Super 'Duh". what do you expect when it is going thru the middle man , aka the federal government......? Obama is really making Carter look statesman like. And this is saying volumes.
21
I’m still waiting for the NYT to write a story about the health insurance our great Congresspeople receive, for free and for life, is that true? Why shouldn’t we have what they have?
Did I miss that article?
139
Why do we keep going in circles on this. We have a system that is broken and does not work, We have had it forever. It is time to do something different. Pick one from the many countries who have an affordable results oriented system and get on with it or we will be talking about this same nonsense ten years from now. How many more people must die, how many must face bankruptcy, what is wrong with us.
104
It’s employer based because that’s how American capitalism keeps you in chains: no portability, huge deductibles and monthly premiums. Chains.
It’s why employers, who are demi gods in the old US of A, have control over you and your family. Between the banks and the insurance companies, which I remind you produce paper profits, not things, control the economy.
Servitude. Middle Ages. Little potentates slicing up the civilization like Rev Jeffries and his support of Trump economics.
Breaking free from disaster capitalism isn’t communism, it’s democracy!
90
For profit health insurance is destroying us.
74
Let me tell you about my $750 per month ACA plan with a $4000 deductible. For one person. Cry me a river.
32
This article is appropriately alarmist about the increasing cost of healthcare. I'm sure the Industrial Healthcare Complex is gloating anew about what outrages the peasants will bear.
But as written it's built on a muddled jumble of apples, oranges and grapes that inflame but not truly edify. Get thee to an editor with business experience!
13
"Socialism or death." Fidel meant it as an exhortation. It's becoming a reality in the United States.
22
My insurance is through my husband’s company. The rates for available coverage packages zoomed up so high, in response to Obamacare, that I had to go from 80 percent coverage PPO to a high deductible with HSA package. We pay it, but it hurts. It means that we cannot afford other things that would bring us joy. We get no sympathy for this change because we can afford the rate hike and increased out of pocket costs. Unlike the woman featured here, who quit a perfectly good job in order to get public assistance and work “side jobs” that (I assume) won’t be reported to the IRS.
I am no Trump supporter, but this is precisely the kind of thing that goads the hidden Republican in my otherwise moderate soul.
16
Best news I have heard in days.
If insurance is out of reach for workers just maybe they will come to their sense and vote for the Democrat candidate who supports single payer universal healthcare. That doesn't mean one can't have a concierge option and pay extra out of pocket for special service.
It means a single payer pays for your basic costs of healthcare. (I find the so-called Medicare for All plan "incomprehensible" as a solution given the hodgepodge Medicare is with the Advantage Plans-- a sop to the insurance companies.. somehow competing with traditional Medicare -- the one where you pay for part B and most likely supplemental insurance.) And the law that does not allow the system to negotiate drug prices must be overturned. Discussion will have to extend to dental coverage at some point in time>
I have one question -- are the naysayers that write all sorts of illogical and informationally incorrect comments being paid by the Repubs to throw monkey wrenches into the works? Is their healthcare portfolio performing really well. (Do they not realize that probably 40% of the costs of medical care in the USA goes to the middlemen, whose job is to deny people care --so called efficiency.)
29
Citizens of all European countries have full medical coverage paid by their taxes, not by abusive private insurance coverage. American health insurance is a racket.
78
My plan: Enroll everyone in Medicare. Allow people who have employer health insurance to opt out if they like their coverage. Pretty soon people will vote with their feet and shift to Medicare.
31
Working people? Let’s talk about my wife with Parkinson’s who is 72. Qualify for a nursing home? The only people in there are government employees and teachers who have great public funded pensions. Show me who can afford $10,000 per month.
Our national health care system is a joke!.
64
My job involves researching the cost of health care for people with catastrophic injuries. Most of them are in the U.S. A few have been visitors who were injured here, and then return home for treatment. Our system is arcane, much more expensive than that of any civilized country, and designed to maximize profit for the middlemen (insurance companies) while denying care to the sick when the insurers can get away with it.
Anyone who says otherwise is either a PR person for the insurers or a fool who has swallowed the Fox News Kool-Aid. If we get single payer or Medicare for All in this country, I will be out of a job. And I will rejoice for my fellow Americans, and for all the suffering people I've worked with in the last 21 years.
92
We are being eaten alive by predatory capitalism. Greed and materialism are our countries main values. People are easily manipulated to hate and fear others and to believe in scarcity, that if if other people get any benefits then they will have less. It's a moral sickness.
We don't need health insurance- we need healthcare.
I don't think Medicare for all will work, as there would then be rampant fraud and not enough oversight to prevent it.
The profiteers will find a way to profit off others illness and misfortune, that is in truth the American way.
27
Just don’t get sick. That simple. Problem solved.
15
This myth, that workers "love" their employer-provided healthcare, is a rotten old canard that many out-of-touch democratic candidates are pushing ... like Biden. People don't love $500 a month premiums for single coverage, with $5,000 deductibles. Never mind what it costs a family. Some autoworkers have the old-style coverage which is the gold standard, but very few others do.
It's long past time for single payer coverage, and yes, get rid of private health insurance. Warren and Sanders know what will work. The rest are pandering to the insurance companies.
When did Biden last have a real conversation with a worker who loved his or her health insurance? In 1976? 1982?
Employer-provided coverage as a benefit is destroying American business competitiveness. Germany and Japan cover their workers, and don't expect employers to do it. That makes us less competitive against their industries.
Americans are in thrall to the ridiculous idea that rugged individualism is the way to go. All it does is make you ragged and lonely. We live in a society, and we all need to pitch in to make it better for everyone.
Grow up and care for your fellows, people.
63
I look at hospitals and medical centers in the midwest from the big teaching hospitals in Chicago and St. Louis to others in Illinois, Iowa, South Dakota, Nebraska, etc. They are beautiful facilities with soaring atriums, massive reliefs, stunning water features, sculptures, impressive architecture, wellness facilities with top-shelf swimming pools and climbing walls and indoor tracks and exercise machines.
Who is paying for all of this excess?
I suspect we are through soaring insurance premiums.
42
The issue would gain much-needed traction if everyone would just stop saying that health care is a human right. Whence comes that appellation? Housing also, we are told, is a human right. What source of law for that? Education is a human right--does that include college?
These may--are--good policy goals, but health care and housing are nowhere named as human rights, neither in the Declaration of Independence, nor the Constiturion, nor the Bible, nor the Talmud, nor anywhere else. It apparently represents one person's view of the way the world ought to be--no more, no less.
8
In a heavily industrial economy with low unemployment, employer-based health insurance makes a ton of sense. Employers should have an incentive to not have toxic or unreasonably dangerous workplaces or work procedures. There is no stronger incentive than being on the hook for the bills. This has described much of our economy in the recent past.
This, however, no longer describes our economy. What does describe our economy is more highly optimized exploitation of intrinsic power by many of those incentivized to do so. There is no one more vulnerable than a very ill person in need of medical services or medicine. This means that a private health system has to have effective competition or regulated pricing to prevent gouging.
In the grand scheme, health insurance is a mechanism to block medical bankruptcy and protect one's assets, not to provide health care. The idea that anyone with significant assets should have no protection from health care costs is untenable, as is the idea that anyone without assets would be denied necessary care.
There are many reasons to keep a private insurance system for working-age people, but this requires the ensuring real competition or defining a tight leash on costs. A private insurance market can reduce fraud and adopt new technology far more efficiently, but it paradoxically creates a ton of work by government to function tolerably. If government is unable or unwilling to do this work, we might need a new approach entirely.
5
My husband and I, being self-employed, buy our own insurance. Obamacare only made things worse, with less policies to choose from and sky-high monthly premiums and deductibles. Obama had an opportunity to bring this country up to par with every other civilized country that provides universal health care coverage to all citizens, and blew it by letting the insurance companies write the law.
29
@Roberta
Given that only Senator McCain stood in the way of an Obamacare repeal, it seems quite unlikely that a far more ambitious system would have survived beyond Obama's tenure if it could be passed at all (it may have even cut that tenure in half).
There are a lot of stakeholders in the health care system and other considerations that influence it. Making a new system that did not harm anyone or completely alienate a critical subset of those in the system who are necessary for it to function would be either extremely challenging or impossible.
14
What we need is a national endowment fund for health care. Build and continue to build a fund for that purpose, so that the interest on the fund is enough to provide care for the American people. We could start by taxing resources that are taken from our public lands such as oil, gas, wood, etc. We could also have a Federal VAT tax on luxury items (such as yachts and large estates) that cost more than 2 million dollars. We need to think long term, because income inequality is growing, and more jobs are being lost to automation and AI.
16
They can quit their jobs and go on Medicaid or they could get a job with UPS where their excellent health insurance is at NO COST at all to their employees, plus no deductible.
If one job has insurance that is unaffordable (yes, small business and not-for-profits are often in this category), then find a job that has good insurance. They're still out there.
3
@India
Not every UPS office is run the same way. It's not excellent health insurance, and it's not a living wage. The UPS office near me pays $2 above minimum wage, zero "free" insurance, and only gives you full time hours during the holidays or the night shift.
Not everyone has the physical stamina to work at UPS - especially those with medical conditions who need that insurance.
30
@India
I doubt it. If it were so, UPS would stand out alone and be the obvious choice of every job seeker. Or it makes up for it with a dramatically reduced pay scale. Assertions like yours are inherently suspect.
20
Health care really cannot be for profit if the goal is to improve and save lives of all ... Here in the US health care is really for the rich and it pushes middle class into bankruptcy if there is a major illness or accident. At the least the first couple of things we should do is to have clarity of price for every service and medicine out there before being provided, and the ability to shop for it in the US and abroad to ensure full and open competition. A platform to a comparison and shopping would be a good start for chronic illnesses and non urgent surgery and treatments. And the ability to negotiate prices at bulk as well. Our system is so broken that even obvious solutions like this is impossible to implement.
