Socialized Medicine: The Argument to Support moving forward - page 4
Many people have a misunderstanding that if the government funds health care then THEY control our health care - a concept which in all reality is impossible. What they do provide is funding for hospitals and any facility that... Read More
- 0Aug 25, '09 by Ginger's Momhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...082103033.html
"President Obama has called for a serious and reasoned debate about his plans to overhaul the health-care system. Any such debate must include the question of whether it is constitutional for the federal government to adopt and implement the president's proposals. Consider one element known as the "individual mandate," which would require every American to have health insurance, if not through an employer then by individual purchase. This requirement would particularly affect young adults, who often choose to save the expense and go without coverage. Without the young to subsidize the old, a comprehensive national health system will not work. But can Congress require every American to buy health insurance?"
According to this article the jury is still out to mandate health insurance. Interesting questions.
- 3Aug 25, '09 by NickBQuote from madwife2002I wouldn't check if the Anesthetist was in network just as he was about to put me under. I would check that weeks in advance. Most hospitals contract with a specific anesthesia group or do it in house. It is a simple phone call.Why do you think you will have less choice? I dont understand you dont get an awful lot of choice now depending on your insurance and who they say you can go see. They do dictate who is in house and who is not. Then you have large co-pays depending on your choice-last year I had surgery then I got a bill from the anaethesist for $900 as he was not covered by my insurance-I was annoyed that the hospital didnt let me know this, as the bill was a shock.
How many would think to check if the anaethesist was in house just as he was about to put you under??
You see, the problem with healthcare now is it causes Americans to be responsible. First, you have to make sure you have health insurance. If you can't afford it, you need to find better work so that you may do so. Then, if you have a high deductible, you need to make sure you are saving money every month, just in case you may need to use your plan. Or, you can use the money you would be saving to cover your deductible and pay more each month for a plan with a lower deductible. Either way, it's your choice. But the problem is America is filled with a bunch of lazy people who think they are entitled to everything. Even people who come here from other countries are falling into this entitlement mentallity. This country used to be filled with hard workers who were too proud to take a handout and who would do whatever it takes to keep their family safe and fed. Now, they walk around with their hands out complaining about how it's just to hard and how the working class can't make it. I sincerely feel bad for people who may do everything right and something terrible happens and they lose their insurance. If the total strain on the healthcare system was just from people in that situation, then we wouldn't have the problems that we have now. But it's not, it because of a large amount of people who don't have health insurance because it isn't important to them. Because they would rather have a nice car and fancy clothes. Because by now, society has taught them that it will be taken care of by someone else.
Government run healthcare may supply the whole country with healthcare, but it will have to be rationed compared to what we are used to now. The economics of this country cannot support healthcare for the entire nation without rationing, or cost analyzing, or whatever you want to call it. And it will, with no doubt, teach the American people how to be less responsible and more dependent on the government. This tactic has been described in many books written over many decades, and is the first main step towards Socialism, Facism, and Communism. Those government styles may work in France and Norway and wherever else, but I'm quite sure that the American people will lose their minds when they realize all of the other things that come with those governmental systems besides Universal Healthcare.
- 0Aug 25, '09 by Woody123Quote from MedSurg32RNWhat state is it? I may consider moving there... What about your country, is it also 97%. Fallowing that logic I can say the same thing because in my household (street, village, town, county, state etc.) 100% of people are insured...In my state where 97% are insured why should my benefits suffer because 3 percent choose not to sign up?
3% percent choose not to sigh up? Are you sure, maybe they couldn't afford it, or unemployed at the time?
- 0Aug 25, '09 by Ginger's MomQuote from Woody123The state decides where or not you can afford it. When you file your taxes you have to provide your health policy number, it not you have to pay a fine which is similar to the insurance cost. Unemployed, you get some support but the state decides if you can afford it or pay a BIG fine.What state is it? I may consider moving there... What about your country, is it also 97%. Fallowing that logic I can say the same thing because in my household (street, village, town, county, state etc.) 100% of people are insured...
3% percent choose not to sigh up? Are you sure, maybe they couldn't afford it, or unemployed at the time?
If you are not a citizen and not in the state for 5 years you do not qualify, several public hospitals are near bankrupt.
