In terms of pure polling, pizza mogul Herman Cain has not been much of a factor in the Republican field. But he's a powerful purveyor of ideas, especially that under health reform he would not have survived his cancer diagnosis. "My surgeons and doctors have told me that because I was able to get the treatment as fast as I could, based upon my timetable and not the government’s timetable that’s what saved my life," Mr. Cain said in the debate last night.
Dying of cancer while waiting for a government OK would be a scary thought, if it were true:
Mr. Cain attributes his excellent outcome to the fact that once his cancer was detected, there were no delays in getting subsequent CT scans, tests, second opinions, and therapy. I’m not sure that Mr. Cain is aware that he was only able to get those things in a speedy fashion either because he had health insurance or because he is very wealthy. If you’re uninsured, you will experience enormous delays in getting tests, second opinions, and therapy, as you figure out how to get them paid for. In many cases, you may not get them at all. In other words, if you’re uninsured, you are more likely to die.
What's really scary is going without health insurance. One study suggests that we lose 45,000 Americans every year because of that -- this is the result of policy, and it matters. Now we're beginning to see fewer young adults going without benefits. They're better off thanks to health reform, demonstrably so.
(h/t Andrew Sullivan)
Leave a Comment:
"In other words, if you’re uninsured, you are more likely to die."
Did you not hear the applause and chants of "let him die" during the GOP debate. Former Rep. Grayson (D - Fl.) said the GOP health-plan is "get sick, die quickly", he was then accused of insensitive class warfare! Why act surprised that Herman Cain is just like any other well-off GOP'er that actually has a clue?!
Any more questions? TRMS - you've got jokes......
I don't think any amount of medical care or insurance makes you less likely to die. It is pretty much certain you will no matter what.
Actually I didn't here the chants of " let him die." I watched that debate and you are stating an out right LIE. The liberal commentator made the statement as a follow up question. Zero Renee, if you want anyone to take you serious, get your facts straight. I lire can only fool the uninformed.
they were not physically saying "let him die!", but by proxy, their support and approval of the idea when it was asked "... let him die?" was quite literal enough.
Don - very astute. We are all equally likely to die whether we are insured or not - so what is the big fuss about?
They only call it class warfare when we fight back! (seen on a protest sign.)
I heard them say "Let him die!" loud and clear, and I got the message they were trying to rely. Just more heartless rhetoric from the Party of Hate.
StandingTurt, You must have been listening to your own party debate. I have the debate on DVR and it wasn't said.
Dems: party of food stamps.
Repubs: party of paychecks.
The best argument for socialized medicine is the fact that there has been no major movement to get rid of it. There are numerous countries with socialized medicine. It is very easy to find someone dissatisfied with socialized medical care. But it is just as easy to find someone who is dissatisfied with the current system. Dems should not let Republicans use this sort of argument to mislead voters.
I am a licensed health care proffesional that supports a national health care plan. Her are some of the reasons why:
A. Most of the small community hospitals are going out of business or being absorbed. The larger facilities, such as Spectrum Health, are buying them up at record speed. Then they can hire the MD and they can set the prices. Much higher I may add.
B Insurance used to be socialist. At work, they were not charging the housekeepers the same as the RN's for insurance.. They could never afford that. Until Bush stopped that practice with the help of the insurance Companies. Now all of the lower level employee's are opting out of health care.. Can not afford what is being provided by the employer, the employers loved that and so it goes.
C MD's do not like it because it will promote the trend of the MD also being an employee of the hospital. No more being the big cheese. No more ordering ten EKG's when you only need one and the insurance will only pay to have one read. The patient pays for the rest. Common Practice.
D. It will stop MD from going crazy with ordering every test in the book, and you still have to pay, even insured patients, at least twenty percent. It will give the little hospital a chance to grow buy paying them all of the money instead of the MD.
E. The licensed professionals will be able to do there job. We will not have to call the MD and wait for a call back while someone is dying. It will force protocols, a word all MD's hate. We will be able to institute treatment immediatly.
F. There will be no death squads. There will also be compassion at the end of a life and we will allow the patient to go with god instead of continuing to order every test in the book when we know there is no hope and death is near.
Nothing is perfect. Hospitals not being paid because of the lack of insurance should not be an issue in 2011. People not being treated should not be an issue. Most people without insurance are using the ER as there doctors office because no MD will accept a patient without insurance. When I was laid off, my MD sent me a letter, certified, telling me he would not be my doctor anymore. My daughter, twelve, could not have a very needed surgery until we put up the twenty percent the insurance does not pay. That is the new trend. I would like to not have to worry about coming up with one thousand dollars before a surgery is scheduled and I have BCBS insurance.
"Dying of cancer while waiting for a government OK would be a scary thought, if it were true."
That's really the whole problem: The moonbat right has not just created an alternate narrative, they've created an alternate universe in which to play it. In their zeal to destroy something that is socially good because big Republican donors find it slightly inconvenient, they have rather angrily created an imaginary government takeover of the healthcare system, they have created imaginary Death Panels, imaginary costs, imaginary taxes and wrapped it all in imaginary "Obamacare." They've largely gotten away with it because except for MSNBC (God bless them all), almost no one ever calls them on this garbage.
The Republicans get away with misrepresenting the health care plan because the main stream media is afraid the Republicans will refuse to appear on their shows. But the Republicans need the mainstream media more than the media needs the Republicans. If they want their message to reach everyone outside of Fox Noise, the media stream media is the only way. There will never be a shortage of politicians who want to get their face on TV.
I always wanted to know why the GOP does not approved of the Heath Care Bill. Are all these people that are against it, rich? do say no to medicare when they of age? Do not receive Social Security? - Also, I want to know how to get the money that I have lost in my 401K during this past three months because of the lack of judgement the GOP has. If someone has to to, they should be the one responsible for the money we have lost in our 401K.
Cristina Velez, you are the perfect example of a liberal. It's my money, I chose my 401K but when anything bad happens to me it is somebody else that is to blame. I you don't know how to invest your money, how is anyone else to blame? My money has grown during the last 3 months.
You also demonstrate the liberal mandality to health care. We all need it, it needs to be fair, and someone else should pay for it.
why would anybody in their right mind want to be on the same health-care plan of somebody that is 250 lbs over weight and smokes. If it is going to be fair for everybody, then the gov needs to control our diet, our exercise habits, and on and on and on. The issue is freedom. It's not fair for a 26 year old athlete to be on the same plan as an alcoholic.
chem
If you are on any health insurance plan you are probably already on a health care plan of someone who is 250 lbs over wieght and smokes. That why health insurance rates are so high. The healthy offset the cost of unhealthy in the current system. The freedom you speak of is an illusion.
Most health care expenditures are at the end of life. A current health care plan spreads the cost of extraordinary medical as well as the regular care among all premium payers. Based on chemdmd's logic, why should we pay for his nursing home care if he or his wife is struck with Parkinson's or Alzheimers, or his child's care if he or she is born with a congenital defect or condition, when he has a family history of those diseases. Under our current system, those costs are calculated based on acturial tables and built in to the premiums for all of the insured. It makes no difference if you are health or overweight and smoke when it comes to the expenditures for health care since it is weighted toward end of life. So unless chemdmd is immortal, his end of life medicals are built in to premiums. If he is immortal then he would have a valid point.
chem:
I find your statements very egoistic. I think you should consider yourself lucky and be grateful that you can afford the healthcare and your 401k is growing. I am sure you work hard for it and you deserve it, it is your money, too, but there are people out there who are sick, who cannot work and take care of themselfs and I am sure the word 'freedom" does not have the same meaning for these people as it does for you. They probably would feel free if they would one day wake up healthy and not have to worry about medical bills.
I have been healthy all my life long, I am paying for my healthcare, and if some of this money goes to someone who really needs it (maybe you, some day) so be it. And this does not mean that I am a Liberal, this means that I am a human living with other humans (and a cat, sick one on top of that, no health care insurance), less than 250 pounds and smoking sometimes.
I Started with nothing. I borrowed money to finish school. I paid interest on the borrowed money. I currently pay for disability insurance for myself. I pay for my own life insurance. I work for myself and pay my own health insurance. When most of my friends were out partying I was saving my money and going to school. When they were out buying snowmobiles and motorcycles I was saving my money and going to school. They had the attitude of play now and pay later. So many have that attitude but when it comes to paying after the playing, they want to share the burden with those that paid first.
I have put myself in a position where I can help others and looking at my books from last year I gave away over $100,000.00 in health care. If I would have payed that in taxes people would have received 27 Percent of that and the rest would have went to administration fees. So yes, I don't want my hard earned money going to the government, I know it will help more people it the politicians stay out of it. Matter of fact, I believe most people are honest and good. I also believe most politicians have been bought and payed for.
