WASHINGTON-In the official record of the historic House debate on overhauling health care, the speeches of many lawmakers echo with similarities. Often, that was no accident.
Statements by more than a dozen lawmakers were ghostwritten, in whole or in part, by Washington lobbyists working for Genentech, one of the world's largest biotechnology companies.
E-mail messages obtained by The New York Times show that the lobbyists drafted one statement for Democrats and another for Republicans.
So an appy won't cost the same with the new system. A CT scan will be less. If that is the case how will the nurses be paid. Do you really think the CEO of hospitals are gonna take a cut?
You haven't explain how it will be cheaper at all. If we add 47 Million people without healthcare insurance, who we all agree are very sick people, what without money for preventative care, all these years won't that in reality drive up costs. I mean 47 Million CT scans ain't cheap.
NO! ,we don't all agree that all those 47 million people are very sick people , there are many who choose not to be insured ( eg. if young and healthy , they may not see a reason to be insured ). So No , getting all those 47 million will not necessarily drive up costs , if enough are healthy it would actually have the opposite effect .
NO! ,we don't all agree that all those 47 million people are very sick people , there are many who choose not to be insured ( eg. if young and healthy , they may not see a reason to be insured ). So No , getting all those 47 million will not necessarily drive up costs , if enough are healthy it would actually have the opposite effect .
If is a big word. Did ya see now no mammograms until 50 and then only every 2 years. Yeah that's good preventative medicine.
If is a big word. Did ya see now no mammograms until 50 and then only every 2 years. Yeah that's good preventative medicine.
Yes If is a big word ,but in order to make my thought credible , it had to be in that response .I don't know neither do you , how ,having the extra 47 million people will effect the cost of our individual premiums .
It is better than making an unsupported assertion "If we add 47 Million people without healthcare insurance, who we all agree are very sick people " , that can be so easily shown to be incorrect .
If is a big word. Did ya see now no mammograms until 50 and then only every 2 years. Yeah that's good preventative medicine.
That's for low risk women, with no family members who had breast cancer, no previous breast masses/cysts, not nulliperous (I didn't know if parus or parous would be correct), and no breast changes for 6 months. Education is the key here......
Yeah it is difficult for some to realize that the Dems are handing even more profits to the the greedy healthcare insurance companies. And if a John Q. Public can't pay the government will give those greedy healthcare insurance companies some money. The Dems bill is all for the status quo. Just disquised.
And how will the requirement that insurance companies accept those with histories of high risk/previous diagnoses, and seniors (over 55 years of age) without charging ever higher premiums for them, not take some of their financial resources? Just watch their stocks in years to come (I'll be too old and poor to do that).
That's for low risk women, with no family members who had breast cancer, no previous breast masses/cysts, not nulliperous (I didn't know if parus or parous would be correct), and no breast changes for 6 months. Education is the key here......
But they took away self examination ( I never thought it did much personally, my boobs feel lumpy all over and how does my doc remember from year to year how my boobs feel?) So where is the education?
And if you haven't had a yearly mammogram how do you know if there is any difference in your breasts from 6 months ago?
Yes If is a big word ,but in order to make my thought credible , it had to be in that response .I don't know neither do you , how ,having the extra 47 million people will effect the cost of our individual premiums .
It is better than making an unsupported assertion "If we add 47 Million people without healthcare insurance, who we all agree are very sick people " , that can be so easily shown to be incorrect .
If they aren't sick why do they need to be added to the rolls and INCREASE the risk of needing healthcare. Especially if we go to this so-called preventative form of healthcare. Physical $150 times 47 Million people. That's a pretty big number.
And how will the requirement that insurance companies accept those with histories of high risk/previous diagnoses, and seniors (over 55 years of age) without charging ever higher premiums for them, not take some of their financial resources? Just watch their stocks in years to come (I'll be too old and poor to do that).
Mammograms cost on average $125. That's 2 packs of cigs per month. The interesting issue here is that it's the government who's already rationing care even before they pass any legislation.
Many want to say we don't know the future of this legislation. And that's true but we know 2 results of it today. Abortion and mammograms.
Specializes in PICU, NICU, L&D, Public Health, Hospice.
Fortunately, not all women who need a mammogram smoke. They will have to find some other thing to forego in order to make up the cost in their budget, yes?
