Define "affordable". Define "quality". Define "accessible".

We need NUMBERS. Every family "out here" has a FINITE amont of money.

This is the major stumbling block I see for the health care plan. The legislators..ALL OF THEM are avoiding any mention of the cost to PEOPLE. We hear big numbers being tossed around, GOVERNMENT costs, but nary a mention of an amount likely to be borne by US.

That's the ONLY number that most people care about.

We need to know IN ADVANCE, what criteria will ned to be met. What percentage of income we will have to pay. What co-pays will be necessary.

We need to see EXAMPLES of what other countries have. We need to see a French family making $50K (our equivalent) with 2 kids, and what they pay vs what they get.. and a Canadian family, and Japanese family, a German family, etc.

This data exists, and yet nowhere on the "news spectrum" is any of this comparative reporting. All we get is the occasional "you have to wait FOREVAH, to get a hip replacement" nonsense.

We get amorphous sound bytes here and there, and code language, with NO numbers.

Would you buy a car, if you were told "it's affordable, it's blue, you'll like it...but I can't tell you how much it will cost you every month... now sign here.."?

If congress balks, it's them we have to push on this.

It cannot simply be based on income, and imagine a system's size necessary to review EVERY family's affordability issues.

It's the same problem we have now , with wages. Every municipality is different, "prices may vary". A family making 100K in Manhattan NY will have very different circumstances than a family in Manhattan, Kansas, making $100K

Haven't read it.

In Sweden they have local councils. Perhaps it's something like that.

According to the law, my family is not a family. Our household is just strangers. Or not. I'm already confused. Is our household income our household income, or is his his and mine mine? Will they count us as a family if it costs us more, and not if it saves us money or what?
So. We need to define 'affordable' 'quality' and 'family' so far. Next?

One plan mentioned coverage for "children" up to 26 yrs of age..

Single payer for EVERYONE eliminates that whole dilemma:)

Not to mention the complications brought about by state-only marriage. If we were married our tax returns would've been insane and we would've had to calculate two: one for the state, one for federal. How the hell does that work?

As if. Whatev. File this, as if.

income, household size and in some programs, by regional adjustments based on costs.
Fore example, early Section 8 rent thresholds were determined by the metro and county level based on a survey of going rates for rents in the same geographic. After determining the range the allowable rent level was determined by setting a maximum based on unit size. It's done somewhat differently now with the vouchers.

Similarly, there will be language in place to define "accessibility" and "quality" based on measurable standards.

In the past when I have gone for "low cost" health services I was required to show a pay stub showing earnings or a public assistance card. Since I had neither, I was judged to have to pay the full amount and I, in turn, did not pursue treatment.

I doubt the details have been sussed out down to that level of detail just yet.


That said, whatever place you went was majorly fucked.

AND keep the government plan affordable enough so that all of us who are uninsurable will be able to purchase it.

This is a disaster in the making.

We seem to be talking about taxpayers picking up the tab for the poor (including working poor) and sick in addition to the elderly. This isn't going to work.

WE NEED SINGLE PAYER NOW.

radio show today. Every one of them can afford their health care because they are taxed according to their ability to pay, just like we are. They get quality health care. They can see any doctor they chose and if they have an appointment they don't spend any more time in the waiting room than we do. One impassioned caller also said that Canadians regard health care as a human right and he is flabbergasted that we even have to have a debate about delivering health care to everyone considering how rich our nation is compared to others who manage to do it just fine. There are experimental petri dishes out in the world that have proved single payer universal health care is possible and successful.

of the 'cost' involved in a single payer plan. Concrete numbers would go a long way to dispelling some of this stuff and neutralizing the how are we going to pay for it meme.

i would also like someone to start asking these congressfolks who come on talking about how terrible the idea is... what kind of insurance do you have. how much do you pay towards it. how much do WE pay for it. how come it's good for you but not me???

and Dod said Teddy & he had deliberately left 3 sections of the bill blank because they are very controversial and they wanted to begin with areas they could come to some agreement on. There's no way in the world anyone can come up with even an estimate of cost until there's some general idea what's going to be in the program!

Accessibility as I understand it means there will be no more exclusions for pre-existing conditions.

with the gaps closed. I have to buy private insurance for $256 a month for comprehensive coverage. I would gladly pay that to Medicare to cover what the insurers do. Then I would truly have a great health care plan and so should everyone else.

