There's no free lunch.. there never will be.. Health care is going to cost money

[SoCalDem]

We need it
we know we need it
and most of us cannot continue to afford the "private" method

We either pool our money and get coverage for all of us, or year by year, person by person, we get sicker.... and broker

we're all going to die, eventually, so immortality is not the issue.

no amount of "coverage" will change the fact that we will all die.

doctors need to be paid
hospitals cost money to operate
medical equipment costs money to buy and operate
medicine costs money

Insurance companies exist, to make a profit for their shareholders & employees.. that's ALL they do ..except for:

okaying a procedure that a doctor has already told you you need
denying a procedure that a doctor told you you need
refusing to pay for a procedure you had to have, due to an emergency that you did not clear with them first

what ELSE do they do??

If you went to a bank every week with a $100 bill you needed to break, how long would you put up with having them give you $65.00?

Insurance companies used to be in the business for life insurance, which on the surface sounds like a chump-deal for them, but people often let policies lapse, since they continue to cost more as you age, and at some point, the kids are grown, maybe a spouse has passed on, so many older folks just drop the insurance...after having paid DECADES-worth of premiums.

Insurance companies also insured against fires, but how many of us pay for coverage and never have a fire (thank goodness).

Auto insurance gets paid every month, and yet few of us ever use it (again ,thank goodness)

Flood insurance (for many) has been made "public" already through the national flood insurance program..why? because when floods happen it's such a devastating occurrence that the NATIONAL GOVERNMENT is needed to cope with the damage

there is a place for insurance, but it's NOT in the health care field.

They have had a long free ride for many decades, and the gravy train is pulling into the station.. It's time for THEM to get off.

If it means that we need to (as a nation) buy the hospitals & clinics, then we need to DO IT.

If it means we need to (as a nation) PAY the doctors, then we need to do it. I doubt that most doctors would object to being rid of the nuisance of all the insurance paperwork, and of all the malpractice bullshit (most places with national health care do NOT have problems with malpractice claims like we do)

If it means that we need to apply extreme pressure to the drug-makers to reduce their profits & lower prices, then we need to DO it.. removing the federal subsidies they enjoy in the creation of some of their drugs, and making them PAY for a lot of the freebies they get now, could encourage them to see the light.

If we refuse to do these things, we are basically telling our citizens, that if they get sick, we are willing to just let them die.

[knowbody0]

1. these are cold hard facts

wassamatter with everyone?

I caught Bill Moyer last night. it made me cry.

[SoCalDem]

2. Me too. I knew those two would die..

and now their surviving loved ones are buried in debt, and grieving the loss of them:cry:

[glinda]

3. I believe simplicity in the final health care proposal would be the best, cut the

costs the most. There will never ever ever be lower costs or better care by negotiating with the Insurance Industries. Never. THAT is all they do is make PROFITS. That is it. Let them fail. Let the CEOs find new jobs. Or better yet, put them in jail after they are tried for bilking the public.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

49. perhaps their profits could be utilized by the government?

after all the profits usually go to the fat cats so if they gave away their profits for healthcare for the poor?

[glinda]

72. Banks and Bankers make a profit and they can't reel that in.

[bvar22]

4. The point is that Americans .....

...are ALREADY paying for premium Universal Health Care....we just aren't getting it.

Americans pay much MORE and receive much LESS Healthcare than any of the civilized countries where Health Care is a RIGHT.

It is ALREADY paid for.

[lib_wit_it]

16. Precisely. This is one of the points President Obama and the Democrats need to "broken record"!

Where are the media buys to get our points out there?

[SoCalDem]

18. what a great pic

:rofl:

they're just regular folks :rofl:

[lib_wit_it]

25. Yes, that's my little Bobby, middle hood on the third car from the top. And of course you recognize

Mr. Regular and me standing down there near the ticket booth. Look how thin I was then! Good times.

[Cleita]

5. We all pay into health care whether in lower wages, premiums or taxes, so

why not want to actually get health care for our money? Those of us who have studied the issue know it's not free. We have to get rid of the middle men parasite insurers one way or the other so that we actually benefit 100% from our health care dollars. I'm all for is outlawing the insurers for covering basic health care, which could be covered by HR 676. If they still want to sell insurance for "bells and whistles coverage", then fine, but leave basic alone. Only in this way can it be universal and cost effective.

However our leaders have decided that this could be a public option to compete with the for profit insurers who brought us this mess to begin with. I don't get it.

:shrug:

[SoCalDem]

6. We don't "get it", but the politicians DO get it

of course the "it" , is WADS of CASH at election time..:grr:

[FLDCVADem]

7. I don't understand

why single-payer proponents are so hell bent on not permitting people to buy private insurance for basic coverage (i.e., not utilizing single-payer) if they want to.

If I'm paying the increased taxes for single payer but would prefer to buy private insurance or pay out of pocket for care outside of single payer, why should anyone care?

[Cleita]

8. Because it maintains the quality of coverage for everyone. The minute you

get class distinctions, the poor get less quality health care than the rich. Also, costs go up because providers and insurers know whom to squeeze. When they are all in the same boat together, you will find the boat not to leak as it would be when the haves are in the yacht and the have nots in the rusty old scow. That's right everyone deserves to be in the yacht and it won't cost as much.

[FLDCVADem]

9. We'll just agree to disagree

If I'm paying into the system and not using it, then there is more money available for those that are using it.

[Cleita]

12. It's not being used for health care. It's being used to buy politicians. It's

being used to pay CEO salaries in the billions. It's being used for expensive national advertising. Even your cadillac health coverage will disappear the day you get sick and they don't want you any more. Also, you can't disagree with facts. The fact is that those countries who cover everyone for basic care, only allowing insurances, to sell "bells and whistles" coverage have the best health care, the healthiest population and longer life spans and a lower rate of infant mortality. Also, it's time to stop buying into the myth that we have the best care in the world. If that were so, why do many of the ultra rich go to Switzerland and other European countries for their treatments that they can't get here? The facts are all out there if you choose to research them.

[FLDCVADem]

26. If my taxes are going into single payer

which I would more than willingly accept, then that money is going to healthcare, just not mine (if I have a private policy). As for the money that I'm paying for insurance, why should anyone but me care about that, so long as I'm paying into the single payer system, via taxes?

[Cleita]

30. It would be nice if that was the way it worked but it doesn't.

For one thing most people get whatever insurance their employer gets for them. Unless you are paying for it yourself you don't have a whole lot of choice. You already do pay into a single payer government plan, Medicare, which is part of your FICA p/r tax. What if some people want to participate in a plan that they already pay into, who are you or Senator Baucus to say that they can't? That they must choose among various private insurance plans instead or join a coop, which is what the Blue Cross Dogs are trying to push, certainly doesn't give the majority of Americans much choice. It's so nice that you got yours and the hell with everyone else.

[FLDCVADem]

34. Don't put words in my mouth

I absolutely have not and never would say "I've got mine and the hell with everyone else.". I'm more than willing to pay into a single payer plan via increased taxes so that anyone and everyone can have healthcare. I just don't see why doing that means that I should be prohibited, by law, from purchasing private insurance that covers anything single payer would.

Nor did I say that people that are paying into Medicare shouldn't be able to participate in it? You're simply making things up.

People are always saying that Medicare is a single payer system, however, it certainly is NOT the same system as is proposed in HR 676. The differences go beyond the age limit.

[SoCalDem]

39. HR 676 will be amended and re-amended before a unified bill is presented

and it probably will look very different, and even after anything passes, it will probably be changed over and over..

government wheels grind slowwwwwwwly..

[Cleita]

42. The differences in HR 676 plug all the gaps in present day Medicare including the

age discrimination. If you can't see that, you haven't read it.

[FLDCVADem]

43. I have read it

and it does much more than what you are saying.

Does Medicare currently prohibit Medicare eligible patients from buying or using private insurance for anything covered by Medicare? Of course not. HR 676 does.

Medicare is NOT a single payer system in the same way as outlined in HR 676.

[Cleita]

45. Why would you object to getting a health card that will get you into any

hospital for whatever procedure and hospitalization you need? If you don't want to sit in the same waiting room with me or SoCalDem or share a room with us, you can buy insurance for that which will give you that extra perk. But why should anyone be denied the finest care from doctors and nurses just because you don't want to receive basic health care under that plan?

[FLDCVADem]

47. Please show me

anywhere that I've suggested that anyone should be denied care.

You can't, because I haven't. You aren't reading what I'm writing or if you are, you don't understand what I'm saying.

[SoCalDem]

51. The "card".. hahahaha

I've always said that would be a deal-breaker for a lot of people..but the funny part is that if you have ever been to school, been born, bought a car, bought batteries at Radio Shack, had a credit card, filed taxes, etc, the "govt" "knows" you..and knows more about you, than you probably do :rofl:

Anyone who would give up health care because they don't want a photo ID card needs mental helath care :) STAT.. I'll carry 5 cards if necessary.. I already have a wallet-full of cards..what's a few more.. my current health care plan makes me carry THREE..doctor.dental. drugs

next argument will be the immigrant thing..watch for it ..I've already started to see in on tv in the last week or so... we're in the "butbutbutbut whaddabout......?" stage now..

[Cleita]

57. Immigrants are always a convenient scape goat demographic.

They can't fight back so you can blame them for almost any shit that happens or that you want people to believe will happen. It's how the Nazis got the Germans to believe the Jews were responsible for everything that had gone wrong in Germany to deflect the blame from them and to manipulate them into following the leader. And frankly since immigrants pay into FICA, and other taxes, I see no reason they shouldn't be able to partake in the program.

[SoCalDem]

13. and when you get hurt, and have no coverage, we'll just step over you?

no one's invincible..
or when a perfectly normal pregnancy goes awry and you have a handicapped child needing mega-care, we'll just ignore that child's needs?

[FLDCVADem]

28. Why would you do that?

I'll use my private insurance, or the single payer that I would have been paying into all along.

I think you and Cleita both are missing a major point - I'm not talking about opting out of paying into single payer - that shouldn't be an option. I'm talking about opting out of using it.

That's perfectly legal and acceptable with Medicare now, so why shouldn't it be legal and acceptable under a single payer system?

[Cleita]

31. Fine you are opting out of using it but you are also preventing those of

us who want to use it from using it. Every proposal that has brought up letting people opt into Medicare has sent the gang of six in the Finance committee into needing smelling salts. And Olympia Snowe has spoken for the Republicans, no way will there be a public option sayeth, she.

[FLDCVADem]

36. Please explain to me how I would be preventing

anyone else from using single payer simply by not using it myself. I would argue that my single payer taxes would make provide additional funding for users of the system.

I'm really curious as to you can explain the statement you made.

[Cleita]

44. Will you please clarify your position then? I can't answer your question until you do.

This is what I understand. You want to pay into a system that discriminates against anyone under 65 using it. You think it's just fine and shouldn't be extended into a robust system that would include everyone like HR 676. And this is because you want to buy your own personal private insurance. Read your posts. That is what is coming across.

[FLDCVADem]

46. Then you aren't reading my posts

I am more than willing to see my taxes increase to pay into a single payer system that is open and available to ANYONE that wants/needs to use it. No age discrimination, no income discrimination, no pre-existing condition discrimination. If you want it, you simply sign up, get your Medicare for All card, and go on your merry way. Health care covered for all of your life.

HOWEVER...I also want the option to not USE that system if I don't want to. If for any reason I'm not happy with the single payer system, I want to be able to purchase private insurance or pay out of pocket for my own care and not utilize the system I'm paying into.

Now, please explain to me how this scenario is keeping you or anyone else from utilizing a single payer system.

If HR 676 is modified to give me and anyone else that so chooses these options, then I'll happily and loudly support it. If not, that's to say, if it continues to prohibit private insurance for anything covered by Medicare for All, then no, I won't support it.

[Cleita]

54. Okay, let me say this one more time.

The President said some time ago that this was what he wanted, just like you want, in his insurance exchange idea. However, Congress is moving away from this from pressure from the big money insurers. It's because they didn't demand the whole enchilada to begin with single payer. We still have time to demand it. We may then get what you reiterated as a compromise and you never know we might get the whole enchilada. If you don't like it, you can go to the doctor and pay cash. By the time we get rid of the profiteers, health care will probably be much more affordable by then so you can afford to pay cash. The day you can't work any more because of disease, injury or old age, you will be grateful that we fought for this because you will have something to fall back on.

[FLDCVADem]

56. Please don't patronize me

and act as though I need to be lectured to about what's going on in the health care debate. Your intimidation tactics may work on others here, but they won't work on me.

This entire pissing contest with you started because you didn't like a comment that I made about opposing ONE part of single payer as proposed in HR 676. It had nothing to do with what the quickly fading public option might look like, or what the uninsured might have to face without a public option.

You didn't like that I had the temerity to disagree with you on one part of single payer, and when shown that your initial reaction (that I oppose health care for all) was completely off base, you've gone round and round and have finally decided that I probably just don't understand what's at stake.

Well guess what? After all of your unfounded accusations against me, your snide comments and everything else, I STILL disagree with you on that one point and I STILL wouldn't fight for HR 676 as it's currently written.

[Cleita]

61. Pissing contest? Oh my snide remarks and accusations? I accused you of

nothing but I will now. I accuse you of supporting a system that will cause people to die because instead of looking upon the problem as sharing the burden of helping the least of us to survive, you don't want any one to have to have that if you can't get what you want. You also don't seem to care what a bloated health insurance welfare system will cost this country, something you will pass on to your children and grandchildren. Some of us will fight for it as it is written so I guess you are my enemy in this battle. I will compromise but only after every one of us on this side haven't any more ammo to shoot at the enemy before it goes down. I will never give up and I won't let you or any one else try to muddle and confuse the issue.

[FLDCVADem]

63. You're a liar

I've never advocated anything that you say I did, but hey, have at it. As I said, I'm not intimidated by you.

People like you are why we'll never have true reform in this country - it's all or nothing for you. Look to yourself when people are dying from lack of health care that could have been provided in a public, if imperfect, option that you opposed because it wasn't exactly what you thought it should be.

[Cleita]

65. No one is intimidated by me because I'm an old woman who speaks her mind, but if you are, well....

However, you just repeated the biggest lie that has been spread through this whole hot issue period. You said:

People like you are why we'll never have true reform in this country - it's all or nothing for you. Look to yourself when people are dying from lack of health care that could have been provided in a public, if imperfect, option that you opposed because it wasn't exactly what you thought it should be.

Ya know, if the doctors and patients had been debating this and sitting in congressmen and senator's offices instead of the corporate health care industry lobbyists, I could accept that we could have to accept that "public, if imperfect option solution". Instead there has been no debate in the Halls of Congress with the people who are most involved, and only limited debate in the media from a few stalwarts on the left who can get air time like on MSNBC or AAR radio. Also, representatives of doctor and nurses associations were arrested for even trying to get a seat at the table with the Blue Cross crowd. With that kind of "democracy" we will have the reform like Medicare Part D shoved up our asses whether we like it or not.

[SoCalDem]

32. oops.. but why WOULD you want to pay into medicare and single payer and then into private as well?

you rich or something?

Seriously though, even with a single payer there would no doubt be "gap-policies" available for people who want private rooms, the 20% you might be responsible for, & other extras.. like there is NOW for medicare, and like most nationalized health-care countries have available to their citizens as well :)

I really wouldn't have stepped over you :P

[FLDCVADem]

37. I know you wouldn't have

:)

I don't know that I would want to pay into and utilize a private insurance system, but I sure as hell know I don't want that option taken away. I have dealt with government health care (military) and it sucked. It sucked so much, in fact, that we bought a private supplemental policy so that our kids would never have to be in the military health care system. I want that option left open.

[SoCalDem]

38. It probably would be open to those who wanted it.

but not as an "opt-out" option :)

[Cleita]

48. A private supplemental policy. So you admit it's supplemental to your

regular health plan in the military. Since military is operated by the military wouldn't it be better to have a choice of private doctors, clinics and hospitals to choose from but still not have to worry about how it is paid for no matter if you are working, or not working, if you would still have the same access to quality health care? This is what single payer is about. All health care is delivered in the private sector. The only thing socialized is the government collecting taxes and paying the bills. Nobody is turned away because they don't have insurance, deductible or copay money, or can't qualify for Medicaid.

[FLDCVADem]

53. It was supplemental

in that it paid the 20% that CHAMPUS didn't pay. I used private doctors, but only ones that accepted CHAMPUS (and not all did). I didn't use military doctors for our kids - if I had, I wouldn't have had to buy the supplemental.

CHAMPUS worked just like private insurance - there was a set amount that it allowed for each procedure, and it paid 80% of that amount. Our supplemental paid the remaining 20%.

[Cleita]

55. I'm familiar with CHAMPUS and it works like Medicare.

The VA and military are not single payer. They are truly what is socialized medicine and not everyone's cup of tea unless there is no choice. With single payer much of the VA and military health care would probably be relegated to the private sector of care givers like with CHAMPUS. However, if CHAMPUS weren't regulated by the government who sets the rules, not the insurance companies, you would find your experience very different.

[FLDCVADem]

58. You apparently aren't too familitary with CHAMPUS

because 1) it doesn't exist any more and 2) its replacement, Tricare, is administered by private insurance companies, not the government.

[Cleita]

62. You are right I probably am not familiar with it today, but 25 years ago

I did medical billing and CHAMPUS was part of it. Medicare is also administered by private companies contracted by the government for a set fee but they do it under government regulation not insurance company bean counters. So you can see why we need to trim the fat from this baby and make it work like the Canadian system does.

[FLDCVADem]

64. No thanks

I don't want a Canadian style system that limits me to only using the single payer system.

[Cleita]

66. So you prefer to be limited to no health care when you are no longer

profitable. Oh well.

[Cleita]

41. It happens. There was the case in my county of a homeless man dying of

cancer, who was discharged because the hospital couldn't do anything more for him. He died in a field like a feral cat. Although Medicaid gave him bare bones treatment, this program for the poor doesn't take into consideration that some people don't have a home to go that they can die in with hospice care. I don't know how many more stories there are like this out there. The only reason it was in our local print throw away is because some empathetic news person wrote a story about him. Our Yacht/rusty scow system of delivering health care is not only inefficient but it's immoral,IMHO. To carry my metaphor further about the yacht. There are all the underinsured and uninsured swimming hanging on to life bouys between the yacht and the scow, who can't afford the same health care our Congress gets, but who also don't qualify for the rusty scow (or Medicaid) so they are at a bigger risk of drowning than the other two ships.

[SoCalDem]

10. Let's get a blue yacht..kay?

We've been such a selfish country for so long now, there are too many people who don't understand how a civil society operates :(

I blame the schools for a lot of it. There is very little taught about union / labor movements, but of course probably every child knows all about the "capitalist miracle" :(..and how great the yoooooesssssaaaaay is..

there are so many young people who think there have always been work-related rules and that they are there because the boss likes them :rofl:

[Cleita]

11. We are the United States of America in name only. We should be called

the United Corporations of America and our health care system should be called the death care system.

[kath]

68. "there are too many people who don't understand how a civil society operates"

Man, ain't that the truth?
And that's why we're in the shit we're in.

[nadinbrzezinski]

19. Nobody is saying you can't, here is how it works in other places

You need to go to the doctor for your annual... single payer.

You want to go to the doctor to get a tummy tuck... purely optional and unnecessary, sure, use PRIVATE, by all means. Now you need that tummy tuck due to an accident. then it is covered.

See the difference?

Oh and you want a room on your own at the hospital? THat is what the premium services are for.

I know this is very difficult to understand and I do credit the propaganda.

[FLDCVADem]

29. It's not difficult to understand at all

Under the HR 676, anything covered by the single payer plan is available ONLY via the single payer plan - not by private insurance, not by cash.

I disagree with that, and it's the only reason I oppose single payer as currently proposed.

Medicare doesn't work that way, why should "Medicare for All"?

[Cleita]

35. HR 676 can be modified to be a public option plan. It's not impossible, however,

it would be more cost effective to cut the insurers out altogether on health care basics. Doctors spend way too much time and money in the first place negotiating the myriad codes of insurance billings and fighting with claims adjusters. Those costs are passed on to us the consumer. That is from the care giver level. I already reiterated on what the insurers and big PhRMA spend a lot of their money on, which could be eliminated. We have the most expensive system in the world, yet those of us who get health care don't get top quality health care unless we are very rich. It's a system that only works for Wall Street. We have a death care system, not a health care system. It's known as they denied and you died because of it.

