Interesting Perspective on Pitfall of Obama-style Health Care

GCTMT · Jul 12, 2009

I think the health care reform initiatives argued by Obama aren't really going to change much of anything. It's my hope, that the coming legislation is a stepping stone to single-payer. Single-payer would bypass the problems explained in the article.

elkpark · Jul 12, 2009

I also have read numerous articles about the many problems of the MA system. This is why we would be much better off with a simple, universal single-payer system.

heron, ASN, RN · Jul 12, 2009

So, I moved out of MA before the passage of this legislation. Does it include a state-owned insurance plan besides medicare/medicaid? Or were medicare/medicaid eligibility changed to include higher income people?

If not, seems like a pretty critical difference.

Feh ... same old story, IMHO ... competition is good ... except when it isn't.

Not_A_Hat_Person, RN · Jul 17, 2009

MA residents ineligible for Medicare or Medicaid can buy insurance through the "Commonwealth Connector." Basically, the state subsidizes a bunch of plans. Premiums are based on your occupation, income, and family size.

My biggest problem with the MA healthcare system is the fact that people without coverage are fined for it. What's the point? Companies that don't offer plans are fined $352 per employee per year, but there are a lot of loopholes. For instance, it doesn't apply to companies with fewer than 11 employees. A company can get around the fine if the only plan offered is extremely expensive, threadbare, or only available to 2 employees. It's much easier for companies to game the system than for individuals to game the system.

WORKINGWOMANINTN · Jul 18, 2009

Please call your Rep & Senators to let them know they need to SLOW DOWN and get it right. What is at jeopardy is one of the best health care systems in the world. Chicago-style politics are being used to strong-arm this through before the public realizes the shortfalls. What are the issues? I]t does not reduce health care costs, it does not address current Medicare/-aid waste & fraud, it disallows future enrollment in a private plan, it mandates insurance, it does not address the excess cost due to illegals, it allows taxpayer funding for abortion, it does not address misuse or overuse of the health care system, and it includes excess UNION control. Check out Subtitle D of the House bill. It creates a 'Pipeline to nursing' which alters the career ladder to nursing, and includes training programs that would be jointly administered by the Health Care provider AND LABOR ORGANIZATIONS. It establishes a Health Advisory Board, of which 1 of 5 representatives must be a labor UNION representative. (Payback for the SEIU, maybe??).

]WAKE UP, NURSES -- AND CALL YOUR CONGRESSIONAL REPRESENTATIVES TODAY!! The ANA sold us out!

Crash_Cart · Jul 26, 2009

Private insurance is a "for profit" venture. Always has been. It is not about "people."

That's why private insurance won't work and that's why the costs of providing health care have reached the levels they are today.

There are 46 million Americans that are living proof of why the private health care insurance industry is a failed model in the United States.

That is 46 million Americans who don't have any form of "access" to health care in the most medically advanced country anywhere on the planet. Health care is broken in the United States and private insurance is the reason why.

We have to create a universal health care system. It's the only option that works in reality. Yes, I admit it too has it's flaws, but it's better to wait in line for health care or treatment, than the idea of having no health care at all. That's where 46 million Americans stand at the moment - NO health care.

Universal Health care is a "public" entity similar to our social security system. In addition, it's no more of a "socialist" entity than the social security system. Basically, It's just a public "safety net" administered by our government representatives and funded through public tax dollars etc. We can change internal policy if we want. We can also monitor how our money is spent and we can track how health care is being delivered to the public. (public accountability is created with Universal Health care) You can't do this with private insurance companies. They are private and profit motivated entities. Their primary objective is to profit from consumers and answer to it's shareholders. They couldn't care less if you are sick, are denied procedures and we have no control over them or when they should refuse such required services to us.

Universal health care offers "everyone" health care as a basic "right" similar to the right you have to an education in the public education system. You cannot be refused health care. Everyone is covered regardless of pre-existing conditions, the employer you work for or otherwise. Healthcare isn't an optional luxury, it's a requirement. The difference in a universal system is you actually GET health care.... That's what people are really "expecting" from private insurance companies, but that's not what they are getting... EVEN when the are paying private insurance companies for it!! (There are literally 1000's of stories like this every single day and counting...)

