McCain vs Obama: Health Care

[TheWatcher]

It seems like McCain's health care plan is actually better than Obama's. I am at a loss as to why the Democrats are so against it. I would be better off under this plan; seems like most people would be.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122506862956370705.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Discuss.

[bullokz]

FAIL















Obama's Health Care >>> McCain's


Employee at a large company

Obama plan: Key elements

Goal: Keep employer coverage similar to how it is now. Reduce monthly premiums by about $2,500 per family each year.
How: Savings would come from more efficiency, such as a $50 billion, five-year bid to improve computer-based medical records.
What's required: Large employers who don't make a "meaningful contribution" to the cost of quality coverage for workers — and those who don't offer coverage at all — would pay an unspecified amount into a fund. The fund would help expand insurance options, including a new national plan with benefits similar to those offered to federal workers.

Obama plan: What the analysts say

Premium savings may be possible over time if all of Obama's ideas are "aggressively" pursued, says an analysis by the Urban Institute, a think tank. About 22.1 million workers — mostly from smaller companies — could see their employers drop coverage and shift them into Obama's proposed national plan, says an analysis by the Lewin Group, a health care consulting firm. Obama hasn't said whether workers from large companies would be eligible for the national plan, which aims to help people who work for small companies buy their own coverage.

McCain plan: Key elements

Goal: Give consumers more choices by providing more access to insurance plans in other states. Tax workers on the value of their job-based health insurance to try to offer more equality between people who get coverage through their jobs and people who buy their own. Workers now get health benefits tax-free, but people who buy their own insurance outside work don't get a similar tax break.
How: Taxes on insurance benefits would be offset by a refundable tax credit: $5,000 for families and $2,500 for single people. At first, those credits are expected to cover the additional taxes for workers in most tax brackets. Over time, rising insurance costs could outstrip the credit.
What's required: Employers would not be required to contribute to workers' health care coverage. Employers would still have the option of writing off the cost of providing health insurance benefits.

McCain plan: What the analysts say

An estimated 16.1 million employees and their dependents work for companies that would likely drop coverage under McCain's plan, the Lewin Group says. That loss would be partly offset by an increase of 6.4 million workers, mostly those who didn't sign up for insurance before but would enroll in company coverage for the first time because the tax credit would basically make it free. Large employers likely would still offer insurance, but younger, healthier workers may be able to buy their own for less money, leaving mainly older, sicker workers under the employer's umbrella. That could result in higher premiums for workers who remain and could lead some employers to drop coverage.

Employee at a small business

Obama plan: Key elements

Goal: Help more small businesses offer coverage. Create new ways for workers to buy coverage if their companies don't offer it.
How: Small businesses that offer coverage would get a refundable tax credit of up to 50% of the premium costs they pay for their workers. Employees at small companies that don't offer coverage could buy it through a "national exchange" — a group of private insurers and the proposed new public plan. Lower-income people who buy through the exchange would be eligible for tax subsidies.
What's required: Insurers would have to accept all who apply, even people with health problems. Most states now allow insurers to reject applicants for individual coverage who have health conditions such as cancer, depression, asthma or pregnancy.

Obama plan: What the analysts say

The exchange could help workers at small companies and individuals buy insurance, but the new rules saying insurers must cover everyone could drive up costs, says an analysis in the policy journal Health Affairs by several authors, including a McCain adviser.

McCain plan: Key elements

Goal: Change how insurance can be sold to create more choices for consumers.
How: Small businesses and their employees could buy coverage from insurers based in any state. Insurers would be allowed to follow only the rules in the state where they're based. Current law generally requires insurers to be licensed in each state where they sell and follow rules that each of those states set, including how much they can charge policyholders and what kind of benefits, such as maternity care or cancer screenings, they must provide.
What's required: Insurers would not be required to accept people with health problems. McCain would put $7 billion to $10 billion toward creating or expanding special insurance programs designed for people who are denied coverage.

McCain plan: What the analysts say

The cost of insurance could go down for businesses with mainly younger, healthier workers, but companies with older or sicker workers would see costs rise or may not be able to find coverage at all, according to an Urban Institute analysis.

Individual who buys insurance
Obama plan: Key elements

Goal: A self-employed person or one who doesn't get insurance through a job could buy a policy from the proposed new "national exchange."
How: The exchange would have one public plan and several private insurance options. Subsidies would be available for low-income purchasers.
What's required: Insurers would have to accept all those who apply, no matter their health conditions.

Obama plan: What the analysts say McCain plan: What the analysts say
More people, including those with medical problems, could get comprehensive health coverage — about 29.6 million more by 2013, according to the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center. Obama would not require everyone to carry insurance, so he would not completely end the problem of uninsurance, says an analysis by the Commonwealth Fund, a private foundation that studies health policy.

McCain plan: Key elements

Goal: The self-employed and workers whose companies don't offer coverage would buy on the individual market.
How: They could purchase a plan from insurers based in any state, and costs would be subsidized by the refundable $5,000 tax credit ($2,500 for individuals).
What's required: Insurers would not be required to take people with health problems.

McCain plan: What the analysts say

Healthy individuals would see lower costs, while older or sicker people would see prices rise, says a Congressional Budget Office analysis of a similar 2005 proposal to allow insurers to sell across state lines. About 4.6 million more people would gain coverage by 2013, the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center say. The tax credit amount could cover the cost of an individual policy for young and healthy workers but would be unlikely to do so for older or sicker people, the Lewin analysis says.



http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-10-21-health-plans_N.htm

[TheWatcher]

Wall Street Journal > USA Today

I don't know, I just have a hard time believing that the government will provide decent health care to me.

Here is another analysis that is more balanced:
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/10/health-care-rx.html

[PassiveTheory]

Because the Free Market sure has...

[Boourns]

Yeah, I'll take anything over the nothing I have now.

[Blinken]

The Wall Street Journal is owned by Rupurt Murdoch, who also owns Fox News, while it is still a good publication he seems to puting the same spin more and more.


Mr. McCain would also reform insurance markets to stem the growth in health insurance premiums.

What they don't tell you is how he would reform the markets. McCain plans to take state boundries out of the equation for insurance companies. He believes that the consumer should be able to buy healthcare from whatever state they want. While this sounds all will and good in practice it is extremly flawed. The same thing happened with banks and credit card companies, look what happened there. Instead of giving the consumers more power it took it all away, the companies all moved to Deleware because the laws heavily favored the banks and credit card companies. This is one of the things that lead to our current credit meltdown. Healthcare companies will seek the state that best protects their interests, so if California wants to make it illegal to exempt pre-existing conditions and Montana didn't where do you think the companies will set up shop?

The other problem with the tax credit is what about the people who work minimum wage and don't make enough to pay taxes? How will a tax credit help these people, who make up the largest portion of the uninsured.

The subsidy encourages people to buy bigger policies that cover more, and leads to greater health-care spending. Moreover, lower deductibles and coverage of routine spending dulls consumers' sensitivity to price. Reducing the tax bias should result in insurance that is more focused on catastrophic coverage and less on routine spending.

So we are taking prevention out of the equation? Regular checkups and physicals would likely not be covered, so by the time someone is diagnosed the cost will be higher, and the patient would be much more likely to die. I really think prevention, and early diagnoses is the way to lower healthcare costs. Catch something before it becomes catastrophic.

[Blinken]

I don't know, I just have a hard time believing that the government will provide decent health care to me.


This is the best part of the Republican party, they fuck shit up so bad that people lose faith in government programs. As Regan used to say, "starve the beast," since you can't kill a program make it so that it doesn't have the funds to function then people won't mind killing something that doesn't work. Pure genius.

With Obama's plan you would buy into the same healthcare coverage as the Senate, I trust them not to fuck up their own healthcare because they are invested in the same system.

[JustSteve]

i think it's utter bullshit that i can't get decent priced insurance because i have a pre-existing condition! just because i would actually use it while most of the population doesn't shouldn't preclude me. i think i read somewhere that a huge majority of people will never spend more than a day in the hospital over most of their lives. i spend a good 40 days+ a year. guess i am not good for the insurance companies' bottom lines, sucks that it's about profit for them and not what insurance is meant to be for. if obama gets elected he better pull through with those subsidies he is promising.

[spektrum]

It sucks when you can't buy insurance because say, you had an anxiety attack in college. I'm otherwise healthy, but can't get insurance because I didn't lie on the application forms. Apparently that's the trick. They denied me for anxiety and a sprained wrist....from 3 years ago. Way to go assholes. I really dislike the way government runs things, but I'm leaning toward true nationalized health care. Not this subsidy/partly private/fucking with employers bullshit.

[PassiveTheory]

Nationalized health care = socialism. In the eyes of many, at least.

There's no way that shit will ever happen in the States. =/

[psycobetabuckdown]

Nationalized health care = socialism. In the eyes of many, at least.

There's no way that shit will ever happen in the States. =/

Thank God.

[bullokz]

The Wall Street Journal is owned by Rupurt Murdoch, who also owns Fox News, while it is still a good publication he seems to puting the same spin more and more.

PWND

[arbouler]

if i could vote based solely on health care, i'd vote for the campaign that promises to help those with pre-existing conditions to qualify for health insurance. so far i havent heard mccain say anything about that...

the final year i lived in the states, i didnt qualify for health care because i had pre-existing conditions. no company wanted to insure me. that really pissed me off. im glad nothing happened to me last year.

republican senators and reps get the best health care service from your tax money and they wont even bother helping you get yours. like on harold and kumar, you always like to get a hand job, but you dont really want to give it do you?

[captncrzy]

Wall Street Journal > USA Today

I don't know, I just have a hard time believing that the government will provide decent health care to me.

Here is another analysis that is more balanced:
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/10/health-care-rx.html


You're an idiot.

You clearly haven't seen Sicko. Do you know how many people in this country CANNOT QUALIFY for health insurance?

My best friend's youngest son couldn't get private health insurance because he had tubes in his ears. FUCKING TUBES for ear infections-and he can't get health insurance.

[marooko]

Wall Street Journal > USA Today

I don't know, I just have a hard time believing that the government will provide decent health care to me.

Here is another analysis that is more balanced:
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/10/health-care-rx.html

well, considering they do everything else so well, that isnt a very good analysis........or is it?......

[TomAz]

i think it's utter bullshit that i can't get decent priced insurance because i have a pre-existing condition! just because i would actually use it while most of the population doesn't shouldn't preclude me. i think i read somewhere that a huge majority of people will never spend more than a day in the hospital over most of their lives. i spend a good 40 days+ a year. guess i am not good for the insurance companies' bottom lines, sucks that it's about profit for them and not what insurance is meant to be for. if obama gets elected he better pull through with those subsidies he is promising.

You don't need insurance. You need someone to pay your bills. There's a difference.

You buy insurance on your house in case it catches fire. You buy insurance on your car in case you get in a wreck. You buy health insurance in case you incur medical expenses.

For you, there is no "in case". Your house is already on fire. It's too late for insurance for you.

You say it's "utter bullshit" that private enterprises won't give you money to pay your bills. I don't follow that logic.

The real problem here is why you don't still have the insurance you had when you were diagnosed. Insurance companies can't cancel insurance just because you get sick -- despite what Michael Moore might tell you, it's illegal. Somehow though you must have lost coverage you once had (or have you been uninsured your entire life?).

[TomAz]

You clearly haven't seen Sicko. Do you know how many people in this country CANNOT QUALIFY for health insurance?


Do you understand why this is?

in a nutshell: No one is required to buy health insurance. It's totally optional. Most people get it through their employers where it's automatic and there is no underwriting screen. But for everyone else, they're left to the individual health insurance market.

People who are sick are much more likely to buy health insurance than people who are young and healthy. When everybody, or most people, who buy the health insurance are already sick, the insurance concept become untenable -- more money flows out than flows in and the pool quickly becomes insolvent.

Several states (Kentucky, Washington, maybe one or two others) have experimented in the past with reforms to the individual health insurance market by requiring 'guaranteed issue' -- making it illegal for insurers to use underwriting qualifications, and instead issue health insurance to anyone who asked for it and was willing to pay the premiums. In each and every case, the individual insurance markets in those states totally collapsed. Insurers lost millions of dollars, exited the market, making individual health insurance unavailable at all -- and actually increasing, rather than decreasing, the number of the uninsured.

The problem all stems back to the optional nature of health insurance. If everybody were required to have health insurance, then 'selection risk' would not be an issue and people like Just Steve and your friend's son would be covered. This was the core of Hillary Clinton's proposed plan this spring. She was the only candidate to get it right.

[shakermaker113]

down with healthcare.

[faxman75]

Do you understand why this is?

Their house is already on fire?

[faxman75]

Listen, I simply want us to be a humnaitarian nation. I don't want soldiers who come back from war to have to chose a finger to save. I don't want seniors and others who can't afford healthcare because they just lost their job travelling to Mexico or Canada for medication or healthcare because we can't take care of our own. I don't want people who are struggling financially or because of some life chaning event they no longer have insurance to have to suffer extra because of the dollar and lack of providers willing to help.

Is that socialism? I could care less. I want the government to take care of the people who can't afford to do it themselves. As long as we have money for the war on drugs then I think a universal program that at least provides some minimal care for people is a necessity.

If you think McCains vouchers program is the answer then you have to realize he's lying about not raising your taxes to do it.

[TomAz]

Also, all the problems I described about the individual health insurance market are why McCain's plan is unworkable, in my opinion. If he were to couple it with a requirement that everyone buy health insurance, and tighter regulation of the market, then it might work. But his proposal, taken alone, won't do anything and might make matters worse.

[TomAz]

Listen, I simply want us to be a humnaitarian nation. I don't want soldiers who come back from war to have to chose a finger to save. I don't want seniors and others who can't afford healthcare because they just lost their job travelling to Mexico or Canada for medication or healthcare because we can't take care of our own. I don't want people who are struggling financially or because of some life chaning event they no longer have insurance to have to suffer extra because of the dollar and lack of providers willing to help.

Is that socialism? I could care less. I want the government to take care of the people who can't afford to do it themselves. As long as we have money for the war on drugs then I think a universal program that at least provides some minimal care for people is a necessity.

If you think McCains vouchers program is the answer then you have to realize he's lying about not raising your taxes to do it.

I agree with this. Don't misinterpret my explanation of the current situation as endorsement of it. I favor 100% coverage for all americans with government subsidies as needed.

My only point was that expecting private enterprises who are at risk of loss to subsidize health care for those who are without insurance is naive. It's thinking of insurance as a magic money machine with no understanding of even the most fundamental basics of how it works.

[C DUB YA]

It seems like McCain's health care plan is actually better than Obama's. I am at a loss as to why the Democrats are so against it. I would be better off under this plan; seems like most people would be.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122506862956370705.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Discuss.

Oh my - retarded.

[chairmenmeow47]

I don't know, I just have a hard time believing that the government will provide decent health care to me.

*shrugs* ya know, i can barely get my primary care to call me back. they couldn't even properly diagnose me with strep throat last year for a month and a half last year. and they don't even fucking accept credit cards, so i can't even use my flexible spending account there.

my obgyn can't even send the correct receipts to my FSA, so i end up having to do all the footwork myself to get those bills paid. i love my doctor, but i have to schedule out appointments a year in advane sometimes.

and the "specialist" who i see now and again for my wrist can't do jack shit except get me an appointment two months down the road for a brace. and then they won't even call me back this year to get that replaced.

so my point is, we don't exactly have a perfect system today, i wouldn't be too worried about the government making it worse at this point.

and doesn't it seem odd that we treat healthcare like we treat a fire or a flood? don't we KNOW we're going to have health issues at certain points throughout our lives? it's not like a mammogram is a fire that just happens; it's something that's highly recommended at several points through your lives so that "fire" becomes less likely. it just seems like we look at our health in a very backwards way in this country.

[JustSteve]

You don't need insurance. You need someone to pay your bills. There's a difference.

You buy insurance on your house in case it catches fire. You buy insurance on your car in case you get in a wreck. You buy health insurance in case you incur medical expenses.

For you, there is no "in case". Your house is already on fire. It's too late for insurance for you.

You say it's "utter bullshit" that private enterprises won't give you money to pay your bills. I don't follow that logic.

The real problem here is why you don't still have the insurance you had when you were diagnosed. Insurance companies can't cancel insurance just because you get sick -- despite what Michael Moore might tell you, it's illegal. Somehow though you must have lost coverage you once had (or have you been uninsured your entire life?).

i am applying for insurance through the state of ca that covers my lung disease, but that's it. what if i break my arm? am in a car accident? am sick with something other than a lung issue? what the hell do i do then, eh? no insurance company will even give me the option to exclude my disease from their coverage.

another case is my newborn son. he was a planned c-section, but was still in the breach position when he was born. our ped. did a physical exam of his hips because breach babies sometimes have issues with hip dislocation from being in that position so long. he saw no reason at all to be concerned. it is his routine procedure to also get an ultrasound just to back up his findings. because of his request to get the ultrasound a couple of insurance companies have declined his application for insurance. i have a 6 week old son with no insurance right now because of a non-issue. the dr. is absolutely disgusted with the companies and we are scrambling to get him covered now.

[roberto73]

so my point is, we don't exactly have a perfect system today, i wouldn't be too worried about the government making it worse at this point.

Yes. This is my favorite argument used by people against universal healthcare – government involvement will completely fuck up a machine that's already running so perfectly.

[faxman75]

I agree with this. Don't misinterpret my explanation of the current situation as endorsement of it. I favor 100% coverage for all americans with government subsidies as needed.

My only point was that expecting private enterprises who are at risk of loss to subsidize health care for those who are without insurance is naive. It's thinking of insurance as a magic money machine with no understanding of even the most fundamental basics of how it works.

Oh I completely understand the hit the private companies would take. You explain it well when you give the fire insurance on a burning house example. Or take people that live in flood zones, you have more of a risk therefor it's going to cost you more. Or car insurance rates by zip code, more car thefts in one zip code is going to mean a higher premium.

Not that the insurance industry is completely fair, clean and regulated correctly either.

[TomAz]

no insurance company will even give me the option to exclude my disease from their coverage.

I don't know anything about your particular disease but comorbidity risks may be substantial. and deciding whether medical care is or is not related to your disease is more complicated than it sounds on the surface.

[JustSteve]

Or car insurance rates by zip code, more car thefts in one zip code is going to mean a higher premium.

i believe calif. has banned that practice now of charging by zipcode.

[downingthief]

I agree with this. Don't misinterpret my explanation of the current situation as endorsement of it. I favor 100% coverage for all americans with government subsidies as needed.

My only point was that expecting private enterprises who are at risk of loss to subsidize health care for those who are without insurance is naive. It's thinking of insurance as a magic money machine with no understanding of even the most fundamental basics of how it works.

Unfortunately, Insurance falls under the basic rules of Economics...supply and demand. Tom, you are correct in saying that if everyone was required to "buy" health insurance, it would go down. Or, at the very least, some companies would offer very competive rates. Hillary was spot on in this aspect, and I hope she continues to champion that view point.

Look at auto insurance. Everyone is required to have it. Therefore, there will always be another company that offers a lower cost on your coverage than your existing company. Why do you think there are SO many ads for Geico, Progressive, All State, Safe Auto, etc. If Health insurance was the same way, we would see double the advertisements.

[captncrzy]

Tom, let's face it, being that you do what you do, you're going to have the argument you're having.

Insuring your home against fire isn't the same thing as dying because you don't have medical care. It happens every goddamn day. People can't even get treated if they don't have insurance. Sure, you can file bk on the $100,000 medical bill you will recieve from getting your appendix out...but that's IF you can find someone to take it out for you in the first place.

[chairmenmeow47]

I agree with this. Don't misinterpret my explanation of the current situation as endorsement of it. I favor 100% coverage for all americans with government subsidies as needed.

My only point was that expecting private enterprises who are at risk of loss to subsidize health care for those who are without insurance is naive. It's thinking of insurance as a magic money machine with no understanding of even the most fundamental basics of how it works.

i think tom's just explaining the system the way it is now. doesn't make it right, but he's just trying to clarify the logic of what is going on now.

[TomAz]

Insuring your home against fire isn't the same thing as dying because you don't have medical care. It happens every goddamn day. People can't even get treated if they don't have insurance. Sure, you can file bk on the $100,000 medical bill you will recieve from getting your appendix out...but that's IF you can find someone to take it out for you in the first place.

I don't disagree with any of this. But I'm saying that given the current system, the insurance companies would be fools -- and quickly bankrupt themselves -- if they did it any differently.

Also, that appendectomy is a huge part of the problem too. if an appendectomy in the US cost the same as an appendectomy in Canada, our situation would be different I think. Or at least, insurance would be more affordable.

[faxman75]

Tom, let's face it, being that you do what you do, you're going to have the argument you're having.

Insuring your home against fire isn't the same thing as dying because you don't have medical care. It happens every goddamn day. People can't even get treated if they don't have insurance. Sure, you can file bk on the $100,000 medical bill you will recieve from getting your appendix out...but that's IF you can find someone to take it out for you in the first place.


Lets keep this in perspective though, and not to trivialize the deaths by any means but the estimated 18 thousand people who die each year aren't becaue of lack of medical coverage in an life and death situation.

It's from lack of preventive heathcare, routine visits, testing and chekups. It falls back on preventive healthcare, diagnosing ailments and the type of care that is recieved with zero insurance.

I just wanted to clarify becaue I know there are people who read this and think scores of uninsured sick people are showing up in the ER with life threatening ailments and being refused care leading to their death which isn't the case. Maybe there was a freak incident at some point or something but it's certainly extremely rare when it happens.

The fact is we don't know what Obama's universal coverage will include and stumping for it is one thing, getting it passed with a tax raising clause is another.

We shall see though. Any coverage has to be better than zero coverage, americans shouldn't be left to the indadequacy of the nations emergency rooms, which is when it's too late to begin with. They need to be able to get check ups, exams, screenings and have a doctor to work with.

[arbouler]

anybody knows if an obama administration will be able to reduce the cost of medication significantly and if the reduced cost will actually help increase insurance coverage?

[allyjoy]

Here's the deal: health care is a big deal. It's a huge market in this country and private insurers make a killing. The politics surrounding health care have been ridiculous. The governator a few years back when making a bid against SEIU, our union, was that state employees have health care and most people working don't so ours should be taken away. The argument has been one of privilege rather than necessity. Everyone deserves health care, not an isurance in case you get sick. It has been shown in numerous studies that people with health care stay healthier. Why? Because there are doctors who work on preventative care rather than patching up something that has been festering for years. Medicare does its job, but it can't keep up because the government borrows against it every year when there's a problem with the budget. It's not going bankrupt because the money's not being used inefficiently by the program, but because legislators use that guaranteed funding as its own personal checking account.

Socialized health care can work in this country, but it requires us to demand more from those we elected into office. Our complacency with how things work is what keeps things the same. Rather than us complaining on a message board, we should be writing to our senators and congress persons. And don't give me that line of bull that they don't care because if enough people write, it becomes the issue. It becomes more than just a talking point in a candidate's speech as long as we hold them accountable.

[TomAz]

anybody knows if an obama administration will be able to reduce the cost of medication significantly and if the reduced cost will actually help increase insurance coverage?

prescription drugs account for about 20% (roughly) of healthcare expenditure on people younger than Medicare age. Even if he were to shave 10% off the cost of drugs -- which seems wildly optimistic to me -- you're talking about only a 2% overall savings in the cost of care provided by insurance. Given that annual trends are in the 8-10% range annually, I don't know that a one time 2% cut is going to have much impact on availablity of health insurance.

[SFChrissy]

Thank God I qualified...I started working for a new employer this year and they only offered kaiser (I boycot these fuckers), so my alternative was a private policy that my employer would reimburse me for. The application process took 2 months, an oral interview, review of my medical records and an approval with an increase of teh original quoted price because I didn't disclose medical information. I indicated I suffered from mild anxiety and back spasms...my medical records indicate chronic back pain but I'm really grateful that I have been approved but if I wasn't luckily in california there is a highrisk policy plan that all the providers carry that you can not be denyed from of course there's an increase in premium and you may be excluded from one year of coverage pertaining to a pre-existing medical condition but after that year you qualify for a regular policy and can reduce your premium. SF has a new law that states all employers must pay PTO and medical bennefits to anyone working 20hrs +...this includes a ton of wiat staff...the other day we had dinner at the stinking rose and noticed a local sf tax...the tax contributes to the local health care plan...i thought that was kinda cool...

[samiksha]

im scared to go off my parents insurance plan : ( its the only reason i'm a full time student

[SFChrissy]

im scared to go off my parents insurance plan : ( its the only reason i'm a full time student
Not for much longer that shit caps out at age 24...you won't have a problem once you land quality fulltime employment...

Dental coverage is worse than medical coverage...

[TomAz]

Medicare does its job, but it can't keep up because the government borrows against it every year when there's a problem with the budget. It's not going bankrupt because the money's not being used inefficiently by the program, but because legislators use that guaranteed funding as its own personal checking account.

Your facts are correct but the conclusion you reach is incorrect. Yes the government borrows against the Medicare fund. So what? Lots of people own T-bills.

There is no evidence that suggests that the government's borrowing has in any way impinged on Medicare's ability to do its job.

[captncrzy]

Lets keep this in perspective though, and not to trivialize the deaths by any means but the estimated 18 thousand people who die each year aren't becaue of lack of medical coverage in an life and death situation.

It's from lack of preventive heathcare, routine visits, testing and chekups. It falls back on preventive healthcare, diagnosing ailments and the type of care that is recieved with zero insurance.

I just wanted to clarify becaue I know there are people who read this and think scores of uninsured sick people are showing up in the ER with life threatening ailments and being refused care leading to their death which isn't the case. Maybe there was a freak incident at some point or something but it's certainly extremely rare when it happens.

The fact is we don't know what Obama's universal coverage will include and stumping for it is one thing, getting it passed with a tax raising clause is another.

We shall see though. Any coverage has to be better than zero coverage, americans shouldn't be left to the indadequacy of the nations emergency rooms, which is when it's too late to begin with. They need to be able to get check ups, exams, screenings and have a doctor to work with.

Where are you getting the 18,000?

Also, the appendix thing is a real story; little girl died because her appendix burst and no one would help her. or her shitty insurance wouldn't cover it or soemthing. I don't remember the sematics. but I remember she died.

[TomAz]

Where are you getting the 18,000?

Also, the appendix thing is a real story; little girl died because her appendix burst and no one would help her. or her shitty insurance wouldn't cover it or soemthing. I don't remember the sematics. but I remember she died.

My understanding is that hospitals are legally obligated to accept and stabilize patients regardless of their insurance coverage or ability to pay.

Also, I don't think you can find an major medical plan that would not cover a burst appendix emergency.

[Blinken]

They are required to accept and stabilize a patient that has a medical emergency. The thing with the appendix is that she may have had the pain and not get treatment because it was just pain and she was undiagnosed. Once the apendix bursts and she becomes septic it would constitute a medical emergency then the hospital would be required to treat her. In alot of cases it is already too late.

My mom went a long time with doctors telling her that the pain was just in her head and because she was a woman she should just see a shrink. Then she was admited to the ER months later in serious pain. They did exploratory surgery where they found the appendix was moments away from burting and had wraped itself around her intestines. So sometimes the doctors fail at diagnosing a life threating problem and then refuse treatment because of insurance thinking the problem nothing.

[Trick Loves The Kids]

If you think the McCain healthcare plan is a good idea, I'm sorry that you've been tricked into voting against your best interests. Try harder in 2012.

[TeamCoachellaHellYeah]

Yes. This is my favorite argument used by people against universal healthcare – government involvement will completely fuck up a machine that's already running so perfectly.

So I'm not sure if your kidding or not but the system now is NOT running perfectly. The US pays more then any other country in the world for healthcare (15% of GDP or close to 2 trillion dollars) and still have around 40 million people without health insurance (almost a sixth of the population). The the country with the 2nd largest bill is Switzerland (which runs with a public/private system) pays the 2nd most with around 13% of GDP with everyone covered.

[TeamCoachellaHellYeah]

and more random figures

Key findings include:

In 2004 the US spent the most per capita on hospital services, and Canada and Japan spent the least. Adjusted for differences in cost of living, inpatient acute care spending per day in the United States was nearly three times the median OECD country ($2,337) and over five times more than Japan ($419).

The US spent twice the OECD median per capita on drugs in 2004—$752 compared with $377.

Nearly one-third (30.6%) of individuals in the US were obese in 2004, compared with 13 percent of the OECD median.

The US had about two and a half times the OECD median for years of potential life lost due to diabetes—101 per 1,000 people compared with 39 per 1,000 (U.S. data is for 2002).

[faxman75]

Where are you getting the 18,000?

Also, the appendix thing is a real story; little girl died because her appendix burst and no one would help her. or her shitty insurance wouldn't cover it or soemthing. I don't remember the sematics. but I remember she died.

Yeah, that's effed up and sad. I can't handle stories of kids dying.

It comes from a "care without coverage report".

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/healthcare/2002-05-22-insurance-deaths.htm

[faxman75]

What does everyone think of Massachusetts universal health care?
They are not allowed by law to turn anyone away for care for financial reasons when it's an emergency situation.

WHO IS ELIGIBLE FOR FREE CARE?


Patients enrolled in the CenterCare Program.
Patients whose family income is under 200% of the federal poverty level (see chart).
Patients whose family income is between 200% and 400% of the federal poverty level (see chart) are eligible for partial free care. Hospitals must provide partial free care; health centers have the option.
If paying a hospital bill will cause financial hardship on a patient or his family -- even if the family income is greater than 400% of poverty -- the patient may be eligible for free or partial free care. (See "Special Circumstances.")

