Cheapest health ins (family of four) 20,000/yr
supporter
Posted by Don Birkholz (+1279) 8 years ago
The Bronze plan is the cheapest health insurance plan and a family of four has to pay 20,000$ a year under this "Affordable" Health Care Act. (No mention of this prior to the election) http://pamibe.com/2013/02...care-plan/
Top
Posted by ungyded (+38) 8 years ago
well, I guess I'm going to jail.
I don't even MAKE twenty thousand dollars a year.

Insurance = organised crime.
Top
supporter
Posted by Jeri Dalbec (+3242) 8 years ago
Don...Probably the best information is to read, "Health Care Reform" by Jonathan Gruber. Just a little over seven bucks and in comic book form. A very easy read. Your lady blogger is a fiscal Conservative by her admittance and her rhetoric looked familiar. I have family members who have already had their monthly premiums reduced.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+14950) 8 years ago
Can you buy this insurance while they are stuffing you in the ambulance? Like auto insurance, you shouldn't have to buy health insurance until you actually need it.
Top
supporter
Posted by Jeri Dalbec (+3242) 8 years ago
Richard...Hello! Not sure about that..only that it might be tough to get into the hospital even though you got a ride in the ambulance:-)
I would love to see it be "Medicare for All"..!!
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4943) 8 years ago
We missed the boat when the GOP killed the public option giving us the right to avoid the insurance premiums and go straight to the public option of something like medicare to save money...Obamacare while it is a start at something on the table is nothing close to universal health care and until we get the insurance companies out of the formula we won't have it...this that we have now is nothing more than an old GOP plan which was rejected long ago...but as said surlier it is better than nothing...
Top
supporter
Posted by Don Birkholz (+1279) 8 years ago
Sounds like no one has to pay more than 10% of their income and most people can get a subsidy of around 6,000$ each and you have to pay 40% of your hospitalization. The site I want to use will not allow the address to be used so type the following into your search engine and click onto the one that has "vitals.nbc" in its last line, probably the first one to come up. Type this into your search engine "Federal government releases long-awaited health reform rules"
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4943) 8 years ago
Isn't there a clause that helps out low income families?? thought there was going to be?
Top
moderator
founder
Posted by David Schott (+17044) 8 years ago
This site, Don?

http://vitals.nbcnews.com...rules?lite

This Forbes article suggests that "ungyded", who is trying to raise his or her family of 4 on less than $20K/year has nothing to worry about:

http://www.forbes.com/sit...nt-to-pay/

"Finally, you're considered exempt if do not have an affordable health insurance coverage option available. This is more or less a means test. For this purpose, you deemed to qualify if the required contribution (determined on an annual basis) for minimum essential coverage exceeds a percentage (8% for 2014) of your household income for the most recent taxable year. Your household income is roughly defined as the combined total of modified adjusted income (MAGI) of the taxpayers in your household. So, as an example, if your household income is $50,000, you would be exempt if you could not obtain minimum essential coverage for $4,000 or less. You can imagine, with those numbers, that there will be a lot of exemptions: the median household income in the U.S. for the past few years has hovered around $52,762. Additionally, if your household income is below the threshold to file federal income taxes, you would also be exempt; hardship exemptions are being proposed to cover the instance of taxpayers who choose to file a federal income tax return to claim certain tax benefits even when gross income is below the filing threshold."
Top
supporter
Posted by Jeri Dalbec (+3242) 8 years ago
The book says, "For our poorest citizens, those with incomes below $14,400 (for single individuals) and $29,330 (for a family of four), the Government will provide free and comprehensive Public insurance through the Medicaid program".

The debate is going on in Helena as to whether or not to let Montana have the Medicaid money to make that portion of the Act take place. We have the ALEC and ATR (Grover Norquist followers) who are against it..and, the Governor, etal who want the Healthcare to kick in in MT. Monica Lindeen's office is working very hard to get things going. I signed a petition to allow it as it means that there is coverage for those who have had to be "Free Riders"...and, less padding for those with Insurance.

The interesting thing is that the big Corporations dictate the bills through their ALEC and other Reps and you can see it as they are identical in other States as well. Just sayin'!
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11757) 8 years ago
http://www.motherjones.co...-expensive

No, poor people are not going to have pay to more than they earn for healthcare BUT if they don't get assistance through the Affordable Care Act, they will continue without insurance.

I realize conservatives are surprised to find out the cost of 'real life' and also firmly believe that poor people should die quietly and stop complaining but seriously, think this one through before going off half-cocked.

The exchanges haven't even been set up. Many states are still being stupid about Medicaid expansion, including the conservative in Montana (many of whom take hundreds of thousands of dollars in farm subsidies but giving government money to the rich is investment and helping poor people is a a scam) but this does not mean families are going to pay $20,000 a year.
Top
Posted by Jay (+280) 8 years ago
As of now my wife and I pay a whole lot less than the figures being tossed around on this thread.
What would happen in our case?
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4943) 8 years ago
as seniors, my hubby and I pay over 800 per month for our supplement to medicare and also we each pay 100 per month for Medicare...so that makes approximately 1000.oo per month total for health care...which rounds off to 12,000 per year...it is a hard hit but also a necessity so we have to pay it...before Obamacare started this year, we were paying 882 per month for the supplement and it went down to 810 last month...we're thrilled to get that much of a break...
Top
supporter
Posted by Don Birkholz (+1279) 8 years ago
Lots and lots of questions here.
(1) I assume veterans do not have to buy into this, but I have not seen it in writing.
(2) If one has Medicare, plan A, but not plan B, do they have to buy this?
(3) If one already has private health insurance, do they have to swithch to the Bronze, Silver, Gold or Platinum plans
(4) It should be noted that if one buys the Bronze, they still have to fork over 40% of a 100,000$ operation.
(5) Are religions exempt that ban the purchase of insurance?
(6)Can one buy private insurance with a 100,000$ exemption?
(7) Can one buy health insurance from a company in another country?

I am sure there are loopholes somewhere.
(If a state opts out of the program, do these indigents now have to buy this insurance?)
Why are there not some examples out there of different situations. A family of four making 120,000$ a year and not eligible for subsidies, what does their insurance cost per year under this?
A family of four making 20,000$ per year, how much do they pay, and how much is subsidized?
A family of four makine 40,000$ per year, how much do they pay and how much is the subsidy?
Top
Posted by Donald Mullikin (+139) 8 years ago
well, I guess I'm going to jail.
I don't even MAKE twenty thousand dollars a year.

If you earn that little, the minimum tax penalty the first year will $95. But then it goes up from there.

For those who can afford health insurance and do not purchase it, the tax-penalty is 1% of their AGI so if you earn $144,000.00 per year, the tax-penalty will be $1,440.00 even if your Taxable income would have been $0.00.
Top
Posted by Donald Mullikin (+139) 8 years ago
Can you buy this insurance while they are stuffing you in the ambulance? Like auto insurance, you shouldn't have to buy health insurance until you actually need it.

