Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Since the majority of "Christians" on this board are what would be called "right wing".. and since the "right wing" is vehemently opposed to healthcare reform (even though healthcare is irrevocably broken)..
my question is..
why?
What in your faith leads you to that answer? What specifically tells you "no"? How in the world is a goal of 95% covered bad? How is insurance companies paying 90-95% of the submitted claims 10 years ago... down to 80% now.. how is that "good"? How is that good when they have bloated operating margins?
Are you against all of it? Are you against just some of it? What specifically gets your ire up?
My personal thought on it is what ever comes out of the Senate Finance Committee will be closest..
but deeper than that.. is it one section you don't like? Is it the whole idea? What do you like about your health care coverage now (if you even have it)?
How about this.. take cost out of the equation. Don't even factor that into it..
On principle.. what is the problem with getting more people access to the health care services they need?
What is.. the right thing to do?
If you can.. try to put it in your words.. not somebody elses.. not a cut and paste of somebody elses opinion.. not a youtube video stating an opinion..
Ok, I'll bite. As a Christian, and in your words, a "right wing" Christian at that, I am not at all opposed to health care reform. Changes in our current system can and should be made, but I don't think it's necessary to do it in the way that our president is proposing.
I'll admit I have not done a lot of research myself on this issue so please be kind . I think insurance companies should be made to cover people with pre-existing conditions. I think we should be able to purchase our health insurance from a company in another state if we choose to do so. I think that poor people who can't afford insurance should be covered in some way, I'm just not sure how.
I think this idea that millions of uninsured people can suddenly be given coverage, and that it wouldn't in turn lead to eventually having to ration health care is silly. There is only so much money and so many doctors to go around, so to speak.
One question I have and I have not seen addressed anywhere is this...how would a gov't. run healthcare system here in the U.S. be any different than gov't. run healthcare in the U.K. or Canada? We've all heard stories about the waiting lines that exist in these countries for elective surgery, cancer treatment, you name it. What would make our system any different (& better) than what exists in these other countries? Bottom line...I'm not aware of American citizens traveling to the U.K. or Canada to get care that they can't receive here, but you hear stories all the time of the opposite happening....why is that?
Oh and you asked about the insurance coverage that we have...well my hubby is employed by the gov't. so we have good insurance...not the best, but certainly nothing to shake a stick at. If I had my druthers I would love to have coverage for things like chiropractic care and naturopathic services.
One question I have and I have not seen addressed anywhere is this...how would a gov't. run healthcare system here in the U.S. be any different than gov't. run healthcare in the U.K. or Canada?
Because it is about helping people access the current medical care system that we already have. From what I understand, this is not going to be about creating government sponsored doctors and clinics run at sub par pay levels. It will be about integrating the government sponsored plans into private practice.
Quote:
We've all heard stories about the waiting lines that exist in these countries for elective surgery, cancer treatment, you name it. What would make our system any different (& better) than what exists in these other countries? Bottom line...I'm not aware of American citizens traveling to the U.K. or Canada to get care that they can't receive here, but you hear stories all the time of the opposite happening....why is that?
The stories are misplaced, to emphasize what is misplaced I will simply ask if these people coming over here for medical care are unable to afford to pay for it?
From the people that I know in Canada they don't see the huge problems they hear about in our media, life threatening situations always take priority. I'll take the word of citizens in a country that I know personally over media hype.
On top of that, there are wait times now in this country if your situation is not dire, just go to an emergency room on a busy night if your condition is not life threatening.
Ok, I'll bite. As a Christian, and in your words, a "right wing" Christian at that, I am not at all opposed to health care reform. Changes in our current system can and should be made, but I don't think it's necessary to do it in the way that our president is proposing.
Fair enough.. just remember there are multiple plans out there. Pay close attention to the Senate plan (even though there really isn't one out of the Senate yet.. particular attention to the Senate Finance Committee plan.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deb in VA
I'll admit I have not done a lot of research myself on this issue so please be kind .