12
Was there no mention of the billions and billions of dollars of profits for the FOR-PROFIT health insurance companies, their CEOs, CFOs, CMOs and all at the top of these ranks? Medicare and Medicaid do not profit from the illnesses of people in the US seeking healthcare. Our private for-profit health insurance system is destroying the lives of people and families who experience illness or injury. This is a travesty to our society and health of this nation.
36
The conversation is wrong from the start. We're busy debating how to pay for ever-increasing health insurance costs, when we should be asking instead how to contain ever-increasing healthcare costs.
If the current system of perverse reimbursement incentives, for-profit hospitals corporations, and astronomical drug prices doesn't change, no insurance plan is going to work.
20
@Jesse Keller It isn't just hospitals and drug companies, doctors are a problem as well. American doctors, especially non-primary care providers, are well compensated. However, the real problem is all of us. We automatically buy arguments from provider lobbies about "rationing" if their payments are held down or any limits are placed on utilization. If medical providers can dictate prices and have carte blanche to determine the quantity of care, there is no hope for cost control. Single payer health insurance won't fix that problem.
6
No doubt, doctors do well in America. Yet it is not out of proportion to other professionals such as lawyers, etc. The issue isn't their compensation. It's that their decisions (usually in the best interest of their patient) drive overall medical spending. You can pay doctors ZERO and you still will not bring costs under control. In fact, mid level providers such as PA's and NP's actually increase costs because they order more tests/procedures.
3
over the past 4 years, I've worked at some of the largest biopharma companies in the world. Soaring deductibles have made my health insurance little more than catastrophic injury insurance. I don't go for routine checkups. If something hurts, I wait for it to pass.
Insurance companies used the Affordable Care Act as an excuse to restructure the pricing of everything in the health care system. The ACA is not the problem. Having a middle-man is the problem. We have 2.7 MILLION people employed by the health insurance industry - that's 2.7 million people standing between patients and their healthcare providers. 2.7 million people tasked with placing the well being of the company over the patient. It's not just an impediment to proper health care, it's welfare disguised as health care.
34
One aspect of the notion that people 'love their plans' that is Never discussed or polled or analyzed is actually comparing plans! The description of Sanders's Medicare for All coverage is far far better than any plan I've ever heard of (Except that of US politicians) and certainly far better than any plan I could conceivably access.
Whose employer provided plan has no network restrictions? Covers dental care, eye care, foot care, nursing and hospice, drugs...everything? So-called Alternative medicine? And NO out of pocket expense? For pete's sake let's compare apples to apples. The medicare for all proposal is far better than employer provided insurance. By a country mile. Detail the facts of the proposal compared to the facts of employer health insurance and then ask which one you prefer. And then describe the shift in how it will be paid for and who pays how much. Medicare for All is a far better plan than private insurance can provide. Just the facts are sufficient. Talk about all of them and quit cherry picking the scare tactic poll questions.
13
@trebor
One hears that Senator Sanders has underestimated the cost of his plan. Even if that turns out to be the case, shouldn't we consider the advantage of paying more taxes progressively and getting excellent and comprehensive health coverage? Shouldn't we consider that it might not be enough to legislate a wealth tax only on those with more than $50 million dollars; rather the upper middle class should also chip into make a national health plan work for everyone?
4
it sounds nice that you don't have to worry about networks but you may be surprised how many doctors don't accept medicare given the poor reimbursement.
2
@dc
That could change if everyone were on Medicare or Medicare got more generous.
There are major concerns with Medicare for All in the medium-term future, but this one is fairly straightforward to remedy.
4
My ex and I had to go to court to put aside the part of the child support order that required him to provide health insurance for our 3 children. Why? Because the insurance provided by his new job only covered annual physical and dental visits. Nothing else, until the $13,000 deductible was met. For this amount of coverage, he would have had to pay over $900 a month. Obamacare did NOTHING to regulate employer insurance. Both of us would have been routinely faced with the choice between healthy children and bankruptcy. He would have had a lot of trouble paying his rent and/or being able to eat. Employer insurance is, quite simply, a SCAM with the potential to kill, maim, and/or bankrupt the people it is supposed to “cover.”
20
The comments here from Europeans and Canadians are instructive.
We in the U.S. are not the envy of the world. We pay more and get less. Others have an enviable safety net and those who want to pay extra still have the luxury of choice.
Why would any U.S. citizens object?
29
@Anglican
Because we have strongly competing priorities- cheaper health care costs, excellent and comprehensive coverage for all including a population in which an increasing percentage is retired, choice of one's doctor, fair compensation to health care providers- I submit that no system will be without tensions and that we will forever be trying to find the right balance among these priorities.But at the very least, let us recognize that a good system will not come free of charge and we should fashion the fairest possible way to pay for one that guarantees everyone's right to good health care.
4
Yep. The modern day conundrum: to be covered under an insurance plan but can't afford to actually use it.
17
Any politician who wants to be the most popular person in the country can make health care available, as a right, to all their constituents.
They’d lose the backing of the insurance industry but they’d gain millions of votes.
11
Employer sponsor healthcare was an accident. It was never an intentionally designed nor well thought out system. It just happened as a result of several temporary legislative measures from WWII.
Medicare for all is cheaper than the system we have now. There’s no arguing against that fact. Anyone who says Medicare for All is more expensive is more expensive than the current system is ignoring facts.
We need Medicare for All with a private option, and we need it yesterday!
19
No mention of the person who has fought for universal coverage his entire time in office: Bernie Sanders.
Healthcare should be a right and not a privilege.
39
The NY Times and many other news outlets are missing the real story that not only is health insurance is very expensive, but that the insurance companies cover very little. They work to reject health care that should only be decided by a doctor and patient.
President Reagan deregulated insurance companies from non-profit to profit companies. Right there is a key problem - they are profit driven, not health care driven. They harm sick people every day all day long, because their goal is to make money, not make people well or keep them from getting sick.
By the way, the United States does not have the best care in the world, we don't even make the bottom of the top ten countries. Our health care bankrupts families and its shameful.
82
The administrative burden of HEDIS measures, endless reporting, large departments in insurance companies and health care organizations to chase HEDIS measures, the burden of accreditation, all add a huge amount to the cost of healthcare. Is it improving healthcare? Doubtful. Healthcare providers, who are able to spend adequate time with their patients, without the stress of EMR "clicks" huge documentation burdens and endless insurance companies demands for "more" are the key to cheaper and improved healthcare. But who listens to someone with almost half a century in healthcare quality improvement.
5
Our healthcare system is a mess. As a single person working at a small company, I pay $250 a month in premiums. Not that bad. But, I have a $6,000.00 deductible. Aside from the care that is mandated by Obamacare, nothing else is covered. I hope that no serious healthcare issues are on my horizon—I don’t have $6000 in the bank to cover it. Sad state of affairs when our politicians get coverage for life on the backs on the little people who put them in office.
31
@CL Pasm -- We were asked to pay over twenty thousand Dollars a year plus a $13,000 deductible. How on earth could we afford that? We paid out of pocket and often did not see the doctor.
American "healthcare" stinks!
15
At the root of this mess is some kind of pernicious social attitude that is actively fighting against a rational healthcare system. There doesn't seem to be any academic commentary on this attitude -- an attitude that obviously the most politically powerful segment of the populace in this country holds. Unless that attitude is defined and addressed, no amount of wailing or political rhetoric will change anything.
It's too simplistic to blame capitalism or inept politicians. Consider this -- it makes no national economic sense to withhold healthcare from productive human assets, whether those assets are entrepreneurs or corporate labor. The resistance has to be stemming from a social/cultural interest. Something related to fear of the underprivileged being equipped to compete perhaps.
11
There has been nothing to stop insurers from gouging more and more money each year to produce their obscene profits from employers and their employees.
The insurer's bottom line is at the expense of the hospitals, doctors, and patients. It is time to get rid of the middle-man insurance industry. Retrain their employees to process claims and say yes rather than no and put them to work for Medicare. Everybody benefits (except the CEOs).
10
We've had this problem for a century. Medical costs spiraling out of control are nothing new. We've just kept kicking the can down the road, generation after generation.
America is pretty behind the rest of the world in not punishing citizens for existing, so I imagine this problem will be polluting elections in 2120 as well.
6
@Tom that was my first thought when I read the headline...no kidding...did they really need a "study" to conclude what is blindingly obvious to everyone...universal health care, please...
5
This is why it is disingenuous to trot out the dog whistle issue of higher taxes when Medicare for All is proposed. An analysis needs to be done of the total actual medical costs to an average household that is insured after deductibles and out of pockets are paid. That would give a more accurate view as to which route is most cost efficient.
I would posit that, because of the disincentive to see a doctor due to high copays and deductibles, the insurance companies get fat and consumers are sicker.
21
This article skipped over the issue of lack of affordable healthcare for contractors, like those working at the tech giants who actually can afford to pay but choose not to.
10
@CC — As more companies are coming to prefer the use of contractors rather than paid, full-time employees, the matter (and expense) of self-insurance will become a crisis. I was a self-employed freelance proofreader for a well-known publisher for many years, and got paid a relative pittance per page proofed. When I divorced and lost coverage under my ex’s company plan, I had to enlist an insurance broker to find health care options in my state. That cost, needless to say, ate most what I earned for my work.
But the scariest thing about this situation was the letters I would get toward the end of my coverage year, telling me that my provider was pulling out of my state because it was “not economically feasible” to continue to do business there. I went through at least two providers because of that reason, and was searching for a third when I providentially got a job that pays benefits. The pool of insurers was drying up fast, along with coverage options.
