|
Carrington Ward
1/14/2009 6:07 PM | I'd say we're best off stabilizing the patient before taking her in for surgery.
|
|
LauraRN
1/14/2009 6:08 PM | Would you please give President Elect Obama a CHANCE to CHANGE things...he is not even officially in office yet for cryin out loud! I do not think that PE Obama is ignoring his supporters.....are you not getting your voice heard by simply accessing this website? We the people have not had this opportunity to have this kind of access to a President in the history of our nation! Be glad that Obama cares enough to have provided a site like this so that our voices CAN and will be heard. |
|
TLett
1/14/2009 6:08 PM | For those nay sayers who claim a tax funded healthcare plan is socialism - how do they justify the other essential services they receive such as police, fire, sanitation, and education, etc that are all funded tax money!
Health care is an essential service.
How do membersof Congress sleep at night, legislating tax funded health ins., tax breaks and pay raises for themselves and none for the people! |
|
Frost
1/14/2009 6:09 PM | If the Government can establish a national health care, it can put restrictions on what doctor you see, for what, what medications you can be prescribed and demand access to your medical records, because afterall, they are paying for it. The answer is not Universal healthcare. Especially with us running in the trillions of dollars in debt.
By doing away with the capitalistic nature of our system, doctors won't be bothered to see more than the bare minimum of patients, provide more than the most basic of health care or push themselves to improve because there is no motivation to do so. Proof can be found in our own VA health care system. Vets going to the VA find themselves in understaffed, overburdened hospitals that can't keep up with teh demand for their services. Lines are long and medications are given based on trial and error. You aren't paying for the service, you have to suck it up. Complaints aren't looked at, because there is no incentive, you're not paying for services and you have to come back because it's free.
No, keep things capitalistic, let our system work |
|
The Progressive Logic Guy
1/14/2009 6:14 PM | Laura
Do you REALLY belive what you said? "We the people have not had this opportunity to have this kind of access to a President in the history of our nation! Be glad that Obama cares enough to have provided a site like this so that our voices CAN and will be heard. "
We are talking to each other. Obama will never read this stuff. And none of this will have any impact on policy making in the White House.
Obama is a hero for breaking the color barrier. But he owes his job to the superrich who started funding his campaign in late 2006.
You need to nurse a little skepticism. Don't believe everything the gov tells you. |
|
Idgy
1/14/2009 6:15 PM | No one seems to realize that we already have rationing of healthcare going on, and we already have the insurance companies calling the shots on what is covered and what isn't. The job would simply change from the insurance and drug companies to a government agency. I think the government agency would give the poor better odds of getting care, but only in an ethical and moral government that doesn't cater to lobbyists
|
|
practical
1/14/2009 6:18 PM | Although a single payer system looks attractive, there would be a hugh debt to make it happen and a further breakdown of our systems of insurance that give the consumer some choices. That is not to mention the obligations that companies offered to employees that they will try to escape if it is a totally Federal Government program. Setting standards or targets for care vs cost, direct Federal support of hospital equipment purchase, a plan to delimit malpractice costs, getting non paying illegal immigrants out of the health care system, and 'privatizing' Medicaid as it was done for Medicare through plan C,the Medicare Advantage option, would keep the private insurers profitable and the companies still responsible for the lower cost health plans that would result. It would also not substantially increase the money paid out by the Federal Government - your tax dollars. |
|
Denver-Ed
1/14/2009 6:21 PM | We need to come back to this web site in a year and see where things stand. This has never been done or tried before. I am optimistic, some to the suggestiong will be read, and implemented. We shouldn't be upset because our particular idea or comment didn't make it to the oval office. Smile and laugh, be happy. This is really good stuff. |
|
Fred-DallasOR
1/14/2009 6:32 PM | I hate to bring it up but our health care system is not working.
Millions have no health coverage. American health care is sub-standard when measured against every other industrialized nation. Studies have shown that the overhead for private/for profit health care is 30% while the overhead for medicare is 14%. Where would you like to spend your health care dollars, on overhead or actual medical care? Americans spend more on health care than anyone else in the world and have a worse level of outcome.
Plus we could save billions by merging all the existing government health programs (Veterans, Retired Military, Native American, Public Health Service), into a single efficient program. When I say efficient I mean designed and run by non-partisan experts, not by political hacks as evidenced by the last eight years (You're doing a heckuva job Brownie).
BTW, the DVA health care system is backed up because the Bush administration won't give it the budget to do its job. When one sends people to war one has a duty to insure that those wounded in that endeaver are properly cared for. That concept was swept under the rug from day one. Don't claim getting screwed in the budget is a systemic problem. I'm a customer of the VA Medical System and the people are great, the care is great and their attitude is exceptional. They just don't have the money to provide the care they wish they could provide. I haven't seen my primary care physician in 18 months because he's so damn busy.
As far as fixing the problem, we will do so on January 20th, 2009.
At least America's Dark Ages were only eight years.
|
|
Fred-DallasOR
1/14/2009 6:33 PM | I hate to bring it up but our health care system is not working.
Millions have no health coverage. American health care is sub-standard when measured against every other industrialized nation. Studies have shown that the overhead for private/for profit health care is 30% while the overhead for medicare is 14%. Where would you like to spend your health care dollars, on overhead or actual medical care? Americans spend more on health care than anyone else in the world and have a worse level of outcome.
