Health Care?

I thought this was a pretty good comparison of the two plans (but I read it more from a physician than consumer point of view so may not be the best to ask!!!) [url=http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/StockInvestingTrading/candidates-mean-for-your-health-series-home.aspx]What the candidates mean for your health care - MSN Money Series[/url]

Excerpts from the Oct 16th issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, 2 weeks ago: Primum Non Nocere The McCain Plan for Health Insecurity David Blumenthal, M.D., M.P.P. The most important questions raised by the health care proposals of the presidential candidates concern their values and judgment. These will guide a new president through the tortuous, unpredictable process of leading health care change. The specifics of candidates' proposals matter. But more important is what health plans communicate about a prospective president's fundamental beliefs and character. By this standard, John McCain emerges not as a maverick or centrist but as a radical social conservative firmly in the grip of the ideology that animates the domestic policies of President George W. Bush. The central purpose of President Bush's health policy, and John McCain's, is to reduce the role of insurance and make Americans pay a larger part of their health care bills out of pocket. Their embrace of market forces, fierce antagonism toward government, and determination to force individuals to have more "skin in the game" are overriding ח all other goals are subsidiary. Indeed, the Republican commitment to market-oriented reforms is so strong that, to attain their vision, Bush and McCain seem willing to take huge risks with the efficiency, equity, and stability of our health care system. Specifically, the McCain plan would profoundly threaten the current system of employer-sponsored insurance on which more than three fifths of Americans depend, increase reliance on unregulated individual insurance markets (which are notoriously inefficient), and leave the number of uninsured Americans virtually unchanged. A side effect of the McCain plan would be to threaten access to adequate insurance for millions of America's sickest citizens. And on the other side... Symptomatic Relief, but No Cure The Obama Health Care Reform Joseph R. Antos, Ph.D. A central premise of Senator Barack Obama's campaign for the presidency is that America is ready ח this time for sweeping health care reform. He has laid out a vision for reform that promises health insurance for (nearly) everyone, with coverage as good as that enjoyed by members of Congress. According to the campaign, the Obama plan would shift most of the 46 million uninsured Americans into health plans, strengthen employer-sponsored insurance, increase the efficiency of the health care delivery system, and save the average family $2,500 a year on their insurance premiums. These hopes are too audacious to be believed. The Obama plan offers a host of policy proposals that, in the main, address the symptoms but not the underlying disease that afflicts the health care system. We surely could use some symptomatic relief. However, failing to address the perverse incentives that drive health care spending inexorably upward, making insurance unaffordable for millions and shaping (or misshaping) the practice of medicine, will leave us worse off than we are today. ************* Neither plan is perfect. Your view is colored by whom you support for president. If anyone is interested in the full articles, PM your email address.

Dragonfly, I'm glad your husband has good insurance. Meaningful insurace... how does one have insurance that isn't meaningful? The policy that the company I work for doesn't cover yearly physicals, only cover 1000 dollars in bills, and 600 in prescriptions. Why would someone like me who needs insurance for their yearly physical pay for that? I could use it for medication for bipolar disorder as well. They don't cover psychiatric treatment at all. Why would I pay for that? I would just like to see something that I can afford that covers what I need. I would like to see companies being required to offer insurance that is decent rather than being able to say, we offer insurance, it isn't worth taking, but we offer, what more do you want?

Need good insurance? Come to MA. In MA your actually penalized if you do not have insurance. This means that if you do at least get MA Health you get whacked with fines on your income tax. I think the states should be responsible and tehy should do what is being done in MA. Everyone must have health insurace and MA Health is freely given out. EZ

In all of these discussions, the things I wish people would keep in mind are: 1. A health insurance plan is NOT a health care plan2. Poor health care, like poor education, in any segment of the population drags the ENTIRE country down, rich and poor, smart and stupid3. If everyone only paid for what they, as individuals, needed, instead of spreading the cost progressively, then many people would get nothing at all--see point 24. In this democracy, government is "by the people, for the people" (hope I don't have that backward)--it is nothing more nor less than what we, as a society, choose to do together in our group interest. It is not "them" vs. "us"--we are the government, that was the point of the American Revolution.5. More often than not, "local control" and "state control" mean five things: (1) higher costs, (2) less value, (3) more divisions within our nation, (4) discriminatory practices, and (5) no more real control, at least in my experience, on the ground than there would be in a nationally based program6. If we are to survive and compete as one nation on the world stage, we need to start acting like one nation.

Well said, Hadley. Reading through these posts, caused me to wonder if, instead of trying to provide 'health inusrance' for all citizens, the U.S. government subsidized the medical side of the equation and took the patient out of the financial picture, would that be a more pallatable approach for most people? What I'm thinking about, I guess, is in essence a socialized medical plan that allows the patient to choose which physician to see and when, what hospital to receive treatment from, what pharmacy or dentist or other specialist to see and then the subsidies would be going in the back door to the doctors, hospitals etc. and the patients themselves would pay a flat rate for specific services. This would allow the patient to make their own choices about their health care, but would also provide a system in which all people have equal access. I'm just thinking out loud here people, so please don't overreact if you hate this idea. Usually the best answers come from people thinking out loud and other people adding and subtracting until a real solution peeks through. Like Hadley said, we have to start actring as a group and this place is as good as any to find the potential for a real solution.

When I retired, I was frozen to the health insurance plan that I had at the time of my retirement. When I adopted my grandson, he came under that plan. Then the STATE government decided that it was really three plans -- health, vision, and dental -- and they saved the taxpayers money by canceling vision and dental and doubling the deductible! As I get older, I need vision and as my grandson gets older we probably will need dental for braces. Private insurance is totally unaffordable on a fixed income. I am seven years away from Social Security (if it even exists by then!)My grandson's annual physical used to be $70 copay and mine was $30. This year his was $420 copay and mine was $300. It will be 6 months before I pay off this bill. If nothing unexpected happens, maybe I can save enough for his annual physical next year. Mine will become "as needed" instead of every year.