PA Gov Ed Randell announces health plan to cover all residents

[fencesitter]

http://www.state.pa.us/papower/cwp/view.asp?Q=459413&A=11

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Jan. 17, 2007


GOVERNOR RENDELL UNVEILS HISTORIC ‘PRESCRIPTION FOR PENNSYLVANIA’ TO PROVIDE ACCESS TO AFFORDABLE, QUALITY HEALTH CARE FOR ALL PENNSYLVANIANS
‘COVER ALL PENNSYLVANIANS’ WILL INSURE SMALL BUSINESS, UNINSURED

HARRISBURG — Building on his successful initiatives to expand access to health care, including Cover All Kids and PACE/PACENET, Governor Edward G. Rendell today offered a sweeping and bold “Prescription for Pennsylvania” to increase access to affordable health care coverage for all Pennsylvanians, improve the quality of care, and bring health care costs under control for employers and employees.

“We can no longer stand by while health care costs spiral out of control, leaving some 767,000 adult Pennsylvanians without the basic health care they need. It’s creating a drag on our economy,” Governor Rendell said. “It is no longer a question of whether we can afford to act. The cost of inaction is far greater in terms of individual health consequences and from the increasing burden on taxpayers.........

[liberalnurse]

1. Holy Cow!

My family all live in Pittsburgh...................Rendell will be the "Godfather" if he can pull this off. What about their General Assembly? Is it not leaning to the right??????????? :shrug:

[fencesitter]

2. I don't know...

The talk shows this morning were all screaming SOCIALIZED MEDICINE!!! The Governor's a communist! Of course our State Store system which has been in operation since the 1930's would make any old Soviet proud.

[bigworld]

3. I think the Repubs might even support this

If this is similar to California's plan, it'll be PA Blue Cross and Pa Blue Shield who will benefit - and they donate lots to both R and D candidates. This has a good chance of passing here I think.

And even if it doesn't, it'll make Rendell look like a fighter. Savvy street politician he is.

[Robbien]

8. This is great for insurance companies. People being required by law to pay them.

Like car insurance, go to jail or be hit with a big fine if you are uninsured.

The poor will be covered by the state but the vast majority of the middle class is going to be hurting bad when they are forced to choose between health insurance or jail.

[qwlauren35]

12. I'm missing it.

How does this help the poor but hurt the middle class?

[Robbien]

14. Because the State will be required to pay for insurance for the poor

but the middle class is left to its own devices and it HAS to buy insurance or get fined/arrested.

So the lower rungs of the middle class which do not qualify for Government help will have to find a way to get the money for health insurance. It will be illegal to go without.

[ThreeCatNight]

4. One state at a time! nt

[Dr Batsen D Belfry]

5. I only have a few reservations with this plan

I own two businesses in Pittsburgh. My wife and I are the only employees in one of them. My wife is also employed part time through Childrens' Hospital and gets our family benefits there. In my other business, we have no employees, only three partners of an LLC.

I am seriously hoping we don't have to pay 3% of payroll on a business where the only employees have other coveragem and on a business with no W-2 employees.

DBDB

[fencesitter]

6. Probably not..

I think the 3% tax is sort of a penalty for employers who want to opt out. If you can prove there is coverage for the employees elsewhere, you may not need to pay the tax. Also, if you're listed as sole proprietors and not employees of a corporation, you're considered family, which you are. Just my guess.

[drm604]

7. I'd prefer a single-payer program.

I live in PA. I'm not sure if I like the plan that's being proposed. It might improve things but it still won't be as good as single-payer. With this new plan, you still have all the red tape costs of dealing with a hodge podge of different insurance companies. This might make things better, but it may also reduce the pressure for real reform (single-payer).

This sounds to me a lot like what Massachusetts did. I'm starting to think the insurance companies are pushing this on a state by state basis to try to head off real reform.

[fencesitter]

9. I agree..

A national single plan would be health care nirvana (to me anyway). I just fear that would never happen in my lifetime, so if the states can spark a serious national dialogue, we're heading in a somewhat positive direction. The insurance companies will fight to the death to keep us from having what the rest of the civilized world takes for granted.

[drm604]

10. What we need to do

is to get the rest of the business world, other than the insurance companies, fighting on our side. Single-payer would be to their advantage because they would no longer have to provide health-care. With the rest of the corporate world on our side, the insurance companies would be out-gunned.

We just need to make employers understand that single-payer is to their advantage.

[SoCalDem]

11. Watch companies start to peel away coverages for employees

their rationale:
why provide coverage when there's a state law requiriing people to buy coverage?

Do employers pay your auto insurance?

[bleedingheart]

15. insurance companies are the ones who administer medicare..

do you know that?

they bid on the contracts to handle the processing of claims in the different medicare regions.

how this happened...I don't know but I am pretty sure they still do it.

[happyslug]

16. That true, but it is still a Single Payer system

The private contractor just handles the paperwork, and given that all that is needed is to show you are over 65 and paid up to date, you have minimal paperwork problems. The problem with having various medical providers is that each one must make sure they are only paying people who have insurance with them. I.e. avoid paying for someone insured by another. This takes up about 10-15% of the cost of handling claims. With a Single payer, you do NOT need to check if the person is insured by you, that is assumed and all you have to do is make sure the procedure is one covered by the program.

Yes there are costs in Competition, that is why you only have one natural gas, electric, water or Sewage provider to your home. To have true competition each provider MUST make sure you have DIRECT assess to their service. When it comes to utilities that means duplicate gas line,s electrical lines, phone lines, water lines and sewerage lines. It is cheaper just to have ONE of each for you only have the cost of that one line etc. The same with Medical coverage ONCE YOU HAVE UNIVERSAL SERVICE, the Cheapest way to provide that service is to have just one Payer pay for the service. Why have two (or more) sets of managers when one an do the job.

My point is it is un-important if the actual person authorizing the service is a direct employee of the Government or a contractor of the Government, the actual savings is in the fact you only have one set of bureaucrats checking to make sure the doctors are paid and any premium or other service is paid.

[UrbScotty]

13. Now if only there was enough money and willpower to do that here in Michigan... (nt)

[Penndems]

17. Governor Rendell was on the Pennsylvania Cable Network Wednesday night discussing

his health care proposal:

http://208.39.156.142/WebDocs/PCNCallInOnlineWednesdayHiRes.htm