Comments on: Debating healthcare: Two perspectives http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/09/09/debating-healthcare-two-perspectives/ Thu, 21 Jul 2016 07:57:19 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: ForJS07M378 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/09/09/debating-healthcare-two-perspectives/#comment-29964 Fri, 23 Apr 2010 07:44:00 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=5269#comment-29964 Children of poor working families and others should be covered. As of today healthcare is impossible without insurance because of the unbundling of services and items and the cost of ER is inflated it would be Like paying 100.00 for a toothpick. But insurance companies do not guarantee they will cover anything even when you pay insurance. The government would do a better job I think of paying the bills. Tax can be added or taken from cigarettes or alcohol,

]]>
By: Lois Craig http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/09/09/debating-healthcare-two-perspectives/#comment-25381 Mon, 12 Oct 2009 16:55:42 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=5269#comment-25381 I agree with Peter Pitts. We appear to be trying to use a sledge hammer where a light tap hammer would do well.
Bigger is not usually better and, in this case, would ultimately lead to increased costs for health insurance and corresponding tax increases to help defray those costs.

]]>
By: Benjamin http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/09/09/debating-healthcare-two-perspectives/#comment-25073 Mon, 05 Oct 2009 19:13:55 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=5269#comment-25073 It grossly unfair to take hunderds of billions of dollars from Medicare in order to fund the currently uninsured.
One does not need new laws to fight the waste and fraud in Medicare/Medicaid systems – they are administered by the government anyway.
If anything, the savings from reducing the waste ought to be channeled back into Medicare to cope with the expected inflow of baby boomers into the system.
It is grossly illogical to allocate less funds for Medicare to cope with many more eldery people. Something is terribly wrong with Obama’s math, or is there some hidden agenda?

]]>
By: Alpha1 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/09/09/debating-healthcare-two-perspectives/#comment-25049 Sun, 04 Oct 2009 23:33:42 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=5269#comment-25049 It doesn’t take a genius to see the funding for government health care is a sham. When has any project by any facet of government been equal or less in cost than proposed?

What about the government taking money from Social Security (grabbing initiated by Lyndon Johnson) to fund other things non-related projects? Anyone who has ever dealt with VA hospitals or worker’s compensation programs have been screwed by the system.

One example of how terrible the system is: My sister-in-law fell at work and hurt her back. She has been in excruciating pain for the past six months. Doctors said she needed an operation to correct the problem. Worker’s Compensation repeatedly denying her operation until recently. They finally approved the operation, again after six months! She could have been back to work at least 4 months prior! Talk about a waste of money!

The government has spent $640 for a toilet seat and $436 for a hammer and the National Park Service’s $797,400 outhouse. This is the sort of mindless spending the government has.

Yes, we need health care changes, but not run by government. Politicians are not business savvy, but they are great spenders!

]]>
By: Li-hsia Wang, MD http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/09/09/debating-healthcare-two-perspectives/#comment-24725 Sat, 26 Sep 2009 01:39:59 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=5269#comment-24725 Adrian R is correct. Public services are generally paid for by taxpayers. Health care is presently entirely supported by taxpayers–premiums, out of pocket, deductibles, wages lost to employer-paid premiums, VA, care of active military, Medicare, Medicaid, government employees, ER costs for the uninsured and the indigent. And we spend almost twice what other developed countries spend per capita. And about 30% of your healthcare premium, when paid to private insurers, goes to shareholder profit and administrative costs. If that money were available to provide health care instead we wouldn’t have to increase health care spending over what we spend now! Single payer is what we need, providing what the Institute of Medicine says we need–universal, available, portable, affordable insurance. Whether or not you think health care is a right (and I do), it is shortsighted to deny it to a portion of the public. We need a healthy productive workforce, and we need infection control for all (it’s not possible for just some).
It is distressing that it has been dismissed for so many months as “not feasible”. Only “not feasible” to insurance and drug companies. Very feasible to the American public.
Let’s keep it on the table

Li-hsia Wang, MD

]]>
By: Drake http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/09/09/debating-healthcare-two-perspectives/#comment-24559 Mon, 21 Sep 2009 13:14:55 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=5269#comment-24559 Maybe if we were a lot healthier we wouldn’t have these issues

]]>
By: Christine biedul http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/09/09/debating-healthcare-two-perspectives/#comment-24523 Sun, 20 Sep 2009 17:46:19 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=5269#comment-24523 Why can’t we vote for National Health Insurance? Single Payer, Medicare for All. Why is there a few Americans making the decisions for all of us? Those people were given bribe money by the Insurance companies. Something as important as healthcare should be given a vote, and the options should include National Healthcare.

]]>
By: Mike http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/09/09/debating-healthcare-two-perspectives/#comment-24489 Sat, 19 Sep 2009 20:24:35 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=5269#comment-24489 I suspect that a large plurality of voters has come to understand that all past congresses and administrations have failed consistently and seriously in launching and managing major federal programs — Social Security, the War on Poverty, Medicare, Medicaid — and so the majority of voters do not trust that a sweeping new government program will actually improve things.

We need Health Care reform without question, but the struggles we are all seeing in the Senate and the House — to fashion a Health Care bill that actually improves upon what we already have, while cutting costs — simply demonstrates how complex the issue of Health Care is, and how starkly divergent the agendas are among far left and far right constituencies.

Congress should back off from the current attempts to create an all new “global” health care program at the expense of the existing coverage that some 80-85 percent of Americans enjoy today. They should instead concentrate on eliminating existing problems in Medicare and Medicaid, while extending some reasonable level of Health care to the 10-15 percent of American citizens who currently have inadequate health care insurance.

Once real progress can be demonstrated on these limited initiatives, Congress should then proceed to incrementally add further legislation that could meet with bi-partisan support.

President Obama should back off on his sweeping approach to Health Care, no matter how well-intentioned, and use the power of his office to lead Congress to a series of interim measures, as described above.

]]>
By: Abby http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/09/09/debating-healthcare-two-perspectives/#comment-24445 Sat, 19 Sep 2009 00:14:29 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=5269#comment-24445 Thank you everyone for the thoughtful comments. It appears that you are considering all of the logical fallacies that are so common in this debate. I see no reference to “Death Panels” in here which is a huge relief. This idea is so distorted and detached from reality that is only serving as a straw man to distract us from thoughtful debate between many different persepectives.

I enjoyed Benny Acosta and Anon’s exchange and I saw value in each perspective. I am happy to see that neither person started off with telling us which political party they are in. This would likely lead to pre-conceived ideas about the person which would muddy the debate. I wish everyone could converse in this manner.

]]>
By: Benny Acosta http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/09/09/debating-healthcare-two-perspectives/#comment-24235 Wed, 16 Sep 2009 15:13:27 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=5269#comment-24235 Anon

“1. Healthcare might be a right, but not universal healthcare. If you see it set out somewhere, let us know. Otherwise, it is simply your say so. ”

What makes some people worthy of health care and others not? Why do some people not have a right to health care? Are they less human?

“2. Economics began long before healthcare ever existed. Healthcare was essentially a means of taking advantage of prosperity, to give benefits to those who didn’t earn those benefits. So which system is more ‘contrived’?”

A patently false statement. Humanity, and as a consequence the art/science of maintaining and improving health (health care),is as old as we are.

Money, if I’m not mistaken has its roots in Sumeria, or about that time frame. And its purpose was solely to facilitate the exchange of goods and services in an equitable manner. It has since been transformed into a tool of enslavement.

“3. People have the right to have life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Not to have someone else pay their bills. ”

This statement speaks to the heart of the issue. We absolutely need each other for survival. By nature we form groups and eventually nations. But inside our hearts we care only for ourselves. And so the suffering or lack of care experienced by another means nothing to us. We are more concerned about who’s going to “pay the bill”. Our money is worthless. Humans are priceless and irreplaceable. Yet we value the paper more.

“4. Had you any understanding of economics, you would realise that it not only reflects society, but also human behaviour and (to an abstract extent) biology itself.”

A quick look at the headlines on this site should be enough to demonstrate that this behavior, “biological” as it may be, is occurring unchecked by wisdom or love. Sadly this is our current natural state. But that doesn’t mean that we’re off the hook. We must still make the choice to change. Or it will be made for us.

“5. We have a financial crisis because downturns are a natural aspect of the business cycle. Name a financial crisis in history, and you will see greed behind it. That is nothing new. After all, economic cycles runs on greed. Economists figured it out back in the 1700s.”

And this doesn’t disturb you? Are you suggesting that because the system works on greed that we should simply continue being greedy?
We can already see where this is taking us. And it’s not good. So why the complacency?

“6. Africa and many other areas would laugh if you said healthcare was a right. It is a privilege of the rich, and has been so since the dark ages. The reason you take that privilege for granted, is because you obviously spent your life in a rich nation. When one is spoilt, they tend to mistake their privileges as rights.”

Just because the right to something is taken from everyone and relegated to the few doesn’t mean the rights of the many were false. It is simply persecution and subjugation. So are you saying that because I grew up in a nation who’s ideals were founded on individual freedoms and the right to assemble and cooperate, that I am somehow spoiled?

The fact that I know that I am a human being, the highest life form on this planet, has some how corrupted me? Should I live in ignorance of my humanity? Should I be content to suffer at the hands of those who say they know “the way to salvation”?

Your argument in essence, is that I should simply take my lumps and stop trying to change things. Are you serious?

The time for that mind set has long passed. The acceptance of insanity is insanity itself.

]]>