Well, this has come full circle then. You'd take the treatment, and let the rest of us pay for it, in other words! There is a recurring theme in this argument that I keep pointing out. Rather than debate the merits and facts of reform, the pro-insurance company crowd frames the entire complex debate in "black and white" terms, making it really easy to support their side. The gentleman I referred to was not give such a B&W choice. He was not told "die or go to the ER". He was told it might be life threatening. Now, how much is it worth to find out? ER visit is minimum $800, if nothing is wrong. If you knew it was life-threatening, even with a $10,000 hospitalization, yes, I would go too. But what if it's not? In his case it wasn't, and he saved a bundle. I don't think that in the richest, best country in the world, someone who's worked and payed taxes all their life should have to make such decisions at 1 in the morning, just because his factory fell victom to the recession.
Really, listen to the rhetoric...."keep things the same, or DEATH SQUADS will appear at your door!" "keep things the same or you'll be paying for every illegal alien in the world!" "over 55, and you're not worth keeping alive!"
But my favorite quote of all, coming from a protester, "I DON'T WANT GOVERNMENT COMING BETWEEN ME AND MY MEDICARE!!"
Lets keep the debate in bounds, with real facts, real concerns, and real solutions to the problems. Not scare tactics drummed up by industry-supported lobbyists and PR firms. (or, to be fair, industry supported advertisements in favor of Obama's plan, heavily laden with pharma provisions!)











Reply With Quote
Brendan Smialowski/Getty Images





