Healthcare? Maybe we should spend the money on math education first.
We try really hard to forget that an insurance company is a casino, and that a person with pre-existing conditions is a player with bad cards showing. You’re waiting for the House to guarantee that bad hands win as often as good hands? Keep waiting. Or move the game.
Cheap labor abroad makes it difficult for American businesses to compete. What would really help is if we required them to spend part of their time studying and managing the economics of healthcare, rather than spending all their time making cars, or answering phones, or other stuff they already know how to do. Being one’s sibling’s keeper is a timeless moral debate. Being one’s employees' insurer is just dumb (and dumber in a small firm). Why turn the size of their workplace into a pre-existing condition?
For innovative and effective weapons we rely upon the “enterprise” part of “private enterprise” rather than the “civil” part of “civil servants” (and we accept the $7K price tag for the hammer). But the generals are not private militia. Let’s be selective about which services Caesar provides. Many factories manufacture munitions. The Pentagon has one huge roof. What...you thought the Army wasn't socialist?
If something is broken then fix it.
American healthcare is broken and has been for many decades. It isn't a new problem.
No one will help citizens with illness- how cruel can this get?
“I agree with the strategy, based on our polling and everyone else’s polling. It’s a time when it is going to work.”
This subtly exemplifies one of the frustrating things about the Ds. Sometimes you can’t just follow the polls. They should have fought back against the R onslaught on the ACA as soon as it started.
The ACA from the beginning was a compromise with R ideas about expanding coverage and covering preexisting conditions. It’s largely based on a Heritage Foundation approach.
With preexisting conditions covered, people aren’t artificially chained to their current job because of them and the average family is better protected against financial ruin in the event of illness.
For the most part the new taxes that paid for the ACA seemed fair at least to me.
States that are relatively less wealthy (which tend to be red) can expand Medicaid (which should help the financial health of local health systems) with federal taxpayers in relatively wealthy states (which tend to be blue) picking up part of the cost of expansion.
Insurance must be regulated. We’re all in this together when it comes to our public health care systems. Don’t assume people are idiots. Fight back when you’ve got a pretty good policy to defend.
I have read reports that Trump explicitly wants to maintain the pre-existing condition provision. I'm not sure why this article states the opposite. I remember my family having to pay out of pocket for the birth of my son because my husband started a new job and wouldn't have coverage for my "pre-existing" pregnancy. We had to cover about $2,500 for the hospital delivery (cheap by today's standards) plus pre-natal visits. All the costs of the follow-up for me and well visits for the baby were covered after the delivery. That was the standard back in the 80s when employment was necessary for medical coverage for those not retired or considered disabled, and a reason we all scrambled to get COBRA for interruptions to employment if there were no spouse policy to cover your uninsured status (there were no civil union benefits). I remember people joking about marrying just to get medical coverage, but it really wasn't funny. Many people went broke or lost homes and businesses just trying to cover medical expenses. NEVER AGAIN!!!
Don't believe anything Trump says, only what he does. And his actions since January 2017 have all tried to wipe out Obamacare by many methods-- quit enforcing the individual mandate requiring coverage (check), eliminate cost sharing subsidies that lower the patient's cost of co-pays and deductibles (check), now refusing to defend against Repub lawsuit trying to eliminate coverage for pre-existing conditions at a reasonable cost. I'm guessing by now you're covered by our immensely popular, socialized medicine program-- Medicare. But Mitch McConnell just said he's coming to hurt that too.
1
In my opinion, people with pre-existing conditions should be able to get health insurance, but they should not be able to get coverage Immediately for the pre-existing condition. That is not insurance. By definition, Insurance means you pay your premium for an unknown risk, not for a known risk or known condition Such as a medical condition that pre-exists the start of your insurance.
Let me provide an example. Let's say a person is a smoker has not had health insurance for 10 years. He has not paid any insurance premiums for 10 years and saved thousands and thousands of dollars that other people have paid to have that insurance. oOne day he goes to the doctor complaining of a lingering cough and discovers he has lung cancer.
Now this individual who has contributed nothing to an insurance pool wants to get health insurance to cover his lung cancer treatments. Under Obamacare, he would pay the same premiums as a healthy person who has paid premiums for health insurance for 10 years. Stated another way, this individual with lung cancer now wants to pay $1,000 a month in insurance premiums so he can get a million dollars in medical care. The money for his medical care will come from a pool of money contributed to by other people over the course of years. they will be carrying the individual who failed to make a contribution.
Does that sound fair or Equitable? No.
@Fatso - No, it doesn't. It's also not representative of the average person with a pre-existing condition. It's on a par with the Reagan Welfare queen.
1
@Fatso - Using that same standard, our military could protest that they have made sacrifices that other Americans have not - up to and including life and limb. No one in this country seems to think that every American citizen should be conscripted into the military just so everyone pays his/her own way for the defense of our homeland.
1
@Fatso
And they could not afford to add to the pool due to high costs or denial and now can have insurance thanks to Obamacare, but the Republicans want to penalize them for their health. Had all Americans been able to afford treatment and preventive maintenance then their health could have been addressed and perhaps a healthier pool.
I have insurance and can hardly afford the deductibles, co pays etc.!!!
The ACA is far from perfect, but it allowed millions who had no health insurance to get it. It removed the trap of pre-existing illness and it prevented the insurance companies from canceling one after falling ill, plus other important rights.
Single payer, as done in every other industrialized, civilized country, would save money for the country and individuals, maintain all of the rights of the ACA, improve outcomes, eliminate the leading cause of bankruptcies, result in 100% universal coverage, simplify everything including eliminating the ridiculous spread of middlemen, preserve choice of hospital/doctor and finally eliminate the power and myths of the health insurance and pharmaceutical companies. Healthcare in this country for the vast majority is broken according to the Commonwealth Fund and the World Health Organization.
3
@Moses, a single-payer system would have such a low reimbursement rate, so much paperwork and so many oppressive regulations, it would drive many Healthcare Providers and hospitals out of business.
@Fatso
and healthcare providers need to be driven out of business due to their enormous profits and CEO salaries. This greed is passed on to us.
Paperwork? What do you think we deal with now? Funny but other countries have coverage and from their stories, they simply walk in and get care and walk out without any paperwork. Even with hospitalization.
Hospitals and rural care are going by the wayside already due to our "regulations" and costs.
Now Trump is calling ACA a welfare package and any immigrant using it (along with other services) will not be eligible for citizenship.
Soon we will hear all republicans call the ACA welfare and they will all be on the chopping block to balance the budget.
Where were these people when we had the chance to put across a really strong version of the ACA?
I feel that I got really burned under the Trump administration. After Senator McCain voted no, Trump and his cronies still found ways to kill the Obamacare program. Like in the move 'Monty Python and the Holy Grail', Obamacare is not dead yet, but it is very wobbly.
And when it comes to the Democrats, they have clearly failed over the years to try to stabilize or improve it. Although one would argue a Republican dominated House and Senate kills any chance of legislation, the Democrats could have forged partnerships some of the Republicans to get a majority vote. But they never did.
Three of the biggest peeves that I have is that when an insurer who also runs a health plan decides to leave the system, they delay your care so that eventually they keep the premiums and don't do any work. No names mentioned for sake of getting sued, but it happened to me.
Second, when a new insurer comes in, they cherry pick the counties they want to be in. So you might be in a county they did not go to, you can't pick them.
Third, when a new insurer comes in, it is not immediately clear who will accept their insurance. For example when a new health insurer came into the Texas market, Baylor Medical in Houston did not list them as an accepted insurer until some months after enrollment had ended. Hence it was not possible to pick them if one wanted to go with Baylor Medical. No one should pick an insurer that their hospital might not accept. This cost me $200 more in insurance a month.
1
Trump said it is more complicated than I thought and walked away from it.
Not much going for the Republicans on this issue so if you have any concerns about medical care the Democrats have this issue covered with almost whatever they do.
My friends in the health insurance seem to think we will sooner or later expand Medicare for all will low deductibles for life saving issues and high deductibles for things like knee replacement. Insurance jobs will stay with with this set up.
1
The DNC should collect video all of the unrealized promises Trump made on the 2016 stump and collate them into a 10 minute ad entitled "FALSE PROMISES and the LIAR who made them". Play that in total and in pieces and let voters decide for themselves if they want to vote for politicians swearing loyalty to this sham "leader". That he would deliver better and cheaper healthcare for all is a highlight reel.
3
@lb, Speaking of videos, you can go to YouTube and see the many times that President Obama and other Democrats promised that if you liked your insurance and if you liked your doctor, you could keep them. Lies, lies, and More Lies.
1
Healthcare is a life or death issue that begs the question, are we going to pander to the insurance industry or are we going to protect the health of our citizenry? The GOP has determined that the nation's health is of little importance if it effects the bank accounts of the country's wealthiest citizens. Our President, Benedict Trump, knowing that his riches enable him to self-insure, finds no value in providing coverage to those who cannot afford it, including his so-called "deplorables."
6
People talk about healthcare costs. I see what physicians are actually paid for their services by insurance and it is pathetic, considering their years of education and training, and the insurance they have to maintain, let alone their staff to manage the bureaucratic recordkeeping. Nurses, paraprofessionals and aides are paid even worse, yet hospitals are going out of business. Equipment and facilities costs are high. The only solution I see is to get insurance companies and corporate interests out of the middle. Return healthcare administration to true nonprofit status. Even in Medicare, supplemental policies get away with charging enrollees too much, reimbursing too little, and using copays and deductibles to escape paying all they can.
5
@PSS
And don't forget the millions in salary that Healthcare CEO's make. Healthcare in America is not about the consumers but a corporation whose goal is to make money and stay in business - thus having to pass the costs to consumers. Until a huge change is made, this discussion on healthcare and consistent complaints will continue. Unfortunately, our government won't and can't figure it out without hurting their friends- the lobbyists. Other countries have figured it out but America isn't so bright.
If any area needed regulation, this is it. A socialized system would accept that a certain number of people will get a particular illness. A capitalist insurance system will try to avoid all those who get anything expensive and try to cherry pick the healthy...like insurance through a job, most of which require 40 plus hours per week. That's pretty healthy overall if you can work 40 a week... If healthcare was untied from jobs, that would be a great boon for employee mobility, but as long as only the "job creators" get any play in Washington, and the current horrible system wastes 50% of premiums on "costs and profit", not care, we can't hope for change; the GOP and most of the Dems are owned by big Pharma. If you think you are smarter than the Insurance Company's Actuary Department, then good luck. People with perfect habits get appendix attacks, and the most virtuous among us can get caught up in a traffic collision. The stripper plans being sold now are morally wrong and mostly fraud.
2
The GOP HAVE NO IDEAS. Their only idea is cost shift the enormous weight of the system to YOU so THEY can make money off it.
4
At 52 years of age, 13 years away from Medicare as long as they don’t move the goalposts, with the current year over year increase in premium of 20%, I will pay close to $500,000 (yes a half a million dollars) for health care between now and 2031.
Currently my healthcare expense is about 40% of my monthly income. That is unsustainable. I work primarily to pay for healthcare. If I stop working, I’m eligible for Medicaid. I’d rather work, but how long can I afford to?
2
@M However they slice the insurance and spread it around we pay per capital 10k per year for health care. I'd like to know why that number is so high? Is it a bunch of million dollar operations? Or is it millionaire hospital administrators? Or is it mysterious charges of cheap medical supplies at thousands of percent markup? Sure the insurance overhead sucks, but what's really going on is simple rapacious gouging.
4
@M
I am on Medicare and also have a Medicare advantage plan and love it. Why the high costs?
Democrats and Health Care: Clinton ran on it as a major issue. After being elected Rubin gave him the option of using his newly elected political capital to pursue either Health Care or NAFTA. He chose nafta and gave Health Care to his (at the time) politically inexperienced wife who buried it for the next 8 years with secret commissions etc. Obama ran against Hillary and promised a “public option”. A major difference in policy between himself and Hillary. After being elected, he jettisoned the idea of a public option and passed RomneyCare.
Democrats have been running on Health Care reform for a long time. But as with immigration reform, gun control, and education, have never delivered. Who cares what they think/say now?
1
Cold Eye--So, you want what the Republicans are offering, in the way of health care? Uh, remind me, again... what are they offering? Is it the same great plan they've been offering, for the past 9 years?
4
@ChesBay
Just because the I criticize the Dems, it doesn’t mean I prefer Republicans. At least with Republicans you know what you’re getting. Democrats pretend to be something they’re not. We all need to move away from the establishment and create real Democratic (as opposed to Democratic Socialist) change
What do we want?
Universal healthcare
When do we want it?
Now.
End of discussion- let's vote.
16
@Kate Amerson
YES!
9
There has never been a successful "free market" national health care program in the history of the world. There have been many health care plans that are way cheaper than traditional American medicine and cover all people. Whether its on a utility model like Switzerland ( a model of what Obama care could evolve into if it wasn't being sabotaged) socialized insurance like Canada or a true socialized medical system like the UK, results, cost, and coverage is far better. What we have with Trump Care is really Wizard of Oz care with claims or better and cheaper without any program to back it up.
8
In the employer sponsored world of Health Care, pre-existing conditions are covered so long as the insured has had continuous coverage previously. In other words, an employee can't decline coverage this year, try to enroll next year, and be covered for a pre-existing condition. Otherwise the insurance would be comparable to the buying car insurance after getting in an accident. For the ACA to work the same kind of requirements should be in place. And we should continue to support the employer sponsored plans which cover 170 million Americans (half the population) successfully.
2
But requiring continuous participation and premium payments will not allow clever people to game the system. Next you will want progressively higher premiums for the rest of a person's life if they fail to sign up when they first can or if decide to drop out of Obamacare for awhile. Of course Medicare does that now.
President Trump and Congressional Republicans have done their best to dismantle the Affordable Care Act one piece at a time:
- They repealed the individual mandate with their terrible tax bill, which will result in millions more uninsured Americans and make premiums across the board skyrocket in 2019.
- They've attacked protections for those with pre-existing conditions, putting coverage on the line for those who need it most.
- Now they want to allow insurers to offer junk plans at minimum premiums on the market exchanges, effectively gutting program funding.
What's held them back is that Democrats - particularly in the US Senate - have remained a united front against attempts to strip Americans of their health care access. Of course, a few courageous Republicans have also stood firm, such as John McCain, Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski.
This shouldn't be a question. Every American deserves health care. So I'm glad that Democratic candidates are campaigning to protect the Affordable Care Act and those with pre-existing health conditions.
5
Among the outrages quoted in this article...
Jesse Hunt, a spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee, (said)... “A contrast between single-payer health care and our ideas — a more patient-centered approach — is a debate we fully welcome.”
If only this were the argument. The ACA is not a single payer system. The question is whether Jesse Hunt is ignorant of the issue, or simply spinning nonsense.
Additionally, Missouri AG Josh Hawley, challenging Claire McCaskill for her senate seat, asserts that pre-existing conditions can be covered outside of a regulated structure such as the ACA, and presumably outside of a single payer system. How does that work? Perhaps the MO AG is referring to one of these "high-risk pool" ideas. But the high-risk pool concept similarly would require heavy government subsidy.
In truth, there are a limited number of ways to skin this cat -- some sort of regulated private marketplace (e.g., ACA or the Swiss model), single payer (e.g., Medicare or the Canadian model, or fully socialized medicine, (e.g., Britain's NHS). And, sure, there are many permutations on these models, but they all come down to a dirty, little truth: health care costs money. Ultimately, the taxpayers pay, either in inflated premiums, costs, or in higher taxes. Paying sooner, when a patient is well and well-insured, is cheaper than paying later, when that patient is very sick and shows up in a public hospital emergency room.
8
It's too bad the Democrats didn't stand up for the ACA more vocally when the right-wingers were attacking it with lies and misrepresentations. As Majer says they need to work on changing polls, not chasing them.
3
The obstructors to a national health care system are Ignorance and Greed.
Those who have health care and think they are all set, not realizing they are falling behind in real wages.
Those entites and individuals who are making a killing investing in health care delivery and our government figures who are protecting this wealth.
5
Pre-existing conditions are unfolded when insurance companies get to review health records to determine risk. I recall the first time I was looking to purchase health insurance on the open market and was told I wouldn't be covered for any skin conditions because I had asked my primary care provider about a mild breakout on my back in my 30s. I never was treated or was it a "problem" - rather the kind of give and take that seemingly is right in patient provider inquiry. Since, then, I am much more circumspect about these general questions in "on the record" conversations. They become exclusionary problem encounters when they should be preventative care conversations. I fear for all of the people who have come into the health care system under Medicaid who now have a treated trail of previously undiagnosed conditions that wouldn't have made them high-risk in the old system but now will make them toxically high when the insurance market gets to return to cherry-picking only the "best" risks. The irony is that when I was a "bad" risk by having discussed non-existent acne at a visit - a family member who had a history of IV drug abuse who had never been to a doctor was seen as a very low-risk and was given a low rate...this system was improved under the Affordable Care Act...not as much as could be but the reversal is taking it back to an insurance company windfall....
7
@jayme In addition to having an adverse effect on obtaining health insurance, a reluctance to discuss a suspect medical condition also can have an adverse effect on possible medical treatment. “I better not bring up the probable minor skin condition affecting my back because it might prevent me from obtaining health insurance” could also result in not receiving possible treatment if, in fact, it weren’t so minor after all.
3
Medicare is our most trusted health insurance program — and it’s far from perfect.
But it covers our oldest and sickest Americans — and, once on Medicare, American life expectancy goes up. Yes, that’s right: universal healthcare that’s affordable not only saves lives, it helps people stay healthier.
We need Improved Medicare for All — let’s cut out all the cost-sharing (deductibles, co-pays, network fees), and cut out the mean exclusions (dentures not covered? hearing aids not covered?) and cut out for-profit insurers who cause 30% of our healthcare dollars to be spent on things that don’t benefit health.
Paying for universal single-payer healthcare with a progressive tax would mean healthcare would be AFFORDABLE for everyone. The cost of your healthcare will only go up if your income goes up.
The Rand Corporation just completed an analysis of NY Health (Improved Medicare for all NYers): it concluded NY Health would give better coverage for everyone, create 150,000 new jobs, improve the economy — and SAVE us MONEY.
About pre-existing conditions? With affordable healthcare, we’d be able to focus on prevention and keep ourselves as healthy as possible. We'd live longer, just like Medicare folks do.
Check out Campaign for NY Health — and learn more.
5
No Democrat has discussed what to do about the ruinously high costs. In the US, we spend nearly 20% of GDP on health care. Each medical procedure, net of administrative costs, is billed at three times the rate of any other country. The largest group of people in the to 1% of incomes? Doctors.
If we can't cut costs, no system of payment will work. Single-payer or Medicare for all could never be passed because of the huge taxes needed to pay for it. Nobody wants to pay 40% of salary in tax to get single-payer, and no legislature is even going to try the experiment.
Naturally, real cost-cutting would be very painful. If we cut medical spending from 20% to 12% of GDP, many people would lose their jobs or face huge cuts in income. But something has to give.
3
@Jonathan — Americans are currently paying 20%-30% of their income on health insurance premiums, deductibles, and co-pays, and many with insurance face bankruptcy or financial ruin after relatively common accidents and illnesses.
Perhaps you missed Koch-funded Mercatus Center report that concluded Bernie Sanders' plan would COVER EVERYONE, with BETTER BENEFITS, and SAVE $2Trillion over today's healthcare system.
You must have also missed the conservative Rand Corporation's just-released report that NY Health (Improved Medicare for All New Yorkers) would COVER EVERYONE, with BETTER BENEFITS, be AFFORDABLE for ALL NYers, create 150,000 new JOBS, improve our ECONOMY — and SAVE MONEY over today's system.
When conservative think tanks begin to recognize that our current broken system HARMS not only humans but businesses, it begins to look like pigs are flying.
Progressive taxes for NY Health would mean someone making $50K/year would pay about $450/year (employer would pay $1800/year) for comprehensive healthcare with NO premiums, co-pays, deductibles, drug costs, etc. Someone earning $100K would pay $1,600 (employer contributing $6,400) ... and $150K salary pays $3000/year (employer contributes $12K). Today, many plans run $8K-10K for individuals and up to $30K for families (adding in deductibles/co-pays).
Real fiscal conservatives are beginning to see that single-payer healthcare will serve ALL of us better.
6
@JJ - You are living in a dream world. If what you are describing was possible, it would have been passed by Congress long ago.
The truth is, we spend much more: $10,348 per person in 2016. If we offered a single-payer plan, usage would go up. The number of people earning high incomes is very small; only 5% of tax returns are over $170K. We would have to tax each taxpayer an average of $20K, and there are simply not enough rich people to soften the blow.
@Jonathan
Start by regulating Profit with a healthy transaction tax on Health stocks when they get bought or sold.
1
I left corporate America in 1994. I had COBRA, and at the end of that period, I bought my own PPO insurance. I entered the "gig" economy. In 1998, I started a company with business partners. After we survived the dot com bust, and started making money again, we added group health, but I continued to hold on to that policy, with a $5K deductible, just in case my little company went bust.
By the time the Affordable Care Act rolled around, I thought that I wouldn't need a second policy. The law stated that I could buy insurance from an exchange, and that my pre-existing conditions would not preclude me from picking up reasonably-priced coverage. But a law that was kind to the people just wasn't what the Republicans wanted, and they worked on getting rid of this law. How many times did they try to vote it away? 30? 40? 50?
So, I held onto my policy. For years. These days, that "catastrophic" policy costs me $761 a month. I have never used it, because I prefer to use the more extensive coverage provided by my business. I've always been single: no second person coverage. But as long as the Republicans continued to attack pre-existing conditions, I've had to continue holding onto it.
Today, August 1, I can finally let go of that policy. I start Medicare. But what with those same Republicans do to Medicare? I wonder.
Why anyone would think that healthcare is not a right is beyond me. But then, I'm not a Republican.
17
"A contrast between single-payer health care and our ideas — a more patient-centered approach — is a debate we fully welcome."
OK, National Republican Congressional Committee, what are your ideas? Repeal the ACA and leave some 32 million people without health care? Or just repeal the ACA's mandate to buy insurance, raising everyone's premium just to spite Obama?
Does "patient-centered" approach mean "short-term" junk policies? Those are worse than nothing, because the "insured" pay monthly premiums for no real coverage on top of paying out of pocket for any health care. Does it mean selling insurance across state lines, so insurers can all move to (red) states where they can buy the laxest oversight from the legislature? Or perhaps "Health Savings Accounts," which provide a source of fees for banks and insurance companies, and perhaps some tax savings for wealthy families, but are useless for anyone else?
It should be obvious by now that Republicans have no ideas about health care. Cutting taxes for the wealthiest Americans (the only idea Republicans have had for at least 30 years) and enriching the executives and shareholders of insurance companies and banks does not make health care available or affordable!
Now that voters are concerned about health care, Democrats who have any real ideas (e.g., single payer) should have a big advantage over Republicans, who seek only to demolish the modest insurance reform Democrats enacted out of pure partisan spite.
6
If I was an American, I'd be dead. First bankrupt, then
dead.
My Texas neighbours can't believe that I can go to any MD, give them my health card, and I will get an
appointment.
I recently visited with a young American GP...before he will see anyone they have to pay $100 cash.
The United States is the only industrialized country
without universal health care. Why do Americans
tolerate the most costly least efficient health care
system ever?
In my opinion, the lack of universal health care is a big obstacle to labour mobility. And that is the achilles
heel of the US economy.
Labour economists please comment.
ancient Canadian economist
18
Neither Claire McCaskill nor Joe Donnelly are cosponsors of Bernie Sanders' Medicare for All bill 1804.
They should know they can't jump on the bandwagon when they are in a tight reelection race.
2
People with severe medical issues could be covered by disability insurance.
The failure of the Democrats to promote universal healthcare successfully is the reason the US does not have universal heathcare. Who else would do it? It is also the reason the Democrats are out of power: they are ineffective, splintered, unfocused, unable to get it done.
4
The tragic part of the story is that Democratic candidates are so surprised to hear that health care is such a vital issue to their own constituents. Where have you been? Why not ask about retirement security while you are at it? How about affordable and accountable college, post-graduate, and vocational programs? When will they ever ask whether Americans are tired of giving our blood and handing over our treasure to the military industrial complex? Cowards. They are likely to lose again.
12
That is because most Democrats are what I call corporate Democrats- they get their funds from corporations.
When a congress person takes donations from corporations, lobbyists and mega-rich folk then they are not listening to the regular folks.
I feel Pelosi willfully ignores the fundamental issues and the on the ground constituency. Why else would Bernie and his message, which excited a ground swell, be dismissed by the reigning Democratic leadership? She also calls any social democratic primary winner a one-off and disdainfully dismisses the win as indicative of nothing.
Justice Democrats vow not to take corporate donations. I’m with them!
It isnt just serious health problems that insurers deem “pre existing conditions”. Before ACA, our then five year old healthy daughter was deemed totally uninsurable due solely to a lazy eye.
4
Every time a Republican brings up immigration, the Dems should counter with Medicare for All. It's time the Dems act and not react on the issues of the day.
8
Obama egotistically embraced the term Obamacare which allowed Republicans to weaponize it for four election cycles. Reid and Pelosi performed the Herculean task of convincing their colleagues to vote for ACA and risk losing re-election which happened.
It's no surprise insurers prefer cherry picking their clientele and have no interest or desire to cover claims involving people who actually need medical care. What is surprising is how many people seemingly fail to grasp the importance of requiring insurers to cover pre-existing conditions, at least until it impacts them directly.
7
@sloreader
Yes, because sooner or later we will all have preexisting conditions.
6
"Democrats struggled to find ways to champion the law, which was unpopular and polarizing. "
It was unpopular and polarizing because Republicans spent tens of millions of dollars lying about the law. (Death panels!!)
As Nancy Pelosi correctly said (and was widely ridiculed of course at the time) once the law was enacted people would understand what was in there.
Now that people see the expanded protections, and the Republican work to undermine it to save $$ for their tax cuts for wealthy donors, more people understand that voting for Democrats will expand and improve on the law, lower premiums, provide a public option, allow younger people to buy into Medicare......
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/health-care/
10
Democrats: World's Worst Marketers.
2
@Lynn.... yes "expand and improve." Etc. The usual words. What do they mean? Truly affordable h/c for ALL citizens, of every income, age, job status or health situation? They don't say that. Although a few Dems are now starting to push Medicare for All --that's a real change.
The Democrats still have to compete with GOP for big money from the usual sources, to run expensive campaigns. That means big money for media ads, to the media's profit. This has to affect media coverage of how big money dictates US h care.
We the People of the USA are still lack the right to h/c that's common for generations in all other democracies. Canada in the 60s, UK the 40s, Sweden the 50s, France, the 70s--and not all are single payer. They're capitalist nations, but they don't let profit be 1st priority over citizens' health and lives.
Here we still sacrifice people to a warped idea of private profit sold as ensuring our 'freedom from big govt'. ACA uses our taxes to subsidize insurance profits. And insurance mega donors call the shots. This article avoids the main cause of our h/c problems, as usual.
2
The most popular healthcare reform proposal would be to get the costs down. Overall costs are so high not only due to exorbitant private insurance admin and drug prices, but also to overly high prices of hospitals, medical equipment, and physician services. Medicare (besides its lower admin costs)negotiates lower prices for the above (excluding drugs) than private insurance companies do or can. I understand that sometimes an uninsured individual can negotiate prices way down, but with tons of hassle and heartache.
I am concerned that if Medicare for All was passed, the healthcare service providers would influence the government agency to accept much higher negotiated prices. Thus healthcare costs would only decrease a little, not enough to make much difference. Obamacare as well as the unpassed Hillarycare focused on coverage, not on costs, and neither achieved the needed popularity.
1
Pre-existing conditions are no longer an issue because of Obamacare. The issue is finding affordable coverage for people who don’t have pre-existing conditions. As Obamacare slowly morphs into the insurance of last resort, it’s Trump who is pushing for alternatives. It’s the Democrats who want to block him and it’s a losing strategy.
1
In Michigan in the last days of the 2016 campaign, we were flooded with Hillary Clinton television ads. Every one I saw was about Trump's unsuitability to be president. I saw none that defended the ACA, the signature achievement of the incumbent administration.
4
@George You can continue to dwell on the 2016 election if it makes you feel better. Most people are focused on November's election---that's what will determine our future and the future of ACA.
2
@Skol George's point is still well made, Skol. Learning from 2016 can only help us this year.
It seems foolish not to be fighting for better health care and protecting those with pre-existing conditions. This country poisons its population daily. Eventually we will all have a pre-existing condition.
The question is... can the Democrats deliver? I am not sold that they can. I am healthy and rarely need to see a doctor. For a lower-end plan in CA, my premiums are in the thousands for the year, before co-pays, which are not cheap. I support the idea or ObamaCare but much work needs to be done.
Of course, only the Dems will put in the effort. The GOP remains totally unconcerned. 8 years to come up with an alternative, and they did zero.
11
$28.5M average US healthcare insurance CEO compensation. $56.5k median US wages.
This needs to be top of debate. A few hundred CEOs get rich denying coverage, adding bureaucracy and catering to Wall St.
13
@kat perkins
pls supply your references for your stats. thanks.
1
MEDICARE FOR ALL: 2020. It’s the American Way.
18
Democrats got their Obamacare after a multi-year long fight. They won. Now stop asking for more and leave the rest of us alone.
4
@DRS
I will leave you alone if you promise not to go to a doctor or a hospital for care without adequate insurance. I am a liberal with insurance (premiums are high) so that those without insurance get care that I subsidies. I would hope that this great nation could take care of the assets that make it great, we the people.
4
Health insurance needs to be sold like car insurance. You get too many tickets or accidents, your rates go up. You're WAY overweight, drink heavily or smoke, you're rates should go up. Regular rate payers should not have to support irresponsible behavior. Obey the law, pay attention, and drive carefully, you pay less for insurance. Lose some weight, quit smoking, keep your blood pressure down, pay less for insurance.
Why does the health insurance industry subsidize destructive behavior? No one argues with the car insurance model, and look at all the competition!
3
Not *just* the smokers and fat people. You know what’s *really* costly for those of us who are healthy? Subsidizing those freeloaders who get cancer. Or those lazy kids born with congenital abnormalities. They should jack up their rates, too.
5
@Jerry a bit too simplistic, Jerry. Many people are simply ill because their genetics are faulty: there are nearly 10,000 genetic disorders. Also, if you live in Flint, you get poisoned: who's to blame?
To address the free-will side: in Britain, which has tax-funded care for residents, if you smoke they won't give you any heart surgery until you stop.
7
@Jerry
Simplistic solution that does not take into consideration familial history or DNA. Driving a vehicle and being born with a disability are way different. Everyone needs medical care not everyone needs to drive a car.
5
This "new" tepid campaign theme, and this article, are a cope out. The theme of defending Obama Care, focusing on the Republican threat to pre-existing conditions, is a smoke screen. It is a distracting theme that avoids focus on the more urgent topic of single payer's insurance--of Medicare for all that more progressive Democrats are campaigning on and that the American public largely supports--or would support--if given more information and education on it. Once again, the Democrats are deaf to the public's needs and to public sentiment. They are proving themselves incapable of leading and losing a great opportunity to bring about deeply needed social change and a progressive healthcare system. I'm profoundly disappointed with the tepid measure directed at undermining the more progressive proposal already out there. I'm not voting for this Democratic Party.
9
@tdb Completely agree. We also need an honest conversation about why healthcare is so outrageously expensive in this country. I am wondering if either of these things will happen within my lifetime. But am hoping.
5
@tdb Medicare for All is a bridge too far for the upcoming November elections. Folks who have a pre-existing condition (and I'm one of them) understand how vital this element of the ACA is and how important it is to prevent it from disappearing. Medicare for All will be a future goal but it will take a massive amount of time to get it set up and functioning. Why should candidates make promises this election cycle that can't be kept?
1
Pre-existing conditions seems like getting car insurance after the accident.
2
@fitzy321 The correct scenario is your insurer declining to renew your car insurance after you've had an accident.
3
Typical right-wing strawman argument. Only focus on one thing that could happen, and ram that through as "the" reason why something shouldn't happen. C'mon, @fitzy21, can't you come up with something better then that??
Here's the ad every Democrat should be running:
Film a room filled to the brim with a diverse crowd of people. A voice can be heard asking everyone who had our who knows someone who has a preexisting condition to stand up.
Cut back and forth between a slow motion shot of practically everyone silently standing up an a scroll of a list of conditions that would likely be excluded.
At the end, show a scroll of the Republicans voting "Tay" to repeal the ACA. Then a shot of "Don't let the Republicans vote to take away coverage for preexisting conditions. Vote for [candidate X] in 2018. "
5
Brilliant!
1
Senator Ted Kennedy launched the recent decade of Health care debate proposing solutions. He was a strong leader. Since then, the wheel of the Democrat ship is unhelmed by able seamen. There are no leaders in the democrat party strong enough to effectively argue for and promote health care, needed by all at some point.
I have been a lone voice arguing here that the Republican cultivation of public hatred and anger was so effective that the voters actually voted against the well being of their own lives. I never heard one Democrat anywhere drive that fact home.
The wheel of the Democrat ship is wildly spun by difficult seas and currents and no one is stepping up to coalesce the party around the theme of caring for all, a hallmark of Democrat policies since the great Depression.
Are the rigors of campaigning and the Republican hate gauntlet so terrifying that no one super democrat leader will take the Republican bulls by the horns and tame them with merely the truth. Soldiers die for less. Leaders can stand up for Americans and suffer the scorn of those bulls and live to save millions so they live.
4
I think many voters will feel: Democrats caused this mess, and refused every attempt to reform it. Not a good basis for electing Democrats to power again. They also caused the mortgage-based crash and recession. Giveaway socialism is just a bad way to operate.
5
@tomas pajaros what are you talking about. Please elaborate.
2
The mortgage crash and recession started in September 2008 when Bush was in the last few months of his presidency. So how did the Democrats cause it when it was the Republicans driving the ship?
Obama was inaugurated January 09 and instituted the reforms to help us from going into a deep depression. So I guess giving the auto industry a government loan, which was paid back in full with interest, you would consider a democratic hand out?
Please get your facts straight.
1
One would like to think that such campaigning would be obvious, but then one remembers the undying worlds of H. L. Mencken:
“No one in this world, so far as I know—and I have researched the records for years, and employed agents to help me—has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby.” H.L. Mencken, 1926
2
time for the quiet man to turn up the volume?
3
Stop calling it "Obamacare" would be a great start. It is NOT Obamacare! That name is polarizing and anyone who is trying to sell an idea or a concept has to keep public perception in mind. Call it by its correct name and watch what happens......
3
The debate over pre-existing conditions should be open and honest. Covering such conditions is expensive, of course. Obamacare paid for the coverage by requiring young healthy people to buy health insurance. That mandate is fading, and separate funding of pre-existing conditions is now needed. For the time being, much of the money is coming from higher premiums. That, in turn, makes coverage more expensive and has caused millions to drop their Obamacare policies.
Politicians of both parties need to address both the advantages and disadvantages of the various health care options. But it is likely that Republicans will tout the fact that buying into Obamacare is not mandatory, while Dems will tout pre-existing condition coverage without regard to cost. If you hear a candidate discussing the pluses and minuses, voter for him or her yesterday, today and tomorrow. An honest candidate is a rare thing.
2
We weren't quiet.
You weren't listening.
6
Stick with supporting ObamaCare Democrats!
Signed,
Every Republican!
FYI-Claire McCaskill will lose by 7+ points.
3
@Crutch your right. Obamacare is a GIANT corporate welfare plan. Maybe if the Democrats supported Single Payer they might have a chance.
1
You can't "do healthcare" until you "fix immigration." Look to our neighbors in Canada as a perfect example. Their very stringent immigration policies are needed to ensure that their healthcare programs are not overrun and bankrupted by millions of illegal aliens. You have to fix this broken wheel before you can pull the cart. Or we can just let everyone in and give everyone "free" healthcare. News flash - NOTHING is free.
7
@Anita your right healthcare shouldn't be free. It should be affordable and with a Single Payer system it would be. The ACA is just a giant corporate welfare plan. And "illegal" immigrants don't get healthcare. Not sure where you got that idea?
1
@Susan F. Anyone who shows up at an ED must be treated, regardless of ability to pay. Anyone.
The reason Democrats have been on the defensive was because Obama was on the defensive from the beginning. The difference between the negotiating techniques of Trump and Obama is that Trump negotiates with someone else and invariably gets rolled, while Obama negotiated with himself and invariably got rolled. Bernie Sanders showed that all you had to do was open your mouth on the subject of universal care and people's ears pricked up with interest. Obama, Lieberman and the Healthcare Industry tried to keep the genii in the bottle because they were all in the same incestuous relationship.
8
Why do Republicans always drop a subject in the middle of an important debate? Trump said "some of the " right-wing people were nice people. He didn't go on to say who they were. Other Republicans have been talking for more than year about "repealing and replacing" the health care system. So far I have not heard a word about what they planned to replace it with.
Of course, the most likely reason is that Republicans were running off their mouths and had nothing coherent to say, so they had to stop talking.
