Comments on: Hillary’s Health Care Proposal Could Become Reality

By: noproblama

noproblama — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 09:35:49 +0000

Whether you are black or not is not relevant (and of doubt)

Because no AA would dare criticize the chosen one?

Maybe you should edit your moniker a few letters.

By: NoBamaNoWay

NoBamaNoWay — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 09:15:58 +0000

i hear you, SB; the insurance companies’ only goal is to take your money every month and give you *absolutely nothing* in return. they think that if they EVER pay out on a claim, they’re being screwed.

By: NoBamaNoWay

NoBamaNoWay — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 09:07:04 +0000

either way, it doesn’t look good for barky.

By: danny

danny — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 07:31:22 +0000

Really? Obama misspeaks, and therefore he’s a Muslim/ he doesn’t know how many states are in the US? Is that really the most likely explanation? Take a look at the clip. I think there’s a much more logical interpretation: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/57states.asp.

By: TheAntiBigot

TheAntiBigot — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 07:10:56 +0000

He has always been anti same sex marriage. He is in favor of Civil Unions.

With trillions being thrown at the Bushbots who destroyed the economy the situation has changed.

It will however take a Democratic President to clear up the mess Republicans caused, as usual. Don’t spend all the surplus the Democratic Presidency will eventually generate as you did this time round.

By: TheAntiBigot

TheAntiBigot — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 06:49:36 +0000

I agree our healthcare costs way too much but i don’t think government healthcare is the answer. They only screw up whatever they are in charge of.

Generally it is Republicans who are bad at running Government. It could be down to the fact that the only Government they like is the one that dictates your bedroom habits.

Socialized medicine can be good IF run properly. Then the private hospitals and insurance companies can stay for those who want luxuries with their treatment. Having a good basic healthcare system for all is far better than a mediocre to luxury one for some.

By: Clara Barton

Clara Barton — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 02:28:33 +0000

The current model of healthcare is unsustainable. We must move to a preventative model.

By: TeakWoodKite

TeakWoodKite — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 01:54:03 +0000

PS. Keep at it LisaB!!!

After becoming a grandpa kite recently, I was BLOWN AWAY to find out that the second they cut the embilicial cord, my granddaughter became a profit center; to the tune of 60k.

The whole birth cost 100,000 dollars. This is so wrong! Sure the cost is freakish, but the fact that MediCal requires that the young parents can’t be supported or living at a relatives to qualify, without Medical going after the relitives for the cost, is insane. One might be able to provide a roof or basic sustanance, but not 60k. Why does it matter where some one lives in order to recieve healthcare? Does not having a stable living situtation have huge impact on the welfare of the newborn?

It does not promote “family values”. Telling a new mom that not only does she have to worry about the health and well being of the baby, she can’t look to the immediate family for support with out involving Medical in the financial affiars of the parent or those relitives who extend their support.

You bet I am interested LisaB.

By: Strawberrybitch

Strawberrybitch — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 01:46:30 +0000

They’ve been doing disc replacements in Europe for almost 15 years. The reason the insurance companies won’t cover them is because any person that has chronic disc problems would benefit from them. That is a lot of people. Insurance companies’ profit margins would shrink, bigtime. Not to mention prescription drugs sales for pain management and inflamation would drop. But hey, what’s wrong with letting people suffer just to satisfy the bottem line?

By: WildChild

WildChild — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 01:43:38 +0000

They have to make money for the shareholders. Providing health care dollars is only there second reason for being.

By: shadow

shadow — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 01:38:06 +0000

Yea, some of the HMO’s will not cover anything experimental like clincial trials too. I think that is wrong.

By: Strawberrybitch

Strawberrybitch — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 01:35:11 +0000

I have ties to Canada. And man, I’m telling ya. They have no worries about getting ill, or going to the emergency room or getting nailed with co-pays and stealth bills months after the supposed service as Ferd stated below. When my canadian friends hear about the crap I go through just to get pain management for a surgery that costs $116,000 and out of pocket expenses of more than $2000, they just shake their heads and laugh. Not to mention, they wouldn’t have fused my back at all up there. They do disc replacement, much cheaper, shorter recovery time and better outlook for physical activity. It’s still experimental down here, which is another way of saying, insurance companies would lose money.

By: WildChild

WildChild — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 01:30:09 +0000

if they are in for the money, why would docotrs take less money if tort reform was passed and they were off the hook. It would be their time to blast away and clean up.

By: TeakWoodKite

TeakWoodKite — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 01:29:49 +0000

But why do you think BO has no comment now?

NO comment. LOL

Seriously, BO tactically, as much as I disdain anything BO, would be crazy to state a fixed position. And I don’t blame him for ducking the question at this time.

At this point I am resigned to the fact that BO does not and will never posses a principled bone in his body.

Why would I expect the comrade-elect to put his neck out and take a stand?
He won’t, get use to it.

By: WildChild

WildChild — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 01:20:41 +0000

The thing that needs to be addressed about non profit status is the mechanism for hospitals to upgrade their technology and make original buys in technology. Taking way a profit motive could impact those actions.