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.
Absolutely, but you have to look at which special interest group is benefitting from the bill. Conrad has been purchased by the insurance companies; therefore, against public option, Obama does have some money from health insurance companies but not near as much; therefore, for public option.
His bill would not affect health care professionals that much although they seem to think so.
So why not cut them out of the picture, medical savings accounts where GASP... people are actually responsible for paying their own bills.
These MSAs are not what they are cracked up to be. You would have to put aside a minimum of $20K per person for a fairly uncomplicated short-term hospitalization; way more for a lengthly illness like leukemia.
So why not cut them out of the picture, medical savings accounts where GASP... people are actually responsible for paying their own bills.
I'm with you on that and on principle I'd prefer to not have insurance at all.
Its a rotten industry where the entire goal is to get paid based on people's fears.
These MSAs are not what they are cracked up to be. You would have to put aside a minimum of $20K per person for a fairly uncomplicated short-term hospitalization; way more for a lengthly illness like leukemia.
Obviously they are not the complete solution, but just a small example of alternatives, the bottom line is, insurance companies are in the drivers seat right now, when you change that, we the people start to open more opportunities and options
No, as mentioned in multiple other postings we need to look at alternative ways to approach the health care issue. I don't believe any poster has said we have a "perfect" system today, but the proposed alternative certainly wasn't attractive to many of us whatsoever.
To be fair, most of us on C-D who have weighed in on both sides of this issue would probably not NEED the plan being proposed.
From what I've seen, most of us posting in this forum on this subject have a) Medicaid, b) Medicare, c) employer-funded insurance, d) privately-purchased insurance, or e) choose to pay for care out-of-pocket. The number of posts from those who have truly fallen through the cracks has been small here.
I wonder how many of their voices are truly being heard over the ruckus at the town hall meetings.
I'm with you on that and on principle I'd prefer to not have insurance at all.
Its a rotten industry where the entire goal is to get paid based on people's fears.
And the biggest mystery to me is the enormous differences hospitals, clinics, and physicians charge to a) insurance companies, b) Medicare, c) Medicaid, and d) charity care/sliding scale.
And the biggest mystery to me is the enormous differences hospitals, clinics, and physicians charge to a) insurance companies, b) Medicare, c) Medicaid, and d) charity care/sliding scale.
How much does this **** really cost??
Well. I think that may be the best revolt. If we don't get a major overhaul...drop all insurance. F'Em.
As I step back, I find it astounding that a Democratic controlled Senate (60 votes) and house, with lopsided majorities, and a Democratic president, can't pass their own health care bill. I know not all Democrats are the same, but still....
How did this happen?
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.
