I DON'T want MANDATORY health insurance, thank you.

So I guess Hillary's answer to the health care problem is to MANDATE that everyone has to PURCHASE health care? Wow. Thanks but no thanks.

Like many Americans, I'm already broke from mandatory car insurance all the other things I have to purchase just to stay alive in the first place and put food on the table.

This is really a microcosm of why I do not want Hillary to be the Democratic nominee. Unless she can show me how this is going to mean FREE health care for middle class Americans, she can take her mandatory health care plan back to her big business DLC committee and keep it away from me and the other millions of americans who should have to play LESS for their health care than we presently pay, NOT MORE.

I've seen the commericals on Massachusettes TV, where they "inform" you about Mitt Romney's new mandatory health insurance system there, and how you can go to a website and find out where you can purchase your new mandatory health insurance.

No thanks to that.

So to Hillary, I suggest to instead change it to a single payer system, remove the profit motive from the entire system, and pay for it by a tax on big business, rich folks, and with all the money you are going to save by ending this disgusting war, and end the subsidies on the oil and coal companies.

If you like mandatory health insurance Hillary, maybe you should consider running with Mitt Romney. He's singing the same tune.

Mandatory health insurance?

Something doesn't sniff right about that.

No thanks.

but cutting older workers' hours and forcing them onto the state plan.

A friend of mine got nailed by that one. Her costs went up.

You cannot opt out of paying for it.

A better argument is that it is still a for profit system sending tax dollars to insurance companies, the mandatory part is a red herring.

Mandatory in the sense of forcing me to purchase health insurance from a profit driven company is not what I want.

Mandatory in the sense of taking the $500 per month I'm already paying in "employee contributions" and puting it into the tax revenue stream to pay for single payer health insurance with no profit motive for doctors, that's what I do want.

They can pay for it by sticking it to the top 1 per cent of America. And by making it single payer.
And as others are saying, ending the war.

And someone needs to tell Mitt Romney to stop bragging that his system is any more or any less socialistic. In fact, his system is like Welfare for the large Health Insurers.

Out of idle curiosity, how is the doctor suppose to make a living if he is not allowed to make a profit on his medical practice?

...I think people get a little sloppy in their thinking sometimes. Obviously doctors have to make a living, and making a living if you are in business for yourself does entail making a profit.

Where we want to remove the profit motive is the whole private insurance companies thing. They are the ones who can make better profits by denying care. And, since maximizing profit is the name of the game in this capitalist society, they do everything they can along these lines, which often means systematically denying care to their own customers.

But you probably know that already. I just thought it was worth clarifying too -- no, we do not want to deny doctors the opportunity to make a decent living!

and even they aren't happy with the way the insurance companies play around with their patients. And I guarantee you, insurance companies are doing more than fine.

I have known insurance companies to deny tests that doctors have ordered, when I recently switched insurance companies, one of my prescriptions, which I'd been taking for years, was no longer covered. The doctor either had to overwrite something, prescribe one pill less per day, or we had to pay for it. It was a cheap one, so we are just paying for it. My doctor was disgusted with the insurance company.

Insurance companies tell doctors whether tests are necessary, whether prescriptions are necessary, and all sorts of things they have no business doing. I know most doctors would agree - I don't think we have to worry about doctors making a living, we have to worry about for BIG profit insurance companies meddling in the affairs of the doctors.

insurance. If we made all the young adults, who seldom get sick or go to an emergency room, buy expensive "govt. health insurance", that will more than cover all the middle-aged and immigrants that can't afford it but use the hospitals and doctors a lot! We already cover the elderly with Medicare, and we cover the poor with medicaid. So we are only talking about covering those middle class who get paid very little and whose companies don't offer insurance. So the young adults who don't buy it because they seldom need it, can be forced to sign up to pay for those 40-65 who need the coverage but work in low paying jobs! That way, everybody gets covered! We could even pass a "fair" excise tax (and supplementary tax on their income tax to pay for "health care"...we could call it a 'charitable donation' and even let them 'write it off') on the wealthy and get them to kick in some of their enormous income to help those less fortunate! That should be enough to cover all the illegal immigrnst who are not covered in the Hillary plan! That might even result in fewer permanent illegal immigrants. They could come here, get treatment, and then return to thier country since they wouldn't have to stay just to get treated! That would be "fair". After all, it is the exploitation by our nation that probably made them sick anyway. And none of our international corps offer them health insurance anyway! Those abused workers should be able to get it by taxing those corporate big-wigs and giving those undocumented workers health care. Their kids need it as much as ours!

,...TO MANIPULATE PERCEPTION (better than mussolini, better than hitler, better than any fascist ever before).

n/t

n/t

because they didn't have insurance or had/have crappy insurance,supposed to pay for this insurance?
Is everybody's medical debt going to be written off?

She offers a menu of options reflective of what our Congressional Members receive for health care. Additionally, you can just keep with your current plan. No mandate anywhere.

rather than telling everyone they have to go out and get privately funded health insurance that is profit driven, why not have a single payer system and remove the profit motive? the focus should be on making people healthy, not making money for corporations. then the cost goes down and it becomes more affordable for the government to pay for it. it's not that difficult.

Your post REALLY CAUGHT MY EYE with the, ",...then the cost goes down,..."

M-I-N-D-B-E-N-D-I-N-G :rofl:

Are you a "free market/supply-side" believer?

:rofl:

so sorry

There is no mandate, if you are without insurance, there are choices and one needs to make a choice at some point and time be it keep what you have or pick another option from a menu...It's about accountability...

Do you have any idea of the ER clients sitting in ER at this very moment or en route to ER from a shoot-out, auto accident or drug over dose and/or drug related health crisis that does not have any desire for coverage let alone have it? This is the accountability Hillary is going to implement.

You are just uninformed. Under the proposed plans, you are fined if you do not pay the insurance companies their near-tax-level worth of dollars.

Do you have a link handy to HC's proposed plan where that is laid out?

You say, "Do you have any idea of the ER clients sitting in ER at this very moment or en route to ER from a shoot-out, auto accident or drug over dose and/or drug related health crisis that does not have any desire for coverage let alone have it? This is the accountability Hillary is going to implement."

All of this talk about "accountability" just makes me want to retch. Where is the accountability for the billions of dollars in cash airlifted into Iraq? Where is the accountability for AG Gonzales? Where is the accountability for Bush? Cheney? For that matter, where is the accountability for the bozos we sent to Congress? They make up all of this theoretical mumbo-jumbo about how this little tweak and that little tweak will make it all better, meanwhile all they are doing is making it more complicated and more authoritarian. Even their theories are all wet, because they are all based on the middle class model of someone who is working all along -- yet those are not the people who face the problem of being uninsured (not to mention that the middle class is shrinking). So when Hillary says "you'll have to show that you are insured to get hired", it doesn't seem that unfair to her, because she is thinking of the person who is trying to switch jobs, not the person who is desperately trying to get gainful employment in the first place. She doesn't think of such people because she does not know such people. You won't hear her on the stump talking about poverty and the two Americas. She's a corporatist, and this health plan tells you all you need to know. I don't hate her -- but this little gaffe was very telling. It put her right on the bottom of my list.

Also,it has been shown to work for the elderly in our country.

What's wrong with that?

perhaps this explains it?

<snip>

ut times change. As she runs for re-election to the Senate from New York this year and lays the groundwork for a possible presidential bid in 2008, Mrs. Clinton is receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from doctors, hospitals, drug manufacturers and insurers. Nationwide, she is the No. 2 recipient of donations from the industry, trailing only Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, a member of the Republican leadership.

Some of the same interests that tried to derail Mrs. Clinton’s health care overhaul are providing support for her Senate re-election bid. The Health Insurance Association of America ran the famous “Harry and Louise” commercials mocking the Clinton health care plan as impenetrably complex. Some companies that were members of that group are now donating to Mrs. Clinton.

Charles N. Kahn III, a Republican who was executive vice president of the Health Insurance Association in 1993 and 1994, now works with the senator on some issues as president of the Federation of American Hospitals, a lobby for hospital companies like HCA and Tenet. He describes his battles with the first lady as “ancient history,” and he said health care executives were contributing to her now because “she is extremely knowledgeable about health care and has become a Congressional leader on the issue.”

Senator Clinton has received $150,600 in contributions from insurance and pharmaceutical companies, which she accused in 1993 of “price gouging” and “unconscionable profiteering.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/12/nyregion/12donate.html?ex=1310356800&en=0882715139712152&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

no thanks.

so, if taxes are mandatory, the benefit is mandatory, too.

it'd be nice to get something for your taxes but the military death machine, wouldn't it?

one is healthier in a society where people CAN get medical attention if they so choose. I don't think that any country that has a single payer plan REQUIRES one to see a doctor periodically.

starting with the commander in chief.

cuz y'allz murkinz iz crazy! :crazy: ;)

Someone is gonna pay taxes/payroll deductions, national garnishments or something to pay for it.

