Uninsured Duers, check in here. Is Obama right?

Do you lack health insurance because it is unaffordable?

Today's article in the NYT, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/23/us/politics/23health.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1203779535-NgMJSPdKsU+EkmJ5rAByyA, discusses in depth Obama's assertion that people are uninsured because they can't afford insurance and Clinton feels that there are people who won't get insurance regardless so it needs to be "mandatory."

The article also discusses how the health care system in this country is forcing taxpayers to absorb the extra costs to the system when the uninsured land in Emergency Rooms or need care from a community clinic.

No flame intended here. I would just like to know if uninsured DUers agree with Obama on this and would get insurance if his plan came up with an affordable cost.

Health care is unaffordable largely because its not universal.

You won't get affordable until you get mandatory.

lack of affordability? The uninsured are scapegoats. 18,000 of us die each year because we don't use the "emergency room that's available to everyone" (George Bush).

Gotcha. Over half this country (probably 200 million or so) are insured, either through their employers or individually. Yet people are paying through the nose for their coverage and being denied care. If it's not working now, why do you think adding a few million more people (who aren't all healthy ya know) will make it better?

than an individual would have to pay on his own.

A larger pool reduces costs.

How does that make mandatory insurance "affordable" to working class people?

According to the state I live in, if I make $850 a month I can "afford" to buy my own coverage.

I know that what exists now is whacked; that is why Dems have put forward plans they think will help people afford insurance. I am not talking about what is now being done, that is unacceptable. I'm talking about the possibility of trul affordable health care that truly covers people, not riddled with loopholes.

I'm for single payer. I have no problem paying a little more in taxes to cover everyone but I don't wish to have a monthly health insurance premium to a private company mandated.

All the money eventually goes into the company's pot. There aren't separate companies for each client, but the companies pretend that there are, which is why we self-employed people get a such a rotten deal.

When access to care is universal, it is affordable.

Ask any european.

We told Congress in 2006 we wanted National Health Care for all not just children, or the poor, etc.

The other being I'd probably be refused anyway due to preexiting conditions. Frankly I think both Clinton's and Obama's plans suck because essentially both boil down to someone else deciding what they think I can afford. Whether it's Hillary's mandated garnishee or Obama's low prices.

excluding you because of pre existing conditions. That would be absolutely necessary under anybody's plan.

My question then is, if you could not be excluded for that reason, what would you consider affordable?

insured who have those expensive pre-existing conditions?

THEY RAISE THEIR PRICES.

As long as there is a profit motive in there we can NEVER get full coverage.

Single-payer, funded by taxes is the ONLY equitable way to work it - you know, like the Europeans have been doing for fify years.

get something better than what we have now, but is not yet single payer but could put us on the road to single payer? Faced with that or what you have now, what would you opt for?

Going with her plan, even if it was all passed intact (highly unlikely) it would be seen as the end product, not a step toward the end product. The mandate would require a whole new bureaucracy to track who is or isn't buying from the hundreds of possible private insurers, and to arrange the punative measures against those who are not in compliance - any idea how hard it is to get rid of an established bureaucracy?

Not only is it rewarding insurance companies for the situation they brought on themselves, but it adds a huge line item to the federal budget, a new department under Health and Human Services, a bureaucracy that will fight to preserve itself AGAINST any move to single-payer healthcare.

Obama and Hillary are both wrong - but at least Obama does not institutionalize the wrong.

(BTW, I hope you don't think I'm YELLING - I'm just too lazy to HTML the italics for emphasis.)

than what we have now?

Sometimes, doing nothing is better than doing the wrong thing.

Obama's plan would not fundamentally change anything, which would allow for further progress.

Hillary's plan would institutionalize the wrong path, and prevent any movement to REAL universal healthcare for at least a generation.

you won't be refused under Hillary's plan. The FEHBP plans MUST cover.

Especially in Ohio... it is a choice of feed your family or feed your fuel tank.

so it means I sit at home 25 days a month average. I also drive a 30 year old van that you can't move until the engine is at normal heat levels, you try to drive it cold and you end up doing 35 mph idling not to mention that stopping and sitting with van in gear means less gas mileage, so its more economical to let it warm up fully before taking off.

One of my daughters is a working single parent, paying for daycare, rent, car payment, car insurance, food and all else on about 400.00 a week after taxes. This includes child support. Luckily her daughter qualifies for an schip type insurance through the state of IL. She has told me she knows she needs insurance for herself but there just isn't enough left of her paycheck to pay the 50.00 a week premiums through work. I know she is not alone, and there are thousands of working parents out there who just can't stretch their paychecks far enough to pay premiums.

Even Medicaid involves some payment unless someone is totally impoverished, not a child and not yet 65. My brother was in that situation. He was alcoholic, living with our mother and doing errands for her, but basically had nothing in the way of money. He had a stroke before he reached 65 and was allowed in a nursing home under Medicaid. Again, he had NO assets and only a small SS check which he started receiving at 62.

Car, renter's, business and life. We just can't afford $700 a month for insurance and still have to pay a high deductible. We just pay out of pocket for small things and pray we don't face anything major.

Obviously, your other insurance is very important. Why rule out health insurance? Is it because you feel assured that if, god forbid, you had a bad illness or an accident, you would get "free" health care anyway?

I'm not fingerpointing, just interested in your comfort zone on this issue...

Like I said, we pay out of pocket to go to the doctors. I had to be hospitalized last year and then had to have an operation and I'm still paying for it. I would be willing to pay even the $700 a month for health insurance if the deductibles weren't so high.

But my question assumes that that would not be the case under Obama's plan. I guess your answer would be "yes" and you would gladly get insurance so you wouldn't have to face what you faced before. You are at least able to pay off your hospitalization now but you must wonder what would happen if you had a more catastrophic health crisis...

but have been without it because it was unsffordable

They talk about health care until you are sold on the idea, then they switch to health insurance.

They are not the same thing.

It was because she couldn't afford it.

Obama's plan covers children up to 25 years old, and so she wouldn't be a 'free rider' if Obama's plan were in effect and her parents had health insurance. That's an important aspect of how Obama solves the problem of young people not buying health insurance.

Which concerns our young adult child (early to mid 20s period), who lost her healtlh insurance twice and went without for several reasons. She was laid off from her job in a group layoff (the office, a branch of a company in another state, closed less than a year later). She was able to get Cobra, but the cost was approx. $500 per month. Being unemployed at the time, it was obviously unaffordable to her, so as her parents, we had to pay it--which was a real struggle to come up with. She later got a contract job, and then when the project she was involved with was canceled, she had to go on Cobra again. Trying to take it into her own hands this time (we sent her some extra money to help), she made a terrible mistake: she paid the first month's premium and waited to get a bill for the second. When it didn't come she called us, and we didn't know why. Within 2 weeks of not paying that second month, her Cobra was canceled: she was supposed to pay it automaticallly. She hadn't understood she wouldn't be billed. So, she went out on the advice of some friends and bought a private policy, cheap--which turned out to be a total ripoff piece of shit that didn't cover anything. We told her to cancel it, and we tried to get her better private individual insurance: she was turned down because of a previously existing condition.

Starting to get the picture of how hard this is, even when you want it?

This is the most uninsured age group. There are reasons beyond thinking they are young and invincible. Jobs are uncertain, good private insurance is either unaffordable or useless. She is so fed up with the insurance game that she mistrusts it all. The insurance she got at a current job has such a high deductible she still can't afford to go to the doctor except for emergencies.

goes to the heart of her plight. Clearly, there was no affordable health care available for her, or not one that really covered her needs.

So in her case, don't you feel she WOULD have gotten insurance if it had been something within her budget, with no penalty for pre-existing conditions? Perhaps an expanded Medicaid policy for people in your daughter's situation, i.e. temporarily unemployed.

