Yes, I'm Happy Health Reform Passed

Rivalry Side A | Politics | News

No, I'm Not Happy. I'm Very Concerned

Rivalry Side B | Politics | News

History was made with the passing of H.R. 3962 (Affordable Health Care for America Act) are you Happy or Concerned?


Posted by in Politics / News on 3/23/10
Debate Leaders
  1. LIBERAL (7 votes) Validated Ego
  1. mama kaz (1 votes)
  1. Mona (1 votes)

Side A fans: (8)

Neutral Fans: (0)

Side B Comment

big ben - 4/4/10 @ 12:30 PM:
I appreciate everyone's input on this bill. I have began to read one of the bills. I also downloaded a second. I am very confused in regards to what is the EXACT components to the bill that has passed. Does anybody know the exact total package that includes the 2600 or 2700 page bill. I do not care about the other components. I would like to see what is law.
This leads into my next point.

Where the hell is the transparency that was promised? It should not be this difficult to attain the complete bill on my computer. These clowns work for we the people, right? I think this is part of the very large problem. The government does not want us to know the complete package.

I will finally mention one more point. There is no debate in regards to forcing people to purchase private industry products. This is unconstitutional. Do not forget, the government has taken over much of the auto industry, they are now taking over the complete student loan industry( geeez, wont this create a fair teaching experience for the students? the professors will surely not want to #!#! of big brother now will they? Teacher teach anti-government-teacher will be looking for new job now wont he or she?), and now the complete medical industry. This is about 20% of the economy. Yes, there will be a few large insurance companies left, but they will be a front for the government control and will only be top heavy. Big pay up top, crap pay and benefits for workers on the bottom.

Side B Comment

mama kaz - 4/4/10 @ 10:40 AM:
Actually I do know what goes on in the insurance industry. Knowing how it all worked was my job. That's how I got authorizations for the surgeries we did. I also understand the problem of pre existing conditions. I have lupus and a chronic bone infection. My solution was to hang an IV bag over my desk and go to work even when I would have rather stayed at home in bed. I did that for years in order to keep my medical coverage. I can only get coverage through an employer or my husbands employer but I still disagree with forcing insurance companies to take on pre existing conditions because I fully understand what the outcome will be. I used to deal with patients everyday who claimed they could not afford health insurance but stood in front of me with designer clothes, purses, and shoes while telling me about the vacation they just returned from. When did personal responsibility become a bad thing in this country? There are people out there who need help but there are also many more who are lazy and government dependent and will never improve their lives because they don't have to. The elderly are getting screwed and I'm not just talking about death panels which I believe are indirectly in the bill. I'm talking about the cuts that will be coming to medicare patients and the additional costs they will incur. Time will tell who's right and wrong about this. I do know that the way this is set up is unsustainable. There is no money to pay for it. I just hope you supporters will be happy when you are on government health care. Ask a Canadian how good it is. I've seen it first hand coming from the HMO's in California. You are going to have the very thing you are so critical of. HMO's (health maintenance organizations) are a perfect example of how government health care will work. You will see doctors who's training is questionable. You will have long waits to see them. A panel will decide if you get the surgery or treatment that is being recommended. If you're over 60 or already have chronic medical issues the answer will usually be no. The ct scanners and other equipment are usually outdated and inferior. Doctors have a hard time reading films from second rate equipment which makes it more difficult to make a diagnosis. When you need tests you will have long waits for that too which gives cancer and other serious problems a head start making it more difficult to treat. They will decide what medications are approved and which aren't. Just because you've had a reaction or don't do well on a certain medication will not be grounds for getting the one you need. The only difference between HMO's and government care will be that HMO's do this to keep costs down. The government will do this because there won't be enough money. I joined an HMO in California to save money. I got out of the HMO and gladly spent the extra money after one year because the savings wasn't worth what I went through trying to get the care I used to take for granted. Now I won't have that choice and neither will you. There are better solutions to these problems but they don't want to hear them and I don't think you do either.