6
In New Zealand, Britain and several other well-run and popular countries, health-care is essentially tax-funded for citizens and residents.
This is largely because of the economies of scale: it is impractical, by voluntary commercial insurance membership, to cover the common, serious health problems experienced by a large fraction of the population.
As with the military, health care is too expensive and too important to be left solely in private hands.
NZ spends 75% of the government tax income on health care, to illustrate, but many people also hold private medical insurance, which shows the true cost.
There are dilhemmas about who ought to get certain procedures first, but they are real-world questions based on things like the number of available surgeons in a region, or the number of organs for transplant, and not based on political ideology.
Tax in NZ is relatively high, but then families do not have to pay all their money to hospitals just to keep their children alive for another day. Life can be more predictable when you have more cash: you can buy goods and services, for example.
6
Boy, the commercial used in this article highlighting the utter contempt and lies by CA21 district congressman GOP John Fasso will stay w me for weeks, maybe years. This commercial should run nationally.
6
I will not vote for any candidate—including Democrats— who will not strongly support Medicare for All. We’ve waited long enough.
16
@Zejee
What if the buy in for Medicare is around 1200.00/month? Can you afford that?
1
@Zejee
Democrats have been fighting for universal health care since the days of Harry Truman.
Republicans even strongly opposed Medicare
The only reason that we do not have universal health care is that Republicans have been obstructing all paths forward.
If you want everyone to be covered, vote for Democrats, vote against Republicans.
4
Just a short comment of recommendation for the Dems should their upcoming platform bring up the subject of healthcare: do it right this time, and for heavens sake insure no changes can be made to healthcare coverage unless approved by 3/4 the members of both Houses, i.e. no presidential whimsical use of executive orders.
14
One society's waste is another corporation's profit margin... this particular issue will never be fixed under a capitalist model.
5
I think the best way to bang the drum on health care is to have folks who have pre-existing conditions post videos on YouTube explaining very simply why Obamacare is so very important to their experience.
7
With the advent of medical genetics, the concept of “pre-existing” is quickly becoming meaningless.
4
I'm 60... I vote...and the number one issue to me is health care...specifically with respect to pre-existing conditions.
13
Wouldn't you think Republicans would be smarter than this? They are allowing Trump to set the agenda for the midterms.
Of course, they can't afford to cross him, because they are one tweet away from unemployment. Trump seems to be both cause and effect.
I wonder how they got in this fix?
6
The Democrats are too obsequious to corporations, including the health insurance sector, to advocate for what a majority of the public want: single payer.
With all the talk about Russian interference in our democracy, strangely, the corporate-media never talk about how the health insurers are limiting our democracy in regard to health care.
The reason ACA was never popular is that it continued the dominance of the health insurers over out health care. The health insurance industry is despised almost as much as the telecoms. But the Democrats will continue to choose big money over democracy.
16
@Ed Watters - Amen!
I've spent a lot of time arguing with climate Denialists; who are mostly on the Right (or Russian bots, I guess). With this topic, the denial comes from the Left.
No, sorry, most ordinary people in the USA do not favor "Medicare For All", in any concrete form. And, vigorously opposing it, there are massively powerful interest groups which are part of the Medical-Industrial Complex, as well as general business interests.
First, the large majority of ordinary people already have taxpayer-subsidized health insurance. That's because their compensation in the form of employer-based insurance is not taxed.
So, tell me, who wants MFA? Certainly not those already on Medicare. Certainly not those who are convinced (rational or not) that they are getting a policy "worth" tax-free $X from their employers, when they would now have to bargain for actual taxed salary/wages to replace it. Veterans? The system is troubled, but it is "their" system. Doctors, hospitals, nurses... who would be getting paid at Medicare or Medicaid rates? Insurance and Pharma companies? Businesses that have their employees locked in because of health insurance?
Sorry folks, but this is a fantasy. The US system set up in the 40's is a classic example of a market failure. ACA was the best hope to start nudging things in a more rational direction-- lots of smart people worked on this problem, and realized it was a long game. I would give references, but people in denial don't bother to find the facts.
2
I’m on Medicare and I strongly support Medicare for All. Why shouldn’t Americans have what the citizens of every other first world nation have enjoyed for decades?
US for profit health care is the most expensive health care, by far, in the world.
We can’t afford for profit health care.
25
I agree. Medicare, as currently structured, would be an inferior insurance product than the one my company provides. I'd rather keep my insurance, and expand Medicaid for people that can't afford to purchase their own health insurance.
3
@JTCheek
There exists Original Medicare; Part A covers hospitalization (there is a $1370 deductible), Part B covers outpatient care (approximately $134/month premium, a yearly $185 deductible, then one is responsible for 20% copay), and the optional Part D for drug coverage (premium varies, copays and deductibles vary).
But one can always choose a Medicare Advantage Plan provided by insurance companies. The insurance companies have to cover, at a minimum, what Original Medicare covers, but are free to offer a competing "superior product" (at a higher or lower cost than Original Medicare).
Medicare for all could accommodate individuals (and companies) that want to purchase a superior product.
The biggest problem with Obamacare is that it sought to mitigate GOP opposition by accommodating a continued role for private health insurance companies. The Democrat strategy failed, as this preemptive compromise did not win over any Republican support. The result was a byzantine, hybrid mess that satisfied no one.
In public policy, sometimes you need to apply Occam's razor and go for the simplest solution to a problem. In the case of providing health care to everyone, the simplest solution is a national single-payer insurance scheme, as proven by so many other countries. We can do this.
16
"Because health problems tend to pile up as people age, the older voters who tend to turn out most reliably in midterm elections experience such worry disproportionately."
Imagine the uproar when Trump and Republicans cut funds and privatize Medicare so it no longer covers pre-existing conditions.
Will that be the last straw to finally awaken America to see the overriding need for a national health care system like the rest of the world's countries have?
8
This issue alone can help Democrats win in 2018 and beyond.
Remember the outrage (across party lines) when the GOP tried to repeal the A.C.A. last summer?
18
BearBoy,
The Republicans control both houses of Congress and presidency.
If they wanted to they could have done away with the A.C.A., but public outcry was so great they retreated.
4
It’s about time! I personally know a family that has been financially ruined because the father had a stroke at 52 years old. Had good group insurance coverage through his employer, Deutsche Bank. But the benefits ran out and the family is financially ruined. I pay over $3,000 per month in health premiums alone for a family of four. And that doesn’t include deductibles and co-pays. That’s just ridiculous. And the chasm between the haves and have nots is only getting bigger. Is this really who we are?
19
@Mike L
I thought Obama Care was going to lower prices??
Do those here really like Obamacare,, or is it that they are just covering for their symbolic President?
5
@Joe Paper
"I thought Obama Care was going to lower prices??"
For some yes, for others no. It depended on wages. Also, if you made too little money you couldn't qualify. Obamacare was a step forward as far as preexisting conditions and for those whose rates proved lower under ACA. The fact that one had to be insured, otherwise pay a penalty when filing taxes, was iffy but definitely not enough of a deterrent. Which one would you rather pay: a $750 penalty or $700/month for coverage for 2 adults in good health?
Nobody said it was going to lower prices. But it did slow down the rate of increase. And, oh yeah, made it illegal for insurance companies to kick people off when they got sick.
4
Like any good politician, they too will say anything to get votes.
The real issue that the Dems have to confront, is that ACA was not a solution. Now every time a Dem opens up with ‘health insurance’, people think back to ACA; while the politico speaks about whatever his speech writer told them to say, people think about getting a penalty at tax time because they failed to get insurance during the year.
People failed to get insurance because they could not afford it during the year, and at year end paid the price for it in extra taxes. This is what people think when a Dem talks about health care.
4
Medicare for All is the solution
2
How about framing the position as healthcare vs (more) tax cut windfalls for the richest of the rich (a la Mnuchin and Trump)?
Which do the overwhelming majority of people in the USA want?
5
@NYer
Apparently we want more tax cuts for the rich, 'cause they keep on happening. We must not want good, affordable health care bad enough...
Perhaps we should demand more from our politicians. They do solicit our votes, don't they?
2
Some of the more sensible proposals I have heard involve some modification to the ACA, not an outright repeal, replace. Even the law's proponents are aware of some of the inadequacies in implementation, administration and participation of insurers.
They need to fix Healthcare for the middle class and small businesses.
Under the ACA, the only thing guarantees has been higher premiums for those who dont qualify for subsidies or those not employed by a Larger Company. Democrats need to talk about that only, and they will win.
Hillary lost my vote, when during one debate she did not call insurance a "tax". The Supreme Court may not have called it a tax, but if you need to buy something and it keeps going up, what is it? a surcharge.
Democrats must be upfront about the broken cost structure and their goal to fix it. The talk of pre existing conditions is just a sound bite, that people that have to buy insurance dont worry about. We are too busy paying the exorbitant premiums to care.
3
@Jason You are complaining about modifications made to the original plan by Republicans to punish the Democrats for having the votes to pass a plan to help people afford health care.
The flaws in the system were put there by design by Republicans, not by Democrats.
We live in a nation with the highest per capita spending on health care of any Western developed nation and we have some of the worst outcomes.
The problem is a for profit health care system. The Republicans like the problem all the way to the bank.
2
Unfortunately the current medical complex - including many doctors and academics - have abandoned the "First, do no harm" idea and have replaced it with, "First, get the money - as much as you can."
The whole medical complex is so out-of-control with fraud, over-billing, double/triple billing, good old boys working together to line their pockets that they are of no use to average patients.
The lawmakers can't/wont' fix it. WE THE PEOPLE are the only ones who can and will fix it.
I wonder if a week- long "Boycott Health Care" at all levels would wake them up a little to OUR contempt for the current system? I wonder if a few months of not paying the ludicrous no-benefit health insurance premiums would wake them up?
WE need action on good ideas to force change and DEMAND that OUR lawmakers create true basic government-run citizen-watchdog health care for ALL Americans.
Get the money out of health care. The Financial Robber Barons think they are the only ones who "deserve" good health care and that WE should pay for it for them.
Boy, have WE got news for them.
6
Boycott except in the case of real emergencies.
3
Actually, I've a little news for you: while "waste, fraud and abuse," are a problem, they aren't close to the biggest part of your health care dollar.
The biggest single part is probably that we're in crummy shape: we're fat, sloppy, bad eaters who spend way too much time stressed out. Then it's probably drug costs, and those of medical procedures....some if that's waste and so on, but almost all is that this stuff's just darn expensive. Then you have a highly-complex system: they're working on that. Then there's the way people demand stuff they do not need. Then we have an aging pop.
And it ought to perturb a progressive, when they find themselves making the same argument as a righty.
1
I know politics is the art of compromise, but part of the art is knowing when not to compromise. Obamacare, based on Romneycare, was a unprincipled compromise with the insurance industry, especially after Obama and the Democrats in Congress caved on a public option. Its complexity, fragility and vulnerability to legal and political challenge was a direct result of the inept, expedient and self-defeating compromises it incorporated. It's time to pull the plug and replace it with straight-forward Medicare-for-all. If the Democratic Party can't shake off its timidity and dependence on insurance industry donors and go boldly and unapologetically to the broad mass of voters of all races, ethnicities, education levels and regions for support for Medicare for all, then it's useless and needs to be replaced.
10
" politics is the art of compromise,"
When was this? Republicans think politics is the art of never compromising but standing firm for a stupid idea ( or a stupid president)
3
Looks like the Left has turned this debate into another fact-free zone. America’s healthcare is the envy of the world- the best doctors, providers and nurses, the best testing and the best treatments. That’s why people from all over the world come here to be doctors and to receive care
2
@Larry Have you asked those whose countries have socialized health insurance, to whatever degree, if they would trade their programs for what America has to offer? The ones I have asked have all said "no"', despite their particular nation's shortcomings in that area. They are aware that our "system" is based on the J.P. Morgan maxim: If you have to ask how much it costs, you can't afford it.
6
@Larry we truly do have amazing doctors here and some of the finest treatment that insurance or out of pocket $ can buy. I'm curious as to why you believe we are the envy of the world though, countless testimonials disagree with your point of view. Healthcare for all without the complexity of insurance and the option to come here if they want something elective or specialized faster than what is offered in their country for free isn't a better system.
Are you insured? Do you have any preexisting conditions? Diabetes, high blood pressure, your wife or daughter had a child, all preexisting and illegal to deny coverage for under that ACA. As a cancer survivor I am appalled at the costs of our current system, people die due to lack of coverage or access to the proper medications. Here's to "hoping" you never find yourself or a loved one on the other side of your point without insurance, or even with some skimpy plan. If you do go ahead and find yourself navigating this superior medical system.
