Single-payer coverage or universal coverage ?

[kentuck]

They are not necessarily the same. It is possible to get universal coverage without single-payer.

For example, if the Congress were to vote today on a bill that said every American that presently has coverage thru their employer or elsewhere has a right to keep that coverage, how would the majority of Congress vote? Maybe that would be a good thing to get out of the way in the discussion over health-care?

Once the people realized that no one is going to touch their present system of coverage, perhaps they would be more open-minded about covering the remaining 47 million Americans without insurance? Then the Congress could take a second vote without the present distortions by the Republicans. They could offer a public option to those folks without coverage and to those that have lost their jobs.

Perhaps it should be a two-step process? First, vote to assure people that they can keep their present coverage if they so desire. Secondly, vote to offer coverage to those presently uninsured. If this public option could be passed, it would, in effect, be a form of universal coverage, in that everyone would be covered. The Democrats could disarm some of these arguments by the opponents of universal coverage if they only wanted to.

[PSPS]

1. People suffering from the death grip of their current insurance need a better place to go.

There are many of us who do have insurance and would like a reasonable alternative that is affordable and provides reasonable coverage. My current Blue Cross plan covers only catastrophic, has a $10,000 deductable with no prescription coverage at all and it costs $4,000/year for just me. If I were to lower the deductable or add prescription coverage, the premiums would more than double.

[patriotvoice]

2. Drop them. Take away that $4k per year and tell them why.

Yes, you run a risk. Like I do. But they don't listen to complaints as long as they're being paid.

[dweller]

7. this is what i wish would happen on its own

that those that are insured, if they want a govt. option, would just go ahead and drop their insurance coverage - join the rest of us w/out it.

If this happened in the xx-millions, the ins. cos would be out of the picture .. they will have already lost the 'for profit business'. The would have to 'retool' for the masses.

In the meantime, more voices would be added in solidarity to the plea for a public, govt single payer, etc.

but, it won't happen.
dp

[patriotvoice]

8. I get slapped around a lot for telling people to drop their insurance.

"Money talks; everyone else walks." All it takes is 30% of the current customers dropping it for 3 months to send a serious wake-up call. dweller, let's just keep telling people that.

[dweller]

10. agreed patriotvoice!

and i especially agree with your comment in your profile:
"A citizen has the courage to make humanity's well-being his personal responsibility."

I'm not advocating anyone that has serious health problems to abandon their primary care/ins. But there are a whole lot of healthy ones that have ins. just 'in case' and barring an accidental mishap, for a 3 month/6month/9month/year-whatever-it-takes hiatus to bring the situation around to where the ins. COs no longer have a voice in the debate, would make a strong point.

My take on this debate: It should be between the people and the government PERIOD
There should be no voice of the insurance companies/blue dog Dem/Repugs beholden to corporate involved.
If they want to compete, on the other hand, they had better get into their boardrooms and talk it out, and start planning what they have to do to court the American people to buy in to their program, and it will have to do with offering sound medical coverage at a price that can be afforded. Or else they will dry up, and shut their doors.

The American populace has, and has always had, the power of the purse: it works remarkably well when it is applied. All anyone would have to do is call in to their ins. co. and simply say, "Cancel my policy, it's too expensive" and hang up. Do everything you can to be safe, stay healthy, and look after each other. For every one that does that, convince another to do the same. Tell them you are wanting a govt single-payer option and you stand in solidarity w/ the millions that are not insured today. Make it a moral stand. Call your congresscritters and tell them what you've done and tell them they should do the same... ABANDON THEIR FREE GOVT SUPPLIED HEALTH INSURANCE UNTIL THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE THE SAME, in other words, shame them into it. Let them know you have taken the stand for the people, why haven't they?

I'd bet you couldn't find anyone that doesn't 'say' they abide by the Golden Rule in their life (whether they do or not) most would say they do. But the maxim is not a one way street. 'To do unto others as you would have them do unto you' also means 'to do unto yourself as you would have others do unto you (and others)' and that's the beauty of the Golden Rule. Leading by example.

Take a stand. It's either w/ your brothers and your sisters w/out any health care, or it's with the insurance companies that are bleeding them, and you, to death for the corporate bottom line.

once the ins. cos are out of the picture, the debate should be clear to continue.
dp

[kentuck]

3. That is why insurance companies are so afraid of the public option.

They are afraid that people like you might go to the public option.

[TransitJohn]

4. I know that I would.

In a New York minute. I have filed claims exactly 3 times in the 6 years I've been on my employer's plan, and every time, they've sent a follow up investigation to try to not pay. Thanks assholes.

[KharmaTrain]

5. First You Have To Climb Through The Bullshit

Listening to polarized factions on the healthcare debate, you'd either think that single payer is the only way...the greatest thing since sliced bread...or that we'll end up with socialized medicine where you'll have to wait for months to get a prescription refilled. There's little heard in the middle over the amped up voices...especially from the insurance lobby and its corporate media toadies.

People still aren't convinced with a public option that they can keep their existing policy. It's up to President Obama to really ram this baby home or he's gonna lose the PR war. If there's an objection I see, it's that people don't want to be beholden to the government just as much as they don't like being held over a barrel by the insurance companies. Nuancing this issue isn't easy...especially when there are so many out there purposely trying to distort the discussion.

Until the options are properly laid out...and there will be options if any healtcare reform is to be passed...don't expect congresscritters to do much at all.

[kentuck]

6. And as far as the Republican argument about the costs...

The Bush tax cuts alone, about $1.8 trillion, cost more than the proposed health-care plan. Not to mention the amount spent on the war in Iraq. We couldn't afford those either but the Republicans voted for both of them wholeheartedly. They are hypocrites and their hypocrisy should be exposed by the Democrats.

[davsand]

9. Cradle to grave coverage for everyone, including dental, vision, and drugs.

Nothing less will do, IMO.

IF people and the insurance companies want to offer "upgrade" coverage--guaranteed private hospital rooms or access to more elective surgeries (boob bobs or nose jobs anyone?) for example--then by all means let them do it--but the only humane solution in my opinion is to finally start treating health care and access to it like the right that it is, rather than some sort of commodity that is bought and sold. Our people are suffering right now, and we have got to take steps to alleviate that suffering--THAT is how I read the public polls.

Single payer in one avenue to it, I guess, but the bottom line is that we AS A NATION have got to take steps to make sure we are caring for ALL our citizens. Our Dem politicians need to grow a set and get the job done NOW.


Just my two cents.



Laura

[Cleita]

11. Think about it. If there is a public option and it has better coverage and

costs less, employers are going to buy into it because of their bottom line. You don't have a choice because you are going to have to take what your employer offers you. If you have to insure yourself and are too poor to make a choice, you will have to take the public option that will probably be subsidized for what you can't pay. I find this choice thing to be a red herring. The only people who actually have a choice of plans are federal employees, which includes our Congress and executive level corporate types. There is no choice, really, there isn't. On the other hand the insurer has the choice to raise premiums, deny coverage and your employer has the choice to stop offering coverage if it gets too expensive. At least with a public option like Medicare many more people might get coverage who didn't have it before.

[ColbertWatcher]

12. Why the hell not both!? n/t

[Kansas Wyatt]

13. Insurance (DEATH MERCHANTS) Companies...

Do absolutely NOTHING for health care, and in fact, jeopardize and deny peoples' health care, due to their fraudulent business practices. That IS the bottom line, and there are NO "good" Death Merchants. There are only immoral corrupt greedy bastards playing the Grim Reaper.

For Profit Health Care only means an illegitimate "legalized" business, of immoral corrupt greedy bastards, that extorts money from people.

Pharmaceutical Companies are no better than For Profit Health Care, and they would rather peddle treatment, rather than curing anything. And, they are more interested in pushing commercials 24/7 for snake oil, instead of actually researching anything. Burn in Hell you dirty chicken shit bastards!

[BlooInBloo]

14. Single payer: best. Public option: very good.

[WeCanWorkItOut]

15. Under mandated insurance, a public option may end up like an HMO.

What happened to Obama's campaign idea of cutting costs first,
and then seeing whether people would buy more insurance?

Now it seems in Congress they want to mandate insurance,
and then do whatever is easiest to lower costs,
whatever offends fewer big lobbyists.

So the public option could involve a mix of
exhortations to healthy living, plus rationing,
either straight-forward rationing or
what ethicists call "bedside rationing"
meaning providing care or not, whichever
seems good at the moment.
(This is just what happens my friendly
neighborhood HMO. Non-profit, by the way.)

So under mandated insurance,
the very poorest may be subsidized.
But many lower-income people may end up
paying more for very cheap care.
Without the option of dropping out
for three to six months.