Proposal would require all to have health coverage

a requirement that all must carry coverage

While I understand that the more that participate in an insurance program, the lower costs are as it is spread amongst everyone. However, I must also urge hesistation anytime it is to become "required" to do something; even car insurance can be avoided by not owning a car, but to require citizens to take part in a private cost/demand seems quite dangerous. I do agree with the report that now is the time to take action on fixing our health care system, as people move/switch/lose jobs, they thus lose any benefits associated.

All Americans would be protected by an annual limit on out-of-pocket costs, a safeguard already in the best private plans.

Yes, but where and what limitations would be included? Would providers than drop services allowed in order to meet said out-of-pocket costs, if this is to not be subsidized? Are higher-cost private plans to be allowed?

Yet proposed changes would affect everyone, particularly since workers are now more likely to change jobs — and even careers. The moves jeopardize job-based benefits.

I'd like to see how close this is to a single-payer health-care system, and accessable options are for low-income, as well as what, if any, incentives there are for employers to keep providing health-care themselves; otherwise, we are better off moving towards a real universal health-care option, and not some quasi semi-subsidized private enterprise.

We will have to see what they come up with, but as of late I'm not too impressed by their responses.

gamerk:

Welcome to MASS.

I moved here in 07 and was told you HAVE to purchase health insurance.

It's supposedly discounted by the state, but a bronze plan which is about a half-step up from no coverage at all will still run you about 290 per month.

Apparently Mitt told legislators that the problem with health insurance is that people just don't want to get it. Uh, no Mitt, it's like mandating that everyone go out and finance a BMW. Some of us can't afford to do that.

I don't expect a guy like him to understand that, though.

Not only that in my state you can pay a huge fee and legally drive without insurance.

yeah this is BS.. this is foldiong to the industry, makign them laugh with glee.
this isnt change.. this is lining the insurance industries ockets.
want change.. force them to be non proffits like they used to be.
health descions should not be made based on proffit

Uh, I can pay 700 per year for full coverage/low deductible car insurance which would protect my vehicle, the other party's vehicle, and their medical bills up to hundreds of thousands of dollars -------but health insurance is going to cost me 300 per month for high deductible/base coverage.

WTF?

cause you have wrecks less than people get sick
but yeah it is far too expensive cause of the proffit motive.
not that long ago, they were all non proffit.
and really shoudl be since so many of them are run by churches these days.

are all yalls hospitals named after churchs like the ones here?
every hosptial for 100 miles here is owned by the babptists.

REINSTATE THE BAN ON ADVERTISING PERSCRIPTION DRUGS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Clinton lifted the ban and medical costs have quadrupled since then.

I for one do not want to pay to advertise Viagra

Eric,

I'm not sure that there is a majority of people who want National Health Care. There are lots of us that think it is ridiculous. While in a perfect world it would be great, but obviously this is a far from perfect world.

People are already protesting raising taxes any more than they already are. 50% of 1.5 Trillion is 750 billion dollars. While granted this is streched over a 10 year period that would still come to 75 billion dollars a year. with just over 306 million people in the United States, that comes to an extra $245 a year per person. while that does not sound like much. Now take into consideration the number of those 306 million actually paying into the system, without taking it all back when they file at the end of the year.

Tax Foundation economists estimate that roughly 43.4 million tax returns, representing 91 million individuals, will face a zero or negative tax liability. That's out of a total of 136 million federal tax returns that will be filed. Adding to this figure the 15 million households and individuals who file no tax return at all, roughly 121 million Americans—or 41 percent of the U.S. population—will be completely outside the federal income tax system.

So that actually leaves about 185 million people that will end up paying this new tax burden. Refiguring for 185 million people paying an extra 75 billion dollars per year comes to $414 per tax paying citizen, per year.

Keep in mind that this is the mid level figures for how much the government says it "should cost". Just going up to their high number will change the number to $470 per tax paying citizen per year. while many economists are saying the real number when all is said and done will be in the neighborhood of 4 Trillion dollars. Raising it even further to each tax paying citizens share of 11,050 per year.

Sounds like a great plan to me...?

This is a "Fix"? Yeah, it's a FIX alright. This only ensures Corporate Health care and Insurance companies remain in control and continue to prosper at a greater rate.

Well I guess that was the next step in this country, telling you what you can and can not do in your own car, house, and bedroom. Seat-belts, web-surfing, and sex; soon we will all be clones or drones depends upon how you look at it.

Now you must have health insurance thanks for the freedom!?!?!?

Hey Mr. & Mrs. Government GET OUT OF MY POCKETS AND LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!

This might be totally anti conservative of me... being how I am conservative but this sounds like a good step in the right direction. Although I want to know more before I praise it more. I like the health care plan German / Swiss have. If our lawmakers craft it to mirror theres.. I think not only will it be great, fair, affordable, and help drive down the costs of health care in general... but the uninsured, poor, and laid off people will still have insurance no matter what. Make it free market like Germany / Swiss and then the insurance companies will COMPETE for your business... much like car insurance companies do today. I hope they put laws in place that won't deny you because of an ailment / condition. Thats morally wrong in my opinion. Also Americans loosing there life savings / house / and going bankrupt is just jacked as well. That NEVER happens in Germany / Switerzland. It would be the biggest scandal ever.

If your interested on how there health system works.. why its rated top 5 in the World.. and why I support it so much check out the following video:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/

I hope they put laws in place that won't deny you because of an ailment / condition

No matter what happens with health care, I hope they add this in there. In fact, I think the rate should be the same no matter the ailment/condition; after-all, that is the point of insurance, to spread costs amongst a broader base of individuals. I believe they were going to float around legislation to that effect; insurance providers should have invisibility in terms of an individuals health history, but that's my personal opinion. We also need to begin to make the switch into more of a preventative care provider in an effort to drive down costs. No matter what happens, our health care industry needs action, as it is ridiculous we have such astronomical costs while receive such little care in return (especially in comparison to other countries).

If our lawmakers craft it to mirror theres.. I think not only will it be great, fair, affordable, and help drive down the costs of health care in general... but the uninsured, poor, and laid off people will still have insurance no matter what.

Yes, other countries have far better health care than ours (not just my opinion, but also WHO). Germany and Switzerland are good examples in including private and public health care providership. I hope we do take look into other countries systems, and for once get off our own arrogance; our system does not work, and other countries have systems set up to work better, or at least lower cost for our level of service.

The summary of the House proposal says one of its main goals is to "minimize disruption" for people who already have coverage by allowing them to keep their coverage.

