Democrats seek compromise on health care plan

Babysteps... it will take years and the removal of many old timers in congress to get there.

The old timers will just be replaced by new timers who will get the same checks from the insurance lobby. They need to take a sledgehammer to the system. Obama said that he's ready for a fight. Well here it is.

Sibelius needs to come up with a comprehensive plan that completely restructures our healthcare system.

Not going to happen as long as congress is a body that is dependant on fundraising from the very people they are supposed to regulate. We have the best government money can buy and both parties are beholden to the big lobbies including insurance and health care lobbies.

As far as I know, most state run insurance companies are mainly for state employees and not open to the general public. They are very similar to employer sponsored plans in that membership is limited to those who are healthy enough to be employed. They are pre-screened in that way. Without a national mandate to require that everyone have health insurance, people will only be seeking to add themselves to the state plans when they become ill. It will weaken the state plans and actually does more to strengthen the position of private insurance companies vs.state programs.

As it is, states are looking for excuses to drive harder bargains with their mainly union member state worker populations because the health care costs are spiraling out of control. Demanding higher co-pays and premiums usually has to be worked out over the bargaining table.This sort of "compromise" has the smell of a Machiavellian assault on organized labor and their state run health insurance benefits. I wouldn't trust any proposal on this issue that emanates from a state so deeply in bed with high finance and the insurance industry as New York is.

All arrows point to a need for a single payer solution. All arrows except the one that keeps thinking you can't trust our elected officials one single bit.

I can't think of a better thing to do than have the government help remove the private insurance industry leach from the American health care system. Health care costs would surely fall simply by getting rid of the insurance industry middle man.

Health care costs would surely fall simply by getting rid of the insurance industry middle man.

And replacing them with the government middle man?

Health care costs would surely fall simply by getting rid of the insurance industry middle man.

And replacing them with the government middle man?

Rather that replacing them...force them to become non profit entities like they have in several other countries. I makes the insurance industries beholden to their customers INSTEAD of their stockholders.

If any of you Democrats are smart enough to look at your Paystub, you will notice that there is enough room next to the Medicare Ded Box to place another Box that says Healthcare Ded Box. The Democrats want a new tax because Medicare and Social Security are about to Run Negative and Obama originally intended to use those funds to pay for this massive budget. Just Like WorldCom, and all other Ponzi Schemes, if they add another big Tax for everyone, they can then siphon off some to the others that they have been stealing from every year since 1966. If this doesn't happen, then everyone will know that Obama lied when he said he could pay for National Healthcare by running government more effieciently. He is now, 5.3 Trillion Overdrawn He has to pay for this somehow. Don't be stupid enough to believe that the Name of a tax pays for that item. It is all one single pot. There are, and never have been, any seperate accounts for Social Security, Medicare and fed Income Tax.. All moneys go into the General Fund to pay for government. No money is invested, just spent. He has now overspent and we are out of places to borrow and we dare not print because of 20% inflation. He promised that spending all this money could be done without raising new taxes on everyone and he now must somehow raise new taxes. What a bunch of dummies. I promise to give you a brand new car and you won't have payments. Your gas bill will be 750/mo, but youy won't have car payments, so vote for me.

clinton left bush with a 5 trillion budget surplus.. the gop claimed clintons budget plans would bankrupt the economy at the time

Freedom Writer, Federal employees pay for themselves and their families at a lower rate than individuals who don't work for the federal government. It depends on the carrier! A single federal worker can take out medical insurance but it is not required and many of our young federal workers do not realize how important it is take it out. In addition there is a cost sharing that the employee must pay for himself/herself and their families. If the federal employee does not sign up when he/she enters the federal government then the individual must wait until the next open season.

The reason that the federal government gets a lower rate is that it is negiotated based upon the number of people who signs up for the insurance. My mother worked for the Bossier Parish School board and did not have to pay anything. The state took money from the horse races and paid for the medical insurance for teachers. So there appears that groups have thought about how to get discounted rates for their people but other groups have done nothing.

government employees didnt have to pay for their insurance only their families

Feel free to apologize - you are wrong. Back when companies were giving away free health insurance, government workers paid 50% of the cost. They still do.

As to cost - the larger group, the lower the risk, the lower the premiums. The math clearly points clearly to a nationalized health insurance program - one group of 300 million.

You have to be either really callous or really an arsehole not to see why everyone should have the basic right to healthcare. If someone is ill and cannot afford that care it should never be an "oh well" situation. Its people like you that make the world a worse place than it needs to be.

You are good at name calling but I and most other Americans don't want to pay for you just because you can't afford it. If you are ill and go to the hospital they are going to help you. They won't tell you to leave. You can make payment just like a lot of us.

Mike you are assuming alot. Most people that I know work but they live paycheck to paycheck and if an illness does hit, they dont have extra to set up a payment plan. Healthcare isnt like going to the movies, or eating out, it is something that is a necessity of life.

I spend quite a lot of time each year fishing and hunting in Canada And they have a healthcare plan. They hate it!!! The care is inferior, they have to make appointments months in advance and if you miss your appointment you have to wait months more I haven't talked to anyone that likes it. And there is no other choice.

You can't invent rights you are born to them. No right can logically pre-suppose the impediment of another's rights. Thus there is no right to health care as it imposes a requirement and burden on others for yourself. Apply these principles to any other natural rights and you will understand what I mean, they all exist in a world in which you are the only human. A 'right' to health care does not.

This is all besides the point, many are arguing for a entitlement to health care however they should have the honesty to call it that. The only reason to try and confuse people into thinking we are talking about rights is because you can't win the argument on it's own merits only through deception.

On the topic of it as an entitlement, I agree health care isn't like going to the movies or eating out that it is a necessity of life which is why I question people who can't pay for health care but have interestingly enough eaten out and gone to movies. Apparently they don't value their health care much until they want other's money anyway.

Maybe a compromise idea is a subsidized government loan program that will pay for medical expenses but keep the cost cognizant of the user and require them to at least make an attempt at repayment. No free ride then back to the movies to eat butter laden heart killers.

Thank you I couldn't have said it better.

Just because healthcare is a necessity, doesn't mean it's gov'ts problem Housing is a necessity and single guys don't get housing. You get a job. Medicaid protects lower income mothers and children. Everyone is complaining because good health care is expensiove. Well, what do you expect? If you can afford to pay 33% of your gross salary for nice house, you can afford to pay 15% for keeping healthy without crying that it cost too much and someone else should pay for it. Just a bunch of Lazy people in America. No one, even illegals get turned down for emergency healthcare and the hospital usually eats the coost if you can prove you are economically strapped. Again, thgis is just another federal ruse to get a big piece of everyones paycheck, just like Medicare was, and we now find they lied in 1966 as they said all the money collected would go to healthcare then. Very little has. This nation is now # 4 and soon to become # 6. it is no longer great. That went away under Johnson, came back under Reagan, then left us forever.

alright ferrari assuming you know of a place where you can afford to pay 33% of your salary for a nice house. I pay half of what I make just to have a nice place to live because in my area there is no such thing as affordable housing. And as far as 15% of what I make on my healthcare I indeed pay a little more than that in my portion of my premium and my deductible and coinsurance. It has nothing to do with being lazy, it has to do with greed that makes every thing more expensive then it needs to be.

You folks against healthcare reform ignore the 800 pound gorilla that is sitting in your lap. You already pay for everyone's healthcare at the highest possible prices. Duh. The health insurance industry refuses to cover the old and the sick we pay for their healthcare through Medicare and Medicaid. One FIFTH of your taxes go for this right now. There is no 'if you can't pay oh well." You pay. What you pay is nearly enough to pay for everyone already.

http://www.pnhp.org/single_payer_resources/60_percent_of_health_spending_is_already_publicly_financed_enough_to_cover_everyone.php

Regarding Canada, I'm tired of hearing these heresay reports that people there don't like it. The last time I checked Canada was a democratic government. If the majority didn't like it they wouldn't have it. Also by every actual measure experts use to determine effectiveness of healthcare plans Canada beats the U.S. hands down.

http://www.pnhp.org/canadastudy/CanadaUSStudy.pdf

So if you don't want to pay for government health care abolish Medicare and Medicaid. If not, you to will be on the government dole when you reach retirement.

Listen Mr knowledge. I spent quite a lot of time with Canadian people in fact one of my buddies is 83 and he and the rest just hate the system it gives them no choices. My friend has talked about coming here and paying for care out of his own pocket. As for the information you have it is all one sided. I would want nothing to do with this BS.

I pay for health insurance through my employer and over the last twenty years it has gotten more and more expensive and covers less and less. However the Corporation that insures me Report ever increasing profits.

Make it like public school. Those who don't have a choice can get medical care in a way the is the most affordable for the government to provide, and those who can afford to opt out can get private insurance.

I understand it isn't cheap by any means but if they do as you say you would only get care from inferior care givers. And if you make health care free it will be so abused it would probably be gone in a short time then what. Any way you look at it it's a bad idea.

mike from wisc

I understand you believe what your friend told you. At least I'm showing you real studies done by real doctors, not "what my friend told me." It's one sided because that's what the statistics bear out. If you have an opposing authoritative source lets see it.

Health care is never free and if it were abused at least we could handle it in clinic where it is relatively cheap than in an ER where it is extremely expensive and gets in the way of people who really have emergencies. People go to ERs now because that is the only place they can get treated. There are at least 20 countries with better medical plans than us that pay on average about half what we do and get better results from it.

The current system is collpasing under its own greed just like the bank system. Hospitals are shutting down their ERs even though the need for them is increasing. Charity hospitals have people on gurneys in the hall ways because of lack of beds. Many hospitals are barely solvent and losing ground as costs continue to rise. Doctors spend more time doing paperwork than treating people. Businesses that once provided health care to employees are dropping it because of the cost. Millions of people are not covered by any insurance. And we are paying 20 cents on every tax dollar to take care of people insurers refuse to cover. If you've got a brilliant idea lets here it because I see some major epidemics coming to your neighborhood soon.

Make it like public school. Those who don't have a choice can get medical care in a way the is the most affordable for the government to provide, and those who can afford to opt out can get private insurance.

They have a system like this in Panama. You get a certain level of coverage through the government program, but you also have the option to obtain private coverage for better services. From what I heard, it worked pretty well. The poor were not left out in the cold and those more affluent have choices.

but you also have the option to obtain private coverage for better services.

By the time people wake up the nightmare will be upon us. I don't know what you think you are going to get? Medicare for all. Yeah well Medicare works so well, that sounds like I want some of that! ....

The poor were not left out in the cold and those more affluent have choices.

And this is different from how it is now --- how?

Why is the gd government even involved in this? Healthcare is an individual private matter. The government should roll way back and manage foriegn policy and build/repair highways per the original intent of our founders!

Give it up, it is over, we lost, and will continue losing. Forgone conclusion, our world is changing and no one asked us. Our lives are now decided by 535 idiots who are only interested in what is in it for them.

KyleN Very good points, very well articulated.

What should be said it that in a Country as Wealthy as ours, given the nature of the bulk of the population, we could easily grant Universal Health care to the bulk of the population. Grant it as in give it and if you were totally self-interested you could say it would be a benefit to yourself as your taxes are already paying for health care for many via emergency services. But the point is we can give it but we are in no way forced to do so as so many want to do.

But giving something or having to take the welfare is demeaning so we get it forced down our throats under the guise that it is a right. A bit on the same vein as the recent change from the usage of the name Food Stamps to SNAP(supplementary nutritional assistance program) because Food Stamps implies Welfare and that is demeaning to those that need it.

Jeff-Las Vegas

Your comment indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of the current system. You currently pay for more than just emergency services. 20% or your federal taxexs, (assuming you pay income tax) goes to pay for health care for retired, disabled and chornically ill people because the private insurers refuse to cover them.

No healthcare reform proposal involves granting anybody anything. What is proposed by reform is to pay for it in a more sensible way to save money. The cost of health care is rising rapidly and approaching levels that will cause serious failures in the system.

Unless you are independently wealthy and can afford to pay for health care out of pocket no matter what happens, sooner or later you will need the government provided healthcare insurance.

If you are covered under an employer provided healthcare plan and you get injured, or sick and can no longer work your employee plan lasts 18 months tops. After that you are uninsurable and will have no alternative for healthcare except Medicaid.

If you are covered under a private insurance plan and the same thing happens when the policy expires you will be uninsurable and will have no other access to health insurance except Meidicaid. If the insurer can find any discrepancy between the information you provided them and your medical records they will likely rescind your policy and you will lose coverage immediately.

If you stay healthy, when you reach retirement you will no longer be insurable and you will have to rely on Medicare for health insurance.

The only people not in need of government subsidized health care insurance at this time are those so wealthy the cost of care is not an issue.

When large numbers of people in this country have no access to health care (there are currently more than 40 million) it raises health risks to the entire population. Diseases that may be treatable spread through a population undetected because no doctors are noticing it. We could easily see the return of polio, tuberculosis and other debilitating diseases unless people have access to treatment. Massive and widespread influenza epidemics are a threat every season. We're already seeing food born diseases more frequently such as ecoli and salmonella. Stopping the spread of these diseases is dependent on early detection.

A high quality health care system for everyone is in everyone's interest.

I agree on one thing Man of Knowledge, the various flavors of Universal care proposals will not grant anybody anything, just take things away to save money.

There are many ways to potentially address the current broken system, to claim that it's universal care or nothing is a false dichotomy. There was an interesting article seeded to the libertarians group recently on a open source styled health care proposal for instance.

The government is good at clear simple activities. To kill or not to kill (defense), to build a road or not build a road. They aren't very good at subtle activities or those requiring ingenuity or creativity to apply. The reason isn't a lack of talented government workers but rather the constraint that one size fits all doesn't in many cases work and the more complex the issue the less likely it will. Government produced universal care fails that miserably, government funded universal care only somewhat less so.

Like education, health care isn't a simple problem and throwing money and regulations at it will likewise result in high cost and low payoff. It will be balanced somewhat by numbers manipulation as is done in Europe but in the end when 50% of people die from prostate cancer (Britain NIH) when it's easily treatable you know you've been had.

Let government do what it's best at, providing public goods. In health care a public good is providing for people like the mentally ill who can't help themselves, it's not providing for you and I who can.

KyleN

OK, I'm wating to see what you propose to get rid of Medicare and Medicaid since they are very complex programs. And propose a system where people can afford to get their own care no matter what the state of their heatlh.

Read above I already stated one, and said how to find another. Maybe I'll make up a third one later today but not right now it should take you plenty of time to think about the other two.

Good thinking, Kyle. I am listening.

When Obama campaigned about Healthcare, I stupidly thought he was going to work on legislation to regulate insurance companies and bring down costs. Stupid me.

KyleN

It seems the system to which you are referring would not only reform the way health care is financed but reform the way it is practiced as well.

The article suggests that nurse practitioners and technical specialists provide the basic health care and doctors are only called in when the problem requires more detailed services. That is sensible, but it leaves some pretty big holes in an overall health care system.

It might help someone who just needs an antibiotic because of an infection or a boil lanced. It doesn't do a thing the mitigate the cost of someone who has been in an automobile accident and needs surgery and extensive care. Doesn't help a cancer patient. Doesn't help bring down the cost of hospital stays, or any actual doctor related problems. And it doesn't get rid of the need for Medicare and Medicaid.

So lets hear another idea because that one doesn't help much.

Been there done that, There was a time when one used to pull into a gas station and 10 guys ran out, checked the air in the tires, pumped the gas, washed the windshield and windows, and checked the oil, all for free. Then someone said we can make this so much cheaper we are getting ripped off. Get rid of all those gas attendents and pump the gas yourself and it will be cheaper by far. o.0 Soon as the attendants were gone the price when up way over what it had been. No one learned then, no one is learning now.

Now we change goals from reduce the overall cost of health care and increase access to reduce the cost to treat cancer patients in traidtional hospitals? If we keep changing the target how can we ever accomplish an effective solution much less debate?

I'll admit that idea is a rather radical one but I think government controlled and paid care is rather radical as well. A real world solution would take the best parts of many ideas to create something. I like breaking the government enabled AMA monopoly on care from that idea. I like the identification of some health care as a public good in the universal plan. Getting rid of all doctors is too far, labeling all health care as a public good is just as silly. We need something in the middle not these extremist plans.

So here is my third plan of the day :) Open of provision of care via regulation reform, provide free care to anybody fully disabled (including mental problems) and some reduced assistance on scale of how disabled (like SS already does), and provide a government underwriting loan program open to anybody to take a subsidized loan for any major cost (like say $1000+). There you go universal access, the truly needy taken care of, cost of care reduced, and private industry left with incentives for quality care.

KyleN

First, the goal of any health care system is to increase access to care at a minimal cost to the group as a whole. One in three bankruptcies in this country is currently caused by medical bills.

If you ignore the cost of hospitalization in a reform plan you are accomplishing almost nothing.

Fully disabled people are already covered under the current plan it is called Medicaid, but it is not free. You and I pay for it.

Medical cost for care increases greatly with age. What you propose does nothing to bring down cost and you still need Medicare for the elderly.

It might be alright to borrow $1000 dollars to cover a medical bill. Most people can do that now. But a severe health issue can run up to six and seven figures. What good is it to borrow for that. No one will ever pay the debt.

If you want to selectively say we should not treat some illnesses you are doing exactly what people fear most. Limiting access to care based on selective criteria.

Put some more thought into it.

Where did I ignore the cost of anything? Reducing the cost to treat trivial matters is a good thing and doesn't have to be mixed up with anything to do with hospitalization.

MedicAid pays for the very poor, MedicCare pays for some of the disabled and elderly. Neither is free cost, both are actually horrendous cost, but we both know I meant free to the user not free to the system. Nice try though.

Medical cost under any system will be higher for people that use more such as the elderly, neither of us can change that and neither will anybodies system. We can ration it or we can't pay it there isn't some magical third rail. So to throw that point back no universal care plan reduces the cost either except those that introduce rationing.

The point behind the loans is to make cost a consideration to those most able to evaluate it, the provider and patient. If a test is ordered for a 0.001% chance and costs $1500 the patient who will have a loan bill to pay will say no, universal care on the other hand they will demand their 'right' to everything and only government rationing will stop it. I like systems where people work together to both heal and stay reasonable in costs, instead of an imposed conflict system to see what can be scammed or forced.

I never once mentioned any form of rationing, that is primarily a thing I'm fighting against when I fight against universal systems because their core cost savings is always done via rationing. Allow people to decide for themselves what is reasonable with the aid of those they choose to help them (the providers) not some bureaucrat in Washington D.C.

I've put alot of thought into it, and work in health care. I've proposed for debate now three plans and you haven't managed to defend even one plan. I understand you are at a disadvantage with an indefensible plan but at least try.

I guess we live in different realities. I thought you said the government should not be administering complex plans like Medicaid and Medicare but nothing you have suggested eliminates them. I thought you said we should designate some care as a public good. That implies to me care that is not a public good would not be supported in a national healthcare plan. That seems to me to be rationing on a grand scale.

The plan I support actually offers huge savings on healthcare and covers everyone.

http://www.pnhp.org/single_payer_resources/60_percent_of_health_spending_is_already_publicly_financed_enough_to_cover_everyone.php

http://www.pnhp.org/single_payer_resources/administrative_waste_consumes_31_percent_of_health_spending.php

I can see your predisposed to no solution at all so there is no point in continuing.

Man of Knowledge

Late post- just got home. Actually I have a pretty thorough knowledge of our medical system- I was not attempting to elaborate at all. I do think it is a good idea to have some quality health care and I am willing to help pay for it. What I am complaining about is the "right" to universal Health Care. I do not agree it is a right or an entitlement. I do think, as I indicated in my post, that all too many couch things like Universal Health Care, Food Stamps and other such programs in terms like rights rather than what it is - a benefit for others paid by others. A harsher term is Welfare. The Food Stamp program has recently been renamed SNAP because Food Stamps have such negative connotations and make people feel bad. I do not think we need to make people feel bad intentionally but to rephrase things or to call them rights or entitlements I do not agree with.

I do think that in a country as Wealthy as ours is and with the way the average citizen is, we can and should have programs around to help each other out. Most of us are very kind people and most of us, given the choice, would choose to help. I do not agree with having it shoved down my throat and have attempts to make me feel bad because I do not view it as a right/entitlement but view it as the helping hand of a fellow citizen.

What I tried to point out is that it is being shoved down your throat already. Assuming you pay income tax, 20 cents of every dollar you pay goes to pay for someone else's health care. For the most part those people have been hard working tax payers themselves but have had the unfortunate circumstance of age thrust upon them. In this country, if your retired, you can't get any other insurance but Medicare. The same is true if you have a history of serious illness or are disabled.

One major problem with Medicare is that it has to work within a system that is controlled to a large degree by for profit companies, and congress has seen fit to actually prevent them from negotiating on prices for products and services. Whatever they get billed they pay if it is a covered service or product. That is not the least expensive way to operate. It is probably the most expensive.

If we have to pay it, don't you agree we should set up the system so that we at least get a good deal on it?

Because you-know-who is screaming "It's The Govts job to pay so we don't have to work because we are disadvantaged! If you do pay for everything, and extend Welfare again, we promise to vote for you! Those republicans are mean and want us to contribute!

The founders could not have imagined the society we live in today. That's why they made the constituiton a living document that can be amended to meet the needs of the citizens it protects.

Linc-905474

Are you indendently wealthy? If you had an accident and could no longer work would you have the good sense to put a bullet in your head? Unless you are independently wealthy, or commit suicide, the only access to healthcare you would have would be the government. So keep your loaded gun handy.

No care is free. You pay for it.

Your friend is free to come to the US and get a knee replacement. Why don't they do it?

Do you imagine that groups don't already negotiate with insurance companies for the best price they can find?

WalMart is a reallllly bad example. They don't even cover 50% of their employees, the government does in the form of Medicaid.

Your tax dollars pay for Wal-Mart's greed

• The estimated total amount of federal assistance for which Wal-Mart employees were eligible in 2004 was $2.5 billion. [The Hidden Price We All Pay For Wal-Mart, A Report By The Democratic Staff Of The Committee On Education And The Workforce, 2/16/04]

• One 200-employee Wal-Mart store may cost federal taxpayers $420,750 per year. This cost comes from the following, on average:

• • $36,000 a year for free and reduced lunches for just 50 qualifying Wal-Mart families.

• • $42,000 a year for low-income housing assistance.

• • $125,000 a year for federal tax credits and deductions for low-income families.

• • $100,000 a year for the additional expenses for programs for students.

• • $108,000 a year for the additional federal health care costs of moving into state children's health insurance programs (S-CHIP)

• • $9,750 a year for the additional costs for low income energy assistance.
    [The Hidden Price We All Pay For Wal-Mart, A Report By The Democratic Staff Of The Committee On Education And The Workforce, 2/16/04]

EJCanavan,

Bravo. I've never seen that before.

What a great argument to those who say get a job and get employer paid healthcare.

What employer paid healthcare? Employer paid healthcare is a myth.

BTW Walmart has 4,000 stores in the US. FOUR THOUSAND! That comes out to 1.6 billion the government has to shell out to make up for Walmart under paying its workers.

Employer paid health care is not only a myth, it is bad policy. It is bad for business and it is bad for workers.

It binds workers to employers in a way wage could not and prevents them from freely moving from one job to the next to market their skills more effectively.

For buisnesses it drives up labor cost unpredictably and adds cost to every product we by that is made, transported, and sold by businesses that provide health care to their employees. High labor cost is a primary reason businesses move their operations out of the country. It makes products made in this country less competitive internationally because we are practically the only country that makes private businesses foot the bill for health care.

One thing about "the cost of our companies health care" is not just the health care industry, the average age of the workers increases. That encourages hacking expereinced people in mid-life to remain competitive against "younger" companies.

Your friend is free to come to the US and get a knee replacement. Why don't they do it?

Many do. The biggest influx of British healthcare seekers come here for prenatal and childbirth care and ohters when surgery is complex or needed by patient before their own system can take care of them.

Most British who come here for care are affluent and simply don't want to wait in line. The don't want to be on the same footing with poor people. When you have a fair system of triage the wealthy don't like it.