The raging healthcare debate

[anointedteacher]

Sept 3, 2009 12:38:34 GMT -5 Nikkol said:

Sept 3, 2009 10:44:15 GMT -5 anointedteacher said:

I don't think it a bad time... I think it is pass due... They said part of the problem with the economy is because of the cost of healthcare. Many had to drop their heath insurance in order to pay for their Mortgage. They have been trying to push healthcare reform since former Pres. Clinton. Ted Kennedy tried to push it also. There are ppl who can not buy an house, car or find a place to live because they can not pay for their health expense. They have lose their health insurance due to the rising cost... and ended up in the emergency room and hospital. the billed stay on their credit report for 7 years.

Many companies will benefit from Healthcare reform,:
*They will have more money
*They can hire more ppl
*They give more raises
*They can expand
*All their employees will be covered, so ppl will be more healthy and happy, less woories
*Less pressure on them and their employees

The Insurance companies might lower their premiums and deductables.

Just like the USPS, don't effect UPS and FEDX.... Gov. healthcare will not cause other health Ins. companies to disappear... They may develop affordable single payer, for those who want to keep their Insurance, when their employees drop it.

Do you have any articles/websites to indicate that health care insurance cuts was based on ppl paying mortgages? With mortgages, what appears to have happened is ppl bit off more than they could chew. I'd be highly surprised to believe that some of the ppl who got into these ARMS thought they could afford it if the percentage increased. (most ppl have an idea if they can afford monthly pymts or not).

Insurance premium increased faster and much more than their income, which caused them to drop it. Their deductible increased, some report $5000... also co-payment. They didn't know there would be such an high increased when they signed up. So... the didn't know if they can afford it. Those who signed up and can afford the premuim, but the deductable was ourageous... It used to be $200 to $500.. but not anymore.

I have read many blogger who report what they are paying or have paid.

Healthcare does not equal being able to hire more ppl nor does it mean that employees will be more healthy/happy and I HIGHLY doubt that the healthcare reform will mean bigger raises. I know if I had a company, I wouldn't be able to say that healthcare reform would give me greater access to funds. Additionally, having unpaid bills (or even bankruptcy) doesn't usually cause you to be unable to buy a house, etc..... usually your percentage rate would be higher. I use to be a loan officer and ppl had ALL KINDS OF THINGS on their report but you can usually find something for them as well.

Emplyers pays part of half of the insurance premuim. Yes, it do affect their businesses.

You don't think that UPS and FEDEX (and DHL) effects USPS? Right now, USPS has this service by which if you can fit it in a certain box, you get a fixed rate. So then it just becomes a big fight for who can get more business...I think that the gov't plan would win because it's gov't that runs the US and they could easily make it difficult for other insurance companies.....

They still will run well, even though their is a gov. run postal service.

The insurance companies need to be regulated... We can not allow them to continue to abuse US ppl. They would till have customers even with the gov. run healthcare.

Medicare and Medicaid... uses private insurance companies such as Humana, Humana Gold, Blue Shields etc... and it is gov. run healthcare.

I really don't know how they should do it.... but to try to tackle everything at once like this instead of having a gameplan to change things throughout a few years could really cause many issues that we don't even know about.....

They have been trying for years... We are so far behind ... it work in other countries.

Few questions:
1) Do you believe in doing everything right away that this would limit the amount of ppl that are unhealthy?

long term, yes... short-term, no... Prevention plan is in the bill.

2) Do you believe that many ppl that don't have insurance would start going to the doctor now if they had insurance? (I ask this question because I know of MANY ppl that don't go to the dr. and don't plan to go to the dr....and GOD FORBID they have to go to a hospital)

There are some ppl who would, especially children, many families are without insurance. And if a person take time out from work, because of a flu or other sickness, will be require to see a doctor before returning.

3) How do you see this gov't plan working? And do you believe that we'd still have private insurance? And if not, wouldn't that cause many ppl to loose their job because they wouldn't need as many ppl?

I believe it will work... It may not be perfect at the beginning and it may need adjustment, but it will work and benefit All the ppl not just a few. I also believe the insurance companies will survive. I believe ppl will have a choice to take gov healthcare or private... There are some companies that have single payer already that is affordable for middle/lower class income.

