Quote:
Originally Posted by Ea
I don't quite understand you. Basically you are saying that yes, it is written into your bill of rights that you should fear a 200 year old - and out-dated - form of government because this is the kind of government you could get.
And honestly, you sound as if you're talking down to me as well. I am quite plainly bewildered. I my view, basic and preventive healthcare helps not only the ones recieving it, but one's country, people and nation as whole, as it as an entity stays healthier and more competitive.
|
Our form of government is not out-dated. It is still viable. The problem is the corruption of the original tennents by those who have come into power since the Constitution was written. Government of the people, by the people and for the people is still a solid form of government. Unfortunately, many of those in charge have forgotten this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pshrynk
The hospitals are required by law, that to participate in Medicare they have to have the no turn away policy. It stemmed from one point where corporate hospital systems were sending uninsured people to a county or charity hospital and keeping those with insurance or lots of money.
It was sort of like the insurance companies who turn away those with expensive illnesses or dump someone when they get an expensive illness. Health Care reform should, in my opinion, have at it's core the rquirement that insurance companies cannot do that, so that they are on the same playing field as the hospitals.
It should also have the public option. And please read this sentence very carefully: NOT to "dictate healthcare" but to have an affordable insurance ption for those who are unable to get insurance from an employer or on their own.
My reason for this is: Right now, Medical facilities have high prices because they must compensate for Medicare and Medicaid and uninsured patients. The insurance companies do not pay full fare, either. If everyone in the US had coverage to pay for medical care, everyone would, over time be paying basically the same price. Economics assures us of that. The lack of insurance for 45 million (or whatever) unisured patients going to ER's to get primary care is a huge driver for medical costs.
You will please note that I have not at any time said that the government should tell me how to practice, or where, or for whom, or in any capacity. The role of government in this approach to care is strictly financial. Will they bung it up? Probably. They keep stealing from teh Medicare and Soc Sec trust funds to pay for trinkets. But it would work better than what we got.
|
As you are an insider
, your insight is very helpful. I worry that the new system would be open to all but ultimately paid for by the working class who are already baring the burden for so many other things. Having said that, if they could come up with a system that did not over burden the working class, gave everyone equal footing in the healthcare arena, and did not reduce the coverage that I (and my family) have in the current scheme, I would be all for it.
As it is, when my son turns 22 next July, he goes off our health insurance. Since he has had some trouble adjusting to college courses, he will be in school for another year (or two
) after that. It will coast me $270 per month for his healthcare. The government won't pick that up for me nor will he be able to get free healthcare through medicaid because he lives at home. Even though he does not have a job and is over 18, they still look at my husband's income to justify non-coverage. Mind you, I'm not complaining. It is what it is and we will make the payments, but no one is helping us out any. Why? Because we are the working class.