RSS

Medicare Enrollees Unite To Keep Government Out Of Health Care

31 Aug

Yep. It’s still going on. The men and women of this country who have been blessed to live to age 65 are either confused or, more than likely, feel a sense of entitlement about their health insurance. You see, they love their Medicare, but despise the idea of government involvement in health care. I’ve written about this already, as have many others, and it seems that clearing up a misconception hasn’t been sufficient to stop the rallying cries of seniors to “Keep the government’s hands off my Medicare!”

That leads me to believe one thing: Old folks aren’t confused about Medicare being a government program. On the contrary, they know that it’s a government program, and they love it. No, the issue is one of their feeling entitled to the benefits they enjoy and worrying that if the government extends benefits to others who the elderly consider undeserving, it will mean relinquishing a portion of their entitlement. After all, government can’t do everything, right? There will inevitably be some sort of rationing wherein Congress robs from Peter to pay Paul.

So, why do seniors feel so entitled? Well, one argument would be that they have paid their dues into the system and now they are just getting back what they put in. That sounds plausible until you realize that current Medicare enrollees are receiving far more back in benefits than they ever paid into the system. Is it because they are retired, unable to work, or otherwise hindered by their age from taking care of themselves and securing their own health insurance? Could be. But by that logic, there are plenty of people who we fail to cover in this country, even though they face many similar obstacles. For many, age is a valid excuse, however, while social, environmental, and other contextual factors that plague the non-elderly doesn’t justify help from the government. Some have even argued that latent racism drives the gap between deserving and undeserving.

As Ezra Klein points out, like everything else in politics–the art of who gets what, when, where, and how–this is a matter of two groups: us and them. We like what we have. We don’t want them to take it away from us. We deserve it. They don’t. It is the most selfish, self-centered reasoning imaginable. Honestly, it’s hypocritical. If all of these seniors decrying governmental involvement in health care at town halls are serious, then they ought to tear up their Medicare cards and tell the Congress, “Thanks, but no thanks.” They’ll never do that, though, because you see, they love government involvement in health care as long as it’s on their behalf. They only hate it when it promises to help someone else.

Advertisements
 
11 Comments

Posted by on August 31, 2009 in Uncategorized

 

11 responses to “Medicare Enrollees Unite To Keep Government Out Of Health Care

  1. Mvthebrat

    August 31, 2009 at 11:43 pm

    Your statement rings a bit uninformed since the government forces people to accept at least Medicare Part A in order for them to receive the Social Security benefits. Do you homework on that, please. "Thanks, but no thanks." They'll never do that" I don't want the government options for a number of reasons (not retired yet, but will be in 8 years) First, although I supposedly will be able to keep my own private insurance until I retire (when I am forced to at least accept Medicare Part A), the government will set for the insurance companies what the rate of pay is for procedures as it will in the government option, so the promise of being able to keep my private insurance truly will then be no better than the government option. So, then why will people stay with a private insurer and pay a higher premium. Simply put they won't and then we will see a cut in services as our physicians, nurses, medical techs, etc. are overwhelmed with additional patients and underpaid by the government. I can go on about this as I have read the 1018 pages of the proposed house bill and the 615 pages of the proposed senate bill. But I suggest you read more of it, where the IRS be required to send your tax info to the insurance commissioner and will have access to our bank accounts (violations of privacy and too much room for error). I want coverage for people who have chronic conditions, truly can't afford, disabled. But I do not trust the government to handle such a project. Right now in the coffers of Medicare/Mediaid there is NO cash, just government IOUs -what the heck have they done with all the money all of us have paid in? Look at what these uncaring, worthless, greedy elected officials have done to us, enslaving our children, grandchildren and so forth will a debt that is almost insurmountable. I don't want to hear a blame game of right/liberals versus left/conservatives, I want true research into what is being done to ALL US CITZENS and how we are so happy to just go along with the status quo of "shutting up" and believing what they say. Have you ever looked at our own U.S. Government's studies on the terrible consequences of our welfare program? You should it is online for all to see. We need assistance programs for the truly needy (don't think I don't understand, I have a sister with MS (Yes it is terminal and debilitating). She's had it for 25 years, my sister, me and other family members have all assisted in helping her – SHE STILL WORKS FULL TIME. But when she has had attacks we've stayed with her, driven her when she could not. She lives alone is on a walker and does not believe in USING THE SYSTEM, when she can contribute. When she can no longer work, then we'll have to fight with SSI (pay an attorney more than likely) to get benefits that she will need to have, but until then MY FAMILY WAS NEVER TAUGHT TO TAKE HANDOUTS!!! Many can't say that, check the U.S. statistics on fraud in the Medicare/Medicaid (and other departments) and tell why I should have any faith in what these worthless elected officials say. The U.S. CBO (the U.S. government office) said the house bill will add 1.4 TRILLION dollars to our national deficit and the senate bill will add $1 TRILLION, where is President Obama's PROMISE THAT ANY BILL MUST BE 'REVENUE NEUTRAL'. Do you homework please, before you tell me that everyone (retired) wants a handout. And read the bills, really read them an research all sides (ALL SIDES), please.

     
  2. D. Brad Wright

    September 1, 2009 at 12:19 am

    Yes, everyone is entitled to Medicare Part A sans premiums — that's just hospital insurance, and if you arrange for alternate coverage, you don't have to use your Medicare. Please don't tell me that I am "uninformed" when I know very well how Medicare does and does not work, and am simply referring to the remarks of a large number of people who are on the record in support of Medicare and against government health care.Contrary to your insinuations, I have read HR 3200 in its entirety, and you make several claims based on your own reading, which are inaccurate. You say government will set rates for private insurers. Not true. It will only ensure that insurers do not raise premiums at an unjustified rate and cut benefits. As I've written before, that's a consumer protection. Everything you say about the IRS and bank accounts is totally bogus. Read the text of the bill again. That's NOT in there. What "welfare" program are you referring to? TANF? The program that you can only get for 5 years and no more? I'm quite sure no one's making a lifelong living off of that.Your bold assertion that your family was never taught to take handouts just emphasizes the entire point of my post: Folks like "you" weren't, but people like "them" were. Whatever.What's being done to citizens is they are being robbed blind by a system that has figured out how to profit from their lack of understanding, fear, and concerns about their health. The private market has had a major role in that. Contrary to what you might think, I got into my line of work because, growing up in the south, I have a lot of relatives, friends, and neighbors who are in dire need of some serious help. Having worked in health care for a decade, as both a clinician, a policy analyst, and a health services researcher, I know how things work. I desperately want to share that information with people, but most everyone seems hell bent on playing political blame games and spreading misinformation. When I encounter vitriol like your posted comment, it makes me want to give it up, and say, "Fine. I tried to warn you. I tried to help. If you don't want it, suit yourself. Let's see just how great things continue to get when we do absolutely nothing."

     
  3. Mvthebrat

    September 1, 2009 at 1:17 pm

    These are the five Welfare Reports I am referring to completed by the Joint Economic Committe's studies. See the websites listed below:http://www.house.gov/jec/welstate/vg-1/vg-1.htmImpact of the Welfare State on the American Economyhttp://www.house.gov/jec/welstate/vg-2/vg-2.htmImpact of the Welfare State on Workers http://www.house.gov/jec/welstate/vg-3/vg-3.htm Impact of the Welfare State on America's Children http://www.house.gov/jec/welstate/vg-4/vg-4.htmImpact of the Welfare State on Small Business and the American Entrepreneurhttp://www.house.gov/jec/welstate/vg-5/vg-5.htm Impact of the Welfare State on the American Family From Part Five"VI. The Family in Perspective[12] Before the advent of large scale government welfare, a plethora of private organizations provided assistance for individuals who were economically disadvantaged–churches, aid societies, widows' and orphans' benevolent groups, etc. As Marvin Olasky has documented, these private organizations had an impressive record in reducing poverty and economic distress. They did it largely by relying on human goodness based on values such as love and compassion rather than by mechanistic disbursement of funds. Personal responsibility was required. As Olasky recounts, "No one was allowed to eat and run" at the pre-New Deal private charities. Additionally, families took care of less fortunate relatives. While private organizations such as the Salvation Army continue to help the poor, there is strong evidence that their financial support has been dramatically eroded by the public's knowledge that the government provides public assistance. When the modern system of public assistance evolved in the 1930s, proponents felt that a humane society should take care of those who had no male breadwinner in the home. No thought was given to the possibility that public assistance predicated on the absence of a male head of household might lead to an increase in the number of such families. If you subsidize something, usually you get more of it, and this has been the case with the single parent families and the welfare system. We believe the evidence supports two propositions: (1) Welfare has increased the incidence of single parent families and contributed to the decline in traditional families (two married parents living together with their children); and (2) Welfare has contributed to illegitimate babies being produced to obtain or increase public assistance payments. There has been a meteoric increase in the proportion of children not living in two-parent families (Figure 7). Today, about 3 of 10 children live outside the traditional family arrangement, double the proportion of a generation ago.[15] During the same period, real public aid expenditures rose sharply as well. Not only did spending on income maintenance programs rise in real per capita terms, but they rose significantly faster than personal income."Will post additional info on other posts to keep within the 4,096 characters limits. Thank you.

