Obama presses for public health insurance option

[SpartanDem]

Source: Reuters

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama urged Congress on Wednesday to create a public health insurance program that would compete with private insurers as part of efforts to pass massive health care reform.

"I strongly believe that Americans should have the choice of a public health insurance option operating alongside private plans," Obama said in a letter to Senators Edward Kennedy and Max Baucus that set an October deadline for passing


Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE55263L20090603

---

You can read the full letter here

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2009healthcare.ltr.rel.pdf

[bluestateguy]

1. This is how you get to single payer

Let people choose public option or private insurance. In due time, the insurance companies will lose millions of customers, and will eventually go belly up. Then, voila, no more insurance cos. and we've got single payer.

[SkyDaddy7]

8. That is exactly what the public option is for...

IMHO...Of course talk like that can get one killed around here. LOL!

[Old Coot]

9. I am not sure that will happen. Many people are happy with their existing insurance.

Most insurance people have through their employers is better than Medicare. I know because I have both. Medicare, for instance, is especially weak with its drug program. That "dough-nut hole" is a killer. I use my private insurance for its drug coverage.

Medicare is viable for my usual medical needs, but would be weak for anything major. My private insurance would then fill in and pay the gap left by Medicare.

Many people have much better private insurance than mine.

This is assuming that the public plan is something like Medicare. There is also a problem with providers not accepting new patients with Medicare. I have heard a number of complaints about that. My psychiatrist, for instance, complains about how much Medicare pays him. He is a non-participating provider, meaning that I have to pay him at the time of the visit and then wait on a check from Medicare.

Medicare is not ideal.

[bluestateguy]

13. People are happy with their existing insurance until they get sick

Then come to find out that that "enhanced" health plan of theirs only covers 80% of costs. Well, that's fine and great until you have a heart attack and triple bypass surgery and are left with a bill of over $20,000.

[Old Coot]

15. That is exactly the problem with Medicare. My private plan pays more than Medicare.

For major illnesses. My private plan has a $1,000 deductible. Medicare is about $150. Thus, Medicare pays first, then my private, employer provided policy.

Don't get me wrong. I would prefer to have an all inclusive health plan provided by the government with better coverage than Medicare (especially for drugs). But, I don't think that is what will be offered, if, indeed, any public option is offered at all.

[defendandprotect]

30. Nothing is going to be offered if you don't fight for it ...meanwhile ,

what would your private insurance pay if you could no longer pay for the insurance?

Or, do you think you are not vulnerable to catastrophe?

[4lbs]

48. deleted. dupe.

dupe.

[sutz12]

19. The "paying providers enough" problem is a red herring.

You correct it by funding the programs properly. Look who's been in charge for the last few years. The Repubs always cut funding for social programs, then complain that they don't work right. If doctors won't take patients, I suggest that we pay them properly for the patients they see.:shrug:

[yowzayowzayowza]

20. ...and said RX doughnut hole was certainly no accident. n/t

[sutz12]

21. Exactly true...nt

[Downwinder]

27. Who would buy prescription coverage with a $5,000.00 deductible?

So they just moved it up and called it a donut hole.

[defendandprotect]

31. Specter is still trying to cut $1 Billion from Medicare -- starve the program and then . . .

call it a failure--!!!

[xxqqqzme]

69. I seem to recall arlen reaped the benefits of

'socialized' medicine during his cancer treatments.

[defendandprotect]

101. Socialism for the rich, free enterprise for the poor -- !!!

We should have one system -- Medicare For ALL -- and all of Congress should

be in the program whatever it is!!

[pattmarty]

39. Only because the government over the years (since 65) has..................

.................gradually upped co-pays, cut payments to doctors and hospitals (kinda like the insurance companies) and the so called "drug benefit" blows big time. If you have to pay "out of pocket" for health insurance for yourself and family you are paying through the ass. Medicare can for what you pay, believe me, is better than paying 8,000 plus per year to a private carrier for so so coverage and you won't even be covered for "pre-existing conditions".

[pnwmom]

78. You're assuming that employers want to stay in the insurance business.

I'm sure they don't.

