Paul Krugman and the majority of Americans polled have it right: Health care reform must include a public option, preferably federal for increased bargaining power and efficiencies of scale. ("'Centrist' Democrats could botch reform," June 23)
I find the idea of being required to buy private medical insurance outrageous.
Yes, we are required to purchase private auto insurance, but that is part of qualifying for the privilege of driving one's vehicle on publicly financed roadways.
I would love to be able to opt out of Social Security, but I understand that it can only work as a true safety net when it is basically a tax that is uniformly applied. As a society, we have decided that the elderly and disabled should not be abandoned.
Now, we seem to be arriving at the conclusion that medical care is a necessity, even a right.
Even beyond that, the whole idea of having the profit motive so deeply intertwined with medical care is increasingly being questioned.
Those who don't want a public option in the current reform plan are fighting against the tides of history. I believe that we are moving inexorably toward a single-payer system, but that it must be phased in gradually -- we can't afford more economic disruption right now.
Abolishing large parts of the bloated medical insurance industry would surely cause a lot of unemployment. Of course, there will always be private insurance for those who can afford it.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Could you get cheaper private medical insurance?
The NHS provides healthcare from the cradle to the grave - but concerns about treatment delays means many people choose to pay for private cover as well.
Waiting times have come down, but sales of private medical insurance - or PMI - continue to rise, according to the Association of British Insurers (ABI).
Nick Starling, director of general insurance and health at the ABI, says: "The continued rise in the number of people covered by PMI is good news - PMI gives people the peace of mind that they are able to get access to the treatment they need, at the time they need it, where they need it."
While the cost of PMI means it has traditionally been seen as only for the affluent, there are many ways you can cut the cost of cover and adapt your policy to suit your needs.
Moneywise has teamed up with beatthatquote.com to help users find the right medical cover to suit their needs from across the market
Waiting times have come down, but sales of private medical insurance - or PMI - continue to rise, according to the Association of British Insurers (ABI).
Nick Starling, director of general insurance and health at the ABI, says: "The continued rise in the number of people covered by PMI is good news - PMI gives people the peace of mind that they are able to get access to the treatment they need, at the time they need it, where they need it."
While the cost of PMI means it has traditionally been seen as only for the affluent, there are many ways you can cut the cost of cover and adapt your policy to suit your needs.
Moneywise has teamed up with beatthatquote.com to help users find the right medical cover to suit their needs from across the market
Health care: public option to bring competition or monopoly? : Joe Wallace
Your “Obama won’t rule out taxing health insurance benefits” headline [News, June 25] was just slightly inaccurate. While Obama and Congress are contemplating taxing the employees’ health insurance benefits, they are specifically exempting millions of their favored constituents — labor union members.
As reported by The Wall Street Journal, “union members serving under collective bargaining agreements would be exempt, even though they often have the richest and most extensive packages of benefits.” Surprise!
Sure haven’t seen this information reported by other media. Another surprise!
It’s also no big surprise there’s been a total lack of reporting of the exemption Congress itself would receive from Obama’s health-care plan. Yes, the Obama Care Plan prepared by Sen. Edward Kennedy specifically exempts members of Congress from many of its provisions. Page 114 of the Kennedy plan restricts care for the general public in order to control costs while insuring Congress will still receive its taxpayer-paid benefits.
Congressmen would still undoubtedly enjoy the widest selection of health plans available to anyone in our nation while millions would be forced to participate in whatever politicians, not medical professionals, decide is a basic health plan.
If they think their health plan for the rest of us is so great, why don’t they participate 100 percent in it too?
Just one more example of the “do as we say, not as we do” condescending “I know what is best for you” opinion liberals and progressives have of the masses.
No wonder they’re trying to ram the health-care plan through before we the people find out what it’s all about.
– Fred Long, Port Angeles
No real competition in public-option insurance
President Obama’s proposal for a new government-run public option for health insurance is bringing new and enthusiastic fans of “competition” out of the woodwork ["GOP foes boost health-care reform," Opinion, column, June 26]. We are being showered with declarations of joy for the benefits competition will bring.
It is curious that none of these advocates have, now or in the last 40 years, advocated the blessings of private competition to Medicare if that were permitted. Why not allow those on Medicare the option of applying some of their lifetime of Medicare tax payments to premiums for private insurance? Would not the competition improve Medicare?