3
@Larry Not a single one of my Canadian friends or relatives is envious of our healthcare "system" here in the United States. They actually express sympathy and don't understand why we put up with it.
14
About time the Democrats started to follow their constituents down the road. While the ACA was being proposed, Obama & cronies took single-payer off the table. Back in 2016 they (including Hillary Clinton and the NY Times columnists, especially including Paul Krugman), said Medicare for All was a pipe dream and attacked Bernie Sanders for proposing it.
Meanwhile many of my clients (I work in medical-legal research) went bankrupt, lost their homes, etc. because they couldn't pay medical bills after a catastrophic injury. I will never forgive those Democrats who sabotaged the possibility of single payer for so many years.
8
Nonsense.
Among other things, the PPACA capped OOP costs at around 9-10% of income, precisely to stop medical bankruptcies.
2
@Robert I'll call your nonsense. How do you avoid bankruptcy when you can't afford your COBRA premiums because you get some illness/accident that takes you out of the workforce? If your illness/accident entitles you to Social Security Disability Income, then sure, you'll have Medicare coverage in 29 months from onset of disability. The ACA didn't address this. Let's no assume that you'll be Medicaid eligible in many states if this scenario hit you since SCOTUS rejected the Medicaid mandate in the ACA. The ACA also made State High Risk Pools obsolete, but in the states that had them, many covered their under 65 Medicare disabled with the high risk pools as their "Medigap" (since <65 & Medicare eligible can't buy a traditional Medigap policy). Medicare & Medigap for All.
Protection for previous-conditions patients is the six-horse team that can pull the whole wagon for health-care reform. In fact, it could start a stampede toward Democrats.
5
One of the main reasons for Democrats losing the House and then the Senate was their total incompetence & lack of preparedness defending the ACA once it was passed. Vulnerable candidates were ripped to shreds at town halls by enraged Tea Party operatives. The Obama administration was clueless explaining and defending the law. The website rollout was a catastrophe. PR campaigns were pathetically inadequate. Republicans immediately unleashed an avalanche of legal challenges - one of which reached the Supreme Court where Roberts saved the law, but killed the mandatory Medicare expansion - effectively sawing off one leg of the milk stool. Red state legislatures had free reign to sabotage the law state by state. The ACA never worked as it was intended ever again.
One would hope that if Democrats are going to talk about health care for the mid-terms, they've improved on their messaging and gotten their act together.
7
If "total incompetence" can bring political loss, the Republicans are going to be clobbered in November.
2
Altho it was the "total incompetence" of another political party that placed GOP in command of all three branches of Fed govt, judiciary, and a majority of states.
--“I completely can see why they’re excited to be able to talk about this issue again,” said Mollyann Brodie...--
The Democrats should never have stopped talking about it! They've lost eight years in the message war on the ACA and seen it slowly picked apart. It was a very cowardly response to a cause they championed in 2010.
7
The Donald feasts on chaos, unpredictability, impetuosity, arrogance, intimidation. Checks and balances? He’s created a politics of “check$ and political/global imbalances”. He’s “playing” us all, from the brilliant to the billionaires to the ignored and marginalized. He’s no joke.
He understood immediately that Congress is focused on one thing and one thing only: getting re-elected. So they’ll do whatever he wants as long as they don’t have to leave Washington.
What does all this mean?
Our nation is in trouble. Real, deep trouble. Our electorate is being played for patsies, and our democracy is, for the first time ever, threatened. Whoredom reigns, as the electorate suddenly finds itself “important”, having fallen head over heels for the supreme master of all salesmen. Listen to the news, now tailored to THEIR “wants” by corporations seeing $ signs everywhere they look. And so they swoon, suckers who love seeing the Congressional sycophants paying attention to THEM, not to the present and future needs of the nation, not to its ideals, not to it’s crucial role in keeping the world’s focused on peace and global warming.
Gulp.
2
Soon all those Trump voters out there will find out they are bankrupt due to medical bills and they were gaslighted by their hero.
3
@Jacquie No sorry, that is what happened to Dems voters when they cheered for DACA, then got to pay a penalty at the end of the year because they could not afford to buy insurance during the year.
Congressmen (Democrat & Republican) should have to be on the ACA plans of their individual States and they shouldn's have taxpayer subsidized insurance--they should feel the full heat of the ACA.
Congress is in a healthcare bubble, they did not put their health where their mouths are. They have left the self-employed, the entrepreneurs, the small businesses, etc. to carry the weight of this horrendous law. They are hypocrites.
10
The fact that all Democrats are not talking about health care in a comprehensive way is nuts. It is obvious that republicans have no interest in advancing our health care system at all. They continue to cater to the people who don't want to pay for insurance or (their or anybody else's) health care, and those who claim they don't want 'government-run' health care. Democrats should be talking about reasonably priced health care by getting the obscene profits earned by the private insurance, health care and pharmaceutical corporations out of the equation, and promoting universal access through fees we can afford based on our incomes. We know that the money thrown around by the corporations is keeping our elected officials from moving ahead, so it's time to elect representatives who are not beholden to those interests.
4
Using manufactured scare tactics, the U.S. health insurance industry successfully lobbied Congress to enact a requirement that most non-elderly Americans become compulsory customers of the insurance industry and approve taxpayer financing of massive subsidies for the private insurance industry.
The GOP & U.S. health insurance companies continue to protect their high profits using scare tactics. One very effective tactic is to deliberately confuse the public by conflating the “socialized medicine” label with single-payer, “socialized (public) health insurance”.
Socialized medicine is a system in which doctors and hospitals work for and draw salaries from the government. The Dems. seek socialized health insurance, not socialized medicine.
The term “socialized medicine” is often used by the private insurance industry and GOP politicians to manufacture frightening images of government bureaucratic interference in medical care. In countries with socialized health insurance, health and mental health professionals and patients often have more clinical freedom. This is in sharp contrast to the U.S., where private health insurance bureaucrats attempt to direct/interfere with care .
Manufactured confusion by GOP & the health insurance industry impede the public’s ability to differentiate, and so far have allowed the private health industry to successfully maintain control of the U.S. health care system for its own profit. A potent Dem. campaign can stop this.
9
Democrats must use health care as a rallying cry, and it very well could translate into election victories. It’s a huge issue, one that affects millions of voters of both parties. The difference is that the GOP wants to take away our right to decent care and has been hammering away at the ACA. We’ve all had to pay those huge costs for “pre-existing conditions.” It’s a nightmare that we shouldn’t have to return to. Trump and his minions are hoping that it does.
3
It is difficult to imagine how anyone, especially older adults, would not resonate with the goal of providing better health care for themselves and their families. It is also inconceivable that someone could believe that Republicans' health care track record is better than the Democrats'.
But I am seeing how outright lie after lie can turn up into down through fear and hate mongering which make us all self-destructive.
1
Finally?! But put this effort in the hands of Cory Booker or another Dem who will be a very weak national candidate, and health care for individuals will evaporate further. Even being able to buy into plans such as Medicare Advantage for under 65s would be an improvement.
1
I would dare to say that most Americans care a lot about Healthcare and Jobs/Wages, not immigration, ICE, or even Trump himself.
Dems should run on a platform that resonates with most Americans and get themselves elected FIRST. Then when they have the power they can tackle the other stuff. Too much emphasis on the fringe areas gets you nowhere fast. And, yes, in this era of an aging population and loss of jobs anything else is fringe. And just being 'anti-Trump' highlights that you don't have a platform of your own.
2
I can only imagine what our workforce might look like if people weren't tied to certain jobs because of healthcare. It would be amazing. And to those that complain that they don't want this because they don't want to pay for someone else's healthcare, they fail to realize that is exactly what they are doing now.
7
The Government already funds quite a few pre-existing conditions. Flood Control, Forest Fire Protection and formerly the EPA. are three conditions that I can think of. Aiding people with pre-existing conditions should be added to the List.
The groups that are opposing the insurance should spell out exactly how they will deal with it in their talking points. Sorry folks this is one condition that can’t be solved by only “Thoughts and Prayers”.
2
Healthcare reform along with national security issues involving Russia and an unsustainable growth of the national debt should all be front and center for Democrats in the upcoming midterm elections. The total dismantling of the ACA by the Trump Administration includes plans to do away with elements like pre-existing condition provisions which are universally valued by healthcare consumers. The campaign promise of new, cheaper, better healthcare coverage by Trump is just another example of his willingness to commit to anything that sounds good. He gets away with it because his base is so radically uninformed when it comes to the facts involving healthcare reform and coverage. Presenting clear and simple facts on these issues leading up to the November elections should be central to the democratic campaign strategy.
3
Donald Trump and the GOP have made their position abundantly clear. The wealthiest Americans should not be burdened with the medical costs associated with the care of an aging population, this societal problem is NOT their problem. Their purchased representatives are only focused on lowering their taxes. It has been painfully obvious that nothing is a higher priority than this. Older Americans who are not wealthy need to wake up, the GOP is NOT looking out for your best interests and never will be.
15
Healthcare is the single most important issue for all Americans whether they know it or not. Staying healthy keeps us employed, keeps our children in school, prevents future illness and prolongs life. The Affordable Care Act also provides jobs for healthcare professionals, all kinds of hospital jobs, including computer jobs at at all levels and let's not forget insurance companies. Many doctors have been able to expand their practices because of the Affordable Care Act. We are 98 days away from a very important election. It is time Democrats campaign on this crucial issue and stop worrying about the Russia probe and other court cases. Let Robert Mueller and his team do their job and force Democratic candidates to do their job so that we will all be healthy enough to work.
6
If the Democrats do not take control of health care (and other critical issues of the day), many more families will be bankrupted by health care costs and/or will wind up on the streets for lack of any effective health care. They will find themselves at the mercy of those who are living in the alternate reality of, "I'm doing fine. That's their problem."
3
@Emergence
Why is it an alternate reality for people who are doing fine? It is just their reality as they are doing fine.
1
Even people with insurance are worried about paying for needed medical care. We have reached the point in America where receiving medical care is a luxury for most of us, not a right and certainly not a privilege. I'm nearly 60. My mother is 86. Because how things are in America right now I'm hoping I don't live as long as my mother. I will not be able to receive medical care because I will not be able to afford the co-pays. I will not receive dental care, eye care, or any other care. The best I can hope for in today's America is a quick and painless death.
People born after the mid 1950s have not had a good economic life in America. We have not had the opportunities our parents or our older brothers and sisters had. We have been downsized, right sized, outright fired, not mentored, not given generous scholarships for college or post grad education, seen housing costs rise while our salaries did not. Our American dream never materialized unless we were extremely lucky.
Our health has suffered along with our dreams of better lives. We do not have the living standards our parents or older siblings had/have. We have not gone for care we needed because of the expense. It's as if businesses and our politicians decided, in the 1970s, that future generations should be sacrificed so that CEOs and the uber rich could have better lives. Access to health care was part of that sacrifice.
10
I feel exactly the same way; thank you for this comment. I, too, am 60, and my dad is almost 90. I sure hope I don’t live that long for precisely the reasons you describe. I am fighting to stay relevant in my career, but good jobs for non-techies are disappearing. That I live in the Silicon Valley area is a major concern; housing costs are impossible and getting worse.
8
@Peter ERIKSON I know how you feel. I'm living with my elderly mother because I can no longer afford my own place. No one wants to hire me because of my age and experience. I'm supposed to pretend that things are fine when I can't find a job and cannot reinvent myself again. I am a techie and it's not relevance that matters. It's age. In America once you are over the age of 50 you are disposable.
Living in a gilded age is fine if you have the money. If not, it's excruciating in many ways. The worst is knowing that you are not valued for anything. I do think things would be different if we had a different sort of health care system instead of our current wealth care system.
Actually, today in America everything is connected to wealth. Health care, justice, housing, education, etc. We have a society where your value depends upon how rich you are, not your humanity or hard work.
America has the most expensive and lowest quality healthcare system in the modern world because we force business owners to select and purchase our health insurance.
The majority of Americans get their healthcare from their employer, an employer likely not very wise in the field of healthcare and mostly concerned about minimizing their costs.
The cost of that healthcare is then added to every product and service we purchase or attempt to export. Someone who wanted to sabotage our healthcare system and our business community couldn't have come up with a system that does more damage to both.
6
So, we're back to healthcare insurance for the elderly. Is anybody really surprised? What of the president's promise to provide cheaper, better healthcare, that would cover pre-existing conditions. Gone with the wind. Is anybody really surprised? Have we returned to government for the rich? The rich don't have to be healthy. They can afford expensive premiums. Is anybody really surprised? Many of the working people of America, especially through the Midwest and South are getting ripped off by the very people they voted for. Is anybody really surprised?
