Healthcare in the good ol' US of A
Yahoo! News - Healthcare Overhaul Is Quietly Underway
From this article:Supporters of the new approach, who see it as part of Bush's "ownership society," say workers and their families would become more careful users of healthcare if they had to pay the bills.
Why doesn't anyone talk about holding the insurance companies responsible for the rising cost of health care? I've said it before and I'll say it again, I don't see ONE insurance company folding up and moving out. Why is that?
So, how will those that can barely afford health care now get any medical care if they have to bear the full responsibility for it? It should be fairly common knowledge that the greater the pool the lower the risk the lower the cost.
I don't think that I'd be able to purchase my own health care plan in Bushes great "ownership society" for the same cost that the company for which I work could. Bulk rates, ya know?
So, is $800 a month for a comprehensive paln too much? Is a "catastrophic plan" with a $2000 deductible going to be my opion? Just what would I be "more careful" with? Let's see...wouldn't get a mammogram, wouldn't get a pap smear. Men wouldn't get routine prostrate cancer checks. Why should we?
Somehow, the "lawsuits" and bushes plan got melded together. They are two separate issues. Capping lawsuits WONT lower medical costs, because most lawsuits are PRODUCT LIABILITY suits, not medical malpractice suits.
What Bush is really talking about in this "ownership society" of his is corporate control -- corporate control of health care, corporate control of social security. He's already given the prescription drug plan to the pharmeceutical companies.
Interestingly enough, after that Yahoo news article yesterday, there was this on CNN/Money today:"Among those whose illnesses led to bankruptcy, out-of-pocket costs averaged $11,854 since the start of illness; 75.7 percent had insurance at the onset of illness."
The average bankrupt person surveyed had spent $13,460 on co-payments, deductibles and uncovered services if they had private insurance. People with no insurance spent an average of $10,893 for such out-of-pocket expenses.
"Even middle-class insured families often fall prey to financial catastrophe when sick," the researchers wrote.
....
Dr. Steffie Woolhandler, a Harvard associate professor and physician who advocates for universal health coverage, said the study supported demands for health reform.
"Covering the uninsured isn't enough. We must also upgrade and guarantee continuous coverage for those who have insurance," Woolhandler said in a statement.
She said many employers and politicians were pressing for what she called "stripped-down plans so riddled with co-payments, deductibles and exclusions that serious illness leads straight to bankruptcy."
From this article:Supporters of the new approach, who see it as part of Bush's "ownership society," say workers and their families would become more careful users of healthcare if they had to pay the bills.
Why doesn't anyone talk about holding the insurance companies responsible for the rising cost of health care? I've said it before and I'll say it again, I don't see ONE insurance company folding up and moving out. Why is that?
So, how will those that can barely afford health care now get any medical care if they have to bear the full responsibility for it? It should be fairly common knowledge that the greater the pool the lower the risk the lower the cost.
I don't think that I'd be able to purchase my own health care plan in Bushes great "ownership society" for the same cost that the company for which I work could. Bulk rates, ya know?
So, is $800 a month for a comprehensive paln too much? Is a "catastrophic plan" with a $2000 deductible going to be my opion? Just what would I be "more careful" with? Let's see...wouldn't get a mammogram, wouldn't get a pap smear. Men wouldn't get routine prostrate cancer checks. Why should we?
Somehow, the "lawsuits" and bushes plan got melded together. They are two separate issues. Capping lawsuits WONT lower medical costs, because most lawsuits are PRODUCT LIABILITY suits, not medical malpractice suits.
What Bush is really talking about in this "ownership society" of his is corporate control -- corporate control of health care, corporate control of social security. He's already given the prescription drug plan to the pharmeceutical companies.
Interestingly enough, after that Yahoo news article yesterday, there was this on CNN/Money today:"Among those whose illnesses led to bankruptcy, out-of-pocket costs averaged $11,854 since the start of illness; 75.7 percent had insurance at the onset of illness."
The average bankrupt person surveyed had spent $13,460 on co-payments, deductibles and uncovered services if they had private insurance. People with no insurance spent an average of $10,893 for such out-of-pocket expenses.
"Even middle-class insured families often fall prey to financial catastrophe when sick," the researchers wrote.
....
Dr. Steffie Woolhandler, a Harvard associate professor and physician who advocates for universal health coverage, said the study supported demands for health reform.
"Covering the uninsured isn't enough. We must also upgrade and guarantee continuous coverage for those who have insurance," Woolhandler said in a statement.
She said many employers and politicians were pressing for what she called "stripped-down plans so riddled with co-payments, deductibles and exclusions that serious illness leads straight to bankruptcy."
<< Home