My solution for Health Care

[BlackHeart]

If you don't have access to Medicare or Medicaid or your job doesn't provide health care coverage, then you must purchase private insurance on your own. That way everyone will have coverage. Problem solved.

Isn't this pretty much what Mitt Romney just did in Massachusetts? How does forcing people to buy something that they may not be able to afford solve the problem.

[Warpy]

1. If I were forced to buy coverage

I'd have to live in a box under a freeway bridge. I have had to choose between shelter and health insurance and shelter has won since 1987.

This is a stupid plan that only a rich man could possibly think is a good idea.

Single payer NOW. Nothing else will work.

[Cleita]

29. Yes, like the health savings accounts.

When I pointed out to a right winger that in order to save money, you have to have an income that provides a surplus after expenses, he couldn't compute it.

[Cobalt Violet]

51. Or someone who lacks health insurance who is very ill.

[dcfirefighter]

2. Seems to work in Switzerland

Though there, if you cannot afford it, they help you buy it. I believe they give you assistance if the out of pocket costs are over 10% of your income. But they don't buy it for you, you still have to make a consumer decision. In Switzerland, insurance companies cannot refuse customers - everyone is insurable by every company. Furthermore, providers (doctors, clinics, hospitals, etc.) cannot refuse patients nor charge different amounts to different insurers.

If everyone has coverage, then the cost of free riders doesn't have to be passed on to paying customers - one of the big reasons an ER visit is so expensive.

If everyone is a customer, the the insurers must compete on a cost / service basis.
If providers must serve everyone, then they must also compete on a cost / service basis.

It is this competition that keeps insurance costs from spiraling out of control.

In a single payer government insurance plan, the costs are only controlled so long as the management is kept competent and apolitical (in spite of the fact that all of the control and funding is controlled by a very political (perhaps fundamentally christian) congress). If a private insurer is incompetent or overly political, they will lose a competitive advantage.

[Warpy]

8. Much of insurance company overhead is devoted to denying care

and that is one of the major reasons we need to get those weasels out of our system. It's not like that in other countries, and it wasn't like that here for many years. It is now, though, and we need to get rid of them ASAP.

Insurance comapnies deny care at the gate by refusing to cover people they deem high risk or by charging them prohibitively high premiums (my own case). They deny care by linking everything they can to pre existing conditions. They deny care by deciding procedures are experimental (when they're not) and by questioning docs every step of the way, over every single lab test and prescription.

Insurance companies are the reason our system is as bad as it is.

Single payer NOW.

[Cleita]

14. I haven't really looked at the Massachussetts plan but

if it has those same safeguards it might work, but it will be more expensive to operate than single payer universal health care and coverage would probably be less comprehensive.

I am really amazed at the politicians who always try to appease the insurance companies, Hillary included. NHC works best without privatization at the payer level. The clinics, hospitals and medical practices are privately run and for profit, but the single payer has to be universal entity, which is most likely the government who collects the "premiums" and pays the bills.

The fact is that the insurance companies overstepped their boundaries with health insurance, which should be a right, not a commodity. Insurance is for the unexpected loss, the disaster. Even if the insurance companies are cut off this cash cow, they will always find a niche to peddle their product. The sooner our politicians realize, the better.

[papau]

17. Single payer and the Swiss system are about the same - with Swiss costing

more since in addition to administration of the plan you pay for a "profit margin"

The subsidy for the poor/middle class is equivalent to paying for National Health via the monies brought in by the Federal Income Tax.

The Swiss "competition" does not help in cost containment. There is no sector of the Health industry receiving less money because the Swiss have companies running things instead of the government.

In the US, Medicare Part B is already run by insurance companies but it is under a cost plus service contract - and extremely cheap as it does not finance the huge CEO salary or the Stockholder dividend or the marketing expense. These "administrative Service Only contracts" are by state and are rebid every few years.

The Swiss are nuts if they think their "cost / service basis" Corporate run universal coverage is not costing them a ton.

When is the last time you saw a decrease in Health premiums (or a decrease in the increase) for any insurance company/HMO plan because the given company had found a competitive advantage. There are no competitive advantages that offset even a small part of the extra cost of Corporate rule.

The cost of health care is the sum of the costs of all its providers - plus the cost of the transfer payment system - and if that transfer payment system includes corporate profit you pay more.

You do not get a better quality of care versus a National Health quality of care when the insurance company can make more money by denying or delaying payment of your claim.

Given the Medicare success why would we expect any single payer government insurance plan to have a less competent management that that in a for profit Corporation?

With corporations afraid of offending the fundi crowd just as much as government is afraid of that same crowd, why would we expect that it would be harder to have apolitical benefit schedules in one rather than the other?

And I edited this post so as to add that I agree with the posts above me in this thread by Warpy, dcfirefighter, and Cleita.

:-)

:toast:

[dcfirefighter]

26. I worry about single payer healthcare

I think that basic healthcare is something that we can afford to, in fact cannot afford not to, get to everyone.

But I worry about single healthcare being driven politically. I worry about having NO choice of insurer. Under any insurance plan some things will be covered, some things won't. I want, at least, to have the option of choosing what set of coverage I get. I most certainly DON'T want politicians and beaurocrats choosing for me. Single payer, by definition, is one government run health insurance system.

The overhead costs SHOULD be undercut by new, more progressive, more efficient insurers entering the market. The failure is in the licensing and regulation of insurance companies, which is done by the same government(s) that single-payer advocates want to provide insurance.

Premiums will never decrease as long as the cost of providing healthcare increase. To reduce the cost of providing healthcare we have to increase the supply of healthcare providers and reduce the demand for them.

We may increase the supply of healthcare providers by removing taxes and barriers to entry for hospitals, equipment manufacturers, educational facilities, doctors, nurses, medical technicians, etc. One unconventional aspect of this would be to allow for nontraditional medical practices - something that most assuredly would not be covered under a government-controlled single payer program.

We may decrease the need for healthcare services by:
1) increasing health education so individuals understand the benefits of whole-health living.
2) pass on SOME (an affordable amount) health-related expenses to healthcare consumers, so that they directly benefit from making lifestyle and healthcare choices that cost less. This is not to discourage people from seeking healthcare, but rather to encourage them to make healthy lifestyle choices and to seek preventative care rather than rehabilitative care.
3) increasing access to preventative and general healthcare so that more expensive specialized and emergency care is used less.

I worry that single payer healthcare will be too single-minded, too one-size-fits-none, to adapt to holistic health management: especially, when controlled by lobby-influenced politicians. There's money in manufacturing drugs and equipment; theres much less money in keeping people healthy.

Having a variety of plans, provided that ALL are insured, give an opportunity for experimentation on different healthcare regimes.

[Cleita]

28. Single payer seems to work very well for our Canadian

neighbors and other countries in the world. Actually, Medicare works well when the Republicans aren't trying to shoot holes in it. I think when we get our country back we have to do that lock box thing our real President Al Gore wanted to do. This way politicians can't meddle with the system once it's set up and running smoothly.

[dcfirefighter]

33. Politicians are, when all is said and done, our representatives

While you may say single payer is working for Canadians, I could say that private insurance is working for me. Both statements are largely irrelevant. And you could certainly find Canadians who are not happy with single payer insurance.

Me, I want to choose. I don't really want you to choose for me. I don't want a government board, especially one made unaccountable to the public with a lock box, choosing for me.

[Cleita]

39. I think it would depend on how old you are and what state of

health you are in to make that statement. I too had excellent insurance in my twenties and thirties. After all the insurance companies cherry pick healthy, young workers and others who can pay the premiums. As you get older your insurance gets more expensive, even though there is nothing wrong with you. Eventually, your employer comes to you and says he can't afford your insurance unless you pay into it as well.

Now as a firefighter no doubt you have a good pension plan that includes health insurance but the majority of us don't. The problem with our system is that the people who need health care, those with chronic health conditions, but who aren't poor enough for Medicaid aren't getting it.

I don't feel that the I got mine the hell with the rest of you attitude is good for our country as a whole. Now, I'm not accusing you of that, but sometimes you have to look at the whole issue first.

[dcfirefighter]

66. "The hell with you, I got mine"

No offence taken, I truly truly personally hate that attitude. (as an aside, it's a very prevalent attitude, even among progressives, in reference to real estate - keep the prices high, and the developments down) I think you understand that wasn't the point I was trying to make.

As a firefighter, I've seen the bloat that occurs to systems when they are accountable to an elected board rather than market forces.

I'm not against government run systems, I just prefer that they were limited to those goods and services that are easily monopolized. Those goods and services that allow for competition shouldn't be provided directly by the government (though I have no problem with the gov't stepping in to help out in a minority of cases). Hospitals, doctors, clinics, etc. certainly allow for competition: you no doubt have a favorite doctor and a preferred hospital.

Unfortunatly, the insurance industry does fall into that grey area of monopoly privilege. They can cherry pick for profitability. However, I personally think that fixing the problems of cherry picking and the problems of tying insurance to employment is a better solution than creating a monstrous government beauracracy to manage what procedures Americans can and can't get.

[papau]

45. With a Government basic plan, you would still have choice via a

supplemental insurance plan that you could buy.

[Bridget Burke]

54. Right now, too many decisions are made by insurance companies....

And HMO's. Profit is the main motive. And some of that extra money goes to buy off politicians.

I've got pretty good coverage at work. But, since we had Governor Bush, choices have gone down & co-pays have gone up.

[Sgent]

35. Canadian system sucks

as compared to most other systems in industrialized nations.

Don't hold out a bad example of gaurenteed health care as an example for the US -- when much better examples exist.

I am willing to agree that the US system is worse -- but picking the worst of possible better solutions isn't a win.

[Cleita]

37. I think our DU Canadians would disagree with you a lot.

They more than anyone, who deal with the system, are quite satisfied with it and would know if it sucked.

[Sgent]

38. Your right

but the British, and esp Aussie, French, Swiss, and German have much higher patient satisfaction rates and much better rates of treatment success.

[Cleita]

40. Singapore has a very good health system too, but no one

talks about it. I pick Canada because they are closest to us and better for comparisons for our system and their system.

[papau]

52. I agree - and lock box just means Federal Trust funds invested in non

government bonds and stocks. Not too hard to accomplish.

[papau]

44. Excellent post - but why is the Brit or Can system with supplemental

insurance company coverage available not the right way to go?

The idea that a gov plan must have rules that limit the care is very true - indeed an insurance company plan must have those same rules. Only as Oregon showed, those are better when profit is not part of the decision matrix.

But with the gov plan as a base for health care, only the better off need pay for the CEO salary and stockholder dividends, As for nontraditional medical practices - this too could be covered by the supplemental insurance. I do not believe their is a desire by those wanting nontraditional medical practices to not have a backup of conventional treatment available.

The incentive system via passing on some health costs does not work if the goal is a healthy population - folks just avoid getting the health care until it is too late - so un-necessary requests for health care must be dealt with some other way

As for influenced politicians - the manufacturing companies already spend a fortune in the current system to influence politicians - and on HMO execs and Insurer company folks, etc.

Lobby-influenced politicians would be just bring the "influence" out of the current dark and into the light where we could all see it.

Barriers to entry do not really exist in Health - except for the $200,000 of debt that new doctors take with them into the 4 years of residency at a 40,000 per year salary . The problem is too many entries. New entries must and do "influence" others to get an income stream so their skills/facilities/equipment are used and profitable. In general control of how many beds in a given area controls cost and provides for efficient health care. And of course the rich then get their "private hospitals" - but now they actually pay the total cost rather than having the average Joe subsidizing them. As an aside, the insurance companies lobbied for more medical schools in the past under the theory more doctors would cause a drop in average doctor compensation - it did not happen.

If your point is public health protection regulation in a government plan - our current regulations do not change because of the payment transfer system that is in place,

[dcfirefighter]

67. The goal is a healthy population

but that goal must be tempered by the realities of economics. We as a country, could doctor ourselves to the point that we failed in other important endeavors. We as individuals, could use up the budget on an individual intent on their own convenience - one who uses emergency rather than scheduled visits - one who games the system to get expensive medications rather more efficient means.

I have no problem with making annual and follow up visits free of charge to the patient. But I do believe that it is important to steer patients towards making economic decisions, and IMO the only way to do that is to pass a copay on to them.

[Texasgal]

3. I find it terribly flawed

If you have a pre-existing condition than who is going to insure you? This logic is terribly flawed, people don't NOT want insurance, people cannot afford it or they are denied it.

[BonnieJW]

4. Not really

Some people are unable to purchase health insurance because the insurance companies won't sell it to them. About three years ago, my son-in-law developed a brain hemmorage out of the blue. He was in intensive care for six weeks. Now he and my daughter want to open their own business and need to purchase their own health insurance, and no one will touch them because of this episode. Even though the doctors assured them it was a fluke and should never happen again, no insurance company will sell them a policy. I'm thinking that under the Mass. law, an insurance company would have to issue them a policy.

[Cleita]

18. There was a period between 1992 and 1998 that I couldn't

buy health insurance because of my age, no other reason, and I was healthy with no pre-existing conditions back then. Finally, I found an HMO, to take me, however, no doctor in my area would accept the HMO. The only thing it was really good for was to get my foot in the door of an ER if I had an accident. This is not health coverage IMHO.

[eugene5debs]

5. One intrepid Texan

This guy has a "health care" final solution for 90% of us.

http://www.staggeron.org/homeland.html#evil_pianca

[SidDithers]

10. Ah yes, never let the facts get in the way of a good story...

Or, you could learn to think for yourself.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=835733&mesg_id=835733

Sid

[drdtroit]

6. Why can't we just denote 1% of the Military budget

for universal health care?

[BlackHeart]

9. Don't go trying to

insert good ideas into my thread. :)

[drdtroit]

16. Sorry, my bad!

I forgot that the GOP political agenda is to destroy what little of the "middle-class" is left. Oh, did I say LEFT???

[The2ndWheel]

11. Because the US truly desires to rule the planet

and all our resources will conspire to achieve it.

[Cleita]

7. It doesn't. It only makes things worse.

Rachel Maddow put it best. It's like building a palace on a sinking and crumbling foundation.

[flamin lib]

12. The plan doesn't look that bad to me.

It breaks the uninsured population into three parts.

Those who qualify for Medicaid but have not signed up for it. They get help signing up and the State picks up the tab.

Those who earn enough to miss Medicaid will be heavily subsidized from no premiums or deductibles to only a fraction of the real cost. The State picks up the rest.

Those who earn enough to buy insurance but don't. Not sure what that number is, but they lose 1/2 the cost of annual coverage in tax deductions and they get to buy at the largest group rates.

It looks like a workable plan until we can get real single payer.

[Cleita]

31. I'm trying to look at it as a foot in the door.

First make sure everyone is covered and then make sure the politicians find a way to fund it for everyone without putting people out in the street. Third they are going to have to push the insurance companies out one way or the other in the future or it's going to cost the state way too much money to fund this.

[leftstreet]

13. About as useful as mandatory auto insurance

and just one more way to criminalize poverty.

Let's dismantle the military/industrial monster on our backs and shift some $ to a single payer system for all.

[Cleita]

15. Yes and that works so well.

Those who can't afford insurance are out on the roads with unregistered cars and no driver's licenses. That makes everyone so much safer. This is why your insurance once had a provision for uninsured drivers in case the other party couldn't pay for an accident that was their fault.

[SmokingJacket]

19. I've heard some commenters say that it will cost 4X as much

as they're budgeting for it.

What if the coverage plans are no good, or unsuitable for a particular person? I'm not sure requiring people to buy insurance is the best answer... making affordable plans available to everyone seems more reasonable, but still won't solve the problem of insurance companies making out like bandits while people continue to spend more and more of their money on health care every year.

[Cleita]

25. The fact is that insurance companies have to be put out of

business for this to work. I floated an idea some time ago about improving Medicare and making it more comprehensive and then offering it for children as well as the disabled and old people. Then Medicare should sell insurance to everyone else with no restrictions for pre-existing conditions and for less money. The for profit insurance companies won't be able to compete and we are on our way to universal, single payer health care for every single person in our country.

[papau]

48. Insurance companies would continue and be the folks doing the

work under "administrative services only contracts" - just as they are now doing for Part B Medicare.

And as in Britain, supplemental insurance policies and private hospitals would take care of the folks that are rich and who can demand extra benefits.

[Cleita]

56. Yes, they would so they still would be employed so to speak.

People don't know that private insurers are the claims adjusters on Medicare claims but they function very well that way because they are not the agency that collects and pays out the initial money. They only do the paperwork for a fee.

Many don't like the private insurance schemes that Great Britain has for the rich. They think one of the reasons the Canadian system works so well is that no private insurers are allowed for the rich.

I see nothing wrong though with private insurance covering non-essential health care, like private rooms, private nurses, cosmetic surgery and other luxury care like that. It's time our economic system functioned on targeting the rich for profits not the poor and needy.

[papau]

57. I agree :-)

:-)

[Lydia Leftcoast]

60. Yes, as long as the rich are covered under single payer, they'll be

all for it.

The minute they are able to buy different treatment, as in the UK, they start trying to find ways to destroy benefits for others.

