Home > Health & Fitness > Medical Issues > Health Care
Do you support a public option for the health care reform plan being debated?
Results so far:
| Yes | 66% | 182 votes | Total: 276 votes | |
| No | 34% | 94 votes |
Yes
by Lauren Todd
Created on: October 29, 2009 Last Updated: October 30, 2009
U.S. ranks 19 out of 19, when compared with other wealthy industrialized nations when it comes to healthcare quality. These other countries all have a free health care system for their citizens. Is the public option for healthcare the answer right now?
Though the aforementioned statistics sometimes equate numbers being thrown around, people who apply for insurance are being regularly denied. There are people appointed within the system who are paid to go over medical records with a fine tooth comb to find any pre-existing condition that would give reason to exclude coverage, jack up your rates or deny coverage altogether. Lee Einer, featured in Michael Moore's movie "Sicko" is a professional columnist who writes a series of columns for "Honest Medicine." He was, one of these, as he calls them, "medical hitmen." From his own experience Lee writes about the lengths that he would have to go to protect insurance companies and thus, his job. "The goal of the medical investigation is to find evidence that something was not fully disclosed on your application for insurance, so the insurer may claim that had they known, they would not have insured you, or would have insured you at a much higher rate, or would have excluded coverage for the condition for which you are now being treated." He revealed that his job involved diving into people's medical records as far back as five years to find "ANYTHING" that would indicate a red flag to the insurance companies so they can justify rubber-stamping applications and denying coverage on existing policies. According to Lee, if he has done this successfully, the companies mission would be accomplished. So, if the insurance companies did have the disclosed information prior to Lee's investigation, they would deny coverage? Where does that leave people like, Tracy Pierce, who was suffering from kidney cancer due to his insurance companies refusal to cover treatment? All forms of treatment the doctors prescribed Tracy were labeled by his insurance company as being "experimental," and therefore the treatment that would save his life was denied.
What is the downside according to the general population, of a newly proposed universal health care system and what are the benefits?
First, universal healthcare is not to be confused with socialized medicine which is all health officials working for the government. Universal healthcare simply means that all Americans would be covered through an increase in taxes in some form or another.
There are other arguments to be sure, but this author will list the three negatives that seem to be foremost in people's minds.
*Universal healthcare would create a managed system where government interference would be the name of the game. Right now, a person can still choose their individual doctor and doctors are not limited in decision making, there is a good chance that this kind of freedom could be curtailed or severely limited with a universal system as everyone would be under the same generalized system of care.
*The United States government has done a shoddy job of managing major departments already, just look at Social Security and Medicare, it might even bankrupt the country, some argue. The government would likely waste taxpayers money in the same way.
*Then of course, there is the age old argument, that the plan would absorb the finances of other needed government mandated programs such as education or social programs.
Now, the benefits, again, the majority talk most of these three.
*Everyone would be covered, period. Those who cannot afford insurance need not worry. Young and old, rich and poor alike would be able to be treated and people simply would not die from exclusion of certain ailments dictated by a private health insurance companies rules and exclusion policies, like Tracy Pierce did.
*Less cost. The cost of healthcare and prescriptions would be reduced significantly of what it costs now due to cutting out insurance companies and the fact that prescriptions could be purchased in bulk for such a large number of people; plus a single system is less expensive overall when it comes to overhead.
*The system would be streamlined with less paperwork involved as the processing of each case would follow a single universal model.
There you have it. Which system would truly be better? That is for the people to decide democratically. I, personally support the public option for healthcare reform, because I believe that universal human rights ideals are just plain more important than the principle ideals of less government. Is that not why, just last week, we exercised our right to vote in this country?
CIA Factbook: Unemployment Rate by Country, World, 6/8/2009. http://finder.geocommons.com/overlays/13662
Wikipedia. (n.d.) Health Care in the United States.
Retrieved October 28, 2009, from http://www.wikipedia.org
Michael Moore - "Sicko" the movie.
