Comments on: Health Care Reform Needs Leaders, Not Apologists

By: OneNation4All

OneNation4All — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 16:55:16 +0000

Jim, thank you for the commentary on health care. The nation is in a crisis in so many areas that the average citizen is overwhelmed by the public needs from infra-structure, education and, of course, health care.

The right fear mongers of tax continue to bully and intimidate voters. Many forget the common good-intention of a federal government that can with its economy of scale provide for the common good. The past is littered with abuse of taxpayer moneys and that continues to be the fuel that powers the vote for no taxes. We need to dispel that imagine and build public trust. What I find to be the irony of no taxes is that the amount of money saved by the average taxpayer does not amount to anything of substance and usually just pays for the cigarette and alcohol habit of many.

We do need leaders of integrity who can guide the state and nation for the public good. Leaders who can explain the fallacy of no taxes and can hold the public trust. We also need a press that would help to educate the masses instead of perpetuate the mantra of greed and fear.

The heart of this nation is in need of care. Unfortunately, we may all die in the ER from lack of care before our hearts have a chance. I sincerely hope that is not the case.

By: urthpigg

urthpigg — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 19:53:08 +0000

Our country is run almost exclusively by very bad people. As long as the crooks in the health care industry keep financing the campaigns of corrupt candidates in both Republican Parties, there will be no meaningful health care reform. Get used to it.

By: noidea

noidea — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 20:15:45 +0000

OneNation4All…I don’t know of a single credible person that is calling for “No” taxes. Most of us already pay alot of taxes. Wanting to protect our families from excessive tax burdens is not heartless. Most of us are just trying to get by with what we earn right now. We have families and charity should start at home. If my family paid “No” taxes, as you suggest, it would pay for a lot more than booze and cigarettes.

I think that the argument is between the “current” taxes, “less” taxes and “more” taxes. I am for more taxes if the product that we are paying for is efficient and beneficial to society. I would prefer “less” taxes, but know that society needs money to provide the goods and services in the commons that we all benefit from.

No credible person on the “right” side of the equation would ever propose “No” taxes as you disengenuously represent. But this is what our society has created. Assinine arguments full of extreme statements.

By: Stu Brann

Stu Brann — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 20:42:54 +0000

OK. Let’s assume for the sake of argument we can’t cover everybody all at once (I disagree with this, but let’s go with it for now). How about setting up a program like the one set up by–are you ready for this left-wing idea–Otto von Bismarck. His policy covered the bottom 10% of the entire German population totally. Start with the homeless, indigent and working poor. Have each a universal card that bucks the bill to the state. See how this works before doing anything else for a couple of years. If other costs, like the one’s the state has to cover with uninsured people in the ER’s go down at all, we have a mandate to expand the program to the next 10% above that. And so forth. Even the right-wing fanatics like John Anderson would have a tough time opposing bottom-line results.

By: usersuz

usersuz — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 21:43:27 +0000

I agree that the state should try to ease the burden somehow, but feel very strongly that this is a federal issue, that not just the bottom 10% or just Coloradans but everyone in America needs to have basic health coverage. I think we’ll reduce the tab on it, too, as soon as we get rid of all the positions in private care that are dedicated to DENYING coverage. The plus side of this is that there will be more nurses to address the nursing shortage because that’s where they’ve been hanging out: vetting cases for HMO’s to try to deny coverage. I look at the health care plans from the top three Dems, and they are all instituting systems that, although they do not replace private coverage, will make it hard for HMO’s to charge their outrageous premiums, co-pays and deductibles because that strategy will no longer be competitive. So I can’t fault the Colorado legislature/gov if they don’t try to field and fund a statewide system, especially in the face of shortfalls in education and highways. Let them do what they can and wait for our Democratic president and congress to push this through. The People have spoken: it’s a federal issue and we want national health care.

By: noidea

noidea — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 00:57:47 +0000

Usersuz, I think that our medical care system is definitely out of whack and something needs to be done. But aren’t you being presumptuous by saying “The people have spoken…it’s a FEDERAL issue and we want our health care”? I fail to see where the people have yet “spoken” (as you put it) on this issue federalizing health care. Perhaps in the future you may be right, but come on…

By: RASchmidt

RASchmidt — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 18:15:36 +0000

I totally agree that something needs to be done. The Single Payer System would be the best if offered on a national level. At the state level how would one restrict the eligibility to only Colorado residents. Another problem is financing on a state level. Is it fair to tax only through the income tax system or should an additional source of revenue to be via the sales or property tax system so all Coloradoans pay? For this reason I fear the plan could only work on a national basis the way Medicare does.

Another area that is extremely important for any health plan to remain at all solvent, is determining what procedures should it actually cover. Should society be paying to keep very early premies alive who later seem to face a life of one medical problem after another? Who gets to decide when to terminate life support for the elderly when the widow will face reduced pension and Social Security payments due to the death of the husband? Governor Lamm has asked these serious questions but gets “roasted” by many when he realistically finds the answer. As a society we have not addressed these questions and without incorporating these serious issues into the discussion of health care reform, the price of health care will continue to rise to heights higher than this society can afford.