You see…you give stats instead of some story about your second cousins barber who had a kidney stone. That’s what I’m talking about. Even though these anecdotes are compelling they tell us nothing.
On a side note…there is not massive discontentment. Something like 85% of americans are happy with their health care. True, nobody likes the insurance companies but, then, most people don’t like any company that they have to send a check to each month. The idea of massive discontentment comes from hearing the talking heads tell us how bad others have it.
Also, once an entitlement is given it CANNOT be taken back…regardless of how badly it works. People have the impression that they are getting something for nothing because they don’t really see the expense. Look at social security, medicare, etc. Any talk of reforming these programs by lowering benefits, raising taxes, or raising the age for benefits is immediately met with hostility.
Just to highlight how ridiculous the US poverty threshold is, a single mom making $15,500 is actually above the line for 2008…
As for the summit, it was the dog and pony show it was intended to be. Obama gets to be seen discussing the issues with Republicans. Republicans get to lay into his plan, get their talking points out, and slam the reconciliation process. At the end of the day it either passes by a few votes in each branch (using reconciliation in the Senate) or it doesn’t. The average American doesn’t give a shit about the process, just who wins or loses.
If it were any other party I would bet good money that it ultimately gets enacted. But we are talking about the Democratic party, so…
The Democratic Party is not an entity, the notion of “unity” is unknown. And some are firmly in the grip of the insurance companies, they can be relied upon to be in favor of socially useful and progressive programs so long as they don’t constitute a threat to Money. “Blows Dogs” Democrats, I think they’re called…
If your employer switches carriers, the new carrier accepts the group without applying new pre-existing condition rules.
If you change jobs, and enroll in your new employers group plan, they wave the pre-existing conditions as long as you can document that you maintained coverage with your ex-employers plan until becoming a member of the new plan.
But this is a deeply personal issue. The dry facts and figures alone do not tell the whole story because beyond the financial cost of healthcare, there is a human cost. There are the lives lost and shortened for lack of care. There are the families bankrupted by care that insurers won’t cover, or when there is no insurance at all. Those stories matter. The people behind those stories matter.
And those stories are as much a reason compelling change as percentages of GDP and increases in deficit spending – and more importantly, people who shut down when they hear numbers and cannot relate to percentages and numbers in the tens of billions should be able to understand how frightening it must be to have a diagnosis of cancer and not be able to get the treatment needed because you don’t have the equivalent of the cost of small car to give the hospital as down payment they’re demanding before they’ll do something to save your life. People should be able to stop and say “now that’s not right” when they hear about a woman using her dead sister’s dentures because she couldn’t pay to see a dentist to get some of her own.
Hearing the important truth of what it means to be uninsured, underinsured, faced with untenable choices doesn’t preclude rational people from making an analysis of the facts and figures, even while keeping those stories in mind. And just as importantly, those stories are not just told for the folks that work on Capitol Hill, but for John and Jane Voter, so that they can begin to understand why this is necessary, and support their representatives in doing what is difficult, but right, for the country as a whole.
Because the piecemeal approach isn’t financially feasible. If you mandate an end to the pre-existing clauses without also mandating that everyone purchase insurance, costs for insurance which are already too high will simply go higher. If you mandate coverage without offering subsidies, families will be forced into financial ruin because there will absolutely be those who still cannot afford insurance. And you can’t do any of it without also instituting massive cost control measures. You can’t attack this problem one piece at a time because all the pieces are interlocked. It’d be like trying to solve a rubik’s cube by trying to turn just one square.
And what about people who need more than one check up? What if your check up also requires bloodwork? Do you only see a GP? What about the gynecologist? What about specialist checkups? One check up a year is not a reasonable solution for a lot of people, and those costs will very quickly add up.
