Given that this is not really an "idea", but a question, about a real issue, it wold be nice to know where the senator stands.
When our tax dollars are involved, I'm not sure it's such bad policy for our government to "buy American,"
Where my health care is involved, I don't give a rat's ass about where the Dollars are spent, or some false "buy American" platitude. I care about the quality and affordability, of the medical care I need, and my choice as to who provides it.
If I have determined that a $30,000 hip replacement at Johns Hopkins in Panama City, Panama is better for me than a $120,000 hip replacement at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore, does Senator Clinton think I should not have that choice or does she believe in Medicare portability?
So I ask again.
Can you explain to me why "affordability" is an issue for you if the procedure is covered by Medicare?
Co-pays, HUGE friggin Co-pays. Medicare pays approximately 80% of "covered" expenses.
Then there are those things like that Doctor recommended extra day in the hospital for recovery, that's not covered at all, because Medicare thinks it knows best when you should be back up on your feet and out of the hospital.
this... what is Obama's response on this? Is it written anywhere?
Once again, major parts of both of their plans is to bring cost under control. Part of the way Hillary Clinton is doing that is to have a larger user base... Universal Health Care.
Medicare and corporate insurance all play the game of trying to tell YOU what is best for YOU over your doctor and you.
You bring up a good point about the portability to other countries. The part about copays and cost of procedures should be addressed by the different cost controls and growing the base by making it truly universal.
what is Obama's response on this? Is it written anywhere?
If you find out, please tell me. I can't find out from either camp. I'll believe the cost lowering procedures when I see them. I've been alive far too long and seen far too many things to believe that corporate America and our "for profit" health care system will ever accept lower profits. The economics of scale, as far as "for profit" health care is concerned, is pure fantasy.
with Obama's plan, is that he seems to be giving in to the belief that we can not get Universal Health Care and possibly not the cost controls either. Why else would he use right wing fear tactics about reaching into our wallet, etc?
Seems that he does not believe he will be able to get cost controls or true Universal Health Care because he either would not try or the "powers that be" in the health care and pharma world are telling him NO!
Funny, but I believe the same about BOTH Clinton's and Obama's plans. It's all just so much rhetoric and no one has yet shown me that either plan is a plan for true affordable UHC in the US.
Unfortunately, neither has shown me that their approach is the better way to go either.
the problem is, that either of them will need We The People to help them fight this through congress and the pressure of the lobbyist.
That is one of the main reasons I wanted John Edwards! He spoke in plain terms about what needed to be done to accompish ANYTHING in DC.
I totally agree about JRE, he was the one I really thought might get something done by sheer force of will.
I wish Clinton and Obama could channel him, but I'll settle for the one that promises him a seat on the Supreme Court, after a stint as Attorney General of course.
...Buying American is a "false platitude."
I support buying American and keeping our dollars here at home instead of having them shipped overseas along with our jobs.
Because buying medical procedures overseas that one cannot afford here is not the same as shipping jobs overseas NAFTA style.
Also Wasting billions of Dollars, filling the pocket books of corrupt insurance companies is not exactly what I would call sound fiscal policy.
...How many ordinary Americans that actually work for a living and don't spend their times commenting on blogs all day like you and me have the money to travel overseas to get that cheaper medical procedure?
Not very damn many that's for sure, but it has very little to do with the question I asked.
If Medicare portability was a law, I suspect at least a lot of seniors WOULD be able to travel overseas to get the medical care they cannot afford here because they wouldn't have to pay the huge co-pays required by US medical institutions.
Let's see... $$24,000 co-pay or $6,000 co-pay and $3,000 travel expenses.....????? Not too difficult a choice.
...What about Seniors and others who need extended care such as a 3 or 4 week stay in a hospital? What about the language barriers?
I just spent three weeks dealing with Motorola and a bunch of Indians I couldn't understand about getting my cell phone repaired. What in the hell makes you think that anyone would want to go out of the country for medical attention just because it's cheaper?
And we haven't even begun to talk about the impact shipping someone overseas for medical care has on their families. What if my aunt, uncle, or mother is in a hospital in Bangkok? I ain't got no money to be flying all the way to Bangkok to check on my loved ones to make sure that the doctors are treating them correctly.
Why anyone would want to go thousands of miles for cheaper healthcare is beyond me. How about we focus on reducing the healthcare costs here in the United States instead?
Outsourcing health care...my God that's bogus.
3-4 week hospital stays for non emergency procedures are just the type of senior who would do better overseas, saving themselves literally tens of thousands of Dollars, why should they not have that choice? You must not travel too much otherwise you'd realize just how many people in the world speak English, particularly in the health care field. I couldn't give you the exact figures, but a good portion of doctors world wide are trained in the US or at US run Medical centers overseas.
Somehow I don't think equating telephone conversations about a cell phone, with Indian service representatives is quite the same as talking face to face with a doctor,
You might also want to do a google search to educate yourself on just how many Americans go overseas each year for cheaper and dare I say, in many cases better medical care.
No one is talking about "shipping" anyone anywhere. This is about CHOICE and AFFORDIBILITY. My choice.
The issue of Medicare portability is really simple and not controversial at all. I don't know how you got your shorts all twisted up, but if you don't understand the concept, maybe it's not the best thread for you to participate in. I will typically answer anyone who addressed a comment of mine, but really, you are just so far off base on this subject, that it's hard for me to take you seriously.
Seriously...you think that?
Then I suppose buying that SMART car in Germany, instead of a Hummer here, is also shipping jobs overseas NAFTA style.
And I thought I was doing something good for myself and the world by refusing to support the NAFTA whores at GM and by buying an economical, low energy usage vehicle. But I guess you're right, I should buy American regardless the consequences.
HUMMER here I come!
What an asinine question.
Equating Medicare portability with exporting health care and other service jobs, is ridiculous and totally misses the point. But I guess you are such an uber patriot that you'd rather someone forgo healh care altogether than receive it free or at an affordable price overseas.
As far as what Mr. Obama supports you'd have to ask him, I have, and just as no one from the Clinton camp has answered me, neither dare I say has the Obama camp.