Yeah, Medicare isn't perfect -- but the Medi-gap policies are inexpensive. And I would hardly call Medicare "weak" for "anything major." I have been very impressed with the coverage of our elderly relative's health matters.

The drug plan is stupid, but it isn't a part of Medicare. And that donut hole just means that there is a limit each year to what percent of drugs are paid by the plan -- but if a certain dollar amount is reached, then Medicare pays everything. I'd be happy to have that coverage.

[MannyGoldstein]

85. For The Same Price, Medicare Will Be Much Better

Medicare gets more for its dollar - they can pay less to providers, just as Wal-Mart can also get the best deal (but don't worry, providers won't starve...). Administrative costs are only about 5% for Medicare, vs. 20%+ for private insurers. If Medicare weren't prohibited by law from negotiating drug prices (thanks George Bush!), they could cut drug prices in half or lower.

If we spend the same per person on Medicare, we'll get much more.

[northernlights]

91. if people are happy with their private insurance, fine

but for the people who are *unhappy* with their private insurance, their should be a choice.

I thought rethugs were all in favor of choice, lol.

My understanding is that in France, many people supplement their single payer with private insurance. There is nothing wrong with that.

But the private insurers should *not* have a monopoly. There should be competition all around.

And employers should *not* be responsible for providing insurance. Free them from the burden so they can compete with the rest of the civilized world.

And I thought rethugs were in favor of competition.

So what is their beef, anyway? :D

[defendandprotect]

102. Citizens are very vulnerable now... how many will be able to continue to afford private insurance?

They need Medicare for All --

[bugisbug]

97. People have health insurance?

Wow...what's that like?


;)

[Oregone]

12. Cept private insurance could likely be cheaper

Ya know, this public thingy gets all the left over high risk people, and they actually will have to pay for care.

[Old Coot]

16. I would like to see all insurance be required to accept anyone who applies with no regard to

pre-existing conditions. I doubt that will happen.

[Oregone]

34. Without that provision, this thing will go down in flames

And America wont see real health care reform for 100 years off.

[Festivito]

29. Actually, private insurance ends up MORE EXPENSIVE.

While we payed $6,000 a year per American private,
Canada payed $3,000 a year per Canadian single-payer.

The savings is in not having armies of people to fight for and against insurance payments at the insurance companies and the health care delivery systems.

Currently we're up to $8,160 per American per year and Canada remains about the same at $3,000.

It seems backward, but, that's the way it is.

The problem is that we'd be putting a lot of people out of work like we've done with a lot of auto workers.

[Oregone]

32. Ass backwards analysis

Canada is single-payer

This proposes a public option "competing" against private insurers. Unfortunately, there is no assurance that the playing field will be level whatsoever, and that the public option wont be anything more than an anemic pool for high risk consumers.

The devil is in the details here, and you cannot even draw a comparison to Canada's system with this.

[Festivito]

43. Perhaps you need to check your own butt on this one.

You answered to someone who brought up single-payer. Yes, Canada is single payer. It shouldn't be news in your post.

Canada covers everyone and covering everyone, for everything, costs $3,000 per Canadian right down to hospital furniture upgrades. It comes to similar amounts in Europe country by country with single payer.

Understand that we do cover everyone in the US. They just get more expensive care because they don't have regular access to a doctor that could keep a problem from becoming an emergency room problem. So, we are paying for that coverage in our current $8,000 plus cost of health care TODAY/NOW. We would still be paying for these people even if they were in an "anemic pool".

So, yes, one can draw a comparison. After all, DUH, I already had drawn one.

[Oregone]

46. Follow the conversation here please:

"Let people choose public option or private insurance. In due time, the insurance companies will lose millions of customers, and will eventually go belly up."

This would work in theory, EXCEPT, the public option may very well cost more than private insurance (without the proper legislation), and therefore, it is not likely people will switch. Hence, it is not a path to single payer whatsoever.

Get my response now?


"We would still be paying for these people even if they were in an "anemic pool"."

No, this isn't exactly true at all. The "public option" is not meant to be publicly funded (sounds absurd, right?). Therefore, it will *likely* only have the resources to pay out, what it takes in. So, in the past, the money was coming from a general fund (directly or indirectly), now it will come from a finite small pool. While the care may be cheaper, because you can use preventative treatment, the pool is much, much smaller (or the premiums will be absurdly high). The result is a bankrupt public option.

You really should draw no comparison at all to Canada's system period. It doesn't even resemble this thing on its worst day.

[Festivito]

53. You assume the reality of Sweden, Germany, ... will not be real here.

They've been running for years in this way with a smaller economy than ours.

Okay, if you must assume something bad, extremely bad, outrageously bad, astonishingly bad, and have no particular reason other than you say so, well, I guess you say so.

And, we would still mandate hospitals to treat the indigent, then the hospitals will exact some type of payment. Currently, they up the cost of each procedure, the insurance company balks, but has to pay. But, the insurance company doesn't mind doing that so much because they can take 8% of the hyped amount as profit and live like kings.

Canada's single payer can be compared to what would be our possible single payer.

[Oregone]

56. Damn man, this isn't a single-payer system. Period

So forget about talking about Sweden, Germany, Canada, etc. It won't likely magically transform into single-payer, because, as I pointed out, it may costs more (or go bankrupt).

"if you must assume something bad, extremely bad, outrageously bad, astonishingly bad, and have no particular reason other than you say so, well, I guess you say so. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/05/health/policy/05health.html

Despite you thinking I have no reason, that article above is a recipe for disaster, not Single-payer. Educate yourself. You are getting behind something that might be good and might be an utter rotten piece of shit.

[defendandprotect]

103. We all want Single Payer - Medicare for all --

any public option that isn't Single Payer or Medicare for All is garbage --

forget it !

Support Single Payer and stop wasting your time with arguing about plans intended

to steal from the public.

[Old Coot]

33. If the public plan takes all comers (sicker) and private does not, then private would be cheaper.

Providing that the public plan is not subsidized.

This is assuming that both private and public plans would be available.

The public plan would have to pay out more for the disproportionate number of sicker patients.

[Festivito]

47. Then explain how single-payer stabilizes at around $3,000.

I'll give you a hint. Medicare operates on 2% overhead. Business / private insurance operates on 8% and higher.

You're starting with an extra, I'll call it unnecessary, 6% off the top. Plus that is 8% on the higher amount including armies of clerks who ration our care depending on who's insurance is valid and what it covers and doesn't cover, and on and on and on.

[Old Coot]

51. We aren't talking about single payer. Just a public option.

[Festivito]

55. Then you should not be posting in a branch under post #1. /nt

[Oregone]

57. We are posting reasons why this may not magically transform into single-payer

If you want single-payer, advocate and work for it.

If you want God, pray he intelligently designs a health care system to evolve into single-payer. Yes, pray in one hand and shit in the other (which fills up first?).

Its perfectly appropriate to refute the failed notion that *ANY* public option will transform into single-payer.

[Festivito]

60. Actually you compared cost (#12) and I continued on costs. /nt

[Oregone]

61. Yeah, no doubt...

I compared costs of the public option vs private insurance in this mixed market system, and provided reasons why this model may not lead to single-payer (a response to the first post). Then, you proceeded to jump into single-payer lala-land that was quite irrelevant

Seriously, you guys are going to crash and burn on this shit if you can't get it together and figure it out.

[Oregone]

52. This isn't single-payer

This is a fucked mixed-market system with a potentially unlevel playing field. Do you understand that?

The private insurers have the ability to cherry pick the cheapest patients. They further may have the ability to continue to simply not pay for services performed (that is status quo). Quickly, they can make up for administrative and profit costs and provide a cheaper service.

One way single payer keeps health care costs low, BTW, is setting billable rates for services from a single source to be payable to physicians enrolled in the plan. That entire mechanism is out the window in this public option system.

[Festivito]

58. Perhaps try not using an indefinite reference to "this"

I'm under post #1, I'm talking single payer to compare current cost with cost of single payer.

I'm comparing the cost of private insurance that we have now with single payer (post #1). Single payer could not be more level, there is only one playing field.

Perhaps you don't mean to be posting in the branch under post #1.

[Oregone]

59. For the second time, I am posting in response to this:

"This is how you get to single payer

Let people choose public option or private insurance. In due time, the insurance companies will lose millions of customers, and will eventually go belly up. Then, voila, no more insurance cos. and we've got single payer."

This assumes the people will want the public option more. Without the proper "public option" model, the private insurance could likely be cheaper. That is just the reality here, that some people are choosing to ignore. There needs to either be subsidization or extra provisions governing the entire industry to make this work. The public option will not become single-payer if it is virtually designed to fail.

[Festivito]

62. Thank you for your time.

You obviously did not read my post about the word this. It was in bold. Good day.

[defendandprotect]

83. I would guess private insurers are profiting more in the 30%+++ range . ..

[Festivito]

89. I think BCBS gets 8%, but they were supposed to insure everyone.

Then they decided not to insure everyone. There is even special legislation that gives them, and them only, that insure-everyone deal.

But, the deal is phony. They raise the insurance prices by 8% each year. They also raise the price of all the services each year and collect their percentage on higher inflated amounts.

It's ridiculous. But, since we do not pay for our own political campaigns, nor even for our own media outlets, we get used.

[defendandprotect]

93. Heard some figures recently but didn't pay enough attention -- sure wasn't 8% . . .!!!

8% might be their administrative costs -- and then add in the administrative costs

they cause doctors to take on with their paperwork!!!

But, that's not profit -- I think the figure I heard was at least 25% and more . . .

but also there are hidden profits which I also heard discussed . . . money they're

supposed to do something with that doesn't happen and they finally pocket it.

[Oregone]

90. I think its much less than that actually

But considering its a production-less industry, they do well

[defendandprotect]

94. It's an industry based on NOT paying for health care -- you think they're settling for 8% . . .???

Are you kidding? They'd be putting their money into credit cards if that was

accurate!!!

We'd better get some better figures on this cause we're all guessing --

but believe me, it's not 8% . . . unless they keep three sets of books!!!

:think:

[Downwinder]

106. They used to be mutual companies, the policy holders owned

the company (in theory). Then management took them over with their IPOs. That's when the rates really went up and the accountability went down.

[defendandprotect]

104. No . . . certainly not . . . not cheaper than Single Payer/Medicare for All --

and not only would individual citizens reject any "public option farce" or

private health care farce . . . so would doctors because they don't want to

be tied up with insurance companies either!!!

They've also had enough of the health care industry telling them what to do!!

AND, they will make more money by getting the "for profits" out of health care!!!

PLUS . . . it is the way to get to what we really need ... PREVENTIVE HEALTH CARE!!

[defendandprotect]

35. No . . . Howard Dean said he regrets not doing Single Payer in Vermont . . .

because it would have been 3X -- 3X -- cheaper than the plan they put in place.

Single Payer is the best and cheapest way to go --

and we should insist on cost-analysis of all programs put in place.

Down with "for profit" health care!!!

And, let's also make clear that even where some individual may find a private insurance

plan cheaper than a "no profit" system -- which would be quite unlikely -- what happens when

the individual can no longer PAY for the private insurance. Or, is everyone who is paying for

private insurance invincible?

[Oregone]

44. Then people should be advocating single-payer

Not this public option shit. And yes, it could definitely cost more than the private insurers in this mixed model system. The public option is going to be loaded with the most expensive patients, and they will be forced to actually pay for them (likely, it will go bankrupt without public funding). The private companies are merely going to be places for healthy people to cheaply fulfill the government mandate.

This public option model is introducing so many more new problems into an already broke system. I highly doubt it will affect costs whatsoever. Single payer on the other hand, that is a different story.

[defendandprotect]

68. As far as I know the public option is Single Payer . . . ???!!!!

It would be impossible for any public option/Single payer to cost MORE than any private

insurers. We currently pay a sum -- something over $8,700+/? -- and may be more than

$9,000 by now -- per person which would be enough for the most luxurious system of health

care in the world -- Switzerland's.

I doubt that there will be any public option that will cost more than private insurance --

if it's single payer it won't.

In fact, all we need to do is open Medicare to everyone -- that would be the public option.

And, actually, people who can't pay for private health care now -- people being turned away

from hospitals -- children without health care -- are already being dumped into our Medicaid

system!

[Oregone]

71. No. The public option IS NOT single-payer

It is a publicly owned and ran insurance provider operating amongst private insurers (multiple payers). Depending on the details (which Obama hasn't touched on), it could be self-sustaining (based on premiums) and loaded with high-risk patients no other insurers want. Pair that with the fact that it honors claims more than a private insurer, and it could definitely cost more.

[defendandprotect]

96. Well, that sucks . .. who came up with that farce--??? That's a game of semantics . .

A public option has to refer to the public financing it -- not some corporation/insurance

bs ...

The idea is ... insurance companies/health industry out ---

public in -- Medicare for all --

We already have it -- let's go!!!

Let's say NO and start torturing them . . . !!!



:evilgrin:

In fact, Baucus should be bounced . . . Bounce Baucus . . .

He's the perfect example of corporate power over political decisions . ..

and a perfect example of why we have to end Campaign Fund BRIBERY!!!!

[sybylla]

50. Yeah, that would explain why all the insurance companies are whining

They don't want a public option because they say they can't compete with it. Why did you think there wasn't a public option at the table the past two months to talk about health care reform?

[Oregone]

54. That is a load of crap

They don't want CERTAIN public option models, but have no problem with others. They are balking so they get a seat at the table (which is being given to them).

There is not ONE SINGLE DEFINED public option. There are tons of things. You people want to think that its like automatically some magic bullet when Obama hasn't so much as outlined a single fucking substantial detail.

The private insurers could potentially make MORE profits under this system (at taxpayers expense).

Start asking questions. Is it publicly funded? Are doctors going to be forced to take it? Are all insurers going to be forced to take *anyone*? Are all insurers forced to honor all valid claims? Will it be able to negotiate low billable rates?

[defendandprotect]

70. The public option has to be Single Payer and/or Medicare for ALL . . .

I don't see what other public option could be considered -- but corporations will find

a way to steal -- I agree with that!!!

[Oregone]

73. You should wish, but not the case

Its new language that essentially means, "Not single-payer". :)

Its a third-way approach to make people and private industry happy. Under any and all circumstance, the public option approach that Obama is espousing IS NOT single-payer/medicare for all.

[defendandprotect]

98. Americans need to stand up for Single Payer/Medicare for All --

if we don't . . . we'll get nothing!

Bounce Baucus and end campaign fund BRIBERY . . !!!

[sybylla]

108. That's funny, because in my state

where legislators have been trying to pass a public health insurance program, the insurers have done nothing but whine that it's unfair because they can't possibly compete with the government. There has been zero attempts to allow a certain kind of public health insurance program.

Call it what you want and ignore the facts. It's a free country where you're always free to bury your head in the sand.

[Ms. Toad]

63. And they've stopped seriously whining because they realized

that tolerating the public health option plan will give them the appearance of giving something up without actually losing anything other than high priced patients they don't want to cover anyway. They get the best of both worlds - unless the public health option is subsidized, but then that wouldn't be the level playing field they are demanding in exchange for tolerating a public health option, woudd it?

It is single payer that has not been at the table. Public health option has been at the table.

Public health option = accepts everyone, the price is not necessarily limited or subsidized
Private insurance = gets to pick and choose the cheapest patients, the price is not limited or subsidized
Single payer = accepts everyone AND paid for by the (single payer) government.

If the public health option is required to accept everyone, and the (competing) private insurance is permitted to cherry pick the cheapest patients guess whose premiums will be lower? Losing the overhead associated with private insurance cannot make up for a patient population that, on average, costs far more to treat than the patients the insurance companies are willing to accept.

The single payer would be approximately the same as Canada's because everyone (both cheap and expensive) patients would be included, bringing the average cost down.

The public health option would be most expensive, because it includes everyone the insurance companies don't want (like my daughter who, as of Saturday, costs about $60,000 a year to care for) - and unless the premiums are health based, no one who is healthy and can get private insurance would want to pay the (necessarily higher) public health premium - meaning the vast majority those choosing the public health option would be expensive patients.

That leaves the population insured by private insurance companies the young and healthy - insurance for that group that typically costs around $3000-$4000.

A public health option that is not expressly publicly subsidized is virtually no improvement over what we have now - and nothing I have seen even addresses subsidy (other than the "level playing field" concept which would forbid a subsidy unless it was equally available to the private insurers) - the suggestions all talk about lowering the cost via competition.

[Oregone]

65. Good summary

Even subsidized it faces challenges in my opinion (simply because it will become a hotly contested, bloated budget item that the sick only use). The playing field needs to be level in terms of honoring claims and accepting patients. But if you go that far, you might as well just do single-payer in the first place.

[Ms. Toad]

67. :D

"if you go that far, you might as well just do single-payer in the first place."

It's nice to have company talking about the fact that the public health option, as currently being discussed, does not mean the government will pay any or all of the bill. I've been getting yelled at a lot, and keep getting told I don't know what I'm talking about - that a public health option is real progress.

[defendandprotect]

72. Okay . .. so let's get Obama back to Single Payer . . . that should be ONLY public option --

[Oregone]

74. "off the table"

:)

Like torture prosecution

[defendandprotect]

88. Well . . . we'll have to torture them to get it -- !!!

:evilgrin:

[Ms. Toad]

99. Sounds good to me - I've been trying...

So far he's not listening (no response from him), and all I get back from representatives and senators is pablum that is generally supportive but suggests that it is not currently politically expedient so we should try the public competition route to lower the cost.

I'm also trying to suggest (or be supportive of) any alternatives to single payer that meet what I consider my bare minimum criteria:

access + affordability

(mandatory insurance, with significant rate breaks - including paying the entire premium for low income individuals; public health option with sliding scale rates; paying for the public health option by taxing health care benefits for the wealthy)

What is absolutely not acceptable to me is a public health option that provides access without subsidy. That is HIPPA on a mild dose of caffeine. Not good enough.

[defendandprotect]

105. What I think I hear is Democratic staff very sympathetic . . . they know . . .

but needless to say all of Congress is working on campaign fund BRIBERY . . .

THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE TO HIT!!

We can't accept any public option which is not Single Payer/Medicare for All --

and it's ready to go --

do they really think that we believe they're re-inventing the wheel???

[Ms. Toad]

107. Unfortunately, a lot of us have fallen for it

I can't tell you how many conversations I've had in which people have insisted that the whole point of a public health option is that the government will be paying for it - or that the rates will be subsidized.

[bobburgster]

22. Amen....the best way to accomplish it.

My guess is the insurance companies also know it, and will apply the pressure. It is a smart method to circumvent the criticism though, because he is letting the people make the choice. Nice work Bama gang!

[Oregone]

64. Is this better than actually passing single-payer reform in a Democratic controlled government?

[bobburgster]

109. I think so...

because he will eventually get there without spending all his political capital. It will allow the citizens to choose govt. plan over private insurance and congress would have nothing to bitch about.

[defendandprotect]

28. Keep in mind that they will try to destroy any such option .. . be vigilant--!!!

Keep calling -- keep e-mailing -- keep protesting for Single Payer.

There's a long battle ahead -- you can believe that!!

[John Q. Citizen]

95. Or, the poor and sicker people go to the public option and the healthy people go on private

and the public option goes belly up.

It could go either way, but the insurance industry is smart enough to buy enough Senators so no law will be passed that will eventually lead to their demise.

Or do you think they will let a law be passed that will phase them out?


If that's the case, why not just pass single payer instead of messing around?

[RDANGELO]

2. GOOD !!!!

[blueclown]

3. There better be no horseshit triggers.

[tabbycat31]

4. good

now if we could only straighten out Max Baucus

[bdamomma]

5. we also need to call our reps and senators and say this is

a choice we want, single payer and/or private plans let the people decide what they want.

[defendandprotect]

38. Keep on it -- this is not going to happen without a large uprising from the public--!!!

[defendandprotect]

75. You have to make sure the public option is Single Payer or Medicare for ALL --

[Abq_Sarah]

6. Would this public plan

Be equal to what congress receives?

[defendandprotect]

76. That would be the good thing about Medicare for ALL . . . they'd have to be in it!!!

And that's as it should be --

In fact, I'd suspend their medical benefits until they do this -- !!!

[theophilus]

7. This is IMPOSSIBLE.......

:shrug:

according to myriad DUers. I think many DUers be full of b*l%shit.

:wow:

[Iowa]

10. This is all theater...

If you truly want a public option, you don't start negotiating there; you demand single payer and settle for a public option. And you don't write letters "urging" and expressing your "beliefs"; you let it be known that a plan without a public option is DOA.

This is shaping up to be the mother of all sell-outs. If I had to bet my life savings on the outcome, I'd bet that there will be no public option. What we're witnessing is the beginning of another massive give-away to the corps. This is just Obama laying the groundwork so he can claim that he "tried".

[Downwinder]

37. I think (they) are betting your life savings on the outcome.

All it takes is one major illness to wipe out most life savings insured or not.

[kath]

84. "This is shaping up to be the mother of all sell-outs" - I think you've nailed it, sadly.

VERY sadly.

[Oregone]

11. It can only compete if its allowed to deny care and refuse high risk patients

(or the others are forced to).

Public funding would help too. Doctors being forced to accept it wouldn't be a bad addition.

Obama wants everyone to hop into his clown bus and take a ride. But where are the details pertaining to exactly where we are going?

[JDPriestly]

18. The government should serve as excess insurer in both the

public and private plans. That way very sick people could also choose public or private plans.

Right now I have Medicare/Kaiser. A lot of people don't like that plan but I do. I chose Kaiser because it was cheaper and my daughter was working there when she just started out in medicine. I knew how well her work was guided and the high standards for preventive and diagnostic care that she was taught to meet, so I trusted Kaiser's care. What really impressed me was that my doctor personally called me after my first visit. I had not understood that I was supposed to go to the lab immediately for tests following my consultation. I was in the habit of just never going to have labs done because my private doctor never had the time to follow through and I hate doing labs when I feel fine. Anyway, my doctor personally called me and told me that I had to have the labs done by 4:00 p.m. THAT DAY. I got the message. I have become what is called a "compliant" patient. My daughter laughs about it. And no, she did not know the doctor who called me and did not tell him to call me.

I like the convenience of my provider. I also liked the fact that when I had a worker's comp. claim I got really good care that was coordinated with my regular care. Usually, if you have a worker's comp claim, you can't go to your regular provider (in California). At Kaiser, I went to a separate section of the hospital for the worker's comp care, but the doctors could bring my whole medical record up on the computer.

I lived in Europe for many years and loved the singlepayer care there (four different European countries). Kaiser is the closest thing I have found to the simplicity of access that I had in Europe where you just go to the doctor, don't worry about bills other than a small co-pay and pay everything when you pay your taxes. (In Europe, you do pay for health care, but it is billed with other tax items.) Just thought people who are choosing a health care provider might like to hear about my experience.

[defendandprotect]

40. Baloney . . . we're not inventing the wheel. Every other nation has Single Payer . . .

All we have to do is remove age limitations from Medicare and call it

Medicare for ALL --

Anyone who would opt for private "for profit" insurance is on the clown bus!

[Oregone]

92. Well, thats pretty much where the Democratic party is then

Welcome to the clown bus. Most of the "leaders" are not advocating single-payer (including Obama and Kennedy).

[defendandprotect]

100. Of course not, they're all cashing in on Campaign Fund BRIBERY . . .

what would our Founders have done about that???

Other than giving land to elites, I mean . . .!!!

Well, they're not going to give us anything we don't fight for --

so we'd better get started!

[fascisthunter]

14. It Better Happen, or say good bye to 2010

[The Hope Mobile]

17. K & R nt

[Phred42]

23. Anyone want to bet thatthe 'Public Option" ends up being administered by

a private for profit Corp?


:shrug:

[defendandprotect]

41. Like PBS . . . and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting . .. the Repugs put in place --

to destroy public broadcasting --

That's been going on for decades with PBS and NPR . . .

they've pretty much reduced it to almost useless at this point!

[kath]

86. Yep, I'll bet with ya...

[Odin2005]

24. But it will never be good enough for the purists.

This will eventually lead to single payer as people see that the government option works and the idiot right-wingers screaming "IT'S SOCIALISM, OMG!!!" are shown to be the idiots they are. Not that the ideological purists care, they want "their pony right f-ing now". :eyes:

[McCamy Taylor]

25. Great!

[tomm2thumbs]

26. it won't be proportionally expensive - all the sick older people are ALREADY on medicare/medicaid

this would help those younger who are actually more healthy as a whole and can benefit from healthy check ups, preventative health care and other long term benefits to the entire system at large.

[Old Coot]

36. There are a lot of younger, sicker people who do not qualify for Medicare/Medicaid.

These people would end up on the public plan, UNLESS private insurance plans are required to take anyone who applies no matter the preexisting conditions. I'm not going to hold my breath.

[Downwinder]

45. Of course younger people can give all of their assets to the

hospital, divorce their spouse, and get on SSI and Medicaid. That will reduce their future Social Security because they will be forced to take early retirement or disability.

[defendandprotect]

77. Every other nation has managed to have Single Payer, but US can't . . .????

Let's stop trying to create nonsensical fears --

this would be a Single Payer PREVENTIVE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM . . .

probably higher costs at beginning because many people have been without health

care for so long.

Eye glasses, full eye care -- and all dental care should also be included.

[Downwinder]

82. The Government does not consider vision, hearing,or dental as important .

Check Medicare/Medicaid.

[defendandprotect]

87. I think we do, however . . . and we have to demand it -- !!!

Dentistry is also going the way of credit cards and "for extreme profit" health

care -- and drugs where we're paying $10 for a pill Canadians pay .05 cents for !!!

Given the higher population in America we should get that pill one day for . . . .

.0005 cents????

:)


I'd like to see these people go down as much as I want to see the credit card thieves

go down!

[pattmarty]

42. You know the one thing I NEVER hear mentioned with "private"...............

........health insurance is that most plans have a "cap". On my retiree plan I have a cap of 300,00 which in medical terminology "ain't shit". Even a plan with a million cap you can blow through pretty quick with a major illness and/or surgeries.

[defendandprotect]

79. Right, the "for profit" health care business is as dangerous to consumers as credit card industry!

[4lbs]

49. I used to have a private plan in the 1990s, that cost me only $120 monthly.

Sixty dollars per paycheck was taken out. It was insurance for just me. Co-workers were able to insure their entire families for $300 monthly total.

I was able to choose pretty much any doctor and hospital.

When I got seriously ill, it paid for 95% of my medical costs and covered up to $6 million lifetime.

Over the course of many treatments, procedures, and hospital stays for six months, it all totalled about $500,000.

The private health insurance paid for 95% of it, or about $476,000. I paid $12,000 from savings, and the remaining $12,000 over two years, $500 monthly.

It was actually excellent insurance, and the $24K was only so much because of the entire half-million amount.

However, I don't have it any more because it went away when I switched jobs. Because I now have a pre-existing condition, it's extremely difficult for me to purchase private insurance like I did before. I'm always tripped up by the "In the last 10 years have you been...."

I am now paying $325 monthly under California's MRMIP (Major Risk Medical Insurance Program) that covers just 75% of my costs up to $3 million lifetime. Doctor's visits are $50, and prescription drugs are $10 for Generic, and $20 to $30 for brand name, and my deductible is $500.

If I was still insured by that private insurance I had in the 1990s, I would want to choose to keep it, and not go on a government option. However, now, I would obviously choose the government option since it is likely cheaper and more coverage than what I've got currently.

[defendandprotect]

80. The other problem with private insurers is what happens when you can't pay for some reason?

[quidam56]

66. How many more will have to die so the Profit Machine

will meet it's profit goal/margin ? In Tennessee and Virginia, Profit Care clearly comes way ahead of Patient Care. http://www.wisecountyissues.com/?p=62

[defendandprotect]

81. Imagine if we start going after the drug companies . . .

they'd be murders and suicides!!!

All we have to do to get them tho is end Campaign Fund BRIBERY . . .

[Zhade]

110. UNIVERSAL INSURANCE CARE IS NOT THE SOLUTION!

It is absolute insanity to place health care decisions in the hands of insurers who DENY CARE TO INCREASE THEIR PROFIT MARGINS!

And to think I had such hope for this guy after I voted for him...

[newinnm]

111. Oh come on...

You are holding him to way too hight of a standard. Man he's only been in office XX number of days. Health care for all is the 525th move in his master chess game.



-nnnm