Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace

Got Health Insurance? Fighting for a Public Option Might Just Get You a Raise!

By Joshua Holland, AlterNet. Posted June 29, 2009.


Controlling health care costs isn't just necessary for the health of our economy -- it'd also be likely to boost personal incomes.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

The best argument for overhauling our ridiculously expensive and dysfunctional health care system -- an argument one doesn't often hear in the corporate media -- is that fixing it would put more dollars in your pocket, even if you already have health coverage. 

If there's enough pressure on Congress, we'll add a well-designed public insurance option to the current mix of private insurance and government health care programs. It would be like (the highly popular) Medicare program, but open to all comers. We'd end up with a very large insurance pool that would  lower costs through efficiencies of scale. The plan would be able to drive a hard bargain with providers and cut down on overhead costs, which amount to about 30 percent of spending in the U.S. right now. 

And it wouldn't just contain costs. A publicly administered insurance program would also protect Americans from the kind of health insurance nightmares we hear about so frequently, with families bankrupted by out-of-pocket expenses or stuck in jobs and relationships they hate in order to hold on to their insurance. 

But at the end of the day, people are most interested in the heft of their wallets. Ezra Klein argues that if people understood the health care debate in these terms -- reform the system and control costs; get a handle on costs and get a pay raise! -- it'd be a political game-changer.

"Most workers think stagnant wages mean their employer is paying them less," he writes. "They don't know that the main reason for stagnant wages is that their wage increases are going to pay for their health insurance premiums." 

Over the past 30 years, economic growth hasn't made its way into most working people's paychecks. But -- and this is key -- the amount businesses have to pay for an hour of work has increased.

Looking just at the George W. Bush years -- and before the current recession gained steam -- economists Lawrence Mishel and Jared Bernstein found that while average weekly wages for (nonsupervisory) workers increased by a paltry 1.7 percent annually, average compensation -- including health care and other benefits -- increased by 5.1 percent per year. 

If we stay on our current trajectory -- driving fast toward a cliff, as the baby boomers hit their "golden years" -- it's going to get much worse.

A picture can be worth a thousand words, and this graph, based on projections by the Council of Economic Advisors, shows that Americans' incomes will remain flat long into the future if rising health costs aren't better controlled.   

Health care and compensation

 

The Disease-Care Industry's Fearmongering 

Of course, the usual suspects -- the "disease care" industry, corporate-funded think tanks and conservative media outlets -- pit us versus them, framing the issue as a "government takeover" of health care.

They invoke images of gray-faced bureaucrats deciding that you need a colonoscopy whether you want one or not, your doctor relegated to the sidelines. They warn that you'll lose the ability to choose from different plans and providers. 

In a column debunking the industry's "propaganda," syndicated columnist Froma Harrop dispatched the spin with ease: 

What about freedom to choose providers and treatments? Well, private insurance also sets rules on what it will cover and typically provides lists of preferred doctors and hospitals. If your plan lets you go out of the network, you have to pay extra for the privilege. Nothing wrong with that, but we must drop the romantic notion that private coverage affords total freedom at popular prices. 


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

See more stories tagged with: health care reform, public option

Joshua Holland is an editor and senior writer at AlterNet.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace! 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:
" If the plan is well designed, ... "
Posted by: mmckinl on Jun 29, 2009 12:20 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That's a big if ... We have seen, or not "seen" the manipulations of Bills behind closed doors, in conference and in the dead of night ...

The Company Diageo just got 2.7 billion dollars for moving a distillery from Puerto Rico to the U.S.. Virgin Islands ! Seems nobody knew it was in the "Bill".

The infamous prohibition of regulation on CDS and derivatives was snuck into a Bill by Phil Gram 9 years ago in the middle of the night, now haunts the world ...

How do we know that a Public Option is not going to be sabotaged?

We Don't ...

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

» It already has been Posted by: bthespoon
» RE: It already has been Posted by: brunowe
» RE: " If the plan is well designed, ... " Posted by: progressive-life
i call BS
Posted by: SekhmetsatRa on Jun 29, 2009 2:26 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
in order to cover EVERYONE in America, they need to raise taxes. HEAVILY. so, we get a raise. Yay. new taxes wipe it out and then some. boo. this is really stupid. do you people even LIVE in the real world, or is it just the rarified atmosphere of your ivory towers that makes you immune to real life?

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

» RE: i call BS Posted by: ADNK
» Let's get our facts straight Posted by: bthespoon
» RE:7.8% beats 20% Posted by: Sushi
» Great discussion Posted by: farmer's daughter
» RE: i call BS Posted by: progressive-life
Here's how much medicare for all will cost, now do the comparison yourself.
Posted by: rickiey on Jun 29, 2009 3:56 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The math is pretty simple. Medicare currently costs 2.9% of the gross income of every working person in the US (flat-taxed, nonrefundable).

Medicare currently covers one-seventh of the US population.

So, to cover the entire US population, the medicare tax needs increased to 20.3%.
(7x2.9%=20.3)

So, now look at your paycheck, and do the math. Is 20.3% of your gross pay more, or less than what you currently pay for health insurance, and is medicare better or worse coverage than your health insurance?

For most of you, you'll find you are already paying more than 20 percent of your income and getting coverage that is not as good as medicare.

For the very few of you who are paying less and getting more, do try to remember that you have a social obligation to the 50 million people who have NO coverage.

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

» Your math is wrong because Posted by: bthespoon
» I have no obligation to millions of people. Posted by: Honky the Nihilist IX
» Of course you do Posted by: rickiey
If we take the profiteering insurance companies out og the system we pay less
Posted by: cori on Jun 29, 2009 4:04 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In the UK they tax 50 cents on every stock transaction (from economist Dean Baker) and raise billions - cut backs on military spending would raise billions. R Sen Enzi from Cody Wyoming is on the committee that is deciding health care for all of us and so is Chris Dodd. They are against the cost of drugs lowered and an affordable national health care system. if Canada and 65 other nations can do it so can we. If Cuba can do it so can we. So don't reelect those who are only working for special interests. Tens of millions of lives are at stake. I rather pay higher taxes then 10,000 per yr for lousy health care coverage. Tell you reps you won't vote for them if they do work for you!!!

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

It's time America.
Posted by: CornetMustich on Jun 29, 2009 4:29 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's time for a national (single payer) health program in America.

See: http://www.pnhp.org

It's good for society and for business, but not for the looters on Wall St and their enablers in Congress and the White House.

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

They have looted Social Security, Medicade and Medicare
Posted by: cori on Jun 29, 2009 4:53 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Us baby boomers, Americas biggest population, have been paying into these safety nets most of our lives. But our horrible greedy, corrupt govt has looted all three for many years. They knew we were all going retire and when and now they are trying to screw us again while they are moving ahead full throttle paying billions maybe trillions for the wars and the gigantic military budget. We need to make a BIG NOISE and tell these SOB's that we are NOT going to vote for them again if they don't work for us. We have got to do more then flap our lips on blogs. I just wrote a letter to the editor for a local paper in Cody Wyoming telling people how R Sen Enzi is not working for us, he's working for special interests and he doesn't want to lower the cost of drugs for us which are the highest in the world and he doesn't want a national health care plan either because taking bribes are more important to him. Dodd is another one. These reps think they can just take bribes and sacrifice tens of thousands of lives and that's OK - WELL WE BETTER LET THEM KNOW ITS NOT! cause I'm telling you folks they don't care if we starve and die in the gutter. And while we are spending tens of billions on Homeland Security 20,000 people are dying here from lack of health care and tens of MILLIONS can't afford their medications. What the hell is homeland security anyway when so many are dying and starving and homeless here?

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

At Last, a Chance!
Posted by: tinkll1 on Jun 29, 2009 5:07 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've been involved in health care, other than as an occasional recipient of services, as a medical student, intern, resident, renal fellow, and for the last 42 years, a nephrologist in clinical practice. I've enjoyed the provision of dialysis therapy to anyone dying of kidney disease during my entire career, first with MediCal, then with Medicare. This is a peek into the future of technology. It is too expensive for Joe Citizen to afford, and Private Health Insurance tried for many years to call it experimental therapy. It took government intervention to bring one disease entity into rational availability. Now is the time for the government... us! We the people, Congress... to bring affordable health care for other diseases to our entire population. Private Health Insurance is Obsolete! We can't afford it, and extend health care to all our citizens and legal residents.

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

» RE: At Last, a Chance! Posted by: ellie
Not a single politician.....
Posted by: Sgellero on Jun 29, 2009 5:11 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
not one...........makes this claim that Mr. Holland does.

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

» What are you saying? Posted by: tatamchwh
Otto
Posted by: otto on Jun 29, 2009 5:22 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here in Canada, we progressives are looking into a mirror of what you see in the States; for years the neo-conservatives have been proclaiming that we need to become more like you in health care. Suddenly it was discovered that health care lowers our costs on producing and gives us an edge in trade. "The other side" is scrambling to stay on both sides of the horse - destroy our health care system (which is very good!) and keep promoting free trade.

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

» single payer Posted by: tatamchwh
Otto
Posted by: otto on Jun 29, 2009 5:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
shows where most politicians stand!

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

Impressed
Posted by: aawindoze on Jun 29, 2009 5:24 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Most impressive and does bring up some very valid points. Bottom line, if it saves me money and the level of care remains the same then I am ALL for it.

RT
Is your ISP Watching??

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

Yeah, let's give ourselves a pay raise!!!
Posted by: xvictor on Jun 29, 2009 6:09 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Given our current tax code, the simplest way to bring down medical costs would be to fully tax health care benefits as wages and simultaneously increase the personal deduction by an amount significant enough to neutralize the effect of the tax increase. This would do two things. First, the uninsured would get a huge pay increase, enabling them to buy reasonably priced catastrophic policies. Second, those currently insured could opt out of expensive employer-provided plans, trading premiums for extra wages, then buy a more economical plan. The savings would go right into their pockets.

The bottom line is that aggregate medical costs will never come down unless services are rationed more wisely. Rather than being used as a pre-payment plan for routine care, insurance should only cover unpredictable, catastrophic costs.

As a comparison, homeowners often carry fire insurance, but seldom maintenance insurance. You buy fire insurance to guard against a catastrophic loss, which is a low probability but high cost event. As a result, fire insurance is relatively affordable, since premiums paid by all those homeowners whose houses do not burn down more than pay for the losses on those few whose houses do.

On the other hand, no one carries home maintenance insurance to pay for a clogged drain or broken garage door. If insurance paid for the plumber visit every time a toilet overflowed, we would now have a plumbing crisis, and Congress would be looking to reign in runaway plumbing bills with "national plumbing insurance."

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

» Trollista Posted by: Hiroak
public option?
Posted by: james108 on Jun 29, 2009 6:18 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That doesn't work. Look at MA. What they are proposing is very like it. It's called an "option", but the options they keep "exploring" are taxing current employer benefits, a mandate or tax penalty on those they think can afford it, and perhaps an extra sales tax. This is not saving us money but a way to squeeze more out of us.

Also, since it will likely be "cost controlled" and "everyone can get in" (that can qualify for the plan, as MA still needed to leave plenty of people uninsured after wrecking the market), that makes it a high risk pool which is expensive by nature. The real expense will likely be masked with subsidies and the need to tax more.

That's why many reject this "public health option" as democratic propaganda, because they specifically restrict hearings and comparisons of single payer which could cover required services and allow us to have a real discussion to get rid of the cost shifting tax which. A "public option" also leaves in place the system where hospitals can charge an individual many times what insurance companies have to pay. The "public health option" is a dangerous sham. Yes, single payer would put the insurance company out of business, essentially, and all that money would be freed into the system. The "public health option" will also ruin the insurance market, albeit expensively, slowly, and painfully, and not with the same results. It's a "wink, wink", I'm not putting private insurance out of business, "wink, wink" I am, and you don't really know who's being lied to, kind of like the election with Obama. Both liberal and conservative sides of the public are, that's for sure.

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

» RE: public option? Posted by: FoonTheElder
The Math is Simple
Posted by: snax on Jun 29, 2009 6:35 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
- Medicare Administrative and Overhead Cost = 3.5%

- Private Health Insurace Admin/Overhead Cost = 20-50%.

Given that, if a government run program provided the EXACT SAME crappy service, denials, and recision of insurance LIKE THE PRIVATE COMPANIES, it would cost all of us 15-45% less.


WHAT IS SO F***ING DIFFICULT ABOUT THAT TO UNDERSTAND?!!?

The Insurance Lobby is only running scared because they know the truth is that they have been screwing us for far too much for far too long. WELL SCREW THEM!!!

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

» RE: The Math is Simple Posted by: wtfo
» RE: The Math is Simple Posted by: snax
» RE: The Math is Simple Posted by: butterflycrossing
health care charade
Posted by: Svejk on Jun 29, 2009 6:43 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The health care mix described in the column - private insurers with a "strong" public option, with private insurance mandated for a portion of the population is modeled on the Massachusetts system. This is a disastrous failure. The lower income people are losing out on health care entirely, and the governor is being forced to close the charity clinics for lack of funds. Those with modest incomes would be woefully underinsured, so would be in essence, without access to health care. Some would be unable to afford insurance (yet not be eligible for the government option) and would be fined - a tax on the uninsured. Lovely.

As long as the health profiteers are in the mix, our costs (their profits) will rise unchecked.

