Clinton's & Obama's Universal Health Care Plans

TLCDad wrote: I can not believe how many people on here do not understand what their (both Clinton and Obama's) Universal Health care plans are.

I see people say I have good health care I do not want to see Universal Health Care. That makes you look bad because one it sounds selfish even though you probably are not and two because you do not understand that it will not effect you in anyway other than to lower you rates. Neither candidates plans will take your coverage away if you like it. Their plans are to add a NATIONAL group plan for everyone instead of having the luck of being in one at work. Due to this universal plan, everyone will benefit even if you opt to use a private plan because of competition. Competition will lower premiums. IF a private insurance company has to compete with the governments plan they will lower their rates so everyone benefits. The government plan will also eliminate pre-existing conditions which means other insurance companies will also follow otherwise they will loose business.

Again neither candidates plan will take away your current insurance it will simply lower your rates due to competition their plans will open.

Now people ask how is the government going to pay for this. At first they will have to have a budget and it will not be cheap but as years go on it will pay for itself because it is a GROUP plan. Our government will not pay much as the people on the plan will still be paying a premium albeit at a MUCH MUCH lower cost.

So then people ask well what is the difference between Obama's plan and Clinton's. It's quite simple actually. Obama does not want to make choosing a health plan, whether private or the government, manditory (other than for children) and Clinton wants to make it manditory. I personally am for manditory otherwise the competition element will not work. If you give people the choice many will do what they are doing now and not have insurance and if there are not a large amount of people on the government plan then there will not be a competive reason for private insurance companies to lower their rates or increase what they cover. If everyone made the smart choose everyone would already have an HSA.

So basically my point is that the democrates universal health care plans can only be good for the United States as there technically is no reason not to do it regardless if you are happy with the insurance you currenlty have. Its all based on competition as it is for any type of service. If there is a VERY low cost alternative to your private insurance than they will have no choice but to follow suit... its quite commons sense actually.

I am a computer programmer so I tend to look at everything logically and trust me this is the most logical way of solving our health care problem. The insurance companys today have way too much control of your health and that is a VERY huge problem.

I really like the fact there will no longer be previous existing conditions that insurance companys today love to take advantage of and not cover. This is one thing the insurance company the goverment picks must not have. They must cover everyone at the same rate regardless of any previous existing condition. Which means other companies will have to follow suit or loose customers.

Do you know that most of the money you pay in premiums is used by insurance companies today to pay for meetings, paper work, etc to figure out ways not to cover you. That is a very sad truth.

I know I've said this already, but I am for Clintons plan over Obama only because she wants to make it manditory. Remeber why car insurance in most states (if not all) is manditory... it worked and lowered everyone rates.

Now the republican's (conservatives) complaint is this is too much goverment control. Even though its not they will still say it. Can you imagine how our country would be if we did not have social security? Our economy would of failed and we probably would not be much better than many 3rd world countries. This is something goverment needs to do. This is what we pay them to do. Private insurance companies are only looking for profits and when such a large important service is only about profits and not for the well being of citizens there needs to be some form of goverment intervention and to me this is the smallest form of that. Again it is simply just to give us a choose of a universal group plan as if we work for the goverment and this is one of their benefits of choosing to work for them.

TLCDad replied: Oh there is also a concern that people will now have to wait for appointments longer now that everyone will have insurance as it is in Canada. While this may be true for certain tests, etc, you need to look at the whole picture. With more people getting treated for diseases, viruses, etc will be best for everyone because it will slow down the spread of such viruses. Right now if someone without insurance or even has insurance but at a high deductable will be reluctant to get treated which means they will simply just spread the virus around causing more to get sick. But if they got treated the chance to spread would be much less.

So again even if you are happy with your health insurance please try too look at the whole picture. Lets take the selfish issue out, and simply just ask wouldn't you rather have less chance of getting sick in the first place because now everyone regardless of their income level can get treatment before spreading?

This is exacly why Canada as a whole is more healthy than the USA. I can not find one Canadian who would tell you they would rather have USA's current health care plans.

Teesa®© replied:

In other words, it would be just like when Canad-eh's Ontario had OHIP [Ontario Health Insurance Plan]. I had to pay like $8 a month and even when I lived on the streets for a few years, it got paid before I ate.

Canad-eh is also healthier because 1. we have way higher standards/requirements to be met before allowing any type of medication loose on the public and 2. we don't write out RX's like candy and shove pills down our throats for every little thing that's wrong.

When I have a bad day, I don't run out to my doc and get a 6 month RX for Valium. I talk to a friend, read a book, watch a movie or sit down and have a coffee.

And maybe our -40 winters have something to do with us being healthier... we freeze those narstie germs right outta our bodies!!

DISCLAIMER:
I'm not saying that the States doesn't have any standards on med's or that everyone there takes med's on a whim. Today is so high paced and everything has to be fast, fast, fast and people want a quick fix to make them better. I think we're a little more laid back and probably drink too much beer over here to be able to take all that stuff

My3LilMonkeys replied: Thank you!!! After reading the entire other thread, I thad NO IDEA what it was, but you've made it very clear. If this is the plan, I'd vote for it!

