We DON'T need Health INSURANCE for all, we need health CARE for everyone.

[SoCalDem]

Don't be swayed when you hear politicians squawk about how they plan to get all of us INSURANCE for health care.

Those plans of theirs will only WIDEN the gap between the haves & the have nots. The HAVES already HAVE insurance (good insurance because they can already AFFORD it).

The plan to get us all "insurance" just means a mandating that all people GET insurance, and of course HUGE government subsidies to the insurers to "study" how to deliver cheaper coverage to the rest of us, and MORE government money in the form of subsidies to help us pay for it..but the money will go to the INSURANCE companies..

Some 24 yr old making $8 an hour will still end up deciding whether you REALLY need that MRI, or if you have been faking that limp...or for that EKG, since a racing heart "could mean that you are just in love"..

What has to happen is that the insurance companies need to be forced completely OUT of the health care "industry"..

[NC_Nurse]

1. Hear, hear!

I agree wholeheartedly.

[LSK]

2. HR 676

http://www.house.gov/conyers/news_hr676_2.htm

:hi:

[warren pease]

3. This might interest you

I've been going back and forth with my Dem senator, Ron Wyden (more likely a fairly well-informed aide), re his "Healthy Americans Act, S.334." It's yet another sop to the insurance carriers, and I sent this response to him today regarding the need to eliminate them from the entire system.

Senator -- Thanks for your response to my letter of yesterday expressing several concerns I have with your proposed health care bill, S-334. I don't want to recap everything I wrote about in my previous note, but one sentence in your reply deserves further comment. You wrote:

"That is why I have proposed the Healthy Americans Act, S.334, to provide universal, affordable, guaranteed coverage that can never be taken away."

The concept of "coverage" implies the continued involvement of for-profit insurance carriers in the US health care system, which means that your plan will carry in it the seeds of its own destruction. If you're going to build a new health care system around the most destructive element in the current mess, why would you expect different outcomes and results?

That's a bit like expecting a shark to go vegan because it's somehow seen the error of its ways, despite millions of years of evolution that dictate its natural role as a rapacious, heartless, omnivorous predator. Just like American health insurers: rapacious and heartless (and perhaps omnivorous, since they'll chew up and spit out anything that doesn't boost the profit margins).

Obviously, I have no love for the Blue Crosses of the world. But I wasn't born with that bias; it's been acquired through personal interaction with a soul-shriveled, monolithic system that simply doesn't give a damn about providing health care. Like any American publicly held for-profit corporation, its sole responsibility is to maximize return on investment for its shareholders. Any nonsense about how its purpose is to deliver better, cheaper services for its subscribers is necessarily subordinate to its fiduciary obligations to its shareholders.

Which means the legal responsibilities of the for-profit health care industry are, by definition, in direct opposition to the needs of its subscribers.

The insurer will act to maximize profits in any of several ways. The most common include refusal to pay legitimate claims, constant premium escalations coupled with rising deductibles and copays, severe financial penalties for using "out-of-plan" doctors and hospitals (even though that may be the only medical care available in the area if you're dumb enough to get sick or injured away from home), and refusal to cover the full costs of non-generic prescription drugs -- which can get pretty expensive when you're looking at pills that often cost $3 to $10 each.

So again, I applaud you for getting this issue on the table and giving it the visibility it needs. Clearly, we can't go on with the present fiasco for much longer. The system is fundamentally broken because it incorporates the for-profit insurance industry, whose mandates and objectives are in inevitable and irreconcilable opposition to those of its subscribers.

Creating a new system that includes the main source of the current system's malfunction virtually guarantees it will fail in the long run, once the insurers stop making nice and get down to the serious business of making money.

Please reconsider inviting the sharks to the table. Instead, consider a solution that's right in front of you and would be far easier to implement than a new, parallel system: extend Medicare to all by removing the age-65 requirement. The infrastructure is in place; all we do is eliminate the provision that says Medicare beneficiaries must be 65 or older. And it's single-payer, which means the insurance industry has to look elsewhere to play its vicious game.

One more thing: You'll probably hear the usual squawks about the evils of "socialized medicine." Consider this: It’s absolutely astounding how the subversive evils of socialized medicine for people aged 64 years, 364 days, 23 hours, 59 minutes and 59 seconds are magically transformed into an untouchable entitlement program when the clock ticks one more time.

And you can have that one for free ;-)


Regards,

Blah, blah, blah

[bobbolink]

4. That's a really well-written letter!!

Maybe a bit too long for some office schlub to read through, but I *LOVED* your wording! Some of it brought smiles to my face, which I'm in dire need of right now.

Would you like to write some letters for me?

~~chortle~~

Good job!! :applause:

hmmmm, the idea occurs to me... how 'bout taking parts of this and sending it as an LTTE???

Really, you just might succeed in getting some people to think.

That would be a *GOOD* thing!

Hurrah for your team! :toast:

[warren pease]

7. Thanks, and..

I know it's way too long. However, if you or anyone else here wants to steal parts of it, or send it intact to their reps and senators, please feel free. That's why I posted it.

Problem is, accepted truth -- or propaganda, if you prefer -- will fit on a bumper sticker. Arguing a position against accepted truth takes a bit more space. In this case, the accepted truth is that American health care is the best in the world. In fact, it's more expensive per capita than anywhere else, and it does a lousy job of providing actual health care, as measured by the US' steady decline in all commonly used efficacy indices: lower average life span; lower average disease-free life span; higher infant mortality rate; lower average birth weight; and so on.

It's also designed to reward physicians for NOT seeing patients (see capitation plans). It has to deliver the least health care to as few subscribers as possible to keep what's called the "loss ratio" (their costs incurred in providing actual health care) as low as possible. The lower the loss ratio -- which is to say, the less they spend performing their fucking job -- the better Wall Street likes them.

In civilized countries, this kind of corporate behavior would result in investigation and prosecution and, in some extreme cases, indictments as accessories before the fact to murder. Here, it's called the American health care system.


wp

[bobbolink]

11. bumpersticker....

Jesus Never Demanded Proof Of Insurance

:hi: A friend of mine (agnostic!) came up with that, and I think it's great!

OK, it has holes, as all bumperstickers usually do, but it DOES cause people to think.

BUt, of course, you're right....position against accepted truth takes longer. Well put. See, we're all Kerry. :)

"In civilized countries, this kind of corporate behavior would result in investigation and prosecution and, in some extreme cases, indictments as accessories before the fact to murder. Here, it's called the American health care system."

Now *THERE*you have it!!

EXCELLENT!

[SoCalDem]

8. Nice letter.. I would send him a letter that has only two words.

Define "affordable".

The 'weasel-words' are always the loophole.

Affordable to ME, may not be affordable to YOU.
The people who get to define the language control who gets care and who does not.l

If a fatcat decides that $500 a month is "affordable" , how does a poor family afford that? Don't worry.. a whole NEW bureaucracy will spring forth to 'evaluate' coverage, and a whole bunch o' money will slip down the shithole...money that COULD have been used for actual care..

The MIDDLE needs to be eliminated COMPLETELY.
They have ridden the Gravy Train to the end of the line.. They can no longer ride for free.

Insurance companies need to go back to Life insurance, car insurance & home insurance.

health care belongs in the realm of patient/doctor/hospital-clinic..

For a fraction of what we spend on WAR, we could pay for the training of many new doctors, staff hospitals, and actually deliver health care to US citizens..but we choose not to.. that's why we don't have it.

[bobbolink]

12. And idiots on DU who want EVERYONE to come up with copays,

even though us poor folk can't come up with it.

Some just don't ever seem to get it. Because *they* can, then to hell with everyone else.

Katrina really didn't sink in, did it????

[warren pease]

19. Yeah, good point...

I'll ask him exactly that next time -- if there is a next time. They're probably becoming a little sick of me badgering them, since it's a citizen's job to shut up and take whatever crumbs fall from the table after the people that matter have dinner and dessert.

> and a whole bunch o' money will slip down the shithole...money that COULD have been used for actual care..

You wouldn't believe how much money has already slipped down the shit hole. In 2000 alone, which is the last year I've seen reliable numbers for, the entire health care "industry" -- which is all the middle men/women who skim money as it flows by, but not the providers themselves unless they're one of the for-profit hospital chains -- grossed $1.3 TRILLION. Of that, they squandered between 25 and 40 percent on paper pushing, shareholder return, executive salaries and bonuses, advertising and PR campaigns, and investigators whose sole purpose is to provide a plausible excuse to deny your claim.

Note that we're talking about a sum between $325 billion and $520 billion -- all on crap that does nothing to provide health care whatsoever. That seems like plenty of money to provide all Americans with universal, single-payer medical care for a year or so.

But it's not a free-market solution, so our co-opted representatives don't want to hear it. And, because they've been PRed to half to death by industry campaigns advocating the status quo -- remember Harry and Louise from the early '90s? -- significant numbers of Americans actually believe the propaganda and contribute to their own maltreatment at the hands of these vampires.