(Also, because I didn’t want to pay for more coverage than I was assuming I needed, I got bare-bones policies — thereby gambling that I wouldn’t have any catastrophic accident or health event in the meantime.)
These discussions concerning health care, in supposedly the greatest country on the face of the planet, never fail to amaze and enrage. Surely there is a better way.
7
This is one of the things that drive me crazy. Employers say they cannot afford to "give" better insurance to their employees. So how much do they pay in addition to what the employee is having withheld from their check? Is the insurance company double dipping? I doubt that as that would be illegal and we know absolutely none of our businesses would dream of such a thing.
My understanding of "employer provide health insurance" is a deal the company works out with the insurance company, and collects the payment from the employee. Many of the new companies will not allow one person to opt out to be on another insurance that is more affordable. They tell the employee they will owe thousands of dollars in penalties.
When people discuss the high costs, it might be interesting to know the amount paid to the doctor, hospital, pharmacy is set by the insurance company. The insurance company may give an increase in payment, one time a year, although they normally do not unless it is requested. Remember your insurance rates increase every year due to "high prices or costs"
5
If only we had the $900 Billion we spent establishing that shining bulwark of democracy in Afghanistan.
46
@Fighting Sioux --Not surprisingly, the Russians realized this quagmire and got out. While we are staying in, year after year, decade after decade.
9
I admit it. I'm tired of all this winning.
16
l
(1) In 2017 (most recent data) healthcare spending was $10,739 PER person
329,000,000 people in the US. That means coming up with $3,533,131,000,000 MINIMUM in 1 year
$3.5 ++ trillion!! There is $59,61,000,000 in UNPAID bills on debtors credit reports. Hospitals have around $40,000,000,000 a year they can not collect)
Total US federal gov't budget in 2019 was $4.746 trillion
The total will get higher if people can get whatever care they need.
I skip mammograms etc because so what if they find something? I can not afford the 20% Medicare B copays or the drug coverage & copays. I do NOT get care if I have cancer
My husband and I -right now-need dental work (tooth removal & implants for him & fillings & caps for me) that will take 93% of our income in 1 month. We do NOT get the care & qualify for zero help
Under Medicare-for-all as proposed we would get the care & up go the annual costs
How many households can afford to spend $21,478 for 2 people or $42,956 for 4?
FIRST SHOW ME WHERE YOU WILL GET THE MONEY!
Someone else has to come up with that $10,739 for every person on the welfare-gravy-train of Medicaid (& all the illegals in the ER)
(2) The ACA was designed from the start to have high out-of-pocket costs .
The premiums for a waitress making $22k is $134 a month ($1620/year). She will NEVER be able to pay the $3950 in deductibles & copays if she breaks a wrist & needs surgery. Premiums + Out Of Pockets = 30% of her take-home pay ($18565/year)
8
@AnnS -- you are right, the waitress you mentioned above won't be able to pay for repairing her wrist. I broke mine. We had no insurance at the time but a little bit of savings. We used our savings.
A rich country, we are downright miserly when it comes to provide basic healthcare for all of our citizens.
7
@AnnS Have you seen the salaries of insurance company, drug company, and hospital executives? I bet we could find some of the money there
9
I don't understand why large corporations-- the ones with lobbyists to purchase policies and legislation from our elected officials-- aren't clamoring for the government to relieve them of the unsustainable burden of employee health care. No matter how much they raise deductibles, copays, and coinsurance for employees, and even with generous tax breaks, health care is still a heavy burden their foreign competitors do not have. And that burden will only increase, quarter after quarter. Given the paramount obligation of companies to maximize short-term gain for shareholders, turning that burden over to the government should be a no-brainer.
It may be that corporate directors and C-suite Suits are conservatives who share the Republican ideological aversion to the "socialism" of government-run health care. But does ideology really trump the all-important Bottom Line? It just doesn't make sense.
The only other reason I can think of is that tying health care to employment helps to suppress wages by making employees continually fearful of losing their health care along with their income (and identity) in a layoff. It's possible that some consultant has crunched the numbers and concluded that such fear disempowers (and even enslaves) workers enough to produce savings in labor costs that exceed the cost of providing health care. While that seems a crazy conspiracy theory, I can't think of any other reason large employers are so insistent on tying health care to employment.
15
I love my job, but am considering a change simply because I can't afford the insurance. Ten percent of my gross pay goes toward the premium, and my employer pays a like amount. And, after we together pay $11,000 for premiums, I am left with insurance I can't afford to use. Two months ago, I injured an ankle. It swelled up to the size of a grapefruit. It still hurts. I can't go the doctor because I can't afford it. And I have insurance.
Meanwhile, the CEO at the local hospital gets paid $2.7 million a year, the hospital he works at has an in-house catering service that offers filet mignon and other fancy stuff and there are billboards all over town urging the sick and injured to go there in case of stroke or heart attack.
Where would I work where I might be able to afford medical care? The government. There's an opening, I'm qualified and the health insurance is top notch.
You don't even want to know how I really feel about that.
40
"Jessie McCormick had to quit her job to afford health care. . . she calculated that her out-of-pocket costs would be at least $1,200 per month, about double the money she had left after paying her rent and utilities. . . she quit her so her income would be low enough to enroll in Medicaid, which will cover all her medical expenses. “I’m trying to do some side jobs,” she said."
So it's come down to this. People with certain health issues, especially YOUNG people with certain health issues are regulated to quit their jobs and go on Medicaid so they can afford the medical coverage their condition requires.
So much for having dreams, aspirations, goals when their priority is doing what is necessary in order for them to live - PERIOD.
Even with Ms. McCormick doing "some side jobs" she can only earn so much otherwise she is required to forfeit her Medicaid status.
This just stinks. If there is one aspects politicians MUST address AND remedy are the "premiums and deductibles [which] are pushing employer-based coverage increasingly out of reach."
It seems fewer and fewer people are able to afford the "Affordable Care Act." This isn't merely an election-based issue, but rather a true life or death issue for many, many Americans.
263
@Marge Keller
Well, you know who to blame for ACA being as toothless as it is. President Obama wanted a much more robust law that would eventually lead us to a single payer system. The Party of No stripped it down to the bare minimum when it was passed and then started to fight the little that was left from the first second after. Even if you have healthcare through the state exchange, many doctors offices won't take it, no matter what company is administering it, because they are still paid abysmal rates compared to traditional insurance. I don't blame doctors for the high cost of healthcare. The insurance companies, drug companies, their lobbyists and the GOP--it's on all of their heads.
83
@kas
I hear ya. My husband recently needed to see an eye specialist. That doctor said he does not take Medicare nor Medicaid. We had to pay out of pocket - full price - for a very, very costly exam and consultation.
It was never like this prior to the ACA.
7
@kas
You can't blame it all on the GOP.
Many Dem's (Blue Dog etc.) watered down the bill. The same reason getting M4A passed, is difficult because Dem's such as Ms. Pelosi herself fight against it and for their corp. donors.
https://maplight.org/story/top-hospital-lobbyist-predicts-pelosi-wont-give-medicare-for-all-a-vote/
https://maplight.org/story/corporate-lobbyists-providing-more-bundled-donations-to-dem-congressional-committee/
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/23/us/politics/medicare-for-all-lobbyists.html
11
Employer provided health insurance was instituted during WWII to get around wage controls. It was one benefit employers could offer rather than more pay. It has outlived its usefulness by many decades. Most people would love to have insurance that is portable - not dependent on a particular job.. imagine how many people would take other jobs to do something they prefer rather than stick with a job they don’t like just for the insurance. Our non-system is ludicrous on the face of it. It’s crazy that people who can’t get insurance due to existing problems, not in the right income bracket, wrong job (no insurance) have to pay the most for medical care...just the opposite of what is needed. They are the ones going bankrupt for the most part.
300
Just as I’ve been maintaining all along!
People who love their employer plans.... blah blah blah. That is old history. That’s what used to be...
People may have LOVED their employer health plans for forty years, but the last five have seen astronomically escalating premiums, copays, and deductibles.
The “public option”, when available, will be a godsend, just as Medicare has been for me, six years ago.
The public option will exponentially morph into Medicare for all, right before the doubters eyes. In my very humble, but educated opinion.
I guarantee it!!
14
A more informative article would help. Ms. McCormick is 27 years old, $1,200.00 per month seems excessive. My policy is $1,500.00 per month but, I am age 64. I don't know the law in New York but, in Connecticut in a group plan at least (<50) rate, you are not allowed to differentiate pre-existing conditions. How many employees did her former employer have? That is a VITAL piece of information that determines everything about the plan she was offered. Journalism 101 Who, What, Where, When and Why? This article is basically useless.
6
@tes Her premium along with her medical costs - copays, meds, and anything the insurance company doesn't want to cover - could easily cost $1,200/month.
1
Nothing will work (public or private) for lower-income workers unless the costs are controlled. That means not covering some high-cost health problems that affect relatively few people. Until the politicians are willing to stand up and say that, you can spare me the crocodile tears.
7
A recent review showed that the cost of Medicare for all is actually less expensive than the current system. I’m not partial to fully government insurance or private. I just want it divorced from a job and regulated so prices are rational and transparent. The key is to reduce prices. High prices in the us for procedures was found in a recent study to be the primary reason that our costs are so high.. that is primarily due to the secrecy of the deals between insurance companies and institutions and the incompetence of institutions at being able to even understand what their actual costs are.. mind boggling, I know,but that is the reality.
