U.S. to Let Insurers Raise Fees for Sick Children

[RamboLiberal]

Source: NY Times

The Obama administration, aiming to encourage health insurance companies to offer child-only policies, said Wednesday that they could charge higher premiums for coverage of children with serious medical problems, if state law allowed it.

Earlier this year, major insurers, faced with an unprofitable business, stopped issuing new child-only policies. They said that the Obama administration’s interpretation of the new health care law would allow families to buy such coverage at the last minute, when children became ill and were headed to the hospital.

In September, the administration said that insurers could establish open-enrollment periods — for example, one month a year — during which they would accept all children.

Now, on Wednesday, the administration, answering a question raised by many insurers, said they could charge higher premiums to sick children outside the open-enrollment period, if state laws allowed such underwriting, as many do.


Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/14/health/policy/14health.html

---

Sure - let's make sure it is unaffordable! :sarcasm:

Damn the insurance industry and damn the Dem lawmakers who wouldn't allow single-payer.

[Nite Owl]

Open enrollment, one month a year?

Yeah, that'll work. Increase rates?
How sad that it still is more of the same. Corporations control our lives totally and no one is going to do a damned thing to help us.

[karynnj]

93. This is what most people have if they work for a corporation

ie - during that period we chose the option we want - and can not then change unless there is a life change (there is a list).

This actually makes some sense and it does counter the problem the insurers worried about. Note that if the insurance is selected during the open enrollment period there would be no higher rate. This was an issue brought up in the primaries concerning not having a mandate.

Now, I think single payer is better and avoids all of this - but this does not materially alter the fact that kids will not pay a higher rate if they are ill - as long as they stay continuously insured.

[Nite Owl]

102. The entire open enrollment should

have been done away with. It might make sense for the corporations and insurers but it is time that people come first. If health care is a right then either they cope or get out of the business. Then we can finally move to single payer.

[karynnj]

119. How do you prevent people from buying insurance only when facing high medical bills?

The fact is that the standard yearly physical is far less than the cost of insurance. Yet, for many that would be their only cost if they are very healthy. I know that for the first 13 years I worked, paying out of pocket for the entire expense would have been far less each year than the cost the company I worked for paid. But, I had my first child in the 14th year.

The principle behind the idea of insurance is that everyone pays enough to cover the costs of the entire group and to pay administrative costs and profit for the company (unless it is a non-profit). For the 13 years I mentioned, my company put in more for them to cover me than I cost. In the 14th year (and many years since), I cost more than they paid.

Letting people sign up at any point with no higher cost, means that they can "gamble" that the cost will be less paying out of pocket rather than buying insurance - without bearing the risk of having no insurance when the child is very sick. You do realize that if we went to single payer, it would be with a mandate and everyone would pay. It is not free.

[Nite Owl]

151. Sure everyone would pay

if it were single payer but it would be there for everyone at all times. Corporations would still need to contribute their share. If every other industrialized nation can do this so can/should we. The profit has to come out of the industry. I employment is taken out of the equation it would also free workers to start businesses and not worry about having a job that they hate going to just to keep the benefit. It's what is best for the people and not for the industry or employer, that's what should be looked at when the bill was produced.

[AllyCat]

185. To answer the question in your subject line: SINGLE PAYER

The idea of insurance is like legalized gambling on the illness and misery of others. How realistic is it that the only cost for a year will be a physical? Illness, need for antibiotics, immunizations, and bruises, bumps, and broken bones are part of childhood.

Of course everyone pays with single payer! However, we are ALL covered and at a reduced cost to what private insurance costs. It is ALWAYS portable.

[karynnj]

194. I said I prefered that - but the reality - per Bernie Sanders - is that there are no more than

10 Senators for it.

I think you missed my point. That was that people could opt not to get insurance - getting only when faced with their child being sick. I had three kids. There were years when we had well visits only - so the costs would be just physicals and immunizations. But there were also years where the cost would have been incredible without medical insurance.

Here, what this does is change who bears the risk burden. Without allowing higher costs for those who opt not to have it - the risk of very high costs is all the insurance companies. With a higher buy-in when they opt out AND the kid is ill when they want insurance, that higher insurance premium is what they risked having to pay if their kids needed enough medical care that they then wanted insurance.

[mvd]

198. But then there's the affordability problem

There will always be some who can afford it and will wait too long. But we're in a recession, and quite a few who are poor can't afford it anyway. I think the administration should tell the insurance companies they must cover all children who are ill. It's just the moral thing to do, notwitstanding that there are costs issues because the legislation kept the basic mechanism in tact. Let's both hope this gets addressed somehow. :hi:

[karynnj]

199. I get that and all kids in families below some threshold

can get SCHIP insurance - where there is a tapered amount subsidized by the government. Not to mention, there is Medicaid at the level below that. Above that level, it comes down to choices.

Here, I think they are still saying that they have to cover kids - just that they can charge more.

[Recursion]

201. If it's a non-open-season policy change NT

[karynnj]

202. It spoke of accepting them - but allowing a higher rate outside the enrollment period

Now, on Wednesday, the administration, answering a question raised by many insurers, said they could charge higher premiums to sick children outside the open-enrollment period, if state laws allowed such underwriting, as many do.

(I would be happier if they encouraged states that do not have this, to get it.)

[mvd]

207. See, they can't afford to pay more right now

So I don't agree with the decision, especially with so many suffering. Some companies say they won't even be offering children only plans. The health care law either needs tough regulation or changes to really be effective.

[liberation]

230. That line of reasoning, right there, is why this country is so f*cked...

... Health care is not a value proposition for a business to make profit from, that is why it should not be managed via "insurance" tabulations. It should be what it is in the rest of the industrialized world a basic right not subjected to profit or market propositions.

[bemildred]

236. Taxes, that sort of thing is exactly what taxes are for.

Public goods that everybody ought to pay their fair share for.

[Recursion]

244. Even if it managed to cut payments to providers in half...

...compared to private insurance, we'd still be talking about a tax (or deficit) increase of 1 trillion dollars per year. That's the current cost of the entire Department of Defense plus the two wars for this year. And, yes, that's both a reminder of the scale of medical costs and a reminder of how screwed up our priorities are at times.

But, even that -- just getting health care's annual cost down to that of the military-industrial complex -- would assume a 50% across-the-board cut to providers for all services. These are the same providers who are already using private insurance to make up their losses on treating Medicaid (and increasingly, Medicare) patients. And on top of that, they will have heavier workloads because those currently locked out of medical care by the insurance system will be able to access it. That's between 22 million and 45 million new people (depending on whether undocumented aliens can use it). That's treating 22 million more people (at the low end) for half of what they make now. And that's what we would have to do to "only" have a trillion dollar (per year) tax increase.

I'm a Democrat. I'm more liberal than my posts might lead people to think sometimes. I like taxes and I have no problem saying that. But even I am leery at the thought of a one trillion dollar in one year tax increase, and that using an unrealistically optimistic model of how much costs would come down.

[bemildred]

263. No offense, but I have no idea what you are saying.

It would help if I knew where your numbers come from, but even then not really.

The question was (slight paraphrase) what do you do about people who only get insurance when they need it? I said you tax to raise the money, that way nobody who can pay stays out, that's how Medicare works now (sort of) it's a universal tax on earned income. I think they ought to tax corporate profits too, but ...

Whatever the system may be here, most of the developed world manages to do universal care for much less per capita than we pay. I see no fundamental reason why we cannot do the same.

[defendandprotect]

109. WE are going to do something about it .... question is WHEN ... !!!

[awoke_in_2003]

179. answer is...

never

[defendandprotect]

232. Somehow I still have faith that the public will rise up ......

don't know why, but I do -- !! :eyes:

Of course, I can't deny I anticipate a long wait -- !!

What's an inch less than "never" -- ???

:)

[KoKo]

220. Obama was Great on Campaign Trail...but his Messages to his Voters Since..seems

to be some kind of Disconnect! Why doesn't the "Obama Team" have OP'S OUT THERE ...EVERY DAY ...ALL OVER THE MEDIA...talking about the HEALTH CARE REFORM!

IF IT WAS GOOD then get the Hell out There and TALK ABOUT IT!

So far...all we have is the RW/TEABAGGERS interpretation of WHAT WAS PASSED and they have BILLIONS SUPPORTING DISINFO against WHAT PASSED.

WHERE ARE YOU OBAMA! TELL US "WHY" what you PASSED is GOOD FOR US!

So far all we hear is Bad Stuff.

PLEASE...GET OUT THERE AND TELL US!

[defendandprotect]

231. Agree . . . Agree . . . Agree ....

:)

[Pab Sungenis]

1. And they wonder why there's an enthusiasm gap.

This administration is quickly becoming a disgrace.

[peace frog]

61. The enthusiasm gap

is beginning to give way to the disgust gap. Is this where Dems in Congress and WH expected to be after passage of *historical* HCR? Either eway, it's clear they don't care about sick children and the families who struggle to care for them.

[DollarsForDems]

186. Why pick on the kids?

I thought good HCR would take care of the kids FIRST!

[Ticonderoga]

188. Buddy, that ship sailed long ago

[Demeter]

2. I Think Somebody Has Lost Track of the Point of the Exercise

Does "affordable health care for all" ring a bell in DC? On 1600 Pennsylvania?

[thetonka]

5. Affordable Health Care

is NOT the same as Affordable Health Insurance.

[Demeter]

13. You Get the Prize!

Smarter than a bunch of Congressmen!

[daleanime]

56. I have to disagree...

Congressmen are not stupid, their just soulless zombie slaves of the corporate elite.:banghead:

[thetonka]

251. And people want to give them power over healthcare

[No Elephants]

69. We have neither.

[valerief]

101. Ding! Ding! Ding! nt

[pattmarty]

123. And with this bill we get neither.

[Catherina]

173. +1 n/t

[Lorien]

237. Aye, there's the rub

and any of us who have paid for our own insurance-with their monster deductibles and co-pays- knows that health care is STILL not "affordable", nor will it be when all the provisions of Obama's HCR bill kick in.

[snappyturtle]

260. Presently my mother, who has gov't. health insurance...94 years old

is in rehab with a broken hip. She is getting pristine care and it will end up costing her nothing other than her monthly premiums which total $237/mo. I am glad as hell she has it but as her primary, live-in caretaker with NO health insurance (although I paid premiums for 40 years), I am pissed that we don't all have that sort of coverage. If I fell and broke my hip I would die...period. Of course, my mom is a republican and thinks that somehow I just missed the boat, whatever. When she complained to the point of tears Monday morning in er about the possibilty of surgery all I could think of is be glad you have the insurance.

Nothing about healthcare OR insurance is affordable to the common people. No offense.imho

[wordpix]

278. I am in the same boat caring for elderly mother---with Alzheimer's

This is a round-the-clock job and I cannot leave mom alone for a minute. Luckily, for now mom can afford to pay for other caretakers besides me but her money is running dangerously low. Meanwhile, I left my job in '08 to care for her and am now working part-time with no benefits. I have to buy my own health insurance and it's very expensive. I have gone to healthcare.gov and the options are all more than I can afford except the most basic catastrophic coverage.

Meanwhile, mom gets great coverage with Medicare + private insurance at $200/mo. Without this, she would have been broke in the first year or so of this disease. We truly need a government program like Medicare to keep health care costs down!

[BrklynLiberal]

10. Guess the obvious answer is "no". It is a meaningless phrase to them.

[JerseygirlCT]

27. The problem, it seems,

is that the focus is on "affordable" (as insurers define it) for the insurers, not the insurees.

So they scream about these horrible costs, and get whatever they want. All this despite record earnings.

Health care needs to be disconnected from profit first.

[Nite Owl]

156. Exactly, the whole saving

money wasn't for us! We really need to question their every word and have have them explain the terms for everything they say.

[Recursion]

36. We don't get affordable healthcare with actuarially unsound premium schedules

If a risk pool costs insurers more than they take in, that puts everybody's insurance in jeopardy.

Expanding access to health care is not a magic bullet that will bring prices down. I know a lot of us think it is, but it just isn't.

[Demeter]

40. Single Payer Universal Health CARE

Capiche?

[Recursion]

43. "Single Payer" describes a health insurance structure, not a health care structure

So, no.

The numbers I see tell me that expanding Medicare to everyone would be tremendously, mind-numbingly expensive even if Medicare could somehow manage to keep its current negotiated reimbursement rates (they would almost certainly rise in practice).

[Demeter]

46. And yet All of Europe (With the exception of the UK) Manages to Pull It Off, Year after Year?

Pull the other one. I like my legs to be the same length.

[Recursion]

52. Yes, their procedures cost much less, and their populations are healthier

They have fewer cars and guns per capita, they don't eat baconnaise, they don't have nearly as much abject poverty, their health care providers make less, their drugs cost less, they use fewer pharmacological interventions to begin with, they run fewer tests, and those tests cost less when they run them.... the list goes on.

Eliminating one aspect of the problem, the profit motive of private insurers, doesn't really do anything to the mess we're in.

[daleanime]

57. So in your opinion....

eliminating 100 million dollar CEO 'compensation' and record profits does nothing to reduce costs?












:rofl:

[Recursion]

60. Yes. Do you really think 100 million is anything more than a drop in the bucket?

These are companies that pay tens of billions of dollars in medical claims. So, yes, there's nothing funny about saying a 100 million dollar bonus doesn't really have much effect on the economics of the situation.

[BlueDemKev]

137. Sad, but true

$100 million won't even come close to covering the medical costs associated with, say, 150 cancer patients. The REAL problem isn't the insurance companies (although they're certainly no angels), it is the OVERALL COST OF HEALTH CARE ITSELF. There's money in medicine....it's always in demand, so the price of it stays high. If we excessively try to have the gov't set fixed prices when it comes to medical care, there won't be enough health care providers to meet the demand.

I know it sucks, but it is what it is.

[Demeter]

181. It's the Attitudinal Change

and there are obese people in Europe. I had an aunt-in-law who was at least 400 lbs. Educated, wealthy, and morbidly obese. Lived to be 85 or so...

[daleanime]

288. So then what is the...

benefit of keeping them in the equation?:wtf:

[Bette Noir]

50. Yes, it has been tragic to watch Canada's descent into penury.

[Recursion]

59. Well, actually some of the provinces are starting to have payment problems

And, contrary to popular myth, if you live in a province that requires premiums, you can lose your medical coverage for failure to pay.

See my comment above, though. Compared to the US, Canada is healther, less poor, has greater economic equality, and has much cheaper medical delivery costs. I understand that you see this as the result of their health care system: I am offering the opinion that those conditions are instead the prerequesites for that kind of system being affordable. Medicare Parts A through D are still drastically more expensive than other countries' health systems, even their old-age health systems.

[Nite Owl]

155. Actually it would be a help to Medicare

As it is it is the elderly and more sick who have Medicare, adding a whole population of well, younger people would help even out the costs and lower them overall for the program.

[enlightenment]

261. Would you like to share some of those numbers?

You have posted multiple times in this thread, tossing out your opinion - it would be helpful to see some citation for your point of view.

Thanks.

[Recursion]

280. Which numbers?

2.6 trillion a year in payments to health providers (just for the inadequate medical care we provide today) is from Kaiser
US population of 307 million is from the US census
700 billion a year on Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA is from the trustees' reports (actually the Medicaid bit was from Kaiser too)
A per-person per-year cost of $6188 comes from subtraction and then division (1.9 trillion / 307 million)
A per-person per-month cost of $515 also comes from division (6188 / 12; the 12 months in the year comes from Pope Gregory the Great, I think)

That's just to pay for the inadequate care we currently provide. We want to provide more care (both more care to the people with insurance and care in the first place to people without it). So we want providers to work more (either more doctors and nurses, or the current doctors and nurses doing more work, or some combination), and unless we want the premiums for our national health system to be $515 per person per month, we want this for less money than we're paying now. I want somebody to tell me what providers are going to make less money than they are now, for doing more work. (Like I said, drug companies are probably a place to start, though I don't think we can solve the problem just there.)

[defendandprotect]

110. As long as we are footing the bill for Congress' health care + automatic pay raises every year ....

they're not going to hear any bells ringing for anyone but themselves!!

[KansDem]

3. "Earlier this year, major insurers, faced with an unprofitable business,.."

That's why health-care insurance should not be a "for profit business."

Like education, energy, defense, and the environment, health care should be a national security issue and not left in the hands of private concerns...

Why does this logic escape so many in this country?

[thetonka]

7. On the other hand

I don trust the politicians either. As long as health care decisions are controlled by money or politics the people will suffer.

We need to scrap and start over with systems that offer choices that satisfy peoples needs and are managed by people who understand medicine, like maybe DOCTORS. There is no one size fits all, and there is no way that Lawyers and Accountants can properly decide what is and is not necessary for proper medicine.

[KansDem]

18. BUT if you don't trust politicians, you VOTE THEM OUT OF OFFICE!!!

YOU are in control of the government. I'M in control of the government. WE are in control of the government. WE decide on how are government operates and if it doesn't meet our needs or expectations, WE vote in another one...

The mantra that "government is evil and shouldn't be trusted" is a holdover from the Reagan era. And it looks like a mantra that was put out into the public airways as a cover for complete control by the corporations. And corporations answer to stockholders and investors, NOT to the American people.

You don't trust politicians? I don't trust corporation CEOs.

But WE can vote politicians in or out--when was the last time you tried to vote a CEO "in or out?"

Do you really believe corporations have the best interests of this country at heart?

[Demeter]

33. When was the last time you tried to vote someone out of office? Like say, W?

[Art_from_Ark]

242. It's been hard enough trying to vote the R's out of the 3rd Congressional

district in Arkansas-- they've held that seat for 44 years, and it looks like they'll hold on to it for at least 2 more.

[defendandprotect]

112. Right wing propaganda -- as effective as the Nazi-era propaganda --

created the realtity we are all living now --

Elites/corporates/right wing have one ability ... to BUY anything they need --

and that includes political violence, stolen elections, and any astroturf organization

they think is required -- from demonstrators for a fascist rally to stop the vote

counting in Miami-Dade County in 2000 -- to the T-baggers created by Freedom Works/

Dick Armey and run out of a PR firm!

[thetonka]

249. YEA RIGHT, like that's a guarantee.

Do you really want to trust your medical decisions to politicians that you MIGHT be able to vote out of office if you don't agree with them and the majority of the people agree with you.

Wouldn't you rather trust a doctor with these decisions?

[KansDem]

305. "Wouldn't you rather trust a doctor with these decisions?"

Sure, but more and more of those decisions are being made by corporations based on their bottom line.

Maybe you don't mind a third of every healthcare dollar you spend going to CEO salaries, but I sure as hell do...

DU thread: Health insurance industry CEO salary survey, stay calm for this

Oh, and there were never any "Obama Death Panels" as the right-wing wanted you to believe, but there were sure a lot of Corporate Heath Care Death Panels:

DU thread: The Sorry State of U.S. Health Care "Reform"

That's right, when you accident or illness threatens their bottom line...adios!

Did you really think a few powerful CEOs, acting in secret for the benefit of "investors," really had the best interests of the American people at heart?

on edit: Oh, here's another: DU thread: 'GMA' Gets Answers: Newborn Baby With Pre-Existing Condition?

Death panel, indeed...

[Hepburn]

15. AMEN, AMEN, AMEN...

AMEN, AMEN, AMEN, AMEN, AMEN, AMEN, AMEN, AMEN, AMEN, AMEN, AMEN, AMEN, AMEN, AMEN, AMEN, AMEN, AMEN, AMEN, AMEN, AMEN, AMEN, AMEN, AMEN, AMENAMEN, AMEN, AMEN, AMEN, AMEN, AMEN, , AMEN, AMEN, AMEN, AMEN, AMEN, AMEN, AMEN, AMEN, AMEN, AMEN, AMEN, AMEN...etc.

[JerseygirlCT]

28. Exactly! nt

[bigdaddycoles66]

31. That's why health-care insurance should not be a "for profit business."

Amen to that! Anytime a company can determine if you will get the proper coverage based on a profit margin, it will always lead to scary situation. Let hope it changes or if it doesn't, it doesn't happen to you or me. Healthcare and Capitalism does not mix!

[Recursion]

48. Then why aren't non-profit insurance plans any better?

If profit motive is the issue, why didn't Blue Cross take the nation by storm and provide universal access at a low price?

[dflprincess]

62. Non-profit insurers still have executive salaries to pay

as well as commissions to its sales force & advertising expenses. In Minnesota the permissible MLR is somewhere between 15% & 20% (I forget the exact number) for the nonprofits. Medicare's admin expenses run about 3%.

[Recursion]

67. OK, so let's pretend we cut through all that. Insurance costs go down by 12-17%

Let's be generous and say 17%. Your premium is 17% cheaper this year than last year. How many people does that 17% drop make insurance affordable for? I don't think it's all that many.

[dflprincess]

71. According to Wendell Potter the insurers have all sorts of ways of

getting around the MLRs & chances are savings would be a good deal more that the 17%. If someone outside the company isn't auditing what's going on they can get by with murder (literally when you think of the claims they deny).

Several years ago the state Attorney General's office started an audit of the big 3 non-profits and what they found at one of them was incredible - (Renting luxury condos, supplying the brokers with gold golf tees, just to name a couple) but the reports they had filed before the audit all looked like they were within the MLR and there are some states where the Insurance Commission or AG would be content to take the company's word for it.

[Recursion]

76. OK, I'll grant that

But they still have to take in at least as much money as they pay out, right?

We spend 2 trillion dollars a year on health care. Not on insurance. On the actual treatments and doctors vists and tests and drugs.

Divide it by the population and you get about $500 per month per person, or about $1000 per month per household. Even Medicare's full premium is $800 per month (most people pay $100 with the remainder coming out of the Medicare trust fund we all pay into -- and which, just to add to the fun, is projected to go broke in 2029). And these numbers don't count the prescription drug coverage. Even if we did all that stuff at the Medicare reimbursement rates, it comes down to about $400 per month per person, or about $800 per month per household. It's still not close to affordable. No solution will work unless we can drastically cut how much providers receive for medical care.

[No Elephants]

83. $800 per month per household is a damned good start.

[Recursion]

86. Way out of reach for me

Policies set at $600 per month have been spat upon and vilified here. How do you expect to get people behind $800 per month?

[No Elephants]

92. Thought you meant $400 to $800 a month less. No one's spit on saving $800 a month.

[Recursion]

95. I must have been extremely unclear. $800 per household would be the premium

if we did all our current medical work, at medicare rates, and paid a universal premium for it.

[No Elephants]

96. No, I probably read too fast the first time

[Recursion]

98. The way my keyboard's acting up I wouldn't be surprised to see I had written in Swahili

Hujambo daktari! Fedha kiasi gani utahitaji?

[Iowa]

176. Wow! I'd give anything to pay $800 per month!! I pay more than twice that now...

$800 per month would provide me with $875 per month in savings.

[Lorien]

240. Ho do you afford it?

That's more than my mortgage, utilities, AND grocery bill every month!

[Iowa]

262. Here's my budget:

Medical Expenses (Insurance and out-of-pocket): $21,000/yr
Everything Else: Roughly $27,000/yr

I'm retired. We (wife and I) own our house free and clear, so there's no mortgage anymore. I own 2 cars outright (pay cash). No debt. I'm at that stage of life where things are much easier financially. We were also super-savers for many years, and our investments did well. But there is a point where insurance rates will drive me out of the market. I hope to hit Medicare before then. Only time will tell.

[olegramps]

272. You have neglected an important factor:

In some European health care systems the premium that you pay is based on your income. Some pay significantly more than the average citizen. The same could apply to a revised American system. But I will have to agree that our health care is far more expensive than in Europe. This is a major problem. It should also be noted that 60% of bankruptcies are due to medical cost and that 80% of these people had insurance.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/06/05/bankruptcy.medical... /

[defendandprotect]

113. Thanks for the info!!

[Demeter]

182. And the massive paperwork!

Denying all those claims takes lots of labor.

[Recursion]

197. Medicare denies claims at a greater rate than any private insurer

Four times greater than the average.

And yet it has lower administrative costs.

[thetonka]

281. My non-profit is a huge improvement

I have had a number of Health Insurance companies over the years, including a couple non-profits. The problem is they were are still insurance. Insurance, even if it is non-profit, ALWAYS has to manage risk. This eventually will lead to rationing of coverage, especially if they are mandated to cover all.

I am with Kaiser now, and happier than EVER before. While Kaiser is a non-profit and does pay(very well) for "out of network" services, i.e at emergency rooms they do not own, Kaiser is a Health Care SYSTEM. We have been able to get eye appts and MRIs, and X-rays and specialist appointments on weekends. We have never been denied anything we need. And more importantly the decisions for what we need are made BY OUR DOCTOR. He/She does not have to ask an accountant or lawyer for permission to get paid for something I need.

Kaiser has had a tough history and is not by any means perfect, but it is far better than anything else I have ever seen.

If I would dream about a better way for this country it would that everyone had access to similar systems like Kaiser. I would however NOT want this to be a system run by the politicians, who are accountants and lawyers. I trust my doctor, I don't trust elected officials.

If anyone is not aware of what Kaiser is, the best way to think about it is as a co-op. Just like many food co-ops you buy in(membership) and you pay for point of sale(co-pay). Since everyone works for Kaiser there is a huge layer of paperwork and bullshit that is removed.

[Catherina]

174. +1 n/t

[thetonka]

4. Health Insurance is NOT Health Care

And as long as keep believing in this flawed concept and let the power of medical decisions remain in the hands of Lawyers and Accountants, regardless of whether those lawyers or accountants are on a board of directors or in DC, things will get worse.

