When Hillary says Americans deserve the same health plan that Congress has, who will be paying...

...the premiums? What percentage of Congress members' premiums are paid by their employer, the federal government? I've read her plan very carefully but this is a detail that I can't find any information on.

I'd also like to see some real numbers and benefit information. What's covered and what's not? Do members of Congress have to face the same health care decisions as the rest of us? For example, despite the fact that the AMA now strongly recommends an annual colonoscopy for everyone over the age of fifty, unlike my yearly mammograms which are 100% covered, the cost of this test is applied against my $1,000 annual deductible. That means I would have to pay for a colonoscopy out of my own pocket.

I don't know about you but, when I'm struggling to find the money to put tires on my car or repair the roof of my house or take care of any one of a multitude of budget-busting, unavoidable expenses, I can't afford to pay for routine but expensive medical tests. And insurance companies, in their infinite greed and stupidity, would rather take a chance on having to pay the astronomical costs of long-term catastrophic illnesses (and hope we die quickly) than cough up $500 or so for a simple but critical test.

So, what's the bottom line? Will we still be faced with these sorts of issues under a Clinton presidency or an Obama or Edwards presidency? Am I alone in being supremely dissatisfied with all of their health care plans? Aren't they all just more of the same crap we've been dealing with all along?

Where is the candidate who can tell me that I won't ever have to give one more dime to HealthNet, United Health, BlueCross, or any other for profit medical insurance company? And please don't ask me to support Dennis Kucinich. He's already my favorite but only in an ideal world. In this world, he's just not viable.

but they will to normal joe.

so, unless any new health plan includes that privelege, they should just stfu about it being the same plan.

...and could make or break their reputations.

I work taking care of the elderly.

Nineteen years ago, when I first started in this line of work, MediCare was amazing. Seniors got marvelous treatment, even end of lifers got heart bypasses and there were ample visits from registry nurses - I had patients who had nurses visit just because they liked the company.

This has faded away over the years, yet seniors still get so much more than the average HMO policy holder gets. Like Michael Moore says, after seeing the endless payments made to Halliburton and DOD, no one can ever say that this nation does not have the wherewithal to pay for everyone being covered.

If newly arrived immigrants, people in jail, and our Congress critters can get Universal Single Payer Health care, wothout anyone raising a fuss over it, I see no reason why all of us can't have it.

...or in the debates? I don't get it.

Kucinich and Ron Paul are not at the debates.

And that Edwards gets squat in terms of media coverage.

Do you ever wonder why when you are watching a local program or channel, you see endless ads touting the virtues of whatever hospital or two is in your area? It is a puzzle, isn't it? After all, most consumers of health care do not even have a choice - they are forced to go to whatever hospital their HMO is in alignmnet with.

So why all the comemrcials about the loveliness of Hospital System A or B? Don't the hospitals want some bang for their buck?

Well they get the bang.

Because that "fat cat" ad money is sitting at that channel to let the channel tell its news director how wrong it would be to have any discussion of Universal Single Payer Health Care. The ad money controls the local news discussion. You never find any TV coverage of Shiela Kuehl and her committment as a CA lawmaker to Universal Single Payer being discussed ont he TV news.

The corporations control the discussion. Every single step of the way.

I've heard a cornerstone of health care proposals being "open up the federal employees health insurance plan to everyone." Sounds good, but federal employees have to pay quite a bit out of their pocket (one I know pays around $350/month for a family), and that is when the plan is heavily subsidized by the government. If that plan were opened to everyone, you can bet the government wouldn't be subsidizing it for them. How much would the un-subsidized premiums be...and how many people would be unable to meet those extra charges per month, even if required by law to do so under an "individual mandate" plan?

:shrug:

for individual and also 20% for family plan. The Federal Government pays the rest. It is deducted from their salary. This has been addressed many times on this forum. I would assume that the individual would pay the 20% of whatever plan they pick. Some plans are better than others. By the way folks the plans are a mix of BC BS, Harvard Health, and some other insurance plans. The government does not pay the bills. The insurance cos do.

...over the prospect of mandatory FOR PROFIT health coverage? This stinks to high heaven!

Look at your pay stub. How much for health premiums? Now look at your Medicare deduction. I'd gladly triple my Medicare deduction to lose that premium paid to the for profit plan. Bonus: businesses benefit from it, too.

he said so when he was talking about his health care plan in 2004. Anyway, even Kucinich's plan is insurance. Medicare for all is insurance. Medicare recipients pay premiums and their doctors have to get approval for procedures which may be denied.

Would Medicare tell a college girl with advanced cancer that she must be enrolled as a full-time student in order to receive benefits? Would Medicare tell everyone over fifty that they have to pay for their own colonoscopies? I don't think so because, when the profit motive is removed, risk management also goes away. Risk management eats up a whole lot of money that could, otherwise be directed to actual health care.

For me, it's this simple: Allow providers to earn livings commensurate with their education and experience--just like any other line of employment--but, other than that, get the profit motive out of health care. Period.

although Medicare does deny procedures that aren't judged medically necessary. I don't know how they define medically necessary. I know that for heart transplants, only certain hospitals are approved to perform them, so I hope that Medicare takes the word of those approved doctors (that's what Blue Cross does). For liver transplants, I don't think they approve them for patients with hepatitis or HIV (although I don't know).

I agree with you that the profit motive of insurance companies can (and likely very often does) lead to denied care. I also know that Blue Cross has been very fair to my family. I don't think that's niceness on their part. I think it is because as an employee of a state government, I am part of a very large pool.

From my perspective, the best thing to do is to give people a choice. If they want to enroll in Medicare as their insurance (and it IS insurance), that should be available to them. If they want to enroll in a for profit insurance plan like Blue Cross, fine. There is nothing wrong with options. (hmm.... that sound a bit like the plan of one of the Democrats currently running for President? Maybe if it were read with a southern drawl?)

Does Edward's plan offer Medicare to everyone? Do any of the other candidates offer that option? If so, would we pay premiums in addition to what's already taken out of our paychecks for Medicare?

Businesses have a responsibility to support their employees' health. They will be required to either provide a comprehensive health plan to their employees or to contribute to the cost of covering them through Health Care Markets. The U.S. government will help states and groups of states create regional Health Care Markets, non-profit purchasing pools that offer a choice of competing insurance plans. At least one plan would be a public program based upon Medicare.

Here's a link to a Paul Krugman article discussing the political issues in obtaining universal coverage.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=2602279

I have to leave soon but it's bookmarked and printed out for later reading.

he give any clue as to how he'll pay for it..