[MBANurse]

Originally Posted by Lizzy6

Ahhhh, so we agree.

so they beg or steal mone, cigs or booze? I don't understand?

[Lizzy6]

Originally Posted by MBANurse

so they beg or steal mone, cigs or booze? I don't understand?

I was referring to something else. Not sure what the above remark is about, that was mentioned by someone else.

[ksilty]

Originally Posted by catlynLPN

Mandatory healthcare for WHO? For the ones who can afford it? What about the ones who can't afford it? The ones who live from paycheck to paycheck just trying to buy milk and bread for their babies?
How are these people going to afford it?
This is just all hype. You can't get blood out of a turnip.

Most of the people I have known who choose not to pay insurance premiums do so because they have other things to do with their money - like cigarettes, and Starbucks, and ceramic nails. Health insurance is on the bottom of the list of priorities for many, especially if their children are covered by CHIP.

[pickledpepperRN]

Under HR 676, a family of three making $40,000 per year would spend approximately $1600 per year for health care coverage.

It would be a payroll deduction like medicare.
Or payable similar to income tax for thosewhose income is from investments.
All people with an income would pay in.
Then when they or their children are sick or injured they will be cared for as needed.

[ksilty]

Originally Posted by spacenurse

Under HR 676, a family of three making $40,000 per year would spend approximately $1600 per year for health care coverage.

It would be a payroll deduction like medicare.
Or payable similar to income tax for thosewhose income is from investments.
All people with an income would pay in.
Then when they or their children are sick or injured they will be cared for as needed.

I think making it a mandatory deduction is the only way to pay for healthcare. Part of our problem is that we as a society tend to view healthcare as an option. THis allows people to choose between insurance and cigarettes. Insurance should not be an option, but a responsibility the same as shelter and utilities and food. If we need to forgo cable and watch network TV (UGH), so be it. We need to re-prioritize healthcare. Several years ago, the Maryland Director of Health attempted to make families receiving CHIP more responsible by introducing a premium for families living above 200% of poverty level. The plan was to collect $38./month premium from the family and use that to subsidize insurance premiums that would have been paid to the head of household's employer for insurance coverage. What a public outcry that caused, both from the household that refused to pay $38. (would have covered the entire family), butalso employers who protested because of the additional expense of covering all of these folks who had declined coverage because their kids were covered by CHIP. Let the government pay. Years later, the legislature did institute a premium for that income group, but it backfired on the consumer. The $38. only covers the children, not the parents.

[pickledpepperRN]

Family Of Nataline Sarkisyan, To Join Other Patients, California Nurses, Working Families, And Healthcare Activists In Testifying Against ABX1 1, USA.

…A broad coalition of leading California unions and Sen. Leland Yee yesterday announced their opposition to ABX1 1, the deeply flawed deal brokered by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez. Strong critiques of the bill were presented today by leaders of the Teamsters, United Food and Commercial Workers, Communication Workers of America, California School Employees Association, International Longshore and Warehouse Union, Office and Professional Employees, California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee, League of Women Voters, and the Gray Panthers. Among others opposing the bill are the Machinists and Engineers and Scientists unions, and California Church IMPACT, legislative arm of the California Council of Churches.

Sen. Yee, whose vote could be critical, cited the "struggle of the working poor" to meet their bills while "the state of California is saying you will have to pay for open-ended healthcare costs. There is no way I am going to support" a bill that could "literally put people out on the street" or force them to choose between paying for their healthcare or their housing costs…

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/94847.php

[pickledpepperRN]

DeMoro and Leonard: Candidates' reliance on more insurance won't solve the health care crisis
Wednesday, January 30, 2008

With the Presidential race approaching Texas, voters may wonder how to distinguish among the contenders on the critical healthcare issue.

All the top tier candidates favor selling more private insurance, which misses the crisis faced by millions. Just ask Pat Allgood of Lockhart, Tex. …

http://www.statesman.com/search/cont...moro_edit.html

[pickledpepperRN]

Large Business Association Releases Plan To Overhaul U.S. Health Care System

The National Business Group on Health, a not-for-profit association of nearly 300 large employers, on Wednesday released a set of 20 conditions that would need to be met to establish a universal health coverage system in the U.S.,…

… all U.S. residents should be required to purchase insurance for themselves and their children on a tax-advantaged basis. Under the plan, individuals who purchase insurance from the market would receive the same tax advantage as employees who purchase insurance through their employer, allowing individuals to write off their insurance benefits for tax purposes and the money spent not counting as taxable income….

However, businesses should not be required to offer health coverage to workers or to help workers pay for coverage...

http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_r...fm?DR_ID=50146

[jjjoy]

In one of the articles I read from the Los Angeles Times, it said high deductibles discourage patients from getting preventative treatment. I can only assume that making it a requirement to get health care will drive up prices insanely.

Why assume mandated insurance would drive prices up? There would be more healthy people in the pool as well as stiff competition to get those healthy people to sign up for one plan or another. Prices might go down. Of course, health care is expensive no matter how you slice it, and so prices might continue to increase regardless. Still if prices are going up, we'll pay for it one way or another (through private insurance, government assistance or living in a society that writes off those who can't pay). Finally, if the reason prices go up is because it's mandatory and insurance companies figure they charge whatever they like, then we still need some sort of regulation - which you mention later and I agree with. Not-for-profit status makes more sense to me for many health care functions. It still creates jobs and pulls in money, but there's no pressure to squeeze ever more out in profits to shareholders.

In the same article it was also stated that in Massachusetts a couple in their fifties with one child had to pay $767 a month for the bare bones plan and that did not include prescription drug coverage. Will people really seek care or treatment, and can they afford it, at those prices?

That's how much health insurance costs even when it's not mandated. That's why so many employers are shifting more of the cost of health insurance on to workers. They don't like paying $700/employee for insurance either. I do think we need to find a way to separate affordable health care from employment AND have health costs be affordable to the individual as well. High deductibles are said to discourage patients from seeking care. I don't know what the answer is. There's been much talk of people not being responsible, so I think we should also spend some health care money on public service spots that encourage good health behavior. We're bombarded by advertisements telling us to buy, buy, buy. If someone doesn't have good sense, they've got to learn it from somewhere & it won't be from commercial advertising! It's feels all righteous to say they should just be responsible in their choices, but we KNOW advertising works... otherwise, companies would't spend so much money on it. So I think we need more counter-advertising. But I'm going off on a tangent...

In my honest opinion, when I pay insurance I feel like I’m paying for nothing at all—insurance, yeah right, I cannot even be insured that my insurance will cover anything and I am told that is how they all are.

And yet if you lose that insurance and/or get really sick, you'll quickly exactly what you're paying for. $75 to see a doctor. $130 for lab tests. $150 for a prescription. And if you need a CT scan, an operation, or -uh-oh- an extended hospital stay... or if you are diagnosed with a chronic disease requiring on-going treatment (and on-going expenses)... It's crazy! I understand your frustration with the current system and your concerns with mandated health insurance. There don't seem to be any easy answers.

It does not make sense to not insure people who are the most in need of healthcare.

It does as a for-profit business model. Those most in need of health care have the greatest costs... there goes the profit. But with today's costs, non-profits are having a hard time making ends meet, so even my wish that most health care companies were non-profit doesn't solve the problem of cost.

So what if they lose money, people need to be more important than a paycheck.

Does that mean nurses should work for less money? (rhetorical question) So what if they make less money? People need to be more important than a paycheck.

If the government wants to stick its nose in the business of private citizens then they most certainly can bug the health insurance industry into lower rates and better premiums.

while I don't think mandating insurance equates to "sticking it's nose into the business of private citizens" I do agree that it seems that more could be done on the regulation side to at least curb the worst of the problems we see in the health insurance industry.

It's good food for thought. I wish there were easier answers.

[Aprilhere]

Originally Posted by CRNA2007

Ever heard of WIC, foodstamps, and the myriad of other social safety net programs that lets the paycheck to paycheck afford the cadillac escalades of the world?

Are you kidding me? You equate giving free milk, juice, cereal, and beans to pregnant women and children under the age of 5 with "cadillac escalades"? I'm stunned. When I was in nursing school, with 3 young children, and a combined household income of under 30K, WIC was our lifesaver. BUT- you can only stretch WIC so far...and it definally does not include cadillac status.