13
Just want to bring to your attention that simply a “history of having smoked tobacco” and a “history of obesity” were sufficient to prevent me from obtaining personal health coverage from the provider that had been covering me through my employment. At the time, I had not smoked for more than 10 years, and I had recently walked a marathon. My son, who was 15, was deemed ineligible due to a mental health diagnosis (ADHD). Since we live in California, we were covered in our State’s “high risk pool,” which offered less comprehensive benefits in return for substantially higher premiums. The long- term result, though, was ending my small business and returning to working for an employer so I could get, keep, and afford decent health care coverage.
Janet Bailey
27
@Janet Bailey
The fact that the health industry came up with the term "preexisting conditions" and applied it to whatever minor/irrelevant issue (ADHD/smoking 10 years ago history) they wanted and that the people accepted it, it is mind boggling and infuriating. How do Americans get swindled so easily?
People, stop being so passive!
2
A small suggestion (after thinking about it..a huge suggestion based on the name change count): Pick a name and stick with it throughout the article. In one paragraph the author referenced 'Obamacare' and then the next sentence 'Affordable Care Act'. The Repubs coined the former as a political ploy against then President Obama, tho he did not object, it served their political purposes too well. I think it is time to refer to it as the 'Affordable Care Act' or ACA as the bill has been titled. Let's get people on the same page. It is the correct choice of a newspaper organization committed to integrity and ethical journalism.
27
"A more patient-centered approach."
More euphemisms and misleading monikers (e.g. the Death Tax) from Republicans.
What they really mean is "you're on your own." Good luck getting affordable insurance. I speak from experience: my family of four paid about $2,000/month for health care (no dental/vision) before the ACA was adopted. It was our biggest monthly bill and we were damned lucky that we could afford it at the time. It's absolutely unrealistic, unsustainable for the vast majority of folks.
I'm SO GLAD to hear that Democrats are using this issue in their campaigns! Gives me hope.
16
@Marie Too true. My parents almost went bankrupt trying to keep on top of bills when my dad got sick. They had some help from family, friends, etc. before dad went to the VA for medical treatment. $2,000/month is absurd for a family that size. There needs to be some standardization of costs for both medical visits/procedures and prescription drugs. Costs are highly variable even within the same region.
1
Still waiting for the $2500 Obama promised I would get from ObamaCare
6
Still waiting for the "better and cheaper" healthcare program promised by Trump. "And it will be SO EASY!"
33
Blame your carrier! It’s in THEIR court and they control it!
3
Dems need to push ; healthcare; jobs; wage stagnation and anti Trump in that order. Vote out GOP or it will get much worse. Ray Sipe
12
I haven’t been to a doctor or hospital in 15 years, precisely because I’m afraid they’ll find something and I’ll be branded with a pre existing condition, and because if they find something terribly wrong with me I’ll bankrupt my family trying to manage my health. If I get sick before I’m eligible for Medicare I’ll head to Cuba for treatment. No one should live in fear the way I do, a bonafide born in the USA taxpayer.
16
@New World
Can you get cheap dental care in Cuba?
Obamacare is not just a small program ...
People who have employer health insurance don't really care... but they should.
And some of my comments here should be included in an article like this .. or the other one ... or the chipping away of ACA.
https://www.healthinsurance.org/faqs/i-already-have-great-employer-spons...
If Obamacare starts to disappear, some of these guaratees will go way too, which means your employer will shop for cheaper plans, which means worse insurance, higher co-pays, higher deductibles and higher maxs per year (these have been lowered in my plan to ACA maxes from even higher values before).
Also employer provided health insurance is part of the age discrimination issue. You are expensive to insure if you are older, and you also have limited ability to change jobs to find better insurance .. and trust me, your employer knows that really well. Social security doesn't kick in until 67 for most people and Medicare at 65, but that assumes you don't have any disabling illnesses. And good luck being held on if you can't work 40 hours a week due to failing health (maybe you are lucky and insurance is available at 32 with 20% cut in pay due to lowered hours).
Comprehensive insurance for all would get rid of many problems.
6
And shout it far and wide that Republicans tried and tried again to (and have somewhat succeeded...) in making harder to have health care coverage for millions of Americans. They did not replace the ACA with "something terrific and lower cost". They did not improve or help the ACA and the millions who rely on it, they have tried to kill it. Remember this when you get your medical bills, deductibles and the outrageously high premium bills for the coverage you might have!
2
I hope that this year Medicare for all wins the heart of everybody, anyone that was born will eventually be sick and the best way to make the cost effective is Medicare for all. We need it.
3
If Democrats had stood up for and defended the ACA for the past eight years instead of apologizing because it wasn't perfect, we wouldn't be in this mess.
4
Does anybody remember that the Democrats offered a health-care plan in the 1990s? It failed because Hillary Clinton decided to use it as cover for abortion funding, which "insured" that conservatives would oppose it.
Republicans were much weaker back then than now. If it wasn't for Hillary's obsession with abortion, we'd have a 20-year-old plan that everybody was used to.
@Charlesbalpha
Again with the looking backwards, instead of focusing on what to do in the future.
Healthcare is a huge issue for millions of Americans!! It is a great opportunity for Democrats to show what we stand for.
Republicans stopped talking about replacing Obamacare. They stopped talking about healthcare at all. They have absolutely no interest in ensuring that all Americans have affordable healthcare. This should be very clear by now.
What else causes terrible anxiety for millions of Americans?
Student debt. Lack of savings. No plans for retirement. Inadequate incomes.
Republicans have nothing to say about any of them. Let's go, Democrats!!
4
"Don't it always seem to go
That you don't know what you've got
Till it's gone"
Apparently people are starting to figure out what will happen once Republicans get their way and their health insurance is gone.
Better late than never.
3
"Health Care" is the spike that Democrats can definitely drive deep into the heart and soul of the Republican Party leadership.
Did Trump, and the Republican Party, actually think that "we, the people", would take his proposal to deny coverage to citizens with "pre-existing conditions" laying down?...This once again goes to clearly show the stark differences between the Republican leadership and the country as a whole...Even Trump's "base" is not so stupid that they would support such a heartless initiative.
Although, I could be wrong on that point.
May I suggest a new phrase to identify those who consider themselves to be Trump's base?...How about "Sub-Zero"? -- Zero for not registering their disgust to such a change in health policy that would dramatically imperil them and their respective families. Although I am fairly confident that they were worried about such an outcome. After all, who can afford health care without some form of assistance these days? Answer: Just the top few percent on the income pyramid, that's who.
Had Trump been successful in implementing his new health care program, the first thing he would do is to give the savings that would result to those at the very top of the income ladder via a humongous tax cut while raising taxes on the rest of us.
So, yes, Democrats, bury the Republicans with the health care issue...Maybe then they might think twice before making similar proposals in the future.
4
An insignificant detail: it costs a tremendous amount of money to pay for the healthcare of individuals who, for whatever reason, do not have insurance while they are healthy, but can acquire it once they develop diseases that are expensive to treat. The economics of insurance are simple -- many healthy, insured people pay premiums, which are sufficient to pay for treatments of the smaller number who are sick.
When Obama's plan required the coverage of pre-existing conditions, the cost of private plans (non-Obamacare plans) became unaffordable. Essentially, beneficiaries of these private plans paid for the people who before Obamacare had been uninsured. Thus, Obamacare created a disaster for those who had private insurance.
If we as a nation wanted to cover all our citizens (and many illegal aliens as well), that's fine. But we needed to be straightforward about it, and raise enough taxes to pay for it. The subterfuges of Obamacare to this day have created a disaster.
If people who can afford it wish to have coverage, they need to pay for coverage when they're well, not just when they're sick.
2
I take it that you're unaware that premiums increased an average of iver 10%|year between 1998 and 2009, which was a primary reason for the PPACA, or that after 2011 costs moderated somewhat.
1
This is perhaps THE most pressing issue facing Americans. Since the Republicans keep making the situation worse and worse, it rests with the Democrats to keep addressing the issue until an acceptable solution is adopted.
The vital provisions of the ACA like pre-existing conditions, preventative coverage, women’s health, etc. plus affordability MUST be available for all, or this is useless. Those who are covered by their employers, but not for long, seem to be silent, but they too will have to address the issue as employers price out of the market and employees are left to fend for themselves with few or no choices.
This is not governance, it’s fraud and incompetence. YOU elected him;YOU can remove him. VOTE!
8
How is it possible to write an article about this issue without a single word about the influence of campaign donations from private health insurance companies to the politicians on both sides. Republicans are trying to destroy the ACA and the idea of health care as a right because they don't give a hoot about the little guy; they only care about maximizing profits for their greedy corporate masters and they don't care who knows it. Democrats have been silent for years because they were being paid to be silent but they don't want to admit that.
4
@Joe
Once again, we see how money corrupts politicians. Nancy Pelosi, Diane Feinstein and Chuck Schumer have received, over the years, boatloads of campaign finance money from the healthcare industry, the single largest lobbyist of all.
NONE of them supports universal healthcare, wonder why?
3
Do we have a list of who gets what bribes (pardon me, contributions) on either side? Or does anybody keep track of that?
@Charlesbalpha
Here's pharmaceuticals. (Can't find insurers at the moment.)
https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/summary.php?ind=H4300&cycle=2...
"... rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness…"
Thus full justification for govt-administered single-payer healthcare coverage.
Which we'd have but for a political class enslaved to the vast network of lucrative predatory health-for-profit industries.
As all well know. Even the frequently-invertebrate Dems.
Pre-existing conditions include being overweight, that on-the-job worker's compensation claim, and high blood pressure. You can continue from there....
6
The health care debacle should have been fixed when Lyndon Johnson introduced Medicare for those over 65. It should have been a system for all with costs paid by employers and individuals from payroll taxes and income taxes. It can still be done in 2019 if enough Congressmen have the courage to fight the insurance companies.
5
What this article does not disclose is. 100% of the population has pre-existing conditions AND 100% of the costs associated with meeting patient needs is paid by the patient. Insurance Premiums are prepayment of health care services.
Therefore, the Healthcare Cost Management System required is one in which the Individual Sovereign controls THEIR cash in Health Savings Accounts coupled with high deductible Major Medical Plans. Each person ought to be able to have payroll deduction and employer contribution to these accounts much like 401k and 403b retirement accounts.
A very Liberal Idea for very Conservative Minds.
2
@Nello This might work for minor injuries like broken legs, but it fails completely when major injuries or diseases strike. There is no conceivable way that an ordinary person can save enough to pay the doctors and other health care workers needed for a hospital surgery and recuperative stay, not to mention the costs of keeping the lights on and waxing the floors.
2
In 2005 the husband of the woman who cuts my hair lost his job and his health insurance. He was 55 years old and in good health. That's when he learned that being 55 was a "pre-existing condition" and he could not get health insurance. He is on Medicare now, and he still votes Republican, in Devin Nunes' district no less.
3
@mary bardmess Democracy carries within itself the seeds of its own destruction. Your example is precisely why Donald J. Trump is POTUS.
2
By now most Americans have heard the estimated price tag for "Medicare for All": $32 Trillion. All it will take is a few republicans to remind Americans what happened when Obamacare promised "health insurance for all". Millions who didn't get government subsidized health insurance were left with fewer options and higher costs.
6
@AACNY - That's only $3.2 trillion a year. Given that the total US payroll is $8 trillion, we could afford it with a 40% tax on all salaries.
Or...we could bite the bullet and cut costs.
2
I think there's no other thing than Medicare that must be far away from Capitalism. isn't freedom to be sick essential to human life? how can we be ethical if monetary calculation intervenes in caring human's health? it's sad that 'Medicare for all' itself has been on a political debate in the United States.
1
It has, by now, become abundantly clear that the only satisfactory solution to healthcare in this country is a single payer system. Unfortunately it has been stigmatized by the "socialist" label, which is ironic. Our education system is basically a single payer system except for those who decide to opt out. Police and Fire departments in big cities are also single payer systems where everyone pays taxes and everyone is covered. So why not health care?
Perhaps because our bodies have become profit centers for insurance companies and large healthcare providers. How much of what we pay in premiums actually goes towards medical care? Millions are spent on advertising. More millions are spent on administrative salaries.
The healthcare industry has undergone a radical change in the last decade. Private physician practices have been bought out by huge hospital conglomerates as have labs and radiology facilities. It is all about maximizing profits.
Some good has come out of this. All of our medical histories have been digitized and are easily and quickly accessed by practitioners within the network. That may be the only benefit.
Yet the basic underlying fabric of healthcare is insurance and it clearly isn't working for the benefit of the insured. Insurance works on the same principle as a casino where the insurance company is the house. The odds are always in their favor. Covering preexisting conditions changes those odds in favor of the insured, which for them is unacceptable.
15
Democrats should just cut to the chase: Medicare for all. Leave Jesse Hunt to explain what the NRC means when they say "a more patient-centered approach." Republicans already addressed health care with congressional majorities and the White House. Short answer: Less coverage for fewer people. They didn't even address cost either.
Health care is a losing issue for Republicans. Democrats need to stick them on it.
30
Add to the medical care issue that the whole healthcare system is showing signs of distress. It is not functioning well because costs are out of control, charges unpredictable, billing a nightmare, and the costly layers and layers of people to manage the system is not working. The doctor you saw last month may not be in-system next month, your files are who knows where, and your prescription varies in cost each refill. Doctors are leaving practice. We need a central government system modeled on one from another first world county with a digital ID card, predictable access and cost controls. What we have now will not continue to work, period.
20
@poslug You are so right. Aside from clinical care itself, the administrative part of health care is completely broken.
2
If the Democrats want to win the House and Senate they have to give the American people solutions to problems the constituents have. The Democrats have to address healthcare, its costs and availability and how they will reverse the trump plan of short term healthcare insurance. How they well reduce prescription costs is important to all Americans. They have to address what they plan to do about Global Warming and Climate Change and saving the EPA. How they will address education for our children. How they will decrease the wage disparity. The economy is improving but economist warn that this may only be a blip with the Trump Tariffs now taking hold. Running against trump is not what we what we want a plan to address these issues and many more. Start with healthcare and give us a plan that works, if that means speaking up against your leadership then do it, after all congress you work for us.
4
Democrats have been given a gift for 2 reasons. #1Trump's administration has frozen critical payments to health insurers. #2 The Justice Department is trying to make your preexisting conditions unconstitutional in federal court. Both actions will increase our insurance premiums in 2019. Republicans will offer cheaper insurance plans, with less coverage not covering preexisting conditions. Even insurance companies thinks that plan is a loser.
1
Why can't they wake up and go for universal health care? The ACA actually does not work very well for a lot of people. If you are self employed it is useless. It is overly complicated and the premiums keep rising, rising, rising. There is no ACA is some states. Supporting this is so lame. And they know it.
Vote for the young and energetic Democratic Socialists. The old guard Democrats and Republicans do not care about you. They want bu$iness as usual in Washington.
10
Single payer is the ultimate Republican plan.
Under single payer, more of your tax dollars go to pay for actual care - doctors, hospitals, labs, etc. rather than the endless paperwork of our current bureaucracy. Oh, and it would cover 100% of Republicans while the Republican "replace" plan would leave millions of Republicans with preexisting conditions with skimpy plans or plans that are too expensive to afford. Why Republicans would vote against their self interest is just not in their character?
3
This is such a no-brainer.
"Look, folks. President Obama and Democrats gave you health care coverage and forced insurance companies to give you coverage even if you have pre-existing conditions. Trump and the Republicans are trying to take it all away from you."
Come on, Democrats. Don't blow this one.
20
Jessie Hunt points out a contrast between single-payer health care and the Republicans' "more patient-centered approach." Translate that to read the Republicans' "more patient-payer approach."
4
Reality check health care turned into trillion dallor bussness . Long ago when those who represent the people we had health not for profit. Now we have represtation who serves the agendas of health care for profit period.
2
Hello, of course the democrats should be doing this.
Polls show that a major of Americans want some version of a national, affordable, quality health plan like the rest of our peer countries have.
ACA or a even better replacement is popular especially in red states, that are poor.
Stop campaigning on the need for a transgendered, gay lesbian statue be placed on the WH lawn or that 50% of all CEOs should be women and stress issues that moderate republicans can agree on.
If democrats don't do this and nominate in purple states in 2018 or nationally in 2020 socialists like Cortez or identity obsessed east coast liberals that never met a war, Wall Street banker, trade agreement I did not like candidates like Hillary they will be more likely than not handing over the WH to Trump in 2020,.
1
So yes. Let’s talk about pre-existing conditions. Here’s a little pre-existing condition story.
When I was working as a hospital RN Case Manager during the recession, in the 2008-09 era, I walked in the hospital trenches. Professional and many working people were losing their jobs, and with that their healthcare insurance.
I remember specifically a guy who had been an employee for years, at a company anyone reading this would recognize. He was newly diagnosed with an illness that would require treatment, and that treatment would require money. The guy was about 50 or so. He had lost his job through no fault of his own. That company had just plain folded and it wasn’t like there were other jobs awaiting in those days.
The guy cried when he expressed his confusion. No job, no health insurance (no one could afford “COBRA”) and now this disease. It was either the treatment or keeping his house, basically. And that meant keeping his family together or not.
He was not alone. This was the Case Manager’s journey in those times. Our hands were tied, too. Story after story, patient after patient. There was no way they could get another insurance carrier because they had pre-existing conditions then. Caught.
So needless to say when the Affordable Care Act was signed on March 23, 2010, I cried - for joy - for all those people who might now be given a chance.
To negate the importance of protecting pre-existing is cruel, inhumane, and really - unAmerican..
80
No one wants to be sick and no one wants to watch loved ones suffer and die. So much money in health services but non for patients. How are we going to pay for everyone to be covered, yet we can give tax breaks to these same corporations. In this country we run around supporting gun rights but we don't care that you are dying from cancer.
We should call ourselves Greed America, our slogan should be let our people die so the rest of us can make more money.
We need to vote and rid the country of these politicians who by the way are covered for life.
6
I cannot believe there are only 10 comments so far...do NYtimes readers not have any health issues? Do they not know of anyone who has? Do they not think of those who do. There should be thousands of comments, all praising any democratic candidate stance in favor of the Affordable Care Act, its expansion and the essential inclusion of pre-existing conditions in any health care for anyone.
1
Well DUH!
And the biggest "secret" is how desperate health care is getting for ordinary people in rural America -- particularly those "red" states that refused the ObamaCare Medicaid expansion.
There's a reason Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins would not back the crueler Republican legislation: it would have been devastating to people in their states. The question isn't why they refused, the question is why so many Republicans from states with collapsing medical care of rural populations went along.
The voters of Maine chose Medicaid expansion by public referendum; (the term-limited, outgoing) governor LePage has been stalling it illegally. Citizens in Utah have succeeded in getting Medicaid expansion onto the November ballot, and similar efforts are underway in Idaho and Nebraska.
Put bluntly Medicaid expansion is critical to controlling insurance costs for those a bit better off, because otherwise that charity care gets hidden in the price to everyone who can pay.
Look at the states with horrible increases in ObamaCare costs -- the worst states start with Arizona, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Alabama ... all states with a lot of rural poverty, that did not expand Medicaid. And in these states particularly, rural healthcare is collapsing even with the soaring prices.
It's obvious why "Democrats can't stop talking about health care," what's not obvious is why Republicans seem to be getting away with avoiding it ... so far.
39
@Lee Harrison In Idaho, the citizen-led initiative to put Medicaid Expansion on the ballot HAS succeeded! As of July 19, it's on the ballot.
And the campaign to pass it in November is being led by a coalition, Idahoans for Healthcare, that is co-chaired by one of the progressive grassroots activist-founders of Reclaim Idaho, which led the petition campaign, and a staunch red-red Republican state legislator who, on this issue at least, has listened to the heartbreak of her constituents and agreed -- 6 years of fantasy and fatal inaction by our state's GOP-controlled legislature must be overturned! Time for the citizens (even 53% of Idaho Republicans support this) to DO WHAT IS RIGHT. Which also saves money, and will add jobs.
No question this is the issue that can change the game in red states.
1
Yes yes yes. The democrats should beat this drum loudly. Everyone has or loves someone with a preexisting condition. This latest policy of 364 day bare bones plans for completely healthy (young and not planning to have a baby) people will cause the rates to skyrocket for everyone else.
We are killing innovation by handcuffing people to jobs so they can get healthcare. I pay $700mo with a $3k deductible for two adults through work. ACA quote was $1200/mo w a $13,000 deductible. We don’t qualify for subsidies but this would still be over 30% of our take home income. Insane that this is happening in the US in 2018.
4
Good luck finding someone over 40 who does not have a pre-existing condition. No one should be surprised by this. Basically, this is why Medicare was created: no insurance company would really want to serve the sickest population.
6
Before we concern ourselves with Medicare for All, which I support, let's make sure this administration and Congress don't kill existing Medicare. Now that they're heading to $1 trillion and beyond for the debt they've incurred so far, they're guaranteed ti say that "entitlements" that we've paid for all of our working lives need to be eviscerated. And now Trump is talking about a new investor tax cut that even avoids going through Congress. Mnuchin should be impeached.
12
According to Physicians for a National Health Program, despite the flurry of Republican lies Medicare for All would save trillions of dollars.
14
@jdvnew - It sure would. At the Medicare rate of payment, the incomes of all doctors would be cut in half.
Somehow, thought, I don't think that would be popular with the medical community.
@Jonathan
Doctors are overpaid, anyway. Let them remember the actual value of money and put themselves in patients' shoes. Even insured we cannot afford to pay medical bills.
It doesn't matter how well a Healthcare system the Democrats come up with to take care of the people, it will never happen unless the Dems take drastic ad ruthless action against the Republicans.
Until every Republican is removed from Congress, it will be a wasted effort of creating and dismantling such a program.
Democrats want a healthcare system and Republicans want a wealthcare system.
3
Any port in a storm.
1
Somebody print this article out for Sen. Susan Collins of Maine.
A couple of days ago, NYT ran a piece on how the SC appointment does not carry the same emotional punch as healthcare. This should tie both of them.
Healthcare is STILL a talking point today.
1
FINALLY! Keep talking about it, the system is broken and needs fixing and the Republican ideas about reinstating pre-existing condition clauses and "health plans" that don't cover actual care aren't going to do anything but make the insurance company CEO's more money.
2
we often hear americans bloviating about being the greatest country in the history of the universe.
there are many reasons to dispute this hyperbole--capital punishment, gobsmacking homicide rate, shorter life expectancies, higher infant mortality rates, shorter vacations, claims of superiority without a clue what's going on in other countries, a vicious and uncaring political culture.
the disgrace of not having a national health care plan would be near the top of the list.
not only do americans not have it, they pay an exorbitant per capita spending rate compared to other countries without nowhere near full coverage.
other developed countries are in the 21st century when it comes to health care.
the usa is striving to reach the 20th century.
8
If Americans spent 5 years living in Europe they would return home and march on Washington with pitchforks demanding a functioning healthcare system. Fear and ignorance are the only things keeping the status quo in the US. But now that fear is starting to tilt from the bogus fear of "socialized medicine" into legitimate fear of financial ruin at the first incidence of serious illness or an accident.
17
The way that health insurance system in America works is a bit more like an extortion racket than anything which was designed with patient care in mind.
The human condition is what we all start with, and it degrades over time in 100% of the population.
7
Democratic candidates showing some spine for a change. I was under the impression that meek submission in the face of Republican attacks on Obamacare was a pre-existing condition of the Democratic Party.
5
Where were they when Obama was getting beat up daily by The Right? From day one of The ACA The Right daily blasted Obamacare as the worse piece of legislataion that came down the pike in the history of our nation.Now The Dem's want to talk about it.One can see why the Left has been losing its lunch money to The Right.Talk about being a day late and a dollar short.
1
@Steven McCain
Obama was deservedly beaten up for shoving a behemoth health insurance plan down people's throats. No surprise, they gagged. In fact, it was so unpopular that the democrats received a "shellacking" in that midterm.
Now that the behemoth has been stripped of its worst features, democrats have the luxury of focusing on a single issue: pre-existing conditions.
Big difference between one issue like that and the gargantuan Obamacare. I can only say, "Good luck with 'Medicare for All'".
3
Denying health insurance to those most in need is as asinine as denigrating Motherhood and Apple Pie.
2
The political reality is that the Democrats need to package their universal healthcare policy into a soundbite that has legs
The big critique has always been 'big government' and 'government making decisions bout my medical care'
They need to nuetralize that line of attack
How about this?
Government Insurance- Private Healthcare
14
Right. More free stuff for people who don't earn it, paid for by people who are extorted to provide the free stuff. Right. Sounds like the Democrat party is going to full blown socialist mode. Capitalism is bad. Your money is not really yours. Good luck with that.
