Eye Opener on Obama National Health Care Plan

In addition...did you know that the President and all of Congress are EXEMPT from Obama's National Health Care plan? This affects all Americans! Obama was asked, "Mr. President will you and your family give up your current health care program and join the new "Universal Health Care Program" that the rest of us will be on? Obama ignored the question and didn't answer it. A number of Senators were asked the same question and their response was....we will think about it.

It was also announced recently on the news that the "Kennedy Health Care Bill"...has written into it that congress will be EXEMPT from this great health care plan! Hmmmm......not good enough for Obama or Congress...but "OK" for the rest of us?

I don't think that it's unreasonable, for all of us to demand, that any health care bill passed by Congress and signed by the President automatically becomes THEIR health care plan as well.

Written into the bill would have to be a provision that they cannot opt out of that coverage, without forfeiting their entire government pension and any other benefits they would receive when they retire if they do.

Andy - good idea. Would probably help pay for this horrid plan if all their benefits were rolled into 'ours'. Never happen.

Good article, Kathie. I've clipped it to some groups. Lampell, on my way....

I think what concerns me most, is that Obama is for this program, but it will hurt a lot of Americans. Is he that out of touch with the American people? or does he not care?

At this point he has backed himself into a corner he has to have something passed, anything at all. The real bad news is that you and I will have to read for months after a bill is passed how it is a "watershed" event and historic. Of course when the ship sinks there will be recriminations galore, but by that time the Pres. will be out of office writing his memoirs

Mooncrow what bothers me is the current system not only hurts, but bankrupts many more families than this one is going to possibly do. See somewhere in the translation many missed that "reform" implies needing work and adjustment. Maybe Obama's healthcare plan will BE terrible, one thing's for certain...we already know the current system is terrible.

Mooncrow what bothers me is the current system not only hurts, but bankrupts many more families than this one is going to possibly do

The difference is do you allow individuals to bankrupt themselves, or do we bankrupt the nation, which will harm everyone?

I keep hearing medical costs cause most bankruptcies. I have never seen any facts from a reliable source.

I keep hearing medical costs cause most bankruptcies. I have never seen any facts from a reliable source

There are statistics and then there are statistics. I have seen sources, many of them stating that bankruptcies are mostly medical related and a certain percentage had insurance. Problem is some states allow sub standard companies to sell "discount" plans that are not really insurance but a discount plan. People buy them, they are advertised on late night cable TV, pennies per day etc etc. Many states have cracked down on these bogus plans but the statistics dont reflect this. Same as the famous number of 47 million uninsured, they dont break it down into categories, how many people are illegal immigrants, how many people eligible for Medicaid and dont sign up, how many people dont buy insurance because an IPOD is more of a priority. The CBO breaks it down when they do a budget analysis, since without the breakdown they couldnt know what a proposed plan would cost in the future.

how many people dont buy insurance because an IPOD is more of a priority.

How many people buy insurance at $500 a month and make less then $24,000 a year?

These folks are paying a quarter of their income (or more) for medical insurance that only pays for 80% coverage. If they have something major they can not afford the deductible and co-pay.

My mother-in-law came down with cancer. She lost her job when she got to sick from the cancer and the treatment and thus, lost her insurance. Her Social Security Disability didn't kick in for six months. Cobra offered he insurance continuation at $600 a month, but without income how could she pay?

Her medical bills started coming in and many of the chemicals that were being used cost from $95,000 to $250,000 dollars each. Which was more then she ever made in a year.

Now think about that. 20% makes it $19,000 to $50,000 if your insurance covers 80% and that was just the medications - not the doctor, the hospital, x-rays and the lab.

Yes, some insurances have annual caps as the maximum amount you will pay. Yet, those caps are still very high and can be a substantial portion to those in the lower income brackets.

Now, I don't care for this bill, but I do know that working poor in America can not afford medical care due to cost - EVEN IF THEY HAVE INSURANCE.

How many people buy insurance at $500 a month and make less then $24,000 a year?

People obviously who dont live in California, I dont pay that much and I am 60 years old. But my point was about the monolithic number of 47 million people. There are many who dont have insurance who make 75,000 dollars, we can all cite figures. This is nothing to do with reform, its calculating the cost of the reform, if it cost nothing we would have had reform years ago. I have written many articles re reform on the vine, so I think you took my IPOD statement a bit out of context.

I think you took my IPOD statement a bit out of context.

I apologize. That wasn't my intent. I was trying to point out that the cost of medical care is out of reach for many Americans. Many people who have insurance refuse to go to the doctor based on the what it will cost. The time off of work, the deductible and co-pay for the Doctor, the lab, the pharmacy and any other items that are deemed medically necessary can add up quite fast.

There are literally hundreds of excuses for why health care is so high. First, it was smokers. Yet, as the percentage of smokers was cut in half the argument changed to obesity, immigrants, insurance cost, malpractice suits, etc. The next thing you know, it will be that the dog ate the lab slips.

In your list you mention several items, but they fall into fewer categories: The irresponsible (those who can, but won't buy insurance), the uneducated (in the way of what they are buying or what they should sign up for), and bad debt (those who don't pay). You completely left out the working poor, the disabled and the elderly retired.

You mention:

There are many who dont have insurance who make 75,000 dollars

However, I would figure that is the exception, rather then the rule. According to the US Census Bureau the highest median income by state for a single earning (not retired or disabled - that number is much, much lower) is only $55,008 for New Jersey. In fact, only three states sit above $50,000 and one falls as low as $31,152 (if you leave out Porto Rico at $19,000). Most states sit between $35,000 and $45,000.

Yet, we should not forget that minimum wage is only $15,080 annualized before SSI and Medicare is taken out.

Now, think of my first example in my first response to you. If their expenses are capped at $6,000 with insurance then you are still talking 11% of income for the median income in New Jersey and 40% for a minimum wage earner. Also remember that as the median income falls (New Jersey is the highest) that percentage climbs. It also climbs for those who make below the median amount.

BTW, California's median income for a single earner is $47,363 - 13%.

Before retiring from accounting, I did the books of many doctors and a major lab. I also helped in audits of a few hospitals.

Bad debt and write offs existed, yet it was never very big and all of them were making large profits after expenses and taxes. Yet, bad debt is common in any business that has credit. Most of them complain about it and try to minimize the amount. Just good business practice, but not a real excuse for increasing your price to your consumers unless the number becomes so huge that it is a major expense.

If you know of this, please show me the financial statements. After all, the health industry is the largest industry in America!

I also saw that the amounts paid by employers for health insurance (both in the medical industry and other businesses) was the second largest expense most employers had.

My insurance through the lab I worked for covered my family and cost me $100 a month, it cost the lab another $500 a month.

Can I assume that your insurance is also employer provided? If not and you pay all the cost then what insurance? I know many people that I have done their taxes and they pay a lot more then $500 a month and could use the break - I could pass the information on to them.

Can I assume that your insurance is also employer provided? If not and you pay all the cost then what insurance? I know many people that I have done their taxes and they pay a lot more then $500 a month and could use the break - I could pass the information on to them.

What I pay wont help most people since I live in California which has major competition and still has not for profit insurance companies, not that the rates seem low to residents, but are half of Mass.

I left out the poor and disabled for a reason, they are the ones who actually do need the help and are the true uninsured, not the monolithic number of 47 million which is used to make the problem, though bad, look even worse. Mass plan assumed costs would come down if everyone had coverage, less write offs at the emergency room, people would go for tests etc. That program did accomplish one thing, it got their uninsured rate down from 9 pct, which was among the lowest in the country, to 2.5pct, quite an accomplishment. What they couldnt do was control cost, the program is 30pct over budget, hospitals are getting less business and some are shutting down, and the people who are complaining the most ironically are the ones who didnt have coverage and are now getting it for free. I dont need to post links, there was a video this morning, think it was CNN and they interviewed the Treasurer of Mass, he said all of this and more.

We do this on a national scale and are off by 30pct, that would be devasting. Me, I would leave out the public option and to with co ops in states that dont have competition thanks to regulations that actually drove companies out of those states. Regulate the rest with Federal guidelines, and let the states do their jobs, there is no one size fits all. And to take cost savings from Medicare and transfer them to another bloated agency is a travesty, robbing peter to pay paul, a shell game

Back to my insurance, just for your interest ( you asked:) My wife and I are self employed so obviously we pay for our own coverage. About 7 years ago we switched to a high deductible HSA type plan which keep our costs down and provide us with tax savings. Even when we havent used the coverage for medical the IRS allows us to use the money we put into the HSA for dental, which has been the main expense when you are 60 yearsl old. I can say one thing, there is no way we will ever pay premiums equal to the amounts the company has paid out on our behalf, since between my wifes back surgery and mine they paid out over 250,000 dollars just in hospital bills.

We pay about 650 dollars a month since we are 60 years old, and we take a tax deduction for the cost of the premium, being self employed and receive a tax deduction for the 6000 dollars we pay into the special HSA bank account.

Ironically if the House bill passes, the public option, the basic plan will have a high deductible which low income people will not appreciate, if they think that every doctor visit will be covered with a low copay they are going to be dissapointed, not to mention that it doesnt kick in until 2013, showing how bloated that bill is.

Thank you. Increasing competition should be a major goal of any bill. Not just in the insurance sectors, but in the medical sectors as well.

Although there are pieces of this bill that seem good, most of it seems to be inefficient government over sight that will do nothing but drive cost up for consumers.

Ironically if the House bill passes, the public option, the basic plan will have a high deductible which low income people will not appreciate, if they think that every doctor visit will be covered with a low copay they are going to be dissapointed, not to mention that it doesnt kick in until 2013, showing how bloated that bill is.

Which will drive low income individuals to avoid going to the doctors. Thus, not improving anything for the poor. All it does is get a little money out of them to use on other Government projects - just as our Government has done on SSI and SSD.

USAF VET -

Wouldn't it be as cheap (if not cheaper) to just subsidize insurance for those below a certain income level?

Yes, it would be cheaper, less privacy invasion and much less Fed govt control. Hmmm...makes too much sense.

There are all kinds of reforms and revisions that could be made to existing insurance plans and programs.

That was kind of my point. Excellent.

Good.

Really? What if you are 45 and dying from cancer. Will they allow pain medication to keep you comfortable until the end? Will they provide hospice for two or thee months, because you linger? We won't know until their board approves whatever means for whatever death.

And this is just one example of the inaccuracies (outright lies, if you will) being spread about this proposed legislation. Remember what Ronald Reagan said ... "TRUST BUT VERIFY". Don't forget about the verify part of that statement

Ironic you would use the vilified Ronnie as a quote. I dont think many people can understand legalese which is why lawyers write like that. The bill is flawed for many reasons but a line by line examination wont show the big picture. Cost control is not really addressed in the bill, (yes I can read a bill, I am used to reading huge contracts when in the finance area) Fining people for not buying insurance makes it hard to calculate how much revenue will be created to pay subsidies, its fuzzy math. Taking "cost savings" from Medicare is also fuzzy math, all in an effort to hide the true cost of the project. If Mass is any indication, with them being 30pct over budget, as stated by the state treasurer yesterday this could turn out to be one expensive deal, there must be another way, without the layers upon layers of bureacracy included.