Candidates Should Catch Up To American People On Universal Coverage
Candidates Should Catch Up To American People On Universal Coverage
Tomorrow, ThinkProgress will be in Las Vegas to cover the New Leadership on Health Care presidential forum. The forum will force presidential candidates to go on the record about their proposals for systemic health care reform. Currently, the “U.S. health care system is a scandal and a disgrace,” as nearly 47 million Americans lack health insurance, health care premiums continue to rise, and 71 percent of Americans believe our health care system is in a state of crisis.
The dire situation has led more and more Americans to support universal coverage. Polling done over the last decade shows support for guaranteed health insurance has consistently grown:
“Maybe, just maybe, 2007 will be the year we start the move toward universal coverage,” New York Times columnist Paul Krugman wrote recently. But as Drew Altman of the Kaiser Family Foundation and Robert Blendon from the Harvard School of Public Health argue, ” [W]hat health needs most to rise up in American politics is for national political candidates, whether from the political left, right, or center, to begin talking about the issue again as they did in the early nineties. Most important of all are the presidential candidates, who receive so much national media attention.”
The forum includes a ThinkProgress.org interactive candidate response round that will allow readers to ask questions of each presidential candidate in real-time. Here’s how it will work:
1. During the forum, ThinkProgress will feature streaming video and and a form for you to submit follow-up questions to the candidates.
2. The submissions will be filtered to a panel of health care experts who will select the best entries.
3. Towards the end of each candidate’s question-and-answer period, the moderator will ask the candidate a selected question from ThinkProgress.org readers.
We hope you’ll join us tomorrow morning.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
77 Responses to “Candidates Should Catch Up To American People On Universal Coverage”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Do it, TP!
March 23rd, 2007 at 6:40 pmLOL.
Do you think the federal government should guarantee health insurance for all Americans, or isn't this the responsibility of the federal government?
Come on guys. Poll questions that virtually make it impossible to answer no aren't bias-free or reliable. Just sayin'.
March 23rd, 2007 at 6:44 pmI will not be able to attend such a meeting.
My question is this;
If mankind needs laws to become free then how many laws does it take to imprison them?
March 23rd, 2007 at 6:47 pmCome on guys. Poll questions that virtually make it impossible to answer no aren’t bias-free or reliable. Just sayin’.
Comment by Lesly
I disagree. If we, thru law, legalize poverty, does not then the state that created such law responsible for the health of those it placed into poverty?
[This is not left or right question but an economical one]
March 23rd, 2007 at 6:50 pmHealth care has turned into a racket for the insurance companies.
March 23rd, 2007 at 6:50 pmIt's time to get it back and turn it into a service for the people.
Another question:
If we allow corporate welfare and contracts in the billions of dollars for defense are we not then creating an Orwellian future?
And if Americans are given lower wages how will the defense industry be funded? By osmosis?
March 23rd, 2007 at 6:54 pmIt's hard to believe so many americans have been dupped into agreeing with a system where we put a profit-driven middleman which provides NO services in between us and our healthcare.
March 23rd, 2007 at 6:55 pmSigh Crow: I disagree. If we, thru law, legalize poverty, does not then the state that created such law responsible for the health of those it placed into poverty?
Sigh, I'm talking about polling methodology, not universal health care. You don't stand a chance of convincing people with careless data. I'm sure a majority of Americans want U.H.I., but I'll use a Gallup poll to back up my opinion.
March 23rd, 2007 at 6:58 pmSigh, I’m talking about polling methodology, not universal health care. You don’t stand a chance of convincing people with careless data. I’m sure a majority of Americans want U.H.I., but I’ll use a Gallup poll to back up my opinion
You want a poll then you don't want a poll then you want a poll?? But this thread is about UHC, not polls, unless you want it to back up your opinion, which then you agree with polls?
March 23rd, 2007 at 7:03 pmEngland has health care for all. In England the middle class tax rate is almost 50%.
Would you support increasing the middle class tax rate to 50% in order to have health care?
March 23rd, 2007 at 7:03 pmSigh, I’m talking about polling methodology, not universal health care but I’ll use a Gallup poll to back up my opinion.
Seems pretty hypocritical to me.
March 23rd, 2007 at 7:04 pmSigh, I’m talking about polling methodology, not universal health care.
