dagblog - Comments for "Hopeful note for Medicare for All!"

Maybe we need to nationalize

GregorZap — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 21:44:48 +0000

In reply to Hopeful note for Medicare for All!

Maybe we need to nationalize the providers and have their records of success and failure a matter of public record. This is not to say the names of their patients should be published, just their namless, faceless records of his office as a whole. There is too much privacy in the medical field.

Doctors are beholden to pharmaceuticals so there is a tendency to over-medicate. Reserachers are more interested in making profits then collaborative medicine. I have heard the competition is fierce in the laboratories because the one who gets the credit gets the cash, so stealing is rampant among the employees who work right next to each other. Better to reward an entire lab then whoever touched the new medicine last.

It seems it would be best if there was a hybrid here. Competition is good when the game is played fairly, which it is not. I believe the key is transparency. I dislike the private sector because they live in a world of secrets that could benefit society. To me, the words that usually follow "Private" are "Keep Out". We need to have all the information so that we can make better choices.

The best way to ensure a national healthcare system works may well be within the structure of medicare and medicaid, but we should set them us as a mutual insurance. These anachronisms were highly successful in their day and it was due to this success that the hyper-rich wanted their hands on it. Mutuals are run by employees with salaries and the profits return to the policy holders, who are also the share holders.

We can provide exhorbitant salaries to the managers of these companies to attract the best and the brightest, but it should be without a bonus for scraping more money from delivering services. It should be transparent so that any diversion of funds can be easily traced. The leadership should be for five year terms, after which new leadership is selected. We could do this in a rotation among the positions so that each year only a few managers change.

This model is from UPS, who transfers their managers regularly to prevent any corruption from growing among people who get too comfortable with their colleagues.

This may be something already discussed and dismissed in the heathcare debate, but I have not heard of it. Mutual insurances worked when they were well-regulated. It's an historical fact.

Very good point, but I think

oleeb — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 20:21:35 +0000

In reply to Hopeful note for Medicare for All!

Very good point, but I think the focus needs to be on shifting our entire system over to a single payer first. We can fix the problematic anti-patient provisions of previous Republican Congresses. Even with the kinds of flaws you point out the nation would be better off than with what we now have.

I would point out also that it is clear from all the polling and research that has been done (oft repeated by the Obama folks too) is that whatever is done for health care, it needs to be simple, easy to understand and done all at one time. I don't care what they call it, but embracing the Medicare for All idea is the only way to achieve these things and it really is the only appropriate and practical solution.

All those that argue it is not practical to institute a single payer plan are the ones who are being impractical. Without exception, those who voice that opinion or viewpoint propose complicated, expensive options that attempt to preserve and sustain as much of the bad system we now have. Our current system is set up as a for profit enterprise. Could there be any more inappropriate endeavor to be operating on the basis of profit being the goal than health care? I think not.

Pardon my lapse of attention.

TheraP — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 20:20:32 +0000

In reply to Hopeful note for Medicare for All!

Pardon my lapse of attention. I agree with C Ville Dem. (If dd weights in on this, I'll likely agree with him as well - as he's on Medicare, I believe.)

I agree with dd. Outpatient

TheraP — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 20:19:03 +0000

In reply to Hopeful note for Medicare for All!

I agree with dd. Outpatient medications are hugely expensive and the insurance companies are making a bundle by denying needed meds.

That is not due to the Medicare program, but as dd says, it was a republican give-away. That needs to change!

The drug companies have to be

Kali Star — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 19:47:29 +0000

In reply to Hopeful note for Medicare for All!

The drug companies have to be nationalized, not only here but in other countries. The laws which allow them to patent drugs must be abandoned. The idea that drug companies create wealth must be seen as primitive and hurtful. Research into new drugs must shift to the government. The goal for a scientist should be a Nobel Prize not millions of dollars. Removing the profit motive and shifting research to governments (and universities) will encourage drugs for many diseases that have no research efforts because the numbers of the people with these diseases are too small to make it profitable. You can now see three versions of Viagra advertised on television. That is about profit not healthcare.

The prescription add-on that

CVille Dem — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 19:31:51 +0000

In reply to Hopeful note for Medicare for All!

The prescription add-on that the Bush administration negotiated with Big Pharma is a travesty. It is so complicated, and the euphamistically named "DoughNut Hole" (to make it seem friendly (?) leaves many people in the lurch. You can go on-line and try to figure out which plan will cover the meds you are on, sign up for it, and the plan can discontinue any of those meds without penalty.

That is one part that needs total re-vamping. Talk about single-payer -- the prescription part is the most glaring of abuses. No one should have to use a computer to figure out over and over again who will cover their medications, as opposed to who won't.

As long as our system requires that someone make a profit simply for pushing papers, and providing NO OTHER SERVICE whatsoever (!) people will get the short end of the stick.

Why is it so hard for anyone to understand that if all medical dollars are spent on medical care, we will have better care? That is such a simple concept. Makes me think that those who are against it just might have some of that profit to skim off for themselves.

--Or in the case of Congress -- they don't want to give up their gold-plated coverage and join with the HoiPaloi.

I recently saw a sign in a

Kali Star — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 18:50:01 +0000

In reply to Hopeful note for Medicare for All!

I recently saw a sign in a specialist's office about a co-pay for a life-saving medicine. This injection is not only life-saving, but without it, patients live with agonizing pain. The sign read: "We are sorry but we can no longer provide **** injections to Medicare patients without a $300 co-pay." The injections are required weekly. These are real people. Some will die this year in great pain. I would guess that some 20 patients in this one office will stop the injections. This is another reason I think the number of people who die each year in America because they don't have comprehensive coverage is far greater that has been suggested.

Yes, this is also my

TheraP — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 10:32:48 +0000

In reply to Hopeful note for Medicare for All!

Yes, this is also my strategy, OGD. WE have to get out ahead of Obama. He's not going to pull the country behind him, he needs to lead from within the pack. And I, like you, feel that we have to find every which way to push forward what needs to happen, to keep the a hearth burning for healthcare and another hearth for Justice to be served and so on.

We cannot afford to delay

oleeb — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 10:29:21 +0000

In reply to Hopeful note for Medicare for All!

We cannot afford to delay doing what every other civilized country does because of anecdotes about a bad situation or outcome. What we need is a population that goes to the doctor regularly and first and foremost has access to regular care so they can go. Right now we have millions that get the same health care the average citizen received 500 years ago: none at all.

Medicare was and remains one of the most successful public programs in the history of the ocuntry. It does, in fact, provide for the basic medical care most people in the progrm need. It is a vast improvement over the days when people just stayed home and stayed sick when they got older and the quality of life for our older citizens has been enormously improved because of it. The same will be true when we provide medical care for the rest of the population.

I cannot speak to your friend's situation. I know that many older people die no matter what health care they have. That's part of life. I don't mean to make light of the situation you spoke of, but all in all I'd say people are pretty darn happy with Medicare (even after the Republicans starting screwing it up).

What I can say is that the Medicare for All Act is a comprehensive and well thought out approach to providing for the first time in our history real, full, comprehenive health care for all our people regardless of income. That is what we need. Any other approach is more expensive, more complicated and less effecient. Medicare for All is not a simply or simplisitc approach, but the general concept of how it works is relatively simple which is a good thing because otherwise it would just be confusing to people.

. Right-i-o . . . As far as

OldenGoldenDecoy — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 10:22:50 +0000

In reply to Hopeful note for Medicare for All!

Right-i-o . . .

As far as it not hurting to keep putting things up in order to reach more people, you are singing to the organ player in the choir.

Maybe you haven't seen my post about Pushing Obama."

And I fully agree that anything but single-payer type is not the way to go... That link to the Incremental Universalism (think Massachusetts) was to show what they have in store, not that I agree with that type of plan.

~OGD~