Co-ops a good compromise?

[Oddball]

Oh, yeah....Just like gubmint isn't running GM and AIG.

 

[toomuchtime_]

If you move from one area to another, the only way to get health insurance is to apply for a new policy. If you became ill under your old policy, then you will either be denied coverage or end up paying three to five times as much to get a new policy. Either scenario is pretty bad. Of course, if you move from one employer to another, you will be okay because the new employer will be able to offer you coverage under their group plan, and Hipaa rules now make it so that the insurer cannot deny you coverage due to pre-existing conditions. However, and I will say this again, if you are an individual who is self-employed, and you make that same move, you are screwed.

Furthermore, any future changes that are made will not help someone who has lost coverage due to such circumstances. The bottom line is that most everyone would be screaming bloody murder if they had to spend over $15,000 per year for their own medical coverage. The truth is, very few could afford it.

Again, these are problems that can be easily addressed under our present system and should be. You are identifying two problems: the inability of an individual to buy health insurance at group rates and the problem of buying health insurance with preexisting conditions. The first can be addressed by encouraging the development of co-ops and organizations of individuals to buy insurance for their members at group rates, and the second can be addressed in a variety of ways. For example, allow health insurance companies to go national but require them to allow some one who was insured by them in one state to buy a policy from them in another state without being rated because of preexisting health conditions. Since the insurer had been funding against the risk of illness while the individual was healthy, it seems only fair they pay the costs of the illness they had been funding against even if he moves across state lines. Many of the perceived benefits of a public plan derive not from the fact it is public but from the fact that it is a national plan.

But what about the case where an individual becomes sick while being insured by a company that has not gone national and then he has to move to another state? Such insurers could be urged or forced to pay into a fund that would compensate the new insurer for taking on this person.

These are very nice solutions, imo, because they do not require the government to incur the trillions of dollars of new debt Obama is demanding and the increases in premiums they cause should be very small and evenly distributed nationally.

What is the trillions of ADDITIONAL dollars that obama plans to spend on health care for?

SCHIP?

The govt option?

MEDICARE?

MEDICAID?

Covering the 45 million uninsured?

These private coops????

i am at a disadvantaged I suppose, because i really don't know what all of obama's plan entails verses congress's plan, the dem plan or the minority republican plan? i have heard quips about all, but not enough details....

care

Obama's plan was on his website during the election campaign, and at that time estimates of its costs ran from $1.4 trillion to $1.8 trillion over the first ten years, and we all know from experience that new government programs nearly always cost much, much more than the initial estimates. That means trillions of dollars of new taxes/new debt over the next decade. Obama has claimed his proposals will produce huge savings to offset these new expenses, but the CBO has dismissed these claims as being too vague and unsubstantiated. Most of the cost of his plan comes from increases in benefits, such as increased metal health benefits, changes in terms of service, such as requiring insurers to accept pre existing conditions at standard rates, and subsidies to cover those presently uninsured.

Ted Kennedy's plan, now being managed in committee by Dodd, is built around a public plan, something Kennedy has insisted on ever since he got into the Senate, and is estimated to cost about $1 trillion over the next ten years, but it will cover only about 13 million of the estimated 50 million presently uninsured, and it will offer subsidies to families earning five times the poverty level, $110,000 for a family of four.

There is a second plan being argued out in the Senate Finance committee under the leadership of Max Baucus, and while I haven't seen much about the details of this plan, it is estimated to cost $1.6 trillion over the next ten years.

What is absolutely certain is that all of these massive proposals will increase health care costs for us as a nation, not decrease them, and that most of the problems they claim to address, other than universal coverage, could be addressed virtually cost free within our present system.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Government wouldn't run healthcare. They would just act as the middle man between doctors and patients. Healthcare would still be for profit. Doctors should still get paid well.

How much do these co op's cost to join? Do they deny for pre existing care?

What are the negatives?

There are no negatives. A co-op would cover what the members want it to cover and the cost would be actuarially determined. Here's one in Seattle that's been around since 1947.

Group Health Cooperative, Seattle, Washington

 

[RodISHI]

In one state 1.8 billion for administrative cost?

t r u t h o u t | Blue Cross Millionaires Are Scared to Compete With a Public Plan
Blue Cross Millionaires Are Scared to Compete With a Public Plan

Monday 25 May 2009

"Specifically, the administrative expenses of a public plan like Medicare are far lower than the expenses for Blue Cross of North Carolina. According to its Annual Report, Blue Cross of North Carolina spent almost 15 percent of its premiums on administrative expenses in 2008. That came to more than $1.8 billion. This money would have been enough to cover the costs of insuring almost 600,000 kids through the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). Just five years earlier, Blue Cross of North Carolina spent more than 22 percent of premiums on administrative expenses."

Blue Cross CEO gets hefty raise - Business - News & Observer
Blue Cross CEO gets hefty raise
The nonprofit company increases executives' pay as premiums rise for medical insurance

According to the filing with the Department of Insurance, Greczyn received a $2.2 million bonus on top of a base salary of $862,151 and other compensation of $32,136.

Greczyn oversees a company with 4,300 employees, mostly in Chapel Hill. By comparison, drug maker GlaxoSmithKline, which has about 100,000 employees worldwide, reported Friday that it paid CEO Jean-Pierre Garnier $5.4 million last year.

This is supposed to be a non profit company?

Blue Cross Blue Shield defends bonuses amid rate hike request | detnews.com | The Detroit News

"Blue Cross Blue Shield defends bonuses amid rate hike request
Bonuses to 4,000 employees come amid rate hike requests, layoffs at the nonprofit insurerLoepp, who earned $727,575 in bonuses in 2008, said in the memo that he'd recommended to the board a 5 percent to 20 percent award reduction for executives and director-level employees this year. Compensation packages for Blue Cross's top executives are reported annually to the state."

The performance bonuses, which were less than the prior year, were approved by Blue Cross's 34-member board and were paid to managers, analysts, director's assistants and other nonbargaining employees.

About 80 percent of the incentives were paid to employees below the executive ranks, Blue Cross said.

 

[Oddball]

Interesting.

Blue Cross is one of those providers that has flourished by way of the prohibition of the ability for people to shop out of state for cafeteria-style coverage.

 

[RodISHI]

State by state these ceo's are raking in the money off of a proclaimed non-profit.

Blue Cross CEO's pay rose 26% - The Boston Globe
Blue Cross CEO's pay rose 26%

The salary and bonus paid to Cleve L. Killingsworth, chairman and chief executive of Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Massachusetts, increased 26 percent last year, to $3.5 million, even though the health insurer's membership declined and its net income fell 49 percent.

Based on previous years' retirement benefits - which Blue Cross-Blue Shield did not report for 2008 - Killingsworth's total pay package was likely about $4.3 million, making him by far the highest paid healthcare executive in Massachusetts.

 

[RodISHI]

How about this one, stripping out the money on your way out the door.

$15.3 MILLION BONUS PAID TO BLUE CROSS & BLUE SHIELD EXEC ON HER WAY OUT THE DOOR - Illinois PIRG


$15.3 MILLION BONUS PAID TO BLUE CROSS & BLUE SHIELD EXEC ON HER WAY OUT THE DOOR

When Gail Boudreaux was passed over for Patricia Hemingway Hall for the CEO spot at Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Illinois' parent company, she received a payout of $15.3 million.

According to a Crain's Chicago Business report," the payout included a $5-million bonus and $9.9 million in "other compensation" for the former executive vice-president."

But it gets worse.

While health care costs have been rising, forcing Illinois families to choose between coverage and groceries, the former CEO, Raymond McCaskey, got a pay raise last year, bringing in $10.6 million in 2008.

Angela Bray, CEO of the Indianapolis-based WellPoint Inc., the No. 2 U.S. insurer in the country, made $9.1 million last year

 

[Oddball]

North Carolina is also one of the places where I've been turned away from a clinic, for a minor procedure, because I had no insurance, even though I flashed several hundreds of dollars at them.

Hmmmm.....

 

[toomuchtime_]

In one state 1.8 billion for administrative cost?

t r u t h o u t | Blue Cross Millionaires Are Scared to Compete With a Public Plan
Blue Cross Millionaires Are Scared to Compete With a Public Plan

Monday 25 May 2009

"Specifically, the administrative expenses of a public plan like Medicare are far lower than the expenses for Blue Cross of North Carolina. According to its Annual Report, Blue Cross of North Carolina spent almost 15 percent of its premiums on administrative expenses in 2008. That came to more than $1.8 billion. This money would have been enough to cover the costs of insuring almost 600,000 kids through the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). Just five years earlier, Blue Cross of North Carolina spent more than 22 percent of premiums on administrative expenses."

Blue Cross CEO gets hefty raise - Business - News & Observer
Blue Cross CEO gets hefty raise
The nonprofit company increases executives' pay as premiums rise for medical insurance

According to the filing with the Department of Insurance, Greczyn received a $2.2 million bonus on top of a base salary of $862,151 and other compensation of $32,136.

Greczyn oversees a company with 4,300 employees, mostly in Chapel Hill. By comparison, drug maker GlaxoSmithKline, which has about 100,000 employees worldwide, reported Friday that it paid CEO Jean-Pierre Garnier $5.4 million last year.