This is the part that had me skeptical. Truth be told, I don't want to keep my provider; I don't think most people want to keep their provider. If they're referring to "coverage" as general physician's care, then OK, of course it shouldn't be disrupted. But you can't fix/change the system, without changing the system. Seems rather straight forward-its our HMO's, insurance companies, and backwards way of health care that needs to get changed; if something better is offered, I certainly wouldn't want to keep what we have now. Even if all they do is offer some sort of public coverage, then that will quite majorly change the system; many will get dropped from their employers as they no longer see it is a need or really a benefit. I think the largest fear after reading this article is that it sounded like they were going to craft it in some backwards manor; they must make sure that people can see any doctor they want, and make sure that private insurance providers have little/no say in this legislation, which did not sound like was happening. There will still be places for insurance companies to make money, but instead it must be in the hands of the individual to make the choices, not an employer who buys in bulk, and thinks employees should be grateful they are providing any benefit at all. It will be costly in any sort of switch temporarily, but this is one of those areas that really can be seen as an investment. It is an important, if not the most important, issue we could possibly decide right now, and I certainly hope our legislature realizes the gravity of this endeavor. Whatever happens, our health care system of HMOs and after-the-fact care needs to go.

The main reason for rising health care costs other than the greed of the medical industry is that insurance costs are added to the already overly high cost of medical treatment. I'm confused as to how requiring insurance is going to lower the price. This is probably the stupidest idea I've heard since some idiot decided we should invade Iraq.

Because example... Germany the Gov. sets certain rules and laws in place to help keep the cost done. Example... there doctors make about only 2/3 what USA doctors make. (they still live very comforably). Then again.. there college education is way cheaper if not totally free. 2nd Germany as a nation bargains with the big drug companies for a set price on medicine. This makes the companies compete for business and lower the cost of drugs... after all... there market would be all of Germany. Preventive care is proven to keep costs down in the long run. They have a law that your co-pay can't exceed 15 dollars within 3 months. Not a co-pay every time you go to the doctor. They have legislation in place to where hospitals / clinics can't price gouge you. Ever notice how expensive a hospital visit is? Like 20 bucks for one advil pill? 10 bucks for kleenex? Hospitals here in the USA have to inflate costs.. and then charge insurance companies and arm and a leg to offset all the non-insurance visits / write offs. How many USA hospitals are bankrupt or near bankrupt over it? There only afload because the Gov. has to step in. If everyone had insurance.. hospitals would be better off and wouldn't have to "write off" anything. They would get paid regardless. Etc etc etc. The video I linked explains it better than I could SonOfLliberty2008.

I understand all of these things, SR. Germany controls their medical industry. This proposal is about private insurance. Requiring people to buy it is all but guaranteed to make the price even higher than it is now.

I was a contractor in Oregon. In 1990 my liability insurance cost $34.17 a month. The state contractor's board stepped up enforcement of unlicensed contractors, causing tens of thousands to get contractor's licenses and buy the required liability insurance. When I closed my business at the end of 2006, my insurance company was making 18% of my gross business, and I was making about 15%. I've been in construction since 1973 in AZ, CA, NV and OR. I've NEVER met a contractor who had a claim on their liability insurance, and only heard of one in 33 years. If the government requires health insurance, you can bet your ass that the same thing will happen, only MUCH worse.

So, you are saying that the Doctors in Corpus Christi, Texas who are averaging over $600,000 a year and who cannot be sued for their mistakes except in very rare circumstances are suddenly going to give up their around $300,000 in income, and no longer share in their ownership of BlueCross-BlueShield and other Insurance companies, and they are going to forgo their income from their ownership in the pharmacies and settle for a government salary?

Normally I try to be courteous and polite at all times but that is just too many Bull Cookies all at once even for me.

The doctors own the medical rackets and control who can become a doctor. They also own the majority of the Hospital stock in this area. They are proof against medical malpractice suits because they have a PR campaign going constantly about "frivolous lawsuit abuse" and they have convinced the public to buy their lies.

The public is going to be in for a real shock when the truth of this scam becomes known.

Does anybody remember that Walmart is putting a medical clinic in every Walmart store so shoppers can get generic surgery and and Chinese made remedies?

I haven't forgotten when they made auto insurence mandatory and how the government was going to sponsor a low cost plan for the poor. as soon as the law passed making insurence mandatory, the government plan evaporated and insurence rates went up.

now their talking the same crap with health insurence and the commitment from the insurence industry is to reduce cost by not raising their rates as much over the next ten years

bend over boys and it ain't for the proctologist

Germany Regulates its healthcare industry, they do not control it.

Watch "Sick Around the World" They discuss Germany's system in depth.

Jones,

Why is it always straight to government employment with you people?

Single Payer is not socialized medicine, it is socialized insurance.

Get off the socialized medicine wagon, that is not the reform that will happen, it doesn't work, and everyone knows it. What does work are a variety of systems from single payer to regulated private health care systems.

Behind My Screen: I assume your are addressing your remarks to me.

Why is it always straight to government employment with you people?

I don't understand this - I don't think I refered to government employment at all. I am self-employed as an independent contractor.

Single Payer is not socialized medicine, it is socialized insurance.

I don't have or want insurance. I just pay my bills as I go. What is the connection here?

Get off the socialized medicine wagon, that is not the reform that will happen, it doesn't work, and everyone knows it. What does work are a variety of systems from single payer to regulated private health care systems.

To the best of my knowledge I am not on any "socialized medicine wagon". I have seen socialized medicine in Ireland, England, and Germany and it seems to be about on the same level as the socialized medicine that people got at Dauchau or Bergen Belsen. I don't want to just die in the hall way waiting on some third world doctor who never shows up. I would rather continue to just pay for private care.

If I am responding to comments addressed to someone else, then please excuse my intrusion.

Brian in MASS. Less than $300 per month is a steal. You better grab it while you can. Do you people have any idea what medical care costs? Seriously, have you seen the price of a MRI machine (made by GE so do not complain in your replies liberals) or the costs to develop a new drug after years and years of R&D, testing, etc.? And you complain about $300 per month. Like that is too much money.

Heck, I bet if your employer raised your salary $300 you would be the first one in line to complain it is too little.

You get what you pay for dude!

Heck, I bet if your employer raised your salary $300 you would be the first one in line to complain it is too little.

And even then, I doubt they would use the extra $$ for insurance.

To economic party...BS. Inflated prices for pieces of machinery that we've had for decades...

Researchers doing what? researching or piddling around with chemicals to see which one will be more profitable in death and disease.

Like when it was spouted by researchers that Cancer origin was not known ,where it originated...it's always been a virus...and now we can treat it?

If you have MONEY/the lie!

The premise behind insurance is that you'll be unlucky and something bad will happen so you'll save money, because the cost of your premiums were less than the cost of whatever bad thing happened to you, and the people who didn't have bad things happen to them helped pay for your bad thing.

IF WE'RE ALL INSURED, THEN THE ONLY THING THAT HAPPENS IS THAT WE GET TO ADD THE COST OF INSURANCE TO THE COST OF THE BAD THING.

Very well said. Its nice to see that someone understands this issue.

if we're all insured, then the only thing that happens is that we get to add the cost of insurance to the cost of the bad thing.

huh??

Simplistic, pay close attention and I'll go real slow, ok? The cost of health care + health insurance = MORE than health care alone. Do you get that?

1+1>1

SonOfLliberty2008

Simplistic, pay close attention and I'll go real slow, ok? The cost of health care + health insurance = MORE than health care alone. Do you get that?

1+1>1

True, but the "good" of insurance is that it spreads costs across multiple participants, so that those who get cancer, or some other major disease, have their costs offset by all those whom rarely or never get diseases, as it would be unfair (although it is still how our system works, funny) if they go bankrupt and can't afford their medical treatment. If we are to keep private insurance, then providers need to not have the ability to disqualify those with certain illnesses, as it defeats the purpose. However, it is true, as you said, that if we look at total costs of healthcare, than it would be far cheaper without the insurance companies, as these companies clear billions annually, and that could either be going directly into health care, or back into our pockets (which is why I never liked private insurance companies for most health care to begin with; but if we're to be stuck with the system, and no-one has the gall to overthrow the system, then we need to drastically improve it)

The insurance companies are the problem. They are going to force us to buy worthless insurance from the "Death by Spreadsheet" companies?

We want health CARE, not health INSURANCE.

Hen's....excellent wording! "Death by spreadsheet"

Yes, health care not health insurance...they are not the samething!

umm... if the plan is not subsidized by tax dollars then guess what... tax payers are not paying the bill for those on it.

What the plan guarantees is that the administration of it will be a lot leaner than the private companies since you will not have executives getting paid insane rates, and it will not be for profit, thus, more dollars are spent on providing care and care is not withheldbecause it is unprofitable. If the plan is affordable, any contract worker, migrant, and independent worker would be nuts not to buy into it. For-profit companies need some good competition.

yeah ignorance liek this , belies the fact we had a US gov before their was income taces

Taxpayers aren't involved in this at all. Federal Aid comes from the ocean fairy.

Finally, I thought everyone out there thought Obama was just giving things away. WE will pay for all his great ideas eventually. I just wish he would take some time to really think about the things he does. It seems since he took the presidency it's been one thing right after the other. All of this is going to catch up with him and screw us!!!!!!!

My comments have nothing to do with Dems, or Repubs. Nor does it have anything to do with class. The only thing it has to do with is who is gonna pay for it. I don't care who does or doesn't pay taxes all I know for sure is that I sure do. I do not want to pay an additional $11,050.00 a year to pay for something I already have. You do realize if it does come to 4 Trillion dollars that is almost $1,000 per month. How many of the American tax payers do you think are going to be able to afford an increase of this magnitude?

eric,

So trying to make everyone exactly equal is the start to a better solution?

Individuals and employers would face new obligations to help pay for coverage. And the government would take added responsibilities for setting insurance rules and providing financial help to low- and middle-income families.

Employers would be required to provide coverage or pay the government

The House Energy and Commerce plan provides for individual subsidies for health insurance

The summary of the House plan does not include any cost estimates, but independent experts have put the price tag for such a plan at $1.2 trillion to $1.5 trillion over 10 years, with some estimates ranging as high as $1.7 trillion.

The president has proposed a downpayment of $634 billion over 10 years to pay for expanding coverage, money obtained through a 50-50 mix of tax increases and spending cuts.

Folks, say you don't like private insurance or that you favor government control, the only ignorance here is reading the comments made and not realizing, or ignoring the fact, that TAX PAYERS will be on the hook.

Also, square the last two quotes. Its gonna cost 1.2 trillion over ten years, but we are going to make a $634 billion down payment in the same time frame. That or it is really 1.8 trillion.

On Thursday, the Senate Finance Committee met behind closed doors for eight hours to debate whether their bill should include the choice of a government insurance plan for middle-income families.

Individuals would be required to get coverage, either through an employer or government plan, or on their own.

Everybody is required. The first quote here makes me wonder though. Employers must provide insurance or pay the government. Middle income people will be taking it in the cans apparently. They will be taxed to pay the cost of low to no income families, they may have it provided by their employer who will likely diminish the value of the compensation to compensate for the insurance, or they will have to pay for their own if the employer does not provide it, while still getting taxed for the cost of low to no income families. Any way you look at it its a double dip.

If the plan lowers costs for providing care, then that 1.2 trillion over 10 years will be paid for by the savings in the system.

complaining about the costs of a new system when you are only looking at the government spending and now the net costs after the savings in the industry are factored in is simply manufacturing outrage.

If the plan does lower costs, you will never see the savings my friend. That is the point. And the belief that cutting out money grubbing private insurance providers will cut costs is rich. We have a congress filled with money grubbers.

I'm sure you believed several months ago when the liberals and their media were telling everyone that the bailouts, the budget and the rest of the spending was not going to burden our children. Guess what, Obama came clean the other day and admitted that all the spending was going to come at a high price down the road. Give me a list of promises, guarantees, or objectives that he has not crawfished on. You my friend are one of the 3 frogs in the boiler.

How will any plan "lower costs"? Are US doctors suddenly going to work for less than they are getting now? Is there going to be wage controls imposed on doctors?

The brand meds that I bought in the US cost 25 cents on the dollar in Mexico. Same manufacturer, same brand, same meds, no generics. Are there suddenly going to be government price controls on the entire range of "meds" from aspirins to morphine?

Hospitals are an unregulated for profit industry just like slaughterhouses, morticians, and bankers. Are their profits going to be regulated or subsidized? Many be the medical industry will get regular "bailouts" like the banks and auto makers?

Jones,

Hate to break it to you, but very often the medications are actually very well faked placebos. It might not have happened to you, but It does happen to lots of people...

Thank you for your concerns, but we have all heard the stories that are designed to protect the US medical rackets profit margins, but they simply is not any more true in Mexico than they are in the US or Canada.

Those silly stories have floated around for years, including the one started by a US beer manufacturer about there being urine in Corona beer.

Don't let the paranoia overwhelm you. I have no problem with you paying four times as much as I do. I am actually grateful for your purchases. I own stock in US drug manufacturers and hospital chains so it's all good to me.

My point is that the current "fix" for the health sales business is just a scam to get people to pay the doctors and hospitals whether they are sick or not. What a racket - I'll bet the drug cartels would love to figure out how to pull off that scam.

We have a broken health care system. Obama wants to keep the system because that's what we're used to. And then force everyone to subsidize the insurance companies that broke the system.

Makes sense to me. Look at all of the good he has done for the mortgage industry, the insurance industry, and the banking industry. I'll bet they never expected to make the kind of profits that he handed them.

Health Care, Hospitals, Poor Abused doctors, Pharmaceutical Companies and Health Insurance Companies are next to be rescued from poverty through the change we can all believe in.

