We pride ourselves on having the friendliest
and most welcoming forums for moms and moms to be! Please take a moment
and register
for free so you can be a part of our growing community of mothers.
If you have any problems registering please drop an email to boards@justmommies.com.
Our community is moderated by our moderation team so you won't see spam or offensive messages posted on our forums. Each of our message boards is hosted by JustMommies hosts, whose names are listed at the top each board. We hope you find our message boards friendly, helpful, and fun to be on!
It was brought up in another thread that McCain aims to tax your healthcare premiums. This is true, but it is really only a 1/2 truth because he is also giving you a tax break of $2500 per individual or $5000 per family. This would actually be a better tax break for us then then current system. It would be worse for others. For people without any insurance at all this would be huge. Here is an article that outlines McCains plan and then contrasts it with the Dem's plan:
It was brought up in another thread that McCain aims to tax your healthcare premiums. This is true, but it is really only a 1/2 truth because he is also giving you a tax break of $2500 per individual or $5000 per family. This would actually be a better tax break for us then then current system. It would be worse for others. For people without any insurance at all this would be huge. Here is an article that outlines McCains plan and then contrasts it with the Dem's plan:
While neither side seems to have a fool proof plan, I agree with the article that McCains is better.[/b]
I disagree, and a free market is no place for health care. It doesn't begin to address the challenges that a family like mine, with a special needs child faces. If anything, it excludes us from getting access to affordable, consistent care for our child. Furthermore - Tully is no health care expert, and Catastrophic healthcare coverage is not PREVENTATIVE care.
(discussing McCain's Plan) Kenneth Thorpe, a noted health economist, put the figure at 5 million to 7 million people, because two-thirds of uninsured Americans would require higher tax credits to pay for family coverage, he said, which averages $12,000 a year — $4,500 for individuals.
At those prices, the credits likely could pay only for catastrophic coverage, said Mark Pauly, a health-care management professor at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania.
Holtz-Eakin said insurers would have to provide coverage that met certain standards, but no such standards have been worked out.
Critics say that McCain's plan will hasten the decline of the employer-based health system by steering younger, healthy people into the private market. Health economists applaud the proposal, however, because it would make the tax code more progressive by removing an exclusion that disproportionately benefits higher-income workers with more generous health plans. In fact, some higher income people with generous plans would end up with higher tax bills under McCain's proposal.[/b]
Again, a free market is no place for healthcare. We need guaranteed coverage, so that insurance companies aren't allowed to deny coverage based on loopholes and procedures. We also need stop gaps that don't allow patients to lose their drs in the middle of receiving care, because your company plan changes. This is especially important if you have special needs children or someone in need of constant medical attention. McCain's plan is essentially a bit FU to families with special needs.
As a reminder - I know darn well what it's like to be a supposed 'fully insured' family, paying nearly $11K annually for insurance that's also funded through the employer (I believe they cover 1/3 - we pay the additional $11k), and $14K for whatever insurance decides they don't want to cover. And we know what it's like having a child have to wait 2 years to see a neurologist because of insurance changes. We shouldn't have to go bankrupt trying to get our child in to see a dr. when we're paying for coverage that we can't use.
Again, a free market is no place for healthcare. We need guaranteed coverage, so that insurance companies aren't allowed to deny coverage based on loopholes and procedures. We also need stop gaps that don't allow patients to lose their drs in the middle of receiving care, because your company plan changes. This is especially important if you have special needs children or someone in need of constant medical attention. McCain's plan is essentially a bit FU to families with special needs.
As a reminder - I know darn well what it's like to be a supposed 'fully insured' family, paying nearly $11K annually for insurance that's also funded through the employer (I believe they cover 1/3 - we pay the additional $11k), and $14K for whatever insurance decides they don't want to cover. And we know what it's like having a child have to wait 2 years to see a neurologist because of insurance changes. We shouldn't have to go bankrupt trying to get our child in to see a dr. when we're paying for coverage that we can't use.[/b]
AND you are not the minority, maybe not your specific situation but millions of families face these insurance loophole issues annually and it is so devastating to have a parent, child or loved one need medical care but be denied because of a loop hole.
I just hate when people (no one on here, I mean like the ones who write those articles) give a fraction of the truth. This healthcare representative was on Oprah I believe and said well we approve 5 million claims for Americans and the audience was impressed, then this other healthcare expert was like well you also DENY 38 million and so and so million are not even covered so don't say the system does not need to be fixed. (the numbers are not perfect but you get the idea.)
I just want to feel safe and know that if something happens I am not going to get a letter from my insurance agency saying my kid can't have surgery because of some insurance loophole that some cracker jack insurance agent spet day and night trying to find to intentionally prevent the aproval (yes they do that, I have an aunt that is a psychiatrist and she has worked with HMO's and all kinds of healthcare bodies and the things that she told the family about the system would make you ill, about how she gets memos from insurnace agencies darn near advising HER the expert of how to treat the patient at th eless cost to the agency, how to delay scheduling and all sorts of things, it burdened her conscience so bad she stopped practicing and went int consulting.
So those loop holes need to be filled and eliminated!
__________________
Finally mom to 3 girls....welcome home Samantha Star...born Tues Feb 3rd!
Formally Known as Babies but I lost my old password!
Again, a free market is no place for healthcare. We need guaranteed coverage, so that insurance companies aren't allowed to deny coverage based on loopholes and procedures. We also need stop gaps that don't allow patients to lose their drs in the middle of receiving care, because your company plan changes. This is especially important if you have special needs children or someone in need of constant medical attention. McCain's plan is essentially a bit FU to families with special needs.
As a reminder - I know darn well what it's like to be a supposed 'fully insured' family, paying nearly $11K annually for insurance that's also funded through the employer (I believe they cover 1/3 - we pay the additional $11k), and $14K for whatever insurance decides they don't want to cover. And we know what it's like having a child have to wait 2 years to see a neurologist because of insurance changes. We shouldn't have to go bankrupt trying to get our child in to see a dr. when we're paying for coverage that we can't use.[/b]
AND you are not the minority, maybe not your specific situation but millions of families face these insurance loophole issues annually and it is so devastating to have a parent, child or loved one need medical care but be denied because of a loop hole.
I just hate when people (no one on here, I mean like the ones who write those articles) give a fraction of the truth. This healthcare representative was on Oprah I believe and said well we approve 5 million claims for Americans and the audience was impressed, then this other healthcare expert was like well you also DENY 38 million and so and so million are not even covered so don't say the system does not need to be fixed. (the numbers are not perfect but you get the idea.)
I just want to feel safe and know that if something happens I am not going to get a letter from my insurance agency saying my kid can't have surgery because of some insurance loophole that some cracker jack insurance agent spet day and night trying to find to intentionally prevent the aproval (yes they do that, I have an aunt that is a psychiatrist and she has worked with HMO's and all kinds of healthcare bodies and the things that she told the family about the system would make you ill, about how she gets memos from insurnace agencies darn near advising HER the expert of how to treat the patient at th eless cost to the agency, how to delay scheduling and all sorts of things, it burdened her conscience so bad she stopped practicing and went int consulting.
So those loop holes need to be filled and eliminated!
[/b]
Oh, I hear you - and I'm not the only one I know, because we see these parents every week at the Drs offices, at Therapy clinics, even at the grocery store. It's something special needs parents have in common, and discuss. We all try to find ways to see that our children are taken care of, and how other families manage when they're not.
But families that aren't facing these issues, or don't know someone that is - are just completely clueless on the difficulties we face. But in their self-denial of our issues, and lack of concern on how important we need their help to fix it - they don't realize that they could face the same problems we face in the future. If not by the birth of their own child with needs, but maybe like a mom we know with a 9yo that suffered brain damage after an auto accident. Her once 'normal' child, is now essentially like a child with moderate cerebral palsy - physically, and due to seizure damage, developmentally. She disclosed that she never had to worry about insurance covering things - now it's a constant fight for her.
Health insurance is insurance not a warranty. I do not deny that there needs to be reform, but having the govenment taking over is not the answer. The role of the federal goverment is not to run our day to day lives. The free market is a good thing. It can control costs if it is allowed to work the way it is supposed to. The goverment really just gets in the way.
I don't know. I think affordable healthcare should be a basic right for everyone. I'm just skeptical of how UHC would be run in this country and if it would be like medicaid. I would not support that because the medicaid system is totally disorganized and we've had a terrible experience with being able to have my daughter seen, she's not been able to utilize programs that would be beneficial for her, and certain health care providers do not accept it. Private insurance is not much better....its no fun to have your baby in for an eeg and be partway through the process of the tech glueing electrodes to her head when the dr. comes in and states they have to stop the process because insurance has not approved the procedure yet and they're still on the phone "negotiating". Then, if you have NO insurance and your child needs services that are pricey, they sometimes have to go without. My daughter is 15 now and we've been in each situation..... none of them are really acceptable. I'm just not sure on the solution at present so I'm still reading what they each have to say.
__________________
Tammy, Mom to
Abby (19), Kacie (13), Chase (11), & Jacob (7)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "...They're supposed to make you miserable! That's why they're family!" ~ Bobby ~ Supernatural
Yes but to keep it affordable we need the government out of it. If we let them in the costs will probably go up because no one will be accountable. People will be just like well the goverment will take care of it. Plus our taxes will have to be raised to pay for it. Obama has no long term solution for cost control. In the end it will cost us more.
I don't know. I think affordable healthcare should be a basic right for everyone. I'm just skeptical of how UHC would be run in this country and if it would be like medicaid. I would not support that because the medicaid system is totally disorganized and we've had a terrible experience with being able to have my daughter seen, she's not been able to utilize programs that would be beneficial for her, and certain health care providers do not accept it. Private insurance is not much better....its no fun to have your baby in for an eeg and be partway through the process of the tech glueing electrodes to her head when the dr. comes in and states they have to stop the process because insurance has not approved the procedure yet and they're still on the phone "negotiating". Then, if you have NO insurance and your child needs services that are pricey, they sometimes have to go without. My daughter is 15 now and we've been in each situation..... none of them are really acceptable. I'm just not sure on the solution at present so I'm still reading what they each have to say.[/b]
As a UHC carrier, that knows people on the public system - I can tell you that the Public system is better, at least here in IL.
As for private insurance... We couldn't find a private insurance company that would take us, because of Kyle.
Yes but to keep it affordable we need the government out of it. If we let them in the costs will probably go up because no one will be accountable. People will be just like well the goverment will take care of it. Plus our taxes will have to be raised to pay for it. Obama has no long term solution for cost control. In the end it will cost us more.[/b]
I don't know as I agree though. I think the govt. needs to get involved. Its crazy to think someone should have to pay $1,100 a month for an average policy for their family or that someone doesn't qualify because they have a special needs child. Its wrong and someone should step up to the plate with some real solutions. Like I said, I'm still undecided on this one.
__________________
Tammy, Mom to
Abby (19), Kacie (13), Chase (11), & Jacob (7)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "...They're supposed to make you miserable! That's why they're family!" ~ Bobby ~ Supernatural
Let me collect my thoughts and see if I can come up with something that might help. I am not always good at off the cuff remarks on stuff like this. I work in the insurance industry and have seen first hand how govt regulations have increased costs and made doing business even harder. I do agree something needs to be done. What that something is, I am just not sure right now. I do know it isn't what Obama is proposing though. Medicare, Medicaid and social security are all gov't run programs and they are all terribly run with huge overhead. I just don't trust the gov't to my healthcare.
Quote:
As a UHC carrier, that knows people on the public system - I can tell you that the Public system is better, at least here in IL.
As for private insurance... We couldn't find a private insurance company that would take us, because of Kyle.[/b]
I will say that I think this is wrong. There has to be some way to come to a middle ground on stuff like this.
Let me collect my thoughts and see if I can come up with something that might help. I am not always good at off the cuff remarks on stuff like this. I work in the insurance industry and have seen first hand how govt regulations have increased costs and made doing business even harder. I do agree something needs to be done. What that something is, I am just not sure right now. I do know it isn't what Obama is proposing though. Medicare, Medicaid and social security are all gov't run programs and they are all terribly run with huge overhead. I just don't trust the gov't to my healthcare.
As a UHC carrier, that knows people on the public system - I can tell you that the Public system is better, at least here in IL.
As for private insurance... We couldn't find a private insurance company that would take us, because of Kyle.[/b]
I will say that I think this is wrong. There has to be some way to come to a middle ground on stuff like this.
[/b]
But this is the realities of a free market. The only way to change that is to intervene - then you have people freaking out that they're going to be taxed. The only way to address it, is to fund it. We can do that by covering all (even if it's all children), which would actually benefit families - or we can do it for just special health needs (which leaves too many children at risk). But either way, social conservatives, as a platform - would rather see our son refused care, than to contribute to the betterment of society through adequate healthcare. I'm not saying this is your specific position, because you are stating that there needs to be some change. But change comes with a cost. We can put a bandaid on it, or we can consolidate and bring costs down by group coverage for all.