     
  4. Mvthebrat

    September 1, 2009 at 2:22 pm

    Quote from D. Brad Wright said… "Yes, everyone is entitled to Medicare Part A sans premiums — that's just hospital insurance, and if you arrange for alternate coverage, you don't have to use your Medicare." Signing up for Medicare Part A is a requirement by law, if you want to receive your Social Security benefits, so it truly is a mandate or be punished. With government mandatory spending (entitlements) making up in 2003 up approximately 65% of the entire U.S. Budget. See site for reference and figures, why would it not be better to allow people to not sign up for Medicare Part A and allow them their own insurance choice.http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_percentage_of_the_U.S._federal_budget_is_spent_on_entitlementsSee sites for mandate to take Medicare Part A (or loose your Social Security)http://www.forhealthfreedom.org/Publications/MedicareMedicaid/MandatoryEnrollment.htmlhttps://secure.ssa.gov/apps10/poms.nsf/lnx/0600801002"What Federal Policy Dictates Mandatory Enrollment?The Social Security Administration's HI 00801.002 "Waiver of HI Entitlement by Monthly Beneficiary" states: Individuals entitled to monthly [Social Security] benefits which confer eligibility for HI [Hospital Insurance] may not waive HI entitlement. The only way to avoid HI entitlement is through withdrawal of the monthly benefit application. Withdrawal requires repayment of all RSDI [Retirement, Survivors, and Disability Insurance] and HI benefit payments made.How Does the Federal Government Enforce Its Mandatory Enrollment Policy?The federal government forces citizens to sign up for Medicare Part A when they apply for Social Security benefits. The Social Security Administration even combines the applications for both programs into a single form (see Appendix A). No form currently exists for Social Security benefits only. It's all or nothing. Was Medicare Supposed to Work this Way?No. When Medicare was created in 1965, Congress promised that the program would not interfere with citizens' freedom to purchase private health insurance. The original Medicare law (which amended the Social Security Act by creating Title XVIII-Health Insurance for the Aged) included the following provision (which remains unchanged): Sec. 1803. Option to individuals to obtain other heath insurance protection: Nothing contained in this title shall be construed to preclude any State from providing, or any individual from purchasing or otherwise securing, protection against the cost of any health services [emphasis added. Additionally, the original Medicare law stated in Section 1802, "[F]ree choice by patient guaranteed."7 But this provision was amended and seniors' freedom was limited with passage of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. That law included Section 4507, which penalizes physicians who accept private payment for Medicare-covered services: any doctor who does so must stop seeing all Medicare patients for two years. The United Seniors Association challenged this rule in federal court, but the court avoided the issue, ruling only that non-covered services could be privately paid for.8,9" "References: 1. Social Security Administration, Policy No. HI 00801.002, "Waiver of HI Entitlement by Monthly Beneficiary," http://policy.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/lnx/0600801002. See also a letter to U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, M.D., regarding a woman attempting to apply for Social Security benefits without enrolling in Medicare Part A, http://www.forhealthfreedom.org/Publications/MedicareMedicaid/LetterToRonPaul.jpg. 2. Social Security Administration, Policy No. HI 00801.002, "Waiver of HI Entitlement by Monthly Beneficiary," http://policy.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/lnx/0600801002. 3. Commerce Clearing House, Inc., Complete Guide to Medicare (New York: CCH, 1967).

     
  5. D. Brad Wright

    September 1, 2009 at 2:42 pm

    Oh, wait, the government actually does something efficiently by allowing you to enroll in two programs at the same time using 1 form? Lord forbid!Enrolling in Part A might be compulsory, but using it sure isn't. You can always go out and buy whatever private coverage you want. It isn't like enrolling in Medicare makes you ineligible for all other insurance. That's just silly. Besides, as I said before, Part A is only HOSPITAL INSURANCE. If you plan on being admitted, that's fine. If you just want to go to the doctor, tough. Part A doesn't have ANYTHING to do with that.Besides, which, if someone is so anti-government that they want to ditch their Medicare, then perhaps they OUGHT to consider ditching their paychecks from the SSA. Oh, wait. They'd NEVER do that. Yet more proof of a government program that people like enough not to walk away. Sorry, but footnotes don't make your argument any stronger.

     
  6. Mvthebrat

    September 1, 2009 at 4:05 pm

    I realize that Medicare Part A is just for the hospital, as I am also aware of Parts B, C & D, so we both know what we are discussing. However, when you say: "Enrolling in Part A might be compulsory, but using it sure isn't. You can always go out and buy whatever private coverage you want. It isn't like enrolling in Medicare makes you ineligible for all other insurance. That's just silly." I believe these is a bit of a wrinkle in this. "The original Medicare law (which amended the Social Security Act by creating Title XVIII-Health Insurance for the Aged) included the following provision (which remains unchanged): Sec. 1803. Option to individuals to obtain other health insurance protection: Nothing contained in this title shall be construed to preclude any State from providing, or any individual from purchasing or otherwise securing, protection against the cost of any health service" Shown in previous message, where I find the issue: Medicare law stated in Section 1802, "[F]ree choice by patient guaranteed."7 But this provision was amended and seniors' freedom was limited with passage of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. That law included Section 4507, which penalizes physicians who accept private payment for Medicare-covered services: any doctor who does so must stop seeing all Medicare patients for two years. The United Seniors Association challenged this rule in federal court, but the court avoided the issue, ruling only that non-covered services could be privately paid for.8,9 Why does the government have a say over what a doctor charges, when I choose not to use Medicare Part A as you rightfully said I can do. If my private insurance (which I realize will only pay a percentage and negotiates with doctors, hospital, pharmaceutical companies, etc.) agrees to a price, then why does the government intervene and then also punish again? I realize also that a part of my insurance premium also goes to assist with covering the uninsured. As we all pay into the mandatory spending through our FICA taxes (a tax that is also matched by the employers).Somehow, you have me pegged as someone who does not want coverage and assistance for people who truly need it and you are incorrect there. This is a staggering problem that will continue to grow, but I cannot support either of these bills. I did not add any foot notes as it appeared to offend you. I did so only to allow people to research for themselves. And by research, I think all people should look all the way around. My comments and yours should incite everyone to find out for themselves and then come down on the side they prefer. Why are you so upset with seniors? I'm upset with our elected officials who treat us as if we are their employees, when in reality they work for us, the citizens of the U.S. And I am upset with people of all ages who would rather take from all who are taxpayers without any intention of being productive. Now, let me clearly state I am not mad at 'all' people who are on assistance, a high percentage of these people truly do need this at least for a time and many permanently. I am angry and disappointed with the ones who have no intentions of ever getting off the dole and the belief that in these cases we are actually assisting people. Adding people to a government program who have chosen (yes, simply chosen) not to get insurance at the taxpayers expense is not a good idea. A breakdown of the 47 million people in the U.S. without insurance is as follows. Illegal Immigrants 5 Million 11%Legal Immigrants 5 Million 11%Individuals Earning More Than $75,000 Per Year 9 Million 19%Eligible For Government Programs 10 Million 20%Eligible For Employer-Sponsored Insurance 6 Million 13%American Without Affordable Options 12 Million 26%Yes, there are 12 million uninsured out of the 47 million counted, I want them insured, but not this way.

     
  7. Mvthebrat

    September 1, 2009 at 6:54 pm

    If I may, I would like to address two parts of H.R. 3200 that I mentioned previously. They are both lengthy. First is my reference to the IRS releasing information to the Health Care Administration employees or officers. To set the record straight, I WAS WRONG when I said that the IRS would be required to release your information (I did not clarify that it would be only if there is a request), the IRS will only be required to release your information if it is requested by the Health Choices Commissioner. Info is below and is quoted from the proposed bill: This information along with other related info is available on pages 194 to 197 Page 19410 Subtitle C—Disclosures To Carry11 Out Health Insurance Exchange12 Subsidies13 SEC. 431. DISCLOSURES TO CARRY OUT HEALTH INSUR14ANCE EXCHANGE SUBSIDIES.15 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (l) of section 6103 of16 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding17 at the end the following new paragraph:18 ‘‘(21) DISCLOSURE OF RETURN INFORMATION19 TO CARRY OUT HEALTH INSURANCE EXCHANGE SUB-20 SIDIES.—21 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, upon22 written request from the Health Choices Com-23 missioner or the head of a State-based health24 insurance exchange approved for operation25 under section 208 of the America’s AffordableVerDate Nov 24 2008 02:21 Jul 15, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00194 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3200.IH H3200 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLSPage 195•HR 3200 IH1 Health Choices Act of 2009, shall disclose to of-2 ficers and employees of the Health Choices Ad-3 ministration or such State-based health insur-4 ance exchange, as the case may be, return in-5 formation of any taxpayer whose income is rel-6 evant in determining any affordability credit de-7 scribed in subtitle C of title II of the America’s8 Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009. Such9 return information shall be limited to—10 ‘‘(i) taxpayer identity information11 with respect to such taxpayer,12 ‘‘(ii) the filing status of such tax-13 payer,14 ‘‘(iii) the modified adjusted gross in-15 come of such taxpayer (as defined in sec-16 tion 59B(e)(5)),17 ‘‘(iv) the number of dependents of the18 taxpayer,19 ‘‘(v) such other information as is pre-20 scribed by the Secretary by regulation as21 might indicate whether the taxpayer is eli-22 gible for such affordability credits (and the23 amount thereof), and24 ‘‘(vi) the taxable year with respect to25 which the preceding information relates or,VerDate Nov 24 2008 23:22 Jul 14, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00195 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3200.IH H3200 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLSPage 196•HR 3200 IH1 if applicable, the fact that such informa-2 tion is not available."I disagree with this part and will post info on how I believe the government will also have access to your finacial information.

     
  8. Mvthebrat

    September 1, 2009 at 8:40 pm

    In regards to my previous statement about the government having access to personal financial information (at real-time or near real time finacial information)It begins on page 49 under the topic of1 Subtitle F—Relation to Other2 Requirements; Miscellaneous3 SEC. 151. RELATION TO OTHER REQUIREMENTS.Partial quote of bill beginning on page 57 and going through page 581 respect to health insurance coverage issued before, on, or2 after such date.3 SEC. 163. ADMINISTRATIVE SIMPLIFICATION.4 (a) STANDARDIZING ELECTRONIC ADMINISTRATIVE5 TRANSACTIONS.—6 (1) IN GENERAL.—Part C of title XI of the So7cial Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320d et seq.) is8 amended by inserting after section 1173 the fol-9 lowing new section:10 ‘‘SEC. 1173A. STANDARDIZE ELECTRONIC ADMINISTRATIVE11 TRANSACTIONS.12 ‘‘(a) STANDARDS FOR FINANCIAL AND ADMINISTRA13TIVE TRANSACTIONS.—14 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall adopt15 and regularly update standards consistent with the16 goals described in paragraph (2).17 ‘‘(2) GOALS FOR FINANCIAL AND ADMINISTRA-18 TIVE TRANSACTIONS.—The goals for standards19 under paragraph (1) are that such standards shall—20 ‘‘(A) be unique with no conflicting or re-21 dundant standards;22 ‘‘(B) be authoritative, permitting no addi-23 tions or constraints for electronic transactions,24 including companion guides;VerDate Nov 24 2008 23:22 Jul 14, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3200.IH H3200 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLSPage 58•HR 3200 IH1 ‘‘(C) be comprehensive, efficient and ro-2 bust, requiring minimal augmentation by paper3 transactions or clarification by further commu-4 nications;5 ‘‘(D) enable the real-time (or near real-6 time) determination of an individual’s financial7 responsibility at the point of service and, to the8 extent possible, prior to service, including9 whether the individual is eligible for a specific10 service with a specific physician at a specific fa-11 cility, which may include utilization of a ma-12 chine-readable health plan beneficiary identi-13 fication card;14 ‘‘(E) enable, where feasible, near real-time15 adjudication of claims;16 ‘‘(F) provide for timely acknowledgment,17 response, and status reporting applicable to any18 electronic transaction deemed appropriate by19 the Secretary;20 ‘‘(G) describe all data elements (such as21 reason and remark codes) in unambiguous22 terms, not permit optional fields, require that23 data elements be either required or conditioned24 upon set values in other fields, and prohibit ad-25 ditional conditions; andIf this is such a tremendous program, then why did both houses (Representative and Senate) make sure they are not covered in the proposed plans? Let's agree that we will disagree on points, but let's investigate options and come up with something that is more fair to all and not saddle future generations with laws that are passed to quickly with minimal review and what could be crippling effects on our budget, crippling to everyone's health care and provides too much power to another government run program.

     
  9. D. Brad Wright

    September 1, 2009 at 10:10 pm

    Oh goodness. Hate to say it, but you're wrong again. You say "government will have access to personal financial information" — a phrase that appears NOWHERE in the text of the legislation you cited.5 ‘‘(D) enable the real-time (or near real-time) determination of an individual’s financial responsibility at the point of service and, to the extent possible, prior to service, including whether the individual is eligible for a specific service with a specific physician at a specific facility, which may include utilization of a machine-readable health plan beneficiary identification card;Altogether now, in plain English that means: You would have an insurance card that could be swiped when you go to the doctor and that could then let you know if this doctor was in or out-of-network, if certain benefits would be covered, and how much you would be responsible for paying. It's basically a way of putting all of the information in your insurance benefit plan–you know that big book you get once a year that's so hard to read?–into electronic form, and it would actually be a HUGE help. They already ask for your insurance card at the doctor. This is just a way to automate that system as much as possible, rather than having them Xerox a paper card, file paperwork, you get care, and then a month or more later you find out what your insurance covered and what you owe. IT HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH YOUR PERSONAL FINANCIAL INFORMATION.As for the rest of your comment re: Congress' exclusion, you need to read the rest of my blog — I've already addressed that and the fact that it's not just Congress but a few million federal employees and their families.Just about anything is more fair than what we have now, where large groups of hard-working full-time employees go without any coverage at all. And laws that can be passed can also be repealed. I'm so sick of hearing people complain about the evils of "big brother." That's the same old song and dance we heard over Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, and somehow they passed without the world coming to an end. I will say, I am not up for a continued back and forth wherein ideological positions are relatively cemented. The purpose of my blog is to provide people with information on health policy and health services research, not engage in debates with people that have loads of potential to devolve into town-hall style scenarios. I hope you'll understand. Responding to such long comments with long comments of my own is just too time-consuming.

     
  10. Mvthebrat

    September 2, 2009 at 10:39 am

    Fortunately for the majority of us, we are able to read and understand our insurance policies and also legislation. I never said health care reform should be stopped, only that the current bills are ones I do not like. I never saw our debate as devolving but instead as an exchange of thoughts with the intent and belief that it would provoke additional thoughts within me and others. A desire to understand others opinions and learn and an effort to open dialogue with the full intention of working together for a positive result. I suppose you may liken it to bipartisan efforts. Yes, the two of us are on separate paths on these two bills, but I think we both expressed ourselves with our own intrepretations of how the bills are currently written. A food for thought exchange between people who want an agreeable resolution. I've never raised big brother or end of the world scenarios, I've raised my sincere concerns about the current conditions of our Welfare, Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid systems, our budget deficit, this debt being left to the next generations and the lack of our elected officials to carry out the will of their constituents. No one has ever spent their way out of debt,at least no one I know.On the insurance card that we both have addressed, of course it will be used by doctors, medical facilities to determine your plan and access your medical history, but it also quite easily could also be used as a credit/debit card. Thank you again for your time and responses.

     
  11. Anonymous

    October 6, 2009 at 4:33 pm

    All I have to say after wading through these tedious comments is "health care is NOT a right". Some place in some politician's mind it seemed like this would work if we added one more program of guarenteed medical help. Have we all overlooked the fact that any one can walk into any hospital and get emergency care? Yes, I'm a total free market business man and nothing, I repeat nothing, works like the free market. Let competition, uninterrupted by government intrusion, work and even health insurance will seek a reasonable level. And, don't forget medical insurance was never intended for minor care. We, the American public, seem to have forgotten those days when you actually paid for those minor visits. Can anyone remember that we seem to fix our cars when they break? Why not those first $500 dollars of medical care?Justwatchin'

     

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: