With ObamaCare we are heading for socialized medical care like it or not. It has not worked in other countries and it will not work in the USA. Obamas big rush to get his health care plan passed in a hurry was before anyone understood what it was all about. People are now beginnning to see whats in the plan and they are not haapy about it. Plain and simple the people do not want the government to take over your health care period. We have a good health care in this country, it just needs to be tweeked a bit to make make it better. If the government thinks that the plan they want us to accept is so great then why do they feel the plan is not good enough for them to join. Welcome to ObamaCare.
Neal
of GA
@
Aug 07, 2009 13:30:56 PM
Why are Unions exempt from the House bill?
WHY?
The unions vote Democratic. PAYOLA!!!!!!
This is why Obama and Congress is not trustworthy. They will screw up healthcare like everything else they try to run--SS, Medicare, Amtrak, Post Office, etc.
Citizens Uinite
of MT
@
Aug 05, 2009 18:50:20 PM
Maybe I'm missing something
Moeller makes the point that Medicare and Medicaid are about bankrupt. Everyone says so. So now we want to turn the entire health care business over to the same people who bankrupt Medicare?
We could use some help, all right. And most of it requires getting the government OUT of health care. The reason insurance is so high is that we have to pay for many things we don't want and will never need. Why should I want an insurance that pays for sex-change operations, for instance? Yet such things are required by the government. Or for fertility treatments? (My wife and I are close to retirement.) Again, those are required for the insurance companies.
Further, it annoys me to go to a doctor and/or hospital, knowing what is wrong with me, and have to take a battery of tests required by the government "for my protection". They take time, cost a lot of money, and don't do a thing but tell me what I already knew in the first place.
Those without insurance have no problem getting the medical care they need at emergency rooms. Even most doctors will give it if asked. So it isn't needed for that reason either.
So instead of letting the government take it over and run it, let's see if we can't get them completely out of it!
Michael
of TX
@
Aug 04, 2009 16:27:27 PM
Health Care
If you want to keep the insurance companies, regulate them like a public utility ( percentage profit limitation ). One company could do better than another by giving better service and attracting more customers. The percentage of the health care dollar going to profits is outrageous. In todays world, in this country, health care should be viewed a a basic right (like water, power etc.). Everyone is paying taxes!(sales etc.) If the culture can be changed to prevention from crisis medicine, then we will all be healthier for a lot less money. Health care should not be a for-profit business at the expence of the public good. The company culture of payment and coverage denial must stop. If as much time was spent improving delivery as is spent on figuring how not to pay for care given we would all be better off.
Also, regulations (ie. unfunded mandates) and the payment process need to be greatly streamlined. In the military (single payer system!) we were able to give excellent health care with half the employees ( billing clerks etc. etc. for insurance.).
John Read
of WA
@
Aug 04, 2009 15:33:08 PM
The Healthcare Mess
Rationing of healthcare is a given. It takes a dozen years to become a doctor and few opt for family practice. Adding 8 to 50 million patients to the rolls can only lead to long waiting times. There aren't enough nurse practitioners or physicians assistants to take up some of the slack, either. Now let's take a look at the number of extra staff in each doctor's office to decide what diagnostic codes are applicable so that the doctor gets paid. Government oversight can only multiply this need.
In my opinion two of the primary reasons, in addition to the paperwork, are a substantially higher use of high technology equipment and our position in supporting pharmaceutical research while every other country demands cost control. To say nothing of high malpractice premiums coupled with defensive medicine, practiced to avoid lawsuits.
As for the auto industry it is clearly union demands for benefits of all kinds that creates the high cost environment for the industry. Think their ownership stake will change that? <loud laugh>
Finally, a historical review of all government mandates shows that they result in permanent high cost environments for all who comply. That is partly why many states are going bankrupt. With mandates on private healthcare one can only foresee substantial increases in premiums. My Medicare Part D premiums have quadrupled in three years!
I think that a reset to square one is needed so that an incremental approach can be taken. First, bend the cost curve downward; second, create incentives for primary care (physicians, nurse practitioners, physicians assistants); third, implement the drawing in of those without healthcare. If we don't take this kind of approach, the cost in the out years will make Carter's stagflation look like a walk in the park.
My opinion is that the rush to pass something is purely political. Get it done before the next election/don't waste a crisis. If more people knew the contents of HR3200, there would be a firestorm.
Mark Wittels
of AZ
@
Aug 04, 2009 14:43:57 PM
when we talk about cost, it is about choice and competition
GOP tried to equate government program as the only available option, the fact is it is only a choice. Healthcare cost is high because private insurance companies are making big money...if there is competition the cost can be brought down, just like the other countries that have the public option...I came from HK, the healthcare cost there (by going to public hospital) is penny, and remember they have to support 6 mil people in a tiny place. I don't see why the US cannot do the same, Obama is in the right direction.
AK
of CA
@
Aug 04, 2009 13:49:38 PM
HEALTH CARE
ANY PROGRAM WHICH THE GOV'T HAS RUN HAS ALWAY BEEN INEFFICENT WITH COST OVER RUNS OR IS GOING BROKE
WILL ALL GOV'T EMPLOYEES GIVE UP THEIR HEALTH CARE BENEFITS AND GO ON THE ROLLS OF OUR GOV'T RUN HEALTH CARE SYSTEM. OF COURSE THE ANSWER IS NO. AND IF THEY WERE GOING TO BE FORCED TO TAKE OUR GREAT GOV'T HEALTH CARE PROGRAM THEY WOULD NOT VOTE FOR IT AND RUN AWAY JUST AS FAST.
RDS
of WI
@
Jul 29, 2009 15:56:28 PM
no plan on financing HR reform = bad
I'm afraid it does, because the savings and financing projections were unrealistic. They were saying at first that wellness, higher quality care and better management alone were going to save untold hundreds of billions of dollars ......... or maybe not. When reality kicked in, the cost problem boiled down to 2 choices: end the exemption on employer health benefits, or slap a new tax on the rich. I have to agree, we're in middle of recession, and one of the health system's problems right now disfunctional financing. I'm very pro-reform, but ignoring financing again sounds like not getting to the root of the problem.
todd
of MD
@
Jul 29, 2009 13:16:40 PM
Recess from what?
When the business of the people that is the business of their elected officials has not been done, why do they deserve a recess?
If they are in so need of a break, their constituents should take pity on them and retire them permently.
HillbillyBill
of TN
@
Jul 29, 2009 12:55:41 PM
Delay is never a good thing
when corporations are spending $1.4 million PER DAY to lobby against meaningful reform and plan to spend untold millions on TV ads in 33 states against reform during the "recess" of Congress.
There is no such thing as "slowing down to do it right". Slow down means don't do anything". Don't get a public option, even though it's the only vehicle to controlling costs. Don't tax the rich, even though that's where all the money is going if you don't. Don't get rid of selective underwriting, even though it puts 90% of the population at risk of bankruptcy.
Any bad bill can be amended as needed. Any bill with anything even remotely good for citizens cannot be passed at all with "slow down" as the working mantra. USNWR and its writers should know this. Probably they do and want it killed. That's the corporate line and who's to say this magazine really ever strays from the corporate line even one iota. An article that "sounds liberal" but recommends the corporate "slow down" line is the worst editorial fraud of all.
Neal of GA @ Aug 07, 2009 13:30:56 PM
Citizens Uinite of MT @ Aug 05, 2009 18:50:20 PM
Michael of TX @ Aug 04, 2009 16:27:27 PM
John Read of WA @ Aug 04, 2009 15:33:08 PM
Mark Wittels of AZ @ Aug 04, 2009 14:43:57 PM
AK of CA @ Aug 04, 2009 13:49:38 PM
RDS of WI @ Jul 29, 2009 15:56:28 PM
todd of MD @ Jul 29, 2009 13:16:40 PM
HillbillyBill of TN @ Jul 29, 2009 12:55:41 PM
Muser of NM @ Jul 29, 2009 11:48:30 AM
Back to blog