Who should pay for health care?: Panorama: Rocky Mountain PBS: a1

Denver

42°

Blogs Health Care Tech Talk Green Living National Parks Super School News The 1930s

Facing the Mortgage Crisis
Colorado State of Mind - Budget Cuts to Higher Education
Public lands in the media spotlight
Women in power: what drives them to lead and what holds them back?
Native American Heritage Month
Health Care

Masterpiece Contemporary: Collision (Part 2 of 2)
Sunday at 9pm

Mystery of Chaco Canyon
Wednesday at 8pm

Movie: Harry and Tonto (1974)
Saturday at 8pm

True Whispers: The Story of the Navajo Code Talker
Tuesday at 8pm

Nova: Why Do We Dream?
Tuesday at 7pm

Who should pay for health care?

posted Tuesday, March 31, 2009 9:27am

See more on: Blogs, Health Care, Colorado State of Mind, Economy

The statistics are staggering: We spend $2.2 trillion a year on health care and yet 46 million Americans are uninsured. In Colorado, 17% of the population lacks medical coverage – nearly 800,000 people.

The problem is getting worse as more and more people lose their jobs – and their insurance – in today's rough economy.

Last Friday on "Colorado State of Mind," we featured a discussion about health care delivery in Colorado, and two major bills now in the legislature, which seek to make changes at the state level while awaiting a federal solution promised by the Obama administration.

Before and after the broadcast, we got feedback that one perspective – advocacy of a single-payer health care system (universal health care paid for by the government) – was insufficiently represented in the conversation.

Our goal at Rocky Mountain PBS is to tell the complete story. We strive to give you as much information as possible so that, whatever the issue, you can find your own point of view. Rest assured, we are eager to continue the health care conversation in the months ahead and give voice to all sides of the debate.

"Colorado State of Mind" is planning a follow-up discussion on health care later in the spring. In addition, building on our outreach around last year's "Sick Around the World" and "Critical Condition," we will be sponsoring statewide screenings and community discussions of "Sick Around America," a new "Frontline" program airing tonight at 9.

An eye-opening investigation of our broken health care system, "Sick Around America" features personal stories and takes a hard look at the successes and failures of our current private insurance industry.

So what do you think: Who should pay for health care? Should the government guarantee health insurance for all? All sides are welcome.

-Elizabeth Mayer, RMPBS

Tune In

Frontline
"Sick Around America"

Check out rmpbs.org/health for real-life health care stories, blogs and resources.

Watch Colorado State of Mind
Complete episodes online. Watch now.

What's your point of view?

A.M. Roe
Tuesday, March 31, 2009 › 2:47pm
America needs a government run single payer system. This is not socialism, but a reality. Private, third party payers have hyper-inflated health care costs, and have driven our health care system into the ground. Moreover, PBS should do a program with two very prominent medical economists, Mr. Len Nichols and Mr. Uwe Reinhardt. These two economic experts will articulate a factual analysis demonstrating "factually" that the current private health insurance system is "not sustainable." Additionally, the private insurance industry suggests that American's should be forced to buy health insurance. Really?how should these unemployed and already economically challenged individuals pay premiums? Will the private health insurance industry guarantee that solid decision-making by the health care professional and the patient be provided for in these "forced premiums?" Most of my friends, neighbors, and medical economists, as well as the majority of American's think otherwise, based on an analysis of the private insurance industry's and lobby efforts over the last three plus decades. Might I add, that the insurance lobby has spent well over $6 million dollars over the last year to sustain the unsustainable?

Cecilia Haviland
Tuesday, March 31, 2009 › 3:55pm
Health care is a right, not a privilege handed out by insurance companies. We need a government funded "single payer" system like most civilized nations in this world.

Beverly Babb
Tuesday, March 31, 2009 › 4:13pm
A.M Roe, said it all in the comment just ahead.
Please have an entire show dedicated to "single payer" systems. They work, and we now have a number of options in different countries and can choose the best parts of each.
Do it soon. Thanks so much for PBS!

Mary Lou Church
Tuesday, March 31, 2009 › 4:16pm
I fully agree that we should have a "single payer" system with the government in chargen, not the Insurance Companies. They have brought this on themselves by their actions to the people they insure. For instance, when they started with their heavy advertising, all our premiums went up, and up, and up. Then, when their clients, who have been paying these higher premiums, have a medical emergency, they do everything they can to keep from paying . I know of so many people who have had to fight to get their promised money.

JoJo
Tuesday, March 31, 2009 › 4:40pm
I can't think of a more important economic issue for the U.S. Can't wait to watch tonight.

Mitzi Cagle, RN, B.S.N.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009 › 5:16pm
We should have a "non-profit" publicly funded health care system that takes the profit and control away from the insurance companies.
We are the only industrialized country that does not offer a public system, such as "Medicare for All"
Various studies have shown that a single payer system could actually help our economy and save lives. It is time we fix this broken system, and give the option of a public health care system to buy into, such as a Single Payer system. HB 1273 in Colorado and HR 676 on a federal level.

L. Isakson
Tuesday, March 31, 2009 › 5:21pm

When I was teaching high school economics, we had a lesson that always proved interesting. The question up for discussion was, "If we only had six oranges, who in the class should have them, or how should they be handed out or divided?" What would be right or fair?

Without knowing until later the lesson related to health care, students would suggest the oranges be cut into equal pieces so all could enjoy, or made into juice and divided equally, or given to those who were most hungry, or to those who were sickest, or the poorest, or the oldest, or the youngest, or to those who had the money and could buy them, and so on. It was always interesting.
It goes back to limited supply and unlimited demand.

I, too, look forward to the program tonight. L.

Pat
Tuesday, March 31, 2009 › 6:23pm
We need a one payer, all inclusive, universal health care program for everyone which would cover medical, psychiatric, eye, ear, medicine, equipment, rehab, and dental. Health care should not be about profit. The emphasis should be on education and prevention of disease.

Work status, location, pre-existing medical condition and/or wealth would not matter.

We could eliminate Medicaide and have an improved Medicare for All. It would be the most cost-effective method of providing health care and would eliminate bankruptcy due to medical expenses.

JoJo
Tuesday, March 31, 2009 › 10:02pm
OK, I'm watching the program and I simply want to cry hearing the story about Nikki, this vibrant young women who died because of some stupid administrative mistake. We need action and we need it now.

Patty Sullivan
Tuesday, March 31, 2009 › 11:01pm
I thought the film exposed many truths about the inability to access if you work for a small company. My company had on the charts $1,200 a month for a family of 4. That's a lot of cash. No wonder so many can't afford it.
And in MA, they still have 6% uninsured despite all their horrific spending, and it doesn't feel good to be one of the 6%, I am sure.

Equally outrageous is that prisoners get healthcare, but tax paying citizens do not.
According to State Senator Morgan Carroll, hospitals were non-profit until the last 10 to 15 years. It is too bad the hospital people testified against our bill, 1273 - Colorado Guaranteed Healthcare Act that goes to appropriations this Friday.
Please call
Rep Andy Kerr (303-866-2923)
Rep Joel Judd (303-866-2925) and
Rep Jim Riesberg

Christine
Tuesday, March 31, 2009 › 11:34pm
We are an inventive people. We can create a different and better model than the excessively complex, wasteful, and overaly profit-driven system that leaves many out while others discover their coverage falls fall short of their needs when the medical crisis hits and the bills come rolling in! The question is do we have the will?!?

