Saving Healthcare

Saving Healthcare

This brief spot contains some humorous moments from Monday’s health care forum with Russ Carnahan. It concludes with TheBlackSphere.net–Kevin Jackson – asks: “If it is so good why does not Congress have to be on it?” RebootCongress.blogspot.com

28 Replies to “Saving Healthcare”

  1. The 3000 page Health Care Mandate Trojan Horse Bill is indicative of a sheepish population led by paid experts, lobbyists & politicians..
    “Mandate”cloaked as “reform” is equally indicative of rampant stupidity directed at the confused, perpetrated by paid idols, endorsed by lonely flailing desperate fools,…hopelessly swallowed up in a culture of rampant runaway entitlement mentality…
    Kill the bill..
    Pork em hard..
    Vote em out..
    Nobody wants it…

  2. If any 1 really wants to trust a govt. in debt that has come up with 1000+ pages of questionable legislation because they know we the people don’t have time to read it, then I say let them implement it and see the results a year from now. True refrm shouldn’t tke yrs to implement, but something tells me govt. nowadays cherry picks what they want to do and what they want to enforce. I’ve my doubts about today’s system of govt. given that expanded govt. has caused more problems then it has solved.

  3. and if anyone is truly wondering, yes I don’t trust the govt. as they have had since the time I was born to correct wrongs and do the right thing in the U.S. I say look at the makeup of your representatives and look how Ted Kennedy was still allowed to serve. Had ethics been implemented back in the late sixties, then Ted Kennedy’s career would’ve been over. I think there is still a lack ethics given some the fact that there are some that might not be to fit to serve the American public.

  4. the final point I can make is a year from now from when this future legislation passes, if rates truly come down then perhaps I may vote accordingly and keep the Dems in power. If things are still the same from now and if it is still the same B.S., then I’m voting otherwise and it will not be 4 Dems or Reps. It doesn’t take years to implement a plan and this legislation should start taking effect immediately once it is passed. I want to see what the results really are months from now.

  5. WS, if insurance companies have really gone out of scope, then I’d probably say eliminate them altogether and go to a single payor system rather than let insurance companies keep getting paid. Personally I think all the govt. had to do was expand medicare/medicaid for all and then the problem would’ve been solved. I honestly don’t know how much of a role we really want to give to insurance companies but that is just one realistic view if one truly thinks govt. is the way out.

  6. then we agree on something. “ONCE it is affordable” and perhaps every plan should offer some type of preventive care. So as with anything give it time and let’s see if things get resolved in the next 3-4 years but I’m hoping immediately if this upcoming reform actually fixes it. On auto insurance, I control whether or not I have it and it is not like I’m in a town with effective mass transit so nd a car. Don’t drive it to work though because I’m only 20+ minutes away by bike 🙂

  7. No, I certainly do not think it is your fault. I think it is the fault of the insurance industry price-gouging everybody. I went without insurance for a while, and the policy I have now is crap…probably worthless in reality. I don’t “choose to pay for an expensive policy”. All policies are expensive right now. The goal of reform is to fix that. ONCE it is affordable, it makes sense to me for everyone to cover themselves if they can so that taxpayers don’t have to pick up their slack.

  8. WF, what really makes this kind of funny is that you think it is my fault for not having health coverage. If your health ins. is that overpriced, then fight back and/or shop around for a better policy. Don’t bitch to the uninsured or the individual as you’re a fighting the wrong crowd. That is your problem for choosing to pay for an expensive policy. It is not my problem or his/her problem. You chose to pay that premium and nobody was forcing you. Do you see where I’m coming from now?

  9. the answer is not insuring everyone WF. That is just one big cop out from the govt. Has the govt. addressed what has cost health care costs to skyrocket or the fact that if health care costs were to come down, then insurance would come down with it. The argument for mandatory health insurance is a very one sided argument and people like me are starting to see bad govt. at the Federal level. Won’t fly with me WF and there will be constitutional challenges to that mandate if it is included.

  10. And even if the a health insurance is offered through the govt. or another company at under $100, if I’m getting hosed on what is being offered and if cash is tight with me, I don’t throw my money away because I know I’m getting a bad deal. And if the IRS is used to enforce penalties for failure to have health insurance, then I think I’ll finally start standing up for myself that much more as the govt. will have overstepped its bounds. One thing to bring health costs down, another to force ins.

  11. WF, any govt. that proposes a play or play approach to having insurance is a govt. to be questioned. You have your views and I have mine and I view it as unconstitutional and it is not the same as auto insurance as one can choose not to drive. I manage my finances accordingly and in bad times I cut my monthly expenses as needed to live and manage my own finances. The last thing I’m going to do is throw hundreds of dollars away on a policy when I’m unemployed.

  12. What I’m trying to say is since in my position being in and out of temp jobs and not getting a break in stable employment, I was not going to go out and purchase a plan (high deductible) designed to put me in debt. It’s different now since I’ve rebuilt myself up in the workforce and will be getting insurance but the decisions on whether or not I have coverage lie with me and not the govt. The govt. doesn’t control when I buy I policy. I DO!!!

  13. WF, you have to bring down the cost of health care and mandating that people have insurance is such a poor argument. Once costs come down, then insurance rates will come down and maybe then you will have affordability. Also just want do I get for a low priced plan and the bigger question is am I throwing my money away. And what happens when I’m in between jobs and need to manage my money better. Everybody’s situation is different. Mine was for the past few yrs where I was in/out of work.

  14. …continued to shaithis45……
    And I disagree with you that it is unconstitutional to mandate insurance. It is no different than making you pay taxes or making you have a driver’s license to drive, or making you register handguns. Where the public is concerned, it makes sense to have rules, and that includes anything that will cost the taxpayers money..such as uninsured people. And there is nothing unconstitutional about it. Remember there will be subsidies for those who can’t afford it.

  15. shaithis45, I understand your point of view, but I already answered your question in a previous comment here where I mentioned how the rest of us are currently picking up the bill for the uninsured. It’s the same as auto insurance. If you aren’t insured and something happens that you can’t pay for, the rest of us have to. Making you carry insurance (that will finally be affordable) is simply making you take responsibility for yourself, and free the rest of us from picking up your slack.

  16. Wineisy, so explain why they want to make it mandatory for Americans to carry insurance. Since when can you or anyone tell me how to manage my finances. And why would any govt. in their right mind threaten anyone with penalites for not having health ins? If the mandate language is in there, then it is unconstitutional and sounds to me like the root causes of skyrocketing costs in the industry were not effectively addressed at the public level. Never trust a govt. in debt.

  17. “If it’s so good, why doesn’t Congress have to be on it?”

    What a dumbass question. They don’t have to be on it for the same reason the rest of the country doesn’t have to be on it. It’s freakin optional.

  18. No, not grad student. Past that. I hold 2 masters degrees, one of which is an MBA. You’re the one who tried to pull academic rank on me by suggesting I didn’t take economics. So what’s your education level, Captain Condescending?

    Pelosi’s ass isn’t part of the equation, sorry to disappoint. The healthcare systems of other nations demonstrate what can work and what doesn’t. We currently pay the most, and receive the worst. Maybe you’re happy with that, but I want it fixed.

  19. “Didn’t take economics did you?”
    Actually I have an MBA. And your predictions are demonstrably false. Most industrialized nations subsidize healthcare, and most of them still have private insurers as well. The taxpayer is currently picking up the slack for the uninsured. It will be less expensive across the board to have a public option. Required coverage? You mean like auto insurance? That’s because the rest of us would, again, have to pick up the slack, and they should discourage that.

  20. The theory of the Big Society has no meaning for the average person here. What they see are deep cuts by local councils to services like seniors’ facilities, children’s programs, schools and libraries. Presumably the government expects volunteers to pick up the slack but when a facility is closed due to lack of funding how do people volunteer? What happens is that the vulnerable become poorer and more isolated. The Cameron model promotes cutting funding to local councils while simultaneously devolving more responsibility to them. The formula is causing deep shocks to ripple through communities and it is the weakest and most vulnerable who will be most affected.

Leave a Reply