Would mandatory health insurance really be preferable to the current state of affairs?

I've been reading many stories about insurance companies that try to screw over their customers. How they decide to pay for some things and not for others. And of course, insurance companies are there to make a profit.

What would be ideal is a national, single-payer system; but I'm becoming skeptical of the mandatory universal "health care" through health insurance companies that's being advocated by some candidates, notably John Edwards, whom I support.

Isn't it economically more efficient, in many cases, for individuals to just save up in case of health emergencies instead of falling into the hands of HMOs? And what do the HMOs themselves want? Isn't universal "health care" in their interest? And if so, shouldn't we be wary of it?

Frankly, I think we should be moving towards a single-payer system; but I don't believe that the current proposals lead towards that. I'm afraid that they might further entrench the HMOs in our health care system.

We should be focusing our attention on applying regulations to make sure that HMOs act ethically rather than giving them a big check.

What do you think?

Woo hoo!

benefits...to increase profits for a select few. It is a fucking fact that they siphon off billions into the pockets of people who do nothing but shuffle papers and create havoc in the lives of the insured. They produce nothing of value. No fucking insurance companies!

Fuck them.

I have friends in British Columbia who laugh at me when I tell them how much auto insurance is here in California. In British Columbia, the government has single payer auto insurance and they pay 25% of what I have to pay in California.

Screw ALL insurance companies. The time has come for SINGLE PAYER with ALL INSURANCE!

while helping to strangle the working class even more. Stagnant wages and cost of living going up fast; medical care falls behind just trying to keep a enough cash to buy gas to get to work so one can keep a roof over one's head for one more month.

If you can't afford insurance, laws requiring insurance won't fix anything.

California has mandatory auto insurance laws and millions ignore it because they can't afford it.

The only solution for health insurance is single payer!

Fuck the pimps who profit from the misery of millions ESPECIALLY Billy Tauzin!!!

Health Care is acceptable.

Those "mandatory" insurance plans like the one romney signed in Mass. and the groppensteroidenfuhrer wants passed in California are the WRONG answer.

They just shovel more money at the insurance companies with NO GUARANTEE OF HEALTH CARE...

-------------------

Only Kucinich has the right cure in the House: HR 676

http://www.house.gov/conyers/news_hr676_2.htm

Brief Summary of HR 676

· The United States National Health Insurance Act establishes an American national health insurance program. The bill would create a publicly financed, privately delivered health care system that uses the already existing Medicare program by expanding and improving it to all U.S. residents, and all residents living in U.S. territories. The goal of the legislation is to ensure that all Americans will have access, guaranteed by law, to the highest quality and most cost effective health care services regardless of their employment, income, or health status.
· With over 45-75 million uninsured Americans, and another 50 million who are under- insured, the time has come to change our inefficient and costly fragmented non health care system.

Who is Eligible

· Every person living in or visiting the United States and the U.S. Territories would receive a United States National Health Insurance Card and ID number once they enroll at the appropriate location. Social Security numbers may not be used when assigning ID cards.

Health Care Services Covered

· This program will cover all medically necessary services, including primary care, in patient care, outpatient care, emergency care, prescription drugs, durable medical equipment, long term care, mental health services, dentistry, eye care, chiropractic, and substance abuse treatment. Patients have their choice of physicians, providers, hospitals, clinics and practices. No co-pays or deductibles are permitted under this act.

Conversion To A Non-Profit Health Care System

· Private health insurers shall be prohibited under this act from selling coverage that duplicates the benefits of the USNHI program. Exceptions to this rule include coverage for cosmetic surgery, and other medically unnecessary treatments. Those who are displaced as the result of the transition to a non- profit health care system are the first to be hired and retrained under this act.

Cost Containment Provisions/ Reimbursement

· The National USNHI program will set reimbursement rates annually for physicians, allow for "global budgets" (annual lump sums for operating expenses) for health care providers; and negotiate prescription drug prices. The national office will provide an annual lump sum allotment to each existing Medicare region; each region will administer the program.

