McCain's health "plan"

[chinaco]

Originally Posted by youbet

It's just too bad that Hill's and Ob's plans are vague and their attitude about successful enactment stinks. They may be less vague than McCain's, but they're vague nonetheless. And, as typical, neither has even secured the nomination and yet both are already blaming the "stonewalling Republicans" for the Dems future failure to get an extensive med plan enacted. Why do they insist on putting the excuses and blame for failure out in front of even attempting to get the job done?

I want to send someone to Washington who accepts the responsibility for getting the changes made. Not someone who says they are the one(s) to get the job done but don't blame us when we fail in the future 'cause it ain't our fault. It's those bad guys on the other side of the aisle...... Sick...........

Yes, it is unclear if any candidate will be able to get traction on the issue. However, I tend to think the Dems are more likely to address it. I suspect that this issue is much lower on the priority list for republicans.

[Notmuchlonger]

Originally Posted by chinaco

Yes, it is unclear if any candidate will be able to get traction on the issue. However, I tend to think the Dems are more likely to address it. I suspect that this issue is much lower on the priority list for republicans.

You could be right. This might be one of those things that keeps getting pushed back like SS and Medicare.

[Rich_in_Tampa]

Originally Posted by chinaco

Yes, it is unclear if any candidate will be able to get traction on the issue. However, I tend to think the Dems are more likely to address it. I suspect that this issue is much lower on the priority list for republicans.

My take is that the smart money this time around is to bet the party, whichever way you lean. A split congress / White House on this one will probably mire down for so long that it will be too late for us 60-ish types.

[Oldbabe]

Originally Posted by Martha

I know Oldbabe apologized, but I appreciate her frustration and I think no apology is needed. She can't find someone to sell her health insurance. Isn't that frightening? In that position I certainly would be on a soap box too. And McCain's plan does nothing for her at all.

Just to clarify. I do have individual health insurance at $280/month with a $2700 deductible that EXCLUDES my skin cancer and my entire spinal/back area (because of a compressed cervical disk in my neck which gives me no trouble at all but was diagnosed once seven years ago).

I am concerned about myself of course but am more concerned for those like my brother and my oldest son who are blue collar workers who are sick and out of work or working for companies that do not offer health insurance. Neither can afford the premium on a individual policy if a company would cover them. In my brother's case, no company would touch him. He also has severe dental problems that are untreated (but dental treatment is a whole other expensive problem).

My brother has no recourse except to get better. That's going to be quite a feat. More likely without continuing treatment he will slowly deteriorate and die. He is 49 years old. He's currently trying to get disability from SSI. And in case anyone is wondering why family can't step in to help him. My dad is giving him a place to live and helping with some finances. I have offered to help him as well but my brother and I aren't close at all and he has ignored my offers.

Although my brother's particular story has its own difficulties, I don't think his situation in general is uncommon. I have heard over and over women my age (who are of modest means) mention that their response to illness and injury is to tough it out, and NOT go to the doctor. I have a friend who suffered through kidney stones while using natural/alternative treatments to dissolve them. Luckily, she was able to cure herself. There's a whole subculture of alternative treatment advice on the Internet for people without health insurance who are desparate for relief from their illnesses. Alternative treatments help many but, of course, cannot very often cure cancer or heart disease, for example.

I don't think that universal health insurance is a right -- in the sense of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And even with Universal coverage people are not going to get everything they want and need. But I do think that our country could afford some basic coverage, especially for children, with some rearrangement of priorities.

[youbet]

Originally Posted by Martha

None of the plans are set up the way I would set up a plan. But of the three, McCain's is the worst.

.

Which of the two Dem plans do you favor? Why? Leave McCain out of it. We have to pick between Hill and Ob before we get to pick between one of them and McCain.

[youbet]

Originally Posted by Rich_in_Tampa

My take is that the smart money this time around is to bet the party, whichever way you lean. A split congress / White House on this one will probably mire down for so long that it will be too late for us 60-ish types.

Rich....

For us 60-ish types, we're likely to be on Medicare by the time a new universal plan is defined, funded and implemented. If you're looking for something to allow you to RE pre-Medicare, good luck! Maybe a new universal plan will be in place to help those currently in their mid-50's or younger, but not the 60 yo crew.

Remember, these will be most of the same politicians who currently are bringing you paralysis on SS, Medicare, Immigration, ending the Iraq war, etc.

[bright eyed]

Originally Posted by Rich_in_Tampa

I universal health care does indeed seem inevitable (I hope).

Not sure we can rely on inevitable!

In CA we recently had a popular republican governor, leader of the dem majority and the democratic majority legislature fail to come up with a decent health care reform proposal (ie if not now, when?!).

It will take a HUGE commitment and it needs to be priority 1 if anything is going to happen - let alone a comprehensive reform.

[Rich_in_Tampa]

Originally Posted by youbet

For us 60-ish types, we're likely to be on Medicare by the time a new universal plan is defined, funded and implemented. If you're looking for something to allow you to RE pre-Medicare, good luck! Maybe a new universal plan will be in place to help those currently in their mid-50's or younger, but not the 60 yo crew.

Remember, these will be most of the same politicians who currently are bringing you paralysis on SS, Medicare, Immigration, ending the Iraq war, etc.

True, but it is likely IMHO that Medicare will be heavily included in some aspects of health care reform - it's 'broker' than SS.

I'm grateful that I was able to finagle carry-over health insurance so that when I FIRE I'll be covered (albeit at very high, out-of-pocket rates) until MC kicks in.

[FIRE'd@51]

For those of us who think we will be home free when medicare kicks in, this article from Sunday's Washington Post may cause concern

On Medicare and scorned by Docs

[Rich_in_Tampa]

Originally Posted by FIRE'd@51

For those of us who think we will be home free when medicare kicks in, this article from Sunday's Washington Post may cause concern

On Medicare and scorned by Docs

Physicians have a choice re: MC patients. They can "accept assignment" which means that you agree to consider MC payments as full fare and won't bill the patient for the difference, or you can NOT accept assignment in which case you can bill the patient for your full fee, and MC reimburses the patient for whatever they decide is full.

MC fee schedules are unrealistically low, and they pay only 80% of that as a rule. Bottom line is that in primary care, it is not financially feasible to run a private practice as a viable business if MC assignment is a major part of it. Of course, there is intense pressure from patients and the feds to participate.

It's a mess. Medicare supplemental tries to fill the gap, but is fairly expensive, too (though less so than full private insurance). But I don't think the doctors are "scorning" patients, they just don't want to run a shop where your revenues are less than your expenses. After 12 years of training and 6-figure debts, I guess they figure they deserve an income greater than $30k a year.

[ziggy29]

Originally Posted by tryan

NO THANKS! I'll just keep making my $680/month payments to BC/BS for my family of 4.

Except that it may well become $750 next year and $850 the year after that, and heaven help you if someone in your family develops a chronic or serious condition.

IMO, keeping coverage affordable without forcing adverse selection on to insurers and severing the link between employer and health insurance are probably the things that need to happen most, regardless of whether (and how much) government sticks its nose into health care. I'm generally a free-market libertarian but based on what I'm seeing in this issue, I'm not sure the free market can accomplish these goals.

[Rustic23]

This is the second time I have seen the Kaiser Family Foundation quoted as if it has no political agenda. I am not say they do, or don't, however, I went to there web site and looked at their board of directors. I had a hard time figuring out where the conservators are. Board of Trustees - Kaiser Family Foundation On the other hand, it is easy to see people like Cokie Roberts, or Donna Shalala, lots of lawyers, not noted for conservative views, College professors also not noted for impartial views. So I for one take there studies with a grain of salt. The fact that you can find lots of people that agree with them does not make them right, just popular.

[mickj]

vive Ron Paul...

Chief Justice Burger, with Justices Rehnquist, White, and O’Connor, wrote: “in an effort to become an omnipotent [] problem solver[,]. . . the court distorts our constitutional function”; “the importance of a governmental service does not elevate it to the status of a fundamental right”; “assumption of a legislative role [is] one for which the court lacks both the authority and competence”; “llegal aliens have no right whatever to be here, and the state may reasonably, and constitutionally, elect not to provide them with governmental services at the expense of those who are lawfully in the state”; “the constitution does not provide a cure for every social ill, nor does it vest judges with a mandate to try to remedy every social problem.”

we can't afford to fix the health care system, it is plain and simple.

The 'free market' doesn't have anything to do with giving people something they haven't earned. There are no solutions to this problem.

[Martha]

Other countries afford it and do it at a lower cost than the cost the US already incurs per capita for health care. And the outcomes for those countries are no worse and some say better.

As a country we chose what we value. If we value health we can pay for it. For the most part, we already do pay.

[youbet]

Martha......

Perhaps you prefer not to comment on the two Dem candidates' plans, but since you seem very knowledgible about med coverage, I'd appreciate knowing which plan you prefer? If our number one issue going forward is health coverage, which of the two Dem candidates should we be pulling for, as the Dems finalize their nomination process, to wind up with the best national health strategy going forward? Why?

[Rustic23]

I value vacation to Hawaii, cold beer, good scotch, and several other things, so you all pony up and send your checks! That's the way democracy works!

[Rich_in_Tampa]

Originally Posted by Rustic23

I value vacation to Hawaii, cold beer, good scotch, and several other things, so you all pony up and send your checks! That's the way democracy works!

Or, in this case, is it two wolves and a lamb deciding what's for dinner?

[Rustic23]

Rich,
I like that. Never heard it before.