Report: Senators mull 3 health-insurance plans

[steven johnson]

It looks like the healthcare revisions are being hashed out behind closed doors.

6:10 p.m. CT, Fri., May 8, 2009
WASHINGTON - Senators are considering three different designs for a new government health-insurance plan that middle-income Americans could buy into for the first time, congressional officials said Friday.

The three approaches being discussed are:
--Create a plan that resembles Medicare, administered by the Health and Human Services department.
--Adopt a Medicare-like plan, but pick an outside party to run it. That way government officials would not directly control the day-to-day operations.
--Leave it up to individual states to set up a public insurance plan for their residents.

Citing surveys that show most seniors are happy with Medicare, Democrats say they believe that a public plan would be a political winner. But Republicans counter that it would be a step toward a government-run system in which medical services sooner or later would be rationed.

If the public plan were open to all employers and individuals — and if it paid doctors and hospitals the same as Medicare — it would quickly grow to 131 million members, while enrollment in private insurance plans would plummet, the study found.

Report: Senators mull 3 health-insurance plans

[old mark]

1. So the GOP has no plan, but will oppose any plan on the grounds that

it will "eventually" and "possibly" lead to rationing. I guess having no health insurance is better in their "minds" than having the possibility of "rationing".
The HMO's and insurance companies "ration" health care now anyway - I don't hear the GOPers complaining about that...

mark

[Warren Stupidity]

2. "Republicans counter" - meh

Why is it that in a democratic republic we are supposed to prefer a feudal system where workers are bound to their corporate masters's healthcare plan (if any) over which they have no control, no input, no role in the decision making process, and which manages and rations their access to healthcare in order to maximize corporate shareholder value, over a public system administered by a government elected by and for the people that would manage and ration access to healthcare for the benefit of all as directed by our representatives?

[jwirr]

5. Very well put - thank you.

[The Magistrate]

3. The 'Would Lead To Rationing' Line Is Swill, Sir: Rationing Is Already In Place Through High Costs

Reforming health care in this country requires putting the private health insurance industry on a path to extinction.

[jwirr]

4. Okay, I am in favor of the first plan but for years Medicaid in MN was

run by Blue Cross/Blue Shield and it worked very well. The key is that the rules for the program must be made by the government and only administered by the outside party. I also want to make sure that this new Medicare covers meds and long term community based care.

As to the last option I am against that. In MN we have a very good health care system that most of us are satisfied with even when the illness is catastrophic. But my brother brought a young lady to visit from Texas and she was telling me about their treatment of poor women and especially regarding OB exams and breast exams. The real problem with going state to state with this program is that some states are generous and others are just plain greedy. Universal means that everyone gets the same kind of coverage. States will not do this.


Some history on another program that was taken over by the federal government because states tended to discriminate was AFDC. Often the states made it almost impossible for minorities to get into the programs. Even when that was not the problem some states gave their recipients much less than was needed to even stay alive on. Ideology has a tendency to trump compassion every time.

[Old Coot]

6. Everyone should be required to have health insurance.

For any health care plan to work, everyone should be covered (by some plan). If people exist who are not insured (or covered) by any plan, they will be a drag on the system.

People who are young or in good health will frequently not buy into a health care plan. This will result in those that are older or in poor health being covered in disparate numbers.

If everyone is required to have insurance, then all plans could be required to take anyone who applies at the same rate as everyone else. Health care should be equal for everyone.