In order to oppose Universal Health Care (UHC) and support Corporate Profit Based Health Care (CPBHC), you have to believe the following statements to be true:
- With my private insurer, I can select any doctor I want and there is no one between my doctor and me when it comes to decisions My doctor does not have to consult with my insurance provider to see what medications or procedures are allowed. I can get whatever my doctor and I want, whenever I want it and where ever I want it. It is only with UHC that someone is in between me and my doctor. It is only with UHC that I am limited to my selection of doctors.
- The poor citizens of Appalachia who stood in the rain for hours to receive limited health care from compassionate doctors and nurses who examined them in animal stalls because there were no suitable medical locations nearby, were receiving "The Best Health Care in The World".
- The family that goes into bankruptcy because one of their members is gravely ill and their insurer denies payment because of a technically in the fine print, are also getting the "Best Health Care in the World".
- Hospitals spend millions of dollars a year advertising their services to us because they want us to know where to go when we get sick. These millions of dollars are not added to the cost of our hospital visit. We ought to do the same with our police and fire departments.
- Drug companies also spend billions of dollars a year in marketing (more than they do in research) because they want us to remember what medication we should take when we are ill and these billions of dollars are not figured into the cost of the medication.
- The citizens of Germany, France, Canada, Belgium, The UK, Norway, Portugal, Iceland, Spain, Italy, Austria, and others with UHC have awful medical care but they are not allowed to protest it and their systems of democracy forbid these people from electing representatives in government to overturn UHC and switch to CPBHC.
- The medical and insurance corporations in the USA are spending a million dollars a day to lobby against UHC because they really care about our health and they know their system is better for us. It has nothing to do with protecting their massive corporate profits.
- Medical and insurance corporations care about their customers first and their investors second. Every medical and insurance corporation in America puts a patient's health ahead of the interests of the shareholders. All of them. They are saints. Money means nothing to them.
- We need to end Medicare and Medicaid and VA hospitals immediately.
- All of the studies from all of the research of all of the nations with UHC that prove that they spend less and live longer, are lies. All of them. It's a conspiracy.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
old new lefty
Kerry Lauerman
grif -
Peter Breschard
DanielKronlid
Saturn Smith
Salon.com
Comments
If only the legislators had the over-priced, inadequate options available to the rest of us...
Rated.
As to #2 and #3, they also require a couple beliefs of their own, namely that a baby born in Appalachia has PRECISELY the same opportunities as a baby born in say, Beverly Hills. You must also believe that if said Appalachian baby isn't successful it's because he's lazy and didn't apply himself hard enough and/or didn't make the correct choices; therefore he deserves everything he (doesn't) get. People just shouldn't get sick if they can't afford it.
Very much rated. You're the sanest conservative I've ever met. Hey! You're not that 'compassionate conservative' we've heard so much about, are you?
The election contribution laws don't allow for the amounts that
necessarily account for the corruption involved in Congress.
Bogus contributors have to be involved.
After the Supreme Court decision as to donations, is it too late
to prosecute?
To save (my needed) time, I'm posting a few excerpts from
my own website, which is
http://sites.google.com/site/evernewecon
roposes multiple states collaborate in
outlawing exclusions for pre-existing risks
where insureds move between those states.
Otherwise, state-by-state regulation utterly
precludes movement between states by persons
with pre-existing risks, including most
persons who would be potential bidders on
upper-end real estate.
The Struggle of he / she Pre-Medicare
Eligible, With Existing Risk, Sharecroppers
to the Company Already Dictating Its
Premium, Pulls On Recovery, Including
In Real Estate, I believe aggravating
and extending this.
http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-the-scariest-job-chart-ever-2010-3
This runs perfectly
parallel to the Great Depression likely having
been exacerbated in part by the
ripping out of mass transit systems
during the 1930's already.
rom the Real Estate page:
The increase in the number of
unemployed has of course slowed, a welcome
achievement in the near-stoppage of the
bleeding started in 2008.
Nonetheless, there are currently a record
number of unemployed (aside from during
the
"Great" Depression.)
Conditions of course vary from (U.S.)
state to state.
EverNewEcoN would fall on
the bearish side still, particularly where
there's reason to expect large numbers of
state government layoffs stemming
from their respective tax routs, and
importantly too in states where
health insurers succeed in achieving
outlandish premium increases. It's
particularly persons with pre-existing
conditions (older but still not eligible
for Medicare) who would otherwise
be bidders for middling and upper-end
property.
Unable to so much as move
between states without taking on
exclusions for precisely what they
need coverage for, these persons are
worse off than if they were incurring the occassional sudden tax increase.
They're
concomitantly actually struggling till they
get to Medicare, SHARECROPPERS
TO THE HEALTH INSURANCE CARTEL.
