McCain is Moving in the Right Direction for Healthcare Reform

I'm a veteran nurse of 30 years...I've seen how inability to pay for medical care have affected people of all races...Under this present administration, it doesn't take a blind person to see that folks are suffering! people cannot afford to pay for their own healthcare...It shouldn't be the noose around necks of the elderly, the children and the terminal ill patient who must be sent home to die because of lack of affordable healthcare!

In my opinion, ALL healthcare should be a right... 8 years under Bush and now this Republican presidential nominee tooting the very same horn...Folks had better wake the hell up and realize that this country is no longer percieved as the greatest country in the world! Sick folks are dying because of lack of right government ruling in the halls of the White House...Let's not get it twisted and think for a second that things are going to get better God forbid, if another Republican becomes president...

From where I'm standing amid a multitude of sickness & death, one wonders about the mindset of people who'd rather vote for more of the same, than make a life altering change for their families and loved ones!

Hello ladies.. somehow I stumbled upon this page and just wanted to share a few thoughts.  I am in medical school, a 2nd year student, paying 50K a year for my education w/o any grants.  Under a more "nationlized" healthcare system, one thing is certain, I will get paid less.  But guess what.... I'd rather have less pay. 

I'd rather have less pay than turn patients away because they cannot pay.

I'd rather have less pay than see those who go to the ER get care, but then cannot pay their bill later.  (those w/o insurance often pay 2-4x for the same procedure)

I'd rather have less pay than see the struggles of so many just to get health insurance when they want it. (pre-existing conditions)

I'd rather have less pay than have people out on the streets because they get no care (mental illness one of the leading cause of homelessness)

I'd rather have less pay than continually have America rank near dead last in healthcare indicators amongst other industrialized nations. (http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN0...

Really what Melanie said is the heart of it.. is healthcare a right?  When you ask yourself this, ask yourself, is protection a right?  Is food a right?  Is education a right?  All these things we have a nationalized way of providing these very things not because they are essential to life, but because they are essential to allowing the American dream to stay live.  What chance does a mother have when she is sick and unable to get care?  What chance does a child have?  

Do we believe in an America where we should all have a chance?  Where we call can succeed?  That's what I believe in.  One of the greatest irony is that the person who is so against a more nationalized plan, is the same person who receives his healthcare via a socialized system, one that is more in control by the government than what is proposed and more socialized than what most of the "socialized" healthcare countires have. John McCain himself recieves socialized healthcare through the veterans system. 

Do you really think that with money, you wouldn't be able to get the "extras" you want?  Those ways will always exist, but what we are doing now is ensuring that children....sons, daugthers, mothers, fathers, uncles, aunts can at least have the basic care to have a fighting chance.

The sad truth is that our healthcare system hurts the poor the most. Those who are most vulnerable, those who struggle the most and have lost hope.  And really, people don't care until it hits them.  Until they lose their employer health care, but can't get insurance because of a pre-existing condition, or when you do, pills for your pre-existing condition are not paid for.  Until your insurance companies decide to cancel your plan based on small errors or not pay because of small font exclusions.  (http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2008/02/27/insurers ( http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2008/02/27/insurers-sc... )-scramble-to-defuse-criticism-of-cancellations/?mod=WSJBlog ( http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2008/02/27/insurers-sc... ))  Until they find themselves against the insurance companies without a chance.  And not until that point will they see that no one is listening.  No one is listening because those who are doing fine have no reason to care.  The situation we have oddly reminds me of a poem we read in elementary school, The Hangman by Maurice Odgen (http://edhelper.com/poetry/The_Hangman_by_Maurice_...    

It may take some sacrifices, it will for sure take time and mistakes.  I know there are many flaws in the system that will need to be worked out.  But at the very least, I think it's time we started trying to move towards the right direction.  

" Our founding fathers were establishing a democracy built upon ingenuity, not welfare. "

Really?  Is that how it is now interpreted.  Were they fleeing socialism?? No.  

We they fleeing a welfare state?  No.

And yes...they WERE looking for a utopia..many many many people came to the 'New World' to start fresh and make it better than the politics they left behind.

Were there here to live in anarchy?  No.

Ingenuity???  How has that worked for ya? 

Look for me at http://crunchycarpets.com or check out the ladies at www.wetcoastwomen.com ( http://www.wetcoastwomen.com )

really come up in the last few years....med students have become greedy..they don't want to be GP's.  They want to do specialties.   

and excuse me?? "while Canadian citizens (or those posing as)"  wanna see my passport?  Wanna see my total lack of bills after delivering my son at the BEST Womens and Childrens Hospital in the country?

