Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Even if there is UHC...there would STILL have to be healthcare reform...RIGHT?

I mean this may sound simplistic, but the problem isn't always paying for it, it's that it costs SO much. Meds and procedures cost TOO much. SO if the gov't takes over (omg, please no) what does that fix? The costs will still be higher then they should be, the only diffrence is we will ALL be paying TOO much and then there is no incentives for hem to lower prices...I mean, the gov't will just pay it right?


Asked by Anonymous at 1:04 PM on Aug. 11, 2009 in Politics & Current Events

This question is closed.
Answers (7)
  • You bet - because they are not addressing - in the current proposals from the Democrats - the HUGE problem of the lawsuit "industry" which has driven up the cost of malpractice insurance for both hospitals and doctors. It IS possible to bring common sense into the rules so as to prevent such a large number of frivolous lawsuits - frivolous, but still expensive, and the doctor is still forced to pay lawyer fees, and the frivolous suit usually gets lots of money even for someone who hasn't a leg to stand on because a $10 grand settlement will be less costly than a court case which the doctor would probably win.

    Note: We ALREADY HAVE gov't-run programs as demonstrations to show how UHC will work. The Indian reservation health care, and the Veterans' Administration health care. Let's require the gov't to prove they can fix those much smaller programs before we turn the entire country over to them !!

    Answer by waldorfmom at 1:12 PM on Aug. 11, 2009

  • no UHC has been proposed.

    Answer by Anonymous at 1:05 PM on Aug. 11, 2009

  • We need tort reform that alone would cut costs for most doctors and allow malpractice insurance costs to come down. That is not in the bill because this is not about reform it is about taking over the system. I need to find the video from a few years back when Obama talks about how we need a single payer system and his plan to get one if he is President. That is the goal. Control over the masses. If this was about reform there would be tort reform and they would be figuring out how to help those without care instead of blowing up what works for most.

    Answer by Anonymous at 1:12 PM on Aug. 11, 2009

  • why don't the try out this great plan in California the biggest spender state!

    Answer by 2mothershelpers at 1:16 PM on Aug. 11, 2009

  • What I don't understand (the way Obama and Co are spinning it as of today), is if they need to make budget cuts to Medicare, just do it (and deal with the fall out)!!! Why do you need 1000+ page bill to make budget cuts?!

    Answer: because they want total control?!?

    Why isn't there a bill JUST for private insurance companies to abide by? Where is tort reform?

    Answer by LoriKeet at 1:49 PM on Aug. 11, 2009

  • "why don't the try out this great plan in California the biggest spender state!"

    To whch great plan do you refer, 2mothers? I'm not familiar with it.

    Answer by gdiamante at 1:50 PM on Aug. 11, 2009

  • This plan is being modeled after Massachusetts' state run plan--you KNOW because of Kennedy!

    It IS a failure, it COSTS the most--compared to other state run plans, and they have the LOBGEST wait times!!

    Yet, Massachusetts is a TINY state comparatively speaking!!!

    Answer by LoriKeet at 2:06 PM on Aug. 11, 2009