8
one of the most disturbing problems I encounter as an insurance broker in California is the fact that CoveredCa measures the affordability of employer sponsored insurance to the employee by his/her share alone. However, while coverage is often offered to spouses and dependents it just as often is not subsidized by the employer. This makes premiums for families prohibitively expensive and at the same time excludes them from subsidies through CoveredCa. This is one of the major flaws of an otherwise very helpful system.
7
@Manfred Luedge
THat is the ACA - not just California
It was the OBAMA administration that came up with the definition of whether employer coverage was affordable for an employee
When the OBAMA administration promulgated that rule (only what it costs the employee) they KNEW that employer family coverage would be unaffordable for workers.
They ADMITTED they knew the families would end up uninsured but said they had to do it or the cost of the ACA premiums subsidies on the Exchanges would explode.
The Obama administration deliberately left the families of workers out and uninsured to save money
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/12/us/ambiguity-in-health-law-could-make-family-coverage-too-costly.html?searchResultPosition=7
BLAME OBAMA
3
Medicare as it is now is not ideal. My sole income is Social Security and I live in a very expensive city. I am currently paying almost $400/mo. for health insurance (basic Medicare, supplemental premium, drug coverage) on top of which I have to pay co-payments for drugs, one of which currently costs $114/month. As a result my savings account is draining swiftly and will soon be gone. In addition, there is no dental coverage so I have to pay for that out of pocket. Whatever tiny raise in Social Security almost always goes to a higher Medicare premium. It goes without saying that I make sure every health care providers knows that I want no services that are not covered by Medicare.
13
@rimabird Hello ! Readers - and Millenials!
Medical Care IS NOT FREE when you Retire ! Medicare And Supplement or Advantage program Premiums approach that $400.-- monthly For All Medicare participants. Add an RX (part D) plan, and Out-of-Pocket costs, easily exceed $6000-7500 anually....
20
"Instead, she quit her job last summer so her income would be low enough to enroll in Medicaid, which will cover all her medical expenses."
NOT true! Medicaid will only pay a fraction of the actual cost. The health care providers will have to absorb the loss somehow. They usually try to accomplish this by raising the fees on those who can pay. Government requires hospitals to care for indigent patients, but the government provides inadequate compensation to the hospitals and other caregivers.
The benefit for Ms. McCormick is that she cannot be hounded for the difference between the Medicaid payment and the actual cost. Insured patients, who are unfortunate enough to actually require medical care, will see higher co-pays and net after-insurance balances, to cover Ms. McCormick's Medicaid shortfall.
5
@Rich - Reduce the number of 'intermediaries',
- simplify and consolidate 'the rules' for coverages, premium determination/s, co-pays etc.
- take the 'Profit/s' out of the current multi-layered system with so many stakeholders in the chain,
- reduce costs, denials, errors, profits
- increase quality, coverages, availability
--> Medicare for All - or a Medicare-like Option !!
5
@Rich
It is true that Medicaid reimbursement rates are abysmal. But let's not blame the poor and sick for the problems. Our system's primary goal is to make money, not to keep our society healthy. So look to the insurance companies and drug companies for the reason our healthcare system is the wreck that it is. Also keep in mind that most doctors are not required to care for Medicaid patients in their private practice. So even finding quality care from a doctor who takes Medicaid is like finding a needle in a haystack. Our country could afford to reimburse at a much better rate if they wanted to. But corporations rule at the moment. Government is their willing puppet.
8
@kas
1. I'm not blaming the poor and sick, I'm blaming the government. I see you're from Brooklyn, so I'm blaming Cuomo and de Blasio. At least two-thirds of the hospitals in Brooklyn are operating on the brink of failure because NYS and NYC won't provide adequate funding for indigent care.
2. Doctors cannot abandon patients, especially in the case of a chronic condition. It's likely Ms. McCormick is still seeing the same doctors she saw with private insurance, even if they would reject a new patient with Medicaid.
You can ALWAYS find a doctor, even if you're on Medicaid. Just walk into any emergency room (even if it's not an emergency). They MUST take care of you. That's why the ER is the black-hole money-pit of most hospitals.
3. I am sympathetic to the situation faced by Ms. McCormick, but face it, she successfully gamed the system to get on Medicaid. The article didn't say, but that probably made her eligible for other public assistance as well.
Most would think that we are all paying proportionally for indigent health care through taxes, but that is not true. If you have insurance and need hospital care, your after-insurance bills will be higher to help cover the Medicaid underpayments. Bottom line is that insured hospital patients end up paying more for indigent care than healthy taxpayers. It's not equal. And, if you don't pay your bills, you WILL be hounded.
Thank you, Cuomo and de Blasio!
5
The only people that really love private insurance companies are the people who work for them.
17
people should stop the knee jerk reaction to medicare for all or single payer plans. Even if your taxes go up $1000 a year, when you figure you are not paying premiums of $2000 a year (or month) or more you are ahead of the game. This is not socialism, this is common sense. And I would happily pay a couple of thousand a year more in taxes to make this happen.
62
@Sheri K
Your taxes will go up A LOT more than $1000 a year plus you current premiums
Total spending on healthcare PER PERSON was $10700++ in 2017
Household of 2 = $21,400
Household of 4 = $42800
Multiple that by 329,000,000 and then tell me how much you taxes will go up
2
@AnnS First of all, the most expensive members of the population are ALREADY on the government dole. Working people are generally younger and healthier than medicare aged people. What's worse, unplanned out of pocket health expenses leading to bankruptcy, or paying a fair share in taxes to make sure everyone's covered. We pay taxes for fire and police protection, health care is equally essential and should be covered in the same way.
12
It should be noted that President Obama, Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats attempted to put in fixes and adjustments to Obamacare (ACA) in order to lower insurance rates. It was the Republicans that blocked these fixes.
85
"All of those numbers sound very insane." - signed, the average Canadian with universal healthcare.
Why do you guys do that to yourselves?
51
@Bobby Clobber Profits Profits Profits - that's why !!
healthcare and its delivery is a profits for all involved in the insurance and delivery industries.
Lobyists hardly restraineed, and "Citizens United"
Please
give us citizens a (deserved) Break !!
12
Forty percent of the American population cannot cover a sudden $400 expense. They have no savings and spend as much as they earn. How many of them can afford an Obamacare premium or co-pay? Zero.
Obamacare was a catastrophe. It forced people to buy health insurance they could not afford and then could not afford to use. It’s no surprise that once the individual mandate was repealed, people went back to being uninsured if they did not qualify for Medicaid.
Obamacare cost the Dems their majorities in Congress and State Houses, and it elected Donald Trump. It was created by an MIT economics professor, the recipient of the American Society of Health Economists Inaugural Medal, named “One of the Top 25 Most Innovative and Practical Thinkers of Our Time” in 2011 by Slate Magazine, rated as one of the top 100 most powerful people in health care in the United States by Modern Healthcare Magazine, and who has never spoken with a lower middle class person in his life.
If he and the band of bozos who wrote this law had been satisfied with expanding Medicaid and subsidizing those with pre-existing conditions, they wouldn’t have won any prizes but Hillary might now be president and Donald might still be a TV game show host. Regardless, if the Dems win in 2020, he and his pals will be back trying to prove that they were right after all. Not enough reason for me to vote GOP, but then I qualify for Medicare…
8
That has always been my contention. They went a bridge too far. If they had stuck with Medicaid, really the only part of the Affordable Care Act that works, and threw in the pre existing part for suburban families, they would have avoided the court cases and begun a gradual change that likely would have gotten further after 10 years. The next step would have been a gradual nationalization of Medicaid, something the states really do not want now. Instead they wanted something on paper that looked like covered everyone and created a mess. The exchange process, poorly designed and even more poorly implemented, became the poster child, the most insignificant part. Part of it was preserving the fiction that they were actually saving money, something activists still chant to this day. Any time the government gets involved, it never saves money. Just accept it and move on.
5
@Michael Blazin OK, I'll play. How would you "subsidize preexisting conditions"? This is where at least 80% of health care costs reside, so tell me how you'd subsidize it short of requiring insurers to cover, and requiring EVERYONE have insurance?
2
Every dollar wasted on health care is somebody's salary.
7
Or someone’s dividend...
10
Of course, Cons don't even have to get past the story heading to blame the ACA for ALL cost increases. Never mind that premiums doubled between 2000 and 2004...a feat that Obama somehow accomplished from the Illinois Senate.
8
It infuriates me when I hear small or large business owners say things like, “I can’t afford to pay for health insurance for my employees.”. Indeed, you quote one such person in this article.
Almost without exception, they are lying.
Here’s why. Quality healthcare insurance is probably THE number one benefit potential employees look for when deciding to accept a position. Employees will take a job with a LOWER salary if it includes decent health insurance.
Our tax system advantages employers who provide health insurance in two important ways. First, the cost of the health insurance that the employers pays for is TAX DEDUCTIBLE to the business. That is, they write the entire cost off as a business expense. Second, the benefit accrues to the employee TAX FREE. That’s right, you receive this benefit from your employer without having to pay any income tax on it. So your employer has this doubly tax advantaged way of attracting and retaining talent. They deduct the cost of the insurance and you the employee receive the benefit tax free.
Next time one of your reporters has to confront a business owner saying “I can’t afford to pay for health insurance for my employees” I wish the Times would push back.
Business owners who want to remain successful: You can’t afford NOT to provide this important benefit. The tax code makes sure of it.
85
@max
The problem with your argument, about it being tax deductible and a tax free benefit in the end doesn't make it affordable. A typical family plan is now well over 20k/year. For argument sake, let's make it 20k a year, where the employer pays 16 and the employee 4k in premiums.
