Heath Care My Bad

[.... callchet ....]

I thought UHC meant coverage for everybody. After researching I am now under the understanding that it will be made affordable for everybody.

Does that mean that the poor and indigent still will not get health care? If it cost $10,000 a year and it is reduced to $5,000, then most of the

people who couldn't afford it before still can't afford it.

[sandnsea]

1. Mine is $100 a month

I could pay much less if I didn't have pre-existing conditions. If they give a generous sliding scale, then it'll work. The problem is that even with insurance, we still have $200 a month of medication, plus the deductible, plus the 20% and co-pays. That's where it gets sticky. If the insurance covered everything, I could probably pay a higher premium.

But you're right, I wish people would differentiate between single payer and UHC.

[John Q. Citizen]

2. Jessie Jackson used the term Universal Heath Care to mean single payer in his 1988 run.

Then in 1992, Clinton used the term to mean managed care.

Since then it sounds good but means nothing.

[.... callchet ....]

3. Info Please

Did those two plans give free care to the poor and indigent ?

[sandnsea]

4. Medicaid gives free care

to the poor and indigent. It's the ones right above the poverty level who don't have care.

[.... callchet ....]

7. Here is what I thought Obama meant

Congressman Jesse L. Jackson, Jr. - believing that HEALTH CARE IS A HUMAN RIGHT - has proposed to add a health care amendment to the U.S. Constitution based on the RIGHT of all Americans to have health care of equal high quality. It was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives as H.J. Res. 30:

[sandnsea]

8. I don't think so

Obama did introduce an amendment like that in Illinois. He believes that. But he knows where we live and if you make it that kind of fight, we'll never get national health care assistance. If they make it a Legal Entitlement, then they have to fund it no matter the cost. That's what they're trying to do with SCHIP now.

[John Q. Citizen]

17. Here's the thing. The people want single payer. We need to demand a fair hearing. Ideology has no

place.

if single payer will serve us better why can't we do it?

YES WE CAN!


hey, if a multi-payer hodge podge is better for everyone, then lets go with that. But we need to see both side by side and debate them. That means Obama needs to debate them also.

[sandnsea]

20. I am not arguing against single payer

Somebody asked a question and I answered it.

[John Q. Citizen]

26. I know that. I also know that single payer isn't coming from all our reps with their campaign

contribution histories.

It has to come from us, loud and clear, so even if we don't get what we want and instead get what they give us, then when that goes wrong, we are ready.

What I'd love to see is a fair hearing for single payer.

I'd like to see the final Dem bill up against the same thing done as single payer.

It would give people the chance to compare.


Then when they pass the multi payer hodge podge hybrid, we can say it won't work and when it gets to expensive we can say, OK lets try our idea now, yours failed, again.

[.... callchet ....]

10. Is it any kind of quality accessible care ?

"Medicaid gives free care to the poor and indigent " I don't knowhow it works. But is it any kind of quality accessible care ?

[sandnsea]

14. Yes

It's better than a lot of insurance companies provide. Almost all doctors and hospitals accept Medicaid. It pays about 99%. Some states you pay a dollar or two for a prescription. You might not get transplants or extra-ordinary care like that, but you get good care up to that point. I'd rather have medicaid than what I've got.

[John Q. Citizen]

12. Single Payer could cover everyone without deductables or co-pays and be

financed through income taxes.

The other ideas, including Obama's, are variations on multipayer public and private hybrids that use public tax dollars to subsidize private insurance companies to cover people who otherwise might not be covered by medicare (they make to much) and they can't afford full fare on private insurance.

I am opposed to the multipayer hybrids because they won't control costs, they will accelerates costs. So everyones care will be cut back because of cost.

MA has a public private hybrid right now. Passed by Romney. It's a fail.

[sandnsea]

16. Oregon has a public private hybrid right now.

Passed by Kitzhaber. It's got mixed reviews.

When you've got NOTHING, it's heaven sent.

[John Q. Citizen]

23. It was an improvement. I worked on that from 1990-1993.

One of Kitshaber's more interesting, and also in some ways controversial parts of that bill is they made a list of medical procedures based on medical efficacy and quality of life.

Then the legislature funds down the list as much as they can afford.

So broken bones are way high up and laryngitis is dead last, because there is no cure, just resting the voice.


I was with OR Fair Share and we of course were pushing for a single payer plan and also pushing to make the final bill as good as we could get it.

My 2nd day canvassing in 1990 was in Roseburg and i canvassed Kitzhaber. He was Pres of the Senate at the time, and we spoke for about a half hour. I didn't know a lot about the issue then, and he knew lots.

[sandnsea]

27. And that is rationing

As much as people hate to admit it, that's what happens. Of course it happens with private insurance too, so maybe people would do better to start discussing those two truths equally instead of living in denial.