Three things would help:

(1) No pre-existing conditions: everyone can be covered.

(2) Affordability

(3) Portability

What worries me about a mandate on individuals (remember, neither plan is like Medicare--it's not a mandate on government but on individuals) is that people will just buy crappy insurance: either high-deductibles or low coverage. I would be a little more assured if extremely strict regulations on the insurance industry were a part of the plan, but these always get watered down. And then it's just a boon to private insurance, much of it very substandard. Both plans, mandated or not, need to focus on regulation of the insurance industry. Government insurance like Medicare would be best.

She absolutely would have gotten insurance if it were available and affordable--and I might add one more condition: simple and clear.

I would like to see a "Medicare for all" plan myself. Where it gets complicated is with the private sector insurance. Currently, I am on Medicare (Part A hospitalization) but not Part B (drs visits) because my insurance through my husband's job covers more and cheaper than Part B. However, this plan was vigorously fought for by his union, AFSCME, and provides a definite incentive for people to go towork for the city. I am all for unions, but I realize that this is a major issue for them, in that it is now one of their biggest raison d'etres.

Even if you can scrape together the 130 bucks per month for high-deductible insurance (for a very healthy person), every scintilla of information I hear about dealing with insurance companies tells me that A) the rates will rise, and B) the insurance companies will do everything they can to avoid paying claims.

IOW, insurance companies have made it so that even if you buy their product, you are afraid to use it.

Which is why I don't get too worked up over the differences between Obama's and Hillary's plans; they both supposedly will make insurance companies truly spread the risk and make the term "pre-existing condition" cease.


Yes, if it becomes affordable, and I know that I won't be penalized for getting sick and using insurance, and I know that if I do get sick and can't work at my self-employed jobs I'll still have some kind of safety-net... yeah, I'll be able buy that.

Hillary's plan goes one step to far. It forces you to "buy" health insurance and has no plans to actually mandate it.

If you truly want universal health care, the only way to go is with a single payer system.

Hillary's plan says that I have to add another bill that I can't currently afford, and I have no choice in the matter. I wouldn't complain if it were deducted via taxes and everyone had the same health care available.

paycheck? Don't you see that THAT is a form of "mandatory"?

I don't understand the logic you present. Please help me out here...

where it wouldn't be affordable. You also take out the HMO - PPO - ,and any other type of health group you thank of, profit margin.

Reduce profit of those that only play middle-man to the system and offer nothing to the end user, and you can drastically reduce the cost. Hillary's mandatory plan is to work with HMO and PPO groups.

gets us on the road to what you are aiming at (and I am also aiming at). My question would apply to the interim which is where we will be if Obama is elected. We cannot consider "more of the same" because we don't automatically get the ideal. It just isn't working, not for you, not for many people in our country. And the uninsured continue to add to the tax burden of us all, even those who are willing to budget for health insurance that they buy.

for the coverage. With private insurance, your premiums are paying for multi-million dollar advertising campaigns, insurance agents' salaries, and CEOs homes in the Bahamas.

Which is going to be less expensive?

they like better. However, some relatives can't get it at any price due to pre-existing conditions.

fairly recently. My company kept finding reasons not to offer it to me. They tried to take it away a few months after I got it, but I fought them over it and still remain insured. My insurance isn't cheap, but it would cost me a lot more not to have it. The savings on prescriptions alone makes it worth it for me to keep my insurance. I know a lot of people who aren't insured simply because it isn't offered to them.

I pay $239 for my family instead of $400.

We had a baby and it wasn't covered so it cost me about 10 thousand dollars out of pocket, on top of the insurance premium.

If I could get it for $100 or less a month, then I could afford it. Right now, I can't.

His plan will do nothing for the working poor. Children are already covered in many states. We need coverage for their parents too.

which would apply for the working poor? I doubt that he would leave out that sector...

and many providers will not take on a lot of patients with this kind of coverage.

The problem is that physicians have to pay back their 150-200,000 dollars in student loans, cover the costs of their practices, pay malpractice in case they get a litigious patient, pay their nurses, their MAs, their PAs and NPs.....a lot of docs are now already feeling a huge pinch of having to see patient after patient to get by. Their salaries have been steadily declining.

Medicaid and medicare don't cover the actual costs of things. If we had to rely on medicare and medicaid payments hospitals could not afford to upgrade their imaging technology (MRI's, PET scans, CT scans...)...these are incredibly expensive.

If a doctor sees you and you are a complicated medical patient, they might need 45 minutes with you. Maybe medicaid or medicare will pay $50 for that visit. That's not enough to pay the electricity, rent, malpractice, nurse, for washing gowns etc.


Just food for thought. Don't flame me.

of low cost coverage for working poor people. Of course, the problem to which you refer must be resolved. No plan is any good if doctor's can't afford to practice!

doctors' overhead expenses goes to pay office staff to deal with the paperwork required by all those insurance outfits.

Under single-payer that part would be much simplified.

the first being cost. The second being that insurance that is offered won't cover the kind of health care I use, which is holistic and chiropractic. I would be much more likely to buy insurance if it were cheaper, even if it didn't cover the kind of health care I regularly use, because then if I were in an accident, for example, I'd have money to pay the hospital bills. And I could still afford to pay for the regular care I use, even if it is out of pocket.

I'm not currently uninsured - I have a good job, but because of my bad feet, if I wasn't employed somewhere that provided health insurance, I'd be unable to afford it. I've had to spend a few years of my life uninsured.

Obama has the right idea - not making it mandatory and slapping people with fines when they already can't afford insurance, but doing things like banning insurers from denying coverage or jacking up rates for medical conditions, allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices with pharmcos, making the .gov's insurance plan that's available to Congressmen and government employees available to anyone who wants to join, subsidizing coverage for people with expensive medical conditions, emphasizing preventative care, expanding Medicaid & S-CHIP for people who can't afford coverage.

All of these are actions designed to stop the death spiral of rising health care costs, forcing insurers and providers to compete on price and services, rather the competing on recruiting the healthiest customers, and providing options so health care is within reach of all Americans.

:shrug:

I would not be able to afford insurance that actually covered my medical needs.

I guess that's my real question here. Right now the situation is intolerable. I was talking about the system under an Obama plan.

If a person can't afford it, it is not affordable. A person might make 40k/yr, but have mandates on that income such as child support, mortgage, etc., that means he has maybe $120/mo fluidity. So what is 'affordable' to him?

The whole idea of 'what is affordable' is invariably based on income - so you've got somebody who makes 180k/yr deciding what is 'affordable' to people making 20k.

You want affordable? What's the price you'd put on your left kidney? Your left arm? Your right eye?

Healthcare is NOT about what is 'affordable'.

But the fact is we have a plan by a candidate who just may become our next President. I am not looking at the "perfect." We all agree here on what that is. We should fight hard for it.

But what if...we can't get it right now? What do we do? I'm hearing rhetoric but no plan of action. What is our alternative, throwing up our hands and saying "It's no use" and going on with the same system and hope for the magical day when the insurance companies simply disappear and we get European health care?

I'm not saying there is no problem. I'm saying that your question of 'affordability' is accepting the frame that the insurance industry and the healthcare industry (as opposed to healthcare providers) is giving us - that there MUST be a profit motive for it to work: the profit motive actually works only for THEM.

Obama's plan is wholly inadequate.

Hillary's plan is wholly inadequate, AND it would lock that inadequacy into place with a vast new bureaucracy and call it a cure. It would keep us from moving any further toward genuine universal healthcare. If you think it would not, please explain to me the mechanism by which they will enforce mandates placed on 300 million people to purchase insurance from hundreds of competing health insurance providers without creating a bureaucracy to track them.

Once that bureaucracy is in place it will fight to preserve itself against any move to single-payer. That's what bureaucracies do - 10% work and 90% self-preservation.

in this discussion about what we DUers think we should do if we don't get single payer insurance with our next President. "Doing nothing" is your option. However, realistically speaking, we know people in this country want something better and we know that our health care system is close to catastrophe itself. We also know what we are up against with a powerful. Those are realities. We will have trade-offs. Your point about a new bureaucracy is one example of that kind of trade off. You should know that Medicare is one of those bureaucracies. If you are on Medicare and you opt out of Part B because you don't want the monthly cost of it to be deducted from the SS benefit check, you will have to pay for an alternate policy. If you don't, you will be assessed a higher monthly fee when you do join up. And European countries have a varying degree of bureaucracies that, by your own definition, would be inefficient (your 10% v. 90% example).

to ensure profits to the health insurance industry. That's unacceptable. Obama's plan may not stop the profiteering, but it doesn't give it governmental imprimatur through mandate.

I believe, very seriously, that doing nothing would be better than doing the wrong thing.

We're on the universal healtcare train, and we are on the wrong track - Obama's plan keeps that train on the wrong track, but Hillary's puts the train on a siding, jacks it up and removes the wheels.

If we can't have a candidate who will back single-payer government funded universal healthcare, then the one who does the least to impede movement toward it is better.

Would that option not be acceptable as an alternative to private plans?

Also, do you remember that just after John Edwards got out of the race he was saying openly that his plan (which also had a mix of private and public options) was a strategy to get Americans on the track to universal health care. They would, in effect, "vote with their feet" and go for the more efficient, less costly government option. I thought that was clever. He was throwing down the gauntlet to the Republicans by basically saying, the American people will choose in a free market and they will choose the government approach.

winnowing process in congress. The insurance industry and pharma companies did not support her campaign so that she would put them out of business. If any part of it goes throught there will be restrictions - income cutoffs or other 'qualifiers' to keep people from actually moving to that. If that was what she really wanted, why wouldn't it be the centerpiece of her plan, instead of an afterthought? The fact that she 'borrowed' it from Edwards instead of featuring it from the start indicates that it is not important to her and it would be one of the first things to be negotiated out of the final plan.

I believe that there is a quid pro quo, whereby she takes donations from the insurance industry and big pharma and in return she does NOT push for universal healthcare. It's just possible, that with a powerful enough congress pushing it she would be forced to support it anyway, but then, so would Obama, and he has the greater chance of pulling in more dems on his coattail than she does to give him that democratic majority.

She's supposedly been working on healthcare since 94, but the best part of her plan she has to borrow from Edwards at the last minute. Why don't I trust her?

talking to Obama about. Breaking the nexus of the health care industry is indeed a key thing. I think the only way the American people will go along with a new big government program is if it is characterized as a kind of Medicare. Medicare is regarded benignly by Americans, certainly not as "socialized medicine" (which it is in one form). But you are right, it cannot be sold out after being promised.

Here's another wrinkle: there are plenty of people who like their health care plan now. There are plenty others who worry that if they give up what they have now, they may get worse. These are issues that we had better have answers to from day one.

The last thing I want to see is a noble effort destroyed by a huge PR campaign that deceives the American public into falling back into what they have now. I am frankly scared to death that that might happen to Obama, even if he gets elected...

didn't have a deductible (which is currently $5000), although I could deal with the 20% co-pays for routine office visits and tests. The current plan costs $210 a month. If I wanted to go without a deductible, it would cost $790 a month. This is because I'm over 50, but I'm healthier than a lot of younger people.

Since I'm rarely sick, the insurance company is getting $2500 of free money from me every year.

He is 33 years old, works and could potentially buy insurance. He chooses not to because he is 'healthy'. He could afford to buy health insurance but he doesn't. He talks about it from time-to-time, but ultmately he has always chosen buying gadgets, going out on weekends to play pool with friends etc over health insurance.

I asked him what he would do if he got really sick or was in an accident and required medical attention. He will "got to the ER" and they will have to "write it off" because as he put it...he can't afford tends of thousands of dollars.

I think he should be required to have at least some sort of major illness/accident insurance so that you and I aren't paying for his failure to insure himself.

and I know it's very irresponsible of me. :( I'd probably remain uninsured on his plan unless its the same price as my cable bill or less.

You should bite the bullet and get health insurance. We all think that serious illness/injury won't happen to us, but when it does it is devastating. In all likelihood, you'll never have to worry about it...but if you do, you want to have the best care possible, dont' you?

Almost double, last I checked. That's not fair! Sure, I can have an unexpected accident like everyone else, but this assumption that I'm going to have all these things going wrong throughout the year simply because I'm female is what has kept me from signing on.

but unfortunately (hehe) we ARE the ones to get pregnant and that gets factored into the risk for certain age groups. Then there is the risk of breast cancer, etc.

Ultimately though, you just really don't want to be caught without it in the case of serious illness.

say, had a cable service that offered you less but was enough for you to budget in the insurance, would you do that? That is, if the insurance truly covers you and won't exclude you b/c of preexisting conditions, etc.

The only thing that would compel someone to buy the cow when you can milk the neighbors cow through the fence is a sense of ethics. Designing an economic system around the ethics of the participants is a dumb approach.

Your neighbors insurance will never be affordable so long as he is paying for two.

since it would not depend on "a sense of ethics." Am I correct on my assumption?

Using your formulation, you would be fined for not having your own cow and if you milked your neighbor's cow you would have to pay reparations...

1. That there are large numbers of "freeloaders" who could afford insurance and could obtain adequate insurance, but just choose not to buy it. This is assumption behind mandates. A mandate is only good in order to force someone to do something you want them to do, that they could do, but simply choose not to do.

Most of the 15 million uninsured are those who can't afford insurance, or those who are uninsurable. Maybe there are a very few who just choose not to buy insurance. People know that if you get treated and have no insurance you get a bill, and if you don't pay the bill you get taken to bankruptcy. Taxpayers foot it once the hospital has cleaned out the patient's assets. There's no such thing as "free" health care. I don't know of anyone who is intentionally using bankruptcy as health insurance.

2. The second assumption is that simply pushing more healthy people into the health insurance market generally will reduce the premiums. This would be true if we had a single payer system. It is much less true when we have many, many insurance pools out there. If I insure 2 healthy people and 7 sick people, 1 extra healthy person joining my competitor's pool doesn't help me (I don't get their premiums), and wouldn't let me reduce my premiums for everyone else.

Furthermore, to comply with the mandate, the healthy would buy the cheapest adequate insurance out there, which is probably not the insurer with 2 healthy people and 7 sick people. It is probably the insurer with 7 healthy people and 2 sick people, or the company that just starts up in order to insure a bunch of healthy people trying to comply with the mandate.

a month for insurance. I can't either and my 2008 premium had gone up to $747. I called an insurance broker and he got me a BETTER plan with the same insurer for $360 for two people. Lower deductibles, well visits not subject to deductible and prescriptions not subject to deductibles. I have pre-existing conditions and the are covered as well.

No matter who you support PLEASE CALL AN INDEPENDENT INSURANCE BROKER AND WORK WITH HIM TO GET HEALTH INSURANCE. If you think you can't afford it think how much less you can afford an astronomical hospital bill.

Some states, like Vermont, require insurance companies to take "all comers." States like New Hampshire, where I live, allow cherry picking. Sometimes the cherry picking isn't overt, but you get the message they don't want you by the numbers on the bill. I've researched every single company and every single policy available to me and it's not affordable unless I give up eating or heating the house.

Needless to say, she hasn't. Companies have to operate under state insurance regulations, so it doesn't matter if you use an independent broker or go straight to the company. The broker just makes it easier. It might be better if one set of rules applied to all states and all companies, but big insurance would somehow make sure the obscene profits keep rolling in.

won't. I'd try another broker. One sure saved me a lot of money.

That sounds too good to be true, and you know how that saying goes...

the payment went to almost 3 times my mortgage payment. The premiums went from $750 a quarter in 1998 to $1000 a month in 2005. The last estimate I got was $1,200 a month with a huge deductible a couple of years ago. I do not agree with either the Clinton or Obama plans because they reward big insurance for screwing us for years on end, but if it was affordable I would buy it again rather than risk certain death if illness strikes. Ideally, we would adopt the Kucinich plan.

My husband and I are both disabled. He will not qualify for medicare until July. I have medicare and have always carried a supplemental. Both he and my daughter were uninsured until last year. When he received SSDI our daughter qualified for Healthy Families. When two people are living on disability and trying to raise a daughter affordable means something different to us. I have been dubious of all of the insurance plans except for Kuchinich.

by everyone through a payroll deduction. I guess some people can't get past the notion that some people would collect but not contribute, but my feeling is that in a compassionate, civilized society all are cared for, not just the able bodied and/or wealthy. It works in many other countries. Maybe a VAT tax instead of a payroll deduction would make them feel better about it. Sometimes I wish all the employers would drop their health care plans at once so something would happen quickly on this front. An awful lot of people get into that "it's not me so who cares" frame of mind on this issue.

Neither my husband or I planned to become disabled and would work if we were able. Every time I ask my doctor he almost falls on the floor laughing. We went through our savings and now live as simply as we can. It's why I like the single payer idea. I pay for medicare and a supplemental now so although it is not nearly as costly as private insurance I think people of social security would transition nicely. A serious illness can wipe out a family. I am thankful that most democrats don't treat the disabled like they are lazy although I can't say the same for most republicans.:hug:

Not because it isn't affordable but because I think the whole thing is a scam.

Its nice of Obama to tell me why I don't have health insurance and be totally wrong. WRONG WRONG WRONG. And its kind of insulting for Obama to tell me how I feel.

Health care should be provided by the Government not private enterprises. Both candidates are horrible on Health Care.

The question is do we continue what we have now (with some people bearing the extra tax burden laid on them by the uninsured)or get a plan that seeks to cover everybody at an affordable cost, but is not as ideal as single payer.

If you are not covered but have a terrible illness or accident and you require care in the ER or a long hospital stay, you do realize that you are driving up the costs to all taxpayers, not just you but people who have been paying their health insurance all along. You may think it is a scam but that is not the issue. Do you believe that it is fair for you to do this?

that cost $110 with no deductible and $10 copays for office visits and tests.

That same plan today would cost me $440 with $25 copays.

What else in this society has quadrupled in cost since 1994?

Dennis had the right idea with Medicare Part B for all.... Take it from a doctor. Simple is better and Med B for all is simple to implement and provides 80% coverage for all doctors visits. And allows private insurance to fight over the other 20%

That being said.....

GoBama

There are thousands, if not more, people that qualify for Medicaid or other assistance but they don't take advantage of it, for whatever reason. Saying "if it's affordable, people will get it" sounds great, but it has no basis in reality. The fact of the matter is, to make it even close to universal you have to have mandates. There's no other way. And mandates will lower the costs, because it spreads the risk. Not to mention:



As for why I don't have insurance? Many employers don't offer it anymore like they used to, and it's difficult to get individual plans, especially when you have pre-existing conditions. Hillary's plan would eliminate denials on pre-existing conditions, and also offer tax credits and subsidies to pay for it. It would be capped at a percentage of your income. I would love to get tax credits and subsidies to help pay for it.

I live in a country with Universal Health Care (Wales, UK). Something Obama hasn't a clue about.

I know a CPA(self employed) and several other self employeed professionals in Atlanta who can easily afford health insurance. They chose not to take it. They have been lucky so far that nothing serious has happened to them. So yes...........there are people who won't get insurance unless it's mandatory.