Of course that would not serve the purpose of more government power and bureaucracy. Why if all seniors love Medicare so much are their Social Security pensions taken away if they decline Medicare Part A coverage? Is that competition or intimidation?
And if competition is such a good thing, why do Washington and other states rigorously regulate what treatments all companies must cover whether their customers want such coverage or not? Why is everyone forbidden from buying insurance across state lines, which would provide a lot more competition? Why if national insurance competition is forbidden by law is a national public option such a wonderful idea?
The idea that competition can only result from a government program is a perversion of economics and the English language.
– Richard E. Ralston, Americans for Free Choice in Medicine executive director, Newport Beach, Calif.
Obama’s health-care plan will only bring a headache
Dr. Jeff Huebner and Dr. Charles Mayer are to be commended for their thoughtful guest column ["A vision for health-care reform that is effective and affordable," seattletimes.com, Editorials/Opinion, June 22] and detailing the principles that must be included in health-care reform legislation to achieve health justice for all Americans.
However, even a strong public option, which they advocate, within our fragmented multipayer system won’t have the administrative savings and cost control necessary to sustain it, nor the unification required to implement measures to improve quality and actually realize whatever savings that might come from preventive medicine, care management, best practices, electronic records, etc.
Click here to get a free medical insurance quote.
Now President Obama is talking about a public option with several different benefit levels where you can buy a plan that’s right for your family — really indicating a tiered system that would provide more benefits to those who could afford them. Such a public option would introduce inequity, more headaches and overhead cost to physicians as well as increase administrative costs within our multipayer system.
It is crystal clear that without controlling costs, any reform will fail. Single-payer health-insurance reform is the only sustainable and just system within which physicians would be best able to care for all their patients.
– David McLanahan, M.D., Seattle
Why fix a system few are dissatisfied with?
The New York Times and CBS have released a new poll on health care ["Most want all to be insured -- and we're willing to pay," News, June 21] that is not really valid. Look at the bias in the people polled: 2-1 favored Barack Obama to John McCain in the election, and 38 percent were Democrats to 24 percent Republicans. No wonder poll results showed that people like Obama’s efforts to take over the best health-care system in the world. By the way, only 7 percent of those polled stated health care was an important problem.
Other more accurate polls show nearly 90 percent of Americans are satisfied with their health care. So where is the problem that needs to be fixed? Democrats always make up a crisis and then try to provide a government solution to the supposed crisis. While there do need to be some changes to improve the system, such changes should not include a government option. It is not the place for government to be in the health-care business. Look at the terrible job they have done with Medicaid and Medicare.
You state a government option would infuse competition into the system ["Real health-care reform," Opinion, editorial, June 23]. Since when can the private sector compete with the powerful government, which makes the rules and has more money to play with?
Get serious: That is not competition. It is a slow, deceptive takeover of health care with a major impact on our access to care as well as the quality of such care. Just ask Canadians!
– William Backlund, M.D., Redmond
Health-care reform being twisted into nothing new
The “reform” of our health-care system is proving to be a sham. Under the nurturing hand of Sen. Max “Bogus” Baucus, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and a Democratic health-care industry shill who purports to represent the people of Montana, our bought-and-paid-for legislators are on a mission to preserve at all costs a private-insurance model that systematically cherry-picks the healthy, overcharging them for medical risks they’re unlikely to face; underserves the poorly insured, at a dear price, by denying their claims for medically necessary treatments in order to save money; and overserves the richly insured with one “fee-for-service” billing after another to run up obscene profits.
This moneymaking machine will continue to shake us down until it is replaced by a taxpayer-funded, privately delivered single-payer model with the mission of maintaining our health rather than the profits of the predatory health-care industry.
As reported by The Wall Street Journal, “union members serving under collective bargaining agreements would be exempt, even though they often have the richest and most extensive packages of benefits.” Surprise!
Sure haven’t seen this information reported by other media. Another surprise!
It’s also no big surprise there’s been a total lack of reporting of the exemption Congress itself would receive from Obama’s health-care plan. Yes, the Obama Care Plan prepared by Sen. Edward Kennedy specifically exempts members of Congress from many of its provisions. Page 114 of the Kennedy plan restricts care for the general public in order to control costs while insuring Congress will still receive its taxpayer-paid benefits.