Crystalina replied: TLCDad!!!!! OMG Thank You!


I started reading the other thread and my blood pressure just started rising out of control. I have not missed one debate and I have listened to Clinton and O'Bama intently and that thread was just . I didn't even make it past pg 3 and I used my self control to not go back and reply. I can't blame anyone I guess because I have a political obsession and others may not be "into" that and may only here the Charlie Brown teacher voice after awhile.

FYI: I'm not saying that I'm "better" then anyone here because I "got it". I just got it I guess and reading the thread I thought "didn't they listen?".

luvmykids replied: Thank you very much, I have heard about UHC but haven't had time to devote myself to debates and such

You explained it very well, if it's simply a matter of me signing up for a plan as if the government was my employer....I'm there.

Maddie&EthansMom replied: Oh so simple, isn't it? Why b/c our government now runs things so efficiently that they would be able to handle all the complex nuances of the medical system? No, I don't trust that our govt would do it correctly. Insurance companies costs go down, drug companies costs skyrocket as do our taxes. We may not see it immediately, but they will. Just like in my husband's work. Joe blow who has kidney trouble in line for a transplant, or the other guy with HIV who is on a million different meds makes the insurance rate for the employees outrageous. Just think if America is considered a "Group" insurance how many people in our "group" have cancer, are obese, have various different diseases and illnesses and guess what? You think we will keep the same level of care? NO!! Who is going to pay for that??? Who is going to pay for this same quality of care? We are!!! In double, in triple amounts. So you can't tell me that our quality of care will not go down b/c the govt is going to try and cut corners every which way they know how. You wanted to give social security as an example. Social security is in so much trouble that it won't be around by the time I need it. Canada's govt might be able to run things just fine...I don't know and I don't care. I don't live there. I live here and I know that the American govt would screw it up. And I live on the Mexico border. What's going to keep all the illegal aliens (which is already a huge problem) from coming here and receiving all of our other benefits. They already get enough without having to pay taxes. Whoopeeee!!! That's just begging them to come here if you ask me.

Call me selfish all you want. My husband works hard for what he makes and enough of it already goes to the govt...enough of it that we will never see put to good use. I don't opt for a healthcare system that will go down the tubes.

And fwiw, this is coming from someone who NEVER goes to the doctor. My kids have never had a sick visit, just well visits. I don't take them to the dr everytime they sniffle. Nor do my husband and I go. We also don't take meds unless we absolutely need them. I really don't get that whole argument. It's not about waiting for an appt. It's about the quality of the healthcare and the training that our doctors receive. All of that will be gone. We have some of the best doctors and medical advancements in the world. Why would anyone want to chance giving that up???

punkeemunkee'smom replied:



WOW! It sounds wonderful like a bed of clouds and a blanket of roses ....BUT #1) I do not buy into anything the government is selling anymore. #2) I do not believe they have the right to mandate what I do with any part of my money when I am NOT receiving any of it fom them. #3) There is no way absolutely NOWAY that this too will not turn into a welfare/middle class issue.Q: If you can't afford to feed yourself now-how are you to pay for healthcare?A: You won't have to because the working/middle class will end up footing the bill in someway or another. We will pay a premium just enough higher to cover those who can't/won't do it themselves... AND now the added bonus of, according to Hil's plan, they (WE) will be mandated to do so.....Sorry but until I see it work fairly I will NOT support big brother having any say in my personal checking account or what I decide to be in the best intrest of my family!

coasterqueen replied: I am quite interested on how you got the insurance companies point of view on this and how you think it will be better. I ask because in our state they are trying to go with a UHC for our state alone. I work for insurance lobbyists and I know the jist of what is going on it our state. I don't know about other states, but our insurance companies are not quite happy with the "UHC" for our state and many believe it would be a complete disaster.

I am also curious how you got the information on where most of our premiums go towards -- what the insurance companies use that money for.

While I know your post is basically a slam at me for giving my point of view that's fine. Being that I am seeing first hand how it's affecting our state and how our state can't fund the program well I'll stick with my view. I believe there is one other state, Massachusetts maybe (I recall one of our lobbyists here in the office talking about it) how they've had a similar UHC plan and it was a disaster.

lisar replied:
I agree with you..

However I am gona stay out of it and zip my lips shut.

grapfruit replied: I just have one question. If you don't agree w/UHC then what is your alternative? WHAT plan do you have that will make it better???

Like it or not we're going to HAVE to trust SOMEBODY to fix this! I understand people w/insurance that they've worked hard for don't want to "pay" for the rest of us. But what we have currently ISN'T working. You can't bury your head in the sand forever. YOUR premiums are just going to go up and up too. We need to fix this for ALL of us...

coasterqueen replied:
Well for me the alternative would be not to jump into something that even those proposing it don't completely know how it works. Just because we need a fix, doesn't mean we should go 1/2 *** about it, right?

Alternatives would be to find out why meds cost so much, why premiums are so high, etc, etc, etc. And try to regulate them, but again that would need to be studied more before you go through with something.

Seriously, our country must not have thought the welfare program out very well because look at it.

skinkybaby replied: The idea of UHC is great. But the same people who have made a mess out of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc etc etc are going to be running this. When they can clean up the programs that we do have running I'll have more faith in the idea.

TLCDad replied: Again the government will start a group plan. You will not have to pick it you can stay with the insurance company you have and just enjoy the future lower premiums from competition to the governments group plan.

That madate is simple, just like car insurance, if you do not pick either the government plan or another insurance company you will pay a fine. I am for this only for the simple logical fact when everyone is on some form of health insurance everyones rates will go down.

And this was not mean't to offend anyone. I just saw so many posts that people did not really understand what the USA plan was. The government will not really be controling you they will just be offered a group plan that the uninsured and the unlucky people who do not have a large company group health plan.

Some people thought they will lose the great coverage they have. I just wanted to make sure they know, you will not. This will not effect you expect with the more than likely lower costs you (or at least the company you work for) will enjoy.

coasterqueen replied:
Um, they aren't controlling us? How are they going to offer this plan if they aren't going to tax me PLUS I then have the privelege of still paying my own premiums for my regular insurance?????

How is our premiums going to go down??? If more people go with the government program and not with private insurance companies that means less business for insurance, which means higher premiums.

TLCDad replied:
Just like care insurance... more competition will bring premiums down. If people can go on the government plan at this rate, we best give some incentive to keep them on our plan - which means obviously lower rates. Trust me you think insurance companys do not have huge profits?

luvmykids replied:
Wouldn't they want to lower them then to attract more business to their company?

I don't pretend to understand the tip of the iceberg here....but if it's basically a matter of the govt choosing, say three insurance companies, and setting up a "group" I can choose to join just as if it was my employer, I don't see how thats a bad thing.

TLCDad replied:
Exactly.

MommyToAshley replied:
I agree... but don't forget the premiums are going to be based on income. So lower income won't pay anything... someone is going to have to pay more to make up for that. I am not saying I am against it, it sounds good in theory. But I want to see the numbers and details on how the plan is going to work before I make up my mind. All that I have heard so far are theories and how they see the "big picture".

TLCDad replied: Now be prepare because private insurance companys are going to have lobbyists running around stating that this is such a bad plan and even probably making up scare tactics because yes they are going to definitely loose some profits at first especially for the given fact the will have to start accepting pre-existing conditions.

skinkybaby replied: Does the government offer car insurance though?

TLCDad replied:
No but they (state gov't) force you to have it if you want a car. As soon as that happened millions of people had to buy insurance which in turn over time insurance companies were able to lower rates because the mass number of customers.

Government just needs to get involved here because health insurance is so high right now that forcing insurance is almost impossible so they need to start a group plan for the citizens that are not able to get into a group plan (myself included).

coasterqueen replied:
I am going to do nothing but at that comment.

BTW, I may "work" for them, but I by no means think what they do sometimes is right. I only state the truth I see. If you were around it first hand, maybe you would too.

skinkybaby replied: It's not the same. People have to have car insurance, but the government isn't offering it. There is no government funded car insurance. It's apples and oranges.

TLCDad replied:
I do not understand what does that suppose to mean? You think insurance companies want this plan when they make so much profit right now? Of course not. These "special interests" is what is ruining this country.

MommyToAshley replied:
What he said does makes sense, you are only looking at it from the gov't standpoint. You can still get private insurance if you want. The idea is that the private insurance companies will lower their rates in order to compete with the gov't plan. The gov't isn't going to become an insurance company, they are just going to regulate the costs... private companies will have to lower costs in order to compete.

The only part I don't like is the sliding scale based on income... that always makes me a little nervous as it's those that are jsut barely getting by and just barely miss the cut off for assisstance that get hurt. I want to see the exact numbers.

coasterqueen replied:
Are you kidding me? I agree that special interests HELP ruin our country but you are naive if you don't think the lovely federal government (which you think would be doing such a great service to our country by having UHC) isn't helping to ruin it either. Do you know that every time the legislature mandates insurance companies to do something, the insurance companies try to knock it down because it will cost the consumer. The legislature says "I don't care, pass it on to the consumer" and that's what happens. The government knows what they are doing. If you think it's special interest groups alone that ruin our country you really don't know how the system works.

skinkybaby replied: nm, Coasterqueen is saying everything much better than I can

TheOaf66 replied: TLC Dad, I definitely see your point logically and it could work. The only real problem I see is that our government unfortunately has an agenda. The politicians seem to not be much better then the insurance companies you speak of. They are in competition with each other over whose party is smarter and better for the country and will agree or disagree with the others ideas out of spite. Some not all of the politicians are looking towards the future and how to get re-elected. They sometimes don't give a rip about the individual people, they care about their public image, and keeping themselves in office.

A little experiment would be to put some of these politicians in our shoes. Make them work a middle class job and pay insurance premiums for health etc, have to go to the DR and then try to make ends meet after that. They can say a lot of things but they are not experiencing them. Government workers get so many perks that the issues they are trying to resolve many times don't apply to them.

I am not disregarding your ideas at all TLC Dad, if our government would put their own agendas aside we would be better off.

On a side note...a lot of these insurance companies are the ones that contribute and lobby for certain people to be in office and what not and historically the government won't shut down or take a lot of business away from the people that support them...look at the Oil companies...they rip us off everyday and you don't see anyone really capping them off at all do ya?

That is all I really have to say

TLCDad replied:
Did I say its special interests alone. Do I agree with our government on everything. Absolutely not (especialy our current administration but thats a different topic). Let me first explain my politcal views. I am not far left and I am not far right I am very moderate -- I just tend to lean left on more issues but I am far from liberal but also do not want to see goverment getting involved in everything.

But with that said, I do believe special interests from health insurance and pharmaceuticals and big oil are really causing very bad problem for our generation and does indeed cause an unbalanced price vs raise in inflation. Prices are not following the rate of inflation on very important things with health care being one of them.

TLCDad replied:
Oh I agree. Thats why we need to get rid of special interests.

BTW in case anyone did not know the health insurance that members of congress have is the group plan that Clinton and Obama want to give to offer to everyone. Someone people were wondering how they are going to start it... I just wanted to point out it already exsists but unfortuantly just for the elite few right now.

coasterqueen replied:
I can agree on that, but don't you think if we had politicians that didn't take things from special interest groups then they would not exist anymore??? It's a two way street, there. Special interest groups only give what politicians want. Do you know how many times politicians call and say "hey I need you to do this for me or this" etc? A lot of times it's the politicians knocking at the special interest groups door

TheOaf66 replied:

TLCDad replied:
Unfortuantly this is so true. It needs fixed all around. Now all the candidates say they are going to change this but this is definitely something I will not believe until I see it. I just think this new health care plan will at least put a stamper on the special interests of insurance companys and pharmaceuticals. Eventually they will not be able to argue they are not benefiting from so many people on insurance. Yeah its going to hit their pocket books at first but say 5 years from now they will be just as well off.

Teesa®© replied: It's a moot point as I don't live in the States, but personally speaking, I have NO problem paying out extra on taxes or whatever so that someone who's on assistance can have health care. If my premiums were to go up so that another family can have SOMETHING, good. They need it.

It's ALL about the children... that's what worries me. The children who's parents can't/don't have insurance/health care to provide for them. The children are our future. They are our responsibility. If my government requires it of me to fork out a little extra so that the baby down the street or wherever can have good health care and be happy and healthy, so be it. I will do so gladly and with a smile on my face because I'm helping someone else

We've got it "made in the shade" as far as benefits go. Hubby has 100% for doctors, prescriptions, dentists, glasses, whatever. Then I see a child at my children's school who doesn't have a dentist and his teeth are rotting and it breaks my heart. If I could scoop him up and put him under our insurance, I would do it in a bloody heartbeat.

coasterqueen replied: I'm curious Rod, you say that the government won't be an insurance company per se and that this won't affect everyone else as well as that private insurance companies will be forced to lower premiums.......ok.....so who is going to administer the government health insurance program? You don't think it's possible that they farm that out to private insurance companies to administer, therefore the insurance companies make MORE profit because more people are insured and the government is paying them to administer the plan, therefore no need for competition to lower premiums?

TLCDad replied:
It will be the same company/plan that members congress and their familys currently have it will just now be open to everyone at a set lower rate than any current private insurance company. Goverment will match your premiums based on your income (which is the only thing in question right now is how much based). I was "told" a typical family of 4 would be $2500/yr but that will cover EVERYTHING and no high deductable. Now private insurance especially group plans are going to have to compete for that or anyone who happens to be paying a much higher premium will opt for the government's group plan and so not to loose so many customers they are going to have to lower their premiums and probably really try to offer very lower HSA plans. When I say very low I am talking probably as low as $50 a month along side a HSA with a small deductable. Many younger people will probably opt for a plan like that instead of the governments plan.

Crystalina replied: UHC will work great for my family. Right now we have no insurance. Our annual income is grossed at about $96, 000 as of last year. We make too much for medicaid. I can understand that but what they don't see is that a large percent of our income goes back into running the trucks (diesel, tolls, taxes, plates.....yadda, yadda, yadda). A very large percentage. Private insurance is way too expensive for us so we pay as we need the doctor. Thank God we have no illnesses and our doc visits are mostly checkups or sniffles.
For people like us who work everyday and still cannot afford health care this is great. I have a mortgage and a property payment, a truck payment and other little things that have to be paid. Maybe I could afford private health care if I had no bills but that is not the real world.
And I am considered one of the people who "will be paying for this" and I'm fine with it because I know there are other families out there just like ours. It takes a village people. Even if I would not benefit from this I would not complain because I would think of all the millions of families it would benefit. That's what America is about. I'm not saying people should not complain. Everyone has their own personal feelings but I, personally, would appreciate all the help it would bring others.

TLCDad replied: Btw, I am not trying to recommend Hillary Clinton but I figured a link was needed that helped explain what I have been saying:
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/healthcareplan/

Also I've said this before but I am concerned that she mentions the percentage of income but does not state what percentage. I really would like to know the percentage.

I am going to go to Obama's site as well and try to find the link for his plan which BTW is exactly the same just does not make it mandatory.

