Our area needs to get more involved in speaking up for health care issues. We need to get Congress to pass H.R. 676 [the National Health Insurance Bill]. I have come across so many people in our area, including myself, with no health insurance, and it isn’t right. People like me would have had their health issues taken care of years ago if we lived in other countries. We need daily medication; and do we get it? No, I can’t afford it. The insurance and drug companies don’t care about us — all they care about is money. There is no need for a CEO of an insurance company to be making $22 million. His salary alone could pay for a lot of health care. We need to all pull together and sign the petitions — there’s one on the Michaelmoore.com site. Our government should care about all of us, not just the rich. We come together only when a major event happens, than years pass by and everyone has forgotten who was involved. Why can’t the government take care of everyone? Universal health care works in other countries. The people live longer and healthier lives, also. It doesn’t matter what political party you are in, we all need health care, and we all deserve to live. SUE MIZEJEWSKI Niskayuna
Sue, we as a country can't afford universal health-care as long as we have so many people on welfare, illegal immigrants, and people who never paid taxes sucking the life out of this country. Universal health-care would also lower the standard of our medical care by putting caps on fees for doctors and hospitals to the point that they couldn't pay their bills. Other countries have this plan already and just look at how badly it's working and how poor the health-care is.
Unconstitutional care? Tell the White House First published: Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Chad Currin of Glenville ("True socialized medicine proven not to work," letter, March 3) might want to commiserate with his senators and representatives at the federal level -- even the White House crew -- about the inefficiency of the federal health care program thrust upon them by virtue of their service to their country. I am sure they would be interested to hear that it is unconstitutional.
Perhaps if they were informed that it was socialist as well, they might give it up in favor of becoming insured by one of the health insurance companies the rest of us have to deal with. ANITA BAYLEY Feura Bush
Socially responsible not the same as 'socialism' First published: Wednesday, March 19, 2008
In his March 10 letter, Chad Currin makes a dubious distinction between federally funded programs (he calls these "socialist") and programs funded by local governments (he calls these "fire, education and highways"). That is stretching the definition. Fire, education and highways all have massive elements of federal funding within them, so what is the distinction? Importantly, Mr. Currin uses the federal-local distinction to attack national funding for health care. That is his real message. He says "socialized" medicine is broken.
Well, whatever we have in this country is broken even more. Every industrialized country in Europe outdoes the United States in major health indicators of infant mortality and population longevity. The United States ranks a disappointing 32nd in infant mortality, based on U.N. statistics. And the U.S. comes in at only 29th in longevity, as measured by CIA figures. These poor marks are paid for by 15 percent of our gross national product -- the highest payment for health in the world. We are paying more and getting less. And do not forget the 47 million people who have no health insurance of any kind. When they finally get critically sick, we will have to pay for them. There are many ways to fund universal health care. Canada and Great Britain run governmental health care systems. They provide very decent care. Germany and the Netherlands operate health care through mandatory health insurance, similar to our automobile insurance. There are many combinations of these systems, most of which provide better and more efficient health care than the current system. Our task should be to build on the current U.S. health care system and tailor a universal funding program that will fit the American experience. And we should stop hurling around terms like socialism, when all we need is some common sense and a sense of social responsibility. DALE ORDES Ballston Spa
We should all work hard to be able to afford the things important to our families and the government should stay out of it. There has never been a program staffed and funded by our government that has been run efficiently, cost effective, and applied fairly to all and I know that they won't start with health-care either. The level of health-care will go down and it will be difficult to get some of the procedures that are available now due to cost caps that will be put in place.
Universal health care isn't socialized medicine First published: Monday, March 24, 2008
Referring to the March 11 letter regarding socialized medicine: There is considerable misinformation in this country regarding the meaning of "socialized medicine," a term used by opponents of single-payer health insurance to scare people. "Socialized medicine" is a system in which physicians and other medical personnel are government employees and medical care is provided free of charge. There is consequently no need for health insurance. Communist countries had socialized medicine. In the United States, such a system exists on a limited scale for veterans.
Countries with universal health coverage systems like France or Canada do not have socialized medicine. If they did, they would not need to have health insurance at all. They have single-payer insurance systems in which everyone pays a percentage of his/her income, thereby making universal coverage possible. In the United States, such a system exists, again on a limited scale: it is Medicare. Almost nobody is advocating that the United States adopt socialized medicine. Proponents of reforms simply want to make health insurance coverage universal in order to reduce the enormous financial and medical inefficiencies of the American health care system and eliminate its rationing of care through unaffordable insurance premiums. JEAN-FRANCOIS BRIERE Albany
In the United States, such a system exists, again on a limited scale: it is Medicare.
And as a nurse I can tell ya'll that the medicare system lets you know what you are worth.....the private insurance companies atleast have to make an effort to keep customers....it might not be perfect but atleast if you have the fire you can 'go after them'.....medicare doesn't care......and it limits you much more than private companies.....medicare gives you a 'peek' that all textbook patients get and then leave you at minimum and keep us in a 'coma like' state.......
go ahead expand medicare and we can all say "it is finished"......
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
And if Medicare was so great, why is it that most seniors need yet another insurance company BESIDES Medicare? Ya know..they call it their supplemental insurance. Cause Medicare just doesn't meet the needs. And neither will universal, government controlled health care!
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
ALBANY Doctors, medical students call for national health insurance BY JILL BRYCE Gazette Reporter
A handful of physicians and medical students from Albany Medical Center and College voiced support for national health insurance Tuesday, saying it would save money and result in more efficient and better health care. The group met at Albany Medical College to discuss a study released Tuesday that shows a majority of U.S. physicians — three-fifths — now support national health insurance. The study was published in Tuesday’s Annals of Internal Medicine, a leading medical journal. It showed that 59 percent of doctors support government legislation to establish national health insurance, while 32 percent oppose it and 9 percent are neutral. The study was done by researchers at the Indiana University School of Medicine. The findings reflect a shift in physicians’ attitudes compared with an identical survey five years ago. Dr. Jennifer Pearce, director of pediatric hematology oncology at Albany Medical Center, who treats children with cancer, said seeing families with no health care for their children or themselves go through the anguish of poor medical care is something that is “not American, not normal and not healthy.” “If all our children in this country had single-payer health care and got good health care and got proactive and preventative care, we would see a lot less of the adult diseases we see today,” said Pearce. “It would be a huge savings to have single-payer health care,” she said. Pearce said about 30 percent of a physician’s time is spent on forms, appeals and paperwork involved with thousands of different insurance plans. “A lot of our time, effort and intelligence is wasted with the idiosyncrasies of different health care plans — time, effort and brain power that could help patients have better lives and healthier lives.” Pearce wasn’t always a proponent of single-payer health care. She has relatives in England and 20 years ago their health care was horrendous, she said, but the kinks were worked out and there is now a far more uniform system in England than in the United States. Pearce said she did not know of one physician at Albany Medical Center who is not in favor of it. Such a health plan would mean a single federally administered social insurance fund that guarantees health care coverage for everyone, much like Medicare does for seniors. It would eliminate or reduce the role of private insurance companies. “I encourage everyone to be behind this as an absolute necessity for the American health care system,” she said. Dr. Paul Sorum, chair of the local chapter of the Physicians for a National Health Program, said the study reflects the attitudes of most doctors and it’s an opinion that is growing. All patients would be covered and physicians would be reimbursed for service they provide to patients, not according to whether the patient has insurance or what type of insurance, said Sorum, a professor of internal medicine and pediatrics and a primary care physician for children and adults in Latham. Decisions about care would be done largely on clinical grounds. “There would be far less interference in the day-to-day clinical decision-making under a single-payer system than there is under the private insurers, who are increasingly reaching into the examining room to decide what kind of care is best for you and your particular case,” said Sorum. Rules would be simple, uniform, transparent, public and well known, he said, and the patient and physician would no longer have to deal with the changing rules of the private health care system. Sorum, who was named activist of the year by Physicians for a National Health Program at its annual meeting, said it was impressive that the Albany Medical College students were so concerned about the health care of their future patients that they took time to organize a forum. Jessin Blossom, Albany Medical College class of 2009, chaired the event at Albany Medical Center College on Tuesday, calling the new study a cause for celebration. “In the future I don’t want anyone to come between me and my patients,” said Blossom. “The private insurance companies get in the way of patients’ care. We need a single-payer system in order to protect the doctor-patient relationship.” The majority of physicians historically have been conservative on the issue, but now support national health insurance because they see how the current fragmented forprofit system no longer serves interest of patients, medical professionals or employees, she said. Health care continues to rank high among voter concerns in the 2008 elections and placed third in a recent pool after the economy and Iraq. None of the three leading candidates for president, including U.S. senators Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton or John McCain support national health insurance. “Presidential candidates are not offering serious reform proposals, they are not advocating for universal health care and we think they should be moving in a stronger direction for national health care insurance,” said Blossom. “We expect physician support will continue to grow as the health care system declines.” Third-year medical student Tim Caramore from East Greenbush also supports a single-payer national health insurance system. The strongest appeal one can make is an appeal to pragmatism, he said.
I don't know which doctors they're talking to about National Health care but the ones that I've talked to are opposed to it. There are doctors right now that refuse to accept Medicare because they aren't paid enough for their services what's going to happen when there's National Health care and the rates are capped? The quality of our health care will suffer and certain procedures will be eliminated after you reach a certain age or when the health care system deems it too expensive.
Re the April 2 article, “Doctors, medical students call for national health insurance”: It states that a majority of doctors (52 percent) polled in a study done by the Indiana University School of Medicine favored government-sponsored national health insurance. All I have to say to these doctors is be careful what you wish for. I have empathy for their issues with health-insurance companies. Someone near and dear to me is a health care practitioner, and I help with her billings to the insurance companies. It’s truly a nightmare. Some insurers cover her services, some only cover some of her services, and others don’t even cover her services. As we all know, patient co-pays and premiums have been rising dramatically, but there is at least one insurer who has not raised how much it payers for this person’s services for seven years until this year (and only $2 at that). The problem with a national government health insurance system is that services will be rationed. And I beg to differ with the doctor in the article, Dr. Jennifer Pearce: The system in England is not that great. Neither is it that great in Canada, France or any other country that has national government health care. Yes, it would be easier for doctors and other health care providers to deal with one payer. However, you have to look at who health insurance is supposed to benefit — the patients— not the doctors or health care providers. The current system we have in this country offers the greatest benefits to the insured than any other government system in the world. That’s why so many people from other countries with government health insurance programs come here to get major heath care services. JOHN GAETANI Glenville
Back in 1999 and into 2000, I lived in Paris for an entire academic year. While there, I came down with a terrible case of strep throat. I had no choice but to go to a doctor for treatment. I consulted a list of "approved" doctors through the American Consulate in Paris and made an appointment with one. When I arrived at the doctor's office, I was treated and subsequently asked for my Social Security card, so that he could obtain payment. When I informed the doctor that I was American and didn't have a French Social Security card, he balked, and was afraid that the office visit would be too expensive for me to afford. It ended up costing me about $30 for my visit, followed by another $20 at the pharmacy for the three prescriptions I was given. In other words, without insurance coverage, I was paying in France in the year 2000 what I pay now with insurance coverage. You right-wingers can complain all you want about the French, and you can tell me to move there if I like it so much, but they're doing something right over there when the quality of their healthcare coverage is on par with or better than the United States at a fraction of the cost. JAMES QUACKENBUSH Rochester
What James described is only a small part of health-care, a doctors visit and a prescription, let's talk about serious illness and the need for cancer treatment or an operation like a quadruple bypass, and any number of expensive organ transplant procedures and see how well the program treats their patients. How long will the patient have to wait for some of these life saving procedures and will the patient be given permission to get them when they reach a certain age.
What James described is only a small part of health-care, a doctors visit and a prescription, let's talk about serious illness and the need for cancer treatment or an operation like a quadruple bypass, and any number of expensive organ transplant procedures and see how well the program treats their patients. How long will the patient have to wait for some of these life saving procedures and will the patient be given permission to get them when they reach a certain age.
Aint that a fact....the 'trimming of the fat' or those who cost the system more than the public can stomach will be trimmed and are.....stats are just that....numbers to be manipulated.........
as for our healthcare system----IT DIDN'T HAPPEN OVER NITE......that is what we get when we let someone/thing else do our bidding for us.....what is our motto(especially in NYS)-----"why do for myself when I can pay someone with 'expertise' to do it for me".....that my friends is the crock of S#$% we have cooked.......
Dont think the French aren't eating out of this crock too.......
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
Logged