A strong public option has as much chance of passing the paid-off solons as a single-payer program, so why not go for the single-payer, which is far superior, and far simpler, and fair to all? Not to mention, MUCH more economical.

While we're at it, why not have the Congressional Budget Office score single-payer?
So far, the request to do so has fallen on deaf ears.

Wonder why.

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

» RE: health care charade Posted by: snax
Health Insurance Administrators Are Not Providing Any Useful Function
Posted by: tony_opmoc on Jun 29, 2009 6:44 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Drug Company Salesmen are not providing any useful function.

The people you negotiate to try and reclaim your Medical bills are not providing any useful function.

The people who lobby the US Government in order to maintain a system that provides poor health care at enormous cost - are not providing any useful function

For every doctor, nurse, ambulanceman, hospital cleaner etc - ie people who are providing essential services - there will be an enormous number of parasites - that don't do anything useful.

If you had Free Health Care for All, then all these parasites could be retrained to do something useful. They could for example be employed as health visitors and carers in their local communities. Instead they are sitting in offices in front of computer screens maximising profit for the already rich, whilst denying health care to the most needy who can't afford it.

If the current system continues to its logical conclusion, the only people who will be able to afford health care will be the 100% healthy.

To actually think it is reasonable to not treat people with a pre-existing condition, just demonstrates the total insanity of health insurance.

Its equivalent to saying - "No we can't treat you - you are too ill. Just Fuck Off and Die. We only look after the healthy here."

Tony

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

One public option I'd support
Posted by: james108 on Jun 29, 2009 6:46 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Single payer can't cover everything. It is a recognition of certain universal rights, or cost containment of what we decide is required services. If we did a low cost single payer of required services, people would likely choose a supplemental, or better yet, just pay to go to the doctor a reasonable cost for any extra services.

The option the public should have is to pay the real price for things, instead of an inflated cost shifting to coerce them into insurance. Let's say the medicare fee schedule for something is $500, and it costs the hospitals and doctor $300. The insurance company has a proprietary agreement to pay $550, but a regular person going in without insurance can be charged $2,000 or more!
We should have the option to go the hospital and not get raped just because we don't have insurance, and only have to pay what's charged to medicare or an insurance company. This does nothing to address that.

We can do better than Canada if people could agree on covered, rationed services to remove the cost shifting. People can always sell wellness plans or agreements to get voluntary services, like extra annual testing or whatever, at a reduced cost to what a regular person is charged now. Otherwise, we're going to end up with certain covered rationed services, but skip the whole real debate of true cost while politicians restrict the argument and trick us into something else entirely.

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

ETHICICAL INSURANCE COMPANIES
Posted by: nicejake on Jun 29, 2009 6:56 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Around 40 years ago I sold life and health insurance in NY. During our training we were taught that for an insurance company to get the highest rating it should pay out benefits of 93% of premium. In other words, a company should pay out $93 for every $100 it collects in premium. The remaining $7 should cover administrative costs and profit.

Medicare and VA routinely have administrative cost of 2-3%. If they were private they would have a net profit of 4-5%. In another time that was a good bottom line for most companies.

In the current healthcare debate we often hear that private insurance companies have administrative rate approaching 30%. By my standards and old fashioned definitions unethical and improperly run. There is no way that a health insurance company that has a 30% administrative cost have more than a "D" rating by Best's.


Just as the security raters played fast and loose with mortgage securities, I believe something similar is occurring with insurance raters. Why is the ethics of these high administrative cost not being questioned by our lawmakers?

According to what I understand any insurance company with a 30% administrative cost should be investigated and shut down.

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

Health Care for all
Posted by: Southernman on Jun 29, 2009 7:12 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If everyone were on the Medicare system our taxes will not go up that much if we the working continue to pay premiums to the government instead. This can still be taken out in payroll. Example: Medicare now cost 96.40 monthly. If we increased taxes 2-5% and we pay our premiums of course at a little higher rate, then everyone will be covered. I would rather send my monthly premium to the U.S. Government for Medicare than any HMO or PPO.

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

» RE: If we stop the theft Posted by: marid
Selfishness...
Posted by: Spiritgirl on Jun 29, 2009 7:16 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You know I've realized over the years that Americans have become more and more selfish! No one likes to pay taxes, however, it is the uneven distribution and collection of taxes being paid - disproportionately by the middle class that is unfair!

"Health-care" in America isn't even a bad joke, it is a gift to BIG PHARMA! Real Health-care would focus on wellness and prevention, it would remove those badly performing doctors (that the AMA currently protects much like the Catholic church protected their priests)! Everyone that wanted to buy in would be able to afford it, and those that currently have insurance would still benefit - without having to go bankrupt when they are ill!

When will we all realize that some things are about the benefits to ALL OF SOCIETY?! When will we stop always being about ME ME ME?! When are we going to wake up and realize that the bs we are leaving to our children is just more than "THE DEFICIT"?! When will we as a society WAKE UP?!

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

» RE: Selfishness... Posted by: JSquercia
» RE: Selfishness... Posted by: Steppin Razor
THANKS! Josh Holland- For This Important Basic Message!
Posted by: drricklippin on Jun 29, 2009 7:54 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thanks for this mostly overlooked message to most of us- the insured.

Also we need to ultimately get away from employer based health coverage which has outlived any usefullness for either employees or employers

The real trick is the dilemma of convincing US health consumers that, in health care, "more" is not always better. Often it is not. Sometimes it causes harm.

Finally profiteering off the dying is a sin in my opinion. But no sane politician will touch that particular issue on this round of reform.

Dr. Rick Lippin
Southampton,Pa

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

Under-insured
Posted by: JSquercia on Jun 29, 2009 7:58 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
let's not FORGET that one reason people are under-insured is the use by insurance companies of the Phrase "Reasonable and Customary" . What this phrase does is enable the Insurance Company to refuse to pay the cost of the doctor or procedure that exceeds its assessment of reasonable cost . You are stuck for the difference .
Here's the rub the outfit that determined the amount that was considered reasonable and customary was OWNED by an INSURANCE Company . The company (United Health) agreed to pay some amount without admitting they had done ANYTHING wrong .

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

Nice synsopsis
Posted by: willymack on Jun 29, 2009 8:16 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And great comments.
We all know the need for what practically ALL other developed nations have, and the fact that single-payer universal health care is considered a RIGHT in those nations, same as the right to a good education or the right to police and firefighter protection are.
The fact is those people voted to self-finance all their social programs with tax money, same as we would here.
This is intolerable to greedy psychopaths here, who desire a lion's share of national largess. This is at the root of their psychoses. This is what gives voice to the dirty lies of the thieves and their stooges in government. This is why, when we could and SHOULD have led the way towards universal health care, we allowed the rest of the developed world to pass us by. Simply put, we're doing the bidding of greedy lunatics.
As long as the stranglehold the criminally insane have on us is unbroken, we can expect more of the same, and less of what's good for us.

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

I'd love to see it happen. A real public option...
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Jun 29, 2009 8:36 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...funded by its beneficiaries, with the bargaining power of all the destitute folks the it would benefit.

A grand idea! If it works, I'll buy into it!

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

Pre-exsisting conditions
Posted by: archivistIII on Jun 29, 2009 8:59 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When my son was about to be born six years ago I called to get health insurance for him. They told me I had to wait until he was born in able to do get coverage.

So I asked, "What if he is born with a medical condition?"

"Then we would not be able to provide coverage."

I asked him why he would be denied and he went on and on about it being a business and an investment and so on and that it doesn't make sense to cover a sick child.

WE ARE ALREADY PAYING FOR THE MAJORITY OF THOSE WHO ARE VERY EXPENSIVE TO CARE FOR. THEY ARE NOT COVERED BY PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANIES.

I am a conservative to the gills but I realize that government exsists to manage large problems within our society. Banking due to its seedy nature and depth of control over the populace has to be regulated almost to the point of smothering it. We have reached a point where health care is starting to wiegh down our society beyond comprehension. These things must be dealt with by government. Thats what it is for.

I want energy, banking, and health-care regulated to the point of absolutly no profit potential whatsoever! These are services needed by everyone and should not be exploited for the benefit of a few.

Non-profit energy, banking, health-care.

We will start with health care and will spread to those other industries. Obama missed the boat on this stuff when they spent all that money on investors. All of these industries could have been bought out fairly instead of being confiscated.

When a business can count on predictable energy costs, low interest rates and stable markets, and not have to worry about balooning health care benefit costs this equates to jobs being created and preserved.

When a family doesn't have to worry about balooning energy, health, and instrest expenses they can make purchases and pay for their homes and buy cars and take vacations...

Which means that our money can keep going in circles like it needs to and we can get on with solving all the other problems of humanity.

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

» RE: Pre-exsisting conditions Posted by: rickiey
» RE: Pre-exsisting conditions Posted by: kettleblack
PRIVATE FOR PROFIT HEALTHCARE IS AN OXYMORON
Posted by: jacksmith on Jun 29, 2009 10:23 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
AMERICA’S NATIONAL HEALTHCARE EMERGENCY!