Ahhhh... It just pisses me off beyond all reason. It's one of the few things about America that you can't blame on Bush. While he's of course done nothing to alleviate the problem, he didn't create it either. There. That's my Bush free pass for the decade.


wp

[donkeyotay]

13. Wyden should be familiar with the disaster of contractor insurance in Oregon

Nothing like making a group buy a product to raise the price. Contractors must have insurance, but not all can afford it. It caused a crisis for the Contractor's Board. Writing a law to make being someone's customer mandatory isn't universal health care; it's corporate welfare.

[moc]

23. Bravo!

:applause:

One of my grad school profs (public health) said the fundamental flaw of our health care system was the assumption it could be run for profit.

Thanks for explaining that so well.

:applause:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

43. GREAT last paragraph!

Note also that medical care for military personnel and veterans is "socialized medicine."

[warren pease]

48. Socialized medicine -- it's not just active military and vets

This is the abstract from a research paper put out by Physicians for a National Health Program (www.pnhp.org).

"60 Percent of Health Spending is Already Publicly Financed, Enough to Cover Everyone

Americans already pay for national health insurance — they just don’t get it. In this 2002 Health Affairs paper, David Himmelstein and Steffie Woolhandler point out that the standard accounting miscategorizes two major public health expenditures as private: the tax credit for private health insurance and the cost of the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program.

"When these costs are accounted for, it becomes evident that Americans already pay the world’s highest health care taxes. In fact, the amount of public health spending in the U.S. is greater than the combined public and private spending of nations which provide universal comprehensive health insurance. A single-payer system could provide such coverage to all Americans with no need for additional health dollars."

You can download the study as a pdf file here:

http://www.pnhp.org/single_payer_resources/60_percent_of_health_spending_is_already_publicly_financed_enough_to_cover_everyone.php

As usual, read and weep.


wp

[mrreowwr_kittty]

46. Very good letter. But....

Medicare DOESN'T cover all expenses, not by a long shot. Most seniors, unless they are at extreme poverty level, still have to purchase some kind of supplemental insurance or enroll in a Medicare Advantage plan, such as an HMO, lest they be out of pocket $1000s if they are on Medicare alone. For example, if you go to the hospital and you're only on Medicare part A, you will have to pay a $992 deductible. For the Part B doctor coverage, you're out of pocket 20% of the total bill, assuming Medicare approves the charges. It's certainly preferable to no coverage but I don't want people to be misled into thinking that Medicare will cover everything, or that it will remove the insurance industry from the picture.

[warren pease]

47. Thanks for the clarification

I have to admit I don't know all that much about Medicare, although I get to find out about it first hand in only a decade.

Your explanation is most disturbing. I had assumed if you survived the current health care system for 65 years, you were finally out of the woods. So I guess I can forget about that one. Anyway, a couple of questions:

Has Medicare always cost this much, or is this happening mainly over the past six years and is likely just another nasty example of BushCo's customary slashing of social program budgets? Do these out-of-pocket expenses seem, in your opinion, at least partly motivated by the desire to force people into private insurance plans?

And how do these private insurers handle pre-existing conditions? If you have any prior to age 65, you're either paying extortionist premiums with high deductibles or you're forced to go without coverage. But I would think that most people 65 and over would have at least one pre-existing condition. Are they likewise uninsurable, or does that restriction go away after age 65?

Again, thanks for educating me. I obviously need to learn more about this. And Americans need to understand how this system goes on screwing them even in their "golden years."


wp

[mrreowwr_kittty]

50. I can answer a couple of your questions

When Medicare began in the mid 60s, there were far fewer recipients and much larger payor to payee ratio. Once it became apparent that people were living longer and more retirees were going to use the system, Medicare began to partner with private insurers to create Medigap policies. Those are the Plan A through Js that you always hear about, they're supplements. They also gradually changed the funding formula so that they were covering less. Back in the 90s, Medicare Advantage programs came along. They were designed for people who couldn't afford the supplement premiums (which can be rather high) but weren't considered poor enough for Medicaid. With those plans you usually don't pay a monthly premium but you have co-pays. So it's not something that just came along a few years ago. You may be thinking of the recently passed Part D prescription plan, which is a boondoggle for the pharmacy industry.

