Gov't programs........ ?

[Elsbet]

real healthcare reform will not exist untill they take the gambling out of the equation.

As long as there are people gambling that you wont get sick and those that chose who does and does not receive help, America will never get the healthcare it already pays for.

Then first step is the elimination of insurance. Let the insurance companies die...they killed enough people already.

Second step is everyone is eligible. Yes everyone. You have the right to get care like everyone else.

Third step is the Responsible regulation of healthcare facilities. No more $7 dollar band-aids.

Fourth step is binding arbitration with Doctors, Nurses organizations.

Fifth step is the drug plan.... Fair prices... availability, and development plans

Sixth step. Billing. These steps arent free. We pay for them. Have paid for them. Over-paid them.

By having 1 system.... it would take medicare and medicaid and make them obsolete.

we would need to pay with taxes. But that is all. No more are workers required to pay more out of their weekly checks a portion more than a year before.... one tax and DONE.

it should be cheaper than what we got and far less deaths due to insurance and managed healthcare denials.

IF people really wanted to whine about paying for others... fine.. then treat the people... then bill their country for the care. America should cover our bills as we pay the taxes for it... and foreigners can get care paid by their gov't.


This isnt a bad thing tis a nesscessary thing.. no more communist than your social police force, social school, social mail system. It works and works well. The only people it doesnt help is those who benefit on the deaths and paycheck of the american worker..(the healthcare industry and insurance industry)

It isn't communist, it is unsustainable. There is no way that a country of any shape or size can sustain a free healthcare system for its citizens. European countries are having to CUT benefits to thei citizens because they cannot impose taxes high enough to cover the costs without putting all their citizens out on the street. My step-mom is Canadian and she brings her parents to the US to get health care (and pays for it) because it is impossible to get a bed in a hospital for them. Her mother was told she'd have to wait 18 months to get a hip replacement and she't have to go to Toronto to get it. They're from Vancouver. She was in constant pain and confined to a wheel chair. Tt took 15 days in the US to get all they pre-op exams done and get the surgery. In less than 10 days, she was up and walking again.

Insurance companies don't kill people, they save them. Health care insurance is no more evil than car insurance. You pay the premium as an investment knowing that the return only happens if you require care and knowing that the return on your investment will be exponential to your investment. My uncle blew out his knee last month. He's had two surgeries, a hospital stay and numerous follow ups and will require physical therapy. Grand total to date (w/o the therapy because it hasn't started yet): $60k. What he paid out of pocket: 20% with a cap on out of pocket expenses of $5k. His 20% was $12k, but he only pays $5k. His premiums paid to his employer over the years he worked there: roughly $15 for him and his wife and they've used their benefits the whole time as well.

Without insurance, medical costs would actually go up because more people would be unable to afford their expenses. Do you have $50k lying around doing nothing in case you blow out your knee?

HMOs are evil because they allow non-medical personnel to determine what medical is necessary for a patient. That is my one concession to your argument.

My biggest problem is your assumption that a) medical care itself is a right and b) rights are free. Technically, if it isn't in the Constitution, it isn't a right (see "right" to privacy). Allowing a looser interpretation of "rights," the right is to access to medical care. You don't have the right to pick my pocket for your medical care anymore than I have the right to pick yours. No one should be denied medically necessary health care because they can't afford it (and they aren't); however, should someone be able to pay either because they can or because of insurance, they should.

Billing: The reason you pay $7 for a bandaid is because 15 other people went to the hospital and DID NOT pay for their band aids. Hospital prices are high because people who pay their bills (like me) have to make up for the losses hospitals incur when they treat the indigent, as they are required by law to do, and the idiots who just don't pay their bills. Tell people who can to pay their effing bills and ours will go down. Preventative care is available at little or no cost at county and state health departments and using medicare/medicaid. You can walk into any health department and say "I can't afford my baby's immunizations" and they will provide them. They treat AIDS patients for their preventative care. If it is something they can't treat, they HELP you get the medicare/medicaid coverage or state coverage to pay for it.

Doctors fees: You want them to go down, kill all the lawyers. Okay, don't kill them but make it really hard to sue for malpractice and put a cap on damage awards at actual medical costs. No punitive damages. The single largest expense a doctor has is malpractice insurance. Unlike any other business, where HR/personnel are the largest expense, malpractice insurance consumes the bulk of a medical practice's income. Maryland, which requires obscenely high levels of malpractice insurance particularly for obstetricians and gynecologists (the most commonly sued doctors), is now suffering a shortage of OB/GYNs. Most of my friends who live in Maryland have to come to DC or Virginia for for obstetric or gynecological care.

Drugs: Do some research. The cost of developing new drugs runs into the billions. Those are costs not underwritten by any income being generated by the work performed. There is no guarantee that the pharmeceutical research done will produce useable results andin fact, most don't. That's why it is research and not development. The only way to recoup expenses is to charge for the drugs after the fact. Even this wouldn't be that expensive if other countries *cough*Candada*cough* abided by international trade agreements and did not encourage and even fund the reverse engineering of US-developed pharemeceuticals. Then these companies who incurred NONE of the expenses required to discover, develop and test the medications sell it for a profit.

Bill other nations for their citizens's care? That is a huge laugh. Mexico's government has a known policy of telling its citizens point blank to illegally enter the US and use our medical and welfare services because they can't afford it (they could if they'd develop the oil resources they are sitting on top of). Entire hosptials in El Paso have gone out of business treating illegal immigrants and getting NO payment for those services. Those hospitals closing equaled the loss of a thousand beds and a severe strain on the remaining hospitals to provide coverage to US citizens and those illegal immigrants you so blithely advise treating and futilely sending a bill to a government that doesn't repay the debts it already has.

We already pay taxes. We already pay a far to large a percentage of our income in taxes, so much so many people in many areas can't afford their own homes or topay their bills. My family is clearly in the middle middle class income range. Between my boyfriend and I, 46% of our income goes to pay federal (including SS and medicare/medicaid taxes), state and local taxes. You can't just look at what is withheld from a person's paycheck. There are property taxes, which in many areas far exceed the amount someone pays ontheir mortgage in several months. Ours on a townhouse--not even a house with a real yard--is equal to four mortgage payments, about $8000 a year. There are retired and elderly homeowners in this area who've been forced to sell their already paid for homes because the tax rate is a financial burden on them. Essentially, the government forced them into foreclosure. Sales taxes are 5% of everything we buy at the store. On big ticket items like vehicles, it is much more. On average, that sales tax can come to 5% or more of your annual income.

Just how exactly do you propose I keep a roof over my family's head, food on the table and the utilities on if I have to pay still more taxes to cover the expenses of people who refuse to take responsibility for their own wellbeing? would you like me to bleed out a few thousand more dollars. I'm pretty sure I can tap a vein somewhere.

The answer to the US's health care problem does NOT involve screwing up the health care people already have. Obama's plan would force my company to charge me far more than I am already paying for my insurance and the amount of care I receive would go down. I would also have to wait far longer to get it. Medicare and medicaid are so badly run that they are not sufficient; however, no governement run program will. We can do better, but not much. I dare anyone to come up with a federally run welfare program that is cost efficent, works as intended and actually does a good job.

Allow small businesses to form coalitions to purchase health care insurance. Most states prevent this. Insurance is like anything else--if you buy in bulk, it is cheaper. Allow people who can afford their own health care without insurance to forego purchasing it (Massachusetts requires all individuals to buy insurance, whether they want or need it).

Reform the punitive legal system that puts an unfair financial burden on those who practice medicine. Cap lawsuit awards, require that lawsuits actually have merit. Sometimes people die, even if you do everything right. Stop allowing peope to sue over every damned thing. Cap the cost of malpractice insurance. It should still be required because sometimes people do screw up, but it should never force doctors to leave their state to practice elsewhere because it is too costly to stay.

Some insurance reforms are needed. It should be easier to change insurance companies and maintain continuous coverage. it should be easier to purchase. The laws regarding it should be clearer. The example about the two insurance comapnies pointing the responsibility at the other for careis aperfect example. Both parents should not have had coverage on their children. One or the other should have because you can only have one primary carrier. Multiple primary carriers results in no one being responsible for coverage because technically the company is right. As long as some other company is also designated as primary, one company can deny coverage. Unfortunatley, it takes an army of lawyers to figure that out. How on earth can the average person figure it out. Two policies, twice as much coverage, right? I got lucky and many years ago had an employer who told me that and helped its employees wade through that kind of quagmire. Not all employers have those kind of resources.

The solution is not socialized health care. France and Canada are proving that every day.