Go right ahead:
Reddog
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
About Me
- reddogg6969
- I am a person of varied interests. I excel at a few things, and in others am clueless. I try to achieve something every day, and to love my wife as well as my life.
Personally I am in favor of a system that works better than what we have now. It will take some give and take on the part of politicians, citizens, healthcare providers, pharmaceutical companies, etc. No plan will be perfect for everyone; hopefully one can be implemented that will be good for the majority. I look forward to other comments.
ReplyDeleteGrowing up in Canada, I never thought about healthcare until I developed health issues. When I needed to have medical tests, my doctors ordered them, and I had them done. The system wasn't perfect, and neither were the doctors, but my family never worried about how they would pay for medical visits, tests, or hospital stays. LIving in the US, I've been one of the fortunate who have had good insurance coverage, though my care here hasn't been any better than in Canada. However, I have a good friend who is self-employed and working on her Ph.D. She's had ongoing health issues after a bad bout with mono, which the doctors are still trying to properly diagnose. They want to do another battery of tests, and her insurance will cover only up to $7,000 per year. That's it. Including hospital stays. So, as a single person, without a familial support network, she's left high and dry. She can't take off school to rest and recover, because she needs to stay in school to hold on to the meager coverage she has. She can't cut back on work, because she needs the income. It's a cruel spot to be in, and they are so many more in similar or much worse situations. I really think that a single payer government run system is the way to go. My husband (who would love to move to Canada and have universal health care) has recently written an article about the healthcare debate at: http://socorronews.com/content/health-care-debate-ignores-greatest-canadian.
ReplyDeleteJennifer,
ReplyDeleteGood post, and your husband's article is well done and balanced.
Thanks,
PMc
First part of what I have to say about the issue: More to come.
ReplyDeleteThere is much to say about President Obama’s efforts thus far in his administration. Space does not allow for it all. First, let’s admit he was dealt a bad hand coming in. I think that he has great qualities and many admirable goals. However, I also think he is trying to do too much at once, in too many places, and spending too much. Now and potentially. The question is how all his goals will be financed. We are spending vast sums here and abroad, including funding possibly endless wars in the Middle East. History will tell whether his presidency is a success or giant failure. I hope it is the former.
That said, the current emphasis and debate concerns health care reform. Ever since Teddy Roosevelt, efforts have been made to organize it to the satisfaction of the masses. The task has proven insurmountable. Virtually everyone agrees that it requires modification. Costs are out of control, and are rising. Individuals and businesses of every size are affected. A careful, rational examination of it is essential. That is not happening. Why?
Most would agree that special interests benefit greatly from the status quo.
It is the goose that lays the golden eggs. Pharmaceutical and insurance companies, and the medical industry in general make billions in profits from the existing system. Their lobbyists are out in force. Millions are spent in anti-reform advertising. Most recently fear, rumors and misinformation are being utilized. Hence, we see the extreme reactions in town hall meetings around the country. The biggest, most irrational rumor is that President Obama wants to “kill your grandma,” or that you will have to face “death panels.” (A Sarah Palin original.)
David Brooks, a conservative columnist, calls both of these claims insane.
To be continued.
As with any issue, I respect a person's opinion IF they have listened to, read, studied, etc. both sides of an issue and not just the rethoric of a particular party or grooup. I may not agree, but I honor their decision/opinion. The healthcare issue has become a drama-driven, radical-behaving, one-sided "show."
ReplyDeleteIt appears to me that many of the people speaking out in anger and hate and protesting President Obama's proposals, are those without jobs or with financial problems, and as a result, no healthcare. They are the ones who should be looking at both sides.
All I ask is, be opened-minded to all options.
Continued from above:
ReplyDeleteNowhere in any proposed legislation is there mention of euthanasia. There is language about counseling for nursing care, wills, living trusts, secondary insurance, etc. Personally, I believe that should be done independent of government, but the point is that it has nothing to do with euthanasia.
I wondered where all this was coming from. I had a pretty good idea. I went to the internet to see what Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh had to say regarding health care reform. Sure enough, they are propagating the rumor to some degree or the other. Glenn Beck is blatant about it, so is Sean Hannity, along with promoting revolution, and Limbaugh will say anything, as he always has.
Some examples of his outlandish statements past and present:
Liberals (Anyone who does not agree with him, such as democrats and independents, are therefore socialists, communists, fascists, or worse):
Want 13 year-olds to have sex.
Want women to have abortions.
Want the terrorists to win.
I know a lot of liberals, and I do not know any who believe those things.
There are also constant references to President Obama being a Nazi, and a
myriad of other shameless, groundless accusations. Among them that President Obama is racist and discriminates against white people. It is a view also propogated by Glenn Beck.
Volumes could be filled with Limbaugh’s incredible, outrageous statements. Why does he make them? He knows exactly what to say to attract his audience of 15 to 20 million loyal listeners, which makes him very, very rich. And he knows his audience. Many, not all, of his listeners are angry, uninformed, disaffected and bigoted, and would rather not seek out facts in any depth. They would prefer to have Rush do their thinking for them. It is sad and pathetic. It makes for a dangerous, inflammatory situation given the present state of affairs.