Wanna see me able to pick and choose where I deliver and if I want a midwife, doula or OB?   AND NOT PAY EXTRA.

Wait lists have shown up because of people wanting to go the private routes like the states because of the BIG money involved.

People don't want to be GP's in small towns because it isn't glamorous enough.

"Your country is too different from ours to be a valid comparison on this issue. "

We are different...but not that different.  No western nation is.  And Canadian history is tightly connected to US history.  

It is a valid comparison in that you can look at countries that do have "socialized" healthcare and see what works and what doesn't.  OUr health ministers visit other countries to see what works and what doesn't.

Granted no other countries have the huge population that US does or the complete and total mistrust of it's government either. 

Look for me at http://crunchycarpets.com or check out the ladies at www.wetcoastwomen.com ( http://www.wetcoastwomen.com )

Thanks, aftercancer, for acknowledging that I have experiences that might back-up my opinions on nationalized healthcare.  Thousands of patient-interactions, multiple systems of care, 4 different states, patient and parent and family caregiver, provider, both employee and independent contractor. 

Your bad experiences are evidence of poor distribution of healthcare dollars.  Does forcing the whole country into the same position seem right or fair? 

How do you decide what is "basic medical care."  Once that decision is given to the government, or large system funded by the government, once that decision is distant from what you think is basic, life-saving perhaps, you have no control over your own health, medicine or the costs.  

Do you think the government should enact and be the arbiter of St. Matthew's gospel?  I think there's something in the Constitution against that. 

Frankly, while Canadian citizens (or those posing as) may state they are satisfied with their care, their opinions for what the US should do are unwelcome by me.  Your country is too different from ours to be a valid comparison on this issue. 

In the same comment from a Canadian:  "Our big problem is wait lists and a shortage of GP's.  ... Quality and choice has not been an issue."  Wait lists represent poor quality and lack of choice.  Can't have all these things at once.  If the Canadian government is working on problems in the public healthcare system, how long has that system been in place?  How long does it take to get it right? 

Melanie is correct on everything.  Amen from me, too.   

Barbara H. Boucher, PT, PhD, OT    TherExtras 

Two things:

1. Amen, Melanie.

2. No, our founding fathers did not set out to create a utopian society as there is no such thing as a utopian society. Utopia, translated from ancient Greek, literally means nonexistent. Our founding fathers were establishing a democracy built upon ingenuity, not welfare. 

Dana Loesch
Mamalogues.com ( http://www.mamalogues.com )

Host and executive producer, "The Dana Show" ( http://www.971talk.com/dana/index.aspx )
on Fox News affiliate KFTK 97.1 FM Talk

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_men_are_created_e... ), that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_liberty_and_the_pursuit_of_happiness )."

and instead branded as socialism in a negative way?

That all men being created equal now means 'every man for himself.'

I find that quite sad.

Were not the founding 'fathers' seeking a utopian society?  How can you have a utopia when basics are not taken care of?

How could a dream world like 'Star Trek' ever exist??? 

Look for me at http://crunchycarpets.com or check out the ladies at www.wetcoastwomen.com ( http://www.wetcoastwomen.com )

I had the pleasure of being in the hospital in Japan.  Fortunately, it was not a life or death matter, but I cannot accept socialized medicine.  It isn't the same level of care. 

It appears from the comments that the Canadian health care system is unusually good.  But, I do believe that the original post talked about a baby-step approach towards socialism.  Perhaps there are bright spots at different levels of government intervention, but I have to completely agree that the end result is unacceptable.  

Enthalpymama

www.mitmommy.blogspot.com ( http://www.mitmommy.blogspot.com/ )

I would like to jump in and ask you, "How many of you have been outside of North America?"

Did you know that the best Canadian doctors, once finished w/school, com HERE.  Yes, we get YOUR best doctors.  Two of them live in our community and they LAUGH about it. And people travel all over the world to come and be treated in our system. One of the Candians doctors in our community flew in his mother to be treated.

I don't like either of the candiates, to be honest.  

However, so many people are under Obama's spell.  Good looking, well spoken, confident....  and yeah, I think he will become president.  But there is no knowing what a confident speaker will do in real pressure. 

A vote for Obama is a vote for change.  I think things will dramatically change in his hands.  Socialism?  Perhaps, I really hope he proves me wrong because I think he has the race.

I have read lot of these posts and I have to respond.  

