PreviousPage 2 of 2
Health Care and the Horse Race
With Americans pegging health care reform as the top domestic priority, the candidates are unveiling their plans. Some are better than others, but none include the changes necessary to take on the twin scourges of the health care system: insurance providers and Big Pharma.
Mon Jun. 11, 2007 11:00 PM PDT
New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson would expand existing health care programs, making Medicare available to anyone over the age of 55; open the Federal Employee Health Benefits plan to working families and small businesses; and offer tax credits to defray health care costs. Under his plan, lower income individuals and families would be insured through Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program.
Dennis Kucinich supports a single-payer, national health-care system (which he dubs "Medicare for All") to be phased in over a ten-year period. He advocates a publicly financed system that would eliminate the role of private insurers.
Former Alaska senator Mike Gravel is promoting a single-payer system in which the federal government would issue annual health care vouchers to all Americans based on their projected needs.
And on the Republican side:
Rudolph Giuliani has yet to offer a specific plan, but wants to shift from employer and government-based plans to a market-based system, in which individuals are responsible for choosing and purchasing their own insurance. "What I would do is change the whole model that we have for health insurance in this country," he said last week. "The problem with our health insurance is it's government and employer-dominated. People don't make individual choices. It's your health; you should own your health insurance." The former New York mayor proposes relaxing laws that regulate the industry and giving families a $15,000 tax credit to buy insurance outside of employer-based plans.
Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) has yet to articulate a plan, but in the past he has backed full health care for veterans, expanded insurance programs for children, tax breaks for health insurance purchases, and more prescription drug support for seniors. He told an interviewer last weekend that one of the main obstacles to universal coverage is that "there's a lot of healthy Americans that say I just don't want health insurance."
While serving as governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney brought a form of universal health care to his state, requiring, among other things, that most companies provide insurance to their employees or face penalties. The plan also mandates that uninsured individuals purchase coverage, with the state picking up the slack for people who can’t afford the full cost of insurance. Though he barely mentions his health care views on the campaign trail, he has said he believes in extending health care to all Americans through a market-based approach, not through taxes or government reforms, and would organize a system for the uninsured based on state-run insurance pools.
Without offering much in the way of specifics, Senator Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), like the rest of his Republican rivals, is for a market-based approach, arguing, "Our healthcare system will thrive with increased consumer choice, consumer control, and real competition."
Mike Huckabee, who famously dropped more than 100 pounds after being diagnosed with diabetes, places an emphasis on preventive care rather than universal coverage as a means of fixing the health care system. The former Arkansas governor wants the states to guide future policy and has proposed making health insurance tax deductible for individuals and families (as it currently is for businesses) and offering tax credits to low income families. He has said, "We don't need universal health care mandated by federal edict."
Tommy Thompson, the former secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, wants to cut coverage costs through preventative care and the use of technology ("our doctors use the latest technology to cure your illnesses, but manila folders to keep track what's wrong with you"). In order to provide health care for all Americans, he proposes requiring states to organize "purchasing pools" for the uninsured.
Ron Paul (R-Tex.), a medical doctor, says America's health care system has been ruined by red tape, "government mandates," and malpractice suits. To solve this last problem, he favors tax credits for "negative outcomes insurance" (a form of coverage that could be purchased prior to undergoing a serious medical procedure), which he believes would reduce the number of lawsuits that are driving up insurance premiums for doctors.
Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) has no plan, but says many of the health care system's problems "stem from regulations imposed by the federal government." Along with creating red tape and waste, he says, government involvement, and entitlement programs in particular, may actually be making us sicker: "Because it's true that government today heavily subsidizes medical treatment, might Americans have greater incentives to eat and exercise properly if this subsidization were reduced?"
Former Virginia governor Jim Gilmore and Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) do not include health care among their stated campaign issues, but Hunter's votes in Congress consistently support the drug industry. And, if it’s any indication of the health care policies he might favor, when Hunter served as the chair of the Armed Services Committee he blocked a provision to open the military's TRICARE health care program to reservists and the National Guard.
