What's scary about health-care reform?
Steve Chapman
August 16, 2009"[President Obama] says though the United States spends more per person on medical care than any other nation, "the quality of our care is often lower, and we aren't any healthier. In fact, citizens in some countries that spend substantially less than we do are actually living longer than we do."
That's one of the favorite rationales for a government-led overhaul. But it gives about as realistic a picture of American medicine as an episode of "Scrubs." . . ."" . . . Critics say all those great medicines and therapies are cold comfort to Americans who lack insurance -- which by any standard is our greatest shortcoming. People without coverage are more likely to do without needed treatment or preventive care and more likely to die from disease or accidents. . . ."
Read the full article, here. You won't be sorry.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 15
Lets take a look a line or two:
"Critics say all those great medicines and therapies are cold comfort to Americans who lack insurance -- which by any standard is our greatest shortcoming. People without coverage are more likely to do without needed treatment or preventive care and more likely to die from disease or accidents.
But they have it better than you might think. Some 62 percent of uninsured Americans are satisfied with their medical care. That is probably because they get a lot of uncompensated treatment from the most advanced, ambitious and capable medical system in the world. "
The first line is no doubt quite true. The number of uninsured is one of the shortcomings of the present condition whether you use the 47 million as reported by the government or some number less than that used by opponents. The next line sounds more like a script created by a director who is forced to produce a show to prove a point. I can easily create a survey with questions written to produce the sort of answers I need to fulfill a specific need.
To produce a response which causes 62 % of those who are not insured to be satisfied with their health care either is telling us that they mostly are just dumb (which I do not believe) or the questions were set to produce a specific outcome. All the treatment in the world by the best health facilities unless they are giving follow up care as well without pay cannot meet the requirements of that 62% uninsured. ( Most do not) The bulk of the treatment given is to stabilize that patient in their ER and refer them to their own practitioner. Some who have assets including a job might can pay for services up to a certain extent but like most when the treatment becomes complicated and expensive they are not able to keep up with payments. They have as options a cadre of clinics, church sponsored facilities, fund raising groups to help some and doctors who are willing to do procedures for little or no money. No one and I repeat no one who has a normal approach to life looks forward to this sort of unregulated and oft times difficult group of potential services to help them through a medical situation. It is not only a daunting task but one which saps the strength from one's life to try to find medical services when one has no insurance and no immediate way to get it.
Whats scary to me in health care reform is the number of people willing to skew the numbers and mislead people with half and untrue data and use canned arguments while so many suffer.
I can't believe a person of your seeming intelligence can actually say this article, or any opponent of Obamacare is against any reforms at all.
It's not true, no matter how many times you or Obama says it. +shrug+
Reforms, yes. Reformulation of our entire economic, governmental, and healthcare system? I think not.
Liberal Progressives are intent on using a hammer (the hammer of big government) where a phillips head and a staple remover might do (if they are used correctly and not simply kept in the drawer). But if they want to use that hammer, they have the numbers to do so, as they wish.
Annnd, while you can disagree with my views or with the views of the author ... that's all it will be. Disagreement with how I and/or the author see the situation; which in no way makes you right and me wrong or me dumb and you smart (neither does the opposite become true). It also doesn't mean you are compassionate and I'm not.
All it means is we disagree on the issue and on the degree to which the issue should be resolved by the federal government.
I think the Federal government needs to step back ... you don't. +shrug+ For a fuller comment irt my views on that issue, if you or anyone is interested, see my comment here which found at Lee Y. Aug 6, 2009, 6:39pm EDT, and starts off like this: Oh dear, Nippy; of course it would bother you. (:-O You just nevermind .. we may not always agree...")
But there is another problem. The same government which will be administering and implementing healthcare, is the same government:
Which has given us one panic-driven bailout after another in response to a governmentally inspired entitlement-program-caused problem ...
Which gave us the snitch line and the unsolicited email spam . . . snitch line since closed; but moved and called something else.
Which gave us the Airforce One flyover in NY ...
Which refuses to secure our borders . . .
Which has just admitted it's not the private companies which are having the problems but it is the government program which is always having the problem.
That can't even run a simple rebate program properly ....
Do we really want that same government to administer and implement healthcare on a national level?
No, scale it back and get government out of it. There has got to be a better way. In fact better ways have been put forward (although they've generally been ignored because they don't involve the biggest governmental entitlement bamboozle of all time).
Spencer T. Aug 17, 2009, 11:38am EDT
I found this article about as helpful as so many others which purport to provide facts when it simply expands on a hidden agenda of being against any reforms.
Ask yourself who else didn't even secure our borders. Enough said.
Now lets talk about the post office. I'm going to use your words in response :
"can't believe a person of your seeming intelligence can actually say this"
I don't care what Obama said about the post office in comparison to Fed Ex and UPS both of them combined do not have the historical payouts the postal service does. They can't match the health care nor retirement payouts required by the post office and they certainly do not have the capacity to deliver door to door all over this country. If you tried to compare ten companies like UPS and Fed EX you still would not come to within a 100 miles of what the postal service does. So as far as I am concerned that comparison cannot be used. Might it dawn on you that the use of technology is the main culprit and the reduction of advertising and shipment might have something to do with the postal service losing money and not the present administration. I am sure if you looked you'd find losses in other administrations as well. So whats your beef?
