Wednesday, July 22, 2009
What's so bad about government run healthcare?
As the debate over healthcare-reform rages, I am struck by the misinformation that abounds as to what true universal healthcare can and should entail.
Yes, universal healthcare would mean that the government runs the healthcare system. How is that a bad thing? This takes the control away from the insurance companies who now make the decisions on whether or not you get the treatment your Doctor has recommended for you and this includes your dentist. No, it does not mean that you will wait in line for hours to see a doctor – nor does it mean that you will not get to see the same doctor over and over.
Many insurance policies today, require you to see whoever is on staff at a medical group when you make an appointment – it may or may not be the doctor you saw last month. If you go to an emergent care clinic for treatment, you may currently have to wait a few hours before you get the treatment you need, depending on the types of situations that come through the door. If yours is not life threatening, you will wait. With Universal Healthcare, you will get to make an appointment to see your doctor – if you don’t, you may have to wait a bit longer. With Universal Healthcare, a doctor will have the time to really get to know you and your situation and will be able to treat your causes rather than your symptoms, thereby making you well rather than just keeping you feeling ok. It is a win-win scenario for everyone. The US will, in general, become a healthier nation.
I am curious as to when we became a citizenry so meek that we will cow-tow to big business such as insurance companies rather than listen to what is right and what our doctor and ourselves agree upon as the correct course of treatment for us.
The United States has become the most pill-popping country in the world. If it hurts, if it’s too high, too low, or just needs a slight modification that could be made by behavior, we’ll pop a pill instead.
The pharmaceutical companies do not want you to be well – they do not want to find a cure for cancer, or diabetes, or leukemia – no, their profit margins go out the window if that were to happen. And the insurance companies are making millions by charging high premiums on those who can least afford them because of pre-existing conditions – many of which have been treated and mitigated either by surgery or by drugs. But then, those same drugs that mitigate the pre-existing condition are taken to a higher drug tier and the generics are not as effective or cause more side effects than the brand name, so the person is left with a choice of paying either their heat bill or their medication bill. And I am not just talking about senior citizens here.
Let’s reward our Doctors for making us better - not keeping us sick or treating the symptoms but for treating the cause. The healthier they make us, the better their paycheck.
There will still be major illness and there will still be a need for specialists but the impetus will be to create a healthier population not a richer medical profession.
The lifting of the burden of healthcare off the shoulders of every American citizen could be the boost to the economy that this country so desperately needs. Imagine not having to worry about paying for that doctor visit, hospital stay, emergency room visit or that surgery that your child so desperately needs but you have no way of paying for. Imagine having a standard charge for every prescription you are written regardless of the drug.
Pharmaceutical companies are given millions in government grants to develop new drugs for all types of diseases but those taxpayer dollars are not given back to the taxpayers in the form of reduced charges for prescriptions – in reverse in most cases – we are charged more and pay it without so much as a peep.
The question of how to pay for this keeps coming up in this debate –and the correlation between tax reform and healthcare reform is no coincidence. While we are talking about a paradigm shift here in our thinking about taking care of people rather than companies, let’s talk about fairness in our tax system as well.
Remove the loopholes, the tax shelters, and other items that provide the wealthiest 1% of the population from paying their fair share of taxes in the first place.
Start taxing those US businesses that outsource their production and services to foreign countries an additional surtax for the revenue generated by doing so. While they are posting huge profits they are also reducing their US labor workforce. There must be a penalty paid for doing so.
Create an environment whereby insurance companies will have to re-think how they sell insurance and what products they sell. Healthcare will no longer be one of their products, nor will prescription or dental insurance.
Yes, universal healthcare would mean that the government runs the healthcare system. How is that a bad thing? This takes the control away from the insurance companies who now make the decisions on whether or not you get the treatment your Doctor has recommended for you and this includes your dentist. No, it does not mean that you will wait in line for hours to see a doctor – nor does it mean that you will not get to see the same doctor over and over.
Many insurance policies today, require you to see whoever is on staff at a medical group when you make an appointment – it may or may not be the doctor you saw last month. If you go to an emergent care clinic for treatment, you may currently have to wait a few hours before you get the treatment you need, depending on the types of situations that come through the door. If yours is not life threatening, you will wait. With Universal Healthcare, you will get to make an appointment to see your doctor – if you don’t, you may have to wait a bit longer. With Universal Healthcare, a doctor will have the time to really get to know you and your situation and will be able to treat your causes rather than your symptoms, thereby making you well rather than just keeping you feeling ok. It is a win-win scenario for everyone. The US will, in general, become a healthier nation.
I am curious as to when we became a citizenry so meek that we will cow-tow to big business such as insurance companies rather than listen to what is right and what our doctor and ourselves agree upon as the correct course of treatment for us.
The United States has become the most pill-popping country in the world. If it hurts, if it’s too high, too low, or just needs a slight modification that could be made by behavior, we’ll pop a pill instead.
The pharmaceutical companies do not want you to be well – they do not want to find a cure for cancer, or diabetes, or leukemia – no, their profit margins go out the window if that were to happen. And the insurance companies are making millions by charging high premiums on those who can least afford them because of pre-existing conditions – many of which have been treated and mitigated either by surgery or by drugs. But then, those same drugs that mitigate the pre-existing condition are taken to a higher drug tier and the generics are not as effective or cause more side effects than the brand name, so the person is left with a choice of paying either their heat bill or their medication bill. And I am not just talking about senior citizens here.
