Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Health & Wellness

Obama vs. McCain: How the Underinsured Would Fare Under the Candidates' Health Plans

By Trudy Lieberman, Columbia Journalism Review. Posted October 6, 2008.


Some 25 million Americans may be underinsured; that is, their insurance, good or bad, does not cover all their medical care.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

This is the fourth in a series examining how the candidates' health care proposals will affect ordinary people who live in the river town of Helena-West Helena, Arkansas, and how the press could cover that angle. Part I is archived here, and parts II and III are archived here and here.

Kevin A. Smith

You might say that Kevin Smith, age 46, has struck it rich in the health insurance lottery. He, his wife, and four kids have a family policy provided by his wife's employer -- Arkansas State University. She is a teacher and runs an early childhood education program in the area. The university's insurance comes with a low deductible, just $500, and his share of the premium runs only about $2900 a year, an insurance bargain these days. It's an eighty/twenty plan, which means the insurer pays 80 percent of a bill, and the insuree pays the rest. That's a bargain, too, considering that seventy/thirty plans are common. Copays for most services cost twenty dollars. "It's good insurance," Smith says. "But having said that, I have a stack of medical bills. I feel Michael Moore is right. The way the system works, it can break you." The 20 percent copayments applied to increasingly expensive medical services add up quickly.

Smith's family is typical of some 25 million Americans who may be underinsured; that is, their insurance, good or bad, does not cover all their medical care. According to The Commonwealth Fund, a New York City philanthropic and research organization, people are underinsured if they spend 10 percent or more of their income on out-of-pocket expenses. So far this year, the Smiths have racked up medical bills that totaled $7000, about 8 percent of the family income. Smith, who once worked for former Arkansas Sen. Dale Bumpers and Bill Clinton when he was governor, and served ten years in the Arkansas state senate until term limits forced him out, makes a good income between selling insurance and running a side business helping communities write grants. Still, the pile of medical bills is daunting, considering ongoing family expenses and looming college costs for his two sons.

The health services his family has used are nothing extraordinary, but they reflect the normal everyday care a family with four kids might need. It's the stuff, he says, that you can't plan for. His son suffered a concussion playing football. His wife broke a rib after a bicycle fall. Smith himself has had a couple of bike accidents. Last February, he finally paid off $3000 in bills, and was so excited he announced it to the staff in his office. The next day he fell off his bike on a rain-slick street and badly broke his arm and collar bone, and the cycle of medical debt began again.

Doctors sent him by ambulance to a specialist in Clarksdale, Mississippi. He got stuck with a $1000 bill not covered by insurance, and a doctor later told him the ambulance ride was unnecessary. Then, in May, he had another bicycle accident. Even though he suffered lacerations and a bruised a knee, he didn't go to the doctor. His shoulder is frozen, and it's hard for him to buckle a seat belt or shave.

He has been to his regular doctor, a chiropractor, and a physical therapist, all of whom have recommended an MRI costing about $1000. But he's stalling, trying to avoid adding that $200 copayment to what he already owes. This year, his doctor diagnosed environmentally-induced asthma which is going to require some expensive medications with twenty- and thirty-dollar copays. So far he's using free samples from the doctor to see which ones work best before buying costly drugs.

During his time in the Arkansas legislature, Smith learned a thing or two about health care. As an insurance agent, he sees "people all the time who are uninsurable, can't afford a policy, and fall through the cracks." Unexpectedly, he blurts out: "I wish we had single-payer. We would trade commissions (on health policies) for free health insurance in a New York minute." If his clients didn't have to worry about health care expenses and health policies, Smith says, they could afford to pay their other insurance premiums on time, or maybe buy a long-term care policy that some people need but cannot afford to buy. His business would do just fine.

But no candidate is talking about single-payer health care, so unless the candidates' proposals really will produce coverage for those without it, the Smith Insurance Agency will still have to put up with late auto, life, and homeowners' premiums from clients who also struggle to pay their medical bills. Not much is likely to change for Smith and his family, either.

How the family would fare under McCain

McCain's health proposals are geared toward encouraging employers like Arkansas State University to drop health insurance for their employees and encourage them to use tax credits to buy policies in the individual market. McCain would also require those with employer-based insurance to pay income taxes on the value of those benefits, perhaps another inducement to move into the individual market. For starters, though, Smith's asthma most likely makes him uninsurable if he buys on his own.

Assuming he could qualify medically, a comparable family policy currently sold by Arkansas Blue Cross Blue Shield costs about $5800. If he used the $5000 credit to buy such a policy, he might pay only $800 in premiums and save some money this year. Since this policy, like the one from Arkansas State, requires 20 percent coinsurance, he would still find himself with out-of-pocket expenses and a stack of bills. The under-insurance problem would not disappear, and down the road, there are other risks of switching.

As Smith and his wife get older, the $5000 credit buys less coverage because premiums in the individual market increase with a person's age. They could end up paying far more in premiums than if they stayed with their employer plan. Generally with these plans, a forty-year-old worker pays the same portion of the premium as a sixty-year-old worker, although premiums for the entire group may rise as the group itself ages. "I can't imagine this working for a lot of people. It won't work for me," he adds.

