AUBURN - With Medicaid, co-pays and a dozen other health care concerns on their minds, community members gathered Saturday to discuss the local effects of national health care reform.
The Unitarian Universalist Church of Auburn Saturday held an informal panel to clarify misconceptions about national reform. The event invited the audience to share stories of how the current health care system has failed them and information about possible outcomes of the reform bill.
“A lot of people don't know,” said Robert O'Connor, president of the Onondaga chapter of AARP and a panelist at the forum. “They don't know the little pieces.”
Among the common misconceptions people have about the effects of a national health care reform are losing Medicare, being forced to see different doctors and high cost.
But, O'Connor said, the proposed reforms could lower cost of prescriptions to Medicare users and would allow people to keep their same doctors, with the option of switching.
The Internet is awash with rumors of death panels - groups that advise patients when they should give up on life - that the reform would create.
Not true, said O'Connor. The bill would allow doctors to be paid once every five years to advise on end of life issues, he said.
“But they do that now without pay,” he said.
Another common concern is that a national health care plan will result in socialized medicine, as in European countries.
That would not happen here, said retired physician Stan Gutelius, because unlike in Europe, the government does not own hospitals or clinics.
Pamela Anderegg said she did not think socialized medicine would not work in the United States - residents of countries with socialized medicine pay as much as half their income in taxes. But she knew first-hand of the benefits to the system.
Anderegg said her mother-in-law had a heart attack during a visit to England and did not pay a cent for her hospital stay.
“She walked out of the hospital and they offered to get her a cab to her hotel,” she said. But if that had happened at home, Anderegg said, “she'd be in debt up to her ears.”
Despite fears people have about revamping health care in the country, Terry DeFelice said she sees on a daily basis the need for change.
As the executive director of the Cayuga Seneca Community Action Agency, DeFelice works with people who need help with health care costs and services because they are either uninsured or under insured.
“People come right out of the emergency room, right out of the doctor's office,” she said. “They can not get the prescriptions they need filled.”
DeFelice regularly sees people who are insured by Medicare, but are not able to receive preventative care services and struggle to find physicians who accept Medicare.
National reform, she said, would make services more readily available to the people who lack coverage and to those whose coverage is inadequate.
“I just think it's a basic human right,” she said, “or should be.”
Staff writer Sarah Gantz can be reached at 253-5311 ext. 237 or sarah.gantz@lee.net
“A lot of people don't know,” said Robert O'Connor, president of the Onondaga chapter of AARP and a panelist at the forum. “They don't know the little pieces.”
Among the common misconceptions people have about the effects of a national health care reform are losing Medicare, being forced to see different doctors and high cost.
But, O'Connor said, the proposed reforms could lower cost of prescriptions to Medicare users and would allow people to keep their same doctors, with the option of switching.
The Internet is awash with rumors of death panels - groups that advise patients when they should give up on life - that the reform would create.
Not true, said O'Connor. The bill would allow doctors to be paid once every five years to advise on end of life issues, he said.
“But they do that now without pay,” he said.
Another common concern is that a national health care plan will result in socialized medicine, as in European countries.
That would not happen here, said retired physician Stan Gutelius, because unlike in Europe, the government does not own hospitals or clinics.
Pamela Anderegg said she did not think socialized medicine would not work in the United States - residents of countries with socialized medicine pay as much as half their income in taxes. But she knew first-hand of the benefits to the system.
Anderegg said her mother-in-law had a heart attack during a visit to England and did not pay a cent for her hospital stay.
“She walked out of the hospital and they offered to get her a cab to her hotel,” she said. But if that had happened at home, Anderegg said, “she'd be in debt up to her ears.”
Despite fears people have about revamping health care in the country, Terry DeFelice said she sees on a daily basis the need for change.
As the executive director of the Cayuga Seneca Community Action Agency, DeFelice works with people who need help with health care costs and services because they are either uninsured or under insured.
“People come right out of the emergency room, right out of the doctor's office,” she said. “They can not get the prescriptions they need filled.”
DeFelice regularly sees people who are insured by Medicare, but are not able to receive preventative care services and struggle to find physicians who accept Medicare.
National reform, she said, would make services more readily available to the people who lack coverage and to those whose coverage is inadequate.
“I just think it's a basic human right,” she said, “or should be.”
Staff writer Sarah Gantz can be reached at 253-5311 ext. 237 or sarah.gantz@lee.net
Citizen
Hot Jobs
Off the Menu
The Citizens' Say
Post your comment - click hereThere are 2 comment(s)
BillWatson wrote on Oct 25, 2009 1:25 PM:
A pure public option, with government sales tax funding, replacing insurance, along with distributing all government funded care only through government owned and operated hospitals, staffed by government employed doctors and health care providers, using VA systems, is the best solution for fixing half of the health care problem.
The second half of the solution is to have a pure private option, with private insurance and only private funding, paying for care and medications dispenssed by private providers, which would not be subjected to any government mandates.
Everyone choosing public care could have it no restrictions, no insurance, no co pays, free period.
Employers who select federal public care for their employees would not be required to pay for or have any further involvement with health care. "
Wrabbitt wrote on Oct 25, 2009 11:43 AM: