Mar 12, 2010 7:54am
Laura Ingraham on Health Care: ‘If Nancy Pelosi Had the Votes, They Would Have Already Voted on This’
EmailThat’s what she told me this morning on GMA.
Donna Brazile argues Democrats will get the votes, “at the end of the day the speaker will go out there, she will talk to her caucus it’s a heavy lift but she will find the votes.”
See the whole debate here:
Mitt Romney's Full Speech at CPAC 2012 
Romney Makes His Case to Conservatives at CPAC
My mother died in July 2009 because of lack of insurance. Medicaid would not cover her because she had no dependants. Medicare would not because she was only 49. Insure Oklahoma, a new program here would not cover her because she was not working, though employed on med leave, and because she was not drawing unemployment, which she could not do because she was very ill and could not search for a job. The hospital treated her poorly because they knew they would most likely not get paid. Now my father is 52, a disabled veteran and a widow with $500,000 debt. My children have no grandma and I no mother. Over money? Really? Is that what america is?
Posted by: Crystal Davis | March 12, 2010, 8:23 am 8:23 am
My sympathy to you Ms. Davis on the loss
of your mother. Unfortunately even good
care cannot guarantee a good outcome.
People with insurance die every day.My
father-in-law had insurance and he still
died as did my mother-in-law. Sometimes
what ails us cannot be fixed. Paul McCarney’s wife Linda had the best care
and money was no object in her fight
against breast cancer and the cancer won. You have shown that even the best
intended state run program “Insure
Oklahoma” had its loop holes. Why would
you think that something on a larger
scale run the Feds would be any better?
We need a fix no doubt, but lets do it
incrementely and tweak as we go along.
You proved that even tho your mom had
no insurance she still got care. If
she ran up a $500,000 hospital bill, I
would say she got more than most people
do.
Posted by: wis134 | March 12, 2010, 8:36 am 8:36 am
Hey wis134,
I used to agree with your tweaks idea, but every tweak that was proposed, other than huge medicare drug expansion, the GOP shot down. They have fought every change made. So I have no confidence that track will work.
In essence, the Obama plan is very, very similar to the 1993 Republican proposal. I don’t understand why 100% of the Republicans are against their own plan from the past. That makes no sense to me.
Posted by: Bill | March 12, 2010, 8:46 am 8:46 am
My sympathies as well, Ms. Davis.
I do not question the issue of your mothers lack of insurance in the cost burden your family has to bear now, however I would ask how do you know the hospital treated her poorly?
Though well trained, our healthcare professionals cannot fix every problem with the human body. Maybe the issue wasn’t inadequate care but rather a question of inadequate training(lack of specialists to treat her properly)or her symptoms presented so quickly that they could not help her soon enough to have a better outcome.
If you think you have proof of wrongdoing, I would suggest to have your father get a copy of her hospital records and ask a physician that specializes in her diagnosis to review the treatment she received. If you have a case then seek the services of an attorney.
Or contact the Oklahoma Heathcare Authority and ask them to look into your mothers care.
Posted by: bobtherepublican | March 12, 2010, 8:48 am 8:48 am
No good plan ???? Republican Paul Ryan
has had a proposal on the table since
last spring and I think he blindsighted
Obama at the televised hearing in
bringing up good points. He got brushed
off and we still hear there are no good
ideas. We want healthcare reform but in
a smaller and more managable way. If
its such a great thing, why can’t Obama
get his own party on board without
threats and bribes ??? The Dems own
this mess and they have to quit whining
about the Republicans. They won, they
own it and if its so great, why all
the problems ??
Posted by: wis134 | March 12, 2010, 9:52 am 9:52 am
In response to your replies, thank you for your sympathies. As to people dying everyday, I understand that. My mother survived a right lung removal and a month later developed high fever. Over a period of 6 months she repetedly went to the er. They blew off our concern of chest infection (#1 cause of death after this surgery) and continually treated her for UTI. She died of a chest infection. The tests needed cost more that a UTI diagnosis. Sound Fair?
