Originally Posted By WilliamK99 Sara, please do a little bit more research when you make the blanket statement "Tricare works just fine" lol, I could rip it to shreds, but I won't because I respect you....
Originally Posted By wahooskipper Does the President have a healthcare bill? I know the House has one on the street. Not sure about the Senate.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer It isn't going to carry over to the entire nation. There is no plan for a single payer system, which is what Tricare is.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << Also, I'd like to point out that Tricare is a government run healthcare system...and it works just fine. >> Well, actually, Tricare is an HMO-style health care system developed to serve dependents of military families. It's an extra layer of bureaucracy on top the existing military system. The existing military system always worked just fine for active duty service members, but didn't cover the needs of dependents who were only granted access to military medical facilities on a first come first served basis. While military medicine is effective, the Tricare system isn't terribly efficient because it was tacked on overtop of an existing military medical system and created dual layers of bureacracy. Additionally, the system isn't government-run. It is government funded. The Department of Defense contracts with for-profit health insurance companies and HMOs to provide the administrative services for Tricare. The same names in private industry -- Humana, Health Net, Blue Cross-Blue Shield, etc. all have a piece of the Tricare business. They all use the same for-profit system in place for corporations to manage co-pays, deductibles, and denial of care to military dependents. Active duty service members are not subject to the fee structure. I wouldn't hold Tricare up as an example of government run health care because it's not a truly government run system. The same health insurance players that have run up costs and denied care in the private sector are behind the curtain pulling the levers for Tricare.
Originally Posted By Mr X Ah, the beauty of a political third rail. ***My problem comes with the fact that only under circumstances of rape/incest or desth of the mother should Government funds be used to cover abortion.*** In addition to what others have mentioned about provability issues, the real question is "who decides?". IF, and it's a big if, abortions are covered, would a person need to provide a police report? What if she gets two opinions about her medical danger and one doc says she could die and the other doc disagrees? You could bring up arguments like this all day long, but I'll just say that there are certainly a million grey areas between "poor thing, she deserves to do what she wants!" and "irresponsible girl, she brought this on herself!" ***I would foot the bill for adoption, which is a far better choice than abortion.*** A better choice for whom?
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 ***I would foot the bill for adoption, which is a far better choice than abortion.*** A better choice for whom?<< For the responsible ones.... Like I said, if you reward irresponsibility then people have no reason to be responsible...
Originally Posted By mawnck >>For the responsible ones....<< Who gets to pick which are the responsible ones?
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 >>For the responsible ones....<< Who gets to pick which are the responsible ones?<< The Government... lol.... OK... nm then...
Originally Posted By Mr X I don't get that answer, "the responsible ones", are you saying that giving away an unwanted child is "responsible"? It certainly isn't responsible towards society, someone has to pay for that kid and it'll probably be at least partially the taxpayers. I suppose you could argue "morally responsible", but that assumes a lot. As Dave mentioned, bringing an unwanted kid into the world is a far bigger burden on many more people than simply terminating an unwanted pregnancy. Perhaps morally you feel that to be true, and I might even agree with you, but then as he said you can NOT bring the issue up as a financial one on beleaguered taxpayers because it doesn't jive.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***The Government... lol.... OK... nm then...*** lol. Didn't see this because I was composing my post. Yeah, it definitely is a thorny issue I won't argue with you on that one!
Originally Posted By TomSawyer <Like I said, if you reward irresponsibility then people have no reason to be responsible...> Yeah, look what happened after we re-elected Bush!
Originally Posted By DVC_Pongo Why do people not get medicade? Every state has it right? Isn't it supposed to be the safety net for those who cannot afford insurance? And is the VA a form of government run health care? Literally? I took my 4 year old to the ER a few weeks ago around 9 PM on a Sunday night. The place was FULL (Childrens Hospital ER) of many many people who were uh, well I don't think English was their first language. I paid very close attention to the other people waiting there. I would guess that 90% of these cases were nothing more than bad cough and cold or stomach virus type things. You know, any PCP or doc in a box could have taken care of this during the day. Well thanks to head trauma, I didn't have to wait very long at all. We got triaged to the top. Still, something needs to be done for these people. I don't know what, but something. For heaven sakes they need to be able to take their kids to a doctor during the day instead of the ER at night, meaning they have no insurance. Something tells me they are not going to GET any unless it is completely free, which brings up another problem. When something is free, you have massive no shows, and missed appointments, causing docs to double and triple book, in turn causing long long long waits. It isn't a simple thing to fix really. I wish I had the answer.
Originally Posted By mele Hope your kid was okay, DVC! My son was Mr. Head Trauma. We spent a lot of time in the ER.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer The hospital I work for is running a project with the state and a couple of insurance companies to run a flat-fee clinic that covers basic primary care and lab work. Each patient pays something around $60 a month and they can see a doctor for a check-up or if they are sick whenever they want. Meds are additional, as are more advanced diagnostic services. And since the doctors aren't getting paid by how many patients they can see in a day, the appointments are longer and more detailed. <a href="http://www.swedish.org/body.cfm?id=2907" target="_blank">http://www.swedish.org/body.cfm?id=2907</a>
Originally Posted By FaMulan My take on it is this: If an abortion is an elective procedure (like plastic surgery or something) it should come out of the persons pocket. If there are medical reasons for it (danger to mother's life, health etc) then it should be covered. << My thoughts on the matter exactly.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo <<<A better choice for whom?<< For the responsible ones.... Like I said, if you reward irresponsibility then people have no reason to be responsible...>>> Ya, really great, let's punish these kids who never did anything wrong than losing the genetic lottery. tut, tut
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo >>>When something is free, you have massive no shows, and missed appointments, causing docs to double and triple book, in turn causing long long long waits. It isn't a simple thing to fix really. I wish I had the answer.<<< In the UK, they can charge you for missed appointements and for repetitive offenders, take them off a clinic's books.
Originally Posted By Mr X Simple solutions, easy to arrange. Naturally, the opposition makes them out to be insurmountable obstacles!
Originally Posted By EdisYoda My mom (68) is very worried that if this passes, she will lose portions of her health care due to "drastic" cuts in medicare. I, on the other hand, am concerned that if this doesn't pass, I'll lose my health insurance with my company and that I'll be un-insurable due to past medical history. I'm not sure which is worse.
Originally Posted By Mr X I'm not sure which is true (well, I believe your situation is true anyway)... Does your Mom have any evidence to cause her to believe this? Or is she simply listening to scare tactics, perhaps? I'm not saying that's true, I'm just asking (if it IS true, we all need to hear about it right away, of course!). I'm just wondering if this is more of the "kill granny" scare mongering the right wingers are doing these days, or if there's a valid point of concern here.