In general, Congress has allowed Federal "entitlement" programs only if the middle class pays for them. Especially if that makes it possible for business to simultaneously avoid an obligation.

what i'm saying is that the middle class can't afford any more than we're paying with our monthly "contributions" and copay. even 10 years ago we were paying much less in monthly contrubtions. slowly they've been shifting the payments to US. this mandatory insurance plan sounds like even more will go to us. it should be less.

just think of all those mandatory premiums rolling in.

This is really the best thing for a corporatist society.

Unfortunately, not so hot for a dwindling economy, like the one we have...decreasing jobs and lowering wages, huge outsourcing .

So, not only do the corporatists want us to be unemployed, but they want to make we the people buy the insurance the corporations are subsidizing now, and spend their shrinking income to do so.

what's not to like?

One of the main reasons I prefer John Edwards for president is his detailed health plan. Here are three of its provisions that I think are the most important:


None of this nonsense about losing health coverage if you have a disease or change jobs. Everyone should be covered, period.


Let's face it, single-payer isn't going to make it on the first round, but this plan opens the door to public financing of health care for all, and people who choose it will be able to lead the way.


Our health care system is obscenely expensive and that has to end.

An explanation of the whole plan is available here: http://johnedwards.com/issues/health-care/

will still screw us.

The whole concept of insurance is antithetical to universal health care. As long as the insurance companies, instead of the physiciians, decides who gets care and what kind, they will always maximize their profits by minimizing the care. They will do as many loopholes as possible to refuse tests or treatments. In a true Universal health care, the patient gets treated to the best decisions of treatment based on viability and effectivenes of treatment instead of profitability of the insurance company, period.

Another step toward scientific control by the "experts"
Mandatory psycological testing to follow?
This country's so doped up now it can't see the bullshit.

to cover a yearly check up. I don't see what could be wrong with that. I rarely go for a yearly check up because it's not covered. If Insurance Companies had to cover it I would most certainly go each year.

"Scientific control by the experts"? :eyes:

I bet you watch the science fiction channel, dontcha...

as FREE health care. Even the middle class is going to be paying in some way (doctors, nurses and janitors like to get paid and stuff) the only question is who do you pay?

Yes it has to be paid for somehow. What I'm saying is the answer is not to force us citizens to go out and buy privately funded health insurance. Bad idea.

Just look at what many other countries are doing as a model.

creating larger pools, bringing many of the uninsured now into the system through whatever means, can be a good thing. it all depends on the details.

single payer makes the most sense.

Michael Moore is right on this one.

National Health, where everything is owned and operated by the government, or the French system, where private companies and doctors compete for public funds?

In my gut I believe National Health where everything is owned and operated by the government is the way to go. But I'm open minded about different ways to make it work. The one thing I know is I don't want to model it after car insurance by just forcing everyone to purchase private insurance.

don't bet on clinton taking any industry's profit away. Especially one that donates so much to her.....

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=donations+hillary+clinton+insurance+pharma&spell=1

And if HC lets you buy into a government plan such as Medicare or the federal employees plan, why is that so bad?

Medicare is a single payer system. I like that.

I haven't seen the details but what I read on CNN made it sound more like Romney's plan than Medicare.

Of course, we all have to pay for it. Repeal of tax cuts for the rich will help for the extra burden. But right now I know plenty of people who can't wait to get onto Medicare!

So HC's plan looks like private plans plus Medicare or Federal employees health care plan. Those who join up will have the cost shared among a large tax base.

I am hopeful that once Medicare is FULLY funded to accept new non seniors, it will crowd out the private health care being "offered" by HIC's plan and thus, prevail!

That is my dream!

health insurance companies involved.

Eventually, most people will see that Medicare is the best way to go and the private insurers will lose market share. Right now it is the best we can hope for: winnow them out of the health care business.

Then, when they start crying about how unfair it all is, we can just shrug and say "Well, that's 'the invisible hand' for ya!"

A major caveat and it cannot be too strongly underlined, is that it simply must be funded adequately to make it work. The thing that the RW hates the most about SSI and Medicare is that the American people love them. Their strategy is to strangle them with budget cuts and we simply MUST not let them do it!

When we lived in Southern California it was virtually IMPOSSIBLE to find a doctor that would accept Medicare patients - and I doubt seriously if that has improved in the larger cities. I love seeing these threads touting Medicare, because the reality on the ground is far less *pretty*.

The federal employees plan is a totally different plan.

The *problem* is the for-profit insurance companies and medical corporations. They need to GO.

Nor is it in any other country. It's all about how it's paid for and administrated.

One can either do that efficiently- and responsibly, through a common and ACCOUNTABLE risk pool paid for through taxes and fees levied pursuant to the ability to pay. Or it can be done inefficiently and in a piecemeal fashion, with parasitic middlemen who add no value detracting from the amount and types of health care that we "produce."

please read again what I said. I never implied that it is free, meaning there is no cost. I'm saying that the burden can't be shifted to the middle class. we already have seen our monthly premiums go up steadily, and when you really get sick they don't pay for it.

single payer
remove the profit
fund it through the tax systems like other countries do.

The economics of Hillary 2.0 simply don't make sense if what you're trying to do is address the underlying problems facing the fragmented US health care "system."

Especially if the money goes to the insurance companies.

Head's up, for you--

I think that on DU, when people write "free health care", they realize that it is indeed, not free. That it is in fact, paid for through taxes.

It's a short hand.

police, etc. And Medicare is something you will have when you reach 65, but now you have to pay into the system. What's wrong with that?

That's what I want! I want to pay for my health care just like I pay for my police, and roads, and all that.

I want to pay for my health care through my tax system, not by being told I have to go out and purchase health care at a private company who cares more about making money than keeping me healthy.

We should not have to be paying out of pocket for something that is a basic necessity like health care. There is something fundamentally wrong with a system where rich people can afford the best health care, while the poor get shafted because they can't afford to pay deductables.

Life is complicated enough, if the government is going to require something it should be done through taxes. This isn't like car insurance where people can choose whether or not to own a car. It's more like social security which is something almost everyone will use. The only problem is all the insurance companies that are around who do not want their existence threatened. It may be impossible to do this any other way. How could this be done your way, without taking away hundreds of thousands or more jobs?

My guess is that if you choose Medicare for your provider you would just be taxed accordingly. That would insure not only your old age health care, but your current health care as well.

So what's the big deal?

I don't know for sure of course but my guess is that under HC's plan, if you sign up for Medicare it would be like Medicare Part B and D are now(with a charge taken out of SSI recipients' monthly benefit check). If you are not yet receiving SSI then there would have to be another mechanism, but there still is a charge, small tho it is. However, with the government, it is called a tax.

RIght now, I am on SSI and have Part A (hospitalization) automatically, with no money taken out of my monthly check. I declined Part B and D since I already have coverage under my husband's wonderful health care plan (thanks to AFSCME, his union)which actually is cheaper than Medicare B and D and has dental which MEdicare doesn't cover. Once my spouse retires, tho, I will have to go on B and D, or whatever will be in place at that time several years from now.

How about you pay for every 9-1-1 call? If you need the police, pay for that too. If there's a fire in your house, the firefighters will put it out. You better hope you can pay for it afterwards.

No taxes. Privatize everything!

The way I read it, he would agree with you that healthcare should be socialized.

You just never see the bills. As it should be, its the government's job to handle. In Ontario, it is the job of the Ministry of Health.

wouldn't you be willing to pay in your taxes what it would take to have socialized medicine?

That's a big thing to note. Sales taxes in upstate NY are only a few points lower than those across the river, and the income taxes are not realistically that much lower (for example). Many people already pay the same amounts, but receive little to none of the benefits they would under one of those systems. They just don't pay $600B to the Pentagon every year, nor spend $500B on top of that for wars.

Canadians aren't massively poorer for having moderately higher taxes. I paid for prescription drug coverage beyond what my employer covered and that was it. I paid zero out of pocket, and the people at home (even with the Premier's new health tax) still pay only up to $900 a year.

If we have the money for war, we've got the money for healthcare for every man woman and child, at the very least within certain limits.And/ OR!, maybe they could quit poisoning our food supply and give certain tax credits; incentives for those who grow their own veggies in organic gardens. The "Health" industry has no real interest in keeping us well.

not have to have it. I don't go that route.

--who kill people by our denying claims right now. Subsidize premiums for lower income people and make us pay higher taxes for the privilege as well. Fuck that, and right on, brotha!

coverage because of prior health conditions.

I wish people would read the proposals before making claims about them!

--which is just as bad.

47 million more captives to deny care to. All the government has to do is expand Medicare to everyone, cover 100% of medical bills so "supplemental" insurance isn't necessary and jack up the income tax a little to pay for it. If we can spend what we're spending in Iraq on wars of choice, we can damn well pay for health care. I might as well be talking to the cat because the politicians don't really listen and don't really give a damn. They're all wealthy . . . what's it to them? Grrrrrrrr.

at truly universal healthcare.

n/t

when every other first world country (almost) already has universal health care.

i guess our politicians are just that entrenched in the pockets of the pharmaceutical companies.

that we could get through Congress at this point in time.

Only Johnson had SOME success with Medicare, but only because it was limited to the elderly. That tells me something.

So while I would agree that in a perfect world, DK's plan would be ideal and preferred. However, the incremental approach HAS worked in the past, as we see with the creation of Medicare. Now Medicare is so popular no politician dares to try to get rid of it, except by cutting funding in the dead of night when they think no one is paying attention.

If you make the Medicare option popular to practically everyone, while not alienating people who like their current health care plan, you will eventually get to single payer, government paid, health care.

We simply HAVE to do something now. To lose grandly, once again, will only make us demoralized. It will do nothing for people who are currently dying because they have no health care. I think it is morally the thing to do.

EARTH to HILLARY.

Lollimon got it in one. Yo Hillary! It isn’t about insurance, it’s about care! Fer Crissakes when are these idiot going to realize that it’s the insurance system that keeps people from getting proper health care, not the health care system.

It’s why I didn’t like her original proposal 15 years ago. We need to end welfare for insurance companies. Tax credits won’t help people who don’t pay taxes and simply adding another expense to people’s lives, regardless of where a portion of the money comes from, is no solution at all.

As long as we have to run the insurance company gauntlet to get even minimal health care we will continue to lag behind the civilized world when it comes to our nation’s health.


http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/09/17/hillary-clinton-introduces-her-health-care-plan/

and I know she is not dumb she is as corrupt as any repuke corporatist.

PRICE is the issue..There are PLENTY of plans already available,,it's about the COST..

Not unless you have a sliding scale of subsidization up to 100% for the poorest Americans.

And even then, it doesn't BEGIN to address the problems of price gouging and service denial that is ultimately the MAIN problem.

Back to the drawing board, Clinton. And turn your eyes northward.

Its not as good as single payer, but she does have other facets to the plan that let people buy into a publicly funded health plan (like Medicare, but not part of the Medicare trust fund). This could be similar to Edwards plan to make private insurance compete with public.

It also includes wording to the effect that she will improve Medicaid and allow more access to low income adults who don't have children. She also seems to have a number of proposals that will place limits on private insurers raising premiums and forcing them to cover everyone regardless of preexisting or existing conditions.

I'm not particularly pleased with the idea of using "tax credits" to help people pay premiums. Those are usually not very effective.

It does require Medicaid to be allowed to negotiate prescription drug prices.

The problem is, taken all together, the plan might be a good system until we can convert to single payer but most of it the good parts wmay be bargained away before the plan is enacted. If Hillary is elected, she needs to stick with the whole plan and push Dems to get it through Congress. If only part is enacted, it will solve very few problems.

I recognize a lot of the policy items and have a feeling I know some of the people who helped her draft it. If she can get the entire package enacted, and provide something substantial re public insurance and Medicaid improvement, it could work for a while.

There are a LOT of details it doesn't provide and they need to be fleshed out before I would support it.

On edit: link to plan http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/healthcareplan/americanhealthchoicesplan.pdf

:rofl:

The plan might not be perfect yet, and undoubtedly has some kinks that need to be worked out, but with a complicated issue like this no plan is going to be all encompassing perfection right off the bat. But that doesn't make it worthy of such feigned outrage either.

God the knee jerk Hillary bashers crack me up!

and doesn't, in any way, address the problems we face with regard to making sure health care is affordable for everyone.

Realistically, and this is true whether you talk to patients or doctors, the real spanner in the works in the current system are the insurance companies. In other words, THEY are the biggest part of the problem. Making them in control of the solution is like allowing the fox to protect the hens in the henhouse.
This has nothing to do with "basing Hillary". And I tire of using that false flag to avoid discussing the merits of the issue.

You must have read a different OP than I did. It's a valid argument and not Hillary bashing - it's an opinion on her health care plan.

I'm glad you're so easily amused. Health care is one of the top issues people in this country are concerned with, and I do believe they should be able to express their opinion without ridicule. However, I'm somewhat familiar with your posts, so I'm aware that's not your strong suit.

...that us l'il people should just shut up and leave it to the pros, right?

Elitist bullshit. The "pros" are the people who have given us this pathetic, inhumane system in the first place. The same politicians who think we can't afford health care, but who have no trouble reaching into all of our pockets to finance the carnage in Iraq.

Feigned outrage indeed. I'm no Clinton basher, I think she's run a dynamite campaign so far and good on her for that. She has earned her place at the table. But on this issue, she is wrong IMO. And yes, I am outraged -- not just at Clinton but at any candidate who thinks that an answer to the health care crisis is to make everyone buy coverage. Total BS.

... how this plan will work for self employed or unemployed people who cannot afford health insurance and make too little money to really benefit from a tax break. If Hillary can convince me this will work for those people, then maybe I'll support her.

Germany doesn't have a single-payer system but it seems to work for them there. So I'm not bent on single payer, but I want to see a plan addressing the fact that healthcare insurance is unaffordable for about 40 million people- many of whom have pre-existing conditions. These people don't forgo insurance because they are lazy, they forgo it because it is expensive.

Some states are doing that now with the CHIP plan for kids.

The point of a collective insurance is that it brings down the price to the point where everyone should be able to afford it (unlike car insurance).

For the same reasons that you are mandated to insure your car and house, you should be required to insure your health.

1. The whole purpose of insurance is to cover situations that you can't cover IF they occur. Unless you have a few hundred grand tucked away in the matrass, you NEED insurance just in case.
   
2. Of course there are people who never need medical attention, just like there are people who never crash a car. Consider yourself lucky if you're one of them but don't bet on it.
   
3. A collective insurance cuts the risk and therefore the costs. Having people walk around uninsured or opted-out drives up the price for everyone.

Between your car, your house and your health, which one is the most important?

Mandatory health care is fine, but the goal should be to keep it affordable for everyone and it should not be done for profit. I am not buying DK's plan that supposably won't cost us a penny. But contributions in other countries where they have these systems in place vary between $25 and $100 a month. You can't even get full coverage on your car for that price.

How do you know this will be a net negative for you? If you are as disadvantaged as you say, then wouldn't your insurance be covered? I mean, we insure three cars for $96 a month, so if car insurance is threatening your ability to eat healthily, you must be pretty broke. Or a bad driver. And if you are a bad driver, then I really want you to have at least liability insurance so that when you hit me, I can get my medical care paid for because I don't have health insurance. And if you are so broke that the mandatory auto insurance is threatening the food on your table, well you will probably qualify for free health insurance.

"change it to a single payer system, remove the profit motive from the entire system"

of the huge difference between making you buy insurance from a for profit company and that of single payer. Now in her system someone said one could buy in to the Federal program (FEP, Federal Employees Program) but I don't know the details of that.

If Hillary will use that option to phase people in to FEP away from the for profits gradually and eventually eliminate them, then maybe there is method to her madness but that BIG IF is too much of a risk for me.

Insurance adds nothing to the system except profit for the insurance companies and less care for people. That is not a good thing and must be done away with.

The reason I ask is that there are people here at DU who have NO health insurance. An incremental step that gets them affordable insurance is something, rather than the nothing they have now.

So it is one thing to dismiss HC and JE's plans summarily because they aren't "pure" enough to suit one's ideology, while having your own health care. People are suffering every day because they lack coverage. I don't think it's right that they should suffer because fortunate ones are holding out for theperfect system.

the point is the insurance companies ARE the problem: they maximize profit and minimize care. That holds true for the current insured or the future insured under these plans.

Unless you don't think quality of care is an issue.

and the insurance companies won't be able to compete. They will switch to something more profitable for them. That is why the Republicans are so hysterical.

Quality of care is a very important issue. FUND Medicare fully and you'll get quality.

in that one, you seemed to be implying any with health insurance now is being hypocritical if they criticize her plan, at the expense of those without insurance.

My point was that if the quality of care is sacrificed for the profits of the insurance companies, we'll still end up back at this same place.
In other words,its like using poison ivy to cure poison ivy. I'm all for the cure, but I don't think the same people who profit handsomely from the current problem will work that hard towards its resolution.

and my health care from each system is excellent. I am not sure why you think the quality would decline -- maybe it would stay the same but I don't see any reason why it would decline. Indeed, if private insurers had stiffer competition from the government program, wouldn't that be an inducement to offer at least as much as Medicare does? And if they start losing subcribers to their plans, they may just decide they can't make enough money at health care to make it worth pursuing further and go into different areas. Businesses decide to do this all the time as some things simply become obsolete...

if you do, you'll notice the doctor charges x, the insurance counters with what they considered an "approved" amount, and the physician (depending on the physician) can choose to honor the lower cost or charge you the remainder. Likely the reason you have two insurances is exactly that. What one doesn't cover, the other does.

The point is, once a national mandatory insurance is in place, there is nothing to stop the insurance companies from incrementally reducing the "approved" cost, or outright denying certain tests or treatments as unapproved.

In other words, the entity in complete control of your health care and the quality of it, would be the insurance companies.

This would be different from socialized medicine, wherein the taxes go directly to the doctors to provide the treatment they deem most appropriate, regardless of the cost. Since its not for profit, nor has shareholders demanding a profit, there is no incentive to downgrade care. For insurance companies, they get bonuses and increase shareholder dividends the MORE THEY REFUSE TO HONOR going rates or by DISAPPROVING needed medical care.

There is never going to be an incentive for reducing the profit margin to increase quality care if the insurance companies are the ones in charge of the program.
No program is going to be perfect, but this proposal GUARANTEES that the the entity with the most to lose for providing quality care is in charge of deciding who gets what care.

This isn't rocket science, actually. Look beyond the stated benefits and put yourself in the shoes of the insurance company awarded this huge contract. Are you going to find ways to spend more money to make care better, or are you going to immediately start paring down services to maximize profit?

people will switch into Medicare? I don't think you addressed this eventuality: people vote with their feet and go where coverage is better. Of course, this would only work if the Medicare option is fully funded, an important point.

Where is it stated that the insurance industry will control ALL of the program? Medicare operates on its own, as a government program.

Actually, I declined Part B for the time being since I can get cheaper, but more comprehensive, health care under my husband's insurance. He is part of a union, AFSCME, which fought for the best health care coverage for their members who are city employees. Once he retires, however, I will pick up Part B.

Ideally, there should be no profit involved in providing health care for citizens. I agree with everything you have said about the evils they perpetrate. My point was that by offering the Medicare option, people no long HAVE to have private insurance before they reach the age of 65. There will be many people who are rightfully suspicious of the private insurers and will avoid their coverage at the outset by choosing Medicare.

that would be better. Right now its only available to those over a certain age.

But even the current program for seniors will penalize you if you don't sign up for Part B (to avoid the fee taken out each month of your SSI check) by telling you that you will face a higher monthly fee when you do sign up. The exception is that if you have a private insurance plan, as I do, that already covers Drs visits and other Part B coverage, you will not be penalized with higher fees later when/if you do sign up. You are required to have a letter from your insurance company sent to Medicare stating thatyou've been covered all along. They don't want you to blow off Part B and have NO insurance for drs. visits and then show up in the ER requiring acute care, very expensive.

none of the plans are anywhere near being actually passed. At least H.R. 676 has been introduced in to the legislative system (and is the best plan BTW).

I do have insurance. If they expand medicare or another government program to help those without insurance great. If they make people who are already struggling, buy expensive insurance that is for profit NO.

People need to understand that it is very likely even if they buy insurance that the co-pays, lab payments and other tricks the insurance companies pull will still leave them will medical bills they cannot afford. There is absolutely nothing stopping an insurance company from simply saying, we won't pay. Sure you can take them to court and get that figured out but it can take years, meanwhile they can try to seize your assets and lose your good credit. So while you may be sick and maybe even partially or wholly incapacitated in need of care they can be working to keep from paying you.

Any affordable insurance that is for profit will not be affordable for very long.

forcing people to PAY another bill is just an outrageous plan. if they had money to get a plan, they probably would already have one... BUT THEY DONT!

either.

Even if you do pay for insurance and it is affordable, if the place you go to for treatment thinks the plan does not pay them enough they do not have to contract with that plan. That means the plan pays Medicare rates and you pay the difference.