Why people are against healthcare reform

I learned today why people are against healthcare reform.  I spent a couple hours in a bar with a dentist and some professional wannabe's.  The idea I got from them is that they don't want anyone to get health care for less than what they pay.  I tried to bring up arguments that total health care expenses would go  down but all they cared about was what the people that currently do not have health care would have to pay for health care.

It has nothing to do with there economics situation.  It seems all they care about is making sure that those that are without have to pay.  It is a vindictive attitude.  It doesn't matter how I explain why these people are without health care, they paint all with a broad brush.  Te fact that 70+% of all bankruptcies are caused by medical expenses means nothing.  If we want true reform we need to explain too people what the true costs of the uninsured are.

Tags: Health care (all tags)



Re: Why people are against healthcare reform

  "I spent a couple hours in a bar with a dentist and some professional wannabe's" might not be the most scientific method of polling, therefore I think your Diary title has a shaky foundation. The rest of your discussion does provide evidence that you did some serious drinking in that bar before typing your thoughts down for our edification, so I don't doubt that what you say is based on actual events.

by QTG 2009-07-18 04:02AM | 0 recs
What's with the friendly fire?

This diary accurately conveys some of the dumb reasons people oppose the health care bill, and points out how misguided they are.  No reason to get snarky.

by JJE 2009-07-18 07:33AM | 0 recs
Re: What's with the friendly fire?

I don't know, maybe it was the image of a dentist and a group of wannabes sitting around in a bar being touted as surrogates for the entire American electorate that stimulated my snark response.

by QTG 2009-07-18 08:47AM | 0 recs
Re: What's with the friendly fire?

I've had similar discussions with health care providers who have a moral issue with poor people getting health benefits paid for by taxpayers.  I have an uncle who retired from the Air Force, and then worked as a private consultant, so he gets two retirements, his Air Force one and social security. If he marries his current girlfriend she'll get his benefits if he dies before he does, his benefits will live longer than he lives. That's paid for by tax payers and by social security.  But health care for poor kids and their parents? We can't have that kind of welfare?  I have nothing against my uncle's benefits, but I think health care is a right and a rich country like this one has enough to care for the least among us as well as those who made some smart retirement decisions. These so called moralists who don't want the less fortunate to be healthy make my head spin.    

by anna shane 2009-07-18 09:10AM | 0 recs
Re: What's with the friendly fire?

I'm sure the dentist and his friends would agree with you and your anecdotes. Still, I'm not sure if, even if you and they are all added together into one statistical sample, that I could in good conscience agree that we can make broad generalizations about the American people and why they oppose Health Care reform - as the diarist does.

I'm not a scientist or mathematician though, so don't take my word for it. Full disclosure: I'm not even an arithmetician.

by QTG 2009-07-18 09:18AM | 0 recs
Re: What's with the friendly fire?

i was unclear?  I don't agree with the dentist or those health care people who ranted about 'fairness' in their anger over children's health care.  They call it immoral, I say letting kids be homeless, hungry and without health care is immoral.  But, you know, the godless, we don't get credited with morals.  

by anna shane 2009-07-18 02:49PM | 0 recs
Re: What's with the friendly fire?

 The dentists and his posse don't speak for anyone but the diarist. Chill.

by QTG 2009-07-18 04:45PM | 0 recs
Re: What's with the friendly fire?

you may not like his delivery, but he's right. The back of of this movement is about wanting to slam the door for anyone else. Hey, I know a guy who's against medicare who received over a million from it, in end of life care for his injured wife. Irony isn't dead, he doesn't want to pay for 'deadbeats.'  But he has no plan to reimburse for his own benefit.  

by anna shane 2009-07-19 08:15AM | 0 recs
Re: What's with the friendly fire?

This is standard conservative mind set. I hate the program, but I will milk it more than any one else ever does. That's really what this is about in part. It's about thier mind set for wanting to milk the system that they project onto others.

by bruh3 2009-07-19 08:27AM | 0 recs
Re: What's with the friendly fire?

but it isn't, and that's not how those milkers see themselves.  They seem themselves as deserving, unlike the undeserving milkers. It's true, much of what is done in the name of morality is anything but.  My old friend who got benefits for his terminal wife did not see himself as a milker, for him that was just, but he's against anyone else getting the benefit he already got. It's weird that people can be so blind to their own benefits, but they are, go figure.  

by anna shane 2009-07-19 09:15AM | 0 recs
Re: What's with the friendly fire?

I am sure in thier own version of their stories they are the saintly heros saving the day. My point is to throw water on the flame of their saintly story by pointing out "no they are not." They are just like the rest of us, imperfectly, trying to live in an inperfect world. The issue that they have is that they can not accept the element of chance in life, and so they want to stick us with the delusion. No thanks. The reality is that we are both teh product of our own actions, those of others and random events that we have no control over. That's the complex reality that they can not handled. I want to see policies reflect the reality rather than reflect their delusions. We have been living 40 years under their delusions now. It's still for something new.

by bruh3 2009-07-19 09:50AM | 0 recs
Re: What's with the friendly fire?

Your uncle's girl friend would not start collecting social security on his death until her 62nd birthday . Also she would not be collecting any dime of Tax Payers or Social Security as it would be based on the contribution your uncle and his employer - more than 12% total from each pay check - made to the Social Security!

Instead of just listening to politician do your math and research. If your uncle had bought FIXED CD or had bought 10 Yeas Treasury Notes with (let us say) 4% annual yield for (6% his contribution and 6% of his matching contribution from his employer), and then he at the age of 62 and his girl friend at the age of 62 start taking fixed amount out of their savings, then they still may have some left over after both have died.

by PK 2009-07-18 02:41PM | 0 recs
Re: What's with the friendly fire?

I must be very unclear.  My uncle is 80 and his girlfriend is 79.  I didn't read up on social security benefits before I posted, so I don't know if she'll qualify, I do know my uncle gets two retirements, both government insurance.  I'm okay with that, it's the rules, and if they happen to pay in favor of some far more than others, that's the way it is.  But I find it ironic that those who are benefiting from government insurance that pays them far more than they contributed cause they lived so long, think they were simply harder working and more deserving - unlike poor working families who don't earn enough to qualify for much in social security and ought to accept it that they'll go without needed health care cause they don't deserve what they didn't earn.  They may not have enough now, but who knows what they could earn if they could stay alive and healthy?  If the  logic doesn't exactly work, the sentiment certainly does. Kids? Old people?  Who needs 'em?    

by anna shane 2009-07-18 02:56PM | 0 recs
Re: What's with the friendly fire?

As I said in my other post "Open up the Medicaid for all" irrespective of the income.

People - who hardly works - believe me I know many cases as they wants to get fired so they can collect unemployment - goes on Medicaid and gets better benefit then many of us. I really feel sorry for those hard working people who don't have insurance and can't afford insurance, and would not qualify for Medicaid as their income is just above the Medicaid cut-off.

Same people who gets Medicaid also receives the SSI - Supplemental security Income. This includes many retiree on Social Security!

Social Security Administration manages the SSI and  charges to Social Security account. This are the same people who just recently went to Arizona Resort - $1000 a night - at Tax Payer's expense.

Money for Medicaid and SSI is not free - it comes from taxes we pay.

What is needed is streamline all this welfare program, cut back on bureaucracy, and in case of Medicaid remove income limitation.

As I explain your uncle's social security was used by him to buy 10 years treasury note he still would have money left at his age of 100. - This was the British System in British Colonies for all employees - Private and Government - 7% employee and 7% employer. It was call the Provident Scheme, and government agency was investing it in the account under each employee's name. Employee would carry this account balance from job to job, and would receive either annuity or lump sump - his/her choice.

by PK 2009-07-18 03:18PM | 0 recs
Re: What's with the friendly fire?

yes, if the money had been invested rather than 'loaned' to the government, there would be plenty. But my point wasn't that, although you make a good one, my point is that someone can work for the government twenty years and get retirement, and then work a a consultant using skills learned in the government job and then qualify for social security, and get two retirements, and yet complain (not my uncle, he's sweet) about poor kids getting a free ride with health care their parents can't afford.  End of lifers vote, kids and their poor parents don't. The irony is in their argument, those who already profited in oh so many ways from government and think it's fair in their cases, but not in the case of the less fortunate but just as hard working.  

The diary is right about this moral outrage that lies behind the unwillingness to see health care as a human right.  Scratch the surface and you'll find it, the socialism argument is a beard.  

by anna shane 2009-07-19 08:25AM | 0 recs
Re: The diary is right?

The diary may be right or it may be wrong. I think the American people support Health-Care reform, and a substantial number of them support single-payer and an end to private Health coverage. I come to this conclusion on the basis of scientific polling, not on some afternoon of drinking.

It's OK to believe what the diarist says, but I hope you don't endorse his methodology. You should also realize that anecdotes, whether from your own or others' experience, are lousy predictors and provide a bad basis for policy.

by QTG 2009-07-19 09:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Why people are against healthcare reform

I am a liberal democrat and I really really dislike the Obama plan.

I just hope I live long enough to get on Medicare. Then I won't have to worry about this crap any more.

Hey, here's a thought. Why didn't Obama just propose a lowering of Medicare eligibility to age 60 or 55? That would have taken those who most need medical care off the wasteful private health care system and put hem into the efficient government run program, saving billions of dollars.

Taking something that works, making it better, and expanding it to serve more people is simple and easy to grasp. It would have widespread public support and no doubt pass with bi-partisan support.

by Caliman 2009-07-18 05:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama

I know, like, he's really retarded! You're idea is so like, awesome!

by QTG 2009-07-18 06:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama

lower it little by little, until anyone can get it if they pay? sounds like a sound idea to me.  

by anna shane 2009-07-18 09:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Lower it

 We could lower it to zero, like in all the other civilized countries in the world where health care costs absolutely nothing!

by QTG 2009-07-18 09:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Lower it

would be nice, and it's likely what most of us want.  As usual the people are ahead of their so-called representatives?

by anna shane 2009-07-18 02:46PM | 0 recs
Re: No Cost Health Insurance

I am a huge fan of European/Canadian style single payer systems, but am always amused at the tendency for us here in the USA to misunderstand them. They are NOT FREE!!! and to talk about them that way makes us look ridiculous.  

While single payer is the best method to accomplish a level of universality that is somewhat egalitarian, it is not a panacea. It will not automatically let us all move to that dream job (bartender/pollster in my case) or get a liver transplant next Tuesday.

Much of the discussion of Health Care on MyDD is sophomoric and frankly, laughably naive.

by QTG 2009-07-18 04:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Why people are against healthcare reform

"Hey, here's a thought. Why didn't Obama just propose a lowering of Medicare eligibility to age 60 or 55? That would have taken those who most need medical care off the wasteful private health care system and put hem into the efficient government run program, saving billions of dollars."

Where did you get the idea that Medicare---or any government run program, for that matter---is efficient? The unfunded obligations for Medicare over the next 50 years are estimated (by its Board of Trustees) to be $38 trillion. And the hospital fund will be broke by 2017.

Why would you want to put more people into a program which is insolvent?

by BJJ Fighter 2009-07-18 11:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Why people are against healthcare reform

now that's a new one for me, why not abolish it then? Very strange, I didn't realize that opinion was anywhere.  

by anna shane 2009-07-18 03:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Why people are against healthcare reform

People have their talking points, and they really don't think beyond that. If fighter did a quick search online he would realize what he just wrote is completely busllhit. but that's what he's been taught to think.

by bruh3 2009-07-18 03:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Why people are against healthcare reform

I've read a fairly broad range of books on the topic, by several authors. People like Haynes Johnson, David Broder, and David Gratzer, to name just a few. That's how you develop your own perspective, as opposed to mouthing talking points, something you seem very skilled at.

Wake up...there's a whole world outside of the blogosphere.

by BJJ Fighter 2009-07-18 04:23PM | 0 recs
Oh yeah

David "George W. Bush is due for a comeback" Broder and David "Rudy Giuliani would have died in England" Gratzer are great sources of information.

Could you, maybe, read something by someone who HASN'T been discredited numerous times.

by DTOzone 2009-07-18 04:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Oh yeah

Dr. Gratzer has already forgotten more than you will ever know.

by BJJ Fighter 2009-07-18 08:56PM | 0 recs
Stay classy BJJ

by DTOzone 2009-07-18 09:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Why people are against healthcare reform

Yes, there is a world outside of blogs. There is also a world outside of mainstream media that requires one to read people who are experts in the area and reports on the subject matter.

None of them say what you are saying. Inf act, what is often said is that the worse case scenarios is a financial crisises that is decades off.

The reason why it is worse case scenarios is that it makes assumptions about our economy that we quite frankly but-for idiotic redneck free market fundamentalism we could address.

One of those macro "issues" for example is healthcare. If we do nothing on healthcare, then it will eventually consume not just 15 percent (compared to the EUs 9.1 percent) of GDP, but roughly 20 percent of GDP. This is why I find the arguments over how much the reform of healthcare will cost to be laughable. You conservatives are pennywise, pound foolish.  Bitching over 1 tril over 10 years versus overa  wasted trillion or more a year when you look at the wasted GDP is penny wise, pound foolish.

We need to cut the cost of healthcare, and the fact is we can do so with cutting outcomes since our outcomes for all that costs are below that of our competitiors or equal to their outcomes. In other words, it's not productivity- it is private sector waste probably from monopoly rents.

The best way to do that is to create competition for healthcare markets in the U.S. amonst other competing interests. Indeed, I can provide you a link - butthe fact is the bulk of the cost of healthcare in America is attributable to private healthcare costs.

In other words, the savings that we could use to address other economic issues regarding healthcare will not happen in the private sector alone since that industry has been teetering on market failure (including monopolistic tendencies for years now). I define market here the way someone who is not a fundamentalist does. Ie, good product, lower prices. Not, the markets always right tautology.

I could, of course, go on regarding the substance including pointing out that if we look at other areas-  our energy policy for example. We waste 200 bil per year in subsidies to foreign oil. How much could we save is we shifted to renewable energy sources? We will found out because China is investing heavily in the area. They, of course, have a different view of capitalism. It's a tool. Not a God. That means they are willing to use industrial policy and not be against because of "feelings" about it being "bad."

With these sorts of policies we could rebuild our manufacture/industrial base, which, by the way, is one fo the reasons you are seeing so much decline and the threat long term to the social net. Why? Because we are not diversified enough to pay off our debts. When things go wrong, we are stuck with service industries and other lower paying sources of wages that could produce the taxes, etc.

These are all correctable things. They would require something more than short term thinking about investing properly. but, I don't see that happening because Americans have been sold a bill of goods that capitalism only comes in one form. When , in fact, there are several forms of capitalism. We just choose to idiotic version.

by bruh3 2009-07-18 05:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Why people are against healthcare reform

by the way- one other follow- . I want to pull out the point about wages. Part of the reason wages in the US are stagnant are the incredible hidden tax of the money we waste on healthcare.

by bruh3 2009-07-18 06:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Why people are against healthcare reform

I forgot to include the quote and  link to my last comment:

""Most economists combine wages and benefits when examining employee compensation and the dynamics of the labor market. Firms that continue to offer health insurance will focus on the total compensation, and when paying higher benefit costs may reduce wages (or wage growth) in an attempt to keep total worker compensation (wages and benefits) the same.[30]  The empirical evidence has tended to show that health care cost increases are indeed offset by either direct wage reductions, increased employee cost sharing, or in instances where wages are fixed (i.e., unionized contracts), by increases in the number of hours worked)"

http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/costgrowth/#e mployees

by bruh3 2009-07-18 06:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Why people are against healthcare reform

And, your point is?

by BJJ Fighter 2009-07-18 08:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Why people are against healthcare reform

For you? there is no point.  You have your talking points, and that's enough for you to shut your brain down. Me? I like to do research. Something you apparently have not done so you can're spond to actual economic discussions other than as a teenager might respond.

For others, who were reading your posts and mine, I imagine the point is very clear. In fact, your response makes it even more clear- you could careless about the American people or economic issues. If you did, you would at least have a serious critique of what I wrote. Instead, I am left with the teenager smart alec retort. Congrats. You show me.

by bruh3 2009-07-18 09:37PM | 0 recs
And yet you can't bear to talk about Medicare

My original comment related to Medicare and entitlement reform: specifically, the sad record of politicians to promise entitlement reform, and then forget it once they're elected. And I asked the question, which you ignore because your extensive "research" apparently hasn't produced any answers: how do we deal with a Medicare program which is insolvent, to the tune of trillions? In my judgment---and apparently many others are starting to agree---the answer is not to layer on yet another entitlement program.

Demonizing the opposition is right out of the Saul Alinsky playbook; only problem is, it's not working anymore. Centrist dems in the House, and Senators like Max Baucus ("the President is not being helpful") are starting to ask legitimate questions relative to fiscal responsibility. And how about CBO head Doug Elmendorf? I'm sure he has some nefarious agenda, right? C'mon, you probably have some good name-calling to put these guys in their place.

At least your're faithful to a time-honored liberal tradition: if you don't have the money, pretend. Now, get back to your "research".

by BJJ Fighter 2009-07-19 08:49AM | 0 recs
Re: And yet you can't bear to talk about Medicare

And how about CBO head Doug Elmendorf

you mean the guy who walked backed his comments that health care reform wouldn't control costs and now says that it actually will?

by DTOzone 2009-07-19 09:21AM | 0 recs
Re: And yet you can't bear to talk about Medicare

a) You did not prove medicare is going insolvent. You made a declaration of that fact, then used appeals to authority, as if that makes fact. I don't need to disprove a thesis you did not prove. Do you get that?

The irony, of course, is that your whole thesis, even if true, is a red herring. Hence, why I discuss what I do. Since, whatever is happening with medicare is not relevant to healthcare reform considering what is happening in the wider medical system is worse.

b) You described healthcare reform as the "majority new entitlement" in the same context as medicare. I disproved that comment because it is the o nly relevant one regarding whether or the Democratic plan is necessary. I demonstrate this, by not being a pound foolish. I discuss, what anyeone besides yourself, would consider relevant. The economic reality. You can play Junior Rove all you want with the comments i made. They are aboslutely relevant to demonstrate how you are denying reality. You can pretend as much as you want that your weakness is in fact mine. I am not kerry. You are not Bush. Your comments in context of a larger economy that is being bled dry because of spiraling costs of healthcare (to the tune of 20 percent of GDP) are just distraction. Unless you address the cost containment economic issue sof the overall system you change nothing. You can not ignore, unless you are fucking raving lunatic, the fact that healthcare costs are rising for all- and most specifcally the private sector is driving up those costs and then tell me "medicare is in crisis."

by bruh3 2009-07-19 09:26AM | 0 recs

Chill out; go to brunch, have a bloody mary. But avoid the Sunday morning talk shows; they could push you over the brink, and it sounds like you're there already.

by BJJ Fighter 2009-07-19 09:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Relax.

well this settles the fac tyou are some kid bored.

by bruh3 2009-07-19 11:00AM | 0 recs
Re: And yet you can't bear to talk about Medicare

follow up

you are also lying about the CBO at this point. You k now it. I know it. That's why you are nothing but talking points.

by bruh3 2009-07-19 09:29AM | 0 recs
Re: And yet you can't bear to talk about Medicare

One othe rpoint- re-reading your post. You again say absolutely nothing on point of substance. You now shift from the policy to the political. You continue to proceed as if you have proven your point. You are not on CNN and I am not some mindless viewer. You are going to ahve to prove your assertion rather than issue talking points as fact. Prove through actual research and data that medicare is "in crisis" as you previously described. More than that, prove without lying about the present position of the CBO that the cost containment strategies of a national market place plus the public option will not act as a cost contain pressure on the private sectors monopolistic tendency. You know the insteresting thing- you say words like "moderate." that does not mean shit in context. A true moderate would at the very least be against the monopolistic tendency of the industry. It was Teddy Roosovelt who first started trust busting. The crap you are referring to is plutocratic forces using their corporate interests to push things in favor of the insurance industry, and not the general American consumer. So, when you yap on about Baucus being a "centrist" I suppose that's true in the bizare crazy that is the far right wolrd you inhabit. But in the world in which history and context and meaning matters, what he is- is a plutocratic person pushing corporate interests over those of the American tax payer. Indeed, it's worse, he's not really worried about the wasted productivity or the overall economic situation he is producing for those lining his campaign coffers.

by bruh3 2009-07-19 09:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Why people are against healthcare reform

I wouldn't favor abolishing Medicare, nor do I think many people would. But what would have made sense---from a standpoint of politics, economics, and the public welfare---would have been a comprehensive approach. Address entitlement reform AND national health insurance in one comprehensive initiative, instead of the ad hoc, patchwork approach that this country always manages to stumble into.

This would entail deciding what we can do for the population as a whole, in terms of health care, regardless of age. It would guarantee buy-in from the moderates, but more importantly, it would make for sound policy. It's just not logical to enact a new entitlement program, when a closely related one---Medicare---is languishing out there on the brink of insolvency.

All of the major Democratic contenders promised entitlement reform during the 2008 primary contests. The fact that Obama is immediately trying to pass a new entitlement without the "reform" component plays right into the hands of people who label us as the party of "tax-and-spend". He's squandering an opportunity to brand us as the party that can be both competent and compassionate.

by BJJ Fighter 2009-07-18 04:17PM | 0 recs
what , to you, would be "reform"

because what you're asking for is what it appears is happening.

by DTOzone 2009-07-18 04:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Why people are against healthcare reform

You can not have "entitlement" reform while healthcare is growing from 15 percent of GDP to 20 percent. When looking at the ability to compete, we are not going to be able to compete against the EU (which has a population larger than ours) that has healthcare outcomes that are better or equal to ours and at 9.1 percent on average (when looking at all countries) of GDP. Indeed, if you want to take the wealthiest EU countries, that number remains the same. Then , of course, there are countries like Japan with even lower percentages. The reality is this- you are as I said above being penny wise, pound foolish. It's like you are stuck on all these talking points from the right but the facts have not yet gottent rhough to you yet. Here's the reality: if you do not cut the cost of healthcare by creating what President Obama wants to create, then none of the tweaking at the edges that you would like to whine about will matter. That's economic reality.

by bruh3 2009-07-18 06:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Why people are against healthcare reform

here's some more breakdown for you:

Health Care Spending As a % of GDP, 2001
Country    Total Health Spending    Public Spending    Private Spending
USA    13.9%    6.2%    6.7%
Germany    10.7%    8.0%    2.7%
France    9.5%    6.5%    2.7%
Canada    9.2%    6.5%    2.7%
Italy    8.4%    6.3%    2.1%
Japan    7.6%    6.0%    1.

If you look at the numbers, the largest part of the increase healthcare cost comes from the private sector when compared to other countries. There are other studies and research on the subject that back this up including those that go into where hte healthcare dollars are spent in the private sector. But, again, this would require you to ignore rhectoric and look at data.

by bruh3 2009-07-18 06:04PM | 0 recs

If you had bothered to read the bill proposed by Congress instead of regurgitating right wing talking points, you'd see that the savings in Medicare place in the bill would fix those unfunded mandates that the right wing used to stoke fears that it was insolvent.

by DTOzone 2009-07-18 04:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Why people are against healthcare reform

Piece of advice: If you are going to shill don't announce things like "I am a liberal democrat" It does not innoculate you from thinking or from criticism.

by bruh3 2009-07-18 03:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Why people are against healthcare reform

God Damn it!!! I am SICK of this. WE HAVE TO GET HEALTHCARE REFORM. If we don't get this passed now - it's DEAD!! GONE!! DONE!! Kiss it good-bye. It is unacceptable to have a democratic congress, a democratic president, the entire country WANTING healthcare reform and then NOT getting healthcare reform. If this doesn't pass then the democrats all deserve to be kicked out. This has gone on since the 90's when it had to take a back seat THEN and it has only gotten worse. Why the f*ck should I have to stay in a shitty god-awful job just to keep my health insurance. IT'S WRONG.

by nikkid 2009-07-18 08:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Why people are against healthcare reform

You ask: Why the f*ck should I have to stay in a shitty god-awful job just to keep my health insurance.

That has been the case for some time for those of us with pre-existing conditions (or family members so afflicted). It definitely sucks, and is a major focus of the current effort.

I believe the Bill currently addresses pre-existing conditions and insurability issues. It will have to pass and be signed, and presumably there will be a period after that in order to implement the changes.

At that point, one supposes, we will all be able to take that dream job we will love.

I'm going to go to work at a dentist and wannabe bar, as the head pollster!

by QTG 2009-07-18 08:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Why people are against healthcare reform

Why can't they just open up MEDICAID for every one!

FY2007 Medicaid expenditure was almost $320,000,000,000. With that amount they should be able open up about 320,000 Community Health Clinic or about 6300 clinic per state.

Eliminating all those complex coding itself would eliminate 90% of Medicaid bureaucracy. By gauze, band aid, etc. from local pharmacy at their store price would save $$$ - $15 what Medicaid pays for box of Band-Aid vs. $2-5 at store price - store brand.

Allow any one who wants to go to this community clinic by just showing their Official ID like Driver License - no other paper work - all your history and diagnostics on computer so any doctor in any clinic in USA can access it and treat you.

Hey this is not different than in UK - Unless it is an emergency you wait for your turn, no more semi-private rooms but 6-8 people in a ward.

Oh NO! You don't want this! You want same Medical Treatment as you are getting now from your employer's insurance! If that is true, than why should I pay for it! Buy your own insurance - not using my TAX money!

My Tax Money already pays for Medicaid! If you don't like Medicaid or system like UK, than think twice about congress passing this reform unless you demand that all congress man, senators and President and his family and staff would go on the same system!

by PK 2009-07-18 03:04PM | 0 recs
Re: My Tax Money!!!!!

It's funny how so many people who pay less than $20,000 a year in income taxes and FICA (98% of Americans) think that they are being ripped off.

Those whiners are just ungrateful leaches.

by QTG 2009-07-18 04:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Why people are against healthcare reform

So you just want this congress to pass some kind of reform - it does not matter what this reform will deliver?

Do you know how many more years it would take to pass another reform to fix this reform if they really mess it up? It would probably take 3 more generation to fix it, and may be even more!

by PK 2009-07-18 02:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Why people are against healthcare reform

Polls show overwhelming support for health care reform.

by Alice Marshall 2009-07-18 08:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Why people are against healthcare reform

 Why do you want to rain on a good obama-bash with facts?

by QTG 2009-07-18 08:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Why people are against healthcare reform

The same reason why people hate unions...

In republican land, class warfare is OK, as long as you only envy up a little, not a lot....

by LordMike 2009-07-18 08:38AM | 0 recs
The American Motto

"I gots mine, screw you"

by DTOzone 2009-07-18 10:36AM | 0 recs

Yes, a job that bleeds the milk of human kindness?

Heck, didn't dentists use to lead the white collar proffesions in suicides?

I  think the point was more, this cat was in the "I am in the upper bracket" tax Republican type.

Move on, nothing to see or hear there.

by WashStateBlue 2009-07-18 11:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Dentists?

there is a vindictive attitude on the part of those who oppose universal health care. They can mask it by calling it socialism, but the net result is they got their helping hand, but that's cause they really deserved it, unlike .....They lack irony? Or reflection?  Or, what is it they lack??? Oh, right, empathy!

by anna shane 2009-07-18 03:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Dentists?

Actually, my old friends, the Dentist in a bar story is similar to thousands of one on one interviews I have conducted in the last 3 years. Just about every health care professional - and ill paid receptionists and secretaries especially - seem to get bent out of shape and even vengeful when confronted with a patient (consumer) who can access something they can't. Remember when Castro tried to quarantine all people with HIV or AIDS in really nice but high security complexes where they had ample food, great doctors, medicines for whatever, people they could talk to and a range of entertainment options - all of which was not available to almost every other Cuban on the island? Well, they had to end that because so many people tried to get infected with HIV to get into these places. And, the providers started stealing the meat, medicines and other things that they believed people who were probably going to die anyway didn't "deserve" to have. This is an issue neither restricted to HIV, nor Cuba, as Puerto Rico and several states that have appropriated huge sums of money for treating sick people have demonstrated. The Governor of Georgia actually used money for medications for poor people for fishing museums - in a state with an extended multi-year drought.  

A consumer who treat Dentists or nurses or care facilitators as if they are just servants offering a range of delectable options paid for with their tax dollars - or even with their own money - can be very badly manipulated, and even harmed. You hear docs and dentists talk a lot about just being left to be entrepreneurs - in other words left to make the decisions regarding who really "deserves" what, and ways they can cut costs to increase profit. And don't try to tell me for a second that people who are used to being in control of who can access what in their communities are going to sit back and welcome "you know who" into their places, their turf.

Ironically, Sen. Ben Nelson recently declared that the proposed Obama health care plan was moving towards class warfare, a term Republicans often reserve for tax debates. Sen. Nelson knew exactly what he was saying. There is a current of judgment underlying this debate, and it's all about paying for people too lazy. stupid, stubborn or ignorant not to be obese, smoke cigarettes and get cancers, have children they can't afford to pay for, contract HIV, HPV that leads to cervical or anal cancer, spread STDs, have children and become burdens of the state at age 15, or bring their entire "non-American" families to the US for health care on the American taxpayor.

I have heard hundreds of people, predominantly not white individuals, say all those things many, many times. I've also heard more than a hundred people say things like if the elderly spend 30% OF HEALTH CARE COSTS ANNUALLY ONCE THEY REACH A CERTAIN AGE, WHY DON'T WE JUST LET THEM LIVE A NORMAL LIFE SPAN FOR THE LAST YEAR OF THEIR LIFE. If you don't know what that means, an insurance company salesperson would be more than happy to explain how that, and getting rid of anyone with a chronic condition would enable you to enjoy very inexpensive, readily available and heavily medicated health care on the government's dime.

Your tax dollars, euthanising defective Americans and, of course, the undocumented. And yes, the upper tax bracket most certainly believes that the government should have this taken care of for them, the true valued Americans in this country.  

by Jeter 2009-07-18 11:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Why people are against healthcare reform

Shorter diary: They would rather cut their head off to spite their nose. This is something I realized a long time ago. If we were a "rational" society- a lot of things would not happen the way it happens in our country. That any progress is made at all is stunning. Trust me- what you describe. I see amongst lawyers all the time. They are well educated, middle class, and blah blah blah. The thing that gets me is the idiotic beliefs they hold despite all that.

by bruh3 2009-07-18 03:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Why people are against healthcare reform

Shorter diary:  Some people are just selfish and greedy.  "I've got mine and I don't want any of my money helping anyone else to get any."

My argument for political ideologies in general applies to healthcare too.  All governments (administrations) tax people so it's really not a money issue.  The disagreement is over how the tax dollars will be spent.  

I would like them to be spent improving the lives of people in our country first and other countries second.

by GFORD 2009-07-18 11:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Why people are against healthcare reform

This is a great contribution to the discussion. Thanks for offering it. This is the level of discussion that needs to take place throughout America - although I completely trust the Democrats' plans. Let's not forget how eager the Republicans were to pass that monstrous donation to the pharmaceutical industry called Medicare Part D.

by Jeter 2009-07-18 11:56PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads