They were forced into it by wage controls during WWII; they couldn't attract the best workers any other way.
Check out the time line at the bottom:
-- from THIS page
Posted on 01/19/2007 12:41:24 PM PST by neverdem
A few years down the road, January 2007 could be remembered as a turning point in American health care. A turn leftward, that is. This week, the groups best known for their stalwart opposition to Democratic universal health-care schemes in the 1990s announced two separate coalitions with former adversaries. This follows less-than-conservative health-care initiatives by Republican governors in California and Massachusetts within the past year. Viewed together, it looks like the political terrain on health care is shifting.
In one of this week's coalitions, America's Health Insurance Plans, whose predecessor the Health Insurance Association of America helped torpedo HillaryCare with its "Harry and Louise" ad campaign, joins Families USA, one of Sen. Hillary Clinton's favorites, among other groups, to advocate a yet-to-be-detailed "overhaul" of health care. The other coalition joins the Business Roundtable with the Service Employees International Union, among others, for a similar purpose, also short on details. Not until the coalitions elaborate on the specifics will we know where the new health-care debate is headed.
These are the key players in American health care, buttressed by the top representatives of corporate America generally: America's Health Insurance Plans, the Business Roundtable, plus the American Medical Association, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Hospital Association and others in addition to the above heavy hitters are also involved in these two coalitions. Together, this is quite nearly the entire universe of industry players -- with the important exception of the pharmaceuticals industry. All may now be signaling that they find market-based health care to be unacceptable.
If SchwarzeneggerCare is any indication, the direction is likely to be measurably to the left of previous years. Mr. Schwarzenegger's plan for universal coverage includes "pay or play," a 4 percent payroll tax and a four percent tax on doctors and...
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
"Never heard of requiring part D. Sounds to me as if you have some shopping to do."
It's not required if you don't mind paying a 1%month surcharge. Classic bait and switch. When I signed up all my meds were covered. I still paid in more than got out, but that's how insurance works, so I'm not complaining about that.
But the company stopped covering the more expensive meds, didn't notify me until the free enrollment period was over and I have to wait until November to change companies or pay an extra 11% for the rest of my life.
Let's assume, as a healthy adult, that I have one of those individual plans today at a reasonable premium. How would forcing me into a pool with others who have pre-existing conditions (i.e. not-so-healthy people who will most likely require more care) result in anything other than premium increases for me?
>>
Let's assume, as a healthy adult, that I have one of those individual plans today at a reasonable premium. How would forcing me into a pool with others who have pre-existing conditions (i.e. not-so-healthy people who will most likely require more care) result in anything other than premium increases for me?
>>
Good question.
Here's the answer:
>>
Let's assume, as a healthy adult, that I have one of those individual plans today at a reasonable premium.
>>
You don't. That individual plan costs more than the equivalent group plan. Also, how do you know you're healthy? When were you last to the doc for a full physical? This is another aspect to the problem. You have to be reluctant to go for a physical. If something is found amiss, you then have a pre-existing condition and you are forever screwed.
We need to get fully calibrated on this. Fall off your bicycle and break a few bones? Some plans will not cover problems that evolve in that area of the body. Appendectomy? If you later develop surgical adhesions, they aren't going to cover treatment for them. Gall bladder removed? That will be a whole list of digestive issues that won't be covered. And these are the mild ones. Anything like blood pressure that is general and very, very common, may get you excluded altogether.
As soon as you have one of these exclusion problems, you can't relocate. You can't change insurance carriers. You can't let that policy lapse by even one day. If you do any of these things the insurers are allowed to re-evaluate your worthiness of coverage.
So, your question is a good one, but the premise is necessarily going to be very rare. I suppose a 23 yr old might fall in the category, but he or she will be going in for a physical eventually and rolling the dice when they do.
IMHO, universal healthcare will cause healthcare rationing and fewer physicians as they elect to retire ASAP. If you think medicine is bad now, you ain't seen nothing yet.
The Last Time Congress Reformed Health Care: A Lawmakers Guide to the Medicare Catastrophic Debacle
"Congressman Dan Rostenkowski, one of the most powerful politicians in the United States, was booed and chased down a Chicago street Thursday morning by a group of senior citizens after he refused to talk with them about federal health insurance .... Eventually, the six-foot four-inch Rostenkowski cut through a gas station, broke into a sprint and escaped into his car, which minutes earlier had one of the elderly protesters, Leona Kozien, draped over the hood."
Health Insurance and "Adequate" Care
The Quranic Concept of War Check the source. It's long, but interesting, for a long war.
From time to time, I’ll ping on noteworthy articles about politics, foreign and military affairs. FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.
Unfortunately. A lot of boomers are going to want someone else to take care of them as they age and they have no compunction about having the Government force their kids and grandkids to pick up the tab.
I am in that age group but I would be happy to see all government entitlement programs ended, even though I've been paying into them all my adult life.
I think the Mass. plan is the best solution I've heard. Uninsured people do, as you said, use emergency rooms too much. That's terribly expensive, and paid for by taxes.
Insured people are much more likely to visit doctors or clinics, a much cheaper way to provide health care.
Best of all, it keeps health care in the private sector. We can all buy the best insurance we want, or can afford.
I'd like to see several states try this before we even talk about gov't provided health care.
But it doesn't have to be. All that needs to be done is to lower and simplify the tax code and abolish government healthcare regulations that mandate that insurance have to cover certain procedures and mandate that people have a right to use ERs as their primary care physicians.
Next Medicaid should be abolished.
ROFL! "MEDIC!"
Since people are paying into the system perpetually, there's no worries about where the money is coming from. Competition among the insurance companies would make healthcare affordable as the insurance companies would tailor plans that best meet that person's needs. And sales taxes are the least regressive of taxes.
Low-income people would stop buying plasma TVs and take-out dinners and buy their own insurance plans instead of relying on Medicaid. In fact, Medicaid should be abolished and those who are truly disabled or terminally ill could be mapped over into Medicare, which itself would be phased out over time.
I see. Sound like you have a gripe. Does your plan say you should take generics for the meds not covered, but your doc says they are not the same? I have been happy with Humana Plus for 6 years.
Do you think 65+ year-old-olds, most of whom have pre-existing conditions, would get private insurance? There's too much risk in this group for it to be feasible.
They dropped them altogether. There are no generics yet for either.
I'm not posting to gripe about part D, I'm posting to warn about forcing people to buy health insurance. The "gripe" is just an example I can attest to.
They were forced into it by wage controls during WWII; they couldn't attract the best workers any other way.
Check out the time line at the bottom:
You're absolutely correct, this is going to be a disaster for our healthcare; all this is taking place at the same time as they are being lobbied by pharmaceuticals to deny us access to alternatives like supplements, homeopathy, etc.
You don't mind having 4% of your earnings go for healthcare for illegal aliens? That is part of the California plan.
Thanks for the ping!
To me it is a racket. My Medicare HMO costs more than my SS check. I would not rank it as the most important priority in my life and certainly not more important than everything else put together.
the reason that hospitals are going broke is because they are forced to take less money in payment than what the actual cost is....
how would you like to have a business where the govt told you that you had to sell things at half price to every other person who comes in the door?
I mentioned the Mass plan, not the CA one. As far as I can tell, the most significant difference between the two is CA's allowance for care for illegals.
I know CA needs a guest worker program for agriculture, and there isn't one. But subsidizing illegals as a substitute is the absolutely wrong way to go about fixing the problem.
One GOP California State Senator said this was turning California into an HMO for Mexico and I think he was accurate. Perhaps, if they want to really push the law, they should create Workfare instead of Welfare in California and put all the strong, healthy, men who are on welfare into a work program for their checks, including picking fruit or other crops.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.