Business Health Insurance Maine Small Posts
Business Health Insurance Maine Small Posts in Questions
What to do if you're pregnant and uninsured? My 20-something daughter, living in Maine, has just found out that she's pregrnant, but neither she nor her partner who is British, has health insurance. she owns her own new small business, but is up to her eyeballs in debt at the moment, so I wondered if anyone had any helpful suggestions as to what she could do for some kind of insurance coverage to get her through her pregnancy, short of heading to England, Canada, France or Cuba...... Thanks for any help!
M Kerr RN L&D replied: "Apply for State Medicaid"
carcar replied: "Medicaid is there for a reason. There are a lot of programs to help uninsured moms, too. It depends on the state you live in, a simple call to your hospitals maternity ward should give you info on whats available in your area. That's what I would do."
jaincor202 replied: "There should be a Department of health for her to call. They can let her know what she has to do to apply for Medicaid."
Starsfan14 replied: "Go to a doctor and discuss the situation. My sister was uninsured for her first two children. She was able to negotiated a price for the prenatal care and delivery. It was a flat rate as long as she didn't have complications. She wasn't able to afford an epidural because it was extra, but otherwise she was able to get everything she needed. She had two relatively easy pregnancies and births so it was fine. She actually spent less than many people do who are on insurance.
As long as your daughter is in good health and doesn't have any situations that would complicate the pregnancy this might be the way for her to. Good luck"
Allison S replied: "apply for state services such as pregnancy medicaid and wic if its available"
allybabes24492 replied: "I live in GA and I know Medicare picks up ANY woman who is pregnant and has no insurance. As long as she isn't a millionair they should be able to pick her up. Medicare is nationwide rt? lol.
Tell her to check into it."
lmsabm replied: "She can apply for Medicaid For Pregnant Women. It'll cover the costs of her checkups, tests, delivery, partial for medication/pre ion vitamins, and the baby will be fully covered at birth."
gg replied: "She'll need to first contact her local county health department. They will charge her for her prenatal appointments on a sliding scale of what she can afford.
They will help her apply for assistance.
Then, when she is ready to have the baby, she'll need to start making arrangements with a NON-PROFIT hospital. They will discuss sliding scale payments with her too, for the actual BIRTH of the baby.
Will she consider giving the baby up for adoption? If so, many times the adoptive family will agree to pay all medical bills for the mom.
There is no medical insurance available for a woman who didn't have it before. She can't use insurance of her boyfriend, if they aren't married. She also can't be covered on your insurance."
Kim G replied: "I would contact planned parenthood and they can point you in the right direction."
Austins mommy replied: "There should be several ways you can get health insurance..try your local health clinic or wic office. they should be able to help you. Wic is a blessing! :) Good luck"
Amatullah replied: "Well, usually you can ask the hospital for Medicaid or health care plans."
jairatraci replied: "apply for medicaid."
rizing replied: "I barely qualified for Medicaid and I'm glad I got it. My pregnancy was uneventful, heck, I enjoyed my first pregnancy. When I had my son I had a UTI and did not know it. I thought that because he was head down and past his due date is the reason I could not urinate. Anyway, after he was born, the doctor, and I still don't know why he did this, pulled my placenta out by hand. I ended up with an infection in my uterus, septicemia, and anemic. My ending bill for the week stay and the delivery.....$30,000+.
The wisdom here is you can not see any complications on the horizon so I would suggest getting Medicaid."
C.C replied: "She should goto local county health clinic that does maternity or prenatal (look up county on line maybe) and she should talk to them. my county has a thing for 2100 that covers all prenatal and a payment plan for the birth for people who are uninsured but can't get medicaid"
Please read this article that I found and argue your side. Does this guy have it right? For-profit health care hurts those who need it most by Hugh Curran
There is much debate about health care yet little consideration for the ethical implications, especially the appropriateness of profit motives in the health care industry.
Americans do not seek to make a profit from education (kindergarten to grade 12), fire or police departments, yet people seriously listen to industry lobbyists who believe this to be a right in health care.
The philosopher Martin Buber defined evil as resulting from indecision. Where health care is involved there is a good deal of indecision, but this indecision is largely the result of disinformation by those who profit from health care.
If we begin with the understanding that the health of the whole country contributes to the health of each of us, we can ask if private interests, wishing to maximize profit, should be the arbiters of the public good. They are investor-owned businesses that design health care systems that benefit their investors. From recent polls we know that two-thirds of the public would prefer a system with a public option. More than 60 percent of physicians wish for such a system. Unlike the propaganda of corporate representatives, a public option in health care would provide free choice of physicians for the patient.
Lobbyists shamelessly portray the Canadian system in a negative light although I have yet to meet a Canadian who would be willing to adopt the American model. In fact, no country that has a public option would change to the American model for the simple reason that they know that a health care system based on profits would deny insurance to those who are most in need.
According to the World Health Organization, the U.S. ranks low in two of three main categories associated with health care: preventive care and cost of care. It is true that in a couple of categories the U.S. excels, such as surgery and medical technology, but there are many other criteria for good health, especially in the area of preventive medicine.
In France, whose general health care system is highly regarded throughout the world, providers satisfy the three categories: They provide easier access to medical facilities; life spans are longer; there is lower child mortality, and there is guaranteed health care from cradle to grave financed through tax revenues. The governments role is to make sure that the whole population has access to care. It protects patients rights, helps to work out policy and is the responsible party where health safety is concerned. Despite this, it is not a single payer.
America now pays out 17 percent of its gross national product on health while France, Canada and England pay less than 10 percent. The trillion-dollar additional cost that has been under discussion in Congress is based on a 10-year cycle that amounts to $200 billion per year. Compared to the trillion-dollar bailout of banking interests on Wall Street and the trillion-dollar war in Iraq and the continuing hemorrhaging of the auto industry, this is a reasonable amount.
The real reason there are such vehement arguments over public options versus private plans does not involve which is superior but which approach has the most to lose. Large corporations, whether HMOs or pharmaceuticals, are intent on creating indecision and doubt in the minds of many Americans concerning universal health care. Most medical professionals, including the 3 million-member American Nursing Association and the American Medical Association, have endorsed health care plans with public options. But with all the lobbying taking place by corporate interests there is a real danger that the public option will be removed. This would be a major setback for both working and unemployed Americans. At this moment 14,000 people per day are losing their health care because of the current downturn in the economy.
Democracy cannot long survive if the gaps between rich and poor continue to increase and continue shifting us toward a small wealthy minority and a disappearing middle class. Health care is the largest cause of bankruptcy among the elderly. It bleeds and depletes the resources of families even when one person suffers a serious accident or illness. Although we pay twice the amount per capita as do other developed countries, the results are that we are less healthy. Let us support a public option based on the common good.
Hugh Curran of Surry is an adjunct professor in peace studies at the University of Maine. He previously was the director of a Down East homeless shelter.
snarky replied: "Agree. There's also no profit for the military."
Lori replied: "I agree, but I am a Canadian nurse so I can't even imagine "for profit" health care or paying a bill after getting care. And no, I wouldn't trade our system for the American one."
Please read this article and argue your side. I have no opinion. Please help to clarify this confusing matter!? For-profit health care hurts those who need it most by Hugh Curran
There is much debate about health care yet little consideration for the ethical implications, especially the appropriateness of profit motives in the health care industry.
Americans do not seek to make a profit from education (kindergarten to grade 12), fire or police departments, yet people seriously listen to industry lobbyists who believe this to be a right in health care.
The philosopher Martin Buber defined evil as resulting from indecision. Where health care is involved there is a good deal of indecision, but this indecision is largely the result of disinformation by those who profit from health care.
If we begin with the understanding that the health of the whole country contributes to the health of each of us, we can ask if private interests, wishing to maximize profit, should be the arbiters of the public good. They are investor-owned businesses that design health care systems that benefit their investors. From recent polls we know that two-thirds of the public would prefer a system with a public option. More than 60 percent of physicians wish for such a system. Unlike the propaganda of corporate representatives, a public option in health care would provide free choice of physicians for the patient.
Lobbyists shamelessly portray the Canadian system in a negative light although I have yet to meet a Canadian who would be willing to adopt the American model. In fact, no country that has a public option would change to the American model for the simple reason that they know that a health care system based on profits would deny insurance to those who are most in need.
According to the World Health Organization, the U.S. ranks low in two of three main categories associated with health care: preventive care and cost of care. It is true that in a couple of categories the U.S. excels, such as surgery and medical technology, but there are many other criteria for good health, especially in the area of preventive medicine.
In France, whose general health care system is highly regarded throughout the world, providers satisfy the three categories: They provide easier access to medical facilities; life spans are longer; there is lower child mortality, and there is guaranteed health care from cradle to grave financed through tax revenues. The governments role is to make sure that the whole population has access to care. It protects patients rights, helps to work out policy and is the responsible party where health safety is concerned. Despite this, it is not a single payer.
America now pays out 17 percent of its gross national product on health while France, Canada and England pay less than 10 percent. The trillion-dollar additional cost that has been under discussion in Congress is based on a 10-year cycle that amounts to $200 billion per year. Compared to the trillion-dollar bailout of banking interests on Wall Street and the trillion-dollar war in Iraq and the continuing hemorrhaging of the auto industry, this is a reasonable amount.
The real reason there are such vehement arguments over public options versus private plans does not involve which is superior but which approach has the most to lose. Large corporations, whether HMOs or pharmaceuticals, are intent on creating indecision and doubt in the minds of many Americans concerning universal health care. Most medical professionals, including the 3 million-member American Nursing Association and the American Medical Association, have endorsed health care plans with public options. But with all the lobbying taking place by corporate interests there is a real danger that the public option will be removed. This would be a major setback for both working and unemployed Americans. At this moment 14,000 people per day are losing their health care because of the current downturn in the economy.
Democracy cannot long survive if the gaps between rich and poor continue to increase and continue shifting us toward a small wealthy minority and a disappearing middle class. Health care is the largest cause of bankruptcy among the elderly. It bleeds and depletes the resources of families even when one person suffers a serious accident or illness. Although we pay twice the amount per capita as do other developed countries, the results are that we are less healthy. Let us support a public option based on the common good.
Hugh Curran of Surry is an adjunct professor in peace studies at the University of Maine. He previously was the director of a Down East homeless shelter.
Kal Alvar replied: "well, i am Canadian and would indeed hate to live in America for one main fact, the health care.
i have talked to my friends about this in the past and they all agree it is a barbaric way of living. America should, 1. send their troops back, i think over 4000 have already died, for something called OIL! I understand its uses and importance in the modern world, but get it from somewhere else.
then with more money to spend at their disposal, they can create a better health care organization and stop having so much suffering because of it.
You are right in your opinions or facts, it needs to change."
Angus G replied: "I agree with him 100%. Once hospitals and the whole health care industry became a "for-profit organization" the whole system went down the tubes. Healing the sick, taking CARE of people was once what nurses became nurses for, it was spending most of their shifts filling out forms that drove them out of the industry. Health care is a disgrace. Corporate greed has stalled this mess for decades now and it's about time someone steps up and takes charge and says, "ENOUGH!""
guru replied: "The rest of us can sit back and watch the US deteriorate even further into a society of the haves and have nots.
Civil strife leads to civil war.
The French Revolution that led to the creation of the US and democracy also started when the poverty-stricken of France overthrew their ruling class.
The "culture war" of the US is just a polite term for the growing trend towards a civil war when the poor will retaliate against the wealthy."
Please read this article that I found and argue your side. Please help to clarify this CONFUSING matter!? For-profit health care hurts those who need it most by Hugh Curran
There is much debate about health care yet little consideration for the ethical implications, especially the appropriateness of profit motives in the health care industry.
Americans do not seek to make a profit from education (kindergarten to grade 12), fire or police departments, yet people seriously listen to industry lobbyists who believe this to be a right in health care.
The philosopher Martin Buber defined evil as resulting from indecision. Where health care is involved there is a good deal of indecision, but this indecision is largely the result of disinformation by those who profit from health care.
If we begin with the understanding that the health of the whole country contributes to the health of each of us, we can ask if private interests, wishing to maximize profit, should be the arbiters of the public good. They are investor-owned businesses that design health care systems that benefit their investors. From recent polls we know that two-thirds of the public would prefer a system with a public option. More than 60 percent of physicians wish for such a system. Unlike the propaganda of corporate representatives, a public option in health care would provide free choice of physicians for the patient.
Lobbyists shamelessly portray the Canadian system in a negative light although I have yet to meet a Canadian who would be willing to adopt the American model. In fact, no country that has a public option would change to the American model for the simple reason that they know that a health care system based on profits would deny insurance to those who are most in need.
According to the World Health Organization, the U.S. ranks low in two of three main categories associated with health care: preventive care and cost of care. It is true that in a couple of categories the U.S. excels, such as surgery and medical technology, but there are many other criteria for good health, especially in the area of preventive medicine.
In France, whose general health care system is highly regarded throughout the world, providers satisfy the three categories: They provide easier access to medical facilities; life spans are longer; there is lower child mortality, and there is guaranteed health care from cradle to grave financed through tax revenues. The governments role is to make sure that the whole population has access to care. It protects patients rights, helps to work out policy and is the responsible party where health safety is concerned. Despite this, it is not a single payer.
America now pays out 17 percent of its gross national product on health while France, Canada and England pay less than 10 percent. The trillion-dollar additional cost that has been under discussion in Congress is based on a 10-year cycle that amounts to $200 billion per year. Compared to the trillion-dollar bailout of banking interests on Wall Street and the trillion-dollar war in Iraq and the continuing hemorrhaging of the auto industry, this is a reasonable amount.
The real reason there are such vehement arguments over public options versus private plans does not involve which is superior but which approach has the most to lose. Large corporations, whether HMOs or pharmaceuticals, are intent on creating indecision and doubt in the minds of many Americans concerning universal health care. Most medical professionals, including the 3 million-member American Nursing Association and the American Medical Association, have endorsed health care plans with public options. But with all the lobbying taking place by corporate interests there is a real danger that the public option will be removed. This would be a major setback for both working and unemployed Americans. At this moment 14,000 people per day are losing their health care because of the current downturn in the economy.
Democracy cannot long survive if the gaps between rich and poor continue to increase and continue shifting us toward a small wealthy minority and a disappearing middle class. Health care is the largest cause of bankruptcy among the elderly. It bleeds and depletes the resources of families even when one person suffers a serious accident or illness. Although we pay twice the amount per capita as do other developed countries, the results are that we are less healthy. Let us support a public option based on the common good.
Hugh Curran of Surry is an adjunct professor in peace studies at the University of Maine. He previously was the director of a Down East homeless shelter.
forrestfyre replied: "it was written by an american and as such cannot be held up as an 'article'
once americans learn to speak and write english you may have an answer.
until then it'll be the same nonsense that you have heard since 1776.
self-evident truths.
i don't think so."
rare2findd replied: "~
Much of what the writer says is very true.
The most important consideration ~~ at least as far as the health care providers are considered ~~ is "Profit"
Health care to those who have invested in such is a "business"
They don't' really care about a person's health.
It's all based on who winds up with the potful of money.
Read the article again.
It's called 'greed'~~~ and
He makes good sense."
Did you know the public option can help us all? By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR, Associated Press Writer Ricardo Alonso-zaldivar, Associated Press Writer Sat Aug 22, 9:45 am ET
WASHINGTON One of the most widely accepted arguments against a government medical plan for the middle class is that it would quash competition just what private insurers seem to be doing themselves in many parts of the U.S.
Several studies show that in lots of places, one or two companies dominate the market. Critics say monopolistic conditions drive up premiums paid by employers and individuals.
For Democrats, the answer is a public plan that would compete with private insurers. Republicans see that as a government power grab. President Barack Obama looks to be trapped in the middle of an argument that could sink his effort to overhaul the health care system.
Even lawmakers opposed to a government plan have problems with the growing clout of the big private companies.
"There is a serious problem with the lack of competition among insurers," said Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine, one of the highest-cost states. "The impact on the consumer is significant."
Wellpoint Inc. accounted for 71 percent of the Maine market, while runner-up Aetna had a 12 percent share, according to a 2008 report by the American Medical Association.
Proponents of a government plan say it could restore a competitive balance and lead to lower costs. For one thing, it wouldn't have to turn a profit.
A study by the Urban Institute public policy center estimated that a public plan could save taxpayers from $224 billion to $400 billion over 10 years by lowering the cost of proposed subsidies for the uninsured, while preserving private coverage for most people.
"Right now, there's no incentive for insurers or big hospital groups to negotiate with each other, because they can pass higher payments on through premiums," said economist Linda Blumberg, co-author of the report. "A public plan would have the leverage to set lower payment rates and get providers to participate at those rates."
"The private plans would come back to the providers and say, 'If you don't negotiate with me, you're going to be left with only the public plan.'" Blumberg continued. "Suddenly, you have a very strong economic incentive for them to negotiate."
Insurers contend their industry is extremely competitive, and a public plan is unnecessary. About 1,300 carriers operate across the country, although many only have a small share of the market in their states.
"You can have a very competitive market and still have companies with a high market share," said Alissa Fox, a top Washington lobbyist for the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association.
Fox points to the federal employee health program, which also covers members of Congress. It offers a total of more than 260 options and 10 nationwide plans. Despite all the choices, about 60 percent of federal workers pick a Blue Cross plan.
"Insurers need to be of a significant size to best serve their customers and make sure that people get the best value," Fox said.
Nonetheless, lawmakers are concerned. Big insurers are getting bigger. Small businesses in particular have fewer and fewer options for getting coverage.
Congressional investigators this year looked at insurers catering to small employers around the country. The Government Accountability Office found that the median _or midpoint market share of largest carrier increased to 47 percent in 2008 from 33 percent in 2002.
There's widespread recognition among lawmakers that a health care overhaul should foster more competition among insurers. The debate is over how far to go.
The basic framework lawmakers are looking at would encourage competition, even without a government plan. It calls for setting up a big insurance purchasing pool called an exchange. It would be open, at least initially, to individuals and small businesses. The government would offer subsidies to make premiums more affordable.
Consumers would find it much easier to shop for a plan through the exchange. For one thing, they would be able to readily compare benefits and premiums in different plans. Also, participating insurers would have to take all applicants and not charge higher premiums to those in poor health.
Offering the option of a public plan would supercharge the competition, supporters say.
Blumberg envisions a plan that pays medical providers more than Medicare, but less than private insurance. Her study estimated it could grow to 47 million members, leaving 161 million with private insurance. Even so, that would make the new public plan one of the largest insurers in the country, rivaling Medicare, Medicaid and big private companies such as Wellpoint and UnitedHealthcare.
It's a scenario that gives pause even to traditional adversaries of the insurance companies.
"The fear and concern is that the public plan could become the market-dominant plan," said Dr. James Rohack, president of the America
amazin'g replied: "Bullshi%"
Libs should car pool with Ted K replied: "if you believe it is good then move to a country where the government provides you with everything you need and tells you everything you can and can not do.
This though is America. land of the free. in this country I have the right to work, pay my bills and hopefully become successful.
I also have the right to not pay your bills."
racingdiego@sbcglobal.net replied: "The only thing that can help healthcare is ending the Total Medical Insurance fraud. Since a bulk of these politicians are all a buncha TRIAL-AMBULANCE CHASER lawyers and make their money off of these frivolous law suits.....
ANd the media is totally IGNORING this fact the past 30 years or so. THe Republicans have been BLOCKED constatnly in ending these practices. But lawyers stick together!
Make your own judgment of that."
It's That Guy replied: "The Republicans make two ions to the public option:
1 is that government can't do anything right and the public option will be unworkable and mismanaged and nobody will want it.
2 is that it will be cheaper so it will put insurance companies out of business.
These can't both be true, can they? The insurance companies are funding both sides in this argument. Neither side can do anything that might hurt their profits and their control over our health care.
But I see the public option as a win-win. If it's mismanaged and nobody likes it, it will die a natural death and people leave for commercial insurance. If it does work and provides cheaper health care, it will lead the insurance companies to lower their prices and accept a more reasonable profit margin. Or to go out of business and give us all the Single Payer system we wanted all along (60-70% of Americans prefer a single payer plan in poll after poll).
What's likely to happen is that all the people the insurance companies turn down will go for the public option. People with pre-existing conditions. The insurance companies don't want to insure them anyway. In fact the only reason we have Medicare/Medicaid in the first place is that the insurance companies didn't want to be bothered with the elderly, the poor, and the chronically ill. So we ALL pay for their care. But Medicare provides as good or better service, same outcomes, and BETTER customer satisfaction. If we just expanded it to cover everyone, we'd save hundreds of billions of dollars every year."
mayna_smo_mry replied: "poor sweet sheep. and you think this is really going to happen.
this plan will only help the big union bosses. forget all that hallybooloabout health care.someone is feeding you bs as always you fall for it. and if this health care scam passes there will not be an option. Barry will manage to get rid of private insurance and private drs."
Drayak replied: "Funny, how someone without a valid comment uses someone elses worthless commentary. Sad. But I expect nothing less from the left."
Mabelline replied: "What you talkin bout willis? LOL JK! I see you changed your avatar. I don't think its a question of whether it will help us-most of us know that, its a matter of getting the facts of the matter out to people who don't understand. Which you have given. However, there will always be those who choose not to acknowledge it because they simply refuse to agree with anything Obama does. Oh well, their lost."
What to do if you're pregnant and uninsured? My 20-something daughter, living in Maine, has just found out that she's pregnant, but neither she nor her partner who is British, has health insurance. she owns her own new small business, but is up to her eyeballs in debt at the moment, so I wondered if anyone had any helpful suggestions as to what she could do for some kind of insurance coverage to get her through her pregnancy, short of heading to England, Canada, France or Cuba...... Thanks for any help!
Please read this article that I found and argue your side. Does this guy have it right? For-profit health care hurts those who need it most by Hugh Curran
There is much debate about health care yet little consideration for the ethical implications, especially the appropriateness of profit motives in the health care industry.
Americans do not seek to make a profit from education (kindergarten to grade 12), fire or police departments, yet people seriously listen to industry lobbyists who believe this to be a right in health care.
The philosopher Martin Buber defined evil as resulting from indecision. Where health care is involved there is a good deal of indecision, but this indecision is largely the result of disinformation by those who profit from health care.
If we begin with the understanding that the health of the whole country contributes to the health of each of us, we can ask if private interests, wishing to maximize profit, should be the arbiters of the public good. They are investor-owned businesses that design health care systems that benefit their investors. From recent polls we know that two-thirds of the public would prefer a system with a public option. More than 60 percent of physicians wish for such a system. Unlike the propaganda of corporate representatives, a public option in health care would provide free choice of physicians for the patient.
Lobbyists shamelessly portray the Canadian system in a negative light although I have yet to meet a Canadian who would be willing to adopt the American model. In fact, no country that has a public option would change to the American model for the simple reason that they know that a health care system based on profits would deny insurance to those who are most in need.
According to the World Health Organization, the U.S. ranks low in two of three main categories associated with health care: preventive care and cost of care. It is true that in a couple of categories the U.S. excels, such as surgery and medical technology, but there are many other criteria for good health, especially in the area of preventive medicine.
In France, whose general health care system is highly regarded throughout the world, providers satisfy the three categories: They provide easier access to medical facilities; life spans are longer; there is lower child mortality, and there is guaranteed health care from cradle to grave financed through tax revenues. The governments role is to make sure that the whole population has access to care. It protects patients rights, helps to work out policy and is the responsible party where health safety is concerned. Despite this, it is not a single payer.
America now pays out 17 percent of its gross national product on health while France, Canada and England pay less than 10 percent. The trillion-dollar additional cost that has been under discussion in Congress is based on a 10-year cycle that amounts to $200 billion per year. Compared to the trillion-dollar bailout of banking interests on Wall Street and the trillion-dollar war in Iraq and the continuing hemorrhaging of the auto industry, this is a reasonable amount.
The real reason there are such vehement arguments over public options versus private plans does not involve which is superior but which approach has the most to lose. Large corporations, whether HMOs or pharmaceuticals, are intent on creating indecision and doubt in the minds of many Americans concerning universal health care. Most medical professionals, including the 3 million-member American Nursing Association and the American Medical Association, have endorsed health care plans with public options. But with all the lobbying taking place by corporate interests there is a real danger that the public option will be removed. This would be a major setback for both working and unemployed Americans. At this moment 14,000 people per day are losing their health care because of the current downturn in the economy.
Democracy cannot long survive if the gaps between rich and poor continue to increase and continue shifting us toward a small wealthy minority and a disappearing middle class. Health care is the largest cause of bankruptcy among the elderly. It bleeds and depletes the resources of families even when one person suffers a serious accident or illness. Although we pay twice the amount per capita as do other developed countries, the results are that we are less healthy. Let us support a public option based on the common good.
Hugh Curran of Surry is an adjunct professor in peace studies at the University of Maine. He previously was the director of a Down East homeless shelter.
Little clev replied: "Not this article again."
livin life replied: "I have been for public health care options for many years, and as it stands now I can not get health care coverage due to total knee surgury and previous conditions. My work, a small privatly owned enterprise cannot afford group coverage either..its like over $1000 A MONTH PER EMPLOYEE. I have seen how well the system works in the UK and elsewhere and would love to see it here.
What I to, since this causes insurance companies to charge more, is the people who rush to the ER everytime they or their kids get a sniffle or a hang nail. It cost all of us the big bucks.
We know the system now is all about profits for the shareholders,we now need to make it about health care and preventative medicine."
Please read this article that I found and argue your side. Does this guy have it right? For-profit health care hurts those who need it most by Hugh Curran
There is much debate about health care yet little consideration for the ethical implications, especially the appropriateness of profit motives in the health care industry.
Americans do not seek to make a profit from education (kindergarten to grade 12), fire or police departments, yet people seriously listen to industry lobbyists who believe this to be a right in health care.
The philosopher Martin Buber defined evil as resulting from indecision. Where health care is involved there is a good deal of indecision, but this indecision is largely the result of disinformation by those who profit from health care.
If we begin with the understanding that the health of the whole country contributes to the health of each of us, we can ask if private interests, wishing to maximize profit, should be the arbiters of the public good. They are investor-owned businesses that design health care systems that benefit their investors. From recent polls we know that two-thirds of the public would prefer a system with a public option. More than 60 percent of physicians wish for such a system. Unlike the propaganda of corporate representatives, a public option in health care would provide free choice of physicians for the patient.
Lobbyists shamelessly portray the Canadian system in a negative light although I have yet to meet a Canadian who would be willing to adopt the American model. In fact, no country that has a public option would change to the American model for the simple reason that they know that a health care system based on profits would deny insurance to those who are most in need.
According to the World Health Organization, the U.S. ranks low in two of three main categories associated with health care: preventive care and cost of care. It is true that in a couple of categories the U.S. excels, such as surgery and medical technology, but there are many other criteria for good health, especially in the area of preventive medicine.
In France, whose general health care system is highly regarded throughout the world, providers satisfy the three categories: They provide easier access to medical facilities; life spans are longer; there is lower child mortality, and there is guaranteed health care from cradle to grave financed through tax revenues. The governments role is to make sure that the whole population has access to care. It protects patients rights, helps to work out policy and is the responsible party where health safety is concerned. Despite this, it is not a single payer.
America now pays out 17 percent of its gross national product on health while France, Canada and England pay less than 10 percent. The trillion-dollar additional cost that has been under discussion in Congress is based on a 10-year cycle that amounts to $200 billion per year. Compared to the trillion-dollar bailout of banking interests on Wall Street and the trillion-dollar war in Iraq and the continuing hemorrhaging of the auto industry, this is a reasonable amount.
The real reason there are such vehement arguments over public options versus private plans does not involve which is superior but which approach has the most to lose. Large corporations, whether HMOs or pharmaceuticals, are intent on creating indecision and doubt in the minds of many Americans concerning universal health care. Most medical professionals, including the 3 million-member American Nursing Association and the American Medical Association, have endorsed health care plans with public options. But with all the lobbying taking place by corporate interests there is a real danger that the public option will be removed. This would be a major setback for both working and unemployed Americans. At this moment 14,000 people per day are losing their health care because of the current downturn in the economy.
Democracy cannot long survive if the gaps between rich and poor continue to increase and continue shifting us toward a small wealthy minority and a disappearing middle class. Health care is the largest cause of bankruptcy among the elderly. It bleeds and depletes the resources of families even when one person suffers a serious accident or illness. Although we pay twice the amount per capita as do other developed countries, the results are that we are less healthy. Let us support a public option based on the common good.
Hugh Curran of Surry is an adjunct professor in peace studies at the University of Maine. He previously was the director of a Down East homeless shelter.
P X replied: "Very easy: he's wrong. People like this embrace but never admit to their desire to see confiscatory redistribution of all income in this country. This is just his wet dream to nationalize 15% of the economy."
Please read this article that I found and argue your side. Does this guy have it right? For-profit health care hurts those who need it most by Hugh Curran
There is much debate about health care yet little consideration for the ethical implications, especially the appropriateness of profit motives in the health care industry.
Americans do not seek to make a profit from education (kindergarten to grade 12), fire or police departments, yet people seriously listen to industry lobbyists who believe this to be a right in health care.
The philosopher Martin Buber defined evil as resulting from indecision. Where health care is involved there is a good deal of indecision, but this indecision is largely the result of disinformation by those who profit from health care.
If we begin with the understanding that the health of the whole country contributes to the health of each of us, we can ask if private interests, wishing to maximize profit, should be the arbiters of the public good. They are investor-owned businesses that design health care systems that benefit their investors. From recent polls we know that two-thirds of the public would prefer a system with a public option. More than 60 percent of physicians wish for such a system. Unlike the propaganda of corporate representatives, a public option in health care would provide free choice of physicians for the patient.
Lobbyists shamelessly portray the Canadian system in a negative light although I have yet to meet a Canadian who would be willing to adopt the American model. In fact, no country that has a public option would change to the American model for the simple reason that they know that a health care system based on profits would deny insurance to those who are most in need.
According to the World Health Organization, the U.S. ranks low in two of three main categories associated with health care: preventive care and cost of care. It is true that in a couple of categories the U.S. excels, such as surgery and medical technology, but there are many other criteria for good health, especially in the area of preventive medicine.
In France, whose general health care system is highly regarded throughout the world, providers satisfy the three categories: They provide easier access to medical facilities; life spans are longer; there is lower child mortality, and there is guaranteed health care from cradle to grave financed through tax revenues. The governments role is to make sure that the whole population has access to care. It protects patients rights, helps to work out policy and is the responsible party where health safety is concerned. Despite this, it is not a single payer.
America now pays out 17 percent of its gross national product on health while France, Canada and England pay less than 10 percent. The trillion-dollar additional cost that has been under discussion in Congress is based on a 10-year cycle that amounts to $200 billion per year. Compared to the trillion-dollar bailout of banking interests on Wall Street and the trillion-dollar war in Iraq and the continuing hemorrhaging of the auto industry, this is a reasonable amount.
The real reason there are such vehement arguments over public options versus private plans does not involve which is superior but which approach has the most to lose. Large corporations, whether HMOs or pharmaceuticals, are intent on creating indecision and doubt in the minds of many Americans concerning universal health care. Most medical professionals, including the 3 million-member American Nursing Association and the American Medical Association, have endorsed health care plans with public options. But with all the lobbying taking place by corporate interests there is a real danger that the public option will be removed. This would be a major setback for both working and unemployed Americans. At this moment 14,000 people per day are losing their health care because of the current downturn in the economy.
Democracy cannot long survive if the gaps between rich and poor continue to increase and continue shifting us toward a small wealthy minority and a disappearing middle class. Health care is the largest cause of bankruptcy among the elderly. It bleeds and depletes the resources of families even when one person suffers a serious accident or illness. Although we pay twice the amount per capita as do other developed countries, the results are that we are less healthy. Let us support a public option based on the common good.
Hugh Curran of Surry is an adjunct professor in peace studies at the University of Maine. He previously was the director of a Down East homeless shelter.
Please read this article that I found and argue your side. Does this guy have it right? For-profit health care hurts those who need it most by Hugh Curran
There is much debate about health care yet little consideration for the ethical implications, especially the appropriateness of profit motives in the health care industry.
Americans do not seek to make a profit from education (kindergarten to grade 12), fire or police departments, yet people seriously listen to industry lobbyists who believe this to be a right in health care.
The philosopher Martin Buber defined evil as resulting from indecision. Where health care is involved there is a good deal of indecision, but this indecision is largely the result of disinformation by those who profit from health care.
If we begin with the understanding that the health of the whole country contributes to the health of each of us, we can ask if private interests, wishing to maximize profit, should be the arbiters of the public good. They are investor-owned businesses that design health care systems that benefit their investors. From recent polls we know that two-thirds of the public would prefer a system with a public option. More than 60 percent of physicians wish for such a system. Unlike the propaganda of corporate representatives, a public option in health care would provide free choice of physicians for the patient.
Lobbyists shamelessly portray the Canadian system in a negative light although I have yet to meet a Canadian who would be willing to adopt the American model. In fact, no country that has a public option would change to the American model for the simple reason that they know that a health care system based on profits would deny insurance to those who are most in need.
According to the World Health Organization, the U.S. ranks low in two of three main categories associated with health care: preventive care and cost of care. It is true that in a couple of categories the U.S. excels, such as surgery and medical technology, but there are many other criteria for good health, especially in the area of preventive medicine.
In France, whose general health care system is highly regarded throughout the world, providers satisfy the three categories: They provide easier access to medical facilities; life spans are longer; there is lower child mortality, and there is guaranteed health care from cradle to grave financed through tax revenues. The governments role is to make sure that the whole population has access to care. It protects patients rights, helps to work out policy and is the responsible party where health safety is concerned. Despite this, it is not a single payer.
America now pays out 17 percent of its gross national product on health while France, Canada and England pay less than 10 percent. The trillion-dollar additional cost that has been under discussion in Congress is based on a 10-year cycle that amounts to $200 billion per year. Compared to the trillion-dollar bailout of banking interests on Wall Street and the trillion-dollar war in Iraq and the continuing hemorrhaging of the auto industry, this is a reasonable amount.
The real reason there are such vehement arguments over public options versus private plans does not involve which is superior but which approach has the most to lose. Large corporations, whether HMOs or pharmaceuticals, are intent on creating indecision and doubt in the minds of many Americans concerning universal health care. Most medical professionals, including the 3 million-member American Nursing Association and the American Medical Association, have endorsed health care plans with public options. But with all the lobbying taking place by corporate interests there is a real danger that the public option will be removed. This would be a major setback for both working and unemployed Americans. At this moment 14,000 people per day are losing their health care because of the current downturn in the economy.
Democracy cannot long survive if the gaps between rich and poor continue to increase and continue shifting us toward a small wealthy minority and a disappearing middle class. Health care is the largest cause of bankruptcy among the elderly. It bleeds and depletes the resources of families even when one person suffers a serious accident or illness. Although we pay twice the amount per capita as do other developed countries, the results are that we are less healthy. Let us support a public option based on the common good.
Hugh Curran of Surry is an adjunct professor in peace studies at the University of Maine. He previously was the director of a Down East homeless shelter.
More Resources
More in Tags
business health insurance maine small, car insurance list usaa insurnace, 4 magee payday loan 6, community care oklahoma health insurance, auto loans in phoenix arizona banks, home improvement remodeling michigan
Business Health Insurance Maine Small © 2009
Report Abuse to: abuse(at)5webs.net