Comments on: AMA Switching Stance on Government-Sponsored Health Insurance?

By: Rob

Rob — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 22:23:00 +0000

I watched the segment ,about our healthcare system here in Canada, twice today on CNN. It focused on a lady who needed a tumor removed from her brain, but because of the long delays here, she went to the States, had her surgery and was handed a bill for $100,000. I think a few things may have been missing from the story. First of all, wait times depend on how serious and immediate treatment is needed. If her doctor felt that she was in need of treatment right away, it would have happened. Yes we are put on wait list here, and it is based on urgency, and it can be changed at the drop of a hat. As for the bill, wow! I had an American friend living and working in Alaska who had a part-time job as a Paralegal and the only thing he did was to process claims for people who had to file for bankruptcy because they couldn't afford their medical bills. I have know idea what it would cost to visit my doctor's office and I can go everyday if I want to, it's free. I can't imagine a civilized country that doesn't provide it's citizens with free access to good healthcare. It just doesn't make sense, unless, the system is actually run by and for the profit of, the Insurance and Pharmaceutical companies. Good luck to you, my American friends, so many of you need it.

By: jeff clark

jeff clark — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 18:08:47 +0000

i love it... the insurance companies are thieves and robbers... all we need for a health care system is a patient and a doctor... insurance / HMOs just syphon off dollars meant for band-aids and broken arms to pay for corporate jets, Cuban cigars, and lavish perks for the ceo's...

when the hell was the last time you seen a MBA/CEO of Anthem Blue Cross set a broken arm??? in my opinion, all the insurance industry does is colonoscopies on their victims ( i mean customers)...without the "Kay-Y"...

By: Curt

Curt — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 15:32:01 +0000

For a state to issue I.O.U's is preposterous. California will lose a lot of good vendors because of this debacle.

but there are other states out there that do not have a budget in place to continue, so why are you only focused on California? Just because they are the highest profile state should not be the deciding factor with covering their problems and none of the other states.

By: Chuck, NW Arkansas

Chuck, NW Arkansas — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 15:29:02 +0000

Let's face it; the medical industry is not going to voluntarily give up the HUGE PROFITS which it has been raking in for years. When they found out that Obama is not insisting on a reduction in health care costs and that his plan would not affect them, then they stopped worrying.
Obama plans to federally subsidize a 30 percent reduction in health care insurance for a select few who do not already have insurance. That will still cost much more than my family can afford.

By: Debbie

Debbie — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 14:46:39 +0000

A good start would be to end the discrimination to the childless American born citizens that are denied medicaid. In order to qualify, a person has to be either an immigrant, pregnant, or have children under age 18 living with them. Even if a person has no income, they are denied if they do not meet one these requirements.
Many single people with chronic help problems cannot get health care because they have no children living with them.
This is really not fair to the divorced father who is is expected to pay child support, but perhaps is to ill to work, and cannot get health care, simply because he does not have these children he is supporting living with him.

By: Michelle LaVenia

Michelle LaVenia — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 14:39:58 +0000

I am a Nurse and have been for 36 years. There have been studies that show clients have been better serviced and happier with the healthcare they received from Nurse Practitioners. I know from recommending a client see a NP for his diabetes that the cost was $35. as opposed to his seeing an endocrinologist for $300., which he could not afford. Why hasn't Congress come up with advocating for more NPs as part of the Healthcare package? Could it be the Medical Association ( the doctor's union)?

By: Suzanne Murphy

Suzanne Murphy — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 14:33:05 +0000

As a CEO of a small business, we pay 100% of our employee's health insurance premiums and feel everyone should have "access" to quality care but unless Pres. Obama makes more credit available to small businesses and eases the financial and tax burdens strangling this important sector of our economy - businesses won't be able to maintain payrolls and additional jobs and insurance coverage will be lost.

By: Marion Clair

Marion Clair — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 14:32:43 +0000

As a retired public school teacher and part of a defined pension plan, my GROUP health care insurance costs me nearly a QUARTER OF MY ENTIRE, PALTRY INCOME each mont, so that I have to continue working year round to afford to pay my average bills for mortgage, food, etc.. And I am a HEALTHY person with no pre-existing conditions, I am not at all fat, don't smoke, rarely drink alcohol and don't eat fast foods! I LOVE the President's healthcare proposal and think that the FAT ASSED, hypocritical members of Congress who get TOTAL HEALTH BENEFITS for THEMSELVES AND THEIR FAMILIIES not to mention ALLLLLL THE OTHER PERKS OF THE JOB, should vote to provide decent health care to ALL Americans–just like they have!

By: Teresa Rockwood

Teresa Rockwood — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 14:31:57 +0000

My question is this: Obama says that instead of 5 tests being done by a doctor it will be one. What if the doctor is doing those tests because he feels as though they need to be done? So we are not going to get the medical attention that we need because it will not be covered. So I guess that my concern here is this: Will we go without the medical attention that we need because the testing will be limitted?

By: Franco

Franco — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 14:30:10 +0000

Today in the USA we have private companies controlling where to have treatment based on costs in order to satisfy investors. If the government takes over, they will be better since they have to satisfy the electorate and not profits. Private health care = priority on profits = less care. A government sponsored plan does not mean that you will not have an option to stay with your private insurer and pay a premium that will help the CEOs keep their houses and yachts in the Hamptons.