Congressmen would still undoubtedly enjoy the widest selection of health plans available to anyone in our nation while millions would be forced to participate in whatever politicians, not medical professionals, decide is a basic health plan.
If they think their health plan for the rest of us is so great, why don’t they participate 100 percent in it too?
Just one more example of the “do as we say, not as we do” condescending “I know what is best for you” opinion liberals and progressives have of the masses.
No wonder they’re trying to ram the health-care plan through before we the people find out what it’s all about.
– Fred Long, Port Angeles
No real competition in public-option insurance
President Obama’s proposal for a new government-run public option for health insurance is bringing new and enthusiastic fans of “competition” out of the woodwork ["GOP foes boost health-care reform," Opinion, column, June 26]. We are being showered with declarations of joy for the benefits competition will bring.
It is curious that none of these advocates have, now or in the last 40 years, advocated the blessings of private competition to Medicare if that were permitted. Why not allow those on Medicare the option of applying some of their lifetime of Medicare tax payments to premiums for private insurance? Would not the competition improve Medicare?
Of course that would not serve the purpose of more government power and bureaucracy. Why if all seniors love Medicare so much are their Social Security pensions taken away if they decline Medicare Part A coverage? Is that competition or intimidation?
And if competition is such a good thing, why do Washington and other states rigorously regulate what treatments all companies must cover whether their customers want such coverage or not? Why is everyone forbidden from buying insurance across state lines, which would provide a lot more competition? Why if national insurance competition is forbidden by law is a national public option such a wonderful idea?
The idea that competition can only result from a government program is a perversion of economics and the English language.
– Richard E. Ralston, Americans for Free Choice in Medicine executive director, Newport Beach, Calif.
Obama’s health-care plan will only bring a headache
Dr. Jeff Huebner and Dr. Charles Mayer are to be commended for their thoughtful guest column ["A vision for health-care reform that is effective and affordable," seattletimes.com, Editorials/Opinion, June 22] and detailing the principles that must be included in health-care reform legislation to achieve health justice for all Americans.
However, even a strong public option, which they advocate, within our fragmented multipayer system won’t have the administrative savings and cost control necessary to sustain it, nor the unification required to implement measures to improve quality and actually realize whatever savings that might come from preventive medicine, care management, best practices, electronic records, etc.
Click here to get a free medical insurance quote.
Now President Obama is talking about a public option with several different benefit levels where you can buy a plan that’s right for your family — really indicating a tiered system that would provide more benefits to those who could afford them. Such a public option would introduce inequity, more headaches and overhead cost to physicians as well as increase administrative costs within our multipayer system.
It is crystal clear that without controlling costs, any reform will fail. Single-payer health-insurance reform is the only sustainable and just system within which physicians would be best able to care for all their patients.
– David McLanahan, M.D., Seattle
Why fix a system few are dissatisfied with?
The New York Times and CBS have released a new poll on health care ["Most want all to be insured -- and we're willing to pay," News, June 21] that is not really valid. Look at the bias in the people polled: 2-1 favored Barack Obama to John McCain in the election, and 38 percent were Democrats to 24 percent Republicans. No wonder poll results showed that people like Obama’s efforts to take over the best health-care system in the world. By the way, only 7 percent of those polled stated health care was an important problem.
Other more accurate polls show nearly 90 percent of Americans are satisfied with their health care. So where is the problem that needs to be fixed? Democrats always make up a crisis and then try to provide a government solution to the supposed crisis. While there do need to be some changes to improve the system, such changes should not include a government option. It is not the place for government to be in the health-care business. Look at the terrible job they have done with Medicaid and Medicare.
You state a government option would infuse competition into the system ["Real health-care reform," Opinion, editorial, June 23]. Since when can the private sector compete with the powerful government, which makes the rules and has more money to play with?
Get serious: That is not competition. It is a slow, deceptive takeover of health care with a major impact on our access to care as well as the quality of such care. Just ask Canadians!
– William Backlund, M.D., Redmond
Health-care reform being twisted into nothing new
The “reform” of our health-care system is proving to be a sham. Under the nurturing hand of Sen. Max “Bogus” Baucus, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and a Democratic health-care industry shill who purports to represent the people of Montana, our bought-and-paid-for legislators are on a mission to preserve at all costs a private-insurance model that systematically cherry-picks the healthy, overcharging them for medical risks they’re unlikely to face; underserves the poorly insured, at a dear price, by denying their claims for medically necessary treatments in order to save money; and overserves the richly insured with one “fee-for-service” billing after another to run up obscene profits.
This moneymaking machine will continue to shake us down until it is replaced by a taxpayer-funded, privately delivered single-payer model with the mission of maintaining our health rather than the profits of the predatory health-care industry.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
How To Look For Health Insurance
According to the United States Labor Department and health care officials, if you're among those who no longer have employer health insurance, here's what you can do to continue addressing your medical needs:
- If you're married your first step should be to check with your spouse's employer to see if you're eligible for health coverage as a family member. Those group plans are normally affordable.
- Check with any associations or professional organizations that you or your spouse may belong to because they sometimes offer group plans.
- After losing your job, if you decide to be self employed, consider getting a partner or hire an employee. It takes just two people to be eligible for group coverage, which is usually the most comprehensive and cost effective coverage option.
- Find your own individual insurance policy. You can find affordable health insurance on your own, but it takes a lot of work and persistence. If you shop around, you might be surprised by what you find, especially if you're healthy. There are many websites that will allow you to compare prices.
- Find a local clinic. If it's not free, it likely charges based on income, so it probably won't charge you more than you can spend at the time. In addition, if you don't need the services of a hospital or doctor's office, take advantage of retail clinics at such places like Wal-Mart and chain drug stores like Walgreens and CVS.
- Look into state and federal programs. In most states, you can get coverage in a high risk pool if you are sick and can't get individual coverage through a private insurer. Call your state department of insurance to see if you're eligible. Medicaid is also a possiblility for those who meet federal guidelines. Contact your state department of social services.
This scenario of not having health insurance can happen to anyone because the economic crisis is taking a toll on many whose coverage is connected to their employment. There are nearly 47 million people in this country who don't have health insurance, many of whom lost their medical coverage when they lost their jobs.
- If you're married your first step should be to check with your spouse's employer to see if you're eligible for health coverage as a family member. Those group plans are normally affordable.
- Check with any associations or professional organizations that you or your spouse may belong to because they sometimes offer group plans.
- After losing your job, if you decide to be self employed, consider getting a partner or hire an employee. It takes just two people to be eligible for group coverage, which is usually the most comprehensive and cost effective coverage option.
- Find your own individual insurance policy. You can find affordable health insurance on your own, but it takes a lot of work and persistence. If you shop around, you might be surprised by what you find, especially if you're healthy. There are many websites that will allow you to compare prices.
- Find a local clinic. If it's not free, it likely charges based on income, so it probably won't charge you more than you can spend at the time. In addition, if you don't need the services of a hospital or doctor's office, take advantage of retail clinics at such places like Wal-Mart and chain drug stores like Walgreens and CVS.
- Look into state and federal programs. In most states, you can get coverage in a high risk pool if you are sick and can't get individual coverage through a private insurer. Call your state department of insurance to see if you're eligible. Medicaid is also a possiblility for those who meet federal guidelines. Contact your state department of social services.
This scenario of not having health insurance can happen to anyone because the economic crisis is taking a toll on many whose coverage is connected to their employment. There are nearly 47 million people in this country who don't have health insurance, many of whom lost their medical coverage when they lost their jobs.
Verbatim: Diverse Voices Address Small-Biz Need for Health Care Reform
As often as possible, GoodBiz113 presents diverse perspectives on small business and entrepreneurship from those who help shape policies and practices that impact us. Here's what some folks have been saying these past couple of weeks about the hot-button subject of health care reform...
"Health care expenditures in the United States are currently about 18 percent of GDP, and this share is projected to rise sharply. If health care costs continue to grow at historical rates, the share of GDP devoted to health care in the United States is projected to reach 34 percent by 2040. For households with employer-sponsored health insurance, this trend implies that a progressively smaller fraction of their total compensation will be in the form of take-home pay and a progressively larger fraction will take the form of employer-provided health insurance.
"The rising share of health expenditures also has dire implications for government budgets. Almost half of current health care spending is covered by Federal, state, and local governments. If health care costs continue to grow at historical rates, Medicare and Medicaid spending [both federal and state] will rise to nearly 15 percent of GDP in 2040. Of this increase, roughly one-quarter is estimated to be due to the aging of the population and other demographic effects, and three-quarters is due to rising health care costs.
"Perhaps the most visible sign of the need for health care reform is the 46 million Americans currently without health insurance. CEA projections suggest that this number will rise to about 72 million in 2040 in the absence of reform. A key factor driving this trend is the tendency of small firms not to provide coverage due to the rising cost of health care." -- Council of Economic Advisers [CEA], chaired by Christina Romer [pictured], "The Economic Case for Health Care Reform" [June 2, Executive Office of the President]
* * *
"Nobody supports the status quo. We absolutely have to have reform... If this thing gets derailed, it's going to be bad for everybody." -- James Gelfand, senior manager of health policy, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, noting that a government plan wouldn't be needed if insurance market reforms, such as prohibiting insurers from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions, were enacted. He hopes the larger goal of health care reform -- lowering costs so more people can afford coverage -- doesn't get lost in battles over public plans and employer mandates. [June 8, "Business Warily Awaits Health Care Reform," Washington Business Journal]
* * *
"...At the individual level, the average American spends about $7,900 per year on health care. Despite that huge outlay, a recent study found that medical problems contributed to 62 percent of all bankruptcies in 2007. From a business perspective, General Motors spends more on health care per automobile than on steel while small-business owners are forced to divert hard-earned profits into health coverage for their employees -- rather than new business investments. And, because of rising costs, many businesses are cutting back drastically on their level of health care coverage or are doing away with it entirely..." -- Sen. Bernie Sanders [I-Vt., pictured], "Health Care Is a Right, Not a Privilege" [June 9, The Huffington Post]
* * *
"It's not tax supported like Medicare; it will be financed by premiums just like regular insurance, except for people who can't afford it. If you have coverage that works, you continue to have coverage that works. The only change will be now the coverage will have to be good. The other change is that your company will be required to provide good coverage or help pay for it. So, for most Americans, nothing's going to change. But for people who don't get coverage that works -- the self-employed, people with several part-time jobs, small business -- they will be able to go into a new health insurance marketplace called the Exchange, a national public insurance company financed by premiums. Unless they make below a certain level, four times poverty, and then they'll be subsidized." -- Richard Kirsch, national campaign manager, Health Care for America Now [HCAN], a national grassroots campaign of more than 1,000 organizations in 46 states -- representing 30 million people -- dedicated to winning comprehensive, quality, affordable health care that we can all count on in 2009. [June 9, "What's the Deal With Obama's Public Health-Care Plan?" Esquire]
* * *
"...The cost of health care has helped leave big corporations like GM and Chrysler at a competitive disadvantage with their foreign counterparts. For small businesses, it's even worse. One month, they're forced to cut back on health care benefits. The next month, they've got to drop coverage. The month after that, they have no choice but to start laying off workers...
"I know that there are millions of Americans who are happy, who are content with their health care coverage -- they like their plan, they value their relationship with their doctor. And no matter how we reform health care, I intend to keep this promise: If you like your doctor, you'll be able to keep your doctor; if you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan.
"So don't let people scare you. If you like what you've got, we're not going to make you change. But in order to preserve what's best about our health care system, we have to fix what doesn't work. For we've reached the point where doing nothing about the cost of health care is no longer an option. The status quo is unsustainable. If we don't act, and act soon to bring down costs, it will jeopardize everybody's health care. If we don't act, every American will feel the consequences in higher premiums -- which, by the way, means lower take-home pay, because it's not as if those costs are all borne by your employer; that's money that could have gone to giving you a raise -- in lost jobs and shuttered businesses, in a rising number of uninsured and a rising debt that our children and their children will be paying off for decades..." -- President Barack Obama, during remarks made at a town hall meeting in Green Bay, Wis., on health care and his vision for a Health Insurance Exchange. [June 11, Executive Office of the President]
* * *
"Small businesses in the United States are suffering great harm under our current health care system, and will likely fare far better under a substantially reformed system along the lines of what is currently being debated in Washington -- as long as such a system offers appropriate levels of assistance to small businesses in meeting their health care obligations." -- Small Business Majority, a national nonprofit nonpartisan organization, founded and run by small-business owners, that brings the voice of America's 27 million small businesses to the public-policy table. [June 11, "The Economic Impact of Healthcare Reform on Small Business"]
* * *
"A national health insurance exchange would offer an array of competing private plans and a new public health insurance plan, helping to improve coverage for 138 million currently insured individuals through more choices, better benefits, and/or more affordable premiums, which would be 20 to 30 percent lower than those now charged in the individual and small-business markets for comparable benefits and enrollees. Savings would be realized by employers and households at every income level." -- The Commonwealth Fund, who co-sponsored a report with Consumers Union, suggesting that a comprehensive and high-quality health care system can be established with a mixed public-private insurance system, a requirement for all employers to offer or contribute to coverage of their workers, and an individual coverage mandate. [June 11, "Front and Center: Ensuring That Health Reform Puts People First"]
GoodBiz113's take: Health care is not a Democatic issue nor a Republican issue; it's a very human issue that deserves to be remedied now. Naysayers need to put their egos and politics aside, and embrace President Obama's far-reaching plan that provides health insurance for all Americans.
SOURCES: The Commonwealth Fund, Council of Economic Advisers, Esquire, Huffington Post, Small Business Majority, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Washington Business Journal, The White House, Wikipedia
###
TAGS: Barack Obama, Bernie Sanders, Christina Romer, Commonwealth Fund, Consumers Union, Council of Economic Advisers, Esquire, Executive Office of the President, federal, government, HCAN, health care, Health Care for America Now, health insurance, Huffington Post, James Gelfand, Medicaid, Medicare, policy, PBS, reform, Richard Kirsch, ShopPBS, ShopPBS.org, small business, Small Business Majority, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Washington Business Journal, The White House, Wikipedia
"Health care expenditures in the United States are currently about 18 percent of GDP, and this share is projected to rise sharply. If health care costs continue to grow at historical rates, the share of GDP devoted to health care in the United States is projected to reach 34 percent by 2040. For households with employer-sponsored health insurance, this trend implies that a progressively smaller fraction of their total compensation will be in the form of take-home pay and a progressively larger fraction will take the form of employer-provided health insurance.
"The rising share of health expenditures also has dire implications for government budgets. Almost half of current health care spending is covered by Federal, state, and local governments. If health care costs continue to grow at historical rates, Medicare and Medicaid spending [both federal and state] will rise to nearly 15 percent of GDP in 2040. Of this increase, roughly one-quarter is estimated to be due to the aging of the population and other demographic effects, and three-quarters is due to rising health care costs.
"Perhaps the most visible sign of the need for health care reform is the 46 million Americans currently without health insurance. CEA projections suggest that this number will rise to about 72 million in 2040 in the absence of reform. A key factor driving this trend is the tendency of small firms not to provide coverage due to the rising cost of health care." -- Council of Economic Advisers [CEA], chaired by Christina Romer [pictured], "The Economic Case for Health Care Reform" [June 2, Executive Office of the President]
* * *
"Nobody supports the status quo. We absolutely have to have reform... If this thing gets derailed, it's going to be bad for everybody." -- James Gelfand, senior manager of health policy, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, noting that a government plan wouldn't be needed if insurance market reforms, such as prohibiting insurers from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions, were enacted. He hopes the larger goal of health care reform -- lowering costs so more people can afford coverage -- doesn't get lost in battles over public plans and employer mandates. [June 8, "Business Warily Awaits Health Care Reform," Washington Business Journal]
* * *
"...At the individual level, the average American spends about $7,900 per year on health care. Despite that huge outlay, a recent study found that medical problems contributed to 62 percent of all bankruptcies in 2007. From a business perspective, General Motors spends more on health care per automobile than on steel while small-business owners are forced to divert hard-earned profits into health coverage for their employees -- rather than new business investments. And, because of rising costs, many businesses are cutting back drastically on their level of health care coverage or are doing away with it entirely..." -- Sen. Bernie Sanders [I-Vt., pictured], "Health Care Is a Right, Not a Privilege" [June 9, The Huffington Post]
* * *
"It's not tax supported like Medicare; it will be financed by premiums just like regular insurance, except for people who can't afford it. If you have coverage that works, you continue to have coverage that works. The only change will be now the coverage will have to be good. The other change is that your company will be required to provide good coverage or help pay for it. So, for most Americans, nothing's going to change. But for people who don't get coverage that works -- the self-employed, people with several part-time jobs, small business -- they will be able to go into a new health insurance marketplace called the Exchange, a national public insurance company financed by premiums. Unless they make below a certain level, four times poverty, and then they'll be subsidized." -- Richard Kirsch, national campaign manager, Health Care for America Now [HCAN], a national grassroots campaign of more than 1,000 organizations in 46 states -- representing 30 million people -- dedicated to winning comprehensive, quality, affordable health care that we can all count on in 2009. [June 9, "What's the Deal With Obama's Public Health-Care Plan?" Esquire]
* * *
"...The cost of health care has helped leave big corporations like GM and Chrysler at a competitive disadvantage with their foreign counterparts. For small businesses, it's even worse. One month, they're forced to cut back on health care benefits. The next month, they've got to drop coverage. The month after that, they have no choice but to start laying off workers...
