Comments on: Misguided Health Care Reform: Expect Slower Payment, Worse Access

By: Sreenathpl

Sreenathpl — Fri, 02 Mar 2012 03:56:09 +0000

Hello Nate, long time since I’ve teklad to you. Although I don’t necessarily agree with everything you’ve stated, your blog is very well written and thought provoking. On the topic of climate change, I couldn’t agree more with you. However, the major challenge I find with that (specifically cap and trade) is that if we force(i.e. tax) companies to emit fewer greenhouse gases, then the few remaining manufacturing companies will undoubtedly just pack up shop and start manufacturing jobs overseas. The average CEO doesn’t care about the American worker, and would just see it as another expense to do business here. Of course, there are solutions to this problem. Perhaps one answer would be to start taxing American companies doing their manufacturing overseas and giving bigger tax breaks to companies that stay at home in order to bring back/keep jobs for the dying American blue collar worker. While that concept seems simple, it is actually the opposite of what Bush did, which isn’t surprising. I’m curious what your idea is to solve this potential problem with cap and trade.As far as major health care overhaul, any reasonable person would say that we need it, but there are flaws in the bill that I think should be mentioned. Firstly, the republicans aren’t the only ones giving half-truths. one of my major problems with the bill is that it doesn’t address one major problem in the health care industry, which is tort reform. The reason? Just as republicans are in the pockets of health care industries, democrats are either in the pockets of malpractice lawyers, or were former malpractice lawyers themselves. A major reason why doctors are so expensive is because they need to pay hugely expensive insurance plans to cover themselves from sometimes ridiculous malpractice suits that get way to far in the legal system. Secondly, the idea of forcing insurance companies to take on people with pre-existing conditions is non-nonsensical. A friend of mine, who is management at an insurance company, put it like this, if you got in a car accident, and didn’t have any insurance, and then went to an insurance company to try and get insurance for the car and then have them fix it, do you think they would do it? While I know it may sound callous to compare people with pre-existing conditions to banged up cars, the analogy is accurate. After all, insurance companies are not NPOs, they work in order to make a profit, and there is no way to make a profit off pre-existing conditions. In fact, insuring those people would surely lead to many insurance companies going out of business. I believe the correct answer to the health care question would be to have a public option available only to those who cannot get insurance because of pre-existing conditions or because of lack of income. After all, only government could really afford such a cost. Anyways, great stuff.

By: Sunil

Sunil — Thu, 01 Mar 2012 08:59:41 +0000

I, too, am a Medicare repncieit and am reminded of the adage that there is a time to live and a time to die. I welcome a frank discussion of my options when confronted with a terminal disease. I do not demand that tens of thousands (or maybe millions)? of dollars be spent if it is simply a futile attempt to keep me alive in misery. If I have a chance and a good chance to live a decent life with treatment, then I hope that treatment will be afforded to me. If not, I hope I can face the end of life with courage and acceptance of the fact that death eventually comes to all of us. I would have liked to see a public option or a Medicare buy-in, at cost, for people under 65. It didn’t happen but maybe it will, in the not too distant future. When Franklin D. Roosevelt delivered his State of the Union address in January of 1944, he stated that all Americans should have the right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health. He died before his second Bill of Rights could be implemented. It took us years, after this address, to implement some health care reforms and my hope is that it is just the beginning of the realization of Roosevelt’s dream for all Americans for, as he said, Necessitous men are not free men.

By: Nancy

Nancy — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 18:15:28 +0000

Hey, guys. this is getting a little heavy. I have a more down to earth observation.

Have you ever heard the legal maxim, “justice delayed is justice denied”? Why can’t we apply that same principle to health care.

By: Bret

Bret — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 17:51:07 +0000

Ken, this is the result of Platonism. In the Platonic ideal world there is no commerce and therfore no need for money.

As for time? I suppose people could discuss philosophy with each other while they stand in line.

By: Ken

Ken — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 17:20:26 +0000

Linda, have you noticed that people on the left never seemed to be bothered by rationing by waiting.

Paying for care with time is okay. Paying with money is not okay.

If you put these people in an MRI machine you would probably find some physical basis for this bizarre way of thinking.