The job of state government in Health Care:
1. Make sure that there is sufficient educational capacity to train: doctors, nurses and all the support staff.
2. Make sure there are sufficient facilities, including mobile units for rural areas (the vast majority of Texas is rural), for routine health care.
3. Make sure sufficient health care personnel are available to serve everybody in the state.
These services are aided by everyone having health care, including the choice of a strong, public option.
Monday, December 7, 2009
Why Health Care Reform has stalled…
The party of ‘NO’ (a.k.a., Republican) is throwing up all manner of obstruction to stop Health Care Reform (HCR) legislation.
Why?
Because they are terrified of success!
If HCR was going to fail the ‘NO’ party would have feigned misgivings, then grudgingly allowed the legislation to pass. The whole debate about HCR is to prevent a Democratic Party success prior to the 2010 election. If HCR legislation barely passes just before the elections the ‘NO’ folks could use scare tactics about the new programs while voters go to the polls.
If one looks at all the industrialized and developing countries of the world, you’ll find that they all have at least a strong, public, health care option, cover nearly everybody and pay no more than half what Americans pay for their current health care coverage, if they can get it.
The ‘NO’ say HCR will cause restricted access to health care. If you have done every preventative measure since you were developing in the womb, then you require less treatment for medical surprises; problems were prevented or treated earlier and easier (appears to be restricted access).
The ‘NO’ say the HCR will cost more. When medical professionals are paid, generous, appropriate salaries, instead of billing per incident (our dominant current practice), the incidences of overdoing everything, at least twice, will stop.
If a public health option was not a good idea, our legislators should not have single (tax) payer, health insurance; an even more socialist option.
Why?
Because they are terrified of success!
If HCR was going to fail the ‘NO’ party would have feigned misgivings, then grudgingly allowed the legislation to pass. The whole debate about HCR is to prevent a Democratic Party success prior to the 2010 election. If HCR legislation barely passes just before the elections the ‘NO’ folks could use scare tactics about the new programs while voters go to the polls.
If one looks at all the industrialized and developing countries of the world, you’ll find that they all have at least a strong, public, health care option, cover nearly everybody and pay no more than half what Americans pay for their current health care coverage, if they can get it.
The ‘NO’ say HCR will cause restricted access to health care. If you have done every preventative measure since you were developing in the womb, then you require less treatment for medical surprises; problems were prevented or treated earlier and easier (appears to be restricted access).
The ‘NO’ say the HCR will cost more. When medical professionals are paid, generous, appropriate salaries, instead of billing per incident (our dominant current practice), the incidences of overdoing everything, at least twice, will stop.
If a public health option was not a good idea, our legislators should not have single (tax) payer, health insurance; an even more socialist option.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