"I know that there are millions of Americans who are happy, who are content with their health care coverage -- they like their plan, they value their relationship with their doctor. And no matter how we reform health care, I intend to keep this promise: If you like your doctor, you'll be able to keep your doctor; if you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan.
"So don't let people scare you. If you like what you've got, we're not going to make you change. But in order to preserve what's best about our health care system, we have to fix what doesn't work. For we've reached the point where doing nothing about the cost of health care is no longer an option. The status quo is unsustainable. If we don't act, and act soon to bring down costs, it will jeopardize everybody's health care. If we don't act, every American will feel the consequences in higher premiums -- which, by the way, means lower take-home pay, because it's not as if those costs are all borne by your employer; that's money that could have gone to giving you a raise -- in lost jobs and shuttered businesses, in a rising number of uninsured and a rising debt that our children and their children will be paying off for decades..." -- President Barack Obama, during remarks made at a town hall meeting in Green Bay, Wis., on health care and his vision for a Health Insurance Exchange. [June 11, Executive Office of the President]
* * *
"Small businesses in the United States are suffering great harm under our current health care system, and will likely fare far better under a substantially reformed system along the lines of what is currently being debated in Washington -- as long as such a system offers appropriate levels of assistance to small businesses in meeting their health care obligations." -- Small Business Majority, a national nonprofit nonpartisan organization, founded and run by small-business owners, that brings the voice of America's 27 million small businesses to the public-policy table. [June 11, "The Economic Impact of Healthcare Reform on Small Business"]
* * *
"A national health insurance exchange would offer an array of competing private plans and a new public health insurance plan, helping to improve coverage for 138 million currently insured individuals through more choices, better benefits, and/or more affordable premiums, which would be 20 to 30 percent lower than those now charged in the individual and small-business markets for comparable benefits and enrollees. Savings would be realized by employers and households at every income level." -- The Commonwealth Fund, who co-sponsored a report with Consumers Union, suggesting that a comprehensive and high-quality health care system can be established with a mixed public-private insurance system, a requirement for all employers to offer or contribute to coverage of their workers, and an individual coverage mandate. [June 11, "Front and Center: Ensuring That Health Reform Puts People First"]
GoodBiz113's take: Health care is not a Democatic issue nor a Republican issue; it's a very human issue that deserves to be remedied now. Naysayers need to put their egos and politics aside, and embrace President Obama's far-reaching plan that provides health insurance for all Americans.
SOURCES: The Commonwealth Fund, Council of Economic Advisers, Esquire, Huffington Post, Small Business Majority, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Washington Business Journal, The White House, Wikipedia
###
TAGS: Barack Obama, Bernie Sanders, Christina Romer, Commonwealth Fund, Consumers Union, Council of Economic Advisers, Esquire, Executive Office of the President, federal, government, HCAN, health care, Health Care for America Now, health insurance, Huffington Post, James Gelfand, Medicaid, Medicare, policy, PBS, reform, Richard Kirsch, ShopPBS, ShopPBS.org, small business, Small Business Majority, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Washington Business Journal, The White House, Wikipedia
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)