IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

In addition to sales taxes and all the other taxes included in fuel, utilities, telephone, and DMV fees, seniors like me also pay $173 every month premium for our insurance. We also have deductibles and fees that we pay when we visit the hospital to see a doctor, lab fees, and prescription drug deductibles.

There's no "free" ride for seniors. However, I'm willing to pay more if our country offers universal health care to all citizens.

Look hbg. Pensions, and suchlike, are paperwork things. You can't eat them.

Somebody has to "work". Cheques are not worth a blow if nobody "works" They are NOT potatoes.

You are getting carried away with subjective sentiments I'm afraid.

Wednesday, January 16, 2008

Governor Set On Universal Care • Health care is a basic human right.

• Universal health care is doable this year and it won't break the bank.

• Physicians are too greedy and need to give a little.

• A so-called single-payer system is out of the question.

• New Mexico has been historically cautious; now is the time to move boldly to make sure every resident of this state has health insurance.

Richardson, fresh off his abandoned presidential campaign, appeared ready to jump back into the fray in Santa Fe.
He said the state has the money and lawmakers have the time to enact universal health care coverage in their 30-day session.
Richardson said covering the state's 400,000 uninsured people is both a human rights issue and an economic development program.
And it's good politics, he said.
The governor said he would not support new taxes to pay for universal coverage and they aren't needed.
The plan developed by administration staff says that new spending on public coverage programs would be offset by increased economic activity in the health care sector, by funds collected from employers who don't pay employees' health insurance, and through more premium tax collections as more people buy insurance.
The governor said legislators have told him his Health Solutions plan is too expensive and that an election year is no time to consider universal coverage.
He discounted those arguments.
"That was their objection to everything," including changes in state tax and education policy implemented during the governor's first term, he said.
"Over the years, this has been a very status quo, cautious state," Richardson said. "It's held us back. You've got to be bold and take risks on behalf of good government. When the state is prospering and doing well, it's time to invest in people.
"Why not do it now?" he asked. "They've got 30 days. If they shelve other items on my agenda, that's OK, if they pass health care. It's not like we sprung it on them."
He added, "What better political asset than insuring New Mexicans before the election?"
Richardson sees universal coverage as "an extension of our economic strategy and success. You've got to provide good health care if you're going to keep attracting blue chip companies to the state."
The governor called health "a human right of every citizen" and access to care similar to a citizen's right to public education.
"Everybody deserves the best possible health care," he said.
Richardson said he sees a turf battle shaping up over the health care authority that is part of his legislative package. He called the authority "a catalyst to make the Health Solutions plan work."
As written, the bill would allow the governor to appoint several members of the authority and name its executive director, which he said is a gubernatorial responsibility.

Greedy doctors
Richardson also said he's disappointed with physicians, who have objected to provisions of earlier drafts of the plan that would have required them to accept all patients who have coverage, including public coverage like Medicaid.
They also have objected to draft proposals that the health care authority have the power to control physician pricing.
"We gave them relief from the gross receipts tax and now they're complaining about reimbursement," Richardson said.
"They're greedy. They shouldn't be so greedy. They should be part of the plan."
New Mexico Medical Society Vice President Jerry McLaughlin, a physician in Hobbs, said in a telephone interview that while the society does not endorse Health Solutions, its executive committee agreed in a meeting Monday that the plan meets society principles for health care reform. He said the society will work with the governor and Legislature to pass an acceptable reform package.
As to physician greed, he said, "Doctors are one of the largest groups of small employers in the state. We do need to look at how to keep the doors open, pay our employees and provide care."
A competing proposal called the Health Security Act that would replace private insurance with a government-funded single-payer system "is just not going to happen," the governor said.
"First, it's not politically doable," he said. "Second, there is a role for the private sector. Last, for government to run the health sector just doesn't make sense.
"I make no bones that government has to take the lead, but government can't be the implementor," Richardson added.
"I can understand people's frustration with HMOs and insurance companies," he said. "I get frustrated, too." The solution, he said, is to require health plans to spend at least 85 percent of revenue on providing care.
Richardson's bill is expected to be introduced today by Rep. John Heaton, D-Carlsbad. The Health Security Act has been introduced by Rep. Carlos Cisneros, D-Questa.

USAFHokie80 wrote:

old europe wrote:

USAFHokie80 wrote:

Interestingly enough, if you care to read the article about the death rates from which the above graph was posted, the US was doing much better than the UK and Denmark until about 2002-2003. Wasn't that about the time we went to war?

Oh, and I'll like the actual study... so that no one will read it entirely and have an actual well-formed opinion about the data. ;-)

http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/27/1/58

That was meant to be ironic, right? The full text you linked to clearly states what causes of death where selected. It doesn't include any war-related injuries/deaths.


And of course, quite apart from that, just as Cycloptichorn said: 4000 deaths in relation to 300 million people come down to 1.3 deaths/100,000 population.

Even if they were fully included, they wouldn't even start to account for the 6 deaths/100,000 that America is behind Portugal. Not to mention the 45 deaths/100,000 between America and France.

no, it wasn't sarcasm. but i never said "these are war deaths!" i was just pointing out that the us went into the shitter about that time. sorry for not spelling it out for you guys.

Why did you point it out? What is the relevancy/correlation?

Just wondering

Cycloptichorn

Shouldn't you rather be sorry for bringing up some completely unrelated stuff instead of having an actual well-formed opinion about the data?

What we "want" is universal health care. It has to do with compassion.

cicerone imposter wrote:

What we "want" is universal health care. It has to do with compassion.

Unfortunately compassion doesn't pay the bills. Hospitals can't run on compassion. New medications can't be researched on compassion. Like it or not, the world we live in is a capitalistic one.

USAFHokie80 wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

What we "want" is universal health care. It has to do with compassion.

Unfortunately compassion doesn't pay the bills. Hospitals can't run on compassion. New medications can't be researched on compassion. Like it or not, the world we live in is a capitalistic one.

This isn't at all true. A vast amount of the research that goes into new drugs is funded in a socialistic fashion by the US gov't.

Cycloptichorn

as for a well-formed opinion, i have several. though i usually get flamed for them because they aren't in-line with what people on here *want*.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

USAFHokie80 wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

What we "want" is universal health care. It has to do with compassion.

Unfortunately compassion doesn't pay the bills. Hospitals can't run on compassion. New medications can't be researched on compassion. Like it or not, the world we live in is a capitalistic one.

This isn't at all true. A vast amount of the research that goes into new drugs is funded in a socialistic fashion by the US gov't.

Cycloptichorn

"at all" is a qualifier that shows completeness but a "vast amount" is a measure less than "all". how much is your vast amount? data?

i think it more likely that the majority of drug research is funded by private corporations, capital venturists and investors. now i don't have exact numbers, so i won't make any claims like yours, but i suspect my statements are true.

does the government run on compassion? is that what they take from my paychecks? no.

cicerone imposter wrote:

What we "want" is universal health care. It has to do with compassion.

Unfortunately compassion doesn't pay the bills. Hospitals can't run on compassion. New medications can't be researched on compassion. Like it or not, the world we live in is a capitalistic one.

USAFHokie80 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

USAFHokie80 wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

What we "want" is universal health care. It has to do with compassion.

Unfortunately compassion doesn't pay the bills. Hospitals can't run on compassion. New medications can't be researched on compassion. Like it or not, the world we live in is a capitalistic one.

This isn't at all true. A vast amount of the research that goes into new drugs is funded in a socialistic fashion by the US gov't.

Cycloptichorn

"at all" is a qualifier that shows completeness but a "vast amount" is a measure less than "all". how much is your vast amount? data?

i think it more likely that the majority of drug research is funded by private corporations, capital venturists and investors. now i don't have exact numbers, so i won't make any claims like yours, but i suspect my statements are true.

does the government run on compassion? is that what they take from my paychecks? no.

It's the basic, University-level research which leads to major drug breakthroughs. We can make small improvements using applied research, but it Theoretical research is where its' at when it comes to brand new drugs. The pharma industry would never be able to stay profitable if they had to pay for this.

Cycloptichorn

USAFHokie80 wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

What we "want" is universal health care. It has to do with compassion.

Unfortunately compassion doesn't pay the bills. Hospitals can't run on compassion. New medications can't be researched on compassion. Like it or not, the world we live in is a capitalistic one.

There are countries in this world that have universal healthcare, hospitals that get paid, and pharmaceutical companies that research and market new medications. One of them is Germany, the country I come from. Another is France.

I have to admit this line of argument irritates me although I'm a libertarian. Believe me, I do understand people who think a pure free-market healthcare system is the better policy choice. But I don't understand people who pretend there isn't even a choice. There manifestly is, as demonstrated by all the countries in the Western Hemisphere that have made it.