[FLDCVADem]

40. I agree

HR 676 could easily be modified to become the "public option" plan in the exchange.

[nadinbrzezinski]

76. Because that is the MOST EFFICIENT way to do it, to cut the insurers out PERIOD

You don't you set yourself for a tiered system that does not work really in the long term.

See Canada, PM Mulroney needed ER Care. He got the same quality care as the homeless guy on the next cot. So later on he got a private room, where his PRIVATE insurance came in. But this is about efficiencies. Something Americans really do not understand.

[SoCalDem]

77. I cannot understand, why people cannot grasp this concept, either

The "insurers" are just the procurers of the process.. they do not do ONE single medical procedure, administer one medication.

They only collect our money, and "offer" a promise to pay more than WE do , when we get sick . Their whole business model is an unsustainable one, on its face. In the best case scenario (for them), it's a pure ponzi scheme..collect from A, B, & C, to pay out for D..but in the worst case scenario (and more and more likely these days) it's very likley that A, B & C are ALSO going to be needing to "use" some of "their money" as well..

It's like taking the same bunch of people to a cafeteria every day after lunch, and making them pay YOU a fee in advance..but they've already eaten lunch, so you don't have to pay the cashier all that much, but someday, they will all show up hungry, and that fee you collected from them will not be enough to feed them all..

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

21. And in the higher cost of goods and services

If a company provides health insurance for its employees, it passes on the cost to the consumer of its products or services through higher prices. The CEO is not going to absorb the cost out of his own pocket. The American consumer is paying for healthcare, so why not allow citizens to pay it directly to the government?

[SoCalDem]

22. the employee pays TWICE..

sorry ted no raise, since insurance went up..(year after year of this)
or

hey ted you got a $40 raise..but your share of health care went up $38, and your co-pay doubled , from 15 to $30..(yippeee:(..)

[Cleita]

23. Exactly. It isn't rocket science and something a sixth grader has the

arithmetic skills to figure out, so why do our congressional representatives try to make it into rocket science? Because they want to confuse the issue. That's why.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

14. What happens if the insurance company goes bankrupt?

We don't hear much about this issue. The fact is, insurance companies do not make all their money by taking in premiums and paying out less in claims, with the surplus as profit. They make a large part of their money by investing the "float" or available reserves on Wall Street in the stock market or other investments. In fact, I was told by an insurance company insider that the claims department of most insurance companies doesn't get a lot of respect. The most valued members of an insurance company are the financial experts who get up very early in the morning and begin investing their available money on world markets. If a major economic crisis happens and if the government doesn't step in to back up an insurance company that suffers major investment losses, it could force them into bankruptcy. Once that happens, the legal process could tie up their ability to pay off claims as they liquidate their assets.

All states of the United States have guaranty funds that are triggered if an insurance company goes under. However, these funds are limited to a certain ceiling, usually between $250,000 and $300,000 max per policy. If someone has a major health problem that will require continued treatment over a long period of time, has been steadily and responsibly paying their premiums over the years, but finds that there's no longer coverage because their insurance company has gone belly up, they could be in quite a dilemma. If the government is the sole provider of insurance, however, this problem can't arise.

[SoCalDem]

15. People in Florida & New Orleans know how this scam works..

and insurance companies financial departments are full of the same types of people who tried to sink wall street (and may still succeed:(..) they make their money by wheeling & dealing..not by paying claimes to policy holders..:grr:

[Taitertots]

17. Insurance corporations exist to take as much money from you while giving back as little as possible

Government health care exists to take as little money from you as possible, while giving you as much service as possible

[Kansas Wyatt]

20. We need to shift from DEFENSE spending to Health Care spending...

Which is why all other countries have government health care and we do not. Because we spend more than the rest of the entire world on the military.

Would you rather have an army of Health Care workers helping our citizens or our army across seas spreading "freedom" and democracy, which means protecting the Wealthy Elite's interests around the world?

If the Insurance Industry CANNOT compete against Government Health Care, then they admit that they bring nothing to the table and only take money from Health Care.