1)For the employer, it is true he can deduct that cost, the 16k, off his taxes. However, a deduction is not a credit, so of that he really 'saves' 4k at most. So the employer is paying 12k/employee still. If he has 4 employees (not counting himself), that is 48k a year..how many truly small businesses can afford that.
2)For the employee, that 4k is a lot, and they cannot deduct it, even if it is more than 7.5% of his salary, it is not considered a medical expense. That is 330 a month roughly, and even though it is taken out before taxes, it is still a big hit. If someone is making 15 an hour, that is like 30k a year in salary.....and that 4 k is a huge hit, even if before taxes (and I am being generous here).
The other problem is obvious, employer based health insurance becomes a weapon to stop people from changing jobs, it is why the GOP wants to revoke the prior condition clauses or allow health insurers to charge higher premiums for them, it locks employees into jobs, and employers know it. Want to know why wages haven't gone up, even now? In part, because employers know that health insurance is a major block to leaving a job. If insurance is public, employers would have to compete.
105
@Max Some may be actually unable to pay (it's expensive)... but then they should be part of the crowd calling for Medicare for All. Some small business owners are, but there are far too many who say they can't afford to offer decent insurance but also support politicians who will never offer a better option. Basically they want the cost of health insurance to all fall on the worker
22
@Max
It's still unaffordable - we just don't have the profit margin to pay for it. And whatever we can offer doesn't help the employee much because the dedictibles are so high.
21
Does Medicaid cover the expense of a medical alert dog?
If so, that's probably the cheapest aspect of Ms. McCormick's medical coverage.
A dear and long time friend of ours was diagnosed with cancer three years ago. He maxed out his health insurance policy, sold his house and spent every dime of his savings just to pay for his medical expenses.
My husband and I have been sending him money, just to help defray his medical costs. We spoke to his wife over the weekend and he is not long for this world.
The fact that health insurance and medical costs continue to soar to unreachable limits is an issue that has never really been addressed nor resolved adequately.
In addition to the environment, the entire health care system and insurance is at the top of the list of MUST DO agenda items come any election, but in particular, November 2020.
Just how rewarding and satisfying is it for someone's self image and self worth to have to be on Medicaid in order to live and survive?
For anyone to have to chose this course of action just to be able to afford health care is despicable.
15
I'm an expat living in Italy. I pay for my heath care directly through my paycheck into a national system as do most Italians. We enjoy some of the best care available not because it's fancy (it's spartan compared to the U.S. system), but because resources are directed to care, not middlemen or marketing. We can go to the doctor without copays, no insurance companies, no bills, no collection agencies or third-party vultures to pick our pockets. Tests are a fraction of the cost of the U.S. system. I recently had a blood test that cost $30 as compared to the $480 routine blood test I had in the states last year. And, if you want, you can pay for private doctors. The best part is that my employer has nothing to do with my health care.
The U.S. health care system is a scam, plain and simple. I've lived in both worlds and the U.S. system is not sustainable.
173
Health insurance costs will not go down while our health system is profit-driven. As prices rise, and health insurance remains connected to employment, people will not be able to change jobs, find jobs, afford employees, or have insurance when they get too sick to work, without going bankrupt. We pay twice as much with many people not covered, or under-covered. Not going to get better. Really time for Medicare-for-All.
22
There are countries in Europe with fully private insurance, no government involvement, but they are heavily regulated as to how much can be charged both for insurance and for medical procedures. They make their profit off efficiency. And cover everyone.
6
@Natural Woman Luv your moniker !
@Joe Rock bottom
Which countries are you talking about?
The strategy is simple. Preexisting conditions are gone. Insurance companies increase deductibles higher and higher to discourage people from getting health care.
10
This article is right - the problem with the ACA was that it did nothing to address the cost of health insurance. Sure - health insurance is "available" to everyone - but at costs that are completely unaffordable. The other issue is that we as consumers cannot be informed purchasers of health care because we have no way of knowing what the real cost of anything is - we can't "shop" around for the most affordable knee replacement, for example. We also have to stop the nonsense of "this ER is in your plan, but the doctor on duty isn't so fork over thousands of dollars". Oh sure- as I am wheeled in the ER after a catastrophic event I am going to sit up and make sure all the people who care for me are "in network". Our government has failed us - tying health insurance to employment is inefficient from an economic perspective. People turn down jobs to keep health insurance. As cited in this article, people are leaving the workforce in order to get on Medicaid because they have a chronic disease that needs treatment, but cannot afford the premiums. So not only is the taxpayer now paying all the cost, we have lost someone from the labor force. This is insanity. An affordable public option must be available, and a focus on costs and eliminating the middle man must be a priority.
33
If "medicare for all" doesn't have majority support, what about "medicare for all who want it?"
Once we have that, we can also make the switch away from employer health plans. These plans are damaging in that the employee is artificially chained to their employer: can't quit because they would loose healthcare. It also removes health plan choices, including medicare.
16
My dear fellow Americans, you are being robbed by the middleman. Hear me out. During my (Canadian) partner's 2007 work stint in the US we purchased excellent health insurance. Blue chip. Automatic premium withdrawal from our bank account.
After my partner was diagnosed with a rare blood cancer (stage 4) the insurance company cancelled our insurance by sending a bill for $7 to a nonexistent address then claiming non-payment.
My job was keeping that policy intact, caring for my partner and consulting with doctors. The oncologist applied for a stem cell transplant 10 months in advance as backup if chemo ultimately failed to eradicate the disease. It took that long for approval. Without it, J would fade away in 3 to 6 months.
Transplant worked --he's still here no thanks to the insurance company and their efforts.
Back home in Canada there's a three month waiting period to reinstate health care. That meant paying out of pocket for a crucial monthly blood test, previously billed to our US insurance at $850. Imagine our shock at the clinic when the bill was $45 for that exact same test!
In Canada, everyone has basic health care, medications are covered depending on means. Some provinces have premiums, some not. Ours is $37.50/month per person, or free for low income. Your doctor is your own choice.
Some call it socialism. I say it's etter to provide for people than for corporate welfare bums.
260
@Karen DeVito: I was hesitant to read your comment because I was afraid to find out what happened to your partner. I was so relieved to read that J is still here.
And people wonder why so many of us use Canada as an example of a workable system that provides universal health care.
32
So many countries do. It is a shame that the US spends so much, has a lower life expectancy and higher infant mortality rate.
Vote like your life depends on it.
16
I thought everybody loved their employer plans and were happy to keep them ...
What a surprise to read this!
18
What good is healthcare when you can't afford it? Why should the sick have their pockets picked. This country is in trouble, deep trouble, and it's sinking fast.
236
So some 56% gladly pay for a new economy car every year; and will hopefully have nothing to show for it. No car. No investment. Nothing.
If they are lucky, they might have peace of mind knowing they may have enough coverage to not lose everything if they or theirs get sick or have an accident.
That's it.
Peace of mind...MAYBE....sorta...kind of.
And they'll do it again, and again, and again for most of their lives.
Until they reach Medicare age when they gleefully sign up for Medicare.
What a stupid, selfish, backwards country 'Merica is.
M4A.
It's time.
15
America:
Random mass shootings every month. 300 million guns in the hands of who knows who.
Millions of uninsured or inadequately insured citizens with regard to health care coverage.
Cost of college education leaves students strapped with 20 years of debt.
Phony private “colleges” leave gullible young students broke and uneducated.
Crumbling bridges, airports, subways, highways.
Unhealthy diets promoted on mass media 24/7.
A President who is a loud-mouthed imbecile, smashing what’s left of the nation into pieces.
It’s time for a change.
249
@Scottopottamus: On Tuesday, November 3, 2020, vote as if your life depended on it...because it does.
18
@Scottopottamus And yet, millions want to immigrate to the U.S. as compared to other countries (e.g, Canada). Moreover, if the administration takes steps to curb immigration (both legal and illegal) to take better care of current U.S. residents then it is racism to better take care of current U.S. residents.
Gee, Mr. Sturm -
Most of us need our tke hoe pay to keep a roof over our heads and food on the talbe.
So yes, if it gts to the point where your admttedly generous health plan doen't leave money for that, then the choice is clear - homelessness or health care. But wait - it isn't - one can access health care, even have a so called good health plan and still end up homeless due to surprise medical bills.
Please, can we stop all the high bown, incendiary rhetoric and find a solution?
I thought this was the point. Bleed the people till they’re dry.
6
Conservatives love to howl about how our taxes will increase under a single-payer plan. They don't like to talk about how the costs to business of health care insurance for their employees would disappear. Imagine that those billions of dollars, if not trillions, went to increased pay for those workers. Or capital investment.
196
@Frank - Instead of paying higher wages to employees, wouldn't most large corporations (1) increase shareholder value (2) buy back more stock shares (3) increase corporate CEO bonuses?
17
@Frank O
In addition the administrative costs including specialists in claim denial at private insurance companies would disappear or be greatly reduced.
I saw a statistic somewhere that when added up, the administrative costs at private insurance companies, doctors offices and hospital systems would more than more than cover the cost of single payer.
No one really analyzes all of the costs . We need a real analysis showing all of the costs including administrative, emergency room for people without health insurance, actual medical expenses , etc and compare those costs to a single payer system.
And I am so tired of conservatives talking about Canada and the terrible system they have. I know people. They are happy with the system.
There is no reason why single payer can't coexist next to a private health insurance for those who still want to pay. All those conservatives!
32
It really is easy to fix, isn't it?
Why don't some of you commenters get together, run for office, and fix it? It shouldn't take more that a couple of days, right?
@JND: Considering the fact that so many other countries have managed to come up with systems that cover everyone and leave no one without coverage or unable to afford medical care or bankrupt as a result of obtaining necessary medical care, there is no reason why we cannot accomplish something similar here in the USA.