- 1Aug 26, '09 by MijourneyI will move away from the discussion of the most recent posts. I do not feel that all health and medical care should be socialized. I think that promotion, prevention, and primary care should be socialized with mandates for our children and young adults to receive comprehensive services in these areas. Youth are our future and they should be mentally and physically able and healthy to manage their lives and this country.
Right now, we're experiencing increasing rates of chronic illness among our children and young adults. This does not bode well for the U.S. I've read where we do not even rank in the top five in health status. That's an abomination for a country that spends the most on its health care system. I think we can see a better return on investment if we invest in our youth and young adults and stop spending so much on those of us who used free will to decide how we would treat our bodies. I think we should keep private insurance as the sole means of coverage for us middle-aged and older people and take care of our young people.
- 6Aug 26, '09 by tewdlesThere is no question that we need to reform our health delivery system in this country. Unfortunately, the civil debate has been sucker punched by the rant. While it is clear that reform will not be free it should be equally clear that doing nothing is also not "FREE". Healthcare costs are currently at about 16% of our GDP, what rate will our children inherit? In what year will it represent 20%, what year will it be a quarter of our GDP? In an economy based upon capitalism companies will continue to look for ways to trim that "bottom line" expense up to and including moving jobs to countries with much lower costs. A study in 2007 found that more than 60% of bankrupcies had a medical cause, and that the share of bankrupcies attributable to medical problems rose by 50% between 2001 and 2007.
People who are afraid of change are not considering the consequences of the status quo. Our current system is increasingly expensive and increasingly exclusive. While capitalism is not a bad thing it cannot be expected to create a uniformly available health insurance program for the population. Insurance companies are generally "for-profit" and the profit, not the patient, is the objective. Currently insurance companies have CONSIDERABLE control over who gets what care when and where. Anyone who does not acknowledge this fact has either never had to interact with the insurance companies to any degree or is completely out of touch with the experiences of his/her neighbors.
July 22, 2009
Statement Attributable to:
J. James Rohack, MD
President, American Medical Association
"At this historic moment for our nation, the AMA is working to improve our health care system for patients and physicians. We must fix what's broken and keep what's working.
"Health insurance for working families is disappearing along with job security – this is bad for the economy and bad for families.
"The status quo is unacceptable. The AMA has made clear its commitment to health reform this year. Congress must take action to expand coverage to the uninsured through a choice of plans and eliminate denials for pre-existing conditions, include prevention and wellness initiatives, address medical liability reform and repeal the broken Medicare physician payment system that harms seniors' access to care. Without repeal, physicians face payment cuts of nearly 40 percent over the next five years that will force them to limit the number of seniors they can treat – right as the baby boomers begin aging into Medicare.
"AMA will stay engaged to get a final bill this year that improves the system for patients and physicians signed into law. Physicians are at the heart of the health care system, and the AMA considers its position at the center of the health reform debate an honor and serious responsibility."
Are physicians in favor of reform? You bet. Sure there are some that are afraid that reform will affect their incomes, but for the vast majority it will be a wash. Most physicians that I know did not enter medicine to become wealthy. They wanted to practice medicine, take care of people, make a difference. The fact that they could make a lot of money was a nice bonus. There are greedy people in all walks of life, they do not define their professions...not yet. We need reform, we need it soon. Why not engage in some research, thoughtful debate, and american inventiveness and create our own system for universal/socialist health insurance plan.
- 0Aug 26, '09 by ozonerangerQuote from nurseforchangeok folks, has anyone read the bill proposed?
let’s remember that if hr3200 is passed the government will be acting as the insurance companies, shifting the power from private companies to the government. limiting and dictating the care we are to get, and not starting out with something that is proven to work for a certain aliment, starting with something that may work (and costs alot less)
and the question here is not "do we want healthcare for everyone?" because yes we all do! the question is do you support the proposed bill hr3200, please look for yourself... www.thomas.gov i know it is alot to read and take in, but make a informed descision for yourself!
what this bill proposes, is that all people must have adequate health coverage, and those who still can not afford it, or those who prefer homeopathic care will be fined with an excise tax- sec207 of the hr3200 (homeopathic care is defined as the care of the whole person, not just the symptoms) also taxing employers for not providing adequate health coverage to employees, and at the same time a few large top companies referred to as being exempt from providing adequate health care to employees. that is reason to ask questions!
