Healthcare Reform in the United States

The issue of Health Care Reform is dominating the media. Questions have been arising regarding whether or not the democratic party should pursue the Public Option piece of HR 3200. To many, this is the glue that holds the bill together. Some believe that without the Public Option very little could actually be done regarding holding insurance companies accountable for their rising premiums. Without the Public Option as a check to insurance companies nothing is stopping private insurance companies from raising their costs.

But the question is, what will happen if this bill does not pass? Is that the end of the possibility of health care reform?

United States News

Is this bill dead in the water with the Public Option? Or is the bill dead without it? Is this bill better without it? What about those without the means to pay for private insurance, isn't this the reason we are pursuing Health Care Reform? President Obama seemed to be teetering on this issue, but of late has said that he will not bend on this issue, that if he a bills comes to his desk without the Public Option he will veto it.

We have several Private and Public institutions that operate in competition with each other. Neither have gone out of business because of the other. Each institution markets to a specific demographic, which is the reason we have both systems. What is important to realize is that even if the public option remains in the bill it is not an available option for everyone. There is a cap on how much you make in order to get this option, which is why its important it remain in the bill. If you make a certain amount of money you have to still get insurance from a private company. Meaning, if you already have insurance the public option is not, well, an option for you. It isn't like you can opt out of the insurance you currently pay for and opt into the Public Option. Understand that in many respects it is like unemployment insurance.

This experience has only shown me that we need to be more informed, that our Representatives need to read the bills they are presented with, and we need to understand what they mean.he reality is, unless something is pushed, and hard, nothing gets passed of any substance.

If the healthcare system is changed or reformed, will Tort Reform become a moot point? Or will people be just as sue crazy as always. I was thinking a little bit more about the issue of Tort Reform and Health care. I really do wonder what and who would really gain from Tort Reform with the US Health care system. Generally speaking, if some really does have a legitimate claim against a doctor or Health care provider the individual should have the right to sue. But should there be a cap on how much a person can demand in damages?

Tort reform is a personal injury complaint. Medical Malpractice is a doctors biggest fear, and because of this, many times they will over test a patient in order to not get sued, but this practice will inflate the costs a patient will pay to the doctor. This is also a problem. Tort is how you correct a wrong, by getting compensation. Doctors have insurance policies to cover them if sued for malpractice. Its call malpractice insurance.

Simply, if you had a bad boob job, you could sue your doctor for damages. It is a civil case.

Going to the doctors office is sometimes like going to a buffet. You stand in line for how ever long and quickly go through the line picking what you want, no one really spending a lot of time looking at the quality of the food. This is how doctors treat their patients.

I guess I'm a little unsure why Obama is against Tort Reform. We know that doctors over charge, and conduct numerous tests to lower their chances of being sued by patients.

But who does Tort reform protect, the patient or the Doctor?

I would say that both need to be addressed. People need health insurance and we need reform. Why can't we have both if its cost effective?

On the one hand, if a doctor is less likely to be sued, their costs may go down. But, on the other hand, doctors are the professional and fear of retribution is not an excuse for conducting unnecessary tests on patients. A person can't bring a claim against someone unless they have legal standing, but to prove this issue money and lawyers will still be used.

Congress, as a whole, is its own downfall. There are so many bills, so many issues, so many committees, that nothing gets done.

I would hazard a guess that Obama, having been a member of Congress himself, understands that unless he is pushy, nothing he wants will get through.

Now, regarding the passage of the Cap'n Trade bill, how is that any different than the passage of the Patriot Act? Passed by way of pushing Congress to make a quick decision. The fact is, President Obama is not condoning debate on the Health care bill, he is in fact advocating it. And, whether something is televised on CSPAN or not, is, unfortunately, not something, I think he has control over. He was speaking to presidential transparency, and on this issue he is being very clear. (But, some things do need to remain confidential.)

Finally, let's remember who actually drafted these bills, while President Obama tells Congress what he wants, it is ultimately at the discretion of Congress how to draft these bills, not the president, which is why Obama supports the Senate version over the House's. But, for those of you who fear still the socialistic ideology or philosophy, remember, This isn't 1970, we need not fear the spread of communism, and neither do I believe Obama sees himself as a communist or socialist if you will purely because some may draw upon the Cuban health care system as a means of comparison.

Healthcare Reform in the United States