How about a system that covers all (universal) with private doctors and other providers that use a single administrative entity (single payer)? That single payer could be a non-profit organization, or even a for profit entity with regulatory/governmental oversight. I've read from several sources that just streamlining the complex web of administrative entities into one would save at least 24%, which would cover all who are currently uninsured.

alex
Wednesday, April 1, 2009 › 8:20am
Have a late stage cancer.getting aggressive chem following chemo/radiation/surgery. Was running marathons. Did all my checkups and preventitive lifestyle,
Revoked insurance prior to diagnosis due to insurance co dispute re birth issue (was a premie)(am 56yo now)
Was on medicaid for initial treatment. Apllied for and placed on disability due to cancer. LOST MEDICAID WITH TWO YEAR MANDATORY WAIT FOR MEDICARE. Have worked all my life, so disability, at 1,159/month is too much money to continue medicaid.
Now what? Cancer su***, and this stress is making it a nightmare. There is no safety net. Ciolorado Covers, the plan to help people with preexisting conditions get insurance, would take more than half my income for premiums, and then the other half for co pays and deductable. Scared.

Carol Farina, R.N.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009 › 8:23am
I watched the show. It was excellent. The insurance guy that said we need to cut costs and mentioned doctors and hospitals but not his company's profits. Up till the 1970s health insurance companies like Blue Cross were not for profit as in the rest of the world. Then the idea took hold that we could contain costs with privatization and competition. Guess what? Costs have quadrupled since then. Now we need to take the "profit" out of providing health care. I hope we can learn a lesson from the school children and sharing the oranges.

Mitzi Cagle, RN, B.S.N.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009 › 8:42am
Alex's comment breaks my heart. Too many times I have seen this happen. Insurance companies go back and find SOMETHING to reject someone for. A premie? He has lived 50+ years, healthy and now, he is having to worry about care with cancer!! If his story is not an example of why we need to hurry up and get a Single Payer system that takes the money out of the CEO's pockets, or people who get paid to resind patients from coverage, I do not know what is! Alex, my prayers are with you and lets ALL work to see single payer become a reality. For Alex and everyone out there that is going through something similar, please write your legislature representatives, or call. Now is the time to talk to Congress and Senate at a State and Federal level! Things won't change if we don't speak up!

Citizen
Wednesday, April 1, 2009 › 9:45am
Just how much control do we want the government to have over our lives?? Thanks to the bailouts they already have their hands in our banking and automotive industries. I hope everyone reads "1984" by George Orwell and then realizes how dangerous this is. Don't fool yourself into thinking "this won't happen in the USA". Just remember 9/11 - we never thought terrorists would attack our country until it was too late.

casey
Wednesday, April 1, 2009 › 10:16am
I am not certain who's Government you are talking about taking over the entire Medical provisioning industry. Our current United States Government can't even tell the truth about their individual actions let alone run anything efficiently.
The thought that medical care is a right tells me that you expect the doctors, who have spent their time and money to become capable of treating medical needs to do this at their expense. Our right to earn an education, earn a job and improve our way of life through work and above all desire and effort. Then your right to purchase insurance is guarenteed.
Yes medical insurance is expensive and there are ways to reduce that cost so more can afford it. But the answer is not to increase taxes to correct the problem cerated by our elected officials.

Rob
Wednesday, April 1, 2009 › 11:38am
I thought last night's Frontline provided an excellent overview of this most important problem which confronts our nation. The individual stories shared should hit home to everyone who watched. I know I can relate and I feel I see both sides. I worked in healthcare for 35 years but then (like Alex above) received a cancer diagnosis which has turned my life upside - including becoming unemployed. Under COBRA coverage my healthcare costs were three times my income in 2008. I agree with the previous comments which are almost unanimous that a single-payer system represents the industry wide cost reduction which might make universal coverage successful. But the stated concerns over the government's ability to efficiently administer such an enormous plan cannot be ignored.

Kevin Mabry, D.P.M.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009 › 1:49pm
All other industrialized countries in the world value human infrastructure and view health care as a moral and human right, while using various models to provide health care for citizens. In contrast, the United States' for-profit market system of health care expresses inhumanity and ignores the common good of health care as a human right. As a person of faith, I see this as a moral tragedy that goes beyond economic policy or political expressions.
Health care should be universal, affordable, accountable, accessible and equitable. The best way to achieve these goals is to adopt a single payer system of financing for health care. Like an enhanced Medicare for all, there would be one administrator for payment and accountability with only 3-4 % administrative fee.

