-7 votes
I disagreeI would like to see Well Care available for all U.S. citizens at a reasonable cost. This should either be required of all insurance companies in the U.S. or a government program should be available. Especially those with birth defects that disqualify them from private health plans.
1 vote
I disagreeThe word prevention from my point of view means using whatever means available to keep people healthy so they will not be a burden to our very expensive health care system. For that we turn to our health care specialists who know how to do prevention. But Wait; medical prevention means getting an early diagnosis to that diseases are discovered early on, in the hopes that they can become curtailed and less costly. Has ...more »
The word prevention from my point of view means using whatever means available to keep people healthy so they will not be a burden to our very expensive health care system. For that we turn to our health care specialists who know how to do prevention. But Wait; medical prevention means getting an early diagnosis to that diseases are discovered early on, in the hopes that they can become curtailed and less costly. Has this worked? Yes, but it comes with an increased price tag and no real guarantee that the disease will be abolished, rather it has been medicated, leading to expensive side effects, increased drug usage, eventual degenerative diseases, more expensive diagnosis and end stage treatment. As usual we have put the cart before the horse and asked the fox to guard the henhouse. So, what else is prevention? Prevention from my point of view is about dealing with the habits and destructive life styles that so many Americans indulge in. Face it, we are a society that trains its citizens to be unhealthy. Our public has been seduced into eating the wrong foods, laziness due to being stressed and sleep deprived, a medical system that provides a drug for every system. Who needs to control their diets, when they can lower their cholesterol and eat as much as they want, get obese with permission. If permission is given how can we possibly expect people to be interested in changing beahaviors.
« less full details »
-10 votes
I disagreehttp://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/mythbusting-canadian-health-care-part-i http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/06/07-0 http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_3_canadian_healthcare.html The first site is somewhat balanced, the second is pro and the third against the last two are both written by people have lived in both countries. Read especially the pro and against and weigh their points against each other, because ...more »
http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/mythbusting-canadian-health-care-part-i
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/06/07-0
http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_3_canadian_healthcare.html
The first site is somewhat balanced, the second is pro and the third against the last two are both written by people have lived in both countries.
Read especially the pro and against and weigh their points against each other, because it makes it seem clear (imo) that what is wrong with the Canadian system (the long waits and the unavailability of treatments) would not happen here because in the US we have far more trained doctors. Also, for the people less liberal than I am, consider that the system we have now allows illegal immigrants to receive health care and then leave the bills to citizens. In socialized care, they wouldn't be part of that system unless they were citizens, so the situation wouldn't arise.
« less full details »
5 votes
I disagreeHealth care changes have widespread public support, according to a CBS-New York Times poll released Saturday. Almost two-thirds say the government should guarantee health insurance for all Americans while half that many think it's not the government's responsibility.
Do you know anyone who supports this? I don't.
-4 votes
I disagreeThe government is charged with governing people. To this end, it must be made clear what public policy is being furthered when a law is moved on. For instance, we as a nation have long supported married couples through tax breaks (married filing jointly) and tax deductions for children. The public policy behind it is that we want our children to grow up in a household with married parents in that studies have shown ...more »
The government is charged with governing people. To this end, it must be made clear what public policy is being furthered when a law is moved on. For instance, we as a nation have long supported married couples through tax breaks (married filing jointly) and tax deductions for children. The public policy behind it is that we want our children to grow up in a household with married parents in that studies have shown that it is beneficial. Plus our country needs right-minded children in order to continue into the future. In that same sex partnerships cannot physically result in a pregnancy, Why did the President recently endorse marital rights to federal employees? What is the public policy behind it? What's next, same sex partner filing jointly?
As for health care, we already provide health care to our veterans. It is way of thanking those who have served. What is the public policy in providing health care to everyone? Part of governing people is applauding behavior that is wanted. Those who want "free" healthcare can have it if they serve our country. You can't just give something for nothing. Further, Medicaid and Medicare provide additional means to ensure the masses receive needed health care. There is no need to fix what's not broken. Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country.
« less full details »
29 votes
I disagreeIf our government thinks they need to JAM healthcare down our throats, they need to have the same policy. Why do our elected officials get the BEST money can buy? In fact, we should demand that their benefits get cut NOW.