This is supposed to be a non profit company?

Blue Cross Blue Shield defends bonuses amid rate hike request | detnews.com | The Detroit News

"Blue Cross Blue Shield defends bonuses amid rate hike request
Bonuses to 4,000 employees come amid rate hike requests, layoffs at the nonprofit insurerLoepp, who earned $727,575 in bonuses in 2008, said in the memo that he'd recommended to the board a 5 percent to 20 percent award reduction for executives and director-level employees this year. Compensation packages for Blue Cross's top executives are reported annually to the state."

The performance bonuses, which were less than the prior year, were approved by Blue Cross's 34-member board and were paid to managers, analysts, director's assistants and other nonbargaining employees.

About 80 percent of the incentives were paid to employees below the executive ranks, Blue Cross said.

A nice thing about co-ops is that the members elect the trustees and the trustees hire the executives. If you are a member and think the trustees are not doing a good job, you can vote against them the next time around, and if you think you can do a better job, you can run for trustee.

The downside of Medicare is that it is going broke because it does not charge enough to cover its expenses, and that's an example of gross mismanagement.

 

[RodISHI]

I do know for a lot of people it is a ring around the rosy for medical issues and it shouldn't be. If one gets hurt on the job one should be covered medically by WC. Now if the WC provider can send that employee to one of their bought and paid for docs the employee can be screwed over with absolute neglect.

I believe we have let insurance companies get way to big. Many of them have to much control while they pay themselves very well to neglect the masses that pay for insurance.

Sick of Blue Cross | Profits Over People
The FACTS About Blue Cross

Blue Cross provides coverage to nearly one in four insured Californians, so in addition to having millions to spend to block reform, its practices and priorities affect the lives of 7 million Californians.

With $1 Billion "Withdrawal," Blue Cross Treats CA Consumers Like a Corporate "ATM Machine"

In May, Blue Cross sent $950 million to its parent company WellPoint's corporate headquarters in Indiana. This "dividend," as it was characterized by WellPoint, is being investigated by California's Department of Managed Health, whose director Cindy Ehnes expressed the concern that Blue Cross was treating "California as its ATM machine," even as "Californians are struggling to get healthcare for their families."

 

[RodISHI]

A nice thing about co-ops is that the members elect the trustees and the trustees hire the executives. If you are a member and think the trustees are not doing a good job, you can vote against them the next time around, and if you think you can do a better job, you can run for trustee.

The downside of Medicare is that it is going broke because it does not charge enough to cover its expenses, and that's an example of gross mismanagement.

I'm sure it can all be figured out to where everyone receives adequate care. We have way to much waste now and to many greedy fingers in the pie. Including care managers that use old people to insure their own job security. That last trip out to see my parents I met the neighbors. The gal was telling me about "mom". They had done heart surgery on her even though she has advanced Alzheimers. To extend the life of someone that bad off so docs, ins and such can make a buck is too sad.

 

[sealybobo]

Oh, yeah....Just like gubmint isn't running GM and AIG.

You complaining about the government saving GM is like if I ran into your burning home and saved your child and you called the cops on me for kidnapping.

 

[RodISHI]

Do the auto companies have Blue Cross insurance?

Are Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan Officer Salaries Excessive?

In his second year as chief executive officer at Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, Daniel Loepp earned $1,657,555, a 67% raise over his $999,351 salary and compensation in 2006, the company's 2007 financial records show.

Blue Cross says its executive compensation is fair measured against both commercial insurers and nonprofits because it must pay enough to retain top talent. Critics, including Attorney General Mike Cox, say Blue Cross spends too much on administrative costs such as salaries. Cox said the average compensation for Blue Cross' top 10 executives rose 42% between 2004 and 2006.

"Those are significant pay hikes for a charitable and benevolent nonprofit, and they stand in stark contrast to what's happening to families and workers, who have seen their purchasing power erode in the face of plant closings, mortgage foreclosures and higher gas prices," Cox said in an e-mail to the Free Press last week.

 

[sealybobo]

Do the auto companies have Blue Cross insurance?

Are Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan Officer Salaries Excessive?

In his second year as chief executive officer at Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, Daniel Loepp earned $1,657,555, a 67% raise over his $999,351 salary and compensation in 2006, the company's 2007 financial records show.

Blue Cross says its executive compensation is fair measured against both commercial insurers and nonprofits because it must pay enough to retain top talent. Critics, including Attorney General Mike Cox, say Blue Cross spends too much on administrative costs such as salaries. Cox said the average compensation for Blue Cross' top 10 executives rose 42% between 2004 and 2006.