"If they aren't sick why do they need to be added to the rolls and INCREASE the risk of needing healthcare. Especially if we go to this so-called preventative form of healthcare."
I am not getting the relationship between having health insurance and increasing the risk of needing healthcare.
Fortunately, not all women who need a mammogram smoke. They will have to find some other thing to forego in order to make up the cost in their budget, yes?
"If they aren't sick why do they need to be added to the rolls and INCREASE the risk of needing healthcare. Especially if we go to this so-called preventative form of healthcare."
I am not getting the relationship between having health insurance and increasing the risk of needing healthcare.
$125 to save their lives. My life is worth that.
If they have healthcare insurance do you suppose they aren't gonna use it? One of the countries in that PBS program has to call people in to find out why they are using the system so much. I don't remember which one it was. I do remember the Japanese doc saying he has some patients who come in 2 times every week just to "talk".
mammograms cost on average $125. that's 2 packs of cigs per month. the interesting issue here is that it's the government who's already rationing care even before they pass any legislation. i have no idea what the cost is of cigarettes, today.
many want to say we don't know the future of this legislation. we do, however know to what lengths those opposing it will go: the insurance, pharmaceutical and physicians for more money who care nothing for average americans, spending wads of it to get back their ability to scam the public! and that's true but we know 2 results of it today. abortion and mammograms.
the government is not rationing care!!!we know nothing of the origin of that ridiculous "panel" that has absolutely no authority to do anything. the results of a self proclaimed "panel" impuning the american cancer society's findings and principles; and without the support of any credible government agency (such as nih, cdc, etr al) does not make a viable program. unless you want to take responsibility for spreading unsubstantial claims of an illegitamite, sensation seeking group of nonexperts, please stop what you said here!
we know nothing about any implementation of a panel of 16 self described "prevention experts" who came to the media, claiming to influence government recommendations about mammography. there were no oncologists or oncological nurses on that "panel", which has seemingly arisen from the air, whose main task was to discredit our government's capability of representing public need, through the bill for reform of health care.
try not to believe everything you hear, onekidney. the numbers in their "research" are sadly lacking, and the (?) methodology is worse. while i love to see nurses with advanced credentials in the public eye, representing good causes, ms. marion, whose stated position is "head of georgia's nursing school", interviewed by wolf blitzer on cnn, today blew apart the findings published in a sensationalist way while president obama is out of the country, and without adequate substantial findings.
that strengthened my suspicions that those in opposition to the bill to reform health care were behind the release of shoddy "research" and inconclusive findings, to discredit a bill that will be before the senate shortly. this, i believe is tantamount to traitorous activity. :icon_roll
the government is not rationing care!!!we know nothing of the origin of that ridiculous "panel" that has absolutely no authority to do anything. the results of a self proclaimed "panel" impuning the american cancer society's findings and principles; and without the support of any credible government agency (such as nih, cdc, etr al) does not make a viable program. unless you want to take responsibility for spreading unsubstantial claims of an illegitamite, sensation seeking group of nonexperts, please stop what you said here!
we know nothing about any implementation of a panel of 16 self described "prevention experts" who came to the media, claiming to influence government recommendations about mammography. there were no oncologists or oncological nurses on that "panel", which has seemingly arisen from the air, whose main task was to discredit our government's capability of representing public need, through the bill for reform of health care.
try not to believe everything you hear, onekidney. the numbers in their "research" are sadly lacking, and the (?) methodology is worse. while i love to see nurses with advanced credentials in the public eye, representing good causes, ms. marion, whose stated position is "head of georgia's nursing school", interviewed by wpolf blitzer on cnn, today blew apart the findings published in a sensationalist way while president obama is out of the country.
that strengthened my suspicions that those in opposition to the bill to reform health care were behind the release of shoddy "research" and inconclusive findings, to discredit a bill that will be before the senate shortly. this, i believe is tantamount to traitorous activity. :icon_roll
i don't suppose docs or radiologists make any $$$ on mammograms.
this is a preventative task force. they didn't just fall into the fray. they've been around for years.
nicurn001
805 Posts
NO! ,we don't all agree that all those 47 million people are very sick people , there are many who choose not to be insured ( eg. if young and healthy , they may not see a reason to be insured ). So No , getting all those 47 million will not necessarily drive up costs , if enough are healthy it would actually have the opposite effect .