I also don't have a choice in my health care provider. Kitzhaber also enacted medical delivery systems, health delivery systems, something like that. In order to receive OHP money, you have to be a part of one of these delivery systems. That means rural Oregon has no choice in health care except the local clinic. My clinic gives me no choice, not even to change doctors if the one I have is an idiot, which happens here all the time.

I don't think single payer would change either one of these problems.

Still, it's better than NO health care, and that's what people have to look at. How do we get a system where everybody is covered and nobody goes bankrupt over health care.

[John Q. Citizen]

28. That's correct. It is rationing. And it does happen any way, because resources are finite.

In a well constructed single payer fee for service system you could go to your choice of care provider. Absolutely. Why not?

OR got the system right after Hill was pushing managed care, so you got that, kind of.

In fact a good single payer system could pay extra for providers to locate to under served areas.

[sandnsea]

30. I have subsidized insurance

That's what Oregon has. Medicaid which is now called OHP, and subsidized insurance for as many people as they decide to fund. I had to go on a long waiting list to even be considered. We basically have the same thing MA has, except theirs is mandated and ours isn't. The mandate didn't do what people claim, it didn't guarantee they would come up with a program everybody could afford. Instead, they just gave people waivers if the insurance was too expensive. I hate mandates. I'd go for an Entitlement, where everybody has a legal right to the program and the only thing that the paperwork is for is to evaluate payment. That way if you fell between the cracks somehow, you could just not apply and you wouldn't get anything except emergency care, like now. But I think if they create the federal program, fully fund it, make it generous in terms of premiums assistance - people will apply. And it won't take long at all before the 60% of us that are generally ignored at in the program. At that point, who cares if the rich people keep their private insurance and pay more for it because the rest of us aren't in their plan.

[lumberjack_jeff]

5. That's just the thing. It won't be universal therefore it won't be affordable.

Half of the reason you can't afford it is because there are too many uninsured... of which, of course, you are one because you can't afford it.

But be ascaired of the scary "mandates".

[sandnsea]

9. Why not make it an Entitlement

Anybody who wants it can apply for it and they get it at a price based on income.

[lumberjack_jeff]

18. If you have to apply for it "if you want it" it's not universal and therefore not affordable.

optional ≠ universal

I'd like single payer, but universal is the big hurdle.

[sandnsea]

19. Of course it is, like social security

or Medicare.

[John Q. Citizen]

24. Medicare you are automatically enrolled at age 65

[sandnsea]

25. No you aren't

You have to fill out paperwork.

[leftstreet]

6. It means: Universal Access to Health Insurance Sort Of If You Can Afford It

It's never meant single payer, no questions asked access to health care for all

[.... callchet ....]

11. Here is what it should be and what I thought it was going to be

Congressman Jesse L. Jackson, Jr. - believing that HEALTH CARE IS A HUMAN RIGHT - has proposed to add a health care amendment to the U.S. Constitution based on the RIGHT of all Americans to have health care of equal high quality. It was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives as H.J. Res. 30:

[John Q. Citizen]

13. That's good, i wish he would write a comprehensive single payer bill

and introduce it instead.

We need actual legislation written that explicitly spells out the details of a not for profit single payer fee for service system. And we should go big.

[Cleita]

15. I thought HR 676 fit the bill.

If you read it, it's what the nation needs.

http://www.johnconyers.com/hr676text

[John Q. Citizen]

21. It's kind of bare bones and lots of details are left out or put off.

676 is one of two single payer bills currently in front of the House.


Wyden has some bill in that's not very good.

Pete Stark has another bill in, described as equidistant between Obama's plan and single payer.

We need a real full life fleshed out single payer bill

[Cleita]

22. The bare bones is so that Congressmen will actually read it and get what

it's all about. If it comes up for debate then the details will be hammered out. It's just that Nancy pants won't put it on the calendar for debate and seems to have agreed with the Obama team that single payer is off the table. The PNHP website, which I'm sure you are familiar with, has a detailed plan that they crafted and published in JAMA years ago that's even better, but HR. 676 is possible if we push because it's simply an extended and improved Medicare, that we already have and would be easier to implement.

[John Q. Citizen]

29. I know what it is and I'm glad it's there, it's just not fleshed out it's in outline form.

I will check out the PNPH for their complete plan.

What I have found is that most Americans don't even know what is in there own insurance, should they be lucky enough to have it. If they really need it, they are often amazed at how it doesn't cover them for what they need.

So when you say "Medicare for all" with them, they assume they are going to need a supplemental, or maybe a nursing home component, or whatever.

What we need is a fleshed out bill with a price tag so we can compare it to whatever the corporate folks put forth. We also need to (and I hate to say this but it's true) also fight to make sure the corporate bill they are sure to pass keeps stuff like

Community rating
a standard basic level of coverage
A not for profit community pool

I think we have to embarrass Baucus for stifling free speech. We need to ask the corporatist what are you afraid of? Let put up both bills and see what we get for what we pay for. Which is more pragmatic for the country?