Congress considers another — yes, another — health plan
June 12, 2009 by Jim GiulianoPosted in: Communication, Health care, Special Report
These days, Washington is brimming with ideas for healthcare overhaul. The latest one: a proposal by Sen. Ted Kennedy for universal coverage — and it partly throws funding back into the laps of employers.
The plan is called the American Health Choices Act. The highlights:
- All Americans would have access to “essential health care benefits,” with no annual or lifetime limits, under coverage provided through a public insurance agency.
- Employers — along with workers who are deemed financially able to contribute — would have to subsidize part of the cost of coverage.
- The government would subsidize premiums for people with incomes up to 500% of the poverty level ($110,000 for a family of four), and private insurers would have to pay out a specified percentage of their premium revenues in benefits.
- The program would pay doctors and hospitals at Medicare rates, plus 10%.
- Included in the program would be home- and community-based care for 10 million people with severe disabilities.
- Individuals would be subject to financial penalties if they did not have health insurance. The penalties would be levied as part of an individual’s income tax and would be collected by the Internal Revenue Service. Low-income individuals would be exempt from the penalties.
- The benefits of the program would be set by a panel of experts that would set minimum coverages that insurers would have to provide.
- “Dependent children” coverage would extend to age 26.
- Income limits to qualify for Medicaid would be lowered, essentially opening up such coverage to millions more.
- Funded by the federal government, states would establish “health benefit gateways” to disseminate information about premiums and benefits and assist in enrollment.
- The Department of Health and Human Services would establish the new government-sponsored plan, which would compete directly with private insurers.
The bill offers broader benefits and more government involvement than the plan being written by the Senate Finance Committee. Senate Democratic leaders expect some merger and compromise involving the two bills, probably by the end of the summer.
June 15th, 2009 at 11:27 am
Did anyone happen to see the CEO of Safeway on Huckabee this weekend? He made a LOT of sense to me. His company (Safeway) manages the health care for over 200,000 employees. The record at Safeway, because of the INCENTIVES they put in the plan, has flat lined their costs, and decreased by about 30% the cost of treating their employees. They are rewarded for healthy behavior, rather than punished (taxed) for unhealth behavior.
If we continue to insist it is the Employer’s responsibility to provide the health insurance, then Government should get out of the way. They can’t have it both ways. What dunces.
June 15th, 2009 at 11:31 am
is this a true policy that will help in the long run or is it just a band aid to fix the issues we are having and the current economy?
June 15th, 2009 at 11:34 am
Kennedy should retire.
This plan is worse than the others, more costly, and has some ridiculous ideas.
Figuring that a child is dependent until age 26 is an insult to kids who are independent and clashes directly with other law which states the age of majority to be 18. Another corruption of law to make social policy.
It is hilarious to propose a government entity “compete” with private sector entities. Will the head of this new government agency be fired summarily by Obama if it fails to make a profit? Will performance bonuses of the like paid by Fannie and Freddie Mac be paid, while insurance companies are hampered by Obama’s wage control proposals? Will the federal agency have any of the restraints imposed on the private sector companies it competes with? Just another lie in the fabric this subject is made of.
June 15th, 2009 at 11:36 am
Jagger, I couldn’t agree more. This proposal is crazy and too many people are being naieve about the consequences of a government controlled health care system.
June 15th, 2009 at 11:37 am
Before we tackle the issue of Healthcare, we should tackle the issue of employment. Should all able persons who desire employment be required to work? Should the government be allowed to employ them where there is a need, rather than in the field of their choice or calling? If a person is “entitled” to health care, are they, as citizens, required to “earn” health care? It seems we are putting the entitlement before both the earning and establishment of where the money will come from to pay for it all.
June 15th, 2009 at 11:40 am
This plan should be dubbed “The American Loss of Choice Act.” What are the poor recent college grads going to do when they have to pay back student loans and carry health insurance or be penalized?