Einer, L. (August 28, 2009.) Faux Health Insurance for the Self-Employed: The Sham, The Scam, The Shame of It. Honest Medicine. Retrieved October 28, 2009, from http://www.honestmedicine.com/2007/08/sicko-hitman-le.html
Flink, J. (February 10, 2006.) Copyright 2007, by TheKansasCityChannel.com Man Dies After Insurance Co. Refuses To Cover Treatment. .http://www.kmbc.com/health/6882159/detail.html
PR-inside.com. News and free pr. (Oct 26, 2009.) http://www.pr-inside.com/average-monthly-health-insurance-premiums-r1547438.htm
Fritz, J. (Sept 16, 2009.) Average family health insurance policy: $13,375, up 5%. reprinted from USA Today. Retrieved October 28, 2009, from http://www.usatoday.com
The New York Times. (August 12, 2007.) World's Best Medical Care?
Retrieved October 28, 2009, from http://www.nytimes.com
Philip, T.W (June 9, 2009.) The Pros And Cons Of Universal Healthcare In The United States
Retrieved October 28, 2009, from http://www.brazencareerist.com
Roberts, J. (March 1, 2007.) Most Americans Favor Improving Healthcare, Give Democrats Edge On Improving System. Retrieved October 28, 2009, from http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/01/opinion/polls/main2528357.shtml
Learn more about this author, Lauren Todd.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
No
by Lauri Mitchell
Created on: December 24, 2009
I vehemently oppose the bill in Congress that would overhaul our health care system. My concerns about the current bill are these:
I do think that those who are American citizens and truly cannot afford health care must be covered. However, remaking the entire system rather than addressing one problem at a time seems to me to be like rebuilding an entire house when one room needs to be repainted.
Among the 30 million uninsured American citizens, a large proportion includes individuals who could pay for insurance but choose not to. This would include the very rich, who can afford to pay for their own health care, and young people who choose not to pay for health care, as they feel their youth makes it worth the risk.
Furthermore, it is obvious that the gigantic cost to all taxpayers will likely bankrupt our country, after which no one will be able to afford health care of any kind except the very rich, who can go overseas, if necessary.
I wish that instead, our members of Congress would require State Insurance Commissioners to lift the ban on residents' ability to have access to medical insurance from companies outside of their own states. Then all of us could enjoy the lower costs that would naturally occur if true competition was made available in every state.
In addition, if we addressed tort reform, that would reduce the gigantic costs of malpractice insurance to doctors, which would naturally make it possible for them to reduce their fees and reduce their need to prescribe exorbitantly expensive tests, such as MRIs, in order to prevent the outside possibility of a lawsuit.
One highly-touted complaint about private insurance companies is the limitations they put on what they will cover. But, obviously, if they cover everything for everyone, they will run out of money and will be unable to operate at all. The same would be true of the government. There will have to be ceilings on what can be covered. So, logically, we cannot complain about the limitations required by private insurers and not have the same complaint about the government.
This brings me to my final point. Although the "public option" is not in the current bill, only the truly naive would not know that this can be gradually introduced in the future as health care legislation is massaged. President Obama has said in the past that the public option is the ultimate goal, and these are just the first steps.
A public "option" would drive the insurance companies out of business. The United States government has far deeper pockets, and many of the items in the bill will force citizens out of their current benefits or other choices. I do not want a government bureaucrat determining what medications I can have, what procedures I need, and which doctor I can see. As bad as some may think insurance administrators are at making these decisions, a multi-layered government bureaucracy would only remove the individual even further from those who would be making decisions about her most precious commodity - her health. We need only remember the inefficiencies of the Post Office, Medicare and the Social Security system to be very concerned about how government would manage our health care.
I know that debate in the Senate has been cut off and the bill will likely pass the Senate and will probably pass the House. I also understand that within the bill are clauses that make rescinding it impossible. This is clearly unconstitutional. I can only assume that either Senators voting for this bill did not read the entire bill or have sacrificed their duty to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Both scenarios are unconscionable.
I only hope that when our legislators who vote to pass this bill are proved wrong, they will be willing to give up their pensions, health benefits and personal wealth as they are forcing the rest of us to do.
Learn more about this author, Lauri Mitchell.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Write and get published
Share with other writers
Polish your freelancing skills
Quality articles from proven freelancers
Exclusive rights, fast turnaround
Brand engagement, business blogging -- our writers do it all
INFORMATION
Copyright © 2002-2012 Helium, Inc. All rights reserved.
Helium.com: A Service of RR Donnelley