"Those are significant pay hikes for a charitable and benevolent nonprofit, and they stand in stark contrast to what's happening to families and workers, who have seen their purchasing power erode in the face of plant closings, mortgage foreclosures and higher gas prices," Cox said in an e-mail to the Free Press last week.

Ford has HAP.

And regardless, I heard the other day that Blue Cross has a monopoly and their rates have skyrocketed out of control. Time for change.

Yes we can.

 

[auditor0007]

No one is denying there are problems with out health insurance system, but fixing them does not require the massive expenditures Obama is demanding and a public plan is not a solution to any of them. For example, the Bush administration, and most of the Republican candidates for president last year, promoted the idea of having groups of individuals form organizations that could buy health insurance at group rates.

Insurance companies do not raise your rates because you get sick and they do not cancel your coverage because you get sick. The insurance policy you or your employer bought is a binding legal contract and the company must live up to the terms of it. If you want different or more benefits or terms of service, groups can negotiate such things with the insurer, but the more you put into the contract, the higher the premium will be. The thing to keep in mind is that this is true for a public plan, too, and there is no reason to think the unsubsidized cost of a public plan will be any less than the cost of a private plan.

If you move from one area to another, the only way to get health insurance is to apply for a new policy. If you became ill under your old policy, then you will either be denied coverage or end up paying three to five times as much to get a new policy. Either scenario is pretty bad. Of course, if you move from one employer to another, you will be okay because the new employer will be able to offer you coverage under their group plan, and Hipaa rules now make it so that the insurer cannot deny you coverage due to pre-existing conditions. However, and I will say this again, if you are an individual who is self-employed, and you make that same move, you are screwed.

Furthermore, any future changes that are made will not help someone who has lost coverage due to such circumstances. The bottom line is that most everyone would be screaming bloody murder if they had to spend over $15,000 per year for their own medical coverage. The truth is, very few could afford it.

Again, these are problems that can be easily addressed under our present system and should be. You are identifying two problems: the inability of an individual to buy health insurance at group rates and the problem of buying health insurance with preexisting conditions. The first can be addressed by encouraging the development of co-ops and organizations of individuals to buy insurance for their members at group rates, and the second can be addressed in a variety of ways. For example, allow health insurance companies to go national but require them to allow some one who was insured by them in one state to buy a policy from them in another state without being rated because of preexisting health conditions. Since the insurer had been funding against the risk of illness while the individual was healthy, it seems only fair they pay the costs of the illness they had been funding against even if he moves across state lines. Many of the perceived benefits of a public plan derive not from the fact it is public but from the fact that it is a national plan.

Actually, this is exactly what Anthem told me would happen as I moved. Once I arrived, they said "Oops, we got that wrong. You actually do have to go through underwriting or we can offer you a guaranteed issue plan that will cost you three times what you were paying".

But what about the case where an individual becomes sick while being insured by a company that has not gone national and then he has to move to another state? Such insurers could be urged or forced to pay into a national fund that would compensate the new insurer for taking on this person.

These are very nice solutions, imo, because they do not require the government to incur the trillions of dollars of new debt Obama is demanding and the increases in premiums they cause should be very small and evenly distributed nationally.

Then why didn't Republicans do something about this when they had the opportunity? Because the insurance companies lobbied against this as hard as they could, that is why. The point is that even if changes are made now, I will no longer be able to purchase health insurance at a reasonable rate. They closed the door on me. Changes could help others down the road, but as for me, I'm screwed.

 

[auditor0007]

No one is denying there are problems with out health insurance system, but fixing them does not require the massive expenditures Obama is demanding and a public plan is not a solution to any of them. For example, the Bush administration, and most of the Republican candidates for president last year, promoted the idea of having groups of individuals form organizations that could buy health insurance at group rates.

Insurance companies do not raise your rates because you get sick and they do not cancel your coverage because you get sick. The insurance policy you or your employer bought is a binding legal contract and the company must live up to the terms of it. If you want different or more benefits or terms of service, groups can negotiate such things with the insurer, but the more you put into the contract, the higher the premium will be. The thing to keep in mind is that this is true for a public plan, too, and there is no reason to think the unsubsidized cost of a public plan will be any less than the cost of a private plan.

If you move from one area to another, the only way to get health insurance is to apply for a new policy. If you became ill under your old policy, then you will either be denied coverage or end up paying three to five times as much to get a new policy. Either scenario is pretty bad. Of course, if you move from one employer to another, you will be okay because the new employer will be able to offer you coverage under their group plan, and Hipaa rules now make it so that the insurer cannot deny you coverage due to pre-existing conditions. However, and I will say this again, if you are an individual who is self-employed, and you make that same move, you are screwed.

