Quote:
|
Thanks, I don't think I missed anything of relevance, I certainly didn't cherrypick.
|
Obviously, I feel you did.
Quote:
Personally, I don't believe letting the insurance lobbyists
have so much control over this was the right solution.
Healthcare for all, NOT insurance insurance for all, is the only viable solution.
The only way I see that happening and costing less is to not have
insurance companies as they now exist, and even more so
- to NOT allow the providers and suppliers to name whatever price they want.
|
Wouldn't that be an attack on capitalism and physicians' way of life ?
I thought I was the only closeted socialist on this forum
It's funny... but not really... that for some it's never quite good enough,
or it was not done the right way, or it is not the right time to do it.
The
only governmental program that I know of that even
comes close to meeting such criteria is the "Do Not Call" list.
More seriously, the main reason I posted this article is that Oregon
has progressively amended this State's Medicare funding to cover
heterogeneous populations, to bring about better physical and mental health outcomes.
Health insurance coverage for
all children was the first step.
Unfortunately there are not sufficient funds in the State's Medicare pot
to cover everyone, so the lottery was implemented.
It now serves yet another purpose of research studies
The warm and fuzzy social outcomes, such as families not having bills
turned over to collection agencies or not being evicted for non-payment of rent
have hidden costs that do not get into the spread sheets, but they are real for the families.
With time and research, I believe these benefits will become part of the "economic equation"