RutlandHerald.com - We Are Vermont

Headline contradiction



Toolbox

Published: July 4, 2009

Last week's Times Argus/Rutland Herald had two headlines on the front page. One suggesting that perhaps Vermont's health care system can be a model for the rest of the country and another pertaining to the shrinking pool of doctors practicing in the state. Was this an intentional joke? Then again, maybe it was intended to be. We can certainly bring down the cost of health care if we just get rid of those pesky price-gouging doctors.

RON FUSCO

Rutland








READER COMMENTS


I'm tired of seeing the false analogy between the government requiring motorist insurance and health insurance. the government requires car insurance IF you want to drive on public roads. If you choose not to drive (as many people do, though, I'll admit, not many in Vermont) or you drive on private property only, there is no government mandate forcing you to buy car insurance. In the case of health insurance it would be MANDATED by law for everyone. Period. I'm not sure whether I like the idea or not, as I can see lots of good arguments for or against, but please stop comparing it to car insurance.
-- Posted by bill johnson on Sun, Jul 5, 2009, 8:53 pm EST

report this comment


CF Reality, you're not the sharpest tack in the box, that's for sure.

Obama promised that no one would be forced into government health insurance, however under the Senate version of National Health Care, if you DON'T enroll in the government plan, opting instead to keep your private insurance, you will be punished with an annual $1,000 fine.

I typed this really slow, I hope you can keep up.

You asked, "Are you not the guy that thinks everyone should work and have their own insurance? I swore you said you think everyone should work, have their insurance, and not drain the community." No, that's not me.
-- Posted by Joe Bradley on Sun, Jul 5, 2009, 4:09 pm EST

report this comment


What's wrong with that Joe?

They are not saying you have to use "Their Plan".

It's saying... Everyone should have health insurance. Especially, those that can afford it. Just like motorist insurance. Which is LAW in Vermont. I guess I don't understand the problem.

Are you not the guy that thinks everyone should work and have their own insurance? I swore you said you think everyone should work, have their insurance, and not drain the community. Did you know Joe.. IT WON'T COST MORE MONEY FOR THOSE THAT DO NOT WORK. BECAUSE THEY ALREADY USE VERMONT HEALTHCARE. WAKE UP, JOE...

Another thing that raises Hospital prices are the MANY people that never pay their bills. If everyone had insurance. Or if the hospital could sue their insurance company for this person not having insurance. Guess what.. That would be less of a problem.


Did you know.... If you got into an accident with someone. They have no Insurance. You actually can sue your insurance company for them not having insurance? The money has to come from somewhere, right?


I'm sure you all have seen the ad's on T.V.

It's those lawyers looking for anything and everything to sue people for that are the problem. They are a huge problem in our society.

They basically failed at their profession. So they become bloodsucking leeches. Which are no different than Welfare cases that refuse to work. They fit right into the same cesspool. They will ruin anyone for a quick buck.
-- Posted by CF Reality on Sun, Jul 5, 2009, 9:04 am EST

report this comment


Senate Health Care Plan Would Impose $1,000 Fines for Refusing Coverage.

"In a revamped health care system envisioned by senators, people would be required to carry health insurance just like motorists must get auto coverage now. The government would provide subsidies for the poor and many middle-class families, but those who still refuse to sign up would face fines of more than $1,000."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/03/senate-health-care-plan-impose-fines-refusing-coverage/
-- Posted by Joe Bradley on Sat, Jul 4, 2009, 8:06 pm EST

report this comment


As you see, Colleen, I blame mostly the insurance companies. I agree on the tort reform thing, too. There ought to be limits on the fees paid out to the tort lawyers as many times they get much more than the malpractice victim.

That said, doctors need to be more willing to accept that there are some "lemons" among them, just as there are bad teachers and honest lawyers. : ) However, it's pretty rare when a teacher is responsible for someone losing a leg (and they are routinely threatened with lawsuits anyway). So, I'd personally like to see more self-policing and professional censure in the form of loss of license at least temporarily for those doctors who take unethical and/or immoral advantage of their patients; who don't follow up with serious symptoms in a patient, causing complications or death; who have multiple valid complaints of incompetence against them; who push medications on their patients as if they were guinea pigs for the drug companies; who prescribe rather than treat. This is not all doctors, but it certainly some of them, and they hurt the entire profession and cause expense throughout the system.
-- Posted by citizen on Sat, Jul 4, 2009, 12:38 pm EST

report this comment


Did you READ beyond the headline, Mr. Fusco? The article - and national news - is a general country-wide drain of family medicine doctors. The article adds that this is the bottom rung of the money ladder for doctors. They're going up that specialist ladder to pay off their loans and buy their practices - and some pretty fancy real estate in some cases.

So if those doctors are leaving Vermont - and all the other 50 states - for more money, where are they going? Canada? Great Britain? France? Sweden? This country pays more for medical care BY FAR than any country in the industrialized world, and we yet we have one of thi highest infant mortality rates, the most uninsured, and one of the weakest in service and treatment levels.

What are the private insurance companies suggesting to offset costs? A reduction in their bureaucrats? Eliminating the personnel hired merely to find reasons to deny claims? Getting rid of their lobbyists in Washington - and Montpelier? Canning the scare tactics they are currently spending big bucks on? A reduction in pay for their management? No, they want to cut back on MRIs and CT-scans. They want to "steer" people to "more efficient doctors." Hmmm. "More efficient" Would that be the ones who see the most patients every day, scarcely listening to them, let alone remembering who they are? How do you measure "efficient" when it comes to a doctor? Do you want your doctor think "efficient" when you go to him with a serious illness, Mr. Fusco? It's pretty sad when you can have a nice vacation in India - and get your bypass surgery - for less than the surgery here - with insurance. Rutland may pay less than other places, but we still pay pretty damned much! Rutland is a great place to live, but it's not for those who need to make big bucks as fast as possible.
-- Posted by citizen on Sat, Jul 4, 2009, 12:22 pm EST

report this comment


Ron, I think the way to health care affordability is through tort reform. So many people just sue Drs. for malpractice, even on small things- and juries are sympathetic to individuals rather than professionals. Is $2 million a justified amount to a woman who has a crooked finger because her surgery didn't work out as intended? Or what about $30 million to a man who lost his leg because of malpractice? Limits need to be set, and the cost of insurances controlled so that Drs. don't have to pay through the nose just to function. Don't blame the Drs, take a look at the insurance companies who have nothing to lose!!
-- Posted by Colleen Wright on Sat, Jul 4, 2009, 11:53 am EST

report this comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Register | Log In

Logout