Just got off the phone with my mother in Ohio

[ninainsf]

Does anyone have a website which clearly says how Kerry is going to pay for his healthcare plan? It might turn a no-vote into a Kerry vote. The info at http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/health_care/health_care.html is a good sell, but doesn't provide detail on cost and how it's going to pay for itself. Thank you!

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Robbie67]

5. asking about specifics?

is trollish?

[flowomo]

7. eh, probably just me being paranoid.

low post.... form of the question.... tense times.

[NMDemDist2]

2. this may help

http://www.centrists.org/pages/2004/08/18_lemieux_health.html

and this one is good too

http://www.changeforamerica.com/community/node/view/1455

[Indiana_Dem]

3. Here's a New York Times article that's good:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/03/opinion/03sun1.html?oref=login&oref=login

Hope to God it helps!

[Indiana_Dem]

8. It looks at both candidates' plans

and Kerry's plan would cost more but it would cover more people. It is brutally honest to both candidates. The reason I like Kerry's plan is because it will cover more people even though it will cost more. That is what people want, right? They want access to decent healthcare if they need it? That is what Kerry's plan is about.

on edit:
Kerry's plan could cover 27 million uninsured
Bush's plan would only cover 7 million uninsured

That's would be worth the cost to me.

[kikiek]

11. I agree. We are rated 38th in infant mortality rate. 37 countries have

lower mortality rates than we do. That is shameful.

[Kanary]

31. Actually, IIRC, we rate a whole lot lower than that.

I think we rate something like 38 in overall health index.

Infant mortality is much, much lower.

:(

It, indeed, is *VErY* shameful....

Kanary

[tsuki]

28. I spoke with

a friend from Switzerland. They have universal health care, and it costs, but when you live in Florida where the premiums are outrageous, your choice is limited to feed your family or have medical insurance.

[Cleita]

4. I did get information on that off of the Kerry website that has since

been replaced with other articles. It was said that he was going to tax the upper 2% of the rich, you know the ones who got a tax break from Bush to pay for it. I don't think anything has changed about that.

[kikiek]

6. To be honest it will be cheaper than all the uninsured as it is.

The hospitals can't eat up the uninsured costs. They charge more to your insurance who then charge more for your premiums. More companies aren't able to afford insurance, and people can't afford them on their own. This creates more uninsured. The claim that it is because of frivolous lawsuits is baloney. They have limited them in 2 states already, and neither state has lowered their health insurance costs. Only benefits the insurance companies once again.

[ryban]

9. From the May 11, 2004 Washington Post

Hope this helps. This is from a story in the May 11, 2004 Washington Post entitled "Kerry Addresses Health Care Costs":
++++++++++++++++++++
<snip>

Under the Kerry approach, the federal government would pay for the most expensive health expenses, known as catastrophic costs. The plan would also provide tax credits and other benefits to businesses to provide lower-cost coverage to employees and would permit the reimportation of prescription drugs from Canada, among other things. The idea is to push prices down by easing pressure in several areas, from business to bureaucracy, simultaneously.

To spread coverage to the uninsured, Kerry would expand existing programs for lower-income workers, through Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program, or CHIP.

Kerry's health care plan is easily his most ambitious campaign promise, but it comes with a large price tag: more than $650 billion, and perhaps much more, over the next decade, according to health care experts. The proposal dwarfs the senator's plans to increase spending in other areas, including education and the environment.

The senator says he would pay for the health care changes by repealing the Bush tax cuts for those making $200,000 or more each year. Independent experts predict this tax-cut rollback would generate $800 billion to $900 billion over the next decade, which would cover the health program's cost but leave little room for other spending increases in a Kerry administration, assuming he adheres to his pledge to cut the deficit in half by 2009. . . .

<snip>

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15745-2004May10.html

[ninainsf]

13. Thanks! I think I can use this...

<snip>

The senator says he would pay for the health care changes by repealing the Bush tax cuts for those making $200,000 or more each year. Independent experts predict this tax-cut rollback would generate $800 billion to $900 billion over the next decade, which would cover the health program's cost but leave little room for other spending increases in a Kerry administration, assuming he adheres to his pledge to cut the deficit in half by 2009.

<snip>

The other bad thing mother said is she will NOT stand in line for more than an hour to vote. Are there any efforts underway to encourage people to tough it out and wait in the case of long long lines?

[ninainsf]

22. Actually, I think I will use this instead

8) What will your plans cost, and how will you pay for them?

The independent analysis from Ken Thorpe at Emory concludes that the Kerry health plan would cost $653 billion over the next 10 years. And every penny of that would be paid for by rolling back the Bush tax cut for families making over $200,000 per year. That's the top 1.4% of families, keep in mind. That tax rollback is projected to raise $860 billion over the next decade. The difference goes to education.

from: http://webcenter.health.webmd.netscape.com/content/article/95/103273.htm?action=related_link#q8

[Strelnikov_]

25. Ask Your Mother If See Wants A Retarded Hoover In Office When The

economy tanks next year.

In picking a President, we should be looking at leadership potential, not campaign promises, the fulfillment of which will probably be impossible due to the demands of future crises.

Federal Deficit @ 6% of GDP
Current Accounts Deficit @ 6% of GDP.
1.6 M private sector jobs lost over the last 4 years.
Domestic personal debt at record highs.
Foreign held debt at record highs.
Peak oil economic transients just beginning.
Stuck in a military quagmire in the region of the world with 3/4 of proven oil reserves.

A crash is coming. The only question is when.

Again, do you want retarded Hoover in charge?

