Although I don't usually get into political conversations easily (other than on subjects on the environment - yes, I am an admitted environmentalist - but that's a topic for another day - LOL), I am very intrigued with Hillary Clinton's return to proposing universal healthcare insurance for all Americans.
Honestly, I thought this was a good idea when she proposed it some 13 years ago, although clearly not in the majority on that point of view, but I would ask this question for your consideration and comment. If we have a plan for health insurance for all, will this bring us to a better place?
Obviously, insurance premiums have sky-rocketed and for so many Americans, affording health insurance is just not an option. The other question that I would ask you is this a good move for Hillary in her bid for Presidency? Is this the right time to do this? Will this help or hurt her campaign? She is leading in all the polls, but when election day comes will her quest to ensure good healthcare for all be embraced nationally? What do you think?
9 comments:
First, Love your blog, Susan.
Second, I certainly support healthcare availability for all Americans to include dental care. The ERs all over this country are clogged by people who have no PCP and resort to using the ER for non-ER issues -- they just have no other place to go. Taxpayers are already paying for this as most of these ER bills end up as write-offs by the hospital.
Susan,
Thank you for addressing this topic. You know, when Senator Clinton proposed this back when her husband was president, I was fresh out of college and oblivious about politics and the practical world. As I have matured, entered the workplace, married, and had children, I have passively and actively developed a better understanding of our political system, rights as citizens, and inherent human obligations to our community, country, and world.
I agree that healthcare should be considered a right for all people. I am fortunate in that I have always had health insurance, but the mistakes that are made and the paper shuffle involved in billing and approvals have been a headache - and we have not even had any major medical issues. Contrary to what has been purported in the past, I think the whole system would be expontentially simpler if insurance were no longer necessary.
I also believe that AHDI and transcriptionists can play a very important role in streamlining healthcare documentation across the country, by being instrumental in incorporating a consistent use of medical language and more consistent templates that can easily be implemented and accessed by all care providers. And, it seems to me that to develop a medical recordkeeping system that can follow a patient wherever he/she may go, accessible by any provider who cares for that person, would absolutely enhance that person's care and reduce errors.
One of the paramount concerns about having a large database is that personal medical information may be inappropriately accessed and compromised. It would be interesting to explore the implications of this and what systems could be implemented to prevent or ameliorate its impact on a patient's medical care and/or personal life.
In summary, thank you for broaching this topic. I obviously have pretty strong opinions regarding this, but I think it is important to encourage the discussion as it affects all of us and should not be written off as a political tool to further a candidate's personal aspirations.
Your blog looks great!
Another name for "universal healthcare" is "socialized medicine." Like Canada. From what I understand, it doesn't work very well. If there was an insurance for people of low income that involved a sliding fee scale, fine. But if the rest of us who are working hard are going to be forced to up our taxes so everyone can have insurance, whether or not they work, it is not fair to the working stiff. Things like this are not free -- somebody has to pay for them. HMOs are nothing more than socialized medicine. We had an HMO once, it was dreadful, and we switched. To each his own, just don't ask me to pay for it. And, we will see if Hilary herself signs up for it - somehow I think not. Those who want socialized medicine or socialized anything, move to Canada and try it out.
Betty - thanks for your post here. I agree with you that we need a solution, and with it reasonable costs for healthcare access.
Liz - great insight and thank you for your thoughts. I find your approach refreshing - what if insurance wasn't necessary? What would that look like and how might it work? I have Kaiser here in Colorado and I love it. I have all my routine exams taken care of and nothing is overlooked or not done if it is indicated and needed. That's the one thing about our profession. We pretty much know if there's a test that should be run if symptoms warrant.
Anonymous - Good point. There are some folks who are really opposed to socialized medicine and I have spoken with Canadians who actually love the healthcare system up there. Not sure what we might end up with, but I am looking forward to learning more about what Hillary proposes. I'll wait and see. I sure don't want to have less care, but I sure would like it to be affordable so more could participate. We are paying for other people's care through higher premiums now and I agree with you, it would be better if everyone could afford their own. Great responses and thanks to all for taking the time to let me know how you feel.
Re: Clinton's healthcare initiative
It will be interesting to see how she fares this time around since she has included the insurance companies in this time. We all pay for healthcare one way or another, i.e., increased preminiums, taxes, and the cost of healthcare, so it would seem reasonable to ensure that we have the option to pay for preventative and early care rather than late and expensive care.
Susan, perhaps you know a website where we could get a synopsis of her proposal? All I have heard comes from the news, although I saw on the Today show that she has her own space on My Space!
Hi....
This is a great idea, Susan.
I would need to study this proposal in order to make an informed decision. I am, however, sorry to say that I don't trust Hilary Clinton as far as I can throw her. If one investigates her behind-the-scenes activities, she isn't who she claims to be in many arenas. I have met people who know her and not one of them has had a kind word to say about her, including someone who went to high school with her. She's lobbied for the coal industry, claiming it is the cleanest energy and we all know that it's one of the dirtiest. She's really pretty much owned by special interest groups.
When she was on the subcommittee to study documents about whether to enter into war with Iraq, she was the only one on the committee to make a decision without reading the information.
Sorry to divert this from the critical issue of health care, but there's always SO much more than meets the eye when it comes to politics. My money is on Obama - he seems to have far more integrity and heart than Hilary.
Great additional comments everyone. I did a little searching on the web and found this site with a synopsis of the plan along with ideas from Obama and Edwards. Seems all leading candidates have a "plan." Here's a web site that has the information along with a video. Please note: I am not suggesting or supporting any particular candidate, only offering a topic that is a good one for consideration in how it affects our families and the future of our own profession. Here's the link http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/17/health.care/ Keep the and commentary going.
Hillary Clinton's health care proposal is better than Obama's and far better than McCain's; however, people are obviously not ready to vote for a woman yet. The problem with America's people is that we believe there should be free education for all and a right to work for all, and perhaps highways and gas-hogging vehicles for all, but we certainly do not believe everyone deserves health care. Virtually every other industrialized country provides health care for all, but we do not. What on earth is the matter with us? I will tell you...our health care system works for the benefit of doctors and putting money in their pockets; not for the people. It is the same with our financial ideology...we believe people should own huge houses that use a great deal of energy, drive huge cars that burn up foreign oil, and we really do not particularly care if a very few people own 99% of the wealth. A country that does not care what happens to the wealth of its people certainly would not care what happens to 90% of the people's health.
Great work.
Post a Comment