Time to buy stocks in the Health Care industry, Hospitals, Poor Abused doctors, Pharmaceutical Companies and Health Insurance Companies. They are fixing to get richer than they ever imagined.

Yes, except for the doctors.

Most doctors are in favor of single payer. Some of them were arrested recently for trying to speak at the Senate Finance Committee meeting.

Hmm doctor ron paul..
doctor Dave Weldon
doctor Tom Coburn
doctor frist
doctor Dr. William Hammesfahr

want me to list more medical doctors in congress?

have you seen the polls.. right now they DO have the faith of the american people and their trust.. it is only the small minority oif goprs that claim they do not.. look at the polls.

they are losing my faith i admit, but no tfor the reasons you give.

QUestion when is the gop going to chaneg theiur name to the independent party?

Joules,

what is wrong with your keyboard? Most of your posts don't even make sense, because you have extra letters in almost every word that you write.

What is your point Joules? Great, 5 Doctors out of everyone in Congress is an extreme minority. Even if you listed more, how many you think it will be? 5%? Its still an exteme minority and simply because you are a doctor doesnt mean you understand the full complexities of the problem on both sides. Does being a divorce lawyer make someone an expert on all other types of law? No. Not to mention many of them havent been practicing for a quite a while and arent necessarily up on all the current problems that both sides have to go through.

I have seen the polls and you are confused. People tend to like Obama the person more than his policies. He personally receives decent high marks (in the 60's) and his policies are liked less than him. And Congress is not Obama. The views of Congress have been in the 20's for quite some time and even thats being a little generous.

As for the GOP changing their name, how should I know and why should I care? Im not a Republican.

Fl Independent. Here are the experts in the picture with the article

The Senate Finance committee hearing on overhauling the heath care system on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, May 12, 2009. From left are, Robert Greenstein, executive director, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities; Leonard Burman,director, Tax Policy Center, Urban Institute; Katherine Baicker, professor of Health Economics, Harvard School of Public Health; Joseph R. Antos, Wilson H. Taylor Scholar in Health Care and Retirement Policy, American Enterprise Institute; and Stuart H. Altman, professor of National Heath Policy.

The article provides that data already. What is your point? Those are people testifying, not the ones making any decisions. And do all the 'experts' agree with their testimony and draw the same conclusions?

Just start with the basic questions: Do you trust Congress based and past and current examples to handle this problem responsibly and with our best interests at heart? Or will they do what they have always done, whats in the best interest of themselves and their donors? If you do believe in Congress, why and based on what?

what is wrong with your keyboard?

Its not the keyboard.... :P

why wont it work in a country this large, when large countries have it?
that is such BS.
we pay 8time the average cost of health care of anywhere else and we are 45th in life expectancy.
dont think that if we got health care costs nominalised with the rest of the world we might be able to afford it?

let say this.. if I were able to cut your health insurance costs to 1/8th what it is normally.
if you pay 8000 a year it will be 1000.
would you be willing to buy a policy for your neighbor?
or would you take your savings and run?

Lucid,

Where are you and the rest of the people getting that it will be paid by premiums?

It clearly says

The president has proposed a downpayment of $634 billion over 10 years to pay for expanding coverage, a 50-50 mix of tax increases and spending cuts. Obama is also promising to hold hospitals, doctors, drug makers and other providers to their recent offer of $2 trillion in savings over 10 years.

Sounds like taxes not premiums to me...

PWA

The House document also calls for a new government insurance plan to compete with private companies. It would be financed by premium payments, not taxpayer dollars.

about half way through the article.

CCA,

The House document also calls for a new government insurance plan to compete with private companies. It would be financed by premium payments, not taxpayer dollars.

The wording sounds to me like this is a seperate deal from the one that is 50/50.

I may have interpereted it incorrectly, but after reading it again it definately sounds like an entirely different plan to me.

yall added a bunch of unfunded gov programs.. bush got rid of the surplus in a misguided attempt to starve the gov.
most of those figure s are based on start up costs and AND the current cost of medicine.
ours cost 8tiems as much as anyone else.
PLUS
2/3rds of what we spend on health care is totally useless.

Funny when tough times hit during the bush admin.. you only asked 1% oif us to sacrifice, gave the rest a tax cut.. way to support america and the troups.

lan,

Are you refering to entitlement programs like corporate welfare or maintaining the military-industrial complex?

Or do you want to make further cuts to the agencies that are supposed to regulate Enron, Wall Street, food safety, catch tax cheats, ...?

Hey, its to satisfy Republican demands that the "lazy slobs" don't take your money. Complain to them!

Nah.. well that is part of it.. the gop would be all over the airwaves.
But i dont think yall realsie just how much money the industry is spending buying politicians right now.

this was written by the ins industry.. a requirement for insurance has been a want of their for ages,.

what the dems are haoping is peopel will see something being done and think "SOMETHIGN IS being done.
when it isnt.
it is just shuffling the deck chairs.

we really only have one fuctioning party.. the corporate party.
thats why small gov gorps make huge gov programs like medicare plan d
and compassionat4e dems make noncompassionate policies like this
they really are all in the same party

Agreed...one party...the corporate party. I had hoped Obama had some cajones but they seem to be missing at the present time. Poor people cannot afford ins even if it is mandatory. So what will the corporations do then...garnish wages for the working poor?

I don't think the gov't ought to mandate health insurance.

Agreed...if you can't afford it now at the wages you make mandating purchase of it won't make it affordable.

"I think people who are making 88,000 a year ought to be able to get their own w/o gov't help. Crap, I make less than 20,000 a year and 1/4 of that is gobbled up in health coverage for myself. If I can do that on what I make, why the crap can't they?"

My friend lost everything except her life fighting cancer (8 years). Her husband made 100k per year until he lost his job this past year. Over the years battling cancer her premiums went up to 20K per year...Yes, more than you make. Her paid out of pocket costs 60k this past year. Other years it was 80k. They have lost everything...making 100k/yr...and having what was once considered "good" coverage. She wasn't a smoker or anything...actually a health nut.

She went back to work as a teacher...so how are they going to live off 25k per year for a family of 5...when her premiums are 20k? If she loses coverage that means what? She's uninsurable with other companies. Who will take her under Obama's plan? Will the companies draw straws and see which gets the burden? Do you think that she can afford her coverage even if ins rates went down to let's be ridiculous and say $250/mo=3000/year. Leaves 22,000. Crappy rental 600+power etc 800/mo leaves 12,400...food clothes kids dr visits...let's be rediculous again 400/mo leaves 7,600. Now add her treatments...let's be rediculous again and say that her costs were cut by 50% of the lowest year's treatment...that is still $25,000. That leaves them in the hole...$17,400 per year. They have paid off all but the last years med bills...using 401k, kids college funds, and the house...and still owe 60k. That's the reality.

She is still in her 30's...and her kids have not reached high school age yet.

Her husband applied for every job he could find...even minimum wage...he is college educated. He works anything he can find just to meet her premiums. The rest is sinking fast. They are so in the hole. Friends are lining up to take turns paying the premiums if they cannot make it...so she can be here to raise her kids.

In our conversations she has said, "What am I fighting for? More of this?" What do you answer to that? She said she will not fight the cancer again. If she does I will be by her side, If she doesn't I will be by her side.

So to answer your question of "why the crap can't they?" Because one of them got sick.

WD, I sympathize with your arguments and that family's situation. I understand, too, about being college educated and getting crappy jobs - I am in that situation myself after getting laid off last year. Often times I have thought,"why don't I just forget about insurance and let the gov't take care of me like alot of other people?", but I just can't do it.

My dad lost his battle to cancer this past year after deciding it wasn't worth it. It was a reminder that JUST ONE ILLNESS can wipe you out financially. It is the truth as you so poignantly pointed out. Honestly, I don't know what the solution is. The best medicine has to offer is expensive, and often doesn't even work, and at what price?

More specifically, though, I was talking about health coverage and the premiums for people in general - not those whose case you described- helping people who make less than $88,000 a year. Why not drop it down to $40,000 or even less? Those cases like you cite aside, are the exception and not the norm - at least statistically they are. I am not sure why the gov't feels the need to mandate something, and then turn around and say they are going to help. And the other question, how many trillions more dollars are we going to spend that we don't have?

I have thought about what I would do if I was faced with that dreaded disease. Face financial ruin or certain death - that's a lousy choice. Your friend is lucky to have such good friends as you and the others who are all trying your best to help her and her family survive - physically and financially.

So sorry to hear about you father. I would like universal health care for the US instead of profit driven...then we dont' have to choose between life without or death. So much is wasted on complicating crap...it is simple...let go of the greed based corporate health care. Just about everyone is one accident/injury away from financial ruin...it is not the exception... And here's one example of why....

Ins co have weeded out the "undesirables"...even at big corp. Here's their scam...they change the coverage and send you a letter that you must send back...they send it with a big package that you will never have time to read all of it...so most likely you will not. You don't send it back...your wife and kids get taken off the policy. You notice what is deducted from your paycheck is less for ins. If you look into it that is when you find your family is not covered...or if you have a sick family member and go to the dr you will find out there too. You call your employer WTF!!! They tell you about the letter. So you ask them to put your family back on....Now here's the catch...since they were "canceled"...they have to "reapply" for coverage. When you reapply for coverage they will not cover PRE-EXISTING...and you little one's diabetes is no longer covered. Of course you could get a lawyer and fight it at 200+ an hour.

That is one example of the sh*t Corp Ins has done...just one!

I'm not looking for sympathy with my friend's story...I'm looking for quality of life solutions. Read the link above...find out more of why it is not the exception. You don't need a dreaded disease to be finacially ruined by the health care industry.

They tell you about the letter. So you ask them to put your family back on....Now here's the catch...since they were "canceled"...they have to "reapply" for coverage. When you reapply for coverage they will not cover PRE-EXISTING...and you little one's diabetes is no longer covered. Of course you could get a lawyer and fight it at 200+ an hour.

By law they have to cover you if you lapse in coverage is less than 90 days- for any reason. Second, don't you think your HR representative in a large corporation would advise people of these "letters"? I've worked in health care my whole working life and I've never heard or seen anything like this. I think you're fictional tale is amusing, maybe you should provide us some links.

I did provide a link...Read the article and then read #12 and read second to last paragraph in #12.1...I think the advice I gave #12 is similar to yours. But if people do not know to do anything...or believe they can't...the ins gets away with it. I went though it. This "fictional tale" might be amusing until your on the phone for hours everyday trying to straighten the crap out.

Then look at the date her (Zelda) review was set up for to resolve this matter and the day she wrote that post...is that not past your 90day limit?

I did provide a link...Read the article and then read #12 and read second to last paragraph in #12.1...I think the advice I gave #12 is similar to yours. But if people do not know to do anything...or believe they can't...the ins gets away with it. I went though it. This "fictional tale" might be amusing until your on the phone for hours everyday trying to straighten the crap out.

Yes, you provided a link that did not discuss how insurers are putting these "letters" into paperwork and failing to inform the insured that their failure to provide a signature on this hidden letter is grounds for termination of a corporate plan. Please provide a link to that... the story you discussed.

Please note her supposed pre-existing condition would not have applied if she didn't let her coverage lapse after her 3 years of COBRA ran out.

I just can't go with socialized medicine - as we have already seen and hospital will tell us, people just go to the doctor for every sniffle (usually the ER) and they don't mind because it doesn't cost THEM anything. But think about this, if more people had insurance which they paid for on some sort of sliding scale, they would be more judicious and the costs would come down because there is more revenue coming in through premiums, and also hospitals and doctors wouldn't have to absorb such a huge loss of revenue, which they just pass on to other consumers. Maybe the answer is a better sliding scale - I just don't know. Apples, you work in the industry, what are your thoughts?

In the vein of socialized medicine - I have seen how this works first hand in the military. You never see the same doctor twice, there is no continuity of care. Plus, as in the case of medicare, they control what you can and can't have. Knee problems? Only if you meet certain conditions (i.e. when they say you can) can you have replacement surgery - as I have seen this happen on at least 3 occasions. I think I'd rather be able to make choices for myself.

The story I discussed was a personal story dealing with family Health Care Coverage through my husband's employer. Every time the company switched ins. co/plans we had to fill out eligibility papers that were sent with the new plan benefits package. Failure to do so results in cancelation of family members. When you find out, a lot of the time it is when you are sick and or it is too late and you need to reapply. I don't see why you think it is a fictitious story...just because it didn't happen to you doesn't mean it is not practiced. It is not illegal to do this...but none the less a way to weed out "unprofitables" on their plans. HR did NOT inform the employees that they had to do anything concerning family coverage continuation...as in Zelda's case. (previously no actions were necessary when the employer switched Ins)

So how do I provide you a link to a personal story? I provided a link that Ins co are illegally terminating coverage...here's another...

Insurance co give incentives to do just that...http://attorneypages.com/hot/healthcare-insurers-bad-faith-practices.htm

Oh yeah you're right...they wouldn't do it in a sneaky legal way...only the illegal ways that have been working so well for them. Do you actually believe it is not happening? Are you that naive to believe ins co would not do something like what Zelda went through? Ok?? Go ahead and believe this doesn't happen and ins co are looking after your best interest..."You're in good hands" LOL!

Please note her supposed pre-existing condition would not have applied if she didn't let her coverage lapse after her 3 years of COBRA ran out.

Whose COBRA? I never mentioned it? Zelda's case? It was not COBRA?

