Here's the thing. From where I stand I can see the health insurance ripoff forest for what it is - a greed fest at the expense of others' lives. You are blinded by the trees you hide behind - those massive trees owned by the insurance companies, whose ugly bidding you do and to whom you are beholden.
I don't have to be a health insurance paper-pusher to know that people are regularly denied life-saving treatment (Hint: It's what this whole thread is about) from the very people who are compensating themselves to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars every year. Nor do I have to be an insurance company tic sucking the life out of the public hide to know that 45,000 people die every year because they simply can't afford to pay the blood money the insurance companies demand for their [sarcasm] invaluable services [/sarcasm].
It's disgusting and unconscionable.
Bottom line, I'd rather take my chances with a not-for-profit option ANY day than be forced to live and die by an insurance company's greed margin.
Yeah, okay, care to bring facts instead of demonizing people who do.Here's the thing. From where I stand I can see the health insurance ripoff forest for what it is - a greed fest at the expense of others' lives. You are blinded by the trees you hide behind - those massive trees owned by the insurance companies, whose ugly bidding you do and to whom you are beholden.
IBut you DO need to bring credibility, which you seem to have a problem understanding, I am telling you what is and what I've seen, you are using faulty sources and using empty rhetorical emotionalizations which do not prove your point.don't have to be a health insurance paper-pusher to know that people are regularly denied life-saving treatment (Hint: It's what this whole thread is about) from the very people who are compensating themselves to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars every year. Nor do I have to be an insurance company tic sucking the life out of the public hide to know that 45,000 people die every year because they simply can't afford to pay the blood money the insurance companies demand for their [sarcasm] invaluable services [/sarcasm].
Right, so do you care to bring facts, like percentages, proof that it was a necessary procedure, proof that the doctor wasn't ordering an unnecessary procedure, etc. etc. It's easy to blame insurers, it's hard to actually tell both sides.People are DYING RIGHT NOW because they're being denied treatment by their insurance companies.And yet.....with all of this.....the government programs have the highest denial percentage.........hmmmm......kind of takes the wind out of your "people are dying because of denials" rant doesn't it?People are DYING RIGHT NOW because they have no coverage at all. People are DYING RIGHT NOW while insurance company salespeople continue pushing little pieces of paper around, desperately inventing new and more insidious ways to deny coverage.
Ah, I see, so if you get your way, and when it fails miserably, you won't admit you were wrong.....fine, have it your way.I sincerely hope you'll be holding your breath in anticipation of that.
Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.
1a. Those in the medical field (you know, the people who actually PROVIDE HEALTHCARE SERVICES?) overwhelmingly support a public option.
Here's ANOTHER poll on the same topic, with similar results:Poll Finds Most Doctors Support Public Option
When polled, "nearly three-quarters of physicians supported some form of a public option, either alone or in combination with private insurance options."
Most doctors — 63 percent — say they favor giving patients a choice that would include both public and private insurance. That's the position of President Obama and of many congressional Democrats. In addition, another 10 percent of doctors say they favor a public option only; they'd like to see a single-payer health care system. Together, the two groups add up to 73 percent.
When the American public is polled, anywhere from 50 to 70 percent favor a public option. So that means that when compared to their patients, doctors are bigger supporters of a public option.
Oh, look! The AMA also supports a public option!Doctors Support the Public Option
That's the conclusion of a national poll conducted by the Robert Woods Johnson Foundation. The survey included more than 5,000 doctors spread across an array of specialties, and asked two sets of questions. The first gauged support for a public health-care system, a system with public and private options, and a solely private system. The second measured attitudes towards Medicare. The results should be generally cheering to reformers.
Doctors overwhelmingly support either a public option or a public system. Indeed, when you add the two groups together, it's more than 70 percent of respondents. There were some differences across specialties, but not a lot: about 75 percent of primary care doctors favored a public option or public system, while about 67 percent of surgeons felt similarly.
Next, the survey asked about opening Medicare up to individuals between 55 and 64. Support overwhelmed opposition by more than 2 to 1.
And we can't ignore the New England Journal of Medicine, can we?AMA President Says House Bill Is a Good Start Toward Health Reform
CHICAGO – The American Medical Association offers its support of the U.S. House bill on health reform and reiterates its commitment to effective, comprehensive health-care reform in a new video message from AMA President J. James Rohack, M.D.
“The status quo is unacceptable,” says Rohack in the video message posted to YouTube and the AMA’s Web site. “Let me be clear: Without a bill that can pass the House, there is no health reform this year. The debate is far from over, and the AMA is going to be at the table to improve the final legislation.”
“As physicians and healers, we’re at the heart of the health-care system,” says Rohack. “We know our position at the center of the health-reform debate is both an honor and a serious responsibility.”
The House bill includes provisions key to effective, comprehensive health reform, including:
* Coverage to all Americans through health insurance market reforms
* A choice of plans through a health insurance exchange
* An end to coverage denials based on pre-existing conditions
* Fundamental Medicare reform, including repeal of the flawed sustainable growth rate (SGR) formula
* Additional funding for primary care services, without reductions on specialty care
* Individual responsibility for health insurance, including premium assistance to those who need it
* Prevention and wellness initiatives to help keep Americans healthy
* Initiatives to address physician workforce concerns
In April 2009, we obtained data on a random sample of 6000 physicians from the American Medical Association (AMA) Physician Masterfile, which includes current data on all U.S. physicians. We excluded physicians from U.S. territories because health care reform may not be as relevant to them, and we excluded physicians in training because of their limited experience with insurance; a sample of 5157 physicians remained. We categorized physicians into four groups: primary care physicians (in internal medicine, pediatrics, or family practice); medical subspecialists, neurologists, and psychiatrists; surgical specialists and subspecialists; and other specialties. The survey instrument we used was developed with the input of an expert panel, and we conducted cognitive testing and pilot testing to ensure its clarity and relevance. (More detailed information about our methods can be found in the Supplementary Appendix, available with the full text of this article at NEJM.org.)
Survey respondents were asked to indicate which of three options for expanding health insurance coverage they would most strongly support: public and private options, providing people younger than 65 years of age the choice of enrolling in a new public health insurance plan (like Medicare) or in private plans; private options only, providing people with tax credits or subsidies, if they have low income, to buy private insurance coverage, without creating a new public plan; or a public option only, eliminating private insurance and covering everyone through a single public plan like Medicare. We also assessed the level of physician support for a proposal that would enable adults between the ages of 55 and 64 years to buy into the current Medicare program — a strategy that the Senate Finance Committee has proposed.
Data were also collected on additional variables that might be associated with preferences for different expansion options, such as time spent on clinical duties each week, whether physicians owned their own practice, salary status, and type of practice. The survey has been in the field for approximately 2 months (June 25, 2009, to September 3, 2009). All available data were analyzed on September 4, 2009. A third survey wave was initiated on August 27, 2009.
Overall, a majority of physicians (62.9%) supported public and private options. Only 27.3% supported offering private options only. Respondents — across all demographic subgroups, specialties, practice locations, and practice types — showed majority support (>57.4%) for the inclusion of a public option. Primary care providers were the most likely to support a public option (65.2%); among the other specialty groups, the “other” physicians — those in fields that generally have less regular direct contact with patients, such as radiology, anesthesiology, and nuclear medicine — were the least likely to support a public option, though 57.4% did so.
Physicians in every census region showed majority support for a public option, with percentages in favor ranging from 58.9% in the South to 69.7% in the Northeast. Practice owners were less likely than nonowners to support a public option (59.7% vs. 67.1%, P<0.001), but a majority still supported it. Finally, there was also majority support for a public option among AMA members (62.2%)
2. Of COURSE the health insurance paper pushers are telling me it's smoke and mirrors. They're worried their literal stranglehold on the American public is in danger of loosening.
Study: 45,000 Americans die each year for lack of insurance
2. For more facts, scroll up and click the links...
But hey! YOU'RE in the health insurance industry! Why don't YOU provide us with those intimate details from each and every case, which you seem to think are so readily available? If you're unable to do this, I recommend you contact Harvard and the American Journal of Public Health. Perhaps they can straighten you out.
baucus, nelson, nelson, lincoln, carper, landrieu, conrad, dorgan, pryor, bayh, the united bluedog coalition and most democrat freshmen oppose the PO
indeed, just wednesday 30 dem senators refused to sign a letter to reid demading the govt designation
Wouldn't it be easier to just expand medicaid and include more people with higher incomes?
wouldn't it be easier to cut NOW the half trillion dollars of waste, fraud and abuse in medicare and medicaid which the president banks on?
what's he waiting for?
HAHAHAHA, good one, the fact is many physicians have already said they will leave that field of practice under Obamacare, they already HATE medicare.1a. Those in the medical field (you know, the people who actually PROVIDE HEALTHCARE SERVICES?) overwhelmingly support a public option.
And? The AMA is an association of some physicians, again, many even in it's membership are opposed.
Oh, look! The AMA also supports a public option!
Because you have nothing else. I understand, you want to get your way, why let facts and fair debate get in the way.You, personally, and all your insurance make-work, paper-pusher colleagues are a major part of the problem. Why shouldn't I demonize you?
I personally don't give a **** what you believe, and frankly, if you can't trust people who provide services based on clients needs then that's too bad, hope you have one hell of a gameplan, and frankly, I will say that you wouldn't be one of my clients, by my choice, because I don't deal with people who "know it all".Why would I believe a guy who pushes paper for the health insurance industry? Your career is at stake; of course you're going to try to sell me a lot of indignant "I know the truth and you do not" hot air.
It's been done in explicit detail, the numbers don't say what you want them to, and the breakdown is less than 5% of the American populace.Without the ability to research the specifics of each of the 45,000 annual cases where individuals died because they did not have healthcare insurance, such a request is as impossible as it is pointless.
Wow, you used biased sources, incomplete info, and talking points from the hard left, you really showed me. Maybe since you made a bunch of generalized attacks on an industry with no working knowledge of it you could burden yourself to back it up, again, I'm not bringing numbers since I'm not the one attacking 1/6th of the American economy because free healthcare isn't my goal. I called you on bringing out the bull**** sources and rhetoric, it's not my job to back your claims.But hey! YOU'RE in the health insurance industry! Why don't YOU provide us with those intimate details from each and every case, which you seem to think are so readily available? If you're unable to do this, I recommend you contact Harvard and the American Journal of Public Health. Perhaps they can straighten you out.
Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.