[onpatrol98]

30. I think the light bulb is finally beginnng to come on for me....

Keeping the same health plan that you like...is a ridiculous pursuit. The only "liked" health care plan is the one you haven't had to use with a catastrophic condition yet AND that is affordable. But, what's the use of "affordable" if once you actually have to use it, the price skyrockets so that you can no longer afford it OR it simply does not allow you to receive the care you need.

The ONLY thing that can help the American public is to remove the profit incentive from health care. As long as we have the beast known as health care insurance REGARDLESS as to whether or not the government is involved or not, profit is the goal of the insurer, pharmaceutical companies, medical equipment providers, etc.

This problem is enormous and has been oversimplified by all political parties as a ploy for votes. In fact, even with the public option, as long as the parties ACTUALLY PROVIDING THE CARE, require a profit, our costs will continually go up, either our direct out of pocket expenses OR taxes. And no company...drug company, medical supply company, physician is going to exist for long without a profit.

Do we even know what the "real" cost of care should be for some ailments? Are we being price gouged? If prices were realigned to fit the real cost, what would those numbers look like? Are we looking at million dollar hammers? If so, nothing apart from potential prosecution of all parties involved is going to help our current health care system. Even a public option or true socialized medicine in America would eventually bankrupt us. We could all pay 100% of our taxes and if the phony costs of care simply rise based on some profit formula, unknown by the public and unchecked by the government is permitted...we couldn't win.

Full disclosure and accountability or literally ALL PLANS FAIL.

[bigdaddycoles66]

34. Keeping the same health plan that you like...is a ridiculous pursuit.

Great Post! Spoken and written so well. Spread the word we are all on board!

[Bette Noir]

47. All that talk about "If you like your insurance, you can keep it" ?

The corollary was never said out loud: If you hate your insurance, you still have to keep it.

My DH is out of work. COBRA for the sucky insurance his ex-employer chose costs 3/4 as much as he gets in unemployment. Uncovered medical expenses take the rest. Even when the rest of the reforms kick in in 2014, we'd have to go without insurance for 6 months before we would be allowed to shop around for a better policy.

And yet, the Administration brags about its "historic health care reform." Historic, my ass.

[defendandprotect]

116. Nice post .... we also have a health care system NOT based on preventive care ....

And, more and more people, faced with higher co-pays and higher costs for insurance

are putting off care until severe complications develop.

Keep in mind, also, very few companies these days provide dental care in their plans.

Once we moved into MEDICARE FOR ALL -- which IMO we should be opening up to those

55 years and older right now -- there would probably be a great rise in expenses for

a period of time until we got all of this under control again.

But -- completely agree with you that ALL pricing for care is questionable and IMO

totally insane!

[fascisthunter]

184. For most of the World for Profit Health Insurance is Illegal

there was a really good reason for making it illegal. People should NEVER have to depend on their wealth for healthcare. It's classist and punishing those who do not have enough income.

[thetonka]

277. Not quite the truth

While many countries have free for all basic health care many people can and do buy supplemental health insurance and pay additional premiums to access better health care. Just as examples off the top of my head people in Canada and the UK have available and do purchase private Health Insurance, from for profit companies, to supplement the public Health Care.

[fascisthunter]

295. Germany has something similar too...

...if the medical procedure is not health related, as in cosmetic surgery, then there are services that do profit.

[thetonka]

300. I don't understand

you made the claim that for most for profit Health Insurance is illegal. I've been looking around and can not find anything anywhere that says Health Insurance is illegal in any country.

Was your original claim sarcasm, or can you provide links to support this claim?

[thetonka]

256. Under most health insurance we are getting ripped off

My brother in law has no insurance. He had a heart attack a while back and since then has been in and out of the hospital. He now needs a pacemaker and will have to pay cash for it. He has been shopping around to find the best doctor and the best price. He has received cash price quotes from $25,000 to $60,000. In every case the hospital has said the insurance price was $160,000.

To clarify ....

Less than $60,000 for cash
$160,000 for insurance.

Anyone who thinks mandating more insurance is a solution to the problem does not understand the problem. Insurance IS the problem, and it is unbelievably offensive that our "representatives" are forcing more of this garbage on us, and bragging about how it's going to make things better.

All the more reason I do not trust our government with my medical decisions, they can't even honestly figure out what is wrong with situation at hand.

[dkf]

6. I can't believe anyone could be shocked by this.

This is what happens when you put profit making ventures between people and their health care providers. The model was flawed from the beginning.

[BillH76]

11. Cherry picking has been replaced by price discrimination.

The same rule will be in effect for adults in 2014 when the plan goes into effect. People can't be denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions, but they will have to pay higher premiums.

So-called "health care reform" is designed by and for the insurance business. They will get millions of new, mandatory customers without any ceiling on premiums or profits. A capitalist dream come true!

[Recursion]

97. Non-profits are raising premiums too.

Providing medical care for sick people costs a lot of money, whether it's paid for by a for-profit, non-profit, or government insurer.

[TBF]

147. Only because it's currently for-profit -

it wouldn't have to be that way.

[Recursion]

189. I said "non-profits". Like my insurance.

It's a plan from a not-for-profit corporation. They exist. They're actually pretty common.

[TBF]

229. As long as the country is capitalist, everything is modeled on

the for-profit model, and your plan may be non-profit but it is dealing with doctors/hospitals/pharmaceutical companies that are most certainly for profit and that means there are certain realities (higher costs) that go with it. As I said, it wouldn't have to be that way.

[Exilednight]

245. Your not-for-profit insurance company is really a for profit corporation ..............

You have one of two types of insurance providers ...........

1. You get your insurance through a non-profit middle-man. Basically, your actual insurance is for profit, but the people you pay your premium to are non-profit brokers.

OR

2. You get your insurance from a non-profit-corporation. Not-for-corporations still pay lavish salaries in the health-care industry. They are also required, by law, to retain a certain percentage of dollars in liquidity to cover unexpected costs. Depending on how financially big the non-profit is determines what percentage of saving to expected expenditures they must keep on hand.

I ran a non-profit-corporation that had an operating cost of roughly around $6 million per year. We were required to keep a minimum of 10% annual operating costs on hand in reserves, but no more than 15%.

[BillH76]

298. That isn't profit.

Profit is money over and above all costs, including a prudent reserve.h

[beforeyoureyes]

117. When doctors and nurses were arrested at Senate Hearings without a peep from the Prez

...for advocating for single payer, it said it all.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

8. And this is why --

the model of receiving healthcare via for-profit health insurance is WRONG WRONG WRONG.

:banghead:

Single payer or bust.

[BrklynLiberal]

9. there just are no words..............betrayal hardly begins go cover it

[chimpymustgo]

23. WE threw away unprecedented political capital to pass this BULLSHIT. These motherfuckers.

[brentspeak]

53. Post of the Day.

Sums up the entire disasterous Health Care Deform law.

[Recursion]

41. What's the betrayal? Expanding access is going to cost money.

Universal coverage is more expensive than what we have now, not less. Unless we find a way for the costs of treatments to go drastically down, this is going to be very very very expensive however we pay for it.

[No Elephants]

80. Yes, we know expanding access costs money. It also saves lives.

Letting people die for lack of health care is not an option, unless you're a monster.

We have endless money for defense and homeland security, so let's just call it homeland defense and the money will magically appear. And, we could stop paying lip service to cutting government waste and actually, FINALLY, make that a point of honor.

I do agree with you that costs must come down, even if we have single payer.

[Recursion]

88. The entire defense budget (counting the 2 wars) was 1.1 trillion

That's half of what we spend on medical care. Let's say we devote the entirety of that to health care (and I doubt even on DU we could find someone who literally supports that idea): we still have to come up with a trillion dollars.

Letting people die for lack of health care is not an option, unless you're a monster.

Of course it's an option. It's always going to happen. We have finite resources and there will always be people who would have survived longer with more expensive care. Period. Even in England and Canada this is true. The question is how much can we spend, and who is going to decide what to spend it on? Since we're both DUer's, it's a safe bet we both think that in broad strokes the right answers to those questions are "A lot, and someone from the government". But there's a lot of room for reality to wiggle its way into there.

And, we could stop paying lip service to cutting government waste and actually, FINALLY, make that a point of honor.

John Adams came in to the Presidency talking about cutting waste, fraud, and abuse from government spending. It's been an uphill fight since then. But, yes, we can and should do more.

I do agree with you that costs must come down, even if we have single payer.

What I keep coming back to, though, is that if we can get costs down enough for single payer to be affordable, we won't really need single payer. Not that single payer would be a bad thing, but if medical expenses spread out over the population were, say, $150 per month per person, or whatever, private insurance rates would be low enough that we wouldn't have a health care crisis to begin with.

[BlueDemKev]

154. I think Recursion....

...is not an antagonist. Recursion agrees with what we've been saying for well over a year, but the fact is there is a stubborn thing called money. Medical care is expensive. If insurance companies are to be forced to cover everyone, including those who need more medical care than the average person, it only makes sense that the cost of insurance will rise. Even if we had a single-payer gov't run insurance system, the amount we'd have to pay into it to cover everyone will also be extremely high.

The health care law is historic because insurance companies are no longer allowed to deny people coverage due to pre-existing conditions nor can they cancel somebody's coverage after they get sick. However, now that everyone is required to be covered by the insurance companies, it must be paid for. It's either lower insurance premiums or guaranteed insurance coverage. I, personally, prefer the latter.

[Recursion]

200. I'm not trying to be contrary or to piss people off

I just honestly can't come up with an idea for a single payer system that doesn't completely bankrupt us.

[eridani]

253. Horseshit. Why does every other industrialized country have care for everyone

--at far lower cost?

[Recursion]

255. They can afford care for everyone because they have far lower costs

We currently pay medical providers 2.6 trillion dollars every year. That's just for the insufficient amount of medical care we give now.

This isn't about insurance. This is what is paid to the doctors, hospitals, nurses, drug companies, medical device manufacturers, personal care assistants, etc. -- and both Medicare and insurance companies are putting a lot of downward pressure on that already.

We want to increase these people's workload by about 20%, and have them do it for less money.

So, who is going to get paid less, in that list above? Drug companies seem like a good place to start, but I don't think negotiating lower drug prices will be even close to enough.

[BlueDemKev]

279. Correct

Doctors, medical providers, etc. get paid WAY more in America than they do in other western European nations. If we now try to force doctors to accept a 40-50% pay cut, there will be fewer doctors who will be able to treat everyone who needs help. That will inevitably lead to wait lists, rationing, and inferior care.

This is why I prefer the health reform plan proposed by the president last year....it preserves the free market health care system in the U.S., but helps control SOME (though not all) of its excesses--private insurance companies can no longer deny someone for having a pre-existing condition, nor can they cancel someone's insurance after they get sick. It also requires all citizens to take responsibility for themselves and purchase insurance coverage for themselves so the rest of us don't get stuck paying their medical bill every time they go to the E.R. when they get sick.

Is the new law perfect? Heck no! But is it a lot better than what we've had? Absolutely YES. Are we going to sit back and let the Republican-Tea Party repeal it?

LET'S GO VOTE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[No Elephants]

168. And how much do we spend on FBI, CIA, homeland security, etc?

No one really knows.

"We have finite resources and there will always be people who would have survived longer with more expensive care. Period."

No, I'm talking basics, like dying bc you can't affords your meds or even one doctor's visit per year.

"Even in England and Canada this is true."

Again, in extreme cases. Queen Elizabeth and her Corgis and Obama and Bo get better care than I or Brits do. But I --and they--could afford the ER when I got horribly allergic to a medicine recently. And medicines that are necessary to keep me alive and relatively comfortable. And if your solution is denying people that much, frankly, fuck off.

"John Adams came in to the Presidency talking about cutting waste, fraud, and abuse from government spending"


I know. That's why "finally" was in all caps in my post.

"What I keep coming back to, though, is that if we can get costs down enough for single payer to be affordable, we won't really need single payer."

Single payer is part of keeping costs down. though

[Recursion]

193. FBI is about 8 billion

Most CIA-watchers put CIA at about twice that, 15 billion or so

DHS is 56 billion (some of which is probably part of the 15 billion above)

So, all together we have about 70 billion or so.

And medicines that are necessary to keep me alive and relatively comfortable. And if your solution is denying people that much, frankly, fuck off.

That's not my solution whatsoever. Your solution, however, seems to be to just wave your hands and assume the savings from single payer will cover the medicines to keep people alive and relatively comfortable.

Single payer is part of keeping costs down. though

I'm sure it would lower costs. I'm not convinced it would be remotely enough to make the kind of expanded health care access we're talking about affordable (remember, the numbers I'm getting from Kaiser are just the very insufficient amount of medical care we currently provide). And all I'm seeing is hand-waving about "savings" as a justification.

[olegramps]

269. Aren't hospital cost greatly affected by non-insured patients?

Also the cost of obtaining a medical degree in the United States is far more costly than in Europe. Just for starters people in most of Europe can attend college tuition free and medical school is far less expensive. People graduating from our medical schools can end up owning as much as $300,000 or more. Some people that I know of are going to England or Germany to obtain medical treatment since it is far less expensive. There is also the case of people going to South American countries to get medical treatment. For elective surgery such as dental implants some are going to the Dominican Republic. People who don't have insurance and require medical care should explore this possibility.

I really don't know if we can ever expect to correct the problem since it has become so massive. We would just have to start over to solve all the problems that confront us. The high costs of drugs, hospital care, medical personnel costs, and now massive unemployment and millions without any insurance are staggering problems with no easy solution. We had better start looking at countries like Germany for example. How can they have a positive trade surplus while we have a staggering trade deficient? Their kids can obtain a college degree almost tuition free while our kids come out owing thousands of dollars and little prospect for employment that will allow them to pay off the loans and live comfortably. We have to totally realign our priorities. We just can't afford these damn wars and military expenditures. We can't afford to have hundreds of military bases throughout the world. The fact of the matter is we can't afford to provide medical treatment for 40 million people who don't have any insurance.

[Safetykitten]

12. Well, well, well...more "who woulda thought" moments. It's only the begining.

But really, it can't get worse! Can it?

[Demeter]

16. Nibchee!

or "Nobody Could Have Expected..." Condoleeza Rice

[PSPS]

14. "buy such coverage at the last minute"

They said that the Obama administration’s interpretation of the new health care law would allow families to buy such coverage at the last minute, when children became ill and were headed to the hospital.

A valid concern, and the biggest reason why we should simply have medicare for all. Everyone pays in and everyone is covered ... before "heading to the hospital."

[xxqqqzme]

17. Medicare, Part 'E'

for Everyone!

[Recursion]

44. It would face the exact same actuarial problems the private insurance companies do

Sick people are very expensive to insure, because medical treatments in the US cost so much.

Any idea what the premium for Medicare Part E would be?

[daleanime]

63. A lot less then private companies could provide....

no 100 million for the CEO, no record profits=less expensive!:banghead:

[Recursion]

66. Any evidence for that?

100 million for a CEO is not enough to affect the premiums -- we're talking companies that move tens of billions of dollars for millions of policyholders.

If you haven't paid in to the trust fund, Medicare Parts A and B is very expensive, about $800 per month with a $1000 deductible. How much cheaper would Medicare Part E be?

[ProudDad]

132. $150 per month per person...

With the poor paying nothing and the rich much more...

It could be covered COMPLETELY without changing current tax rates by just cutting the war department budgets by 50% and using the savings for Enhanced and Improved Medicare for All!

[Recursion]

139. Nope

It could be covered COMPLETELY without changing current tax rates by just cutting the war department budgets by 50% and using the savings for Enhanced and Improved Medicare for All!

Wouldn't that be nice? Unfortunately the numbers aren't there.

Roughly $2 trillion is spent per year by people other than the government on health care.

The DoD budget, including both wars, is 1 trillion. Cut that in half you get $500 billion to play around with. Devote that all to health care and you still have to come up with $1.5 trillion from some form of premiums.

You said you wanted to make it progressive. If it's absolutely flat that shakes out to just over $400 per month per person (1.5 trillion / 300 million). So, how progressive do you make it? How much does each quintile have to pay?

Look, I'm not trying to be a killjoy. I would love to come up with a plan that works but every time I try I keep running in to the fact that our health care is really, really expensive.

[ProudDad]

148. You keep assuming that we must continue to pay twice as much

per person as those countries who HAVE Universal, Comprehensive Health Care...

By restructuring the for-profit Sick Care system into an actual Health Care system and controlling major costs at the source -- by declaring Health Care a Civil Right and enforcing that dictum...

We could cut the costs in half and still have "Cadillac care"!

The ACTUAL DOD budget, including debt payments for the previous wars and garrisoning put on the credit card is more like $1.4 Trillion including the unnecessary, useless wars...

And the TOTAL health care costs in the U.S. are 2.3-2.5 trillion, that's the whole magilla, not just the government piece...

If we paid as much per person as the Health Care system ranked number ONE in the world our total would be $1.2 Trillion...

That would average out to $300 per person -- again with the RICH paying significantly more and the poor nothing.

I will grant you that 1.2 trillion is more than the $700 Billion savings from cutting the military by 50%...

----------------------------

My choice would be to cut the military by 75% and cut everyone's average health care expenditure by 50%!

----------------------------

Our health care is really, really expensive because it's so f*cked up by the profit motive.

It only concerns itself with what makes the most profit rather than what promotes the best Health Outcomes!

Do I have any hope that here in the corporate owned and operated USAmerikan Empire, the belly of the beast, that anything will substantially change...well, NO!

But that doesn't negate the FACTS that if the political will were there an affordable, effective Health Care system could be done rather easily.

[Recursion]

152. OK, you tell me what providers are going to make less under your plan

What providers will get paid less than they are now, and by how much?

[ProudDad]

161. That's not my job...

I'm here to point out the obvious facts to folks so hung up on the "USAmerican way" of thinking about and doing anything..

(How can it make a profit? Nobody will do anything unless they can make a shitpot of money!), etc.

By pointing out the evidence...

That the rest of the civilized Earth has done it differently and better by just deciding that Health Care is a human right - NOT a commodity.

Just use the Google machine and find out for yourself the individual details by country that describe how the civilized world does it better...

[ProudDad]

130. Much less that private

especially when we FIX THE COSTS and TELL the drug companies, etc. what we're going to PAY THEM, not let them set prices.

Do your HOMEWORK!

Every industrialized, civilized nation with Universal, Comprehensive Health Care have better outcomes at 1/2 or LESS the cost.

US Sick Care costs so much because it's owned, managed and run by leeches! Get the goddamn leeches out of the system.

NO PROFITS ALLOWED beyond the minimum to stay in business. Health Care is a RIGHT, NOT a commodity.

But, to directly answer your question, the premium for any reasonable Medicare Part E -- with Everyone in, nobody out -- with the cost outliers controlled -- with decentralized delivery of care with stress on preventive --

Would average somewhere around $150 per month...per person...

In a reasonable system, the poor would pay nothing and the rich would pay more...

[Recursion]

135. As I keep asking...

especially when we FIX THE COSTS and TELL the drug companies, etc. what we're going to PAY THEM

OK, I'll definitely jump on board with you there that we need to be more forceful with pharma about pricing. Whether it's explicit price controls or rejection of IP claims if meds are too expensive, one way or the other.

Every industrialized, civilized nation with Universal, Comprehensive Health Care have better outcomes at 1/2 or LESS the cost.

We disagree about cause and effect. You look at their universal, comprehensive health care and say that is why the cost is 1/2 what it is here. I'm suggesting that their much lower costs are why universal, comprehensive health care is possible for them.

[ProudDad]

163. They tell the suppliers of equipment, drugs and services

what they're going to be paid...

They industry is NOT allowed to tell the People what they are going to be coerced into paying...

The CAUSE IS that these countries decided that everyone will get Comprehensive, Effective Health Care as a right and they tell the corporations what they're going to be paid. The EFFECT is that costs are kept much lower...thanks to the POWER of the People's monopoly on Health Care provision.

[LanternWaste]

206. Post hoc ergo prompter hoc.

"I'm suggesting that their much lower costs are why universal, comprehensive health care is possible for them...

Post hoc ergo prompter hoc.

[Recursion]

218. Was that a typo or a pun?

I'm familiar with the fallacy "post hoc ergo propter hoc", which is basically the fallacy I'm implying some posters are making.

[Vinca]

19. Isn't that special? The kids can get coverage IF their parents have money.

Sorry, poor kids. You're expendable . . . just like those of us with pre-existing conditions who can't afford the wonderful "pool."

[neverforget]

20. Profit before health of the children. DISGUSTING!

:argh: :mad: :wtf: :nuke:

[gateley]

21. The ONLY way to make health care affordable is to take it out of the for-profit sector. nt

[Recursion]

38. My health insurance is non-profit. Why isn't it drastically cheaper?

Profit is a moral stain on the issue but doesn't seem to actually have that much of an effect: my non-profit health insurance provider isn't any cheaper than the for-profit policies I've had.

[No Elephants]

84. You're raising that again? Being incorporated as a not for profit does not mean

you are not allowed to make a profit.

[Recursion]

89. You're still ignoring the definition of "non-profit"?

There literally is no such thing as a non-profit corporation making a profit. They may hold a surplus year to year (in fact, we would hope an insurance company does that), but by definition no profits are paid out to shareholders. Nobody has profits to chase, so that's not what influences decision making. People may want to increase the corp's endowment (and, again, for an insurance company we probably want that), but if the profit motive is the problem then a non-profit doesn't have that.

Hell, by your definition of "profit" Medicare makes a "profit", since it's sitting on a trust fund.

[No Elephants]

111. I'm ignoring nothing. And the correct term is not for profit, as in not

formed for the purpose of making a profit. "Non-profit" is a misnomer that often leads to the mistaken belief that a not for profit may not operate at profit.

If you are organized for a purpose other than making a profit, nothing prevents you from making one. Just ask any mega church. Or Benny Hinn. Or Trinity Broadcasting Network. Or universities with massive endowments--and high tuitions. Or Mass General Hospital, which has been gobbling up Boston's high priced real estate. (Boston University, too.)

No dividends are paid to shareholders, true, but the entity can operate at a profit. Two different issues. And can spend like a drunken sailor and can pay huge compensation.


Whether you call it a surplus or a profit is irrelevant to your argument about the profit motive and a not for profit status.

[liberation]

235. Funny you should talk about definitions, given than "non-profit" doesn't mean what you think it does

In the USA a non-profit organization is basically defined as a corporation which does not have to return dividends to stock holders. The 700 club is technically ran as a "non-profit" and yet they seem to have all those gold encrusted lavatories in their headquarters.

You, as usual, are grasping at straws playing games with definitions in order to spin what it is, and should be, basically indefensible.

I remember people used to joke in this site during the Bush years, that if Bush was to fuck a goat in prime time TV, his supporters would find all sorts of excuses and justifications. It is now clear, that is not a characteristic exclusive to the Republican party....

[gateley]

121. I should have said get the "insurance" out of it. Actually, I should have just said

Government provided health care.

The entire system needs to go.

[ProudDad]

134. Because your "not for profit" insurance

if that's ACTUALLY what it is -- most Blue Cross/Blue Shield, which began as non-profit, are NOW for-profit companies...

But...let's say yours is actually non-profit...

The "market rates" for the for-profit sick care industry are SET by the for-profit leeches. Since they have you by the balls -- ("you wanna' live, you pay what we demand") -- they can set the "costs" wherever they wish.

Look at the rest of the Earth though -- In the CIVILIZED, Industrial nations Health Care is a right and is universal, comprehensive and cheaper with BETTER outcomes by EVERY measure...

You're just protecting the profits of the leeches with your pro-corporate attitude.

[Recursion]

149. That doesn't even make sense

The "market rates" for the for-profit sick care industry are SET by the for-profit leeches. Since they have you by the balls -- ("you wanna' live, you pay what we demand") -- they can set the "costs" wherever they wish.

Except, there actually is competition. Every year my work's HR person goes through the available plans and picks one. Cost factors in to that. When she discusses it with us, cost is actually usually the biggest deciding factor.

Furthermore, every year when they set those rates, the insurers have to provide actuarial justification for them to the state.

Thirdly, why should a not-for-profit medical plan like mine (Tufts Medical, incidentally, you can look it up if you want) care what a for-profit plan charges? All they care about is getting enough money in to pay for their claims (hopefully with some sort of cash on hand pool saved up). What do they gain by charging us more?

[ProudDad]

158. And you are assuming that USAmericans getting GOUGED

to subsidize the profits of the Health-Industrial Complex is the ONLY way to do things!

It is not.

Collectively, we have the power to tell THEM what we're going to pay not let them set the "price" according to their profit requirements.

-------------------------------------------

And YOUR premium is NOT set in a vacuum. It's set by a NON-COMPETITIVE "MARKET"... It's set by "costs" that include huge profit margins and corporate pork.

Tufts Medical appears to be a University Hospital operation. Just like the horrible corporate environment my significant other works in as a Registered Nurse. They pass through market prices that are imposed on them by the for-profit health-industrial-complex and the drug companies and they get it from the deformed for-excessive-profit insurance companies.

As for what they gain by charging more? Excess Profits up and down the line...for the entire health-industrial-complex.

[fascisthunter]

183. well said

thank you

[MsPithy]

22. But, but, but, isn't the MISSION ACCOMPLISHED banner

really pretty?

[No Elephants]

114. Oh, wow. I just remembered the WH's asking docs to show up in the lab coats.

Well, at least Obama did not don one for the photo, too.

[pattmarty]

24. The more the fine print is looked at the stinkier this bill gets. The Dems....

.........will be saddled with this piece of shit for years.

[ArcticFox]

25. I'm happy for one thing

I don't think I see a single person on this board defending President Obama on this.

[bigdaddycoles66]

35. defending President Obama on this.

It is all a working process. Remember it was the Republicans that eliminated the single pay health care exchange program. We need to get out and vote early and vote Democrat so we can revisit the Healthcare bill without the obstructionist.

[placton]

55. bullshit Big Daddy - OBAMA sold us out on

single payer then lies about it repeatedly

[Bette Noir]

75. You have your terms confused.

"Single payer" was never on the table, kept off, I believe, by our old buddy Rahm.

The health insurance exchange is in the final bill, as passed, but doesn't go into effect until 2014, and won't be available to anyone who hasn't been without health insurance of any kind for at least 6 months.

It's a "Damned if you do, damned if you don't" system. You're required to buy insurance, but aren't allowed to shop around for a good policy unless you have failed to buy insurance for half a year or more. I'm too risk-averse to go without insurance, so I'm paying 75% of our family income for a sucky policy that barely covers 30% of unexpected expenses. F'rinstance, when I scratched my cornea, the eye doc charged $225 for treatment. The insurance reimbursed me $62

[No Elephants]

91. Rahm's a turd, but single payer was off the table during Obama's campaign.

I don't think we can pin it on Rahm.

[No Elephants]

87. When did we have a single pay health care exchange program for the Republicans to eliminate?

"We need to get out and vote early and vote Democrat so we can revisit the Healthcare bill without the obstructionist."


Yeah, if we work really hard for four years and donate more than we can afford, maybe we can get an overwhelming majority of Democrats in the House, sixty Senators in the Democratic Caucus AND a Democrat in the WH. THEN. we'll be sure to get affordable health care.

[pattmarty]

108. Oh, the Republicans "eliminated" single payer? Fucking news to me............

.............And, if we all get out and vote and we keep the House with say a 10 seat advantage and the Senate with a 4 seat advantage EXACTLY how are WE going to "revisit" the healthcare bill? Jesusfuckingchrist, get real. The healthcare "reform" is what it is and it ain't gonna get any better.

[Exilednight]

246. Obama will not revisit HCR. He got a bill and declared victory. n/t

[Guilded Lilly]

26. The sickest people in this country are the ones

who continue to prey on the misfortunes of human frailty....ESPECIALLY children.

Unfortunately I think letting the Republican party control any of this process would make it much worse, but my disappointment levels in the Democrats run very high.
Damn indeed.

[Bonhomme Richard]

29. What if you don't insure your child? Does that mean that.....

your sick child then goes into the system as indigent and we all pay for the coverage? I'm just asking. I want universal health care and it is the only way that makes sense to me. And yes, health care as a profit making business is absurd.

[colsohlibgal]

32. Historic? Hardly

Cost has been the one thing that democrats have avoided talking about in any specifics. The term affordable is laughable. Affordable for Bill Gates means something completely different than for almost all of us.

When you're working three jobs and trying to stave off foreclosure not much is affordable.

The bill is mostly a FRAUD.

[Bette Noir]

37. Does Mr. President not know that for-profit "health insurance companies"

are entirely the work of the devil?

The obvious solution, if health insurance companies don't want to cover kids, is to let the gummint cover them. And their parents. And childless adults.

Canadians get to miss all this drama.

[Recursion]

39. Aren't most of these insurers non-profits to begin with?

I thought the plans that offered policies to children alone were pretty much entirely Blue Cross, which are still mostly non-profits?

[dflprincess]

64. No

The Evil Empire (aka United HealthGroup) in all its guises is not a nonprofit, nor are Cigna or Aetna (and a host of others). And not all the Blue Cross plans are nonprofit - that depends on what state they are operating in.

[Recursion]

68. I didn't know the big companies still offered children-only plans

At any rate, non-profits offering children-only plans will have to go up by the same rate because, as I keep trying to point out, whether you're for-profit, non-profit, or the government, it costs a shitload of money to pay for sick people's health care.

[dflprincess]

74. That's why one big single payer pool is the only thing that makes sense

and keeps the cost of being part of the pool down.

[Recursion]

77. Well, no: a big single-payer pool still has to pay out $2 trillion a year

Which means it still has to take in $2 trillion a year. That's $500 per month from every man, woman, and child in the country. That's not affordable.

[dflprincess]

90. Where are you getting the $2 trillion number fun

(not being snarky, just want to know)

The Canadians manage to cover everyone for quite a bit less than that per person/per month. I don't quite get why it would cost so much more here.

Maybe we could borrow any deficit from the deficit budget. (One can dream).

[Recursion]

94. Kaiser

Here's a chart from 2003 (it's the first one that came up on Google; you can dig through KFF for more recent stuff)

http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/chcm010307oth.cfm

The Canadians manage to cover everyone for quite a bit less than that per person/per month. I don't quite get why it would cost so much more here.

Nobody really does. It doesn't seem to be one single thing.

There was a very good episode of "This American Life" that talked about this:

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/391/more-is-less

Doctors, patients, hospitals, the government, pharmaceutical companies, and insurance companies all share part of the blame.

And, seriously, that's a great episode that really shows how wide the problems spread. Well worth listening to.

[No Elephants]

100. Upthread, you said $400 to $800 per household. Now, it's $500 per person.

Where are you getting your numbers?

[Recursion]

105. It's simpler than I'm managing to make it sound

In total the US spends roughly $2.6 trillion per year on medical care.

This is about $8000 per person per year, or $650 some-odd per person per month, or $1300 some-odd per household per month (feel free to do the actual division; I was trying to use round numbers). But about a quarter of that is paid for by the government, meaning we already pay for it via taxes and Medicare levies. That leaves (again, this is back-of-the-napkin stuff to show orders of magnitude) roughly $500 per person per month or $1000 per household per month that is currently being paid privately (mostly through insurance).

So, if we provide the current medical care we provide (and no more) at the current reimbursement rates providers get, we will have to pay roughly $500 per person.

Now, if we could get all providers to take medicare reimbursement rates for everything, that drops costs overall by about 20%. That means we only have to pay $400 per person. (The "per household" stat comes from there being roughly half as many households as people in this country; it's actually a little less than 1/2 so the per-household cost should be a little more than twice the per-person cost).

So, at current rates, it costs $500 per person per month, at medicare rates it costs $400 per person per month. But we don't know if providers could actually meet the level of service we need if they are all reimbursed at Medicare rates (already it's hard to find doctors who take Medicare).

[No Elephants]

120. You really have no way of knowing how much single payer would save.

And if the only insurance in town were Medicare, doctors would take it or go hungry waiting for Buffet and Gates to get very sick.

BTW, Mass General is one of the top rated hospitals in the world. Its doctors are among the best in the world. Medicare is not a problem at Mass General. I doubt it is at any hospital in Boston.

[Recursion]

128. Hospitals take Medicaid and Medicare. But try finding a primary care physician.

And if the only insurance in town were Medicare, doctors would take it or go hungry waiting for Buffet and Gates to get very sick.

Well, yes, but doctors would also retire and fewer people might go to med school, especially considering how much debt they come out of there with and how much harder it would be to pay off on medicare reimbursements only.

You really have no way of knowing how much single payer would save.

OK, but this is why I'm talking about these numbers. If it saved nothing at all (I don't think anyone thinks that), we would have to come up with $500 per person per month all across the country to pay for our medical care that isn't already covered by Medicare, Medicaid, or the VA.

So, let's ask ourselves what sort of per-person premium *is* feasible? $100 per person per month? That would require single payer to reduce costs by 80%. That doesn't seem remotely reasonable, either. So the cost is going to be somewhere between, say, $100 and $500 per person per month. How much under $500 do you think Medicare Part E would take us?

[No Elephants]

140. Mass General has all kinds of doctors on staff including primary care physicians, dermatologists,

gastro, cardio etc. All see out-patients as well as patients who have been admitted. Mass General also owns and operates about a dozen satellite health centers that see only out patients. However, I prefer seeing docs at Mass General for everything.

Sorry, you are pulling numbers (and other things) out of the air.

btw, what solution do you propose?

[Recursion]

143. Umm

All see out-patients as well as patients who have been admitted. Mass General also owns and operates about a dozen satellite health centers that see only out patients.

Yes, and it's still extremely hard to find a doctor who is taking new patients, and I have Tufts' Medical as my insurer (which means for some reason I go through Brigham & Women's). I've been trying to find one for months.

Sorry, you are pulling numbers (and other things) out of the air.

Nope. The numbers are from Kaiser (annual payments to health care providers) and the US Census (US population). Those are the only numbers I used. Well, and I guess also Pope Gregory the Great (months in the year).

btw, what solution do you propose?

I don't know. I don't know what we can do to lower costs. But these numbers tell me pretty clearly that without drastically lowering what providers receive, no payment scheme is going to make health care in the US affordable.

[Yo_Mama]

212. You're missing Recursion's point

The reason Mass General can afford to take care of Medicare patients is that patients covered by private insurance (or uninsured patients) are charged much higher fees than the Medicare patients.

Private insurance subsidizes Medicare, which is the main reason why Medicare for all is a non-starter.

And no, doctors wouldn't take it. Doctors could cut down the number of patients they see and alter many details about their practices to the point at which they could make money on Medicare (although not Medicaid), but when they did so, many patients would effectively be dumped.

In some places and in some specialties, Canada has a very real doctor shortage. People do die or come to the US for treatment sometimes, and sometimes their system even pays for people to come to the US for treatment.

The US generally provides a lot more treatment for advanced cancers than many universal care countries. It also provides a lot more preventive medicine than many universal care countries. In the US, women covered would receive a PAP test every year starting at 18. In the UK, they don't start until 26. The list goes on. I don't think Canada covers preventive colonoscopy still. They do fecal occult blood testing, but that only catches about 50% of the cancers. But they don't have the capacity to do the colonoscopies.
http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/168/2/178
Not much has changed since then based on some stuff I read last year.

Another US outlier is that doctors pay far more for malpractice insurance in the US. I think realistically we would have to change a great deal about our medical tort system in order to achieve universal medical insurance. But I also think US voters have to realize that they are going to give up some types of treatment in order to achieve true universal medical coverage, and I think so far US voters are unwilling to do so.

For example, the medical condition I have is one that a lot of Canadians seek care in the US for. The same treatments are not generally available in Canada, or for that matter Germany, etc. Huntington's? There is a treatment now for it, but it isn't covered in Canada yet. Some MS drugs and so forth aren't covered in all provinces.

No "universal" system of care truly covers all treatments. If you cover all patients, you don't cover all treatments. It is just too expensive.

[LiberalLovinLug]

133. There are more cost savings than that.

The overhead and profit of private insurers is, at the lowest 12% for larger company clients, and up to 30% for individuals.

"Over 31% of every health care dollar goes to paperwork, overhead, CEO salaries, profits, etc. The Medicare program operates with just 3% overhead, compared to 15% to 25% overhead at a typical HMO. Provincial single-payer plans in Canada have an overhead of about 1%."

1%

Other savings are not immediate but very solid and real.

"People will seek care earlier when chronic diseases such as hypertension and diabetes are more treatable. We know that both the uninsured and many of those with skimpy private coverage delay care because they are afraid of health care bills. This will be eliminated under such a system. Undoubtedly the costs of taking care of the medical needs of people who are currently skimping on care will cost more money in the short run. However, all of these new costs to cover the uninsured and improve coverage for the insured will be fully offset by administrative savings.

In the long run, the best way to control costs is to improve health planning to assure appropriate investments in expensive, high-tech care, to negotiate fees and budgets with doctors, hospital and drug companies, and to set and enforce a generous but finite overall budget."

Get informed and read more about Single Payer here at the Physicians for a National Health Program site:

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single-payer-faq

Also to address some of your other points,

No, you do not lose your basic medical coverage in Canada if you are employed full time and, for whatever reason, refuse to pay your premium bill. At the most for employed people it is around $60 per month. You may get some annoying phone calls and a hit on your credit rating after a time though.

And a round of chemo costs $50,000,000 per patient? Really? I'd like to see your source for that.

[Recursion]

141. My hypothetical took insurance companies completely out of the equation

The overhead and profit of private insurers is, at the lowest 12% for larger company clients, and up to 30% for individuals.

That has no bearing on those numbers.

We spend $2.6 trillion in payments to medical providers. The inefficiencies of insurance companies all happened before that. I'm talking about the providers themselves getting paid.

We have to do some combination of:
A) coming up with that $2.6 trillion, and
B) reducing that $2.6 trillion.

People will seek care earlier when chronic diseases such as hypertension and diabetes are more treatable. We know that both the uninsured and many of those with skimpy private coverage delay care because they are afraid of health care bills. This will be eliminated under such a system.

Unfortunately people with insurance also delay care on these problems. But, please, come up with an estimate of how much the early coverage would save, vs. how much it would cost. Let's try it. I'm hoping other people come up with other numbers here, you know?

