There is no shortage of Alabamians who dislike either or both of the health care reform bills approved by Congress. Governor Riley's unhappy, and Attorney General King is meeting with other Republican AG's to see if the special benefits awarded Nebraska to win Senator Ben Nelson's vote are a violation of the U.S. Constitution.
Now The NY Times reports, the states that have already expanded their Medicaid programs to cover a larger portion of their poor are complaining that they'll have to come up with the money to fund expansion in states like Alabama, which cover only a small portion of their poor with Medicaid.
It seems nobody is happy with it....the receivers like Alabama...or the givers like New York, The Times story quotes NY Governor David Patterson: “We are, in a sense, being punished for our own charity."
The Senate and House version of health care reform must be reconciled before a measure is sent to President Obama for his signature.
I am no fan of insurance, particularly health insurance.
ReplyDeleteSince HMOs, PPOs - insurance companies - have essentially taken over health care, costs have increased disporportionatelly to the cost of living or of inflation.
Why?
It makes no sense to pay someone (a middle man) to pay for your groceries, does it?
If that were to happen, don't you KNOW that your costs would increase, while perhaps the costs of the products themselves might remain relatively stable by comparison? That's because the middle man MUST be paid, and will charge for such services rendered. Eventually, once control is ceded to the middle man, it's all over but the crying.
That's what's happened in our nation with healthcare.
I agree.. this bill is a mish-mash of good and bad, and I dare say, while it makes humanitarian and philosophical good sense for our national security and economic well-being "to provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity," we cannot exclude our own health care.
Some have said that if Congress were to legislate that interstate prohibitions of health insurance sales must be eliminated, that would go a very long way toward significant reform. That, of course, would be in conjunction with prohibition of denial for "pre-existing conditions," and the mandate that insurance companies could not dump patients and must insure all applicants (rather than "cherry picking").
Face it... if competition is good - and it is - why do competitors NOT want competition?
Increasing Medicare eligibility and coverage is NOT about government delivery, but payment for services rendered.