[anointedteacher]

Canadians Defend Their Health Care System In Video

One of the unfortunate side-effects of the often confused health care reform discourse is the way so many perfectly nice health care systems that operate in some perfectly pleasant foreign nations have been caught in the crossfire. Writing on these pages, Allison Kilkenny chronicled the way British citizens defended their own National Health Service from the slings and arrows of outrageous talking points. Twitter users may remember outspoken Brits defending the NHS on messages accompanied by a #welovetheNHS hashtag.

Well, the Canadians, who use a nationally-funded single-payer system, aren't going to sit back and let American politicians slag the health care that they love, either! So, from Karoli at U.S. Health Crisis comes a video of several Canadians offering up some real talk on what health care is like in the Great White North. Guess what? They like it! And they are a wee bit vexed and perplexed by what people in America have been saying about it.
[WATCH]
www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/04/canadians-defend-their-he_n_277684.html


The blogger behind the video said that she tried to get some negative views and failed:

In the spirit of truth, my friend Matte Black (@shoq on Twitter) and his brother took their video camera to Canada on vacation to interview Canadians about their health care system. When we talked about it, I asked him to try to get negative views with specifics for balance. Here is the result. It has been edited for brevity, but the negative views were not removed, because there were none. He could not find one Canadian who thought they should kill the system.
My favorite part of the video is when the Canadians are asked about their "co-pay," and they all basically stare at the camera as if they've been asked, "Prithee! Would you like to wear my peanut butter fancypants, this merry Midsummer morning?"

[anointedteacher]

Who saw the President address Congress on healthcare reform

[kanyon]

I never had the chance to watch the speech from beginning to end. I have been watching it in bits and pieces all evening and was happy with it given all the small minded attacks he has had to endure lately.

[krazeeboi]

I saw it. Obama should have given this speech a long time ago so that the debate would have been framed in his own terms and not those of detractors.

[anointedteacher]

What do you think about the Republician reaction throughout the speech, especially SC Senator Wilson who screamed out "you lies"? One guy almost clapped, but he notice none ogf his fellow gopers didn't clap, he rubbed his hands together LOL...

I love the speech and the tone he used to let the Gop know he is not playing with them.

[anointedteacher]

If you public option, sign the petition for healthcare reform with public option

www.petitiononline.com/PubOp676/petition.html

[krazeeboi]

Abortion-rights forces vexed by health care debate

By DAVID CRARY (AP) – 3 hours ago

NEW YORK — For some abortion-rights activists, the debate over health care reform has been frustrating, even disheartening, as they see their political allies on the defensive and their anti-abortion rivals on the attack.

The crux of the dispute is reflected in the slogan adopted by many anti-abortion activists, "Abortion is Not Health Care." The abortion-rights movement says the procedure should indeed be considered a valid health care option, as worthy of public funding as any other form of care.

Many abortion-rights advocates had hoped the health care debate would include a serious discussion of expanding access to abortion for low-income women, including the possible lifting of a 33-year-old ban on federal funding for the procedure except in cases of rape, incest and to save the mother's life.

Instead, under pressure from anti-abortion conservatives, the Obama administration and majority Democrats in Congress have generally focused their recent public comments about abortion on promises that their various reform proposals will conform with that ban, known as the Hyde Amendment.

"I'm profoundly disappointed," said Stephanie Poggi of the National Network of Abortion Funds, which helps low-income women pay for abortions. "We felt health care reform is supposed to be about expanding care, not expanding inequality."

Terry O'Neill, the newly elected president of the National Organization for Women, said Democrats have been too willing to compromise, adding, "It makes me really angry."

"They're just wrong if they think compromise on abortion will bring more Republicans on board," she said. "The voices insisting upon exclusion of abortion services will not vote for meaningful reform anyway."

In Congress, members who support abortion rights express empathy with such sentiment but say the time isn't right to push for repealing the Hyde Amendment.

"That's also my long term goal, but practically speaking we don't have the votes to do that right now," said Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colo.

She said the immediate battle is to ensure that the status quo on abortion is maintained, so that women who have abortions covered through private insurance don't lose that coverage. According to the Guttmacher Institute, which studies reproductive health issues, more than 80 percent of typical employer health plans cover abortion.

The National Right to Life Committee and its allies contend that the Democratic reform proposals would violate the Hyde Amendment because they would provide federal subsidies to private insurance plans that pay for elective abortions. Democratic leaders disagree, saying abortion coverage would be paid for by private premiums. Nonetheless, anti-abortion members of Congress from both parties will seek a ban on any type of federal subsidy for any insurance company covering elective abortions.

