Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGame
I suppose it'd depend on someone's interpretation of the results. You'll see it in a way that supports your own arguement, and I'll see it in a way that supports mine. So there's really no point argueing anymore.
|
I see it in the way that is supported by the information in the polls themselves, you have literally created "what if" scenarios that imagine conversations that the respondents may or may not have had with people who may or may not have had bad expriences with healthcare.
1)Consdier the source: Health
Reform.gov. Something tells me this government owned group has an interest in pushing a public option seeing how this administration believes reform = transformation. I wouldn't call it an objective source.
2) If these numbers are accurate and not simply taken out of context to illustrate a point of view, it shows that some people have gotten the shaft, but even with those numbers please don't make that the mistake of considering it the norm. It's a fair estimate that 80% of Americans have coverage, and that's well over 200 million people.
There are plenty of people with private insurance who are being treated for life threatening/expensive ailments right now. In fact, over 1.5 million people are diagnosed with cancer each year alone. If the 20,000 mentioned were only dropped fro cancer, that would still be about 1.3% that are dropped or if you take 80% of those patients (to reflect the insured) that makes 1.2 million insured cancer patients, and that makes it 1.6% that are dropped (that looked low to me but the math supports it).
http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/all.html
These drops are not acceptable in my view, but I never said it was. These companies ned to be sued when appropriate and the system needs some reform... not transformation.
3) At no point does that article mention whether or not the companies were sued, what the legal options were for those that were dropped, or what happened to the insured after they were dropped. It is against contract law to re-write the terms after it's signed and there are respources available for anyone who experiences this.
Speaking of recourse, this is also one of the biggest problems with a public option. What happens if someone receives negligent care and wants to sue for damages? Right now, the US government can only be sued if the US government says you can sue it. In fact, the first drafts of the house bill included a provision that the federal government couldn't be sued because of healthcare issues (that was removed, thankfully) and from what I've seen the current bills don't expressly give citizens a right to legal recourse.
Once again, no one here is saying the current system doesn't need reform. But it needs
reform, not transformation.