Print this story |
E-mail story |
This story has 21 comments Add your own |
iPod friendly | Bookmark this
What is this?
Is health insurance for all realistic?
Published Friday, October 23, 2009
Health insurance for all: That’s not too much to expect in the world’s richest nation. Nor is it too much to expect of Congress, which desperately needs to shed its image of intransigence and incompetence.
The bill that cleared the Senate Finance Committee last week would leave an estimated 17 million citizens and legal residents uninsured. Eight million illegal residents would also remain uninsured. ...
But it’s not good enough. Universal coverage is the fundamental requisite for health care reform. Aside from the moral imperative, economics demands covering everyone.
Insurance is sharing risk. The more people who are sharing the risk, especially the more young and healthy people who don’t need a lot of expensive care, the lower the cost for everyone. ...
The Baucus plan does some good things, including requiring insurance companies to sell all customers the same policy and ending industry practices that deny care for spurious reasons.
It falls short in holding down insurance costs because there’s no public option to compete with private insurers.
... It seems to us, though, that the public option is a more streamlined way to achieve reform’s goals than a new bureaucracy to police 50 state insurance markets to be sure that insurers aren’t illegally
Advertisement
denying coverage and cherry-picking customers.
A self-supporting public option would keep insurers honest by injecting real competition into the market. This would help make universal coverage affordable, while insurers would profit from an influx of millions of new customers.
Lexington (Ky.) Herald-Leader
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SHARE THIS STORY?
Comments
Posted by OldSchoolPike3Worker (anonymous) on October 24, 2009 at 12:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"Aside from the moral imperative, economics demands covering everyone."
--
What religion is this "moral imperative" founded in? I know of no religion that calls for governments to force the taking of personal property from those that have earned it through legitimate means, and give it to those that don't. Any lawmaker that votes on this health care plan based on morals is violating the separation of church and state. As a Christian, I have been taught not to covet what my neighbor has (like their money or health care). I am also taught to tithe and pay taxes. A person tithes and gives gifts because they want to. Taxes are paid by people whether they want to or not. If socialized medicine is really a "moral imperative," then talk to your pastor at your church about funding it, or start a charity for that purpose. I'm sure that the morals of individual citizens are much greater than those that "serve us" in Washington D.C., and I don't need politicians trying to save my soul by spending my tax dollars on health plans that used to be found only in the governments of our enemies. As long as there are Americans that pay taxes and disagree with socialized medicine, it will never be "moral" to fund it with tax revenue.
Posted by OldSchoolPike3Worker (anonymous) on October 24, 2009 at 12:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
And another thing. If the goal is to really help those that need it, how does entrusting the task to politicians that keep illegal funds in their freezer or run homosexual prostitution rings from their Washington D.C. apartments make any sense?
Posted by inaword (anonymous) on October 24, 2009 at 8:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The problem I have with all of the proposed bills is that congress and the senate will not be subjected to the same rules. Sounds to me like "Do as I say, Don't do as I do".
Posted by bamaslick (anonymous) on October 24, 2009 at 10:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)
All of these so-called Christians. that spew a few verses from memory out the bible, but always seem to forget or acknowledge that their Lord & Savior Jesus Christ taught liberalism.
Old Testament (conservative)
New Testament (Christian)(liberal)
Posted by Blue_Sky (anonymous) on October 24, 2009 at 6:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It is a reform of health insurance and not that everyone will get health care - unless they go to the emergency room like they are already doing. Make health insurance more affordable and available and maybe less will depend on the emergency room for less than emergency treatment.
Posted by OldSchoolPike3Worker (anonymous) on October 26, 2009 at 2:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Don't you know that there is a difference between a tithe and a tax?
Posted by bamaslick (anonymous) on October 26, 2009 at 3:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
the spelling...
Posted by OldSchoolPike3Worker (anonymous) on October 26, 2009 at 9:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
FoX, how much is a one way plane ticket to Switzerland? I will pay for it if you promise to stay.
Posted by Linden (anonymous) on October 26, 2009 at 11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This article has now flow to it....Nor any sense!
Posted by OldSchoolPike3Worker (anonymous) on October 27, 2009 at 9:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Typical liberal, you want me to pitch-in on your health care AND fly you first class.
Posted by OldSchoolPike3Worker (anonymous) on October 27, 2009 at 10:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
FoX, if morality is not exclusive to religion, then where did it originate? Are you saying that the idea of stealing another person's property being wrong is just a random development in society? Did it ever occur to you that since the dawn of recorded history man has based morality on the wills of a higher power? We don't even have to go back that far. The U.S. Constitution is based on Judea-Christian beliefs and the concept of our creator granting us rights that no government or person should be able to take away. That is my problem with programs such as socialized medicine. The concept of taking property from someone that has earned it. (i.e money) and using it to pay for health insurance for another that has not earned, or maybe even has enough money to buy their own insurance but just chooses not to, is in stark contrast to the purpose of this country's founding. These arguments have been hashed out decades ago. History has shown us the folly in wealth redistribution. What makes you think that it will work now?
Posted by OldSchoolPike3Worker (anonymous) on October 27, 2009 at 2:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
You are a lost cause my friend. I don't know who I should pity more, you or those that you mange to persuade.
Posted by OldSchoolPike3Worker (anonymous) on October 27, 2009 at 3:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
There doesn't have to be a law that is exclusive to Judea-Christian ideology because all of our laws are based in it. At least the Constitution through the Bill of Rights. Either way, whatever you think about morality, how can you entrust the current culture in Washington with health care? Why is that a better alternative? And, how do the cost outweigh any possible benefits? Every program they run ends up costing unimaginable amounts more than projected at the start.
Posted by Blue_Sky (anonymous) on October 27, 2009 at 7:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Fox, you are cool - don't let them get to you.
Posted by mythoughts (anonymous) on October 30, 2009 at 3 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Well sorry folks I am all for health care reform.. I work and am thankful I have a job.. I work 6 days a week and I have no heath care benefits from my job... nor do I have the money to buy it either ... nor do I qualify for any public assistance... So because I choose to go to work to try and have something rather than be on welfare I have to worry about how to pay for a doctor everytime I get sick... you have no idea how many times I have broke down and scawled because I have been so sick I could not stand myself and had no money to get help... and worried what would happen to my kids if I died... while the ones of you who are blessed to have health insurance I am glad that you do (really I am) ... but before you complain about others try to imagine if it were you that was in desperite need of medical assistance and your only option is to go to an emergancy room where they do not want to look at you because you are not fortunate enough to have medical benefits!!!! .... I do everything I can to try not to get sick but you know sometimes life doesn't give you a choice...
Posted by zblogan (anonymous) on November 3, 2009 at 5:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It's astounding listening to someone advocate public option health insurance because of their financial situation while they post from a $$ computer $$ over the $ internet $. It is difficult for me to sympathize with someone who is not more frugal with their resources.
Posted by DavidKern (anonymous) on November 12, 2009 at 8:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Mike Rogers: Recent press release "Speaker Pelosi's health care bill" raise some questions that deserve some additional consideration.
I was encouraged by his demonstrable improvement in tone, although he can’t seem to quite break away from “market tested” phrases e.g. “massive reform”, and “Speaker Pelosi’s $1 trillion health care bill”, obviously the Speaker’s public negatives are extremely high, therefore, emotionally conflating the bill into a referendum of her personally, is a powerful marketing tactic.
I have responded by detailing 7 points which are in the comment section of the Jacksonville news online at: http://www.jaxnews.com/pages/full_story/...
David Kern
Posted by 1996tahoe (anonymous) on November 19, 2009 at 4:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I know we need some sort of health care reform, but I know I do not like the idea of the government running it. Our Gov. has a pitiful track record when it comes to managing any type of program. Sometimes I think it would be better to have more state goverenment than federal, let the states take care of their own. Anyway, I do feel bad for "AMERICANS" that do not have insurance, especially if they have children. Oh yeah...Fox your a freakin moron, hope you don't hold a political position, it's obvious you have no idea what your talking about.
Posted by ark (anonymous) on November 20, 2009 at 10:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Stop smoking, drinking and wasting your money on junk and things that you don't need. Food, clothing and shelter is all you need.
Posted by Kelly (anonymous) on December 22, 2009 at 7:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I work hard every day. I don't have insurance. What I do is take care of my health. I eat right; no fast food, no fried artery goo, no smoking, etc. I live a healthy lifestyle. I exercise and try to do the right thing regarding my health. Why should I have to pay for those who do not do the right things regarding their health? Like most of the problems in our country, this problem could be greatly reduced with simple personal responsibility. Think about it.
Posted by Borderacres (anonymous) on January 3, 2010 at 6:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
How can you work 6 days a week and not afford to get insurance or go to a Primed? It's not that expensive- I speak from experience. If you are private pay physicians will give you samples to help with the cost, a visit to Primed costs about $65. Get a health insurance plan with a high deductible. Why do people think healthcare should be free?
Post a comment (Terms of Use Policy)
(Requires free registration.)