AARP Member
Offline 
My Badges
Create The Good
Background
Location:
Washington, District of Columbia
United States
Washington, District of Columbia
United States
Open Letter on Health Care Reform from AARP Pres and CEO
AARP CEO Barry Rand and President Jennie Chin Hansen, in the September AARP Bulletin, urge members to learn the facts about health reform so they can cut through noisy debates and join the fight for a solution that improves health care for all.
http://bulletin.aarp.org/yourhealth/policy/articles/nu09_randhansenhcr.html
Pavlove says:
Has anyone given any thought to the impact of a Universal Health Care system on State financing of Health Care. ?
A comprehensive Universal Plan would eliminate the need for Medicaid and save the various States from having to spent millions of dollars on health care. The savings could be spend on infrastructure, business development, lower state taxes, and improving current State programs, other than Health Care.
That should be welcomed by all Governors. It seems that the nay sayers are content to cut their own nose to spite their face, rather than to find out what benefits the individual States may gain from a Universal Plan.
Posted: September 2, 2009 6:54PM EDT
Pavlove says:
Entitlements, I agree that lifestyle abuses are a major problem in containing health care costs. I have a few suggestions that may help in adressing this issue.
a) Preventive check-ups, where the doctor has opportunity to advise the patient that they are at serious risk if they continue this lifestyle.
b) With a medical data-base, it becomes possible to offer incentives (lower premiums, co-payments or tax rebates) for a healthy lifestyle, and penalties (higher premiums, co-payments) for an abusive lifestyle. If a person can afford to pay for excesses, then they can afford to pay more for their health maintenance.
If that sounds intrusive, dont forget that Insurance companies do this now. I don't see much difference between a government regulator who may penalize you and an insurance regulator who may just drop you altogether.
At least in a Non-Profit structure the emphasis is on health care, not profits.
Posted: September 2, 2009 3:42PM EDT
Oldermansthoughts says:
So called "entitlements" are the root causes of much of the problems in our society. The only thing that people should be "entitled" to - in my humble opinion - is "equal opportunity". Too many of our citizens still smoke, far too many are seriously overweight to obese, too many consume too much alcohol, and as a result of these abuses of their own bodies, develop health problems: what a surprise!!!
Posted: September 2, 2009 8:32AM EDT
Pavlove says:
A little afterthought, some say that the British Health Care or the Canadian system is bad. That maybe so, but ask the 40,000,000 people without healthcare if they would be willing to wait a few days or even weeks to get treatment for a serious condition.
Besides, if they aren't doing it just right, then let us learn from their mistakes and come up with an improved system. My parents lived and died in Canada and they were very satisfied with their FREE healthcare. Yes they paid into the system, but FAR LESS than it would have cost them if they had to deal with a private for-profit system. At least they did not have to declare bankruptcy or sell their home as many here have to.
Posted: September 2, 2009 2:36AM EDT
Pavlove says:
I just can't believe what I am hearing. Unless you DON'T believe that every American is entitled to certain common services, you cannot argue that a democratic and benign government has no role to play in providing a safety net for all its citizens.
Socialism??
In a Socio/Economic system such as our Democracy, equal weight must be given to the nation's social structure, i.e. "Socialism", as it is given to the nation's economic structure, i.e. "Capitalism".
All government sponsored projects such as highways, road maintenance, dams, levies, bridges, schools, military, law enforcement, fire departments, utilities, Postal Service, VA, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Unemployment, Vehicle Licensing, parks, national forests, epidemic inocculations, etc., etc., etc., are socialist programs, which serve the society as a whole. In fact, the US Constitution allows for certain socialist practices, such as taxation for the "common defense" and regulation of "interstate commerce". There is nothing wrong with socialist programs, as long as they address issues dealing with "common" societal needs and cannot be "for profit".
There seems to be no unfair competition to private companies. Private for-profit companies like: UPS, Fed-Ex, private clinics, private schools, and utility cos., when run efficiently, have no problems competing with government programs, on a local level.
Why is everyone so afraid of the word Socialism. After all, the current state of our economy is a result of unbridled, unrestricted Capitalism. Is this preferable over a few rules and regulations? And what PERSONAL FREEDOMS ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?
What about PERSONAL RIGHTS, such as the right to Healthcare for every citizen?
You say that there are other solutions, without naming even one. In my previous blog I proposed a NON-PROFIT structure, be it government or private. I challenge you to propose a viable alternative.
Posted: September 1, 2009 7:45PM EDT
reconcileriam says:
"One of the traditional methods of imposing socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It is very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project. Most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who can not afford it." Norman Thomas 1927. Once the government has control of our health they have control over every aspect of our lives which then makes our Constitution a worthless piece of paper and all of us slaves. Democrats and Republicans need to stop bickering with each other and see the BIG PICTURE of what is about to happen to us. Their are other ways to solve this problem but we need to unite to fight against govenment control or we will all be losers. I AM NOT SAYING that we should not help those who can't afford health care BUT I AM NOT WILLING TO GIVE UP OUR FREEDOMS to do so. I lived in England for 4 years so I am very familiar with government run health care and it is bad!
Posted: September 1, 2009 5:11PM EDT
reconcileriam says:
Government run health care is based on a few things. 1) A curve that looks at your usefulness to society by your age- if you are younger than 15 or older than 55 you barely get the basic medical care and when you get in the 70's you are lucky if... the will give you pain pills. You are counciled on end of life care and made to feel guilty that you will be a burden to your familly, etc., etc, 2)The cost of your care again based on your usefulness-those 15 to 54 get the most and the rest whatever the government decides you get. Because the government sets prices, wages for the doctors and other health care people, and who gets what there are no private insurance companies. 3)Whether the government has the money for you care.
Posted: September 1, 2009 5:08PM EDT
Pavlove says:
Low cost Universal Health Care and Profit are mutually exclusive. Dividends and (vulgar) bonuses are dependent on profits. If there is anyone who would wish to avoid prolonged and expensive health care costs, it's the private insurance companies. It would cut into their profits and as these companies are responsible to their stockholders, it is their duty to prevent losses. This fact cannot be argued.
If Universal Health Care is a "right" then the only way to structure this is by a non-profit organization. This must be the basic starting point!
To the argument that a government run program would hurt Private Insurance Companies, I say "Let the Insurance companies create a non-profit division and present competitive rates, so that people have a choice of plans"
Posted: September 1, 2009 1:42PM EDT
journal Details
Added: Sep 1, 2009
Views: 111
Comments: 8
Bookmarks: 1
Views: 111
Comments: 8
Bookmarks: 1
Groups
No groups selected.
