To put it bluntly, most people think they have good insurance, but have not really come down with anything significant. Just ask people who have contracted cancer and after a couple of years of battling decide to give up because they don't want their families going more in debt than they already are. And those are people who had decent insurance.
The reason the new Obama healthcare plan is not what it should be is because it is essentially the Republican ideas brought forward in 1993 to counter Hillary Clinton's health care plan. It may work, it may not. My opinion may not be popular, but I think there should be single-payer (Medicare for all) and like someone else said on this list those who can afford additional insurance or private insurance should be allowed to do so. There is a pretty good number of physicians who would like to get rid of the current insurance system. However, there is also something to be said for tort reform, which is the Republican's pet peeve. If everyone has access to affordable health care, the key word being affordable, then tort reform (I hope I'm spelling that right) can take place. That's just my opinion, I am sure there are just as many other ones out there as there are people on the list. We all have our ideas. Quadius PS those who think America has the best health care system are really wrong. We have some of the best health care facilities in certain places, but our system is broken. It's sad to say, but the best health care system in the United States is ran by the federal government. It has problems, like every other system in the world, but it is definitely the best one here with the best outcomes. It's ran by the Department of Veterans Affairs. On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 7:10 PM, RONALD L PRACHT <[email protected]>wrote: > > Without all the complexity we as a nation need national healthcare. Many > jobs dont provide adequate coverage or none at all. Thousands of people are > crossing the border and walking into our hospitals. Many are disabled such > as ourselves and coverage is complicated and unclear . Many times the type > of care you receive depends on the type of coverage you have. All this is > unacceptable. > > The bottom line is the people that have good insurance dont care about the > people that have none. The people with none deserve national healthcare as > a human right. People dont want to let a dog suffer so why let humans go > without? > > > > Ron c7 > > > > > > > > rom: Greg <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [QUAD-L] medical bill > To: [email protected] > Date: Friday, May 4, 2012, 3:17 PM > > > I think medical bills of millions who can’t afford them hurts the > economy more than lifting the tax cuts on the richest 1%, Cuts that were > supposed to be short term, not forever, anyway. Rates now are almost at 100 > year lows. Lifting the “sort term cuts” their taxes would still be close to > all time lows. > > > > Families should not loose homes because a child is sick. Insurance > companies should not be able to drop you after you get sick. If there is no > National Insurance, and companies wont cover those with pre-existing > things, do we just let them suffer? Or we can just put them on “The Hunger > Games”. Insurance companies are making record profits, they can afford to > drop the pre-existing thing I think. But, I think the Obama thing is just > too messy, confusing. That’s why I think we should just have National > Medicare. All other major countries can do it, I think we should be able to > figure something out. If the Left/Right could just be civil. I think at > this point both sides don’t pick sides of issues because they believe in > it, They just pick what ever opposes the other guys. > > > > As far as unconstitutional. It is a phrase the Right often uses. The > Constitution is a fluid document, meant to change with the times. The > Founders were smart enough to know thing change. Yet I think the Right has > asked for more changes than the left has. > > > > Greg > > > As much as I would like to have more accessibility to healthcare, the > more I look at the financial implications of his plan, the more I feel like > as a whole it will be more detrimental to the country than helpful. Forcing > insurance companies to take people with pre-existing conditions, fines for > companies and individuals who don't get coverage. Private insurance > premiums will most certainly be raised for those that have it. How can > expanding coverage to over 30 million new people possibly lower costs? > > 27 billion of new taxes on drug companies, 20 billion on medical device > makers. Those costs will just pass through to us in my opinion. > > Total of 18 new taxes estimating 503 billion in revenue. New taxes may > bring revenue but they will also (also my opinion) slow economic growth > which we desperately need right now. > > I listened to the oral arguments on the Supreme Court website and it > seemed the justices were pretty skeptical of the constitutionality of it. > > Cheers, > > I think we need just a national Medicare, with extra insurance for those > who want, need, or who can afford more. Those who are so against it say > they don’t was the government making decisions. But that means they would > prefer an insurance company who is for profit, who gets bonuses for denying > medical procedures, and who can cancel you after you get sick/injured. I > still have not heard 1 good reason not to have national health care. This > Obama thing is too confusing. > > Greg > > ----------- > It's enough to make even a quad kick ass and throw fists. But I am not > surprised. The slightest medical problem results in bills for things and > from people you never even heard of. To say that the whole thing is an > immoral, unethical racket is an understatement. A lifetime of savings can > be wiped out in one week. A simple hello from the doctor can cost $300. > Your experience is all too common. I don't have a clue if Obama's plan will > be better, but I certainly hope so. > >