Posted by: Crystal Davis | March 12, 2010, 10:46 am 10:46 am
Then I would suggest again what I suggested before. Ask your father to get her complete hospital records for the surgery and subsequent visits and have a specialist review the information, and seek legal action depending on the response.
Posted by: bobtherepublican | March 12, 2010, 11:03 am 11:03 am
I think to make good decisions you have to take the emotional responses out of the picture. I too feel so sorry for the loss of lives due to poor quality of health care unfortunately I firmly believe healthcare will NOT improve if governmentally run, what does the government run that is of High quality? Please Please let the medical professionals work on the healthcare quality issues. Maybe Nancy could focus on those industries that have been rewarded for all the rest of our suffering. Insurance companies have never felt our pain. I dont know what the answer is but we do have the best medical care in the world , not everyone can afford it because of the insurance industry profits
Posted by: onevoteinwi | March 12, 2010, 11:05 am 11:05 am
The insurance industry is ranked #86 in profits at 3.3%. The beverage industry has a profit margin 25.9%. Politicans know that to win a war, you have to create an enemy. Doctors were the enemy until they didn’t poll well as enemies in the eyes of the public. The insurance industry polled very well and soon became the issue. 3.3% Remain informed.
Posted by: Matt | March 12, 2010, 11:24 am 11:24 am
so the insurance industry is not making money?
Posted by: onevoteinwi | March 12, 2010, 11:28 am 11:28 am
Its often repeated now-a-days but if you take all the medical insurance companies profits away from them and put them towards healthcare you could pay for two days out of the year’s expenses for the country, leaving the other 363 days you still have to deal with.
Insurance industry profits aren’t the issue.
Posted by: bobtherepublican | March 12, 2010, 1:42 pm 1:42 pm
A few years back, I had to have a cardiac bypass, due to a congenital (born with) defect. Then in less then 90 days, I had to have emergency stomach surgery, for a blocked intestine.
But since I did NOT spend $2000 in 30 days, as prescribed by AHCCS in Arizona (state medicaid), I didn’t qualify. I spent over $2500 out-of-pocket expenses, with my Medicare HMO (Murky Futures, Sponsered by AARP) in less then 90 days, and nearly went bankrupt paying it all back.
I don’t see any cap on out-of-pocket expenses in this legislation, do you?
Wayno
Posted by: Wayno | March 12, 2010, 3:07 pm 3:07 pm
I know that there are many people who are desparate and need relief from the hight costs of healthcare. This is what I am afraid of, that people don’t care if the healthcare reform bill is good for them, their familiy, or their country. They just want something to be done. Because of this desparation, they will believe anything. These despicable politicians are using the most vulnerable among us to further benefit the elite and hiding this agenda by convincing the ignorant masses.
Posted by: John | March 12, 2010, 4:42 pm 4:42 pm
Laura Ingrahm ROCKS! The best debater for sanity and limited Gov in America.
Posted by: Carolynn | March 12, 2010, 8:36 pm 8:36 pm
I have been a nurse for over 20 years and daily see the problems with our current system. First problem: people who cannot afford to get insurance. If you work for a small company not offering insurance, a monthly premium for catastrophic health insurance if you are in your 50s in Texas runs approx $300 month for one. Of course if you have pre-existing condition then insurance does not cover what you need. So it is better not to go to a doctor and get a diagnosis and get treated because then you will have pre-existing condition and then you are locked out – so how can you win??? If you can get catastrophic insurance, it still cost a fortune and people hesitate as long as possible to get necessary testing because their insurance does not cover it – hence they are much sicker when they finally get help costing all of us more money in the end. Second problem: people using the ER as a primary care setting, will be treated by the hospital but since they cannot pay they will incur huge depts that eventually society ends up paying for. Third problem: Healthcare industry doing a lot of testing/procedures that may not be necessary but is done to minimize liability. Fourth problem: all people who end up in depth because of healthcare costs contributing to an unstable economy (not being able to pay housenotes, car notes, etc.). In referring to Ms. Davis – that yes people die no matter how much money is put into care – but the lack of dignity and the struggle to get help for someone falling between the cracks should never happen in a society that think of themselves as the best in the world. The difference between those who have had good insurance vs those who have bad insurance/no inscurance is like night and day!
Posted by: Ruth | March 13, 2010, 9:12 am 9:12 am
This Democrat plan is designed to create a single payer system.
First, the fine for not having insurance is $750 per year.
Second, if you do not have insurance and end up in the hospital, you can get a policy that will cover all your pre-existing conditions.
Under this plan, only a fool would get a health insurance policy.
Simply pay the fine and wait until an illness to get your insurance.
Meanwhile, the insurance companies will go bankrupt from lack of people getting policies.
Premiums will skyrocket at an exponential rate to cover the lack of insurance purchasers.
At the same time, the government will get millions of dollars from people who refuse to get an insurance policy and instead pay the fine.
As a result, the government will have to step in when the insurance companies collapse.
Welcome, single-payer.
It’s the plan.
Posted by: Angelo | March 13, 2010, 11:19 am 11:19 am
Thank you, nurse Ruth. You are the true voice of sanity and reason, not some reactionary radio hack who preys on the ignorant to make her millions.
I’m sorry for your loss, Ms. Davis. wis134 doesn’t seem to get your plight. If you’re mother was eligible for an affordable, decent insurance plan, at least your family would not be stuck with $500,000 worth of medical bills. Sadly once you’re over a certain age, there is no such thing as affordable, decent insurance coverage.
And speaking of decent insurance coverage, many times people don’t find out how good or bad their coverage is until they have a crisis. My mother thought she had excellent insurance until she faced a medical crisis.
Posted by: leah | March 13, 2010, 11:43 pm 11:43 pm
Exactly. The health bill is not supported within the Dem party…..much less by anyone else.
Posted by: Rick McDaniel | March 15, 2010, 9:55 am 9:55 am
The opposition to this bill is not about health care.
For those who understand the value of the U.S. Constitution.
This Bill violates:
1. 3rd and 4th Amendments – your personal financial information, and the information of your employer, physician, and hospital. All of this is a protected against unreasonable searches and seizures.
2. 5th Amendment – Since private health care will be taxed and not be considered a fine it avoids application of the due process clause.
3. 9th Amendment – The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
4. 10th Amendment – The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are preserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
5. Article 6 of the Constitution – Requires the members of both houses of Congress to be bound by oath or affirmation to support the Constitution.
The balance of power between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches will be shifted to the Executive branch. This legislation provides access to the administrations appointees the personal information that is currently protected by the constitution. Which in turn can be used for political and monetary gain.
Any elected representative voting for this bill or maneuvers to circumvent the constitution is in violation of their oath of office and should resign or be removed from office. A charge of Treason against them should be seriously considered.
Posted by: TX_MBell | March 16, 2010, 5:43 pm 5:43 pm
The 3rd Amendment to our Constitution prohibits troops to be quartered in homes during peacetime and has only sparingly been used to try to invoke privacy. The 4th Amendment does address search and seizure, but requires warrants and probable cause. The 9th and 10 do address state rights, but who says the states are always right. My state just passed a law that makes it legal to have guns in bars and we also have it that if you are an uninsured motorist you have to pay a $500.00 uninsured motorist fee when registering your vehicle. If it’s unfair for the federal government to force you to buy insurance isn’t it then unfair for the state to force you to basically be “buying” insurance for your car with this uninsured motorist fee?
If Bush, Cheney and Rove haven’t been slapped with treason for lying to the American people that resulted in a war that has caused American deaths I don’t think you Repubs should be throwing around the word treason for the healthcare issue.
Posted by: What Now | March 17, 2010, 8:26 pm 8:26 pm
Laura Ingraham on Health Care: ‘If Nancy Pelosi Had the Votes, They Would Have Already Voted on This is a what ???????
Posted by: toyota çıkma parça | August 29, 2011, 9:51 am 9:51 am