Comments for The Amazing Maze of US Health Care

Comment on Survey Suggests Increase in HIE Popularity by Shirl

Shirl — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 03:40:01 +0000

A simple and intelinlget point, well made. Thanks!

Comment on Exchange Politics – It’s Personal by Bert

Bert — Fri, 26 Aug 2011 13:37:54 +0000

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery

The Wall Street journal follows your lead.

http://tiny.cc/2cd01

Comment on Exchange Politics – It’s Personal by Just When it Seemed There Was Hope, Michigan Voters Get Stupid Again « Cynical Synapse

Thu, 25 Aug 2011 00:56:05 +0000

[...] there’s that health care thing. Romney signed insurance mandates into law for Massachussetts but opposes Obama’s health care r…. How does that even make sense? The similarities are so coincidental, Republican presidential [...]

Comment on Health Care is a Human Right – or Not by jimmy1920

jimmy1920 — Sat, 06 Aug 2011 16:46:45 +0000

The point that I was trying to get at, is that a right is something that I, as an individual, can feel justified in demanding for myself. Therefore, the right-privilege dichotomy focuses on me.
Instead, I am trying to posit health care as an obligation we have to provide to others. Not a right to take, but an obligation to give.
But in the United States of America that we live in today, duties and obligations are not part of our framework, no duty to pay taxes, no obligation to support education. Giving is not part of our dialogue.
But people seem to understand taking. Which, in my humble opinion, is why health care as a right resonates.
In essence it is saying if you are not going to give, then I want to take it.
That in no way diminishes your main point. The bible says to take care of the sick. There are clearly services that fall under the term “health care” that don’t quite qualify as “taking care of the sick” face lifts, for example.

Comment on Health Care is a Human Right – or Not by Gil Lancaster

Gil Lancaster — Sat, 06 Aug 2011 02:47:18 +0000

Very nice blog post James; I do agree that BASIC healthcare is a public good, but as such isn’t it also a right? Maybe not a right of the individual, but the right of a member of a society?
The real reason that most people frame the question of right versus privilege is not about the social issue, but rather who should pay for the healthcare. If you believe it is a right, then it should be paid by the “public”, and if you believe it is a privilege, it should be paid by the individual.
Even if you believe that basic healthcare is a public good, wouldn’t you have to also agree that certain treatments such face lifts and Lasik surgery are not a public good? And if that is the case, who decides what conditions are for the public good and what are not? Our society has no mechanisms for that!
The EMBRACE healthcare plan (http://hpfhr.org/the_embrace_plan) is a new healthcare system reform proposal that addresses exactly this issue and separates healthcare into three tiers: a basic tier of life saving, life extending or preventative care services, a second tier of quality of life services and a third tier for luxury services like the face lift above. The basic tier would fit your definition of medicine for the public good, and would be funded by Congress; the remaining tiers would be left to either private insurance or to the individual.
Under EMBRACE, basic healthcare would be a public good (and funded publically) while allowing our society to have a mechanism to save money where there may not be a public good.

Comment on Payment Reform that Matters to Patients by Health Insurance

Health Insurance — Thu, 16 Jun 2011 22:14:29 +0000

I really appreciate this post. I’ve been looking all over for this! Thank God I found it on Google. You have made my day! Thx again.

Comment on Romney Stands by Massachusetts Health Care Reform by Pillen VZ

Pillen VZ — Thu, 02 Jun 2011 23:02:17 +0000

I think same like you and with the comment of Jason. Jason says absolutly that what i mean, so i do not write the same also. Thank to the writer of this blog and Jason. comfort plane

Comment on Save Medicare, Please! And its Beneficiaries. by jimmy1920

jimmy1920 — Tue, 31 May 2011 01:06:46 +0000

Ellen
Thanks for your contribution.
I think expanding Medicare is a good idea, however, I am not too keen on the “buying in” concept, unless it is on a strict ability to pay basis. In general, that is not the way Medicare works. Everyone pays the same, more or less. I know there are exceptions,but the exceptions just prove the rule.
As for the Medicare taxes, you may the whole point of the Ryan proposal – it is intended to make the PROGRAM solvent – forget about the beneficiaries,. They can go broke paying for medical care that Ryan, Norquist and their ilk want to feel absolutely no responsibility for.

Comment on Save Medicare, Please! And its Beneficiaries. by Ellen Proskauer

Ellen Proskauer — Mon, 30 May 2011 13:41:42 +0000

Didn’t we do this last year and the year before? Seems to me, Democrats put a solution on the table to reform Medicare in ’09. The conservatives (Rep and Dem) rejected it. End the timidity and Double Down. Put the plan – back on the table.

EXPAND IT.

Allow 55 and older, anyone in a high-risk group, Medicaid eligible, hospice eligible, and VETERANS to buy in. Expand it.

Strengthen Medicare by allowing those who want it, who need and who would benefit from it – to BUY in. You can get the actuaries to concur. It is a win win. Those of us who want health insurance we can depend on, we can TRUST – a plan who’s purpose is not to make profits at the cost of our health – want Medicare. We want to be free to buy it. We’re also willing to pay, to insure that the best providers will accept Medicare rates.

The only reason Medicare is the answer, is due to the established administrative structure, which can administer the program without 60% of our premiums being spent on overhead, marketing, CEO salaries, stockholder’s dividends. Those savings can be spent on doctors, hospitals, research and care. Or simply put – the money will go to health Care, rather than health administration.

There is one Argument no one ever mentions – if Ryan’s plan suggests future generations are not going to get the same promised entitlements – Medicare and SS – which generations have been paying for – how will the government justify collecting 18% of every working person’s income? Won’t someone ask – what are you taking it for? If it’s not going to be there, a guaranteed program to cover my healthcare needs and a small supplemental income, isn’t that an instant 18% tax hike? What does Grover Norquist say about that? And if the gov’ doesn’t continue collecting the 18%, how will it be able to continue paying for those currently receiving benefits? How does Ryan suggest we pay for the benefits he says are guaranteed?

How much will it really cost to enact a plan (overhaul) like Ryan’s? Why Not:

Make it a voluntary program. Let those who want it, continue paying in. Let those who need it early buy in. Let those who reject it continue buying premium insurance from high-cost private providers, which whittle away at their benefits. If it were a truly free system, no mandates, by choice alone – Medicare would prevail. 78% say they want it. Imagine!! A health insurance plan with 78% of the population enrolled. Imagine all those premiums pouring in voluntarily. With that kind of cash infusion, do you think Medicare might float?

Comment on Health Care Reform – the Next Round by jimmy1920

jimmy1920 — Fri, 27 May 2011 01:34:06 +0000

Just below “Recent Posts” on the Right Sidebar is a button to “Subscribe in a Reader”

Thanks for your interest.