But this thread is about UHC not polling methodology, unless it agrees with your opine.
Huh.
So you advocate polls that agree with your opinion, methodology aside, but not the poll methodology that doesn't agree with your opinions?
Weird Logic. How can you rationalize that?
March 23rd, 2007 at 7:07 pmWould you support increasing the middle class tax rate to 50% in order to have health care?
Comment by muckdog
How much of your tax dollar goes to corporate welfare and the MIC?
March 23rd, 2007 at 7:09 pmSigh Crow: You want a poll then you don’t want a poll then you want a poll?
I want a good poll to gauge public opinion, Sigh. I don't want a poll to tell me what I want to hear. It is useless.
March 23rd, 2007 at 7:12 pm#10 Muckdog, I have asked you this before and I will ask you again:
Why does the U.S. spend nearly twice as much per capita as the rest of the developed world on health care, yet consistently achieves significantly worse outcomes by nearly every standard quantitative measure (e.g. life expectancy, infant mortality, rates of medical errors, etc)?
Try to not run away with your tail between your legs this time, or soil yourself when answering the question.
March 23rd, 2007 at 7:13 pmSigh Crow, I don't know if you're f*cking with Lesley or not, but there's a legitimate beef with polls conducted with flawed methodology. Polls can be useful, but if the questions are leading ones, or confusing, then the results are worthless. That's the point Lesley is making.
That objection has nothing to do with one's opinion on universal healthcare. And it doesn't represent a "flip flop" on polling, either.
Grow up.
March 23rd, 2007 at 7:15 pmMuckdog: "England has health care for all. In England the middle class tax rate is almost 50%.
Would you support increasing the middle class tax rate to 50% in order to have health care"
Muckdog, earlier today, a person from Britain pointed out that your numbers are in error. Your number is the average. He pointed out that the actual tax rate was more like 20 to 22%. Did you miss that or are you simply pretending not to notice that?
March 23rd, 2007 at 7:17 pmBy the way, Muckdog, UK spending per capita on health care is only 40% of U.S. spending, yet you are somehow trying to claim that high health care spending has something to do with high tax rates there. It is a loser argument.
March 23rd, 2007 at 7:17 pmLesly, why don't you stop beating around the bush and just tell us what your favorite poll says on this subject. That way, we can discuss healthcare and not polling.
March 23rd, 2007 at 7:18 pmI want a good poll to gauge public opinion, Sigh. I don’t want a poll to tell me what I want to hear. It is useless.
Comment by Lesly
So if the news is bad, but true, you would wish to ignore it? But if the news (from a poll) is good and what you want to hear is useless?
I'm sorry, but I don't know what your getting at.
March 23rd, 2007 at 7:18 pmThat objection has nothing to do with one’s opinion on universal healthcare. And it doesn’t represent a “flip flop†on polling, either.
Grow up.
Comment by KRank
But an opinion is not truth, right? And a poll then isn't either no matter how it's worded? And if neither are truth then what do you base your opinion on? The TV? Polls? What a politician tells you?
March 23rd, 2007 at 7:22 pmDid you miss that or are you simply pretending not to notice that?
Comment by Bluedog49 — March 23, 2007 @ 7:17 pm
Pretending, I bet. It doesn't take much truth to make Muckdog run, in my experience.
March 23rd, 2007 at 7:24 pmLet me clarify. What do you KRank or Lesly base your opinion (which isn't truth) upon then?
March 23rd, 2007 at 7:25 pmPretending, I bet. It doesn’t take much truth to make Muckdog run, in my experience.
Comment by VerbalKint
Muckdog doesn't know how to reflect internally.
March 23rd, 2007 at 7:27 pmSigh: I’m sorry, but I don’t know what your getting at.
Maybe because you can't. Oy.
If the news is bad, but true, you need to figure out how to change public opinion instead of leading a charge based on false assumptions. If the news is good you don't need to adjust your game plan. But you can only proceed if your information is reliable. A leading question is not a sign of reliable data, regardless of what it confirms.
March 23rd, 2007 at 7:28 pm
I'll bet that if you add my health care and dental payments to the 33% I pay in takes already, you would get to about 50%.
So, Brits pay less in taxes and get UHC. Nice.
March 23rd, 2007 at 7:28 pmExcuse me, Lesly. Earlier, you said this was a bad poll and you preferred the Gallup. Can you tell us what your favorite poll has to say on this subject or were you just engaging in obfuscation?
March 23rd, 2007 at 7:28 pmWho needs polling???!!! Right Lesly. Something tells me that you're the kind of American who just doesn't want to know how the majority of Americans feel about our healthcare system. I'm guessing it's because of who signs your paychecks.
March 23rd, 2007 at 7:30 pmI'd like to introduce the words "single payer" into this discussion. I know the popular argument is for universal coverage. Universal coverage is not "the governments responsibility," it just is a new way of forcing people to pay the insurance company middle-men a ton of money. What the survey question above asks about is what US really needs, and that is single payer health care. With single payer we eliminate the insurance company middle-men which eliminates 15 to 20 percent of the cost. We also make health care tons more consumer and provider friendly. As a consumer I no longer have to worry if the best doctor in my area is in the particular program that I am insured through. As a provider (especially in an emergency room setting where things can't be negotiated in advance) I don't need to worry if the patient I treat is contacted with an insurance company I contract with and is going to be able to pay me for my services or if I am going to have to fight with an insurance company for fair compensation. And there is so much more, too much to put in a comment.
March 23rd, 2007 at 7:31 pmmuckdog,
We seem to have more than enough money for the military industrial complex. How about giving a rats ass about our citizens?
March 23rd, 2007 at 7:34 pmI’d like to introduce the words “single payer†into this discussion.
Comment by Redvine — March 23, 2007 @ 7:31 pm
BINGO!!! Redvine answered my question posed to Muckdog in #15. Sorry, Muck, you're too slow.
March 23rd, 2007 at 7:34 pmIf the news is bad, but true, you need to figure out how to change public opinion instead of leading a charge based on false assumptions. -Lesly
If the news is bad, but true, then we need untruth to change an opinion?
March 23rd, 2007 at 7:34 pmVerbalKint,
It's the usual argument... wait for the "socialized" word... wait for it...
March 23rd, 2007 at 7:37 pmSo we need to present false assumptions to change the opinions of those with false assumptions?
March 23rd, 2007 at 7:37 pmHere, here, Redvine. We have an example: Medicare. Medicare is a classic single-payer system and its overhead is about 3%. Extending Medicare to all Americans would instantly cut billions in profit-driven expense and there wouldn't need to be tens of thousands of people paid to PREVENT you from getting healthcare as there is in the insurance industry. Single-payer is the only system which makes sense for our country.
March 23rd, 2007 at 7:39 pmMaybe because you can’t. -Lesly
Maybe that is your assumption?
March 23rd, 2007 at 7:40 pmSingle-payer is not socialized medicine. Socialized is when the state owns the hospitals and pays the doctors and nurses. The VA is socialized medicine. Single-payer is simply the government paying private contractors to bring you healthcare, cutting out the massive profit-driven middleman we call the insurance industry.
March 23rd, 2007 at 7:41 pmIt’s the usual argument… wait for the “socialized†word… wait for it…
Comment by Rocks911 — March 23, 2007 @ 7:37 pm
I say bring it on. They can label it Communism for all I care. What they can't do is answer my question in #15, which can be rephrased thusly:
If your capitalist ideology is indeed valid, then why is your market-based health care system a spectacular failure in health care delivery compared to "socialized" medicine?
This is actually a much broader question than #15.
March 23rd, 2007 at 7:44 pmI am disappointed to see you furthering the idea of "subsidized health insurance" . The Insurance companies have prayed on the American people long enough we do not need them involved in our health care. Why pay a middle man who will in short order start dictating what is covered and and who is entitled to it. We do not need greedy insurance companies between us and our health care. Regan was a self serving liar when he said the government couldn't administer a program efficiently. His canard is what started the privatizing of government services which have left us with wounded soldiers living in rat, mold infested, dirty flop houses and paying for meager meals out of their own pockets. Oh and I forgot maggot infected bedsores.
STOP SHILLING FOR THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY!!!!!!!
March 23rd, 2007 at 7:46 pmSocialism:
Socialized is when the state owns the hospitals and pays the doctors and nurses. The VA is socialized medicine. (yet they fight foe oil) Single-payer is simply the government paying private contractors (privatization such as Haliburton) to bring you healthcare, cutting out the massive profit-driven middleman we call the insurance industry.
