August 30, 2013
Unit 1
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/29/us/politics/health-lobby-tries-to-undo-dialysis-cuts.html?ref=unitedstatespoliticsandgovernment&_r=0
The government ordered a cut on reimbursements for dialysis treatments eight months ago. The proposed cut, has aroused much controversy, and now many who voted for it, are appealing to the administration, to either remove it all together, or at least lessen the amounts. While it is true that many are making millions, by treating dialysis, some clinics are making very little, and some are struggling to remain open.
I can barely believe that this is an issue. Many people are profiting off of our hard-earned tax-dollars, and the reasonable solution, is to not pay them so much for the dialysis treatment. I'm not saying that what they do, shouldn't be covered by government, in fact it should, but a few should not profit off of the masses.When one man, earns 26.8 million dollars in one year, for having dialysis treatment centers, when, for the most part, need for those centers is decreasing, due to in-home dialysis, it is just ridiculous. I understand, that for some, these cuts would be devestating. These cuts would mean that they would have to shut-down their business. Is not this exactly what we want our bicameral legislature to help us avoid? Isn't this what we created them for? To represent us? Are we not a republic, in many ways? They have the authority to levy taxes, and collect them. They have the power to use those taxes in the best way. More than just the power, they have the responsibility to do so. Therefore I suggest, that they not only help out those that are barely making it by, but also cut the amount of money given to those that are just getting rich off of it. so what if lobbyists don't want the cuts, we should do what is best for the people.
I agree fully. People don't need to be getting filthy rich off of others' illness.
ReplyDeleteI think that it would be tough to give different amounts of government reimbursements to different institutions based on their financial needs. There would be a lot of argument over that and the quality of treatment would not be consistent. Most of these institutions are going to try to maximize their profit and so if they are given less money, they probably would provide less treatment. I don't know of a great solution to this issue, but I do think that government reimbursements do need to be cut if the number of people needing dialysis is going down.
ReplyDeleteI agree it would be tough, but if you could ensure quality didn't go down, and stop people from getting rich off of others illnesses, wouldn't it be worth it, to do so?
Delete