February 21, 2012
Universal: Medicare for all
CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- Various Republicans are pressing the U.S. Supreme Court to rule the 2010 Affordable Care Act unconstitutional because it requires millions of "working poor" Americans to buy health insurance from commercial carriers.
Surprisingly, a crusading liberal Charleston reformer and activist has joined a Supreme Court brief demanding exactly the same thing.
YOU MUST FOLLOW THESE RULES TO POST A COMMENT:
Keep it clean. Comments that are obscene, sexually explicit, racist or offensive will be removed. If you wouldn?t say it to your mother, don't post it here.
Be civil. Don't threaten to hurt anyone. Personal attacks, insults or harassment of any kind are subject to removal.
Be truthful. Don't lie about a situation or person.
Keep it brief. Keep your comment to one post. Redundant or multiple posts in a row aren?t allowed.
Stay on task. Stick to the topics relevant to the story and discussion.
Let us know about offensive comments. Click the 'Report Abuse' button if you think a comment is against the rules.
NOTICE TO READERS:
The Gazette values readers' comments and insights. So, to
create a more constructive and civil setting for readers, we're making a
few changes. Comments will no longer appear immediately, but will show
up after they have been reviewed and approved. Also, we will be more
selective about comments that we approve. We welcome wit and wisdom and,
yes, dissent, but personal attacks, remarks in poor taste or those
overly critical or irrational will not be published. We encourage you to
keep posting. We just ask that you keep it civil.
Submitting as:
Web Page issue? Contact webmas...@wvgazette.com
Site Map #ws1.cnpapers.net
Built on June 18, 2013 at 5:55 am
Site Map #ws1.cnpapers.net
Built on June 18, 2013 at 5:55 am
Privacy Policy · Terms of Service · © Copyright 1996-2013
The Charleston Gazette
Subscribe to the Gazette
Subscribe to the Gazette
Furthermore, any governmental intervention that limits or controls the levels of compensation that physicians can earn reduces the incentive to become a physician in the first place.
Then, factor in the mass retirement of those older physicians who would rather not become government employees so late in their careers, and the quality AND accessibility of healthcare becomes greatly diminished.
To believe that politicians actually care about your health care constitutes grounds for having your voting privileges revoked.
If government is the provider, it relieves all industry/unions from providing the coverage obligation. The industries, like AUTO(UAW) or coal(UMWA)would be relieved of the cost and the government(people/taxpayer)will pick up the cost. Wow, that would be some kinda deal for whom??? Industry/unions could thrive in that atmosphere.
Taxpayers/people pay the price in $$$ and longer wait lines. Some of the European countries, just this AM, are talking about privatizing some of their health care to make it more timely available because too many of their people are dying due to wait time to get access to a Dr. Some of US wants to adopt a system that Europeans are running away from??? Wow.
Maggie Mahar - Money Driven Medicine, T.R. Reid - Healing of America, Wendell Potter- Deadly Spin, Jihn Geyman, MD-Hijacked.
or the fact that they can get the best medical treatment here, doctors,facilities, etc. seems like you're grabbing straws here.
Medicare for All means increased cost, rationing and long waits for care. Just like all those European socialist countries. The British National Health Service is the third largest employer IN THE WORLD. They employ more administrative/clerical staff than medical staff. That's what happens when government controls medical care. Like public employee unions, it turns into a politically controlled jobs program at taxpayer expense.
based on.....?
That's what happens when government controls medical care.
you're aware that single payer insurance is not the same as government - run healthcare, right?
One reason is that some countries allow Pharmacist to dispense many drugs that require a doctors visit here. Saves money, but not a very good idea.
"Other democracies spend only half as much on medical care, yet they have better health and life expectancy."
Better health and life expectancy of any group of people doesn't automatically equate to medical care or lack of it. There are many factors involved of which this short and ill informed editorial fail to mention.
Enlighten us.
It is a mismanaged, fraudulent, wasteful program that is full of inefficiencies and ineptitude that has added trillions in unfunded liabilities to our national debt so I hardly see how anyone of sound mind and reasonable thinking could champion such a boondoggle of a program.
That being said, Medicare is still more efficient than the private system, on average.
http://healthcare-economist.com/2006/07/27/medicares-true-administrative-costs/
More demand results in more doctors going into medicine??? Have you been to a Dr office over the past 5 years? Most Dr offices that I visit with wife has a sign in the window "NO NEW MEDICARE/MEDICAID PATIENTS BEING ACCEPTED". Drs are running from the patients that have medicare/medicaid coverage. The professionals who provide this service are seeing their billing rates cut by 50-60%. They are losing $$$ by seeing patients with this insurance. Obamacare was to be paid for from Medicare @ half a trillion dollars. The other half in tax increases. Obama budget proposal is to further cut medicare/medicaid billing rates by 27%. The providers cannot sustain services at the rates offered. Therefore, there will be fewer Drs graduating with intent to practice medicine.
Like I said, no one of sound mind or reasonable thinking can champion this boondoggle.
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba662
Yeah! Who would want THAT!
Politicians and the media focus on Social Security's financial health, but Medicare's future liabilities are far more ominous, at more than $89 trillion. Medicare's total unfunded liability is more than five times larger than that of Social Security. In fact, the new Medicare prescription drug benefit enacted in 2006 (Part D) alone adds some $17 trillion to the projected Medicare shortfall - an amount greater than all of Social Security's unfunded obligations.
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba662
Would love to see your input.
Preference is to have no insurance except for major calamity. That would give individual a reason to take personal care of self, shop for health care provider, audit the bill for charges.
Now, what is the perfect policy for you and your family? When was the last time you were cost conscious when seeking medical help. Shopped around for a provider? Did you audit the bill for all the charges? Instead of going for professional charged help, when did you take an aspirin and see if you feel better the next day? If you were actually paying the bills, would you(family) have required all the visits you made last 5 years?
Of course, I don't know you or your needs. I was talking to myself as much as you above. I don't know what a reasonable price is because I didn't shop. I have seen multi thousand bills come thru that I didn't audit and my ins paid every penny. Thats wrong
I was thinking on terms of national policy.
You seem to be highly critical of Medicare, what would you endorse as an alternative? Do you think that the ACA should be overturned?
I think everyone on these threads is aware of the cost inflation associated with health care. There are good reasons to believe that a single payer system (e. g. expanding Medicare to everyone) would lower the overall costs of its delivery, as is experienced in many other countries. There are others who think that the ACA lends the best balance to universal health care because it maintains much of the private insurance industry.
I would like to know what your opinion is on policy. You often point your rhetoric at the expense of universal health care, what do you propose as an alternative to more efficiently deliver it? Do you think that the uninsured/uninsurable should be denied treatment?
I am just curious to know what you advocate, since you write so much in the contrary.
Do you want a government provided/controlled plan? Who gets covered?What is covered? What is not covered? How does it get funded? Who decides when, where, how services are rendered?
Your "national policy" is a very open ended proposal that provides no certainty of what you are talking about. Care to be more specific in detailing what you are suggesting and how it is to be funded?
Really, where have I said that I disagree with medicare? I don't believe I have. But, I have great concern about the life of medicare since it is going to be broke. On current path, medicare will consume the entire budget some day not too far out. How can it be financed.
Uninsured question depends. Medicaid gets those who cannot afford. Those who refuse to buy coverage should legally be assessed the bill.