2 votes
I disagreeHealth care is a right -- not a benefit. By virtue of being human and breathing (even with assistance) and/or having a pulse, every living person in our nation is ENTITLED to health care. Period. Insurance companies must be removed from the equation once and for all to allow costs, efficiency, and availability to meet the needs of all Americans.
-12 votes
I disagreeHave health insurance companies follow the same rules walmart does. If walmart refuses to sell you something you can sue them, if walmart gives someone 20% off the price and not you, you can sue them, so why do we let the health insurance companies do this? I say do not let the health insurance companies turn people away, instead sell them insurance, also if the health insurance plan is the same the price should be the ...more »
Have health insurance companies follow the same rules walmart does. If walmart refuses to sell you something you can sue them, if walmart gives someone 20% off the price and not you, you can sue them, so why do we let the health insurance companies do this? I say do not let the health insurance companies turn people away, instead sell them insurance, also if the health insurance plan is the same the price should be the same. Then give a tax credit to get everyone to have health insurance.
« less full details »
8 votes
I disagreeFrom Air Force One press briefing, June 11. THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary ________________________________________________ For Immediate Release June 11, 2009 PRESS GAGGLE BY DEPUTY PRESS SECRETARY BILL BURTON Aboard Air Force One En route Green Bay, Wisconsin 11:10 A.M. CDT MR. BURTON: When we land the President will be greeted on arrival by Governor Doyle, Congressman ...more »
From Air Force One press briefing, June 11.
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
________________________________________________
For Immediate Release June 11, 2009
PRESS GAGGLE
BY
DEPUTY PRESS SECRETARY BILL BURTON
Aboard Air Force One
En route Green Bay, Wisconsin
11:10 A.M. CDT
MR. BURTON: When we land the President will be greeted on arrival by Governor Doyle, Congressman Kagan, and Mayors Schmitt and Barrettt of Green Bay and Milwaukee. At the high school he'll be greeted by the school superintendent, Gregg Mass, and Principal Brian Davis and his wife, Dawn, and their four daughters. He'll have a couple of small meetings, one before and one after, with grassroots activists and local political leaders.
A couple facts about Wisconsin and Green Bay: In Green Bay unemployment is at 8.4 percent; Wisconsin as a whole, 8.6 percent; Green Bay has lost 5,400 jobs since December of '07. Wisconsin is a state, 137,500; and the rate of uninsured in Wisconsin is 8.5 percent.
Q I'm sorry, I didn't hear that.
MR. BURTON: It's 8.5 percent. I thought you had that in your story today. I guess not.
Q The activists that he's meeting with afterwards, how long will that be and who are they?
-------------------Below
MR. BURTON: It'll be pretty fast. It will be about 10 to 15 minutes and that's beforehand. They're just local grassroots activists -- he does it at most of these stops, just a normal meeting.
The meeting afterwards are leaders -- I don't have the full list with me, but it includes the Lieutenant Governor, Barbara Lawton and some others.
Q I'm sorry, activists on health care that he's meeting with before?
MR. BURTON: No, no, no, just local grassroots activists, people who are involved in the community in different ways.
-----------------Above
This is a demonstration of the actual thought processes in the Administrative Ranks.
Until they are actually committed to Open Government, there won't be one no matter what Obama says.
Continue to press for Open Government and point out these weaknesses in the support for it.
« less full details »
3 votes
I disagreeThere are hundreds of good ideas! In industry all good ideas are tested through the R&D process, i.e.: designed, prototyped, the bugs are ironed out, piloted, and so on. In a pilot test, a project is implemented on a small scale and tightly defined geographical location, and run for a time to study how it works, make changes during pilot, and eventually have a final implementation plan, or closed as unworkable. Legislation ...more »
There are hundreds of good ideas!
In industry all good ideas are tested through the R&D process, i.e.: designed, prototyped, the bugs are ironed out, piloted, and so on. In a pilot test, a project is implemented on a small scale and tightly defined geographical location, and run for a time to study how it works, make changes during pilot, and eventually have a final implementation plan, or closed as unworkable.
