You knew it already anyway

[kierthos]

Sarah Palin just completely full of shit.

Yeah, there's no such thing as a "death panel" in the health care legislation bill. And as for all that bullshit of "I don't want the government telling me what treatment I can or can't have."... yeah, that would be so fucking different from the insurance companies doing the same thing, right now.

Comments

[morinon.livejournal.com]

Sure there is. You can pick your insurance company. It's a lot harder to pick your government bureaucracy.

[mithras.livejournal.com]

Except, if you've got a pre-existing condition, good luck changing insurance.

Also, many insurance companies, if you have a serious enough (read: expensive) problem, will go through your records in order to find some mistake or omission you've made as a reason to cancel your insurance.

They were asked if they'd stop this, in front of Congress. They catagorically said "no".

[morinon.livejournal.com]

Here's the one thing so many people do not get. Insurance was never meant to be a necessity. Insurance is a gamble. The problem is, insurance became the norm, and between that and pharmeceuticals spending lots of money to change a single atom, healthcare prices have gone way up within my lifetime.

[kierthos.livejournal.com]

The problem is, it's still a gamble. Only at least when you gamble in Las Vegas, and you win, you actually win. With health insurance, a lot of times, if you end up needing major medical care, the insurance companies try to fuck you on every little thing, up to and including cancelling your policy because you dared try to use it.

As a side note, yes, I have health insurance through my job. I had been paying into it for years before I used it for the first time, and I still had to pay for the damn x-rays, because somehow, they weren't covered.

[morinon.livejournal.com]

So, two questions.

A: What makes you think that, in time, the government won't do the same on any non-emergency care?

B: What makes you think that, if this becomes mandatory (not simply an option, they're looking at everyone gets it), the government won't start saying what you can or can't do, only by law instead of refusing to pay for it?

[kierthos.livejournal.com]

A. Actually, I don't. But the monster-shouters don't even want to give it a chance to be heard, while simultaneously saying some of the dumbest goddamned things ever, like "keep the government's hands off of my Medicare!" (Yes, I'm serious. People have been saying that.)

B. Again, I am pessimisstic enough to assume that the government would deny certain types of health care. But again, the monster-shouters are acting like it already doesn't happen under insurance company policies right now. They are either blissfully unaware or they are shills.

Do we need a better and more comprehensive health care policy in this country? Yes. We're not going to get that from the insurance companies, because they're not interested in paying for health care. They only want money, in nice monthly installments, to make mostly empty promises. Sure, it's not a complete rip-off. If you need something that is cheap enough, sure your insurance will cover it. God help you if you get a major illness, or are in a major accident though.

Is the government going to magically fix things overnight? Of course not. Hell, the scariest thing you can say to most people is "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help." But if it's a choice between the status quo, or giving people more options... hey, let's go with the more options.

[kierthos.livejournal.com]

What I'm saying is that there are people claiming that "Oh noes! If'n the government takes over health care, they can deny us needed medical care." Which is basically what insurance companies do right now. You want to switch insurance companies? Good luck. Your problem just became a pre-existing condition. Your rates will probably be a lot higher, and hey, they still might deny you treatment because some actuary table somewhere has you fall on one side of the line instead of the other.

I'm not saying that government run health care would be all cake and roses. I'm saying that the arguments against reforming health care are completely full of shit.

[delwin.livejournal.com]

An insurance company is a for-profit company. They have a fiduciary responsibility to save money and increase profit. Thus they have a motive to deny you coverage at every turn.

The government has no such pressure.

[mithras.livejournal.com]

What has been said, tbough, is that to keep the burdan of this off the taxpayers, it would be run at a profit, or at least, not at a loss.

[delwin.livejournal.com]

That's the theory - but there's a big difference between 'we'd like to not lose money' and 'we are legally required to make money'.

CBO has the current healthcare proposal as running at a net loss of about $50b per year.