Healthcare Poll

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Good to know (who polled that?

It is a composite from Real Clear Politics - yeah Rassmussen is lower and you can find other partisan polling where it is higher - that's why the averages are the most reliable indicators.

Thanks i'll go check their polls out for a few min.

 

[Darkwind]

I am wondering how the posters here feel about healthcare. Do you think:
1) The current system is fine - no need to try to fix what isn't broken.
2) The current system is fine, but a few minor tweaks may be in order.
3) The current system is OK, but we need to make some significant improvements.
4) The current system has major flaws that require major fixes.
5) The current system is totally shot - we should throw it out and start all over with a entirely new set of goals and an entirely different system.
6) Some other viewpoint (please explain)

and furthermore, what elements are the most important to you:
A) Cost
B) Availability of care
C) Quality of care
D) Portability and continuous coverage
E) Preventative care

And finally, are there other aspects of the issue not addressed above that you think are vital parts of a successful healthcare program?

In the spirit of full disclosure, may answers are:
3) The current system is OK, but we need to make some significant improvements. And while I think A-E are ALL important I rank them in this order: B, C, A, E, D.

2. There are aspects of the insurance industry that covers our medical needs that need to be tweaked. However, we do not need to bankrupt this country by trying to fix 8% of the problem.

I support the following:

a. Costs do need to be brought into line with affordability. A government program will do neither.

d. This actually ties into a. If insurance were portable to anywhere you travel, costs would come down from competition alone. May not lower them enough, but compared to bankrupting this country.....

B, C and E:

I don't know why you would include availability of care. (option b) Everyone in this country is able to find a health service (many of them free) to meet their needs. And when all else fails, the emergency rooms of all our hospitals are forbidden by law to turn anyone away.

Our quality of care is second to none. (option c) Just review the survivor rates of all major diseases and you'll find that America ranks at the top.

Finally, (option e) preventive care SHOULD come out of your own pocket and any real coverage a person needs is for catastrophic care only. Those expenses that would bankrupt a person should they have some major medical crisis in their life. However, preventative care through proven life style changes should be used to lower the rates of those paying for catastrophic care.

 

[nodoginnafight]

it still means its pretty stupid of people to put them in charge of something this important

So is it your position that our elected government should stick to "non-important" issues like waging war, treaties, taxation, law enforcement, etc .........

We elect these people to make important decisions about important issues. That's their job.

 

[Darkwind]

The economy is in shambles, this is not the time to be adding another huge entitlement that can't possibly be paid for.

A not entirely valid complaint.

Of course HC costs are actually part of the cause of our economy being in a shambles, but the connections are so complex that even if we fix the HC problem, it won't matter much in the short run.

making health care free to everyone will improve the economy.....

Helathcare will never be free. Even if the government takes over our health industry.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I don't know why you would include availability of care. (option b) Everyone in this country is able to find a health service (many of them free) to meet their needs. And when all else fails, the emergency rooms of all our hospitals are forbidden by law to turn anyone away.

I include availability of care because ALL types of care are not available in the ER. And because I think the "ER as primary caregiver" is way too costly and inefficient. I guess I failed to provide a response for those who find this trend perfectly acceptable other than 1). Sorry - my bad.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Thanks for your input lonestar. Do you feel cost trumps all other aspects of healthcare for yourself as well?

To be perfectly honest, I don't have nor have I ever had nor do I want health insurance. I've managed to raise three children to the age of majority, survive a professional bull riding career all without the need for insurance. I do believe healthcare cost are high and needs to be addressed. If you're too poor to maintain your health care cost, well I reckon you're gonna die sooner rather than later and I'll lose no sleep over it.

 

[Darkwind]

I don't know why you would include availability of care. (option b) Everyone in this country is able to find a health service (many of them free) to meet their needs. And when all else fails, the emergency rooms of all our hospitals are forbidden by law to turn anyone away.

I include availability of care because ALL types of care are not available in the ER. And because I think the "ER as primary caregiver" is way too costly and inefficient. I guess I failed to provide a response for those who find this trend perfectly acceptable other than 1). Sorry - my bad.

I don't find it acceptable, but I do find that it happens all the time. If people need access to health services, they have it. As for access to ALL types of care, a government program will not give that to us either.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

The economy is in shambles, this is not the time to be adding another huge entitlement that can't possibly be paid for.

A not entirely valid complaint.

Of course HC costs are actually part of the cause of our economy being in a shambles, but the connections are so complex that even if we fix the HC problem, it won't matter much in the short run.

making health care free to everyone will improve the economy.....

Free for everyone?

You mean no one will have to pay?

That kool-aid is rotting your brain!! But I suppose you can't rot what you ain't got to begin with.

 

[nodoginnafight]

If you're too poor to maintain your health care cost, well I reckon you're gonna die sooner rather than later and I'll lose no sleep over it.

OK, thanks. I could not disagree with this position more, but I do respect your right to your own opinion and your right to ask your government to reflect your values. But I do hope you lose on THAT point.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I don't find it acceptable, but I do find that it happens all the time. If people need access to health services, they have it. As for access to ALL types of care, a government program will not give that to us either.

You are right - perhaps I should have said wider, more cost effective range of care. But I think we agree that when the ER is the primary caregiver - we have a situation that needs some attention. Can't we?

 

[nodoginnafight]

A side note - 99.9% of the posts here have been very respectful and insightful. all around imho.

 

[Darkwind]

I don't find it acceptable, but I do find that it happens all the time. If people need access to health services, they have it. As for access to ALL types of care, a government program will not give that to us either.

You are right - perhaps I should have said wider, more cost effective range of care. But I think we agree that when the ER is the primary caregiver - we have a situation that needs some attention. Can't we?

Of course. Using the ER for minor things that can better be taken care of in a health care clinic or at a family doctors office only drives up costs. Emergency Care is the most expensive type of care going.

But we must first address the fact that preventative care and minor health issue costs are the responsibility of the individual. Life requires participation from us all. Right now, as the current set of bills are written, they bring us no where closer to solving these isuses.

And for people who are willing to take a closer look at what is being debated in regards to the healthcare legislation, it doesn't even come close to fulfilling the outline of what Mr. Obama wants to accomplish.

 

[nodoginnafight]

But we must first address the fact that preventative care and minor health issue costs are the responsibility of the individual.

To be absolutely fair - that is an opinion. Not a fact.

 

[ElmerMudd]

We need to look the medical professionals to guide us in healthcare reform.

The politicians are out to get reelected and money from the lobbyists.

The businessmen want to maximize profits for their company.

If corporate America wants to make a screw driver cheaper to increase their profits I am fine with that. It is when they deny coverage or increase rates to where they are unaffordable to maximize profits on healthcare that I have a problem.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

it still means its pretty stupid of people to put them in charge of something this important

So is it your position that our elected government should stick to "non-important" issues like waging war, treaties, taxation, law enforcement, etc .........

We elect these people to make important decisions about important issues. That's their job.

And, from examples I've stated, you can see they fail at that job.

if they can't handle the responsibilities we have already entrusted them with how do you think they can handle even more? To me that is poor judgment.

EDIT: Lets take wage war from your list of important issues....they failed to interpret 9/11 intelligence and failed at their Iraq WMD intelligence (at least they gave iraq a govt but look at the expensive, in money and lives, failures in getting there.) OH and afghanistan, yeah thats not going to good right now either.

 

[Darkwind]

But we must first address the fact that preventative care and minor health issue costs are the responsibility of the individual.

To be absolutely fair - that is an opinion. Not a fact.

So, you don't believe that people should be responsible for themselves?

 

[Big Black Dog]

The health care available in America is the best health care in the world. However, there needs to be some tweaks to the system. I believe the following things would greatly improve the health care system here in America:

(1) Standardized prices for medical services throughout the entire US. Shouldn't it cost the same thing in North Dakota as it does in Southern California to fix a broken arm?

(2) Reasonable charges for services provided by hospitals. An aspirin shouldn't cost more than 50 cents. It surely shouldn't cost $9.00 or more.

(3) Medical insurance that is accepted by every doctor, every hospital and every clinic. If you have medical insurance it should be accepted by everyone who provides medical care.

(4) Medical insurance that is affordable for every American. It is entirely your own personal choice to purchase medical insurance. However, if you decide to invest in medical insurance it should be affordable enough that anybody who was really serious about wanting it could afford it. It should be standardized. Should cost the same thing, country wide.

(5) No co-pays.

(6) No deductables.

(7) People who provide medical care should accept whatever the insurance company pays as full payment for those services.

(8) Your insurance coverage cannot be cancelled except for lack of payment of the policy. Specifically, the insurance companies cannot drop your coverage after you have just had a $100,000 surgery bill or have been diagnosed with a major illness.

(9) Timely payments to the providers of your medical care by the insurance companies.

(10) No medical services provided to any illegal alien within the United States by any medical facility.

(11) If your doctor says you need a particular medical treatment or procedure, the insurance company would be bound by law to pay for that service in full.

(12) Because medications are a part of the medical care directed by your physician, insurance companies should provide full coverage for these meds.

(13) Cannot be denied insurance coverage due to pre-existing conditions.

I believe if we could get the government to pass laws governing these issues we would be better off as a country. Other than passing these kind of laws, the government has no business in the health care business.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Elmer - good points and I respect your opinion. But I don't see where making healthcare "unaffordable" maximizes profits for insurance companies. I mean if it's "unaffordable" wouldn't they lose customers and doesn't that LOWER their profits?

 

[Darkwind]

We need to look the medical professionals to guide us in healthcare reform.

The politicians are out to get reelected and money from the lobbyists.

The businessmen want to maximize profits for their company.

If corporate America wants to make a screw driver cheaper to increase their profits I am fine with that. It is when they deny coverage or increase rates to where they are unaffordable to maximize profits on healthcare that I have a problem.

The politicans will use this program the exact same way that they use Social Security. As a cudgal to beat their opponets over the head with.

I can just see it now. The cries of: My opponent wants to take your healthcare away from you and endanger you children!

It is and will become a tool to demonize your political opponents.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

If you're too poor to maintain your health care cost, well I reckon you're gonna die sooner rather than later and I'll lose no sleep over it.

OK, thanks. I could not disagree with this position more, but I do respect your right to your own opinion and your right to ask your government to reflect your values. But I do hope you lose on THAT point.

I wouldn't expect anything less from a bleeding heart liberal. But you should look at which group( conservative or liberal) that does more for the underpriviledged.

Arthur Brooks, the author of a book on donors to charity, “Who Really Cares,” cites data that households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals. A study by Google found an even greater disproportion: average annual contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those of liberals.

RealClearPolitics - Articles - Conservatives More Liberal Givers

How many families did you take in after Hurricane Katrina devestated New Orleans?

How many homeless families have you helped out with shelter and jobs?

What non-profit organization are you currently a member of?

Why is it so difficult to understand if you can't even take care of yourself don't have children?

Black children are more than twice as likely to live in poverty than are white children--but not because they are "born black in America," according to a new study from The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis (CDA). Examining data from the U.S. Department of Labor's National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, Heritage analysts determined that child poverty rates are driven primarily by single-parent households and dependency on welfare benefits.When these and other, less significant, factors are taken into account, the disparity between black and white child poverty rates disappears. "Race alone does not directly increase or decrease the probability that a child will be poor," says Robert Rector, Heritage's senior research fellow in welfare and family issues and a co-author of the report. The study notes that 68.8 percent of black American children were born out of wedlock in 1999, compared to 26.7 percent of white children. And black children were five times more likely to be dependent on Aid for Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), the government's largest welfare program. Black children also live in poverty longer than whites-46.9 percent of their time since birth vs. 26.7 percent for whites. Yet when black children and white children are grouped by levels of single parenthood and welfare dependence the poverty rates for both groups are nearly identical, Rector found. The analysis also found that nearly half (44.5 percent) of all children born to never-married mothers depend on AFDC, compared to a fifth (20.4 percent) of those born out of wedlock, whose mothers later married. Only a tenth (10.7 percent) of the children born to married couples who subsequently divorce end up relying on AFDC, as do a mere 2.5 percent of those whose parents' marriages remain intact. The press release can be read below, and the entire paper, "Understanding Differences in Black and White Child Poverty Rates," is available online at 404 Page Not Found. Cited in a posting from Smart Marriages Listserv on May 29, 2001.

This leads to generational welfare, IMHO.

Children of divorce: Poverty

There is no reason why everyone in America cannot get a decent education. Learn a trade and make an honest living. If you can't manage that then you should suffer the consequences.

Why should the folks that do make the right choices in life, pay for the idiots that don't?