· The conversion to a not-for-profit health care system will take place over a 15 year period. U.S. treasury bonds will be sold to compensate investor-owned providers for the actual appraised value of converted facilities used in the delivery of care; payment will not be made for loss of business profits. Health insurance companies could be sub-contracted out to handle reimbursements.

Proposed Funding For USNHI Program:

· Maintaining current federal and state funding of existing health care programs. A modest payroll tax on all employers of 3.3%. A 5% health tax on the top 5% of income earners. A small tax on stock and bond transfers. Closing corporate tax loop-holes, repealing the Bush tax cut.


In California, the solution is SB840...

... is one that totally eliminates insurance companies from the mix.

I live in Canada, and our healthcare system is very straightforward: the government writes a cheque directly to the treating doctor for services rendered. There are no insurance companies involved, and NO MIDDLE MAN anywhere in the system who can make a buck by denying treatment based on cost.

And no, the "government" is NOT delivering healthcare in Canada. Medical practitioners deliver healthcare; the government's only role is in writing the cheques.

Pretty simple stuff ...

If you were to give any Democratic candidate the choice of either: Mandatory health insurance, or a single-payer system, I bet all of them would choose the single payer system. They understand, however, that baby steps are needed in this case, there cannot be an overhaul of the system overnight, there's just too much resistance. I think, therefore, that it is an honest attempt forward towards full, universal, single-payer health care.

NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO...

IT WOULD NOT BE A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.

"Mandatory health insurance" means that I become a criminal because I cannot afford ANY health insurance and even if I could I wouldn't buy it 'cause the health insurance mafia doesn't provide CARE they just take our fucking money and then use their legions of minions to DENY care...



We ALREADY have single-payer... It's called Medicare and it works DAMN well...


HR 676 extends the Health Care provided by Medicare to all of us!!!

It cuts the health insurance mafia out of the loop...

It give us leverage when dealing with big pharma instead of our continuing to be big pharma's bitch...



Don't believe it, these bullshit "tiny steps" are smoke-screens that would move the day when we all have decent medical care further away rather than bring it closer.

DON'T BE FOOLED!!!!!

I'm living on the skin of my teeth.

Baby steps, my foot. Insurance companies will only increase their influence over politics.

I support either personal choice or single-payer, not a subsidy out of my pocket towards these leeches known as HMOs.

I'm Canadian so I'm not really familiar with the way American health insurance works. My understanding was, employers HAD to cover you. I wasn't aware it meant they would force YOU to pay for insurance.

:hi:

I didn't realize you were from up North...

No, employers DON'T have to cover anyone in the U.S. of Selfish A...and yes, the bottom line would be that it comes out of our pockets in most cases since most employers in the U.S. don't cover their employees. That's how we get around 48 million of us uninsured and probably twice that many effectively uncovered.

Other than Kucinich/Conyers' Single-Payer bill (HR 676) the other candidates are all fiddling around with Mandated Health Insurance -- that is, if we don't buy health insurance we are criminalized, fined and still don't have Health Care. The groppensteroidenfuhrer in California is pushing probably the WORST version of this concept, right up there with Mass.

We would be forced to buy Health INSURANCE, not Health Care. Health Insurance in this country only occasionally means care but always means HUGE profits for the health insurance mafia.

I know these are foreign concepts to the civilized world...I saw SiCKO...

we MUST get it right the first time and get single-payer. Using the insurance industry as a "first step" to single payer will never get us to single payer. The insurance industry wants to stay in the game.

Even assuming a worker could set aside $50/wk out of their paycheck you're only setting aside $2600 per year that way. If you're talking about a regular savings account then you're looking at a mere 4.6% compounded annually. At the end of 5 years you would have just shy of $15,000 in your savings account if you don't touch a penny of it in the meantime. Catch pneumonia or some other disease that requires you to spend a couple of nights in the hospital and you can easily be staring down a $30,000+ bill. You would have wiped out your savings in one fell swoop and still be faced with a $15,000 bill.

But all that's moot because the average person can't afford to save. Not after paying rent/mortgage, food, utilities, etc.

We now have a NEGATIVE SAVINGS RATE!

People have to borrow just to get by, now how are they going to be able to have a rainy day fund when their wages do NOT keep up with inflation. You've seen how gasoline has increased over 100% in price. We're NOT being told the truth about the massive inflation that is already hitting the country like a 9.0 earthquake, the Main$tream Media won't tell us because they have sold out to the Nazi Republican Party!

in the mix are nothing more than a bonanza for the insurance industry. With a stroke of a pen they get millions more customers who must, because it's a mandatory law, buy insurance. They might offer a few low-priced policies, but you get what you pay for. As for saving up for medical expenses, that was a joke . . . right? Maybe Bill and Melinda Gates can save up for a hospitalization, but the average person would be wiped out in no time. If we can afford a damn war, we can afford health care for every American.

I have health insurance--and a tax deduction for it, since I'm self-employed.

Too bad it's expensive and won't kick in unless I spend $5,000 and then it will pay only 80%.

At least THEN, when Im in prison, I'll get some fucking health (and dental) care.

edit: adding dental!

Unless you're imprisoned at Guantanamo...

http://www.prisonlaw.com/cases.html

If you're imprisoned in most U.S. jurisdictions, you're screwed... You have to bleed to get attention.


On Edit: In the groppensteroidenfuhrer's wonderful plan in California, you will be FINED when you file your Cal. State Income Tax Return and you STILL won't have either health insurance or health care coverage...Just like not having "car insurance"...

We have to get this right the first time.

Medicare. Works great, less costly...

Just need to fully fund it and extend it to all persons in the U.S.

HR 676 does just that:

http://www.house.gov/conyers/news_hr676_2.htm

Brief Summary of HR 676

· The United States National Health Insurance Act establishes an American national health insurance program. The bill would create a publicly financed, privately delivered health care system that uses the already existing Medicare program by expanding and improving it to all U.S. residents, and all residents living in U.S. territories. The goal of the legislation is to ensure that all Americans will have access, guaranteed by law, to the highest quality and most cost effective health care services regardless of their employment, income, or health status.
· With over 45-75 million uninsured Americans, and another 50 million who are under- insured, the time has come to change our inefficient and costly fragmented non health care system.

Who is Eligible

· Every person living in or visiting the United States and the U.S. Territories would receive a United States National Health Insurance Card and ID number once they enroll at the appropriate location. Social Security numbers may not be used when assigning ID cards.

Health Care Services Covered

· This program will cover all medically necessary services, including primary care, in patient care, outpatient care, emergency care, prescription drugs, durable medical equipment, long term care, mental health services, dentistry, eye care, chiropractic, and substance abuse treatment. Patients have their choice of physicians, providers, hospitals, clinics and practices. No co-pays or deductibles are permitted under this act.

Conversion To A Non-Profit Health Care System

· Private health insurers shall be prohibited under this act from selling coverage that duplicates the benefits of the USNHI program. Exceptions to this rule include coverage for cosmetic surgery, and other medically unnecessary treatments. Those who are displaced as the result of the transition to a non- profit health care system are the first to be hired and retrained under this act.

Cost Containment Provisions/ Reimbursement

· The National USNHI program will set reimbursement rates annually for physicians, allow for "global budgets" (annual lump sums for operating expenses) for health care providers; and negotiate prescription drug prices. The national office will provide an annual lump sum allotment to each existing Medicare region; each region will administer the program.

· The conversion to a not-for-profit health care system will take place over a 15 year period. U.S. treasury bonds will be sold to compensate investor-owned providers for the actual appraised value of converted facilities used in the delivery of care; payment will not be made for loss of business profits. Health insurance companies could be sub-contracted out to handle reimbursements.

Proposed Funding For USNHI Program:

· Maintaining current federal and state funding of existing health care programs. A modest payroll tax on all employers of 3.3%. A 5% health tax on the top 5% of income earners. A small tax on stock and bond transfers. Closing corporate tax loop-holes, repealing the Bush tax cut.