Excellent Health Insurance Article

[Brat]

In ancient times, when I was in grade school, cooking and nutrition were a part of the curriculum. The school nurse talked to us about preservatives and white bread with disdain. PE in early school was a lot of running around, ball throwing, and climbing on wooden bars. Not much competition until what is now called middle-school. In time the position of school nurse was cut, then the PE teacher, then the music teacher as 'unnecessary'. Kids today don't get good health education IMHO.

 

[Midpack]

Anyone have a good website for comparing the 'vision' ( I refuse to call it a 'plan' until it is under consideration by Congress) of the candidates on Health Care?

Here's one:

 

[Grizz]

You can try to educate people, encourage people, have publicity programs that try to sell healthy living as "cool" and all that, but you can't punish people that don't succeed.

How could you establish criteria? 10 pounds overweight is OK but at 11 you pay more? What if you gain some weight while recovering from two broken legs? What if you're underweight due to an eating disorder? What if you quit smoking 5 yrs ago? 10 years ago? 15 years ago? (That would be me btw) 1 beer a day OK? How about 2? 3? Wine OK? Who measures your consumption? Etc. etc.

Poor lifestyle habits also overlap with genetics. Keeping the two separated would probably be troublesome. Some folks should never be in the sun at all, period. Others tolerate it much better. What would the criteria be? If you have fine red hair, freckles and fair skin we'll double your insurance rates if we catch you outside without being fully clothed and wearing two gallons of SPF 50 sunscreen?

How do you check on people without becoming big brother or impacting personal rights and freedoms more than our current Homeland Security?

How do enforce if enforcement might involve higher costs for people who can't afford it?

I understand the temptation to conclude that just obvious violations would get tabbed......such as being a heavy smoker. Or being obese. But I still wonder how to set criteria, deal with exceptions, monitor without violating privacy and enforce without inappropriate harsh punishment such as denying coverage or witholding care.

And I share the frustration. People display unhealthy life habits yet get medical coverage for the same price as folks with healthy habits. Kinda sucks. But I really don't think there is a viable solution.

Anyone know how it works in Canada, UK or Australia?

I don't know if this is done in the U.S. or not but in Canada there is a $1000 tax credit per child that is involved in a gov't approved physical activity. You need to submit a receipt for fees along with your tax return. My girls both take Irish Dance lessons and that qualifies.

In Canada we tax the sin items like you wouldn't believe. I just did a bit of googling on cigarette prices in Can VS U.S. and it looks like an average pack in Canada is about $11 and closer to $5 in the U.S. Liquor is way pricier in Canada as well. Seems like it's the logical thing to do. This way you can have universal health care and have the intentionally unhealthy and higher risk folks pay more.

 

[haha]

A Health Insurance Idea That Will Work

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/20/us/20health.html?ref=business

Insurers say they will take all comers, provided only that governemnt force everyone to have coverage.

This is how most European systems work. Seems better than the UK or Canadian single payer systems, and also better than our current mess.

Ha

 

[Martha]

The failure to require everyone to be covered was a major weakness in Obama's plan.

 

[ERD50]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/20/us/20health.html?ref=business

Insurers say they will take all comers, provided only that government force everyone to have coverage.

The failure to require everyone to be covered was a major weakness in Obama's plan.

Thanks for re-visiting this haha. Many of us have come to that same conclusion - it's tough to see how an insurance co can function if they are required to take on anybody, but don't have to take on everybody (govt requires everybody to be in the pool). I fail to see how that would not drive up costs for those currently with insurance.

Looks like change.gov has been updated. Obama has this up there:

Require insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions so all Americans regardless of their health status or history can get comprehensive benefits at fair and stable premiums.

....

Under the plan, if you like your current health insurance, nothing changes, except your costs will go down by as much as $2,500 per year.

I think Martha's comments are an understatement - I don't see this as a "weakness" in the plan (or even a "major weakness"), it seems unworkable to me. I expect weaknesses in any plan - this is complex and nothing's going to be perfect, but this seems like an outright contradiction to me.

Am I missing something, or does the current Obama plan just seem unworkable?

-ERD50

PS: I hope this isn't sounding too 'soap-boxy', that's not my intent. I'm just trying to understand this plan as stated. I'd love to see the $2500 lower premium, and more people covered, but it's looking like smoke & mirrors to me.