The role of the federal goverment is not to run our day to day lives. The free market is a good thing. It can control costs if it is allowed to work the way it is supposed to.[/b]
As an economics teacher, I can tell you that you are correct, the free market does tend to work much more efficiently than the government in most instances. However, this is not true in the case of things that are public goods. To explain this concept very simply, a public good is anything where I as an individual will benefit even if someone else decides to pay for it. Therefore, I personally have a huge incentive not to pay for these things myself, because I can just wait for someone else to do it and then "free ride" off of their sacrifice.
For example: A purse is not a public good, it is a private good. This is because if I buy it, I am the only one who gets to use it. I can't just wait for someone else to buy it and then claim the benefits for myself. I personally have to decide if the purse is worth more to me than the cost of the price tag -- if it is, then I will buy, if not, then I won't buy. The free market works well for regulating these sorts of items.
The military/national defense, on the other hand, is a public good. Imagine that I live in a small town that needs to defend itself against some external threat (maybe this is in historic times or something -- just humor me here). Everyone else in the town bands together and decides that each person will contribute $5 in order to fund a 'town militia.' They ask me to contribute $5 as well. But I think to myself....Why should I pay? Even if I don't pay my $5, that is not going to stop the rest of the town from starting this militia. And as long as I live in this town, if the militia is keeping the town safe, then I will also be safe. They can't exclude me from being safe just because I opted out of paying. Therefore, I think I will keep my money to myself.
However, obviously, if every individual citizen thinks like this, then the militia will never get funded. Thus, the only way to make people pay for these public goods is for the government to step in and tax them -- force is required, for the good of the whole.
Are you still with me here? I apologize if I've lost anyone. This concept is definitely easier to explain in person.
Okay, so in our modern era, education is considered to be a public good. You and I both benefit if kids in New York and Los Angeles are well-educated, because then they will grow up to be active participants in the democratic process (like we all are here on these forums ) and we will end up with good leaders in the future. They are also more likely to be hard-working, responsible, productive citizens, which will make our economy stronger. It's good for all of us if all kids are educated, but on an individual level, there's no good reason for me to take it upon myself to pay to educate some poor kid in Harlem to go to school. I would still benefit even if somebody else paid. So, in this situation, the government steps in and pays for the schools; everybody wins.
Now I come to my main point: HEALTH CARE IS THE SAME WAY. It is a public good. Personally, I really hope that all of the rest of you are immune to polio and the measles. Why? Because if you are immune, then I am less likely to get sick by being near you. I also hope that you stay fit, and exercise, and take care of yourselves mentally and physically. Why? Because if you do, then you will be a more productive worker, and the economy of the U.S. will be stronger, which leads to more job opportunities for me. EVERYBODY benefits from EVERYONE else being healthy -- I'm certainly not going to step in and personally volunteer to pay for you to get medicines you need to keep your heart or lungs healthy, but I sure hope that somebody does. And therefore, reasonably, in this situation, the government is the best 'man' for the job.
For those of you who I lost in my previous post (and I know there are some of you -- I get the same blank looks from my students sometimes ), I will add this, truncated version of why the government is the best agent for managing health care:
1. Allowing health care to be run by private insurers makes our health care system in the U.S. the most expensive in the world. This is primarily because of administrative costs. The way it works is: the insurance companies know that they will only make a profit if they collect more in revenue than they have to spend on costs. Thus, they have a huge incentive to deny coverage wherever possible in order to keep their costs down. However, this is not always easy for them to do, contractually. They have to spend a lot of money on hiring lawyers to tell them when they are legally allowed to deny things, on hiring secretarial-type people to stamp "denied" on claims and to work in the complaints department where their primary job is to route frustrated would-be patients around in circles and make them even more frustrated until they give up, etc. It is beneficial for them to do this, so long as the costs of hiring these lawyers, and bureaucrats, and secretaries are lower than the cost would be of just granting the claims.
At the same time, hospitals (who are staffed by doctors, who are generally pretty interested in giving their patients the best care possible -- after all, they have taken the Hippocratic Oath) have to employ their OWN legions of staff to get on the phone with the insurance companies and try to convince them to change their mind when coverage is denied. They hire lawyers, bureaucrats, etc., to fight for their patients -- sometimes successfully, sometimes not successfully. This makes the cost of running the hospital much higher than it would be if they didn't have to employ these people.
The net result is that in the U.S., administrative costs make up a far larger portion of health care costs than anywhere else in the world. Some estimates suggest that approximately 1/3 of total health care costs in this country are spent just on administration. Give the job over to the government, and talk about "cutting out the middle man"!
2. Another reason that health care costs are more expensive here than elsewhere is because our system encourages us to de-emphasize the idea of prevention. If I feel like I can't afford to go to the doctor for a small illness, then I'm just going to wait, and wait, and wait until suddenly I'm so sick and I finally decide to go to the doctor and find out that actually I have cancer. This would have been treatable earlier for a fraction of the cost if it had only been caught. But instead, the system made me wait until I reached the point of desperation. Hence the hefty price tag.
3. If nothing else convinces you, then I'll give you this: I currently live abroad. We have government-provided public health insurance. Almost every developed country in the world does except for the U.S. And it works FINE. The stuff they tell you on tv about long lines and endless delays in other countries is simply not true. That's the BOTTOM LINE.
The role of the federal goverment is not to run our day to day lives. The free market is a good thing. It can control costs if it is allowed to work the way it is supposed to.[/b]
As an economics teacher, I can tell you that you are correct, the free market does tend to work much more efficiently than the government in most instances. However, this is not true in the case of things that are public goods. To explain this concept very simply, a public good is anything where I as an individual will benefit even if someone else decides to pay for it. Therefore, I personally have a huge incentive not to pay for these things myself, because I can just wait for someone else to do it and then "free ride" off of their sacrifice.
For example: A purse is not a public good, it is a private good. This is because if I buy it, I am the only one who gets to use it. I can't just wait for someone else to buy it and then claim the benefits for myself. I personally have to decide if the purse is worth more to me than the cost of the price tag -- if it is, then I will buy, if not, then I won't buy. The free market works well for regulating these sorts of items.
The military/national defense, on the other hand, is a public good. Imagine that I live in a small town that needs to defend itself against some external threat (maybe this is in historic times or something -- just humor me here). Everyone else in the town bands together and decides that each person will contribute $5 in order to fund a 'town militia.' They ask me to contribute $5 as well. But I think to myself....Why should I pay? Even if I don't pay my $5, that is not going to stop the rest of the town from starting this militia. And as long as I live in this town, if the militia is keeping the town safe, then I will also be safe. They can't exclude me from being safe just because I opted out of paying. Therefore, I think I will keep my money to myself.
However, obviously, if every individual citizen thinks like this, then the militia will never get funded. Thus, the only way to make people pay for these public goods is for the government to step in and tax them -- force is required, for the good of the whole.
Are you still with me here? I apologize if I've lost anyone. This concept is definitely easier to explain in person.
Okay, so in our modern era, education is considered to be a public good. You and I both benefit if kids in New York and Los Angeles are well-educated, because then they will grow up to be active participants in the democratic process (like we all are here on these forums ) and we will end up with good leaders in the future. They are also more likely to be hard-working, responsible, productive citizens, which will make our economy stronger. It's good for all of us if all kids are educated, but on an individual level, there's no good reason for me to take it upon myself to pay to educate some poor kid in Harlem to go to school. I would still benefit even if somebody else paid. So, in this situation, the government steps in and pays for the schools; everybody wins.
Now I come to my main point: HEALTH CARE IS THE SAME WAY. It is a public good. Personally, I really hope that all of the rest of you are immune to polio and the measles. Why? Because if you are immune, then I am less likely to get sick by being near you. I also hope that you stay fit, and exercise, and take care of yourselves mentally and physically. Why? Because if you do, then you will be a more productive worker, and the economy of the U.S. will be stronger, which leads to more job opportunities for me. EVERYBODY benefits from EVERYONE else being healthy -- I'm certainly not going to step in and personally volunteer to pay for you to get medicines you need to keep your heart or lungs healthy, but I sure hope that somebody does. And therefore, reasonably, in this situation, the government is the best 'man' for the job.
There you go. The Economics of Health Care 101.
[/b]
Wow. That is quite possible the most comprehensive, easy to understand and rational post I've ever seen written on the subject in a debate forum. I wish I could have said it like you - thank you... You hit the nail on the head.
) and we will end up with good leaders in the future. They are also more likely to be hard-working, responsible, productive citizens, which will make our economy stronger. It's good for all of us if all kids are educated, but on an individual level, there's no good reason for me to take it upon myself to pay to educate some poor kid in Harlem to go to school. I would still benefit even if somebody else paid. So, in this situation, the government steps in and pays for the schools; everybody wins.
Linear Mode
