Bent Faith
Says you...
This is why the U.S. is screwed...
Thanks for putting this up on Paracast TV where nobody can respond to it, David.
https://www.theparacast.com/forum/this-why-u-s-screwed-t5143.html
But, the "clueless" lady was right and O'Donnell was wrong about what Obama has stated. Facts are facts.
I am not necessarily agreeing with her views (as you will see below), it is just that I like the record straight on who is right and wrong when statements are made, that's all.
I want (and need) reform, like we all do. I could write a whole thread myself on the problems with the way things work now and what I would like to see.
Whether coached or not, people need to ask questions about such a large undertaking. Eliminating private insurance, even if inadvertently, is a major concern.
Mind you, I said a concern. I am still (quite honestly) not totally convinced that a single payer system is all bad.
Think about this -- one of the biggest concerns that these protesters have is that 'some gubmint bureaucrat is going to make decisions on what kind of health care you can receive'.
Well, hell, right now the way the system is with private insurance, these same decisions are being made by a person in front of a computer with a script on what to allow/disallow who has had 40 hours of training. These are the people overriding doctor's advice. That is bullshit -- it has happened to me several times.
Now, these people will next say that that is only to see if the insurance company will pay for it. You can go to a doctor and pay for it yourself, pay cash and get a discount, and not allow the insurance company to interfere. Ok yeah. If people had that much money they would not need insurance.
But, I submit that under a single payer system it would be the same way. Ok, so the 'gubmint' won't pay for your desired treatment. My contention is that there will be plenty of doctors that will take your money and give you the treatment you want, without government intervention. So, how is that different?
I am mostly conservative, but I have very different views on this, and here is why. To me, letting health care depend on profit motivation (as it is now, with private insurance companies and doctors and such), is kind of like running the police, fire, water department, all on a profit basis. There is something just inherently wrong with that. Your house is burning, but the fire department would incur a loss going to your house, so they don't. That is the premise behind insurance companies denying claims, denying coverage (pre-existing conditions), and overriding doctor's advice.
A complicated issue to be sure.
Now, when people don't like private insurance practices, what is their option? Get another insurance company, right? Oh, no, not if you have pre-existing conditions or your employer does not offer another. You are stuck.
In a public option, people have the ballot box. The people that run the system will ultimately either be elected or appointed by elected officials. So, the people do have a say, even if indirectly.
Sorry for the rant.
Thanks for putting this up on Paracast TV where nobody can respond to it, David.
https://www.theparacast.com/forum/this-why-u-s-screwed-t5143.html
But, the "clueless" lady was right and O'Donnell was wrong about what Obama has stated. Facts are facts.
I am not necessarily agreeing with her views (as you will see below), it is just that I like the record straight on who is right and wrong when statements are made, that's all.
I want (and need) reform, like we all do. I could write a whole thread myself on the problems with the way things work now and what I would like to see.
Whether coached or not, people need to ask questions about such a large undertaking. Eliminating private insurance, even if inadvertently, is a major concern.
Mind you, I said a concern. I am still (quite honestly) not totally convinced that a single payer system is all bad.
Think about this -- one of the biggest concerns that these protesters have is that 'some gubmint bureaucrat is going to make decisions on what kind of health care you can receive'.
Well, hell, right now the way the system is with private insurance, these same decisions are being made by a person in front of a computer with a script on what to allow/disallow who has had 40 hours of training. These are the people overriding doctor's advice. That is bullshit -- it has happened to me several times.
Now, these people will next say that that is only to see if the insurance company will pay for it. You can go to a doctor and pay for it yourself, pay cash and get a discount, and not allow the insurance company to interfere. Ok yeah. If people had that much money they would not need insurance.
But, I submit that under a single payer system it would be the same way. Ok, so the 'gubmint' won't pay for your desired treatment. My contention is that there will be plenty of doctors that will take your money and give you the treatment you want, without government intervention. So, how is that different?
I am mostly conservative, but I have very different views on this, and here is why. To me, letting health care depend on profit motivation (as it is now, with private insurance companies and doctors and such), is kind of like running the police, fire, water department, all on a profit basis. There is something just inherently wrong with that. Your house is burning, but the fire department would incur a loss going to your house, so they don't. That is the premise behind insurance companies denying claims, denying coverage (pre-existing conditions), and overriding doctor's advice.
A complicated issue to be sure.
Now, when people don't like private insurance practices, what is their option? Get another insurance company, right? Oh, no, not if you have pre-existing conditions or your employer does not offer another. You are stuck.
In a public option, people have the ballot box. The people that run the system will ultimately either be elected or appointed by elected officials. So, the people do have a say, even if indirectly.
Sorry for the rant.