I also resent the statements that 'It is the "W"rong time for this bill." Or. "It is because of the economy." Those are both hideous statements. The bill is necessary and is needed now. The idea that a health insurance reform bill that takes care of its own costs will be reflected in a poor economic outcome is ridiculous. This bill will create more jobs while paying for itself. The entire oppostion to this bill is mute, they need to apologize to a nation waiting for relief from a broken health care system.
...Rather, it has a far more mainstream provenance, openly emanating months ago from many of the same pundits and conservative media outlets that were central in defeating President Bill Clinton’s health care proposals 16 years ago, including the editorial board of The Washington Times, the American Spectator magazine and Betsy McCaughey, whose 1994 health care critique made her a star of the conservative movement (and ultimately, New York’s lieutenant governor)....
I heard Ms. McCaughey speak last week. I was NOT impressed. She takes words out of context, changes their meaning and sells it as a government that is going to harm its people. I find her a mild distraction, but, I guess to people unable to discern their own minds and are willing to be lied to and allow slander of their President for the sake of bloodsport, then maybe she is somebody. But, she is NOT all that learned about what the true context of the bill is. Not at all. I just might review the whole mess right here.
To be more specific, she was stating that people were not going to be able to keep their current health care. What "I believe" is happening within the bill is to help 'standardize' what is considered a deductible, what is considered 'rejectionable' and what any health insurance company can do or not do to 'trim their costs.' Due to that reality there is going to be some change in any health insurance company.
The majors (click here) will have to come in line with what is 'defined' as acceptable health care. Those definitions are required in any bill and especially in a health care bill and it is those definitions that will help standardize not only 'the language' of health care, but, the way it is viewed from a legal stand point as well. In other words, 'basic wellness' will be defined for every member of the American family, from birth to death. That does not exist now.
So, when a 65 year old woman walks into a physicians office there will be a list of 'standards' that have to be met to standardize that woman's care. In doing so, there is automatically a 'wellness model' invoked which will no doubt include a mammogram screening, etc. If the woman is diabetic then there will be a 'diabetic model' to add to that. If she has other (dare I use the word) co-morbidities and there will be 'models of care' for those issues, too.
So, Ms. McCaughey is right, but, also very, very wrong and she is deliberately (that word was deliberately) adding to the apprehension of the electorate to 'stir the pot' as she did before. And she is getting plenty money for what she does.
But, to clarify. She is right in that no health care insurance will be exactly the same as they are today, they will be better. The care within the health insurance reform bill standardizes the care Americans get and there is a very good reason for that. The more 'routine' care is administered the more of a knowledge base is developed about the populous of the USA. There won't be any more guess work at the CDC, but, more than that; the care Americans will get will not allow (do I dare use this word) 'deviants' to be tolerated as they go undetected.
We all know that early detection and a health lifestyle adds years, if not decades, to an American's life. Why risk that happening no matter whom walks into a physicians office? Wife's won't have to nag their husbands to get their 'annuals' done anymore, routine tests will be recommended and followed up by MDs and nurses.
Today, there is little advocacy for wellness 'routines' in an American's life. The 'recommendations' are to taken seriously when an MD states, it is time for a mammogram. Those issues will be encouraged to the point of enforceable with phone calls when they go neglected. Why? Because as Americans we sincerely care about each other. Because early detection and treatment for disease has not only the best outcomes, but, the cost is far less.
So, in the long run, when Americans are exposed to good quality preventative insurance facilitated care accompanied by a good quality of life, including a healthy food supply, there is every reason to believe the 'impact' on our health care dollar will be less and less.
The point President Obama makes is that if neglected yet again this time, the quality of American's lives will suffer as health care becomes too expensive and more and more fall outside the 'ability' to pay for health care. More people will be sicker and more will die.
So, while some people such as Ms. McCaughey can 'buffalo' the American people with estranging statements about changes to their policies, she is "W"rong in general. She is exampling her understanding according to Merriam-Webster and NOT the context in which the words were written. Shame on her.