[crispini]

27. Does she work?

If so, tell her to be at polling place 1st thing. Also be prepared to be late to work. Employer is supposed to give you time off to vote per HAVA.

And if she doesn't, maybe 10ish, midmorning, would be good because it would be pre lunch rush.

Tell her to take a folding chair and water and a snack, just in case! :)

[ninainsf]

30. She will go during an off time

She doesn't work so she can go whenever. I'm just concerned that at all the polling places all day long there will be lines which will be discouraging.

[Fescue4u]

10. How we pay for it not important

Its important that we get it.

We can deal with the minor details later.

[Thurston Howell IV]

12. UR funny

We're talking billions. Whadareyougoofy? How we pay for it is important!

[Fescue4u]

14. Please

Its government money.

While it IS important, its not that important.

The reality is that we are paying for it already, but not everyone gets to use it.

In the end, its simply accounting and making sure the right buckets filled and shifted around.

[kikiek]

15. We already are. The more uninsured there are the more it costs.

[Fescue4u]

17. Give that man a cigar

Exactly.

[Thurston Howell IV]

18. Paying for health care is not a "minor detail"

No matter how you want to spin it, it isn't minor. I understand that we, as a country, have many resources, and the we also waste an incredible amount in delivering healthcare.

But just waving your hand and proclaiming that how hundreds of billions of dollars are going to be accounted for is a minor detail doesn't inspire confidence.

Reforming health care is a major issue and there is NO CONSENSUS on how we will do it.

Sorry, I'm not into bullshiting people.

[Fescue4u]

19. Spin it?

Please save the freeperism.

The reality is that if we want it, we must do it.

Sitting around and whining about details will insure that it never gets done.

[Thurston Howell IV]

24. Freeperism is really cute

I'm beyond liberal my friend. Check out my blog.

However, I'm reality based. Hundreds of billions of dollars are not a minor detail when there is no consensus on how to approach the issue. Remember Hillary's flaming defeat? Your approach does not reflect well on us.

BTW, the original post was specifically asking for information about how to fund this stuff. I don't think the guy's mom is going to be convinced to vote for Kerry by saying that payment is a minor detail.

[kikiek]

21. It is very simple really. It is called a viscous cycle. Healthcare's in it

[smirkymonkey]

23. Well, the Bush Administration managed to cough up

BILLIONS for this criminal war we're bogged down in, and that's WITH a tax cut for the richest 1%!

I would think the Kerry Administration could find at least half that much without the damn tax cut.

[Thurston Howell IV]

26. I'm not suggesting it isn't possible

But the question was about specifics. The "war on terror" is costing about 200 billion, so far. My understanding is that covering an additional 22 million people under Kerry's plan is 650 billion. Not chump change. And it still leaves over 20 million without insurance.

I don't have all the answers, but I know you guys are blowing smoke.

If you're not, just spell it out and I'll accept the facts. I'm real accomodating to facts.

[Merlin]

16. It's relatively simple.

The plan has 2 parts:
1) The government will "reinsure" (i.e. back up insurance companies) the most expensive medical treatments, removing them from the risk pool and lowering premiums on everybody,
2) The government will cover prescription drugs for seniors on Medicare.

Together they will cost $75 billion per year.

Kerry will roll back the tax cut on those making over $200,000, thus recovering $225 billion per year which will more than cover his health care plan.

[DuaneBidoux]

20. If can also of course be paid for in all the ways that we're paying now...

Lower costs for hospitals who don't have to cover uninsured and then pass the bill along to all of us. Everyone pays anyway when 1/5 the country is uninsured. Many people end up in emergency rooms on the edge of death with $200,000 medical bill they can't pay (but we do with our insurance premium) when simple preventative care could have taken care of the problem years before if they'd only had insurance. Europeans spend 1/2 what we spend per person on health care, and their health statistics are better. That's a simple fact.

[ninainsf]

29. Thanks all for your comments

I realize Kerry's plan is good, you don't have to tell me that. I told my mother that Canada's bill is less than California's and provide insurance to a lot more people. Sadly, my mom told me today one of her good friends is going into surgery on tuesday to remove a tumor in her stomach, 4 inches big. This friend's mother died of stomach cancer with a 1 inch tumor. This friend does not have health insurance. I asked my mom if this friend had insurance, would she have seeked help sooner, having been in some pain in the last two years. My mom said yes, probably. I hope this helps drive the point with her. I think she is for the plan...she's just wondering how it's going to get paid for. I feel terrible for the friend...too bad we didn't have a national plan option 4 years ago. Too bad noone listened to the Clintons when they wanted to talk about it.

[Kanary]

32. RElated info......

Not about cost of Kerry's plan, but these statistics usually get attention. This is from Co Dem Party:

If every American were covered by basic health insurance, regardless of employment type or income status, this nation would save significantly on health care costs and would be healthier and more productive, overall. Although the U.S. spends more than twice as much on health care as the average of other developed nations (which boast universal health coverage), we trail most of the developed world on indicators such as life expectancy and infant mortality, and were ranked 37th overall in health system performance by the 2000 World Health Organization Review.

Now I'll look for the infant mortality rate.....

Kanary
on edit: still not the infant mortality rate, but came across this figure..... don't know if it's the latest.. the rate is going up. :(

18,000 people die needlessly every year in this nation from lack of health care:

[Kanary]

33. Good URL with figures on it:

http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2000/08/28/gvsa0828.htm

*still* can't find our miserable infant mortality rates....... sigh......

Hope these help!

Kanary