An idea reg. government provided healthcare in the U.S.

[glenn1]

Consider the thought of the government providing basic, primary level care like immunizations and other minor care. It's not a bad idea since the bang on the buck is relatively large since it's relatively cheap, easily provided by someone with a minimum degree of medical training, and doesn't present a huge privacy issue (Uncle Sam already knows more about my finances than i do, I don't particularly care to give the government my medical records also). This would be primarily made available for low-income parties and with a focus on preventive care geared towards improving the greater public good a.k.a. a Center For Disease Control type mandate.

Let me go one further to make a pretty good idea a bit better yet. In return for the government making basic care resources available, in return those receiving care are required to participate in programs like giving blood and sign up for organ donation, etc providing they are medically able to do so. For minors, the parents would be expected to do the blood donation, etc. To me, that's a good compromise all the way around. The less-fortunate receive basic medical care for a relatively token "price," and the general public and taxpayers who are footing the bill get a vastly expanded donor pool to take advantage of.

Does that seem like a reasonable compromise to the folks here on ATPN?

 

[mastertech01]

Dont most low income people get basic care free anyway? In every city Ive lived in and state there are free medical facilities for the poor. I think the real problem is with people who make too much for that care but not enough for insurance.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: mastertech01
Dont most low income people get basic care free anyway? In every city Ive lived in and state there are free medical facilities for the poor. I think the real problem is with people who make too much for that care but not enough for insurance.

True, and that is why I think that having a "free" basic care for children is the way to go. Insurance isn't a "right" - basic health care is though but the way it is administrered now isn't working. infants/todlers/small kids don't see a doctor regularly for their checkups and shots. I think all those should be provided - plus yearly(or bi/tri) visits for children up to X age - to make sure they get the preventative care they need even if their family can't afford it but makes too much to qualify for assistance. I will not support a Universal health Insurance bill - ever. I will only support a small BASIC health care one. Insurance != care. I'd support tax-breaks for Insurance and most definately would support MSA(medical savings accounts) but Insurance needs to be privately run and something the gov't should keep it's grubby paws out of.

CkG

 

[mastertech01]

Im thinking I would support some kind of national health care insurance plan. Why? Because people in the working class who dont pay much tax, or no tax would recieve little or no benefit from tax breaks for insurance premiums paid. That 4000.00 per year out of thier paycheck for the insurance, PLUS the deductibles, PLUS the amount that the insurance plans DONT cover can simply break thier backs. Child care is fine and great, but most people can get free imminuizations, and face it, young people are the least risk for health problems. For those with catastrophic diseases there are many charitible organizations who pay for childhood diseases. Let that person be over 21 though and he is on his own hanging by his nads. Then you have to go into poverty to get any assistance, or be one of the fortunate ones with healthcare insurance.

I have health care insurance that I pay richly for at work, and it is covering less and less each year. Its almost like you dont have any.

 

[MonstaThrilla]

I've never heard a good explanation as to why health insurance has to be tied to one's job. From a pro-business standpoint, why isn't taking this "burden" off the shoulders of employers a good thing?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla
I've never heard a good explanation as to why health insurance has to be tied to one's job. From a pro-business standpoint, why isn't taking this "burden" off the shoulders of employers a good thing?

It isn't tied to one's job, but it's the only way to make it competitive from a group standpoint. Individuals can buy Insurance, but when a group buys Insurance they get better rates plus the company sometimes subsidizes a portion of the costs. So, you see, it isn't that you have to have a job to have insurance - it's just that it is the only way to get discounted insurance.

CkG

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla
I've never heard a good explanation as to why health insurance has to be tied to one's job. From a pro-business standpoint, why isn't taking this "burden" off the shoulders of employers a good thing?

It isn't tied to one's job, but it's the only way to make it competitive from a group standpoint. Individuals can buy Insurance, but when a group buys Insurance they get better rates plus the company sometimes subsidizes a portion of the costs. So, you see, it isn't that you have to have a job to have insurance - it's just that it is the only way to get discounted insurance.

CkG

So why don't we as a whole country enter into an insurance plan as one huge group?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla
I've never heard a good explanation as to why health insurance has to be tied to one's job. From a pro-business standpoint, why isn't taking this "burden" off the shoulders of employers a good thing?

It isn't tied to one's job, but it's the only way to make it competitive from a group standpoint. Individuals can buy Insurance, but when a group buys Insurance they get better rates plus the company sometimes subsidizes a portion of the costs. So, you see, it isn't that you have to have a job to have insurance - it's just that it is the only way to get discounted insurance.

CkG

So why don't we as a whole country enter into an insurance plan as one huge group?

Because the Gov't shouldn't be in the Insurance business. I don't have an issue with the gov't providing BASIC care - I just don't feel that Insurance should be taken on by the gov't. Why have them take on more responsibility when this gov't has proven over many many many years that it can't and won't spend money wisely. I read Clark's proposal yesterday and laughed my @ss off. If he thinks all he is proposing will only cost about 70B/year he must be smoking some good weed. It's laughable.

CkG

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Contrary to popular belief, many of the people eligible for Medicaid do not get it b/c state government's have a vested interest in denying coverage to as many people as possible. Even when the Feds offer to pay a larger percentage of costs (like the SCHIP to provide insurance to children) some states go out of their way to deny coverage to as many people as possible . . . see the state of TX 1997-2000 . . . on top of the coverage they deny to Medicaid eligible children and adults.

Consider the thought of the government providing basic, primary level care like immunizations and other minor care. It's not a bad idea since the bang on the buck is relatively large since it's relatively cheap, easily provided by someone with a minimum degree of medical training, and doesn't present a huge privacy issue (Uncle Sam already knows more about my finances than i do, I don't particularly care to give the government my medical records also).

1) Immunization is preventative health care but broad immunization policies require significant medical training. The majority of private physicians do not give shots; they delegate that task to a nurse. But the doctor still examines the patient and reviews the medical record to determine possible contraindications to a particular vaccine and/or additional vaccinations required due to patient characteristics.
2) You are correct that no intervention in modern American medicine provides a better return on investment than vaccination but vaccination isn't necessarily cheap. Furthermore, the poor return on investment (for drug companies) has resulted in the majority of US vaccine manufacturers to cease production.
3) Due to the most recent revision of HIPPA, privacy is a huge issue. You can thank George Ws Department of Health and Human Services for making your vaccination plan impractical . . . based soley on the privacy issue. Curiously, the current interpretation of HIPPA actually allows financial institutions to have access to your medical records.

 

[SuperTool]

I don't think people should have to sell their organs for medicine. Especially should they ever need an organ, that surgery would not be covered for them.