Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedDo you support a public option for the health care reform plan being debated?
Results so far:
| Yes | 65% | 131 votes | Total: 203 votes | |
| No | 35% | 72 votes |
Yes
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesU.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.geocom mons.com/overlays/13 662
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.honestmed icine.com/2007/08/si cko-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/detai l.html
PR-inside.com. News and free pr. (Oct 26, 2009.) http://www.pr-inside .com/average-monthly -health-insurance-pr emiums-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.c om
Philip, T.W (June 9, 2009.) The Pros And Cons Of Universal Healthcare In The United States
Retrieved October 28, 2009, from http://www.brazencar eerist.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.c om/stories/2007/03/0 1/opinion/polls/main 2528357.shtml
Learn more about this author, Lauren Todd.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
No
Two words: HELL, NO!
Do I really have to teach a class on what liberty is supposed to be in America? Liberty gives the citizens the power over what the government does, and specifically NOT the reverse.
What is meant by a public option?
A public option the plan of the Democrats and Chairman Obama is designed to offer below-cost insurance to those people who are currently listed as uninsured with regard to health insurance.
The plan would be levied in three acts:
1. The government would select a company, for instance, Government Employees' Insurance Company (GEICO), to offer a plan to cover basic medical care, that is, routine doctor visits, pharmacy visits, yearly exams all the things currently considered preventative care.
2. The government would disclose the terms as below the costs of employer-provided coverage, and price-control the cost below most major and minor health insurances to encourage enrollment in the government-sponsored plan (GSE).
3. The government would then be able to decide which procedures to pay for under the proposed plan effectively rationing care for those individuals who would cost the most to bring back to health seniors, premature babies, people who are accident prone, and of course, in a slap to the face for those who defend our liberty, veterans.
That said, there are many problems with this. The public option takes health care out of its marketplace and places its future in the hands of the same government that cannot seem to regulate its own spending. Talk about a giant Ponzi scheme! It would be like trusting your money to grow in the hands of a spendthrift who doesn't account for the ways he would spend it.
Second, the government would be taking control of 16% or one-sixth of the national economy as it stands now. With unemployment continually on the rise, (and it will keep rising), the Congress will levy a fine on those businesses who either cannot afford to offer health insurance to their workers or cannot compete with the types of care initially offered by the government plan. Unemployment will soar to around 35% if this happens. The resulting economic catastrophe and calamity associated with it, will make the Depression of the 1930's look like a single bear day on Wall Street, and it will remake the economic landscape of America into a planned centralized economy, like the USSR of the 1950s-1991, or pre-acquisition of Hong Kong China. This is what Chairman Obama wants.
Third, because the government is sponsoring this public option, they would get to decide what to fund, how much to fund, and when the public option would become the public requisite. I would like to believe that there are still some self-respecting Americans that don't want to be ordered what to do by their government.
Fourth, this plan will devastate the medical community from doctors to nurses to care workers to pharmaceutical concerns because government control stunts growth by curtailing innovation of new medicines, new treatments, alternative (homeopathic) treatments, and new equipment.
Finally, the politicians are attempting to exempt themselves from such the system the Chairman wants passed for the rest of the American people. Since when has this great country known as the United States been ruled by ochlocracy (mob rule)? With the public option, that's the slippery slope down which we are headed.
Anyone for some soma? Just like the Aldous Huxley novel, Brave New World, Chairman Obama and cohorts would have the say in doling out the soma to the masses. Some people are fine with that being the outcome, I certainly am not.
Learn more about this author, Kenneth Boser II.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- Health Care
- Should insurance companies play intermediary between patients and doctors?
- Does Medicare's crackdown on doctors' profits help or hurt patients?
- Should each generation save for their own retirement health care needs?
- Patients and doctors should be able to negotiate prices for health care services under Medicare
- Have HMOs improved or undermined patient care in America?
- Should health care be controlled by the government or by patients?
