Best estimates put the number of uninsured Americans at 47 million. One of the biggest debates in the country is how to get these people insured. The proposals to acheive this are all over the map. Some presidential candidates believe health insurance should be mandatory. At the other end of the spectrum are plans to let the free-market system determine the best plan, and those who don't want insurance, don't have to have it. Mixed between those two proposals are even more ideas.
Mandatory Universal Health Care Coverage
Users that have shown interest in this issue
Candidate Responses
Clinton has introduced the American Health Choices plan, which would require all Americans to sign up for health care. There are three key options: people could keep their existing plan; choose plans that are similar to those offered federal employees; or enroll in a plan similar to Medicare. Her plan would forbid insurance companies from denying coverage or charging more for pre-existing conditions. All large employers would be required to insure their workers or contribute to a federal pool. Smaller businesses could get tax credits for providing health coverage. Clinton said her plan could be paid for by eliminating the president’s tax cuts for those making more than $250,000.
Biden supports universal health care and wants to expand coverage for children under the age of 18 first. He would do that by expanding the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, which gives government subsidies to families who earn too much to qualify for Medicaid.
He wants to create a federal pool to reimburse employers and insurers for 75 percent of the catastrophic health costs (more than $50,000) for active and retired employees and their families.
To pay for his plan, Biden would eliminate some of President Bush’s tax cuts, especially the tax break on dividends.
Dodd has proposed a “Universal Healthmart,” similar to what is offered federal employees and would require all children to be under the plan. Americans could keep their existing health coverage, or enroll in this new plan. Fees – for both businesses and individuals – would be based on an ability to pay.
He proposes paying for it through employer and employee premiums, reducing inefficiencies in the existing system and revenues coming from ending the war in Iraq.
Edwards would require all Americans to get health insurance, which would be subsidized by employers and the government. He would create regional “health care markets” that would offer choices among competing insurance plans. Employers would pay for workers’ insurance or contribute to those costs through the health markets. Edwards would pay for his plan primarily by eliminating the tax cuts enacted by Bush for those making more than $250,000.
Giuliani opposes any government-mandated health plan. Instead, he would offer a $15,000 tax deduction to families ($7,500 for individuals) so they could buy insurance. He also favors expanding health savings accounts to make them easier to participate in. Part of the rising costs of health care is due to Medicare fraud and frivolous lawsuits, according to Giuliani, who supports free-market fixes to reducing costs and improving quality.
National Health Care
Anyone who thinks they oppose a national health care system, should watch the movie "Sicko."
47 million?
Best "estimates"? Excuse me for being the cynic here. Does anybody know where those numbers come from? Who compiled those numbers, what criteria was used? Who is included in those numbers and why?
When I lived in Virginia it was imperative we have some sort of health care provided inexpensively to all the children who lacked health care in Virginia. Those who were administering the plan had a devil of a time finding all those uninsured children. They tried more advertising, increasing the income level to get more of these children insured. They were convinced that there were more children among the working poor who needed insurance. If so, why the problem to get them all signed up?
Please spare me the reasons (which are no more than guesses) as to why it was difficult to get all of those uninsured children on to the program. I might suppose they don't exist or the number that needed it was far too high. My supposition is just as accurate or inaccurate as anyone else's.
We are making decisions on something that is crucial to our lifestyle as how we dispense our health care dollars and whether we should have mandatory health care, etc.
I think it is incumbent upon us to have numbers that more accurately reflect the true state of health care in the US. If that means that we have to ask embarrassing questions when certain numbers are presented, then so be it.
I dont' want someone telling me there are 47 million people or 147 million people without healthcare when the compiler of those figures has their own agenda and it is not an objective agenda.
I want to know what comprises that 47 million people? Young people who rely on their parent's insurance?, college kids who work sporadically to afford school and have no serious diseases and/or conditions that require constant medical attention therefore opt out of spending money for health insurance when they feel the money is better spent on education, etc. People who are between jobs for even a month? Irresponsible people who expect someone else to take care of them? Working poor who can't afford insurance for themselves? Just exactly who are these people and how many of each are there?
I don't know about you but I'm tired of seeing gigantic numbers on various issues and having no idea nor given any clue as to how they arrived at certain numbers.
His remains, The Rebel
Health Care
Lou
The most expensive health care is in the Emergency Room. If you have the flu and go to your own physician you will be charged between $50 and $100 for an exam and recomendations for treatment. If you go to the Emergency Room you will be charged well over $250 for the same evaluation and probably have addtional tests that will cost even more.
If that patient has Medicaid the reimbursement to the facility is less than the charge. If it actually costs more that the reimbursement then the facility will raise their fees on paying patients (insured) to cover the loss. Similarly for the uninsured patient, the cost is passed on to paying patients or to governmental programs that help compensate for medical care such as a city contract or special programs that help facilities that take care of alot of ininsured. These programs are paid for by Medicare (such as the services of interns and residents) or property taxes.
Bottom line: the un-or underinsured cost everyone else either in increased fees to those who can pay ie: private insurance companies or through Medicare or general taxes. WE ALL PAY FOR THE UNINSURED and we pay more because they obtain their care in the most expensive environment, the emergency room.
Medicare has a 3% overhead. Private insurance has a 12% overhead. What is more economical? Medicare recipients (those over 65 years of age) generally are satisfied with their health care. Medicare pays for basic hospital care and doctor visits and people can buy extra coverage (supplemental) if they desire. Most recipients can choose their own physicians and hospitals. If they join Medicare HMO's they usually will be required to see certain physicans and go to certain hospitals in return for lower premiums. They have a choice.
Universal Health Care would simply mean that all people would be on a system similar to Medicare. Many of the other programs wouldn't be necessary such as infant care, childrens care, dialysis coverage, special programs for congential heart disease etc. There would be savings in eliminating all the special programs. Also the government would be a huge buying block thus able to negotiate lower prices for drugs and equipment as has been shown in a few states that do this.
It is true that wealthy people from around the world come to the US for certain health problems, usually ELECTVE surgeries. There may be waits in other countries for ELECTIVE surgeries but not for required care. This is true in the US also, especially while awaiting approval from the insurance companies for these procedures. There also is a movement of people going to Southeast Asia for semi-elective surgeries at a much lower cost that in the US to avoid the co-pays and deductibles that many insurance policies now require. These include cataract removal and coronary artery by-pass surgeries. In other words while we have the best health are in the world for the wealthy we don't have the best for the avarage person and certainly not for the un- or underinsured.
I would be happy to hear comments relative to this explanation.
Universal Health Care is nice, but currently unattainable.
I agree with you completely that increased emergency room visits for non emergencies has ruined the health care system, but there are many different reasons for the increase in health care prices and even more views on how it should be resolved. Another reason why health care prices have increased is the fact that there are numerous malpractice lawsuits in this country and outrageous sums awarded to plaintiffs that win their cases, regardless as to how frivolous the case may be. Millions of dollars are at stake for malpractice suits, and doctors must charge more in turn to afford to pay for malpractice suits and insurance against it. To limit the amount one can recieve from these lawsuits, depending on severity, would do much to alleviate the current health care crisis we face now.
I'm all for the reduction of the costs of medical insurance and medical care in this country, but I honestly can't say I'd prefer the government in control of it. After all, they were in control of the VA hospitals that were in deplorable condition that were in the media last year. There are many ways that we can reduce the cost of health care for many people, and it involves much less government control than the health care systems of many other developed countries.
Many people have a "let's make the rich pay for it" mentality and say "roll back the Bush tax cuts to pay for health care". Unfortunately that's not the answer. Nearly 97% of taxes in the US are paid by the top 50% of the income earners, and the top 1% of all income earners in the US paid almost 40% of all taxes in the US. All of this is according to the IRS website. http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=129270,00.html (tables 5 and 6),
Are we going to be expected to tell them that they're just going to have to pay more to satisfy those that don't earn as much and can't buy or "afford" health care? A majority in the top 1% are business owners anyway. And in the end, the lower classes will end up paying for it completely through embedded taxes in the cost of goods. The rich get taxed more, they raise the cost of their goods by a few cents to pay for these taxes, and the common folk end up paying a majority of the same taxes we complain about paying too much of with the money we don't have enough of.
There have been numerous accounts of Medicare fraud in recent years. All at the expenses of the tax payers. What's going to stop that from happening once we do go to a Universal Health Care system? Even more, what's going to stop it from happening more? Are we then going to force doctors to all charge the same fees for services? Is the government going to be so critical of money spent under a UHC system that they'll verify each and every charge? A UHC system wouldn't do much to better our health care, or our economy. I'd love to see more people healthy, and more people having access to better health care, but until lots of problems are addressed
I won't deny that Universal Health Care would be nice, but taxes on all classes would increase to cover it. Our current tax code has done nothing to help make our economic situation better, and it won't be of any benefit economically if a Universal Health Care system were to come into effect. Maybe if we were to put in effect the FairTax, which has been determined to do wonders for our current economic situation, end the Iraq War, and curb Congress's habit of wasteful spending, it would be attainable. But without doing anything about our current shortcomings, we'll continue to drive businesses and jobs away, ruin the economy even more, and cause a bigger mess than we're in right now by putting a system of Universal Health Care in effect.
Also, why not just let states decide on whether they want to cover everyone in their state? That way if the people of that state want it, they can pay more in their state taxes for it. Granted, it wouldn't cover for people in states that decide against it but personally want health care and can't currently get it, but it would be much better than making the many pay for the few. Health care is not a power written into the Constitution for the
federal government to provide. There have been too many powers given to
the federal government that it wasn't originally planned to handle
anyway. Make the states take care of it.
47 million people aren't a majority of the 300 million people estimated in this country. Also, a few questions. Of these 47 million, how many are here illegally and aren't entitled to any of the benefits they currently get anyway (food stamps, WIC, medicare, TANF)? Of the 47 million that are here legally and are entitled to benefits, how many are in the lower, middle, and higher economic brackets?
What about denial for pre-existing conditions? Hillary wants to enforce insurance companies to pay for people with pre-existing conditions that are usually turned away. Is this right to force insurance companies to cover people that are going to be an immediate cost to them without paying in anything to the system to begin with? What if they sign up, get their procedures done, then drop coverage? That's going to drive the price of private insurance up dramatically as well.
I understand that the current system isn't fair to many in this country, but when you get down to it, no one ever told you that life was going to be fair. Some people seem to think it was, and want the government to make it so. By forcing the rich to pay for the poor, and the people that have made good health choices to cover the people that haven't made good health choices, the government is trying to make life fair, but instead punishing the people who have made choices with good outcomes to pay for the people who haven't. And unfortunately, that isn't fair.