There has been MUCH talk about health care in the news lately. And MUCH talk about health care in our home as well. I've read the text of President Obama's speech, and the text of the Republican's proposal. I completely disagree with major concepts in both. First, President Obama's proposal. His speech covers everything from paperless medical records to preventative care. From compensating doctors based on the patients outcome instead of cost of treatment, to revamping Medicaid and Medicare. All with the price tag of around $1 trillion over the next 10 years. While reading his speech, he kept using the phrase "we need to..." and I want to know who the "we" is. He was speaking to an audience of the American Medical Association, i.e. doctors. Does he mean the medical industry? Or the more likely answer, the federal government. Does that mean that within the Department of Health and Human Services, Sect. Sebelius would have control over all that he suggested? Would a new government agency be formed? I find that the most likely answer to all of those questions extremely frightening.
Now for the Republican Response. Of course there is a counter argument, this is politics. In typical fashion, the Republican proposal is considerably less wordy. I've seen longer prescription ads in my favorite hollywood magazines. Yet, I found their ideas almost as disturbing. First they suggest the states create a "State Health Insurance Exchange", which sounds like a government version of Progressive Auto Insurance (with that annoying spokeswoman, which was thinking about tacos...you know the ads). At least they didn't suggest a Federal Health Insurance Exchange, I'd run for the hills! Second, they suggest taxing the money employers spend on health insurance. Why on earth would employers continue to provide benefits to their employees? They wouldn't! And the best coverage I've gotten is through employment. Lastly, they want to revamp the Medicaid and Medicare systems.
All I have to say is, when has more government involvement been a good thing. Please give me one example! And recently, the insurance company that the state employees use here in Oklahoma hadn't paid the doctors and dentists for their services for over 6 months. One local practice was owed over $100,000, which is only now being paid. How will that help the "small business or self-employed" both parties insist they are helping? It actually does the opposite.
10 comments:
This is what scares me the most. Why does the government need to step in here at all? FRIGHTENING!
I'm back, but maybe only for a moment. I am terribly bombarded at home, but I just wanted to chime in.
I can't stand the idea of govt. run health care. I worked with medicare and it is a joke, an honest joke. In theory a lot of things sound like a good idea, but in reality sometimes they just don't work. Health care for all sounds WONDERFUL. The reality, where do we get the money, why would we want our wasteful, corrupt government running it? It will triple our health care costs because of the insane inefficiency of the govt. The only good government run health care system is the military and everything there costs the American tax payers 3 x's more than if it was run privately. This is the ONLY exception that I would allow. We need national defense and we need to take care of the men and women who fight for us.
A national poll out today says 72% of Americans think something needs to be done about health care. I think we can all agree the current health care system is not working- there are too many families without insurance, and too many families filing bankruptcy because of medical bills when they HAVE insurance. It is out of control. The question is, which direction to go. I agree the government is corrupt, but so are insurance companies- denying perfectly legitimate claims for no reason at all. It is sad and rediculous.
I do have a question for you, Jen- because I know you were wroking in the insurance industry. You talked about how the government would give Humana money to cover Medicare (Medicaid? sorry- I get them confused- the one for old people), and that because Humana accepted the money they had to provide specific coverages, coverages they didn't have to provide to their normal clients. I am wondering if perhaps that is the way to go- government subsidies paid to private insurance companies that then require the companies to provide adequate coverage to their patients. Does that make sense?
I agree that the best coverage comes from employers- but fewer and fewer companies are offering benefits, they are charging their employees more for the coverage, or offering less and less coverage. I do agree with Obama that something HAS to be done- but what should that be?
Hello Christina,
It's Medicare. You are not alone in getting them mixed up. Medicare is for the old, Medicaid is for the poor. I understand why you think that might be a good option, but the fact that the govn't outsources medicare is an indication that they couldn't do it properly on their own. The govt is saving tons and tons by outsourcing for several reasons, but just one example is that the private companies are better equipped to catch fraudulent claims so there isn't as much scamming, thus less waste.
