Comments on: Government-controlled health insurance may politicize health

By: pat

pat — Thu, 01 Apr 2010 14:12:37 +0000

Government health care will politicize healthcare…that’s the whole point. More power for the government. If you want proof, look at Medicare. It has already politicized healthcare. Private companies follow Medicare’s lead, and Medicare is susceptible to lobbying. If you’re on Medicare, you get what Medicare pays for and if that’s not what you need, too bad. And who decides what Medicare pays for? Doctors and patients? If only. Committees and boards, bureaucrats and appointees, all ultimately answerable to elected officials. We should start all over and let individuals buy their own insurance and receive the tax credit that employers now receive. Generous HSAs would encourage young people who could stash some money, tax-free, for their futures. Healthcare needs to be given back to patients and doctors, with patients paying doctors and doctors having an undivided commitment to their patients. Nothing else will make it better, more efficient or less costly.

By: Ron P.

Ron P. — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 16:57:59 +0000

Bless you, ninguem! I hope there are more out there like you.

Return to topic. The politicization of medicine is nothing new. When was the last time anyone heard of a “Walk to Cure Prostate Cancer?” Or saw a telethon for Pulmanary Fibrosis? Without thinking very hard, I’m sure every reader can think of dozens of diseases that kill more people yearly than AIDS. Politics directs where the research money goes, and always has. Now that insurance (prepaid medicine) is to be government controlled by “approvals,” what basis did you think POLITICIANS would use to decide what to “approve?”

This is exactly what all the fuss was about: the right to keep government OUT of the decision-making process. True, some of those decisions are currently influenced by the evil insurance companies; but, we have the right to change companies to one whose policies we like better. It is much easier to change insurers in a free market than it is to change governments, even in a representative democracy.
Ron Pittenger

By: ninguem

ninguem — Sat, 27 Mar 2010 20:43:23 +0000

Praciticing in a fishing port, I actually DO have patients who pay me in fish.

I’ve got a couple where I think I owe them medical care.

By: H

Sat, 27 Mar 2010 17:08:35 +0000

That study is an abomination.

By: H

Sat, 27 Mar 2010 17:05:21 +0000

Sorry, can’t afford that. Have to eat.

By: David Allen

David Allen — Sat, 27 Mar 2010 08:16:04 +0000

You’ll get the chicken discount, but small increase due to chicken exchange costs.

I’ll also accept: certified gold or silver.

By: H

Sat, 27 Mar 2010 05:20:30 +0000

“The United States, say in the early 1900s, was successful in having a market-based health care system.”

So you would accept a few chickens for compensation? I have a few organic chickens, how many for an office visit?

By: J

Sat, 27 Mar 2010 03:51:27 +0000

Actually, an IUD most likely interferes with the ability of the sperm to reach the fallopian tubes to fertilize the egg. See study mentioned below. In terms of contraceptives, the progestin component of most biphasic/triphasic oral contraceptives prevents ovulation by inhibiting LH surges during the ovulatory cycle while the estrogen component involves the prevention of implantation (regardless of fertilization status).

Alvarez F, Brache V, Fernández E, et al. New insights on the mode of action of intrauterine contraceptive devices in women. Fertil Steril 1988;49(5):768-73.

By: David Allen

David Allen — Sat, 27 Mar 2010 02:53:12 +0000

I stand corrected, you can buy catastrophic-only insurance, it appears. Maybe I’ll look into buying this for myself! Currently I use a Health Savings Account – which is one method of helping to keep more dollars in your own pocket.

No one is forcing me to accept insurance, I agree. Did I imply otherwise? Also, I didn’t and don’t think that getting rid of Medicare and Medicaid would result in my getting more money.

The United States, say in the early 1900s, was successful in having a market-based health care system. Gradually this has been replaced by more and more government intrusion. Now about 50% of all health care dollars are spent by the government.

By: H

Fri, 26 Mar 2010 20:06:59 +0000

You don’t seem to understand that catasptrophic health insurance is already available. No one is forcing you to accept Medicare. No one is forcing you to take insurance. I see no where in the law that says an insurance company must pay 20% of Medicare rates. It is the doctors that have accepted these payments. If you don’t like them, shop elsewhere. What makes you think if you get rid of Medicare and Medicaid that the insurance companies are going to give you more money?

Where is your study that shows those that must pay for their own health care out of pocket are healthier? Or do they just avoid care? Which country has been successful with a market based health care system?

Anyway, if charities work so well for health care, why do we have this health care crisis?