In this last week I've heard, from 4 different sources, a description of the HC plans afforded to Congress. Each of those sources said the plans offered to Congress are about the same as what's usually offered to upper management and executives of most large corporations.

Not to make judgements here, but I suspect most (not all but nost) members of Congress have more money than most avg. Americans. They DO have to pay for their coverage.

Affordable at my income level would be about half of what I'm paying in premiums now and get rid of the damned annual deductibles. Trying to take care of a family of 3 on what we make was hard enough before they hiked the hell out of my premiums 2 years in a row and cut coverage at the same time.

Maximized Profits.

:thumbsup:

Details..

And I suspect the details are going to be "the devil"..

I lost my health insurance at the end of May, I'm almost sixty and in pretty decent shape for my age but I'm scared now, if anything even moderately serious happens I'm totally screwed.

This is totally personal for me now.

Affordable Premiums: $50 an individual, $80 a couple, $100 a family (no deductibles, no copays, no maximums)

Accessible: Anyone can goto *any* doctor they want and have any billable procedure paid for without pre-approval.

Quality: Although a separate bill should regulate a standard, a quality depends upon the chosen facility/doctor (Which is up to the patient in the first place). A separate bill is needed to ensure all facilities meet some standard, if there needs to be improvement

A family is going to be at least 500 dollars a month with the government picking up the tab for those who can't afford it. I'm sure there will be some kind of sliding scale.

With deductibles, copays, all of maternity pre-natal care, lab tests/diagnostics/ultrasound, home visits, and post natal (with optional mental care if we need it for a year), screenings, guess how much that costs me?



Wait for it.....




$108 a month (which includes care for my entire family). Thats it. No hidden fees. No extra amounts. Nada, nothing, zilch.

Why? Im on single-payer health care. The bulk of the health care is funded via taxes, 'from each according to their ability'. It would be free if I were poor too.

Why can America not do this? Is the GDP too low? Technology too backwards?

whatever you want to call it.

Imo, there's not a snowball's chance in hell that folks middle income and above will only pay $108 a month. Sure, those that can't afford that amount will pay less, and those that can't afford anything will pay nothing. But health care is still going to cost a bundle, but we need to do it.

Whether you call it premiums or higher "taxes" we will pay, but hopefully it should still be cheaper than the $1,000 + a month my husband's employer pays for our plan.

Politicians know they better protect the insurance industry or no more bribes, er, campaign donations.

The example that many politicians point to, if they are for the average person being benefitted at all, is the plan as it is in Massachussetts.

But the trouble with that plan is it is very much on the pricey side for the middle incomed person. I have friends who have left Massachusetts because they cculd not afford it.

Also in that state, because the many insurance companies were left in the loop, the costs of the plan are going up dramatically. So pretty soon, it will not at all be affordable.

MArci Angell, who is at Harvard Medical School, discussed this in her recent testimony to Congress.

How is it that people who feel that politicians owned by the health insurance industry will carefully craft legislation that will work in the favor of the people (while still allowing these corrupt and unethical companies to continue to operate)?

In fact, even among Democrats, there are several different types.

Some of the more affluent Dems do not really want the Single Payer Universal Health care. They believe all the lies especially regarding the lies that their own care will become shoddy and that the Government will tell them what doctor to see, etc. should USPHC become the norm. I have one friend who is like this.

Then there are Dems who work all day and get their news from the media. They are totally under the sway of the Obama Administration right now, and as long as Obama is saying he will bring reform, they trust that Obama will bring reform. And since they work hard at administrative level jobs, their time is spent on work related stuff. No time to get their news from the internet. Sp unless they lose those jobs, they do not have any worries - their employer-provided health care is available and seems decent and they just do not have a vested interest. They are not as aware of how much corruption there is out there - they still think that our nation's monetary crisis came about because of poor people who bought homes without saving enough. And they think if it is Obama's people in charge of the BailOuts, then everything will be okay.

Then there are the more progressive spectrum -which can be older and affluent but caring Dems and also working and middle incomed people. For whatever reason, these people have figured it out. They want Universal Single Payer Health care and they HOPE that it happens. They can call Congress or fax or email, but in the end, it is probably not what we will end up with.

I will show you the level of corruption that exists. I was going in to do an interview of one of the five Supervisors for the California County where I used to live. I got to the interview early.

Almost everyone in those offices was gone. The woman Supervisor that I was to interview was out of the office and was going to return in time for her interview. The one Supervisor, H, who was around did not see me; I dress down and basically am a fly on the wall. The most prominent "retired" politician in the County came in to see H.

H left his door open. The "retired" politician set down his briefcase and then said, "I want in on the homeless."

The two men exchanged some type of message - just looking at each other's faces. The "retired" politician then said, "Thanks" and picked up his briefcase and left.

Whether that meant that his law firm would now be over seeing everything relating to the building of the Homeless shelter, or whether it meant some type of graft going on and he'd be in on it now, or what, I don't know. But it was done wordlessly. There are statutes on the books that say that if anything of significance is to go on between a Supervisor and somebody else, it has to be at a real meeting with the "Brown Act" being enforced during that interaction. So clearly this is not the way that the "retired" politician wanted to ask for H. for his favor.

I can only imagine what goes on where the stakes are even bigger.

$500 a month would be a hardship to the majority of families. The median income would only barely support coverage and house-payments/rent.


Please do not use Average incomes. Averages are entirely too generous with regards to how much Most americans make.

A hundred a month for a family should be plenty unless you are looking to make a profit in which case YOU are part of the problem.

Whether you want to call it a premium or a tax, we will pay a lot more than a hundred dollars a month!

My husband's employer pays well over $1,000 a month for our family's health insurance. Take 50% + out for profit, and we're still left with a hefty price tag of $500 a month. Knock it down some more and I think middle class will still be paying at least $300 a month.

There are exclusionary practices in place in our current system..(although it's not really even a system..just a hodge-podge of insurers fighting over who can insure the healthiest, and exclude the sickest)

In its simplest form, think of it this way..fire insurance..

let's say there are 1000 homes in the mix... 10 of them are in a heavily wooded area, with a lot of fuel..990 are not as near the fire danger, but everyone "could" have a fire. If all 1000 home-buyers chip in $100 and a fire happens anywhere, there would be enough to cover the fire suppression, but if ONLY those 10 are forced to buy insurance, it would be too expensive, so they may not buy it, and when a fire happens, it most likely would damage many more homes. If the insurance companies "bank" the money NOT spent on fires , in "good" years, there will be a pool of cash, just waiting for the time when there is a big fire...BUT if they give each other big bonuses every year, they have to keep raising the costs year after year, and may not have enough when they actually need it..

It's that simple. I have a couple of wealthy Republicans in my life -- my brother and a long-time friend -- and both of them, I'm sure, would tell you something like this this: "People who can't even pay their own way shouldn't be taking part of MY paycheck while they sit on their asses!"

It's as if the mentally disabled or otherwise out-of-mainstream Americans would simply go away if we refused to support them. That's what gets me; sure, I can see your frustration, but how the fuck are we, as a society, supposed to deal with the real live people who will be left totally unassisted? Will it have to get to the point where you're stepping over homeless, disabled vets on your white picket fenced lined sitewalks? Literally, what are we as a society supposed to do? Ignoring problems as long as you're benefiting personally is a Republican trait, or so I always thought. How can any Democrat with a conscience NOT be out there with the numbers the OP suggests, advocating for an emergence from the health care dark ages?

:shrug:

.

I'm, not smart enough to figure it out, but once we know how much people are able to make, save and put into the system and compare that with how much they could contribute before having to use it, affordability can be calculated.

For instance, let's just say someone gets the flu once a year, and pays into the system all year long. Would that person cover his or her own costs? Or, what about a person who never gets sick, but breaks their arm. If that person has been paying into the system for three to five years, would that person have been able to cover their own costs?

Of course how much people are charged for care is another thing all together.

As far as quality and accessibility goes, I think that can be defined in terms of satisfaction. Are there enough clinics distributed throughout the community and open enough hours throughout the week to meet the need? Are there enough qualified medical professionals working at these places to meet the needs of the community?

Then, if those criteria are met, the next question is how well are those needs met? Are the offices run so badly that despite the availability of the clinics, are they run efficiently? Do people wait hours just to be checked-in? Are people forgotten once they are checked-in? Would the people who work there ever consider being patients there?

I think there should be as many healthcare providers as there are post offices or DMVs.

:thumbsup: