Kennedy Health Plan Would Include Public Insurance

[Old Coot]

Source: Bloomberg

May 29 (Bloomberg) -- Senator Edward Kennedy, chairman of a Senate panel drafting a health-care overhaul, is circulating a plan that would require everyone to have insurance and would create a government program to compete with private insurers, said people familiar with the plan.

The proposal would pay health-care providers participating in a public plan 10 percent more than they would get under Medicare, according a summary provided by the people.

Kennedy, a Massachusetts Democrat and chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, said in an op- ed piece yesterday in the Boston Globe that a key way to expand health-care coverage to the 46 million uninsured Americans is through a new program run by the U.S. government.

“An important foundation of our legislation is the following principle: If you like the coverage you have now, you keep it,” Kennedy wrote. “But if you don’t have health insurance or don’t like the insurance you have, our bill will give you new, more affordable options.”

Read more: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aq94TkVQtsoM&refer=home

---

This seems to be about the best we can hope for. Hopefully the final plan will include a public plan open to anyone who chooses it. I wish single payer was open for discussion.

[DesertFlower]

1. hopefully it will.

as howard dean says "put the option there and let the people decide".

[tazkcmo]

2. So...

what happens to a person if they do not purchase health insurance? Jail time? A fine that they can't pay that results in jail time? I don't get it...

[dipsydoodle]

4. Well it does say

"require everyone to have insurance" so presumably it would be deucted at source from wages, as it is in the UK , with free cover for certain categories - specific unemployed, children below school leaving age, those over retirement age etc.

[tazkcmo]

6. Wow. n/t

[dipsydoodle]

8. That how it works - its obligatory.

Our NHS isn't free, its paid for in a form of tax by both employees @ 11% and employers @ 12.8% - both above c. $10000. It is however universal from pre-birth until death.

Even covers foreign tourists involved in road accidents etc, frequently , when despite the fact we obviously drive on the left they still look left instead of right before crossing the road !

[DesertFlower]

12. could you clarify that?

if someone makes $150,000 a year it would cost them $16,500 a year for health care plus another 12.8% from the employer. that seems really high.

[enlightenment]

17. There is a lower threshold and upper limit and the rate changes

after you reach the upper threshold. For Class 1 earners (people who work for an employer - there are six classes), the lower (primary) threshold is £110 per week. The upper limit is £770 per week. Between those two limits the rate is 11%. Above the upper limit it drops to 1%.
Basically, you pay 11% on the first £40000 or so and less after that.

Prescriptions cost £7.40 or (if you take regular meds) you can buy a twelve month prepayment certificate for £104. A basic pair of single vision glasses costs about £36. Dentistry is free for children under 18, pregnant women and new moms - otherwise it costs between £16.50 (exam/X-ray/cleaning) and £148 (which covers crowns/dentures/etc).

You can also (due to a recent policy change) top up with private insurance, under certain conditions.

[DesertFlower]

18. thank you. nt

[dipsydoodle]

20. I couldn't make out your last sentence

"You can also (due to a recent policy change) top up with private insurance, under certain conditions." Where did you get that ? We been able to do that since private medical companies starting operating here - 30 years ago or so.

Also there is no max. on the employers NHS contribution @ 12.8%

:hi:

[enlightenment]

22. Take a look at the NHS website about the top up fees

http://www.nhs.uk/news/2008/11november/pages/topupfeesqa.aspx
It's not a one-size fits all (and I'm not convinced it's the right approach - but it is available under certain circumstances).

And I was only talking about the employee contributions - numbers came from here (clicking through to other pages from this link):

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/nic/background-nic.htm


Just trying to clarify the idea that someone would end up paying a fortune if they make a lot of money.

:)

[dipsydoodle]

23. I didn't realise you meant this bit.

Patients will be allowed to pay for additional drugs without losing their NHS treatment, it was announced today. NHS patients, particularly those with a terminal illness, will also have more drugs made available to them as part of the changes, and approval times for new drugs will be speeded up.

What was the previous situation? Until now, patients haven’t been allowed to top up their NHS care with drugs they have paid for privately. In the past, those who paid for drugs privately gave up their right to NHS treatment.

That was always an oddity and now its been cleared up - fortunately. The drugs to which it relates are usually the really expensive,sometimes unproven ones, which the NHS will not clear.

I knew about the other bit - was just keeping it simple because the US average national wage is below that final threshold figure past wich employees only pay the 1%. I assumed , maybe in error , that the national average was the majority of the population.

BTW - I can't make out whether you're here or there ........:)

[enlightenment]

24. To keep it short - I agree with all you said!

Including the last bit about keeping it simple.

Here or there? I'm stuck in the wilds of Las Vegas - so there, I guess! :)

[enlightenment]

16. Not like the NHS - they don't use the

profit-sucking middlemen of insurance.

[MannyGoldstein]

3. Excellent

One irritating thing about living in MA is that there's not much to yell at our representatives about.

[FrenchieCat]

5. Great, except for the Insurance mandates for adults. I don't agree with that.

The way to keep prices low is to have a pool of folks that will get coverage IF the price is right. Forcing coverage on everyone provides no incentives for price competition. That's why I liked Obama's original proposal during the campaign; because coverage wasn't forced but voluntary.

[Old Coot]

10. The thinking is that for everyone to be eligible, no matter their condition, then everyone must be

covered.

If the young and healthy opt out then the total cost for everyone would be too high.

Only by requiring everyone to be covered can the industry be required to cover everyone.

For years, I have thought that insurance companies should be forced to cover everyone, no matter the pre-existing conditions, at the same cost to everyone. However, that won't work because the young and healthy will choose to not be insured.

I am concerned about being required to provide health insurance for my wife when I turn 65 and lose my employer's policy. I fear what the cost of coverage for her will be. (That and concern about what energy costs will be in the future because of anti-carbon legislation in the future keeps me awake at night. I sense that costs will be much higher in 5 to 10 years.)

[kiva]

19. The only way to keep rates low is to have a pool that includes

many of the people who, for various reasons, are unlikely to voluntarily seek coverage. This is exactly why a form of single-payer would be the best choice, though it doesn't seem to be on the table now.

[Cleita]

7. Will everybody who wants to participate in it be able to like with

Medicare? Or, will only those who can't afford their own insurance or aren't covered by employers be eligible?

[Old Coot]

9. My understanding is that the Kennedy plan would allow anyone to opt for the public plan.

I wouldn't bet that makes it into the final bill. The insurance companies are very fearful of competition from the government.

[SpartanDem]

11. No mention of a minimum coverage level

that is key element in UHC systems that use compulsory insurance as their basis.

[Old Coot]

13. I suspect that "anything goes". I would imagine that these $5,000 deductible plans some people are

stuck with will still exist.

I wonder if Tennessee's "CoverTN" program will still be allowed to exist. It is really piss poor insurance. It is so bad that Blue Cross, which administers it, won't even call it insurance.

Hopefully people will be required to have some minimum coverage that will realistically provide for good health, when needed.

[lovuian]

14. We can't have a two tier system

we have to be Universal for everybody

[dipsydoodle]

21. Its at least a start for you though and big oak trees.........

One of the main points of our UK NHS is that everyone is covered regardless of whether or not they are making NHS contributions - been like that since 1948 believe it or not. However - for those elegible and due to pay , which is in the form tax deducted at source from both employees and employers either weekly or monthly , there is no option : its wholly mandatory and an absolute legal obligation.

I'd think that the main resistance against anything like this in the USA would come from those who believe it to be unfair for them to pay for the benefit of those unable , rather than unwilling , to do so. It's not like that in UK - its not so much social concience ......just a way of life to which not much thought is given i.e. we take it for granted.

For complete history start here and just follow the links : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_National_Health_Service

"Cradle to grave" is a misnomer given that it even covers IVF treatment - first few attempts anyway.

BTW - first benefit I got was 1948 too. I was 5 years old and got mown flat by a car. I obviously didn't learn the necessary lesson, I repeated the exercise 2 years later and was hospitalised for 2 weeks.....lol.

[MasonJar]

15. I know Ted Kennedy has invested many years and much energy in health care and I

respect his knowledge and expertise on the subject. However, after seeing the incredible discussion on Bill Moyers last week, I now know single payer is the best thing for the people and our economy. We must get financing by corps totally out of elections. It is ruinous!!!!

[Faryn Balyncd]

25. Why is Schumer supporting Big Insur efforts to continnu "pre-existing condition" denial and force...

.....any "public option" to devolve into a plan in which the taxpayers and patients get the shaft, while Big Insurance gets to continue to cherry pick?


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5749559

[regnaD kciN]

26. Depends on what "new, more affordable" means...

If the current cost to insure a family is over $1,000/month, and the "new, more affordable option" means that families would only be required by law to pay $800/month...no thanks!