Question for pittypat.

[wow]

Wow, I asked her and she said we already have rationed healthcare, dictated by the HMOs.(ins companies) Said its terrible. She has excellant healthcare as her husband works for UPS and its very good. She says the hospital healthcare plan is a terrible HMO. Says that here in NV they call HMOs Nevada Death Insurance. 

Thanks for the information.
I can't imagine nurses wanting a HMO or rationed Govt healthcare for all Americans, when they do not want it for their own family 

They already have it, they,nurses, are not responsible for what insurance companies. Most in the USA today have no choice, its HMO or nothing. Those with severe preexisting conditions can't even get HMOs. My daughter wants decent healthcare for everyone, not just those who can afford it. She is a nurse who cares deeply for people. She comes home depressed alot because of what she sees in the ER. I have nothing more to say about this subject, except that I believe that we should take care of our sick and nobody should have to go without healthcare because they can't afford it. This is a rich and supposedly compassionate country. 

These Politicians use waiting lines for treatment to "kill" their own people to cut healthcare costs.
It's a cruel reality.
I have considered going without any form of health Insurance for the rest of my life.
Eventually, I know I will die and no one can prevent it.

[they call me MR. GRUMPY god damn it!]

Healthcare is just as much a right if not more than anything else, police, fire etc. We as tax payers pay for that, why not healthcare? Done properly, it would save the taxpayers. Myself, it hurts me to see a person suffer needlessly just because they cannot afford health insurance. I don't claim to be religious and do not proclaim to be much of a christian but I am extremely compassionate and feel that we are most certainly our brothers keepers. Yes, in that respect, I am a bleeding heart. 

no health care is not a right, neither are police/fire.  these are services that you pay for.  why don't you and all those who believe the same fund it, why do you believe that you can mandate this for others?  if it hurts don't look

[gunit_sangh]

Since we're on the topic ...

Doctors agree: We need single-payer health care
It's the only system that offers affordable quality care

We have all heard it before. The health care system in the United States is broken. We have all heard it, but when is someone going to do something about it?

Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP) is a group of 15,000 physicians who believe that there is a solution and it is currently working for Americans — if they are over 65. It is, of course, Medicare, part of the 60 percent of our current health care system that is paid for and administered by the government.

We believe a single-payer system (Medicare for everyone) would be less costly, more efficient and provide all Americans with the health care they need without an increase in overall dollars spent (an amount that is increasing at a rate of 7 percent per year). This would include the 47 million who are currently uninsured and the estimated 50.3 million who are "underinsured" (spending 10 percent or more of their pretax income on health care).

Until now, doctors who believed in a system of guaranteed single-payer health care were in the minority. However, in a new study from Indiana University published in The Annals of Internal Medicine, 59 percent of the physicians support national health insurance.

This is a 10 percentage point increase from the same survey done 5 years ago. In fact, there are increases in support among doctors in every medical specialty. We expect that physician support for single-payer national health insurance will continue to grow. Recently the American College of Physicians endorsed a single-payer system.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/5732041.html

[Peter1469]

The main issue is the astronomical inflation of heathcare costs that has taken place in recent years. The causes need to be addressed ... Malpractice lawsuits? HMOs? Insurance regulation?

Probably all of the above.   

[pittypat65]

Healthcare is just as much a right if not more than anything else, police, fire etc. We as tax payers pay for that, why not healthcare? Done properly, it would save the taxpayers. Myself, it hurts me to see a person suffer needlessly just because they cannot afford health insurance. I don't claim to be religious and do not proclaim to be much of a christian but I am extremely compassionate and feel that we are most certainly our brothers keepers. Yes, in that respect, I am a bleeding heart. 

no health care is not a right, neither are police/fire.  these are services that you pay for.  why don't you and all those who believe the same fund it, why do you believe that you can mandate this for others?  if it hurts don't look

So you agree that healthcare is just as much a right or not a right as police/fire? then why do we pay for fire/police and not healthcare?

[pittypat65]

The main issue is the astronomical inflation of heathcare costs that has taken place in recent years. The causes need to be addressed ... Malpractice lawsuits? HMOs? Insurance regulation?

Probably all of the above.   

Have limits on malpractice, except if its criminal negligence.

[Peter1469]

As I have said before, a single payer system may (or may not) provide better care.  But it would provide less care.  The government would allocate a budget and care would be rationed.  There is no way around this.  I also fear that costs would increase for the same reason they increase under HMOs- the user is not paying the cost and has no incentive to demand reasonable prices. 

Regarding insurance malpractice.  There are current federal rules that should have applicability at the state level as well.  It is called an offer of proof.  If there is a lawsuit the defense attorney can make an "offer of proof" settlement offer.  The offer is provided to the judge- but it is sealed and is not opened until after the trial is over.  If the plaintiff's award is around the settlement offer the judge can find that the settlement offer was reasonable and cut off attorney's fees as of the date of the reasonable settlement offer.  This would cut down the cost of litigation and force plaintiffs attorneys to level with their clients about the true value of their claim.  It may need tweaking for contingency cases.  (Lawyer tend not to take a case on contingency unless they think it is worth a lot of money.)

This tactic is not used enough. 

[pittypat65]

I believe that we need a national healthcare plan.  A plan that covers everyone. If those who can afford it want a private plan then let em have at it. Maybe there should be a vote of the people?

[Peter1469]

I believe that we need a national healthcare plan.  A plan that covers everyone. If those who can afford it want a private plan then let em have at it. Maybe there should be a vote of the people?

Will they get another vote in about 5 years or so to see if they still want national health care? 

[SDML]

So to drive down these costs -- you have to drive down the cost of education of the doctor and nurses, go to less experienced doctors/nurses or go to doctors/nurses who are not getting additional training in current advances in treatement.

There's only so much you can drive these costs down before it becomes unrealistic to expect highly trained professionals to accept as compensation for their services.   

You have a seriously simplistic (& unrealistic) vision of economics if you think that is the whole of driving down costs. So you think high costs are due to costs in education alone? You think the solution is reducing the cost of education (what about those poor teachers who will make less?) or accepting inferior care?

Dude....I don't know where to start in correcting such a crazy notion.

Pittypat - Health-care is not a "right" in the way that the Constitution defines "rights". It is that simple.

[pittypat65]

neither is fire and police

[SDML]

I never said they were. You, however, made the claim that health-care is a right (and also that police & a fire dept are rights).

You are incorrect in all of those assertion, and also fail to recognize the difference between federal & local levels of government - that is, you call for a national health-care plan and then attempt to support that by drawing an analogy to state (police) and local (police & fire) level government functions.

As an aside, local gov supplying police and firefighters do not do so on the grounds of "people have a right to a fire department" or "it is a people's right to have police". Perhaps you'd like to let go of the "health-care as right" argument in toto and simply find some other argument for having the federal government involving itself in health-care...especially with the gov's dismal record in all other areas.

Or perhaps, instead, we can talk about reality-based measures to drive costs down (like de-regulation of all or most segments of the medical industry, for example). In other words, controlling costs by getting the gov out of the way.

[scarlett]

i said it is "just as much a right" as fire and police.

[scarlett]

So maybe everyone should have to pay their own private fire or police protection. those who can't afford to pay just allow their home to burn down or if you don't have a police protection policy you are not protected so don't call the police.?   

[SDML]

So maybe everyone should have to pay their own private fire or police protection. those who can't afford to pay just allow their home to burn down or if you don't have a police protection policy you are not protected so don't call the police.?

Is this some sort of serious statement, or are you intentionally being ridiculous?