The right-wing has tried to scare Americans about the "uninsured" being covered by any kind of "public option"; like how that kind of influx of so many people would overwhelm the current medical establishment so that there won't be enough doctors and nurses, and how that many people seeking care would result in waiting periods and rationing or denial of care of "regular people" (those with insurance)...
Yet, the right wing is also the first to admit that NO ONE is denied care under the current system (which they aren't), even though they are billed for that treatment. Check out the bankruptcy statistics.
So, if the uninsured are ALREADY getting health care, and doctors aren't being swamped, and treatments aren't being denied, then what's the big deal?
Of course, this ignores the fact that treatments ARE being denied to insurance holders, but NOT those who don't have insurance, as well as the fact that those who have insurance are dropped by those companies on a whim, while non-insurance holders get whatever they need, regardless of their lack of coverage.
Do conservatives really not want to provide the care they already admit that the uninsured are getting, or do they just not want to provide the uninsured with a way to pay for the *insurance* (which is different) they have for the care they receive?
And, why wouldn't insurance companies want access to the many millions of uninsured? Wouldn't that help those companies make bigger profits by covering more people? Free market capitalism, and all?
If, as the right claims, the government doesn't do anything efficiently, why wouldn't those private insurance companies be slobbering about getting more customers? So, they'd have to lower their price to compete, but since the government does everything wrong, what do they have to lose?
I just don't understand the problem here. The level of care doesn't change, insurance companies get access to millions of new customers (and millions in new profits), and those without insurance get insurance to pay the bills for the treatments they ALREADY receive.
What is the problem?
Ken: Are you OK with being "forced" to pay for Bush's Trillion-dollar expansion to Medicare (the Part D prescription plan)? Or did you forget about that?
What's the difference?
danrather: As opposed to Bush's Trillion dollar expansion of Medicare, or Bush's Trillion dollar Iraq war? (Hate to being up the war, but a Trillion in spending is a Trillion in spending).
What's the difference?
DAR: You act like the current insurance companies don't make decisions based on "need" versus profit.
So, you're ok with the current system of private companies denying care based on the cost, as long as the government doesn't do the same thing?
Are you really defending the private "for profit" companies looking out for their bottom line in denying coverage AND treatment?
Schmuck: I guess I can understand that perspective.
I am totally against Bush's war in Iraq, but at least I wasn't "taxed to death" to pay for it. In fact, nobody was. That cost was just added to the debt.
But again, I think of Bush's Medicare Part D that was made into law...and how we ALL contribute to that.
Guess you forgot about that.
regerugged: Bush Medicare Part D plan.
Cost over $1 Trillion.
Socialized medicine.
Do you hate that too?
Funlady: Bush Medicare Part D plan.
Where were the "tea parties" about that?
I don't believe you.
cuzziman: Why pay for other people?
Good question! I don't disagree with your neighborhood having police or fire protection, but I don't want to pay for it.
Don't come crawling to the government if your house is wiped out by a hurricane or a wildfire...your insurance will cover you, right?
Yet, the right wing is also the first to admit that NO ONE is denied care under the current system (which they aren't), even though they are billed for that treatment. Check out the bankruptcy statistics.
So, if the uninsured are ALREADY getting health care, and doctors aren't being swamped, and treatments aren't being denied, then what's the big deal?
Of course, this ignores the fact that treatments ARE being denied to insurance holders, but NOT those who don't have insurance, as well as the fact that those who have insurance are dropped by those companies on a whim, while non-insurance holders get whatever they need, regardless of their lack of coverage.
Do conservatives really not want to provide the care they already admit that the uninsured are getting, or do they just not want to provide the uninsured with a way to pay for the *insurance* (which is different) they have for the care they receive?
And, why wouldn't insurance companies want access to the many millions of uninsured? Wouldn't that help those companies make bigger profits by covering more people? Free market capitalism, and all?
If, as the right claims, the government doesn't do anything efficiently, why wouldn't those private insurance companies be slobbering about getting more customers? So, they'd have to lower their price to compete, but since the government does everything wrong, what do they have to lose?
I just don't understand the problem here. The level of care doesn't change, insurance companies get access to millions of new customers (and millions in new profits), and those without insurance get insurance to pay the bills for the treatments they ALREADY receive.
What is the problem?
Ken: Are you OK with being "forced" to pay for Bush's Trillion-dollar expansion to Medicare (the Part D prescription plan)? Or did you forget about that?
What's the difference?
danrather: As opposed to Bush's Trillion dollar expansion of Medicare, or Bush's Trillion dollar Iraq war? (Hate to being up the war, but a Trillion in spending is a Trillion in spending).
What's the difference?
DAR: You act like the current insurance companies don't make decisions based on "need" versus profit.
So, you're ok with the current system of private companies denying care based on the cost, as long as the government doesn't do the same thing?
Are you really defending the private "for profit" companies looking out for their bottom line in denying coverage AND treatment?
Schmuck: I guess I can understand that perspective.
I am totally against Bush's war in Iraq, but at least I wasn't "taxed to death" to pay for it. In fact, nobody was. That cost was just added to the debt.
But again, I think of Bush's Medicare Part D that was made into law...and how we ALL contribute to that.
Guess you forgot about that.
regerugged: Bush Medicare Part D plan.
Cost over $1 Trillion.
Socialized medicine.
Do you hate that too?
Funlady: Bush Medicare Part D plan.
Where were the "tea parties" about that?
I don't believe you.
cuzziman: Why pay for other people?
Good question! I don't disagree with your neighborhood having police or fire protection, but I don't want to pay for it.
Don't come crawling to the government if your house is wiped out by a hurricane or a wildfire...your insurance will cover you, right?