June 15th, 2009 at 11:53 am
I heard the report about Safeway on another news outlet…and it makes sense. I do not understand why the Federal government feels that it can manage such an important part of “the American Dream” any better than they have managed other programs like the USPS, Medicare, Medicaid and social security. I hate to think what US automobiles will look like in 2 years! This “option” (Americans Health Choice Act) will not compete with private insurers – it will certainly take over private insurers! Why would employers, who will soon face a mandated tax to pay for the American Health Choices Act, also pay to support a private employer? Health costs are already over the top and no organizations will be able to afford two plans just to give their employees the benefit of choosing one over the other.
Before supporting…or even debating this bill, congress should insist on a budget reconciliation to show what other government program(s) will be eliminated to foot the cost of this program. This is a disaster in the making….
June 15th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
Estimates are that 45 million Americans are without insurance. There are 300 million Americans in this country. So the 85% who have insurance are going to be taxed to death and punished for working and purchasing health insurance so that 15% who do not have insurance can be covered by an inefficient, bureaucratic monster…..Sounds like a great plan to me…..I keep hearing that the American health care system is a mess and yet, people from all over the world come here seeking care they can not access through their own government-run systems. Why do the politicians think it will be different here when they take over??
June 15th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
So far its all gibberish! How can a bill throw out these types of “conditions” and leave 99% of all the other questions unanswered, including details about these conditions! Has someone been talking to the UK or Canada about how Universal Medicaine REALLY works? The waiting, the committee approval, etc. etc. I was on Workers Compensation medical for hurting my back for two years because of the time it took to get even the simplest procedures approved. Mind you I was still working every day, I just had to have some PT and injections etc. I can only think of Universal coverage as that times a million times worse because it would be everything! What if someone was a stay at hiome mom? Would they get an IRS fine because the were not contributing to the Borge?
June 15th, 2009 at 12:39 pm
Personally, I think that the overall cost of healthcare needs to be brought under control. The amounts charged to those without insurance is DRASTICALLY higher that the amount accepted from insurance companies. Often there are thousands of dollars between the two. Independent physicians cannot remain independent due to the RIDICULOUS cost of malpractice insurance. (This goes back to the need to reform the tort laws.)
We could them move on to the costs of prescription drugs and the lack of regulations on those costs. Let’s be realistic: A 60 second ad during the Super Bowl can’t be cheap! Who exactly is paying for that?
I could go on; but, I will now step off my soap box before I fall and hurt myself. Just felt like sharing a few of my thoughts.
June 15th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
How does Rep. Kennedy, or congress for that matter, think they will come up with the money for the subsidies, if they can’t even keep Medicare or Medicade running in the black.
We the, American public, have lost access to really good doctors because they do not accept medicare or medicade insurance (not just for the money, but the red tape and paperwork that keeps them from the patients). Now, all doctors will be asked to perform services for Medicare rates plus 10% and to file reports to congress????. Who in congress has the wisdom or background to authorize needed services for patients.
On top of this, employers (especially small businesses) that are already having difficulties to provide coverage for their employees, will have to subsidise non-employees and welfare recipients, with more than the local and federal taxes we are already assessed for these services.
June 15th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
Shelly is right. If this “public” insurance agency comes to fruition, let’s all hope it does not, all it will take is one entitled person to get less than great access to health care (because there is not enough resources) and find a sleazy lawyer (there may be a few out there) to sue the public agency for denying care. Who has deeper pockets than the government – especially when they can print money whenever they want. You can not support public health care without supporting tort reform.
June 15th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
Yvette, I agree. Working Americans are getting sick of the “entitlement” attitude of some of the people who don’t work.
June 15th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
Rubbish. Harry hit the nail on the head…Kennedy needs to retire. Healthcare coverage has become a luxury in our country. I make a good salary but I work for a very small company who can no longer afford to carry healthcare for its employees, and I can barely afford it on my own.
June 15th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
Tort reform, yes. Lawsuits, excessive administration, fraud, uninsured, etc. etc. etc. all lead to ridiculous costs. Something needs to be done. This bill is a good first draft, but not anything final, thankfully.
