You will be able to "keep your doctor & insurance", IF

you can afford to pay BOTH parts of the plan..(think super-COBRA)


example:

You have Kaiser at your job.. you like the doctor and have no issue with Kaiser

You change jobs and your NEW company has Health-Net, and you have the option of joining THEIR plan, but you WANT to keep Kaiser.

Do you really think that your new company is going to pay the employer share of what you (a lone employee) have when all the others are in their company plan?

Imagine the nightmare for the bosses of this country as more new-hires show up wanting to keep their own insurance, but expect them to pay the employer share.

So..

If you want YOUR doctor and YOUR insurance, you must be willing to pay the WHOLE amount.

If insurers are allowed to remain the big dog on the porch, and are only required to voluntarily participate, you will always lose.. It's like Vegas.. the house always wins in the end.

what they have, maybe they should be willing to pay for that.

There is no solution that will appease everyone.

we might be better off if nothing gets done now. It won't be long before the current system collapses of it's own weight and the only viable option would be to extend Medicare to all.

Shoring up a broken system by mandating coverage and not giving most of us access to the public option (assuming there will even be a public option) is nuts. And if this bandaid passes, we'll be told we have "reform" and it will be years before anything actually gets done.

It might not pass, but I hope it does.

I keep going back to these two points from the House plan, which are worth their weight in gold:

Strong regulation of insurers, including requirements that insurers provide insurance to people with pre-existing conditions without higher rates.

And at least one key insurer regulation would kick in right away: Come 2010, insurers could no longer yank coverage from people retroactively because they've uncovered new evidence of pre-existing conditions. This practice, known as "rescission," is among the most patently unjust features of our health care system.

They can increase rates based on age - and you can bet there will be major across the board increases that they'll claim they need to cover all the people they would have tossed off their plans.

Any plan that keeps the crooks that broke the system this involved is not good for us and there is nothing in the ideas coming out of Congress that do anything to make them control what they charge.

Today Obama once again gave his lame excuse that single payer would be "too disruptive". Fine, we all can't be covered by it overnight, but rather than starting from scratch with his stupid insurance exchange idea and a public option that appears to be heading toward the cutting room floor, why doesn't he propose a system to start extending Medicare to the rest of the the population over the next few years.

SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts)Sat Aug-08-09 10:17 AM
Response to Original message

6. Easy solution

S-Chip for kids until age 21

basic coverage for 22-49..with options added for pregnancy, chronic conditions, catastrophic, etc. (at an extra cost)

50+ medicare , with supplementals for the 20% not covered by medicare.


for the 22-49 people, a comprehensive plan similar to what government employees have, based on INCOME/ASSETS, and funded through payroll deductions..NO employer participation.. the money NOW paid by employers would be immediately given to employees as the raises they had deferred all along.

for the 50-64 entering medicare early, they would pay a sliding scale supplement, based on income.

That should do it.

company breaks on one of those regs, is my second grade teacher going to rise from the grave (assuming that old cow was actually mortal) and whack 'em with a ruler? Anybody sending anybody to jail? Anybody gonna actually stop 'em from doing that? Or, most likely, will my husband read in the paper that the company paid a small fine ten years after I've died?

think about it. :)

change for individual options...and the chance for small business to opt into bigger pools..portable insurance will be an individual option..not a group insurance option..DUH!

would NOT be done away with.. so how is the above scenario off base?

Employer A has one plan, employer B has another.. their choice

employee has the choice to keep what they;ve got, even if they change jobs..

see the dilemma here?

changes with your job anyhow??? don't get your problem??? PORTABLE INSURANCE..FROM POOLS FOR SMALL COMPANIES...GOOD...but if you go from a small company to a large company...maybe not so portable..or large to small same thing..but NOW NONE IS PORTABLE...but if all small companies purchase from the same pool..YOU GET TO KEEP YOUR OWN INSURANCE WHEN YOU GO FROM SMALL COMPANY TO SMALL COMPANY?? any questions?

to know that the devil's in the details.. I'llwait to see what's eventually approved, but what's being said about the portability reminds me an awfully lot like the way cell phones started out.."in network/out of network", etc.

The vague explanations of portability are other-worldly, with so many employers having so many different plans.. That's why single payer universal coverage is the only way we "little people" will ever get a fair shake..

I always listen for what they do NOT say, as well as what they say..

Pols rarely deliver what they start out promising. we'll just have to wait and see..

The OP is making no sense here and must not understand the system as it currently stands.