Single-Payer Health Care Needed

Monday, February 17, 2014
Article Tools
Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
iPod friendly
Share Article

It is interesting to read the Sansum doctors’ opinions of the implementation of Obamacare (confusing, short-changing, and disruptive of service) and then get the opinion of an insurance agent (it’s great because he can sell many policies to people who couldn’t afford to buy insurance before). What a difference!

If only having health insurance meant getting all the care you needed at the doctor you wanted. Like Dr. Kozak and Mr. Perry, I am also glad that more people can sign up for some insurance and hopefully have at least a minimum standard for care. Unfortunately, even with Obamacare, you could still rack up enormous medical bills, not get all the care you need, not get to go to the doctor you want, and spend an inordinate amount of time shopping for insurance and dealing with medical bills Obamacare tries to expand coverage to more people while keeping profit-first insurance companies in the mix — a well-meaning but losing proposition for something like health care. And even in California, where we have done a better job rolling out the law than anyone else, we will still not cover 3.4 million when all is said and done.

A single-payer system like that proposed in HR 676 would allow patients to choose their own doctor. HR 676 would allow doctors to prescribe their own medicine instead of what the insurance companies will reimburse. HR 676 would enroll everyone automatically (no websites). And it would have saved $592 billion in 2014 alone over Obamacare. Sansum Clinic is not the only ones getting short-changed.


Independent Discussion Guidelines

Keeping 'profit first insurance companies in the mix' is not 'well-meaning'.

spacey (anonymous profile)
February 17, 2014 at 12:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

This makes *perfect* sense, since the following is true:

1. Big Government is very efficient and does things very well - we can all easily agree on that. More of it just makes sense.

2. Massive regulations and bureaucrats to enforce them do not encourage crony capitalism or corruption. By looking at places such as Venzuela and China, we can see that is the plain truth.

Why not:
1. Get the government out of the health care business completely and watch rates fall and service levels skyrocket.
2. Give everyone $10K/yr to cover premiums and shop for best rate and best service and let them keep up to $3K for themselves. That's a ton of incentive.

But that will never, ever happen because behind the facade of "care for the weakest" is the reality of lib-dems wanting to grab massive control over money, power and your personal liberties because, like the author of the letter above, they simply know better than you.

realitycheck88 (anonymous profile)
February 17, 2014 at 4:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Government can provide public health clinics and that is as far as they should get involved in the relationship between a doctor and a patient.

Most "disease" in the US is chronic lifestyle disease. Perfect fit for an expanded public health mission.

Always amazing to see how no one considers what system a doctor prefers. it is his/her choice to work in one environment over another. AMA is a sell out to the medical-industrial complex, so their opinion on this matter is worthless.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
February 17, 2014 at 5:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I guess that guys like Foo & Reality don't know that Medicare has administrative costs of around 2% vs. private insurance at about 17% .

geeber (anonymous profile)
February 17, 2014 at 6:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The costs of over-treatment paid without question by Medicare are staggering. Don't give Medicare any credit for low admin costs.

They need to spend more, not less on administration, so they can better monitor the hideous abuses since Medicare is just one more "entitlement" that is rapidly going broke. Their return on investment will be 1000X.

Meanwhile US health quality markers remain in the toilet, no matter how much money we keep throwing on this failed system. There is a pattern here; folks. Don't be stupid and say you can't see it.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
February 17, 2014 at 6:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

A new, big government program will save us money, right? Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me!

Botany (anonymous profile)
February 17, 2014 at 9:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Shame on all y'all. Well, guess it's not their fault, they've contracted the money disease and need care too. Where's the taxman when you need him?

spacey (anonymous profile)
February 18, 2014 at 12:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I believe Consulting a Country with a successful Socialist Health Care System would have been better than going with confusion and deception but then again look at who pushed this whole issue and it stands to reason the failure.
Government abandoned the health care industry in the 80's and lifted regulations cause someone said it would offer great health care at lower cost? Doctors get a mint to prescribe pills for your ailment and double that to cut you for experiments, why would they offer better for less $$$, no sense in that concept of Capitalism. Government should have reasoned that No controls mean chaos, oversight would have monitored and measured while keeping control of outrageous overcharging of the populace but the past in the past now we have to contend with the Failed leadership of Forced Health Care.

dou4now (anonymous profile)
February 18, 2014 at 3:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Funny that the new health care law was written by the insurance companies using the phrase "Obamacare" to sell it. For those of us who wanted single-payer, Obamacare does appear to be a step backward. Some people who weren't covered, now may have some coverage, but others have lost their good insurance plans.

I wonder if Obamacare is a way for the insurance companies to chip away at MediCare? Using Obamacare to replace or water down MediCare?

How HR 676 would be paid for and who the doctors would bill, probably determines its success or failure. If the single payer system can't pay the bill or pays only a portion, then many doctors would not take HR 676 patients.

Georgy (anonymous profile)
February 18, 2014 at 9:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The title of the new healthcare law is Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (H.R. 3590).

Republicans, who wanted to associate it with Obama, coined the term Obamacare.

"Obamacare" strengthens Medicare.

"Health reform improves Medicare’s finances in two ways. First, it increases the Medicare payroll tax for high earners — those earning more than $250,000 a year. Second, it makes the program more efficient by reducing overpayments to the private insurance plans that participate in Medicare and restraining payments to hospitals and some other health care providers. These efficiencies will save Medicare $716 billion over the next ten years, the Congressional Budget Office estimates. None of these changes, it must be emphasized, cuts Medicare’s guaranteed benefits.

By increasing Medicare revenues and restraining cost growth, health reform extends the life of Medicare’s hospital insurance (HI) trust fund. Medicare’s trustees project that the HI trust fund will remain solvent — that is, able to pay 100 percent of the costs of the hospital insurance coverage that Medicare provides — through 2024. If health reform were fully repealed, however, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services estimates that the Medicare hospital insurance program would become insolvent eight years earlier, in 2016 (see chart)."

tabatha (anonymous profile)
February 19, 2014 at 1:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Obama caught on camera in multiple setting stating he liked the sound of "Obamacare", to the cheers of his adoring audiences.

Google it. He built it, he mismanaged it, he owns it. Ironic of course, Democrats blame everything on Bush but as they say failure is an orphan so Obama now wants to run from his "signature" piece of legislation. Typical.

The guy is worthless. He earned the right to be permanently associated with this POS piece of legislation- particularly because he along is tinkering with what allegedly was written by Congress.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
February 19, 2014 at 8:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

event calendar sponsored by: