'Purge Perriello' Campaign Kicks Off

[Dark Side]

J Salk wrote:

<quoted text>
I do not support this weak half-way bill, but I realize the courage it took for Tom to vote for it based on the loud and intimidating astroturf types who want small government. Small government means that big corporations will own our country.
The ONLY system which will provide the benefits you cite is a single-payer plan, similar to Canada. This NOT socialism, where the state owns the hospitals and all the doctors and nurses are civil servants, like the National Health Service in the UK. Medicare for All would be a single-payer system, expanding an existing program that is very successful. Those under 65 would pay a premium, plus a little more to cover the indigent and to improve Medicare's long-term funding problem. But such a common-sense simple bill is not even on the table
Of course, this would put the health insurance cartel out of business. Pity. What, exactly, do we get for the 30% they skim off the top of all our premiums? How many procedures do they perform? I can't see how ordinary citizens have been duped inot coming to the rescue of the corporations which exploit us.

We need something that is going to give the patient more control over their health care and empower them. Medicare does not pay for the services the patient receives and they are still left with a hefty bill if they do not or cannot afford secondary insurance. This pathetic bill only gives more control to the government not the patient which I do not like.

[Crozeting]

Ross,
Please check your facts. Bush's war hiked up our deficit, not Obama. The economic recovery act was Bush's legislation, not Obama. Why was there no public outcry then? Periello is a good representative and the Purge Periello propaganda is an embarassment to the district and is bad politics at its worst. The Republicans don't even have a candidate yet. I hope you find a candidate you can believe it. But how much do you want to bet the Republicans nominate anyone with funding from the developers and pharma, regardless of what he'd do to the district.

[Cville Moderate]

Ross wrote:

<quoted text>
I wish Rob Bell would change his mind and get in this race. He is a natural for the 5th district.

I agree Rob Bell would be a superb candidate for Congress. I can also see him as Attorney General of Virginia.

[J Salk]

Dark Side wrote:

<quoted text>
We need something that is going to give the patient more control over their health care and empower them. Medicare does not pay for the services the patient receives and they are still left with a hefty bill if they do not or cannot afford secondary insurance. This pathetic bill only gives more control to the government not the patient which I do not like.

So you advocate more CORPORATE control over the patient's life? That's what we have now. And failing to do anything now will only make it worse. Government control over my life does not frighten me anywhere near as much as corporate control. At least I get to vote for my government unless I vote in Florida or Ohio) and call my Congressman for leverage, if necessary. Calling Anthem doesn't do a thing to change their minds.

[Ross]

J Salk wrote:

<quoted text>
So you advocate more CORPORATE control over the patient's life? That's what we have now.

Medicare and Medicade refuse to pay for procedures more than any of the privately held insurance companies.

A single payer system will force higher premiums than we have now, more 'out of pocket expense' to insurees, and longer waits for service.

If you think things are bad now just look north to Canada. Canadian citizens come to the US for service and pay out of their own pockets because service is so poor in Canada.

The only people in favor of this plan are tne "nanny state" types who are shopping around for someone to take care of them. My advice to those is: "GROW A SET AND TAKE CARE OF YOURSELF."

[Ross]

One additional note on the Canadian healthcare system. I just saw on the news that the Canadian system is running out of money for the year and will stop paying for services. On our own indian, "Native American" reservations to you PC police, they have a saying that if you are going to get sick, get sick before June. The single reason is because the agency runs out of money after June and will not pay for services.

If this beast passes, I can't wait to hear the crying by some of you needy types who can't manage you own lives. It will be worth the price of admission to listen to you.

[Stella]

Cville Moderate wrote:

<quoted text>
I agree Rob Bell would be a superb candidate for Congress. I can also see him as Attorney General of Virginia.

----------
Ditto that--ANYTHING is better than what we have now! Perriello actually expects us to believe that the House bill, if enacted, will be beneficial to our country? He's either naive, or foolish--none of which we need in Congress to represent the 5th district. Government isn't the solution to this problem, GOVERNMENT IS THE PROBLEM, and we certainly don't need more of it. Get rid of the rules and regulations that prohibit free trade and competition, and the junk law suits--and see things improve without creating (and FUNDING) 111 wasteful new government programs to destroy health care in America. We simply can't afford Medicare, Medicaid and our Social Security obligations NOW. Yet Perriello wants yet another HUGE obligation we can't pay for--SHEER LUNACY!!! All of this talk of this bill being "deficit neutral" or "cutting the deficit" is a LIE. We need a new, responsible representative who has children and cares about tomorrow--not an elitist, Yale educated liberal who identifies with his radical "progressive" friends more than his mainstream constituents in Virginia.