Legislation on the other hand is often generated by specialists, and special interests; they’re discuss in congress’ committees, pushed by lobbyists, and eventually passed, often without the public knowledge, understanding, or enough information and or participation
This idea would create an agency to fund and oversee the top 50 ideas.
Each idea, including this one, would go through approximately the following stages:
I. Development Stage: Refine the idea, through further discussion with and development of a complete plan with costs and time tables, milestones, as a standard business project.
II. Review Stage: Plan from the development stage is posted on sites for further comments and discussion, and further refinements may result from public comments.
III. Implementation Stage: convert the plan into a physical reality, and run it for the time established in the Pilot Plan.
IV. Final Stage: Observation and statistics collection, and final report to recommend continuation, permanent implementation, or termination.
This idea is immediately submitted as a Bill to fund its Stage I. After Stage I is completed, it’s plan is passed as a new bill, and piloted for a period of no less than 3 years, at which point it begins to fund and oversee the other top ideas. The Originator of the idea is given the funds by the treasury in the increments indicated in the plan... and so forth.
Above any other idea, this one will be beneficial to other ideas, the economy, Health Care, Open Government, Participation, in fact, every category and subcategory.
« less full details »
-3 votes
I disagreeAmericorp workers by and large are students working to help pay for school. Americorp by and large does really good work. Giving health care benefits to these students is least a start to covering some of the uninsured. Because young people generally have few serious problems, the cost would actually be pretty minimal.
-42 votes
I disagreeIf you had a choice between being an American citizen or being a citizen of Heaven, which would you choose? For our citizenship is in heaven, from which also we eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ; Philippians 3:20 I am choosing being a citizen of Heaven since Obama and his team is taking America straight to world citizenship, and then straight to hell. Citizen of Heaven = Thumbs up Citizen of America ...more »
If you had a choice between being an American citizen or being a citizen of Heaven, which would you choose?
For our citizenship is in heaven, from which also we eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ; Philippians 3:20
I am choosing being a citizen of Heaven since Obama and his team is taking America straight to world citizenship, and then straight to hell.
Citizen of Heaven = Thumbs up
Citizen of America = Thumbs down
« less full details »
-18 votes
I disagree"You will know a tree by it's fruit." Matthew 7:16 The Obama Tree is a black Oak. The leaves protect the tree from the light of truth. The bark is hard and callus to prevent transparency. The fruit is the ACORN, to reproduce itself again and again. The roots of deception go deep into the American soil. By David Craig Mastrianni © 2009 Toalterorabolish.com Please help me report any copying of the ...more »
"You will know a tree by it's fruit." Matthew 7:16
The Obama Tree is a black Oak.
The leaves protect the tree from the light of truth.
The bark is hard and callus to prevent transparency.
The fruit is the ACORN, to reproduce itself again and again.
The roots of deception go deep into the American soil.
By David Craig Mastrianni
© 2009 Toalterorabolish.com
Please help me report any copying of the original literary works by David Craig Mastrianni. Visit www.toalterorabolish.com or www.elegalplan.com and contact us.
« less full details »
-22 votes
I disagreeIt is time to remove the medical "insurance" system existing in USA. US is the only developed nation not promising "government subsidized" medical system. It is not "affordable insurance" we need, it is "affordable treatment". Keeping insurance in the middle layer, keeps cost of medicines extremely high, causing injustice to citizens in need (insurance claims rejected). Government subsidized medical system, without ...more »
It is time to remove the medical "insurance" system existing in USA. US is the only developed nation not promising "government subsidized" medical system.
It is not "affordable insurance" we need, it is "affordable treatment".
Keeping insurance in the middle layer, keeps cost of medicines extremely high, causing injustice to citizens in need (insurance claims rejected).
Government subsidized medical system, without "insurance layer" is the only solution.
Government need to care more about its citizens, than about pharmaceutical companies. Medicine is not business it is a service.
« less full details »
-17 votes
I disagreeUS medical system is 48th in the world, even though US still remains #1 economically. Can you point out any other developed nation treating medicine & hospitals as business? It is time to stop the "business" of pharmaceutical companies & insurance companies. You are never safe with the "medical insurance". When you need it, the insurance company is sure to reject your claim. But they will go un-noticed, because the person, ...more »
US medical system is 48th in the world, even though US still remains #1 economically. Can you point out any other developed nation treating medicine & hospitals as business?
It is time to stop the "business" of pharmaceutical companies & insurance companies. You are never safe with the "medical insurance". When you need it, the insurance company is sure to reject your claim. But they will go un-noticed, because the person, without medical attention wont be able to fight.
Free medicine like in Canada is what we want.
Do you know that the exact same medicine cost 1/60 of the price in Cuba?
Means we are paying 60 times more price for any medicine in USA.
It is NOT "medical" insurance for everyone that we need. It is "treatment" for everyone that we need.
It is not "affordable medical" that we need. It is "affordable treatment".
Keeping the "insurance" in the middle, always allow extremely huge prices for medicine, and rejection of insurance leading to injustice to citizens.
When the government talks about "affordable healthcare" what they really mean is "affordable insurance". This has to change. Affordable health care means, removal of Insurance, and "government subsidized health care".
« less full details »
66 votes
I disagreeIf we are to have socialized medicine forced down our throats, then it should also be good enough for Congress and the President to use. Congress and the President have the best health care plans money can buy. I'm sure they're very happy with their plans, but I think they should be made to live just like the common citizens they represent. If socialized medicine is good enough for us, then that's what they should have, ...more »
If we are to have socialized medicine forced down our throats, then it should also be good enough for Congress and the President to use. Congress and the President have the best health care plans money can buy. I'm sure they're very happy with their plans, but I think they should be made to live just like the common citizens they represent. If socialized medicine is good enough for us, then that's what they should have, complete with a health care czar that will tell them no when they need life saving surgery.
Do you notice how Congress and the President eat better meals than we do at our expense? It's time Congress and the President started eating stale bologna just like the rest of us working schlubs have to do! If stale bologna is good enough for us, it's more than good enough for them. Or perhaps we should start demanding wag yu beef subsidies? Perhaps we should start demanding we be served lunch in the Congressional dining facilities for free? What's good enough for the government is good enough for us! We should demnad it! Either that, or bring them down to our level. After all, isn't socialism about fairness?
« less full details »
-11 votes
I disagreeHi. This is just a rough idea, but I felt I should share it. Our country is dealing with a huge obesity problem. In short, we need to get this country to exercise. I think it would be worthwhile for the government to set aside funds to partially subsidize exercise and fitness programs. While we do have low cost alternatives like the YMCA and public park space for running and jogging that’s clearly not doing enough. ...more »
Hi. This is just a rough idea, but I felt I should share it.
Our country is dealing with a huge obesity problem. In short, we need to get this country to exercise.
I think it would be worthwhile for the government to set aside funds to partially subsidize exercise and fitness programs.
While we do have low cost alternatives like the YMCA and public park space for running and jogging that’s clearly not doing enough. And, for a lot of people those spaces now have a low class stigma to them. Regardless of how great they are.
Now maybe this is something that can be tackled with healthcare reform, or maybe it’s just part of boosting the nations morale, but I think it would be amazing if the government worked out a system where we could just walk into an eligible gym or fitness class and pay little or nothing. Gyms would have to meet specific criteria and obviously cost needs to be managed appropriately.
This would ultimately make America fitter and it would result in lower health care related costs (heart disease, diabetes, etc). A fit and healthy population needs less medical attention.
Maybe it’s something to be included in a (long fabled) “single payer” health care system. But in the meantime, I think it would be fantastic to see the government making a push to get America back in shape. If we the taxpayers all split the cost everyone could enjoy life at the fullest – even those who have recently lost their jobs.
I know our obesity is caused by a lot of cultural factors and that not everyone wants to go to a yoga class, lift weights, and run around a track; but, I think providing some sort of government funded exercise would be a big morale boot for America. It’s time we did something fun with our tax dollars. It can't all be war and auto bailouts.
