Is it so bad to want health care for all?

Posted by MissIndependent (anonymous) on October 24, 2009 at 4:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't think anyone disputes that all should have health care. What is in dispute, is how to make that happen. Some support a public option, others believe we don't need that to make it happen.

Then there is the question of cost. Yes, in an ideal world, everything would be 100% covered, free, etc. But we don't live in that world. We live in a world where health care costs money. So then it becomes a matter of how can we afford it or how do we fund this?

This is a very complex issue with no easy solution or quick fix.

Posted by ErnieGann (anonymous) on October 25, 2009 at 2:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It's not bad to WANT health care for all--but it IS bad to FORCE all to pay for health care.

"Is it not better when discussing a problem to be part of the solution rather than pointing at the other side’s presumed errors, even to the point of suggesting conspiracy?" The problem is that the "solution" proposed is worse than the disease--another reason most people reject it.

You need to recognize reality--you can't always have things just because you "want" them.

We also all WANT "peace"--a laudable goal--but that isn't going to happen just because we WANT it. The difference between childish "wants" and reality is knowing how to make those wishes into reality. So far, the reason that the majority dismiss universal health care is that no credible plan has been devised that will add millions of people while maintaining services and cost. It's been tried all over the world--none work.

The solution will work out when these unrealistic schemes are abandoned and REAL reform--lawsuit abuse, overcharging, and fraud are addressed.

Posted by newyankee (anonymous) on October 26, 2009 at 7:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I do not agree with the current definition of "the problem" on health care or everyone having access to adequate care. The current cost structure needs to laid out in detail, I think, to understand why the proposed solution makes little sense.

Posted by realchange (anonymous) on October 26, 2009 at 10:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Healthcare is something we all want, but it is also something we need to work for, if you are able, like everything else. A public plan is not the answer, it sounds like the "right" thing to do, but has been proven to now work everywhere it has been tried, and our government has proven that they are unable to run a successful program of any type. There are some solutions that have been brought up, but the current administration wants socialized health care so badly, they are not looking at any other options and are closing their doors for any other opinions.
They are rushing a haphazard system because it is what THEY want, regardless of what the majority of the people don't want.

Posted by Truthbetold (anonymous) on October 26, 2009 at 11:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

If we're going to FIX healthcare... let's at least do it right. This entire debate has left out four items essential to lowering the cost of health care. I don't understand why?

- First, there is nothing in these thousands of pages that pushes Americans to be more responsible about their own health. There are no rewards for quitting smoking, or getting on the treadmill, or getting a flu shot.

- Second, there is no attempt to rein in malpractice costs. Putting a lid on awards is not hard. though it may well be impossible given the vast amount of money that flows through the malpractice shops into Democratic coffers. Estimates vary, but many reports say that fear of lawsuits prompt some 20% or so of medical expenses for unnecessary procedures and tests.

- Third, I am not aware of any effort to cut through the regulatory impasse and allow insurers to compete across state lines. The consequence of the status quo is near-monopolies enjoyed by insurers in most states; what is the point of that? There is some talk about removing the insurance industry’s exemption from anti-trust enforcement. Why not address the problem directly?

- Fourth, there is little change in the basic model of reimbursements. Doctors get paid by the government according to formulas that encourage waste. For instance, in some cases doctors will prescribe only one month of medication so that the patient must return frequently, ringing up unnecessary monthly office visits. Hey, if you got paid by the visit, you’d prescribe only a one month dose too.

Why doesn't the bills being put forth in Congress address these 4 major issues?

Posted by MissIndependent (anonymous) on October 26, 2009 at 4:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Excellent points Truthbetold! I have the same questions myself and we don't seem to be getting any good answers. I also agree with realchange that this is just being rushed. I don't want to see something done just for the sake of doing something. This is a complex problem that requires a lot of thought, effort, planning, etc.

Does anyone understand why this is being rushed/slammed in? I don't get it myself....

Posted by Pierre (anonymous) on October 26, 2009 at 8:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Then is it bad to FORCE all to pay for schools? Roads? Police? Rescue personnel? Medicare and Medicaid? Libraries? Museums? Bridges?

Arguments about what healthcare solution we come up with are valid. Arguing that we shouldnt have to pay for it are not.

Posted by newyankee (anonymous) on October 27, 2009 at 7:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I think this needs to be rushed because the more people learn what this legislation is, the less people like it and it also needs to happen before any midterm elections.

Posted by Disgusted (anonymous) on October 27, 2009 at 7:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Pierre - You are not comparing apples to apples. Some of the items you mention are part of any cities infrastructure that serve and protect all the residents of the community, libraries and museums are normally voted on by the citizens of the community, and Medicare and Medicaid were contrived by our public official but they are available to all that qualify due to age or need.

The Health Care Reform Bills are designed to give coverage to the uninsured. The number of uninsured in the United States has not been accurately defined at this time. They have mentioned 30-46 million. The illegal aliens have been included, people with incomes high enough to buy insurance but don't want to because of their young age or the overall cost have been included, and another bureaucratic section of government will have to be created to manage it. There are figures floating around that put the number of citizens that actual need help with insurance to be around 10 million. This means that only 3 percent of the population need help. Is this legislation for the common good? Is it for more government control? Can the 3% be covered by existing programs? Is all of this a contrived vote buying scheme?

Let the people vote!