Your and a lot others who have this utopian concept that as long as government is not in it it will be better. My challenge to you is to actually look at what you are saying and see how far that will go in reality. With out government intervention (contrary to what a lot believe) I'd dare say the very conditions you have in mind would be a lot worse. Many industries, not the least would include banking, mortgage firms, wall street, auto manufacturers and of course insurance companies, have already shown their lack of consumer consideration in their enterprise. Banks are even now raising every potential fee they can create for us to pay. Mortgage firms advertised and even created sub prime companies to lend to questionable borrowers and even some highly qualified ones till they flooded the markets with piss poor loans. Without any government over sight we would be in even worse condition. Yet you are pounding the pavement trying to convince me that goverenment should not be involved in health care? I don't care how much you and other sscream to remove government from health care you can not deny the need for it to be there. You mean to tell me that with all the sick policies insurance comapnies have placed on us you feel comfortable allowing them to go on as they are? After they have lied, mislead, dropped patients policies in the middle of procedures, refuse to insure some do to preconditions rather real or not you are telling me that you prefer a system with no goverenment oversight?
Hmmmm, thanks for your opinions.
I didn't mention him by name but he is in there when I mention "the same government." He should have done it ... Clinton should have done it. Heck, Carter should have done it. +shrug+ "the same government" who can't or won't secure our borders... +sigh+
Spencer T. Aug 17, 2009, 6:14pm EDT
I've already addressed a couple of these comments so I'll spare you duplicating them here.
Ask yourself who else didn't even secure our borders. Enough said.
Except when I said it I said it irt your innuendo (insinuation?) that the right, the article's author, I? don't want any reform at all ("a hidden agenda of being against any reforms"). Not irt to any of your personal opinions ... if you see what I mean. And I think it makes a difference how that phrase is used ..the 'I can't believe you'd say' phrase. See what I mean?
Please understand I have nothing against you. You haev every right to your opinon as I have mine. We see the same thing through very different eyes and maybe differnt sets of experiences. Hell you are right Carter could have closed the borders but so could Reagan and Bush one. See what I mean?
Have a good day. Whats left of it.
You have a good one, too ... I think I'm done for the night.
'Nite. +yaawwwn+
Spencer said: Hell you are right Carter could have closed the borders but so could Reagan and Bush one. See what I mean?
Have a good day. Whats left of it.
Yeah, we learned that utopian concept from our forefathers. They had this fool notion that unbridaled government is a dangerous thing, so they drafted this thing called a Consitution.
"My challenge to you is to actually look at what you are saying and see how far that will go in reality."
What we're saying is the government should not use a hammer to fix a watch. It would be far more cost-effective and practical to help those who can't get medical care any other way rather than try to provide free care for every man, woman and child. Ask yourself: do billionares need free health care?
"With out government intervention (contrary to what a lot believe) I'd dare say the very conditions you have in mind would be a lot worse."
This is pure speculation unsupporting by any evidence. We could also speculate that things would be better if the government would just get the hell out of the way and let the real experts (doctors) do their jobs.
"Many industries, not the least would include banking, mortgage firms, wall street, auto manufacturers and of course insurance companies, have already shown their lack of consumer consideration in their enterprise. "
You are so right! They have to comply with all those government mandates.
"Banks are even now raising every potential fee they can create for us to pay."
They have to pay back that bailout money. Did you really think it wouldn't cost you anything? Tch tch.
"Mortgage firms advertised and even created sub prime companies to lend to questionable borrowers and even some highly qualified ones till they flooded the markets with piss poor loans."
The government made them do it. The intent was to reduce loan discrimination. Liberalism at work! As usual, the typical liberal scheme backfired!
"Without any government over sight we would be in even worse condition."
Maybe if you tell yourself this a hundred times a day, you will start to believe it.
"Yet you are pounding the pavement trying to convince me that goverenment should not be involved in health care?"
Well social security is almost bankrupt. People now have to sue to collect their benefits. Should we now allow the same snakeoil peddlers to hoodwink us once again? Sure, the government is above corruption. Everyone knows that. Politicians always keep their promises. Everyone knows that too. NOT!
"I don't care how much you and other sscream to remove government from health care you can not deny the need for it to be there. You mean to tell me that with all the sick policies insurance comapnies have placed on us you feel comfortable allowing them to go on as they are?"
I think we should get rid of health insurance too. Insurance companies are a special interest with a strong government lobby. If we had computer insurance and/or government computercare, you would need an insurance policy and a government handout to afford your computer. Credit, insurance and grants create more demand, and more demand causes prices to rise to the stratosphere. (See economics 101.)
"After they have lied, mislead, dropped patients policies in the middle of procedures, refuse to insure some do to preconditions rather real or not you are telling me that you prefer a system with no goverenment oversight?"
Do I prefer the fox not watching the hen house? Absolutely. No system is perfect. Name one government program or agency that is not corrupt or does not have its problems. Both government and free enterprise contain scoundrels. The difference is, insurance companies don't hold a gun to your head and force you to pay them taxes.
Lee says: Right Gary. But somehow we let the truth that "unbridaled government is a dangerous thing" get taught out of our children; now they are grown up and have no idea what the Constitution was all about aside from being a document of negative rights. :(
Lee says: Unless your actual goal is to crush the watch and get a new one . . .
Gary (aka: William Pinn) J. said: The government made them do it. The intent was to reduce loan discrimination. Liberalism at work! As usual, the typical liberal scheme backfired!
Lee says: Good point Gary. Check here, here, and here (if interested).