REQUIRING all Americans to BUY health insurance is NOT universal healthcare!!!

[NotGivingUp]

Under the Edwards Plan:

* Families without insurance will get coverage at an affordable price.
* Families with insurance will pay less and get more security and choices.
* Businesses and other employers will find it cheaper and easier to insure their workers.

The Edwards Plan achieves universal coverage by:

* Requiring businesses and other employers to either cover their employees or help finance their health insurance.
* Making insurance affordable by creating new tax credits, expanding Medicaid and SCHIP, reforming insurance laws, and taking innovative steps to contain health care costs.
* Creating regional "Health Care Markets" to let every American share the bargaining power to purchase an affordable, high-quality health plan, increase choices among insurance plans, and cut costs for businesses offering insurance.
* Once these steps have been taken, requiring all American residents to get insurance.

[NightWatcher]

1. and who will we buy it from? I'm sure some insurance company that gave to the candidate...

how freaking convenient.

I prefer the "medicare for all" model.

[BrklynLiberal]

3. "Medicare for all" model gets my vote too...

[robinlynne]

33. exactly. health insurance is the only weak spot in Edwards' platform. But 90%

good is not bad!

[blondeatlast]

10. Exactly. nt

[On the Road]

18. I Prefer Medicare for All, Too

So who will you vote for that will deliver that? And who will you support once that candidate is no longer in the running?

[KamaAina]

223. Right now the only candidate I am aware of backing Medicare for All is Kucinich

another reason to give Dennis a closer look.

And who will you support once that candidate is no longer in the running?

On the fence between Edwards and Obama; that decision won't be made on the health care issue, 'cause their plans are nearly identical -- as is Clinton's, to the point where Elizabeth Edwards stopped just short of saying Sen. Clinton had plagiarized it (Edwards was first to come out with a detailed plan by several months).

[NotGivingUp]

48. Seems like it should be illegal to FORCE us to buy insurance, doesn't it?

[CTyankee]

153. As a senior, I will be "fined" by being charged a higher monthly fee for Medicare Part B

if I don't sign up OR have another policy in effect. Since I have another, cheaper policy courtesy my spouse's union job, I declined Part B. My alternate covers more and costs less than Medicare. If I went without either, I'd have NO coverage and if/when I did sign up for Part B I'd be assigned a higher rate (taken out of one's Social Security benefit each month).

So in effect, EVERYBODY who reaches 65 will be forced to get some health insurance or have to pay a penalty, as it stands now. If you land in the hospital, god forbid, and you have no insurance they will probably attach your assets, over a certain amount. That would have happened to my brother, but he was in such bad shape the nursing home took his SS benefit each month because that was all he had...

But there must be a plan that accepts you into Medicaid if you cannot afford health insurance, at whatever age. This whole thing will only work if Medicaid is expanded upward AND people change their minds about the necessity of health care insurance.

[NotGivingUp]

183. Unbelievable. I wasn't aware of the over 65 situation. That's really pitiful. n/t

[CTyankee]

197. For me it isn't, thank god, but I don't know about other, poorer seniors.

But overall, thisjust points up the fact that there is NO FREE HEALTH CARE. One way or another, you will be taxed, but that is the way it is in western Europe and people there like their health care arrangement even with higher taxes to pay for it. So if we are for universal, single payer health care, we must be prepared to pay for it spread outover the large tax base.

[NotGivingUp]

204. Yes, it's impossible for health care to be free.

We just need to take the insurance companies out of the equation.

[Pakhet]

212. I'm forced to buy car insurance, most ppl are, and

it doesn't seem to matter that I've never used it. so there's already a precedence that says it's ok to MAKE someone buy insurance

[bpeale]

213. if hospitals can be forced to treat your sorry ass

then you can damned well be forced to buy health insurance.

[havocmom]

231. Forced health insurance = corporate welfare to insurance companies

If the insurers need more $$, we need leadership who will REALLY help Wall Street to actually preform and not just force more people to invest in stocks.

Forced stock investment is EXACTLY what privatized Social Security would do. Take payroll tax and put it on Wall Street. That is not looking like a sure bet for shoring up the Ponzi Scheme Wall Street has become. Fat cats are looking for another way to force underpaid workers to support their bad habits.

Insurers make they real cash on investments. They need forced payments so they can invest more. It is another attempt to FORCE (workers who are already losing ground) to keep the fat cats afloat.

If the market preformed better, oh say, because businesses stopped outsourcing jobs so workers could actually BUY things MADE HERE, the dollars insurance companies have in the market would be bringing more dollars to them and they wouldn't need people to be FORCED into choosing between rent and insurance so they can be employed. (HRC's Buy insurance to be able to work plan is nothing short of fucking mugging the working class on the behalf of insurers AND stock brokers)

IF the economy was better for the biggest part of the American People, the people would be circulating more money and Wall Street wouldn't need pols as henchmen (henchwomen) to establish policies that shakedown workers and force them to hand over money they really don't have.

IF the economy was better for the biggest part of the American People, Wall Street & Insurers would be doing better too.

Universal Health Care - single payer will help workers, the smaller businesses and shut the healthcare gap.

Forced purchase of health insurance just helps two of the biggest problem areas in America while not really helping workers or the economy. We will still have rationed health care, rationed by the insurers. We will still have a shaky investment structure because we STILL aren't making real employment opportunities which bring in tax money and enable workers to put money in circulation in their local areas, which does create more jobs.

Forced purchase of health insurance does not give businesses any incentive to stop outsourcing and the drain the loss of tax revenue from evaporating jobs puts on the Treasury. Forced insurance only puts one more layer of weight on the overburdened shoulders of the US worker who is already carrying the whole top economic tier.

Forced purchase of health insurance is mugging of the people with the least to begin with.

[IronLionZion]

80. I think all our Dems allow you to buy into Medicare if you want

or buy into the federal employees health insurance program if your employer won't give it and you can't afford the private individual plans.

[yellowdogintexas]

216. except right now you can't just buy into Medicare, you just are able to get it

when you are 65 or if you are a qualified disabled person.

[IronLionZion]

221. Expect significant changes when a Dem takes the white house nt

[yellowdogintexas]

222. I should hope so. nt

[Whisp]

214. sure smells like f*cking snake oil to me.

it's pretty evident who doesn't want to be cut out as the middleman and is paying some professional lip flapping turncoats well to keep it that way.
What a miserable f*cking system. the writing is so Big and Bold onthe Wall as to who really runs this town but lets not pay attention. Lets cheer on these PATHETIC nonsolutions to health care from that PATHETIC and rotting candidate list.

Kucinich seems to be the only real human in the race.
how dissapointing.
and you know what - the public will not Even Be Getting This Tiny Crumb - it's election talk.

how disgusting.

someone shoot me already, I can't take all this LIEING.

[Maine-ah]

2. what's affordable when you don't even have 50 bucks to spare?

and the state says you make too much money to get covered under medicaid? (Mainecare up here)

[CTyankee]

157. I think Clinton's plan talks about expansion of Medicaid upward.

That would have to be the solution under her type of plan. Of course, "Medicare for all" would be best. But you do know that Medicare Part B costs extra, don't you? It is taken out of your Social Security benefit check each month. It's up around $90 a month now...

[mrreowwr_kittty]

4. What about people who are currently "uninsurable" due to preexisting conditions? nt

[Deja Q]

5. A bonus.

It just depends on which side would call it a bonus... :(

[napi21]

11. ALL the candidates plans would eliminate the "pre-existing condition"

excuse. Believe me, I carefully checked. My hubby is uninsurable because he had a heart by-pass 12+ years ago. Even though his current Drs. say there's absolutely NO PROBLEMS NOW!!!

[mrreowwr_kittty]

21. Well that's good. But I hope ins. cos. won't be able to charge exhorbitant rates. nt

[cuke]

49. Clinton's plan limits premiums

and provides subsidies to those who cant afford the premiums

[SoCalDem]

175. BFD.. limited premiums translates into "tiered" coverage & co-pays

If you have $15K to spend, the car dealer is NOT gonna hand you the keys to a new Cadillac..you can get a "car" but it's not gonna be a Cadillac ..

[truedelphi]

66. See my response # 62 about COBRA

COBRA already exists through partial input of then President Bill CLinton.

It is a nightmare for the middle class. Especially those who are older, as their premiuma are so high.

And I wouldn't hold my breath when anyone says that there will be subsidies - you'll at the very least have to meander through some weird set-up akin to what our seniors experience when attempting to negotiate the MediCare Drug maze of plans

[yellowdogintexas]

217. that is the point of grouping everyone into the huge coverage pool

there are lots of employers out there, with small businesses that would kick in for the premiums if the group weren't so small. If all these little companies are all banded together into one big conglomerate pool, the risk is spread, lots of healthy people are in the group and it becomes much more balanced, you get lower premiums and better coverage

[Fleshdancer]

133. thank you for researching that and letting us know

I hate hearing stories of people getting screwed. Hopefully we'll see some real changes over the next 8 years so that your husband can be covered.

:grr:

[Captain Hilts]

14. My pre-existing condition is being unemployed. No one wants to insure me. nt

[cuke]

56. Under Clinton's plan, you will have insurance

I have the same condition

[OzarkDem]

160. If you have the money to pay for it.

Clinton's plan says nothing specific about how people who are unemployed will pay for private health insurance. It also says nothing specific about who will get a government subsidy to purchase said health insurance, or how much or for how long.

[OzarkDem]

159. They will go without coverage and care

These will be among the last people to get health care coverage, and the best estimate for seeing that happen is 10 to 12 years from now.

Also uninsured cancer patients - no one wants to cover them. They will either pay out of pocket or go into debt and poverty for the rest of their lives (selling their homes, cars, all assets) or die.

Many, many will die, though that already happens a lot today.

[chelsea0011]

6. I've seen Edwards speak about his plan and as he describes it,

you will have a choice between using insurers or using the government through some type of government paying system. And after that, it is a survival of the fittest. Either insurers or people choose the government plan and one comes out a winner by a steel cage elimination. As he spoke I felt he thought the government would win and lead to universal coverage.

[LWolf]

7. No kidding.

HR 676 is Universal Health Care.

Health insurance does not equal care; often, it means paying for the privilege of less care.

[madokie]

8. exactly to some people there is no affordable price, none whatsoever

[librechik]

9. We must shake the profit motive off our health care!

their greed and immorality is disgusting! Don't the Christians want to help with this? I mean the actual ones,
not the pray-to-Jesus- for-cash kind.

[Swamp Rat]

17. LOL!

Your pic. :D

[cuke]

83. Thanks for throwing me under the bus

I'm poor and uninsured. I have several conditions. I can't afford the meds or going to the doctor.

I hope you never find out how wrong you are.

[jzodda]

12. They all make it sooooo damn complicated

Why not just get rid of medicare, get rid of medicaid, get rid of the government prescription drug plan, get rid of any other government health insurance type of program I am unaware of and combine them all into one huge program and just cover everybody? Why all this garbage and homage to the free market which is what is creating the broken system to begin with? Why all these silly plans when you can just simplify it?

[Captain Hilts]

13. Buying is fine so long as you don't do so as an individual or can be denied, as is the case now. nt

[warren pease]

15. Characteristics of a single-payer, universal access health care system:

Cannibalized from several of my previous posts on the same topic:


If you wanted to design a new health care delivery system for this country, what sensible person would start by inviting the participation of the single most destructive element in the current one? Get these goddamn parasites out of the health care business and let them make money elsewhere -- maybe hedge fund insurance against catastrophic market conditions that cause pain and suffering among the elite would be a more appropriate line of work.

The following is the nature of single payer, which is the only workable alternative to this deadly joke that's currently killing around 18,000 people a year because making gobs of money is incompatible with performing the industry's stated purpose -- covering subscribers' medical costs.


One nation, one payer.

Everybody in, nobody out.

No pre-existing conditions.

No doctor bills.

No hospital bills.

No deductibles.

No co-pays.

No in network.

No out of network.

No corporate profits.

No more medical bankruptcies.


In my opinion, to get to single-payer, we need to separate the idea of health care from the idea of health insurance.

Health care is what happens when patients and health care professionals interact to, in the best case, successfully diagnose and treat a medical condition or injury.

Health insurance is the protection money you have to pay the middle man to enable this transaction and keep you out of bankruptcy court. Why would you want to give a single damn penny to some parasite intermediary who does absolutely nothing to provide health care?

The relationship of health care to insurance is manufactured out of thin air by the US obsession with applying market-based, privatized solutions to nationalized social problems.

To create a rational system that doesn't require us to bet against our own mortality, that linkage must disappear in favor of a system that treats health care as a basic human right rather than a privilege to be auctioned off to the highest bidder.

See Kucinich's plan (H.R. 676) for details.

He's the only candidate advocating single-payer, universal-access; Edwards, Hillary and the rest are all doing the corporate suck-up dance, dressing up the same tired, deadly system in a bunch of new happy talk that attempts to mask their primary objective: ensuring the continued profitability of the health insurance parasites.

Shameless bastards that they are, they need to be called on their bullshit and exposed as liars and slaves to the status quo, a condition so dear to the hearts of their campaign "contributors" that they're willing to spend millions to preserve it. Pretty good investment, since aggregate medical insurance profits reach well into the hundreds of billions every year.

For behind many of those bucks, there's a trail of financial hardship, bureaucratic madness, pain, suffering and death created by claims denials; refusals to pay legitimate, pre-approved expenses; refusals to authorize life-saving procedures; drug "benefits" that often cause people to choose between food and medication; and, the crowning insult, forcing sick and less-than-fully-functional people to fight for their rights by going toe-to-toe with professional sharks and their cadres of attorneys, who'll simply stall until the claimant finally dies or loses the will to continue the fight.

And that's known as prudent business practices and is the norm throughout the industry. There are no altruists in the medical insurance business; only predators. It's long past time they were removed from the health care delivery system.


wp


Edited to include link to Kucinich's plan.

[NotGivingUp]

36. Great post! I agree with you 100%. And, yes, Kucinich is the ONLY one

proposing a true universal healthcare program.

[cureautismnow]

177. Excellent Post.

It should be illegal to profit by denying another human being health care. It's blood money. Pure and simple.

[mmonk]

16. That's correct.

There is only one candidate that is presenting a plan that isn't putting money into insurance companies' bank accounts.

[John Q. Citizen]

Yep. And money that is those Insurance Co. bank acounts doesn't go to care. It goes to

advertizing, overlapping redundant paperwork, overpaid CEOs, giant new buildings and sports arenas, and stock holders profits.

Kucincih has the only plan that works and doesn't rip us off.

[Froward69]

39. Don't forget Bidens plan

is removing Insurance profit, and overhead. excluding Insurance company's altogether. is a naive endevor
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jilpix0_6P8
or
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pA8HC_IBhcc&mode=related&search
or
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhR4PyJIvoo
or
http://www.joebiden.com/issues?id=0003

[mmonk]

155. Naive maybe, but not necessarily wrong.

And none of them will play ball if they can't make a profit. I say let them insure property and life instead of access to healthcare.

[Froward69]

161. I agree

[mmonk]

194. Of course, I know that isn't going to happen though.

With four lobbyists to every congress member and the ability of the insurance companies to hide the fact that taxes wouldn't increase to the levels they currently pay to insurance companies in addition to their co-pays and deductables, they are able to fool the people that our current system is less expensive. So we have to chose a plan like Biden's or someone else's that can save some money but still be more expensive and less efficient than single payer(as paying a middle man looking for a profit is).

[harun]

19. Health Insurance doesn't actually insure you for anything

there is nothing stopping any insurance company from simply not paying. Sure you can take them to court and try to make them pay (which is real fun when you are sick) but people have no protection against them. Sure the government can do the same if they are the ones in control but the government is at least accountable in elections, for profit corporations are not (and they have very good lawyers, lobbyist's, and more money than you).

[slackmaster]

20. Is there a real difference between forcing to buy, and raising taxes to pay for a .gov-run system?

:shrug:

[JVS]

22. yes

[frazzled]

23. Yes, because taxes are progressive, premiums are generally not n/t

[cuke]

42. The costs are "progressive" also.

All the plans propose to charge less if you're poor. Those that can afford to do so, will pay full price. Others will be subsidized. And the rest will recieve it for free.

[CTyankee]

164. Only if the tax for health care is keyed to progressive taxation in the first place.

Are payroll taxes progressive? They DO start taxes at dollar one unlike income taxes.

[ljm2002]

24. Yes there is...

...such as:

1 -- forcing people to buy insurance means we still have to navigate the complexities of what plan to choose, and we still have to deal with private insurers who are motivated not to pay for our care when we need it

2 -- forcing people to buy insurance means there must be some means of ENforcing it -- and what does that mean? Will people be fined (putting them farther away from being able to afford it)? Will they be denied necessary care? How exactly will that part work?

3 -- forcing people to buy means the profit motive is still an essential part of the health care system, therefore the motivation is still to deny care. Single payer removes that motivation.

4 -- single payer health care is cheaper overall than any other health care arrangement. Look up the statistics on how much different countries pay for their health care.

5 -- single payer health care takes the burden off businesses completely, allowing them to recoup at least some of their competitiveness in the international arena.

6 -- single payer health care means everyone who needs health care will be able to get it, whenever they need it. This is a huge advantage from the point of view of public health.

Finally: if we can afford hundreds of billions of dollars for our various imperialist wars, then we can damned well afford to pay for health care. In fact we could shave billions off the so-called "Defense" budget (much of which could more accurately be labeled the "Offense" budget) (and not to mention the extra appropriations that don't even get counted as part of the budget, money that seems to appear out of thin air), and get universal health care without raising taxes at all. But I for one am willing to bear the burden of extra taxes -- I'll bet it would not be as much as what I'm paying right now for health insurance (I'm one of the lucky ones who has health insurance).

[cuke]

46. You didn't answer the question

You didn't explain how forcing people to pay taxes to pay for health insurance is any different that forcing people to pay a premium for health care. I addition, your responses really do nothing to consider the details of the various plans and how that may have affected the arguments you do make

1) Some of the proposed plans allow people to buy into the plan that covers Fed workers, including members of Congress. In addition, this is the situation today. Unless you have insurance from your employer, in which case YOU HAVE NO CHOICE. You have to either accept it, no matter how shitty a plan it is, or go out and buy it for yourself and pay an obscenely high premium.

2) The penalty would be financial. How is paying a fine or penalty any different from forcing people to pay taxes to fund UHC?

3) See #1. No profit motive involved.

4) So? UHC is better than tens of millions of uninsured. You are making the perfect the enemy of the good.

5) Single payer will require additional tax revenues. Some of it will come from businesses. And again, You are making the perfect the enemy of the good.

6) It's Universal Health Care, not Single Payer that insures everyone can access health care. That's what the "Universal" means

"But I for one am willing to bear the burden of extra taxes "

So why the objection to paying for premiums? Why is it OK for people to pay taxes for insurance, but it's wrong to pay a premium for insurance?

"I'll bet it would not be as much as what I'm paying right now for health insurance (I'm one of the lucky ones who has health "

I'm one of the unlucky ones and I cannot afford to wait for your perfect plan that has no hope of becoming law in the near future.

[ljm2002]

147. I did not post to argue...

...but to respond to your simply-stated question, "Is there a real difference between forcing to buy, and raising taxes to pay for a .gov-run system?"

To address one of your points, my objection is NOT to paying for premiums. It is the inherent complexity, the burdensome paperwork, the requirement to defend everything, and then the out-of-pocket expenses on top of it all. Also, as I am sure you are aware, we are the only modern industrialized nation that does NOT provide universal health care for its citizens, which I think is pathetic and downright immoral.

Anyway -- I don't have time today to go into a point by point argument, and that was not my intent anyway. I will say that your question about taxes vs. individuals paying could be applied to many other areas. Why pay taxes for roads -- we could all just be required to use toll roads. Why pay taxes for defense -- we could all just pay for our own defense. I'm not saying this facetiously, it is really a question of what we think the government should do for its citizens vs. what individuals should do for themselves. Personally I'd be only too happy to have less so-called defense and more education, infrastructure, and health care for my tax dollars.

However -- I do see where you are coming from: you think that single-payer is not politically feasible, and you would rather have something, rather than nothing at all. I agree, even though I am strongly in favor of universal single payer health care. By saying "you are making the perfect the enemy of the good", you imply that I would not vote for a Democratic candidate who does not advocate that. Well in the primaries you are correct; however, I will certainly vote for the Democratic candidate, and I do recognize that the plans they advocate are better than what we have now.

Ultimately elections are a negotiation. If we start by demanding incremental change, we'll be lucky to get anything. If we start by demanding the whole enchilada, we'll get something less but better than if we started from the weaker position. In fact, "Sicko" kind of lit a fire under the debate -- and all of a sudden, all of the candidates were trying to get out in front of the health care issue. It's an issue whose time has come, and we need to demand the ideal even if ultimately we must settle for something less than that.

[CTyankee]

206. Your demand for the whole enchilada as you put it can only work if our

candidate,along with a strongly Dem Congress, is elected in a landslide, as I think history has shown. With huge political capital, we just might get close to the whole enchilada, just as LBJ was able to do after his landslide victory in 1964. He was able to move quickly on Medicare and Medicaid and the Civil Rights legislation. And he hadn't yet escalated the Vietnam War.

I don't see us being in that situation today. While we can point to polls showing most Americans want UHC, some of those polled will still vote Republican. We haven't gotten a critical mass around our candidate (whoever it is) and in Congress.

It is too bad because I would ordinarily cheer you on in pursuit of the ideal. Right now it's hard to see and in that circumstance we do need to get "something." Even that is going to take some heavy lifting, IMHO...

[ljm2002]

207. We're in primary season now...

...now is the time where each of us tries to pick the candidate who best represents our views. In this way, even if our candidate does not win the nomination, we push the party's agenda.

Again: this is a negotiation. You start a negotiation from the point of view of trying to get all you can. In the area of health care, for me, that is universal, single-payer health care. Only Dennis Kucinich stands for that. For that and other reasons, he is my candidate right now, and I will make that known at our state caucuses in January. And I sincerely hope it pushes the Democratic agenda more in that direction.

When the time comes that the party has chosen its presidential candidate, then of course I will take what I can get. I do not see how this strategy is untenable at all, nor do I see why it generates such heated argument, nor do I see why some people seem to think it means we won't get any change in our health care system if we pursue this strategy.

As far as "my demand" -- did you miss the part about negotiation? I always keep in mind this bit of dialog from "The Tempest": "I can call spirits from the deep" "Well so can I, and so can any man, but the question is, do they come when you call?"

[CTyankee]

210. Sorry for my use of the word "demand." That was a bit harsh and I don't think you

mean to be harsh. You have every reason to push for Kucinich as he best represents your point of view, so no argument there. And you are right, now is the time for pushing for UHC and SP, and I share in your belief that that is the ideal way that it should be.

However, for whatever reason we have allowed the health care industry to become this behemoth, wasteful and greedy. Either we haven't made our case in the past or we were just drowned out, we have the system we have now and must deal with it. As I look to the time after the election, I see the strategy of letting our behemoth system compete against a government SP system and seeing who wins. Eventually, people will see that the Medicare for all model really works better and is more cost effective. The competetion in the free market will drive out the behemoth, not us pinko commie libruls. Thus the neocons are hoist upon their petard and cannot complain! That's the end game as I see it. And IF, I might add, the government plan is adequately funded.

P.S. I love your quote from "The Tempest." It is, along with "King Lear," my favorite WS play -- a sparkling gem of wit and grace, WS' last play and a lovely exit!

[ljm2002]

215. No prob, I didn't really take it as harsh...

...it's just that I am puzzled when people think that those of us who argue for UHC / SP are somehow making it harder to get what (they believe) is the only thing possible -- namely, an incremental improvement that may lead to the whole thing later.

I do agree with you, if we do not get the whole thing, then making private insurers compete with the government may eventually lead us there anyway. BUT. It infuriates me that we have to fight to get any change at all.

American workers, by statistical measures, are the most productive workers on the planet. We live in the richest country in the world. Yet, our government allows the infrastructure to crumble, actively subverts our public educational system, and refuses to provide for the health of its citizens -- thus putting us at risk not only as individuals, but in a public health sense, since those with communicable diseases including Hepatitis and TB may not get the care they need and these things can then spread.

Glad you liked the quote, it's a paraphrase, but the first time I heard it I laughed out loud -- it's so true, and it really is good to keep in mind, especially when listening to promises from blowhard politicians. :-)

[CTyankee]

220. In all fairness to your opponents on this board, I think their desperation is what drives

their anger. I have read so many posts from people who are sick, uninsured, getting sicker and horribly in debt and my heart goes out to them. Hopefully, after our primary campaign tempers cool, we will pull together whoever is our candidate to reach our UHC goals.

Going back to Truman (at least, maybe even FDR)we've had presidents who believed that UHC was a good thing. Even Nixon thought so! LBJ might have pulled it off had he not gotten so tragically mired in Vietnam. Our health care industry just got bigger and stronger and harder for us to fight. What people forget is that western Europe instituted its UHC after the calamity of WWII, so it's been a way of life there for a few generations. No way will their people give it up! People here are slow to wake up to reality and then only when things are really disastrous for them.

Look forward to a brutal onslaught of "socialized medicine" ads run by Repubs in the 08 campaign!

[redqueen]

53. Yes. Public system = not for profit.

Insurance = for profit.

That clear it up?

[cuke]

110. Even with single payer, there will still be profit in the health care system

[redqueen]

117. Yeah, for those providing care. Not for those being middle men.

BIG DIF.

[OzarkDem]

163. Yes, a lot

When forcing people to buy health insurance, if they can't afford it, they can't buy it, hence they will have no health coverage.

Those who can afford to buy health insurance will get health insurance. Those who can't afford it won't have it. Pretty much the same as it is today.

Passing a law to force people to buy health insurance is no guarantee they can afford to do so. What happens if they can't afford the premiums? Will the government throw them in jail or levy a fine against them? Its an incredibly stupid idea, one that came from Republicans.

Under a single payer system, where government pays the health care providers, the money is raised through payroll taxes. Everyone gets covered.

[CTyankee]

167. Payroll taxes start at dollar one unlike a progressive income tax. You HAVE to pay payroll taxes.

So in effect you are FORCING people to buy health insurance this way.

Don't get me wrong, I am in favor of Medicare for all. It just seems that people don't get it that taxes, particularly payroll taxes, are obligatory. And many don't know that Medicare Part B will require having a monthly payment taken OUT of your Social Security check each month (unless you have another plan).

So, don't think anything is going to be "free." It WILL cost you. It is by far the fairer, most efficient way to run health care, but it ain't "free."

[OzarkDem]

168. Cost control

insuring everyone and spreading the risk and cost over the entire population, in addition to removing the profit motive and administrative waste will make that payroll deduction for a low income person much, much lower.

But you probably already knew that, didn't you?

I can understand why GOP'ers enjoy seeing poor people die needlessly. They get some sort of perverse thrill out of it.

But why do some conservative Democrats and DLC'ers enjoy seeing people die needlessly? Do you guys also get some vicarious thrill from watching people suffer or is it just a case of massive denial?

[CTyankee]

179. Ihope you are not putting me in a category with Republicans! If so, I didn'tmean to imply that I was

in any way agreeing with our current situation! I most certainly am not!

Of course, you make animportant point about cost savings by spreading the cost among the entire population. It is the insurance industry that is driving this whole "socialized medicine" thing. I don't think even doctors are doing that anymore. We have the example of Europe, particularly France which the World Health Oranization cited as having the best health care system IN THE WORLD!

This is a miserable situation in our country for everyone. I am just praying that a Dem in the WH will get universal health care done and we don't have to worry about it anymore.

BTW, I have a grandson with sensory integration disorder and he needs the SCHIP program in California to pay for his therapy as my daughter is not working and her husband is a musician. Earlier, he had been turned down because he needed glasses! To say I'm mad as hell at what Bush did with his veto is putting it mildly!

[madrchsod]

25. i bet 95% of the hospital and doctors business office personal

wish there were universal/medicare/medicaid insurance . i talked to my hospital insurance lady and i could tell by her voice she was sick of insurance companies taking months to pay claims.

[Supersedeas]

26. But it is a boon to the Insurance Lobby and Reps with stocks in those companies

[daa]

27. Americans need Health Care, not insurance

like the rest of the civilized world.

[slipslidingaway]

28. K&R Universal Health Insurance partially funded by tax credits

:(

[NotGivingUp]

38. yep...what a bunch of crap! n/t

[Atman]

29. Well, it keeps the Health Insurance industry healthy.

And after all, isn't keeping corporations happy what America is all about?

-----



.

[NotGivingUp]

44. Certainly does seem that way! Good cartoon! n/t

[hootinholler]

30. But does it put care intothe hands of the treating physician?

Where are the guarantees that needed care will actually be given?

-Hoot

[gateley]

31. K&R

[slipslidingaway]

32. And if Congress does not approve MY plan I'll try and take away

their insurance until they do.

It seems many approve of this statement, but I find it rather appalling and uncaring to those whose family members might be undergoing care for a life threatening or chronic condition.

:shrug:

[Milo_Bloom]

34. Either you accept health care as a RIGHT or you do not.

Allowing there to be a barrier between you and your health care (insurance company, whether paid for by government or not) does not acknowledge health care as a right.

I would much rather NOT have one of these half-assed systems go into place, as it will take the issue off the table and instead of their being 40 million uninsured, you would have 100 million people receiving crappy health care, but their voices would not be heard because they are "covered".

[NotGivingUp]

40. Yes, they'll be able to FORCE you to PURHCASE insurance that will only look for ways to SCREW you.

doesn't seem like a fair deal to me...doesn't even seem legal.

[cuke]

47. You can buy insurance from the govt. The same plan Congress gets

if you don't like the private insurer's plans, you can but from the govt

[Milo_Bloom]

55. Which are still private plans.

http://www.opm.gov/insure/08/spmt/plansearch.aspx

The difference is that tax payer money pays for it.

[cuke]

57. So what?

It will be the same plan Congressmembers use. It has an incredibly high ratings for satisfaction from those who are covered. The post I responded to made an issue of insurance companies not providing adequate coverage. You did nothing to address that point. You just tried to use my post as a pivot to move the goalposts.

[Milo_Bloom]

85. So EVERYTHING.

It is still about having a middle man in the health care industry. Giving a 3rd party the rights over your health care choices is NOT establishing health care as a RIGHT. The point is that PROFIT needs to be taken out of the health care system and health CARE needs to be established as a right, not a priviledge.

You have ultimately made the argument for the other side. The government's plan is basically a consortium of private companies, which gets high marks, so private companies CAN do a better job, according to you.

[cuke]

91. You're still trying to change the subject

If you can't respond to the content of my post, then don't bother

[Milo_Bloom]

95. I did address the subject, EXACTLY ON POINT.

You claimed people don't have to go with private insurers, they can buy from the govnerment.

I pointed out that buying from the government IS private insurers, thus a nonsensical statement on your part.

I also provided a link for the "government" plans showing that it is actually a conglomerate of private companies.

Explain how this doesn't address the point.

[mike_c]

35. the insurance industry is a major part of the problem....

Any "fix" that involves the current power profiteers in health care will ultimately fail because they will adjust their tactics under the new rules, whatever they are, to achieve the same profits they now enjoy-- or even more. As long as peoples' health is considered a commodity, someone will game the system to divert massive amounts of money into their own pockets.

First step toward reforming health care: remove the insurance companies from the equation.

We will NEVER see genuine universal health care as long as political decisions are made on the basis of their potential for affecting the profits of businesses like the insurance industry. NEVER. That industry is a massive parasite sucking on the wages of Americans needing health care-- it's profits derive from sickness and misery, it has commodified health and wellbeing.

[slipslidingaway]

37. Industry: Health Care Plans... Market Cap 192.4B link...

Health Care Plans - Company List
http://biz.yahoo.com/p/522conameu.html

[backscatter712]

41. If we have to go with a mandatory insurance scheme, I have a non-negotiable demand.

Don't get me wrong, I'm in favor of Kucinich's Medicare-for-all plan.

But if there's no way to get that through, and we're stuck with mandatory insurance a la Hillary or Edwards, here's one condition I'm going to demand.

In exchange for mandatory insurance (which the insurance companies love - stirs up business,) the price is that the insurance companies will no longer be allowed to deny policies, or raise premiums, deductibles or anything on account of medical conditions, especially preexisting conditions. Similarly, there will be minimum mandatory coverage, which amounts to all necessary medical treatments, including experimental treatments, only things like cosmetic surgery being excluded.

Yes, that means that if I need a heart transplant that costs ten million bucks, I get to go up to any insurance provider, sign up, and pay the exact same as the healthy 25-year-old male with no major health issues. Yes, that means the insurance company will be forced to eat a huge loss. I'd be willing to have some sort of federal subsidy in place to help insurance companies afford the expensive cases, but other than that, they can suck it.

That's the price for requiring everyone to have insurance - the insurance companies will not be allowed to turn anyone away, even if it costs them millions. That's what insurance is for - to spread the risk. If it's going to be private insurance companies doing this, they will be required to fulfill this societal need.

[NotGivingUp]

45. and i don't think they're gonna go for that one...too much risk!

insurance companies don't like risk. they only like to deny, reject, deny, reject...

[cuke]

50. Clinton's plan includes EVERY thing you asked for

except I'm unclear on what it says about experimental procedures.

[NotGivingUp]

51. i'm not going along with anything that doesn't include getting rid of the insurance companies. n/t

[redqueen]

54. No universal plan is acceptable as long as it includes PROFITS for leeches.

Period.

[cuke]

58. Thanks for throwing me under the bus

I have no health insurance and I have several conditions. I can't afford the meds for some, and I can't afford to see a doctor for the others. I can't afford to wait for Single Payer.

Every day I am in pain. Every. Single. Day

There's no need for this. There are medications and treatments for most of my conditions. I just can't afford them, and you have me continue to suffer so that you can have the satisfaction of "sticking it" to the insurance companies

[redqueen]

61. It's not me, it's dems who won't risk pissing off the insurance industry. (nt)

Sorry, racket. I meant to say "racket".

[cuke]

78. So throw me under the bus and blame the dems

Ignore the fact that there's something you could do about it now. Just sit back and wait for perfection, while 18,000 people die every year from a lack of insurance

And all to spite the insurance companies, You care more about your spite than you do for the needless suffering of the poor and unisured

[redqueen]

81. What can *I* do about it now, praytell?

Are you under the impression that progressives are running the party?

:rofl:

Don't you worry, you'll get your way. The corporatists are drivin this here bus. :hi:

[cuke]

92. Support Universal Health Care

even if it's not single payer

"Are you under the impression that progressives are running the party?"

No, that's why I think we won't be getting SP anytime soon. But we can get UHC. Saving lives is good enough for me.

[redqueen]

98. Never.

I will never line up to eagerly bend over for greedy fuckers. Ever.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

171. So how will being forced to buy from a private insurance company help you

when you can't afford private insurance now?

The only type of private plan that would help you (or me) is one that the insurance companies would fight tooth and nail: the same premiums for all, no right to reject applicants, no deductibles (at least not more than two digits worth), all standard medical procedures covered, no ability to reject claims.

The insurance companies have armies of lawyers and accountants, and they would continue to figure out ways to screw people over. That's what they DO.

[Beerboy]

43. We can have it all by getting it from the smokers.

They're responsible and they should finally pay for what they've done.

[Pastiche423]

176. Could you possibly

come up w/a more idiotic statement?

[redqueen]

52. YAY corporatism!

And YAY to the defeatism that says we can't expect any better!

:woohoo:

[cuke]

59. YAY killing poor people

who can't afford to wait for your perfect plan

I know of several people who are taking care of people with Alzheimer's who have no insurance. Their lives have been turned completely upside down trying to keep their loved one's safe. And you want to screw them just so you could screw the insurance corps.

We have a DUer with serious psych problems that require a lifetime of medication. Right now he is uninsured, but is making it and is expecting to get insurance soon. What happens if he loses his job and his insurance?

Should he go crazy while we wait for the perfect plan?

[redqueen]

60. Wait? Why wait?

Dem Congress & Dem President = NO EXCUSE for sucking corporate teat.

[cuke]

63. The insured don't want govt provided insurance

The overwhelming majority of the insured are very satisfied with their coverage and don't want to be forced to give it up and forced to take govt supplied, one size fits all coverage. The lack of choice is what killed universal health care in 1993. Don't you remember all those commercials?

18,000 people die every year because they have no insurance. Uncounted others suffer needlessly. And all so you can pursue your pipe dream. All because you are unwilling to accept anything less than perfection.

I need medication yesterday. If you're so concerned about the uninsured will you pay for my meds?

[redqueen]

67. Who said anyone would be forced to switch?

:shrug:

Nobody's talking about outlawing insurance.

:wtf:

[cuke]

69. Under Single Payer, their current insurance companies won't exist

There will only be one insurer, the govt. How can they keep insurance that no longer exists?

All you have is slogans "No profit. No Profit". Mean while, people are suffering.

What is more important, getting everyone insured, or preventing insurance companies from profiting?

[redqueen]

72. Wrong wrong wrong...

This is ridiculous. Do some reading then come back and discuss it.

[cuke]

79. What do you think "single payer" means?

It means there's only one payer - the govt.

[redqueen]

82. *sigh*

You have a nice day, now!

:hi:

[cuke]

93. It's a simple question

What does single payer mean?

[redqueen]

99. I'll let you look that one up.

You're throwing strawmen arguments left and right, spewing talking points that are... questionable at best.

You have eyes. Read.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

173. The majority are NOT satisfied with their coverage

I run into a lot of people over the course of a week, and if the topic turns to health care, EVERYONE complains that they're paying more money for fewer benefits and more hassles.

Even people who had superb insurance two or three years ago (through labor unions, etc.) are saying that when the contracts come up for renewal, the insurance companies wrestle the unions and business owners to the floor with demands for higher premiums, higher copays, and less coverage.

Ten years ago, I, too, was satisfied with my coverage. I was on a Kaiser individual plan in Portland, Oregon, that cost $110 a month, $10 copay for all office visits and tests, hospitalization fully covered, and minor copays on other things.

I am now in Minneapolis on a worthless plan with a $5000 deductible and a 20% copay ON TOP OF that.

By the way, I checked back to see what my former Kaiser coverage would cost today: $440 a month with the lowest deductible. Kaiser no longer has no-deductible plans, and even after you meet your deductible, the copays are higher.

[annabanana]

226. They are only satified if they don't really have to USE it!

The more people NEED their insurance, the more unhappy they are.

Because that's when the plans start to nickle & dime them to death. If they deny a treatment, or coverage for a medication, the onus is on the patient (sick though they may be) to fight (and fight timely) for that coverage.

Procedures are considered "experimental" even after medicare has been covering it for a few years... The medication is dropped from the formulary before the generic has been released because of some strong-arming by the pharmaceutical company...Your first "appeal" is lost, and by the time you realize they've lost it.. their window for appeal is past. (The cut off date mandated by a bought and paid for legislature I might add)

The only people really "satisfied" by their insurance are the people who barely need it.

[angstlessk]

225. so, according to you..it is the progressives who want universal health care

who are to blame for the fact that you cannot afford your medications and health care??? and not the selfish, greedy insurance companies, who you might find out if we are all forced to purchase same you might still be in the same boat?? medicine too expensive..and YOUR TREATEMENT refused cause you are a lower tier payer??

[truedelphi]

62. COBRA is the original CLINTON health care insurance nightmare

Get laid off from your job - where you are paying maybe 9% of your $ 50,000 salary for insurance
and OTHER benefits.

Find out that since you are in your fifties, it will be hard to find a new job.

Find out that you and the spouse will pay $ 1,000 for on-going coverage through COBRA. Abnd it last 18 months nd then zip.

So at a time when you aare trying to conserve your savings... the origianl CLINTON health insurance "Good Deal" for America's middle class flunks the test.

[cuke]

64. Do you prefer no insurance at all when you get laid off?

That's what happened before COBRA?

[redqueen]

68. That's what happens *with* COBRA, too...

Oh, but not for the upper or middle class... I guess the rest will just have to (continue to) suffer, so their betters can keep being comfy and misguided.

[cuke]

73. Without COBRA it always happened

With COBRA, millions of people have avoided going without insurance. COBRA paid for my health care for 18 months. That's 18 months of needless suffering I didn't have to endure.

" I guess the rest will just have to (continue to) suffer, so their betters can keep being comfy and misguided."

Umm, you're talking to a poor person. I have no money and no job, My entire life savings has been wiped out taking care of myself and my mom, who is dying. All of the non-single payer UHC plans being proposed would insure the poor, but you object to it because you think insuring them is less important than eliminating corporate profits.

But I'll pray that you never learn how wrong you are. No one deserves that

[redqueen]

75. COBRA doesn't pay your insurance.

All COBRA does is mean your company can keep you on the plan and YOU get to pay both your portion (if you had one) PLUS whatever the company paid, PLUS an 'administration fee'.

Who paid for your COBRA coverage, hm?

[redqueen]

89. Hello? COBRA isn't free.

I'm curious as to how you ever came to think otherwise.

:shrug:

[cuke]

94. Hello? COBRA reduces the cost by more than 50%

compared to buying insurance in the open market

[redqueen]

97. You may be misguided if you can afford COBRA yet think you're poor.

Poor people can't afford to pay hundreds of dollars a month for coverage on top of what they already paid when they DID have a job and an income.

[cuke]

100. I can't afford COBRA

Once upon a time, I wasn't poor.

[redqueen]

101. I see.

So you weren't before, but now you are... and yet you're still championing the cause of the greedy?

Weird.

I find it odd that while you crow about being 'thrown under the bus'... that at this time in your life when you would NOT be able to afford COBRA, that you're on this board trying to convince anyone that we should strive to achieve the least possible good... thereby throwing everyone who can't afford it under the bus.

:shrug:

[cuke]

105. Have you ever heard of medical bankruptcy?

That's what I'm facing if I don't get insured this year

UHC without SP will provide insurance to everyone. That's what the U means; Universal

[redqueen]

106. Yes, insurance. For a price.

I guess if you can afford it, you're gold!

Go for it, dude!

Fuck the (truly) poor!

[cuke]

109. No, poor people get insurance for free

Under UHC, everyone can afford insurance

I am the truly poor.

[redqueen]

114. How does UHC magically mean everyone can afford it?

What, tax credits? For people who don't pay taxes?

How does that work, exactly?

Who's gonna pay for their insurance?

[cuke]

122. Tax credits, and subsidies

If you can't afford to buy insurance, the govt will either pay part of the premium or all of the premium, depending on the person's ability to pay.

"Who's gonna pay for their insurance?"

It depends. People who can afford to buy insurance, will pay for it themselves. Those who can't will get help from the govt.

[redqueen]

125. So you're in favor of handing tax money to insurance execs.

The people who get rich by DENYING as much care as they can.

Man, I just can't get over that.

[bvar22]

141. Cuke wants to get "free" insurance for herself (if

she really is unemployed and poor) and throw all the rest of us "under the bus" who will be forced to buy "For Profit" Insurance from Private Corporations AND pay for her insurance through "tax subsidies".

Thanks, Cuke.

Single Payer NON PROFIT HealthCare is the only way to go.
MediCare for ALL.

Any plan that subsidizes the For Profit Health Insurance only furhter entrenches and codifies the For Profit stranglehold on the Middle Class. It is a step in the WRONG direction, and will make it HARDER to achieve a true single payer system.


”Unlike other candidates, I am not funded by those corporate interests.
I owe them no loyalty, and they have no influence over me or my policies.” ---Dennis Kucinich

[redqueen]

142. You don't start out from a position of compromise.

That, IMO, is just plain crazy - or the position of someone who really doesn't want what they claim to want.

[supernova]

103. Then why defend it?

I'm curious why you think COBRA is a good solution if you can't afford it either.

I can't either and yes, I have one of those nasty "pre-existing conditions."

[cuke]

108. It helps make health insurance affordable for some

I support it even if it does me no good right now. Must I refuse to support anything that doesn't help me?

And I never said COBRA was a "good solution". I said it's better than not having COBRA

[supernova]

124. The issue is we have the opportunity

to do so much better that COBRA with the next election.

That's why it matters which Dem candidate has which plan and what you do or don't support about such a plan.

Just supporting COBRA because you think that's all we'll ever have is as wasteful of an opportunity as going with Rudy G because he'll have a much better war than what we have now.

[dflprincess]

120. Not always

it depends on how large a group policy you can buy into. If you've worked for a small company, the premium is apt to be larger.

Even then, when I was laid off a few years ago, there was no way I could afford the COBRA payments and went without insurance for 8 months until I found a new job. Fortunately, I didn't have any prescriptions I needed to keep taking and I didn't need a doctor during that time period, but I did wind up delaying my annual checkups during that time.


Oh, and the company I was laid off from? United Health Group - which does not (or didn't) give its employees any deals on insurance.

[cuke]

126. That is true. Thanks for point that out

Howevr, COBRA coverage is cheaper than buying it on the open market as a group of one.

[Feron]

184. It really isn't.

When I was dropped from my dad's insurance, COBRA was $500 bucks a month. Needless to say I became uninsured.

My current individual plan is about 180 a month. Granted it's crappy coverage with a deductible.

[truedelphi]

77. I am SO convinced that *most * Hillary Clinton Supporters

Live at home with Mommy and Daddy.

Or are in the upper 4% of the wealth ownership matrix (own home, retired with secure nest egg and net worth over 1 million)

Or are at the very least are working the secure $ 50,000 job with its benefits and don't believe being laid off could happen to them

The irony of the statement about how before COBRA there was no health insurance is the same damn mantra we will hear when Hillary's health care plan is passed (Should she become President)

And many of us will have to choose betweem rent and insurance or food and insurance.

But Hey Hey! at least the goons from the insurance industry financing her campaign are
going to continue to get their $ 750,000 a year.

[redqueen]

84. It's made me decide to change my resgistration to Independent

after the primaries.

I won't be a part of this charade any longer.

[Vinca]

86. $750,000 . . . you're kidding, right?

That's chump change in the health insurance industry.

[cuke]

96. Actually, I do live with my Mommy

She has Alzheimer's. I had to quit (voluntary layoff) my job (and ruin my career) over two years ago so I could take care of her. That's why I have no insurance.


"Or are at the very least are working the secure $ 50,000 job with its benefits and don't believe being laid off could happen to them"

I did happen to me.

[truedelphi]

134. The role of Alzh. caregiver is a rough one. Try and get some

In home support - even if only the occasional volunteer.

You are in as much danger as her - the illness severely affects the health of those overlooking the loved one. And although my belief is that angels bless you as you toil, the reality remains that in the here and now you need earthly help as well.

Not clear if you are saying you support Hillary, and if so, can you explain? WOuld you be able to afford her brand of insurance without your career getting back on track?

[OzarkDem]

170. COBRA is no longer affordable for many

Due to uncontrolled, skyrocketing health care costs, COBRA is frightfully expensive these days. Hubby and I just had to pay over $900 for one month of COBRA coverage when he changed employers and the new insurance didn't kick in for 30 days. In addition, we had to pay out of pocket for all prescriptions and co-pays, since COBRA doesn't cover prescription plans unless you wait a few months and file a claim later. Average time for prescription reimburesement is 1 year.

How many families where someone has lost a job or can't work due to illness can afford $900 a month for health care and still keep a roof over their heads and food on the table? Not many.

COBRA was a good idea for its time and filled an important need. It is NOT, however, a solution for the uninsured. Its a bandaid, and one that has grown beyond most people's ability to pay.

[DangerDave921]

65. What if I don't want health insurance?

Can the government compel me to buy it?

[redqueen]

70. Some candidates' plans will do exactly that.

Yay for being forced to contribute to private insurance exec's bottom lines!

:bounce:

[supernova]

71. If they enact what's on offer now

yes. I think Hillary's plan is set up that way. She said she wanted a system much like car insurance.. i.e. no insurance you don't drive. No health insurance? You don't get a job, hypotetically speaking. Somebody correct me if I misunderstand her on that point.

We need universal health care now. Not universal insurance.

I think DK and JE are the only ones that offer viable alternatives to what we have now. DK's 676 resolution is true universal healthcare. JE offers a hybrid model of medicare for all competing againgst traditional insurance. The idea is that the gov't system is too efficient and too comprehensive for the ins cos to compete against it. It would eventually put the ins cos out of the medical business.

[DangerDave921]

74. Definitions

Part of the problem is definitions. So much info. swirling around over universal, single-payer, health care, health insurance, etc. Such a morass of terms and a lot of people are left wondering what in the heck it all means.

Does it all boil down to FREE medical care? Or is it having affordable insurance? I've always seen insurance as a safety-net for big things. Like car insurance is there for when I'm in an accident. It's not there to pay for my oil change, new tires, maintenance, new brakes, etc. But with health insurance, people expect it to pay for all care. So I don't know if people are clamoring for INSURANCE, or if people are clamoring for FREE MEDICAL CARE. Can someone explain this?

[redqueen]

87. It's not free as in doctors don't get paid.

It's free as in it's paid for by taxes. The same way the Library is "free" and roads are "free" (well, non-toll-roads, anyway :eyes:).

Single-payer care means there is no profit motive which would incentivize NOT giving patients proper care.

Does that clear it up?

[cuke]

112. There will still be incentives to limit care with SP

Someone has to pay for the care. If it's the govt, then politicians will feel budgetary pressure to cut coverage

[redqueen]

115. That's funny.

Have you looked at the Single Payer systems that have been in use for decades in other, more civilized countries?

[cuke]

123. Yes, and they face pressures to limit services

[redqueen]

127. Sure, just like every other business. There's no PROFIT

in denying care, though.

That's a big difference, don't you think?

Have you seen SICKO?

[supernova]

88. Definitions

Insurance - an indemnity policy you buy from a private insurer (such as Cigna). They typically cover tests, wellness, and catastrophic illnesses and hospitalizations.... to a certain lifetime dollar amount. If you reach that dollar amount or cost them too much money, however, as we see in SICKO, these rat bastards find the flimsiest of excuses to drop you. Because they turn a profit when they collect your premiums every month, but don't have to pay out any benefits because you actually went to the doctor.

Single payer - is when you still have a privately run medical industry (hospitals, physician offices and so forth) but a gov't run payer system, i.e. Canada.) In Canada, you go to the Doc and the gov't pays the tab.

Free Medical Care - (I want and will work for this option) is not really free at all. It is merely free at the time of service. It is financed by taxes and can be Single payer (Canada) or nationalized (socialized medicine) like the UK.

I personally think the UK model would be ideal, but would be happy with a Canada model. France, I don't know enough about. They seem to have some hybrid of private and public funding that covers everyone. Again, you don't pay at the time of service, it's paid for out of taxes.

The best way to judge a candidates health plan is weather or not it will still inject the profit motive into our health care. I want it removed permanently, forcibly if necessary. And I want it so that no one has to cough up money at the time of service. It's evil.

[slipslidingaway]

102. But the private insurance companies in Britain have not gone out

of business. :shrug:

The people that have private insurance and do not have to rely on the public system many times receive quicker access to health care and possibly access to different physicians. I'm not 100% sure about the second part???

HR 676 does not let the private sector compete with the public sector, if that happens then the private companies will continue to 'insure' those who need the coverage least and the government, your tax dollars and mine, will be responsible for those who need and use the HC system the most, seniors and all the returning veterans. And at the same time additional tax dollars through tax credits will be going to the private insurance companies bottom line.

The national HC costs are going to skyrocket in the next 10-15 years with so many people moving to the Medicare system and we need to use the profits to cover those costs IMO. I honestly do not see how we have time to wait for half measures that may or may not move us to a single payer system.

Someone needs to take this information to the people and let them decide.

Also Edwards said that Hillary copied his plan and that they are almost identical, they leave the for profit companies in the mix with minor adjustments.

[supernova]

104. But at least they

don't decide who gets care at all, based on ability to pay.

If you want to "upgrade" your service. Fine, I have no problem with that. But I don't want an ins. co. bean counter deciding whether or not I get a needed MRI or chest xray, or even heart surgery. That's what we have here now.

And I swear, these cos need to be sued for trying to practice medicine w/o a license.

Brutal honesty: The "bloat" and "waste" in the US Healthcare industry is not at the point of consumers picking up the phone and making an appt. Congress and all other self-styled "experts" need to kick that shit right out of their heads that its OK, desireable even to berate US citizens for simply trying to use their health care.

:grr: :grr:

And anyone wishing to pick a fight with me about what I just said can go FUCK YOURSELF.

[cuke]

116. Under the proposed plans, you can get your insurance from the govt

The same plan that covers Congressmembers. Single payer isn't the only way to provide insurance that isn't for profit

[redqueen]

118. Congress members get their insurance from for-profit, private insurers.

You really should do some more reading.

[cuke]

128. And it's paid for by the govt

[redqueen]

129. You don't seem to have a problem with tax money going to profit insurance execs.

The guys who make their money by DENYING people needed care.

That truly blows my mind.

[supernova]

132. In reality

Insurers are forced to give the gov't a huge price break because they have so many people.

The ins cos other clients more than offset what little they can afford to charge the gov't.

Isn't it nice to know you don't deserve the same price break?

[LSK]

121. are you insane????

Do you carry $1million in the bank in case you need to spend a week in the hospital? Why the hell don't you want health insurance?

:wtf:

[cuke]

130. There are lots of people who think like that

so how are we going to get to single payer?

[redqueen]

131. There used to be lots more racists.

We still did away with 'separate but equal' BS. Despite how many people were happy with it.

:)

[LSK]

136. see this thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2266509

But until we get there, you just cant gamble without health insurance.

Maybe you should talk to my cousin who has been in the hospital for 2 weeks with serious heart conditions and has no insurance. I figure he is going to owe well over $100,000 if he lives.

[DangerDave921]

135. I don't trust banks

I put my $1 million in the back yard.

I was just asking a question. I know a lot of young people who don't want the extra expense of health insurance because they're young and healthy, and don't think they'll need it.

I am against the government forcing me to do anything that should be voluntary. Car insurance is another matter, because it is designed to protect the other guy. Health insurance is for me only. So I was just asking can the government make me buy health insurance.

[redqueen]

137. Actually health insurance protects 'the other guy', too.

By getting care at the earliest opportunity, rather than waiting until you have some catastrophic condition that requires much more $$$ to treat, you're sparing everyone else who contributes to public healthcare the the possibility of a much larger financial burden.

[LSK]

139. its not about you, when you rack up $100,000 in bills that cant be paid

Who do you think pays for it? The costs get passed on to everyone else.

[DangerDave921]

143. So?

If I'm not paying for it, what do I care? The care is free to me regardless of how much it costs. When you spread $100,000 around the 300 million people in the US, it is not a big burden at all.

[LSK]

144. ah yes, the "me me me" attitude

:eyes:

[DangerDave921]

150. Excuse me

But if the whole notion of universal health care is to get free medical care, how am I being any more selfish than anyone else on here seeking free medical care. Isn't there a certain amount of selfishness inherent in the very notion of universal health care?

[LSK]

151. the whole notion of universal healthcare is not "free"

1. It is to get the system under control. Prices are way out of wack and a priviledged few are profiting off of the suffering of everyone.

2. It is paid for with taxes. Why do you think gas is so expensive in Europe? Taxes that go to pay for healthcare.

Nobody is talking about free healthcare, however we do not want to be stuck with a $250,000 bill when we have a heart attack either.

Universal healthcare is entirely about "we" taking care of each other.

[DangerDave921]

152. Free

A lot of people on here seem to be talking about free health care, which I guess is what confused me. I understand it's paid for in taxes, but it's free when you go in the doctor's office right? I was getting the impression that a lot of people can't afford health care, don't want to pay for it, so they want it provided free of charge.

I guess I had the old idea of selfishness in my head -- I want something but don't want to pay for it, so I want the government to pay for it.

[LSK]

156. in a democracy, the government is us

[dysfunctional press]

198. even with single-payer universal healthcare, i would expect some type of co-pay for office visits...

a token amount- $10 even(which probably wouldn't apply to multiple visits for ongoing conditions)...otherwise, you'll get some people who will use the dr.'s office like their own personal medicine cabinet, showing up every time they need some bactine and a bandaid for a skinned knee.

[DangerDave921]

208. overuse

You raise a good point. There is an economic theory that when you make something free (or even really cheap) it drives up the demand for it. So if everyone has free medical care, it is reasonable to believe that more people will go to the doctor, which will then impact waiting times, how long you can see your doctor, etc.

Of course the opposite side is too few people go to the doctor for fear of the expense.

How do we get a middle ground where people get affordable coverage but don't overburden the medical community?

[dysfunctional press]

211. that's what the co-pay would hopefully accomplish...

$10- which could even be waived for repeat and/or serious cases. but for routine things that people should be able to handle on their own, or for chronic hypochondriacs, $10 or even $20 bucks a pop might make them think a little more responsibly.

other than that, it would be "free" in that all the fees would be paid out of taxes- and although the taxes would be higher, people wouldn't be paying for insurance, or having deductions for it from their paychecks...so for most who already pay for insurance in some form, it would probably close to a "wash" in monetary terms.

the main thing is that insurance companies would be sucking their "profit" as a needless middleman out of the system.

[Feron]

188. Health care, like food and water, is a staple of life.

The decent thing to do is to make sure that everyone has access to it. You shouldn't have to wait until something festers long enough to warrant an emergency room visit simply because the ailment overrides the gigantic bill that will bankrupt you and/or throw you out on the street. Nobody should have to throw a fundraiser to cure their child of cancer.

Health insurance is a scam. Every year I pay more and more for less coverage and that's even with switching providers.

I'm all for health insurance for those who want extras like a private room or a gold plated bedpan. But the basics should be readily available to all without any financial barriers.

[DangerDave921]

195. OK

Then why don't we have single-payer for food? Electricity? Heating oil? Houses? Warm clothes? We need all of those things to live too. Why shouldn't the government provide all of those things to us free of charge? Why should we be expected to pay for all of these necessities ourselves?

When you add up what my family spends in mortgage, food, utilities, clothing and the other basic needs of life, it's a heck of a lot more than we spend in medical care on a yearly basis. So it's never been clear to me why health care is the one item that we insist be taken care of by the government.

[NotGivingUp]

182. It's already happening in Massachusetts and supposed to go into effect in California also.

Forcing people to purchase a junk commercial product that screws you every chance they get. Sounds fair, doesn't it?!
:sarcasm:

[blues90]

76. It would be like auto insurance you get waht you can afford if

you can afford any at all .

[IronLionZion]

90. It would reduce the burden on emergency rooms,

it would reduce the number of deaths, and all our dems are offering plans that will reduce costs and other barriers like "pre-existing conditions". This is a good thing.

Biden isn't for forcing anyone, but he explained that this stuff helps build up a loyal constituency of healthier people who will later support the single-payer plans down the road instead of fearing the big bad bogeyman of "socialism".

[NewJeffCT]

107. Don't several countries, like Switzerland, do similar?

Basically, the government there only acts as an insurer of last resort when people can't get insurance through their work.

Certainly not perfect, but better than what we have.

[derby378]

111. K&R!!

:applause:

[Cleita]

113. What happened to selling Medicare on the open market to

compete with private insurers? If that's off the table he lost any interest I might have had in switching my vote.

[LSK]

119. NOTHING HAPPENED TO IT, THE OP FOR SOME REASON DIDNT INCLUDE IT

AND THATS WHAT MAKES EDWARDS PLAN SO BRILLIANT.

[Cleita]

145. I know that's what made Edward's plan brilliant so I was

wondering why he dropped it. It looks like he didn't TG.

[OzarkDem]

169. that language is "soft"

my perception is that Edward's plan for making Medicare compete w/ private insurance is not well detailed or even a strong part of his health care platform. My impression is that its a bit of stage dressing for the campaign and that, once the election is over, would disappear.

[LSK]

172. ANY plan would have to go through Congress

[NotGivingUp]

187. i'm betting you're right. n/t

[BelgianMadCow]

138. we HAVE universal single payer health care here

NO ONE has a medical bankruptcy because we have a "maximum bill" - anything costing more will be paid by the government.

Everybody is covered. Everybody pays too, through progressive taxes that pay for all of our govt.

It's not like everything is free - there are deductibles. But they are relatively small - like a couple euro for a doctors visit.

If you have a serious condition, you will experience a financial setback alright. But you WILL be covered and you won't go broke.

And you will receive exactly the same treatment as anyone else - no two systems.

Private insurance does exist and is offered by employers - to make you totally immune to the mentioned setbacks, and allow for even better care, like including dental all the way, getting a single room, covering those deductibles.
But most people buy a cheap (150 euro for a family of three per year) extra policy from the government, which insulates you for the better part of the big risks.

This thread makes me go bananas. Will you please as some others have mentioned look at how other civilized countries do it?

The health care I mentioned is costing about 550 Billion (on edit : dollar, that is) if you transpose it to the US (assuming all things being equal, and medically speaking we shouldn't be that far apart).

So that is a bit over the Defense/War budget.

[redqueen]

140. Thank you for providing some insight from a country

which handles healthcare in a civilized manner.

:hi:

[BelgianMadCow]

149. Your earlier attempts are what made me post

so you are the "other people that mentioned..." hihi

:hi:

[redqueen]

162. Hah!

Hurray!

:hi:

[Cleita]

146. We have resources right here to look at how other countries do

it, yet the health care industry operatives always try to derail the debate with disinformation and fear mongering.

[BelgianMadCow]

148. It is especially the "it can't be paid for" fear mongering that baffles me

Yes, 550 Billion is not nothing. But it's of the same order of magnitude as the defense budget, and what good is that for?? It's as large as the next TEN countries combined helllllooooo?!

[supernova]

186. Thanks for your sanity, BelgianMadCow

We are so fucked up here in the states about healthcare.

I wish I lived in Europe sometimes, and healthcare is definitely one of those times. :-(

[OzarkDem]

154. Sorry, but that's what we're going to be stuck with

I've been working on a project w/ others in health care advocacy the last few weeks.


Everyone is of the opinion that we won't see anything approaching universal health care for all Americans for another 10-12 years.

They're going to start real slow, covering the least costly (that's why they're pushing SCHIP expansion now, its easy and cheap, but doesn't accomplish much).

The last group likely to be covered are uninsured adults with catastrophic illnesses, like cancer. Sadly, hundreds of thousands of people are going to die needlessly before our leaders and elected officials develop enough guts to cover everyone.

I feel really sorry for all those people who will die, but don't have to. Modern medicine will have the ability to cure them, but it can't cure the big yellow streak running up the backs of our politicians, Dem and GOP alike.

If you think trying to get Dems to begin impeachment hearings against Cheney is hard, wait until you try to get them to enact universal health care.

[LeftCoast]

205. Just wondering if you had anyone from healthcare on your project

Our system may not survive another 10-12 years. Change is being forced on us because the present system is coming apart at the seams.

[cyclezealot]

158. If the Edwards plan strictly regulated those Insurance companies

and eliminated their right to cancel policies for expensive patients; they would go out of business. Their business is not to be fair. But to make huge profits and golden parachutes for the CEO. Edwards thinks he can make them conform to regulation and charge reasonable premimums, he is silly.

[OzarkDem]

165. If, if, if...

With the exception of Kucinich's, all the candidate's health care plans are short on details and long marketing.

Neither Clinton's, Biden's, Edwards, or Dodd's health care reform plan is going to provide coverage to all Americans. In reality, most of them are pretty much the same system we have today, with a lot of happy talk added in.

:hurts:

[cyclezealot]

174. agreed.

and also, those who have coverage will suffer under the reign of a profit margin's limits as to how doctors can practice. and, they will still keep their 25% administrative sur charges under Edward's plan.

[NotGivingUp]

191. yep, silly or just saying whatever to get elected. n/t

[CTyankee]

199. What I like about Clinton's plan could accomplish what you want and that's why I like it.

She realizes that "Power never gives up without a struggle; it never has and it never will." Her idea is to let the private plans compete with Medicare and the federal plan Congress gets. Since those plans operate more efficiently than our complex private plans, people will gravitate to the single payer plans and private companies will not be able to compete. There are some exceptions -- the super rich, for example, who can afford just about anything -- but if the vast majority of Americans opt into a government plan many of the private insureres will have to go into another line of business, and that happens all the time when an industry is outmoded and obsolete. Then we Dems can simply proclaim that the result is because of competition in the marketplace and Repubs will have nothing to complain about.

But here's the catch: government plans have to "work." That means they have to be sufficiently funded and not "starved." Look for Repubs to try that. The Tories tried it in Great Britain back in the Thatcher days but eventually the public caught on and restored the needed funding. The average Brit didn't want to go without his/her single payer health care.

[onethatcares]

166. That is the point I make constantly

no one, should have to file bankruptcy or lose their home and savings due to accident or illness. Anything else is a scam. Universal Health Care is the ticket.

[kestrel91316]

178. I want healthcare coverage (at a certain modest level) by mere virtue

of my being present in this country legally. I want and expect my taxes, and taxes on every other taxpayer and corporation, to go into a fund to provide this level of care.

Insurance should be able for services not provided by the above, such as cosmetic procedures.

Don't most European countries and Canada and up-and-coming Asian nations have this? I don't get why we need insurance companies as middlemen to icrease the overall cost........

My country is the embarrassment of the world.

[undercutter2006]

180. what you talking

yeah, but, correct me if i am wrong, universal healthcare would be subsidized by the taxpayers money anyway, so yes IT IS requiring us to pay for it one way or the other

you say tomato i say tomatto

[supernova]

181. But ins. cos don't

need to be in the business of doling out care based on ability to pay.

It needs to be based on health care needs.

Welcome to DU. :hi:

[NotGivingUp]

185. the insurance companies are the problem and need to be eliminated

they screw their policyholders every chance they get, create huge administrative costs, and siphon out huge amounts of our money so the fat cats who sit by their swimming pools doing nothing can collect their big fat profits. it's a sick, sick system.

[undercutter2006]

189. the fat cats do do something

they have to go to a board meeting once a month !

[redqueen]

201. ...

:rofl:

Welcome to DU! :hi:

[DangerDave921]

196. And?

And when the government runs things, you don't think there will be huge administrative costs? And siphoning of huge amounts of money? Have you seen a government program at work? LOL

[redqueen]

202. There's no incentive to refuse care.

Profit is an incentive for private insurance co's to DENY care.

Clearer now?

[supernova]

209. Medicare runs about 2-3% of expense in admin costs

Ins cos run up about 9% of expenses in administrative costs.

You tell me who is more efficient. The idea that private companies are inherently more efficient than gov't is a myth. And it's been a well sold one for about 30 years now.

It's time to let it go.

[rndmprsn]

190. edwards should jusy bite the bullet...

and come out for single payer.

[NotGivingUp]

192. it would be a very good move. nobody wants to do it except kucinich. n/t

[eridani]

193. Health care market are absolutely ridiculous

Boeing pays less per capita for its insurance than Joe's Corner Hardware because why? Because a bigger risk pool spreads the risk more. It ought to therefore be obvious what the biggest and cheapest risk pool is--the whole goddam country? Why make it more expensive by breaking this big pool into smaller pieces?

[nancyharris]

200. Boeing pays more per capita than the corner hardware store

because Boeing pays for a higher percentage of their employee's health care. They have a larger profit margin than the corner hardware store and need to hold on to their skilled workforce so they provide more benefits. HMO's compete against each other.

[eridani]

219. OK, they pay less per capita/per benefit, then

I thought that everybody knew that the larger the risk pool, the cheaper it is for everyone to cover a given amount of risk.

[redqueen]

203. Why make it more expensive? To benefit stockholders, of course. (nt)

[yellowdogintexas]

218. heck, even if all they promised us was well child, mammograms,

pap smears, and other good sense maintenance at 100% coverage, saddled with a big huge catastrophic group plan that would shell out for the hospital stay we all dread. That is what it boils down to ...the biggest fear is the hospital bill.

[JFN1]

224. Thank you

That's my problem with Edwards - he is sooooo slick sometimes...

[Angela Shelley]

227. There is no such thing as "free health care"

Each individual should "pay their share", or find an institution who will pay it for them.

[supernova]

228. Well, well, well, here we go again

"free health care" is free at the point of service in most countries that serve as our model: the UK, Canada, and France for instance. It is bought and paid for ahead of time with our tax dollars.

It's something that will happen here regardless of what conservative sheep like to think. And no under no circumstances is a war more important than health care.

Welcome to DU Angela Shelley. :hi:

[yurbud]

229. even republicans like that last idea. I don't

[yurbud]

230. instead of giving insurance companies checks, we should be writing warrants for their arrests