Obviously this runs parallel to how the
ripping out of mass transit systems
during the 1030's aggravated the
"Great" Depression. Perhaps multiple ]
states can act apart from Congress in
jointly agreeing to ban exclusions for
pre-existing conditions.
Of course EverNewEcoN agrees with Howard Dean the Democrats should offer a Medicare buy-in, but that program was intended by the insurance cartel to be a repository for older persons, whom they would never want to cover. A buy-in for younger persons isequivalent to a public option, which is competition. That, of course, is what Congress is protecting the cartel from.
Running parallel to that has been
the role of Amtrak, which, while maligned by the friends of influence-buyers, exists because the railroads found with the
explosive growth of the airlines they could only make money on hauling freight.
Notwithstanding that, the passenger-miles purposefully moved into mass transit are
generally less expensive than car-based passenger-miles. Efficiency requires an optimal balance.
Could it be? Obama's fine with
premium death spirals, non-children
having no alternate policy, having to
pay whatever their carrier wants, even when
their carrier is trying to burnt them out?
Far better for you and me (everyone will have
a risk factor for years before being eligible for
Medicare, which is National Health Insurance
for persons 65 and older, the persons the
health insurance cartel doesn't want to cover,
is simply dropping the age for Medicare to 50 or
so.
It would be easily paid for by allowing the
government to receive competitive bids for
drugs under the new Drug Coverage Plan in
Medicare, rather than the U.S. being forced
to play the receiving end of name-your-price.
the evidence on Obama (his own blog:)
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/issues/Health-Care
my website:
http://sites.google.com/site/evernewecon
just not illusory and with premium death spirals
for all in turn
a meaningful public option and/or eliminating exclusions
altogether works for me
Consider:
the 57 year-old who sold his house at the top of
the real estate bubble who has to defer buying back
in, making extra-sure the market's giving up as much
as possible, because he / spouse are in a premium
death spiral.
They're sharecroppers to the carrier. The economy's
its hostage.
"Universal health care in any form is akin to socialism and eventually will give birth to fascism ... "
Please look up terms you use before you use them. Socialism does not lead to fascism. That is absurd. Fascism is an extreme version of capitalism. Socialist-style policies like Medicare and Social Security actually fight fascism.
Soooo... make up your mind. What word would you like to assign to the current administration? If you are at all self-interested (as I think you are), you might consider reading more about socialism. It benefits the common people like you and me.
Here's an example:
Fascism in the US feeds the environmental crisis because corporations don't give a crap about the damage. They are all about short term gain, and pretend there are no long term consequences. By the time we have catastrophic warming, the perpetrators will be dead and the problem will fall to someone else. Unless of course you believe your higher power will do the work for you. These tactics are utterly irresponsible. Corporate behemoths will lie and lie and lie so they can keep siphoning off YOUR money and MY money. And that is just ONE example of many.
Fascists take money and services away from the poor and middle class, and they hand it off to wealthy corporations. The bailouts reeked of fascism.
Socialists take SOME money from the wealthiest citizens and provide financial assistance and other services to the less favored. Socialist-style policies would benefit you, and still you utilize those tired talking points.
Here are two links so you can read about what fascism really is. You are being hoodwinked into supporting fascism by siding with conservatives.
http://www.rense.com/general37/fascism.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
Corporations are such powerful entities now; they literally control your life. Effective social policies do not come from corporations. They must come from the government so we can take corporations (who will feed you crap food, take away your health care, and buy life insurance on you) out of the driver's seat. Their unrestrained greed only serves themselves. They benefit from your slow decline and death, and that is not even a secret any more.
I have posted at length on my blog about fascism using the links I provided above. You can read them here:
http://www.open.salon.com/blog/leslieca/2010/03/16/fascist_states_of_america_-_there_is_no_doubt_about_it
AND
http://www.open.salon.com/blog/leslieca/2010/03/16/the_fascist_states_of_america_the_proof_is_right_here
You are on the RIGHT track. While we are at it, let's get as many constitutional amendments as necessary to terminate federal money now being expended on:
Agribusiness subsidies
Green energy r&d
Bank bailouts
Hazardous waste site cleanup
Deposit insurance
Pension guaranty
Auto industry loans.
You can see that we are already on the road to socialism. Our federal government is rife with these socialist/fascist agencies and programs. Take the last item for instance, I don't like the government coming between me and my car dealer. Like Sarah says, it's time to reload! (That's not an incitement to violence.)
Have no fear. Thirteen states (maybe more) are now preparing briefs on the "unconstitutionality" of the health care reform bill. I think that the Supreme Court will put their case(s) on the fast track after they have lost in the lower courts.