(That's also why means testing for Social Security is a bad idea. The rich will allow SS to continue only as long as THEY --the greedy bastards-- are eligible for it. The minute they aren't, they'll start screaming about having to pay for Grandma Jones' $1000 a month.)

[Cleita]

63. I think it's okay for the rich to get some of their money back

that they paid into these systems. This keeps them from grumbling about pay for something they don't benefit from.

[LSK]

27. who is paying those commentators?

[papau]

49. LOL - simple GDP review reveals 10% cost for Gov Plan vs 14% of

GDP spent by the US with our Insurance Company system.

[Cleita]

32. What makes sense is a little plastic card that allows you

to get the healthcare you need. The health care provider then sends a bill to the single payer, the government, for fees that are agreed to ahead of time, at the end of each month. Funding comes from either a payroll deduction that you can afford or an extra sales tax. It's so simple and it works. It's not like it's experimental. It's being done in nations around the world successfully.

[raccoon]

20. You've never had to try to get individual medical insurance, have you?

Did you know that some people who have pre-existing conditions can't get health insurance no matter how well-off they are?

Did you know that sometimes if you have pre-existing conditions, the insurance company will insure you, but attach rider(s) to the policy saying they won't pay for treatment for that condition EVER?

Not to mention individual medical insurance is VERY expensive, much more than group medical insurance.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

61. I ran into that situation about 15 years ago

I went around to several insurance co's after I started my translation business, and because I told the truth on my applications (that I'd broken my ankle falling down the stairs, that I had seasonal allergies, and that I had once had a cancer false alarm, not even real cancer) most of the places that offered coverage offered it with NO coverage for broken bones, allergic reactions, or cancer.

As my brother the doctor reminded me, I may not need coverage for my easily managed seasonal allergies, but what if I go into shock from a newly developed or previously unknown allergy, such as a bee sting or a medication?

Fortunately, I was able to get onto Kaiser-Permanente with no such restrictions, but they aren't in Minnesota, so I had to go through the whole song and dance again when I moved here.

[Jose Diablo]

21. Say, that should work

just make it against the law to not have health insurance. Why didn't I think of that simple solution.

[LSK]

22. thats not the plan - read the details

The government is helping people who cant afford healthcare to buy it. Companies that do not currently pay for employee health care will have to pay $295 per employee annually.

[Finder]

23. That would be a small biz killer. n/t

[LSK]

24. depends on if they are already offering health care

It would be much cheaper than any health care packages a small biz can provide to their employees.

If they are not providing health care then the employees are getting majorly screwed. Tough shit for the business then. IMO. There will probably be exceptions for parttime workers or other situations. I think there was also talk of a tax credit of some sorts.

ps: Your reasoning is the standard GOP reasoning and contradicts the fact that small businesses survive in all other countries that do offer universal healthcare.

[Finder]

34. Other countries that offer universal healthcare...

do not make it mandatory that businesses pay premiums.

Your statement--"tough shit for the business" could explain why many small business people think the Dems are anti-biz.(which is totally incorrect)

Offering health insurance as a benefit is good for competition between businesses.

[LSK]

36. in other countries - all companies would be paying the $295

"Offering health insurance as a benefit is good for competition between businesses."

How is it good for competition??? Its not the 90s anymore where its an employees market.

Company A pays their employees health insurance which ups the cost of their product.

Company B pays no health insurance which means a cheaper priced product.

So if I'm a business owner, I'd want Company B. We need government to step in to enforce all businesses to be Company A for the benefit of workers and to have a more even playing field.

[Cleita]

41. Businesses would benefit from NHC because they wouldn't

have to buy the medical part of Worker's Comp., a big bonanza. The money that they pay for health insurance would probably be cut in half because NHC can be run for half of what the for profit system costs. There are all other kinds of benefits to offer for competition. How about SPA and health club memberships or golf club memberships?

[Finder]

50. good point. n/t

[Finder]

46. Competition for employees...

and there is still an employee market.

[Dora]

43. $25 per month per employee IS A BARGAIN!

That wouldn't have killed any of the small businesses I've ever worked for. Not a single one of them.

If I owned my own business (and I hope to soon) I would JUMP at the opportunity to pay $25 a month for health insurance for my employees. Healthy employees result in increased production. It's a win-win situation.

[Finder]

53. Won't most just lower the wage though?

I agree it is a reasonable amount, it is the mandatory requirement that bothers me.

[Dora]

58. Even so, a $25 deduction in salary is eminently reasonable. n/t

It's not in the Constitution, but I believe that it's SELF-EVIDENT that All People Have the RIGHT to live healthy lives, it's part of that Pursuit of Happiness thingamabob.

Access to medicine should not be a privelege restricted to those who can afford it.

Corporations and businesses are not people and do not have the same rights as people, despite what the Supreme Court says. I have no problem with any sort of mandatory requirement. It's been shown time and time again that a business will screw their employees if it meant saving a dime somewhere else. And yes, there is evidence of businesses that truly do care for and support their employees, but they're in the minority, and it's these kind of businesses that wouldn't balk at such a governmental mandate.

Speaking of the government making mandatory requirements.... How do you feel about No Child Left Behind?

[Finder]

62. I agree with most of what you state.

I have mixed feelings regarding NCLB. Without funding it is useless. I do not like the way the testing is conducted.

I agree most businesses care about their bottom line more than they do the welfare of employees, but without the employer there is no job--period.

[Dora]

30. That would work IF IT WERE AFFORDABLE! But it's not. So you're wrong.

Lousy idea, Blackheart. There is no good reason why any American should pay a corporate middleman to pay their medical bills. Health insurance has done nothing but CAUSE the rise in American health care costs. And why is that? Because we're paying for administrative salaries and perks instead of x-rays and surgeries and hopeful new treatments.

(gong) You have the wrong answer.

[originalpckelly]

42. I am actually working on a better and simpler Medicare and Social Security

I call it US Cares (United States Compassionate Alternative to Really Expensive Services.) It will combine all social benefits into a single fund, it will be a non-profit private entity. It will invest in stocks, but health care and long-term care stocks, so that it will automatically adjust for inflation, and cut the amount of the money people spend on health care that goes to profit. It will work like a savings account, so that the current generation will not have to pay for previous ones, this is only because of the boom population whether that be baby boomers or their echo boomers. This idea will take all the taxes used for social benefits programs and use them for this organization. We will use the current medicare fund to buy a few private companies in each state to provide great service. Not buying all companies will maintain an element of competition. We will also have awards in the research arm of it. This will provide scientists the drive to innovate. There will also be awards for the best care giver using the most modern technology.

[Cleita]

47. Fine as long as it's under the government like Medicare and

Social Security. I'm totally against privatization of our health care and pensions. This is just another charity and it doesn't cover everyone in the end.

On edit: BTW, I don't think you can legally take deductions out of wages to fund this like SS/Medicare do. I certainly hope saner minds in government won't let this happen.

[Cathyclysmic]

55. Brilliant

except insurance companies(like the one I work for) don't want to cover sick people. If they do insure a sick person, it will cost that person $489.16 to 4060.67 a month(that's 2005 rates)for a crappy hmo that does not cover pharmacy.

Call me, I quote you a rate. :hi:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

59. Works only if

1) Health coverage is affordable, available on a sliding scale

2) Insurance companies aren't allowed to raise rates or deny coverage to those who are ill

3) Deductibles aren't so high that people put off routine care.

Nice try.

Thinking that you can "solve the health care crisis" by requiring everyone to buy insurance is as simple-minded as thinking that you can solve the problem of homelessness by requiring everyone to buy a house.

[RB TexLa]

64. Anti-Childfree

What a deal for people with children or having children (the people that use the most health care)! Those who aren't buying health insurance because they don't use it will now be FORCED to buy it to help keep the premiums lower for families. The couple of times I worked as a w-2 employee these were the people trying to get all the single young people to buy insurance. We had one woman who was pregnant with here third almost screaming at 4 of us because as she put it "I'm having to pay all this money not just because I have children, but because you people don't buy it." Guess she has her wish now!

Families want lower premiums on their group coverage, so find a way to FORCE young singles to offset their premiums by having to pay for something they aren't going to use much. But then again now it's FAMILY values and no longer AMERICAN values.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

65. On the other hand, as a single, middle-aged person, I'm

harmed by high premiums.

[islandspirit]

68. My Solution for Health Care

As a former Canadian living in the US for 20 years, i don't miss the constant strikes, miserable weather for months. Buti would do ANYTHING to get single payer health care in the US like we had in Canada. We are in our mid 50's, pay $458 per month for virtually no health coverage - remains to be seen if we were admitted to a hospital what in fact our coverage would pay for - hope that day never comes.

[YouthInAsia]

69. whats wrong with nationalized healthcare like canada has?