[TomAz]

I think the jury is still out on the Massachusetts program. We'll see. At least they're trying.

Here's an interesting bit of trivia. What subgroup of Americans is the only group to be guaranteed healthcare by the US Constitution?

[allyjoy]

Native Americans?

[locachica73]

yes but in most places the native american hospitals are so overrun that it takes months to get into see someone. The only good native american hospitals that I know of are in Alaska.

[PotVsKtl]

Maybe you five percenters should get the fuck off the res?

[PotVsKtl]

There's only so much lousy free fruit to go around. If you can't ride a horse you don't get smallpox reparations.

[TomAz]

Native Americans?

No. the answer is prison inmates. because to deny them healthcare would be 'cruel and unusual punishment'.


chew on that irony for a while, listeners.

[PotVsKtl]

http://i34.tinypic.com/2dwfhbr.gif

[faxman75]

I feel bad for natives. They don't handle their liquor very well and it's ruined many of their lives.

[chairmenmeow47]

There's only so much lousy free fruit to go around. If you can't ride a horse you don't get smallpox reparations.

not to mention a lot of the "services" on their reservations are crap. there were some out here that i had heard couldn't even get adequate fire service. that whole system is outdated.

and i also fear ever leaving my job and having to get insurance elsewhere. i have a pretty good plan, at least it seems that way. i hate feeling like a slave to my job just because of insurance. why the FUCK do we tie healthcare to employment?!?! you spend 16 years of your life unemployable for crying out loud...

[TheWatcher]

Sorry for the long post...

I actually am interested in learning more about this issue, but both candidates are lying and fabricating at this point in the election process. In any case, it will require congress to create the new laws, the president isn't going to be able to change health care all on his own.

Well, I guess it was a dumb idea to ask people's opinions of a hot-button political issue during election year. There are of course the typical personal attacks:

You're an idiot.

Oh my - retarded.

--ahem :rolleyes

If you think the McCain healthcare plan is a good idea, I'm sorry that you've been tricked into voting against your best interests. Try harder in 2012.

-Please do not interpret my question as an indication on who I am voting for. Although McCain's health care plan is clearly better for me in my present state, I am not making the mistake of voting for someone based on one issue.

FAIL
Obama's Health Care >>> McCain's


-No cute fail picture? Damn! Anyway, I have read many arguments from both sides, and am still not sure of the answer myself.

The Wall Street Journal is owned by Rupurt Murdoch, who also owns Fox News, while it is still a good publication he seems to puting the same spin more and more.

-Good to know.

The other problem with the tax credit is what about the people who work minimum wage and don't make enough to pay taxes? How will a tax credit help these people, who make up the largest portion of the uninsured.

--The proposed tax credit is payable regardless of the person's tax liability. Someone paying 0 in taxes would get the same exact credit as anyone else.

So we are taking prevention out of the equation? Regular checkups and physicals would likely not be covered, so by the time someone is diagnosed the cost will be higher, and the patient would be much more likely to die. I really think prevention, and early diagnoses is the way to lower healthcare costs. Catch something before it becomes catastrophic.

--Why would paying for the insurance with a tax credit change the terms of the policy? Please explain. Most insurance policies currently available do cover routine care, in varying degrees. I have private insurance. It covers things basic care, such as yearly check-ups, blood work, mammograms, etc.


My mom went a long time with doctors telling her that the pain was just in her head and because she was a woman she should just see a shrink. Then she was admited to the ER months later in serious pain. They did exploratory surgery where they found the appendix was moments away from burting and had wraped itself around her intestines. So sometimes the doctors fail at diagnosing a life threating problem and then refuse treatment because of insurance thinking the problem nothing.

--I am glad your mom finally got the care she needed. Seems to be common for women to be told that it must be in their head. Seems like we need to not only increase the availability of health care, but also the quality!

This is the best part of the Republican party, they fuck shit up so bad that people lose faith in government programs.

--I think there is a lot of truth in that. But, what do we do now, after 30+ years?

With Obama's plan you would buy into the same healthcare coverage as the Senate, I trust them not to fuck up their own healthcare because they are invested in the same system.

--Sounds good. But, will there be different levels of coverage? For example, Blue Cross offers many different levels of coverage.

i think it's utter bullshit that i can't get decent priced insurance because i have a pre-existing condition! just because i would actually use it while most of the population doesn't shouldn't preclude me. i think i read somewhere that a huge majority of people will never spend more than a day in the hospital over most of their lives. i spend a good 40 days+ a year. guess i am not good for the insurance companies' bottom lines, sucks that it's about profit for them and not what insurance is meant to be for. if obama gets elected he better pull through with those subsidies he is promising.

--I think that TomAz explained this fairly well, however:

Listen, I simply want us to be a humnaitarian nation. I don't want soldiers who come back from war to have to chose a finger to save. I don't want seniors and others who can't afford healthcare because they just lost their job travelling to Mexico or Canada for medication or healthcare because we can't take care of our own. I don't want people who are struggling financially or because of some life chaning event they no longer have insurance to have to suffer extra because of the dollar and lack of providers willing to help.

Is that socialism? I could care less. I want the government to take care of the people who can't afford to do it themselves. As long as we have money for the war on drugs then I think a universal program that at least provides some minimal care for people is a necessity.


--This is true. In order to cover people who cannot afford their own medical care, there is a need for someone else to pay for it. People then cry "Socialism", and somehow "Welfare" becomes a dirty word. I have no problem with people who are truly in need being covered as long as it doesn't mean that I am then left with no care myself.

If you think McCains vouchers program is the answer then you have to realize he's lying about not raising your taxes to do it.

--Well, I know some of the money will come from very rich people and people who have very generous health coverage through their employer. It does not make me happy that I have to pay for private health insurance, but people making much more than I will ever make get free health care.

I think taxes will likely be increased for either Obama's or McCains' plans, by the way.

It sucks when you can't buy insurance because say, you had an anxiety attack in college. I'm otherwise healthy, but can't get insurance because I didn't lie on the application forms. Apparently that's the trick. They denied me for anxiety and a sprained wrist....from 3 years ago. Way to go assholes.

--Not sure where you live, but it's hard to believe that you can't get insurance for something relatively minor. In most cases, you just are not covered for that specific pre-existing condition for some period of time. Have you tried other companies?

I really dislike the way government runs things, but I'm leaning toward true nationalized health care. Not this subsidy/partly private/fucking with employers bullshit.

-I agree that relying on employers to provide insurance is not working out.


The problem all stems back to the optional nature of health insurance. If everybody were required to have health insurance, then 'selection risk' would not be an issue and people like Just Steve and your friend's son would be covered. This was the core of Hillary Clinton's proposed plan this spring. She was the only candidate to get it right.

--This is true. My only concern is that they need to fix the system before they require that everyone pay into it.


Also, that appendectomy is a huge part of the problem too. if an appendectomy in the US cost the same as an appendectomy in Canada, our situation would be different I think. Or at least, insurance would be more affordable.

--True again. The costs of medical care are probably grossly inflated. There are many arguments as to why this is.


The fact is we don't know what Obama's universal coverage will include and stumping for it is one thing, getting it passed with a tax raising clause is another.

We shall see though. Any coverage has to be better than zero coverage, americans shouldn't be left to the indadequacy of the nations emergency rooms, which is when it's too late to begin with. They need to be able to get check ups, exams, screenings and have a doctor to work with.

--True. Anything is better than nothing, and I think either plan is maybe better than what we have now.

[Blinken]

--The proposed tax credit is payable regardless of the person's tax liability. Someone paying 0 in taxes would get the same exact credit as anyone else.


They would get the credit but it would be useless to them. They would still pay 0 and make the same amount of money as before, so if they can't purchase healthcare now they still won't be able to under McCain's plan.



--Why would paying for the insurance with a tax credit change the terms of the policy? Please explain. Most insurance policies currently available do cover routine care, in varying degrees. I have private insurance. It covers things basic care, such as yearly check-ups, blood work, mammograms, etc.


The article implies that we should all pay for our regular checkups, in the same way that auto insurance does not cover regular tune ups. They were saying that since the current policies are tax exempt from employers it creates a market where people buy all the coverage they can get. By giving out tax credit people would have to be more selective in the coverage they purchase. So instead of getting full comprehensive coverage they get basic liability just incase something truely horrific happens.



--I am glad your mom finally got the care she needed. Seems to be common for women to be told that it must be in their head. Seems like we need to not only increase the availability of health care, but also the quality!



You are 100% right we need both.



--I think there is a lot of truth in that. But, what do we do now, after 30+ years?


I think we have to fix the system as a whole, if voters stop buying into the Republican idea that government is inherently fucked and blame them for fucking it up maybe we can fix the mess. I still think that by tying our healthcare with congress' healthcare it helps eliminate the risk of Republicans fucking up the system to prove a point.




--Sounds good. But, will there be different levels of coverage? For example, Blue Cross offers many different levels of coverage.



I am not sure what the Senate plan is but I would imagine so.

Tom is right about the insurance system, we have put another for profit industry inbetween us and our healthcare. This is why we pay the most and get so little in return. If we didn't have insurance companies the money could straight from our taxes to the hospitals and doctors, without middle men taking their cut.

[TheWatcher]

They would get the credit but it would be useless to them. They would still pay 0 and make the same amount of money as before, so if they can't purchase healthcare now they still won't be able to under McCain's plan.

Actually, the credit is not a refund of taxes paid, but an actual credit. It would be sent directly to the insurance company.

The $5000 credit for a family would be $1500 more than I am currently paying for my daughter and I through private insurance. So, I could get better coverage and pay $0, for a savings of approx. $3,500 per year.

I understand the point about people with pre-existing conditions having very expensive policies. But, taken at face value, this would only reduce subsidies for people with very generous policies. Since the deduction for insurance would come out of the employee's pocket and not the employer's, I don't see any reason for employers to stop providing insurance based on this.

[Blinken]

I think you are confused on what a tax credit is.
A dollar-for-dollar reduction in the tax payment required from a person. Deductions and exemptions only reduce the amount of your income that is taxable. Tax credits reduce the actual amount of tax owed.
http://www.answers.com/topic/tax-credit

[TheWatcher]

I think you are confused on what a tax credit is.

http://www.answers.com/topic/tax-credit

It's a "refundable tax credit":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_credit

Tax credits may be characterized as either refundable or non-refundable, or equivalently non-wastable or wastable. Refundable or non-wastable tax credits can reduce the tax owed below zero, and result in a net payment to the taxpayer beyond their own payments into the tax system, appearing to be a moderate form of negative income tax. Examples of refundable tax credits include the earned income tax credit and the additional child tax credit in the U.S., and working tax credits or child tax credits in the UK.

[Blinken]

Interesting, I didn't think he would give a refundable tax credit. He has the nerve to call Obama a socialist and complain about spreading the wealth around! Fuck him.

I still don't like him deregulating the insurance industry though.

[JustSteve]

No. the answer is prison inmates. because to deny them healthcare would be 'cruel and unusual punishment'.


chew on that irony for a while, listeners.

what about that lard ass who was fighting his execution by lethal injection in the courts due to the fact that it may take a few extra sticks to find a vein under his layer of fat, constituting cruel and unusual punishment? tax dollars hard at work!

[psycobetabuckdown]

The answer is not to put your care in the hands of government. When has trusting the government to take care of you ever worked out?

For decades, the U.S. healthcare system was the envy of the entire world. Not coincidentally, there was far less government involvement in medicine during this time. America had the finest doctors and hospitals, patients enjoyed high quality, affordable medical care, and thousands of private charities provided health services for the poor. Doctors focused on treating patients, without the red tape and threat of lawsuits that plague the profession today. Most Americans paid cash for basic services, and had insurance only for major illnesses and accidents. This meant both doctors and patients had an incentive to keep costs down, as the patient was directly responsible for payment, rather than an HMO or government program.
- Dr. Ron Paul

Don't tell me the free market system isn't working, because that's not what we have right now. It seems half the people in this thread are assuming that just because it's bad already means it can't get any worse. That kind of logic enslaves nations. What if you told yourself the same thing in regard to the PATRIOT Act? You wouldn't, because you know it can be worse. America hasn't felt totalitarianism yet, but people act like that means it's impossible. If we dip our feet into the socialist pond, how can we be sure it won't soon become a lake of left-wing dictatorship?

[Blinken]

Look at the other western nations that have socialized medicine are they left-wing dictatorships??

Forget that it should be a right to all Americans. To compete in the global market place we need socialized healthcare. Relying solely on employers to pay for it is killing us. As the costs rise employers have to make cuts and ship jobs overseas. The union jobs like in the auotmotive industry guaranty healthcare throughout retirement, so as costs go up so do the amount they owe to past workers, not to mention current workers. You can't lay off retired employees so you are forced to lay off current smployees and ship the jobs away. It does not help maters that we are currently in an economic downturn right now. The unemployement rate would go down and wages would increase, this would increase the government revenue from income taxes helping to fund the program. The rest of the program cost could come from a combination increased business tax, which would be far cheaper than providing healthcare on their own, and eliminating programs that do not work anymore. This will also stimulate more small businesses that won't have to worry about keeping their employees and themselves insured. Medical costs would go down because the insurance companies will not be taking their cut any more, and with a broad base of healthy people the actual costs go down. It is late so I apologize if none of that made any sense.

[arbouler]

east coast librul elitist NYTimes editorial on the two health care plans

(link) (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/28/opinion/28tue1.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin)

[psycobetabuckdown]

Look at the other western nations that have socialized medicine are they left-wing dictatorships??

Forget that it should be a right to all Americans. To compete in the global market place we need socialized healthcare. Relying solely on employers to pay for it is killing us. As the costs rise employers have to make cuts and ship jobs overseas. The union jobs like in the auotmotive industry guaranty healthcare throughout retirement, so as costs go up so do the amount they owe to past workers, not to mention current workers. You can't lay off retired employees so you are forced to lay off current smployees and ship the jobs away. It does not help maters that we are currently in an economic downturn right now. The unemployement rate would go down and wages would increase, this would increase the government revenue from income taxes helping to fund the program. The rest of the program cost could come from a combination increased business tax, which would be far cheaper than providing healthcare on their own, and eliminating programs that do not work anymore. This will also stimulate more small businesses that won't have to worry about keeping their employees and themselves insured. Medical costs would go down because the insurance companies will not be taking their cut any more, and with a broad base of healthy people the actual costs go down. It is late so I apologize if none of that made any sense.

To ask that question misses the point that just because it hasn't happened does not mean it won't happen. Take inflation, for example. Does inflating the dollar a little make it worthless? No. But you keep inflating the dollar day after month after year and you have...our current dollar. Hindsight is 20/20. But to answer the question, they aren't leftist dictatorships (not the western ones) but they are a step closer than they were before. If you keep giving the government control over this and that, it will justify controlling more and more of your life. This is the opposite of freedom.

I will forget the faulty claim that healthcare should be a right to all Americans.

We need socialized healthcare to compete in the marketplace? "Socialize" and "marketplace" are antitheses of each other, if you're talking about a fair and free market. You're right about employers having to make cuts when costs rise, but you don't solve that by socializing the system so costs are paid to the federal government. You solve the problem by lowering costs (cf. the Ron Paul quote in my last post for one way). It's just like the bailout; we reacted to a free market downturn by socializing the banks, therefore potentially worsening the downturn (we're still in the middle of this). Instead, let the market naturally recover and we wouldn't even be talking about any bailouts.

I hear everything else you're saying after that, and it does make sense, but it becomes irrelevant if you address the simple problem of allowing the market to make up for itself. I of course agree that high costs cause the problem of having to many workers to provide for and not enough resources to provide.

[Blinken]

To ask that question misses the point that just because it hasn't happened does not mean it won't happen. Take inflation, for example. Does inflating the dollar a little make it worthless? No. But you keep inflating the dollar day after month after year and you have...our current dollar. Hindsight is 20/20. But to answer the question, they aren't leftist dictatorships (not the western ones) but they are a step closer than they were before. If you keep giving the government control over this and that, it will justify controlling more and more of your life. This is the opposite of freedom.

I will forget the faulty claim that healthcare should be a right to all Americans.

We need socialized healthcare to compete in the marketplace? "Socialize" and "marketplace" are antitheses of each other, if you're talking about a fair and free market. You're right about employers having to make cuts when costs rise, but you don't solve that by socializing the system so costs are paid to the federal government. You solve the problem by lowering costs (cf. the Ron Paul quote in my last post for one way). It's just like the bailout; we reacted to a free market downturn by socializing the banks, therefore potentially worsening the downturn (we're still in the middle of this). Instead, let the market naturally recover and we wouldn't even be talking about any bailouts.

I hear everything else you're saying after that, and it does make sense, but it becomes irrelevant if you address the simple problem of allowing the market to make up for itself. I of course agree that high costs cause the problem of having to many workers to provide for and not enough resources to provide.

They aren't one step closer to dictatorships, thay are still democratci societies. They are more to the left but that does not equate dictatorship, the right does get us closer ethier.

You are thinking in absolutes. The free market does not work in every situation. Would you rather a public fire department or private one? They had this problem a long time ago, the fire fighters would fight over jobs, set fires and anything else they could arted giving city contracts and slowly absorbed these fire stations. I would ado make a profit. The was hurting the public so eventual city governments strgue that health care is a public service the same way fire and police departments are. The main problem is insurance comppanies.

We can not compete against countries with socialized healthcare without having an equally efficent system in place here.

[TomAz]

Editorial in today's Philadelphia Inquirer. The author is Uwe Reinhart, probably the leading healthcare economist in the country.

COMMENTARY
U.S. health insurance costing $5,800 a year?
McCain's proposal for U.S. families is deeply troubling.

By Uwe E. Reinhardt
A health-care economist and a professor at Princeton

As a longtime health economist, I almost fell out of my chair when, during the third presidential debate, Sen. John McCain told the audience that "the average cost of a health insurance policy in America today is $5,800."

He continued: "I'll give them [families] $5,000 to take with them wherever they want to go, and this will give them affordability." He seemed to suggest that the average American family could get adequate health insurance for an additional $800 a year.

Try calling up one or more health-insurance companies in your area. Pretend you are part of a family of four without health insurance. Throw in that one of the adults has diabetes, or had a bout with cancer. Then see what kind of health insurance policy - if any - you can get for $5,800 a year.

According to a highly respected annual survey of employer-sponsored health insurance in America, conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Heath Research Educational Trust, the average annual premium for the type of insurance employers provide is $12,600.

That includes the employer's and employee's contributions to the premium, but not the family's out-of-pocket costs, which have been rising steadily in recent years. According to the Milliman Medical Index, based on millions of privately insured Americans, average medical costs for the typical American family when out-of-pocket spending is included are $15,600.

What kind of coverage, then, could an annual premium of $5,800 get you, even if your whole family were healthy? And what if one or more members had a chronic illness, or had had a bout with cancer?

Sure, an insurer might get the premium down to $5,800 by excluding enough services from coverage (for example, maternity and mental-health care), strictly limiting various types of spending (such as prescription drugs), and imposing a deductible in the thousands upfront and significant co-insurance thereafter. But what kind of insurance would that be?

Most likely, it would be "un-surance." Once seriously ill, you would quickly find yourself paying a lot of money out of pocket.

I am deeply troubled that McCain appears to believe that a mere $5,800 can buy American families the protection they need against the costs of illness - especially as our economy moves into what may be a deep, prolonged recession, and as more and more Americans are laid off from work.

If you are uninsured or fear that you might lose your coverage, go to the candidates' Web sites and carefully check out what they say about their health-insurance proposals. Leave aside any ideological baggage and clichés, such as socialized medicine - which Sen. Barack Obama's plan, based predominantly on government-subsidized private insurance, certainly is not. (Socialized medicine is something like the health system Americans reserve for their veterans.)

And then support the health plan that you believe protects your own family best.

[BROKENDOLL]

No. the answer is prison inmates. because to deny them healthcare would be 'cruel and unusual punishment'.


chew on that irony for a while, listeners. It's a fact, I know...:rolleyes About 18 years ago I didn't have insurance nor the money to cover surgery that was recommended for a growth on one of my ovaries. It wasn't so much life threatening at the time, but it could have been eventually. Unfortunately, or fortunately, I ended up in the wrong place at the wrong time, and ended up in the prison system. (Oh, shit! Look, "True Confessions" is on!) But, anyway...Yeah, it became of utmost importance to have that surgery taken care of immediately due to that cruel and unusual punishment clause. After removing a cyst that was the size of a grapefruit, and had pretty much began attaching itself to my reproductive organs, I was told how lucky I was to have taken care of it when I did. Yeah, what's ironic is what I had to go through to have it taken care of! Now I'm a respectable, somewhat law-abiding citizen, :rolleyes and the only insurance I get is during the 7 months of employment, then I'm ass-out again for 5 months! (Thanks for allowing me to put the icing on that cake of irony, TomAz...I feel like a good example of the state our medical care system is in.)

[chairmenmeow47]

The answer is not to put your care in the hands of government. When has trusting the government to take care of you ever worked out?


- Dr. Ron Paul

Don't tell me the free market system isn't working, because that's not what we have right now. It seems half the people in this thread are assuming that just because it's bad already means it can't get any worse. That kind of logic enslaves nations. What if you told yourself the same thing in regard to the PATRIOT Act? You wouldn't, because you know it can be worse. America hasn't felt totalitarianism yet, but people act like that means it's impossible. If we dip our feet into the socialist pond, how can we be sure it won't soon become a lake of left-wing dictatorship?


oh jesus christ, i thought we were done hearing ron paul propaganda for the season. your comparison of the patriot act to this health care discussion is the first thing to make me laugh this morning though, congrats.

[PotVsKtl]

McCain's top economic advisor seems to think McCain's health care plan sucks:

Younger, healthier workers likely wouldn't abandon their company-sponsored plans, said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, McCain's senior economic policy adviser.

"Why would they leave?" said Holtz-Eakin. "What they are getting from their employer is way better than what they could get with the credit."

http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/28/news/economy/health_care_and_election/?postversion=2008102807

[kroqken]

Obama and Congress are on the verge of getting us health care. PROMISE MADE! PROMISE KEPT!!!!

[TheWatcher]

Ha! From what I have been reading, the plan they are coming up with will hurt the lower and middle classes. There will be a group of people (about 4% of the population) that can't afford to buy insurance, can't get subsidies, and is punished for not having insurance. Unless they fix that part of it, I can't see it working.

[JebusLives]

Instead, let the market naturally recover and we wouldn't even be talking about any bailouts.


Where does this fucking mentality come from?? "The Market" is not a magical, intelligent force that automatically self-corrects and regulates. It works remarkably well with little external input, but it isn't fucking magical. A recession is the market experiencing technical difficulties due to a contrained money supply. Markets don't "naturally recover" from recession - that's the kind of thinking that gave us a great depression. It took massive, massive stimulus (a world war!) to get us out of that mess.

edit: I just responded to a year-old thread. FUCK YOU KEN, FUCK YOU IN YOUR STUPID ASSHOLE.

[faxman75]

McCain lashed out at Obama during his town hall meeting in Mesa.

http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/146519
This one quote got my attention.

"You know why there is no medical malpractice reform in that bill?" McCain asked.

Some in the audience responded by alluding to President Obama's vocation: He's a lawyer.

"And you all know the difference between a catfish and a lawyer?" McCain questioned. "One is a scum-sucking bottom dweller and the other is a fish."

[crazzz2007]

Obama and Congress are on the verge of getting us health care. PROMISE MADE! PROMISE KEPT!!!!

ken, do you have health insurance? if so, how is Obama getting you health insurance?

[kroqken]

ken, do you have health insurance? if so, how is Obama getting you health insurance?

I have it, but if I had my druthers, there would be a single payer health care system, like in much of Europe and Canada and there would be no need for private health insurance.

[kroqken]

I think I am the first person to use the word "druthers" in the history of the Coachella message board.

[TomAz]

Ha! From what I have been reading, the plan they are coming up with will hurt the lower and middle classes. There will be a group of people (about 4% of the population) that can't afford to buy insurance, can't get subsidies, and is punished for not having insurance. Unless they fix that part of it, I can't see it working.

The punishment has no teeth. They still won't have healthcare though.

best commentary* i've seen yet on the reform debate.. from the Washington Post..

* - edit - the Lewin # is suspect, I understand that. the principles are the same regardless.

***


Public plan mirage

By Robert J. Samuelson
Monday, October 26, 2009



In the health-care debate, the "public plan" is all things to all people. For supporters, it would discipline greedy private insurers and make health-care coverage affordable. For detractors, it's a way station on the path to a single-payer insurance system of government-run health care. In reality, the public plan, also known as the public option, is mostly an exercise in political avoidance: It pretends to control costs and improve access to quality care when it doesn't.

As originally conceived by Yale political scientist Jacob Hacker, the public plan would be a government-created, nonprofit insurance company providing Medicare-like coverage to the under-65 population. But unlike Medicare, benefits would be paid for mainly by premiums -- not taxes. Americans could buy coverage from the public plan or a private insurer.

Competition and choice would increase, say liberals. Facing the low-cost public plan, private insurers would hold down their own premiums, the argument goes. Health-care costs for everyone would moderate. Government subsidies to provide universal coverage would be cheaper. By some estimates, Medicare's administrative costs are only 3 percent of spending, compared with 13 percent or more for private insurers. A new public plan is widely presumed to enjoy an advantage in overhead.

Nonsense, retort critics. The public plan's low costs would be artificial. Its main advantage would be the congressionally mandated requirement that hospitals and doctors be reimbursed at rates at or near Medicare's. These are as much as 30 percent lower than rates paid by private insurers, says the health-care consulting firm Lewin Group. With such savings, the public plan could charge much lower premiums and attract lots of customers. But health costs wouldn't subside; hospitals and doctors would offset the public plan's artificially low reimbursements by raising fees to private insurers, as already occurs with Medicare. Premiums would increase because private insurers must cover costs to survive.

As for administrative expenses, any advantage for the public plan is exaggerated, say critics. Part of the gap between private insurers and Medicare is statistical illusion: Because Medicare recipients have higher average health expenses ($10,003 in 2007) than the under-65 population ($3,946), its administrative costs are a smaller share of total spending. The public plan, with younger members, wouldn't enjoy this advantage.

Likewise, Medicare has low marketing costs because it's a monopoly. But a non-monopoly public plan would have to sell itself and would incur higher marketing costs. Private insurers' profits (included in administrative costs) also explain some of Medicare's cost advantage. But profits represent only 3 percent of the insurance industry's revenue. Moreover, accounting comparisons are misleading when they don't include the cost of Medicare's government-supplied investment capital. A public plan would also need investment capital. And suppose the public plan suffers losses. Congress would assuredly bail it out.

The promise of the public plan is a mirage. Its political brilliance is to use free-market rhetoric (more "choice" and "competition") to expand government power. But why would a plan tied to Medicare control health spending, when Medicare hasn't? From 1970 to 2007, Medicare spending per beneficiary rose 9.2 percent annually compared to the 10.4 percent of private insurers -- and the small difference partly reflects cost shifting. Congress periodically improves Medicare benefits, and there's a limit to how much squeezing reimbursement rates can check costs. Doctors and hospitals already complain that low payments limit services or discourage physicians from taking Medicare patients.

Even Hacker concedes that without reimbursement rates close to Medicare's, the public plan would founder. If it had to "negotiate rates directly with providers" -- do what private insurers do -- the public plan could have "a very hard time" making inroads, he writes. Hacker opposes such weakened versions of the public plan.

By contrast, a favored public plan would probably doom today's private insurance. Although some congressional proposals limit enrollment eligibility in the public plan, pressures to liberalize would be overwhelming. Why should only some under-65 Americans enjoy lower premiums? In one study that assumed widespread eligibility, the Lewin Group estimated that 103 million people -- half the number with private insurance -- would switch to the public plan. Private insurance might become a specialty product.

Many would say: Whoopee! Get rid of the sinister insurers. Bring on a single-payer system. But if that's the agenda, why not debate it directly? It's not insurers that cause high health costs; they're simply the middlemen. It's the fragmented delivery system and open-ended reimbursement. Would strict regulation of doctors, hospitals and patients under a single-payer system provide control? Or would genuine competition among health plans over price and quality work better?

© 2009 The Washington Post Company

[TheWatcher]

Well, the latest information on the "public option" is that it would only be available to people who were not offered insurance through their employer. Now, I was working for over 8 years as a contractor, and the "insurance" I was offered was a sad joke. It covered about $7k per year(!) of medical costs. Unless they set up some minimum standards for the insurance offered by employers, or allow anyone to purchase the public option, it would only be helping a small number of people.

As long as the tax exemption for employer-provided insurance remains, and people are not exposed to the true cost of insurance/health care, we will continue to have a 2-tier system.

[faxman75]

TERRORISM!

"I share that fear, and I believe they should be fearful," Foxx said, "And I believe the greatest fear that we all should have to our freedom comes from this room - this very room - and what may happen later this week in terms of a tax increase bill masquerading as a health care bill.

"I believe we have more to fear from the potential of that bill passing than we do from any terrorist right now in any country."


http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/11/02/gop-congresswoman-says-health-care-bill-scarier-than-terrorism/

[kroqken]

I wish the health care proposal that passe the U.S. House of Representatives did not have that stupid anti-abortion amendment attached. I hate Blue Dog Democrats, they are Republican in everything but name only.