Oh but we haven't cut out the MIC?? What then is the MIC?
March 23rd, 2007 at 7:47 pm#37 You're absolutely right, Bluedog, but when has a Republican label ever been accurate? They can't deal in accurate labels, because most Americans won't support their real agenda. So calling it socialized medicine is part of the big lie.
March 23rd, 2007 at 7:47 pmLesley, by now you've probably recognized that Sigh Crow has no interest in understanding what you're saying. I can't even tell what his interest is, so the simplest thing to do is ignore him. That's what I plan to do.
March 23rd, 2007 at 7:50 pmIf the news is bad, but true, you need to figure out how to change public opinion instead ?- About Polling: Who Needs Polling?
Comment by Lesly — March 23, 2007 @ 7:28 pm
March 23rd, 2007 at 7:51 pmso, fabricate the polling to change public opinion?
that sounds republican for sure.
watch T.P. censor this.
#35, medicare is in a very precarious situation with projected huge shortfalls in the years ahead. And you want to extend it to millions of more who pay nothing in premiums?
Yeee-ouch.
March 23rd, 2007 at 7:52 pmSTOP SHILLING FOR THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY!!!!!!!
Comment by Betty — March 23, 2007 @ 7:46 pm
I agree. Single-payer is the only thing that makes sense. The proposal generated by the Clinton administration in 1993 was ridiculous and would have been a costly failure.
March 23rd, 2007 at 7:54 pmT.P. Censors 99% of my Comments. sorry for that.
March 23rd, 2007 at 7:55 pmCensorship - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaThe censoring body disapproves of what it deems to be the values behind the ... One argument for censoring the type of information disseminated is based on ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship - 79k - Cached - Similar pages
That's right, Muckdog, and one way to fix it would be to take back the more than a trillion dollars that you Bushies have redistributed to the wealthiest 1% in America.
Let me put this in a way you might recognize and possibly understand:
“For everyone to whom much is given, of him shall much be required.†— Luke 12:48
March 23rd, 2007 at 7:56 pm"medicare is in a very precarious situation with projected huge shortfalls in the years ahead"
March 23rd, 2007 at 7:58 pmDeficits are meaningless as Ronnie Raygun and Cheney have taught us. They're just numbers. We've managed to come up with HUNDREDS of BILLIONS of dollars for war, soon to approach half a TRILLION, so lets spend some more and have the Chinese bankroll our lifestyle.
I wrote this a few years ago, but it still works:
What is the #1 responsibility of the government? Think about that for a minute. What do you think a Republican would say? Many people, in fact most people, would say, "To protect its people." Even if that is not the #1 responsibility, I would think nearly everyone would agree it is a major responsibility.
So what should the government protect us from?
Enemies? Undoubtedly. That's why we have the armed forces, CIA, NSA, etc.
Crime? Yes. That's why we have the FBI, DEA, Federal Marshals, federal courts, prisons, ATF, and other law enforcement agencies.
Natural Disasters? Sure. That is why we have FEMA, early warning systems, first responders, etc. Look at the tsunami, and how everyone felt the governments in that area should have been out warning people.
Disease or other health dangers? No doubt. We have the Dept of Health and Human Services, FDA, EPA, OSHA, NIH, CDC, clean air and water acts, and many other agencies and laws which are involved to some degree in monitoring, maintaining, or ensuring the health of the citizenry.
So if health dangers are something the government is already concerned with, why is universal health care not a part of this model? Why shouldn't the government protect us from microbial invaders as well as human invaders? A healthy citizenry is certain to be a more productive work force (that is, after all, the justification behind employer provided health insurance). And preventive care is proven to be more cost effective than treatment.
So look at injury and disease as a threat to our citizenry and our national economy. Health care then becomes an element of our national defense. And we all know how the GOP loves to spend on national defense.
March 23rd, 2007 at 7:59 pm#35, medicare is in a very precarious situation with projected huge shortfalls in the years ahead.
Comment by muckdog — March 23, 2007 @ 7:52 pm
Another diversion. Why don't you scoot your little fanny up to #15, and start answering the question?
Muckdog must be unaware that private insurers have been unable to compete with Medicare on cost, and that health care for seniors would implode overnight if Medicare was replaced with private insurance. But Muckdog seems to be unaware of a lot of things (cf. #17, 22).
March 23rd, 2007 at 7:59 pmWell, some time has passed, so either Muckdog is studying my question, or is off peeing on a hydrant somewhere before returning here to drop another little doo-doo and run away again.
March 23rd, 2007 at 8:14 pmAmericans spend twice as much as other developed countries on health care and yet we fail to achieve competitive outcomes and quality of life. Forty-seven million American don't even have medical insurance. These people comprise mostly the poorer segment of our society and many of them are children - American children! This is also the segment of our society that produce most of the men and women in uniform - you know, the one's that put their lives on the line for us. What have we become? Are we just tools of the wealthy and the insurance and big pharma business lobbys? I always hear our elected leaders stating that we're the best, the richest, the strongest etc. etc. Well we are not and it's our fault because we are allowing vested interests to act against our own self interest! No one in Western Europe or Canada would trade their health care system for ours because ours is too expensive and totally non-responsive to the needs of the American people. It is designed to benefit the insurance and pharma companies.
March 23rd, 2007 at 10:08 pm[...] Think Progress. Public Opinion Snapshot: Universal Health Care Momentum Swells More and More Americans Say: Time [...]
March 23rd, 2007 at 10:10 pm"Polling done over the last decade shows support for guaranteed health insurance has consistently grown"
WHO'S GOING TO PAY FOR IT?
March 23rd, 2007 at 10:28 pm"Health care has turned into a racket for the insurance companies.
It’s time to get it back and turn it into a service for the people.
Comment by RUCerious — March 23, 2007"
A racket? Explain?
March 23rd, 2007 at 10:29 pm"It’s hard to believe so many americans have been dupped into agreeing with a system where we put a profit-driven middleman which provides NO services in between us and our healthcare.
Comment by Bluedog49 — March 23, 2007"
"Our Healthcare"? You act as if it is a right guaranteed by the Constitution. IT'S NOT!
March 23rd, 2007 at 10:32 pm"I’m sure a majority of Americans want U.H.I., but I’ll use a Gallup poll to back up my opinion.
Comment by Lesly — March 23, 2007"
Not intelligent Americans!
March 23rd, 2007 at 10:33 pmI see that sad little michael know-nothing is back. Read posts #15, 17, 18, 35, 37, 38, 47 and 49 and learn.
March 23rd, 2007 at 11:10 pm"Why does the U.S. spend nearly twice as much per capita as the rest of the developed world on health care, yet consistently achieves significantly worse outcomes by nearly every standard quantitative measure (e.g. life expectancy, infant mortality, rates of medical errors, etc)?
Try to not run away with your tail between your legs this time, or soil yourself when answering the question.
Comment by VerbalKint — March 23, 2007"
Where did you get these statistics from moveon.org. Listen, you won't find better healthcare on the planet than USA. Who has better? Canada? Sweden?
March 23rd, 2007 at 11:20 pm"Muckdog, earlier today, a person from Britain pointed out that your numbers are in error. Your number is the average. He pointed out that the actual tax rate was more like 20 to 22%. Did you miss that or are you simply pretending not to notice that?
Comment by Bluedog49 — March 23, 2007"
What an idiotic statement! You yourself admit that his number is the average. Why should the average be that high? Are you suggesting that it's ok to add an addition 22% to my taxes to support those who won't support themselves? I WON'T!
March 23rd, 2007 at 11:24 pm"By the way, Muckdog, UK spending per capita on health care is only 40% of U.S. spending
Comment by VerbalKint — March 23, 2007"
And are you suggesting that the UK has a better health care system than the US?
March 23rd, 2007 at 11:26 pm"Single-payer is not socialized medicine. Socialized is when the state owns the hospitals and pays the doctors and nurses. The VA is socialized medicine.
Comment by Bluedog49 — March 23, 2007"
Socialized medicine is when the tax payers foot the bill!
March 23rd, 2007 at 11:28 pm#58 Ah, Michael, we can always count on you not to understand an issue.
March 24th, 2007 at 12:05 amUNIVERSAL HEALTH COVERAGE FOR ALL AMERICANS NOW----THE POOR AND MIDDLE CLASS FIRST, THE RICH ONES LATER!!!!!
March 24th, 2007 at 12:44 amMichael,
We are, together as a country, already spending more than enough money into health care to provide health care for all (universal coverage) if we switch to a single payer system. The money most of us currently send to insurance companies is enough to provide coverage for all if we get rid of the bureaucratic overhead of those insurance companies (including inappropriate emergency room usage by the uninsured).
Single payer, as has been said above, is not socialized medicine. In fact, in many ways it would be the opposite. It would allow the free market to rule.
Right now there is no real free market in health care. I can't go to a hospital based on the quality of care I think I will receive, or based on what is convenient, or whatever. I must go to the hospital my insurance covers. I can switch insurance, but then that affects which primary care provider I can choose, or which drugs are in the formulary, or whatever. By bundling health care in this way insurance companies have destroyed the free market for health care. Single payer would restore the market -- would give consumers the power to decide.
The really cool and amazing thing is that single-payer would also reduce costs so much (both by eliminating insurance company overhead, but also by providing universal coverage which gets people out of the emergency rooms and into proactive, less expensive, health settings) that it would allow universal coverage without needing to increase taxes. In fact, most of us would save money.
March 24th, 2007 at 1:14 amAwww Poor Michael no one is doing his homework for him and his endless questions, booo freakin hooo
March 24th, 2007 at 1:34 amBefore we talk about who is going get health care and who is going to pay for health care, shouldn't we first talk about how to reduce the need for health care?
How can countrites like Andorra, Macau and San Marino have limited and primitive health care, yet also have the longest life spans in the world?
The U.S. has the most advanced and the most expensive health care in the world, yet it does little to keep us healthy nor does it help much in the way of extending our life spans. The U.S. is ranked 48th behind Bosnia, which is ranked 45th!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy
Is the AMA an organization full of quacks? Are prescription drugs just expensive poison? Is our food and water supply also full of poison? It certainly looks like the answer to all three questions is YES.
Is it possible to live a long and healthy life without the need for doctors, prescription drugs and medical operations? In the top three countries with the longest living people, the answer is certainly YES.
Now the question we must ask ourselves is, how do we alter our lifestyles and food supply so that we can stop giving our children's inheiritance to the medical profession and the pharmeceutical industry?
I know the answer, but do you?
March 24th, 2007 at 2:19 amI'm not an expert on Healthcare, although I did take College level coarses in it, for my Medical Coding and Billing. I also did a paper on Canadian Healthcare. Do you realize Canada not only covers doctors, hospitals, and prscriptions, but also dental, eyecare, and nursing homes.
I don't have the answer, I think looking at the top 10 ranked countries for Out Come by the World Health Org. and seeing how they do it, might answer the question. Since out cost per capita is double everyone else's healthcare plans, it would help answer that question at the same time!
March 24th, 2007 at 12:47 pmAndie Welaka Fl.
I just did a quick google search for taxes in England.
Link.
A household receiving £28,000 a year in disposable income pays 47.9 per cent of that in tax, while earners in the top income bracket pay 46.9 per cent.
1 British pounds = 1.9643 U.S. dollars (according to a google search)
That's $55,000 in US, folks.
So lets hear it from you folks who make $55K or more in the US. Are you willing to pay almost half of that to the government in taxes in order to have "free" health care?
March 24th, 2007 at 11:01 pmHere's another one for ya...
Tax burdens between UK nations
It turns out that the Welsh have to work eight days less than the national average in order to pay off their tax bills, but Northern Ireland revenues have to work four days more. Taxpayers in Wales will be working for Gordon Brown from January 1 until 24 May this year, while those in Northern Ireland will be slaving from 1 January until 6 June.
Taxpayers in England are spot on the national average, working from 1 January to 2 June, while those in Scotland are taxed less, enjoying their freedom from the tax gatherers on 27 May.
March 24th, 2007 at 11:03 pmHaving Health Insurance is no quarantee your medical needs will be served “Underinsured†or prey to policies written to benefit insurance companies? …
March 25th, 2007 at 2:42 amThis gets personal...
Despite having health insurance, BS of California denied medically necessary therapies for our 8 year old son. We pursued an independent review with the Department of Managed Health Care in Sacramento and despite providing letters of medical necessity and 85+ pages of documentation, the “contracted†state reviewer agreed with BS of California and they are no longer obligated to pay for our son’s therapy. Unfortunately, our family is at the mercy of whatever insurance policy my husband’s employer can obtain. With our son’s pre-existing condition we cannot secure insurance on our own. This issue is more complex, as it is not a matter of being underinsured, but rather we are subject to policies written so broad that the insurers can rationalize many procedures as not medically necessary; even if the insurer’s decision runs contrary to medical reports and documentation provided from physicians at renowned medical establishments, Children’s Hospital Oakland and Lucile Salter Packard Children’s Hospital at Stanford. If our legislators are proposing health care for all, let’s “insure†that all parties involved, namely insurance companies, are working in good faith to provide these services and are not hiding behind their cleverly written policies. Under a single payer system would we recieve financial support for these therapies? - I am not sure if a single payer system would help us families with medical needs that are â€outside of the box†- beyond preventative ?
I'm all for universal healthcare coverage....so long as it doesn't raise my taxes.
March 25th, 2007 at 12:44 pmSome of us in the U.S. are spending a great percentage of our income on medical. One emergency without insurance and you will be in debt for tens of thousands of dollars. We currently spend $25,000+ out of pocket for our familie's medical needs, about 25 percent of our income, and we have health insurance?! See post 67. Anyone bother to ask what kind of health system our legislators have - do they pay premiums?, but wait thier salary is from our taxes - so are we, the taxpayers, funding their health care? Sounds like the legislators recieve universal health care, shouldered by their consitutuents? If it works for them why not for the rest of us?
March 25th, 2007 at 1:52 pmNo on this governmental health care.Every time the government gets involved the price of admission doubles!!Who plans on paying for this?The people who currently paying for their own care now!!Revamp the broken system now in place-not call in some more fingers to grab some of the pie for themselves.
March 26th, 2007 at 10:39 amWhy don't they ask it like this - Should people be responsible for themselves and their health care or are they so stupid that the government should hold their little hands and do everything for them like a socialist government?
Or better yet, do you want healthcare like Canada where practically nothing is covered and you have to wait 6 months for an MRI. Unless you’re a rich Canadian like Neil Young who makes his money off America while spitting on us but has the money to come here for medical treatment.
ROTFL
March 26th, 2007 at 2:11 pmDo any of you know how many drs. are going into private practice in England? To get a dr of any quality there you end up paying anyway! On top of the 50% taxes. England's economy is awful and has been for years as well as jobs being hard to come by.
March 27th, 2007 at 2:00 pmIf you want medical costs to come down here stop going to the dr for every little thing and quit buying over the counter remedies. Try doing things the old way, they usually work better and are a whole lot cheaper, not to mention leaving the chemical build up out of your body.
The medical and pharmacutical industries have most of the country thinking we need them and only them. 25 yrs ago my dr. was adamant I had to have my gallbladder out and I went to the library, got a stack a books and read. I still have my gallbladder and if I did have to have it out today at least it could be with laproscopy instead of an incision diagnol across my whole stomach.
I don't have health insurance right now and I don't want it, if it's going to be socialized because I know how much this free medicine will cost me. Have any of you ever been in a hospital in Canada? Go there, I have been to several. No thanks.
Post 77 - Comment by E
March 28th, 2007 at 3:17 pmI hear what your are saying about questioning medical procedures, taking responsibility for our health. WE need to be smart advocates when it comes to our health. We attempted to advocate - but it is not working. We opted for intensive physical therapy for our son instead of costly invasive procedures. The physicians that previously were considering these procedures saw how well our son was progressing and changed their minds - told us to continue the therapies. Our 8 year old son is walking today because of these therapies. Unfortunately my husband's insurance plan changed 3 times in the past 5 years, previous insurance funded part of these therapies, the last insurance company refuses to pay for any of the therapies, they say the therapy is not medically necessary. WE will now pay out of pocket $20,000+ annually for premiums, therapies, prescriptions. Without the therapies, our son will regress and end up with surgery. I thought I was being a smart consumer choosing therapy over surgery. I am saving money, choosing frugally- when the annual cost of therapy - $12,000 annually is cheaper than one day's stay in a hospital - ???
The current system is not working for us. I ask again - Can anyone propose how a universal health care will help families whose children have pre-existing conditions - or "out of the box" medical needs??? Why is our medical model so quick to perform surgeries?