Fairness in healthcare; a mandate for Congress

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Thu Oct 29, 2009 6:43 am

On Tuesday, the Senate health committee voted 12-11 in favor of a Two-page amendment courtesy of Republican Tom Coburn that would require all Members and their staffs to enroll in any new Government-run health plan. It took me less than a minute to sign up to require our congressmen and senators to drink at the same trough! Three cheers for Congressman John Fleming of Louisiana !

Congressman John Fleming ( Louisiana physician) has proposed an Amendment that would require congressmen and senators to take the same healthcare plan they force on us under proposed legislation they are curiously exempt.

Congressman Fleming is encouraging people to go on his web site and sign his petition (very simple - just email). I have immediately done just that at:

http://fleming.house.gov/index.cfm?sect ... tree=29,55

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Thu Oct 29, 2009 7:56 am

Done....with little faith they won't find a way to get around it even if they vote on it but at least it helps to illustrate their hypocrisy if they do.

Bet51987 · Post by **Bet51987** » Thu Oct 29, 2009 8:03 am

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Thu Oct 29, 2009 9:05 am

Bet51987 wrote:I voted NO. The "new Government-run health plan" is intended for people who can't get insurance through their employer, or if on their own, can't pay the ungodly high costs of premiums or medications. John Flemming has employer sponsered care so why is he trying to belittle the only place other people can go.

Bee

Bee, you aren't paying attention to the actual language of the bills that are being offered because the explanation you just gave is only consistent with the Democrat spin it is NOT consistent with the net results of any of the actual legislation that is about to be forced on us!

Do you care that you are being fooled or is it that rejecting anything a conservative says is so important that even when they are right you need to be wrong just to oppose them?

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Thu Oct 29, 2009 9:26 am

Will Robinson wrote:Do you care that you are being fooled or is it that rejecting anything a conservative says is so important that even when they are right you need to be wrong just to oppose them?

I'm voting on the second part of your question.

This Congress has the "let them eat cake" attitude of most politicians, this is so two faced on their part. Congress wishes to live their Priveledged lives and dont want to submit themselves to the same type of system they intend to mandate for the general population. I can smell the hypocracy all the ways out here in Oregon.

Either that or I forgot to shower this morning

Pandora · Post by **Pandora** » Thu Oct 29, 2009 9:31 am

Will Robinson wrote:Bee, you aren't paying attention to the actual language of the bills that are being offered because the explanation you just gave is only consistent with the Democrat spin it is NOT consistent with the net results of any of the actual legislation that is about to be forced on us!

Will, can you expand on that? Everything I have read so far is in accordance with Bee's interpretation of the reform. So if there is some factual evidence that this is untrue, I would be very interested to read it.

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Thu Oct 29, 2009 9:44 am

I was going to go sign it, but instead I got this: HTTP 403.9 - Access Forbidden: Too many users are connected.

Bet, Congress needs to be on the same wavelength as the rest of us. Right now they are protected by the premium health plan of premium health plans, purposely isolated from the reality of medical care in the US. They have it because the insurance companies find it much easier to hide their murder at the review board and astronomical costs from congress that way.

If it were up to me; congress should be forced to do without insurance entirely, so they have to deal with the gluttony of the health care system they are so proud of up close and personal. Perhaps then they would begin to understand just how corrupt and dangerous our health care system has become.

They could start fixing it by outright outlawing for-profit insurance, that was a horrible idea for consumers from the start. I can hardly believe the insurance industry is exempt from anti-trust laws. For 30 years the industry has rampaged out of control, fully abusing their privileged exempt position and now everyone else is paying the price for it. How did the people in Washington let this happen? I am totally at a loss to understand how they allowed this state of affairs to continue for so long. This is beyond them just turning a blind eye towards the industry, this is total sensory deprivation from all directions.