I was just cancelled from my husband's work insurance policy.Not by the new insurance company but because they are being audited by an independent company investigating fraud by spouses still being covered when the couples are no longer together.We were told by reps of the Co. my husband works for that if there were no changes needed to our coverage ,we didn't need to do anything.So,silly me,when we started to get all kinds of mail and it was all about our coverage I basically ignored it.Unfourtunately,I missed a deadline to fill out paperwork proving that not only was I "really" married to him but that we were still together.So hopefully I have sent them all the documentation they need but still will have no coverage until a review in Jan.And we are not the only ones,according to the office personel my husband talked to this has happened to almost eveyone at his company.And we pay $250. a month for this ?

Whose COBRA? I never mentioned it? Zelda's case? It was not COBRA?

The article mentioned that she was able to retain her husband's insurance at first, for 3 years after his death via COBRA. Then, he had to get her own when she ran into problems.

http://www.allbusiness.com/legal/consumer-law-false-or-misleading-advertising/8956028-1.html

"Industry schemes to maximize profits at the expense of patients are unfair and unlawful, and they must be stopped."

The city attorney also announced that - based upon evidence developed in the course of his Health Net investigation, he's initiating a criminal investigation of individuals associated with Health Net's illegal bonus payment program for cancellations in violation of California's Knox-Keene Act

(Health and Safety Code Sec. 1340 et esq.), and others who may have made false statements to the California Department of Managed Health Care regarding these payments, in violation of Penal Code Section 131.

http://www.healthinsuranceinfo.net/newsyoucanuse/illegal-health-plans-may-discriminate-against-unwell/

Mila Kofman, Associate Research Professor at Georgetown University’s Health Policy Institute, was quoted in a Wall Street Journal story on one Utah company’s proposal to market discriminatory health insurance practices to US businesses.

Commenting on the entrepreneur’s business idea, which is that employers should drop group health insurance coverage for their employees and instead provide individual insurance policies for eligible employees, Kofman said:

“I think this is blatantly illegal … I would not advise any employer to do this.”

People are losing their health ins because the insurance companies are trying everything to decline coverage to those other than healthy people...simple as that Apple. You want to look into it further...there's your starting points! Go for it!

Again, you are pointing out instances where people have violated the law. The law is simple in this regard. If you have employer sponsored healthcare, have not had a lapse in health insurance coverage for greater than 90 days, your pre-existing conditions are covered. In the case of Zelda, despite paying COBRA for 3 years, she then let her coverage lapse and had to seek personal coverage elsewhere which requires the disclosure of all medical events and potential pre-existing conditions. Had she merely followed the law and once her husband's COBRA expired following his death (3 year) immediately enrolled in another plan, or began looking before the COBRA lapsed, she would not have had these difficulties.

People get in car accidents, trains crash, etc, due to illegal behavior; but I don't blame the entire aviation field or the entire transportation department for these individuals or minority corporations activities.

Zelda is not the person in the article...she didn't have COBRA. I posted what she wrote so you could read it. Her coverage was denied for the same reason I spoke of happening to me...so to refer to her as having COBRA is incorrect. Not the same person you keep referring to...got it??? #7.10 above. Read it...and tell me where she mentions COBRA??? I am saying Health Insurance companies have policies in place that are illegal and legal to cancel coverage simply for profit...to weed out. Not all of their procedures violate the law...but are all based on profit motive and they do not live up to their promises to the consumers.

One way was to legally cancel family members and have them re-apply for coverage. If they do not figure out their policy has been canceled in the 90 day period...then they have to re-apply...and pre-existing come into play. Her ins co set her review date JAN...the termination happened OCT...past the 90 days...to resolve it. I told her to get the employees that this also happened to together...along with reps from employer and Ins co...it wasn't just her that got canceled. In my case I discovered it before my ins got canceled and warned others that my husband worked with. Then and only then HR got involved.

Use the links I provided...they have links to other similar links...you will get a clearer picture of the Ins co policy...legal and illegal that maximize profit at the cost of peoples lives/life savings...etc.

What part of it do you not understand...some of the legal cancellations are just as unethical as the illgals ones...there just isn't a law against it. Zelda didn't let her ins lapse..."We were told by reps of the Co. my husband works for that if there were no changes needed to our coverage ,we didn't need to do anything." My husband was told the same thing...it was not true. No one is speaking of COBRA...Not between jobs etc...NO COBRA.

It is alright with me if you don't believe it...but I definitely would not take the word of any Ins rep that works for companies that promote these practices...illegal ones or leagal one. Choice is yours. If a company gives bonuses for illegal cancelations...don't you think they would give the same incentives for legal ways to do the samething??? Or are you that naive...LOL...No, wd they will only do it in illegal circumstances hoping they will not get caught...LOL!

I was referring to this person in your weeding out undesirables article. The one you mentioned, linked and redirected me to. Don't know what else you're talking about. I was merely pointing out that this Zelda person or whomever, below, should not have let her coverage lapse and conveniently chooses not to mention it.

She'd grown up in a comfortable, middle-class household; even after her husband died in 1998, she was able to remain an at-home mom because of his generous life insurance policy. She'd taken pains to make sure she and her sons were insured, first with a policy carried over from her husband's job (the federal COBRA law allows a spouse to continue coverage for three years after a death), and then by carefully researching and purchasing insurance at a cost of $350 a month for her and one of her sons.

The article was one example...Not the same as the Zelda example. I'm done trying to explain...you evidently cannot get that they are two (2) separate examples, two separate people...can't help you with that. And Zelda never had COBRA...so when you figure that out...pat yourself on the back. Love and light.

Apples,

The point you are missing is that insurance companies make money by denying coverage. That's what private companies do. They try to make a profit.

people just go to the doctor for every sniffle

Yeah, I just love spending time in doctor's offices. It doesn't cost me anything, just hours of my time & lost wages.

I'm required to buy a military, fire department, streets, police, libraries, schools, ...

The purpose of government is to provide for the common good. It is in the best interest of society to have a healthy population, who are able to work.

If we had a decent health care system, people wouldn't need to sue in order to pay for a lifetime of medical expenses.

Do you really want to trust your life to the likes of Enron, Leahman Brothers, or Haliburton?

lambnlions, Congress passed a law requiring nobody to be turned away from medical treatment, which is a large part of why hospitals are closing.

Your 2nd statement about $5 a month is far short of what the medical industry has decided they need. I doubt that amount would keep their green fees paid.

I think that you are describing the single payer system.

No wonder I got that "Propaganda "letter in my email from no other than BO. Well here it is...

Good afternoon,

You are receiving this email because you signed up at WhiteHouse.gov. My staff and I plan to use these messages as a way to directly communicate about important issues and opportunities, and today I have some encouraging updates about health care reform.

The Vice President and I just met with leaders from the House of Representatives and received their commitment to pass a comprehensive health care reform bill by July 31.

