1481 users online (295 members and 1186 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 92
  1. #61
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    999
    I find it quite ironic that the person saving our healthcare has cancer and is in treatment. Is it possible that he really "gets " what it would be like to have a serious health issue with no insurance? I know he has insurance but he could easily think about where he would be without it. John Mc Cain is a hero amongst selfish pricks.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    1,803
    Quote Originally Posted by smeck View Post
    I find it quite ironic that the person saving our healthcare has cancer and is in treatment. Is it possible that he really "gets " what it would be like to have a serious health issue with no insurance? I know he has insurance but he could easily think about where he would be without it. John Mc Cain is a hero amongst selfish pricks.
    I doubt it, since McCain has had health issues prior to this, including skin cancer.

    These are his reasons, which are consistent with the core opposition to O-care/ACA concerning claims vs what was actually known:

    "I would consider supporting legislation similar to that offered by my friends Senators Graham and Cassidy were it the product of extensive hearings, debate and amendment. But that has not been the case. Instead, the specter of September 30th budget reconciliation deadline has hung over this entire process," he said in a statement.

    "I cannot in good conscience vote for the Graham-Cassidy proposal. I believe we could do better working together, Republicans and Democrats, and have not yet really tried. Nor could I support it without knowing how much it will cost, how it will effect insurance premiums, and how many people will be helped or hurt by it," he said. "Without a full CBO score, which won't be available by the end of the month, we won't have reliable answers to any of those questions."
    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/john-mc...e-repeal-bill/

    This was/is his position on ACA, when he was not a hero to liberals. The only reason he is now is because he didn't stand with Republicans on their bill:
    https://www.mccain.senate.gov/public...d-adf99cb37abc

    I commend him for opposing both sides of the aisle and their respective bad ideas.
    “The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons.” - Ralph Waldo Emerson

    Where is Heather?

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    895
    Quote Originally Posted by bluesneakers View Post
    Walmart didn't have to do that. Walmart chose to do that so they could increase their profits. Even though some corporations provide excellent healthcare coverage and other benefits overall companies can't be trusted to look after their employees. That is why healthcare shouldn't be tied to someone's employer.
    Well some couldn't meet the standards of obama care ..and I'm one who would rather have what I had before,then nothing like now !


    Always My Own Opinion

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Where 1+1 = 3
    Posts
    15,909
    Quote Originally Posted by WVWoman View Post
    Well some couldn't meet the standards of obama care ..and I'm one who would rather have what I had before,then nothing like now !


    Always My Own Opinion
    What do you mean couldn't meet the standards? Companies have been using all kinds of tricks (reduced hours, temp status, contractor status) to get out of covering employees for years - long before Obama took office.

    A lot of people had nothing before Obamacare, and more people will have nothing if the GOP gets their way.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    1,995
    Quote Originally Posted by smeck View Post
    I find it quite ironic that the person saving our healthcare has cancer and is in treatment. Is it possible that he really "gets " what it would be like to have a serious health issue with no insurance? I know he has insurance but he could easily think about where he would be without it. John Mc Cain is a hero amongst selfish pricks.
    I think McCain really believes this needs to be much more a bipartisan effort with the appropriate process. He understands we are talking about one fifth of the economy and if you are going to make a change this big, it has to be one that both sides can live with, and one that will stick. He's one of the few sane repubs not driven by reelection.

    I am sure it is not lost on him that voting for a bill that would cut out HC for millions of people while he has such a serious illness would at the very least look hypocritical. But I don't think it is his primary driver to vote no.

    The appropriate process would also make this thing much more transparent to the public. It seems the public is getting sane talking points from Jimmy Kimmel- and I am not listening to any complaints from the repubs with their back door tactics.

    If the three muscateers vote no again, they are heroes for much more than just killing a bad bill, again.


  6. #66
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    131
    Quote Originally Posted by WVWoman View Post
    http://www.wsaz.com/content/news/CAM...436784883.html

    Guys this is one of the largest and best hospitals in my General area...this is what is really happening. I don't care if you have insurance or not these hospitals are cutting services and without them ...insurance isn't going to help you at all!


    Always My Own Opinion
    CAMC's financial difficulties actually have very little to do with ACA.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    131
    Quote Originally Posted by bluesneakers View Post
    This:
    I have no problem with contributing to the cost of other families health care. In fact, I think that is kind of the point of a collaborative society. Our family pays hundreds of thousands in federal taxes every year (and no we're not multi millionaires we're just honest hard working people who pay taxes and don't create corporate loop holes to funnel our money through) and I have no problem with a portion of that going towards health care.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    16,304
    Quote Originally Posted by jillycat View Post
    No, that wasn't the story that I told and it wasn't a matter of having to wait 12 months in the US to get a skin issue looked at.

    It was first a matter of having to schedule an appointment with my primary to be given a blessing to see a skin specialist. Upon my arrival, it was secondly the crackpot idea that all moods or emotional states are 'disease' states that liability questionnaires can 'diagnose', then wasting time making that the focus of an appointment for a skin spot -- because the PA was both ignorant, arrogant, knee-jerking to the insurance company mandate to quiz people as to whether or not they're suicidal or homicidal, and gearing up to call law enforcement if I was dumb enough to say 'Ya, I feel crazy and dangerous'.

    And third, it was loading the daily docket with so many appointments and extraneous BS that has nothing to do with the reason for the appointment, that the PA, who might simply be a crappy task manager, did not follow through with the referral. It was then a skin clinic who just dropped the ball and didn't call me back after I had to correct the PA's failure. As I said, my primary told me at a subsequent appt that the spot was nothing of concern. He said it was simply a sun exposure spot that was permanent, so we might need to send this PA back to school. However, I made a flower essence and essential oil blend that I added to some shea butter and cleared the spot entirely myself, so we might even need to send the doctor and the skin specialists back to school.

    The American insurance coverage problem and American care failures and astronomical costs are a result of multiple factors and excesses rooted in both greed and ignorance that, as I said, have nothing to do with anyone being "waspy" or feeling privileged. Again, doctors and insurance companies in a relationship that doesn't involve the patient is inherently unhealthy. I spent more time that day trying to get this PA off his questionnaire mission than I did talking about my skin, which is probably why he missed so many boats on that topic.

    The Obama admin advanced the untenable claim that simply herding more people into a broken system, where doctors and insurance companies have a quid pro quo, and in this case, extend their medical exams to pseudo psych evals and calling police on people, is somehow 'care reform'.

    No thanks, and no thanks to more of the same with 'universal coverage', where government and doctors are the parental figures doing all the deciding and rationing care accordingly. Medicare for all might sound great until you realize that American Medicare is limited and loaded with restrictions. It doesn't matter that other countries don't have our issues. America cannot spring forward to improved care or coverage via our unresolved broken and failed ideas.

    And yes, I believe that markets are essential to part of the resolution. I'm fine with ensuring that indigent populations are cared for through programs like Medicaid, but the Medicaid program that we have is also restriction-loaded. Our problems in this country are not because 'rich people don't care'. Rich or poor or in between, we're all filling out the same dumb questionnaire to get 10 minutes of access to a doctor or PA who doesn't have time to get to know anyone.
    Doctors where I lived basically worked for one or two corporations, both non profit.

    They have so many minutes they are allowed to see a patient. They screen to see if someone is depressed or being abused. So many people are depressed so it is no surprise.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Where 1+1 = 3
    Posts
    15,909
    Quote Originally Posted by Curiosum View Post
    I have no problem with contributing to the cost of other families health care. In fact, I think that is kind of the point of a collaborative society. Our family pays hundreds of thousands in federal taxes every year (and no we're not multi millionaires we're just honest hard working people who pay taxes and don't create corporate loop holes to funnel our money through) and I have no problem with a portion of that going towards health care.
    I feel the same way. Maybe there are more of us than we realize. I hope so.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    3rd rock from the sun
    Posts
    1,991
    Our family was a healthy family.... until it wasn't. The purpose of insurance is to have it there for maintaining health and when catastrophe happens.

    I am astounded at the number of people who don't want to "subsidize" others. We were a healthy family with little cost to our insurers until a dx of cancer was given to us. Then, we were the family that was "sucking the system" dry.

    It is so confusing to me that we have turned into a society that doesn't want to help others in need. Another way to look at insurance is this............ you are participating for a day in the future WHEN you will NEED the coverage and others who don't NEED it then will be HELPING you out.

    Someday our family will have participated to the point of being on the subsidizing side once again.

    I get everyone with the cost savings and time savings. I think we can do much better.

    But honestly, I can't even imagine that people are being heartless and self-centered about this. Ugh.
    Violence diminishes our humanity. ~Coretta Scott King


  11. #71
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Where 1+1 = 3
    Posts
    15,909
    Should society let uninsured die?



    "Let him die."

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    1,803
    Quote Originally Posted by human View Post
    Doctors where I lived basically worked for one or two corporations, both non profit.

    They have so many minutes they are allowed to see a patient. They screen to see if someone is depressed or being abused. So many people are depressed so it is no surprise.
    Exactly, they have minutes. So using an insurance mandated questionnaire to screen for issues that are deep and wide and not within the scope of their practice is a time waster and not useful to the patient who was mandated to come in for a referral to a dermatologist.
    “The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons.” - Ralph Waldo Emerson

    Where is Heather?

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    1,803
    Quote Originally Posted by kaen View Post
    Our family was a healthy family.... until it wasn't. The purpose of insurance is to have it there for maintaining health and when catastrophe happens.

    I am astounded at the number of people who don't want to "subsidize" others. We were a healthy family with little cost to our insurers until a dx of cancer was given to us. Then, we were the family that was "sucking the system" dry.

    It is so confusing to me that we have turned into a society that doesn't want to help others in need. Another way to look at insurance is this............ you are participating for a day in the future WHEN you will NEED the coverage and others who don't NEED it then will be HELPING you out.

    Someday our family will have participated to the point of being on the subsidizing side once again.

    I get everyone with the cost savings and time savings. I think we can do much better.

    But honestly, I can't even imagine that people are being heartless and self-centered about this. Ugh.
    Insurance ceased to be relief for catastrophe or prevention and treatment of illness. It became a buffet. Can you imagine if we approached car or homeowners insurance like that?

    And what about the elderly Medicaid recipients? Why do they have to wait up to 6 months or more in a nursing home to get dentures or replace broken ones? Why have we not cared about this population before ACA, after ACA, and going on from here? If either political party wants to hang their hat on having a heart, they need to look at what happens in nursing homes, to both private and govt pay residents, but certainly to the poor who have serious gaps in care. I think an indigent dementia patient spooning pureed bread because he or she has no dentures matters more than a woman of adequate means receiving birth control at no charge.
    “The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons.” - Ralph Waldo Emerson

    Where is Heather?

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    3rd rock from the sun
    Posts
    1,991
    Quote Originally Posted by jillycat View Post
    Insurance ceased to be relief for catastrophe or prevention and treatment of illness. It became a buffet. Can you imagine if we approached car or homeowners insurance like that?

    And what about the elderly Medicaid recipients? Why do they have to wait up to 6 months or more in a nursing home to get dentures or replace broken ones? Why have we not cared about this population before ACA, after ACA, and going on from here? If either political party wants to hang their hat on having a heart, they need to look at what happens in nursing homes, to both private and govt pay residents, but certainly to the poor who have serious gaps in care. I think an indigent dementia patient spooning pureed bread because he or she has no dentures matters more than a woman of adequate means receiving birth control at no charge.
    The buffet argument is one that is not correct and specious, IMO. I don't think anyone's healthcare plan provides with such a high end coverage that they can get facelifts or other "work" done. I have yet to see the specific buffet items that people object to? Mammograms? Cancer screenings? Dermatology for skin cancer screenings? The idea of the buffet, IMO, is used by many to imply that people are getting these great goodies that are bankrupting the system. Let's get rid of Viagra coverage. As far as I know being able to get an erection is not a medical necessity. Instead, we can beef up eye exam coverage. What again is on this buffet? If I knew and saw proof, I might agree with you.

    Do I think that all people should have preventive care? Totally. Preventive care allows a person to find out or identify issues that can become problems in the future. Car and homeowners is different because I can insure my Yugo for much cheaper than one might be able to insure their Maserati. Same with my 1000 sq ft home versus a 6,000 ft home. In both of the instances, the cost of the insurance is benchmarked to the value of the property. Is what you are saying that for those who have money, they should be able to have great healthcare versus some poor person who doesn't because they are of greater value? I don't think so. Isn't all human life supposed to be valued and sacred? The insurance comparison is also specious for the above reasons (IMHO) and for the following: the goal of homeowners and auto insurance is to guard against accidental loss versus while healthcare insurance which guards against accidental loss and is supposed to be preventative to decrease the option for catastrophic loss. When was the last time my homeowner's insurer called me to get my gutters cleaned or forced me to replace my roof. They don't cover those items and they don't call because those items are not like healthcare.

    Eldercare in this country is horrific, IMO. They shouldn't have to wait or not have access to medical care in facilities. So, yes, here I agree with you that it is a tragedy. Let's look at profit margins on nursing home providers. What about medicare and medicaid recipients? Now, we have touted great legislation that will cut it in 10 years. Let's be clear that most medicaid patients are also on the indigent roles of medicare. I have always cared about this population. My family member's life (elderly) has gotten much better since Affordable Care.....why? Because my state began to create a working plan, unlike many other states who refused to set up a plan and missed out on funds. NOW, the new plan is geared to dismantle and de-fund what my state has done because these states refused to create anything and need bailouts. If I wanted to be heartless, I could easily say that those on the bankrupt margins made their bed so I should keep what I have and to hell with everyone else. But, that sentiment is not right.

    Affordable care for all. Insurance for all. Why? Because humans are not cars or homes or widgets. Healthcare cost do not become nonexistent if you don't have insurance. In fact, the people who have no healthcare who then have a catastrophe are not tossed aside like Ron Paul suggests. And that is a whole other issue. JMHO.
    Violence diminishes our humanity. ~Coretta Scott King

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    1,803
    Quote Originally Posted by kaen View Post
    The buffet argument is one that is not correct and specious, IMO. I don't think anyone's healthcare plan provides with such a high end coverage that they can get facelifts or other "work" done. I have yet to see the specific buffet items that people object to? Mammograms? Cancer screenings? Dermatology for skin cancer screenings? The idea of the buffet, IMO, is used by many to imply that people are getting these great goodies that are bankrupting the system. Let's get rid of Viagra coverage. As far as I know being able to get an erection is not a medical necessity. Instead, we can beef up eye exam coverage. What again is on this buffet? If I knew and saw proof, I might agree with you.

    Do I think that all people should have preventive care? Totally. Preventive care allows a person to find out or identify issues that can become problems in the future. Car and homeowners is different because I can insure my Yugo for much cheaper than one might be able to insure their Maserati. Same with my 1000 sq ft home versus a 6,000 ft home. In both of the instances, the cost of the insurance is benchmarked to the value of the property. Is what you are saying that for those who have money, they should be able to have great healthcare versus some poor person who doesn't because they are of greater value? I don't think so. Isn't all human life supposed to be valued and sacred? The insurance comparison is also specious for the above reasons (IMHO) and for the following: the goal of homeowners and auto insurance is to guard against accidental loss versus while healthcare insurance which guards against accidental loss and is supposed to be preventative to decrease the option for catastrophic loss. When was the last time my homeowner's insurer called me to get my gutters cleaned or forced me to replace my roof. They don't cover those items and they don't call because those items are not like healthcare.

    Eldercare in this country is horrific, IMO. They shouldn't have to wait or not have access to medical care in facilities. So, yes, here I agree with you that it is a tragedy. Let's look at profit margins on nursing home providers. What about medicare and medicaid recipients? Now, we have touted great legislation that will cut it in 10 years. Let's be clear that most medicaid patients are also on the indigent roles of medicare. I have always cared about this population. My family member's life (elderly) has gotten much better since Affordable Care.....why? Because my state began to create a working plan, unlike many other states who refused to set up a plan and missed out on funds. NOW, the new plan is geared to dismantle and de-fund what my state has done because these states refused to create anything and need bailouts. If I wanted to be heartless, I could easily say that those on the bankrupt margins made their bed so I should keep what I have and to hell with everyone else. But, that sentiment is not right.

    Affordable care for all. Insurance for all. Why? Because humans are not cars or homes or widgets. Healthcare cost do not become nonexistent if you don't have insurance. In fact, the people who have no healthcare who then have a catastrophe are not tossed aside like Ron Paul suggests. And that is a whole other issue. JMHO.
    I keep seeing rebuttals to premises that are simply not on the table ('to hell with everyone/if I have money I should be able to have great care...'). And I don't understand your remark about people on Medicaid being on 'indigent rolls of Medicare'. Anyone on (state) Medicaid is indigent. Some of those recipients are on (federal) Medicare as a result of reaching retirement age. Indigent people who qualify for Medicare can get help with Medicare premiums. I don't think there's an issue here....my point was that Medicare and Medicaid both have restrictions.

    And yes, as I said, the original purpose of health insurance was to mitigate catastrophic loss and prevent illness. Not to subsidize, or cover at no cost or minimal cost, all medical products and services across the board.

    So why are we not getting dentures for the elderly, and instead causing malnutrition that leads to kidney failure and other major medical losses, but we're giving birth control at no cost to all women, many of whom can pay? The 'essentials' mandated in O care provide no cost free folic acid supplements, UTI screenings, contraception, behavioral assessment for kids 0-17, iron supplements and so much more.

    How will free folic acid mitigate a loss that could cost someone their home?

    When my mother was atill living on her own, she was on a Medicare plan that gave her a menu of free items every month. Help me understand how free Calamine lotion, soap, toothpaste, bandages, cough drops, bandaids and so on, mitigates major loss or prevents serious illness?

    In regard to cars, does your car insurance cover oils changes, tires, windshield wipers and fluid, or car washes? Neither does mine. It protects me from devastating loss and liability from which I could not otherwise recover. Again, insurance is not a buffet of services and products.

    Maybe if we return insurance to its intended function, and provide the poor with coverage and care they otherwise would not be able to access, insurance will start to make sense again, and be distinguished from ideas about having no heart. Because right now, that's what I'm seeing - anything less than an embrace of universal insurance coverage (not the same as care and certainly not 'reformed' care) via the federal government is equated with selfishness and elitist snobbery toward those of lesser means.

    ACA is not affordable care for all. It's been affordable insurance for some, astronomical insurance for many. If the penalty for not having an ACA approved policy is cheaper than funding the ACA premium, ACA has failed you.

    We are, in my opinion, too confused about what insurance is, and what it is not, to see any functional ideas coming from the federal government.
    “The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons.” - Ralph Waldo Emerson

    Where is Heather?

Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 96
    Last Post: 08-31-2017, 06:27 PM
  2. Replies: 291
    Last Post: 08-25-2017, 06:59 PM
  3. Secret service move out of Trump tower can't reach deal with Trump organisation
    By gregjrichards in forum Politivent General Topics
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 08-04-2017, 01:00 PM