It’s official. America and the World are now in a GLOBAL PANDEMIC. A World EPIDEMIC with potential catastrophic consequences for ALL of the American people. The first PANDEMIC in 41 years. And WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES will have to face this PANDEMIC with the 37th worst quality of healthcare in the developed World.

STAND READY AMERICA TO SEIZE CONTROL OF YOUR NATIONAL HEALTHCARE SYSTEM.

We spend over twice as much of our GDP on healthcare as any other country in the World. And Individual American spend about ten times as much out of pocket on healthcare as any other people in the World. All because of GREED! And the PRIVATE FOR PROFIT healthcare system in America.

And while all this is going on, some members of congress seem mostly concern about how to protect the corporate PROFITS! of our GREED DRIVEN, PRIVATE FOR PROFIT NATIONAL DISGRACE. A PRIVATE FOR PROFIT DISGRACE that is in fact, totally valueless to the public health. And a detriment to national security, public safety, and the public health.

Progressive democrats the Tri-Caucus and others should stand firm in their demand for a robust public option for all Americans, with all of the minimum requirements progressive democrats demanded. If congress can not pass a robust public option with at least 51 votes and all robust minimum requirements, congress should immediately move to scrap healthcare reform and request that President Obama declare a state of NATIONAL HEALTHCARE EMERGENCY! Seizing and replacing all PRIVATE FOR PROFIT health insurance plans with the immediate implementation of National Healthcare for all Americans under the provisions of HR676 (A Single-payer National Healthcare Plan For All).

Coverage can begin immediately through our current medicare system. With immediate expansion through recruitment of displaced workers from the canceled private sector insurance industry. Funding can also begin immediately by substitution of payroll deductions for private insurance plans with payroll deductions for the national healthcare plan. This is what the vast majority of the American people want. And this is what all objective experts unanimously agree would be the best, and most cost effective for the American people and our economy.

In Mexico on average people who received medical care for A-H1N1 (Swine Flu) with in 3 days survived. People who did not receive medical care until 7 days or more died. This has been the same results in the US. But 50 million Americans don’t even have any healthcare coverage. And at least 200 million of you with insurance could not get in to see your private insurance plans doctors in 2 or 3 days, even if your life depended on it. WHICH IT DOES!

If President Obama has to declare a NATIONAL STATE OF EMERGENCY to rescue the American people from our healthcare crisis, he will need all the sustained support you can give him. STICK WITH HIM! He’s doing a brilliant job.

THIS IS THE BIG ONE!

THE BATTLE OF GOOD Vs EVIL!

Join the fight.

Contact congress and your representatives NOW! AND SPREAD THE WORD!

God Bless You

Jacksmith – WORKING CLASS

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

Government is the problem
Posted by: xvictor on Jun 29, 2009 2:46 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The meteoric rise in health care costs, which has become an unending nightmare for U.S. businesses and consumers, is not an accident. This painful condition has arisen from excess government involvement in the system, tax provisions that encourage the over-utilization of health insurance, and government support of an out-of-control malpractice industry. Rather than allowing more bad policy to drive health care costs further upward, we should be looking at ways to allow market forces to reign them back in.

If left alone, the free market drives quality up and costs down. Government programs produce the opposite result. Despite the president's claim that a federal plan will bring costs down, there is no historical precedent for such faith.

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

» RE: Government is the problem Posted by: farmer's daughter
» RE: Government is the problem Posted by: farmer's daughter
» Unregulated means victimization Posted by: tatamchwh
Medicare Boondoggle (or, you got suckered!)
Posted by: xvictor on Jun 29, 2009 2:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When Medicare was first proposed back in 1966, it cost $3 billion per year, and the projection was for inflation-adjusted annual costs to rise to $12 billion by 1990. The actual cost in 1990 was $107 billion, and the 2009 estimate is a staggering $408 billion!

So much for government estimates on health care.

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

Great discussion
Posted by: farmer's daughter on Jun 29, 2009 3:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You are getting to the real issues here. I hope that this type of discussion will lead everyone to start crunching numbers in a more realistic way. The number that I see missing here is the total dollars that are paid INTO the health insurance industry vs. the total dollars that are 1) paid out for patient care, and 2) paid out in insurance industry corporate profits. This is the crucial point of imbalance when we speak of total dollars spent. There is a WHOLE lot of money in our system that is "spent for health care" and never reaches the care delivery system because it is irrelevant profit not spent on patients. When comparing us to France or Britain or Canada, we must include this data.