To Barbara H. Boucher, PT, PhD, OT    TherExtras  I can see that you are an educated woman both a PT and OT.  I received both PT and OT paid for through my health insurance secondary to complications that arose from treatment.  Therein lies the problem. Therapies cost money, chemo costs money as do all other medical services.  If you do not have insurance than these things are in many cases not offered to you. Also due to copayments and deductibles families are easily financially ruined by the cost.  I firmly believe that if I did not have insurance I would either be dead or in hospice care at this point.  I had a 7 CM tumor with lymph node involvement. I frankly didn't give a damn who controlled the cash if the bills got paid. 

 But here is the problem with the comparison to food. I can buy less expensive food and still be fine, I can grow food, I can barter for food, I can share food and I can buy food in bulk.  My health insurance was billed $9,000 dollar after each chemotherapy treatment that I received (12 in total) for the shots to maintain my red and white blood blood counts. That is $108,000 dollars.  I could not save up to buy that, I could not wait until it went on sale. I couldn't grow it or barter with the major pharmaceutical companies to get it. Those were the only terms. And if I did not get it I would be in the hospital for many days while waiting for the cells to regenerate and who knows what cost. That isONE example of the cost. 

The decision that we as Americans have to make is exactly how selfish are we? Are we so selfish that we will tell parents of a child with leukemia, sorry, your policy doesn't cover the treatment your child needs.  How about the 18 year old who breaks their leg playing ball and needs physical therapy to regain a normal gait?  The diabetic has to wait until the test strips are on sale? 

I am a cancer survivor and I spend my career working with children under age three who have developmental problems.  Not just a speech delay mind you but things like spina bifida, cerebral palsy, hypoxic ischemic injuries (lack of oxygen for an extended time), cleft lips and palates, blind, deaf and I could go on.  At what point do we as a nation decide that if every other industralized nation in the world is able to provide basic medical care to their people that we could probably do it to?

But to do that it has to stop being big business. When surverys are done, 80 percent of the people in this country claim to be Christians. I am generally not one of them but I know a quote that guides my life. According to the Bible these are the words of Jesus.

What so ever you do to the least of my brothers, that you do unto me. Matthew 25:40

Kate

I blog at http://www.aftercancernowwhat.wordpress.com 

the government had stayed out of it. Because the government sponsored Fannie and Freddie those companies were not accountable to the free market (or as much of a free market as we have). Instead, the gov't. said the companies would be backed no matter what. Of course they ran rampant. Then, when given the opportunity to fix their mistake, the gov't did not--until it was too late. So where we are today is still a product of government intervention.

Bailouts Will Lead to Rough Economic Ride ( http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/23/paul.bailou... ) by Ron Paul at CNN:
Government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were able to obtain a monopoly position in the mortgage market, especially the mortgage-backed securities market, because of the advantages bestowed upon them by the federal government.
What Caused Our Economic Crisis? ( http://boortz.com/more/video/burning_down_the_hous... ) at Neal Boortz. (YouTube video)
On the Housing Bubble and Aftermath ( http://blog.mises.org/archives/008790.asp ) by Mark Thornton at Mises Economic Blog. This is a link to one of his speeches.
Melanie
Blogging Basics 101 ( http://www.bloggingbasics101.com )
Bloggy Giveaways ( http://www.bloggygiveaways.com )
Contributing Editor at BlogHer.com: Politics, Web/Tech
Contributing Editor at BloggingTips.com

dragging the rest of the world down with it in an economic travesty.

And why is LOVING America have to mean wanting it to stay the same and not to question or seek 'improvement'?

You can criticize your country and still love it and still think it is the best.

No change just means stagnancy and....well..what you are facing today. 

Look for me at http://crunchycarpets.com or check out the ladies at www.wetcoastwomen.com ( http://www.wetcoastwomen.com )

 Knowing that with many plans currently the people who are making
choices are either non - practicing physicians who have gone into
administration and are gtting a very nice salary from the insurance companies, or a random non medical personel who have been trained to look
at guidleines set up by insurance companies I much preer the later. 

 "A recent article in US News and World Report ( http://health.usnews.com/articles/health/2008/08/2... )
stated, are increasingly using more sophisticated and underhanded means
to deny coverage for patients. "The problem is bound to grow as
insurers make use of sophisticated data tools dubbed 'denial engines,'"
the article read, "which are touted to reduce reimbursements by 3 to 10
percent." And while doctors and their staffs work aggressively to help
patients get coverage, they are not always successful." This from every think I've read on McCain's plan is not addressed. 

Physicans
overwhemingly endorse Obama's plan because it puts the decision on
treatment, treatment modules back into the hands of the phyeician and the
patient, and increases the liklihood tht those without will end up with something to cover them. 

 The New England Journal of Medicine ( http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/359/16/16... )

 Dr. Blumenthal reports serving as an unpaid advisor to the Obama for President campaign. No other potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

If you read most not propagandish essays on this subject or studies you will find the differences  between the plans as they are now is "what will occur over time". I am assuming whoever takes over will have to spend a lot of time on the healthcare issue and will have to revamp their plan many times over. I feel ideologically the obama plan is better for the middle class.

cooper

I've stated my position. I've linked to articles that state my position. I've stated that I understand there are other POVs.

You won't change my mind; I won't change yours. Why? Because we have fundamental differences in what we believe. You believe we have a right to health care. I don't. You believe it's government's responsibility to pay for that "right". I don't. Even if I thought we were entitled to health care, I wouldn't expect government to pay for it, nor would I want it to. Health care is available--that's more than many other countries can say.

I don't agree that we need to join the ranks of other countries with government-sponsored health care just for the sake of being with the group. I'd rather we NOT be with the group. America didn't get where it is today by being a nation that follows. I still think America is the best place to be in this world. I love America. I don't want to live in England or Canada. I want to live here. And I want to do it without government interference as much as possible.

Melanie
Blogging Basics 101 ( http://www.bloggingbasics101.com )
Bloggy Giveaways ( http://www.bloggygiveaways.com )
Don't Try This at Home ( http://www.donttryit.com )

you have a lot of comments here from people who have expereienced socialized healthcare and we were not waiting there AFTER a wait in the bread lines or cared for in grim bleak concrete buildings with outdated equipment.

People need to get over the idea of caring for your nation as something WRONG...what is wrong in having the basics covered for all?

What about working for a government that you CAN trust instead of screaming about keeping the government out of things. 

Look for me at http://crunchycarpets.com or check out the ladies at www.wetcoastwomen.com ( http://www.wetcoastwomen.com )

No, you're mistaken. The bill you referencing died in committee in 2005. About 11 months after it died, McCain suddenly asked on the Senate floor to be co-sponsor of the bill.

Obama was not a senator in 2005. The Democrats were not in control of the Senate in 2005. It was a Republican dominated senate committee that killed bill.

 You know, all of this stuff is public record. All of this stuff is easy to discover online. I wish you all would fact check yourself before posting.

Estimates are that unemployment in the US will exceed 8% before this recession is finished. With unemployment this high, employers will cut benefits, like health insurance, and no, they won't pass on the money.

Why should they? They have a buyers market.

I can't believe that any politician would actually have us believe that the companies would tack this money on to our salaries. What kind of fools does McCain think we are?

Well, other than the fools that voted for Bush for two terms...

I guess you just don't get it. You can't walk into an ER and say I have cancer now pay for my Chemo...they will say NO. Hence that person dies. NO OPTIONS FOR TREATMENT UNLESS THEY CAN PAY. Many people who find out they have cancer had no clue until they got the diagnosis so to blame them for not catching it in time is bad form. These people don't care who manages the healthcare system as long as they get something that resembles healthcare.

When I found out I had cancer it was in an ER. I went to the ER 5 times that year before they caught it and only ordered the test that discovered it because I made a HUGE scene. They would not have paid for my surgery to remove the cancer unless I had insurance. I could not have paid $30,000 for the surgery and $7000 a week for Chemo out of pocket. If I did not have insurace I would have died with a 1-2 months in extreme agony from something that was quite easily treatable. How many people just like me have to accept a death sentence. Do they deserve to die...yes or no?

And MANY countries have socialized healthcare AND quality heathcare...to say that government healthcare is equal to lousy is not supported by facts. You have a lot of claims but nothing to back them up.

Your point that we all have access to health care in the US is fallacious.

Not having health care insurance means you don't get the yearly exam and the high priced tests you need to catch diseases, such as colon cancer before they have a chance to spread.

By the time you're sick enough that you don't care if you're financially ruined paying a high medical bill, or a hospital has to take you because you've collapsed, your cancer or whatever has spread, and you will die.

Of course if you do have a condition that's caught and get it treated, but you lose your insurance at work, good luck, because you'll never get insured by a private health care insurer. Scary thought, eh? Cure the cancer, but to always wonder if that little ache or pain means cancer is returning, but you can't afford the tests to determine if it is. Not and pay rent and buy groceries.

That's not to say if you are insured, your conditions will be covered. What happened in California? The insurance reps were told to deny all requests for certain medically proven procedures, purely as a matter of business policy.

This is the American reality. This is the reality that John McCain wants to permantly enshrine at the alter of the Free Market system. Up, capitalism!

Health care is a right. It may not be a right as defined in the Constitution, lord knows those white, slave owning men may not have thought it was a right, but it is a moral right that we, as a society of people, should guarantee each other. It is also economically viable, because by the time a person displays symptoms of a disease, it has progressed and is much more costly to the society. Hospital ER rooms have been closing down because they have become the only source of medical treatment for 1 our of 5 Americans. Think of that the next time you think you might be having a heart attack.

Ensuring decent, basic health care for all Americans is also the right thing to do. Well, unless you want people to die on the streets in front of hospitals and doctors offices, because they're not "worthy" of saving. Must be small, and shadowy to be you.

If you do believe this, I can't wait for the day when you have a medical treatment denied, or insurance denied because of pre-existing condition, or lose your insurance at work and can't afford the 12,000 plus premium for private insurance. I'm a big believer in what goes around, comes around.

McCain tried to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In the summer of 2005, he joined with Richard Shelby in trying to get a bill out of the banking committee to regulate the out of control mortgage giants.  Later, in 2006, he signed a letter along with seventeen other senators calling for increased regulation of two government sponsored entities.

Obama opposed the measures as did the leading genuises of Congress Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi and Chris Dodd, all Democrats.

Contrary to popular opinion, Republicans, at least some of us, want responsible government.

The people who sat next to you had fewer choices and someone else made the medical decisions for them; they waited long and did not get care in time.  

The 'care' is not equal, nor fair.  But there is care.  True.  An ER may not reject a patient based on ability to pay.  Never.  But someone has to make the triage decision. 

AFFORD is the key word - the issue is about money, who manages the money and who therefore gets to decide what kind of care individuals receive.  

That people get NO care is FALSE.  That they get LOUSY CARE under government-run systems already exists.  Lets just fairly make everyone get lousy care - fewer choices & longer lines - for everybody.

And, yes, one must participate in (ask for) their own  medical care in order to get better than what is provided to passive patients.  Care is not even - not the point.  Care will not be even under a different payment system either. 

Barbara H. Boucher, PT, PhD, OT    TherExtras 

It is debatable at best that Americans who can AFFORD choice actually have better choices. But it is beyond naive to say thay everyone gets taken care of in the US. This is FALSE. Everyone gets care if they ask for it? This sounds like an alternate reality to me. I sat beside people in a cancer clinic who had no money to pay for treatments that would have saved their lives. They were scraping up money for pain releif meds while their body died...are you saying they chose to die...cause they certainly did want help. They didn't qualify for government help and no charities were lining up to pay their bills. No oncologists were willing to give them freebie treatment either. I sat beside people who are now DEAD because they couldn't afford care. Thank goodness we did not have to pay to save their lives cause that could have meant a longer wait time for the rest of us...imagine....those pesky dying people inconveniencing us like that.

A questions

 you quoted:

"McCain’s plan calls for employers to stop purchasing health care for
their employees and to add the dollars previously spent on health care
onto their paychecks."
My question is how can we be assured that companies will put that money in their employers paycheck and not pad the companies bottom line.  Yes I would love extra money in our paychecks each week, but is there a guarentee that this will happen?

~Susan

http://lilmomthatcould.com/

Your chosen doctor still gets to decide if you get treatment.  You still have to get in a queue for certain treatments.   

Part of the fallacy is that healthcare provided by a healthcare-as-a-right-system is BETTER than what is currently present in the US. 

Less than perfect, medical care in the US still offers more choice for those able to make choices, and everyone can get care if they ask for it - under the current universal government care available - for those who qualify - who will have long waits and fewer choices.  No one does not get taken care of in the US.  Even non-citizens without civil rights are provided human rights, er, medical care in the US. 

The debate is really about WHO will control the medical dollars. 

Patients are duped into believing that universal care is somehow connected to caring for the sick, better management of costs, or getting better care for less money out of your pocket. 

Barbara H. Boucher, PT, PhD, OT    TherExtras 

Actually here we can decide who our doctor's are. If I see someone I don't like, I find someone else. And if you watch that documentary, you would find that other countries do the same, if not on an even higher level of choice.

But perhaps the problem is that our fundemental belief is opposite. I do believe healthcare is a right. People should not be punished for being sick. And before you say that only sick people say that, I'm in my mid-twenties, in perfect health and I will gladly pay into a system that takes care of everyone.

Would you be willing to have someone else decide who gets which food?  That is what happens when a third party collects the money and decides who is worthy of getting some of that money  back via medical care.  It is not a fair system.   

 Barbara H. Boucher, PT, PhD, OT    TherExtras 

I understand your POV...but frankly from someone who would be royally screwed by McCain's plan I just don't buy it. Millions of people will be left with no health coverage under McCain...you seem to think that this is okay...obviously they aren't taking personal responsibility or you rationalize it away by saying good health is a privilege not a right. I urge you to visit some cancer centers for children and tell them that their healthcare is a privilege and not a right.

Some people's very lives could depend on having that government "option". For them it may not be a government versus no government  argument...perhaps more like a life or death argument. Which of us would choose death? That conservatives are willing to choose death FOR them is alarming to say the least.

Tiffany

( http://explodingdog.com/title/whyamistillsick.html )

Hi there,

As a Canadian, I must say I love our socialized healthcare system. No, it is not perfect, but after several years of travelling abroad - most recently, East Africa - I am so utterly grateful and impressed with the Canadian healthcare system. My experiences in the U.S. have also convinced me of the positive nature that is a government-sponsored healthcare system.

When travelling in CA once, I came down with an infection around my heart. Long story short, a $20,000 bill. Thankfully I had travel insurance, but it has only made my resolve and impressions of socialized healthcare stronger. 

I believe I read a statistic once that the U.S. government spends more per person on healthcare than Canadians do. Yet, in Canada, I will never lose my house because of a bill, I will never have to pay for care that I need, and I will never have to battle with an insurance company.

That, I believe, is worth its weight in gold.

Now, the tricky question, how to fix the U.S. system?

There's an excellent documentary on the PBS Frontline site that seeks to answer that question. You can watch it here. ( http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaround... )

Cheers!

Katie

Ogling Uganda ( http://katelewis.wordpress.com/ )

because for decades the medical industry has been trying to make you think that any step toward national coverage is like Communism. You should be grown up enough to know that it's a crock.

I live where health coverage IS a right and where you might call it socialized medicine. I call it humane, myself. Everyone pays a certain percentage of income for coverage. It means that the risk group is the entire population.  Working people usually get half paid by their company and the other half is taken out before you see your check. Self employed buy it on their own every January 2nd. That's me. Only people who have paid in all their lives and then retired in the system don't pay anymore after 65.

I pay in a year what I would pay in a month were I still in the US. Medicare doctor coverage costs more than what I pay annually. I get good care. I see specialists when I need to. I have just had a series of very costly tests for which I paid a tiny co-pay.

Does everybody get this great care? No, there are areas where the available hospitals are not up to date and are not well cared for and the doctors are overburdened. But overall my experience is much more typical than not. I personally feel much less stressed knowing that every child and every old person in this country gets health care.  Everybody is cared for, and there is no such thing as pre-existing conditions.

I love the US and am still a citizen/voter, but healthcare in the US is the national shame.  As the financial crisis worsens and more people are unemployed, millions more may fall off the paid medical care map.  Anyone who feels good about that because he has what he needs is simply immoral, in my opinion.

There is still private insurance and almost all doctors practice privately as well as for the state.  You have the right to buy whatever care you want.  I choose the state coverage.

There

http://www.judithgreenwood.com/thinkonit/

This would be amusing if it weren't such a serious issue.  

The healthcare issue, the banking issue, the investment issue...all of these have one thing in common - the insurance companies, the banks and the companies gone public all have WAY too much freedom.  They NEED to be regulated by, yes, the government, to prevent abuse.  The health of our national economy depends on these things functioning properly.  It is human nature that people in positions of power will often become corrupt if allowed.  

I am an independent, and I always try to see both sides of the story, so can any republicans on this site please explain to me why it is okay to have government violating the privacy rights of INDIVIDUALS, for national security of course, but it is not okay for government to interfere with huge public corporations getting all kinds of tax cuts and breaks to monitor how they are handling millions of investor's money, or regulating banks who are getting tax dollars for bailouts, or regulating insurance companies from mis-using the system and driving healthcare costs through the roof?  

It just seems strange to me that republicans are for MORE government when it comes to personal choices, individual's privacy rights, and things like that. But when it comes to the things that could make or break this country, they cry for less government.  Could this have anything to do with the fact that the 1% who is the richest in this country are the CEOs of banks, insurance companies and public LLCs?

Does anybody know the answer to this question?

Nancy

www.nmadore.com 

Melanie--A couple of other points you might want to mention:

Afterr WWII Detroit lead the way in providing health care to their workers. The commitments they made (not only in health care, but also in pension funding) are major reasons why these big companies are in such trouble.

Getting government into managing or mandating health care will inevitably lead to special interest pandering, creating the same kind of mess the tax system is today.

Economist Martin Feldstein has done some marvelous work on the economics of the health care system. His conclusions are that because people perceive health care as "free" via employer bought insurance, they use the system promiscuously.

Most health care is weighted on what I think of as the front end. Get your child's shots from a doc charging $70 or $80 dollars for a generic. Have insurance pay for it. But what about the backend where families are devestated by the costs of chronic or terminal illnesses?  That's where I'd like to see government assistance. That's where I'd like to see my tax dollars at work. 

There are over 10,000 children diagnosed with cancer ever year. In
2004, 64,800 young adults, 15 to 39 years old, were diagnosed with
cancer.

You know these people and you know me.  I’m the Mom you see at
daycare drop off or at the PTA meeting. The kid you know from church on
Sunday.  I’m the woman that works with you or your son’s soccer coach.
I am just like everyone else. I am also a breast cancer survivor
diagnosed at age 38. I had no family history. I had only had one
mammogram, because I was 38.

I had lots of treatments. Two surgeries, 12 rounds of chemotherapy,
35 doses of radiation, physical therapy and more vials of blood than I
care to remember. I have health insurance and I believe that I am alive
because of it.

Like many of you I have been watching the coverage of the
Presidential candidates. While I pay close attention to the health care
proposals because of what I’ve gone through, I know they resonate just
as strongly with others as well.  If you’re diabetic or have lupus, MS
or asthma I know, or at least hope you’re listening.

I am fortunate to be insured through my workplace. I don’t
personally write a check for my coverage but I was interested in what a
$5,000 tax credit would buy. I had heard the horror stories but never
checked it out for myself. I called some insurance companies today to
get an estimate of what it would cost me to purchase individual health
insurance.

Of four companies, three would treat the breast cancer as a
pre-existing condition. No coverage for any services related to the
breast cancer. No coverage for follow up appointments, annual PET scans
($3,000), no Femara ($381 per month for 5 years).

I found one company that offers a guarantee issue insurance.  The rates?  The least expensive plan that would cover me with a $5,000 deductible and a 50% copay would cost $1,400 per month. That’s the bargain plan.  The high end coverage with a $250 deductible and 100% copay would cost just over $4,000 per month.  I expect to live a long time and rates will increase as I age.

One plan is selling a $5,000 refundable tax credit.  But that would
not touch the price of insurance and here is the really terrifying
part.  If I were out shopping in the market for health insurance at 38
years old and healthy, I wouldn’t look for a policy with good cancer
coverage. Cheap prescriptions maybe or maternity coverage but not
cancer. Cancer doesn’t  happen to us. I’d be looking for a rate I could
pay for and still pay off student loans and make car payments.  The
only reason I have good coverage is because it is through my employer
and is designed to cover everyone, young and old, healthy and the not
so healthy.

If this is something that is important to you or to someone you
love, I urge you to take the time to understand the plans that are
being proposed.  It is more complex than a sound bite or a slogan can
address. It may well be a matter of life or death.

(If you want the names of the insurance companies referenced e-mail me at aftercancer@yahoo.com)

Amen.  Candidate McCain's plan and promises are about increasing the distance between government and my skin.  Candidate Obama's plans and promises are sure to lead to subdermal pain.   

Barbara H. Boucher, PT, PhD, OT    TherExtras 

The Cabinet of Dr. Obama ( http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Artic... ): In effect, the Obama plan creates an incentive to drop employees from existing plans, and then takes private insurers out of the race to cover them by using price controls to make the public option cheaper. The plan's goal is to drive Americans into a public Medicare-like insurance system by default.

Obama Ad Drumbeat: 'McCain Will Tax Your Benefits' ( http://www.galen.org/component,8/action,show_content/id,68/category_id,0/blog_id,1094/type,33/ ): [In actuality, McCain's] tax credit replaces a break 60 percent of workers are already getting – and gives new money to those without coverage to buy insurance. Even now, policies bought on the individual market cost about half as much as employer-based policies, so the $5,000 credit will go a long way toward helping them buy coverage.

Health Care: How Involved Should the Government Be? ( http://blogs.wsj.com/agenda/2008/08/22/and-finally... ): Barack Obama would have the government organize a health-care marketplace where private plans, and one new government-run plan, would compete to sell insurance, with government subsidies for low-income customers. The likely result: more Americans buying insurance with the help of government, with more people insured, but government spending a lot for subsidies. John McCain would change the tax treatment of health insurance in a way that would encourage Americans to buy insurance on the open market, eliminating the current bias toward employer-sponsored care. The likely result: more people shopping for insurance on their own, with more choices but perhaps more risks.

This is what I'm trying to convey: For me, putting the choice in the hands of Americans and keeping government as far away as possible is important. I understand Democrats and liberals have a different pov; I hope you can see the other side--the pov of conservatives, Republicans, and some Libertarians (including me).

Melanie
Blogging Basics 101 ( http://www.bloggingbasics101.com )
Bloggy Giveaways ( http://www.bloggygiveaways.com )
Don't Try This at Home ( http://www.donttryit.com )

after the banks the insurance co's are the next mega corps....all playing with our money. 

