Letters to the Editor

Time for reform

September 6, 2009

Advertisement

To the editor:

As a senior citizen, I believe that health care reform will strengthen rather than weaken Medicare. I am pleased with the focus on wellness and prevention and the rewarding of doctors for the health care they provide rather than how many procedures they do.

I am also pleased that, contrary to the voices of health care opponents, Medicare benefits will not be cut. In addition, reform will close the doughnut hole and eliminate co-pays for preventive care like cancer screenings. If we do nothing, costs will keep rising and the Medicare trust fund will be at risk of going bust.

Then, of course, there is the concern for those not eligible for Medicare who can’t afford insurance or are denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions. Please don’t be swayed by the naysayers and the untruths that are being propagated. The time for reform is now.

Comments

SettingTheRecordStraight 8 years, 4 months ago

The voices of "health care opponents..."

Health care opponents? Are we serious here?

Richard Heckler 8 years, 4 months ago

National Health Insurance does not remove competition from the actual health care industry. It will be alive and well. Profits will be based on customer service and clinic performance based on the clients experience. This is my perception of competition.

HR 676 is the one that would be best for large and small business plus individuals. It is by far the most practical and comprehensive AND the best bang for the buck. Let the people make the choice.

HR 676 has been been around for years therefore has been tuned up and refined. No matter what number is attached in the end this is what consumers and business should go for.

Why use Medicare? It eliminates reinventing the wheel therefore saves a big bundle of money and time = efficient use of existing resources. Medicare is in place therefore it is ready to roll which is convenient.

The USA needs to STOP being be the most expensive insurance/health care of the industrialized nations

Insurance clients do not have budgets of $100's of millions to spend recklessly on politicians and BS campaigns such that the insurance industry spends. Clients have to spend their health care dollars more carefully.

Meanwhile the insurance industry squanders health care dollars on politicians = corruption. They also squander plenty on shareholders. This money should be spent on health care.

Richard Heckler 8 years, 4 months ago

I love competition but maintenance of someone's good health should not be based on competition. It should be based on immediate availability not on how much one can afford to spend with a corrupt insurance corporation.

The thing I love about National Health Insurance is that it allows MY tax dollars to provide health care to my family. OUR tax dollars is OUR money.

*AND it brings MY tax dollars back to Lawrence,Kansas

*AND it allows anyone to choose which doctor or clinic they choose. No booklet of of choices would be necessary ever again.

*AND National Health Insurance would be there 365 days a year,24 hours a day and 7 days a week no matter what.

*AND no more deductibles and co pays that in reality relieve the insurance industry of their responsibility.

The nice side of HR 676 is that everybody is in and nobody is out. Yes coverage 365 days a years 24/7 no matter what.

National Health Insurance does not remove competition from the actual health care industry. It will be alive and well. Profits will be based on customer service and clinic performance based on the clients experience. This is my perception of competition.

Richard Heckler 8 years, 4 months ago

Health Care in the United States | Dollars & Sense http://www.dollarsandsense.org/healthcare.html

WHY HR 676? Go To: http://www.healthcare-now.org/hr-676/

Why are elected officials protecting the most expensive medical insurance in the world?

  1. *HR 676 Eliminates Politicians as shareholders: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/12/AR2009061204075.html

  2. *HR 676 Eliminates Leading Cause Of Bankruptcy http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/bankruptcy_study.html#ixzz0IQKZLHHh

jonas_opines 8 years, 4 months ago

"We are a moral nation."

You can only use "moral" properly when condemning abortion or trying to alter the Constitution because it forgot to mention that marriage is between a man and a woman.

blackwalnut 8 years, 4 months ago

Medicare is not going to be threatened by anything Democrats are going to do.

Democrats invented Medicare, and forced it through, with Republicans fighting every step of the way. Republicans would get rid of it if they could. Same with social security. Bush spend the first year of his 2nd term trying to give the social security money to Wall Street. (He succeded anyway, when they crashed the market just before the biggest wave of baby boomers began to cash in their 401ks, that I'm digressing.)

Those against health care reform know that Medicare is hugely popular and hugely successful, so they are using it to scare people into opposing measures that will improve health care for the rest of us.

It is time the country stopped being run by people who are victims of misinformation and fear mongering.

Opposition to reform that is based on lies and irrational fears should be dismissed out of hand.

Let's have a debate using the facts, and skip the spin.

blackwalnut 8 years, 4 months ago

Imagine if there were no public education. Imagine if education were so expensive you had to get subsidies for it through your employer, and not all employers offer those subsidies.

Imagine it.

Health care is a need as dire and universal as education.

Consider this statement:

All Americans deserve it. All Americans will help to pay for it. Nothing is free and we don't expect it to be.

The above statement could be said about education or about health care.

Richard Heckler 8 years, 4 months ago

Smart Medical Insurance Improves Our Quality of Life And Our Wallets!

How many of the vocal minority out there supporting the most expensive medical insurance in the world are employees and/or shareholders?

How many are receiving corrupt campaign dollars?

Some of our reps on all sides of the aisle say “Let's slow down a bit”. I say consumers have been waiting for more than 60 years for fiscal responsible medical insurance how much slower can it go?

What could possibly be more american? Providing americans with the choice of National Health Insurance. HR 676 is the only equitable approach that includes all of us.

Shouldn't taxpayers have the choice of Medicare Insurance For All? Absolutely

HR 676 would cover every person for all necessary medical care including: long term care such that cancer demands prescription drugs hospital surgical outpatient services primary and preventive care emergency services dental mental health home health physical therapy rehabilitation (including for substance abuse) vision care hearing services including hearing aids chiropractic durable medical equipment palliative care long term care.

A family of four making the median income of $56,200 would pay about $2,700 in payroll tax for all health care costs.

HR 676 ends deductibles and co-payments. HR 676 would save hundreds of billions annually by eliminating the high overhead and profits of the private health insurance industry and HMOs.

http://www.healthcare-now.org/

Doctors for Single Payer http://www.pnhp.org/

Unions for HR 676 http://unionsforsinglepayerhr676.org/union_endorsers

Organizations and Government Bodies Endorsing HR 676 http://www.pnhp.org/action/organizations_and_government_bodies_endorsing_hr_676.php

Health Care In the USA http://www.dollarsandsense.org/healthcare.html

Consumer Reports On Health Care http://blogs.consumerreports.org/health/health_reform/

Flap Doodle 8 years, 4 months ago

Jumping (insert deity name here) on a pogo stick! How many times have you pasted the same set of posts about that bill, merrill? Do you get a nickel for every 50 posts?

Richard Heckler 8 years, 4 months ago

The most expensive medical insurance industry in the world does not provide health care. The industry and shareholders just make bundles upon bundles upon bundles of money off the misfortune of others.

National Health Insurance does not remove competition from the actual health care industry. It will be alive and well. Profits will be based on customer service and clinic performance based on the clients experience. This is my perception of competition.

rtwngr 8 years, 4 months ago

merrill,

Just because you can publish a voluminously, ponderous list of links that support your argument does not add validity to the argument. If every one of the sources on that list are viewing this healthcare "reform" through the same prism as you, they are going to come up with the same conclusions.

Take abortion, for instance. There are many of us that feel our tax dollars should not be supportive of this industry. The left says, "These measures are already covered in the Hyde amendment and further wording is not needed." We know, however, if something is not specifically labeled and dealt with in the drafting of legislation, it leaves the future open to interpretation. Agreed? So, whenever someone from the right tries to add wording to assure that future tax dollars do not fund abortion, someone from the left has it stricken from wording. My question is; if everyone is in agreement that abortion should not be funded with tax dollars, why not go ahead and have it in the wording?

Additionally, the ambiguity of allowing the HHS, whomever that may be in the future, to make decisions that will affect that large of a segment of the population with absolutely NO oversight is beyond insanity. We shouldn't just hand over that kind of power to anybody, regardless of their political bent, to control our lives in that manner.

Canada tried a government option to compete with private insurers. Now there are no private insurers in Canada. The government cannot run anything efficiently. Period. It never has and never will.

One last thing to remember. When someone stands in front of a group of people and says that sacrifices must be made, someone else benefits from those sacrifices. Usually those asking us to sacrifice are not making any sacrifices themselves.

Leslie Swearingen 8 years, 4 months ago

Seriously, do you think we all have the same concept of morality? I have come to accept that I am fat because I am self-indulgent and give myself whatever I want to eat, and do not exercise because I don't feel like it. Also, I thought it meant that the health Nazis would be in control of me. Now, I am in control of me, and I do not give in to me, and I have lost ten pounds, whoa, make that twelve now, and exericse whether I feel like it or now. There is way too much tiptoeing around the truth about health problems that are preventable. Way too much analyzing and psycobabble. Give yourself some boundaries and make yourself stick to them.

notajayhawk 8 years, 4 months ago

vertigo (Jesse Crittenden) says…

"Canada tried a government option to compete with private insurers. Now there are no private insurers in Canada. The government cannot run anything efficiently. Period. It never has and never will.


Just wanted to point out this statement as a falsehood. As shown to me by another anti-reformer, notajayhawk: Some 65% of Canadians have some form of supplementary private health insurance; many of them receive it through their employers."

And why do they need that private insurance when the government is supposed to pay for everything, vertie? Perhaps it's precisely because the government can't run anything well?

And outside the province of Quebec, vertie, where the Canadian Supreme Court ruled the province could no longer make it illegal for private insurers to cover procedures and treatments covered by the national plan, it actually IS against the law for private insurers to compete with the government. Although that's changing too, as thousands of Canadians are suing to be allowed to receive treatment in private clinics and even out of the country, since waiting times are going up, not down.

I'm glad you read my posts, vertie. Too bad you can't understand them.

Leslie Swearingen 8 years, 4 months ago

Liberty_One It depends on what you call initiate. Sometimes people get slapped for saying the wrong thing to the wrong person. Did the verbal person initiate the physical violence? Should a verbal taunt always have a verbal response?

notajayhawk 8 years, 4 months ago

EmJones (Anonymous) says…

"And the mortality rates, infant mortality rates, life span and quality of care that the World Health Organization and CIA rank every year and where the U.S. falls shockingly behind other countries - that is a direct result of access to health care."

That is sadly naieve. I addressed this in the other thread. Lifestyle choices have much more of an effect on mortality rates than healthcare.

http://www2.ljworld.com/weblogs/loyal-opposition/2009/sep/03/health-care-for-all/#c983845

notajayhawk 8 years, 4 months ago

vertigo (Jesse Crittenden) says…

"Either there is private insurers in Canada or there isn't. Simple as that."

Actually, it appears you don't even understand your own posts. You quoted three sentences and labeled "this statement" as a falsehood. Which of the three statements were you referring to?

If you're considering it to be one statement, it's partly true and partly false. The part about government-run healthcare in Canada being somewhat less than efficient was true. Even the part about there being no private insurers in Canada was partly true - a private insurance company that's prevented by law from paying for most medical treatments isn't very useful, is it?

By the way, vertie, I've been looking for that figure you mentioned (the percentage of Canadians that carry private insirance) for some time, unsuccessfully. Perhaps you'd like to link to where that number was 'shown' to you by me?


porch_person (Anonymous) says…

"Why do you lie to EmJones? You had no argument with the statistics a month ago. You're just being contrary again."

Still having that little reading comprehension problem, porchie? When whoever it is that reads the posts to you does so, porchie, you really should ask them to explain better when you don't understand (which appears to be - always). The part of Em's post that Liberty quoted contains no statistics, only an incorrect explanation, which is what Liberty (correctly) disputed. Infant mortality rates are not a "direct result of access to healthcare," porchie - the leading cause of infant mortality is birth defects, which has more to do with lifestyle choices of the mother (e.g. smoking, drinking, drug use, etc.) than access to healthcare.

But as usual, troll, don't let facts get in the way of your being contrary.

notajayhawk 8 years, 4 months ago

porch_person (Anonymous) says…

"Mortality rates, infant mortality rates, life span and quality of care are statistics."

Um, no, they're not, troll. Perhaps if the quote had included such things as, oh, I don't know, the actual figures - for example, moron, if Em had said "the nation's infant mortality rate has fallen from 20 deaths per 1,000 live births in 1970 to 6.9 deaths in 2000." Those are statistics; just saying the words "infant mortality" is not.

I guess we can safely add statistics as something porch-troll not only knows absolutely nothing about, he literally doesn't know what the word means.


Liberty, I used to be torn on the subject. But I think he's proven that yes, it really is possible to be THAT stupid (as I'm sure his inevitable response to this post will prove even further).


vertigo;

Quebec is the province in Canada where the Canadian Supreme Court ruled that the province can not make it illegal for private insurers to pay for services covered by the national health plan, or for non-plan providers to deliver those services. That ruling was binding only in Quebec (although that is likely to change, with more pending lawsuits over life-threatening wait times). Sort of like the state of California making marijuana possession legal, but it's still a federal crime in this country.

As I said, it was partly true. The private insurance you refer to covers (outside of Quebec) only those things the national plan won't pay for (e.g., home health care). Until the laws are changed, private insurers can not write policies for coverage of treatments paid for under the national plan. Which would be like offering homeowner's insurance that only covers your garage.

By the way - how many people in THIS country would rather have the Canadian system?

notajayhawk 8 years, 4 months ago

You might have noticed a little variety in your own data?

Again, when you read more than the sound-bites ...

You might want to look at Rasmussen (I don't have time to find the link, have to get to work) - most people favor a public option, BUT with a lot of qualifiers. They do NOT favor ANY plan that would add to the deficit or raise taxes for middle-income people. They do NOT favor ANY plan that would be passed just by the Democrats without Republican support. And they do NOT favor a public option that would compete unfairly with private companies (and I'd really like to see how that is going to happen). Similarly, most people favor a single-payer system, BUT only if everyone pays into it, and again, dependent on the cost, factors such as wait times and doctor choices, etc.

Don't you ever get curious about more than the blurbs you get in the newspaper, vertie?

Left_handed 8 years, 4 months ago

Stain,

What have you been smoking? Can I have some?

Commenting has been disabled for this item.

loading...