Important Questions about the House version of Health "Reform" ....
By ParaTed2k
@ParaTed2k (22940)
Sheboygan, Wisconsin
August 12, 2009 3:40pm CST
Some things are either overblown, interpreted the worst way (as well as the best way) and some things that have been taken out of the bills seem to still be reported as still in (such as the thing about 59 years or older).
But there are things that aren't being exaggerated by anyone.. and niether Obama nor his minions seem willing to talk about them.
Why will there be a union rep on the board?
Why are there continuing education grants for people working for facilities represented by unions, but nothing for people who don't.
Why do facilities have to get permission from the "Secretary" to add beds, departments or things like Operating or exam rooms?
If this is supposed to be the "public OPTION" why are there taxes on people who choose not to participate?
If this is "health" care reform, why is "medicine" the only health system that is available in it. Does that mean I would still have to carry private insurance if I choose anything other than medical? Will I be allowed to carry both the "Public Option" and a private carrier?
EVERY state and territory already have them, so what does the federal government have to do with Do Not Resuscitate orders or Living Wills?
If this plan is supposed to reduce the cost of medical care, why are their tax increases involved? Why does Obama continue to insist that this is "cost neutral" when every independent organization and the CBO have proven it isn't.
If Obama's campaign promise was to provide the same coverage Congress enjoys, why didn't they just write a bill that does that?
Why did Obama tell everyone who is against this bill to shut up? Doesn't he respect our freedom of speech?
If this is supposed to make sure everyone has access to affordable healthcare, how come it exempts people and leaves others out completely?
If abortion on demand won't be covered by the "public option" will people on the "public option" who want abortions have to have private insurance to cover them? Will that be allowed? Are they saying that people on the public option can't have abortions?
If I am registered with the VA, can I also choose the "public option" if I don't want to go to VA clinics or hospitals?
Can anyone answer these questions?
2 people like this
4 responses
@Fortunata (1135)
• United States
12 Aug 09
I hadn't heard about that part of the bill, but I heard a new one today, at least a new one to me-they want to 're-evaluate' people that are on disability and social security. So it sounds like they're going to start throwing people off the rosters. Gee, Obama is so sweet and kind, not!!
1 person likes this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
12 Aug 09
Haven't seen anything like that. There are provisions for data collection, which may or may not include the names and social security numbers of patients. The bill doesn't say that names and SSNs will be included, but it also doesn't ban it.
It is a pretty scary omission, but could go either way.
1 person likes this
@bziebarth (228)
• United States
13 Aug 09
I was be very afraid of anything not specifically banned in this bill. If it is not banned (i.e. collection of social security numbers) and lays the potential ground work then it will only be a matter of time before it is implemented.
@gewcew23 (8007)
• United States
13 Aug 09
No and I doubt that anyone could answer those questions. I will answer one question, your question about opting out of paying for the insurance. I have argued until I was blue in my face that those that choose to sent their child to private school or home school their children should not have to pay for public schools. The response I receive back is, well I did not want to pay for Bush's war.
1 person likes this
@GardenGerty (169603)
• United States
13 Aug 09
Wow, you have said a mouthful. I am only caught by the fact that in several areas the states rights are being usurped and handed over to the Federal Government. The thing about facilities adding bed or rooms, or other things is already covered by state law in my state, and I assume in other states as well. The further the implementation of a program gets from the people that use it, the more leakage of funds occur and the more expensive the funding becomes. If my city provides a certain service, I know where my tax dollars go, and who is accountable for the way they are spent. If that same service moves to the county, state, or federal level, the less immediate control I have, and the more of a chance for some politician to divert the money.That is what is happening here.
@mehale (2200)
• United States
13 Aug 09
I am not sure that any CITIZEN can answer them, good questions! I imagine that both Obama and Congress CAN answer them, but choose not to. This is a very serious situation and I certainly hope that it is resolved with the best interest of the people involved, not government; though I seriously doubt it. More people need to actually read the bill and find out what really is in it. Then they would be able to make an educated decision on whether or not they are for or against it, instead of just taking Obama's word for what is actually in the bill.
Then they could tell their representatives and Senators what they really think about it and try to persuade them to vote their way on the bill, maybe then we could change something - though at this point I am not even sure that will help! Heaven help us, we are going to need it....