Furthermore, any future changes that are made will not help someone who has lost coverage due to such circumstances. The bottom line is that most everyone would be screaming bloody murder if they had to spend over $15,000 per year for their own medical coverage. The truth is, very few could afford it.

Again, these are problems that can be easily addressed under our present system and should be. You are identifying two problems: the inability of an individual to buy health insurance at group rates and the problem of buying health insurance with preexisting conditions. The first can be addressed by encouraging the development of co-ops and organizations of individuals to buy insurance for their members at group rates, and the second can be addressed in a variety of ways. For example, allow health insurance companies to go national but require them to allow some one who was insured by them in one state to buy a policy from them in another state without being rated because of preexisting health conditions. Since the insurer had been funding against the risk of illness while the individual was healthy, it seems only fair they pay the costs of the illness they had been funding against even if he moves across state lines. Many of the perceived benefits of a public plan derive not from the fact it is public but from the fact that it is a national plan.

But what about the case where an individual becomes sick while being insured by a company that has not gone national and then he has to move to another state? Such insurers could be urged or forced to pay into a national fund that would compensate the new insurer for taking on this person.

These are very nice solutions, imo, because they do not require the government to incur the trillions of dollars of new debt Obama is demanding and the increases in premiums they cause should be very small and evenly distributed nationally.

Again, these are problems that can be easily addressed under our present system and should be. You are identifying two problems: the inability of an individual to buy health insurance at group rates and the problem of buying health insurance with preexisting conditions. The first can be addressed by encouraging the development of co-ops and organizations of individuals to buy insurance for their members at group rates, and the second can be addressed in a variety of ways. For example, allow health insurance companies to go national but require them to allow some one who was insured by them in one state to buy a policy from them in another state without being rated because of preexisting health conditions. Since the insurer had been funding against the risk of illness while the individual was healthy, it seems only fair they pay the costs of the illness they had been funding against even if he moves across state lines. Many of the perceived benefits of a public plan derive not from the fact it is public but from the fact that it is a national plan.

But what about the case where an individual becomes sick while being insured by a company that has not gone national and then he has to move to another state? Such insurers could be urged or forced to pay into a fund that would compensate the new insurer for taking on this person.

These are very nice solutions, imo, because they do not require the government to incur the trillions of dollars of new debt Obama is demanding and the increases in premiums they cause should be very small and evenly distributed nationally.

What is the trillions of ADDITIONAL dollars that obama plans to spend on health care for?

SCHIP?

The govt option?

MEDICARE?

MEDICAID?

Covering the 45 million uninsured?

These private coops????

i am at a disadvantaged I suppose, because i really don't know what all of obama's plan entails verses congress's plan, the dem plan or the minority republican plan? i have heard quips about all, but not enough details....

care

Obama's plan was on his website during the election campaign, and at that time estimates of its costs ran from $1.4 trillion to $1.8 trillion over the first ten years, and we all know from experience that new government programs nearly always cost much, much more than the initial estimates. That means trillions of dollars of new taxes/new debt over the next decade. Obama has claimed his proposals will produce huge savings to offset these new expenses, but the CBO has dismissed these claims as being too vague and unsubstantiated. Most of the cost of his plan comes from increases in benefits, such as increased metal health benefits, changes in terms of service, such as requiring insurers to accept pre existing conditions at standard rates, and subsidies to cover those presently uninsured.

Ted Kennedy's plan, now being managed in committee by Dodd, is built around a public plan, something Kennedy has insisted on ever since he got into the Senate, and is estimated to cost about $1 trillion over the next ten years, but it will cover only about 13 million of the estimated 50 million presently uninsured, and it will offer subsidies to families earning five times the poverty level, $110,000 for a family of four.

There is a second plan being argued out in the Senate Finance committee under the leadership of Max Baucus, and while I haven't seen much about the details of this plan, it is estimated to cost $1.6 trillion over the next ten years.

What is absolutely certain is that all of these massive proposals will increase health care costs for us as a nation, not decrease them, and that most of the problems they claim to address, other than universal coverage, could be addressed virtually cost free within our present system.

There is a huge assumption going on here that because government involvement would increase that healthcare spending would increase. The fact is that government spending would increase and therefore the cost of government having its hand in more of our healthcare would definitely lead to more government spending. What has not been shown is how much this will decrease spending on the other side, through private insurance.

Without any true calculations no one can say whether this will increase or decrease overall costs. Let's not forget that we are currently spending $2.4 trillion on healthcare, and that the government is already responsible for over $1 trillion of that spending.

And yes, we know that the goverenment spends much more per person than the private sector, but that is due to the simple fact that the majority being covered by the goverenment are retirees who become sick more often and almost always require hospitalization before they die. The private sector only deals with supplemental insurance when it comes to our retirees and would never even want to add them to their plans.

 

[Care4all]

If you move from one area to another, the only way to get health insurance is to apply for a new policy. If you became ill under your old policy, then you will either be denied coverage or end up paying three to five times as much to get a new policy. Either scenario is pretty bad. Of course, if you move from one employer to another, you will be okay because the new employer will be able to offer you coverage under their group plan, and Hipaa rules now make it so that the insurer cannot deny you coverage due to pre-existing conditions. However, and I will say this again, if you are an individual who is self-employed, and you make that same move, you are screwed.

Furthermore, any future changes that are made will not help someone who has lost coverage due to such circumstances. The bottom line is that most everyone would be screaming bloody murder if they had to spend over $15,000 per year for their own medical coverage. The truth is, very few could afford it.

Again, these are problems that can be easily addressed under our present system and should be. You are identifying two problems: the inability of an individual to buy health insurance at group rates and the problem of buying health insurance with preexisting conditions. The first can be addressed by encouraging the development of co-ops and organizations of individuals to buy insurance for their members at group rates, and the second can be addressed in a variety of ways. For example, allow health insurance companies to go national but require them to allow some one who was insured by them in one state to buy a policy from them in another state without being rated because of preexisting health conditions. Since the insurer had been funding against the risk of illness while the individual was healthy, it seems only fair they pay the costs of the illness they had been funding against even if he moves across state lines. Many of the perceived benefits of a public plan derive not from the fact it is public but from the fact that it is a national plan.

But what about the case where an individual becomes sick while being insured by a company that has not gone national and then he has to move to another state? Such insurers could be urged or forced to pay into a national fund that would compensate the new insurer for taking on this person.

These are very nice solutions, imo, because they do not require the government to incur the trillions of dollars of new debt Obama is demanding and the increases in premiums they cause should be very small and evenly distributed nationally.

What is the trillions of ADDITIONAL dollars that obama plans to spend on health care for?

SCHIP?

The govt option?

MEDICARE?

MEDICAID?

Covering the 45 million uninsured?

These private coops????

i am at a disadvantaged I suppose, because i really don't know what all of obama's plan entails verses congress's plan, the dem plan or the minority republican plan? i have heard quips about all, but not enough details....

care

Obama's plan was on his website during the election campaign, and at that time estimates of its costs ran from $1.4 trillion to $1.8 trillion over the first ten years, and we all know from experience that new government programs nearly always cost much, much more than the initial estimates. That means trillions of dollars of new taxes/new debt over the next decade. Obama has claimed his proposals will produce huge savings to offset these new expenses, but the CBO has dismissed these claims as being too vague and unsubstantiated. Most of the cost of his plan comes from increases in benefits, such as increased metal health benefits, changes in terms of service, such as requiring insurers to accept pre existing conditions at standard rates, and subsidies to cover those presently uninsured.

Ted Kennedy's plan, now being managed in committee by Dodd, is built around a public plan, something Kennedy has insisted on ever since he got into the Senate, and is estimated to cost about $1 trillion over the next ten years, but it will cover only about 13 million of the estimated 50 million presently uninsured, and it will offer subsidies to families earning five times the poverty level, $110,000 for a family of four.

There is a second plan being argued out in the Senate Finance committee under the leadership of Max Baucus, and while I haven't seen much about the details of this plan, it is estimated to cost $1.6 trillion over the next ten years.

What is absolutely certain is that all of these massive proposals will increase health care costs for us as a nation, not decrease them, and that most of the problems they claim to address, other than universal coverage, could be addressed virtually cost free within our present system.

There is a huge assumption going on here that because government involvement would increase that healthcare spending would increase. The fact is that government spending would increase and therefore the cost of government having its hand in more of our healthcare would definitely lead to more government spending. What has not been shown is how much this will decrease spending on the other side, through private insurance.

Without any true calculations no one can say whether this will increase or decrease overall costs. Let's not forget that we are currently spending $2.4 trillion on healthcare, and that the government is already responsible for over $1 trillion of that spending.

And yes, we know that the goverenment spends much more per person than the private sector, but that is due to the simple fact that the majority being covered by the goverenment are retirees who become sick more often and almost always require hospitalization before they die. The private sector only deals with supplemental insurance when it comes to our retirees and would never even want to add them to their plans.

they don't want to add them! THEY are the ones WHO DROPPED them in the first place, FORCING the health care costs of seniors on to the tax payers....while they got to keep all the young and healthy ones....

i can see why medicare will bankrupt us or is so costly, because we do not have the healthy, to help spread the risk, right?

