

The hot new thing now for many doctor practices in smaller towns (like a general or internal medicine practice) is to stop taking insurance, and charge cash for everything (exams, usual lab work, etc). It costs everybody less. The patients pay a very reasonable amount for the cost of the office visit, labwork, etc. (rather than their copay), as the cost doesn't have to be inflated to pay for messing with insurance companies. Quick and neat, cheaper for everyone. They patients only use their insurance if they get admitted to hospital, etc.

If only your opinion mattered to me.

If they can't compete with the private businesses in something so simple what makes you think they can do so with healthcare?[/quote]

The Post Office is far from the disaster you say it is. They compete very well. You put a stamp on a letter, they pick it up, and in 3-7 days it's exactly where you wrote on the envelope it should go.[/quote]

Really? Do you know how large the deficit for the post office is? If it where a private business they would have filed bankruptcy years ago. The deficit is in the billions. Why do you think they are talking about mail going to 5 days a week? Why do they contract their priority mail packages with Fedex and UPS? I am sure it is because they are so efficient and cost effective at providing their services

"Medicaid is an insurance company"

Jesustapdancingchrist. You are an epic tool. You're like John Henry's hammer if it had a missing chromosome. Just shut the everliving f.uck up.

Here is an article on the post office

http://www.logisticsmgmt.com/article/ca6675207.html

Yeah the post office is in great shape...

So is Medicare and the VA, wiphan.

Why bother with this dumb c.unt?

Didn't take your meds today, huh?

Actually, what I said was, "Medicaid is just another health insurance company, that happens to be the government".

They do haircuts as well? Cheaper for people with no insurance I will concede but how ho-dunk are these people to pay for covered proceedures to avoid the co-pay? Or is it " Mr. Smith we did some blood work and had to send it to the lab so that'll be $24.95. You saved a nickle off your co-pay."

That was funnnnny :tro: :tro:

Yes I took my meds and it's obvious to me your lobotomy suffered a few permanent setbacks.

I can't believe the GOP is not hammering on this. 2/3 is supposed to come from cuts in current Medicare misspending, 1/3 from the decreased tax deductions on those making over 250K a year.

My biggest question is that if that much stuff can be cleaned up from Medicare, why hasn't it been done already? Will it be done anyway independent of the health bill? How can one be sure that much can be realized? I want to see the details on this.

There are also provisions for people who are in the government plan to pay for their insurance, dependent upon their income, etc. It's not supposed to replace private insurance for the insured, it's suppose to cover the uninsured much like Medicare does now.

Everyone benefits costwise from that because now we pay (in our ER bills, our health insurance bills, our premiums, etc) for the 15% uninsured. Somebody has to pay for it, those costs are built into and spread around the entire healthcare industry.

What everyone benefits from immediately is the reforms to laws covering private insurance companies - no more dumping clients for no reason, no excluding grandpa from insurance because he retired and lost his company insurance and now wants to buy some but you won't cover him because he's had heart trouble, etc.

The insurance companies that are insuring those people now. They will no longer be able to cap your yearly or lifetime benefits and stop paying, nor cap benefits for one condition and stop paying, nor kick you off your policy because you developed cancer, etc.

Apparently, yes, I am that naive ;) No, I don't feel this is all part of a secret superplot to take over all my healthcare and control my life. We still have our three divisions of government, right? Executive, Legislative, Judicial? And we change off our Congressmen and Senators regularly, right, at our pleasure? BTW, no, I do not support single payer.

My regular private insurance doesn't cover alot of things. They cover this injection, but not that. They cover this procedure, but not that. They only cover generic drugs, although some drugs are better if not generic. They flat-out refuse to pay for some stuff. They only pay for XX days in hospital for XX condition, no matter what I may need. They tell me that after XXX dollars for one condition, they will pay no more and I'm on my own.

I'm in deep trouble, with private insurance, if I get a bad cancer than needs repeat treatments, long care, etc. They don't cover alot of preventive care - colonoscopies, mammograms, routine bloodwork, dermatologists, etc - that would decrease their costs if I didn't get those diseases, or caught them early.

Read the horror stories in the news associated with this - about the young girl who needed a liver transplant to live, her insurance company refused, her parents couldn't afford it, she died.

Private insurance is no model for excellence - they are a virtually unregulated industry, that can do whatever they want to the people who pay them monthly premiums.

I think most Medicare people have supplemental insurance, too, because they are usually older retired people on fixed incomes (part of which is that terrible socialist government controlled Social Security) and they don't want to risk losing what pension they have left.

Medicare has saved millions of lives. Think of all the people that would have no health insurance at all if they didn't have Medicare. Before Medicare - old people who couldn't afford it just got sick, were not treated, and died. I find that an appalling thing to happen in the richest, free-est country in the world.

No, cheaper for those with insurance, too, as the office doesn't have to pay three extra people to work just to file insurance claims. Thus the doctors office doesn't have to build that charge into their office call charge, etc. They use their insurance still for catastrophic, hospitalization, etc. Don't forget that all that paperwork filing costs money, from the doctor to the insurance company - eliminate that, and you eliminate a huge amount of healthcare costs. You do not HAVE to file an insurance claim, just because you are covered.

So an office visit with lab work IS cheaper than their co-pay? Really? Do these ho-dunks take their, still under warranty, vehicles to the local mechanic cause he charges less than the dealer will charge the manufacturer as well?

Shocking ... just SHOCKING



Thought we had "the best health care system in the world" cuz it's private?????

I thought Canada did?

http://www.vancouversun.com/story_pr...878506&sponsor

:tro: :tro:

Not according to this one, dellinger:

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Cont...can-Healt.aspx



Canada came in fifth ... and the U.S. in sixth ... out of six countries............................

No, didn't mean that. I said that "healthcare" for routine stuff becomes cheaper in this type of practice setup. If the doc wants a CBC-chemistry, it may be $48 this way (drawn in-house, sent out to lab, results faxed back to doc), but $88 if you drive to the hospital lab, have the blood drawn, they run it, they send results to doctor - and the hospital has to process your insurance paperwork to get reimbursement).

Not using insurance companies for the routine stuff, taking that out of the equation, saves alot of money all throughout the system. You are eliminating all the markup necessitated by an insurance company and the requisite paperwork pushers being in the middle of it all.

Many doctors nowadays give noticable discounts to patients that are willing to pay $120 cash for an office visit and followup labwork; than to pay the $30 co-pay and process that through an insurance company.

Um ... we do not have the "best healthcare in the world" by anyone's public ranking. We do have the "most expensive" healthcare in the world.

So the patient pays $120 out of pocket to save themself the $30 dollar co-pay?

And to think I gave them the benefit of the doubt and called them ho-dunk instead of just plain assinine.

just saw this about aarp and it's members:


http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2009/...ap6787521.html