Message me
Will privately insured Chicagoans pay higher rates to create a Medicare modeled public option competitor? That's the concern editorialized by the Chicago Tribune.
Chicago Tribune Blasts National Health Care Option
chicagotribune.com - 3 weeks ago - 316 views
33 Comments Have your say. Vote up the best responses. ↓
Reactions on the web
Latest tweets linking to this story (Share url: http://windycitizen.com/weUr)
Latest tweets linking to this story (Share url: http://windycitizen.com/weUr)
Invite your friendsExplore this story
People: Nancy Pelosi
Top Media Stories This Week
1
Comments
Massachusetts universal health care has seen insurance costs rise, pent up demand for health care overwhelm physicians & families resent being forced to join health care pools.
Not only that, but TennCare (from Tennessee) and the state-wide systems in Oregon and Maine are all cutting services to the people because costs have skyrocketed. It WILL happen with Obamacare. We are in for one of the worst messes ever with this thing.
Is $894 billion the correct number? An entire stimulus package just for healthcare essentially then. That seems extremely high to me.
So what's the answer to the healthcare conundrum, apart from being wealthy, or at least relatively comfortable?
Really, just take a look at many countries in Europe. Some scream socialism when the government takes too much control of something, but as we have seen lately, letting companies do what they want can be far worse. It has to be a huge change or no change at all.
I agree they scream. On the other hand, they've always been socialists and know no different. And there you'll see that each of those countries are cutting services, rationing services (your famous death panels), and finding that costs are skyrocketing. They also all have a shortage of doctors and nurses, fewer facilities, less medical equipment to use than we do here now. We will see the same thing once Obamacare is passed. Every American will see a lower level of healthcare at higher prices.
Single payer.
... is the worst case scenario.
...for the fat cats of the greedy health insurance industry. What do you do for a living, mobilevulgar?
You really are a left-wing, mind numbed robot, aren't you? Did you NOT see the AP report that proved that the insurance industry makes far less profit than most American industries? Try thinking for yourself and doing a bit of actual research for a chance. Stop being led by the nose by hatemongers like Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow.
Side note, so what if they make less of a profit? They still make a profit.
... and? What is your point?
Ad hominen, ILL? Is that really necessary?
What have we learned from the Massachusetts mandatory health care insurance experiment, mobilevulgus? Just how mobile are you, anyway?
(The name is Latin, BTW) What we've learned is that Romneycare is no money saver. What we've learned is that mandatory insurance does not work. What we have learned is that "free" healthcare for everyone drives up costs, causes rationing, and increases wait times and that all hits the poor the hardest. The worst thing is that we've learned that people will pay the "no insurance" fine because it is cheaper than buying insurance, then, when they get sick, they will suddenly start buying insurance which, in turn, bankrupts the insurance system. In other words, government healthcare does NOT work. At all. Period.
Government health care works just fine in every industrialized country that has it. No one in those countries would trade for what we have here. The poor in those countries get FAR better treatment than Americans without health insurance do. But health care has to be national and universal.
That's not what the facts say, friend.
Whose "facts"? Fox "News"?
I don't watch TV news. I read. You might like to try it once.
mobilevulgus seems to have rather far-right ideas but seems to like to entertain the belief that mobilevulgus is open-minded and moderate.
I read a book (yes, some others of us do that also!) a while back, I think it was titled "Surviving Healthcare" in which the author described various plans that are available in the US, as well as problems associated with those plans. The author concluded that the entire healthcare system is dysfunctional and inefficient, collectively. That was just one author, but it was a person that is an expert in the field. I certainly don't know the exact solution to the problem, but most people recognize that there is a problem and wish that steps would be taken toward improving things. I don't know if I would recommend a drastic, nation-wide paradigm shift unless we are certain that it will work. What I would like to see is incremental progress made constantly, on a permanent basis. Perhaps pilot programs or a menu of possible solutions available to people, with the option always available to correct systemic fail points. But that's just my opinion.
Stop putting words in people's mouths. I am no "moderate." Don't believe in the concept. In fact, I don't think there is such a thing as a "moderate." It is meaningless.
Most excellent observation, mobilevulgus!
Cost containment invites the co-operation of the insured, health care vendors & government agencies. Pent up health care demand in Massachusetts overwhelmed physicians & clinics in some poorly served areas of the state.
Thanks, I agree. The rural areas will be hit pretty badly with lack of doctors as has happened in Canada as well as Mass.
That's what urban legislators have yet to learn about how modest means rural residents have learned to do without much that urban residents take for granted.
By comparison, mandatory health care insurance plans, such as those introduced in Massachusetts, may seem gold-plated (or of Cadillac caliber) to those who have chosen not to purchase such health care services as dental care, basic checkups & chronic condition treatments.
To borrow an analogy, it will be like releasing water from a dam & watching just a few physicians & rural clinics try to keep their head above water.
What's the best way to cope with certain health care inflation in poorly served areas? Perhaps the multi-tiered provisioning of health care services might suffice until rural residents & specialists.
I invite you to go to Stroger Hospital if you think the problem of limited health care services for the uninsured is strictly rural. Waits for emergency room care are 10-12 hours, and that was before the county layoffs.
It seems that those who have health care now are quite content to let 45,000 Americans each year die unnecessary deaths just due to lack of health coverage, and millions more suffer.
You've got yours, so why should you care? Because, if you ever get sick and your insurance company cancels your coverage, you'll be in that waiting room at Stroger with me.
Good point. The same people that are wailing about the alleged "death tribunals," or whatever nonsense name they use, are tacitly supporting the existing rather Darwinian (apologies to Darwin) system in which indigent, uninsured people are sometimes allowed to die for lack of funding. It's OK, they don't contribute to the economy, we can tell ourselves. Or not.
Is lack of health care coverage indicative of one's poverty or is it causal?
Would we even be discussing health care access if Chicagoans were more prosperous?
Has the retirement of the first baby boomer (born after 1947) accentuated this public policy debate?
1. I don't see how it could be causal.
2. Probably "the average Chicagoan" could be ranked as prosperous. But we are not dealing in averages, we're dealing in real people, over lifetimes during which their fortunes change.
3. I guess we'd have to find the first baby boomer and ask him or her if they accelerated the debate. And how.
:-)
1) Chronic health conditions or heroic medical interventions have forced some patients to declare bankruptcy because they are not able to pay for their medical care, while many Chicagoans suffer from hypertension because they cannot affort to pay for the treatment of this chronic condition. Thus, lack of adequate health care insurance coverage has caused many to suffer from untreated medical conditions, while the treatment of these conditions has resulted in many being left destitute.
2) The family incomes of many Chicagoans fail eclipse the federal government poverty threshhold. While some families may earn more that, many families find inadquate income sustain the family above this poverty threshhold continually.
3) One of the biggest portion of health care service attends to the needs of the terminally ill, often of advanced age. As baby boomers progress in age, more & more will seek such terminal care for themselves.
Aha! No argument on all three. I'm starting to feel like your straight man.
Healthcare in Europe ISN’T All it’s Cracked Up To Be
http://bit.ly/2bKPs4
Your video link was interesting, mobilevulgus.
The problem with healthcare in this country isn't just about the actual institution and whether it is government or corporation-run. I believe an equal part of the problem lies with the populace. People don't eat right, don't even know how to eat (or cook) right, nor do they seem to care. American people don't think about choosing the stairs or walking, especially when they sit down for work and transportation. What does the average american know about maintaining its "machine" of a body? About self- screening for cancer? Drinking, smoking in moderation? Very little. People just do what they want and expect the doctors to fix the damage they've done to themselves. Eh, too lazy to exercise. I know this is a very "liberal" thing to say, but more education (particularly biological) would be a good start. Maybe if there was more preventative medicine going around, coverage would be cheaper so the poor folk and those with chronic conditions would be able to get coverage.
I do firmly believe, though, that some sort of "centralized" healthcare type contraption is needed (it could be a computer database too), to stop "abortion addicts" and just help keep track of paperwork and patients allergies to certain medications (because, if they happen to get in a car crash out of state, that would be helpful).
There I agree with you on the fact that too many Americans don't lead a healthy lifestyle. Then again, it is our freedom and liberty to lead our lives our own way no matter who hectors us otherwise.
Post new comment