Whether we end up with a plan that is similar to that of our neighbor to the North or one that is like what they have in Norway or a hybrid of several of the plans other countries have implemented, I do not see why we cannot have universal health care in the USA.
9
@Stephanie here's why !
we are Capitalists, and Ruled by capitalist Barons, their lobbyists, Citizens United for or capitalist power-figures ---
Profits Rule everything, even ethics and morality!!
2
So, you don't absolutely LOVE your employer health insurance, as the Corporate Democrats, and Republicrooks claim? I am SOOO surprised! How about exchanging it for cheaper, better MEDICARE FOR ALL? Includes dental, vision, cheaper drugs, and mental health for HALF the price (well, they will call it a tax, instead of a premium--hope that won't bother you.) Vote for Bernie Sanders, and Democratic takeover of the Congress, and state legislatures (preferably Progressives) and also your local government. You will be so glad you did! Vote for your own personal interest, security, better health, and general well being.
9
@ChesBay Medicare as it is currently configured does not cover dental care nor vision care. Drugs are paid for through a separate insurance policy that must be purchased from a commercial insurer. I admire Medicare, but it has a long way to go before it as comprehensive as your post implies.
2
@ChesBay Medicare Does NOT Cover -
Vision, or Dental, hearing, some other stuff,
Rx coverage is optional, a seprate plan and costs...
1
@JT Lawlor--WAKE UP!!! It's the NEW Medicare for All! What? Do you work for a health insurance or pharma company? Well, don;t worry. You can work for the new agency that will oversee this wonderful program.
2
Anyone who thinks our current health care system is sustainable is delusional, comically unaware, or rich beyond belief. At my first job as a single person with no dependents and no health problems, my employee contribution to my completely average health care plan was an astounding $600/month, almost equal to my rent. Together these two payments far exceeded 50% of my take home income. With a burden like this right off the bat, its easy to understand why young people have a hard time saving for a mortgage, retirement, or paying off student debt.
298
@Cooker
The lack of wage growth since the 70's also ties into these issues.
In my opinion the conservatives are looking to create a slave labor force, keep wages down, de-fund education, all other costs up. Allow employers to control healthcare. Voilà
47
The free market will take care of it. Just let people shop around for the cheapest doctor, cheapest diagnostic tests, cheapest meds and cheapest hospital. Eliminate regulAtions to reduce cost. PROBLEM SOLVED!!!
3
I have very good employer-provided healthcare and I think it should be flushed down the Randian, right-wing toilet of greed from whence it came.
America has the greatest healthcare rip-off system in the world at 17% of GDP which skims an extra $1 trillion in annual corporate subsidies vs. the healthcare systems of civilized countries...each and every year.
Each year, America pays an extra $1 trillion in corporate fat and profit to get a worse overall health outcome than its OECD cousins.
It's a twice-the-price-gouging system for a shoddy product.
Tear the corporate healthcare tower of golden profits to the ground and build a human system modeled on the successful systems of Canada, England, France, Germany, Japan, Taiwan and Switzerland....some are single-payer systems...some blend single-payer with supplemental private insurance...but all are heavily regulated by government to make healthcare affordable for all.
No need to reinvent the wheel.
Just abandon American failure, greed and sociopathy and declare victory by letting the government do its healthcare job.
Country and Healthcare Costs as a % of GDP
United States 17.2%
Switzerland 12.4%
Germany 11.3
Sweden 11.0
France 11.0
Japan 10.9
Netherlands 10.5
Norway 10.5
Belgium 10.4
Austria 10.4
Denmark 10.4
Canada 10.3
UK 9.7
Australia 9.6
Finland 9.4
New Zealand 9.2
Spain 9.0
Portugal 8.9
Italy 8.9
Iceland 8.6
Slovenia 8.6
Chile 8.5
Greece 8.2
Ireland 7.8
Korea 7.7
Hungary 7.6
Israel 7.3
Czech 7.2%
November 3 2020
31
@Socrates
Absolutely standard American practice -- the middlemen-- should we call it leech capitalism?? and there are the stock holders.
2
Here are some facts:
The U.S. spends 19 percent of its GDP on healthcare, leaves millions uncovered and under-insured and has some horrible healthcare outcomes.
Our peer nations spend 10 percent of their GDP on healthcare, cover all citizens from birth to death and have better healthcare outcomes.
Meanwhile, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget reports "the tax code also provides several subsidies for health care and insurance. By far the largest is the exclusion for employer-provided insurance, which the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) estimates to have cost about $340 billion in 2017." It's the subsidy no one ever dare speak of. Corporate America must like how the system is rigged with its $340 billion in tax breaks, or they'd be screaming bloody murder.
And lastly, United Healthcare alone between 2008 and 2018 took in almost ONE TRILLION in premiums, paid out $46 billion in profits, and paid their CEOs $141 million. As Liz Warren so rightfully says, the business model for private insurance is to take in as much $$$$ as possible, and pay out as little as possible, which they achieve by setting up the rules, so that you, the patient, are going to fail. You'll pay higher premiums, higher deductibles, higher co-pays, and most of all be denied the care you think you're paying for.
When people claim they "love their private insurance," I just shake my head...
All of this is just insane. Shining City on a Hill? I think not.
21
Yep! Thank you for this article.
If you rally up the real costs with deductibles how much are we parking? 35 trillion?
2
Every time we look up healthcare, and namely insurance becomes unaffordable. Certainly with no plan the GOP are only succeeding in destroying Obamacare and letting the rest of us sink.
The Trump lies of better and cheaper are clear, Time to vote the GOP out and get back to fixing and expanding ACA,
3
I don’t have any health insurance since my new employer wants me to fully pay the monthly premium of $975 (just myself). I hope everyone “starves the beast” as I do. Let’s starve the health insurance companies so they all go bankrupt. They only survive because we pay the ridiculous premiums. We enable their greed.
10
@Temp attorney Nice thought. Unfortunately, one accident, surgery, hospital stay, cancer, etc. and WE will be the ones starving as we go bankrupt without any insurance. It's the pits for sure.
6
@Temp attorney $975.00 a month is $11,700.00 per year. Eight years ago I spent 3 nights in hospital - the charge was $30000.00 not including some doctors I never saw. Thank god, I opted for insurance.
1
We have a health are crisis. Our cost are out of control and our outcomes mediocre. A market based system has failed to deliver, Conservatives would be raging if a public system worked this poorly.
5
Medicare for all, just like Canada, and all this nonsense would be a bad dream, looking back. The reason this is such a complex issue here is that we are trying to ensure the insurance and drug companies maintain there ridiculous profits. It’s absolutely amazing to watch this country grapple with how to solve this problem when all one has to do is look around the world and see what others have done. We don’t need to reinvent the wheel, just borrow the wheel that every other industrialized country, from Australia to Japan to Europe to Canada has already figured out and implemented, providing coverage for all at half the cost, and better health outcomes. The reason we put up with this ridiculous, corrupt and expensive system is that health insurance and drug companies have pretty much bought our politicians to vote for their best interests (and bottom line) rather than vote for what is best for us. The next time your representative tells you why you can’t have an affordable healthcare system, look at their donation records and you’ll see big campaign donations from these companies.
15
Somewhere along the line we stopped caring about the common good. We need to take care of people. We need to care about the elderly, infirm, disabled, mentally ill and the healthy.
Until we stop the divisiveness and hateful rhetoric, we won't be able to tackle this problem in any meaningful way.
As someone who benefitted from the implementation of the ACA, and who, fortunately, aged into Medicare, I can say it's head and shoulders above any health insurance I've had in the past.
Three operations later and having the good luck to have my life saved by two wonderful doctors, I know what we need to do to make life better for everyone in our country: We need National Health Insurance.
Being healthy and having access to doctors, hospitals and medicine when you're not, is extraordinarily important and a right. Let a portion of our taxes pay for it and get the insurance companies out of healthcare.
The marketplace is screaming to us and we're not listening. Money has no place in our healthcare.
22
I've been self-employed for a long, long time. Finding health insurance is always stressful; at least now the ACA guarantees me coverage. Before then, I never knew from year to year if my insurance would be cancelled. Currently, individual plans are ridiculously expensive and offer far less coverage than employer-supplied plans. I pay $850/month for a plan that covers nothing until I'm out of pocket about $9,000. US healthcare is dismal. Its system is broken. Our country should, at the least, supply a basic level of coverage to all citizens.
19
We'll get to a point where health insurance premiums are simply too high for the average business or person to afford, then we'll get to a point where those costs start to really break government budgets for their employee plans. Maybe then we'll see real reform, but don't hold your breath. I've been working 21 years. When I started out, health insurance was a non-issue. What started to happen to the plan was a few big claims came in - a cancer here, a heart surgery there, a baby in the NICU etc. Most everyone else used their benefits sparingly (its not like people want to have some terrible health issue). Our carrier dropped the business. Premiums rose. To offset premiums, deductibles and co-insurance rose (when my kid was born in 2007 our deductible was $100.00 - three years later it was $5,000, then $7,500 then $13,000). But there is a limit to how much you can pull the deductible lever because from the insurance company's perspective the effect of a $10,000 deductible versus $20,000 on a $200,000 cancer claim is negligible. In spite of pulling that lever over and over again, family premiums went from $750.00 a month to $2,000.
15
Profits over people. Individual liberty over the collective good no matter what. Thats the American way. We will never get a handle on this issue, or any other social problem including affordable quality education, sensible gun policies to prevent gun violence, or transitioning to a renewable fuel economy to prevent the worsening effects of climate change, until we shift our thinking at the most basic and fundamental level.
12
Everyone loves their employer health insurance.
