Comments on: Health Care For All?

By: BenG

BenG — Fri, 15 Dec 2006 04:03:16 +0000

After reading the Senators web site, you’ll see it actually removes the tax breaks for employer health coverage because it removes them from the responsibility of paying for it. Businesses actually ‘cash out’ health plans and increase employee wages by that amount. That’s what’s so amazing. It’s not socialized ‘Health Welfare’. And the fact that Dos Peros didn’t chime that alarm is proof positive. There’s something for everyone here. Still, it’s a big ‘pie in the sky’.
It professes to create incentives for demanding lower costs because we have to pay the full costs of our healthcare – premiums and all. Estimates for a married couple wth dependants are $714/month, or $10,546/yr – ouch! But remember, this will be offset by the increased wages and ’subsidies provided under the plan’, whatever that means.
My skepticism evaporated as I read on because they answered so many questions that were stumbling blocks in the past.
So why not just take the xtra bucks to Vegas? Because premiums are paid through the tax collex system, on a sliding scale based on earnings.
Sounds to good to be true? As you say, we’ll see. Can’t wait to see who’ll hate it the most.

By: sleipner

sleipner — Thu, 14 Dec 2006 21:56:31 +0000

I have a friend who works in contracts for Blue Cross – and for a few years her job was to try to write their policy guidelines for each of the 50 states to make sure it was in compliance with all of the various different state laws. These companies probably waste more time and money due to the patchwork of differing laws than they would due to any presumed federal waste or inefficiency.

I personally fear more the likelihood that a national program will end up being a tax giveaway to insurance and drug companies than it will be a huge bloated waste of a program. Fortunately, that is less likely now with the Democrats in charge (assuming they can resist the evil siren song of K Street). Of course Bush will veto anything that doesn’t spread enough graft among his owners…

By: DosPeros

DosPeros — Thu, 14 Dec 2006 21:06:26 +0000

Thanks, the Lewin Group deserves a hand. Without question, I believe in the projected savings based on administrative fees. The savings based on increase health insurance competition are a bit more speculative. Anyway, thanks for the link.

By: Justin Gardner

Justin Gardner — Thu, 14 Dec 2006 19:38:34 +0000

The link that Kari provided has the details of the proposed bill, including the savings, in pdf format.

And Kari, just so there’s no confusion, my comment last night was just to make sure you’re legit. I read that today and I thought it may not make sense, so now we’re all on the same page.

By: DosPeros

DosPeros — Thu, 14 Dec 2006 18:46:08 +0000

Sounds a bit like shuffling the chairs on the deck of the Titanic. Can anyone provide a site that explains/shows the savings in Medicare?

By: William Crim

William Crim — Thu, 14 Dec 2006 16:04:11 +0000

Is there something about healthcare that requires that it be a federal program? Insurance is already state based. Any state could pass this exact program and try it out. Many states already mandate that people have auto insurance, why is health insurance different?

I’d prefer 50 opportunities to hedge our national bets, rather than trust that Congress will impliment the right plan.

By: Justin Gardner

Justin Gardner — Thu, 14 Dec 2006 05:53:58 +0000

Kari,

If you want to validate your comment, please send me a message at justinpgardner (at) yahoo dot com.

Thanks.

By: Kari Chisholm

Kari Chisholm — Thu, 14 Dec 2006 05:29:21 +0000

Hey, thanks for the post!

I’m helping Senator Wyden with his netroots site on this – Stand Tall for America.

I’d encourage your to actually head on over to the site and read about the plan. Obviously, there are going to be a lot of questions. Anything this big is going to be pretty complex.