Nation needs health care for all

The talk about the disappearing retirement funds and Americans’ need to continue working omits a crucial factor. As companies retrench and send top execs off with generous packages, they are also forcing many long-term employees to take buyouts. Depending on the business and the extent of their distress, those offers vary a lot. I’m hearing everything from six weeks to maybe two years for individuals who have spent at least 10 to 5 years with their company. This places many mid-career individuals into a job market that is already saturated.

Where will late-career people find opportunities to continue working? They may get a nice payout and some benefits for a time, but then they must try to find employment, competing with younger workers. They also must purchase health insurance until they find covered employment.

This further emphasizes the need to change our health care system to provide for universal coverage. The current defaults by re-insurers and the continued denials of benefits for disaster victims and for health coverage make it clear that private insurance is not a solution. When we have a uniform coverage, such as Medicare, it will be possible to ensure equitable health care for all.

Mary Ann Butler
Overland Park

Comments

[NoMoreMrNiceGuy]

Indeed so many wish for a worthless government run healthcare as proven in other countries that have it in place.
Obviously we need to get a grip on this issue but government is NOT the fix.
Maybe government should also run the life and P&C side as well.

[Engineer]

repete
Life expectancy is affected by a number of factors that have nothing to do with health care. The same is true of infant mortality to a lesser extent.

[repete]

I am not a full advocate of the government running the health care system, but any person can see what we have isn't working. We have by far the most expensive per capita health system in the world, but we don't have the "best" system in the world, as far as objective measures (i.e. infant mortality, life expectancy, etc.) are concerned. In other words, our system is ineffecient.

Rarely is government the answer to an effeciency problem, but there are national healthcare systems on this planet that work pretty well. I saw a pretty good program on PBS which examined the good and bad of five such systems. Each was better and worse in certain ways. The lesson learned was that an ideal system would benefit all.

If only we lived in a perfect world.

[repete]

I am not a full advocate of the government running the health care system, but any person can see what we have isn't working. We have by far the most expensive per capita health system in the world, but we don't have the "best" system in the world, as far as objective measures (i.e. infant mortality, life expectancy, etc.) are concerned. In other words, our system is ineffecient.

Rarely is government the answer to an effeciency problem, but there are national healthcare systems on this planet that work pretty well. I saw a pretty good program on PBS which examined the good and bad of five such systems. Each was better and worse in certain ways. The lesson learned was that an ideal system would benefit all. If only we lived in a perfect world.

[pmcw]

Casady, I'm sorry to hear about your sister and I certainly believe there are cases where patients and family should have recourse.

I don't have exhaustive data to support my contention, but in talking with a few OB/GYN's I've been told that they pay more for malpractice insurance than they make in salary.

The vast majority of medical care professionals have never been successfully sued. Based on this and what I think is common sense, it would seem there are a few bad apples spoiling the system for everyone else - patients included. Personally, I think there is likely a better way to deal with the few than supporting tort for the masses.

When it comes to the Lexus syndrome, I can't side with you. The doctors I know work ridiculous hours and many walk out of med school with debts that would make anyone but Uncle Sam blush.

My take is that we have a ratio problem between doctors and lawyers. I think that if our system was populated with more doctors and engineers and fewer lawyers we would all be better off.

[T. Hanson]

"I can see Russia from my house..."

Priceless.

[Mark Robertson]

Government health care is a catastrophe everywhere. Most countries with such policies are turning towards the private sector.
Most of the problems with U.S. health care occur because it is already half socialized.
As previously mentioned, Canadian health care is in shambles. Average waiting time from referral to treatment is 4 months.(Fraser Institute)
The U.S. and world need to move towards free market health care with such approaches as health savings accounts.
Medicare is approaching 500 bil. annually. LBJ said in would cost 9 bil by 1990. It cost 67 bil. that year and I guess LBJ didn't make any predictions for after that.
Medicaid is approaching 400 bil.
Private charity is going to have to be at least part of the picture for helping the poor. Govt. trying to do it has been a disaster.
As Ronald Reagan and Sarah Palin have said, government is not the answer it is often the problem.

Mark Robertson
Independence

[jack]

Sorry for the double post. Despite my current gratitude for the availability, operating from a public library is no fun.

[jack]

Blaming the poor and minorities for the mismanagement of the financial sector is easy (if not reality based) that is why Rush and friends do it.

Try reading a little:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/53802.html

[Marctnts]

"I don't see many doctors giving up their Lexus for a Ford Focus as a result of higher malpractice insurance payments."

Yes, but there's a lot of data out there supporting the notion that many doctors are abandoning less profitable specialties and locations (read about the dire lack of OBGYN's in rural areas) because of the skyrocketing cost of malpractice insurance.

I have a friend who is a gastroenterologist, and he has mentioned that the number of young doctors choosing this specialty has greatly increased. When I asked him why, he said the answer was simple, cheaper insurance for "butt doctors" because of lessened liabilities. We live in an extremely litigious society, and health care professionals seem to be a large target.

[jack]

It is so easy to blame the poor and minorities. That is why Rush and friend are doing it.

Try reading a little:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/53802/html

[Casady]

"Want reasonably priced health insurance, get behind tort reform"

Sorry, pmcw, I have to go head to head with you on this one. I don't see many doctors giving up their Lexus for a Ford Focus as a result of higher malpractice insurance payments. And perhaps if the typical medical practice exercised a little more patient care and attention rather than take the cattle call approach in an effort to maximize profits, there would not be as many malpractice suits to begin with. My sister died because of the callous approach that many medical practices have adopted in attempt to line their pockets. Don't even get me started.

[Sammy]

Mary Ann, You want the government to make health care available to all just like it did for home ownership?

I applaud your intention. If the idea wasn't doomed to failure by the removal of incentives that keep private industry in check, I'd be with you. Unfortunately, removing the incentives has the dastardly outcome of lowering the quality of health care for everyone.

And, yes, that's exactly what happened with the mortgage industry. Normally the incentives of making a profit and limiting risks would have kept mortgage companies from writing bad loans. With Fannie and Freddie there to buy up the bad stuff, those incentives were nullified.

[Gary]

Mary, Medicare is going broke. Only a huge infusion of public money (or, if our policians had backbones, substantial reforms) can save it. Universal health care using Medicare as a model would be a huge fiscal mistake.

[Rogue]

Shoot, if we adopt the Canada Health care system where are the poor Canadians to go for their health care?!

[Marctnts]

...

[Marctnts]

"...and the continued denials of benefits for disaster victims."

Is Ms. Butler advocating universal HEALTH CARE insurance or universal health care, property, and investment insurance?

Sorry to break it to you, Ms. Butler, but no one at this point seems to be talking about free house or car insurance. It looks like you're going to have to keep paying State Farm for a few more years.

[pmcw]

Ask a Canadian what he or she thinks about nationalized health care. You won't even have to go to Canada to do this; just go to admissions at a major hospital in one of our boarder states. You'll find the Canadians there who couldn't wait for their number to come up in Canada.

Want reasonably priced health insurance, get behind tort reform.