MommyToAshley replied:
I agree with you Teesa, and we are as middle class as you can get but we still give what we can to charities and try to help others when we can. However, these people you reference are already covered by medicade and have free healthcare in our country. It's the hard working middle class that works in the factory with a family of four that just barely meets the bills that seem to get screwed over by all these social plans. I don't know if this will happen with this UHC plan or not, that's why I said I wanted to see the numbers first.

coasterqueen replied:
You still didn't answer my question as to who will administer this national plan.

TLCDad replied: This really needs to be said. You will not be paying for someone else insurance, Never nada in this plan. You will be paying for your own insurance your just going to be forced to do it, is all at least for your children (under Obama's plan).

holley79 replied: Well if allows someone who can afford their insurance through work or by owning their own business then I am for it. I think everyone should be given the right to insurance. We have been paying into Medicaid for a very long time but it is only for the "needy". If it could possibly lower the premiums for others then I'm for that as well. Our family coverage is through the roof here at the County. On the flip side of that everyone says they should sign their children up for Healthy Kids which is based on your income. My sister is a single mom and with her income the premiums for the "affordable" insurance based on her income is through the roof. I don't see that as fair. If there is anyway to regulate health care and made it affordable I'm for it. We have a lot of people here who can not afford insurance but pay into Medicaid they don't qualify for so where is that fair? They can pay for others insurance but they can't get insurance. Where's the just in that?

coasterqueen replied:
So WHO is going to pay for those who go with the government's plan? The government isn't going to tax me more? They must have a stock pile of money sitting somewhere that I'm not aware of.

jcc64 replied: I just wanted to thank you Rod for trying to remove the emotional element behind the call for UHC and attempting to separate the facts from the rampant paranoia. Unfortunately, it sounds like alot of people here are sticking with their knee-jerk, everything-the-gov't-touches-turns-to=sh#$ philosophy, despite your well intentioned efforts to educate.
If you can't understand the need for UHC, or massive gov't regulation of the private insurance industry on the grounds of social justice or compassion, or in many cases, self-preservation, then understand it in simple economic terms. I believe, and Ed or Rod could probably correct me if I'm wrong, that we currently spend 20% of GDP on medical care- that's a staggering amount of money. There are plenty of modern, westernized countries whose healthcare is as state-of-the-art and cutting edge as ours' is, and it costs a fraction of what we pay. If you had a heart attack here or in France or Denmark or England, and the very same surgery and treatment you received there cost, idk, HALF of what it costs here, tell me please, how exactly does that make our system or standard of care better?! On what information are people here basing their assertion that our system is THE BEST? Simply b/c it's familiar?
Our country is on the verge of a massive crisis, economically speaking, and the cost of healthcare is front and center. It's one of the reasons AMERICAN companies can't compete globally, and why so many jobs have moved overseas, INCLUDING MINE. So, before you're tempted to dismiss this as whiny liberals trying to take down the middle class with entitlements, understand that addressing healthcare is essential if we want to remain economically vital and competitive in the global economy.

holley79 replied:
Yes but it's force on car owners by the govt so when everyone had to go purchase car insurance it caused the rates to lower because then it became a competition. I could see where that would work if the Govt offered a better premium over what your work/ private insurance was able to offer you. maybe just make it more reasonable and affordable.

TLCDad replied:
I do not really understand your question... The insurance company will administer it. If you choose the some plans member of congress then it will be that insurance carrier if you choose a public plan such as medicare than it will be medicare who will administer it.
The government is just opening this up and will give tax credits (or basically the same as how the company you work for matches premiums in their group plans).

TLCDad replied:
Your right on the money there (no pun intended).

Crystalina replied:
Gosh your good!

skinkybaby replied: I find it highly offensive that those of us who do not agree with the program as it stands are being made out to be heartless, cruel, and uneducated about it.

coasterqueen replied:
Make no mistake, I'm not paranoid whatsoever and I'm very compassionate towards others. You are making an assumption on what you read here, not what you would see IRL - pretty biased assumption IMO.

I never said I don't think people deserve health insurance and that nothing needs to be done. My point, for the 100th time is I do not believe UHC is the answer. Regulation of the insurance industry, etc, etc would be more of the answer so then it can be affordable for those who can't afford it now. Letting the government pay for it is NOT the answer.

And if I'm not mistaken don't you have the philosphy that everything Republicans touch turns to you know what? You've had that mentality since Bush came in to office.

TLCDad replied:
Like I said at first, the government will have to budget this in their annual budget and it will be high the first couple of years. But they will be able to fit it in (considering the billions they spend on other things --- uhm the war for example). But this will not cause a raise in your taxes to cover it. After a few years premiums will continue to lower (in terms of the rate with inflation) and the burden on the goverment will be lower so it will work it self out completely.

skinkybaby replied:

TLCDad replied:
Karen they are going to regulate the insurance companies. Forcing them to accept everyone regardless of any pre-existing conditions is one of them. Did you read the link I posted?

Here is a quote:
Available: No discrimination. The insurance companies can't deny you coverage if you have a pre-existing condition.