As far as preexisting conditions go, if a retiree is in his/her enrollment period, they are not a factor if you are Medicare eligible. Any plan you apply for has to accept you. The enrollment period is typically 3 months prior to, and 3 months after, your 65th birthday. Other periods are if you're over 65 and your work coverage ends, or you go on disability. There is an "open enrollment" period once a year where a senior can switch plans, but then they can look at preexisting conditions.

I don't know if expanding Medicare to everyone will work the same way but I wouldn't expect it to cover everything. Another problem with Medicare is that it doesn't cover ANY type of post-hospital convalescent, nursing home, or long-term care. That is a huge and unforeseen expense that hits a lot of people and wipes out their assets.

[warren pease]

51. So is Medicare underfunded?

Thanks very much for the thorough discussion of what Medicare is and isn't. Do you think that all the hoops you need to jump through could be eliminated simply by increasing Medicare's funding to the point where it becomes a true single-payer, universal access system?

It still seems to me that it makes more sense to take advantage of an existing infrastructure with experienced people in place, rather than create a whole new parallel program for the under-65 segment of the population, which would require massive new funding and development of a whole new infrastructure.

So what do you think? Is it just a lack of sufficient funding, or are the problems with Medicare more systemic and therefore harder to fix?

Ultimately, this is all just pissing up a rope, since we all know that none of this is possible under the current kleptocracy. However, if they could figure out a way to skim giant sums of money off it for themselves and their insurance industry employers, they'd make it a high priority.

Finally, senor catburgler, I would have PMed you with these questions, but I selfishly want to see this thread back on page one again so more people can jump in offer their thoughts.


wp

[mrreowwr_kittty]

52. It's pretty safe to say

That if it's a social program, and the GOP is in charge, it's underfunded. Bush tried to cut $36 billion from it last year but it didn't pass the House.

Also, with those Medicare Advantage (HMO or PPO) type programs I mentioned, what happens is that the $93.50 Part B monthly premium goes directly to the insurance company. Now, that premium should not be confused with supplement premiums or a premium that an HMO charges seperately. It's a monthly premium, normally deducted from Social Security that most recipients pay. It would usually go straight to Medicare but private insurers worked out a deal for the Advantage programs. They're a popular option because of the low or no extra premium. But then seniors find themselves stuck in an HMO system with its attendent bureaucracy, co-pays out the wazoo if they develop a serious medical problem, and having to get a referral for everything.

This is why I'm not real enthused with the idea of expanding Medicare for everyone, though like I said, it IS better than being uninsured or having to rely on your employer. If they use the same type of system for younger people, and I don't see why they wouldn't, you are still going to have the insurance industry involved and out of pocket costs. I admit that I haven't fully read the proposals by Sen. Kennedy and others so take my opinion with a grain of salt.

[bobbolink]

5. Here's a short video that very well explains single payer:

http://www.grahamazon.com/sp/whatissinglepayer.php

I hope you will all share this around, as I think it's helpful in getting people to understand the principal of it all.

[bobbolink]

14. Anyone watch this good video?

:shrug:

[blondeatlast]

41. GREAT VIDEO--DUERS, watch this! Thanks--I'll spread that link around. nt

[CrazyOrangeCat]

6. Amen, sister.

Big-time kick.

[bonito]

9. K&R!!!

[madrchsod]

10. just found out my niece who is in her late 20`s

has a tumor in her uterus..her husband and her have no insurance but at least their two beautiful little girls have insurance here in illinois. since he has a skill- journeyman plumber-they would be better off moving to canada than living in the usa...
a 24 year old? i face that decision right now. is it worth the tens or even hundreds of thousands if i have anymore severe medical problems? 16 thousand for a night`s stay in icu because of severe chest pains? that`s a new car,rebuilding my home to make it energy efficient, savings for my retirement,or seed money to start my business again.if i had medical insurance i`d start my business tomorrow but i have to find a job that will hire a 60 yr old or hope my wife finds a job with insurance..there are millions just like me out there who have worked for years and sacrificed our bodies and now we are discarded like the machines we used to run....

[SoCalDem]

15. What we have in place now is going to be the LARGEST turnover of wealth EVER..

As boomers become unemployed prior to medicare eligibility (and even afterwards), there are going to be brazillions of homes lost...to pay for uninsured medical care..
Our case is like many..
I am almost 7 years younger than my husband. We have insurance through HIS job, but if he retires/gets laid off/whatever, then even though HE may be covered under medicare..I will ge flying solo for 7 years..at the very time of life where preventative care matters most.

A financial guy on the radio one night brought the up..

He said that the "wealth" of MOST older people is in their paid off or nearly paid off home.

They cannot qualify for aid because of the house, so either they do without the care, sell the house and use the proceeds to pay for the care (and live WHERE?), or try to keep all the plates in the air until they LOSE the house, and then qualify for aid..

Any way you slice it, there will be a HUGE transfer of wealth UPWARDS, as boomers start to buckle under the weight of medical costs.

THEIR parents had a robust medicare solcial security safety-net..and union pensions and savings garnered over a lifetime of being able to live within their means..

Boomers and the ones after have NOT had that experience..most have no pensions, no savings.. all that many have, is that house..

[rebel with a cause]

21. madrchsod, I don't know your situation as far as your health is concerned

but if you have a health issue that makes you unemployable, then you could try for disability benefits. Being over sixty helps out in this, since they realize that the age does make a difference when it comes to you finding a job where they would be willing to work with you needing extra training/accommodations to deal with your disability. You can also make extra money on it as long as it is not too much.

Don't know what part of Illinois you are in, but if you want any advise on this I will help you all I can. I don't know much but have gone through it.

[donkeyotay]

16. I feel your pain, SoCalDem. This makes me nutz.

It's just like how nuclear power is now called "alternative energy."

Deputizing insurance companies to loot with impunity is NOT universal health care. Gee, I wonder how much Wyden gets from the insurance companies.

[warren pease]

18. Wyden and insurance money

Just looked him up on opensecrets.org and he's actually pretty clean. Of his top 20 "contributors," only one is in the insurance biz -- Aetna, which gave him $16,750 in the 1998-2004 election cycle -- and I'm not even sure they're in the medical insurance buslness.

For reference, something called Banfield Pet Hospital gave him $24,125 during the same cycle. Based on that, I'd expect him to be pitching legislation to extend our fine health care system to cats and dogs. But as they say, we wouldn't do this to a dog.


wp

[RB TexLa]

24. Group health is their primary business

[warren pease]

27. Still...

I don't think $16,000 over six years is going to buy that much of his loyalty. I could be wrong, though. There's a hell of a lot of "soft money" around that's difficult to trace. As a rule, I just assume that my representatives aren't on my side, since I can't afford to buy even one of them, and watch their actions through that filter. In Wyden's case, he's been pretty good on some issues, which is to say I agree with some of his positions.

At least he acts as a counterweight to Gordon Smith, who does the standard Bush suck-up drill to perfection -- until he went insane and criticized the Iraq occupation late last year. I haven't heard much from him lately, so maybe he's back in the fold.

Or maybe he's out front on covering his sorry republican ass in case BushCo actually does implode -- on that glorious, wonderful day when the earth's people finally get to take a deep breath and stop trembling in terror at the great American killing machine. Ahhh... that felt good.


wp

[tomp]

17. brilliant distinction, thank you! nt

[Rosemary2205]

20. Yeehaa! someone else gets it too!!

Thanks!! I was beginning to think I was shouting in the dark!! :) :)

[porphyrian]

22. Absolutely. Fuck insurance companies. They're legalized racketeers. - n/t

[eridani]

25. Excellent!

:toast: :bounce: :thumbsup: :yourock: :woohoo: :applause:
:toast: :bounce: :thumbsup: :yourock: :woohoo: :applause:

[Colobo]

26. Exactly. In Argentina

everyone pays for the right to health care in hospitals through taxes, but are free to donate money to the hospital once they receive the service. Most people give what they can.

[GreenPartyVoter]

28. AMEN!

[kaygore]

29. Well said. The insurance companies, drug companies, and

for-profit hospitals are driving up the costs and making insurance unaffordable.

We need a single payer system with health care for all!

[leftofthedial]

30. yes!

important distinction

[SoCalDem]

31. It's just like the "paper trail" vs paper BALLOT

and the "death tax" vs ESTATE tax

[Senator]

32. Mandated Profit vs. Mandated Care

There's no fence to sit on. Anyone discussing "the economics" of healthcare must to told:

Healthcare is NOT a Commodity (wash, rinse, repeat)

Exactly like National Defense, we ALL need it in exactly the same amount -- which is as much as we need, when we need it.

Care is not something that can/should be bought and sold.

The choice is universal care or blood money.

--

[blondeatlast]

44. "Exactly like national defense..." Yep. Good frame--defense is a social program as well! nt

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

33. What would prompt the congress to "grant" universal health care?

Senators and Representatives already have a really sweet health care setup. The only way they would be motivated toward universal health care is if they had to give up that elite perk and use the same health insurance / managed care as the average worker.

But there's no way they would ever vote to get rid of that perk. They got theirs. We can go pound sand.

[Vinca]

34. Bingo! nt

[lapislzi]

35. I wish I could recommend this TWICE

The objectives of the insurance INDUSTRY are directly in conflict with the needs of citizens for HEALTH CARE.

Thank you for this cogent, concise post.

[Irishonly]

36. Fantastic Letter

I wouldn't worry about bugging your representative or our senators too much. It seems as if I am I always writing or calling. I would rather be considered a PITA than be ambivalent about causes I believe in.

I am disabled and am on SSDI. I have medicare and a supplemental. I had better coverage before the government tried to get prescription medication. Every year I have seen a drop in the cap for drug coverage and I know find myself going without some medications for bits of times to make sure I will not go over my cap by July. People try to tell me to find another supplemental but I just don't want to leave the doctors who saved my life.

Before I received social security I had no insurance. My diabetes was out of control and the pain from my neuropathy and arthritis was enough to make me think about jumping off of a cliff at times. My husband now has been told he should file for social security and it scares the bejabbers out of me.

Right now I am looking for an insurance plan for my 17 year old daughter. If you find a low cost plan, the deductibles are outrageous. The rates for better coverage are outrageous also. I feel like I am beating my head against the wall at times. We don't qualify for Healthy Families in California by just a few dollars a month. While we have learned to live simply, buying insurance is going to put a real financial strain on our family.

Most people who haven't ever had to walk in an uninsured person's shoes can't relate. When my husband and I were both healthy we didn't think about co-pays. We worried more about Veterinary bills. If one of our medications weren't covered we griped but we knew we wouldn't have to go without anything.

Health care in this country needs to be fixed. I heard we are 37th in the world. It's a national disgrace and embarrassment.

I read one response about a young woman with a tumor. I would love to be able to tell you to go to an organization like City of Hope but the waiting lists are huge. This young lady and her family should not have to suffer and it's wrong, wrong, wrong. What funds the government has lost in this illegal invasion of Iraq could give a good start in fixing the social ills in this country. I will keep the young woman in my prayers and if you tell me her name when I light my candles in the evening for cancer survivors and those cancer patients not with us anymore I will make sure her name is said. I started lighting candles when I was first diagnosed and I always think in some small way it may help. I have had no recurrences but still go through a gambit of testing once or twice a year.

[Misskittycat]

37. Absolutely. n/t

[alarimer]

38. The insurance companies are what is wrong with health care

And the sooner we come up with another system, the better off we will all be.

[jwirr]

39. Yes, insurance gives someone other than the doctor power over

your health care.

In example, my daughter who is severely disabled is covered by one of the new drug programs for Medicare. We have had to fight for every medicine we use for her. They have caused her health to deteriorate because they do not understand who vulnerable she is. Lately she has been having grand mal seizures that last 10-12 minutes (should not last more than 5-6) and she is often pale or even greenish in color during them. Her paleness indicates that she is short of breathe. I talked with her foster mother and find out that the drug program took the antibiotics we were giving her daily to keep her sinuses clear away.

They could have killed her. They may still kill her if they do not agree to give her the meds back.

UNIVERSAL SINGLE PAYER HEALTH CARE is the only way to go.

[blondeatlast]

40. Why should the gambling industry oversee a nation's health?

That's exactly what the insurance biz is, and I resent it. They dictate when you can see, who you can see, and what your treatment is.

I have a chronic illness that has led to secondary complications, and I don't want gamblers involved in my care.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

42. True!

My brother's a doctor, and it infuriates him that clerks with no medical training are accepting or denying his patients' claims based on some arbitrary chart that doesn't take circumstances into account.

There was also an article in the NY Times a few months ago in which an executive from one of the large insurance companies (I wish I could find the link) ADMITTED that his company tried to deny as many claims as possible.

I HAVE insurance, and it's virtually useless, because of the high deductible. Free money for the insurance company.

We need single payer so badly, but it's considered unmentionable among mainstream polticians.

Between this issue and the war in Iraq, I am furious with our government, both Republicans and Democrats, for allowing things to get this bad.

[me b zola]

45. k&r

[Celeborn Skywalker]

49. Agreed!

That's why when a politician says they're for universal health care, I research to see if they mean Universal health insurance or a single payer national system. There's a huge difference in the two.

[treestar]

53. Good point. Get the insurance companies out of it

Why add their bureaucracy to government bureaucracy?