PreviousPage 2 of 2
Comments
If you think a government run "single-payor" system would be better than the current health care system then you haven't been paying attention to the news lately. Would you really want a government run system that produces the kind of "care" the government provides in VA hospitals ? If you insist on a government takeover of health care, then that's the kind of "care" you'll be getting. Who will liberal trial lawyers sue then ? Hillary ? Though not perfect, our current system allows consumers freedom of choice. If you don't like your current health insurance policy you can change it. Try doing that under a "single payor" system. You can't. Is that what you really want ? Let's stop kidding ourselves that a government run healthcare system will be perfect, and let's stop pretending it will be free, too. Your taxes will pay for it, and you won't be able to change them if you think they're too high, either. Why is it that free thinking liberals always seem to want to give up their freedoms ?
Ron Bridges, let's dispense with the irresponsible claims and the unethical spreading of unfounded fear. Shall we?
Here's a Q&A for you:
H.R. 676: Answering the Question and Debunking the Myths:
1.) We already spend so much on healthcare, so we can’t afford a universal healthcare system that covers everyone:
This is false. In fact, H.R. 676 spends $56 billion less each year, while covering all Americans with fully comprehensive medical benefits. The reason is because, as a for-profit industry, the current private system wastes 31% of the $2.2 trillion spent each year on non-healthcare related costs such as, marketing/advertising, billing and paperwork, and corporate profit. H.R. 676 eliminates profit and is thus able to operate at a much more efficient 3% administration cost, saving roughly $600 billion a year. Utilizing this money is what makes true universal healthcare for all Americans possible.
2.) I’ve read about other countries with healthcare systems similar to H.R. 676 that have experienced rationing. Wouldn’t H.R. 676 lead to rationing:
No. There are quite a few things to be said about rationing, but first and foremost, H.R. 676 is designed to eliminate rationing. Though other countries operating with a single payer healthcare system have sometimes experienced rationing, they devote only half as much money towards the system. And that is the critical point involved here. Under H.R. 676, the U.S. will spend almost twice as much as other countries and get the best care because of it. Under the current private system, the U.S. also spends twice as much as any other country, yet ranks consistently lower on vital indicators of health, such as infant mortality, average lifespan, and rates of terminal illness like heart disease and diabetes. As stated above, this is because the current system wastes more than 1/3 of all healthcare spending on non-healthcare related costs. To paraphrase Marcia Angell, former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, for other countries the problem is money, for the U.S. it is the system.
Furthermore, it must be pointed out that the current private system is already effectively rationing access to healthcare. Same-day access to primary-care physicians in the U.S. is 33%, significantly lower than other single payers like the U.K. at 41%, Australia at 54%, and New Zealand at 60%. Poll after poll reports many Americans admitting to going without needed care because of out-of-pocket expenses like co-pays and deductibles. Moreover, 46 million Americans are uninsured and another 50 million are considered underinsured.
3.) H.R. 676 is socialized medicine:
This is false. H.R. 676 is not socialized medicine. It is a publicly financed, privately delivered healthcare system. This means that the government is the sole provider of insurance, paying the healthcare providers (physicians, nurses etc.) who remain private. So, under H.R. 676 you have free choice of healthcare provider. There is no out-of-network.
4.) I wouldn’t want my benefits to drop and also, I wouldn’t want to change physicians:
Under H.R. 676 the large majority of Americans’ benefits would dramatically increase. This is fully comprehensive coverage including office visits, hospitalization, long term care, all prescription medications, and even dental, vision, and mental health services.
You will not have to change physicians unless you choose to. You have free choice of provider. Further, when changing jobs or place of employment, under the current private system people often must change physicians or even go without coverage temporarily. However, under H.R. 676 coverage is not affected and patients can continue to see the same physician.
5.) Isn’t government control of our healthcare system going to lead to a much less efficient and more bureaucratic operation:
No. In fact, the current private system is much more bureaucratic and much less efficient. Not only does the current system waste 1/3 of all spending, but it interferes in the patient-physician relationship, making doctors justify every test and procedure-while attempting to influence these decisions through financial penalties and incentives. Physicians have to hire administrators just to keep up with the excess of claims and administration. Insurance companies also invest in drug companies, so when covering medications they have corporate duty to cover these medications even if others are cheaper and/or more effective. When further considering the confusing mass of bills, E.O.B.’s, deductibles, co-pays and the up, down and in the middle communication of physicians to insurance companies, insurance companies back to physicians and then the patient’s to both, the current private system is one impressively bureaucratic system, indeed.
H.R. 676 eliminates the administrative waste, patient billing, co-pays and deductibles, by funding the system directly through tax dollars. Further, H.R. 676 leaves the medical decisions to the physicians themselves, reviewing their performance regularly instead of directly interfering with the patient-physician relationship.
6.) Isn’t the market based competition of the current private based system the best way to control costs:
Obviously not, since the costs of premiums rose 86% between 2000 and 2006; three times faster than inflation. The rise of income in the same period rose only 15%. Medical bankruptcies are up 2200% since 1981 and profits for the largest pharmaceutical companies hit $62 billion back in 2004.
H.R. 676 addresses cost control immediately by cutting out the profit and wasteful administration of the private system. By being the sole insurer, the government will have the necessary influence to negotiate fair drug prices. Finally, the promotion of preventative medicine, which is virtually non-existent in the private based system, will control costs in the long term by reducing chronic diseases that require expensive treatment, such as cancer, heart disease and diabetes.
7.) Isn’t the reason that healthcare costs keep rising is that we are unhealthy as a country:
Yes and no. First, through there are many factors to rising costs in healthcare, one important reason is poor health; with the consequent cost of treating chronic diseases. But, it is here again that the private system fails us. As a for-profit industry, there is no incentive to promote preventative medicine, the cost of such programs being immediate and the long-term financial dividends uncertain; uncertain because clients often switch coverage and companies. The fact is, not only do the private insurance companies rarely promote preventative medicine, they actually invest in industries that cause chronic illnesses. For instance, an insurer may invest in the tobacco industry.
However, the “no” is that there are other important factors in the rapid rise of healthcare costs, not the least of which are corporate profit, poor administration, and the outrageous cost of medication.
8.) I’ve read that trial lawyers and malpractice suits are driving up healthcare costs:
Yes and no. These do drive up costs, but only fractionally compared to the factors mentioned above, accounting for only 0.46% of our total healthcare spending. This is not the real problem.
9.) There seems to be a lot of factors involved in the high costs of healthcare. Can’t we just make reforms to the current system instead of changing over to another system:
This is the critical point: no matter what reforms take place, keeping the for-profit, private insurance healthcare system requires wasting billions of dollars on non-healthcare costs. This system exists first and foremost to make money, not provide care. In fact, as a business it is in their best interest not to pay on claims, to deny claims whenever possible. As for-profit companies, they must use money to market themselves to prospective clients, they must hire administrators and marketers to do the job; factored in to every premium dollar. As for-profit companies they must profile clients and underwrite them, they must promote medications based upon money instead of efficacy. And they must generate billions in profit; billons which don’t go towards healthcare.
Consider further that as for-profit companies they have a vested interest in not insuring the elderly or the sick because they are too “expensive”, that they pass off the chronically ill to government programs in the long run anyway. And consider their inability to control pharmaceutical prices.
With these considerations, as well as those of above, it becomes evident that reform is not really an option. For, it is the for-profit system that is the problem.
This is the best argument I have heard for turning Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel into "viable" candidates.
This observation raises the question of how we decide which candidates are viable. Is there some way for the opinions of ordinary people have some influence on this characterization? Why is it that only the corporate media can make the decision about which candidates are viable? Why do the media elites get to decide which candidates pass muster to join the small clique we get to choose from?
Thanks to parmenides08 - yes it was long but also very well-put. I'm one of the millions of uninsured: a college (ivy league!) graduate, full time freelance worker, tax payer, and new mother, who can't afford the premiums on private health insurance. On the other hand, my husband runs a small business that would be forced to close if he suddenly had to pay for health insurance for each one of his employees. He can barely pay the bills as it is. So it seems to me that the only system that would really work in terms of providing coverage and promoting entrepreneurship is one in which the government provides universal health care coverage. It would be paid for in taxes which means that your contribution would be a function of your income, and that is the only thing that makes sense.
Finally, I can't believe McCain thinks some people actually don't want insurance!!!! They may not want to pay for it, but I have never ever met a person who would rather not be able to go to the doctor in time of need.
I was for Kucininch for president in 2004 and I am for him in 2008. Consider what the "realists" have gotten us!
On the other hand, Kucinich was against the iraq wqar before it started and he has been against it ever since, calling for Congress to stop the funding of our troops fighting there.
He has been an ardent supporter of H.R. 676, Representative Conyers' single payer universal health care bill. Our naton has been kowtowing to the health- insurance and pharmaceutical industries too long. it's time our health care system met the needs of our people. No longer should we be paying at least twice the cost for health care than is paid by other western natons for lower infant mortality rates and shorter life spans.
PS Ron Bridges (JUne 12) does not seem to realize that we won't be able to change our health insuracne policy under single payer, because we won't have one. But we shall be able to choose and change our physician!
Ron Bridges’ arguments are specious and his rhetoric nothing but emotional claptrap that doesn’t truly deserve an intelligent rebuttal. But, depressingly, in today’s society his tactics are dangerously effective at swaying the gullible voter. So, I feel drawn to confront his deceptive diatribe. First, as a veteran, I can say with authority that the medical care I received in the Army was vastly better than the health care I now receive from the private medical facilities I’m forced to use by my HMO. The recent problems with the VA hospital in Virginia are not the standard in VA hospitals across the country, or even at that hospital. And, if you’ve truly been paying attention to the news you would’ve read or heard much about the miraculous medical advances the military medical establishment has made in surgical procedures, physical therapy and rehabilitation, and prosthetics. Advances so great that soldiers who would normally have been medically discharged are actually able to return to duty even after losing a limb. And, soldiers don’t even have to make a co-payment or worry about insurance caps or pay for procedures that aren’t covered by their insurance providers. Plus, the problems with VA hospitals are not due to mismanagement of care, but a woeful lack of funding (even with a war going on). Second, his argument about “who will liberal trial lawyers sue then?” doesn’t even make any sense. What does that mean? What point is he trying to make? The only thing the statement does is play off the distrust most of the public has concerning trial lawyers and possibly ratchet up the emotional tension. Thirdly, his statement “if you don’t like your current health insurance policy you can change it” is a bald-faced lie. The only access I have to insurance that I can even come close to affording is through my work and I have only two choices; an expensive HMO or and even more expensive PPO and they both force me to use medical facilities and care providers who are on their “preferred” list. Additionally, a true universal healthcare plan (a “single payer” system) would eliminate the expensive and extremely bureaucratic third party, for-profit insurance companies so his follow-up statement “try that [changing insurance policies] under a “single payor” system” is inane. The statement implies that a single-payer system would reduce your choices when in fact it would increase your range of choices of medical care and providers. Fourthly, his allusion to the idea that the universal healthcare proponents are saying that universal medical care will be perfect and free is preposterous. Of course it won’t be perfect, nothing is. And, of course we would have to raise taxes to pay for it but the increase in taxes would be offset by doing away with the insurance premiums. And, as parmenides8 posted in the Q&A on HR 676 (thank you parmenides8) taxes are based on income unlike current insurance premiums which are set by the insurance companies and don’t even consider level of income. Mr. Bridges’ tactic in using these statements is underhanded and subversive. By throwing out the false implication that the “single-payer” proponents are trying to foster untruths he tries to emotionally undermine the legitimacy of their arguments without actually having to have a rational and logical debate. His statement that “your taxes will pay for it, and you won’t be able to change them if you think they’re too high” is illogical (we have a representative form of government and we can reduce taxes when we want to; Bush’s tax cuts are a prime example) and does nothing but play off Americans’ fear of taxes to once again ratchet up the emotional tension. Lastly, his final sentence about liberals wanting to “give up their freedoms” is painfully ludicrous (particularly since it was the conservatives who pushed through the freedom restricting “Patriot” Act) and again tries to make an emotional implication that universal healthcare somehow gives up freedom without providing any supporting evidence. In all, Mr. Bridges provides no actual evidence, studies, analysis, or anything even remotely akin to rational thought to support his passionately held opinions. His post expertly uses emotionally charged statements to play off our natural fears, suspicions, and distrust of government to try to persuade us not to support the reform our broken medical care system desperately needs. Don’t fall for it.
I think mandatory health insurance coverage for children is great; however, what if their parents are ill and have a life-threatening circumstance which requires surgery but can't afford it and then dies? How does this "help?" the children? Why is it that we can put a man on the moon, but cannot initiate an acceptable health insurance coverage plan for adults and children in lower income brackets? Come on people, put your heads and hearts together and get an EXCELLENT HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAM FOR CHILDREN AND ADULTS!!!!!!!!!!!!
Universal Single Payer Health Care is an idea whose time has come. The government has been supporting corporations over the rights of ordinary Americans. Our political power has been marginalized by the economic power corporations have amassed through the government's support. With 47 million without health insurance and 18,000 a year dieing for lack of health care it is time to eliminate the waste of the present system and expand Medicare to all Americans. Universal Single Payer Health Care is an idea whose time has come.
Ten issues that go away with a national health insurance system:
1. The approximately 47,000,000 uninsured: All will have access to coverage with incentives for provider efficiency and the most cost efficient interventions.
2. The profit squeeze on employers who provide health insurance to employees: It’s estimated that U.S. car makers have expenses of over $1500/car related to health care coverage for employees. A national system, delinked from employer based insurance, allows our employers to compete on the same basis as those in other industrialized countries.
3. Our disgraceful system of health care for GI’s and their families: Incorporating the VA and military health care systems is into a National Health Insurance program provides more and better options for care. These will be community based and thus provide more convenient access.
4. The administrative duplication and fraudulent behavior of multiple insurance providers, each with their own administrative overhead and fiduciary responsibility to generate profits: It’s estimated that we spend 30% of our expenditures for health on administration ($1059/capita in U.S. vs $307/capita in Canada). That could easily be halved or more with a national health program.
5. The conflict of interest between insurers, providers and patients.
6. The crisis in emergency rooms: With insurance people will have a place, other than ER’s, to go with non-emergent medical issues
7. The dance of the veils billing system: There is no set price for services. Those with leverage, i.e. large insurers, are given large discounts while the individual pays the full amount. If everyone has insurance there will be one negotiated price.
8. Big PHARMA’s free ride: We pay more for medications than any other industrialized country. PHARMA’s mantra that they need profits to encourage creativity is bogus when one considers they spend more on promotion and advertising than research. In a national insurance scheme drug price negotiation will be the rule–as it is in the rest of the industrialized world. (see more below)
9. Bankruptcy due to enormous medical bills
10. Our mediocre health care outcomes: We spend more per capita than anyone, yet our outcomes are in the middle of the pack. With universal access we can expect this to change.
None of this will be automatic and actually having an efficient functioning system of care will require much due diligence and negotiation.
What won’t change is physician unhappiness with reimbursements and the continuing issues with intellectual property rights. No where in the world are physicians as well paid as here. We’ve made the profession entrepreneurial and money driven and in the current non-system reward procedures rather than primary care. It can be anticipated that a national health insurance scheme will want to flatten the disparities and redistribute, somewhat, the fees. One would hope this would guarantee all physicians reasonable reimbursement for their time and expenses. However, meeting the expectations of the profession will be almost impossible–as it is now.
We do need some type of protection for innovators in our system. We should not however delude ourselves that this is a “free market”. Patent protection creates monopoly and in health care that has resulted in a life threatening market distortion that we can no longer afford. We need to somehow require patent holders to price their products responsibly and to be efficient in their product development and marketing. Once again meeting the expectations of the industry and their stockholders will be almost impossible–as it is now.
But in both cases the status quo is not working.
None of these proposals will solve the problems of the lack of affordable health care for people in this country.
Canada, the U.K., and most of the developed countries in the world provide health care for all their citizens.
Are we so backward that we can't figure out a way to provide single payer health care for all our people? Or are the corporations that now provide high cost insurance to a select few - just too greedy?
As a retired physician who is totally disillusioned at health care in the USA--we rate 26th in the developed world--I feel that the system must be freed of the Insurance and Pharmaceutical Industries. A universal, single payer plan as hasa been proposed by Physicians For A National Health Plan (HR676) is the only rational alternative.
It will be difficult in view of the baksheesh to the politicians by HMOs and PHarma.
There is one plan I've seen that would really do it all - it's single-payer, with its incentives perfectly aligned to encourage responsible behavior on the part of all stakeholders, capable of providing coverage for every legal resident of this nation at an aggregate cost of perhaps even less than we're spending now, and uniquely suited to a nation in which entitlement and the entrepreneurial spirit are precariously balanced ... I'd be happy to share it with anyone who's interested.
And, you're quite correct about the inadequacies of the plans currently on the table. I work in healthcare. None of the current crop transcends the hopelessly naive, and not one would be the plan I'd choose to leave my children.
To Ron Bridges - You are clearly not well informed and I would ask you this. The US ranks #37 overall in the world for healthcare. All the top ranking countries of some form of single payer systems and NO PRIVATE INSURANCE putting profit before care. hmmmm. What does this tell you, Ron? Duh. Common sense would tell any rational person that these other systems must be doing something better. HELLO! And single payer is NOT goverment run healthcare. The delivery system remains private and people choose any doctor or hospital they want. YOU need to educate yourself instead of spouting off silly rhetoric and outright deceptions designed to keep people confused, afraid and big insurance in control of our health.
Caution folks: Congress and California politicians pushing for-profit private health insurance models confuse health insurance and health care socialization. California's universal health care model supported by a million stakeholders and pushed Senator Sheila Kuehl bills SB's 840 and 1014 - is socialized health insurance - NOT socialized health care!
I am a devote and now a former Republicana voter who was going to vote for Hillary Clinton, but will not, as she and Obama have sold out and accepted money from the BIG PHARMA. I will, reluctantly vote Democratic. It will be Dennis Kucinich, if he the Demcractic nominee.
I was a devout and now a former Republicana voter who was going to vote for Hillary Clinton, but will not, as she and Obama have sold out and accepted money from the BIG PHARMA. I will, reluctantly vote Democratic. It will be Dennis Kucinich, if he the Demcractic nominee.
Sicko has caused healthcare to the top of the charts. We are too busy putting band aids on what we have. There are short term solutions that erode some of the vested interest positions while we look at the cost benefit issues of private enterprise versus taxes. It could be that we pay the same as Canada, France and Great Britain by combining Medicare Tax, tax deductions for health premiums, and our actual health premiums. This study needs to be done. In the meantime www.healthcaresoundoff.com is a community forum dedicated to discussing ideas for healing our healthcare system and we all should participate in that conversation.
Bleh, who cares for health (all too complicated anyway, I leave it to docs) when we can instead concentrate on killing all those terrorrists. Hey, you suspicious looking dude over there, happen to be one of the bad guys too (glad I always carry at least two personal guns plus a knife with me to protect me and fellow Americans). Long live our beloved presidet Bush, long live the war on terror, no useless thoughts or money left for healthcare anymore...
The only way to rationaly "fix" healthcare in the United States is to take the profit out of it. Any moron knows that.
As Michael Moore said in a recent interview, do we want someone in a corporate boardroom to decide whether puttin out a fire at our house is good for the bottom-line profit of the fire department? How much less then, do we want some health 'care' Enron to decide whether or not to cover communicable and catastrophic diseases?
Single payer makes sense Medicare which has a running cost of 3% seems the way to go.
The Insurance companies, and the drug companies are squeezing the poor and middle class.
The Republicans at least the ones that speak of universal health care have no real plan, it's same old, same old the market driven philosophy.
It's not working, they do not represent change.
I know that the "devil is in the details" - but Tancredo seems to be on the right track. Sadly, I suspect that he is in favor of getting rid of only regulations that hamper the gatekeeper role, and limiting the ability for gatekeepers to squeeze money out of sick people. Eating properly and exercising are actively discouraged by drug companies who promote a "zero tolerance for discomfort" mentality and a "who has the time for exercise" mantra that promotes consumer oriented hedonism.
Getting rid of the useless FDA and DEA and turning over drug education to a C. Everett Koop figure while turning over responsibility to drug safety to the FTC and a more easily accessible judicial system would be preferable to turning over the present system intact - but under taxpayer largesse. And considering the penchant for GOP deficit spending this would mean trillions in debt for our heirs and the destruction of our monetary system [actually a very good outcome: we have lots of things that need to be done and a lot of support for doing them - it's the control of money that gets in the way].
I have worked the past 20 years at a university.. with full benefits (dental, medical, vision). In April 2007 my job officially ended after filing a claim of harassment against a professor. I have been looking for a new job since last year- well over 100 applications sent - two interviews so far. In the meantime I applied for unemployment - which took two months to be approved. I had no income except my tax refund to live on.
I applied for the health care programs that I heard about in NYS Healthy Plus/Child Health plus for me and my son. I was told we make $43 too much. I went to social services to apply for help there.. (medical, food, etc) and was given temp asst. of $243 for food. Once my unemployment checks starting coming a couple of weeks later, I was informed that I make too much again to qualify for help.
There is something wrong with our health care system when you can't "qualify" for health care, despite having worked and participated in the system for years........... I paid my family premium every month too.
I have been to Europe several times over the years - Germany, England, France, Spain, Ireland, Holland, and Switzerland. I have to tell you my mom was from Germany and her family still lives there (after the wall came down). There are better health care systems - Canada, England, and France are on the top of the list when it comes to providing health care for ALL - not based on your income, where you live, who you know, etc.
Over the years as an advocate, parent and talk show host..I get to hear many sad stories about our health care system from parents of kids with disabilities, adults with disabilities and people that have been injured on the job. It is a huge battle for anyone that applies for programs.. The system is built this way.
It makes me want to move.
Don't think this can't or wont' happen to you.
why do all these small country's have a better health care system then a BIG country like the USA?
My brother, a US citizen, is married to a British subject and living in Wales and receives free, top notch, medical care any time he needs it it???
I was over there, one time, and received a free Flu shot and no questions asked.
Had I needed more care I would have received it also.
The care they receive over there is paid for by their taxes.
Were the hell is our tax money going???
Gosh, I had no idea my comments would cause that much commotion. I stand by them, by the way. Nothing emotional or deceptive intended.
To the gentleman who is getting great care from the VA, I'm happy for you. I just wouldn't want that to be my only option. Regarding changing plans, a person buying his own health insurance has over 300 plans to choose from in the state of Texas, and that's just from the 9 companies I'm familiar with.
A person getting his coverage at work is having his employer pay for most of it, and his company policy probably offers him a choice of plans. Most employees aren't paying for their own health insurance, anyway. Their employers are.
Regarding government healthcare not being "perfect", the rhetoric from the other side implies that it would be. I felt that implied idea needed to be challenged with a little reality.
Who WILL liberal trial lawyers sue if the government is the healthcare provider ? I still contend that's a valid question. John Edwards got stinking rich on medical malpractice cases. Good for him. I hope to find one of those guys to work for me if I ever need one.
As for all that stuff about H.R.676, it boils down to who you think can administer healthcare for less money, government, or private industry ? I think private industry, but feel free to disagree.
Private indusrty, for all it's shortcomings, still has to answer to customers like you and me. We can change carriers if we don't like the cost, the service, or even just the attitude of the people working at the insurance company. Think of your last three encounters with a government employee when you had a complaint. Did you feel powerless, or did you feel your concerns were being taken seriously ?
Finally, my remark about free thinking liberals being so quick to give up their freedoms: I knew someone would bring up the Patriot Act.Congratulations, Gary. You win the Red Herring Award. I stand by that comment, too.
Think of the "solutions" liberals offer to most of our social problems. Don't most of them involve restricting someone else's behavior in some way ? Smoking, transfats, heck, just pick an issue. The liberal solution will be to pass a law penalizing it. Think about it.
Some of our citizens have no health insurance, and some of the others don't like paying for theirs. Big surprise. I wish mine were free, too, because I'm self employed and I buy my own. I don't expect other taxpayers to buy it for me.
The challenge is to find ways to reduce the cost. The solutions will be incremental. Turning everything over to the government sounds like an easy fix, but it's not. It carries it's own set of problems. My post was intended to point out some of them. I stand by my remarks.
WE NEED HEALTH CARE IN THIS COUNTRY. IT IS OUTRAGEOUS THIS COUNTRY OF EQUALITY CAN NOT PROVIDE THE SAME HELP TO ALL OF IT'S PEOPLE. THE FIRST ATTEMPT MAY NOT BE PERFECT, BUT IF WE KEEP WORKING ON IT....SOMEDAY WE MAY ALL HELP ALL PEOPLE WITHOUT LEAVING ANYONE OUT. MOST CANDIDATES THINK THAT THEY HAVE THE ANSWER...WHO KNOWS...ONLY GOD AT THIS POINT CAN HELP US ALL BUT WE NEED TO START SOMETHING TO BRING THIS COUNTRY AROUND.
