AnnieOK

The AMA did a study and published it in 2008 and found that Medicare denied 6.85% of claims, a figure that is larger than any of the largest private insurance companies. It is also more than twice the average of all the private insurance companies. Just something to consider when rallying behind a "public option" in any health care reform legislation. The current government-run government-provided health insurance denies more claims than any of the largest private insurance companies. I for one don't expect that to change with enlarging government's role in providing our health care. "Of the eight insurers listed, Medicare is most likely to reject a claim, sending away 6.85% of requests. This is more than any private insurer and double that of the private insurers' average! In short, the AMA is endorsing a plan whose closest existing example is the most frequent denier of claims. How the public option exemplifies "delivering care to patients" is unclear."--Big Government, 10/5/09

I realize I'm late to this poll, and that my opinion basically means nothing to anyone but myself, but I just have to answer. I believe that the inalienable rights, the rights that we have simply because we live, are not granted to us by government, and shouldn't be taken away by government. That is why the Founders clearly specified that in their founding documents. We have the right to life. Liberty. The pursuit of happiness. Benjamin Franklin said, "The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness, you have to catch it yourself." So, no, I don't believe that 'health care' is a right. It is however, something that I have yet to see denied anyone. Oh, they may rack up impossible bills, have to go on a payment plan that might last the rest of their lives, but they are alive. And still in possession of their basic inalienable rights.

This is a glimpse into the future, and will be made even worse if the current health care 'reform' bill passes. The hardest hit will be our elderly parents, grandparents, all who qualify for Medicare. The older they are, the less reliable the government will be for them.

OK. Here is some "unbiased" info. This is a link to the House Bill 3200, and it is online, not a pdf you have to download. You can read and browse, and can skip around using the clickable table of contents. All the other links I have seen have been downloads, and I know that's not possible for some people. It is interesting to read, hard to decipher sometimes. I'm going to call my senators and representatives and see if they will introduce a bill that states that "all bills must be no longer than 10 pages." http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.3200:

wowza, Thank you for adding the information about the Heritage Foundation. I intended to say that, I had in a post on another site, but forgot to. Heritage Foundation has been around since 1973, and its mission is to "promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense." I did not mean to imply that it was an unbiased source, and I apologize for leaving that info out. You're right, it's very hard, if not impossible, to find unbiased information. Investor's Business Daily, a business/finance/investment newspaper is not political, but is based on capitalism, and each person's opportunity in this country to create wealth. So, for that reason, it could also be taken as a source that is not supportive of policies that erode the free market system. I included those because they each ran a series of articles about the healthcare bill, discussing pros and cons. Mostly, interpreting the language the bill is written in. But I'm sorry if I represented them as unbiased sources, didn't mean to. And cwazycwissyRN, you said that beautifully! Couldn't agree more.

Ah, yes, change.org. With respect, I do not consider that website to be at all unbiased. It's purpose is only to push the Democratic plan. The blogger has worked for Obama since during the primaries, and is currently affiliated with SEIU, which has ties to ACORN. I suggest visiting the Heritage Foundation, or Investor's Business Daily, both of which have presented thorough, detailed discussions of this plan, good points and bad. I don't have their links handy, but a Google search will take you there. FWIW, I do look at what both sides are presenting, and know that the truth lies somewhere in between. But I suspect it lies closer to what the Heritage Foundation and IBD offer, than a blog written by an Obama worker. Nice night, all.

Just joined this site this morning and have spent most of the time since reading this thread. I wanted to know what other "in-the-trenches" RN's around the country thought about this. After reading most of the replies, I wanted to add only a few points that I think are important for all of us to remember, regardless of which side of this we come down on. There was some discussion about what the Founders would think of government-provided health care, and what the Constitution says and doesn't say. I know that there's a large contingent of Americans who don't hold the Constitution in high regard, or deem it to be of any "importance or relevance" any longer. To these people I would only say, whether you think the Constitution is "outdated" or not, it is the basic law and foundation of this country. All our laws and policies are supposed to be constitutional. This is for your protection, and the protection of the liberty you take for granted. When you state that you don't hold it in high (or any) regard, you are saying that the foundation for all laws and the guarantee of basic individual rights is of no importance. The Constitution protects all of us, whether we think so or not. There was also some references to various "media" outlets and websites as sources of unbiased information. One mentioned was mediamatters.org. I would only like to point out that this is a branch of the group of liberal groups funded by George Soros, an ardent opponent of Republicans, conservative thinking, and traditional American values based on free market principles. I understand the difficulty in finding truly unbiased sources of information; it's very hard. I'm not saying that the poster who referred to mediamatters was wrong in what she said, just would like for all to know that it is not an unbiased source. I think it is the cost of health care in this country that is the problem, not access. I've been a nurse in an NICU for three decades and have never---not one time---seen a medical decision about a baby's treatment depend on whether the family had insurance or not. Never. The access is there, but the cost is high. One solution in my opinion, would be to start with tort reform. JMHO. I know for me, I know that we need some new solutions to the problem of the high cost. But I don't want the Democrat's plan because I don't want the government involved in my personal and private health care. Again, that's just me. I value my liberty and individual freedom and my privacy. I believe I would lose some, or all, of that with the type of health care plan currently being discussed. JMHO.