Some proponents suggest that universal health care would bear an added burden on taxpayers who don't always use it or need it but they fail to consider that when people have no private insurance plans, this actually costs taxpayers additional money too... (see link below)

When something doesn't work. You need to change it. There's no point in placing a band aid on a major coronary artery as the solution to stop the bleeding.

Americans are bleeding and 22,000 are dying every year because they have little, restricted or no "access" to health care. - Have we become a third world country?

The link is to examine some facts pertaining what it actually costs taxpayers when people don't have private insurance. (Yes, like universal healthcare - that actually costs taxpayers money too...) That's why we might as well have a universal health care plan because taxpayers are going to burden the costs of the 46 million uninsured anyways.

I feel 46 million uninsured Americans is a pretty compelling suggestion indicating the obvious fact that the private insurance industry has failed miserably in it's intentions. It simply doesn't work.

http://www.nchc.org/facts/coverage.shtml

My Best.

WORKINGWOMANINTN · Jul 27, 2009

Please consider this....

America is $$$$ BROKE $$$$ -- not the health care system.

America CANNOT AFFORD UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE.

The argument that we MUST DO SOMETHING, & 'socialized medicine seems to work in other countries' is foolhardy.

What do we have?

- a health care system that the WORLD still looks to as the role model

- a problem of payment for that world-class system

That world-class health care system grew in a capitalistic system -- and will continue to thrive there.

The cost to afford that Health care is a RESPONSIBILITY, not a right. Since the institution of Social security

and Medicare/-aid ~75 years ago, some in our country have forgotten cause-and-effect.

We manage to budget for food, home, cars, & gadgetry -- but somehow make the leap that the 'insurance company' or the 'government' will pay the bill if we get sick. WRONG.

UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE gives the individual the false-security that 'someone else' will pay.

Like any other need in your life, the cost for health care should come FIRST out of YOUR pocket.

NOT the collective pocket.

The insurance company is not 'the problem'.

Americans didn't have medical insurance policies 100 years ago.

But as our demand for more sophisticated care has risen, so has the cost for the care.

So first we got Hospitalization insurance to help pay, then Catastrophic insurance, then Doctor visit insurance.

But the more the 'insurance' coverage rose, the further we got away from the cause-and-effect.

SOMEONE has to pay, every penny.

And now hospitals provide health care to 100% of anyone who walks through the door.

100% of any legal or illegal person can come to an ED in America. WE HAVE ACCESS!

So who pays??? The people with insurance have had to pay for the non-pay clients.

So rates go up. Decisions are made for 'how to pay', 'who to exclude' -- hence,

the evolution of 'pre-existing conditions'.

But as rates go up --- don't forget WHO made those rates go up. THE NON-PAYING PATIENTS.

So let's go back to how it used to be.

The individual pays his own bills.

No government 'handouts'. No insurance company.

THE INDIVIDUAL is responsible for THE INDIVIDUAL.

Simple. I will take responsibility for my own life.

I will pay for my own health care needs.

That sounds radical, doesn't it.

But isn't that what has brought America to the achievements that it now enjoys?

Just consider it.....

(I pose this not as 'the solution' -- but in all the arguments about health care,

it is helpful to go back in history and remember how we got to this problem.

Then address the problem.)