Also, sending the money to the govt just to have them outsource it seems very wasteful to me. It seems like we are adding a middle man and that just means more people to pay and it becomes less efficient and cost effective. Private companies are forced to be efficient and cost effective or else they will go out of business. It is true that our health care system has some serious issues, but there isn't one country out there that has a better system than ours. We can say that socialized medicine works in Germany or England or Spain or Canada, but it isn't working as well as in America. Yes, people are dying, people aren't getting the care they need, people are going bankrupt, but it is still better than the alternative. Is it any surprise that the wealthy in the socialized countries come to America for their health care and pay out of pocket even though they get it for "free" in their country. I think we can definitely improve upon what we currently have rather than turn to government run health care.
I hope this answers your question.
Hmm... I guess it answers the question, but it still doesn't solve problems (I am NOT blaming your answer, I am blaming the fact that there are no easy answers). We can go on forever about whether to have socialized medicine or not, but the fact is something MUST be done in THIS country about health care. I don't know what that is, but I think we have to start somewhere, and I am encouraged that Obama is wanting to do something.
The rich will always be able to get whatever care they want, from the best doctors. It is the middle class and poor who cannot. We may supposedly have access to the best doctors and procedures, but only if our insurance covers those doctors and procedures- which many do not. That's why I am saying that if the govt subsidizes programs, tests, doctors, etc. it would cut down on the cost to employers and the average joes while still providing the care needed.
I don't know- this is a tough issue, but one that needs to be dealt with.
I agree that the system needs to be improved. I just don't agree that transferring the responsibility to the govt. is the answer. If you look at Medicare and Medicaid it is not run as well as the private insurance companies. It is wasteful and expensive. So why would we want to give them the responsibility to run the rest of the nations coverage? If they proved that they could do a good job then there would be a better argument, but they don't so let's not run the risk of making it worse. Less people will be helped under the government because they will need to cut costs and so then the fear is that they will start deciding who deserves the procedures and who doesn't. If someone is too old, well, they'll die anyway so we can't waste money on them. If someone is too terminal then we can't continue to waste money on them because they are going to die anyway. etc. The only reason why I mentioned the wealthy in other countries was to make the point that they want American doctors. We have the best system let's not mimic another country that doesn't do it as well as us (there isn't one country out there that does it better than us). As far as I'm concerned since we are the best let's just do what we can to improve upon ourselves. Also, you mentioned that the employer might get a tax break or it will be less expensive for them because they don't have to pay those types of benefits. But, the money has to come from somewhere. You can only tax the rich so much. So who will end up footing the bill, the rest of the Americans. It's just a transfer of funds from the employer to the employee. Hello tax increase--I know I can't afford one right now. Also, since it will cost more it will end up taking an even larger chunk out of our paychecks. I know that I don't want to triple my health care expenses, we can't afford it. So, what's the answer, I don't know, but I know that the government isn't the answer at all.
Right now more and more employers are cutting back or cutting entirely benefits. It used to be that health benefits were given with every job, now it is not. My dad owns a small business and health care costs are killing him- he may have to stop giving them. Our benefits are costing more for less- in fact, it will cost 10 TIMES more to have this baby then it was to have Audra. So the problem seems to be the cost- that's why insurance companies deny, deny, deny and so many are without coverage. I agree that government shouldn't control the health care industry, but like you said- who is going to pay for the rising costs? Employers can't because they will go out of business, and employess can't because it's so expensive it would make us all go broke. Who does that leave? If the government could give money to the private insurance companies- where they could remain private but still provide all the services needed by their clients- maybe that could work. Like with Lockheed- they are government employees in that they are paid by the govt, but they are a private industry. I don't know- I just hope by the time we have our next kid (IF we have another!) the costs would not have gone up 10times again. If so, we might move to Germany to have our baby- so then we could afford it!
Christina, you are defaulting to the government, but where does the Government get their money from? We are the government, we pay the taxes so why should we pay higher taxes just to have the government run or subsidize it? That just means an even bigger chunk out of our paychecks. Have you ever looked at a German pay check to see what percentage of their salary they actually take home?
I suppose we can go back and forth forever on this- I guess this is why we are supposed to leave it up to the "experts" (whoever they are). One thing is for sure, it will be interesting to see what happens in this regard!
I think you guys avoided a tornado siren today- congratulations!!!!
Yes, just for today, there's always tomorrow. We had the sirens go off 3 times in one week!
Post a Comment