More clarity Needed on Obama healthcare; Something, Anything Needed from Party of “NO!”

July 29, 2009 | By | 2 Replies More

I’m concerned about some lack of clarity on health care issues from the Obama administration but, my concern is nothing compared to my disgust for the despicable declarations of “NO!” and nothing from the Republicans in Washington. Chief among the prevaricators is Republican Roy Blunt who reports there will be no GOP alternative to any Democratic plan for the reform of America’s broken healthcare system.

All we’ll hear about is “socialism” and more lies about how you won’t be able to choose your doctors or will lose your current coverage.  You can see more about the President’s plan here:

First, “socialism” is government control of the means of production.

Second, no one is proposing that the entire medical “industry” be taken over by the federal government. The current legislation will allow for options to the current system. The current system is one for which I found an apropos description below [the following well-written post was published under the headline of “Still scary…” in the Letters section at the website of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch is reprinted with permission]:

Dear Mr. President: I am writing you today because I am outraged at the notion of involving government in healthcare decisions like they do in other countries. I believe healthcare decisions should be between myself and my doctor.

Well, that is not strictly true. I believe healthcare decisions should be between myself, my doctor, and my insurance company, which provides me a list of which doctors I can see, which specialists I can see, and has a strict policy outlining when I can and can’t see those specialists, for what symptoms, and what tests my doctors can or cannot perform for a given set of symptoms. That seems fair, because the insurance company needs to make a profit; they’re not in the business of just keeping people alive for free.

Oh, and also my employer. My employer decides what health insurance company and plans will be available to me in the first place. If I quit that job and find another, my heath insurance will be different, and I may or may not be able to see the same doctor as I had been seeing before, or receive the same treatments, or obtain the same medicines. So I believe my healthcare decisions should be between myself, the company I work for, my insurance company, and my doctor.

And the separate claims review team that will be looking over my treatment.

My health insurer might have flagged me as someone who needs a lot of healthcare, and who is therefore costing the company money. Needing to use the insurance you paid for is naturally a suspicious activity: that means that a special review team will look over my paperwork, seeing if there is any vaguely plausible reason for the company to be rid of me. They will look for loopholes in my application, irregularities in the paperwork my doctor filled out or any other situations which, like magic, mean that all the money I have paid for health insurance premiums was in fact irrelevant, null and void, and they don’t have to pay a single cent of claims because I defrauded them by neglecting to remember that I had chicken pox in sixth grade, not fifth, or that what I presumed was a bad cold in 1997 was in fact maybe-possibly-bronchitis, and I can’t possibly expect to be covered for any lung-related complaints since then. I suppose I cannot complain too much; after all, this is a crack squadron of employees whose pay is determined by how much they can reduce the healthcare costs incurred by the company. It would be irresponsible for them to not look for such loopholes.

So, Mr. President, I write to you with this demand: we are not a socialist country, one which believes the health of its citizens should come without the proper profit-loss determinations. I believe that my healthcare decisions should be between me, my insurance company plan, my insurance company’s list of approved doctors I am allowed to see and treatments I am allowed to get, my insurance company’s claims department, the insurance company doctors who have never met me, spoken to me or even personally looked at my files, my own preexisting conditions, my insurance company’s crack cost-review and retroactive cancellation and denial squads, my insurance company’s executives and board of directors, my insurance company’s profit requirements, the shareholders, my employer, and my doctor.
Anything else would be insulting.

— The Libtard
1:29 am July 26th, 2009

America needs to take better care of its citizens in critical times of need, like when we are ill. It is not any government scheme to take over the means of production to provide some basic health care for all of us. The status quo is unacceptable. If the Republicans can do no better than “NO,” it’s time for them to get out of the way. People are dying, and we can’t yet all rise from the dead.

Share

Tags: , , ,

Category: Health, Medicine, Politics, Psychology Cognition

About the Author ()

imothy E. Hogan is a trial attorney, a husband, a father of two awesome children and a practicing Roman Catholic in St. Louis, Missouri. Mr. Hogan has done legal and political work in Jefferson City, Missouri for partisan and non-partisan social change, environmental and consumer protection groups. Mr. Hogan has also worked for consumer advocate Ralph Nader in Washington, DC and the members of the trial bar in the State of New York. Mr. Hogan’s current interests involve remaining a full time solo practitioner pioneer on the frontiers of justice in America, a good husband and a good father to his awesome children.

Comments (2)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Derek says:

    I am still unclear on some things regarding the plants put forth, but I did see some republicans (or was it just some guy?) proposing some ideas to fix the underlying cause: sky rocketing costs.

    The most obvious one for the consumer was removing the interstate ban on selling health insurance. My life insurance is from Iowa, my home owners insurance somewhere else. This all breeds competition and drives down the costs that we pay as premiums.

    I can't remember what else was suggested though, doh.

  2. Dan Klarmann says:

    I stumbled onto this anti-health-care-bill rant

    Twittering ObamaCare: Horrors In The Bill that largely takes it to task for

    a) Not providing enough coverage and

    b) Covering too much to afford.

    And then an explanation for the mindset:

    An Incoherent Truth describing the tactics of the Blue Dog Coalition.

    Apparently there are well organized propaganda groups dedicated to sinking any change to health care insurance profits. Logic and reason are not apparently considered good form. But FUD is freely practiced.

Leave a Reply