Health care crippling the economy

How about not providing medicare/medicaid benefits to illegal aliens? Not a US citizen? No free healthcare. Pretty simple.

I've seen the ER of our local hospital overflowing with illegals, who apparently use the ER in lieu of going to a regular doctor or clinic. The costs have to be staggering.

Cadillac wrote:

<quoted text>
I wouldent have a problem with the above statement if these latina women were impregnated by white guys.

The problem isn't who impregnates them, its that they have NO INSURANCE and are having a baby, which both having and raising costs $$$

All of this talk about serious Illinois cost cutting is a joke. I was i the IL Sec of State office in Lombard today and 5 workers stood around "shooting the breeze" while I waited in line for 15 minutes.

We could easily cut 50% of the goverment bureacrats and not even miss these guys. As a matter of fact the government would probably run better and we won't be paying these rediculous inflated state pensions. Most people are getting their wages cut, going into foreclosure and these dopes want to raise taxes. Soon they will be getting 100% of nothing. If you can't run the governemt with what you have today, make the needed cuts. If you can't afford Medicare now, how will you be able to support National Health Care?

No National Health care, no support to Illegal Immigrants in our social systems, cut our spending and no new Taxes!!!!! Stop the stupidity!!!!!

Lerbi wrote:

<quoted text>
You betcha I'm another Obama voter, and proud of it! Let's just agree to disagree on this subject. Turning this into another Republicans are always right and Democrats are always wrong argument is one of the main reasons why we have many of the problems that we do in this country. I'm like the huge majority of voters in this country - about 10 degrees right or left of center depending on the issue. My vote depends on the person and the issue. The solution to this problem is probably somewhere in the middle with compromises made on both sides.

Sorry you are wrong. The reason for many of the problems is a lack of accountability, and you evidently support more of it.

What do you have to be proud of?

It would help if we could weed out and stop providing health care to illegal immigrants, (criminals,) their anchor babies, and those that over stay their visas.

Goofy stuff wrote:

I would like to see all people with healthcare coverage, however, what I really think I'd like to see more is people get their priorities straight, and learn to differentiate between what they need, against what they want.
I do not think we will ever have meaningful reform if we do not address an essential component to this healthcare nightmare: individuals who can afford healthcare insurance, but choose to spend their money on other, non-essential items and then refuse to pay for the healthcare services they utilize.

Perfectly stated! Bears tickets, a new car and a flat screen TV are more important to most Americans than baseline labwork and a physical exam. Pathetic!

The goverment shouldn't be involved in healthcare. It's a huge motivation to get a job and not be a parasite on the country or state. A bancrupt country won't be able to provide a thing, I doubt most people would want to leave that legacy to the children of this country.

When will them limit the lawyers. Tort reform is needed and the medical system should be immune from lawsuits. Accidents happen, but you always have the choice of not going.
The premuims doctors have to pay for malpractice insurance are ridiculus, but they need protection from the parasites, unduly enriching "victims".
I doubt a bunch of lawyers in Washington will ever change that though.

Our unregulated capitalistic healthcare system in the US is in need of a long overdue overhaul. Here's a specific story which illustrates the many shortfalls of our system:

http://rxvette.blogspot.com/2009/05/healthcar...

You want to reduce health care costs big time. 1. Lawyers can't sue Doctors, or Hospitals. 2. Drs. can only charge a maximum for all things. Such as $50.00 for a yearly physical. 3. Drug companies be restricted as to how much they can charge for drugs. 4. Hospitals can only charge a set maximum for anything done to you. No $20.00 fee for band aids in emergency. Forget Universal health care. Just fix what you got which no one wants to do.

I was diagnosed with cancer at age 38 and had the advantage of having excellent health insurance as well as the ability to continue working throughout my chemotherapy.

Had I become sick enough to not be able to continue to work I would have wound up out of work. My husband would still have a check but that would eliminate half of our income. I had two children under age 5 at the time of my diagnosis who were in daycare cost $1,200 dollar per month. Would I have been able to care for them at home even if I were too sick to work? Then there is the mortgage and the car payment and insurance and groceries and all of the usual expenses of life.

My point? People don’t budget catastrophic illness into their lives. If they are insured they don’t think they have to.