Plus we could save billions by merging all the existing government health programs (Veterans, Retired Military, Native American, Public Health Service), into a single efficient program. When I say efficient I mean designed and run by non-partisan experts, not by political hacks as evidenced by the last eight years (You're doing a heckuva job Brownie).
BTW, the DVA health care system is backed up because the Bush administration won't give it the budget to do its job. When one sends people to war one has a duty to insure that those wounded in that endeaver are properly cared for. That concept was swept under the rug from day one. Don't claim getting screwed in the budget is a systemic problem. I'm a customer of the VA Medical System and the people are great, the care is great and their attitude is exceptional. They just don't have the money to provide the care they wish they could provide. I haven't seen my primary care physician in 18 months because he's so damn busy.
As far as fixing the problem, we will do so on January 20th, 2009.
At least America's Dark Ages were only eight years.
|
|
Fred-DallasOR
1/14/2009 6:34 PM | OOOps, hit the button twice. Sorry! |
|
deedah
1/14/2009 6:36 PM | Two points:
I agree with Idgy -- the government would be better to pay for health care. Besides, we have tried the "capitalistic system" for how many years now, and way too many of us can no longer afford to see a doctor.
Point No. 2: There is nothing, NOTHING that would stimulate the economy more than single-payer, for the following reasons:
1. It takes the monkey off the backs of businesses, and frees them up to build widgets, or do whatever it is they do.
2. It gives ALL of us equal opportunity to have health care -- those of us who find ourselves in lower paying jobs, or are unfortunate enough to be struck by cancer, or MS, or any other disease -- and isn't equal opportunity what this is about?.
3. It would put IMMEDIATE bucks into everyone's pockets. Whatever tax dollars are used to pay for it, it can't possibly be as much as insurance premiums, even for "junk insurance". People could pay their mortgages and keep their homes. People would not have to choose among buying groceries, paying for heat, or buying their (lifesaving) medicines.
4. The security and peace of mind that comes with knowing that we can take our kids to the doctor, or have a test, or use an ambulance without going bankrupt would allow us all to change jobs, start a business, and BE MORE PRODUCTIVE because the stress of health cost worries would be gone.
5. We would also be more productive because we would be a healthier society -- getting care when a problem is less expensive to treat, instead of waiting until it gets so bad that we have to use more-expensive emergency room treatment.
Doesn't all this make sense? Yes, health care IS being rationed now, by the insurance companies, and because of cost.
All of the other civilized countries have found a way to make it work. I can't believe that the US doesn't have the brain power to figure a way to do this.
SINGLE PAYER NOW!! |
|
deedah
1/14/2009 6:42 PM | Another couple of points:
Single payer would also allow doctors to practice medicine instead of trying to deal with insurance companies.
Also, perhaps we could get more primary care docs by forgiving med school debt for 10 years as a primary care physician, or something like that. |
|
Rebekah
1/14/2009 7:20 PM | The amount of personal creativity that would be released in this country if we had universal health care would be amazing. Think about it, if someone were just starting up a business in a small town that was struggling to survive and got appendicitis with no health insurance, that would be the end of that business. Think of the artists who work at jobs that kill their creativity "for the benfits". Think of women with children staying in bad, even abusive marriages because one of the children has special needs so they need his benefits. We will all be amazed by the energy released.when people are not working fulltime jobs in order to have healthcare. And why not have 24 hour primary care clinics to provide the care, not just fullservice emergency rooms. We all know children get most of their acute earaches at midnight on Saturday... If people could just get a little help at the begining of a problem our healthcare would be much less expensive and traumatizing. |
|
HR676 Single Payer
1/14/2009 7:57 PM | HR676 <- enact |
|
mjbs
1/15/2009 11:11 AM | I agree completely with Rebekah.
I'm a physician. I've been fortunate enough to be able to travel quite a bit outside the US, and have had many discussions with friends and acquaintances in countries that have public health care for their citizens. To talk to them, it seems that the de-coupling of health insurance / health care from work COMPLETELY changes the employee-employer relationship. People are less willing to stay in unfulfilling jobs for the health care alone. People don't have to worry about being one illness away from financial ruin (this happened to my brother). People don't have to worry that if they're laid off or disabled, their kids won't have health insurance. People have the mobility to move to other parts of the country where opportunities may be better. I can't imagine how this would not be better than what we have now. There is also an emphasis on outcomes-based medicine, with more
emphasis on preventative care - something we are desperately lacking in health care in this country. |
|
LauraRN
1/15/2009 11:27 AM | Progressive Logic Guy: Who do you think you are talking to? I am not some wet behind the ears dingdong who doesn't know who our government has been screwing the people they are supposed to serve...why don't YOU nurse a little respect for people...you sound like a real jerk. |
|
Triango
1/18/2009 3:06 PM | Please, theory is great but having lived under 2 social healthcare systems for 10 years (England and Australia), I can tell you they are capped services, end of story.
In other words, health care is a modern miracle and is VERY expensive. A common system for "all" simply means that "all" (except those who make extra health care benefit payments, e.g. employers or the rich) will get minimal care.
Do you really want "minimal care"? By minimal I mean that you may or may not get needed knee surgery within 18 months if at all, you may not be seen by a specialist for 14 weeks (UK), and your cataracts may be removed from one eye and then 6 months later for the other (UK).
So, let's let the new administration experiment with fixing what we have, which is the greatest QUALITY health care on Earth, before we start capping it for everyone with the government paying for all. |