[purgeperrillo]

J Salk wrote:

<quoted text>
So you advocate more CORPORATE control over the patient's life? That's what we have now. And failing to do anything now will only make it worse. Government control over my life does not frighten me anywhere near as much as corporate control. At least I get to vote for my government unless I vote in Florida or Ohio) and call my Congressman for leverage, if necessary. Calling Anthem doesn't do a thing to change their minds.

Obviously you are a gov employee, that just has to show up once or twice a week with no set goals or achivements to meet and couldnt meet them anyhow, your already sucking off my tax dollars why would a gov takeover scare you.

[J Salk]

Ross wrote:

<quoted text>
Medicare and Medicade refuse to pay for procedures more than any of the privately held insurance companies.
A single payer system will force higher premiums than we have now, more 'out of pocket expense' to insurees, and longer waits for service.
If you think things are bad now just look north to Canada. Canadian citizens come to the US for service and pay out of their own pockets because service is so poor in Canada.
The only people in favor of this plan are tne "nanny state" types who are shopping around for someone to take care of them. My advice to those is: "GROW A SET AND TAKE CARE OF YOURSELF."

Yes, AHIP has been telling us years how horrible the Canadian system is. Yet they have longer life-expectancies, lower infant mortality, and NO health care-related bankruptcies. I didn't think there was anyone with a brain who still believed those lies. Apparently I was correct.

[J Salk]

purgeperrillo wrote:

<quoted text>
Obviously you are a gov employee, that just has to show up once or twice a week with no set goals or achivements to meet and couldnt meet them anyhow, your already sucking off my tax dollars why would a gov takeover scare you.

Nope. Not a government employee, though you seem to use it as an insult. I applaud the many dedicated public employees who make our country work for less than adequate pay. I want my government to be big enough to drown Grover Norquist in a bathtub.

Antigovernment employee official motto: Hire em' cheap and then criticize 'em.

[Crozet Citizen]

J Salk wrote:

<quoted text>
I do not support this weak half-way bill, but I realize the courage it took for Tom to vote for it based on the loud and intimidating astroturf types who want small government. Small government means that big corporations will own our country.
The ONLY system which will provide the benefits you cite is a single-payer plan, similar to Canada. This NOT socialism, where the state owns the hospitals and all the doctors and nurses are civil servants, like the National Health Service in the UK. Medicare for All would be a single-payer system, expanding an existing program that is very successful. Those under 65 would pay a premium, plus a little more to cover the indigent and to improve Medicare's long-term funding problem. But such a common-sense simple bill is not even on the table
Of course, this would put the health insurance cartel out of business. Pity. What, exactly, do we get for the 30% they skim off the top of all our premiums? How many procedures do they perform? I can't see how ordinary citizens have been duped inot coming to the rescue of the corporations which exploit us.

You don't honestly think the Medicare system is successful, do you? Everyone I know has a gap plan for everything that isn't covered by medicare, which is a large chunk of the medical costs. In addition, there are a lot of doctors who can no longer take in medicare and medicaid patients due to the minuscule percentage being reimbursed to them by the government. And you think that's successful? And Medicare is in the red too! How long do you think it would be before the government is taking the vast majority of our paychecks to support this behemoth? The government runs every program they start into the ground - social security, medicare, medicaid, etc. Why would you want them to take on medical insurance too???? That's just asking for more debt and trouble!

[Ross]

J Salk wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, AHIP has been telling us years how horrible the Canadian system is. Yet they have longer life-expectancies, lower infant mortality, and NO health care-related bankruptcies. I didn't think there was anyone with a brain who still believed those lies. Apparently I was correct.

I just finished playing golf with a couple from Ontario Province. I asked them about healthcare. Their reply was, "That was one of the prime factors in moving to the States. The system stinks. And our health is fairly good. If we were in need of cancer treatment or heart surgery, we would have been in real trouble."

As far as the numbers quoted above. Life expectancy is higher because they don't drive near the miles Americans drive and their highway mortality rate is far lower than ours. They also don't have the crime rate or death by weapons that the US does. As far as infant mortality is concerned, I'm not sure the category "infant mortality" means the same thing in Canada, France, and Great Britain as it does in the US.

It is not enough to quote comparisons of numbers unless you know what categories are driving those numbers.

[constitutionalis t]

I think what we have here is a failure to use the internet. I will quote a money.CNN source, Fortune 500 magazine. If you go to that website and look at the top industries' return on revenue, you will find Pharmaceuticals at #3 with 19.3%. Right behind them at #4 are Medical Products and Equipment with 16.3%. Now, go past the railroads, household products, utilities, food services, commercial banks, computers, general merchandise, beverages and you will find at #35, Health Care Insurance and Managed Care with a whopping 2.2% profit from revenue. They are slightly more respectable with their return on assets at #28 with a 3.9% profit margin but still lag far behind BigPharm, the railroads, etc.
I would like to have more control over my health care by buying insurance across state lines to find the best deal for me. I do not want a state-run health system because then I have no control. A single payer system is a "take it or leave it" situation. If we were allowed to shop across state lines, big corporations would compete for my business. Big corporations cannot exist without customers. If Walmart charged the same prices, or more, than the store around the corner, where would you go? If you don't want big corporation to "rule your life", chop and saw your own wood; forge your own nails; farm; shoot your own game, dress and butcher it; buy a horse; spin, weave and sew; make candles; learn to yell very loud and find a good rock to beat your clothes on. Almost all those corporations who provide our standard of living have higher profit margins than health insurers.

[Dark Side]

J Salk wrote:

<quoted text>
So you advocate more CORPORATE control over the patient's life? That's what we have now. And failing to do anything now will only make it worse. Government control over my life does not frighten me anywhere near as much as corporate control. At least I get to vote for my government unless I vote in Florida or Ohio) and call my Congressman for leverage, if necessary. Calling Anthem doesn't do a thing to change their minds.

You can talk to the medical director at the insurance company and get the stat approval if necessary. Have you seen what they are trying to pass for the approval system for this plan? They have only added more channels to go through making the patient wait longer? They have been working on health care reform for as long as I can remember why is it so imperative to do something now that is not done properly? The only thing I like is the doing away with the pre-existing denying capability insurance companies have. Other then that this bill only adds to the problem and does not solve anything. I have to ask if this bill were so great and this plan so good then why are the ones who are enacting this into law not enrolling themselves in it? Sorry if it is not good enough for them then it is not good enough for my patients. And you can call your congressman all you want they do not want to listen to you unless you are a lobbyist so that is just plain ignorance on your part.

[J Salk]

Crozet Citizen wrote:

<quoted text>
You don't honestly think the Medicare system is successful, do you? Everyone I know has a gap plan for everything that isn't covered by medicare, which is a large chunk of the medical costs. In addition, there are a lot of doctors who can no longer take in medicare and medicaid patients due to the minuscule percentage being reimbursed to them by the government. And you think that's successful? And Medicare is in the red too! How long do you think it would be before the government is taking the vast majority of our paychecks to support this behemoth? The government runs every program they start into the ground - social security, medicare, medicaid, etc. Why would you want them to take on medical insurance too???? That's just asking for more debt and trouble!

You should ask all the Medicare recipients at the teabagger rallies if they want to give up their health care.

[J Salk]

Ross wrote:

<quoted text>
I just finished playing golf with a couple from Ontario Province. I asked them about healthcare. Their reply was, "That was one of the prime factors in moving to the States. The system stinks. And our health is fairly good. If we were in need of cancer treatment or heart surgery, we would have been in real trouble."
As far as the numbers quoted above. Life expectancy is higher because they don't drive near the miles Americans drive and their highway mortality rate is far lower than ours. They also don't have the crime rate or death by weapons that the US does. As far as infant mortality is concerned, I'm not sure the category "infant mortality" means the same thing in Canada, France, and Great Britain as it does in the US.
It is not enough to quote comparisons of numbers unless you know what categories are driving those numbers.

The World Health Organization ranks the United States 37th in the world on health system ranking. Funny. the Canadians I know aren't golf-playing snowbirds and they would NEVER give up their health care system.

[J Salk]

Dark Side wrote:

<quoted text>
You can talk to the medical director at the insurance company and get the stat approval if necessary. Have you seen what they are trying to pass for the approval system for this plan? They have only added more channels to go through making the patient wait longer? They have been working on health care reform for as long as I can remember why is it so imperative to do something now that is not done properly? The only thing I like is the doing away with the pre-existing denying capability insurance companies have. Other then that this bill only adds to the problem and does not solve anything. I have to ask if this bill were so great and this plan so good then why are the ones who are enacting this into law not enrolling themselves in it? Sorry if it is not good enough for them then it is not good enough for my patients. And you can call your congressman all you want they do not want to listen to you unless you are a lobbyist so that is just plain ignorance on your part.

You have a vivid imagination about what is meant by corporate domination. Yes, we have been working on health care reform as long as ANYONE can remember, like since the Roosevelt administration. TEDDY Roosevelt. So how long do you think it should take to come up with a good bill? Eight years maybe? How about the proposal the Bush administration was working on for its eight years? Oh, right. They didn't have one.

Your final sentence makes a great case for campaign finance reform. Bet you're against that too, huh.

[Crozet Citizen]

J Salk wrote:

<quoted text>
You should ask all the Medicare recipients at the teabagger rallies if they want to give up their health care.

Maybe you should attend some of those rallies before you assume that the attendees are old enough to get Medicare. I nor most of my friends who have attended are eligible yet and won't be for years. And we (including you) have been paying for medicare for years (I'm assuming you work and that you have noticed that medicare tax that is taken from you before you ever see that paycheck,) but the system is already so bankrupt that we aren't going to really see in real help from it anyway, hence the gap insurance everyone needs. It's kinda like Social Security - it isn't much help in retirement either, but we sure do pay a big hunk into that out of every paycheck! The government just isn't capable of handling ANY program and managing it well. And I'm still waiting for someone who thinks that government run or a single payer system is so great to tell me why so many from Canada and the UK are coming here for their treatments and surgeries? With my current insurance, if I need to see my doctor or a specialist, I just call and make the appointment. I don't have to consult with a government bureaucrat first. My husband works really hard for his insurance coverage and I don't understand why you think we should have to give that up so that you can have something for nothing.

In addition, medicare/medicaid reimburses so little to the doctors/hospitals that they have to charge the paying public more to make up the difference. What is going to happen when the only patients are those on the government's plan and they are only reimbursing the docs and hospitals at 20% of their cost? Who is going to make up the difference then? And how long do you think that the health system can stand that kind of red ink before the whole thing collapses? Health care isn't free - someone has to pay for it. Who do you think is going to cover the cost?

[J Salk]

Crozet Citizen wrote:

<quoted text>
Maybe you should attend some of those rallies before you assume that the attendees are old enough to get Medicare. I nor most of my friends who have attended are eligible yet and won't be for years. And we (including you) have been paying for medicare for years (I'm assuming you work and that you have noticed that medicare tax that is taken from you before you ever see that paycheck,) but the system is already so bankrupt that we aren't going to really see in real help from it anyway, hence the gap insurance everyone needs. It's kinda like Social Security - it isn't much help in retirement either, but we sure do pay a big hunk into that out of every paycheck! The government just isn't capable of handling ANY program and managing it well. And I'm still waiting for someone who thinks that government run or a single payer system is so great to tell me why so many from Canada and the UK are coming here for their treatments and surgeries? With my current insurance, if I need to see my doctor or a specialist, I just call and make the appointment. I don't have to consult with a government bureaucrat first. My husband works really hard for his insurance coverage and I don't understand why you think we should have to give that up so that you can have something for nothing.
In addition, medicare/medicaid reimburses so little to the doctors/hospitals that they have to charge the paying public more to make up the difference. What is going to happen when the only patients are those on the government's plan and they are only reimbursing the docs and hospitals at 20% of their cost? Who is going to make up the difference then? And how long do you think that the health system can stand that kind of red ink before the whole thing collapses? Health care isn't free - someone has to pay for it. Who do you think is going to cover the cost?

The United States ranks WAY down the list in EVERY metric of health care except one: Cost per citizen. We're Number One in that. We're just not getting what we pay for now. The gaps in Medicare were lobbied there, just like in the current proposal, to make it insufficient and more profitable for the insurance cartel.

Who said you have to give anything up? Keep giving money to your highly-efficient for-profit insurance company. I'm really glad your husband is fortunate enough to be able to work really hard to keep them in business. Why? What do they bring to the equation? What government bureaucrat? Make your appointment, see your doctor, maybe pay a copay. Nothing is different. Except where the bill is sent. Instead of dealing with 1300 separate insurance companies' rules and submission requirements, it's all the same.

We are the only developed nation where it is legal to make a profit on peoples' illness.

[constitutionalis t]

J Salk wrote:

<quoted text>
We are the only developed nation where it is legal to make a profit on peoples' illness.

Are you saying that doctors in other countries work for free? Do they go to university and medical school just so they can help their fellow man out of the kindness of their hearts? I don't think so.
If a doctor gets paid, by anyone, he is making money off of someone's illness.