It's a a lengthy read from money.cnn.com. You'll note it's not a vast right wing conspiracy here. It's CNN's money website. You'll lose 5 key freedoms under Obama's health care plan - Jul. 24, 2009

Basically the healthcare bill in congress will; 1) Take away freedom to choose what kind of plan is best for you and your family. 2) Take away programs that reward you for healthy living, or programs that allow you to pay as you go for care. 3) Take away freedom to choose a high deductible program. 4) Not allow you to keep your existing plan. 5) Not allow you to choose your own doctors.

This is just the start. I guess it's time for me to find it and read it. I found it here: http://www.eagleforum.org/links/pdf/HouseDemHealth.pdf

I got an email that listed a page by page look at the first 500 pages of the healthcare bill.

I decided to look at 1 page at random and saw the following: From the email; Page 30: A government committee will decide what treatments and benefits you get (and, unlike an insurer, there will be no appeals process) From the actual bill, page 30: SEC. 123. HEALTH BENEFITS ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
12 (a) ESTABLISHMENT.—
13 (1) IN GENERAL.—There is established a pri14
vate-public advisory committee which shall be a
15 panel of medical and other experts to be known as
16 the Health Benefits Advisory Committee to rec17
ommend covered benefits and essential, enhanced,
18 and premium plans.
19 (2) CHAIR.—The Surgeon General shall be a
20 member and the chair of the Health Benefits Advi21
sory Committee.
22 (3) MEMBERSHIP.—The Health Benefits Advi23
sory Committee shall be composed of the following
24 members, in addition to the Surgeon General:

Page 31
1 (A) 9 members who are not Federal
2 employees or officers and who are appointed by
3 the President.
4 (B) 9 members who are not Federal em
5 ployees or officers and who are appointed by
6 the Comptroller General of the United States in
7 a manner similar to the manner in which the
8 Comptroller General appoints members to the
9 Medicare Payment Advisory Commission under
10 section 1805(c) of the Social Security Act.
11 (C) Such even number of members (not to
12 exceed 8) who are Federal employees and offi13
cers, as the President may appoint.
14 Such initial appointments shall be made not later
15 than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this
16 Act.
17 (4) TERMS.—Each member of the Health Bene18
fits Advisory Committee shall serve a 3-year term on
19 the Committee, except that the terms of the initial
20 members shall be adjusted in order to provide for a
21 staggered term of appointment for all such mem22
bers.
23 (5) PARTICIPATION.—The membership of the
24 Health Benefits Advisory Committee shall at least
25 reflect providers, consumer representatives, employ-

Page 32
1 ers, labor, health insurance issuers, experts in health
2 care financing and delivery, experts in racial and
3 ethnic disparities, experts in care for those with dis4
abilities, representatives of relevant governmental
5 agencies. and at least one practicing physician or
6 other health professional and an expert on children’s
7 health and shall represent a balance among various
8 sectors of the health care system so that no single
9 sector unduly influences the recommendations of
10 such Committee.
11 (b) DUTIES.—
12 (1) RECOMMENDATIONS ON BENEFIT STAND13
ARDS.—The Health Benefits Advisory Committee
14 shall recommend to the Secretary of Health and
15 Human Services (in this subtitle referred to as the
16 ‘‘Secretary’’) benefit standards (as defined in para17
graph (4)), and periodic updates to such standards.
18 In developing such recommendations, the Committee
19 shall take into account innovation in health care and
20 consider how such standards could reduce health dis
21 parities.

What this basically is saying is that the President will pick 17 of 26 members to be on the Advisory Committee and 8 by the Comptroller. (Another government agent) So, the government will decide what will be covered and what won't be. Mostly on the basis of 17 members appointed by the President. I get the feeling that it's something I'd rather avoid.

 

The government cannot run anything so like all their other medical programs such as Medicaid and Medicare this program too will be bloated and wasteful in no time at all...

With that said, this article is making a TON of assumptions. There are about 5 plans right now under review and not all of them contain those 5 points they bring up. Each one contains perhaps one but none of them are all or nothing.

No one can really say what the programs is like because none of them have been approved yet. So this is really all just speculation.

 

I wonder if they were trying to rush things to keep us from digging deeper sometimes. I'm glad the so-called "Blue Dog" Democrats stood up to the Speakers. I read more of the one I was able to find and it gets worse as you read. While I'm no lawyer I can read pretty well and I don't like what I see.

 

I don't like anything about the idea of govt. run health care. I do think that the cost of health care is too high and should be lowered by the free market.
Limiting judgments on malpractice suits against doctors and hospitals would take a big bite out of the cost by lowering malpractice insurance rates.
Lowering drug costs and still making sure drug company's have adequate funding for research and development is a key component to any health care "reform"! IMO!
The govt. will only add "cost" to the system and should stay out of the health care business altogether!
Health care is NOT a right! It IS a privilege!

 

The problem is that the insurance companies will not allow the free market to prosper. The insurance companies are among the richest companies on the planet, and they own you and your doctor.

I'm sure you've all seen the commercial from places like Cinergy Health and Assurant Health etc..... Well those are free market attempts to bring down the cost of heathcare. The problem is that the big insurance companies own the hospitals and so they say "if you accept those plans, we are pulling our coverage" .....and without those big insurance companies the hospitals will go under.

That whole argument about heathcare being a right and not a privilege does not fly. Because there are those that want it, and deserve it, and cannot get it. Just try and get any coverage if you have pre-existing conditions. In that case you are being denied that so called right to have insurance. Is that fair?

Rather than force a government controlled system, which will in essence be a more bloated version of the already in place social programs of Medicare and Medicaid, the government should reform the insurance-to-hospital relationship and force the hospitals and doctors to take any insurance you have. And they should force insurance companies to take you even if you are old or have a pre-existing condition.

 

Let's see...

A government run, not-for-profit, health care system.
There would be less $$ spent on overhead--think about it--20 separate private insurance companies each with its own billing department etc, and with multi-million dollar executive salaries. Wouldn't you rather have the millions and millions spent on executive salaries be spent on actually providing services?
The idea that a single payer system would decide what services would or would not be provided is asinine--private insurance companies already decide what procedures they will cover, so there is no difference.
In any case--follow the money trail. Who is afraid of a single payer system?--Easy answer: the insurance companies that will lose their billions in profits.
Billions that could reduce the cost of services and/or provide healthcare for all. The private insurance companies are afraid that a not-for-profit system will provide better care at a lower cost than they can provide. No wonder they are using scare tactics and rumors versus facts to further their position.
Still not sure it will work? Not a problem--let's have both available, and let the people choose.
Just remember-on any issue, FOLLOW THE MONEY--it will lead you to the truth.

 

Well said!

People need to realize that insurance companies have ruined medicine. And the drug companies are right on their heels ready to pile on the destruction.

What is odd, is that people do not want the government making medical choices for them, but they are perfectly OK with letting a corrupt and greedy insurance company do it. Isn't that weird? People are OK getting ripped off as long as its gone within the American capitalist system. If the government starts doing it, its socialist. There is no logic to that whatsoever.

I don't want to get ripped off by anyone, not the government and not the insurance companies. People seem to forget that there already is a government heathcare system. In fact there are two of them..... Medicare, and Medicaid. They are both horribly run and highly wasteful. Which is probably exactly what this new system will be too.

The problems are all over the map, both in the system and with this new proposed system. But people are getting all riled up over the issue, and totally forgetting to be logical about it. Everyone should be putting their energy into really understanding this issue, and not just screaming off nice news friendly headlines.....

The media is to blame here, they are spinning this thing into corners where the debate should not even be, and that scares me more than anything. Because there are probably so many problems with this legislation that no one is even considering, everyone is literally making stuff up to sell newspapers and get Internet hits. It is ludicrous and they are playing us like a harp.

 

While it's true the insurance companies are making decisions just as the government would, at this point I do have the option to change insurance companies. The government? Well, that's not so easy.

 

I don't think it is a "scare tactic" to read a bill and find things that point to bureaucratic control over 1/6th of the economy. Not only control of the economic end, (government usually ends up being the most expensive way to go) but also control over decisions. I've read a bit of the first 50 pages or so and it is not a good idea IMO. Prices of prescription drugs skyrocketed when they began advertising enmasse. Insurance companies are not charitable institutions. They do make money. But, right now, we can choose not to have it and put money away for catastrophic health care needs if necessary. Not in Massachusestts though. When Romney passed the "Healthcare for all" bill I began receiving letters from the state government demanding that I have insurance. If I didn't provide proof of insurance (which I have through my wife's employer) they would garnish my taxes to pay for it. I don't know about you, but I don't want to see this system in place countrywide. Massachusetts is already 100s of millions in the hole with this program after a short 2 years or so. I can't imagine how much it would cost if the federal government got it's hands on it. Is healthcare perfect? No. Are there problems? Yes. Should we be forced into a government system run by a bunch that includes eugenic (sift out the weak and disabled and deny them care)minded federal bureaucrats in Obama's cabinet positions and his czars who answer to no one. If you think I don't want this just because of who is in power you'd be wrong about my intentions. I wouldn't even want government control of healthcare if it was Ronald Reagen or George Bush. Government is not a charitable institution either. They take money from wage earners and that is their cash. They don't actually produce anything. We do, through our tax dollars. But, they've spent so much money they should be stopping government programs and cutting spending, not increasing spending of money they don't even have.

 

I agree totally.... If you don't want it you should not be required to have it. But at the same time what happens when you need it and don't have enough money?

It costs over $1,000 a day to stay in a hospital. So if you get hurt and have no insurance and are in the ICU for 20 days, who pays for it? Say you crash your ATV, are flown to a trauma center, and are hurt enough to be stuck there for a month. Do you have $50,000 in cash to pay for it? If you do you are one of the very few luck folks who can afford an additional hit like that in their monthly bills. And if you are hurt bad enough where you cannot work, who pays the bills?

Most of the time when that happens the money is absorbed as a loss to the hospital, which in turn is absorbed in tax losses by the tax payers. A round-a-bout way in which people are getting a social medical program. So in that I can understand their point for forcing coverage. I don't agree with it, but I can see how it gained traction. Those cost overruns are billions more wasteful than just harnessing those tax dollars would be ahead of time.

So for those that don't want it, what do you do? How do you deal with them if they get hurt? Do you turn them away into the street? No Doctor is going to do that.