We also have an unprecedented commitment from health care industry leaders, many of whom opposed health reform in the past. Monday, I met with some of these health care stakeholders, and they pledged to do their part to reduce the health care spending growth rate, saving more than two trillion dollars over the next ten years -- around $2,500 for each American family. Then on Tuesday, leaders from some of America's top companies came to the White House to showcase innovative ways to reduce health care costs by improving the health of their workers.

Now the House and Senate are beginning a critical debate that will determine the health of our nation's economy and its families. This process should be transparent and inclusive and its product must drive down costs, assure quality and affordable health care for everyone, and guarantee all of us a choice of doctors and plans.

Reforming health care should also involve you. Think of other people who may want to stay up to date on health care reform and other national issues and tell them to join us here:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/EmailUpdates

Health care reform can't come soon enough. We spend more on health care than any country, but families continue to struggle with skyrocketing premiums and nearly 46 million are without insurance entirely. It is a priority for the American people and a pillar of the new foundation we are seeking to build for our economy.

We'll continue to keep you posted about this and other important issues.

Thank you,
Barack Obama

P.S. If you'd like to get more in-depth information about health reform and how you can participate, be sure to visit http://www.HealthReform.gov.

This letter is a sell. Right. Look at how it is worded as to seem as quite the benefit to the citizen...it's a commercial advertisement...of course you have no choice as to what they are selling or at what price.

"Sold to the idiot in the corner picking his nose!"

At least with Bush I got some benefit,

What benefit was that?

SonOfLiberty2008: I made enough money that I don't have to work, I managed to come out of the recent crash with thirty times my last years income. I paid off my mortgage, credit cards, and settled back child support for 6 cents on the dollar. Of course those were all Clinton era improvements that came to fruition during Bush's time but at least Bush didn't do anything to stop the benefits.

The new system is like the old system and is a very unfair to people who don't have the opportunity to work out how to beat it. I think it is a shame that the government systems only work for a few and generally they are the ones who want the benefit, but don't really need it. The new system is going to be the same as the old system its just that it will benefit a different select few.

I would think that more people would want to see a larger number of US citizens benefit instead of supporting change that we all can believe in. There are people all over the US who need real help and not just words. But the public is getting what they wanted.

In the meantime this new system is just a lot of work, time, and trouble looking at how to beat it. So far there has not been a government that figured out how to close the loopholes when the government is focused on special interests.

How did you make that money?

I am a "special issues" consultant for mines, petroleum companies and large ranches (50,000+ acres).

I am paid for solving problems efficiently after the other options fail to produce the desired results.

My point is that I don't see that the people who actually need the help are getting the help that they need. The biggest item that they need is jobs so they can earn the money to support their lifestyle such as it may be.

American Liberal, how do you make health care competitive?

how do you make health care competitive?

Great question.

Traps, if you believe in doctors, you must believe in Santa and the tooth fairy too, right?

A family of 4 making 12k a year shouldn't have been a family of 4, plain and simple.

SonOfLiberty2008: With all due respect, are you saying that having children is not a natural right? That it is a function of the purchasing power of a government issued soft currency?

Rights are balanced by responsibilities. It would be difficult for a single person to live on 12k a year. If a person can't provide for their children, they shouldn't have them, plain and simple.

SOL...What if they could afford the kids when they had them but due to just one illness/injury they are now bankrupt? Or lost their job(s)? What do you advocate a state run breeding program? Sterilization program? Plan parenthood tries to educate people on family planning but gets harrassed by Pro-lifers and anti abortionists even losses funding because of it. Religions preach no birth control...could go to hell for that. There are a lot of issues that come into play with your "plain and simple" that you do not take into account. Deal with the issues that cause children living in poverty before making a blanket statement like that. Ins co put people in financial ruin all the time by not paying for contracted services...etc. So essentially by your standard only the rich get to breed? If they lose their fortune...lets take the kids away...just for icing on the cake!

I can see where these things might happen, but only in very rare situations. We've done bankruptcy, it doesn't end your life. I don't see how one illness/injury ends the career of both parents. Belonging to a certain religion is a choice. If the taxpayers weren't providing subsidies for "poor unfortunates" who can't afford the children they have, a lot less of them would be having them. I think you and I look at things from different viewpoints. If a person wants to be a victim, there are now plenty of programs that will support that sort of behavior.

Deal with the issues that cause children living in poverty

What are these "issues" and how do we deal with them, in your view?

One of the issues isn not being able to predict the future. When I was twenty I never thought that I was going to end up destitute. There was no basis for my confidence and it turned out to be true but still I had no reason to believe that.

No one plans to fail.

SOL...You are talking about people taking responsibility not having children they cannot afford. Losing everything because of injury/illness is not such an isolated thing as you might think. Many people are losing their homes because the economy...jobs are rare in the area I live in. Religions aside, you are speaking of career loafers...one baby after another just to bilk the welfare system. I'm talking about educated people who are having trouble finding work to replace the job they were laid-off from.

But look at the flip side of someone who doesn't want welfare but needs help. If they go on welfare they get food, shelter and medical....if they get a job at $10/hour they lose the food, shelter and medical plus have to pay for child care. Which one seems sane? Add up the costs...you get more support for not working than you do for working. Medical benefits is one of the biggest reasons people stay in the system. The system needs to be supportive of working, not of staying home. A Universal Health Care plan would definitely help.

Then the issue of single parents-no one plans on the marriage not working...or a father/mother walking away. CS can be garnished if they have a job...and if you take them repeatedly to court...etc. Then you have the times you have to miss work because of court, a child being sick...etc.

Bankruptcy has changed...you can't just go file and be relieved of your responsibilities...you will still owe 100k. Was nice during the time you could HUH?

Mordecai...agreed...no one plans to fail. Especially people who have always been able to make ends meet.

I could have easily been one of the ones needing assistance if my house didn't sell when it did. My home value dropped 60k when I put it on the market and another 130k a few months after the people signed. No one was predicting such a dramatic drop. That is 190k drop in less than one year. I'm also ok because my ex is great providing for the kids...we both have the mindset that if I am ok so are the kids...if he is ok so are the kids. We stayed finacially tied to do what is right for the kids. We still share expenses like car ins etc...so we both can afford to take care of ourselves and the kids. Had either one of us not taken this appraoch we would be in a very different situation than we are now. Both of our credit would be messed up. And very frankly if I would have listened to the advice of the lawyers (3 consultations) and so called friends...this would have gotten ugly...they advocated revenge not resolution.

And they should have to pay a portion of their care. I'm tired of my tax dollars picking up the 40% who don't even pay taxes.

Y'all don't quite seem to get it. There are many working poor that simply do not have the money to put out. They are falling behind just keeping the lights on and they are not wasting their money by buying wasteful crap.

If they must pay a portion of their care, then they could apply for food stamps to make up the difference. Health care is a valid expense. So, the burden on the tax payer remains.

