- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Gary Andres, Washington Times: Improvement of the U.S. health care system "requires several significant steps -- maybe not taken all at once -- and it demands more citizen education, consumer transparency, cost containment and personal responsibility, not just bigger government programs," Andres, vice chair of research and policy for Dutko Worldwide and a former White House senior lobbyist, writes in a Times opinion piece. According to Andres, presidential candidates "need to debate a broader menu of health care reforms beyond just how to cover the uninsured." He adds, "The real problem is health care costs -- a dimension of the issue" that likely Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) "emphasizes a lot more than do Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton." However, the "media's preoccupation with the universal coverage fight limits the dialogue," Andres writes (Andres, Washington Times, 2/28).
Deroy Murdock, Washington Times: "Before American voters embrace" health care proposals by Clinton or Obama, "they should consider the avoidable deaths that plague the mother of all state-run medical programs: Great Britain's big-government National Health Service," Murdock, a Scripps Howard columnist and a media fellow with the Hoover Institution, writes in a Times opinion piece. According to Murdock, the number of preventable deaths that occur in Britain "rebuff the notion that America's imperfect health care industry needs a booster shot of mandates and regulations." He concludes that "McCain's ideas -- among them, expanded health savings accounts; individually owned, portable health insurance policies available across state lines; and medical lawsuit reform -- are the antidote to the 'health care with a British accent' that Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama would import, unless American voters stop them" (Murdock, Washington Times, 2/28).
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I love it when anyone bring us the words "media preoccupation", bacause they decide what is more important for us to know. I don't know anything about Great Britian's National Health Service - but it doesn't sound good so far. Any new thoughts?
2 comments:
Just as "arguing" without facts is less than cool, so to is not disclosing completely your bias. The industry you work in (Home Health, right??) would be put out of business were we to have universal healthcare.
It's tough to be a consumer and and an employee in the home health business. But you gotta come clean about your bias! :)
Why would I be put out of business? It's only a single payer system, not a single provider system. I state my profession, but I can see the good and bad in both our current system and the single payer system some people believe is better. I won't say our current system is the best. I have seen many people in our community abused by it - unable to get insurance due to preexisting conditions, lifetime caps, given no choice in product use or how much product they need, which doctors they can see, contracts made for single providers. I am leery of all changes as a member of the hemophilia community.
Thank you for speaking your mind and allowing me to speak mine. There has to be a better way – we agree, right? I just don’t know if Canada’s way is the way for us. I’m for CHOICE, who wouldn’t be, bias or not.
Post a Comment