SCHIP and the Rigged Health Insurance Game
While President Bush made the bogus claim Friday that SCHIP will actually move "millions of American children who now have private health insurance into government-run health care [and raise] taxes to pay for it," Rockridge Nation points out just how much private health insurance profits cost all of us:
In our current health insurance system, companies can't maximize their profits unless they turn people away. According to Princeton economist Paul Krugman, in any given year about 80% of us need very little medical care. Some aspirin and cough syrup, more or less. But 20% of us have an accident or illness that requires major medical treatment. That's expensive.
Currently, we don't spread the risk and costs evenly. Instead, we have lots of insurance companies all competing against each other to maximize their profits. Which they have—to the tune of billions of dollars a year. But they make their billions by not getting "stuck" with the people needing expensive medical treatment...And we know the result: over 100 million Americans who are un- or under-insured, pushed into the health care cracks between insurance companies by the companies themselves...
We already know that we can have better health care for everyone for less money, if we remove the competition and distrust that insurance company profits have injected into the process. SCHIP is a prime example of just this approach. It demonstrates what we can accomplish when we put lives before profit. Those who voted against expanding SCHIP, know that. That's their fear. And, that SCHIP might become a powerful rallying point toward rebuilding a thriving American community through health care for all.
if these guys keep voting down SCHIP, its going to become a huge rallying point during the next elections.
I have a son, he's covered by healthcare... the right wing's argument has a crossed wire. if these changes were to be enacted, sure, he'd be covered for public health care when he wasn't before. but I'd have to pay a tax, to keep the system alive.
its so selfish for this administration to veto SCHIP.
Fisting frist
Why the hell don't folks talk about the goddamned savings this society would realize from a single payer system? They always talk about how much it would cost instead of how much it would save.
Are supporters of such a system that goddamned stupid as not to press that arguement?
So are taxes would go up, we would eliminate our fucking premiums, corporations would save billions. Doesn't GM figure 1200 bucks a car for medical coverage for their employees?
Jesus people, frame the fucking debate!!
Oh Jesus!! "Are" taxes would go up.
Mea Culpa.
Here's how Bush would really like children to get moved into Government health care.
over 100 million Americans who are un- or under-insured, pushed into the health care cracks between insurance companies by the companies themselves…
That's a third of the country -- and more join their ranks every day. The wingnuts "socialized medicine" bogeyman isn't nearly as effective as it once was. Given a choice between between "socialized medicine" and none at all, what do you think most people would choose? How about for a sick kid?
Seems the old right-wing mantra "Better dead than red" is no longer just rhetorical.
Actually, I think the Democrats have framed the SCHIP debate quite well. The important thing was for the President to veto it. Now that he's done so, SCHIP becomes a stick to beat every GOP candidate with.
Oh Christ, Bush framed the fucking debate by asking for another 200 Billion while vetoing child health care at the same time.
How about the broader debate for a national single payer system?
2.4 trillion for a war is "limited government" to repubs but even a cent for health care is "socialism"
These clowns are all fools.
It's simple if you really want to do it.
There are several models of tax funded health care for all that ARE working right now in Canada and Europe.
Of course each has it's flaws so you do the smart thing by looking at ALL of them, pick the obvious best choice, determine it's flaws and chose the solution from another working system ad nauseum until you have something you can feel good about using.
Reinventing it from scratch just so it can be a "100% American" policy is more than a little xenophobic.
Not to mention downright stupid.
And leaving it up to the Insurance/medical INDUSTRY is flat out moronic.
But what with all the apparent morons in DC I shouldn't be surprised that the retarded option is the one of choice.
Just one more issue where the Kuch is WAY ahead of us. Lookin' for a leader? Got one.
It is truly insane to attempt to 'persuade' a demented lunatic, who is averse to reason, facts, logic; to whom the concepts of reason, facts, logic are incomprehensible; with reason facts, logic.
In a nutshell, those who approach Bush with rational reasoning are crazy.
Shame on us.
THOSE LAZY COMUNIST CHILDREN SHOULD PULL THEMSELF UP BY THEIR BOOTSTRAPS AND GET THEIR OWN HEALTHCARE!
I don't understand why this issue is even an argument. The vast majority of Americans are for this. It should be a no brainer.
This point makes an excellent point that is rarely made in the debate over health care in America.
The for-profit health insurance industry is designed NOT to provide people with care. To the industry, health care is actually a liability, not an economic good. The medical-industrial complex is a vast, wasteful bureaucracy that exists to deny people care wherever possible, and maximize profit.
Compare private health insurance to almost any other competively priced good or service - microchips, food, cars, commodities, you name it. In most instances, the profit motive brings about lower costs, lower market prices, technological innovation, more efficient use of product inputs, higher quality and responsiveness to customer needs.
This doesn't apply to private health insurance and HMO's. Capitalist medicine = market failure.
Profits before people has to be the most disgusting thing ever.
At work last week, we had a wonderful mandatory health insurance meeting (with salespeople) during our lunchtime.
Our premiums are going up 40%, and the option was sticking with the currant policy or moving over to a HSA with almost zero benefits and monster high deductibles.
The bait they used to try and get us to go over to the HSA scheme was dangling the option of paying out of pocket for any health costs and also putting money into the HSA weekly, then 5 or 10 years down the line using the receipts to reimburse ourselves and go on a 'holiday of a lifetime'.
People like myself and my fellow colleagues in a smallish factory cant afford 'out of pocket' plus paying 2000 PA into a HSA at the same time.
The substandard benefits of a HSA compared to an average health insurance policy is laughable, they dont cover occupational therapy under a HSA, which is vital when working in manual labour and tryingt o get back to work after a work accident.
jr @ 9:
You would think the pathetic dems would actually frame the debate that way. But they don't.
You would think they would shout it from the rooftops. But they don't.
Instead, they will eventualy go on the defensive, trip over themselves, and loose the entire pot again! Even though they are holding four aces, and the idiot from Texas has a 10-high card.
Why hasn't anyone mentioned that SCHIP is UNDERWRITTEN BY BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD> to limit enrollment is to increase BCBS's bottom line folks...... that is THE fight.
ferrofluid @ 17:
yea, its cute, isn't it? under this administration, that tedious "open enrollment" period has become considerably less tedious. my employers used to provide employees with two or three different vendors, each with two or three different options. this year, like the year before - we have one vendor to select from. with two different packages. and both packages suck as each year passes, and every package becomes more and more expensive as each year passes.
and I talk about this with other parents, and they have the same complaints and concerns. our co-pays go up, our premiums go up, and our list of restrictions and available physicians decreases.
I hear the retort that "market factors" are creating this problem, but these bastards stock prices continue to grow almost as fast as major gas and oil vendors.
Hey now...we can't be taking care of our people...that would be like Russia or China right?!?
This debate is entirely the Democrats to lose (as is the Presidency, but that's another thread).
The DNC is running this issue abominably -- letting it fester as a theoretical construct, instead of bringing it home to parents of children. It's sickening, but so far the Republicans are running up the score here; the President's veto was sustained, and it does not appear to be changing the landscape on the Hill whatsoever.
Fight after fight after fight, we Democrat shy away from. When will the leadership take a stand and say that they would rather let this government ground to a half then let one more day of the minority's leadership go unchallenged? It's take a leader to gather followers.
One national health insurance scheme where health and not profits is the priority. Imagine.
Some would call it socialized medicine, that bogeyman. In Ontario, Canada it's called the "Ontario Health Insurance Plan" or OHIP. In Quebec, Canada it's called "Assurance Maladie". Similarly in other Canadian Provinces and the Canadian Federal Government participates. Notice the term "Insurance" in the name of the plans. And no one, I repeat NO ONE, gets rejected for either a scratch or major surgery. IT CAN BE DONE. If we don't know how then perhaps we can get workable advise from our neighbors to the north. They figured it out decades ago.
Setting aside the issue of speed of access, a red herring thrown at Canada for example, what percentage or actual number of Americans have coverage equal to people in Canada in terms of cost beyond premiums, that is no co-pay, no deductable, etc.? I suspect fewer than 25% if one eliminates those attracting coverage because of Schip or welfare. Further, what percentage can conceivably be bankrupted by medical expenses? In Canada, some may be bankrupted by other expenses they can not meet due to illness, but not by medical expenses. If one adds those in America covered by welfare, Schip or who are under-insured or do not have coverage, how many does this add up to? My point is, how many Americans actually enjoy full coverage as provided by the private sector and of those, how many carry the expense on their own as opposed to being carried by employers such as with unions or as Senators. My suspicion is fewer than 10% of Americans pay their own full coverage. My further point is that all the private sector argument is protecting a system that fails to meet the needs of perhaps 90% of Americans. Should this not be how this is framed and be the argument of Democrats?
I actually had an idea recently. people are scared of socialized medicine, because it would theoretically remove competition... so service and R&D/innovation would supposedly go away.
so. how about this? tax the hell out of everyone, based on their income. nobody pays more than say $400 or $500/month, and thats for the upper middle class and richies to pay. but even welfare checks get taxed say about $20 or $40 or something.
put the money into a big bucket. let the HMOs keep being HMOs. as customer needs arise, the various HMOs - Blue Cross, Providence, Kaiser, etc etc - they submit an itemized expense report to the feds, and get reimbursed. the only thing they lose is their listing on the NYSE. but if they want to stay alive, they have to provide superior care and service to the patients, and the patients select who they want to use.
ferrofluid @ 17 brought up a good point when he/she brought up open enrollment. ferrofluid has just one option... the one his/her *employer* selected for them. not the one he/she might necessarily prefer to use. but its that provider, or some bloated customer version.
I have a similar situation. I can use Blue Cross, or I can choose to opt out and buy my own coverage. both options suck for me. I mean - to be honest? I think healthcare already *IS* in a situation where they don't need to worry about service or R&D/innovation. HMOs aren't beholden to their customers, they're publicly owned and traded entities... they're beholden to their primary shareholders and their respective boards of directors.
this suggestion would - hopefully - incite HMOs to focus a little more on the medical side of running an HMO and less on the marketing or legal side of it. I've been dropping this suggestion all over, on craigslist and a bunch of other sites I frequent. I've heard some great feedback. the plan is to hopefully get some serious feedback, and deliver a shit-together proposal to my congressman. I'm fortunate enough to live in a pretty good district with a fairly active representative.
burnt @ 25:
Yeah tax the people that are already dirt poor.
Nuts. You are taxing funds that are paid out of taxes. Do you have a concept of what welfare recipients are paid? What would happen is welfare recipients would get a boost to their income that equaled the 'tax' you propose.
Not really that smart
The real answer doesn't involve insurance companies at all and it means drug companies don't make as much profit either. Sorry, Drug company X only gets to make 3 billion in profit this year and not 4.5 billion.
"I actually had an idea recently. people are scared of socialized medicine, because it would theoretically remove competition... so service and R&D/innovation would supposedly go away."
That is a right wing talking point, not reality. The majority of the people in this country want guaranteed government health care for everyone and they are willing to pay taxes to do it. We are ranked 37th in health indicators and all the countries ahead of us have "socialized" or single payer health care as I like to call it systems. The whole socialized medicine scare is just what people who make a lot of money of the industry and those who hate anything to do with the government actually taking care of it's citizens will use to scare the crap out of the average Joe or Jane. It appears to not be working anymore due to the fact that so many people are without health insurance and or don't have adequate coverage.
The bastards will pay big time for this.
The insurance companies have no business being involved in any kind of healthcare delivery system. They'll take your money with no complaint, but don't like living up to their obligations once they taken your money. Profits above people.
Universal healthcare not universal insurance.
Disclosure: I'm a retired Federal employee. According to the National Association of Retired Federal Employees, this is the law:
I pay for Blue Cross/Blue Shield out of my pension. Bush says moving moving people from private insurance is a terrible thing, but my wife (disabled and on SS disability) was forced from my Blue Cross to Medicare.
And why do I have to continue paying the Family rate? If Blue Cross is responsible for only the 20% Medicare does not pay, but it collects 100% of the premium, is the difference the money they use for political donations?
SCHIP is all about not letting the Democrats look good to the middle class. It is a power play has nothing to do with cutting the budget or the other lies you have heard. William Kristol's discussion clearly stated to hold back the SCHIP plan for political reason. Sick kids mean nothing to Republicans.
It looks like this website is made up of liars. One of them used my name to post an ignorant comment. If you look after my name it says "unverified".
Comments are closed on this entry