Simple answers do not exist but what should remain a constant is health care is not guaranteed, it is not a right in this country, if you can not pay for it, you should not have it unless you have worked all your life and are now retired, then it should cost you nothing. Medicare should pay 100%.

You have that completely correct. They don't have a clue what poor people need. That's why our ERs are full of people on Medicaid with a cold or chronic problems they refuse to bother to get their free medications for that turn into emergencies after a few months of no treatment.

I have a very bad feeling on this one and it keeps getting worse every time the government opens their collective mouths to update their plans.

We have one of the best medical systems in the world.

No we don't, unless you're in the business. We did 40 years ago, but things change.

SonOfLiberty2008: What astounds me is that I can go to a doctors office (one who went to medical school in Guadalajara) either in the US for a rather large price or;

I can see the instructors that the doctor had in medical school at their offices in Guadalajara for 25% of the students price in the US.

I have to agree with your call in #16.2

The medicare overhaul of the Bush administration is costing seniors thousands to the point some can't afford their medications.

That's because the health industry paid our politicians to make it that way. Now they are paying our politicans to keep their gravy train running again. The insurance companies are the problem.

Our congress people have government controlled health care. They seem pretty happy with it. They just don't want to share it with the rest of us.

Our congress people have government controlled health care.

I don't understand this statement. Congress and all other government jobs have employer-provided healthcare- an employer who happens to be the US Government. Like any large corporation, they have great insurance due to their sheer purchasing power; but, it's employer provided nonetheless. I too have a BCBS PPO, similar to the government plan, there are deductibles for out of network costs, I still pay for some care, and there are prescription costs associated with the plan, so not even the government is running on the free rides that you would have the plan changed to be. Well free rides for 40% of the people who don't pay taxes. Higher taxes for the rest of us to support them.

Frankly, when you think about it, other than a central body to handle the printing of money, the processing of global and interstate trade, some laws, and the maintainance of a standing army, for most of us our tax dollars are used solely for the people not paying the taxes. If they want universal healthcare so bad, I think they should cut more social programs and use THAT money to fund it.

The government (as the employer) negotiates the pricing & benefits with insurance companies. They seem to be fairly competent at this, since our congress people are happy to stay in the system.

Each employer, or individual, negotiates their own deal with the insurance companies. Your Blue Cross policy may be nothing like my Blue Cross policy. The larger the group, the more clout they have.

This sytem leaves people who are not part of a large group at the mercy of the insurance companies. Insurance companies are free to extort enormous premiums & copays. Or not accept them as customers. Or accept them, and then drop them retroactively if they have the gall to need health care.

Being in a large group gives you negotiating power & efficiency. A large group can easily handle the cost of a few members getting cancer, or hit by a truck. Why not take advantage of this & make a really big group of the entire country?

The purpose of the government is to provide for the common good. In the US, that has been taken to mean a military, roads, police, schools, libraries, etc.

You may not be happy about your tax dollars providing others with health care. I'm not happy about my tax dollars providing for a standing army. But if the Russians show up at my door, that army better be there to defend me.

It's a nice argument, but the fact remains that I don't want to waste $450 per month on low quality health care from doctors who are not held to any real standard. I can get what medical care I need at a fraction of the cost that is being proposed. This is another plan that requires that those of us with little or no risk pay for those who have the highest risk.

Medical malpractice is when the doctor's practice at medicine yeilds a standard of care that is substantially below the minimum lowest standard of care in the local area. Doctors are only held to the lowest possible standard. There are no provisions in the national freebie for doctors to hold the doctors to a high standard of care and practice.

This national health insurance means that doctors will be getting paid the same as they are now as a beginning reward and they will get ever increasing rewards without regard for the type of care that the patient recieves. Right now patients are expected to accept the "Trust me would I let you suffer or die?" standard of medical care. Just words with nothing to back them up.

A national health care plan is simply a meathod of transferring the money of the sick into the pockets of the doctors without the doctors having to go to the inconvienece of showing up at a hospital or an office.

Has anyone noticed the medical malpractice cases no longer happen in the US. The news media runs no stories about it so it must be that it no longer happens, right?

Where did you get the idea that changing the payment system, changes the standard of care? Besides, the standard isn't so great now. Try going to a doctor with a problem that he can't diagnose in 10 seconds. The insurance companies won't let him spend any more time on you, so he'll just shrug & tell you to learn to live with it, or that it's all in your head.

You may be low risk now, but things change. Accidents happen. cancer happens. If nothing else, one of these days, you'll be old.

I never said that changing the payment system changed the standard of care. I agree with you that the standard of "care" is so bad that it is not worth paying for it.

I won't go to a US doctor - I want to get better not broke.

Try going to a doctor with a problem that he can't diagnose in 10 seconds.

Ok, so with national taxpayer provided health insurance there will be three times as many people in the same incompetent doctors office and each will get 3 second instead of 10 seconds. How is that better?

I thought the problem was "Health Care" and the fact that the "Health Care" system is broken.

How did this become the "Health Insurance Premium Crisis"? The insurance companies seem to be very healthy.

The problem is that we have a system where insurance companies make more money by providing less care. If doctors didn't have to spend half their day trying to convince insurance companies to approve their care, they would be able to spend more time with their patients.

Another point from pnhp.org;

Primary care has been declining in this country for many years, as a result of multiple factors, including more attractive lifestyles and reimbursement on the non-primary care fields;student perceptions of the demands, rewards, and prestige of generalist practice; and uncertainty of the health care environment. The American College of Physicians in 2007 declared that: “Our primary care infrastructure is at grave risk of collapse”.

Single-payer national health insurance will provide an opportunity to restructure the U.S. physician workforce, strenghten and rebuild primary care. We should have at least 50 percent of our physicians in primary care fields. Useful approaches include reimbursement reform, loan forgiveness programs for graduating medical students entering primary care residencies, increased funding for graduate medical education (GME) teaching programs in primary care, and reallocation of GME training slots by specialty.

Rixar, non profit is just an accounting scam to avoid taxes. If you run a nonprofit, and end up with extra money at the end of the year, the execs get bonuses until the profit goes away.

The plain fact is that we've trusted the medical industry to police themselves, and they've chosen to just bend us over. Adding the profit and overhead of insurance companies can't make that any cheaper.

As an old conservative, I hate to say this, but we pretty much need to have a government run health care system, the one we have just plain doesn't work.

SonOfLliberty2008

The plain fact is that we've trusted the medical industry to police themselves, and they've chosen to just bend us over.

I agree and people go without ability to get medical care because of this.

Adding the profit and overhead of insurance companies can't make that any cheaper.

I too am a fiscal conservative

As an old conservative, I hate to say this, but we pretty much need to have a government run health care system, the one we have just plain doesn't work.

I agree with you 100% and I hope we and our country can do better. Thanx

The case for single payer is economic, not idealogy. If we were allowed to have an objective comparison & debate on all of the proposals, single payer would win by a mile.