Insurance companies won't be able to deny you coverage or drop you because their computer model says you're not worth it. They will have to offer and renew coverage to anyone who applies and pays their premium. And like other things that you buy, they will have to compete for your business based on quality and price. Families will have the security of knowing that if they become ill or lose their jobs, they won't lose their coverage.

coasterqueen replied:
My question is why do you think lobbyists and such are trying to use scare tactics so it doesn't go through. Make no mistake about it, the insurance companies WILL get back what they lose in lowering premiums for competition AND the government will make sure they do. They just like to make it look like they are doing good for the people and hurting the insurance companies. You really do not know how the system works - spend some time in it - I guaranty you'll see it in a new light.

coasterqueen replied:
There is more to it than regulating the insurance companies to force pre-exisiting conditions. I did read the link

coasterqueen replied:
You are not any of those things and as long as you know it, don't be offended.

I'm not offended. I see first hand how the system works. I didn't before I got involved in it. I was clueless and uneducated and when I got around the "system" was when I got a real eye opener. I don't even work in the health industry, I work in the P&C industry so I, for one, am not using any scare tactics to get people not to agree with UHC.

TLCDad replied:
At first, they are not going to want it to go through because of the regulations they will now have to follow such as not denying converage due to a pre-existing condition or try to deny coverage as you get older, etc. This will hurt their profits at first because everyone that is not being covered due to a pre-existing condition will now get coverage. This will eventually work this out as they gain more customers. But again will definitely lower their profits at first and they are afraid of that.

coasterqueen replied:
Do you know this for fact?

holley79 replied: I think bottom line is everyone needs to become more educated on the UHC. There are plenty more people here who would benefit from UHC there the flip of it. You are not being forced to do away with your own insurance. If it isn't going to take away from your insurance then why are we in an uproar? Our taxes are up anyway and they are going to go up whether we have UHC or not. If they are going to go up then at least let the "middle class" of this country benefit from it.

Mommy2BAK replied: Thanks for the info Rod!

jcc64 replied:

Not Republicans in general, but definitely him and all those around him.

my2monkeyboys replied: I think what we should do is do away with medicaid and use that money for insuring only the children, severely disabled and elderly of our country. There are WAY too many out there that suck up all the money so they can sit on their lazy butts and spit out child after child. Those need to be cut-off and then there will be money for the children.
I've worked doing weatherization on low-income housing. Half, yes, half of the participants were 28-38 year olds whose only "disability" was a bum knee or some other equivalent ailment and they were showered with moneys coming directly from my paycheck. All the while they sat there watching satellite tv, talking on cell phones and ignoring their multiple kids running around. Just sickening....
That money could be used to insure those they NEED it, not just those that want it.
I don't think this proposed UHC is the answer.

My2Beauties replied:
I worked for the largest health insurance company in Louisville, a Fortune 200 company I might add and they are doing JUST that....running around talking about how horrible it is etc etc etc....yeah because they don't wanna lower their premiums. I worked the insurance company and our cheapest plan for a single person with no spouse no kids was like $141 every paycheck and it covered diddly squat, the deductible was $4000 and there was co-insurance, max pay-outs etc....absolutely ridiculous!

coasterqueen replied:
Can you PM the company you worked for? I'm just curious if I know the lobbyist for that company.

My2Beauties replied:
Yeah Bush sucks majorly sorry I had to say it. I'm sorry. I am done now.

My2Beauties replied:
Done.

TANNER'S MOM replied: Well, I don't think UFC is the answer. I don't have all the answers. But I know I am not a stupid person. I feel like when people don't agree alot of people answer and reply in a tone that is to be read as they are being talked down too. No one is better than me for any reason. But I feel like people make assumptions on your knowledge, lifestyle, etc when we don't agree on this one issue. This is another political debate. I am actually a Democrat but not happy with this plan.

I am not a person who has no empathy. I was raised by a single father who worked hard to raise a daughter in the seventies, in a time when that wasn't normal. We didn't get any help b/c most of the programs were geared toward single moms. So, I know what it's like to do without health insurance and other things. When I say that I don't want to pay for other people's health care it isnt' b/c I am heartless and mean. It's b/c I don't think you can prove to me that people can't do for themselves. I don't mean children, I don't mean eldery. I mean people who are my age, but it's easier to stay at home than work. I just don't believe that the money wouldn't from my taxes. I don't think it would be any different than having everyone in the US on medicaid?

TLCDad replied:
How can that not be the answer when the UHC plan will make it mandatory they buy some form of insurance or pay fines? Of course how they are going to inforce the fines is something to be seen, but I assume unfortuantly it will be similar to traffic tickets if you do not pay enough of them you could get arrested.

I think you mainly mean people that are on welfare who are lazy and just living off of it. I agree with you there. But unfortuantly the real truth is if you take welfare away from them it will increase crime, etc. A very sad issue, but unfortuantly true. I think a limited time needs to be enforced. I know technically there is a law on the books but I do not think it is truely enforced and it is so easy to get disability. I could even get disability probably for the problems I have with my headaches and my feet. But of course I have more honor in myself and choose to work.

TLCDad replied:
I do not understand, why do you keep saying your going to pay for other people's healthcare. Your not going to do that your going to pay for your own health care. And for you, nothing will change because you are quite happy with the insurance company and group plan you are on. The only slight change is you may have to wait longer for appointments because more people will finally have healthcare... thats all.

Don't take this as an insult because it definitely is not mean't to be but I kinda feel like a broke record here. The UHC plan is simply just opening up a group plan for everyone that members of congress already benefit from. You will have a choice to join this new group plan or keep your existing plan. This is the only way for millions of people (like myself) to get on a group plan and save quite a bit just like you do on your company's plan. This is not like the UHC plan that Canada has for example, which I still like btw. This is quite frankly much better because you have the choice.

Hillbilly Housewife replied:
Rod, you can still have a choice here. You're covered on the national halth plan for FREE ANYWAYS... but you can have a private insurance plan. You don't HAVE to have the provincial coverage... you can choose not to use it... you just PAY when you don't use it. Just like you guys. We have to pay if we don't have our health card with us...and it's not cheap. If you have private insurance, you still ahve to pay... and then the insurance will reimburse you. Canadians are accountable for their medical bills.

doctors are paid by "the government" here...they submit their claims to the Ministry of Health. So whether you have national coverage, private coverage, whatever coverage you want, you still have to wait your turn. Cost of procedures etc is the same province wide, because it's mandated provincially through the federal program.

it really doesn't matter, all this broken record fighting...it will never go through. Thsoe of you who pay out the nose for coverage will keep doing so... and those who can't pay for it will go to the doctor's, go to the hospital anyways, make hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of bills, and pay like 10$ a month. No wonder there's no budget for this stuff, and the cost of stuff like tylenol is so high... peopl pay pennies on the dollar, because they can... and will continue to do so...because they're allowed to do so.. if people who have medical bills actually paid their medical bills instead of letting them keep piling up and only pay a few dollars each month.. NO KIDDING the costs stay so high. If Americans were slightly more forced to be accountable for their bills, perhaps the costs would go down....?

What-ever. Glad it ya'll and not me.

Cece00 replied:
The next president can force drug companies & medical facilities & insurance companies to lower their costs without going to UHC.

They are going to tax people at a much higher rate to cover 100% UHC. And I pay enough tax. Thanks, but I prefer to keep my money to support my kids...I dont want to have to pay to support healthcare for the MILLIONS of people who will drop their healthcare in favor of free healthcare just because its free & "Why not?"

If they really wanted a solution, they could do something like regulate the costs of healthcare, and then make a program for people who arent offered insurance/cant afford insurance from work that works on a sliding scale instead of making it 100% free. So then people are still picking up a part of their own healthcare (everyone should be responsible for themselves in life in general, and not rely on everyone else to take care of them, this situation is no different) but part of its getting subsidized...so people will be doing their part, the govt isnt picking up 100%, everyone is happy.

I know in my state, they have a program where they pay for the premiums of health insurance and then cover the rest. So lets say insurance costs you $250 a month. The state pays you $250 a month & you get insurance from your job. Then your insurance picks up 80% (or 70% or whatever) of any bills and they pay the rest. There is a test to see if its more cost effective to pay your premiums or not, but generally it IS more cost effective. They might be paying the $250 a month, but when you get, say $500 in medical bills one month (not unusual if you are taking in a couple of kids for well checks & vaccines, or for a ER visit, etc)....your insurance pays $400 and the state is only picking up $100. Plus the $250 they paid you, and thats just $350. Its STILL cheaper for them to do this than pay 100% for medical care.

See? There could be LOTS of different options to fix this situation and UHC doesnt have to be one of them.

I want to see BIG TIME reform in the system, but I DO NOT want to see UHC. I dont want MY taxes raise to pay for other people- thats why I pay taxes already.

Cece00 replied:
Probably not a good idea to lump all Americans into a "you guys dont pay your medical bills" category. We've never had any collections for medical bills or bills we had for years & years paying $10 a month on.

I'm happy to receive medical care when I want it, how I want it, and I'm happy to pay my bills.

As you can imagine, we have quite a few bills from DH's illness now, and thats OK. I was able to go within HOURS to have him checked out when we first heard something was wrong (not days, not weeks....) and within days for everything else. Now, sure, the bills are expensive...but I'm not still waiting around for DH to get some tests that are taking forever b/c everyone else has to have them too & the waiting list is long, wondering if something is going to happen to him in the meantime...and I'll happily pay those bills, and more than $10 at a time, too.

Our Lil' Family replied:
Crystal, what program is this?

Jamison'smama replied:
You are mistaking public assistance/cash assistance with for Medicaid. It is fairly difficult to get medicaid unless you are a child, pregnant or disabled and below the poverty level. A single man who is low income will usually not qualify. In most low income families, only the children (and the mother for a certain amount of time) are covered.