Like heck it is. The vast majority of people will never qualify for Medicaid so long as they have a car or a job or a place to live. When I had $0 income, $0 savings and no car, I didn’t qualify, because I had a nice place to live with a relative who took care of me, because I was single and had no children. I’m still paying off those bills and will be for several more years. I could’ve bought a Mercedes for what that illness cost me. If I couldn’t get help for tens of thousands when I had nothing, where on earth do you get the idea that Medicaid is going to come up with a couple hundred for anyone with any sort of income?
How do you know you’re healthy? What’s your blood pressure? How do you know? What’s your cholesterol? Are you developing glaucoma? Do you have pre-cancerous polyps in your colon? Abnormal cells on your cervix? Skipping annual check ups because you feel good is like never checking the air level in your tires because eh, they look okay.
So? It’s from a blog on the ABC news site. I consider that as factual as a WSJ op-ed.
But if you are already in a plan, then that increase doesn’t apply to you. Did you read the part of the CBO analysis where that 10-13% increase was referring to new policies?
Would switching jobs and, thus, potentially switching insurers constitute a new plan? I’m curious because, if it does, then the increase will hit everyone sooner or later.
I wonder;What is the difference if one pays $100.00 a month for insurance or if you are taxed a hundred, the money either goes to the government or the Insurance company. We are now paying for people who use the emergency rooms, or who are on medicaid. I believe Medicare is paid for through Social Security which comes from a person’s wages while they are working. Correct me if I am wrong.
90 percent of respondents to a CBS/New York Times poll of the general public earlier this year said the U.S. health care system needs to undergo fundamental change (54 percent) or be rebuilt completely (36 percent).
Of more than 2,000 doctors surveyed (this was in 2008), 59 percent said they support legislation to establish a national health insurance program, while 32 percent said they opposed it, researchers reported in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine.
The 2002 survey found that 49 percent of physicians supported national health insurance and 40 percent opposed it.
So from 2002-2008, the number of doctors who wanted national health insurance went from 49% to 59%. By that kind of growth, it’ll be 70%+ by 2020.
At the same time, if you went to Canada or France and proposed dramatic health reforms, you’d probably see rioting. If there are polls showing the vast majority of Europeans want fundamental or total restructuring of their health care systems, I haven’t seen them. If anything I get the impression it is the opposite.
The fact that you can’t take entitlements back is one of their appeals. An appeal of passing universal health care is that it may cement into the public consciousness that everyone is entitled to a basic level of health care. The only question becomes how.
But I do agree we need more adult attitudes about taxes and programs. People want something for nothing, which means their kids inherit a gigantic bill.
Some people have a puritanical division between private & public solutions and think private solutions = liberty and public solutions = tyranny. That is the difference basically. However those attitudes are getting smaller and smaller (and as a result, more and more loud and radical in their death spiral). SOCIALISM!!11! DEATH PANELS1!1!!!
The sad part is the dems are intimidated by those people.
Medicare is paid via its own FICA taxes. SS is paid for with a tax of 12.4% split 50/50 between employer & employee on the first 106k in income. Medicare is paid via a 2.9% tax split 50/50 but is on all income, not just the first 106k.
Medicaid is paid for via income taxes (I believe).
I think the average family premium sees about $1100 go to cover the uninsured (who drive up everyone elses costs).
Thanks.
As I understand it, Medicare is paid for by each person while they are younger and working (like an insurance), then extra taxes are paid for those who cannot work. If that is the case, Why does the government want to cut the benifits of Medicare to give to the people on Medicaid? We paid into FICA for 57 years that included our children as well. We still pay into medicare every year. There were many times that the government used Social Security funds for other purposes, now they say the funds will run out.
I know many younger people do not have insurance because they spent a lot of money on vacations, unnecessary things so didn’t have any savings but aquired a big debt by living beyond their means. If one earns $100,000.00 a year and spends $100,00.00 they brake even, If they spend even $1,000.00 or even $100.00 a year more they go into the hole. One has to live under their wages and save for a time like we have now, when work is not available.