Comments Posted By CatM
Displaying 1 To 2 Of 2 Comments


There are a couple of problems with this article. First, it fails to acknowledge that there are a finite number of dollars and therefore prioritizing care is essential. Second, it fails to recognize that some people desire expensive care that even the doctors know will not produce a positive outcome. Third, it fails to acknowledge that private insurers can drop you from the plan but a government plan cannot.

If you rack up too many charges under your insurance plan, you will be dropped, often due to recision; if you have employer-sponsored care, your employer will be assessed a surcharge (sometimes as much as $1 million for leukemia patients) and told it will persist until the offending--er sick--enrollee is no longer on the plan. So your employer has to decide--are you really worth $1 million dollars? (Since we are talking about human value, here.)

You say you like that you can sure your insurance company; you can, but lawyers will get most of the winnings--if you get any. Under Republican plans, private insurers would not be bound by state laws, which means in most southern states, you can be denied for preexisting conditions and dropped at the will of the insurer. In such situations, you cannot sue. However, don't you think these lawsuits are going to drive up the cost of healthcare even further? Not only that, if you have cancer, you may die before the lawsuit is resolved. Wouldn't you rather have treatment, if available?

You may think it is worth $50,000 for the possibility of an extra 2 months of life, but is it worth it if it means a child with leukemia cannot get lifesaving treatment? People should not simply be able to get any treatment *they* think may help, even if there is little evidence that it will help. Medicine is practiced rather irresponsibly in this country, with kids given antibiotics for ear infections that will go away just as quickly on their own and people given antibiotics for viral illnesses.

Under Obama, Medicare has relaxed restrictions on off-label use of cancer drugs. This means that physicians have more flexibility in treating patients with cancer; does this sound like a desire to save money by denying people care?

Cost effectiveness has to be part of any healthcare plan. That is what comparative research is for, in part. Sure, most people like their private insurance plans--until they get seriously ill, get dropped, or find themselves unemployed and uninsured. That is why the majority of Americans support healthcare security offered by a public option.

As someone who grew up without healthcare, I can tell you that no healthcare is much worse than healthcare. Bureaucrats are already making decisions about our healthcare (assuming one has insurance); what difference does it make where they are located? Frankly, I would rather have a bureaucrat that is not out to make a profit than one who is rewarding employees for cutting services to sick people so the CEO can get an extra million or three in his annual bonus.

Comment Posted By CatM On 21.07.2009 @ 23:15


Thank you for this small reassurance that not all conservatives are afflicted with insanity. I enjoyed some of the points you made, especially about Robinson's 3rd grade understanding of the Constitution (and government, I might add).

For example, he imagines that there are millions of accounts with everyone's Social Security dollars sitting in them that can simply be "refunded" to their owners? Or that he and his millions of Americans would be allowed to make these changes unimpeded by millions of other Americans who would not support the usurpation of our government?

And what about the irony of demanding our Constitution be restored and followed yet advocating for the overthrow of a Constitutionally elected president, selected by the majority of US citizens?

The responses you have received to your well-thought out post are a sad commentary on the state of conservatism in this country. I believe it is time for a third party to emerge from the ashes of the Republican party, leaving the crazies to destroy the GOP as the more sane Republicans distance themselves and become a viable political force.

Although I am a liberal, I do not believe it is healthy to have a one-party country yet the increasing irrelevancy of the republican party is making it inevitable.

Comment Posted By CatM On 20.07.2009 @ 17:38

Powered by WordPress



Pages (1) : [1]

«« Back To Stats Page