I think your overall statement was harsh. I have worked in this field for 15 years and in my experience, it is not as cut and dry as that. I would love to talk at length about the cycle of welfare but I suppose that is a little off topic It is one of the few things that I am passionate about when it is brought up on this board--that's why I had to mention something here. There are always going to be bad apples who abuse the system, there are people who commit white collar crimes and drive up the costs of many things, there are people who commit insurance fraud and drive up those prices. It is not only the poor who cause our society to pay more money, it is actually less often them but they are the easier scapegoat.

I am still researching (thanks for the links TLC) UHC but I am certainly in favor (as you are) of revamping Medicaid and the UHC government program is just that--a revamping of the system. I would like to see a little more about the funding-- Is there some funding given to the government insurance program so that they can cover all the extra people who cannot pay full premiums? How will that work exactly.

If they want this passed. We need to see some specifics and I imagine when the time comes, we will.

luvmykids replied: I think the problem here is that there isn't a plan that makes EVERYONE happy....those who feel they would benefit from UHC are for it, those who are doing fine without it don't want it.

IMHO there has to be a solution that is middle of the road, it may not be ideal for everyone but it has to get better for everyone as a whole. I don't mean in the sense that some pay for all, but it in the sense that healthcare is more affordable and accessible for more people.

The way Rod has explained it, which is pretty simple, basically a GIANT group plan you can choose to join or not, sounds pretty fair to me. If it would mean more people could have coverage, instead of being treated and never paying their bill, healthcare costs would come down. More people in a group means better premiums. Regulating costs would mean healthcare industries could afford to lower costs and still maintain decent profits.

I readily admit I'm not a political insider but that doesn't mean I'm an idiot. I know it's not a simple solution but it doesn't have to be such a me vs them scenario either. Especially if what we already pay in taxes was used better as far as healthcare goes....I know we can't eliminate Medicaid/care but if it was more streamlined so that more people were able to afford and pay for their coverage, wouldn't that mean fewer on Medicare and therefore not such a huge difference in taxes? Maybe I'm a dreamer, but I'd love to see something done that allows your average American to have a healthplan.

~Roo'sMama~ replied:
I was thinking that too - I admit I don't know much about it but I've always thought about it as being a pretty bad idea. The way Dh talks about it it's one step closer to communism. The way Rod talks about it, it doesn't seem so bad... maybe even a good thing. I just don't know - and Dh and I are in the group that would most definitely benefit from it. Our income is pretty low compared to most people's standards (One income family - Dh made a little over 35,000 last year). Dh has insurance through his employer, but it sucks. We pay a lot for it and don't get very good coverage - so lower premiums and better coverage sounds great to me. But I honestly don't know enough about UHC to know if it's a good solution or not.

Cece00 replied:
Its called LaHIPP.

Louisiana Health Insurance Premium Program.

http://www.dhh.louisiana.gov/offices/?ID=148

MommyToAshley replied:
I agree with you Brenda, you did a better job of saying what I have been trying to say all along.

I tend to vote more along the Republican lines because their views tend to fall more in line with my beliefs and philosophies. However, I am trying to keep an open mind and educate myself on the issues before making a decision. I have always been an opponent of UHC, but these plans are not what I think of as UHC. The problem is that the plans are all so vague. They use terms like "affordable", "a mandate" and "not to exceed a specific percentage of your income". I want details on how it is going to work and how they plan to finance it before I elect someone to office, not afterwards. Hillary said if she was elected as a Senator for NY she had a plan to increase jobs, and now they are running at a 30,000 deficit in jobs. People elected her and bought into her "big picture", I won't do that, I want details and then I can draw the conclusion myself.

Crystalina replied:
Good post.


It amazes me how people think that people who would benefit from this don't pay taxes. If you read my post where I described why it would benefit me you will know that there are many people (just like me) that pay out the &%# in taxes and still have trouble paying insurance. On paper we make alot of money but there are many more expenses that we have. We not only pay taxes in our state but every single state our trucks travel. We are taxed to death! I just wish people would realize that not everyone who would benefit from UHC are lazy bums who spit out kids and watch Oprah all day.

luvmykids replied:
This is a big sticking point with me....DH and I both had GREAT salaries, on paper we looked like we should have plenty of cash...but at the end of the day, our company paid taxes, we paid payroll taxes out of our paychecks, and then we personally got taxed on our company's profit for the year. It almost feels like you can't win, the more money we made the more taxes came out, I understand why it works that way but it wasn't like we could just pay ourselves more and change our bottom line

I think I especially disagree with the argument that others don't want to have to pay for everyone else because lets face it, we already do that with our taxes....and on top of that, even your insurance premiums pay for the care of others. If you pay your premiums for 20 years and never use anything other than the average medical care, where do you think the rest of your money goes....to pay for those who need more serious or costly care and have paid the same premiums as you but require more payout from the insurance company

(That wasn't directed personally at anyone, just why I don't understand that mindset )

jcc64 replied: I'm totally with you on this one, Monica. But I think people get a certain idea stuck in their heads, probably because there are many, many industry insiders working tirelessly to make that happen, and it's hard to undo it after awhile, kwim? I don't want my taxes to go up, who does, but I do want the gov't to spend my money more fairly and wisely. And everyone seems to forget, as you pointed out, that we are ALREADY paying for the uninsured with those $10 tylenols.