Sorry, the IRS will want to make sure you were enrolled in the prior year or pay a Tax-Penalty = to 1% of your AGI.
Top
Posted by Donald Mullikin (+139) 8 years ago
The book says, "For our poorest citizens, those with incomes below $14,400 (for single individuals) and $29,330 (for a family of four), the Government will provide free and comprehensive Public insurance through the Medicaid program".


And maybe you would care to explain how Medicade works.

<evil grin> I'm waiting to see the comments on that explaination.
Sorry, got the wrong link (Medicare not Medicade) to begin with, will find a hint and post it in a minute.

http://www.medicaidprogram.net/ Be sure to pay attention to how it says. "You need to remember that having a low income does not necessarily qualify you for Medicaid."

[This message has been edited by Donald Mullikin (2/2/2013)]
Top
moderator
founder
Posted by David Schott (+17044) 8 years ago
It's "Medicaid" if that helps your search.
Top
Posted by Donald Mullikin (+139) 8 years ago
It's "Medicaid" if that helps your search.
I know, I had typed the wrong thing originally. I put the link I was looking for. I'm waiting for someone to find out that in order for them to get medicade for free, they cannot own sell-able assets.
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11757) 8 years ago
All of which points to socialized or at least single payer as the way to go. Rather than this Republican 'help the insurance companies make even more obscene profits,' we should have gone to a nationalized program so that people can stop dying from lack of medical care.

By the way, going to the emergency room is not medical care. Rich republicans are as wrong about that as chalk is cheese.
Top
supporter
Posted by Jeri Dalbec (+3242) 8 years ago
I am thinking that it would probably be best if you could read the book if you are interested. It is so easy to understand. The author, Jonathan Gruber, is also one who helped write the bill. A lot of it will not kick in until 2014.
Top
Posted by Donald Mullikin (+139) 8 years ago
~~ snipped ~~ Rather than this Republican 'help the insurance companies make even more obscene profits,' ~~ snipped ~~

:LOL: Oh? Now the Republicans are to blame for Obamacare? :LOL:
Top
supporter
Posted by Don Birkholz (+1279) 8 years ago
If you buy a car, you pay so much a month until it is paid off.
If you have 100,000$ in student loans, you pay so much a month until it is paid off.
If you buy a 100,000$ house, you pay so much a month until it is paid off.
If you have a 30,000$ medical bill why can't you just pay 200$ a month until it is paid off?
Why is that just unthinkable??????????????
What is this infatuation in paying for other people's medical bills?

If everyone chooses to pay the penalty instead of the medical insurance, then what happens?

If everyone joins a church that bans insurance, then what happens?
Top
Posted by Donald Mullikin (+139) 8 years ago
By the way, going to the emergency room is not medical care.


So, if I am having a Heart Attack and I go to the ER, I am not going to receive any kind of Medical Care?

I don't know what you've been smoking.. but I gotta ask.. when you were young, were you taught to share?
Top
supporter
Posted by Don Birkholz (+1279) 8 years ago
Let's say you have two million in the bank and only make 2,000$ in 2013. Can you go on medicaid?
Top
supporter
Posted by Don Birkholz (+1279) 8 years ago
I doubt if you can go on Medicaid, but how about getting a subsidy.
When I pay my income tax, they always send me a refund via the earned income credit, which I think is intended for the poor. I have a bunch of money in the bank and do not consider myself anywhere near poor, but they send earned income refunds without checking to see how much money one has stored in bank accounts.
Top
supporter
Posted by 007 (+161) 8 years ago
Yes Don, thats the way I read the Kaiser commission on Medicaid. Assets will not be considered in determining eligibility. MAGI is Adjusted Gross Income as determined under the federal income tax, plus any foreign income or tax-exempt interest.
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4943) 8 years ago
Don, if you don't want the earned income credit money, why don't you return it?? If you don't need it, I am sure others will...
Top
Posted by Donald Mullikin (+139) 8 years ago
Assets will not be considered in determining eligibility.

Really?
Are you sure you are not thinking Medicare?

From http://www.medicaidprogra...ligibility
Your financial status is an important Medicaid eligibility requirement. This includes your income and assets such as your bank accounts, property that you own, and other items that can be sold for cash. The rules for counting your income and financial resources vary from state to state and from group to group. There are also special rules if you live in nursing homes and for disabled children that are living at home.
Top
supporter
Posted by 007 (+161) 8 years ago
I was refering to the new rules for determining income under Medicaid in 2014, new income definitions for under age 65.
Top
supporter
Posted by Don Birkholz (+1279) 8 years ago
Howdy, If I return it, it doesn't go to other people. On a slightly different subject, I know a person who lost his job, went on food stamps and got another job, wanted to return his food stamps, but they would not allow him to give his food stamp money back. Why can't a person pay back his food stamps if he wants to? That's a bad law.
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11757) 8 years ago
"Obamacare" i.e. "Romneycare" was first put forward by Bob Dole. Democrats gave up on actual healthcare reform and fell back on the Republican plan, which makes their opposition to it so amusing.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5094) 8 years ago
Why can't a person pay back his food stamps if he wants to? That's a bad law.


Oh, please.

Your fictional friend could have paid more income taxes than he owed. But I guess he isn't that intelligent...
Top
Posted by Donald Mullikin (+139) 8 years ago
"Obamacare" i.e. "Romneycare" was first put forward by Bob Dole. Democrats gave up on actual healthcare reform and fell back on the Republican plan, which makes their opposition to it so amusing.


You may want to check your source of information.

Please show where it was a Republican idea! You will not be able to!


Romney may have been the Governor of Massachusetts when that states Legislature pass what was called "An Act Providing Access to Affordable, Quality, Accountable Health Care" in 2006. To see who controlled the MA legislature, check out these links.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w...tion,_2006 Senate 34 of 40 seats in 2004 and 35 of 40 in 2006
http://en.wikipedia.org/w...tion,_2006 Please read the Control of the house paragraph where thsession ending in 2007 had 87% Democrats.

When it passed our Democratic Party controlled Senate, the Senate simply took a previously passed house bill that involved "Service Members homeownership tax-credit", stripped it out-renamed it, and wrote in what had been what the MA Legislature had passed that got called Romneycare, then sent it off to President Obama for signature.
Top
supporter
Posted by Jeri Dalbec (+3242) 8 years ago
The Author of "Health Care Reform", Jonathan Gruber, is a Professor of Economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He is also a member of the Institute of Medicine. He was part of the team that came up with the reform that changed the way Massachusetts handles medical coverage for the uninsured..and, he worked with both President Obama and the Congress to translate that Reform to the National Stage...to quote the book. He has worked with both Democrats and Republicans to help solve the Nation's healthcare problems. Just sharing from the book:-)
Top
moderator
founder
Posted by David Schott (+17044) 8 years ago
mittromneycentral.com: RomneyCare - The Truth about Massachusetts Health Care

Romney is occasionally asked by the more conservative/libertarian voters, why he used an individual mandate. Romney replies:

"The key factor that some of my libertarian friends forget is that today, everybody who doesn't have insurance is getting free coverage from the government. And the question is, do we want people to pay what they can afford, or do we want people to ride free on everyone else. And when that is recognized as the choice, most conservatives come my way."

To Romney, the mandate that all individuals buy health insurance represented the conservative ideal of personal responsibility. Romney believed that whenever possible, individuals should take care of themselves, and not rely on the government for assistance. Too many people had been receiving "free" health care from the government even though many of those individuals could afford to pay for it themselves.
Top
Posted by Oddjob (+194) 8 years ago
Howdy and Amorette

Your selective memories are hard at work again.

The "Affordable Care Act" was constructed by Obama and the Democrats in closed sessions which EXCLUDED Republicans and was passed in both Houses, extensively controlled by the Democrats. No Republican voted for this bill in either the House or the Senate and the Democrats didn't need their votes anyway.

Obama and the Democrats OWN this abortion, lock, stock and barrel. If there are any surprises here, thank Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy "We have to pass the bill before we can see what is in it" Pelosi.

Don't forget your Favorite Son, Max Baucus chaired the Senate committee that wrote most of this POS.

The Democrats crafted and sold this nightmare purposely to appease the "low information voter" who think they are getting something for nothing. We shall see how that works out.

If you like what you see here with the ACA, then you should show some gratitude to the Republicans for giving us John Roberts.
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11757) 8 years ago
So, this means Republicans are in favor of single payer or just letting poor people die for lack of healthcare? I am in favor of single payer or straight socialized, if that would solve the problem. What is your solution? Die and decrease the surplus population or take insurance company profits out of the picture entirely?

ACA ain't perfect but at least it gets rid of caps, pre-existing exclusions, extends care for young adults, and a host of other improvements. It isn't the best solution by a long shot but could you get Republicans behind single payer, which is?
Top
Posted by Donald Mullikin (+139) 8 years ago
Oddjob
I would not say that there were no Republicans in the US House that voted for the Original H.R.3590 when it was titled "Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009"

I do know that when the Senate took that house passed bill and gutted it, rewrote it into, and renamed it the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" they did so without Republican support.

When it went back to the House for the approval of the amendments to the bill, there were not enough Republicans to kill it.

That is why there was such a massive change-over from Democrat to Republican in the House after the 2010 election.
~~~

Amorette
Most of Congress still does not understand all the ins and outs of that legislation. Like one said, We haven't read it, we will find out what it is after it passes.

The tax implications are just now being worked out and get worse next year.
It is my understanding that medical providers will have to pay out of their pocket just to provide care. Medical device Manufacturers will also have to pay to make and provide devices. Then because of insurance, Doctors will not have an option of accepting insurance reductions so will be earning pennies on the dollar of what they used to earn. With all this added together, how many people will want to become Doctors if they are going to be treated like slave labor earning little to nothing and having to pay out the nose to work?

Since you seem to think this is such a great piece of legislation. Why not go ask some medical professionals what their opinions are on it.
Top
Posted by Donald Mullikin (+139) 8 years ago
I would not say that there were no Republicans in the US House that voted for the Original H.R.3590 when it was titled "Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009"


In fact, here is a record on the vote, and you will see that when the bill was still titled "Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009" there were 173 Republicans who voted to suspend the rules and pass the bill.

http://clerk.house.gov/ev...oll768.xml
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+14950) 8 years ago
Your selective memories are hard at work again.

The "Affordable Care Act" was constructed by Obama and the Democrats in closed sessions which EXCLUDED Republicans and was passed in both Houses, extensively controlled by the Democrats. No Republican voted for this bill in either the House or the Senate and the Democrats didn't need their votes anyway.


Umm...No, most of the language in the ACA was developed by Senator Bob Dole et. al., many moons ago. This was back when republicans had a modicum of respectability. Healthcare is a republican idea from back when republicans cared more about people than corporations.

Here is what President Nixon had to say about healthcare:

To the Congress of the United States:

One of the most cherished goals of our democracy is to assure every American an equal opportunity to lead a full and productive life.


Related Content

Obama's Health Care Dilemma Evokes Memories Of 1974

In the last quarter century, we have made remarkable progress toward that goal, opening the doors to millions of our fellow countrymen who were seeking equal opportunities in education, jobs and voting.

Now it is time that we move forward again in still another critical area: health care.

Without adequate health care, no one can make full use of his or her talents and opportunities. It is thus just as important that economic, racial and social barriers not stand in the way of good health care as it is to eliminate those barriers to a good education and a good job.

Three years ago, I proposed a major health insurance program to the Congress, seeking to guarantee adequate financing of health care on a nationwide basis. That proposal generated widespread discussion and useful debate. But no legislation reached my desk.

Today the need is even more pressing because of the higher costs of medical care. Efforts to control medical costs under the New Economic Policy have been Inept with encouraging success, sharply reducing the rate of inflation for health care. Nevertheless, the overall cost of health care has still risen by more than 20 percent in the last two and one-half years, so that more and more Americans face staggering bills when they receive medical help today:

--Across the Nation, the average cost of a day of hospital care now exceeds $110.
--The average cost of delivering a baby and providing postnatal care approaches $1,000.
--The average cost of health care for terminal cancer now exceeds $20,000.

For the average family, it is clear that without adequate insurance, even normal care can 'be a financial burden while a catastrophic illness can mean catastrophic debt.

Beyond the question of the prices of health care, our present system of health care insurance suffers from two major flaws :

First, even though more Americans carry health insurance than ever before, the 25 million Americans who remain uninsured often need it the most and are most unlikely to obtain it. They include many who work in seasonal or transient occupations, high-risk cases, and those who are ineligible for Medicaid despite low incomes.

Second, those Americans who do carry health insurance often lack coverage which is balanced, comprehensive and fully protective:

--Forty percent of those who are insured are not covered for visits to physicians on an out-patient basis, a gap that creates powerful incentives toward high cost care in hospitals;
--Few people have the option of selecting care through prepaid arrangements offered by Health Maintenance Organizations so the system at large does not benefit from the free choice and creative competition this would offer;
--Very few private policies cover preventive services;
--Most health plans do not contain built-in incentives to reduce waste and inefficiency. The extra costs of wasteful practices are passed on, of course, to consumers; and
--Fewer than half of our citizens under 65--and almost none over 65--have major medical coverage which pays for the cost of catastrophic illness.

These gaps in health protection can have tragic consequences. They can cause people to delay seeking medical attention until it is too late. Then a medical crisis ensues, followed by huge medical bills--or worse. Delays in treatment can end in death or lifelong disability.

COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH INSURANCE PLAN (CHIP)

Early last year, I directed the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to prepare a new and improved plan for comprehensive health insurance. That plan, as I indicated in my State of the Union message, has been developed and I am presenting it to the Congress today. I urge its enactment as soon as possible.

The plan is organized around seven principles:

First, it offers every American an opportunity to obtain a balanced, comprehensive range of health insurance benefits;

Second, it will cost no American more than he can afford to pay;
Third, it builds on the strength and diversity of our existing public and private systems of health financing and harmonizes them into an overall system;

Fourth, it uses public funds only where needed and requires no new Federal taxes;

Fifth, it would maintain freedom of choice by patients and ensure that doctors work for their patient, not for the Federal Government.

Sixth, it encourages more effective use of our health care resources;

And finally, it is organized so that all parties would have a direct stake in making the system work--consumer, provider, insurer, State governments and the Federal Government.

BROAD AND BALANCED PROTECTION FOR ALL AMERICANS

Upon adoption of appropriate Federal and State legislation, the Comprehensive Health Insurance Plan would offer to every American the same broad and balanced health protection through one of three major programs:

--Employee Health Insurance, covering most Americans and offered at their place of employment, with the cost to be shared by the employer and employee on a basis which would prevent excessive burdens on either;

--Assisted Health Insurance, covering low-income persons, and persons who would be ineligible for the other two programs, with Federal and State government paying those costs beyond the means of the individual who is insured; and,

--An improved Medicare Plan, covering those 65 and over and offered through a Medicare system that is modified to include additional, needed benefits.
One of these three plans would be available to every American, but for everyone, participation in the program would be voluntary.

The benefits offered by the three plans would be identical for all Americans, regardless of age or income. Benefits would be provided for:
--hospital care;
--physicians' care in and out of the hospital;
--prescription and life-saving drugs;
--laboratory tests and X-rays;
--medical devices;
--ambulance services; and,
--other ancillary health care.

There would be no exclusions of coverage based on the nature of the illness. For example, a person with heart disease would qualify for benefits as would a person with kidney disease.

In addition, CHIP would cover treatment for mental illness, alcoholism and drug addiction, whether that treatment were provided in hospitals and physicians' offices or in community based settings.

Certain nursing home services and other convalescent services would also be covered. For example, home health services would be covered so that long and costly stays in nursing homes could be averted where possible.

The health needs of children would come in for special attention, since many conditions, if detected in childhood, can be prevented from causing lifelong disability and learning handicaps. Included in these services for children would be:
--preventive care up to age six;
--eye examinations;
--hearing examinations; and,
--regular dental care up to age 13.

Under the Comprehensive Health Insurance Plan, a doctor's decisions could be based on the health care needs of his patients, not on health insurance coverage. This difference is essential for quality care.

Every American participating in the program would be insured for catastrophic illnesses that can eat away savings and plunge individuals and families into hopeless debt for years. No family would ever have annual out-of-pocket expenses for covered health services in excess of $1,500, and low-income families would face substantially smaller expenses.

As part of this program, every American who participates in the program would receive a Health-card when the plan goes into effect in his State. This card, similar to a credit card, would be honored by hospitals, nursing homes, emergency rooms, doctors, and clinics across the country. This card could also be used to identify information on blood type and .sensitivity to particular drugs-information which might be important in an emergency.

Bills for the services paid for with the Health-card would be sent to the insurance carrier who would reimburse the provider of the care for covered services, then bill the patient for his share, if any.

The entire program would become effective in 1976, assuming that the plan is promptly enacted by the Congress.

HOW EMPLOYEE HEALTH INSURANCE WOULD WORK

Every employer would be required to offer all full-time employees the Comprehensive Health Insurance Plan. Additional benefits could then be added by mutual agreement. The insurance plan would be jointly financed, with employers paying 65 percent of the premium for the first three years of the plan, and 75 percent thereafter. Employees would pay the balance of the premiums. Temporary Federal subsidies would be used to ease the initial burden on employers who face significant cost increases.

Individuals covered by the plan would pay the first $150 in annual medical expenses. A separate $50 deductible provision would apply for out-patient drugs. There would be a maximum of three medical deductibles per family.

After satisfying this deductible limit, an enrollee would then pay for 25 percent of additional bills. However, $1,500 per year would be the absolute dollar limit on any family's medical expenses for covered services in any one year.

As an interim measure, the Medicaid program would be continued to meet certain needs, primarily long-term institutional care. I do not consider our current approach to long-term care desirable because it can lead to overemphasis on institutional as opposed to home care. The Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare has undertaken a thorough study of the appropriate institutional services which should be included in health insurance and other programs and will report his findings to me.

IMPROVING MEDICARE

The Medicare program now provides medical protection for over 23 million older Americans. Medicare, however, does not cover outpatient drugs, nor does it limit total out-of-pocket costs. It is still possible for an elderly person to be financially devastated by a lengthy illness even with Medicare coverage.
I therefore propose that Medicare's benefits be improved so that Medicare would provide the same benefits offered to other Americans under Employee Health Insurance and Assisted Health Insurance.

Any person 65 or over, eligible to receive Medicare payments, would ordinarily, under my modified Medicare plan, pay the first $100 for care received during a year, and the first $50 toward outpatient drugs. He or she would also pay 20 percent of any bills above the deductible limit. But in no case would any Medicare beneficiary have to pay more than $750 in out-of-pocket costs. The premiums and cost sharing for those with low incomes would be reduced, with public funds making up the difference.

The current program of Medicare for the disabled would be replaced. Those now in the Medicare for the disabled plan would be eligible for Assisted Health Insurance, which would provide better coverage for those with high medical costs and low incomes.

Premiums for most people under the new Medicare program would be roughly equal to that which is now payable under Part B of Medicare--the Supplementary Medical Insurance program.

HOW ASSISTED HEALTH INSURANCE WOULD WORK

The program of Assisted Health Insurance is designed to cover everyone not offered coverage under Employee Health Insurance or Medicare, including the unemployed, the disabled, the self-employed, and those with low incomes. In addition, persons with higher incomes could also obtain Assisted Health Insurance if they cannot otherwise get coverage at reasonable rates. Included in this latter group might be persons whose health status or type of work puts them in high-risk insurance categories.

Assisted Health Insurance would thus fill many of the gaps in our present health insurance system and would ensure that for the first time in our Nation's history, all Americans would have financial access to health protection regardless of income or circumstances.

A principal feature of Assisted Health Insurance is that it relates premiums and out-of-pocket expenses to the income of the person or family enrolled. Working families with incomes of up to $5,000, for instance, would pay no premiums at all. Deductibles, co-insurance, and maximum liability would all be pegged to income levels.

Assisted Health Insurance would replace State-run Medicaid for most services. Unlike Medicaid, where benefits vary in each State, this plan would establish uniform benefit and eligibility standards for all low-income persons. It would also eliminate artificial barriers to enrollment or access to health care.

COSTS OF COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH INSURANCE

When fully effective, the total new costs of CHIP to the Federal and State governments would be about $6.9 billion with an additional small amount for transitional assistance for small and low wage employers:

--The Federal Government would add about $5.9 billion over the cost of continuing existing programs to finance health care for low-income or high risk persons.

--State governments would add about $1.0 billion over existing Medicaid spending for the same purpose, though these added costs would be largely, if not wholly offset by reduced State and local budgets for direct provision of services.

--The Federal Government would provide assistance to small and low wage employers which would initially cost about $450 million but be phased out over five years.

For the average American family, what all of these figures reduce to is simply this:

--The national average family cost for health insurance premiums each year under Employee Health Insurance would be about $150; the employer would pay approximately $450 for each employee who participates in the plan.

--Additional family costs for medical care would vary according to need and use, but in no case would a family have to pay more than $1,500 in any one year for covered services.

--No additional taxes would be needed to pay for the cost of CHIP. The Federal funds needed to pay for this plan could all be drawn from revenues that would be generated by the present tax structure. I am opposed to any comprehensive health plan which requires new taxes.

MAKING THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM WORK BETTER

Any program to finance health care for the Nation must take close account of two critical and related problems--cost and quality.

When Medicare and Medicaid went into effect, medical prices jumped almost twice as fast as living costs in general in the next five years. These programs increased demand without increasing supply proportionately and higher costs resulted.

This escalation of medical prices must not recur when the Comprehensive Health Insurance Plan goes into effect. One way to prevent an escalation is to increase the supply of physicians, which is now taking place at a rapid rate. Since 1965, the number of first-year enrollments in medical schools has increased 55 percent. By 1980, the Nation should have over 440,000 physicians, or roughly one-third more than today. We are also taking steps to train persons in allied health occupations, who can extend the services of the physician.

With these and other efforts already underway, the Nation's health manpower supply will be able to meet the additional demands that will be placed on it.

Other measures have also been taken to contain medical prices. Under the New Economic Policy, hospital cost increases have been cut almost in half from their post-Medicare highs, and the rate of increase in physician fees has slowed substantially. It is extremely important that these successes be continued as we move toward our goal of comprehensive health insurance protection for all Americans. I will, therefore, recommend to the Congress that the Cost of Living Council's authority to control medical care costs be extended.

To contain medical costs effectively over the long-haul, however, basic reforms in the financing and delivery of care are also needed. We need a system with built-in incentives that operates more efficiently and reduces the losses from waste and duplication of effort. Everyone pays for this inefficiency through their health premiums and medical bills.

The measure I am recommending today therefore contains a number of proposals designed to contain costs, improve the efficiency of the system and assure quality health care. These proposals include:

1. HEALTH MAINTENANCE ORGANIZATIONS (HMO'S)

On December 29, 1973, I signed into law legislation designed to stimulate, through Federal aid, the establishment of prepaid comprehensive care organizations. HMO's have proved an effective means for delivering health care and the CHIP plan requires that they be offered as an option for the individual and the family as soon as they become available. This would encourage more freedom of choice for both patients and providers, while fostering diversity in our medical care delivery system.

2. PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS REVIEW ORGANIZATIONS (PSRO'S)

I also contemplate in my proposal a provision that would place health services provided under CHIP under the review of Professional Standards Review Organizations. These PSRO's would be charged with maintaining high standards of care and reducing needless hospitalization. Operated 'by groups of private physicians, professional review organizations can do much to ensure quality care while helping to bring about significant savings in health costs.

3. MORE BALANCED GROWTH IN HEALTH FACILITIES

Another provision of this legislation would call on the States to review building plans for hospitals, nursing homes and other health facilities. Existing health insurance has overemphasized the placement of patients in hospitals and nursing homes. Under this artificial stimulus, institutions have felt impelled to keep adding bed space. This has produced a growth of almost 75 percent in the number of hospital beds in the last twenty years, so that now we have a surplus of beds in many places and a poor mix of facilities in others. Under the legislation I am submitting, States can begin remedying this costly imbalance.

4. STATE ROLE

Another important provision of this legislation calls on the States to review the operation of health insurance carriers within their jurisdiction. The States would approve specific plans, oversee rates, ensure adequate disclosure, require an annual audit and take other appropriate measures. For health care providers, the States would assure fair reimbursement for physician services, drugs and institutional services, including a prospective reimbursement system for hospitals.

A number of States have shown that an effective job can be done in containing costs. Under my proposal all States would have an incentive to do the same. Only with effective cost control measures can States ensure that the citizens receive the increased health care they need and at rates they can afford. Failure on the part of States to enact the necessary authorities would prevent them from receiving any Federal support of their State-administered health assistance plan.

MAINTAINING A PRIVATE ENTERPRISE APPROACH

My proposed plan differs sharply with several of the other health insurance plans which have been prominently discussed. The primary difference is that my proposal would rely extensively on private insurers.

Any insurance company which could offer those benefits would be a potential supplier. Because private employers would have to provide certain basic benefits to their employees, they would have an incentive to seek out the best insurance company proposals and insurance companies would have an incentive to offer their plans at the lowest possible prices. If, on the other hand, the Government were to act as the insurer, there would be no competition and little incentive to hold down costs.

There is a huge reservoir of talent and skill in administering and designing health plans within the private sector. That pool of talent should be put to work.

It is also important to understand that the CHIP plan preserves basic freedoms for both the patient and doctor. The patient would continue to have a freedom of choice between doctors. The doctors would continue to work for their patients, not the Federal Government. By contrast, some of the national health plans that have been proposed in the Congress would place the entire health system under the heavy hand of the Federal Government, would add considerably to our tax burdens, and would threaten to destroy the entire system of medical care that has been so carefully built in America.

I firmly believe we should capitalize on the skills and facilities already in place, not replace them and start from scratch with a huge Federal bureaucracy to add to the ones we already have.

COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH INSURANCE PLAN--A PARTNERSHIP EFFORT

No program will work unless people want it to work. Everyone must have a stake in the process.

This Comprehensive Health Insurance Plan has been designed so that everyone involved would have both a stake in making it work and a role to play in the process consumer, provider, health insurance carrier, the States and the Federal Government. It is a partnership program in every sense.

By sharing costs, consumers would have a direct economic stake in choosing and using their community's health resources wisely and prudently. They would be assisted by requirements that physicians and other providers of care make available to patients full information on fees, hours of operation and other matters affecting the qualifications of providers. But they would not have to go it alone either: doctors, hospitals and other providers of care would also have a direct stake in making the Comprehensive Health Insurance Plan work. This program has been designed to relieve them of much of the red tape, confusion and delays in reimbursement that plague them under the bewildering assortment of public and private financing systems that now exist. Health-cards would relieve them of troublesome bookkeeping. Hospitals could be hospitals, not bill collecting agencies.

CONCLUSION

Comprehensive health insurance is an idea whose time has come in America.

There has long been a need to assure every American financial access to high quality health care. As medical costs go up, that need grows more pressing.

Now, for the first time, we have not just the need but the will to get this job done. There is widespread support in the Congress and in the Nation for some form of comprehensive health insurance.

Surely if we have the will, 1974 should also be the year that we find the way.

The plan that I am proposing today is, I believe, the very best way. Improvements can be made in it, of course, and the Administration stands ready to work with the Congress, the medical profession, and others in making those changes.

But let us not be led to an extreme program that would place the entire health care system under the dominion of social planners in Washington.

Let us continue to have doctors who work for their patients, not for the Federal Government. Let us build upon the strengths of the medical system we have now, not destroy it.

Indeed, let us act sensibly. And let us act now--in 1974--to assure all Americans financial access to high quality medical care.

RICHARD NIXON
The White House,
February 6, 1974.


http://www.kaiserhealthne...posal.aspx
Top
Posted by Oddjob (+194) 8 years ago
No, Amorette.

I am not in favor of single payer, the Republicans are not in favor of single payer and the Democrats with the exception of the loony Left are not in favor of single payer either, because a significant number of Americans, if not the majority know it doesn't work and do not want it. It's a political landmine, just like Social Security, and that's why the Dem's dropped it like a hot potato 4 years ago. It would be an enormous Government bureaucracy, running access to healthcare the same way they have run every other program. Into the dumper.

You want cheaper insurance and cheaper health care? Then do this. The Insurance companies have spent decades building exclusive territories and protected monopolies within the States. Break up the regional monopolies. The Fed trumps the States; they can do this. If an insurance company wants to do business in the United States, then they have to offer their full range in all 50 States. If they have to start competing for revenue, they will force the Medical monopolies to take less for their services. If they have to compete across the board, they will offer the same benefits as Obamacare on preexisting conditions, coverage for students, etc. The States can regulate that locally. If you don't like the local offerings or restrictions, move. You are free to do that.

The Supreme Court ruled Obamacare is Constitutional as a tax. People have to buy insurance or pay the Government. The customer base is in place. Everybody pays, everybody benefits.

If you absolutely can't pay there can be provisions for a "safety net". If you won't pay, well THEN we can throw your ass into debtors prison.

If this whole issue was more about healthcare and less about control over the populace, then regulating the business end of it would be a no-brainer.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+14950) 8 years ago
So Oddjob, please explain to us why in every civilized country with single-payer healthcare their costs are half of healthcare costs here? Why is that? Does our higher cost have anything to do with corporations making money off of the sick? Is that morally acceptable to you? Is that really what the American people want?
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4943) 8 years ago
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9191) 8 years ago
it's threads like these that make me miss mc.home.
Top
Posted by Donald Mullikin (+139) 8 years ago
Here is what President Nixon had to say about healthcare:


To the Congress of the United States:

One of the most cherished goals of our democracy is to assure every American an equal opportunity to lead a full and productive life.


Related Content

Obama's Health Care Dilemma Evokes Memories Of 1974

In the last quarter century, we have made remarkable progress toward that goal, opening the doors to millions of our fellow countrymen who were seeking equal opportunities in education, jobs and voting.

Nixon referred to Obama's Health Care Dilemma?
Top
Posted by Oddjob (+194) 8 years ago
"So Oddjob, please explain to us why in every civilized country with single-payer healthcare their costs are half of healthcare costs here?"

Well, when you do a cost-benefit analysis as part of the diagnosis on every patient who walks through the door, you can be "more efficient", shall we say.

Now, do you really want to talk about what is morally acceptable?
Top
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6165) 8 years ago
Yet at the same time most industrialized countries have higher average life expectancies and better outcomes. Gee, I guess they don't know s**t about good health care.
Top
Posted by Oddjob (+194) 8 years ago
If you don't believe these "civilized countries" ration healthcare, you're delusional. Try being an 80 year-old man/woman needing a triple bypass or a double hip replacement in one of them. Consider being Turkish emigrant laborer in Germany with a 3-month premature child.

If you want to believe statistics most likely sourced from WHO, that's your option.

And,of course, because they know s**t about good healthcare is why those who can, flock to France, Great Britain and Canada for treatment of serious illness. Right?
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9191) 8 years ago
And if you don't believe that healthcare in the US is rationed, then Wendy's not the only one who's delusional.
Top
Posted by Oddjob (+194) 8 years ago
I don't believe I stated anywhere, I didn't. Single payer won't fix that. It will just add the cost-benefit analysis before you are moved from the Emergency Room to the Morgue.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5094) 8 years ago
Yeah. Death panels, bitches!
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4943) 8 years ago
Actually I have a friend that is from Canada that loves Montana and said she really couldn't live in this country as she couldn't deal with the high cost of health care we pay...she has had two hip replacements and they were free and in a timely manner...they even flew in a specialist from England to help out as she was born with a rare disease...
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11757) 8 years ago
In the US, we do cost shifting. The cost of the uninsured is passed on to the insured. Every procedure I have costs me more because someone else can't pay. As for rationing, try to get an insurance company to pay for an expensive procedure. I know people who have been refused a drug because the insurance company wanted them to take a cheaper drug, even though the doctor said the cheaper drug wouldn't work.

Every corporation in the US should be screaming for single payer. Can you imagine how much money would be freed for corporate profit if they didn't have to provide healthcare? How much money would be freed up for the economy if we could get healthcare costs under control by eliminating the excess cost of insurance companies and their profits.

How many people would not die if they had access to health care? People should not be dying in the 'richest' country in the world for lack of basic medical care.

Then again, Ebenezer Scrooge may be right. Better the poor die and decrease the surplus population.
Top
supporter
Posted by Don Birkholz (+1279) 8 years ago
I would like to see a breakdown of what goes into private insurance costs. Part of the premium goes for fraud, part goes for advertising, and part goes for salaries. It is interesting that Medicare (while not perfect) costs a little over 1,000$ per year and the same protection with a private insurance company would probably be in the four to six thousand per year range, with maybe a third to a half due to fraud, advertising, and salaries.
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4943) 8 years ago
I read once that something like 97 to 98% of Medicare goes directly to patient care...Very little administrative costs involved...no profit, no greed, just plain ole monies for health care...Of course there is fraud and the inspectors catch them from time to time but that goes along with all of them...Medicare is highly efficient... and the money is a fraction of private insurance costs...Medicare for my hubby is for 80% of the hospital as well as doc and costs $110 per month or something like that...Much more efficient than any insurance company ever thought of being...which is why we need medicare for all and get rid of insurance companies from the equation...just common sense...
Top
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6165) 8 years ago
Oddjob,

If you don't believe that you're paying for someone else's healthcare already, you're delusional.
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11757) 8 years ago
Don't forget profit. Insurance companies make profits. Big piles of bucks they pay to investors. Making money off people's suffering. What a great country we live in.
Top
supporter
sponsor
Posted by Frank Hardy (+1606) 8 years ago
PLUS!- the incredible discounts they get immediately off of the billing. Charges built in that you would have to pay in full if you did not carry insurance.

They hold everyone hostage. The medical professionals and the individuals. My family's health care coverage cost is currently $1800 per month and each year the benefits go down and the co-pays go up.

Churns!
FH
Top
Posted by Dillpickle (+34) 8 years ago
Next time you make a visit to you privately owned family practice, dentist, eyecare professional, or other medical service, ask them what their cash rates are compared to what they are required to submit to insurance.
Top
Posted by Oddjob (+194) 8 years ago
Ms. Wilson says:

"If you don't believe that you're paying for someone else's healthcare already, you're delusional."

No, I have a firm grasp on how insurance works. With single payer, I'd still paying for someone else's healthcare. Perhaps you can explain to me the magic behind how single payer will provide the current (or better) level of service to everyone and operate in the black? How do we avoid not finding ourselves right back in the same mess at some point down the road, only then with a huge bureaucracy piled on top?

"Medicare is highly efficient"

Howdy. Seriously?

[This message has been edited by Oddjob (2/6/2013)]
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11757) 8 years ago
Medicare's overhead is about 3%. Insurance companies overhead is around 40%. That includes profit, high salaries for the execs, fancy offices. Single payer is MORE EFFICIENT. Fewer employees. Less duplication. Not having to do a zillion different forms for a zillion different systems. How is that not obvious?
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4943) 8 years ago
Yes, seriously!! What part of 3% vs 40% don't you understand??? Geezzzzzz...[scratches head while wondering aloud how stupid can he be]

[This message has been edited by howdy (2/6/2013)]
Top
Posted by Oddjob (+194) 8 years ago
In 2010 Medicare annual cost according to the CBO was $509 Billion. In 2010, Nightline did a study of fraud in the system estimated at $60 Billion. What kind of program operates with a 3% overhead with almost 12% theft? The guys that run the program will tell you anything to hide the fact that its one of the most inefficient and insecure operations on the planet. Your number are bogus, but if you want to keep believing it, that your option. (Sources would also be good)

On the other hand, what part of "going broke" do you not understand?

http://www.kff.org/medica...305-05.pdf

http://abcnews.go.com/Nig...d=10126555
Top
Posted by Donald Mullikin (+139) 8 years ago
My family's health care coverage cost is currently $1800 per month and each year the benefits go down and the co-pays go up.

While the CEO's make Millions.
Top
Posted by Donald Mullikin (+139) 8 years ago
From the first link tht OddJob posted.

THE 2010 HEALTH REFORM LAW AND MEDICARE SPENDING
Medicare spending is projected to increase from $519 billion
in 2010 to $929 billion in 2020, taking into account changes
to Medicare incorporated in the Affordable Care Act of 2010
(CBO, August 2010). The law is projected to reduce annual
growth in Medicare spending over the next decade and
beyond, by reducing the growth in Medicare payments to
health care providers and Medicare Advantage plans,
establishing several new policies and programs designed to
reduce costs and improve quality of patient care, and
establishing a new Independent Payment Advisory Board to
recommend Medicare spending reductions if projected
spending exceeds target growth rates. The law also increases
the Medicare Part A payroll tax rate for higher-income
people, and increases Part B and Part D premiums for higherincome
beneficiaries.
Average annual growth in Medicare spending is projected to be
5.8% between 2012 and 2020, according to CBO.


Did you catch how they really plan to reduce the costs? Or were you duped by the Independent Asvisory Board "Smoke and Mirrors" they used to distract you?

The law also increases the Medicare Part A payroll tax rate for higher-income people, and increases Part B and Part D premiums for higherincome beneficiaries.

What are they calling higher incomes? Anything above Poverty?
Friends of mine are on Social Security without additional income and just got hit with Medicare Part A, Part B, and Part D cost increases.

So, what will those with actual payroll-incomes going to be paying? Or are they going to be exempt for now, to lull them into contentedness before dropping the hammer on them?
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4943) 8 years ago
Our medicare didn't increase at all for myself or my husband...in fact our supplement went down $72 bucks a month..Starting last month...so sorry about your friends but apparently it isn't an across the board increase for everyone...no matter what you chose to believe, Medicare is better for all of us than private insurance companies and their built in greed and profits...
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11757) 8 years ago
IF there is 15% fraud, combined with 3% overhead, Medicare is still cheaper than the 30 to 40% profit and operating costs of the insurance companies. Plus the level of efficiency with single payer is much greater than with running different codes and different forms for different companies, all of whom have the bottom line goal of NOT paying out any money.
Top
Posted by Oddjob (+194) 8 years ago
Amorette

Post your sources for the Corporate overhead costs. No business runs that kind of overhead and survives. Only Government can do that.
Top
Posted by Donald Mullikin (+139) 8 years ago
http://www.youtube.com/wa...e=youtu.be

Here is something that is interesting to listen to. It is based upon Obamacare and gives a bit more insight into the reality of it.

This video brings up Unions and the eroding benefits, increasing personal deductions from pay that the workers are having to endure, and their attempts now to get their old plans back which are no longer available in most cases.

I have seen companies start reducing employee hours to where the employees are no longer considered as being full time. If they weren't also hiring additional workers Part-Time, I might believe it was because there was not work to be done, but it is evident that they are doing this to avoid paying the Obamacare Employer contribution Tax that kicks in this year.

This video again presents that soon, the cheapest Medical Insurance care plan will cost $20,000 per year.

That was in a report by the CBO. It is out there for everyone to see.

I see a lot of folks claiming that things are just peachy and all rose colored.

What I would like to see is those folks start posting links to credible material that supports their contentions or take off those rose colored glasses.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9191) 8 years ago
Batpoop crazy vs. Fox's pet "reasonable liberal'? And they managed to determine that Obamacare was the worst thing since the 19th amendment?

color me shocked.
Top
supporter
Posted by Don Birkholz (+1279) 8 years ago
And what was it? 700,000 less jobs per year for the next gazillion years? For every action there is an equal reaction.
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11757) 8 years ago
1) There is no proof that providing health insurance will bankrupt a company. Ask the owner of Costco. Some owners are just over-reacting for political reasons.

2) If providing healthcare for their employees is such a burden, why aren't corporations screaming for single payer, government-sponsored health care to save them a bundle?
Top
Posted by Donald Mullikin (+139) 8 years ago
2) If providing healthcare for their employees is such a burden, why aren't corporations screaming for single payer, government-sponsored health care to save them a bundle?


And if the Government is the "Single-Payer" where do you think the Government is going to get its funding?

Answer: The American Tax-Payer.
I pay tax.. are you saying that I am the only single payer?

No, because there are millions more of us working hard and paying tax as well. Point being that a "Single-Payer" Medical care system is smoke and mirrors!

I am hoping that you are an American Citizen who is earning a living and paying tax, cause if you aren't, you shouldn't be wasting my hard earned tax money on a computer with internet connection, trying to convince me just how great you have it while I slave away for you to benefit.