« less full details »
35 votes
I disagreeAtul Gawande has article in this week's New Yorker on the reasons why health care costs in one town in Texas were the highest in the nation: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/090601fa_fact_gawande Apart from his larger point on the problem with the profit motive overtaking the imperative to provide the best care in the health care industry, I was very intrigued that all of the people he interviewed in Allen ...more »
Atul Gawande has article in this week's New Yorker on the reasons why health care costs in one town in Texas were the highest in the nation:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/090601fa_fact_gawande
Apart from his larger point on the problem with the profit motive overtaking the imperative to provide the best care in the health care industry, I was very intrigued that all of the people he interviewed in Allen were surprised to learn that their costs were so high comparable to the rest of the country. I haven't looked into what data is available or how it is available but if its not easy now to download a full dump of health care data (costs vs. health statistics) by county, than it should be.
With current advances in creating mapping and data 'mashups', it would be a relatively simple task to create a website where users (politicians, activists, reporters, and with luck even doctors) could view the data for their region in relation to the rest of the country.
« less full details »
-47 votes
I disagreeI believe that someone such as the Surgeon General should determine what a basic health plan (driven by public health care policies) should be. Once such a basic plan is determined all health insurance companies will be required to provide the provisions of such plan to any United States citizen. Insurance companies would be allowed to charge whatever price they determined is equitable but they would have to charge all ...more »
I believe that someone such as the Surgeon General should determine what a basic health plan (driven by public health care policies) should be. Once such a basic plan is determined all health insurance companies will be required to provide the provisions of such plan to any United States citizen. Insurance companies would be allowed to charge whatever price they determined is equitable but they would have to charge all of their customers the same price, though each company would differ in price. Everyone would get a tax credit that covers most of the cost of the premiums for the basic plan and be required to buy the basic plan before buying optional health insurance. Along with this basic policy for everyone the paperwork would be standardized across all insurance companies, hospitals and health care providers.
Since the insurance company has to charge each one of its customers the same price they can advertise the price on radio, television, print advertising creating a competitive market. Since the basic plan is the same, consumers will be able to compare the base rate and optional coverage easier. This would eliminate insurance companies from refusing people for insurance for the basic plan. However, insurance companies could charge accordingly and set their own guidelines for optional insurance. Also government can help the poor with their premiums.
« less full details »
-20 votes
I disagreeI would like to share my ideas regarding national health care with you. I believe that someone such as the Surgeon General or someone else should determine what a basic health plan (driven by public health care policies) should be. Once such a basic plan is determined all health insurance companies will be required to provide the provisions of such plan to any United States citizen. Insurance companies would be allowed ...more »
I would like to share my ideas regarding national health care with you.
I believe that someone such as the Surgeon General or someone else should determine what a basic health plan (driven by public health care policies) should be. Once such a basic plan is determined all health insurance companies will be required to provide the provisions of such plan to any United States citizen. Insurance companies would be allowed to charge whatever price they determined is equitable but they would have to charge all of their customers the same price, though each company would differ in price. Everyone would be required to buy the basic plan before buying optional health insurance. Along with this basic policy for everyone the paperwork would be standardized across all insurance companies, hospitals and health care providers.
Since the insurance company has to charge each one of its customers the same price they can advertise the price on radio, television, print advertising creating a competitive market. Since the basic plan is the same, consumers will be able to compare the base rate and optional coverage easier. This would eliminate insurance companies from refusing people for insurance for the basic plan. However, insurance companies could charge accordingly and set their own guidelines for optional insurance. Also government can help the poor with their premiums. The government also should set up an insurance plan for the insurance companies that thay all pay into, so that smaller insurance companies could offer health insurance, so if a insurance company has a person with health cost of over a million dollars thay could collect from the government plan. Also make medicare and mediaid cradle to grave plans so to make insurance companies to keep you healthy for your whole life and not just keeping you healthy till you get on medicare. And to make every one get health insurance give a tax credit to everyone that buys health insurance that will pay for most if not all of the cost of the health insurance, the tax credit would be base on the number of people insured for the household and not the cost of the health insurance, but it still should cover most if not all of the cost of the health insurance. For people doing unhealthy acts, I say tax them, tax smoking, tax unsafe cars, tax unhealthy food, and use those taxes to help fund health care.
my email is debdaveandpets@gmail.com
if you want to contact me, I think my plan would be easier to do than most others health plans. Tell me how to make it better.
David McDonell
E5273 Airport Road
Ironwood, MI 49938
« less full details »
-7 votes
I disagreeMr. President, Our current health care system is badly broken. Health insurance companies have made a financial disaster of it, and health care seekers have helped. Health care costs are overwhelming in the U.S. and yet we trail so many other countries in indexes of health. One of the primary reasons we have such high health costs is that we refuse to take the individually responsible road of self-discipline and ...more »
Mr. President,
Our current health care system is badly broken. Health insurance companies have made a financial disaster of it, and health care seekers have helped.
Health care costs are overwhelming in the U.S. and yet we trail so many other countries in indexes of health. One of the primary reasons we have such high health costs is that we refuse to take the individually responsible road of self-discipline and prevention. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and quite often, a million dollars in health care costs.
The most serious health problems are directly related to obesity, smoking, drinking, drugging, and sedentary lifestyle (being a couch potato). My proposal is that the government institute single payer health care with a rate structure that reflects risk taking behavior. I know that there are other risky behaviors (i.e. driving habits, too much sun exposure, gang banging, etc.) that contribute to health care costs, but initially, the emphasis must be put on the major risks and their contribution to overall health care costs in this country.
A rate schedule for single payer health care must be worked out by those who are most familiar with these risky behaviors. Initially, nobody should be charged more for their insurance because of hereditary tendencies or pre-existing conditions. However, if those who are obese do not reduce their weight to safer levels, smokers do not quit (with assistance), druggies who do not stop drugging, drinkers do not start drinking in moderation, and sedentary individuals do not practice a healthy exercise schedule, their rates should be adjusted higher to reflect the risks they are taking. Some may call this "social engineering." And yes, there are ways to verify less risk taking i.e. no drugs in the system, including nicotine, no arrests for driving while intoxicated, no police calls for domestic violence related to substance (any drug) abuse, lower weight and blood pressure, are just a few.
We currently have many sources of health education and disease prevention information available to citizens, however, some have greater access to this information than others. Every effort must be made to ensure that everyone has adequate access to this information in a form that is understandable to them. We also must accept the legitimacy of proven alternative methods of health care and prevention.
The billions and billions of dollars saved by prevention can then be used to pay the enormous costs that this country faces as we age and the baby boomers leave the workplace (if they can afford to). These costs would not then bankrupt the country.
All that I am saying here is simply an attempt to plant a seed. America has the brain-power and the know-how to bring something like this about. The sooner we place greater responsibility on inidviduals to take the primary role in prevention of their own health problems, the sooner we reduce the terrible costs in financial terms and poor health.
« less full details »
-31 votes
I disagreeHere is the way it works: The government insures you against diseases. You have a choice of all sorts of private insurance for any budget and any need. There are moderators tickets (paid by government if you are poor, paid by the private insurance if you have one) at emergencies room. If you are sick, you can choose your type of hospital: public, private non-profit or private. PS: In Canada, health care is managed ...more »
Here is the way it works:
The government insures you against diseases. You have a choice of all sorts of private insurance for any budget and any need. There are moderators tickets (paid by government if you are poor, paid by the private insurance if you have one) at emergencies room.
If you are sick, you can choose your type of hospital: public, private non-profit or private.
PS: In Canada, health care is managed by the Province, not the federal government...
« less full details »
107 votes
I disagreeIn the spirit of transparency and accountability, the national health care debate must include an open and honest analysis of Single-Payer Health Care. We need a thorough analysis of Single-Payer and how it would affect the quality and costs of our health care system, compared to other proposals being discussed. In 2003, Barack Obama stated: "I happen to be a proponent of a Single-Payer universal health care plan. We ...more »
In the spirit of transparency and accountability, the national health care debate must include an open and honest analysis of Single-Payer Health Care. We need a thorough analysis of Single-Payer and how it would affect the quality and costs of our health care system, compared to other proposals being discussed.
In 2003, Barack Obama stated: "I happen to be a proponent of a Single-Payer universal health care plan. We may not get there immediately, because first we've got to take back the White House, and we've got to take back the Senate, and we've got to take back the House."
Source: http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/05222009/watch2.html
But today, now that "we" have in fact taken over the White House, Senate, and House, Single-Payer advocates are being shut out of the discussion. Only two Single-Payer advocates were invited (reluctantly) to the recent White House forums on health care reform, and they were not allowed to speak. The recent Senate Finance Committee hearings chaired by Senator Baucus did not include *any* representative for Single-Payer, and advocates who attended this hearing were arrested.
Congressman John Conyers supports Single-Payer, and his bill HR 676 has 93 co-sponsors. Bernie Sanders has introduced his own Single-Payer bill, S 703, in the Senate. Polls have shown that many Americans, including doctors and nurses, support Single-Payer health care.
Nurse Donna Smith describes Single-Payer as public financing and private delivery, combined "together in one system that takes out the waste and the abuse that's really happening, which is where all the money goes into the health insurance. Up to 30 percent of the [current health care] costs have nothing to do with health care at all and everything to do with fueling the health insurance [companies]."
Source: http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/05222009/watch.html
« less full details »
28 votes
I disagreeThe Federal government already pays for between 40 and 50 percent of the health care in the United States. How? When you include active military, VA, medicare, medicaid, federal employees, children, and disability care, the number ranges between 40 and 50 percent. Yet, the payment structure, administration, and prescription lists are vastly different across programs and agencies. It is a well acknowledged fact that prescription ...more »
The Federal government already pays for between 40 and 50 percent of the health care in the United States. How? When you include active military, VA, medicare, medicaid, federal employees, children, and disability care, the number ranges between 40 and 50 percent. Yet, the payment structure, administration, and prescription lists are vastly different across programs and agencies. It is a well acknowledged fact that prescription costs are a major part of health care spending, and a major cost for consumers. Consolidating the prescription programs will save money and simplify the administration, reducing waste.
There doesn't need to be a new agency to do this. This can all be centralized in Health and Human Services. They would obtain the data from all federally funded health care (public and private) of the total number prescriptions (generic and name brand) dispensed for each medicine. They would take that data and set out for competitive bid from all the major prescription plan providers, drug stores, department stores, mail order pharmacies and drug manufacturers. The lowest cost for all the medicines would then be consolidated into a single final formulary.
This formulary would then be put out for bid for an administration and fulfillment contract.
The resulting competitively bid contract would provide a significant cost savings on each and every prescription, and eliminate the waste and duplication from all these separate programs. Once awarded, the states would be allowed to buy in to the program for their employees as well, saving even more and providing the same buying power leverage that the major insurance companies now have in negotiating drug costs.
There would be a universal formulary, consisting of every drug on the market, both brand name, and generic, so providers would have the ability to choose which drugs to prescribe and there wouldn't be any "rationing" or denial.
This is not government control. The government is already overpaying for these drugs. This is allowing free-market competition to cut costs for the government as it does for the private sector. The reduction of the multiple government programs to one will also cut costs for all the health care providers and pharmacies, since there will be a single formulary, single price, and single source for information. Doctors won't have to wonder if a prescription is covered or not on one plan or the other. Pharmacists won't have to call 10 different agencies or companies to find out if a drug is covered.
This is the first small step toward controlling costs in health care. It preserves choice, preserves free market competition, and cuts costs.
« less full details »
-16 votes
I disagreeEvery poll I have ever seen has health care as the very last (about 2% usually) in importance to the American people. I can honestly say I do not want to pay for an illegal alien to go to the emergency room 10 times a week (know for a fact from working in the healthcare field). Also, there are millions of people who do not believe in global warming and scientific data has backed them up on this. For this reason alone ...more »
Every poll I have ever seen has health care as the very last (about 2% usually) in importance to the American people. I can honestly say I do not want to pay for an illegal alien to go to the emergency room 10 times a week (know for a fact from working in the healthcare field). Also, there are millions of people who do not believe in global warming and scientific data has backed them up on this. For this reason alone there shouldn't be any money going for this project. When the government starts to tax the air you breathe that is when we need to say this is enough.
« less full details »
Copyright © 2013 IdeaScaleFeedback Software
| Widget | IdeaScale Privacy Policy
Powered by IdeaScale
Social Web