[LiberalLovinLug]

196. Providers

By providers, I will assume you mean the doctors, hospital costs and the like, and are not talking the general government cost. In that case, in a single payer system, there is a cap on doctors reimbursement. It means that specialists will not make astronomically higher wages than general practitioners as they do now.

And putting aside the insurance companies overhead, the overhead in a doctors offices will also be reduced. No time wasted arguing with insurance agents for one. Streamlined bureaucracy on a nation scale will also speed things up. Time is money. Also things like equipment used for doctors can also be negotiated on a national scale. The trade off for capped salaries.

You also ignore the millions more who would be paying into the system, which would then go partially to doctors salaries.

And I don't know what exact numbers would be saved because people would seek out treatment earlier if they have insurance, but its not chump change. Your own estimate of Chemo therapy of $50,000,000 per treatment would support that even if we caught a small percentage of problems early, billions would be saved.

The point is that eventually, the cost would not be $2.6 trillion, once the initial start up financial hurdles are overcome in the first number of years. (of course that is the real hurdle, because Republicans would scream louder than ever during those start up years which may derail the whole thing)

My last point would be, health care costs should not be about retrieving all costs back from the consumer. We don't do that with the military, the police, schools, even transit bus fares for instance do not pay for the systems they run.

In Canada, there is a slogan. Health care is a right, not a privilege. What is the value of a happy, healthy well cared for population and the spin off benefits like better worker production, and less stress overall in the population? Even if the cost remains the same, which it would not.

[thetonka]

282. Single payer does not guarantee lower costs

A single payer system eventually could FORCE lower costs by telling doctors and medical facilities how much they are going to get, but that will not lower costs for all. This situation is why private Health Insurance and private doctors exist even within single payer and government run health care systems. The average person may be OK with what the government tells them is adequate health care, but there will always be people who are not satisfied and will look elsewhere for service.

I have a few friends who are Canadian and while they do say the enjoy having free basic health care ALL of them prefer the quality and performance of the doctors and facilities here in the US.

Single Payer and Government run Health Care is not a perfect silver bullet, and IMHO just assuming that things that somewhat work elsewhere would be perfect solutions here is not only ignorant but insulting to the intelligence and ingenuity of the American people. Why should we follow and assume that if it works for others it must work for us? Why can we all sit down, throw out our assumptions and bias and come up with a better solution for this country? Maybe come up with one that the majority of the people can and will be accept and be satisfied with?

Just because you WANT a single payer system does not mean everyone in this country wants that or will be happy with that. Forcing everyone into a system they do not want or like just to satisfy a few is not the American way. Finding a better solution for EVERYONE is the American way.

Personally I am getting sick of this lazy apathetic attitude of "They do it so we should do it". This country left the old world behind to be a better place. Lets find a better solution, not just recycle old solutions that we don't even know will work.

[LiberalLovinLug]

293. I have pity for you

And all other Americans that are stuck on the illogical and frankly xenophobic attitude that they have nothing to learn from the way other countries handle their health care needs, or any other needs for that matter.

Single Payer DOES guarantee lower costs in a variety of ways that have been talked about already in here.

And I am tired of hearing how someone "has a few friends" in Canada that "prefer" US doctors and facilities. Yes there are wealthier Canadians that will pay out of pocket to get specialized treatment in the US. The best the US can offer obviously outweighs the best Canada can offer. But poll after poll in Canada shows a large majority against adopting a US style health care system. Tommy Douglas, regarded as the father of medicare up here, was recently voted the Greatest Canadian in our history. That says a lot.

There is a trend now, because of constant right wing pressure, to have a mix of public/private clinics. This is going on all over the world in Single Payer countries, not just in Canada. All of the western democracies, (and a lot of other countries) are moving this way. But these are mostly testing centers, Xray labs etc.. Each country is a little different in the way they mix it up.

There is no reason the US could not have their own version of this public/private mix. Its not as if you have to copy exactly what Canada, UK, or France has done. But really it comes across as arrogant and stubborn to reject Single Payer just because other countries have implemented the benefits of it decades ago. The US doesn't HAVE to be the first and best at everything.

Forcing everyone into a system they do not want or like just to satisfy a few is not the American way

In fact that has been "the American way" in health care all along. The point of Single Payer is to satisfy the many.

[Recursion]

296. Well, no

Single Payer DOES guarantee lower costs in a variety of ways that have been talked about already in here.

Well, no, it just doesn't. It does guarantee lower administrative costs, but that's it. From the other direction, it also guarantees one point of failure if industry wants to corrupt it (see the comparative study on Medicare waste between the two Texas hospitals -- single payer can also be a way to waste an unbelievable amount of money).

But really it comes across as arrogant and stubborn to reject Single Payer just because other countries have implemented the benefits of it decades ago.

Or it's a recognition of the fact that our medical delivery system costs orders of magnitude more than other countries', that this has very little to do with insurance companies (it affects Medicare and the VA too), and that for that matter part of it is subsidizing the medical systems of other countries (eg pharma).

[LiberalLovinLug]

306. Well, yes it does lower costs

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single-payer-resources

"The reason we spend more and get less than the rest of the world is because we have a patchwork system of for-profit payers. Private insurers necessarily waste health dollars on things that have nothing to do with care: overhead, underwriting, billing, sales and marketing departments as well as huge profits and exorbitant executive pay. Doctors and hospitals must maintain costly administrative staffs to deal with the bureaucracy. Combined, this needless administration consumes one-third (31 percent) of Americans’ health dollars.

Single-payer financing is the only way to recapture this wasted money. The potential savings on paperwork, more than $350 billion per year, are enough to provide comprehensive coverage to everyone without paying any more than we already do."

Or it's a recognition of the fact that our medical delivery system costs orders of magnitude more than other countries

the orders are larger, but you also have a much larger pool that make those orders. It works out the same. Maybe better because the larger the pool the bigger the discount for drugs etc..

You don't provide links, but I'll take your word on the Texas study. But waste can be found in any business. Of course you'd want to eliminate it, and government should be always vigilant with that. It doesn't negate the basic principles.

anyways, it is no concern of mine if the US never adapts Single Payer, and I can understand the entrenched private corporations fighting it tooth and nail, it is just baffling to most Canadians how seemingly intelligent people like yourself set up your theory that Single Payer is not for you, and then attempt to find arguments to prove your theory.

I believe from the evidence that Single Payer is cheaper in the long run, but EVEN IF it cost the same or more, I think it has more to do it seems with accepting that the health care access of a nation's citizens is a public right, and the belief in making profits from someone's illness is inherently the wrong way to set it up.

[thetonka]

299. You missed some, got some

"And all other Americans that are stuck on the illogical and frankly xenophobic attitude that they have nothing to learn from the way other countries handle their health care needs, or any other needs for that matter."

Never said we could not learn from other countries, the arrogance is in your attitude that the only way for us to learn is to adopt it seems. My point was that we do not have to settle for adopting what other countries have we can chose to come up with something better, and that includes learning from other countries, both the good and the bad. I'd argue that the xenophobia is from your point of view that we must accept and comply with what other countries do, otherwise we are wrong. Why comply, examine the problem, find root cause, then develop a solution. Just complying with what the rest of the world has accepted is definitely a path to eliminating xenophobic attitudes, cause when everything is the same, there are no strangers or outsiders. I am not against or condemning the systems other countries use, especially if the people are satisfied with them. I just have enough confidence in the ingenuity and compassion of the people of this country to believe that we can find a solution that is better and satisfies OUR needs. This country is not european, this country is not canadian. We do share many similarities, but also differ in significant ways. Lets figure out something that eliminates the problems, and satisfies the people.

"There is no reason the US could not have their own version of this public/private mix. Its not as if you have to copy exactly what Canada, UK, or France has done. But really it comes across as arrogant and stubborn to reject Single Payer just because other countries have implemented the benefits of it decades ago. The US doesn't HAVE to be the first and best at everything."

And it is lazy and apathetic to just accept single payer because other countries have it. Why push for something many americans do not want, when we can find solution that satisfies most, if not all Americans. Why settle for less? After all settling for less is how we got this bullshit Health Insurance Reform.

"In fact that has been "the American way" in health care all along. The point of Single Payer is to satisfy the many."

Single Payer will NEVER satisfy the many in this country, that is a fact. Thinking this ignores the reality of the people and politics of this country.

I'm sick and tired of people refusing to work towards a better country and better world because they can not let go of their biased and selfish opinions. Open you eyes and look at the whole picture, not just the colors that appeal to you.

[LiberalLovinLug]

307. I think we agree more than disagree

I never said I think that you should comply with what other countries do exactly. You quoted me saying just the opposite of that in fact. You don't even have to call it Single Payer. Its more of using as the basis of a health care system as a non profit, universal access to citizens, where health care should not be reliant on the profit margin of some large private company shareholders and executives. How you go about that

Single Payer will NEVER satisfy the many in this country, that is a fact. Thinking this ignores the reality of the people and politics of this country.

But that is how it is designed...for the many. Everyone would be covered. You wouldn't even THINK about medical bills from the time you are a baby until you are in your final throws. Politics is a big one. But if it was pushed through, I think Americans would eventually realize its benefits and never go back to private corporate control of their health care. But it would take a lot to overcome FOX and the other MSM corporate push back.

You reject Single Payer without any rational reasoning other than that you want something that satisfies "OUR needs" and not something Canadian or European. Sorry but that sounds xenophobic to me. Single Payer is not "European" or "Canadian" or "Australian" etc.. it is a system that relies on the basic premise that health care of a nation's citizens is a right and not something for Wall Street to make money on peoples illnesses with. That, just like public schools, the police, etc.. serving the public overrides the need to make someone a profit.

I'm not selfish. I already have universal coverage as a Canadian. I just feel sorry for y'all down there where you can't even get proper information about what is possible. I would urge you to read up on the facts from this site by Physicians for a National Health Program: (these are American doctors, not Euros or Canucks)

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single-payer-faq

[thetonka]

311. From you link

"Thus, the total budget for health care is set through a public, democratic process. But clinical decisions remain a private matter between doctor and patient."

In other words in this country the budget, and regardless of what they say the coverage, will be determined by our "democratic process". Considering how much of a disaster our government has created with things like the economy, does ANYONE, really want to trust this system with their health care?

It's not that I am against universal Healthcare, I just don't trust our system of "representative" government.

[liberation]

238. No, most insurers are for-profit corporations. Furthermore, it has nothing to do with "non-profit"

but with overhead.

Most of the supposedly "non-profit" insurers still add the same 30+% overhead, they just don't have to return dividends. There is a difference between "non-profit" and "regulated." As long as there is no regulation, non-profits will follow the same market-driven approaches as their "for-profit" counterparts, they just can issue common stock to raise capital. That is just about it.

But I guess, you already knew that...

[emilyg]

42. Disgusting.

[salib]

45. So, why did this not take 60 votes?

Everything which can be accomplished simply by EO (e.g. DADT) instead requires 60 votes. However when it comes to insurance co profits... Then no prob, we just dictate that they can charge sick kids more.

It is sick.

[AllyCat]

49. Wow, I just didn't see this coming at all.

Who would have guessed the insurance companies would find a way to make more money off the illness and injury of others? Who would have guessed that the weak corporate-owned legislators would allow them to do something like this? I guess those sick little kids are just irresponsible for not planning for their health care needs.

[placton]

51. and, of course, damn Obama, the ringmaster n/t

[Bluebear]

54. "We'll fix it later! Thank God it passed!!!!!"

:silly:

[dflprincess]

65. From the insurers' points of view, they are "fixing it later"

Surely you didn't think they were speaking to us when they said that?

:banghead:

[No Elephants]

136. What if, in February 2009, Congress had passed single payer,

effective January or July 2010. And in March 2009 had created a REAL jobs program--FDR style. And ended the wars. And enacted one big financial/credit card reform bill with teeth, no loopholes and no delay that allowed credit card issuers time to raise rates and fees and cut credit lines?

How would November 2010 look? Would the base be dispirited? Would Teabaggers have gotten anywhere? Would so many Democrats be worried about losing their seats?


In my area (New England), Republicans are campaigning on nothing but "S/he voted for health care and voted with Obama over 90% of the time." Sometimes, they say Pelosi instead of Obama, but they never offer anything of their own. Guess they don't feel they need to.

[dflprincess]

167. That would have made all the difference

and, had they listened to what the people wanted, instead of the insurance companies, pharma & the rest of Wall Street that's what we would have gotten. - Oh the phase in to single payer might have taken longer, but if it had been expanded even to a couple more groups the only complaint would have been that it wasn't happening fast enough.

I see the same Obama/Pelosi ads my area. Batshit crazy Michelle Bachmann even has one where she manages to slam not only Obama & Pelosi but even Bush (go figure - she must be pissed he didn't return her advances).

[humbled_opinion]

210. Are you Insane?

Who is going to fix it? One side talks of repeal the other side voted for it without even understanding what was in it and the damage it would cause. Many here warned but the LOCK STEPPERS won and hence we destroyed so much good will and political capital on a cluster mess that will never get fixed in fact the way I see it it will co-opted by the Repukes and Insurance Corps will be the benefactors because the LAW will side with them forcing people to pay or get fined by the government...

