Healthcare Reform - Why I'm FOR a public option

[calic0]

These days roll on, and they keep rolling through... each day, its the same struggle. Wake up, go to work, go home. When paycheck comes in, monies are allocated to bills and expenses. Far too often, there is not 'enough' left over for basic healthcare. Even with the option of saving, or flexible medical spending... we can never seem to take enough

Comments

[moonsinger]

I don't know if you are in David's (dbroussa) journal or not, but he had some great ideas for a local option. I'm not in favor of increased socialization by our government, but if the majority are in favor, then I'd prefer something like the local option. I am in favor of more regulation of the insurance and pharmaceutical industries as well as tort reform in general and for the medical profession in particular. I am not in favor of a system where my husband and I will have to buy private insurance and then be taxed for it instead of having it pre-taxed because we don't qualify for a government program and his company gets rid of insurance

[kellymeine]

Get rid of frivolous law suits. Encourage doctors to not be so firmly attached to pharmaceutical companies and work on care other than pill popping to solve medical problems.

The problem with the latter is related to the problem with the former. Doctors are so scared of lawsuits that they often go with the "safe" option. That is, the tried and true philosophy of "better living through chemistry". Because of this, people will get drugs who need or would benefit better from some other form of therapy.

And of course, the pharmaceutical companies make it a cheaper option than other therapies, and lobby congress to have drugs be a more acceptable solution to many of our problems.

Get rid of frivolous law suits, get doctors off the teat and back into the habit of practising medicine, and get rid of paid lobbyists.

[moonsinger]

I'm right there with you.

[texasfanboy]

The current proposal doesn't intend to become a single-payer system. Of course, all we need is one single-payer advocate in the White House for that to happen, but under Obama's plan private insurers can, and will, continue to operate

[kellymeine]

Because of healthy country is a more financially stable country. The reason companies provide insurance and pay for most of it in the first place is because they don't want their workforce missing work. Now, take that microcosm and expand it to the macrocosm. We all work for the government (excepting the unemployed) in one way or the other. Why shouldn't the government provide an option for healthcare? It means that they are increasing the chances that all the healthy workers will continue lining the government's coffers with money through taxes.

In addition, this bill is not just about providing healthcare to those who don't have it. (Or wasn't originally intended for just that.) It's also about providing reform to our existing system. Getting the pharmaceutical companies nose out of our business. Giving doctors more options for treatment. Telling insurance companies that they can't just screw over their customers because their customers can't afford other options. That sort of thing.

[calic0]

My dearest Cael, this is what the whole argument about. This is a plan that helps our NATION. No just you. Not just myself. Not just those we personally feel should receive treatment, but the many people that you DON'T know

[dbroussa]

There are some major with a public option. The first one is that because it is funded by the gov't, and because it does not have to make a profit, it will put the US gov't in a position of being in direct competition with private enterprise. The end result of that competition is that if the gov't chooses to fund the public option, they can drive all private options out of business. Personally I think it is much more likely that what will happen is that the public option will not be adequately funded and we will say that everyone has health insurance, but it will be effectively only major medical coverage

[kellymeine]

"End of life counseling" is provided for in many private insurance plans. What it is, is assistance in making decisions about what will happen to you if you are incapable of making decisions for yourself. That is, a living will. To me, it's very necessary, as without it, we have problems such as with Terri Schaivo (sp?). There's nothing wrong with these so called "death panels", as we already have them, and no one's complained about them existing so far.

It's just something which obfuscates the *real* problems with the plan.

[dbroussa]

It depends on if it is about making those end of life decisions, or if it is encouraging people to end their lives. THe VA was asking vets if they felt they were burdens to their families and if they felt that their life had no meaning. The Bush Administration stopped the "counseling", but the Obama administrtion has restarted the program.