[Texasgal]

24. Who said it was going to be a free lunch?

Insurance overhaul basically eliminates the "middle man"

Is this what the freeps are saying?

[Greyhound]

27. We already pay more than enough to pay for everybody's health care,

we just don't get it.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

52. The GOP can spend millions on Iraq but won't allow us to have healthcare!

[Greyhound]

59. Yes, but it's hundreds of billions and it's not just Republiks. n/t

:kick:

[Rosa Luxemburg]

60. at least we want to spend money on healthcare - a good cause

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our third quarter 2009 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

[bridgit]

50. GrovelBot, Dah-link! Come home for Thanksgiving teflon based lubricants we'd love to have you over

[Lars39]

67. lol

Who'll get him for Christmas? :rofl:

[Lagomorph]

69. So, how much is it going to cost me?

I'd really like to see some numbers.

[SoCalDem]

74. Look at your paycheck stub..2.8 is currently "going" to medicare

1.4 from you and 1.4 from your employer

whatever YOUR deduction is for your own healthcare plan at work

NOW, the tricky part..what is the REAL figure for YOU, personally, that your boss pays in? Gold star on your forehead if you can even GET that real figure.. Bosses LOVE to say things like "Why, I pay out $200 a week for YOUR health care", or "MY SHARE of your health care package went up 200% over the last year, and that's why YOU can't have a raise"..

Let's say you make $1000 gross per week
1.4% = $14.00
1.4% = $14.00(boss's share)

$28.00 so far ...for medicare

Now let's say that YOUR share is $100 a week

now we're at $128.00 a week.

We'll guess and say that your boss's share for you , as part of the pool of workers, is $250 a week

So that brings us to $378.00 a week times 52 weeks..

That brings us to 19,656.00 (minus $1,508 for medicare)..which is $18,148.00 CASH outlay for YOUR health care..BEFORE you spend a DIME on co-pays or medicine, or pay any left-over medical bills from any procedures you or your family may encounter.

$18K is a rather common figure tossed out there m, as the per "good policy" that many people have..

Your boss gets to DEDUCT his/her share of your medical care costs to him/her, but YOU never see one dime of this money if you never go to the doctor, and IF you go, you even ADD to the cost through co-pays etc.


It's hard to know what the impact to YOU personally, would be, but ....at any moment, your boss could sell the business, your job could get outsources, you could get laid off, and all of your coverage just goes away..or he /she could decide it's too much of a hassle and they could just stop the coverage.

If you lost your job and took COBRA, you would be obligated to pay out the ENTIRE $18k-something on your own, at a time when you have less than ever coming in in the way of salary.

Assume now, that your boss drops the plan, but you stay employed, will he/she "give" YOU that $250.00 a week as salary, now? Technically he/she SHOULD, since it's always been a "part of your pay"..they tell us that all the time, don't they?


With no plan in place you SHOULD now be making $1350.00 a week, but have no insurance.

You would now be "in charge" of that $350.00 a week (18,200.00 per yr) to pay for your health care.

Your basic wage would be unchanged, but your boss would be out-from-under the responsibility.. It's not YOUR job.

$1336.00 (1350, less $14 for medicare) times 26% = $347.40..pretty darned close to the $350.00..

So you are currently "paying" 26% of your "salary" for the "option to go to the doctor", right now..BEFORE any trip to a doctor, or any pill is purchased.

If every worker got FAIR pay, and paid even 20% off the top for health care...all of us into ONE pool, I have a feeling we would ALL get plenty of care.. especially if there were now insurance companies soaking up 35% as their "share"..for what?

[and-justice-for-all]

70. Just let me sign up to Medicare and I'll be happy...

It is NHS already in place and we already pay for it. Increase the tax on that and it's all good...

[eridani]

71. We are AREADY PAYING for universal health care

We just aren't GETING it.

[mix]

73. Yes, it will. Lots of money.

That is why we must take monies away from the military to pay for healthcare and education...the top earners need to also start paying their fair share of taxes.

It is more than possible to fund healthcare and education, but is the political will there to do so?

[SoCalDem]

75. "Clawing-back" 35% from insurance companies is a good start too

:)

[Orsino]

78. It can start costing us *less* as soon as we garner the support. n/t