Do people 'deserve' universal health care?

[DuncanONeil]

As I remember it the Mailhandlers plan was usually the most cost effective. Last few years of service I did not carry any as the plan at wife's work was even more cost effective. So I can not remember the prices.

But if you want to talk about low cost the local teacher's union has done themselves proud. I can't remember the exact cost but it is below $60 per MONTH for the teacher. And when they retire it continues, for life, but I am not sure they have to pay at that time.

Prior approvals by insurance providers is usually one of those things that are spelled out in the offering that nobody reads and only finds out well after the fact! But how much longer will that take when it is a Government board that is making the decision.

Interesting. In the USPS, health care is a benefit for which employees are deducted a very insignificant amount in each biweekly paycheck (for individual coverage - family coverage is slightly higher, of course, just as it is with any employer-sponsored health care plan).

I've seen the "offerings" but declined coverage. I am a part-time employee and am not offered it as a benefit. I would have had to pay in full for it and found it was cheaper (and I received a better plan) by going with Humana. For three family members to have HMO coverage I pay just barely over $300.00 monthly. We can visit the doctor as often as needed,. Our copay for dr visits is only $10.00 per visit. Since we've been on that plan I've had two lumps removed from my left breast, skin cancer removed, my husband goes to the chiropractor regularly, and my son has regular visits to get his Adderal prescriptions for ADD. We've not had one single problem with our coverage.

On the other hand, a full-time co-worker of mine had to have knee replacement surgery recently. She's on one of the government run plans. She had to wait a month to receive approval from her insurance company so she could have it done. (She was injured ON THE JOB and THAT is the reason the knee replacement surgery was necessary)

Side note: Under my insurance plan, once the doctor(s) recommended knee replacement surgery all I would have had to do was set a date and show up.

[steelish]

As I remember it the Mailhandlers plan was usually the most cost effective. Last few years of service I did not carry any as the plan at wife's work was even more cost effective. So I can not remember the prices.

But if you want to talk about low cost the local teacher's union has done themselves proud. I can't remember the exact cost but it is below $60 per MONTH for the teacher. And when they retire it continues, for life, but I am not sure they have to pay at that time.

Prior approvals by insurance providers is usually one of those things that are spelled out in the offering that nobody reads and only finds out well after the fact! But how much longer will that take when it is a Government board that is making the decision.

That may be. Before I got laid off, the company I used to work for offered insurance at NO COST to employees. A private company - not federal. Only if you wanted family coverage did you have to pay out of pocket, otherwise it was free. Dr. visits through their plan was also a $10 copay, so when I had my son, the only payment I ever made was the initial $10 copay charge for my first visit to my obstetrician. I went through months of visits, I received the usual prenatal vitamins, I went to the hospital when I went into labor, had an emergency C-section, stayed three days, was discharged...and never had to pay another dime. Just my initial $10 copay.

I'm not saying federal insurance programs offered through federal employment is bad (it's not a whole lot different than employee sponsored programs), but I think what they offer federal employees is completely different than the plan Obama is proposing.

Under the plan I had with my employer, I received the best care - no questions asked. No third party involvement. No one interfering in the doctor/patient relationship. Something was recommended, my husband and I conferred with each other, it was done and the insurance company paid.

[DuncanONeil]

You are correct. The plans offered to federal employees are from the same companies that the private sector uses.
Some people like to compare health insurance to auto insurance, but in auto insurance people make a choice to pay less insurance for a larger deductible. Yet in health insurance people want the lesser cost without the corresponding increase in out of pocket expense.

Now I can't remember everything in the health bills but i have a few specifics that I think are enough to prove the value, perhaps I should say lack of value, of the bills

1. You get to keep you current health care.

a. True for five years.
b. Then all providers must be in the "exchange"

2. Although not spoken of anymore, the "public option" is wrong on two counts at least

a. Such a plan would have several unfair advantages.
b. Government in direct competition with private companies in the US is against the law.

3. The bills require the Government to increase the time between pregnancies.

a. How can that be done?
b. What happens to a person that does not comply?
c. What happens when they change the time limit? No input from Congress would be required.

4. The claim that there is not attempt to take over this industry is suspect.

a. All qualified providers of insurance are required to be in the exchange. b. All providers in the exchange are required to be under contract to the Government.
c. The Government determines what must be covered.
d. The Government determines what can be charged for the services covered.

5. In addition there is section after section that levies additional reporting requirements on all aspects of the health process.

And this is just a small portion of the bills.

That may be. Before I got laid off, the company I used to work for offered insurance at NO COST to employees. A private company - not federal. Only if you wanted family coverage did you have to pay out of pocket, otherwise it was free. Dr. visits through their plan was also a $10 copay, so when I had my son, the only payment I ever made was the initial $10 copay charge for my first visit to my obstetrician. I went through months of visits, I received the usual prenatal vitamins, I went to the hospital when I went into labor, had an emergency C-section, stayed three days, was discharged...and never had to pay another dime. Just my initial $10 copay.

I'm not saying federal insurance programs offered through federal employment is bad (it's not a whole lot different than employee sponsored programs), but I think what they offer federal employees is completely different than the plan Obama is proposing.

Under the plan I had with my employer, I received the best care - no questions asked. No third party involvement. No one interfering in the doctor/patient relationship. Something was recommended, my husband and I conferred with each other, it was done and the insurance company paid.

[SadisticNature]

Regarding Point 1, If the proposed republican plan were to go through you wouldn't get to keep your current insurance at all, because with the state lines removed companies would standardize the plans they offer across the nation, eliminating the state specific one that you are using.

