This bit on Politico.com zeros on the problem. Continuing the current system means 10, 20, 30 even 40 percent increases in health insurance every year, eating into incomes and making us all poorer, not to mention larger and larger numbers of uninsured.
This country needs to stop dickering around and just create a national health care system.
And please don't tell me that people don't want government meddling in their heath care. That is hyperbole based on scare tactics about non-existent death panels and fantasies of bureaucrats sitting in hospital rooms over ruling doctors.
Throughout this whole debate, the public has shown support for a public option, or government run insurance plan meant to lower costs and expand coverage.
They don't like the current plan because it's too complicated, too full of horse-trade, and been run through the legislative grinder.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
They don't like the current plan because it's too complicated, too full of horse-trade, and been run through the legislative grinder.
You haven't seen anything yet, if you think the Public Option is a viable answer!
The horse will be out of the corral and running wild!
The Public option won't solve any thing and will only make things worse!
Sure they will say healthcare coverage for almost everyone with exchanges where you can buy insurance at reduced rates with no doubt reduced options!
But then I don't think you'll see those in Congress getting on the Public Option Bandwagon!
They will still want to ride FIRST CLASS!
Oh, for the days of the Kings, noblemen, surfs and paupers - from hence we came we now return!
All you have to do is look at Canada or Cuba, ans see all the problems they have with their socialized healthcare, to know that it's a bad idea.
Name one program that the government has ever ran better than the private sector.
Why should my family have to stand in the same long line as all the welfare recipients? We have the money to buy good healthcare insurance, so why should we be subjected to the same assembly line of overworked and underpaid doctors as the bums who have no choice? They can be treated for free in the present system by going to the emergency room. The law requires people be treated whether they can pay or not.
I geuss I'm trying to figure out how medicare for all would save money. Medicare is already in the hole 58 billion dollars. so how can putting millions more be a money saver? Besides have you ever seen how much medicare pays the providers for each visit? Its a low sum. I have about five years experience as a medical billing executive. I go through loads of paper work and billing collecting from insurance companies as well as medicare. I have to tell you, the insurance companies pay a heck of alot better than medicare does. For example, Alot of times if a Dr. charges $100 for an initial visit, the average payout from a medicare claim is only about $15, where as the insurance company will usually fork out about $60 to $70. The private insurance companies provide a way better service to the patient and the Dr. whereas medicare alot of times don't. Now I know that private ins. companies are not perfect, but I believe the solution of opening up state to state competition would bring ins. costs way down. Kind of like auto ins. does it. With medicare, it is getting harder and harder to find dr's that will take medicare, and if they do, they have to see a large amount of patients each day in order to make any money. That cuts way back on the quality of health care that the patient gets. I think we could definately find a way to solve the "pre exsisting condition" clause that insurance companies have. That and cost are the only problems I see with our private healthcare system. But I would have to agree with the democrats about the whole pre exsisting condition thing that prevents some people from getting insurance. Medicare does have the upper hand on that aspect of the arguement.
Post a Comment