Mandates: Heart of the Healthcare Debate

[lizzyj]

mandates: heart of the healthcare debate

mandates: heart of the healthcare debate

from iowa to california to massachusetts, the national healthcare debates are finally starting to hit the key point: the problem of the health insurance corporations.

cross-posted at the [http://www.guaranteedhealthcare.org/blog national nurses organizing committee/california nurses association's] breakroom blog, as we organize for guaranteed healthcare on the single-payer model.

[http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071121/ap_po/obama_health_care the key issue is being played out now on the presidential campaign,] in exchanges between sens. clinton and obama.

clinton (and edwards, romney, schwarzenegger, etc.) supports the individual mandate, requiring every person to carry health insurance, most likely purchased from one of the huge insurance corporations that have been busily gutting out health care system for their own profits. obama is put into a difficult spot by charges that he doesn't support "universal" care, but argues that the reason people don't carry insurance is because they can't afford--not, usually, that they don't want it.

of course, both sides are ignoring the key point: every other industrialized democracy is successfully operating some version of a single-payer system; only we put insurance companies ahead of public health needs. nonetheless, it's important to decide if we want to hand over more customers, influence, and revenues to the same insurance corporations that are speedily wrecking our health care system.

out in california, schwarzenegger and the legislature is considering their own mandates, cheered on lustily by insurance donors greedy for more profits. [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/11/26/mnp9tgrhb.dtl one key problem?]

public health officials who provide most of the care for millions of uninsured residents are increasingly concerned that the proposed system could leave big financial holes in the state's safety net.

which only makes sense...if you channel billions in public subsidies to insurance corporations, and guarantee their profits; of course the public health systems take a huge financial hit. that's where the money comes from.

the good news for californians? [http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/520089.html a deeply-divided state government might just make this harmful "reform" impossible to pass.]

[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/11/25/mnfptfchu.dtl meanwhile, kids in california are about to start getting dropped from the public rolls, while the politicians debate their plan for insurance company subsidies. unbelievable.]

massachusetts is starting to experience the problems with its own mandate experiment. [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/25/us/politics/25mass.html?_r=1&n=top/reference/times%20topics/people/s/sack,%20kevin&oref=slogin short answer: only people who get subsidized insurance are signing up], while the insurance corporations are gleefully jacking up rates 10 to 12 per cent a year on everyone else.

[http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/11/25/212436/36 finally did you catch nyceve taking on the nyt editorial board?] wow.

[bigjim]

You know, there is a reason that so many nurses from those single-payer countries come here to work. The impact on nursing salaries and even job availability could be huge.

[clee1]

I notice your cites are only for notoriously uber-liberal sources: you'd make a more convincing argument if you at least tried to find some balance in your position.

"... every other industrialized democracy is successfully operating some version of a single-payer system". This statement is suspect, as the word successfully implies effectively or efficiently. I submit that "single-payer" systems of Canada, England, or France are neither effective nor efficient.

I like the Swiss system: mandated private insurance with assigned risk pools, subsidies for lower income people, and stringent regulation of the insurance industry to ensure compliance and fair treatment for all.

I don't want to work for the government, and I don't want some under-educated "civil servant" making my health care choices for me.

[nicurn001]

I don't want some under-educated "civil servant" making my health care choices for me.

I guess you would rather have some under-educated "corporate servant" making your health care choices for you .

[clee1]

I guess you would rather have some under-educated "corporate servant" making your health care choices for you .

No... I don't want that either. With the private sector, if they make a decision regarding my coverage I don't like, I can always take the matter up with the State Insurance Commissioner; or I can always file a lawsuit.

You ever tried to sue the Government?

I just had an issue with my employer-provided health insurance. One MD's group tried to bill me in excess of the contracted price for service. After several phone contacts they refused to correct the price and turned me over for collections. The insurance company provided me with proof of contract and thus armed, I told the MD group and their collections outfit that: a) I have proof of their contract with my insurer, and b) that they WOULD correct this problem immediately, and finally that c) any further attempt of any kind to collect monies not due or any ding against my credit report would result in the immediate filling of a massive lawsuit.

They then quickly corrected the problem. Had this been run by the government, I'd still be looking for the person with the authority to correct the problem, rather than a you-want-fries-with-that? drone that only has the authority to say "no".

More government is NOT the answer to our current health insurance coverage crisis.

[nicurn001]

You know, there is a reason that so many nurses from those single-payer countries come here to work. The impact on nursing salaries and even job availability could be huge.

I am one of those nurses who immigrated here ( now a US citzen ) , yes I came here because of higher pay and better standard of living . But not because I was poorly paid ,relative to others in my country .Job availability was on par with that here . If you wish to make generalizations stick to that which you have experience of otherwise back up your statement by a quoted source .

[nicurn001]

I just had an issue with my employer-provided health insurance. One MD's group tried to bill me in excess of the contracted price for service. After several phone contacts they refused to correct the price and turned me over for collections. The insurance company provided me with proof of contract and thus armed, I told the MD group and their collections outfit that: a) I have proof of their contract with my insurer, and b) that they WOULD correct this problem immediately, and finally that c) any further attempt of any kind to collect monies not due or any ding against my credit report would result in the immediate filling of a massive lawsuit.

They then quickly corrected the problem.

In the single payor system that I experienced , this problem would not have arisen , the service would either have been provided ,or denied. The provider would have been reimbursed by the single provider at the contracted rate , that they would have to accept in order to participate in the system .The risk of denial would be the same as in the present system.

[bigjim]

I am one of those nurses who immigrated here ( now a US citzen ) , yes I came here because of higher pay and better standard of living . But not because I was poorly paid ,relative to others in my country .Job availability was on par with that here . If you wish to make generalizations stick to that which you have experience of otherwise back up your statement by a quoted source .

Thank you for telling me what I can say on an open forum, Socrates.

[nicurn001]

Yes we all are able to make whatever comments we like on an open forum ( within the rules of that forum) .However it would be nice if those comments had some basis in fact , or personal experience .If someone makes a generalization they can expect to be called upon it .