Comments on: Will Ethical Issues Derail the Health Care Bill? http://www.bloggernews.net/121620 High-quality English language analysis and editorial writing on the news. Sun, 27 May 2012 06:36:17 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: Flash http://www.bloggernews.net/121620#comment-1361507 Flash Thu, 23 Jul 2009 17:08:09 +0000 http://www.bloggernews.net/121620#comment-1361507 This proposed nationalized health care plan has nothing to do with "health" but rather about control. The same one who lied, claiming that the "stimulus" packages would promote economic growth, is on one hand, bragging publicly that he "has the best health care there is," while attempting to convince that the proposed plan is "designed so that all will have available health care." Lies-Lies-Lies - Not ONE individual in this great country is turned away (refused access to medical care) because of financial inability. He wants to see how many are gullible enough to ignore the fact that even the indigent in this country are treated in a professional manner, no matter the circumstances. This entire issue is about fear tactics and complete governmental control. If he is successful in scaring the public into believing that he is "saving" them from a non-existent injustice, then he has succeeded in initiating an effective means of controlling the US population. The phony example, "patient's funds were completely depleted due to her insurance's refusal to fund her treatment," is only another fear tactic to give him and his czars complete control of every facet of everyone's lives. If there is anyone who is willing to stand up and say that they, or anyone they have known has been refused medical treatment in this country due to financial reasons, they are stating an absolute fallacy. This proposed nationalized health care plan has nothing to do with “health” but rather about control. The same one who lied, claiming that the “stimulus” packages would promote economic growth, is on one hand, bragging publicly that he “has the best health care there is,” while attempting to convince that the proposed plan is “designed so that all will have available health care.”

Lies-Lies-Lies - Not ONE individual in this great country is turned away (refused access to medical care) because of financial inability.

He wants to see how many are gullible enough to ignore the fact that even the indigent in this country are treated in a professional manner, no matter the circumstances.

This entire issue is about fear tactics and complete governmental control. If he is successful in scaring the public into believing that he is “saving” them from a non-existent injustice, then he has succeeded in initiating an effective means of controlling the US population. The phony example, “patient’s funds were completely depleted due to her insurance’s refusal to fund her treatment,” is only another fear tactic to give him and his czars complete control of every facet of everyone’s lives.

If there is anyone who is willing to stand up and say that they, or anyone they have known has been refused medical treatment in this country due to financial reasons, they are stating an absolute fallacy.

]]> By: MelMich http://www.bloggernews.net/121620#comment-1358785 MelMich Tue, 21 Jul 2009 20:16:41 +0000 http://www.bloggernews.net/121620#comment-1358785 We cannot allow politicians to start deciding what health care is or is not, especially when they base this on opinion or religious belief. Medical/health should always remain in the hands of the doctor. Decisions regarding legal medical procedures should be between the doctor and the patient. If you exclude a procedure such as abortion, it clearly opens the door to more exclusions that could next affect you! Everyone would agree that religious beliefs in the US are varied depending on the type and denomination. Some believe parts of the bible that others do not, and vice versa - and that's just among different Christian denominations. Beliefs are even more varied when you take into account the scores of different religions in this country. Considering all those variables, how can anyone in good conscience actually support the idea of basing our laws (which apply to all) on the beliefs of one group of people? What would happen if laws about medical care, for example, were based on the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses, who do not believe in blood transfusions? Perhaps that will illustrate my point more clearly. Please remember, separation of church and state is NOT anti-religion - it actually PROTECTS AND SUPPORTS RELIGIOUS LIBERTY, for all!! Lastly, I must address this statement: "most private insurance plans similarly do not fund most abortions". This is absolutely untrue! Including such a patently false statement does not make your statement more credible. It does just the opposite. Thank you for the opportunity. We cannot allow politicians to start deciding what health care is or is not, especially when they base this on opinion or religious belief. Medical/health should always remain in the hands of the doctor. Decisions regarding legal medical procedures should be between the doctor and the patient. If you exclude a procedure such as abortion, it clearly opens the door to more exclusions that could next affect you!
Everyone would agree that religious beliefs in the US are varied depending on the type and denomination. Some believe parts of the bible that others do not, and vice versa - and that’s just among different Christian denominations. Beliefs are even more varied when you take into account the scores of different religions in this country. Considering all those variables, how can anyone in good conscience actually support the idea of basing our laws (which apply to all) on the beliefs of one group of people? What would happen if laws about medical care, for example, were based on the beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses, who do not believe in blood transfusions? Perhaps that will illustrate my point more clearly.

Please remember, separation of church and state is NOT anti-religion - it actually PROTECTS AND SUPPORTS RELIGIOUS LIBERTY, for all!!

Lastly, I must address this statement: “most private insurance plans similarly do not fund most abortions”. This is absolutely untrue! Including such a patently false statement does not make your statement more credible. It does just the opposite.

Thank you for the opportunity.

]]> By: hsr0601 http://www.bloggernews.net/121620#comment-1358373 hsr0601 Tue, 21 Jul 2009 15:05:50 +0000 http://www.bloggernews.net/121620#comment-1358373 This spring, due to the demand decrease, the highest fuel price came down below $40 per barrel, though, the 'similar' insurance premiums still go on rising, which may imply that health care is not optional, but essential, and the inaction could bankrupt family, business, and government beyond this recession, as all across the board agree. Earlier, the revised HELP BILL with the public option and employer mandatory has got a green light from the CBO, yet still, a new 'incomplete' analysis of emerging House legislation said it would increase deficits by $239 billion over a decade. But, CBO does not score any savings from prevention / wellness and the rest, even as Prevention / Wellness is an actual and essential part of the savings, without which the reform would be meaningless. And I think the other things such as increased productivity / consumer confidence, 'potential stem cell effect', 'decreased mental stress', and 'massive job creation', 'stock price effect' and etc considered, the reform might be within reach. Most importantly, a few years later, if the excessive war and military spending goes toward the health care program, the cost issue does not matter at all, I think. Edward M. Kennedy argues, the perfect should not be the enemy of the good, "Everyone won't be satisfied and no one will get everything they want. But we need to come together, just as we've done in other great struggles in World War II and the Cold War, in passing the great civil-rights laws of the 1960s, and in daring to send a man to the moon. If we don't get every provision right, we can adjust and improve the program next year or in the years to come. What we can't afford is to wait another generation." Thank You For Reading ! This spring, due to the demand decrease, the highest fuel price came down below $40 per barrel, though, the ’similar’ insurance premiums still go on rising, which may imply that health care is not optional, but essential, and the inaction could bankrupt family, business, and government beyond this recession, as all across the board agree.
Earlier, the revised HELP BILL with the public option and employer mandatory has got a green light from the CBO, yet still, a new ‘incomplete’ analysis of emerging House legislation said it would increase deficits by $239 billion over a decade.
But, CBO does not score any savings from prevention / wellness and the rest, even as Prevention / Wellness is an actual and essential part of the savings, without which the reform would be meaningless.
And I think the other things such as increased productivity / consumer confidence, ‘potential stem cell effect’, ‘decreased mental stress’, and ‘massive job creation’, ’stock price effect’ and etc considered, the reform might be within reach. Most importantly, a few years later, if the excessive war and military spending goes toward the health care program, the cost issue does not matter at all, I think.
Edward M. Kennedy argues, the perfect should not be the enemy of the good, “Everyone won’t be satisfied and no one will get everything they want. But we need to come together, just as we’ve done in other great struggles in World War II and the Cold War, in passing the great civil-rights laws of the 1960s, and in daring to send a man to the moon. If we don’t get every provision right, we can adjust and improve the program next year or in the years to come. What we can’t afford is to wait another generation.”

Thank You For Reading !

]]>