I'm always kind!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deb in VA
I think insurance companies should be made to cover people with pre-existing conditions. I think we should be able to purchase our health insurance from a company in another state if we choose to do so. I think that poor people who can't afford insurance should be covered in some way, I'm just not sure how.
I agree
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deb in VA
I think this idea that millions of uninsured people can suddenly be given coverage, and that it wouldn't in turn lead to eventually having to ration health care is silly. There is only so much money and so many doctors to go around, so to speak.
I kinda agree. The uninsured are seen now.. just with greater acuity (i.e. more sick) because they show up to the ER.. they never go to a doctor for wellness exams and they wait until things are really bad then present to the ER.
I don't really buy into the rationing piece except in the case of imaging and diagnostics and primary care.
Imaging centers have a low barrier to entry in most places.. they are cheap to put up. So I don't see imaging as being really rationed in the long term.
Primary care however will be because of the numbers.. however laws will be changed to allow nurse practitioners to do more (as they should etc)..
No doubt utilization will go up...
but as an end.. healthcare is rationed.. now.. as we speak.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deb in VA
One question I have and I have not seen addressed anywhere is this...how would a gov't. run healthcare system here in the U.S. be any different than gov't. run healthcare in the U.K. or Canada?
I think its a great question. The crux is this:
There will be a healthcare exchange setup where private insurance companies would offer a standard set of benefits for a price.
The "PUBLIC OPTION" part of the debate is whether or not the govt would be a part of that exchange (i.e. have a govt health plan offered.. like "Gov Care".. I like that name). Thats it. No govt run doctors or anything. Hospitals and medical staff still make the decisions etc.
Detractors to the "PUBLIC OPTION" think that it will cause the private insurance companies to go bankrupt.
My opinion is.. "yeah right". Insurance companies aren't going away any more than the tobacco companies have "gone away". Its a ridiculous presumption to think that would happen.
So that is the difference.. the "PUBLIC OPTION" is simply the govt offering a standard benefits plan to compete with the private plans. Thats it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deb in VA
We've all heard stories about the waiting lines that exist in these countries for elective surgery, cancer treatment, you name it. What would make our system any different (& better) than what exists in these other countries?
I think if you listen to the horror stories on both sides (out side and their side) they will cancel each other out. Honestly.. the fringe cases always get the spotlight. We have patient dumping (not normal but happens).. they have some exceedingly long wait times (probably not normal but happens)..
Just an fyi.. we have wait times to here.. You can just beebop down to the local hospital and say "I want a total knee replacement". My guess is it takes a couple months in some cases to get that to happen..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deb in VA
Bottom line...I'm not aware of American citizens traveling to the U.K. or Canada to get care that they can't receive here, but you hear stories all the time of the opposite happening....why is that?
You are correct. Those that have the money.. come here because they can afford it. It works both ways though.. there are medical travel companies that setup procedures in India and Thailand for US Citizens to get affordable services performed..
Oh and you asked about the insurance coverage that we have...well my hubby is employed by the gov't. so we have good insurance...not the best, but certainly nothing to shake a stick at. If I had my druthers I would love to have coverage for things like chiropractic care and naturopathic services.
honestly deb.. would you get the govt insurance again?
My guess is chiropractic services would be more likely covered in the future than naturopathic services..
but see that is the beauty of it..
The public option would give you a standard set of benefits (that then the private insurance companies to stay competitive would match).. chiropractic or naturopathic services would be an additional service or rider.. it would be up to you!
I appreciate your honestly Deb.
and in an effort to promote honesty I have no idea how we are gonna pay for all of this..
now for the religious aspect..
you said it yourself.. people should be covered.. the only thing really holding you back is whether or not all these people getting covered will hamper YOUR current healthcare.