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

Some auto insurance premium could also stay in worker's pocket
Posted by: plantland on Jun 29, 2009 8:38 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Isn't that the other shoe?

Wouldn't universal health care cover the medical bills of anyone involved in auto accidents, meaning that the liability charged could be somewhat less if it did not have to cover doctor and medical bills for the driver and crashees?

Speaking of accidents, since we probably won't get single payer, I would like to see a plan where individuals were allowed to purchase ACCIDENT insurance ONLY.

We are health consumers, and some of us prefer spending our health dollars on vitamins, herbs, good water filters, etc. and not wanting chemo, etc. regardless of costs.

Yoga and other therapies can safely lower blood pressure. But the plans will pay for blockbuster drugs, but not yoga.

I have been reading the plans carefully and it seems that all of them will pay for costly drugs that often precipitate other health problems, but not for vitamin or herbal supplements.

THUS, PAYING FOR INSURANCE, BY HAVING TO BUY A PLAN OR PAYING A WHOLE LOT OF TAXES, COULD WELL MEAN THAT HEALTHY INDIVIDUALS CAN NO LONGER AFFORD THE PREVENTIVE MEAUSURES THAT HAVE KEPT THEM FROM NEEDING SERVICES SO FAR, AND WHICH THEY PLANNED TO CONTINUE SO AS TO LEAD USEFUL LIVES IN OLD AGE.

We have to meet people where they are with their present health care needs, and many people are so worried about not having health insurance that it is making them sick.

But having health insurance, and scads of prescription medicines, won't necessarily insure health.

Many of these people could benefit by reading Russell Blaylock's health letter, or the Rodale Press magazines such as Organic Gardening or Prevention.

In terms of cancer, preventive health generally means screenings to find cancers in the early stages, rather than actually trying to create conditions in the body that will not support cancer.

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

Increasing spending will lower costs?
Posted by: tmgibs on Jun 29, 2009 11:02 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How is increasing spending by a trillion dollars going to cut a trillion dollars from what we spend over what we should be? The only public plan that is likely to work is if we make all doctors government employees and put them on a salary with bonuses for good management.

TG

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

» It's not the doctors Posted by: tatamchwh
PLEASE SUPPORT PUBLIC HEALTHCARE
Posted by: mindtrvlr on Jun 30, 2009 10:53 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
GO OBAMA. KNOCK OUT ALL THE REPUBS.

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

Single payer= more disposable income for you, me, and the US
Posted by: hattie09ky on Jun 30, 2009 11:07 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Joshua Holland makes a convincing case for raising take-home pay by lowering health care costs--something he thinks will happen with a public option. Don't bet on it! Remember Congress is trying to shape the public plan to be competitive with the for-profit plans offered by Aetna, Anthem and Humana --corporations obliged to feed the greed of their shareholders. In essence, the private health industry will call the shots.

As long as we rely on private insurers, on employer-based coverage, on individual and employer mandates (and the administrative complexity that will require), as long as we give our tax dollars to subsidize the purchase of private plans, as long as states become the dumping ground for more and more Medicaid clients, we will still be in a costly and flawed boondoggle--and I wager the new options will not be affordable, nor will we cover everyone! In fact matters may very well get worse.

The public option is a palliative placebo that makes us think the pain is going away, but the internal bleeding (real and fiscal) will persist.

Holland is right that employees don't seem to realize that meaningful reform could lower not only premiums but deductibles and co-pays, therefore increasing take-home pay. But meaningful reform means single payer.

A comparison of the tax burden of comparable Canadian and American families shows that the Canadians pay slightly more in taxes, but end up with more disposable income because all health care is covered, they have no deductible and lower out-of-pocket expenses. Now the Canadian system isn't perfect, they need dental coverage and a few more MRI machines, but just imagine the gains in both disposable income, preventive care and health security Canadians enjoy. No worrisome medical bill ever arrives, and except for the occasional outlier, everyone gets high quality care.

As we learned in What's the matter with Kansas?, voters vote against their own interests. Those who are so eager to join Rush Limbaugh and holler "socialism" are shooting themselves in the foot. Those who have been duped by AARP/UnitedHealth do so as well. And a lot of well-meaning people who have bought into the public option because they support the President need to think this through. Do they really think that the Senators will rule against the big campaign donors?

And may I remind everyone once again that the French system is primarily single payer; most supplemental plans are NON-PROFIT. There are very few for-profit insurers operating in France and they are highly regulated.

Join Healthcare-NOW in Washington July 30. We need real reform and the ""public option" ain't it! Demand single payer!

Harriette Seiler
Kentuckians for Single payer Healthcare
hmseil01@insightbb.com

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

what are Medicare's real admin costs??
Posted by: Sgellero on Jun 30, 2009 2:27 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
from another website:

Myth 2: A public plan could save enough on administrative costs to provide coverage to all.
June 29th, 2009
It is frequently asserted, especially by groups such as Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP), that a “single payer” (government) system could “save” enough money on administration to buy coverage for all the uninsured.

The basis for the assertion is the claim that Medicare spends only 2% to 3% of its outlays on administration, compared with private plans’ alleged costs of 20% to 25%.

In fact, data from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) shows that insurance companies spend at least 50% less on administration that government does on its health programs. (The Congressional Budget Office Reports: Comparing health care admin cost: who’s less costly?)

CMS (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services ) divides spending data into care (paid to doctors, hospitals, pharmacies, and others for patient care) and non-care (everything else). For 2009, CMS projects spending on care at $2.13 trillion, and non-care at $424 billion or 16.7% of total spending.

Of the $879 billion projected to be paid in 2009 by private insurance, CMS estimates $128 billion for non-care—12.7%. For all public programs except Medicare, the comparable percentage is 26%, without adjustment for the taxes and assessments paid only by private insurers. Unlike Medicare, other public programs—Medicaid, SCHIP, Veterans Administration, and military programs—are internally administered.

Medicare is externally administered by private companies; its non-care costs are 5.7%. If it were administered like other government programs, administrative cost would increase by $1 trillion over the next 10 years.

There are many reasons why private companies have higher non-care costs for their private plans than for Medicare:

Private insurance plans must pay government taxes and assessments up to 5% of premiums. When these are factored out, the real net cost of private administration is less than 10%.
CMS excludes the cost of its own employees who enroll recipients, perform outreach and education, handle customer service, and do auditing and other functions. Private plans include these in overhead.
Private plans have on average a higher number of claims to process for a given amount of expenditure.
Insurance companies have to collect premiums. The IRS does that for Medicare.
Private companies do underwriting; their premiums have to cover their costs. Medicare deficits have to be covered by taxpayers.
The cost of servicing the public debt is not included in Medicare costs—and Part B is 75% subsidized by general revenues, not beneficiary premiums.
Greg Dattilo and Dave Racer conclude: “Though one has to dig for the truth, the CBO report makes the case: Competition in a private health insurance market saves tens of billions each year that government agencies would waste on administrative cost.”

Benjamin Zycher of the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research also notes that it costs the economy more than a dollar to send a dollar to Washington (Wall St J 10/29/07). The lowest plausible assumption for the excess economic cost of the tax burden, 20%, would raise the cost of delivering Medicare benefits to at least 24% to 25% of Medicare outlays, and a more realistic estimate to about 52%, or four to five times the net cost of private insurance.

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

» SEE MY NEXT POST Posted by: Sgellero
here 'tis
Posted by: Sgellero on Jun 30, 2009 5:33 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
EDUCATE YOURSELF

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

WASTE of TIME
Posted by: few on Jul 1, 2009 4:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article is GROSSLY misnamed. I came to read about HEALTHCARE

- all I read for 2/3 of article was the authors screed about Third Way -

after reading that - all I could conclude is that the author has a personal grudge of some kind about the folks involved in that organization -

what is great about America is that all voices exist to create the great chorus - this author CLEARLY wants this group to either BEND to his notion of progressivism / Democratic plans or hit the highway

THIS AUTHOR represents all that is bad and down right scary in the new Democratic/Marxist wing - they would rather criticize and try to shut down (evidenced by the "no funding for Third Way" tone of hahaha/na na na ) voices they don't agree with - than allow all voices to meld the whole - ala Nancy Pelosi

Personal rant by writer and was a total waste of my time

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

ONE OTHER THING
Posted by: few on Jul 1, 2009 4:33 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
WRT to Author and CEA's projection of effect on income - I say a big pffft to that

(1) Taxes will go up to cover any nationalized healthcare program - so to the extent gross wages rise - they will be offset by taxes - so the wage - earner is effectively back to the flat line on take home income

(2) The dis ingenuousness of thinking all premium insurance savings from the employer will in total shift to wages is also incredibly naive - much of that will be held in the corporation - the corporate world has gotten by for decades on wage increases held to at or below inflation - take healthcare costs out of the mix for inflation indices - and there you have it - rationale for lower rate of wage increases.....

(3) Back to taxes - at the end of the day - all these social programs bill comes due- and that will have to be in the form of citizen taxes - so say goodbye to whatever measly gross increase you see in a paycheck as a result of this social engineering

[« 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