The real show was outdoors - what the White House Forum on Healthcare left out

MN BigJ · Apr 16, 2009

As I have said many times, health care is an issue and a big one at that. I just don't think that getting the government more involved in everyone's health care is the answer.

The problem will continue to be that people always have a sense of entitlement. Once you start to give a little to people, they want more until soon they want it all. Maybe if we figured out the reasons for the massive increase in costs in health care and some how fix that then it would not be so expensive. Getting the government involved with result in a less than ok system for everyone. With that will be the formation of private system once again and then to get good healthcare you will still have to pay for it while you are already paying for everyone elses.

Many countries with some sort of UHC also have private payer as well and the private hospitals are better.

You are right in the fact that healthcare is a need. I just think there are better ways than a complete takeover by the government.

Long Term Care Columnist / Guide · Apr 16, 2009

That's why I said I don't want government running it, especially not at the federal level. The feds need only to collect the taxes and then turn the money over to the states to be spent according to what the citizens and government of each state have declared to be their healthcare priorities. For example, Florida would need much of its allotted funding directed toward its large numbers of elderly, while New Mexico would be dealing with the needs of its Native American populations.

Ordinarily, I believe that the government that governs best, governs least. But assuring access to basic health services is necessary, not only to promote the common good, but to establish a standard of decency below which we will not go. Again, just my not-so-humble opinion.

MN BigJ · Apr 16, 2009

That sounds fine and dandy, but it still isn't going to get people to start taking care of themselves. I say we need regulations on the people receiving the paid for healthcare. I say if you want the government to pay for your health care you have to follow up a primary care physician atleast yearly. You need to be taking your medications and taking care of yourself.

Chronic conditions are the biggest cost in the system and if people take care of themselves the cost will go down. If people don't feel there is a reason to care for themselves because someone else is picking up the tab it seems to me costs will go out of control.

Honnête et Sérieux · Apr 16, 2009

Here's an idea.

If the gov't can do such a great job at providing health care, then let them get into the business of taking care of sick people instead of just telling everyone else how to do it, and dictating how much they'll be paid to do it.

Compete on the open market.

If their product is so much better, then they should be able to clean house, and in a few years they'll be the only game in town...wala, a universal system.

allnurses Guide · Apr 16, 2009

Here's an idea.
If the gov't can do such a great job at providing health care, then let them get into the business of taking care of sick people instead of just telling everyone else how to do it, and dictating how much they'll be paid to do it.
Compete on the open market.
If their product is so much better, then they should be able to clean house, and in a few years they'll be the only game in town...wala, a universal system.

That is President Obamas plan.

I'm afraid that people who like their ewmployer provided insurance will keep it.

Then if they are in an accident or have cancer and can no longer work they will choose the government option because COBRA is too expensive or because they are denies coverage due to their condition.

So the poor people, ole people, and sick people will use the government plan.

Healthy people who don't need much healthcare will keep enriching the for profit CEOs.

It would be a big boon to THEM.

That is whi a discussion of single payer must be on the table!

http://www.guaranteedhealthcare.org/

MN BigJ · Apr 16, 2009

And exactly what is wrong with making a profit??

If your goods or services are superior to others and people are willing to pay why is it so evil to make money? Now if you are taking money and not actually giving a product or service and pocketing the dough, then you are a swindler. I just do see something bad with making money though.

Honnête et Sérieux · Apr 16, 2009

That is President Obamas plan.
I'm afraid that people who like their ewmployer provided insurance will keep it.
Then if they are in an accident or have cancer and can no longer work they will choose the government option because COBRA is too expensive or because they are denies coverage due to their condition.
So the poor people, ole people, and sick people will use the government plan.
Healthy people who don't need much healthcare will keep enriching the for profit CEOs.
It would be a big boon to THEM.
That is whi a discussion of single payer must be on the table!
http://www.guaranteedhealthcare.org/

A single-payer program is not a competitive program. I hardly see how this can be considered Obama's plan.

And again, my insurance company is not-for-profit. How many times does it need to be said?

allnurses Guide · Apr 16, 2009

i guess i wasn't clear that president obama's appointees have taken single payer off the table. it is not discussed. i disagree with the president on this. i say yes we can!

originally posted by honnête et sérieux
here's an idea.
if the gov't can do such a great job at providing health care, then let them get into the business of taking care of sick people instead of just telling everyone else how to do it, and dictating how much they'll be paid to do it.
compete on the open market.
if their product is so much better, then they should be able to clean house, and in a few years they'll be the only game in town...wala, a universal system.

what this describes is similar to president obama’s plan.

it is actually better because people whose employer provide inferior coverage would be able to buy the government plan.the pool of ensured would be larger but not sufficient.

the presidents plan:
[color=#333333][color=#333333]…under health care for america, every legal resident of the u.s. who is not covered by either medicare or an employer-provided plan could purchase coverage through health care for america….
[color=#333333]…self-employed persons could buy coverage under health care for america by paying the same payroll-based tax as employers. persons not in the workplace could buy coverage by paying premiums based on their annual income. in addition, the federal government would offer the states incentives to enroll any remaining uninsured individuals in health care for america.
[color=#333333]non-elderly beneficiaries of medicare and s-chip (the state childrens health insurance program) would be automatically enrolled in the health care for america plan, either through their employers or individually.
[color=#333333]in summary, supporters of the health care for america plan say it would provide the u.s. with universal health care coverage by:
[color=#333333]- [color=#333333]being available to any legal u.s. resident without good workplace coverage;
[color=#333333]- [color=#333333]requiring that employers (and the self-employed) either purchase coverage comparable to health care for america for all their workers or pay a relatively modest payroll contribution (6% of payroll) to fund health care for america coverage for all their employees; and
[color=#333333]- [color=#333333]requiring that americans who remain without insurance either purchase private coverage or buy into the health care for america plan.
[color=#333333]for persons already covered by employer-provided health insurance, health care for america would virtually eliminate the suddenly very real threat of losing coverage because of layoffs….
[color=#333333]http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/healthcare/a/nathealthplan.htm

i'm afraid that people who like their employer provided insurance will keep it.

then if they are in an accident or have cancer and can no longer work they will choose the government option because cobra is too expensive.

rather than deny coverage based on previous conditions as they do now these corporations can charge large premiums that would ensure coverage is unaffordable for people with their condition.

so the poor people, old people, and sick people will use the government plan. they use most of the healthcare.

healthy people who don't need much healthcare will keep enriching the for profit ceos.

that is why a discussion of single payer must be on the table!

http://www.guaranteedhealthcare.org/

ps: of course this is just one nurses opinion.

allnurses Guide · Apr 16, 2009

discussion on single payer:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/4/16/164540/625?new=true

this was philidelphia: