news-record.com

Skip to the site menu
Skip to search

OPINION

Health care reform bill could use more backing

Wednesday, November 18, 2009
(Updated 3:00 am)

Thanks to Reps. Miller, Watts, Butterfield, Etheridge and Price for their votes in favor of better health care for everyone. I hope our eight other North Carolina representatives will reconsider and lend support to a final health bill.

The House plan put a strict limit on how much insurance companies can charge older people — no more than two times what they charge younger ones. It says no one can be turned down just because he happens to have been sick once or twice in his lifetime. And it says no one can be dropped if she gets ill. If people cannot find affordable insurance, there’s help available to make it affordable.

I know the fight isn’t over, but it’s a first step toward health care for everyone, first proposed by President Truman 60 years ago.
I’m one of the millions of AARP members who believe in affordable health care and also that much of the cost will be borne by eliminating corruption in the present system and the outrageous salaries many insurance company executives receive.

Trudy Atkins
Greensboro
 

Comments

View Comments

This letter has been closed to new comments. Comments are accepted on select letters to the editor between the hours of 7 AM and 5 PM, EDT, Monday through Friday.

Inappropriate content? Please report abuse.

xeno10

November 18, 2009 - 9:17 am EST

Of course, Ms. Atkins, this entire process has shown how "bought and paid for" many Congress lawmakers have become when they are willing to vote against the will of constituents. But, cheer-up, Trudy! The first vote on the Senate health care bill will probably happen this weekend. And I firmly believe a "final bill" will be voted into law by Christmas, 2009! Seriously.

Sawdust

November 19, 2009 - 2:03 pm EST

Terrible bill out of the Senate: http://spectator.org/archives/2009/11/19/harrycare-is-a-rotten-deal

huck

November 18, 2009 - 5:55 am EST

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_MED_MAMMOGRAM_ADVICE?SITE=NCGR...

Don't worry, Ms. Atkins - the government is already working to make your health care better. By eliminating self-breast exams and avoiding mammograms until age 50, we can now detect breast cancers at later stages and avoid many of those expensive (and painful) breast cancer surgeries that would otherwise be performed if caught early. Then we can move straight to palliative care, which I'm sure costs much less than surgery, chemotherapy and radiation to cure a cancer.

I can already see health care becoming more and more affordable!

Yvonne

November 18, 2009 - 7:11 am EST

You seem to have joined the ranks of the "scare um" crowd, huck, rather than be totally factual about health care. There is no way someone else, much less the government, can eliminate self-breast exams.

dcolin

November 18, 2009 - 7:57 pm EST

Tell him to check with Sawdust and danagain.
They would be statistics experts.

Sawdust

November 19, 2009 - 2:02 pm EST

56.7% of all statistics are made up.

dcolin

November 18, 2009 - 2:33 pm EST

"Don't worry, Ms. Atkins - the government is already working to make your health care better. By eliminating self-breast exams and avoiding mammograms"

The govt did the study? Really?

They commissioned it they did not do it.

Also we already ration health care.

We don't screen at 15yrs, 20 yrs, 30 yrs.
Why/? People in this age brackets get breast cancer.
They base the recommendations on some statistical goal/result.

You are using a bogus argument to scare people.

The question of acceptable deaths/risk is a real issue
no matter how you do it.

Just like safety standards etc.

We don't make cars like tanks.
We could certainly reduce deaths.

As a physician you should know better.
If you want to say I don't trust my government fine.
I trust my insurance Co fine.

Knock off the Bull Shit

huck

November 18, 2009 - 2:42 pm EST

http://www.ahrq.gov/CLINIC/uspstf/uspsbrca.htm

"The govt did the study? Really?"

Yes, the government-appointed US Preventive Services Task Force did the study.

dcolin

November 18, 2009 - 3:32 pm EST

I stand by what I said.

As a physician you should know better.
If you want to say I don't trust my government fine.
I trust my insurance Co fine.

Knock off the Bull Shit

J D R

November 18, 2009 - 7:41 pm EST

I don't know what to think about the report .. there is certainly a sweet spot between too early and no early enough ... and it varies from person to person ... the bottom line is there are limited funds and we need to think wisely .. but that ain't gonna happen.

dcolin

November 18, 2009 - 7:53 pm EST

Here is what I think from another post.

Of the 509 cases of breast cancer detected through Greensboro Imaging so far this year, Brown said 139 were in women younger than 50

More scare tactic Bull Shit

If you selected 500 women over 50 at random I doubt you would find near 140 cases of breast cancer.

Dr Brown knows that.

Thats 28%

What are Breast cancer rates by age.?

Come on, better safe than sorry.

But Dr. Brown and the radiologist have a financial interest in this.

Hell most that blog here can't do single digit arithmetic let alone understand the statistics.

Lets review the study before we all make unqualified decisions.

danagain

November 18, 2009 - 8:31 pm EST

"Hell most that blog here can't do single digit arithmetic let alone understand the statistics."

You're getting a bit pompous like rightwinger eh David? Does that make you feel important and superior?

dcolin

November 18, 2009 - 10:36 pm EST

Compared to you.

Yes

J D R

November 18, 2009 - 10:30 pm EST

"If you selected 500 women over 50 at random I doubt you would find near 140 cases of breast cancer."

.. but that's not what he said, colin...

They all had breast cancer .. and of those 509 cases where women already had breast cancer ...139 were younger than 50.

dcolin

November 19, 2009 - 12:57 pm EST

I stand corrected.

However this makes it even more irrelevant.

We need to look at the study and risks etc.
However that will now never happen as some people are already using this
to attack health care reform.

dcolin

November 18, 2009 - 11:55 pm EST

The study was outsourced to professionals.
The government did not perform the study. Period.
They paid for it.

You know better.
Do you really think the study was gamed by the government?

The Bush administration authorized the study.

I guess they were in the conspiracy with the Obama. people.

J D R

November 19, 2009 - 3:33 am EST

dcolins's comment about it being sponsored by the g-men but outsources to pro's seems accurate.

http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/uspstfab.htm
http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/uspstfab.htm#Members

huck

November 19, 2009 - 5:52 am EST

We SHOULD be scared. Think about what will happen if we spend a fortune to implement the proposed plan and discover that it does NOT contain costs, but instead health care costs continue to rise? There is a high likelihood that this will occur, in my opinion. And if/when that happens, there will be no choice but to start cutting. And if the government is the one paying for the care (public option) and the government is making the decisions regarding which tests/medicines/procedures/etc. to cut, then it is rationing. I don’t think this is “B.S.”, but a very real possibility.

dcolin

November 19, 2009 - 10:37 am EST

The insurance Co. already do this.
Come on. We don't routinely screen until 40.
People in twenties thirties etc get breast cancer.
A risk decision was made.

It is not a government issue.
I trust my government more than United Health Care insurance.

huck

November 19, 2009 - 1:11 pm EST

"I trust my government more than United Health Care insurance."

You have much more faith in government than I. As I watch our government recklessly spend its way to record debt/deficit, I can't help but think it will be incapable of controlling health care costs to make care affordable for all.

dcolin

November 18, 2009 - 7:59 pm EST

You are actually a medical Dr.

danagain

November 18, 2009 - 6:16 am EST

"....that much of the cost will be borne by eliminating corruption in the present system and the outrageous salaries many insurance company executives receive."

Kinda like they promised to eliminate the waste and fraud in the Medicare system?

"....outrageous salaries...." Think about it Ms. Atkins, the federal govt. deciding how much someone can earn. Think about it.

rightwingnemesis

November 18, 2009 - 9:29 am EST

Oh, once again Mr. danagain gives us simplistic jewels. Only one problem with that--- your previous railing for tort reform is just another way of limiting the income of lawyers. Hypocrisy?

Beachwalk

November 18, 2009 - 9:52 am EST

" tort reform is just another way of limiting the income of lawyers."

Which democrats are against because of the large amounts of money trial lawyers give to democrats. Hypocrisy?

J D R

November 18, 2009 - 7:25 pm EST

.. he's got a point, Beachwalk .. if D' supporting Trial Lawyers make a killing scamming the system you call it evil; if R' supporting Business Men make a killing scamming the system you call it Producing.

danagain

November 18, 2009 - 7:31 pm EST

Good answer beachwalk, limit the salaries of insurance execs but no problemo with lawyers.

If a lawyer has a case with merit then they should be rewarded. It's the frivolous lawsuits problems that need attention. We all pay for those rightwinger.

J D R

November 18, 2009 - 10:32 pm EST

If D'-supporting Trial Lawyers make a killing scamming the system you call it evil; if R'-supporting Insurance Executives make a killing scamming the system you call it Producing.

yea, that's it. Good answer Dan .. NOT.

chickenlittle02

November 18, 2009 - 12:39 pm EST

Ms Atkins WAS a government employee for years, and well paid, I might add.
I dropped my AARP membership. They don't represent me!

dcolin

November 19, 2009 - 12:01 am EST

The waste and fraud is not in the government.

As I have pointed out the system is administered by a private Insurance Co.

They are the incompetent that approve the crooks.

Surely you are aware of this.

No?
Perhaps we should use the Canadians.

truth

November 18, 2009 - 9:41 am EST

"The House plan put a strict limit on how much insurance companies can charge older people — no more than two times what they charge younger ones."

Sounds great on the surface. But I'm thinking there is a very real possibility that the insurance companies will just jack the rates up on the younger ones so that A) the doubled amount will be larger, and B) the younger people will be paying the cost of your medical care. You may get off cheaper, but someone will pay for it.

12next ›last »

eMail Updates

Learn More
Advertisement | Advertise with Us

Featured Ads

Search

Advertisement | Advertise with Us
Advertisement | Advertise with Us
Advertisement | Advertise with Us

News & Record Network Sites

User Tools

  • Social Networking
  • RSS
  • Share
  • Sign in to MyNR

Search