I will never understand this thinking. Accidents happen, chronic diseases happen, catastrophic health conditions happen. What happens to your employer provided insurance when you are out of work for longer than FMLA mandated coverage?
Everyone loves their employer health insurance. Until they are unemployed.
12
@Sick & Tired
"Everyone loves their employer health insurance. Until they are unemployed."
Or until they move, or their employer cuts back the insurance.
It's beyond belief Trump followers can't grasp that. But they have been brainwashed to like a medical insurance system with the highest costs in the western world and a declining longevity rate. Fear works.
11
@Sick & Tired Probably because they don't care unless it affects them.
5
@Sick & Tired It's a Political Slogan - Untrue like so many overused slogans , sounds good - buy in, vote!
1
This is an important story, as it further exposes the limits of the ACA policies and overall how insurers, and now employers, are passing the un-affordability buck the consumers, sticking them with the bill for unregulated, excessive health care pricing.
10
Obviously any rational capitalist will see that propping up the for-profit insurance system is now undermining US ability to compete in global markets. The fixed overhead of health benefits for employee is no longer an efficient way to bundle service; economies of scale have vanished.
True cost control can only emerge from everyone covered, low administrative costs, bargaining power with pharmaceuticals companies- in short- Medicare4All.
If this means a public option as transitional, with employees choosing to switch out of employer benefit- great. In the long run, this is the only solution.
13
Haha “rational capitalist” an oxymoron!
1
A young woman quit her job so "her income would be low enough to enroll in Medicaid, which will cover all her medical expenses."
There is something terribly wrong with our health care system in this country when an individual needs to go the route Ms. McCormick did in order for her to live with a heart condition.
One of the main reasons so many are receiving unemployment benefits is because they cannot find full time jobs that pay enough to meet, much less exceed that amount.
98
Stop and think: why should an employer - any employer- be responsible for paying an employees medical, dental
and vision care? By what law or civic duty does this make any sense? It began as a marketing tool in 1950’s to recruit top talent but has proven over time to be costly, inefficient and ineffective method for society generally. Most of us now believe that healthcare is a right, and not a duty to be shoved onto the back of employers- most of whom in the USA are “small” employers.
65
@James Osborne Support a single payer with a tax on both employer and employer. Someone should do a study to outline what this system would cost in 2020 compared to the insurance premium system we use today. Germany uses private insurers how does its system work? How are the cost distributed. It seems the more hospitals consolidate into giant system the more expensive medicine becomes.
Our free market system is broken. If a public system worked this poorly the Conservatives would be to screaming to privatize it.
12
@James Osborne
You are correct, no law or duty has employers providing health insurance. You hit the nail on the head by saying it is a way to attract valuable employees.
At the vanguard of good medical, dental, vision, Rx, etc., coverage were trade unions. Good middle class union jobs.
Why do we need universal healthcare?
A dearth of good union jobs.
An evaporating middle class.
When the rational choice is to NOT work in order to get health care, it is the death knell for US labor.
22
@James Osborne The corporate employer gets a tax break for paying part of the employees' insurance premiums. It's supposed to be a part of the workers' salaries. The part they will never see, even if the employer payments are ended. It's certainly not out of the goodness of their hearts.
2
My employer based health care tripled in price after tha passage of the ACA, making it as much as my rent (which is saying a lot in California). And I make too much to qualify for any governmant subsidy.
So much for the "Affordable Care Act."
15
@Prodigal Son One of the reason it increased was inurere were force to take everyone. One of the understanding was everyone would have to buy insurance. The numerous healthy would subsidize the chronically ill. The Supreme Court and Republicans kill that part, but left the everyone has to have access to insurance.
Don't blame AFC blame the supreme Court and the GOP. Obama's original system had everyone in the system or paying a fine.
Our Free Market system is a failure. Everyone loves their insurance until they are unemployed and have none,
2
@Prodigal Son
You should ask your employer and its insurance provider why THEY did that.
1
...and to this day the Republicans have no alternative.
4
We constantly hear about the costs of the insurance companies. Costs to employers or costs to workers and profits made by insurance companies or drug companies.
It seems like the profit motive in these sectors is doing really, really well, but what has not improved: the health of Americans.
If I were in charge, I would directly tie any medical company's profits to successful results. Because it looks like we are paying more and more for less and less.
"How much will this cost?" Should not be the first thing one thinks about when going to a doctor or experiencing an emergency.
36
It's a matter of budgeting priorities and tax policy. Raise taxes on the wealthy and corporations so that we can have Medicare for All. Otherwise those of us with average wages won't be able to afford the doctor. It is already a stretch. These doctors have set up so many separate corporations that send you bills for lab tests in addition to your co-pay, which keeps going up and is more for, say, CT scans. Maybe these doctors can begin to care more about their patients than their investments.
11
@Eugene Debs
If we has singe payer instead f 20 grand to private insurance you would pay 15,000 to the government. Yes getting rid of the insurance middleman and the bureaucracy in the hospitals that support it would probably save us 15-20% a year.
We have a private medical system that competes for the well insured building luxurious building , paying luxurious executive salaries and beautiful suites instead of serving everyone.
Our Private market system is broken. It is on the verge of collapse. At the rate they are growing premiums will double by 2030. A broken private system will bring down the public system with it.
6
The "relentless rise in premiums and deductibles" is due to the exorbitant costs of medical tests and procedures. Previous NYT articles have identified costs as our major problem, but they have been ignored. Obamacare exacerbated the problem of costs, by simply rearranging revenue streams to perpetuate exorbitant costs. There are models in other developed countries with equivalent health care but far lower costs, that we will eventually have to study and apply in the US.
14
@RC, yes, yes, yes. We keep doing various things that improve access, at least theoretically, and that we hope will control costs as a side effect. It's not working. We are still paying far more for the same goods and services as health care consumers in most other developed countries. We can't even rein in bizarre phenomena like the cost of an MRI being five times higher on one side of a given town as the other.
We're not going to be successful at controlling costs unless we, umm, err, actually control costs. That's going to involve directly regulating and rationalizing pricing, together with getting as much profit and as many middlemen as possible out of the system.
19
Control costs? We can’t even figure out what they are. The difference between what an uninsured patient pays for a procedure and what an insurance company pays is staggering. The actual cost of the procedure to the facility that provides it? Nobody ever seems to know.
If we don’t know what the real costs are we are helpless to control them.
7
Medicare for all is not going to solve this mess. The cost of compliance, bureaucracy, government intervention, for profit hospitals outrageous bills, will not be solved. The government does not run anything better than the private sector. The issue is since the ACA became law healthcare has gotten worse. To suggest more of the same thing is lunacy.
A lot of the good doctors are leaving traditional medicine and moving to integrative medicine. Why? What for? Integrative medicine is not covered by any insurance plan including Medicare. It is cash pay only, in order for to get at the root cause of your illness, you can pay cash.
I would be for some sort of emergency care only government payment, private pay combination.
At some point the doctors will just not work in the field anymore.
5
@Alicia- Don't you think that the Republicans' consistent efforts to defund, undermine, and end the ACA might have something to do with it not being better than it is?
It's pretty tough to improve if you're constantly fighting to simply exist.
77
I do not. The ACA was written by lobbyists, it did nothing to address the cost of healthcare. At the time of implementation I worked at United Healthcare. Many employees were moved to the exchange division, a lot of smart people moved to those areas. The rollout by the government was a hot mess- servers crashing, technology disaster. Since then, despite the media and candidates demonizing insurance companies, many insurance companies have left the exchanges all together in some states like Florida. They were not able to make any profit at all. Believe it or not United covers only about 500k individuals very low numbers from several years ago.
Since the ACA was implemented choice and competition have decreased tremendously, this is basic supply demand economics nothing to do with the Republicans. It is easier to blame an organization than actually try to address issues. The leadership of our country is to blame all of them. They seem to have no clue about the real world and want to hang on to power for themselves. I would not mind if both parties evaporated. No good minds seem to be out there anymore. It is freak show.
11
@Mark: You hit the nail on the head. "They were not able to make any profit at all." Imagine a system where the profits of insurance companies (and the cost of their massive bureaucracies) didn't drive our access to health care!
15
My mind became numb when I read "A recent Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll found that a majority of registered voters, 56 percent, are opposed to the idea of a government-run system like Medicare-for-all that would replace private insurance."
I have to ask from where are those people getting their misinformation?
I became eligible for Medicare 4 years ago. It is wildly better and far less costly than the private insurance I paid through my employment at a small business. Medicare charges me about $135 per month plus $about 14.50 for the drug coverage. I have Plan F through AARP and the charge for this 20% supplemental insurance is $184 per month (just look at those numbers! Medicare covers 80% at $135 and private insurance covers 20% for $184). The total monthly premium amounts to $333.50. I have had no co-pays/deductibles except possibly for prescription drugs. I have had no restrictions on choice of doctors or physical therapists.
Five years ago on private insurance I paid about $750 per month for an HMO plan that restricted my choice of doctors, therapists etc. and I had a co-pay of about $35 per visit. There was a hospital deductible of $5,000! This insurance was scheduled to jump to about $825 the year I went on Medicare.
The company I worked for didn't pay any part of my insurance premium.
What kool-aid are American voters drinking?
304
@James Barth But you paid into Medicare for over 30 years or more so that you can afford this. The numbers don't work so well for those who have not been funding Medicare for most of their working lives. And even then it's going broke.
12
Medicare doesn’t have to go broke. It’s a matter of priorities. Investing in the health and education of Americans would bring far greater dividends than continuing to throw trillions at our bloated military industrial complex.
Why can’t Americans have what citizens of every other first world nation have had for decades?
104
@James Barth They simply have no clue about how insurance works, including their own, if they have it. Remember how many on Medicare, during the push for the ACA, didn't know it was a government run plan?
31
Unaffordable premiums, high deductibles, scanty coverage, provider networks, non-negotiable prices for medicinal drugs protected by patent.
Do you think there's a problem with health care in America?
Medicare-for-all is a promising solution, as a start, not the end-all of health care reform.
People who like their private health care insurance should be allowed to keep it, but their premium subsidies from employers should be taxed as income.
Medicare-for-all can never achieve the efficiency of the British National Health System. As Medicare providers (doctors, hospitals, etc.) are private businesses, not employed directly, contracted for, or owned by Medicare, a burdensome claims payment system must be supported. Claims processing adds 10-15% to the cost of heath care.
12
I am a small business owner have a few people on payroll. Health insurance IS already listed as taxable income on the w2 our payroll. Are you suggesting to tax it twice?
2
For most employees this is not the case - the cost of health insurance is not considered as taxable income.
2
@Mark You might want to double check that - it's listed in Box 12 along with contributions to your 401K, HSA plan etc. but not included in Box 1 which is your taxable income.
4
In Norway, where I lived, everyone loves and uses the national socialized healthcare system. All of the medical facilities and offices are so clean and modern. It’s fantastic. There are also a few “private” hospitals (like Volvat Sykehus) but even those hospitals are very, very inexpensive. If you ask a Norwegian about private health insurance they will reply “but why — we take care of people here!”
They also have socialized education, btw. Americans are living in the dark ages by comparison.
365
@Misplaced Modifier Thank you for emphasizing this. I hope the Republican Electoral College can be overcome in the next election so that the U.S. can move forward towards becoming a civilised nation, like the Scandinavian countries.
31
@Misplaced Modifier
I too have had experience with NHI and have had the experience of clean hospitals/clinics. Same day available doctor appointments or short wait time and affordable medicine. I paid a portion, which did not break my budget and felt more inclined to be pro active about my health, rather than trying to find OTC solutions.
At this point, I think America hasnt moved toward embracing NHI because of racism and personal politics influenced by religious and outdated personal political views. It only works in homogeneous countries currently because the people making the decisions are making it for others they can indentify with.
Too many political leaders can’t or will not see the perspective of minorities, feminists or those in the LGBTQIA community.
31
@Misplaced Modifier Lovely system but they also only have 7 million people and high taxes.
American hate taxes they want everything for free and end up with everything costing more. I am sure we too could have this system with taxes instead of premiums and a 500 bilion dollar Pentagon budget instead of the monstrous 720 billion dollars we spend every year, but the Communist would invade. We Americans get and deserve the mess we have until people say enough is enough.
16
Tired of winning? Trump and the GOP are NOT taking healthcare in the USA seriously.
35
It seems to me that Trump supporters don’t have a problem paying high monthly premiums, high copays and high deductibles. If they get a bill that their expensive for profit health insurance won’t pay, they simply start GoFundMe accounts and beg.
11
Personally, I've always been puzzled by the notion that business owners should be responsible for providing employee heath insurance. I am sure most business owners see it as a distraction and a headache. They have no more expertise than their employees do when it comes to selecting a doctor or other health professional, so why do they exercise this power?
The chief economic impact of shifting to a single-payer, government-organized public service approach is that it would give small businesses equal footing with international corporations vis-a-vis their employees. Of course, that might be one of the reasons many major international corporations would be opposed to such a shift, since it would allow their employees who are only remaining with them for the sake of their health plan to find better jobs.
99
Employer provided health insurance got its start during world war 2 when there were wage controls. One of he few benefits employers could offer was health insurance.
34
@Jon d'Seehafer
Employer-based insurance was a decision reached at the close of WWII based on convenience and expediency rather than wisdom.
15
Health insurance keeps costing more because doctors, hospitals, drug companies and other healthcare providers keep charging more. Each of these providers hires lobbyists to convince Medicare and private insurers to pay them more. Perhaps they're more successful with Trump running the show -- and industry regulation disappearing. We're going back to the pre-Obamacare situation -- exactly what Trump wants.
21
@Richard
The notion that doctors are charging more is a common fallacy. It’s not correct. It’s the for-profit managed care companies — the privately managed conglomerate hospitals, private pharmaceutical companies, and insurance companies — that are charging more — not the actual doctors. The CEOs, shareholders, and Boards of the so-called “healthcare industry” that are driving up prices so they can take millions and billions in profits.
54
Health insurance keeps costing more because Big Insurance likes soaring profits (billions) and CEOs like their 23 million a year salaries.
22
And the profits of the health insurance companies rise to unprecedented levels (more than $20 billion in annual profits + colossal executive compensation).
Just this year, from just the big 3 -
Cigna - more than $1 billion in the second-quarter.
Anthem - more than $1 billion in profits in its second quarter and said its profits are ahead of expectations for the year due in part to the money its making off of government contracts with Medicare and Medicaid programs.
UnitedHealthcare - reported $2.6 billion in earnings from operations in the second quarter.
(source: Forbes)
76
@newton Yep. Eliminating insurance companies reduces our national health care costs by almost 25%. It also eliminates restrictive networks and denial of coverage based on technicalities. But most importantly, M4A will allow us to begin to bend the curve downward on the annual increase in health care costs -- down to the rate of inflation. Second most important -- EVERYONE will be covered. Don't let the poison pill -- private insurance option -- ruin universal health care. Let's go all in for M4A.
23
@newton. Let’s confiscate that $20B and share that among the almost 400M Americans. Works out that saves everyone $50 a year. There, we fixed the cost of the healthcare (not).
The root cause of the exorbitant price of our health system is simply its exorbitant cost. We need to cut the aggregate cost of the system in half (more in line with Europe’s), then what we have to pay will halve. Until we do that, shifting who pays what is as effective as shuffling deck chairs around on the Titanic.
3
@newton I work for a health insurance company and believe that a two level system (if not Medicare for all) is the right solution. Even in my small insurance company, we get insane bonuses, on top of a great salary and rich benefits, that are significantly higher than the provider sector. The only job real work we do is create insurance products, market them to individuals and employers, and process claims. We try to make sure that members are receiving care for their health conditions, but that is so that we can prove that we have sicker members and get more money.
Unfortunately, the insurance lobby is one of the strongest in the country and are large employers. No one wants to take us on to eliminate the waste.
21
Perhaps our best hope of finally joining the entire rest of the civilized world with some form of guaranteed universal health coverage is if more businesses stop providing it to employees.
I've never understood why business leaders have not pushed for this more openly as it would relieve them of the burden and expense of providing coverage themselves. As the old observation goes, GM spends more money on employee health insurance than steel.
117
@Pat I have also wondered why businesses (especially small ones) aren't on board with single payer. It's partly because the proponents of single payer aren't messaging it well. Yes, it will require a broadened tax structure (most places use a VAT). But it will finally bend the cost curve on health care, which NO private plan has been able to do. Ultimate costs are lower and cost growth is reduced to that of inflation as the huge administrative overhead is eliminated. It would be laughable that we still cling to a for-profit model that is fundamentally flawed and permanently dysfunctional. Health care is a common good and should be treated as such.
29
@Pat
While single-payer would benefit small employers, it does not help large employers, who are more powerful in shaping our policy. Think about it from the perspective of an evil corporation: under our current system, they get to put their employees in a situation where they or their family members could literally die if they get fired or leave to start their own business! What better way to keep employees "loyal"!
10
@Pat All the republicans need to do is cry Socialist! and the businesses will pause they brain and continue to vote republican while complaining about the high cost of healthcare.
1
So what I am hearing is that the insurance industry which, as an industry has as its purpose getting profit for its shareholder, is doing what it can to extract as much profit as it can while at the same time keeping its cost down?
Wow, who would have though of that(spoiler: everyone)?
11
Except, apparently, most GOP voters who seem to like to see their money go into insurance companies’ pockets instead of stay in their own. Universal coverage is the only remedy, as the rest of the first world counties have long since discovered.
21
Exactly. Denying health care while constantly increasing premiums and copays is a great way to make money for stock holders. But let’s stop calling this health care.
15
@Concerned Citizen: Considering how the R's howled at the idea of the ACA aka: Obamacare, they probably would have tried to impeach Obama if he even hinted at a public option.
The R's would have claimed that Obama was trying to turn this country Socialist, was a traitor, etc.
1
This makes the need for government provided healthcare even more imperative. The usual response to it is to claim the already"happy" number of people who pay their insurance through work. Besides, over all, we pay three times more than other industrialized nations for healthcare, and there the people pay nothing.
20
For most people in employer plans, the insurance plan serves mainly as strong armed broker that keeps the health costs, for people in that plan, in check. Many, if not most people, never meet the deductible. The total costs of employees’ premiums plus costs incurred before reaching deductible are far under just paying for yourself or in an individual plan. The plans consequently have evolved into a cost control plus catastrophic coverage program. That kind of program is what all insurance plans, e.g., homeowner, auto, are. You do not get insurance benefits for painting a house, fixing a lamp or replacing a battery, costs that go for tens to hundreds of dollars. You get it for major damages. Health care insurance has just become like them.
23
@Michael Blazin in reality health insurance has become bankruptcy insurance. It does not guarantee access to health care nor affordability.
15
@Kristi
And it doesn't even work as bankruptcy insurance, because the majority of medical bankruptcies are from people who had health insurance.
28
@Pat I’m aware of that too. My daughter is going through that this year. She hates it because we believe in paying our bills but it became unavoidable.
2
I am surprised--puzzled actually--that none of the candidates has included cfos, benefit managers, and business owners in their pitch for alternatives to our health care system. Health care is the tail that wags the dog of American business and harms our competitiveness.
19