Comments on: Is the House Health Care Bill Better than Nothing?

By: D.Summer

D.Summer — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 00:05:24 +0000

Why dosent someone expose the Political Party and individuals as the republicans That if they they want to privatize Medicare Social Security . to do the same Make it a requirement for Congress or those nasayers Republicans to be reomoved from Gov Medical coverage we pay for them and make them pay the high Private premiums also from the private sector crooks . I hear some of our elected officials Like Rick Perry at age 60 collect retirement benefits from State & Federal Programs we others have to wait till age 65. but they can collect at 40. While being employed on State and gov pay .Agian If we loose our Medicare & gov assistance then make Congress and State officials loose thiers that we pay for .

By: No plan from repubs are not Reasons for other than Obamacare = but there are reasons - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Fri, 20 Jan 2012 21:50:50 +0000

[...] [...]

By: Richard Heckler

Richard Heckler — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:31:48 +0000

Update: Senate Joins House in Attacking Women’s Access to Abortion Care

About the disastrous anti-abortion provision in the House health care reform bill, and give you an update.

The Senate version of the health care bill purports to be less harsh, but make no mistake: the anti-abortion provisions of this bill are harmful to women.

What’s worse, we know there will be an attempt to amend the Senate bill to go all the way with a provision mirroring the House’s Stupak-Pitts Amendment.

We are pulling out all the stops to prevent Stupak-like language from being added to the Senate bill.

NOW chapters around the country are rallying and demonstrating, phoning, writing and emailing their Senators. Our message is simple: keep abortion safe, legal, and accessible to every woman. Anti-abortion measures have no place in health care reform!

We need your support now before these harmful anti-abortion provisions are allowed to be passed in the name of health care reform.

For justice and equality,
Terry O’Neill
NOW President

==========================================

PFAW staff join NARAL President Nancy Keenan and staff outside of the U.S. Capitol before delivering more than 97,000 petition signatures to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

How is it possible that just one year after America made huge progressive strides — electing our first African American president and achieving sizable Democratic majorities in Congress — a woman’s fundamental right to choose is negotiable?

I am as angry as anyone about this latest attack on Choice. The Stupak-Pitts amendment in the health care bill passed by the House of Representatives virtually bans all coverage for abortion services in the new health care system.

Millions of women, even women who pay for private insurance plans with their own money, would lose their reproductive health coverage. It’s the most aggressive attack on Choice we’ve seen in a generation — and it’s imperative that we stop it.

That’s why I want to thank all of you who signed PFAW’s petition to Senate Majority Leader Reid urging him to stop the Stupak-Pitts House amendment from being part of the Senate health care bill.

Yesterday, PFAW joined NARAL Pro-Choice America and other allies to deliver more than 97,000 petition signatures to Sen. Reid’s staff.

I plan on doing my part to help People For the American Way fight this right-wing attack on women’s rights.

It’s unconscionable that of the House members who voted to take away reproductive health care coverage for women in the new system, 25 of them were considered firmly “pro-choice.”

Now it’s our job to call those people out and stop any similar defections in the Senate. With your help, we’ll send the message to Senators loud and clear — that the right to choose is a fundamental human right and must not be up for compromise.

We have the power to preserve Choice.

Kathleen Turner,
PFAW Supporter and PFAW Foundation Board Member

By: Richard Heckler

Richard Heckler — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 21:48:54 +0000

This matter may as well be a major issue for the 2010 elections. This sort of sums up precisely why we must continue:

10 Reasons to Support U.S. National Health Insurance Act

Written by Andrea Miller

Tuesday, 03 March 2009

Here are 10 great reasons to support HR 676, the U.S. National Health Insurance Act:
http://guaranteedhealthcare4all.org/sites/default/files/10-Reasons.pdf

1. Everybody In, Nobody Out. Universal means access to health care for everyone, period.

2. Portability. If you are unemployed, or lose or change jobs, your health coverage stays with you.

3. Uniform Benefits. No Cadillac plans for the wealthy and Pinto plans for everyone else, with high deductibles, limited services, caps on payments for care, and no protection in the event of a catastrophe. One level of comprehensive care for everyone, regardless of the size of your wallet.

4. Prevention. By removing financial roadblocks, a universal health system encourages preventive care that lowers an individual’s ultimate cost and pain and suffering when problems are neglected and societal cost in the over-utilization of emergency rooms or the spread of communicable diseases.

5. Choice. Most private insurance restricts your choice of providers and hospitals. Under the U.S. National Health Insurance Act, patients have a choice, and the provider is assured a fair payment.

6. No Interference with Care. Caregivers and patients regain their autonomy to decide what’s best for a patient’s health, not what’s dictated by the billing department. No denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions or cancellation of policies for “unreported” minor health problems.

7. Reducing Waste. One third of every private health insurance dollar goes for paperwork and profits, compared to about 3% under Medicare, the federal government’s universal system for senior citizen healthcare.

8. Cost Savings. A guaranteed health care system can produce the cost savings needed to cover everyone, largely by using existing resources without the waste. Taiwan, shifting from a U.S. private health care model, adopted a similar system in 1995, boosting health coverage from 57% to 97% with little increase in overall health care spending.

9. Common Sense Budgeting. The public system sets fair reimbursements applied equally to all providers, private and public, while assuring that appropriate health care is delivered, and uses its clout to negotiate volume discounts for prescription drugs and medical equipment.

10. Public Oversight. The public sets the policies and administers the system, not high priced CEOs meeting in private and making decisions based on their company’s stock performance needs.

By: Vashti Winterburg

Vashti Winterburg — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 04:37:38 +0000

Excellent article, as usual. I especially liked the drop to 55 and negotiated drug prices for Medicare.
I would also love to know how much it would cost to drop Medicare to 55.
A personal story. When my dad died my sister signed our mom up with the VA since she was a WWII vet. Her monthly drug bill dropped from over $450 a month to about $60. It’s pretty outrageous that the U.S. is the only western country that doesn’t negotiate for drug prices.
Vashti Winterburg
Kansas Health Care for All

“We’re paying for a Cadillac! Why are we driving a Yugo?”

By: Chris

Chris — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 17:48:55 +0000

Does anybody think there are unscrupulous Democrats who wish for failure so they can use Universal Healthcare as their “Baby in a Bottle”?

By: Mike

Mike — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 09:38:43 +0000

Legislators serve corporate interests who bribe them. They do not serve public interests which do not. The money used for the bribery is taken from consumers. Therefore, the only way to put the brakes on this fascist system is for consumers (in reasonably good health) to boycott the for-profit health insurance industry. This can be done by dropping any coverage that you already have and refusing to sign up for any coverage offered with new employment. Admittedly, this will take great courage. But under the current political structure, this is the only way that single-payer health care will ever become something other than a pipe dream.

By: Steve

Steve — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 21:08:09 +0000

My only question is this… why isn’t Congress signing up to be covered by the same legislation that they is so good for “the people”?

By: john

john — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 20:38:52 +0000

I like the analysis. It’s to bad we have to start over but who knows they might start sooner than later.

By: Kevin

Kevin — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 18:35:26 +0000

I think Angell is absolutely right in her assessment. Even as someone living without health insurance, I would have rather no bill passed at all than this one. Above all I am absolutely against the idea of mandates. While I understand why they want to have them to reduce the cost of the system (to the government), it seems completely at odds with the proper limits of government authority in a free society to MANDATE that we all have health insurance.

I find it frightening that anyone would think that it’s alright to do. And I hate to say it, but the idea of a mandate almost validates some of the worst things those Tea Party nutjobs say about our government. If this is passed, I may end up being fined for refusing to sign-up for insurance and then jailed for refusing to pay the fine.

This situation is so frustrating – I feel terrified about what their proposing now and powerless to do anything to change it. And living in Texas, I feel like it’s a complete waste of time writing my congressmen who both have strongly indicated that they are against any sort of public option or a single-payer system.

I do want health-care reform, but I want it done the right way, and this isn’t the right way.