Side A Comment

LIBERAL - 4/3/10 @ 6:10 PM: Validated Ego
Kaz, I apologize for the articles apparently disappearing. I can only assume they delete their pages after a day or so. I cannot be for certain. I'm not sure what you mean about the AP source. I did not provide a source from AP showing anything. As I have said before please read what I type. I did not at any time say "full protection" for children would begin this September. I said that this September children would no longer be excluded from coverage based on a pre-existing condition.

H.R. 3590 is a totally separate bill from H.R. 4872, but they are inexplicably linked by several provisions. This is why I told you about the fact that one is an extension of the other. Basically, H.R. 4872 contains most of the provisions and amendments that democrats feared would not be supported by republicans from the previous bill, H.R. 3590. These were added to H.R. 4872 because President Obama knew if he could not get republican support for the bill he would just use enough democratic support to push it through Congress by way of Reconciliation.

Consider it like this. When the Articles of Confederation failed to work and lost support of our founding fathers they decided to "re-write" the Articles. Using it as a basis, adding amendments, and taking several provisions out they created a document they felt better served the American people. The Constitution of the United States.

The note at the bottom of H.R. 4872 does not make H.R. 3590 irrelevant, but it does "correct" some of the terminologies, programs, and issues that did not work as effectively as President Obama had wanted in the first place.

That's fantastic that you didn't rely on the page count from a regular website. I apologize for the assumption. The link you used in that paragraph led me to believe that the page count there was what you assumed to be the correct bill page count. That's okay, but remember I did say that it was H.R. 4872 that I was making my references toward.

Side A Comment

LIBERAL - 4/3/10 @ 12:03 AM: Validated Ego
Kaz, I know you believed you were correcting me, but I'm afraid you need to pay better attention. The information I provided is absolutely correct. Like I stated before please read what I typed. I made no mention of H.R. 3590. H.R. 3590 (The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) was introduced to Congress on September 17th 2009, passed by the House on October 8th 2009, Senate on December 24th 2009, and signed by the President on March 23rd 2010. The only bill to which I referred to was H.R. 4872 (Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act of 2010). It was introduced to Congress on March 17th 2010. Passed by the House on March 21st and the Senate on March 25th 2010. President Obama signed it into law on March 30th 2010. I know very well that one is the extension of another. All amendments made to the previous bill are included in H.R. 4872 with the exception of a singular last minute amendment by the House. That still does not bring the total to 2,517 as you would LIKE to claim. At best the bill reaches a total of 2,319. That's it. I have pulled up and downloaded both PDF files on H.R.'s 3590 and 4872. I have not relied on a page count presented by the website of a Congressman. I suggest you not do the same.

I am still reading both bills and comparing them as I read them so I try to catch any amendments or provisions that effectively render the previous as useless.

Although I agree it is high time that Congress stop creating bills that look more like Tolstoy's War and Peace than a piece of legislation, the truth of the matter is that every one wants to add something to a bill so they feel like they have made some sort of contribution. Unfortunately you just end up with a bill that's 2,000 pages long when it should have only been 500 at the most.

I'm sorry, but I still have to disagree Kaz. I'm afraid you guys should really read this bill a little further or better. You stated just as Big Ben the same incorrect view that children with pre-existing conditions will not be covered until 2014. That's simply just not true. Did you read any of the sources for which I provided? Not to mention the bill itself!
The Boss - 4/3/10 @ 10:20 AM: Rival | Side B
I certainly did read the source(CSS Monitor and MSNBC, the other sources are invalid links aside from the Bill itself) you provided and provide one from the AP to show the exact opposite. Both sources released the articles on the same day: March 24th.

"Full protection for children would not come until 2014, said Kate Cyrul, a spokeswoman for the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, another panel that authored the legislation"
The Boss - 4/3/10 @ 2:39 PM: Rival | Side B
Serious question Rick: Seeing how you have a bit more experience in reading and researching these bills answer me this. HR3590 was the original senate bill, when did it transform into hr4872?

And if the hr3590 is irrelevant than why is this note attached to the bottom of hr4872? I'm really trying to sort this nonsense out.

"Note: The bill makes a number of health-related financing and revenue changes to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act enacted by H.R.3590 and modifies higher education assistance provisions."
The Boss - 4/3/10 @ 2:42 PM: Rival | Side B
And so you know: I didn't rely on a page count from a website. I downloaded all of the pdf's and did the math on my own; it just happened to be the wrong version of the bill.

Side A Comment

LIBERAL - 4/2/10 @ 12:22 PM: Validated Ego
I apologize for a misuse of the word "coverage" in the last word of paragraph 4. The sentence reads "Which means by the end of September of this year no child will be excluded from being able to acquire insurance coverage due to a pre-existing coverage." The last word "coverage" should actually be the word "condition". Once again I apologize for the mistake.
big ben - 4/4/10 @ 12:41 PM: Rival | Side B
Hey Rick, can you post the link for the complete bill and amendments of the bill that are law. I am not talking about the other poop la, just the bill that is actually law now. I dont care how many pages, i am just trying to get all of the pages. My pdf searches are standing by salivating over searching the actual complete bill. Obama can send me all other information to my email, why cant he send me the most important items? I mean, maybe I am crazy to think that 20% of our economy is important, right? I am also going to be working on getting the evidence that the main insurance companies wrote the bill. I have heard this from many sources.

One more think Rick, I did leave at least 4 or 5 different sources in my first post. I am also a believer in getting as many sources as possible. CNN may not want people to have this tactic though. The cartoon network has better ratings. I stinken love it!
big ben - 4/4/10 @ 12:51 PM: Rival | Side B

Congressman Lynch is concerned because he is quoted how this health bill is nothing more than a giveaway for the health insurance industry and big pharma. He is also a democrat. If this is not a good source from the horse's mouth, than God help all of us.

I also have one correction to make. The source who stated that children are not covered put a second article out the next day. Apperently, there was a glitch in the system and it was taken care of by congress or the President. I just want the truth my friends.:)

Side B Comment

big ben - 3/31/10 @ 10:39 PM:
This bill is very secretive. I am still trying to find the latest version which is suppose to be 2700 pages longs. All I will ask people to do is to use their brain with this.

The following is pretty certain.

This bill will require a fed official to manage the doctor patient relationship. The benefits of the bill will not even start until 2014 while we are going to be taxed well before. This bill will also allow the government to decide who gets care and who does not. Age is a big factor in this.

Please also consider the push for amnesty with health care.

Our government still does not put our military on the border to protect american citizens and the violence is increasing in the border communities. Police in southern california have actually been targeted by Mexican gangs.

Also, if Americans do not purchase insurance by 2014, they will be required to pay a fine. This is unconstitutional. Why should anyone in america be required to purchase a product from a private business????

There are many states including VA who also agree.

And what about the children?? Guess what? they are not covered right now. This is even after the bill has passed. Pre-existing problems are not covered for children, but go on and pay your new taxes with a smile. The children are not important either right? They can wait for the transplant to come in 2014.

In closing I will give my opinion. I know that the federal government has banktrupted the nation's social security, medicaid, and medicare. They are desperate for more money. The money they need is to pay the private federal reserve for the interest on the national debt. Some of the money may go to the new health plan, but be real. The government has been taking from social security for years to fund illegal wars, etc. Hell, I remember my grandfather warning me about social security years ago.
LIBERAL - 4/2/10 @ 12:16 PM: Rival | Side A
Big Ben, I'm afraid that you have unfortunately allowed yourself to be misinformed. Though I understand the concerns of many I cannot, and will not be concerned for those who allow themselves to be duped by media organizations who report falsehoods and outright lies simply to promote their own beliefs and agendas. You cannot rely on information reported by one or two organizations as your sole basis for yea or nay on a particular issue. I personally have read and watched several reports from both sides and have downloaded the entire H.R. bill 4872 in PDF to make certain I understand it before I even begin to argue any of its merits or drawbacks. I highly suggest you do the same. I have noticed that several of your statements were either ill informed or just outright lies based on what I can only assume were reports you've seen or heard by apparent media organizations who either did not understand what they were reporting, or just simply lied in order to sway your opinion.

You contend that this bill somehow harbors "secretive" points. How exactly do you come to this conclusion? The bill in its entirety is published online in a PDF format. In addition to that the bill is not 2,700 pages, but approximately 2,300. In some formats it's actually less than 2,300. To say that this bill hides anything from the American public is nothing short of false. As much debate over the points of this bill is possible, how can they possibly be hiding anything from you, myself, or anyone else?

You also state that if someone does not carry insurance they will be required to pay a fine. This is not entirely true. The fact is that the IRS will determine whether or not someone carries the correct coverage of insurance, and even then not reporting it to the IRS is no crime, or absolutely punishable by fine. Not to mention the fact that financial hardship is taken into consideration, and is not an absolute path to payment of fines by the individual or company. Just a little side-note by the way. The requirement to pay a fine for not carrying insurance was introduced not by democrats, though they later agreed to that provision, but by republicans. Yes, that's right, republicans introduced that particular provision. And only later backtracked their support of the provision when democrats agreed to it.

As far as pre-existing conditions are concerned in this bill, what you have stated is absolutely false in the case of children. Although most Americans will not see the change for this provision until 2014 as you've stated, children will be covered within the next six months. Which means by the end of September of this year no child will be excluded from being able to acquire insurance coverage due to a pre-existing coverage.

I would also just like to throw this out there for those of you who intend to argue the other merits or cons of this bill. If you depend solely on the news reports of one or two sources, and you have not read a single page of H.R. 4872, then don't bother. If your argument is that the bill is too long, then don't bother. If you don't believe in informing yourself to the best of your ability, then you don't deserve the right to argue over a matter for which you are quite content in being misinformed and ignorant of in order to save time.

Source ( )

Source ( )

Source ( )

Source ( )
The Boss - 4/2/10 @ 6:57 PM: Ally | Side B
Rick, you know it pains me but I have to correct you on the page count.

The Bill is actually 2,571 pages.

1.) Text of the Senate Amendments to H.R. 3590 (Senate health bill) - 2,401 pages (This is the amended version of the house bill that the Senate passed in December. It was then sling shotted through and added to a reconciliation bill. The House passed this bill as is and then passed the reconciliation bill to the Senate to pass.)

2.) Reconciliations Bill: 153 pages. (Bill passed in the Senate making the changes to the bill listed above.)

3.) Managers Ammendment: 9 pages. An Ammendment that was passed before the reconciliation portion by the house. Trust me, I was watching Cspan.

First let me applaud you for attempting to read this monstrosity. Both Crystal and I have attempted to read portions of the bills (At different stages of the process) and wanted to scratch our eyelids off. The problem is that in order to comprehend the bill in any way shape or form you have to do the following. You have to read the first bill I listed and understand every detail; even when they reference back to other legislation which you may have a hard time finding. After you've thoroughly read and understand the bill you then need to read 161 pages of amendments that alter the bill that you just read. So the bill you just read and understand is no longer accurate. In laymen terms it's impossible for one person to fully comprehend the legislation; which is by design and explains why President Obama didn't realize kids with pre-existing conditions wouldn't be covered until 2014. Sadly, he has never read it.

In a previous discussion you highlighted the high page count of bills that passed in the past and I appreciate you doing so. I didn't pay attention to politics then and would have been equally disgusted at legislation that no common man could understand. If our founders could lay the foundation to our nation in eighteen pages is it really that much to ask that we set a page limit to bills so the average Joe and not so average Senators and Representatives can actually read and understand a bill before it's voted on? My problem with bill length has little to nothing to do with a political party, it has a lot to do with what's best for our country.

Let's say they set a 350 page limit to legislation; even if it was confusing the average person would stand a fighting chance at figuring the bill out. Just a thought.

View all three bills here:
The Boss - 4/2/10 @ 7:08 PM: Ally | Side B
I'm not sure which source has it right but according to the AP it's like this. If a child has already been approved for coverage they can't be dropped from coverage if a pre-existing condition is discovered. However, the insurance companies can continue to deny children if they have a pre existing condition prior to applying for insurance.

Either way it's irrelevant because I've heard Obama is going to do what him and Bush know best; issue an executive order to fix it.

Side A Comment

Mona - 3/31/10 @ 9:01 AM:
"There's a difference between compassion and enabling someone to do nothing with their lives." Did you really just say that? Do you think people aspire to not being able to take care of themselves? The total absence of compassion that I've seen from the people opposing this, the anger and violence that's come out of a bill designed to help fellow Americans is so frightening. Yes "fellow Americans" these people you think we are "enabling to do nothing with their lives". There's no compassion in anything you've said. You don't get to lump them all together and label them, what makes you think you're qualified to do that? As far as the elderly, do you still think there are death panels? Is that what you're worried about? The only thing wrong with this bill is the single payer system was left out. Hopefully this bill opens the door enough for that to become a reality.

Side B Comment

mama kaz - 3/29/10 @ 12:04 AM:
My basis for the statement that the rising cost of medical care is tied to too many people on govt care was based on twenty plus years of working in the medical field. California is drowning in debt because too many people are being covered under medi cal. We had to constantly raise our charges to our private pay and insured patients to cover our losses from providing care to too many people on medi cal. When you make seven dollars per office visit and spend an average of 15 to 20 minutes with the patient, you have to make it up somewhere else or close your doors. The same applied to surgery charges. The government is only going to pay you according to their reimbursement schedule so you have no choice but to go get it from someone else. That is a fact. Here is a question for you. How are insurance companies going to continue operating when they now have to take people with expensive pre existing conditions and can not turn anyone away? How many people do you know who will continue to make monthly healthcare premiums knowing that if something happens they can get insurance when it does instead of paying monthly in case something happens? They will now have less monthly revenue coming in and will be forced to pay out much more than they are now. More people are now going to be covered under govt care which will continue to escalate the problem of providers charging more private pay and insured patients to cover the cost. The problem with government going into the health care business is the same problem we have with HMO's and insurance companies. You have people who know nothing about medicine making decisions about what's best for patients. I used to spend my work days arguing with idiots who tried to deny surgeries based on what they were reading out of some manual. I have a lot of family members who are Canadian and I can tell you that they would wildly disagree with your description of their medical system. They watch family members die waiting to get doctor appointments and necessary medical tests. It's a known fact that many Canadian citizens come here for care because of who badly their system is failing them. I resent your comment about doctors and their fancy cars because I worked for many doctors through the years and found them to be some of the most caring and amazing people I know. You might be interested to know that many of them used to pull money out of their wallets and send me over to the pharmacy to pay for prescriptions that weren't covered by medi cal because they knew their patient needed it. You can spout statistics all day long but they can easily be manipulated to say just about anything you want them to say. I saw the failures of the system first hand. I had to explain to our welfare patients why they couldn't have the medications and procedures our doctors recommended because it wasn't covered and there was nothing I could do. I could always twist the arms of insurance companies to get what our patients needed but when the government says no, it's final. I also sat in meetings where we discussed how much medi cal we could afford to take on without being forced to raise our rates. By the mid 90's nearly every office in town had to stop accepting new medi cal patients because we just couldn't afford to take on anymore. Would you perform an appendectomy for $42 dollars? We had to pay $150 dollars per half hour for Spanish interpreters and only received $15 dollars for the entire visit from medi cal. That happened every day. It was the law and we had no choice. My bosses weren't getting rich and neither was I. We worked long hard hours every day. I'm not ashamed to say that I'm tired of having to do without to provide for those who could do for themselves but choose not to. We do not help people by keeping them dependent with more and more government programs. There's a difference between compassion and enabling someone to do nothing with their lives. The only fellow Americans I'm really worried about are the elderly and they are being thrown under the bus. Where's the outrage about that? If you love the single payer system so much you really should move to Canada and try it out. I have an uncle who's trying to raise enough money to come here from Newfoundland right now so he can get some help with his medical problems. It may look good on paper but the only Canadians who'd agree with you are the healthy ones.
LIBERAL - 3/30/10 @ 11:34 PM: Rival | Side A
I understand you've worked for the medical field, but have you ever worked in the insurance industry? Do you know what goes on inside the great halls of an insurance company? Every possible attempt NOT to pay those who have been paying them year after year, when they need it the most. Refusing to cover people because of a pre-existing condition. And yes I DO believe these people should be covered. How else are they supposed to get any help if we think it's just fine to turn them away. That's not just irresponsible, it's heartless and cold. I would expect someone who worked in the medical field to see the necessity for those who have pre-existing conditions to get the kind of coverage that would allow them to afford decent medical care. Or should we just let them suffer and consider them S.O.L.? And if it helped save a life or make that life easier, yes I would perform an appendectomy for $42 dollars. What a ridiculous question. What bothers me the most about your paragraph is that just as I've stated before and shown research to support it, is that as long as we continue to express how much more important it is that these doctors and hospitals turn out the highest possible profit, the patients are never the real concern. Unnecessary deaths and injuries will occur due to lack and level of care.

And just because you have an example of one person you know who doesn't like the health care they are receiving in Canada does not mean there is going to be a mass defect to this country by citizens who have to wait a little while for care. And the reason it looks so good on paper is because after almost 40 years it has shown that it works a heckuva lot better than our own system.

Side A Comment

LIBERAL - 3/28/10 @ 4:02 PM: Validated Ego
Mama Kaz. I don't mean to be crass about your statement that "When our leader tells you that you can keep your own doctor and insurance he is lying to you...", but really. You said you would tell us why you believe this, but your explanation after that statement doesn't really seem to explain much of anything except a belief that rising medical costs are due to those who have insurance through a government funded program. Is that really your basis for the previous statement? Because I have read several parts of H.R. 3962 and have seen no indication of losing provider care or doctor simply because of these reasons? Do you have any actual proof of this statement? Just curious. I'd like to read it if it does exist.

Meanwhile I would like to cite a few problems with your latter statements beyond losing your doctor and insurance. I'm not really sure how you come to believe that a single payer system would be the downfall or collapse of the entire system. Canada, for example, with a single payer system has been operating under such conditions since 1970 and has shown significant improvements in the overall health of their nation. Before 1970 when Canada had a health care system much like our own their health statistics almost mirrored our own, but after adopting a single payer system their statistics have changed dramatically. While the average life expectancy of an American is around 77 years of age, Canadian's average life expectancies have risen to 80 years of age. In addition to that fact the per capita cost for Canadian citizen's health care coverage is around $3,000 dollars while American's per capita cost per patient is almost twice that. They also have a lower infant mortality rate. These figures are all found in statistics run by the World Health Organization and the Centers for Disease Control just in case you're wondering where I saw them.

Considering just those few facts above I also noticed a study done by the University of California at San Francisco that showed the United States could save well over $161 Billion dollars every year in paperwork alone if we were to convert to a single payer system. And that figure is not abstract amounts deducted from a federal budget, it's actual dollars we would not pay out of our own pockets to cover the cost of normal insurance paperwork. Literally meaning that Americans would get to KEEP that money.

Now, as for the statement you made about for profit insurance companies and doctors who supposedly can not afford to operate with such low rates that they have to pass on their costs to the insurance companies, you might want to take a look at the following statement and study done by doctors and researchers.

There are two criteria used to judge a country's health care system: the overall success of creating and sustaining health in the population, and the ability to control costs while doing so. One recent study published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal compares mortality rates in private for-profit and nonprofit hospitals in the United States. Research on 38 million adult patients in 26,000 U.S. hospitals revealed that death rates in for-profit hospitals are significantly higher than in nonprofit hospitals: for-profit patients have a 2 percent higher chance of dying in the hospital or within 30 days of discharge. The increased death rates were clearly linked to "the corners that for-profit hospitals must cut in order to achieve a profit margin for investors, as well as to pay high salaries for administrators."

“To ease cost pressures, administrators tend to hire less highly skilled personnel, including doctors, nurses, and pharmacists…,” wrote P. J. Devereaux, a cardiologist at McMaster University and the lead researcher. “The U.S. statistics clearly show that when the need for profits drives hospital decision making, more patients die.”

I personally find this to be reprehensible, that the American dollar has a higher value than the life of just one human being.

I will support the single payer system to my dying breath, which if I'm lucky under that system will mean I'll live a little longer than under the current one, then so be it. It's ridiculous that one would worry that a doctor might not be able to afford the new Lexus he has had his eye on because of such low rates and overhead. In this system of Me, Me, Me, when will we ever start to think of others? I too will fight to the bitter end to make certain that every one I know knows just how awful of a system we currently have, and that we can not simply try to provide for "just me". That's just a very selfish and mindless way to think and behave toward our fellow Americans. In this society we must learn that when we help others, we in turn help ourselves. When the only person to benefit is just you, the rest of us simply do what? Suffer? I want to believe that I'm more compassionate than that, and I would expect others to do the same.

Side B Comment

mama kaz - 3/27/10 @ 10:19 AM:
When our leader tells you that you can keep your own doctor and insurance he is lying to you and I will tell you why. The real reason that insurance companies charge so much is to cover the cost of all the government dependent citizens. Medicare and all the other govt insured patients are covered under the reimbursement rate that is set by the govt. When I stopped working in 2003 my bosses were making about 7 dollars for seeing a medi cal patient and 42 dollars for an appendectomy. They can't run a medical practice on those rates so they pass the cost on to the insurance companies. The insurance companies are a for profit business so they pass it on to us. If you want to be mad at somebody for the mess our health care system has become, blame all the people using the system as a way of life instead of as it was intended, temporary. Forcing insurance companies to cover pre existing will be the final nail in the coffin. I am a person with pre existing conditions and had to work for months with an IV bag hanging over my desk because that was the only way I could be covered. I of all people understand how expensive pre existing conditions are and I also understand that it will take the insurance industry down. That was their plan all along. Obama said he wants a single payer system and that is what they are going to do. Believe me when I tell you that doctors will quit and insurance companies will collapse. If you need any medical care you better go out and get it now. Once we have a single payer system you will wait months for an appointment with a doctor and even longer to get the tests they need to diagnose your problem. By the time they start treatment it will be too late. If you want to live in denial that's your right. I will fight this thing to the bitter end because I don't want my grandchildren to ask me why I did nothing as a small group of leaders dismantled our country. I am keeping a journal which I plan to pass down to them because I fear that this great country is going to be unrecognizable and I want to record what really happened and that I did what I could to stop it.

Side B Comment

cutie122403 - 3/24/10 @ 11:47 AM:
I am NOT happy with the decision that was made and had Nothing to do with that decision! American's have got to open their eyes but I think it's too late.
Add new comment:

You must either login or register before you can comment.

Side B fans: (8)

You need to be logged in to do that!
Login with Your Facebook Account:
Already have a JealousBrother account? Login
Register for a JealousBrother Account! Register