©
Presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain are promising to fix the nation's health care system, at a cost of more than $1 trillion over the next decade.
When a program's price tag hits 13 digits, it's reasonable to expect that it solves a clearly defined problem. Obama and McCain define that problem in completely different terms.
Obama's plan is designed to reduce the number of people without insurance. There are nearly 46 million uninsured Americans, according to Census data. The number in Virginia tops 1 million, according to the Commonwealth Institute for Fiscal Analysis, a group affiliated with a coalition of 22 religious organizations.
Obama's plan would add an estimated 34 million people to the insurance rolls at a cost of $1.6 trillion, based on a study by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. He would create a government-operated insurance program and require larger employers to provide coverage for their workers. Parents would be required to cover their children, although adults would not be mandated to cover themselves.
McCain's plan is designed to increase consumer choice and drive down insurance prices. In seeking to spur competition, he would encourage people who already have insurance through their employers to leave those pools and purchase individual policies on the open market.
McCain achieves that goal by imposing new taxes on employer-provided health benefits and offering tax breaks to workers who buy insurance on their own.
It is a risky idea that would undoubtedly be bad for business. And it wouldn't do much for the uninsured, either.
To avoid the tax in McCain's plan, healthy workers would drop out of group plans and seek cheap individual policies. Businesses' group plans would be stuck with a small pool of older, sicker workers, and their costs would spike. Many businesses would be forced to cancel coverage.
The tax center study estimates McCain's plan would cost $1.3 trillion but would reduce the number of uninsured by just 5 million because the tax credits would be insufficient to buy even the barest coverage. Most of the money would be funneled instead into the profits of insurance companies.
In criticizing Obama's health plan as too expensive and disruptive, McCain glosses over the upheaval his own proposal would cause, and its expense.
Most Americans understand their health care system is broken. If they are going to spend $1 trillion to fix it, they have a right to demand that their money be used to help people in need and not to penalize the very businesses that have tried to do the right thing for their workers.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Twitter
Google
Yahoo
that's my point
"Most people have never seen their policy, only the booklet their company provides describing it." - Tabor
In part that's my point. People think because they have a policy they are covered, and they may very well not be under certain conditions. I have a policy, but who can understand all that's in it? Certainly not me! It was not writen for the average person to every understand. If all you have is a booklet, it's my understanding you can get a copy of the policy by contacting the company. I pay for my own policy, not through an employer, union or anything else, and I don't bowl. With a serious or major illness insurance companies pay on the average cost of a procedure, and the insured can be left with a hefty bill. Most people do not understand that.
don, we have to be realistic here
even if the employer's tax benefit were removed, you would still have the same problems of insurability we have now. If you are not healthy, or have had problems you are left out. The insurance companies are not going to compete for anyone but the young and healthy. And, as far as policies go, it is the insured's responsibility to know what he has, but very few people have the understanding required to plow through one of those. So that means we should hire a lawyer to help negotiate the contract. And most of those contracts do not tell you what they are going to cover, just the myriad of exclusions in such arcane language that it guarantees legal help in a dispute for coverage. There are a lot of problems with our system, but dumping everyone into a pools of their own will not solve the issues. Companies can at least negotiate on a moderately level playing field with insurance professionals, but individuals don't stand a chance dealing with someone who spends his life in the specialized world of coverage.
Biggest Mistake is who buys the policy
"The biggest mistake people make is not looking into the policy they currently have." - Gertz
Most people have never seen their policy, only the booklet their company provides describing it. But the problems you posed, unrealistically low limits and exclusions, are terms about which you have no choice, because your employer chose your policy to meet his needs, not yours. If you were able to choose, on a level playing field in regards to tax consequences, between several group policies, offered by your employer, your church, your professional organization, your union, or your bowling league, you would chose based on the value of the policy to you, balancing price and features just as you do with every other purchase, and the insurance company would have to please you to get the business.
As it is now, the tax advantage given to employer plans leaves you effectively with no choice as all.
about your health care
So you have a health care plan and you think you are covered, and all is well. Not so fast! Do you really know what is and is not covered, do you know that each medical claim from you is reviewed, your deductable can go up if they see you "at risk", and you can be canceled. The biggest mistake people make is not looking into the policy they currently have. A serious procedure may costs $100,000 in NY but $150,000 in CA, your insurance company will only pay the $100,000 and you eat the rest of it.
Justanotheruser and cancer treatment
should not rely on health insurance of any form. If you and I are both in Anthem, your cancer is a drain on my insurance company. Enough of that treatment to you and yours and my rates go up. As a healthy person I want you banned from my insurance company, you are too expensive. Go join a company that has nothing but sick people. We'll consider you when you are cured, but never for that disease in case of a remission. Can't find another company? Well, that's is just too bad, maybe a charity will pick up the tab for some treatment. Just don't make me pay for it. Sound familiar, because that is just the way it is in the private sector today.
The exception is that the original company can't kick you out, but they can make you leave either when you leave your job (and if you're seriously sick, you probably have to), or raising the rates of a class of people to ridiculous levels. Then you are on your own.
justanotheruser
"Answer your own question: If I have cancer, why should you be expected to pay for my treatment?"
I firmly believe we are all in this together, and I firmly believe we should ALL have health care.
I have my own insurance, but if you cannot afford yours, then we as American citizens should all pitch in. Be it taxes or whatever. We have become the most selfish thinking group of people I've ever seen, and everyone is just out for "Me". I think that's wrong!
Actually, Gertz, the discussion is about health care,
and how much or how little the government needs to be involved. Don's position is Libertarian,which would make health care completely market based, without any governmental oversight. I think the problem with that is evident in the abuses now taking place. Insurance is denied or prohibitively expensive for a segment of the population that is not healthy, or potentially not healthy due to family history or chemical parameters. The prevailing practice among many, if not all, medical insurers, is to deny or curtail coverage, even they are contractually obligated, and see if the patient pursues the case. I think that is criminal, if not at least ethically repugnant. But it is profitable. True, we don't have government bureaucrats determining your health care, but we are dependent upon corporate accounting departments to direct your medical needs. I don't see where those practices would change in a pure, market driven system. And if some don't see why they shouldn't pay for other's medical care, then they could at least consider what is best for America…healthy workers anyone?
the article is about health care
Now that you've beat libertarian utopia to death, maybe we can get back on topic.
We
already pay, through taxes, for the health-care of our military & their dependents & our federal legislators, President & Vice President. Speeders & reckless drivers use the roads. They're not always caught & cause many wrecks & damage, even to state & federal property. Our taxes allow these abusers to use the road. Persons in group insurance plans, already pay health-care, for the overweight, smokers, etc. The prosperity of the late 19Th century, was, in large part, driven by abusive child labor, & the mistreatment of minorities,(low pay, unsafe working conditions, etc.). The minorities included Blacks, Irish, Italian & other European & Asian immigrants. Their was very little regulation of industry. Upton Sinclair, (among others), exposed many of the workplace abuses, in "The Jungle."
Libertarian Utopia?
Len, I am not avoiding your question, its that 750 character thing.
So far as I know, no 100% Libertarian government has been tried. Think about how that would have to come about, a group would have to gain power without being seduced by power, and immediately divest itself of most of that power they had won. Humans like having power over others.
But a pure Libertarian regime is not necessary to demonstrate the value of libertarian philosophy. Look at the history of this country, and trace its progress during the time it has become more and less libertarian and allow for about 20 years lag time, and you will see that libertarianism is associated with our prosperity and that as we have drifted from the relative economic libertarianism of the late 1800's to the socialism of FDR, we have fallen into decline. We became an industrial superpower when we rid ourselves of slavery but our decline began in the 50's as the capital dissipation of the progressive income tax took hold.