I'm also shocked that the so called \"free press\" and mainstream media have failed to mention the health insurance industries exemption before. They must have known about it, why was it not brought up sooner? Rising medical expenses has been on the front page for over a decade but they ignored that critical exemption to instead talk about Monica Lewinsky?

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Thu Oct 29, 2009 9:47 am

One of the first version of the house bill had language that said you can keep your employers plan but if any changes are made to the pricing or coverage of that plan then you would be automatically moved to the government option...well have any of you ever had a plan that DIDN'T change from year to year?!?

There are lots of trigger provisions in every bill I've read that do things like that.
But the larger problem is all of them create a scenario where the employers are compelled by price to give up the group plan and move the employees to the government \"option\"!
Sure you could keep the plan but you won't because of cost! And add to it the dirty little detail that none of the government plans come close to being able to meet their cost projections without EVERYONE paying into it, including illegal immigrants, so of course the government is going to make it very hard for us to choose the private plan!

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Thu Oct 29, 2009 1:34 pm

Will Robinson wrote:One of the first version of the house bill had language that said you can keep your employers plan but if any changes are made to the pricing or coverage of that plan then you would be automatically moved to the government option...well have any of you ever had a plan that DIDN'T change from year to year?!?

Exactly. They Do change every year. Whether or not you as an employee feels it. The company I work for kept the same rates to US for 3 years. It changed this year when the cost became too much. ... and it had gone up a lot in those 3 years.

flip · Post by **flip** » Thu Oct 29, 2009 1:46 pm

Bee,
I'm not the one to pick on folks, especially women so take this in all sincerity. You need to start looking further than the surface of each issue, realize that the whole world is not like the suburban street you live on, and that there are real dangers involved in ANY legislation. The point is not to take a side and dig in at all costs, but to strike balance. Do you honestly think that someone else, anybody else, really cares if you have worse coverage than they do? Since this healthcare issue really stands to change things for all of us, I'm speaking directly about freewill and personal liberties, then I think everyone American citizen should have the same coverage. Let's be honest. As soon as there is a government run healthcare, no private company will be able to compete. Inevitably they will have to fold. Healthcare like their talking about has to be all or nothing, for everybody equally across the board, or not at all.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Thu Oct 29, 2009 3:01 pm

Krom wrote:If it were up to me; congress should be forced to do without insurance entirely, so they have to deal with the gluttony of the health care system they are so proud of up close and personal. Perhaps then they would begin to understand just how corrupt and dangerous our health care system has become.

Heh…me like...

Krom wrote:I'm also shocked that the so called "free press" and mainstream media have failed to mention the health insurance industries exemption before. They must have known about it, why was it not brought up sooner? Rising medical expenses has been on the front page for over a decade but they ignored that critical exemption to instead talk about Monica Lewinsky?

They’re not going to rat on their advertisers, make advertising insurance illegal, and watch them get thrown to the wolves, just like tobacco.

thwart · Post by **thwart** » Thu Oct 29, 2009 5:41 pm

Excellent idea. Make government follow their own laws. Why someone would be against this is almost beyond belief. It is sad so many have been duped to believe government has all the answers. They can't even balance their own checkbook. Socialist health care is wrong in so many ways:

1) It is unconstitutional. Government was never given authority to control/regulate heath care by the Constitution (the only place that government authority comes from)

2) Socialist health care is paid for by theft. That's right, if the government takes money for something that the citizen doesn't want that is the same thing as being robbed. This is so hard for some people to grasp (or should I say admit). They have been thoroughly brainwashed into believing whatever government wants they get. Government schools goes a long way in perpetuating this lie. The only items government can tax for is spelled out in the Constitution. Article I section 8 pretty much covers all of them. In other words, \"If government programs are so great why do they have to FORCE people to pay for them?\"

3) It shows a disdain for charity. Before the United States embraced socialism, charity solved these kind of things. Have you ever noticed how charity is becoming more and more frowned upon? The Bush administration started the requirement of a receipt for everything and now the left is going to the extent of limiting charitable contributions (so much for the \"caring, human rights loving\" left). All in the name of \"honest\" taxes of course.

