Comments on: National Health Care Plan Moves Forward

By: Reggie Greene / The Logistician

Reggie Greene / The Logistician — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 12:50:23 +0000

We have a tendency in America to argue for or against a concept based on our own personal philosophy or view of the world, what advances our personal interests, or the interests of our party, family, organization, or region. Perhaps viewing the issue from a management or systemic perspective might result in innovative approaches to the issue. The American national mindset, citizen philosophy, lack of citizen motivation to be proactively healthy, and governance model make the socialization of health care in America very problematic, particularly at this point in time. A country needs to know its limitations.

By: Glynn Wilson

Glynn Wilson — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 15:08:14 +0000

If this pain in my stomach doesn’t go away soon, that’s exactly what I will be doing. I’ll head on down to UAB, waltz into the emergency room, get treated, then stiff the hospital.

It’s the only choice people without insurance have. If we had national health insurance, I could have gone to a doctor the first day the pain started to get it checked out.

If I die of a ruptured ulcer because I waited too long to seek treatment, blame it on the greedy bastards who have stymied health care reform for years, the medical, pharmaceutical and insurance lobbies and their puppet senators and congressmen on Capital Hill.

By: Glynn Wilson

Glynn Wilson — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 15:02:51 +0000

A key part of the plan is long-term savings to the taxpayer and the consumer. As it stands now, taxpayers and private health care consumers are paying for a broken system where the poor wait until they are deathly ill to seek care, then they go to the emergency room even though they can’t pay, where for profit hospitals charge way out of line prices for basic services. Those indigent costs are factored into the price hospitals and insurance companies charge everybody else. That’s the problem…

By: Yana Davis

Yana Davis — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 14:26:03 +0000

Whatever the structure of the final plan, let’s hope it is something sane providing (1) patient choice of health care providers, (2) as little bureaucratic control from DC as possible, (3) as little additional tax burden as possible.

Those goals might not work so well together, but in my opinion have to be part of the plan. It is a given that people below a certain income level simply cannot afford medical insurance at today’s rates, even at group rates. It is also a given that many plans now offered are essentially jokes, with high deductibles and lots of exclusions.

So, there will be some tax cost for at least the foreseeable future. I believe regional cooperatives are the best way to go, offering coverage either at no cost, or at very low cost, to the 46 million Americans currently without medical insurance.

And, and I doubt this makes it into the structure, but it should, care options should include the patient’s right to choose “non-traditional” providers such as chiropractors, acupuncturists, homeopaths, naturopaths, etc. The new government insurance should not become an exclusive pork barrel for AMA doctors, hospital groups and the chemical-phamaceutical industry.