 |
|
« Work Can Be a Real Pain | Main | America's Health Care Conundrum »
March 27, 2007
Burning Question
Should health coverage be mandated by government?
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://news.thomasnet.com/mt41/mt-tb.cgi/971
|
Advertisement
|
Comment
52 CommentsI feel that as a person gets older that someone needs to step in to help them. They work hard all of their lives and raise their families.
March 27, 2007 2:51 PMHealth care coverage should not be mandated by the government -- we do need to control the cost of medical services.
March 27, 2007 2:59 PMIn my opinion, health care should be nationalized for all American citizens -- that means every legal American. That doesn't mean illegal immigrants of any kind.
It works in other countries and it is the right thing to do. I know housewives -- for instance -- whose husbands have retired and are left unprotected (with no health & hospitalization anymore) because they are younger and not of age to retire. This seems like a big problem. Not to mention people between jobs who couldn't afford Cobra. People who are of low income. And the children. Let's do the right thing here in America. Insure all legal citizens.
No, insurance should NOT be mandated by government. Government SHOULD do something to protect medical professionals from nuisance litigation and outrageous monetary awards, so their insurance is not astronomically expensive. Then the cost of medical service for everyone will come down, and insurance will be more affordable for everyone. No one willfully goes without insurance. They cannot afford to pay outrageous costs and still have a roof over their heads and food to eat. I was there once.
March 27, 2007 3:17 PMNot by the government, when the government steps in we have more red tape than needed.
Nationalistic? Perhaps if we knew how to keep the health industry honest and fair. As well as the people who need help. That really need the help and not assistance by monetary means unless prosthetics or wheel chairs that may be covered but not available through the regular health process.
Hard to say how it should be put together, but it has to be done on a third-grade level for all to understand. No hidden meanings or definitions...
March 27, 2007 3:23 PMNo, but government should make some sort of health care system for the old-age workers and engineers all over the world. When they are working, they are paying taxes to the government; when they are in old age, governments should take care of them by considering the taxes paid by a person when he is in service. So governments should look in to this matter
March 27, 2007 3:34 PMHealth care threatens to bankrupt itself because of three major contributing factors:
1. Health providers are overcharging patients and overcharging the working poor most of all. A recent charge of mine for a health screening was billed at over $3000. The insurance company accepted $793 as payment in full. Imagine if I was not fortunate enough to have insurance! If I were part of the working poor, I would have had to pay $2200 more for the same discounted service. Some Government force needs to stop such greed.
2. Lawyers are creating mountains out of molehills and ultimately driving health costs sky high.
3. Insurance companies don't have those big shiny buildings because they are charging too little for health premiums.
Ultimately, we have to get greed out of the medical business.
March 27, 2007 3:57 PMNo, it should not be a government mandate. We have too many laws now, and I agree that government can only bog down a system with inefficiencies.
What we need are more choices for businesses according to what they are able to pay. New York State has a really good health plan for small businesses called HealthyNY. Everybody wins with it, but qualifying for it still needs work.
March 27, 2007 4:16 PMI think the governor of West Virginia is right to recommend giving part of the overcharge back to the patient. If more states would adopt similar policies, then medical facilities and insurance companies might realize someone is watching and clean up their business.
It is a business right?
Not a bad one when they get the best of both worlds, 1. treated as a business, for the people that can pay, and 2. taking tax payers money for others that can't.
March 27, 2007 4:25 PMOne should not fear getting sick! If you are legal, get help; if you cannot afford it, the Medical Industry underwrites it. If you are illegal, get help, get better, and we will send you back to your home country on us, but do not fear for getting sick, Your Home Country Is Going to Get the Bill !!!!!
March 27, 2007 6:22 PMGood to see common sense still exists out there.
1. No medical care for those who 'break into our country'.
2. Government is inefficient as an administrator. No government involvement except to monitor as needed.
3. Get insurance under control -- get rid of ambulance chasers (can you believe one of them actually wants to run for president --and to show you his egomanical honesty he will brush his wife aside to assuage his need for more power)
4. Our society is at total cross purposes, we sell fat junk, people get fat and then they have big med costs. Provide incentives for those that can to be healthy, stay healthy. .
5. Get rid of all the paperwork and middlemen in the medical practice. Let doctors practice medicine not administration.
Cheers,
Anthony
Absolutely - the federal government should mandate healthcare, whether it is managed by states or not. I'm not necessarily recommending a single payer system, but let's face the fact that we all pay in the end for companies that don't offer benefits -- they just get what amounts to a free ride. Let me ask employers out there -- if your employee is sick and can't get the care they need, does it help your business?
March 27, 2007 7:29 PMI believe we have two choices: government health insurance or compulsory health insurance by employers during employment and later in retirement. However, compulsory health insurance by employers does not in and by itself guarantee health insurance since today, many large companies are filling for Chapter 11 and eliminating the health insurance and retiree pension plans that include health insurance.
For example, take a company like General Motors or Ford which have a very large population of retired employees with more coming over the next ten years. At some point, the number of retirees will exceed the number of workers and that in and by itself tends to make a company look at Chapter 11 as the way out.
Then there is Wal-Mart, company that does everything possible to limit health coverage to employees by reducing hours, shifting schedules, etc., which raises the question, how can these low income employees afford health insurance?
Therefore, I believe that all companies should pay for each and every employee into a government sponsored health care program that would cover anyone legally within the United State of America or its so called territories.
A US citizen living abroad
March 27, 2007 10:55 PMI believe it should be a mandate. It's been proven
time and time again that healthy employees miss less
work, have a better attitude about their jobs and employers, have longevity in the work force, stay at one job site longer (but not necessarily the same position), normally retire at an older age, are better mentors at home and on the job site, and those who have a religious backgroud with regular participation, all of the above are enhanced.
I believe that a fully funded, government-backed health care system is doomed to fail from the start.
Look at the VA system where Congress allows the traditional beuracrocy to be the norm where disabled vets have a hard time getting to see a doctor.
Look at the Canadian system where they are starting to allow for private practice doctors and health insurance.
One of the bigger problems that I see is that people would rather buy wants such as nicer cars and large tvs than take care of their more pressing needs such as health care or other types of insurance.
There are ways to get coverage that doesn't cost as much as COBRA's. The reason that COBRA's are so expensive is that you are paying what the company is subsidizing for better coverage. I know of younger people who had just catastrophic health coverage.
March 28, 2007 9:32 AMHow is health coverage defined? What deductible should be paid by the patient in order to discourage unnecessary professional medical treatment? What price management mechanisms should be used to balance supply and demand to control health care costs? What should be the responsibility of the individual to make rational and knowledgable health care and life style choices? What health care treatment coverages should and should not be mandated by government?
These are the fundamental questions that must be defined comprehensively considering human nature and objectivity, not sentimentalism, in order to have a health care system that:
(1) Is affordable with minimal cost shifting among groups or using taxpayer subsidization;
(2) Requires patient/payer participation and accountability in health care decisions based upon sound medical practice;
(3) Promptly responds to legitimate health care needs that benefit individuals and their potential to contribute to society;
(4) Forces pricing restraint and cost control by medical professionals/organizations;
(5) Removes the legal system from the health care equation except in provable willful or extremely incompetent negligence.
Universal health care systems, such as in Canada & Western Europe, control these issues by government regulation and rationing of health care that largely leaves patient participation and market pricing out of the equation.
Facts: 5% of any 10yr demographic group uses 25% of the health care resources for that group, 20% uses 80%, 75% of the people using 80% of the resources will continue to do so in subsequent age groups until their death. The remaining 25% of resources for that demographic group is largely due to accidents/injury or one time occurrence such as a tonsilectomy. People aged 56-75 consume approximately 3 times the health care resources as age 1-55. On average, people aged 75+ consume approximately 3 times the health care resources of those aged 56-75. One-third of Medicare funds are spent on the last 6 months of life. However, a large percentage of the older folks consume very few health care resources, and in fact, far less than those under 55. Genetics and health/life style practices are the primary determinants of health care risks and needs (80%+).
Some conclusions: While everyone needs properly risk adjusted and priced catastrophic coverage ($5000+ deductible), more than half the people are making rational decisions not to have greater coverage because their risks are much lower than the cost of such coverage. The other half, especially the high cost 20%, wants to be totally subsidized by the low risk half. The subsidization and risk based pricing issues are at the crux of the current health care debate.
March 28, 2007 11:04 AMWe all chuckled at the little guy from Texas who paid for his own campaign for President a few years ago, but he said that NAFTA would result in a "big sucking sound" as business left the US for Mexico and it would do little to help either country... he was correct there, and his suggestions for universal health care bear looking at a second time. His suggestions was pilot programs in certain cities in certain states until what was workable could be documented... then an expanded program, and a second look, long before a nationwide attempt was even considered.
As in most things, if it works, NO PROBLEM, but what if it DOES NOT! This is not a place where the luxury of saying we tried, is salve for the wound. What will be left if it doesn't... for how much, and who will independent insurance writers be willing to cover?
The government infrastructure that this may entail
is difficult to imagine. We could not dispense funds to cover short-term needs of people effected by a hurricane and not suffer rapid fraud... any guess about trying to cover insurance claims? Medicare reimbursements were a
nightmare for years until it settled to minor problems as the everyday occurrence currently.
Government's place in health care should be one of legislating a level playing field, holding pricing at profitable levels for providers, not having those insured pay high prices for services and hence high premiums for coverage to offset the non-payment by users have no coverage
of medical services.
Countless emergency rooms are closed because the uninsured know where to get no-cost care for common ailments, because they cannot be turned away. The losses sustained could not be covered by the hospital and the physicians working there. How do you propose to cover those who do not and/or will not work; those who chafe at being asked for a government agency issued state ID proving who they are prior to voting? How will you account for and cover the "disadvantaged masses" the liberals charge as discriminated against when asked for some sort of ID to vote? Wanna bet they could get their disadvantaged back-sides to some agency to get a card that gets them free medical care.