Carolyn
Wednesday, April 1, 2009 › 2pm
My reaction to the Frontline program, Sick Around America, is one of great disappointment. The powerful and sad tales were almost unbearable. Yet, during the "solutions' portion there was no urgency or seriousness.
The man who said that doctors are not willing to give up money and that patients are not willing to give up care - isn't he a high paid insurance (Cigna?) executive?
During the entire program insurance PROFIT was not examined as a driver of high costs. Only T.R. Reid's epilogue mentioned it.
Why wasn't single-payer and improved and expanded Medicare presented and explored? Does anyone know why T.R. Reid backed out of the production of Sick Around America?

Gary Wing
Wednesday, April 1, 2009 › 3:29pm
We need a single payer system administered by the government, not insurance companies. Insurance companies only add more cost and profit to the equation without making any meaningful contribution to providing healthcare. I think it would be interesting to know just how much of each healthcare dollar goes to insurance companies and how much of that is profit. No one should be making a profit on administering payments for healthcare. I didn't see the show on 3/31, I hope you'll rebroadcast it.

Harold Connor
Wednesday, April 1, 2009 › 3:44pm
There's no doubt a hefty portion of the health care dollar is spent on insurance and administration, and the federal government actually does it for less, in the Medicare model. But in today's economy - how do best we go about dismantling private insurance companies and finding other work for the millions of employees of those companies?

Carolyn
Wednesday, April 1, 2009 › 4:53pm
The 47 million uninsured Americans do not have relationships with insurance companies. That presents us with a clean slate.
Insurance company employees could be retrained into medical roles. There will be a tremendous need for doctors, nurses, physicians assistants, nurse practitioners, PTs, etc. when these millions of people are provided a way to access care.

casey
Wednesday, April 1, 2009 › 6:16pm
I still do not understand how a Government that cannot manage the Social Security System. the current Health Care System, The Banking Industry to name just a few, can be expected to manage the Health Care System.
Yes we do need change and the problem is extremely complex. Not the least of the complex issues is how are we going to pay for it. I doubt that those people who opt out of paying for insurance will want to pay for a Government plan either. You might want to check out two reports on the subject 1. Health Care Costs a Primer and 2. Employer Health Costs in a Global Economy. I believe you can access them through Google.
Change is possible but only when logical people make logical and educated decisions that work for everyone and are supported by everyone.

Marianne Webb, RN, MS
Wednesday, April 1, 2009 › 8:04pm
I also watched the program and found it a good beginning. It seems to me that if we took all of the money we spend now on Medicare, Medicaid, all of the government funded health programs (Prison health, Public Health, etc) and added that to the money already spent by both employees/employers on health insurance premiums, we would have plenty of money to fund basic health care for everyone. People who want more than a basic plan could purchase supplemental plans. As a provider, it would be a relief to have one set of rules and one formulary rather than trying to deal with dozens. For those who shudder at "the gov't coming between you and your doc", insurance companies are doing that now - but they all have different rules. Their decisions can seem arbitrary and painful.

Deanne LembitzMD
Wednesday, April 1, 2009 › 9:40pm
The Insurance industry is a middle man. It plays the system to maximize profit, degrades the patient-doctor relationship and thus the patient's health. We must be careful not to equate health insurance with health care. ONLY a single payer will remove the middle man and improve quality of care. Therefore, why did you not even mention Kefalas's bill? Shame!

Glenn Pearson, M.D.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009 › 10:10pm
I agree -- Profit and greed run America's health insurance industry, not concern for health. In fact, during the Clinton years they invested over a billion dollars of our health care premiums in tobacco company stocks. Every single other Western nation has figured out that comprehensive health insurance for all citizens leads to healthier people and less cost. WE NEED SINGLE-PAYER.

Jeannie
Thursday, April 2, 2009 › 8:28am
Casey refers to government incompetence. What about Enron, Worldcom, AIG, the financial & auto industries ? Perhaps those failures have more to do with greed than incompetentence - but the outcome is the same. No entity is perfect. We need private enterprise & government oversight, regulation & safety nets. Granted a single payer system in a country as large & diverse as this will be a challange, but Medicare works very well & efficiently so we have a working model to build upon.

Casey
Thursday, April 2, 2009 › 8:45am
Glenn and Jeannie,
I still do not see anyone pointing to that single payer and identifying who it is. If private enterprise is to carry the burden of insuring then it has to be for profit and that means they invest to gain assets. If the Government is to be the insurer then they create a tax to cover the expense and cannot invest to gain assets just increase taxes. If it is a joint effort then regulations must be created and oversight developed that is effective and efficient so every one is treated fairly.
One question about Medicare. How many Doctors do not take medicare patients due to the loss of fees and cost to administer?

Mitzi Cagle, RN, B.S.N.
Thursday, April 2, 2009 › 1:55pm
Glenn and Jeannie,
There are already bills in Washington that tells who it is. John Connor's HR 676 Medicare for ALL is one. We would have the choice to buy into this plan and get a National Insurance Card, or if someone wants to stay with the private plans, they could not participate. It would be "non profit" and it would include vision, mental health, with no pre-exsisting clauses. There are new ones being developed as we speak that could work. Colorado HB 1273 is a single payer idea. The goal is to keep the overhead down, Medicare is about 4% where private insurance is about 20% plus. There is a lot of time and resources used to go back and figure out how to reject someone, plus CEO's make big money in Insurance. These numbers may be slightly off. But please research it !

mitzi Cagle, RN, B.S.N.
Thursday, April 2, 2009 › 2:02pm
Also, I also find it interesting how Citizen is afraid to let the government handle health care, and yet most people trust that they will have Medicare when they turn 65. Why not trust that we could have a Medicare for All that would work, if we just buy into it. What we need to worry about is the Priviatization of Medicare, because Medicare Advantage, is NO Advantage at all. We need to take the "private" out of health care in my humble opinion.

p walsh
Thursday, April 2, 2009 › 4:12pm
Did all of the single payer fanatics sleep through economics class? Price controls result in shortages! Wake up! Get some FACTS on the waiting lists for health services in Canada. I believe in personal responsibility first. I'll agree to some government health assistance when the recipients are required to stop paying for cable TV, cell phones, any vacation, and meals out at restaurants and instead required to funnel that cash to their own health care. If they bought insurance with that money, they would not be looking to the government for a hand out.

casey
Friday, April 3, 2009 › 11am
p walsh,
It is good to hear from someone that is seemingly fed up with the continuing expansion of the give away Government programs. Hopefully you include both State and Federal Legislation.
It is difficult to point a finger at those who are less fortunate but they are, unless physically or mentally dysfunctional, living the life they chose. The opportunity to improve ones standard of living is available to everyone. It may not be an easy road but it is available.
Life is too short and to valuable to take the Government hand outs and accept that as the best one can do.
A free enterprise Health Care system that is under the same economic rules nation wide can be implemented and costs can be equitable to all. Without Government involvement.

Euro
Friday, April 3, 2009 › 1:53pm
Geez, shame on those foreigners. Haven't they discovered government-sanctioned sole-sourcing a la Halliburton & Blackwater/Xe? You just give your own politicos a piece of the action (all done very quietly, of course) and they make sure you're the only game in town!

Free enterprise at its best...

C2
Friday, April 3, 2009 › 7:24pm
What about this for discussion? It does not matter if it is a single payer or multiple payer - what may matters most is that it is not-for-profit otherwise there is a conflict. It does not have to be govt.

Ins co could be regulated and required to insure everyone (universal) and to pay all claims in a timely manner (of the completely transparent basic health care services).

Medical school would be free and the malpractice insurance should be pd for by the govt (if the govt can back car warranties they can do this) or made affordable and primary care providers should earn more than partialists (specialists). Medical school is nothing compared to the total costs of healthcare in the country.

Fran Walendzik,RN BSN
Friday, April 3, 2009 › 7:54pm
Absolutely we as a country have to decide if healthcare is a Right and not a privilege for a few! We need to take lessons learned from other countries and develope our own system where EVERY one has access to care and are able to take a proactive approach to PREVENTING illness! We need a single payor system to take the "greed factor"out of healthcare! Contact your Colorado state legislators to vote Yes on Healthcare Colorado Bill 1273! The "Safety Network" is strained and it is not sustainable! Every one DESERVES access to quality care without having to chose between food, clothing and shelter! Your voice counts and you should speak for those who can't- our children, elderly and less abled persons in our community!

Russ R
Saturday, April 4, 2009 › 6:43am
The comment above about the "economics" class and the 6 oranges raises at least two questions:

1. Was it really an "economics" class?
2. WHO DID THE WORK TO PAY FOR THE ORANGES?

I totally disagree that health car is a "right". Do you really want someone else making the decision on what health care YOU get? This implies that THEY also decide that you DON'T get it!

I am a firm believer that we have freedom to choose our own way in life. Many people are learning to expect others to give them something they do not EARN.

Do all get a heart transplant?? All ages?? Smokers?? Obese?? Drugs?? ILLEGALS?? ??

I agree that health care is very expensive, but all you have to do is listen to those in the countries that have nationalized the system and you will conclude that is NOT the way to go.

Euro
Saturday, April 4, 2009 › 10:20am
First, apologies for that "Halliburton" blurb. That was directed to the "Black Money" thread and wound up here.

Russ R, if you can find something other than anecdotal (usually Canada-bashing) evidence of "...those in the countries that have nationalized the system..." who are unhappier than we and whose countries spend less, please post links to it here. I'd like to see it. I lived with what Americans incorrectly call "socialized" medicine for 15 years in Germany from 1983 to 1996. We should have it half so good.

America has a health care lottery, not a "system". You buy your ticket (premium) and hope you "win" and don't go bankrupt. And you ticket costs twice what "socialized" medicine costs.

But oh, can we "afford" a worthless war at 10B$ a month for six years and counting...

casey
Saturday, April 4, 2009 › 4:53pm
I do not think there is anyone in the United States that does not have access to medical care. If medical care is needed there is a doctor out there that will provide that care. 94% of primary care doctors reported in 2003-2004 ( the latest info avail.) that they were accepting new patients. 57% accepted charity of no charge patients, 58% workers comp, 68% capitated private insurance, 70% Medicaid, 79% Medicare, 88% noncapitated private insurance, 93% self pay.
As a service provider doctors have the right to work for anyone they choose. If their employer doesn't like the service they have the right to fire them. The wage is mutually agreeable or service is denied. That's the way business works.

casey
Sunday, April 5, 2009 › 7:28pm
Well the media has done it again. This evening 60minutes showed us just how terrible our Health Care system is. Their presentation of the hospitals that are refusing care to critically ill patients because they cannot afford to continue the services. Who's fault is it? Why do these services have to be eliminated? Where is the Government oversight and management control?
Your elected officials, city, county, state and federal are responsible for this catastrophe and failure to perform. Keeping these facilities functioning efficiently and profitably requires more than a cursory knowledge of business management. You have to build sufficient capital reserves to fund the economic slow downs.
The media fails to show the whole truth once again. Insurance Co's do not own or run these hosp

Peggy
Monday, April 6, 2009 › 2:43pm
Count me as another vote for a universal single payer health care system. And payments based on outcomes rather than number of procedures.