Mr. Paganucci has it exactly correct: If "socialized medicine" is so bad, why are there not street demonstrations in nations that have it to do away with universal health care?
The fact is that universal coverage is widely appreciated. About 10 or 12 years ago, the Conservative Party premier of Alberta, Ralph Klein, talked about introducing a "two tier" health care system as a way of paring down the national health program and was widely denounced not just by the left and center in the province but by members of his own caucus.
This is the real reason the right in America makes up lies about what will happen once we have taken a sort of half-step to universal health care: Like Social Security and Medicare, they know it will be a h-u-g-e hit with the entire country and Democrats will get credit for implementing it. The GOP ran against FDR for 25 or 30 years after he died and they don't relish doing the same thing against Barack Obama.
Remember a few years back when the CBC ran the "Greatest Canadian" contest? Of all the thousands of entries, and all the amazing people our country has produced included Lester Pearson, Prime Minister who won the Nobel Prize for his solution to the Suez Canal crises and beloved Terry Fox, the young man who ran the "Marathon of Hope" for cancer research and died in the midst of his run. There's a mountain named after Terry Fox, schools, streets ... he came second.
The winner was Tommy Douglas. The man who championed universal healthcare for all Canadians back in the 1950s.
Charley James is partially correct. The Republicans do not want Dems getting credit for passing another major program that benefits the middle class and poor. But the second reason is that there is a lot of money changing hands in the health care industry and if you eliminate them as middle men in the system, they will lose their incomes. We are talking about billions of dollars, possibly a trillion dollars in an industry. There are a lot of people and companies that will lose money. And they are not going to give up this money on a voluntary basis.
As a former -- very happy -- participant in the Canadian health care system, I can assure poor Herman that his cancer would have been treated immediately under the Canadian system. There are waits for elective procedures, but not for emergent ones. Only fair.
The opponents of universal healthcare use the wait for the elective procedures and apply it to life threatening illnesses. That way they can convince the uninformed that universal healthcare will make you or your loved ones die. I would much rather wait a year or longer to have an elective procedure done if it means that if I need treatment for cancer or an organ transplant, I don't have to worry about how I'm paying for it.
A family member in British Columbia went in for a routine exam, a growth was discovered, it was removed, biopsied and diagnosed as malignant ... since Tuesday. He starts treatment Monday (and all without the added stress of wondering what the bill will be. Bill? What bill?). Tell me again GOP how our system kills people by making them wait?
We Canadians might complain about some aspects of our system and about our tax rate but ask any one of us if we'd trade lower taxes for an American type health care system and the response is NO!
I love the phony scenarios. Let's talk about a real one. A person had health insurance their whole working life, that last few years it cost $500 a month which is $6000 a year. Then the company went out of business leaving them unemployed right at the beginning of the financial meltdown. The unemployment benefits are barely enough to live on and they are offered, for $800/month some interim insurance but it runs out in 6 months so now they're uninsured. Then the worst happens, the person is hit with some kind of strange brain aneurysm out of nowwhere, goes to the hospital, is given just enough care to keep them from dying and sent home. Now, that person is disabled and has an $80K hospital bill. But no followup care. In addition they can't work at all. After six months finally he receives $1300/month from SSI, but is disqualified from Medicaid because he has too much income! Meanwhile there are a couple of more trips to the emergency room adding more bills on top. Now he receives daily phone calls from lawyers etc. demanding payment.
The point is, under our present system, no matter how long you have paid into the system you will be summarily dropped for non payment of the premium. So what kind of 'insurance' is that? When you're really in trouble you lose it. Under a public pay, we're all in it together, system this wouldn't happen. And it wouldn't matter if you are presently employed. The amount of money collected in premiums right now is enough to provide a very high level of health care for all if it all went to one system. It's in the trillions. If there are people sucking big incomes off the top it doesn't go as far.
Does this idiot even know anything about the law? The so-called journalists refuse to ask the follow up question at these debates that shows what idiots they are.
How about we show caskets of those who died of cancer, but never received treatment because they could not afford it or had no insurance. Typical of a republican, as long as it is good for him, he is ok with it. Screw everybody else. The party of selfish.
