Government-run health care? Really?

I agree that we need a health-care change, but trusting the government with our health decisions is not the answer. We need to stop the out-of-control lawsuits and exorbitant monetary awards and limit the amount of malpractice insurance a doctor or hospital can carry.

Untold millions or even billions of dollars are spent on malpractice insurance, which is then passed on to employers or employees. Currently, Medicare and Medicaid decide what is medically necessary — not your physician, not you. If Medicare or Medicaid deems your procedure as not medically necessary, you pay out of pocket, despite your physician’s recommendation.

Why would you trust an entity to treat your illness when they can’t even run their own business successfully? But then again, none of those making the health-care decisions will actually be using the plan. Funny how they work for us, but we get told how to do things.

Cathy Ash
Olathe

President Obama has launched a huge PR campaign to convince Americans that government control is the answer to improving health care. Once can even see this in recent letters to The Star.

Why would anyone think government can efficiently control health care? One only need look at the Postal Service, Medicare and the “war on poverty” to see how ineffectively government manages social programs.
When my mother broke her hip, Medicare would allow only a partial replacement.
It did not hold. Because of her extreme pain and the heavy doses of pain medication she was given while waiting for approval for a full replacement, my mother’s body became so stressed that she died.

In countries with government-controlled health care, there are many accounts of long waits to see doctors and rationing.

Why would anyone think that kind of thing isn’t going to happen here?

Sorry, Obama. I am not convinced.

Mary Goodwin
Olathe

Comments

[JoCo]

Sorry, GCYL, I didn't mean to misquote or take you out of context. I was just making a quick allusion to what I remembered as your aversion to MANDATORY participation. Of course, I would never advocate anyone's exclusion.

I'll try to be more accurate.

[opinionated1]

While it's sad to hear about Ms. Goodwin's mother...but something I don't quite understand...we don't have "universal health care" right now, and nobody is forced to use Medicare. Her family had the exact same abilities under our current wonderful health care system - forget Medicare and pay for the treatment today. Cash on the barrelhead. Why did they not choose that option instead of waiting for Medicare to approve a full replacement? Could it have been because the cost of doing that might have driven them into bankruptcy? Or...why did her mother not purchase private insurance? Could it have been because she couldn't AFFORD private insurance? It's sad to lose a parent...I've lost both mine. But to cite Medicare as a "cause" of her passing...well, I just have to wonder what she would have done WITHOUT Medicare.

[GCYL]

“The menus I've seen offer a range from no participation (maybe for you, GCYL)” - JoCo

My actual statement is no MANDATORY participation for me, my family, my employer and more of my tax money. By all means prove to us the government CAN do better. First build a better mouse trap without us and then watch us join latter.

Why is that so hard for some people to comprehend that?

[Jazz-Man]

Is there an extended warrantee for insurance that cover what the initial Insurance doesn’t? Or is that just having a secondary Insurer; if so it doesn’t work because I get bills from my ex all the time for my son and I have Insurance full coverage for him as well as her and hers is the primary!

[JoCo]

Does gov't-"offered" change the connotation of the subject? The menus I've seen offer a range from no participation (maybe for you, GCYL)to full participation by previously uninsured. Performing a thorough "acid test" similar to States' Medicaid financial forensics for applicants would increase costs, but prevent widespread abuse.

All free people desire to throw off the chains, ( see The Who's -- Won't Get Fooled Again: "Meet the new boss; same as the old boss", 1970). But with the everpresent vigilance needed to pare back pervasive gov't intervention, we might keep an eye open to public plans that may alleviate identifiable problems.

[Marctnts]

"Currently, Medicare and Medicaid decide what is medically necessary — not your physician, not you. If Medicare or Medicaid deems your procedure as not medically necessary, you pay out of pocket, despite your physician’s recommendation."

Let's be fair here. Your insurance company currently does the same thing that you're so fearful that the government might do. If you have a policy that pays for anything you want, without review and regardless of the state of the treatment (experimental, ineffective, unjustified, etc.), I'd hold on to it tight, because you've found a one-in-a-million.

If you want to make an argument that the decisions your insurance company makes are "better" than what the government would make because they face the pressures of competitors in the market and the concerns of retaining business, fine, but don't pretend that the situation you fear doesn't already exist.