Email This Page
Print This Page
add comment

Here are some of the charges and claims, and why I think they are not the right reasons to oppose the health overhaul before Congress.

A protester holds a sign during an anti-health care reform rally in San Francisco, 08/14/09. (photo: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)
A protester holds a sign during an anti-health care reform rally in San Francisco, 08/14/09. (photo: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

Open Article On Originating Site

 

Comments  

 
+2 # Lisa F 2010-03-10 12:55
The heated argument over healthcare seems to have little to do with the substance of the proposed changes and everything to do with human nature.

I have parents who are very fortunate to receive healthcare in their retirement courtesy of the State of california retirement system, and insist they want government to "take their hands off their healthcare".

On the other hand, my Canadian co-workers are quite happy with their healthcare and the general consensus is that we (Americans)have collectively lost our minds.

My European collegues (I don't know as many) have expressed similar sentiments.

All emotion aside, evidence suggests we are being manipulated and duped by the money'ed interests who benefit from the healthcare status quo.

Lisa
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+1 # David Ecklein 2010-03-10 17:11
Jill Lawrence misses the main reason for opposing the Obama health care bill. It is insurance industry dictated, with single payer advocates excluded from the process, sometimes by force.

The Obama bill is not in our interest. We need an expanded and improved Medicare for All (as in HR676) instead.

"Public option" is a hoax. Those promoting this undefined and contradictory concept are helping to sell the Obama bill.

If a "robust public option" were available to all without conditions, why select private insurance? Existing Medicare is such an "option"; although foolish, you can buy private insurance instead.

Drop the Medicare eligibility age to zero and improve the system we have in place already.

PS: See www.pnhp.org for real health care reform.

For PNHP on "public option", see:
http://www.pnhp.org/search/google/public%20option?query=public%20option&cx=015249405663905105964%3Aebn8t4lcngk&cof=FORID%3A11&sitesearch=#947
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+1 # Sean in Santa Fe 2010-03-10 17:40
Regarding #5: Please, do not conflate "they already require people to buy car insurance, buckle seat belts and wear motorcycle helmets" with a requirement to purchase health insurance. I am not "required" to buy car insurance, wear a helmet or seat belts, or get a driver's license for that matter. If I CHOOSE to use public roads, I must comply with these requirements. There are millions of people in this country who do not choose to do so.

Comparing this to being required to do something just because I am alive is completely disingenuous. I also have the choice to have children or not (for now), so I an not forced to educate non-existent children, either.

The real solution, of course (and this is why the Senate didn't even allow it to be spoken of in committee hearings) is a single-payer system.

Socialized medicine? Oh, you mean like the military has? Or like Congress has?
Bring it on!
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+2 # AlVeerhoff 2010-03-10 18:54
Here's the real kicker about the Federal Employees Health Benefit program: The Office of Personnel Management audits the insurers. Government workers can be sure, no matter which company they choose, that the health insurance program is financially sound.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+3 # mtnview 2010-03-11 06:47
#5, how does requiring individuals who can not currently afford insurance to buy insurance, with no regulation on what the insurance company can charge help anyone other than insurance companies. If we could afford insurance, we would have it. Unlike the option to buy car insurance, I can chose not to have a car, or not to drive the car I have. With health insurance, I can not choose to have a body, or when i might be ill. Real reform would examine the inflated costs of health care, and the inflated costs of insurance. why does a drug in Canada cost 78% less than the same drug in the US? because of the regulations placed by the governments that limit the amount of profit taking. Why does a broken leg in Mexico cost less than $500 US, while the same broken leg in the US will cost upwards of $5,000? Why does the richest nation in the world, the so-called best country, not have universal health care? greed.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+1 # diane 2010-03-11 18:58
adjusters give orders to doctors they have immunity Carriers price gauge doctors small businness and patients. there is no regulation of their behabior or financial oversight They are immune from anti trust law. and no agency investigates or prosecutes them when caught comitting crime to escape paying . I was willfully crippled for life by proven carrier crime, yet no one went to jail. then I had to leave the counrty after they breeched a contract for care that I won in court still no one went to jail.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 


Login or Register Login Register Password? | Username?