Obama's Plan: Health-Care 'Reform' - or Insurance Industry Preservation?
By Susie Madrak Wednesday Mar 18, 2009 5:00pmScenes from Obama's traveling insurance preservation healthcare forum:
Yesterday, presaging what is likely to be a sharp debate within the Democratic Party in the coming months, a good share of the crowd in this liberal state - as well as about 200 protesters outside - enthusiastically cheered for Canadian-style government-run healthcare, or at least an option to buy into a public insurance plan like Medicare.
Obama has said it is not politically feasible to get rid of private insurers, but in his campaign he proposed letting people choose to buy into a public insurance option - something insurers view as potentially fatal to their business.
Deborah Richter, a Vermont physician and advocate of a Medicare-for-all style system, said the country can no longer afford to squander precious healthcare dollars on administrative hassles associated with private insurance. If everyone is "deemed worthy" of insurance, then the government should come up with a single benefits package for everyone. "Why would we even need private insurance?" she said.
Patrick, serving as referee, gently suggested that the landmark 2006 Massachusetts healthcare law might offer a different route to the same goal.
"In Massachusetts, the only debate we used to have, for decades, . . . was: 'What's a perfect solution?' And if we can't get to that, nothing is worth trying," Patrick said.
Corporate Dems like Patrick and Obama are quite insistent that we do everything possible to preserve the existence (and profit margins) of insurance companies - which is no real solution at all.
Massachusetts eventually settled on a kind of hybrid solution that has expanded existing public programs and uses a combination of market reforms, regulations, and subsidies to help lower-income people afford private insurance.
I guess they forgot to mention how unhappy many Massachusetts doctors and consumers are with the plan - because it's more focused on making insurance companies happy!
DeParle asked how many people at the forum were uninsured. Only a couple of people raised their hands. The problem with a Medicare-for-all style system, she said, is that most people already have insurance and they just want it to cost less - but they're basically satisfied.
Only the relatively healthy are happy with the present system, because the real problems begin when you actually use your insurance - and find out how little it actually covers. (Ever check out your lifetime cancer benefits?) No, people aren't really "satisfied" with their insurance - they're simply resigned to the idea that this is as good as it gets.
Login or Register to post comments.
. . . you will need his title, too.
And here's the lowdown on what's REALLY going on here vis-a-vis the "Massachusetts Health Care System":
According to an article recently published in the Berkshire Eagle, Dr. Susanne King makes the following points about Massachusetts current health care "system".
First, it has not achieved universal healthcare, although the reform has been a boon to the private insurance industry. The state still has more than 200,000 without coverage and the level is bound to go up.
Second, the reform does not address the problem of insurance being connected to jobs. For individuals, this means their insurance is not continuous if they change or lose jobs.
Third, the program is not affordable for many individuals and families. For an individual earning $31,213, the cheapest plan can cost $9,872 in premiums and out-of-pocket payments.
Fourth, the costs of the reform for the state have been formidable. $1.1 billion in 2008, with costs of $1.3 billion forecast for 2009. These rising costs are not sustainable.
Fifth, reform does not assure access to care. High-deductible plans that have additional out-of-pocket expenses can result in many people not using their insurance when they are sick.
Dr. King goes on to mention that there is one U.S. model of healthcare that meets the Institute of Medicine criteria: Medicare.
A bill before Congress, the United States National Health Insurance Act, would provide more comprehensive for all. The bill includes doctor, hospital, long-term, mental health, dental, and vision care, prescription drugs, and medical supplies, with no premiums, copayments, or deductibles.
This program would pay for itself by eliminating the wasteful administrative costs and profits of private insurance companies, and save $8 billion to $10 billion in Massachusetts alone.
I agree with Dr. King when she says, "We must let Congress know we want improved access to affordable healthcare for all, not more expensive private health insurance we can't afford to use when we are sick."
Massachusetts healthcare reform FAILS on all five Institute of Medicine criteria.
Congress should NOT make it a model for the nation.
I agree with Dr. King.
What say you?
I say, the site for HR 676 is here. http://hr676.org/
It is not possible to remedy concept of private/for profit healthcare insurance with public universal single payer system.
No more than current USPS universal postal system could be divided into fifty state systems and then again down into myriad postal systems within each state run by private/for profit postal system operators. Needless to say the profit motives and conflicts of trying to mesh any number of postage stamp schemes,zip code schemes and size,weight and terms of service would make the costs structure and service outcomes serial loop de loops.
Universal American HealthCare Single Payer for all Americans must be free of current for profit skewing of access and cut off/shut out outcomes.
For profit healthcare insurance providers should not be part of American Single Payer System HealthCare.
Idea of taking/making profit off people by gaming access,exclusion and playing statistical outcomes to garner profits is not moral.
If Congress and the WH will not do what is right then going forward Congress and those in WH should be prepared to give up the current healthcare plan(s) they benefit from and enter into maze of hit and miss catch as catch can mess so many Americans must endure.
Get over yourself and simply do the following. you will be glad you did:
1. Nationalise Healthcare. Period. End of discussion. The rest of the industrialised world will say "Well, took ya long enough..."
2. Nationalise the Banks. Period. do it now. Once your banking system is stabilised, you can set up some private banks, but you will put them on a very tight leash.
3. Abandon Your Empire. Dismantle the hundreds of military bases around the planet. use the materials and personnel to rebuild your country which is basically shattered from 28 years of leadership that ranged from mediocre (Clinton) to terrible (Reagan) to disastrous (Bush). This will include reducing spending on the military by about 90% or more.
With the efficiencies gained from just these three actions, America will be better positioned to deal with the REAL CRISIS it faces: Peak Oil and the transition away from industrialism.
We the people of USA hear you loud and clear, at least those of us not beholden to, or brainwashed by the corporations, in other words, 99% of our leaders.
Concept of "private health insurance with profits" has become impediment to finding workable solutions of other American social and economic 21st century shortfalls. Idea that profits are part of any workable American healthcare universal solution is obsolete and simply immoral. Making profits off people trying to stay well or get well is moral how? President Obama. Do. What. Is. Right.
1. Agree
2. Agree
3. Agree
Conclusion: Concur
Word.
good points tweakerbelle.
except every time you mention something that is good for the American people the people who are robbing us blind start crying about "socialism" and the worst part is some of the very people being robbed by these guys will still listen to what they say, becuase they just don't know any better or maybe they just have a hard time thinking for themselves.
So yes we should nationalise heathcare, banking and bring our troops home so we can start spending the trillions of dollars the idiots who cry socialism are glad to spend killing others, we can bring that money back home and we can take care of America for a change
and if we're successful, maybe we can be done with the Republican noise machine once and for all! we just need to show people our way works!
Very good point. I had never thought about it that way, insane isn't it?
I will vote for you!
Bonus Pack:
4- Dismantle the CIA to it's Original Mandate: Gathering Intelligence!
The NSA.
One of the best posts I've seen in a loooooong time.
I completely agree.
if not now, never.
Much the same way his Banking/Treasury plans have been designed to maintain the existing dysfunctional financial industry.
Very distressing.
from my view NOT sure this is fair. the Fed and treasury during the BUSH administration made several decisions that have paved the way for how this crisis(financial&economy) would be handled. Obama was handed a bad deal of cards if you will.
Just because the card he was dealt was bad, it is no excuse for him not doing the right thing.
Alas, doing the right thing involves some very, very, very strong handed approaches. So my assumption is that he tried to build a bit of trust from the people, regarding his willingness to work with the other side of the aisle, before he can start implementing some of the fairly "painful" legislation he needs to invoke in order to address some of the structural problems that created these crises..
I assume that it would have been political suicide to use a strong hand approach from the very beginning of his administration...
That is me trying to assume that Obama is here to do the right thing... all I can do now is hope...
Me too. Even a little change can make a huge difference in our lives. I think that your right about the strong handed approach from the get go too.
I do have to say though, yes he has to deal with the shitty hand that was dealt to him, but it angers me that it seems like Bush is almost completely escaping blame for this mess. But whether I like it or not, the spot light is on Obama now and people are very anxious about what is happening and expect action of some sort to fix it. It looks like he is going to catch a lot of flak, whether he deserves it or not, from both sides for a while.
. . . is pissing me off.
*
Let the insurance companies continue to sell policies. Let that be a choice (get it? CHOICE) that any individual retains in addition to the basic government run plan that covers every resident within our borders.