Look for me at http://crunchycarpets.com or check out the ladies at www.wetcoastwomen.com ( http://www.wetcoastwomen.com )

Yes, let's talk healthcare.

First off Obama is not sugegsting government mandated or socialized healthcare. To say such is to fall for GOP propoganda. Secondly, MANY other countries do have such healthcare and it works out just fine. This method has been tried and proven to work by other countries. Overall they are VERY satisfied too. It is just silly to act as though this type of healthcare if bad.

Currently insurance companies have us in a noose. They are in control. They can tell you what doctor to see if they so choose and they can certainly determine whether you will receive a transplant based on your age or if the organ will go to someone younger and healthier. They have all the power...you only think you have some of it. Many Americans feel that government run healthcare couldn't possibly be any worse...I happen to agree. I am a cancer survivor and if I had to go and get personal insurance I would be un-insurable with my past history. That is not right at all but you seem to think this is OK as long as YOU are covered. I hope you never have to walk in my shoes.

I have taken personal responsibility for my insurance ALL my life. I have never been without insurance that I pay for through an employer and yet I have had many dozens of claims denied and many thousands of dollars of out pocket expenses on top of what I paid for insurance....in fact over $100,000 of ADDITIONAL expenses in just over 10 years. So I am not up in arms when someone tells me I need to take responsibilty although they do need a good slap with a reality stick....I have taken responsibility. I am up in arms though about them telling me that if I do (take responsibility and pay for my own healthcare) that I will have good coverage...that has not been my experience or the experience of MILLIONS of other people.

The free market has allowed insurance companies to grow into tyrants and we are at their whim. I will take whatver the heck Obama says is behind door number 3 rather than support anything resembling the system already in place. It is a monumental failure.

www.naturemoms.com/blog ( http://www.naturemoms.com/blog )

Do your insurance co's and HMO's not already dictate which hospitals etc you are covered at?

"someone else choosing my doctor. I am not OK having someone else determine whether I will receive a transplant based on my age or if the organ will go to someone younger and healthier. I am not OK with the government taking away my choice."

In Canada we pick our own docs etc.  Our big problem is wait lists and a shortage of GP's.  We are working on changing that.  SOME of our political parties have good ideas about this.

Quality and choice has not been an issue.

I don't think it is anywhere else they have socialized care.

Again..people against this have visions of the Soviet Union or Communist Cuba or something..I don't know. 

I am never TOLD who or where I cannot go for health care.

I am given the opportunity for 2nd 3rd and 4th opinions if so needed.

Look for me at http://crunchycarpets.com or check out the ladies at www.wetcoastwomen.com ( http://www.wetcoastwomen.com )

First and most importantly, let's make sure that we really know what we are talking about before we start talking.  Socialized medicine defined is a medical system that is wholly owned and run by government.  This means that hopitals are government owned and all health care professionals are government employees.  Neither one of our current presidential candidates is suggesting a plan that even remotely reaches this level of government involvement.  Even single payor systems,  which go well beyond what Barack Obama is proposing, still fall short of socialized medicine.

 If you take the time to read up on Obama's health care proposal for yourself, you will see that you will still have either an employer provided health care package or the option to get an individual plan.  Obama wants to make sure that the government is able to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies for better drug prices and to make sure that all children and adults have access to affordable health care (not emergency room care, but HEALTH care - there is a big difference).  In essence, we all already pay for the health care of the uninsured through very high insurance premiums and hospital fees.  In no way does any of what Barack Obama has laid out lead to "centralizing, nationalizing, socializing" of healthcare, nor will it lead to "rationing services."  These phrases are simply scare tactics.

As far as Kathryn Nix's comments that "McCain’s plan calls for employers to stop purchasing health care for
their employees and to add the dollars previously spent on health care
onto their paychecks" all I can say is "Dream on, Kathryn."  Has the scourge of corporate greed gone completely unnoticed by her?  Does she really believe that companies will drop the insurance benefits they currently offer their employees and then add the dollar equivalent to their paychecks?  That's beyond naive!  And, as far as individuals sorting through the myriad of health care plan options that will no doubt abound, good luck.  We've seen how well that works with Medicare . . . it's been a debacle.  

I'm all for discussing the facts, but let's stick to them.  I judge how accurate any discussion on any currently highly-charged political issues is going to be by the number of conservative buzzwords I hear.  Your post contains way too many.

Lori J.

Between Us Girls -Sharing the Knowledge We Need to grow.  Find me at www.betweenusgirls.info ( http://www.betweenusgirls.info/ )!