Study identifies Kansans' health care system wants

I was once employed by physicians. The system is one that is implemented in government regulations, middlemen and insurance profiting from Americans. Doctors would be better off without all the paperwork, red-tape, etc. They need overall prices that they can count from carriers/government programs for each procedure and less cost for the actual administration in collecting fees and caring for their patients. I am for price containment procedures mandated by our government, with a panel in place that will study a valid plan and implement cost containment. We need a reasonable plan that will allow patients and doctors some relief from this present system and unfair financial headache.

is our current system faulty? yes!
do i want the government controlling what and which healthcare i am provided with or am allowed to have my children provided with? NO!
that's called socialism. america, last time i checked, isn't for that kind of thing. government medicine is a big no for me. i'd love to be on the panel to state my case as the opposing.

k in ks wrote:

is our current system faulty? yes!
do i want the government controlling what and which healthcare i am provided with or am allowed to have my children provided with? NO!
that's called socialism. america, last time i checked, isn't for that kind of thing. government medicine is a big no for me. i'd love to be on the panel to state my case as the opposing.

Please: I am not advocating the government telling people who they can see. It is amazing how much the government is already in the midst of all the healthcare services we receive. As far as I am concerned, there needs to be a well chosen governing body looking into the matter of our health system. Without some good direction, many people will be going without care and medicine. This is a reality!

Can mainstream America continue to afford the high cost of insurance premiums, the high cost of medicine, and the delays associated with insurance carriers and the direction of the carriers to doctors for services rendered? Our physicians need freedom to treat patients, these are the people on the front line, with the medical training. Lets help make their jobs easier, and protect our American rights by supporting new directives to curtail the outrageous amounts spent on middleman policies and limited medical care.

it's amazing how much the government is in the midst of everything, frankly. many people already go without care and medicine. many people get it without contributing anything at all...like those who don't pay taxes etc.. i am not a fan of the middleman or insurance companies at all, but the government controlling medicine isn't the answer either. there needs to be a better way, i agree with that much.

Do not be fooled by this great idea of government health care. Health care for all, is simply, as k in ks says, "socialism."
NOT INTERESTED. NO WAY. NO HOW.

Everyone has health care right now, wether they have. Corporate paid programs, privatley paid programs, and hospitals, that are not permitted by law, to deny medical help.

Anyone in this city can go to an emergency care provider and receive care.
Places like Childrens Mercy Hospital treat children all day long for minor and major illnesses, for families without health care.

I am very concerned about this upcomming presidential election.
I know Obama and Hillary both want National Health Care, and while I am not a great John McCain supporter, he will get my vote because I know he is not in favor of socialized medicine.

k in ks is right.

CKS wrote:

Our physicians need freedom to treat patients, these are the people on the front line, with the medical training.

They also need freedom from greedy group practices who require that they see a certain number of patients per day and pressure them if they spend too much time with patients.

Tom D wrote:

Everyone has health care right now, wether they have. Corporate paid programs, privatley paid programs, and hospitals, that are not permitted by law, to deny medical help.
Anyone in this city can go to an emergency care provider and receive care.

True only for certain types of care in certain situations.

Tom D wrote:

Do not be fooled by this great idea of government health care. Health care for all, is simply, as k in ks says, "socialism."
NOT INTERESTED. NO WAY. NO HOW.
Everyone has health care right now, wether they have. Corporate paid programs, privatley paid programs, and hospitals, that are not permitted by law, to deny medical help.
Anyone in this city can go to an emergency care provider and receive care.
Places like Childrens Mercy Hospital treat children all day long for minor and major illnesses, for families without health care.
I am very concerned about this upcomming presidential election.
I know Obama and Hillary both want National Health Care, and while I am not a great John McCain supporter, he will get my vote because I know he is not in favor of socialized medicine.
k in ks is right.

wow! we actually agree on a topic. it was bound to happen sooner or later.:)
it IS socialism.
you are right about children's mercy, too. they treat everyone!

no matter wrote:

<quoted text>
True only for certain types of care in certain situations.

elaborate please.

a face lift isn't going to be covered without insurance or liposuction...but aside from that?

Dear Mr. or Mrs. "no matter,"

Emergency Rooms are required, by federal law, to admit anyone. Treat first, bicker about money later, as it were. No matter what your financial situation, you WILL recieve care at a public facility's ER.

Here's where things get frustrating for me with our current system, though: Poor people who use the ER get covered by the state, which means the rest of us are paying for their healthcare anyway.

What I'd like to do is look at a cost comparison of what portion of my taxes covers that, versus what it would be under universal healthcare. I'm betting our current system is still more cost efficient, but it would be nice to know for sure.

Also, anyone with even a moderately decent professional job is provided with company insurance coverage. So really, under the current system it's the businesses that are being screwed by the high cost of healthcare... isn't that exactly what the Democrats want?(And I am assuming that CKS is indeed a Democrat.)

What I'm trying to say here, is that we have a system that works, that isn't a huge tax burden (what a relief for the impoverished!), and that corporations are covering for the most part. So why, oh why would any self respecting Democrat want to move to a different system?

-M Bartel

You will receive ER care - it is not free. It costs hospitals in providing services, pay employees and equipment maintenance. The costs involved in providing services to those who cannot pay is hard to absorb. The hospital does not get 100% welfare coverage for these services. Many times these institutions go in the hole financially in giving "free" care, or have to make it up from paying / insured customers. ER waits become difficult for people. needing medical care. Insurance corporations raise their premiums, the cost is passed to the employer who passes the cost to the employee. Everybody who is working pays the elevated costs for those who cannot pay. The taxes we pay for welfare only provide for a small percentage of the bill for indigent people. There are those that do not qualify for welfare services, that cannot pay and the disparity grows wider. Insurance companies and consumers assume more of the proportionate costs of what cannot be accounted for. In a time when there was inflation of medical costs, prices became high and have continued to grow higher for consumer(insured or not), for doctors / hospitals, providers of supplies, for all the inner workings of the medical system, down through the housekeeping sections of these facilities. I am not for socialism, I do believe in equitable social reform that protects American families. I am for all Americans being able to access health care and for cost containment. Yes, I am voting democratic this election. I hope that change in our democracy will bring about recovery for our health care system and that our government will begin cautiously and prudently looking at this situation. I beleive with all my heart that there needs to be some smart guidelines in pricing so that all Americans can manage to receive good continued medical care in a cost efficient manner with less cost to the consumer.

To CKS,

You wrote:
"I am not for socialism"

But you are voting democratic this year.

Uh, CKS, that is a vote for socialism. I hope you understand that.

you also wrote:
" I hope that change in our democracy will bring about recovery for our health care system and that our government will begin cautiously and prudently looking at this situation. I beleive with all my heart that there needs to be some smart guidelines in pricing so that all Americans can manage to receive good continued medical care in a cost efficient manner with less cost to the consumer."

You are either kidding or really naive.

The leadership of the deomocratic party are socialists. they have longed for socialized health care for decades.
There won't be any condiseration for prudence or caution on their part.
There won't be anything for Americans to manage because with socialized health care everything is managed by the government.
AND THAT ALWAYS LEADS TO FAILURE.

You need to think through what you desire for our nation and the american family.

I have thought this through, and I have had extensive experience in the health care arena. I believe in the American people, the American government by the people, and the ability of Americans to make positive change for the betterment of healthcare. I will continue to support better governing of our health care system. Government has been involved for sometime in developing medical care directives; and our nation needs some some new avenues developed that look out after all parties concerned.

To CKS,
What the hell kind of gibberish was that?

You wrote:
" I believe in the American people, the American government by the people, and the ability of Americans to make positive change for the
betterment of healthcare."

I agree with every word you wrote in that paragraph.
but I get the feeling you have absolutely no earthly idea what Socialized health care means.
It means the Federal Government will take over about 16% or 17% of our entire economy.

That will lead to disaster. The Fed can't manage anything correctly. Never has and never will.

Then you write:
"I will continue to support better governing of our health care system. Government has been involved for sometime in developing medical care directives; and our nation needs some some new avenues developed that look out after all parties concerned."

I have no idea what you are talking about, nor do I believe you know either.

Once the Democratics get their hands on the House of Reps, The Senate, and the Oval Office..........you better strap up and hold on for the ride, because it's going to be a rough one.

Socialized medicine is not the government developing medical care directives. It won't be better governing of our health care system.
IT'S A TOTAL TAKE OVER BY THE FED.

What are you referring to with this gobbledy-gook:
"and our nation needs some some new avenues developed that look out after all parties concerned."

You said in an earlier post:
"Please: I am not advocating the government telling people who they can see. It is amazing how much the government is already in the midst of all the healthcare services we receive."

CKS, that is precisely what will happen.
You will be told who you can see, and when you can see them.
And like the folks up in Canada it may be four months before you can have surgery for a life-threatening condition. That's what National Health Care is about.

CKS wrote:

I have thought this through, and I have had extensive experience in the health care arena. I believe in the American people, the American government by the people, and the ability of Americans to make positive change for the betterment of healthcare. I will continue to support better governing of our health care system. Government has been involved for sometime in developing medical care directives; and our nation needs some some new avenues developed that look out after all parties concerned.

what qualifies as "extensive experience in the health care arena"? do you work in healthcare? i'm curious.

I have expressed my belief and direction, given my working background and the knowledge in the industry. It is up to each of us to study the issues and make a decision as to what we feel is a correct approach to healthcare. This is what democracy is all about. I have made it a point to listen to what people in the industry are really saying and doing; and I always try to give credence where it is due and to leave behind the things that I know in my heart and mind are not correct. I trust that each of those who have read my comments will do the same.

CKS wrote:

I have expressed my belief and direction, given my working background and the knowledge in the industry. It is up to each of us to study the issues and make a decision as to what we feel is a correct approach to healthcare. This is what democracy is all about. I have made it a point to listen to what people in the industry are really saying and doing; and I always try to give credence where it is due and to leave behind the things that I know in my heart and mind are not correct. I trust that each of those who have read my comments will do the same.

you totally ignored my question. was that by design or an oversight?

[quote author=CKS]I have expressed my belief and direction, given my working background and the knowledge in the industry. It is up to each of us to study the issues and make a decision as to what we feel is a correct approach to healthcare.[/quote]

Vague and unsubstanciated claims to a knowledgable position, that he continues to cling to but not reveal, even after a point-blank request. I'd say he is intentionally avoiding your question.

Furthermore, he's attempting to bow out of the argument with dignity by playing the "everything is relative, our opinions are equal" card.

Basically he just conceded the whole argument.:-/

Dangit, now we have to wait for another happless socialist to bumble on into this pit of snakes!

Ahahaha, this place needs an edit post link that's accessible for 10 seconds after a post has been made.

Totally failed at that quote.