This November, as in all election years, there are important issues at stake. One of them is the issue of socialized medicine or, to use the Democrats' latest euphemism for it, "universal healthcare." Universal disaster is more like it. The Dems do their best to put a positive, humanitarian spin on the idea, but the long-term ramifications would be devastating. The Democrats would have you believe that conservatives who are against universal healthcare take this stance because they are mean-spirited and compassionless. Naturally, this isn't the case. And it's hardly how I feel. I am against universal healthcare because I believe it will create one of the most intrusive government bureaucracies since the Internal Revenue Service, and it will impinge heavily on the individual freedoms of all American citizens. Obama would attempt to achieve universal healthcare coverage by relying primarily on private insurance. That's right - he would look to solve our nation's health care problems by giving control of the system to the insurance companies. Wow. One of the key misconceptions among Obama supporters is that a universal healthcare system would make healthcare more affordable. What delusional planet is he from? Under socialized medicine, the healthcare system may be perceived as being more fair, but it certainly won't be any cheaper. A better way to describe the program would be to call it "universal heath insurance." The idea is that by compelling everyone in the nation to participate in the insurance market, you'd cut down on what's known as the "free rider" syndrome. As the term suggests, this would be people getting a "free ride" from the healthcare system by deciding not to get their own health insurance because they've been assured that in the case of an emergency or personal health catastrophe, inexpensive care will be guaranteed to them by the government. The theory is that mandated participation would help to drive down insurance costs. But any mandate requires an enforcement component. My fear is that a government branch with the kind of power to actually identify and penalize those seeking to avoid the insurance mandates of universal healthcare would be vast and all-powerful. The new healthcare arm of the government would likely have the same kind of power (and loathsome reputation) as the IRS. I'm all about personal freedom and the rights of individuals. Universal healthcare is not only impractical, but costly - and not just for your pocketbook. It's handing over yet another right to the government, and allowing the government to decide and rule your fate. I'm not compassionless-I'm just sensible. And universal healthcare as it's being proposed still doesn't make much sense to me. The disaster of the Massachusetts universal healthcare system should give you a preview of what life under a universal healthcare scheme could be like...
The universal healthcare dam springs a leak A program of mandated health insurance is already in effect in Massachusetts. Under that system, subsidized insurance is made available to individuals earning up to $30,636 annually, and families of four earning up to $61,956 per year. The state government has begun to impose stiff fines on residents who fail to purchase health insurance - and the penalties can amount to as much as $912 a year! And this place is already known as "Tax-achusetts!" Even though this system is in its infancy, it already has many vocal opponents. Devon Herrick, a senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis calls the Massachusetts universal coverage plan "overregulated and largely unworkable." Herrick explains that the least expensive health plan available through the program costs $196 a month, while the state fine for being uninsured is about half that cost -- $98 a month! After just two years, Massachusetts' universal coverage program is running at a staggering $147 million deficit, and the four insurance carriers who provide the state- subsidized insurance are estimating that costs will go up by 14 percent next year. Even more shocking is the manner in which Massachusetts state officials have decided to deal with the out-of-control costs of their broken system: they've ordered the insurance companies to cut payments to doctors and hospitals, reduce choices for payments, and possibly increase how much patients will have to pay. I only hope that Americans get a good, long look at the disaster that universal healthcare has wrought on the economy and people of Massachusetts before a similar catastrophe is unleashed on the whole country. The train wreck in New England is headed our way if the democrats get into the oval office. America: you have been warned. Giving you complete coverage on all the dangers of universal healthcare coverage,
Under socialized medicine, the healthcare system may be perceived as being more fair, but it certainly won't be any cheaper.
It won't be any cheaper and it won't be any fairer!!!!
Due to recent budget cuts and the rising cost of electricity, gas, and oil, The Light at the End of the Tunnel has been turned off. We apologize for the inconvenience.
IT WILL NEVER BE 'FAIR'......REMEMBER CELEBRITY'S AND THE 'BIG FISH' IN THE REGION WILL ALWAYS GO FIRST......$$$ talks,,,,,,always has and always will-------re-val issues/levy issues,,,,,all the same animal.......
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
First published: Wednesday, September 24, 2008 Mary Anne Nolan's thoughtful article of Sept. 9 urges "make your own choices for your health," rather than "allow the government to make these decisions"; that we need "competition or market forces to keep the players in check and offer us options."
But what "decisions" or "options" are available? Market forces have yielded over 45 million totally uninsured, and ever-decreasing coverage for those "insured" who develop serious illness or are unable to pay ever-increasing premiums.
She's right that any health system should be "monitored" and carefully watched. That applies to any industry affecting the public: health care, hedge funds, banks, Enron, etc.
Health insurance companies are the problem, not the solution. They maximize profit by refusing those needing care the most. Each pushes its bell curve of total insureds toward the most healthy, away from the least healthy. Each spends huge amounts on advertising. Only government can cover all citizens under a single bell curve, where lower costs of the most healthy would help offset higher costs of the least healthy — and without profits or advertising.
Politicians fear mentioning the huge waste inherent in private insurance because knee-jerk opponents cry "socialism," the way Ronald Reagan reviled Medicare as "the advance move of socialism." Providing health care to all would no more be "socialism" than providing the military, federal highways, social security or the postal system.
Let's not let verbal scare tactics prevent a tragically needed fix. Let's get on with a federal single-payer system for everyone, while agreeing to keep watching.
Without universal health care, America won’t get better
As a second-year medical student, I had my first experience working in a clinical setting this summer, and I was amazed at the number of patients for whom the basics of health care were out of reach. Before this summer, the issue of health care affordability was one that I had read about, but never seen firsthand. For many, the cost of their co-pay for an office visit was nearly budget-breaking, and the out-of-pocket costs for prescription medication were out of reach. In many cases, this meant that doctors had to compromise the quality of their treatment by prescribing medications that were affordable, but which were less than ideal for their conditions. For the doctors, it was a choice of some treatment vs. none. On one occasion, I was asked to call a drug company on behalf of a patient whose annual income was just over the limit to qualify for that company’s prescription assistance program. The limit was two times the poverty level, or $21,000. Even though her previous year’s tax return showed less than $22,000 in income, and despite the fact that she was providing both for her own mother and her children, she was denied access to prescription assistance. In addition, her insurance company would not pay for the medication because it was non-generic — even though no generic alternative was available. This amounts to the insurance company dictating to doctors how to practice medicine. In contrast, I should mention that I study overseas, in Hungary. Hungary is a country that is far poorer than the United States; its history as a free-market, democratic society dates to 1989, and it is still a developing economy. Yet every Hungarian citizen has access to health care through a nationally administered insurance program. Those who want more options and choices in their care are free to purchase additional private insurance, but every citizen is guaranteed access to care when he or she needs it. If Hungary can provide for its citizens, so should the United States. I, like many other medical students today, feel that basic health care is a human right, and that denying people proper care based upon their socioeconomic status is discrimination. Because of this, I support measures to provide universal coverage to all Americans, and urge everyone to do the same.
Mike neglected to mention all the countries where universal health-care isn't working and where people have to wait many months b4 anything is done for them.
Mike neglected to mention all the countries where universal health-care isn't working and where people have to wait many months b4 anything is done for them.
I always get a kick out of people who want to compare European nations to the USA. Just doesn't work. Look at the various nations with nationalized health care. Germany, with a population of aorund 40million (about 1/8th that of the USA), has a health care system on the verge of collapse. And that was with a booming economy. Britain, also often cited, is also facing huge shortages of doctors, nurses, and other qualified medical professionals. Ever heard of patient stacking? It's fast become a common practice over there in ERs. Sweden is another popular choice of comparison. Sweden's population is roughly 1/16th that of the USA, with 90% of its population conentrated in an area roughly the size of New Jersey. How does that make a realistic compariosn with the USA?
and keep in mind, that big centralized programs like this are one big factor in why the USSR collapsed.
Logged