How the family would fare under Obama

Because Obama's proposals are so vague, it's hard to say whether the Smiths would benefit. Early on, Obama said that his proposed public plan would be available to small businesses and individuals without access to employer-based coverage or public plans. That seems to indicate he wouldn't be eligible for any kind of new public insurance option like those being promoted by Obama surrogates; that is, barring some huge legislative breakthrough that lets everyone buy into a Medicare-like plan that might offer cheaper premiums and comprehensive benefits -- in short, a better deal than private insurance, whether provided by employers or bought individually.

On the trail, Obama has promised that he has the secret sauce to lower insurance premiums by $2500 for a typical family. That implies his proposed cost control measures -- health IT, requiring hospitals to publicly report on costs and quality, and better management of chronic conditions -- will actually keep medical costs from rising. Experts now doubt that these ingredients will work. So unless and until there is real cost control, the Smiths will continue to be part of the growing number of Americans who are underinsured.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: obama, health care, mccain, health insurance

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Health and Wellness! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
New England Journal of Medicine on the Candidates' Plans
Posted by: fanny666 on Oct 6, 2008 3:37 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
New England Journal of Medicine on the Candidates' Plans

They let each candidate write an op-ed for the journal, then one of the editors writes an op-ed about the plan. As with any good journal article, you can tell a lot just from the titles. The title of the piece about McCain's plan is Primum Non Nocere — The McCain Plan for Health Insecurity. "Primum Non Nocere" means "First, do no harm." In other words, McCain's plan will make things worse. The title of the piece about Obama's plan is Symptomatic Relief, but No Cure — The Obama Health Care Reform. That's pretty self-explanatory. As with all things Obama, he hints that he understands what actually needs to get done, but then does everything he can to assure the Powers That Be that he won't rock the boat too much.

That being said, no matter who wins, the plan they are putting forth during the campaign will not be the one that ends up finally getting signed. The real work is for activists to educate our fellow citizens about the need to kick the insurance companies to the curb, rather than just giving them more taxpayer money.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Neither Candidate Has the Keys to Health Care Success
Posted by: Liberty G on Oct 7, 2008 8:57 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nor would either use the keys if they recognized them. The real solutions are too anti-corporate:

1. England spends $2,000 per capita to really cover everyone - and statistics prove better health results than the U.S. (with $7,000 per capita and millions uninsured). How? Well, they cover all the well-researched, effective and inexpensive alternative and complementary medicine options. (The Brits actually have 5 homeopathic hospitals - costs covered under national health). Many other countries do the same.

2. That environmentally triggered asthma could be better controlled by avoidance by the many asthma-inducing chemicals in common household and personal care products surrounding the sufferer. See: Exposure to Volatile Organic Compounds Important in Childhood Asthma, www.toxicsinfo.org/healthconnections/vocchildhoodasthma.htm,
American Lung Association on Asthma Triggers,
www.toxicsinfo.org/asthma/ALAtriggers.htm,
Asthma Linked to Chemicals, www.toxicsinfo.org/asthma/AsthmaLinkedToChemicals.htm,
Respiratory Concerns & Fragrance,
www.toxicsinfo.org/asthma/FragranceAllergies.htm, and Pesticides & Asthma, www.toxicsinfo.org/asthma/PesticidesAsthma.htm

Neither of these health and money-saving approaches are likely to be accepted by our ruling medical/government corporatocracy.

Oh, by the way, option #1 would also reduce the 100s of thousands of incidents of people killed or injured by their mainstream, high-tech, drug and surgery-based medical treatment each year.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

HEALTH & WELLNESS CENTERS, have cropped up, Across America...
Posted by: One American Lady on Oct 10, 2008 2:26 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
& THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO PROVIDE MEDICAL CARE HEALTH MAINTENANCE, FOR THE "UNINSURED"... at a "scaled payment" fee, BUT NOW, THAT THEY HAVE SO MANY CLIENTS / PATIENTS, WHO HAVE "INSURANCE COVERAGE", an Uninsured Patient / Client, Can't get an Appointment, for Months at a Time.
THREE STATES IN AMERICA, RECEIVED AN "F" GRADE, FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE... "PALLAITIVE CARE TO THE SICK".
These States are: OKLAHOMA / ALABAMA / MISSISSIPPI !!
Only Three States in America, received a Perfect Grade. They are: VERMONT / MONTANA / NEW HAMPSHIRE !!
Does this tell us, How "Real-Unhealthy", the Lives of the People, is Adversely Effected?
One American Lady

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Under both Obama and McCain the health insurers win
Posted by: bthespoon on Oct 13, 2008 5:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
....while consumers lose (again).

PLEASE wake up, America!

Both candidates essentially leave the beast that is the problem (profit-driven health insurers) in charge. That's like allowing the KKK solve our Civil Rights issues, or letting Al Qaeda determine our National Security policies. Profit-driven health insurers need to be removed from the bargaining table because their goals (making as much money as possible off of healthy Americans while denying as much medical care as possible to sick ones) are perverse and contrary to the Good of our Whole.

Al Qaeda can only hope to wreak the havoc on our society that our uniquely American profit-driven health insurers do. They are responsible for wasting at least $350 Billion health care dollars per year (www.pnhp.org), unnecessarily killing at least 101,000 innocent Americans by restricting access to adequate care (study funded by Commonwealth Fund and published in "Health Affairs"), unnecessarily disabling and bankrupting millions more, and leaving tens of millions of our fellow citizens living in absolute terror...every year after year without end until someone makes them stop.

All we lack is the leadership.

101,000 Americans Die Each year

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Mccain and Obama are for Big Pharma/Insurance !
Posted by: maxpayne on Oct 13, 2008 6:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
RALPH NADER on the other hand is for patients and doctors ! DUH !

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

OBAMA PLAN AT LEAST A START
Posted by: drricklippin on Oct 13, 2008 6:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
(McCain is out to lunch on health care)

Agree get health insurance companies out of US health care but Obama plan is moving in right direction.

I am for both individual(health behaviors)and institutional(public health)prevention

But most politicians fear promoting prevention strategies because they correctly perceive them as most constituents fearing reduced treatment.

Good prevention strategies actually free up $ for those who really need treatment.

Also rationing especially among the elderly is inevitable. Fund the hospice movement.

GROW UP AMERICA

Dr. Rick Lippin
Southampton,Pa
ralippin@aol.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

BUSHLAND
Posted by: wireman on Oct 13, 2008 9:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sarah Palin's family could not get health insurance under McCain's plan since most private insurance companies will not take a family with a downs syndrome child.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: BUSHLAND Posted by: helenahanbasquet
McCain is NO friend of war veterans
Posted by: NoMcCainPalin on Oct 13, 2008 10:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
According to Republican publicists, Sebator McCain has always supported war veterans in Congress. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Consider the following facts.

McCain opposed the 21st century GI bill because said it was too generous. McCain did not actually vote on the new GI Bill that provides better educational opportunities to veterans of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, paying full tuition at in-state schools and living expenses for those who have served at least three years since the 9/11 attacks. McCain opposed the bill because he thinks the generous benefits would “encourage more people to leave the military.”

McCain Voted Against Increased Funding for Veterans’ Health Care. Although McCain told voters at a campaign rally that improving veterans’ health care was his top domestic priority, he voted against increasing funding for veterans’ health care in 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007.

Opposed an Assured Funding Stream for Veterans’ Health Care. McCain opposed providing an assured funding stream for veterans’ health care, taking into account annual changes in veterans’ population and inflation. (S.Amdt. 3141 to S.C.R. 83, Vote 63, 3/16/06)

McCain Voted Against Adding More Than $400 Million for Veterans’ Care. McCain was one of 13 Republicans to vote against providing an additional $430 million to the Department of Veterans Affairs for outpatient care and treatment for veterans.

Voted Against Establishing a $1 Billion Trust Fund for Military Health Facilities. McCain voted against establishing a $1 billion trust fund to improve military health facilities by refusing to repeal tax cuts for those making more than $1 million a year.

McCain Opposed $500 Million for Counseling Services for Veterans with Mental Disorders.
McCain voted against an amendment to appropriate $500 million annually from 2006-2010 for counseling, mental health and rehabilitation services for veterans diagnosed with mental illness, posttraumatic stress disorder or substance abuse.

McCain Voted in Support of Disabled Veterans Only 25 Percent of the Time from 2004-2005. While McCain claims he “has been a leading advocate” for veterans with disabilities, statistics show he supported the Disabled American Veterans’ interests only 25 percent of the time in 2004-2005. In 2006, that figure slipped to 20 percent of the time.

McCain Voted Against Providing Automatic Cost-of-Living Adjustments to Veterans. McCain voted against providing automatic annual cost-of living adjustments for certain veterans’ benefits.

For citations, click on How McCain betrayed his fellow vets

Finally, for more damning information about Unfit McCain, including his treasonous POW record, click on: Vote Against McCain (one of the HOTTEST anti-McCain sites on the Web)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Lilly
Posted by: Lilly on Oct 13, 2008 8:09 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One thing I have not been hearing about from either candidate is the "health care savings accounts" beloved of Republicans. As I understand them, the tax break for covering medical insurance is supposed to be linked to very high-deductible insurance plans which require patients to pay 100% out-of-pocket all costs up to the annual deductible, the figure $5000 pppa generally being mentioned. Back when Bush II talked up HCSAs the philosophy was that if patients had to pay out-of-pocket for their medical care they would not be so frivolous about running to the doctor for every little thing as in, gee, can I afford to have this stroke today or not? And I'll just treat this strep throat myself, somehow. And we can kiss preventive care goodbye because people who can barely afford to pay the $600 Emergency Room bill for the time Johnny fell out of a tree are definitely going to skip the $600 for Mom's mammogram when she's asymptomatic. Blue Cross et al as we know them would no longer exist. Do-it-yourself medicine would flourish. It is astonishing to me how efficiently Republicans can turn back the clock and erase social progress.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement