Houston Chronicle: Time for universal health care in the USofA

[Joe S.]

QUOTE

Universal care
The United States' system of health care delivery is inadequate, broken and
needs to be replaced.

Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle

TOOLS
Email Get section feed
Print Subscribe NOW
Comments Recommend

The United States is the richest nation in the world and spends the most on
health care. Yet almost daily, more evidence arrives to bolster the case
that our system of health care delivery is inadequate and broken.

The underlying problem is that a quarter of Americans have no health
insurance. Their employers don't provide it, and they don't qualify for
government insurance. Now it turns out that many children who have private
health insurance are not covered for the latest vaccines against infectious
diseases such as measles, chicken pox, pneumonia and hepatitis A. Parents
would have to pay about $400 for each child to receive the shots.

Insurance companies have their eye on the bottom line, but some plans'
decision to pay for the treatment of diseases but not their prevention
suggests they understand neither the value of preventive medicine nor the
path to cost avoidance.

One of the most pronounced disadvantages of high-premium, employer-based
health insurance is that when people are injured or develop serious illness,
they tend to lose their jobs, their ability to pay premiums and eventually
their insurance coverage. Just when many people need insurance the most,
they run a high risk of losing it.

Last week the Chronicle reported the predicament of a woman who was
viciously attacked with a shotgun in 2005. She lost her job and insurance
and, two years later, government subsidized insurance. Now she drives twice
a week from her home in Lufkin to the University of Texas Medical Branch in
Galveston to receive the care she needs.

Whatever its merits, research prowess and medical expertise, the U.S. system
of health care delivery is one that:

 

[Jerry Okamura]

It is broken for exactly the reason why we should not have someone else
paying for medical care. When you do that, the person who used the service
has little to no control over the service they get, because someone else is
paying the bill. And the medical providers are going to listen to the
person paying the bill, not the patient. And the people who do pay the
bill, are like everyone else, they do not want to pay anymore than they
absolutely have to.

But the major problem with ANY THIRD PARTY payment system, is that there is
no effective way to control prices. That is why, if you looked at the
statistics, you will find that medical inflation outpaces the overall rate
of inflation for every country that has moved to a third party payment
system.

"Joe S." <noname@nosuch.net> wrote in message
news:fa41ke06f7@news2.newsguy.com...
> QUOTE
>
> Universal care
> The United States' system of health care delivery is inadequate, broken
> and needs to be replaced.
>
> Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle
>
> TOOLS
> Email Get section feed
> Print Subscribe NOW
> Comments Recommend
>
> The United States is the richest nation in the world and spends the most
> on health care. Yet almost daily, more evidence arrives to bolster the
> case that our system of health care delivery is inadequate and broken.
>
> The underlying problem is that a quarter of Americans have no health
> insurance. Their employers don't provide it, and they don't qualify for
> government insurance. Now it turns out that many children who have private
> health insurance are not covered for the latest vaccines against
> infectious diseases such as measles, chicken pox, pneumonia and hepatitis
> A. Parents would have to pay about $400 for each child to receive the
> shots.
>
> Insurance companies have their eye on the bottom line, but some plans'
> decision to pay for the treatment of diseases but not their prevention
> suggests they understand neither the value of preventive medicine nor the
> path to cost avoidance.
>
> One of the most pronounced disadvantages of high-premium, employer-based
> health insurance is that when people are injured or develop serious
> illness, they tend to lose their jobs, their ability to pay premiums and
> eventually their insurance coverage. Just when many people need insurance
> the most, they run a high risk of losing it.
>
> Last week the Chronicle reported the predicament of a woman who was
> viciously attacked with a shotgun in 2005. She lost her job and insurance
> and, two years later, government subsidized insurance. Now she drives
> twice a week from her home in Lufkin to the University of Texas Medical
> Branch in Galveston to receive the care she needs.
>
> Whatever its merits, research prowess and medical expertise, the U.S.
> system of health care delivery is one that:
>
> . Puts many insured children at risk of not getting their shots.
> . Leaves millions of Americans and 25 percent of Texans with no insurance.
> . Tends to deprive people of their insurance at the moment of maximum
> need.
>
> It is no wonder that in 41 nations - including Japan, most of Europe, and
> Jordon - citizens can expect to live longer than the average American.
> Part of Americans' morbidity has nothing to do with access to medical care
> and everything to do with their diets of empty calories and sedentary
> lives.
>
> However, one needn't be exposed to Michael Moore's controversial
> documentary film Sicko to reach the conclusion that a nation that is able
> to provide its citizens universal health care but declines to do so cannot
> claim to be civilization's brightest beacon.
>
> http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/5054458.html
>
> END QUOTE
>
> What's so difficult about this?? The federal government already runs the
> country's biggest, most effective, most efficient medical insurance
> program -- it's called Medicare. Put the whole nation on Medicare.
> Everyone pays premiums. It's that simple.
>
>
>
>