Why, that would be making the insurance providers face REAL competition, and the free market doesn't really believe in all that bullshit don't ya know. In all seriousness that would be the death knell for the immoral health care for profit industry. Let's hope we see that in our life times.
Excellent post as well as comments. A few days ago Democracy Now! had a program which featured one of Obama's former friends, a physician from Ma. named Dr. Burton Young, who pointed out the advantages of a single-payer system. One has to wonder why Crooks and Liars did not post that segment unless it was because it showed Obama as a state senator in Illinois advocating for single-payer in 2003 while now pushing for a system which keeps the insurance companies in the equation. Perhaps this may be due to the fact that the insurance companies gave over a million dollars in campaign contributions to both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
Single-payer-a system that places the needs of the people over profit.
Why you did not click on the links in this post, which includes a link to the Democracy Now! segment you say we did not post.
That's it in a nutshell. The costs of the current healthcare insurance system must include a profit. So the middleman is making a profit off of the backs of the people, who are often placed in a position of choosing food or rent over healthcare. Yet, the insurance companies reap huge profits while denying legitimate claims on a daily basis.
This notion that universal healthcare is "socialism", and socialism is bad, is ludicrous. We have many programs that would fall under that umbrella of "socialism", if we stuck to the critics' definition. Things like roads and bridges, police and fire depts, and others could be considered "socialism". If that is the definition that we must use, then a little socialism in our country is a good thing.
The argument has always been, "but those other systems in Europe, et.al., are not perfect." So I guess we must stay with our own imperfect plan. But those other systems are still miles better than our current system. We're not going to get to a perfect system in our lifetime, so why not have one that is much better?
Universal Health Care, not Universal Health Insurance, is my credo. Let's get it done while Obama is in office.
The Republicans like to say that your choice will be severely limited with national health care, but in reality, all that would happen is decision making would shift from private insurers with 30% overhead to medicare, that charges about 5% overhead. I don't see the value added by the insurers that warrants the 25% overhead.
I would like to hear Mr. Obama explain his support for free trade, and simultaneously explain why he wants America's employers burdened with higher health care costs than our European and Japanese economies bear. President Clinton nicely summarized the economics, we pay 16% of GDP and leave 16% uncovered, while Europe and Japan pay 11% of GDP and cover everyone.
According to singlepayeraction.org, Obama has shut out single payer advocates from the health care summit. He ran his election on federal spending to cover the poor. But, when the costs can be restructured through single payer to cover everyone, with no net additional expenditures from the economy at large, Obama's approach is essentially running up the deficits with needless borrowing to sustain corporate welfare for the insurance companies that don't provide value added service versus medicare to justify the administrative premium. Obama has shut out the single payers, because the cost analysis doesn't support our present private insurer approach.
Make no mistake, this is a corporate oligarchy. Like torture is not torture when it is retitled "enhanced interrogation", corporate bribery is not bribery when it is renamed "corporate campaign donations" or "lobbying". And while each corporation may individually benefit from time to time, the U.S. loses as a whole. 11% of GDP versus 16% of GDP is a huge corporate welfare tax, along with our AIG tax, our military industrial complex tax, and so forth.
We're a government of the corporation, by the corporation, and for the corporation.
shhhhhhhhh! they wont listen, they are to in love with thier choices !
We're a government of the corporation, by the corporation, and for the corporation.
and have been for longer than most people realize.
from wikiP and the dictionary...
"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness " in the United States Declaration of Independence
The phrase is based on the writings of English writer John Locke, who expressed that "no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions."[1]
The first article of the Virginia Declaration of Rights adopted unanimously by the Virginia Convention of Delegates on June 12, 1776 and written by George Mason, is:
That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.
definitions...
health |helθ|
noun
the state of being free from illness or injury
safety |ˈsāftē|
noun ( pl. -ties)
1 the condition of being protected from or unlikely to cause danger, risk, or injury
ergo... the federal government must protect us from injury or disease with affordable or free health care...
"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness " is one of the most famous phrases in the United States Declaration of Independence. These three aspects are listed among the "inalienable rights" of man.
So, why is it still an argument?
are still hanging on and fighting this. I heard Hannity on the radio tonight talking to Mitt Romney about how free market health care was the way to go. What I don't understand is the argument that they always bring up, which is the whole "we don't need a bureaucrat telling us what medicines we have to take or what doctor we have to see". Hannity was spouting this tonight. I don't know what kind of insurance Haniity and Romney have, probably pretty good, but every insurance plan that I have ever had dictates that kind of stuff. At least with national health care, you don't have to worry about getting a bill in the mail a few months later saying that whatever wasn't covered because of (insert bullshit reason here).
The health care system in this country is just sad. They sit around trying to come up with ways to deny people their benefits, it's sickening. People actually die because of it. If every other industrialized nation can do national health care, than so can we. I actually think that coming up with a national plan and passing it would be politically advantageous for the Democratic party as well.
If most Physicians, Nurses and Americans support Single Payer. Why not to include it in OBAMA'S health care reform?
Why to keep on Testing Corporate Insurance methods?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-payer_hea...
"Proponents and support
Physicians for a National Health Program[14] the American Medical Student Association[15] and the California Nurses Association[16] are among those that have called for the introduction of a single payer health care program. In Congress, Rep. John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) has repeatedly introduced The United States National Health Insurance Act (HR 676). As of August 2008, HR 676 had 91 co-sponsors.[17]
The issue has often been debated, most recently in the 2008 presidential elections, and there are signs that the American public has warmed to the idea. A CBS News/New York Times poll published in February 2009 reported that 59% say the government should provide national health insurance (up from 40% thirty years earlier) [18] A study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine concluded that 59% of physicians "supported legislation to establish national health insurance" while 9% were neutral on the topic, and 39% opposed it.[19]"
While people support it, our government is not responsive to people. They listen to corporations. There is the ideology and myth that the free market is the end to all problems. My take on that is that cost analysis needs to be done on a case by case basis.
Financial ideologues suck.
"There is the ideology and myth that the free market is the end to all problems"
Right on!
They say Social security is bad, Single payer is Bad but nobody in the MSM speak about almost a TRILLION dollar Yearly WE spend in " National Defense"
http://www.nationalpriorities.org/node/6916
I have to give some credit to Keith Olberman on this topic of health care.
You can be sure of one thing. The mainstream media will do their best to keep single payer out of the debate. Obama won't be alone on this.
the results have been systematically denied.
Okay - I'm back - tonight - from the hospital after a four day stay and an emergency heart procedure. I already can't believe how expensive this is - even with insurance -- Blue Cross Blue Shield -- and it SUCKS. And that doesn't even take into consideration the five new prescriptions I now have.
Are these people nuts? How much of this do they think America can take?
*
You take it easy. OK?
I'm sorry to hear that you've had heart trouble.
Take care of yourself. I know it's a financial burden. Even with private ins. But you have a bigger issue to deal with. Your Health.
So take it easy.
... I need to reduce my stress - my problem is every American's problem -- we're overworked, under-payed and treated like dirt.
Re=Thugs like it this way. We all know it's deliberate.
*
I watched an old episode of that Morgan Spurlock show 30 days the other night where his wife and him went to go work for minimum wage for a month. He messed up his wrist doing some day labor temporary work and had to go to the hospital. He got a bill for it and they charged him like $40 for an ace bandage. That is just insane. I had them charge me $20 for a pain pill before.
I guess they say that they have to this so that they can make up the cost that they lose from dealing with the insurance companies, but who's in a better position to pay it, the family making minimum wage or a multi-million dollar company?
Do take it easy, especially since you had a heart procedure. I hope that you get well soon.
but that's not what the hospital is, in fact, reimbursed.
Insurance companies have the power to negotiate what they are willing to pay the hospital. What happens when you are admitted to a hospital is that the hospital gets one lump sum. It doesn't matter how many tests you get, how many boxes of tissue you go through, how many doctors, nurses or specialists you see. The hospital gets one lump sum. A sum that's not necessarily a qualitative reflection of the services rendered. And that sum has been shrinking as the national budget is being balanced every year. As our funding of medicare shrinks every year. We have been balancing the budget on the backs of the health care system. We are all paying for the thousands of uninsured who are lying in the ICU, to the tune of thousands of dollars a day, due to a gunshot wound (for example). We are all paying for all of this already. I don't know what the answer is. I don't know if the Canadian system is the right model for us. We're always told that this is "the greatest, most innovative country in the world ." So what, we can't come up with something better ? All I know is that I've worked in our health care system for over 20 years and it is simultaneously one of the best AND most expensive in the world. I DO think the insurance companies and pharmaceutical giants have WAY too much power. I DO think we should incorporate holistic methodology.
Thanks for listening.
We all need to keep up the dialogue on this one.
I don't want our nation to waste another opportunity.
PS Morgan Spurlock rocks
comments. What I had heard, and maybe you know this, is that because the insurance companies say what they will pay, and because that amount is almost always lower than the actual cost for the services, that that is the reason why someone without insurance has to pay $40 for an ace bandage or whatever. They try to recoup what they lose from the insurance companies by charging more money.
The dialogue does need to be kept up on this one, you're right. Surely this country can come up with something good that eliminates the greed of the current system. I just hope that the tide starts turning on this one soon.
My son had to have a sleep study done to determine if he has sleep apnea (he does and as a result needs his adnoids and tonsils removed - at the age of 19 months)
We have insurance - so far its been pretty good - and all I can say is, "Thank goodness". Got the statement from the hospital the other day - - one night in the hospital, one test, and the results cost $26,000.
$26,000???!!! For a sleep study for a toddler. That's just damn criminal, if you ask me. I can't imagine what some bills come to if a person spends a week in a hospital or if the study or procedure is more complicated - what a mess.
that is effed up. Good thing you had insurance, that's the kind of thing I'm sure has caused people without insurance to lose their homes. Hope your son is OK now.
Not "real" health care reform - but "health care reform" (period) -- the insurance companies have to die.
*
"...it is not politically feasible to get rid of private insurers."
Mr. President, why don't you explain that one with specific examples, names, amounts of campaign contributions, the whole 9 yards?
healthCare insurance may be the largest ponzi scheme ever. Billions in profit are made by the insurance companies by limiting care,denying claims,imiting contracts and limiting reimbursements. being a physician my opinion is healthCare insurance companies are the main problem. often the art and science of medicine is dictated by the insurance industry.
that they don't try to move towards global fees.
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Obama_abandons_...
"After today's meeting between veteran advocacy leaders and the Obama administration, the White House announced that it will be abandoning a plan to make veterans use private insurance for war-related injuries."
the very fact the shit head considered it showes hes a fungas on the ass of humanity!
your relentless. your consistent and being somewhat ruDe.
your as full of it as the master you slobber over , get a legg blown off before you call a real veteran names!
Go easy on him Tyree, you know how delicate, sensitive and easily offended the professional class is. I often suspect that they are afraid of their own poop.
point well taken capt!
you have NO idea what sacrifice(s) i have made in my professional life/military life.
nor did i ask!but your free to specify them,!
english education? Do you speak as you write (spell). Have you risen above second grade?
like your correctness , your diction , sentence spaceing , question marks great , sorry if my spelling annoys you , im sure you could do much better but some how i must manage to get my point across if i can piss a high quality person like you off, the spelling police must be proud and miss you!there i fixed it for you!
live healthy in this country. It's a stress factory, the whole food chained in poisoned . . etc.
basic human rights are always subordinated to corporate profits in this country. You can't tell where the corporations end and the government begins.
Howard Dean had a plan and it will never see the light of day as long as corporatists rule. why have the dems not rewritten medicare part b, which is a corporate boondoggle?
the fact that the US of A is the only country in the industrialized world with a purely for profit healthcare system speaks volumes about the hypocrisy of this society.
Furthermore the fact that we spend more than the rest of the world *combined* in weapons... makes the fact that we, to this day, have a conservative political party who runs on a so-called "pro-life" platform... even more disgusting.
Where are all those pro-lifers demanding universal healthcare for their precious fetuses once they leave the holy womb?
i sugest the uninformed , the ones who never went to war never saw a man blown in half never saw what guys went through in the military , go down to the local va clinic , the local va hospital , watch the old bastards hobble tru the doors watch the armless the blinded the new old vets with thier limbs gone , hell ask your dad your uncle what they saw where they fought thier gone soon enough and maby you never botherd about thier service , screw people who think its ok to propose screwing the vets, im not the only guy whos pissed about this the guys at the
vfw and american legions are hot !
support repuglyKKKans?
maby youd better ask them personaly ! not every one does and besides id expect this shit to have come from the repukes , maby youd like to ask obama why he would even cosider it!
you've seen my words before:
no DLC
no DSCC
no DCCC
for ME!!!!!!!!!
well there yah got your answer , and untill youve been a fucks why judge one!
But then who actually "deserves" second class care. The very best way for American Veterans to get first class care is to make sure that there is no other kind.
The< facts haven't done anything but become more obvious since then. The Drum beats have to keep up but I think that the demand from Taxpayers has passed 60% in favor of Socialized Medicine and 5% in favor of Feralized medicine and the rest are confused
{ No Blogwhoring. SiteMonitor}
and save me the long typing of all I said there
{ When people link onto your name, your e-address shows up.
Your welcome to link to your blog on an open thread. As long as it's part of the discussion. Thank You. SiteMonitor}
First the private insurers argue they are more efficient than a government-run health care system, and will save money because of competition within the industry.
Then, when confronted with a pubic insurance option they complain that such a government-run health care system would be fatal to their business.
Did I get that right?
That way, people who want additional benefits that aren't life-threatening can take out private insurance, but be assured that their insurance company isn't out to serve private investors over their health.
I'm in Australia, which has unfortunately tread into promoting private insurance. But the public Medicare system is excellent. I've received better service with none of the red tape of U.S. private insurance.
But you are able to purchase additional cover from NOT FOR PROFIT private insurers which costs a FRACTION of U.S. private insurance. Still more red tape than the public system though.
Private insurers will go nonprofit around the same time the fundamentalist evangelicals give up religion.
In many states, Blue Cross/Blue Shield is a not-for-profit company. The problem is, they are the umbrella company for dozens of for-profit companies.
It seems like the Obama Administration is Starting to settle into a
Centrist Government. This kind of Government is becoming more interested
in fixing things that are to Broken to be fixed. And i think that Moving
to the center to get things done will doom this Administration as nothing
more than a Mediocre Administration. When it comes to HealthCare there is
no middle ground when it comes to Reforming it.As long as the Insurance
Company's are left in place there can never be any Real Reform. And if Obama
try's to Pass that kind of Reform off on the American People he and his
Administration will be Viewed as a Failure. Food for thought Rham.
Beyond the obvious problem of insurance companies trying to increase profits by either cutting services, charging more money or denying services altogether, I ran into the problem of dentists and doctors pushing unnecessary procedures.
For example, my dentist in the States told me I needed two cavities filled, and was eager to have me come in before I left the country. Three years later, my dentist in Australia didn't find a single cavity that needed to be filled. Huh? Greedy bastards.
It looks like nothing is going to change , there may be some cosmetic bullshit but the big money , the insurance and Pharma lobby and our politicians , a bunch of corrupt whores who's only concern is their own best interest , face it , it's pretty hopeless ... bend over folks and assume the usual position .
My candidate was Kucinich, UFOs and all, but he bowed out before the primary even hit my state.
In the case of Obama, I think if he had not agreed to be the pliant corporate servant that he is, that the nightly news would have had a non-top benediction from the Reverend Wright for a couple of months leading up to the election.
If Obama wants to preserve the existence of health insurance companies then here's the only thing he needs to do. He needs to get Congress to pass a law that makes homicide for profit a special circumstance nationally. We start executing the health insurance CEOs and adjusters for the deaths they cause and I guaran-damn-tee we'll see healthcare get real cheap, real available, real quick.
Just want to set the record straight on Canadian health care system.
The Canadian health care system is not run by government. Only the health insurance system is - run by the provincial governments. But since government insurance only cover major health services, quite a few other health-related services are not covered. And no drugs are covered. This are covered by private, for-profit insurance companies. For example, Wallmart Canada is doing a booming profitable business in medical drugs.
The Federal government has only 2 roles: partly fund health care services, and set broad national policies and quality standards for health care. It does not run anything in the health system.
Actual operations of the health care system is run by professionals. Many doctors continue in private practice. But there is one, and only one catch - no health care operations are allowed to have unlimited profits. Government control price and cost via control of the health insurance system. This is the only part that is nationalized.
Therefore the Canadian system does not resemble European systems where everything is owned and run by the government. True nationalization.
... buy all our electrical appliances from GE, nor do we buy all of our food from General Mills, so should we borrow from different worlds for our healthcare.
C. Insurance companies continue exactly as they do now, for those who can afford the premiums and the head aches.
A. The federal government provides essential and preventive healthcare insurance as it does for Medicare and a bunch of others like Veterans and Government employees. They negotiate rates with providers as they already have done with Medicare.
B. Private 'pseudo' not-for-profit companies insure people for the same care as A. above, charge=ing the same premiums, but are allowed to cover non-essential and preventive care at an additional uncontrolled premium. In other words it would be a combination of A. and C. above.
Just as with Soc Sec, coverage will be mandatory
Companies who provide healthcare insurance are only required to pay what A. requires. Employees are responsible for spouses and children at rates set by the government and will be included in A.
we have pulled back the curtain of what this country is really about, and it is the laughing stock of the world, a joke if you will.
But I'm not laughing
with the plan, the rest of us are equally fucked...
This insurance reform terrifies me and hits very close to home. What used to take a claim adjuster time and effort and had at least minimal moral oversight, will now be automated by computers. It will scan your digital records, compare them with a huge database, and come up with the most strategic way to deny you healthcare. That's what the profit model will encourage insurance companies to do.
With this system in place, injuries/conditions will go untreated and become chronic illnesses, thus hurting American morale and productivity.
I'm not even going to go into what it could mean if this database were hacked, and no database with massive connectivity is truly secure. Imagine not getting a job because you MIGHT be pre-cancerous.
-Mr. Obama, we hired you to help the people, not the big companies.
Medical records are just a subset of the illegal but ongoing Total Information Awareness program. The insurance companies will get to violate their customers and the government gets to further violate the rights of all citizens. It sucks.
"Health-Care 'Reform' - or Insurance Industry Preservation?"
It sure a hell isn't health care, so it must be "Insurance Industry Preservation"(nice euphamism corporate mega-welfare).
It is unconscionable to contemplate giving welfare to the gangsters who are ripping this country off, not when they've already amply demonstrated that they deserve no place whatsoever at the table.
BTW, Obama staffers who are reading these comments: I am insulted every time I hear Mr. Obama refer to his plan as Health "Care". It has nothing to do with health care, and saying that it does is as cynically Orwellian as any of Bush's masterpieces, like "Clean Air Initiative" and the like. If he's going to sell us all down the river in an act of prostituting himself to a bunch of criminals, don't compound the insult by feeding us a line of bullshit. HR-676 is a genuine device for assuring healthcare. Mr.Obama's plan is just another privatization scam, a device to pay the insurance gangsters untold treasure, while giving them 50-or-so-million more opportunities to say, "Fuck you, that's not covered. But thanks just the same for all those premiums". Does Mr. Obama think we are stupid?
Obama think we are stupid? im convinced he does, and some are!
Hiya, tyree! How's life?
good morning paul,my lifes fine , hows yourself doing?
..same as usual. Just taking a lunch time break and seeing what's happening. shouldn't have done that. All this article has done is piss me off.
anyways..take care. Got to get back to work.
k cya
I live in CA and because I am disabled I have medi-cal and medicare that is managed by a 3rd party. Honestly I cannot complain, for example in February I got in the mail a Summary of Prescriptions Claims Processed from 01/01/09 through 01/31/09. The total drug cost for that period you will not believe, a whopping $3,850.68 which means as of now in March I have catastrophic coverage.
These are medications I take EVERY month on a daily basis, 18 different prescriptions to be exact. YEARLY total of $46,208.16. That doesn't count the photo therapy I do 3 days a week for psoriasis, its $345.00 a visit and takes all of 2 min at the most. Of course when I lived in South Carolina I was only allowed 6 prescriptions a month and only 12 doctor visits a year.
That's hard to manage when you see a dermatologist, cardiologist, pain management and a few others. Needles to say if I had not moved to California, South Carolina would have probably killed me by now.
Login or Register to post comments.