"Most insurance companies cover some form of abortion care, and we're seeing efforts to move away from that," said Dr. Willie Parker, an abortion provider in Washington, D.C., who serves on the board of Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health.

"It's become necessary to be vigilant, even if we can't make any gains for abortion care, to make sure we don't lose any ground," he said.

Both sides in the debate cite polls saying a majority of Americans agree with them on the public funding issue.

"If Congress does not explicitly exclude abortion from the health care reform legislation, then Americans will be forced to pay for the taking of innocent human life," said Peggy Hartshorn of Heartbeat International, which runs a network of crisis-pregnancy centers. "Abortion does not improve anyone's health."

The White House reiterated Monday that no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions.

President Obama "believes that Americans should be able to purchase health insurance coverage that reflects their values and needs," said spokesman Reid Cherlin. "Those seeking coverage for reproductive health services will be able to sign up for plans that are right for them in an insurance market that will have more affordable choices than we have today."

The nation's leading abortion provider, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, has not been pushing to make repeal of the Hyde Amendment part of the current debate. Rather, it wants to help ensure passage of a broad reform bill that will enable more low-income women to afford its non-abortion services — such as contraception, pregnancy testing, and screenings for breast cancer, cervical cancer and sexually transmitted diseases.

"We have to make some pragmatic choices about what we think is best overall to make sure these women have the best access to care," said Laurie Rubiner, Planned Parenthood's vice president for public policy.

NARAL Pro-Choice America, another major abortion-rights group, is taking a similar approach.

"It's not suitable or helpful to fight the abortion question in health care reform," said NARAL's policy director, Donna Crane. "We're becoming increasingly perplexed and alarmed by the other side, which seems willing to take any legislative hostage to advance its agenda."

She said both sides in the abortion debate should be eager to promote comprehensive health care reform that would benefit low-income women — on the premise that better access to contraceptives and more affordable pre- and postnatal care would lead to fewer abortions.

Poggi, of the National Network of Abortion Funds, said all wings of the abortion-rights movement agreed on the importance of improving overall health care options.

"But what we're being offered is not enough," she said, contending that President Obama had "traded many women's futures away" when he assured Congress on Sept. 9 that the new health plan would provide no public funds for abortion.

"In the day-to-day world outside Congress, access to abortion is not a bargaining chip or a political football," Poggi said. "It's about whether women have the chance to live healthy lives. ...It's about whether poor women and girls and women of color matter as much as other people."

Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

[Nikkol]

Not sure why we're making this into a racial issue.....


One quote that really stood out to me was:

"Abortion does not improve anyone's health."

I think for those that choose to use that as a form of birth control should have to pay...but I don't think that federal funds should be used.

[Nikkol]

GIANTS: So would it be fair to say that if a person is attracted to a woman who is not their wife, it is just as bad as a man/woman being attracted to someone of the same sex?

Additionally, would both actions (even if no sexual encounter is had) be considered sin?

[krazeeboi]

^Is that response supposed to be in the Tonex thread?

[kitty]

In some cases abortion can improve a woman health.... There are several...

such as if a woman finds that she cancer....

Pregnancy induced high blood pressure to levels here the systolic level is above 200

pregnancy induced diabetes all are lfe threatening cases and are not within the normal treatable ranges that people find in regular cases of those conditions...

Kitty

[Nikkol]

Sept 22, 2009 8:41:20 GMT -5 krazeeboi said:

^Is that response supposed to be in the Tonex thread?

Whoops....fixed it. LOL

[Nikkol]

Sept 22, 2009 9:19:24 GMT -5 kitty said:

In some cases abortion can improve a woman health.... There are several...

such as if a woman finds that she cancer....

Pregnancy induced high blood pressure to levels here the systolic level is above 200

pregnancy induced diabetes all are lfe threatening cases and are not within the normal treatable ranges that people find in regular cases of those conditions...

Kitty

I still contemplate in at least some of those cases. I remember being in an early childcare class and different women talking about how their doctors were saying they should get abortions based on "things that were found"....but they ended up fine; as well as the child.

I don't know if I'm ever an advocate of abortion....and saying that killing a child can improve a women's health.....for me personally, I can't agree.....

Tho I do believe that for rape/incest or the woman's life being in danger....those would be covered. (could be wrong)

[krazeeboi]

Yes, I do believe that coverage is provided in the case of rape/incest and when the mother's life is in danger. Other than that, I do not believe that coverage of abortion is justified whatsoever.