2.b. Would like a source for this claim. Government run utilities are allowed to compete in markets that also have private utilities in several states. Also, medicare competes with existing insurance coverage for those eligible. Not a single person in congress was willing to vote down medicare and it operates on the same principle as a public option with the same competitive advantages.

Regarding 3, Could you quote the specific part of the bill dealing with this from the actual document?

Regarding 4, No one has claimed the government doesn't want additional regulation on the health insurance industry, the exchange is a way of standardizing it. How is this any different than requiring banks to have shares of the national bank?

Regarding 5, It was tried with less reporting and less regulation and look at the mess that caused, if reporting is needed to ensure standards are met I don't see why that is a flaw of the current bill.

You are correct. The plans offered to federal employees are from the same companies that the private sector uses.
Some people like to compare health insurance to auto insurance, but in auto insurance people make a choice to pay less insurance for a larger deductible. Yet in health insurance people want the lesser cost without the corresponding increase in out of pocket expense.

Now I can't remember everything in the health bills but i have a few specifics that I think are enough to prove the value, perhaps I should say lack of value, of the bills

1. You get to keep you current health care.

a. True for five years.
b. Then all providers must be in the "exchange"

2. Although not spoken of anymore, the "public option" is wrong on two counts at least

a. Such a plan would have several unfair advantages.
b. Government in direct competition with private companies in the US is against the law.

3. The bills require the Government to increase the time between pregnancies.

a. How can that be done?
b. What happens to a person that does not comply?
c. What happens when they change the time limit? No input from Congress would be required.

4. The claim that there is not attempt to take over this industry is suspect.

a. All qualified providers of insurance are required to be in the exchange. b. All providers in the exchange are required to be under contract to the Government.
c. The Government determines what must be covered.
d. The Government determines what can be charged for the services covered.

5. In addition there is section after section that levies additional reporting requirements on all aspects of the health process.

And this is just a small portion of the bills.

[steelish]

Prior approvals by insurance providers is usually one of those things that are spelled out in the offering that nobody reads and only finds out well after the fact! But how much longer will that take when it is a Government board that is making the decision.

I went to doctors within my insurance company's network. They knew what's covered and what is not. But, as you state, with Obama's plan, the doctor/patient relationship will suffer greatly. Some desk jockey somewhere will receive the doctor's recommendation, then decide (based upon your potential to be a "contributing" member of society and whether or not it is the most cost effective procedure) and then will inform your doctor of whether or not you can proceed. It's a horrible idea, and one that will cripple the American health care system.

[DuncanONeil]

This is what the bill calls for;

There is established a private-public advisory committee which shall be a panel of medical and other experts to be known as the Health Benefits Advisory Committee to recommend covered benefits and essential, enhanced, and premium plans.
The Health Benefits Advisory Committee shall be composed of the following members, in addition to the Surgeon General:

(A) 9 members who are not Federal employees or officers and who are appointed by the President.

(B) 9 members who are not Federal employees or officers and who are appointed by the Comptroller General of the United States in a manner similar to the manner in which the Comptroller General appoints members to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission under section 1805(c) of the Social Security Act.

(C) Such even number of members (not to exceed 8) who are Federal employees and officers, as the President may appoint.

I don't see any doctors in here!
Further of the 26 appointees, 17 are directly appointed by the President and the remaining nine by a Presidential appointee (one could argue all 26 are appointed by the President).

I went to doctors within my insurance company's network. They knew what's covered and what is not. But, as you state, with Obama's plan, the doctor/patient relationship will suffer greatly. Some desk jockey somewhere will receive the doctor's recommendation, then decide (based upon your potential to be a "contributing" member of society and whether or not it is the most cost effective procedure) and then will inform your doctor of whether or not you can proceed. It's a horrible idea, and one that will cripple the American health care system.

[steelish]

This is what the bill calls for;

There is established a private-public advisory committee which shall be a panel of medical and other experts to be known as the Health Benefits Advisory Committee to recommend covered benefits and essential, enhanced, and premium plans.
The Health Benefits Advisory Committee shall be composed of the following members, in addition to the Surgeon General:

(A) 9 members who are not Federal employees or officers and who are appointed by the President.

(B) 9 members who are not Federal employees or officers and who are appointed by the Comptroller General of the United States in a manner similar to the manner in which the Comptroller General appoints members to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission under section 1805(c) of the Social Security Act.

(C) Such even number of members (not to exceed 8) who are Federal employees and officers, as the President may appoint.

I don't see any doctors in here!
Further of the 26 appointees, 17 are directly appointed by the President and the remaining nine by a Presidential appointee (one could argue all 26 are appointed by the President).

The other concern is the length of time it will take for the regulating "committee" to examine cases and return "verdicts". Given the millions that will eventually be required to switch to the plan (once the private insurers are driven out of business) the 26 appointees will in no way be able to keep up with the myriad cases being presented daily. Think of how many people will be waiting days, months, possibly even a year or more to hear whether or not their plan of action for their health issues will be approved!

[DuncanONeil]

The bill calls for every "grandfathered" insurer to be in the "Exchange" after five years.
Every insurer in the "Exchange" is required to be under contract to the Government.
I think we all know what that means!

The other concern is the length of time it will take for the regulating "committee" to examine cases and return "verdicts". Given the millions that will eventually be required to switch to the plan (once the private insurers are driven out of business) the 26 appointees will in no way be able to keep up with the myriad cases being presented daily. Think of how many people will be waiting days, months, possibly even a year or more to hear whether or not their plan of action for their health issues will be approved!