4) Government heath care limits access and denies care to certain people. Let me see if I get this right: It is wrong for someone not to buy heath insurance but it is OK for government to deny treatment? How looney. One example is in the UK you have to go blind in one eye before the great government health care will pay for treatment of the other eye. If people are looney enough to think things like this would not happen in the US I want to know what they are smoking.

I could go on but this gets my point across. You can see the people that support socialist health care are either evil or misguided. Take your pick. Socialism has failed in every attempt and it is failing here also.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Fri Oct 30, 2009 12:49 pm

I'm a woman and I agree with the guys here. Congress has become part of the elite aristocracy that doesn't like to follow the same laws they create for the rest of us pions to live under. It's time they get a dose of reality and be forced to go out into the wild free market and buy their own healthcare insurance from the same pool of companies we all do.

thwart, as much as charity does a lot of good for those in need, there's no way they can possibly supply the demand for those who can't afford it. There's far too many in need in this country and healthcare now has gotten too expensive and technical for churches and other charities to even begin to cover people in need. It's not like the good ol' days when the most care a doctor or hospital could provide was pallative and/or comfort care. Nowadays we have expensive drug therapy and technologically complicated healthcare that charities don't or can't provide. Free clinics can only help so many people either. There's about 45.7 million uninsured in the U.S. right now and it's a very expensive 'charity' that can't be maintained on this large a scale.

Tobacco use is probably a bigger influence on health insurance prices than you think. Cancer treatment is BIG business. My mother was a smoker and ended up with lung cancer. After several years of treatment that cost around 400 thousand dollars (in 2000 dollars) to the insurance company, she only added 2 years to her life and the expensive drugs only caused her misery in those 2 tortuous years. There's also a symbiotic relationship between oncology and the cancer drug manufacturers that's very cosy for business and very costly to the patient. First they make money by getting you hooked on smoking cigarettes, then they make money treating the cancer that smoking causes. Since lung cancer is almost always impossible to cure with present drug treatments, it's a win win never ending cycle for the tobacco companies, drug companies and oncologists. Self-preserving business cycle, nice system!

thwart · Post by **thwart** » Fri Oct 30, 2009 4:51 pm

tunnelcat wrote: thwart, as much as charity does a lot of good for those in need, there's no way they can possibly supply the demand for those who can't afford it. There's far too many in need in this country and healthcare now has gotten too expensive and technical for churches and other charities to even begin to cover people in need. It's not like the good ol' days when the most care a doctor or hospital could provide was pallative and/or comfort care. Nowadays we have expensive drug therapy and technologically complicated healthcare that charities don't or can't provide. Free clinics can only help so many people either. There's about 45.7 million uninsured in the U.S. right now and it's a very expensive 'charity' that can't be maintained on this large a scale.

We can agree to disagree on charity not being able to help. I remember when the terriorst attacks happened there was so much money given there was much more than needed. Also there are some VERY rich people in this country that like to help. The trouble is charity cannot keep up with the mess socialism creates through congress (the opposite of progress). If socialism was abolished in this country (ie: welfare, minimum wage, income tax, regulations/restrictions on the free market, etc...) charity could handle people in need just fine.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Fri Oct 30, 2009 5:48 pm

Bet51987 wrote:I voted NO. The "new Government-run health plan" is intended for people who can't get insurance through their employer, or if on their own, can't pay the ungodly high costs of premiums or medications. John Flemming has employer sponsered care so why is he trying to belittle the only place other people can go.

