Public Healthcare plan would encourage employers to abandon plans

[Robert Maxwell]

So, somebody explain this to me. If employers start dropping their coverage like crazy because they're afear'd of "Obamacare," couldn't those people then join the public option and thus have coverage? Where's the problem here?

The problem is that this creates a race to the bottom; businesses dropping health care will have a competitive advantage over businesses that still provide it, eventually causing everyone to fall back on the public option, with the exception of those who don't qualify for it due to their income.

You'll end up with something resembling the system used in countries like Germany and Belgium; a very wide public umbrella, and small private insurance companies catering to people with higher incomes.

It's not a bad system per sé, but it all depends on what one thinks the economic landscape in health care should look like.

Of course, there are easy ways to avoid the above scenario; making employer contributions mandatory would be one of them.

I think the "economic landscape" should offer medical care to everyone regardless of their ability to pay for it. Being financially ruined by medical expenses is unconscionable to me. Even people with insurance are one accident or illness away from financial ruin. Does your average American have the resources to pay a $10,000 medical bill? What about $20,000? $100,000? Even with insurance, you can rack up things like that. Who does that really benefit? Not the consumer, I can tell you that...

 

[Danoz]

Having watched healthcare "town halls" for the last four hours while I worked today, this is one question that not a single Democrat (even Obama himself) seem to have addressed. I've spoken to a number of small business owners who would almost instantly forfeit their employee's health plans were a public plan to gain popular support; this would effectively leave millions more without affordable or reliable healthcare.

Anybody have any insight to this? I see a lot of dangers right now in the plan being put together...

Quite. If the Obama's people even get a whith of something negetive about the ''Obamacare'' plan they will come down on you hard.

So, somebody explain this to me. If employers start dropping their coverage like crazy because they're afear'd of "Obamacare," couldn't those people then join the public option and thus have coverage? Where's the problem here? Other than the prospect of jerkoff employers sticking it to their employees to make a political statement, I mean.

Well they would have to-- which means it's not really a "choice" system and the public healthcare may not be as good as what people are used to. Obama talks about insuring tens of thousands of people who are not currently insured... what doctors and hospitals are going to handle the influx of new people?

I agree that this is a very serious issue, but I'm just posing some questions out of concern. I feel like the argument here is "death sentence vs miracle" -- where can I find something a bit more objective that examines the potential consequences of a such a sudden change?

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Quite. If the Obama's people even get a whith of something negetive about the ''Obamacare'' plan they will come down on you hard.

So, somebody explain this to me. If employers start dropping their coverage like crazy because they're afear'd of "Obamacare," couldn't those people then join the public option and thus have coverage? Where's the problem here? Other than the prospect of jerkoff employers sticking it to their employees to make a political statement, I mean.

Well they would have to-- which means it's not really a "choice" system and the public healthcare may not be as good as what people are used to. Obama talks about insuring tens of thousands of people who are not currently insured... what doctors and hospitals are going to handle the influx of new people?

I agree that this is a very serious issue, but I'm just posing some questions out of concern. I feel like the argument here is "death sentence vs miracle" -- where can I find something a bit more objective that examines the potential consequences of a such a sudden change?

There wouldn't be a "sudden change." Laws in the US don't work that way, especially laws with such far-reaching ramifications. There would be a phase-in period.

What you're forgetting here is that most of the strain on the US system is in emergency care. If we can get those people who are going to the ER (because they have no insurance) to go to a doctor's office or clinic, we reduce the strain on the ER. It's not like these people just never, ever get medical care. They just obtain it at the point where it's most expensive and resource-draining for everyone, because it's only an ER that is obligated to help regardless of ability to pay.

A public option helps ensure that those ER bills don't get stiffed, and that people can go see the doctor before it necessitates an ER trip. Utilization of ERs should diminish somewhat, while usage of office visits should increase slightly more than that. Overall, I doubt it would be any more of a strain on the system than there already is.

 

[Rocketman]

I think the "economic landscape" should offer medical care to everyone regardless of their ability to pay for it.

The next question to ask would be how much medical care everyone should get. Treatment for life-threatening diseases only? Up to what cost? How about painful conditions? Mental conditions? Dental care?

 

[Robert Maxwell]

I think the "economic landscape" should offer medical care to everyone regardless of their ability to pay for it.

The next question to ask would be how much medical care everyone should get. Treatment for life-threatening diseases only? Up to what cost? How about painful conditions? Mental conditions? Dental care?

Routine care (1-2 checkups a year plus tests the doctor thinks are necessary), urgent care (as needed), emergency care (as needed), dental checkups (twice a year), emergency dental care (as needed), mental health care (as needed).

I don't really see what the fuss is here. People get their routine care plus the care that they need to ensure both their survival and a good quality of life. That is how they do it in places like the UK, and other countries with socialized medical care. They get by, somehow.

 

[Rocketman]

I think the "economic landscape" should offer medical care to everyone regardless of their ability to pay for it.

The next question to ask would be how much medical care everyone should get. Treatment for life-threatening diseases only? Up to what cost? How about painful conditions? Mental conditions? Dental care?

Routine care (1-2 checkups a year plus tests the doctor thinks are necessary), urgent care (as needed), emergency care (as needed), dental checkups (twice a year), emergency dental care (as needed), mental health care (as needed).

I don't really see what the fuss is here. People get their routine care plus the care that they need to ensure both their survival and a good quality of life. That is how they do it in places like the UK, and other countries with socialized medical care. They get by, somehow.

Sure, we get by. But I live in a country with (what you'd consider) socialized medical care, and the system certainly doesn't work on an 'as needed' basis. I don't get dental checkups covered, nor dental care beyond an entitlement to get dentures if my teeth are smashed, nor do I get routine medical checkups. Mental health is covered--up to five half-hour visits to a psychiatrist. Why? Because even in a socialized system, these things aren't free. I might 'need' more health care than that--but I'll have to pay for it myself.

"The fuss" about health care is due to the fact that we all consider it to be enormously important, it's also enormously expensive, and there's no real way our societies can afford to give everyone the care we'd like them to have. That's a fundamental fact, and whichever institution you'd like to take care of things (be it the state or the market), it's not going to change.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

The next question to ask would be how much medical care everyone should get. Treatment for life-threatening diseases only? Up to what cost? How about painful conditions? Mental conditions? Dental care?

Routine care (1-2 checkups a year plus tests the doctor thinks are necessary), urgent care (as needed), emergency care (as needed), dental checkups (twice a year), emergency dental care (as needed), mental health care (as needed).

I don't really see what the fuss is here. People get their routine care plus the care that they need to ensure both their survival and a good quality of life. That is how they do it in places like the UK, and other countries with socialized medical care. They get by, somehow.

Sure, we get by. But I live in a country with (what you'd consider) socialized medical care, and the system certainly doesn't work on an 'as needed' basis. I don't get dental checkups covered, nor dental care beyond an entitlement to get dentures if my teeth are smashed, nor do I get routine medical checkups. Mental health is covered--up to five half-hour visits to a psychiatrist. Why? Because even in a socialized system, these things aren't free. I might 'need' more health care than that--but I'll have to pay for it myself.

"The fuss" about health care is due to the fact that we all consider it to be enormously important, it's also enormously expensive, and there's no real way our societies can afford to give everyone the care we'd like them to have. That's a fundamental fact, and whichever institution you'd like to take care of things (be it the state or the market), it's not going to change.

And the fact is, in the US, there are millions of people who can't get anything other than catastrophic emergency care, which they are then unable to pay for, which raises prices for everyone else. We may not be able to give everyone everything they want, but right now we have people who either don't get what they need, or they do get it but are financially ruined by it. I find both of those scenarios unacceptable.

Those who can afford private insurance should do so, but it should not be at the expense of people who can't.

 

[Squiggy]

Well they would have to-- which means it's not really a "choice" system and the public healthcare may not be as good as what people are used to. Obama talks about insuring tens of thousands of people who are not currently insured... what doctors and hospitals are going to handle the influx of new people?

So this is a bad idea because we don't have enough doctors? We have plenty of doctors. People flock to the US from Canada because we have no lines, remember?

 

[Danoz]

Well they would have to-- which means it's not really a "choice" system and the public healthcare may not be as good as what people are used to. Obama talks about insuring tens of thousands of people who are not currently insured... what doctors and hospitals are going to handle the influx of new people?

Um. Treat them?

Doesn't it stand to reason that treating more people would require more doctors and nurses to begin with? More hospitals? More health educators? Where are these people going to come from? It's just an accusation, it's a question.

Also, sans a public/government system, aren't there still steps we could take to cut heathcare costs and make private plans more affordable for people in general?

I think people should be more concerned at the idea of creating a government monstrosity to handle something as important as our health.

 

[SeerSGB]

Well they would have to-- which means it's not really a "choice" system and the public healthcare may not be as good as what people are used to. Obama talks about insuring tens of thousands of people who are not currently insured... what doctors and hospitals are going to handle the influx of new people?

So this is a bad idea because we don't have enough doctors? We have plenty of doctors. People flock to the US from Canada because we have no lines, remember?

And this time they'd be getting paid. After all, aren't hospitals closing cause of all the people flooding into them and then sticking them with the bill?

I always love this line of thought: This is the USA, we can do it better than anyone else, we're the best of the best...oh, we can't do UHC/<insert favorite govt. program>, we'd suck at it.

 

[Squiggy]

Apparently the USA is #1 in everything, except anything having to do with governing.

 

[SeerSGB]

Apparently the USA is #1 in everything, except anything having to do with governing.

Which makes you wonder: If our govt. is so shitacular, then why are we so adverse to trading it in for a better version?

 

[Shaw]

Well they would have to-- which means it's not really a "choice" system and the public healthcare may not be as good as what people are used to.

Ask people receiving medicaid or medicare if they would be willing to give it up? Most everyone in Congress is on government health care right now... you don't hear too many cries for it's improvement from them.

Obama talks about insuring tens of thousands of people who are not currently insured... what doctors and hospitals are going to handle the influx of new people?

If everyone who is not insured (approximately 50 million in this country) were given health care, what you are worried about is how it would effect the quality of your health care? Are you saying that the doctors and hospitals that exist today couldn't handle an influx of 16% above what they are dealing with now?

Interesting. Sad, but interesting.

 

[FordSVT]

I really have no idea how the system works, or is intended to work down there, but in Canada, private insurance is offered by many companies (actually, every company I have worked for in a full time capacity), which often picks up the tab on things that aren't covered by the government.

It is not mandatory for companies to offer insurance... they just do.

Because here in Canada it's dirt cheap to offer an employee a paid benefit package that fill in the holes Medicare leaves behind. Even employers like McDonald's will cover 80-100% of your additional expenses like dental, eye care and prescription drugs for a small amount through a group plan. It has become an expectation of employment with a reputable, full-time employer in Canada.

I only pay about $17 on every $1000 I gross for full dental and medical benefits through my employer and it covers both my wife and me. She has a prescription that would cost us $80 a month if we were uninsured (more if we were American because the same drug in the US costs more), so even with this one small medical expense we come out ahead of the game. We get a yearly eye exam (eyeglasses up to $250 included.) and dental visit we always take advantage of as well, so even if nothing ever goes wrong with me I get my money's worth. I'm not ignorant of the fact that some of my taxes are also part of the "real" cost of health care to me, but they are to privately insured Americans too.

 

[Mr. B]

3) (something something)
...
You, uhm, skipped step 3 in your post. Please explain.

This is the part where Obama says if you like what you have you can keep it... yeah that's bullshit. Sorry.

 

[Squiggy]

And how's that bullshit?

 

[Mr. B]

Many employers are going to drop their health benefit if a "pubic option" comes about to save money, especially in this recession.

Sec 102 of HR 3200 (p. 16) prohibits new enrollment in private plans after the bill is enacted.

Here's a couple fringe lunatic links for your consideration...
Inside the Health Care Bill, aka HR3200 ...read along with the bill[PDF]

How a Public Health Plan Will Erode Private Care - heritage.org

 

[Squiggy]

Section 102 is about grandfathering and Sect 102.1a prohibits the selling of such after the bill is enacted.

 

[Leroy]

What about $20,000? $100,000? Even with insurance, you can rack up things like that. Who does that really benefit? Not the consumer, I can tell you that...

That's the typical debt level of people who go bankrupt because of doctor bills they get creamed by co-pays, 20% doesn't sound like much until you have to pay 20% of a couple hundred thousand dollars.

Also, sans a public/government system, aren't there still steps we could take to cut heathcare costs and make private plans more affordable for people in general?

Getting everyone some kind of meaningful health coverage is also beneficial in lowering costs since taxpayers and people who pay premiums wouldn't have to fit the bill for emergency care like they do now. One way is to require massive government regulation they'd have to make co-pays, preexisting conditions clauses, lifetime benefit caps and dropping people from the roll entirely, illegal. The Insurance industry would fight this tooth and nail becuase that is how they make their money.

Many employers are going to drop their health benefit if a "pubic option" comes about to save money, especially in this recession.

Many employers are going do drop their health benefits because they cost so blasted much leaving workers with nothing to fall back on.

 

[Hoser]

At work, our health benefits are lowered every year because of costs. I used to have a really good plan, but now we're at the lowest plan that can be offered.