Friday, March 19, 2010

Reply to Wash Post / AP article today health care

I read the Washington Post article today written by AP writers and also the editorial in the NY Times today on the topic of the impending health care vote in Congress. And I have these comments:
1) The Washington Post article in listing the 'overhaul' of a bad bill makes the point that abortion is still in the 'overhaul' and would still be listed euphemistically as 'health care' when it is not-- it is premeditated murder of the tiniest most innocent humans and those are in the womb. Sleight of hand tricks and what real estate sales people call 'creative financing' is what caused the worldwide meltdown of the financial structure of all the major nations. Sleight of hand tricks [imagine the hat in the rabbit trick of magicians] and robbing from one established fund to create new entitlements for citizens who are not old and or disabled and or unable to work for a variety of reasons, will not 'reduce the deficit' and will not save money. It is a trick to raid the Medicare Social Security funds to provide 'benefits' for homosexuals and abortionists. It is still a bad bill. As Sarah Palin said, 'putting lipstick on a pig, does not change the fact that is is a pig' or something like that. The health care bill is a pig. A smelly distasteful verboten unconsumable pig that will swill trillions in a decade. There is no way it could not do that. Because if the government forces the citizens to buy insurance they create a monopoly. A monopoly does it own thing without regard for consumers. If insurance cannot mitigate risks and have to accept those that they know are going to costs them in the $500,000- 1 million category in money paid out then guess what, they are going to raise the premiums for everybody to cover that. On the other hand if they were not monopolies and insurances companies had to compete, prices would come down and benefits [services paid for] would go up.
2) The most recent 'overhaul' as detailed by the Washington Post article says it includes 'cuts in Medicare spending'. What does that mean if not rationing the services paid out on seniors and disabled ? I have Medicare because of disabilities and yet I have every time been expected to pay from $40 -$88 per visit in addition to what Medicare pays. That is a lot of money for me because I paid into the system in mandatory taxes for more than 25 years, and I currently pay $96 each month for Medicare insurance. So does that mean when the 'cuts in Medicare spending' are implemented as written by millionaires in Congress, that for any visit to any MD I will be expected to pay more than a $100 per visit or what? Do you consider that an improvement? When I went to nursing school 4 decades ago, a doctor's visit was about $40 for a new patient. Then the government started controlling the costs and the fees for new patient visits have risen every year and the services have decreased every year. When I was a student nurse, MD's actually did a physical exam when you went to their office. But then Medicare told them they only had to do them annually so they stopped doing them. The Medicare 'minimum standards' became the standards in all facets of health care delivery because that is what Medicare/caid pays for and requires.
3) And regarding the Editorial in the NY Times entitled 'On the verge of reform' think is all I could say. If you add 32 MILLION people to a system that cannot afford the people it already insured for the past 4 decades to the system, it will not 'reduce deficit ' spending. It will add to it. Because there is no money to pay for those 32 MILLION and swapping money from a fund paid by workers into the system to buy the help they need when disabled or old, is not a solution. It is fraud.
Gloria Poole, Missouri. Time is 7:29 AM 19-March-2010;
The word 'this' showing at the top near the title is a some trick of criminal hacker into my acct. It does not show from my post but only after logged out. Cannot remove it since I did not put it there and code is hidden on blogspot. Cybercriminals break into many accounts of mine and in time they will go to prison. So pray that the sooner the better!
Updated at 8:25 AM after reading article in the Tampa Bay news on google:
In this article, Ten Things every voter should know, in the Tampa Bay
today are some serious issues.
Article makes the point that the mininum fine for not having insurance would be $695 per person. Think how many doctor visits that would buy at $80/ per visit--more than the average citizen needs in a year.
And their point that 'employees not required to provide insurance' is a trick since it says in following sentences that employers will be fined if one of their employees seek public assistance for insurance like Medicaid. That means the government will be watching/controlling not only how citizens spend their money but also how employers do. And that means that the government would hold employers accountable for the family lives of their employees. That will virtually eliminate after school jobs for high school students and minimum wage jobs of any member from poor families,and it will cause the prisons to swell because if in reality a family is to poor to pay out of pocket for health care they will also be poor to pay those fines and then what happens? Prison for poverty a first in America.
Is America a serfdom yet?
And their point that the plan would 'reduce payments for preventable hospitalizations' is a blank check to insurance companies who usually do hire high school graduates only and do not hire specially trained and educated to health care
for their agents. So if they put a high school graduate into a job where they get to deny benefits and get a bonus, is it a far leap of imagination to reason that it will be increasingly difficult to admit anyone to a hospital no matter how sick they are? And what happens to hospitals then? When they have no source of funding? That evil hospice has siphoned off most of the money that once went to hospitals for
care of the terminally ill. And the 'plan' to prevent hospitalizations aka "ObamaCare" to try to link his name and reputation to a ruinous bill [but he is Harvard educated and learned voodoo economics and does
not know it is ruinous or does not care indeed] siphons away from acute care hospitals their main source of funding [sick people].
And their point that all the poor will also be covered by Medicaid. Well, that is virtually meaningless. Because I suspect that means things like getting your BP and vital signs checked at the local grocery store in public with all consumers watching and no history taken or physical exams otherwise. The poor who are poor because they
are not hireable because of injuries /disabilities are already breaking the budgets of every state in this nation. When states have a mandate to provide 'health care' to all their poor whether disabled or not, then they have to stretch their dollars and ration and health care gets redefined as being only for those the government considers important enough. I am an example of that when the University of Colorado a socialized medicine system paid for by taxpayers of Colorado refused to repair my fractures because they did not consider me worth the expenditures of their money even though I paid into their system via taxes withheld from my paychecks while I worked there as an RN in the year 2003.
The fact of the matter is that the central government cannot be all things to all people. It could only do a few tasks well and what it should do is what an individual could not do by self or family for example
build roads, interstate highways ,deliver the US mail, fight wars to protect from invasion. But health
care /nursing could be provided by families and was provided by families as a general rule until
BIG BROTHER government saw a way to usurp something like 60% of the gross domestic income into their coffers.
And their point that the government won't pay for elective abortions. The operative word /trick there is the word
'elective.' All abortions are elective but the government has historically tried to reclassify them
as 'health care' by stretching definitions to include mental stress, or financial hardship, or interruption of
euphemistically labeled 'higher education' or whatever. There are currently no prohibitions on abortion.
And there should be. There should be NO right to kill one's offspring, not now, not ever, and there should
never be any such right as a right to kill one's offspring at taxpayer's expense. Yes, i know the Tampa Bay
writer says that would not happen but I worked in operating rooms and I am reasonably sure whoever wrote that article
did not. I know for certain abortions have no restrictions on them except a person's conscience.
I know for certain that MD's who kill with premeditation also lie on mandatory reporting forms.
I know for certain that MD's who are abortionists are not highly respected among other doctors or nurses.
I know for certain that the so-called health care given in an abortionist's clinic is substandard after having heard from the nurse who treated her in the ER, of a woman who almost bled to death after a botched killing effort when woman had to be sent by ambulance comatose to the local hospital [then] because abortion butchery shop had no emergency or resuscitative equipment.
Read article at:
8:16 AM 3/19/2010/
Update at 12:20 PM same day after reading this article:
I am not catholic but Southern Baptist [Christian] but I am very glad to see /read that the Catholic Bishops are clarifying the church's stand that the Bishops and the Catholic church do not accept the Obama plan because it includes provisions for abortion. And that article makes it plain that the Bishops think that the news media publicizing the views of Nuns to make it seem as if the catholic church changed its mind is nothing more than a trick to ease the consciences of Catholics in Congress. Read the statement in the Hattiesburg News on this at the link included.
Also, about 37 states are planning to challenge the interference into state's rights by the Congress if the health care fake reform bill passes. The federal government has no authority to mandate that any citizen buy any product or service. The news about the states planning legal challenges in a Reuters news article a few minutes ago.


Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home