My daughter's tragedy: U.S. health care in a nutshell.

Amen. The problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other peoples money. Help the really needy, and get the layabouts of their asses and working. There is too much "you owe me" in this country.

Personal responsibility!!!

dollie, his business supports his family.

and the GOVERNMENT does not "supply" for us. If they did, THEY WOULD HAVE THEIR OWN MONEY. They don't. WE provide the money for them to "supply" for us. I'd rather keep my money and provide for my family's needs myself, thank you.

There is too much "you owe me" in this country.

I detect a dearth of compassion.

Right now the gov. will cover 65% of his COBRA. They will also reimburse him for what he already over spent. How will the gov. provide care without raising taxes? We will still be paying for it, I would hope that they can regulate more and get prices down but I question if a gov. takeover is the most efficient way to go. Medical care is not free and we will have to pay for it.

Right now the gov. will cover 65% of his COBRA.

True, but a ~ $400 bite out of unemployment insurance makes it impossible to eat and pay bills.
Jobs are disappearing, employer sponsored health care plans are declining, health care comprises 17% of the GDP and rising rapidly, coverage and benefits are being denied by insurers, deductibles are rising, and health care is unaffordable for nearly everyone without insurance. It's a complex problem but one thing is undeniable - the health care system must meet the needs of the people regardless of who administers it. It is not currently meeting those needs and it is jeopardizing the economic future of the nation, businesses, and the people. The current health care system is making us all sick and if it cannot be restructured to correct the deficiencies, there will be no second chance.

I do not think the answer for it is that the gov. sets up a plan, start with regulations and find ways to lower the costs. Them making a plan right now would do very little. My husband is in the pipefitters union, the union is its own provider of insurance, it is non-profit. The cost my husbands employer pays into this fund is still 850$ a month because healthcare is not regulated. Granted it is good care, no deductable, no copays, full dental, but it still is expensive and non profit. I wonder how the gov. plans to do it better.

There are many private health care plans providing quality health care for Americans and I think it is wise to be skeptical of the government's ability to construct a comprehensive health care system. Personally, I think the government is taking on more than they can hope to achieve by retooling health care. Congress needs to focus on cost containment, expanding coverage for all , limiting health insurance restrictions, providing catastrophic health insurance, and promoting healthy living, but it is highly improbable that they will be able to effectively address these issues in a single bill. Congress does not need to reinvent the wheel to improve health care; if they focus on fixing the deficiencies and building upon the model health care initiatives, they may find the task less daunting. Hopefully we won't end up with a plan which is more controlling, restrictiing, costly and ineffective than the existing health care system.

If the gov't is already subsidizing COBRA, then what would the difference be if they just had a nationalized plan? Most likely the nationalized plan would cost less than COBRA.

The government also provides nationalized health care through Medicare for seniors and the disabled, medicaid for low income disabled, Veteran's Administration services for veterans, and children's health insurance (CHIP) for disadvantaged children. These targeted health care programs are all government health care delivery systems with substantial coverage and little or no cost to recipients for benefits. COBRA is targeted toward the unemployed, but coverage is expensive even with the government subsidy and it is often unaffordable to those out of work. There are administrative and operational difficulties with all of these systems, but the problems are no greater than those which exist in the private sector.

Fifty- five years ago my elders spoke of the need for the government to provide for catastrophic health care, which still does not exist today. It is easy to understand why the government offers health care coverage to these protected groups, but whenever health care and other services are targeted or rationed, others in need are left to fend for themselves.
I would prefer to see the government focus on those areas where it will have the greatest impact and those which provide the biggest bang for a buck, but if I knew anything, my opinion might be worth two cents.

They are only subsidizing COBRA for a limited amount of time I believe until the end of this year. How would this nationalized plan cost less? I am truly wondering what they will do to get medical costs down to make the monthly cost per family lower. Like I said before my husbands union runs their own plan, non profit, but because of how expensive care is, it still costs about 850$ per month. How could the gov. provide better for less without regulating. So my point is why not regulate first and see if we can get costs down. Also why can't the people who are opting to use this insurance pay out of their pocket for it, if the gov. could come up with a plan that cost 400$ a month then that would be great.

Jessicaf, I've read many of your comments, and I think you're missing a key element to this entire discussion.

Yes, providing affordable healthcare for everyone is going to cost money, a lot of money. That single factor does not mean this subject should just be pushed off the table. You're also missing the greater economic point: Small businesses (and even big corporate) are going to run out of resources to help provide health insurance for their employees; this number comprises 80 million Americans. So, ask yourself the following questions.

What's going to happen when employers can no longer afford to provide any assistance with health insurance costs?

What if the business in question operates in a state that requires them to provide health insurance to employees...and they can't do it any longer?

What's going to happen when individuals can no longer afford to pay the skyrocketing premiums?

What's going to happen to those 80 million who receive employer-provided health insurance (or, in your case, union-provided)?

You said it yourself:

I am worried because I already have good healthcare...

You should be worried, but not for the reasons you assume. This issue is eventually going to effect every single one of us who is not wealthy. Just because you're among the very fortunate doesn't mean something doesn't have to be done for the rest of us. Think outside of your own experience. Listen to the situations other people are facing. Then, see if you can come up with a better idea than the government getting involved. Seriously. I'm ready to listen to all creative thought on this subject.

No one knows at this time what type of plan, if any, congress will pass. Obama appears to be committed to passing universal coverage, but it is impossible to tell if we'll be looking at a model or a monster by the time congress is finished with it. The average health insurance plan for a family of four costs about $12,000, which includes both employee and employer contributions. In order to get health care costs down, it will be necessary to develop more effecient delivery systems like (ugh) HMOs and others that can provide quality health care at a lower cost than emergency rooms.
The health insurers also take a huge bite out of the health care dollar, so the government could achieve substantial savings by eliminating their profit from the equation and administering the system itself, but that is unlikely. Health insurance fraud also represents a substantial loss in health care dollars through false claims for services and expensive add-ons like unnecessary tests and excessive fees for services.
No plan can succeed without signifigant cost containment provisions because once everyone has been covered, the insurance companies will only be able to increase profits by increasing rates. The cost of U.S. health care is currently about double that of most western nations with universal coverage, so it is unlikely that you'll see a better plan than the one your husband has with the union. The government plan will likely require coverage for pre-existing conditions and may include some catastrophic health care provisions, which could drive up the cost of private plans, but the current legislative trend appears to be call for the continuation of existing plans with a possible government alternative for those who need it.

HMOs get a bad rap because they limit the network of doctors. I've got an HMO (and am stuck with it because of preexisting conditions that make me ineligible for coverage elsewhere), and I have lower copays on everything from doctors' visits to hospital deductibles to prescriptions. I've never understood why a PPO is better when an HMO takes less from the wallet. Anybody know?

I understand that things need to change, but starting the process of giving my healthcare needs to the gov. seems intrusive. Let's face it, the gov. is not efficient and our tax dollars have been abused in the past. My main point was if the gov. wants to set up a plan fine, but allow for the people who opt. for the plan to pay the monthly cost of it. Prove that their way will be less costly and people will buy their plan. However the plan they are using now is just a redistribution of wealth. I do not think they will change the face of healthcare. I think it will be exactly the same and will cost just about the same. We already spend more on healthcare than other countries, why can we not make this money go further. We already spend 700$ billion federal dollars on healthcare and states spend even more, if they are going to be more efficient why can't they cover more with this enormous amount of money?

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_hea_car_fun_pub_per_cap-care-funding-public-per-capita we already spend more per capita and cover 40% of our population compared to countries that spend less per capita and cover everyone. If you think the gov. can change the face of healthcare and make it more efficient, why can't they take the enormous amount of money we already spend and make it go further?

Amen Teeminimartunis. I grew up in Saskatchewan and heard all the same screaming and pissing and moaning that we're hearing from the brainwashed Fox watchers when they brought in the first universal heath coverage in North America. People talk about long waits for service because they heard it from some asswipe lobbiest that never live in Canada and is just making it up for some geek like Dick Morris to claim he's some sort of expert on the shortcomings of single payer health insurance. Same sorry lies only 50 years later and they scare people. I bet no one in Canada would turn their affordable health care and quality of life over to private enterprise as represented by todays Republican party and their mouth piece, the Gerry Springer of news, Fox. The company I worked for was sold and we were all laid off and with it went our insurance. I don't think it should be an employers obligation to provide health care, single payer is the only sensible option and having experience both I'd opt for it in a heartbeat.

:

I hold dual citizenship, now moved permanently to BC. I've tried telling people in the states about Canadian healthcare, they don't listen to anyone ACTUALLY experiencing it. I had many nightmares with the US healthcare over the years, and paid dearly for mediocre treatment. I guess Faux and cherry picked statistics know more than we do EH? Lol. Sending a friend request if you don't mind.

Teeminimartunis, thanks for your comments on healthcare in Canada.

My experience with other countries' healthcare is nil, so all I can do is read, watch and listen to others' stories, such as yours. What you put forward is consistent with what I have seen and heard elsewhere.

It almost seems like a form of mass hysteria that so many Americans deny the actual experiences of those living in other countries—even when they themselves haven't participated in the healthcare systems abroad. I have to wonder if they are too proud to admit that maybe another country did something better than the U.S. Or maybe it's that systems such as Canada's seem too good to be true, so Americans fall into a type of denial.

All I know is we're fecking fools if we don't study how healthcare is managed in other nations around the world. We spend more than any other industrialized nation, or 4.3 times more than what we spend on national defense (California Health Care Foundation. Health Care Costs 101 -- 2005. 02 March 2005). Time to smarten up.

:

"I have to wonder if they are too proud to admit that maybe another country did something better than the U.S. Or maybe it's that systems such as Canada's seem too good to be true, so Americans fall into a type of denial."

I think you hit the nail on the head. Good post!

Then the question becomes, how do we correct this failed attitude?

:

"Then the question becomes, how do we correct this failed attitude?"

Well, first we have to wake people up. People need to think independently and research for themselves, instead of buying into partisan hackery. That, in itself, will be a paramount task. The "Elite", who control this country, know all too well about "divide and conquer". I see the divide growing larger by the day, easy pickings. Bush=Bad cop, Obama=good cop, same agenda, different sales pitch.

first we have to wake people up. People need to think independently and research for themselves, instead of buying into partisan hackery. That, in itself, will be a paramount task.

Now you hit the nail on the head. In the tune made famous by Tammy Wynett, stand by your man...

What % of your income do you pay in taxes teemini? How much per person does the Canadian plans cost? How do they cover people for less money?

I know. I've struggled most of my life and it never gets any easier. The cost of health care, housing, cars, credit, gasoline and utilities have all risen disproportionately because of easy credit and monopolistic practices. Now we're all paying the price for these excesses and many of us can no longer afford to live a "normal" life. No one wants to take charity or to admit that they can't support themself or their family, but it is especially disheartening to read how cold and insensitive some people are toward those in need. They resent the notion that their taxes might be used to care for someone else, but they rarely complain about paying for wars, prisons, roads or schools. People are a resource, the nation's greatest resource, and if they fail to receive proper care, society will break down in the same way that neglected infrastructure collapses. Once the accumulation of wealth carries a higher priority than the health and well-being of the nation's people, the country is on a course for self-destruction.

Bravo, oneforall. Our lack of compassion toward one another is going to be our undoing. Greed and narcissis—and admiration for these attributes—have won.

medicaid and medicare are going broke. INFACT, the "stimulus" money that has reached the states (10%) has been used to pay for medicaid and medicare that the states were having problems paying for instead of going where the great messiah said it would go: the economy. Indiana is having SERIOUS problems paying for medicaid/care and as a result is desperately trying to find new taxes to pay for it. Alcohol and tobacco taxes just got doubled and you know what? it still wasn't enough... THEY CAN'T AFFORD IT. The federal government CAN'T AFFORD IT. We are in SERIOUS ECONOMIC TIMES, we can't afford National Healthcare. PERIOD.

Efficient? My sister got her kids on medicaid (called medwise in Indiana) and it took SIX MONTHS to get approved. They lost her paperwork TWICE. THEN, there was a typo on one form so it had to be completely RESENT and REENTERED into the system which took 30 more days.... You call that efficient?

The programs are going broke because recent Federal leadership has consistently cut funding for both. As a result, states began cutting funding for both. It's not rocket science.

I think it's absolutely hilarious too that you take one case example and expect that to trump national statistics. Without question, there are exceptions. However, as a whole it is a fact that government-run healthcare programs are much more fiscally efficient than private healthcare programs. 15 years ago, this was not the case. Private healthcare was operating at 95% efficiency, with only 5% of our premiums being used for overhead (i.e.- health insurance employee salaries). That was before the for-profit health insurance companies took over and grossly perverted the system........

Also Earth

I should add that those government programs are growing to be too expensive because more and more people can't afford private health insurance. If health insurance was affordable, the rolls for medicaid and medicare wouldn't be bursting out of control ;) Again, not rocket science

so putting EVERYONE on it will help? not a chance. it will get much, much worse. There will be huge profits when the government takes over. The only difference is that the profits will be going to the GOVERNMENT. Apparently this makes libs feel better...

Earth

You seem to be a master at confusing the issue. The program being discussed is not Medicaid or Medicare. The program being discussed will be paid for by Americans just like a private plan, just at a more reasonable rate.

Do you understand that you are arguing to keep a system that has gutted our nation in the past decade? Health insurance rates are increasing at a rate that is 4x the average wage increase. It doesn't take much brains to figure out where that road leads to if we continue down it.