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.
UHC would not stop the costs rises you describe. You imply that the increase in costs is associated with insurance. It is not.
Sure it is if there were UHC people would not lose their health insurance when laid off. Then they would not use the ER and stiff the hospital on the bill. So the costs would not be going up as high right now, so in increase would be lower.
In the old days we simply called it rationed and denied care.
Deficit neutral huh? Will it also be tax neutral?
See, the thing is I like Blue Cross. I don't want it to go away so that Democras can make me and other hard-working Americans beholding to the government. If I don't like my insurance, I can change it. If my employer doesn't offer the insurance I like, I can change him. It's really up to me and I like it that way.
I, I, I, I, I. Me, me, me, me, me.
Many Americans -- hard-working Americans -- are not provided insurance benefits through their employer. I was one of them for years. I'm only insured now because of my husband's employment, over which I have no choice.
Nice that you don't have to worry about pre-existing conditions that would make you uninsurable if you decide to change your insurance.
And then you have the audacity to bring up "rationing", as if that isn't the order of the day as insurance currently exists. As I said in a previous thread:
Quote:
Wanna know what our current healthcare did to me because of "rationing"? I've had 3 years of intermittent treatment for a rotator cuff and neck injury I sustained when I fell off my bike. It's been intermittent because United Healthcare through my husband's employer, rations my physical therapy to 45 visits per year. If I have to go 3 times a week, I use that up in 15 weeks, which leaves me with 37 weeks of the year that I cannot receive treatment.
The result? I now have severe osteoarthritis in my cervical spine.
Severe.
A degenerative disease brought about because an injury was not properly treated until it was healed, but was treated until big insurance decided it was no longer profitable to treat me.
Now I'll have to endure a lifetime of treatment and a lifetime of pain and possible disfigurement.
So much for your argument about public healthcare rationing being the boogeyman in this equation.
I honest to g-d don't understand people who don't give a rat's *** about the condition of their fellow citizens. And I really don't understand people who refuse to acknowledge that we're ALL paying for every uninsured person's healthcare RIGHT NOW in the current system, but we're paying out the ying-yang for it, since it's performed primarily in emergency rooms and billed at exorbitant rates.
Why don't you want your premiums to go down?
No, the current carnation of the bill may not be "there" yet. But why don't you contact your Representatives and tell them to knock off the obstructionism and start contributing something meaningful so we can all benefit, including you?
Sure it is if there were UHC people would not lose their health insurance when laid off. Then they would not use the ER and stiff the hospital on the bill. So the costs would not be going up as high right now, so in increase would be lower.
Well at least now you get the point that this has nothing to do with insurance companies. And everything to do with usage and healthcare inflation. There is no evidence ER use is up.
Jill...do you honestly think PT visits wouldn't be restricted to a certain number of weeks on a government plan?
No, of course not. But that's just the point. The anti-government health care folks around here repeatedly use the "rationing" argument against the government program, while ignoring the fact that we're already being rationed under the current system.
In other words, their objection based on "rationing" is completely unfounded and irrational.
No, of course not. But that's just the point. The anti-government health care folks around here repeatedly use the "rationing" argument against the government program, while ignoring the fact that we're already being rationed under the current system.
In other words, their objection based on "rationing" is completely unfounded and irrational.
You must understand that this is the order of the day. Being rational is not an option when you are being programmed. When a person will vote against thier own best interests, it is time to throw in the towel and save yourself from further frustration. One would think that there would be a light bulb moment and you wait for the person to see the light. It reminds me of the scene in the movie "The Miracle Worker" when the teacher Annie Sullivan realizes that Helen Keller has gotten it and understands that words relate to things and things have names. Well, Helen Keller might have been deaf, dumb and blind, but she was not stupid. Unfortunately, this is not the case many times on these boards. Good luck!
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.