Let’s reward our Doctors for making us better - not keeping us sick or treating the symptoms but for treating the cause. The healthier they make us, the better their paycheck.
There will still be major illness and there will still be a need for specialists but the impetus will be to create a healthier population not a richer medical profession.
The lifting of the burden of healthcare off the shoulders of every American citizen could be the boost to the economy that this country so desperately needs. Imagine not having to worry about paying for that doctor visit, hospital stay, emergency room visit or that surgery that your child so desperately needs but you have no way of paying for. Imagine having a standard charge for every prescription you are written regardless of the drug.
Pharmaceutical companies are given millions in government grants to develop new drugs for all types of diseases but those taxpayer dollars are not given back to the taxpayers in the form of reduced charges for prescriptions – in reverse in most cases – we are charged more and pay it without so much as a peep.
The question of how to pay for this keeps coming up in this debate –and the correlation between tax reform and healthcare reform is no coincidence. While we are talking about a paradigm shift here in our thinking about taking care of people rather than companies, let’s talk about fairness in our tax system as well.
Remove the loopholes, the tax shelters, and other items that provide the wealthiest 1% of the population from paying their fair share of taxes in the first place.
Start taxing those US businesses that outsource their production and services to foreign countries an additional surtax for the revenue generated by doing so. While they are posting huge profits they are also reducing their US labor workforce. There must be a penalty paid for doing so.
Create an environment whereby insurance companies will have to re-think how they sell insurance and what products they sell. Healthcare will no longer be one of their products, nor will prescription or dental insurance.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
What's in a word...
Apparently the Supreme Court in Iowa has the elderly population up in arms and calling their Representatives.
One such Representative - Clel Baudler, who represents the 58th District in Iowa wrote to his constituents the following: "...all Republicans are standing up for marriage with the majority of Iowans. We cannot wash our hands of this and say this is over. We need to amend Iowa’s Constitution. We must allow the will of the people to prevail and give them their say. The ramifications of this issue go far beyond our time in history. This issue and these choices are making history for our state and nation."
Now, you may say...oh, he's a Republican! - That may be, but once that Republican is elected to office, they are beholden to the entire electorate - not just the Republicans. That electorate includes Gays and Lesbians.
The problem with using a popular vote for this type of issue harkens back to the time of women's suffrage and the time of slavery. Had there been a popular vote about slavery, slavery would not have been abolished when it was, nor would their have been the option for women to vote as early as they were afforded the right had the option been left up to the electorate which at the time consisted primarily of rich white men. Dare I say that they would not be quick to allow anyone else to enjoy that right along with them...
No, this issue is ripe for the judicial system - necessary. Marriage is a contract between two loving adults - the commitment to be with and care for each other. Children may or may not fit into the equation. What gender the two loving adults happen to be, makes no difference nor will it in any way shape or form, weaken the idea of marriage. Civil marriage is different from holy marriage and the church can have their ceremony but the state will still have to collect the fee for the license. Keep the church and state separate or start taxing the churches as every other business is taxed.
Too much craziness!
I've been stunned by the recent information coming from Mexico about how many of the guns that have been siezed in the drug raids have been US guns. I guess I really shouldn't be, after all - we Americans - read NRA - believe that without our assault weapons in our homes, our lives and our rights as citizens are in danger.
It has also recently been reported that best business to be in right now is the gun trade. Business is booming because the NRA again believes that President Obama has nothing better to do than to sit at the White House and focus on taking away the right to bear arms.
No, the issue isn't about the right to bear arms, the issue is about the type of arms you are bearing. Let me ask this question...
Just where the heck do you live that you need to have an assault rifle?
Unless you are enlisted in the military or are a member of the police force, there is absolutely NO reason for you to have possession of an assault rifle. They are not used for hunting of game in this country or any other for that matter...the game you were hunting would be blown to smithereens!!! Get a grip.
I'll support your right to have a single or double-shot rifle, a pistol or a bow and arrow...NOT an assault rifle, AK47 or any other type of machine gun like it. That is just asking for trouble and unless you are a felon asking for trouble, you really wouldn't want them anyway, would you?
It has also recently been reported that best business to be in right now is the gun trade. Business is booming because the NRA again believes that President Obama has nothing better to do than to sit at the White House and focus on taking away the right to bear arms.
No, the issue isn't about the right to bear arms, the issue is about the type of arms you are bearing. Let me ask this question...
Just where the heck do you live that you need to have an assault rifle?
Unless you are enlisted in the military or are a member of the police force, there is absolutely NO reason for you to have possession of an assault rifle. They are not used for hunting of game in this country or any other for that matter...the game you were hunting would be blown to smithereens!!! Get a grip.
I'll support your right to have a single or double-shot rifle, a pistol or a bow and arrow...NOT an assault rifle, AK47 or any other type of machine gun like it. That is just asking for trouble and unless you are a felon asking for trouble, you really wouldn't want them anyway, would you?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)