 

[Oddball]

they don't want to add them! THEY are the ones WHO DROPPED them in the first place, FORCING the health care costs of seniors on to the tax payers....while they got to keep all the young and healthy ones....

i can see why medicare will bankrupt us or is so costly, because we do not have the healthy, to help spread the risk, right?

Well, DUUUUUHH!!!

This was one of the principal arguments against Medicare back in '65!!

Of course the classic statist hyperbole ploy, claiming that opponents just want seasoned citizens to "die in the streets", won the day.

 

[toomuchtime_]

If you move from one area to another, the only way to get health insurance is to apply for a new policy. If you became ill under your old policy, then you will either be denied coverage or end up paying three to five times as much to get a new policy. Either scenario is pretty bad. Of course, if you move from one employer to another, you will be okay because the new employer will be able to offer you coverage under their group plan, and Hipaa rules now make it so that the insurer cannot deny you coverage due to pre-existing conditions. However, and I will say this again, if you are an individual who is self-employed, and you make that same move, you are screwed.

Furthermore, any future changes that are made will not help someone who has lost coverage due to such circumstances. The bottom line is that most everyone would be screaming bloody murder if they had to spend over $15,000 per year for their own medical coverage. The truth is, very few could afford it.

Again, these are problems that can be easily addressed under our present system and should be. You are identifying two problems: the inability of an individual to buy health insurance at group rates and the problem of buying health insurance with preexisting conditions. The first can be addressed by encouraging the development of co-ops and organizations of individuals to buy insurance for their members at group rates, and the second can be addressed in a variety of ways. For example, allow health insurance companies to go national but require them to allow some one who was insured by them in one state to buy a policy from them in another state without being rated because of preexisting health conditions. Since the insurer had been funding against the risk of illness while the individual was healthy, it seems only fair they pay the costs of the illness they had been funding against even if he moves across state lines. Many of the perceived benefits of a public plan derive not from the fact it is public but from the fact that it is a national plan.

But what about the case where an individual becomes sick while being insured by a company that has not gone national and then he has to move to another state? Such insurers could be urged or forced to pay into a national fund that would compensate the new insurer for taking on this person.

These are very nice solutions, imo, because they do not require the government to incur the trillions of dollars of new debt Obama is demanding and the increases in premiums they cause should be very small and evenly distributed nationally.

What is the trillions of ADDITIONAL dollars that obama plans to spend on health care for?

SCHIP?

The govt option?

MEDICARE?

MEDICAID?

Covering the 45 million uninsured?

These private coops????

i am at a disadvantaged I suppose, because i really don't know what all of obama's plan entails verses congress's plan, the dem plan or the minority republican plan? i have heard quips about all, but not enough details....

care

Obama's plan was on his website during the election campaign, and at that time estimates of its costs ran from $1.4 trillion to $1.8 trillion over the first ten years, and we all know from experience that new government programs nearly always cost much, much more than the initial estimates. That means trillions of dollars of new taxes/new debt over the next decade. Obama has claimed his proposals will produce huge savings to offset these new expenses, but the CBO has dismissed these claims as being too vague and unsubstantiated. Most of the cost of his plan comes from increases in benefits, such as increased metal health benefits, changes in terms of service, such as requiring insurers to accept pre existing conditions at standard rates, and subsidies to cover those presently uninsured.

Ted Kennedy's plan, now being managed in committee by Dodd, is built around a public plan, something Kennedy has insisted on ever since he got into the Senate, and is estimated to cost about $1 trillion over the next ten years, but it will cover only about 13 million of the estimated 50 million presently uninsured, and it will offer subsidies to families earning five times the poverty level, $110,000 for a family of four.

There is a second plan being argued out in the Senate Finance committee under the leadership of Max Baucus, and while I haven't seen much about the details of this plan, it is estimated to cost $1.6 trillion over the next ten years.

What is absolutely certain is that all of these massive proposals will increase health care costs for us as a nation, not decrease them, and that most of the problems they claim to address, other than universal coverage, could be addressed virtually cost free within our present system.

There is a huge assumption going on here that because government involvement would increase that healthcare spending would increase. The fact is that government spending would increase and therefore the cost of government having its hand in more of our healthcare would definitely lead to more government spending. What has not been shown is how much this will decrease spending on the other side, through private insurance.

Without any true calculations no one can say whether this will increase or decrease overall costs. Let's not forget that we are currently spending $2.4 trillion on healthcare, and that the government is already responsible for over $1 trillion of that spending.

And yes, we know that the government spends much more per person than the private sector, but that is due to the simple fact that the majority being covered by the government are retirees who become sick more often and almost always require hospitalization before they die. The private sector only deals with supplemental insurance when it comes to our retirees and would never even want to add them to their plans.

There is no question but that the total cost of health insurance, public and private, will be increased by any of the plans being considered by Congress, and if the government requires upgrades in the health insurance being offered by companies to their employees, as many in Congress are advocating, there is no question but that the cost of health insurance provided by these businesses will increase, regardless of whether that insurance is provided by a public plan or a private plan.

While the CBO and outside economists have been able to identify what will increase health insurance spending under these plans, no one has yet been able to identify and significant savings that will be produced by these plans. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that a public plan will either increase the quality of health care or decrease the cost of health insurance here in the US beyond what can be achieved without it. Add to this the fact that most developed countries, such as France, Germany and Japan, that have universal coverage at costs much lower than our's and with excellent health outcomes do so through private companies that negotiate coverage and premiums with the government, and it becomes obvious that the drive for a public plan is politically and ideologically driven and is unnecessary to achieve any of the stated aims of health care reform.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Again, these are problems that can be easily addressed under our present system and should be. You are identifying two problems: the inability of an individual to buy health insurance at group rates and the problem of buying health insurance with preexisting conditions. The first can be addressed by encouraging the development of co-ops and organizations of individuals to buy insurance for their members at group rates, and the second can be addressed in a variety of ways. For example, allow health insurance companies to go national but require them to allow some one who was insured by them in one state to buy a policy from them in another state without being rated because of preexisting health conditions. Since the insurer had been funding against the risk of illness while the individual was healthy, it seems only fair they pay the costs of the illness they had been funding against even if he moves across state lines. Many of the perceived benefits of a public plan derive not from the fact it is public but from the fact that it is a national plan.

But what about the case where an individual becomes sick while being insured by a company that has not gone national and then he has to move to another state? Such insurers could be urged or forced to pay into a national fund that would compensate the new insurer for taking on this person.

These are very nice solutions, imo, because they do not require the government to incur the trillions of dollars of new debt Obama is demanding and the increases in premiums they cause should be very small and evenly distributed nationally.

Obama's plan was on his website during the election campaign, and at that time estimates of its costs ran from $1.4 trillion to $1.8 trillion over the first ten years, and we all know from experience that new government programs nearly always cost much, much more than the initial estimates. That means trillions of dollars of new taxes/new debt over the next decade. Obama has claimed his proposals will produce huge savings to offset these new expenses, but the CBO has dismissed these claims as being too vague and unsubstantiated. Most of the cost of his plan comes from increases in benefits, such as increased metal health benefits, changes in terms of service, such as requiring insurers to accept pre existing conditions at standard rates, and subsidies to cover those presently uninsured.

Ted Kennedy's plan, now being managed in committee by Dodd, is built around a public plan, something Kennedy has insisted on ever since he got into the Senate, and is estimated to cost about $1 trillion over the next ten years, but it will cover only about 13 million of the estimated 50 million presently uninsured, and it will offer subsidies to families earning five times the poverty level, $110,000 for a family of four.

There is a second plan being argued out in the Senate Finance committee under the leadership of Max Baucus, and while I haven't seen much about the details of this plan, it is estimated to cost $1.6 trillion over the next ten years.

What is absolutely certain is that all of these massive proposals will increase health care costs for us as a nation, not decrease them, and that most of the problems they claim to address, other than universal coverage, could be addressed virtually cost free within our present system.

There is a huge assumption going on here that because government involvement would increase that healthcare spending would increase. The fact is that government spending would increase and therefore the cost of government having its hand in more of our healthcare would definitely lead to more government spending. What has not been shown is how much this will decrease spending on the other side, through private insurance.

Without any true calculations no one can say whether this will increase or decrease overall costs. Let's not forget that we are currently spending $2.4 trillion on healthcare, and that the government is already responsible for over $1 trillion of that spending.

And yes, we know that the goverenment spends much more per person than the private sector, but that is due to the simple fact that the majority being covered by the goverenment are retirees who become sick more often and almost always require hospitalization before they die. The private sector only deals with supplemental insurance when it comes to our retirees and would never even want to add them to their plans.

they don't want to add them! THEY are the ones WHO DROPPED them in the first place, FORCING the health care costs of seniors on to the tax payers....while they got to keep all the young and healthy ones....

i can see why medicare will bankrupt us or is so costly, because we do not have the healthy, to help spread the risk, right?

Medicare is going broke because it is a public plan. The higher costs of seniors' healthcare is offset by the fact that you begin paying for your Medicare coverage forty years before you receive anything from it. The taxes you paid into the Medicare trust were, in effect, insurance premiums, and forty years should have been plenty of time to adjust those premiums, raise those taxes, so that your healthcare costs after 65 would have been adequately funded, but raising taxes is always politically unpopular, so they weren't raise enough and Medicare is going broke.