2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

There is no reason why in this rich country we cannot afford to make sure that everyone who needs medical care receives it. 

However, to think that a single payer or public option will reduce overhead costs is silly. That payer, the taxpayers through our government, will certainly not treat anyone only provide the bureaucratic mechanisms to insure payment at some government determined level. Just as medicare does now. Anyone who has dealt with social security administration or with medicare is certainly aware of the bureaucratic cost of administration.

As one simple example, my wife needed physical therapy. The clinic posed two choices ...  pay us $70 or we will bill medicare $150.  What medical benefit did that additional cost provide? none all of it was the cost of administration on the part of the provider then add to that the cost of the government administration!

posted 3 years, 8 months ago
view in context