Everyone having access to healthcare is different from everyone is required to have healthcare. I just wish pollsters would do a better job of wording sentences. At least ask a conservative/libertarian how they would ask it.
NOvember NObama
Beth Anne Keller - 12 years ago
Just want to concur with LouisianaRN. We all have access to healthcare. Obamacare does nothing to improve access but, in the end, will decrease access to healthcare. What Obamacare was supposed to do but never truly attempts to bring the cost of healthcare. Healthcare is NOT driving by the insurance companies alone. Bring down the costs of medicines, bring down the costs of lab work, bring down the costs of procedures. Where are costs of practicing healthcare ever addressed in the law?
Insurance was NEVER designed to accept ALL RISKS nor should they be forced to do so. I have many pre-existing conditions but I HAVE insurance. Just because you have a condition does NOT mean you can't have insurance but it does mean you have to make smart choices. In my case, I must work for a company that has group coverage so then pre-existing conditions do not matter. Just because I have a pre-existing condition does not mean I want Obamacare which I feel is bad for they country. Nor do I think someone should foot the bill just so I can work somewhere else. I have made the smart decision on where to work and I don't want others to have to pay for my health issues if I was unwilling to find a company to work for that has group coverage.
To take LouisianaRN's a comments a step further, access should most definitely not be equated with the ability to pay however an inability to afford care directly affects one's ability to gain access. This speaks to the dynamic tension of the triumvirate of health care policy- cost, quality, and access analogous to a three-legged stool. If you increase access, you by default increase cost. For the population who can't afford care, access is denied to them. Yes, charity care may be available to them but criteria for charity care is inconsistent, the uninsured pay the full cost rather than the insurance "contracted rate", and thus their credit rating is severely compromised.
Interstate insurance portability would initially increase competition, but payments are still based on geography and the ramp up in IT would be enormous.
UHC is absolutely not the answer. We need to carefully examine how we got where we are and change.
LouisianaRN - 12 years ago
Everyone has ACCESS to healthcare, it is called the Emergency Room. I wish everyone would quit saying "Access" interchangeably with the ability to "Pay" for healthcare. What we have is an INSURANCE problem. If we paid for such things as a Dr.'s visit or lab work and insurance only paid for major medical, people would be more in tune with the price of care and it would create competition among health care providers. As a nurse, I can't help but be truthful about most of the patients we are dealing with these days. Most people are not taking their health seriously so why should I and others have to pay for their lack of concern until it is too late? If people were made to pay for their health as they go or choose not to visit the Dr. (their choice) then maybe they would at least be more in touch with the actual cost. Life is full of choices, and I would like to keep it that way. To allow a drug user to come into the hospital and use "chest pain" as a complaint so they can get more IV drugs is dispicable and hospitals need to be protected as well through tort reform. Access is NOT the problem, the problem is making people who are trying to make the right choices and work to make things better for their families are being punished for those who primarily live off the nanny state. This is another reason why we need JOBS!!! Let's get people working so they can buy insurance and let's make it where you can buy insurance ANYWHERE in the country. Competition, Competition, Competition!!!!
Everyone having access to healthcare is different from everyone is required to have healthcare. I just wish pollsters would do a better job of wording sentences. At least ask a conservative/libertarian how they would ask it.
NOvember NObama
Just want to concur with LouisianaRN. We all have access to healthcare. Obamacare does nothing to improve access but, in the end, will decrease access to healthcare. What Obamacare was supposed to do but never truly attempts to bring the cost of healthcare. Healthcare is NOT driving by the insurance companies alone. Bring down the costs of medicines, bring down the costs of lab work, bring down the costs of procedures. Where are costs of practicing healthcare ever addressed in the law?
Insurance was NEVER designed to accept ALL RISKS nor should they be forced to do so. I have many pre-existing conditions but I HAVE insurance. Just because you have a condition does NOT mean you can't have insurance but it does mean you have to make smart choices. In my case, I must work for a company that has group coverage so then pre-existing conditions do not matter. Just because I have a pre-existing condition does not mean I want Obamacare which I feel is bad for they country. Nor do I think someone should foot the bill just so I can work somewhere else. I have made the smart decision on where to work and I don't want others to have to pay for my health issues if I was unwilling to find a company to work for that has group coverage.
To take LouisianaRN's a comments a step further, access should most definitely not be equated with the ability to pay however an inability to afford care directly affects one's ability to gain access. This speaks to the dynamic tension of the triumvirate of health care policy- cost, quality, and access analogous to a three-legged stool. If you increase access, you by default increase cost. For the population who can't afford care, access is denied to them. Yes, charity care may be available to them but criteria for charity care is inconsistent, the uninsured pay the full cost rather than the insurance "contracted rate", and thus their credit rating is severely compromised.
Interstate insurance portability would initially increase competition, but payments are still based on geography and the ramp up in IT would be enormous.
UHC is absolutely not the answer. We need to carefully examine how we got where we are and change.
Everyone has ACCESS to healthcare, it is called the Emergency Room. I wish everyone would quit saying "Access" interchangeably with the ability to "Pay" for healthcare. What we have is an INSURANCE problem. If we paid for such things as a Dr.'s visit or lab work and insurance only paid for major medical, people would be more in tune with the price of care and it would create competition among health care providers. As a nurse, I can't help but be truthful about most of the patients we are dealing with these days. Most people are not taking their health seriously so why should I and others have to pay for their lack of concern until it is too late? If people were made to pay for their health as they go or choose not to visit the Dr. (their choice) then maybe they would at least be more in touch with the actual cost. Life is full of choices, and I would like to keep it that way. To allow a drug user to come into the hospital and use "chest pain" as a complaint so they can get more IV drugs is dispicable and hospitals need to be protected as well through tort reform. Access is NOT the problem, the problem is making people who are trying to make the right choices and work to make things better for their families are being punished for those who primarily live off the nanny state. This is another reason why we need JOBS!!! Let's get people working so they can buy insurance and let's make it where you can buy insurance ANYWHERE in the country. Competition, Competition, Competition!!!!