Socialism is the second biggest evil in the world next to communism. We should have a pure capitalistic society where money is the only objective. There should be no medicare or social security. Government agencies like EPA and FDA should be disbanded. Companies should do what ever it takes to get the most profit, monopoly achieved through market force is the best form of capitalism ever! Child labor be praised! The list will go on and on. Don't you know that China is more capitalistic in many ways than the US now? How could our great nation let that happen to us?
and this shows how out of touch you are with the way the current system is arranged. I'm a little closer to the system than most I think - especially with what is wrong with the system. My daughter is on a list of "automatic disqualification" for any private health insurance that is commercially available. The only way I can insure she has coverage is for either her mom or myself to work for a government agency as they cannot deny family members due to pre-existing conditions. If she isn't covered through one of her parent's government jobs the last recourse is through a "high risk pool" which isn't a guarantee that you will receive coverage. Considering she has already had over $200,000.00 in medical expenses due to a life threatening surgery to enlarge the base of her skull and grind off part of her top two vertebrae at age 2.5 going without coverage simply isn't an option. If my ex-wife quit her teaching job the only recourse I have is to pay $1,000.00 a month to continue that same coverage. If I choose not to there is a very high chance she will not qualify for the "high risk pool" and will be left without coverage completely. Add in my current expenses and there is no way I can cover myself so a visit to the doctor is simply out of the question for me. I honestly cannot afford to get sick. You can say what you want about possible solutions but the fact is the current system is broken. It is designed for maximum profit as are all private enterprises. In this one area of our society we spend much more and get much less than so many countries that at some point you have to open up to the possiblity that there is a better way to go about things for the good of the people. It's easy for someone who hasen't been snared in the current loopholes to sit back and say things like "people should get a job" or "people should pony up for insurance" or "providing universal health care is socialism" but the bottom line is that the current system is broken for many; even if it is working for you. My daughter is 7 now. What is she going to do when she is 18? If the current system is in place then her only choice will be to work for the government if she wants medical coverage. The fact that she was denied at age 2 for private insurance is quite simply bull****.
Are you serious?! I mean I'm all for bringing equality to people and everything, but the plan that was proposed sounds similar to that of a Communist/Socialist society. The heavy taxing of the rich to create a national healthcre system doesn't sound fair to me. In a Socialist society there aren't any rich but this sounds like a way to even things up a bit. I don't know if I explained this clearly, but it also sounds like there will be much government intervention despite what Hilary said. It's impossible for there not to be. I just think this plan sounds good in theory but it will not work.
Unfortunately . . to me . . .I think this is a zero sum game You cannot make everyone equal . . without taking from someone else You cannot give something to the poor. . .without that money coming from somewhere So to say you for equality . . but not for taking from the rich . . . well . . almost like by default. . you are not for equality To me . . it is about the best interest of society not the Few Rich Folx They will still get the best of the best .. . cause they rich and can afford it but like I said. .. If universal healthcare is good at preventing spread of diseases and decreasing the longer term more expensive problems. . why not have it Rocke River
wow...i'm sincerely so sorry you and your family have had to endure that. i can not stomach suggesting that the wealthiest country in the history of the world can't make sure she always gets the treatment she needs. but beyond that...please let me know if there's anything I can do besides pray for you guys.
there aren't any wealthy people in socialist countries??? really??? the UK has socialized medicine...i'm thinking it has some wealthy people living there.
I sincerely appreciate that, but she is fine and wonderful. There are possible issues she may have down the road (including a possible repeat of that first procedure God forbid) but for now things are roses and she is beautiful. If my ex quits her job at some point in the future then the prayers will indeed be required. And I'll figure out what to do when she turns 18 when she turns 18. Hopefully the health care system will be in a different place by then. Cheers, Brock
Of course the fact that drug companies can recoup research and development costs in the United States means that we will get innovative and cutting edge new medicines and treatments. Most of the developed countries with price ceilings produce very few new drugs/treatments. The ability to turn a profit equals new health care innovation. If you take out the incentive to make money or recoup development costs, then you take away new medicine. FYI...it costs an average of $880 million to take a drug from the lab to the market. If a company can't make that back, you don't get any new treatments.
Universal care is not socialized medicine and is a necessity, and the current system is still broken (but not for reasons many of you believe) but making strides to improve. For businesses to provide healthcare coverage was a fluke and not optimum. For instance, a business' priorities might not be consistent with an employees... e.g. it may not want to pay for preventative care that would not 'pay off' for decades... one example being mammograms. The government would have no such hesitation. Some of the excessive medical fees one sees essentially includes a surcharge for some of the services rendered to under- or uninsured. Around 1/3rd of our $2 trillion in healthcare every year is Medicare and Medicaid ... so we already have 'nationalized care' paying a good chunk of the bill. The crux of the problem is that healthcare quality is not easy to assess. When the free market system cannot properly assign value, the sector will face difficulties. Compound that with the fox-in-the-hen-house (about 70% of all care is 'initiated' by physicians) and you get a mess. Managed care has been working on tools to quantify the quality of care. US News and World report picked up on it and now uses these measurements as a basis for grading health plans each year. The evaluations are now extending into the physician networks and generic reimbusements for medical service will be replaced with mechanisms to reward good medical providers and punish bad ones. Another area where we face difficulties is in the final years and/or months of someone's life. With private insurance, we spend many many thousands trying to keep a 95 year-old alive for 2 more months, whereas w/ socialized medicine w/ set regional budgets they tend to handle that ... differently (draw your own conclusions). Aside from it's universal coverage, socialized medicine sucks and does not repair the basic problems with healthcare. It adds a bunch of new ones that Americans wouldn't accept (heh... you want that surgery? Call back in 15 months, we're over budget.) Socialized medicine just won't happen.... the discussion is purely wrt Universal Coverage.
So you're advocating for us to subsidize the rest of the world prescriptions? And how do reconcile your argument with what's arguably the most consistently 'most profitable' industry in the nation? (google 'most profitable industry', banks and oil compete in some years but they're cyclical).
That's right, because things were so much better before HMO/PPOs slowed down the runaway train. Before cost and volume controls on unnecessary and unneeded medical services were initiated by said companies, healthcare inflation was double what it has been since. Again... it was all fox-in-the-henhouse before. One example ... a law had to be passed to disallow physican ownership of radiological facilities since studies found them sending patients there significantly more for unnecessary services to maximize revenues. And for those of you who believe more care is always better.... most diagnostic test have a percentage of false positives. Nw that first unnecessary test might not have been too bad, but the next test will likely be much more invasive and run the risk of iatrogenic illness (physician-induced). So you might not have been sick before... The best quality and most cost efficient care (they are interrelated) is to provide only what's necessary and appropriate. Make no mistake, managed care (hmo/ppo/pos) is not perfect, but it showed up for a reason. Agreed.
Few people do, and I hope that doesn't sink the idea. It's desperately needed. Now we just need someone other than hillary to propose it...
Someone has... Quality Affordable Health Care for All by the End of Barack Obama's First Term in Office http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/
This is simply not possible in the state of Texas. Employer sponsored health insurance plans, whether they are government employers or not, cannot reject dependents based on any medical conditions. Furthermore, if you've had no lapse of coverage which it seems your daughter hasn't, they can't attach any pre-ex riders to the policy. On an individual policy? Sure. But on a group plan it's illegal. If you work for a small business her medical condition could cause the group's rate to skyrocket, but again, they deny her coverage if the group has a policy in force. Edit: By the way, the state of Texas also allows dependent children to remain insured up until the age 25.