When in your memory was a government-mandated program that provided a service as opposed to one policing public policy/law a success? Why do you think this will be different?
The argument is not about the need for some universal health care... the argument is who and how to do it.
Remember, NOTHING PREDICTS THE FUTURE LIKE THE PAST.
March 28, 2007 3:05 PMThe idea of having the government control a universal health system is proposed by those who live in a dreamland. Look at the record. Does anyone remember any government program that didn't get all screwed up with uncontrol by overspending and bias self-serving lobbiests that are apparently telling all government representatives how to spend our tax money. We must remember that none of all forms of gov. don't have a product-producing job, therefore they are spending the money that is earned by the working people; you and me.
March 28, 2007 5:34 PMHealth coverage should not ever be mandated by the government. Each and every citizen has the right and the responsibility for his own health care and children being the responsibility of their parents.
If health care has become too expensive, just look to the government, not for the solution, but as the source of the problem, through covert and overt taxes, regulation of medical personnel and policies, and welfare costs such as Medicaid and Medicare.
If we are ever to have cost-effective health care, it can only come through private enterprise without the strangling of government interference.
March 28, 2007 10:12 PMTo reduce the clerical overheads that are killing health maintenance and patients, a two-tier system needs to be in place:
1. Expansion of the MediCare system to cover birth to death, at the basic healthcare level. This level will depend on available funding.
2. Private additional care for those who can afford it. This is not "socialism", rather common-sense capitalism, in keeping with the realities of our social system, and national philosophy.
To industry, the main advantage is that it will shift its huge healthcare burden to society as a whole, making it more competitive in today's expanding world marketplace.
March 29, 2007 9:23 AMIn order to maintain a safer and harmonious society, there must be a well-planned health care in place.
Estimating the high number of elderly by the year 2030, a mandatory regulation must be introduced by all governments within the capabilities of the younger generation or the productive part of the society from now on in association with the insurance and the state run health care institutions. This must be mandatory for all the business community, either private or Public.
March 29, 2007 9:33 AMTo the Harry Shamirs, Vijay Anands and others of like kind who chatter without the slightest idea of just what you are advocating.
You people want care from womb to tomb from others? Everything in life has a price and must be paid for one way or another. You can get all the "loving care" from government only at the price of your own slavery. Remember the Soviet Union, Fascist Germany, Communist China and now the World of Islam? No? Then your schooling has been dismal and reflects either your ignorance or evasion of the facts of reality.
Know that any services provided by government other than that of the protection of individual rights comes at the price of your own freedom: your life, your liberty, your property and your pursuit of happiness. What you are advocating is your own death and the death of the rights of man by slow torture regardless of your own ignorance or your own evasions.
Are you so deathly frightened to live and to take responsibility for your own lives?
March 29, 2007 1:25 PMWe need affordable health care for every one in the U.S.A. and the governor's responsibility to make sure we have affordable health care. The GOV works for us the pople, the GOV needs to do right by the pople when we get sick and need to go to the Dr. but can't afford. How is it respons. I pay tax?
March 29, 2007 7:15 PMNO! There is not and never will be a "one size fits all" plan. The moment you get the Feds involved, you will get an increase in cost and "red tape." Nothing connected to the Government is simple, streamlined and easy to use.
I am disabled and forced to go on SSDI and I don't want to force anyone else to have to put up with the garbage I have to. As soon as everyone is force into such a program it will get even worse then it is now.
Private business will always out preform Government and Government shouldn't get into the "business of the private sector". Who ever thinks a bunch of lawyers can solve problems is nuts. Lawyers only create problems and it is lawyers who run the Government.
What if there was no such thing as insurance for anything? Everyone had to pay or get help from friends, family or church. Those who needed help would get right away without being demoralized and the "slugs" wanting a free ride (on everyone's back) would be left to fend for themselves!
Without insurance, no one could pay thousands of dollars for medications, doctors visits, and hospital care. What would happen is the PRICE would come down to where people could afford it (just like in "3rd world counties"! Many countries are offering vacation packages including hospital stay for surgery, medications, etc., all as good or better (no AMA to not allow "approved" treatments) than what is received in the USA (I know this personally). How else can you explain the "run" on getting Med's from Canada? (Mexico is even cheaper)
We are taxed and TOLD enough!
March 30, 2007 3:34 AMYes, health care should be mandated by govt. We are, I think, the only industrialized 1st-world country that allows this.
Universal would be cheaper than the uninsured using ERs as clinics. We would be more productive. Also, in trade negotiations health care, ecology, labor issues and those other things businesses operating in the U.S. must take into consideration should be addressed.
March 31, 2007 11:35 AMNationalized health care -- the last piece of the socialism puzzle for America. Only industrialized country without it? Guess who's the #1 economy. Must be for a reason.
April 20, 2007 11:22 AM
