"Obamacare"

[John Lee Pettimore III]

As long as these foreigners have the money, they are welcomed with open arms - nobody is telling them that "there isn't a doctor to provide it." America seems to have the doctors and medical facilities to meet THEIR needs.

Well, some guy with a checkbook or a credit card in hand probably pays a lot better than medicaid. It's also probably a lot more likely that the doctor will actually get paid. Can you blame doctors for not taking patients where there's a possibly that payment might be delayed, and instead taking patients that pay in cash at the time services are rendered? I certainly cannot.

If I lived "in certain areas of Mississippi," I'd be asking my state and federal respresentatives as to why I should be expected to do without and accept "second class" status in my own country?

Is there any law that forbids them from paying for medical services on their own? I can't think of any. A big part of the reason that they have to "do without" is because of policies that their representatives that they elect enact.

 

[jgarden]

Well, some guy with a checkbook or a credit card in hand probably pays a lot better than medicaid. It's also probably a lot more likely that the doctor will actually get paid. Can you blame doctors for not taking patients where there's a possibly that payment might be delayed, and instead taking patients that pay in cash at the time services are rendered? I certainly cannot.

Is there any law that forbids them from paying for medical services on their own? I can't think of any. A big part of the reason that they have to "do without" is because of policies that their representatives that they elect enact.

1. John Lee Pettimore III's argument has shifted from there not being enough doctors to serve Mississippi, to one that argues that no matter how many doctors there are, the private marketplace will determine that poor states like Mississippi will never attract enough doctors - and we shall all accept that.

2. Am I safe in assuming the John Lee Pettimore III sees nothing wrong with a 6.7 year lifespan difference between Hawaii and Mississippi? We should accept that if you're poor in America and can't afford healthcare (even if it is available) then you should accept your fate that you deserve to die younger.

3. That "death sentence" just doesn't apply to individual Americans BUT to whole states - starting with The People's Republic of Mississippi!

 

[Rion]

We could also encourage medical professionals to provide their services for free or reduced rates by giving them tax incentives

Yep, forgot about that.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Do tell, how is one supposed to obtain health care when there isn't a doctor to provide it, as in certain areas of Mississippi?

By training more doctors, perhaps?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Is there any law that forbids them from paying for medical services on their own? I can't think of any.

There is no law that forbids the uninsured single mom working a low wage job from paying for health sevices.

Can you guess why this women might not be able to get needed health care, even if there is a doctor in town?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Do people have a right to medical care?

Do people have a right to do as they see fit with their labor?

All people have the right to work at a multi-million dollar job on Wall Street.

But there are not enough goods and services for everybody to live that lifestyle. It would be impossible for all to live as Wall Street bankers. Do those that labor long hours to provide goods and services to those rich have the right to be treated like human beings, and to get needed health services when they cannot afford it?

If a dog shows up at our door with a thorn in his foot, most of us would have mercy on that dog. Why would we not have mercy for the person who cooks us burgers or changes the linens in our hotel room?

 

[dogs4thewin]

double post for some reason please delete

 

[dogs4thewin]

Let them choose to buy it or not if they choose not to buy it they assume the risk if they get sick. If they have a fatal condition treat them (until it is no longer fatal). HOWEVER, do NOT allow people to use the ER just because that is all they can afford. In other words do not allow them to treat them like their doctor every time they get a cold or some little thing. This would cut down on the lines, and actually today some ERs are starting to do that they will kick you out if you come in with a minor condition. Do not forget that an adult may choose whether they have insurance or NOT can afford it or NOT to refuse treatment (on their own free will.) I have yet to reach my 21st birthday and I have already decided on THREE conditions for which I intend to refuse treatment even if the bill stands or I have $10,000,000 to my name/ Someone who couldn't afford it could choose that way or know that if and ONLY if the condition was FATAL they can be treated anyway.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Do tell, how is one supposed to obtain health care when there isn't a doctor to provide it, as in certain areas of Mississippi?

By providing coverage so that the people in poor areas can pay for coverage and attract doctors to the area.

Do tell, what is your solution to the health needs of poor areas of Mississippi? Let them die?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Let them choose to buy it or not if they choose not to buy it they assume the risk if they get sick.

I see. So the long-term unemployed and those who are struggling to support a family on low wages should simply choose to buy health insurance? Did it not occur to you that they might not be able to afford it?

And what if the child of a poor uninsured worker has a chronic condition that is not yet "fatal". Should we let that child suffer until the condition becomes "fatal", even though it would have cost much less to treat her early?

 

[dogs4thewin]

I see. So the long-term unemployed and those who are struggling to support a family on low wages should simply choose to buy health insurance? Did it not occur to you that they might not be able to afford it?

And what if the child of a poor uninsured worker has a chronic condition that is not yet "fatal". Should we let that child suffer until the condition becomes "fatal", even though it would have cost much less to treat her early?

Many times they will still work with you to treat you, even if the condition is not yet fatal. By the way I meant any condition that one could think could likely become fatal even if it is not yet. For example stage one cancer. Now you may ruin your credit you may lose everything you have to your name but you will still get treated. By the way, I have nothing against people helping other people PRIVATELY afford medical bills. For example, when my father got cancer there ARE grants to help people come up with the money. Sometimes churches and other PRIVATE NON-PROFIT organizations will help as well. Mater of a fact, if I knew someone in my community at my school or whatever that was having trouble coming up with the money to pay a medical bill for a chronic condition and I had the money to help I would. I have NO problem with that. What I DO have a problem with is being FORCED to buy insurance (or pay a fine) and people who treat emanengy services as their general doctor for little things.

 

[jayem]

The nature of health insurance in the US must change in several ways:

1) Health insurance must be separated from employment. Your health policy should belong to you, not your employer.

2) For the most part, health insurance should be a non-profit enterprise.

3) All carriers must offer a basic, high-deductible, mainly catastrophic policy to everyone, regardless of health status. No one can be refused coverage or cancelled as long as premiums are paid. Premiums would be based on community risk, and cannot be raised due to individual utilization.

4) Everyone must have a minimum level of coverage as in #3. Premiums will have to be subsidized for those unable to afford them. The best way to fund this will probably be a state or regional sales tax. That way, everybody will something into the fund.

5) Government insurance programs--Medicare and Medicaid--must be incorporated into overall health insurance reform. These plans should have the same financial and benefit structure as private ones.

6) Public expectations of health coverage need to change. Insurance should be reserved for big ticket, catastrophic illness. Not for first-dollar coverage of every conceivable health need.

7) As part of #4, attention must be given to high-cost/limited benefit interventions. Such as cancer chemotherapy costing 1000s of dollars a dose, yet only extending life for a few months. End-of-life care is another. At least 20% of Medicare spending is for intensive treatment during the last several months of life. It is a sensitive issue, but we really need to think critically and dispassionately about how much we can pay for these kind of treatments. And it shouldn't be demagogued by politicians.

 

[MachZer0]

The nature of health insurance in the US must change in several ways:

1) Health insurance must be separated from employment. Your health policy should belong to you, not your employer.

2) For the most part, health insurance should be a non-profit enterprise.

3) All carriers must offer a basic, high-deductible, mainly catastrophic policy to everyone, regardless of health status. No one can be refused coverage or cancelled as long as premiums are paid. Premiums would be based on community risk, and cannot be raised due to individual utilization.

4) Everyone must have a minimum level of coverage as in #3. Premiums will have to be subsidized for those unable to afford them. The best way to fund this will probably be a state or regional sales tax. That way, everybody will something into the fund.

5) Government insurance programs--Medicare and Medicaid--must be incorporated into overall health insurance reform. These plans should have the same financial and benefit structure as private ones.

6) Public expectations of health coverage need to change. Insurance should be reserved for big ticket, catastrophic illness. Not for first-dollar coverage of every conceivable health need.

7) As part of #4, attention must be given to high-cost/limited benefit interventions. Such as cancer chemotherapy costing 1000s of dollars a dose, yet only extending life for a few months. End-of-life care is another. At least 20% of Medicare spending is for intensive treatment during the last several months of life. It is a sensitive issue, but we really need to think critically and dispassionately about how much we can pay for these kind of treatments. And it shouldn't be demagogued by politicians.

-That's a very good description of tyranny as opposed to liberty.

 

[Rion]

And you are satisfied with that?

40,000 people die each year because they don't have health insurance. Is that OK with you? Do you want them to be treated "just like now"?

And where did you pull that number from?

Hospitals are required to provide care to anybody who shows up with an emergency. This puts a huge burden on hospitals in poor areas, where many are uninsured. As the uninsured rate goes up, this gets worse. This hurts the care for everybody in poor areas. Are you OK with that?

If healthcare is cheap and affordable, the uninsured rate will go down.

In many cases it is cheaper to treat people in the early stages of a disease, rather then wait until the person is forced to go to the emergency room. If it is cheaper and more effective to treat it early, why not find a plan that will do that? Why ask for things to stay "just like now"

I don't know, why is it that you don't want health insurance to be cheap and widely available? (See, I can make baseless accusations too! )

 

[SharonL]

Repeal it - debate it openly, not behind closed doors, buying votes, bribery and any other thing they could do to get it passed. Open it up so we can see what is in it - Get some advice from people that have to decide on the rules for their employees. They are still finding things in this bill that is unbelievable. The amendments in the bill counter each other - if you follow one part - you are in breaking the law in another part. I saw a business owner yesterday say he has lawyers trying to decide what he has to do - they don't have a clue. It is impossible to follow - get rid of it, break it down to where an intellegent discussion can be held and take out all the bribery so each politican can have what they want for their own district.

 

[jayem]

-That's a very good description of tyranny as opposed to liberty.

Why do you think that?

 

[MachZer0]

Why do you think that?

Because you're plan would mandate what people and businesses can and cannot do rather than let them do what they prefer

 

[kermit]

Not to rain on anyone's parade...but:



There aren't enough doctors to provide health care even if everyone is insured.

But preventive care incurs less strain on medical providers than emergency care.

If you go the doctor because you have a chest cold that involves relatively few medical professional and involves relatively little time. If you don't get the chest cold treated and you end up in the hospital with pneumonia it involves many medical professional that have to devote a lot of time to your care.

 

[SharonL]

You are so right about doctors - by the time they get this sorted out, the shortage will be a disaster.It will affect every area of our lives. My daughter is a nurse - waiting on a new job - the clinic has been on hold for over 30 days waiting on the doctors to sign a contrct, the doctors are not signing yet because they don't know what will happen - so there is a whole clinic waiting to open, and it is this way all over. Doctors are quitting private practice in large numbers and going to work for hospitals where they are mandated to see 70 patients a day. I volunteer at a hospital and this is the rule there - so that leaves about 5 min per patient. There has to be a better way.

 

[John Lee Pettimore III]

But preventive care incurs less strain on medical providers than emergency care.

If you go the doctor because you have a chest cold that involves relatively few medical professional and involves relatively little time. If you don't get the chest cold treated and you end up in the hospital with pneumonia it involves many medical professional that have to devote a lot of time to your care.

The impression that I got was that there weren't enough primary care doctors and that those primary care doctors generally don't tend to take medicaid.