June 15th, 2009 at 1:52 pm
I have a small company of about 35 employes. We cover50% of their insurance including dependants. I have actually had several not take coverage because they think the government is going to cover them. Go figure.. Everyone wants something for free. I however enjoy being able to choose my health care provider.
June 15th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
People think they can’t afford to purchase their own health insurance because, for the most part, they have never had to. At least they have never been the one to search out the best policy for them. With Employee provided health care plans, it is a one size fits all (or mayber 2 if you are lucky enough to have the opportunity to have an H S A.) All young people should have an HSA as they are basically healthy, and can build up their own Savings to pay there own way. And don’t tell me they can’t afford it — they buy their own car insurance. If they want it, they can find a way to pay for it.
But granted, it is too costly, but that is because of the waste and fraud on the other end, which will only be worse if the Government is in charge. Gadzooks!
With incentives to behave in a life preserving manner, within one generation, we could be free from so much “drugging” of our Seniors. What an absolute travesty. One drug for this, another for that, and another because the first one causes this, and on and on and on until they are not even in their right mind and they don’t even know it.
So tell me, how can Ted Kennedy even think through what would be good for the rest of us!! What a joke.
June 15th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
So Senator Kennedy and President Obama want to provide health care for the 45 million uninsured people in the US. If that care can be provided at the cost my company now pays for our employees (about $5,000/year), that is #225 BILLION ($225,000,000,000) that someone must pay. If my math is correct that is about $825 that each of the other 255 million taxpayers must pay.
Please re read the highlights of this bill and everywhere it says, “the government ” substitute “taxpayers”.
June 15th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
Harry: The age of majority is 18 in some cases, 21 in others. But, for dependents’ insurance coverage, it is usually 24 and goes to 26 with some carriers. The idea behind that, I believe, is that it takes a person that many years to complete their college education. I see most writers are staunchly against government-run health insurance. It would be ideal if private companies had coverage everyone could afford, but they do not. There is no incentive for them to provide it because there is no profit to be had from those living in poverty. If we do not have any government coverage or mandated coverage or requirements that employers and employees pick up the cost, what’s the alternative? As it is, those who simply cannot afford to pay for health insurance use the ER’s as their primary care physicians. Because they likely can/will only go there when the situation is serious, the treatment is likely often more involved, therefore more expensive. Bottom line, this costs all of us as consumers any way. It may be that we who work and have insurance coverage still sometimes have need of the ER ourselves. Our access to that care can certainly be affected by the overuse of the ER.
June 15th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
I’m glad to see so many people on the side of freedom. Let’s hope someone in this administration will listen and not just keep forging ahead with such stupid ideas without thinking of the consequences.
June 15th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
I don’t mind paying a little more to help with Seniors and handicapped, but it galls me to pay for lazy people that don’t work. I just heard (again) the statment made to people off the MayFlower, oh so many years ago. “If you don’t work, you don’t eat”. Ironically, it was said to the Rich – or those who thought they were the elite. They were the lazy ones that thought they were above working. Now it is the poor. They think they are entitled. Well, excuse me, NOT in my book. You don’t work, you don’t eat! Or get top health care. Sorry – that’s the way it is.
June 15th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
What I haven’t seen is a committment on the part of Congress to participate in the program they develop for the rest of us.
June 15th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
Here we go again- another stab at socialized medicine that failed everywhere else- a costly mistake brought about by our wonderful Mr. Integrity
June 15th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
I agree with all except for Judy she needs to read about Canada and other countries with Socialize Medicine. My daughter in law is from Brazil and recently her father had an issue with his gallbladder he counldn’t get a doctor’s appt for 2 months. He didn’t make his appt because it was too late. So Judy do some research before you see Kennedy’s point of view or any type of socialize medicine. And NO I will not subdized anyone that is able to work and pay their way. Entitlement should not be the way to go. Congress should talk to Safeway and get some ideas rather that have the working class subdize lazy american people.
June 15th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
The administrative cost of conventional health insurance is 25% of premium. The administrative cost of Medicare is 4%. My eighty year old mother with Medicare plus supplements pays less than half what my company does to cover me and pays out of pocket only for prescription co pays. I would love to have her insurance.
Private insurance should be cringing at halving to compete with that cost benefit possibility. Private insurance has proven itself to be inefficient and rediculously costly. We have the highest cost of care and the lowest percentage of our population covered of any modern industrialized nation. We should quit kidding ourselves and get it funded.
June 15th, 2009 at 3:28 pm
Good luck with all of it. Again, I would strongly suggest that you contact your state reps and stay on them otherwise we are stuck. Do we not already cover the aged (understandable – and some of them are the healthiest people alive given equals) and the poor (?) (most of them claim to be, but play the welfare system or just get a retard check from social security for things that others would not begin to classify as a disability). I don’t mind “assisting” anyone but WHAT happened to our country? We have become such a nation of ……..you name it and it all comes back to a greed of some sort. Our kids should have a parent at home until they are in school and the elderly should not have to be stuck in nursing homes (soon to come the time of euthanasia). Greed is the cause of this………………………….Pray, call your reps, and continue to pray.
June 15th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
Let’s not forget the government funding that is being provided to illegal aliens and thier families. Add this into the factor -
June 15th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
Dependents to the age of 26 is already a law in Illinois. Thank you Gov. Blogo for giving away more of MY money. Can’t say I’ll miss him but IL is in trouble no matter who is our govenor
June 15th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
I’m with Lisa let’s contact our State Reps. Maybe just maybe they will stand up for the American’s that work hard for their money.
June 15th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
Jeannette,
Of course your mother pays less for her Medicare coverage than your employer does for your coverage. You and I and every other taxpayer are paying most of her insurance.
I agree that private insurance is inefficient and costly, but I’m not sure that a government option would be more efficient or less costly.
June 15th, 2009 at 6:04 pm
Will Rep. Kennedy use the same health care plan he is proposing?
June 15th, 2009 at 7:04 pm
This is a complicated subject.
You simply cannot look at a closed system such as Safeway to be a model for a solution. Safeway has a finite set of participants in that system.
There are too many people who do not work, for whatever reason (too young, too old, too sick, whatever) making it necessary to stop looking to the employer to provide a healthcare benefit.
Technology is adding diagnostic tools every year. Some of those tools are very expensive, but why should we not use them?
We are being conditioned by healthcare product and service providers (commercials? Oprah?) to want and expect more and more products and services.
Providers charge too much.
The way insurance works there are layers and layers of people between who pays the premium and getting your provider paid – far too many hands.
But, cutting out those layers puts people out of work. This is the primary drawback to cutting out the insurance company as the payor and why it is not, “on the table,” in Congress.
All of these things add to the cost of healthcare. Like I said, it is a complicated issue.
So where do we start and how?
Do we cut the tools doctors and hospitals use? Do we limit services? To whom? Who gets less healthcare? How do you decide? (Who lives, who dies? Do you want to decide that?)
Do we just not pay doctors and hospitals when they provide a service?
Do we tell insurance companies, sorry, you simply can’t pay your brokers anymore? I actually believe this is a good place to start. Insurance companies need to address this subject and cut some of their own redundancies as a compromise from them. (Agent, Broker, Dealer, Consultant, Sub-Agent, Reseller… everybody gets a piece in some of these plans.)
But still, that does not solve the issue.
We have a long way to go.
June 16th, 2009 at 5:55 am
I agree with many of you that we do have a long way to go to solve the health care dilemma. There seems to be a lot of pointing fingers at the insurance companies, and I am not to say they are without some responsibility for the mess, but they are only the tip of the iceberg.
I work with this stuff every day and see much. I see ER’s that charge for tobacco cessation counseling when all they do is ask the question ‘Do you smoke,’ I see doctor’s that charge for a level 3 visit when they have spent no more than 10 minutes with a patient. I see hospital labs charges being made when the labs were actually done in the physician’s office. The article “The Cost Conundrum” by Atul Gawande is an article that should be read by anyone who has a stake in this issue. It points very clearly to the waste that takes place when physicians own, or have a stake in, ancillary services.
We as users bear a large part of the responsibility for the mess. We all seem to want someone else to pay our way. For example, such as the person who was in my office yesterday upset the ‘insurance company’ denied paying immunizations that were required for her training. She is training to be a nurse and instead of taking advantage of the program her school offered for the immunizations, she wanted her spouse’s employer to pay for the immunizations. What was charged to the plan was over $400, what she could have gotten them for through her school was $100. Her comment, why should she have to pay anything?
There are many, many layers to this problem and socialized medicine will not help any of us. Services will become hard to get, taxes will increase to cover the costs, and corruption will ensue on an even greater level. If this comes to pass, God help us all.
June 16th, 2009 at 8:12 am
Perhaps if providers (physicians, NP’s, etc) were not so highly paid, health care would be more affordable. I work in health care, and I see the high salaried that physicians earn. Yes, I believe they should earn more than me – they went to school forever, and they make life and death decisions. However, the salaries being paid to the docs are HUGE!!!! Like 8 times what a professional in another field makes. Pay providers a REASONABLE salary – 3 times what other professionals make maybe – and health care would be much more affordable!!!!!
June 16th, 2009 at 8:14 am
In all the rants about the ’socialization’ and the lazy poor getting more of their share, there is no one proposing a solution to the current mess.
What if our education system was up for grabs like this? What if we had no public education and a significant portion of the population had no access to schooling, except for some ‘emergency’ classes to help them fill out forms for jobs? All of you would be saying the same thing: the private, for profit system will handle it, the undeserving should become deserving in order to participate in society. Yet we DO have a public school system, and a private one, and they have existed side by side for nearly 200 years. While we may complain of various parts of it and quibble over what should be taught, the public education system works, and has not eliminated the private one. The rich will always get what they want (and I am one of them) regardless of whether they are working or deserving.
Now we have emergency rooms getting overused by people who have no other access to medical care. We have infectious diseases coming from many sources very quickly because of the speed at which we travel and interact, and a medical system here that does not encourage visiting a doctor when one feels symptoms that indicate the onset of disease.
We have companies (I am the owner of two) of all sizes struggling to provide their share of employees medical insurance premiums, making difficult decisions about what kind of coverage, getting to know more about individual needs than is really appropriate in some cases, and spending ridiculous amounts of money that could better be spent on business development or direct compensation to employees.
We have people WITH MEDICAL INSURANCE who face catastrophic medical situations and go into bankruptcy because their insurance companies do not cover as much as the patient’s needs demand.
Until there are real answers for these real problems, and not a lot of paranoid ranting about how the government will mess it up, think: Congress DOES have a government plan, as do veterans, and the military and the elderly. Congress is not complaining about their care, or we would certainly hear about it. These four systems have been in full operation for many years, and while they are not perfect, they provide choice, they provide good care.
Judy Buckley is to be applauded for going against this grain. Karen, if ‘illegal’ aliens area such a problem, do you want them sick and untreated? Do you want to risk having sick people among us who may be contagious and untreated? Why?
June 16th, 2009 at 8:37 am
I work with Health Care benefits for my company. I see where the “insured” are paying over and over for the healthy able-bodied unemployed who for some reason or another are getting State assistance. They can go to any hospital, get the new expensive drugs for nothing- and we pay and pay. My Company is self insured so I can see the real costs of the drugs and lab /CT test costs. If the sector of people that get State assistance can in many cases, drive a better car than I drive, eat steak, and have money to spend on Bingo, gambling etc. WHY can’t they pay something for the Dr or hospital bills and be required to take a Generic drug if possible. They should be able to pay a $5.00 co pay for the prescriptions, $10.00 co pay for a Dr visit.
Health care in Louisiana is thought of as an entitlement and not a benefit for the majority of our state. Until we fix that problem the system will fail no matter what Govt. program is introduced.
June 16th, 2009 at 8:42 am
Wow. This is a great discussion. I can see we have all points of view expressed and that’s great. I work for a heatlhcare facility, I am a benefits specialist for that facility and have also in my time done managed care contract audits and administered a self-funded health plan. I have no answer to this problem. Here’s what I know: At some point, probably during a pandemic (which may be coming this winter) the 47 million uninsured Americans will need to seek healthcare. At that point, regardless of what system we have, we will have to provide care whether or not we can afford to, whether or not we want to, to stave off a further spread of the disease. We will not have the luxury of asking how we pay for it, or what layers of bureaucracy are included or not included, and what the Republicans or the Democrats want or if we are practicing “socialism” (the new buzzword of the decade aparrently). What we will have is billions of sick people who need care and those who aren’t sick will need to provide the care so they don’t get sick. It is at this point that we may have to stop bickering over the small points and look at the larger picture. On a daily basis we close our eyes to a lot of problems we could solve if we really had the will to solve them. But health care, like other problems, will not get fixed until we all see it as OUR problem.
June 16th, 2009 at 8:51 am
Just a quick thought from the sidelines…What if, instead of dieving head first into Government funded healthcare (insurance), they implemented a “wellness” incentive allowing those who are unable to afford insurance the opportunity to have routine exams and vaccinations at no cost? Let those who have to wait until an illness is so severe they end up in the ER the ability to maintain their day-to-day health; hold them accountable?
June 16th, 2009 at 9:10 am
Sarah,
I think your way off on the salary complaint. It’s not what you earn it’s what you keep. Everyone in the medical field (& police officers too) I know has their house in a trust so when (not if) they sued they can continue to raise their children in it. Their malpractice insurance rates are out of control. On top of that insurance they all have to carry an umbrella policy. Last year I found myself with an extra mattress and gave it to an optometrist. Many of these doctors working for someone else are paid by each patient they see. No medical insurance, no paid vacation or sick time. To see how this family lived you would think I was the doctor and he worked in a small office.
The number of practicing neurosurgeons in Illinois dropped nearly 26 percent in only two years because of malpractice insurance costs!! OBGYNs are also leaving in record numbers. Ultimately it is the residents of Illinois who lose out through lack of access to these qualified and experienced physicians. We have to place a cap on these lawsuits. When your forced to see more patients than you can give good attention to just to keep up with insurance payments accidents are going to happen.
June 16th, 2009 at 9:11 am
In response to
Rachael Says:
June 16th, 2009 at 8:14 am …………
Yes we have health care for the military and the vets. Have you, or someone close to you, EVER received indepth treatment through this system? A very dear friend of mine (an oncology nurse) lost her uncle (in a neighboring state) to cancer while he repeatedly went to the va hosp for different tests (relatively cheap) but he was not told he had cancer until two months before he died. He was given every delay you can possibly think of and though she had told him what tests they needed to run, etc the va is in NO way like our private health care. Treatment for him was NEVER an option in the two years he had been continually “treated”. And if you think our politicians are getting this type of care or even what most of us have available to us through work is just silly. Their healthcare far surpasses what most of us can only dream of and very few afford, yet WE pay for theirs.
I agree with what “Jane Says: June 16th, 2009 at 5:55 am”
Remember, tho we hope……….Things must and will get worse before we can join God in His glory.
June 16th, 2009 at 9:29 am
Lisa,
Yes, indeed there are some awful stories from all parts. And I am sorry for your friend’s loss, truly. But Those stories are occurring in private venues all the time, too. And what is your solution? I haven’t heard any solutions from the private sector advocates. None. I am not into joining god in his glory. I don’t believe in god at all, I just believe in us here, taking good care of each other. I think Jesus would agree.
June 16th, 2009 at 9:52 am
I still ask the question, “who is going to pay for all this ‘free’ health care?” I already pay part of my premium for health care; which includes coverage for two college students. Companies can not afford to foot the bill for everyone….again, any increased costs will likely be passed on to the consumer. Maybe we need to take a look at what the health care industry is charging for services…and the associated malpractice insurance costs/coverage. What is the profit margin for insurance companies???? Maybe there should be some premium rebates for those who do not utilize the insurance annually? Have we really explored the root cause before jumping into socialized health care??? Have we done our homework???
June 16th, 2009 at 11:10 am
There is a lot to be said about prevention. But you don’t need a bunch of tests to “keep you well”. The further you stay away from intrusion into you body, the better. I am 72 years old, and have not gone to a doctor in over 10 years, so I must be doing something right. I don’t take drugs, not even aspirin however, I would take an aspiriin if I had a need to, but I don’t even have headaches. Why? I have a few natural products I rely on, and I won’t mention their names here or you will think I am just a pusher, but they seem to be all I need. One is a juice that provides anti-bacterial, anti-inflammatory, anti-fungal, and anti-viral support. The other is 9.5 PH drinking water. This is all most people would need. Disease cannot live in an alcaline environment, but most of our bodies cannot reach that state as too much of what we put into them is acidic. Change your water, change your health. I don’t know why I am so bothered by this Health Care debate, as it really doesn’t affect me. No Doctor or insurance company would get rich off me. I qualify for Medicare, but I don’t even bother with that. It is just so maddening that more people don’t see the light. And the government would not incentivize natural remedies, etc. as their agenda is not to help us anyway. They want single payer insurance for a reason. Control. Big Government, little ants (people).
June 16th, 2009 at 11:20 am
Jagger,
Lucky you for having such good health. I, too, rarely see a doctor and enjoy relatively good health. However, it is very much a matter of luck. I have friends, perfectly healthy for many years, then suddenly hit with cancer, or ALS, or Parkinsons disease or some other debilitating illness. They need help, expensive help. Your good luck and healthy habits are to be commended, but, really, medical care is necessary for many people who have kept good habits of diet and exercise. The profit making model of treatment is just not working, could never work. It is strangling itself and we are all, all slaves to it.
June 16th, 2009 at 11:26 am
I actually talk to people every day that think the government has money. Most of them are young or have very little experience working and have never had to pay taxes other than when they buy something. The only people I know who think having a government run health care plan is a good idea are those poeple who don’t understand how the government gets its money or they don’t work so they don’t care. I spent the last year without health care and if you pay cash you can negotiate a great deal with your doctor. Did you know if you have medicaid and the doctor does not accept it that you can’t pay cash for a visit? You will have to go find another doctor or the ER to get seen? And we want more of this crazy type of policies? Wake up people, no one said being an American would be easy but it is the best place to succeed because we have so little government control. Unfortunately that’s changing fast…..
This country has become addicted to entitlement, we need an intervention and fast!
June 16th, 2009 at 11:33 am
How much of health care is driven by the malpractice claims? Many, many of which are false or unfounded. Large error….yes perhaps some type of compensation, though it should not be like hitting the jackpot. Get real, there are lawyers that are a constant barrage advertising with a hope of helping someone gain financially no matter how small the problem. They are nothing but leaches and yet so many people see this as a chance at for free money. Government is not willing to put a halt to that as it lines their pockets also in the long run. If we had more accountants and fewer attorneys perhaps each state and above all, the federal budget would not be so far off the mark. We all know the answer is not to increase the income to achieve gain, but to cut expense!!!!!!!!!!!!
GTS you are correct, I fully agree.
June 16th, 2009 at 11:44 am
Rachel, thanks for the vote of confidence. However, this is how I look at it. At present, I am 72, healthy, still work, still take care of all my needs, etc. If the day comes I cannot do all those things because I get hit with a disease (which I doubt – but it could be a heart attack, stroke or accident) I would not want to be a burden on my family, so if I couldn’t take care of myself, I would rather go live with my Creator. I have lived a full and productive life, and if I could no longer be productive, I would simply stop eating, stop taking in liquids, and fall asleep and go Home.
June 16th, 2009 at 11:50 am
Amen Jagger!
June 16th, 2009 at 12:06 pm
Nice idea, and one would hope we could all have such control over our destinies. However, as one who watched a friend with ALS go through her final stages, I must tell you that the desire to live can rise up in surprising ways. In a healthy mind, the desire to live is everything, and we will give up considerable faculty, dignity and independence to continue well beyond what we ever thought we could in the moments of facing death.
June 16th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
What has gotten virtually NO publicity in Kennedy’s proposal is the fact that employers whose employees are covered under Union-negotiated health plans would not be allowed to move their employees into this new plan.
June 16th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
Rachael, Jane and Ecurb the Prophet, thanks for your thoughtful, nuanced responses (and for the support, Rachael!) This is not a simple problem. I, too, know it’s maddening to have people who could work taking advantage of “free” care. But, really, as a society, are we going to simply kick to the curb anyone who isn’t paying his/her way? There are a lot of unseen circumstances in people’s lives and no guarantees we fortunate, healthy, working people will not be hit with setbacks in any number of ways. Nobody likes to think of things like developing cancer or a brain tumor or mental illness, even. I’ve known many who have had to deal with those things, as well as job loss, and the illusion of control is very fragile. When it’s one’s own life and health, I think we all feel “entitled” to maintain that. Facing death is likely a lot different than talking about it in the abstract, as Rachael indicated about her friend with ALS. So, again, those who think the free market is the answer: what’s the plan?
June 16th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
Sharon, we don’t hear anything about the Unions, period. Which makes me believe this single payer plan is what they want too. Obama is so in bed with the Unions, he is just a puppet. He is a puppet of the Bilderberg Group also. An empty suit. One day the truth will come out.
Rachel, I know you are right, however, I wouldn’t be facing death. Big difference. I would be facing life with my Creator. I want to stay here on earth as long as I am adding something to other people’s lives, but when that is done, I WILL move on.
September 8th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
It’s absolutley ridiculous to me that lazy people get things handed to them. I am about to turn 25 and have been married for 4 years, no kids yet because I couldn’t afford them…but that doesn’t stop the free loaders who have as many kids as they can and don’t have jobs (please tell me how that works!) I know someone (I don’t like them either) but I know them and they choose not to get a job because they get more from unemployment then they would working…and they have 2 kids and are trying for another right now! I work my butt off and I just don’t get why this seems fair to people! Why do we have to work so hard and I have to watch the jobless guy talk about jet skiing with his family while I’m at work?
November 2nd, 2009 at 10:41 am
I prefer the House version to the American Health Choices Act. It’s a watered down version of what is needed in this country. And I’m all for government intervention — and options — if it keeps insurance competitive.
Too long now insurance companies have run amuck — it’s time to reign them in — and the premiums that they charge! I won’t lose sleep over this. And, yes, the government will be successful if it runs a government insurance program — it already has two plans — medicare and medicaid. Why do you think it can’t effectively run a third one?
November 2nd, 2009 at 12:00 pm
Actually, the government runs the military and veterans medical care delivery programs, and insures federal employees, so what’s the big deal? Why can’t they extend to the rest of us what they give selected groups?
November 2nd, 2009 at 12:01 pm
Be careful what you ask for. The government, using taxpayer money, has already acquired an interest (and some control) in the banking and auto industries, Your’s may be next.
Yes, the governmnet runs the VA system-ask a vet how they like it. and yes, the government runs Medicare which will go broke in less than 10 years without significant increases in taxes and/or significant decreases in benefits. Since neither option is palatable to our representatives in Congress, they won’t fix the problem, but instead want to spend billions of dollars to add millions more people to government programs.
November 2nd, 2009 at 12:12 pm
Tom and Rachel -
Rachel, thank you! I appreciate your thoughts. Tom – I appreciate your thoughts too. I agree – that Medicare is expensive. But Medicare only insures individuals 65 years of age and older — it’s no wonder it’s costing us money. I have a girlfriend who’s worked for medicare for 20+ years now. She feels that we could roll that same type of program out to everyone (phased in) .. and that it would probably start making money — as soon as you got some 30 somethings onto the plan, etc. It stands to reason if younger, and typically healthier, individuals were on the plan, the red ink should disappear. And if private industry can make a profit on providing insurance to individuals, why can’t the government? Why wouldn’t we want to add that revenue stream to our bottom line? But I do agree with you — that the vet system needs work (and funds) to make it the kind of program we would all want our vets to have exposure to … but, again, a profit center may allow for that.