Health Care in need of real medical treatment
“We have to pass it to see what’s in it”, the infamous quote put forth by one of the “respected” Aristocratic incumbents. Now it’s all about the “back room dealing” to put forth a new health care bill. Under the leadership of Harry Reid and for a short time Nancy Pelosi we’ve come to expect the Congress to just put something together and then tell us what it is and how we’re supposed to respond because as several “open mike comments” have helped us understand they, (Congress and the Supreme Court), know what’s best for us! Don’t know how everyone else feels about it but that seems the height of hypocrisy. For the last 8 years we have operated without a budget, thanks to Harry, trusting that Congress would “do the right thing”. I’m not of the opinion we’re better off and our health care has gone from not real good but working non-the-less to no alternatives for the individual who isn’t employed by one of the major companies that is self-insured. The deductible has increased from 3-5 fold and the premiums as high as 70% in some states as we’ve all heard. Seems to me Health care was about to be completely taken over by the government to be distributed as they see fit. That to me is “Freddie Kruger” kind of scary, especially when you consider how well the VA works.
It seems the Democrats keep re-stating the Republican’s position exactly 180o opposite to what I’ve heard them say, to the point of claiming the Republicans health care will kill thousands if it’s passed because it’ll increase the premiums beyond what us normal people can afford. Really! What is it the Obamacare is already doing but raising the premiums. That’s what you get when legislation is passed in total secret – but wait it’s the democrats who are looking out for all of us and not letting any legislation pass without knowing what’s in it RIGHT? Well…….. Ok the Republicans make a point of adding language to insure pre-existing conditions will not cause you to loose insurance and the Democrats tell us pre-existing conditions won’t be covered. Huh? The Republicans put issues out there to discuss and are accused of making back room deals. I wonder if they create these false narratives because of the tenuous position they’re in and distraction is the best way to keep us from the real issues. This seems, at least to me, a real sign of disrespect. Disrespect by the way they change the perceived discussion and think no one is smart enough to notice, much less understand, it’s just too difficult to wrap your mind around. Wait a minute – Pass it to see what’s in it? Isn’t that the definition of a “back room deal”? But release information of each part being discussed before the passage is still considered a “back room deal”? I don’t know but my simple mind says releasing any information about a bill and putting it up for a debate is better than getting a roughly 1,500 page bill the day before you vote on it and then because you have a 60% margin in congress you pass it without any discussion seems far more disingenuous than what we’re seeing now. Remind me again, how do we seem to elect so many people with so little regard for our intelligence (Waters, Pelosi, Boxer, etc) time and time again. Again, thank you electoral college for saving us from LA, San Francisco, Seattle & New York voters who fall for the group think and press bias without using their God given intelligence to actually look at the facts, (Rev Wright, Bill Ayers, etc).
The latest discussion concerns pre-existing medical conditions as a means of raising insurance rates for a few people or denying insurance coverage at all. At least we’re having this discussion even though some of the discussion seems to stretch the truth or pull extreme possible numbers not likely to happen, as examples to judge the quality of the amendment. (Thousands will be killed because of the latest Republican health care bill – it’s worth repeating). I hear someone quote these extremes and immediately become suspicious of everything else they say. I wonder how many other people feel the same way? I just don’t trust anyone who has to resort to that tactic to bolster their argument. The truth is probably much more reasonable, so let’s discuss the real situation so we can work on positive changes. I mean really do you think the Republicans are interested in hurting anyone intentionally any more than the Democrats, whether they have medical issues or not? As has been stated and what has been my experience from before O-care if you maintain continuous health care then you won’t be denied health insurance. In spite of my health issues I’ve never been denied but I’ve made sure it never lapsed. That’s key to the whole issue which I call basic responsibility. Part of the discussion I’ve heard centers around those who have dropped insurance for a time and then try to pick it back up, they are likely to be denied. Well if that’s the case then my question is why did you drop coverage for any time especially when you risk not being able to restore it? I’m not interested in “kicking anyone to the curb” but at some point people have to grow up, just as when you fail to make a mortgage payment you’ll have to pay a penalty to re-instate the mortgage or risk having the mortgage foreclosed. It is completely inappropriate to ask those who responsibly maintain their mortgage to pay for those who don’t maintain their mortgage but don’t want to pay a penalty, the same thing should apply to a far more critical concept of health coverage. As it now stands, unlike the mortgage example, if you have a medical issue then there actually already is a safety net in place it just might not be as good as someone who maintained their insurance but at least you’ll still be around and that’s as it should be, so let’s not get caught up in this “false narrative” (otherwise known as a “straw dog”), and say people are going to die because they’re not being covered.
Richard Fowler a liberal radio talk show host takes an interesting bent on the whole discussion, the first is how fast this latest health care bill was passed – really? This is considered fast? I guess Obamacare was warp speed then. Another point he attempts to make is how little it does to help the American public, well, considering there are no current choices and prices are going up in the stratosphere (my cost is over $1,200/mo and would continue to go up), for much of the country then I think that statement is disingenuous at best. The mortgage on my house was actually less than the monthly cost of health insurance. That seems out of kilter to me and this latest effort will actually allow the costs to go down. To Richard’s point that the Republicans are living in LALA land because they believe the health care before Obamacare was “peaches and crème” I would say this is a perfect example of how the liberals like to redefine the intent of a discussion to fit the narrative they want to put forth rather than what the narrative actually is. The health care suffered greatly from the weight of a government sponsored monopoly and the cure for it certainly wasn’t more government so when Obamacare was imposed on the public without input or conversation it actually made things far worse than better and although they argue 30 million people got insurance there is no doubt that many more dropped it due to guarantees they could get it back because of the pre-existing guarantees or they dropped it because the flippin cost went out the roof. I know my deductible went from $1,500/year to $6,000/year. That’s an enormous drain on the pocket book let alone the economy and if I thought I was “superman” and invulnerable to injury I’d probably decline health insurance in favor of a new Mercedes too. This is one of those times we need to have an honest discussion instead of the “crap” the democrats are trying to feed us. (It’s easier to ignore the republican rhetoric because it tends to be less emotional).