About

This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on November 30, 2009 12:32 PM. The previous post in this blog was Sizemore indicted for tax evasion. The next post in this blog is New forest debate. Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

E-mail, Feeds, 'n' Stuff

Monday, November 30, 2009

A poster child for health care reform

He's from Sheridan, Oregon.

Comments (11)

I certainly agree with Mr. Kristol that it is monsterous of us to deny medical coverage to our fellow citizens when we have coverage ourselves. Everyone should have coverage, period. There should be no excuses this time.

Kristol, Kristof, who cares?

I am a fiercely independent Oregonian who believes that the nation needs to return to some semblance of fiscal restraint. I hope you'll find that my position on such matters to be fairly clear and intellectually consistent. But with that said, the need for healthcare reform has never been more acute.

And what do I mean by healthcare reform?

1. Some sort of universal, non-revokable, reasonable level of care that covers 100% of the citizens in the United States. It need not be the end-all, be-all of care, just good enough to deliver competent care in an efficacious manner during the times when American's really need it.

2. Something that costs far less than the exploding healthcare insurance premiums currently being paid by average taxpayers across the country. Full disclosure of my personal interests on this point: my family's premiums went up from $600/mo in a group plan ... which was cancelled by Regence BCBS. They converted us to a personal plan at over $800/mo, which just increased to nearly $1000/mo after the State of Oregon approved insurance rate increases.

I am concerned that the reform that is likely to come out of Washington will not address either point effectively ... and may actually increase healthcare costs -- or worse yet -- damage this fragile economy.

That just broke my heart.

@ThinkOregon

I couldn't agree more. We need some form of insurance, like the major medical policy I currently have, that will prevent financial ruin simply because someone gets sick. I would like to see everyone required to have a free annual physical to possible prevent small problems from becoming big problems.

We also need to radically change the delivery system of healthcare. I suggest getting rid of all of the bank branches located in grocery stores and replacing them with low cost health clinics staffed by PA's and RN's. I would guess they could handle 95% of all medical needs of the average person and a visit wouldn't need to cost more than $50.

To grasp why our healthcare costs so much, look at the graphs here

Those of you like ThinkOregon and mp who advocate fiscal restraint should reflect on (a) why the costs for specific health care services or drugs in the US are so comparatively high, and (b) what amounts cost reduction could free up for broader coverage. I'm also in favor of fiscal restraint, but I would pursue it by dramatically changing our foreign policy. If media reports are right, our government is about to commit us to another very large ongoing expense in Afghanistan by increasing troop levels there (one reads that it costs $1 million to deploy one soldier for one year). How can that be more important than universal health coverage, except to the few who actually profit from the war?

@mp97303

... low cost health clinics staffed by PA's and RN's. I would guess they could handle 95% of all medical needs of the average person and a visit wouldn't need to cost more than $50...

Yes, agreed. I personal know a PA (who is now a Dr.) who espouses this approach.

Welcome everyone's thoughts on this new post: http://thinkoregon.squarespace.com/news/2009/11/30/healthcare-reform-what-do-you-really-want.html

why the costs for specific health care services or drugs in the US are so comparatively high

Drug costs are so high b/c we lack the will to do what Canada does to big pharma. They told them what Canada would pay for the drug and if pharma didn't like it, Canada would reverse engineer the drug and their wasn't a damn thing pharma could do about it.

As far as foreign policy, I would end 2 wars, have no boots on any foreign soil and cut defense spending by 50% just to start.

How can that be more important than universal health coverage, except to the few who actually profit from the war?

War profiteers or health care profiteers...which is worse?

Thanks so much, Jon, for the spiffy new question. Is there a special website for false choices?

Gotta love the American health care system.

Step 1. Get sick
Step 2. Lose job
Step 3. Die




Clicky Web Analytics