Bee

With all due respect Bee, when the Govt run plan is implemented, just what do you think employers will do with their employee's health care coverage? If you guess cancel it to save costs and tell them to get the govt. plan you win a star.
As to premiums, do you think the govt. plan will be free? Have you read the posts on this board how if you do not pay for a private plan or pay for the govt. plan you will be fined? How are the poor going to pay for the govt plan? How will doctors be reimbursed? Somewhere there was a survey and 45% of doctors said that if govt care is enacted they will quit their practice.
Why will people your age want to spend all those years getting a medical degree and borrowing the money to do so just to wind up with a job that may not pay any more than a UAW member? When a doctor shortage occurs will you complain when your father has to wait 6 months for a specialist to perform a operation to save his life? Or will you still think govt care was the best thing Obama ever did? As Flip said, you really need to look at all the information surrounding a issue before blithely make comments.

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Fri Oct 30, 2009 8:24 pm

Well on the private insurance front, I just got a letter from mine: premium is going up 19% next year.

My last insurance company did the same thing to me, 15-25% premium hike with no increase in benefits every year.

I think I need to pack up my stuff and get out of this $%^&hole country.

I guess I can't blame my provider too much, since I have the ONLY non-profit insurance company in my state. Also the clinic I go to is non-profit.
Just the rest of the industry making life impossible for everyone. The health care system in the US doesn't give people hope, it only plunges them into despair.

Oh yeah, and something else I should mention; My parents are on a different insurance company through my fathers job. They can't go to the clinic that is in town for anything but the emergency room because their insurance refused to negotiate with the clinic here. So we have to drive 45 miles in to Madison to go to the UW Clinic system.
But you guys will surely laugh at the actual reason why their insurance won't let people use the clinic in town: Keeping in mind that the clinic in town is non-profit, my parents insurance provider demanded that the clinic skim off and keep about 5% of their revenue. In other words the insurance company was attempting to dictate that the non-profit clinic make a profit. Since the clinic refused for obvious reasons, we have to make a 90 mile round trip for everything my parents need. So tell me what kind of f$%king retarded system allows that?

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Fri Oct 30, 2009 10:31 pm

a system that only caters to the rich?

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Sat Oct 31, 2009 3:07 am

tunnelcat wrote: Tobacco use is probably a bigger influence on health insurance prices than you think. Cancer treatment is BIG business. My mother was a smoker and ended up with lung cancer. After several years of treatment that cost around 400 thousand dollars (in 2000 dollars) to the insurance company, she only added 2 years to her life and the expensive drugs only caused her misery in those 2 tortuous years. There's also a symbiotic relationship between oncology and the cancer drug manufacturers that's very cosy for business and very costly to the patient. First they make money by getting you hooked on smoking cigarettes, then they make money treating the cancer that smoking causes. Since lung cancer is almost always impossible to cure with present drug treatments, it's a win win never ending cycle for the tobacco companies, drug companies and oncologists. Self-preserving business cycle, nice system!

Not to sidetrack, but nice Catch there TC. I've seen that myself with friends and family. I really doubt that they will ever "cure" cancer. The business is too good.

Bet51987 · Post by **Bet51987** » Sat Oct 31, 2009 7:15 am

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sat Oct 31, 2009 8:03 am

Lol, you see Bee…it’s not me getting more partisan…it’s you.

You like science, so you should understand “relative movement” As you move farther left…others will appear to move right.

Yes, I’m sure all the big greedy insurance companies are owned by Republicans, and all the greedy people/lawyers that sue them are as well. And probably all the overpaid doctors and other providers too.

One big happy greedy evil Repubilcan plot.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Sat Oct 31, 2009 10:16 am

Bet51987 wrote:
Krom wrote:So tell me what kind of f$%king retarded system allows that?
The republican plan?

Bee

I've been on a Quote spree lately

Albert Einstein wrote:“He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice.”

Ben Franklin wrote:“Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn.”

“Ignorance is the soil in which belief in miracles grows.”

dissent · Post by **dissent** » Sun Nov 08, 2009 11:21 pm

Hey, Nancy Pelosi is outraged!

Fairness in healthcare; a mandate for Congress

Fairness in healthcare; a mandate for Congress

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re: