As a retired registered nurse, member of the New York State Nurses Association and member of the coalition with Physicians for a National Health Plan, I am very concerned about the healthcare "reform" currently underway in Congress.
I am convinced that the route to comprehensive and affordable health care has taken a dramatically wrong turn.
The main features of the legislation have often seemed obscure; for instance, neither a "government takeover" nor a "public option" really have anything much to do with the final bills. Both bills will make being uninsured a crime, punishable by an annual fine of up to 2.5 % of adjusted income under the House bill and $95.-$750. under the Senate bill.
To make insurance affordable, tax money will be used to subsidize private insurance premiums, but even with these subsidies, families will be required to spend 8-12% of their income to purchase insurance. Meanwhile, the insurance companies stand to gain tens of millions of new customers and at least $447 billion in taxpayer subsidies.
The bills in Congress offer no meaningful cost controls, will leave 17-24 million uninsured and do nothing about the high cost of prescription drugs.
Mild promises to "bend the cost curve" fall short when even middle-income people will still end up being saddled with huge, unsustainable health care costs.
One example of a measure that promises cost-savings is a health insurance "exchange" that each ill could create (4-5 years in the future). This has been tried without success in Massachusetts, where it has added, not reduced, costs.
I agree with Congressman Massa from Rochester who states these "solutions" will not fix the problems we face. We do not need "insurance reform." We need healthcare, comprehensive and affordable for everyone and we need it now--not over the next four to ten years. Congress should reboot the process and start with a proposal for workable reform: a single-payer national health program, an expanded and improved Medicare for all.
I agree with you, Janice.
I agree with you, Janice. Why do we have this middle man, called the insurance industry, skimming 43% right off the top? This industry makes money by denying care. The billion dollars that the insurance lobby has spent to stop this sure could have found a better use -- like giving people needed health care!
At this point, as disappointed as I am, I am hoping that we get some kind of bill so there's a starting point. Equal rights certainly didn't come easy and neither did medicare.
It's not a popular view I
It's not a popular view I share with my conservative leaning friends, but I do believe, that the federal government should provide a formidable defense against those who are not our friends, and the government should make sure all it's citizens have healthcare. Period. Everything else could/should fall to the states.
I like your thinking Jan
I like your thinking Jan Howard
Here's my good friend Matt
Here's my good friend Matt Welch, editor of Reason, on <a href="http://reason.com/archives/2009/12/07/why-prefer-french-health-care">why he prefers French health care</a>.
The French system of
The French system of healthcare is currently rated #1-close to Switzerland-in delivery of healthcare to all their citizens. These countries use a combination of a Medicare For All plan-government-with the ability to buy additional private insurance, if you want and can afford it. This is exactly what Medicare with Medigap insurance is in this country. We have a system that works-clean up the 31% waste, computerize all the records to prevent fraud, add preventative health and build in cost controls and you have healthcare for every citizen that is affordable and not tied to employment. The system is already in place-why should we taxpayers pay for a new system that will cost more, is not fiscally sustainable and will leave millions un/or under insured? I have been encouraged that there is some discussion in the Senate to add 55-64 year olds to Medicare..now just take it a bit further and cover everyone!
55 this year, maybe 45 in the
55 this year, maybe 45 in the near future and then everyone. Exactly what Congressman Anthony Wiener has been advocating.
“What is so magical about the number 65? If we provide Medicare to seniors over the age of 65, why not provide it to Americans 55, 45, 35 or 25?”
Hopefully this will mean a beginning to single payer.
Regardless of how well
Regardless of how well France's plan works for their health care, I do not want our government in charge of my health care. It is also important to note that France's government is run completely differently than the US's. Their taxes are collected differently, their school systems work differently, so of course health care is going to work differently.
Also, France has had quite a few revolutions resulting in new constitutions and "Republics", so that their government can work around what people want. We are working with a document over 200 years old that governed less than half of the states we have now. Our government has not be organized around providing this type of service to the people. The federal government was not meant to provide health care, education, or anything like that to the people.
The care I need as a 20-something is completely different than the care of a 70 year old, I don't know if our incredibly inefficient government could handle that difference.
With Medicare, you choose
With Medicare, you choose your healthcare..you choose your doctor, your hospital, pre-existing conditions do not apply in getting care, it is not tied to employment and it is affordable. Medicare is a PAYMENT system, not a HEALTHCARE system and is very American in its concept-it is not like anything in any other country..similar, but truly American. Just remember, there are healthy 70 year olds and sick 20 year olds. Healthcare, whatever you need, is a right, not a profit center for the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries.