thegreekdog wrote: PLAYER57832 wrote:I FIRMLY disagree, beginning with the fact that the original so-called "Obama" plan was very much mirrored after the previous Republican plan, but this time around they simply walked off saying "no.. its a stupid Democratic idea".
First, that's not what really happened. I watched the Great Healthcare Debate and I closely followed what happened after that historic debate (which, really, there needs to be more of). What happened was that the Democrats ignored all of the Republican ideas so that when the bill went to a vote, we got "The Republicans are the party of no." We've argued this incessantly for a while, and you continue to maintain that the Republican response was "No, it was a stupid Democratic idea," rather than admitting that the Democrats said, "The Republicans can't do anything because we're in power so let's ignore them." And the latter is really what happened.
You refer to just this most recent run. I am referring to the last time healthcare was taken up, with Clinton. The plan Obama FIRST presented was very similar to what Republicans put forward then.
PLAYER57832 wrote:I will say that I find it strange that someone as intelligent as you would buy into this idea that returning to the party that has pretty much had full control, who has made the most critical changes in history in a negative way, should somehow be considered the "light at the end of the tunnel".
thegreekdog wrote: I would like to see a reduction in prices overall and that means insurance companies need to be held accountable.
Yes, but how? Every time this is attempted, the healthcare insurance industry lobbies heavily, places all sorts of adds about our system "turning socialist" and brings up all sorts of horrible consequences. (not the
healthcare industry, but the healthcare
insurance industry.. big difference!) That was the point of my 2 statistics posts. I don't want to see us go with a UK or Canadien type system. Even so, those systems are, by objective analysis, both cheaper and better overall than ours. The Canadien system is bad in that there is no private enterprise allowed at all. I am absolutely NOT in favor of that. I am, however, saying that I would rather have a system where everybody gets decent care, even if some may not get he #1 care in the world, than a system where a very few get the best care available and far too many get absolutely nothing.
thegreekdog wrote: I think the Republican plan will do this better than the Democratic plan. Consider that most employers are raising the employee contributions to health insurance subsequent to the passage of the Democratic plan. That, in and of itself, is worth noting - the insurance companies are benefitting from the Democratic plan and now people are going to have to pay more for health insurance than they did before the plan. There's something wrong with that.
Except, this was happening anyway. The REASON healthcare has increased so much is a combination of heavy paperwork, directly due to insurance company demands and the fact that we just plain expect so much more now.
20 years ago, most doctors had maybe 1 nurse for one or a few doctors. Now, the average office has 8 people just to file insurance claims! The insurance payment policies are so complicated even the most diligent office has to submit claims 2-3 times just to get paid. AND, many times if charges are significant, it takes the patient going in and fighting before anything happens. This is when everything is "straightforward". If there is any chance at all that the insurance company will find a reason not to pay... you can wait months or years.
Try to get "pre-approval" for many conditions (cancer, in particular, but also other issues) and you wind up waiting 6 months now to go to one of the "approved centers". You can go elsewhere, IF you are willing to pay on your own, but the insurance company doesn't have to pay for any reccommended treatment at all.
Obama fixed 3 big loopholes.
1. kids with pre-existing conditions cannot be denied coverage
2. Insurance companies cannot have "life time limits" (this was the scam whereby you might pay 20 years, get a serious illness and suddenly no longer be eligible for anything but taxpayer Medicaid, etc.).
3. allow young adults to be covered under their parent's plans. Since even kids not still in college typically don't get insurance right away, this is a big issue for many parents.
See, here is the basic problem with much of this debate.
A lot of people claim to dislike the bill, BUT if you ask about each and every individual provision... they want to keep them. This campaign, more than any other, has been fought by the right wing, Republicans and insurance companies spreading false information.
I am not mad because we are temporarily out of insurance. I am angry because so many people think my situation is unusual AND utterly ignore the fact that this harms them actually more than it harms me... yet, they still want to crow about how "smart" they are.
And.. per the rest. I do thank you for your advice. There are some details I cannot get into, but I have talked to some attorneys. (occasionally, I can get free advise on important stuff, thanks to my husband's being a firefighter for so many years. We have to be careful. It is an "emergency only" option.. and just advice. Should we actually have to go to court, etc, we would, of course have to pay like anyone else).