What's Wrong With the Healthcare Bill? Ask a Nurse.

[StarfarerBill]

by John Nichols, TheNation.com

Want to know what's wrong -- really wrong -- with the health-care "reform" bill being pushed through the Senate by Majority Leader Harry Reid?

Ask a nurse.

"It is tragic to see the promise from Washington this year for genuine, comprehensive reform ground down to a seriously flawed bill that could actually exacerbate the health-care crisis and financial insecurity for American families, and that cedes far too much additional power to the tyranny of a callous insurance industry," says National Nurses Union co-president Karen Higgins, RN.

"Sadly," adds Higgins, "we have ended up with legislation that fails to meet the test of true health-care reform, guaranteeing high quality, cost effective care for all Americans, and instead are further locking into place a system that entrenches the choke-hold of the profit-making insurance giants on our health. If this bill passes, the industry will become more powerful and could be beyond the reach of reform for generations."

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/144735/what%27s_wrong_with_the_healthcare_bill_ask_a_nurse./

[pleah]

1. K&R

[KansDem]

2. It's Corporate Communism

the industry will become more powerful and could be beyond the reach of reform for generations.

A small "politburo" of super-wealthy CEOs will decide for the rest of us how we will live.

I believe this is why we "fought" the Cold War: it was one form of communism (Marxism, an "agrarian movement") vs. another form of communism (corporatism, an "industrial movement"). It was never about "freedom and choice," but rather a "war" on the part of Corporatists to end Marxism so they could reign freely...

[RaleighNCDUer]

8. Technically, Marxism is NOT an 'agrarian' movement -

it was created in Germany and targeted industrial workers. That it was co-opted first by the largely agrarian Russian society, and the almost wholly agrarian Chinese people, was a fluke.

The intent was to take the means of industrial production out of the hands of the corporatists and owners, and into the hands of the workers.

Corporatism is NOT a form of Marxism - it is fascism, having government working on behalf of the owners, rather than the people.

We are a fascist state.

[laughingliberal]

3. Yep. Those of us who have worked within this system since the takeover

of the for-profit industry can easily see the pitfalls in this legislation which gives lip service only to stopping insurance company abuses. And it does not expand coverage. It orders people to buy policies. Between the high cost of the premiums and the high out of pocket expenses these policies will be pretty worthless. Should you be able to meet the out of pocket expenses and, actually, access some care you are still subject to being rescinded in cases of 'fraud.' What the hell do people think they have been using to justify rescission, now? "You failed to mention you were in an auto accident 6 years ago." But it was a fender bender. I didn't even see a doctor. "You lied on your application. You did not tell us. That's fraud." Had a broken arm when you were 7? Better not forget to tell them. If they truly meant to end rescission, why would that loophole still be there? If they truly meant to stop denials based on preexisting conditions, why would it matter that you failed to mention your broken arm? Nothing here changes except the money people will be forced to pay the insurance companies. There is a huge shifting of costs onto the working and middle classes. There will not be any slowing of the costs of premiums. We will still see health care costs double in a decade. But there will be no will to fix that in Congress cause the costs have been shifted to the people. Another huge transfer of wealth from the bottom to the top with the bottom getting nothing for their money. If you liked the housing bubble and the derivatives market debacle, you will simply love health care reform.

[area51]

9. +1 (n/t)

[subterranean]

11. That rescission loophole is cause for concern.

What constitutes fraud or "intentional misrepresentation"? The bill doesn't elaborate. I guess it will be up to the insurance companies to interpret that as they see fit.

[HughMoran]

4. Nations largest Nursing professional organization says "Pass the Bill"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=433&topic_id=84020

[eridani]

13. No analysis here--just the usual appeals to authority.

[bvar22]

5. But it is "historic"!

It IS historic.
For the first time, the IRS will be used to ENFORCE the transfer of your money to the pockets of a For Profit corporation.

[HuckleB]

6. That's been happening for years.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

10. But what about this?

And I'm just spitballing an idea here.

I don't sign up for anybody's private carrier insurance. Nope. No Way. No How.

So the IRS is going to ding me (as I understand it) two percent of my adjust gross income for not having health insurance. Now I assume that this money goes back to the government to pay for Medicare and not to an insurance company. If I'm not be insured by somebody, why (and how) would the government determine which compoany to send it to?

So two percent of my income is going to the government to pay for Medicare (over and above what I pay in Medicare payroll taxes).

Couldn't I sue the federal government to demand services under Medicare since I'm being forced to pay for it?

Just thinking out loud.

[Echo In Light]

7. K&R

[Edweird]

12. Yup. Thatt's my objection as well.

[Vidar]

14. K&R.

[leftstreet]

15. K&R