If Limbaugh and his ilk were to suddenly be fair and balanced, of which they are more than capable of doing, they would lose their listeners overnight.
What I saw recently went a step too far. There was a 6 or 7 minute clip of Limbaugh’s radio show where a 66 year-old woman from Texas called in about health care reform. It was the usual complaining about the liberals “Taking away our rights,” and Limbaugh fanned the flames. About 5 minutes into it, Limbaugh stated that “Obama wants old people to die.” It was incredibly irresponsible. It was the kind of thing that could inflame a Timothy McVeigh type with a deer rifle and a bottle of Jack Daniel’s to do something drastic. And there are a lot of those types out there.
Limbaugh was chief among those to say, during the Bush administration, that it was unpatriotic and un-American to criticize the president during time of war. Unfortunately, we are still at war, but I guess it is different now, isn’t it? The Limbaugh/Hannity/Beck/Coulter, etc., cabal is relentless in their negative attacks on the president. I believe their actions are quite un-American and unpatriotic. I also believe that what they say should be openly displayed for all to see, and the facts checked, as should any potentially injurious misinformation from any source. Or any side of any debate. That helps lead to what John Adams advocated; an informed electorate.
More later:
Do I believe our health care system needs a change? Absolutely. First and foremost it needs to be a healthcare system and not a health repair system. More preventative medicine.
ReplyDeleteWe are all quick to berate the insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies for being the greedy guys. Yes, I think they are greedy but lets be careful. These are the same companies that our 401s and IRAs have invested in heavily for several years. How can we enjoy the nice gains in our investment portfolios and in the next breath condem them for high profits and want them thrown out. I believe a private healthcare system can survive and provide good affordable coverage for everyone. There will have to be oversight by the federal government for this to work.
Start by penalizing the insured with higher premiums for indulging in high risk areas such as; smoking, obesity, illicit drug use, etc. Secondly, stop all state mandates on health insurance. Allow all people to pick their coverage from a menu, only selecting the type and amounts of coverage they want and can afford.
Thirdly, stop people from hiding their health conditions and risky behaviors in group policies. Everyone should pay premiums based on their health conditions and lifestyles just like we do in other insurances. Hopefully all these changes would make the insurance companies highly competitive.
I know many conservatives, and none of them believe liberals want 13 year olds to have sex, want women to have abortions and want terroists to win. Yes, there are some conservatives that buy this garbage. I have also heard liberals condem all conservatives for being capitalist pigs and warmongers. Again this is typecasting. Many conservatives do listen to the talk hosts you mention but do not subscribe to all the right wing retoric put out by these alarmists. These are extremists. Conservatives can be and are good
Americans without being dumped into an extremist category. The same holds true for liberals.
Good points. Never accused all conservatives of being like Limbaugh and his gang. My concern is with them, and the people who buy their well-paid propaganda. And yes, there are extremists on the other side. I don't agree with them either.
ReplyDeleteLet's have well-informed discussion. There are too many Archie Bunkers and Al Frankens to make it difficult right now.
Growing up in Scotland we had the national health care system and it worked very well.
ReplyDeleteExamples: in 1953-54 my father was diagnosed with TB, at that time a terrible diagnosis. Our doctor - yes, one WE chose - arranged for him to be sent to a clinic in Switzerland which had been successful with TB patients. He spent 10 months there until he was cured. Cost to our family? Plane fare there and back.
In 1958 I dislocated my elbow and our doctor (same as above) decided it was bad enough that I needed to go to hospital. I was in for about 4 days. That stay and subsequent physical therapy were at no cost to us. They even sent a vehicle to pick me up and return me home. (Coincidentally on a couple of trips another patient was a popular soccer player who had played for my favorite team. What a thrill for a 10 year old!)
Do I advocate the same system for the US? Not necessarily. While we badly need health care reform, Americans have been bombarded with anti national health care propaganda.
In fact, unless we are willing to dial down the thetoric and stop demonizing those who disagree with us, ANY substantial health care reform is unlikely. I would like to see a 'blue ribbon' panel along the lines of the Warren Commission, WITHOUT politicians, to examine health care, identify problems, make recommendations and present those to THE PEOPLE of the US. Without that I am afraid that health care reform will remain an idealogical football which talk show hosts will kick around to improve their ratings.
Curiosity killed the cat. I believe that most thinking Americans do agree that our healthcare system needs a fix. I am very curious as to why you do not necessarily advocate the same system for the U.S. Is there something in your system that you don't like? Is that system not the right one for a country of our size? Interesting that you said it worked well for you but you are not quite sure its the one for us. Please elaborate. You are the people we want to hear from.
ReplyDeleteI don't think it will work simply because most Americans have been bombarded with the idea that so-called "socialized" medicine is somehow un-American and would lead to more government intrusion in our lives. A national health care system in the US absolutely could work and with US technology and innovation could well work better than most. If most citizens (and 'talking heads') could understand that a national health care system does not mean government madates then we would be well on our way. That's why I'd like an independent panel to investigate and make recommendations outside of the current partisan debate.
ReplyDeleteHope this makes sense. It's not the system per se nor the size of the US but the complete unwillingness of many to even consider the idea that dooms it from the start...at least as I see it!
Thanks for your comment and questions.
Jim,
ReplyDeleteYour points are right on target. There is such a power struggle, too many special interests, and so much misinformation combined with fear that it makes for quite a volatile stew. And no matter how objectively and completely it is studied and presented, there will still be those well-paid shills that can easily influenced the easily influenced so that nothing truly meaningful will be done.
Could you delineate the best aspects of the system where you lived in Scotland, and the worst?
PMc
Best parts: Good care at little or no out of pocket costs, choosing our own doctor and dentist, didn't need prior approval, never having to worry if insurance will cover it or not. (As a sidebar, I noticed someone mentioning preventive care in a previous post. Now that I am retired and age 61, my insurance does NOT cover preventive care doctor visits/tests as it did when I was working. Now that I am more likely to need preventive care I'm not covered! Guess they'd rather pay larger hospital bills than smaller preventive care bills!)
ReplyDeleteBad parts: None that I or my family experienced. I understand now, however, that there is frequently a delay in getting 'elective' surgery. And the term 'elective' means different things depending on whether you're the patient or the one granting permission!
Still, all things considered...
Jim,
ReplyDeleteWhat were the tax consequences, give or take a few % points, for the medical system where you were? The reason I ask is this: Suppose our taxes averaged $300 to $400 more per month than now. to cover preventive and basic medical care here. For individuals, families, or business owners. AND that $300 to $400 more would take the place of insurance that would cost $1000-$1500 per month that exists now, resulting in a net savings of some amount. Even if it is a $500 savings, that is significant. OR, perhaps sales tax could be increased to cover health care. It will have to be paid for in some way, the same as Medicare is covered, only a version of Medicare would be expanded. It can't be free, but the net costs could and should be reduced over what we now have, which keeps rising out of control.
Given that, what were the financial and tax consequences to achieve what you had, and that still exists in the British Isles?
Mac,
ReplyDeleteI really couldn't answer your questions because it was so long ago so I did some quick research and here's what I found:
"As in Canada, the system is advantageous in that it covers everyone, and for substantially less cost than in the United States (where in 1998 the cost per capita was $4,178, as opposed to Canada’s $2,312 and the UK’s $1,461). Life expectancy in the UK is marginally better than in the US, at 77.2 years, and their infant mortality rate is lower than either Canada or the United States. On the other hand, the rates of heart disease and cancer mortality are slightly worse, and the UK has fewer scanners and MRI machines than Canada, plus fewer physicians per 1,000 population.
For more, go to:
http://healthfieldmedicare.suite101.com/article.cfm/american_canadian_british_health_care_systems
I don't think there is much doubt that we could provide good health care to more people at less than current expenditure.
Hope this goves you some idea!
The discussion on health care prompted some thoughts on government reform as follows:
ReplyDelete1. President to be elected by national popular vote to serve one (1) 6 year term.
2. Senators and members of the House to be chosen by lot from all registered voters in the state/congressional district to serve one term. Their former (or a similar job) guaranteed after their term of office. No pensions and health care plan same as rest of country.
3. Constitutional amendment stating that Freedom of Speech does NOT extend to lobbyists attemting to influence legislation OR any political action committee/group.
These very simple reforms would alter the political landscape, solve many problems and, hopefully, return some sanity to state and national problems!
Jim,
ReplyDeleteYour ideas are interesting, but too logical to ever be enacted, at least in this millenium, which has a few years to go.
I'm interested in what your number 3 means, specifically; Does it means Swift Boat-type ads, outright misrepresentation, or anything tantamount to slander. If so, your idea is a good one, and should extend not only to lobbyists, but to all politicians and golfers.
PMc
I agree with the last post, and would add that Supreme Court justices be limited to no more than 10 years at a time.
ReplyDeleteMore about the health debate scare tactics:
ReplyDeleteSo let’s have criticism of policy and ideas, but let’s stop the groundless, nearly slanderous commentary that serves no positive purpose except to those making it.
Let’s be honest and admit that health care requires reform, to some degree, and evaluate it in an informed and reasoned manner. And let’s involve those most knowledgeable on the subject, and utilize methods that work best both here and around the world. It will never please everyone, but an honest examination of it will be a good start.
Or, we could do this: Let Limbaugh, Hannity and Beck run the whole country, including health care, since they ARE experts in everything. And let’s make the charming and delightful Ann Coulter our ambassador to the world. With an assist from the truly bizarre and certifiable Michael Savage. Since it is now a global economy with all sorts of global political implications, who could possibly be better?
Seriously, very seriously, let's see what President Obama has to say on September 9 and hope that it can lead to a viable outcome.