Getting on my soapbox here...
If this government-run health care plan passes (in whatever form they decide), I think it'll be scary. Guess I'm done having kids! (At this point, that's ok with me! :)).
I love John Stossel... asks hard questions. He was here for a health care reform meeting a few weeks ago. I should've gone.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9GMKK_fWKg
4 comments:
Yeah for soapboxes ... better get on them while you still can!
Well - I've read the bill - and a lot of the basics are in this speech. Gotta love what the media hacks and lobbyists and the multi-billion dollar pharmaceutical and insurance companies pay for you to hear...and what the real story is.
Personally - I'd benefit from having more insurance options - from not having to be penalized for 'pre-existing conditions' and for being able to afford the medications. Or my sister - who currently has to pay over $2,500 a month for her medications because of complications from a brain tumor. There are a lot more like us who need something done so we don't go broke from health issues. The bill is a good one - but those who are running scared are the ones who could lose billions on having things brought back down to reasonable levels.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/29537393#32813852
Apologies in advance for soapboxing on YOUR blog Ginnie...
I think that the fact that one of the larger drains on the medical system, exorbitant malpractice lawsuits resulting in the practice of "defensive" medicine (aka doing more tests and procedures than necessary to avoid getting sued) is indicative of the true (note sarcasm) commitment that a bunch of congressmen (who also happen to be a bunch of lawyers) have on truly reforming healthcare. What about being able to buy health insurance across state lines? Wouldn't that provide more competition than ONE government public option? They're not really interested in reform. Just expansion of the status quo.
I read an excellent article on free market solutions to the current healthcare debacle. Basically, 60 years ago people were able to pay for a lot of their own healthcare out of pocket. Then enter government regulations that allow employers to provide health insurance for employees using tax-free money as an incentive to retain good employees. Growth of the health insurance industry. Then enter medicare, a HUGE government program that doesn't manage to break even, requiring hospitals to charge private insurance, and the uninsured, more to subsidize the costs.
Now billing is so complicated that you can't "shop around" to find the best price for medical procedures because no one can give you a quote. There's no incentive for hospitals to be upfront and efficient with those receiving care because the majority of them "aren't paying the bill". There's also no incentive to find ways to drive down costs because hospitals really aren't competing with each other.
I think that if people really were "paying their own bills" via health savings accounts (HSA), as opposed to government and large private insurance companies hospitals would have incentive to compete with one another to drive prices down and to provide more clarity in billing.
No insurance initially sounds scary to me, but then I think about the $5-10,000 that the university pays out to GHC every year for John and I. If they gave that to us to put in a HSA (and to buy some catastrophic insurance for truly catastrophic events like the above mentioned brain tumor) and we chose how to spend it I can't see how we wouldn't be able to pay for our own healthcare. Bad years balance out the good years. If we need to we take out a low-interest loan on having a baby or having knee surgery, just like if we were buying a car. You also eliminate the whole "pre-existing conditions" issue. There's also more incentive to take care of yourself (exercising, weight loss) because YOU are paying for the costs, not someone else. If the system was different...
Poor people? Give them money to put in a HSA and let them decide how to spend it! Empower PEOPLE to be responsible for their own lives and make their own decisions, not government.
But the proposed bill isn't truly reform. It's just making the current system bigger. People always talk about how much hospital administration costs; just wait till they see how much money big government bureaucracy soaks up, especially after they drive all of our private insurance companies out of business with their public option (subsidized by our tax dollars).
I understand that there are some individuals who, through circumstances beyond their control, might need some government assistance because of huge medical issues, but they are such a small subset of the population that we can't focus on them when we talk about healthcare solutions for all. They do need attention, and possibly some legislation to help, but I think that making them the poster-children of the discussion for general healthcare solutions is inappropriate and trying to play on our emotions as opposed to the pragmatic and rational thinking that SHOULD be going on in order to truly provide a economically viable healthcare system that works for all.
Whoa, that last comment was a whopper. I'm going to have to get something to eat and then come back to read it.
I've been up to my ears in this healthcare biz ever since the Prez started talking about it. I've read dozens of articles, and saved the really exceptional ones in my "Politics" file.
I do support some kinds of reform: tort reform, elimination of interstate roadblocks for insurance plans, ending tax discrimination against non-employer plans, and making medical expenses tax deductible (to name a few). But allowing the government to get any kind of foot-in-the-door/trojan horse for nationalized healthcare is something I staunchly oppose. Why? Because giving the government power over life and death (through controlling access to medical care) gives government a tool unparalleled in its coercive potential. I believe that the threat of witholding medical care from political opponents has been employed by the party in power to maintain perpetual control over the populations of many countries who have fallen for this trap. I think that nationalized healthcare is an even greater tool for government coercion than abolishing gun rights (a step that has preceded almost every large scale genocide in recent history, in Turkey, Germany, the USSR, etc.).
Anyway, I'm not thrilled about having to come up with $6,000+ (that we don't have) out of pocket to pay for our new baby because of our crappy private insurance plan, but such is life in the real world. At least I'm confident my wife is not going to die in childbirth like women have throughout in large numbers until the last 80 or so years. We have the best medical care in the world in this country. The system has its problems, but a government takeover, either now or later, is a very dangerous prospect.
Scott
Post a Comment