Excellent Article comparing the candidates Healthcare Plans (1 Viewer)

[Saint by the Bay]

This is an excellent article comparing the healthcare plans of Hillary / Obama and McCain. Very little has been talked about McCains plan and I'll bet we'd be lucky to find 5 people who could tell you what it is. It doesn't compare Hillary and Obama's much because they are so similar and the real debate will be between the Dem nominee and McCain's plan which are radically different.

The reality is healthcare in this country is going to change in the next 4 years. How and what are the questions, not if. It's going to be a center piece of this campaign and it behooves people to understand it in detail as an issue because the effects on each and every one of us will be extreme.

In many ways I like McCain's plan. The reality is it doesn't do anything for the poor and uninsured but it will help the people on the cusp, like single mothers in the 35 -40k range, by greatly reducing their cost of insurance and I believe as the article writer does it will lead to an increase in salaries in the long run. However, McCain's plan still completely neglects workers of all income brackets with pre-existing conditions that private insurance won't cover. We would still be relegated to group insurance and if employers start dropping group plans like the article predicts many will find themselves in a real pinch.

Anyway, here's the article.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/10/new...care.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2008031109

 

[Sandman]

Thanks for the article. You're right, I had no idea that McCain actually had a health care plan. While I am sure that whatever came out of Congress would be much different, the McCain plan is a good base to start from, IMO.

 

[Shawn]

One of the things that is often overlooked, is that insurance companies have become more and more aggressive about refusing to insure people, for more and more obscure reasons.

You might very well want insurance, and you might have the means to pay for it, but that doesn't mean you can get it.

These are the kind of things that need to be addressed as well.

 

[varanook]

Seems to me McCain's plan would be really rough on people/families that have pre-existing conditions. That alone is a reason for me not to vote for him.. Geez, I have a wife and a kid with pre-existing issues. We would get destroyed if I read that right.

 

[Saint by the Bay]

Thanks for the article. You're right, I had no idea that McCain actually had a health care plan. While I am sure that whatever came out of Congress would be much different, the McCain plan is a good base to start from, IMO.

This is what scares me in a way. I suspect a Democrat controlled Congress will force McCain into a compromise to reduce the tax break in favor of insuring the uninsured to provide 100% coverage. The net result for folks like us will be a net increase in healthcare cost with no additional benefit.

This is a huge issue for me because of my desire to start my own company but my need for group insurance because of my sons stroke. Healthcare is going to be my biggest issue this cycle because right now it's "the" thing standing between me and the American Dream of making mad crazy money and retiring at 45.

 

[Saint by the Bay]

Seems to me McCain's plan would be really rough on people/families that have pre-existing conditions. That alone is a reason for me not to vote for him.. Geez, I have a wife and a kid with pre-existing issues. We would get destroyed if I read that right.

Yep, same here. My 2 year old had a stroke. My guess is under McCain's plan I'd end up having to get private insurance and IF I can find someone to cover him the cost would be astronomical.

I tried to get private recently because I want to start my own company and nobody would cover him.

 

[Dre]

One of the things that is often overlooked, is that insurance companies have become more and more aggressive about refusing to insure people, for more and more obscure reasons.

You might very well want insurance, and you might have the means to pay for it, but that doesn't mean you can get it.

These are the kind of things that need to be addressed as well.

And it probably won't be. there are so many other "pressing" issues, that this will get pushed out of the way (though I fully agree with you). This problem is only going to get worse (incidental findings on the boom of radiologic studies, increasing understanding of the genetic bases of diseases)...but we won;t deal with it until it becoes a crisis...then a bandaid will be applied.

 

[Sandman]

One of the things that is often overlooked, is that insurance companies have become more and more aggressive about refusing to insure people, for more and more obscure reasons.

You might very well want insurance, and you might have the means to pay for it, but that doesn't mean you can get it.

These are the kind of things that need to be addressed as well.

Well, I would add that insurance companies have also become more aggressive about refusing to pay claims, too. Any health care reform in this country will need to have insurance reform as a major part of it.

 

[gavinj]

One of the bulletpoints from McCain's website under healthcare:

"Pass tort reform to eliminate frivolous lawsuits and excessive damage awards. Provide a safe harbor for doctors that follow clinical guidelines and adhere to patient safety protocols."

This dog won't hunt. 'Tort reform' and 'safe harbors' for physicians are ridiculous. Tort reform improves the bottom line for insurance companies, not consumers. And "safe harbors" - really? How about a safe harbor for those of us with perfect driving records? If we accidentally kill somebody on the road, can we be immune from being sued, too? Please.

 

[Sandman]

One of the bulletpoints from McCain's website under healthcare:

"Pass tort reform to eliminate frivolous lawsuits and excessive damage awards. Provide a safe harbor for doctors that follow clinical guidelines and adhere to patient safety protocols."

This dog won't hunt. 'Tort reform' and 'safe harbors' for physicians are ridiculous. Tort reform improves the bottom line for insurance companies, not consumers. And "safe harbors" - really? How about a safe harbor for those of us with perfect driving records? If we accidentally kill somebody on the road, can we be immune from being sued, too? Please.

I agree. Rather than make it more difficult to sue insurers, insurance reform should make it easier to sue them. They have way too much power. Despite all of the tort reform in Texas, my insurance keeps rising.

 

[varanook]

Yep, same here. My 2 year old had a stroke. My guess is under McCain's plan I'd end up having to get private insurance and IF I can find someone to cover him the cost would be astronomical.

I tried to get private recently because I want to start my own company and nobody would cover him.

Yeah, costs would be through the roof for me IF I could find someone to cover us.

It sucks that I am one of those people costing the young and healthy extra in healthcare premiums but I don't have an alternative.
I think neither plan is very good for me personally.

One of the things that is often overlooked, is that insurance companies have become more and more aggressive about refusing to insure people, for more and more obscure reasons.

You might very well want insurance, and you might have the means to pay for it, but that doesn't mean you can get it.

These are the kind of things that need to be addressed as well.

This is the larger problem imo. Insurance profits should not be involved when it comes to a persons healthcare. Publicly traded companies beholden to shareholders should not be allowed to govern peoples healthcare.

I also would somehow address the obnoxious costs that doctors charge. (admittedly I don't know how it could be done though) I pay $20 for a co-pay than the doc turns around and charges the insurance company 130.00. This is for about 10-15 total minutes of time with the doc himself. Multiply that by say 20 patients and that's 3000 for 1 day. Stay open 5 days a week and that is 15,000 for the week. Multiply that by 52 and that is gross 780,000 for a year. I think my numbers are on the low end too.

That doesn't include the wait time because the doc overscheduled and is running behind. Blah, blah, blah.

 

[Sandman]

I also would somehow address the obnoxious costs that doctors charge. (admittedly I don't know how it could be done though) I pay $20 for a co-pay than the doc turns around and charges the insurance company 130.00. This is for about 10-15 total minutes of time with the doc himself. Multiply that by say 20 patients and that's 3000 for 1 day. Stay open 5 days a week and that is 15,000 for the week. Multiply that by 52 and that is gross 780,000 for a year. I think my numbers are on the low end too.

That doesn't include the wait time because the doc overscheduled and is running behind. Blah, blah, blah.

But that isn't take home for the doctor. He has overhead, rent, utilities, salaries for the staff he employs, and probably rental fees for the various pieces of equipment at his facility. While I am sure that your doctor makes a nice living, he isn't making anywhere near $780,000 a year.

 

[Saint by the Bay]

But that isn't take home for the doctor. He has overhead, rent, utilities, salaries for the staff he employs, and probably rental fees for the various pieces of equipment at his facility. While I am sure that your doctor makes a nice living, he isn't making anywhere near $780,000 a year.

Depends on the size and nature of the practice. Most small private practitioners I know are in the 400-500k range and I know quite a few.

The real money is in the specialists. These guys make ridiculous sums of money. Neonatologists (sp?), Neurologists, etc. just bank at near obscene amounts.

That being said I'm never for capping or regulating individual incomes. These people are in school into their 30's and don't ever stop having to learn. Being a Doctor requires more time and dedication than nearly any profession I can think of. Let them make their money, they earn it.

 

[primadox]

That being said I'm never for capping or regulating individual incomes. These people are in school into their 30's and don't ever stop having to learn. Being a Doctor requires more time and dedication than nearly any profession I can think of. Let them make their money, they earn it.

I agree with this completely. My best friend and her husband are both doctors, and they are not making an astronomical living. When she told me how much they spend in malpractice insurance (with no lawsuits filed, either), I was floored. Combined with all the continuing ed that is required, loans to repay, horrid hours they work...they have earned their money, IMO.

I wish something would be done to reform insurance at the basic level...preventative care. I have a high-deductable plan, with two doctors appointments covered via co-pay per person per year, and at the end of December I brought my middle son for a well child visit, since we had an appointment "left" and I didn't want to use up one of my two appointments too early in 2008. Guess what...insurance paid NOTHING. All these reasons were given as to why certain aspects of the appointment were not covered. Now my daughter has to go in for a well child visit prior to starting Kindergarten...I wonder what will be covered. Why am I paying those premiums again?? Oh, in case something catastrophic happens...in which case so much will not be covered, we'll go bankrupt anyway, like so many others with insurance who still lost everything due to medical costs. Plus, my premiums have almost doubled in the last 3 years...and our plan doesn't even jump into the next higher age bracket until January. All the increases were due to "increased costs".

That's a problem I see with McCain's plan...many times the age-related increases will occur when people still have high costs of kids at home, college, etc. The increases will hit at a time when they're not necessarily economically "set" in life, and in fact when they're getting hit with a lot of extra expenses. Pre-existing conditions that one can do nothing about are one thing, but I'm intrigued by the a la carte approach to optional items, such as maternity (I'm done having kids - hysterectomy with my last one -, so I shouldn't be considered "at risk" and therefore needing that coverage).

I just know when I'm paying thousands of dollars each year and my 7 year old son's well child visit still isn't even covered, then something is WRONG.

 

[Sabine]

I disagree with McCain's plan. We've been in the free market - It doesn't work for health care and the health insurance industry. That's what brought us to where we are today. Universal health care is the way to go. I didn't believe that in the early 1990s, but after spending much of my time since getting an up close look at the evils of the insurance industry and the harm it has done to those it promised to protect and didn't, the hurdle after hurdle policy holders have to climb just to get the coverage they paid for and the insurer knows how many claimants will just give up and go away for each hurdle erected, the outrageous and ever-rising premiums, the same policy language interpreted differently from state to state, job turnovers resulting in new coverage that excludes the the pre-existing which is often the worker's primary medical care need, etc......... I've changed my mind.

It is far less expensive per person to cover everybody. And No, Clinton and Obama's plans are not so identical that they should be grouped as one:

The principal policy division between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama involves health care. It's a division that can seem technical and obscure - and I've read many assertions that only the most wonkish care about the fine print of their proposals.
But there really is a big difference between the candidates' approaches. And new research, just released, confirms what I've been saying: The difference between the plans could well be the difference between achieving universal health coverage - a key progressive goal - and falling far short.
Specifically, new estimates say that a plan resembling Clinton's would cover almost twice as many of those now uninsured as a plan resembling Obama's - at only slightly higher cost.
Let's talk about how the plans compare.
Both require that private insurers offer policies to everyone, regardless of medical history. Both also allow people to buy into government-offered insurance instead.
And both plans seek to make insurance affordable to lower-income Americans. The Clinton plan is, however, more explicit about affordability, promising to limit insurance costs as a percentage of family income (She has said in the 5-10% range, hopefully closer to 5). And it also seems to include more funds for subsidies. The big difference is mandates: The Clinton plan requires everyone to have insurance; the Obama plan does not.
Obama claims that people will buy insurance if it becomes affordable. Unfortunately, the evidence says otherwise.
Contradicting his earlier assertions that affordability is the only bar to coverage, Obama is now talking about penalizing those who delay signing up, but it's not clear how this would work.
So the Obama plan would leave more people uninsured than the Clinton plan. How big is the difference?
To answer this question you need to make a detailed analysis of health care decisions. That's what Jonathan Gruber of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, one of America's leading health care economists, does in a new paper.
Gruber finds that a plan without mandates, broadly resembling the Obama plan, would cover 23 million of those currently uninsured, at a taxpayer cost of $102 billion per year. An otherwise identical plan with mandates would cover 45 million of the uninsured - essentially everyone - at a taxpayer cost of $124 billion. Overall, the Obama-type plan would cost $4,400 per newly insured person, the Clinton-type plan only $2,700.
That doesn't look like a trivial difference to me. One plan achieves more or less universal coverage; the other, although it costs more than 80 percent as much, covers only about half of those currently uninsured. That's why many health care experts like Gruber strongly support mandates........
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/04/opinion/edkrugman.php