I think I will be leaving America soon...

[Deep13]

58. Way to crumble like aluminum foil, Mr. President. nt

[jgraz]

70. It's a chess move

Maybe Obama really IS a socialist, and his secret plan is to destroy the Democratic party from within. When you can't hold the line against a group of nutcases, criminals and morons, you should probably just fold up your big tent.

[No Elephants]

153. You cannot blame Obama for that.

For decades, conservatives within the DNC have been working on making the Democratic party all but indistinguishable from the Republicons. And every time the Republicons go further right, the Democrats chase right after them. So, the voters' mantra has become simply anti-incumbent.

And classic Democrats and liberals get Sophie's Choice.

[jgraz]

165. YES WE CAN

The guy is the President of the United States and the head of the Democratic Party. The political strategy that is about to fail is HIS political strategy. If he had started from strength and pushed a true progressive agenda, we wouldn't be in this situation right now. And we wouldn't be faced with a Repuke takeover of Congress.

[humbled_opinion]

211. Exactly... ...

Principled leadership would have saved the day. I can't even figure out Obama's vision anymore its so bizzare...

[jgraz]

79. In fairness, he's not crumpling like aluminum foil

Unless you can point to a brand of aluminum foil that crumples all by itself. :banghead:

[Recursion]

81. OK, how does an insurance company pay for the treatments the kids get?

Here's a painful fact: the entire profit of a medium-sized insurance company can be wiped out by a half-dozen cancer patients in a year. This is why they drop people with cancer. This really sucks. But regulators allow rate increases for pools that are costing more than they take in because otherwise the insurance companies won't be able to meet their obligations to the medical providers.

So, without raising their premiums, where do you suggest they come up with the money for these incredibly expensive medical treatments?

Wait! I think I can guess your first answer! You'll say, "Don't give the CEO a 100 million dollar bonus". Done. That paid for two rounds of chemo for one person.

OK, you'll say "have the company forego its $700 million dollar profit this year". Dne. That paid for two rounds for seven more people.

When the eighth kid comes around needing a very expensive treatment, where do they go for the money?

[Deep13]

82. Sounds like raising rates on preexisting conditions...

...won't cover the costs, then.

[Recursion]

85. It won't in the long run, but they just have to make it to 2014

Once the mandate and exchange kick in, the entire actuarial world changes. Right now a kid can have no insurance, get sick, and then get insurance and get treatment right away (you can no longer deny for pre-existing conditions for children). This is an actuarial nightmare, and it means these policies are going to be very, very expensive for insurers (note that a public "option" has the exact same actuarial problem: if it's going to be public it's going to have to be universal for the same reason).

[Hubert Flottz]

72. Little sick kids don't vote or write checks to blood sucking...

political parasites in Washington.

[Unvanguard]

73. This is why we need a mandate.

Seriously.

So far, the "unintended consequences" of the health care bill have largely been the consequences of implementing too stringent regulations prior to 2014 and the mandate, with the consequence that insurers, fearful of adverse selection, have responded by threatening to withdraw from parts of the insurance market. They have next to nothing to do with the ultimate plan for health care, but rather with certain front-loaded measures that were meant to offer some relief before the main provisions came into effect. Much the same can be said for the "high-risk" plans the health care bill creates before the full ban on pre-existing condition discrimination comes into play in 2014.

Adjusting the early regulations so that they can have beneficial rather than harmful effects on the insurance market makes perfect sense, and is to be expected. The full force of the regulatory structure of the health care bill was never going to come into effect until 2014 anyway; it is an all-or-nothing deal because of the way the insurance market works.

[jgraz]

78. We had a "mandate". It was called "the 2008 elections".

Unfortunately, those who we elected chose not to act on that mandate.

[thetonka]

301. Winning an election does give a mandate

That assumption is how we have gotten to a point where everything is about part politics and nothing is about the people a mandate benefits only the party not the people.

[No Elephants]

142. A mandate is fine if we're also talking single payer.

A mandate to buy from vultures is not fine.

[Recursion]

146. A mandate is *necessary* if we're talking single payer

If we have a single payer system, every single person in the country has to pay into it and receive coverage from it, or it will go broke almost immediately.

This is why talk about a public "option" worries me. If it's optional, but required to take all applicants, people will just not pay for anything until they get sick, and then start making payments. As it is the Medicare trust fund is projected to last until 2029 (and state Medicaid funds are in much worse shape); an optional public system open to anyone would absolutely wreck what financial stability the system already has.

[fascisthunter]

99. we pay the rich lot's of money to get TO our health care

"Oh please rich people, let us have health care so we don't live in misery".

All they do is sit around on their fat pouche asses while people suffer directly because these are the same folks paying lobbyists to fight against implementing any social/gov run system which would by the way be affordable to those with low to no income, so yes, I do blame the upper class for this as well as many other things. They know what they are doing and are NEVER held responsible. Every now and then someone is thrown under a bus to protect all the other scumbags.

The Giant is awakening and it's us...

[Recursion]

107. What, we own doctors, nurses, and techs?

Their labor is "ours" and doesn't have to be paid for?

[fascisthunter]

127. Our as in American Healthcare System

the one most of us can't even afford. You either care or don't...

[Recursion]

131. I definitely care. I just think fighting about insurance is tilting at windmills

We can't afford it because treatments cost so much. Not because of insurance companies.

[fascisthunter]

138. "...treatments cost so much. Not because of insurance companies"

sorry, I cannot agree with that. Insurance companies have tons of dirt on them, and they do control our access to healthcare.

[Recursion]

145. When did I say insurance companies are good?

Look, if we remove health insurance companies from the equation entirely, as a lot of this board wants to do (and I have nothing in principle against doing), how much do you think we would be able to force down the $2 trillion in provider reimbursements per year that these insurance companies currently pay? Will doctors make less? Nurses? Drug companies? Personal Care Assistants? Medical device manufacturers? And how much less?

Failing a decrease in that, where does the government come up with an additional $2 trillion per year?

[AngryOldDem]

103. So tell me again how great this health care "reform" is.

Just goes to show, you can dress a turd up all you want, but it's still a turd. Insurance companies, make no mistake, WILL get their money someway, somehow, and the government will be more than happy to pave the way.

[Recursion]

106. Better than what there was

Before the sick kids couldn't get insurance at all. Now they can, although it's expensive.

[AngryOldDem]

159. Which means for many it is still out of reach.

So really, what is the difference?

[Recursion]

195. So it's all or nothing?

Leaving one problem unsolved means none are solved?

[Exilednight]

247. This just proves that giving kids with pre-existing conditions is unaffordable..................

it fixed absolutely nothing.

[AngryOldDem]

259. Obama and the Democrats could have done much better.

We got the same old, tired wine in a new bottle. Health care is just as fucked up in this country as it ever was. As long as insurance companies get the upper hand, there is truly no "reform" in this area.

And I challenge you to tell anyone with a seriously ill child that this is acceptable policy. If people can't afford the insurance, it defeats the whole notion of reform.

[Recursion]

271. Well, that's why people should enroll their children during open enrollment

At which point this isn't an issue.

[Thav]

104. It all started with a lie...

"Earlier this year, major insurers, faced with an unprofitable business, stopped issuing new child-only policies."

Somehow I don't think major insurers were ever facing unprofitable business...

[beforeyoureyes]

115. Disgusting. Change will only come from us.

IF we have the courage...

[Freddie Stubbs]

118. If the governmrnt didn't let them do it, the children would not be able to get insured

[Recursion]

122. Basically, yes

This is why the mandate and the requirements should probably be phased in at the same time.

[sabrina 1]

267. Nonsense. Any Government with spine would stop catering to these

ghouls who are responsible for the deaths of over half a million Americans.

They should call an emergency session of Congress, right NOW before the election, and pass a law mandating that Insurance Corps HAVE to cover sick children at affordable rates or they will not be eligible to be involved in our Health Care system.

Better would have been to include a PO in the original Bill.

This is exactly what happened with Romney Care in Mass. and what was predicted by those who opposed this bill, sky-rocketing premiums and people unable to pay for them so they get the cheapo coverage with huge co-pays which they will not be able to use. That means free money for the scam artists in the predatory Health Insurance Industry who should have prosecuted, NOT rewarded for what they have done to our HC system.

[Freddie Stubbs]

274. So, you admit that the government does not currently have the legal authority to force

insurance companies?

[sabrina 1]

290. It looks that way, or they wouldn't be doing this.

We WERE told that this bill would end refusals based on pre-conditions. We ASKED at what cost but were told to STFU. Now it seems not enough people were asking for some reason.

[ProudDad]

124. Must I say it again?

OK...

UNIVERSAL, COMPREHENSIVE Health Care -- NOT for-profit Sick Care(tm)

Each advanced, civilized nation does it differently;

Britain - socialized.
Germany, Switzerland - private - non-profit
France - hybrid system
Spain, Taiwan, Japan, Canada - single payer financing, private health practitioners

Lots of ways to do it with the common denominators being "everyone in, nobody out (including visitors and 'illegals'!)" and NO PROFIT ALLOWED. They all know that Health Care is a RIGHT, not a commodity!


On Edit: Enhanced and Improved Medicare for ALL!

and if any goddamn doctor or hospital "administrator" wants to make over 200,000 dollars a year, let him get a 2nd job as an investment banker!

[McCamy Taylor]

125. This is a long way from the mandate to insure all children that we were promised.

[NoodleyAppendage]

126. BOY! I'm SUPER MOTIVATED to vote now!

Who could have predicted that Obama dealing away a public option, thus denying any true competition forces on the insurance industry, would have had this effect? <rolleyes>

If the Dems lose big in Nov., they have NO ONE other than themselves to blame.

J

[BlueDemKev]

129. It's a trade-off

As unfortunate as this may be, the fact is that child-only policies will still cost significantly less than family polices do, even with a rate increase. Personally, I'm okay with a rate increase if it means children can no longer be denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition. Remember, health care itself has to be paid for, even if we had a single-payer government-run system.

[reggie the dog]

144. here in France insurance cost depends on one thing, income

no pre existing conditions etc, you pay based on your earnings and everyone is covered

[Recursion]

150. And you have fewer cars, fewer guns, less drug use, less obesity...

...less poverty, less illiteracy, your doctors make less, your nurses make less, you perform fewer tests than in the US, those tests costs less to begin with, you negotiate lower prices on pharmaceuticals, and you pay for doctors to go to medical school so they aren't crippled by debt when they graduate.

Fixing insurance companies only scratches the surface of what we need to change.

[ProudDad]

169. And they have lower costs because they DEMAND THEM

If anyone wants to play in the Health Care business in France they play by the People's rules!

That's the BIG difference between USAmerican Sick Care and the Civilized world's Health Care...

In USAmerica, it's all driven by the profit motive at every level. Health Care is a commodity, NOT a right and thus is only affordable to the highest bidders.

You are right, there are MANY more aspects of the centralized, corporate, final stage-high profit sick care model that has erupted here in USAmerica.

We could learn a lot from those who have implemented decentralize, locally provided, preventive biased Health Care systems in their countries.

So, yes, eliminating the for-profit insurance companies would only take care of about 25 to 30% of the excess costs. There would still be much work to be done to actually create a Health Care system.

[reggie the dog]

170. we have one of the highest drug use rates in europe

but yes it is still lower than that of the usa, you are correct on pretty much all you have said

[Greyhound]

157. All part of "fixing it later".

Another "nobody could've predicted" moment becoming another "we told you so" mistake.
:kick: & R

[Scruffy1]

160. Well we voted for a capitalist and we got one.

Why would anyone be surprised. The only way the public gets anything at all is through scaring the crap out of the rulers at the polls. This is why the media narrative sucks, the dems will just use midterm losses to move farther right ala Bill Clinton. These results were baked into the cake a long time ago. They completely ignore the fact that the population of unhappy voters is largely more progressive, disgusted and has a pox on both of your houses attitude. It's just two parties vying for corporate favor. We need a new party of the people, but how do we keep it from becoming corrupted by the corporate money and media? I wish someone would tell me. Is there any hope at all or have I been fighting for a lost cause all of my life.

We are good at knocking right wingers but we don't seem to have a vision for what we want and how to get there.

[SHRED]

162. I searched the DU (like we are suppose to do)...

...for this headline before I posted this same article.
I was the first in two hours earlier yet this thread gets top billing.

The DU is weird like that sometimes.
:wtf:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9315145


---

[RamboLiberal]

180. Apologies for stepping on your thread

I did search but guess I used wrong term. I used insurance as my keyword. Was a bit in a hurry cause I was at work so I didn't try a second search as I sometimes do.

If I see I duped someone I'll alert the mods on my thread.

Again my apologies.

[RamboLiberal]

208. You were in GD and not LBN

Mods don't lock dupes in GD & LBN since they are different forums.

[SHRED]

214. thanks for clearing that up

[derby378]

164. Did I hear someone say that healthcare in America is now a right?

Ted Kennedy must be spinning in his fucking grave. This is not the change we voted for.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

166. While some countries use private insurance as part or all of their system...

they all regulate the hell out of the insurance companies.

Our government doesn't have the courage to do this.

[KoKo]

223. True... I guess Obama was told we couldn't bring down Wall Stree and Insurance Co's at the Same Time

so his advisers cautioned him to BACK IT OFF...

I guess there is a case for Prudence...but I'm not thinking these days that the "advise" worked out so well for either Obama or US who voted and worked for him.

Who knows..it get's more depressing day by day watching and reading all this stuff...along with what I see out here "on the ground."

[Lydia Leftcoast]

239. Evidently he was told to PAMPER both of them at the same time

:grr:

[area51]

292. +1 n/t

[Imagevision]

171. Obama, what's next...?

[No Elephants]

172. Is it soup yet? What will it take, America?

[tomg]

175. Okay, I just got my absentee

ballot. Anyone want to explain why I should bother to send it in. I filled it out - straight dem or third party where dem has the line. Why? Oh, lesser of two evils. Right. True, but that doesn't cut it anymore. I have been actively engaged for over forty years in progressive movements. My wife ( she is a union rep)and I will stay and fight, but frankly we are now telling our kids to leave the country. This is fucking bullshit.

Look, I will send the damn ballot in. But I really don't believe in it anymore. I still vote because I have one of the most progressive reps in the country. I want to tell him that he is fighting a losing battle.

[BlueDemKev]

187. If you need any motive to send in your ballot......

....HERE IT IS:

House Speaker: JOHN BOEHNER
Senate Majority Leader: MITCH McCONNELL
Senator SHARRON ANGLE (R-NV)
Senator FIORNA(R-CA)

Imagine these headlines.....


"Congress Repeals Health Insurance Mandate; Insurance Companies Resume Practice of Rescinding & Denying Coverage"

"President Sarah Palin Nominates ROGER VINSON to replace Justice Breyer on the Supreme Court; GOP Senate Leaders Promise "A Speedy Confirmation"

"Record Number of Jobs Exported This Year"

"Tea-Party Protesters Heckle Applicants Outside Unemployment Office With Signs Reading 'Lazy', 'Deadweights', & 'Behold, the Human Garbage'"

"U.S. General Revenue Fund Virtually Depleted Just 15 Months After Congress Implements a 17% Flat Income Tax Rate"

"Medicare Bankrupt; Congressional Leaders Set to Cancel 50-Year-Old Program Altogether"

"Social Security Privatized"



SHALL I CONTINUE???????? If you want America to go right to Hell in the fast-line, don't bother voting. :nuke: :nuke: :nuke:

[tomg]

190. I think you missed my point. I'll send it in.

I've worked at progressive causes for over 40 years. I'll vote dem, but I'm disgusted, fed up,and in all honesty, I am really fed up with the principal reason to vote being "we are not as fucked up as the opposition." Seriously, I HAVE my absentee ballot. I said I am going to send it in. That says something. In fact, only two other people where I am got their ballots ( also older lefties, dems, both fed up) But as a parent, I'm telling my kids to get the fuck out of Dodge. I might still believe in America, but it is probably more of a habit.

[BlueDemKev]

276. The Reality Is.....

....that NO party or candidate will ever be able to give you everything you want, and, what you do get often comes in bits 'n pieces instead of all at once. But when we compare the two parties, over the last century as well as today, the Democrats often provide us with MUCH more of what we seek. Half the pie (even a third of the pie) is better than none.

VOTE DEMOCRATIC

:dem:

[Catherina]

177. What a surprise. Not. n/t

[DailyGrind51]

178. Does anyone have to wonder why there is an "enthusiasm gap"?

[orbitalman]

191. I am with EmiliyG... Disgustingly sick...

What a wipeout. :puke:

[mvd]

192. Bad decision

Seriously, the law should have been done piece by piece to allow a public option. The mandate, while needed for the good things in the law, in the end detracts from the good - because the insurance companies are the only decision makers. I wish single payer was made the goal from the start, and that the administration would be tougher - especially with kids' insurance.

[on point]

203. And now the failure of health care without public option competition becomes clear

[Recursion]

217. How would a public option have been better?

A public option would face the exact same actuarial problems.

A public option would have to have premiums, and those premiums are based on the same projected payments to providers that the private insurers face.

How would a public option avoid raising premiums in this situation?

[mvd]

219. Right. TRUE competition lowers costs. The insurance companies..

just compete for higher profits. Here's a good article on single payer:

http://www.healthcare-now.org/hr-676/whats-single-payer/

[eridani]

257. Nonsense. Competition in health care will never do anything but raise costs

Like a city having more than one fire department competing for business. Paying for three separate sets of equipment would drive costs sky-high. Given similar populations, towns having more hospitals have higher per capita costs for the same reason. Did you think that if a town has one cardiac specialty center that opening another one would inspire people to start having twice as many heart attacks?

[mvd]

265. I think you misunderstood me

Single payer, where the government is the administrator, is the best way. I was just saying having a strong public option to compete with the insurance companies would be better than what we have now.

[eridani]

268. OK. Got it. n/t

[Recursion]

275. Why is Lazik the only medical procedure whose cost is dropping over time?

If it's not competition (and price transparency, something else we don't have for most treatments), what is it?

[eridani]

302. Because it's optional, like an iPod. It is completely unnecessary

You decide to do it at your leisure, unlike being in a car wreck and being smashed and burned all over. Therefore the iPod economy is in force, not the fire department economy. People aren't going to start having twice as many heart attacks just because a new cardiac center opens in a town that already has one. Both will jack their prices substantially to be able to cover double capital costs for the same number of peopel.

[bemildred]

204. Why not just give children Medicare?

The insurance corporations don't want to take care of them, why not just do it ourselves?

[Recursion]

216. Because the Medicare trust fund will be exhausted in 2029 as it is?

That's probably a big part of the reason

[bemildred]

222. So screw the kids, we have to pay for Afghanistan and Iraq! Is that it? nt

[Recursion]

224. Well, we can't afford Iraq and Afghanistan either

Neither one is affordable.

[mvd]

225. I think we have to choose

And I'd choose to pay for health care. Costs don't have to be this high. It's the system as currently constructed.

[bemildred]

226. We have a future without Iraq and Afghanistan, a better one.

We have no future without our children. If we can't afford our children, we can't afford a future.

[mvd]

227. Good point, IMO

:hi:

[bemildred]

228. Hey, you too.

:hi:

[Recursion]

233. We need to find a way to pay for children's medical care

Everyone's medical care for that matter. But all the more so for children.

But we need to be honest that unless we change how medical providers get paid, it's going to cost a lot of money. Money on a bigger scale than Iraq and Afghanistan.

[bemildred]

234. Well yeah.

Surely you don't expect me to defend the current exorbitant, incompetent, disfunctional mess?

[Recursion]

241. God no

But if we can get treatment cheap enough that a single payer system doesn't wreak havoc on our economy the way Iraq and Afghanistan are, it would already be cheap enough that we could find less centralized ways to pay for it.

[bemildred]

264. So basically, you think we're too inept or inefficient or something? nt

[Recursion]

283. I think everybody pretends this problem is simpler than it is

Patients, medical workers, hospitals, insurance companies, drug companies, medical device companies, and the government are all making decisions that contribute to this problem and we can't just isolate it to insurance companies or doctors' payments or big pharma.

[bemildred]

284. If I admit that the problem is complicated, will you admit we can do much better?

That we would have to try really hard to fuck things up worse than they are now?
That the collapse of the current "health care" system is not much of a "threat" really?

[Recursion]

285. I'm screaming at the top of my lungs that we can do much better

So, yes.

[bemildred]

286. Done. nt

[mvd]

291. I agree that it's complicated. But you and I agree that..

first, we have to get the insurance companies out of decision making. They act like the true death panels. Not patients or doctors. Take ability to pay out of it and base it on need. It also lowers administration costs. After that, we can look for more improvement.

[bemildred]

297. Right, if they don't serve the public, they are useless and ought to be replaced

with something that does, we need to get our priorities straight, and private profit comes way down the list when it comes to health care. I don't mind anybody making a buck from honest work, honest service, but the customer has to come first.

[sulphurdunn]

205. Enough already!

Regularly, I hear first hand stories of parents with insurance who cannot get full or even partial coverage for the needs of their sick children. Fuck the health insurance industry and the political whores who suck them off.

[humbled_opinion]

209. What the Hell is going on...

For every one step forward they take they take us two steps back... Idiots and incompetents. I am inclined to vote them all out and start fresh.....

[FiveGoodMen]

215. I don't think they're "incompetents"

They're just not on our side.

Maybe there's nothing we can do about it, but we certainly can't do anything until we figure out that not every elephant in the room has an R by their name.

[FiveGoodMen]

213. I'm sure they'll fix it later...

What the fuck did any of us really expect?

[KoKo]

221. Sad Thing Is: "We are always PROMISED..."We will Fix it Later."

How long are we supposed to believe this stuff? How much longer can we hold out? :shrug:

[Recursion]

254. How is this not "fixing it later"?

Insurance companies are now required to take all children, even sick ones, at any time.

They negotiated a premium rate at which that will happen (or at least the parameters of a rate; they'll have to negotiate state-by-state for the specifics). New policies during times other than open enrollment or family change were previously impossible, but are now required. Not surprisingly, they are more expensive than policies written at a time of family change or during open enrollment, particularly if the child is already sick (and why else would you enroll a child that you didn't enroll at birth?).

[Skittles]

308. do you not get it?

they'll "take anyone" as long as they can CHARGE OUT THE WAZOO FOR IT.

[dark forest]

243. Just had

my company's employee meeting on our open enrollment program.

What I got out of it was that rates were going up and benefits were going down. They eliminated some coverage.

But I get to enroll my 22-year old daughter if I want to. Guess that's something

[Panaconda]

248. It's all so grotesque

Amazing how many sinkholes can be amassed in one fell swoop of change-osity.

K&R

[Crunchy Frog]

250. Well, maybe I won't vote this year after all.

[Recursion]

252. Because insurance companies are now required to enroll chidlren, even sick ones...

...even in periods other than open enrollment, and the insurance providers negotiated a premium schedule at which the non-open-enrollment policies will be written?

Umm.... ok

[Jefferson23]

258. When you think what could of/should of been....sad state of affairs but no surprise at all.

[democracy1st]

270. +1

[Skittles]

309. we could have, should have done SOOOOO much better than this

:thumbsdown:

[Jefferson23]

310. Absolutely true, and that's what hurts so much. n/t

[Kevin1a]

266. In Corporate US, Business organize YOU!!!

This brings to mind one of the major problems I see in the States. Instead of labor being organized as it is in Europe, we allow businesses to organize and view worker organization as some kind of great evil. Here in the US, health insurance companies can go on strike and get concessions like these. In the rest of the world workers go on strike, imperiling the corporation's profits until they get enough concessions that they're willing to go back to work. What America needs is more anti-trust laws and monopoly breaking for the businesses and more unions and worker rights for the little guy.

[docvet]

273. $ for wars, death and slavery for the poor!

My Insurance (Aetna) which costs me $180 per month covers $5000-$500 deductible= $4500 worth of medicines per year. after the $4500 then Im left paying out of pocket. My meds costs $1500 per month, $18000 per year.


This is what I worked so hard for?

This is NOT what I was promised!

Healthcare you can believe in???



YOU FASCIST, HEARTLESS REPUBLICRAT PARTY
(and obama apologists + corp defenders) :

[Kevin1a]

303. At the very least...

...preventative care and screenings should be available for free, or very close too it. If mammograms were free, we would catch breast cancer earlier. Ironically, the people least likely to afford treatment are those who are least able to afford treatment, so when they find out they are sick, it's already 10X as expensive as it would have been had they caught it right away. STD screening and contraceptives should be available free or very close to it. It should also be entirely anonymous. If it was, the percentage of people tested would rise dramatically. We could stamp out many rampant, less serious STDs in a few years. Immunizations, should be available at no charge. If more people are immunized, less people will have to be treated later, regardless of who picks up the tab for that.

I'm all for full coverage for everyone under a single payer system with minimal co-pays based on the person's wealth. But at the very, very least, preventative care should be free.

[NorthCarolina]

287. So, how has the DLC helped YOU today?

:banghead:

[Recursion]

289. By forcing insurers to offer coverage to my kids...

...at the same rate as other kids, unless I switch during times other than open enrollment, at which point they can raise my premium.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

294. Oh great and mighty insurance company, we thank thee for that bowl of gruel

Let us not be so uppity as to ask that maybe the executives and shareholders could make some sacrifices for the common good.

For thou art the chosen servant of the Great and Unassailable God Market Forces, and they will be done, no matter who gets hurt.

[saigon68]

304. Gotta Love the Blue Dogs