Comments on: More on the Health Care Debate

By: Joseph Voldness

Joseph Voldness — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 00:45:45 +0000

That’s all fine and good. Frankly, my concerns about a more refined ‘health care system’ are resolved the moment they actually are MANDATED to pay for all medical visits and no longer reject people based off of the ludicrous ‘pre-existing condition’ clause.

My point was in my post on the original discussion was that so long as these companies can opt out of paying, paying them for their ‘protecion’ is every bit the same as paying protection money to a bunch of thugs. Their ‘insurance’ is very thin when it’s actually needed.

As for the point that the Japanese actually control the cost of procedures so the system can handle the demands… I would think a measure like that would be required regardless of what our government does. Unfortunately, I’m not seeing anything about cost control in the legislation. I’m not seeing much about mandating insurance to cover all people and all bills. As far as I’m concerned, these are deal breakers and I won’t stand for our country spending a ludicrous amount of money to solve nothing which is what it sounds like they are trying to do.

It’d be simple. Start with a bill that is written for everyone to read. But they aren’t doing that. They created a 900 page document to explain and constrain things. Shouldn’t it be fundamentally a handful of mandates followed by cost cutting plans?

My entire thought is that they aren’t doing that because they don’t WANT to do that. I’m convinced they’re in bed with privatized insurance who rather likes to just cancel people’s policies when they need things. Really, that’s the entire problem right there. Why have insurance if when the going gets tough, they look for any and all reasons cancel your insurance out from under you?

By: Jerry Brammer

Jerry Brammer — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 15:53:06 +0000

Got it. I do now see his ” right or wrong means nothing to them” could (would) be construed as a criticism but I thought he and you were saying the same thing: they ARE in the business of making money. I do believe that insurance companies provide a valuable service and are essential in a wide varety of areas.

Maybe, it’s the fact that the entire medical/health care system in this country is based on making money. I know we love our capitalistic society but there are some things that we all sort of agree don’t have to be money-making operations; like law enforcement, firefighting, and teaching. Why is it we feel (mostly) comfortable with these areas being non-profit but not health care. There really is no medical proof that our system is better. Is the fact that the system now represents one sixth of our economy that there are now so many people that have a vested interest in keeping it the way it is?

By: BG

BG — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 14:53:39 +0000

Seeing how it is especially popular to categorize insurance companies as “villains” or whatever the popular nomenclature is these days, I was offering an explanation as to why the insurance companies (and all businesses) have to ultimately operate in terms of dollars and cents. It wasn’t a reiteration. For all I know, FoosMaster and I may be in agreement regarding the insurance companies, but I thought there was some ambiguity as to whether or not his last few sentences were a criticism.

While it might come as a shock to you, I believe that human life is infinitely more valuable than dollars. The debate on health care, (as with many contested political issues,) is in what system, what structure, can life and the quality of life be most greatly nurtured and sustained?

By: Jerry Brammer

Jerry Brammer — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 21:40:32 +0000

BG – I’m not clear on what your point is. Are you just reiterating what FoosMaster stated in his last sentence or am I missing something.

I would say one thing, though, everthing is not simply black or white, choice A or choice B. although you would think that from all that one hears these days on almost any subject, especially those that have a poll taken on them. We seem to need a simple “up or down” answer to evry question with two opposite extremes as the answers. Like: Are you pro-life or for abortion? Are you for capitalism or socialism? Which is more important: people or the dollar?

By: BG

BG — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 18:59:35 +0000

Not to sound woefully ignorant, or inhumane, though it will come across to some as such – but can an insurance company that puts the person before the dollar stay in business? Say, would a company that refused to lay people off, in spite of hemorraging money, because it would be putting the dollar before the person, survive? Then if it collapses, what happens to all of the people it was supporting or its investors?

By: FoosMaster

FoosMaster — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 17:38:12 +0000

There are also many Americans that go to other countries to get treatments that they can’t get here because the procedure has not been approved by the FDA or their insurance company. There will always be some procedures that are not covered, that includes by insurance, (No system is perfect). Most, (I would guess nearly all) of the procedures that people come here to get would not be covered by insurance either and must be paid for out of pocket. Yes the U.S. gives “Faster” care, (most of the procedures are offered in their country, they just have to wait longer for it and they would rather come here to get it faster), so the procedures are offered here for those people because it is “profitable”.

The debate should be about ‘Basic’ health care which EVERYONE should be able to receive without having to “qualify” for! Too many people die each year because they can’t get ‘Basic’ health care, this is a travesty that should not be happening in this country. As long as there is a system that requires “Qualifications” for someone to get care then there will be many people that will not “Qualify” for the care they need because some panel finds a way to get out of paying for it (it’s about the dollar, not the need). And many of those people would also not be able to afford the so called “Cheaper” insurance that is being proposed thus would still not be able to get “Basic” health care. That needs to change. The longer it takes, the more people will die needlessly. It will not be easy or cheap but MUST be done! Lets bite the bullet and do something about this NOW!
Insurance companies will ALWAYS put the dollar before the individuals need, it’s not personal, it’s just business, right or wrong means nothing to them!

By: John Jackson

John Jackson — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 14:33:50 +0000

Interesting read to be sure. But since he is writing from a Pro view point its hard not to take what he says with a grain of salt.

Here is what I am afraid of: http://freep.com/article/20090820/BUSINESS06/908200420/1319/

Canadians coming to the US to get health care that they cannot get in Canada, that of course begs the question: Where will Americans go when the “New” Health care system cannot give them what they need?

I dont care what anyone says, there are limits, there has to be limits. But who gets to decide who and what gets limited?

By: Beth in Munich

Beth in Munich — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 15:42:41 +0000

Very interesting article, Ed, thanks for sharing – I’ve sent it to some hard-core anti-health reform people I know. The details about Germany in his article are not 100% accurate, but they’re 98% accurate, and from my point of view, it sounds like he may have simplified a little (about Germany) only in order to keep his article readable.
A lot of German doctors here do moan about the bureaucracy, however, but as my brother-in-law, who’s an anesthesiologist, says, it’s moaning at a very high level.