"everyone must buy health insurance"

[gorfle]

I don't understand this part of the current health care debate. I keep hearing that "everyone must buy health insurance", or "there will be a fine on those who don't buy health insurance."

I thought the whole idea was to provide taxpayer funded insurance to everyone?!?!

Who is going to be buying insurance? I want single-payer health insurance, funded by my taxes, so that I don't have to buy health insurance!

What gives?

[county worker]

1. Are you not a tax payer?

There is no free lunch.

You will not get a single payer health care system that you don't have to pay for and that gives you free medical care. If that's what you think wake the hell up and smell the coffee!

There will be a dual system. Either you will have private insurance or you will have government insurance. Either way it will cost you something as well it should. We all have to pay for our health care.

[kiva]

2. You might want to reread the OP:

"I want single-payer health insurance, funded by my taxes, so that I don't have to buy health insurance!"

Sounds to me that s/he wants what many of us here want, to pay for health care NOT insurance.

[county worker]

7. You are not going to get that. You will have to buy insurance.

I think that is the only fair thing to do. You should pay something for your health care. We should not pass it off on some wealthy individuals to pay for us.

No you can't have a pony!

[Jakes Progress]

20. You're still not getting the point.

The OP is willing to pay for health care. The OP wants to pay for health care. What is anathema is paying for insurance. Insurance is not health care. Paying for health care through insurance is paying someone a profit to deny you health care and only grant it when they are forced to. It's how corporations work. Profit not product.

(The pony thing is getting a little old. It is demeaning and in this particular case it is demeaning to someone who understands the issue better than you.)

[county worker]

31. I get the point. read

"I want single-payer health insurance, funded by my taxes"


I want single payer "HEALTH INSURANCE".

Why funded by taxes? Because the taxes if any will not equal the cost of private insurance. Basically they want to go to any doctor for any reason and have it paid for by taxes of which theirs is not much more than they pay now. That to me is like a pony. It ain't going to happen.

And if that weren't true what difference does it make to him if all systems cost him the same? When they say single payer they mean a health care system were the more you make the more you pay and we all get the same care! PONY!

[RC]

46. No you do not get it.

Single payer government health care. The insurance is the problem. Get out of the box. Get rid of the insurance all together. Just pay the government instead. Let them handle the paperwork. We do not need insurance as such of any kind. You pay a tax as in Social Security to cover Universal health care. We all save because we do not pay for needless private insurance with its extravagant administrative overhead.
Everyone except for the management of the insurance companies saves money. They can go flip burgers for a living just like the people they have been stiffing for all these years.
Insurance is a waste of money with Single payer.

[Jakes Progress]

48. A little libertarian for me.

True the word used was "insurance" but the connotation was "care".

That may be a little projection on my part, but you to for it big time, ascribing all kinds of motives to the OP. Who is this nasty "they" that want to use your tax money up for frivolous health care. Sounds like maybe you are advancing the insurance industry argument that the insurance corporations protect America from all those unwashed who would just go to the doctor all the time if there weren't insurance companies keeping down the service and costs. You work in the industry?

No all systems don't cost the same. And yes. The more you make the more you pay. Are you also for flat taxes and eliminating the inheritance tax?

The most cost effective and most effective health care comes from single payer, non-profit service. Why pay the profit margin for the same thing you get without corporate profits? Why pay for lobbyists and telemarketing and advertising and physician kickbacks? They don't add to the level of care.

The system works in most other industrialized countries. Our system doesn't work and making insurance company profits legally mandated won't help.

[RufusTFirefly]

76. There are many flavors of Kool-Aid. I assume you've tried them all

Do you get out much? Do you know anything about the rest of the world? Do you pay attention to information that isn't underwritten by your local mega-insurance corporation?

Didn't think so.

[maryf]

78. some call it Single Payer health CARE vs. Insurance

To clarify that there is no profit!!

[TheWatcher]

96. .....

:eyes:

[gorfle]

52. I don't mind paying for insurance.

I don't mind paying for insurance, as long as it is GOVERNMENT insurance. That is, if the government is going to set up an insurance plan for people who can't afford it, it should be open to the people paying for it, too.

I don't mind paying extra to cover the people who can't afford it, but I don't want to be left still getting raped by PRIVATE insurance and then having to pay for welfare insurance, too.

[valerief]

34. Why do the wealthy people get all the breaks? They get the capital gains cuts,

the incredible tax cuts, the social security limit. They get everything. And all that money, too!

[Laelth]

43. Evidently someone does get the pony. We want it back. n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[enlightenment]

37. Umm. Why not?

What the hell is insurance except a step between (and one that costs dollars to manage - even a 'government sponsored' version) between the tax payer and the health care?

No one, not the OP or the person to whom you responded, is looking for a free ride. They are saying that they want their TAX DOLLARS to go to a health CARE system, not an insurance plan.

It's the difference between this milquetoast 'oh, we can't DO everything!' public option that Congress is spouting off about like they've just invented sliced bread - and the single payer option that most civilized nations have instituted.

I don't want a pony. I want to know that the money I pay out is going to support a health CARE system, not being parceled out to handle whatever far less than adequate insurance plan the government is going to shove down our throats and tell us is nectar.

[gorfle]

49. OK....

You are not going to get that. You will have to buy insurance.

I think that is the only fair thing to do. You should pay something for your health care. We should not pass it off on some wealthy individuals to pay for us.

Who will I be buying insurance from? The government? Will I have the opportunity to buy into the same government program that the people getting free insurance are using?

Because if I have to keep buying my insurance from Blue Cross Blue Shield, PLUS I have to pay for all the poor people's insurance on top of that, that is going to suck.

What I want is a single-payer system - a government insurance policy. I don't mind paying extra on my premiums to cover folks who can't afford it - I do the same thing on my power bill by paying extra for people who need help with their electric bills. But I want the service, too.

What I DON'T want is another government program that I pay for but can't use.

[Matariki]

55. This is how it's done in most developed countries. It's not a damn pony.

Making the purchase of health insurance mandatory as a way to solve the health care crisis in this country makes as much sense as fining homeless people to solve the mortgage crisis.

Furthermore, I would happily have my taxes go to health insurance as, I'm sure, many people would. It would be more than compensated for by not having to buy for-profit insurance.

[DireStrike]

69. Yes we absolutely should pass it off on the wealthy

They are the only ones who can afford it. They have been getting fat for decades. Now it is time to give back.

[Vincardog]

12. Bingo I want health care NOT insurance.

[county worker]

32. This is directly from the OP

"I want single-payer health insurance, funded by my taxes"


Single payer is an extension of Medicare. Medicare is insurance. You pay into it and it reimburses the provider. Leave out the word insurance if you want. But it works the same.

The problem people have with mandatory insurance is that they feel it will cost them more than if it was covered by taxes. Again leave out the work insurance if you want. It works the same. You are mandated to pay for health care. You will never pay what the care costs because the burden is shared be all. It works like insurance no matter what you call it.


The only difference is do you pay taxes or premiums. People think taxes will be cheaper for them but the care will be the same.

Saying you want health care not insurance isn't saying anything since you are not paying full cost for the care.

[gorfle]

56. But pay who?

The problem people have with mandatory insurance is that they feel it will cost them more than if it was covered by taxes. Again leave out the work insurance if you want. It works the same. You are mandated to pay for health care. You will never pay what the care costs because the burden is shared be all. It works like insurance no matter what you call it.

But who will I be paying for the mandatory insurance?

If I am paying into a government-run insurance plan that I can also use, plus paying extra to cover people who can't afford it, that's fine.

What I'm not fine with is continuing to have to buy private insurance for me and my family, PLUS having to pay for a government health welfare program for everyone else.

[ibegurpard]

57. "you are not paying full cost for the care"

and just what is that cost exactly?
Sat down with an itemized medical bill lately?
Our mess of a system and this "reform" leaving it in the hands of insurers and medical providers gaming each other for profit is not a measure of the actual cost of anything.

[valerief]

35. Me too!! nt

[lumberjack_jeff]

80. a) single payer insurance is still insurance.

b) would it make the poster feel better to consider the premiums paid to the government-run plan a tax?

[gorfle]

51. I don't want a dual system.

There will be a dual system. Either you will have private insurance or you will have government insurance. Either way it will cost you something as well it should. We all have to pay for our health care.

I don't want and won't support a dual system. All that is is I continue to shoulder the bill for my own private insurance and then have to fund a medical welfare program on top of that.

I want a single system that I pay into and also use. I don't mind paying extra so that people who can't afford it can also use it, but if I'm funding a government health care insurance service I want to use it also.

[Lasher]

3. That's what I want too but I don't think there is not enough support for it in Congress.

Obama isn't fighting for it either. What we're going to get at best is individual mandate with an option to buy insurance from the government instead of from private companies. A segment of the least fortunate, possible comprising the bottom quintile, will probably get free coverage kinda like Medicaid.

[tularetom]

4. No, but everybody must get stoned

[sandnsea]

Single payer tax funded program NEVER on the table

I'm sorry if you thought it was. I don't know why anybody thought it was a good idea to confuse people on the issue.

[obliviously]

5. I have been trying to tell people this

They are going to raise our taxes and then force us to buy health insurance when we have less money to spend. I can't afford a health care policy for my wife and I now! How am I going to afford it when I have even less money after taxes plus the fact that the economy has got my income way down.

[sandnsea]

6. There will be subsidies

It will be on a sliding scale.

[regnaD kciN]

14. And, based on the sliding scale in the House plan...

...those who REALLY have no income (i.e. families of four earning less than $29,000 total) will be taken care of pretty well by the subsidies. People in the "struggling middle-class" (say, with family income over $50,000 but high monthly debt loads) are going to get killed by the bill, since the subsidies won't be anywhere near enough to cover the cost of insurance.

The upshot of that bill is the assumption that "affordable" means costing no more than 12% of your income (if your family income is under $90,000). If you're in that "struggling middle-class," and you're not in a position to pay one-eighth to one-twelfth of your gross pay to health insurance, you'll be in trouble.

[mike_c]

that wiil push me over the edge....

I make a decent salary as a public employee, but I still live pretty much paycheck to paycheck. I don't HAVE ten or twelve percent extra to spend for insurance. Much less wealthy nations can provide their citizens with single payer universal health care-- why can't the U.S.?

[hfojvt]

40. don't you already have insurance with your job?

One trouble is that a "decent" salary depends on expenses. $20,000 would be a ton of money for me, but not for others with medical issues, high rent areas, student loan debt, etc.

[mike_c]

45. yes I do-- I'm assuming that will change after the health care reform bill passes....

That's a major gray area in this whole discussion. If my employer continues to insure me, then no worries. However, one of the primary reasons for "reforming" health care is that the current system is too costly for employers, who want to be rid of responsibility for insuring their employees. If mine continues to shoulder that burden, then all's well-- and as a union employee, you can bet my union will be on top of any discussion about reforming health care delivery in my workplace. But in the end, if my employer shifts that burden to me, once the system is "reformed," I'm largely screwed under the current plans being discussed.

Single payer universal health care is so much simpler and more straightforward for EVERYONE-- employers, employees, the unemployed, and so on. Everyone wins.

[bobbolink]

53. You're right, of course. Sadly, the backers of single-payer haven't been beating the drum publicly

the last 5 years, when they could have affected public opinion, and public demand.

It can't be done in 4 weeks.

single payer lost.

It wasn't organized enough.

[Gwendolyn]

72. If you're a public employee you have insurance. Why would you need the public option then?

[mike_c]

101. see #45

The current discussions in congress include individual requirements for purchasing insurance-- something businesses want in order to free them from the burden of insuring employees. Under a similar mandate, for example, my employer does not provide me with automobile insurance, because the law requires that I purchase it myself.

[sandnsea]

17. 12% is too much, agreed

Maybe some activists ought to have been paying attention to something that they could change instead of fantasyland.

[Raineyb]

15. Then it will be like all sliding scales in this country. Bloody useless until you bankrupt yourself

No one should have to do that to get health care.

[Laelth]

44. I can't afford it either.

A subsidy won't help. I can't afford any new expenses now, none. A subsidy does me no good unless it's a 100% subsidy, and I am not going to get that. Instead, I will get a new bill for about $3,000/year. I am afraid I will not be able to comply with this law. That makes me angry and uncomfortable.

:dem:

-Laelth

[InvisibleTouch]

70. Same here ... no way I can afford anything extra.

And I object to being forced to purchase something against my will, that I don't trust to begin with. Having so-called "insurance" doesn't translate into receiving proper care. I much prefer to see to my own health care as much as possible, and take my chances.

[Cronopio]

91. "I much prefer to see to my own health care as much as possible, and take my chances."

If you get a virulent and deadly strain of pneumonia and decide to go to work and spread the disease because you couldn't afford health care (or just wanted to try to treat it yourself), you're not just taking your own chances, you're forcing the risk on to everyone else.

I, and I'm sure everyone else with any sense, would prefer that you have a coverage mandate. Your health isn't just about you.

[Fumesucker]

93. I would prefer that the poster have health care..

A "coverage mandate" means nothing if you don't have the money to buy the insurance.

It also means little when your claim is denied.

[Cronopio]

107. If you don't have the money, a coverage mandate mandates that you get subsidies equal to the cost.nt

[Fumesucker]

108. You'll have to be all but homeless to get any subsidy..

Wait and see how it shakes out, I don't trust our politicians or our insurance companies as far as I can throw the Capitol building.

[Fumesucker]

94. Dupe, self delete..

[Fumesucker]

95. Dupe, self delete..

[PretzelWarrior]

87. wahhhhh!!!!!!!!!! cry me a river.

you really think they won't give you credits or subsidies if you're working on your own and must buy insurance? If your employer has insurance for you now, they will certainly have insurance for you in the future.

[Brigid]

8. I now have a history of heart problems.

I defy anyone to tell me what private insurance company is going to sell me a policy, even at an exorbitant premium.

[county worker]

11. I think the legislation is taking care of issues like that.

There will be no more pre-existing conditions. And there will be a public option available. You will have health care that you can afford.

[babylonsister]

16. From the House website:

http://www.speaker.gov/blog/?p=1864

snip//

STABILITY & PEACE OF MIND

No more coverage denials for pre-existing conditions

No more lifetime limits on how much insurance companies will pay

No reason to ever make a job or life decision again based on health care coverage

[sandnsea]

19. That has been a key point for months

I don't think I've heard anybody discuss health care reform and not bring up eliminating pre-existing conditions. Sorry you missed that.

[Laelth]

47. For you, this bill is better than nothing, I admit.

For me, it stinks.

:dem:

-Laelth

[bobbolink]

54. Supposedly, existing conditions will no longer be legal.

Let me rephrase that. ^_^

It will no longer be legal for insurance companies to bar someone for "preexisting conditions".

As I said... supposedly.

The bill isn't final, and the blue dogs haven't mucked it all up yet.

[Brigid]

99. I think your sig says it all.

We still have much work to do, to put it mildly, to fix up the health care mess.

[bobbolink]

105. The "time" hasn't come yet.... only what, 40 years since MLK said that....

I'm tired of fighting against the tide.

I wish you well! I know just how lonely it is to be fighting stuff like what you're dealing with, when you live in a country that just doesn't give a damn.

Best to you! :hug:

[donco6]

60. And forget about lymphoma, like me.

Without my job, I'd be f*cked.

[regnaD kciN]

9. You're talking about single-payer...

...which is NOT part of this plan.

Yes, under the current plan, you are required by law to purchase health insurance. Under the House bill, there will be a "public option" that will cost $5,000/year for individuals and $10,000/year for families. You can also buy private insurance, but that will almost certainly cost more than the public option. Subsidies will be available for "low-income" people but, unless you have a family of four and earn less than $28,600 or so in total income, you'll be expected to pay some of that out of your own pocket. If your family is on the low end of that income range, you'll be paying only around $430/year (or around $36/month). If your family income is $88,000, you'll be expected to pay $9,680/year (or around $807/month). Anything above that, and you'll have to pay the $10,000 at least.

Unfortunately, the subsidies seem to be based entirely on income level, not on what your disposable income is. If you are uninsured and with a reasonable income, but with high debts from owning an "underwater" mortgage, or large monthly debt payments from previous medical expenses or a period of prior unemployment requiring you to max out your charge cards, you're still going to have to buy and pay for health insurance according to your current income level. If that means you don't have the means to pay your bills...well, there's always bankruptcy...if you qualify anymore. :-(

[gorfle]

58. What?!?

Yes, under the current plan, you are required by law to purchase health insurance. Under the House bill, there will be a "public option" that will cost $5,000/year for individuals and $10,000/year for families. You can also buy private insurance, but that will almost certainly cost more than the public option. Subsidies will be available for "low-income" people but, unless you have a family of four and earn less than $28,600 or so in total income, you'll be expected to pay some of that out of your own pocket. If your family is on the low end of that income range, you'll be paying only around $430/year (or around $36/month). If your family income is $88,000, you'll be expected to pay $9,680/year (or around $807/month). Anything above that, and you'll have to pay the $10,000 at least.

HOLY CRAP! My private insurance currently costs my family $4300 a year. This does not include what my employer is paying, of course, this is just my cost. I currently make $92K a year.

So you are saying that in order to take advantage of the public option my insurance cost would over DOUBLE? How is this a deal?

I assume once this passes most employers will opt not to provide a health care benefit since people can use the public option. How am I supposed to come up with an additional $5000 a year?

[iris27]

64. Well, that should effectively end Republican worries of the public option taking off and

eventually becoming single payer just by virtue of its popularity. At that price, almost no one with coverage through their employer will save any money by switching. For me, as an individual, that's four times what I currently pay. I have sh*tty coverage, but still.

It will cheaper (for some) than COBRA, and cheaper than most individual, non-employer-based plans are now. But apparently the biggest reform coming out of this bill will be the new requirements on private insurers, not any widely-accessible public plan.

[damntexdem]

10. It's about a mandate to have health insurance.

So long as the system depends on many or most buying insurance, the mandate issue will be important.

On the one hand, a mandate forces those who don't want to to buy a product.

On the other hand, without a mandate, there will be a free-rider problem (as there already is). In other words, when those who don't buy insurance need health care that they can't pay for out of pocket, they will still likely get it if they need it enough -- and that will cost the rest of us. That DOES cost the rest of us: we don't just pay for care for the uninsured who could not afford insurance, we also pay for care for the uninsured who could have afforded insurance.

[librechik]

13. we all "buy" into the pool, to make it viable (with our tax money)

those low income folks who can't afford to pay will be given some form of voucher or supplemental for their share.

Presumably the increase in our tax bills will be offset by the lower cost of the public option.

Think of it this way: Say you and your spouse are paying $1000 a month for blue cross blue shield.
If you went on the public option (free coverage) and your tax bill increased to $3000 a year, you
would still be saving $9,000 a year. If you are so low income you pay no taxes, you would be eligible for the coverage, and would pay nothing.

Those are just figures I plucked out of the air, though, because no one has proposed a plan for how to pay for the coverage. We are just assuming that it would come through an adjustment in the Medicare tax you pay every paycheck already.

I hate this idea though of calling the universal option "insurance"--Medicare is "insurance," Social Security is "insurance"-- but we have been schooled for decades to think of "insurance" as some form of private coverage, and it is just too confusing. I guess they are trying not to scare people by implying that the public option is just like the insurance your employer gives you, not like that socialistic Medicaid. I hope that is not so. I have been told the public option will be very much like Medicaid.

[regnaD kciN]

22. Public Option = $5K for individuals, $10K for families

Those are the actual figures from the House bill (which is likely to be the most progressive of the options, and probably better than the final resolution will be).

There will be subsidies for low-income people, but, for the middle class, they will only pay a portion (and, in some cases, a very small portion) of that.

So, in essence, health insurance under the much-vaunted public option will cost individuals around $400/month, and families $800/month, in premiums. As I had been warning, that's an improvement over the $1,000-$1,500/month premiums for current, non-job-based private insurance, but still far from "affordable" for those in the middle class still struggling to pay their bills, but with a high enough income level that the subsidies will only amount to a drop in the bucket.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

39. So I am going to go from paying $1200 a year to $5000, my wife from $0 to $5000. Great plan.

[librechik]

104. no of course not--if your current plan is better, you stay with that. Most would save money n/t

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

110. Of course that is until my city drops it's coverage.

[librechik]

114. then you sign on to a public option--it's supposed to happen that way, like a

safety net--cuz you never know when your employer will drop you--we need to help those people so they don't go into bankruptcy over a medical bill.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

117. Who's arguing otherwise?

[gorfle]

59. This sucks for me.

So, in essence, health insurance under the much-vaunted public option will cost individuals around $400/month, and families $800/month, in premiums. As I had been warning, that's an improvement over the $1,000-$1,500/month premiums for current, non-job-based private insurance, but still far from "affordable" for those in the middle class still struggling to pay their bills, but with a high enough income level that the subsidies will only amount to a drop in the bucket.

Currently my insurance costs me around $280 a month for my family. My employer picks up the rest of the tab. Presumably after the public option passes most employers will stop offering insurance. Unless my employer decides to give the rest of what they were paying for my insurance to me, there's no way I can afford an additional $500 a month for insurance.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

106. That's my point employers unless mandated to do otherwise will drop coverage.

[bemildred]

18. I don't want "health insurance", I want health care.

I am willing to pay for that, I think everyone should pay what they can afford for that, but insurance has nothing to do with it, you cannot insure my health, unless you mean you are going to pay me when I get sick, like "life insurance" that pays you when you die.

[Cronopio]

86. Don't get too hung up on the term "insurance".

Anything that is paid through taxes is effectively insurance. Defense insurance. Fire protection insurance. Police protection insurance. Child education insurance. Under the public option, your health is insured through no-questions-asked, full cradle-to-grave health care, not by what some insurance company says your health is worth.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

21. That's the Mitt Romney approach, which is sort of like

trying to end homelessness by requiring everybody to buy a house.

[Davis_X_Machina]

23. Repeat after me...

1.) 'Single-payer health insurance, funded by my taxes', will not happen this year. Or next year. Or perhaps not in the lifetime of anyone reading this. I'm not saying it's not the best system. Hell, I'd go full NHS-model, but I'm a card-carrying socialist.

2.) You can get universal, equitable, cost-efficient health care delivery without single-payer, and without an Beveridge-model NHS. Something close to 200 million people in Europe live under systems that fit that bill.

3.) There is no universal coverage without coercion by the state. . With either the NHS and public-single-payer models, you’re coerced into paying for it via taxation, with the penalties that attach to not paying them — garnishment, attachment, etc. With Swiss/Dutch/German models, you’re coerced into buying insurance, with penalties for not doing so attached — civil fines, which if they have teeth will also entail garnishment, attachment, etc. If there is no coercion, the ‘universal’ goes away — the problem of free riders and the Tragedy of the Commons comes into play.

I have a preference towards being compelled to pay via taxation, but it's only a preference. If the choice is between having the social provision provided by mandatory insurance and not having it provided at all -- and that's the reality we're looking at -- then I'll take the insurance mandate.

[liberalpragmatist]

38. Also, most systems require some premiums by the individual

Most European systems require some monthly premiums by individuals. Britain's is unique in being free.

[Uzybone]

41. +1000 for a healthy dose of reality

[Cronopio]

88. How the cost is assessed isn't that important.

People can pay 5-10K/year for no-questions-asked, no-maximum-coverage-limit health care in a single-payer system through taxes, or 5-10K/year for the same quality of care in a public insurance option through premiums. Why should people care how they pay it? What matters is how the subsidies will kick in, and that is being, and will be, very closely scrutinized.

A public option cannot mandate ability to pay, it can only mandate coverage. There's is nothing in either of the current proposals that makes people pay for coverage they can't afford, so I don't know where people are getting all of this FUD about it from.

RomneyCare is an example of the corporatist, Republicant approach to the problem. The Dems aren't pushing for that at the moment and many are being very militant about defending against that in the legislation.

People here need to stop imagining the worst, center, and start educating themselves about what the public health plan is really about. Canada got to single-payer through a public option and it didn't take that long to happen once it got started.

Incidentally, Tommy Douglas initially wanted single-payer but at the time the Saskatchewan gov't couldn't afford it. Sound familiar, folks?

[eridani]

98. Leaving US insurance companies as is is NOTHING like any European system.

In all other developed countries, private health insurance is strictly an add-on. It supplements government insurance; it does not compete directly. And it is NOT allowed to deny basic health care to anybody, to cherry-pick, to have preferred provider lists, or to rescind policies.

[Davis_X_Machina]

102. No. Not in 'All other developed countries' - that's simply not so.

In the Netherlands, Austria and Switzerland for all but the indigent, students and the elderly, the private health insurance is your health insurance. And in Belgium, Germany and France it can be. Their private insurers are often mutual insurance funds (like the pre-Anthem/Wellpoint BC/BS), and are closely regulated, but they are private.

We could sack up and sit on our private insurers the same way here, and get to the same place.
"Private" doesn't necessarily mean 'rapacious'. "Private" doesn't even necessarily mean "for-profit'. We have chosen to make it so.

Details here from Physicians for a National Health Plan, a group that supports single-payer.

[eridani]

109. What are the odds that we will sit on private insurers in that way?

Tightly regulated mutual funds would be acceptable, but I'm not seeing it. In the US, private = rapacious.

[Davis_X_Machina]

111. If you want it bad enough it will happen.

That's the point of having representative government.

[eridani]

113. If wanting it badly will make it happen--

--I'll focus my wanting on single payer.

[ipaint]

115. In all but the dutch case they are non-profit

Meaning NO 31% overhead. In the dutch case they are heavily regulated and most are non profit. It is impossible to reform health care leaving for profit insurance corporations free to continue feeding to the tune of 31% on sickness and misfortune.

We already know this.

[Sebastian Doyle]

24. If this is some sort of mandatory RomneyHillarycare bullshit, then they can keep it.

THAT is not a PUBLIC OPTION, it's fucking corporate welfare.

If they are too CHICKENSHIT to make a real change to the system now, then I would rather they did NOTHING.

Then vote every last corporate fellating piece of shit out of office, and we can have single payer like the rest of the civilized world.

[Davis_X_Machina]

25. What provision for health care do you presently have? n/t

[Sebastian Doyle]

26. I have no health care at all at the moment, being unemployed.

Both of those facts suck, but one shouldn't be dependent on the other.

[Davis_X_Machina]

30. Under the House draft, you'd be covered by Medicaid, unless...

..you've got really good unemployment insurance. And the states couldn't game eligibility for Medicaid the way they can now.

[ipaint]

33. As a long time uninsured person I feel as you do

The insurance companies are behind this and they've already killed off hundreds of thousands of americans. Anything they touch turns to shit.

Why in world partner up with them now. This is a failed model but I'll close my eyes and dream of future ponies with the rest of them and hope against all evidence for the best.

[hippywife]

27. That's what I want, too, but

it's not even part of the current reform discussion, sadly. My husband and I together only make an annual salary that would be considered decent, not great, for a single person, and we're willing to pay higher taxes so that everyone has access to healthcare, no health coverage. Beats the shit outta where some of our tax dollars go now, like to support the Pentagon budget.

:hi:

[Brigid]

28. I sometimes try to imagine . . .

what could be done with the money we waste on the Pentagon, like using it for health care, but nausea stops me every time.

[hippywife]

29. And to think that, by law, they are not

accountable to any kind of audit. :crazy:

[sendero]

36. The price of your coverage..

... IS the tax. Oh you thought it would be paid for with taxes already collected? Nope.

[Laelth]

42. I am with you. I need health care, not insurance. n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[bobbolink]

50. What gives? It's called "public option". Single payer wasn't allowed by Baucus, remember?

Welcome to the world of the Blue Dogs...

[Kansas Wyatt]

61. In case you didn't know... You live in the Corporations of America

Not the United States of America.

With the Corporations successfully merging with the United States of America, whereby the citizens of this nation were duly represented and shit on by their Elected Representatives, we are now 'Subjects' to the Corporations of America. The Corporations of America OWN both the (D) and (R) brands, but you are FREE to go shopping to buy things. You will be required to buy insurance from a government approved insurance company, to further that insurance corporation's profits, or you will face stiff fines and/or imprisonment (debtor's prisons will follow accordingly) from the government.

That is the bottom line. We The People are NO LONGER represented by our alleged Elected Representatives. They are ONLY looking out for Corporate America, and will never worry about any retributions from the citizens of this nation. They've already got their Board seats if they are voted out.

[HughMoran]

62. Guess we should just force the doctors & hospitals to work for free?

Are you being sarcastic?

[Kansas Wyatt]

63. Are you in favor of 'For Profit' Death Merchants?

Are you saying that doctors in other countries with government health care work for free?

Are you saying that hospitals should rake in HUGE profits, and kick the sick out on the street, because they are not wealthy enough to pay the bloated co-pays and deductibles?

Nope, I'm serious. Politicians are bought and paid for, and will NEVER represent the People.

[HughMoran]

65. No, that's why I'm willing to PAY for a PUBLIC option

You seemed to be implying that paying was supporting insurance companies, even with a public option.

[Kansas Wyatt]

66. With the way they are going to set it up...

It will be a guaranteed golden goose for the Insurance Industry and any other 'For Profit' health care corporation, while the People get screwed over again.

They already have a model set up that they can immediately re-tool to set in place... Medicare for all, where everyone pays in, but 'For Profit' Death Merchants are cut out.

[HughMoran]

67. Is that why the insurance representatives are against a public option at all cost

I'd love to see the ins. companies cut out of the picture immediately, but that's just not going to happen.

[ibegurpard]

68. Maybe but you don't START with what they can live with

which is what this monstrosity of a bill is.

[HughMoran]

71. Maybe they should be asking for more

I think the $1 trillion is about the limit for what they feel they can ask for. As I thought about this today, I realized how complicated an issue this is.

[Kansas Wyatt]

79. Insurance Companies do NOTHING for Health Care.

They are nothing, but Death Merchants and thieves. And in fact, speed up death and only cause misery for a lot of people, when they DENY health care to people... They might have to actually pay for something like health care, rather than just collecting premiums.

