David Gill,
Your stance on Health Care (http://www.gill2010.com/issues/affordable-healthcare/) seems unfounded and misinformed. Can you please send me a more detailed explanation on how you came to the conclusions that you have come to? Also, please explain to me what part of the constitution justifies your plans to create a health care system? What would you say to the people who believe they have a right to not purchase health insurance?
I will post your response on my blog (http://governingourselves.blogspot.com/) and share it with my friends and family in order to help you spread your message.
I will post his response if I get one.
UPDATE: Here is David Gill's surprisingly informative response. I'm actually very impressed. This is the first time that I've felt like I could actually rely on someone in politics.
Thanks for your interest in the campaign. Your blog seems to indicate that you're a mathematician-- is that right? I got my degree in math and worked in the actuarial field before going on to Med School.There are further details regarding my proposed health care plan forthcoming in the next 2-4 weeks-- there will be sections on the need for co-pays for non-emergencies, the need to revise EMTALA (the law which currently allows anyone to come to the E.R. for ANYTHING, including hangnails), and the need for federal malpractice reform (which my opponent opposes-- in fact, he was the only Republican in the House to vote against the GOP version of health care reform, for this very reason).But the foundation of my plan has been well-established for decades. I would encourage you to peruse www.pnhp.org, which has a load of information regarding the financial viability of such a plan. The overriding factor is that we should stop giving 38% of our health care dollars away for NOTHING, which is what we do with the private health insurance cartel. We should use that money for health care, and economic growth-- a recent study sponsored by the California Nurses Association demonstrated that extending Medicare to all Americans, regardless of age, will create nearly 3 million jobs, by taking back all that money that we currently throw into a black hole.I'm not talking about "creating" a health care system-- I'm just talking about extending the current Medicare system, which is funded by taxes. No one would be required to purchase private insurance, though I have no interest in outlawing private insurance, either.Thanks,David Gill, M.D.
www.gill2010.com
Tim Johnson did indeed vote against an amendment, sponsored by John Boehner, to the House health care bill, but an examination of statements Johnson has made about health care indicate that this was much more about what was not in the amendment (and bill) than what was in it.
ReplyDeleteTrue it is that Rep. Boehner's amendment would have provided for (vaguely-explained) "medical liability reforms" but it did not include anything else that Rep. Johnson feels is essential to a viable reform of health care.
I would like to add that I agree with the first half of Dr. Gill's proposed reforms: requiring co-pays for non-emergency ER visits, and establishing malpractice reform (which, I hope, would include reforming tort laws).
ReplyDeleteHowever, I staunchly opposed expanding Medicare, as it is a program that is currently projected to be insolvent within eight years. That insolvency date would only come closer if the program were expanded.