There should be a public option.  According to a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, a survey of doctors found 10% who were in favor of a single payer system, and 63% percent favored having a public option along side traditional insurance.

Which puts them in agreement with the general population.

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE


Quote:

AMA Reaction to President Obama's Address on Health System Reform Physicians agree that medical liability reform is needed For immediate release Sept. 9, 2009 Statement attributable to: J. James Rohack, MD President, American Medical Association “It is clear that the status quo is unacceptable. The AMA will continue to work for reform that makes the system work better for patients and physicians. We must seize this opportunity this year to achieve meaningful health reform for America’s patients and physicians. “The President outlined three essential goals that are vital to reform efforts in this country, including: ensuring the current system remains secure and stable for those who already have insurance coverage and are happy with it; making insurance coverage affordable and accessible to those who need it; and reducing unnecessary costs and waste in the current system. “The AMA believes these core goals are ones that the majority of the American people can and do support, and we urge Congress to find common ground in achieving them. “President Obama recognized what physicians have long known – that medical liability reform is needed to bring down the cost of health care, and he is directing the Department of Health and Human Services to take action now. Recognizing the critical need for medical liability reform is an important step toward reducing unnecessary costs. Everyday physicians across the country are forced to consider the broken medical liability system when making decisions, resulting in defensive medicine that adds to unnecessary health costs. We cannot ignore this problem if health-system reform is going to address the growing cost of care. “Just yesterday, the AMA sent a letter to President Obama and Congress urging them to reach agreement on health reform that includes seven critical elements.  Health coverage for all Americans, insurance market reforms that expand choice and eliminate denials for pre-existing conditions, assurance that medical decisions will remain between the patient and physician, medical liability reforms to reduce the cost of defensive medicine, and repeal of the broken Medicare physicians payment formula that threatens seniors’ access to care are among them. “We have a historic opportunity to implement needed reforms to address shortcomings in the current system, while keeping in tact all that is working well. We will stay constructively engaged in the legislative process to ensure the final bill improves the health system for patients and the dedicated physicians who care for them.” # # # Contact: Leah Dudowicz AMA Media Relations (312) 464-4813

This is direct from the AMA.  Notice it says nothing about a public option being necessary.

Yes, the AMA has made some statements in favor of a public option, although they have not been very vocal.  But that is quite different from their previous attempts to block any reform, and

The AMA no longer represents most doctors - in fact, less than 28% of doctors are members.

Doesn't matter!  Having a public option is still not necessary to reform health care!

btw, how's MA doing with their near universal health care?
START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

Why doesn't our non medical Government take this one step at a time???? Make denial for pre-existing conditions illegal first??

Is Medicare a good example of a Government run insurance?? (public option) It is definately not up to the Doctor what is covered.

Why aren't the real reasons for Medical costs being addressed FIRST? Do we really expect our Government to know best?? What Medical training do they have.

We seem to be ignoring the Drug companies (maybe in someones pocket), and the out of control increases in Hospital services. Why???

These are some big questions, should we ignore them because our Gov is? If you voted for them, good for you, but don't expect anyone else to believe Government is somehow transformed into perfection.

I didn't trust them before and I never will.

Don

Skyhawk5 wrote on Sep 14^th, 2009 at 10:58pm:

Is Medicare a good example of a Government run insurance?? (public option) It is definately not up to the Doctor what is covered.

Yes - it is a good example of a good program. People on Medicare as a group are more satisfied with their coverage than people on private insurance.

Is private insurance a good example of letting doctors decide what is covered? No. There are always going to be guidelines that say that things that are widely known to help are covered, while treatments with less evidence are considered experimental and are not covered. I have had to pay out of pocket before on private insurance because my doctor did what he thought was best, he assumed that it would be covered, but it was denied by the private insurance company.


Melissa wrote on Sep 14^th, 2009 at 9:42pm:

btw, how's MA doing with their near universal health care?

By that logic, we should not want all people with cluster headaches to get properly diagnosed and then receive the best treatment - the sudden increase in people going to headache specialists would create longer waits for us!!  Some neurologists would stop taking new patients! So start spreading disinformation about clusters!!  Let's tell people It's really a very rare disease, and if you haven't been diagnosed already, you probably don't have it - what you have is 'just a headache - try to relax, or use boji stones.'  Keep this site an exclusive club!!

What do 3 out of 4 patients say? The ones who are responsible for the bills? The ones who will potentially be denied coverage?

This ain't about the doctors.

Why I mentioned Medicare is the fact that my Father is on it. Fair service for the most part

Two weeks ago we recieved a letter form the Pharmacy, initiated by Medicare, saying my Father is using too many blood test strips. Medicare will only cover 1 strip per day.

His Doctor Rx'd 3 times per day because my Father has a history of having dangerous levels, not often but has been to the ER several times in a serious condition. Deadly.

I would like to know who made the decision that trying to catch the next runaway and potentialy deadly situation should only be allowed once per day??? I hope it wasn't a Doctor.

$200 per month would make up the difference if a person doesn't have to trade food for it.

A small point but true.

Don

Brew wrote on Sep 14^th, 2009 at 11:50pm:

What do 3 out of 4 patients say? The ones who are responsible for the bills? The ones who will potentially be denied coverage? This ain't about the doctors.

A majority of Americans want a public option. And businesses (who typically pay as much or more than employees for insurance) are not satisfied with the current system, either.

You are right - this isn't about what doctors want. And it isn't about what the public wants. It is about what the special interests want.

[quote]
Sep. 13, 2009

A new poll finds majority (55 percent) support for a public insurance option ...
START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

[quote]Moreover, 62% of Californians said they support a government-run public insurance plan option, while 33% said they oppose it.
START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

Why doesn't our Federal Government butt out and stick to the powers granted it by our Constitution.

Medical reform is in the domain of the individual States!

Nice try Monty… but that dog won’t hunt.  Remember the NEJM once advocated the use of lobotomies to treat mental illness...

Why is it that the social progressive liberals try to mislead people with the term “Public Option” when it is actually Government Run Health Care?    At least you’re consistent in parroting the liberal progressive tweets coming from the White House, MoveOn, and the dallykooz…

Perhaps you can explain to the good people of Clusterville why all the other Government run social spending programs are in very deep kimchi and about to go broke at taxpayer expense…  You know…  programs like, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, the VA, AMTRAK, the War on Poverty, and the list goes on... 

Can you tell us how you intend to pay for Obamacare or that it won't suffer the same fate as the other social spending programs?

Perhaps you can also respond to Mel's question why the highly touted government run health care system in Massachusetts is failing so badly…

I happen to like the freedoms that I, and many hundreds of thousands of Americans have fought to protect and defend…  and that many more have died to protect and defend.  Accordingly, I will stand in firm opposition to any bogus social progressive legislation that attempts to take away these freedoms or that levies huge fines on my freedom of choice.

While we’re on the topic of freedom of choice, can you explain why the social progressive idiots in Congress and their lemming followers abuse freedom of choice so freely as long as it serves their social progressive agenda… 

Perhaps you can explain why it’s acceptable to use the term freedom of choice as the rationale for aborting over 1 million babies a year yet support legislation that levies fines on my freedom of choice to pick or not accept a health care plan?

In as much as the idiots in Congress didn’t even write the five versions of the Obamacare legislation, and most contain verbiage that gives money to ACORN and SEIU…  What’s that all about? 

I think the best thing to do with each of these thousand plus pages of Marxist manifestos disguised as potential public health care law, is cut them up for toilet paper and place them in the Senate and House washrooms so the idiots in Congress can see just how slick they really are…

Finally…  What Obama wants and what Congress passes are almost always two different things…  And, as there are a lot of liberals in Congress that came back from the August recess with a severe case of anal leakage after getting an ear full from their constituents…  It’s going to be difficult at best to muster a majority vote… 

Don, Mel, Brew...  You're doing great...  Keep it up...  Liberal progressives have a hard time spinning away the truth...  It's kind of like sunlight to a vampire...

Take care…  and BOHICA!

V/R, Batch

Quote:

Why doesn't our Federal Government butt out and stick to the powers granted it by our Constitution.

...and if there's any question as to what those powers might be, people should try reading the 10th Amendment to our Constitution.

Bob P wrote on Sep 15^th, 2009 at 8:04am:

Why doesn't our Federal Government butt out and stick to the powers granted it by our Constitution. Medical reform is in the domain of the individual States!

That's an interesting theory, but there is absolutely no evidence it is true. Where does it say that?

The first sentence of the US Constitution authorizes the federal government to act for the general welfare of the country, and Article 1, Section 8 both authorize Congress to collect taxes and provide for the general welfare. 

Quote:

Section 8 - Powers of Congress The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; To borrow money on the credit of the United States; To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States; To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures; To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States; To establish Post Offices and Post Roads; To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court; To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations; To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy; To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Quote:

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

monty wrote on Sep 14^th, 2009 at 11:34pm:

By that logic, we should not want all people with cluster headaches to get properly diagnosed and then receive the best treatment - the sudden increase in people going to headache specialists would create longer waits for us!!  Some neurologists would stop taking new patients! So start spreading disinformation about clusters!!  Let's tell people It's really a very rare disease, and if you haven't been diagnosed already, you probably don't have it - what you have is 'just a headache - try to relax, or use boji stones.'  Keep this site an exclusive club!!

Are you serious???  :-?

Ok, here is the graph from this link:
START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGESTART PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

Notice the 63% is for BOTH private and public option?  Now, do you know what's going to happen if a public option is put into place?  Employers are going to find it is not worth to keep their health insurance for their employees, and they will drop it.  It would be less expensive for them to pay the 8%(from what I gather) fine for not providing a private option for their employees, than it would to keep it.  Then what happens?  Those employees will be forced into a public option because if they don't have coverage, they'll be fined.

What is so great about this??

Quote:

The first sentence of the US Constitution authorizes the federal government to act for the general welfare of the country, and Article 1, Section 8 both authorize Congress to collect taxes and provide for the general welfare.

From one of the guys who wrote it...

Quote:

"Our tenet ever was... that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated, and that, as it was never meant that they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money." --Thomas Jefferson to Albert Gallatin, 1817. ME 15:133

Quote:

But as early as 1794, Madison had begun to rail against the government's unconstitutional urge to redistribute the wealth of its citizens: "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents. ... If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions."

monty wrote on Sep 15^th, 2009 at 8:16am:

Bob P wrote on Sep 15th, 2009 at 8:04am: Why doesn't our Federal Government butt out and stick to the powers granted it by our Constitution. Medical reform is in the domain of the individual States! That's an interesting theory, but there is absolutely no evidence it is true. Where does it say that? The first sentence of the US Constitution authorizes the federal government to act for the general welfare of the country, and Article 1, Section 8 both authorize Congress to collect taxes and provide for the general welfare.

There are 3 entities listed in the constitution. The country, state, and the people. That statement pertains to the government's role for general welfare of the United States, not for the people.

Under that assertion, the government would be responsible for providing shelter, food, and water to all as well. However, homelessness is found, people are starving, and many use a well for water.

Melissa wrote on Sep 15^th, 2009 at 9:36am:

Ok, here is the graph from this link: START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGESTART PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE Notice the 63% is for BOTH private and public option?  Now, do you know what's going to happen if a public option is put into place?  Employers are going to find it is not worth to keep their health insurance for their employees, and they will drop it.  It would be less expensive for them to pay the 8%(from what I gather) fine for not providing a private option for their employees, than it would to keep it.  Then what happens?  Those employees will be forced into a public option because if they don't have coverage, they'll be fined. What is so great about this??

We wouldn't want the facts to get in the way of a good story.

Which is also the motto of journalism schools around the nation.

Bob P wrote on Sep 15^th, 2009 at 9:48am:

Quote: The first sentence of the US Constitution authorizes the federal government to act for the general welfare of the country, and Article 1, Section 8 both authorize Congress to collect taxes and provide for the general welfare. From one of the guys who wrote it... [quote]"Our tenet ever was... that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated, and that, as it was never meant that they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money." --Thomas Jefferson to Albert Gallatin, 1817. ME 15:133

Quote:

But as early as 1794, Madison had begun to rail against the government's unconstitutional urge to redistribute the wealth of its citizens: "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents. ... If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions."

[/quote]
I'm pretty sure the preamble to the Constitution wasn't written as a wild card, meant to include anything and everything that wasn't specified in the remainder of the document. It's more like an executive summary.

Some choose not to read it that way, I guess.

Here we go again. Unlike the 1965 bloodbath in Congress where the AMA and just about everybody in medicine stormed the barricades over Medicare, doctors and a wide majority in the profession are for the public option. It makes perfect sense:

First: It's very likely to be good to MDs. More patients and their not having to deal with insurance companies every time they need a test or even basic things. These companies have panels (death panels in effect) that are charged with nothing but restricting or ending what they will allow. They call it "down coding" and it changes all the time.  For now, half of doctors' office time is spent arguing with them. My favorite is their effort some years ago to cover all births only for one day or as an out patient procedure, no matter the complications. They are a sweet bunch.

Secondly: It's the only way to stop our wonderful system from killing thousands of sick people. Children included.

Third: Drug companies will do just fine with more business.

Fourth: We are an embarrasment by not having it. British Prime Minister, Clement Atlee's government, in 1948, suceeded in creating a national health service during just about the worst economic period in British history. Surely we innovative and humanitarian Americans can do it too.

Fifth: I'm not about to go through articles by your favorite Demi Goons screaming about Socialism and all the inane blogs by entertainers from FOX or screech radio. I'm not a masochist. I don't make my decisions on Internet rantings. I do just fine elsewhere.

Americans do not live longer than other western countries that have it and do just fine. Ours is not the best medical system in the world.

Knock it off.

Charlie

Who are you telling to "knock it off" Charlie?

Bob, I may be led to believe you are close to the heart of the matter, but do not think Jefferson had a hand in the writing of the Constritution.  He was ambassador to France at the time, however, upon reading it, immediately noticed problems and wrote to Madison about amendments. 


Bob P wrote on Sep 15^th, 2009 at 9:48am:

From one of the guys who wrote it...

The Jefferson quote MAY pertain to his long standing objections to Adams' Alien and Sedition Acts (3, I think) for the Quasi War.  They wrote to each other until their deaths about it. 

A good study is Andrew Jackson's White House days, where he dealt with nullification of federal law from his own V.P. Calhoun from S.C., which seems could be a double bladed sword. 

Like Jackson, Monty may be saying, posting a majority opinion, that a democracy may be speaking. 

AZ seems to be considering nullification:

When a state ‘nullifies’ a federal law, it is proclaiming that the law in question is void and inoperative, or ‘non-effective’, within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as the state is concerned.


Quote:

...the Arizona State Senate voted 18-11 to concur with the House and approve the Health Care Freedom Act (HCR2014).  This will put a proposal on the 2010 ballot which would constitutionally override any law, rule or regulation that requires individuals or employers to participate in any particular health care system.

Being nothing is written in stone yet, this is speculation.

Quote:

Who are you telling to "knock it off" Charlie?

Not you or us, the people who are out to destroy Obama. Admit it or not, that's exactly what it has become. Money is secondary and the signs say so. They just can't put up with who he is and that he's smarter than they are.

Charlie

So the solution is to throw the baby out with the bath water, right Charlie?

Let's see - The state of American health care has a few blemishes, maybe a mole or two, maybe even a spot of basal cell carcinoma. Let's put her in the burn unit and do a 90% skin graft job.

This single payer nonsense is nothing short of another power grab, brought to you by the current administration. It's quite obvious that you, along with at least one other here, are quite comfortable with that. Sacrifice liberty for security. I choose not to. I'll take care of me and mine, thank you very much, and I resent the federal government attempting to deny me the choice.

Charlie wrote on Sep 15^th, 2009 at 11:26am:

Not you or us, the people who are out to destroy Obama.

He seems to be doing an awfully good job of that himself.
START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGESTART PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

It's really quite simple, Charlie. You are in love with the idea of Big Brother taking care of us.

I am not.

What a country. We're both still allowed to think the way we do.

For now.

Charlie wrote on Sep 15^th, 2009 at 11:04am:

They call it "down coding"

Charlie, I have seen mention of "up coding" for profit too, making healthcare costs spiral upwards.  I suspect one of my doctors does the milk train on this, whether it's here or there in the conversation.

Quote:

"I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity.... [It] would be contrary to the letter and the spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded." --President Franklin Pierce (1804-1869) "I feel obliged to withhold my approval of the plan to indulge in benevolent and charitable sentiment through the appropriation of public funds.... I find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution." --President Grover Cleveland (1837-1908)

Since FDR the Feds have slowly moved toward being the type of government that the Constitution was written to avoid.  The Feds just don't have the authority to do what they are doing, unless they ammend the Constitution first.  It's time we turned the bus around and started moving back in the right direction.

I stand corrected Kevin.  Thought about it when I posted but was too lazy to research it. 
Quote:

The U.S. Constitution is the work of several men, directly and indirectly. The three most notable persons whose work influenced the Constitution but who were not involved in its writing are Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and Thomas Paine. The group of men involved in the writing of the Constitution are generally referred to as the "framers".

So, the AMA believes doctors choose what care a patient receives?

Anyone ever been turned down for O2 after their doc prescribed it?

That letter, Mel, shows me that the AMA is completely out of touch with reality, and they obviously just simply want more money, and they want the government to make rules which will send more money their way.

Oh shit.  Sorry Charlie, when I went to quote you to post a reply, I accidentally modified your post.  Since I can't retrieve whatever it is you wrote, I had to delete it.

I suppose I should quit responding to this thread now! LOL

geezus


edited to add: just have to add one more thing. In the bill it is mandated that all have health insurance.  It also gives an amount of how much it'd cost to have it.  13% of your income.  Do you know that'd be $300 more per month we'd have to pay for health insurance should Jesse's employer (yes it's union, but that's another mess to get into) decide to drop the coverage?  I'm scared to even think about it!

Melissa wrote on Sep 15^th, 2009 at 8:56am:

Are you serious???  :-?

Yes. Did you read the article you linked to? It pointed out that because 97% of people in Massachusetts now have insurance, there was a surge of people going to see doctors, which makes some lines longer, and some doctors are so busy they not taking new patients.

That can be bit of a disruption for some - but is not a permanent state of affairs. Much of the backlog will be cleared, and we can train more doctors if there is a long term need.  Of course, we could make the lines much shorter if we canceled the state program so that only 80% of the people there had coverage.

If someone reads that article about Mass and sees it as 'proof' that it is a bad system, they should be consistent in their principles and oppose expanding the diagnosis and treatment of other people with the same condition as they have .... suddenly diagnosing and treating those people who are wandering around wondering WTF do I have would initially place a huge burden on the healthcare system. Who's going to pay for that? Why support getting other clusterheads into the system if it means that we have to wait an extra month to get an appointment with a specialist? 

monty- #1, I did read the article.  I normally don't make it a point of posting links on the fly without reading them first.  Secondly, did you read any of my other posts??  Obviously not or you would see my reasoning for not having a public option.

I'm not against health care for all citizens, I'm against a PUBLIC OPTION.  I don't believe that is the way to accomplish the end goal.

Melissa wrote on Sep 15^th, 2009 at 1:54pm:

monty- #1, I did read the article.  I normally don't make it a point of posting links on the fly without reading them first.  Secondly, did you read any of my other posts??  Obviously not or you would see my reasoning for not having a public option. I'm not against health care for all citizens, I'm against a PUBLIC OPTION.  I don't believe that is the way to accomplish the end goal.

So can you explain why you used that article to suggest that the Massachusetts plan was a bad idea?

I suggest it was an attempt to stir up fear that reform would negatively affect those who already have insurance.

I also suggest that these 'problems' must occur if we are going to fix the system. There is a large number of people that are suffering because they don't have access to medical care. Bringing them into the system will have the same consequences, even if there is no public option.

I never said anything about if it was bad or good monty.  You're putting words into my mouth.  You see, it's all about perception, and if you think I was trying to incite fear, you know nada about me.

If anyone wants to know, I threw it up there to show there are faults in the system, but some claim to act like it's the solution to the problem and there just isn't any other way of going about it.

Whatever!  I'm done.

[quote author=797B7A606D140 link=1252973959/0#0 date=1252973959]There should be a public option.  According to a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, a survey of doctors found 10% who were in favor of a single payer system, and 63% percent favored having a public option along side traditional insurance.

Which puts them in agreement with the general population.

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE
Where on earth did you come up with the figure that 3 out of 4 people in the general population want the public option (thus putting their opinions in line with doctors)?

And besides, since when does it matter what the general population wants?

Brew wrote on Sep 15^th, 2009 at 2:32pm:

Where on earth did you come up with the figure that 3 out of 4 people in the general population want the public option (thus putting their opinions in line with doctors)? And besides, since when does it matter what the general population wants?

I did not say that 3 out of 4 members of the public support a public option ... a majority in both groups do.  It is actually higher among doctors, probably because there are fewer wound-up wackadoodles in that group that froth at the mouth about keeping government away from The Medicare.

But your right - in the end, the medical system won't be under control of the doctors or patients. This is about what the insurance companies want.

It's still no arena for the Federal government. The powers of the Fed are limited by the Constitution, and this is way outside that.

And please don't insult my intelligence by giving example after example of how this federal program or that federal program isn't provided for by the Constitution. I know they're not. It started with Social Security, and maybe even before.

You see, national politics isn't about following the Constitution - it's about garnering votes, and politicians will do ANYTHING to get people to vote for them. Including violating the Constitution. This health care debacle is just another example.

If it goes through, which I doubt.

Brew wrote on Sep 15^th, 2009 at 3:46pm:

And please don't insult my intelligence by giving example after example of how this federal program or that federal program isn't provided for by the Constitution. I know they're not. It started with Social Security, and maybe even before.

It's not a question of insulting your intelligence, it is about a legitimate difference of interpretation.

We went for over a hundred years on the interpretation that states can treat some people as property, much longer on the interpretation that women were not entitled to equal rights. And then when there was a proposed constitutional amendment to explicitly grant women equal rights, the tea party elements were simultaneously telling us that it wasn't needed, because the word 'man' really meant man and woman all along (founders intent be damned), and that granting women equal rights would lead to same-sex restrooms, public nudity and incest, and mandatory estrogen shots for every male over 12 years of age.

Charlie wrote on Sep 15^th, 2009 at 11:26am:

Not you or us, the people who are out to destroy Obama. Admit it or not, that's exactly what it has become. Money is secondary and the signs say so. They just can't put up with who he is and that he's smarter than they are. Charlie

Charlie,

Admit it or not, conservatives actually do not agree with his policies - that's the root of the problem.

Trying to make it a racial thing is a very empty argument. You didn't use those words in this particular post, but you have previously said that "race" was the real problem. I have to assume that you were insinuating it here.

Please correct me if you meant something different than what you have clearly said before.

Marc

Melissa wrote on Sep 15^th, 2009 at 12:21pm:

Do you know that'd be $300 more per month we'd have to pay for health insurance should Jesse's employer (yes it's union, but that's another mess to get into) decide to drop the coverage?  I'm scared to even think about it!

Mel,
We already pay that much a month, plus we have a $500.00 deductable per person.  BUT, what we pay now is still far less.

If there were to be a public option, what is to stop illegals from opting into the plan?  There are no provisions that will stop an illegal alien from buying into the public option.

Taken from Fact Check.org

The House version of the health care bill explicitly prohibits spending any federal money to help illegal immigrants get health care coverage. Illegal immigrants could buy private health insurance, as many do now, and they could also buy into a new government-run insurance plan if Congress creates one. But unlike legal residents, they wouldn't get federal subsidies to help them. The bill's exact language: "Nothing in this subtitle shall allow federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully in the United States." Health care legislation in the Senate is also being crafted to exclude illegal immigrants from coverage.

There's no provision for how the prohibition would be enforced, or any requirement for people to prove they are citizens or legal residents before getting health care benefits. In fact, Democrats on the Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means committees defeated Republican-offered amendments that would have required people to verify their legal status before getting care, with some Democrats saying such requirements would be unnecessarily burdensome for people legally entitled to coverage

To the italicized part, I would ask why?  Didn't this same bs occur with states making voters provide picture IDs to vote?

Anybody who disagrees with Obama is 'out to destroy him'.

Anybody who doesn't agree 100% with Obama is 'out of touch'.

Anybody who calls Obama a liar is a racist.

Didn't you hear Obama tell us "The time for debate is OVER!"

If you do not agree that YOU are responsible for every other person here in America (legally or illegally), then you are a cold-hearted bastard.

The only solution is government.

As Charlie said, "Knock it off".  Money and greedy capitalists are the root of all evil, and big government is here to relieve you of the burden of managing your own affairs.

ALL HAIL OBAMA.

Obama also said

Quote:

"Instead of honest debate, we have seen scare tactics. ... Everyone in this room knows what will happen if we do nothing. Our deficit will grow. More families will go bankrupt. More businesses will close. More Americans will lose their coverage when they are sick and need it most. And more will die as a result. We know these things to be true." --Barack Obama, in his speech to Congress, at once warning against "scare tactics" and then proceeding (with enough distance between statements) to employ them

He also said if you tell lies about health care, we will call you out.... so Wilson called him out..

It's interesting reading all the positions from both sides in regard to this proposed legislation.

All this discussion subsequent to the President wanting to have this legislation voted upon and passed before the August recess.

Why was he and his team pushing for quick passage when there is so much to be examined by the citizens? Was he attempting to ramrod this through without us knowing what was in the legislation and having time to react?

If this is the case what does this say about the President?

Steve G

stevegeebe wrote on Sep 15^th, 2009 at 9:57pm:

If this is the case what does this say about the President?

Indeed.

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGESTART PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

Now Brew that would imply deceitful motives.

de ceit ful
having a tendency or disposition to deceive
not honest
deceptive
misleading

If we were to imply or simply think this, are we now racists?

Steve G

Newsweek now says we're born racist. Just like homosexuality. Shouldn't we be celebrating it?

Check this out:

45% Of Doctors Would Consider Quitting If Congress Passes Health Care Overhaul

By TERRY JONES
News Analysis by IBD | Posted Tuesday, September 15, 2009 4:30 PM PT

Two of every three practicing physicians oppose the medical overhaul plan under consideration in Washington, and hundreds of thousands would think about shutting down their practices or retiring early if it were adopted, a new IBD/TIPP Poll has found.

Here's the whole article:

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

Just a little different than the claims made by the original post.

Quote:

Trying to make it a racial thing is a very empty argument. You didn't use those words in this particular post, but you have previously said that "race" was the real problem. I have to assume that you were insinuating it here.

Really? President Obama, is depicted as a dictator and, in one image circulated among the anti-tax, anti-health reform “tea parties,” he is depicted as a befeathered African witch doctor with little tusks coming out of his nostrils.

Charlie

Charlie wrote on Sep 15^th, 2009 at 10:57pm:

Quote: Trying to make it a racial thing is a very empty argument. You didn't use those words in this particular post, but you have previously said that "race" was the real problem. I have to assume that you were insinuating it here. Really? President Obama, is depicted as a dictator and, in one image circulated among the anti-tax, anti-health reform “tea parties,” he is depicted as a befeathered African witch doctor with little tusks coming out of his nostrils. Charlie

Never have I seen that kind of dreck here. Be fair.

Nonetheless, it existed in a march. It's certainly not part of the health care debate. It's conveniently used by a group of psychos. Dangerous no doubt.

It's probably as far as I want to go with race. I'm not at all qualified to do so other than acknowledge that there is a significant number that just can't stand that one of those "uppity" ones is where he is.

Charlie

Me too, Charlie. What I can't stand is that there's somebody in that office who doesn't want to hear what I have to say. I think he said, "The debate is over."

Aliens and sedition's....for the love of God. this is not a moral or ethical question. This is a question of rights to all Americans. IMO, We are long past a quick fix and too near a long one. No time in our history as a nation have we had so many influences and private agendas. Who Governs???

Special interests.............and I say that plural!
Hmmmm.

We are in a sad state of affairs in my opinion. No matter who's at the helm. We need to fix America.

As one who has had to suffer under a government health care system (Medicaid) I dread the thought of having to have the whole country subject to such awful care.  Had it not been for Loyola University Medical Center where we were able to work with young Drs who were trying to learn to practice medicine we would have had care that was way below common standards.  We drove almost 40 miles to get that care because the only ones in our area who would deal with Medicaid did so because they were so inept they couldn't keep a paying customer.  There were several instances from before we went to Loyola that had we not been under the government system we could have filed a malpractice suit, but they were protected.  We did file a complaint about one Dr in particular who started to do a gynecological exam with dirty gloves on from the patient before Linda.

I am not ungrateful for the medical care I was able to receive when I could not afford to pay.  Don't get me wrong, but I do not want it to be mandatory on the whole country. 

From what I've read of the bills proposed by the Democrats, and by the amendments proposed by Republicans and shot down by Democrats (not by what I've heard on Radio or TV) I fear for the path Obama wants to take us.  I've been down part of that path.

Jerry

Callico wrote on Sep 15^th, 2009 at 11:43pm:

As one who has had to suffer under a government health care system (Medicaid) I dread the thought of having to have the whole country subject to such awful care.  Had it not been for Loyola University Medical Center where we were able to work with young Drs who were trying to learn to practice medicine we would have had care that was way below common standards.  We drove almost 40 miles to get that care because the only ones in our area who would deal with Medicaid did so because they were so inept they couldn't keep a paying customer.  There were several instances from before we went to Loyola that had we not been under the government system we could have filed a malpractice suit, but they were protected.  We did file a complaint about one Dr in particular who started to do a gynecological exam with dirty gloves on from the patient before Linda. I am not ungrateful for the medical care I was able to receive when I could not afford to pay.  Don't get me wrong, but I do not want it to be mandatory on the whole country.  From what I've read of the bills proposed by the Democrats, and by the amendments proposed by Republicans and shot down by Democrats (not by what I've heard on Radio or TV) I fear for the path Obama wants to take us.  I've been down part of that path. Jerry

Better said, then those who we have elected to "lead" us.

Nice!

Let's get smarter! 2010, let's have some REAL change.
Vote 'em all out!

Quote:

One week after President Obama’s speech to Congress, opposition to his health care reform plan has reached a new high of 55%. The latest Rasmussen Reports daily tracking poll shows that just 42% now support the plan, matching the low first reached in August. A week ago, 44% supported the proposal and 53% were opposed. Following the speech last Wednesday night intended to relaunch the health care initiative, support for the president’s effort bounced as high as 51% (see day-by-day numbers). But the new numbers suggest that support for health care reform is now about the same as it was in August.