Now, add to the outrageous Insurance Premiums that we are beginning to have to pay, add that to the outrageous Income Tax that will be levied against all of us to pay for this horrific monster that is poking its head out, and what will we have left to survive on?

Oh that's right, some folks will not care as long as they have a Government teat to suckle off of, till that same Government finds them to be a drain and cuts them off.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9191) 8 years ago
Well, as I'm objectively pro-teat, I fail to see the issue that Donald raises.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+14950) 8 years ago
Holy crap Batman... What part of the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare for those of you in Rio Linda) ISN"T a single payer system don't you understand. Thanks to you Fox News and Rush Limblab parishioners, we have to endure this intermediate step toward a single-payer system. ACA is all about making healthcare so damned expensive that none of us can afford it. At some point in the future people will get fed up and see the light that a single payer system is VASTLY more efficient and WILL reduce costs and it will become politically expedient for those far-right-of-center hold outs to finally get the message.
Top
Posted by Donald Mullikin (+139) 8 years ago
At some point in the future people will get fed up and see the light that a single payer system is VASTLY more efficient and WILL reduce costs


When the cost of what is being called a "Single Payer" system is actually being born by Millions of tax payers across the United States, and there will be hundreds of millions trying to collect from it. There is no such thing as a "Single Payer" system.

That is all smoke and mirrors to distract those who would rather sit and do nothing and collect everything.

That mentality over the last 60 years, the foreign aid being wasted on people who would just as soon bomb us back to the stone age, and all the bailouts of the last 4 have caused us the nearly $17 trillion debt that our Government has presently.

I would be surprised if anyone else actually sees that by increasing tax on a Corporation, the Corporation will just pass those expenses on to those who are buying whatever they sell or provide.

This would be especially bad when that corporation happens to be the very insurance company that the Government is forcing you to get your insurance from. They will make their money back by charging you more in premiums, deductibles, and co-pays.. Doctors who will be required to pay to treat people will either quit treating anyone who relies on insurance and only treat those who can afford the medical bills or will simply close up shop.. Then you will have hundreds of millions of people seeking care from thousands if not less. Which will drive up the cost of Available Healthcare for those who can afford it.

Look at the history of what our Government has tried to manage before.

Fannie Mae went broke got more tax-payer cash
Freddie Mac went broke got more tax-payer cash
Social Security going broke without more tax-payer funding
Medicare reportedly going broke without more tax-payer funding
Medicaid reportedly going broke without more tax-payer funding
US Postal Service BROKE but not allowed to shut down.

Do you really think that Federal Healthcare will be any better?
Oh, wait.. what is Medicare and Medicaid? Obamacare will be just another failure to add to the pile of bad debts.

History is repeating itself and there are millions of insane folks who think that doing the same thing all over again will have a different result.

tsk.. tsk.. tsk..
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+14950) 8 years ago
That is all smoke and mirrors to distract those who would rather sit and do nothing and collect everything.


Frankly sir, this is a pretty damned offensive and incendiary statement. I've worked 55+ hours every week of my life for the last 25 years. So I am not sitting doing nothing and collecting anything. I know personally most of those who post here and they aren't sitting around either. So I would suggest you stop painting with a 12" roller where a fine-tipped brush is more appropriate.

Like you now, I USED to be in the "FYIGM" conservative crowd. I have come to believe that we are all better off if we all contribute to the general welfare of our neighbors, without regard to what they are contributing. I sat down and studied the case that people here were making about single-payer and concluded that is a superior system. I changed my mind. For example, study the Australian MediCare System.

Look at the history of what our Government has tried to manage before.

Fannie Mae went broke got more tax-payer cash
Freddie Mac went broke got more tax-payer cash
Social Security going broke without more tax-payer funding
Medicare reportedly going broke without more tax-payer funding
Medicaid reportedly going broke without more tax-payer funding
US Postal Service BROKE but not allowed to shut down.


Rather than throw out a broadbrush list of incomplete examples of "failure", perhaps you should examine the underlying issues with those programs. Hint: Much of it has to do with our military expenses and the stupid deregulation/corporate welfare expense.
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11757) 8 years ago
The postal service isn't going broke because of bad management. Congress, at the behest of private shipping firms, forced them to fund 75 years of pensions and healthcare, more than any other government agency. If Congress weren't actively working against the USPS, it would be healthy.

The important point is insurance is designed to be profitable for investors, not to provide efficient care. How can that be a better system?
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4943) 8 years ago
SS isn't going broke at all just needs the ceiling raised so that the upper incomes can contribute just like the rest of Americans...so simple and yet stupid people chose to ignore the solution...The conservatives are trying so hard to brain wash folks into believing SS is broke...It isn't...
Top
Posted by Donald Mullikin (+139) 8 years ago
So many responses I could make, where to begin.

I guess I will start with:
Congress, at the behest of private shipping firms, forced them to fund 75 years of pensions and healthcare, more than any other government agency.


It appears that some do not understand "Our Constitution" or the implications of what is contained within it. Article 1 Section 8 Clause 7 "To establish Post Offices and Post Roads" & Clause 18 "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."


Congress is required to not only to establish but to maintain the United States Postal Offices or USPS as it is called today.

When Congress opted to abandon the USPS to give preferential treatment of Private Corporations, they violated Our Constitution.

Has anyone held Congress's collective feet to the fire for that fallacy?

No! Why? = Greed!

Of the the 18 powers (Clauses) contained in the Congressional Powers section of our Constitution. Article 1 Section 8 where does it say that Congress is permitted to Provide Foreign Aid? No where!

Where does it say that Congress is permitted to regulate or control substances?
It does not, and when it comes to alcohol, in the 1917-1919 era, our Government convinced people that Abolition was a good thing, just to have to repeal the 18th Amendment in 1933 with the 21st Amendment.

Yet lots of Tax-Payer $$$ were misused trying to enforce a lost-cause.

The Government, through the use of the Main Stream Media to disburse propaganda and to brainwash is doing a good job of convincing people just like they did in the 19-teens, that something evil is actually good, or something that could not possibly exist, does exit..

Which of our multi-trillionairs (is there one?) is going to be the "Single Payer" who will cover all of the health care costs that will be claimed as being part of a Single Payer system?

So far, that system that is being touted as being a Single Payer system, is actually the US Government just like all the lies that were told by our Government in the mid 1930's when it was selling our American Workers a bill of goods called Social Security. Originally it was an Optional enrollment and those who opted in were guarantied to be taken care of in their retirement years. It became Mandatory when the Government realized that there was no way that it would be able to cover the expenses of all who had OPTED in to it. That way they could steal from the unsuspecting to give to those who had willingly and knowingly enrolled into the program.
Then the baby-boom caught the Government off guard and they MANDATED enrollment by Mandating that all children born apply for a Social Security Card and Social Security Number.

People need to ask themselves why our National Debt started to climb so severely shortly after that.

Nothing that our Government has involved itself in since 1800 has ever become a success.

Why do people believe that our Governments involvement in Healthcare will be any different?
Top
Posted by Donald Mullikin (+139) 8 years ago
SS isn't going broke at all just needs the ceiling raised


If this works, it depicts your thinking pretty well.
https://www.facebook.com/...=1&theater

[This message has been edited by Donald Mullikin (2/9/2013)]
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4943) 8 years ago
Top
Posted by Donald Mullikin (+139) 8 years ago
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/...out-Lifting-the-Cap#


Why should someone who will never receive any more benefit greater than that earned by someone who makes less than $113.7K pay more, just because they earn more than $113.7K?
For 2012, the maximum amount of taxable earnings is $110,100. In 2013, the maximum amount of taxable earnings will be $113,700.
found at http://www.ssa.gov/planners/maxtax.htm

If they were allowed to collect more Social Security based upon what they paid in, then I would say I am all for it.

But when they can not collect any more based upon what they earned, and frequently will collect much less in the end, then why should they pay more?

If you do not understand the "frequently will collect much less" comment, then you should look at how under Social Security, for every few dollars of retirement pay that a person gets from their career employment that is over the allowable amount of income, their Social Security Income is reduced.

Meaning that someone who earns more than the allowable annual amount that gets a 50% retirement, may get $0.00 in monthly benefits, despite the fact that they paid into the program for 40 plus years.

http://www.ssa.gov/estimator/
Top