Barbara
Tuesday, April 7, 2009 › 1:26am
I studied in Edinburgh in 1979 and was so impressed with their healthcare system. Not only was it essentially free, it was effective. I saw a doctor for a skin infection. The doctor spent 15 minutes with me, prescribed an ointment. I asked "what is the condition?" He said "I don't know, but the ointment will cure it." It did. Here I would have spent hours waiting, testing, and consulting. Sure, those annual tests can discover something important, but having to go through them for minor problems at a convenient clinic does nothing but legally protect the doctor. You are also required to give the contact information for all other doctors you have seen for the last two decades. If they need info, they can contact each other. Let's simplify!

casey
Wednesday, April 8, 2009 › 2:48pm
Peggy, and Barbara you and many others are very certain they are in favor of a Government controlled Health Care single payor system. Just how much are you willing to pay on a monthly basis for your health care?
My health care insurance currently costs a littly over ten thousand dollars a year. I am not happy about that but it is the best I can do for complete coverage and I will not allow anyone else to pay for me.

Do you have a number?

Patty Sullivan
Wednesday, April 8, 2009 › 8:45pm
Casey, single-payer depends on income. 8% has been tossed around. But a lot was thrown in. I believe vision, dental, mental health, physical health and long-term care.

COBRA failed since only 1 in 10 people who are eligible for it actually take it. Single-payer makes more sense since you pay LESS when you are not working, not more, like under COBRA. Also, people switch jobs so much now, there are so many contract jobs on the market, etc., that it is impractical to have employer-based healthcare. We need to de-couple employment and healthcare. You could pay in for years while you are working, and lose it when you have a heart attack and can't go to work.

casey
Thursday, April 9, 2009 › 3:10pm
Patty Sullivan,
I do not think that anyone will provide health care to a family of four earning $50K a year for $4K a year. Who is going to pay for those who are out of work and in your system are fully covered? I agree that everyone needs some form of health care. That includes all forms including long term care. I think also that it could be provided at less cost. Get the government out of the loop and create the most effective regulations nation wide with effective oversight and let the government take care of those who cannot afford to insure themselves and do it without increasing taxes. It could be done.
Then a young couple with 2 children might get insured for 8%

Susan
Saturday, April 25, 2009 › 5:20pm
I too, am in favor of a single payer system, and am frustrated how the media (by in large) has suppressed the discussion. One huge cost saving element of a single payer system that has been overlooked, is the number of people receiving SS disability who might opt to work if they were guaranteed medical coverage. I know of someone in this situation who is diabetic. He is capable of working, but because of his condition, private insurance would cost him in excess of $1200 per month, so he stays on the dole. Can we blame him?
I'm a hardworking person, but had to choose between sending my son to college or buying health care. I chose college for my son.

Beverly Babb
Monday, April 27, 2009 › 10:23am
The SS disability comment is one that has been completly overlooked, and an extremely important part of the justification for single payer.

casey
Saturday, May 2, 2009 › 11:49am
SSI receipients in most cases will have to accept positions that do not pay enough to pay for insurance. Therefor you haven't gained anything and the cost will increase.
What medical costs will this single payer plan pay for. Basic medical care, long term medical care, dental care, eye care, catastrophic medical care, dissability care?? Who will make the decisions for or against treatments that are out of the ordinary but necessary? Who will act as an arbator when you get an answer you don't like? Do you have a choice of primary care doctors or do you accept who ever is available? If the plan does not cover long term care how does it get covered? Who pays for the hospitals and emergency clinics? Just a few questions.

Bev M.
Thursday, May 14, 2009 › 10:22am

Right now the greedy health insurance companies run the show. Ask the docs! Medicine in the US has been progressively controlled by the bean-counters, not the docs and not people who are concerned with our health!

I'm not a huge fan of things being completely run by government - however, it is better that government have a hand and put some heart and fair-play into the system!

Ideally, we could use the know-how of the bean-counters to provide access to all without giving up quality and service. I'm sure it can be done! Sliding-fee services would be a good option.

The taxpayers will pay - one way or the other. People who can not get simple doctors visits and preventive care are more likely to get very ill and need the emergency rooms and then not be able to pay bills.

JoJo
Tuesday, March 31, 2009 › 4:40pm
I can't think of a more important economic issue for the U.S. Can't wait to watch tonight.