Arlen Specter Faces Angry Lebanon Cro...

Arlen Specter Faces Angry Lebanon Crowd On Health Care: Hears f...

There are 1110 comments on the The Morning Call story from Aug 11, 2009, titled Arlen Specter Faces Angry Lebanon Crowd On Health Care: Hears f.... In it, The Morning Call reports that:

Republican-turned-Democratic Sen. Arlen Specter is facing a barrage of sometimes hostile questions about health care from wary and frustrated voters.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Morning Call.

First Prev
of 56
Next Last

CTO

Since: Sep 09

Whitehall, PA

#1143 Sep 3, 2009
AuntiEm2 wrote:
<quoted text>
The unions made the agreement to pay for their care. Now they want us to take that over? Unions are very wealthy entities.The retirees dues paid for those benefits. You think we should bail the unions out too?
So are you saying the bill should cover those who are retired between the ages of working and getting medicare, and whose uncovered medical expenses and out of pocket expenses are eating away their assets as their incomes are diminished, but there should be a specific exclusion from that anyone who worked in a union?

Its not the insurance companies mismangagement, increased premiums, inefficiencies, profit motives, increased co-pays, exclusions. hoops to jump through and denials of coverage that is any part of the problem, really?

“Your Own Peace Prize Inside”

Since: Mar 07

Hyannis, Mass

#1144 Sep 3, 2009
CTO wrote:
So health care issues are so simply that all we need is a short vague bill to fix everything?
I believe it is a complicated issues with many facets, and we need to address it from many angels. A bill like this needs to be very detailed.
Yes, this bill will change the future benefits of existing plans, as the regulations go into effect there will not be pre-existing exclusions, co-pays, denied coverage. The purpose of health care will be health care, not insurance company profits. YEAH!!!
Two separate issues, regulations will improve coverage for consumers.
The health exchange is not open to big business or those that can afford the coverage they have. There is no competition with gov't.
The health exchange will give insurance company the ability to service those that are uninsured, providing them with greater customers, who can select from the private coverage or the public option. The VERY LIMITED number of individual in poverty and small businesses who will be able to enroll and who actually select the public option will be a fractions of the insurance coverage. That public option is there for when insurance company can't because of costs and risks or won't insure someone, its the only way everyone gets covered. It will also be set up as a non-profit that isn't sustained by government funding.
<quoted text>
Why does it have to be in ONE bill?

CTO

Since: Sep 09

Whitehall, PA

#1145 Sep 3, 2009
WeElectedABunchOfIdiots wrote:
<quoted text>
Why does it have to be in ONE bill?
Now that is a valid question, maybe it would be better to have the regulations in one bill and have a separate bill for the health exchange, if not only to help people understand what is what.

It may be a good question for the legislators. There could a reason that it needs to be all in one bill, but I'm not aware it.
barry

Rainsville, AL

#1146 Sep 4, 2009
CTO wrote:
<quoted text>
Now that is a valid question, maybe it would be better to have the regulations in one bill and have a separate bill for the health exchange, if not only to help people understand what is what.
It may be a good question for the legislators. There could a reason that it needs to be all in one bill, but I'm not aware it.
it would certainly make the debate simpler.questionable wording could be delt with. however i believe it is pbo's method of operation to try and push things through rapidly so that there is no time for scrutiny.
AuntiEm2

Tobyhanna, PA

#1147 Sep 6, 2009
CTO wrote:
<quoted text>
So are you saying the bill should cover those who are retired between the ages of working and getting medicare, and whose uncovered medical expenses and out of pocket expenses are eating away their assets as their incomes are diminished, but there should be a specific exclusion from that anyone who worked in a union?
Its not the insurance companies mismangagement, increased premiums, inefficiencies, profit motives, increased co-pays, exclusions. hoops to jump through and denials of coverage that is any part of the problem, really?
That's not what I said at all and you know it. In your mind how does union retiree translate to anyone who ever worked in a union? More false accusations? Next you'll accuse us of supporting the slaughter of the unborn~

CTO

Since: Sep 09

Whitehall, PA

#1148 Sep 6, 2009
AuntiEm2 wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not what I said at all and you know it. In your mind how does union retiree translate to anyone who ever worked in a union? More false accusations? Next you'll accuse us of supporting the slaughter of the unborn~
I asked you to clarify what you are saying, and all you write is that's not what I'm saying and accuse of false accusations.

Yyou don't like the part of the bill that "YOU" stated is "the taxpayer picking up the tab for union retirees". So since the purpose of that setion of the bill is to help cover people in a bind that are between between work and medicare, either you support excluding select elderly people or you oppose helping all people in that situation.

For what ever reason or whoever's fault there are many people through no fault of their own (regardless of where they worked in their lives)are left between work and medicare with a declining income and increased expenses, they have greater medical needs as they age, and higher and higher out of pocket expenses and co-pays, and they aren't old enough for medicare. That just is a reality.

Either you are compassionate to their circumstance or you are not.
AuntiEm2

Tobyhanna, PA

#1149 Sep 6, 2009
CTO wrote:
<quoted text>
I asked you to clarify what you are saying, and all you write is that's not what I'm saying and accuse of false accusations.
Yyou don't like the part of the bill that "YOU" stated is "the taxpayer picking up the tab for union retirees". So since the purpose of that setion of the bill is to help cover people in a bind that are between between work and medicare, either you support excluding select elderly people or you oppose helping all people in that situation.
For what ever reason or whoever's fault there are many people through no fault of their own (regardless of where they worked in their lives)are left between work and medicare with a declining income and increased expenses, they have greater medical needs as they age, and higher and higher out of pocket expenses and co-pays, and they aren't old enough for medicare. That just is a reality.
Either you are compassionate to their circumstance or you are not.
The union agreed to pay for their health insurance in retirement. What part of that do you not understand? The workers paid for it through unin dues. The union must uphold their end of the bargain.

I am one of those people with high deductibles and copays. I don't expect anyone else to pay them for me. I do not want government to have any more control than it has already siezed. If you have read this bill as I have, you would see how nebulous it is. It is all about power not helping those in need. Just so you know, I haven't used my medicare yet as I find the private insurance is cheaper than the medicare that would be deducted from my social security check. It's not free you know.

CTO

Since: Sep 09

Whitehall, PA

#1150 Sep 6, 2009
Whatever, how you read bills that helps reduce health care costs for consumers and provides coveragee for those that don't have it as the government having control is beyond me. Youv;e yet to explain how the government will control anything. How many people don't want the government to eliminate pre-existing conditions, unless your part of an insurance company most people would benefit from what isin the bills and it wouldn't take any control fo what you do, bu would allow more freedom from the controls of the insurance companies.
AuntiEm2 wrote:
<quoted text>
The union agreed to pay for their health insurance in retirement. What part of that do you not understand? The workers paid for it through unin dues. The union must uphold their end of the bargain.
I am one of those people with high deductibles and copays. I don't expect anyone else to pay them for me. I do not want government to have any more control than it has already siezed. If you have read this bill as I have, you would see how nebulous it is. It is all about power not helping those in need. Just so you know, I haven't used my medicare yet as I find the private insurance is cheaper than the medicare that would be deducted from my social security check. It's not free you know.
AuntiEm2

Tobyhanna, PA

#1152 Sep 8, 2009
CTO wrote:
Whatever, how you read bills that helps reduce health care costs for consumers and provides coveragee for those that don't have it as the government having control is beyond me. Youv;e yet to explain how the government will control anything. How many people don't want the government to eliminate pre-existing conditions, unless your part of an insurance company most people would benefit from what isin the bills and it wouldn't take any control fo what you do, bu would allow more freedom from the controls of the insurance companies.
<quoted text>
It leads to rationing whether it is through denying care outright or underpaying the providers. It will definitely produce a shortage of doctors who don't want to work for nothing.You will lose your choices for second and third opinions when you are not comfortable with the first. Why do you think the radicals in government are threatening to kill the bill if government run (their euphemism is public option)is not in it? Shouldn't they be looking at the best way to insure the small number of uninsured while keeping our superior level of care intact? It's not about the people. It's about control. They think they have it now and that is why our reps and senators are not listening to us. They think they can fool us by changing the language they use. Recently in the Pocono's a homeless man was severely beaten. He was first treated by EMTs and then taken to the hospital. I don't think he had insurance or cash. He was treated in the same way as those who do. It isn't access to healthcare that is lacking. It is access to insurance. They just call it healthcare to rile us up as we imagine children dying in the streets all over America.

CTO

Since: Sep 09

Whitehall, PA

#1153 Sep 8, 2009
Oh, so when you get sick now and the insurance company says that's not covered, or there's reason to beleive you had a pre-existing condition and you loose your coverage, or your expenses are capped far below the care you need, that's not rationing? All the tricks to get out of paying, creating requirements for pre-authorization, referrals, co-pays and denying benefits so you have to dispute claims, and will give up, isn't a form of rationing? The insurance co's have a for-profit motive, they want to pay out as minimal as they can, and you beleive there isn't rationing. Like I said, whatever, if you want to believe that, its your right.

Please show some highly educated valid research that demonstrates the bills will create a shortage of Dr's, or where it defines the lose of getting second opinions.

Your homeless man story is not accurate, on going care, regular check-ups, preventative care, ill visits, folow-up care, BEFORE they turn into a severe crisis is what the uninsured are missing.
AuntiEm2 wrote:
<quoted text>
It leads to rationing whether it is through denying care outright or underpaying the providers. It will definitely produce a shortage of doctors who don't want to work for nothing.You will lose your choices for second and third opinions when you are not comfortable with the first. Why do you think the radicals in government are threatening to kill the bill if government run (their euphemism is public option)is not in it? Shouldn't they be looking at the best way to insure the small number of uninsured while keeping our superior level of care intact? It's not about the people. It's about control. They think they have it now and that is why our reps and senators are not listening to us. They think they can fool us by changing the language they use. Recently in the Pocono's a homeless man was severely beaten. He was first treated by EMTs and then taken to the hospital. I don't think he had insurance or cash. He was treated in the same way as those who do. It isn't access to healthcare that is lacking. It is access to insurance. They just call it healthcare to rile us up as we imagine children dying in the streets all over America.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 56
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Allentown Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 12 min Grey Ghost 1,233,747
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 44 min Sunoco Insider 309,896
Police: Intoxicated driver hit two vehicles in ... 11 hr silly rabbit 1
Allentown's Catasauqua Avenue shaken by 3rd sho... 14 hr silly rabbit 2
Allentown's other big developer gets back in th... Wed silly rabbit 1
Man shot in Allentown Tue silly rabbit 2
Allentown church closing after 128 years Tue silly rabbit 3
More from around the web

Allentown People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]