4
@paul: More free stuff for people who don't earn it??? We are talking about people with pre-existing conditions who cannot get insurance. Are you saying that everyone with a pre-existing condition is poor? The free market (aka capitalism) simply does not work well in health care. Why do European countries - surely not bastions of socialism - have lower health costs and better health outcomes?
2
One reason the Democrats have not aligned their votes with what their constituents want is because they are beholden to campaign contributions from corporations and the wealthy. The Medicare Industrial Complex helps fund the Democratic Party. This is why they have lost over 1000 seats in the past decade. Go back to just accepting small campaign contributions from just your voters and win back those seats and more.
Medicare for All is wildly popular with voters in both parties. Democrats become the party of the people again not just a wing of the Republican Party that your current donors appeal to.
15
The problem with the Affordable Care Act is that it insisted on covering pre-existing conditions *while maintaining the same level of shareholder profitability*. This was done by raising rates on those over age 50 to the extent that many of us middle-aged Americans in the self-pay category saw our premiums and deductibles more than double. Infuriatingly, my spouse and myself, after dutifully paying into our so-called health-care "system" for 35 years, found ourselves prices out of health insurance just at the time in our lives when we were becoming more likely to need actual care. While we did not (and would never) vote for Trump, we can understand how others in our position might have done so, simply to express their anger at the cluelessness of the Democrats who "stole their health care."
In this campaign year, we need to let our elected representatives know you will settle for nothing less than Expanded and Improved Medicare-for-All.
5
I'm currently job hunting, and when the health benefits at a company are more important to me than the salary, you know there's a problem with how healthcare functions in this country.
18
We can get to some form of universal coverage if the Democrats would get serious about controlling health care costs with measures that would be as popular as guaranteeing insurance for pre-existing conditions. These include: 1) Insurance reform to move away from inefficient and expensive billing practices; 2) reference pricing of drugs and devices to those paid in Canada and Australia; 3) steps to bring prices of hospital and specialty care under control. Medicare for All could be achieved by first giving everyone over age 55 the option of buying into Medicare, and everyone else the option of buying into Medicaid. There might also be a requirement that any provider who accepts Medicare payments also needs to accept Medicaid, combined with steps to ensure that Medicaid reimbursements are viable for providers.
7
We've gone beyond mere talk of preexisting conditions. Blame it on what Americans eat, the air they breathe, genetics, but everyone has something that gets diagnosed fairly early on and is considered pre-existing... The conversation on healthcare today centers on access, cost and expanding it to everyone.
The Koch Brothers joined this debate with the release of a study in which they show that Senator Sanders' plan to expand medicare to all would save real money.
"Earlier this month, Blahous published a paper through the conservative Mercatus Center at George Mason University that aimed to bury the Sanders plan for good. He wrote that the cost of Medicare for All would be “substantially greater” than Sanders and his acolytes estimate, and would result in a massive increase in federal spending.
Yet some people are reading Blahous’ paper as actually making the case for Medicare for All. Among them is Ernie Tedeschi, a former economist at the Treasury Department now doing fiscal analysis for Evercore ISI, who points out that according to Blahous’ analysis, Medicare for All will reduce national health expenditures by $2 trillion over 10 years."
That's where the conversation is. Pre-existing conditions?That was news in 2010. No amount of rolling the ACA back or undoing it will change the fact we take pre-existing conditions for granted.
---
What Trump Did...
https://www.rimaregas.com/2018/01/07/blog42s-running-list-of-what-trump-...
10
@Rima Regas thank you for your comment. I hope more people read it and understand what a functioning health care system is supposed to do. What America has now is not health care. It's wealth care.
5
“But every poll we take, it’s the issue that’s most important to people. . . Pre-existing condition protections have always been much more popular than the law over all.”
To be perfectly honest, I don't know one person over the age of 40 who DOESN'T have a pre-existing health condition, so when a room full of adults and somewhat "aging" adults were asked this question, this same response should not be a shocker. It's a great ice-breaker, but where do the candidates go from there?
Health insurance, especially AFFORDABLE health insurance, is truly a life-and-death issue for the majority of Americans. I am relieved that Democrats have begun the conversation about health care and are no longer remaining mute. However, talking about it is merely the first step. Coming up with a reasonable, sensible, affordable and workable plan that will benefit the insured over the insurance carrier is paramount for. After all, what good is an insurance plan if those who need it the most cannot afford it?
26
It really says something about the Democrats that it took them this long to campaign on the benefits of the ACA, including coverage for pre-existing conditions. They lose voters because it takes them so long to discover the obvious.
10
I had to leave a job I loved because there was no family health insurance coverage and we were paying close to $800 per month for my spouse and child to have their own plan. My sister was laid off during her maternity leave, leaving her family scrambling to get coverage they could afford since the COBRA costs were $1200 per month. It is a shameful mark on this country that we won't fix this problem. The stress and financial hardship it causes, not to mention exacerbating untreated illness, keeps so many people beaten down.
111
It's about time that the Democrats found an issue that moves across the aisle. Almost everyone has had issues with medical bills and being denied treatment for pre-existing conditions. Democrats need to educate voters on what the Republicans are trying to accomplish with the health care system.
27
People may like forcing insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions, but it makes no sense as a policy and completely changes insurance from covering only unforeseen events to covering known events at a great loss for some enrollees.
What we need is universal coverage with the government accepting the risk for the entire population and having market power to set more appropriate rates to cut costs. The most likely way to achieve this would be to expand the popular Medicare program with some changes to create "Medicare for All".
66
Current proposals prohibit denial of care based on pre-existing conditions. A potential "loophole" is the proposal to raise premiums if someone with a pre-existing condition goes without coverage for 5 months within a 12-month period. This higher premium would only be in effect for one year, provided the individual maintained his/her coverage.
Obamacare penalized those who didn't get insurance. Period. GOP proposals penalize those with pre-existing conditions who don't get insurance. The onus remains on the individual.
5
The Affordable Care Act required everyone to be insured because of actuary tables. You need healthy people to offset costs for insurance companies that sick people will bring. You will note that if getting health insurance from a corporation, you take it. Its part of the "benefits" package. Corporations make everyone take the health care for the same reason, to offset the costs that sick employees will bring.
As for the onus being on the individual, well you must be healthy. Someone with a pre-existing condition may go without insurance because they cannot afford insurance. This is especially true since the requirement for all Americans to have insurance has been regulated out of the ACA. Insurance costs will go up if only sick people purchase insurance.
If we have healthcare for everyone then this would not be an issue. You have healthcare if you are a student, unemployed, or self employed or have an employer that doesn't provide it. How is this a bad idea?
42
@VB
Insurance costs go up, too, when costs are shifted to those above the subsidy level, which is what happened under Obamacare. Three-quarters of enrollees were in Medicaid. Those not subsidized saw their costs skyrocket to the point where they couldn't afford to access their health care.
That's not "health insurance for all." It's health insurance for the subsidized and tough luck for everyone else.
Well if they go around trying to sell what we currently have, which is a for profit health care system, that is not going to play. Obamacare is not popular with the middle class, that is one of the reasons Trump won. This article is trying to play up the fact that pre-existing conditions are covered, that's great. Insurance co just jack up the rates even more and set higher deductibles. Health Care is the issue of our time. And the time is now to start expanding Medicare, eventually getting to full coverage for everyone. Anyone running better be talking that, otherwise it's the same old nothing.
29
@Doctor WooI I don't know what middle class you hang out with. The middle class I live with loves ACA. Even the relatively well-off middle class eventually comes down with a pre-existing condition, or they have a kid with one. My asthmatic nephew used to lose coverage for a year every time his father changed jobs. (His mother had already given up on working because he was so often too sick to go to day-care and school). It was a contant anxiety and drag on their finances. I agree that full coverage for all is the only way to go. The richest country in the world can afford it.
6
Subsidies for lower/moderate income Americans
What's not to like?
Elimination of out-of-pocket expenses for preventive services
What's not to like?
Insurers required to cover, at least, a minimum set of benefits.
What's not to like?
Coverage for preexisting conditions.
What's not to like?
The majority of Americans now support the ACA. Just tweak it and make it even better.
Trump wants to strip away the most popular part of the bill- protection for pre-existing conditions.
Mr. Donnelly- "The warning lights are on right now."
How astute.
America now has a pre-existing condition. It's called Trumpitis. We can begin to cure this condition in 98 days!
52
We really need to get the for-profit insurance companies out of our health care system. They add no benefit, but siphon off funds that just raise the costs.
Why is this a surprise to anyone? It’s all we’ve been talking about for a decade. Universal health care is an issue the Dems can run on and win.
114
@Thais Perkins
Why don't you pay for your own health care?
Don't start a lousy program and then force people to join (BTW: Remember, congress exempted themselves from ObamaCare).
3
@George Orwell
Ok, George. But when tax time rolls around you'd better not take any deductions. Those are my tax dollars that subsidize you. Pay for your own house, kids, etc.
@George Orwell
Because Thais would rather you pay for him. Don't you love him?
What bothers me about Medicare is that it isn:t a national health plan. It is a narrow coverage that lets the ugly head of programs that cover a bit more, and charge more, like Medicare Advantage, be sold. Scrap Medicare and cover everyone for all conditions.
We have forgotten that 5% of the users create 50% of the costs; it is not just that we have aged and now have diabetes, the children:s plan for continuing catastrophic conditions was always the selling point for the privatized health care.
11
All of the energy is obviously focused on Medicare for All. Preexisting conditions are an important isolated issue that people will say they care about in a cherry-picked poll, but that has nothing to do with what's relevant in American politics, sorry.
7
You must be young and healthy. You’re out of touch. There are more old and ill than young and healthy, and we vote. Sorry.
8
@Kim Murphy - Do not be sorry for stating an honest truth. Being able to afford quality health insurance has been and will continue to not only remain relevant in American politics, but a cornerstone. There is one group that has millions of members and that's the AARP organization. Democratic candidates might consider reaching out to those folks for support. Just a thought.
@Marge Keller -- AARP is an insurance company. They make loads of money the same way other health insurers do: by having overhead cost 8-10 times higher than Medicare. They are NOT currently supporters of putting a highly profitable out of business.
Healthcare is an issue that most healthy people can put in the backs of their minds until something devastating happens. My own story is not typical but it is instructive in peering into the lives that most need the guarantee of quality healthcare.
In my late fifties I had a bout with PMR, (never mind), it debilitated me to the point where I could not work at anything let alone my occupation as a carpenter. Poverty and homelessness soon followed. Luckily, with the expansion of Medicaid, I received treatment and recovered. I now proudly pay my Medicare premium for secure coverage, something I had never had in my entire working life.
I go to doctors only when necessary and so far have made no visits and filled just one prescription but I know that I belong to a program that helps people in need at their most vulnerable moments. Yes, I believe in government, it is not the boogeyman that the libertarian Kochs and the likes of Ryan and McConnell make it out to be. It is, at its best, a force for good even for those who have been duped into believing otherwise. Healthcare, and I
am in favor for Medicare for All, is an issue that Democrats can run on and win. Be Bold.
168
The Democrats have been on the defensive since the ACA rollout and are finally finding their voice. It certainly helps that Trump et al are doing their level best to push the US back to the before social security, medicare and medicaid era and people are finally wising up. An easy start to fixing Medicare is raising the income cap - why should the rich (once again) be subsidized by the poor?
86
@Bismarck
Why should the rich subsidize the poor?
@Driven
Because the rich didn't get rich without the help of the poor.
@Bismarck
Actually, medicare doesn't have an income cap like social security does, and under the ACA income greater than $250,000/yr gets extra taxation to help with subsidies (which, as someone subject to this tax, I have no problem paying since it's progressive in the right way). However, medicare only taxes wages; it doesn't tax investment income. We could shore up medicare by having all income, not just wage income, subject to the medicare tax.
3
Any candidate who does not fully embrace Medicare for All is merely kicking the can down the road and in the pockets of the Medical Industrial Complex.
If we can cover the older, sickest part of our society, we can cover everyone, including the younger and healthier who the private insurance companies cherry pick to make their profits.
End of Discussion.
196
@ScottW
Does Medicare for All include the Medicare Taxes on All?
@ScottW
Why is it that "End of Discussion" always occurs before costs are raised?
1
@ScottW At least make if a Public Option for workers to choose from.
Time for a serious discussion on Medicare for All and what can be done to lower costs.
132
@David Folts
First and foremost, get rid of the privatized Advantage plans that are bankrupting Medicare with their capitation payments every month whether you use it or not. Medicare sends mine $900+ every month.
1