[Masthead] Mostly Cloudy ~ 50°F  
High: 68°F ~ Low: 48°F
Wednesday, Jan. 18, 2017

Healthy debate over presidency

Posted Tuesday, November 27, 2007, at 6:37 AM

I've been watching the presidential candidates' "sales pitches" closely and have no idea yet who I'm for in the primaries. No one's message seems to stand out, even though the front-runners are becoming obvious.

But talk over the weekend seemed to turn toward proposals concerning universal health insurance for lower-income people.

Anyone who watches politics knows Hillary R. Clinton's views. She thinks Americans should be forced to buy their own coverage. Democratic opponent Barack Obama insists Clinton will "fine" those who don't pay up. Clinton counters that her plan covers all people and Obama's doesn't.

As I understand it, Republican Mitt Romney, while governor of Massachusetts, forced the uninsured to buy insurance or give up a state-subsidized tax credit given low-income residents. Rudy Guiliani is against "mandated" health insurance.

I'll admit I haven't paid a lot of attention to candidates' health care positions since I have health insurance through my job. And, from debate statements to campaign web site profiles, I'm not sure what's truth and what's just ever-changing positions based on which special interest group a candidate's pandering to at any given moment.

Thoughts on candidates' health -- and other -- ideas, y'all?

Showing comments in chronological order
[Show most recent comments first]

For us, health insurance is a love/hate relationship. It is a constant battle to stay on top of and they deny the smallest item, while charging high rates, but without it I might be paralyzed from the waist down now or have died from one of my four heart attacks.

My Canadian friends and associates do not seem to like their state funded program. Their taxes are high and they feel like they get second-rate health care.

I guess I would rather pay high insurance rates than to put the money into high taxes where I don't trust the politicians to use it as they should.

-- Posted by stevemills on Tue, Nov 27, 2007, at 7:24 AM

What the government should be focusing on is high medical costs and insurance fraud that is running rampant in this nation. If they would stop that then that would help lower premiums for everyone and more people could afford it. Also, I went to the doctor the other day and was charged $100 just for me to talk to a PA (not even the doctor) for a whole 2 minutes and pretty much had to diagnose myself. I don't see how that can be worth $100? I think they charge that high amount because they knew the insurance would cover it and especially when they listed it as an emergency visit when it wasn't.

-- Posted by jaxspike on Tue, Nov 27, 2007, at 8:32 AM

Exactly... Insurance fraud is a plague of this nation. What do you know, those same companies usually discuss drug prices and coverages.. It's no wonder those are two of some of the most influential lobbyists on Capitol Hill.

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Tue, Dec 4, 2007, at 3:42 PM

Health coverage is abysmal compared to just a few years ago.

Competent,caring professionals who try to maintain certain standards are thwarted at every turn and feel apalled and helpless in the face of the dangerous deterioration of medicine today.

People aren't getting enough education in how the system works or how to look after their own well-being.

Who has the time or inclination to insure that an adequate patient history as been taken?

Who sees that the patient understands the doctor's instructions and is able to comply?

Who insures that the right diet,meds,therapy and equipment are supplied and utilized?

When people don't get wellness services,don't have daycare for sick children (or a way to stay home and care for them),don't have the luxury of staying off work to recover from illness or injury and don't get the necessary rehabilitation for war wounds,job injuries,birth defects,geriatric problems,etc. then the rest of us pay for tons of cure or loss of productivity when an ounce of prevention or amelioration could improve people's quality of life to an infinite degree.

As much as health issues have changed,it seems as if we could afford the efficient,humane treatment of our people that did exist a decade or so ago.

With the aging of America,the increase in diversity of our population,the ever-growing number of health risks from drug-resistant diseases,environmental hazards,biological attacks from evil-doers,etc.,we can't afford to be callous or lax in our health care.

The problem we ignore when our neighbor suffers can and will effect us as well.

We can either pay a few pennies to make sure that we have the care we need when cardio-vascular disease,slipped discs, cancer,depression,glaucoma,hearing loss,shingles or whatever threaten-or we can pay the much higher costs of losing our optimum quality of life and impairing the lives of those around us in the process.

Can we afford to have people in office who can't or won't aid and support the implementation of real solutions to the convoluted issues that confront us?

-- Posted by quantumcat on Tue, Dec 4, 2007, at 7:34 PM

Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration:

David Melson is a copy editor and staff writer for the Times-Gazette.