<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Sparky Firepants Imageshealth care reform | Sparky Firepants Images</title>
	<atom:link href="http://sparkyfirepants.com/tag/health-care-reform/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://sparkyfirepants.com</link>
	<description>Fresh &#38; bright design for licensing</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 May 2012 16:29:43 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Who&#039;s your daddy? Congress is, when it comes to health care.</title>
		<link>http://sparkyfirepants.com/bloggitywordypants/whos-your-daddy-congress-is-when-it-comes-to-health-care/</link>
		<comments>http://sparkyfirepants.com/bloggitywordypants/whos-your-daddy-congress-is-when-it-comes-to-health-care/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Nov 2009 16:46:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>sparkyfirepants</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Bloggity WordyPants]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[health care reform]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[health insurance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[insurance debate]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sparkyfirepants.com/?p=872</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&#8220;This is a message to the American people; we&#8217;re trying to bring down your costs to help more Americans afford health insurance.&#8221;  - Democratic Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland You know what bothers me most about this comment? The proposed solution being touted is not about helping Americans afford health care anymore. It used...]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>"This is a message to the American people; we're trying to bring down your costs to help more Americans afford health insurance."  - Democratic Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland</p></blockquote>
<p>You know what bothers me most about this <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/09/health.care/" target="_blank">comment</a>?</p>
<p>The proposed solution being touted is not about helping Americans afford health care anymore. It used to be about <strong>health care</strong>. The bill that passed the House and is now in the Senate doesn't address the high cost of <strong><em>health care</em></strong>. It's written to solve the problem of paying for <em><strong>health insurance.</strong></em></p>
<p>I've written to one of my congressman, Earl Blumenthal (D-Oregon) several times now, expressing my concerns and offering my suggestions.</p>
<p><em><span style="color: #808000;">Disclaimer: this post is not about Republicans vs Democrats, or kumbaya bipartisanship. This is about solving a problem. I'll delete comments that sling mud at either party and don't seek to solve the issue.</span></em></p>
<p>You may not be surprised to hear that Earl isn't listening. I'm not naive enough to think that my letters will have any effect on what is already a decided course of action by most of Congress, but I felt that I couldn't really complain if I hadn't taken that step (token though it may be). Earl can't respond to every one of his constituents personally; that's the numbers game and I totally get it.</p>
<p>However, Earl Blumenthal, like most of Congress, never really set out to solve the problem for <strong>all Americans</strong>. Rather, he set out to make himself look like a hero by creating a system for the poor.</p>
<p>The proposed health insurance "solution" is about Congress putting on a band-aid in front of the cameras.</p>
<p>If President Obama signs this bill into law (providing it passes the Senate), it will surely provide health insurance to the poor. I have no doubt about that.</p>
<p>Supposedly, the party line goes, the rich can already afford insurance. The middle class just wants to keep their insurance if they switch jobs, and pay a little less. The poor are uninsured because they can't afford the high cost, which apparently is the fault of the uninsured. Presumably, we (I don't currently carry insurance) have driven up costs because we're not paying "our fair share."</p>
<h2>I apologize, America. This is my fault.</h2>
<p>Our family is healthy. Any money spent on insurance is only a drain on our tight budget. We're not actually using any of the benefits (which, even if we did would still still be out of pocket up to $10,000 on our last plan. $10,000 may as well be a million when you don't have it).</p>
<p>So when Congress comes up with their amazing plan to help all Americans afford insurance, I'm not impressed. I don't need insurance. I don't want insurance.</p>
<p><strong>I want to be able to afford <em>health care.</em> Not health <em>insurance.</em></strong></p>
<p>Congress seems to think they are one in the same. They aren't.</p>
<p>The other problem, from what I understand, is the high cost of the uninsured not paying their medical bills. Apparently the rich are picking up the tab for that.</p>
<p>If that's true, then how does this solve that problem? The rich will still be carrying the burden, because they won't have access to the nicely-priced public option.</p>
<p>Shouldn't a public option include <em>all Americans</em><em>? </em>Otherwise it's a welfare system, which rewards citizens for not succeeding in life. I can hear the conversations now:</p>
<p><strong>Bill:</strong> <em>Hey, I hear you got a raise, Mary. Awesome! Good on ya!</em></p>
<p><strong>Mary: </strong><em>Hmm, yeah. I guess so. Except now I'm out of the public option bracket, so I have to buy insurance, which means I didn't get a raise at all.</em></p>
<p><strong>Bill:</strong> <em>Oh, wow. Thank God I still make under $40,000. My wife wants to go back to work, but if she does we'll have to do that, too. Sucks for her.</em></p>
<p>Why would any sane person want to succeed under this system? It rewards you for being poor.</p>
<p>Public Health Insurance also begs the question, if it's meant to be public health care, why the insurance middleman-type thing necessary?</p>
<p>A straightforward public option (no middleman) makes more sense. Otherwise, you're modeling a government system on an industry that has slowly been proven not to work (which is why people are crying out for reform in the first place).</p>
<p>The solution from Congress serves three classes:</p>
<ul>
<li>The Poor</li>
<li>Insurance Companies</li>
<li>Congress</li>
</ul>
<p>I know at least part of the answer to true health care reform. <strong>Get rid of the insurance middleman.</strong></p>
<p>Start with a clean slate and then we'll have a shot at actually providing affordable health care to all Americans. And I mean <em><strong>all</strong></em> Americans.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://sparkyfirepants.com/bloggitywordypants/whos-your-daddy-congress-is-when-it-comes-to-health-care/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>4</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