Universal health care would merely replace private/employer spending with taxes. Total spending would go down for individuals and employers.

I am sick and tired about hearing how we can’t afford to provide universal coverage to the citizens of this country. We can afford to do what we prioritize and unfortunately personal greed is the biggest stumbling block.

Kate
http://www.aftercancernowwhat.com

"AfterCancer" you have it wrong. The cost of universal health care does not bring down the average cost, but increases the amount of taxes everyone has to pay. The end result is that Socialist Obama will achieve his goal of wiping out the milddle class in the U.S. You have to be crazy to think UHC will reduce costs.

aftercancer wrote:

I was diagnosed with cancer at age 38 and had the advantage of having excellent health insurance as well as the ability to continue working throughout my chemotherapy.
Had I become sick enough to not be able to continue to work I would have wound up out of work. My husband would still have a check but that would eliminate half of our income. I had two children under age 5 at the time of my diagnosis who were in daycare cost $1,200 dollar per month. Would I have been able to care for them at home even if I were too sick to work? Then there is the mortgage and the car payment and insurance and groceries and all of the usual expenses of life.
My point? People don’t budget catastrophic illness into their lives. If they are insured they don’t think they have to.
Universal health care would merely replace private/employer spending with taxes. Total spending would go down for individuals and employers.
I am sick and tired about hearing how we can’t afford to provide universal coverage to the citizens of this country. We can afford to do what we prioritize and unfortunately personal greed is the biggest stumbling block.
Kate
http://www.aftercancernowwhat.com

It's called rationing. Universal health care decides WHO deserves treatement.

If you're too old and get a life threatening disease, you may not get anything, or they put you on a waiting list in hopes you die before you get treatment.

Oncology is a joke in the UK.

Cadillac wrote:

Here's the problem:
The 'non working class' get welfare, medicade and a section 8 roof over their head. When they get sick everything is payed for via tax payers dollars.
Working class people work their whole life to own a home and have heart attacks without insurance and have to forfeit their homes they worked their whole life for.
This is not fair that 'some people' have to pay and others have no responsibility to pay.
Theres your problem

Amen! When I worked as a Voc Rehab Counselor, I saw many working people who either did not have access to health insurance in the first place, or got sick, lost their jobs, and could not afford COBRA and lost their insurance too. Once the insurance is gone, so is the medical care.

One nice lady, a waitress, died of uterine cancer because she was uninsured and did not have thousands of dollars to put up for treatment. Her employer did not offer insurance, and she was "uninsurable" even before getting cancer because she was diabetic. Before she died, she ended up on SSDI, but SSDI (what people who worked get) has a 2 year waiting period for Medicare. So, she still had no "insurance" even after being deemed "disabled" with terminal cancer. Had she never worked, she would have received about $200 less per month but full medical benefits through Medicaid! Only in America.....The people in Washington arguing against "healthcare for all" should be ashamed. Offering "tax breaks" does absoultely nothing for someone with any health conditions, since they can't get insurance anyway.

Clarence wrote:

"AfterCancer" you have it wrong. The cost of universal health care does not bring down the average cost, but increases the amount of taxes everyone has to pay. The end result is that Socialist Obama will achieve his goal of wiping out the milddle class in the U.S. You have to be crazy to think UHC will reduce costs.

I think that you would change your tune if you found yourself or a loved one dying because you had no health insurance. It happens everyday. Obama is "human" - he understands the importance of healthcare access and he cares about Americans.....unlike his predecessor who only cared about helping the insurance companies, drug companies, and other providers get rich at the expense of the American people....

"Anonymous" you made some charges against former President Bush. Now I ask you where is your proof, because those are criminal acts and Obama would love to get a hold of such information or are you telling little untrue stories to make Obama look good. Let me get this straight you would like to see UHC so that the milddle class in the U.S. can be wiped out paying higher taxes. You want all that in the name of Obama's Socialistic policies.

Part of the Kennedy plan that Obama will presumably endorse will force insurance companies to bring their records before government overseers, so Washington can make sure they're not wasting money? If it's one group that understands what it means to waste money, it's the federal government...

http://theconstitutionalalamo.com/2009/06/07/...