Monday, September 20, 2004 - 01:00 PM
We should be focusing on educating the American public about learning to take care of themselves. That means healthy diets, vitamins, supplements, and a progressive approach to alternative health care.
Read more email response
I'm having a hard time relating this discussion to my real-life experience. A lot of uninsured people are not low-income as we usually think about it, they're middle-class people who are losing their retiree benefits or who have gone from employee-status to free-lance status and have lost their benefits in the process. How do either "plans" really address these issues?
In other industries like utilities, customer interactions and billing practices are highly standardized andd regulated. For every doctor's office there is at least one person (usually more) trying to get bills paid and dealing with inept billing companies. While the focus is on building a faster train, no one has considered that the tracks need to be updated as well. There is simply too much waste in the system... and it's a big opportunity to create jobs and improve service!
I wonder if the idea of high-deductable policies is flawed because such a high percentage of health care costs are generated by a small percentage of very sick people. If high deductable policies must cover those patients, then the money saved on routine healthcare paid out of pocket by the insured wouldn't be enough to seriously reduce costs to the insurer.
If today’s show said anything to me – I’m in for 30 days of agita. Lambrew and Wilensky have as much grip on our state of national health as the Mets do when it comes to evaluating talent.
While the Bush plan costs less, of what value is his plan if it does not provide health care for many of those who need it? A typical Bush plan, big talk but no real results.