Insurance Companies are EVIL, and anyone who works for or supports them has blood on their hands.

[HughMoran]

103. Agreed - I absolutely despise the insurance companies

...Unfortunately, the way to beat them at this time is through competition in the form of a public option. Why do you think they are vehemently opposed to ANY public option?

(Think, expose them for the rip-off frauds that they are)

[Boddingham]

73. You have to pay for it, or the fed cannot tax your health care benefits.

You understand, I'm quite sure.

[earth mom]

74. It's a snow job, they are pushing it like hell, but it's a scam.

This is ALL about the insurance companies making billions off of all of us and then turning around and denying people health care and letting them die.

Sounds like what happened with the banksters doesn't it?

:grr:

[Grinchie]

75. It's gravy for the Insurance companies -- Mandated Insurance

This is the same thing that Hillary was proposing during the primaries, and it's a scam.

The reality of it is not to get more money into the pool, but to use Government regulation to force people into buying insurance, and thereby, traceable, and on the hook for a monthly stipend for the rest of their lives.

We have seen this with automobile insurance and it appears that everyone accepts it, even though compensation for accidents could easily come from registration or usage fees.

I heard a figure of one trillion dollars that was unnacountable by the Pentagon a few months ago. Have they found it yet?

[RufusTFirefly]

77. I'm certain it's just a coincidence. An unintended consequence.

I mean, why would politicians whose funding comes in large part from giant insurance companies seek to create a system that benefits giant insurance companies? It just doesn't make sense!

[Grinchie]

85. Because they are in collusion.

Oh my god, I almost didn't catch the irony in what you wrote and was going to explain it.. Lol.

Touche' Mr. Firefly! Well played indeed.

[prayin4rain]

90. I have never thought of car insurance like that.... it's true!!! That's terrible. n/t

[Cronopio]

92. There is no mandate to buy private insurance.

So it's *not* gravy for the private insurance companies, is it?

[hansberrym]

81. I thought the whole idea was Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness

....for everyone.


There will be fines (and possibly imprisonment) for those who don't pay the taxes that fund your health insurance? Does that trouble your conscience?


Under the plan proposed, people would have the option of buying into a gov plan or a private plan, but they would be forced to do one or the other. I can't agree with the force part of it, and so can't get behind it.


Why do you prefer single payer ? It employs the same enforcement provision (pay or else) but much less choice. It is not smart to put all your eggs into one basket, but it is downright immoral to force someone to do so.

[WillowTree]

112. So, if you opt not to pay (either by premiums or taxes) for health care coverage...

....what happens if you get, say, kidney cancer? You just get your affairs in order and buy yourself a plot?

[Just-plain-Kathy]

82. "everyone must buy health insurance"...Why are insurance companies still in the picture?

Why do we need a middle man?


...OK someone please tell me, Halliburton was the defense corporation our government gave no-bid contracts to. Which insurance company do you feel will get a no-bid government contract? I would like to buy some stock and become rich.

Someone called me a liar for saying this once before, but, I remember Hillary talking about how someday everyone will have to buy health insurance. She spoke about how only insured people with an ID card would be allowed to get hired.

I can't help but believe that the Universal Healthcare our government is fighting for on our behalf, will be nothing but a cash cow for some crony insurance corporation.

[leftstreet]

83. Just wait until we have to bail out the Insurance industry

Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

[Echo In Light]

100. Of course. It's certainly not going to be arranged to simply provide humane, altruistic care. No way

The American version of anything like this always involves a massive propaganda effort that pays just enough lip service to the needs of The People while maintaining corporate power/profit as the primary definer.

[BOG PERSON]

84. I'll tell you what gives

:patriot: THIS COUNTRY BLOWS :patriot:

[Lagomorph]

89. Some policies don't cover...

dental, vision or hearing care.

You could still be on the hook for all that.

[mp9200]

97. Ask the insurance companies/the rich

n/m

[lesliewhitebird]

116. Thank you!!! I just posted the same thing on another thread!

It is not logical to imagine a well-run, cost-efficient system where insurance companies still exist. I suspect that this "plan" is being done because the insurance industry is so powerful? In any case, it has been very frustrating to hear this over and over since the primaries, since I think it won't work, or it won't work enough to really help ALL of us. And what about dental and eye care? They should certainly be included since they are both crucial to good health!