Respectfully...WORKINGWOMANINTN

Crash_Cart · Jul 27, 2009

Please consider this....
America is $$$$ BROKE $$$$ -- not the health care system.
America CANNOT AFFORD UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE.
The argument that we MUST DO SOMETHING, & 'socialized medicine seems to work in other countries' is foolhardy.
America cannot afford to do nothing about it either... It costs taxpayers money either way you choose. Additionally, this is more than just a "money" issue., it's a "people" issue.
The insurance company is not 'the problem'.
The Insurance companies are the very reason why health care costs have skyrocketed and accurately explains the reason why 46 million Americans can no longer afford access to heath care.
And now hospitals provide health care to 100% of anyone who walks through the door.
100% of any legal or illegal person can come to an ED in America. WE HAVE ACCESS!
So who pays??? The people with insurance have had to pay for the non-pay clients.
Exactly. We pay either way. Taxpayers are already footing the bill for the uninsured. Another reason to propose a universal health care system instead.
So let's go back to how it used to be.
The individual pays his own bills.
No government 'handouts'. No insurance company.
THE INDIVIDUAL is responsible for THE INDIVIDUAL.
Simple. I will take responsibility for my own life.
I will pay for my own health care needs.
Well that's fine if you are rich and make a 7 figure income. But I don't know many Americans who can afford $40,000 out of their own pocket to pay for a medical procedure.
When something doesn't work out for the general population, you don't continue doing things the same way as the solution to the problem.
That sounds radical, doesn't it.
But isn't that what has brought America to the achievements that it now enjoys?
46 uninsured Americans is not an "achievement," but rather it's a national crisis.
Just consider it.....
(I pose this not as 'the solution' -- but in all the arguments about health care,
it is helpful to go back in history and remember how we got to this problem.
Then address the problem.)
Private insurance companies and "profiteers" is how we got into this problem. How else do you explain why an Aspirin costs $10 on a US hospital bill and yet over the border an Aspirin doesn't cost that much in comparison in the universal health care system? (Public accountability for the associated costs of delivering health care to the public is the reason - not something you get with private "for profit" insurance companies.)
Healthcare is broken in the United States. Private insurance is not working anymore. You only need to direct your attention to the 46 million Americans as a proven testament to that fact.
Respectfully...WORKINGWOMANINTN

My Best. :bow:

WORKINGWOMANINTN · Jul 27, 2009

Obviously we disagree... but that's OK.

We need to understand all sides.

You want to adopt Universal health care in the USA

due to the "46MM uninsured".

I think Universal health care will give individuals a false-security

that "someone else" will pay, and so the system will be mis-used,

the root cause of the problem will not be addressed, and the end

result will be overall deterioration in health care.

What is your perspective on HR 3200? Doesn't it seem too bureaucratic

and unwieldy??

Crash_Cart · Jul 28, 2009

Obviously we disagree... but that's OK.
We need to understand all sides.
Agreed. Actually, I have enjoyed reading your opinion on the subject. :wink2:
You want to adopt Universal health care in the USA
due to the "46MM uninsured".
No, not "because" of the uninsured but rather because we need something that works in a universal manner for everyone across the board. Not just a select few.
Health care.., similar to public education, needs to be made available to every citizen in the country.
Health care should not be considered as an optional luxury for those who can afford insurance, but rather health care needs to be mandated as an expected requirement in our society. Similarly, we don't consider the public education system to be an optional luxury in our society any differently.
The public needs health care intervention regardless if they have pre existing conditions or not. Health care is not an optional requirement for people, it's a human necessity like eating food or drinking water.
I think Universal health care will give individuals a false-security
that "someone else" will pay, and so the system will be mis-used,
the root cause of the problem will not be addressed, and the end
result will be overall deterioration in health care.
The health care system is already being misused and there is a false sense of security because private health insurance companies don't guarantee you will be treated for pre existing medical conditions etc.
Just because you pay 1000's of dollars for private health insurance every year, doesn't translate to mean you will actually receive adequate treatment or needed hospital care.
Taxpayers are already suffering from misuse from foreign illegals using the American healthcare system, the root cause of the problems have yet to be addressed, and the healthcare system has deteriorated to the level of a national crisis.
...Are you suggesting that implementing Universal Healthcare will make things any worse than they already are? Interesting... :)
What is your perspective on HR 3200? Doesn't it seem too bureaucratic
and unwieldy??

HR3200 is an "alternative" to the Universal Health care model which provides citizens with "assistance" when it's needed. However, we are right back to square one....

What we need is health care to be considered as a fundamental right of every American, not just a select or "privileged" few who "qualify."

HR3200 is an attempt to "qualify" people to receive health care benefits. Of course, for starters.. half the people who apply for such benefits are never going to qualify for one reason or another. They always do in this sort of scenerio... So, it becomes yet another system that exists on paper for a select few. HR3200 is an attempt to appease the private health insurance and drug pusher industries because they give a lot of money in campaign contributions.

Sounds a lot like the same old "qualifiers" game private insurance companies are already playing with the public. It just doesn't work.

Now is the time YOU need to decide and choose which direction you would like to see the your own health go in the future.

It will change, but in which direction is the question.

My Best.