[Beetle01]

1st bold---yes you did.


2nd bold---this is wrong, Nobody could get financing to purchase things like homes or cars without insurance. People who live in socialistic societies have no choices in their lives, sort of like how Americans now have no choice when it comes to our goverment mandated health care.

3rd bold---saying the new health care law will do away with this type of thing, is like saying you have to drive your car off a cliff, scrape up all the parts and take them back to the dealer for reassembly to fix a rattle in the glove box.

Let's take a look at the DPMA. It was started about 8 months ago or so. It is considered a conservative group with ties to the Tea Party. Their website can say w/e it wants, that doesn't make it true. If it said they all ride around on Unicorns Im sure you would believe that.

DPMA is a member of ALEC, which is a corporate bill mill. Through ALEC corporations hand legislators bills which help their bottom line. Corporations fund all of ALEC's operations.

Nothing there mentions the Tea Party in a negative manner. Just highlighting the fact that the DPMA says they are non-partisan, when in fact that is not true. Unless you consider the Tea Party non-partisan, which it is not.

As for #2, Health insurance should have been mandated a long time ago. You can own and car or a house and never need the use of your insurance. Never be in a wreck, never get your house flooded or suffer damage from winds or w/e.

However, you will have to go to the Doctor and receive medical care. No matter how well you take care of your body you are going to get sick, injured, or have genetic predisposition to a disease. No matter what you are going to get sick. Health Insurance should be a requirement before any of the above. Because when you don't have insurance, you still go to the Doctor, except the tax payers are paying the full cost of the care. Now if we pool the money WE ALREADY SPEND into getting insurance for the uninsured, our costs will go down. Do you not believe that the cost of HC at the provider level will go down when they can stop making up losses for the uninsured by charging the insured more?

Insurance companies will even benefit from the increase.

The average cost of HC per person in this country is double what most of the world is, and 3 and 4x more than most.

What do we get for all of those expenses? shorter life span, and much higher rates of premature mortality.

So much money is wasted by people being hospitalized for things that could handled by biannual follow ups with their MD. However, lack of insurance means it gets treated at the hospital. A family Md who manages a patients chronic migraines can do it much cheaper than if a patient is constantly coming to the ER with migraines. The hospital staff is going to do everything to cover their butts. This means very expensive testing. I have patients I see on a weekly basis for the same thing. Ill use one example. Patient A is a female age 35 or so. She has chronic migraines, uncontrolled HTN, and diabetes. She suffers from a genetic kidney disease. She has no insurance, yet works full time. She literally comes in every week for her migraines. Our MD's, PA's, and NP's treat her migraines, and giver her RX to go home. However, since they can't treat her like a regular patient like a General Prac at his office could, they are forced to run a battery of tests to rule out other causes. This happens everytime. Some of these tests are thousands of dollars, Id say the hospital loses about 10k per visit. Lets say she visits 40 times a year, which I believe is what she did visit in 2011. Close to that anyways. thats 400k a year the hospital eats. SO when you go in there for that sprained ankle you think might be broken, you are going to get charged more to help cover those losses.

If she was able to just follow up with a Family Doc, the cost of her treatment would literally be just a few hundred bucks. The staff at the ER can only prescribe a week's worth of meds, therefore she has to return weekly to get her meds. That would be a savings of 399,600 dollars for 1 patient. Not only that her quality of life could be improved.


As for #3, your point makes no sense. So you you support that type of predatorial profiteering. I hope no one in your family is ever in desperate need for a med that they can't get, without paying 20k a month. Oh and the insurance will only cover half. You must have one hell of a job to afford 120k a year in meds, not counting other costs for treatments which will be way more.

I know of patients who have had costs in excess of 200k a year, they had to sell everything they own, go so deep in debt if they live, they will never get out of it. Insurance is only going to cover so much, and before this law if there was anyway they could drop you, they will find a way and do it.

That's the HC system you are defending. This law isn't perfect, far from it, but it will be an improvement. If our legislators were worth a damn, they could fine tune this as it goes on. Our current health care system is unsustainable.