Its like saying "I don't want more people to move into my area because I might have to wait longer at the restaurant on Friday night".
you said it yourself.. people should be covered.. the only thing really holding you back is whether or not all these people getting covered will hamper YOUR current healthcare.
I don't have time to get into this in depth, so I hesitate to answer at all, but just to give you something to chew on, this is not MY only concern. My much bigger concerns lie in the area of personal freedom and personal responsibility. Handing over both to the government on a silver platter does not bode well for either and it's a slippery slope we're heading down.
I don't have time to get into this in depth, so I hesitate to answer at all, but just to give you something to chew on, this is not MY only concern. My much bigger concerns lie in the area of personal freedom and personal responsibility. Handing over both to the government on a silver platter does not bode well for either and it's a slippery slope we're heading down.
Could'nt rep you enough! Not only slippery, but so slick you won't even feel it until you fall......
My personal opinion is that the Republican Party has played itself to be the "Moral Party" or the "Christian Party" to such an extent that when people identify with themselves as being Republican, they assume it's also synonymous and indicative of Christian values and viewpoints.
Even if they're not completely convinced of the alleged moral upstanding their beloved party stands for, they're constantly barraged with an outpouring of bloviating political commentators on FoxNews all suggesting how evil and vile a national health care plan is, how awful the Democratic party is, etc... etc...
It's absolutely and evidently clear that when people speak of "Socialism" they have absolutely no idea what they're talking about. I considerably doubt any of them have read Karl Marx to even get an idea of what socialism is or how a society such as that operates. Most people wouldn't even know what a proletariat is or was when discussing socialism. Couple that with the fact that most people still incorrectly call America a "democracy" when speaking of our system of government. It becomes quite clear that the majority of people don't know a thing they're talking about and are merely reciting nonsensical arguments and half-truths from opinionated dummies synonymous with MSNBC, FoxNews, CNN and the like. Make no mistake, both sides have the same sort of mindless followers.
Aside from that, as I've written in my blog, most people don't understand the origins of Jefferson's "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," as it was written in the Declaration and how that statement should be absolutely indicative of our need for a national health care plan.
I don't have time to get into this in depth, so I hesitate to answer at all, but just to give you something to chew on, this is not MY only concern. My much bigger concerns lie in the area of personal freedom and personal responsibility. Handing over both to the government on a silver platter does not bode well for either and it's a slippery slope we're heading down.
My personal opinion is that the Republican Party has played itself to be the "Moral Party" or the "Christian Party" to such an extent that when people identify with themselves as being Republican, they assume it's also synonymous and indicative of Christian values and viewpoints.
Even if they're not completely convinced of the alleged moral upstanding their beloved party stands for, they're constantly barraged with an outpouring of bloviating political commentators on FoxNews all suggesting how evil and vile a national health care plan is, how awful the Democratic party is, etc... etc...
It's absolutely and evidently clear that when people speak of "Socialism" they have absolutely no idea what they're talking about. I considerably doubt any of them have read Karl Marx to even get an idea of what socialism is or how a society such as that operates. Most people wouldn't even know what a proletariat is or was when discussing socialism. Couple that with the fact that most people still incorrectly call America a "democracy" when speaking of our system of government. It becomes quite clear that the majority of people don't know a thing they're talking about and are merely reciting nonsensical arguments and half-truths from opinionated dummies synonymous with MSNBC, FoxNews, CNN and the like. Make no mistake, both sides have the same sort of mindless followers.
Aside from that, as I've written in my blog, most people don't understand the origins of Jefferson's "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," as it was written in the Declaration and how that statement should be absolutely indicative of our need for a national health care plan.
Will you be secretary in my atheocialist party?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. I think insurance companies should be made to cover people with pre-existing conditions. I think we should be able to purchase our health insurance from a company in another state if we choose to do so. I think that poor people who can't afford insurance should be covered in some way, I'm just not sure how.
Not only slippery, but so slick you won't even feel it until you fall......