The basic flaw with the Tea Party's view on health care is that they do not accept that it is a basic right for every American. Herman Cain was "saved" because he is rich and could buy the best care available. If he were an average black male in the United States, lacking health insurance and living in a poor urban area, he would probably be dead right now. Cain and the GOP are the antithesis of a "pro-life" party by seeking to kill Americans through denial of medical care. http://www.sunstateactivist.org
YES! If Cain were a poor black man with no insurance he would be dead. We really need to get people from Scandinavia, Canada, UK, France and other countries with a health care system to tell what they like about it. And don't ask rich people, but average people who rely on the system and have been helped by it. When I was in Scandinavia the people there carped a little about their high taxes, but they loved their health care, education, and eldercare benefits. WE NEED TO GET THE WORD OUT, RACHEL.
You're missing the point, Ann. Average people don't contribute to campaign coffers (heck, they shouldn't even be allowed to vote). Therefore they are insignificant. If they want health care, they should get better educated, get better jobs and become rich like me and my golf buddies. Anyone who doesn't do that is just sponging off the system. They certainly shouldn't be working for me because as soon as we can get this minimum wage thing killed, I'll be paying 75c an hour. Got it? Oh, and don't expect any help from me in providing day care or subsidising your education. That's your problem. I've got my Harvard Business School diploma, get your own.
Sadly, Ann, I know too many people who feel just like this. And what's even worse, I know far too many middle and lower income people who have been fooled into thinking they're not part of that insignificant majority and never will be. Sigh.
Keep spewing your home grown fabrications Mr. Caine that you cannot back up with any facts as usual. Try being a working class american with little to no coverage before Obama Care.
I see alot of support for this universal health care thing, and while that sounds all well and good, are there any honest ideas about how it will be paid for? I'm completley in love with idea of downsizing our military and getting rid of thoes incompetent contracters--my brain brings up that traumatizing image of thoes guys drinking beer out of each others @!$%#s as evidence--, but i know for a fact that our schools (im in Kentucky) can't afford to take another hit from tax cuts. We can't even afford maps in the history classes! Perhaps this new jobs plan will get some money flowing for it. But i feel were getting a little too optimistic here. We only barely got the last healthcare bill through, can you imagine how difficult it will be with all thoes conservatives in position armed with that "grassroots" fear sponsered by the Red Hand folks. It'd be easier stuffing a cow through the eye of a needle, than bypassing all thoes lunatics. Besides, i dobt Obama will be willing to take any polarizing positions until after the campaign.
We could start by reducing the ludicrous amounts Americans pay for their drugs and hospitals and doctors pay for their equipment. Profits in those industries are ridiculous and we are paying for them. One of the big ticket items that Republicans were able to strip from the AHA was pooling purchasing power to lower rates. Hence, health care goes on getting more expensive to make drug and instrument manufacturers (who have big pockets when it comes to campaign funds) lots more money.
Jurrica: Great source of maps for history class are old copies of National Geographic magazine. In addition, there are some charities (Doctors Without Borders, etc.) who actually send amazing free maps along with their donation solicitations. Might want to tell your townsfolk that, instead of discarding them as 'junk mail', they could share them with your schools. If the maps are strictly for history class, you could contact your local historical society, Civil or WWII reenactors society, or other preservation groups (Daughters of the Revolution, etc.) I'm 100% with you on the rest of your comment. Whackjobs currently in Congress would never consider universal care, and Prez is suffering from a bad case of Potomac Fever, WAY outmatched by the opposition. Hang in there, kid...we shall overcome:)
I was in Van Couver BC this last week on my way back from an Alaskan Cruise,I took the time to talk to a few people in the train station and every one I ask about their Health system ,the answers were all about the same,they are mostly very proud of it and how it works,all the red tape we get from the Insurance companies is all but gone ,you go to the Doctor and he has the power to get you what you need with out having to fight an Ins. co.,out of approximately 20 people I talked to anly a few were dissatisfied,we all know that not everyone is always happy with everything.and the Insurance Industry spent Billions of dollars fighting the health care bill.I wonder why dont you? simply because it will deter all the B/S from them
I've heard Cain make this outrageous accusation, & it just is unsupported by the facts. I've had Medicare for years & have never had even a minor delay because of it. In fact, I've received excellent care, & would wish the same for all our citizen, not just those 65 & over. Our free-market health care system can be barbaric. Prior to turning 65 often went abroad for medical care because it was not only more caring, but much cheaper. Last time I was in Costa Rica (which has excellent medical/dental facilities), the cost for full insurance coverage for a family of 4 was less than $25 a month.
Cain has never been in a position where he was forced to wait for government approval for life-saving medical care. Our president has never advocated putting any citizen in that position. What Cain is saying is irresponsible rhetoric, & begs the question about the REAL health care problems facing our country. The rest of the civilized world is far ahead of the U.S., & Americans die every day because of the vagaries of our system & the inability of many to get health insurance. Shame on us!
My orthopedist had to request custom orthotics for me 3 times! My insurance turnedhim down twice saying I could use over the counter foot pad from Rite Aid. No I couldn't and tried and I was still in pain and could barely walk. And I don't even want to tell you what happened the when I went into Urgent Care on a Monday after falling and injuring my foot on a Sunday.
Health care and health insurance in this country is a nightmare
Hello? Hello? Is everyone asleep on Friday? You think this Cain's Health thing is a story?
This was posted just a few hours ago at CNBC: Global meltdown: Investors are dumping nearly everything - CNBC -
Think the 2008 Meltdown had an impact on your life? Well pay attention when finance news has headlines with "Meltdown" in them. Don't fall asleep- this means your job, your home, your retirement, your savings. Everything.
Look- I am not an economist, and I normally have zero interest in it. I appreciate that you think viewers will fall asleep. But jeez, when the key issue is our economy, then by golly, doesn't it make sense that the public is motivated to understand something about why 2008 happened, and why whatever is happening in Europe and at the federal reserve has anything to do with their job, house, and savings?
Like- with the LTCM collapse in 1998 due to credit default swaps, the 2008 collapse with CDS's at the center... you would think that the regulators would know what the how deeply American banks are exposed to the risk of default of sovereign debt in Europe. But they don't. Doesn't that strike you as odd? Has it not been made completely clear to us what the dangers of black markets in derivatives? Of non transparency- even to regulators?
What kind of collapse is apocalyptic enough for the indifferent to notice the manipulation by the highly motivated financial industry lobby? The key goal is not political at all- it is about keeping the Federal Reserve and the regulators from spoiling the casino party that generates billionaires. If you think they will blink over what gridlock in DC and Europe is doing to the markets, consider how the head of Lehman responded to Paulsen's ultimatim. To the end, he refused to budge. He was certain that the government would realize the safe move was to do what Lehman wanted.
Have you ever been confronted by the blank gaze of a compulsive gambler? Even bottoming out does not convert them- Just read what Fuld and Greenspan are saying. They still are incapable of comprehending that removing FDR's restrictions on the financial markets was calamitous. The markets require strong and intrusive regulation and Wall Street, Fox and Friends will do everything they can to block it.
So Bernanke tries to force Bankers to do what Bankers used to do- lend money. But repeal of Glass-Steagal turned them all into gamblers who know it is a return to the penny slots. The big payoffs for them have little to do with activity that generates economic growth.
JohnM., this is a little off-topic, but too powerful to be ignored.
Not enough people realize how important Glass-Steagall was, nor what a disaster it was when, after thirty years of lobbying, the big banks finally got it repealed.
Also check out Wikipedia for "Bank mergers," and see where "too big too fail" really came from, starting—not just coincidentally—in 1980. Yes, that's when Reagan was elected; seems he was absent that day from high school when the rest of us learned about anti-trust. And that's the way it's been ever since.
Agreed. It is extremely important- in fact I don't understand how it would be possible to discuss a health plan for the nation without getting down to first principles about the ailments of the financial system that has brought these calamities of income disparity and meltdowns.
The trouble is, it is dreadfully boring. People talked about it during the Reagan administration and PBS had shows that described why Reagonomics was indeed voodoo. In this Youtube clip, Matthew Broderick's character parodied the public's sonambulism - asleep on his drool covered desk in econ class.
Will Maddow, Hayes and O'Donnell have much better luck with today's viewers? Let's hope so.
You look at something like Michael Kirk's Frontline stories on Brooksley Born (The Warning), or the 2008 fiasco (Inside the Meldown), it is amazing how much can be told in a compelling way in just one hour. Hayes has the time to go into depth on a subject, but in a Multi-voice talk show format? - that's pretty tough to tell a coherent story or give the viewer a sense of conceptual completeness- So that they have a rudimentary handle on some of the issues that motivate the financial lobby.
This sort of analysis cuts across party lines- it does not make Clinton seem as clever as he is given credit for- and it is unfair to just pick on him. There were plenty of congresspersons and regulators that should have stood with Brooksley Born but did not. The lobby effectively shut her down, and even people that should have been her allies like SEC chair Arthur Levitt, or CFTC Commissioner Barbara Holum idiotically fell in with the finance lobby generated narrative that Born was a loose cannon. All of this happened a decade prior to the meltdown and what is shocking is that Summers and Geithner- who have never admitted they were wrong about Born are the same ones who slow walked Obama's "Swedish solution" that would have achieved substantial financial reform.
Summers and Geithner consoled themselves that they were adopting the Hippocratic principle during the 2008 triage- to Do no Harm. Fiasco solution for a fiaco. After being rescued by the US government from the consequences of their shameless and irresponsible profiteering (Geithner helped them with a 30Billion injection), early in 2010 the financial vultures at Goldman pounced on Greece and used credit default swaps to amplify their financial difficulties so that Greece would be forced into default and thereby generate Goldman substantial profits. Is it any surprise that it was Goldman that used other opaque instruments (currency swaps) to help the prior administration in Greece hide how badly in debt it was from the EU examiners?
It exactly mirrors how Goldman as well as the other Wall street major firms used knowledge of the credit binge of their customers in the sub prime market to bet against them. Financing from a normal Glass Steagal bank would notice the credit binge and deny loans. But Goldman profited from credit risk. Why would they want to create less risky environments if they profited from failed loans?
Dodd asked Bernanke about Goldman's activities stating, “I want to ask you here whether or not you think there ought to be limits on the use of credit default swaps to prevent the intentional creation of runs against governments.” Bernanke responded that he was sure that the SEC would be looking into it. Anyone interested in further detail, see this article.
For the Republican candidates, take away all their money and benefits and make them live on minimum wage while working for a year with no help. They will change everything they believe in. I would be generous and give them a 1989 Ford to drive.
remember back during health care reform, there was all the
talklies about government death panels from the likes of Palin, Grassley, and the tea partys, that the government wanted to "pull the plug on grandma" because she wasn't productive anymore and it was cost effective, all that bull@!$%#? they were dubbed "Deathers" because if their belief in it.now we have the same group of people cheering 234 executions, shouting
"let him die""yeah" and applauding to the question of "let him die?", to literally pull the plug on a 30-year-old coma patient -- for "freedom," no less. they are still Deathers, 3.0 (2.0 being those who conspiratorially believe bin-Laden's not dead.)as we saw in Arizona with their transplant fund, we see where the real death panels are, we see, yet again, conservative projection. i know some may be sick of hearing me say that, and maybe i sometimes apply it incorrectly or otherwise beating a dead horse (no pun intended), but can it really get any more unequivocal than that? the Republican Party as it fundamentally exists today, in being absolutely beholden to the teapartyists, is a death cult. remember in Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition, one of the leading neuroses of conservatives is death anxiety. of course, anxiety over their own deaths, not anybody else's; that -- between war-hawkishness, capital punishment, and pulling plugs -- they're obviously quite keen on.
i wonder if there's a kind of scapegoating mechanism at work, that by killing others, death will somehow be sated, so that they're safer, at less risk of dying. death as a zero-sum game? ha; scapegoating is of course a form of projection. (sorry.) that bit is really just conjecture.
a friend of mine has a young son who needs a procedure that she and her doctor agree will save their son's life. Guess what bureaucrat is standing in their way?-Blue Cross/Blue Shield. I would rather have a govt bureaucrat making a decision based on scheduling when everyone has health care , as opposed to an insurance company deciding its not profitable enough to schedule. Yes, I am glad Cain survived, but with his money and health care plan, that is not as impressive as the folks who are surviving without any health care- all 45 million of them.
Remember back then when all the TP'ers were shouting, "Hands off my health care!"?
As I told a friend of mine at the time who was buying into it, there are hands all over your health care, pal, they're called private insurers who decide what kind of care you get—and those hands are busy grabbing as much money from your pocket for themselves as they can.
As someone else here has pointed out, Repubs are scared silly that just like Medicare, it will turn out that people actually like the new law, and then they'll just look mean and dumb.
Credit goes to Charley James
I an so sick of these idiots, there is nothing governmental about the health care insurance. Requiring individual responsiblity in purchasing insurance thru a PRIVATE company is not government health care. It is the insurance companies that screw around deciding, do they want to pay for procedures or hold them up, so Herman Cain was lying(or stupid) when he implied had his cancer occured under the Affordable Health Care Act he might not have gotten the treatment in time. It is now and has always been the insurance company that makes those calls. The presidents health care plan requires these insurance companies to pay for what is needed when asked for by our doctors, from the premiums purchased by the insured.
Herman Cain is full of IT!!! The Healthcare bill allows you to keep whatever insurance you are lucky enough to have. He had insurance, so even if his health crisis happened after the Halthcare bill passed, he would still have received care. I'm originally from the UK, and still have family there. Brits contribute to their healthcare via deductions from their salary. Nothing is free. No one is passed over because they don't have insurance. They have access to the best doctors if needed. My sister had hip replacement, and because she had the money, she went to a private doctor; only reason for that is she waited too long, was in pain, and under National Health there was a waiting period. It certainly is far from perfect, but you don't hear the gruesome stories of people not getting the care they need. Non-insured folks finish up going to the EM and the rest of us pay for it. US admin/drugs costs are the highest in the world. The GOP will never give credit where credit is due. They cannot stand the fact that a smart black man was able to get this bill passed. They should be ashamed of themsleves making up all that untrue garbage, and people actually believing that rhetoric.....
The best healthcare on earth in countries with socialized medicine.
I know from experience that our healthcare system discriminates. In 2005, I was diagnosed with Colon Cancer, and was given a year to live. They refused to do any kind of medical procedures to help me because I did not have insurance and wasn't able to work. I was given pain medicine and pretty much left to die. I moved to Dallas and I was refereed to Colon surgeon who removed the tumors in 2007 after being in so much pain out of the kindness of heart. I am told it will relapse within 5 years. I am not receiving treatment now because I have no insurance. It's impossible to get on Disability unless you worked enough hours and I have been disabled all my life with multiple health problems since the day I was born. They use the excuse that you will get better with medical treatment, but the problem is you never get medical treatment unless you can pay out of pocket or have health insurance. The county hospitals are a joke and I have been on waiting list for over a year and have not seen one doctor. Anyone who says that we have the best healthcare in the world --LIED. We have the poorest healthcare in the world who refuses to treat people. in 2010, after getting hurt at work I had to have my appendix removed. I had insurance but the hospital argued with about the insurance. They wanted me to pay cash just in case the insurance didn't pay. The insurance later did not pay claiming preexisting condition and I was left with a $30,000 bill to pay.
Something has got to give. Our health system is letting people suffer needlessly and insurance companies are getting too expansive and find ways not to pay. We need universal medicine so that all people have access to medical. This is wrong that they are making the poor and disabled suffer like they do.
When you are on the republican payroll, you are bound by Gover Norquist, to look like a fool, act like a fool, and you must definitely talk like a fool................
As a single-payer proponent, I'm no fan of the patchwork-quilt/mandate w/penalties approach that is characterized by the GOP as "Obamacare". Nonetheless, hardliners in the Dem base must take a cue from the pro-life/bloodlust dichotomy of this truly strange new Tea Party base, and re-brand their approach as "NobodyCare". Nobody seemed to care about the theoretically uninsured 30-ish comatose guy; the hundreds facing the federal needle in TX; the recently-liberated GI offering up life & limb in Iraq...There's plenty of work out there for the first indy ad agency that can mount a campaign pointing out that the alternative to Obamacare is Nobodycare. Will happily do the proofing/editing if anyone is onboard:) Go, Rachel.
date,09/24/2011, what is john boehner & rick perry & matt rommey & mitch mc connell all the (gop)--- party. they like to chake up the citizens of the u.s, saying every month the u.s, is broke . they say goverment shut down ! , well for the (gop) that is their monthly vacation . they all the time say the ceiling is coming down ! again. they say cut out social security, ssi &ssdi, for every day the (gop) is off or shut down , they should not get paid for them days off , this is b.s, and they leave president obama . on how to fix this mess.$$$$$.from: george mcl. of pennsylvania.
Driving the right patient, with the right payer to the right service line to increase patient volume.visit here:-<a href="http://www.turnupyourvolume.com/">http://www.turnupyourvolume.com/</a>