hr3200 also proposed that we re-define the term "health care plan" for those 65 years of age and older, to include "end of life care", for anyone 65 or over, healthy or not.
the "free health care" that as some has perceived will not be across the board, it is proposed in hr3200 that health care and the cost of adequate coverage will be determined by demographics... that means that where i live, health care and adequate coverage could be "free and top of the line care", but where you live, health care and adequate coverage could cost more and the care could be less that acceptable. in this case, would you move to a "better demographical area" to ensure the care of you and your family? is that fair? here is reason to ask questions!
also, doctors and nurses as well as all health care workers will be demographically dispersed throughout the country, to where the need is, and be "asked" to accept payment rates, and schedules set by the government.
today in society where the doctors get kick backs from prescribing certain medications to patients, and when a patient comes in with a certain symptom, the treatment is usually for the symptom, not to find the cause of the symptom... because we have so many drugs for all of the symptoms, and prescribing medications is far more profitable than healing. do you think that would change? especially since the pharmaceutical companies are giving large amounts of money "to promote the health care bill hr3200"
i am for health care for everyone, but i do not support the health care bill hr3200! there are some good ideas and proposals made by the bill hr3200, but in all, it will be limiting our freedom! and freedom is what america is all about, and what our fore fathers fought for. are we taking this for granted?
and in case anyone dosen't already know... the health care bill is in 2 parts, the 1st of which was already passed with hr1 the american recovery and reinvestment act of 2009... look it up. did anyone know that was in there? so when i see americans going to these town hall meetings and standing up for themselves, their family and thier neighbors, i am hopefull that our great country will continue to stand for freedom!
i would rather everyone be healthy with less nurses needed, than have a job, even though i love being a nurse, and that is how i make a living.
i propose that everyones goal should be- truth, love and healing!
kickbacks? wha....? my husband gets the occasional ink pen.....maybe lunch......but cash? a trip to hawaii?
that's pretty funny.
- 1Aug 26, '09 by perseus29Quote from ozonerangerHow long has your husband been a doctor?Kickbacks? Wha....? My husband gets the occasional ink pen.....maybe lunch......but cash? A trip to Hawaii?
That's pretty funny.
I think they passed a law where they prevented kickbacks; but back in 1998, 1999, when I lived in the Miami area, my friend who was a doctor in south florida, would go on cruises, and always had good tickets to the sport games, among other things; I lost contact with him once he moved to Boston, but we met up a couple of years ago and he said that all the freebies were long gone b/c of some stupid law. And he did explain to me that he used to get 'kickbacks' based on what he prescribed or if he promoted specific drugs.
Guess the new york times is also a funny newspaper:
WASHINGTON — Federal health officials and prosecutors, frustrated that they have been unable to stop illegal kickbacks to doctors from drug and device companies, are investigating doctors who take money for using these products.
- 4Aug 26, '09 by The Hated ConsultantMy litmus test is the copy of the Constitution I carry with me at all times. If it's not in there, the Federal goobement has no legal authority to act.
I can't find anywhere in there where it says the goobs can step in and do what they're proposing and what you're supporting--and believe me, I've looked. I'd be willing to bet our Congresscritters would see that too--if they'd ever bothered to read that document. Healthcare is NOT a right, contrary to what bleeding hearts would have us believe. People who push for crap like this use psychological bombs like this to yank at heartstrings and try to guilt trip people into following along.
I can't find anywhere in there where it says we can bail out banks or car dealers, and many of the other bits that have been shoved up our asses lately.
This isn't new with Obama--we've allowed the Fed goobs to incrementally impose crap like this on us far too long. We've gotten what we deserve. Now it's time to wake up and put the engine in reverse.
So spout your opinions and your what-ifs all you want. If socialized medicine is so good, move to a country that offers it. What the Federal gooberment is purporting is illegal under the Constitution. Period. The argument ends there.
- 0Aug 26, '09 by AnneDuvall75I thought everyone would enjoy this excellent article in the New York Times about the role of health plans and the issue of "real choice" that's missing in health care reform. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/26/bu...r=1&ref=health